Trump signals that U.S. is ready to pass global leadership to China; will Americans agree?

Almost a year ago, just a few days after the election that caused Donald J. Trump to be the occupant of the White House and therefore U.S. president, I spoke about the election with a friend of the Republican persuasion.  I shared that my greatest concern with a President Trump had to do with foreign policy, since that is the area of governance in which an American president has greatest influence and responsibility.

I explained that my major issue was that Trump's apparent isolationist and nativist tendencies, if turned into governing practices, would cause other countries to question the value of accepting U.S. leadership in international affairs, and to assess what might be other options.  My guess was that China, as the world's second-largest national economy, would be the natural benefactor of those assessments, especially if it could present its style of governance as more stable and predictable than that of the U.S.

After almost a year of the Trump administration, the actions and practices of Trump, aided and abetted by those around him, and accepted by most elected Republicans -- with some notable exceptions -- have caused the global leadership role to be handed to China faster than I had expected.

Trump has turned out to be a weak president, with little detailed understanding or strategic grasp of the implications or consequences of his actions.  His weakness is glaringly obvious in international relations, where his basic characteristics of flippancy, egoism, ignorance and disrespect are magnified in the presence of other national leaders who conduct themselves -- publicly, at least -- with diplomatic decorum, respectfulness for others, and knowledge of issues.

As president, Trump has given the world's nations cause to question whether the U.S. is able to commit itself to major long-term international agreements.  Trump has denigrated and/or withdrawn from several strategic international arrangements -- NATO, the Paris Climate Agreement, NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Iran nuclear deal -- and by not offering any coherent replacements has given the distinct impression that he knows only how to destroy agreements and not how to create them.

The comparison between Trump and Xi Jinping, for example, is stark and glaring.  Xi has just finished consolidating his power at the top of China's ruling structure.  His primary governing principles are stability and predictability.  In contrast, Trump's governing principles have been chaos and unpredictability.  Seduced by the convenience of a 140-character limitation that passes for his preferred mode of communication, Trump's defensiveness and insecurities are on constant display, and therefore provide unfriendly agents anywhere with valuable insights that can be used for motivation and coercion.

The combination of chaos, unpredictability, seduction, defensiveness and insecurity yields a White House that is a palace of puerility.  The leaders of America's allies would be wise to not trust President Donald Trump.  Perhaps unfortunately, then, I fear that the leaders of America's allies are very wise people.

As with any new presidential administration, the mid-term elections coming up next year will be seen as a referendum on Americans' acceptance of Trump's actions and policies.  If the outcome of the 2018 election is a solidly-Republican House and Senate whose members are supportive of Trump, then the outlook for U.S. foreign policy will be one of continued ceding of global leadership to China.

Mid-term elections are full of distractions, and the 2018 election will have at least the usual array of domestic issues on tap which will be used to distract voters from Trump's positions on foreign affairs -- health care, taxation, law-and-order, to name a few.  Voters should recognize that it is in foreign affairs that a U.S. president can have the greatest lasting effect, for good or for ill, and the results of the 2018 election will have the potential to influence what that lasting effect might be.

As they vote in 2018, Americans should realize that the outcome of the election for Senators and Representatives will likely determine whether the U.S. will continue to abdicate its global leadership position to China.

An easy way to write the President about the Paris Climate Agreement (or anything else)

Here's a quick and easy way to make your voice heard in the White House.  The White House web site has a fill-in-the-blanks form that can be found by clicking here.

I just now used it to write my thoughts on why the United States should remain a part of the Paris Climate Agreement.  Here's what I wrote; feel free to copy and use it in your message, either as-is or with your personal modifications:

The United States should continue as a part of the Paris Climate agreement. Stepping away from it would isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world by including us in a group with only two other members: Syria and Nicaragua, both being nations that are in a slow-motion meltdown of their governing and social institutions. Americans and America's businesses are, by all accounts, strongly supportive of the Paris agreement. The risks of not addressing climate change are real; it is business-like and prudent to take steps to mitigate risks. As individuals, our quality of life is strongly influenced by the quality of our environment, and the Paris agreement supports improvements to environmental quality. For business, remaining in the agreement means that our firms will have advantages in offering innovative technologies, services and products that can come only from America having an official and full-fledged participation in a global initiative that will open up new marketplaces and enlarge existing ones.

For these reasons, and probably many others, the United States should remain in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Thank you.

If Trump pulls us out of this agreement, I will go back to the White House web site form and write again.

How about your Senators and member of the House of Representatives?  You can write to them by seeking out each individual's web site and finding a similar form.  Different organizations have setups to make this easier, though.  One of my favorites is at the web site for Citizens' Climate Lobby.  You can find it by clicking here.  This form helps you to send the same message to all three of your U.S. elected representatives at the same time.  Couldn't be easier! I sent my message on the Paris agreement to Senators Feinstein and Harris, and to Congressman Rohrabacher.

###

It's a super carrier! It can be in two places at the same time -- right? Trump's first 100 days -- continued

More on the first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency.

Were there any disasters in Trump's first 100 days?  No, not really.  He has acted in ways that much of the country -- including yours truly -- thinks will be very wrong, maybe even dramatically wrong, for the nation in the long run.  And there's much of the country that thinks those same things are important and needed changes.  Those are political disagreements, not disasters.  But then came May 9 – what would that be?  The 110^th day?

What happened on May 9^th?  That’s the day that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.  If Watergate was a disaster for Nixon – and it was – then firing Comey has the potential to be at least as bad a disaster for Trump. 

Why is that?  President Richard Nixon tried to hide his culpability in his reelection campaign operatives’ burglary of the Democratic Party’s offices at the Watergate office building.  He did this by firing Archibald Cox, the special investigator charged with determining the facts behind the burglary operation, when Cox’s work had arrived at a point where it was too close to the truth for Nixon’s comfort.  (Cox had subpoenaed the tapes that had recorded Oval Office conversations during the time period under investigation.)  Under threat of impeachment, Nixon resigned.  As FBI Director, Comey was the highest-level executive with oversight responsibility for the FBI investigation into the Russian interference with the 2016 election, and whether any part of Trump’s campaign might have colluded with Russia.  Depending on what happens in the next several days, we might start using the term “Kremlin-gate.”  (Don’t say it started here.)  The legality of Nixon’s firing of Cox was somewhat questionable; the legality of Trump’s firing of Comey is, however, not questioned.  Both cases, though, share the same glaringly obvious question:  “What else is there to know?”

Did Trump have campaign operatives?  Yes.  Many.

What could be the outcome of the current investigation?  It could simply reinforce what is already known, which is that Russia interfered in the American election, and that would probably amount to an exoneration of Trump and his campaign operatives.  Such a result would remove a dark cloud of suspicion over Trump and his administration that threatens to become darker.  Or, it might reveal unquestioned collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian actions (which would imply a forecast of very stormy weather).  And, of course, it might conclude with something in between those two extremes (partly to mostly cloudy).

How will the next Director of the FBI feel about job security?  Probably pretty good if there is no energetic FBI investigation about Russian meddling in elections, or any other investigation that could yield results that would be unfavorable for Trump or those close to him.  And to maintain comfort about job security, the Director should certainly avoid giving testimony to Congress that shows independence from Trump or fails to provide unequivocal support for any position or accusation made my Trump.  But all bets on job security during the Trump presidency are off if we start to hear rumors that James Comey is writing a book to be titled “From Vlad the Magnificent, With Love.”

You mean there is some kind of private relationship between Trump and Putin?  No.  Maybe.  I don’t know.  What I mean is that Putin directed Russian meddling into last year’s presidential election for two reasons:  First, he feared the prospects of a Clinton presidency that would use his invasions and occupations of eastern Ukraine and Crimea to make his life miserable; second, Putin wants to do everything possible to show that Western democracy is an inherently unstable and chaotic way of running a country.  The events of the first months of the Trump presidency, including the firing of FBI Director Comey just days after he publicly contradicted Trump about Trump’s allegation of wiretapping, and perhaps requested something additional  from the Department of Justice for the investigation into Russian interference in last year’s election, can be used by Putin as evidence of the chaos and instability inherent in the American political and governing systems.  To make things worse for the U.S., Trump’s naturally chaotic and impulsive behavior plays into Putin’s thesis, and therefore right into Putin’s hands.  Oh, yes, Putin – whose admiration for Czarist Russia is public and runs deep, perhaps to the point of seeing himself as a spiritual reincarnation of tenth century ruler Vladimir the Great – is loving every episode of Trump’s newest reality show.

Is there a threat of impeachment for Trump if the findings show collaboration?  Yes.  If impeachment was justified for Nixon when the core offense was burglary of the offices of the opposition political party, then certainly impeachment would be justified when the core offense is collaboration with a foreign power to influence an election.

What about dropping a bunch of cruise missiles on Syria, and sending an "armada" to confront North Korea?  The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  Whether we like it or not, Trump is that person now.  Short of declaring war, he can deploy those forces pretty much any way he pleases.  But deployment is one thing, and gaining long-term results is something else again.  Unless the country is in some kind of immediate existential threat there has to be extensive diplomatic follow-up to any deployment in order to achieve meaningful, longer-term results.  Neither Syria nor North Korea presents an immediate existential threat to the United States, and there has been no extensive, sustained and strategic follow-up diplomacy.

What was accomplished by these two actions?  As of this writing, the answer to that has to be “not much” in the case of Syria, and “nothing good” in the case of North Korea.  Clearly, any U.S. President could have been provoked into a one-off military response by the Syrian government’s use of poison gas.  That part of Trump’s action was “normal.”  What would also be “normal” would be a major diplomatic follow-up in which State Department staff would present themselves to other governments all over the world in a coordinated effort to explain the American grand strategy for achieving a long-term settlement to the Syrian civil war, and to gain widespread international support for that strategy.  This apparently did not happen, and it did not happen for two reasons:  Trump and his Administration have not yet staffed the State Department to a level where it is capable of that kind of outreach, and there is no such American grand strategy.  These things are “not normal.” 

What about North Korea?  The North Korean adventure is also “not normal.”  Early in April, with concern building that North Korea was about to conduct a nuclear bomb test, Trump announced that a U.S. Navy “armada” (consisting of  the nuclear-powered super carrier Carl Vinson and three support vessels) was being deployed to the waters off the Korean peninsula.  Several days later it was revealed that the carrier and its escorts had actually moved in the opposite direction, away from North Korea.  (Did somebody neglect to inform Trump that even a “super carrier” cannot be in two places at once?)

It’s a big ocean; ships occasionally get misplaced, don’t they?  The Pacific Ocean is a mighty big place, and even a 100,000 ton super carrier and its escorts use very little of the available space, but come on now, isn’t it reasonable to expect the Commander-in-Chief to have at least a general idea of which direction those ships are heading when he says they are moving from “Point A” to “Point B?”  The admiral in charge took the blame for the “miscommunication.”  And that actually makes the situation worse.  Now we are left to wonder:  Who is in charge of the strategic deployment of these ships -- the admiral or the Commander-in-Chief?  Did anybody in the Trump Administration think to check in on where the ships were headed on the next day?  There are only ten of these super carriers in the world – they’re all American – and people in the Navy and the Department of Defense know where they are every minute of every day.  So, definitely not normal.

You seem pretty worked-up about this.  Maybe it’s just that you’re a sore loser?  This isn’t about me.  It’s about a behavior pattern in which Trump, as president, has presented himself to the world as somebody whose statements cannot be believed.  He has done this consistently and repetitively by asserting that he won the popular vote even though Clinton outpolled him by 3 million in the election; by accusing his predecessor Barack Obama of wiretapping him, while offering no evidence; by further accusing Obama of arranging to have an agency of the British Government do the wiretapping (again, no evidence); by saying he is supporting an ally with a military deployment (but without actually making it happen until several days after it was said); by trying to suppress an independent investigation of Russian interference in the election; the list goes on and on.  Trump wants everybody to believe that he is history’s greatest deal-maker, but if his public word is not to be trusted, then how can any other head of state make a “deal” with him when such an event would be equivalent to saying “I made the deal with Trump but I don’t trust him?”

 Lots of people start a new job and make mistakes as they are learning.  Why should Trump be any different?  Fair point.  But more than three months on the job, with assistance from hand-picked advisors and aides, plus the more than two month transition period that preceded the inauguration, adds up to half a year of education and experience for Trump plus a whole lot of other people who are supporting him.  At this point, Trump and his people have dug a bunch of holes for themselves.  Only by climbing out of those holes will they gain the trust needed to implement successful foreign policy with other nations.  Some of those holes are very deep.

What is Trump’s foreign policy?  Now we are getting back to slogans.  He says it is “America First!”  As I said yesterday, there is always going to be something puzzling to write about at another time.

Mr. President, you need to know this: Elvis has left the building!

We have lived through the first 100 days (and more) of the Donald Trump presidency. So let’s do some catch-up on what we have seen.

It turned out that Obama wasn't the anti-Christ.  Is Trump the anti-Christ?  That's not likely, although it's hard to know for sure since he won't release his income tax returns, much less his birth certificate.

So, the Trump presidency isn't the end of the world?  No, not yet, anyway.  Although I confess that I am not as dismissive as I used to be of the people walking the streets with signs reading "The End is Near."  But this is not something that occupies much of my time.

Is the first 100 days important for a new president?  Yes.  And so is the second 100 days, and the third, and so on, right up until the end of that presidency.  They're all important.  The first 100 can be pretty special and informative about the nature of the entire presidency, although it's not a sure thing.

What does that mean?  The whole "first 100” thing started with Franklin Roosevelt's presidency beginning in March, 1933.  He sounded, looked and acted in the right ways for a nation in great distress.  Luckily for him, his first 100 days happened to coincide with Congress’ session -- with the change to the January inauguration, that does not happen now -- which contributed greatly to what has since been seen as Roosevelt's success in implementing new and helpful legislation and policies.  Some of the legislation had already been in the works before FDR became president, but he gained people’s confidence in his ability to be a leader who could achieve those goals.  Every new employee needs timely feedback on job performance -- the president is no exception -- and 100 days is a convenient milestone for doing that.

After the first 100 days, do we usually know the ultimate success of the presidency?  No.  But they give us an idea of how the new president wants his presidency to look.  That is the important thing about Trump's first 100 days.

Is America great again?  I didn’t know that America had stopped being great.  When did that happen?  Trump’s signature theme and campaign slogan were “Make America Great Again!”  He has spoken about how the country is populated by an abnormally large percentage of immigrants (that’s his assessment of the population) and by too few manufacturing workers.  Putting all of his words together with the demographic and employment history of the country, it sounds like he wants America to look and work like it did in the 1950s.

Trump wants to return America to the way it was in the 1950s?  As described above – yes.  But in reality – no.  For example, during the 1950s the upper marginal income tax rates on top earners like himself were much, much higher than they are now (yes, some would say I’m making a rash assumption about Trump being a “high earner” since we cannot see his tax returns) but he wants to reduce tax rates for high earners, not increase them.

The 1950s were really good "Happy Days," right?  “Happy Days” was a great TV show; I’ve enjoyed it.  And Elvis Presley made lots of great music during the ‘50s, too.  But “Happy Days” never showed the kids hiding under their desks at school during nuclear attack preparation drills, and Elvis is dead and never returning.  You cannot lead a country into tomorrow by going backward to yesterday.

Is Trump a legitimate president?  This is a question that is more on the minds of Trump and his ardent supporters than anybody else.  Trump is defensive and insecure about the fact that Hillary Clinton bested him by three million votes in the election.  Nonetheless, he is the president according to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the country.  The president is elected by 538 presidential electors, not by the nation’s millions of voters.  Each state has a certain number of electors, and those numbers are not necessarily proportional to the popular vote.  Democracy must be bound by the rule of law, and for that reason Trump is a legitimate president.  

And that leaves us with. . . ?  It is a high irony and embarrassment that the United States, historically the largest and most powerful advocate for democratic institutions world-wide, elects its chief executive by the votes of an elite assembly instead of the popular vote in the national election.  With no popular mandate, Trump will have to serve the interests of those who have not supported him just as well as he serves the interests of those who have supported him in order to be recognized as democratically-legitimate.  It will take that achievement for Trump to be secure in his legitimacy.  Without that happening, and with his constant defensiveness and insecurity, Trump will always be haunted by fears that his presidency is not legitimate.

What happens now?  It looks like there will be a constant stream of things that will puzzle, astonish and enlighten.  And, there’s always another election.

One more American patriot's voice from January 21

On January 25 I published the personal stories of three people who participated in the January 21 Women's March.  Here is one more, also writing of the experience -- who was there, what it was all about, what went on during the march, and what happens next?

Paula from Oregon -- marched in Portland, OR:

I went alone [to downtown Portland] because my March companion got sick.  Hoped to see someone I knew, but didn’t happen although many of my acquaintances later said they were there.

[I wanted] to let our new President know that all people should be treated equally and respectfully.

It was amazing!  More people than I expected; I’ve read estimates of anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000.  Being Portland, unfortunately there wasn’t much diversity, but there were lots of families and I did see a Native American group.  (I later heard that the NAACP advised to not march.) The police were super friendly – some wore pink knit hats or roses on their lapels.  They waved, took photos with marchers, and told use to have fun.  It was peaceful and friendly, although a bit loud at times with drummers.  Despite the steady rain, I had a great time and felt camaraderie.

What's next? For me – to continue letting the President and elected officials know my views.

Cops and kids at #womensmarchpdx

Equality and respect for others -- that works for me.  I get the same message from the stories in the earlier post on the Women's March.  If we had a hundred of these stories, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand, I am sure we would hear that message from all of them.

Voices of American patriots from Saturday, January 21, 2017 -- Women's March on Washington

No American president -- not even George Washington -- starts the job with universal acclaim.  And no previous president has begun the job with public approval ratings that are as low as the ones that are welcoming Donald Trump into the White House.

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, 2017.  Saturday, January 21, saw the Women's March on Washington, which took place not only in Washington, D.C., but also in cities throughout the country and around the world. The Telegraph in the U.K. reported astounding numbers of nearly 700 marches and almost 5 million participants world-wide.  D.C. had 500,000.  New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Philadelphia, Austin -- all had numbers in the hundreds of thousands.  So, too, in London and other foreign cities.  The D.C. march eclipsed the attendance for the inauguration, according to articles in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere.

I know a few of the participants.  Here is what some of them had to say when I asked about the experience -- who was there, what it was all about, what went on during the march, and what happens next?

Pat (Patricia) from Maine -- marched in Manhattan, New York City:

Where I marched - NYC - we had staggered start times and ours (was with two college friends) was at 1 pm.  Dag Hammerskjold Plaza, at 47th street across from the UN, is a long plaza between 1st & 2nd Avenues.   It took about 2 hours to get to 2nd Avenue where the march started and the crowd was so dense that we didn't march we flowed and usually only moved when we snaked through the crowd.   We cut off at about 44 street and went across to Madison, up to 52nd Street and returned to the crowd to the end of the parade - I believe it was 55 Street.  It was never really walking, but slow movement, completely peaceful with cheering, no kerfuffles.   Then I found out there were - well, they (people in neon jackets looking volunteer-ish or official) said there were 200,000; I think it was more like 400K, largest in NY ever.

Why did I do I?   Well, I didn't feel all that perky, had a bad cold a few days before but felt I had to make my presence known.   I wish that I could believe that calling my senator (Susan Collins, R, ME) daily (even though she either leaves the phone off the hook or the voicemails full (while denying it)) would help.   The only thing that helps is power and money, of which I have none.

But I can't stop trying.

I donate to my important causes, called the Reps and Senators and wonder how much worse it's gonna' get.

 Suzanne from Minnesota -- marched in St. Paul, MN:

I marched with my daughter, her friend, and a friend of mine.  It was about women's rights issues. I feel they are threatened with the new administration. I'm Pro-Choice. I'm also disgusted by the hateful rhetoric that has been expressed by our new President. For the first time in my life, I felt I could not be silent any longer. I had to go. Women have fought for too long to have the rights we enjoy today. People don’t remember what it was like before the 60's.

There is an excellent documentary on Netflix I'd suggest called "She's Beautiful When She's Angry" it reminded me what women endured during my mother's lifetime. I had my own experiences as a young person. Affirmative Action was new when I first graduated college. In my first professional job, my boss came to me and said one of his customers did not want a woman calling on him. I was harassed by my co-workers all the time. I remember in the evening staying in my hotel room during a sales meeting because there was a rumor that our married Regional Manager got drunk and liked [to] hit [on] the female employees.That was 1983! I have never forgotten what that felt like. This was just before sexual harassment laws came in to the workplace. I don’t think there's a woman out there that hasn’t had some form of sexual harassment in their lifetime.

Don’t misunderstand me, I'm not a "man-hater". This is about changing the ingrained social attitudes. There are plenty of women who disagree with me. For me, its about liberty,equality and mutual respect.

It was amazing to see how many people were willing to take their time and do this. It was powerful, peaceful, and uplifting.It was very diverse. Women and men, children, babies…of every color and religion. It was wonderful!

I do believe we must be Americans first. I also think that nothing is as good or as bad as it's perceived to be. I want to give him a chance to do well. Its in all of our best interests that he does well. Who knows? If not I will get more involved in some way. I've never protested before in my life! I felt proud to live in a country where I can do that. I was also amazed at the support received from around the world!

Andy from California -- marched in Los Angeles, CA: 

About 7:30 am my wife Carol and I drove down to the Blue Line Willow St. Terminal in Long Beach.  The multi-level parking structure there is huge so we didn't think it would be a problem parking.  After going all the way to the top and working our way back down, we finally found a spot. That experience should have foretold what the line for the train would be like.

It is about a hundred yard walk from the exit of the parking structure to where you enter the terminal. The line was backed up all the way back to the parking structure.  A hundred yard long line, 4 or 5 people wide.  Mostly women.   So many people that extra trains with extra cars had been added.  So many people that they were no longer selling tickets. The ride to LA and back was free.  We found out later that the crowds were the same at terminals all across the county

On the train, we learned a new word of art. It happened at our first stop. The doors opened just in case someone had to get off. When the waiting crowd tried to get on, there was absolutely no room. The conductor told them, "Sorry folks. You'll have to stand back. We're at ‘crush capacity.’"

The mood on the train was pure joy.  Friendly smiles everywhere.  Hilarious signs.  And the smells, or should I say aromas.  Women, back to back and belly to belly, smelling of a thousand different perfumes, body lotions, shampoos, sprays and whatever else they use to make themselves so delectable.  No brothel ever smelled as sweet.... I'm guessing.

Downtown was a madhouse. Gathering time for the March was at 9am, with the actual march scheduled for 10am. The crowd, estimated several days before, was going to be in the 50,000 to 75,000 range. The original permit estimated only 2,000. Gathering was to take place at Pershing Square where there would be speeches and some entertainment. From there, the march would proceed north on Olive to Grand Park, across from City Hall.

We arrived at the 7th St. Station in downtown LA before 10am. From there to Pershing Square is about 4 or 5 blocks. It took us the better part of an hour to get close enough to even see Pershing Square.  People were jammed every step of the way and coming from every direction.  Every north/south street from Hope to Spring, jammed, everyone pushing north a few steps at a time.

The march began long before we arrived at Pershing Square and by the time we got there everyone was pushing toward Grand Park and City Hall, six blocks away. But we were not moving.

Soon, everyone was seeking out other streets to move north on.  We tried Grand, Hill, Broadway, Spring and Main Streets and finally arrived in the vicinity of the Park a half hour later.

Despite the human congestion, everyone was smiling and having fun, posing for photographs and waving theirs signs. One of my favorites, "After all these years I can't believe we still have to protest this shit."

When we finally got to 1st Street and Grand Park we could see the crowds that were pressing in from the west. To the west is uphill and is where the Civic Center and the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels are located. What a sight. Wall to wall people stretched up to the crest of the hill looking down on us.

There were speeches going on but the sound system was inadequate and the speakers could barely be heard beyond a hundred yard radius of the Park. But no one left. We stood there in a mass of solidarity, talking with each other, exchanging words of amazement at the number of people who were in attendance, trying to listen. Then the helicopters arrived.  First one and then two and then a third.

We laughed and took pictures of the signs that were being waved in the air. Protest signs expressing concern over what was happening to the country, Putin's success in corrupting our democracy, the election of a man who threatened to undo generations of progress, the divide between California progressives and the wide middle of the country, the constant insidious disregard for the truth, his disrespect of women, bragging about groping them. Signs about abortion rights, racism, the environment, inequality.

The next day there were crowd size estimates that ranged from 500,000 to 750,000. I think there were more; enough people to fill the Rose Bowl 10 times over and still have people left over to fill the Coliseum.

When the event started breaking up, we continued north to Philippe's Restaurant on the other side of the 101. The crowds seemed never ending. At Philippe's there were lines out of both doors that seemed a mile long and we were sure they would run out of food long before they got to the end. 

We turned around and walked all the way back to 7th and Flower.  The lines were back. Ten or fifteen feet deep the entire length of the platform.  Pitying those with weak bladders, we eventually made it back onto the train and another crush capacity train ride to Long Beach.

Hard to say whether this peaceful demonstration will make a difference, but the sheer size and enthusiasm of the crowd cannot be ignored. This may be the moment when women step up and wrestle the reins of power into their own hands. That this event was so large and so peaceful and without a single arrest, speaks volumes about the leadership of the women who put it on and hundreds of thousands that made it such a peaceful and heartfelt event. And let’s not forget a word of thanks to the many men who were there supporting their wives and mothers and daughters.

We say that leaders are made, not born.  Much of the making of leadership depends upon respect; respect must be a two-way street and it must be earned.  Donald Trump owes his election as president to a campaign that revolved around disrespectful words about almost anybody who did not agree with him, and to an archaic constitutional electoral provision that is inherently disrespectful of the democratic popular vote.  Apparently not satisfied with that record from 2016, he chose to begin his term in office in 2017 with an inauguration speech full of anger and, once again, an attitude disrespectful of any who disagree with him.  Representatives of his Administration compounded that disrespect by falsely asserting an inauguration attendance of unprecedented size through the use of "alternative facts."  (For a humorous view that comes from a different perspective, read this from The Guardian.)

With this behavior, it cannot come as a surprise that Mr. Trump begins his presidency with general public disapproval.  Opinion polls reveal his approval measurements to be below his second-place popular vote, indicating that some of those who voted for him are losing confidence in him.  This is an "achievement" that is the opposite of his predecessors in office -- between election and inauguration, public opinion has historically improved for the president-elect.

As the statements and reflections presented here make clear, those who participated in the Women's March are patriotic Americans who want and hope for the best.  They know that anybody in a new job deserves a chance to get off to a good start.

They also know that they deserve to be respected.

Don't touch that dial! The broadcast regulatory war will continue after this inauguration!

(This post contributed by guest author Guy Heston, whose professional career started with a broadcast position at a small radio station.  He has long enjoyed finding logical contradictions in the protestations of the rich and powerful.)

The National Association of Broadcasters must be drooling with anticipation. Breaking news—two Democrat appointees to the Federal Communications Commission, including the chairman, have announced their resignation, which will greatly enhance the NAB’s chances of achieving two signature items on its agenda, neither of which would be good for consumers.

The NAB has whined for years that the FCC has refused to adopt regulations that would force smart phone manufacturers to include FM radio reception on all phones, and further refused to relax regulations about media cross-ownership. I know these are not the most interesting topics for cocktail party conversations, but stay with me because they are indicative of what is likely to happen throughout the government with the incoming administration. You get to be for government regulations or against them at the same time, depending on whether or not they help your cause.

First let’s consider the FM radio reception issue. While it complains loudly and frequently about government regulations, the NAB is delighted to support a proposed federal regulation that would require all smartphones include a chip enabling over-the-air FM radio reception like your old transistor radio. The official talking point is that smartphone users should have access to terrestrial radio in the event of a local or national emergency just in case the internet breaks or something.

The FCC hasn’t been buying the talking point. Smartphone users already have reliable internet access to thousands of sources in the event of an emergency, including local radio stations. And if buyers feel strongly about it there are smartphones available for purchase that include the FM chip. Naturally, the chip isn’t free and adds to the cost of producing the phone, so why should consumers be forced to pay for it if they don’t want it? Now, with two new FCC appointees upcoming, consumers may have no choice. Although the law requires no more than three of the five FCC commissioners be from the same party, you can bet your Pandora app the commission will soon be controlled by corporate and NAB-friendly appointees.

I believe what the NAB really wants is to encourage you to listen to FM radio via a handy little icon on your phone. With roughly 30 million subscriptions to satellite radio and millions of others opting for Pandora, Spotify and iTunes, radio station owners are a bit antsy about all the competition. So much so that CBS, a media company founded on radio, has decided to spin off its radio division and let it sink or swim on its own. Lately CBS Radio has been laying off newscasters and reporters to lower costs in preparation for the spinoff.

But the FM chip issue pales in comparison to the FCC’s cross-ownership rules, which the NAB deems draconian regulations. In summary, the rules don’t allow the same company to run the local newspaper, radio and TV stations in any market in the interest of encouraging competition. Certain exceptions were famously made, so for instance Rupert Murdoch’s empire gets to own two New York TV stations, including the local Fox outlet, and the New York Post tabloid. Now there’s a lovely cross-ownership.

Many of the historic FCC rules about media ownership have been tossed over the past 20 years, so whereas we used to limit broadcasters from owning more than seven AM, seven FM and seven TV stations in the interest of media competition and diversity, we now have debt-leveraged conglomerates like iHeart Media owning 850 radio stations. We allow corporations to operate two TV stations in one market and hundreds all over the nation. But that’s not enough for the NAB. It wants the ability for television and radio stations and the local newspaper in your city to be owned and operated by the same company.

Here are some examples of what happens with all of this consolidation. According to the media monitor site FTVLive.com, viewers who tune in to their so-called local newscast on KPTM-TV in Omaha, Nebraska, might be surprised to learn the newscast originates from KMPH-TV, 1678 miles away in Fresno, California. Both stations are owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, the same company that was recently reported to have laid off much of the news staff at WNWO-TV in Toledo, Ohio, saying the Toledo newscast would instead originate from its station in South Bend, Indiana. Broadcasters call it “hubbing”, which is corporate talk for saying it’s cheaper to do it this way. Why pay all those salaries in Toledo when you can pipe the newscast in from South Bend, 156 miles away? Sinclair owns 173 TV stations across the country, so there are lots of opportunities to pipe in broadcasts from who knows where.

Sometimes the cost reduction efforts verge on comical. So, again according to FTVLive,  viewers of the KCEN-TV newscast in Temple/Waco, TX, might have noticed the “new” set on the station’s newscast. Only it wasn’t new. After being used for nine years at KUSA-TV in Denver, the set was reportedly dismantled and shipped off to Texas. Why pay all those Texas carpenters to build a new set when you can just take an old one and brush it up a little bit? Both stations are owned by Tegna, which was formed when Gannett (owners of the USA Today national newspaper) decided to spin-off their broadcasting division. I guess we can give a little credit to Tegna for recycling at one of its 46 TV stations.

Across the nation, thousands of talented and experienced broadcast anchors, reporters, producers and other staff have lost their jobs in the interest of corporate consolidation and cost reduction. You might be surprised to learn that your local traffic report on your morning radio doesn’t originate from your local radio station, nor the weather forecast nor the news. The Los Angeles CBS all-news radio station was recently reported to have laid off three long-time anchors and reporters from an already dwindling news staff. I’m sure it will make the financial statements look better as the radio division is spun off. 

With the incoming administration, it won’t be just the media cross-ownership rules that will likely run into the ditch. And it might well be your next smartphone has FM radio reception whether you like it or not. Climate change, banking, etc. Pick your concern and we’ll strap ourselves in to see where the regulatory/anti-regulatory ride takes us. As they say in broadcasting, stay tuned!