Icarus Unhinged

Icarus Unhinged

       Hubris is defined per the OED as “Excessive pride or self-confidence.”  It derives from the Greeks, who actually considered it a crime (if only). Generally, it referred to the attitudes and actions of mortals whose unjustified pride and self-assurance led them to “defy the Gods.”  One of the generally proffered examples of hubris as the Greeks regarded it is the mythical story of Icarus.

        The “moral” of the Icarus legend revolves, not around daring to fly, but around ignoring the warning of his father. His father, Daedalus, was the creator of the Labyrinth, a huge maze located under the court of King Minos of Crete, where the Minotaur, (half-man half-bull, all myth) lived. So that the secrets of design of the Labyrinth be kept, Minos had Daedalus and Icarus imprisoned in a tower above his palace. Daedalus managed to create two sets of wings, made of feathers glued together with wax, for himself and his son. He taught Icarus how to fly and warned him not to fly too high, which would cause the wax to melt.  Icarus, however, overconfident and ego driven, ignored his father's warnings, flying higher and higher, until the wax started melting under the scorching sun. His wings dissolved and he fell into the sea and drowned.  This is also the origin of the old adage. “Pride goeth before a fall.”

       Most of such Greek stories are thinly veiled warnings about the dangers of excessive self-confidence and imagined superiority and their poor outcomes.

       In more recent times there is no shortage of examples of such Narcissism (named for another Greek who loved his image a bit too much).  One such is Herbert Hoover, a decent enough man, but one who believed that he could convince a nation, which was beginning to know better, that the economy was just fine, and his administration and current Republican business favoring policies would “abolish poverty.”   

       Four years later Mr. Hoover had to attempt (an effort at which he failed spectacularly) to explain to a nation, now mired deep in the Great Depression,  why it should reelect him, and continue what he had ballyhooed in 1928 as,  “The policies which have made and will make for the prosperity of our country.” Perhaps if he had been more judicious in his first campaign, if he had made the ordinary speeches of the ordinary candidate, his 1932 explanation of the collapse as “due to inexorable economic forces” might have been more plausible,  But in 1928, locked into defending Republican hands off, free for all, policies in financial sectors  he told voters that. “As never before does the keeping of our economic machine in tune depend on wise policies in the administrative side of government.”

     Mr. Hoover, who in 1928 had denounced his unnamed "opponents"—on ephemeral or non-existent scanty evidence—for plotting to introduce state socialism, (sound familiar yet?) was compelled to ask for reelection in 1932 as a reward for his own success in introducing state socialism. He hoped that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation would prove a brighter star in his crown than the Federal Farm Board had. It didn’t. So, the man who promised the abolition of poverty had to ask for another term of office on the ground that “it might have been worse.”

       General of the US Army (yep five stars!)  Douglas MacArthur is a kind of 20th century Icarus. In 1945, at war’s end, he ranked with some of the greatest generals of all time. His masterly amphibious counterstroke at Inchon in 1950, after the North Koreans had overrun virtually the entire south of the peninsula, is a matchless lesson in boldness and surprise. But then, apparently believing that success, and now believing that anything he did was not only right but destined to succeed, he decided to take on China — and thereby his own president, the determined and moral Harry S. Truman. MacArthur’s “wax” melted, and he was fired. The detailed saga of MacArthur and his downfall should be studied at every war college.

       A more recent and somewhat humorous example of hubris is relatively little known but has left us with another name for the condition. In 1995, a man named McArthur Wheeler read an article about how lemon juice could be used as an invisible ink, not becoming visible until heat was applied. He contemplated said concept and (believe it or not) theorized that if he covered his face with lemon juice, it would be invisible to bank security cameras. No, really, yes, he did!  So, he painted up his face with lemon juice and robbed two banks. Needless to say, he was, in both robberies, photographed very clearly and quickly apprehended. For obvious reasons, the court ordered a psychological evaluation before proceeding to trial. The psychiatrist called in pronounced that Mr. Wheeler was “competent to stand trial but shockingly ignorant.”

       Hearing of this, two other psychologists, Dunning and Kruger by name, (probably after they laughed their asses off) wondered why someone with such a basic lack of knowledge would think that they had a brilliant idea that had never been thought of before.

        To develop some hard data (as much as can be done in psychology, a “soft” science) they designed a study in 1999, using freshman college students, in which they measured their knowledge of a subject.     They then asked respondents to self-assess their own abilities in that subject. What they found was that the less someone knew about a subject, the higher they self-rated their knowledge in that subject! Read that again because it should, by now, sound familiar. They also found that people with little knowledge in a subject area undervalued the knowledge of people who were genuinely knowledgeable in the same subject. They concluded that when someone has a very shallow understanding of something, they are markedly unable to evaluate what they don’t know about it and, similarly, can’t appreciate how much a true expert does know about the subject.

I think it very likely that, in a few years, if you look up “Dunning-Kruger effect” on Wikipedia, you will find the article accompanied by a photo of Donald Trump.

       I’ve written at length about Trump’s lack of understanding about economics. His tariff disaster tells that story. His claim that “Mexico would pay for a wall” is similarly reflective of ignorance in several areas.  That has never however stopped him from grandiose statements reflecting both narcissistic hubris and his raging case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Examples (with comments where I feel like it) include:

"I know tech better than anyone."

 Really? Better than Bill Gates? (who he disdains)

"Nobody knows more about taxes than I do."

Except possibly every CPA in America.

"Nobody understands the horror of nuclear more than me."  

There are two former cities in Japan where everybody does, you arrogant asshole!

"Nobody knows more about trade than me."

 Tell the US soybean farmers who are reduced to taking government handouts.

"I know more than the generals on ISIS”

As General Jim Mattis said, “I won my spurs on the battlefield, he won his in a letter from a doctor.”

“Nobody knows jobs like I do!"

I got nuthin’ here.

“You’re going to have a deportation force. And you’re going to do it humanely,"        and: “President Obama has mass deported vast numbers of people — the most ever, and it’s never reported. I think people are going to find that I have not only the best policies, but I will have the biggest heart of anybody.”

Big body parts maybe, heart, nah.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Three years later:

Climate change is real, but it's "naturally occurring." (current position)

On March 31, 2016, Trump told the Washington Post that the country needed to eliminate the national debt and that he could do it “fairly quickly” without raising taxes.

This may well be the best example of hubris in existence! Later, however the scenario was abandoned and replaced with:

“I think it could be a good time to borrow and pay off debt, borrow debt, make longer-term debt,”

That’s right; replace debt with debt. Sheer genius!

When warned in 2019 that the radically increasing deficit could crash the economy in mid 2020s his response was: “We won’t be here.”

“We’ll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody. I know it’s very expensive.

“I know windmills very much?”  But what about the noise related cancers? “I never understood wind.” Is that even a real thought or idea? Everything that exists he either knows better than anyone or has studied it more. And yet he spends hours every day watching Fox News.

       There are examples, too numerous, of ways Trump asserts his superior knowledge while true accomplished professionals stand by grimacing. Medicine as relates to the current pandemic has been but the latest topic where Trump makes grandiose pronouncements, denies having said them when they are proven to be ludicrous or simply stupid and blames real news media for reporting these gaffes.

        Finally: Attorney Frank DiPrima, was a close friend of Professor William T. Kelley for 47 years.  “He must have told me 100 times over the course of 30 years,” says DiPrima, who has served as in-house counsel for several entities including the Federal Trade Commission. “I remember the inflection of his voice when he said it: ‘Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had!’” He would say that [Trump] came to Wharton thinking he already knew everything, that he was arrogant, and he wasn’t there to learn.” Kelley, who died in 2011 at age 94, taught marketing at Wharton for 31 years, retiring in 1982.

        Unsurprisingly, disgraced former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who served as Trump’s personal attorney and fixer from 2006 to 2018, said the following about his former boss: “When I say con man, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.”

Icarus, we hardly knew you, but then………

The Speech No One Wants to Give

The Speech No One Wants to Give

       “To attain any success, it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government.

 

       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 you can do these things…. a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible, and they are stupid.”

        Sound a bit like AOC speaking?  Perhaps a Socialist candidate? Hardly. This is an excerpt from a letter written by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, then POTUS, to his brother Edgar. The gap is where he named several names of those he considered “stupid.” The second paragraph reveals how far the modern Republican party has strayed from Ike’s precepts, having become markedly anti-union, and progressive labor legislation, and threatening Social Security. Of course, since many modern Republicans reap the windfall from farm subsidies, they have actually increased (read RED states).

        However, the title of this essay reflects my belief that we should consider and honor the scientific process, by which I mean mathematics, statistics, and demographics. One of the aspects of science which some political conservatives and an even greater percentage of conservative religionists deny, is that as conditions change (read climate change, here, as one example) so should our expectations and actions.

       One such Conservative objection to some change is the fear that doing the right thing isn’t the “right thing’ if it affects business’s bottom line. Another thread is voiced by those who are stuck with a creation “story” which is increasingly revealed as creation “myth” by science. The tragedy here is that as we are seeing as I write, the right salesman with the proper snake oil can, seemingly against all odds, unite these seemingly disparate forces.

        Having said that, it must be noted that one consistent bugaboo, addressed with varying amounts of arm waving and hot air, to some degree by both parties, has been the continually burgeoning federal budget cost share of social welfare programs, especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs. 

       Much has been written, some of it mine, regarding health care costs and the responsibility for their escalation borne (or which should be borne) by outlandish and extortionary drug pricing by Major Pharma corporations. This isn’t a “fix”, but it would be a hell of a start if Congress had the guts to put lobbyist influence aside and repeal Medicare part D’s prohibition on negotiating drug prices like every private health insurer can and does. That simple action would reduce government drug spending by about $133 billion annually! For comparison, that savings would defray about 30% of the 2020 interest on the national debt. 

       On the other hand, and more directly related to my topic is a set of demographics which requires nothing more than literacy and common sense to interpret. The implications are plain and the “fix” apparent, if unpopular. Obviously, we live longer, and not just a little longer, but almost 15 years longer. Actually, in 1935 when Social Security was incepted, the average life span was 60.7 years of age. This meant that as the creators of the concept enacted it, the odds were that the average worker wouldn’t live to collect a dime!

       Looking at the table yields some fairly simple conclusions, but the “big” one is harder to see.  First: in 1940, Ida May Fuller, became Social Security's first beneficiary. She was exceptional because she had lived longer than the average of her peers.  By 1945, at full wartime productivity, for each SS beneficiary, there were 41.9 workers paying into the system (actually building for a while, an excess, the illusory “trust fund”.) Today’s workers, on the other hand are paying today’s recipients. Yes, they are.

        By 1975, because of the increase in recipients and a 7-year increase in longevity, the “workers to recipients” ratio was down to less than 1/3 of the 1945 figure. Meanwhile, the birth rate in the USA had decreased by about a third. The number of retirees reaching eligibility age was still increasing, primarily due to longer life expectancy. As seen in the table, the Social security share of the federal budget was blossoming as well. At this point, another factor came into play, that being the numbers of persons receiving disability or survivor’s benefits from the same pot of cash. Surviving spouse or children coverage was part of the 1935 law, but disability wasn’t covered until 1956. This may seem cynical, but it seems to me that the availability of disability has in many cases created a cottage industry for lawyers willing to arrange it for a slight fee.

       The monster lurking under the bed, however, was the post war “Baby Boom”. From 1945 to 1961, the birth rate in the USA was higher than ever before or since, creating a “bubble” in the progression of population growth. The effects of this bubble have been felt by every industry in America from home building to children’s clothing to insurance to health care, and the list is practically endless.

     Take a child born to Mr. and Mrs. Howard Cunningham in 1948, after Howard returned from his army duties and they settled down. Their son, call him Richie, born in 1948, hit Social Security full retirement age of 67 in 2015, and he’ll draw Social Security, assuming he’s got good genes, for at least another 11 or 12 years. Happy Days, huh? 

       Because the baby boom continued into the early 1960s, and because the birth rate dropped to about half of that of the boom’s peak years, there are now even fewer workers contributing to the payments made to the steadily increasing numbers of boomer retirees planning, like me, to live a lot longer than average.  I’m barely a “pre-boomer, born in 1942. The boomer class of 1955 -1960, when the birth rate per 100 thousand was still over 20, is yet to come. The ‘55s hit in 2022.

  

      So, what? So, the first observation, admittedly in hindsight, is that this issue was completely predictable and avoidable. It was obvious by the numbers between 1945 and 1955. Disability compounded the issue, accounting now, for about 20% of the Social Security payout. What to do?  Let’s first reflect on what could have been done. 

       This trend was obvious at least 70 years ago (1950) and at that time, considering the increased lifespan, a forward thinking Congress (yeah, I’m aware that’s an oxymoron) might have passed legislation raising the full retirement eligibility age by a year each of the following three or four decades. At most, that would now have full retirement at age 69. An accompanying increase for the early retirement age would have also been appropriate. Passing this legislation in 1950 to go into effect in 1960 would have “grandfathered” every worker within ten years of retirement. 

       Had this been done, recognizing that the changes occurring were predictable and irreversible, Social Security would be well and good, As it stands, more than a third of retirees take early Social Security benefits, in many cases because they have prepared for retirement in other ways. In other words, foresight could have “fixed” the problem by 1990. Unfortunately, only a smattering of that philosophy was applied, and that was too late.

  

       What might be done now? (and this is the part that no politician wishes to address, because any real fix will be unpopular in some place.

        First, recognize that any change that doesn’t grandfather persons with current retirement plans is blatantly unfair, so: pick a time certain, say, at least 5 years from enacting of legislation, which raises the full eligibility age to 68.  Also, raise the early retirement age to 65 in, perhaps, just three or 4 years. Additionally, decrease the initial amount of early retirement to encourage individuals to wait. In another five years plan for another bump to age 69 or even 70 for full retirement, while leaving early retirement at 65. Increase the reward for waiting. In a worst-case scenario, require employers to include disability insurance equivalent to Social Security disability as a perk. Also as is intuitively obvious, increase the current percentage of SS deduction from both employee and employer.  
       
 Also, and perhaps more "do-able",  enact realistic legislation defining “disability” in meaningful terms. I’m reminded of the Louisiana mother of four sons, all supposedly mentally unable to hold jobs, but when their disability status was questioned, her rationale was that, “Every young man needs a car.” The literature is rife with well documented claims of disability fraud as well as simple benefit fraud, such as cashing checks of long dead parents

       Explain, in simple English, that by somewhere around 2035 the problem will moderate on its own, as the “Bulge” of the baby boomers pass through the system and on to whatever waits for them. The birthrate began to decrease after a plateau at 1955-57. The class of 1957 would be 81 by that time and total numbers of beneficiaries would be decreasing steadily. And, as an aside, the birthrate decline has nothing to do with Roe v Wade, as some morons like Star Parker have asserted. It is, rather, a decision by married couples to have fewer children.  

 

       Do not, however, like former Congressman Paul Ryan, himself the beneficiary of Social Security survivor’s benefits, address this issue as if the people who depend on it are the ones at fault. Too often this one-dimensional approach, usually including the use of the word “entitlement” somewhere, seems to blame eligible recipients rather than address the issue of Congressional unwillingness to tackle unpopular issues squarely.      

A Possibly Unpopular Point of View

        Right off the top: I realize that, for a few, the mere fact that wealth exists is offensive. For many of the rest of us, the opinions are rather more nuanced, ranging from "no one should be wealthy", to "those who are wealthy are all despicable and got their wealth by nefarious means."  I differentiate with a little more reasoned judgement, and here's why. "Mr. Sam" Walton became wealthy as a merchandiser. I recall going into early Walmart stores and seeing "made in America" signs beside stacks of merchandise. Was Mr.Sam a bad man? no. Was he unscrupulous? Not that anyone has ever even implied.

        But, by 1985, he was the wealthiest man in America. He didn't do it by continuing sales of "made in America", but by selling products made elsewhere with cheaper labor at lower prices which Americans, many of them lower income, flocked to buy. He was a shrewd businessman who no one ever characterized as criminal or unscrupulous. When he died his children were the recipients of most of his billions of dollars in assets, and today continue "legally" shielding much of their enormous annual profits from taxes while, in person, doing relatively little in terns of "work," instead being paid Board members of banks, or working for the family foundation which tax shelters more wealth in the form of art and museums, written off as nontaxable.  The collective Walton fortune, which none of the heirs worked to amass, is more than Amazon's Jeff Bezon has earned to date    

         I have yet to hear anyone slander Mr Sam, who used the economic tools he was given,  added motivation and brains and prospered. On the other hand, slandering the rich has since become a major indoor sport. Sadly, there seems to be little effort to differentiate the fair from the foul. By foul I would include several Walton heirs ($200 billion given to them with no effort to earn any of it),  Donald Trump (started with almost half a billion in untaxed money from his father, slum lord Fred Trump), Trump's spawn, George W and H.W. Bush, Paris Hilton, etc. who had wealth simply as a consequence of birth, not by dint of their own efforts. Sadly, it has become fashionable of late to lump these individuals with Americans who, starting from humble beginnings and using essentially their brains and motivation became innovators and  became wealthy as a consequence.  

        Of these, Jeff Bezos, of Amazon is easily the favorite target. One supposes it's because he's also the wealthiest. Not because of inheritance or a "leg up"  from benefactors, but because he worked hard in school, got a scholarship which was the only way he got to Princeton, and innovated in the newly opened market of on line marketing. While at Princeton, he also became president of the university's Students for the Exploration and Development of Space chapter,  graduating with a GPA of 4.2, and a double major in electrical engineering and computer science. In some ways Jeff Bezos is the internet Sam Walton. Amazon has generated great wealth for Bezos due to the appreciation of his own Amazon stock, and generated a lot of hostility even though he has spent billions on charity and spends $1 billion annually on research in space exploration (Blue Horizon) which benefits us because we don't have to pay NASA to do it. 

       What follows is my response to a recent Facebook post defaming Bezos for being what he is, an honest, innovative entrepreneur operating within the letter of the law as it exists today. Both the writer and myself are retired and comfortable, primarily because like Bezos,  we used our motivation and resources legally to achieve it.

        I'm really tired of persons maligning others who, like most of us, live within the law, use resources available to all of us, and yet are pilloried by those who have been less successful or had other priorities. I understand the feeling that there is too much money concentrated in too few hands. So, I suppose, did Robin Hood and Jesse James. However, in many cases this is the result of being smarter, more driven, or other innate things which we simply can’t distribute like food stamps.

        In the case of the “Robber Barons” of the late 19^th century it ranged from innovation and hard work (Andrew Carnegie) to monopoly and market manipulation (John D. Rockefeller), now illegal.  If we don't like the profit Amazon or Microsoft, or Berkshire Hathaway legally makes, that isn't on Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett; it's largely (and primarily) on the tax system as it is now. If we don't like off-shore basing as a tax dodge, change that as well. In some cases it’s the passing on of great wealth to those who have done nothing to deserve it.

        Blaming anyone for legally and openly using tools equally available to them and to everyone to produce income is counter intuitive. Change the tools, if we must (and we should), but unless the entire world functions under a uniform tax and wage code it probably ain't gonna happen. One individual stated that a $15 hourly wage wasn’t a living wage. In truth, for two earners, $15 hourly equates to $60k annually. that's double the current two person poverty level and way above food stamp and Medicaid eligibility. It just isn’t all much that in Seattle or San Francisco. In the vast majority of the nation yes, $15/hr, as a beginning, lifts them out of poverty.

        As regards healthcare, Amazon's efforts to provide non-profit healthcare plans have the "for profit" healthcare industry concerned to the point of potential lawsuits. Again, my issue is that, if given the same tools and materials, (a brain and the motivation to use it, not talking about inherited wealth by trust fund babies) we both build houses and mine is "nicer " than yours, perhaps, as The Bard said, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

        Both of us (referring to a friend’s post on the subject), you and I, took advantage of opportunities open to most of us at the time. Both of us are now comfortably retired, reaping the benefits of those efforts because we worked hard and honestly. We weren’t lucky or the beneficiaries of a family fortune. Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. weren't, either, neither were Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. (funny how no one bashed billionaire Jobs, huh?)

       Donald Trump rose on illegally untaxed family money (NYT estimated $480 mil!). Bush 41 and 43 were trust funders as well, in fact much of the Bush fortune stemmed from opium trade. The Kennedies got rich (initially) on bootleg liquor.

       I strongly believe in a well-regulated market economy. I also agree that some things, such as power, water, mineral wealth should benefit the population as a whole on a non-profit, or at least well-regulated allowable profit basis, like most electrical power producers currently operate under. That said, looking at the UK and its retreat from broad government ownership and high levels of state support for those who choose not to work, is problematic for me. That goes to what one's work ethic is, and that definition goes all the way back to Elizabethan times and the differences between "deserving " and "undeserving" poor.

       I have absolutely no idea, regarding how to cope with those who simply choose not to work yet are physically and mentally healthy. It has been an eternal problem, not a recent one. Seattle is a perfect example. While politicians rail at profits of large tech companies based in or near the city while bemoaning the homeless problem, that isn't really the, problem. The problem is individuals who, for whatever reason insist on being in the city without the means to live there or are mentally incapable of functioning in modern society. These are two different issues.

         There was a time when many of the under-                 motivated or less capable lived off the land and not in urban centers, those days are gone to a significant degree, but here in Florida, we still have those who choose to live in poverty in the Ocala national forest. For some of these their current situation reflects poor choices made at a time when those choices mattered, such as when offered a free public education.  Why? Who knows? Some has to do with familial attitudes toward education and what in some cases almost seems “generational undermotivation.” I spent 20 years in public education and observed it to some degree.

        On the other hand, we recently watched a woman in downtown Seattle, somewhere in her 30s, standing and yelling unintelligibly at our hotel building. I simply don’t have any idea regarding how we even begin to deal with that unless we massively "warehouse" these folks. Throwing money at the mentally ill (as in the “guaranteed minimum income”) would be useless unless that went to underwrite institutional care of some sort. 

        I'm fine with Corporations paying more taxes, and/or reducing profits by paying higher wages and better benefits. As an example, look at marginal tax levels and percentages in the 1960s. When Reagan was elected, the top rate was 70%. He lowered it to 50% (instituting a burgeoning deficit and recession) and then it later dropped to 30%. Of course, paying much of this is avoidable if "salary" as such is nominal and other profits, especially capital gains, are undertaxed. A large issue is that as capital gains, once (1978) taxed at 40%, are now taxed at a paltry 15% (or less depending upon income) there will be the inequity of those born with it, keeping it, regardless of value to society. Again, POTUS as a case in point. But, I truly don't know how one can expect to keep domestic dollars here if off-shore alternatives exist and they surely will.

        A reasonable federal minimum wage is a good start. Regarding the  statement that $15 hourly isn't a living wage, that is so geographically dependent as to be meaningless. In Western Maryland, or Missoula Montana where a decent 1 bedroom apartment rents at around $725, a single individual with a $15 hourly job (2400 monthly) can live in decent conditions as long as the employer provides reasonable health care options. In Eastern Kentucky it’s even cheaper. And, by the way, health care costs are, or should be, a much, much greater concern nationally than individual fortunes.

       Finally, another individual, who wrote on this issue some weeks ago, lambasted Jeff Bezos because of the “ridiculous” price of Amazon stock, as if anything but market factors had anything to do with it. It seemed as if she thinks CEOs “set” stock prices. In truth, Mutual funds hold more Amazon stock than Bezos does. Amazon opened (IPO price) at $18 per share. Through legally meeting customer needs, and only that, in a competitive retail arena, it now trades at $2354.50 as of yesterday.(and it's split three times) Nobody’s “fault.”

        If we think that’s “too much” then we should tax the profits (capital gains) on the sales of it as “income” and at a higher rate, instead of smearing an individual and honest businessman. If your reason is that you think he should give more away, tell the Walton clan or the Trumps. Even better, wait until he retires and see what he does with it.

Franklin Graham is wrong, but you knew that

        Franklin Graham, the babbling, bloviating, God huckstering, homophobic shithead, claims that “Sweden has a lower Covid-19 infection rate than UK, Italy and Spain.” His reasons are that he wants to “open up” the economy (one guesses that “donations” are down) and cites Sweden as proof that isolation is unnecessary. PolitiFact gives him a “half true” rating because taking just cherry-picked data, without contextual considerations he is correct. However, this sort of unilateral and biased pronouncement is the first refuge of Fox News and their ilk.

        Realizing that the average Graham supporter needs no facts, just beliefs, it’s unsurprising that he said what he said. The critical thinker, reading such drivel, might on the other hand wonder if the comparison can even reasonably be made. In the course of this riposte, I’ll throw a lot of numbers at you, but stick with me here.

        Right off the bat, one of the most significant factors in the case of contagious disease is population density.  Our parents (or grandparents for younger readers) understood this instinctively. I can recall being kept inside when Polio was diagnosed anywhere nearby. Jonas Salk changed that. As an aside, in this era of epic Pharma greed, it sounds almost insane, but Jonas Salk refused to patent his successful Polio vaccine. But I digress.

        As I was saying…population density, as I will show, is a significant factor in contagious disease propagation. By comparing Sweden to Italy, Spain, and the UK, Graham displays his ignorance. I will list these nations and parenthetically, I’ll list their population density in units of individuals per square mile. Italy (533), UK (727), Spain (299) and, for comparison, USA (94) and Sweden (64), See the logic problem here yet?  

        Sweden is “recommending” social distancing, true, but they are also sheltering and isolating the most susceptible of their population. That alone means that reasonably healthy persons are the vast portion of any group in public. And yet…! Sweden’s neighbors have taken a more aggressive approach during the Covid-19 outbreak. Denmark and Norway, for example, quickly closed their borders along with schools and industry to maximize social distancing. The data shows that those two countries have done better than Sweden in keeping the number of cases down. Sweden has experienced high death rates compared to other countries, with nearly 8% of Swedes confirmed to be infected with coronavirus dying from it, compared to less than 2% and 4% for neighbors Norway and Denmark, respectively.

        But wait, there’s more, and no one, including PolitiFact, has mentioned it. Taking a look at the USA and considering population density demographics tells an even more nuanced story.  

       Six US states - both Dakotas, Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming and Alaska have fewer than 20 persons per square mile. Unsurprisingly, they are also among the states with the lowest rate of Covid-19 cases. While we cannot truly know how seriously their citizens took admonitions re: social distancing, we can note that these states have one thing in common, that being relatively small populations and few to no large cities. Of these states, New Mexico has the highest number of confirmed cases of Covid -19. It also has the largest city, Albuquerque, and ¼ of the whole states’ population lives there. Coincidence?

        Now, consider the entire USA: We see high infection rates in Washington. DC, Florida, New Jersey and New York state. Unsurprisingly, these are also among the highest in population density in the country. For example, New York state, has 421 persons per square mile, Florida 400. Washington, DC has 11,569.  That, however, is admittedly an “apples to oranges” comparison, since New York state has lots of sparsely inhabited regions while DC is wall to wall persons. New York City, on the other hand has 27,000 individuals per square mile. It hardly takes a scientist to discern why these two municipalities have high infection rates.  

        The United States, even with its wide-open spaces, has a population density of 94 people per square mile, while Sweden, which Franklin Graham apparently thinks is comparable for statistical purposes, has about 2/3 of that number. Additionally, while the US has beaches and open air dining across much of the nation from early April on (and in the South, year round), most Swedes are less likely to be dining al fresco, since, as I write, Stockholm, at 59.2 North latitude and sea level is in the high 40s. Farther north, it still reaches freezing every night and folks aren’t going to all that many open air events. By comparison, Bozeman Montana, at 45.6 degrees latitude and almost a mile high is warmer. You might think this would help keep contagion rates down but keep reading.

        Even with all the above data (I like data) Graham is simply, as usual, full of crap in his flat statement that “it’s working in Sweden.”  As of April 9, Sweden’s rate per capita of confirmed deaths from the coronavirus of 8% was (and remains) higher than the rate of its fellow Scandinavian countries or the US (5.6%).  Its relatively higher population density (highest in Scandinavia) is the very reason they probably should have mandated social distancing. Read on the learn the consequences and the outlook.

         Hospitals are overcrowded and staff members are overworked, and the military has begun setting up field hospitals in major cities, including Stockholm, the country’s capital and the epicenter of its outbreak. The government is now seeking extraordinary powers to impose further restrictions.

        Some Swedish experts have estimated that as many as 4 million Swedes — out of a population of around 10 million — may eventually contract the disease. (warning; data break: That’s a 40% “positive” rate.)  Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has candidly stated this week that “thousands” in his country will die from Covid-19. (they already have and counting.) 

       While it’s still a bit early to tell if the Swedish government’s methods will prove successful in the end, some Swedes have told media sources in Sweden that they’re unhappy being the world’s guinea pigs at such a dangerous time. This is understandable, since Norwegian and Danish data is readily available, and their social isolation seems to be working

        It is worthy of note that, unlike the US, Sweden was actually better prepared for whatever may eventuate because of a national health system run by medical professionals, vice politicians.

        In summary, Sweden and the US are vastly different. Even within the USA, states vary markedly in demographics and therefore, infection rates.  Several quick examples:

  

 State:         Montana     Alaska      New York     Wyoming

Covid cases:  444             339         267,000           743

% of pop.     .041%           .04%         1.3%            .12% 
 infected

        Now for an apples to apples summary: I’ll show you just the headline of an article in Forbes of April 21. “Sweden: 600,000 Coronavirus Infections In Stockholm By May 1, Model Estimates”   

Admittedly, that’s just a “model” but here are the real numbers as of this past Thursday, April 23.

       To understand the significance of the data, one must remember that Sweden has almost exactly twice the population of the other Nordic nations, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. As of 3 days ago Sweden had 18,640 confirmed cases of Covid-19. Denmark 8,073, Norway 7,449 and Finland 4,576.

       Make sure you get that.  Even when adjusting for population differences, Sweden still has the highest infection rate of the Nordic four and the others are “social distancing.”  Denmark, second highest has about the same rate as Wyoming, a rounded off .14% of the population infected. Sweden, lauded by Graham, on the other hand has an infection rate of .18% (and predicted to soar to as much as 40%!)

        Sweden is not even “doing better” than her Scandinavian neighbors by any realistic measurement, and her own folks are beginning to have serious concerns for the future

Franklin Graham is a liar, and, like Donald Trump who he worships, has an agenda and any lie of any magnitude is apparently justified to further it. Pathetic, just pathetic.

The Roosevelt saga redux

        I took a whole lot of flak from a Facebook group of which I am, by choice, now an ex-member. The issue was my defense of The CO of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Capt. Brett Crozier,   in the wake of his having been relieved because of what was erroneously characterized as a  message which he (incorrect allegation) sent to “30 or so” of his higher ups regarding his growing concerns about an outbreak of Corona Virus on board his command.

        First, to clarify, He did not “send his e-mail to 30 recipients” as the now, thankfully resigned, former acting SECNAV, Modly, alleged. It was sent to a small handful of senior Naval officials. Period. Someone in the Navy released his enclosed explanatory letter to the San Francisco Chronicle.

        So, what was wrong about this whole mess?

        Begin with the Navy sending the TR into port in Vietnam in early March. Problematic? If one considers the timeline of the current pandemic, on Jan. 22, Trump told CNBC he was “not at all” worried about a potential pandemic: “No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China … It’s going to be just fine.”  But within two weeks it was obvious, regardless of Trump’s whistling in the dark, that there was a world pandemic and that Corona wasn’t “contained” at all. By Feb. 24, Mr. Trump had been presented by public health officials with a plan titled “Four Steps to Mitigation,' telling the president that they needed to begin preparing Americans for a step rarely taken in United States history. But over the next several days, a presidential blowup and internal turf fights would sidetrack compliance. The focus would shift to messaging and confident predictions of success rather than publicly calling for a shift to mitigation.

       By that time there was ample opportunity to recall Roosevelt to Guam, but alas, Adm. Philip S. Davidson, the U.S. military’s top officer in the Pacific, ordered the ship to continue to port in Da Nang, Vietnam, as planned. Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Mike Gilday, described it as a “risk-informed decision.”  In retrospect, it was an unwise and avoidable risk and had Trump not been lying to, or at least grossly misleading, the entire nation, in spite of conflicting expert recommendations, Gilday might well have called visit off.  

Sailors spent five days in Da Nang, mingled with Vietnamese civilians during a reception and performed community service projects. One group stayed at the same hotel as two British tourists who were later confirmed to have the virus.

        What has been truly lost in all this is the fact that there was physically no way to insure against a much wider and less controlled spreading of the story once Corona was discovered onboard. 50 plus years ago, when I first rode submarines, we, the crew were unable to communicate with the outside world, and all the information we did get was Naval UHF broadcasts. We did get “family grams” brief messages from home, screened and censored if necessary, and general news and sports. Period. Even today on deployed subs, communication out bound are very limited to avoid detection and there are no opportunities for crew to access Cell phone, e-mail or internet communications.

        This is not true of surface vessels. Carriers have their own ship’s networks and access is available. Of course, basically everyone has a cell phone, perhaps two. While Capt. Crozier did institute a “no personal communications” order, it was essentially impossible to enforce, and several of the crew had already informed family members of the covid-19 presence on board.   

        So, Capt. Crozier had a dilemma. He’d been sent to where common sense indicates he shouldn’t have gone. The result soon became evident. Second, by now he had protocols to follow which were essentially impracticable on an aircraft carrier (isolation, individual bathrooms, etc.), Third he had access to WHO and NIH protocols which made it clear he had the potential for a mind bogglingly  bad situation and no meaningful response from his immediate superior. Finally, all “expert opinion to the contrary (and by “expert” I mean persons that were once in the Navy for three or four years and now “know everything”, even if they’ve never spoken to an admiral or been kicked in the arse by one.) Note: I have had the first experience, never the second. Most of the Old Salts (in their minds) who have thrown Captain Crozier under the bus, have done so citing a compromise of Operational Security, or OPSEC. Face it, any such hope was long gone when the first sick crewman called mom as the ship sat off the coast of Guam waiting for meaningful action from NavMed and PacFleet in response to an issue which they failed to fully appreciate, and their subordinate with a small village of 4550 men and women did. One could add the obvious, which is that, in the days of hi-res satellite digital photography, it's really hard to hide an 1100 foot long 143 foot wide floating airport siting just off the coast of Guam    

        The other aggravating factor is one common to the Trump “years” and problematic. It has two parts. The first is that Trump has appointed persons to Cabinet level and other departmental position, with regulatory authority, who shouldn’t be there. Disagree? Two words Carson, DeVos, both out of their depth in public service. Far worse is the fact that since disagreement with Trump is seen as disloyalty to the President even if the oath specifies The Constitution, a large number of posts have been vacated by the firing or forced “resignation” of the appointee. In a normal administration, these vacancies would be filled by the President nominating and Senate confirming a replacement. Trump has, to a degree never seen, refused to nominate replacements, instead choosing to have an acting undersecretary fill the posts.

        For, comparison, over the previous 40 years (from Reagan to the end of Obama’s second term), the total number of days such posts have gone unfilled by Senate confirmed candidates is 906 man-days. In Trump’s partial term to date those jobs have been empty for 1,397 days, and these are just Cabinet level ones.  Trump has been happy to fill many of the positions with "acting" officials, saying it “gives him more flexibility." But it adds instability when so many departments are without permanent leaders — and acting secretaries don't go through the scrutiny and vetting that they'd get with Senate confirmation. And of course, an acting undersecretary is far less likely to "make waves"

        Seldom has this been better shown than by the disrespectful remarks made by Acting SECNAV Modly to the crew of the TR. He consequently resigned when multiple reports of his blatant disrespect were leaked by Roosevelt crewmembers. There is little doubt that the Crozier firing was directed either specifically or obliquely by Donald Trump. We do know that the CNO was originally bypassed in the process. So, think about that, the individual (Undersecretary Modly) who falsely claimed Crozier leaked operational data and violated the chain of command, did so himself by bypassing the Navy’s senior officer, Admiral Mike Gilday.

What a tangled web we weave…..    

Responsibility

       During one of the myriad press briefings (read “propaganda sessions), NBC’s Kristen Welker asked Donald Trump whether he took responsibility for the testing lag, which one member of his own task force called “a failing.”  Of course, as we now know, any negative comment, true or not, from an Administration employee is grounds for dismissal. 

       Trump’s answer, predictably?  “No, I don’t take responsibility at all. Because we were given a — a set of circumstances, and we were given rules, regulations and specifications from a different time. It wasn’t meant for this kind of — an event with the kind of numbers that we’re talking about,” Trump responded. President Trump doesn’t take responsibility. For anything.

       He didn't take responsibility for the death of Sgt. La David Johnson, a Green Beret killed during a counter-terror operation on the border between Niger and Mali earlier in his administration.  Two weeks elapsed without calling Johnson's loved ones, and then Trump told his pregnant widow, Myeshia Johnson, that her late husband "knew what he signed up for" — placing responsibility for his death not on Trump, his commander in chief, or the rest of the government, but on Sgt. Johnson himself, for choosing to serve.

       He is far from being the first US President to deny culpability for failures, but he’s the most consistent in recent years.

       Admittedly, his previous Republican successor was also prone to “Not me” when confronted with unsuccessful policy results. Whereas Trump usually gets angry and blatantly lies when confronted, “W” got confused and almost apologetic.

       Here, verbatim, is the stumbling series of semi-answers he attempted to express to Journalist John Dickerson when he was asked, during a press conference, to name his biggest mistake since 9/11 and what he’d learned from it:  

Here's what he said:

       "Hmmm... I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. Uhhh... (six-second pause)

       "John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. Uhhh... (five second pause). You know, I just -- uhhh - I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hasn't yet. ..."

       Bush then babbled and generally rambled on that he would have done nothing differently in Afghanistan, how Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and how he was confident the truth would come out about weapons of mass destruction (Well, he was right about that, in retrospect, the real problem was that there were none!!). After filling dead air and generally, killing time with that nonsense, he tried to return to Dickerson's original question. But Bush's eyes looked like a slot machine that had just hit BAR-APPLE-LEMON. He said:

       "I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- heh, heh -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

       Sadly, this is about as good as it got with George W. Bush, a man woefully outclassed by his job requirements, and perhaps better suited to doing Charmin commercials. (sorry, Mr. Whipple)

Of course, the ultimate in lying through the teeth was the barrage of denials from Richard Nixon in the wake of Watergate, these are legion and far too numerous to mention.

       Sadly, there have been relatively few Presidents who have publicly acknowledged responsibility for events under their direction. There have been notable recent exceptions.

       Barack Obama was one. He said, addressing the nation, "The system has failed in a potentially disastrous way. ... The intelligence community failed to connect those dots." He later amplified on the events thus: "Ultimately, the buck stops with me. As president, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people, and when the system fails, it is my responsibility." 

       Somewhat similarly, in 1987, US President Ronald Reagan said in a speech about the Iran-Contra affair: “Certainly it was not wrong to try to secure freedom for our citizens held in barbaric captivity. But we did not achieve what we wished, and serious mistakes were made in trying to do so.” Admittedly, this is a passive admission. Somehow, we like “Mistakes were made” more than “I fucked up,” but it’s a start. Footnote”  Reagan VP George H.W. Bush who multiple sources cite as being completely “read in” on the whole mess, later claimed having been  “Out of the loop.”

       In 1961, following the terribly botched Bay of Pigs invasion, The White House released the following statement: “President Kennedy bears sole responsibility for the events of the past few days.”

All these at least approach, if not completely achieve, the acceptance of personal responsibility for failures of their leadership or administration’s efforts, unlike Trump.

       For me, the iconic example of accepting responsibility for events under an individual’s supervision was offered by a man who would be, but was not yet, president. Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander in the European Theater of World War II. On the eve of the Normandy Invasion, which was under his overall control he wrote this:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

This was the “just in case of failure” letter. Rarely has any high echelon official ever been so candid and frank in accepting responsibility. Mercifully, the letter was unnecessary.

       Sadly, when Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane was shot down in May of 1960, Ike’s first response was denial of its spy mission. It was only later, when the Soviets showed photos of the plane’s wreckage, that he admitted approving the flights as surveillance missions. Of course, had it been Trump, he’d just have said “Plane? What plane?”    

Sloppy/misleading language

        The late George Carlin, before he became just the “angry old man,” used to riff on various sloppy language issues. One of my favorites was his discussion of how we “nicen up” (or dumb down)” simple terms. Examples included “hearing impaired” for “deaf”, and “handi-capable” for “crippled.”  He went on to predict how this might evolve into a “Rape victim” becoming an  “Involuntary sperm recipient” (ouch) and “Vomit” becoming “Involuntary personal protein spill.” With that in mind, here are some personal language peeves, branching out into some personal opinions, as you knew I would.

        Ok, I opened a can of Belle’s dog food today and for the eleventeenth time noted the words “Homestyle Lamb Dinner.”

       I’ll grant Blue Buffalo the right to boast about their food….reasonably. The mixture is primarily lamb and vegetables, but then goes on for 38 additional ingredients (yeah, I counted). That ain’t “homestyle.”  I’m not even sure what “homestyle” is, but I envision someone at a stove, lovingly crafting some sort of comfort food. I seriously doubt that the machines which crush and debone lambs are in Blue Buffalo or anyone else’s kitchen. 

       As a side effect of social isolation, we actually stooped to microwaved dinners last night (Marie Callenders, in truth, fairly edible and on sale!) The dressing in the turkey dinner was described on the label as “homestyle.” Really?  Only if you live in Stove Top land. The fact that we had Pinot Grigio with it is on us.   

        Also, since I’m here, why are there medical “things” which “they” don’t want you to know? Usually these involve eating, smelling, or rubbing something on a body part which isn’t usually considered part of a health care procedure. A fair number of these are accompanied by the word “Protocol” and feature heavily in print ads for Chiropractors. I know why. “Protocol” sounds scientific and professional, unlike joint rubbing and sketchy dietary supplements.

        Speaking of dietary supplements: I am fairly sure that there are a reasonable number of dietary supplements on the market which, even if they are fraudulent in their claims, and trust me many are, won’t hurt you. That said, how do you know?

        When you take a prescription drug which is still “on patent,” you probably paid too much, but were at least reasonably assured that it was safe (except for some of those we see advertised on TV which, in either small print or rapid speech, warn you that, “While your “A1c” will decrease, your genitalia may atrophy, bleeding from bodily orifices, death,  or something equally dire, may also occur.

          We know that (or assume that) the FDA has required the manufacturer of the original version of the drug to demonstrate that the drug meets the test of “safe and effective, taken as directed” standard. The “taken as directed” part is critical since, as I have written elsewhere, in 1918, in the midst of a world Flu pandemic and  with the FDA in its infancy, Aspirin (Bayer’s copyrighted trade name since 1899) was already the miracle drug for the new millennium and never came under FDA scrutiny. So…when doctors prescribed 10 times toxic dosages…..! Some estimates are that perhaps half the US deaths attributed to the Spanish Flu were due to aspirin poisoning!

        I say that, to say this: Dietary supplements are not subject to FDA approval and there is zero requirement to show safety or efficacy. Period. You might be eating pelletized dried sloth dung labeled as Folivora Pilosa extract. Reading the small print on a bottle of some of these off the shelf (and sometimes off the wall) products reveals that they tell you there is no proof that they have any value.  

        If I were to choose to do so, I could click on the annoying sidebars which appear, without being summoned, on my on-line Bridge game and find at least 30 or 40 “foods you should never eat.”  One such even leads with the promise that buying the book will unlock the "secrets to emptying your bowels every morning." (yes, exactly that!)

        Sadly, some doctor’s name is attached, and they’ll be glad to sell you a copy of their book warning against the evils of eggs, broccoli, bacon(!!) and whatever else they choose to malign. Of course, I can find another book which gives advice to the contrary. I envision these to be much like matter and anti-matter: Put them side by side on the mantle and “poof” they neutralize each other and disappear (if only!).  

        Such is the case with, as just one recently publicized example, colloidal silver. Silver is a non-reactive “noble” metal, like gold. Yet “DR” Sherrill Sellman (I put the DR in quotes because Sellman is a Naturopath, not a real medical doctor)  will be happy to send you a 16 ounce bottle of  “Health Max Nano-Silver Liquid”  for $42.00 (plus tax). She and Jim Bakker, who also sells religion, “end times” food, and other unproven panaceas, actually claimed her Nano-Silver could “Kill Corona Virus.” Fortunately, the state of Missouri shut that line of hucksterism down. For the record, the only thing daily doses of colloidal silver have been proven to accomplish is turn the user’s body parts permanent bluish gray. It actually has a name -Argyria and is irreversible.

Same man, before and after years of daily silver ingestion 

        After the list of claims which include strengthening the immune system and others such as “A World Leader in Nano-Silver Technology, A Patented Silver Supplement, Doctor Recommended Natural Alternative, 10 ppm Silver,100% Vegetarian there is this, in much smaller print: "* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product."

Oddly enough, the one real doctor whose recommendation is cited is an Obstetrician in Florida.

       As I said, Mr. Carlin used to rant about “sloppy and misleading language.”  He’d have had a field day with this!