On Privatization

Privatization

       We hear a lot these days about the (potential) benefits of privatization of (name it) in a slew of areas. While there is no “one size fits all” definitive answer regarding these benefits, one thing becomes clear in the literature, that being that the point of view of the writer, rather than data, often determines the conclusion. This is evident in the wildly divergent natterings of leftists like Noam Chomsky and radically conservative writers such as Michelle Malkin. Neither, presumably is able to meld either philosophies or opinions with the well being of the body politic in the balance.

        I said all that to say this. Privatization without adequate legal and specific oversight has the potential for several ills, moral, personal and national.

        I listed moral first, because it’s so easy to address. Two words “Blackwater Security.”  The following is self-explanatory, excerpted from a 2007 article by Peter Singer, a senior fellow with the non-profit  (and centrist) New America think tank.

        "On Sept. 16, 2007, a convoy of Blackwater contractors guarding State Department employees entered a crowded square near the Mansour district in Baghdad, Iraq. Employees from the firm would later claim they were attacked by gunmen and responded within the rules of engagement, fighting their way out of the square after one of their vehicles was disabled.

      Iraqi police and witnesses instead report that the contractors opened fire first, shooting at a small car driven by a couple with their child that did not get out of the convoy’s way as traffic slowed. At some point in the 20-minute gunfight, Iraqi police and army forces stationed in watchtowers above the square also began firing. Other Iraqi security forces and Blackwater quick-reaction forces soon reportedly joined the battle. There are also reports that one Blackwater employee may even have pointed his weapon at his fellow contractors, in an effort to get them to cease firing. (consider that a moment)……. The only thing agreed upon is the consequences.

        After a reported 20 Iraqi civilians were killed, including the couple and their child, who was subsequently burned to the mother’s body after the car caught fire, the Iraqi government and populace exploded with anger………Despite its mission of guarding U.S. officials in Iraq, Blackwater had no license with the Iraqi government. Secondly, the murky legal status of the contractors meant they might be considered exempt from Iraqi law.

       The Blackwater mess has roiled Capitol Hill and shined light on the many questions surrounding the legal status, management, oversight and accountability of the private military force in Iraq, which numbers more than 160,000 — at least as many as the total number of uniformed American forces there. The debate will heat up again Tuesday with hearings by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The problem is, some of the most critical questions may yet go unasked.

       I’ve done a decade’s worth of research and writing on the military’s use of private contractors, including hundreds of interviews and discussions with everyone from employees of private military firms to active and retired soldiers, ranging from four-star generals down to line infantry. I have reported my findings to audiences including the U.S. military, the CIA and the State Department. Although I’ve been approached with multiple offers (as well as varied threats) from those in the private military industry, I am not paid either to lobby for the industry or to attack it, and the findings in this report are my own.

          When we evaluate the facts, the use of private military contractors appears to have harmed, the counterinsurgency efforts of the U.S. mission in Iraq, going against our best doctrine and undermining critical efforts of our troops. Even worse, the government can no longer carry out one of its most basic core missions: to fight and win the nation’s wars. Instead, the massive outsourcing of military operations has created a dependency on private firms like Blackwater that has given rise to dangerous vulnerabilities.”

        Secondly, consider the consequences possible for many ordinary citizens if, for example, Bush 43 then, or Paul Ryan (today) had succeeded in privatizing Social Security. Without any actual details of what such a plan might look like there are multiple scenarios. The most common one proposed would be entirely handing off Social Security to Wall Street.

        This would eliminate Social Security taxes and require instead employees contribute to their private retirement account. This is a zero-sum condition for the employee, who sees the smaller paycheck either way. This also assumes that every such employee will either 1) Be financially savvy enough to personally handle their own investment portfolio or 2) Select a financial advisor who, like Caesar’s wife, is “above reproach.”

        Both options are fraught with “what ifs?”  As a personal example: My wife was an employee of a major hospital corporation which offered employees a retirement 401K “ish” plan in which the employee had a wide range of options for managing their personal contributions. The company even offered a generous 25% matching for contributions.

        The new system was incepted in 2004 and we immediately began participation (I mean, who doesn’t like depositing $4 dollars and getting $1 more “free?”) The plan offered a wide range of Mutual funds and a very low interest money market account. The money market account’s return was actually less that Social Security for the same amount!

        After consideration and discussion (I have a business Master’s degree and was certified to teach economics) we opted for a fairly conservative family of mutual funds, and were pleasantly rewarded with slow, but steady growth. At this time, however, since all fund performance data was available to participants, I noted that one sector was generating in excess of 25% annual return on investment (ROA). We talked and considered, thankfully keeping contributions where they were. This scenario is analogous to the proposed privatization scheme….with one exception: whereas we were skeptical about the sustainability of such a high ROA, many would have chosen to put their retirement funds lock stock and barrel into this “too good to be true” investment.

        Now, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, “For the rest of the story.”  The high return fund in question was the Bear-Stearns Real Estate Trust. Even without specific information available to those limned in “The Big Short” it just seemed “too good to be true.”  And it was. In January 2004, the trust was at $78 per share, and the “bundling” of high risk mortgages masquerading as cash had just started, Bear-Stearns leading the way.

       At this point remember, even a financial advisor more interested in the percentage of return he would earn from managing privatized accounts might well have put clients into this fund also. By January 2006, (Wife still working, both still watching) the fund was at $170/share. Still seemed odd, we stood pat. In April 2008, the excreta entered the ventilation, and leading the implosion and crash of the housing bubble were our old friends, Bear-Stearns. Share prices (if they could have sold any) were below $5/share. For the math impaired here’s an example.

        Assuming an employee really socking it away had managed to amass shares worth, in January 2006, $500,000, and planned to retire in January 2008 using the money for (whatever, buy retirement home, a boat, you name it). When the dust settled in early 2008, and the retiree was forced to withdraw funds, being no longer employed, the half a mil would look more like $14,000. At the same period, regardless of how we critique it, Social Security recipients continued receiving their calculated amount. And’ oh’ by the way, The Trust was dissolved, Bear- Stearns sold and no one recovered jack shit! Privatization would have been absolutely disastrous for many Americans. 

        Finally, These same conditions, as anyone alive and breathing in 2008 were of national consequence as well as individual. Why? Because, unlike what the current administration would like us to believe, regulation of financial markets in the public interest isn’t a “bad thing, neither are reasonable asset requirements required for loans, private or corporate.”  The Housing Bubble collapse triggered the Great Recessions which, 5 or 6 years later, we finally climbed out of. It mattered not if one was "in" the market or, there was more than enough misery to go around. 

         Regardless of whining from Wall street and the administration, the Dodd -Frank package of financial market regulation bills was aimed at preventing the recurrence of such a fiasco. So, ask yourself  why the Trump administration is seemingly dead set on loosening such consumer safeguards it provides. Look no further that Steve Mnuchin, SecTreasury. Former job description – CEO of Goldman-Sachs, yet one more corporate entity severely wounded by the collapse. Wouldn’t you think that having had this happen once would be a red flag to the rest of the industry? 

       You wouldn’t if you knew that as bad as the Recession was for the average American, most high officials of the investment banks which led the hogs to the “bad mortgage” trough came through perhaps a bit poorer, but largely unscathed. It is reminiscent of a scene in Mel Brooks’ film History of The World, Part I. Set in the Roman Senate, a discussion occurs regarding conditions in Rome, and one individual asks, “What about the poor?” To which after a momentary pause, they reply, with one voice, “F*** the poor!” One can almost see Paul Ryan in a toga.

        Putting that amount of money (Social Security sized amounts) in private hands may well lead to simple too much temptation and too little oversight. What does that look like?

        Let’s finish with a brief story about Angelo Mozilo. Who? Mozilo, the perpetually over-tanned (!) son of a butcher from the Bronx, co-founded Countrywide Financial in 1969. He built it into an unstoppable mortgage machine that made it easy — evidently too easy — for millions to own a home. (note, I actually know persons who attempt to shift the blame for bad loans onto the Clinton administration for encouraging banks to lend to qualified borrowers instead of racially profiling as was not uncommon well into the 1990s.)   

        Under Mozilo, Countrywide pumped out thousands  of complex mortgages to people who couldn't afford them — and often didn't understand them. These would be - you know-  those same, often economically unsophisticated, folks whose life savings Paul Ryan wants to entrust to guys like Mozilo?

         One product, an adjustable-rate mortgage known as a pay-option ARM, gave borrowers the option of making small payments in some months, or even skipping some payments altogether. Who wouldn’t love that, huh? Many borrowers ended up owing more than their houses were worth, resulting in countless foreclosures. The borrowers simply did not understand the risks involved with the mortgages and Countrywide simply did not tell them.

        Of course, as it turns out, Countrywide didn't worry much about what happened after the mortgage was signed because it packaged most of the loans together and shipped them off to Wall Street, a process known as securitization. Again under-regulated, bundles such these, many of which included toxic mortgage loans were certified by rating organizations such as Moody’s or Dun and Bradstreet, in competition for business, as AA or even AAA when what they deserved was a C or D rating at most. (Read The Big Short).

        Countrywide sold or securitized 87% of the $1.5 trillion in mortgages it originated between 2002 and 2005, according to the final report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a bipartisan federal committee charged with investigating the causes of the meltdown. "Ambition and arrogance made Countrywide offer to the market a product that was inferior," said Jonathan Adams, senior analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. "They did the market a terrible service."

        So, think about this the next time someone suggests that private does it better. One last shot. For all the flak Ryan throws at Medicare, both the Kaiser foundation and Johns Hopkins researchers state that far from inefficient, Medicare does more with less than comparable services from private healthcare carriers. I’m just sayin’.

With all due respect, a compendium of the things we say, literally without thinking, all the time. I know, right?

       There are some trite expressions which too many of us use too frequently. Some are self-contradictory and some just plain gibberish or, at best, far off the mark of the intended concept or trope.

“Everything happens for a reason”:  Well of course that’s correct, but the phrase is most commonly used to explain away- why something has happened for which a reason is absent or unexplained by normal reasoning. This is sometimes just bewildering but, more often than not, simply maudlin, as in “Well the leukemia killed her, but everything happens for a reason!”  Makes one wonder, huh? (unless your particular deity likes to watch kids die.)

“Judge not lest ye be judged”: The corollary to this in the more modern idiom is “Don’t judge me” The former, of course, has its roots in Biblical “wisdom”, but think about how truly f****d up our lives would or could be if we didn’t make judgement calls, about the actions of others or choices we are faced with, oh, I don’t know, about every five minutes or so. Of course, this would also obviate essentially every legal system in history, as well as probably make for some truly damaging relationships if followed to the letter.

        The second version is usually said right after some either heinous or stupid action for which the actor is deeply shamed. Obviously, this was aimed at those whose behavior was questionable to the degree that they might not stand close scrutiny of their own behavior. Once again, if we fail to judge the actions of others, the rule of law vanishes.  

“With all due respect.”:  This oldie but not so goodie just won’t go away, will it? Usually used in a context something like, “Biff, with all due respect, you’re an asshole” There’s damned little respect to be had therein and none was intended, so just stop it.

"If someone would have told me a decade ago that in 10 years I'd be doing (whatever is happening when the conversation is transpiring), I would never have believed it." This assumes that it is a normal conversational convention for people to casually predict the future. If you met someone who said, "In 18 years you'll drive a yellow sedan that was manufactured in New Mexico." You would excuse yourself from the conversation and head for the nearest exit.

"That is really (absolutely, totally) unique.": There are no modifiers necessary for an absolute. “More uniquer” can’t exist, because that which is unique, is. Period.

“I was “literally” floored (awed, wiped out etc.)”: Either what you described happened precisely as you stated it and the word “literally” is wasted, or you are using a metaphor in which case literally is diametrically incorrect. If you are really tired and “literally drained” then, either Dracula slept over or, most probably, you misused the term. More examples: As stated, the first is when it's already clearly believable, as in- "Usually it takes me 20 minutes to get to work, but today it took me literally- literally, 35 minutes with traffic."- no one was going to ask you if you meant that figuratively, Sparky.  Secondly, and more ludicrous, is when people use "literally" when it isn't literal, as in, "my jaw literally hit the floor when I heard the news.".  So, you said, "literally" but should have said “figuratively.”

“Sadder but wiser” – This one is a bit different, in that one can actually be sadder and one can be wiser as well. The problem is that, statistically, those who through their own sheer “stupidity” are frequently “sadder”, all too rarely ever actually become even the tiniest bit “wiser.”

Here are some more, shortlisted in the interest of space:

“I, personally…”    Oh? Would that be as opposed to the collective you?”

“I know, right?”   I got nuthin’ here, it just makes anyone saying it sound like a 14year-old.

“At this moment in time.”   Oh, I get it, you meant “Now?”

Personal inverse fave of this type:

 “Whatever” frequently pronounced as two words with the accent on the “ever.” Of course, the implication is varied, but, more often than not, means, “I don’t care.”  Just once (or perhaps twice) I’d like to see some young, snotty, dweeb of either gender say this and from behind the curtain comes the Spanish Inquisition. “Aha! No one expects the Spanish inquisition!” Try saying “what-everrr” with a hot poker up your bum, heretic swine!

 Moving on a bit: Sports seems to have a trite idiom generator used by the “color Guys” in the booth. I’ll highlight a few of the most egregious examples of the genre.

“They Were Just the Better Team Today/They Wanted It More”

I doubt that we can really quantify “want” as a factor in and of itself. Using this expression almost makes it seem that the loser has a “want” deficit, when in fact the other team may just be superior athletes.

“The football”, The “basketball” (and, sometimes, “The baseball”)

It seems that many (most) announcers in these three American sports decided at some time in the past, that fans watching may forget which sporting event they’re watching. Other sports’ announcers don’t speak of “The hockey puck”, “The tennis ball”, or “The soccer ball. If you’re watching a bowling tournament, it’s highly likely they’re using bowling balls, capiche?

Points of View

        I asked an acquaintance, an ardent Trump supporter, to provide some examples of what the current POTUS had done so far to make America better, never mind “Great Again. In my original question I also mentioned Trump’s race “issues.” 

       This person alleges that Trump has been subjected to more negative criticism than “any other President.” As a historian I let that drop, knowing better, but time constrained. I ended by pointing out that much of what is said about the current POTUS is direct response to his specific actions or, more to the point, his own controversial “tweets.” I then posed the question “What did Barack Obama do or say to precipitate the landslide of negativity he got from the far Right?

Here, edited only for brevity or clarity is the response:

________________________________________

        “He became the President. Again, you generalize the people and you really don't know me as a person as you keep say you in all your statements. (sic) You weren't there for the many thing you say he's accused of doing you do the same as every other liberal, you watch the news and only bring up Obama. I never brought up the things he did like give the Mexican Cartels M 16 rifles that all the idiot liberals call assault rifles and don't even know what AR stands for. I don't give a damn what freaking color the skin is I told you before I was raised by a colored (sic) Lady through my teen years lived in Brownsville Brooklyn, NY and know racism comes from both sides of the fence and Obama did to race relations just what your (sic)) doing caused more hate and dissension between whites and all other races with just what you do and say in your posts.”  (?)

________________________________________

   

       Again, apparently by his existence, with no other overt examples, Barack Obama destroyed race relations in America. Fast and Furious was a failed attempt, but Obama was simply there when it failed. It wasn’t his idea. Should Eric Holder have been held accountable? Probably so. But I digress.

       This is my response. It’s admittedly long, but there is much to say to attempt to fill the void of ignorance with responsible commentary vice partisan rhetoric, so here goes:

       “Obama as President did nothing “to” racial harmony in America other than to personify grace under pressure. The reaction of white supremacists, however did. Obama did, or said, nothing that was (or should have been perceived as) any racially divisive. If, however, one sees pointing out three times the incarceration rate for precisely the same type of minor drug charges for Blacks Vs Whites as racially biased (Read “the New Jim Crow”), then that's another story. Obama decried racial violence in every single instance. Trump says there are "good people on both sides." (direct quote) when one side drives cars into crowds of peaceful demonstrators. I see a difference you apparently don't see. Likewise, Trump minimizes Puerto Ricans' concerns while sending huge resources to Texas. Again, I see a difference, you apparently don't. I see Obama trying to protect national parks and monuments, I then see Trump undo them. Because it was wrong? Hardly. Far more likely is that it was undone just because Obama did it.

         Of even more consequence to all of us, I see the regulatory attempts to preclude another recession caused by Wall Street's unfettered greed (read The Big Short) being overturned in favor of Trump's Goldman- Sachs buddies. How anyone who has ever borrowed as a middle-income American can think otherwise is simply astounding. Every economic effort of the Trump administration, so far, has been aimed at allowing more freedom for big investment banks to replay the conditions of 2007-2009. After that crash, they were bailed out, even though they were in trouble due to their own unregulated greed, yet Trump has declared that Dodd-Frank (the series of laws to protect consumers and avoid a 2008 re-run) are targets to be undone. This the mystery to me: Almost everything Trump has done is of little or no benefit to working Americans, and if he had his way, many more protections would go. It's almost like a national Stockholm syndrome.

        While you (addressing my correspondent) may well not be a racist, many if not most, Trump supporters clearly are. Steve Bannon, Trump's initial principal advisor is a self-proclaimed white nationalist (and former Goldman-Sachs sales guy) He was fired because of his too frequent public statements on the subject.

        I get that the phrase "Make America great Again" resonates. It just sounds good, like "chocolate." As a historian and economics teacher (second 20 years career) I also know that, for many, the catch phrase evokes memories of the post WWII 1950s-60s when the US still had self-sufficiency in raw materials, especially iron ore and our Detroit auto makers were the vehicle suppliers to most third world nations. Likewise, we manufactured televisions and other consumer electronics in US factories.  It also was before the advent of the ubiquitous use of micro-processors using rare earths, about 65% of which globally are “in situ” in either Brazil or China. The nature of industrial production is such that raw materials are one of the primary indices of profitability. For the US that has changed. It is no one’s “fault” and cannot be undone.

         Trump himself imports the vast bulk of his "brand" products (except for the loathsome, undrinkable wine he puts his name on) from China. The rub is that during the campaign he defended doing it (not unreasonably) while (unreasonably) criticizing the Obama administration for continuing the free trade initiatives of Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, which enabled him to profit from doing so.

        If we must import iron ore (we now do, over $600 million worth last year (4.55 million metric tons) of iron ore,  the US being now eighth in world "native" production). The USA is, as of 2017,  completely import dependent on 21 industrial mineral commodities. Oddly enough, we are a net exporter of iron and steel........scrap! Sadly, it is cheaper for China to buy our scrap, reprocess it, and sell it back as steel than for us to do it here.  

        If we are forced to pay higher wages to support the expected standard of living which boomed after the World War II, when we were the leading industrial nation on the planet, then our manufactured goods will cost much more to produce, and consumers will have to spend much more to buy them. So, what do we do?

        Well, in Trump's alternate universe, we revert to the 19^th century and start a trade war by placing tariffs on imported goods, chief among them, steel, which can be mined (or imported) as iron ore and smelted cheaply enough in China that it is cheaper for US industries to import it than buy it from US companies.  That triggers retaliatory tariffs from steel producers on our exports to them, (as in Canada, China, etc.) driving up costs for their consumers as well as reducing US exports.) Even if this spurs US Steel production to some extent, it hurts all American consumers.

        Now here's the part many Trump supporters simply don't get (and many others as well, to be fair):

       We have the standard of living we have because of relatively cheap electronics and other goods produced in the same countries we are talking about enacting tariffs on. Many middle/working class Americans have the things they have because of their relative affordability at places like Walmart, Sam’s, Target, BJs, Amazon, etc. Most of those products other than food (and even some of that) are not domestically produced. If prices for those things go up, as a trade war will cause them to,  the ones who yell loudest for Trump will be the ones bearing the brunt of the result of his foolish trade policies. The Mercedes may cost more, perhaps a minor annoyance to Trump's top 1% associates who drive them, but so will the American-made bass boat and trailer, shovels, hoes, etc.

        Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations," the first true book on economics in the Western World, in 1776. He was right then, and it is still true. As many more nations industrialize, the US must change the focus of its economy. In many sectors, that's happening - tech, drug manufacturing, information services, etc. All these new feasible avenues for US competitiveness have one thing in common - they require totally different skill sets for even production level workers, and these are skill sets which many grass-roots Trump supporters are lacking, and sadly, as we see the dumbing down of curricula, have little regard for.

        So, Trump supporters applaud when he condemns immigrants in general, while US Tech industries are begging for Visas for educated Asians who can do the jobs many Americans are unequipped to do. The days when being a physical laborer will support a family are gone, sadly, for those not ready for higher level work.

        At the year's first PTA Open House, I used to tell the parents of my admittedly higher-level students, I taught AP US History,  "My job is to help make your child employable." That means a very different educational focus than it did in 1940. Hell, even then, where did the tech gurus come from who kick started the nuclear age? Einstein, Pauli, Fermi, Oppenheimer, all either immigrants or their children.

        Of course, Jeff Sessions says "Dreamers" (DACA participants, the majority Hispanic, brought here as youngsters) "take thousands of American jobs.” Like Trump, he has made a categorically false statement, as every actual; statistical analysis proves, calculated to whip up support for "the Wall”. In fact, "Dreamers" have higher percentages in college and earn more on average than other similar age Americans, apparently because they work harder. Continuing the DACA program would have the effect of reducing the number of tech-oriented work visas needed to fill the jobs native borns can't. 

       "Dreamers" who are black, Asian, or Hispanic of any race have as a group, higher wages and much lower incarceration rates than natives of the same ethnicity, race, education, and age. (Note this is an "apples to apples" comparison).  This isn't my analysis, by the way but that of the CATO institute, founded by whom? The Koch brothers, those well-known "Liberals " (NOT!) But Trump wants to discard the program Why? Because It's an Obama initiative.

Get Real!

Get real!

       Today’s blog will undoubtedly piss off some readers. Tough nuggies! Today, I actually read a Michelle Malkin column with which I had some agreement on some points! I know, after all this time and all the bashings I have administered. The column was, as usual a shotgun approach to an issue, full of invective and “Left shaming” which we’ve come to expect from Malkin.

        Having said that as preface, the column was an attack on the current Mayor of New York and the educational system in general. Her issue is with the push, with the concurrence and apparent support of Mayor Bill DeBlasio, to lower standards of admission to the city’s elite high schools, principally those emphasizing science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The justification, however   ranges all over the place, depending upon whose point of view is on display. These schools have admissions testing and standardized test score eligibility windows. It seems that a disproportionally large number of students of Asian ethnicity are “clogging up” the system, garnering all the top spots. No one has (yet) complained that Caucasian students are underrepresented as a percentage of the student pool compared to Asian students. 

       What is troubling is that, in an extreme point of view which diminishes those making it, probably unwittingly, is the rationale offered by some, that Black students are also underrepresented by percentage because of “white privilege”. If equally competitive students were being chosen based on ethnicity, that would be a valid point, but those making the claim simply contend that the ability to solve complex math and science concepts is (in a leap of illogic beyond my comprehension) also evidence of “white privilege.”  It would, of course, be crass of me to point out that most of the Asians garnering the top spots in the NYC admissions derby are also persons of color. Looking around the tech landscape, this assertion becomes even more ludicrous.

                When Sir Isaaac Newton (co)invented the calculus to enable specific expression of his observations, he didn’t create racial mathematics, neither did Pythagoras or the Egyptians (persons of color, by the way), the greatest architects of their millennium. In like manner, the Indians who performed and quantified extremely precise calculational procedures while Europe was still in the Medieval period were all dark skinned as well.

        What Newton did do, however, was to posit that “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”   There have certainly been areas of American life where the application of the concept of “White privilege” is apparent and repulsive. It is certainly true, or has been true in sentencing in criminal cases, voting rights, housing, and the sad list goes on. That said, math is math. How, or if, one is motivated to approach it is a variable. How much significance is attached to it may even be culturally influenced, but a² + b² = c² is ethnically neutral. Perhaps Newton should have added that, “For every action there may occasionally be an unequal, unjustified and opposite everreaction.”

       As an additional experiential aside, this also insults the living hell out of many of my Black former students who worked hard, did well in College and are successful doctors, lawyers, Network administrators and the list goes on. Claiming “White privilege” in this specific case demeans all those who for years have crusaded for equal opportunity and fair treatment of all our citizens. It insults those who have fought against stereotyping and spurious claims of intellectual inferiority.

A Quick Primer on Depraved Indifference

A quick recap to clear the air a bit:

        The law under which Children are being taken from their families and “quarantined” (for want of a better word) was signed into law by George W. Bush, a Republican President. Was it “W” being mean spirited? No; in fact, its intent was quite the opposite, and it had bi-partisan support (remember that?)

        The act, (lengthy name, I’ll just call it the act) had, as its primary purpose, the protection of unaccompanied undocumented children from the threat of being trafficked. At the time, some parents were sending their children alone across the border (in desperation, hoping for a better life for them) and being under age and alone, they were easy pickings for unscrupulous (such as Russian mob, Latin gangs) groups to seize on the opportunity to push them into human slavery. The Act was intended to provide that such unaccompanied children be protected. At the time of the enactment of the law and for years before, extending as far back as the mid-1990s, if family groups were apprehended at the border, the parents were given a date to appear before officials to be dealt with appropriately (sent back, admitted for sanctuary, whatever) depending on circumstances. Families were, by intent, not separated.

         This continued until the current administration, when a former Klansman and a current malignant narcissist became AG and POTUS respectively. Seizing on the existing law, they have opted to apply it in a manner totally unintended by the previous three administrations, by declaring the parents to be felons, incarcerating them, thereby forcing their children to become “unaccompanied minors” subject to impoundment. I have seen some describe the conditions under which these kids are held as “concentration camps,” and others (Trump sycophants) just as vociferously deny that, comparing them to Nazi death camps and pointing out that these kids aren’t being killed (physically). As usual, there is ignorance afoot.

         The term “concentration camp”, in the modern era, was used to describe the herding, interning and forced “concentration” of Boers (Cape Colony and Transvaal Dutch descended persons) into camps in South Africa in the period 1898-1902, The Spanish did the same thing in Cuba, in almost the same time frame, The United states did it to more than 100,000 persons, many US citizens, of Japanese descent in the 1940s. In the case of the Boers and Cuban rebels, many died due to poor sanitation and the resultant disease, while much of the world expressed their dismay. The Germans, as most sane people acknowledge, elevated the concept to genocidal proportions. So, in these four cases two resulted in deaths from illness, not intentional brutality, one resulted in 6 million deaths, and the one we did ourselves resulted in the loss of property, dignity, and Constitutionally guaranteed (but ignored) civil rights and remains a national disgrace.

         Today we are, in fact, placing these children in concentration camps by the very definition of the term. They are concentrated, isolated as a group, separated from their parents and their mobility is restricted. In this sense, they are in about the same circumstance as the Boers and the interned Japanese Americans…except that they don’t even have the solace of family.

      As it is a Republican administration who is responsible for this, it’s not surprising that “anchor baby” Michelle Malkin, also a frothing at the mouth Trump supporter, thinks it’s ok. Of course, Malkin also is the author of “In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling” a defense of US treatment of its Japanese citizens in WWII. 

       Could this be changed? Sure, if the current administration actually gave a shit about anything other than playing to the basest emotions of its fan base as exemplified by Malkin and her ilk. One word from Trump to little Jeffy Sessions, if he can get away from Bible study to take the call, would do it. Don’t hold your breath. Doing the right think is in very short supply these days in DC

Fan Girl Folderol

        Stated succinctly, Ariana Cohen’s column of June 12 is almost slanderously inaccurate. It begins by citing (correctly) an increase in food stamp eligibility in the years 2008-2014. She then (incorrectly) implies that this is linked in a cause/effect causality to the election and policies of Barack Obama. By implication she also makes it seem as Obama policies allowed more previously ineligible persons to have access to food stamps by ‘loosening” requirements.

        Ms. Cohen is and has been for years, typical of those who sell fake “facts” while criticizing mainstream media. During the early Obama years, any Democrat who pointed out that all the precursor conditions and events resulting in the “housing bubble” collapse, Wall Street malfeasance, real estate market inversion and resulting recession/unemployment surge happened on George W. Bush’s watch was shouted down by Republicans, eager to avoid responsibility for the lack of financial market oversight which led to this debacle.

         Was it “W”’s fault? No, and the history of the various financial panics in America largely bears out the fact that Presidents truly have relatively minimal, if any, impact on many things for which blame or credit is allotted them. More recently, we had Michelle Bachmann promising 1$ per gallon gas if elected. Of course, in reality, the only “gas” involved with Ms. Bachmann was of another, nether, sort. In the same campaign cycle (2012) we had Newt Gingrich promising that if Obama was elected we’d see $10 per gallon gas. Didn’t happen, in fact we saw historic low gas prices, and that wasn’t to Obama’s credit either. It was, as Adam Smith would easily grasp, simple supply and demand market economics.  For two people (Bachmann, Gingrich) with University degrees to have so little real economic sense and yet want to be President is simply ludicrous. But I digress.

        Returning to Ms. Cohen’s screed, and her allegation that Trump’s economic genius is the reason fewer Americans are on food stamps today. It is noteworthy that there was zero Obama administration legislation enacted which in any manner changed SNAP eligibility as established in 2008 (who was POTUS?) by the 2008 farm bill (H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of May 22, 2008). In the interest of full disclosure, it was passed over a Presidential veto.  That’s right, facing a deepening recession and rapidly escalating unemployment, “W” tried to limit availability of food stamps!

        The new law increased the commitment to Federal food assistance programs by more than $10 billion over the next 10 years. In efforts to fight stigma, the law changed the name of the Federal program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of Oct. 1, 2008 and changed the name of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. No legislation related to food stamp eligibility has been passed since. Trump has made it clear he’d like to tell people what they can buy, but that has gone nowhere as of yet.

        In truth, Cohen begins the period she cites with “W” still in the Oval Office (he was until early 2009), and compares the peak (depth?) of the recession with current conditions which have been on a steady rebound since 2014 (who was president?  Oh yeah, Barack Obama).   The number of people collecting benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps, has been declining since fiscal year 2014. Obama was in command through fiscal 2016, since the worst year of the Great Recession, as economists (real ones) are calling it and food stamp enrollment has tracked unemployment in the vast percentage of the US population with an essentially one to one correlation. 

       Consistent with that trend, average monthly SNAP (food stamp program) enrollment decreased by about 2 million from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017. What Ms. Cohen conveniently omits is that the decreasing trend was well under way during the second Obama term as unemployment decreased due to (slow) economic recovery.

        That decrease happened only partly on Donald Trump’s watch. Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017, while the 2017 fiscal year ran from Oct. 1, 2016, to Sept. 30, 2017. So, about four months — a third of that fiscal year — were during Barack Obama’s presidency. Some, mainly White House affiliates or Faux News talking heads, have attributed the entire drop in enrollment last fiscal year to Trump’s policies after the Department of Agriculture released data for the last fiscal year on March 9.

        On “Fox & Friends” on March 17, Rachel Campos-Duffy said: “Two million Americans are off of food stamps. This is, like (sic) the opposite of what happened in the Obama administration, where we saw that number grow. In one year, it’s coming down.”  It’s true that the number of people enrolled in SNAP initially increased during the Obama administration — reaching a peak average monthly enrollment of 47.6 million in fiscal year 2013. That rise was a consequence of the deep recession that began in 2007, according to a 2012 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Assigning blame for the recession to Obama indicates first and foremost the lack of economic comprehension and the partisan zeal of the claimant. As the recession weakened, (while Obama was president) the economy recovered, and poverty and unemployment rates decreased. So did SNAP enrollment, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service. Enrollment was down to 42.7 million in January 2017, when Obama left office. As recovery continues, unemployment has also decreased, not surprisingly, and more Americans are now earning at levels above SNAP eligibility threshold. Trump’s doing? Naah, as Bill Clinton would say, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

        So, why would Ariana Cohen fling such a load of garbage hoping some would stick? The answer to that lies in her well known support for a more muscular and confrontational state of Israel and for stronger US approval of it. Her fawning Trump fan girl reaction to the unnecessary relocation of the US Embassy to hotly contested Jerusalem from safe, secure Tel Aviv presaged this payback in print.

No apology here.

        I have recently been chided as being “very unfair’ by a friend who took issue with my reposting a meme combining a “tweet” from Ivanka Trump regarding Kate Spade’s death by suicide, with a responding tweet mentioning that while Ms. Trump called for seeking help, her father has, in essence, reduced its availability. Perhaps I should explain my motivation. Not looking for an argument here, it’s simply my opinion.

         First off, Ms. Trump, like her two adult brothers, has studiously ignored or at least, in public forums, tolerated and even defended, her father's execrable behavior, before and after being elevated to the White House. We have seen Presidential children of character differ and behave differently because they were willing to disagree and say so. Ron Reagan is a case in point.

        My point? Her tacit acceptance of, without objection to, the sort of bad behaviors and even more depraved political agenda of her father, places Ivanka Trump in the same arena, privately and publicly. Hence what she "tweets" for public approbation is subject to the opinions of those who see in her, a daughter approving of her father's regime. If that's false, all she must do is say so in public, but don't hold your breath, since she's an heiress. 

      Regarding the subject of the “Tweet”: A sincere condolence of the sort in question, privately conveyed to the family would have meaning. A message of the sort in question says rather, “I’m sorry”, and then, “Look at how nice and caring I am!” It is reminiscent of Jesus’ abjuration to his followers to pray in private rather than loudly and in public like the Pharisees. I see Ivanka Trump’s actions in publicly tweeting her condolences over what has to be a private and heartbreaking matter for Kate Spade’s family as an action worthy of a pharisee. Absent the follow-on comments from Ms. Trump regarding seeking help for mental health issues, it would still just be, perhaps, a bit mawkish, however, making those statements as the approving daughter of a man who has publicly mocked the handicapped and slashed mental health spending for those same sources of help elevates it to cringeworthy, as apparently the person retweeting her distaste also felt.

        If there was ever a presidential family whose spawn don’t deserve defending and who should be called out for their actions and tacit approval of their sire’s bad actions, three of Trump’s litter qualify.

        I staunchly opposed the slanderous comments flung at the Obama girls, both minors, while they resided in the White House. They did nothing that could in any sense be regarded as inappropriate, yet were criticized by the far right for, apparently, bring simply the daughters of a Black President.

         Trump’s adult children at ages 41,37, and 34, by stark contrast, are visible and public shills for their father. While Ivanka is probably a somewhat better person than her two adult brothers, who set a very low bar, she still is responsible for her public actions, attitudes, and in this case, for what she says or more importantly, doesn’t say.  If you can’t take a punch get out of the arena.

Yeas and Nays

Yeas, Nays and an Awkward Pause.

       Ok, Ok, born again Evangelicals should really, really consider what they believe and begin to act accordingly. Along the way they also need to disregard dogmatic and baseless statements by opportunistic frauds like Joel Osteen, Franklin Graham and the (unbelievably!) “rehabilitated” Jim Bakker.

        The yeas and nays in the title refer to the proscriptive and prescriptive dictates in the Evangelicals’ high mythology, the Bible. It is indicative of the general nature of the earlier half, the Old Testament, especially the Torah, that most (not all, but the clear majority) of alleged spiritual directives from on high are of a prohibitive nature or, in parallel are mandated actions to be taken against the sins of others. Some are semi-neutral, like selling one’s children as slaves or slaughtering animals to gratify the God who has everything except, apparently, enough self-esteem to want all his “creations” (sheep, doves, etc.) to live long healthy lives and die of natural causes unless, by their death, others live by using them as food.

        The actual number of commandments - “The Law” – is in the neighborhood of 630 give or take a “Thou shalt not.” or two. Even the shorthand version, the Ten Commandments, allegedly collected by Moses while burning some weed although suspiciously semi-derivative of Hammurabi’s code (look it up), are 80 percent prohibitive. 

        But let’s leap ahead to the laws commanded by Yeshua Bar Yussef (Jesus is Romanized [Latin], not his given name). This Romanization is also responsible for essentially all of Christianity’s current tenets, after about 300 BCE, which stem from the efforts of others to create a power structure which benefited the clergy and extended that power to the state as it existed variously.   

        Assuming there was a Jesus (probably) -and assuming he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher like several others (likely), then the subject of the supernatural is irrelevant because what he is reported to have said of himself and directed his followers to do is in print and believed with great zeal by Evangelical Christians, who, having claimed it as divine, generally ignore much of it.

        To clarify my intro to the previous paragraph: The majority position amongst New Testament scholars, at least the ones who aren't ultra conservative Christians, is that he – Jesus - was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher of a kind that would have been reasonably common at the time. Regardless of that, let’s consider what Jesus, whoever or whatever he was, is reported said that was directive in nature.

         But first, as the commercials say, let’s make one point clear. If you append the name Christian to any statement of faith, the 630 or so Old Testament laws are superseded by just two: “Love the Lord thy God…etc., etc.,” and part B – “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This isn’t original, by the way, as I have pointed out variously to those who are convinced that Jesus originated the “golden rule.” Analogous versions of this appear in the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, 600 or more years before. Similarly, Socrates taught the concept. Would Jesus have heard it before? Probably. Regardless, of origin, he gave this as one of only two direct commandments, adding allegedly some more specific guidance in a sermon (the beatitudes).

        So, what? So, all the Evangelical railing about social ills which they ignore, all the militarism, all the Shaman induced (and very recent) anti-choice, anti-Gay, anti-immigrant, anti-you name it, cannot be, “Christian” if one truly claims to believe Jesus was who he is said have been. No wiggle room, no waivers. In fact, look really hard at the New Testament and you’ll find that when, on few occasions, Jesus abjured anything, it was wealth, power, inhumanity to one’s fellow man, and……. wait for it, rigid unfeeling adherence to those 630 “Thou shalt nots.”  

        Now look at the current sad state of Evangelical affairs in this nation. While Jesus’ sexuality is not addressed per se in the N.T. there are sidelong references which have been debated by many. More recently, scholars have agreed that Jesus was mute on the subject while refusing to address “The apostle that Jesus loved” or, the Nag Hammadi “Gospel of Mary Magdalen” which refers to Jesus kissing her on the mouth which Peter also mentions.  The issue of Jesus as a sexual being will never be resolved because the synoptics simply don’t address it, and everyone involved is dead.  Moreover, it’s irrelevant. Everything else Jesus is reputed to have said and done makes it clear that all were welcome, including prostitutes.

        What is truly sad and more disturbing are more modern attempts to condemn homosexuality, abortion and other late 20th century “hot button” topics for Far-Right Evangelicals. Many of these are people who are easily led, desperate for social significance their skill set doesn’t impart, and scared to death of being accountable for their own actions here and now in their daily lives.

        In the absence of any condemnatory word whatsoever from Jesus, a void which one with a brain might consider significant, their demagogic leaders cite the Apostle Paul instead. Claiming Paul’s alleged teachings as “scriptural” implies as well that what Paul said, was what Jesus would have said if he had spoken on the subject. So, we have Jesus, from all descriptions well adjusted, socially adaptive and at ease with men and women, He attends weddings, even brings the booze (yeah, right). Then years later, we have Paul, who rails at himself for “doing those things I should not do….” (wonder what that might have been?), who counsels against marriage, and is generally misogamistic and misogynistic. In what alternate universe would (should) he be considered authoritative on sex in any form? It is Paul’s initiative which began the continued reduction of women to secondary positions, if any, in the Church as he (Paul) created it.

        So what? So, the next time you hear anyone make objections on “religious grounds” about the above social issues, they’re not “Christians.” They might call themselves that, might even really believe it, but their actions are inconsistent with the one individual they refer to as source of their faith and whose name they adopt. They might better style themselves as “Paulicians” or better yet, maybe smile, shut the f**k up, and make the cake, already.               

Lexicon for the New Millennium

Lexicon for the new millennium

“Bless his heart”

This may mean anything from condolences because “he” just whacked his thumb with a hammer, to simply being a bit dim, to (more frequently) being far from the accepted norm in either behavior, intelligence or both. Examples as above range from “Bless his heart, I’ll bet that hurt.” to “Bless her heart, she does her best,” to “Bless his heart, he can’t help it, he’s a pedophile.”

“Fake News”

This has several distinct meanings and applications. The entire spectrum has been exacerbated in the modern and amplified by instantaneous mass communication and the opportunity for anyone, no matter how loony, to put their opinion “out there” (like I’m doing!)

The first category applies to stories which are invented by an individual for personal gain or advancement, such as P.T. Barnum’s “160-year-old” Joice Heth, billed as George Washington’s nursemaid. Barnum gained, no one was hurt.

Later we had the example of the rogue reporter inventing stories for career gain:  Janet Cooke won the Pulitzer Prize for her Washington Post profile of an 8-year-old heroin addict, “Jimmy’s World.” Jimmy turned out not to exist. Cooke eventually admitted making up the story.  

Today we have the real McCoy. Stories fabricated, not for personal gain, but to disrupt the flow of real information. An example would be the claims by the Current administration of “massive” voter fraud, when in fact no such thing exists.

Finally, anything printed negatively about the Trump regime will be regarded by those who worship at the throne of the Donald as “Fake News.” As an example, even though Trumpists will reject it, is the claim by Trump himself, typical of the Trump spin, which revolves around Paul Krugman, a NYT op-ed columnist who writes on economics. Shortly after the election, Krugman, in an opinion column wrote that he thought the Trump election would be seriously damage the economy. This was not reported as a fact, but as a prediction, not on the “News” page, but in the editorial section. Was Krugman incorrect in his prediction? Probably, although unfolding tariff issues may yet prove him right. Is an opinion a lie? Of course not, unless you’re Donald Trump.

“Superlative excess”

We’re all guilty of this, and it has been exacerbated by social media, ad men, and recently, the White House.  Examples culled from the thousands of internet comment pieces churned out every week include: “Are millennials the worst generation ever?” “Is this the best vacuum cleaner ever?” “Isn’t (insert person, place or thing) awesome, brilliant, amazing, etc.?”

 A spinoff of the superlative shows up in the popup ads which offer to share the “crazy, weird, bizarre, hidden” trick, gimmick, hack, fact or strategy “they” don’t want you to know about (warts, car insurance, constipation, erections, whatever).   

Wait staff are among the most egregious offenders here, as well. I can’t remember when, exactly, the enthusiastic approbation of the server became a mandatory validation of my food selection.   You could perhaps order a shit sandwich on rye and the response would be “Great choice, I’ll get that order right in.”

 Of course, since I’m writing this, and I get to decide what to write, the worst very visible example of such gratuitous hyperbole is the President, whose 5^th grade vocabulary is peppered with “great”, “wonderful,” “terrific”, and the like. Nothing is ever merely “good,” or “fortunate.” No appointment is merely “outstanding.” Flawed CoVid19 tests are "perfect," extortionate telephone calls are also "perfect." and the current pandemic is the fault of the WHO. Everything is “fantastic,” or “amazing,” and every man or woman he appoints to a government position, even if just two shades above mediocre (a high bar considering some), is “tremendous.” Trump never met a superlative he didn’t like, himself as the ultimate superlative most of all. What is also apparent is the total lack of substantive meaning in such statements. Examples include: “He’s a great guy,” “We’re winning (whatever)” and the list is endless. At the ends of the litany are the blatant overuses of “worst” and “greatest”

Politically Correct

“Politically correct” used to be a valid descriptor for a relatively narrow band of behaviors and terms. Examples which come to mind (and there are relatively few) are “unsighted” in lieu of “blind” and “hearing impaired” vice “deaf.”  Interestingly enough, in my experience, persons so challenged generally do use “blind” and “deaf”, and self-refer as such, the “nicer” terms apparently having been invented by those not so affected. Another example is “handi-capable.” 

Additionally,  Native Americans usually refer to themselves as “Indians”, in fact AIM is the American Indian Movement. I prefer the Canadian term “First Nations,” which, unlike “Indian” which actually refers to population group 12,000 miles away, is temporally and geographically accurate. Too bad we screwed them all.

However, these issues are relatively minor in scope, as the term doesn’t automatically imply legitimization of discrimination. There are, unfortunately far too many who hide (usually unsuccessfully) their bigotry and bias under the guise of  rejecting more polite discourse as  “politically correct.”  Those who publicly lament the fact that other people of good will are offended if they say “Fag,” “Bitch,” “Nigger,” “Spic,” and lamentably the list goes on) as merely “political correctness”, are really covering their mental illness (yeah, that’s how I classify it) with convenient jargon.

Similarly, issues such as workplace sexual discrimination, and/or harassment, unequal pay, etc., while paid lip service in some circumstances and even in mission statements, are blown off by others as political correctness. Few have ever been hurt by a mission statement, but many have been hurt by those dismissive of them as political correctness.

In summary, political correctness is in the eye of the beholder. If one is aware that certain terms or behaviors are hurtful, but chooses those terms or actions anyway, then the question becomes “Why?” The only possible conclusion is that, “Knowing these things are hurtful, I choose to do them anyway because I can. I’ll blow off any resistance as ‘political correctness.’”  There is no answer to that question which doesn’t reflect badly on the ethical/moral/social bankruptcy of the individual in question.   

A Tale Told by an Idiot.

       I had to post this because as I read it I was torn between the need to laugh and/or arm myself against these idiots: This advert ran in the Saturday paper in the section where real Churches shill for customers. I will post the text verbatim. It is printed above a photo of a man named Alex Newman who looks very like Grigori Rasputin.

“Freedom Fellowship (beside a cross in the colors of the American Flag) presents “The God and Country Series”

“Exposing the New World Order and How it Affects Our Freedom” (lists the dates) "This month’s special guest speaker Alex Newman."

The remainder is in smaller font below the photo:

       “Alex will explain the interrelationship of the public school system, collectivism, climate change, the UN’s Agenda 21, Globalism, and how these are being used to bring about the end of freedom in America and what these elites publicly call the New World Order. He will also explain what we can do to prevent it.”

Then the bio:

        “Alex Newman has frequent articles in the New American magazine, WND, and various Christian publications exposing the Deep State and many other issues. He has also co- authored a book entitled 'Crimes of the Educators' and has appeared on many of America’s 'top' (italics are mine) radio and TV programs.”

        It would almost be worth going to see this yahoo's traveling sideshow, but when I started laughing and yelling “bullshit” they’d probably kill me, (being Christians, and all!)