You Can't Spell "Team" without M and E...

A hard hitting one on one interview about the upcoming release of "Along the Banks" in which the author sits down with himself for a heart to heart...

Me:  Let me just first say what an honor and privilege it is to finally get a chance to interview you, me.

Me – Indeed, thank you me – but don’t you mean “honour and privilege” given that the UK spelling is used throughout the book?

Me:  Of course – was it difficult to keep the spelling consistent?

Me – Brutal – I never realised how many times I would have to spell “harbour”.

Me: Not to mention realizing you would have to spell “realised”.

Me- (Nodding head slowly)

Me:  But anyway – you’ve written a book – tell us how that happened.

Me – Well – I go through this in the introduction - a few years back a group at work decided they were going to do the Ring of Kerry cycle, which is a one day 180 kilometre ride.  I thought it sounded good when it was first suggested but then realised that I was saying that I would hop on my bike and basically cycle from Dublin to Galway.

Me:  Wow – that’s something that people in Ireland get – what about our U.S. audience.

Me – Pittsfield to Boston.

Me:  Had you ever cycled before?

Me- Sure, I used to have a bike when I was about 12.

Me: How far would you go?

Me – Usually from my house to the store.

Me:  How far was that?

Me – Hmmm. Let’s see – about 200 metres.

Me: Seriously?

Me- OK – about 150 metres.

Me: So you were not what would be deemed an “experienced cyclist”.

Me -  Not experienced – no, not experienced.  Definitely not.  That would be a “no”.

Me:  So you needed to get back on the bike.

Me – Yeah – for a couple reasons, one, I wasn’t 100% confident I knew the finer points of biking, like when to change gears.  Second – I wasn’t sure that I would actually be able to pull the ride off fitness wise.

Me:  You mean the Ring of Kerry?

Me – No – I meant the 150 metre ride to the store.  I was 100% sure that I couldn’t do Kerry.  At least not yet.

Me: So how does this lead to a book about the Royal Canal?

Me – Well – I got a bike and started looking around for places to train.  If you’ve ever seen the roads around Ireland – especially Dublin, they aren’t bike friendly.  They are often actually bike unfriendly.  Not an ideal place for a novice to try to re-learn cycling, if they want to keep their head attached to their body.

Me:  C’mon – they can’t be that bad.

Me – Wanna bet? – this is a cycle lane in Dublin:

 

Me:  Point taken – so you went to the Royal Canal?

Me – I did – and it was the best move I ever made.  The canal runs close to my house, is without traffic, forces you to work hard through the grassy stretches while not being too hilly.  It was ideal for training.

Me:  But why write about it?

Me – Because in addition to being a great place to train I kept running into things that made me ask questions.  There was a plaque on one of the bridges that told of 16 people being drowned at the spot back in the 1800’s.  The canal is only about 20 feet across there – I couldn’t understand why they drowned and wanted to find out how it could have happened.  There was a whole stretch of the canal that was about thirty feet down below the path – it made no sense as to why it would be dug that way. I wanted to find out why.  There was this old tower out by Maynooth that stood in the middle of a field – I was curious as to who would build that.  And as I asked the questions and dug up the answers I got more and more intrigued by the canal itself – why was it there, how was it built, who kept it up – and, as with any trip – what is around the next bend, and the next one – until I wanted to go the entire length.

Me: And why write about it?

Me – I’ve always liked to write – I do a lot of it at work but that is usually fairly dry, and I’ll write an occasional blog article.  I’d been wanting to write something longer for years – I even started a book when we first moved over to Ireland.

Me:  What was that about? 

Me – It was going to be an “American’s Guide to Irish History” – I had the idea that I would focus on the things that Irish American’s often got wrong – you know – like the fact that St. Patrick wasn’t from Ireland, that the English were actually invited into Ireland way back in the day (admittedly not something anyone regards as the best idea ever, a bit like the first Trojan saying “Look, someone left us a horsey!”), that the Blarney Stone legend really only extends back to the 1800’s and that much of the rest of what they’ve heard is exactly that – blarney.  I actually wrote several chapters before events conspired to make me put it aside.  First – we decided to stay in Ireland, which meant I had to become gainfully employed.  Next, I went to Barnes & Noble on one of my trips back to the States and saw about 15 other books, just like mine, in the remainder aisle.  It was fairly obvious that the world didn’t need another book like that.

But the itch to write something was still around.  Once I started finding out about the various aspects of the canal I found the hook I needed to make this book different, to emphasize the “story” part of history, because, in addition to being a guide that is what the book is – a collection of stories.

Me:  Stories about history?

Me – Some of it, sure.  I think there is probably a way to tie in to almost every aspect of Irish history somewhere in the book.  Prehistory when I talk about what has been dug up out of the bogs along the canal, the War of Independence when you go by Croke Park, the Irish aristocracy when the canal passes Carton House, the English Pale, the Land League, Ribbonmen, Daniel O’Connell, Charles Stewart Parnell – they all make appearances.  But not in linear, chronological order, like most histories.  Instead each topic comes up where it fits in the journey down the canal, and not all the stories are what would be considered classically “important” – they’re just as likely to be an offbeat, unexpected or strange story that comes up because it happened somewhere along the canal.

Me:  What are some examples of off-beat things you found?

Me- One of my favourite ones ties back in to where I grew up.  I’m from Western Massachusetts, a very rural area.  There are two towns out there, right next to each other - one called Lenox, the other Richmond.  While researching the book I found out that the canal ends at “Richmond Harbour”.  When I checked to see where it got its name I discovered that it was named after Charles Lennox, the Duke of Richmond.  Originally I thought it was just a coincidence – but it kept bugging me.  So I checked to see where the American towns of Lenox and Richmond got their names. 

Me:  Was it from the same guy.

Me – Nope – it was his uncle – the prior Duke of Richmond.  Both towns were named after him. It seems when Lenox split off from Richmond (somehow the spelling got changed) they didn’t want to be “South Richmond” or something like that, but they did want to continue to honour the same guy.  So they named themselves after the family name rather than the title.  The people in Richmond would tell you they’re named after a Duke – but the people in Lenox are just named after some guy named Charlie.

Me:  Perfect  - but why would American towns be named after a British Duke?

Me – Well – this particular Duke was the strongest and most vocal supporter of American independence in the British parliament – so strong he was called the “radical Duke”.  The townspeople in Massachusetts obviously appreciated the effort.  It seems that other people did as well – when they went through his papers a few years ago they found an old parchment that had been partially eaten by a mouse.  It turned out to be one of the original printed copies of the Declaration of Independence.  Someone had sent him the copy and it sat around in a folder somewhere  in England until it was rediscovered. That story is in the book.

Me:  Cool – why did they name the harbour after his nephew?

Me – The nephew had a government job and they wanted to get some money out of him.

Me:  Got it – some things never change.  So is it just history that these stories are about?

Me – No – look – you can’t write a guidebook these days that is just about how far it is from point A to B, or who things are named after.  Not because those things aren’t important - they are - but pretty much everyone carries a guidebook that’ll do that in their back pocket nowadays.  It’s called a smart phone – and with Google and its maps they can cover all those details.  What the phone can’t do is tell you a ghost story (the book has that), or discuss what constitutes the world’s funniest joke (according to an academic study), or talk about the Red Sox, friendship, repeat journey’s, Presidential rodeos, why not having to worry about traffic can lead to remembering eclipses, Tom Jones, Jack Nicholson, Irish political parties, why you shouldn’t have to pay a tax on your damn water, Annie Oakley’s husband, the greatest mile relay ever run or any of the sorts of things that make this a book not just about where you should go down the canal – but why you should go down the canal.

That all comes up in the book - and while you can cycle the canal now there are still some fairly rough patches.  If the government would just finish the damn greenway that's been promised there would be a fully complete natural destination available for people to come to Ireland and experience the same sort of thing for themselves.  Like I say in the book - it would be a "bucket list" ride for people who like that sort of thing.  And there are a lot of people who like that sort of thing. 

Me:  OK – that’s quite a rant.

Me – Sorry.  I’ll shut up now.  Hope you enjoy the book.


"Along the Banks - Cycling Ireland's Royal Canal" is due for publication within weeks.  Stay tuned for more details.

Echoes of the Shot

In April of 1986 I moved to Boston and the Red Sox began a magic season that saw them capture the American League pennant and then go on to the World Series where I believe something happened but I can’t quite recall what it was. This was an ideal time to be a Sox fan in the Auld Towne as Fenway Park was just as much a baseball shrine but wasn’t yet the tourist destination it has become – in other words you could still get relatively cheap and good seats for a game, especially if you knew someone at the ticket window. I did – and during that year I managed to see the pennant clinching 7th game of the championship series, the division clinching game where Roger Clemens ended up riding a horse around the field (remember when we all still liked Roger?) and a contest against the White Sox where I sat next to Jack Nicholson. (Me to my mother “Ma – I’m sitting next to Jack Nicholson at Fenway…” Mom: “That’s great Mike – make sure you get some golf tips”. Me (after a pause): “Ma, that’s Jack Nicklaus…”). Anyway – all of those games were great but from a pure baseball history standpoint nothing can top the game I saw on the 17th of May. That was “Old Timers Day” at Fenway and I got to see Ted Williams come to bat (I don’t care if it was an exhibition – that was something to see). I was also witness to the last time the three baseball playing Dimaggio brothers appeared on a ball field, Dom, Joe and lesser known Vince all were there. I also got a chance to see a bunch of sixty year old women act like teenagers at a Justin Bieber concert when a guy by the name of Tommy Holmes wandered past. It turns out Holmes had been one of the Boston Braves’ most popular players back in the forties and the ladies still remembered, even though the Braves hadn’t been in Boston since the early ‘50’s. They love their baseball in Boston.

One of the day's other highlights came when two men stopped right by my seat to pose for pictures together. There were a few people around who realised what they were seeing, but for the most part I think the crowd just thought these were another couple of old ballplayers who were there to fill out the rosters. I knew better, for few players were more closely linked in American literary, broadcasting, sporting and just general history than the two men who were chatting in front of me. Dom DeLillo’s classic book Underworld would concern their fateful meeting. The most played moment in sports broadcasting revolved around them. The most iconic event in baseball history, the “Shot heard ‘round the world” took place in 1951 as the result of their interaction. They were Bobby Thomson and Ralph Branca, forever linked by fate, standing a few feet away by the Fenway dugout.

Thomson was the batter who hit the famous home run that won the pennant for the Giants that year, in the final inning of the final game of a special playoff series that resulted from the fact the Giants had stormed back to catch the Dodgers in the standings in the last month of the season, tying them on the final day and bringing the battle down to this one, climactic, epic moment. Here it is as described by Russ Hodges:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrI7dVj90zs

Thomson got the glory that afternoon, but Branca, as the pitcher who threw the ball, is a story to be equally admired. He was terribly affected by the event on the day. George Plimpton, in Ken Burns documentary “Baseball” describes him as being stretched out “like cordwood”, prostrate with grief on the clubhouse steps, a fact borne out by a famous photograph taken just after the game. There was so much concern for Branca that a priest was called to counsel him in the parking lot next to the stadium. “Why me, father, why me?” Branca asked. The priest could only say that God must have chosen him because he knew that he was strong enough to bear the burden of having thrown the pitch.

I don’t know whether God chose him or not, but Branca certainly bore the stigma with incredible grace. He and Thomson became friendly in the years after the events of 1951 (as evidenced by their joint appearance in Boston, 35 years later) and he never shied away from talking about what happened that day. Branca went on to be a beloved figure, establishing himself as a business leader, an ambassador for the game and one of the founders of a charity that helps players who have fallen on hard times.

There is another story that is perhaps even more telling. In 1947 Branca had his best year with the Dodgers, winning 21 games. He also befriended Jackie Robinson, who broke the color barrier that year and faced constant abuse in doing so. Branca lived near Robinson and the two would drive together to and from the games, a sign to all that Robinson was accepted by his teammates. On opening day, with Robinson having faced death threats and amidst fears of his being shot when he took the field, Ralph Branca made sure to stand, with his enveloping 6’4” frame, next to Jackie Robinson on the first base line when the teams were introduced. His brother asked “Ralph, what would have happened if someone took a shot at Jackie and hit you instead?”

“I would have died a hero” he replied.

Yesterday, at age 90, Branca did exactly that.

Rest in Peace, Ralph Branca.

Unclench Those Teerth

Take a deep breath.  At a certain point you just have to stop saying "what just happened?", be a grown up and acknowledge the fact that Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.  "What just happened?" is not a legitimate question.

"Why did that just happen?", on the other hand, is.

For at least part of the answer to that question I didn’t have to look too far. Almost two years ago to the day I published an article that pretty much set out one of the major reason why this happened.  Here is the relevant excerpt:

Already Gone

When The Eagles were both at their height and on the verge of breaking up a famous exchange occurred on-stage during one of their concerts when Glen Frey told guitarist Don Felder "When we get offstage, I'm gonna kick your ass...".  What might be less well known was the set of events leading up to the confrontation.  Frey was enraged that prior to the concert (which was a benefit for then California Senator Alan Cranston), Felder had replied to the Senator's expression of thanks with a somewhat sardonic "You're welcome Senator...I guess".  Frey found it disrespectful.  Felder didn't give a shit how Frey found it.

I have to say - although I admire Cranston (who had the foresight to sue Adolf Hitler before WWII) I kind of agree with Felder, who was a bit sick of the band being booked to play benefits for causes and people before anyone checked with the entire group to see if they agreed with the cause or the person.  If one of the “leaders” of the group found a cause everyone was expected to row in. Jerry Brown, No Nukes, Save the Snail Darter....whatever - the presumption that everyone was OK with this choice without checking was unfair.  So - the title of this commentary is in honor of Mr. Felder's "I guess", and the classic Eagle's song of the same name - and it is aimed directly at the heart of the Democratic party.

As predicted here months ago the Massachusetts Democratic nominee for Governor, the inexecrable Martha Coakley, brought the party to defeat, a result that given both her professional and electoral record was thoroughly predictable.  (I'm tempted to use the word "inexorable" just to contrast it with "inexecrable" and send my two or three readers scrambling to the dictionary - but - well I guess I just did).  Coakley is contemptibly incompetent but even worse were the stale efforts of people who should have known better to bring her to the forefront once again.  Are you really telling me that all the powers that be who backed this candidacy had concluded, after a diligent search through the enormous talent pool available, that Martha Coakley was the best choice as nominee, let alone as Governor?  Are you kidding me?

The truth is that anyone who expects some degree of prior consultation from the associations they are part of - be it a political party, a labor union, a veterans’ organization or a community group - played the role of Don Felder in this scenario while the higher ups were the Glen Freys.  There is no way to conclude that Coakley got to where she was other than through the crass manipulation of an unthinking machine.  Her pol pals sent her money, she squeaked through a primary against minimal competition and then got beat, yet again, as the Democratic nominee in the most Democratic state in the union.  Thanks for the nominee party hacks - I guess.

The message here is that no one appreciates presumptions - and the person (aside from Massachusett's politicos) who needs to most heed this message is one H. Rodham Clinton.  It is quite possible that no non-incumbent has ever had a firmer grip on the term "presumptive nominee" than Hillary does right now.  Sit on that presumption at your peril Madame Secretary.  Her inexplicable decision to campaign for Coakley aside there is no way that Hillary Clinton should see this mid-term election as anything other than a warning to avoid thinking that reliance upon an existing machine is the way to ultimate victory.  Trust me Mrs. Clinton - new blood, new ideas, new people and new thinking will be required in even what may appear to be the safest of campaigns, or - you could end up eating lunch all by yourself.

I hate to be an "I told you so"...but...  Hillary Clinton is Martha Coakley.

And it's not just me - read this article by Slate's Jim Newell, who basically pronounces the hackocracy that inflicted this campaign on us dead: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html . 

Newell is absolutely right - and this was something we should have seen coming.  Just watch how easy it is to substitute the name "Hillary Clinton" for Martha Coakley in a sentence like "Are you really telling me that all the powers that be who backed this candidacy had concluded, after a diligent search through the enormous talent pool available, that Martha Coakley was the best choice as nominee...".  And make no mistake about it - Hillary was carefully anointed the party's nominee - the e-mails that have been revealed from the DNC make that entirely clear.  There were lots of people (who should have known better) who ran interference for Clinton when they should have been simply making sure that the rules were the same for everyone.

The DNC in this instance was a lot like Mark Henderson.  There are a few of you out there who are already saying "Yeah - Mark Henderson!" (Well, Dave Goldman anyway).  For the rest of you - Mark Henderson was a guy who was on prison work release back in 1982.  When it snowed his job was to drive a little snow plow around (then) Sullivan Stadium during Patriot's games clearing off the yard markers and sidelines so that you could see where they were.  During one snowy game against the Dolphins the two teams were tied 0-0 when the Patriots lined up to try a field goal in the closing minutes.  It was highly unlikely the kick would be made as there was about four inches of snow on the field and it looked like the game would end in a tie.  Or at least it did until Mark Henderson drove his plow onto the field and cleared a patch right where the Patriot's kicker was going make his attempt.  As the Dolphins screamed bloody murder John Smith calmly sent his kick through the uprights to secure a victory.  To this day the snow plow hangs in the Patriots' Hall of Fame.

As a fan I loved the "snow plow game" but - if I were the Dolphins I don't think I'd have been too happy.  That must be the way that Bernie Sanders and any other potential challenger to Hillary Clinton would have felt this year as the DNC "cleared the way" for a Clinton nomination.  The same with all of the so called "experts" who actively discouraged actual competition on the Democratic side.  The money, the operatives and the establishment all lined up to give us the anointed candidate, conveniently overlooking the fact that she wasn't, by any stretch, the "best" candidate.

Look - I'm sure Hillary is a competent executive (and I've said so) and I'm sure as well that she feels terrible about what just went down.  This isn't about whether she is a good or bad person - or even if she would have been a good or bad President. But - seriously - she is the God-awfullest campaigner in U.S. history.  Thrown in to the crucible of Presidential politics in two different election years (as an overwhelming favorite both times) she managed to lose to an unknown black guy (thank goodness), nearly lose to a septuagenarian socialist Senator from the highly influential political hotbed that is Vermont, and lose to a septuagenarian, racist, misogynistic reality TV star.  At this rate they could nominate her for Pope and she'd come in third to an atheist transgender candidate named "Penelope" and the ghost of Ian Paisley.

And we've known this - it isn't like Hillary suddenly lost her fastball - she never had one.  The people who were supposed to know better simply did not do their job.  As a result we now have President Trump.

Beyond this we also have a relatively bare cupboard when it comes to viable talent in the Democratic ranks.  The Republicans just ran 17 people for President (granted, they got beat by Trump as well) but out of that crucible Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Ryan and Pence would all be higher profile candidates than any Democrat, and if Trump does falter any one could become a strong candidate in their own right in future elections.  The Republican contest was a disorganised mess - but - and this is important - it was, at least, an actual contest.  But for Bernie there would have been no Democratic nomination fight.  Even with the Sanders challenge it seems the Democratic machine did all it could to pave the way for Hillary to ascend to the nomination.  So how did that work out for ya?

Oh – and while we’re at it, while Bernie did himself proud, let's face it, he isn't even an autumn chicken at this point. The Dems, by promoting only a single candidate, (who first became prominent a quarter century ago), have left themselves with a talent pool so shallow that if you stood a penny on edge in it you couldn't get Lincoln's neck wet.

Maybe this is a good thing.  Massachusetts, home of the aforementioned Martha Coakley, managed to finally break the hold of the hackocracy by nominating outsiders like Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick for prominent positions.  When Barack Obama emerged in 2008 he was certainly not a member of the "establishment" - and that worked out just fine.  Maybe it is time to start contemplating the likes of a Mark Cuban as an outsider candidate for higher office.  It certainly worked for the Republicans with Trump (and Ronald Reagan for that matter).  At any rate - anything is better than another candidate put forward by the party "experts".  There will be plenty of time to contemplate the upcoming Presidency of Donald Trump - but if the Democratic establishment really want to fix things the first step is to spend less time looking at the man with the orange complexion and more time looking in the mirror.

Letter To America

TOUGH IS ENOUGH 

Over the past year, as the Presidential campaign wound its way slowly to a conclusion, I have tried to stay away from the back and forth of the flame wars that erupt on Facebook or the comments sections at the end of news articles.  This is essentially because most of the memes that substitute for arguments in these sorts of "discussions" are shallow, false, misleading or incomplete.  Here’s an example from either side of the aisle:

First - there is the one where a picture of Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton are set up side by side and the captions under each reads as follows: 

Nixon:  "This guy erased 18 and half minutes of tape and had to resign" 

Hillary:  "She erased 33,000 e-mails and they want to make her President".

Now look - you can make the e-mail controversy your ultimate reason for not voting for Hillary Clinton if you want.  She clearly did not handle the situation well.  But I know that this meme is a complete falsification of history.  Nixon didn't resign because of the 18 ½ minute gap in his tapes.  In point of fact - he survived the erasure - even though it looked terrible and damaged his reputation, the consensus was that you could not force the President to resign because of something that "might have been" on the tape.  That would be "assuming facts not in evidence".  It was the tapes that were not erased, the so-called "smoking gun", that caused Nixon to resign.  If you were to make a true historic analogy to Hillary's emails it would be that she made a bad PR move but didn't interfere in a manner that equated to criminal behaviour.  The Nixon comparison simply doesn't make sense.

Then there are the Democratic memes.  One, for example, shows the Dos Equis "most interesting man in the world" saying "I don't always watch Fox News - but when I do it is on Comedy Central".  Well, yes, Fox News does provide a slanted view, but so does MSNBC.  That's just the way news happens to be presented these days - and yes, it is a problem.  But think about that with something approaching an open mind.  Is Fox News really that far outside the realm of the believable? After all, who has been the best journalist during the course of this campaign?  I would at least nominate Megyn Kelly as a contender.  She moderated a debate in which her questions were pointed enough to lead to Donald Trump's "bleeding from her wherever" retort, has maintained pressure on the Democrats while simultaneously (1) making her position as regards a truly biased "journalist", Sean Hannity, known; (2) refusing to concede on the "birtherism" positions that Donald Trump has consistently taken; (3) maintained her dignity and integrity during the Roger Ailes controversy and (4) let's not forget who stood up to Karl Rove in 2012 when Fox had to admit reality and declare Barack Obama re-elected.  She may be right wing - but she's pretty damn good at her job - so what is the benefit of making a joke out of the network for which she works?

So a pox on both their houses.  But that doesn't mean that I don't have a preference in this election.  I do.  Just because I don't feel it necessary to provide the world with a running commentary on my opinions doesn’t mean I don’t have any.

Still - while I haven't been posting constant rants on Facebook there is, if you haven't noticed, an election in a couple of weeks.  I've written some political commentary on here before and, to paraphrase a certain politician "Here I go again".  In this case I want to do what I did in 2012 and post what I hope is a reasoned analysis of the choices available and see what people have to say.  First - let's end the mystery.  I choose to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.  I'm not celebrating this choice - I'm just making it. I looked at all choices and decided first that I couldn’t vote for one candidate and could vote for the other. Here's why.

Reasons to Not Vote For Trump

Let's start with the underlying reason Donald Trump is considered a viable presidential candidate - his supposed business acumen. This is why we would even consider someone who has never held office in his life for the highest office in the land.  It is because of his accomplishments in another sphere of life – in this case the world of high stakes business dealings.

Donald Trump says he is a good businessman.  He is not a good businessman.  He simply is not.  He operates in a field, commercial real estate, where he happened to be a player at a time when it was possible to make a huge fortune with very little risk.  In the intervening period, when he has had to operate in areas where there was substantial risk requiring true business acumen - he has continually failed.  I would simply ask that people not make one of the single most common mistakes when assessing businessmen - do not equate money with success.  You would be quite surprised to see the number of functional illiterates who have lots of cash.  You have heard about Steve Jobs and his uncanny ability to zero in on the nexus between design and the desires of the market.  You have also heard about those experiments where a chimpanzee picks the stocks to buy and ends up being the best investor out of a group of business school students. Trump is more like the chimp than Steve Jobs.

So Trump is not all that when it comes to business success - but there are other things he does that force you to conclude that this isn't someone worth voting for.  The most obvious is that Trump routinely insults our intelligence.  Why can’t he just admit a shortcoming and say he’s going to work on it?  There are numerous examples of this type of ongoing disregard for his audiences' sensibilities.  For instance, we don’t need to go back over the most sordid chapter of this campaign, but off the back of that leaked tape Donald Trump actually said that “No one has more respect for women than I do”.  

Really?  

What was worse - he then went on to try to prove this by showing that he has more respect for women than Bill Clinton does.  This is bit like saying "No one is a better driver than I am" and then trying to prove it by showing that you are better behind the wheel than Stevie Wonder.

Trump’s own life story embodies hypocrisy and inconsistency. He advocates a tax cut that benefits the highest tax bracket in the country and defends this on the basis that this will lead to additional jobs.  However, he concedes that he has not paid any federal income tax for many years due to tax breaks that favor this same tax bracket.  If there are already such huge advantages in place for this level of taxpayer - why do they need a tax cut? If this is the class that will create these jobs why are they at the forefront of the same effort Trump decries - the migration of those same jobs to overseas suppliers?

Then there are the foreign policy shortcomings.  Donald Trump does not understand international politics and puts the nation in danger because of this fundamental lack of knowledge.  He believes that NATO needs to become more equitable militarily and that allies like Germany, Japan and South Korea need to begin to re-arm.  I live in Europe and I know that the bi-partisan consensus which has kept our NATO allies dependent upon the military strength of the United States is, without any doubt, the single most important facet of American foreign policy.  That is distasteful but true.  The United States pays much, much more than anyone else to provide the lion's share of the military strength that our allies rely upon.  Of course - because we do that we also get to call all the shots when it comes to military engagement.  We are, as a result, continually accused of being the "world's policeman", of being a bully of trying to impose our will just because we're the biggest kid on the block.  Very often these charges are absolutely true.  Despite that I would still rather trust America with the means of being a bully than any other country in the world, including our allies.  When Donald Trump starts to encourage other nations to arm themselves - I worry.

For example, I have no desire to see Germany with a strong military.  None.  The same with Japan or South Korea.  Nations with military strength eventually decide that it might be best to use it. I know it sounds like a great idea to have all of these countries contribute more to the cause – but look at history.  I love the Germans – I do.  I learned German. My kids take German. I've travelled to Germany. I've hosted German students in my house.  But  experience shows that giving Germany an army is not a particularly rational decision.  Trump would do this because it might save some money.  This is an extremely dangerous position for him to take.  Holding the "nuclear umbrella" (and not handing it off) is what protects us from a hard rain.  Trump's clear lack of understanding of this most important foreign policy dynamic is per se disqualifying.  This, I believe, is the primary reason why so many military and cabinet level officials, from both parties (including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) have made their dissatisfaction with Trump known - he would upset the status quo with no real alternative plan.

That's one of the major foreign policy problems I have with the Republican nominee - but there are plenty of domestic ones as well. Trump degrades the electoral process on a continuing basis.  Here is one example. While I would not have done it, I did not dispute Mr. Trump's right to have three accusers of Bill Clinton present at the second Presidential debate.  I don't see them as particularly relevant to the campaign, but it's his race to run and I didn't see why so many Democrats crumbled to dust at the thought of this "outrage".  However - there was a fourth woman there - and with that one he lost me.  This was the one woman who we know, for sure, was actually sexually abused.  She was attacked, at 12 years old, by a sexual predator.  Trump included her in his “line up” because Hillary Clinton represented her abuser in court.  That sounds pretty awful except:  Clinton was a young lawyer at the time who was appointed to that job by a judge.  She did not want the client and asked to be removed from the case.  The judge refused to release her - she had to represent the man to the best of her ability.  She did not "get the guy off on a technicality" - the prosecution made a critical mistake and the defendant plead out to a lesser offense.

I have been in exactly that same situation.  I've had a client so distasteful that I desperately wanted to get out.  Judges never let you do that - because then someone else has to take the son of a bitch on.  This, like it or not, is a cornerstone of our legal system - everyone is entitled to counsel.  To use this as the basis for attacking Hillary Clinton was completely dishonest - but not many people would know this - they'd just hear "child rapist - she defended him" and not realise what really happened there.  I do know what happened there - I can't support someone who would pull something like that.

Donald Trump has threatened to throw his political opponent in jail through the use of a "special prosecutor".  Many have rightly pointed out that we don't do that in America - you can promise to beat them at the ballot box but then Americans reconcile and at least attempt to work together.  Hasn't the level of vitriol been enough over the last 16 years without this being thrown in the mix?  I tend to agree with this broad criticism but would also focus on the use of the term "special prosecutor".  The point of appointing a special prosecutor is that they are investigating matters over which the appointee would have a risk of criminal involvement.  Nixon appointed a special prosecutor because he was thought to be involved in Watergate.  Bill Clinton appointed a special prosecutor because he was accused of wrongdoing in Whitewater.  You don't appoint a special prosecutor to go after someone totally apart from you - that's what you have an ordinary prosecutor for.  Such an appointment would be tantamount to a "bill of attainder" a directive to find someone guilty of a crime outside the parameters of the court system.  Conservatives have a problem with ignoring the constitution -and I admire that in them.  But this is a prime example of constitutional ignorance - it must be refuted.

Trump has recently taken another step that ignores the constitution of our government - and I use a small "c" this time.  The Constitution (Big C) of the United States is predicated upon a bedrock assumption - that its tenets will be respected.  I could have the best written Constitution in the world - but if it is routinely ignored it is useless.  So, underlying the basic foundation of our democracy is an even more critical element - the understanding that democratic results will be respected and accepted.  If you win, I'll tip my hat to you, wish you well and move on to fight another day.  If you lose I will treat you graciously and not pursue a vendetta.  Trump has undercut both of these assumptions.  Yes, as noted above by threatening to jail Hillary Clinton if he wins - but even more distressingly by threatening to not accept the verdict of the democratic process if he loses.  Does anyone really think that American elections are "rigged"?  If you do - then you should quite happily pack up and move away.  After all - isn't that what drove people in East Berlin to risk gunfire to scale the wall?  Isn't it what put people in boats to escape Castro's Cuba?  If you really think American democracy equates with the rigged elections of those places - show you have an equal level of guts and escape while you can.  What - not fleeing for the border?  Then how can you vote for a candidate who has stated that this is the level at which our democracy operates?

And then there are "the issues".  I won't try, on either side, to change people's minds in this article.  There simply isn't enough room - and your positions (and mine) are likely more nuanced and fully formed than those articulated by either candidate as they attempt to spin their views in a way that causes them the least amount of damage to their "base" while leaving the door of possibility open to the "undecided" voter.  But I do think it is fair to discuss the candidates' approach to issues.  Do they discuss them fully - can you tell what they really mean?  Do they accept the consequences of their positions - can they (for example) pay for them?  Do they maintain some level of consistency - is what they are saying now reflective of a long held view, an understandable evolution of thought - or - is it really an expedient "flip-flop" in the truest sense?

I don't believe in "secret plans", imaginary funding for huge construction projects, "we'll get it done because I'm a winner" or any such pie-in-the-sky pronouncements.  I am a wonk when it comes to issues - and proud of it.  My favorite campaign "leaflet" was actually a 75 page book called "A Call to Economic Arms" that Paul Tsongas wrote when he ran against Bill Clinton.  I actually handed those things out in New Hampshire in 1991/92.  This interminably long article you are reading is my idea of a Facebook meme for crying out loud.  So I pay attention to the substance of the candidates’ stands on issues.  That said, there is so little substance in the Trump policy papers that it is hardly worth considering them actual position documents.  They read more like Facebook memes than Facebook memes do.  Moreover (and this is something I would ask my conservative friends to consider) they do not reflect someone who really has any bedrock ideology.  There are a lot of people out there who seem to be acting on the assumption that Donald Trump is a reliable standard bearer for the Republican party, while people like Paul Ryan, a long-time Republican stalwart, are actually betraying the Republican/conservative legacy.  But read what Trump really says.  Here are a few examples:

Trump would seek to stem the loss of U.S. jobs overseas by restricting the ability of corporates to freely contract in the international market.  The long-standing conservative position has been that government should not be interfering with the ability of individuals or businesses to conduct legal business.  There is little detail on how he would do this - but it is a clear cornerstone of his economic policy.  Is more government regulation of industry what conservatives really want to vote for?

Trump has articulated no set position on abortion.  His answer in the final debate as to what he would do about Roe v. Wade left both conservatives and liberals shaking their heads.  Look - I may disagree with you on this topic but do conservatives, at this point in time, really want to support someone who can't articulate a position on an issue which has been front and center since the early 1970's?

Trump has played a complex shell game on the issue of immigration - alternately making it the cornerstone of his candidacy and then hinting at a "softening" of his position.  This is why the absolute failure to articulate a deportation plan, a funding mechanism for the Mexican wall or an approach to naturalisation should cause conservatives such worry.  You want to insure that nothing happens to improve the immigration problem? - just elect someone who has absolutely no possibility of implementing the fundamental core of his program. This “fantasy world” approach guarantees continuing inaction in this area.  And don't take my word for this - take the word of the Republican Party itself.  Following the 2012 election the Republicans appointed a commission to review the reasons they lost when almost all their internal models showed them winning comfortably.  One of the primary causative factors identified was the need to de-emphasise the status of immigration as a major issue at the national level.  The report (rightly) concluded that this was killing the Republican's while not really addressing any real core national problem - illegal immigration has been decreasing for years.  Accordingly, the party ramped up to court Hispanic voters - primarily by presenting three candidates who had distinctive Hispanic connections - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.  None of these candidates planned to make border issues central to their effort.

Then along came Donald Trump - who not only made it central to his campaign but began that same campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists".  This isn't where conservative politics was going - in fact - it was directly opposite to where this issue was heading.  The country should not be having this discussion right now - but it was pulled into this abyss.  Without calling anyone any names or questioning whether this worked politically for Mr. Trump (it did) - it can't be taken seriously by anyone concerned with real issues.  It just can't.

I also would say this to those people who feel that their anger needs to be expressed in some way and that Trump is the person whom they see as best able to make their discontent with the system known.  Look - I get it.  It would be impossible for me to tell someone who has lost a job, or struggles with a business or has a son or daughter serving in the armed forces or as a police officer that they shouldn't be angry.  But sometimes, despite legitimate grievances, that anger leads to mistakes.  Trump - with what he has shown throughout this campaign - has proven to be such a mistake.  The intent in setting out to express frustration was quite possibly well founded - but this is not the guy to bear that standard, this is not what you want to become.

I think this is enough to show why Trump is not worthy of a vote.  I won't even lower myself to go into the horror show of tapes, accusations and behaviour patterns.  You don't need to in order to make the decision not to vote for Donald Trump.

But that is entirely different from the other end of this argument - yes, don't vote for Trump - but why vote for Clinton?

Reasons to Vote For Hillary Clinton

I'll be quite honest - this is not a very easy argument for me to make.  I am, to say the least, not inspired by the Democratic nominee.  In the interest of full disclosure - I was never that crazy about Bill either.  I’m pretty sure I worked harder than anybody who would ever read this article to prevent Bill Clinton from being President.  When I was in the final year of law school, preparing for the bar exam, working a full time job (I went to school at night) and trying to get at least a small amount of sleep - I spent my nights until about 2:00 AM working out of the Tsongas headquarters in downtown Boston, making calls (usually to other headquarters and the west coast), organising mailings and doing other grunt work in order to beat Bill Clinton.  I regret not one second of that effort.

I ended up voting for Clinton in both general elections however, but never for any of the reasons other people seemed to fawn over him.  Inexplicably to me others seem to get all weak kneed at the way he'd bite his bottom lip and shake his head when feigning sincerity.  I just saw a snake oil salesman.  I never bought the whole "Aw shucks, ah'm just lil' ole Arkansas boy who just happened to stumble into a Rhodes scholarship and then the White House" routine.  And I don't really buy in to the whole "I'm just the pick me up by my bootstraps daughter of a draper from Chi-Town act" either.

The reason why I could vote for either Clinton stems not from what they profess to be, but from what they really are.  They are not the inspirational leaders of a generation.  They are not the 1960's era power couple who rocked the country to old Fleetwood Mac tunes in 1992.  They are not even "They" - I only refer to the "Clintons" as an entity because that is how they are perceived - what they "profess to be".  But the Clinton persona is not real.  That is mere perception.  In reality the value of Bill, and, I believe, Hillary Clinton lies in the mundane and not the profound. They work very hard, make the people around them work just as hard and turn their papers in on time.  They are the sort of people you knew in school who always got their homework done, probably laughed a bit too hard at the teachers’ jokes and ran for class president because they knew it would look good on their college application. But – they did get the grades, they did put the time in – and they did deserve the “most likely to succeed” notation in the yearbook.  Jesus – they were annoying.

Well – annoying is in the eye of the beholder. True, these aren't the kind of people we like hanging out with - and the efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton to appear to be "jes' folks" can often be painful to watch (remember "Trumped up trickle down").  They're not very inspirational. But they are the type of people we would want running the store.   In fact, if we are being honest with ourselves, they are highly competent executives.  This is important in that a governorship, a senate office, an executive agency - and, indeed, the Presidency require skilled executive oversight.  Towards that end Hillary Clinton is (and here we go back to the singular because she is the only one from her family running this year) the most qualified candidate for the Presidency in this election. 

How's that for the least inspired endorsement ever given.

But - c'mon people - can we grow up for just one second here?  All of us are adults - we ought to know by now that choices, including election choices, very often come down to the lesser of two evils.  That's the real world.  We don't get to walk out of the voting booth every time feeling like we've just changed the world - sometimes we just get to feel that there is less of a chance we've destroyed it.

And you can, at least, feel that way with Clinton.  The same lack of detail that mars Trump's purported policy documentation certainly does not apply to Clinton's material.  When she says you can go to HillaryClinton.com to see something - you actually can do that.  All those policy documents are right there - and they are detailed.  Her positions are actual positions - whether you agree with them or not is up to you - but no one is seriously accusing the Hillary campaign of "fuzziness".  By the same token her core issues are real issues.  Job growth, spiralling college costs, a health care plan that goes beyond just "repeal Obamacare", global warming - those are all truly important issues that are addressed by only one candidate in this election.

Finally - I want to address the people who look at this rather tepid endorsement and ask "why not just vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all"?  First of all - not voting is a viable option - but it also then requires you to shut up when it comes to the next four years.  If you don't participate - you really don't get to complain.

The third party point is more legitimate. Or I should say - the question is legitimate - the third parties themselves are not, and therein lies the rub.  When the third party options are as non-viable a choice as they are in this election they simply cannot be treated seriously.  Gary Johnson (and, to a lesser extent, Jill Stein) have had an opportunity to make a case this election.  It was a narrow opportunity - but more skilled campaigners could have done something with the situation that they were faced with when the general election campaign got under way back in July (high unfavorables for both major party candidates, general dissatisfaction with the process) .  They did not. They had their chance – and didn’t take it.  As a result a vote this year for any third party candidate is a vote wasted.

We live in what is, essentially, a two party system.  As someone who sees the questionable "benefits" of a multi-party system all the time - I think that this is generally a good thing.  The downside is that sometimes you can't find that close a fit between yourself and the nominees of the two major parties - and so are forced to make the types of choices outlined above, rather than waste a vote on a non-viable third party option.  Again - this is the real world - grow up and live with that fact.

Finally - there should be no doubt, after reading the above, that I wish there had been some different choices available on the ballot this year.  I'll get over it.  You should too.  If it is absolutely necessary for you to have at least some positive feeling about voting for Hillary Clinton perhaps it is best to remember this.  On a couple of occasions during this campaign, when asked to say something complimentary about Secretary Clinton Donald Trump acknowledged her "toughness".  This is undoubtedly true - Clinton's ability to fight through extremely trying situations - be it her husband's infidelities, the rough and tumble of political campaigns (both winning and losing), professional challenges (the Osama Bin Laden mission) or the constant degradation of this campaign – all these speak well of her ability to deal with the office of President.  If she wins – she will be our first woman President – and she will have earned it.  No one can doubt that she has been tested.

Trump is correct - she is one tough woman.  That is what, when all is said and done, Hillary Clinton brings to the table.  She is indeed tough – and, sometimes - tough is enough.

THIS JUST IN - SONG AND DANCE MAN WINS NOBEL PRIZE!

Here is a short selection of great Bob Dylan tunes in celebration of the coolest Nobel Prize winner ever.  I first tried to compile this list in honor of Bob’s 70^th birthday by picking my top 7 seven songs (one for each decade).  Couldn’t do it.  There is no way I could pick seven and leave others off.  So I went to a standard Top 10 list.  Couldn’t do it.  Ten is not enough space if you want to cover even the basics.  So I’ve forced myself to stop at an even dozen, despite the pain this caused me.  I’ve got approximately 450 Dylan songs on my iPod and I suppose I could have comfortably left the list at about 200.  OK – 250.  But I left off any live songs and kept any alternate versions out of scope.  I still don’t know how I didn’t put some songs on here, (“What – no Don’t Think Twice!”), but here’s a selection of what I think covers off a range of Bob’s best.  (Alphabetical order – don’t make me choose amongst these).  The songs are great but what I’m really looking forward to now is the ceremony when the award is bestowed – that is going to be one hell of a speech.

 

1.  Baby Stop Crying – Off the Street Legal album this song really showcases the song part of Dylan’s “songwriting”.  There is nothing particularly profound about the words, but the combination of a great band, very good timing from Dylan on his lead vocal (yes – it’s good) and most of all incredible backup singing makes this a classic.  Oh yeah – Dylan name-checks The Supremes “Come See About Me” in the tune as well.  See it here (with the added bonus of Top of the Pops "Legs Inc." dancing to it - hilarious):  http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjI1ODM0NzUy.html
    
2. Everything is Broken – Off Oh Mercy this song is the best Dylan song to drive to ever.  Seriously, get in the car, get out on an open highway, crank this up and drive.  There are a few other Dylan songs you might want to take on that trip – Silvio, Tight Connection to My Heart and Someday Baby come to mind.  Here’s a link to the song:  http://videos.sapo.pt/EZNZizOUtzpQctOD4U1U
    
3. Hurricane – OK – put this one in the car too.  Dylan pretty much left off singing “protest songs” after about 1964, fearing he was getting pigeonholed.  This was an exception – the story of the wrongful imprisonment of Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, the song also features a tremendous violin accompaniment and has one of the best openings of any Dylan song (which is saying something).  “Pistol shots ring out in a barroom night…”.  You can find it on the Desire album. Here’s the link: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr3q27_bob-dylan-hurricane_music
    
4. If You Gotta Go, Go Now – Little change of pace here, but the fact that this comes from an earlier phase of Dylan’s career doesn’t mean that this song rocks any less.  In fact, the difference between the “electric” versions and the acoustic one done at the Newport Folk Festival (easily googled) I think show how Dylan’s progression from folk to electric was a natural and valuable step (not the betrayal it was originally seen as).  The song just sounds better on electric.  You can find this on the first Bootleg Series album and here’s a link to an electric version of the song:  http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NzA5MjU2.html
    
5. Love Minus Zero/No Limit – However – here’s one that shows there was nothing wrong with the earlier phase of the career – it was just different.  This is some of the best wordplay off the Bringing it All Back Home album – which is famous for the wordcraft used in its creation -“she knows there’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all”. Brilliant.  http://videos.sapo.pt/JlQLVVV26f69KCbWsye8
    
6. Make You Feel My Love – This one’s on the charts at the moment (for Adele) and is one of the best representatives of a genre that has many entrants – the Dylan song everyone loves to cover.  From the days of the Byrds (Mr. Tambourine Man) through Manfred Mann (Quinn the Eskimo) on to Rod Stewart (Forever Young) and on to today everyone loves Bob.  One of these lists will be made up of my favorite Dylan covers (Johnny Cash wins) but on this list I’ll stick mostly to originals – one exception here since it seems everyone covers this one (the originals on Time Out of Mind).  I had a hard time choosing who to put as the cover artist (Billy Joel, Garth Brooks, Bryan Ferry, and many more) I decided to go with Joan Osborne’s version – eat it Adele. Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumOb2-EwK4&feature=related#
    
7. The Man in Me – Yeah, I know, this is not just from New Morning – it’s also from The Big Lebowski.  Great movie (“The Dude abides”), but also a great song.  The song kind of reminds me of The Beatles “Hey Jude”, with an extended play-out and a good deal of “La-la’s” that make it one of the better Dylan sing-along songs.  Here’s a link:  http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/HQbyZ3JIFmY/
    
8. On the Road Again – This, I think, is the funniest Dylan song (and there is a good bit of humor in his work).  Confronted with the family from hell this becomes the ultimate “fear of commitment” song – mainly because there is a hell of a lot to fear.  “Even the butler – he’s got something to prove…”  This is a short section of the song off "Bringing it All Back Home" (I gotta find a full version on line)http://www.juno.co.uk/miniflashplayer/SF413213-01-01-06.mp3
    
9. Thunder on the Mountain – Off the Modern Times album, this is Dylan at his current, super-grainy voiced best.  The song really rocks and the writing is amazing.  “Gonna raise me an army of some tough sons-of-bitches, gonna get that army from the orphanages…”Consider this – this song came out in 2006 and name checks Alicia Keys.  Dylan’s first album came out in 1962 and name checks Woody Guthrie.  That’s a journey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RPkJeziNyI
    
10. Tomorrow is a Long Time – “If today was not an endless highway…”.  This is the only Dylan song that I know of that was covered by Elvis, and The King made a good choice.  The story is that this is the first in a trio of songs Dylan wrote that charted the curve of his relationship with Suze Rotolo (there were many others but these three were connected).  This tells of the immediate loss felt after Rotolo left on a trip to Europe.  “Boots of Spanish Leather” chronicles the increasing separation that a trip of that sort creates.  Finally, “Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright” tells how things can end.  The last two songs are better known, (the Dylan version is stuck on “Greatest Hits 2”) but give me this one.  http://tu.tv/videos/tomorrow-is-a-long-time
     
11. Tonight I’ll Be Staying Here With You – Man, I love Nashville Skyline – it’s a really short album and some criticize it as slight, but Dylan’s voice sounds great and the obvious affection he has for country music shines through.  There are many good tunes on the album but I’ll throw my suitcase out for this one.  Link here:  http://mp3.xalo.vn/bai-hat/bob-dylan/tonight-i-ll-be-staying-here-with-you/a5a16528
     
12. You Ain’t Going Nowhere  –  Another where the best version can be found on Greatest Hits 2.  Done with The Band, this song features one of the few Genghis Khan references in all pop music and name checks Roger McGuinn (The Byrds ended up doing a cover).  Great story about McGuinn and Dylan – Bob was approached to write the title song for the film Easy Rider, but was too busy – so he just jotted the words “The river flows, flows to the sea” on an envelope and told Dennis Hopper to “give this to McGuinn, he’ll know what to do”.  The resulting song and movie became classics.  Here’s the link for Going Nowhere:  https://vimeo.com/150077648 and as a bonus here’s Easy Rider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8jC1lRZGTU

Five Takeaways from the Trump Tax Article in the NY Times

Here are some things we may have learned from the recent revelations:

1.        The losses described in the article appear to be actual losses as opposed to "paper losses" - and this is important.  "Actual losses" mean that businesses in which Trump was involved suffered commercial setbacks that are actual and measurable as opposed to being based upon a purported depreciation schedule, “tax shelter” or accounting quirk.  This is a double edged sword for Trump.  He is claiming that the way he has manipulated the tax code is proof of his "genius".  That would seem to imply that he really didn't lose the money - he just was able to structure his finances in a way that took advantage of loopholes and left him owing nothing - but still, very, very, very rich.  Hardly an argument a conventional candidate would make, but, as has been said many times - Trump is not a conventional candidate.

The problem with this, of course, is the fact that you or I cannot manipulate the system in this way without going to jail.  Trump is advocating a tax cut for people (like himself) who can afford to manipulate the system - and his own tax returns are the best possible argument for the idea that these people scarcely need to pay less tax.  This is buttressed by the fact that Mitt Romney, a squeaky clean candidate by comparison, was also revealed to have paid a percentage of his income at a rate more akin to a low wage earner than a multi-millionaire.  So why cut taxes for such people instead of just cutting loopholes?

More to the point - every indication is that Trump, in fact, did not manipulate the system that much.  The losses he reported seem to reflect actual business losses associated with disastrous investments in casinos and hotels.  He seemingly did lose nearly one billion dollars in a single year.  That, while less manipulative of the system, is also hardly indicative of a sharp business mind.  You really have to be colossally stupid to lose that much money in a year.  If an analogy to his casinos could be drawn - it looks like Trump took all of his assets and put it on a single number on the roulette wheel.  He seems to have drawn to an inside straight numerous times.  He played the one armed bandits thinking he was going to beat the system.

Yes, this stupidity has left him with losses that he could use to offset future gains on his taxes.  But it also left him in a huge hole, one which it seems he is still trying to dig himself out of.  That is where the second major takeaway from this week's revelations arises.

2.       The business losses manifest themselves in ways other than tax savings.  Trump was attacked by Hillary Clinton on two fronts during last week's debate.  The first - the tax return issue - has garnered all the headlines.  Clinton savaged Trump’s failure to disclose his returns, postulating that he has paid little to no federal income taxes. This is what everyone has zeroed in on. However, it is the second line of attack Clinton followed that may be more damaging.  Since we now seem to  know how Trump may have avoided taxes (he has enormous carryover losses) - the question arises - how is he still around despite such an enormous loss?

Here’s how - if he had huge losses he likely would have needed a massive dig out to even think about avoiding ruination.  That is what Clinton was referring to when she said, during one exchange, that it is possible Trump owes "up to $650 million to foreign banks and investors".  That is the second crucial line of attack. To absorb the types of losses he reported in the ‘90's Trump has to have been somehow kept afloat. He doesn't seem to have been kept solvent by rolling up massive profits because that would mean his tax losses would have run out very quickly - (you can only make use of losses to offset gains - and if he had made billions in profits he would presumably have long since used up his accrued losses).  Instead - you can be relatively assured that Trump has, as alleged, relied largely upon extensions of credit to remain in business.  The borrowings he had to have undertaken would be enormous. He must have exposures - huge exposures - to numerous lenders.


3.       The fact that he has exposures to outside creditors explains some of the more bizarre choices Trump has made over the past couple of decades.  Why, for instance, would someone who holds such massive wealth (according to him) ever get involved in setting up a venture as shallow (and unprofitable) as "Trump University"?  What billionaire has ever marketed something as crass as "Trump Steaks"?  Where did "Trump the Board Game" come from?  Why, aside from an admittedly massive ego, would such a wealthy individual spend over a decade on a reality TV show like "The Apprentice"?  The list goes on.  One of these side ventures would maybe be understandable.  Two would be excusable.  But Trump never gets off the self promotion wheel.  He seemingly loves the sort of activity most people would see as demeaning.

The reason for this may have a great deal to do with what really keeps Trump afloat financially.  As fellow billionaire Mark Cuban has pointed out - the most valuable thing about Trump is the Trump brand.  If he is in hock for most of his real estate holdings, many of which he doesn't even hold (he just leases out the use of his name - branding again) - then the returns from his hotels, golf courses, resorts and offices are probably earmarked for servicing debt ranging back to his days of losing billions.  His actual cash liquidity must come from things like hosting The Apprentice, selling meat, trying to convince people to enroll at a bogus "university" or otherwise slapping his name on anything that he can shill at an inflated price.  As Cuban (who, while possessing a huge ego himself also backs things up with a razor sharp mind and actual business accomplishment) has stated - Trump needs his brand to survive financially.  One can very plausibly construct the following scenario from the revelations in the Times' story.  Donald Trump lost huge amounts in the mid-1990's.  He may have approached the banks who held the paper or from whom he sought credit and said as follows:  "Guys - I'm not going to be able to pay you according to our original contract.  You can shut me down now - and get about 25% of your money back.  Or - you can stick with me, let me retain the brand and image of a being a savvy financial high flyer - and get everything back.  Which option do you choose"?  If I'm Trump's bankers I say "Sure Donald - you just have to sign every penny of income from your real estate empire over to me.  All the rents, all the proceeds following a sale, all the fees generated off the properties.  You can keep the name and whatever money you can squeeze out of that."

If I were Trump I take that deal - and if that is what happened the obligations would hang around his head like a noose.  Clinton was probably right on both counts - he pays no taxes - but he also is nowhere near as wealthy as he would like you to think, since he has to service a huge debt.  In that case - Donald Trump hosts The Apprentice not because he enjoys the experience - he hosts it because he doesn't want to starve.


4.       The need to retain the Trump name and image explains Trump's unwillingness to commit to a true "blind trust" arrangement.  One of the more amusing news clips of recent times was that of George Stephanopoulos vainly attempting to get Donald Trump Jr. to acknowledge that it is impossible for his brother, sister and himself to run a "blind trust" for the Trump business.  <iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yuOZ_qm7Vq4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>   The very definition of a "blind trust" is that it is not run by family members - the president (in fact, anyone attempting to place assets in a qualifying blind trust) is assumed to have ongoing contact with members of his/her immediate family.  Such contact makes them ineligible as a trustee of a truly blind trust.  But for Trump - whose wealth is solely predicated upon the family name and brand - the possibility of allowing that name to be run by someone other than a family member is terrifying.  That's why there is all the flim-flammery when it comes to committing to do what every president has done for decades - remove themselves from personal involvement in the running of their business ventures.  "Trump" is not a name supporting a vast business empire - it is a vast business empire supporting a name.  And that is what leads us to the final, critical takeaway from the Trump financial disclosures.


5.       Donald Trump is potentially seriously compromised when it comes to his personal finances.  If Trump indeed owes money on the scale indicated by his past losses and Hillary Clinton's allegations - he is seriously exposed to financial manipulation.  Here is a very basic example of how that might manifest itself.  Let's say that a week-long stay at a high end suite in the Trump Doral costs an individual $10,000 (it may be more, it may be less, but let's use a round figure).  A wealthy lender who has taken a position in Donald Trump's personal finances may wish to bring an entourage of 25 of his closest friends to Doral for a week - and, in the past, knowing that such a stay greases the wheels of finance Mr. Trump may have comped the whole stay.  Trump would see this expense as good for himself personally - keeping the brand strong and maybe gaining some leverage with a lender who will be less inclined to call a note when due.  A family member would know that taking the quarter of a million hit is worth it for them on the back end.  This may not even be illegal - resorts can offer reduced rates.  It is certainly problematic for some of the creditors of Doral - who, if the resort goes Chapter 11 after a few too many such "gratuitous" stays, may end up getting stiffed.  But for the big picture - Trump - or a family member - would take the risk.

A true blind trustee would not.  They would look at the request for the freebie and tell the lender to go pound sand.  That is what keeps Trump awake at night tweeting about Miss Universe.  “How do I keep this whole house of cards from crumbling around me”?  Now - extend that spider's web of financial complexity across continents.  Keep in mind that people you owe money to expect some quid pro quo if they give you a break.  And now think of the kinds of "breaks" a president would be expected to give.  If Donald Trump owes the kind of money that is reflected in his historic losses - then he is not in a financial position to serve as president.  If he owes large amounts of money into countries where American interests conflict with personal interests - he is not in a financial position to be president.  If he cannot remove himself and his family from his financial activities while serving in office – he is not in a financial position to be president.

Of course, this may not be a problem of any kind.  All of this is conjecture and none of it may be a concern. There is, of course, one way to find this out.

Release the tax returns.