But, I Won't Be Here!

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

John Kenneth Galbraith

        Today’s front-page story leads with a sentence containing the words “Booming Economy.”  This refers, of course to the economy as it currently affects those with sufficient wealth to be invested in the market, or at the top profit end of retail sales.

        Reflecting, however on the entire economy, especially the long-term prospects, paints a more somber picture.  The federal deficit has never been as high, relative to GDP, adjusted for inflation or not, as it is this year. While it is certainly true that There were significant Obama deficits, these were accrued in the worst years of the second worst recession in US history, and the largest of those (2008-2009) was actually the result of the last Bush 43 budget. This is not to criticize “W” for the budget in the wake of the housing bubble collapse, as many experts, of which he was most assuredly not one, agreed that TARP was essential. It follows that Unemployment payouts were at a vey high level as well, with unemployment as high as 9.9% from 2009-2010. It follows that federal/state assistance payments soared as well, due to families with no working member. From 2009 to 2001, there were 26 consecutive months of job losses as a result of the Great Recession. 

        In fact, since 1941, there had been only one year with average unemployment higher than the mess Obama inherited, and that was 1982, after the Reagan tax cut, when unemployment hit 10.8% briefly, accompanying a year of negative GDP growth. To find a larger negative GPD than that inherited by Barack Obama in 2009, one must look all the way back to 1946, in the post war surge of former military personnel into the workforce, as wartime jobs tapered off. Truman, however, with several employment and jobs programs left Ike with a healthy 4.1% annual GDP growth rate, and it continued positive with a couple of minor blips until the housing bubble collapse of kicked it down to -.1% in 2008, and further down to -2.5% in 2009. While deficits in those years of high unemployment and negative growth were very high, the effect was to eventually spur economic growth and GDP back to the plus column, with deficits decreasing. This was not, as one might well expect (if one had any real knowledge of economics), a rapid process, as many Americans had lost homes, and all construction sector jobs were in a slump as a result, from mortgage lending to roofing to electrical and HVAC work. 

        However, by 2013-14, the deficit had returned to pre collapse levels and unemployment was  in the sub 6% level and decreasing steadily. In 2015, the GDP was 2.9%, and unemployment was   at 5% and decreasing steadily, as it had since 2009. In fact, the current (2018) unemployment rate of 4.1%, for which Mr. Trump takes full credit, is simply a continuation of the downward slope of the Obama second term years, when unemployment dropped from 7.9% to 4.7%.   

        Yeah, I know, so what? Here’s the “rest of the story.” While Trump boasts of “job creation” (for which no President ever can really take credit) and “lower taxes,” we might expect a more robust economy would result. If we consider the federal deficit as an indicator, the facts are sobering. Bush 41 inherited an economy recovering from the Reagan spending spree and Bush 41’s coping with it, (Read my lips, no new taxes!”) which, promises notwithstanding, led to the inevitable - new taxes. This should not to be construed by the reader as me criticizing George H.W, Bush. He did what was necessary, and the highest marginal tax bracket for 1992 was raised (eventually to 35%) from Reagan’s low of 28%, which was the lowest marginal percentage since the Great Depression.

         For those who read history, the Crash was prefaced by Calvin Coolidge, a Republican with a Republican Congress, cutting the marginal rate from 46% in 1925 to 25% in 1926. This was a significant source of fuel for the out of control spending spree in the late twenties which came tumbling to a halt with the Great depression. While there are several other generally accepted precursors to “the crash”, the excess of corporate profit which prompted low, or no, security lending and investment along with grossly under (actually just “un”) regulated bank policies, was certainly a factor, which I feel has been under-addressed by many historians. John Kenneth Galbraith’s retrospective, however, does so. “The Great Crash, 1929,” written by Dr. Galbraith and published in 1955, is an economic history of all factors which led up to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and unlike too many economics focused books is extremely readable. But now, back on track.

        From 1941 to 1981, deficits were either sight or there were actual federal budget surpluses, Yes, I said surpluses! In 1982, the highest marginal income tax rate was decreased, eventually to the to the Reagan low which was to take effect in 1988, of 28%, the lowest rate since the Depression. Now here’s the weird part: Over that same span (1982-1991) the Federal deficit soared, reaching a quarter of a trillion dollars several times in a period of no massive recession and no war!

        In 1993, the first Clinton year, even with a Republican congressional majority the marginal rate was raised to 39.6%. Now here’s the funny thing, the deficit decreased every year of the Clinton administration, and for the last three Clinton budgets, the US had a surplus which was projected to continue into the Bush 43 years. So, everything was back on track, no?

        No. Because Bush 43 lowered the marginal rate and went to war in Iraq. Again, deficits soared. The Clinton surplus was a phantom for “W,” tax cuts for the rich and the fog of war mostly to blame. Then the bottom fell out of the economy, as grotesquely under-regulated lending and securities markets played the housing market like slot machines, generally, in most cases, with other people’s money. The fraud in mortgage brokerages and major banking houses alone is well documented, albeit little understood by most, even those who lost everything.

There's a certain part of the contented majority who love anybody who is worth a billion dollars.

John Kenneth Galbraith

        Bush, with advice from some who actually understood the gravity of the crisis, authorized TARP (“the bailout”, “too big to fail”, etc.) and the deficit carnage began. Through the Obama first term, unemployment remained above 8%, and the expected high deficits accompanied that statistic. Contrary to what some have claimed, The Obama administration did not extend or change welfare eligibility in any sense, but did authorize the extension of unemployment compensation, doing so with a Republican Congress which had stated its intent to thwart him in any way possible. In 2013, the top marginal income tax rate was increased to 39.6% and the size of the deficit decreased accordingly.  In 2016, the last Obama year, the deficit was lower than at any time since 2006 and was lower than 7 of the 8 Bush 43 years! These figures, by the way are adjusted for inflation, so it really is apples to apples!

         Are we beginning to see correlation here? In truth, the GDP growth under Obama in 2015 (2.9%) was exactly the same as the Trump 2018 growth, in his “booming” economy, and greater, than Trump’s 2017 figure of 2.2%!  But (wait for it) excluding the 2009 deficit (Bush budget, which, in fairness, included $445 billion in TARP funds), the first two Trump years’ deficits of 2017 ($666 billion), and 2018 ($779 billion), are both higher in this “booming” economy than any Obama year during the Great Recession. In fact, if things go as predicted, the 2019 Trump Federal deficit will top $900 billion. This in a growing, even “booming,” economy. I put “booming “ in quotes because I believe that appellation to be subject to scrutiny. Putting it simply, in case any Trump supporter accidentally reads this (doubtful), “If the cost of maintaining appearances while bragging about how great things are is borrowing in ever increasing quantities to fund it, are you really “booming” or just living on “borrowed” (see what I did there?) time? 

        So, is Donald Trump concerned? Here’s what he said as candidate Trump, facing two years with a Republican controlled Congress: "It (balancing the federal budget) can be done. ... It will take place and it will go relatively quickly.  ... If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing ... you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country."

        So how is that working so far? Not so much, apparently. Trump had repeatedly shrugged off any concerns about the rising national debt because it was projected to come to a head only after he would finish a second term. During a 2017 briefing with senior officials, Trump responded to a presentation of charts and graphics by saying, "Yeah, but I won't be here."

        As a matter of record, we know Trump has played fast and loose with his and investor’s finances at times. We also know he has grossly undervalued or over valued his own net worth to gain loans or declare bankruptcy multiple times. When it was his money, I truly didn’t care, but this is the nation’s fiscal welfare   and his answer is “I won’t be here?”  Would that it were so, even now!

There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Yep, He Really Cares!

       So, the front page of today’s Daily Sun has photo of Trump, looking as if he cared, standing somewhere in South Florida with Rick DeSantis (Our Gov) beside him making pronouncements as to how much he is concerned with the Everglades and Florida’s water quality. Mind you this isn’t drinking water. We know Trump cares little about that, since he has done f***-all to help Flint, Michigan, yet wait ‘til the last page and see what he just did in Michigan. Trump, starting in early 2017, has undone essentially all clean water protection which existed when he took office.

         Is it a good thing to be concerned about the Everglades? Of course, it is, especially since the problems which affect the ‘Glades are the same problems which, while they don’t specifically “cause” red tide, certainly exacerbate its effects and duration. Of course, Florida was well on the way to doing that on its own under Governor Charlie Crist (not a huge fan, but he was right on this), until the bottom fell out of the economy and the set-asides for repurchasing ‘Glades wetlands went to other more pressing issues.

         Enter Rick Scott, fresh from overseeing the largest Medicare fraud in history, taking office in 2011 and blaming Crist for the Great recession, drop in tourism, dandruff and what-have-you. Scott, then did little or nothing to ameliorate the burgeoning algae problem in Okeechobee, and neither did his partner in graft, Marco Rubio, South Florida senator. 

While the State’s economy recovered, a phenomenon for which Scott endeavored to take credit, even though it was a nationwide recovery, the efforts to address restoring the ‘Glades fresh water flow, and/or algae bloom/red tide issues were treated like a stepchild. This was, of course exacerbated by Marco Rubio’s insistence that Big Sugar (a huge planter in the former wetlands south of the lake, water user and to some extent, polluter of Okeechobee) was a “national security interest.” Yep, he really said that.  

        Trump, accompanied by his bestie, DeSantis, looked around, posed for the photo-op, used the usual plethora of superlatives, perhaps half of them correctly, while the real reason for the visit was Florida’s status as a big vote producer.

        So how does Trump really feel about clean water, when it’s not a reelection issue, but rather a quality of economic life issue for his big business cronies? That’s another story all together. Within just several months after his inauguration, he issued an executive order overturning the Waters of the United States rule, calling it a “disaster.” Trump then instructed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and reconsider the rule, also known as WOTUS or the Clean Water Rule.

         Mind you, the Corps is the organization which created most of the Okeechobee mess by straightening Kissimmee River to please developers, beginning in 1948. Trump failed to mention, or probably didn’t even consider that rolling back the provision could put at risk the health of 117 million Americans, the well-being of plant and animal species ― including endangered ones ― and the protection of critical habitats. The economic risks could also be significant.

        The origins of the Clean Water Rule dates to that blistering June Sunday in 1969 when Ohio’s Cuyahoga River, a tributary of Lake Erie, became so polluted with sewage and industrial waste that it burst into flames. The disaster sparked an environmental revolution in the U.S. It helped lead to the establishment of the EPA in 1970 and the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, which gave the federal agency the authority to limit pollution in “navigable waters.” Note that the
“bleeding heart environmentalist” who signed both pieces of legislation was Richard Nixon! The law had almost immediate was a game-changer for America’s large water bodies, including the Cuyahoga, which went from burning to “gleaming” by the late 1980s.

Cuyahoga river 1969





Cuyahoga river 2019



       Of course, the polluters are typically people of Trump’s ilk, corporate interests who, in most cases live far from where they pollute and only care about their bottom line. So, just how two faced is Trump on the issue? He’s taken $1billion from defense personnel spending but listen to him just the other day. Trump says, "it's time for the federal government to spend big money on cleaning up the Great Lakes”, but the big spending actually began nine years ago under then-President Barack Obama.

       And, here’s the clincher, if you ever doubted this man’s moral bankruptcy, until Trump reversed course in a speech March 28, 2019, (last Thursday night) in the electorally important state of Michigan, he had proposed, in three consecutive federal budgets, to either eliminate funding for the federal Great Lakes Restoration Initiative or to cut it by 90 percent. In fact, he most recently suggested cutting the program by 90 percent in the fiscal 2020 budget he proposed less than three weeks ago. You wouldn't know that, though, if you just listened to what the president had to say in his campaign rally in Grand Rapids Thursday night. Here’s The Buffalo News’ report:   

        “Trump's attempt to take credit for an Obama-era program he'd been trying to cut didn't impress Rep. Brian Higgins, a Buffalo Democrat who has fought for years to boost funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Higgins said the program is responsible for the cleanup and restoration of the Buffalo River and other similar projects across the Great Lakes region – and that Trump has had nothing to do with it. "The credit belongs to President Obama and to congressional leaders who have worked in a bipartisan nature to restore funding," Higgins said.

        I find myself wondering how Governor DeSantis, an actual honorably discharged Navy veteran, vice a fake bone spur dodger, can walk with Trump without vomiting. Then I bitch slap myself back to reality and remind myself that it’s Florida politics.

He's Dumb, but Maybe Not Alone

        The Dunce from DC once told his bitch, Sean Hannity, that “Wind energy won’t work because the wind only blows sometimes.” As a science nerd, I could go into some detail about why this is bat shit crazy, but I’d rather have a frank discussion about why the “Green New Dealers” also need to do more homework. I’m reminded of the stoner, interviewed at Woodstock who opined that Woodstock was a “model for the world, man.” It was a great concert, but hardly a model for urban planning, living or, (definitely not) sanitation.

        Idealism, untempered by a grasp on the possible, rather than the Utopian, is a lousy framework for getting meaningful things done. This is certainly true in the case of exclusively wind power as part of a nationwide electrical grid. In furtherance of the goal of “all wind all the time,” Green New Dealers almost always (I only add “almost” because someone, somewhere may have stated factual data but we have yet to see it) grossly understate the true cost of wind in several ways.  Understand this, before I begin, I loathe fossil fuel’s negative effects on the environment and public health. What I am referring to here is the amazingly lo-ball numbers we are being fed re: wind as opposed to other possibilities.

        To begin with, energy storage in a “situational” power source situation (Solar, Wind) is critical to maintaining unbroken power supplies to consumers. “Peak” energy consumption across the nation is after dark much of the year. Clearly, solar must overproduce during the day and store energy for the dark hours. This battery technology, while burgeoning,is grossly expensive and in its infancy.  Solar has the advantage of no moving parts, ergo lesser maintenance, however, it also is easy to damage (hail, normal wear and tear) It also wears out.

        Wind, of which the dunce in chief knows little (He also cites "fumes" from wind turbines), has more, and more expensive, concerns. These, alas, are generally glossed over by the naïfs who touted the Green New Deal (GND) as a panacea.

       The two major disadvantages of wind power include initial cost and technology immaturity. First: constructing turbines and wind facilities is extremely expensive for the amount of power generated by each unit- an average about 2.5 to 3 KW per, with 5 KW as a probable maximum. Secondarily, at the current state of technology, maintenance, such as changing oil in rotor bearings at the top of the tower weekly, is periodic. essential, frequent and expensive. (Ask the Danes!) It is even costlier in off-shore installations.  We, too frequently, see cost per kwh listed as production cost, not cost to consumer, which is extremely equivocal. As an example, most cost per kwh numbers we see are misleading because they frequently omit the initial cost of hardware. This “total” cost, which is passed along to consumers is known as levelized cost. What GND’ers cite (in the vicinity of 3.1 cents per kwh) is like citing the cost of a car wash considering only the water, soap and minimum wage imbecile who reminds you to “put the window up!” without adding the cost of the machines, the building, the electricity, etc. This is about like bragging about how many miles per gallon your hybrid gets without considering the initial cost of the vehicle (still a good investment by the way!)

        Moreover, it almost always fails to consider energy storage costs for the periods when demand exceeds supply. This seems minor, but in a nationwide grid it is critical. Just to power New York City alone (this is just households, not the far more energy hungry hotels and businesses) would require the installation and constant operation of about  5,700 more, new wind turbines, not to mention energy storage capacity. The cost of the turbines alone, at an average $3.5 million apiece, would run to well over 20 billion dollars. That cost, passed on to consumers, and it would be, would be almost punitive. This does not include the far, far higher energy demands of industrial operations.

        In the real world, the cost to non-industrial consumers of electricity fluctuates over the entire nation, from a low of 8 cents per kwh in Idaho, to 18.1 cents per kwh in NY and CT, to a whopping 33.2 cents per kwh in Hawaii. Idaho is relatively cheap because most of the electricity produced and consumed there is generated by the cleanest source on the planet – hydro-electric plants. Idaho also has some geo-thermal (underground hot water, as in Iceland) sources and uses the free heat to heat some buildings. According to the Federal Energy Information Administration, the "levelized cost" of new wind power (including capital and operating costs) is 8.2 cents per kwh, essentially in a dead heat with Nuclear. Advanced “clean-coal” (bullshit!) plants cost about 11 cents per kwh but advanced natural gas-burning plants come in at just 6.3 cents per kwh.  Without regard to the environment, this makes gas even cheaper than wind and solar. Of course, there’s than nasty little carbon footprint thingy which remains relatively high. Coal is filthy in all ways and constitutes a well-documented public health hazard.

        What is being overlooked is that there is another “zero footprint” technology, its reputation damaged by a film and a “no harm/no foul” accident within weeks of each other in 1979. Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome” Scared the hell out of many Americans, the more ignorant, the more scared. The nuclear power industry in the US has never really recovered, despite the fact that perhaps the most rigorous public health effort ever, concluded in the US after 40 years, announced the total casualties either direct or indirect from the TMI incident as “zero.”  Nuclear power emits no exhausts, discharges no pollutants into streams, has a zero-fatality record over about 70 years of operation, land based and seaborne, yet we shun it because we fail to understand it.

        Want to be truly “Green?”  China and India obviously do. They are pioneering liquid salt reactor technology which the US gave up in the late 1960s. Why? because although they had a record of over 6000 effective full power hours of incident free operation at the Oak Ridge, TN, facility, it was not capable of producing weapons grade Plutonium, ergo it was scrapped in favor of high-pressure fast breeders (like Chernobyl). 

Liquid salt reactors can use Thorium, of which we have literally thousands of years’ worth, and are inherently stable and safe. They even produce fewer waste products to be handled than current pressurized water designs, of which, by the way, I have more than a passing operational knowledge, at sea, submerged. A wind farm would need 235 square miles to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant. The nuclear power plan can operate at constant power day night/wind or calm requiring no massive (and, as yet, non-existent battery) banks.  

        We love to cite Denmark when we discuss Utopian social models which we have been conned into believing. One such is the fact that the Danes are wind powered for all electricity, much of it sea-borne (off shore). So, they must get really cheap electricity, right? Not so much. They pay more (about 40 cents per kwh) than even Hawaii!  Apparently the “green” in Green New Deal doesn’t refer to the color of money! Finally, what would all these new turbines cost? Assuming all current non-wind energy production became “wind based” and at today’s prices, the cost wound be merely (roughly) about 15% of the current total national debt! This of course excludes land costs (astronomical) and, yet to be invented storage capabilities. National bankruptcy, anyone?

Enough, Already!

      This is a response to yet one more attempt to cover Trump’s grievous shortcomings by attacking former SecState Clinton regarding the “Uranium one” deal. The tipping point for me, today,  was the allegation that in a nine-member unanimous vote Clinton was (somehow) the “swing vote”, a mathematical impossibility. I, therefore, did even more digging. This is part of what I found:

       "For a bit more fact vice blither: US mining law allows any corporation with a US address to claim mining rights and has, for well over a century, allowed said rights to be sold by that corporation to foreign interests. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS) has only existed in current form since 1988 but was established by the Ford administration by Executive Order in 1975. 

       Since 1988, through 2014, there have been 2,124 required notifications of foreign desires/intent to invest in American interests which were considered worthy of CFIUS consideration. Of these, up to 2000-2008 (the Bush 43 years) only 18 were investigated, 7 were withdrawn (most by committee recommendation before going to the President) and 10 were nixed by POTUS, 8 by Bush 41, 2 by Clinton.

        In the Bush 43 administration, there were 561 notifications, 32 full investigations, 63 tenders withdrawn, 3 nixed by POTUS. Worthy of note is that in the Bush 43 years, both Bush and the Committee approved a Chinese consortium’s acquisition bid for US oil corporation Unocal, and an offer from Dubai Ports World, to buy P & O which, if approved, would have ceded control of most US east coast container ports to an Arab corporation! In both cases Congress, with both Houses under Republican control and concurring, concerned that these decisions were adverse to US security, rejected those decisions, nixing the deals.

       During the Obama years up to 2014, there were 627 notifications of intent, of which 151 were investigated. This was a much higher frequency of concern than that demonstrated by the Bush 43 team. Of these, 146 were withdrawn (due to initial adverse response) and 15 were nixed by POTUS. 

      The CFIUS, as previously stated, unanimously voted to approve the Uranium One deal. As SecState, Clinton could have done nothing to stop it as only one vote of nine, including:  Department of the Treasury (chair), Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Energy, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Office of Science & Technology Policy. Additionally, The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio members of CFIUS. That Clinton lady must really know Kung-Fu or something equally deadly to bully all those men, some Republicans, into voting as she wanted!

       Now, the rest of the story. While Trump, his ignorant sycophant fan base and others too stupid for critical thinking, continued nattering about Uranium One, the Trump Justice Department, in February 2018, debunked their fearless leader’s story, based primarily on the fact that after listening to the “witness” rail on about “Clinton Cash” (gotta sell that book) concluded that, in navy speak, he was a lying sack of shit regarding any “play for pay” aspect to the Uranium one issue. Remember this was Trump’s Justice Department and Trump’s FBI. So, rave on, haters. Wishing it were so won’t change facts.

       Again, allow me to make this clear: I don’t think we should have ever allowed foreign nationals to obtain control over US soil resources, but the law allowing that is older than I am and would require Congressional action to be altered. We allow BP to drill in US coastal waters, which is yet another US energy resource. Where’s the outrage? It needs to be remembered that Uranium One was a Canadian company which bought the mining rights from Americans who sold it to them. The sale to Rosatom transfers zero uranium to Russia, and in a flash, if needed those mining rights could be voided. Minus an export license, all the Uranium mined by Uranium One stays here unless we allow its export. So, why are we here in the first place? Because US energy companies chose not to operate uranium mines in the US back when yellowcake uranium ore was so cheap as to be only marginally profitable.

More Common Sense

     Some time (several months) ago I recommended a link to a column by Mona Charen, a somewhat right of center Op-ed columnist. The column was essentially apolitical, yet one reader chastised me for posting it because they didn’t care for some of Ms. Charen’s opinions in other areas. I was led to this conclusion because they took absolutely no issue with the gist of the column.

        “Shooting the messenger” generally refers to the practice of abusing the bearer of bad news, not because of their transgressions but because the message is unpleasant. It is childish, ill advised and typically is what I expect from Trump supporters. “Shooting” the messenger even when the news is not unpleasant takes intolerance to a new level. I say all this to preface my posting of a link to another Mona Charen column. It is, again, essentially apolitical and most of it is specifically data driven, not opinion. In a case like this not liking what the data says doesn’t make it wrong just, perhaps, unpalatable or at odds with one’s own social beliefs. I will post another several paragraphs below the column with my personal views on the subject.

More Misconceptions About College

                                                                               

                                                                              Mona Charen

https://www.creators.com/read/mona-charen?fbclid=IwAR0PlMga0EKqpa8yPbHiqqEcXSS_O7AqcuOcVOU--ctNp2xJdFyTANnPH4s

       When I retired from the US Navy at 26 years I was, I believe, the senior enlisted Nuclear trained man in the Nuclear Navy/Submarine Force. While I had two Baccalaureate degrees and a Master’s when I retired, none of those were the reason I succeeded in my naval career field. What was essential was the technical schools the navy provided. Other essentials included knowing how to study, think critically, mechanical aptitude and, unsurprisingly, not wanting to go to Viet Nam.

        For many of us, college might come later, but wasn’t instrumental to our success in the Navy. Most of the “Navy Nukes,” as well as other technical specialists I’ve known (and there are a bunch, still in touch) have been successful in two careers as I have. This was due not to an immediately post-high school college liberal arts degree, but to learning a technical skill, which prepared those who wanted to do so, for college later. Trust me, most will opine that after Nuclear Power school, college was a breeze. I would be among those.

        Ms. Charen’s column is, I feel, an appropriate response to the “college for all” crowd. I have no quarrel with those who opine that College costs are out of control. I wrote on this topic over five years ago in a piece entitled “The Next Precipice” which warned of rapidly escalating US student debt. The column on question points out that a college degree is no panacea nor, in and of itself, little or no guarantee of financial stability.

        The high school at which I taught for 20 post-Navy years held a PTA Open House early in the school year, and as an AP teacher I usually had 75% of parents there in the “breakout” sessions. I usually opened by introducing myself, followed by, “My job is to help make your student employable.”  Over the years, I learned that for the spectrum of students, even presumptively college bound, depending upon interest and aptitude, that might have varied meanings. While learning how to learn is a critical necessity for most, doing it in a college setting is frequently too late. This explained the inordinate number of my Nuclear power School classmates with a year or two of less than stellar college behind them when they enlisted.

        When we harp upon the “college for all” mantra, we ignore those persons who make good (to “better than good”) livings because they have discovered that it isn’t necessarily about a four-year degree, but about knowing how to do something someone will pay you to do. The guy who fixes my Air conditioner is one of those people, so is the tech who does electrical work, so are those men and women at my auto dealership. So are the men who operate the power plants which keep the grid alive. 

       In Orange County, Florida, as one example, we have a first- rate auto mechanics vocational program co-funded by the UAW and General Motors. In fact, the school, publicly and privately funded, offers 18 different certifications in varied career areas from Commercial Truck driver ($70 K average, even for Walmart!) to HVAC service tech (avg $50 K) to auto service tech (avg $47K) to EMT (avg $36K, much higher if paramedic) to diesel mechanic (avg$45K). Graduates start work right out of high school in many cases. A four-year BA in Psychology on the other hand may well have $25,000 (or far more) in student loan debt and be almost unemployable “in field”.

        Even more disturbing, at least to me, is the sad fact that, due to chronic underfunding, the vocational testing batteries once routinely administered to high school students are a thing of the past in most places. Sadder yet. is that many short-sighted parents also refuse to allow or try to deter their students from taking the free, zero obligation, Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. or   ASVAB, which is offered at more than 14,000 schools nationwide. For too many, this would be the first time their real vocational aptitude would be evaluated and guidance in the form of feedback offered. Parents resist in some cases because they imagine some obligation, which is simply not the case, or worse find out that little bubba isn't necessarily college material, but has other strengths.     

        This truth is why in many Florida Community Colleges, the formerly two-year courses have been, in several cases, extended to four years in some technical specialties. Sadly, meanwhile, we have superb, yet relatively under-utilized technical training available at no cost in vocational programs at the high school level and reasonable cost post high school.

        It still simply comes back to knowing how to do something someone will pay you to do. The “College for all” mantra makes the erroneous assumption that one cannot be financially well off without that college education.

        It would be reasonable for example, if the will to do it existed, to prepare young persons in high school to sit for their Licensed practical Nurse (LPN) exams at or even before graduation from high school. LPNS average about $45,000 annually nationwide, and some do the requisite course work on line or at publicly funded Vo-tech schools. Meanwhile, a new hire with a degree in Social Work is looking at (nationwide, again, around $32,000 to start and, even with a Masters, perhaps $42,000 annually.

        So, back to the Op-ed. Ms. Charen’s point regarding the “essentiality” of college is largely borne out by my 20 years of observational experience.

     Regarding the other data driven points of her article “1) finish high school, 2) get a full-time job and 3) get married before having children.”  As ‘un-hip” as this outlook may be in some circles, it is also absolutely borne out by data across the human spectrum in the USA. Remember, data is impersonal, it doesn’t care whether you like it, or if celebrities do it differently swimming against the data stream. Good column, sound observations. Not really political, except, possibly in the minds of those who are doing or have been forced by circumstance or personal choice to do it differently.  

      

Ad-Speak for Beginners

Whew! That was close!

        I had a strange moment today while imbibing the first of many cups of coffee. I was doing the daily crossword - in ink, because that's how I roll! I was also sort of listening to my Alexa flash briefing from the heretical NPR, followed by Jimmy Fallon’s monologue from the previous night. After the day’s weather forecast ended, I thanked Alexa ("No problem" was the response) and returned to the paper. Anyway, I noticed a print ad for a treatment for fibromyalgia. The last paragraph contained the assurance that whatever the stuff was, it was "made from 'naturally sourced' pumpkin seeds."  I immediately, analytical thinker that I am, began reflecting on just what other kind of pumpkin seeds there might be. I had nuthin'. There are no alien pumpkins as far as we know, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) unless those Area 51 gummint guys at Roswell have some we don't know about.  I realized that I'd been briefly captured yet again by the use of undefined high sounding, but nugatory, advertising doublespeak.

        The term "naturally sourced" may be used with impunity simply because food quality regulators have steadfastly refused to define either word.  Those words are not orphans, never fear. "But Mike," you might ask, "What other bullshit terms are we subjected to?"  Relax, don't you know I'm gonna tell you?

        "Sustainable" Doesn't it sound noble, just to pronounce it?  Almost makes one think of a handsome farm girl in hemp Crocs, gently stirring cow manure and table scraps into a raised bed made of recycled barn wood while composing an ode to her vegan bicycle, doesn't it?  In reality, it has no meaning other than, "I think we can still get this cheap stuff through the end of next month."

        "Local/Artisanal."  Either of these two terms sounds good alone, but together, they are advertising Kryptonite for the unwary. "Artisan" is just an undefined name for a person who produces a product. If you see art in pumpkin production, or bread making you are an ad agency's nighttime fantasy. "Local" on the other hand should have some limitations, one might think, but in reality, one major restaurant chain which I won't name, but it rhymes with "Chipotle,” considers "local," which term they proudly use, to be anywhere within a 350-mile radius! To put that in perspective, that means anywhere within 384,845 square miles. A Chipotle in western PA could claim that produce from both Detroit and Boston were "local!"         

        "Light (or Lite)."  While this may actually mean fewer calories, it almost assuredly means "far more processing" a close second is "less real nutritional value."  A not so distant third is "probably contains some chemicals which aren't really food." Again, legally undefined, persons considering "Light/Lite" alternatives to real food might consider that margarine is only a molecule or two away from paint!  In fact Lays "Lite " potato chips which originally were marketed with Olestra, a fat substituted, sold poorly when consumers read the part about Olestra possibly causing (swear to God) "oily anal leakage." MMMM salsa anyone?

  

      "Real."  "Real", I guess, means "not fake." Unfortunately, a label blurb like "made with real chicken" (and pet food producers are masterful in this misdirection) may mean that 144 grams of food contains 50 milligrams of fowl, and the rest other stuff.  "Made with real beef", for essentially all main stream pet food producers, means that beef, if the first ingredient on the label, is the largest portion of the whole product. What it will never say is that most of said "real" beef meets the "3 D" definition. Dead, Dying or Diseased, when processed. 

        So now, it's time for another cup of  "fair trade, sustainable, artisan produced, locally sourced, real, all natural, vegan K cup coffee. I'm here to help. Return to your usual programming.

Little Bighorn?

       In light of the release (but not yet the full public disclosure we deserve) of the “Mueller Report,” one thing which his sycophant fan base will definitely overlook is an old homily which has always been true, no matter how trite is sounds.  That is “If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.” If that were true as stated, Donald Trump would be desperately in need of a dip. Even assuming he was clever enough (he isn’t clever enough for anything, but his attorneys might be) to avoid direct connectivity with felons, he has demonstrated beyond doubt that one of two statements are true. Either 1: Donald Trump is complicit in election tampering and conspiracy with a foreign government or, 2: He is undeniably the worst judge of character and ability since Bush 41’s nomination of Clarence Thomas to the USSC.

        The litany of Trump-connected indictments and convictions is well known, but as a brief reminder, his Chief of staff, personal attorney and campaign manager have all been convicted of federal crimes and in a couple of cases still face (non-pardonable) state charges as well. This doesn’t include non-criminal but, revelatory as to character, actions such as pussy grabbing, paying off paramours, disrespecting dead senators, alienating essentially every European government except Russia, etc.

        The other evening at Trivia, we were between rounds, sipping wine and crunching toffee covered peanuts, when one of our team commented on an appropriate response made by an individual who objected to yet another Trump “tweet” defaming someone or something. Another, more conservative member opined that it was a shame that Trump was so “unfairly” singled out for criticism by others. I pointed out that Donald Trump is the only President in recent history who has had the bad taste to publicly criticize, insult and professionally demean others, especially many outside of government, in a public medium on a daily basis. I continued that, if one issues 30,000 “tweets,” more than half of them negative, one should expect some blowback.       

     Comparing Trump with his predecessors especially with regard to the use of, and response to, media only serves to amplify this. USSC Justice James Clark McReynolds labeled President Franklin Roosevelt “that crippled son-of-a-bitch . . . in the White House.” FDR’s response? He ignored it. Fox News talking heads variously criticized the Obama daughters for everything from dress to fake news items describing non-existent bad behavior. Likewise, Obama’s birth, sexuality and religion were all subjects of slanderous allegation. The Obama response? They ignored it. Bush 43, hardly a tweeter in any event, was similarly silent when his minor daughters were criticized for being publicly drunk on fake IDs and slipping their secret service details. It is worthy of note that Trump’s minor son, who seems, when seen publicly, strangely disengaged and even embarrassed, has been deemed (appropriately) “off limits.”   No one has used him in a negative way as were the minor children of previous Presidents. Knowing Trump’s public track record of deriding those with various handicaps, one can only imagine if the shoe were on the other foot.

        Trump on the other hand, almost invariably responds to criticism of public policy with personal attacks. His narcissistic mania is reminiscent of the persona and hubris of George Armstrong Custer as portrayed (brilliantly) by Richard Mulligan in the movie Little Big Man. Any questioning or disagreement with “A Custer decision” was seen (by Custer) as grounds for castigation and derision. So it is with the real life Custer, Donald Trump. Perhaps Mueller’s report will be his Little Bighorn? One can only hope.