It is obvious that voter fraud caused Don Trump to lose the state of New York. In his own backyard Don Trump lost his state by 1,500,000 votes. There are 1,500,000 illegal aliens in New York State. It is time for deport all of them. Begin with the Germans and Scotsmen and their descendants because those people are always likely to whine too much.

How poorly did Don Trump do in New York City? In his words how many illegal aliens voted against him in that city?

QUEENS:                                         Hillary 473, 389           Trump: 138,550
KINGS:(Brooklyn)                        Hillary 595, 086           Trump: 133,653
BRONX:                                           Hillary 318,403            Trump: 34,424
NEW YORK CTY (Manhattan)   Hillary 515,481             Trump: 58,935

Trump better begin deporting illegal aliens from New York City including his home borough – Manhattan which voted 9 to 1 against him and including his birth-turf – Queens which voted nearly 4 to 1 against him. Trump may also learn that he is deporting hundreds of tenants from his own buildings.

Deporting must be done elsewhere. San Francisco County in California voted only 9 to 1 for Hillary. About 35,000 persons living in Frisco [all Trump voters live in the part of San Francisco known as Frisco] have to drive to the Sierra Nevada to see a happy, anti-immigrant friendly face behind a Trump lawn sign.


This week we saw Don Trump in his first press conference. Journalists have to be better prepared, and quicker.

Journalists have been lazy too long. Press conferences have become a game. Journalists ask a vague question about rumor, allegations or nuances that are out there, and they expect politicians to answer. The answer always blows off the journalist, whose bosses believe he has done his job. He is hired for another year.

Note there are no names,, dates, places, topics identified as supporting the rumors, allegations or nuances. Part of the journalistic story says the Russians have tactical information which compromises Don Trump. Are those secrets any more than other information that is already public? Are there more Billy Bush tapes? Does the secret, confidential information involve speeding tickets? Americans know or can suspect that Trump or his businesses owe the Russians money, and now the Ruskies will raise interest rates.

If the American people come to believe journalists proving and presenting facts from nuance, rumor and allegation, they will need to see investigative journalism, not stuff that has shifted around Washington for a half year. Some of the rumor might be good; most of it might come from Buzz Feed.

A good example of proper journalism is well know, All The President’s Men, recounts journalist efforts during the Watergate Affair.


Last night’s speech repeated the President’s tendency to misstate, to misconstrue and to misrepresent. He asserted “no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years.” Thereby Obama implies the United States has been terror-free since he has been president.

There is no grand terrorist organization. Weapons are crude or primitive. The extent of a central group might be ten guys in a garage or a cafe somewhere, far from computers and the Internet and hallucinating about the next explosion. They, themselves, are hidden, and as far from the incident as possible.

Putting aside the Obama administration’s lack of resolve to learn everything about terror, suspects, activities and contacts, it is not surprising that the President would not know if his assertion is true or false.

Americans, though, have learned the hard way (48 Americans in Tampa), that there is no umbrella organization in overseas locations sending fanatics to attack America. Since the beginning of President Obama’s administration and the Ford Hood shooting (many terror links), the lone wolf attack has been the best means to kill and get attention.

Everyone should be on the lookout, like neighbors of the San Bernardino shooters. That shooting-husband had been in south Asia on several visits. One phone call and police vigilance would have ended the activities before the tragedy.

Apparently President Obama never learned about the lack of a terror organization that his administration (and other countries) have had to alert their citizens to. He never learned terrorists don’t have diplomats or standard forms of financing. He never learned that zealots will commit the most heinous, cowardly acts, how far afield these actions are from the tenants and doctrines of Islam. Indeed, President Obama has perpetuated religious confusion by failing to confront issues and rigorously the enforce laws which most Muslims agree with.

President Obama’s speech manifests a contemptible misunderstanding of experience, intelligence, analysis and judgment, thus voiding wisdom. The President is relying on biases, prejudices, frivolous distinctions, petty particulars and his parochial swing rutted in his golf game to make his ignorance known.

From this time on most Americans will always know President Obama is wrong.

Meryl Streep

I agree with Meryl Streep’s assessment of an incident that occurred during the 2016 Republican Nominating process nine months ago.

I only ask is why did not the entertainment community object to Don Trump’s characterizations in April 2016? Why did not some other entertainer speak up earlier? Was Ms. Streep the only entertainer offended? Why not speak out before Don Trump secured the nomination? Why not speak out before the election season? Why not speak out during the election season?

Were entertainers dissuaded from speaking out against Don Trump? Democratic Party operatives spread the word that the Democratic candidate, likely Hillary Clinton, would have a better chance of victory against Don Trump, so don’t react or say anything negative about Trump. In 2016 this was the conventional wisdom. Trump will lose as the Republican candidate.

Hillary lost. Don Trump won. Entertainers, save Alex Baldwin, have been silent for too long.


George Clooney, Julia Roberts

Financial TV reporter, Clooney, is taken hostage on air by a gun man. Roberts plays the part of the show’s facilitator/producer.

Clooney’s character is somewhat modeled on Jim Crammer – cheap special effects, wild gestures, a wavering, shifting voice and exaggerated movements. Clooney lacks a goatee and a bald head; Crammer lacks a head of hair and a clean shaven chin. This parallel to current financial reporting is the only interesting part in the movie.

The gunman, Jack O’Connell, has the typical cliched complaints. He’s lost money in a market that is rigged to make the system profitable to insiders. That situation was explained best by a participant shorting the mortgage market more than a decade ago. He tried to understand CDOs (Credit Default Obligations):

“I had no idea what a CDO was.” I eventually … figured out that language served a different purpose inside the bond market than it did in the outside world. Bond market terminology was designed less to convey meaning than to bewilder outsiders. Overpriced bonds were not “expensive;” overpriced bonds were “rich,” which almost made them sound like something …to buy. The floors of subprime mortgage bonds were not called floors – or anything else that might lead the bond buyer to form any sort of concrete image in mind – but tranches. The bottom tranche – the risky ground floor – was not called the ground floor but the mezzanine, or the mezz, which made it sound less like a dangerous investment and more like a highly prized seat in a domed stadium. A CDO composed of nothing but the riskiest, mezzanine layer of subprime mortgages which was not allied a subprime-backed CDO but a “structured finance CDO.” There was so much confusion about the different terms….In the course of trying to figure it out, we realize[d] that there’s a reason why it doesn’t quiet make sense….It’s because it doesn’t quite make sense.” (p. 126-127, The Big Short)

NOTE: For viewers of this movie, there are no answers except the one provided in The Big Short. This team of investors studied CDOs for four or six months and arrived at no conclusions. There are no answers because the market “doesn’t quiet make sense…because it doesn’t quiet make sense.”


Dear Mike Bloomberg,

This open letter to Mike Bloomberg was necessitated by the recipient having no email and no mailing address. I did not want to make my thoughts public, but here they are.

I write regarding your Television Network which I see in Los Angeles on Charter. Overall and generally your financial reporting is better than found on CNBC and Fox, although not measurably and consistently. I do change channels. Overall, the Bloomberg female reporters are excellent or improving. Bloomberg men seem lazy except the guy with the bow-tie.

In the morning your British crew comes aboard, and some do not speak this language in a “genteel” fashion. They come from Lisen Grove; they could not work in a London flower shop. That has been the touchstone for hiring Britons for 110 years, since George Bernard Shaw wrote Pygmalion.

There are hints of babooism in their field of expertise, television journalism. One frequently calls the 9:30 a.m. open, the “cash open.” How quaint. It might be colloquial. Do you really think no money changes hands on trades before 9:30 a.m.? Occasionally, one of them will say, “Let me ask this question?” or “Do I have a question for you?” I hope all the problems of the world will be solved with the question and answer but never are. Finally, they like to preface questions with a paragraph or two of text to set up a question. This Bill O’Reilly journalism is not acceptable.

Another subject is Bloomberg Magazine TV Show. I suppose the program serves to advertise Business Week. Most of the teasers don’t work.

December 31, 2016. Article on the Chinese Ecological Destruction in the South China Sea when they build their military bases. The reporter came on. The hosts and reporters yuked it up about where the Spratley Islands are. I am reminded of a contemporary who looked at an outline of the Country of Vietnam, and she did not know what it represented or what it was. I mention her failing memory because Vietnam and the Sprately Islands are close to one another.

Same date, the hosts brought on an artist or someone from the art department to explain a puzzle or a game in the magazine. The reason these people excel in a visual medium is they have no facility with words. Like previous interviewees, this artist fellow could not explain much; he gestured toward the graphic. I don’t know if he was aided by any substances. The hosts smiled and laughed. They understood little or nothing except this weekly segment is the joking portion of the Business Week program.

There was a story about Apple. There have been few updates to the Mac hardware for a long while. The reporter looked like he had just left the joint after six months with Buba. He (and apparently the hosts and the article) did not answer the question: Are updates needed? It seems improbable that more than a decade ago people realized hardware did not need updating: Software could take that place. Hence, apps. Did that happen? What are the pitfalls? How is security? Is Apple successful or has it boxed itself in?

I mention the Apple story because Apple may have made a choice, after considering, evaluating judging and concluding. The Mac computer is an old system. Can it survive the way it is, just like can Business Week survive the way it is? The know-how to fix the magazine and its related TV program are well within the human experience. although few would know that today: Someone must demand excellent journalism.

I wish you well in your pursuit of excellence.


This is not an easy book to write. In its telling this book suffers from sets of styles (different voices) imposed by the text. There is biography (A. Lincoln, John Hay, John Nicolay, Robert Lincoln).

Next comes autobiography. Maintaining the voice of Hay and Nicolay in the third person, the text becomes a memoir. What was it for each of them to write a biography? How do either of them write? How did either of them write differently? In short texts most writers ignore these personal voices when writing or they incorporate them into the text, and no one knows better. However, the author here tried at the beginning to keep everything separated.

There is a shift from biography when writers put together the story of the documents, events, people involved and other biographers. It becomes more so evident when the text becomes historical. In a short passage Our Ideal Hero Chapter, Zeitz efficiently tells of literary and social efforts to return the South to the United States. He adroitly puts together many of the same facts Mark Twain viewed before writing Huckleberry Finn and Life on the Mississippi.

Keeping everything distinguishable, clear and fluid was a challenge for this author. I read hoping everything would be in place. Other than for money I do not know why Nicolay and Hay wrote the Lincoln biography. The writing process for both Hay and Nicolay (the autobiography) was shortchanged.

Why write a ten volume biography of Lincoln? Trying to establish the image of Abraham Lincoln for posterity – was a public relations campaign needed? It might be argued that Lincoln could never be buried. The future of the man was set in stone when he was assassinated: Leader – President who took us through the War – Counseled moderation and a warm embrace to the South without slavery. And next, survivors and posterity discovered speeches to chisel into stone, incredible words. The Gettysburg Address may be the best speech of the century, unless it is superseded by an Inaugural Address.

Without the ten volume biography what might Lincoln’s image have become? Frivolous, goofball and irrelevant as some writers treat it today: Lincoln was a quiet lady’s man, manic-depressive, cold and some say, gay. It is likely that Americans will let these quacks polish their views as much as they can. But Lincoln tells Americans more about themselves, to a human being, than any one has communicated to the country and its people since his death.