Ready to square off over a little knowledge.

       

     My cousin Harrison and I were doing what thinking people do nowadays—comparing our sense of deep foreboding over the advent of such a reality-averse president—and discussion slid into the eclipse of intelligence. He pointed out a scene in Broadcast News where a network executive tells Holly Hunter he imagines it "must be nice to always think you're the smartest person in the room."   
     "No, it's awful,' she whispers.

     Sure is. One comfort is that Donald Trump didn't make being smart go out of fashion: I believe that was Nero, when he forced his tutor, Seneca, to commit suicide. The ability to think about stuff has always been a mixed blessing. True, you don't buy as many time share condo memberships or accidentally set yourself on fire quite as much as other folk. But you aren't part of the cheering crowd of like-thinking buddies either. 
     Not that I'm complaining. Being smart makes you tough—two qualities not often paired. In a few days we'll have a bullying dope in the White House. But I've been dealing with bullies ever since Trent Carruthers—bigger, stronger, older, meaner—lay in wait for me after Fairwood School in the 5th grade. I don't remember what particular offense singled me out for abuse from Trent, but I'd put my chips on my being smarter than he was, though I imagine THAT didn't take much doing.
     Anyway, my exchange with Harry brought to mind this column:

     This was years ago. But it is branded upon my mind. My wife-to-be and I were at another couple's house. The pizza was gone, and we were playing Trivial Pursuit, the type of thing people do before children pour kerosene all over your free time and drop a lit match.
     It was my turn. The other guy's wife read my question: "This American author lived at Walden Pond and wrote a book about it."
     Easy as pie, I thought. "Henry David Thoreau," I said.
     The wife—an emaciated woman with feathered hair—flipped the card over to read the answer. Her eyes widened. "How did you...?" she stammered, amazed. And then she seemed to get angry. She extended her middle finger and held out her arm full stretch until the insulting digit was an inch from my nose. She uttered the accompanying oath.
     That, in a nutshell, is the story of my life. Though I was not showing off—we were playing a game, she asked me the question—I am forever bursting forth with information that damns me as a brainiac, an intellectual. I would have sworn that every human being older than the age of 15 could have answered that question. Walden. Thoreau. But of course I would be mistaken.
     People have the wrong idea about smart people. We are not arrogant. We are not showoffs. We live in fear that our secret will be discovered and we will be humiliated and hated.
      Just the other day, I was at a meeting with several associates. I was relaxed, comfortable, just one of the group. We were talking about the 12 square miles of presidential palaces that Saddam Hussein wants to keep off-limits from the prying eye of international inspectors.
     "Twelve square miles!" the man across the table said. "A square, 12 miles on a side."
      Sweat sprang to my forehead. I squirmed. I glanced around, praying for someone to pick up the ball.
     "That sure is a big square—12 miles each way," another agreed. I felt like a secret homosexual listening to his construction worker buddies slam fags.
     I tried to keep my mouth shut. The conversation seemed to be moving on. There were five other people in the room. Nobody caught my eye and shared my pained "What should I do?" gaze of entreaty.
     Finally, reluctantly, I said it, in a hushed, flat voice:
     "Twelve square miles wouldn't be a square 12 miles on a side. It would be a square three miles by four—a rectangle."
     In truth, I expected a lot of forehead slapping and sheepish grins. I expected giant shrugs of embarrassment, arms flung out, Zorba-the-Greek style. I expected nervous laughter.
     What I didn't expect was argument. There was a moment of stunned silence, and then we began a heated discussion. If the matter could have been settled by a vote, then 12 square miles would now equal a square 12 miles on the side. I stuck to my guns, thinking of Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men."
     "Trust me," I said, "I am completely confident about this. A square 12 by 12 would be 144 square miles."
     I was given incredulous looks. Could this be a joke? That's ridiculous, one colleague said. "Twelve square miles is twelve square miles--12 miles square."
     We went back and forth. I thought of just giving up, of slumping back in my chair and letting it go. What am I, schoolmarm to the world? But we are a newspaper, and you ignore something like that, next thing you know it's in print.
     So I drew a graphic.
     "Let's say you have a room, 12 feet by 12 feet," I said, busying myself at a yellow legal pad. I drew a big square. "And let's say you want to carpet it. This is a square foot of carpet," and here I drew a little square. "And here is your room." And then I drew 11 vertical and 11 horizontal lines over my big square (11 because, to divide a line into 12 pieces, you cut it 11 times).
     "Now, you're going to the store to buy carpet. How many square feet, how many of these" and I tapped my little square box "do you need to go into this?"
     I'm not sure whether people eventually grasped it, or just pretended to so we could move on. I know I felt as if I had committed some brazen act of self-puffery, some unforgivable braggadocio routine.
     So have pity on people who know stuff. They live a lonely life.
              —Originally published in the Sun-Times, Oct. 11, 2002.

Obama place holder

     Let me tell you about the time I blew my deadline.
     Never.

     The paper never reached for a column and came up empty. I like to think that's one of the reasons I still have a job.
     Trying to make sure it doesn't happen, I plan ahead. Tuesday I was going to deliver myself into the hands of the United States government, on a bus, hoping I had access to the Internet. But what if I didn't? What if Obama's plane was delayed, diverted, what if he never showed up and deadline loomed while I was shivering on a windblown tarmac? What if the press bus pulled into an unmarked warehouse and sat there for 12 hours? What if I couldn't file?
     Can't have that. So on Monday I cracked my fingers and came up with this, intended to be the Type O, Universal Donor, slap-into-the-paper-whether-Obama-shows-or-not column. 
     As it happened, Obama did show, did give his speech and I did write about it—I thought it lacked a necessary sense of outrage. This is the sort of thing that without a blog would never see the light of day. But since I'm driving down to beautiful Wayne County, Illinois, to research a story next week, and given that I think it makes a valid point, does have merit—at least I hope it does—I decided to share it with you here. As for tomorrow, well, I've never missed one of these posts yet either, in three and a half years, which I hope is an attribute and not a flaw. Something in Wayne County will present itself, and they must have Internet by now. If not, well, there's always a first time. I kept my working title because doing so seemed apt.

     So the story's ending, what's the moral?
     Okay, not ending. Barack Obama is leaving the White House phase of his career and entering a long golden twilight of speeches, fundraisers and golf. Something less frantic than the gerbil-on-a-wheel efforts of Jimmy Carter, hammering together low income housing and fighting tapeworm in Africa, but more visible than the vanishing act of George W. Bush. His own personal saga.
     What did it all mean?
     He was the first black president—did anyone mention that yet? They did, enough times that it became like a ball peen hammer on a sheet metal. Because Obama didn't have to do anything to be that first black president, once elected. Just show up. Isn't it the racism of low expectations to emphasize that now, after eight years? He was the first black president on Day One.
     Not to diminish the pride that black people feel, at his being president. You walk taller when the home team wins. I remember when Joe Lieberman ran as Al Gore's vice president in 2000, and a Christian columnist at another paper pronounced it no big deal. Yeah, I thought at the time, if you're not Jewish. If you are, nervously scanning the day to see if you should make coffee or flee for your life, then that kind of acceptance is welcome reassurance you can go ahead and grind those beans.
     So yes, the United States is not so stuck in the tar pit of racial bigotry that has dogged it for 400 years that it can't elect a black guy. Peal the bells, toss the confetti.
     But reassurance and complacency are cousins. Obama's presidency could just as easily be seen as a sign of how far race relations haven't come as how far they have. Sure, American's don't reflexively hate black people so much that 52.9 percent of voters, his most decisive victory, against Sen. John McCain in 2008--wouldn't cast a ballot for him. Not exactly a triumph.
     In office, Obama was opposed at every turn by an energized, maniacally-opposed Republican Party. The GOP gave him credit for nothing. They grudgingly acceded to his rescuing the auto industry, and the banks, and hauling the United States out of the cataclysmic financial crisis of 2008--an accomplishment that dwarfs the color of his skin, in my book--and then, when he did well, invented a fantasy administration of failure more to their liking. The unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when Obama took office; it's 4.7 percent now. Yet 64 percent of Republicans told pollsters unemployment rose under Obama. The Dow doubled during Obama's administration. Nearly 40 percent of Republicans think it fell.
     Has a single right winger said, "You know, the Obamas, they were a good first family. Daughters never showed up at discos drunk. First Lady of grace and dignity and beauty." Not one. Instead, as if the effort of holding their tongues was too great, the chorus of abuse swelled ,as if they were going to lose the chance. They hoped he would die.
That has to be, if not the moral of the story, then a hard lesson worth stating, because beneath the pride, I'm sure there is grim awareness that what I say is true. That a black guy can maybe snag a good job, despite overwhelming odds, excel against fierce resistance, and still have people calling his wife an "ape in heels."
     Then we elected Donald Trump, smashing the presidency as if it were a communal coffee mug that the new black employee had used.
     The senator I ran into quite frequently at the East Bank Club a decade ago was brittle and aloof. Being president made him warmer and more thick-skinned. Does anybody expect Trump to react that way? His bullying and touchiness will only intensify, if that is possible. And it will be hard for Americans not to claw the air where Obama had been, to wonder why the thoughtful, deliberate, intelligent man who was also black isn't here, to unchain the lightning of the English language and bind up our wounds. To, if not solve our problems, God knows, then make us at least hope our problems could be solved. Now we've got a president who doesn't heal wounds, he inflicts them.
     We're going to miss Barack Obama more than we realize now. I sure will. I'm missing him already.

Obama holds a pep rally for a game his team lost

     I spent about six hours in the White House Press Pool Tuesday, tailing Barack Obama as he pin-balled around Chicago on his last visit as sitting president. And while the experience was not what I expected, we'll save that for another day. Here's my column on Obama's farewell speech, which ran in the paper Wednesday. 

     Barack Obama has talked his way out of jams before.
     When the dilemma was the bottomless obscurity of state legislature, facing years of downstate lapel-grabbing before, maybe, finding a toehold up the ladder, Obama conjured the audacity of hope at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, rocketing himself from Springfield, Illinois to the U.S. Senate and halfway to the White House.

     When the difficulty was fallout from intemperate remarks made by Jeremiah Wright,, threatening to derail Obama's presidential campaign, the Illinois senator urged us to unite and strive toward our Constitution's goal of a "more perfect union."
     "We cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together," he told Constitution Hall in Philadelphia in 2008. "Unless we perfect our union by understanding we have different stories."
     But the president was not in a jam, himself, Tuesday night, when he made arrived at the very windy city of Chicago for his farewell address before a rapturous crowd at McCormick Place. Obama is home free. Ten days left in his term, then he can devote his efforts to building a library glorifying himself, watching his younger daughter finish high school, lowering his golf handicap, and musing over the 7-figure deals corporations will dangle before former president.
     No, it is America itself that is in a tough spot now. At least the part that is black or brown, Asian or Hispanic, gay or lesbian or transgendered, liberal or those struggling to maintain a more than passing acquaintance with the world of fact. Both those horrified by Donald Trump's promises, as well those counting on them, though the latter don't know it yet. We're all facing four years of the Trump Administration, a sideshow carnival of hourly outrage while the Republican wrecking crew that controls both houses of Congress leaps to undermine ethics, gut environmental controls, scrap safety regulations, and slash taxes for the rich and health care for the poor.
     Obama Tuesday addressed this with his typical cool remove. No tears today. No shouts. Just as the Republicans pretend his administration was a disaster, he chose to pretend he leaves a country glowing with grace. He sees a nation "even more optimistic than when we started." Maybe Russia is, but it's hard to see the advent of Trump as a time of optimism, unless you are among the gulled millions who figure anybody smart enough to inherit so much wealth has to know how to run a country.
     The president lauded "the peaceful transfer of power," which might not have been the case had Hillary Clinton won, judging by Trump's winking threats. Obama set the bar so low that even the 45th president could hop over it.
     Not to be too hard on Obama. He didn't have to come. Before he rides off into the sunset, he returned to the place where he made his name to puff on the guttering flame of hope, urging us to somehow keep it alive in the reactionary downpour pounding on our roofs.
     "Democracy does require a basic sense of solidarity," he said, failing to add, "which is not what we have now or in the foreseeable future." He did allow that "a post-racial America was never realistic." Thanks for the news bulletin, Mr. President, but we're there ahead of you.
     How will this final speech stand with other classic presidential farewells? There was no echoing warning like Eisenhower's caution against the "military-industrial complex." It was more like a greatest hits reprise of past speeches that worked so well, then. But now we're on to a new crisis, and his language of hope sounded—to me anyway—flat, lifeless. And I was in the hall.
     There have been presidents who warned against what we're facing now. George Washington didn't laud an imaginary solidarity in his famous farewell, but cautioned against a country fractured by disunity.
     "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries have perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," he wrote in his brief, written farewell.
      "The spirit of revenge" could be a chapter heading for the history of the 115th Congress.
     Washington warned that a leader "more fortunate than his competitors" might come along and build "his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty."
     Man that rings a bell. Public liberty isn't ruined yet. But the crowbars and pickaxes are being assembled in Washington, the task begun even as the throng at McCormick Place cheered.

Flashback 1984: "Everything is fine, everyone is happy"

   

Ronald Reagan at the College of DuPAge

     Barack Obama returns to Chicago Tuesday night to give his final speech as president of the United States. Through the combination of equal parts pushiness and blind luck that have been the twin pole stars of my career, I am scheduled not only to attend the speech, but to be a local representative in the White House press pool, accompanying the president during his five hour visit. I'm excited to be part of it, and apprehensive not to screw up.

     It will be the third time I've heard a president give a speech, live. The occasion previous to this was election night, 2o08, when indulging my then-13 year-old son, I attended the enormous rally in Grant Park. And the first time was in 1984, when Ronald Reagan campaigned for re-election at the College of DuPage and I, then opinion page editor of the Wheaton Daily Journal, went to hear what the Gipper had to say.

     This column is in several ways characteristic, in that it focuses on something that most people in the room wanted to ignore, and it ends just as the part most journalists would focus on—the speech itself—begins. You can consider that a flaw or an attribute but, avoiding the passing issues of the moment helps it, I believe, resonate today, where shouting down any whisper of protest was a highlight of every rally of our president-elect. There are a few cliches and clunky word choices but, in my defense, I was 24 years old when I wrote this.

     

     It was only a small sign. But it caught my eye. all the other signs and banners decking the gym for President Reagan's visit to the College of DuPage were blue and red. This one was green.

     It said, 'Bread not Bombs" and had a nuclear symbol in a circle crossed with a slash. It was taped to the wall, opposite from where Reagan would be speaking. I knew that a sign like that could not last long in this hall, and I settled down to watch it.

     I did not have to wait long. A few feet away, Liz Seeland—a Young Republican from Wheaton College—stood handing out American flags and hand-painted signs to the people streaming into the hall. She saw the sign and, with a bunch of flags in one hand, she stacked up cardboard boxes in front of the sign until no one could see it.

     "I didn't just do that," she said to a group of three boys who smiled at her as she blocked the sign.

    The three boys—Pete Kobs, Oliver Schmittenberg and Jeff Letus, all 16 years old and all from Glenbard West high School—kept their place in front of the sign.

    "It makes me mad," said Pete, referring to the sign. "If kids don't like Reagan, they shouldn't be here."

    "There's a difference between stating your views and being out of place," said Jeff.

     Suddenly a boy in a gray sweatshirt came over and pushed the boxes away.

     "We want to show Reagan our views," said Jim Interlandi, also from Glenbard West.

     "nothing is anti-Reagan in that message," he added, looking at the sign. "If those people have the right to say what they want, I have the right to say what I want."

     now the sign was visible again, hanging to the right and below another sign—twice as big—that said, "RON, AMERICA NEEDS YOU." It was the only sign in sight that had not been painted by the sponsors of the rally, the only one that added a note of dissent.

     It was too much, apparently, for the three schoolmates. They eyed the sign uncomfortably.

    "Gish, I wish I could rip that sign down, it makes me mad, said Pete, after Jim had left. But nobody moved toward it.

     A few minutes passed, then suddenly one person, glancing guiltily in all directions, ran up and tore the sign down, leaving it in a crumpled heap on the gym floor. His friends looked on in approval.

     A College of DuPage student named Jennifer ran up and tried to put the sign back up, but it wouldn't stay in place.

     "Everybody has a right to their opinion," she said, adding that she was in fact a Reagan supporter.

     Jim, who had struggled to keep the sign up, said he wasn't going to try to put it back up. "It would only get ripped down again," he said, grimly. "Maybe if I can find some more tape." He shrugged and went to look for his friends.

     From the back of the room, it was a scene of pure enthusiasm. The band played soaring, stirring marches. The green sign had disappeared—it wasn't even a lump of cloth amidst the confetti that covered the floor. An hour went by. Then, a few minutes before Reagan arrived, I noticed a tinge of green in the center of the crowd. It was the little green sign, held aloft in the midst of signs like "AMERICA NEEDS REAGAN" and "WMEN FOR REAGAN." Holding my press credentials up in front of my face, I worked my way into the center of the crowd.'

     Lisa Cargill, 18, was one of perhaps a dozen protestors, gathered in front of the press bleachers. They raised their hands in peace symbols and held tiny signs with slogans like "No Nukes" and "I don't love Reagan." Lisa held up one corner of the little green sign.

     "We are going to try to be seen and try to be heard," she said, shouting above the music. "People are taking our signs down, kicking us, hitting us with sticks."

     Indeed, the people around them were not happy. "Get a job!" someone shouted. "Get a real life!" another shouted. 

     I moved away from the group, to the back of the room. The chants were louder now. "Four more years," and "We want Reagan." I wanted to see if Reagan would see the sign abover the crowd. The roar was deafening, as the high school marching band finished playing "Maniac" and went into "Hail to the Chief." The green sign fluttered briefly, but then disappeared below the waving flags and placards. Perhaps somebody pulled it down, perhaps those holding it up got tired.

    When Reagan finally took the podium and looked out over the thousands of people, not a hint of dissent was in view. He smiled at the smiling faces, waving flags, and blue and red signs. No doubt, as he started to speak, he was thinking about how everyone is happy, and how everything is fine." 

     

     

There was something big behind the iPhone, and it wasn't just Apple

     Alexander Graham Bell was not trying to invent the telephone when he did just that. What he was trying to do, at first, was make a better telegraph. It was the 1870s, and the telegraph was 30 years old — about as old as cellphones are now. Like cellphones, the telegraph had become enormously popular, so popular that messages backed up at telegraph offices, waiting to be sent. The problem had to be solved; there was no point in telegraphing a message from Washington to Baltimore if it took three days for operators to get around to tapping out your message. You could walk it there in two.
     Bell was working on sending many messages simultaneously through the same line in the form of different tones, then stumbled onto the idea that these tones could be a voice, a reminder of the often accidental nature of technological advancement.
     So it is fitting that when Apple  founder and

chief executive Steve Jobs began to develop the iPhone, which he unveiled on Jan. 9, 2007 — 10 years ago Monday — what he was trying to do was safeguard the iPod, his wildly popular music player responsible for nearly half of Apple's revenue. Jobs saw how cellphones decimated the digital camera industry, and worried his competitors would include music too. Then Apple might become Kodak: just another once-hot tech company.
     Jan. 9, 2007, was also the day Apple dropped the word "Computer" from its corporate name, because it was going to be more than a computer company. You can't sail across the ocean without leaving the shore.
     When Jobs announced the iPhone, at the company's MacWorld convention in San Francisco, he telegraphed his priorities by the order he listed them....

To continue reading, click here.

Too bad we're not as clever as our tools

    Life isn't fiction, but sometimes it'll arrange itself thematically, or seem to.
     For instance, on Christmas Eve, we met some old friends who lived in the city, took in a movie, then headed to their place to scarf Chinese chow. Their son, to my surprise, opened the front door by pulling out his cell phone and tapping a few buttons. I'm not sure how that's an advantage over a key, but it is different. 
     Golly, I thought, or words to that effect.
     Technology seems the same for a while, then it changes. Not so long ago I'd plot out where I'm going on Google Map before I left. Now there's no point, I can just plug the address into my phone—it takes a few seconds—and, should I need directions, it'll tell me where to go. 
     The other day, I was picked up in a new Audi A4, a sleek piece of German engineering. I was intrigued to notice that the cabin temperature registered on the climate control knobs. I admired the economy of that—the knob surface was just wasted space before; why not put some data on it? Countless engineers gazed at those fat blank buttons, until one day, one engineer thought, You know....
     The display reminded me of bathroom sinks that so charmed me in the tiny bathrooms of Japan—built into the back of the toilet tank, they not only saved room, but the water you used to wash your hands helped fill the tank. Amazing.
    The New Technology Chapter came to a close, for my purposes, Saturday, when I heard a report on the radio about the Consumer Electronics Show, now going on in Las Vegas. LG unveiled its OLED "wallpaper TV" which is only 1/10 of an inch thick. That's really thin. 
     Which leads to the obvious closing question: why can't people be as clever as the technology we create? It might have been stronger to end on that note, but let's make it an actual rather than a rhetorical question. Why? Maybe because a gizmo, no matter how wondrous, is a lot simpler to put together than a society. Maybe because a society is comprised by the whole jumbled bell curve of people, some of whom are staggeringly dumb. Maybe something else. Maybe the gizmos should reflect a bit of wonder back on our staggering society because, without our current culture, flawed though it is, there would be no cool technology to feel good about.

Wow indeed. Trump's tweets truly terrifying

     One of the most significant of the many wonders about our president-elect is the genius Donald Trump has for instilling sincere amazement into the discovery, or I suppose "re-discovery," of what we already know.
     By Friday I, along with half the county, had spent 19 months taking an intensive cram course in just how brittle, vindictive, mean, petty, and small focus Donald Trump can truly be. We knew. 
     At least we thought we knew. 
     And yet. 
     Here, maybe you missed them. First this:

     
     Followed by:

    In case you haven't heard, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the one-time box office action hero and former governor of California, is the host of "The New Celebrity Apprentice," the post-Trump reboot of the reality TV show that The Donald stared in for 14 years, before being elected president of the United States.
     Schwarzenegger's "Apprentice" turn was panned by the critics, and if Trump is to be believed—did I just write that?—also in the ratings.
      Let's ponder these tweets a moment, shall we? The strange use of quotations around "swamped,"--an odd usage when referring to getting killed in the ratings, assuming that happened (checking ... in the real world ... yes, "opens weak" according to Variety) then the helpful parenthetical, "(or destroyed)", to shed light for those confused. 
    Then a reference to the "ratings machine, DJT" -- that would be him, Donald J. Trump, referring to himself in the third person. Quite regal, or pathological, of him. Would you call yourself by your initials? I wouldn't do that on a bath towel.
     Ending with the truly strange "But who cares"-- you, obviously, Donald, since you're tweeting it to your 18.9 million followers—and the dismissive "he supported Kasich & Hillary," which explains the whole score settling motivation (Variety doesn't mention Hillary or Kasich, but suggests that opening against "The Bachelor" might have been a factor). 
    But that isn't the incredible part, at least not to me. The incredible part, again to me, is this: he's being inaugurated president in two weeks. He sent these Jan. 6. He stands in a morning coat with his hand on a Bible in 14 days, on Jan. 20.
     A few thoughts:
     A) You would think the man had better things to do, more pressing matters to occupy himself with.
     B) He's executive producer of the show. He's attacking the star of his own show. Which, again, should not be surprising. There was an odd resonance with his attacking the intelligence community for revealing how his buddy Putin skewed the election in Trump's favor. He'll undermine his own business interests if ego is involved, he'll blind our nation's eyes and ears rather than acknowledge he was Moscow's puppet of choice.
     C) I've never been elected president and never will. But you think it would make you a little satisfied. A little safe. A bit above the fray. That it would float you beyond the schoolyard payback of Trump's tweet. That it would make you happy.
    No. Trump is impervious to experience. The wound never heals, the thirst is never slaked. Whenever I write about Trump, I hear from haters who support him claiming that I "hate" Donald Trump. Not true. How could you hate someone so pitiful? So broken? He's King Midas, breaking his teeth on gold food, starving amidst the riches he craves. Nothing is enough.
     I've seen a number of Facebook postings asking why the media doesn't just ignore such tweets. And I can see the logic -- why even bring up something so trivial? And the answer is, because the guy who is rolling in this triviality is going to be leader of the free world in 168 hours. Because his doing so speaks to how completely fucked the country is. 
    Which brings us full circle to my observation at the beginning, that Trump can make the familiar seem fresh. You've barely processed this hour's shock when the next comes whistling overhead, exploding like a shell. People are worrying about "normalizing" this? We can barely perceive it, barely register what he's done before he's off to the next folly.
     Yes, hope is necessary -- I sincerely hope that Trump proves so fraudulent, erratic and deceptive that little of what he actually claimed he will do will get done. But don't confuse hope with expectation. To look at that pair of tweets is to feel true despair, to see the image of the freight train bearing down on us, forming in the dark, light growing larger fast, horn blasting.