From David Frum’s Philip Roth-like cover story in Atlantic few days after President Trump’s election – one that echoed Roth’s The Plot Against America – to Chelsea Handler practically pleading and insulting on Twitter with America’s military brass to launch a coup last summer. From the anarchist and resistance protests on Inauguration Day that left cars torched and stores vandalized to the constant leaks and half-truths from government employees that can have the vengeful salaciousness of revenge porn. From Ross Douthat suggesting that the Trump administration should use the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from the office of President of the United States to which he was duly elected, to Maryland Democratic Rep Jamie Raskin proposing a bill to essentially declare Trump mentally unfit for office.

Aggressive, even extreme, and occasionally explicitly violent. All in the name of nullifying November 8, 2016. And in ways that would undermine America’s Republic long after this administration is gone. Look to countries like Turkey or Argentina, if you need a clue to some of the things that could happen.

They won’t of course. America will never descend to those levels, as much as many in the Resistance are blindly encouraging processes that would nudge the country in undesirable directions.

But never mind any of that. It’s all part of the #Resistance by any means, it seems. And apparently, there’s a real and dangerous threat of violence that recently happened.

As stated above Maryland Democrat Raskin has continually pushed for a committee in Congress to analyze and of course declare President Trump unfit for office. And he recently had the support of a group of psychiatrists who blatantly disregard the Goldwater Rule – don’t analyze someone who has not been in your office for therapy, analysis etc. – and declared Trump a danger to the human race in hysterical and alarmist tones. You’re welcome Kim Jong-un.

One of those is Associate Professor Bandy X. Lee (of Yale) who was scheduled to speak with Baskin at a Maryland seniors center. According to Baskin and Bandy Lee – sorry but I do not consider them impartial purveyors of the supposed events – angry Trump supporters threatened the gathering and they had to cancel. Thereby proving their thesis that President Trump will blow up the world anytime soon now.

Did they get angry phone calls? Yes, it is likely and no, it isn’t a good thing. Letting them instead reveal their theory’s ridiculousness is a much better way to dissipate their fear-mongering.

But it is absurd to suggest that humanity is threatened because, for example, Trump is taking a tougher stand on North Korea, and further, that some angry calls to a senior center in Maryland is confirmation of this absurd belief on Lee and Baskin’s part.

The doom and disaster predicted after Trump was elected has not happened. Despite Charlottesville’s ugly racist confrontations. Despite Roy Moore’s pathetic campaign. Despite Trump’s s-hole or s-house or s-w/e comments. America is functioning as it should, with checks and balances, and rather well overall. From a robust economy with a booming if frothy stock market to modest tax reforms to modest administrative and regulatory pullback, to a few key judicial appointments.

For those who made wild eyed proclamations of a nationalist goon squad police state, 9th and 4th circuit court decisions have forced the DOJ to rework or appeal Trump’s travel bans. For those who say that deportations of illegals is a blight upon America, the Trump administration is actually negotiating with Congress to see if Congress can reform DACA and keep hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in America in exchange for a border policy similar to those of Canada and Australia.

For those – like Nancy Pelosi – who shout out that the tax reform is a giveaway to the rich, companies are hiring and investing and raising wages across the country.

And for those journalists who ascribe to Professor Lee and company’s Trump-is-a-madman theories, White House physician Doctor R. Jackson proclaimed Trump in excellent health and cognitively in very good shape as well. No matter, the press inundated him with leading and suggestive questions implying that the President must be crazy and he must be wrong.

No, cognitive ability is not the same as a psychiatric assessment. But Trump’s opponents think he’s either or both insane or senile. Whichever works on any given day.

And now in Maryland there have been some angry crank calls to a senior center. The President must therefore be crazy. The President must therefore be removed.

At this point, I think it would be wise to heed Alan Dershowitz’s words of wisdom on the matter:

I’ve railed against the criminalization of political difference. It’s getting worse. The psychiatrization of political difference is much more dangerous. It’s what they did in Russia. It’s what they did in China. It’s what they did in apartheid South Africa. If you don’t like a candidate lock him up. If you can’t lock him up, commit him to a mental hospital.

I suspect that even Democrats want Professor Lee and her colleagues to dial it back a bit. And hey, let’s have that meeting in Maryland and how about inviting Alan Dershowitz – lawyer, scholar, and lifelong defender of civil liberties who has made all of us mad at some point; much to his credit – to the meeting? Unless actual violence breaks out if he dares show up.

If Democrats Take the House, They’ll Impeach Trump

© 2018 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

Historically, the first mid-term elections in a new president’s first term result in major losses for the President’s party. The most famous recent example was in 1994, following the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. In spite of Clinton’s oratory skill, favorable media coverage and appealing looks/smooth demeanor, the 1994 mid-terms were a disaster for the Democrats.

Led by the “villainous, scary” Newt Gingrich, Republicans won 54 House seats. In what came to be called the “Republican Revolution,” they wrested Congressional control away from Democrats for the first time since 1952. Once in control, Gingrich instituted his Contract with America programs, a series of Congressional initiatives designed to implement what the Republicans felt was their electoral mandate from the populace. The liberal media hated Gingrich and the Republicans and resented their victory tremendously, ceaselessly deriding the Republican-controlled efforts and referring to it as the “Contract on America.”

Similarly, during Ronald Reagan’s first term in 1982, his Republican Party lost 27 Congressional seats, despite Reagan’s overwhelmingly lopsided presidential victory over the hapless Jimmy Carter just two short years prior. It appears that even popular presidents coming off strong wins are susceptible to profound Congressional losses in the first contest out of the gate.

The Republicans may well lose control of Congress in 2018 for the first time since 2006. This is significant, because one of the things a Congressional majority has the power to do is bring articles of impeachment against a sitting president.

In recent (post-World War II) history, this has only been done once, when the Republican House voted in 1998 to impeach President Clinton for his alleged lying under oath and obstruction of justice during the Monica Lewinsky matter. It certainly would also have happened during the President Nixon/Watergate affair in 1974, but President Nixon resigned before any formal charges were brought.

The standard for Congress to level charges against a sitting president are a clear and willful commission on the president’s part of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the country, such that the rule of law, national security or the common good is grievously threatened. It’s an inexact standard, to be sure, subject to the political whims and mood of the controlling Congressional party.

To say that Democratic politicians in DC, Hillary’s 60+ million voters and the liberal mainstream media regard President Trump as an illegitimate president is an understatement. They have been complaining and protesting his presence in the Oval Office since day one, starting with their invention of “Crowdgate,” where they purported to show how much bigger President Obama’s Inauguration Day attendance was than President Trump’s. That day—Day One of his presidency—gave birth to liberal “fake news” coverage of his tenure in office, as the liberal cable stations shamelessly and disingenuously compared early morning photos of Trump’s crowd with peak afternoon pictures of Obama’s crowd.

So it has continued, unabated, non-stop for over a year. Each roughly-worded Trump Tweet, every criticism by him or his staff of the liberal media, every non-sugar-coated statement to the press, every matter where he calls it as most people think it (but politicians would never actually say it) is trumpeted by his political and media adversaries as yet more proof of his astonishing unsuitability for the Presidency.

“Had enough yet? What more do you want? See? This is unbelievable, isn’t it?”

The lowest possible, arbitrary, inexact standards of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to which the Democratically-controlled Congress can possibly stoop will undoubtedly be fulfilled very early on in the new Congressional year, as the Democrats rush to satisfy their highest priority—removing President Trump—to the complete and total exclusion of anything else the country needs to be done.

One can only imagine the breathless, frantic, grandstanding speeches and Floor declarations from the likes of Maxine Watters, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Shelia Jackson Lee, Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings as they compete for national liberal media adulation with one overwrought, hyperbolic performance after another.

Their impeachment effort will not be successful, of course. Once the Democratic House passes the Articles, it goes to the Senate for trial, where a super majority is required for a conviction leading to removal from office. This is a high threshold for passage, as it should be. In the face of actual “high crimes”—such as a president transferring military secrets to an adversary in exchange for personal financial gain—no doubt that threshold would be met.

But President Trump’s “crimes” are stylistic, not legally substantive. He does say things in a manner offensive to many and certainly well outside the bounds of historically-normal Presidential behavior. Yet the Russian “collusion” issue—the only controversy with any legal overtones whatsoever– is vaporware. There is no “there” there, not even with a fully-armed battalion of partisan Democratic investigators looking under every pebble for well over a year. In contrast, Hillary’s illicit e-mail server containing unauthorized classified material was tangibly illegal, yet she was not charged or prosecuted. In today’s political climate, the perception of criminal activity in DC is inextricably linked to party affiliation.

Trump’s supporters will point to his many actual policy successes, accomplished in only his first 12 months in office:

  • The appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
  • Punishing Syria for their humanitarian crimes with a 59-cruise missile strike
  • Withdrawing from the disadvantageous Trans Pacific Partnership agreement
  • Withdrawing from the pointless, expensive, anti-American Paris climate accords
  • Approved Keystone Pipeline
  • Reducing/eliminating hundreds of Obama-era business regulations, leading to a surge in business sector confidence and hiring
  • Over one million new jobs added since he took office
  • S. unemployment at 17-year low due to expanding economy
  • Stock market at record highs, boosting individual retirement accounts and institutional pension solvency alike
  • Black unemployment at a 17-year low due to expanding economy
  • Hispanic unemployment at all-time low due to expanding economy
  • Food stamp usage at a 7-year low, due to expanding economy
  • Passed sweeping tax reduction, leading to many companies raising wages, distributing bonuses and making immediate plans for expansion and additional hiring
  • Opened previously restricted areas (like ANWR) to energy exploration

His opponents will argue that these are not pluses to be bragged about; rather they’re examples of bad policy decisions—calamitous, even— that will have far-reaching negative consequences for the country. That’s fair: disagreements over actions on major economic, foreign-policy and social issues are the lifeblood of a vibrant, working democracy. In fact, the out-of-office party always says that the opposing president’s decisions will permanently harm the country. That’s as predictable as the sunrise.

However, there is a major difference—an order-of-magnitude difference—between vociferously opposing the President on policy grounds on one hand and fabricating non-existent legal transgressions in order to justify the gratuitous political theater of groundless impeachment on the other.

If the “good of the country” is the Democrats’ goal, this won’t happen. If it does, it will tell us all we need to know.

Forgive me. I am so prejudiced. So, so biased that I did not even realize that Otherkin is a word, and that it is much more than a word. It is a subculture, apparently, where people decide they’re like fish.

Or dragons, which seems to be a popular choice. Like, for example, a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin. Otherkins might even identify sexually as a dragon with yellow-scales but no wings. Yes, there are people who sexually identify as a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin. Which is NOT the same as a yellow-scaled winged dragonkin. Exactly what the difference between those two sexual identities is is way beyond a bigot like me. So you’ll have to ask the real thing, apparently a particular Google employee who gave an in-house workshop or chat or presentation (was there any dance involved?) on the matter of so-called plural sexual identities.

Should this person who has taken what might seem like an adolescent fantasy and raised (I’m trying to find a neutral verb here) it to the level of an identity (which does not seem to have anything to do with gender, perhaps …) actually read these words and should I ever try to work for Google – two probabilities that limit with zero which if you multiply them together to get the probability that both occur, would get you even closer to zero; I’m trying to be science-based here like Eric Schmidt says Google and Googlers are – then I would be harassed and hounded into the waters of the Pacific. And I would drown as the yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin hissed vengefully over my sinking body, in the shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge.

On dry land, however, James Damore has a much better plan than being hounded into the Pacific for writing a few satirical paragraphs. The former Google employee has launched a lawsuit against his former employer and has released a long document with lots of screenshots that display what it’s like to work at Google as a white male who’s conservative or at least not crazy. Here’s an example of one of the reactions to Damore’s original memo, (which suggested cultural choices and gender differences might have produced the overabundance of white male programmers as well as suggesting ways to actually increase workplace diversity):

I’m a queer-ass non-binary trans person that is f!cking sick and tired of being told to open a dialogue with people who want me dead. We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is ‘if you keep taking about this sh!t I will hurt you’.

The university campus free-speech shout-downs and intimidation and violence are influencing the corporate world in a much faster and more profound way than the path the radicalism of the sixties took to work it’s way into corporate culture. What is happening at Google makes the early years at Apple look like a Mennonite church gathering. But it comes from the same source, and that notorious meeting of Berkeley radicals in the late 60’s where it was decided the only answer to oppression was to kill white babies is still at the heart of cultural marxism. You’re a white male? Confess your guilt or be silent or even better, just quietly leave.

That (mostly) white billionaires are in charge of the companies in Silicon Valley where this is occurring (not the only place of course) is not even seen as ironic or hypocritical. Of course we’re billionaires! We are so evolved that we have yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’s policing our workforce as we collect information on the world’s internet users and charge our corporate clients billions to use that data.

Netocracy. Dragonkins. And non-binary queer-asses who will get medieval on your backside if you even try to talk to them. But remember, Google is science-based!

Democrats Are All About Winning, Not Governing

© 2018 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

It’s been said that we have two major governing parties in this country, the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party has a different, broad-based approach to managing the country: The Democrats believe that Government-created, taxpayer-funded programs—implemented from DC—are the best way to guide the country’s fortunes, while Republicans feel that market-based, individually-oriented solutions work to the best advantage of the nation.

That’s a 30,000-ft generalized look at things, but it is widely accepted as being true.

It’s not true. Just the opposite: It’s fundamentally false. The Democrats are primarily concerned with winning political battles first and governing the country to the population’s benefit second. A look at some of today’s higher-profile issues illustrates this quite clearly. And this is not a peculiarity limited only to present-day circumstances. The Democrats’ approach to both yesterday’s and tomorrow’s major issues are equally persuasive as to their “governing” priorities.

Today’s Issues:

DACA/Dreamers—The Democrats pose as if this is the big humanitarian issue of our time. “Through no fault of their own,” some 800,000 children were dragged across our border when their parents illegally immigrated to this country. The Dreamers, as they’re so amusingly called, should not only be afforded amnesty and forgiveness according to the Democrats and allowed to stay in this country, but they should also be allowed to bring in their relatives as well (so-called chain migration). But President Trump wants funding for his border wall, a central tenet of his campaign, as a condition to any compromise regarding the Dreamers.

The Democrats don’t really have humanitarian concerns and thus they have no incentive or inclination to compromise. Their primary motivations are growing their voting base with low-income Gov’t-dependent immigrants whose offspring will become automatic Democratic voters a few years from now and the desire to simply make President Trump look bad, as a typical “heartless, cold” Republican. Anything that reduces illegal immigration (the wall) or lessens the future pool of Democratic voters (deporting the Dreamers or ending chain migration) will be opposed by the Democrats with a vengeance. The “public good” has nothing to do with anything. A political win for the Democrats is all that matters.

Tax Reform—The Democrats don’t care about the actual financial benefits that lower corporate taxes will deliver to the economy (such as greater investment by companies in plants and equipment, leading directly to increased employment), nor do they care about how much the average middle-class family will benefit from their extra few hundred dollars of disposable income per month. Democrats just want to further the cliché of rich Republicans getting huge underserved tax breaks, while the average person suffers as a result. Democrats simply want to sully the Republicans’ image in the eyes of the casually-attentive voter.

Mueller/Collusion—The Democrats’ only goal here is to make Trump look bad, undermine his legitimacy as president, and keep his approval numbers low in advance of future elections. The Democrats have no actual interest in the impact or influence foreign entities may have had on our voting process or on our electoral system. If they did, they would be just as interested in the fact that Hillary Clinton maintained an illicit e-mail server that contained unauthorized classified information and was hacked by Russians. That is the very definition of reckless, illegal behavior by a candidate undermining the integrity of our election process.

But the Democrats aren’t interested in the “integrity of our election process.” They’re interested in a political win, not in serving the public good.

Government Shutdown—This is merely an opportunity for Democrats to make Republicans look bad, knowing that the liberal media will always cast any ‘shutdown’ as being completely the fault of Republicans, regardless of the actual circumstances. Although both sides are well aware that essential funding continues even during a so-called “shutdown,” Democrats will be quick to exploit an ignorant public with heart-wrenching advertisements of 90-year-old veterans on their once-in-a lifetime trip to DC being turned away from the WWII Memorial or a small-town Boy Scout troop being unable to enter a National Park. All intentionally orchestrated by Democrats, all to make Republicans look bad. The “win” is all-important after all, not the facts.

Those are just today’s high-profile topics. One of yesterday’s was Hurricane Katrina. The Democrats and the liberal media pounded President Bush incessantly for being insensitive to the plight of minorities for his supposed slow response to the crisis. The Democrats’ primary concern was winning the battle of public perception by making a Republican look bad.  They were successful. They “won.” President Bush’s presidency took a hit from which it never recovered, becoming yet another reason why a Republican Presidential win in 2008 was so unlikely, regardless of who the Democratic candidate was.

Tomorrow’s big issues may concern, as example, North Korea or Iran. Democrats will undoubtedly use those circumstances to pile on with very public criticism of President Trump’s handling of the situation. Far from the old dictum of “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” the Democrats will be more concerned with twisting a confrontation with North Korea or Iran into political advantage for themselves than they will be in helping forge a favorable bi-partisan outcome for the good of our country.

Is all this an incredibly cynical, somewhat tongue-in-cheek view of the two parties’ positions? Perhaps. And to be perfectly honest, the Republicans are far from lily-white (am I allowed to use that term anymore?) when it comes to maneuvering the political chess pieces to their advantage.

But to this observer, the Democrats are first and foremost about winning. For them, governing comes in second—and too often, it’s a distant second.

 

Are you scornfully offended over the allegations in Fire and Fury? Because of what Trump’s administration perhaps, possibly, maybe did in its first months in office? Or are you incensed because Michael Wolff does things like misspell “public” as “pubic” on what seems to be more than one occasion in what is a rushed and sloppy, often inaccurate, as well as a nasty, gossipy, insider’s/Bannon’s-knifing-in-the-kidneys of a book?

Never mind.

Does stable-genius make you laugh or cringe?

Doesn’t matter anymore. Why?

Oprah is coming. In 2 years, 9 months, and 25 days. On November 3, 2020, Oprah will save us all with a warm smile, a big hug, and maybe a new car!

Suddenly Tom Steyer says he will focus on funneling tens of millions into Democratic candidates’ campaigns. and will not run for office. Is he thinking of a cabinet level job? Imagine Joe Biden’s face as he watched the Golden Globes and “the speech.” Imagine Kamala Harris thinking: I can’t even think of running anyway and hoping for Vice President because Oprah will likely have to pick a guy as her running mate. Imagine Bernie Sanders thinking: what do I do now? Will my base still stick with me?

Because none of them and the other less known but qualified candidates – like Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper who has policy chops and a fair bit of legislative experience – would ever think of trying to run against an Oprah campaign. Would they? Or pointing out that her policy experience is nil. Would they? Or having their backers fund a little opposition research on her: and not just going back through the thousands of hours of tapes of her show, but really digging up some dirt. Maybe something financial? Tax liabilities anyone? Undeclared income? (even if it’s a case of oversight). Relationships with Hollywood abusers. Would they?

For the most fought over job in the world, in which people are willing to do almost anything to get elected as President of the United States of America, yes they would. At least some of them would. Maybe even the GOP too. Is Fusion GPS is getting a lot of calls?

Oprah, like Trump is going to have to expend her brand, her capital, almost immediately. It’s already started in the media in fact. She’s going to have defend and answer and deal with a level of scrutiny that only someone like Trump, or her friend Obama can advise her on what that feels like.

Is she tough enough to deal with that? Maybe she is, but we will certainly find out, one way or another. Is she nasty enough to swing hard when cornered? Swinging back can be with any tone you can manage to put together: remember noxious Harry Reid who sounded like a concerned elementary school teacher while setting off fire storms in the Senate. Is Oprah flinty enough to eviscerate a Kamala Harris during a debate with a warm smile and a compassionate tone?

Or can she somehow rewrite the rules once again – after Trump rewrote them by breaking them and still getting elected? How would that look? What would that sound like? Before we talk about a possible President Oprah, we need to consider Candidate Oprah and how that would work out.

But wait a minute. Can we actually say Candidate Oprah?? Isn’t it Candidate Winfrey? Wouldn’t it be President Winfrey? Doesn’t have the same ring, does it? Sounds like the frustrated goal of a cautious small-c conservative from the Mid-West who might have lost the nomination to, say, William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

Oprah – magnificent, compassionate and generous – would have to become Winfrey, with at least a handful of policy issues, or a few ideas, to rally those pre-disposed to her around her quest for nomination and subsequent run at the presidency. What those issues could be is still up in the air. She and/or her advisors would have to narrow them down and choose from among them, some sort of platform.

And in doing so would have to expend her precious and substantial personal capital on accumulating enough political capital to survive a campaign against her rivals and then against President Trump.

Goodbye Oprah. Hello Winfrey.

Then again, this is all just speculation that a current set of rules in politics will continue to hold. And that she will in fact run. Will Oprah instead somehow remain Oprah? Could she manage to become – not the first female and second African-American president of America – but rather the first First-Named President of the United States?

What’s in a Last Name? Right Oprah? Liberate us from the tyranny of family and tradition that have been painstakingly built up over generations by hard-working American families and now are under siege by the current flood of identity-politics radicalism. Freedom from family! We give you a shining new dawn:

The Age of Oprah. President Oprah.

Sometimes Late is Worse Than Never

© 2018 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

It seems like timing is everything in life. Job opportunities, investments, political initiatives, travel schedules, etc.—things can work out to maximum advantage or with disastrous results depending on a small shift in the timing of the event.

This is certainly true in business. Companies that have an innovative, exciting new product under development have to balance the need to announce its existence to the market on one hand with their ability to actually deliver the product in a reasonable time frame on the other hand.

Announcing an exciting new product that embodies a brand-new technology or that breaches a previously unreachable price barrier conveys undeniable market advantages to that company. The industry press writes about it and the company enjoys great publicity that shines not only on the new product, but brings great visibility and attention to the company’s other offerings as well. The competition scatters off in a frenzied attempt to match the new product, but since they usually have no idea exactly how the new technology actually works (only having read the press releases and trade write-ups), their efforts are unfocused, time-consuming and expensive.

All of this redounds to the benefit of the company that announces the cutting-edge new product. They have the spotlight. Their market attractiveness goes way up, since customers will want to be “on board” and “first in line” when the new widget is delivered.

Announcing a new product is a double-edged sword, however. Wait too long, and a competitor may beat you to the punch, robbing your forever of your day in the sun. Or even worse, if a company waits too long, the market conditions may shift away from the new product, rendering it irrelevant. If the company had made a more timely announcement, they could have moved the market’s expectations in their direction.

But do it too soon, and you risk burning your goodwill equity as customers and industry analysts alike get tired of waiting for an oft-delayed production date. The market will accept just so many delays and excuses before they write you off completely. The very worst thing that can happen to any company is when their much-ballyhooed invention is delivered to a “So what?” reaction instead of a “Yes! It’s here!” reaction.

Two excellent business examples come immediately to mind.

The first is the Tesla Model 3 electric car. Announced with great fanfare in the spring of 2016, it was going to be the first affordable electric car, suitable for the masses. At an expected price in the mid $30k range, it was no more expensive than a fully-equipped Honda Accord EX. Beautiful, fast and free of the chains of gasoline power, the Tesla Model 3 would be delivered in large quantities by the fall of 2017 and it would single-handedly usher in the era of the practical EV, ending forever the internal combustion engine’s monopoly on the personal automotive market.

It hasn’t worked out the way Tesla led us to believe it would. Maybe they knew all along that they would miss their large-quantity manufacturing dates as badly as they have, but they kept reassuring industry analysts all along that they’d meet them. Their early announcement has spurred rivals like General Motors to fast-track their Bolt competitor, which now (along with other challengers like the new Nissan Leaf) is poised to significantly reduce Tesla’s market impact with the Model 3. Tesla did enjoy the market advantages that accompany an early announcement of a game-changing new product (enhanced corporate publicity, greater attention on their existing products, even financial rewards in the form of advanced Model 3 deposits), but they are paying the penalty now of over-promising and under-delivering: increased skepticism on the part of both industry analysts and frustrated customers and the effective disappearance of their once huge EV technological/market lead.

The second great example of the perils of product announcement timing concerns a small company in the consumer loudspeaker business named Atlantic Technology. In the early 2000’s, the stereo speaker market was changing. The big, ugly freestanding speaker boxes that were everywhere in the 1970’s were no longer acceptable in the style-conscious 2000’s. Built-in speakers, known as “in-walls,” became more popular. These speakers—mounted flush in the wall or ceiling like a heating vent—were practically invisible. No ugly “wooden coffins” ruining the décor. Style-wise, they were the perfect answer.

From a sound quality standpoint however, in-walls were mostly terrible. The wooden box enclosure of those old-fashioned speakers was a major contributor to their great sound quality. Without getting overly technical, it’s critically important to the quality of sound reproduction to precisely control and optimize the amount of air behind a high-fidelity speaker. Simply cutting a hole in the wall’s sheetrock and mounting a speaker in there might get you some kind of sound, but it wouldn’t be true high-fidelity accurate sound.

Atlantic Technology came up with an incredibly clever and simple way to combine the best of both kinds of speakers: their speakers mounted in the wall, as easily and invisibly as conventional in-wall speakers. But…Atlantic perfected an “enclosure” behind the speakers that was an integral part of the in-wall speaker assembly. Instead of just cutting a hole in the wall and mounting a “naked” speaker—like everyone else was doing—Atlantic had an enclosure behind the speaker, sized perfectly to fit in the 3 ½-inch depth of the standard 2 x 4 studded wall. Atlantic’s speakers mounted as easily as anyone else’s and looked similarly invisible once in the wall. The difference was that the Atlantic Technology’s in-wall speakers sounded far, far better, because they had an optimum-sized enclosure behind the speaker, just like the best free-standing box speakers.

Unfortunately, Atlantic showed the new speakers in their very early prototype form at an industry trade show well over a year before they’d eventually go into production. From a manufacturing standpoint, it was a complicated product and there were a lot of time-consuming kinks that needed working out. Six months later, Atlantic showed them again at another industry event, accompanied by another round of press releases promising that “we’re really close now.” Six months later, they did it all again. When the speakers finally came out some 18 months after their initial public unveiling, the speaker market shrugged with bored indifference. Atlantic had cried wolf once too often. What should have been a smashing success that propelled a small company to a new higher level of market visibility and profitability was instead a drawn-out, cash-draining slog that nearly put the company out of business.

Any great new undertaking—whether it’s a new product, a life-changing medical procedure, even a highly anticipated political maneuver—is subject to the laws of optimum timing. It’s a delicate balancing act of predicting the market’s demand and readiness, assessing how far in front of your competitors you’ll be and a very realistic self-evaluation of your ability to deliver the promised entity within a timeframe that satisfies all these conflicting requirements.

Announce and promise too soon, and your target customers will tire quickly of your unfulfilled promises and missed deadlines, rendering your eventual delivery a ho-hum non-event. Wait too long to announce, and your competition may get there before you or you run the risk of introducing a product, service or legislation that no longer has real meaning and value to its original market. In business, economics, politics and many other human endeavors, timing is everything. Late is often worse than never.

 

This was a brazen act, a defiant challenge to the powers that be that was slapped down with a swift ferocity within a short while of it’s being released to the public.

Oh yes, and also today on Wednesday there’s news about Steve Bannon’s spat with President Trump.

But let’s return to the first case: Paul Manafort’s lawsuit against the Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller for overstepping their authority. It’s a long shot, given that Manafort has been charged with 12 violations of the law, an admittedly dramatic beefing up by Mueller’s team of what are essentially charges of money laundering and lying. And what is essentially a result of failing to register as a foreign agent, a crime that is usually dealt with by requiring the offending party (often lobbyists) to duly register. Not this time however.

Does Manafort’s past list of clients provoke at the very least uneasiness on the part of most of us? Of course. Do the charges against Manafort have anything to do with any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin’s regime in Moscow? Not so far. And that’s essentially Manafort´s legal strategy apparently. The order signed by Rod Rosenstein back on May 5, 2017 is now being attacked in Manafort’s lawsuit as too broad, seeing it in part says:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intellligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

It’s parts (ii) and (iii) of (b) and (c) which may prove to be most damaging for Paul Manafort, seeing that the order basically allows Mueller’s team free range to dig into financial transactions of any sort that they deem of interest. Not sure Manafort is keen on that.

Yes, (b) (ii) and (iii), and (c) are fishing expeditions for the most part. Is that appropriate for a special counsel? The courts will decide and so far opinion has been dismissive of Manafort’s lawsuit. But it will be interesting to see how the courts rule and what their rulings might imply about a special counsel’s reach in general.

On the other hand why bother with details of lawsuits concerning special counsels and deputy AG’s when you have Steve “Fire and Fury” Bannon using the T word in Michael Wolff’s soon to be released book? One can imagine the curious mixture of wonder, glee and apprehension in Democrat (and Special Counsel) circles …

How do we spin this without seeming like Nazi-loving alt-right white supremacists?

The specific quote in question that apparently infuriated the president is the one where Bannon tells Wolff that Donald Jr, Jared Kushner, and Manafort should have high-tailed it to the FBI as soon as they finished their meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin. Because they didn’t, and because – according to Wolff’s book – Bannon thought they would have loved to set up a meeting with Trump right there and then, they therefore engaged in a “treasonous” act.

So. The President is furious with Bannon. Some Never Trumpers like David French are proud of the President’s angry dismissal of all things Bannon. And Steve Bannon himself may find himself at the receiving end of a subpoena ordering him to appear before Mueller’s investigators.

Is the Mueller investigation metastasizing into vicious and petty inter-party and intra-party partisan dueling? Or is Steve Bannon potentially an important witness now? Or is he just a disruptive and opinionated outsider as far as the Russia Probes are concerned?

Keep in mind, this is a book by Michael Wolff about Steve Bannon’s time in the White House. It is not a Comey memorandum written on a laptop in a limousine after a meeting with the President. It is far less than that, and Bannon’s words should be viewed with the same disgusted skepticism by his legions of detractors as they were viewed before this book was pre-released. They won’t be of course. Bannon will now be taken far more seriously.

Finally, the last part of Trump’s written statement in reaction to the leaked quotes is interesting. It says:

We have many great Republican Members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down.

Is President Trump finally realizing what a noxious thing equivocating with the alt-right was?