Tuesday, December 31, 2013

MSNBC at their worst

    I am a social liberal. One of the reasons that I am is that, as opposed to the radical and ractionary right, we will call bullshit on our own when it is necessary. MSNBC made it necessary when they turned Mitt Romney's son's adoption of an African American child into a topic for ridecule. The substance of the statements is on line and I won't dignify any of it by repeating it but........ : When you are a conduit for liberal and left/center moderate issues which features commentary by such persons of class and ability as Rachel Maddow and has frequently hurled rocks at organizations which opposed either multi-ethnic or gay adoption, how dare you make the child of such an adoption into a political football?
 
    Only the Romneys know, or need to know, the dynamic involved in their decision to adopt this child. Anyone who would argue that the child will not have a better chance for a fulfilled life as a result is insane. I am no fan of Mitt Romney or his political beliefs, no matter what the RNC tells him they are. That, not withstanding, anyone who believes that after the 2012 election Mitt sat down with advisors and said, " Y'know, if I had just had a black grandbaby...!" is on a par with Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Beck and the rest of the political hatchet squad on the far right.
 
      I know apologies have been made, but, going for the laugh was wrong. Misreading the public's reaction was unprofessional. But worst of all, giving conservatives fuel for their already paranoid and hate filled psyches was unpardonable. The MSNBC personnel responsible should be ashamed. I am quite sure their senior management has already made that happen from the unqualified tone of the several apologies I've read. I had thought Faux News staff had the monopoly on tasteless , mawkish and ill advised statements. I was wrong. Shame - MSNBC!

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Rating Quarterbacks - TQBR


ESPN dedicated 2011 to examining one of the most crucial positions in all of sports -- the quarterback.

 Early in a scoreless game, a quarterback throws a 20-yard pass just by the reaching arms of a defender and into the hands of his intended receiver, who holds on despite the distraction, then scampers the remaining 15 yards for a touchdown.
Another quarterback, down 30-10 with five minutes left in the fourth quarter, throws a 3-yard screen pass to a running back, who maneuvers another 32 yards through prevent defense to pick up a first down deep in opponent territory.

Both are called good plays, but labeling them as "good" isn't enough. Each play has a different level of contribution to winning, and each play illustrates a different level of quarterback contribution. What is the quarterback's contribution to winning in each situation? Coaches want to know this; players want to know this; and fans want to know this.

The Total Quarterback Rating is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of those throws and what they mean for wins. It's built from the team level down to the quarterback, where we understand first what each play means to the team, then give credit to the quarterback for what happened on that play based on what he contributed.  At the team level, identifying what wins games is not revolutionary: scoring points and not allowing points. Back in the 1980s, "The Hidden Game of Football" did some pioneering work on that topic and on how yardage relates to points. We went back and updated what that book did … then we went further. At the individual level, more detailed information about what quarterbacks do is really necessary. Brian Burke at AdvancedNFLStats.com has done very good work in advancing that effort, and FootballOutsiders.com has done some of this by charting data, but, for the past three years, ESPN has charted football games in immense detail. By putting all these ideas together and incorporating division of credit, we have built a metric of quarterback value, the Total Quarterback Rating, Total QBR or QBR for short.

The final step is transforming the clutch-valued expected points rate to a number from 0 to 100. This is just a mathematical formula with no significance other than to make it easier to communicate. A value of 90 and above sounds good whether you're talking about a season, a game or just third-and-long situations; a value of four or 14 doesn't sound very good; a value of 50 is average, and that is what QBR generates for an average performance.

 

That being said, the top values in a season tend to be about 75 and above, whereas the top values in a game are in the upper 90s. Aaron Rodgers might have gone 31-of-36 for 366 yards, with three passing TDs, another TD running, 19 first-down conversions, and eight conversions on third or fourth down in one game -- for a single-game Total QBR of 97.2 -- but he can't keep that up all year long. Pro Bowl-level performance for a season usually means a QBR of at least 65 or 70. We don't expect to see a season with a QBR in the 90s.

 

I cut and pasted the above discussion from a much longer and more detailed article. I only included enough to show that the Total QBR is a actually a good measure of the consistency and skill degree exhibited by   a quarterback.  It is perhaps most useful in getting past just the amassed stats and evaluating 1) how much the quarterback is responsible for the team’s success,  2) how does a good quarterback perform with a poor team and even more importantly, vice versa.

From another source (ESPN) using the Total QBR metric (and don’t tell me  metrics don’t work (see “Money Ball”, I am posting Total QBRs from the last 3 or 4 years. Note:

2013 Regular Season NFL Leaders (through 15 games)
       PLAYER                          Rating                                                   

1 Josh McCown, - 85.1                                                            
2 Peyton Manning, - 82.2                                                   

3 Philip Rivers, - 73.3                                                            

4  Nick Foles, -71.8                                                           

5  Aaron Rodgers, -70.3                                                           

6  Colin Kaepernick, - 68.6                                                           

7  Drew Brees, - 66.6                                                          
8  Jay Cutler, - 63.8                                                          

9  Matt Ryan, - 63.1                                                          

10 Tom Brady, - 62.9                                                          

2012 Regular Season NFL Leaders

  PLAYER                                                                                       

1  Peyton Manning, - 82.4                                                           

2   Tom Brady, - 77.7                                                            
3   Matt Ryan, -  74.8                                                            

4  Aaron Rodgers, - 74.7                                                                     
5  Robert Griffin III, - 73.2                                                           

6  Colin Kaepernick, - 72.2                                                           
7  Russell Wilson, - 71.7  

8. Alex Smith, - 69.4                                                           
9  Eli Manning, - 68.9

10 Drew Brees, -  66.5                                                                    

2011 Regular Season NFL Leaders

          PLAYER                                                                             

1  Aaron Rodgers, -  87.1                                                           
2  Drew Brees,-   83.0

3  Tom Brady, -  73.0
4  Matt Ryan, -   69.9                                                           

5  Tony Romo, -  69.5                                                           
6  Matt Schaub, -  67.3                                                           

7  Michael Vick,-  64.7                                                           
8  Matthew Stafford,-  64.4                                                           

9  Philip Rivers, -  63.4                                                           
10 Roethlisberger,- 62.7                                                                   

 2010 Regular Season NFL Leaders

    PLAYER                                                                     

1  Tom Brady,-77.0                                                               

2  Peyton Manning, - 71.7                                                               

3  Aaron Rodgers, -  70.7                                                              
4  Matt Ryan, - 70.6                                                               

5  Michael Vick,- 67.2                                                              
6  Josh Freeman,- 66.1                                                              

7  Ben Roethlisberger,- 65.4                                                               
8  Drew Brees,- 64.7                                                              

9  Eli Manning, - 64.6                                                              
10 Philip Rivers,- 63.7                                                              

 As a famous man once said, “Figures lie and liars figure’, but I don’t think this is always true. There are some constants and one of them seems to be that elite quarterbacks are consistently in the top 10 based on the Total Quarterback Rating metric. Names like Manning, Ryan, Brady and Rogers are seemingly always there. Others may appear for a season or two and vanish (Eli Manning, Matt Schaub) it seems that elite quarterbacks can, from year to year, cope with personnel changes and differing levels of support and somehow manage to drag their teams into the playoffs. These guys will be first or second year Hall of Famers. In my opinion, the best of the young guns to have that chance are Matt Ryan , Russell Wilson, and possibly Colin Kapernick. Names that are buried down at the 15th and below TQBR each year are revelatory, as well. As examples, Matt Schaub and Eli Manning are in spots 32 and 34 in 2013. Joe Flacco is #25. Two of these guys (Manning And Flacco) have rings yet  neither will play in this post season. In 2010, playing for a  Bucs team with a defense reminiscent of their Superbowl winners, Josh Freeman actually ranked #6, the following year as players were lost to free agency, he ranked #23. Today Josh Freeman may never take another snap as a pro!  If there is anything to be taken from this nattering it is that the good QBs seem to stay near the top of the list, even when their supporting casts wane in effectiveness. The great ones find ways to bring their team along. It's true, that the elite QB's teams aren't always the Super Bowl winners, but it surely seems certain that they always put their teams in position to have a chance.  

Friday, December 27, 2013

Prevarications of 2013


       
As we come to the end of another year, I can’t help but reflect that this has been a year of monumental falsehood. I’m not talking about things hoped for and or planned for which didn’t work out as well as hoped. Those may be seen as mistakes or shortcomings, but rarely reflect a deliberate effort to deceive.  I’m referring to falsehoods issued by persons who knew when they said it that it was a lie, but had faith in the gullibility and naiveté of their audience.

          Unfortunately, in an America which lionizes such nincompoops as Sarah Palin, Phil Robertson, Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh, those deliberate prevarications all too frequently find fertile ground.  The aforementioned all decry their great Satan – the “liberal media” and their trusty acolytes echo the chant. As the year ends, I feel the need to once again, tilt against this windmill of straw. It’s cathartic, it’s fun, and it’s necessary; so I’ll try to select just a few of the most outrageous lies and address them with fact and truthful research.

#1:    “Liberal Media” – there ain’t no such animal, at least in the sense that the far right, especially the Tea Partiers use the term. There are various media outlets, print and broadcast, many owned by conservatives (Chicago Tribune and Tampa Times come to mind) and many owned by  liberals (The Washington Post, for example). As print media, they need to sell papers, and must do so to survive in a world increasingly dominated by internet and broadcast news competition. To blatantly favor either Far Left or Right would be economic suicide in an industry where pressures are already causing print sources to cease publication. It’s really that simple. 
          In like manner, until cable competition pinched them, major broadcast networks also competed with each other for advertisers, and none could afford an outright slant on content at the risk of losing national sponsors. None other than Roger Ailes, as recently as 1995, decried the possibility of an outright political slant in mainstream network outlets because of this fact.  In summary, until the advent of Fox News, and its discovery of legions of nose pickers who are apparently willing to believe anything they are told and the advent of sponsors who pander to this demographic there was no “liberal” or “conservative” media.

There was a tendency for outlets to cover mainstream news and science, which apparently offends some who believe the earth to be about 4800 years old, and (according to Bishop Usher, years ago), created on my birthday of Oct. 26th!  These people were also, no doubt, offended by major media outlets in the 1960s showing those vicious Negros trying to march over those white peaceful police who were forced to defend themselves with water cannons, dogs and clubs! They also were troubled by anything less than whole hearted support and positive “spin” for the great adventure in Viet Nam. Probably the final straw was when the Washington Post actually dared imply that the Nixon White House had done anything wrong regarding Watergate events.
          If there is a markedly slanted media outlet today, it is Fox News, which I have renamed Faux News. The selfsame Roger Ailes is the original head of News there. It was he who, in 2000, before any media outlet dared call the Bush-Gore election had Faux announce Bush (his cousin, by coincidence!) had won Florida. It was Faux news which openly lamented the 2012 Obama reelection while the others simply reported numbers. It is Faux who gives the bully pulpit to the Becks, Limbaughs, Palins, Hannitys, et al, ad nauseum. While there are assuredly contrapuntal liberal outlets, they are cable/satellite talk radio, not television outlets masquerading as purveyors of factual information. Any imbecile, even Phil Robertson, could watch Diane Sawyer and compare ABC Nightly News to Sean Hannity and tell which is presenting news and which is partisan OpEd masquerading as news.

#2:   “Childhood vaccines cause autism spectrum disorders.” This lie was actually probably spread by persons believing they were protecting newborns, based on a study performed in England.  Although there are two separate issues concerning vaccines and autism, they're often lumped together. One has to do with the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; the other involves vaccines containing the chemical preservative thimerosal, which contains a form of mercury that has been suspected of causing autism and has recently been removed from most vaccines. Hint: this means that there is no reason to fear this vaccination now, regardless of what Jenny McCarthy and/or Katie Couric tell you. The other issue is that thimoseral doesn’t react in the body or stay in the body as the more toxic ethyl mercury (not used in vaccines). A non medically/scientifically trained parent wouldn’t know the difference, but many acted as if they did.
      The MMR scare started 10 years ago with a report published in The Lancet, the British analogy to the Journal of the AMA, which described the cases of eight children who, as their parents recalled, developed autistic symptoms and digestive ailments shortly after getting their first MMR dose. The MMR vaccine controversy centered around the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the subsequently discredited theory that colitis and autism spectrum disorders could be caused by the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The media has been heavily criticized for its naive reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.

Investigations revealed that Wakefield had "multiple undeclared conflicts of interest, had manipulated evidence, and had broken other ethical codes." The Lancet paper was fully retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and was struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a doctor. The scientific consensus is that no evidence links the vaccine to the development of autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.
        Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library all found no link between the vaccine and autism. The claims in Wakefield's 1998 The Lancet article were, unfortunately  widely reported; vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland dropped sharply, which was followed by significantly increased incidence of measles and mumps, resulting in deaths and severe and permanent injuries. A 2011 Lancet article described the vaccine-autism connection as "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years

. Since that initial finding, 14 studies including millions of children in several countries consistently show no significant difference in autism rates between children who got the MMR vaccine those who didn't.  Fear of autism frightens parents, and it should. But today few parents in the U.S. or other developed countries have seen the suffering and death wrought by measles and other disease that vaccines can prevent, including measles,
      Unfortunately, the saner voices in the medical community which recommend vaccination as of microscopic risk compared to the kill potential of Measles, Rubella and Mumps, are in many cases shouted down by non-medical persons who, by virtue of some degree of celebrity, get heard by gullible mothers and dads. Such a person is Jenny McCarthy. While she has a bitchin’ bod and a cute face (her Playboy credentials) she has zero medical training. What she does have, lamentably, are two autistic children and ample opportunities to tell anyone who listens, including Katie Couric (who used to actually do news) that she has insight denied to the ”medical community,”  a term she uses with exactly the same inflection Palin uses when she says “liberal media”.

What she will never say is that her opinions are based on the above, thoroughly debunked Lancet Wakefield study and that she has chosen to ignore all the mountain of contradictory evidence and you should too if you love your kids!  No one whose child dies from measles because their mom and dad thought Jenny McCarthy somehow really knew anything, will ever sue her, more’s the pity.

3: Executive Order hoax. The last for today came to me in an e-mail this morning. I’ll cut and paste the gist:

“For the SHOCK of your life, take 1 minute to comprehend what you read below. During our lifetimes, all Presidents have issued Executive Orders. For various reasons, some have issued more than others. These things will directly affect us all, in years to come. Question is: Do YOU care enough to send this, 'shocking info,' to people you love and others?  (Ed note: Is anyone more impressed by ALL CAPS?)

NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED by U.S. Presidents in the last 100 years:

Teddy Roosevelt – 3                     All Others until FDR - 0

FDR - 11 in 16 years                     Truman - 5 in 7 years

Ike - 2 in 8 years                            Kennedy - 4 in 3 years

LBJ - 4 in 5 years                          Nixon - 1 in 6 years

Ford - 3 in 2 years                          Carter - 3 in 4 years

Reagan - 5 in 8 years                     Bush - 3 in 4 years

Clinton - 15 in 8 years                   George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years

Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years! More than 1000+ and counting Executive Orders in 6 years...  Read some of them below – unbelievable!

Next step -dictatorship. (Looks like we are there already!)

Wow! Scary, huh? And it might be in any of it were factual. Realty is that like many of these “revelatory” e-mails, literally none of the numbers are true! That’s right – it’s completely false and the ratios are also false. So ok, Dorman what is the real story, you ask? I’ll respond by pasting the response I sent to the person who forwarded this to me. He is a dear friend, but has no concept of "fact check."

Dear ****,  ya got suckered again. The real (as in truthful) numbers are in the table I attached. Some of the executive orders claimed to have been issued by the current President were actually issued in the Kennedy years! In truth, as of the end of 2012, LBJ signed more than twice as many as did Reagan (you remember, the God the original issuer of this scurrilous e-mail still probably prays to!). As of now, President Barack Obama is on about the same (almost exact) pace as his predecessor, and will probably have issued less than 1/3 as many as Republican Theodore Roosevelt and about half as many as Eisenhower . This is simply one more example of "blame it on the black guy." It took, by the way, about 30 seconds to verify that the content of this e-mail is a fraud. I left the link at the bottom.     Mike

Name
Number claimed:
Actual number:
Theodore Roosevelt
3
1,081
Franklin Roosevelt
11
3,522
Harry Truman
5
907
Dwight Eisenhower
2
484
John Kennedy
4
214
Lyndon Johnson
4
325
Richard Nixon
1
346
Gerald Ford
3
169
Jimmy Carter
3
320
Ronald Reagan
5
381
George H.W. Bush
3
166
Bill Clinton
15
364
George W. Bush
62
291
Barack Obama
923
138

 
PS. Even my poorest history student, upon reflecting a moment, would have realized that claiming that FDR issued only 11 in 12 years was a red flag the size of Texas, considering the huge amount of new deal actions that were done by executive order in the first 100 days of FDR's first term and again starting December 8, 1941. Think about it.

          So as the 2014 creeps up on us, what new bullshit storms will assail us? Stay tuned.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013


 
The below editorial diatribe was sent to me in an e-mail by a dear friend who thought I might have a strong reaction to it. He was right!
 
Obamacare Should Remind Us We Are Not 'Subjects,' We Are People
Laura Hollis is a professor at the University of Notre Dame
November 20, 2013|10:42 am
"The unveiling of the dictatorial debacle that is Obamacare absolutely flabbergasts me. It is stunning on so many levels, but the most shocking aspect of it for me is watching millions of free Americans stand idly by while this man, his minions in Congress and his cheerleaders in the press systematically dismantle our Constitution, steal our money, and crush our freedoms."

There is more of this article, but this is what you need to see. A Catholic  business professor complaining because a lawfully enacted piece of legislation may actually do some of the things her Pope has called, “humane and necessary” Ya think her agenda has to do with the birth control issue? “Steal our money, crush our freedoms??” Would that be the freedom to let the poor die?

And of course, all of this is indicative of the tactic, honed by Gingrich, Atwater and their ilk - the great lie. In this case the great lie is that all the concern about health care and all the legislation has been done by one person, acting alone, not a Congress, not the majority of Americans who believe it's a good thing, one person who is evil incarnate. That sounds stupid because it is.
Like it or not, and some (but not a majority of voters) don't, the majority of Americans believe that the Affordable Care Act is a good thing. The reaction of the lunatic right to the Affordable Care Act, is very much like the reaction to (and the glitches are similar to) the Bush initiative (also passed by Congress and also derided by some) of Medicare part D (drug coverage). In fact their reactions  were as vocal (and as wrong) over Medicare/Medicaid in general and Social Security before that. There are certainly things in the legislation that will bother some, since powerful economic forces have opposed this legislation with a massive lobbying effort based on corporate greed of the Insurance and drug lobbies. There are also compromises in the bill because of special interest pressures which were satisfied to get a passable law.
The fact that the AMA approves it matters little to those like Palin, Cruz, etc  who have actually succeeded in convincing some of their poorer sycophant acolytes that this legislation which, in actuality, is to their benefit, was drafted by Satan and fine tuned by  Hitler, Stalin and Jack the Ripper. I especially love the resurrection of the "death panel" shibboleth by this Notre Dame business professor. She implies that any refusal to cover any condition amounts to a "death panel". What the hell does she think Insurance companies do now? You want to see a death panel dramatized, but realistically portrayed - read Grisham's "The Rainmaker."

     As in all these scurrilous writings, check the credentials of the author. This lady is a business teacher at the flagship Catholic College in the World, and as a Catholic is probably really upset that a Catholic owned business might actually have to provide a medical plan that would allow a Protestant employee to have birth control coverage if their MD so prescribed. Why should any employer's personal religious tenet be allowed to get between an employee and their doctor. I guess it's sort of "Medical doctor patient relations are privileged , unless of course, as your boss, I disagree with your doctor." Sound stupid and retrograde when stated like that, doesn't it, yet some Catholics are right there. Another analogy might be an employer who was a Christian Scientist (oxymoron alert!) who would only pay for prayer and anointing as medical coverage!

 And last, as to her opening salvo about the President acting in an authoritarian manner: Most Americans didn't want to go to war in Iraq in 2000, no matter how many lies they were told (and we know they were lies now), but since a majority of Congress “signed off” on it, misle4ad by a President who had another agenda from the day of his inauguration (see Bob Woodward’s book) to war we went. The Affordable Care Act will save some lives and improve others. The War in Iraq, which really was the result of a President acting as dictator, has cost over 4000 American and over a million Iraqi lives. I guess the risk here is listening to business teachers who have an agenda instead of historians who have a perspective.

 

 

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Disabled from the back drop skull crusher?



As yesterday's blog and post clearly indicate, I am not a fan of Walmart, and I firmly believe that if they advertise "low price matching" they should abide by that policy. Having said that, I wondered about the "disability" of the behemoth who is at the center of attention here.
 
 
 
 
 
As it happens he is "disabled" from continuing his career as a professional wrestler - period. He isn't mentally handicapped, or unable to do most ordinary work. The use of the word "disabled" makes... Walmart's actions sound even worse than they are, but it is understandable that an employee might be threatened by an unhappy 300 pound man mountain.

I guess what bothers me is that the word disabled seems to be applied more and more to persons who are totally capable of earning a living, but either choose or are allowed to claim disability instead and live on someone else's dollar. My late father in law couldn't walk from the age of three, but would have been mortified to take public money or consider himself disabled. By contrast, Joe Cantrell is only disabled to the extent that he can no longer sustain a career as a professional wrestler.

We are bombarded by ads for attorneys urging you to come see them and they will get you "disability." There is a huge difference between genuine disability (whatever the origin) and simple unwillingness to suck it up and even retrain if necessary and work. Disability and workman's comp, originally an absolute necessity in my opinion, have become increasingly corrupted by persons seeking a continuing income without continuing effort. I would write more, but I have an appointment with my attorney, who says he can get me declared disabled for my job as an NBA center, as I have "white men can't jump" syndrome and am 71 years old.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Mister Sam would be ashamed


        Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family?
 This from Politifact:
     On Nov. 27, 2013, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group used a mass email to promote protests that were planned against Walmart stores for two days later -- Black Friday.  The demonstrations aimed to "expose Wal-Mart’s shameful labor practices and support workers," according to One Wisconsin Now, which then made this claim: "The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."

     That reminded us of a March 2011 claim by filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore.  He said in a Madison speech that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined, a statement we rated True.  Based on online hits, it became one of our most popular fact-checks ever. So we wondered about the Walmart claim.
     In the days before and after Black Friday, leaders no less prominent than President Barack Obama and Pope Francis decried the extent of income disparity in the United States and around the world. Obama called the growing income gap a "defining challenge of our time." The pope said that while the earnings of a minority "are growing exponentially, so, too, is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."

Walmart, of course, is a big target.

    According to Forbes, as of May 2013 the international retailer had $469 billion in sales and 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million in the United States. The corporation has been criticized for low wages; and in December 2012, PolitiFact National rated as “Mostly True”  a claim that more Walmart employees are on Medicaid and food stamps than other companies.

     Walmart was founded by the late Sam Walton, who opened the first store in Arkansas in 1962. Walmart incorporated in 1969 and became a publicly traded company a year later. So, Wal-Mart is not family owned, but rather owned by its stockholders; on the other hand, according to Bloomberg and other news reports, the Walton family members still have control of the company, owning about half of the shares.

Using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

             Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion.
Our (Politifact’s): rating

     One Wisconsin Now wrote: "The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."
For comparison purposes, the latest data available, for 2010, the figure is 41.5 percent.  We rate the statement True

I post this to say the following with evidentiary backup:

 There are wealthier Americans than The Walton heirs. There are
some of them (rhymes with Koch Brothers) who spend huge
amounts of it on political campaigns to support political whores
they hope will be inclined to produce legislation or fight regulation
that might reduce their (the Koch’s)  humongously bloated personal
balance sheets. Then there are Bill and Melinda  Gates, Warren
Buffett and others (like the builder Arnold Fisher, building
traumatic brain injury centers for vets)  , not necessarily “liberal”
but genuinely  humane Americans who realize how well off they
are and at the same time how disparate are their lives and those of
the average citizen. These humanitarians have given away literally
billions of their personal wealth to help deserving causes, here and
around the globe.

I defy anyone to show significant charity and/or compassion shown
by the Walton heirs. Other than large political contributions to far
rightists, they are largely invisible. What is truly troubling to me is
that Mister Sam Walton was, by all accounts a sweet, gentle and
compassionate man. The first Walmarts proudly proclaimed “Made
in America” on large signs over displays of merchandise.  Just try
to find one now.

Instead of supporting American companies,  Walmart has driven
some of them (Rubber Maid is an excellent example) to shift
manufacturing overseas. Shame on them, and shame on Mister
Sam’s greedy, do nothing heirs.

I’ll close with part of another article on these spoiled wastrel
children:

“Quite a few billionaires, including Warren Buffett and Bill Gates,
have pledged to give away almost all of their fortunes to charity.
The Waltons take a different approach. They have decided to hoard
as much of their fortunes as possible. They have decided to use
each and every tax loophole possible in order to keep their money
in their own family, and not to allow the public to claim a single
dollar more in taxes than they absolutely have to. In Bloomberg
today, Zachary Mider has an excellent in-depth report today on the
strategies the Walton family uses to avoid estate and inheritance
taxes on their fortune, which has been built on the backs of
extremely low-paid workers. One of their favorite techniques:
establishing a type of charitable trust that can shelter money from
taxes, and later put that money back into the pockets of family
heirs. Sometimes, with a profit!

 If the trust’s investments outperform that benchmark rate, then the
extra earnings pass to the designated heirs free of any estate tax.
With a big enough spread between the actual performance and the
IRS rate, this trust can theoretically save so much tax that it leaves
a family richer than if it hadn’t given a dime to charity...

     So the next time you hear about how fabulous the Walton family's opulent new art museum is, or how much money the Walton family has given to land conservation, remember that all of that charity is part and parcel of a structure designed expressly to hoard billions of dollars within this one single family, and to avoid paying the normal tax rates that have been levied for the purpose of a tiny step towards equality. And also remember that all of the millions and millions of workers who made those billions and billions of dollars possible are trapped in a world of low wages, and are prevented from unionizing and bettering their own situation by the zealous efforts of Wal-Mart.

The Walton family's very existence is an insult to the American dream.