And now for something completely different: I’m going to defend Donald Trump. Sort of. This is a high-wire act, but I think I can pull it off.

Trump is getting flak for lying about a phone call from the president of Mexico. “As you know, the border was a tremendous problem and they’re close to 80 percent stoppage,” he said earlier this week. “Even the president of Mexico called me — They said their southern border, very few people are coming because they know they’re not going to get through our border, which is the ultimate compliment.”

There was no phone call. However, this is from the original account in the Miami Herald:

Mexican officials, including Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, reached out to American counterparts and noted the presidents spoke about migration at the G20 in Hamburg last month. Pena Nieto spoke cited statistics about migration from Central American to Mexico declining significantly, according to the official, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.

Trump turned a face-to-face meeting into a phone call, because Trump is addicted to the proposition that other people always call him, not the other way around. But that’s it. By the standards of ordinary lies this rates about a 3, and by the standards of Trump lies it rates around 0.1. This is as close to the truth as he ever gets.

I guess that was a pretty meager defense, wasn’t it? In the end, I couldn’t quite do it. But I came close.

POSTSCRIPT: The only reason this matters is that Trump’s casual fib caused the Mexican president a lot of trouble. According to the Herald, “Mexican opposition legislators jumped on Trump’s account and complained about what sounded like a ‘secret phone call’ between the pair, and the idea of Pena Nieto praising Trump on migration.”

But I don’t imagine Trump cares about that.

A team of researchers has combined disclosures from the Panama Papers with administrative tax data and population records in Scandinavia and finds that “tax evasion rises sharply with wealth.” The rich do this primarily by parking wealth in Switzerland and other tax havens. I don’t think this comes as a surprise to anyone, but the size of the tax evasion might:

Of course, this is just for those infamous scofflaws in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. American zillionaires are probably a lot more honest, don’t you think?

POSTSCRIPT: Snark aside, personal tax rates are pretty high in Scandinavia—though not as high as urban legend has it. Still, their high rates do provide a bigger incentive to hide wealth overseas, so it’s possible that American tax evasion is lower than it is in Scandinavia. I wouldn’t bet on it, though.

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via ZUMA

The LA Times reports that Uber is having a lot of trouble finding a new CEO:

As the company’s board inches ahead in its search for a new chief executive to run the embattled ride-hailing company, candidates are dropping out before they’ve even met with every board member….“They’re trying to hire someone for two very different roles,” said Bradley Tusk, an early investor in Uber who is not involved with the board’s CEO search.

The company needs a leader who can implement the recommendations of a report by former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to change Uber’s culture of bullying and harassment, secure deals and eventually lead the firm to an initial public offering….On top of that, Tusk said, the incoming CEO must fill the void that Kalanick supporters believe he left — that of a tenacious visionary who can help Uber grow into a company that competes with the likes of Apple, Google, and Amazon.

OK, sure, that might be part of the reason. But I think there’s another possibility: Uber’s business model depends on cheap, subsidized rides. That means Uber also needs a third kind of leader: someone who can prevent the company from imploding when they stop the subsidies and Uber’s customers face a big price increase.

I’ve always been sort of puzzled by the idolization of Uber. The problem it faces is one of the most common in the tech industry: once you’ve spent a ton of money to buy eyeballs (or riders), how do you then leverage that into something profitable? Facebook did it. Twitter (so far) hasn’t. So will Uber be another Facebook or another Twitter? What’s the story they’re telling investors about why they’ll be one vs. the other?

In any case, as near as I can tell they’ve basically admitted that their business model is unsustainable. That’s why they’re betting the company on driverless cars. But if you want to run (or invest in) a driverless car company, would Uber really be your first choice? I’m not sure why. Nor am I sure that Uber can keep those subsidies going long enough to get to the promised land. Driverless cars are coming, but they’re still several years away. It’s all very strange.

I have a question for the national security crowd.

North Korea clearly wants nuclear capability. They want it very badly because they think—not irrationally—that it’s the only thing that can reliably protect them from an American invasion. It is, right now, their highest priority by far, and nothing will stop them from obtaining it. Not sanctions. Not diplomacy. Not tut tutting from China. Not tweets from President Trump. Not B1 flights or carrier group movements.

In fact, even a conventional bombing strike wouldn’t be effective at stopping their program. Conventional bombs couldn’t get everything, since much of North Korea’s program is buried underground. And anyway, it would take time and invite massive retaliation, both conventional and nuclear, on Seoul.

That leaves one alternative: a nuclear strike. Am I right about that? The only way to halt North Korea’s nuclear program would be a surprise nuclear attack on every known nuclear installation in the country.

I’m asking because I’d like to cut through the fog and understand if we truly have any options here. Are there any other non-fantasy-based alternatives to stopping North Korea’s nuclear program?

EVENING UPDATE: I see that my point has been missed by some people. So here it is in plainer form: I’m asking if we have any real options with North Korea. We are obviously not going to nuke the Korean peninsula—I hope—so does that mean we don’t really have any choice at this point but to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea?

This Wall Street Journal article is inspiring some mockery on Twitter:

Dan Sisco has discovered a technology that allows him to access half a dozen major TV channels, completely free. “I was just kind of surprised that this is technology that exists,” says Mr. Sisco, 28 years old. “It’s been awesome. It doesn’t log out and it doesn’t skip.”…The antenna is mounting a quiet comeback, propelled by a generation that never knew life before cable television, and who primarily watch Netflix , Hulu and HBO via the internet.

Ha ha. Stupid millennials don’t know about TV antennas. But wait:

Carlos Villalobos, 21, who was selling tube-shaped digital antennas at a swap meet in San Diego recently, says customers often ask if his $20 to $25 products are legal. “They don’t trust me when I say that these are actually free local channels,” he says.

Earlier this year, he got an earful from a woman who didn’t get it. “She was mad,” he recalls. “She says, ‘No, you can’t live in America for free, what are you talking about?’”

This is…a totally sensible response. What are the odds that TV stations would allow you to watch their shows for free? I mean, come on. This isn’t communist Canada or something. It’s gotta be illegal, right?

Bill Clark/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA

Donald Trump continues to threaten to cut off CSR subsidies in 2018, a move that would significantly increase the cost of health insurance for the poor. But even Republicans are getting tired of his endless gameplaying about this:

Congressional Republicans moved on Tuesday to defuse President Trump’s threat to cut off critical payments to health insurance companies….Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the influential chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, announced that his panel would begin work in early September on legislation to “stabilize and strengthen the individual health insurance market” for 2018.

In the House, two Republicans, Representatives Tom Reed of New York and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, teamed with Democrats to promote incremental health legislation that would also fund the cost-sharing subsidies.

The moves were a remarkable response to the president’s repeated threats to send health insurance markets into a tailspin. They offered tangible indications of cooperation between the parties after Republican efforts to scrap the Affordable Care Act collapsed in the Senate last week, all but ending the seven-year Republican quest to overturn President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement. Lawmakers from both parties concede that the health law needs improvement, as consumers face sharp premium increases and a shrinking number of insurance options in many states.

It’s hard not to feel torn about this. On the one hand, obviously I’m happy. A bipartisan bill to keep the CSR subsidies would help millions of people.

On the other hand, this whole thing is so cynical it makes your eyes bleed. The CSR subsidies are a part of Obamacare, but in 2014 House Republicans gleefully filed a lawsuit claiming that although the subsidies were authorized by the law, they hadn’t been appropriated by Congress. Therefore they shouldn’t be paid. The whole point was to wreack havoc with Obamacare and force it to fail on Obama’s watch.

But now that Republicans are in charge, they’re not so keen on blowing up health care. That might reflect badly on them, after all. Apparently their constitutional scruples depend a lot on which party controls the White House.

In any case, if Republicans really want to solve this problem, it’s easy. They just have to pass a bill appropriating the money. That would take about five minutes, and since Democrats would all be in favor it would be veto-proof. There’s no real need to wait until September for that.

Is this Mr. Elegant?Dennis Van Tine/UPPA via ZUMA

Politico has gotten hold of a transcript of Donald Trump’s interview with the Wall Street Journal a few days ago. It started out with a question about the Republican health care bill:

MR. BAKER: What have you been doing, Mr. President, sort of behind the scenes?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: A lot. A lot.

Good to know! Then we got Trump’s thoughts on taxes:

I want to achieve growth. We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size. But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have—nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, 2 ½ trillion (dollars), right, when the most elegant person—right? I call him Mr. Elegant. I mean, that was a great debate. We did such a great job. But at that time I was talking $2 ½ trillion. I guess it’s 5 trillion (dollars) now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore.

Who is Mr. Elegant? Lester Holt? Then this:

You know, a lot of people say—they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have.

It’s amazing! They have so many people! Then this about trade talks with Britain:

WSJ: Can you tell us more about what’s going on?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, but I can say that we’re going to be very involved with the U.K. I mean, you don’t hear the word Britain anymore. It’s very interesting. It’s like, nope.

Wut? Then this about NAFTA:

WSJ: What are you looking for specifically –

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m looking for fairness.

WSJ: But what does that—can you give an example?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it means—look, our automobile industry has just left us and gone to Mexico—I mean, a big chunk of it. And it’s very unfair for them to take our companies, build their cars, and then sell the car back into our country with no tax. It’s very unfair. They fire all our people in Michigan and Ohio, and they take it, and they build a car. And now they sell the car back in with no tax. It’s not fair.

This demonstrates Trump’s famous command of detail. In just this one interview, in fact, Trump demonstrated that he knows nothing about (a) health care, (b) taxes, (c) trade in general, and (d) NAFTA in particular. On none of these subjects could he dredge up more than the vaguest generalities. It’s like watching a middle-schooler trying to bluff his way through a book report on a book he hasn’t read.

And for closers, here’s a quick review of Trump’s relationships:

I have unbelievable relationships with all of the foreign leaders…I have a very good relationship with the prime minister [Theresa May]…I have a very good relationship with the EU people….I was with President Xi, who I have a very good relationship with…I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship.

Everybody loves Donald Trump! Hooray!

I love this photo from Huntington Beach. Not because there’s anything special about it per se, but because this guy is just so perfect. He looks like he parachuted directly out of Baywatch or The OC. He is the perfect Southern California lifeguard.

What is the most male-dominated industry in the United States? I don’t know for sure, but it might well be “evangelical preacher”:

Trump White House met with 100 Christian evangelical leaders last week. Again. https://t.co/MfjsGHkp2q pic.twitter.com/2IJ5ggjHQ1

— New Civil Rights (@newcivilrights) August 1, 2017

And what is the most conservative-dominated demographic in the United States? Military officers? Surgeons? Evangelical preachers? I don’t know that either, but I would nominate cigar smokers. What’s the deal with that? A friend of mine is a cigar smoker, and has steadily stopped socializing with his fellow cigar smokers because their get-togethers have become full-on Trumpathons. As near as I can tell, the cigar-smoking demographic is about 99 percent conservative, and he agrees. Why is that? Does anyone know?

California has one of the most successful Obamacare exchanges in the country. Partly this is because California is a big state, which makes it a competitive place for health insurers. But it’s also because California is a liberal state and has done everything it can to make its exchange work well. That pays off.

Today, California announced rate increases for 2018. Here’s a summary:

• All 11 insurers who are in the market are staying in 2018.
• The price of the lowest-priced silver plan will go up 9.2 percent.
• This includes a one-time hit of 2.8 percent thanks to the implementation of ACA’s health insurance tax. Without that, the increase would be 6.4 percent.
• If consumers shop around, the average rate increase is 3.3 percent.
• Thanks to Donald Trump’s playground attempts to sabotage Obamacare by playing coy over preserving CSR subsidies for the poor, “all health plans in Covered California will add a surcharge of the amount needed to cover the costs of the CSR subsidy program to their on-exchange Silver-tier products.” The surcharge varies by region and insurer, but averages about 14 percent on top of the nominal rate increase.
• The surcharge will go away if Trump confirms that CSR subsidies will continue.

Of course, federal subsidies will go up too in 2018. Families with modest incomes—who make up 87 percent of the total—will see little or no net rate increase in 2018.