Trying to Rescue Jail Diversion

When a district judge reached for a reliable tool recently, it was suddenly gone.

The tool was Forensic Intervention Consortium of Doña Ana County, better known as jail diversion (JD), a local nonprofit that saves us big bucks every year.

JD helps seriously mentally ill people referred by law enforcement, the courts, the detention center, lawyers, and/or clinical providers. They may or may not have been diagnosed, and often fall through the cracks. JD makes sure they get to court, or meet with a lawyer or counselor. Just finding these folks can be a challenge. Judges consult JD regarding appropriate conditions for pretrial release – then rely on JD for monitoring. 

JD does something special – efficiently and inexpensively. Judges, corrections officers, and others say the group serves an important public function.

The State has stopped funding JD. The State was contributing upwards of $200,000 annually, the County $75-80,000, and the City nothing (inappropriately, since city police bear the biggest burden of dealing with JD's clientele. When the funding disappeared on July 1, JD was serving upwards of 400 people. Its absence has been felt by clients and the officials who deal with them.

Police and DASO deputies spend a lot of time on these folks. We pay the detention center to house and feed people who are held pending trial. Each “marginal” defendant who misses a court date for urinating in the street sparks a warrant, more charges, and interest – money most can't ever pay. So the person is imprisoned for a longer time for evading trial. A vicious cycle. Keeping even some people from missing court dates saves the authorities more than JD's annual budget.

The State wants JD to become eligible to bill Medicaid; but JD's services can't be billed to Medicaid. These aren't office appointments billed by the quarter-hour. JD would have to become a different entity. Eligibility would take at least a year. 

Imagine (meaning no disrespect) if we defunded animal control, and demanded it qualify to bill for veterinary services? Instead of collecting stray dogs or responding to calls about feral cats, the animal control folks would wait in an office. 

The County also pulled its funding.

There's talk of “something else” replacing JD; but that “something” ain't here yet, and doesn't know the clientele and the community as JD does; and the County's current mental-health service, while highly worthwhile, doesn't serve the people JD does. 

JD gets people to court or to needed services. It needn't be judge, lawyer, doctor, or psychiatrist. It needs to be what it is: quick, nimble, experienced and effective. More, it knows and cares about its clientele. 

I haven't yet heard any real justification for the State's action. Sometimes we destroy something that works just because we didn't invent it.

Still, there's hope. A group of professionals dealing with criminal law problems is listening. So are state legislators. The State Behavioral Health Division will soon meet with JD, and maybe misunderstandings can be corrected. (The former Human Services Director, Wayne Lindstrom, has left.) The County is preparing an RFP, but until that's issued and responded to, and choices are made, it's no help – assuming it would address this particular need. 

These government offices should rethink this matter, and provide at least bridge funding. Soon!

Jail diversion is an effective local service. Let's not lose it, and spend more money, while seriously mentally ill people go untreated.

                                                                -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 July 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website, where a sound version of this commentary is also available.  That radio commentary will air on Wednesday and Saturday on KRWG, and on Thursday afternoon on KTAL, 101.5 FM ("Que Tal" Community Radio ).]

[Obviously, I hope the state and county -- and the city -- can cooperate to keep this program going.  So do a whole lot of other folks, including lawyers and public servants whose jobs are a little tougher without JD.  And we pay the county enough in taxes that it should value more highly a program that so clearly saves us money.]

[I was thinking about these things at the recent memorial for Ron Gurley, who was largely responsible for the existence of the jail diversion project.  We'll miss him.  Meanwhile, looking into this has gotten me interested in the crisis triage center, standing unused since its construction years ago.  A monument to -- to what?  Petty jealousies among local officials?  Questionable planning?  Short institutional memories?  A profound indifference to mental health, even when ignoring it costs taxpayer extra?  All of the above?   For years I've been aware of the triage center, and its failure to open and do what it was supposed to be, but I've never really looked into  it.]

xxx

At first Trump's openly racist tweets seemed comically stupid. Just Trump being Trump.

They are racist. U.S. law says so. Racist guys yell, “Go back where you came from!” to girls wearing hijabs. All four targets were citizens, three born here. The fourth has been a citizen longer than Melania Trump, but has a darker complexion, a refugee kid who rose to Congress. It ain't about citizenship or loyalty, but color.

The tweets seemed especially foolish. Trump attacks women's soccer forward Megan Rapinoe and helps unify UWWMT against him – then sees Dems bickering, steps in to show them what a real enemy looks like. Unifying Dems. Frightening Republican Senators from swing states. 

But as Trump doubles down and Republican campaign officials ape his tone, you realize it's more serious. As the crowd at his rally enthusiastically chants “Send her back! Send her back!” like some southern lynch mob, or an early Hitler crowd, you sense that a decision has been made: we'll campaign in 2020 on racism, hatred, and insults.

Even more clearly, the constituency is white, male, preferably uneducated, and the message is that dark folks who talk funny are why our world isn't as it once was.

I think that strategy loses, ultimately. Might ratchet up fear and bring out a few more supporters; but the U.S. is changing. For my Hispanic friends who voted for Trump, will this be a bridge too far? Decent Republicans may actually speak up.

Am I deluding myself that human decency is a value for the majority of us? 

Experts keep saying Trump should run on the economy; but our economic chickens may come home to dump on his campaign by mid-2020. Maybe he's taking his best chance. Hatred is always in season.

The Democrats, true to form, may help him. Democratic leaders, sure they know what's politically prudent, may again treat dissenters badly, and weaken support for the ultimate nominee. A Democratic candidate making promises that Trump's “base” abhors might push some Republicans back into Trump's camp, despite their loathing for him. 

I do know that this is another critical election. 

Whoever wins, the country has already lost.

Since 2016, we've lost any semblance of a neutral Supreme Court, for a long time. We've lost critical years to make our national footprint smaller and more sustainable. We've lost much of our protection from bad food, poisoned air or water, dangerous drugs, dangerous airplanes, and dishonest banks and financial advisers. Our obscene wealth inequality has deepened. The Republican War on Science won't help us crest the next big technical wave. 

An extremely strident an election campaign will continue our disintegration as a society. Even if Trump loses, will Republicans learn from it? If Republicans don't lose the Senate too, we'll repair little of the damage. And if the financial consequences of Trump's carelessness and greed hit us after the election, will 2024 find voters blaming the wrong folks? 

A Trump win would bring devastating economic, environmental, and political consequences. The Federalist Society owns the courts. If Trump won big, with coattails, there could be enough Republican-controlled states to call an Article 35 Convention – eliminating a lot of our freedoms and protections, and maybe letting presidents run for a third term. A new constitution drafted by Koch staffers?

The cat jumping into my lap reminds me the desert sun is low enough that I can water the vegetables. Something true!

                                                           -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, 21 July 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's websitethe newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version (available on KRWG's website) will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (Que Tal Community Radio --  www.lccommunityradio.org).  (Coincidentally, KRWG's site also had an opinion piece on the same subject by New Mexico in Depth journalist Trip Jennings called Trump Tweets Beg Question: What Kind of a Country Do We Want?] and another by Dennis Delaney entitled "Unthinkable Behavior by Elected Officials".)]

[I wrote this Thursday.  Friday, thehill.com reported that Republican officials wee "rattled by the Trump's rally."   The intra-party reaction led Trump to claim he found the chant distasteful, although he sure didn't look terribly appalled while inducing the chant and listening to it.)  Many Republicans are genuinely offended or see Trump's apparent campaign strategy as a losing one.  Or both.  Almost all are appalled by the constant furor Trump creates -- and having to answer questions about Trump's character and conduct, rather than about the economy.  Reading some of the comments in the  "thehill" piece, one almost imagines they might manage to rein the guy in.  I suspect they'll just mumble in their beards or complain anonymously to reporters, with the likely exception of Milt Romney, but who knows?
Romney called the chants "offensive" and said they'd probably hurt the party and the country..  Mitch McConnell and Republican Whip John Thune mumbled. A Republican aide said (anonymously) that strategists "feel like quitting because they're tired ofwaking up every day and twisting themselves into pretzels to rationalize what the president says."  For many, I'm sure, aside from political fears, the sight and sound of the North Carolina rally sparked memories of newsreels or movies with other demagogues preaching hate in other countries.  It usually doesn't end well.
House Republican Vice Chairman Mark Walker, from North Carolina was one who probably was genuinely offended.  He said:

“I’m offended by ‘send her back’ or ‘send them back’ — they are American citizens. I can’t sit here as a former pastor who’s worked in refugee camps, who cherishes the wonderful minority communities there are that have supported us and continue to support us without saying, ‘That’s offensive.’”

Even Lindsey Graham urged Trump to drop the personal attacks on the four congresswomen, saying, "All of these congressmen won their election.  They're American citizens.  This is their home as mine" though he added, "I think everyone should tamp it down."  Many Republicans have evaded specifically criticism of Trump by saying "everyone" or "all sides" should return to civil discourse.  Which is of course true, but isn't the point.  Trump is the primary offender, and the most powerful. 
For his part, although Trump claimed the chant made him "not happy," he defended the "patriotism" of his chanting supporters: “These are people that love our country. I want them to keep loving our country. And I think the congresswomen, by the way, should be more positive than they are.”]

[Saturday I spoke to my aunt, who's 95.  I asked her if she felt any different lately about Trump.  "No, but he sure has his hands full with those four Congresswoman, who keep shooting their mouths off."  She didn't think "Go back where you came from" was racist, but was appalled that "they said we're like Nazis."  Bottom line, though she doesn't approve of everything Trump says and does, she's very thankful "we don't have Hillary!"   We did agree we love each other, and it was great to hear her voice; but the riddle of so many decent people not seeing that Trump's a disaster for us remains.]  

Going to Derry

I own land up by Derry only because I visited Cruces just when my friend, Bud (Professor Orville Joseph Wanzer, Jr.) was retiring from NMSU. Somewhat deaf, and much preferring nature to people, he wanted to live out his days in solitude. I saw an ad for 50 acres, a half-mile of riverfront. Cheap. We drove up there. Much to Bud's surprise, it was “the place.” 

It felt isolated. After a few miles on a dirt road, we turned up a gentle slope. Alone on the river's west side, we could see farms and distant mountains to the east. With two friends to split the cost, we bought it. That was in 1984.

Bud lived there nearly three decades, with a revolving pack of dogs, some wild. He built a small house, studio, and shed. He installed solar power. He walked daily, worked on the place, and wrote. He tried gardening, but the heat and rodents were merciless. He taught himself stained-glass – and became a master. For a while an entire room housed a train set, and the town (houses, stores, farms, cows) he created for the trains to chug through. Little people looking about as baffled by life as we usually were.

I dreamed of moving there. I dug a well, prepared a home site, and cleared a road up from the arroyo. (An especially vigorous monsoon flood soon erased the lower end of the road.) I designed various homes for the site – adobe, straw bale, rammed-earth. 

Bud created a unique outdoors stained-glass gallery: with limited windows in his house, he built a stained-glass carport; then he erected free-standing structures using 2 x 4's, with openings for the glass – out in the desert, at the mercy of the elements – or any 12 year-old with a BB gun.

Worlds First Stained-Glass Carport - then one for the truck

The dogs of Derry, on a hot afternoon

I visited most every year. I loved the special quality of the silence – the perfect antidote to city life's nonstop background din. I swam in the river with the dogs. Long, empty days there had their own rhythm. 

Bud didn't see much of anyone for months, so the first day he talked loudly and constantly. Once he relaxed, we had good talks, or shared the silences of old friends. 

When his health deteriorated, we moved him into town. After some intense years of frequent ER trips, he died this February. 

Thursday was our first visit to the land since Bud's death. Nature is reclaiming the place. Thorny branches across the driveway bar the way. A darkness has settled there that reminds me of the scenes foreshadowing evil in scary movies. Inside, layers of rodent pellets share floor space with books, papers, and other odds and ends left behind. By his old desk, where he sat so much of each day lookin' at the river, I found a Bible held together with duct tape. Inside, in pencil: “Presented to Orville Wanzer as a token of honor for regular attendance in sabbath school in 1903.”  1903?  His father, Queens cop and Olympic shot-putter.

His place feels like a stage set after the play has closed its run. 

I wandered over to my empty home site, spooking a deer in the arroyo. The gnats didn't follow me. I sat looking up-river and down-river. The Rio was full. Blue water. Bright green fields. Mountains going red in the late light. That silence again, absolute silence. I was right where I wanted to be.

                                                                      -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 14 July 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version is available on KRWG's website, and will air during the week on KRWG (Wednesday and Saturday) and KTAL 101.5 FM (Thursday afternoon).]

[Below I've inserted a couple of images shot on the visit described -- then a few earlier ones of Bud, his stained glass, and the dogs.]

Home site and view up river

view downriver

Bud's place, viewed from my home site - 2019

Rio Grande

"The Happy Stars"

Bud working on stained-glass

Stained-glass and "the bunk house"

Bud working on miniature building

* Monday confusion still reigned over Mr. Trump's petulant tweet about the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to permit a politically-motivated question on citizenship to be added to the census.
The Supreme Court, which expedited its schedule to hear and decide the issue in time for the Administration's stated deadline for starting to print the Census questions -- June 30 -- is now hearing Mr. Trump say he can extend the deadline because he doesn't like the decision. That's beyond impolite, to the Court.  It also completely undermines whatever credibility the U.S. Solicitor General has with the Court.
Thr Court told Administration attorneys that if Facebook's lawyers told him one thing, and then Mark Zuckerberg tweeted the opposite, then next time he'd tell them Zuckerberg had better come to court with them, because obviously they couldn't speak for their client.  Meanwhile the Administration is essentially telling the Court "we're going to come back with a significant new reason we should be able to ask about citizenship" but that it doesn't yet have a clue what that significant new reason will be.  Right.  The Justice Department also announce that the lawyers on the case would be replaced, suggesting that the initial set of lawyers refused on ethical grounds to do whatever it is Trump has ordered them to do.  It's an incredible mess -- for which a CEO in some private corporation would be called on the carpet by his or her board of directors.
Days later Trump reiterated his intent to try to use an executive order to get the political census question in -- but by Friday he'd given up, but buried the story.

[* To his credit, Trump did surprise me by avoiding an obvious pitfall, after his silly fight with members of the World Cup Champion U.S. women's soccer team.  I'm certain he hoped they'd lose, so he could call them out; but they won handily.  I guessed he'd stay silent (since a couple of prominent players have announced they'd not go to the Casa Blanca if invited) or perhaps congratulate them but include some unsubtle insult. Instead he just congratulated them, without adding anything ungraceful.  So I congratulate him for acting sort of like a normal person for a moment.]

* Also on Monday, a tweet from Mr. Trump spread a fake Reagan quote.  Reagan, who was photographed shaking hands with young Trump on November 3, 1987, never said, "For the life of me, and I'll never know how to explain this, but when I met that young man I felt like I was the one shaking hands with the president." 

* Too, Trump couldn't resist battling with the British Ambassador.  Someone the ambassador's reports to his government were made public.  Reporting honestly, and not for public or political purposes, he was very clear about the chaos of Trump's government, Trump's flakiness, and even the possibility that Trump might not finish his term.  He called Trump inept.   If I were in Trump's chair, I'd see how negative that was, and that it was particularly damaging because it wasn't meant to insult me or even be made public, and I'd shut up about that.  Why buy it another few days' play in the papers?  Guess that's why I'm not where Trump is.  He calls the guy an idiot, so that anyone who maybe was waterskiing when the original story came out will say "Who?  What?" and see the British Ambassador's candid opinion of Trump.  Then the guy resigned -- while other foreign embassy staff in D.C. were saying -- anonymously -- that the Brit said no more than they each had about Trump.

* His freakiest moment was when Trump spent an hour trying to portray himself as a great world leader in . . . uhh . . . environmental protection?  We all know he isn't.  He knows he isn't.  He's spent upwards of two years freeing corporations from the restraints of environmental regulations, getting us out of the Paris Agreement, etc.  But some of his consultants, looking at polls, developed the idea that although Trump is anathema to folks who understand the climate-change threat, there might be other folks who like some things about Trump but want to be reassured he's not a complete horror on environmental matters.  So he spent an hour in the East Room this week describing "America's environmental leadership" under his direction.  He claimed he'd disproved allegations that his pro-business approach would harm our environment.  He portrayed himself as the champion of clean water and oceans -- while he's doing things to weaken protections of both. . . .

As one scientist said, this was "a true 1984 moment.

County Moves Forward with Wildlife Services - Carefully

Doña Ana County Commission's renewal of the U.S. Wildlife Services contract has been a case history in listening.

Each year we pay the agency to “deal” with “nuisance” wild animals: coyotes eating calves, skunks in your garage, rattlesnakes. No one pays much attention.

This year folks, including Southwest Environmental Center, sensibly said, “Wait a minute!” And started asking questions. Wanton coyote-killing ain't cool. 

So the County passed a resolution getting us out of the coyote-killing business, requiring certain funds go only to non-lethal methods. This resolution sparked a storm of protest from ranchers and Wildlife Services, who made some good points about what's actually happening on the ground. They say the killing isn't wanton or extensive. 

Mike Graves from Wildlife Services said the bulk of his work under the county contract mostly involves non-ranching citizens encountering problematic animals other than coyotes. The program kills relatively few coyotes. (73 last year.) Graves and the ranchers said they weren't out to eradicate coyotes. Ranchers call on Graves rarely, mostly during calving season. Their problem is the occasional coyote that preys on calves, not all coyotes. They said they care about the balance of nature, and recognize that coyotes are an essential part of our local ecology, such that eradicating coyotes would cause even more problems. They also loathe coyote-killing contests. Rancher Steve Wilmeth recounted finding a bunch of carcasses someone hung on his fence, and knowing passersby would “think that rancher did that.” But that rancher hadn't and wouldn't. 

Graves's key point is that “nuisance animals” will be dealt with – if not by Wildlife Services, then by amateurs with far less experience and skill, in far less humane ways.

At Doña Ana Soil and Water Conservation District's request, the Commission reconsidered the resolution, and discussed at its last meeting a new resolution that imposes reporting requirements but removes most limitations. 

Some citizens advocated the original resolution, others opposed it. Commission Chair Lynn Ellins will discuss with Wildlife Services M-44 poisoning and leg-traps. (People disagree on how inhumane these are and whether or not hikers' dogs are endangered.)

I hope Ellins will get more stringent reporting requirements and revive certain rules, even if they require things Graves already does, such as warning signs and an electronic device to alert him when a trap has been sprung. We've improved the situation some, and can review it next year. I'm particularly interested in the process.

Good for SWEC, which raised the questions. Good for DASWCD, which made some good practical points in seeking reconsideration. Good for the Commission, for listening to everyone. We should be able to sharpen our focus to accomplish the goal without collateral damage.

As for us “general public,” there was too much demonizing of each other. Some folks attacked SWEC's Kevin Bixby, while others assumed the “coyote-killers” must be liars. I never think attacking people helps a whole lot, which may be my advanced age showing. 

We have a diverse community. Vegan friends point out that raising herds of cattle is a massive ecological evil, and that it takes vast amounts of water to get beef to your table. 

Ranchers point out that some of what they do actually helps wildlife, and that the disappearance of their way of life would be sad for all of us. 

Meanwhile, with the contract lapsed, some old guy with a skunk in his garage is probably giving Graves hell for not helping him. 

[NOTE: The County Commission meeting will be at 9 a.m. Tuesday, 9 July -- just two days away!]

                                                      -30- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 7 July 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio (streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org).and is available at the KRWG website.]

[New Mexico conservation groups have launched a People’s Contract for Coexistence with Wildlife in response to the above.  They alleged that the resolution now on the table doesn't “reflect publicly-held values," adding, "We believe that it is not necessary to exterminate animals because they pose an inconvenience to someone, that traps and poisons have no place on our public lands, and that coexistence with local wildlife is possible.”  I agree.

They urge transparency and accountability, and strengthened reporting requirements should help meet that goal.

They call Wildlife Services an "opaque, rogue, killing agency." (A group called Predator Defense has a very negative view of the agency.)  I know the agency has a bad reputation for its past conduct toward wolves; and I lack sufficient knowledge to judge the agency as a whole; but I've been impressed so far by what I've heard from the local representative.  

"The People’s Contract would prohibit Wildlife Services from using leghold traps, snares, and dangerous M-44 sodium cyanide bombs. It would also preclude expensive and wasteful aerial gunning of wildlife. Instead, the contract emphasizes the need for coexistence with native wildlife through long-term, proven non-lethal deterrence methods and husbandry practices that would save public funds and benefit ecosystem function." 

I share a commitment to coexistence with native wildlife.  Coyotes were here first.  Therefore I sure hope our killings of coyotes are minimal.  Hell, up toward the mountains for several years, I killed rattlesnakes only when I had to, and normally relocated them.  I know that's also not a great thing for the rattlesnake, but it seemed better than killing 'em.  Same thin, mostly, with scores of pack rats. But not everyone lives as I do.  Mr. Graves's point that others' "self-help" efforts might do a lot worse damage than Wildlife Services' more focused work. 

Should we completely forbid the M-44 sodium cyanide poisons?  Or is limited use of them a necessary evil, far from areas people's pets wander through? Aerial gunning of wildlife is appalling; but if it's accurate that that's happened just once in our county in the past five years, forbidding it sounds a bit less urgent.  I will say that my instinct is that the leghold traps are more dangerous than Wildlife Services lets on; but if it's true that those traps were used by Wildlife Services to trap wolves that were intended to survive and breed additional wolves for reintroduction to the wilds, maybe they're not so thoroughly dangerous. So I don't claim to know the answer.  (By the way, you can, if  you wish, sign the People's Contract or get the names of your commissioner to advocate one side or the other here)]

[At the same time, conservationists stress that the April resolution would not have affected the Wildlife Services work so long as the agency spent half its budget on non-lethal animal control. The resolution passed in April mandated that “Farm and Ranch Improvement Funds” (or FRIF) used for predator and rodent control must be used only on non-lethal methods going forward.  However, the agency's annual budget under the contract has typically been $17,000 plus an equal amount of general county funds.]

[So I remain grateful to those who've raised these issues, and to the County Commission for working toward a way forward that's fair both to residents and to animals -- and I never forget that we are the interlopers, while the animals belong here.]

Saturday Question: Pick Trump's Dumbest Move of the Week

I'm trying on a new Saturday feature: just jotting notes each week on the various idiocies of the guy in the Casa Blanca, then trying to highlight the most astonishing.  That honor, this week, goes of course to his praise of George Washington for making sure to seize control of the airports during the rebellion against Great Britain, more than a century before Kitty Hawk. It's at the end, below.


* Donald Trump picks up on a months-old video that caught soccer star Megan Rapinoe saying that if the U.S. women's team won, she wouldn't visit "the fucking White House."  Whether you agree or disagree with her views, can you imagine Barack Obama (or FDR or Dwight David Eisenhower, had technology permitted it in their times) responding to Boston pitcher Curt Schilling saying something negative about him?  Most grownups have more self-control.  Have their eyes somewhat on the ball.  Meanwhile, Trump starts the spat (less insultingly than his comments on black athletes kneeling during the national anthem, maybe 'cause Megan's lighter complected), and pursues it.  Predictably, it becomes a big public deal, adding to many fans' distaste for Donald, unifies the U.S. team, and probably brings some non-U.S. soccer fans to root for the U.S. team.  If the team wins, Trump will look bad, 'cause the whole thing emphasizes that most athletic teams now don't feel that visiting the White House to shake hands with a somewhat obnoxious clown is any great honor.  If the team loses, Trump will call out Rapinoe for not keeping focused on her task -- a concept that ain't his strong suit.

*At the G-20, where nations reassert their commitment (a weaker commitment than we might like, but at least something) Trump has to wriggle out of it -- and make childish comments on climate change ("The U.S. has the purest air and water it's ever had," and crediting himself for U.S. strengths) that show how little he even understands the concept.

“It doesn’t always work with a windmill. When the wind goes off, the plant isn’t working. It doesn’t always work with solar because solar [is] just not strong enough, and a lot of them want to go to wind, which has caused a lot of problems,” he continued, according to The Washington Post.

“Wind doesn’t work for the most part without subsidy. The United States is paying tremendous amounts of subsidies for wind. I don’t like it. I don’t like it,” he added.

* At the G-20, too, he cozies up to Vlad Putin, turning a question about election-meddling into a buddy-buddy in-joke between him and Putin, making light of the election insecurity that's begun to worry even most of his Republican pals.

* The U.S. Supreme Court (with a 5-4 extremely conservative majority) actually denies Trump's political effort to put a census question on the U.S. Census.  Trump, who has insisted the question is necessary to enforce federal civil rights laws, makes a self-contradictory argument, while the court system learns that a Republican political hack (whom Trump's people had denied was involved) had initiated the whole damned effort to ask the question; and Trump, forgetting that he's argued that the June 30 deadline for starting to print census forms is a reason the Court should decide this fast, says, oh, well, we can delay that to October while we try to re-argue this with the Court.  He hints at a delay in the census -- despite the fact that federal laws mandate it be done every ten years -- and appears ready to throw the whole thing into confusion by delaying training, printing, and other preparation.  As always, doing a good job (on this supposedly non-political federal duty) isn't much of a consideration if little Donald isn't getting what he wants.

Miffed by the Supreme Court's decision tossing out the "citizenship question" proposed for the census, because the question was obviously for political reasons, and the administration had been lying about that, Trump kicked his feet against the wall and screamed he was going to delay the census, which is subject to strict legal requirements and timing, until he got his way.  Days later the administration quietly acknowledged reality and announced it was giving up the effort to add the question.  Days after that, though, he called his own administration's statements "fake news" and announced he's going to keep pushing for the politically-convenient question, because it's so important, although his minions are still deciding why it's so important.

* This week, Trump confused everyone with his promise to add "new Abrams and Sherman tanks" to the 4th of July parade, to emphasize our military strength.  Even a non-military head like mine got scratched over that one.  How was he gonna provide "the brand-new Sherman tanks" when the U.S. military hasn't used them since the 1950's.  There ain't no new Sherman tanks.  Apparently someone finally explained that to the Babbler-in-Chief, and the Casa Blanca announced that these old tanks would be "on display."
As a friend put it on facebook, "The WH occupant said we would have the new Abrams and Sherman tanks on display at the July 4th event. But they would not be in the parade to keep from damaging the streets. I was looking forward to seeing a Sherman tank that hasn't been in our arsenal since the early '60s. The Commander in Chief should know what weapons he has under his command."
From my reading I also know that there was a time -- say, 105 years ago, just as the European nations started World War I -- when patriotic people attended 4th of July picnics and viewed our flag as a wonderful and strong symbol of Peace.  I doubt Mr. Trump -- or, given our permanent war state, most of us -- could really comprehend that.

******* But he topped that on the 4th of July:
Speaking to the crowd there for fireworks, he outdid himself.  In praising the Revolutionary War soldiers, he boasted that "the Army manned the air" and that "they took over the airports, they did everything they had to do."  When a pal posted a quotation on facebook, I commented that dim as Trump was, I couldn't quite believe that one and would research it; but a moment's research showed that he had -- and even included video!  The video dispelled my notion that maybe he'd been smiling when he said it.  (He also read blissfully a reference to "Cornwallis of Yorktown" as if the British General hailed from Yorktown; but having grown up just a few miles away, I knew that the writer meant "at," since the significant battle occurred at Yorktown, NY; and he seemed to think the retaking of Fort McHenry, during which battle Francis Scott Key composed "The Star-Spangled Banner," occurred during the Revolutionary War, not the War of 1812. 

That's exceptionally idiotic.  He's blaming the teleprompter.  But a man with a mind, and a minimum amount of normal knowledge, would catch himself and reject "they took control of the airports" when talking about the 18th Century.  I mean, the teleprompter could tell me Jesus texted a lot on his cell-phone, but I think I'd manage not to say that out loud to folks.