Unconditional Love

You won't get it from your spouse.  Oh, husbands and wives love each other, and there has been many a great love story throughout history.  But unconditionally?  We do a thousand little things that get on each other's nerves.  They start out small, but can snowball out of proportion in a hurry.  We push each other's buttons.  And there are those things said that shouldn't have been said, those things unsaid that should have been.  We get absorbed in our own worlds, and don't always listen or give our undivided attention.

We're human.

You won't get it from your parents or your children, either.  If you're a parent, you know that indescribable feeling when your child is born, or when you first bring your adopted child home.  But you also know the times they test you, try your patience.  If you don't pay attention to your kids, you'll be paid back in spades.  And hell hath no fury like a two-year-old that doesn't get what he or she wants.  As parents and children, we love deeply, but not unconditionally.

We're human.

No, the only two sources of unconditional love are God and dogs.  (Note the similarity?  Same three letters, different order.  Probably no coincidence.)

I've experienced both, but I'm not here to preach.  Let's talk about dogs.

We've had three miniature Schnauzers: Dominic, Kramer and Max.  Max is still with us and going strong at 14 years of age.  We had to say good-bye to Kramer (Max's litter mate) almost a year ago.  And Dominic, who we got a couple of years before Max and Kramer, died in my arms about four years ago.  Dom and Kramer were both blind in their later years, and Max is deaf.  Dominic struggled with diabetes, a couple of bouts of pancreatitis, and other issues, but before that he was the strongest, fastest, smartest dog we'd ever known.

All three of them have shown us the kind of love that only a dog can give.  They want you to play with them, pet them, pay attention to them.  If you're too busy (or just think you're too busy), they're still going to come to you later with the same expectant joy.  "Maybe this time you have time to play, or to sit a while with me on your lap?  Please?"

If my wife was crying, Dominic was in her lap, kissing away her tears.  Kramer was her little stalker, following her throughout the house constantly - so much so that she took to carrying him around in a shoulder bag so she could get household chores done, like a little marsupial dog.  And Max just wanted your hand on him - constantly.

So many times we let our dogs down, we disappoint.  Every time, they come back.  All is forgiven.  Then that day comes when we have to say good-bye, and we're filled with regret - just one more day, we pray.  But how many days did we spend doing our own thing, when we could have spent time with them?  And yet, as they're departing this world for the next, they don't accuse.  They just want us to be there for them in those last moments, our hands on them, hearing our voices one last time.

I could write a book about Dominic, Max and Kramer, but I want to talk about another dog today.  Because this dog perhaps embodies unconditional love more than any I've known.  See, we got our other three guys as pups.  They never knew a life without a nice home, cold days spent indoors, regular grooming, proper food and care, a big backyard, and plenty of love.  They never had to deal with neglect, never had a reason not to trust people.

Meet Charlie.

We brought him home today.  This is Charlie as he looked when we met him at his foster home two days ago:

Pretty happy, right?  Looks pretty good, right?

This is Charlie's "before" picture, taken by The Rescue Project as they found him:

Yes, it's the same dog.

Charlie is somewhere between five and eight years old, so we're told; we'll have a better idea when we take him to our vet next week.  Reportedly, he spent those years either chained in the back yard or in a kennel in the basement of his previous owner's home.

The amazing people at The Rescue Project found him a couple of weeks ago.  They are saints.  They go into the community looking for neglected/abused animals, and try to persuade the owners to surrender them.  In this case, the owner agreed to surrender Charlie (they called him Harley, but he just has that Charlie personality, don't you think?)

I'll give the owner a modicum of credit for that, but that's as far as I can go.  How anyone can neglect a pet to that degree is beyond my comprehension, or ability to forgive.

A wonderful groomer went to work on Charlie, and he got happier with each chunk of matted fur that came off.  When she was done, an adorable mini Schnauzer was unveiled.

He looks like Dominic, floppy ears and all.  He's a bit bigger than Max, like Dom was, and has the coarser coat that Dom had, instead of Max's soft fur.

He doesn't appear to have been abused, just neglected (as if neglect warrants the word "just").  He doesn't shy away from people.  When you reach out to pet him, he doesn't cower or growl.  The look on his face is expectant joy, anticipation of the connection dogs crave, not fear.  He doesn't know a stranger - he took to us immediately.

Now, here's the lesson in this:

You'd think it would be hard for a dog like Charlie to trust.  To expect attention, to give love that, in his experience, won't be given back.

Not Charlie.

He is unafraid to show his love and seek ours, fully expecting that we'll give it back.  He is trusting enough to let us pick him up, believing he'll be safe in our arms.  He's happy, and he's confident that he will remain so.  He believes in us, even though he only knows us as humans, and has no reason to believe in humans.

And he will be happy.  We'll earn his belief in us, even though he gives it freely without our having yet earned it.  This guy is going to have the home he's deserved from birth, for the rest of his life.  He'll go on walks, he'll roam a big back yard (with a fence to keep him safe - no more chains for Charlie), he'll chase squirrels and birds.  He'll look out the window and bark at everything that moves, master of all he surveys (just like Max).  Hopefully, he and Max will cuddle together, like Max and Kramer did.  Max already wants to play with him.

He'll learn to obey, because he wants to please, and wants to be a good dog (so at some point, he'll hopefully stop trying to mark every corner of the house).  He'll be well-fed (but not overfed), he'll receive the best medical care (shout out to the fine people at Camelot Court Animal Clinic).  He'll presumably sleep in his kennel, but I won't be surprised to find him in bed with us and Max.  I'll re-learn to sleep on a sliver of bed.

And he'll be loved.  He'll receive attention, he'll be cuddled and petted.  He'll be allowed on the furniture - he's family, after all.

But ...

He won't receive all the attention he craves.  His "Let's go for a walk!" looks will sometimes be met with indifference, as we're too busy, too preoccupied to take the time.  "Maybe later," we'll say.

And yet, the next day, even if we don't make good on our half-hearted promise, he'll be back at our feet with the same look on his face.  We'll feel guilt for not taking him yesterday, but all will be forgotten and forgiven as we clip on his leash.  He'll be perfectly happy to give us all of his love, in exchange for however much of ours we'll give.

He will love unconditionally, in other words.  And we will not.  Because we're human, and he is above that human condition.

But maybe, just maybe, as we consider how Charlie spent the first years of his life, we'll do a little bit better.  By him, by Max, and by each other.

And for that, we can thank Charlie.  Like all dogs, he'll have made the world - and the people in it - better for his having been in it.

The Distractions Have Become the Focus

Occam's razor is being dulled.  By dullards.

By the most elementary definition, Occam's razor postulates that the simplest explanation is probably the correct explanation.  In today's political climate, however, there is a growing reluctance to accept the simple explanation, but to cling to an alternative explanation that is so meandering in its "logic" that it defies comprehension.  To wit:

Parties to the Trump campaign had contact with the Russians prior to the election.  The simple explanation is that a Trump administration wanted to forge better relations with Russia, at the same time putting Putin on notice that, unlike Barack Obama, Trump isn't going to be Putin's whipping boy.  Trump, after all, has already struck at Syria, enforcing the "red line" that Obama backed away from, even though that rankled the Russians.

The alternative explanation is a convoluted conspiracy theory that resurrects The Red Scare, and suggests that Trump and Putin are besties.

Trump jokingly said during a debate that he hoped Russia found Hillary's "lost" emails.  The simple explanation was that Trump was being Trump, speaking without thinking and making a stupid joke.

The alternative explanation is that Trump actually invited and encouraged Putin, in front of millions of TV viewers, to hack the DNC's servers, ridiculous as that notion is.  (Never mind the fact that, at the time, no one on the left screamed, "Conspiracy!", because everybody on the left smugly assumed Hillary would win.)

Hillary Clinton lost the election.  She lost states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  The simple explanation is that she didn't campaign in Wisconsin, and she promised to take a lot of jobs away from coal miners in those other states.  You don't ignore a state, or threaten people's livelihoods, and expect to win the minds and hearts of voters.  Especially with the pain of the Great Recession so fresh in people's memories.

The alternative explanation is a combination of racism, sexism, bagism, shagism (John Lennon reference - get it?), homophobia, Russian meddling, James Comey, deplorables, and whatever other excuse Hillary can come up with to compensate for the undeniable fact that she was a horrible choice of a candidate who ran a horribly flawed campaign.  Even the bumbling Joe Biden has acknowledged that, and no amount of head-bobbling on Hillary's part could change it.

Trump withdrew America from the Paris Accord.  The simple explanation is that it was a crappy agreement, entered into without proper approval, that would have penalized the U.S. for the strides it's already taken in reducing emissions, at great cost, while allowing the worst offenders to continue their offenses.

The alternative explanation is that TRUMP HATES TREES AND WANTS THE WORLD TO END!!

Et cetera.

Russiagate.  Comeygate.  NATOgate.  Parisgate.  Melania-jacketgate.

The Left has a new weapon in the war on Trump, and it's distraction.  Manufacture a new "scandal" every day, and cover it 24/7 to shift the focus to it.  The mainstream media is more than willing to help in the effort.  George Stephanopolous, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Martha Raddatz are at the Dems' beck and call in deploying this strategy.

Activist judges, many of them Obama appointees, are also at the ready.  They will challenge every executive order, inciting the administration to re-do what it has already done, rather than trying to do anything new.

Those matters will distract the administration from pursuing its policies.  The Left knows this, and knows that they cannot stop those policies from being put into action through legislative means, because they lost the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate in the election.  So they have to do something, anything to stop those policies from being enacted before the mid-terms, when they hope to win back control of at least one of the houses of Congress.

At which point they'll continue to ensure that nothing happens in Washington.  And thus they distract.

Make no mistake, these are manufactured "scandals" intended to do nothing more than obfuscate.  And this is the shiny new wrench in the toolkit of partisan politics.  The wrench that will be thrown into the works of policy change, change that the people voted for.

So tax reform, health care reform, border security, fighting terrorism, all the things that the voters wanted in November, will have to wait.  Indefinitely.  To hell with the will of the voters; there are partisan interests and political careers at stake here!

And what of the Republicans?  John McCain et al appear to be jumping on the Dems' bandwagon, focusing on the distractions.  Why?

Here's the insidious truth; pay heed:  Donald Trump promised to return government to the people.  Say what you will about the guy, it's refreshing when a President invites a bunch of plumbers into the Oval Office because it's THEIR house, paid for by the sweat of their brows.  Far better than somebody who sells nights in the Lincoln bedroom to his influential friends, like Hillary's philandering husband did.

And guess what?  The government - the old guard, the McCains of the world - don't want government returned to the people.  They want the people to serve them, not the other way around.  (By the way, if you want to learn what kind of a guy John McCain is, google "Keating Five."  I knew of that scandal by way of the fact that I started my career as an S&L examiner during the thrift crisis.  McCain has always been a palm-greaser, a favor-grantor.  A politician of the old school of back-room deals cut in smoke-filled rooms.  That's why I was never able to bring myself to vote for him.)

So why were the Dems able to coalesce behind Barack Obama, if the GOP won't stand behind their party's President now?  Why were the Dems able to work with Obama to move his agenda forward?

Simple.  Obama favored bigger and bigger government.  Government not of, for or by the people, but over the people.  So the Dems got on board, because that's their platform.  So, sadly, did too many Republicans, because that perpetuates their power.

And when not enough Republicans did get on board, Obama advanced his agenda through the unilateral fiat of the executive order, the phone and the pen, as he put it.

Trump has done that, too.  But Obama had the courts on his side; after all, he appointed the judges.  Those same judges who now thwart his successor's orders, but stood idly by while the guy who appointed them wielded his pen.

Career politicians profit by perpetuating their time in power.  (So do their friends, who line those politicians' pockets.)  So they rally behind the champions of big government, but are threatened by those who would return the government to the people.

Yet, that's what the people have said they want.  We're sick and tired of politics as usual in Washington; that, after all, is precisely why Donald Trump won (the simple explanation, yet again).  Hopefully, we wake up and send a message in 2018, similar to the message sent last year.  Hopefully, it's not too late.

In the meantime, I fear the distractions have become the focus.  And thereby the focus is lost.

Random Saturday Musings

First, some follow-up points on my latest post regarding the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord:

• I mentioned that the Athabasca glacier in Alberta has receded a little less than a mile over the last 125 years.  So logic would tell us that the glacier began that process in 1892, correct?  (Actually, it was probably even earlier; at one point, much of northeast Kansas was covered in ice.  I'm glad it's not today.)
• In 1892. Benjamin Harrison was President.  The gas-powered automobile was not yet in production.  The U.S. population was about 63 million, less than a fifth of today's total and about equal to the combined populations of California and Texas today.  Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states.  In other words, the glaciers were receding long before our world was filled with cars, long before the carbon footprint was a thing, long before sign-waving protesters screamed about climate change before climbing back into their gas-burning cars and driving back to their coal-fired electricity cooled homes.
• Could it be that the Athabasca glacier is receding in part because, in an effort to educate the masses about the impact of global warming, the Canadian government transports tourists across it in massive, 30-ton, diesel-powered vehicles?
• The day the withdrawal from the Paris Accord was announced, a very well-educated, successful woman commented to me, "We don't need coal!"  She made this comment while we were sitting in her air-conditioned boardroom, with the lights on and our laptops plugged in, the Keurig and mini-fridge running, in the state that leads the nation in consumption of electricity fueled by coal.  She is also passionately anti-Trump.  Obviously, there are a lot of people who don't understand this issue, but form their views about it based on party affiliation.
• So Elon Musk dropped off the President's business advisory council.  Pardon my yawn.  Massive government spending on climate change directly benefits Musk's companies, which are innovative, but famously unprofitable.  Without government subsidies, they'll be even more unprofitable, and could fail.  Too bad, Elon,  Figure out a way to make an unsubsidized profit through alternative energy, and you're our biggest hero.  But don't suck our tax dollars to prop up your little experiments, especially when your net worth is about $13 billion.
• Meanwhile, kudos to President Trump for being that rare politician who appoints a guy like Musk to his council, then doesn't grease his palm with the people's money.  Trump did what he thought was the right thing, even if it cost him an influential guy like Musk.  Most politicians sacrifice the right thing to give special favors to their friends.  Nobody else is talking about this.
• CNN is gushing over French President Macron's English-language response to President Trump's decision to pull out of the accord (like the fact that the guy can speak English is a big deal - hey, je parle Francais, un peu).  One talking head went so far as to declare him "the new leader of the free world."  Please.  The guy was only elected 20 days ago, and thus far all he's accomplished has been kissing Angela Merkel's skirt.  Declaring him the new leader of the free world at this early juncture would be as premature as handing a U.S. President the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration, for doing nothing more than going on a global apology tour.  Oh wait ...
• Consider this: the U.S. didn't pull out of the Paris Accord because we're planning to revert to wholesale pollution and destroy the earth, nor because Donald Trump doesn't believe in climate change.  We pulled out because we're already doing our part, and we don't need to subsidize those who aren't, and who won't well into the future.  The U.S. has reduced its carbon footprint dramatically over the last few decades, so let's let the rest of the world do their part.
• Now, some would argue that saving the world from global warming is so important that the U.S. should be willing to subsidize other countries' efforts.  Those same people would argue, in the next breath, that the U.S. shouldn't be the world's cop.  Can't have it both ways: the U.S. should save the world from one threat, only to sit back and see it destroyed by another?  Folly.  Besides, I don't need some kid living in his parents' basement, playing Guardians of the Galaxy after he gets done with his shift flipping burgers at McDonald's, spending my tax dollars so freely.  Let the people who buy into the notion that climate change is our biggest threat donate their money to combating it, rather than demand everyone else foot the bill.  Meanwhile, I'll keep driving my 35mpg car and picking up other people's trash.

****************************************

A lot of people are outraged over Kathy Griffin's latest stunt, and are plastering stories about her all over social media.  I'm not going to do that.  In fact, I'm reluctant to even mention her here.

Why, you ask?  Shouldn't I be outraged?

Perhaps.  But I understand why she did it: she's a relatively talentless attention junkie who has made a career of trying to extend her 15 minutes of fame by being outrageous, since she can't do it on the merits.

She likes to brag about all the talk shows and venues she's been banned from as a result of her shenanigans.  She proudly created and starred in a reality TV show about being on Hollywood's D-list, probably because she's bitter about the fact that she lacks the chops to make the A-, B-, or even C-list.

She pranced topless beside a road in Miami while the paparazzi snapped away, and even posted some of the images on her own Twitter account.  Most celebrities who get caught au naturel try to suppress those photos.  But they've typically become celebrities by being talented, and don't need the extra publicity.  While everyone else participated in the Ice Bucket Challenge a few years ago, she did so fully nude and on camera.

I would have to imagine those images are far more disgusting than her most recent one.

Thanks to all the attention she's been getting, she's been able to command headlines, even calling a press conference and playing the victim card, and pointing out that Ted Nugent did something equally reprehensible (ah, the "you do it too" defense - the last resort of small but guilty minds).

I'd rather not play her game by spreading her name all over social media, drawing more attention to her like a fly to ... well, you know.  When people do that, Kathy Griffin wins.  Let her fade into oblivion, where she belongs.

****************************************

I've been wanting to address this for a while now.  I cringe every time I hear some anti-war lament about "sending our sons and daughters into harm's way."  Do these people think the government goes about raiding people's homes, snatching little Bobby or Suzy from their cozy beds under the cover of darkness, and sending them off to slaughter?

Last I checked, we have a volunteer military.  People sign up to defend this country, even if that requires the ultimate sacrifice.  And the military people I've known are more than ready to go defend the U.S., even if it means risking their own lives.  Remember the surge in enlistments that took place after 9/11?

Sure, there are a handful who join up for the pay and benefits, but when they get their deployment notice, they say, "Hey, that's not what I signed on for."  Thankfully, they're few and far between.

If my own daughter or son-in-law enlisted and got sent to the front lines, I'd worry about them.  I'd pray for their safe return.  And if, God forbid, they lost their lives, I'd be crushed.

But I wouldn't blame the government that deployed them after they volunteered to serve.  I wouldn't disown them for that choice.  I'd be proud of them, and I'd honor their memory each and every day.

The military folks I know understand that while drone strikes can be effective, there is no substitute for boots on the ground in some applications.  A drone strike did not take out bin Laden, nor did a spy satellite locate Hussein.  We want them on that wall, we need them on that wall.

I hate the notion of war, of armed conflict, of people having to kill other people in order to achieve peace.  There should be better ways, but sometimes there aren't.  Especially if the other side doesn't want to achieve peace, and insists on continuing to threaten lives.

Had the U.S. never engaged in armed conflict, we'd all be singing "God Save the Queen" or shouting "Sieg Heil."

****************************************

So, in my last post I mentioned the fact that I'm going to be a grandpa.  And I do worry about the world we're going to leave to that precious lad.  However, I don't believe his biggest threat will be eking out an existence in a barren desert with no food or water, thanks to global warming.

I worry about a world in which people have to live in fear of violence, and not just from terrorism.  The anonymity of social media has made snark en vogue.  I used to comment that people would say things on social media they'd never say to someone's face.  Sadly, that seems to no longer be true in a time when people get into fistfights on airplanes, or at political rallies.  When protesters punch police horses, for crying out loud.  A time when civility is dead.

I worry about a nation in which you have to work for more than half the year just to pay your tax bill.  A nation where the government rules the people, instead of the other way around.  Where the minority rules, where we're so divided that civil discourse is impossible, where the media controls the message, and where the outcomes of free and fair elections are only accepted by those who voted for the winner, with everyone else claiming they don't have a President, yet demanding their rights as a citizen.

I worry about him not being able to find a job in high school, because all the menial jobs are required to pay a wage that would support a family of four, so automated kiosks have replaced those jobs.  So he has to wait until he has a degree to be able to learn the value of work, of managing his own money, of contributing to his own support.  I worry that he won't be able to afford a car, because emissions standards have priced them out of reach for all but the wealthy.

And I especially worry that my grandson won't be able to avail himself of one of the most valuable benefits of a college education: exposure to multiple, divergent viewpoints that will expand his horizons, encourage spirited but respectful debate, and allow him to use his God-given judgment to form his own world view.

But I have hope.  I see it when I see his parents not succumb to the media spin, the thought police, the temptation to be nasty to other people.  When they champion values like hard work, personal responsibility and thrift.  When they show a willingness to listen to others' views, whether they agree with them or not.

Sadly, crazy has become the new normal, and vice versa.  Thankfully, there are still those who are fine with being the neo-crazy.  I'm putting my hope in them, for my grandson's sake.

We'll Always Have ... Paris?

Let me state for the record that, while I would not be labeled an environmentalist - at least not by those on the left (most of whom, by and large, do not truly understand or embrace environmental issues) - I do care about the environment.  I care about the environmental legacy we leave our children, and our grandchildren.

Oh, did I mention I'm going to be a grandpa in November?  Every kid needs a curmudgeonly grandparent, yes?

I'm one of those guys who, when hiking, picks up other people's litter and packs it out.  I don't litter, myself.  My car is "greener" than most, getting about 35mpg.  (Take that, Al Gore.)

I once worked with a woman who smoked, and I'd go outside with her on her smoke breaks and we'd talk.  She was liberal, and very keen on environmental issues, as she'd point out while she puffed away.  Then, she'd flip her spent cigarette butt into the flower beds outside our building.

Yes, I believe we should continue producing fossil fuels, because that's what drives the world, still (as the climate change fanatics prove in their energy consumption habits).  I believe there are significant risks related to nuclear power (see Chernobyl), I believe wind farms are a blight on the landscape, and solar is great, but expensive.

I don't, however, subscribe to some Ayn Rand notion of development as the highest and best use of all resources.  (For the uninitiated, Ayn Rand was an uber-libertarian author who penned the classic, "Atlas Shrugged," a great read.  In it, she postulates this notion to the point of asserting that all of our mountains, streams and other natural treasures should be put to productive capacity in order to maximize output.)

Maybe, but I disagree with the notion.  I love the mountains, the beaches, the forests, the fertile valleys, and the land in between.  And, as a still-occasional cyclist, I like clean air.  (This is the basis for my objection to wind farms: ever drive from San Bernardino to Palm Springs?  The otherwise beautiful mountain landscape is marred by those ugly white windmills.  Should we sacrifice the aesthetics of the environment for wind power?  I say no.)

I don't believe the sky is falling, but I do believe we need to continue to address these issues - but rationally, and with a sense of economic balance.  I also believe that advances in technology will make sources like solar energy more affordable, and I'm all for heating and cooling my house with the sun.

Especially if said house is a shack on a beach on some idyllic island.

Having said all that, I don't get the hoopla over President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.  Let's unpack the issue.

First, those who are screeching about it likely haven't read the agreement.  This article provides an excellent recap, for those who are willing to take the time to read it objectively, rather than just screaming that the world is going to end from global warming in five years (take that, too, Al Gore):  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate

In short, the biggest polluters in the world - China and India - are party to it.  However, they basically agreed to nothing in terms of their emissions.  In fact, taken as a whole, the agreement - according to the experts, not Fox News - would only reduce global warming by a minuscule amount in the long run, if at all.  And, of course, the U.S. - which has already taken a leadership role in the strides we've taken to address environmental issues - is expected to make the biggest commitment, in terms of reducing emissions and ponying up money (yours and mine, let's not forget) to subsidize the rest of the world.  To the tune of $100 billion.

No, thank you.

Yet again, those decrying the withdrawal haven't read the agreement, wouldn't understand it if they did, and don't walk their own talk.

Those same people likely heat their homes with natural gas, or electricity that in part comes from coal.  Many of them use wood-burning fireplaces and/or stoves.  They love their fire pits.  They drive gas-burning cars, even for short trips - say, down to the mailbox.

They decry the impact on the glaciers - the glaciers! - but have they ever seen one in person?  I have.  I visited the Athabasca glacier in Alberta, among other glaciers I've seen in Canada and Alaska (by the way, I highly recommend a trip to the Banff/Lake Louise area in Alberta - indescribable beauty).  Signs there (which, incidentally, didn't grow there naturally) indicate how much the glacier has receded over time - a total of a little less than a mile over the last 125 years.  The horror.  I'm getting warmer just thinking about it.

Well, for one, the glacier is nearly four miles long still, so - if we hadn't done anything to slow down climate change, which we have - it would theoretically be gone in about 500 years.

I rarely agree with Keynes, but I do agree with his assertion that, in the long run, we're all dead.  In fact, 500 years from now, my grandchildren's grandchildren will be long gone.  For perspective, 500 years ago, Columbus had barely discovered this rock.

Moreover, this is a straight-line extrapolation of the last 125 years, which is folly for a couple of reasons.  One, as noted, we are addressing climate change, and will continue to do so.  And two, this may not be a linear function.  Places where glaciers exist are still damn cold, and they're not likely to turn into temperate deserts in the next 1,000 years, no matter what Al Gore says.

And there are a lot of glaciers; Athabasca is but one of them.  Fly from Anchorage to Seattle and you'll see dozens on a clear day.  (I've done that, and have the photos to prove it.  The Paris-Accord-withdrawal-screechers probably haven't.)

Look, climate change happens.  There was an Ice Age, if you remember your history classes.  It ended.  (There were also dinosaurs.  Does anyone on the left bemoan the extinction of the velociraptor?)  Does man influence climate change?  You bet.  Is that influence as dire as Al Gore would have you believe, as he flies from stop to stop in his fuel-guzzling jet to preach his nonsense?  Nope.  Should we just eliminate man altogether, and hope that the velociraptors come back?  I'd rather not, for my grandchildren's sake.

The climate change-istas always cite "the science," and label anyone who disagrees with them a "denier."  (Ah, how the left loves their labels.)  The vast, vast majority of them couldn't understand the science if they took the time to educate themselves on it.  But Bill Nye says it, they believe it, that's that.  Seems kinda silly to get your science education from a pseudo-Captain Kangaroo, but if that's all you can understand, go for it.

Yes, climate change is real.  No, it's not our biggest threat (take that, Bernie and Hillary).  I still shovel a foot or so of global warming off my sidewalks every other winter or so.

Free-market mechanisms will do more to address the issue than government mandated initiatives or ridiculously ineffective multi-nation "accords."  (In fact, the Honda Accord has done more to slow climate change than the Paris Accord ever could.)  Driverless cars are an example of a market disruptor that will have a positive influence.

So in summary, this is like any other issue the Left screams about: they haven't read the source document, they don't really understand the issue, they don't practice what they preach.

But President Obama got us into the Paris Accord, which makes it sacrosanct to them, and Donald Trump is pulling us out, which automatically makes it a bad decision.

There's a Bull Market in Tinfoil

Let's begin by talking about the Washington Post story that purportedly revealed that President Trump disclosed "highly classified information" to the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador.  Then, we'll address the leaked memo penned by fired FBI Director James Comey that indicated that Trump asked him to back off investigating former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, whom you will recall resigned from his post after it was revealed that he had lied to Vice President Pence regarding communications with Russian leaders.  Finally, we'll turn our attention to the appointment of a special counsel to lead the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

First up, the WaPo story.  It asserted that, in a meeting with the two Russian diplomats, Trump disclosed "highly classified information" regarding potential terror threats.  That intel was purportedly provided by a U.S. ally with significant knowledge of terror threats, particularly related to ISIS, Syria and Iran.

The WaPo story went on to name the threat disclosed: that terrorists may use laptop computers and tablets carried on board flights to hide bombs that could be detonated in mid-air.

Here's the problem: if WaPo knows the specific threat, how is it "highly classified information?"  Moreover, by publishing the story, didn't WaPo itself disclose that information to the world, including the terrorists, any of whom could google the WaPo story and find the threat that we've learned of?

Critical thinking is clearly dead.  Because the people who lap this story up like mother's milk don't think about things like that.

Further, what's wrong with a President sharing that information with any other country that might aid in the fight against the spread of terror?  (Recall that a Russian jetliner was downed by terrorists in 2015; they might have a vested interest in this.)  For that matter, what's wrong with sharing it with all of us?  I fly a lot; I'd like to know what threats are in the air, literally.

In fact, the WaPo story rightly noted that no laws were likely broken, as the POTUS has broad powers to disclose information, determining on the fly whether it's classified or not.  It would be a different matter entirely if he had told the Russians what our nuclear response times were, as Hillary Clinton did when she announced them to the world during a debate last fall.  Of course, that was a non-event in the mainstream media.

Moreover, in March - well before the meeting between Trump and the Russian diplomats - both the US and UK implemented bans on laptops and tablets in carry-on luggage on flights originating from a handful of Middle Eastern and North African airports.  So the threat was known to all at that point, or at least to all who pay attention to such things.

The story went on to note that the ally that provided the intel is one that has expressed frustration in the past over the U.S.' handling of intel that country provided.

Again, let's apply that endangered species, critical thinking.  One, "in the past" implies that the Obama administration may have played fast and loose with intel that this ally provided.  And two, if WaPo knows who the ally is, as its story implies, that casts further doubts on the notion that this information was "highly classified."

But in journalism and partisan politics, if you say it enough times, it starts to feel like the truth.

On to the Comey memo.  It was leaked, interestingly enough, after Comey was fired, and was allegedly produced by Comey following a meeting with Trump just after the inauguration.  In that meeting, Trump supposedly appealed to Comey to back off the investigation of Flynn (who was fired for lying to the VP about his Russian contacts, not for the content of those communications).

Okay.  Have you ever been an employer?  If so, you're familiar with the term "disgruntled former employee."  As a CEO, I once fired a guy for egregious cause: stealing from the company.  He went on to file an arbitration claim against the firm, and to smear the firm's name among its clients.

However, we had him dead to rights, courtesy of incontrovertible evidence that he stupidly left on his computer and in his desk.  So he lost his arbitration case.  But he did manage to sway a few clients he was close to, that didn't understand the term "disgruntled former employee."

When someone's been fired, it's always prudent to take their allegations against their former employer with a healthy dose of salt, especially if they had every opportunity to disclose those allegations prior to being terminated.

As did Comey.  In fact, if he knew, as FBI Director, that Trump had attempted to obstruct justice, and failed to report it, he himself is guilty of a felony.  Comey is in a dangerous Catch-22 situation here.  He either implicates Trump in an obstruction charge and goes to jail for not disclosing it as soon as he knew of it, or he backs off and admits that he exaggerated the content of the conversation recorded in the memo (which was likely penned after he was fired; after all, he now has time on his hands).

Ah, but those who view Facebook as the font of all truth and knowledge tend to eschew grains of salt.  If a fired employee lambastes his former employer, said employer must be guilty as charged.

In defending his decision to fire Comey, Trump called the former FBI Director a "grandstander."  The left howled its rage.

So what did Comey do after the memo was leaked?  He stated his desire to testify before Congress, not in a closed hearing, as would befit matters of national security, but in a public one.  If that's not grandstanding, what is?  Sounds to me like an attention-starved disgruntled former employee looking to air his grievances in the court of public opinion.  But I have no aversion to salt.

So now Deputy AG Rosenstein, who recommended Comey's termination, has appointed a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to head the Russian investigation.  Mueller preceded Comey as FBI Director, appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 and serving through that President's two terms, and two years into President Obama's tenure.

The left smells blood in the water.  But it just may be that Rosenstein realizes that this matter has to be put to bed once and for all, and the only way to do it satisfactorily is to appoint a special counsel.  (Not prosecutor.  Counsel.  There's a significant distinction, lost on those who lack the capacity for critical thinking.)  No matter; if the special counsel determines that there's no smoking gun, the left will manufacture a conspiracy theory.  As an investor, I'd recommend being long tinfoil.

We'll see how it all plays out.  In the meantime, since this is the Economic Curmudgeon, after all, let's look at the potential market impact, especially since the Dow sold off by some 370 points today.

Everyone has been drawing parallels to Nixon since Comey was fired, probably because they can't conjure up a defensible Hitler reference.

During the Watergate scandal, the market sold off some 10%.  That meets the definition of a correction, nothing more.

If Trump were to be impeached - and I'd place the odds of that at less than 10% at this juncture, notwithstanding the partisan rantings of Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters - we'd see a similar correction.

But it would be short-lived.  We'd then have President Pence, who is more even-keeled than Trump (the understatement of my lifetime), but shares the same pro-business and pro-market positions regarding taxes, regulation, etc.  Thus a rebound would ensue, and in the long run, the markets would be fine.

In fact, for the investor, that may be a better scenario.  I said a long time ago that a vote for Trump was a vote for Pence, because Trump was likely to do something during his first term to get himself impeached.

Not because he's corrupt - he can't carry Hillary's jockstrap in that regard - but because he's used to functioning as a businessman, where "my way or the highway" rules the day.  That doesn't play so well in the political arena, where there are checks and balances.

Now, I don't believe that what's transpired to date will get Trump impeached.  But here's the thing: the constant distractions surrounding his presidency impede the policy initiatives that have buoyed the economy and the markets since November 8.  (My own portfolio is up well more than the S&P since then.  Granted, I'm a better stock-picker than many fund managers, but you still have to give some credit to the anticipation of a return to pro-business policies, after eight years of the opposite.)

There is some debate - most of it partisan - surrounding whether those distractions are self-inflicted or manufactured.  For economic purposes, it matters not: regardless their genesis, they impede policy progress, and that is enough to disrupt the markets.

Comeygate

Dear Democrats,

You can NOT feign outrage over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.  He was your villain when, 11 days before the election, he announced that the agency was re-opening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails after thousands of them were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Der Weiner, as you may recall, is married to top Hillary aide Huma Abedin, who reportedly forwarded said emails to her husband (why would you forward sensitive State Department emails to your spouse?).  He also has an infamous inability to keep his namesake in his pants, and was under investigate for sexting with an underage girl.

The emails discovered on his laptop (computer, that is) included the 3,000 or so that Hillary had "inadvertently" deleted and thus was unable to turn over to the FBI, which closed its investigation of her last July.

Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened presumably, according to Democrats, tanked her chances at the White House.  As the fable - er, story - goes, that swayed enough people who were planning on voting for her to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor.

Never mind that, nine days later and two days before the election, Comey announced that the investigation of the emails found on Weiner's laptop found nothing to warrant prosecution, which presumably would have swayed those voters back in her favor before the polls opened.

Never mind that on election day, Democrats were swooning over what they believed was an easy win, thus it doesn't seem that many of her supporters were swayed.  In fact, her standing in key swing state polls improved in the ten days leading up to the election.

Comey was a pariah among Dems (and Republicans, who believed that back in July he copped out by not recommending prosecution).  So much so, that last week, when Comey testified before Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Democrats' poster children for Post-Election Denial Syndrome (PEDS), grilled him relentlessly, essentially re-prosecuting the election some six months after the votes had been tallied.

Others piled on, from both sides of the aisle, heaping criticism for his handling of the email scandal.  Let's just say that he didn't come out smelling like a rose.

So now, dear Democrats, you want to express outrage over the firing of a man you've wanted fired since November.  Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, no matter how entitled to that you may feel.

So what of this latest round of faux outrage?  Well, the prevailing (lack of) wisdom suggests that President Trump fired Comey just as the latter was closing in on some smoking gun linking the former to Russian hackers, whom the Democrats also blame for Hillary's loss.

Never mind that she was a hopelessly flawed candidate.  Never mind that everything about her that was uncovered by both the (alleged) Russian hackers and the FBI was undisputed, even by the Dems.  (They're just mad she got caught.)  Never mind that her campaign strategy sealed the deal for Trump, as she ignored key swing states that he won.

First, let's examine the timing of Comey's firing.  Then, we'll look at the justification.  After that, we'll consider the apparent reversal from candidate Trump praising Comey to President Trump firing him.  Finally, we'll consider Comey's successor.

There is nothing credible to suggest that Comey's FBI was anywhere close to finding some smoking gun linking the Trump campaign to the Russians.  Probably because that mythical link does not exist.

However, the firing does follow two things: first, the recent appointment of Comey's boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  Trump nominated Rosenstein to the role in January.

The Senate finally got around to confirming him on April 25.  By a vote of 94-6.  If he was going to be such a slam-dunk, why did the Dems put off his confirmation for more than three months?  Maybe they were self-medicating for PEDS.  More likely, they were smarting over their loss, and wanted to delay key appointments as long as possible.  If they'd confirmed Rosenstein back in January, James Comey would likely have been gone then.  There goes the timing issue.

So Rosenstein's first order of business was to review the FBI Director's track record.  And what he found was a bipolar pattern of "she did it," "no, she didn't," "yes, she did," "no, she didn't" ...  All of which took place during an election cycle and raised the specter of FBI meddling, however far-fetched the notion may be.  Perception becomes reality, especially in the minds of the delusional.

Rosenstein recommended that Trump fire Comey, and that's exactly what Trump did.

Another thing that immediately preceded Comey's firing was his poor performance in his Congressional testimony last week.  After that, I'd lose confidence in the guy, too.  When Dianne Feinstein scores points on you, you're not up to the game.  That's like Usain Bolt getting smoked by Michael Moore in the 100 meters.

So much for the timing, now for the justification.  There's the mis-handling of the email debacle, and the very public announcements of what should probably have been kept under wraps until a definitive conclusion could be reached.  There's the poor showing in front of Congress.  Again, the cause goes hand-in-hand with the timing.  The firing was clearly justified.

Sure, a conspiracy theorist could engage in sufficient conjecture to come up with a nefarious motive.  But you could also argue that this whole thing started when the Martians landed at Roswell.  No amount of tin-foil speculating can refute the justification for Comey's termination, nor the timing of it.

Next up, Trump's purported reversal of position regarding Comey.  Anderson Cooper did his level best to bait Kelly Anne Conway on that matter, at one point asking whether candidate Trump is some fictitious character who longer exists.  Stay real, Pony Boy.

So a presidential candidate took a different position after being elected?  Pardon me for being jaded by U.S. politics, but that's not exactly ground-breaking.  The revered Barack Obama did it.  So did every one of his predecessors, going back to George Washington.

Why?  Some of it is due to politics, and getting elected.  Some of it is due to getting in office and actually having access to real information that isn't available to those of us in the public - other than the savants who know all and see all, thanks to Facebook and Occupy Democrats memes.

And part of it is due to the fact that no executive shows his cards until it's time to play the hand.  I know this; I spent 15 years as a CEO.  There were people that I knew I was going to have to fire, for good and just cause.  But I never telegraphed that to them months in advance.  "Hey, Mike, just so you know, I'm going to can you in two months."  No, you express confidence in them, all the while documenting the reasons that will justify their termination, which you know is imminent.

Sure, you warn them as their performance deteriorates.  And Trump did criticize Comey.  No, you don't give them an "Exceeds Expectations" performance rating two months before you fire them for poor performance.  That's an invitation for litigation.  But Trump didn't do that with Comey.

So you wait until the appropriate time.  You may need to keep them around for some reason.  You may need to give them one more opportunity to hang themselves - as was the case when Comey testified before Congress last week - before you can say, "See, world?  This guy has got to go."  Then, every rational person (key word: rational) will understand that the move was necessary.  The bottom line is that people who get fired tend to fire themselves, one day at a time.

All of that can be perceived as cruel and dirty.  Okay.  Business - and politics - can get dirty.  But the fact of the matter is, some people need to be fired.  It happens.  Organizations that refuse to fire underperformers don't thrive.  If you don't like it, start your own business.  You're not likely to fire yourself.  Good luck.

Finally, let's consider Comey's successor.  He's a Democrat, and a FOH (Friend of Hillary).  Isn't it more likely that he will aggressively pursue any link between the Trump campaign and the nasty ol' Russians than was James Comey, who swung wildly from appearing to be against Hillary, to for her, to against her, to for her, to ...  You could hardly call Comey a FOH.  Who knows where that man's loyalties lay?

If Trump really removed Comey because Comey was close to finding a smoking gun, wouldn't he have appointed, say, his son-in-law as FBI Director?  Someone who would drop the whole Russian thing?  No, he appointed a FOH.  That speaks volumes - at least to any rational person not suffering from PEDS.

So, dear Democrats, rail if you must.  After all, this is just one more manifestation of your condition.  Be in denial, feign outrage, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing.

But know this:

Hillary lost.  Trump won.  And all the angst you can muster will not change that.

Random Musings from Palm Springs

It's 105 degrees in Palm Springs.  But it's a dry heat.

Apparently the heat wherever Hillary Clinton was when she was "interviewed" by Christiane Amanpour wasn't dry, because it seems Hillary might have been suffering from swamp fever.  She supposedly took some of the blame for her loss in November, but if you listened to what she actually said, it was hardly an acceptance of responsibility:

"It wasn't a perfect campaign - there is no such thing."

Oh, so your campaign wasn't any worse than any other Presidential candidate's imperfect campaigns have been.  So why did you get thumped?

Here are Hillary's top three reasons:

1.  FBI Director James Comey's announcement 11 days before the election that the Bureau was re-opening its investigation of her emails (because the FBI found thousands of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop just prior to Comey's revelation, including those from her first three months as Secretary of State that she had allegedly "lost").  No mention of the fact that two days before the election, Comey announced that those emails had been reviewed, and that they didn't reveal anything substantive that would change his conclusion reached in July that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her.

If Hillary hadn't "lost" those emails and had just turned everything over to the FBI and cooperated in the investigation to begin with, there would never have been an "October surprise."

2.  Russia hacking the DNC's server.  No mention of the fact that every email uncovered was true and genuine, including evidence that the Clinton campaign had conspired with the DNC to throw the Democrat primaries in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders, or that Hillary received advance debate questions from the then-DNC Chair.

If Hillary and her cronies hadn't tried to throw the primary, then throw the general election, there would have been nothing to the hacked emails.  Maybe they would have been about grandchildren and golf.

3.  Misogyny.

Let's look at those points in turn.  Hillary claimed in the interview that "a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off."

Okay, Hillary, so why didn't those people become un-scared off when Comey cleared you two days before the election?

You can't have it both ways.  Two days before the election, Comey exonerated you.  If people were inclined to vote for you before October 28, then changed their minds because of Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened, they would presumably have changed their minds back two days before the election when he closed that investigation, and they'd have voted for you.  But they didn't.  There must have been some other reason they didn't.

As for misogyny, America wasn't opposed to electing a woman president.  America had elected a black president - twice.  America would probably have elected Carly Fiorina over you.  Carly Fiorina is a woman.  Face it, America just didn't want you.

Hillary stated that if the election had been held on October 27, "I would be your President."

The polls show otherwise.

Her numbers in the key states that Obama won in 2012, but she lost, actually improved between October 28 and November 5, before Comey cleared her.  But she still lost.  Why?

Because the polls were flawed.  Trump supporters didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump for fear of the kind of backlash that we're still seeing to this day.  And Hillary failed to campaign in states she took for granted.  She lost those states.  She turned her back on them, and they turned their backs on her.

She also made a point in the interview of noting that she won the popular vote by three million votes.  Congratulations, Madame Secretary.  For that, you get a participation trophy and a footnote in history.

Hillary did actually state the reason she lost, though.  When asked by Amanpour about being Hillary Clinton, she said, "I can't be anything but who I am."

And that, Ms. Clinton, is precisely why you lost this election (and a previous POTUS bid).

****************************************

Boy, I'm glad my daughter has graduated from college.  Because I'm not sure I'd send her now.

A wise friend once described the value of a college education as thus:  "College teaches you how to learn."

Not anymore.

Not if learning means learning about ideas and concepts that may disagree with your pre-conceived notions.  Not if learning means considering alternate viewpoints and ideals.

America's institutions of higher education used to be laboratories of opposing views, inviting exploration of alternate ways of looking at the world.

Now, they've become little test tubes of socialist thought, where students and professors carry signs in campus protests decrying "fascism," while engaging in the modern-day version of book-burning by protesting against speakers who might espouse opposing views to the point that the speaking engagements have to be cancelled.  And they don't even receive a sufficient education to see the irony.

If that's "higher education," no, thank you.  I'd rather home-school my kid through college than send him or her to, say, Berkeley.  (And I'm damn sure I'd do a better job than those profs could do.)

****************************************

Speaking of James Comey, he testified before Congress today.  He comported himself very well.  But it's noteworthy that Sen. Dianne Feinstein insisted on spending her allotted time re-prosecuting the election.  Hey, Senator, the election is over.  Hillary lost.  Trump won.  Time to move on.  Denial is a river in Egypt.

****************************************

"You have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist."

Sheesh.  If I had a buck for every time I've heard that statement, I could hire my own mercenary army that would eradicate terrorism within a year.

Statistically speaking, the statement is true.  And this, more than anything, speaks to what happens when people who have absolutely no understanding of statistics try to cite them.

Because the statement is also nonsensical.

What's the conclusion?  That, because we have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist, we should do nothing about terrorism?

I make a living assessing risk in financial institutions and helping them mitigate those risks.  So here's an equivalent statement within that realm:

"You have a greater chance of loss through a data breach than as a result of a branch robbery."

Okay.  So financial institutions devote considerable resources to preventing data breaches, including firewalls, threat assessments, penetration testing, and a whole host of other technological defenses about which I don't claim to be an expert.

However, they spend every bit as much - if not more - on branch security, including branch design, video surveillance, alarm systems, cash recyclers, bait money, security guards, training, and more.

In other words, when you're faced with risk, you work to mitigate all of your risks to the best of your ability, not just the risks that have the greatest likelihood.  The key is to minimize residual risk: the risk after mitigation efforts are considered.

And when it comes to dying at the hands of a terrorist or dying at the hands of a drunk driver, the residual risk is the same: loss of life.