He is NOT My President.

I can grudgingly accept a President who is a little dim-witted. I will reluctantly call a sly liar my President. I will even uneagerly address a dogmatic fool as my President or Mr. President.

Donald is not my President.

I reject a classless, ignorant, tyrannical fool as my President. Attacking people personally from the bully pulpit is beneath the Oval Office and denigrates the dignity of our country. Taunting people does nothing but destroy the civility of discourse.

America needs to step up to the plate and send a message, that Donald does not represent our values.

IMPEACH DONALD NOW

Donald Doesn't Understand SCOTUS' Ruling on His Travel Ban (and Neither Do Many Journalists)

Donald claimed in a tweet that SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of his travel ban. That's untrue.

They ruled Per Curiam to grant certiorari -- meaning they will formally take on the case -- and preliminarily maintained the portion of the injunction that would continue to grant relief to those who'd previously held standing in their respective cases (and others in a similar position).

Since it was a Per Curiam decision, no one actually knows whether it was 5-4 or 9-0. Of course, Donald got the details wrong; he doesn't understand and doesn't care about the details. (The dumbest person, ever, to occupy the White House.)

What we do know is that three -- Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito -- justices separately stated that they would have allowed the entire ban to move forward. This possibly points to the Court eventually ruling 6-3 against some portion of Donald's EO.

Taken in its truest form, SCOTUS just rebuked Donald's (and Ted Cruz's, BTW) argument that SCOTUS cannot review his decisions under §212(f) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. By allowing people who have "bona fide" ties to US relatives or entities, SCOTUS has both reviewed and preliminarily adjudicated Donald's EO.

Additionally, by allowing the 4th Circuit's injunction to partially remain, SCOTUS has preliminarily knocked down POTUS' argument against standing in that case. If SCOTUS had concluded that the petitioner in the 4th Circuit did not have standing, the 90-day ban would have been reinstated in its entirety.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that this is an issue of the principles of freedom, not of practicalities of defense. Let's take 1944's SCOTUS decision in Korematsu v. United States.

At the very least, one can reasonably ascribe the SCOTUS deferment of the internment of Japanese-Americans to the practicalities of defense of the nation, owing to the fact that the United States was in the middle of a war against Japan, with American blood spilled on December 7, 1941. It wasn't the right and moral decision, but it could be reasonably attributed to the practicalities of defense in a war with Japan.

This is not true of 2017.

We are not "at war" with the six countries (Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Iran) in Donald's EO. Even if you believe that the US is at war with Muslim extremists, those six countries are not protectorates of extremism; that's just where opportunistic extremists have flocked to, to fight a war between religious ideologies. Five of those countries are engaged in a civil war of sorts, of which, the majority of combatants are foreigners. Those fighters in Syria come from all over the world. What good does it do to block Syrian nationals from entering the United States when a hardened extremist from France, upon returning from Syria, books a suicide flight to the US? Or Australia? Or Belgium? Or Pakistan? Or China? Or Russia? Or Saudi Arabia?

If the basis of the EO is fear of Muslim extremists, we have to question the rationality of the practicalities of defense -- which is at the heart of 1952 INA §212(f). As such, SCOTUS has every right to intervene and judge the merits of the EO, even blocking it, on the basis of the principles of freedom.

#RESIST

I saved some Oregon Ducks.

No, not that kind of Oregon Ducks. I'm talking Mallard ducklings.

The other day I'd spotted a family of newly hatched ducklings and their mother enjoying the world that is known as the Tanner Springs Park. So cute.

This morning I was catching some Pokemon while looking for the ducklings. I heard duck sounds and thought it'd be the perfect video to take. I started taking the video when I suddenly realized what was going on: Two ducklings were stuck in the metal grates, with their heads poking out. Both the ducklings and momma were panicking. The video cuts off to the bottom left because that's when I stopped filming and tied the dog to the handrail so that I could help these ducklings.

There was no possibility that I wasn't going to help them out. There are a couple of cats who roam the streets in the Pearl. Also, there are many bully birds out there. Years ago I mentioned that I'd saved a dove from being cornered and bullied by a bunch of pigeons and a crow not too far from Tanner Springs Park. Bottom line: I was going to save those ducklings.

It took me a good five minutes. First, I thought maybe I could lift the grates up just enough for them to crawl out. Impossible. They were welded down. I then tried to gently pull them out, but their necks are a lot smaller than their rear ends. I then tried to slide them sideways to the closest end that appeared to have a wider opening, but that crack was still too small for their rear ends. Finally, I gently nudged them to go back down and coaxed them with my finger to go back out the way they first entered the slotted space.

Momma duck didn't stop crying until the second duckling was freed and both ducklings had stopped crying. So adorable. So soft, too. Soft as a puppy's head.

What an awesome way to start the week, right?

Let's Talk About Poop

A random thread ran through my mind today: Poop can be classified into six distinct categories.

• Liquid -- It's like you're peeing but out of the wrong exit. Yes, it was something you ate.
• Slurry -- Otherwise known as the big "D", distinguished by the failure of the slump test. 
• Soft serve -- It's thicker than a slurry so it holds up in the slump test. Seemingly endless but cut off because you grew tired of waiting.
• Solid -- The scale can vary between a pickling cucumber or a banana, but it's the solidified version of the soft serve.
• Clumpy -- It vaguely looks like a solid, but is actually made up of clumps.
• Pellets -- Aside from nothingness, it's the least satisfying result for a constipated person. Instead of a clumpy solid, it's one or two pellets. Cut back on the carbonated drink and you'll possibly move from pellets to clumpy.

This is what happens when you have an active, curious mind with a warped sense of humor. 

Seeing as Donald tweets frequently from his golden seat, I'm guessing that he's a clumpy and pellets person, in no small part because of his penchant for carbonated fluids.

That Wave Really is Coming

So it actually didn't take up a lot of time to compile the list of Republicans in the House (because I found a Google spreadsheet that Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report had created and provided public access to) who are vulnerable, based on the current magic number, 56.7%. That number is the 2016 win% of a given GOP representative that, given Donald's current popularity% with GOP, would make those Republicans vulnerable.

Okay, maybe you think I'm crazy. Well, the average and median change in vote gap between 2016 and 2017 elections is 17.7pp and 18.5pp respectively. Every one of the people in the list below had a lower win% gap.

There are 38 Republicans who fit the description. From most vulnerable to least, here they are:

1. New York-22 Claudia Tenney
2. Minnesota-2 Jason Lewis
3. Texas-23 Will Hurd
4. Alabama-2 Martha Roby
5. Nebraska-2 Don Bacon
6. California-49 Darrell Issa
7. Alaska-AL Don Young
8. Colorado-6 Mike Coffman
9. Kansas-3 Kevin Yoder
10. California-10 Jeff Denham
11. Virginia-10 Barbara Comstock
12. Michigan-11 Dave Trott
13. Florida-26 Carlos Curbelo
14. California-25 Steve Knight
15. Iowa-3 David Young 
16. Florida-18 Brian Mast
17. Iowa-1 Rod Blum
18. Pennsylvania-16 Lloyd Smucker
19. Utah-4 Mia Love
20. New York-19 John Faso
21. New Jersey-7 Leonard Lance
22. Indiana-9 Trey Hollingsworth
23. Illinois-12 Mike Bost
24. Pennsylvania-8 Brian Fitzpatrick
25. Colorado-3 Scott Tipton
26. Maine-2 Bruce Poliquin
27. Florida-27 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
28. Michigan-1 Jack Bergman
29. Michigan-7 Tim Walberg
30. Michigan-8 Mike Bishop
31. North Carolina-13 Ted Budd
32. Texas-7 John Culberson
33. Texas-24 Kenny Marchant
34. Montana-AL Ryan Zinke *
35. Florida-3 Ted Yoho
36. Minnesota-3 Erik Paulsen
37. North Carolina-2 George Holding
38. California-21 David Valadao

Now go out and target these folks with solid Democratic candidates for the midterms.

* -- I kept Ryan Zinke in there as a gauge. I think Greg Gianforte overperformed, so I think the true target list doesn't end at Zinke. Having said that, even if this is a poor assumption and Zinke is the cutoff, there are more than enough Republican seats above him to take back the House.

That Wave is Coming

Tonight, Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff in the Georgia 6th District special election. People are deflated on the left while the right is ecstatic. But everyone is missing the real nature of what's going on.

Sure, a win would have been spectacular, but you shouldn't pay attention to wins because these are solid red seats in solid red states, or at least they were supposed to be. Remember, Republicans control these state legislatures so they control redistricting, ensuring that these seats are solidly red by splitting apart concentrations of blue voters. The numbers show a completely different story than the one the news media and politicians are saying.

Let me explain it in a graph and a table, the trend that people are not understanding.

It's always going to be difficult to flip Republicans who remain loyal to the party over the direction of the country, which means that the reddest seats in the reddest states are not so easy to flip. If we multiply Donald's GOP support rate by the 2016 vote numbers in the 2017 special elections, the outcomes are very closely matching the expectations.

	2016 Vote	2017 Vote	DT's GOP Approval #	Predicted	Expected v Actual
Kansas 4th - Mike Pompeo	60.70%	52.50%	90%	54.63%	-2.13%
Montana At-large - Ryan Zinke	56.20%	50.20%	88%	49.46%	0.74%
Georgia 6th - Tom Price	61.70%	51.90%	88%	54.30%	-2.40%
South Carolina 5th - Mick Mulvaney	59.20%	51.10%	88%	52.10%	-1.00%

See the expected(projected) versus actual number? The one race where the Democrat technically underperformed was in Montana's at-large race. Democrats have actually outperformed expectations.

Democrats poured money into Georgia's 6th but mostly ignored South Carolina's 5th but that one was even narrower! But here's the real kick in the pants chart.

While everyone's focused on these red seats in red states, apparently everyone's forgotten about the dozens of purple seats in purple and blue states.

For instance, if midterms were actually held today with Donald's GOP support at 88%, every House GOP who had won their 2016 election by 56.7% (= 49.9% / 88%) or lower is truly vulnerable. That means Darrell Issa (50.3%) is going to lose. Were I willing to spend hours tabulating the numbers, I could provide a definitive number of truly vulnerable seats. I don't have that much time to spend.

Imagine what happens when multiple people surrounding Donald are indicted, or worse, the independent counsel's report recommends that Donald be prosecuted for Obstruction? His GOP support will drop. Each small drop means the wave election gets bigger.

So you see, there is a wave election coming and it's going to be massive -- you just need to be patient and diligent.

About Donald's Approval Rating

Over the weekend Donald tweeted Rasmussen's daily presidential job approval rating tracking number because it hit 50%. Sadly for him, today it dropped back down below 50%. But this episode prompted a thought about what level his approval number needed to reach before Republicans acted against him, whether through impeachment or disassociation.

What if Donald's support from Republicans dropped to 50%? 50% is not an arbitrary number; it marks the point where the reddest of districts of the reddest of states are split evenly.

Using SurveyMonkey's most recent polling data, 88% of Republicans currently approve of Donald. At a Republican approval rate of 50% -- assuming all other groups (Democrats, Independents, unaffiliated) remained at the current levels -- the overall approval rating would drop to 32%.

At a Republican approval rate of 50% -- assuming all other groups dropped support at the same rate as Republicans -- the overall approval rating would drop to 25%.

If it matters to anyone, here are the basic algebraic equations for both numbers (FTR, I never cared much about math in high school):

Basic equation: (R*RCA)+(D*DCA)+(I*ICA)+(X*XCA)=100*AA 

AA -- All adults approval rate (43%)
R -- percent of Republicans in poll (28%)
D -- percent of Democrats in poll (31%)
I -- percent of Independents in poll (36%)
X -- percent of unaffiliated (5%) 

RCA -- Republican current approval rate (88%)
DCA -- Democratic current approval rate (10%)
ICA -- Independent current approval rate (39%)
XCA -- Unaffiliated extrapolated current approval rate (solve for XCA in the formula above) 

RUA -- Republican updated approval rate (50%)
TDR -- Total Decline Rate = (RUA/RCA)  

Equation for first #: (R*RUA)+(D*DCA)+(I*ICA)+(X*XCA)=100*AA

Equation for second #: (R*RUA)+(D*TDR*DCA)+(I*TDR*ICA)+(X*TDR*XCA)=100*AA

In the worst-case scenario, we'd have to wait until his approval rating dropped to 25% before Republicans acted on Donald's presidency with a sense of urgency.

But in reality, that's not the real target, Long before we hit that 50% GOP approval number, a whole lot of Republicans in purplish districts and states will have been overwhelmed by Donald's disapproval numbers.

Having said all that, I tend to think the opposite way; I think the disapproval number matters more. Lower approval numbers signal disinterest whereas higher disapproval numbers signal anger. Remember, they track three points: approval, disapproval, no opinion/no response/unsure.

If 2/3rds of the country disapproves of Donald, regardless of party, that points to a massive wave election is coming.

Thought Series: 2016 Election + Game Theory

For lack of a better phrase, I'm calling this my Thought Series. In keeping with my newly minted goal of documenting past and present ideas, this one comes from last November. It's more of an observation but it also applies forward. Initially, I had fleshed it out and documented it elsewhere, on November 30, 2016.

The 2016 Election Outcome Was an Accidental Game Theory

I'm sure that this idea is not new and that others have probably considered it by now, if not implemented it, but I haven't yet read anything about it. The fact that no one has claimed credit for the tactic implies that it was an accidental tactic.

Remember, he lost the popular vote by nearly 3M. His win was in the margins of the precincts of toss-up states and one where we can distill down to a two-person game theory.

In a simple, 2-person game you have two candidates vying for two groups of voting precincts.

If each visits only their favorable precincts to shore up voter enthusiasm, the winner is the person who already had a lead.

If both visit the other candidate's favorable precincts, the peel-off rate (voters who'd changed sides) would likely be the same (or similar)*, thus the winner is the person who already had a lead.

But what if one candidate chooses to visit both favorable and unfavorable precincts while the other candidate stuck to visiting favorable candidates? The candidate who visited both precincts would gain an advantage, and if he/she is the one who is behind, he/she now makes the race competitive.

That's basically what happened. Donald visited both types of precincts while Hillary mostly stuck to friendly ones under the goal of shoring up her support. Confident of a win, some of her supporters chose to not vote.

Was Donald's team conscious of this, or was this an unwitting choice? Like I said, I haven't read anyone talking about it, so I'm inclined to believe that it was dumb luck and not an active, informed choice. Plus, it feeds into Donald's narcissistic personality -- the need to be liked by everyone and the focus of all attention. Hillary has always been a guarded candidate, and likewise, her choice to stick with friendlier precincts feeds into that.

Having said that, going forward this is a prudent strategy.


* -- Partisanship -- how far you're willing to vote with your party -- has been growing on both sides. This particular study and graph -- https://goo.gl/Ry1NGC and https://goo.gl/Tm3hTi -- highlight this point. The peel-off rate should be roughly the same.

Playing Catch-Up

This post is about me. Thus, feel free to ignore it, my feelings won't be hurt.

When I was young I used to harbor the simple goal that one might call the American Dream, which was to succeed financially and have a family with 2.5 children.*

By the time I was about to turn 30, I realized that my true dream was quite different than my initial, fake goals in life. Instead, my life-long dream was to learn and synthesize. This may not sound mentally sound, but being a beach bum wasn't such a bad idea if it gave me the time I needed to think.

You see, when you're a thinker, you see the future. That is, you're able to synthesize the knowledge you've absorbed to produce ideas that eventually come to fruition.

I'm always thinking. I fall asleep thinking. I wake up thinking. I think while eating. I'm always asking the question, "What if?"

In part, this blog was meant to document some of those thoughts.

I'm going to start posting some past and current ideas, and their disposition, as a means of documenting these thoughts better. I'm catching up to what's in my head, in other words.

Rosenstein's Statement on Leaks -- Is it a Trap?

Earlier tonight, images were popping up everywhere of a bizarre statement released by DAG Rod Rosenstein, seemingly unprompted. It has left many to believe that someone will post an explosive story very soon. It could also be in reference to this BuzzFeed series of stories looking into Russian assassinations in Britain.

The highest probability is that an explosive leak just occurred and a story has been written and offered up to Rosenstein for comment. This one makes a lot of sense because damaging leaks seem to occur right after Donald vents with unsubstantiated allegations.

But what if it was a mole hunt? What if Rosenstein sent these out to track the paths of their dissemination to see how those paths worked? What if Russian hackers spoofed DAG and sent them out as a PDF, and people unwittingly opened them, quietly unleashing a previously unknown Trojan?

It's hard to tell if it's a trap without knowing more of what was actually received by journalists -- note that Justice's website and DAG have not officially posted any such statement on the DOJ's website. But there are six different image posts of the text that people have so far posted, each of them with verbatim matching statements but they're all slightly stylistically different. There are innocent reasons why this might naturally occur, but without access to the original files, one can't say for sure if the reason for the discrepancy is innocent or deliberate.

See for yourself:

5 Thoughts on Donald and Obstruction

Today is a rough day to be talking about politics, given that the morning started off with a targeted shooting attack on Republicans at a softball practice in Virginia. Nonetheless, the Washington Post put up a story reporting that Donald is under a criminal investigation regarding obstruction of justice stemming from the firing of James Comey. Here are five thoughts on this:

1. You Knew it Was Coming: Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, it was inevitable, given Donald's own remarks to Lester Holt when he dropped all pretense about his actions, stating clearly that it was all about Russia. The deal was probably sealed when it was leaked that Donald told the Russians explicitly that he'd gotten rid of his problem, James Comey.
2. Wait For the Attack: Donald is predictable. Despite his claims to having an unpredictable nature, Donald is rather predictable. One of his most easily discernible traits is his undeniable desire to hit back whenever he is hit by bad news. Right about now, his lawyers, whether personal or WH counsel, are pleading with him to stop talking and stop tweeting about this entire subject. But if you wait long enough for it, eventually, Donald will give in to his need to hit back.
3. Wait For the Return Attack: It is very close to open warfare between Donald and the rest of government. For every attack Donald makes, there is an equal but opposite attack in the form of a damaging leak, as noted by Axios.
4. First Constitutional Crisis: Nixon was desperate, but Donald might be crazy...crazy like a fox. The first constitutional crisis could come from a memo directly from Donald firing the special counsel. So what happens? The power of the DoJ to appoint and fire the special counsel rests within the Code of Federal Regulations, not the US Code. There is, literally, no penalty prescribed, if POTUS attempts to directly fire the special counsel. Donald's personal lawyer (Jay Sekulow) hinted at the possibility of what could be coming when he claimed the president was a "unitary executive", meaning, that POTUS holds all power to fire anyone serving within the Executive branch, meaning DoJ in this case. Will SCOTUS constrict the White House with implied limits within the US Constitution?
5. Second Constitutional Crisis: If Donald loses to SCOTUS in the first scenario, he still has at least one more tactic. Imagine the scenario where Donald challenges the DoJ to drop the investigation by firing everyone in the chain of command who refuses to fire special counsel Mueller until he finds someone to do his bidding. Now, SCOTUS will be forced again to make a political ruling in the separation of powers. Will they further limit the White House's powers? Not likely. In this case, they would probably point to Congress' power of impeachment as the proper balance. A subplot exists if Donald openly entices Republican senators to vote against a conviction, thereby forcing double jeopardy into the discussion and a third possible constitutional crisis. If you think this is an improbable outcome, remember that Donald's win was uniquely improbable.

Jeff Sessions, Weasel

"I don't recall that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at this moment."

Once a weasel, always a weasel. Jeff Sessions was hilariously evasive and qualified every response with a lengthy excuse, but none was more ridiculous than that statement above; it wasn't just a pregnant pause, it was a pregnant, gave birth, had a second pregnant pause.

Sessions was so evasive, it took an hour until he finally explained his reason why he wasn't answering some questions over conversations with Donald: He was preempting possibly embarrassing answers by predicting which ones Donald would have wanted to assert Executive Privilege, even though he hadn't done so, yet.

This is the Attorney General of the US. Weasel.

Think about how rotten the White House has become, that the highest justice official in the United States is a willing weasel whose job is no longer serving the American people and protecting the US Constitution, but one of serving and protecting Donald.

A Re-Enactment of Donald's First "The Cabinet" Meeting

  😙😙😙😙
😙😙😙😙😙
😙😙🍊😙😙
😙😙😙😙😙
  😙😙😙😙

5 Thoughts for June 13, 2017

1. Christopher Ruddy: You should watch NewsMax's Christopher Ruddy's interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS NewsHour. Unlike Sebastian Gorka, he doesn't immediately come off as a jerk. Nonetheless, he's obviously spinning through the generous use of hypocrisy. Ruddy's a better communicator than Sean Spicer, too. Yet, he offered up the suggestion that Donald was considering firing Robert Mueller.
2. Least-Worst Choice: Most people will make a simple risk assessment between choices and select the least-worst choice. If that's the case with Donald, then his latest apparent tactic to go after special counsel Robert Mueller seems to highlight just how large the skeletons must be in Donald's closet. As he embraces authoritarian actions, his deepest support -- those who strongly support Donald -- erodes.
3. Russia: Have you seen the anti-corruption demonstrations in Russia? In Russia, Putin has absolute control and 80% approval numbers, but if you watch the size and breadth of protests, it's difficult to reconcile the disparities between the protests and Putin's popularity. Will they continue to grow? For the time being, it seems that the harder they push down on opposition leader Alexei Navalny, the bigger the protests.
4. Donald's Losses Piling Up: Inside, Donald must be burning up with anger. Once again, the 9th Circuit Appeals upheld (this time, unanimously) the suspension of the 90-day travel ban. This comes a week after the 4th Circuit also upheld the suspension of the 120-day ban on refugees. I don't see why SCOTUS would want to take on the ban when two separate courts have ruled to suspend the ban.
5. Donald's Cabinet Meeting: I didn't have the chance to comment on it earlier, but I happened to watch it and it was anything but normal. It was one-third eye-rolling, one-third cringing, and one-third ROTFLOL. He began the meeting by speaking for 15 minutes talking about himself, making all sorts of weird assertions. That was followed up with a round table of praises from his cabinet, starting from opposite of his seat going clockwise. I've never seen a room full of adults embarrass themselves so thoroughly. I strongly urge the mocking of his cabinet, asking them individually, "Did you run out of ChapStick from all that ass-kissing?"

5 Thoughts for June 11, 2017

1. Easy Hostage: Donald fancies himself a top-rate negotiator, yet all it took to get him to pledge to testify under oath was to challenge his truthfulness. It's almost embarrassing, how easy it is to nudge him into putting himself into a corner. Now, if he tries to back out he will be mocked mercilessly for cowardice, and any attempts to pull back from his public statements through weasel phrases ("I don't recall", "that's not how I remember it", etc.) will be met with accusations of further lies and a further eroding of trust.
2. Cleveland - Golden State: I haven't paid attention to the NBA ever since most of the games (including playoffs) were moved to cable. This year, apparently, something exceptional occurred. The two finalists, combined, had just one defeat in the playoffs. They just blew past the competition this year and that's never happened before in the history of the NBA. Even in the best of the Lakers - Celtics years, they never both blew past the competition. That's the culmination of a 3-year rivalry where the two were a combined 72 - 13 in the playoffs, headed into the finals. This is a historically epic reign of two powerhouses set far apart from the rest of the field.
3. It's NOT He-Said/He-Said: A lot of people, particularly those in the news media, have called Comey v Donald as though it's a he-said/he-said thing. It's not correct. Comey is on record, under oath. He willingly placed himself in jeopardy of criminal prosecution. Donald extemporaneously committed to testifying under oath yesterday, but until he actually does so, the value of his statements is worth a lot less than Comey's.
4. Leaks: Not all leaks are illegal. In fact, the only illegal leaks are those of classified information. If such leaks were illegal, the entire White House would be in legal jeopardy right now, including Donald himself. Imagine, how did word leak out about the leakers who were expected to be fired? Unclassified leaks can result in termination of employment or other punitive measures, but they're rules-based, not law-based restrictions. If James Comey broke an FBI rule by releasing his memo without prior authorization, it's not like he can be fired. I said the same thing about Hillary's breaking of the rules regarding her casual setup of a personal email server.
5. The Tapes Don't Exist: I'm sure most people already suspect it, but I'll just say it: Donald does not have tapes of his conversations with Comey. Donald's simple strategy -- one that he's used for most of his life -- is predicated on creating a false image of leverage. However, by suggesting that there might be tapes, he's trapped himself; he's facing the possibility of being exposed -- yet again -- as a liar, but also opened the door to demand that an investigation looks into whether or not he deleted his tapes. I'm especially relishing the possibility of seeing that door open up and watching another Donald meltdown.

Donald's Administration is Invisible

Think about it. This week was supposed to be a big "infrastructure" week. All that anyone remembers about his "infrastructure" week is that Donald held a lavish press conference and signing ceremony for a letter he sent to Congress. Contrary to their plans, the administration just melted into the background.

It was James Comey's notes and testimony to Congress that has dominated the entire week and for good reason.

18 USC § 1512  

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 Those tapes, if they exist, altered or otherwise destroyed, would be a violation of the first section of subsection (c). Otherwise, Donald will be forced to hand them over or admit that they never existed.

By threatening Comey with tapes, Donald may have already violated the second section of subsection (c).

By asking Comey to let the investigation go, and then by asking others to intervene on his behalf with Comey to get him to drop the investigation on Flynn, Donald would have violated the second section of subsection (c).

It's not difficult to see that there are multiple charges that can be applied to Donald's actions. Can they get him on more? This is an undisciplined guy we're talking about; the longer this carries on, the more opportunities there will be for Donald to screw up royally.

But in the meantime, the problem is that Donald has no serious bills up for votes. The earliest a Senate ACA repeal bill will come up for a vote is July, if at all. No one knows when a tax bill will come up for a vote in the House. They don't have a single infrastructure bill. Sometime before the end of summer, we may hit the debt ceiling, and then there's the end of the fiscal year.

Without real stuff to talk about, of course, the media's going to focus on Russia and Donald's ties to those with problems stemming from Russia.

Thoughts on Rogers, Rosenstein, and Coats.

Sounds like a law firm or a musical production collaboration.

So, what's the deal with the lack of openness in the testimonies of Mike Rogers, Rod Rosenstein, and Dan Coats? They frustrated just about everyone in their testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Political

The first inclination is to point to political issues, particularly because Dan Coats' previous job was as a Republican Senator from Indiana. But being politically-motivated will only get these three men into more trouble, first, by destroying the independence of their respective institutions, and secondly, by losing the support of their own staff. As a measurement of what it means to act in a political manner, look at Devin Nunes' actions then contrast that to Rogers, Rosenstein, and Coats.

Job Security

The next inclination is to highlight Donald's loyalty oath requirement that had been pressed against James Comey -- it's not implausible to believe that to maintain job security a person would be willing to sell their soul. But as we saw with Rod Rosenstein's willingness to resign, it appears these three individuals are not willing to sell their souls for the sake of their jobs. I'd especially find it hard to believe that Admiral Mike Rogers would sweat a drop over job security, given that he's got far more doors open to him than most.

Legal Full Stop

Executive privilege has been openly thrown into the forum as a reason why they shouldn't be talking about private conversations with Donald. That's generally bunk. Executive privilege has to be asserted -- it has not -- for it to cause a full stop on the testimony of private conversations, but anyway, the Starr Whitewater investigation showed that executive privilege has its limits. Offering up the excuse of executive privilege is a diversion. Yet, a highly risk-averse person always yields on the side of caution.

Undesirable Spotlight

I think the most credible theory of what's going on, is that these three men are used to operating out of the spotlight, and wish to stay out of it as much as possible. I think this is the most credible because it is completely human nature to do this. By keeping private their conversations with Donald, they have greater room to operate without being in the spotlight. Of course, sticking your head in the ground does not change what's going on around you. My dog likes to do that all the time -- if he can't see it, it's not reality.

De Minimis

Often, there is a desire to interpret any given action as de minimis violations. We, not just these three men, do it all the time; we call it "giving the benefit of the doubt". You could see that in James Comey's recently released opening statements, and under normal circumstances you would tend to give the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, especially if the actions of POTUS could be misinterpreted as illegal. The problem is, by making such prejudgments, they're the arbiters of facts, not the American People. These conversations are not "classified" or otherwise protected. Yet, it's not necessarily clear that this is their intention. For instance, they wouldn't withhold their testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which brings me to the final point...

It's a Trap!

Let's say that you're Robert Mueller and you want to preserve the viability of your investigation. You already know all of the potential criminal violations and the last thing you'd want to do is to have potential witnesses provide a public heads-up into possible criminal violations. By allowing Coats, Rogers and Rosenstein to play it as either an executive privilege or de minimis issue, you're misdirecting Donald into assuming that he's in the clear. You generally see this approach with the FBI, letting out very little information about a criminal investigation so as to catch their unsuspecting prey. Mueller is a former director of the FBI, so it's entirely possible that this is what he's doing. From what we keep hearing, this entire criminal investigation is much larger and wider than what the details that have been made public might lead us to presume.

So Which Is It?

By rank, I think the most likely explanation is the Undesirable Spotlight followed by It's a Trap. The least likely are Job Security and Political. 

How Dumb Can Donald Be?

This morning may go down as the day that Donald earned his stripes as the dumbest President, ever, in the history of the United States.

Sure, months ago we already knew that he was the dumbest President, ever, but today is an especially cringe-worthy (or ROTFL) moment worthy of high honor in the halls of stupidity. Let's count the ways of stupid, shall we?

1. He just told SCOTUS that his EO is moot as he's already established his "extreme vetting".
2. He actually thinks that the EO he rescinded can be restored by asking the DoJ to bring it up in front of SCOTUS for review.
3. In any event, he explained to us, contrary to what the DoJ argued, that revisions to his initial EO was not about its ability to pass muster with the US Constitution, but to meet political correctness, in which case it remains just as unconstitutional as the original EO.
4. He just confirmed what he previously lied about, that his EO is a travel ban.

ROTFL -- what a great way to start the week!

Playing Pokemon Go

This is just a simple post about my experiences so far, playing Pokemon Go.

I started playing the game back on November 14th of last year. It wasn't ever on my radar of games that I wanted to play, but I got coaxed into playing. For a total of four weeks in December and January, I couldn't log in so I had effectively stopped playing for roughly a month. Add onto that the fact that it's next to impossible to play in the rain, I was slowed down and was already four months behind others who'd started the day the game went live.

I know that people spend lots of money on the game, and by lots, I mean some folks higher than me have spent hundreds of dollars to get where they are. Then there are the cheaters who've used various tools to track the rare Pokemon monsters, etc. I represent none of those people. I'm just a person who assiduously plays the game. I haven't put a dime into the game and I don't cheat.

Though I'm roughly 5 months behind others, I'm already well into level 30. I've figured out that I can speed up my points if I just walk by myself for the sole purpose of playing the game. Up to now, I've almost entirely played while just walking the dog or going to the grocery store five blocks away.

Here's the one thing that helps the most: Living right next to a pokestop. I just sit here by my computer while working, watching a movie, etc., and every few minutes spin the pokestop wheel and top off my bag of items. Right now I have 244 Ultra Balls, most of them coming from just sitting around and spinning then tossing the excess items I don't use often.

Here's the second thing that helps the most: Living in downtown means that I can walk down the street for just a 1/4 mile and I'll hit a dozen monsters. There are certain spots where multiple pokestops means multiple monsters. One favorite cross street is NW 10th and NW Davis. Knowing where these stops are helps to speed up your point gains.

Here's the third thing that helps out the most: Don't pooh-pooh the Pidgey, Caterpie and Weedle. These three only require 12 candies to evolve and every time you evolve one you gain 500XP. If you use a Pinap to catch each one of them, you've basically set yourself up to gain an extra 500XP for every two Pidgeys, Caterpies and Wheedles you catch. Of course, you need to balance this with saving your candies for a future Pokemon event where you can earn double XP (as they did during Easter week).

Finally, once you've figured out where the monsters spawn and where the pokestops are, you can save your battery by turning your phone off in-between those spots. It's also one of my favorite tricks to kickstart the GPS whenever the game stalls and has me stuck a block away from where I'm actually at.

At my current pace, it'll take me another 2 years(!) to reach level 40. We'll see. I'm certain that I'll be able to speed up that process by 30~40% if I make certain changes in my tactics and methods. Right now, the minimum expectation is that I'll hit level 31 by the end of June, but I'm targeting 2 weeks.

BLS Jobs Report for May 2017 is Out

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment situation report comes out on the first Friday of every month. Most everyone else will read the first paragraph and skip over the rest of the report, whereas I read the first and last paragraphs in the report. The last paragraph lists the job creation revisions of the past two months, meaning that every month is revised twice before the final number is settled on.

This is what the past three months look like:

March: 98,000 --> 79,000 --> 50,000
April: 211,000 --> 174,000
May: 138,000

One year ago, WSJ asked economists what the break-even employment number -- the number of jobs created each month to keep up with population growth -- should be, and the magic number was 145,000.

If we apply the break-even employment number to the actual employment number, we get this:

March: -95,000
April: 29,000
May: -7,000

Under Donald's administration, job growth is not keeping up with population growth -- a frequent complaint from the right during the Obama Administration.

As previously noted, the current business cycle (trough to peak) is the longest on record, and we continue to move closer to full employment. Do you believe Donald and Republicans understand Economics?

I ask this because, if by some odd miracle Donald gets his tax cut plan enacted just as the economy shrinks, the debt and deficit will explode like nothing we've seen since WWII. With the economy in contraction and debt growing rapidly, Republicans will have to confront the choice between expanding the debt even further by Keynesian stimulus or adhere to the austerity dogma through spending cuts.

Running a government is not like running a business. Kansas has already taught us this lesson even if Sam Brownback refuses to learn it.