Now THAT"S Sick!

       Today there were two separate letters in the local paper which, distilled of all the faux outrage and pseudo patriotism, essentially chastised persons of color as embodied in the personages of many NFL players. The gist of both was that Black Americans should just "get over it" because slavery wasn't "all that bad" and besides it was a long time ago.

       As a historian I am staggered by the ignorance represented in these statements and/or sentiments. Space limits how much one can say, but in (too) short:

       Other historic forms of slavery were almost universally situational, that is the social situation of the enslaved person made them inferior in the context of their society. In Africa, that could mean a conquered enemy or an orphan for example. These persons were frequently adopted into families or eventually freed. They were not born slaves, and not destined at birth to be or  to die as such.

       The same was true of Greek and Roman slaves. In fact the Romans called central European captives "Slavs" which is the root of the English word "slave."

       Black trans-Atlantic slavery was different in one critical aspect which is still with us today in the rants of the Trumps, Bannons, David Dukes and their associated scum. That was, the assumption on the part of the slave holder that those he held in bondage were not just inferior as their social situation dictated, but were inferior as human beings. This assumption was not unique to Black Africans. The English and their American castoffs turned allies, the Americans of New England, considered the Irish as inferior humans, actually classifying them at one time as "non-white." Native Americans were considered in much the same fashion.

       Relatively few Americans, even racists such as Bannon and Trump would have little trouble grasping why the Irish in Ireland still have "issues" with the English. From the slaughters of mid 17th century (see: "Drogheda massacre") until the violent events of mid-late 20th, The Irish were the bastard red haired stepchildren of the British Isles. Once in America, having been "encouraged" to leave by English landlords, they met much the same treatment in Boston and elsewhere in the Northeast, So what? So as Caucasians, the Irish were able to assimilate into society without the constant reminder to others that they had once been social outcasts. Without the constant reminder of dark skin, the stigma was impermanent. You can lose the brogue, educate yourself and blend.

       Knowing the history of Native American /US relations, one can easily grasp why many Indians still resent many white Americans. If you have difficulty understanding this, read Dee Brown's remarkable "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee." Skin color and "paganism" relegated Indians, in the minds of many, to the same "lower life form" status reserved for Black slaves by white Southerners. To the great disappointment of many whites, Indians were poor slave material, being susceptible to diseases to which most Whites has some acquired immunity. Andrew Jackson had little difficulty convincing many Southerners of their inferiority and of the necessity of simply moving many them to a land (Oklahoma) which bore little resemblance to the mountains of the Southeast and the Gulf Coast.

       The English, so quick to condemn slavery and the slave trade in the early 1800s, made a fortune in the human trafficking business for almost 200 years. Descriptions of Barbadian society are mind boggling in their inhumanity. This from a monograph by Barbadian Historian and Chancellor of the University of the West Indies, Sir Hilary Beckles, April 2017:

       "The enslavement of Africans on the sugar plantations of São Tomé by the 1530s undoubtedly represented the first great stride towards the creation of the Barbados black slave society. The Spanish took the chattel enslavement of Africans to Cuba, in the northern Caribbean, in the 1540s. Inexorably, it spread to the eastern Caribbean and found its most fertile environment in the plantation complex of Barbados exactly a century later. Upon this small rock, England gained its first economic success by building the first complete large-scale black slave society. By 1650, it was universally recognized for its economic prosperity, physical brutality and social inhumanity towards Africans. English managers of the model were not to be deterred, however; they pressed on and redefined for the long term the primary character of Europe’s and the Americas’ relationship with Africans.
      It was the beginning of a new era in global economic development and race relations. With the black slave society, England’s entrepreneurship forged and refashioned the world economic order. Investors and imperial administrators seized the moment and abandoned traditional labour values and relations. The sugar plantations, stocked with thousands of easily replaceable enslaved Africans, spun super-profits. The entire island was quickly stripped of an internal frontier and transformed into endless fields of sugar plantation. Record levels of white-owned wealth and black deaths defined the slave plantation as a “best practice” in the new business culture."

     When White Americans as the letter writers did, simply say, "Well, it's over now, you're equal, so what's the fuss" they demonstrate zero sense of history. When the UK outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833, most British Caribbean islands were vast majority Black. One effect of this was that there was really not a white majority to impose and more significant to enforce "Jim Crow" practices on the former slave population. In the USA, however, Whites represented armed, educated and politically powerful majorities in all but the most Cotton-driven Southern states. So when a White American points to the 13th Amendment and says "So, what's the problem," they're looking past (or through) more than 90 years of Jim Crow politics, Black Codes, White Citizens councils, White supremacists openly threatening and in many cases killing innocents, and the general continued oppression of Black Americans, for whom the word "Citizen," stripped as it was of civil rights, had a hollow ring.

       Jump ahead to World War One when, as White soldiers mobilized, Blacks, formerly turned away from decent jobs, came North to work, encouraged to do so by those who had shunned them as social and human inferiors since Emancipation. Blacks went to work, thriving in heavy industry, once closed and now open. World War One ended and demobilized whites came home to find a willing labor pool of Blacks, some already employed in former "Whites only" positions. 

         In St Louis, this took the form of (all white) Labor Unions deciding to strike for higher wages and to keep the best jobs for whites. During the ensuing riots, Police and National Guard largely stood by as somewhere between 65 and 150 blacks were killed by striking white workers. Samuel Gompers, white former cigar maker and then Labor leader vainly attempted to minimize labor's role in the matter. In a mass meeting in Carnegie Hall, Gompers, then president of the American Federation of Labor, attempted to diminish the role that trade unions played in the massacre by persisting that an investigation was needed in order to place blame, "Why don't you accuse after an investigation?" To which the former president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, responded by saying, "Mr. Gompers, why don't I accuse afterwards? I'll answer now, when murder is to be answered."

       The list of continuing discriminatory practice based only on race in America continues today. Does violence beget violence? Sometimes it does, but by any reasonable standard, Americans should, if they be religious, thank their God for Martin Luther King Junior's non-violent influence in the 1960s.

       One of the more troublesome examples of this long lived,  race based bigotry could have been seen in many a Boston bar in the 60s where Irish Americans scorned Blacks, even as pro athletes, for some years after most other teams in the NBA and MLB had integrated. If asked, they might well have responded as the letter writers have with, "Get over it." These same Bostonians in the same bar might also have contributed to the "Tip Jar" on the bar which, with wink and a nudge, was understood to be a collection to help finance the terrorist efforts of the Irish Republican Army. Try telling those same yahoos to "Get over that."


       Racism destroys logic, demeans the human spirit and poisons children's minds. I honestly believe it to be a mental illness, since it embodies characteristics of illogic similar in some ways to other diseases. It causes spontaneous emotional outbursts, often with almost no stimulii, similar to  Bipolar disorder. It makes its victims react to imaginary threats as does paranoia. It causes otherwise sane persons to have total disregard and lack of empathy for an entire group of people personally unknown to them. We call that Sociopathic personality disorder. And finally, it imparts to the sufferer an unjustified feeling of superiority as a human being -Narcissism. Even worse than all these is the sad fact that many of the most vile, rabid and vocal sufferers of "Racism disorder" actually believe that their beliefs, actions and attitudes are in some mysterious way sanctioned by a magical spirit in the sky. Now THAT'S sick!

Antiquated and unjustifiable

        In the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, Puerto Rico is devastated. Instead of easing the way to supply much needed bare necessities to the beleaguered island, US law actually restricts the supply of such goods. In an environment where morons like John Stossell scream "free trade" and the current president manufacturers his own logo gear 4000 miles from the closest non Guamanian resident of the USA, The Jones Act imposes ludicrous restrictions on the simple concept of moving supplies to and from "America's islands" be they states, like Hawaii or Alaska (not an island, but non contiguous) , territories like Guam, or just in limbo like Puerto Rico which can't seem to ever act in its own best interest re: statehood. (another story for another day)

      Passed in 1916, the Jones Act is blatant trade protectionism of the sort we would protest if imposed by another nation. It requires that any aid to Puerto Rico must be sent there in American flagged ships, built in American yards with American crews. This, while seeming to be reasonable in 1916, is onerous and illogical in the light of the massive changes in US merchant marine structures.


      The Jones Act as incepted prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between the US mainland and noncontiguous parts of the US, such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. Foreign ships inbound with goods cannot stop at any of these four locations, offload goods, load mainland-bound goods, and continue to US mainland ports. Although ships can offload cargo and proceed to the US mainland without picking up any additional cargo intended for delivery to the another US place. Usually, they proceed directly to US mainland ports, where distributors break bulk and then send goods to US places off the mainland by US-flagged ships, rather than steam from Hilo to San Francisco (for example) half empty.


       Arizona Sen. John McCain has (correctly) called it "an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made US industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers." Nevertheless, Congress has consistently supported the Jones Act as vital to national security. (note: this in spite of the fact that any "bad guy" can leave a foreign flagged ship in an American port anyway, he just can't ship goods from one port to another. There have been zero instances of actual national security issues related to this situation, but to soothe the brows of American merchant seamen, the Act stands.) Some critics of the Jones Act have pointed to the fact that the Jones Act makes shipping between US ports so expensive that some Hawaiian ranchers actually fly cattle to the mainland rather than having them loaded and shipped on boats.

       Let's examine how this might affect Puerto Rico. In the current case, it means that a British flagged cargo ship bound for Puerto Rico from, say, the port of Miami, cannot take US supplies to the island. At the time of this arcane law's passage, the US had a large merchant fleet of US flagged ships and a thriving shipbuilding industry. Not so these days, as most major carriers build in Asia and flag in third world nations. This, of course, makes all of them ineligible to carry goods from the US to our non contiguous friends in HI, AK, Guam and Puerto Rico. in the same fashion, a cargo vessel headed to New York from Brazil, would be unlikely to divert to San Juan and offload construction materials because the law prevents them from then loading other cargo (say, Bacardi rum?) to refill their holds for the remainder of the trip.

       Stupid law? You bet your ass it is, and right now it is hurting our fellow citizens and Congress has no intention of fixing it. But never mind we'll obsess over taking a knee to take Puerto Rico's mind off its woes.

"For our Freedom?"

        I recently read an excellent piece by a friend who, as I did, served in the military during the Cold War. The gist of the piece involves the difference between one's "patriotic duties" as a person in uniform and that of a civilian member of a civilly aggrieved  minority at a football game. His conclusion was that his responsibility as a man in uniform was different than that of a civilian. He concluded with the observation that, as a white male of the upper middle class, he respects the struggles of those less privileged and supports their right to peaceful protest, compared to say, marching, armed, onto a college campus with bad intent and fomenting physical confrontation culminating in a death. (can you say Charlottesville?)   

        At this juncture, I believe that it  bears mentioning that we in the USA, not uniquely, but in a minority worldwide, have turned ordinary sporting events into shows of what have become almost mawkish patriotic displays. Of course, this is also a manipulation by owners and leagues to spur ticket sales. What I find interesting is that the more inappropriate and ill advised the use and deployment of our military becomes, especially over the last 20 years,  the more a certain segment foams at the mouth and repeats the totally inaccurate "fighting for our freedom" mantra. What a gross inaccuracy that statement represents!

        No single life wasted on Iraq was "fighting for our freedom." In like manner, as Ken Burns is reaffirming in his current PBS Vietnam War series, not one of the 2 million plus (of all combatants) who died in Vietnam was "fighting for our freedom," either.  It is critical to distinguish between what those military personnel were told the were there for and why they were actually sent. Many a brave military member died in a cause for which they had relatively little broad spectrum understanding. Moreover if they had been well schooled in the history of the region, they might well have thought very differently about being there at all.  It is a massive emotional conflict and strongly against human nature to be confronted with the proof that what one did in good faith was in support of a worthless cause. We can see the results of this moral awakening manifested  in the significantly increased number of PTSD cases and suicides among Vietnam and Mid-east  overseas adventure conflict participants.  

        I would be the first to admit that I joined the US Navy in 1964 specifically to avoid getting drafted and sent to Vietnam, a war I already at age 21, felt to be un-justified and ill advised. Why? I was literate and intellectually curious. Yes, it's just that simple. Having seen racial division spawned and amplified by such scum as Strom Thurmond, and having been raised to know better, I was well aware that being lied to by the national government was a real world possibility.

         I think my curiosity re: SE Asia went all the way back to a memory which is as clear today at age 74 as it was at age 8. That recollection is of seeing a newsreel (yeah, they used to show World News before the Saturday double feature westerns, and with a bad serial most times) depicting and commenting on the French army's withdrawal in defeat from "French Indo China." I had no idea what was happening, but, by age nineteen or twenty, I had learned much more. Another part of that was the memory of the Army-McCarthy (rabid anti-Communist rhetoric covering for blatant incompetence) hearings on the television, the only time(s) I can ever recall my mom doing her ironing in the living room, where the gigantic 23 inch TV lived in its 200 pound console.  

        Vietnam is a difficult subject for my generation in general and was a bit uncomfortable to teach to high school juniors, many of whom had relatives who had served in Southeast Asia. The reason? A literate and critically thinking person needs little more than objectivity and, to be transparent, some historical perspective  to see that the entire debacle in southeast Asia was avoidable. Had we made the same overtures to Vietnam (not our enemy in WWII)  that we made to Japan (definitely our enemy) we could have helped Vietnam build a strong friendly economy in the 1950s and saved (literally) millions of lives, Vietnamese and American.

           Anti -Communist hysteria, among men who should have known better, precluded any such overtures. Ho Chi Minh's plea to Harry Truman to "not let the French steal his country back" fell on deaf ears, as the Red Scare mentality was prevalent among  Republicans who had "suffered" 13 years of FDR and were now saddled with the civil rights supporting Harry S. Truman and willing to do or say almost anything to recapture the White House. Truman, facing the certainty that accepting any overture from Ho was political suicide, was forced to turn a deaf ear. What is so frustrating about these events is that our actions directly contradicted our own earlier position statements. The Atlantic Charter, agreed to by Churchill and FDR called for a post war end to colonialism and the self determination of these former colonies. In like manner, the United Nations charter  does, as well. Ho referred to both of these

documents in his February, 1946, telegram to Truman. Truman didn't answer and the rest, as they say, is history.   

        So, before you froth at the mouth and throw about words like "patriotic" duty, try this simple exercise: Consider that the definition is situational, and that loving one's country has little to do with flag or military adventure. Season that with the realization that maybe, just maybe, your flames  of "outrage " are being fanned by a malignant narcissist who is, himself, one of the least patriotic men ever to hold the title of POTUS.

         Not all Presidents are bad men. Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy certainly weren't, yet those three sowed the seeds of the Vietnam war which LBJ liberally watered and Nixon reaped. Political considerations, not "fighting for our freedom" were the basis for every decision they made in that process, just as Bush 43's insane invasion of Iraq was. We can venerate the actions of those who served, either by draft or voluntarily, while accepting that, sometimes, they are, as are all of us, as much political victim as aggressor.  In truth, all these things were done under the Star Spangled Banner. In the here and now, racial and in truth social division also,  is being fueled by another President who is attempting to wrap his white supremacist agenda in the same flag.  The true patriot lives to see his country be better, not worse. "Taking a knee" to acknowledge that the improving nation's well being  is significantly more important than soothing the ego of one orange  man with the IQ of low fat yogurt  is a patriotic act in and of itself.    

Extortion by any Other Name

       With all the continued bullshit  being flung from the Far Right regarding the "expense" of national (single payer) healthcare, here is a sobering statistic: It costs the USA a larger percentage of GDP for the polyglot partial coverage system (we still have millions uninsured) we now have than the UK pays to cover the entire nation. In the UK last year, the total (public and private spending) cost of universal healthcare was 9.9% of GDP. In the USA, that figure was 16.6%. again this is total expenditure, which includes those in the UK who buy supplemental "Cadillac" private insurance plans (far cheaper than the average US coverage, by the way) or have some limited drug copays.

       Isolating just the Government (taxation) borne portion of those figures, it works out to: The British government spends 7.8% of GDP to insure an entire nation, while those citizens who elect to pay for some additional "frills" or have minimal drug copays, pay about an additional 2% of the total. Note that we're talking here about far cheaper drug costs, free cancer medications, etc. The US Government currently spends 8.4% to provide just what limited (Medicare. Medicaid, ACA supplemental premium cost shares) coverage we now have. The American public, via insurers, drug company extortion, grossly overpaid high end doctors, etc, will also spend more than that out of their own pockets.

        In summary, we do less with more, but we trumpet to ourselves how wonderful our system is, while furthering the lies regarding single payer costs. Along the way we always have markedly lower consumer satisfaction than most OECD nations.

       Why? Well, Alice, once upon a time, Pharma companies justified high prices by citing R & D costs. Currently, every major US drug company spends significantly more on advertising and lobbying than on research, and in fact, many new drugs are developed on the Government's dime, the patents bought by private companies and the profits reaped by them.  

        Consider Harvoni, a 90% plus hepatitis  C curative: Developed at Emory University by a University researcher with an NIH grant, under current law said professor was allowed to patent it, did so, and sold it to Gilead Pharmaceuticals  for $400 million. Your cost in the US? around $40,000 if insurance will cover it. Same drug in India? $900. In the US, however, Medicare/Medicaid pays the full $94,000 price tag, thanks to a 2006 law prohibiting Medicare/Medicaid from negotiating lower drug prices while private  insurance companies can, and do.  

        In like manner, consider  Taxol: The federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — much of the work being done by  university researchers  and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community has hailed it as "promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer." (it has proven to be just that)

        Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the General Accounting Office report released today. The National Institutes of Health have received just $35 million in royalties from Bristol-Myers, however. Bristol did not discover the drug. The federal government did — with taxpayer dollars — and then negotiated a licensing agreement with the pharmaceutical giant. For the math challenged, that amounts to a .3% return on investment, but in fairness, unlike Harvoni, which is relatively inexpensive to produce, Taxol is actually a labor intensive drug to produce. All this of course, begs the question of when should price determine who lives and who dies? 

        So, taxpayers footed a very large part of the original bill and now those who use Taxol are paying a second time. The Medicare program alone paid nearly $700 million over a five-year period, to buy a drug the government helped develop. Meanwhile, as Medicare/Medicaid pay the asking price, the actual compound Paclitaxel, can be found, where national  health services negotiate price, for about 10% of that figure.

      The extortion referred to in the title of this post refers to the heinous Big Pharma (US) practice of slamming the most vulnerable of us (those with Hep C, Cancers of all sorts, MS, etc) with abusive price structures, knowing that the desire to be cured will, in most cases, outweigh the outrage such pricing merits. 

     What many don't know is that their insurer has already negotiated a far lower cost figure, leaving those on Medicare to pay a cost share of the full asking price. This is the result of Bush 43's desire to create a Medicare Drug plan legacy (part D) which was an honorable intent. The devil, however was in the details, and those details were represented by the (literally) billions spent by lobbyists to make damned sure that Uncle Sam would pay full asking price. Consequently, we are where we are today.

       Any Epi-pen user on almost any insurance plan can get, either with their insurers' lower negotiated price or even more bizarre, with a half price coupon actually issued by the manufacturer, a two pack at a much lower price than the recently elevated $600.  Meanwhile, while the Veteran's Administration, unbound by the part D law, gets them for $150, Medicare/Medicaid are mandated to pay the full $600 list price, no questions asked. 

          Angry yet? You should be.

About Credibility

Just in general and as an observation and opinion, not specifically aimed at any particular person, I find some interesting relationships between experience and opinion.

       As an example, I usually read several Facebook pages related to former military service,  in my case it was the submarine force for just about 1/3 of my life. It would appear that there is an inverse correlation between actual amount of service, and the belief that said service confers, simply by being there, expertise in areas that are actually unrelated. Foreign policy and politics in general are cases in point.  This also plays out when someone forwards a scurrilous , usually derogatory e-mail quoting some retired Officer. The inference is that his opinion matters or has validity just because he was an officer. Based on recent very senior officers whose careers have crashed and burned because of their human frailties, and in one very recent case, illicit activities while in uniform, that assertion needs to be questioned. This is especially true, it seems, in retired, or less than career,  pilots. Unless they were assigned a staff billet involving foreign policy, their career was about driving a plane, not a nation, yet there is no shortage of spam e-mails floating around citing the foreign policy and domestic opinions of former pilots, usually also  using their cutesy pooh  nicknames. One that comes to mind has the call sign of "Hands." This has an almost ominous sound to it, like "uncle feely hands."

       This is analogous to assuming a good businessman makes a good President, a canard being proven more fallacious every day.

       Similarly, there are people out there who were in the military for 4 of 6 years, and assume that it conferred genius upon them. It would be of interest to learn why they left, since they constantly refer to it as if it were the apogee of their adult life, yet they quit. Go figure.

        It also seems that the shorter the service, the more the term "Patriot" gets thrown about. With some, but too  few, exceptions, the most patriotic Americans would seem to be those redneck retrogrades who can't even pass the standards to enlist, but are uber-patriotic. While wrapping themselves in the flag which many of us served and respected, these bastard children of Momma June and the entire Duck Dynasty clan, hurl invective, and sometimes their vehicles,  at civilized persons who actually can, and do, read before declaring their opinions.

       I recently read a rather long and rambling  apologia which essentially proclaimed that everything done by the current POTUS is justified and justifiable. Reasons cited ranged from - "God chose him," to "He'll make America great again."   If these naive morons had been to the places in the world I've been the past several years, they'd know that the man has destroyed what was an almost universally high opinion of the US, based on the previous 8 years under Barack Obama. Whether they like it or not (they don't), The US needs to be a citizen of the world, not the class bully.  

Examples of this irrational cognitive shit storm include, but aren't limited to, several examples;

Far rightists went crazy when Loretta Lynch had a face to face in plain sight on an airport tarmac, but when Trump releases only a few of the lists of political guests at Mar A Lago, apparently preferring to do the nation's business far from the open.....oh well (shrug)

While we're on Mar A Lago. If Trump continues playing golf at the current rate, he will have played far more and at an astronomically greater cost than his predecessor. Far rightists screamed about Obama's golf, which course he was usually driven to in a car, but the millions on AF One flying to Fl for the weekend? No problem.

Some whined because the former President's mother in Law stayed at the White House. That required one extra secret service billet. Meanwhile Trump has 42  family members who "require" Secret Service coverage to the point that there is insufficient money budgeted to cover it even without the Mar A Lago trips. In total, Trump is using 1/3 more persons and far more money. From the right, who scream about government spending? Crickets.

You want to be a legit pundit? Read. Then read some more. Read real history and real news, not tainted by the far right or left. Note: That leaves everything claimed to have been written by (he didn't) Bill O'Reilly off the list. He taught history for one semester out of field (he has a BA in English) in high school. I taught history in field  for 20 years, some at a College level,  and I don't call myself a historian like O'Reilly does. Look at one of his books, if you were dumb enough to buy it, and check out the smaller name on the cover. That's the real author.

  Leave your religious beliefs out of political considerations. They make you stupidly fatuous, because they're not based on data or the real world. Tend to your soul as you will, but leave me alone.

Never watch Fox News

Bookmark "Politifact" on your computer. Although the parent company is conservative (Gannett) the child is media neutral, dealing in one commodity - fact.   

  Get off the "Liberal Media Bias" bullshit wagon. There is no vast conspiracy as Fox and others claim.

 There are only two things wrong with the conservative whiners' plaint that the NY Times is the harbinger of great liberal influence. First, there is the fact that the Times (print) circulation is read by two-tenths of one percent of our population. Statistically, 99.8% never read it!  Additionally the Times circulation is exceeded by twice by the Wall St. Journal (read "Rupert Murdoch"); and also by USA Today-- owned by media giant Gannett. No "liberal" advantage here.

Disbelieve most talk radio. Here the conservative complaint is not only without basis of fact -- they are treading on thin ice because talk radio is massively dominated by conservative hosts. Bill Press in his carefully documented work "Toxic Talk"  refers to a Center for American Progress survey (done a couple of years ago) indicating that:

Of 257 top news-talk stations, ninety-one percent of the programming was conservative. Each weekday 2570 hours of programming was conservative; 254 hours progressive

In the top ten radio markets, seventy-six percent of the programming is conservative.

 Gannett, demonstrably conservative/centrist  owns 82 U.S. daily newspapers, including USA TODAY, reaching 11.6 million readers every weekday, the nation's No. 1 newspaper in print circulation.  The Broadcasting Division’s 23 TV stations reach 21 million households, covering 18.2 percent of the U.S. population

Hearst: One of the world's largest  publishers of magazines; 20 U.S. titles, 300 international editions; 20 Business Information services; and 29 television plus two radio stations is also conservative/centrist.

Then there are other media giants like Time Warner, Viacom--  and the NBC network, now owned by the big daddy of them all; Comcast. Comcast is the largest media conglomerate in the world with over $60 Billion in annual revenue; and multi billions in profit. A liberal mouthpiece? Hardly. Of course, to some of those who will read this,  anyone not wrapped in a flag, carrying a Klan membership card and an AK-47 and screaming racist/sexist epithets while blinded by their own snot, is liberal. So sad.     

More Michelle Malkin Venom

       I have made my personal distaste for Michelle Malkin known several times based on some of the worst op-ed screeds ever written, but today's column ("There is No Such Thing as a 'Deserving" DREAMER' " sets a new low standard for objectivity and truthfulness, especially the latter. Michelle Malkin has, with this column , knocked Ann Coulter off her "Nastiest female Arsehole in America" pedestal. ("You know who" still sits atop the male throne).

      To begin with, she takes a number of quotes from non-Dreamers politicians and others, which use the term "deserves" to describe those in the program. She then ascribes the use of the word without distinction to the persons actually in the program, as if they so characterize themselves. She goes on to take quotes from some " Dreamers" in which they express their concerns for their future if the DACA is cancelled. Along the way she repeatedly uses the word "unconstitutional" to describe the actions of President Barack Obama, whom she loathes, in signing the executive order in the first place. She has no justification nor gives any for that characterization.

       At this point she has made no mention of the hoops which Dreamers are required to negotiate to retain that status, while citing the number of Americans who are unemployed, with the unspoken inference that Dreamers are "takin' our jobs."

      At the heart of the matter, she completely omits the thing which makes Dreamers different. That is they are here, almost universally, without having any say as to how they got here. 

       The requirements for DACA eligibility are: Must have been brought to the USA before the age of 16 (many, if not most, were much younger) and have lived here since 2017. Note the word "brought" as in didn't illegally enter of their own volition, many being babes in arms and in the vast majority of cases under the age of ten. They must also: be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or obtained a general development certificate (GED), or be an honorably discharged veteran, while not having been convicted of a felony or multiple or serious misdemeanors and not pose a "threat to national security or public safety." Dreamers are able to apply to defer deportation and legally reside in the US for two years. After that, they can apply for renewal. By March 31, 240,700 people had applied for renewal in the 2017 fiscal year and nearly 800,000 renewals had been approved over the life of the program.

       Malkin's inference , scattered throughout the op-ed piece, is that these persons are, somehow, children of a lesser God and a drain on our society, taking jobs Americans seek, using welfare, increasing crime rates and not contributing to society. At this juncture, were I a writer with the lack of scruples and journalistic integrity exhibited by Michelle Malkin, I would choose three or four outstanding Dreamers, or even the hundreds currently serving in the US Armed Services and extrapolate to the entire 800,000.

     Malkin has done the reverse, citing one Dreamer who became a violent criminal with the implication that it is characteristic of the group as a whole. Obviously stats was not her favorite course at Oberlin, where she matriculated and which instution she has since bashed at every turn. By Michelle Malkin's standard, Jesus Contreras, the young Dreamer EMT who was so heroic in Houston during hurricane Harvey, is either non-existent or is exemplary of them all.

       Since I believe truth and data outweighs innuendo and aspersion, here are some well documented facts regarding DACA participants by category of Malkin allegation:

        Crime: Factcheck.Org noted that "numerous studies have found that immigrants (not Dreamers), do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants." (full report here: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/ ) Of course criminal activity disqualifies a Dreamer in any case, again a fact Malkin "forgets!"

       Economic impact: Best available estimates are that 91% of DACA recipients – or roughly 700,000 individuals – are currently working, and these workers can be found on the payrolls of 72% of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies. A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics also found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution. The study estimates that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment. (full report here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716301268 )

       According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that the U.S. economy is close to full employment. Additionally The CATO Institute estimated that ending DACA would have an adverse fiscal impact by reducing tax revenue by nearly $280 billion over a decade (remember, working Dreamers pay Income Tax) , and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade. Another recent study estimated that that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years. While pointing out that the majority of Dreamers are working to better themselves and prepare for the jobs which many unemployed Americans either don't, won't or can't perform. Malkin also implies that Dreamers are or can be a drain on resources such as welfare, when the opposite is the case.

        While it is true that DACA participants recipients can participate in Social Security and Medicare, Malkin conveniently omits that the age of benefits for both programs is 65 or over, by which time the Dreamer will have paid into both for at least 34 years after becoming a citizen and as many as 15 years prior. Lower Income DACA recipients may claim earned income tax credit, but only if they have paid in in the first place. They are still ineligible, however, for most forms of welfare including food stamps and Medicaid. As a cohort, Dreamers over the age of 25 are more than twice as likely to start a new business than the national average, according to a survey from the Center for American Progress (CAP).

       The same survey found that more than 90 percent of Dreamers over the age of 25 are currently employed, and, on average, they work 40 hours a week and earn an annual income of $37,000. As a point of interest, (to me, not Malkin) that annual single earner average income is above the 2017 poverty level for a family of four. More than 98 percent of them speak English, and more than 70 percent of them are pursuing (or have attained) a bachelor’s degree. Since the initiative was signed, these young people have increased their college enrollment, found better jobs, and earned more money.

       Health and Education: All studies in these areas indicate zero negative economic impact due to DACA, although, mental health experts cite the stress and loss of family cohesion if Dreamer parents (eligibility extends to age 31, at which time it's citizenship or leave) are deported and citizen children are left to the care of others.

        Immigration: In 2016 study in International Migration found that DACA did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America. In 2015 the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report assessing the reasons behind the surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America. The report did not mention DACA, and cited crime and lack of economic opportunity in countries of origin as the main reasons behind the surge. As an aside, it should have been noted (but is intentionally omitted by Ms. Malkin) that the DACA is irrelevant to current recent entry undocumenteds anyway since they would have to have been here for ten years and under 16 on arrival.

       In summary: Michelle Malkin makes numerous inferences about participants in the DACA and the act itself which are demonstrably incorrect. She harps on the assertion that Dreamers claim to be "deserving" while in fact all examples of statements to that effect were quoted from citizens, politicians and non politicians alike. She implies negative impact on the economy, welfare and social support systems, crime rates, health and education, yet there are none. Michelle Malkin is a liar, and a bigot.

       This strikes me as very odd, in the sense that as the child of Filipino parents who were here on employer sponsored work Visas (also a "special" deal for immigrants, yes, in a sense she was an "anchor baby") and for whom America has become the land of economic success and opportunity, she certainly dislikes others who simply seek an opportunity to achieve the same good life with which she was gifted. She went to a parochial school in Philadelphia followed by Oberlin College, where her attitudes managed to disenchant practically everyone who knew her.

       Michelle Malkin, an attractive Filipina externally, is a truly ugly person inside, where it matters.

Giving until it hurts - Not!

          An Op-Ed cartoon in a recent  issue of our daily rag  shows a facsimile of a check for $1 million made out to "Hurricane Harvey relief" signed Donald J. Trump with the title above ballyhooing  "Empathy Illustrated." Several things leap out at the critical observer.

First, the only reason anyone would stress this as a display of empathy would be if the person in question had been questioned or criticized for lack of same.

        Second, only someone of low intelligence (or a political cartoonist pandering to such persons) would confuse the public and publicized giving of money with the human emotion we call empathy. First off, empathy is an emotion whose definition isn't really the right words to describe a charitable donation. The act of giving to aid others is "compassion," which is in truth, another human attribute of which DJT is incapable.

  Empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

Compassion:  sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

If this confuses you, consider the recent edict declaring that DACA would end in six months. Clearly this is not a compassionate action, and equally obvious is that Trump has no ability to consider the plight of (empathize with) the "Dreamers" from their perspective. In fact his sole apparent reason for cancelling the Act is because it was enacted by Barack Obama.

Third, the reason Mr. Trump did what he claims to have done is almost certainly because  someone on his dwindling staff told him he needed to.   

Finally, the sacrifice involved in personal giving, based on perceiving the need of others, regardless the cause, is what demonstrates empathy, and the most personal sacrifices are frequently anonymous. The giving itself demonstrates  compassion.

Many Americans of (all) faiths  regularly give 1/10 of their annual income anonymously in support of  good works and, unfortunately, sometimes to frauds, as well. An average Villages resident giving $100 to Hurricane relief, based on the average Villages family income will have donated about .2% of a year's income to this cause. Oddly enough this represents almost exactly the percentage of a year's income, donated with fanfare and Fox News hurrahs, as Mr. Trump's $1 million. It should be mentioned that Trump gives nothing regularly to any religious organization. Additionally, the $100 represents far more sacrifice to the average donor than the money Mr. Trump claims to have donated represents to him or his lifestyle.  

We never see or hear of Bill and Melinda Gates trumpeting their good works, yet they, through their foundation, every year since its establishment, have donated 4,200 times as much in direct grants to worthy causes as Mr. Trump's one time donation.

Ain't We Got Fun

       Went to the supermarket this morning to get something we really needed - toilet tissue. The store was jammed with shoppers who apparently had never thought about storm supplies until a Cat 5 hurricane jogged their interest.

      It was almost amusing seeing the frustration of those who came to buy what their kitchen tap dispenses almost for free, when they were greeted by the "out of water" sign. Apparently it has never occurred to them to simply buy plastic containers in the 2 or 3 gallon size and fill them. The water simply will not spoil....ever. I know of one person who has a spa who was worried about having enough water to flush the john. Our small spa is 250 gallons, which will get rid of a lot of "stuff."

        In the midst of this I was reminded of another horrific John Stossel column, this one from Sunday, September 3rd entitled "Price Increases After Storms Serve Purpose."   After seeing the title, I simply couldn't help myself. I had to see what the brain damaged "free market" whore had written this time.

        First he derided Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton  for decrying "price gouging" during Hurricane Harvey. Yes, that's what I said; he was critical of Paxton's  opinion that price gouging during  a crisis is immoral. The examples cited by the AG  included a case of water raised to $99, and $5 dollar per gallon gas.

       Stossel, on the other hand thinks these are good things. Here is the moron in his own words, "Prices should rise during emergencies. Price changes save lives. That's because prices aren't just money - they are information."

Stossel, ever the apostle of Adam Smith's 250 year old and very simplistic economic theory, goes on to say that raising prices keeps the first customers from buying out supplies and leaves more for others. He continues with, "But if the store owner can charge $99 per case for water, you will buy less water and other customers will get what they need." He finishes with reminding us that it's simple supply and demand, and we should love it.

        And you know what? Stossel  is correct in his assertions with one logical hole through which the Spruce Goose could fly (if it weren't in a museum on Oregon): This statement is true for a steady state economy with normal fluctuations in both sides of the equation. Equating normal market operations with conditions such as the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in Houston and environs is criminally stupid. It also holds up Stossel up for what he is, the Rush Limbaugh of economics.

        In an emergency situation, and with a life critical resource such as water, persons like Stossel will always be ok, they're rich. He doesn't care about $99 per case water for two reasons. First, he can afford it no matter the cost and second, he doesn't live in a flooded neighborhood with no water supply and no income. Stossel has no empathetic connection with the paycheck to paycheck worker for whom a "spare" $99 for a case of water is a pipe dream. He also has demonstrated, in previous op-ed drivel, that he has no concern for them. His rants on free market health care have shown this to be the case numerous times. The economic and survival plights of victims of Harvey are, seemingly, of no interest  to Stossel, as long as those capitalists for whom he  shamelessly shills can make an even bigger buck out of the misfortunes of the disadvantaged. 

       Water on the shelves was already priced so that both bottler and distributor could fulfill the stated goal of the modern corporation: make a good return for shareholders.  In "Stossel World" this would be facilitated even further by the total absence of more modern regulations, incepted  to insure we don't return to the bad old days of Morgan, Rockefeller and Gould, monopolists, market conspirators and accumulators of fortunes built on usurious business practices in the free for all, "screw the consumer" America of the late 1800s. Stossel's repetitious, "unregulated  free market" theme  reminds me of the post WWI Gus Kahn and Richard Whiting  song with the verse, "There's nothing surer, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. In the mean time, in between times, ain't we got fun.?"

       No, not if we're in Houston and playing by Stossel rules, "we ain't."         

Not his Children!

Lindsey Graham proud of Trump's decision: 'The gloves are off inside of Afghanistan'

Of course he is, since neither he or Trump or any of their children wil be killed in military action in the region.

Since the mid 1800s, some group in Afghanistan has been at war with either themselves or outsiders for about 50 years total. The Brits failed to subdue the region as did the Soviets.

We never seem to learn. We supported the very people we now are fighting from 1979-1992. Short of waging genocidal war in the entire nation, this is a fool's mission. Political regimes come and go, but religious fanaticism respects no timeline which can be imposed by external pressure. Afghanistan will only be pacified again when Afghanis reject mutually destructive internecine sectarian hatred.

If we look to history for western examples of this sort of fanatic religious intolerance, consider the Thirty Years' War, Ireland (terrorism involved), the Hugenot wars in France, the Crusades, The Meadow Mountain massacre, English Civil War, and the list goes on. Low estimates for the deaths attributable directly to these conflicts top 10 million. Apparently it's only really, really, evil when non-Christians are involved, huh?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/lindsey-graham-proud-trumps-decision-gloves-are-off-inside-afghanistan.html