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.


Why did the Democrats lose? Each analyst, columnist and expert reads the results and expresses good points, many of which are found in statistics of the election.

A compelling, overarching reason for the Democratic loss is their static view of the electorate and issues. The Democrats constructed a model, like a model guiding stock market trades. The Democrats enunciated the model and gave it support at every opportunity. The pre-election polls indicated the model was sound; the Democrats were favored.

The model included philosophy as well as philosophy of governing; where to spend money. It included psychology, how to react to things (insults), what to say, how to contact the electorate, etc. The model representing the theory of philosophy and the psychology was imprecise and incomplete. Bless her, Hillary Clinton stuck with the model.

What the model also overlooked was Hillary Clinton’s effectiveness as a candidate. At the beginning of the campaign the candidate and the Democrats knew of her flaws and ingrained behaviors. Hillary is bookish; her speech can be elevated to obscurity and incomprehension – she spoke in complete sentences; her movements and motions before a crowd can seem defensive. Hillary Clinton did improve as a campaigner, but she also lapsed into more familiar ways. There are things – Certainly if talk is in complete sentences, but talk in short sentences. Never say Motor Vehicle; say car. Use the Anglo-Saxon side of the language rather than the French (Latin). The grammar is Anglo-Saxon. Mark Twain also observed, At a dime a word, I never use metropolis when I can use city. [Note Metropolis is used in cartoons today.]

Hillary Clinton also had a public record that was known to the American people. Whether they believed she did some or all the things listed, her ratings on trustworthiness were very low. She never got a positive trustworthy rating, even in comparison to her opponent. She carried that load through the election but lost to another New Yorker whom Americans also did not trust. In the end Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate beaten by another flawed candidate.

Analysts, columnists and experts don’t talk about the best candidates. I am not referring to Bernie Sanders, who was incredibly sincere and seemingly honest in his campaign. He spoke well and had enthusiastic crowds, but the Democrats would have suffered the same fate. Bernie was more to the Left and easily placed there. The Democrats who came to Trump would not have gone elsewhere in large numbers.

A Sanders nomination, along with Trump, would have brought forth a real third party – Michael Bloomberg. He had the revenues, he had the ability, he had the resume, he had the ability and he had conducted polling. He could have taken the middle of America. Second Amendment people complain about him, but in California and especially in Nevada, his local, small-step gun control measures won in referenda. Bloomberg did not run.

The Democrats lost their best choice, Joe Biden. Certainly, he was part of the Obama Administration; he had that baggage. But he likes people and attracts crowds; he seems openly friendly. Despite a long public record, he had no glaring embarrassments to bite him.

Sanders’ supporters believed if Hillary Clinton were dropped or were rejected in the Winter 2016, Bernie would have gotten the nomination. Head to head with Biden, it is likely Sanders would have lost.

This speculation over candidates and each of their strengths is why columnists, analysts and experts forego looking at the Democratic nominee. Nobody wants to believe that Hillary Clinton lost one or two-tenths of a percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin based upon perceptions of her earlier public life. The percentage of the vote lost in each state may be narrower.

Now, reporters, analysts and experts are coming from the woodwork for their year-end analyses. THIS IS WHY IT HAPPENED. In The Big Short, Michael Lewis, quotes a trader who sums up his trade and the after reaction from the financial community:
“I must say that I have been astonished by how many people now say they saw the subprime meltdown, the commodities boom and the fading economy coming…And if they don’t always say it in so many words, they do it by appearing on TV or extending interviews to journalists, stridently projecting their own confidence in what will happen next. And surely, these people would never have the nerve to tell what’s happening next, if they were so horribly wrong on what happened last, right? (p. 246)
Guess what journalists, experts, analysis’s and columnists are doing today, all without doing much thinking, doing no research, doing no analyses and failing to be trustworthy and honest. They’re just moving their mouthes because that’s all these jokers can do!

Looking at the entire election and asking about the substance and method to convey it, plus scrutinizing the candidates. is important. The whole thing did not need changing. Hillary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote; she came close to victory. Democrats now cannot turn off her voters. But the message of the Democratic Party should be more hopeful. For example,
the problem with Obamacare is Bill Clinton is correct: It’s crazy to double costs and cut in half services provided. As costs got worse over the years, the Democratic Party never announced solutions to address the issue. They stuck with the model; they adhered to theory. They worshipped Health Insurance figureheads that might be idolized. No one in Congress proposed anything resembling healthcare – paying for health insurance does not mean one has healthcare. Happily one roadblock is removed in January 2017. Old-timer, Harry Reid was a deceitful, detestful man whose slime trail leads to the flames of Hell.


The oil comes from the fruit of trees. When ancient man could not make wine, beer or spirits from the liquid of the fruit, a woman came along and learned, this is good for cooking. Now, the Olive Oil world should be investigated.

The Internet says stuff, once cherished but made overseas, is being debased but is still labeled as fabulous Olive Oil. Those Internet writers do not tell what is wrong with premium olive oil from Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey and other countries. They cannot attest to an old, or an odd olive, changing the taste, smoothness or quality of the product. It is inferred that the octane is now 20 rather than 90, but nobody gives any laboratory evidence. Instead, they give their preferred procedures.

Pick up a bottle of speciality olive oil from California, United States of America: “My country tis a vie…” There are all sorts of dates on the bottle: Date Olives were picked; date squashed, date processed, date frozen, date bottled, used by date. Each date has a particular function and adds to the flavor or quality. No one will tell when the THC is added, a well known ingredient like the gasoline additive, Petrox, to put a tiger in the tank. After using California Olive Oil, no one cares what the food tastes like. Any food will do.

Because the product comes from California and results from the finest agricultural techniques, olive oil in the state is funded and hyped by people writing the Internet articles. It is like the old days when hippies argued that brown rice was better than anything else. No one can say what the finest agricultural techniques are, or that the new product of technology is truly better than the oil fashioned stuff, made with millennia of experience, or why an old olive tree is slimier than a new one. Why not have bits of fertilizer in the morning’s milk? That’s better than drinking milk that’s pasteurized. And users of the California olive oil pay super premium prices, at least $70 a gallon.

This olive oil problem arose when giant, greedy corporations without name, honor or reputation began taking over growers, producers and sellers. Specifically Michael Corleone announced, “The Corleone family has sold all its interests in the olive oil business.” The Corleone family had a stake in producing and selling the best product around. They were honorable and maintained their reputation. If they didn’t do so, they knew their goose was cooked. They were also a family and of a people who would like higher prices for their product, but they knew the market. So the Corleone family never charged excessive prices, ($70.00 a gallon) like they were principals of a pharmaceutical company, selling at excessive prices all the while degrading the competition.


The improbability this election presented was Trump’s victory after using offensive statements, jests and situations in today’s America. Not only did it seem Trump said everything wrong, but he frequently did everything wrong. Seldom did he say he was sorry but heart-felt apologies were ridiculous. It was obvious that no one believed Trump’s sincerity; they learned later that Trump had done or said something else which was more grossly offensive. And in the end everyone wondered, with the same question: How could this man have become president?

There are two reasons why Americans excused Trump’s language and behavior. In the current culture in words and action, a lot of Trump’s words and actions, are heard and seen everywhere, not just locker rooms. There is an acceptance of them uttering and sensing, hearing and sometimes experiencing. But do people actually engage in those actions, outside of TV? Most Americans don’t like to realize that someone might actually do gross, rude, obscene and criminal acts. Those words and phrases are part of the general vocabulary, confronting people every day. When saying a woman bleeds from her eyes “or wherever,” there has to be Halloween costumes worse than that; there may be more costumes among “undead outfits.” Movies and TV are worse. I’ve seen characters (players) that have no skin – it’s just blood.

The background drumbeat of words, once shocking, are now incorporated into the vernacular as verbalizations or major restatements of society. There is no refinement. It is a greater denigration leading to decadence. Early in life Americans are subject to the torments of personal abuse. Before puberty some girls are being destroyed; some are called sluts by classmates. They are critiqued by body size, brain size (head shape I suppose) and bra size. Many of those comments has been present throughout the post-elementary school experience. Words will be said. Now any infraction raises the cry, bully. Not every statement is one of a bully; the heart and soul of the speaker may not be in it. But no one knows, and Americans must learn that not every one went to the Ivy League and has manners, and took speaking lessons, mastering something George Orwell called newspeak.

Words, meanings and insinuations do carry too far. Being vulgar, boorish, uncouth is not penalized now. Being loud, aggressive and ignorant is accepted. Gentleness, understanding and diplomacy are weaknesses. Firmness, responsibility and social obligations (once known as public virtue) are obsolete. Fact, reason, wisdom and judgment are eschewed. Displays of emotions and drama entertain but fail to substitute for politics – policies, legislation and putting words into action. During the election of 2016 that is what Americans saw, and that is the choice they had:
When people want to give Trump a chance or they claim Trump wasn’t truly elected, it is on these points, his manner of appealing as an entertainer, making emotional appeals and producing phony dramas. That way forward should unsettle all Americans. In our politics we have learned to take concrete steps into the future.

It is unlikely Trump will differ much from Obama. During its beginning months, a sentence of policy emerged from Obama: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is not clear that Trump will abandon his campaigning ways (anymore than Obama did). Americans seem stuck with what is presented to us in a semantic conundrum: “Versions are released for the people from above and can be altered the very next day. There is no reliable criterion of truth apart from what is the declared truth at any moment. Thus, the lie in fact, becomes the truth, or at any rate the distinction between the truth and lies, in the ordinary sense of the words, disappears. This is a great triumph … in the sphere of knowledge: to the extent that it succeeds in demolishing the notion of truth, it cannot be accused of lying.” Volkogonov, Dmitri, Autopsy for an Empire, The Free Press, N.Y. 1998, p. 393.

If I were in the Democratic Party camp and had money, I would spend on facts, reason, judgment and wisdom. I would fund legal research on one issue within the English speaking world: Conflicts of Interest. A couple of thousand law review articles written by summer’s end should provide enough of a foundation. If these facts within Trump’s administration might already present themselves; the Democrats must be totally prepared: Dump a thousand cases on Trump and the Republicans showing a conflict of interest. When the next conflict of interest arises, dump another thousand cases.

Trump owns a so-called luxury hotel in Washington DC. Should any department or agency of the United States government patronize that hotel while Trump is in the Presidency? No. Why? Conflicts of Interest. Democrats should keep a list of who uses that hotel, and what favors and meeting those people get from the Trump administration. And journalists, always short on research and shorter on leg work, will have to be ready. Will anyone step up and review actions of Trump’s actions as he tries to be President and run his businesses. Some of that research should have been done during the 2016 campaign. Trump will claim Executive Privilege, and the Democrats following Obama’s lead should agree, believe nothing should be investigated. Democrats approved of Obama’s claiming Executive Privilege went beyond his person and the White House staff; entire agencies and Departments fell under Executive Privilege protections.

Perhaps, the Democrats should insist a special prosecutor be appointed. Oddly enough, a special prosecutor was the same action Republicans proposed to investigate issues among Democrats. Obama, and the Democrats refused. If Americans want to return to fact, reason, judgment and wisdom, they must start in a place where those traits are prized and used. Otherwise, the country will receive no solace for four years: Language will become more intemperate and more demeaning with Ivy League newspeak, or schoolyard trash-talk.