Linkage Between Miitary Experience and Presidential Performance?

         Because I have the sort of time required while voluntarily locked down, and being a history geek, I decided to look closely at the ranking of presidents and the relationship of those rankings to military service. I will admit to having more than a smattering of where this was headed, but had never broken it down, statistically.

      I used several surveys to compile the data. One was more a popularity poll compiled over the previous several years while all the others broke down responses and ranked presidents by “quartile” with first quartile being the top 25% as compiled from twenty individual polls conducted from 1948 to the present. This is more accurately reflective, I feel, since at looked at a very wide range of criteria and over time for several of the more modern presidents.

        That last offers the perspective of distance and ensuing events to the “popularity” factor. An example: Eisenhower was ranked 21^st of 34 Presidents in a 1962 survey conducted by a Harvard historian. A similar 1982 poll placed Eisenhower at 11^th, and in the 17 remaining polls he was never lower than that. He was ranked as high as fifth and finished well up in the top quartile of American Presidents.

        A primary reason for this is the sometimes-heard complaint that goes something along the line of “How can (insert individual in question here) be Commander in Chief without military experience.” On the surface it might seem that the question has merit, but historical analysis seems to indicate otherwise.

        George Washington is almost always ranked as Number 1 in polls of Historians, and while he is revered as the first, I think there are several reasons that this is an emotional/sentimental choice. Washington defined the Presidential role and formality we expect (but have not seen recently) but, in all candor he also had Alexander Hamilton to do the legwork of creating the financial structure of the federal government. He also had just four cabinet members, including Jefferson as Sec. State. Things moved far slower and such media as there was (and there wasn’t much) remained fairly aloof. Washington as a revered war hero was unanimously elected, the last time anyone would approach this feat.

         There was almost no semblance of opposition, loyal or otherwise, to Washington, himself. As a Southerner and slave owner, he was essentially above the other primary domestic issue of the day, that being the Federal assumption of the states’ war debts and the establishment of a “national debt” driven by the fact that the Northern (and, mostly, free) states had borne the bulk of financial cost of the War for Independence. The Southern states had little war debt and were concerned that a Northern capitol (NYC) was disadvantageous to their continued status as legal slave owners, since there were already anti-slavery sentiments expressed by some in the North.

        In 1789, Benjamin Franklin wrote and published several essays supporting the abolition of slavery and his last public act was to send to Congress a petition asking for the abolition of slavery and an end to the slave trade. The petition, signed on February 3, 1790, asked the first Congress, then meeting in New York City, to "devise means for removing the Inconsistency from the Character of the American People," and to "promote mercy and justice toward this distressed Race."  Southerners in Congress were, unsurprisingly,  alarmed.

        Dealing with these two issues, had he done it himself, would have clearly elevated Washington to “head and shoulders status among US Presidents, had he done it! Most of that task, however, fell to Alexander Hamilton. A compromise deal was struck (see “Hamilton” – the song “The Room Where It Happened” is about that little known event). The capitol was moved to Philly, pending the construction (and draining) of a new site which became Washington D.C., farther South and between 2 slave states - Md. and Va.- and to satiate the Northerners, the states’ war debts were assumed.

        Even so Washington did, in essence, define and invent the role of POTUS, so #1 is probably justified. 

      The next three Presidents, Adams, Jefferson and Madison had no military experience whatsoever, yet Adams and Madison are high in the second quartile while Jefferson consistently ranks well up in the first!

        However, examining the rest of those presidents with combat experience, (numbering 20) twelve, or more than half are rated in the third or fourth quartile. Five are rated in the bottom quartile, including Ulysses S. Grant, the third senior US military officer ever to hold the White House after Eisenhower and Washington. In fact, six of the next seven Presidents after Lincoln were Army generals. Two were bottom quartile, the other four were third quartile, and the seventh, two-termer Grover Cleveland, with no military experience, ranks well up in the second quartile, above all of them!

         Twelve US Presidents have been in the military but never in any combat theater of war. Of these, there is little correlation between combat experience and non-combat as far as ratings, in fact, Reagan who for reasons unfathomable to me, is rated in the top quartile, had vision so bad he was assigned only to narrating wartime instructional videos. Lincoln, who was technically in a militia regiment during the Black Hawk war, but never fought, is consistently rated in the top 5 Presidents, usually number two or three.      

        On the other hand, the man almost universally rated as second-best US President (and then only after Washington) ran that office from a wheelchair.

        Franklin D. Roosevelt had, arguably, the toughest term(s) of any POTUS. Depression segued into WW II and, despite being physically limited, FDR led and, even more significantly, listened to good advice. Unlike Washington, FDR also faced merciless criticism from a relatively small but very vocal domestic mix of fascists and anti- war agitators. FDR also was faced with assuring domestic harmony and unity while US troops were fighting a two-ocean war.

        Of recent Presidents, from JFK to Trump, they are ranked by historians thusly. I will list them by name, military service (yes/no) combat theater experience (yes/no), and finally, quartile rating, (in quartiles, with 1 being the top 25%).

 JFK – yes, yes, 2

 LBJ – yes, no (controversial claims), 2 (would probably have been better if not for escalating Vietnam War)

Nixon -yes, yes, 3

Ford – yes, yes (10 battle stars!), 3

Carter – yes, no, 3

Reagan, yes, no, 1

Bush 41, yes, yes, 2

Clinton, no, no, 2

Bush 43, yes, no, 3

Obama, no, no, 2

Trump, no, no, 4 (Note: this is a 2018 pre COVID survey taken from approximately the same percentage of respondents who self-identified as Republicans as Democrats). Even so Trump was ranked lower than all others with the exception of Warren Harding!  (44^th of 45)    

Conclusion: There is little or no basis for connecting military service or experience to presidential capabilities or performance. So there!

Globalism: Old, New and In Reality

 

 

        The modern concept of “globalism” arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States. This was an America in a position of unprecedented power, due largely to the fact that, The USA alone, among the developed nations of the world, had seen economic boom during the war as the end of the Great Depression gave way to wartime production while other nations saw their production capabilities severely limited or all but obliterated by the same war.

        US planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which, in economic terms, meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. In a sense this was almost Hitlerian or Stalinist in concept, as world domination was the goal, albeit of a “kinder, gentler” type, but domination, nonetheless. This was the period when US global power was at its peak: the country was the greatest economic power the world had ever known, with the greatest military machine in human history. In February 1948, George Kennan's Policy Planning Staff memorandum described those aims thus: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population.… Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity". Read that again. Sounds like Steve Bannon wrote it. It is global in reach and intent and is Capitalism run amok. It might as well say: “Let’s do all we can to ensure the rest of the world remains impoverished relative to the USA.”  America's allies and foes in Eurasia were still recovering from World War II at this time, and that process was examined rather short sightedly in assuming that their secondary status either could or should be maintained.

        Why this lengthy opening? Simply because what Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, et. al. have derided as “globalism” shows one or more of several possibilities. One (and the most likely) is that they simply changed the definition to suit their world view, which would mean that, while their view echoes that 1948 definition, they now deride “globalism” in favor of the illusory “American Exceptionalism.”  This seems to be a sort of “Well, if we’re not totally in economic control of the world, we’re morally superior!”

        This also entails a shift in the perception of what the, US created, United Nations mission truly is. In my opinion, 1948 Globalists originally envisioned the UN as a paternalistic control mechanism for White Europeans and North Americans to exert control over world events. Again, Trump and Bannon would have been (and are) on board with that concept, but what happened is that the definition has morphed significantly. This explains far right antipathy to a UN which dares to deal evenly with all nations.

        Remembering the Kennan memo verbiage, now consider the current definition of “Globalist”: “A person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.”

        So, bearing in mind that the latter definition is essentially the opposite of the 1948 one, which does Trump really detest? Of course, it’s the current one, and I would assure you that he has no idea that the 1948 one, which enriched his father and, by extension himself, existed, since he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he slept through History class, and has what is most likely the lowest cultural IQ of any 20-21^st century Chief Executive, save for Warren Harding and Bush 43. This would explain that, while he now uses “Globalist” in the revised sense as a pejorative, he has sucked up to Saudis, Russian oligarchs, the Chinese (even though COVID-19 has dimmed that love affair), Turkey, the Emirates, and the list goes on. Of course, we know that instead of assuming any true philosophical purity of thought in Trumpian rhetoric, we would be better advised to adopt the tactics urged upon Woodward and Bernstein by Deep Throat - “Follow the money.”

        Doing that shows that Trump himself is more globalist than not where his persona financial affairs are concerned. His long- time affair with Deutsche Bank, (aka the “Global Laundromat” for its Russian Money $20 billion cleaning service) which only recently has also cut him off as have all major US Commercial lenders already have, is an indicator that Trump will do anything and go anywhere for money, patriotism be damned. There are serious questions regarding how much Russians and the National Bank of China are owed by the Trump Organization. All this, of course, while shouting the opposite philosophy to the great unwashed at rallies conducted at taxpayer expense.

        But enough about Trump, specifically, for the moment, and let’s reconsider the current definition of globalism and the implications of worldwide changes since WWII. The earlier definition was essentially a plan for world economic domination. That ship has sailed. Even more than that, the means to accomplish economic prosperity have changed as distribution of essential of not only basic raw materials, but also relatively rare metals and metalloids has significantly altered the playing field.   

        As briefly as possible:  The dominant fact apparent in any meaningful discussions of the raw materials position of the United States is its increasing dependence on foreign sources of supply. Less than 50 years ago we produced, within our own borders, practically all of the basic materials required by domestic industries and, in addition, had some surpluses for export. Not anymore. The transition from a position of relative self-sufficiency in industrial materials to that of the world's greatest importing nation deserves to be regarded as a major event in modern economic history. It marks the transformation of the United States from an underdeveloped to a highly developed industrial economy. But also presents the reality of dependence on others.

      Currently, we consume 35 to 40 percent of the free world's output of basic materials. Our annual purchases from abroad put  billions at the disposal of foreign countries, most of them in the category known as "underdeveloped." Clearly the “new” globalization is essential to our continued economic well- being. In fact, some of the most critical rare earths used in high tech electronics, computer memory, DVDs, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting, many military systems and much more are distributed globally to the extent that, for the rarest ones, China and Brazil control about 60% of the known world’s supply. Clearly, the “old” Globalism doesn’t, and can’t, work anymore, yet Trump and McConnell use the “new” context (international economic cooperation) as a negative even as (primarily) Japan and Saudi Arabia, and other foreign investors own 29.3% our national debt. You’ll probably hear some of this strange disconnect from Senate Republicans during some of the Biden cabinet confirmation hearings. Don’t be fooled into thinking Mitch McConnell ever had, or has had, the true national interest as his moral compass.  

To a New and Better Day

 

   

With the hope of a new day in American politics, it seems worth considering just how we got to the current morass. Since I have that kind of time, here goes:

“We hear sirens in the night. We see Americans dying on distant battlefields abroad. We see Americans hating each other, fighting each other, killing each other at home.” "I stand for “the forgotten Americans – the non-shouters, the non-demonstrators. They are not racists or sick. They are not guilty of the crime that plagues the land; they are the “silent majority.”

Sound familiar? It should, since those who could stomach it have watched and heard the current lame duck anointed one deliver variations on that theme for several seemingly unending years. It is phraseology Donald Trump has used to describe his own supporters, although not always in precisely those words. In reality, the words are Richard Nixon's from 48 years ago. Ain't it amazin' how time flies, yet the GOP's public persona seems frozen like Melania Trump’s eyelids or the Joker's smile? Of course, many of us knew in 2016 what we were getting and sadly it has surpassed our gravest concerns,

The Nixon camp had a code word for this approach, calling it the "Southern Strategy." One of the more enduring idiosyncratic features of today’s GOP is that they revel, wallow, actually, in referring to themselves as the "Party of Lincoln." In truth, Abe wouldn't recognize the mean-spirited bigots who now wear his tee shirt. To understand the GOP’s current strategy, grasp one essential truth. The modern Republican Party was founded on some bedrock contradictions. It had frequently been a "strange bedfellows" task to form an electable coalition melding the East Coast Republican establishment (think Rockefeller, Romney, Lindsey,) with hate filled and reactionary segregationists of the White South. The Nixon strategy team forged a Faustian deal with the devil (aka "Dixiecrat" leader Strom Thurmond) at the 1968 Republican convention in Miami, wherein states of the old slave-holding Confederacy would join the "Party of Lincoln."

Ideologically, they were already antithetical to the Northern Democrats. Southern Democrats who hated the Civil Rights movement, LBJ, and both Kennedys one dead, another about to be, were more than amenable to shifting colors morally from Red, White and Blue, to Stars and Bars. In fact, the “New” Southern Republicans essentially became the reincarnation of Reconstruction era Democrats.

It took two election cycles to convert the “Solid South,” but Nixon and GOP strategists, via largely unpublicized private assurances that Republicans would discreetly retreat from their historic (Eisenhower, Brown V Board) commitment to civil rights, did it. This included the addition of a border state (Md) Governor (the loathsome Spiro T, Agnew) to the ticket. Race baiting Carolinian, Strom Thurmond, then a Democratic senator and a vile segregationist, openly broke party ranks and declared support for the Republican nominee, not only campaigning with Barry Goldwater, who ran and lost against LBJ in 1964, in the deep South but actually switching his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in the middle of the race. The GOP nominee, Barry Goldwater, ended up capturing 55% of the white Southern vote, making him the first Republican ever to win a majority of white southerners, and the party of Lincoln was transformed, for one election at least, into the party of southern reactionism.

Later, Lee Atwater a Gingrich co-conspirator, was far more candid in describing how this shift was accomplished (I will edit this vile diatribe only for length) “You start out in 1954 by saying ‘n*****, n*****, n***** but, by 1968, you can’t say that anymore ..... So, you say stuff like, 'forced bussing', 'states’ rights' and all that stuff. You’re getting abstract now; you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.(italics are mine) You follow me? – because obviously sitting around saying ‘We want to cut this’ is much more abstract than even the bussing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘n*****”. (I loathe the above usage of the "n" word, but Atwater, Gingrich and fellow GOPers were/are apparently very comfortable with it.)

So, for some, at least, the race issue had/has simply become a marketing problem - " How to make racism less visible and more suitable for prime time?" Lee Atwater's mentor, Harry Dent, a former adviser to Strom Thurmond, helped Richard Nixon smooth the worst wrinkles in the Southern Strategy, ushering in the “kinder, gentler” vocabulary of the new racial politics. This unstated racism in GOP politics delivered the White House to Republicans in five of the next six presidential elections. Goldwater discovered it; Nixon refined it; and Reagan molded it into the darkest of the modern political dark arts. Since then, four years of Donald Trump have taken us to far darker waters, but make no mistake, it’s still about “us and them” in the GOP. Dwight Eisenhower would not recognize the party he led from 1952-60.

In August 1980, The Republican party’s newly anointed nominee, Ronald Reagan, spoke at the Neshoba County fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, and said: "I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to be given to that federal establishment. And if (elected), I’m going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there." It must be noted that the “powers” Reagan refers to are the federal initiatives such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, aimed at assuring all citizens of equal treatment and justice under the Constitution.

Neshoba County also happens to be the same place that three civil rights activists were killed in 1964 with the connivance and inactivity of local law enforcement. James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered for daring to try and register eligible black voters. After the state government refused to prosecute, the United States federal government charged 18 individuals with civil rights violations in 1967. Seven were convicted and received relatively minor sentences for their actions. This was the "Mississippi Burning" case.

Thirteen years later, that’s where Reagan went to speak the words “I believe in states’ rights”, in his first appearance as the Republican nominee. Today we sometimes refer to this shameful race baiting as "dog-whistle" politics, the coded racial rhetoric Lee Atwater was talking about and which Trump has mastered. Reagan’s Neshoba County speech remains as one of the masterworks of the Southern Strategy, a dog whistle audible to every racist reactionary within 3,000 miles. I don't feel Reagan was an inherently "evil" man, but he was guided, too easily, by some who were. Trump needs nor heeds no guidance.

It’s no fluke that Donald Trump, one of the loudest and most persistent of the Obama birthers won the Deep South states in 2016. Although many other Republican contenders fine tune their bigotry within the bounds of acceptably cruel political discourse, Trump lets it all hang out: his racist rants play like full-fledged symphonies when compared to the dog-whistle stuff, amplifying the finely tuned code that’s served the GOP establishment for so long and so well. Along the way Trump has essentially indicated, either overtly or by acquiescing silence, that every cop is a “good guy,” even those few who murder, and Black lives really just don’t matter all that much. this has rubbed off on others like Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham and Matt Gaetz. But, then again, that’s why the base loves him; he “feels” their rage.

The previous sentence assumes Trump actually “feels” anything other than the need to have the public fawn over him. In the face of a global pandemic, Trump ranted about his approval ratings while Americans died. One can only suppose what might have happened if Trump had actually followed actual scientific advice re: distancing and masks. The one surety is that more Americans would be alive today.

Let’s hope with all our hearts that the USSC remains intentionally aloof, refusing to both grant certiorari to review lower courts scathing denunciations of GOP fantasy or consider direct submissions as they have in the lunatic Texas case. We deserve better.

Out of the Blue

 

        Sometimes you get surprised by things which just seem to come from left field. My favorite massage therapist and I have had numerous conversations, mostly about music or travel, while I was being rubbed the right way.  (Massage Envy franchise - superb one here!) This individual is a retired Army E-8 corpsman whom I knew to be a little conservative, compared to me. But....!

         In the course of our hour, I mentioned that I thought it interesting that President-elect Biden has selected a retired four-star Army man for the Defense Secretary position. That was it…just that. I was ill prepared for the comments which followed which ranged from “all those illegal votes” to “Republicans weren’t allowed to watch the count” to you name it, I asked where the information came from, and they responded that they, “Don’t watch the news, but I’ve heard it.”

        I explained as calmy as possible that the purveyors of such claims have not provided one scintilla of actual substantiation of them and have refused every opportunity to do so. So then, the rejoinder was, “But how about those fraudulent mail in ballots? We know a lot of them are illegal.” Me: “How do we know that?” Them: “Well, that’s what ‘they’re’ saying.” Me: “Who’s saying?” Well, Giuliani is.”  Me: “How do you know what Giuliani says?” Them: “Well I did see some Fox News.” Crickets.

        Then, as if to prove the point, the subject was turned to mail in ballots and the “Rampant fraud" associated with them.” Me: “Did you ever vote by absentee ballot?”  Them” “Well sure, when I was deployed in Europe.”  Me: “So, what’s the difference?”  Them: “Well, I was in the service.” Me: “But what’s the difference? We voted by mail this year. Lots of people did because of COVID. Were, or are, you more morally upright than citizens stateside because you were in the Military?”  Them: pause… “Well, I guess not.” 

        At this point, I explained what, apparently, Republicans don’t want the rest of us to know, which is that the only difference in a stateside mail-in ballot and an absentee ballot is the name. Period. Identical. In fact, ballots taken, as ours were, to the county supervisor’s office and individually certified were probably more secure than just dropping it in the mail in Germany. After a lull, I asked one of Emily’s favorite questions,  “Have you heard of voting fraud concerns in “Red” states? Them: “No.”  Me: “Why do you think that is?” Silence.

        The individual in question here is a moral, devout and genuinely nice person. After a pause they offered, “Well, I’m a moderate; and I’m worried about some of the things the Democrats want to “bring in.” (like it was an Amazon package on the front stoop).

        What followed was the fact that this individual doesn’t like abortion or gay marriage but does think everyone should have access to medical care. I paused, already knowing what I was going to say and finally said, well, “Abortion isn’t an issue now, and the President has nothing to do with that, but he is a Catholic.” As for gay marriage, the dialogue was that people “choose” to be gay, at which point I said, “Well, my son and his husband would disagree with you.” Crickets again.

        We agreed to disagree, and since this was our last appointment before her retirement before Christmas, I hugged her, wished her and the hubby a happy holiday, and told her I loved her. But I must admit, sometimes it makes your head hurt when otherwise stable, sane, individuals go all delusional conspiracy evangelical on you by surprise. 

Darwin Was Right

 

An example of science deniers paying the price in spades, courtesy WaPo 12/9/2020, minor edits for concise reading

Note: While reading the following, Consider that this is a wide majority conservative Republican town/county/state paying the price for believing/trusting their waste of skin President,

‘God be with us’

Covid-19 becomes personal in a South Dakota town as neighbors die and the town debates a mask mandate.

        In a state where the Republican governor, Kristi L. Noem, has defied calls for a statewide mask mandate even as cases hit record levels, many in this rural community an hour west of Sioux Falls ignored the virus for months, not bothering with masks or social distancing. Restaurants were packed. Big weddings and funerals went on as planned.

        Then people started dying. The wife of the former bank president. A state legislator. The guy whose family has owned the bike shop since 1959. Then Buck Timmins, a mild-spoken 72-year-old who had worked with hundreds of local kids during six decades as a Little League and high school coach and referee. Kevin McCardle, the city council president had been tracking cases while denying any concern

        The daily tally of coronavirus cases in Davison County since March”. The growth which had been so carefully recorded  had exploded in recent weeks, with 359 cases Oct. 1 to 1,912 that morning, a 433 percent increase. Locally, 10 people had died in less than seven weeks. South Dakota now has the largest increase in deaths per capita in the nation, according to Washington Post data from Dec. 8.

        The positivity rate at two local testing sites — a key indicator of the virus’s hold on a community — was 33 percent at the beginning of November and would soar to 49 percent near the end of the month, according to Avera Queen of Peace Hospital in Mitchell.

                Queen of Peace Hospital, which only has eight ICU beds, became overwhelmed and sometimes had to turn patients away, opening up a second covid-19 wing Nov. 8 that filled quickly. Doctors warned of a 50 to 100 percent increase in hospitalizations in the weeks to come. “GOD BE WITH US,” the pandemic-inspired sign outside a feed store read.

        McCardle said he found the numbers as alarming as the public health officials did. He is a 57-year-old camper salesman whose biggest worry as council president before the coronavirus was cleaning up algae in the town lake.

        But now McCardle and others on the council, rattled by Timmins’s death, listened attentively to conservative Republican Susan Tjarks’s proposal, sitting at socially spaced tables on the auditorium’s basketball court in front of murals depicting their hardy pioneer ancestors. The draft ordinance would require masks in public buildings and businesses, with a possible fine of up to $500 and 30 days in jail.

Tjarks, who owns a drapery company called Gotcha Covered, is a conservative Republican. But she became convinced the city had to act as deaths began tearing a deep hole in the community’s civic heart.

        “What we have been doing isn’t working,” she told the city council. “I don’t want to lose any more friends. I don’t want to lose any more neighbors. We have to do what we need to do to step up and prevent these cases from rising.”

        So many town leaders have died in such a short time that the impact has been profound, Tjarks said. Who will fill Timmins’s shoes as a mentor for young referees in the state high school athletic association? Who will raise money for the veteran’s park and the rodeo stampede now that state legislator Lance Carson is gone? There would be smaller absences too: her neighbor, John, now missing from the morning group at the doughnut shop.

        Throughout the autumn, towns all over the Midwest in conservative states where Republican governors have avoided mask mandates have tried to pass their own restrictions, often prompting virulent community debate. The town of Huron, S.D., just up the road passed one, as did Washington, Mo. In Muskogee, Okla., the city council finally passed a mandate after several tries; one of its pro-mask members had even wheeled in a casket as a prop.

        During the public comment section in Mitchell, a handful of anti-maskers spoke, alleging that masks don’t work and that the measure was an overreach that would violate their civil rights. Local doctors and nurses overrun by covid-19 patients pleaded for help. “Every single day, I come to work and have more and more positive covids,” said Diane Kenkel, a nurse practitioner who runs a small independent health clinic in town. “The stress on the hospital is very real. It’s really scary as a provider to come to work and have very ill people and know there might not be a hospital bed for you.”

        Ultimately, the Mitchell City Council passed the draft measure unanimously Nov. 16. But Mayor Bob Everson — one of the mask-doubters — still had to issue an executive order to put it in place. And the draft had to survive what was expected to be contentious public hearing and final vote the following week.

        My Note: This is the legacy of Donald J. Trump. These folks, conservative or not, were lulled into what Admiral Hyman J. Rickover used to call a “false sense of security” by an ignorant narcissist who touted his “approval ratings” while hundreds of thousands of equally ignorant citizens died. These folks ignored real medical professionals and the daily tally of deaths and new cases which were as close as the Johns Hopkins website. Somewhere, if one believes in that sort of nonsense, Charles Darwin is smiling and thinking, “Told ya!”  

Amazon: Fact and Fiction

            

        We recently, of an evening, had drinks (outside, appropriately distanced) with friends. I don’t remember how we got there, but one of them launched into a diatribe against Jeff Bezos and his wealth. I was surprised by the depth of partisan bias and outright economic ignorance displayed. First, the complaint was that Bezos had personally, “Made more than a trillion dollars this year.”  Pointing out that the “trillion” figure might possibly represent Amazon’s retail sales but not net profit was of little avail. 

    My explanation (I do have a Master’s in Business) was met by “Well you’re a Democrat, you would say that.” (??) I then soldiered on, explaining that Bezos draws a relatively small actual salary ($81,840, far less than Donald Trump’s annual compensation for fucking up an entire nation) and that to get more cash he must either borrow or sell Amazon stock. Again, disbelief. I also pointed out that Bezos spends a billion annually in space research, which benefits us all, while donating millions to educational charities.

         As a personal observation, I think the antipathy displayed reflects Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post which is, shall we say, not on Trump’s Christmas card list? The ignorance, however, reflects something even more “Trumpish” – the willingness to slander based on partisan motives and eyes closed to more egregious shenanigans by the other guys. So, here are some truths – data, not bullshit.  

        Jeff Bezos’ net worth is about $180 billion, which is significantly less than a trillion! In truth, Amazon’s gross sales revenue for fiscal 2019 was just about $201 billion with a net profit, after salaries and all other expenses, of just over $12 billion and change. Clearly the “trillion” was just invented, since the entire US budget for 2020 is less than $5 trillion.

        I have seen other opinions on Facebook (although not this outrageous) from both sides of the aisle, skewering Bezos for his success and portraying him as a scrooge who is abusing … whatever … these folks are short on data . Quickly: Jeff Bezos was publicly schooled in Florida, won a scholarship to Princeton and used his talents to build a retail giant. Those who attack him most vociferously fall into two categories, generally.

        Those of the Right, like my friend (yeah, you can be friends and politically disagree) attack Bezos because he is wealthy and Trump dislikes him. In reality, Jeff Bezos is the anti-Trump. He is entirely self-made, inherited nothing, hurting no one in the process. He pays his bills, raised starting pay to $15 hourly while others argued against it, offers much better starting benefits than the majority of other US employers and, remember, owns a newspaper which prints much commentary opposed to the Trumpian debacle.

        Those of the Left who criticize, do so on the premise that being rich/generating wealth is criminal. Like Amazon or don’t, but it has been a lifeline to millions during this pandemic with no change in service or cost. Like Bill Gates before him, Bezos has begun a program of charitable giving in the scale of millions annually, excluding the Blue Horizon space research billion dollar annual outlay. The Koch foundation has bragged about a total of “over a billion” in charitable giving over the last decade, a sum which equals Bezos annual Blue Horizon outlay alone. The Kochs could have done more had they not donated another half-billion, plus, to Right wing political causes.   

        As of 2018, the Walmart heirs (also staunch Republican donors (they spent multi-millions supporting Bush 43) had a combined wealth of $163.2 billion, which was more than Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett. In fact, they were worth over $70 billion more than the second-richest family in the United States, at the time, the Kochs. From 2014 to 2018, they gave less than half as much annually to charity as Bezos does.

        The Waltons have been rich for a long time, as have the Kochs. The Waltons' wealth comes from their inherited controlling stake in Walmart. While some Walmart workers live in poverty, the Waltons rake in billions every year from the company in dividends and sales of their Walmart shares. A fair way to evaluate Jeff Bezos non-personal spending would be after he leaves control of Amazon and then see how he uses his wealth.

        So, how did Jeff Bezos become so successful? By starting with a $300,000 loan and the idea that, in the age of data and internet, people would buy books on-line, and expanding as it became obvious that the concept of e-tail was the future.  

         Going public: Amazon’s IPO was at $18 per share, and he sank most of his own money into his own stock. From an initial share price @ IPO $18/share, Amazon now trades at $3,142.07.  Along the way, with multiple splits, (an effective 12 for 1 split). All initial Amazon investors have seen the value of their investments increase, however, Amazon invests all profits back into the business, paying no dividends, ever. Taxes are paid when stock is sold. Even so, with a net profit margin of 5% , Amazon is in the “low/average” range for Us corporations. For an example, the median US Drug manufacturer’s net income is   13.8%, over twice as high as Amazon.

        Bezos now owns 53 million shares, which, multiplied by share price totals $175.7 billion. He started with far fewer shares, but Amazon stock has split three times, twice at 2 for 1 and once at 3 for 1. He now has (as everyone else smart enough to buy in at $18 per share IPO has) 12 times as many shares as he originally had. He inherited nothing, he defrauded no one, and he offered anyone the same chance to grow their investment. How dare he? Any person smart enough to invest $10,000 in Amazon when it went public, would today have seen that reasonable investment become over $1.75 million. This is, however, just the stock value, since Amazon pays no dividends and never has, instead reinvesting profits back into the company. Those (like Bernie Sanders) who whine about Amazon’s taxes being low can’t grasp that if all profit is spent on infrastructure (effectively) it isn’t taxable as net income.

        Meanwhile, Walmart paid out $12 billion in dividends on retail sales of products, 70 to 80% of which are made in China. Just about half of these dividends are paid to Walton family members.  Understand, Jeff Bezos must sell Amazon stock to take value out of his corporation, unlike the Walton heirs and the Kochs who can do literally nothing productive and draw (individually) mega millions and in several cases over a billion annually, in dividends.

        Why does Donald Trump hate Jeff Bezos? Because he (Bezos) did what he did without tax fraud, fatherly money laundering, or cheating vendors and contractors. Oh, and no multi-bankruptcies, either. Like it or not, the America we know was built by entrepreneurs and risk takers, most of whom risked much to gain what they did. Subsequent generations, in some cases were born into wealth; among these are the Kochs, Waltons and Bushes as examples. Some were con-men who were eventually found out – Jay Gould, Glenn Turner, Donald Trump.

        Those who “rate” Amazon poorly do so on a criteria scale by which no mass retailer fares well, primarily because any such “rater: has an axe to grind. Example: Amazon took flack after claims surfaced related to employee mistreatment in China. In fact, any high-volume retailer who runs corporate facilities in China must be majority Chinese owned. Walmart imports 70 to 80% of their non-food retail goods from China and their facilities are Chinese owned; they faced the same sort of claims as Amazon. Walmart’s “fix”? Arm waving and promises. Amazon’s? Leave China. The truth? Employee surveys show that Amazon employees are, as a group, as content, or slightly more so, as employees at Expedia, Boeing or Microsoft.      

    Sour grapes, anyone?         

 

 

 

Some Parting Comments

 

Some Parting Comments

“The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction, in the life of the nation, is close to the center of a nation’s purpose — and is a test to the quality of a nation’s civilization.”   

                              John F. Kennedy

          When one reads this and then considers the absolute disdain for the arts and artists displayed by Donald Trump, you can almost grasp the  “soulnessness” (is that a word?) which spreads, like ripples, from his utter lack of cultural IQ to the rest of his daily insults to the body politic. This is, after all, a man whose idea of meaningful entertainment is the World-Wide Wrestling Federation. Obama hung out with Lin Manuel Miranda; Trump’s sugar daddy is Vince McMahon. I say that last because, unlike Trump would have us believe, he has given none of his own money to the Trump “foundation” in recent years, while the McMahons (Vince and Linda) have donated over $6 million which has been distributed under the Trump cachet. Over the period when the McMahons were bankrolling the alleged foundation, Trump contributed exactly none of his own money.   

        Trump’s budget proposal for 2021, was titled “Stopping Wasteful and Unnecessary Spending.”  He considered the activities funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities as “extraneous and unjustified” because they “are not considered core Federal responsibilities, and make up only a small fraction of the billions spent each year by arts and humanities nonprofit organizations.” Of course, we understand that these are not his own words, since several are polysyllabic, but they do reflect his personal disdain for anything with which he can neither make money, embellish his personal status or have sexual relations.

         In fact, NEA grants serve as “seed money” in that, on average, those cultural entities which receive NEA grants, typically use that leverage to gain about nine times that much in matching local and state funding. Name any other investment the nation makes which yields 900% profit! I’ll wait.

        Likewise, Trump has attacked National Public radio and PBS. In the case of NPR which I have found to be actually less editorialized than any other national news organization, it is simply that they report, devoid of Trump spin and hype, the results of his ill-conceived and poorly executed policies. I won’t go into detail here, since I have done so, in detail, on other occasions.

        PBS has given us Sesame Street, Masterpiece Theater and, prior to the advent of streaming, were essentially our sole source of the best of British TV, much of which surpassed our own poor efforts. The Best of Broadway also has given us access to yet one more art form spurned by the current administration.

        From as objective a point of view as I can muster, Trump was raised to be the culturally deficient adult he has become by parents who were of similar bent. He was schooled by his father to shun any and all of those things which didn’t represent money making opportunities.  That, however, is no excuse for failure to recognize the needs and tastes of others. In all modern administrations, musicians and artists in widely divergent multiple genres have been invited to perform at the White House and/or at Presidential galas. Not this one.

        Likewise, only three times in the 38 years between 1978 and 2016, did POTUS not attend the Kennedy Center Honors where the gamut of American and international artists have been recognized. Jimmy Carter missed one (Iran hostage crisis) and Bush and Clinton also were each unable to attend one of the eight ceremonies held during each of their terms. On the other hand, the Trumps have attended none of the ceremonies held  during the Trump administration. In retrospect, it’s probably just as well, since almost every artist present at these events loathes the man. Having said that, I’d love to be there when YoYo Ma kicked his ass in the men’s room.

         In retrospect, this is understandable since the one thing Trump knows and correctly assesses is that the vast majority of those in arts and arts related fields have little to no regard for him and his policies. There were similar objections from both sides in earlier administrations (Bush 43’s Iraq war, etc.) but not like this. In the case of Donald Trump, the dislike of the vast majority of the US Arts community is visceral and derives from the understanding of his narcissism and revulsion for his  disregard for the rights of anyone who offers any criticism or difference of opinion on any topic. Temper this with obvious racism and disregard for the civil rights of anyone not slavishly devoted to him, and it’s understandable.

        We’ve seen this abominable behavior and attitude in media for too long. Meryl Streep is “Overrated” (don’t tell Oscar voters), meanwhile Roseanne Barr, Kirstie Alley, Ted Nugent  and Scot Baio line up for a chance to fawn over Trump. A handicapped reporter is mocked in speech and mannerisms, Marines killed in action in World War I were “losers” and “suckers.”  

        Along the way we hear the college educated President pronounce Yosemite as “Yo-sem-might”  (Rhymes with Vegemite, another disgusting entity in and of itself), “A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10” (speaking of Marcia Cross), “shithole countries”, “While Bette Midler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.”,  “Cher should spend more time focusing on her family and dying career.”, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

        Not content with a barrage of insults at those in media who have called him out for political differences, Trump always makes it personal. So, summing up: culturally illiterate, personally insensitive, and really not all that bright.  

        Never in recent memory has the personal inadequacy of an American President hurt our standing in the rest of the world as much and seldom has one engendered as much division and mistrust among our own populace as Donald Trump. 

    Now all that remains is one last task: Just leave, already. Get the f**k out of the peoples’ White House and face the music in New York State courts.