June 3

 Still very early here but dawn is just about here at just before 6 a.m. I am partially caffeinated--almost through my first cup. And working my way through my e-mail. The news/commentary is fixated on Trump's sentencing five weeks away. We have already heard more than necessary. The only way I can learn more about the issues involved would be to go to law school which, at my age and with my finances, ain't gonna happen.

Sunny today and warm already--mid 70sF. 

Janinsanfran posted an interesting piece on the ages of our probable presidential candidates. One is 77 (three years older than I am) while the other is 81 (six years older than I am) and the question of how their ages might affect them if they win. Both have already been President once so they both have a record to judge them on. But most pundits seem to ignore that. Jan quotes Kareem Abdul Jabbar who says that he is younger than either and thinks he is too old to be president. His major concern was an observed decline in mental acuity in both men though polls say it is a more pronounced problem for Biden, at least in the minds of respondents to the polls. But he makes a very valid point with which I agree. Aging is a very individual happening. I wouldn't want to run for or be president because I don't have the necessary physical stamina. But I do have an active mind capable of absorbing information and making decisions on that information. We tend to generalize our own experience over all others of our group--in this case older people.  But Jan makes another good point asking "are we asking the wrong questions?" Looking at the two candidates it is clear, to me at least, that one has the maturity, intellectual ability, and thoughtfulness to be president. The other is a child in a man's body, with a serious lack of impulse control, vindictive,  and has a noted inability to absorb information (especially that which doesn't allow him to do what he wants). I don't always agree with Biden's decisions but I doubt he will go off "half-cocked" , cozy up to dictators, burn down our legal system to get his way and benefit him and his family. Trump has done all that and will do worse.

Robert Reich asks a good question while considering the various government data on "consumers"--who exactly are they talking about. He divides consumers into two buckets: high income and low income. Businesses who cater to the low income consumers are in trouble as their customers pull back on their spending. Reich mentions that some, like Target, are shifting to attract higher income customers. The high income consumers aren't under as much economic stress but they are a smaller part of the economy. I would argue that the two tiers is simplistic. There are a lot of people in the middle whose economic prospects may be improving so they can move into the high income category or may be worsening and moving down the economic ladder. Our economic system is geared toward perpetual growth and the more consumers move lower in the economic structure the harder it is for businesses to grow. We have noticed a lot of ads on TV from companies we hadn't seen for a while. And we have seen more programming time taken up by advertising. It is frustrating, annoying and we are watching less cable and more of our own library of re-runs.

Reich notes in another post that Trump's convictions may not move many voters in any way. He has successfully fused his own (fake) victimhood to the perceived victimhood all too many feel.