Everything Old is New Again

           Still hearing a lot of commentary on the election, some ludicrous, some Chicken Little"ish", much of it bitter. For many young first time voters this has been a bitter lesson in what Dr. Henry Kissinger called Realpolitik. Many seem to think this is new. It isn't. Some think Mr. Trump is not bright, which has a germ of truth, but he is by no means the worst we've ever elected (Warren Harding, John  Tyler, James Buchanan to name several as bad or worse). He is not the most moneyed in the sense of entitled classism (George H.W. Bush, heir to an opium fortune, is in that seat). many are actively mourning the events of yesterday through a short and foggy lens without the perspective of history, so here goes!  

          Let's cut to the chase here, the beginnings of much of what we see now as race/class friction trace back to the post Civil War Jim Crow South. It also manifested itself in the North after the Great migration of the WWI period. It is, and has been, racist in many ways. Believing Adam Smith was right led to the unregulated free market greed of the Robber barons. Believing "white was right" was stated overtly in hate speech by the KKK and behind boardroom doors for decades afterward by the Morgans, Rockefellers and others.

           There was modest reset of sorts in the first progressive era, but post WWII, the balance of distribution of resources started to shift away from us having what we needed to us having to buy from other nations what we needed. Coincident with this was the renewed zeal of labor unions which began demanding not only fair, but exorbitant wages and moreover concessions, to make the products now being made with other people's raw materials. The blatant corruption in some major unions led to a sense of general public willingness to reverse the gains of the late 30s in favor of "right to work" legislation. It became more and more apparent that as pensions and medical coverage became the highest percentage of the manufacturer's cost for a new car, that something was awry. In fact it was simply the balance of the earth's resources and our high labor cost on one hand balanced against our desire to buy things cheaply. We bitch because no one manufactures TVs in the USA anymore when in fact if they did, it would double the price of them. We complain about the lack of manufacturing jobs here, but we buy import cars and shop Walmart for Chinese bargains, sold under a smiley face sign!

           The parents of those dissatisfied Detroit inner city kids used to work at Ford, GM and Chrysler, but those jobs are elsewhere in most cases. In the absence of tariffs, imports will always undersell domestic products. With tariffs, costs will go up, living standards down. This is partly due to one of the great American industries - advertising, whose job is to make us (all of us) believe that we need things we just really want. The other Drugs, makes health care grossly expensive, Meanwhile the large commercial banks keep the rich, rich but not by investing in American manufactures for the previously stated reasons. That in a nutshell (ok, a nutshell and a half) is the chronology, the rest is confetti. In truth, the Clinton and Trump economic outlook isn't really much different. The real irony is that if the election had gone differently the other side would most likely be singing the same litany with different names attached. The pronunciation might be better, but.......!

          There were those with vision who hoped for better in the late 1800s. The following is from an 1892 campaign speech  by Tom Watson, white Georgia congressman:

"The crushing burdens which now oppress both races in the South will cause each to make an effort to cast them off. They will see a similarity of cause and a similarity of remedy. They will recognize that each should help the other in the work of repealing bad laws and enacting good ones. They will become political allies, and neither can injure the other without weakening both. It will be to the interest of both that each should have justice. And on these broad lines of mutual interest, mutual forbearance, and mutual support the present will be made the stepping-stone to future peace and prosperity."

 Some of us, me included,  hoped the 60s civil rights  movement might herald that occurrence, but alas it was sidetracked after 1968 by the Republicans and the Lee Atwater/Richard Nixon "Southern Strategy"

          A more strident call for not only racial, but  for gender and economic fairness as well, was sounded by Mary C. Lease, Kansas populist, in an 1890  speech called "Wallstreet Owns the Country":

"This is a nation of inconsistencies. The Puritans fleeing from oppression became oppressors. We fought England for our liberty and put chains on four million of blacks. We wiped out slavery and our tariff laws and national banks began a system of white wage slavery worse than the first. Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master. The West and South are bound and prostrate before the manufacturing East. Money rules, and our Vice-President is a London banker. Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags.

           The political parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us. We were told two years ago to go to work and raise a big crop, that was all we needed. We went to work and plowed and planted; the rains fell, the sun shone, nature smiled, and we raised the big crop that they told us to; and what came of it? Eight-cent corn, ten-cent oats, two-cent beef and no price at all for butter and eggs-that's what came of it. The politicians said we suffered from overproduction. Overproduction, when 10,000 little children, so statistics tell us, starve to death every year in the United States, and over 100,000 shopgirls in New York are forced to sell their virtue for the bread their niggardly wages deny them... We want money, land and transportation. We want the abolition of the National Banks, and we want the power to make loans direct from the government. We want the foreclosure system wiped out... We will stand by our homes and stay by our fireside by force if necessary, and we will not pay our debts to the loan-shark companies until the government pays its debts to us. The people are at bay; let the bloodhounds of money who dogged us thus far beware."

Everything old is new again.

Another Bizarre statement

               In yet one more  bizarre pronouncement, a letter in Thursday's local paper proclaims that Vladimir Putin would "prefer Hillary to Trump as President."  Apparently this writer has an  insight into the mind of the Russian President greater than  essentially every other single actual foreign policy expert in both parties and around the free world! A Russian professor at the University of Michigan, Ekaterina Mishina, has another, more informed point of view:  "Trump “is saying things which sound very appealing to the Russian president.” Mishina declared, “I’m absolutely positive that  Putin wants Donald Trump to be the President of The United States.”

        Consider Trump's 7/27/2016 statement that he thinks the US should "consider acknowledging Russian sovereignty in Ukraine" - a move opposed by virtually every member of Congress.  Apparently lacking any true  grasp  of NATO's importance, he  has also demanded that other NATO members compensate the US,  making many of our  eastern European allies, nervous about his (our) commitment to defend them. Trump's disparagement of  our allies in Asia, also creates  new opportunities for Russian influence. Trump’s promises to disrupt our trade agreements also fuel Putin’s agenda. How better (for Putin)  to start the New Year than with a trade war between the United States and China or Mexico? Trump’s threats to stop paying our debts also would radically undermine our credibility as a lender, another desirable outcome for Putin.

        As a general position, Mr.  Trump advocates isolationism  and virtual abandonment  U.S. leadership in the world.  A U.S. retreat from leadership in global matters fits precisely with Putin’s international interests.  Implementation of  Trump's  Draconian  ideas regarding immigration or walling off our southern border would certainly stimulate major  push-back from both  Congress and in the country as a whole. A US convulsed by infighting over Trump’s deeply divisive policy proposals also cedes Putin more freedom to act around the world. This from a man who doesn't know  that China and Brazil have  60% of the rare earths so critical to modern technology while the US has less than 1.5%! I think old buddy, Vlad, is fine with Donald!

         Trump's campaign slogan re: "making America great again" resonates with many of the boomers and Cold War generations, who apparently have short memories. What "made America Great" in their younger years was precisely the sort of thing Trump deplores. We (the UA) were world leaders because we demonstrated commitment to freedom and global community with such efforts as the Marshall Plan, NATO and SEATO. Much of this was also, of course, stimulated by our aversion to Communism, and we made mistakes because of it. While Putin is no Communist, that difference is largely invisible when considering Russia's recent foreign adventures.

          A dictator is a dictator, and Putin is one. Media sources and political opponents sometimes mysteriously  die. He has pronounced the collapse of the Soviet Union to be "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the last century" - a relatively harsh assessment  considering that the time span delineated includes both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.  To fail to understand that Putin, unfettered, would love to re-create the Union under another name is naive.  So who gives every indication of preferring a relatively isolationist foreign policy?  It certainly isn't Mrs. Clinton.

        Finally, and perhaps saddest of all, is the fact that many of Trump's supporters are simply not sufficiently educated in the recent history of the planet to understand that it is impossible to be an isolationist state in the modern world. Likewise, most of them, and, to be fair,  a lot of Progressives as well, have no idea and no grasp of the implication  of  how much  the US access to domestically owned raw materials has changed since the end of WWII and the glory years of American industrial production. It's as if they permanently reside in the 1950s, hang around Al's Drive in with  Richie, Potsie, Ralph,  and the Fonz, insensitive to the changing world we live in.

          As John  Steinbeck once wrote, "You can't go home again, because home has ceased to exist, except in the mothballs of memory."  This is essential to understanding global Economic/Political/Industrial  realities. Mr. Trump should, considering that he manufactures everything he sells offshore, with the unfortunate exception of his trademarked Trump wines, which, Virginia grown and vinted, are now selling at up to 70% below  the original retail price because ....what's the word I'm seeking here..... oh yeah - they suck! Like many of Trump's exploits, he believes if he marks it with his imprimatur that it must succeed. Defaulted casinos, hotels and his atrocious wine are proof that he is delusional. Let's not subject our nation to his narcissistic delusions.

Observations

A word of preface: I have been observing American politics for 50 plus years. In that time I have seen the vile (George Wallace), the wimpy (Mike Dukakis), the "too nice" (Mr. Jimmy) and the simply  ignorant (George W. Bush, who was unable to discern a Shi'ite from a Sunni when elected).

         In this cycle, though we have a man who has proclaimed himself "smarter than the generals" ,a "genius" for paying no tax for over a decade,  a devaluer of women ("Grab 'em by..."), and much more and much worse.  This is a man who apparently thinks military prep school equates with  real military experience, that Michele Bachmann is remotely capable of giving good advice, and that the American electorate is too stupid to see through all the smoke and mirrors. Regarding the last statement, he is partially correct, in that some otherwise intelligent people, when confronted by the guy they watched on a TV reality show, just lose their minds. These might be the same ones who just looove the Kardashians, also vapid and devoid of merit.

        Barry Goldwater scared me, but at least he was sane. Trump is not. The irrational belief that if he is not elected it must be because of something crooked, rather than his own inadequacy, indicates the scope of his narcissistic sociopathic personality disorder. Don't misunderstand me, many successful persons are sociopaths, but function well. It is when the belief in infallibility creeps in that problems arise. Trump has never apologized for anything and rarely admitted to a mistake. The string of his bad business decisions added to the many outrageous and grotesquely ignorant statements he's made during the campaign should be off- putting to most voters. Sadly, however,  some of his most vociferous (and, potentially violent) supporters are folks for whom he cares essentially not at all. The retired union worker should examine Trump's record in Atlantic City. Every female in America should reflect on just those things he has stated publically. Until he needed these voters, Trump has been pro-choice; now he magically isn't.  

        Unfortunately, Trumps blustering bully boy tactic plays into the mindset of many who, rather than accept responsibility for their actions or lack thereof, in determining the condition of their own lives, revel in Trump's "blame game." They aren't unemployed because they have limited skills and no desire to get them, they're unemployed because of all those damned immigrants! And so it goes. This gives us the spectacle of Trump on the right hand side of his mouth blaming trade agreements for  business moving off shore, while from the left side , ordering all his brand name "merch" to be produced elsewhere. Can you sat "hypocrite?"

         Unfortunately, the more they embrace the rabid Evangelical mindset, the more irrational they become. For those who cling to both Trump and their conservative religious dogma, and love to wear that "WWJD?"  bracelet...ask yourself how the man whom you claim to be the sole author of good in the universe would react to Donald Trump's politics of hate and exclusion. Yeah, I thought so.

Faith and Freedom?

             Whose faith and what Freedom?

   This meme was posted in a comment to a friend's page (they didn't post it) and after reading it I realized that I had gained insight into the mindset of those who buy into the Trump thingy. 

      After thinking about it a while and getting more and more frustrated, I decided to address all these issues. Note that this is apparently the brainchild of something or someone called the "Faith and Freedom" coalition. What leaps off the page is that "freedom" is waaay out of place in the minds of this group. They are explicit in the fact that they do not favor freedom to do, be, or think anything other than their dogma. So, in order:

        Abortion on demand: So much has been said regarding this issue by both sides that it's more than clear what the real issue is. Evangelicals (and Catholics) are opposed to abortion. Noted. Oddly enough they are , as a rule, steadfastly pro death penalty.  The position today of the largest Evangelical sect in the USA and how (and why) it changed speaks volumes.

         When Roe v Wade was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role. Some were hesitant to take a position on abortion because they saw it as a “Catholic issue,” and worried about the influence of Catholic teachings on American religious observance. Shortly after the decision was handed down, The Baptist Press, a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention — the biggest Evangelical organization in the US — ran an op-ed praising the ruling!  “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion  decision,” was the most salient quote." Of course this was because at the time, the SBC was busy fighting school segregation battles (yeah, still).

So this is a personal liberty issue, opposed by those who  are screaming about their personal liberty (to discriminate) is threatened. Final word on this issue. Marla Maples was quite clear that her daughter was born solely  because she refused to have the abortion that Donald Trump wanted her to. Remember, if his mouth is open he's lying. We'll lump defunding Planned parenthood in here since it's essentially the same issue, albeit even more mean spirited, in that it has an overwhelming effect on the poor, about whom neither Trump or Pence care one bit.

        Repeal Obamacare: In a sense we should, but not to go back to tens of millions being uninsured and taking no responsibility for  their own welfare. Obamacare is what it is because of obstructionist tactics of the Tea party during the fight to pass it. It should have been better, but Big Pharma's lobbying efforts saw to it  that it was a bad compromise at best. All that said, I have lost count of the former students and younger friends who are,  for the first time, insured and getting regular medical treatment. All are employed, but none could afford health care until the ACA. Remember, the multi-billion dollar drug industry has a huge interest in maintaining the status quo and it doesn't match yours. One word: "Epi-pen"  Again, many of the most rabid Evangelicals are lower middle class people with limited access to health insurance. A vote for Trump is definitely counter to their best interest, but, of course whatever the reverend says, huh?

        Federal Tax Increase: Of course as this is meant  to be interpreted, it is simply a lie. Trust me, those who would be expected to pay more income tax  aren't the religious poor.  Of course any tax Trump paid would be more, wouldn't it. It hurts my head to endeavor to understand how those who struggle to get by and are, as I am, honest taxpaying citizens can be less than outraged at Trump's "I'm too smart to pay taxes."  But them why would we expect an oligarch to feel otherwise?

        Same sex marriage:  Has a non-issue ever been more argued with less real reason? Evangelicals hate Islam, in part because of Shari'ia, or Islamic law, which also governs civil matters in Islamic states.. And yet.....here we have the Evangelical version, in which persons unknown to most of them, whose lives generally are lived just  like everyone else's who have decided that their version of religious law as they believe it, should be followed by us all. Even for the Pilgrims, a religious society if there  ever was one, marriage was a civil rite, designed to settle issues of inheritance and property. Of course, the same morons who cherry pick from the OT to justify their homophobic hatred, also steadfastly ignore all the other verbage in the same chapter, because it really isn't about the right to happiness of all people, it's about "my way or the highway."

        Common Core: Not even gonna go there much , except to say that in a country as large as ours, a kid ought to be able to move to another state and be on roughly the same page academically. As  20 year teacher I have seen the results when that isn't the case, and students suffer. Of course again, the Evangelicals want to scrub the texts of all those unpleasant historical realities. It must be noted that both North Korea and the former Soviet Union did exactly the same thing. Is that who we should emulate?

        School vouchers: Sure, let's publicly fund religious schools, OK? No one remembers the Bible riots in Philadelphia over somewhat the same issue. 30 years ago if I had run on a platform of allowing Catholic schools to receive public money, I'd have been burned at the stake by these same Evangelicals who now want to send their kids to Charters, many Church afiliated  (of which more than half fail or are  involved in financial crimes). Of course no one is more rabid and foaming at the mouth on this issue than a converted Catholic Evangelical, like Mike Pence. Of course to even hint that Trump cares is ludicrous, since he and his brood went to military or prep schools like he did.

          Amnesty for illegal aliens: I guess this one depends on where you live. The one factor here which is often mentioned and always false, is "They're taking our jobs!" No they're not. No, isn't happening. This goes along with "they get Social Security!"  No they can't. This topic may well be the most understood one in the list, because it's based on a lie(s). Living in Central Florida I taught in a school with 28 separate  languages spoken by students. No one cared about their kids getting a good education like these immigrants, be they Haitian, Vietnamese, Muslim, whatever.  What do Trump and Pence really know about this? Not a G***amn thing.

        Iran Nuclear Deal: This reminds me of the uproar over the HPV vaccine. People for whom the mention of private parts causes palpitations rushed to claim that they were certain that protecting girls from this dangerous virus would lead to increased promiscuity. These are the same ones who claimed that access to birth control would lead to: (long list; increased teen pregnancy, higher rate of STDs, etc.) Of course the opposite as been the case in every instance. Do we learn from this? No, of course not. The pundits are ready to pounce and prognosticate, assuming that because this President thought it a good idea, it will be a bad idea. There is zero actual indication, just  partisan nay-saying.

        First Amendment  Defense Act: Say whaaat? Since when has the first Amendment required a defense? Since when has the Federal Government  ever prosecuted any one for simple speech?  This comes from those who would love to be allowed to incite riot (a crime) and use hate speech  to inspire violence against anyone they don't like. Have you ever noticed that those who bitch about "politically correct" speech are those who mourn the fact that the "good old boy race and gender words are out of favor? It slips by these morons that actions we have seen taken against hate speech users have not been federal at all (the only scope of the Bill of rights), but have been the actions of private companies which refuse to allow their sponsored duck call making,  race baiting, inbreds to hurt their profit line. It is a measure of just how ignorant many of the Far right are that they know almost nothing of the reality in such cases.

         Of course this also omits the obvious fact that there has been a First Amendment protection group for 94 years. It's the American Civil Liberties Union. Of course, the Evangelicals care nothing for the civil liberties of anyone who doesn't agree with them. 

        They are in good company, since it is obvious from Trump's own words that he has almost no understanding of the mechanics of Government either. He has, at various times,

made statements that indicate that he thinks the President can pass or repeal a law ("repeal Obamacare"), delete a Constitutional Amendment (as in Mrs. Clinton would "repeal the 2nd Amendment") or in the case of Louie Gohmert, an ardent supporter's, misstatement, appoint a Supreme Court justice even with a House and Senate majority from the other party.

        When considering the "Freedom" part of the meme, it is obvious that the "Faith and Freedom" group , in five of the ten items  is definitely not in favor of any person's freedom except their freedom to impose their will on persons who don't share their beliefs.    

Curiosities

Curiosities

        There are aspects of some of Trump's more rabid supporters which are de facto proof that they simply have been gulled by a master of bloviation and bombast.

        We live in a retirement community which, while by no means all "Red," is undoubtedly majority Republican, based on the number of Trump stickers in evidence. Many of these individuals are former union members, now retired, who are able to live here because they had decent retirement plans and health  insurance, much of it negotiated in collective bargaining. Please don't misunderstand, some American unions have, in my opinion, been exceptionally greedy and have hurt the public perception of the labor movement, but  enough about the UAW and Teamsters.

        For a former Union employee to support Trump is to completely ignore  his consistent anti-labor actions and positions. Even his own product line is produced by non-union workers outside the US.  If you believe that Trump has any intent of moving production back here, you are delusional.  Trump is Scott Walker on a bad hair day as regards his position on labor rights.  He has, at times, simply used bankruptcy to avoid paying for work done.  He stiffed thousands of union employees in Atlantic City. This managerial genius (just ask him) has a deplorable failure rate. This is, in part, why US banks are leery of loaning him any more money.  Which brings me to the next issue.

        So where does Trump find financing? Why from Russian oligarchs like his apparent pal, Vladimir Putin. I was appalled back in  2001 when we heard this from George W. Bush, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy,.... . . I was able to get a sense of his soul.”  That was hideous, and as Bush found out, a misimpression,  and President Obama has no such illusions. Meanwhile Trump owes money to some of Putin's high powered friends, and , make no mistake about it, Putin is no democrat. He has said that he considers the collapse of the Soviet union “The greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  These comments in 2005 are a mirror of the  man. Bush was still POTUS and Putin was waxing nostalgic over the anniversary of the end of WWII (The "Great Patriotic Struggle" in Soviet era history books. ) The memory of all of us needs to be jogged to recall that prior to Hitler's abrogation of his treaty with Stalin, the Soviets had been silent Nazi allies. There is little evidence that Putin's moral fiber is much stronger than "Uncle Joe's."  The Russians/Soviets have ever been political pragmatists. Trump as debtor to them is economically frightening, but  Trump in control of  nuclear weapons, having demonstrated that he is frequently incapable of exercising even a modicum of  control over himself,  is dangerous.  

        Finally, for now, I remain baffled at the rabid support for Trump of those who call themselves Evangelical Christians. Of course as some of us know, "evangelical " is a code for "we're right, you're wrong, our way or the highway."  If anyone is truly concerned regarding either candidate's moral stance  consider this. Donald Trump has only been to church (any church) since his teens, other than his three marriages, to campaign. Period. Of course early in the campaign, in true Trump style he commented that "we don't really know anything about her (Ms. Clinton's) religious activities." As he is prone to do, he shot off his mouth with no real factual basis for his comments, other than the desire to slur his opponent.  He did it to his Primary opponents,  and he has certainly done it to Mrs. Clinton. I have just related  above the entirety of Trump's affiliation with a church - any church - essentially none for the last 50 years.

        So what of, his opponent? Heathen, demon seed, apostate heretic? Well, actually no. Hillary Clinton was raised from childhood in the United Methodist Church, which she still attends when in a stable schedule. She taught Sunday school as a teen, and worked with church sponsored  children's groups even in college. At Wellesley, “Clinton regularly read the Methodist Church’s Motive magazine,”  she and Bill Clinton were married by a Methodist minister, and  in 1993, she joined a women’s prayer group. When Bill Clinton was President, the Clinton family regularly attended Washington’s Foundry United Methodist Church. Hillary Clinton spoke at the church’s 200 anniversary in September. In that address, she spoke about the Methodist churches she attended as a child, in college, in Arkansas when Bill Clinton was governor, and in Washington, D.C., when he served as president. “In place after place after place,” Clinton said, “the Methodist church and my fellow Methodists have been a source of support, honest reflection and candid critique.”  During a presidential forum in 2007, Clinton said that “a lot of the talk about and advertising about faith doesn’t come naturally to me.” She said that faith “is something that — you know, I keep thinking of the Pharisees and all of Sunday school lessons and readings that I had as a child. But I think your — your faith guides you every day. Certainly, mine does. But, at those moments in time when you’re tested, it — it is absolutely essential that you be grounded in your faith.”

        To be frank, I couldn't care less about any body's religion except when they choose to flog me with it, but to choose Trump over Mrs. Clinton makes me wonder just how much Clorox,  these Evangelicals have been imbibing.  

Tidbits for Monday

                                    Tidbits for Monday

Trying to avoid politics; we'll see how it goes.

       Once and (oh, if it were only true) for all - The words "prejudice" and "bias" are nouns. Period. One can show prejudice, or have prejudice, even be a racist arsehole because of it,   but you can't "be prejudice" or, for that matter "be bias" no matter how many times in various semi literate ravings you choose to misuse it in that context.

        There is a great value to be ascribed to the simple concept of "knowing when to quit."  I am not a slobbering  groveling fan of Barbra Streisand, as are some I could mention, but I will readily concede that she is more than a little adept at interpreting a melody, and within her range, is  just about as good as it gets.  Additionally, she still has that ability at 74, and has adjusted the keys downward accordingly. Why mention this? well, Timmy, because in August,  Babs  released a  new and pretty damned good album called "Encores." As the name implies, these are not new material, rather great Broadway songs. She has chosen to do these classics as duets with some rather interesting singers, some of whom we expect to be good in the genre,   such as Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman, and Antonio Banderas, all with real; chops. Then there are some, less well  known as stage singers, who also perform admirably, among then Daisy Ridley, Chris Pine, Alec Baldwin, Jamie Foxx, Seth MacFarlane, and the divine Melissa McCarthy.

       Which brings me to track 3 - "Who Can I Turn To" from "The Roar of the Greasepaint...etc."  I don't know when Anthony Newly (dead for 17 years) recorded the track, but some genius decided it was worth dubbing into a "duet" for this album. At his best, Newly had a mere 1 1/2 vote vibrato, joining the late Ms. Garland in that club. By the time this was done, it seems like about 3 notes wide, especially in his lower registers - painful.  At least he has quit.

       Remember when base ball was called the national pastime?  I do. I am also appalled by the current price for decent seats in any major league ballpark, but today's newspaper gives us a new low (or high, depending upon interpretation).  Tickets for the first Cubs home game of the world series are selling in the >$6,000 range! Yeah, really.  This clearly puts the game out of the reach of most real fans. The only way such a price could be justified would be if  The Beatles magically reunited and played "Baby You're a Rich Man" and "Money" during  the seventh inning stretch.

  

      Karma is a bitch. One can only hope Roger Goodell finds that out this NFL season. The $35 million (yeah, really) dollar man seems to have odd priorities. He jumped through hoops, legal and political, to bench Tom Brady for four games for a non issue.  I know, don't start, I don't care and I'm not even a Pat's fan!

       Meanwhile, there have been a hoist of domestic violence incidents since "deflategate" and the offenders are still actively playing. I guess that if you don't get caught on camera it doesn't count?  Wait, it gets worse:  Every year, the NFL breaks out the pink shoes and pink gloves to raise awareness about breast cancer, and sells pink NFL memorabilia to allegedly "raise money" for the cause. However, here are the realities of the leagues "good works": For every $100 of pink NFL merchandise sold, $50 goes back to the retailer and $37.50 goes back to the manufacturer. Of the remaining $12.50, the NFL takes $1.25 and donates the rest to the American Cancer Society  a top-heavy pseudo charitable bureaucracy.  Out of the whopping  $11.25 that the NFL donates to the American Cancer Society, only $8.01 goes to cancer research. That gives it a 70% overall and a 60% financial (one star out of four) rating.  There must be a more deserving Cancer related  charity than that (Susan Komen, for the Cure, breast cancer specific, is a three star charity, for example!)

         As bad, and probably even worse, is the fact that the NFL makes $10 billion (nine zeros!) annually, and pays $0 (that's no zeros!) in taxes. If this doesn't offend you, it damned well should. When it comes to overpaid nonprofit executives, NFL commish Roger Goodell stands alone. His 2015 salary of $35 million is about 37  times bigger than the salary of United Way CEO Brian Gallagher, who was the 11th highest-paid American nonprofit executive in 2014.  As mystifying as it seems, while the NFL isn’t a charity that takes donations, it gets away with calling itself a nonprofit 501(c)(6) “trade association,” financed by 32 privately-owned, for-profit member teams ( except for the Green Bay Packers, which is a publicly-owned nonprofit with over 300,000 shareholders).

        Although the NFL operates solely for the profit of its member teams – which collectively bring in $10 billion a year – and got over $300 million in member dues last year, and pays its top executive a ludicrous salary, it gets the same exemption as churches and social justice organizations actually trying to do good in their communities. The NFL isn’t the only offender, as some  pro sports organizations are still "nonprofits" (an egregiously bullshit term)  like the National Hockey League, the Professional Golf Association, and the Association of Tennis Professionals. Meanwhile Major League Baseball gave up their tax-exempt status in 2007, and the National Basketball Association has never tried to classify itself as tax-exempt.  I've tried, and failed to figure out the structural differences between MLB & NBA and the NFL.  Imagine if the  media spent half as much time reporting on this scandal as they did on “Deflategate!”

        Finally, although I generally consider cheerleaders, as Lewis Grizzard once so eloquently opined, to be "the confetti of athletic competition," that doesn't alter the fact that generally NFL owners treat them like shit. Despite Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown’s net worth of $924 million, Bengals cheerleaders were paid just $2.85 an hour for 300 hours of work they put in over the course of half a year. Slovakian minimum wage workers made 65 cents an hour more than Bengals Cheerleaders did last year. Likewise an Oakland Raiders' cheerleader, sued the owners for similar abuses. In the suit, the basis was that, even though the team she worked for was more than capable of paying her a fair wage, she was mandated to fund her own travel for games and required to buy her own cosmetics, which must be applied to a strict standard or she and her teammates face league fines. This is almost domestic financial violence.

        Hopefully, karma will manifest itself when Tom Brady wins another Superbowl ring while Roger Goodell continues to be just another grossly overpaid putz.

Even More Things Which make me Say "Huh?"

       Even more things which make me go "Huh?"

        Saturday morning, 7:30 am news. A man's pet Emu was scared by a dog and ran away. It took a significant number of bodies and time to recapture the bird. Now the real question: Why the hell would someone keep a 125 pound, 5 1/2 foot tall,  "can kick you to death" flightless bird in an urban setting?  The eggs are relatively inedible, the bird has a brain about the size of its eyeball, and is rated by breeders as being "dumber than a turkey!" In fact, Smithsonian recently pronounced the Emu as (officially, I guess) the "dumbest bird in the world," That's a really stupid bird and, it seems to me, a reasonably poor  choice for a pet.

        Nest question. here's a hypothetical scenario. President George W. Bush, while President, went to Africa several times. At least twice, African heads of state donated various sums in kind or in gifts to the President which he gratefully accepted and then regifted to non-profit causes. Was anybody irate about this? Woodrow Wilson received (and kept) a limousine. Ronald Reagan received , kept and, after leaving the White House,  lived in, a $2.5 million house in Bel Air, CA.  Where's the outrage?   

        On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, visited Morocco,  a friendly and  critical ally  in Northern Africa,  and gave a speech. The King, richer than God, as a symbol of  good relations between our nations,  gave a large monetary gift - not to her, not to her family, but to a charitable  foundation which is one of the most highly vetted and respected  charities in America, far more productive and efficient than the Red Cross, or even St. Jude's Children's Hospital.  The Clinton Foundation sponsors programs in public health, economic development, women’s rights and climate change.  Its work has been praised, including efforts to lower the price of AIDS medication and distribute it to children. The foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative have helped more than 435 million people in 180 countries. The secretary herself, and her husband, also gave over $1 million in each of several years to this charity, while receiving absolutely zero compensation whatsoever,  from it. Donald Trump is outraged.  It makes my head hurt.

       As a footnote, Trump has actively solicited contributions to his own charitable foundation,  from private citizens and corporations as well. Recent reporting on the Trump Foundation,  has centered on Mr. Trump’s repeated use of foundation money to make donations that simultaneously helped him solve a personal or business problem.  A recent Florida  lawsuit  was eventually settled with Mr. Trump agreeing to donate $100,000 to charity, but the donation came from the Trump Foundation instead of Mr. Trump himself. Using charity money to satisfy a personal lawsuit is typically considered to be self-dealing, an illegal use of nonprofit foundation funds. In more recent years, it appears that the major beneficiary of the Trump Foundation has been....Trump! Mr. Trump’s foundation does not show up on the charity registers in many states,  because the foundation  has, numerous times,  not complied with non-profit regulations. Again, it makes my head hurt.

        "Be an energy voter - it's not a partisan issue",  proclaims a recent commercial featuring a cast of paid actors portraying the spectrum  of American citizens. Of course, it absolutely is a partisan issue, and all you need to do to prove it is look at the energy barons in America and where their political support lies. Start with the Koch Brothers, Republican mega donors. Their $9.250,000  in lobbying alone, is a good indicator. While you're beginning to believe that they really care about you, consider this:

       Two of the world's largest energy companies, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP, are majority owned and controlled outside the US. One wonders how much Congressional "bang" they get for their $7.43 million bucks in direct lobbying? What we do know is that energy lobbying contributions show a 30 to 1 ratio in favor of fossil fuels (you know, CO2, acid rain, global warming and all that stuff ?)  Collectively, oil and gas alone fed the coffers of all Congressional  lobbying recipients a staggering $1.8 billion!   Statistically, about 70% of Petroleum/ gas industry  lobbying goes to Republicans. As unbalanced  as that seems, it pales next to mining (coal) interests, in which case over  90% of lobbying donations ("bribes" carries such an unpleasant connotation, doesn't it?) go to Republicans.  If you still believe "being an energy voter" isn't partisan, I can't help you.

        In a somewhat related vein, at least conceptually, candidates Clinton and Sanders both have made repeated calls for modifying a  2006 Bush administration "gift" to the Pharma industry. To get the Medicare part D act passed, over rather strenuous objection  by the Big Pharma industry, the  bill was altered to include a provision that Medicare would never negotiate drug prices. Understand, this means that while Insurance companies and The Veteran's Administration can, and do, pay less for drugs by negotiating with suppliers, Medicare costs (and the co-pays of recipients) are set by Big Pharma with zero regard for anything but profit.

        Let's reiterate, using a current example: Mylan Pharmaceuticals' recent 500% price hike to ($600) of its patented "Epi-pen" was met with significant outrage, to the point that Mylan lowered the price (with a coupon issued by them) to "only" $300.  Of course in the UK, Mylan sells the identical item (at a profit) for about $69. The Veteran's administration also pays less, because they are able to negotiate price, as do major US  health insurers - except Medicare. So who gets hurt? To some degree, all users do, since the actual value of the drug in an Epi-pen is less than $2.00!   The sad part is that those hurt worst are those least able to afford it. Those with health insurance will undoubtedly see an increase in their co-pay but, if they can afford insurance in the first place, will probably be all right. However, those without insurance or on Medicare will pay full price, and those with Part D will still pay a larger co-pay based on the full retail drug cost.

        Of course, as an industry, Big Pharma  fights to preserve their special status, which is:  As an industry which manufactures products which, for some consumers aren't "optional" but essential to survival, they remain largely unregulated in the marketplace. This is different from most other manufacturers and industries,  whose product consumers can choose to use (or not). Being unable to afford new Basketball shoes is, perhaps, annoying. Being unable to afford a drug which makes the difference between life and death is possibly fatal.

       How much does it cost to "buy" this protection and unique privilege by stopping adverse legislation?  Here's the situation  as it is today:  Large pharmaceutical firms are some of the most profitable companies in the world, and they spend a great deal  money on, besides advertising and hefty salaries for rich kid CEOs, lobbying Congress to stay that way.  While they would like for public perception to be that they reinvest most of these obscene profits on Research and Development, and  some profits are reinvested to fund research and clinical trials,  far more is now spent annually, by the biggest names in the business on media advertising. Hundreds of millions of dollars are also spent on political operations ("lobbying") every year. 

     The government has long provided  the pharmaceutical industry with  premium patent protections while leaving drug pricing up to the whims of the market. We, as  consumers in the United States, now pay some of the highest prices in the world for many life-saving drugs. Recent data  shows  that critical cancer medicines, for example, cost as much as 600 times more in the United States than other countries. The industry has a clear interest in maintaining the political status quo, and lobbying is the vehicle. In total, most recently compiled lobbying expenditures for the Pharma and medical supply  industries exceed $125 million  over  the last fiscal year!  That, however is relatively minor when compared to the $5 billion spent on advertising by Pharma alone.

        Although the pharmaceutical industry justifies routine overcharging by pointing to the huge, and, admittedly  uncertain, costs of research, the truth is that the government has historically taken, mainly through the efforts and auspices of the National Institute of Health, and continues to take, the greatest risks, and funds those risks with your and my tax dollars . Additional government grants flow to public and private  university efforts as well.

        Beginning in the 1930s, the NIH has invested close to $900 billion in the basic and applied research that formed both the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, with private companies only getting seriously into the biotech game in the 1980s. Big Pharma, while of course contributing to innovation, has increasingly begun to back away  from the high-risk side of research and development, often letting small biotech companies and the NIH do most of the hard work. In fact, about  75% of so-called new molecular entities with priority rating (the most innovative drugs with the most promise) can be traced to NIH funding, while companies spend more on "me too" drugs (slight variations of existing ones.)

        Although the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act allowed publicly funded research to be patented, to facilitate commercialization, and in return allowed price caps,  successive administrations, worried about being seen to intervene in the free market, have never capped the price of even one drug!  

        Finally, because I'm getting tired of typing, allow me one glaring example of just how bad we're being ripped off  while Pharma profits soar: 

        We've all seen the TV ads for the "new, breakthrough" drug Harvoni, which is the first to actually cure Hepatitis "C".  Gilead Science, which retails the drug, didn't actually develop  it! They purchased the rights to the drug  (actually generically named sofosbuvir) and patented it in the US.  Here is the even more amazing reality: sofosbuvir was developed under the leadership of Prof. Raymond Schinazi, a  professor of biochemistry at Emory University. The U.S. Government heavily funded Prof. Schinazi’s research, with major grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and support from the Veterans Administration.  Get this right. We (taxpayers) funded much of this drug's R&D cost. Gilead's cost was a combination of clinical trials expense and profit paid to the startup company that Dr. Schinazi formed to sell his brainchild. Gilead paid about  $11 billion to purchase the drug, of which $440 million went to the good doctor. In its first 10 months of  sales, Harvoni recovered Gilead's entire investment! Their patent protection will allow them to do so until 2028. Understand, this means somewhere around  50,000% profit annually on Harvoni for the next 12 years.

         According to researchers in the UK, the actual production costs of Sovaldi  (retail name in the UK and Europe) for the 12-week course is in the range of $68-$136. In fact, generic sofosbuvir is currently being marketed in India at $300 per treatment course, after India told Gilead to kiss their ass when they (Gilead) tried to patent it in India. In other words, the U.S. price-cost markup is roughly 1,000-to-1! So, how can Gilead Science charge $84,000 for a drug that costs less than $300 to produce? Well, for starters,  Gilead’s patent on sofosbuvir runs until 2028, giving it a monopoly in the U.S. market. Second, a range of Federal and state government programs  will cover the $84,000 for a sizeable number of patients. For those not covered by government programs, some will be covered by private insurance, a few will pay out of pocket, and still others will die because they lack coverage and can’t afford the treatment.  And of course that pesky law prohibiting Medicare from negotiating price.

Angry yet?