My Wise Cousin Steve

 

Donochio

I haven’t mentioned my wise cousin Steve in a while. Actually I’ve been busy with other stuff and haven’t had time to write a blog post, but he sent me a series of e-mails that I just have to share. 

I don’t think I mentioned it before, but Steve is an Excel expert. He puts everything on Excel: pictures, documents. He puts his grandchildren’s pictures on Excel, with comments. He recently put all my blog posts on Excel, all 300 or so, with filters to search them for topics. He also did our family genealogy on Excel, complete with links

to documents and pictures, and filters that enable you to search them by clan, and 50 or so other parameters. For my blog post spread sheet, he had to read all my blogs and the filter them according to history war, philosophy, Indian tribes, family, interviews, etc, etc, a tremendous amount of work. Steve taught me to put my pictures on Excel, as well as my You Tube posts. It’s really useful. 

The other thing that my wise cousin Steve is exert in is politics. Putting this together with his love of spread sheets makes him a valuable resource. A local politician once hired him to chart voter characteristics in each county. 

Last week we were talking about Trump’s boasting that in 2016 he won over Clinton in the biggest Electoral College victory (304 votes) since Ronald Reagan, and beat Harris in a landslide. Since then he has sent me spread sheets listing the popular and electoral college votes in all the presidential elections since 1975, along with the margins in each race. Then, he sent a summary of his findings as follows:

 

The second worksheet ranks popular vote margin

1972 - Nixon over McGovern – 23.2%

1964 - Johnson over Goldwater – 22.5%

1984 - Reagan over Mondale – 18.2%

1956 - Eisenhower over Stevenson – 15.4%

1952 - Eisenhower over Stevenson – 10.9%

No other post WWII popular vote margin was over 10%

The closest was 1960 Kennedy over Nixon 0.1%

2 winners had fewer popular votes than the looser

2000 - Bush over Gore -0.5%

2016 – Trump over Clinton -2.1%

 

The third worksheet ranks electoral vote margin

1984 – Reagan over Mondale – 512 ev

1972 – Nixon over McGovern – 503 ev

1980 – Reagan over Carter – 440 ev

1964 – Johnson over Goldwater – 434 ev

1956 - Eisenhower over Stevenson – 384 ev

1952 - Eisenhower over Stevenson – 353 ev

1988 – Bush over Dukakis – 315 ev

No other post WWII electoral vote margin was over 300 ev

The closest was 2000 – Bush over Gore 5 ev

 

2016 Trump over Clinton (304 ev to 227 ev)

Trump’s claim "I had the biggest Electoral College victory (304 votes) since Ronald Reagan"

Since Ronald Reagan in 1984

1988 – Bush over Dukakis – 426 ev for Bush

1992 – Clinton over Bush – 370 ev for Clinton

1996 – Clinton over Dole – 379 ev for Clinton

2008 – Obama over McCain – 365 ev for Obama

2012 – Obama over Romney – 332 ev for Obama

 

2024 Trump over Harris (49.8% to 48.3%)

Trump’s claim “I won the election in a landslide”

Since WWII

6 Winners received a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump in 2024

13 Winners received a higher percentage of the popular vote then Trump in 2024

 

In the meantime I read an article reporting that some surveys are now conducted by AI instead of actually questioning real people! He responded as follows: 

Lots of polls are biased.  An online poll on Fox will have different results than one on Mother Jones.  Differences in methodology – the way questions are asked, the group of people polled, the bias of the poll taker, statistics – are variables that are difficult to overcome.  I don’t trust any poll when I don’t agree with the outcome. 

Steve’s currently working on a spreadsheet listing attempts to gerrymander by state.

 

 

Environnment

 

You Don't Have To Follow the Other Fish

My wise cousin Steve and I don’t disagree often, but there’s one subject we do disagree on, so maybe I should talk about it a little.  He says that changes in society should be gradual. That gives people time to get used to a new way of thinking. It gives time for a new culture to develop, and it reduces the chance of violent conflict. For my part, I think if a change is good, then the quicker you make it, the better.

Steve and I were both raised to be prejudiced against blacks. Neither of us are now, at least we try not to be. I changed my thinking when I got a job as a nursing assistant at the state University Hospital. Most of the nurses and the nurses’ aides, the people I worked with, were black. I liked them. They weren’t dirty, or immoral, or stupid. In fact they knew more than I did about caring for patients. There were cultural differences, but mostly they were just like everyone else I knew. 

All the arguments, all the rationalizations for segregation I had heard during my life just fell away when I was put into an environment that was mainly black. When I actually got to know some black people, I could no longer feel superior. My change of thinking was pretty much instantaneous. 

It’s environment that shapes opinions. If you stay in the same environment that fostered your opinions, they won’t change, so if you grew up in a segregated environment, you’re probably going to stay a racist. 

Back when I was a child, black people were demonstrating for their rights. Whites, mainly in the south, were violently opposed giving blacks the right to vote, the right to an equal education. They tried to block black children from getting into public schools, but since schools have been integrated, it’s no big deal. The environment has changed. I think that we justify whatever situation we’re in, even if we are forced into it.  

Unfortunately, a “bad” environment can also change your thinking. When I was in Vietnam, I was shocked to discover that almost everyone thought of the Vietnamese as inferior. They were dishonest, cowardly, cruel, ungrateful for our “help.” It was okay to kill them, because their lives weren’t worth anything anyway. So young, mainly Christian Americans, incidentally both black and white, brought up to respect human life and to believe in equality and freedom of thought, almost instantly became prejudiced and contemptuous of the Vietnamese. It was because of they were living in a prejudiced environment, and the change in thinking was almost instantaneous, just like my experience working in the hospital with blacks.

If you grow up in a Christian society you’re going to be a Christian. Same with Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, etc. If you’re born in a capitalist society, you’re going to believe that competition makes things better, that the wealthy should have more power, all the ideas that go along with capitalism. By and large, we don’t question our culture. I think that many people assume that these ideas are ingrained in us, and that they can’t be changed. I agree that it’s hard to change a person’s opinion by arguing. People automatically defend their opinions in an argument, and the human mind is good at rationalization. If they have an idea that’s part of their culture, then everyone and every institution reinforces their opinions. 

But it’s not the rationalizations, the evidence, that forms our opinions, it’s the environment, the culture. I’m not saying that you can’t buck your culture. I knew a few Americans in Vietnam who respected and admired the Vietnamese. There are people who leave cults, Christians who become atheists, capitalists who become socialists, but it’s always the minority.  The effect of environment is strong. I think it’s important to question our culture, not to take for granted that we’re right and everyone else is wrong, or that other cultures can’t work just as well as ours. 

I think this environmental effect is what has created the polarized society we live in now. With the internet, people are able to just listen to those who agree with them. Just listening to one slant on the news, or even “fake news” causes us to become even more convinced of our own prejudices. Wealthy people influence news reporting more than the poor or middle class, so social programs that benefit the poor and would eventually lead to a more egalitarian society are voted out. 

I think the MAGA Republicans understand the effect of environment. That’s why they are buying up the local TV stations, and recently CNN and CBS. They already own FOX. If they can control what we hear, our environment, then they can convince us they are right. I think we are in grave danger now. The MAGA’s have already won most of the state legislatures and the presidency twice. But they have also changed the real environment: prices, social programs, and foreign policy, so hopefully this will convince people they’re wrong. 

We don’t have time for gradual change. We still have a democracy, even though the MAGAs are trying to take it away, by making it harder for immigrants, women, poor people to vote, and by controlling those who run for office, and by gerrymandering districts. We need to fight to be heard by the media, we need to vote, to demonstrate, to run for office, before it’s too late.  

 

Immigration

 

Statue of Liberty

Tonight I saw a video of an Episcopal bishop telling a group of priests that they should get their affairs in order. He said that if the immigration crisis continues to get worse, some of them might become martyrs for defending immigrants. Trump is really bearing down on Minnesota. He’s preparing to move an army battalion into Minneapolis to reinforce the 3000 ICE agents already there. His Department of Justice has initiated investigations to find excuses to bring charges against the Minnesota governor, Tim Waltz, and the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, who have spoken out against Trump’s invasion.   

Trump is rounding up immigrants, even those here legitimately, deporting them, putting them in prison camps, both in the US and in other countries without warrants, splitting up families, creating fear in the immigrant community. 

It’s the same plan Trump has followed before: address a problem that doesn’t exist, or do something to cause a problem, and then rush in to “solve” it. He did the same thing by declaring immigration as a problem during his first term, and by invading Venezuela, and threatening to invade Greenland more recently. 

In their book Good Economics for Hard Times, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo address the subject of immigration citing the scientific literature concerning its causes and results. They point out that most people assume that immigrants are poor, criminals, the dregs of society, who leave their country to escape poverty, or to indulge in criminal activity. They think that immigrants will take their jobs, and cause their wages to drop.

It has been the same during previous waves of immigration. People feared the Irish after the potato famine forced immigration from Ireland in the 1860’s, the Italians after failure of farming in southern Italy during the 1880’s, and the Chinese during the California gold rush. In each case the government took measures to limit immigration, just as Trump is doing now.  

Most migrants have a valuable skill. Doctors, scientists, and engineers who have studied in the US often decide to stay. Even unskilled laborers usually know someone who has previously migrated to the destination country and found work. People migrate, not because they’re poor, but because they have to. They leave  Mexico because drug wars make life unsafe. They  leave Guatemala and Haiti because of gang violence. Some come to the US to have more opportunities. The poor don’t migrate because they can’t afford it.

Several studies show that migration doesn’t affect salaries or jobs of native workers. Migrants only get jobs natives don’t want, or in places natives don’t want to go. Employing migrant skilled workers actually helps low income natives because they provide services for them. For instance, immigrant doctors often practice in rural areas where there is a shortage. Immigration boosts the economy by improving production, and immigrants have a lower crime rate than the indigenous population. And there is definitely an advantage for immigrants. They earn more money, improve their standard of living, and usually send money home, evening out wealth between countries.  So Immigration is good for both immigrants and for the destination country.

Still, people are reluctant to migrate, even within the same country, because they fear the risks of failure, of living in another environment, of losing family support.  Financial incentives have been tried, but are not very effective because immigrants still fear change. What’s more effective is to remove obstacles: making costs and rewards of migration clearer, making it easier to send money home, providing some insurance in case of failure, easing integration with housing assistance, premigration matching of jobs, help with child care. What Trump is doing is the opposite. 

 

 

Should Smart People's Opinions Have More Weight?

 

Evolution

I was pretty self confident when I got out of college. I didn’t make super grades but I had other interests. I spent a lot of time with friends. I read a lot. I spent a lot of time playing in the orchestra and in doing my comedy routines. But when I went to med school I decided to get serious. I wanted to be a good doctor, so I studied hard and tried to do my best. But as hard as I tried, I couldn’t do much better than average. Suddenly I realized that there were just a lot of people smarter than me. It was devastating. I went to the dean and told him I wanted to repeat my freshman year. He told me that I didn’t have to learn everything. What made a good doctor was how he (or she) kept learning after med school. He told me that he wasn’t at the top of his class either. So I continued, doing as well as I could. 

I always remembered that, and throughout my career, I tried to keep reviewing my patients’ conditions, and keeping up with new advances in medicine. But, in the back of my mind, the fear remained that I wasn’t good enough, or that someone smarter might have found something I missed. Some doctors get more confident as they age. Some continue practicing into their nineties. In my case, I continued to doubt myself and as soon as I thought my memory was slipping, I retired. 

I enjoy writing, and I have opinions about almost everything, but the same issue continues to bother me. What right do I have to disagree with someone smarter than me? I realize that you can find smart people on either side of every issue, but that’s no excuse. A smart person has a tremendous advantage. He (or she) can remember more facts related to a given issue.  He can make a better case for his opinion. But there are disadvantages too. A smart person can filter out the facts that don’t support his opinion. And he can rationalize an opinion that’s not supported by the facts. In every field of science, smart people tend to rise to the top. They don’t necessarily take leadership positions, either because they don’t want to, or because they aren’t outgoing, or if, like my wise cousin Steve, they know enough to see that every issue has different sides so they try to remain open minded.  

Also there are many factors that effect people’s opinions regardless of how smart they are. There’s prejudice of all kinds: racial, religious, social. There’s the effect of culture. That’s why Christianity is the main religion in the US and Europe, and Islam is predominant in the mid-east. Then there’s situational effects. I saw it in Vietnam, where the American soldiers tended to look down on Vietnamese lives as worth less than ours, and now in Gaza where the Israelis think their lives are worth more than the Palestinians, attempting to justify killing over 67,000 Palestinians out of revenge for Hamas’ murder of a little over 1000 Israelis. Then there’s money. People with a lot of money often use it to campaign and influence people to support their interests, which may not agree with the interests of the population. 

It's tempting to become egotistical and think you’re smarter than you are, especially if you don’t talk to a lot of people. That’s my situation now.  I’m retired and only have my wise cousin Steve to reign in my self-confidence. Also when you see a smart person who supports your views on TV or read a book that agrees with you, you have a tendency to think you’re just as smart as they are. If you were talking to them in person, you would find out you can’t come up with nearly as clear an argument as they, or as a smart person with the opposite opinion, so you tend to just listen to those who agree with you, and the more you hear, the more confident you are that they (you) are right. Maybe that’s why our society is so polarized. People just listen to those who agree with them, and they are isolated from those who disagree.   

So what can I do? We live in a democracy – so far – so we can vote to express our opinions. In fact, I think we have to vote, to keep unscrupulous people from having their way. Voting is not foolproof. Polls may be wrong, and the majority of people may be misled by lies, selective reporting, or their own prejudices and culture. 

I think the answer is to be very, very careful. Try to verify facts and eliminate prejudice from your reasoning. Listen to smart people, and also those who aren’t so smart. You never know who’s going to be right. Also don’t close your mind. People believed in creationism for millennia before Darwin came along with his theory of evolution. And, I'll have to admit, I still pay more attention to the opinions of smart people. I think if they are honest and have access to the facts, their opinions are worth more than mine. 

Steve, My Wise Cousin Replies

Steve McLean and Robin Gunning

Here's my wise cousin Steve's response to my last blog about the scientific method:

Robin: 

   You question whether the scientific method can be used to examine Trump and his policies. The SM can’t be used to study an irrational process – except to show that it is irrational. I don’t really think that the SM can be used to test human motivations.  You say Trump wants to be a dictator, but he is too old to matter.  He wants more money, but he has more already than he can use.  There is no benefit, so why does he pursue these things. Humans do things that don’t benefit themselves – or anyone else.  People steal because they want something without paying for it – they benefit.  People murder because someone is in their way or for revenge – they benefit.  But – explain vandalism.  People destroy things belonging to others – no one benefits. Vandalism isn’t logical.                                            When I was going through puberty, I didn’t understand why the girls preferred the bad boys (who didn’t treat them with respect).  They rejected the good boys.  That is illogical unless somehow evolution created the preference (we’ve talked about this before).         SM – opinion has no weight in the process.  SM – unverified data is no data.  SM – the testing has to be repeatable.  SM – failure tells you something (trial and error).  SM – when statistics are utilized they have to be used carefully-very carefully-very, very carefully.         Your last sentence starts with IF.  I don’t think as long as people try to take advantage over the other side – IF is possible.  SM is about a fair, unbiassed process.  Fair is subjective.  All's fair in love and war.    I liked your blog.  Keep ‘em coming.  We need more like that.

Steve

Comment: 

Steve's comments abut my blog are a good example of "peer review," getting others' opinions, or  critiques.  I think it is one of the most valuable parts of the scientific method.

My wise cousin Steve is absolutely right. "The scientific method can't be used to evaluate an irrational process - except (he goes on to say) to show that it is irrational." 

That was my point. That the first step in the SM is to make observations. If your data, observations are false, "opinion has no weight," and "unverified data is no data," then you can't go any farther with the SM. Maybe I was too liberal in calling my evaluation of Trump's actions SM. What I should have said was that it's important to realize that if you start with false data, your conclusions are false as well. I don't know why Trump does stuff, or why girls seem to like "bad boys," but I can still say that Trump's deployment of troops and girls hooking up with bad boys are mistakes, because their conclusions are based on false assumptions. 

  Also, we should all try not to try to "take advantage over the other side" by not listening to their arguments. 

Robin

  

The Scientific Method

 

Political events have recently been downright nonsense: shutting down the government to avoid helping people pay for health care, or sending troops into Washington, DC or Chicago, Ill. where there’s no crisis, or firing experienced experts from important public positions. Almost every day I ask myself: “Why did they do that?” or “Who benefits from that?”  And then they do a poll, which shows that a good part of the population supports it. 

I guess Trump is behind it. Some say he wants to be a dictator. Others say he just wants to make money. Others say he’s courting support from the wealthy. None of that makes sense to me. Trump is old. Even if he became a dictator he wouldn’t have long to enjoy it. He already has a lot of money, and so do his wealthy supporters. As for the population, why do they support him even though his policies hurt them. None of this makes any sense to me, so I ask myself: “What would my wise cousin Steve say?” 

I think he would say: “Use the scientific method.” He’s fanatical about the benefits of the scientific method. It might not give you an answer to why Trump does this or that, or to why people support him, but it might give you a way of judging his policies, or actions. What is the scientific method, anyway? 

It’s a process that’s been developed by scientists over the last three or four centuries to evaluate ideas. It involves making careful observations, developing a hypothesis which explains the observations, testing your hypothesis by experiments, and then reporting your results. The process may require expertise. For example if the subject is technical, experts may have to study for years to obtain the background necessary to even understand a small area of science. Also the process needs input from other experts in the field or in related fields. Your observations may be wrong, or colored by your personal experience. Your hypothesis may have already been disproved in the past, so testing it again may not be necessary, and finally,  your experiment may be flawed in some way. 

What has that got to do with politics, you say? Well, take for example, sending Federal troops and National Guard to Washington, DC. You don’t need an expert to observe that there’s no serious problem with law and order in DC. There’s actually been a fall in crime over the last year. Local authorities say that police can handle crime and don’t need help from the federal government. 

That should be the end of the problem. Simple. Crime is down. There’s no need for Federal troops, but Trump is also sending troops into Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; Chicago, Ill., and Memphis, Tennessee. Let’s use the scientific method. Observation shows that there’s no big problem with law and order in any of these cities, but they are all led by Democratics. So it’s a politically motivated action, to solve a problem created by lies, to support Trump’s political agenda.  We don’t need to go any farther. 

So what good is the scientific method if we can’t trust our leaders? We’re not all experts on crime, or immigration, or economy, or health care. We don’t always know if we’re being lied to, and there’s also the technique of just reporting news that support your point of view. I think you can still trust the major media news, but for specific questions you can look at reports by both left and right leaning media. That’s what my wise cousin does. You can also look at AI sources. 

The scientific method also weighs the opinions of experts more than those of ordinary citizens. That makes sense because they know more about their field of interest.  In their book: “Good Economics for Hard Times,” Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo cite a survey of economists about whether the North American Free Trade Agreement improved the average person’s well being. 95% answered “yes.” When the same question was asked of representatives of the general public, only 45% responded “yes.” When you look at Trump appointees, they are not experts, or even people whose opinions reflect those of most experts in their field. You’ve got a TV host as Secretary of Defense, and a vaccine denier as Secretary of Health. What have they got in common? They’re both sycophants, yes men. The same can be said for almost all Trump appointees, and furthermore, Trump has fired the experts, experienced people already in government, or he has indiscriminately fired large groups of government workers, regardless of their experience or expertise. 

What can we do? The first thing is to become aware of the problem. Don’t just trust the opinions or even the ‘facts’ reported by people in power. Look at each issue from both sides, and look stuff up. As my wise cousin Steve says: “The more you learn, the more you can sympathize with others’ opinions.” If we can get past the first step in the scientific method, if we can trust our observations, then maybe we can go on to the other steps: making reasonable hypotheses, and testing them. Then and only then can we have reasonable discussions about what to do. If we’ve learned to trust each other, and can agree on what’s true and what’s false, then our discussions will be more respectful.   

 

The New America

 

Saddened Statue of Liberty

 

I haven’t written much lately. It’s not that I haven’t had opinions or feelings about recent events. It’s just so overwhelming. And there’s the feeling of helplessness. I can’t believe Trump will be in office for another 3 ½ years. Maybe things will cool down a little after the midterms if Congress returns control to the Democratics, but Trump doesn’t wait for Congress to act, he seems to have the Supreme Court on his side, and he does most things by executive order anyway. 

Just judging Trump’s actions according to my standard of doing what’s good for people, I can’t think of one single thing he’s done that benefits anyone, except maybe the extreme wealthy, who seem to be falling in line, except for Bill Gates, who said of Elon Musk, Trump’s head of DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency, “The richest person in the world is killing the world’s poorest children.” I kind of expected Warren Buffett to say something about Trump, but I haven’t seen anything. Maybe he’s afraid, like the Republican Congressmen. 

It's hard to decide what’s Trump’s worst action. Maybe it’s his dismantling of USAID, the agency that used to give food, medicine, and much more to poor starving people around the world. Ending that program will cause thousands of deaths. That certainly doesn’t do anybody any good. I think his justification for ending the program was to decrease government spending. 

Then there’s Trump’s immigration policy. He claims without evidence that other countries are sending criminals to the United States although the crime rate among immigrants is less than among native born Americans. There’s certainly criminal activity among immigrants, but he doesn’t seem to be targeting criminals. In fact, he’s rounding up “immigrants” where they work, or at court appearances where they are required to go to apply for visas or citizenship. The “officers” who arrest them are wearing masks and no proof of authority. Then they are placed in jail, often far from home, even in foreign countries like El Salvadore or Sudan. Families are separated. There’s no legal process. Legal aliens or even American citizens have been arrested. This certainly doesn’t help anyone. In fact it’s just cruel. 

So, how about foreign policy?  Trump has met with and befriended heads of authoritarian states like North Korea, Russia, China, Hungary. During his last term he said that he trusted Putin more than our CIA. On the other hand, he has criticized and alienated our traditional allies, Mexico, Canada, and NATO, accusing them of cheating us. He has continued assisting Israel in their war against the Palestinians, and withheld aid from Ukraine in their defense against Russia. Whatever you think about who’s right or wrong in these conflicts, Trump’s actions have led to more killing and starvation. He has justified his actions in several ways. Those that stand out to me are economic - he thinks our allies are letting us bear most of the burden of foreign aid and defense - and just plain admiration for dictators. 

Then there’s the idea of annexing Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Kind of sounds like Putin.  These are actions that would require military action, which would certainly increase death and suffering. For what? More security? It seems to me that it would make more enemies in our own hemisphere. 

What about the economy? I think that’s what got him elected. He’s supposed to be a successful businessman, even though he’s gone bankrupt three or four times -I forget which, and has cheated on his income tax, and not paid his workers. His answer for the USA is to cut taxes for billionaires, money they don’t need, thinking this will stimulate the economy - the trickle down theory, which has failed over and over again, even though the Republicans keep touting it; tariffs, which is actually a sales tax on Americans, thinking this will be a big source of revenue to replace losses from the tax cut, and will bring business back to the US. Of course, the reason businesses outsource to other countries is because it’s cheaper over there. So tariffs will make life harder for our middle and lower classes, and probably harder on foreign workers as well. 

Science is another category that Trump seems to oppose – I don’t know why. He’s cut funding for medical research, medical care, higher education, global warming. Even during his prior administration he moved the headquarters for the Department of Agriculture, leading to the resignations of many of its workers. His cuts to vaccination have already led to large increases in the number or measles cases from hundreds to thousands. Funding for research in cancer, infectious disease, medical transplantation has been cut. Enrollment in institutes of higher learning, as well as funding in general, has been cut, which will result in the loss not only of research, but the loss of many gifted students, many of whom stay after graduation. There’s no telling how many lives will be lost because of these inexplicable changes, for what? Saving money? 

For example, Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr., has decided to do safety studies on all new vaccines, and also to change the CDC recommendations for giving COVID and flu vaccines, without consulting CDC vaccine experts. In fact, most of the vaccine experts have quit, and six leading medical organizations have filed a lawsuit over the matter. 

Trump has announced that he’s getting rid of FEMA, and he’s already cut staffing for the National Weather Service, just as the death toll from the flooding in Texas has passed 100, possibly because there was no warning for residents to evacuate the area. 

Another broad category of Trump actions is DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency. His henchman, Elon Musk, has been going from department to department, even to departments that are supposed to be independent, firing workers indiscriminately, and copying records. How does that make the government more efficient? He’s not looking for waste or inefficiency. He’s just firing people. Of course this actually creates inefficiency, leading to more plane crashes, less time for warning of natural disasters. I don’t know why he’s copying records. Is it to identify aliens, find justification for the firings? It’s illegal, of course, and there are umpteen lawsuits challenging his actions, but the damage is already done. People will move on, and your personal information is already out there. 

How do you estimate the damage DOGE has done? Government departments are there for a reason, and cutting staffing will make them unable to do their jobs. We’ll continue to have more plane crashes, more epidemics, more food poisoning, and the world will continue to get warmer. 

Trump has certainly made more money in office than any other president. He has brazenly sold everything from watches to trading cards. He held a dinner for million dollar donors, and has started a cryptocurrency firm. 

Trump has already gotten control of the Republican party. Because of our antiquated political system in which there is gerrymandering, and nomination of candidates by the party instead of the people, Trump can end the career of any Republican who opposes him. He has eliminated any criticism within his administration by appointing only staunch supporters who are totally unqualified for their positions. Because of his support by billionaires he is gradually getting control of information distribution, and may thereby win more independents over to his side. 

The legal system has been kind of a thorn in Trump’s side. Because of his conviction on 34 Felony counts, he should be in jail now, but because he was running for president, they put that on hold, thanks to the Supreme Court, which ruled that he can do pretty much anything he wants. 

One of the first things Trump did as president was to pardon all the January 6 rioters. He called them “heros.” Among his pardons was a gang leader serving six life sentences, and the son of a $1 million donor. He’s using the Justice Department to get revenge on his enemies. He got free legal help from several law firms by promising not to sue them for representing his enemies. Letting criminals out of jail is surely not making life better for the public. 

Possibly Trump’s most serious crime is against the legal system itself, ignoring the freedom of speech, birthright citizenship, forbidding of emoluments, and due process. 

Some future historian will probably estimate the number of lives lost because of Trumps actions. Life will certainly be worse for a long time. Maybe we won’t even emerge from his reign as a democracy.