Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in February 2017

Full of sound and fury

February 14, 2017

mckee

Almost completely overshadowed by the immigration fiasco, Trump released an executive order last week that so far has drawn very little comment. It is an order to the Secretary of Defense which Trump claims will launch the “great rebuilding of the armed forces” that he promised in one of his bumper-sticker policy statements during the campaign.

It does no such thing. The order is, in fact, an utter waste of time that will accomplish nothing.

First, the order directs General Mattis to conduct a 30 day review of the readiness of the armed forces to combat ISIS. The Secretary does not need an order, nor does he need 30 days, to come up with any readiness report on the capability of the military to combat ISIS. As anybody with even a modicum of familiarity with military operations would know, such a report is already prepared in excruciating detail by every unit in every command every single day, with a comprehensive consolidation placed on the Secretary’s desk, and probably included in the President’s daily briefing – if he know what to look for. Asking the Secretary to prepare a report on this subject is merely asking the Secretary to read and summarize the reports that are already under everyone’s nose. It is an indication that Trump does not know any better, and worse, does not have anybody on his staff that he can turn to before putting his foot in his mouth.

Second, the order directs the Secretary of Defense to come up with a plan to rebuild the military in 60 days. In fact, there is a precondition that has to happen first before any plan can be prepared – whether in 60 days or 600 days. The President has to tell General Mattis how much money he can spend.

The blunt facts are that the combined troop levels of all forces of the U.S. military have been reduced from a high of 556,000 in fiscal 2011 to 490,000 in fiscal 2015. The figure is heading toward 450,000 or perhaps even 420,000 by 2019. The reductions are all due almost entirely to the sequester of funds mandated by the Budget Control Act passed at the insistence of the Republican Congress in 2011.

A thorough study that examined the military from the end of WWII was completed in 2010. A Defense Strategic Guidance was based on that study, released in 2012. Under the DSG, the first mission of the military was defeating terrorism through counter terrorism and irregular warfare. The second mission was to deter and defeat aggression by any potential adversary in conventional warfare. It is hugely important that this second mission statement no longer demanded maintaining two or more large scale operations under conventional warfare as necessary to the mission of U.S. forces. The land wars of Korea and WWII, and what the United States had accomplished in WWII in defeating both Germany and Japan were no longer as relevant under the expectations of modern warfare. The change in mission was a crossroads for Obama. His hand after that date was guided by the differences in mission and differences in expectations expressed in that release.

What Obama has been trending towards was to live within the means dictated by the Budget Control Act. This would entail the acceptance of a reduction in standing forces, a reduced ability to sustain large scale combat operations for any length of time, and increased reliance upon allies and coalition operations. The “leading from behind” pejorative arose from Obama’s recognition that the U.S. could not always expect to go into hotspots first and heaviest; sometimes it was more prudent to take a supporting role and allow an ally to lead the way. Further, that the time may have come for the United States to pick its battles, and not respond automatically with military force anywhere in the world anytime an international event was touched off, without assurances of allied support going in.

This means that before the Secretary of Defense should be expected to come up with any plan on alternatives to improve readiness in the military, someone has to answer this questions: (a) must the Secretary work within the budget constraints demanded by the BCA, or (b) may the Secretary expect more funds for defense, and therefore a change in the basic approach? One ought not to need a separate study to choose option (a) or (b) as presented here.

Finally, the executive order directs the Secretary of Defense to work with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to revise the funding requests. But this directive is the wrong way around. Asking the military to come up with what it wants before the President has established limitations on what it can spend is like expecting some parents to rely upon their five year old’s letter to Santa Claus to set their budget for Christmas. This is just plain not the way it is supposed to happen.

Even with the budget reductions to date we still spend more than the next eight countries of the world combined on our military and its operations. We spent close to $600 billion on defense in 2015, while China spent around 1/3 and Russia 1/10 of that amount. By all measures, we still have the strongest military force ever assembled. If Trump wants a larger military than the existing budget will allow, he must be the one to declare it so. He has yet to tip his hand on what he intends in this area, but until he does, his directions to the Secretary of Defense are pointless.

The upshot here is that this executive order as written is pure malarky. A piece of paper to assuage Trump’s base that he is acting on a campaign promise, and has good intentions, but that, in fact, is otherwise worthless. It is, in the word of the Bard, “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!”

Eyes tight shut

February 14, 2017

mckee

The 9th Circuit opinion was a complete rout.

Trump lost on every single point raised. Further, it was a unanimous opinion of the three-judge panel, leaving no room to maneuver.

The application for an emergency order was denied outright, leaving the lower court’s full temporary restraining order in place, which stopped completely all aspects of Trump’s executive order on immigration practices.

The cognoscenti are having a field day trying to predict what Trump will do next. Most predict that he will not take the obvious and logical step of pulling the executive order back and starting over. Everyone who has touched this thing concedes that if carefully drafted, an order could be entered which would achieve the national security objectives within Constitutional mandates.

Instead, the overwhelming consensus is that Trump, with eyes tight shut and refusing to listen to anyone other than those who agree with him, will continue to defend the sloppy, poorly drafted hodge-podge existing order to the bitter end. And so it goes.

The one person who gained the most out of all this is the right Honorable James L. Robart, that usually unsung trencher from the district court bench who will now and forever proudly carry the Presidential sobriquet of the “So Called Judge,” and upon whom the appellate court rewarded with that rare and most revered of instruments – a copper plated, gold starred, four cornered affirmance suitable for framing that kicked everybody’s ass in sight except his.

Well done, Judge James!

Lying is changing history

February 13, 2017

rainey

I’m a “repeat offender” when it comes to criticizing the national media. There’s so much wrong there that at least some of my anger must have some merit. This time, the whole mess of ‘em are mucking through something that will, eventually, change reporting rules and all of us as consumers.

Having been a very small part of it many years ago, I learned a lot and am happy for the opportunity - lucky to have had the experience. Maybe that’s a big part of why I use this space to rant against some of the current practitioners from time to time. “Been there. Done that.” So, when they screw up, it touches a personal reflexive nerve which brings the angry reaction. I’ve got one of those going now. But, this time it’s different. Angry AND, for once, uncertain.

Not many in today’s media crowd were around in the ‘50's and ‘60's when I was learning the craft. Their early training and mine are a couple of generations apart. Oh, some of the basics are still the same i.e. who, what, where, when, why and how. Still gotta have all that.

Then we -and they as youngsters - went through the Watergate era where the most prized reporting came to those doing “investigative journalism.” Woodward, Bernstein, Mike Wallace et al. Dig out the lies, confront the bad guys and make major headlines. Or a rare 10 minute “package” leading the evening’s national news. Journalism turned a sharp corner then and the “who, what, where...” guys largely disappeared. So did a lot of “getting it right” with facts before being the bearer of constantly “breaking news.” Damn, how I hate that phrase!

Now, another “sharp corner” is being turned. Labeling public officials - up to and including the President of the United States - liars. Which - on a daily and often hourly basis - he, and nearly all the appointed minions who “speak” for him, are. Without question.

Most of the “street” reporters in the national media are less than 50-years-old. Such training as they received was much different than us older types had in the ‘50's, ‘60's and ‘70's. That - and Trump”s continuing, reprehensible public statements - has resulted in a very different “code of conduct” between media coverage and news makers.

Case in point: Richard Nixon. I didn’t like Nixon when he was in Congress in the ‘50's. A liar then, just as he was in the presidency. He felt persecuted, disrespected, undervalued and cursed with being a perpetual “outsider” in Washington. All of which he carried into the White House years later.

My limited, working contact with him was usually as a weekend reporter or subbing for regular, daily beat reporters. Also had a couple of minor personal occasions to be in his presence. Each time, my innards churned with disrespect. A lot of contemporaries felt the same. But all of us - all - played our different roles professionally and - all in all - until Watergate, respectfully. If not for him, then for the office. But we knew he often lied. Big time.

Now, the next generation of reporters is faced with Donald Trump - the most unqualified, unprepared, unskilled and biggest misfit ever to hold the office of President. To that can be added his penchant for distortion and outright lying on a daily basis. And, his selection and daily use of people equally unskilled at their jobs who share the same distasteful habit of publically - and often - speaking “truth” as they see fit to create it.

Trump operated in the same dishonest manner for nearly two years of the national campaign. For a long time, he wasn’t openly challenged for his regular, daily “untruths” by a media not used to dealing with an openly confident, perpetual liar at that level.

Then, editors and others in charge of content for broadcasters and print, had to make some decisions. Should they continue to avoid or soft-pedal the daily torrent of lies and, thus, become complicit in passing them on to viewers and readers as fact? Should they employ fact-checkers and give the job of separating truth from fiction to them? Or, should they step outside the boundary of simply reporting and call the torrent of lies what they were? Lies!

Though the media is currently held in very low esteem by much of the American public, I can tell you, from experience, a lot of good scotch and considerable bourbon was consumed, a lot of sleep was lost and a lot of professional soul-searching was done by some very dedicated people. To openly challenge the voices and the blatant lies would forever change the honored - and mostly respected - balance between government officials and media. The relationship would never be the same.

The resulting decision for nearly all media has been to label this administration’s lies for what they are - lies. Not just once in awhile. Not just when the lie is a big one. Not just for spite. Not just for anybody but the President. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. Anytime. And anyone.

To my mind, this puts us on a whole new path. Those who persist in lying are going to be called on it - regardless of who they are. At least nationally. And the national media, once simply an institutional reporting source, has become a daily arbiter of fact.

Will this continue when Trump and his minions are gone? No one knows. But, that sweeping difference in one of our most significant national institutional relationships is what exists today.

I’m not comfortable with that. But it is what it is.

Idaho Briefing – February 13

Idaho Briefing – February 13

February 12, 2017

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for February 6. Interested in subscribing? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

H20 was the big topic in Idaho last week – first in colder form, as heavy snowfall that in some places threatened to break all-time snowfall records, and later as rain and snow melt that led to widespread flooding, mainly in the southern part of the state.

The House Education Committee voted on February 9 to remove references to climate change and human impact on the environment from a new set of science standards.

The Canyon County Board of County Commissioners announced on February 8 their plan to keep the Canyon County Fair at its current location in Caldwell for the foreseeable future.

The Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear said on February 9 the availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for small business vouchers to assist applicants developing advanced nuclear energy technologies who are seeking access to the world class expertise and capabilities available across the U.S. Department of Energy's national laboratories complex.

Vista Outdoor Inc., a major employer at Lewiston, reported diminished operating results for the third quarter of its Fiscal Year 2017, which ended on January 1.

Citing Idaho law and the State Water Plan, the Idaho Water Resource Board unanimously approved a resolution Monday opposing additional fish-passage requirements on the relicensing of the Hells Canyon Dam complex.

PHOTO Heavy snowfall early in the week turned, in many places, to flooding later on in the week. (photo/Idaho Transportation Department)

Water Digest – week of February 13

Water Digest – week of February 13

February 12, 2017

Water rights weekly report for January 9. For much more news, links and detail, see the National Water Rights Digest.

The Supreme Court will hear next from advocates for Texas and New Mexico in their battle over water flows in the Rio Grande. Texas appears to have the upper hand.

A group of Aiken County residents in South Carolina, concerned about high water use by a couple of local corporate farms, have asked the state’s legislature to tighten water use regulation.
South Carolina, a relatively wet riparian-doctrine state, has relatively few restrictions on water use. But as the state’s House Legislative Oversight Committee heard in late January, concerns are rising.

State legislative season has kicked in around the country, but maybe nowhere is the water right front as active as in Montana. Out in the Big Sky, at least 18 water rights related bills were introduced by early February.

TriMetals Mining Inc. said on February 7 that one of its subsidiaries has acquired the rights to 1,658 acre feet of water per year through a water lease agreement which includes an option to purchase the water rights.

Concerns about water levels in sensitive peatlands, the government of Indonesia said on Feburary it will issue a regulation requiring property owners to set up systems to monitor water levels.

What we criminalize

February 10, 2017

stapiluslogo1

A century ago, Idaho was a legislative leader in passing a law that would be adopted not long after by almost half the states: The criminal syndicalism act. It’s a slice of history worth reviewing.

The background is this: In the teens the activist and relatively radical edge of the labor movement was the Industrial Workers of the World (members were called “wobblies”). Its success and scope was actually limited, but it was well known regionally and nationally: Anti-union forces talked them up a great deal in fearful tones. In Idaho they mostly were active in the northern lumber camps, and organizers appeared in southern Idaho farms. Their main tool was the strike (in some places, mostly outside Idaho, things sometimes went further), though they were accused of much more. Their demands were for such workers’ protections as an eight-hour day and more worker safety, but their rhetoric was strident enough that they conflicted with other union groups as much as they did businesses.

There was a genuine radical connection, and some IWW leaders really were close to then-emergent Communist Party organizations. As World War I approached, the organization was also accused of being in league with the kaiser. (You know, whoever was handy.) Most of the people in the field were simply active union members, but across much of the state, panic of the unknown and fear of the group was exploding. One academic study of the period noted that “the economic and social problem became an … IWW problem and led to an attack on unpopular doctrines and groups.”

With memories of Silver Valley mine worker violence then not quite a generation in the past, Idaho’s leaders were quick to line up against the wobblies. And in March 1917 the legislature passed a law intended to get at them. This was the syndicalism act, which sought to ban “the doctrine which advocates crime, sabotage, violence, or other unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”

You’ll notice how un-specific the language is. That was considered a feature, not a bug, because the broad-brush accusations could easily be thrown around, and were. The point here is that purpose of the law had little to do with concerns about overthrowing the government (which already was covered by laws against treason, sedition and the like); that was the fig leaf. The real point was in suppressing the IWW. (The organization, much smaller and less active than it once was, still exists and is based in Chicago.)

The cover came off a few years later when Idaho legislators passed anti-union legislation criminalizing such acts as “work done in an improper manner, slack work, waste of property, and loitering at work.” And the anti-syndicalism law was eventually weakened by court decisions and later legislation. But in 1917 the measure passed because a relatively small group that actually affected Idaho at the edges was blown up into a terrible threat to decent society. It was made to seem so terrible that freedom of speech took a battering. (That battering would get much worse on a national level at the nation went to war.) For its part, the IWW declined in the twenties for its own organizational reasons, and never recovered.

Doesn’t take much for us to react badly; people are more easily manipulated than they would ever like to believe.

That’s no less true today than it was a century ago. It’s as simple as this: When someone points a finger and blames “them” for our problems, ask first what agendas are really involved. In the politics of today no less than back then, it’s a critical piece of intelligent self-government.

In the abyss

February 9, 2017

schmidt

Small ideas take a lot of words; big ones need just a few. This was a small idea I stumbled upon, and the idea itself is not that important, but what happened, more so, what didn’t is the story. People here in Idaho are dying and Idaho’s US Senators aren’t doing much for us. That’s the real story here.

The Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Workgroup was started 6 years ago to address the prescription opioid epidemic in our state. Idaho, like all states has a prescription monitoring program (PMP). At one of the workgroup meetings I was made aware of a gap in our state monitoring system. Federally sanctioned methadone treatment programs and Veterans clinics are not required to enter their controlled substance prescriptions into the Idaho PMP.

That means if a veteran is on oxycodone for chronic pain and he comes into the ER wanting something for pain and doesn’t tell the ER doctor he’s taking the VA meds, the doctor can’t see the prescriptions in the system. I know; this has happened to me as an ER doctor.

The reason for this exception lies in federal law. I asked the Director of the Board of Pharmacy about this and his eyes lit up. “Do you want to know about this? I have all the research.” He shared with me the specific US code, some proposed changes from different US Senators over the years. It seems not just the uninsured are dying from lack of action.

Congress isn’t dead yet; but the reaction I got to this small idea from Idaho’s Senators was moribund.

This should have had some traction since the prescription opioid epidemic was in the news so much and it is rampant in our state. I drafted a brief letter on my state senate letterhead describing the issue and asked for a conversation. I was sensitive to party affiliation issues and got a Republican state senator to introduce this idea to our US Senators and sent off the email. That was a year ago.

THREE MONTHS later I got an email reply thanking me and telling me there would be follow up. THREE MONTHS after that I got a call from an intern working with one of the senator’s offices. We had a polite conversation and the intern asked me a bunch of questions that could have been answered if he had read my initial email. Now we are six months later, I am no longer a state senator, and I doubt there will be any action.

Was it a bad idea or that it came from an Idaho Democrat, or is just Washington DC so crippled? I would have appreciated some response either way. Maybe a new administration will invigorate Congress.

I understand that things take time.

I understand that many of the folks with different interests need to be involved, but there is no reason I can understand why Methadone Clinics or VA clinics should not be reporting their prescriptions to a state PMP. In fact, the Virginia Attorney General sent a letter to HHS last spring asking for the same change. Idaho did not sign on to that request, but 31 other states did.

Hello Congress: people are dying. Get to work.

Gunfight at SCOTUS corral

February 8, 2017

carlson

It gets downright depressing to see conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats oiling their guns, sharpening their knives and starting to circle each other in a modern day version of the legendary gunfight at the OK Corral.

It is the latest iteration of that age-old fight which starts off with “he hit me, first! Therefore I’m entitled to hit him back.” Yet even a pre-schooler in a sandbox knows two wrongs don’t make a right. Democrats correctly called foul on the refusal of Senate Republicans to take up President Obama’s nomination of Merick Garland to the Court just about a year ago.

So much for the “advise and consent role” the Constitution lays out as a major responsibility of the U.S. Senate. Instead, the Republican Senate cynically would not even hold a hearing on the nomination let alone hold a Judiciary or floor vote on the nomination.

One reason, however, many Republicans held their noses and still voted for Donald Trump was his promise to nominate Judge Antonin Scalia’s replacement from a list compiled by conservative of “acceptable” court nominees.

Worthy though Federal Judge Neil Gorsuch is, Senate Democrats are planning on filibustering the Trump nomination offering as an excuse that “turn about” is fair play. Because it takes 60 votes to overcome a Senate over-ride of a filibuster, many folks expect Gorsuch may have to withdraw his name, especially if Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky does not avail himself of the “nuclear option” - a simple majority vote of those present and voting.

Even then, if just two Republicans abstain a tie vote would go to the chair to cast the tiebreaker, and this is the only situation that allows the sitting vice president, Mike Pence, to cast the tie-breaking vote.

The net result is two exeedingly competent nominated justices, Merick Garland and Neil Gorsuch, both with exceptional records, could be destroyed in this overly politicized gunfight.

Can this stalemate, this at loggerheads ever be resolved? Yes, there is still room for compromise and bi-partianship and there is a path forward that could neutralize the vitriol and animosity.

Here is the proposal:

Step #1: This step is designed to reduce the overt and crippling partisanship now surrounding Supreme Court nominations.

The Senate Judiciary Committee creates a Special Subcommittee to vett all Supreme Court and Federal Distict Judge nominations. The subcommittee chair would be Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. the sitting chair. The ranking minority member, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, would also be a member.

Altogether there will be seven members: one seat will be allocated to the sitting president of the American Bar Association. Another seat will be assigned to those who once served as U.S. Solicitor Generals. The majority party will name qualified members of the legal profession to two seats and the minority party will nominate the last seat.

In order for a name to move forward to the full Judiciary Committee a person must have five of the seven votes.

Step #2. This step is designed to forge the only realistic compromise now clouding the nomination of Justice Garland and Justice Gorsuch. Neither should become “road kill” or “collateral damage” in the current fight.

The key though is for one of the several judges on the current Supreme Court who should resign because of age or illness. One of them is the linch pin to this win-win compromise. For arguments sake let’s say Justice Ginsberg volunteers to step down.

The judiciary committee then resurrects the nomination of President Obama’s nominee and the two nominations, Garland and Gorsuch are vetted by the full committee and then sent to the floor for a vote where, based on qualifications alone, both are approved and once again there is a functioning nine-member Supreme Court.

Thereafter future nominees for all federal judgeships are run through the process outlined in Step #1. This is a realistic solution but probably too sensible to be adopted. If someone has a better solution I’m all ears.

The great wall

February 7, 2017

mckee

Events around Trump can unfold and refold so fast, one cannot keep up. As I was writing and editing this piece, the total circumstance changed three times, not counting the extra little twists and turns, making it impossible to chronicle Trumps actions as they are happening.

In a mind numbing, head spinning whirl, President Trump started with an executive order to build the great wall that realistically wasn’t going anywhere. When Trump saw the situation was developing badly, he made it worse. When that didn’t work, he escalated it and made it much, much worse. When the situation was about to turn into a complete disaster, he tried to bluff his way out and blame it all on Mexico, and when he got called, he tried to out-bluff again. The President of Mexico then tipped over the table and stormed out.

At last, with Congress getting more and more restless, with the realities of international trade beginning to sink in, and with relations between the countries on the brink of disaster, Trump did a silent u-turn and stuffed everything back in the box. The situation is left in limbo, essentially where it started, with nothing positive to show for the hullabaloo that was created. There is an empty executive order to proceed with the wall, but no plans, no money and no means of implementing anything. There is a very angry President Nieto in Mexico, a Mexican press that is boiling over, and a population in Mexico growing more upset with the situation in the United States every day. There is a puzzled ally to our north wondering if Trump has something against Canada that is going to explode, and finally, there is a befuddled White House press with a yard full of inconsistent statements to unravel, and anyone who has been trying to keep up left with a fistful of torn-up and scratched out notes, as the administration’s version of events changed from moment to moment.

As Thomas Friedman pointed out on Meet the Press recently, and what Trump and his cabal of amateurs running the White House do not yet seem to understand, everything in today’s economy is global and everything global is networked. One cannot touch one aspect of anything without reactions and counter reactions spinning through the network to impact trade everywhere.

Mexico is our third largest trading partner. We do over half a trillion dollars in trade with Mexico every year, and, if we don’t screw it up, this could continue to burgeon. President Trump seems bound and determined to screw it up. Trump, who has promised to find jobs, increase trade and improve the economy, wants to build a 30 foot wall between us and our third largest trading partner, and perhaps impose as much as a 20% tariff on all imports.

The current flap all started with an executive order that mentioned beginning construction of the border wall between the United States and Mexico. Trump’s campaign mantra. But there is no money, no source of funding mentioned in the order, and no mechanism for obtaining funds. Congressional leadership indicated that tax revenues would not be available. Without a means to implement construction, the executive order was meaningless – other than perhaps for its value as a token to Trump’s base that he was thinking about the promises he made.

When the White House press made this point to Trump, he hauled out his bumper sticker from the campaign and insisted that Mexico would be expected to pay for the wall. Now, it is one thing for this kind of statement to be made by a candidate for election. The American press, and certainly the world in general, does not place much weight on campaign rhetoric. It is quite another thing, however, when the statement is made by the sitting President of the United States.

Mexico’s President Pena Nieto firmly declared that Mexico had no intention of paying for the wall. Trump rejected this demurrer, and repeated that it would so be paid for by Mexico, eventually, one way or another. In response to this arrogant stance, Nieto suggested that if this was Trump’s position, the state visit should be postponed. Trump promptly replied that until Mexico displayed a more respectful attitude towards the United States’ position, the meet should not happen. The Mexican president declared the next morning that the meeting was off. Trump replied with a harrumph that it was a mutual decision.

The developing situation ended for the day with Sean Spicer’s explanation that funding for the Mexican border wall would come from a 20% import tax – a tariff – that, notwithstanding the clear prohibitions of NAFTA, Trump proposed to impose upon Mexican imports. This set off a blizzard of protest from every quarter. The tariff, of course, would not be a tax on Mexico but on the American consumer. A tariff as stiff as 20% would materially impact trade – all of it, not just the imports, and if U.S. – Mexico trade was impacted, the effects would reach around the world. Everything is networked, remember – one cannot affect one segment without the reactions being felt everywhere. Every competent economist that has looked at this has reported that an untargeted general tariff of this size against imports of this magnitude could well precipitate a global recession.

As the press reported it, President Trump insulted the sovereignty of Mexico on several levels, proposed an intent to breach the trade relations that have existed between the two countries for almost 25 years, and then suggested that Mexico was being disrespectful. Both English and Spanish fail to provide words to describe this developing situation; in Yiddish, however, characterizing brash and insulting behavior has been elevated to a fine art: one then might say the arrogant chutzpah of the new U.S. President trying to cast the blame for any of this upon the Mexican President is jaw-dropping.

Trump’s reaction to this whirling piece of meshuggeneh has been to turn about and walk away. He has not withdrawn or undone anything. There was a telephone call between the two presidents that more or less patched things up personally, but no definitive agreements were reached. We are now advised by Spicer that the 20% tariff was never an actual proposal, but just an idea – it might be 5% or 10%, or not at all – as Trump was just sounding out possibilities. The Congressional reaction towards providing funds to build the wall is unchanged, and Trump has made no further formal request in this area. The executive order is still outstanding, and the meeting with the President of Mexico has not been rescheduled.

These events are still unfolding. Whether the damage to our relations with Mexico can be repaired would seem to be up to Trump. Right now, only egos are involved; no real damage to either country has occurred. But if Trump stays true to his reactions towards every potential crisis up to now, and cannot be counseled to pay attention to the comments of the likes of Thomas Friedman and realize that everything is interrelated, then one may well expect that things eventually will in fact get much, much worse.