Syrian Tragedy

         I saw a meme today showing four identical photos of the  miserable little Syrian boy with dirt and blood on his face. Heart rending in the very least, unless you believe as some do that unless he's a Syrian Christian, tough shit, next case. I've seen a lot of these and this particular one is aimed at blaming the plight of this waif on the last four presidents' foreign policy.

       I've been thinking for some weeks now that as we continue piling on and blaming different entities and philosophies for the situation in Syria and the 100,000 dead and perhaps a million refugees. As a historian, I believe there comes a time when we need to first, look at cause , effect and then argue over the fix. The persons directly to blame for the Syrian disaster don't live in the US, never have. while the Invasion of Iraq did destabilize the region, a Syria with a strong and popularly supported government would probably not have become the killing field it is today. The Assad regime, father and son, were so hated by their citizens that there was already serious civil unrest well before the Iraq invasion. The Civil war which broke out was hijacked by ISIS and turned into what it is today, which is the largest clusterf**k I've ever seen regarding who's shooting who. Also blame the persons doing a lot of the indiscriminate killing - ISIS.

        We have gotten to the point in our Government, especially the US House, where it matters very little who did what anyplace overseas, what matters is "How can we blame it on the current administration or its policies." We should never forget that the terrorists are the bad guys here. If we did nothing, the killing would continue.  They are the ones doing the killing. There is no "wise old man" regarding the current situation, as it has never existed before. As a very quick example of how off the rails the Congress is, and yeah, it's primarily the far right leaners who play the game, consider this: The year is 1983, old "Talk tough" Ronnie is Pres. there were four separate attacks on US installations from April 18 1983 to September 1984. Those  four separate  terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the 1980s killed over 240 including the videotaped torture and execution of the CIA station chief .

        What foreign action did the Reagan administration take?  None! There was a reorganization of how forces are deployed (over Military objections) and, oh yeah, we secretly shipped Hawk missiles to Iran and hoped they'd put pressure on Hezbollah to stop terrorist activities against US interests in Lebanon. With the proceeds we illegally funded another guerilla war in Nicaragua. But back to the middle east. A bi-partisan committee of the US House was convened to investigate what went wrong. Remember this was after the second attack on the Marine barracks killed more than 200. The Committee's report made recommendations on ways to enhance security, and criticized military commanders on the ground for lax security. There was no mention of the President or Secretary of  State. Contrast that with the 4 deaths at Benghazi, defended less than was desirable because the CIA was using the annex to provide weapons to Libyan (good guys) and didn't want to attract attention. Mrs. Clinton acceded to their wishes. Following the 1983 committee's recommendation for security upgrades, there were two more attacks! In March '84 the CIA station chief, as mentioned above, was kidnapped and killed on video TV. Reagan watched, and was desolate. However, in September, 6 months later, when the Beirut Embassy annex was bombed and more Americans killed, the recommendations hadn't been implemented. Again, no one pointed fingers at the President or SecState. Reagan's response was to liken the failure to beef up security to redoing your kitchen "You know, it never seems to get done as quickly as we'd like"(!!) Yes, he actually used that analogy!         

        So, if you're gonna blame US foreign policy for the current lamentable situation, you ought to at least have a "better idea" of what should have been done. So far, and believe me I've given this a lot of thought, there are only two real points at which we could have acted (or not acted) in the here and now (last 20 years) in such a manner as to change history. The first, obviously, don't go to Iraq and destabilize the regime. don't tell Americans "We won't engage in nation building," and then commit to doing just that.  The second opportunity came soon after when the rebuilding of Iraq was sidetracked by Donald Rumsfeld's edict that no former military or law enforcement persons from the Saddam Hussein regime were to be included in the new security and police forces. With one hideously bad decision, Rumsfeld, who had far too much power for his weak President to counter, alienated and made paupers of many of Iraq's brightest and most experienced public personnel, almost driving them to the arms of  ISIS in a sense.

        Try as I may, this is all I got. Blaming Bush 41, Clinton or Obama may make some feel good, as I'm sure it does, but it's simply not realistic. In much the same way, the continued harangue on Benghazi  where four died after funds for enhanced security were requested and denied by the same Congress which then laid all the blame at another Clinton's feet, is ludicrous. The deaths were tragic, but pale by comparison to Reagan's  inaction when there were about 240 more deaths. So in summary, if you're angry at seeing photos like those of that poor child, blame the brutal animals who do the killing in the name of God.

Otherwise, unless you wish to put boots - your boots-  on the ground, well, you know. 

Contradictions

        This is for all those who have stooped to everything but specifically blaming the President for the heavy rains that have caused flooding in Louisiana:

        The President declared a disaster within hours of being presented with the facts re: flooding in southern and central Louisiana. FEMA is, and has been, on the ground, and more than 85,000 have applied for emergency aid. This disaster has flooded TV news as well. Contrary to Mike Huckabee's assertion that "If the President came down , cameras would come with him, etc...." Hey, arse bag they've been there almost since hour one and are ubiquitous (look it up Huckleberry) on network news. Comparing this to Katrina response and FEMA inaction, makes the Obama administration's response and competency shine like the sun when compared to Bush and "Brownies"  ineptitude.

        What I find most remarkable,  coming from Huckabee and his far right Neanderthals, and as Trump will doubtless show today (8/19),  is the feigned concern for people whom they wouldn't cross the street to piss on if they were in flames. The implication now, smearing Obama for not coming to the flood zone, which is  wider and much more difficult  to define than NOLA post Katrina, that Federal disaster funds should pour forth like water, is in direct conflict with these same talking heads' positions when and if those same people needed affordable health care.

        Let me use reductio ad absurdum here: If you didn't (or couldn't)  buy federal or private flood insurance, yet insisted in living in the floodplain of a major river, it's ok,. we're here to help, have $33,000 dollars. (FEMA max). We know it's a natural disaster, but this one's on us. We also agree and are well aware that you failed to protect your house by buying flood insurance, either because you didn't think it could happen to you, or as likely, because it was expensive and you simply couldn't afford it. The lesson here and in New Orleans , 2005? We would be billions ahead helping subsidize flood insurance, but only if people buy it!

        Now let's take another natural disaster, not related to where you should or should not have built your home - Cancer. Where's FEMA to help with costs? Even if you did absolutely nothing to place yourself in harm's way, but couldn't afford to buy health insurance, tough noogies,  You lose. You must fight the bureaucracy via Medicaid vice using the Insurance you can't afford. Unless of course you availed yourself of the Affordable Care Act, which of course Huckabee and his cast of mindless morons loathe and never wanted to be an option for you.

        So a quick recap; if you're sick and poor, screw you, says the Far Right who hates the ACA. If you're wet and poor, however,  hold on, we're coming! If you are sick, you need a doctor, but don't look to us (the Far Right) to help, because we hate universal health coverage.  But  if you're wet, in Huckabee land, even if you could have afforded flood insurance, federally subsidized, by the way, just like health coverage under the ACA for those who can't afford the entire cost,  we gotcha, but it doesn't count if the President doesn't personally come and see you. Really? This may be the most mind numbingly contradictory political point of view ever. Property owners with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies are receiving government subsidies to live in areas with high flood risk. This might well be called "The Affordable Flood Insurance Plan" and it runs at a deficit in many years.   

        One wonders if this is as I painted it or if these frauds simply see a chance to smear the President and are so caught up in their own vile partisan sniping that they fail to see the inherent hypocrisy of subsidizing flood insurance but not health care. As Father Duffy told Timmy during the debriefing after Michael Davy passed an entire  cheese sandwich through his nose, "It's a mystery, my son!"   

Looking at scenes from Milwaukee

        Looking at the scenes from Milwaukee I am  reminded of Detroit in the 1960s. The cause , largely the same - poverty amplified by racism. I will not even hint that the racism is one sided, because it isn't. That may not be the in vogue Far Left thing to say, but truth is truth. Just as far too many white Americans carry prejudicial attitudes regarding persons of color, the inverse is clearly true as well. Add to this the ubiquitous handgun which is the fashion accessory of  too many black youths. Aggravate it by a lack of self control which causes the seemingly most minor disagreement to flare into an urban shootout. Stir it with Law Enforcement officers who see a suspect running away from them with a handgun (and sometimes without one) as a clear and present danger to their personal safety, and here we are; policemen shot and shot at, cars and businesses burning.  

        It also reminds me of the scene from one of the best films ever made which didn't win a  Best Picture Oscar. In Grand Canyon, Danny Glover  (Simon) has a contretemps with a young urban black man (Shaun Baker, as "Rocstar")  over what seems to be the most minor of  issues, yet the ever present gun materializes in the youth's hand.

Simon: "I've gotta ask you for a favor. Let me go my way here. This truck's my responsibility, and now that the car's hooked up to it, it's my responsibility too."

Rocstar: "Do you think I'm stupid? Just answer that question first."

Simon: "Look, I don't know nothing about you; you don't know nothing about me. I don't know if you're stupid, or some kind of genius. All I know is that I need to get out of here, and you got the gun. So I'm asking you, for the second time, let me go my way here."

Rocstar: "I'm gonna grant you that favor, and I'm gonna expect you to remember it if we ever meet again. But tell me this, are you asking me as a sign of respect, or are you asking because I've got the gun?"

Simon: "Man, the world ain't supposed to work like this. I mean, maybe you don't know that yet. I'm supposed to be able to do my job without having to ask you if I can. That dude is supposed to be able to wait with his car without you ripping him off. Everything is supposed to be different than it is."

Rocstar: "So what's your answer?"

Simon: "You ain't got the gun, we ain't having this conversation."

Rocstar: "That's what I thought: no gun, no respect. That's why I always got the gun."

        This may well be the most blatant statement of the "gun" mentality ever committed to film. It isn't color specific either, but rather is indicative of the nature of a life lived in an environment where there seems not to be any hope for anything better and the pecking order is determined by who is the (strongest/deadliest/craziest). All these emotions tend to be amplified by constant exposure in all media to material things which are out of the reach of the poor, yet as we are constantly told, essentials to happiness ( insert any of thousands of high end brand names here).  

        In the above scene, when Simon says "...maybe you don't know that yet" there is a fatal flaw. What the screenwriter, the usually brilliant  Lawrence Kasdan,  misses is the sad reality that Rocstar, if he remains in and a victim of his current situation, will never "know that." (that "the world ain't supposed to work like this")  For too many youths in places like Milwaukee, that's exactly the way it works.

  

      There was a time, from 1940 to 1973, when young impoverished men of all races in America were caused to "know that " by being forced into something bigger than their  neighborhood because of mandatory federal service. It happened to be the  WWII and Cold War draft. As it stands now, unemployment among the Black community nationwide is about twice that of white citizens. Among young urban males it is far in excess of that. The same is true of some white populations in some areas where crystal Meth is ravaging younger (and sadly not so young) population segments.

        While I don't favor a military draft, except in wartime and I hope that  doesn't happen, I would propose that a 2 year period of some sort of  mandatory  national service might not be a bad idea, being potentially beneficial to the nation as a whole. While I'm not specifically thinking of anything like the CCC, it isn't a bad  model.   

       The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families as part of the New Deal. It was eventually expanded to young men ages 17–28. A major part of  FDR's  New Deal that provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, and to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States. At the same time, it implemented a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 (about $547 in 2015 dollars)  a month about $450 (in 2015 dollars) of which had to be sent home to their families).

       Widespread and positive public acceptance  made the CCC the most popular of all the New Deal programs.  Benefits of an individual's enrollment in the CCC included improved physical condition, heightened morale, and increased employability, as industrial technical training was also part of the program depending on location. As an example of the law of unintended consequences,  the CCC also led to a greater public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors and the nation's natural resources; and the continued need for a carefully planned, comprehensive national program for the protection and development of natural resources. During the time of the CCC, enrollees planted nearly 3 billion trees, constructed trails, lodges and related facilities, upgraded most state and national  parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas.

       Despite its popular support, the CCC was never a permanent agency. It depended on emergency and temporary Congressional legislation and funding to operate. Less emphasized, but an integral part was the fact that the CCC ran with a discipline very like the military.

       While I would enthusiastically endorse such a program for its obvious applications in areas such as infrastructure maintenance, repair and construction as well  as environmental applications, the "unintended"  (but perhaps the most significant)  effect might well be the removal of dirt poor, disadvantaged, and angry young persons from those situations and negative peer influences  which lead to death by gunshot or overdose by age  25.

       Obviously, as an incentive to better one's personal situation, performance based deferments  for college, tech school, military service  or continuing training should be  generous, but rigorous in application.

While I can find no statistics for gang or violent crime activity among discharged 4 year military veterans, I have to believe it is far below the 18-22  year old urban youth numbers.

I'm just sayin'. 

Happy Daze

        After reading yet another comment from someone  of my approximate  age group in a letter to the editor, a pattern is emerging which I have noticed with sadness  for several months but not written about. That is that many (not enough, but many) decry some of Trump's more inflammatory comments, but all desperately believe, or rather hope,  that he can deliver on his campaign mantra "Make America Great Again." The issue is that "Great" can never be what they wish it was. 

        There's a lot happening emotionally  on several levels with these persons. First, they may not even consider themselves as bigots, but they wish non whites, LGBT persons and, to an extent, women,  would just "settle down" like in the "good old days" when we never heard much from them about their situations as second class citizens. "If we don't see it or hear about it,  it isn't  a problem" seems to be their mantra.

        Of greater concern, however is the fact that there is an incredible lack of understanding of  history and economics which is at play in Trump's harangues. Persons of my age who grew up in the late 1940s and 1950s did so as youths with very little understanding of why America was as it was during those years.

         The vast majority of Americans have no idea that there have been 35 significant recessions since 1789, when we declared ourselves to be the USA. Almost none realize that five of those actually resulted in worse economic conditions for poor Americans than the "Great Depression." Even fewer know,  or want to know,  that all five of these serious economic downturns began under  Republican administrations.  Their parents knew the economic deprivation of the 1930s all too well, but the message was lost to their children in post war euphoria and relative (for white males) prosperity. It is reminiscent of the way Irish survivors of the Great Famine never spoke of it.

        By the mid 1930s, after 6 or 7 years of the worst (actually not the worst, but the most protracted) economic downturn in our history, German activities in Europe and the need for more armaments than the combatants themselves could supply, along with government deficit spending to create jobs, the economy improved.  In late 1936, the economy tanked again. Reasons  vary depending upon which economic school of thought one credits. Keynesians assign blame to cuts in federal spending and increases in taxes at the insistence of the US Treasury, while Monetarists, such as  Milton Friedman, assign blame to the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply in 1936. Either way, corporations pulled back, decreased investment, unemployment  spiked back up to the area of 18% and the economy slid backward. So what did finally end the misery and put America back to work ("Make America Great") again?

       Roosevelt's promise to be "The Great Arsenal of Democracy"  in a Dec. 29,1940 speech really only formalized the process which had begun earlier with the destroyers for bases agreement and the "Lend Lease" bill. The combined effect of this was the beginning of a return to full production in US heavy industry, producing military hardware and even more profitable, expendables,  like ammunition and artillery shells.

        However, these still paled in comparison to the effects of the events of  December 7th, 1941, a year later, when Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor propelled us from the bench to the playing field on both continents. Unemployment dropped like a rock, not because of peace time prosperity's return, but for two much more significant reasons. In 1939, the entire US military strength was 334, 473. By 1942, that number was just shy of 4 million, and by 1945, there were more than 12 million Americans in uniform or dead/missing/wounded.  The second reason was that those who were not in uniform including, for the first time in many cases, women,  were at work, employed in "the War Effort." There was actually a labor shortage and industrial production paid well, even for women, who moved into supervisory roles for the first time in America. By 1945, unemployment was less than 2% of all  employable Americans.

        Many of us know this, but some don't process the results as a cause and effect exercise. During the worst of the depression, there had been precious little discretionary income for the vast percentage of American families. Necessities, such as food and shelter, consumed most of what income was brought into the household. Welfare, as it was then, left no excess. WWII changed all that for those who weren't involved in the active military. Overtime was the norm, wages soared, and ironically, there was not much to spend them on. Movies were cheap, baseball was cheap and many workers worked well in excess of 46 hours per week. All those consumable and big ticket items forgone during the worst of the depression were now in reach but unavailable,  because the facilities which might have produced them  were making bombers, jeeps, tanks, and weapons. Things like refrigerators and new cars, not affordable in 1934,  were simply unavailable in 1944! Only 749 "new" cars were produced in the years 1943-44, and were reserved for government and industrial officials (a blurry line during the War!)

        So why go into all this? I think it is critical to understand the conditions which  left the US poised in 1946 to become the economic giant of the 1950s, which is the "Happy Days" fantasy world  of the older Trump sycophant. It might not have happened that way if not for several prescient actions.

        WWI's ending and the return of a mere 3 million to the workforce had seen large unemployment figures and social unrest in the early 1920s. Determined to avoid a re- run, The President and Congress did several things proactively, The first was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill, even before war's end, which provided for a significant  (over 4 million) number of  demobilized service persons to go to college or advanced industrial training instead of immediately flooding the job market.  The second was the brainchild of one of America's brightest and best, Truman's SecState, George C. Marshall.  Known as the Marshall Plan, but technically the "European Recovery Act,"   it was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave over $12 billion (approximately $120 billion in current dollar value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. Of course this aid to Europe did two things, it kept Americans employed, it helped rebuild markets for US goods, and because we did somewhat the same, albeit less formally in Japan, we created post war markets there, as well.

        Because we now also realized that the Soviet Union also had aims in Europe and East Asia, we also opted to maintain a permanent military of more than 5 times as many as 1939. These were to be augmented by events in South Korea, which escalated the Cold War to the degree that by 1968, we had more than   3 1/2 million Americans in uniform.  These circumstances combined to create in the "Happy Days"  of my peers, economic conditions  which reflected situational factors which are essentially unique and non-replicable. Examples include:

• ·      American heavy industry turned to consumer goods, and those Americans who had piled up money in wartime had it to spend on new cars, refrigerators, and the new toy, television.· 

•        This new medium, sweeping the nation, created unprecedented access for retailers into American homes, further spurring consumer demand.
•           Wartime innovation caused a glut of new products,  US manufacturers were ready to produce them, and US consumers wanted them.
• ·           Many traditional trading partners were still rebuilding their means of production, while US facilities were at maximum output, so unemployment averaged (a very low) 4.16%  between 1953 and 1956!·       
•       Through the end of the 1950s the US was relatively self sufficient in many raw materials. That has changed dramatically over the last 6o years.
• ·           Manufacture of essentially all consumer electronics, was a domestic  bonanza during the golden age of TVs, VCRs etc., but  has shifted offshore.  The same is true for clothing manufacture.      
•             What we used to see occasionally in the mid 50s and usually referred to as "foreign cars" are now in many of our driveways, being cheaper and better warranted than most US made vehicles.
• ·       US minorities did not benefit from this post war boom to the same degree as whites. Blacks remained  in segregated and inferior schools in much of America until the very late 1950s,while the LGBT community remained largely in hiding. Women were in many cases pushed back below the glass ceiling if allowed to continue working at all. 

        Most of the conditions above are one time singularities, and many have been caused  by the Donald Trumps of this world. To believe that he, or anyone else for that matter, can recreate the United States of the mid 1950s is fatuous and unrealistic. Unfortunately, his rabid adherents know or remember little of  their own history , economics or geopolitical change, therefore they actually believe what they fantasize about, wishing for a return to Arnold's Drive-in/diner where they can hang out with Ritchie, Potsie, Ralph and the Fonze. And guess what? There aren't any colored kids or homos there!       

Odds, Ends and Outrage

Odds,  ends and outrage

        This morning's local (Orlando) news features several stories of interest which might make one say "huh?"

       Right off the bat, there is the tale of the, as yet unresolved, high speed car chase through a local residential neighborhood  which ended with a BMW sedan in the middle of a lake. Emergency rescue personnel found the occupant("s?") of the car were nowhere to be found as the car was towed back to shore. In  an inspired flash of  deductive reasoning worthy of  Sherlock Holmes, Orlando police have characterized the circumstances as "suspicious."  Really? When would  such an incident be anything but suspicious?  Can't fool those OPD guys and gals, huh?  

        Another day, another Republican't smear television ad. This time it's Mrs. Clinton making a speech in India where she speaks of the difficulties involved in legislating (in the US) against outsourcing. She isn't pro-outsourcing, she merely points out that  it is entrenched  and would be difficult to eliminate.  The implication, of course, is that outsourcing is bad and costs American jobs. Along with that is the fallacious attempt to create the impression that Mrs. Clinton is endorsing it. Of course she was speaking in India, home of Mumbai call centers and other electronic off shore data handling facilities which are used by a large majority of American corporations. These jobs are largely in the non-manufacturing sector.

        As might be expected,.  as a Senator and then Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton's  outlooks have evolved. On the other hand, someone with zero experience in actual government relations like Donald J. Trump, has no such frame of reference: Today, Donald J. Trump Collection shirts — as well as eye­glasses, perfume, cuff links and suits — are made in Bangladesh, China, Honduras and other low-wage countries. Even Trump's short lived (two years from unveiling to halting  production) Vodka label was foreign made.  Meanwhile, daughter Ivanka, a vice president at his company and frequent campaign surrogate, retails literally  hundreds of additional products under her own line of jewelry and clothing. Most  are made in China. This contradiction between Trump’s consistent business decisions and his stated political agenda illustrates the  failed attempts to  transform  an aggressive, profit-oriented huckster,  marketer and real estate mogul into a  champion of the struggling working class, which Trump is simply incapable of becoming.

        Finally, an article in the local rag is headlined "Tax returns From Clintons Show Millions in Income."  This is the local, ultra conservative  newspaper's headline appended to  an Associated Press article. One is, I suppose, to be outraged at the fact that an ex-president and former senator and secretary of state are in demand as speakers. What strikes me as truly indicative of  Far Right partisan insanity and loss of reason is that the Clintons are essentially blamed for the willingness of others to pay them large fees to speak. As a point I have made before, remember that the Clinton's average  between $200-250,000 per speech, while in 2006-7 Der Trump accepted fees of $1.5 million each for 17 speeches to just one organization!

        I believe the Clintons should be held to at least the same standard as Mr. Trump with regard to fair tax rates. Unfortunately, that is impossible as Trump consistently has refused to release this (or any other years')  tax returns. That being said, there are recent Republican public returns which can be compared to the Clinton's?  First, we need to understand that the Clintons file a joint return, while several candidates and former officials from the Right do not. This separate filing makes it far easier to obfuscate the non office holding spouse's income and tax rate. It would be extremely difficult to be more transparent regarding taxes than either the Clintons or the Obamas. OK, so here we go!

        To start with,   remember that for the last two tax years both Clintons have been private citizens, having no connection to government, ergo their income is from their position in the marketplace, with the exception of  Bill's Presidential pension and Hillary's as a Senator, which at age 62 she drew and continues to draw. Mrs. Clinton has released the previous 36 years worth of federal income tax returns, more than Bush, Romney and McCain combined! The Clintons declared a combined income of $10.6 million  which, if all was from speaking (it wasn't) , represents  about 40 speeches total.  Remember, Trump was paid more than twice that in 2006-7 for just 17 speeches!

        Of that total income, the Clinton's gave away about 10% to charity!  Even with that hefty deduction, The Clinton's marginal federal tax rate was 34.2%. Read it again - 34.2%. This makes them the only current political figures that I  can find, other than the Obamas, whose tax bill actually satisfies the "Buffet Rule" - Warren Buffett's proposal that  the 1%  should pay at least 30% in federal income tax. When all  taxes are factored in, the Clintons actually paid 45.87%  of their combined incomes to various state, local and federal taxing authorities.

        I know, "But don't others pay that kind of rate as well?" Well, since I have that kind of time, I dug up what public records I was able to find.  Before we start, Speaker Paul Ryan, a constant critic of the Clintons has seen his net worth increase by a factor of 4 (without speeches!) over the last ten years, nine of which has been in the US House, at $174,000 annual salary. (He got a raise as Speaker). But now on to those tax rates I promised:

Former VP Dick Cheney - 26%

Former President George W. Bush - 25.4%

Former VP candidate, TV personality , current moron - Sarah Palin  - 14.7%

Sen. John McCain - claimed 33%, but filed separately, not disclosing wife Cindy's taxes on more than $100 million in assets!  

Candidate Mitt Romney - (2012, last year available) - 14%!!

Candidate Barack Obama - 2012 - joint filing - 33.3%

        In summary,  of the last 16 years' worth of candidates, office holders or wannabees, the Clintons have paid the highest tax rate of  the lot, with the Obamas a close second. So when you are exposed to the ads criticizing Hillary's income from speeches, especially the Indian one referring to outsourcing, raise a middle finger, point it at the TV, and give a heartfelt raspberry. 

Another Wednesday

Another Wednesday, more stuff.

        Again, GMA and the people and commercials therein provide ample blogosphere ammunition. 

       Let's start today with yet one more desperate attempt by Tim Tebow to become relevant again in sport, any sport. This time it's professional baseball. He has signed with the Santurce Crabs of a winter league in Puerto Rico, which needless to say, is delighted to have a recognizable name as a draw for fans.  One imagines him "Tebowing" after a strikeout; or perhaps not.  Meanwhile the real deal ex Gator QB, Jesse Palmer, continues to delight as a broadcaster on GMA.

        When did the idea catch hold that the best way to assure people notice your child is to either take a common  name and customize the spelling  or to invent a name out of thin air?  I get ethnic and traditional names which have origins elsewhere, but I'm considering those names invented out of nothingness, apparently on the premise that economic disadvantage may be overcome if we just pick the right first name. A separate but common  category of this is simply deciding that if the name is a good solid name, just add "La" to it. 

      Today I saw a commercial with a pretty blonde hawking a tooth whitener, her first name scrawled under the commercial - "Cassaddee."  Really? Did you mean Cassidy? Other recently observed examples include: Harmonnee, Frooti (Pebbles as a middle name?),Clitorisandria (really),  Perpetua (may she live forever), Guuuuuurrrrrrllllll, (which at least sounds reasonable) and my favorite new boy's name "Rocket Zot" (actor Sam Worthington's son). As my rather prosaically named grandson, Jacob, might have said, "Papa,  what were they thinking?"

        Then we have the stirring,  (patriotic sounding?) music just one level below "God Bless the USA,"  urging us to hustle down to the gas station and fill up with a "full tank of freedom!" Really? We're now dispensing freedom at $1. 93 per gallon, apparently, but only at your local Marathon station.  I assume  Petrol fuels Pickup Trucks and together, they drive the  great American dream, while boosting  CO₂ emissions.

        Among the persons interviewed today were two Americans who couldn't be more different. The first was Olympic champion Dominique Dawes. Her commentary and analysis of gymnastics was simply superb, as expected, but when she admitted to being 40, I was absolutely awestruck. Having seen her in the Olympics, but not specific as to which years, I would have guessed her to be oh, maybe 26! What an absolute stunner.

                            Dominique Dawes

        On the other hand, fresh from his audition for the Vampire role in the remake of Nosferatu, we were subjected to yet another semi lucid rant by  Former NYC mayor Giuliani. His attempts to "clarify" Trump's recent foot in mouth re: "You Second Amendment people") were lame beyond belief, as were his efforts to deflect legitimate questions from George Stephanopoulos. When Giuliani asserted that "everyone in the hall understood" what Trump meant, George pointed out the stunned incredulity of  the look on the face of the man sitting right behind  Trump's left shoulder.

The immediate response was to avoid the question and do the Far Right version of "nanny nanny boo boo," pointing  out that the Pulse nightclub shooter's father was at a Clinton rally. This person was uninvited and no one knew he was there, especially since Mrs. Clinton had condemned his son's actions in no uncertain terms.

        The term  Trump uses , by the way "Mrs. Clinton's judges" creates a sense in the minds of the unwashed and under informed that no one else has any say in the process. Ask Robert Bork and Harriet Meirs! In truth, just under 20% of all USSC nominees historically have been rejected. In recent history, since the Reagan coronation in 1981, of 16 persons proposed for the USSC  by Presidents, 5 or just under 1/3 have been rejected. In point of fact, the primary concern should be control of the US Senate, since the Majority Party controls the Judiciary committee, which can "kill" a candidate's chances.  

        Sorry for the history/government lesson, but I'm committed to the stamping out of ignorance where it lives.         

Another Monday, Another Lie

        Another Monday, another Soduku/Jumble/Crossword, another Good Morning America and yes, Virginia, another topic for discussion!  Our "esteemed" Governor, Rick "Skeletor" Scott heads a new super PAC (thanks, Citizens United) which, while nominally formed in support of Der Trump, is actually aimed at hurting the Clintons. There are several things wrong with the message of their first effort. It focuses on the Clintons, both Bill and Hill, and seems to cast aspersions on the family's wealth, which according to public records it over states by double.

        The first allegation is that somehow it was ill gotten gains. This in spite of the fact that Clinton foundation filings are public record, and of the over $2 billion donated by a very wide spectrum of nations and individuals, absolutely none of it has been taken by the Clintons as salary. The filings, unlike Trump's murky tax issues, are public record, and have been scrutinized to death. Scott, says it "doesn't pass the smell test". This of course from a man who knowingly supervised a corporation (Columbia HCA) which ran two sets of books (his former accountant admits it!)  and defrauded Medicare of a minimum of $8 billion. Scott should be doing these ads from a federal penitentiary, not the Florida Governor's mansion in Tallahassee.

        Second and far more revealing about the nature of Scott's psyche, as well as those of other Far Right sour grapes artists, is the apparent awe over the Clinton(s) speaking fees. Apparently to these retrograde  dullards whose lives revolve around profit, only they are allowed to benefit from their public efforts. The complaints re: the Clintons' fees for speeches are specious at best, and reveal more about those making the allegations than perhaps they would like.  The focus of the whiny complaint from Scott is that they (apparently, I don't know any other way to interpret it) "make too much" for speeches. The audience is , I suppose,  led to believe that they must be providing "special" concessions in exchange.

        There isn't any real (as in actionable in court) allegation that the relatively high Clinton fees are quid pro quo in nature, rather just the typical election year finger pointing without substance. So, I thought, "just how much DO they make and how does it compare with other contemporary speakers with similar backgrounds?"  What I found is revelatory. The Clintons from 2006 to the present have averaged about $250,000 per speech. Some have paid higher , some less.  This has amounted to what is now a sizeable family fortune, although not as measured against their political contemporaries. Right off the bat. "W" almost a functional illiterate, cleared a tidy $15 mil from a ghost written (actual author Christopher Michel)  book! I will show speaking fees in tabular form for simplicity  below:

Donald Trump: $1.5 million per speech times 17 speeches! for the Learning Annex's "Wealth Expos" in 2006-2007.  That is about a third  of the Clinton's net worth in less than two years for just these speeches, there were many others as well! Trump has made many more at  higher  numbers than the Clintons, including  $1.75 million in 2015. The Clintons meanwhile pay a marginal tax rate of over 30%  for their efforts. Wait for Trump's returns if we ever see them!

Ronald Reagan: $1 million per speech for several speeches in Japan (in 1989!)

  

Rudolph Giuliani: One of Mrs. Clinton's most vocal critics, received $9.2 million for speeches in just 13 months from 2006-2007

George W.   Bush: this semi-coherent ex Pres. routinely gets $150,000 per speech for more than  200 speeches since 2009. Condoleezza Rice earns the same amount but speaks far less, which is odd, since she has sooo much more to say. For the math impaired, "W" "earned" about $30 million for speeches closed to the press.

And the topper:   In March of  1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company. Eight days after the initial raid, Rick Scott signed his last SEC report HCA CEO. Four months later Scott  resigned  as Chairman and CEO.  He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.

And Rick Scott didn't even have to make a speech!