mental model – My Mental Model

Schultz 2020

A couple years ago I got involved with a cool little cannabis company. It was retail, and very early stage, but it had a ton of character and was being done really, really well. As I was preparing them for a capital raise, I had to create a quick comparison with an existing business that others would recognize. We landed on, ‘the young Starbucks of cannabis’. I figured that if I was going to make a bold claim of that nature, I had better know that company inside and out. Part of that was reading Howard Schultz’s book, Pour Your Heart Into It.

I actually listened to it while on a mini-road trip and I was immediately a fan of the guy. He had true humble beginnings. His path did not lack adversity. And his success did not cost him his humility. In hearing how he approached the obstacles he faced throughout his career, you could tell that he was a person of integrity and strong values. Not just a smart person, but the kind of person who uses their smarts to try and make life better for others.

When Donald Trump ran for president, a lot of people were saying that getting a business mind into the White House was a great idea and that Donald Trump was an ideal candidate. I think that someone who truly understands the fundamentals of business is capable of running an organization of any shape or size. I also think that those who are most capable of running a government are not in politics. I had actually been hoping to see a great business mind in the White House for years but I also knew that Donald Trump was not that person. His approach to building and running businesses (into bankruptcy) was not transferable to building and running a government. I still think that Hillary would’ve been a far more competent and far less corrupt leader than Trump, but it still shows that the American voter is looking for a change from the status quo. They can sense that the talent pool within the political system is thin and that our best and brightest operate in the private sector.

Over the last 3 years or so, I’ve paid a great deal of attention to American politics. Far more than I ever had in my life. And in order to keep up, I had to learn a ton about how things work. And like many of us, it led me to a place where I wanted help create change for the better. I think Howard Schultz has ended up there as well. He’s been asked about running for office various times over the years and in most cases, he’s suggested that he’s interested but not that interested. My impression is that he was motivated to make the world a better place but that he would rather do that through Starbucks and his charitable work than attempt to navigate the corrupt landscape of politics. But that all changed when Trump came along. Schultz sees what I see, and it means that his sense of responsibility to make the world a better place now weighs more heavily on him than his desire to stay out of politics.

When I say that both Trump and Clinton were terrible candidates, people ask me who I would vote for or who I would want to run. For the last two years, I’ve been saying Howard Schultz. The guy actually grew up in the projects so he knows what it means to come from humble beginnings and what it takes to rise up out of those circumstances. In Starbucks, he built a world-class organization that made a name for itself by treating its employees really well. As an individual, he’s demonstrated that he’s a person of character and integrity. And the bonus, if he ran, I was pretty sure it would be as an independent.

Well, a couple days ago, Schultz was interviewed on the news and he told the audience that he was considering a run in 2020. Fuck ya. Not just that, but that he was going to run as an independent and a centrist. He called out both parties for doing more politicking than governing and I expected no less from the guy. As a real life billionaire, he’s capable of funding his own campaign and doesn’t need to hitch himself to any special interests. And that seems to be ruffling some feathers.

First you had Trump that managed to embarrass himself more effectively in one tweet than any dig from Schultz would have. Trump started by saying that Schultz didn’t have the guts to run for president. Weird flex considering that if Schultz does run, he starts the game 1 – 0 against Trump. Then Trump takes a shot at Schultz’s intelligence, claiming that he himself is the smartest person in America. Meanwhile, what Trump was referencing was when Schultz said that he’s not always the smartest person in the room. From what I’ve observed, this is what smart people say when they’re being modest and it’s often because they’re smart enough to spent time with even smarter people. Finally, Trump tries to wrap it up by establishing dominance, asking if Schultz has paid him his rent for the Starbucks location inside Trump tower. Cringe-worthy.

What I saw from Trump was expected. Trump’s tactics are reminiscent of a bully on a playground. He starts with, “you don’t have the guts to play here”. Then he teases him and calls him stupid. Then he brags about something that’s clearly a lie. Then he makes play for his lunch money. Straight off the playground. And if Schultz has any political strategists already on board, they’re loving it. Trump plays the role of the bully well, but he’s a shadow of himself when it doesn’t work. It’s also why I don’t think you should protect kids from bullying as much as you should prepare them to overcome it. Schultz was no stranger to bullies growing up and has dealt with bullies of all shapes and sizes in the private sector. If someone of Trump’s character is easy pickings for someone like me, Schultz is going to eat him alive. I really do think that of all the potential candidates that may run against Trump, Trump would fear Schultz the most. Fortunately for Trump, there’s a good chance he won’t make it to 2020.

While that was Trump’s reaction, the republican reaction has been more muted. I don’t think they know what to say just yet. The republican national committee seems to have thrown their full weight behind Trump which seems a bit suspicious given his current poll numbers and impending proceedings. I guess we’ll see how that turns out. But either way, right wing media has been more focused on the democrats response to Schultz’s announcement than anything.. and perhaps rightfully so.

The Democrat’s response to Schultz looking into a 2020 presidential run has been a giant, steaming pile of horse shit. Every democrat that I’ve seen speak on this, including some top brass, has been strongly against Schultz running for president. As they’ll tell you, it has almost nothing to do with his policies or his credentials, and everything with him running as an independent. As they put it, the greatest concern is defeating Donald Trump and by introducing a popular independent candidate, you risk ‘splitting the anti-Trump vote’. They’re afraid that Donald Trump has 40% of the voter base on lock, and that if you split the remaining 60% of voters between Schultz and a democrat candidate, you end up with another 4 years of Trump. Fuck that.

From what I understand, one of the biggest flaws in American politics is a 2 party system. It’s an effective duopoly of American democracy. One in which *both* parties have demonstrated that they are deeply corrupt and beholden to special interest groups. One of the best things we could do for democracy is to have elected representatives who voted exclusively on what their constituents want, rather than voting along party lines or voting for special interests on promises of future campaign contributions. This change isn’t only grass roots, in large organizations, it happens from the top down. But how would we accomplish that it costs a billion dollars to run for president and most people can only access that kind of capital as a democrat or republican candidate? 99.9% can’t, and that’s the point. That’s why it’s a duopoly. That’s why every president in the last however many years has been produced by one of two organizations. It’s why no matter who’s in office, nothing ever seems to change. And we’re now at a point where it all desperately needs to change. And the democrats are now the ones trying to stand in the way.

This isn’t the first time it’s happened either. This is literally what happened with Bernie Sanders in 2016. Bernie was a better candidate than Hillary and he was certainly a better candidate than Trump. The democrats thought Hillary was a stronger candidate and did what they could to give her the party’s nomination. Considering that Bernie is an independent, I wonder if someone from the democrats approached him before he decided to run and encouraged him to run as a democrat instead of as an independent. You know, because of how important it was to not split the anti-trump vote.

Things are a bit different this time though. Trump is the dumpster fire that everyone predicted and it’s left the republicans in a tight spot. Trump has solidified about 20% of voters into a cult of personality who, right now, would follow him off a cliff. As long as Trump stays out of jail, keeps yelling at immigrants, and the economy keeps growing, he’s probably their only candidate for 2020. Meanwhile, democrats had their blue wave during the midterm, and bunch of new blood in congress, and Pelosi is just starting to flex her muscles. They’re primed for a big comeback in 2020 with a broad selection of candidates from career politicians to career politicians. As far as they’re concerned, 2020 is theirs to lose. The problem with that though, is that this isn’t about them. It’s about the country. And the people. And the democratic process. And they’re treating it like trying to win a big, 4 year government contract. Fuck that.

Right now, my full weight is behind Schultz. This notion that we should avoid putting our best leaders forward because it might reduce the chances of a democrat candidate beating a republican candidate sound remarkably undemocratic. First and foremost, both political parties are playing divisive politics and catering to the more vocal and extreme ends of their base. Most of us are not represented by these individuals and together, we represent the silent majority. We are people who might lean left or right, but generally speaking, hold a balanced view. It’s people who are here that realize that good and bad ideas can be found on either end of the political spectrum. And that despite all our differences, we have far more in common with one another. Someone needs to step up for the silent majority.. and represent reason.. and common sense.. and community.. and being good to one another again. Right now I think Schultz is our best chance at giving those people a voice.

The second reason, which should be obvious, is that Schultz has just as much of a chance to take votes off of the republican candidate as it would with the democrat one. Most people who voted for Trump did so because he was a challenge to Washington’s status quo. They wanted an outsider with a background in business to come and shake things up. They wanted it so desperately that they didn’t bother looking too close when Trump said he was exactly what they were looking for. If Trump goes down in flames, which I bet he will.. his base sure as hell won’t be voting for a rank and file democrat.. but I could certainly see them voting for someone like Schultz. Someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the ridiculous politics of the left, I think that’s going to mean a lot for them. Someone who can go on to Fox News and lay down the boom as a self-made billionaire who was the CEO of a fortune 500 company. I think there’s a strong contingency in the Trump base who would love a guy who did all that. And if they had someone they trusted to root for, who was also telling us that we all gotta get along with one another if we’re going to make any progress… I think things get a lot better.

Third, and perhaps the biggest reason.. is dishonesty. You have the democrat brass coming out of the wood work sternly telling Schultz not to run because it’ll improve the chances of Trump being elected. Bullshit. You don’t want Schultz to run because it’ll decrease the chances of a democrat candidate taking office. And not just in 2020. If Schultz gets in there and does a good job, he’s getting another 4 years. And within that 8 year period, as we learn the lessons of identity politics and learn to embrace our individuality… what happens to the relevancy of the two-party system? How many others run as independents? How many of us in hindsight want nothing to do with the political tactics of the democrats and republicans? Howard Schultz winning the 2020 election could quite possibly be the death of the 2 party system in America and that could easily be the best thing to happen to American politics in the last 100 years.

Making Sense of the Noise

As someone who has had an excess of free time on their hands over the last two years, I’ve put a fair bit of effort into keeping track of what’s happening in American and global politics. It started back in 2016 during Trump’s campaign. Before that, I made a point of avoiding politics and the news. During the election, my two primary news feeds were the Google app and Facebook. It was really interesting to see Facebook get as political and dis-informational as it did. I managed to get into a variety of debates before I chalked it up as a lost cause. Even the Google feed wasn’t great. I had to find a better way of staying informed.

I guess you could say I took an interdisciplinary approach to figuring out what was going on. I read philosophy books to get a better understanding for the fundamental concepts of things like democracy and morality. I read an astrophysics book to try and connect the small to the big. I read psychology books to better understand why people do what they do. I even read a neuroscience book to understand how and why people think the way that they think. And all the while, I was consuming about 10-20 news articles a day. That was probably on top of another 10-20 search queries a day, just on random things I wanted to know.

It was a lot of information, and it didn’t happen quickly, but I eventually started to piece it all together. There are certainly gaps in my understanding of what’s happening as I’m missing key pieces of information. But for what’s on the public record, I got a pretty good handle as to what’s going on. My friends have actually started to tease me for it but they also use me for updates so I think my efforts are appreciated.

One of my friends asked me the other day what my process is for making sense of all this noise. She wanted to know what sources she could trust, or where she should be looking, or anything to help make things a bit more clear. I’ve given that some thought and I’ve tried to isolate the algorithm that my brain uses to go from data to information to knowledge.

Step 1: Find a platform that effectively aggregates news sources and stories according to your preferences. Personally, I’ve found Reddit to be most effective. It’s open platform means that voices of all shapes and sizes are on there. I can check in on what the far right thinks about a major event, and then just as easy, check in on what the far left are saying. I’ve found that these communities, when not censored, provide some great insight into what people are thinking and feeling. While far from perfect, there’s also a degree of accountability within the community and that makes for some solid fact checking. After I curated my home feed, I was able to receive an effectively unlimited feed of interesting data. It’s extremely easy to navigate as well since it just shows up as a scrolling feed of headlines, pictures, and videos.

Step 2: Scan the headlines. I’ve found that most news reports these days contain one new relevant data point, surrounded by filler. The filler is usually a summary of previous reports leading up to the the current report, and it’s often filled with biased commentary. And for each new data point being reported on, dozens of publications will write a story on it. Being able to scan headlines for key info not only keeps you from reading redundant material, it also helps you stay focused on the facts.

Step 3: Does the article provide a question or an answer? I’ve found that a common approach to filling in the news cycle is asking the question that we’re all thinking, and trying to answer it with no new information. Something to the effect of, “Robert Mueller Probe to End Soon?”. We’d all like to know the answer to that question and your headline would suggest that you know something we don’t. But you never do. The reality is that if any reporter or news outlet had factual information that indicated when the Mueller probe would end, it would be a story in itself and breaking news. I tend to filter out the questions, unless it’s one I haven’t asked myself before. What I’m really looking for while scanning these headlines is answers.

Step 4: Verifying new information. The first thing I look for is who’s reporting on it. If the same event is being reported on by all major outlets, there’s a good chance that it happened. Next step is jumping into one of the articles and looking for the quoted material and who it’s sourced from. Almost every article will be referencing the same quote so you don’t really have to worry about the bias of the reporter unless you start reading their commentary. Once you know what was said and who said it, you see how that fits into your larger understanding of the situation. If it fits in neatly, in it goes and your understanding of what’s happening has grown. If it doesn’t fit in neatly, it’s time to figure out why.

Step 5: Analysis. When a headline or quote fits neatly into what I already know about what’s going on, it’s like adding a collectible to your collection. In most cases, I knew what I was looking for, I was already looking for it, and I knew exactly where it would go once I found it. But now and then, a new piece of information doesn’t fit neatly into what I already know and I now have to figure out why. Sometimes the information is incorrect, sometimes my understanding of the situation is incorrect, and sometimes it’s somewhere in between. Regardless, the process is always the same, to dig in until I understand what’s going on. More often than one might expect, it leads me down some rather deep rabbit holes. These journeys can take me through a variety of sources, including news articles, Wikipedia articles, scientific studies, historical texts, and plain old books. Until I understand it, it doesn’t get added to my understanding. I’d like to think that one of my most valuable skills in this process is being okay with leaving things in the maybe pile and not jumping to conclusions.

Step 5: Adoption. Once a new data point is verified and it clicks into place, I move on. I don’t mind having to go back and undo some of that work because something isn’t what I thought it was. I’ve found that the conspiracy theory crowd have a hard time seeing the bigger picture because they get stuck on the validity of key details. It’s like the scientific consensus, you don’t need to be 100% certain to move on, just 99%. If someone presents new evidence that doesn’t align with what you previously thought? Sweet. Time to go figure out why and learn something new.

It would seem as though the filtering process that I’m applying to my data feed is an elaborate IF statement. If the new data passed my verification process, I add it to my programming. If it doesn’t, I analyze further. If it’s because the data is corrupt, I identify it as such and set it aside. If the data proves to be valid, I perform a self-diagnostic to understand why it conflicts with my existing programming. More often than not, it’s my existing programming which needs to be updated to accommodate for the new data. Sometimes the self-diagnostic can’t find anything wrong with the data or the programming, in which case it’s identified as such as set aside for further review. Every once in a while, I’ll get an update which helps me make sense of something that was set aside for further review. Then, even that piece of information gets tucked away neatly where it belongs. Maybe a bit methodical, but I gotta say.. seems like a good way to go about things.

Trump’s Honesty

I didn’t know much about Trump before he ran for office. I knew he was a wealthy business person, had hotels, and was on the apprentice. I also remember him promoting a Trump board game way back in the day. I’ve paid close attention over the last 3 years and I’ve learned a fair bit since. For those who take the time to understand him, he’s a fascinating person.

One of the things that’s had my attention since he took to twitter was his sense of honesty. It was bewildering for Trump to lie so frequently and so obviously, and then to see it resonate so well with his base. All this talk of drain the swamp had so much to do with dishonesty in how politicians interact with the public. Yet here was a person who lied freely while his audience was chanting ‘drain the swamp’. A lot of people write that off as a cult of personality or a result of poor education. Both are likely to be true but I suspect there’s more to it than that.

As we’ve seen, there’s no shortage of wealthy people who are fans of Trump. One of them is a friend of mine and we’ve been debating the topic of Trump for nearly 3 years now. My friend is a good man, runs a good business, and really does value things like honesty. Early on, I kept asking him why he was supportive of someone who lied so often and so freely. At first he denied the lies. So I kept pointing them out. Then he said that it was par for the course in politics. So I showed him stats that suggested he was in a league of his own. He said my fact checking sites were biased. He had barricaded himself in… so I had to try another approach.

One of his favorite authors had a blog which talked politics and economics, and I wanted to see what he had said about Trump. There was a very interesting line about “taking trump seriously, but not literally.’ Something clicked. If you took Trump literally, then he was a very dishonest person and not very smart. But if you took him seriously, well that didn’t require him to be intellectually honest.

I really does seem like we’re approaching some type of grand tipping point here. One of the things I keep seeing is a battle within our own minds between thought and emotion. They’re very different parts or the brain that have evolved for very different purposes. 100,000 years ago, the emotional part of our brains were far more valuable to us than the logical side. But in a world full of abstract concepts and so heavily supported by technology, thought has become more valuable. I suspect that this is something that’s rarely thought about, let alone discussed. But I think that tension exists and it’s manifesting in a variety of different ways. Including Donald Trump.

Trump doesn’t have an intellectual sense of honesty. It’s rather obvious at this point as even my wealthy friend has conceded. Now it’s not about what he says, but rather about what he does. He’s seen as a ‘salty sailor’, the kind of person who cusses and isn’t politically correct, but also the kind of person who wouldn’t hesitate to pull you out of a burning building. For the record, I don’t think captain bone spurs is pulling anyone out of a burning building. Trump hasn’t demonstrated much of an internal compass outside of self-preservation and ‘winning’. For him, I suspect life is a zero-sum game where nothing really matters besides beating your opponent. In that context, he’s found intellectual dishonesty to be far more advantageous. But it’s not the only form of honesty.

I still see Trump supporters talk about how honest he is. And when they make references, I kinda get it. He’s willing to say all kinds of things that your average politician wouldn’t be willing to say. Much if not most is misleading or inaccurate, but the topics his willing to talk about aren’t. I would think to myself that if only he would actually be honest on these topics, this would transform politics in the best way. But there’s still something here.

It dawned on me this morning… that Trump is intellectually dishonest, and emotionally honest. He has no emotional filter. When you see Trump, you get Trump. There’s this wonderful authenticity to him when he brags or when he gets angry, because that’s actually him. That’s not the polished politician who we’ve become accustomed to. We’re used to politicians presenting themselves the way they think we want them to present themselves. The end result is a product which we all known is a front. Hillary Clinton probably would’ve been a fine president, but the people couldn’t get through her emotional dishonesty and she paid the price for it. Curious that American politics finally made us choose between dishonesty and dishonesty.

For decades, we’ve wanted to see behind the veil and know who these leaders really are. Trump was the first President to be emotionally honest with the people. Perhaps, in many ways, Trump was the first president that we really got to know. Even better, the whole world will probably get to know him a lot better over the next couple years as the Mueller report pulls back the curtain on the rest.

Where I draw the line with the right

The city I live in is relatively progressive. Not necessarily in a ‘leftist’ sorta way, but more so in a classic liberal sort of way. In this landscape, it’s difficult for right-wing nonsense to get any kind of traction. But that’s not to say that I don’t see it. I have a close friend who has started following some of the center-right media like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. He’s been testing me with some of his nonsense. So perhaps it’s time to call it out here too.

Trans people are people. I don’t think we’d be in this free speech mess around gender pronouns if we hadn’t collectively been giant assholes to transgender people. Throughout history, we’ve treated those who we didn’t understand with contempt and history has never looked kindly upon it. It happened with people from unfamiliar cultures, it happened with people with unfamiliar skin colors, it happened with people with an unfamiliar sexuality, and it happened with trans people. Conservatism has never been on the right side of human rights because the role of conservatism is to avoid change. If those who are different are understood, accepted, and appreciated, they don’t special protections.

Full-time work needs to pay a living wage. There’s a suggestion that a minimum wage is a bad idea. Apparently, by allowing businesses to pay wages lower than the current minimum wage, workers will make more money. That open market model only works if two forces are firmly in play: A strong incentive to pay the workers as little as possible (to maximize company profits), and a strong incentive to pay the workers as much as possible (to maximize talent acquisition). If the incentive to maximize company profits is stronger than the incentive to maximize talent acquisition, there is a strong downward pressure on wages. That downward pressure can be so strong that someone working 40 hours a week may not make enough to make a living wage. If we’re in an environment where the cost of living is rising quickly, it gets even worse. And who benefits? Clearly it’s not the worker. The business will benefit from better margins, but for how long? An underpaid workforce is more of a liability than an asset. When business owners under pay their employees less, they rely more heavily on social assistance programs. These programs are funded by tax payers, and not the ones who aren’t making enough money to pay any significant tax. Paying your laborers less than what it costs them to live a middle class life is a terrible idea for any economy.

Racism still exists. Racism exists, sexism exists, ageism exists… there’s no lack of ways in which we try to generalize others to their detriment. I wish we could solve them all at once by understanding that prejudice leads to inaccurate understandings and bad decisions.. but we have to start somewhere. And I’m not interested in addressing controversial racism like who got kicked out of a Starbucks or who’s modelling a black panther costume. I’m talking about that KKK shit. That sand n*gger shit. That BUILD THE WALL shit. That is some of the ugliest behavior I’ve seen in western society and the right needs to do a better job of standing up to it. Everyone on the right wishes the moderate left would call out their more extreme counter-parts. Well everyone on the left wants the same from the right. It can’t be a, ‘sure, we all know that racism exists but it’s not the problem here.’ Without racism, we wouldn’t have Trump. Without racism, we wouldn’t have a government shutdown right now. Without racism, Fox News wouldn’t have been fear mongering around a migrant caravan. It might not be at the center of all our problems, but it does seem to make most of our problems worse. Identity politics exist on both sides, and both sides need to hold their crazies accountable.

Stop cherry picking your science. Climate change is real. Humans have contributed to it significantly. The scientific consensus here is over 99%. Why are you still arguing this? I understand if you’re a stake holder in the fossil fuel industry, but otherwise you’re just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Even if it wasn’t man made, our window of opportunity for maintaining an ecosystem that’s habitable for humans is closing. We should be all hands on deck, but the right is dragging their feet. If you have no interest in listening to scientists on this, then you’re about as useful as those on the far left which ignore biology to advance their gender politics agenda.

Religion. Religion exists across the political spectrum, but the right seems to have their own approach to it. The evangelicals denounced a democratic president for having an immoral character, then celebrated Trump on the basis that moral character isn’t an important consideration. The religious right also argues that abortion is a religious issue when the bible offers no such guidance beyond telling you how to do one. They’re also quick to point out all the flaws of religions like Islam, while failing to acknowledging the dark history of western religions or the issues of today. And to make it all worse, politicians are now abusing religion again, excusing their actions as some twisted act of god. Next time you see a politician say “well that’s what I believe”, look closely.

Feminism is a big deal. I’m not talking about the man-hating variety that seems to be pushing it’s way into the mainstream today. I’m talking about a movement that started centuries ago.. maybe even millennia. It’s about our species evolving to the point where men didn’t have to be hunters and gatherers, and women didn’t have to forage and care for the kids. It’s about men no longer having to go out and do hard labor and women being able to join the work force. It’s about moving past our traditional blueprints of what men and women were supposed to be, and exploring the freedom of what we can be within a modern society. One of the smartest things western society ever did was bring women into the work force. There’s still more ground to cover.

You overestimate your abilities. I used to assume that people who were wealthy were naturally hardworking and very smart. Then I started to meet some of them. Many of them were smart and many of them were hard working, but what they were more likely to have in common was an inflated sense of ego. They took responsibility for their actions, and since they were successful, they were responsible for their success. But then I would look behind them and see an incredible amount of support. More often than not, it included a good family, a private school, an ivy league education, connections, and an inheritance. Bit of a stretch to say you’re responsible for all those factors too. What I’ve noticed from the right is that tend to equate financial success with human value. Those who find a path to financial success overestimate what their contribution was to that point, and underestimate what was already in motion. And then they dismiss those who are less fortunate as lazy or uninspired.

You’re selfish. Something else I’ve noticed about the right is their tendency to be selfish, after they’ve ‘made it’. When I was younger, I wasn’t all that interested in helping my fellow human. It was about being as successful as possible, as soon as possible, and then helping my fellow human. I see a lot of people take a similar path, but when they arrive at success, they’re much less interested in helping others. Now it’s about paying the least amount of tax possible, or doing away with social assistance programs that you don’t personally use, or avoiding giving money to the homeless ‘because they’re just gonna use it on drugs anyways’. And what I find remarkable is that liberals do this too, just not when they’re poor. The rich shouldn’t give to the poor out of sympathy. The few should invest in the many, because none of us truly do anything on our own.

Your immigration policies suck. Besides the fact that they’re currently rooted in racism, they’re also shortsighted. Most people would be surprised to find that children of wealthy families make ill-equipped leaders. But it’s not that hard to understand why. When you go through adversity, you experience challenges that you wouldn’t otherwise have access to. Parents who have fled to the US from a harsh environment provide a powerful and unique environment for children to grow up in. That home is more likely to produce a world leader or Pulitzer prize winner than someone who was so rich that they didn’t need to bother learning the local language. Written on the statue of liberty is, ““Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where you escape from terrible conditions and are given the chance to make something of yourself. This is the secret sauce of the American immigration policy. If we close the doors to all that have made us great, and only open our doors to those who are already ‘great’, I think we’re in trouble.

You can be an argumentative dick. I know, because I used to be one too. Back in university, everyone was for gay marriage but me. I had no issues with gay people… or them getting married.. but I didn’t like that everyone was agreeing with one another on something they hadn’t really thought about. So I said I was down with them being legally married, but wasn’t OK with them appropriating a ceremony from a religion which was expressly against gay marriage. I may have had a point, but I was arguing for the sake of arguing. I see this happen from the right so often. You realize that your up against someone who hasn’t quite thought things through, and rather than help them get there, you pick them apart and try to make them feel like they don’t know what they’re talking about. Meanwhile, it’s quite possible that they had a point and just weren’t able to argue it effectively. Or maybe they had a good idea but didn’t quite know how to make it a reality. Fantastic, you won that argument.. but at what cost? At what point is the pursuit of truth more important to you than ‘winning’?

The relentless spin. If I were to guess, the right is more intelligent than the left. It’s not that a ‘right-wing’ ideology produces smarter people, it’s that intelligence lends to success,, success lends to wanting to keep things as-is, and wanting to keep things as-is lends to conservatism. You know, conserving the good life. So when the less fortunate get together and say things aren’t fair, we need change… you say that things are fair, that you’re an example of how to be successful, and to just keep working hard. But then the less fortunate notice that there are far more hardworking poor people than rich people. At the end of the day, the left might not have the best idea for how to get things done, but they are often right about what needs to be done. And no matter what they present you with, you’ll spin it to your favor. If you were up against someone who could debate you properly, you’d look absolutely foolish. But the mainstream media doesn’t provide that format so everyone’s left speaking into their echo chambers. I can’t tell you how many times colleagues of mine have tried to spin the most ridiculous Trump lies into something reasonable. Recently, they’ve started to give up.. suggesting that it’s not what he says but what he does. Well he’s behaving like the most compromised or corrupt politician in modern American history.. and you’re still trying to spin it.

You don’t want a meritocracy. I’m a big fan of equal opportunity over equal outcome. So is the right.. it’s one of their primary arguments against social security programs. The left hasn’t been able to wrap their head around the concept in a way that fits their ideology. I think the political spectrum is generally clueless about what a meritocracy really entails. For example, there’s a good chance that in a true meritocracy, most top CEOs would still be men. But you know what else happens in a meritocracy? Those responsible for educating future generations aren’t living paycheck to paycheck. But perhaps the most powerful example, in a meritocracy, inheritance wouldn’t exist. In a meritocracy, you receive resources in exchange for the creation of value. The more value you produce, the more resources you have to work with. In that model, someone like an Elon Musk would be one of the most well resourced individuals in the world while someone like Trump would be broke. But in a world where Trump can leave billions in wealth to his children.. something’s not right. In a world where future generations of your family can enjoy substantial resources despite having not created any value… something not right. In a meritocracy, Harvard isn’t filled with legacy students and lucrative internships aren’t filled with people who’s parents know an executive at the company. That whole idea of an inside track.. the powerful helping the powerful.. none of it exists.

If we could find a way to cast aside all the nonsense… from all sides of the political spectrum… and come together to be effective for the greater good… we could probably do something pretty darn special.

President Pelosi

In my excess of free time, I’ve paid a great deal of attention to the world stage as things are unfolding around Trump. It would seem as though we’re approaching the season finale of Mueller’s investigation and I can’t help but give some thought to what 2019 has in store.

Trump is now known as Individual-1, and in all likelihood is the central target in the redacted “President Donald J. Trump Criminal Investigation”. He’s now been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case by the SDNY in which Coen has admitted to committing campaign finance violations at the direction of Trump for the purpose of influencing a federal election. I doubt they would’ve brought this case against the President if all they had was Coen’s testimony.

Impeachment exists for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is Congress’s responsibility to provide oversight for the executive branch. They will be bound by duty and law to draft and pass articles of impeachment. I think it’ll get past the house, but I think the senate is a wildcard. If it’s only campaign finance violations, even if it was for paying off porn stars to keep quiet about affairs to boost your chances of winning an election, I’m not confident the republican senate will care. At least some will argue that it wasn’t to influence the election or that Obama had a campaign finance violation and he wasn’t impeached for it. Others will realize that the Republican landscape for the 2020 senate rate is a steep uphill battle and that choosing party over country during historic impeachment proceedings might be political suicide. Knowing Trump, he might just be able to create enough noise and disinformation to keep people within their party lines.

Enter season 2. I’m not sure what happens first: Mueller releases his report or the Democrats take the house. Whichever happens first, it’s likely going to kick off a rather dramatic series of events. If Mueller releases his report, it’s likely to show conclusive evidence that Trump was a criminal prior to his presidential bid, won the election through criminal means, and has been operating a criminal presidency. If the democrats take the house first, they’ll use their subpoena powers to obtain records like Trump’s tax returns, and probably leak them to the public shortly after. I would be surprised if it didn’t show direct or indirect ties to Russian money laundering. However this plays out, the first few months of 2019 will be a reckoning for Trump and Republicans by extension.

A lot of Trump supporters say that if Mueller had anything on Trump, they would’ve released it already. They suggest that an absence of evidence available to the public, is the same as an absence of evidence within the investigation. I would disagree. If Trump is the criminal that he appears to be, Mueller needs to deliver the most conclusive report possible. There’s a saying, something along the lines of, ‘if you’re going to shoot the king, aim for the head.’ It suggests that if you’re going to deliver evidence against the most powerful person in the world, suggesting that they should be removed from power and placed in jail, you’ll only have the one shot. The report needs to be so complete, and so conclusive, that it leaves no doubt in any rational person’s mind. And creates doubt in the minds of those who aren’t rational.

I don’t think the Republican party will survive that report. It’s going to be a very interesting demonstration of self-preservation. I suspect that multiple members of the Republican party were compromised via the Russian’s hack on the RNC email server. Those individuals will support Trump well beyond what most would consider to be reasonable. Then you’ll have those who are looking to tow the party line but are unsure about whether it’s the party of Trump or the party of Republican values. Then you’ll have conservatives who realize that their best chance of staying alive is to stand up for traditional American values again. I think it’s that latter group that can give the Senate enough votes to remove Trump from office.

Should Trump be removed from office for crimes relating to a fraudulent election, it wouldn’t make sense that his administration would be allowed to continue under Mike Pence. If I’m not mistaken, the chain of command actually falls to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In a very roundabout way, 2016 may have actually given us our first female President.

I know a bit about her but not nearly enough to have an educated opinion. From what I’ve seen, it suggests that she’s a capable individual who could probably mind an interim-presidency. Should it pan out this way, I would encourage her to recognize her role, not one as leader of the American people, but rather as a custodian of the Presidency until the next election. And during that time, I would encourage her to focus on damage control. There are alliances around the world which need to be repaired, policy decisions which need to be undone, trade agreements that need to be redone.. all of it. I also think this would be a remarkable opportunity to truly drain the swamp. Republicans, democrats, lobbyists, dark money, foreign influencers… all of it.

It’s about time we cleaned things up a bit.

Politics/Finance Need New Metrics

I just got a notification from Yahoo finance (a surprisingly good app), “Nobody has a clue what’s happening: Bumper jobs growth after Poloz calls economy disappointing.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard a stat suggesting that job growth and unemployment are at their best numbers ever. Not the first time I’ve heard someone refer to the economy as disappointing either. What I personally find disappointing is the comment that nobody has a clue as to what’s going on.

Let’s start by pointing out a few key facts. Wealth has systematically shifted from the many to the few. Cost of living has grown several times faster than wages. Full-time work no longer guarantees a living wage. The majority of North America is now living paycheck to paycheck. Automation has replaced most unskilled labor. Millennials are the most educated generation yet. Student loan debt is at an all time high. Depression is at an all-time high. Drug use is at an all-time high. Suicide rates are at all-time highs.

Damn right we need new metrics.

Every time someone says unemployment rates are at all-time lows, I get rather frustrated. It’s only part of the picture. The idea of a job for everyone who wants a job is a great idea. But you know what else has a 100% employment rate? Slavery. The difference between the two is that with employment, you’re paid for your services and can choose to work elsewhere. And that you’re responsible for your own cost of living. And if nobody is willing to pay you a livable wage, that’s your problem.

Where I live, someone came up with the stat that it cost a little over $300,000 in annual income to support a middle class lifestyle. This was defined as owning a modest home, 2 cars, 2 kids, university educations, and annual vacations. The average household income here is about $75,000. The unemployment rate takes none of that into consideration. We could have a 0% unemployment rate and the city would still be filled with people who couldn’t afford to buy a home, raise a family, or any of what we have come to understand as basic entitlements. Perhaps home ownership isn’t something we should feel entitled towards.. perhaps the same with having a family. But then I ask why we’ve had to give these up, and it just doesn’t add up. Then I ask what happens if we just accept it.. and it’s not good for anyone.

First things first, we have to agree on what we’re all aiming for. I think the most universal answer to that is happiness. Everyone just wants to be happy, and for those who prefer things like power.. well.. they have the current system. If happiness is the goal, we need to start focusing on the metrics that are most closely correlated. Two things that we know of that are strongly and negatively correlated with happiness are cost of living and debt. While breaking unemployment records, North America is also setting new records in debt and cost of living. That seems to tell a story: The average American is educated, overworked, underpaid, in debt, and losing hope.

Tell me again about how great our unemployment rates are.

Or maybe recognize that an unemployment rate is only part of the equation and that equal attention much be paid to the rest. First would be the alignment between the skills of your workforce and the jobs they’re in. If you have a nation of computer programmers, scientists, and writers but your job market is filled with part-time customer service jobs, you did it wrong. Second would be whether or not your workforce was being fairly compensated. If you have a low unemployment rate and most of most of your workforce can’t afford a basic cost of living, you did it wrong. Third would be how well prepared your workforce is for the future. Jobs are being lost to automation at an increasing rate and we’re likely approaching an economy where AI and robotics will be able to handle 80% of the existing jobs within the next 20 years. If you’re bragging about anything that’s happening this year without preparing for that future, you’re doing it wrong.

You see a lot of stats when you read articles or watch the news. We use them to try and understand what’s important.. but in the process of doing so, we seem to have lost sight of what’s important. It really is about being happy. Imagine a national happiness index being reporting on quarterly. Imagine politicians seeing that number as their most important metric. If you knew that increasing the cost of living would lead to stress and unhappiness, why would you celebrate a real estate boom? If you knew that the bottom 80% of Americans only own about 7% of the stock market’s value, would you really be celebrating a booming stock market?

How about this stat, a ratio of healthcare spending against military spending. Let’s be honest about it and see how much we’re willing to spend on healing people versus harming people. Or let’s push that a step further and compare military spending to humanitarian spending. How much money are you willing to spend on helping versus hurting. I can just about guarantee that would be a far better foreign policy than what we’ve seen play out of the last 20 years.

What about a stat that shows up how much tax large multi-national corporations are paying? Something that takes all sources of government funding into consideration so we know just how much of their operations are subsidized by tax-payers. Military defense contracts anyone? What about major tax breaks for fossil fuel companies..

We gotta have something that covers national debt too. A big deal was made of this years ago but the story got stale. Now we have a president who was notorious for running up debt and bankrupting businesses. As a result, in a matter of a few years, the country’s single largest expense will be it’s debt payment. Maybe we need a catastrophe more than we need a metric on this one.

The whole point of statistics is to reduce a great deal of information down into key points. When done well, those key points illuminate the important parts of what should be an ongoing conversation. Unfortunately, we now have stats for the sake of stats. And it’s no longer a conversation but an argument. It’s not a pursuit of the truth or a more accurate understanding of the situation, it’s a tribal battle for power in which stats are only used to support your argument or undermine theirs. I wish we could get back to the same side of the table.

2019: The Second Great Depression

The most beautiful things are always besides the darkest.

Today, I seriously thought about killing you.

Kanye has reached the bat-shit-crazy stage of his creative genius.. but it doesn’t stop him from coming up with gems like that one. For me, those lines are a reminder to let your mind wander freely and not to be afraid of the darkness within us. Instead, explore what’s there and look to understand it. In my experience, the darkness was never what I had assumed it to be. More often than not, it represented my fear of the unknown. And through those experiences, I’ve gained a sense of calm while there.

I’m reflecting on this now because I’ve realized how many others are facing that darkness today. When I was younger, I kept this side of me buried. I was in this loop that went from challenged, to productive, to happy… and little did I know, that was only half the spectrum. As I got older, I learned about the other side.. being unproductive and unhappy. My initial instincts were to run back to what I knew.. but fate was not so kind. I was encouraged to stay there and rest for a moment… to find myself within the darkness so to speak. I’m glad I did.

I spent much of my life in a positive state of mind, and without much compassion for those who didn’t. It was easy for me to say things like ‘you just need to work harder’, ‘don’t be so negative’, or ‘get over it’. I hadn’t realized how backwards that all sounded to someone who was living the inverse of my situation. But as I started to venture out into my darkness, I began to understand.

Gratitude for being unproductive and unhappy might sound like a strange thing, but for me, it’s real. It’s given me a much deeper understanding of who we are as people and it’s made me a far more compassionate individual. It’s also given me the ability to relate to so many of those who are struggling today.

When we reflect on the great depression that began in 1929, we think primarily about the stock market. It’s when the market had it’s biggest crash, a ton of investors lost their money, and then everyone was poor for a while. But something occurred to me the other day… what was the mental and emotional state of those who went through it? I’d expect to find higher rates of suicide, anxiety, stress, and yes, depression. But we weren’t so keen on measuring mental health back then so we might be hard pressed to find that information. We measure those things today.

A couple years ago, I saw that the capital markets were overdue for a correction but couldn’t yet see the catalyst for what would cause it. With Trump taking office, I was confident that it would happen sooner than later, and probably as a result of Trump’s policies and corruption. Now with JP Morgan saying that it’ll most likely happen within the next 2 years, it seems to be an impending reality. I expect this correction to start with the US, but eventually turn into a global correction. I also think that this correction will be more significant than 2008, suggesting that we’ll reach levels similar to that of the great depression. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out as the vast majority of wealth which will be lost, will be lost by the top 1% as the bottom half of the economy are still living paycheck to paycheck. As interesting as it is for me to try and understand how it’ll all play out, I can’t help but think more on those who are going through it… the depressed.

Currently, suicides are more common than homicides. Perhaps this is a sign of a civilized nation, but not when amid weekly mass shootings. And not amid historic suicide rates all over developed world. Having been at the point where I’ve toyed with the idea, it became important for me to understand what was happening. I think it’s a result of our failing mental health. Stress.. anxiety.. depression… these states of mind are becoming the status quo. I saw a tweet the other day which said something to the effect of, ‘imagine waking up after a good night’s sleep, having an awesome day, and then being able to do it again’. It made it to the front page of Reddit. I couldn’t help but find that relatable… I probably average 3-4 good sleeps a year. Days where I was consecutively happy? It was before my current venture.. before my career in wealth management.. before my dad died… that’s going on 8 years now. I was fortunate in that I had the tools to maintain my pursuit of happiness despite it all.. but the longer it takes, the more challenging it’s become. And how many have been at it longer than me? How many are going through it without the tools to keep their head above water?

When I see unemployment numbers at their lowest ever but I also see people struggling to afford the most basic cost of living, I can’t help but see something deeply wrong with how we’ve organized ourselves. So many of us are working excessive hours at low-paying jobs that we know will be automated within the coming years. Others invested the time and money into a post-secondary education, only to find entry-level work and seemingly inescapable debt. And those of us who have found well-paying jobs.. we have to recognize our good fortune and appreciate that it isn’t just a matter of hard work. Everyone’s working hard.. or at least everyone is willing to work hard when they’re doing something that matters.

The problem that I see, is that we’re quickly running out of work that matters. Many of the jobs which exist in the economy today only exist because of cheap labor. If people were being paid a rate which would allow them to afford a standard cost of living, businesses would have to accelerate their path to automation. A $15 minimum wage for fast-food workers? Have fun ordering from a touchscreen. Increased wages for warehouse workers? More robots. Increased wages for taxi drivers? How about automated cars. And for those already in those positions, they know this is coming. Entire industries will be swallowed up by automation.. and that’s OK. Automation is here to take over repetitive and programmable tasks… exactly the kinds of activities that we struggle to find meaningful.

Perhaps this is what the death of an old economy looks like. We used to rely on physical labor to produce physical goods and relied on our ability to consume these goods to push the economy forward. When we talk about a strong middle class.. that was the equilibrium for that style of economy. Now that we’ve been able to automate most physical labor, businesses are better able to retain the earnings that would’ve gone to employees. Without being able to find comparable jobs with other employers, things start to shift. Business owners become more wealthy while the working class loses ground to stagnant wages and a quickly rising cost of living. The working class will find ways to make ends meet, like multiple part-time jobs or debt, but this doesn’t improve things for anyone. If the top 1% hordes all the disposable income, who’s going to buy their stuff? This is a point Jeff Bezos made years ago, pointing out that he could only buy so many pairs of jeans.

So where do we go from here? For most, there’s a lack of clarity on what the future looks like and a lack of certainty on if we’ll even make it there. It’s become easier to assume that things will get worse before they get better. For many, it’s a state of hopelessness. They want to be hopeful… I think in many ways, it’s a natural state of the human mind. But when you slowly and systematically strip away the reasons to be hopeful.. we should find little surprise at where we’ve arrived.

As we prepare ourselves for this next great depression, perhaps we’d do well put place our emphasis on the people and not the markets. The market was always meant to be a reflection of humanity’s ability to be productive, not the other way around. If we’re losing ground to hopelessness, and we won’t face it until our economy comes crashing down around us… perhaps that’s exactly what we need. I don’t expect it to be easy… but I’m reminded of a quote, “in retrospect, the years of struggle will strike us as the most beautiful.” Through this struggle, we’ll have the ability to right so many wrongs and realign ourselves with a bright future which is fast approaching. I don’t know exactly how this will play out.. but I am optimistic.

Thinking Beyond The Russia Investigation

Yesterday’s entry was an overview of the Russia investigation and where I thought it was going. I had a hard time sleeping last night. I saw that Trump was as well. I was half-expecting Sessions and Rosenstein to be fired via twitter before the day started but the news never arrived.

Before last night, it was difficult to know how things would proceed without knowing if the democrats would take the house. When it happened, I felt a great sense of calm. Trump finally had to contend with a real opposition party and the democrats were keen on protecting the Mueller investigation. Checks and balances.

So with that piece now in place, I started trying to figure out what came next. Well, Trump is fully aware of the investigative powers of the house and I suspect he’s not too happy about this. As expected, one of the first things the democrats said with respect to winning the house is that they were going to subpoena Trump’s tax returns. As soon as those returns make it to the house, there’s a good chance they’ll be leaked to the public and the inner working’s of Trump’s businesses will be available for all to see. I don’t know exactly what we’ll see, but I don’t think it’ll be good for Trump. At the very least, I expect to see ties to Russia.

Trump knows all this is coming, along with another wave of investigations that Republicans have been preparing for since August. So now he needs to make some moves. As expected, Jeff Sessions was fired today. Rosenstein is now on the way to the White House and I’m not confident in him keeping his job either. I’d like to think that whoever is selected to fill these roles will be able to prioritize country over party but I’ve since lost my confidence in Republicans being able to uphold that value. Right now, it’s looking like Jeff Sessions’s former chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker will be taking over the role. Concerning as he’s called the investigation a ‘witch hunt’ and was the previous head of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a research firm which dedicated most of their resources to investigating Hillary Clinton.

So what happens after all of this? Not quite sure. It’s going to get messy for a bit, especially since the democrats don’t actually take the house until January. That’s a lot of time to influence public opinion and undermine an investigation. But I think it’ll be all for naught. The democratic house has already said that they’ll bring Mueller in for televised hearings if he’s fired. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the house can reopen the Russia probe and hire Mueller to lead it. This is why winning the house was so important.

In trying to see through to the other side last night, I saw a step further than I had before. It was a bit of an ‘oh shit’ moment. Reports are starting to surface that Trump Jr. is expecting to be indicted. Same with Roger Stone. Even Trump himself is likely named as an unindicted co-conspirator in Coen’s campaign finance violation relating to Stormy Daniels. And while each of these individuals have postured like they wouldn’t flip, I don’t see it. Those who are self-serving always flip. Doing hard time for the sake of protecting someone else is a tremendous sacrifice and these just aren’t those people. If Manafort and Coen flipped, Stone will flip. If Stone will flip, the only ones left are Trump and his family.

Most people who have been watching intently look at this story as having begun with Trump’s campaign, and assume it ends when Trump is ultimately found guilty of crimes. That was largely my perspective until last night. I was aware of what came next, but hadn’t put too much thought into it. In all likelihood, Mueller will get to Trump. And Trump will be found guilty. And then Trump will flip.

That was my big epiphany last night. Trump is not the extent of this investigation. If Trump is found to be guilty of conspiring with the Russian government to undermine America’s democracy, they’re going to run an absolute train on him. He’ll be reduced to a shadow of who he is now, and in that process, will divulge key information on everyone who assisted him the process. Think Frank Lucas from American Gangster. I suspect that will be devastating for the Republican party and would not be surprised to see some democrats get exposed as well. Perhaps even more consequential though, Trump will give up Putin.

I still don’t see a direct link between Putin and Trump, and doubt there ever was. I think that Putin had a strong preference for Trump over Hillary and saw a means of assisting Trump win the election. All Putin had to do was deploy his hackers, snag some passwords, access communication records, and release them through a 3rd party who had a reputation for legitimate leaked documents. And had Putin played it just like that, Trump would have no one to flip on. My instincts say otherwise though. My instincts say that Putin wanted dominance and influence over Trump. To get that, he made Trump look into the camera and ask for his help. Trump knows this, and I suspect Trump will eventually share this with the FBI.

So what happens to the geopolitical climate when the world’s largest nuclear super power accuses the world’s second largest nuclear super power of attempting to undermine their democracy? If calmer heads prevail, I suspect action will largely be taken in the form of severe sanctions against Russia. As Russia has been caught repeatedly trying to influence other referendums like Brexit, I suspect that the US will not be the only one looking at these options. I also expect for the leaders of some major nations to call for the resignation of Putin, putting further strain on Putin’s control of Russia.

While facing the possibility of losing power in Russia, Putin will have some important decisions to make. Severe sanctions are likely to cripple his oligarchs, a key element of how he retains his power. When the Russia people begin to feel the impact of these sanctions, and global leaders are demanding that he step down.. I think the Russian people will lose confidence. In anticipation of this, Putin will manifest some kind of last stand and I’m yet sure what that will be.

If calmer heads don’t prevail, The US will determine Russia’s attempts to undermine our democracy an act of war. With a new 700 billion dollar annual budget allocated to the military and some trigger happy cabinet members.. the US may declare war on Russia. Part of me thinks this is highly unlikely because of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and the understanding that nuclear war should be avoided at all costs. I think both Russia and the US understand the significance of this. But maybe not. Maybe it starts with troops in Ukraine for the sake of retaking Crimea. Maybe it escalates on the clandestine front. Maybe it inches forward bit by bit as each side looks to deal blows to the other without triggering a nuclear holocaust. And maybe we find ourselves back in another cold war.

Or maybe to help navigate impending sanctions, Russia starts to draw some very real lines in the sand. Maybe Russia collects some allies in North Korea, Serbia, Syria, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. You know.. countries that aren’t the biggest fans of the US. And maybe.. just maybe.. we’ve found ourselves with the backdrop for WWIII.

At this point, its far too soon to tell how this will play out. I’m always optimistic that calmer heads will prevail, but I also recognize that calm is not a natural state of mind when one is cornered. This entry wasn’t about promoting the possibility of another world war or cold war, but rather recognizing that this story doesn’t end when Trump pleads guilty. Instead, it seems to be part 1 of what is a multi-part series.

Remember Remember the 6th of November

(apologies in advance for grammar and spelling. Normally I proof my material before I post but I wanted to have this posted before the results started rolling in. And I’ve been beckoned to help a friend get to the hospital.. so off I go.)

In my excess of free time over the last couple years, I had to find things to occupy my mind with. Perhaps what has consumed the most hours is observing, analyzing, and trying my best to understand what’s happening in the world around me. What seems to have fascinated me most was Trump. Not him as an individual, but rather his impact on the world.

In 2015, I started writing a screenplay that was intended to be an action movie with a political backdrop which spoke to so much of what’s happening today. In the script, I had predicted 8 years of Hillary Clinton, followed by a character who had the working title of Nixon 2.0. The deeply corrupt candidate was to take advantage of all the resentment building up from those who felt like they were losing power to equality. I saw it as an natural inevitability.. the pendulum effect. I had to put the project on hold after Trump was elected.

Personally, I thought it was highly likely that Hillary would win that election. It wasn’t about polls or her credentials, but more so about Trump’s complete lack of character. I found it difficult to understand how anyone could think that someone who was so instinctually dishonest and self-serving would be capable of fulfilling the role of leader of the free world. I underestimated the anger, resentment, and latent isms of middle America. I also underestimated the audacity of Trump to fuel that fear, anger, and hatred as a means of mobilizing a rather meaningful voter base. I also underestimated the tribalism that led Republicans to vote for someone who they never would’ve supported had he appeared on a democratic ticket. I also overestimated the character and integrity of the Republican party, thinking that they would maintain their values in the face of a Trump presidency. And perhaps most importantly, I underestimated how effective the Russians’ disinformation campaign would be.

Leading up to the election, my boss at the time was a Trump supporter. It surprised me at first as I knew him as a person of character, and someone who deeply valued things like honesty and integrity in others. It seemed very strange that he would be supportive of someone like Trump, so I had to ask. The answers seemed to shift depending on the day. I heard things like, “His kids are very well put together, he’s clearly a good parent.” Or, “He’s an outsider with a business mind who’s going to drain the swamp.” Or, “look at how successful he was in business, he’ll bring that same success to the country.” I offered a different perspective at the time, but also went and did my homework.

In reading up on Trump’s family life, I saw multiple kids across multiple trophy wives, with Trump continually trading in for a new model. I watched interviews where Trump said that taking care of the kids wasn’t his job. I read about the sworn testimony from his first wife that he had raped her in a fit of rage and Trump’s lawyer rebutting that you can’t rape your spouse. I also watched how their kids behaved when they weren’t ‘on’ and saw the ill-effects of excessive nepotism. His family life was not a reason to find confidence in Trump.

The idea that Trump was an outsider with a business mind was legit. Washington has no shortage of issues and some new blood is perhaps chief among them. I’ve long-since wanted to see a top business mind hold that seat, but I never had confidence that Trump was a top business mind or would serve that role well. Same with draining the swamp. It desperately needed to be done, but I never had any confidence that Trump would be the one to do it. If anything, for me, Trump represented the self-serving, short-sighted, self-preservation nature of the swamp itself.

With respect to his business success, I never paid much attention. I knew he had hotels, The Apprentice, and some other licensing deals but never really saw him as a successful business mind. It was like the difference between Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary on Shark Tank. So I decided to do some research on Trump’s history of businesses and discovered: Trump Beverages, Trump: The Game, Trump Airlines, Trump Casinos, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump Steaks, Trump Travel Site, Trump Comms, Trump Tower Tamp, Trump University, and Trump Vodka. They all had two things in common. First was that Trump’s primary strategy was licensing his name as a luxury brand. Second is was that each of these businesses failed. Serial entrepreneurship does not come without failures, but this was different. I also looked into the details of how much money he had inherited and found figures ranging from 200-400 million. Had that money been invested in an SP500 ETF, he would be wealthier today than he is now. I don’t think you get to call yourself a great business mind under these conditions.

So I brought these rebuttals to my boss and he managed to dance around them a bit but ultimately conceded that Trump probably wasn’t a very good person, but that he had good policies. I asked how he knew that when Trump was so inherently dishonest? It seemed like Trump’s primary approach to policy was telling people what they want to hear, when they want to hear it, regardless of whether you have any intentions of following through on it. He seemed to think that Trump was being honest when discussing the policies he wanted to see move forward, and being a politician when said otherwise. It wasn’t hard to see the flaw in that logic… his perspective was indicative of something else that I needed to understand better.

I think the dynamic was, and still is tribalism. He’s never admitted this to me but I suspect his primary source of news is Fox News. He’s also got a friend in the office who’s thinks he’s smarter than he is, passing along pro-trump perspectives. He tried the same thing with me after I had done my homework and it was clear that he was repeating talking points more than he was speaking to something he genuinely understood. Both of them live in small towns and have spent their lives in communities with limited diversity. Both are staunch conservatives. Both are also quite wealthy. The intersection of wealthy conservatives who learn about their world through places like Fox News… that would be the tribe of Trump. When dealing in tribalism, it’s no longer about right or wrong, honest or dishonest, real or not real. It’s not about understanding what’s happening and making the most effective decisions. It’s about loyalty for the sake of power.

Once Trump was elected, both of us were interested to see how it would go. He thought it would go quite well, I thought it would go quite poorly. That said, I was always willing to give him a chance and judge his presidency by how he performed in office, and not something that he had done prior. My personal prediction which I shared with him, was that Trump would ultimately be good for the country, and the world. Not because he would be so good at being president, but because he would be so bad. My hunch was that his deeply corrupted character would lead to deeply corrupted actions and that these actions would expose the worst elements of our government, politics, culture, and etc. And that from those ashes, we could rebuild something better. Something that was genuinely focused on the greater good and left us all well-positioned for the future.

I remember sitting at home watching the votes role in back in 2016 and seeing Trump steal that win. I was surprised, but not that surprised. Perhaps what surprised me most was how much I didn’t understand about the American political system. For example, Hillary had accumulated more than 2.8 million votes more than Trump, but Trump was able to win the electoral college by a score of 306 to 232. The swing states which gave him that electoral college lead were won by less than 80,000 votes. The idea that someone could win a ‘landslide victory’ in the electoral college while receiving 3 million votes less than their opponent, because they won key battle grounds by the slimmest of margins… didn’t strike me as an intelligent application of democracy.

I smelled something fishy. I wasn’t sure what it was exactly… could be politics as usual.. or could be something else. I read about potential hacking of voting machines and shadiness in who owned the voting machines. I learned about Trump’s disinformation campaign the Russian disinformation campaign. I learned about Comey’s role in reopening the investigation at the last minute. And as the variables stacked on, I realized that this was far from a normal election. There was certainly a cultural movement behind those who voted from Trump, but everything I saw suggested that there was more to it than that. But mentioning this to anyone who was a Trump supporter didn’t generate any meaningful conversation. They were filled with a great sense of pride for backing the winning horse and anything that I might have to say sounded like sour grapes to them. So I put my head down and got back to work on trying to understand what really happened.

From my perspective, Trump set the tone of his presidency with Sean Spicer’s report of crowd sizes at Trump’s inauguration. I can’t imagine any modern day president caring enough about the crowd size at his inauguration to instruct Spicer to do what he did. He didn’t just lie or try to slip one by the press, he doubled down on that lie while trying to shout down those who were inclined to point out the truth. I knew then that this was going to be a bumpy ride.

While watching and waiting to see how this presidency was going to play out, I was most keen on the investigation into election interference to see if my spider-sense was accurate. Much like an iceberg, I could only see what had made it to the surface and knew that what had really happened was mostly beneath the surface. But as time went by, a considerable amount of information was released to the public. It didn’t paint a clear picture either way, but it certainly suggested that something extracurricular had happened and it probably had something to do with Russia.

The sequence of events I’ll list next are not speculation. Everything here is on the record:

On January 6th, 2017, the intelligence community concluded with high confidence that Russian had engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election. Later it was confirmed that this campaign was designed to hurt Hillary and help Trump.

On January 10th, Sessions was under oath at his confirmation and said that he did not have contact with Russian officials during the campaign. It was later determined that he did. At a follow up hearing, I watched him say “I do not recall” more times than should ever be acceptable for any Attorney General.

Also on January 10th, the Steele dossier is released. While the author of the dossier seemed credible, it was difficult to verify much of what was written. In going through it.. much of it seemed plausible. Even the pee-tape seemed plausible after seeing Trump’s apparent obsession with that one element of the dossier. The picture that the dossier seemed to paint was that Trump had been compromised through a variety of means. Given the bigger picture, this looked like a plausible scenario.

In late January, Flynn lied to the FBI about conversations with Russian officials relating to the sanctions the Obama administration had placed on Russia. On February 13th, Flynn resigns from his role as National Security Advisor. On the 14th, Trump asks Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.

On March 1st, it’s reported that Sessions had contacts with Russian officials (Kislyak) during the campaign, effectively demonstrating that he lied under oath during his confirmation hearing. The next day, Sessions recuses himself from any investigations relating to the 2016 presidential election.

On March 20th, Comey announces that he’s looking into any connections between the Trump campaign and Russia which may have influenced the election.

On May 9th, Trump fires James Comey, the person leading the investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the election. On May 11th, in an interview with Lester Holt, Trump says that the Russia investigation was part of the decision to fire Comey.

On May 17th, The Justice Department appoints Robert Swan Mueller III to lead the investigation into the possible coordination or ties between Russian efforts to influence the election and the Trump campaign. Mueller wasn’t just a war hero, or the prosecutor who took down the Gotti family or Exxon Mobil, or a former director of the FBI with near unanimous bi-partisan support… he was a consummate professional and a class act in every respect. If anybody was going to get to the bottom of this, it was likely to be him.

On July 8th, it’s reported that on June 9th, 2016, Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort met with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer. This prompts Trump Jr. to release a statement saying that it was a short, introductory meeting with an unknown person for the sake of discussing an adoption program. The next day, it’s reported that Trump Jr. requested the meeting after being promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

On July 27th,

On October 5th, George Popadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign pleads guilty to lying to the FBI about his efforts to put Trump in touch with Moscow.

On October 30th, Trump’s former campaign chair, Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates surrender to the FBI for charges relating to false statements, financial crimes, and lobbying on behalf of foreign entities without proper disclosure.

On November 30th, Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI and agrees to cooperate with the investigation through a plea agreement.

On February 16th, 2018, Mueller’s special counsel charge 13 Russians and 3 Russian entities and 3 Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

On February 22nd, an indictment is filed against Manafort and Gates which contains 32 charges relating to tax and bank fraud. On the 23rd, Gates pleads guilty and agrees to cooperate with the investigation. On the 24th, another indictment is filed against Manafort alleging pro-Ukrainian lobbying efforts.

On April 9th, the office of Michael Coen is raided. Coen was a personal attorney to Donald Trump and by all accounts, filled the role of ‘fixer’. This case is referred to the AG for the southern district of New York.

On July 13th, 2018, the special counsel indicts 12 Russian intelligence officers for their hacks against the DNC and Clinton Campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.

On July 16th, Trump meets with Putin and they hold a joint press conference in which Trump seems to accept Putin’s denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The next day, Trump says that he misspoke.

On July 27th, Trump denies a CNN report that he knew in advance of the Russian meeting between the Kremlin-linked lawyer and Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. Michael Coen, now cooperating with the Mueller probe is reported to be willing to testify otherwise.

On August 1st, Trump write a tweet calling on his Attorney General to end the Mueller probe.

On August 5th, Trump writes a tweet that the Trump Tower meeting in 2016 was to get information on an opponent.

On August 21st, Paul Manafort is convicted on 8 charges relating to tax and bank fraud.

On September 14th, it was reported that Manafort is now cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.

And since then, it’s seems like Mueller has adhered the the long-standing protocol for not making any major decisions or issuing any indictments leading up to a November election. By all accounts, that ends tonight. What happens next will have a profound impact on Americans and the direction of their country.

There’s been wide spread speculation of how Trump will proceed after the mid-term elections. Some think that Jeff Sessions will be removed from the Attorney General role, allowing for someone with Trump’s best interests in mind to take the position. Theoretically, this person may be able to end the Mueller investigation, or at least keep the report from reaching the public. It’s also been speculated that Rod Rosenstein, the man currently overseeing the Mueller probe will be removed. It’s assumed that he reason why Trump wouldn’t have made these moves prior to the election is because it would be perceived as politically unpopular.

When I look at this sequence of events, and the hundreds if not thousands of other details I’ve observed relating to bigger picture, I can calmly say that something here isn’t right. There’s a significant amount of information that I’m not privy to which would prevent me from making any conclusions at this point, but that doesn’t prevent me from making an assessment based on what I know.

From what I’ve seen, Trump will likely be found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States relating to Russia’s influencing the 2016 presidential Campaign. He’s also likely to be found guilty of obstruction of justice for a myriad of efforts relating to undermining the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 campaign. I would also say it’s highly likely that he’s found guilty of peripheral crimes like campaign finance violations, tax fraud, bank fraud, and the like.

Here are some of the softer details which I’ve considered:

On June 9th, 2016, Trump’s son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with a Kremlin-linked lawyer who had promised compromising information on Hillary Clinton. On July 27th, Trump gave a news conference where he looked directly into the camera and said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” He brushed it off as a joke or political rhetoric but I think there’s more to it than that. I used to play a lot of poker and I learned to read people’s body language. For most of that conference, his body language was standard Trump. But during that request, things were very different. Both hands are firmly gripping the podium instead of his classic hand gestures. He’s addressing the camera instead of the audience of reporters in front of him. During the request, he maintains eye contact with the camera for all but one moment. And in that moment where he looks away, he’s projecting the body language of someone who is deeply conflicted about what he’s saying. I think he knew it was a genuine request which he was going to try and pass off as political bluster. I also think that there’s a very good chance that this request is a result of the now infamous Trump Tower meeting just a couple weeks prior.

I’m speculating at this point but if I were Putin and interested in supporting Trump over Hillary, I’d be inclined to provide Trump with as much ammunition as possible. I would also want to do that in a manner which was effectively untraceable. That means that I, nor any of my close associates would ever have direct contact with Trump. Preferably, it would those not directly linked to me speaking with his inner circle. And it would be imperative to avoid any physical or traceable hand-off. But despite all this distance, I would still want some personal accountability. Even if it was only a gesture, something from Trump which explicitly said, ‘I want your help’. If nothing else, this would leave Trump deeply compromised and easily influenced. What makes this exercise far less speculative is a detail contained in the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence operatives working to undermine the 2016 election. Immediately after Trump made that request, Russia began to target Hillary’s emails.

If true, Putin wouldn’t need the alleged pee-tape as he would literally have evidence that Russia deliberately interfered in the election at Trump’s request. And this would explain a lot. While Trump has derided just about every political person he’s encountered.. except one. Trump has shown nothing but respect to Putin and if nothing else, it’s out of character. It was also very interesting to see their body language while at the Helsinki conference this summer. For me, I saw someone who looked compromised. I also found it amusing that when Putin was asked if he had any compromising information against Trump, he issued a classic non-denial denial.

The deeper you dive into the connection between Trump and Russia, the more likely this all seems. After Trump’s Atlanta Casino’s went bankrupt and nobody else would lend to him, Trump looked like he had finally run out of luck. But as admitted by his sons, they were miraculously able to get all the funding they needed out of Russia. As Moscow banks have been repeatedly found guilty of large scale money laundering, I suspect there’s a connection here. And I suspect this to be a primary reason for why Trump would not issue his tax returns.

The last soft detail that I’d like to lean on here is an old Shakespeare quote, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” This quotes illuminates a rather consistent tell from a guilty conscience. If Trump was innocent of ‘collusion’, he would be much less likely to tweet “NO COLLUSION!” on a daily basis. He would also be much likely to embrace the narcissists prayer of there was no collusion. And if there was, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, it’s not that big of a deal. And if it is, it’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

But this all still lies beneath the surface of what’s publicly known. I don’t think I’ve ever looked forward to something as much as I’ve looked forward to seeing Mueller’s report. For me, Trump represents a great imbalance in the world. The circumstances that allowed for someone as corrupted as Trump to find himself in the highest seat of power within our known universe shouldn’t exist. And if they persist, the world will burn.

I drew an interesting analogy the other day. Trump is to Mueller as Connor McGregor is to Khabib Nurmagomedov. Both Connor and Trump rose to unprecedented levels of power through non-traditional means, and at the expense of the institutions which got them there. Both strut around supremely confident in themselves while ignoring glaring errors in their approach to their craft. Both fully subscribed to their own hype. Last month, I didn’t just think Khabib would win, I wanted him to win for the sake of restoring balance. The UFC has become more about prize fighting than about martial arts and I saw that as a detriment to the sport. When Khabib did what he did (before the Eagle kick), I felt much better about the world. Not only do I hope the same thing for Mueller’s investigation, I am as confident in Mueller as I was in Khabib.

And that leads us to tonight.. Remember Remember the 6th of November. Tonight is perhaps one of the most consequential mid-term elections in our Country’s history. Should the democrats take the House of Representatives, they’ll have the ability to subpoena Trump’s tax returns and begin a slew of investigations into his activities which weren’t possible under a Republican house. If the democrats take the senate, the entire legislative branch of the government will be looking to hold Trump accountable for his actions. Up until now, I would have a hard time describing the republicans as anything other than complicit in Trump’s behavior. Under those conditions, I have a hard time seeing how Trump may last the term.

If the democrats are unable to take the house and or senate, Trump remains in control of three branches of government. Under those conditions, I’m not sure what Trump will do… but I doubt it’ll be good for democracy or the common person.

If I were to estimate how this plays out…

Democrats win the house and republicans retain a 51/49 split in the senate. Trump will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and replace them with those who are genuinely loyal to Trump. Mueller releases multiple indictments in the following days or weeks, including Roger Stone, and Trump Jr. Having hit the inner circle, Trump pulls every lever he has, looking to block the report, ultimately painting himself into a corner. Once the report makes its way to the house, it will inevitably be leaked to the public. The public will then have to decide whether or accept or reject the reality they see. Most will accept it, some will still reject it as a deep state conspiracy. The house will move to impeach, but with a Republican controlled congress, I’m still not confident in impeachment. I think this makes its way to the supreme court. Despite the supreme court being slightly more partisan than intended, I think they’ll appreciate what’s at stake and act in the interests of justice. I think Trump spends most of 2019 and 2020 defending a laundry list of charges ranging from conspiracy, to money laundering, to tax evasion, to violating the emoluments clause. During that time, consumer confidence will reverse course and we’ll enter a recession worse than 2008. It’ll trigger a global recession that will hit countries like the US and China hardest. Every institution from global finance to democracy will be questioned. As it should.

And from those ashes, we will rise.

Our Most Sensible Division

I do a lot of thinking in the car. It’s almost like a shower for me.. very meditative. Yesterday, I literally pulled over to make a note of this thought.

The western world is clearly divided right now. Democrats vs. Republicans. Liberals vs. Conservatives. Blue vs. Red. Left vs. Right. Sometimes it seems downright silly… like division for the sake of division. I can confidently say that I don’t identify with either side. One champions a compassionate approach but fails to act intelligently. One champions an intelligent approach but fails to act compassionately. Neither seems very interested in accountability or honest conversation. And neither seems to realize that for one side to win, both must win.

With tribalism continuing to be one of my biggest personal frustrations, I’m motivated to understand it. When I think about why people choose to be divided, the reasons usually aren’t that hard to find. More often than not, it seems to be driven by fear. And that fear tends to be driven by scarcity in some way. Perhaps a scarcity of resources, opportunity, or safety. In a position of abundance and security, we are much more likely to extend a helping hand to a stranger. In a position of scarcity and fear, we only take care of those close to us. As scarcity and fear increase, that circle gets smaller.

This would suggest that in times of peace and abundance, things like Left vs. Right don’t exist. Yet the liberal and conservative mindset have existed since well before modern politics. While the politicians certainly have a hand in playing up that narrative, today, perhaps there’s something else worth exploring here.

Humanity seems to be defined by some mode of evolutionary progress. If you look at what separates our species from other intelligent animals, it’s the rate at which we’ve progressed. Genetically, we’re almost identical to chimpanzees but in a more practical sense, we couldn’t be more different. Comparing humans to all other known life, we seem to have stumbled onto the secret sauce of forward progress. Yet we have such a hard time agreeing on which direction is forward and what should be considered progress. Maybe, whatever this secret sauce is, it exists primarily is the collective subconscious.

If I were to guess at what that secret sauce might be, I would say it’s how we’ve evolved to instinctually understand the status quo. Quite simply, there are those who would prefer to maintain it and those who would prefer to challenge it. Generally speaking, you’re more interested in maintaining the status quo when you’re happy with your situation and challenging the status quo when you’re unhappy with your situation. Sounds rather sensible doesn’t it?

I had a Eureka moment yesterday: You can’t challenge a status quo which doesn’t exist. I’m big on challenging the status quo and I’m no stranger to the frustrations of those who look to maintain it in the face of progress. Yet I was never dismissive of their value to the bigger picture and I think I now understand why. The status quo seems to provide the foundation on which forward progress is most likely. If everyone looked to challenge the status quo, what would they challenge? Sounds like chaos. Ironically, maintaining the status quo seems like an exercise in order. Perhaps forward progress is a fine balance between chaos and order.

When I step back and think about how this perspective applies to modern society, a lot starts to make sense. The right tends to be defined by their conservative approach – aka maintaining the status quo. The left tends to be defined by their liberal approach – aka challenging the status quo. Many of history’s great cultural and political clashes can be distilled down to those who wanted change and those who wanted to keep things the same. And yet both were and probably are necessary.

One dynamic which ties in here is the dichotomy of intelligence vs. compassion. I’ve found that the left behaves significantly more compassionately than the right while the right behaves significantly more intelligent than the left. It has crossed my mind that those who lean more towards intelligence are more likely to find success in their lives, especially in their careers. This would lead towards greater financial prosperity and a higher quality of life. If you’re aware that you’re enjoying a higher quality of life than the average, would you not be motivated to maintain the status quo? Would you not be more motivated to support those around you who have used intelligence as a path to success? Would you not begin to assume that a path of intelligence is more rewarding than a path of compassion? But what if you leaned more towards compassion? What if you were sensitive to the injustices in the world and were motivated to pursue equality and social justice more than income? And what if you were willing to accept financial disparity for the sake of helping others? And what if you’re aware that you’re enjoying a lower quality of life than average because of that sacrifice, would you not be motivated to challenge the status quo?

The political division of our species sucks. It often leads me to think that the best solution is no division at all and that we’re destined to arrive at some variation of a cybernetic hive mind. Perhaps that’s still the case, but maybe not. There seem to be some evolutionary divisions which have proven rather practical. Males and females might be the most classic example.. having evolved a remarkably well balanced partnership over the course of evolution (albeit a little bumpy at the moment). When it comes to the progress we’ve made over the last 10,000 years though, I might just attribute that to the balanced partnership between those who look to challenge the status quo and those who look to maintain it.

If we could learn to see one another as partners in forward progress instead of obstacles between us and power.. I can’t help but think everything would run a little more smoothly.