The Cycle of Excess and Restraint

I have a big-picture perspective, always searching for patterns in small details. As I age and my personal future recedes into an expansive past, seeing history’s larger rhythms feels even more natural. I ask myself: What have I been a part of? What has led us to this moment? Are there historical antecedents? Is there a pattern?

I believe history follows the rhythm of human nature—a cycle of excess and restraint. Humans push ideas, fashions, inventions, and political movements to excess before realizing the need for restraint. This dynamic plays out in politics as the pendulum swings between liberalism and conservatism, capitalism and socialism. Each can become excessive and require correction.

Periods of excess are marked by individualism, self-enrichment, and unregulated freedoms. Society prioritizes individual rights over responsibilities, wealth over community, and patriotism as the pursuit of personal gain free from state interference. Periods of restraint, in contrast, emphasize social responsibility, community well-being, and a patriotism grounded in collective good.

Democracy, like all political and economic systems, moderates this cycle, allowing different expressions of excess and restraint depending on its structure. American democracy, an especially open system, exhibits a roughly 100-year cycle.

The current cycle of excess and restraint in America is as follows:

1. Industrial Revolution & Mass Migration (Late 19th Century) – Rapid economic growth creates vast opportunities but also deep inequalities.

2. The Gilded Age & The Roaring Twenties – Wealth concentrates among elites, government serves plutocrats, and society indulges in excess. Hyper-partisan “yellow journalism” thrives, spreading sensational disinformation.

3. Great Depression & WWII (1930s–1940s) – Economic collapse and global conflict end the excess, ushering in a period of collective sacrifice and renewed values.

4. Post-War Restraint (1950s–1970s) – The wartime generation prioritizes national unity, social programs, and global leadership. Civil rights movements and social justice initiatives expand democratic ideals.

5. Shift to Excess (1980s–1990s) – Reaganomics, financial deregulation, and paper wealth fuel a return to greed and individualism. American values shift from idealism to lifestyle indulgence.

6. Economic Instability & Political Cynicism (2000s–2010s) – Wage stagnation and growing inequality define the era. The dot-com crash, the 2008 financial crisis, and endless wars undermine public trust. Cynicism replaces civic responsibility.

7. New Gilded Age (2020s) – Billionaire oligarchs wield political power. Social media functions as modern yellow journalism, spreading disinformation. Trust in government, courts, and democracy erodes. America retreats from global leadership.

8. Impending Upheaval – Just as the first Gilded Age collapsed into the Great Depression and World War, today’s excess is likely to end in turmoil. The question is: what form will it take?

History suggests that cycles of excess always give way to restraint, but the transition is never smooth. The challenge now is whether America can enter a new period of restraint through reform—or whether crisis will force the shift.

Gene Hackman (1930-2025)

My Gene Hackman story. 

As the building manager at 99 Chabanel from 1995 until 2015, occasionally strange, exciting things happened. One of the most exciting things to ever happen, occurred around 1999-2000 when I received a request from a film production company looking for a location to shoot a few scenes of an upcoming movie. They were looking for a 'garment building' that had office decor in the style of the 1960s or 70s. My mind immediately went to the offices of Sample Manufacturing Corporation on the 3rd floor, my grandfather Sam's company which shut its doors in 1989. The office decor, which he had designed himself, was unique. The walls were entirely panelled in stained imported wood, and the floors were carpeted. Each executive office had an en-suite bathroom decorated in Italian ceramic. Those were the days when the dress company owners came to work wearing three-piece suits and ties, had their nails manicured and hair coiffed at the local barber on a weekly basis, and their offices had built-in wet bars for 'entertaining' clients. Fortunately, my grandad's former offices were currently vacant and remained untouched and completely intact. The film rep and I toured the building and she took photos of various potential locations.  

It was probably a week or two later that I got a call from the location rep saying that the Director was interested in using our building for the film. I wasn't sure I understood what we were getting into at that point. The building was almost completely occupied with about 85 industrial tenants. I was told that the filming would require not just use of the location for filming, but also the entire 100-car parking lot that we owned adjacent to the building for trucks and trailers, as well as an additional space for a makeshift cafeteria where the crew could eat and hang out, and the exclusive use of one passenger elevator. The filming was to take place during regular business hours when the building was bustling with commercial activity. Suffice to say I had misgivings that it was feasible. At the same time, I was really excited that the building might be used in a Hollywood film and didn't want to refuse. Imagine how much more excited I got when I finally asked for more information about the production. The film was called Heist. It was written and directed by David Mamet and was starring Gene Hackman, Danny Devito, Delroy Lindo and Sam Rockwell among others. I knew of David Mamet from American Buffalo and Glengarry Glen Ross, one of my all time favourite films. Hackman was a screen legend of course, and Devito was star of the TV show Taxi which I grew up with. I could not believe that I might get a chance to meet them. 

Notwithstanding how disruptive the filming would be - someone in real estate who had experience with film crews warned me that it was like having an invading army in your midst - I was determined to make it happen. It was only one week of inconvenience, and I figured I could get 'buy-in' from the tenants if I could get them as excited about it as I was. I also had to convince the building owners that it was feasible, and more importantly profitable. I got the owners to agree by telling them we could ask a crazy price. I think it was around $20,000 for a week of rental, which seemed ludicrously high. To my amazement the producers agreed to the amount without negotiation. Later, as I started receiving more and more demand for film location spaces from the buildings that I managed, I realized that we'd practically given away our location for the price we asked. Film companies paid exorbitant sums because finding a suitable location was almost always cheaper than having to build one. Once the rental contract was signed, I went around the building visiting each tenant individually to tell them the exciting news; a Hollywood film was being filmed in 99, it would only be for a few days, and the inconveniences would be minor. Most of my tenants were unmoved. They just wanted assurance from the management that their business activities would not be interrupted. A few of the tenants, movie fans like me, were enthusiastic and wanted to know if they could meet the stars. I should also mention that the film crew was extremely accommodating when I explained to them that this was a busy commercial building and we'd have to work together to ensure that the disturbance to the tenants was kept to a minimum. They reassured me saying they had plenty of experience filming in busy public areas.   

The week of the filmshoot was indeed like an army invading. There were about 50 people in the crew. They ran thick electrical cables through the hallways, rolled equipment back and forth through the corridors, and filled the parking lot with trucks and trailers for equipment, props, make-up and costumes, various services, and of course the actors. One passenger elevator (out of three) was commandeered. I was worried that this was going to get out of hand. It was a couple of days of preparation, a day or two of filming, and another day or two afterward for restoring the location and facilities back to their original condition. In the end, it all went off without a hitch. They did do a bit of irreparable damage to Grandpa Sam's office when the scene they were filming required one actor to throw a filing cabinet against the wall and it broke the wood panelling. But we were handsomely compensated for the damage without dispute - they obviously knew they had gotten a major bargain on the location. 

I made myself conspicuous during the set-up period, introducing myself to many of the crew members, and making sure that everything was proceeding smoothly. The day of the filmshoot the location manager, with whom I had been dealing, introduced me to David Mamet who was as friendly as could be. He seemed to love being in a Montreal garment building and appreciated the history it embodied. I told him the story of my grandfather's company and about the office he was using, which was in fact where my grandfather had sat behind a large mahogany desk helming his company only a decade earlier. Talking to Mamet felt as natural as talking to a member of the family - the Jewish aspect of Chabanel's story was particularly interesting to him. Mamet invited me to hang around while scenes were being shot, but I declined, not wanting to intrude on their work.   

The next day, which I knew would be the last day of shooting, I didn't go on the set, but instead, at around lunchtime, made my way to the space on the second floor that the crew was using for their commissary. I was quietly hoping to catch a glimpse of the actors, and to bump into the Director again. The night before I decided that I would give Mamet an inscribed copy of a book that I had recently co-edited, an anthology of poems written about Jerusalem by Canadian poets (Montreal son Leonard Cohen among others) in honour of the city's tri-millenium. Our conversation the day before made me comfortable enough to think that Mamet might find our modest publication interesting. Book in hand, I did see Mamet. We chatted briefly and I gave him the book which he seemed to appreciate. I had been told that the big Hollywood stars generally ate in their trailers, not with the crew. Devito ate in private, although when he left his trailer in the parking lot to go to the set, he didn't use the back staircase to avoid causing a stir. He did the exact opposite, walking through the restaurant at lunchtime when every table was occupied. People cheered when they noticed him, and he waved back with a big smile. Customers called him over to take pictures, which he was more than happy to do. Later, several of my tenants displayed pictures taken with Devito on their office walls. I actually never met him myself. 

Because I'd heard that the big stars ate in their trailers, I didn't have much hope of meeting any of the other actors as I wandered through the commissary after chatting briefly with Mamet. I surveyed the room quickly, and spotted him, though I wasn't sure. A middle aged man sitting at one of the long cafeteria tables, eating his lunch, all alone. I could barely believe my eyes. It was Gene Hackman. The tables all around him were filled with the crew talking, but he was completely by himself, almost unnoticeable. I debated with myself whether I should approach him. Clearly, he wanted to eat in peace. How could I not say something? It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I stepped up to his table with apologies for bothering him. He looked up at me. I introduced myself in my official capacity as the building manager, and said that I wanted to welcome him, and hoped he was enjoying his time working here. I felt like a goofball, a blubbering starstruck fan, but didn't want to show it. He smiled kindly, said two words thanking me, and returned to eating his meal, alone. I quietly retreated back into the halls of the building, feeling a bit embarrassed, like I'd just violated some unspoken rule ie. you don't feed the zoo animals, and you never talk to Gene Hackman during lunch break at work. 

That's it. My entirely unremarkable, somewhat uncomfortable, brush with Hollywood greatness. And from everything I've heard and read about Hackman since, that's exactly how he was with everyone. Ordinary. Unremarkable. He just wanted to be treated like another member of the crew doing his job. And if you were starstruck by his presence, you were a fool, and made to feel like one (though not maliciously). I wasn't surprised when a number of years later I read that Hackman had decided to retire from the business, like any worker who'd decided it was time to collect his pension. This news that he's decided to leave us permanently in the decisive unceremonious way that he did, is also, alas, completely in character.  

PS: To see the scenes from Heist shot at 99 Chabanel go to 14:00. When Hackman and Devito go into an office to sit down, that's Grandpa Sam's office. When they leave the building and hit the street, it's not Chabanel. 

How to rig a Liberal Leadership

It's rigged. The Liberal leadership 'race'. It was over the minute Carney announced he was running. I believe the Liberal Party establishment convinced him to run by telling him he was a shoo-in.

That's the conclusion I have come to after watching the 'debates', which were actually carefully choreographed non-debates.

Other data points:

- By late January Carney had already received the endorsement of more than 50 Liberal Caucus members and most of the Cabinet, including the most high profile members. 

- Carney has reportedly raised an astounding $4 million, mostly from big money Liberal donors.

- Liberal Party advisers and pollsters have been appearing on TV for weeks saying the contest was over. 

- We've started hearing about the results of polls that say the Liberals are within striking distance of the Conservatives, and even leading them, with Carney at the head. A massive turn around. No mention of how they would do with Freeland or the other candidates as leader. 

And most of this before Carney, who is basically an unknown in Canadian politics, made a single major public appearance (except on John Stewart's show, oddly).

What's the point of having a 'debate'? Oh yeah, a coronation always attracts a large TV audience.

It's clear the federal election campaign has already started. The leadership was decided weeks before Donald Trump upended the game by threatening Canada's sovereignty. It's too bad. 

I watched both 'debates.'

The French event was a snorer. With the exception of Frank Baylis, a Montrealer, the candidates struggled to express themselves. Owing to low or no expectations, I'd say Baylis performed the best. Freeland and Gould were at least comprehensible and did fine. I could barely understand a word Carney was saying.    

The English broadcast last night was much more interesting owing to the candidates linguistic comfort. Carney shows little in the way of having a personality, and he communicates like a technocrat, as one might expect from his CV. He said nothing worth repeating (unlike the night before when he mangled his French into seeming to support Hamas). Baylis outperformed expectations again, bringing fresh ideas and detailed plans to the table. He demonstrated a command of policy and has thought carefully about his proposals. His problem, beside being a former backbencher and Party outsider, is that he lacks charm, charisma and that certain energy that a leader needs to inspire others. Gould was refreshing. She spoke clearly and energetically, but I found her youthfulness off-putting. She was a bit too touchy-feely when she repeated that her approach would always be about 'people' not 'policy and programs'. I can not imagine her as Prime Minister, and certainly not the PM who would have to stand up for Canada against the likes of Donald Trump. To my mind, only Freeland struck the exact balance of tone and content required. She demonstrated her mastery of subject matter and communicated accessibly, clearly, at times personally, as well as with precision and pugnacious energy. There was no doubt in my mind that Freeland had outperformed the others by a mile.

Imagine my surprise when the panel re-convened on the CBC post-debate show, and barely mentioned Freeland once. Only veteran political broadcaster Rosemary Barton mentioned, almost in passing, that she thought Freeland did well. The entire discussion was about whether Carney had done 'enough' and the consensus appeared to be that Gould 'held the stage', as the Liberal advisor on the panel put it. It was as if everyone was conspiring to sideline Freeland, and to focus on the 'frontrunner' Carney, and  promote Gould because she's no threat to Carney but appeals to young voters which is a demographic the Liberals desperately need to bring back into the fold. The Liberal panelist at one point referred to Gould's shining moment when she talked about how policy affects farmers. I thought to myself, hey wasn't it Freeland who said that? I remember it distinctly because she mentioned that she was raised on a farm (Gould was brought up in Burlington Ontario and talked about being the daughter of a small business owner). That was the moment I realized it's all been rigged against Freeland.

And why should it be rigged against Freeland? The only reason I can think of is that she betrayed Trudeau (after he betrayed her) in the way she resigned (before being demoted). Behind the scenes, I can imagine Trudeau marshalling all his support and connections within the Party - can it be coincidence that Anand, Blair, Leblanc and Jolie, all top Trudeau loyalists, immediately came out in support of Carney -  to make sure Freeland wouldn't have a chance. A final act of political retribution before he departs the stage. Call me cynical, but politics is a dirty, spiteful game.    

This morning I voted for Freeland. Damn them all.

A Ridiculous Hypothetical

As I exchange thoughts and feelings with friends and family about current events in the Middle-East, lately I end up posing one question to my interlocutor: If I gave you a button that would make the Palestinians disappear tomorrow would you press it. They don't all have to die, I say, which is obviously mass-murder, but they would be instantly transported to somewhere else, far far away from Israel. I arrived at this question because I think it's a moral litmus test. And the proof is that most of the people I ask, who staunchly support Israel as I do, avoid answering. They tell me that it's a ridiculous hypothetical. They answer that it could never happen (except in trump's warped mind perhaps).  

The answer is easy: No, I wouldn't press the button.  

It's true that it's a ridiculous hypothetical. In my mind that should make it easier to answer, not harder. And the reason it's hard to answer for some is because, in spite of saying that it's a ridiculous hypothetical, they actually don't think it's a ridiculous hypothetical. They think 'disappearing' the Palestinians - the way the Latin American dictators in Argentina and Chile 'disappeared' their opposition in the 1970s - is in the realm of possibility. The difference here, of course, is that we are not talking about dissidents of a country and the military juntas they oppose. We are talking about one country and another large group of people both making ancestral and historical claims to a certain territory.   

So Dan Senor's most recent podcast - which of late has become a kind of voice for euphoric delusion since trump's ascension to the throne - is now making a case for the 'historic precedent' for trump's obscene non-plan in an interview with British author and historian Andrew Roberts. Roberts' argument (apparently made in writing in the pro-trump Republican rag Washington Free Beacon) is essentially that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza should be the spoil of war. Put simply, they attacked us, they lost the war, and that gives us the right to expel them. Yes, he is literally arguing for conquest and expulsion. Roberts is right that for most of human history that's the way it has been done. You can cite hundreds of examples. Does that make it right? I thought we had learned something from history. Apparently not. At least not in Roberts' mind. It was one of the most intellectually dishonest conversations I have heard in a while. Near the end, Roberts says something like (I paraphrase) the international community has been screaming for years that Gaza is an 'open-air prison' and 'concentration camp', and now that there is a 'proposal' to move them out, suddenly Gaza is their beloved homeland. Well, when the actual concentration camps were liberated nobody said they wanted to stay there. I honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. He says, 'either Gaza is one thing or the other, but it can't be both'. I don't think I've actually ever heard Gaza described as a 'concentration camp' but yes the open-air prison analogy has been used frequently. Actually Gaza CAN be both a beloved homeland and a place that is, for all intents and purposes, been made unlivable. I'd argue that it's Hamas that has made it unlivable, and prison-like, and the UN has enabled that situation.

The problem is that a simple 'no' to my hypothetical means you have to entertain the notion that the Palestinians may have a legitimate claim to live in that part of the world, and that is increasingly difficult for a lot of people to do. Israelis are understandably worried. They can no longer accept Hamas living on their border, notwithstanding the fact that they accepted it for almost two decades, with regular periodic rocket attacks coming from Gaza into Israel. But October 7th changed that. 

My argument is that wishful thinking is not the answer, and is symptomatic of a kind of moral rot that is setting in, one that leads to unconscionable positions like the one expressed by Roberts. The only way to combat the rot spreading deeper, is to start facing reality and taking responsibility. Of course Israel can in no way be said to be responsible for the October 7th attack. But Israelis should take some responsibility for their years of negligence, for complacency and losing their deterrence, for pursuing a misguided policy of promoting Hamas as a counter balance to the PA, and for the inadequacy of their security and their tragically failed response on the day of the attack. When you live in a sketchy neighbourhood known for home break-ins and robberies, you don't live with your doors unlocked. And you certainly don't put a sign on the door inviting thieves. That's a negligence borne of simply not facing reality. Another fantasy, stoked by Netanyahu since the beginning of the war, is that Hamas can be militarily defeated. If anything has been learned after more than a year of brutal fighting, mass destruction and heartbreak, it's that that's unlikely if not impossible. The Palestinians have been fantasizing for decades that Israel would disappear. Now many Israelis are fantasizing that the Palestinians will disappear. That's how far we are from reality.  

Not facing reality, inevitably leads to (greater) tragedy. I'm not blaming Israelis for their fear and frustration. But at some point there also has to be acknowledgment that fear and frustration takes people to morally questionable places. It's not easy, by any stretch, to stay focused on what matters most. But we must summon all our courage to avoid sacrificing our morals on the altar of despondency and wishful thinking, because that would be the greatest sign that our enemies have won. 

Patron of The Arts

This one sort of flew under the radar, but I found it one of the more bizarre episodes of late: trump becoming a patron of the arts.

What is The Kennedy Center, and why has trump decided it was important for him to fire the current President, to replace half of the Board of Trustees and install himself as Chair? I guess being POTUS, in between his golf games, wasn't enough for him to do.

It was established by an act of Congress to create a non-partisan National Cultural Center in Washington D.C. during the Eisenhower administration and later renamed in honour of President Kennedy. According to the Center's website it is "...the nation’s cultural center, and a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy, we are a leader for the arts across America and around the world, reaching and connecting with artists, inspiring and educating communities. We welcome all to create, experience, learn about, and engage with the arts." 

The 2025 season, as of mid-February, will or has included Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, jazz pianist Kenny Barron, soprano Renée Fleming, bestselling author David Sedaris, comedian Sarah Silverman, and touring productions of “Parade” and “Les Misérables.” In other words, the center has showcased the very best and most popular cultural performers and productions. You may have watched the 'Kennedy Center Honours' broadcast on television, featuring the most renowned and respected entertainers and artists of our time. Ann and Nancy Wilson's performance of Stairway to Heaven when the surviving members of Led Zeppelin were honoured at the Kennedy Center, comes to mind.  

Apparently trump isn't so sure. In a social media post he said that the Kennedy Center would no longer be "going woke". He wrote, "NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA." His caps, of course.

Then trump admitted to never having attended a performance at the Kennedy Center. In fact, he is constrained from serving on any nonprofit board in the state of New York after admitting to the misuse of charitable funds by the now-dissolved Donald J. Trump Foundation.

I was reminded of Hitler's fondness for the operas of Wagner. I was reminded of the Nazi campaign against 'degenerate' (ie. Jewish) art.

'nough said.

The Gaza 'Proposal'

The front page of CNN's website headlines "Trump Made No Attempt To Soften Gaza Proposal in Meeting With King Abdullah."   

As it happens I've been working on a proposal this week. My proposal is a real estate leasing proposal. It's 10 pages long. Includes floor plans and financial amounts. It includes a timeline for delivery. It includes photos, and background material about the organization I represent. It's a serious document that describes the potential for a mutually beneficial commercial deal over a defined period of time, between the company I represent, namely the Landlord, and the company being represented by an accredited real estate agency, namely the Tenant. This is what I call a 'proposal'. 

Donald trump saying he is going to 'take' Gaza, not 'buy' it, and turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East by displacing the almost 2 million Palestinians who call Gaza home, is in no way 'a proposal'.

Actually it's an insult. A slap in the face. And King Abdullah of Jordan winced a couple of times as he sat quietly beside trump listening to him 'riff' on his 'idea' for peace in the Middle East, which would require Jordan giving some Palestinians 'a parcel of land' to settle. Shame on CNN for calling it a proposal. And shame on anyone who could think that what trump is saying is anything less than evil. I don't use that word a lot, if ever, evil. But that's actually what trump is saying. It's evil. Whether he is talking about 'taking' the land that belongs to other people, and moving the people who live there out, or bulldozing 'the strip' for a big beautiful real estate project, as he has repeated half a dozen times over the last few weeks. Using real estate development language does not cover the fact that his 'idea' is pure evil. And shame on every so-called news outlet for not calling it out for what it actually is. They are collaborating in this evil by using words like 'proposal'. Shame. King Abdullah had to be polite because he was constrained by the fact that he had to pay deferrence to his host. But you could see that if he could he would have vomitted into trump's lap.    

Almost as bad, but not quite, is Thomas Friedman and Dan Senor. I've complained about Dan Senor in a recent post. Friedman, at least called trump's idea out for what it is, not serious. He said trump was just 'riffing'. Friedman clearly doesn't understand that trump is absolutely deadly serious. If it seemed like a 'riff' it's because that's as much as trump can understand about foreign policy, very little. Then Friedman said that trump's instincts that there had to be 'new thinking' to find a solution for the Palestinians is correct. Trump's instincts have nothing to do with finding solutions for the Palestinians. They have to do with sowing chaos and making money. What Friedman should have said is that trump's idea is pure evil. Period. And left it there. Senor and his guests were worse than Friedman. Granted they are Israelis and so they are always trying to promote Israel's best interest. Getting rid of the Palestinians completely would be a dream. How that could happen, well, who knows? They admit that's a problem. But again, they say trump's 'proposal' is laudable for 'shaking the coconut tree' (similar to Friedman's sentiment). No, there is nothing laudable about it and it's not about 'shaking' any tree. It's destructive and evil. That should have been the response. Shame. Has everyone lost their minds?

One thing I am sure trump intended to do with his 'proposal' is to throw Bibi a political lifeline. It was clear during their press conference together last week that Netanyahu couldn't be more thrilled with what he was hearing. This week he is telling his army to prepare roads for massive numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza voluntarily - not really sure where they are going - and to resume full scale war when trump's deadline for all the hostages to be released passes on Saturday. Before this Bibi's government was on the verge of collapse when some of his coalition partners bolted because they objected to the ceasefire deal. Now Bibi gets a chance to bring them back into the fold with the resumption of the war, which is what he really wants. 

We all want Israelis to live in peace. Those of us who have vigorously supported Israel's defensive war in the last year have argued, in the face of widespread protest and withering criticism, that it was morally justified and the critics were misguided. The real damage of trump's 'proposal' is that he does indeed change the conversation, and otherwise rational well-meaning people wishing for a positive outcome are suddenly willing to entertain absolutist morally repugnant notions. The worst part is that they don't realize what is happening to them. For perhaps the first time I think I understand how evil operates. 

Land Of Likes And Lies

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

This land of likes and lies,

Where all you are are eyes.

No need for compromise,

Cause no one thinks and no one dies.

Sign a contract that you don’t read,

To give away your privacy.

Cause it only exists digitally,

In a world that’s meant to please. 

This land of likes and lies,

Where all you are are eyes,

No need for compromise,

Cause no one thinks and no one dies.

Soon you're addicted,

Ego drugged and unconflicted,

‘Bout a life that you’ve depicted.

Unmoved by what you’ve inflicted.

Digital storage forgets a lot,

Hearts can summon what we forgot,

We’ve lost our minds and we've lost the plot,

The AI is us, we’re the robot. 

In the land of likes and lies,

Where all you are are I's,

No need for compromise,

Cause no one thinks that no one dies.

On the Precipice

Elon and his geeky fanboys raiding the computer systems of the Treasury Department with the blessing of trump and his ass-kissing executive toadies. Payments to whole agencies being stopped, employees being 'offered a buyout' or be fired in 30 days. The US government is being hollowed out in the name of efficiency and cost-cutting. We all think government is bloated and inefficient, so that makes some sense. But is that what's actually going on? If it was being done in good faith, wouldn't there be audits to identify and strategically target inefficiencies? Where is the report and the transparency? Why the wrecking ball and the secrecy? Why flout the law? Actually, hollowing out the government, and replacing employees with a cadre of loyalists in the name of 'efficiency' and rooting out 'corruption' comes directly from the dictator's handbook, page one. They are already telling lies about 'the corruption' they've been finding. It's ominous.          

It got me asking: How close is America to a full-blown dictatorship. The answer may be, much closer than you think.  

Well-known lawyer George Conway is despondent. He says, legally-speaking, we're on the precipice of the end of federal rule of law. Here's the scenario he paints. Trump orders a lackey to do something illegal, take your pick. It goes to court. They lose in court and the judge orders them to stop what they are doing.  Trump says, I don't care, and orders them to continue. The judge finds contempt of court and orders the US Marshall to arrest the offender. The US Marshall is an agency of the federal Department of Justice, under AG Pam Bondi, who takes her orders from, you guessed it, trump. All it takes is for Bondi to order the federal Marshall to stand down, for the entire system of rule of law to collapse. Without enforcement of the law, there is, maybe not total anarchy, maybe selective enforcement, it comes to the same thing. That's the very definition of dictatorship. Law used by the powerful selectively, to promote their political and financial interests and against their opponents. Think Russia under Putin. There are currently a dozen or more legal challenges making their way through the court system as trump and his co-president Elon take a wrecking ball to federal agencies. It only takes one to show how far trump is willing to go to demonstrate that dictatorship has effectively arrived. Once the precedent is set, it will snowball. Oh, and even if the order could be traced back to trump, according to the Supreme Court he is immune for 'official acts' like a discussion with his AG. And his loyal lackeys will do anything he asks, because he will promise them pardons. He's already shown how willing he is to use that power for his loyal supporters, like the Jan. 6 rioters. He holds in his hand the ultimate unchallengeable 'get out of jail card'.   

Is there an answer? Impeachment and removal from office? Won't happen, as we know. 

Conway ends by saying that playing the scenarios through to their logical conclusion the only way he can see this end is, as all dictatorships end, with violence in the streets.   

Trump Derangement

I guess it's fitting that my last post was a song called "Bill of Goods" (emotional 'goods' in that case) on the weekend that trump signed his unjustified, illegal and punitive tariffs on Canadian exports to the US. I didn't watch the political talking heads trying to make sense of it this weekend. But I did have the misfortune of listening to Dan Senor's interview with someone named Walter Russell Mead on his podcast Call Me Back. Senor's podcast is my go-to source for a coherent perspective on Israeli current events. It has gotten me through this past year. I usually really enjoy his guests, especially Haviv Rettig Gur, journalist Eyal Nadav, Yossi Klein Halevi and recently the brilliant Tal Becker. But lately, especially when he talks about US foreign policy, his right-wing slip begins to show underneath his fair-minded skirt. Senor is a Republican who served in the highly successful (sarcasm) GW Bush administration. So this past week he had on this Mead fellow, and the moment the guest mentioned 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' I knew it was going to be a rough ride. The episode was generously entitled 'Decoding Trump's Foreign Policy' and Mead essentially proceeded to make the argument that trump is playing some sort of sophisticated 3D chess. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and had to look this guy up because he seemed so out to lunch. I was shocked to read his long list of credentials and publications, which included publishing articles in Foreign Policy. He sounded like a partisan, not an academic. I guess it could be expected that Senor was deferrential to his guest, but he failed to challenge even the most blatant and obviously flimsy points Mead was making. 

Admittedly, I'm feeling particularly sensitive this weekend because the madness of the orange king is now directed at my country. But it seems obvious to even the most casual observer that trump derangement, is not a syndrome of his 'haters', it's a mental illness emanating from the man himself. If there is any decoding needed, it's a basic ASCII (read: DSM - The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) of psychotic, malignant narcissism, as follows:

Code 1: He is only capable of thinking about his personal needs and caring about himself.

Code 2: He needs constant attention and will say anything and do anyting to get it and keep it.

Code 3: Only appearances matter, and the most important thing to him is to appear 'strong' (because he knows deep inside that he is intellectually and emotionally extremely weak.) Everything he says and does is meant to promote and burnish that appearance.   

Trump is a deeply damaged individual, who attracts emotionally damaged supporters and promoters. He understands foreign policy about as much as an impetuous 5 year old with a constant need for validation and attention can understand foreign policy. Anyone who believes otherwise understands little, or is engaged in wishful thinking. That's what I would call 'trump derangement'.  

__________________________________

After last night's press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu a post script is required. Derangement is an understatement. Incredibly, surpassing for irresponsibility, trump's suggestion that 'injecting disinfectant' might be helpful against covid, and reminiscent of trump standing next to a smiling Vladimir Putin as the US president took the side of the Russian dictator over his own intelligence agencies. It was a breathtaking public moment tonight, with Netanyahu barely containing his glee, as trump announced US intention to clean-out (ie. displace the 1.8 million Palestinians) and 'own' and redevelop Gaza. He said he has been thinking about it for a long time and has had extensive discussions 'and everyone he spoke to thinks it's a great idea' to turn Gaza in the Riviera of the Middle-East. Of course this morning the media is bamboozled, many talking like trump may be playing 3D chess. More likely this is a distraction from Elon Musk dismantling the US government to turn it into trump's fiefdom. I guess that's diabolical in its own way. Two weeks into this regime and trump has threatened the sovereignty of Denmark, Canada and Panama, launched a trade war with Mexico, China and Canada, handed the keys to the US Treasury to Elon Musk, and now set the entire Middle-East on fire with talk of an invasion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Madness.

Bill of Goods

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

You move me, you groove me, 

Then you disapprove me.

You bait me, you hate me,

Then you castigate me.

You judge me, begrudge me,

You try but you can't budge me.

You choose me, abuse me,

You know you're gonna lose me.

It's a bill of goods you're selling,

Comes with every thought of 'should',

I should have done better, 

I should have done more, 

I should have tried harder, 

I should have kept score.

It's a bill of goods your selling,

Rotten to the core,

This bill of goods you're selling,

Why can't I ignore?

There are truths we can't admit, 

And the mirror sometimes lies.

It's easier to be dishonest 

About things you can't deny.  

You tell me that you love me,

You tell me that you care.

I wish I could believe you,

You know that I won't dare.

It's a bill of goods you're selling,

Comes with every thought of 'should',

I should have been better, 

I should have done more, 

I should have tried harder, 

I should have been keeping score.

It's a bill of goods your selling,

Rotten to the core,

This bill of goods you're selling.

Why can't I ignore?

You move me, you groove me, 

Then you disapprove me.

You bait me, you hate me,

Then you castigate  me.

You judge me, begrudge me,

You try but you can't budge me.

You choose me, abuse me,

You know you're gonna lose me.

You're gonna lose me.

You're gonna lose me.

You're gonna lose me.