Squirrel Hill - Great Place To Live As Is Pittsburgh. Jodhpur. Sad Commentary. Peggy Noonan's Op Ed. Think About That!

Multiple people dead, three police officers shot at Pittsburgh synagogue; suspect in custody.

Our kids live in Squirrel Hill. It is a great neighborhood of mostly Jews but it is also changing and a lot of Asians have moved there.  You can walk to all the stores and it is also very close to downtown Pittsburgh.  You really never have to leave the area to live a full life because there are beautiful parks nearby, a thriving community center, houses of worships (mostly synagogues) and every store imaginable. Every type of restaurant is within walking distance and some of the best pizza in the U.S.

Pittsburgh, itself, is a fabulous town. Many ethnic neighborhoods, great diverse food, wonderful friendly people but, obviously, some nut cases inhabit the area.  Higher education in Pittsburgh is outstanding.  Some of the nation's finest universities are there, the cultural facilities are well endowed, and the medical facilities are among the nation's best.  Pittsburgh has plenty of sports teams, theaters, a marvelous Symphony and Zoo and  the cost of living is reasonable.  Andy Warhol's museum is fabulous. Pittsburgh is a secret gem of a city but winter weather is the one downside.

Our kids love their city.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Risk reward should even relate to global warming. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jodhpur Chapter 11. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As the book I recently read and reported on, by Mona Charen, wrote: "Sex Matters." (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sad commentary. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I like Peggy Noonan.  I believe she is a very good op ed writer and I find her comments balanced and her topics interesting. In the op ed I have posted below one cannot disagree with her view that both parties need to cool their rhetoric.

Where I have some disagreement is what so many others are doing - focusing exclusively on Trump as the stick stirring the pot. Trump is a stirrer. I too am a stirrer but, unlike a president, I do not command a bully pulpit nor have a staff of professionals putting into words my thoughts. I commit mayhem by myself.  I also have a problem singling Trump out for everything under the sun.

The political atmosphere Trump inherited was building long before he became a candidate.  Yes, he has contributed to it and did so in a masterful way otherwise he would not have won. He brought a new combative style to campaigning. But then, can one allow Obama to escape some self committed blame? What about Biden?  Are they simply grouchy and thus, allowed to escape their own contribution to public discord.

Some liberal friends, who read my memos, call Trump a liar yet, elevate Obama to saint-hood. They attribute everything that happens that is evil to Trump and give Obama a pass and overlook his pen and cell phone comment, that he tried to retrieve equipment which caused th death of four brave Americans and then lied etc..

We know college educated Democrat women excused Bill Clinton yet, they constantly remind us Trump is the "real" bimbo chaser. Show me a president who was/is not flawed and I will probably be able to show you a failure.  The mass media shielded us from Kennedy's serious health issues because they wanted us to think only Camelot.

Most politicians engage in verbal warfare and all too many elevate themselves at the expense of their protagonist opposition. Going low seems to have appeal? They would not do so if it did not work enough to warrant/justify the effort.

I am not defending Trump's boorishness, his many guffaws etc.  I am simply trying to place them against a backdrop of factual behaviour by predecessors and contemporaries in the hope it will put matters in better perspective.

Regarding the tragedy in Pittsburgh which occurred after Noonan wrote what she did, I would remind those who blame Trump, take him to task for his comments  post the event. Trump's son-in-law who  married Trump's daughter and their children are Jewish, Orthodox Jewish in fact.  I daresay Trump is neither unaware nor unsympathetic to this fact and yet, I have neither heard nor read anyone point to this fact.  Why?  I challenge you to think about that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) U.N. Ignores Economics Of Climate

New Nobel laureate William Nordhaus says the costs of proposed CO2 cuts aren’t worth it.

By  

Bjorn Lomborg

The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy—and why economics matters more than ever.

Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges, is economically and practically impossible—as Mr. Nordhaus’s work shows. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap, efficient power, whereas green energy remains mostly uncompetitive. Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty. In rich ones it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.

The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU’s climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach €2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel’s latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That’s simply not the end of the world.

The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus’s most recent estimate, published in August, is that the “optimal” outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.

It’s past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over. Instead the world must focus on resolving the technology deficit that makes switching away from fossil fuels so expensive. Genuine breakthroughs are required to drive down the future price of green energy.

Copenhagen Consensus analysis shows a ramped-up green-energy research-and-development budget of around $100 billion a year would be the most effective global-warming policy. It would be much cheaper than the approach pushed by the IPCC, and would not require global consensus. Most important, it would have a much better chance of ameliorating temperature rises. Under the IPPC’s approach, by contrast, the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits. Instead, the over-the-top reception to the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue down a pathway where the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)Chapter 11:  Jodhpur

Monday, Oct. 22 we arrived in Jodhpur, the second-largest city in the state of Rajasthan after Jaipur.  The fort here, Mehrangarh, built by Rao Jadha beginning in 1549, is golden/red sandstone, and sits of a tall bluff overlooking the Saraswati River valley.  Jodhpur is southeast of Jaisalmer, in north-central Rajasthan.

Being the VIPs that we are (hah!) there was an entire band here to greet the train this morning.  They played a wide variety of western-style music, including Jingle Bells, for our entertainment.  They were very serious about it – I couldn’t get a smile out of any of them.

We went right to the fort, and, lucky for us, there was an elevator to take us up.  (I think it was added after 1549.)  Mr. Singh, our local guide, told us that they had to dig the shaft by hand because any blasting or machinery might shake the foundations.  It took several years to carve out the shaft.

There is a great view from up on the fort of the “blue” city below.  Many of the buildings are painted blue, and it does make for a pretty view.

There is a museum inside the fort, exhibiting silver howdahs (seats for riding an elephant).  Also rooms with Murano glass windows in colors that cast lovely images on the floors and carpets.

There is an interesting plaque talking about two kinds of rock in the earth here.  The lower one, rhyolite, came from volcanoes 745-680 million years ago.  Abutting that is sandstone, which was formed 630-542 million years ago by silt being laid down in a shallow sea.  There is at least a 50 million year gap in there, where they don’t have any evidence of what was happening geologically.   Some of the sandstone here contains squiggles and wiggly formations made by tiny creatures of the Ediacaran period – some of the earliest evidence of life on earth.

The old city within the walls of the fort was typical of what we’ve seen inside the other forts we’ve visited in Rajasthan, with narrow, winding roads, cows and goats in the roads slowing down the rickshaws, tuk-tuks, cars, motorcycles, pushcarts, and small trucks.  There are seven gates and a zig-zag path into the fort.  At one of the gates, there are handprints of women who threw themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres.  (I am not doing that for Old Grumpypants, sorry.)

We encountered a mother with her baby who had just had her first haircut at the temple and had a swastika put on her head.  This, we have learned, in a Hindu symbol, usurped by Hitler.  To the Hindus, it represents Aryan heritage – maybe that’s what appealed to Hitler about it.  It also denotes "conducive to well-being or auspicious".

We walked down from the fort and took tuk-tuks through the old town to the central market square at the clock tower.  During our visit, we had two male models with us, each with bushy long, curling mustaches, typical of the men in the area.  You’ll see them pop up in the photos.  Since this is a Nat Geo trip devoted to photography, we have had models join us in several different locations, which has been fun.  That’s also why you are seeing such a large number of photos with each chapter.  Believe it or not, I am culling them down dramatically to just the best ones and the ones that help to tell the story.  We have hundreds more.  Matthieu has been encouraging us to take more than one photo each time, in case someone new comes into view or another angle is a bit better, so together we have lots of photos of the same things. 

Lunch was at a beautiful hotel named The Ajit Bhawan in Jodhpur.  A stroll through their gardens and past their pool was a nice was to spend a few quiet minutes.

Then it was on to shopping!  We went to a textiles “warehouse” in Jodhpur, where they quickly escorted our group into our own little showroom where they could show us their wares.  I was thinking that we could get out of here with nothing, until I saw them unfurl some of the most gorgeous fabrics.  They were all an awkward size – too big for a shawl, too small for a dining room table, but magnificent nevertheless.  We did end up with one, of course, that we were told was a design they make for Hermès in Paris, which then marks it up to $2500 - $4,000.  We got it for just over $200.  (Of course, I have no proof that Hermès even carries it, much less that they sell it for that much, but it sure sounded like a good deal.)  They also had a huge assortment of antiques, but we managed to get out without buying any of those.

We went back to the train and had another talk from Mathieu, this time on editing photos.  It was fun to see how he could take an already-very-good photo and make it truly gorgeous.  That is where an artist’s eye comes in handy.  Know where I can buy one of those?  Hermès, perhaps?

Our saloon master (butler) arrived at our cabin this evening with what he described as souvenirs from the train.  Oh, how nice, we thought!  A beautiful book about the train and the cities it visits, hats with the Palace on Wheels logo, silver salt & pepper shakers with the logo engraved on them, a beer mug also so engraved, and a couple of other things.  We thought they were gifts, but as the conversation went on, we began to catch that we were supposed to buy them.  We did go for the book, to help with my writing of this journal, and a hat for me, but declined the rather heavy silver items since our suitcases are already heavy enough.  I think he was a bit disappointed that we didn’t spring for everything.  C’est la vie.

This was our final evening on the train.  Not sure if I’ll be able to sleep tomorrow night on a bed that doesn’t rock me to sleep.

Photos are at https://www.mmemery.com/Jodhpur

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)

HHS Memo on Restoring Definition of Sex Enrages Left

Trump considers rolling back a regulatory move made with Obama's infamous pen.

By Louis DeBroux

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals can believe them.” —George Orwell

The completely unhinged lamentations coming from the Left following a leaked Trump administration memo regarding the federal definition of “sex” for legal purposes exposes just how detached from reality the Left has become.

At issue is an internal memo revealing that President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services is considering rescinding a 2014 Obama administration memo that attempted to redefine sex as “gender identity.” In other words, HHS is considering restoring the definition of sex used by all sane people since the beginning of time from the radical redefinition issued by Barack Obama.

The Obama “memo” was not a law (it was never passed by Congress), and it was not a regulatory rule (it was never submitted for a public discussion period). It was just a memo from the Obama HHS expanding Title IX definitions regarding discrimination to include “gender identity,” followed by letters issued to schools and colleges warning them that failure to implement the Obama redefinition would put federal funding at risk.

“Gee, that’s a nice school you got there — shame if anything happened to it…”

The practical impact of the Obama memo was that schools were coerced into opening their restrooms, shower facilities, and locker rooms to members of both sexes based on “gender identity” (the sex a person “feels” they identify with) rather than on biological sex. In other words, biological boys were able to share restrooms and showers with biological girls so long as they claimed to identify as a member of that sex.

Girls seeing the male anatomy at a college party: sexual assault. Girls seeing the male anatomy in a third-grade girls restroom: equality. That’s leftist “logic.”

The Trump administration’s leaked memo proposed simply that HHS would define gender “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable. … Sex means a person’s status as male or female, based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.”

The New York Times, which leaked the memo, wrote an article so hilariously, hyperbolically comical that one would assume it is satire. Unfortunately, the paper is serious.

With much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, the NYT mourned, “The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.”

Drastic move? The “new definition” is the same as the old definition before Obama unilaterally changed it with his infamous pen just a few years ago.

The Times headline warned that transgendered people were at risk of being “defined out of existence.” Of course, any rational person understands that a return to the standard definition of sex does not “eradicate federal recognition of” anyone, including transgendered. Don’t believe us? Let a transgendered person stop paying his taxes and see if the IRS suddenly stopped recognizing his existence.

To bolster its case, the Times quotes medical “professionals” and LGBT advocates who don’t even seem to grasp the contradictory nature of their own claims. The Times article said the change would “eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into,” seemingly oblivious of the fact that their own words acknowledge a child is born as one gender or another, and a “transition” to the opposite gender requires surgical mutilation.

Another expert cited by the Times, Dr. Joshua D. Safer, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, stated, “As far as we in the mainstream biological-medical community understand it in 2018, it is hard-wired, it is biological, it is not entirely hormonal, and we do not have identified genes, so we cannot specifically say it is genetic.”

You know, other than the XX and XY chromosomes and the clearly different genitalia.

Undergirding the claims of non-biologically determined gender identity is transgenderism (medically known as “gender dysphoria,” a psychological disorder) itself, and repeated references to those born as intersex (born with both male and female characteristics). However, even with intersex births, those children almost always manifest as one sex or the other.

According to the Intersex Society of North America, the frequency of births where the child presents “so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in,” that number is 1 in 1,500 or less.

In other words, the Obama administration used the 0.6% of Americans who identify as transgender and the 0.067% born demonstrably intersex to completely upend society’s ordering of much of our lives under gender differences. That is evidence the decision was driven not by science or compassion but by radical ideology.

That we are born male and female is a truth so obvious and immutable as to be shocking to see otherwise intelligent human beings debating. And rejecting that truth only sows confusion and sorrow, as evidenced by the 40% of transgenders who attempt suicide — even after surgery — and the growing number of post-surgery transgenders now seeking to reverse their surgeries.

Regardless of confusion over sexual identity, all human beings have dignity as creations of God, and all are deserving of kindness, compassion, and respect. God created male and female, in His image, and the more we stray from that truth, the more we dehumanize.

Accommodating and indulging obvious falsehoods, whether under the guise of compassion or political correctness, is no justification for subverting and destroying truth for ideological ends.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Most U.S. College Students 

Afraid to Disagree with 

Professors

New survey finds faculty often express beliefs unrelated to course work.

By James Freeman

Many U.S. college professors now regularly share their own social and political beliefs in class, and their students feel increasingly afraid to disagree. That’s according to a new national survey of undergraduates due out next week.

When students were asked if they’ve had “any professors or course instructors that have used class time to express their own social or political beliefs that are completely unrelated to the subject of the course,” 52% of respondents said that this occurs “often,” while 47% responded, “not often.”

A majority—53%—also reported that they often “felt intimidated” in sharing their ideas, opinions or beliefs in class because they were different from those of the professors. A slightly larger majority feared expressing themselves because of differences with classmates. On this question 54% said they often felt intimidated in expressing themselves when their views conflicted with those of their peers, compared to 44% who said they didn’t often feel this way.

The national online survey of 800 full-time undergraduates was conducted from October 8th to 18th and includes students at both public and private four-year universities in the U.S. Polling was done by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program, which counts your humble correspondent among its directors.

American academicians unfortunately appear to be just as political and overbearing as one would expect. This column isn’t old enough to remember when university faculty were thought to be conscientious adults in loco parentis. But perhaps the actual parents who write checks can someday find some way to encourage more responsible behavior.

As for the students, there’s at least a mixed message in the latest survey results. On the downside, the fact that so many students are afraid of disagreeing with their peers does not suggest a healthy intellectual atmosphere even outside the classroom. There’s more disappointing news in the answers to other survey questions. For example, 59% of respondents agreed with this statement:

My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of engaging in hate speech. 

This column does not favor hatred, nor the subjective definition of “hate speech” by college administrators seeking to regulate it. In perhaps the most disturbing finding in the poll results, 33% of U.S. college students participating in the survey agreed with this statement:

If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.

An optimist desperately searching for a silver lining would perhaps note that 60% of respondents did not agree that physical violence is justified to silence people speaking what someone has defined as “hate speech” or “racially charged” comments. But the fact that a third of college students at least theoretically endorse violence as a response to offensive speech underlines the threat to free expression on American campuses.

Perhaps more encouraging are the responses to this question:

Generally speaking, do you think the First Amendment, which deals with freedom of speech, is an outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed or an important amendment that still needs to be followed and respected in today’s society?

A full 79% of respondents opted for respecting the First Amendment, while 17% backed a rewrite.

On a more specific question, free speech isn’t winning by the same landslide. When asked if they would favor or oppose their schools having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty, 54% of U.S. college kids opposed such codes while 38% were in favor.

The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan from an earlier era: Don’t trust anyone over 30.

++++++++++++++++++++++

5) Defuse America’s Explosive 

Politics

By Peggy Noonan

Politicians in both parties need to clean up their own side of the street.

The attempted bombing of political figures is domestic terrorism meant to disrupt and intimidate. That it came to light less than two weeks before an election whose outcomes may constitute a national rebuke to—or soft boost of—President Trump’s controversial leadership means that passions are high and will stay so. Things are feeling primal, tribal.

There’s more than enough time before the voting for the gates of hell to open. Let’s try to keep them shut.

What can help? Some things I’d like to see:

A suspect was arrested Friday morning. It‘s good that law enforcement appears to have used every resource available to find the bomber or bombers, which will help in returning an air of order. As the investigation continues, all law enforcement should be extremely, unusually forthcoming about the facts and state probe. We’re all tired of their swanning around after school shootings with their secret information we can’t have. Be as open as possible without injuring the investigation. This may help calm the finger pointing. “It was a left-wing false-flag operation!”

Everyone running for office should admit things have gotten too hot, too divided. Then they should try to cool the atmosphere. Next Tuesday will mark one week before the election. Candidates should devote the day to something different. It would be good to see every one give a speech or statement containing their most generous definition of the aims and meaning of the opposing party. A Democratic nominee might say, “Whether they always succeed or not, Republicans do want to protect the liberties that have allowed this nation become the miracle of the world.” A Republican might say, “At its best and most sincere, the Democratic Party hopes to help those in peril, and to soften disparities of wealth and opportunity.”

The dirty secret of most political professionals is that they do see virtues in the other party. And when you show respect for people, they tend to put down their rocks.

Does this sound dreamy or otherworldly? Yes. But a tender moment isn’t the worst thing that could happen to us right now, and enraged people will find it boring. We want them bored. And actually I don’t mean it as sentimental but reorienting—a reminder for some and an education for others about what it is we’re trying to do here.

Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, let us hear you on what you know to be admirable in the Republican Party—and in Republicans. Ted Cruz, Martha McSally, the same from you on the Democrats. Show some largeness. We’re dying of smallness.

Both parties could absorb an essential truth of the moment.

Democrats really and sincerely see the threat of violent words and actions as coming from the right. It’s Mr. Trump—he’s hateful and has no respect and it sets a tone. He encourages fights at his rallies; he said the other night that a congressman who pushed around a reporter was his kind of guy. He calls the press the enemy of the people. He widens all divisions, mindlessly yet opportunistically. No surprise his adversaries are being sent bombs.

Republicans and the right truly, deeply see the threat as coming from the left. Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Cory Booker actually told crowds to get in Republicans’ faces; Hillary Clinton says you can’t treat them civilly. Republicans see the screamers and harassers at the Kavanaugh hearings, the groups swarming Republican figures when they dine in public, antifa. A man who wrote “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” on Facebook didn’t insult Rep. Steve Scalise last year; he shot and almost killed him. The intimidation is coming from the left.

Trump supporters don’t take him seriously when he issues his insults. He’s kidding; he doesn’t mean it; he’s Trump. You’re lying when you say he makes you afraid.

But the left finds him, and some of his allies, honestly—honestly—dangerous.

Just as the right finds Ms. Waters and Mr. Booker and Mrs. Clinton and the swarms and the hissers and antifa honestly—honestly—the threat.

Neither side appreciates—neither side credits—the anxiety the other side legitimately feels. They have no sensitivity to it. They had better get some.

When conservatives see a liberal or progressive not condemning Mr. Booker or Ms. Waters, they assume it’s because the liberal agrees with what they say—that intimidation is part of the plan.

There is too much blindness to how the other side is experiencing the situation. It’s in the news media, too. Politicians should have a greater awareness of their own role in the drama.

Thursday morning New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was on television, saying words that were meant to be helpful. We’re not Democrats and Republicans really, he said, we’re Americans; we can’t be divided. It was good, he clearly meant it. But he spoke as if he had no memory of strikingly divisive words he’d uttered just a few years ago. In January 2014 he said of those who are pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage and pro-gun that they are “extreme conservatives” who have “no place in the state of New York.” No place in the state of New York? That is an extreme and aggressive statement, and it speaks of how too many progressives and liberals feel about conservatives. This kind of thing isn’t new, and it’s contributed to the moment we’re in.

Politicians, don’t lecture us. Clean up your own side of the street.

As to the president, one thought. He will never lead effectively at moments like this because he can’t. It’s not within his emotional range or in his intellectual toolbox. The targets of the would-be bombs have been his antagonists. He’s not believable when he issues pained vows of unity. Everyone assumes his staff told him to do it and in a burst of amiability he did. When he’s obnoxious, people believe he’s speaking his mind.

Mr. Trump has ushered in a new presidential era of verbal roughness. At his rallies he sees himself as being provocative and humorous and teasing. His crowds know he is entertaining them and they have fun back, re-enacting their old 2016 fervor with “Lock her up!” and “Build the wall!” They don’t emerge whipped into a rage; they leave in a good mood, though tired from standing so long because he speaks so long.

The president knows half the country is watching, and dislikes and disdains what it sees. What he doesn’t seem to know is that the unstable are watching, too. They get revved up, ginned up, pro and con. There is danger in this.

Mr. Trump seems to think only about his audience and his foes. He doesn’t seem to proceed with a broad knowledge that there are the unstable among us, and part of your job as president is not to push them over the edge. It can get ugly when you do.

In a funny way he seems to think everything’s more stable than it is, that the veil between safety and surprise is thicker than it is. Maybe you assume everything’s safe when you’ve spent your whole adult life, as he has, with private security and private cars, surrounded by staff. Maybe that makes you careless, or too confident.

But few of our political leaders seem especially sensitive to the precariousness of things. I wish they worried about the country more. That really is dreamy and otherworldly, isn’t it?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++