But What If?

Can’t you see aides coaching Trump like attorneys prepping a client before taking the witness stand.

“One person is too many.” Again, “One person is too many.” Again, “One person is too many.” Good, again, “One person is too many.”

  • But what if that one person is a DoNothing Democrat?
  • What if that one person happens to be an immigrant, say from a shithole country?
  • What if that one person was a prisoner of war?
  • What if that one person happens to be differently abled?
  • What if that one person is a journalist for CNN, MSNBC, the AP, or ABC news?
  •  What if that one person is African American and takes a knee during the National Anthem?
  • What if that one person is a Senator from Utah who voted for impeachment?
  • What if that one person used to be the President of the United States?
  • What if that one person is an actor who occasionally impersonates the President on Saturday Night Live?
  • What if that one person used to be the mayor of New York City or is currently?
  • What if that one person is the Governor of Washington State? or Michigan? Or Illinois? Or Maryland?
  • What if that one person is an environmentalist?
  • What if that one person is a late night television host?
  • What if that one person works at the State Department? or the Department of Justice?
  • What if that one person said #MeToo about the President?
  • What if that one person happened to be Hillary Clinton?

Even then?

 

 

In North Korea, The Fourth Man Could Be A Woman

Barbara Demrick in The New Yorker:

“The conventional wisdom is that a woman could never ascend to the leadership of North Korea, a country stuck in a time warp of passé fashions, hairdos, music, and social mores. A toxic mix of Confucianism and totalitarianism indentures women to their husbands, to their in-laws, and, ultimately, to a male-dominated regime. With a few exceptions (the best known being the vice foreign minister, Choe Son Hui), North Korea’s senior cadres are almost entirely male. The Supreme People’s Assembly—which currently has six hundred and eighty-seven members—is supposed to set aside twenty per cent of its seats for women, but the percentage has frequently dipped lower. And the primary function of these token deputies seems to be to brighten the optics, by wearing the jewel-toned, floor-length Korean gowns best known by the South Korean term hanbok. Since 1948, North Korea has been ruled by three men—the founder, his son, and his grandson—but, nevertheless, it is now conceivable that the fourth man will be a woman. That is because, with reports that Kim Jong Un is in failing health, the most obvious successor is his thirtysomething sister, Kim Yo Jong.”

And dig this:

“She was reportedly a favorite of her father, Kim Jong Il, who ruled from 1994 until his death, in 2011, and who, according to a former Russian official, Konstantin Pulikovsky, may have had a more enlightened attitude toward women than some of the North Korean élite. Pulikovsky, who travelled with Kim Jong Il by train and later wrote a memoir about the experience, told interviewers that the leader praised the intelligence of his daughter, while deriding his sons as ‘idle blockheads.'”

Despite being 36 years young, obscenely rich, and with access to world class medical care, Kim Jong Un is allegedly at risk of dying due to obesity, chain smoking and who knows what other vices. Dad’s assessment seems spot on, which begs the question, why didn’t he go with Kim Jo Young in the first place.

Most likely for two reasons. Too young and . . .

“‘North Korea is so outlandishly sexist, despite the fact that they are supposed to be a revolutionary society. When it comes to gender relations, it is like South Korea decades ago,’’ Katharine H. S. Moon, a political-science professor at Wellesley College who has written about gender issues in Korean politics, said. In fact, as Moon notes, women have not fared well in politics in South Korea, either, a nation that is routinely toward the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s list of developed countries’ rankings on gender equality. South Korea’s only female President, Park Geun-hye, was impeached in 2017, and is now in prison, serving twenty-five years for bribery, extortion, and abuse of power, which some maintain is harsher treatment than accorded men who committed comparable offenses.”

 

Coronavirus Paragraph to Ponder

Slate’s Rebecca Onion in “How Can Anyone Talk About “Opening Up America” When the Schools Are Still Closed?”

“‘The economy will not really ‘open up,’ and life will not really return to normal, as long as parents don’t have any place to send our children during the day,’ Farhad Manjoo wrote. . . on Wednesday. But our country has long engaged in magical thinking around child care. Witness the longtime shortage of good and affordable day care options, or the way the structures of the school day and the academic year leave households with parents who work full time scrambling for after-school and summertime care, year after year.”

We’re Here Because of Love

“She drives from the Danish side, in her Toyota Yaris. He cycles from the German side, on his electric bike. She brings the coffee and the table, he the chairs and the schnapps.

Then they sit down on either side of the border, a yard or two apart. And that is how two octogenarian lovers have kept their romance alive despite the closure of the border that falls between his home in the very north of Germany and hers in the very south of Denmark. Every day since the police shut the border to contain the virus, Karsten Tüchsen Hansen, an 89-year-old retired farmer, and Inga Rasmussen, an 85-year-old former caterer, have met at the Mollehusvej border crossing to chat, joke and drink, while maintaining a modicum of social distance.

‘We’re here because of love,’ said Mr. Tüchsen Hansen, when I visited them last week. ‘Love is the best thing in the world.'”

What a heartwarming love story.

My New Job

Head of public relations at Harvard University. Apparently, I would be far better than whomever is in that position right now. Harvard’s endowment is $41,000,000,000; despite that, they just received $8m from the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. And they’re keeping it.

Harvard said it would give all $8.6 million it received directly to students, despite being eligible to spend half that on its institutional costs related to the virus.

Thank you. That is truly going above and beyond.

Here’s the draft statement I’m working on for the press:

Dear America, $8m to us is like that nickel you found on the ground on this morning’s walk. Thank you for the offer, but we will pass, because we were absolutely loaded before the pandemic and we’ll be absolutely loaded afterwards. All the best, Harvard. #beatYale

Postscript: They’re giving it back. Who knew the humble blog had so much clout.

Coronavirus Paragraph to Ponder

A contributor to Vanguard’s Boglehead forum:

“I was laid off on Fri along with a group of colleagues by our newly hired CEO. A bunch of us – across different sites and disciplines – were asked to call in a number on a short notice. The call was a monologue by the CEO that if you’re on this call, your job is being terminated as of today. You’ll have email access until this evening if you want to send a goodbye email to colleagues. Now we will end this call. The call lasted 3 minutes. Last week in the town-hall we were assured our jobs are safe, and the company is going to make it through the tough times. They have had discussions with the investors, bankers and the board. It is supposed to be ’employment at will’, but also seems to be ‘lying at will’. Not being part of any insider clubs, I had to go by what I was told. Talked to two other colleagues that were let go – their first reaction without my prodding was management had lied to us.”

A church near us has an electronic marque. Today’s message, “Human kind. Be both.”

Pressing Pause

This blog was born out of a desire to step off the treadmill of life long enough to think about meaning and purpose in life.

Since our collective treadmill has been rendered inoperable by the coronavirus, we have an unprecedented opportunity to think more deeply about how to live.

But how do we do that when we’re like sedentary people trying to create exercise routines, how do we start being introspective and reflective, of thinking conceptually about what we want for ourselves, our neighbors, the world? How to reimagine our post-coronavirus lives?

One way is to rethink what’s most important. For example, many people are being more thankful for the non-materialistic joys in their lives, whether that’s a daily walk, deeper appreciation for nature, shared meals with family, or renewed conversations with lapsed friends. Similarly, many people are rethinking their consumer habits, realizing how little most material things adds to their lives. Many, of course, will have to spend less post-pandemic, others will choose to.

And yet, this isn’t such a golden opportunity to press pause or do much of anything for the 90.1% of people who are deeply worried about how they’ll meet their basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. Many, many people can’t get past the most basic of questions, “How will I/we meet our basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, medical care?”

As a member of the New American Aristocracy, I have the luxury of reinvigorating my inner life; meanwhile, hundreds of millions of poor, working class, and middle class people around the world wonder how they’ll feed, house, and cloth themselves without steady work that pays livable wages.

Gideon Litchfield, in an essay titled “Where not going back to normal,” points this out:

“As usual. . . the true cost will be borne by the poorest and weakest. People with less access to health care, or who live in more disease-prone areas, will now also be more frequently shut out of places and opportunities open to everyone else. Gig workers—from drivers to plumbers to freelance yoga instructors—will see their jobs become even more precarious. Immigrants, refugees, the undocumented, and ex-convicts will face yet another obstacle to gaining a foothold in society.”

He concludes:

“But as with all change, there will be some who lose more than most, and they will be the ones who have lost far too much already. The best we can hope for is that the depth of this crisis will finally force countries—the US, in particular—to fix the yawning social inequities that make large swaths of their populations so intensely vulnerable.”

The cynic in me thinks it’s more likely that heightened scarcity—especially of decent jobs—will cause people to be even more self-centered. The negative critiques of globalization add to my skepticism, if not cynicism. The worst case scenario is every person and every country for themselves in an increasingly cutthroat survival of the fittest competition. I hope I’m way off.

If the “New American” or “World Aristocracy” are smart, they’ll realize it’s in their own enlightened self-interest to think about how to assist and empower the “ones who have lost far too much already”. Ultimately, we will all sink or swim together.

In the end, it’s a question of time and perspective. Like any uber-lucky ten-percenter, at age 58, I can “circle my wagons” and save, invest, and spend with only my family and me in mind. I would live very comfortably, but my daughters’ children and their children would inherit an even less hospitable world.

Instead, I intend on taking the long view by focusing less on my comfort and more on the common good, or as stated in the humble blog’s byline, small steps toward thriving families, schools, and communities.