Indignant Outrage of Just political Flatus?

        And Republicans complained that taxpayers funded Obama                                            political travel?

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-obamatravel-idUSBRE83P03O20120426

        This article, written in a campaign year illustrates, perhaps as well as anything, the absolute moral double standard exhibited by Far Rightists to which they, themselves, seem oblivious.

        Reince (is that even real name?) Priebus RNC chairman at the time was actually being critical of, then President, Barack Obama for “spending taxpayer dollars campaigning.” Interestingly enough, the number and purpose of all Presidential trips, domestic and overseas is public record and well documented.

       If we were hearing the same sort of complaints from Republicans, apparently concerned about this “waste” of funds, regarding Trump’s numerous trips, it would at least indicate some smattering of even-handed conservative fiscal concern in play. This, alas, is far, far from the reality which is that for all their nattering, their current leader has far outpaced Barack Obama in any metric which could even remotely be considered a waste of taxpayer dollars.

       For consistency, I will consider all travel out of D.C. by Air Force One. which involves any sort of campaigning for a candidate, regardless of other peripheral reasons, as campaign travel. Using that yardstick, let’s consider Barack Obama’s campaign travels during an “off year” election year. In Obama’s second term, where campaigning had no personal implication for him, being termed out, he campaigned 21 times in 2014, which involved either candidate specific speeches or general DNC fundraisers. Of these trips, none involved golf, and many, if not most, had other events which were politically unrelated to any candidacy.

        This year, including all travel planned over the next several days in November, Donald Trump will have made 59 such trips, 28 of which were made for the specific and sole purpose of campaigning for a local candidate. That’s fueling and flying Air Force One all over the nation on the public dime to campaign for one party. And this is the party of financial conservatism?

        Moreover, those of the far right, led by Trump himself, were loudly critical of the amount of golf played by Barack Obama. Trump himself, in typical bluster mode, at one time said, “I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done,” (Trump interview, 2015.}  “I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.” While campaigning for the presidency in 2016, Trump said to the American people: “I’m going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf.”  As we all know now, that may well be the worst single Presidential lie since Ike denied U-2s were flying over Soviet airspace (right up until they shot one down!)

         Since I have that kind if time and the data is available, here’s the truth, by the numbers. The number of times over 8 years which Barack Obama took Air Force One and flew specifically to golf?  Easy- none!  Trump - 12 times in 2018 alone.  This includes flying to his New Jersey Club for one single 11 day “getaway,” (the White House's words) which involved no defined public business, but a whole lot of golf. In 2017, his “golf only” travels were more numerous, including far more flights to Florida. In fact, in a similar   eleven day "getaway"  span in December, 2017, the man who would be “too busy” for golf actually played 8 rounds in Florida. In Obama’s case, by contrast,  he played the vast majority of his golf in settings such that he was driven by car to the course from wherever he was staying.

         No one is denying that presidents should vacation. “W” was the master of vacation days, at 1020 over 8 years, Reagan took 866, FDR, over three full terms and part of a fourth, took 958, Ike & LBJ were both in the high 400 day ranges. Barack Obama? 328 days.

        At his current pace, Donald Trump will almost double Obama’s annual vacation days.  Moreover, he will grossly eclipse Obama's 333 golf days, possibly even out golfing the real "Golfer in Chief," Woodrow Wilson (1200 rounds and this, during WWI!). In truth, Eisenhower and Clinton also played more rounds of golf in two terms than Obama. At the current pace, Trump would, in two terms (God forbid) actually reach a total of 1164 rounds of golf, closing in on Wilson's record.  Now, add to this, that when Obama golfed anywhere but the Washington area, he was on family vacations, Typically, he rode by car ($10.00 worth of gas?) to either the course at Martha’s Vineyard, Andrews AFB or other military course in the DC area or, when in Hawaii, a local course there. 

         Trump flies to New Jersey and Florida, just for golf, at times. Trump’s trips to Mar a Lago alone have cost Americans, so far, by conservative estimate, $17 million and counting. This is more than more than the Mueller investigation, which, of course, Trump decries as a waste of money.  Where’s the Republican outrage at this egregious waste of our tax dollars?       

Who's Zoomin Who (Redux)

        And now here’s, as the late Paul Harvey was so fond of saying, “The rest of the story!”  Trump’s claimed charitable contributions of all sorts during the period 2008-2014 are significant, not because they represent his own money, but because so very few of them do. Trump donates about 2400 rounds of golf, which as any golfer knows has very little intrinsic cash value. He classifies all of them as “donations” at the highest, non-member, “on season” rate. In addition he classifies all the Trump Foundation donations as “his,” even though as voluminously documented elsewhere, almost none of the money the foundation donates (and in fact, zero over the previous 8 years) is Trump’s money, but represents contributions from the likes of  WWW shill, entrepreneur and, inexplicably to me,  billionaire, Vince McMahon and his wife Linda, who in one donation, eclipsed all the actual cash Trump has ever added to his own foundation. Much of what these dollars have actually done are pay for self-serving things such as portraits of “The Great Man (Trump himself),” Autographed Tom Brady helmets, etc.”

        Running the numbers shows that Trump, who characterizes George Clooney and many equally philanthropic industry members such as Spielberg, Streep, Seinfeld, McConaughey, Baldwin, Lucas, Freeman, (all of whose personal cash outlays to charity eclipse Trump’s!)  as “Hollywood elite”, has actually contributed from his own cash, in the last 8 years, money equivalent to a total of a mere .04 percent of his self-proclaimed net worth.

        By the same metric, George Clooney has contributed .5% of his own net worth, in cash, over the past 12 months! This amounts to Clooney giving 12 1/2 times as much of what he has, in 1/8^th the time as Trump. In other words, George Clooney, from his own earnings, outspends Donald Trump in charitable giving by a factor of 15000% per year!        In doing this, he also organizes, raises, and channels financial major gifts from numerous others in the entertainment industry. The canard that Far Rightists toss around, which generally is that many of those in the entertainment industry are (pick one: uninformed, aloof, unconcerned, too dumb to have opinions, etc.) seems to revolve around nothing quite so much as jealousy and ignorance, sprinkled liberally with disdain for any political point of view that would present the NRA as anything less than a humanitarian organization. Those of the Trumpist persuasion typically denigrate the value of the performing arts in general, until they need a photo op with a Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, or in the greatest vomit inducing performance in the Oval Office since Nixon was too drunk to answer the phone and talk to Maggie Thatcher, Kanye West and his “posse.”  

        In fact, people like Clooney, who produce and direct as well as act, are far more hands-on managers than Trump has ever been. They get along with unions, pay their bills on time, and in a generally overlooked statistical reality, creative industries led by Hollywood account for about $504 billion, or at least 3.2 percent of U.S. goods and services. Those numbers are seven years old and are undoubtedly significantly higher at present. Film and allied industries produced more revenue and a significantly larger percentage of US GDP than US travel and tourism. Trump might be expected to extoll such productivity, but as we all know, most persons in those industries loathe the man and his Far-Right ideals.

         And here we have the crux of the matter, don't we? It isn’t that Trump doesn’t like actors and actresses (Stormy Daniels, anyone?) but that this man, so desperate for approval, only likes those who provide ego stroking on a cosmic level. Clooney and most of Hollywood’s finest just apparently failed “Ass kissing sycophant 101.”       

Spirit of '76

Spirit of 76

        At 76, I find there are some issues in life where the players have changed but the “games”, for better or worse, have changed very little. Some (mothers, family bonds, baseball, and the unconditional love of dogs ) are reassuring but some are troubling. Since I am now the same age as the year the Declaration of Independence was signed (different century, smart ass) I feel qualified to make some specific observations about politics and life in general, so in no particular order, here goes.

Patriot/Patriotic/Patriotism - These are my candidates for the English words most overused and misused in the American lexicon.

        A patriot should, of course, love his country, but sadly, in the jargon of too many today it has come to denote love of only those things to which the true believer subscribes, believes, or profits from. Far sadder, for too many, it carries the darker meaning of legitimizing attempts to disdain, persecute and disenfranchise, where possible, those with whom you disagree, even when the disagreement has nothing to do one with the other. Remember, Benedict Arnold, by his own lights was a “Patriot!”

        In my point of view that “love of country” should be manifest not only, or even primarily, in songs sung before sporting events, or rote recitations to symbols to cater to school board fundamentalists but by, in all aspects of daily life and human interactions, acting such that the nation can be the best that it can. One telling index of the merit of this, or any, nation is the way it treats its own - all of its own. The greater the divergence between social groups, the weaker the bonds of government and true patriotism become.

         Sadly, “Patriot” has now become the political confetti of public discourse. I have even seen advertisements for do-it-yourself solar panels headlined “Power for Patriots,” Organizations which are perilously close to being hate crime advocates toss the word around as if it were Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak, masking their true natures.

        Here’s what real patriots do. They understand that the 1^st, 13^th, 14th, 15^th and 19th amendments to the Constitution mean exactly what they say. They understand that Loving V Virginia,  Brown v Board, Roe V Wade, and Obergefell V Hodges made some changes in the fabric of government and life in general which protected ALL citizens from the tyranny of State governments which were driven in many cases by cultural, racial  and religious biases which ran counter to the spirit of the right to be left alone to live one’s life without hurting others. In a nutshell, we’re all in this together with the same rights and obligations to one another. We don’t have to adopt each other’s’ religious beliefs, or any at all for that matter. Nor ore we enjoined to  embrace or condone each other’s lifestyle or adopt each other’s attitudes toward most issues, but we do have to treat each other fairly and with respect. We also need to understand that while we are all entitled to our own opinions, no one gets to create their own facts and flog the rest of us with their creations.

       What do true patriots not do? Some specifics? OK. We shouldn’t suborn or tolerate assassination, here or abroad to protect potential profits of military contracts. We shouldn’t invent threats which don’t exist to mobilize a mob of sycophants. As an adjunct to that last, we ought to understand that peaceful demonstrators aren’t a “lawless mob” when they disagree with us but simply “exercising their rights” when they agree with our position. “The right, peaceably to assemble …..and seek redress of grievances” is universal and not subject to the whim or approval of the party in power.  We must realize that when a zealot intentionally drives a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters, they aren’t “Good people.”  We ought not to act without regard to our place in the family of nations so as to undo the international good will engendered by Reagan/Clinton/Obama simply for self-aggrandizement. We ought not to pretend we have moral standing for denigrating the rights of communities of peaceful and non-threatening folks, be they religious, LGBT, non-white, or non-native born, simply to play to a radical religious power base.

        Also, and as valid, it is the sad, but true, fact that not every military veteran is an authority on matters of national policy. In fact, while serving, most have little experience in politics while on active duty. My point? Simply being a “vet” lends zero credibility to your self-proclaimed insight into matters on the political spectrum. If you’ve educated yourselves in matters political feel free to speak from that point of view. I’m truly sick of fighter pilots being treated like political gurus, when many are perpetual adolescents.

        As political acumen goes, there is relatively little linkage, historically, for even the idea that the President should have military experience. Transposing the military from disassociated servants to patriotic pin-ups in order to generate nationalistic fervor is not only insipid, it’s dangerous and un-American. The military serves no political party, nor ideology; its members are as varied as the nation it serves. No party or faction has a unilateral claim to patriotism, and certainly not to “ownership” of the country. We have had good ex-military Presidents (Eisenhower, stands above the crowd) and horrible ones (Grant, Harrison (both of ‘em), Taylor, Nixon come to mind). Why is this? It is so because character and intelligence matter far more than military experience.

        It is noteworthy that, of the three Presidents during the nation’s three great wars after the Revolution, only one, Lincoln, had any military experience (and that was minimal) and the “enemy” were Indians. Neither Wilson or Roosevelt had any military experience whatsoever. So yes, thank you for your service, but it doesn’t give you a political bully pulpit. Now act like a true patriot and defend all the rights of your fellow countrymen.

       To finish on a higher and brighter note, and to prove that sometimes we see light in the places we seldom look for it, The AD council ran a spot on July 4^th 2016, which featured not a politician or huckster, but John Cena, of all things a pro wrestler and surprisingly good actor. (But then, fess up, we knew rasslin’ was an act anyway, didn’t we?)  As he walks through a typical small American town, talking directly to the camera, Mr. Cena draws a line in the sand early on. “Patriotism isn't just pride in one's country”, he says. “It's love for it; and loving one's country means embracing who and what the country really is—not what you might picture it to be.” And, along the way, this small town turns out to be remarkably diverse—the essence of America itself—as we see citizens who are Latino, LGBT, Muslim, senior citizen, African American, disabled, and so on, all just as American as anyone else. The underlying message? To be a true patriot is to accept all Americans regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or ability.

        It’s been two years since that ad ran, and sadly, we’re farther from those ideals now than we were then. Thanks, Mr. Trump and cohort.    

Why Athletes Can't Have Regular Jobs

WHY ATHLETES CAN'T HAVE REGULAR JOBS

1. Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model:
"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to copulate me."


2. New Orleans Saint RB George Rogers when asked about the upcoming season:
"I want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first.."


3. And, upon hearing Joe Jacobi of the 'Skin's say:
"I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl," Matt Millen of the Raiders said: "To win, I'd run over Joe's Mom, too."


4. Torrin Polk, University of Houston receiver, on his coach, John Jenkins:
"He treat us like mens. He let us wear earrings.."


5. Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann:
"Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."


6. Senior basketball player at the University of Pittsburgh :
"I'm going to graduate on time, no matter how long it takes.."
(Now that is beautiful)


7. Bill Peterson, a Florida State football coach:
"You guys line up alphabetically by height.."
And, "You guys pair up in groups of three, and then line up in a circle."


8. Boxing promoter Dan Duva on Mike Tyson going to prison:
"Why would anyone expect him to come out smarter?
He went to prison for three years, not Princeton.."


9. Stu Grimson, Chicago Blackhawks left wing, explaining why he keeps a color photo of himself above his locker:
"That's so when I forget how to spell my name, I can still find my clothes."


10. Lou Duva, veteran boxing trainer, on the Spartan training regimen of heavyweight Andrew Golota:
"He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning, regardless of what time it is."


11. Chuck Nevitt, North Carolina State basketball player, explaining to Coach Jim Valvano why he appeared nervous at practice:
"My sister's expecting a baby, and I don't know if I'm going to be an uncle or an aunt.

(I wonder if his IQ ever hit room temperature in January)


12. Frank Layden , Utah Jazz president, on a former player:
"I asked him, 'Son, what is it with you? Is it ignorance or apathy?'
He said, 'Coach, I don't know and I don't care.'"


13. Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four F's and one D:
"Son, looks to me like you're spending too much time on one subject."


14. In the words of NC State great Charles Shackelford:
"I can go to my left or right, I am amphibious."


15. Former Houston Oilers coach Bum Phillips when asked by Bob Costas why he takes his wife on all the road trips,
Phillips responded: "Because she's too ugly to kiss good-bye."

State of the Unions (sort of)

        This was written in response to a Facebook post of a photo of Trump pointing to a sign which proclaims that “Unions are Ruining America. The poster than makes a statement to the effect that this is a black and white (not a racial comparison) issue – a sort of, “All unions do good things,” statement.  Having lived through the various Congressional committee hearings, I know that to be as questionable as Trump’s statement, ergo this humble screed. My first sentence (I was going to post this as a comment/reply, but it got waaaay too long) is in response to the All unions are good, comment.  

        In many, maybe even most cases, but historically, like Casinos, some Unions have been infiltrated by persons who care little for their members and a lot about how much money they can personally amass, (Teamsters, several UAW heads, Longshoremen?) In the postwar boom of the '50s unions were the beneficiaries of "welfare capitalism" Promoted by business leaders during a period marked by widespread economic insecurity, social reform activism, and labor unrest, it was based on the idea that Americans should look not to the government or to labor unions but to the workplace benefits provided by private-sector employers for protection against the fluctuations of the market economy. Of course, a key "if" here is the assumption of the good will and largesse of the employer! Companies employed these types of welfare policies to encourage worker loyalty, productivity and dedication. Owners feared government intrusion in the Progressive Era, and labor uprisings from 1917 to 1919—including strikes against "benevolent" employers—showed the limits of paternalistic efforts. Remember, these were autocratic men who saw the labor pool as "My workers." For owners, the corporation was the most responsible social institution (a canard as we have seen) and it was better suited, in their minds, to promoting the welfare of employees than government. Welfare capitalism was their way of heading off radicalism and regulation then.

       In the end, welfare capitalism programs benefited white-collar workers far more than those on the factory floor in the early 20th century. The average annual bonus payouts at U.S. Steel Corporation from 1929 to 1931 were approximately $2,500,000; however, in 1929, $1,623,753 of that went to the president of the company! (Yeah one man got 63% of the "bonus." Real wages for unskilled and low-skilled workers grew very little in the 1920s, while long hours in unsafe conditions continued to be the norm.

       To forestall open rebellion during the Depression the government passed significant legislation which caused a sea change in the labor/ownership playing field. The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) provided for collective bargaining. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act (or Wagner Act) required businesses to bargain in good faith with any union supported by the majority of their employees. Meanwhile, the Congress of Industrial Organizations split from the AFL and became much more aggressive in organizing unskilled workers who had not been represented before. Strikes of various kinds became important organizing tools of the CIO.

      Just as The Robber Barons (Morgan, Rockefeller, Gould, et al) of the last decades of the 19th century had used their stranglehold on markets and production to keep workers in check, some unions, now empowered by depression era gains, swung the pendulum back, Rather than returning to a centrist position however, some unions (UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen are prime examples) used their new found clout (they could paralyze commerce or damage major industrial conditions by strikes) to extract concessions for workers which were, frankly, in the case of the UAW for example, ludicrous in scale.

       Without taking too much space, I'd advise one to look at the concession granted auto industry unions during the boom of the 1950s. Manual labor became more highly paid than some highly skilled, but non-union positions, not because it was really worth more, or (even in a Marxian sense), because it added more value, but simply because unions had strong-armed major car manufacturers with threats to shut down production lines at a time when the USA was the world's leading car manufacturer and profits were huge.

        Consider also, the un-American blatant racism of most unions from the start of the Labor movement into the 1960s. The early Knights of Labor actively accepted and organized Black workers at a time when racism in America was intense. The AFL also started out in the 1880s with a nondiscrimination policy, but founder Samuel Gompers later came to see Blacks as a "convenient whip placed in the hands of the employers to cow the white man."

        Fear that Black workers would take whites' jobs dogged the labor movement for generations, especially as employers capitalized on racial divisions by recruiting non-organized Black workers as strikebreakers. In a 1917 incident, employers in East St. Louis, Illinois, recruited Southern Blacks to take jobs for low pay to drive wages down. White workers organized a whites-only union in response. Racial tensions mounted and in July, an attempt to drive Blacks from their neighborhoods led to a riot in which 40 Blacks and 9 whites were killed.

        American Federation of Labor (AFL) craft unions became solidly racist. In 1902, W.E.B. Du Bois, the influential Black spokesman and historian, found that 43 national unions had no Black members, and 27 others barred Black apprentices, keeping membership to a minimum. Du Bois spoke against both "the practice among employers of importing ignorant Negro-American laborers in emergencies" and "the practice of labor unions of proscribing and boycotting and oppressing thousands of their fellow toilers."  Even today, Unions such as he IBEW (electrical workers) are “white heavy” at the top although their membership rank and file is multi-racial.

        There were of course other reasons. In the boom of the 50s, giving in to unions just to shut ‘em up was in vogue. Working conditions, including being paid when you didn’t, were granted, health care provisions far beyond what most American workers had or would ever have were granted.  One result? Real wages in U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing have fallen 24 percent since 2002, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Meanwhile, the average cost of their healthcare benefits has risen to $16,000 a year. About $2000 of the cost of each car made in America is the employer’s cost for health care concessions made in better times. Of course, this is also a strong argument for universal single payer health care.

        By no means are all unions corrupt but, like every organization, they have their zealots who, like Samuel Gompers, when he was asked, “What do you want,” responded simply, “More!”

        Of course, the unions with whom Trump has had conflicts are primarily those in the construction trades. His issue has nothing to do with righteous causes like rooting out Mob influence or corruption, since he’s a mobster himself and really cares nothing for honest laboring persons. His issue is that he hates to pay for work he has contracted to have done and has stiffed several union contractors, daring them to sue him.

       Sadly, if all labor unions were, like Caesar’s wife, beyond reproach, Trump’s nattering would be groundless. Many are just that, honest broker/agents as representatives of a group of persons in a particular trade or profession. The idea that such honorable organizations should be legally restricted or restrained is simply Fascist in nature. Would that all were clean, but sadly for every NEA, there’s a Teamster’s Union. It matters little that most Teamsters are probably honorable, hard working people, although if true it would gut Trump’s attacks. Sadly, one bad Hoffa spoils the whole barrel.

        Perception is reality, as the adage goes, but public perception, as we have seen all too painfully exhibited recently is sometimes NOT reality, but simply the shaping of malleable and receptive disaffected minds in the hands of a liar and master manipulator.  Is Donald Trump a race baiter, bigot, misogynist and union hater? Of course. Are All American unions honest brokers who consider the good of the member first? Now that’s harder question.   

"Imagine" that!

Just “Imagine”

       Apparently, the local rag has made a pact with the Devil. Every Saturday morning, a column by the late unlamented Billy Graham, magically appears in the section of the paper where in lies the equally satanic Saturday Stumper crossword puzzle. One is a compilation of relativly arcane and devious hints at meaning, and the other is a challenging word puzzle.

        I’ve mentioned this journalistic reincarnation for the good of the heirs previously, but today’s column caught my eye by its title: “Music Wields influence, Both Good and Bad.”  I have had internal debates over the years, regarding this issue, since there have been some truly loathsome social constructs proffered as “music.”  2 live Crew always seemed to me, especially when being “interviewed" by a journalist who had apparently checked their pride at the door. Misogynistic, crude and without merit, I could never bring my liberal self to concede any value to their attempts at music. It eluded me that people whose verse centered on “bitches with back” and killing cops for sport constituted art as I understood it. Not talking about Tupac here, a poet close to Dylan in some efforts.

        So, setting this up, I wondered what ole’ Billy had to say about the influence of music. He waxed as eloquently as he could (marginally literate, at best) about George Frederic Handel’s masterwork, “Messiah.” Acknowledging that I admire the music, while rejecting the mythology, it is a gorgeous piece of music. It’s a bit for me like “The Last Unicorn” or “Return to Pooh Corner” – nice tunes about fictional constructs. But enough about that. I was quite curious as to what Billy might consider as the Satanic counterpoint to “Messiah.”  Here’s verbatim what appeared: “On the other hand, music can also have the opposite effect on people, causing hopelessness and despair.”  (Ok, Ok, so what is this devil’s music?) “A popular song years ago invited listeners to visualize an existence where there is no Heaven, no hell, where everyone lives only for today.”  

       Wow! “Imagine” that (see what I did there?).  Of all the miserable pathetic, “My wife/sister/cousin eloped with my brother, dog and truck” bullshit songs about immorality he could have slandered, he chose John Lennon? Is that the same John Lennon who valued women, peace and love (Christian concepts, last I looked)? Yep!

        What I really find odd about this, and have for years, is that “Imagine” is performed in religious settings all over the US. I have heard it in a Methodist Church, seen videos of church choirs performing it in churches of various denominations. Apparently, none of these people have read the lyrics. However, and this is the crux, most of those who perform this song see it as a call for the universal brotherhood of man and a plea for humankind to treat others precisely as Jesus is alleged to have urged his followers to live their lives. In fact, regardless of what theologians ever since have extrapolated, the simple message seems to be “treat others as you would be treated,” in the here and now, the emphasis on afterlife being supplied by those creating a revenue producing pseudo-authoritarian sinecure for the priesthood (and charlatans like ole’ Billy, Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson).

        So, since Billy Graham speaks for the Christian world (or certainly acted as if he thought he did), it would follow that most believers would agree with him, right?  Let’s examine that.

        Rolling Stone described "Imagine" as Lennon's "greatest musical gift to the world." BMI named it one of the top 100 most-performed songs of the 20th century; and that year, it received the Grammy Hall of Fame Award.  In 2002, a UK survey conducted by the Guinness World Records British Hit Singles Book ranked it the second-best single of all time.

        Rolling Stone ranked "Imagine" number three on its list of "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", describing it as "an enduring hymn of solace and promise that has carried us through extreme grief, from the shock of Lennon's own death in 1980 to the unspeakable horror of September 11th. It is now impossible to imagine a world without 'Imagine', and we need it more than he ever dreamed." Billy Graham never did anything as noble. Despite that sentiment, fundamentalist Christian owned and operated Clear Channel Communications (now known today as iHeartMedia) included the song on its post-9/11 "do not play" list. Really?

        On 1 January 2005, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation named "Imagine" the greatest song in the past 100 years as voted by listeners on the show 50 Tracks. The song ranked number 30 on the Recording Industry Association of America's list of the 365 Songs of the Century bearing the most historical significance. Australians selected it the greatest song of all time on the Nine Network's 20 to 1 countdown show on 12 September 2006.  So, it must be satanic on a level we don’t understand, huh?

       How about well known, and sincerely humanitarian persons of faith? Surely, they must see beneath the veil and recognize Lennon’s Satanic message? Again…Jimmy Carter said, "in many countries around the world—my wife and I have visited about 125 countries—you hear John Lennon's song 'Imagine' used almost equally with national anthems."

        Of course, there are criticisms, most based on what is apparently an inability to grasp that songwriters, if they do it right, are appealing to emotion and (wait for it) “imagination.”  According to one critic, Lennon's lyrics describe, "Hypothetical possibilities that offer no practical solutions; lyrics that are at times nebulous and contradictory, asking the listener to abandon political systems while encouraging one similar to communism."  This of course is a criticism which could be levelled at Tupac’s “Changes,” Cat Stevens’ Peace Train,” Bob Marley’s “One Love,”  Kermit T. Frog's “Rainbow Connection," and Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World.” Even Donald Fagan’s “IGY” and Talking Heads’ “Nothing But Flowers” fall somewhere on that continuum.  Others argue that Lennon intended the song's lyrics to inspire listeners to imagine if the world could live without possessions, not as an explicit call to give them up. One actually commented: "Lennon knew he had nothing concrete to offer, so instead he offers a dream, a concept to be built upon." The ludicrous commentary here is that This theme had been a cornerstone of artists in most medias forever.  

        The morning after the November 2015 Paris attacks, German pianist Davide Martello brought a grand piano to the street out in front of the Bataclan, where 89 concertgoers had been shot dead the night before and performed an instrumental version to honor the victims of the attacks. A simple but pithy comment by a reporter on scene summed up the moment thus: “Imagine belongs to the tradition of hymns or spirituals that visualize a glorious afterlife without prophesizing any immediate end to suffering on earth. This understanding is also compounded by the historical context of Lennon's own violent death, reminding us that the universe can run roughshod over idealistic people. Ultimately, the song captures the fragility of our hope after a violent or destructive event also reveals its tenacity".

       There are scores of “sacred” songs which ballyhoo everything from unconditional love to violent reprisals, all in the name of God. Many if not most derive from the promise that no matter what an arsehole you’ve been, it’ll get better when you die if you just buy into the myth. There are far fewer, but much more meaningful contemporary secular songs with meaning to all of us in the real world and in the present.  For me, “Imagine” (regardless of what Billy Graham may have thought) heads this list, followed closely by Sting’s “Fragile,” Kelly Clarkson’s “Stronger,” Bill Withers’ “Lovely Day” and Several by Kenny Loggins. The common thread here? You’re responsible for your own actions, and generally, the author of your own happiness. Imagine that.  

More Inconvenient Truths or Mitch McConnell is a Whining Jackass

        More Inconvenient Truths or why Mitch
             Mcconnell is a Whining Jackass

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-calls-to-cut-social-security-medicare/ar-BBOtGyE

       The issue here (cutting SS and/or Medicare) is far more complicated that either side is willing to discuss, and Democrats are as culpable as Republicans. The difference, such as it is, revolves around how to do what should have been done starting in the 1950s.

Table 1: Life Expectancy for Social Security

Table 1: Life Expectancy for Social Security
Year Cohort Turned 65	Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65		Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65
	Male	Female	Male	Female
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990	53.9 56.2 60.1 63.7 67.8 72.3	60.6 65.5 71.3 76.9 80.9 83.6	12.7 13.1 13.2 13.8 14.6 15.3	14.7 16.2 17.4 18.6 19.1 19.6

       The nature of the real issue here is obvious from the table above. Clearly, as incepted, most Americans would not live to collect Social Security. This wasn’t part of some devious plan, simply an acknowledgement of the demographic illustrated. It was obvious that 1: Many would pay in, far fewer would collect, and 2: In a society (1936, pre-war USA) where most working women and a racially biased and disproportionate percentage by race, (as farmers and domestics were ineligible) were excluded, many would be unlikely to collect at all.

       By 1960, the average lifespan had increased by almost 11 years for women, and wartime employment had made many eligible. By 1970, all Americans would live, on average, long enough to draw at least early Social Security.

       It would have taken a seer to project the baby boom and its effect on the population, which is another component of the current situation: more Americans were born post WW II and more are living longer. This isn’t anyone’s fault, it’s just a thing we needed to deal with. In 1936, 65 was old and most Americans couldn’t work much past that age. As we live longer, that has also changed. If someone (anyone!) had the forethought to build in an automatic increase in eligibility age tied to life expectancy, this still might well not even exist as an issue.

Table 2: Americans Age 65  or Older 1880-1990
Year	Number of Americans Age 65 or Older
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000	1.7 million 2.4 million 3.0 million 3.9 million 4.9 million 6.7 million 9.0 million 12.7 million 17.2 million 20.9 million 26.1 million 31.9 million 34.9 million

       Table 2 shows that from 1940 to 1950 there was a 41% jump in eligible Americans. In the next 50 years that rose by 274 %!!! This year it will be around 63 million receiving some sort of Social security payout, and one in Four of today’s 20 year-olds will be declared “disabled” by age 65.


       Now for the real bad news. Note that in 1950, there were 16.5 employed persons paying into the system for every person drawing a SS check. In 2010 that had dwindled to 2.9 workers per recipient. For the math challenged, that’s one sixth as many persons paying in per SS check going out! In 2018, that will be 2.8 workers per recipient. In fact, it has been calculated that at 3 workers per recipient, the system would be stable, but we’re below that now.

       What has happened to Social Security isn’t anyone’s “fault,” but neither party has been willing to tell the unvarnished truth to the body politic, although Republicans are far more quick to use the “E” word (entitlements) almost as a curse word to describe a system which is, in fact, contributory so of course, having paid in, I am “entitled” to a return for my money.

       So, what is the “truth”? What should have been done? The truth is that demographic changes beyond the scope of foreseeability of the legislators have imbalanced the system. What should have been done was, that every decade, or even 15 years, from 1950 (or 1960, even) up to 2000, as lifespan increased and the Baby Boomers’ impact was now projectable by anyone who ever took Stats 101, the age for full eligibility should have been pushed back one year. Anyone in the system with fewer than ten years left until age 65 should have, of course, been “grandfathered” and remained eligible at 65 so no one had less than 10 years to plan. Early (age) 62 retirement should have been eliminated in the same manner. Both of these provisions of course, would be based on the assumption of the recipient being healthy up to the eligibility window. Even if the bump in age eligibility were only every 15 years, we’d now be looking at no early eligibility and full eligibility at age 67. We’d also be looking at a system which wasn’t in financial trouble.

       The other truth in play here is that, even if nothing were done, the problem would resolve in 15 to 20 years as Boomers die off and the “bulge” in US population smooths out. This situation is almost the poster child for Al Gore’s phrase “An inconvenient Truth.” Unfortunately, many of us would rather bitch and complain rather that acknowledge the fundamental population sea change created by the Post War baby boom.   
      “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
         Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican


As for Medicare/Medicaid costs, it’s much simpler and requires no special insight to understand. Drug company profits are obscene. In an environment where a 6% corporate profit is a good year, several US drug companies post numbers closer to 25%! Even more obvious is the methodology. Although the major Big Pharma corporations would love for you to believe that they charge so much because they spend so much on research and development, the fact is that 90% of new drugs (You know, the ones the advertisements tell you to demand from your doctor?) in the US are developed with NIH grants. Advertising and huge salaries are the #1 and #2 pharma expenditures. Read that and understand: your tax dollars are used to underwrite the development of new drugs. If these were manufactured at cost or with a small profit, that would be one thing, but what really happens is that University researchers are allowed to patent these drugs, having already in many cases, done trials to insure their efficacy, and then sell the patent (frequently for millions) to Big Pharma companies who advertise, create demand and, protected by patents for 20 years, soak the insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid for tens of times the actual cost. Greed, not demographics, drives health care costs, and lobbyists for Big Pharma spends multi-millions annually to keep t that way. Drug makers doled out $240 million for lobbying purposes last year, making it the biggest spender. The insurance industry was second, at $157 million. At 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 2014, American health care costs have been rising even faster than pharma's political tab. Of the $1.05 trillion revenue (2016 figure) for the global pharmaceutical market, nearly half of it -- roughly $515 billion -- comes from the U.S. and Canada. However, the two countries make up only around 7% of the total world population. Why? The government lets it happen. Then, in what amounts to a final slap in the face, we are insulted by smiling jackass Mitch McConnell whining about cutting “entitlements.”

In a quick recap, as I explain above, there are two separate and very different issues related to costs of the so called “entitlements.” Sadly, those who call for their reductions, while favoring their rich contributors with huge tax breaks which exacerbate the deficit, are in essentially persons of means such that they’ll never be forced to rely on either program for themselves and their families. A second set of persons complicit in this sham are those of the Far Right electorate who wave the words “socialized medicine” like a bloody shirt while being so abysmally ignorant that they fail to realize that Medicare IS socialized medicine and what has perverted it and driven obscene cost increases is capitalist greed, not government mismanagement.

Another Inconvenient Truth

         I recently saw a response in a Facebook thread in which someone opined that all presidents are narcissists, but they just hid it better that Trump. This is an incredibly lame, but typical, defense of the utterly indefensible. I was no fan of "W" 's political agenda (or the one he was led into by his neocon staffers) but "narcissist?" Hardly. In fact, I'm fairly sure spelling that word was beyond his reach. This sort of "but what about (insert Progressive target here)” is the infantile equivalent of, "But, Timmy did it, why can't I?"  One more concrete example of the illogic represented here: A narcissist insists on attacking their attackers, asserting their own superiority and craving adulation from the masses and, especially, their own family. Think about that for a moment.  None of the Presidents all the way back to Truman has ever done that, yet Trump does it daily.

        It is one of the wonders of the modern world, at least to me, that Trump's defenders will rarely defend his actions, choosing instead to condemn the actions and ideals of others.  How lame is it to support a man about whom there is nothing good to say? I have asked numerous times in public forums that those who revere Donald Trump take a moment and sit down and make a list of the policies he has pursued and why you like/support them. Not one person has ever offered more than a generality in response, but many choose instead to flail away at persons who have been out of politics for years.

          I believe the reason for the above is the ugly and generally unstated approval of the worst of Trump.  Begin with his racism - you know the thing you labelled Barack Obama with although he never showed a hint of it? Of course, to bigots, urging true racial equality and equal treatment before the law IS racist. This pathetic truth should shame us as a nation.  Continue with the Evangelicals considering Trump a righteous, even “God chosen” man, even though he hasn't seen the inside of a church other than for his serial trophy wife weddings. These are the same folks who slandered Barack Obama, who actually was a church going believer and raised his children that way. Segue into the subject of immigration, ignoring the fact that the Obama administration returned more undocumenteds every year of his second term than Trump has. That last, irrespective of the blatant differences between their attitudes and approaches to the issue.

         Add to that his appeal to those men who compensate for their tiny apparatus by “slut shaming”  the women they assault for sex or to exorcise their anger issues. Even more pitiful, add those women who for some indeterminable reason, fawn over Trump, apparently believing that whatever happens to them does so because they deserve it and weren’t “submissive” enough. Add in a large measure of disdain for the natural environment, choosing instead to encourage the continued mining and burning of “Clean, beautiful (and demonstrably carcinogenic) coal” as a fuel because it might get votes in Kentucky.

          Then reflect on the damage done to our relations with the rest of the world by a foreign policy so poorly though out that the Secretary of State after calling the President “a moron” resigned in disgust. Add a heaping helping of blatant ignorance in the field of economics which has led to trade wars, the result of which have yet to really hit home.

Almost done:  Wake the hell up and look at the real numbers which show that what Trump has claimed as his economic “miracle” was already well underway when he took office.

        And last but by no means least, if you are a Trump supporter, have the honesty and self-awareness to consider what your response would have been if Barack Obama had invited Kanye West to the White House. You would have exploded with insults and outrage. Trump does so, convening a meeting of the delusional and malignant narcissist club, and while we all know your racism makes you hate West for his color, vice his simply being an arrogant asshole (like you know who), you remain strangely silent. This failure to be able to deal with reality verges on mental illness.  

We are Diminished

        In a public arena where the surest path to renown often seems, sadly, to be measured by how poorly one acts in public, or how much of an ass one can be in the treatment of others, we are poorer today because two persons whose lives are the antithesis of that profile are gone.

        The first, famous for both her vocal and humanitarian efforts was Montserrat Cabballe. Dead at 85, Senora Caballe was generally considered by opera cognoscenti to have been the best modern interpreter of Rossini (Otello, Barber of Seville, William Tell), and Donizetti (L’elisir d’amore, Lucia di Lammermoor) in the modern era. All the praise one needs to hear is Jose Carreras’ “Of all the sopranos I have ever heard live, I have never heard any like Montserrat.” With a repertoire of 90 roles, her 4,000 performances may be a world record. Maria Callas, hardly a shrinking violet, opined once, that of all the sopranos in the world, “Only Cabbale” was worthy to be her (Callas’) successor.

        A UNESCO good will ambassador, Caballe also established and funded charities for needy children in her beloved Barcelona, which segues into when I first really became aware of this remarkable woman and her magnificent voice. I must admit, it was because of who she also chose to sing with that she first hit my radar. Her duet with Freddie Mercury, “Barcelona” was an international hit, and truth told, probably gained her more notoriety and a wide audience than her formidable operatic exploits. Barcelona, like Gaga’s Oscar Sound of Music medley, was a terrific crossover lifting Mercury’s beautiful tenor and Caballe’s bel canto soprano into a blend of the best of both genres.

        When the video below was shot, Caballe was 79, and still had that remarkable voice. And Freddie wasn’t bad either! The
world of music is diminished by both their deaths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0wdxj8-mAU

        In another vein entirely, we also lost John Gagliardi this weekend. Yeah, I know – “who?”  John Gagliardi was the winningest coach in American college football history. “So how come I never heard of him,” you say. The reason is that, in a frenzied “win or else” world, John Gagliardi was head coach for the last 60 years at the same school, - 2,000 student. Division III St. John’s University in Minnesota. Not that he didn’t win, mind you, his record of 489 wins against 138 losses and 11 ties will almost assuredly stand forever. To put it in perspective, that’s 80 more wins than the late (and to me, unlamented pedophile enabler) Joe Paterno and 81 more than the legendary Eddie Robinson at Grambling.

        John Gagliardi was unique, however, for many reasons. While winning more games than anyone else, he never cut a player. Most drills were non-contact, lest players get injured in practice. Practices were limited to 90 minutes. No whistles, no hazing, no sadistic rituals. He was quoted as saying “We have one rule – the golden rule. Treat everyone the way you’d want to be treated. We get the right guys; the ones that don’t need any rules.” What a concept, no drug suspensions, no domestic violence predators, no criminals. Who could win with such players?  John Gagliardi could and did. Dead at 91. We will likely never see another head football coach like him.

         If you believe in an afterlife, you gotta believe that Gagliardi, John Wooden, Pat Summitt and Connie Mack are shaking their heads as they watch the Urban Meyers, Rick Pitinos and others trying to manage their gangs of thugs. You know who’s not gonna be there there? Bear Bryant, Bobby Knight, Woody Hayes!  

NAFTA Reality Check

        While Donald Trump dislocates his shoulder slapping himself on the back for, as he himself has put it, “dismantling NAFTA,” he has also implied that all trade woes are the machinations of “the Democrats” and would like for us to believe that what will replace NAFTA is a brilliant economic stroke only he could provide.

        The above statement is factual. The reality of the situation, on the other hand, is quite different.  Trump has characterized NAFTA as bad economic policy which hurts American businesses, when in fact what jobs have been lost are relatively low paying jobs, and the beneficiaries of moving assembly to Mexico (primarily) have been Trump’s friends in the heavy industry and manufacturing sector. Moving assembly jobs to Mexico benefits those who profit from automobile and electronics sales.

        Similarly, Trump has repeatedly implied that we have trade deficits with both NAFTA signatories. He does not count trade in services, which include, among other things, telecommunications, accounting and legal services, and tourism. Services are increasingly a large part of U.S. trade and, in fact, it may be undercounted because economists have not figured out how to accurately measure digital trade, where the United States is the world leader. 

       As the 2018 CEA report which, one should note, was signed by Trump, put it, “Focusing only on the trade in goods alone ignores the United States’ comparative advantage in services.” But then, that’s what this president does, isn't it - ignore inconvenient truths? When he said the minimum was $17 billion, he is referring to a deficit in merchandise goods only in 2017 between the United States and Canada. 

       Over the past year, increased US oil production has significantly reduced that deficit as well. When Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA Bill, presented to him by a Congress which approved it by large Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, he said, "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."   Of course, those high paying jobs are in primarily the services sector, which Trump ignores and in which we actually do have a positive balance.

        So now for the history lesson (you knew I would, didn’t you?) The impetus for a North American free trade zone actually began in 1979 with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who made that idea a large component of his campaign when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in November of that year. Canada and the United States signed the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1988, and shortly afterward Mexico’s President Carlos Salinas de Gortari approached (then US president) George H. W. Bush to propose a similar agreement in an effort to bring in foreign investment following a widespread Latin American debt crisis. As negotiations commenced, under the aegis of the Bush White House, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney feared that the advantages Canada had gained through the Canada–US FTA would be undermined by a US–Mexican bilateral agreement and asked to join the talks.

        Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990, the leaders of the three nations signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992. (G.H.W. Bush still POTUS) The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by all three nation's legislative or parliamentary branches.

        The earlier Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been controversial and a divisive issue in the 1988 Canadian election. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats), but the split of the votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the election with the most seats and so took power. Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and easily passed the 1987 Canada–US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, when Mulroney was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC advisory process and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.

        After much consideration and emotional discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.

        Why all the detail? Because Trump has “spun” free trade as a creature of the Democratic Party, when in fact, it has been a Republican/conservative ideal. In fact, here’s  a quote from the late Senator John McCain in the 2008 campaign,  "By the way,  Senator Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement…” 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/15/john-mccain/obamas-been-critical-of-nafta/

The gist of Obama’s criticism of NAFTA was almost precisely what Trump would ballyhoo 10 years later as his own brainchild!

        OK, so while Trump rails against all things Obama, including NAFTA (by extension) and the Trans-Pacific partnership, (a sort of Asian-America version of NAFTA, which Trump killed by executive order, just because he could, since it was an Obama initiative) let’s look at some interesting facts, not "fakes" (remember facts?) regarding NAFTA, Republican and Democratic party positions.

        I have already shown that NAFTA is thoroughly Republican and Conservative in origin. Do not conflate that with my saying it was a bad thing, as Trump has repeatedly done. I’m just pointing out that he’s slandering the wrong folks when he attempts to lay NAFTA at the feet of the opposition, since it was Reagan and Bush’s darling from the get go.

        Now here’s the real reason this matters. What Trump is calling a “new” trade agreement is Almost identical to one he denounced and trashed immediately upon taking office – The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Lost in all the Trump bullshit polluting the political landscape are several significant facts.

          While TPP was in most areas Asian oriented, both Mexico and Canada had asked to be parties to the negotiations because of concerns that said pact might weaken NAFTA provisions. In fact, what the Obama team negotiated was a series of concession from both that are almost identical to what Trump is claiming as “his” victory in the NAFTA rewrite. In other words, there was no need to renegotiate NAFTA because the Obama administration had already done it. Those same negotiators who Trump styled as “The worst negotiators in the world,” had already accomplished almost everything that Trump is now claiming credit for. Even odder, many of them are even the same guys!   

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/trump-tpp-free-trade-deal-obama-renegotiate-nafta-214874

        Key Trump “concessions” include:

Increasing the percentage of US made parts required for a car to be Duty free (already negotiated under TPP)

Access to Canada for dairy exports from the US (Already negotiated at a more advantageous amount [to the US] under TPP)

What was done under TPP and is missing from the Trump NAFTA rewrite (because he really doesn’t care about working stiffs) is a litany of more stringent requirements for use of Mexican workers assembling American made parts in Mexico, which in essence would have reduced the Mexican “cheap labor” edge, encouraging more assembly to be done in the US.

What WAS done by Trump, and which will directly hurt many Americans, mostly low income folks, is protectionism favoring what is already by far the most profitable industrial sector in America, Big Pharma. Apparently, net profits as high as 30% annually aren’t enough, so as part of Trump’s redesigned “NAFTA lite” It will become far more difficult, and in many cases impossible, for US patients to procure (less expensive, yet identical) generic drugs from Canada rather than pay “on patent” for US brand names. Truth told, (in the interest of full disclosure) generics are generally more expensive in Canada that the same generic in the US, but for those drugs still enjoying the, in my personal view, excessive patent protection period in the US, the story is different. 

     Miracle drugs, such as Hep C wonder cure Harvoni, although developed with your tax dollars (NIH grant to Emory University) are still priced far beyond the reach of any but the most well insured at about $84,000 per cure in the US. It is cheaper in Canada (although still expensive), but will be unobtainable for Americans under the new agreement.

          But wait, it gets worse. Ledifos, a generic form of Harvoni, produced in India under license from Gilead Pharmaceuticals, the Harvoni patent holder, sells for about $1200. That’s not a misprint; this identical cure costs patients (where it is available) .015% of what US patients pay, yet is the exact same medication.  This would be a Godsend to low income US and Canadian Hep C sufferers, but under Trump’s sweetheart deal with Big Pharma, will it be at least 17 more years until US sufferers can get Ledifos from Canada! Meanwhile Medicare drug costs continue to skyrocket even though around 60% of new on patent medications were developed with government funded R & D.

        Summarizing: The essentials of what Mr. Trump is claiming as an innovative and much improved Canada/US/Mexico trade agreement were already in place when he took office. And he killed it! What has replaced it is about the same as the Obama administration's improvements incorporated into TPP. However, several facets are actually disadvantageous to some Americans, and predominantly lower income folks.

      Even Forbes, a generally conservative source agrees.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/08/14/nafta-will-live-another-day-and-be-based-on-obamas-tpp/#4579873e6016

 And, finally, if by supporting the f***wit currently in the White House, you believe you’re just continuing the robust Reagan Republicanism you’ve been conned into believing, take a moment, travel back in time and read this 1993 anthem of praise to Reagan and NAFTA.

https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-ronald-reagans-vision-realized

I hope you’re not too conflicted now!