Discussion of what might have contributed to the revolution. Includes information about current events and some historical events.

#244 Recall When the Donald Was Taken Out

09 Sunday Apr 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Lessons of Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ 17 Comments

First-time readers, the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment if Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters. You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC.

Gelly: “Jordan, the dynamic duo is here to see you – JC and Greenie.”

Jordan: “Well, well, well. What a surprise. What brings you two? Pleasantries, I hope.”

JC: “Not really.”

Greenie: “Pardon the manners of my buddy. Jordan, nice to see you. Do you have a few minutes for us, please?”

Jordan: “Of course. Something happen? You guys look a bit troubled.”

Greenie: “I’m visiting JC for a few days. She offered to edit some of my articles on the cause of the Revenge Revolution.”

JC: “So last night we finish the edits, then pour a couple glasses of wine and watch a movie.”

Greenie: “But not just any movie. A classic…’Caine Mutiny.’”

Jordan: “Great movie. But so…?”

JC: “So…Jordan, does Captain Queeg’s behavior in Caine Mutiny remind you of anybody who used to be in Washington…you know, like…”

Jordan: “…like the Donald? Pardon me, president Trump.”

Greenie: “That’s what we thought too. Just that association brought back memories of the early days of the Trump Administration. Watching the characters in the White House was like watching Looney Tunes.”

Looney Tunes JC: “I’d forgotten how wacko those guys in the White House really were…starting with the Donald.”

Greenie: “Rather than looking for missing strawberries, old president Queeg was looking for 3 million, no 5 million missing votes.”

JC: “When Queeg couldn’t find the missing votes, he claimed some other bizarre event…like his phone at Queeg Tower being tapped by president Obama.”

trump-scowl Greenie: “When there was no evidence of a wiretap, he claimed the former Attorney General broke the law by doing her job and should be put in jail.”

JC: “All the time, of course Trump was denying there was any contact between his campaign and the Russians, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

Greenie: “Finally, Queeg appoints his wet-behind-the-ears son-in-law as executive officer in charge of the ship…and also appoints the pretty-face, but ‘not-the-brightest bulb’ daughter, as key advisor.”

Jordan: “I’d forgotten how depressing and dangerous that situation was. Queeg, the White House staff really…even many of the cabinet members had no clue. I remember thinking these guys must have been charter members of the Incompetents Club and got together at some of the club’s meetings.”

Greenie: “Queeg….I mean Trump was really dangerous. What I think was even worse – a lot of supposedly responsible people, including Republican leadership in the House and Senate….didn’t want to admit how much Queeg and staff really were out of control.”

JC: “So now you see why we’re upset?”

Jordan: “Yes, but that was some years ago.”

JC: “Jordan, didn’t you see what was really happening with Trump?”

Jordan: “I saw it. It was just hard to believe and even harder to swallow.”

Greenie: “And probably easier to pretend it wasn’t really happening.”

JC: “Greenie, in fairness to Jordan, I’d like to tell you about a conversation he and I had during the early days of Queeg’s Administration. At the time I promised not to repeat it. Jordan, is it OK if I tell her?”

Jordan: “No harm now since its history.”

Greenie: “What are you guys talking about?”

JC begins to repeat a conversation she had with Jordan in spring 2017

Jordan: “JC, what do you suggest we do about the Trump Administration? It seems out of control…and incredibly dangerous.”

JC: “You’re asking me? I thought you were one of the muckety mucks inside the Beltway. You tell me what we should do.”

Turtleneck Jordan: “Well, I really hate to say this…I mean I’d better think about it.”

JC: “Quit stammering. What are you trying to say? Spit it out.”

Jordan: “The only way this chaos in the White House is going to get resolved is by…by taking him out of office.”

JC: “You mean ‘taking him out’ the way I think you mean ‘taking him out’?”

Jordan: “Unfortunately, yes.”

JC: “Who’s going to do it?”

Jordan: “My view there are three likely players…hit people if you will.”

Putin JC: “Let me guess. One is the Russians, which seems like an obvious choice. From what I can tell, they have him by the short hairs.”

Jordan: “Such a diplomat.”

JC: “Well, it’s true. How much money does he really owe them? And what else do they have on him? Plus, Putin does not play nice. Another candidate is the North Koreans. Kim what’s his name seems as bad a Putin…maybe worse. How many family members has he killed?”

Jordan: “OK, who’s number 3?”

JC: “Mexican drug dudes. These guys are ruthless and have no compulsion about taking out family members, which unfortunately puts Melania and Baron at risk as well.”

Jordan: “The Mexicans were not on my list. You’re right, they should be.”

JC: “Then who’s your number 3…now number 4?”

Jordan: “That’s what bothers me the most.”

CIA JC: “You thinking an inside job…like someone from one of the intelligence agencies or the special ops guys in the military? Yikes, the thought of that makes me squirm.”

Jordan: “It should make you squirm. But these guys see the Donald in situations we don’t. If you listen carefully to some of the guys in the know about these agencies, they think he’s out of control. Their job is to protect the country and the Constitution, not some individual, even the president.”

Back to the current conversation

Greenie: “That must have been a sobering conversation.”

JC: “It was. But now all that’s over. To end on a more positive note, the country survived after president Queeg. Lots of turmoil and the Revenge Revolution but we survived.”

Jordan: “Yes, we did survive. Now, you know what guys? I think we could all use a glass of wine, including Gelly…and I’ll buy.”

#234 The Bet: How Long before Trump Leaves Office?

17 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office Washington, DC

Gelly: “We have an unexpected visitor.”

JC: “Hi Jordan. Glad to see me?”

Jordan: “Of course, JC. I’m always glad to see you. And you’re in town because…?”

JC: “Greenie is adding a few chapters to her book about the causes of the Revenge Revolution. She wants me to research if and how the tone of the transition after the election and the tone of the Inaugural speech might have influenced the effectiveness of the administration.”

Jordan: “Interesting topic. So, if the transition was smooth, the incoming might be more effective, right?”

JC: “Exactly…and vice versa.”

Jordan: “Speaking of inaugurations, do you remember our conversation in 2017, just before Trump was sworn in?”

JC: “Of course. And the loser, or winner depending on one’s perspective, never paid off the dinner bet. Whadda say we have the payoff this evening?”

Jordan: “Gelly, am I free this evening, please? And, if so, would you like to join us for dinner?”

Gelly: “Yes, you’re available and I would love to join you guys. But I don’t know all the background about the bet, just bits and pieces.”

JC: “Here’s the short version. Remember I stopped by the office a few days before Trump’s inauguration?”

Gelly: “Yes, but just after you got here I had to leave for a meeting.”

(Conversation from January 17, 2017)

Jordan: “JC, you must be in town for the inauguration.”

JC: “You’re right about the inauguration but not here for the swearing-in.”

Jordan: “Listen, if you need tickets, I can get you a couple. Lots of members of Congress are not attending.”

JC: “Not on your life would I attend. I’m in town to join a protest march against Tweety Bird.”

Jordan: “Now, now, you should show the incoming president some respect.”

JC: “Why? He never showed any respect to president Obama.”

Jordan: “But still.”

JC: “The Republicans never showed any respect for Obama either, especially old Mitchie McConnell. What a hypocrite.”

Jordan: “Some people think McConnell was just doing his job…and quite effectively.”

JC: “Now we’re headed into an era where the Republicans…more appropriately called the Republicants and Republirants…actually have to do something other than say ‘no.’ And we’ve got an incoming president who thinks an oligarch is a hero and people with education and experience are trash.”

Jordan: “The oligarch – you mean POTUS’ love for Putin?”

JC: “Please, the Trumpster is not yet POTUS and, yes his love for Putin. I mean really, Jordan, aren’t you upset? The man is crazy!”

Jordan: “You are a bit pumped. Why do you say he’s crazy?”

JC: “Look at his behavior. Remarks during the campaign were bad…and frequently way out of line for a presidential candidate. But his behavior and remarks since the election have been worse.”

Jordan: “Such as…?”

JC: “The list of ‘stupid is as stupid does’ is almost endless and keep growing daily. Let’s start with trashing Representative John Lewis. Trump tweets that Lewis is ‘all talk and no action.’ Really, Donald? Lewis no action? Every read any history? Of course not. And Donald what have you done that merits noteworthy ‘action’?”

Jordan: “You consider that the attack on Lewis classifies him as crazy? Maybe it was just a bad tweet.”

JC: “You know my degree…my degrees are in psychology. Diagnosing from afar is a bit risky. But his behavior is so blatant and so consistently outside the norm that I think there’s a rock-solid case to label him as delusional. He has exhibited no reasoning skills whatsoever. In fact I’m not sure he can differentiate between what’s true and what’s not true.”

Jordan: “Could his behavior be an early sign of Alzheimer’s? Although when first diagnosed I think he was older than the Donald, Fred Trump was afflicted with Alzheimer’s.”

JC: “I didn’t realize his father had Alzheimer’s. Wouldn’t wish that on anybody. Early-stage Alzheimer’s really hard to separate from some other mental illnesses and even dementia caused by say a chemical imbalance.”

Jordan: “No way to really know?”

JC: “If we take his brain out we’ll know for sure. I know, I know.”

Jordan: “So what’s the solution? Your protests aren’t going to change his behavior. He’s so thinned-skinned he’ll probably double down and bully even more people.”

JC: “The only solution I know of is to take him out. Where’s the mafia when you need them?”

Jordan: “You serious? Take him out? Really?”

JC: “Tell me how else to control the guy? He shows no sign of understanding the complexities of many domestic and international issues, let alone how to solve problems. Tweeting does not constitute well thought-out policy. He’s simply dangerous to the country.”

Jordan: “I agree he doesn’t come across as the brightest bulb around but many presidents have not been the smartest guy in the room.”

JC: “But no president that I’m aware of exhibited such irrational behavior. On the Trump scale of behavior, Nixon look almost normal.”

Jordan: “If he’s so bad, then how long do you think he’ll last?”

JC: “Want my honest opinion?”

Jordan: “Yes, please.”

JC: “He’ll be taken out after a year…OK, I’ll give him two years.”

Jordan: “You really mean taken out…or just booted out, like impeached?”

JC: “He will not be president in two years. And I’ll bet you a dinner and drinks I’m right.”

(End of earlier conversation.)

Gelly: “So now I have the whole story. And I’m invited to the payoff this evening.”

(Entry to be concluded sometime.)

#233 Is Revenge Revolution Still Likely? Yes, Outlook Worse. (Part 2 of 2)

07 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Lessons of Revolution, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, the blog is usually constructed as a dialogue between characters. The dialogue is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020) and assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Normally, I allocate one entry every six months or so as a “sense check” whether the 5^th US revolution, aka Revenge Revolution, seems plausible by say 2020-2025. Given developments since the election of Donald Trump, and especially given recent actions and statements by the president-elect, I felt compelled to expand “sense-check” entry #232.

If you want to read no farther, my conclusion is this. A Revenge Revolution is not just a possibility, but is quickly moving to the category of “highly likely.” In addition, the US is likely to experience another president being assassinated, or at a minimum removed from office. OK, now the rationale.

Believe what you want…and I don’t care if you voted for Clinton or Trump or a 3^rd party…Trump continues to exhibit behavior that most politely can be described as bizarre and more realistically described as Howdy-Doody like, reacting as would a puppet when various inexperienced people pull the strings. There is no consistent pattern of behavior, just jerky, random motions.

Trump’s campaign promised he would effectively “drain the swamp.” Well, if you want to change the way an organization behaves, rational people know you cannot simply “blowup” the infrastructure of the organization and expect it to remain standing and operate effectively.

If you want to lead an organization through the change, you have to demonstrate leadership qualities yourself. The person trying to initiate the change cannot simply give staff members the finger, belittling the organization they work for and then expect staff members to follow proposed changes enthusiastically. Plus, if one is going to make change, then there must be a plan to follow that leads away from the current way of operating to a new way of operating. Change without a clear plan is a sure recipe for chaos.

So far, Trump has not disclosed anything remotely resembling a plan. And worse, Trump continues to demonstrate an apparent inability to develop a cohesive plan. Sending tweets does not constitute a plan. OK, so you want to cancel Obamacare. What is the replacement? The approach is not like tearing down a building before you’ve decided on plans for the new building and converting the land to a parking lot while building plans are crafted. Such an approach won’t work for making changes to health care, or EPA, or Education or any other agency.

Assessing the structure and efficiency of the CIA seems a fair goal. But if you expect support for such an assessment, why on earth would you claim that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks provide more credible information than the CIA? Such remarks not only fall in the category of “stupid is as stupid does,” but self-destructive. Such remarks can affect national security and beg for some covert operator(s) to take out “the problem”, i.e., the Donald. If you think such an idea is impossible in the US, then you’re being incredibly naïve or smoking way too much weed.

If you want the support of the military, it won’t result from merely appointing a couple of generals to your staff. If you want support of the military, would you claim to know more about field operations than generals in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

If the wacko rhetoric had stopped at the end of the campaign, then many in the affected agencies might have sighed and agreed to move on. But, no, the wacko behavior has not stopped. The wacko behavior continues unabated and, if anything seems to have ratcheted up. Before being briefed by the CIA, the Donald claimed to know “what no one else knows” about potential Russian hacking. Well, Donald, that means one of two things – either you’re wired to Putin or you’re stupid.

I have a friend who claims Trump is a great negotiator and incredibly smart. Trump might know how to negotiate a real estate deal, although the track record is anything but stellar. But Trump incredibly smart? That’s one of the funniest statements I’ve heard in years. The man cannot put a coherent paragraph together. I realize many Trump supporters might not care what he says, but a lot of high-powered people worldwide do.

If his words and tweets have to be interpreted by staff…as they are now…then how do critical messages get communicated to government agencies, the public and other world leaders? Why not go ahead and tell the military to launch nuclear missiles…and then sometime later have a staffer clarify the remarks by claiming that’s not what he really meant to say. Oh well, nuclear war means more new buildings are needed…and the Trump organization can build them.

Maybe flaunting social norms, ignoring the press, disregarding protocol and thumbing your nose at possible conflicts of interest feeds the Donald’s ego and makes him feel important. But, Mr. President-elect, you are setting up yourself and the country for failure. Your behavior is Richard Nixon on steroids. Nixon was able to resign. You are likely not to have that option.

Dictators in other countries might be able to bully the masses and stay in power. What’s different about the US is the number of arms held by citizens. Remember the 2^nd Amendment? And, in case you’ve forgotten, thanks to the NRA many of the arms owned by the citizens are military style and military caliber. Oops.

Some icing on the cake. Discussion of and/or Congressional attempts to overthrow the basic operations of the Federal government, including Social Security, Medicare and some form of health insurance, will add fuel to an environment that is ripe for a revolution. I find it interesting that soon after the election, I received an email from an ardent Trump supporter, asking me to sign a petition to ensure Medicare is not changed. Some Trump supporters are starting to connect the dots and apparently are not very happy. Think about this situation – if a segment of the population starts to rebel using firearms, even a small segment of the population, the local police and military will find it nearly impossible to maintain control.

As for Trump himself, while the Secret Service might be able to protect the president, Trump’s primary NY residence, Trump Tower, and other residences and properties associated with Trump will be easy targets. Even for Trump Tower, the Secret Service cannot shutdown commerce on 5^th Avenue just because Trump or some of his family is in residence. Even more challenging is how the Secret Service will prevent IED-drones from being launched from near-by Central Park or even from New Jersey. OK, so a single drone won’t bring down Trump Tower, and maybe five drones won’t…but five drones with high explosives can cause serious damage and a major fire.

Once it starts, the Revenge Revolution will not stop with taking out one key figure in government. Unfortunately, if Trump is assassinated then it is likely vice-president Pence will be taken out as well. Additional targets could be those in the Cabinet and Congress who are perceived to be destroying basic rights.

Do I hope I’m wrong with this prediction? Yes, I hope I am wrong. The segment has not been fun to write, believe me. But like it or not, what we’ve not seen in the behavior of the president-elect is any indication he understands the gravity of the job as president. Further, none of his remarks, tweets and other actions indicate a level of maturity, or even intellect, required to be the US president. A couple of days ago Vice-President Joseph Biden was quoted as telling the president-elect to “grow up.” Joe, you comment is spot on. Unfortunately, for the US, and the world, the president-elect seems incapable of growing up. And aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

#227 Post Revenge Revolution: Some Lessons Learned (Part 3)

19 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Lessons of Revolution, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC, start of work day. (Conversation starts Entry #225))

Gelly: “Jordan, what was that word you just used? Some kind of ‘tocracy’?”

Jordan: “Kasistocracy. Means government run by unsuitable people or a government that is unsuitable.”

Gelly: “Are you suggesting the Trump Administration was a…say that word again.”

Jordan: “Kas-is-toc-racy.”

Gelly: “Yes, the Trump Administration was a kasistocracy. Is that what you you’re implying?”

Jordan: “That’s not just my assessment. Many people in the US feel that way as do many US allies.”

Gelly: “I admit many actions by the Trump Administration at the beginning were a bit unusual.”

Jordan: “Gelly, you’ve gone from being blunt a few minutes ago to being Ms. Diplomat. You think the actions were just ‘a bit unusual’?”

Gelly: “OK, I’ll be less PC. The actions, starting with the Trump Transition Team, were stupid.”

Jordan: “Now, at least Trump is getting the same treatment I get from you and JC.”

Gelly: “Whoever was advising Trump, and likely Trump himself, had no clue about the breadth and depth of the task that needed to be done before Inauguration Day.”

Jordan: “The turnover of staff made it worse. The coup de gras…maybe the coup de gras of stupidity…was the VP-elect Mike Pence, who was supposed to be heading the transition team full-time, deciding to remain governor of Indiana until just before Inauguration Day.”

Gelly: “Pence deserved the ‘Stupid Is as Stupid Does’ award for that move. He reminded me Goofy. What was he thinking?”

Jordan: “Unfortunately, the Trump Administration dug itself a hole so deep before Inauguration Day it was never able to recover. It’s not as if the Obama Administration and others inside the Beltway didn’t try to help. Most of the people and many of the ideas were just ignored. Instead, I think most of the appointments were more like Trump lap dogs.”

Gelly: “The Trump kasistocracy…I love that word…increased frustration among voters, especially those who thought Trump was going to change Washington in a good way. So voter frustration increased…and voila, the Revenge Revolution…and Trump was fired.”

Jordan: “What’s the lesson from the Trump Administration so a kasistocracy does not happen again?”

Gelly: “Maybe the US needs to drop the Electoral College and go to a system where the presidential candidate with the majority of votes is declared the winner.”

Jordan: “Think that would prevent a kasistocracy?”

Gelly: “I don’t know. But in the span of 16 years there were two presidents elected who did not win the popular vote – Bush 43 and Trump. Do you know the last time that happened before Bush 43?”

Jordan: “As a matter of fact, I do. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison beat Grover Cleveland. It happened a couple of other times before 1888.”

Gelly: “Harrison to Bush 43 was 112 years. Then Bush to Trump was 16 years.”

Jordan: “If presidents were elected based on popular vote, I think that would quell some of the frustration of the side that garners the most votes but ends up losing the election.”

Gelly: “Agreed. However, I’ll bet people could live with the Electoral College if the quality of the candidates improved.”

Jordan: “The lesson might really be – improve the quality of the candidates. If so, then how?”

Gelly: “This might sound naïve but educating the public about issues would be a great start.”

Jordan: “As part of that plan, what about eliminating private funding of presidential elections? Let the Federal government fund presidential elections.”

Gelly: “Wouldn’t public funding be contrary to the Citizens United case?”

Jordan: “Yes, but we are post Revenge Revolution and have a new Congress…well, mostly new. Let Congress pass a bill to have the Federal government fund presidential elections. I can’t think of any Constitutional issues that can’t be addressed.”

Gelly: “If there is Federal funding, there should be an increase in the number of debates. And the debates should be about real issues. If public debates were increased and public advertising decreased, then the candidates could speak in more depth about issues. If they phrased an answer awkwardly or even made a mistake, they could correct the mistake in a subsequent debate. A minor slip now gets blown way out of proportion.”

Jordan: “Along those lines but a bit more esoteric, is the need to eliminate false equivalency.”

Gelly: “False equivalency meaning…”

Jordan: “When groups, and even the media, claim that two opposing positions on an issue should be considered equally legitimate.”

Gelly: “You mean like global warming?”

Jordan: “Good example. And like certain tax policies. There are other examples as well.”

Gelly: “What needs to be done to eliminate, or reduce, false equivalency?”

Jordan: “Both sides need to be challenged to provide evidence to support their position.”

Gelly: “So, for global warming the people who claim global warming has been caused by the effects of the industrial revolution, or at least made worse by the Industrial Revolution, they could use such data as the rate of increase in mean temperature per year over the last 125-150 years and/or the slope of CO2 concentration over the same period. The increase in the slope of both those curves indicates a major change has occurred.”

Jordan: “Compare that data set to those who claim global warming is a hoax perpetuated by 3,000+ scientists, a hoax by the Chinese or some other sinister group. Where are the data to support the argument? None exists.”

Gelly: “So you’re saying why should the naysayers get any airtime until they have some evidence, right?”

Jordan: “The naysayers can get airtime but the media need to be relentless in prodding the quacks to provide evidence. No allowing midnight tweets, including the president’s tweets, to be considered credible evidence.”

Gelly: “OK, then what about tax policy? Deciding which arguments about appropriate tax policy seems less clear.”

Jordan: “I agree that there is no hard evidence on some issues. But for other issues there are lots of solid data.”

Gelly: “Such as?”

Jordan: “Take trickle-down economics, or as Bush 41 called it, ‘voodoo economics.’ Bush 41 was spot on. There is no credible evidence of any country experiencing sustained economic growth based on trickle-down economics. Concentrating tax cuts with the rich does not trickle down and create significant job growth. Tax cuts for the rich concentrates wealth and can make the country poorer, not richer.”

Gelly: “Really? There’s no supporting evidence for trickle-down economics?”

Jordan: “Think about the theory? Give more money to the rich and they will magically create jobs. Why would they? No reasonable company or CEO is going to expand a facility or build a new facility without the prospect of an increase in demand. People need more income if they’re going to increase demand for goods and services. The only time trickle-down economics works — ‘build it and they will come’ — is in the movie, ‘Field of Dreams.’”

Gelly: “You need to tell me more. This is an important lesson.”

Jordan: “Let’s take a break but remember the letters MPC.”

(To be continued)

#226 Revenge Revolution: Some Lessons Learned (Part 2)

14 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Lessons of Revolution

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Lessons of Revolution

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC, start of work day. (Conversation starts Entry #225)

Gelly: “Jordan, ready to get back to work?”

Jordan: “All set. So far, we’ve discussed two lessons learned from the Revenge Revolution: (i) politicians need to act more rationally, and not act like Larry, Moe and Curley; (ii) people have a right to vote. No more suppressing rights of eligible voters. What’s next on your list of lessons?”

Gelly: “People started to understand the Constitution. That might sound silly but…”

Jordan: “That’s an interesting point. Any examples?”

Gelly: “One that stands out for me is the difference between the perception of the power of the president and the power granted in the Constitution. No question the president has enormous power to make change, but the power is much more limited than many people think…or at least used to think.”

Jordan: “Be more specific, please.”

Gelly: “To me what’s laughable…and in a way tragic…is how many Trump supporters in 2016 kept claiming that if Clinton were elected president, she would somehow overturn the 2^nd Amendment and take away all their toys, I mean guns.”

Jordan: “What was their rationale? How was she going to overturn the 2^nd Amendment?”

Gelly: “That’s the laughable part. I guess she was going to wave some magic wand.”

Jordan: “Like the wicked witch of the West?”

Gelly: “Presidents can’t run around an issue some Executive Order overturning part of the Constitution. Overturning an Amendment is nearly impossible. Did the Trumpsters ever listen in school? They should have learned the fundamentals of the Constitution in 7^th or 8^th grade.”

Jordan: “What else is on your list?”

Gelly: “Let’s stick with Trump. I think he realized…although it was some time after he took office…that the government does not operate like a business, and especially a family controlled business.”

Jordan: “You mean the CEO can’t just go around mandating that money should be spent on this project or to build that wall…or whatever? And do you mean that people in government aren’t just good little soldiers and jump up, salute and carry out the CEO’s orders?”

Gelly: “That realization must have been a shock to his system, and many of his supporters. Didn’t they understand that expenditures for the Federal Government are initiated and passed by the House? Not the White House but the House of Representatives. Clearly, the Donald was not used having someone else decide if, when and how much money could be spent on a particular project.”

Jordan: “Probably the only time someone put him on a tight budget was after he declared bankruptcy and the lenders forced him.”

Gelly: “Here’s another one that must have been a shock to Trump and many supporters. Being president is not the same as being on a TV show. Other than a few direct reports, the president can’t hire or fire anyone. Even many of the direct reports have to be approved by the Senate.”

Jordan: “You think he understood the many of the limitations of the presidency…let’s call them operational limitations?”

Gelly: “He probably had some vague idea but let’s not forget that the Donald had no…as in zero…experience in any key management role other than a family controlled business.”

Jordan: “You’re right. And even very large family controlled organizations are tiny compared to the Federal government. Government is a different game and Federal government is vastly more complicated.”

Gelly: “So the post-Revenge Revolution lesson is a simple one that I think people are starting to understand. The lesson is…”

Jordan: “…let me try. When candidates make bold claims during a campaign, the voting public needs to probe the candidate to understand how and why he or she will be successful in implementing the claim. No more getting away with just arm waving and lots of vague statements.”

Gelly: “Good boy, Jordan. Want a rawhide treat?”

Jordan: “Why do you and JC harass me?”

Gelly: “You’re such an easy target. Seriously, here’s another lesson — economics. Wanna guess what the lesson is?”

Jordan: “Claims for creating jobs, implementing tax cuts, reducing the deficit…and whatever else…make sure the approach is realistic and the numbers add up.”

Gelly: “Exactly. Let’s start with Trump’s claim to bring back manufacturing jobs so the under-employed or unemployed workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and elsewhere could work again. I mean really. What a crock.”

Jordan: “C’mon. You’re being too hard on Trump. All politicians shade the truth, a least a bit.”

Gelly: “His claims about reclaiming old-line manufacturing were not little bitty exaggerations but ‘pants-on-fire’ lies. It took a while for the Trumpsters to realize the old-line manufacturing jobs were gone…not just shifted to Mexico or China…but gone forever.”

Jordan: “I agree. The type of jobs in manufacturing are radically different from 20-30 years ago.”

Gelly: “Recently, my younger sister asked me to help chaperone her daughter’s class field trip to an auto assembly plant. I said yes because I thought it might be fun. Besides, it was for my niece.”

Jordan: “And…?”

Gelly: “The assembly plant is a different world from what I remember as a kid when our class visited an assembly plant. Rather than a bunch of people, which is what we saw, now there are a bunch of robots. Robots seemed to being doing most everything. There were some people…but not very many.”

Jordan: “And you know what? The robots don’t take lunch breaks, restroom breaks or vacations, or require healthcare benefits. Plus, using the robots improves consistency and overall quality.”

Gelly: “Has every manufacturing segment replaced people with robots?”

Jordan: “In varying degrees. And the number of robots and capabilities of robots is only going to increase.”

Gelly: “Then where did Trump think the old-line manufacturing people were going to work – making buggies and buggy whips?”

Jordan: “Who knows what he thought? But this we do know. The Trumpsters got very frustrated when the jobs didn’t come back.”

Gelly: “And just like they were a driving force in electing Trump. The old-line manufacturing guys were a driving force in leading the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “Are you saying the Trump Administration was a kakistocracy?”

#225 Revenge Revolution: Some Lessons Learned (Part 1)

06 Sunday Nov 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Benefits of Revolution, Causes of the Revolution, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ 5 Comments

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC, start of work day.

Gelly (Jordan’s Assistant): “Good morning, Jordan.”

Jordan: “Morning, Gelly. Anything hot on the schedule this morning?”

Gelly: “Nothing for a while. You got a minute?”

Jordan: “Sure. Let me get a coffee first. (Gelly hands Jordan a coffee.) You’re really good. Thanks. What’s up?”

Gelly: “Don’t know what caused me to think about this but is anyone writing about the benefits of the Revenge Revolution? You know — lessons learned.”

Jordan: “Good question. Greenie is writing a series of articles about the causes. Matt is helping her on a few articles. I guess the answer to your question is, ‘no, not to my knowledge.’”

Gelly: “Well, maybe Greenie and Matt should write a few articles on lessons learned.”

Jordan: “OK, let me be the interviewer. What do you think are the lessons of the Revenge Revolution?”

Gelly: “The most obvious one to me is people have started forcing politicians to act rationally…like the rest of us have to act, or at least most of us. That change in behavior is a big switch.”

Jordan: “Such as…?”

Gelly: “Lots of examples. One that seems very important is Senators are effectively being forced to vote on judicial nominees. No more stonewalling.”

Jordan: “You mean like in 2016 when Larry, Moe and Curly…I mean Senators Burr, McCain and Cruz…threatened to block every judicial nominee if Clinton was elected president.”

Gelly: “Yep. Those guys acted like the Three Stooges. Let me correct my statement. Burr, McCain and Cruz couldn’t hold a candle to the Three Stooges. For the senators, a better description is more like ‘stupid is as stupid does.’”

Jordan: “Why do you think their statement about blocking all judicial nominees…and possibly other nominees…is so bad? The Constitution does not force the Senate to act.”

Gelly: “True. But you cannot have a functioning democracy if one body refuses to act on behalf of the people and only acts for itself. The country cannot operate when elected officials represent only a portion of the populous and, in effect, stab all other voters in the back. That kind of behavior was a cause of the Revenge Revolution. And since the Revolution people have been forcing elected officials to consider the electorate, not just special interests.”

Jordan: “Aren’t you being a bit naïve? There have always been biases and special interests in Congress.”

Gelly: “I agree. However, real people recognize there are different opinions on how to solve problems. Anyone with any brains, and that used to include Congress before the Republicans in Congress in the 1990’s started taking stupid pills, knows that working through a problem with someone else usually results in a better solution.”

Jordan: “What does that have to do with approving judicial nominees?”

Gelly: “Relevant because Larry, Moe and Curly…err, Burr, McCain and Cruz…refused to even consider working with Democrats to find a solution. The BMC boy’s idea of a solution was the proverbial, ‘my way or the highway.’”

Jordan: “But the country experienced the Revenge Revolution and the likes of Burr, McCain and Cruz are now off in the corner with their dunce caps.”

Gelly: “And the BMC boys deserve dunce caps. And eliminating such behavior is one of the lessons that needs to written about.”

Jordan: “Have another lesson of the Revenge Revolution for Greenie to write about?”

Gelly: “Making voting easier.”

Jordan: “Gelly, surely you don’t think Republicans made an effort to suppress voting, do you?”

Gelly: “Your great state, North Carolina…”

Jordan: “…Please, I’m only a visitor to North Carolina. A long-term visitor but visitor, nonetheless.”

Gelly: “…Your state North Carolina was cited by Federal courts twice in about six months for attempting to stop blacks from voting. Both cases were blatant. One judge indicated the state’s efforts were ‘with precision.’ Oh, no, Republicans made no effort to stop blacks from voting.”

Jordan: “Those efforts were to protect the other residents from voter fraud.”

Gelly: “Jordan, either your tongue is planted deep in your cheek or you need to go see a proctologist and have your head put back on the right part of your anatomy.”

Jordan: “She’s so subtle.”

Gelly: “No reason to be subtle. There was no credible evidence of any voter fraud. All the cases claimed by Republicans were proved to be false. People who are US citizens have a right to vote, period. Do these vote fraud-claim yoyo’s ever read the Constitution?”

Jordan: “You’ve come up with two good examples. Let’s chat more after I take a break.”

#219 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 1)

25 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ 4 Comments

First-time readers, this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC.

Jordan (Answering phone): “Jordan Abel.”

Matt: “Jordan, its Matt. Got a few minutes?”

Jordan: “You picked a good time to call. What’s up?”

Matt: “You know Greenie is writing a series on the causes of the Revenge Revolution. She realized there was no article about the riots in Charlotte in 2016. She asked me to do some research.”

Jordan: “And you want me to provide some insight, right?”

Matt: “You’ve lived in Charlotte for a while and I thought you would be a good place to start.”

Jordan: “OK, I’m not sure I can help but I’ll try.”

Matt: “As I’ve looked back over the material, the riots seem to have been ignited by the police shooting a black man.”

Jordan: “That seemed to be the trigger. The police were serving an arrest warrant on someone else in the same apartment complex as the guy who was shot.”

Matt: “What was this guy doing?”

Jordan: “As I understand, in his car in the parking lot and smoking some weed. The police ask him to get out of the car. When he gets out he’s got a gun in his hand.”

Matt: “I read that members of the victim’s family claimed he was holding a book and not a gun. Any evidence to support that claim?”

Jordan: “None. Even a phone video made by the guy’s wife has voices of the police telling the guy to drop the gun.”

Matt: “Seems hard to confuse a book and a gun.”

Jordan: “I agree. Why the family claimed it was a book, I don’t know.”

Matt: “Also, from what I read, the police asked the guy a number of time to drop the gun.”

Jordan: “On the family made phone video, the police ask the guy seven times, yes seven times, to drop the gun. They might have asked even more.”

Matt: “Did this guy ever fire at the police?”

Jordan: “No evidence. But if you ask someone with a gun to drop it at least seven times and he doesn’t, what are the police supposed to think? Gee, let’s just wait ‘till this guy starts firing at near point-blank range, then we’ll fire back. The police were in a very difficult situation and this guy was clearly an unknown commodity.”

Matt: “Was all this info known to the public right away? My research indicates info came out in dribs and drabs.”

Jordan: “The dissemination of information turned out to be a real problem. For example, right away the family made the claim the victim had a book in his hand and not a gun. That info spread quickly on social media. Unfortunately, for several days the police stayed quiet and never offered any hard evidence to the contrary, even though they had a video from a body cam.”

Matt: “Thus, without any evidence from the police, the black community…at least part of the black community…views the family’s version as baseline and believes the police shot a black man unnecessarily. But, still, why the riots?”

Jordan: “I’m the wrong guy to ask that question.”

Matt: “Maybe, but what do you think? Why the riots? And especially why did the rioters damage cars, buildings, and businesses in their own neighborhood?”

Jordan: “It makes no sense. To me the rioters in Charlotte are a classic case of ‘stupid is as stupid does.’ Looting businesses and burning buildings in your own neighborhood, which they did the first night, is as dumb an idea as I can think of. If I’m a rioter I want to make sure the companies that employ my neighbors and provide services to the neighborhood are damaged. Duh?”

Matt: “Aren’t you being overly harsh? Many blacks were very frustrated.”

Jordan: “Look, a lot of people were frustrated. Being frustrated doesn’t give you the right to break the law. In case no one told the rioters, damaging property and looting are breaking the law.”

Matt: “What should these people…and I suppose even more important…what should the black community have done?”

Jordan: “Matt, I’ve used the analogy many times over the years, and it seems appropriate now as well. Remarkably, some people just don’t seem to get the gist of it. I’ll start by asking, ‘Do you drive a car?’”

Matt: “Of course. Why?”

Jordan: “When you’re driving, do you look mostly out the windshield or the rearview mirror?”

Matt: “That seems like a silly question.”

Jordan: “Well, I’ll ask again. When driving do you look out the windshield or the rearview mirror?”

Matt: “The windshield, of course. You can’t go very fast looking out the rearview mirror…and that would be dangerous besides.”

Jordan: “Exactly. If you go through life looking mostly through the rearview mirror, then you cannot go very fast and you’ll miss all the opportunities that lie ahead.”

Matt: “Unless you look through the windshield, all those opportunities will pass you by.”

Jordan: “Now you understand why I asked the question.”

Matt: “What about addressing problems from the past?”

Jordan: “I’m not trying to discount the problems of the past. Blaming someone else for those problems might make you feel good. However, running around blaming someone else for problems does not provide a solution. The solution…”

Matt: “…lies with the individual and lies ahead. To solve the problem you’ve got to start looking through the windshield and quit spending all your time looking through the rearview mirror.”

(Continued)

#218 Voting for the Devil You Know vs the Devil You Don’t Know

20 Tuesday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, normally this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date.

Periodically I change formats for this blog, writing commentary rather than dialogue for the regular characters. Since starting the blog, I’ve tried to keep the politics reasonably well-balanced without exagggerated bias left or right. I consider this entry in the same vein, although I’m certain some will disagree.

With less than 50 days until the 2016 US presidential election, I thought this commentary was appropriate…and needed. One thing for certain in this election – voters are frustrated. To some the frustration stems from a dislike of president Obama; to others the frustration stems from a lack of meaningful action by Congress; to others the frustration stems from just ‘government.’

To address these frustrations and help solve the problems, however one perceives the problems, voters have a choice between Trump/Pence or Clinton/Kaine. A small percentage of voters will support a 3^rd party – the Libertarian ticket of Johnson/Weld or the Green Party. Voting for a 3^rd party is effectively not voting, although one can argue that with enough 3^rd-party votes, the president-elect might consider some issues of the 3^rd-party platform. Enough 3^rd-party votes might also influence the reformulation of the Republican Party, which is likely to occur, whether Trump wins or loses.

For those considering the two major parties, many are selecting their candidate based on a false dilemma or false choice. The false choice — if a voter dislikes Hillary Clinton, for example, then the voter thinks he or she must vote for Trump. If the voter dislikes Trump, then Clinton must be the choice.

Such a false choice is not necessary. However, I’m not naïve enough to think that a large percentage of prospective voters actually studies the issues. Based on my observations, the vast majority of voters, including seemingly well-educated voters, select a candidate based on an array of intangibles. The selection is made without considering the impact of proposed policies and/or without considering meaningful past behavior of the candidate. And, yes, everyone makes mistakes. But one needs to consider the frequency of major mistakes and the context.

Even some who claim to study issues, intangibles override evidence. Over coffee recently, a colleague replied to my presentation of well-documented economic data with the comment, “That’s your version of the facts, I have mine.” No, my friend, you don’t have “your version” of facts; you have voodoo facts. Facts don’t come in versions.

So, what how should a non-policy, non-fact-based voter decide which presidential candidate to vote for? My suggestion is simple. Ask yourself the question, “Am I better off voting for the devil I know or voting for the devil I don’t know?” For a voter wanting to change behavior in Washington, please remember that all legislation is initiated by Congress. Legislation is not initiated by the president but by Congress. While the president can modify some policies by issuing Executive Orders, the effect of many EO’s can be negated by Congress.

Where the president has more influence is in building and maintaining US relations with other countries…and some influence but not outright control over certain aspects of the military. So when you’re ready to cast your ballot, you should think about how well will the candidate of my choice work with other countries, the military and Congress? I understand you might not like either candidate – you’re not alone – but the choice of candidates is not a false choice. You do not have to choose Trump because you dislike Clinton…or you do not have to choose Clinton because you dislike Trump.

The choice for president is real. So even if you dislike Clinton…and I mean dislike intensely…do you really want to vote for a candidate who has encouraged the assassination of the rival candidate? Mr. Trump has twice encouraged supporters to do so. And, no, he was not being facetious when making those comments. Do you really want someone as president who admires a strong-arm dictator? Putin the dictator, who Trump so admires, in fact, assassinates the opposition.

The situations encountered by the president should not be viewed as a zero-sum game. Developing economic and fiscal policy, working with members of Congress, negotiating trade deals, strengthening international relations are not zero-sum games. Building coalitions within the US and strengthening relations with other countries are not the same as negotiating tax abatements for hotels in Manhattan.

The president needs to make certain the primary players feel as if the negotiations were fair and each came out somewhat ahead. Negotiations are not just about one side, as seems to be the mantra of Mr. Trump.

Do you want someone as president who has bragged repeatedly about not paying taxes and who refuses to release tax returns? What is there to hide in the tax returns? And, no the IRS does not care if tax returns are released. If you want that kind of person as president, and you’re not part of the 1.0%, then plan on getting the shaft. If you want that kind of president, then you also need to explain to your children and/or grandchildren why you voted for someone with such obvious irrational behavior. Explain to them why you took the risk of increasing the likelihood of an even more intense and prolonged Revenge Revolution.

Now you ask, “Is this guy smoking something or is such a revolution possible?” I started publishing this blog in 2013. The original idea for a 5^th US revolution stemmed from some research I did in 2009. Since originally developing the premise about a 5^th revolution, the negative attitude and polarization of the electorate have intensified. Unfortunately, I think the Revenge Revolution is inevitable no matter which candidate wins in 2016. However, based on my observations and analysis, the severity of the Revenge Revolution will be far less if Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump becomes president.

Why will the Revenge Revolution be less intense under Clinton? Because Trump has demonstrated repeatedly erratic, irrational behavior…and encouraged violence. Just listen to his words…carefully listen… if you don’t believe me. To me electing Trump is not worth the risk. While one might not like the options of either Clinton or Trump, voting for the devil you know seems more rational than the risk and consequences of voting for the devil you don’t know…and, don’t kid yourself, you really don’t know Trump.

#216 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 3)

04 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Corporate Policy, Economics, Gov't Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s Office, on phone with nephew of long-time friend. Nephew is taking advanced economics course and been assigned paper to determine if trade agreements cost US workers jobs. Conversation begins Entry #214.

Jordan: “Billy, I’ve got my coffee refilled. Back to the question, ‘Do trade agreements cause job losses for US workers?’ For now focus on manufacturing jobs.”

Billy: “I suppose it depends on what expertise each country has.”

Jordan: “Give me an example.”

Billy: “If a country has much lower labor cost, then high labor-content jobs might move to the new country…assuming the skills were there.”

Jordan: “OK, I’ll buy that argument. What about jobs where labor content is low?”

Billy: “Then there’s no reason any jobs should be lost. Why would you move to a different country if labor content in the US plant is low? That makes no sense.”

Jordan: “What about moving jobs if the labor cost in the new country is lower but the delivery times are longer and other logistics issues are more complicated?”

Billy: “That might make sense. If I were the US company, I’d have to decide if responding to customer orders more quickly was more important than savings a few bucks. I suppose if you’re making Popsicle sticks that are all the same, cost per stick becomes more important. However, I think for many products turnaround time and responding the customer requests are more important than a few dollars saved.”

Jordan: “You mean if you were selling products like clothing, furniture, cars? Stuff like that?”

Billy: “For clothing it’s probably OK to source overseas generic items like T-shirts, underwear and some other articles that rarely change – maybe some standard jeans, for example. But for products that are more subject to fashion changes, I’d want to have assembly as close to the marketplace as I could.”

Jordan: “What about automotive products — cars and trucks?”

Billy: “If I ran an auto company, I’d want at least some cars and trucks assembled in the US.”

Jordan: “Seems as if the most of the foreign auto companies agree with you.”

Billy: “Never thought about how many foreign auto companies have assembly plants in the US. Let’s see, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW, and Hyundai…even Mercedes. I’d also want key components assembled in the US. Look what happened to the Japanese auto companies after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in what 2011 or 2012. The Japanese auto companies had to cut way back on production until they could find another supplier before resuming production. Then they had to air freight some of the parts to keep the assembly lines operating. Talk about expensive.”

Jordan: “What else do you think is different about auto plants…in fact most manufacturing plants…than 25-30 years ago, and especially 40-50 years ago?”

Billy: “Not sure what you mean. I wasn’t around then.”

Jordan: “Here’s another way to think about it. Do you know how to use a typewriter?”

Billy: “I know how to type…but you know what? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a typewriter, other than photographs in books and in old movies.”

Jordan: “Ever seen a picture of an old auto assembly plant?”

Billy: “Yeah, lots of people working on an assembly line.”

Jordan: “Have you seen a picture of a modern auto assembly plant?”

Billy: “Seems as if no one is around. Most everything is assembled by a robot. The few people who are around seem to be watching the robots.”

Jordan: “Now do you understand my question about what’s different from 25-30 years ago?”

Billy: “You mean much of the labor content in putting together cars and trucks has disappeared.”

Jordan: “With that in mind, now what do you think about the argument by some politicians that countries with which we have trade agreements have stolen many US jobs?”

Billy: “The jobs in automotive…and probably most manufacturing jobs…were not lost to Mexico or China or wherever…but lost to automation.”

Jordan: “Claiming jobs were lost because of trade agreements makes for good 10-second sound bites. And, yes, some jobs were lost. But the decline in manufacturing jobs and the decline in jobs requiring say high-school or some college have been lost to automation, not trade agreements.”

Billy: “My paper needs to explain that while some jobs in certain industries can be lost due to trade agreements, many of the job losses, in fact possibly most of the job losses in manufacturing, are due to adaptation and implementation of technology.”

Jordan: “So far we’ve talked about manufacturing jobs. What about the service sector?”

Billy: “You know, I don’t think I’ve heard a politician talk about whether trade agreements affect jobs in the service sector. From what I’ve studied so far in economics, the service section is a much greater percentage of GDP than manufacturing. In terms of employment service sector accounts for about 70.0% of all jobs.”

Jordan: “Good guess. It’s a bit higher — 75.0%+.”

Billy: “Then why don’t politicians talk about the service sector? Why just manufacturing jobs when they talk trade agreements?”

Jordan: “Because many service-sector jobs…not all but many…cannot be exported.”

Billy: “So politicians focus on the sound bite, not the substance.”

Jordan: “I’m not discounting the importance of manufacturing jobs. I’m a big believer of a very strong manufacturing sector. But the fact is, service jobs dominate the economy. If you want to stay in a hotel in Manhattan, you cannot export your stay to a hotel in Cancun. The hotel, staff, food service all have to be in Manhattan.”

Billy: “What about the effect of automation on service sector jobs, like what happened to jobs in manufacturing?”

Jordan: “Great question, Billy. We’ll talk about that next. I think many people are in for a big surprise.”

(Continued)

#214 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 1)

21 Sunday Aug 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ 3 Comments

Scene: Jordan’s Washington, DC Office

Gelly: “Jordan, Ms is on the phone and would like to talk to you.”

Jordan: “Really? What’s she want to talk what?”

Gelly: “Some question about trade agreements and the impact on American jobs.”

Jordan: “OK, thanks.” (Jordan picks up phone.) “Mr. Abel here. How may I help you?”

Ms: “Cut the formality, Jordan. How are you? Been a while since we chatted.”

Jordan: “Agreed it has been too long. I’m doing OK. More importantly, how you doing? You survive the floods in Louisiana?”

Ms: “Floods were south of here. I’ve got a lot of friends in that area. Most of them have lived down there for a long time and never experienced a flood. But not this time. Really bad damage. Awful.”

Jordan: “Sorry to hear about your friends. But are you OK?”

Ms: “Just had another check-up and everything looks fine…thankfully.”

Jordan: “Great. Now, really why the call?”

Ms: “My nephew is in college and taking some advanced economics course. On the first day the professor assigned everyone a paper to analyze and decide whether US trade agreements are good, bad or neutral for US employment.”

Jordan: “And he thought you might have a contact that could help him?”

Ms: “He knew for sure that I couldn’t help him. What does a motorcycle riding aunt know about trade agreements and employment?”

Jordan: “You never know.”

Ms: “So what do I tell him? Can you help?”

Jordan: “I’ll try. What’s his name?”

Ms: “Beaufort Belleville.”

Jordan: “You kidding me? Beaufort Belleville. What kind of name is that?”

Ms: “You know some old-line southern families use surnames of close relatives for first names of children. Anyway, he goes by Billy, so please don’t call him Beaufort.”

Jordan: “Glad to talk to Billy. Have him call me Wednesday or Thursday this week, if possible. I’ll give Gelly a heads up about the call.”

Ms: “Thanks Jordan. He’ll appreciate it…and I will to.”

Jordan: “Let’s have dinner next time you’re at the farm up here or when I’m down your way, OK?”

Ms: “OK, but remember it’s your turn to buy.”

Jordan: “Alright, I’ll buy. Take care.”

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Causes of the Revolution

#244 Recall When the Donald Was Taken Out

#234 The Bet: How Long before Trump Leaves Office?

#233 Is Revenge Revolution Still Likely? Yes, Outlook Worse. (Part 2 of 2)

#227 Post Revenge Revolution: Some Lessons Learned (Part 3)

#226 Revenge Revolution: Some Lessons Learned (Part 2)

#225 Revenge Revolution: Some Lessons Learned (Part 1)

#219 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 1)

#218 Voting for the Devil You Know vs the Devil You Don’t Know

#216 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 3)

#214 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 1)