They Also Serve Who Only Stand and Wait

by Chris James

A refresher.  The thesis of my previous, apologetically, rather long column (Moving Forward By Going Backward) was that, taken together, enough of Donald Trump's major mutterings were strongly suggestive of an isolationist mind-set or, possibly, of an actual strategy. Campaign static though it may have been, this political concept of circling the wagons is decidedly retro, and is putatively dismissible, based on world-wide historical evidence.  I suggested that the true way forward was to be expansive on the global stage, via the driving force of future-focused, always-superior, proprietary, technological advances.

Of course, there may be situations when bringing jobs, based on yesterday's technology, back to the U.S. may make sense.  Having stuck my neck out with my previous column, a few days later the newspaper carried a story that seemed to confirm the existence of exceptions.  On closer inspection, a large percentage of the 8000 jobs hypothesized to be "brought back" was found to be in the phantasmagoric category.  There were many qualifications appended to the revivalist claims.  Examples: Many new - not existing - jobs will be located at a Florida plant not yet planned, let alone built; some jobs will go to undefined "outside contractors"; while federal, state or local government "incentives" are allegedly not involved, discussions will be held "with business partners, states, and cities about where to create these jobs."  Well, this little potpourri of weasel-words does little, if anything, to make the case for exceptions.

Then, as if on cue, a column appeared in the newspaper a few days later presenting the other side of the technology coin.  Every three years, the 35 members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) - a group of major (with the exception of big guns China, Russia, and India) and smaller economies - conducts an international study of 15-year-old students' competencies in reading, math and science.  In 2015, 72 countries participated, with about 540,000 students completing the assessment, representing about 27 million 15-year-olds in schools.  In this latest assessment, the U.S. cohort ranked 20th in reading, down from 14th in 2009; 31st in math, down from 25th in 2009; 19th in science, down from 17th in 2009.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what these data mean in terms of future global leadership through technology.  My reaction is Blecccch!  If you thirst for details, then Google PISA (the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment).  You may be tempted, as some have done already, to throw rocks at the study.  For example, by arguing that the study is not statistically significant, or that the sampling is meaningless, etc.  In contrast to that kind of criticism, the U.S. Education Secretary understatedly called the PISA results "sobering news" - not just in an absolute sense, but also in comparison to the superior test results from competing economies around the globe, as well as the disturbing downward trend of U.S. results.

Probably because of my stringent, possibly strident, views on this subject, I have been taking some flak in the form of counter-arguments from those (O.K., the few) who have heard my message. However, I am protected from such assaults by my self-indulgent comfort in the knowledge that I am impregnably right.  Thus, by the Laws of Nature, the President is horribly wrong - or, as we nature-lovers appropriately say, "up a tree".  The following paragraph is an example of the stand-off.

Main counter-argument: We can do both.  That is to say, gorge on well-used technologies, miraculously resurrected from goodness-knows-where, AND gun the new technology engine. Sorry, but no can do.  Resources are finite, including the planet-sized pile of $$ to make it all happen (although, maybe not the latter, if the sight of the National Debt crashing crazily upward through Obama's distant ceiling doesn't bother us).  Choices between strategies of the, now burgeoning, older technologies and the emergent new would have to be made.

With yet another miracle piled on the first one, let us assume that all the right strategic choices are made.  The capacity of the system to retch up products will then become monumental.  All that is then required to make life complete is market outlets for this cornucopia.  But since the domestic market will soon be overwhelmed, then the saving grace is, of course, global markets.  Mostly, those of the same economies that were not too pleased when the U.S. ran for cover, and who, by this time, will have adjusted their global business strategies to exclude the now untrustworthy U.S.  Well, good luck with that.  It's a bit like Brexit proponents wanting to have all the advantages of EEC markets without having to formally join the bloc and obey its rules.  Dream on, baby.   

I'll leave readers to their imaginations to visualize the kind of results from this potential chaos in the U.S.  I'm not going to spell them out, except to say that the U.S. government interfering with global business, upon which the U.S. so desperately depends, by gaily festooning the U.S. position with "remedial" targeted penalties, taxes, fees and tariffs in order to bring a fatally ephemeral sanity to the inevitable chaos, is hardly the image of a "free market" - let alone to wonder who ultimately pays for this burdensome bureaucratic cascade.  Such mad, blatant, government intervention into U.S. business has all the rancid stink of pathetic socialism.   And, as such, the eventual bottom line results will be.......?

Finally, I would like to vigorously reiterate that I am still standing on the side-lines waiting to see what actually happens.  Nervously, yes.  And not just because of what you may have read in the above text.  I am bothered by the phrase "make America great again."  There are two ways to interpret that.  One is that, we the people are joyous over what is, to all intents and purposes, an isolationist strategy.  We are supremely happy to be safely encased inside our own little cocoon.  This is a narcissistic, egotistic ethos.  The other perspective is the opposite of such self-serving introspection, namely that much of the world sees us as great again.  After our eight wearisome years in the global garbage can, this latter perspective is much, much tougher to achieve, requiring exceptional leadership and statesmanship.  Dear reader, you choose.

The Electoral College Explained, Sort Of

by John Stevenson

Thanks in advance to my colleague Mike, a 1955 Brooklyn Catholic Youth All Star second baseman who actually earned a tryout with the Detroit Tigers.  I owe Mike for allowing me to borrow from his knowledge of The Game---of which I have precious little.

Don’t expect this to assuage the grief or quell the anger of those who believe the recent election should have been decided by the popular vote.  It will not convert those who believe the Electoral College system is outdated or undemocratic and should be abolished (good luck with that one).  It’s just an explanation---of sorts. 

The World Series is not a single game, but a series of four to seven individual games.  The team winning the most games wins the World Series.  It makes no difference which team scores the most runs.  Rules are rules.

In the 1960 World Series, the losing New York Yankees scored 55 runs---more than twice as many as the winning Pittsburgh Pirates, who scored only 27 runs.  The Yankees won three lop-sided games, while the Pirates won four close games.  But the total number of runs is irrelevant---the World Champion is the team that wins the most games.

Our quadrennial presidential electoral system is not a single nationwide election.  Each state holds an election to choose a slate of electors. Then the chosen electors vote to choose the president.  Thus the election is decided by the states, through their chosen electors, not directly by the popular vote.  This is provided for in Article II Section 1 of our Constitution. 

In this way, candidates get credit for winning the electoral votes of individual states just as the Pirates got credit for winning individual games.  Deciding the presidential election by the popular vote rather than by the electoral votes would be equivalent to deciding the World Series on total runs rather than on games won.  In effect one extremely long game---not a Series at all.

It would be theoretically possible, of course, to abandon the current, Constitutionally mandated, electoral system in favor of a nationwide popular vote.  This would place overwhelming elective power in the hands of the voters in just the few most populous states, and effectively disenfranchise the voters in the remaining states. 

The chance of abolishing the Electoral College system in favor of a popular vote system is extremely unlikely.  This is because it would require a Constitutional amendment---which in turn would require ratification by three fourths of the about-to-be-disenfranchised states.  No dice.

More likely, the rules of the World Series will be changed to award the Championship to the team scoring the most overall runs.  Fat chance.

In the 1960 World Series the Yankees scored more runs but the Pirates won more games---and thus the Championship.  In the 2016 election, Hillary won more popular votes but The Donald won more electoral votes---and thus the Presidency.

This is probably because the Founding Dads, all being rich white males and foreseeing the 2016 Hillary candidacy, modeled our presidential electoral system after the World Series.  

Calexit

by John Stevenson

It sounds sort of silly, but I imagine the proponents are quite serious: California should secede from the Union.   The impetus, of course, is the looming presidency of The Donald. 

Press and pundits initially scoffed and proclaimed his candidacy a joke.  Some media outlets even refused to dignify the Trump candidacy as political news---relegating coverage to the entertainment section.  Celebrities threatened to leave the country if Trump won (I believe Cher said she would move to Jupiter).   But the unthinkable has happened.

The very thought of Mr. President The Donald is apparently so hard to swallow that there is now a movement afoot in our State to secede from the Union.  This has been in the news lately.  Here is a sampling.

“Secession: California Liberals Want to Leave U.S. Over Trump Win”  in townhall.com.

“Californians are calling for a ‘Calexit’ from the U.S.---here’s how a secession could work” in businessinsider.com.

“California secession organizers say they’ve opened an embassy---in Moscow”  in latimes.com.

“California must lead, not secede” in sfchronicle.com.

And from whatsupwiththat.com: “Some private citizens in California, distraught at the prospect of an America under President Donald Trump, are advocating that the State secede from the Union.”

So, nutty or not, there is a movement underway that hopes to put a secession initiative on the ballot in 2018.  Here are some thoughts about the November election which might shed just a ray of light on that thinking.

Nationally, Trump lost the popular vote with 63.0 million to Clinton’s 65.8 million---a deficit of 2.8 million.  In California, Trump lost with 4.48 million to Clinton’s 8.75 million---a deficit of 4.27 million.  Californians voted almost two-to-one for Clinton over Trump.

Now get out your pencil and exclude California from the national totals.  In all States combined (including D.C.)  except California, Trump got 58.5 million, Clinton 57.1 million---a difference of 1.4 million in Trump’s favor.

In a nutshell:  Mathematically, Clinton’s entire 2.8 million popular vote margin over Trump came from California.  If not for California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

(Just an aside: one jurisdiction gave Clinton an even larger share of votes than her 2:1 margin in California.  That was Washington, D.C., where Clinton’s Soviet-sized margin was a whopping 22:1.  But back to California.) 

There’s no denying California’s blessings.  The beauty of its coastline, Mt. Shasta, Yosemite, the Sierras, the Golden Gate.  The agriculturally rich central valley and the energy resources beneath our feet and offshore.   Arguably the best climate of all States except Hawaii.  California---the Golden State--- truly a gem.

Unfortunately, California’s one-party-governance has not matched its natural splendor and great economic resources.  According to taxfoundation.org, California has the highest State income tax rate in the nation, and among the highest State gasoline tax and State sales tax. 

Despite these sky-high taxation rates, nationsreportcard.gov lists California’s public school children’s test scores as 48^th in the nation.  The original Bay Bridge took only 40 months to construct; the recent eastern span replacement took over seven years---not counting the years lost to squabbling over the design.  California has the 16^th highest poverty rate among all States, and The California Budget and Policy Center says “When you factor in our high housing costs…California has the highest poverty level in the nation.”  World class potholes and other disrepair in Berkeley and on I-880 are legend.   But the nanny State of California leads the way in mandating such things as what kind of grocery bags and soft drinks are permitted.

A Manhattan-based film critic and writer for The New Yorker magazine famously said “I can’t believe Nixon won.  I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”  This illustrates the provincial thinking that can develop in an echo chamber, where diversity of opinion is scarce.  The lopsided political environment in California, where one-party rule prevails, has left scant tolerance, let alone encouragement, for dissenting thought or expression. 

Based on the November election results, Californians are certainly politically out of step with the nation as a whole.  Like the Manhattan film critic of five decades ago, the Calexit folks likely don’t know anyone who voted Republican.  Marinating in their insular bubble, they don’t see this as an opportunity for introspection.  Instead,  they are sure it’s the rest of America that’s out of step.

Really?

Obama vs. Trump

by Monreale

We are told that Obama is everything Trump is not, usually said with the intent to diminish Trump.  They are, indeed, very different and the differences were apparent right from the beginning of their presidencies.

Obama seems a fine fellow and a good husband and father.  If I were looking for a cultivated, cosmopolitan, intellectual dinner companion he'd be high on my list.  But his charm and smoothness have not disguised how out-of-pattern he is as an American and how his long search for an identity, as told in his book, Dreams From My Father, have influenced, some would say warped, his view of the world. 

We should have seen the problems coming. Here's a man who worked as a community organizer, a state senator, and a less than one term US senator. He's never held a paying, private sector job. He was "Barry" until college but then began to insist upon his given name, Barack, to the discomfiture of his white grandparents. Barack, a Kenyan Muslim name, was the name of his black father, a fallen idol who abandoned him. His white mother took him to Indonesia where she married a second time and then essentially abandoned him to his grandparents in Hawaii. Both black and white, then, at a certain point his blackness began to dominate. Religion had little role in his life until he met his teacher and mentor for 16 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who officiated at his marriage.  Wright was a notorious black racist, bigot and anti-Semite who condemned America in the strongest terms.  Obama associated with Bill Ayers, a former Weatherman leader who has never disavowed his youthful violence. What he found in that association has never been explained. Not until age 44 did wife Michelle Obama say, "For the first time in my life I'm proud of my country." At first Obama refused to wear the customary flag pin in his lapel, a narcissistic take on a simple symbol that gives comfort to many. So when, at the very beginning of his presidency, Obama proclaimed his intention of "fundamentally transforming the United States," we should have been afraid, very afraid.

Trump on the other hand is in many ways a type of ordinary American. We've all known Trump types, a man of contradictions. He's a braggart and a blowhard but in certain ways unusually disciplined. He doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs but his sexual drive has taken him through three marriages. At the same time he's raised extraordinary children who are all close to him.  He's a clever man, a self-promoter, one who willingly looks for and takes every advantage. He's also a natural leader, charismatic, a man of enormous persistence and guts, able to hold his own without help in the most knock down, drag out situations and come out on top, a man who is fearless, speaks his mind, not afraid to surround himself with accomplished, capable people who profess different ideas, a strong patriot, a man whose charitable works are many, often done anonymously, a guy who’s been knocked down but has come up fighting and won against tremendous odds. 

Of course he's a businessman, a species that draws a knee-jerk contempt from the progressive elite. He's not an intellectual at all but a classic American pragmatist entrepreneur writ large. As president his priorities are crystal clear--he puts American ideas, American people FIRST. Other countries, other people will be well treated if they support American well being and if not, not. No subtleties, no equivocation.

He'll make an unusual president. The comparisons are to Andrew Jackson and there's something to that. Trump has an unparalleled opportunity, with luck, to leave our country much better off than the way he found it. He could also fail badly, even disastrously, although the outstanding team he's assembled minimizes the risk. He'll be working against an opposition that now seems close to fanatic. I'm nervous but hopeful.

A Simple Analysis

by John Stevenson

A friend said that people are telling him they knew all along that Trump was going to win.  He opined that they didn’t know it, and were just band-wagoneers or were puffing up their credentials as astute observers and analysts of the political scene. 

Well, here’s a news flash.  I predicted it, and I’ve got it in black and white.  Prove it?  OK.

The Sunday evening before election day, I was at a small gathering of fellow GOPers.  After sufficient consumption of Rombauer Chardonnay, the host asked us all to make predictions, and he documented the results.

As you can see in the accompanying image, we were called upon to predict four outcomes: which party would control the Senate; which candidate would win the presidency; whether Hillary Clinton would be indicted/impeached; and whether she would be pardoned. 

Let’s focus on the question of which candidate would be elected president (the lower right quadrant of the accompanying image).  There were five of us.  You’ll see that two said Clinton, three said Trump.  To the right of my name, note that I correctly predicted Trump the winner.  I was among those three who got it right.

I don’t know the reasoning of the other two (political astuteness, or clairvoyance, or just wishful thinking).   But my answer was based on analysis.  Not a profound analysis, mind you, just a simple analysis.  I offer it here.

After Trump had been nominated, in the lead-up to the general election, Trump supporters had a rough go of it.  Hillary Clinton called them deplorable: racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic---and worse: irredeemable.  As we all saw on TV, identifiable Trumpers were vilified, beaten, chased, egged, spat upon.  Yard signs were set afire.  After all, the Trumpians are deplorable and irredeemable---so they deserve being attacked.

Even in our little valley, Trump supporters felt they should hide their colors.  Seemingly, many cars sported Hillary decals---virtually none for Trump.  No “Make America Great Again” hats on display either.  Not because there weren’t Trump voters (they came to 24.9% in our county), but because they thought it prudent not to fess up. 

So I can’t lay claim to special election knowledge or predictive powers.  It just seemed to me to be pretty obvious.   If you can earn a load of grief for admitting to being for Trump, better to keep your yap shut.

Ergo: there were undeclared Trumpers out there, and they weren’t showing up in the polling.  Of course I had no idea the extent of this understatement of Trump support---but anyone with half a brain could have told you it was there. 

And that, dear readers, is why the polls got it wrong and I got it right.  I only wish we had put money on our predictions, or at least a bottle of Rombauer.

Gross Disproportion in Health Care Funding

by Monreale

From the Center for Disease Control, Sept. 27, 2015:

"National Gay Men's HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed each year on September 27 to direct attention to the ongoing and disproportionate impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) on gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States. MSM represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population. However, MSM accounted for 67% of all new HIV diagnoses." (emphasis supplied)

In the last few weeks the San Francisco Chronicle has run a series of stories, often making the front page, on the heroism and selflessness of gay men who have combated AIDS. Today the story turned in a similar vein toward women with AIDS. Some reflections follow. 

Act Up is the international direct action advocacy group that presses for legislation and funding to benefit those with HIV/AIDS. They have been astoundingly successful. Their primary tactic has been to sell the notion that HIV/AIDS is largely a heterosexual disease.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases involve homosexual men, often men who have vehemently rejected prudent measures to limit the spread of the disease, measures that are mandatory concerning every other serious infectious disease. Testifying to their influence is the recent capitulation by the FDA in lifting its long-standing ban on gays donating blood, a ban which Act Up decried as "stigmatizing." A friend of mine, an internationally recognized blood researcher whose work on the Zika virus was recently mentioned in the New York Times, told me there is no medical justification for the FDA's action--"it's all politics."

The signal victory scored by Act Up and their allies has been the imbalance in Federal funds spent on HIV/AIDS medical research. NIH spends more on this research than on any one of the other 70 diseases and medical conditions it funds, more than breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, substance abuse, mental health and so on. Not to mention the enormous sums, much more than on research, that the government spends on the care of those with HIV/AIDS.

Significant progress has been made in treating HIV/AIDS, a disease that affects a very small segment of our population, much of which has exhibited a reckless disregard for their own safety as well as the safety of the broader public. Regardless, this progress has saved lives and deserves applause. At the same time we should understand that the huge taxpayer sums that produced breakthroughs in HIV/AIDS could well have resulted in similar breakthroughs had they been directed against any one of the 70 other diseases that have a much broader impact on the American people.

We need to restore a sense of proportion in health care funding.

New Writer Joins Common Sense

Monreale has joined writers Chris and John as a new contributor to Common Sense.  We are delighted to welcome Monreale.  See his first posting Protest Identity Politics.

Protest Identity Politics

by Monreale

Trump drew millions of votes protesting identity politics. The average American no longer wilts at accusations of racism, sexism or other unfair discrimination, which have become omnipresent.  We know such name calling today is often illegitimate, a bad faith ploy to seek the upper hand.  We see no ethical reason why at this late date in the advancement of civil rights minorities should feel entitled to the kind of governmental advantage that amounts to reverse discrimination.  In short we refuse to acquiesce to things as they are and we expect change for the better under the new administration.

To that end we subscribe to the following tenets:

--Nothing can be reliably judged solely by the race, sex, ethnicity or relative wealth of its supporter or of its opponent.

--A minority's claim is not always more deserving than that of a majority.

--Many important truths can be conveyed without reference to race, sex, ethnicity or relative wealth.

--The views of white males are not by that very fact unworthy.

--Claimed oppression does not equal merit.

--Questions are best answered by investigation, not by assertion.

Plain Old Partisanship, Or…?

by John Stevenson

Remember, faithful readers , that I have never yet written in support of our President-elect Donald Trump.  And I do not do so here---although I might in the future, depending upon what he delivers while in office.  I write instead to point out the hypocrisy of his critics on the Left.  So I offer this:

President-elect The Donald promised us an end---or at least a reduction---of illegal immigration.   Consider this statement: 

“All Americans….in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service (sic) they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration [will move] aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens….We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace….We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

Anti-Trumpers call such comments racist, xenophobic, mean-spirited, even white nationalist.  Did I leave anything out?---insert your preferred insult.  Hillary Clinton says that those who harbor such thoughts are deplorable and irredeemable.

Whoa!  Hold your horses!  Maybe it ain’t so bad!

The quote is not from Trump.  It’s actually from the Top-Dog Democrat, President Bill Clinton, in his Jan. 24, 1995, State of the Union Address.  Ooooops!

Well, If that’s true (google it), then what we have here is a textbook example of a double standard and hypocrisy.

 

Did Democrats denounce President Clinton’s statement as anti-immigrant, xenophobic, mean spirited, racist, and so on?  Nope.  They gave him a standing ovation---as well they should have.

Although Trump’s rhetoric and tone have been more blunt and harsh than President Clinton’s, their message is the same: illegal immigration is “self-defeating” and “we must do more to stop it.”

To vilify Trump and his supporters for taking essentially the same stance as President Clinton is hypocritical and indefensible.

Perhaps the reason for the criticism is just plain old partisanship.  Or maybe it’s the fear that instead of just saying “we must do more to stop it” Trump might actually do it.

"Have Yourself a Merry, Scary Christmas*......"

by Chris James

*With apologies to Ralph Blane.                

     Paraphrasing Richard Nixon, I hereby publicly declare that: "I am not an economist."  Yes, I admit that I am pathologically obsessed with the brilliant, weekly magazine, The Economist.  But I do not sift the sustenance of my columns from this potentially abundant resource.  No sir.  But I may occasionally use it to support my literary wanderings, as circumstances dictate.  And that's about it.  So, what am I about to do here?  Answer: To take an ignoramus' dive into the Stygian pool of what is - or should be - making the U.S. economy tick today.  And to throw in a soupcon of historical hot sauce, just for the hell of it.

     This intention stems from the recent torrent of yowls and howls about "bringing jobs back" and "America first," blah, blah, blah.  The burning torch and pitchfork mob rages at a number of unspecified countries for taking jobs away from innocent, red-blooded Americans and, by golly, we're going to go right out and bring those jobs back home - where they belong.  And, naturally, I am confident that our wise, sensitive and alert government is already training a couple of million out of work individuals to seamlessly assimilate these tasks at a moment's notice and then to match, if not exceed, previous off-shore productivity.  All of the new capital equipment, resources, and facilities necessary to begin immediate production in the U.S. will be satisfyingly in place - at a trivialized cost.  In which event, overall (fake) costs of the re-established operations will be lowered, and U.S. consumers - a pillar of the U.S. economy - will benefit healthily from the change.

     Yeah, right.  In reality, any mindless implementation of such a strategy would trigger near-titanic economic, social, and political mayhem.  Not just in the U.S., but also in the countries that are left holding the (empty) bag.  Just so you know, the U.S. has a negative balance of payments with many of these countries.  That is to say, we owe them for goods and services that they have provided.  If we dump them, then it'll be no more nicey-nicey on their part.  They will want to be paid what we owe them.  RIGHT NOW!!  If, for no other reason, than to cushion the resulting negative economic impact of lost jobs and idle capital equipment imposed on their jurisdictions.  

     The victimized nations are also going be highly motivated to cash in any U.S. government debt that they may be carrying.  And where would our government get the money to pay off its share of this Great Flood of called-in I.O.U.s?  Certainly not from the government's usual trick of raising funds to pay off debts.  Namely, their Ponzi scheme of issuing more debt to satisfy their current debt repayment obligations.  With the catastrophic consequences of this utterly misguided bring-home-the-jobs strategy on full display, nobody is going to trust the U.S.  Especially the financial markets, where there will be little or no trust in whatever financial instruments that our government can conjure up to try to bail us out.  Remember the financial debacle in Greece?  Luckily, they were bailed out by the European Union.  Any volunteers out there to help the good ol' U.S.of A., as we thrash around in that same kind of quicksand?   

     And the situation could get much worse.  But since it's the Season of Happiness and Good Will, then I won't lay it on any thicker.  Instead, I would like to celebrate Trump's heroic action over at Carrier as a timely and delicious metaphor for exactly the wrong approach.  Now, don't get mad.  I'm fully aware that there is a human cost.  Focus, instead, on the abstract metaphorical dimension.  To help you do that, allow me give you a hot sauce, actual data, wake-up call.  A recent massive study by Ball University Business College determined that loss of jobs in the U.S. - some of the data going back as far as 1997 - was 88% due to technological changes in the U.S. and only 13% due to jobs being transferred off-shore.  Yeah, I know that it doesn't add up to 100%.  One person rounds up, another rounds down - it's a cup half empty, half full, thing.  

     Therefore, not only is Trump's objective barking up the wrong tree, but - Holy Toledo -  his strategy is also open to suspicion.  Because, as the erudite Mr. George Will deftly pointed out, government interference in the legal management affairs of private sector businesses is a bastion of Socialism.  It originated with Karl Marx's call for governments to "take over the means of production."  And lo, Comrade Trump is now revealed as a practicing, closet Socialist!  Arch-socialist Bernie Sanders must be wetting his pants with laughter.  Hopefully, Trump's outlandish performance is a one-off publicity stunt and is not a foreshadowing of a second Manchurian Candidate presidency in a row!    

     The totally dominant role of technology in the economy is exactly the way it should be.  Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain around 1750, the transition of technology replacing labor has been paramount.  Costs go down, consumers benefit, the economy thrives.  Standards of living rise, which inspires further capital investment in the economy.  This cycle is one of the bed-rock foundations of capitalism.  Of course, displaced workers in industries undergoing technological change may suffer.  But it is the job of the government and of corporate leaders to ameliorate that suffering.  Not by bringing lower tech jobs back into the country, but by training and retraining the work force to higher skill levels.  This will be harder to accomplish with a 50 year old worker than with a high-schooler, but it is better all round to provide the older, non-transposable victims with a reasonably comfortable, pensioned life - richly deserved - and then to focus on the upcoming generations in an well-planned, coherent fashion.

     Obviously, not everyone can be trained in the mysteries of "technology."  Not everyone will want to be.  Frankly, not everyone is up to it.  But the technological nucleus must be protected and continuously nourished.  It is the vital inventive engine of the economy.  Not just in the form of R & D, but also in its pragmatic application to manufacturing - a bountiful field where inventiveness can pay off.  Then there is the service sector - the biggest in the U.S. economy.  This sector exploits much of the technology embodied in manufactured products.  For example, think data transmission, manipulation, and storage.  And the multi-million-employed service sector covers a vast range of jobs.  A colleague succinctly gauged the size and importance of the service sector in a simple, non-condescending phrase: The world needs burger flippers too.

     Clearly, the Holy Grail that allows the United States to sustain its position as a world power - perhaps THE world power - is to stay ahead of everyone else technologically.  Not just for military reasons but, equally important, so that consumers can benefit from an on-going improved life-style.  Beating a dead horse, I reiterate that raising the standard of living equates to consumers playing their vital part in stimulating the economy.  Yet, if we still have to transfer some manufacturing capacity to off-shore, low-cost countries, then let it be today's, or yesterday's, technology. Our country must maintain the freedom and the supportive political climate to routinely get ahead - and remain ahead - of the technological curve.  For U.S. business this is, indisputably, the glory road to "Making America Great Again."  Returning second-hand manufacturing and been-there-done-that technology to this country is not.  Indeed, a more appropriate slogan for Trump's risky jobs strategy is: "Moving Forward by Going Backward.”

Banishing George Washington

by John Stevenson

There is a George Washington High School in San Francisco---for now.

School Board head Matt Haney (who takes inspiration from Colin Kaepernick’s antics) has proposed renaming of San Francisco schools, beginning with Washington High.  Second on the list is Francis Scott Key Elementary, perhaps because Key wrote the words to the Anthem that Kaepernick disrespects. 

Haney objects on the grounds that schools should not be “named after people who bought and owned human beings.”  He proposes that schools named after historical figures with “questionable human rights legacies” should be renamed for people of color, LGBT figures, and women. 

Haney points out that “we now have a school district that is overwhelmingly children of color.”  He explains “there might be a more appropriate, meaningful name” and he suggests Maya Angelou, a Washington grad.  This would be more meaningful, apparently, to Washington High’s population---which is overwhelmingly Asian, eight percent white, and five percent black.

It is sad, even tragic, that any American would advocate erasing the name of any of our founding fathers---let alone “the father of our country.”  But the foregoing is all prologue.  The real issue here is the intellectual fallacy of judging yesteryear’s figures by today’s standards.

In his essay “Holier than Them,” Anthony Esolen describes how “the inestimable Robert George likes to ask his college students how many of them, if they lived in the South before the Civil War, would have opposed slavery.”  They all raise their hands.

Then Professor George advises his students “what their opposition would have cost them: ridicule from the most visible political and intellectual leaders of their society, slander of their motives, incomprehension at best from their families, loss of employment, loneliness…”  He also says that it is unclear how members of the slave-holding society “…could form a moral position running athwart so much of what they must have taken for granted from the time they were born.”

The professor goes on to tell his students that, if they had lived in Nazi Germany, it is unlikely they would have become Oskar Schindler, going “…against what everybody knows, what everybody says, what everybody does.”  Similarly, he tells them that, had they lived in communist Russia, it would be extremely doubtful that they would have chosen the gulag by opposing the government of the workers’ paradise.

Of course Professor George does not support slavery or totalitarian regimes.  He uses them to illustrate how unlikely it is that individuals will turn against the societal norms and institutions with which they grew up and which are accepted by all (or nearly all) of their contemporaries.

In addition to slavery, societies have embraced polygamy, public executions, even cannibalism.  The Romans fed Christians to the lions.  During the age of exploration, Europeans colonized and subjugated much of the non-white world, which previously had subjugated each other.  Against what standard could members of those societies be judged, except for the standards of their own time and location?

Who is so morally pure and so clairvoyant as to be willing to be judged by standards which will emerge decades or even centuries in the future? 

Consider consumption of meat, game hunting, sport fishing, capital punishment, abortion, the keeping of pets, the confinement of zoo animals, etc.    Might future generations view these things with revulsion?  We can speculate, but none of us can accurately predict the moral standards of the future.  And we should not evaluate our predecessors against standards of their future.

Here is historian and classicist Professor Sir Ronald Syme:  “It is presumptuous to hold judgement over the dead at all, improper to adduce any standards other than those of a man’s time, class, and station.”

Bullied into Silence

by John Stevenson

A recent article by Alexander Zubalov on “political correctness” caught my interest.  The thesis was that the appearance of widespread agreement with political correctness is false---that actual polling belies the appearance of agreement.  And Zubalov thinks he knows why: “…political correctness is succeeding in its objective…shutting people up. (It) bullies, shames, and silences those who have dissenting views…even if those dissenting views represent a majority.”

In addition to anecdotal evidence, the article provides polling results.  Here are some.

Don’t Blame Me

by Chris James

     Well, the King Donald didn't need my vote after all.  I took a lot of flak from fellow Republicans - including the wife - because of my stand-offish position on his candidacy.  And I've already received several nyah-nyahs stemming from Trump's success, which happened despite the lack of my benediction.   On the other side of the coin, I haven't been awarded any credit for stopping Hilary in her tracks when I withheld my vote from her too.  I didn't waste my vote.  I used it for Gary Johnson because I felt sorry for him.  Anyone who thinks that Aleppo is an exotic dog breed needs all the help that they can get.

Protected from the Truth

by John Stevenson

            Back in the day, report cards were handed out in class.  A student took his report card home, got his parent’s signature, took his lumps, and brought the report card back to the issuing teacher.  Apparently this has changed.

            Nowadays it seems that report cards are available to parents on-line, or in some cases mailed directly to them.  The latter is how it works at one particular private boys school in New York.

            Here is an excerpt from a report card transmittal letter dated January 8, 2016:  “Since our goal is to share accurate information with parents, and not to discourage or hurt a student, great discretion must be used before allowing your child to view his report card. Certainly, report cards should not be seen by students without parental permission and guidance.”

            So apparently it’s not a certainty that a student should be told how he is performing.  And if the student is to find out how he did, the parent must provide guidance so as not to “discourage or hurt” the student.  Huh?

            The transmittal letter goes on, in anticipation that the bad news may cause such trauma that the student should not learn of it.  Here’s the punch line:  “If after reviewing the enclosed report card, you would like us to develop a second version of this report card for your son with higher grades, please call…” (I omit the name and telephone number.)

            Now I have heard of kids forging their parents’ signatures or trying to falsify their grades before showing a report card to their parents.  But I had never until now heard of a school or parent falsifying a grade (or colluding together to falsify a grade) before showing the report card to the kid.

            This reversal seems so insane as to defy belief.  It probably has its roots in the everybody-gets-a-trophy self-esteem movement.  Whatever twisted thinking underlies this foolishness, the potential harm is obvious---and considerable.

            At the low end of the spectrum, let’s say the student is failing but is shown a false report card that says he is passing.  Where is the incentive for him to forgo the video games, get cracking on his homework, re-double his scholastic efforts, seek additional help or tutoring, and so on.

            Or let’s say a student thinks he is college-bound, is earning B’s, but is shown that he is getting A’s.  When will he learn the truth?  Maybe when he gets his rejection letter from his chosen university and finds himself at a community college.

In either situation, the student is being ill-served by the collusion of his school and his parents.  The obvious harm is that the student will be unprepared for his future---and perhaps condemned to failure in the real world.

I don’t know whether any of the parents took advantage of this offer to falsify their children’s grades.  I certainly hope not.  At least some were so appalled by the offer that they complained---and even turned the letter over to the press (I picked it up from the Daily Mail and other media).

We can hope that this practice is a weird anomaly---neither widespread nor a glimpse of the future.  I don’t know whether the school has belatedly awakened to the concept that protecting students from the truth is a really lousy idea.

The Lone Wolves---a New Kind of War

by John Stevenson

                Marcus Luttrell is a retired Navy SEAL and winner of the Navy Cross for his actions against Taliban fighters in Operation Red Wings.   His experience is the subject of the film "Lone Survivor."   Luttrell says "Your war is here.  You don't have to go searching for it."

                The low-tech  "lone wolf" attacks by jihadis here on our own soil have become so frequent and common that we no longer can remember most of them.

The Educational Gender Gap

by John Stevenson

            At Cal in 1960, it was commonly said that there were two-and-a-half male students for every female.  Very likely correct, or close to it.  In fact, that imbalance was probably pretty standard at most co-ed public universities back in the day.              

            (I say “co-ed” because there were still all-men and all-women schools at that time.  For perspective, Schroeders restaurant in San Francisco was still men-only at lunchtime, and no ladies were allowed at the Olympic Club.)

            Cal’s gender imbalance reflected the society of five decades ago.  The Ozzie and Harriet family.  Dad was the breadwinner and mom was the housewife (sorry---homemaker).  I grew up in such a family, as did most of my peers---today’s geezers.

            The bra-burning (I favored this) era took hold, as part of the feminist movement (not so keen on this).  Times, as the song said, were a-changin’.  Without apparent concern for the child-raising and long-term socio-economic implications, society sprinted headlong into achieving gender equality in employment, education, athletics, and so on.  Unless you were a movement advocate or a folk-singer, you just sorta hung on for the ride.

            So here we are fifty-plus years later.  How are the co-eds doing at my alma mater?   Well, enrollment seems to have flipped in favor of the gals.  Latest available data show a slight edge for female students---gone are the days of two-and-a-half to one.  But more importantly, what about schools nation-wide and what about the number of degrees earned?  Ah, there’s the real test.

            Well, apparently the girls are kicking buns.  The American Enterprise Institute has provided a report on this, which says: “Based on Department of Education estimates, women will earn a disproportionate share of college degrees at every level of higher education in 2016 for the eleventh straight year.” 

            According to the DoE estimates, for every 100 degrees earned in 2016 by men, women will earn 154 associate’s degrees (female majority in every year since 1978), 135 bachelor’s degrees (female majority since 1982), 139 master’s degrees (female majority since 1987), and 106 doctorates (female majority since 2006). 

            So apparently the college degree gender gap in favor of men was erased decades ago and has been replaced by a gender gap in favor of women.  Has there been a public outcry over this?  Have there been jock strap burnings?  Have government-funded “men’s programs” sprung up?  If any of these things has happened, I’m unaware of it.

           Where are the gender equality activists now?

Kaepernick---"Like Minds Think Alike"

by John Stevenson

                Here's the sequel  to "Kaepernick---Dissing the Anthem,"  which discussed the QB's disrespect of our national anthem, our flag, and our nation.  And that his anti-American butt plant was applauded in the media and sadly was even condoned by the President of the United States.

                In the original essay, I mentioned that I had been propelled into researching before writing (always a wise approach) and that my research had found there was more to this story than was revealed in the early reporting.

Kaepernick---Dissing the Anthem

by John Stevenson

A side-by-side picture titled "Two Quarterbacks" is circulating on the web. Tim Tebow taking a knee and praising God; Colin Kaepernick taking a butt to protest the Star Spangled Banner and, he says, America itself.  The caption says: "Tebow prays---Media criticizes him for expressing his beliefs on the field. Kaepernick sits during National Anthem---same media praises him for expressing his beliefs."

Looked to me like an issue crying to be written about.  So I researched.  As often happens, there was more to it than the side-by-side and its caption. 

Searching for Motives

by John Stevenson

My son picked me up from a too early flight on Sunday, June 12.  Had I heard any news that morning?  No, I'd been in transit.  He told me there had been a terrorist attack in Florida.  An attack on a gay nightclub.  It was being reported that the attacker was an Islamic terrorist.  Twenty dead, as far as was then known---but it would be more.  Eventually 49, the largest mass shooting in American history.

(Lest you think America holds the world record, it's not even close.  In July 2011, a mass shooting in Norway---strict gun control, even police are unarmed---left 68 dead, 110 more wounded.)

By the time my son delivered me home, more was known.  The killer had stopped 20 minutes into his bloodthirsty labors to call 911.  In that call (it later turned out there were three calls) he told the dispatcher that he was killing in support of the Islamic State (ISIS).  He also took the time to praise the Boston marathon bombers.  Perhaps in an effort to facilitate the investigation sure to follow his butchery, or more likely to taunt the police, he had publicly announced his motive.  The local 911 answering center, the local police, and the FBI all knew he was a self-described jihadi terrorist. 

When I got into my house, California Representative Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was on TV describing the killer's 911 pledge of allegiance to ISIS.  Well, that does it.  Everyone watching TV that morning (there was nothing else on) knew that the killer was an Islamic terrorist.  Case closed.  Well, maybe.

President Obama would come on TV soon to make a statement to the Nation concerning the terrorist massacre.  His message was incrementally delayed.  Viewers were assured that he was getting up-to-the-minute updates from the FBI director.  Finally, the President appeared. 

Since the killer had been thoughtful enough to publicly explain his motivation, imagine my surprise when the President claimed ignorance:  "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer…we must spare no effort to determine what, if any, inspiration or association the killer may have had with terrorist groups."  Wow---the killer says he's a jihadi, but the President is not so sure.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist just tell us all, publicly, that his motivation was his allegiance to the Islamic State?  Was the President not paying attention during his up-to-the-minute briefings from the FBI director?  Was he somehow not watching the news coverage on TV with the rest of America?  How is it that he did not know of the killer's declaration of allegiance?

Fast-forward to July 7.  Another savage opened fire on an apparently peaceful rally in Dallas, where protestors were expressing concern over two recent killings of black men by white police officers in Louisiana and Minnesota.  The killer did not fire indiscriminately into the protest.  He killed five white police officers and injured more.  He also hit two civilians. 

The assassin was soon cornered by Dallas police and killed.  But not before he explained his motives to negotiators.  At a Friday July 8 press conference, Dallas Police Chief David Brown told the world that the killer had said before his death that he was motivated by Black Lives Matter.  The Chief said "He wanted to kill officers, and he expressed killing white people.  He expressed killing white officers."

Aha!  Another open-and-shut case.  Another killer has been helpful to explain the motivation for his crime.  In his own words, he has told the world his racist motivation. 

Our Commander in Chief was at a NATO conference in Poland, but took time out on Sunday, July 9 to comment on this tragedy.  His offering was that it is "very hard to untangle the motives" of the killer.

Now remember that the killer himself had explained his motive, and that the Dallas police chief had in turn explained the stated motive to us all in his (by then yesterday) news conference.  And the motive was simple.  It did not need untangling.  The motive was to kill white people---especially white policemen.

Even in Poland, the President must have been receiving news from stateside.  Were his staff shielding him from the facts, keeping him away from CNN World?  Unlikely. 

Now I'm taking a leap of faith, but I do believe that the President of the United States has a staff that keeps him fully updated on significant events, even (or especially) when he's traveling.  So how to explain that when all the world knew of the self-confessed motives of the Orlando and the Dallas murderers, our President was left oblivious of their declarations.

Well, in the first case, the motive was jihad.  In the second, the motive was racism against whites.  Perhaps jihad in America and black racism do not fit the President's world view.  Perhaps the President thought some other more palatable motives might somehow emerge. 

In any event, in his initial statements he was unable to admit to these publicly-expressed confessions.  Or unwilling.

There You Go Again......

by Chris James

In my previous column, entitled "Good Luck With That," I surgically demolished the two most popular platitudes that are being used by Trumpists to try to persuade doubters and naysayers to vote for that quintessential Village Idiot. Namely, a) not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary, and b) do it for the good of your children and grandchildren. I complacently thought that my skillful efforts more than justified a self-satisfied "Well, that takes care of that." Wrong. The Phoenix has since risen from the ashes. And so, like Sisyphus, I am hypnotically compelled to push that infuriating rock back up the hill again---and to mix metaphors.

There You Go Again, Sisyphus

by John Stevenson

My colleague Chris James mounts an argument against Trumpians.  I'm not one, but I rise to point out a fallacy in his argument. 

Chris declares Trump's isolationist policies would render the U.S. an economic basket case equivalent to Cuba and North Korea.  He ascribes their economic failure to isolationism. 

Not so.

North Korea is truly isolated from the world, but Cuba is not.  Cuba was isolated from us, but continued to do brisk business with other countries.  The common debilitating force defeating the Cuban and North Korean economies is not isolationism.  It is communism.  With a hefty dose of dictatorship thrown in for good measure.

Two Grieving Families

by John Stevenson

At the Democratic National Convention, a Muslim Pakistani-American spoke powerfully and eloquently.  Khizr Khan's son Humayun Khan, a captain in the U.S. Army, had been killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004.  Khizr spoke of his son's sacrifice.  He eviscerated the Republican presidential nominee for not having sacrificed for America and for advocating a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.  Khizr did not say that the Republican candidate had anything whatever to do with the 2004 death of Humayun. 

Trump and the Ruskies

by John Stevenson

Dear reader: Do not expect to find here an advocacy for either Presidential Candidate Donald Trump or Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton (well, you wouldn't have expected that anyway)---or an argument against either one.  I focus here on the narrow issue of the hacking of the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and, more specifically, the handling of that issue by the DNC, the media, the pundits, and the political operatives.  So this writing is rated "safe for all readers"---even for my Democrat friends (yes, I think I still have some).  But you'll have to pay attention because, as they say, it's complicated.

Three Gratuitous Whoppers

by John Stevenson

As you read this, Hillary Rodham Clinton is being coronated in Philadelphia as the Democrat nominee for President of the United States. 

In his Jan. 6, 1996 essay "Blizzard of Lies," William Safire wrote:  "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the realization that our First Lady...is a congenital liar."   

On a trip to Nepal in April 1995, Hillary Clinton told reporters she had been named in honor of  Sir Edmund Hillary.  Sir Edmund, along with Tenzing Norgay, became the first to climb to the summit of Mount Everest---"the top of the world."  Clinton was born in 1947, but Sir Edmund conquered Everest in 1953.  Before that, he was unknown in the United States.  So the only possible way that Clinton's claim could be true would be if Dorothy Rodham had, at the time of her daughter's birth, foreseen Sir Edmund's six-years-in-the-future achievement.

Good Luck With That

by Chris James

At a recent local Republican Club dinner, the invited speaker asked the audience who was going to vote for Trump. Within my immediate field of vision, a few hands went up. The speaker then asked who was not going to vote for Trump. My hand shot up assertively toward the Home Depot inspired ceiling of the cathedral-like building in which we were being entertained. Within my limited panorama, only one other hand went up. I also noticed an outbreak of swiveling of heads, glaring at the malcontent in their midst (me). But the most obvious feature of this nearby population was that about half of them failed to raise their hands in answer to either of the speaker's questions. Aha! What have we here? An epidemic of undecideds? A scaredy-cat box of chickens? Or, worse, a closet full of wannabe Hillarians?

Which Statement Is Racist?

by John Stevenson

Racism:  “A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior…” from dictionary.com 

Marco Rubio was my candidate.  Donald Trump was not my first choice.  Nevertheless, I can’t help but point out a double standard in the way Trump is treated.  Here’s an example.

Federal District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel is assigned a case against now defunct Trump University.  In response to an adverse decision by Judge Curiel, Trump criticized the judge.

Trump called Judge Curiel “a Trump-hater.”   He suggested that the judge could not be fair to him because “he is a Mexican.”  Judge Curiel is a U.S. citizen, born in the United States.  His parents had emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico.  Ethnically, he’s Hispanic.

When questioned, Trump offered some reasoning behind his criticism.  He pointed out that “I’m building a wall.”  Presumably, this would be objectionable to Hispanics, and would play a part in Judge Curiel’s alleged unfairness.  In fact, Trump’s poor poll numbers among Hispanics suggest that many Hispanics might be disposed against him.

Trump’s statement drew a firestorm of criticism from all quarters.  It was widely denounced.  Republicans did not step forward to support or defend Trump’s allegation of unfairness.  Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, called Trump’s statement “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”  One Republican Senator actually withdrew his previous endorsement of Trump.  On this issue, Trump couldn’t find a friend.

Trump had declared that a Hispanic judge’s ethnicity could influence his decision making.  For this he was widely scorned and called a racist.

In May 2009, President Obama nominated Appellate Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.  At her confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, Justice Sotomayor offered the following for the Senators’ consideration:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Doesn’t that sentence perfectly meet the dictionary.com definition of racism?  Doesn’t it in fact qualify as what Ryan called “the textbook definition of a racist comment”?

That sentence, or some variation of it, showed up in several speeches Justice Sotomayor had made previously.

So in Justice Sotomayor’s view, a Hispanic judge’s ethnicity could influence his or her decision making.  In spite of  this sentiment (or because of it?), she was confirmed with bi-partisan support to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.

I do not offer any opinion here regarding the role ethnicity plays in the decision-making by Federal judges---and I hope it plays zero.  I only point out the obvious double standard.  Trump was vilified for saying ethnicity played a role.  Sotomayor was elevated to the U. S. Supreme Court for saying ethnicity played a role.

So apparently spoken words might be offensive and racist or might not.  It just depends who spoke them.