It’s been a wild 11 days, hasn’t it?

Donald Trump has been President of the United States for about a week and a half. Here’s what I think we’ve learned. He meant what he said while he was running. Like most Presidents, the ideas that animated his campaign are going to form his Presidential agenda. The new President is as infantile as ever, as thin-skinned and reactive. He responds to criticism badly, and resorts to childish name-calling on Twitter, just like he did when running. His campaign was a disorganized mess; his administrative style is similarly chaotic.

I had a friend who once told me of an experience he had when waterskiing. He did a lot of fancy tricks one day, and ended up with a lot of slack in the line, which somehow ended up around his leg. He watched the boat zipping away, saw the slack line tighten, and thought ‘that rope is going to break my leg.’ There was nothing he could do to prevent it; it was just going to happen. He said he felt rather calm. About two seconds later, of course, the rope did tighten, and it did break his leg. But he said the calm before that particular pain was quite remarkable.

That was us, three weeks ago. Now the rope has tightened, the bone has snapped, the pain is palpable. We’d be in mourning, but frankly, it hurts too much right now.

The latest move, of course, was the Muslim ban. Granted, it wasn’t officially a ‘Muslim ban.’ It was a temporary ban on people from seven Muslim-dominant countries–whose citizens have committed exactly zero terrorist attacks on US soil–entering the US. And so we got to see people with all the proper paperwork, people who have been vetted and approved and authorized, denied entry into our country. Including a five-year-old Iranian kid, in handcuffs. Kept from his Mom for eight hours. This executive order came without warning. Airport officials had no idea what was going on, and were forced to improvise, without instructions, which of course went about as well as we might have supposed.

Yes, it’s not officially a ban on Muslims. Just on people from certain countries. Except, on Sunday morning, when White House spokestroll Sean Spicer was defending it on ABC News, they cut to the President calling it a Muslim ban. That’s one thing about Trump; he’s undisciplined enough that sometimes he’ll get away from his staff’s carefully defined talking points. Of course, an hour later, he lied about it; that’s also part of the Trump modus operandi. A brief moment of candor, then back to the lying.

Lots of people, by the way, have pointed out that countries like Iran and Iraq, which have not attacked the US, were on the list, while Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which did, weren’t on it. Leading to this thought; Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He singled out countries that haven’t attacked us, where he has no financial stake, and let countries that have attacked us go unmentioned. Because the Trump organization’s bottom line is at stake? What that a consideration? We don’t know; maybe not. But that’s the tricky thing about conflicts of interest. They poison everything.

Meanwhile, the optics have been amazing. A whole bunch of people went to American airports to show their solidarity with people stuck in this weird, unnecessary, Trumpian legal limbo. It was topsy-turvy; Kennedy Airport was the positive center of attention! People were cheering . . . Muslims! And lawyers! People were cheering for lawyers!

And suddenly, Sally Yates, a woman none of us had ever heard of two days ago is an American liberal heroine.

It’s been great. People are energized; excited. First the Women’s March, now this. Our leg bone may be shattered, but we’re still limping around, defiant and unafraid.

So protest. March. Shout. Carry banners. All that’s great. But 2018 is looming, and none of this energy will matter at all unless we take back the House and Senate. Did you join the Women’s March? Awesome. Two years from now, though, we’re going to need you to vote, and to bring five friends with you. We have passion on our side, we have right on our side, we have morality on our side. We can and must oppose Trump, everywhere. Cut him no slack at all, on anything, ever. I’m for all of that.

What we don’t have is power. That boat is zipping away, and its driver can’t hear us. Passion declines; energy dissipates. It’s been an amazing 11 days. Just two more years to go.

In several recent posts, it’s possible that I have been mildly critical of our new President-elect. This failing has been helpfully pointed out to me by some of my Republican friends, who have suggested that it’s time to support our new President, the election being over. “Get over it,” would be the main thrust of their argument. Also “stop whining.”

And so I found myself wondering this: what exactly do Trump supporters want? I mean, I remember 2009. I remember how annoying it was when those sore losers who didn’t like Barack Obama kept insisting that they never, ever, would regard him as their President. They were being sore losers, I thought. Expressing sour grapes. What on earth was wrong with those people? And now I am one of them. Mr. Sore Loser Sour Grapes Man.

I absolutely intend to support Donald Trump’s Presidency in all the ways that are required of me. I will pay my taxes, and I will fulfill the other obligations of American citizenship. In those respects, I fully intend to ‘support’ Donald Trump.

But I don’t think that’s enough for my Trump-supporting friends. For many of them, they don’t just want passive acquiescence. They want us to feel something. They want us to be okay with his electoral win. They want us to set aside our policy differences with the man, and, at least passively, accept him as President. That’s why Congressman and Civil Rights hero John Lewis’ comments questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s victory stung so sharply. That’s exactly what we’re not supposed to do.

In short, Trump supporters want me to feel the same way about Trump that we felt about previous Presidents we didn’t vote for. And I don’t, and won’t. Not now, not ever. And this isn’t just sour grapes or being a sore loser. I cannot and will not normalize his election victory. We don’t know how closely the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin cooperated during the election, or the degree to which Russian hacking contributed to the result, but we do know now that the answer to both those questions is, at least, ‘somewhat.’  Did Russian hacking influence 1% of the voters’ decisions? Less? 1/2%? 1/4? We don’t know, and will never know, but the answer clearly was a sum somewhere above zero. We cannot and should not normalize that kind of behavior.

It’s more than that. Trump did not run as a normal, usual sort of candidate. All previous recent presidential candidates released their tax returns, or at least some of their tax returns; Trump kept putting the press off with some bogus nonsense about an audit, and now Trump’s people say his tax returns will remain off-limits, forever, because. Trump lies. He lies all the time, stupid, easy to catch lies, about, for example, whether he said things he was captured on camera saying. His appeal as a candidate was his unorthodoxy. And that’s fine; it was an effective strategy and it worked. Americans were, apparently, enthusiastic about ‘change.’ But he said and did offensive things, then attacked people who found his language and conduct beyond the pale as being, absurdly, ‘politically correct.’ Just as he now labels news organizations that criticize him ‘fake news,’ and ‘liars.’

He wants us to feel okay about him being President. And I don’t, can’t, won’t, never will.

Which is why the two biggest news stories recently were so heartening. The first was the spectacular success of the Women’s March on Washington, and the complementary protests that took place all across the country. My Facebook page was flooded with images of old friends gathering in protest and celebration. Protesting, not just Trump, but Trumpism; his authoritarianism and racism and misogyny, his full-throated embrace of white male privilege. But also celebrating our view of America, our version of America, an America where greatness is determined by inclusion and toleration and compassion. The energy of the Women’s March could fuel a renewed commitment to progressive ideals. It could also dissipate, become a wasted and empty gesture. We’ll see. I hope that doesn’t happen, though.

At least a lot of people showed up. And a lot more came to the Women’s March than came to Trump’s Inauguration. And so, the utterly surreal experience of the campaign was amplified, with Trump surrogates forced to pretend that more people celebrated Trump’s inauguration than actually were there. Culminating in the absurd declaration that obvious falsehoods weren’t really lies, they were ‘alternative truths.’

Feelings are powerful. Great political rhetoric can sway crowds, get policies enacted, start wars. And while it may not be polite to say so, no, I do not feel warm fuzzies at the Trump inauguration. Not in any way. And I intend to spend the next four years watching him like a hawk. We don’t like him, we don’t trust him, we don’t respect him. We don’t think his Presidency is legitimate, and we think it’s quite possible that he won the Presidency through acts of high treason. That’s how we feel about this President. I don’t wish him ill personally. I will try to muster some common decency in regards to his family. Otherwise, he’s not my President. Never never never.

Donald J. Trump was inaugurated today. I couldn’t bring myself to watch, but I did read his inaugural address on-line. A peaceful and orderly transfer of power is always something to be celebrated, I suppose. So while it may not be time for actual optimism, we can, perhaps, muster a certain grim hope. Let’s start by ignoring such events as the Deplora-ball, last night’s preening alt-Right celebration, complete with Nazi salutes, and also the prayer service, and the invocation by Pastor Robert Jeffress (who once said that “Mormonism is a cult dragged from the depths of hell”) and the other alarming signs and wonders of this moment. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump . . . we shall be changed.” For the better?

And while I’m being all sunny, let’s admit that some of his cabinet picks have been fairly reasonable: Nikki Haley, James Mattis, David Shulkin, Sonny Perdue. There’s a long American tradition of cutting new Presidents some slack. I wouldn’t go that far with this guy, but I don’t wish him ill. He’s going to try to do dumb and terrible things. Let’s hope he doesn’t succeed all that often.

Reading his Inauguration speech, though, I was struck by what seem to be Trump’s governing priorities. It seems to me that the first step to solving problems is identifying them. It’s not just that I think Trump’s approach to problem solving is likely to prove ineffective. It’s that the specific issues he wants to address are all things that aren’t really problems at all.

For too long, [those in politics] have reaped the rewards of government while people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed.

His first point–that money, in politics, tends to corrupt people, seems inarguable. (Though his solution seems to be to appoint corrupt people to begin with). But are people struggling so terribly? People do feel like they are, but evidence suggests it’s not true. More Americans are employed right now, in good paying jobs, than ever before in history. More people are working in manufacturing than ever before. This dark vision of a dystopic America where no one can find work and factories are shut down and regular folks live lives of quiet despair is, frankly, a fantasy. It’s likely to become true–Trump’s policies (tax cuts, trade wars, cutting safety net spending) will certainly hammer lower class and lower middle class Americans. It’s just not true yet. He inherits a very strong economy from Obama; he’ll turn over an economy in recession to President Warren.

An education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge. . .

We do spend a lot of money on education, but our schools are hardly ‘flush with cash.’ Teachers are badly underpaid, and basic school supplies generally come out of their pockets. And while we can certainly improve student achievement (starting by banning all unnecessary testing), our students aren’t ‘deprived of all knowledge.’ For one thing, there’s this resource called the Internet. Which kids are better at using than their parents.

We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth . . . of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first .

Trump hates international trade deals. He consistently spoke out against, specifically, NAFTA and the TPP, and has talked of pulling out of both. And that’s nuts. Both NAFTA and the TPP, though flawed, were net positives, both for the US and internationally. I know this is kind of an unpopular view, but it’s the only opinion actually supported by, you know, evidence.

Donald Trump comes from the zero-sum-game world of Manhattan real estate. He seems to have difficulty in conceiving of a deal in which both sides prosper. But those are the best kinds of deals imaginable. He says our policies should be driven by national self-interest. Sure, fine; every country on earth does that. Making a deal between nations requires balance. We all know how to weigh costs and benefits. By that standard, NAFTA was a success. NAFTA was a trade agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico–the three nations of North America. Since it passed in ’93, trade between those three countries quadrupled, from 297 billion dollars to 1.14 trillion. It boosted economic growth, created millions of jobs, and lowered consumer costs in all three nations. And yes, also a few American factories moved to Mexico.

In 1999, my wife and I bought our house. It provided a safe shelter for ourselves and our kids, and also, a great neighborhood for the kids to grow up in. But we also had to make a mortgage payment every month. Trump’s view of NAFTA is the equivalent of focusing entirely on that payment. ‘What a terrible deal! Look at all the money you spent!’

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and reform the world against radical Islamic terrorism , which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.

Let’s be honest: absolutely nobody thinks it’s going to be possible to eradicate ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ Ask any military or intelligence expert in the world; it cannot be done. That’s the bad news; the good news is that ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or any other group you want to lump into the definition ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ cannot succeed in their stated aims and intentions. ISIS wants to establish a multi-national pan-Islamic caliphate. There is zero chance of that ever happening. ISIS is not an ‘existential threat’ to the American way of life, or to Western society.

What we actually have is a humanitarian crisis in Syria. That’s bad enough. And while we’re doing that, yes, we want to reduce the ability for terrorist groups to mount attacks on US soil or in Europe. Those are lofty and difficult goals. But let’s be honest; those attacks, when they do occur, are at worst, minor annoyances. I’ll grant you that they don’t feel so minor–our hearts go out to the victims of terrorist attacks. But such attacks really only achieve one thing; they affect us emotionally. They spread terror. They terrify us. They make us afraid. And when people are afraid, they tend to overreact. The kinds of violations of civil liberties that Trump has talked about are counterproductive. Terrorist groups can only disrupt us, and that can only happen if we allow it to happen. Which, believe it or not, we don’t have to do.

Trump, blessedly, said very little about the signature issue of his campaign; illegal immigration. He made passing mention to America’s ‘refusal to defend our own’ borders. That’s also nonsense, of course. The US does maintain a border patrol. But the larger point is this: immigration is good. Immigrants are a great blessing to our society and nation. And it’s doesn’t particularly matter whether they arrive here illegally. Of course, we should be accepting more Syrian and Middle-Eastern immigrants, and of course, we should be welcoming more immigrants from Mexico and South and Central America. They are, by every possible measure, an economic plus.

What’s needed is amnesty. What’s needed is a sensible immigration policy, that makes it easier, not harder, for folks to enter our country and work here and marry and raise families here. And create jobs here. Instead, Trump wants to waste time and money building a wall. At least, he didn’t include that particular piece of idiocy in his Inauguration address.

Meanwhile, of course, he said nothing about, you know, actual problems. Like world-wide climate change. Or universal health care. Or the rise in racial intolerance and bigotry. But that would have been asking for too much.

We have four years to get through. They’re going to be tough. We will survive, though. And starting in 2020, we can get back to making America great again.

Donald Trump held his first press conference in months yesterday; I watched it, and thought it did not go well. (I acknowledge that others may have thought he did just fine). Trump’s stock-in-trade is, I think, a combination of belligerence, braggadocio, prevarication and ignorance; all were on full display. One exchange particularly got my attention. CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta stood to ask, well, essentially, if he would be allowed to ask a question, and the President-elect shouted him down, bellowing “No! Not you! Your organization is terrible!” Then, as Acosta persisted, Trump shouted “don’t be rude. You don’t get a question. You’re fake news.”

This was the election of ‘fake news,’ which is to say, the creation and dissemination of highly partisan clickbait nonsense on social media. There are guys, apparently, who do this for fun and profit; make up ludicrous stories, inventing a legit-sounding ‘news source’ for them, and clogging up your Facebook page. All human beings are susceptible to confirmation bias, which is why this stuff is so insidious. I’m a liberal. If I see some story that says that, say, Sarah Palin said something preposterous, I am likely to believe it, even if it isn’t true.

Each advance in human evolution must always first involve overcoming confirmation bias. To that end, I must begin by believing in the essential fairmindedness and objectivity of people I disagree with. It is my impression that conservatives are far more likely to believe in fake news stories than liberals are. That impression, that tendency, is simply confirmation bias at its most basic level. Hillary Clinton did not order the murder of multiple political opponents. George W. Bush did not order bombs to be planted in the World Trade Center. Both are conspiracy theories, one favored by conservatives and one favored by liberals. Both are silly. Can we at least agree on that much?

I like facts. But all facts are not news. It is a fact that the sun rose this morning, but it’s not news, which is, by definition, about things that are remarkable. News is noteworthy and consequential. As I write this, snow is falling outside, with more expected. That’s news, because people have to drive in it.

So if we want to be thoughtful consumers of news, it seems to me that we should insist that the stories the media present to us be truthful, remarkable and consequential. Ideally, the divorce of Mr. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie wouldn’t make the cut. Their business; not ours.

CNN’s misdeed, in the opinion of the President-Elect, was to run a story about alleged connections between Mr. Trump and Russia. According to a dossier prepared by a British intelligence operative, Russia may be in a position to blackmail Mr. Trump. According to this source, not only did Russian hackers deliberately work to defeat Hillary Clinton, they coordinated their efforts with the Trump campaign. Not only that, they had evidence of kinky sexual practices Mr. Trump engaged in in a Moscow hotel. Not only that, but Russia may have evidence of Trumpian financial shenanigans.

So here we have a thinly sourced, unconfirmed story that could be highly damaging to Mr. Trump. And the information in that story has been known by American intelligence sources for months. We also don’t know if any of it is true. That’s not fake news. The fact of these allegations is the part that’s true; this British spy, Christopher Steele, does exist, and has written them down. What we don’t know is if the allegations themselves are factually based. It’s certainly consequential; Trump may have committed high treason. And yes, the story exploded yesterday; it’s absolutely remarkable. So Buzzfeed published a two page summation of this British guy’s accusations, and CNN ran a story on it. Did they show good news judgment? Is this real news?

Of course, comedians had a field day with the sexual allegations; the details in Buzzfeed’s story are just specific enough, and just salacious and disgusting enough to make for some dirty-minded comedy. Stephen Colbert had a lot of fun with it; so did Trevor Noah, so did Samantha Bee. My daughter and I watched ’em all, going ‘ewwwww!’ all the while. I don’t blame Trump for being angry.

It’s inevitable that the kinky stuff would, initially, dominate the news cycle. But that won’t last, and doesn’t really need much investigation. The real story has to do with possible collusion between Putin and Trump. So what we have is an important news story, and also one that may be false. We don’t know. The story may be untrue, which both Buzzfeed and CNN acknowledged. But if it’s true (and it will certainly be investigated), Donald Trump is a traitor.

What it isn’t, is fake news. It doesn’t seem to be something someone made up. This British spy is real. His name is Christopher Steele; he spent years working for MI6. He now runs a private research firm, Orbis Business Intelligence. He’s a Russian expert, specializing in the intricacies of the Kremlin’s business dealings. He prepared a dossier, and it’s been circulating for months. And now, Mr. Steele has gone to ground; is in hiding. Doesn’t this all seem like the plot of a new John LeCarre novel? But John LeCarre’s novels are, after all, pretty much all fiction.

This is not fake news, in other words. It’s a genuine news story, but one in its earliest stages. It might be false, in which case that falseness will become the story. It behooves us all not to come to any conclusions about it yet. We don’t have enough information to conclude anything.

Does it seem plausible, though? How we answer that question probably depends on where we stand politically and ideologically. If we voted for Trump, we probably think it’s all partisan nonsense. If we opposed Trump, we probably think there’s something to it. Because that’s how confirmation bias works.