“Separate but equal isn’t”
navigating the second Gilded Age through humor, invective and insight
“Separate but equal isn’t”
One of the more bizarre reactions to the second coming of Trump the First involved administration officials and celebrities saying how they were glad daddy — His Imperial Majesty — was home. Mel Gibson was even glad to see that daddy was about to take his belt off, presumably to punish bad people.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
Think about what’s meant by such statements. The speaker is saying he or she can’t deal with the world and the other people in it, and needs some big, strong adult to show up and do what he or she couldn’t.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with admitting you need help. But this isn’t just a cry for help. It’s the reaction of a terrified child craving the protection, support and love of a parent.
Someone to take pity on, and try to help? Of course. But to pay attention to their approach to dealing with the world? They’ve just admitted they can’t handle the world. That makes them one of the last people anyone should pay attention to!
It’s also revealing about how they equate daddy’s ability to make things better with violence directed towards others.
Good parents sometimes use force to achieve desirable outcomes. But it’s hardly the first or only thing they try. Because the goal is to make things better while avoiding or minimizing pain inflicted on others. Isaac Asimov famously observed violence is the last refuge of the incompetent1. Why would anyone pay attention to an incompetent? A self-professed failed incompetent?
Using Trump as a father-figure is revealing in a very different way. If you read about his life, it’s hard to see him ever being nominated for Father of the Year. By anyone, let alone his kids2.
Trump’s niece, Mary, who holds a PhD in clinical psychology, wrote a fascinating book about her uncle’s weird mind (it’s definitely worth reading). Among other things, The Donald is clearly working out daddy issues of his own. His father seems to have been a cold-hearted son of a bitch who lived only for himself and his business and had little interest in anything beyond either3.
Younger son Donald saw how Fred Sr. treated Fred Jr. and responded by adopting a bullying approach aimed at convincing his dad he, Donald, could beat anyone. Like all forms of bullying, it aimed to hide weakness or uncertainty. And apparently it worked so well that Donald thoroughly internalized it. All of which hardly makes him somebody I’d want as the adult in the room.
Trump the First is disturbed on so many levels it would take a long time to document each pathology. But I want to share one more true story about him that was burned into my brain. And not in a good way.
During the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump’s children showered him with praise. That’s typical, and understandable.
What isn’t typical is that, when his daughter went up to give him a hug after speaking, he grabbed her ass with both hands on live, national TV. I remember this vividly, because she was facing away from the camera.
I will confess here that I, on occasion, have used that particular grip with certain women. It is, always, a not-so-subtle way of saying “let’s have sex!”4
No decent father would do such a thing. Yet it’s par for the course for His Imperial Majesty.
All of this is why he needs to be kicked to the curb.
H. Beam Piper responded by saying indeed, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, because only the incompetent wait until the bitter end to use violence. Personally, I think there’s truth in both perspectives. But Piper’s rejoinder shouldn’t be taken to mean one should respond to everything with violence. ↩
except maybe in a desperate attempt to garner affection or approval from him ↩
In fact, Mary Trump shows how Fred Trump drove his eldest son, Fred, Jr., into addiction and ultimate suicide because the son didn’t want to go into the “family business”. ↩
It also looks to me like he was checking out her boobs. ↩
mostly incoherently, but still…
© 2025 Mark A. Olbert, except where noted. All rights reserved.
For many reasons, I will never forget Mr. Muchio, who taught me algebra in the 7th grade.
One of the biggest challenges in learning algebra isn’t the math itself. It’s learning how to parse descriptions into mathematical equations you can then use the rules of algebra to solve. It’s a process of abstraction, figuring out what are the essential details and what is “merely” descriptive and/or reflective of a particular situation. This is commonly known as learning to solve word problems.
We quickly became masters of this…or thought we had.
As Mr. Muchio pointedly kept reminding us, what we were actually doing was leaving stuff out to overly simplify the problem. I still remember his admonition, decades later: “You’re using a silly rule: ‘when in doubt, leave it out’. But it means the problem you solve isn’t the one you were supposed to solve. Be careful about what you leave out!”
Once upon a time I was chief financial officer of a startup biotech company. One day my boss, the CEO, and I were traveling back to meet with investors to pitch them on why they really wanted to keep buying our stock.
During the flight I reviewed the financial models and presentation I’d spent days creating. Somewhere over the Midwest I suddenly realized several of the key summary values, which were central to my analysis, had gotten hard-coded. They didn’t reflect the revised assumptions I’d made.
This meant my beautiful and compelling pitch was completely wrong. In fact, we didn’t look like such a good investment after all.
Needless to say, I didn’t get much sleep that night. I had to revise everything.
Ever since, my Excel models are littered with “check figure” lines, that confirm totals are, in fact, reflective of the data they claim to summarize.
One of my earliest political memories was of Joe Namath, a very talented and famous quarterback in 1968, being asked who he thought should be our next President. I was 13 at the time.
I remember thinking “He’s a phenomenal quarterback. But why in the world would anyone think that’d make him an expert on national politics and the Presidential candidates?”
It takes a lot of time and effort — and focus — to become an expert in anything. Very few of us have the resources to do that in many different fields.
This spillover expertise effect really comes into play, at least in the United States, with business titans and governing.
Just because someone is successful in business, they don’t necessarily have a clue as to how to successfully lead a community in its pursuit of happiness and the greater good. Business, for all its challenges, is a much, much simpler environment to operate in than government. I know this from personal experience because I worked in each for 20 years, as a financial executive and as a local elected official.
In business, you succeed by focusing on making money while not breaking the rules. Or at least not breaking them too much.
In government, at least in a representative constitutional democracy, there is no single goal, and no marketplace in which to value tradeoffs from moment to moment. In fact, there’s often no market at all.
The Michelson–Morley experiment, which produced the data that overthrew Newtonian physics, was performed in 1887.
But it went unexplained until 1905, when Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity.
What were the world’s physicists doing during those 18 years? Ignoring the data and hoping it would go away? Playing pinochle?
No, they were trying to jam the empirical data into Newtonian physics. Because that just had to be true! It’d successfully explained everything (well, almost everything) for centuries!
Once you accept the box you’re in, it’s damn hard to break out of it. Or even realize you’re in a box.
Ever wonder why research reports in Science, Nature, or any other scientific journal are terribly boring and hard to read?
It’s because the authors are required to disclose, fully, materials and methods, how they did their analysis, etc. They have to establish provenance, and reproducibility…both of which are key to critical thinking.
They only get to discuss what their results (might) mean in the last few bits.