Day 4 of National Emergency: Susie Buffett Exposed, Goldman Sachs Takeaways, Energy Savings, and a Female VP

Over breakfast Gilda, who reads the Omaha World-Herald on line to keep abreast of what’s happening where Ellie, Donny and their family live, informed me that Susie Buffett, daughter of Warren Buffett, has been exposed to the coronavirus (https://www.omaha.com/livewellnebraska/health/warren-buffett-s-daughter-susie-exposed-to-coronavirus/article_0008f06b-07f2-5c6c-9571-9cb42b9b7579.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share).

To which I responded, “The virus has no knowledge of your Dun & Bradstreet profile.” (For those not familiar with D&B, it is a longstanding financial rating service of companies.) 

Donny’s brother Rob sent along notes he took from a Goldman Sachs conference call with some 1,500 companies over the weekend. Among the major takeaways:

• 50% of Americans will contract the virus (150 million people) as it is very communicable. This is on a par with the common cold (Rhinovirus) of which there are about 200 strains. The majority of Americans will get a common cold 2-4 times per year.
• Of those impacted by COVID-19, 80% will be early-stage, 15% mid-stage and 5% critical-stage. Early-stage symptoms are like the common cold and mid-stage symptoms are like the flu; treatment is stay at home for two weeks and rest. 5% will be critical and highly weighted towards the elderly. 
• In the U.S. about 3 million die every year, mostly due to old age and disease. Coronavirus might accelerate those deaths because of respiratory issues and may put undue stress on the healthcare system.
• Though COVID-19 will impact the economy and stock prices, experts predict they will bounce back later this year or in 2021.

Time Out for the Census: With time on your hands it’s a good moment to fill out your family’s census form on line. Gilda did ours earlier today. Go to my2020census.gov.

Energy Savings: Gilda keeps records of our electric energy usage. Here’s what she analyzed today on how we’ve fared since we made several energy enhancements:

In 2013 ConEd billed us for 14,563 kilowatts.

After changing most of our lightbulbs to LEDs the next year, our usage dropped to 12,337 in 2014.

In 2015 we installed solar panels. ConEd-provided kilowatts fell to 5,961. 

In 2018 they fell again to 4,447 after we installed Nest thermostats with an away-from-home factor. 

Even after Gilda retired in January 2019 and was home for more hours, usage dropped for last year to 3,494 kilowatts. 

Grumpy Old Men: There were no knockout blows delivered Sunday night between the last two Democrats—both septuagenarian men—sparring for their party’s presidential nomination. Their debate in a CNN studio in Washington without a live audience resembled trench warfare, lots of skirmishes with shifting positions but no outright victor, unless you applaud Joe Biden, and to a lesser extent the older by a year Bernie Sanders, for standing up for more than two hours without making any gaff that could boomerang back into their faces. 

The big news of the night was Biden’s unequivocal statement that he would pick a woman as a vice presidential running mate. Sanders said he would likely do so as long as she supported his revolutionary agenda. Both said women and minorities would comprise the majority of their cabinet officers. 

They also agreed climate change is an existential threat to America and the world—second only to Donald Trump serving four more years as president—but they differed in their approaches to abating global warming.

Speculation on Biden’s choice for vice president included names most anyone interested in politics would recognize—Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Abrams and Cortez-Masto, to name a few. Realistically, only the last three would add sizzle to the ticket among Black and Latino voters so necessary for a Biden triumph. Klobuchar would help secure Rust Belt states, the ones Hillary Clinton failed to sew up in 2016. Biden has warmed to some of Warren’s progressive policies, but the public didn’t as evidenced by her failure to win any primary including that of her native state of Massachusetts.

All in all, Biden succeeded in shifting the political discussion and speculation from who will win the presidential nomination to which woman could be a heartbeat away from the next presidency. 

A Voting Choice for Patriots: Live Under Authoritarian Rule or Constitutional Law

(Editor’s note: Some articles can be written days, weeks, months before an actual event occurs. This is one of them.)

And so, after years of investigation by an independent counsel, impeachment by a Democratic controlled House of Representatives and acquittal by a Republican controlled Senate, Donald Trump’s future, nay America’s future, will finally be decided November 3 by the people. John Q. and Jane Public finally will be given the opportunity to express their values over and above what they registered in the 2018 congressional elections.

Will they vote for the founding principles of the greatest land on earth, or will they choose to reward an egotistical autocracy because the economy jumpstarted by Barack Obama continued to surge under Trump? Equally important, will they vote at all, or will they take their freedoms for granted even as they are slowly but inexorably whittled away? 

There is no denying more people are working (though the type of jobs they have often are not the high wage ones that instill financial security); the stock market flirts with record after record highs (though the benefit accrued from such heady heights is limited to the already well-off); corporations have reported top flight earnings (though they did not reward their employees with higher pay and they did not widely invest in capital expansion).

It is also true that the national debt has soared, tax revenue has shrunk, air and water quality has deteriorated because of reduced or eliminated environmental safeguards, and consumer protections have been watered down.

The gap between the haves and have-nots has widened.

The gap between truth and falsehoods is now a chasm dug deeper every day by a huckster-president and his sycophantic followers.

Will the public at large acquiesce to Mitch McConnell’s transformation of the Senate from “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into a “chamber of death” where forward-thinking legislation passed in the House dies upon arrival, without even the courtesy of debate?

The Democratic standard bearer (regardless of who it will be) surely is not the favorite of many party faithful. But if we have learned anything from past elections, when Democrats splintered their votes to whimsical third party candidates or simply chose not to vote at all, it is that every ballot counts. Democrats must bury the hatchet in Trump, not in their own party’s back. Trump became president because he won three key states—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—by less than 80,000 votes. His claim of a mandate was hyperbole, but it still allowed him to appoint two conservative Supreme Court judges while packing lower federal courts with equally regressive jurists.

It is often said voting is everyone’s patriotic duty. A patriot puts the country’s interests above their own. A patriot looks beyond personal financial gain, focusing instead on the government’s capacity to lift the downtrodden from educational and fiscal poverty. A patriot invests in the industry and defense of the nation while recognizing the obligation of America to act fairly as part of the family of nations. A patriot cherishes the values enshrined in our Constitution and does not accept the notion that a president can be above the law, that a president becomes our sovereign. A patriot believes in a viable, legitimate checks and balances system of executive, legislative and judicial bodies of government.

We have already witnessed the abandonment of principles by party poobahs cowed by fear or enraptured by allegiance to a false messiah. Trump’s coterie in Washington and capitals across the land is based on their lust for power and the monetary bounty that can be reaped from political office.

To what end has he corrupted the values of America’s citizenry? Will they recall the civics lessons of their youth on the choices made by our Founding Fathers to reject authoritarian rule in favor of living under a nation of laws equally applied, even to our highest official?

A patriot votes. Here’s hoping patriots come out in droves November 3.

Expect Impeachment But No Conviction

After three sometimes gripping, at time contentious, sometimes pedestrian days of hearings by the House Intelligence Committee, the questions to be answered are, Did Donald Trump’s actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense? And, given the Democratic Party majority on the committee and on the Judiciary Committee which would have to pass impeachment charges, and its majority in the full House of Representatives which has to affirm the charges which would then be sent to the Senate for consideration, is there any prospect that the Republican controlled Senate will vote to convict and thereby remove Trump from office?

Yes, the House will vote along party lines to impeach; no, the Senate will not vote to remove.

There was no smoking gun testimony as there was during the Watergate hearings and impeachment inquiry. No secret tapes (as far as we know). Nothing and nobody to testify to direct person to person dialogue with Trump about his actions to withhold congressionally approved military aid to an ally unless Ukraine investigated Joe and Hunter Biden.

Unless, and it is a big unless, former national security director John Bolton chooses to testify. Assuming, of course, that he would finger Trump for actions specifically in violation of his oath of office. 

At the end of the day Trump will get off with no more than a slap on the wrist. Like a cookie jar pilferer who gets caught by an admonishing mother, he no doubt will return to equally provocative acts, believing that as long as the Senate remains Republican controlled he will be immune from removal.

Here’s another question central to our democracy—when, if ever, will Republicans return to their long held beliefs? When will they once again condemn executive office overreach? When will they recall their opposition to a ballooning national debt and their desire for a balanced budget? When will they again champion unfettered foreign trade not hamstrung by tariffs? When will they advocate for strong and respectful international alliances? When will they rebuke a president who trusts Russia more than his own intelligence agencies?

Is the answer only when Democrats regain the presidency?

Have we so tribalized our politics that we cannot accept any action by a president from the opposition party, and the corollary, that we blindly accept whatever “our guy (or  gal)” does?

Has our politics become so toxic that anyone we disagree with immediately becomes the object of smear campaigns and physical threats? 

Don’t expect answers from me. I’m as perplexed, as depressed, as woebegone as you. 

Trump Turns US into Chumps; Not a Principled Stance in KY

Let’s be honest about Donald Trump’s appeal to too many Americans—Republicans, Independents and even some Democrats.

Some of it may be attributed to his anti-politician stance. Some to racism. or nativism.

But the bottom line to me is that too many Americans are just flat out dumb. Stupid. Too ignorant to realize they often vote against their best interests. Why else would they choose to elect candidates from a party dedicated to keeping the rich rich and making them richer at the expense of the majority, those mired in the working and middle classes?

Trump makes outrageous statements. Who among us doesn’t? But the consequences of private comments pale in comparison to the polarizing, often inaccurate and bombastic views expressed by a candidate who hopes to lead not just our country but the civilized world. 

The Donald speaks his mind, no doubt about it. His fans, I believe, care not that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. After all, they too probably couldn’t differentiate between Shia and Sunni Muslims, or know the names of leaders of different terrorist factions, as Trump failed to do on a Thursday radio show with conservative host Hugh Hewitt (http://nyti.ms/1UvMtJR). His fans just want someone to voice their frustrations with a system that does not seem to be working for them.

That alone doesn’t make them dumb or stupid or ignorant. What crosses the line for me is that they don’t see beyond the façade. His vision of leadership is that he would be able to do it all himself. As he told Hewitt at the end of their interview, “I will be so good at the military, your head will spin.”

My head is spinning in disbelief not just at Trump but at the chumps he has made of so many of our fellow citizens.

Principled Stance? I Don’t think so: Our country was founded on several principles—that no one was above the law; that religion would not supersede government; that opportunity would be available equally to all.

What we have witnessed in Rowan County, KY, has been an elected official who tried to impose her religious beliefs on others in direct conflict with the adjudicated, constitutional law of the land. 

One may disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of same-sex marriages, but failure to adhere to its determination is a usurpation of someone else’s rights.

Kim Davis’ denial of a marriage license to gay couples because it violated her religious beliefs was not a principled defiance of an unjust law. She was not practicing freedom of religion. She was the incarnation of religious extremism no less severe than that practiced by ISIS and other Muslim reactionaries who choose to exercise religious intolerance rather than inclusion. 

Taken to the next level, Davis or some other fanatic could come up with religious beliefs that would deny rights to any class they disapproved of, such as Hispanics, Jews, Afro-Americans or Jehovah Witnesses. Her resistance to changing times and mores is personal, not to be countenanced in an elected official. 

Or by an elected official. Which leads to the more troubling reaction of some Republican presidential candidates who profess allegiance to the Constitution but apparently not if it conflicts with their views. Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and others want a government defined by Christian values as contained in the Bible. 

So tell me, if you substitute the Koran and Sharia law for the Old and New Testaments, how is that different from what ISIS wants in its mostly Muslim sphere? 

Trumped in a Time for Change

I was one of those political observers who opined Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency would self-destruct in the aftershock of his crude, unpatriotic attack on John McCain and, by inference, on veterans and any prisoner of war.

Yet the bombastic, hair-raising candidate soldiers on, taking no prisoners in his assault on conventional politicking and politicos. His strategy seems to be to present a fog of war so thick that the public is bemused into thinking he really could command China, Iran and Russia to do his bidding. And that as president he could ignore the Constitution when it conflicted with his agenda to resolve the illegal alien crisis or any other imbroglio that doesn’t agree with his disposition on any given day.

The electorate, we are told, craves change. Meaningful change. That’s behind Republican fascination with Trump, plus the swooning over Bernie Sanders, the Don Quixote of Democrats who possess a death wish of giving up the White House.

Yet, the sad reality is the average Joe and Jill do not embrace change. They resist it. How else to explain congressional, state and local government election results? Despite gutter-scraping approval ratings for Congress, almost every representative seeking reelection will succeed. Only voluntary retirement and the involuntary kind—death or criminal conviction (indictment alone is insufficient cause)—assures the voters of a new rump in their district’s seat of power. On the state and local levels, term limitations can be change agents.

Failure to accept, even recognize, change is a human frailty bedeviling this year’s presidential primary season. Trump is the embodiment of an electorate that wants to return to mid-20th century conditions instead of understanding and working within 21st century sensibilities.

White America does not want to accept a reduced role. It does not accept that by 2050 white Christians will be a minority in the United States.

Our consumer-driven economy does not want to accept limitations, especially government-based limitations, on our use of energy and natural resources. We refuse to change our belief that Americans are entitled to all we want.

Though Vladimir Putin has reconstituted Russia as a conventional foe, the nature of war and threats to America and its allies have changed. All of our atomic power, sea power and air power are limited in a world where individual terrorists acting singularly or as part of a movement challenge the status quo and make every day excursions perhaps the last time you will embrace your family and friends.

If it is not a terrorist act in some distant land or within our borders the evening news more often than not begins with the latest climate-based disaster. Failure to accept climate change is speeding up repercussions of global warming.

Failure to accept our position in a global economy has too many believing we can resurrect wide-scale domestic manufacturing. It is political suicide not to drumbeat for growing the middle class but the truth is service economy jobs will not do the trick unless we radically increase the minimum wage. And that would bring a whole set of troubles.

Our country’s gross national product enjoyed tremendous growth when we invested in roads, bridges, dams, rail systems and other public works. But unless we change our aversion to investing in infrastructure we will lose much of our competitive edge.

Donald Trump, to my knowledge, hasn’t addressed any of these evolving trends and issues. He is riding high now because he appeals to a segment—an increasingly growing segment—of the electorate that does not accept change. That feels disenfranchised. That wants a leader who does not mince words and expresses their frustration.

I laughed when Jon Stewart and other comedians ridiculed Trump. But to be honest, The Daily Show et al are just as guilty in undermining confidence in our elected officials as politicians who yell out “liar” during a presidential address or who question a president’s legitimacy.

I’m not suggesting curtailing political humor or legitimate dissent. But let’s be cognizant of the cumulative damage daily, even hourly, merrymaking is to the dignity of our elected officials. We wind up with Donald Trump running for the highest office in the land and that, sadly, is no joke because our electorate has shown time and again it can be sold products that are not good for their health. Just ask cigarette companies. Or soda companies. Or fast food chains.

Governors Front and Center in Race for President

Rightfully so, the nation for the last two weeks has been engrossed in several dialogues—on race, on marriage equality, on Pope Francis and his encyclical on global warming and its impact, particularly on the disadvantaged, on foreign trade agreements, on negotiations with Iran and its nuclear capabilities, on the threat posed by ISIS. Important issues, issues that have overshadowed another debate, one that is especially pertinent to Republicans.

There’s a not so silent argument going on among presidential hopefuls and their respective supporters debating whether anyone hoping to attain the highest office in the land needs prior executive experience. Otherwise, as those who favor gubernatorial or business experience often admonish, the country might wind up with another “community organizer” running America. Those without a governorship or a CEO title on their CV suggest that time served in the (once) greatest deliberative body in the world, the U.S. Senate, gives them the cred to lead the nation forward.

If recent history can be a guide, the debate would wind up as a teiku, what the Talmud describes as a stalemate in deliberations that will only be adjudicated when the prophet Elijah returns to Earth to herald the beginning of the messianic era. 

Let’s consider the history of the presidency going back 50 years:

Lyndon Johnson never ran a state government but as president was a masterful manipulator of Congress, a byproduct of his long tenure as a senator from Texas. If not for his failure to control our deepening involvement in Vietnam and the domestic turmoil it engendered, he would rank among our most progressive presidents. 

Richard Nixon had scant congressional and senate experience, but he was vice president for eight years, albeit never really close to the decision making of president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Watergate, and Nixon’s expansion of the war in Southeast Asia, cloud much of what we think of him. Yet he did have domestic and foreign policy triumphs, including opening relations with communist China, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, and ending the military draft. He was not liked, but he was effective.

After a long career as a congressman and a short time as vice president, Gerald Ford presided over a depressed economy battered by high inflation. He’s remembered for one signature executive decision—the pardoning of Richard Nixon.

Four of the next six presidents (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) served as governors. It’s hard to separate one’s political leanings from an assessment of each of their terms of office. 

Carter oversaw the Camp David Accords but was viewed as an ineffectual leader by most onlookers. 

Reagan was an undisputed great communicator. Conservatives loved him (even though he raised taxes 11 times). He forged an aggressive anti-Soviet Union stance. But his foreign policy was stained by the Iran-Contra scandal. He championed supply-side economics, another tainted legacy that rewarded the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. 

Putting aside the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton posted an impressive list of accomplishments, among them the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history with ancillary growth in jobs and home ownership.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A legacy of misguided foreign and domestic responses to 9/11 by George W. Bush. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited from Clinton. The wars and his failure to avert the Great Recession left the nation mired in debt.

His father, George Bush I, arguably, had the most impressive resume of any president of the last 50 years. His four years in office reached its peak in the formation of a wide ranging coalition against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. But his failure to connect with the public, coupled with conservative anger at his raising taxes despite vowing not to, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot, thwarted his second term bid.

Barack Obama, arguably, had the least impressive resume before entering the Oval Office. Despite Republican militancy from Day One of his administration, Obama’s legacy includes passage of the Affordable Care Act extending health coverage to millions as well as overseeing the economic recovery. 

So what are we to make of it all? Reagan and Clinton are revered by their respective parties, loathed by the opposition. Bush II and Carter are disdained by both parties.

Johnson-Nixon are symbols of failed expectations muffling great accomplishments. Ford and Bush the Elder are afterthoughts, no more thought of than Franklin Pierce or Chester Arthur.

Obama alternately frustrates and excites Democrats. He is  demonized by Republicans.

Looking further back in history our greatest president— Abraham Lincoln—revealed little public success prior to his election. He served but two years in Congress, six years in the Illinois state house. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, and his cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, served as governor of New York, among their other appointed and elected positions. 

George Washington was a general; before that a member of the House of Burgesses in Virginia. Woodrow Wilson was governor of New Jersey. Thomas Jefferson was Washington’s secretary of state then vice president under John Adams. But being secretary of state and vice president didn’t help Martin van Buren rise to greatness as a president.

The aforementioned undistinguished Pierce was a congressman and senator. James Polk and Calvin Coolidge were governors. Warren Harding was a senator.

So there you have (most of) it.  Being a governor is no ticket to success as president. Nor is a legislative background. It is a hung jury on the value of a military career. Washington—a plus. Mixed reviews for Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Eisenhower (though Ike is gaining esteem of late).

With so many governors seeking the presidency(by my count there are 8 from the GOP, along with two Democrats, among the 20 or so hopefuls), we are bound to hear lots of talk about their being used to making executive decisions and working across the aisle to forge a united way forward. 

Just keep in mind that history is no guide. It all depends on the man and woman behind the talk.

Fiorina Matters Only in the Bizarro World of GOP Politics

In the bizarro world of Republican politics, a candidate who almost destroyed an iconic American company and was forced out (albeit with a $20 million golden parachute severance package) can be considered a presidential hopeful because she has a tart tongue. Carly Fiorina left Hewlett-Packard tarred and feathered for multiple sins, yet she dazzles on the GOP hustings because she has the wit to voice critical, funny soundbites about Democrats, mostly Hillary Rodham Clinton ( http://nyti.ms/1HE0pAa). 

My guess is she’s likely to gain traction as a vice presidential standard bearer, a woman much smarter than Sarah Palin. She doesn’t need to see Russia from her house (a phrase Palin never actually said). She’s been there and has even met Vladimir Putin.

But while too many Americans have short memories or are too young to have experienced history (or didn’t learn it in school), it is incumbent upon journalists to enlighten them (sadly, the soon to be departing Jon Stewart of The Daily Show was among the only mass market political watchers who resurrected a pol’s previous utterances and actions. Who will emerge as his truth-be-told successor?).

For those who merely hear that Fiorina was the head of HP, once considered the most powerful woman in business, the first female CEO of a top 20 U.S. company, it would be instructive to also hear that, according to Wikipedia, “CBS News, USA Today and Portfolio.com have ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time. In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas as flops, declaring her tenure as CEO of HP to be the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the ‘anti-Steve Jobs’ for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers.”

Sure she has her supporters, which means she is a divisive, not an inclusive, personage. It doesn’t help that she laid off 30,000 HP workers during her five and a half year tenure as CEO. 

Also according to Wikipedia, “Fiorina frequently clashed with HP’s board of directors, and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP’s egalitarian ‘The HP Way’ work culture and guiding philosophy, which she felt hindered innovation. Because of changes to HP’s culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP’s history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed ‘widespread unhappiness’ and distrust, and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP’s electronic bulletin board.” Hardly a ringing endorsement when running for an office that is supposed to bring all the people together.

Fiorina is not the only Republican who seems to be hiding something. None of the announced and soon-to-announce candidates appears able or willing to articulate what they would do differently in the Middle East. They criticize President Obama but are short on specifics they would embrace to thwart ISIS and stabilize the region.

It reminds me of 1968. Richard Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, so secret that it cost the U.S. another 21,195 deaths during the next five years that American combat troops served in Vietnam. 

Obama has not been the greatest commander-in-chief. But let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisors, led by Vp Richard Cheney, who bungled the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let’s also remember that it was under the Republican watch that our economy tanked. Under Obama the country has enjoyed prosperity, though too disproportionally tilted toward the wealthy, which makes it rather amusing that so many of the one percenters favor Republicans. But then again, Republicans live in a bizarro world.

Democrats vs. Demonizers

And so it begins, or should I say continues, the demonization of Hillary Clinton and her husband, the ex-president Bill. Character assassination that in some quarters might be compared to gang rape in its viciousness and virulency. 

It has transformed the nascent 2016 presidential selection process into a contest of Dems vs. Dems—Democrats vs. Demonizers. 

The most recent attacks on her character center on financial gain at the alleged expense of independent and objective stewardship of the affairs of state while she was U.S. secretary of state. Outside of the Washington Beltway, I suspect these attacks are fodder for the 40% of the public who watch Fox News and despise her from the get-go while being balderdash to the 40% who view MSNBC and would support her even if she were a confirmed witch being burned at the stake. 

My take on all this in my increasingly cynical mode is that all politicians play loose with the financial benefits that come across their desks when they are in or recently out of office. Of course they are trading on their influence. They have few other assets to market. 

I’m not condoning influence peddling. But I am more concerned with policy. Where do candidates stand on issues.

Do they favor a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Or do they support onerous rules that make a decision difficult to reach and execute?

Do they favor extending the right to vote to as many qualified citizens as possible, or do they support rules that would place undue burdens on the young, the elderly, or the disadvantaged in the alleged interest of thwarting voter fraud when no such fraud has historically been proven?

Do they favor a higher minimum wage or do they believe in tricky down economics (that should be “trickle” down economics but Apple Pages self-corrected it to tricky down, which I thought was a nicely comical transposition)?

Do they accept the science of global warming and our need to slow its advance, or are they blind and deaf to the realities of climate change?

Do they accept evolution, or are they bound by Scripture in a belief the world is less than 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?

Do they believe government can be an instrument for good, or is it all evil, particularly agencies that help the poor, regulate drugs and food, civil rights and education? 

I am in no way suggesting Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate. But I trust her to appoint federal judges who would be progressive, not regressive. Based on the fact that during Bill’s and Barack’s presidencies the economy has been more robust than during Republican administrations, I trust her to oversee greater economic growth. Given the repressive actions in states controlled by GOP governors and state houses, I fear the direction this country would take if a Republican, even a moderate Republican, if there still is such a person, would be elected president. 

Yes, there might be gridlock in Washington. Republicans might even try to impeach a Clinton, again. They’ll have more select committees investigating “wrongs” than standing committees. But the alternative is much more dire. 

If I sound pessimistic let me seek comfort by identifying with Jon Stewart, the soon to be departing host of The Daily Show. Wednesday night, in conversation with Dana Perino, former press secretary to George W. Bush and currently a co-host of Fox News’ The Five, Stewart identified himself as an “optimistic idealist.” 

As for his outbursts against politicians, he said, “This is anguish, not pessimism.” 

I will be saddened when he leaves The Daily Show anchor seat August 6. But I think his decision is a good one. Of late, I’ve been seeing too much of Howard Beale in him. Beale, you might recall, was a news anchor in the 1976 film Network who encouraged his viewers to shout out of their windows, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Stewart hasn’t gone that far (yet), but he seems to be more liberated in his diatribes recently now that his tenure is finite. 

Existential Threats Within and Without

When I was growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s we lived under a palpable existential threat to the United States. Despite what you might have seen in newsreels about that time, I don't recall ever hiding under a school desk in mock preparation to thwart the impact of an atomic explosion. 

Nuclear catastrophe was made real through film. On the Beach. Dr. Strangelove. Fail-Safe. Mutual assured destruction kept the bomb bays at bay, the missiles siloed.

Two countries I care deeply about--the United States and Israel are engaged in what some of their leaders believe are existential negotiations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear bomb making capabilities. I trust Israel and the U.S. have the means to militarily thwart any actual attempt by Iran to fulfill the rantings of its ayatollahs and government leaders.

What I have less confidence in is the ability of both of my revered countries to withstand internal attacks on their respective values. Hallowed, respected practices of diplomacy and legislative discourse have been cast aside for short term political gain.

Repeatedly Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu has announced new housing projects at moments that disrespected the Obama administration. Now, in a last ditch effort to corral votes before Tuesday's election, Bibi has finally been candid about his position on an independent Palestinian state--it won't happen under his watch.

Which means Israel would continue on a path of denial to others of a basic human right the country's founders fought for beginning nearly 100 years ago. I am well aware of the physical dangers a Palestinian state could pose. One need only consider what Hamas has turned the Gaza Strip into, or what Hezbollah has done to southern Lebanon.

But the threat to the democratic values of Israel are greater. To keep a  people perpetually subjugated is to foster a mindset of inhumanity, of intolerance. No civilized nation could hope to survive long term as a denier  of dignity and opportunity. This is the  real existential threat facing Israel as its people go to the polls Tuesday.

The United Stares has been a land of expanded opportunity since its inception. Though equality and equal opportunity were not available to all at the outset the whole thrust of our national existence had been to extend these rights, first to all men, not just landowners, then to blacks, then to women. Targeted legislation corrected what didn't get implemented at first. When economic forces polarized society, government stepped in to create safety nets--social security, Medicare, Medicaid  and the like.

The arc of history has been to open the doors to all. Except now. In far too many Republican controlled governments efforts are underway to roll back opportunity and helping hand legislation. The Haves do not want the Have Nots to have any of their good fortune.

Moreover, Republicans have sought to undermine the validity of our established form of government. Over the last six years they have questioned the constitutionality of our elected president. They have poisoned political discourse. They have stymied the appointment process, they have unhinged the economic foundation of our national budget. They have questioned the validity of numerous scientific theories to the detriment of our educational and environmental futures. They have refused to fund necessary infrastructure investments unless they can gut social service programs, as if investing in our populous is not an investment in our future. They have most recently challenged the president's ability to conduct foreign negotiations.

I am not against political debate. Lord knows George W. Bush gave Democrats plenty of reason to attack him and his policies. But never did Democratic opposition rise to the level it has under Republican/Tea Party extremism.

We are approaching a dangerous point of extreme polarity in politics and economics. Unless we move to the center in both areas--compromising in legislation as we provide more opportunity for the underprivileged while requiring more taxes from the economic elite--I fear the existential risk to our democratic republican experiment will only heighten.


Sent from my iPhone

Supreme Court May Well Decide Next President. Again

History may be poised to repeat itself. For the second time in the last five presidential elections, the U.S. Supreme Court may well decide who will sit in the Oval Office.

The Court has accepted for review another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The question before it—does the law permit federal government subsidies to the needy in states that do not have their own health exchange programs. In those states the federal government has stepped in to provide subsidies (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-challenge-to-health-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0). 

If the Supremes declare the subsidies to be illegal, Obamacare may tumble down from lack of sufficient funding. It also would mean millions would lose health care coverage. It’s pretty certain the four justices who voted against Obamacare two years ago would do so again, meaning Chief Justice John Roberts would be the deciding judge. Again.

If Roberts blocks the subsidies and the ACA ultimately succumbs to a Republican-led attack, universal health care once more would become a key campaign issue in 2016. As they have championed it for decades, Democrats, most prominently their presidential candidate, would benefit from such an outcome. 

Given a June 2015 court decision, Republicans would have just over a year to forge an acceptable alternative to a law that has extended health coverage to more Americans than at any other time in our history. That’s unlikely to transpire given the venomous reaction many conservatives have to such a program.

A negative decision and Republican antipathy toward a replacement ACA might also provide incentive to voters to elect more Democrats to the Senate and even possibly return the Dems to the majority in the House. 

It’s an intriguing state of affairs. Having injected itself into state election law in Florida and chosen George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000, the Supreme Court may wind up influencing who gets elected to the White House in 2016. 

Ah, I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Democratic leadership meetings as they discuss what would be better for the party, and the country, come next June.

Election Blues with a Silver Lining

Tip O’Neill, the oversized Democratic Speaker of the House during the Reagan years, used to say, “All politics is local.” And that is as good an explanation as any as to why my blog has been mostly silent leading up to the mid-term elections. While I voted Tuesday, I can readily understand and empathize with voter apathy, disillusionment, even revulsion, to the state of politics and government in America. Even when it resulted in electing candidates who clearly identify with and promote the causes of the rich, the general population made their voices heard, that they were dissatisfied with Democrats being ensconced in governors’ chairs and the majority of the U.S. Senate. 

The politics of fear—Ebola and ISIS—trumped any benefits they saw from Obamacare, revitalized car and housing industries, lower unemployment, higher job creation. Democrats and Independents chose to sit this election out, as they often do in non-presidential years. They were aided by Republican efforts to keep voters out through restrictive election laws that required IDs and limited voting times. 

But GOP tactics might not have mattered if Democrats ran smarter campaigns. One of the first laws of politics is that a candidate must define him- or herself, otherwise the opposition would do it for you. Sadly, too many Democrats chose to distance themselves from the achievements of the Obama administration, and let’s not have any snarky comments about “what achievements.” In a nutshell, Democrats lacked a distinctive message of positive accomplishments.

Despite early sound bites that they want to lead America toward future exceptionalism, Republicans will be hard pressed to act on that lofty ideal. House Speaker John Boehner and presumptive Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will have to wield sharp party discipline swords to contain slash and burn members of their own caucuses. It is not beyond reason to postulate that on critical bills, such as raising the national debt ceiling, rogue Republicans will add unacceptable-to-the-president amendments aimed at killing ObamaCare, thus forcing repeated vetoes. Heck, in their Op-Ed piece in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Boehner and McConnell pledged to renew efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 

What will Republicans do on such controversial issues as global warming, reproductive rights, income inequality, immigration reform, financial markets oversight, environmental protections, court appointments? How will McConnell react to filibuster threats? 

All this will lead to two repetitively revolting years of Washington insider news but very little advancement of the country’s good and welfare. There is, however, at least one silver lining from Tuesday’s election: Have you noticed your telephone is not ringing as often with those disruptive and annoying robo calls? Except, that is, from telemarketers who continue to call during dinner time despite your number being on the federal NO Call list. 

Irony, Purple Power and Some Big Business Questions

I enjoy irony, especially when names are involved. Take, for example, a recent article in The New York Times Magazine. “A Tale of Two Valleys” related the entrepreneurial conflict between old and new techies in Silicon Valley. The first source quoted by the author was Sanjit Biswas, a nouveau techie whose last name cannot help but be a metaphor for the past as prologue in this rapidly evolving business segment.

Here’s another: An invitation arrived from the White Plains Historical Society to support its Historic Preservation Fund by buying raffle tickets. Grand Prize I would be a four-volume set of Carl Sandburg’s biography of Abraham Lincoln. 

Grand Prize II would be a four-volume biography of Robert E. Lee, a Pulitzer Prize winning effort by Douglas Southall Freeman. How deliciously ironic for the author of a biography of the general fighting to keep millions of Afro-Americans enslaved to have the surname “free man”! How further ironically amusing that his middle name would be an all-for-the-South rallying cry, if ever there were one.

Purple Power: How would you like to walk around with a target on your chest or back? Probably not, considering the trigger-happy country we live in today. On the other hand, despite threats from the Taliban, nearly 60% of eligible Afghani voters are walking around with purple ink on their forefingers, proof positive they voted in Saturday’s elections. 

Which makes me wonder, why don’t we in the United States dip people’s fingers into an ink well, or create some other visual sign, to signify involvement in the one political process where all of us are equal? In our free society we fail to vote in markedly higher percentages than the threatened populace of Afghanistan. A purple finger would mark for all to see the commitment each individual has to our democracy. Conversely, lack of a purple stain would be a sign of shame, assuming one is a citizen and has not lost the right to vote.

My suggestion does have some kinks that need working out. We have a high percentage of absentee ballots cast. We also have early voting in some states. How would we identify those who take advantage of these alternatives to polling station visits? Maybe we could issue packets with just enough purple ink to paint one finger, to be applied on election day? 

If Catholics are willing to walk around in public with blackened foreheads on Ash Wednesday, if observant Jews are willing to walk around wearing yarmulkes, if Sikhs walk around wearing turbans, if Amish, Mennonites and Hasidic Jews are willing to walk around in distinctive garb, then everyone who cares about democracy should be willing to display their allegiance to the Red, White and Blue (the combination of red and blue make purple; add white and you get lavender).

Here’s another (tongue-in-cheek) idea: If we can't vote in superior numbers, perhaps we can enfranchise people in other democratic countries to help us select our president, for, after all, he or she is the leader of the free world. 

Shouldn't, say, the British or the Australians or the Polish have a vote in whom our commander-in-chief is, considering those countries always seem to support our military initiatives?

Keep Reading: Democracy demands an informed electorate. Yet, I sense a growing percentage of voters agree with a sentiment expressed during a dinner party we attended last Friday. Our host lamented he has been so depressed and distressed by the news lately that he has curtailed his reading of the front page of The Times. 

Secretly, I thought I was in the minority by also doing so, but the consensus around the table was that our host was not unique. Though we were all liberals (to the best of my knowledge), I believe the trend spans political denominations, and is not restricted to shunning The Times. We’re also turned off by network news telecasts.

I’m a big believer that an informed electorate is a prerequisite for a strong democracy. But I am distressed by the bickering from both sides of the political aisle and the tendency to reject outright any suggestions from the other side. 

Here's what I don't understand. If Republicans are the party of Big Business, why isn't Big Business pushing them to pass more projects that would help industry and put more people back to work and thus give the masses more money to spend on the products of Big Business?

Take infrastructure, for example. We need to shore up our bridges and tunnels, our highway overpasses, our rail beds and airports.

We need to modernize our power grid, our telecommunications network, our water supply system.

Surely the captains of industry see this. So why are they flushing tens of millions of dollars into the vest pockets of GOP legislators who are voting against their vested interests? What Machiavellian purpose is achieved? I'm no fan of Sheldon Adelson, but at least his wants are out in the open. When Republican presidential wannabes kowtow to him, we all know what he is demanding in return.

Sure. We know the fat cats don’t want to be forced to pay higher taxes. Nor do they want to pay higher wages. Or pay for health care for their workers. They want less regulation, fewer labor safety laws. But let's be practical. Democrats won't give them that, especially when the president is a Democrat. So why doesn't the industry elite look long term and push for investment that will benefit them in the present and near future?

The President and I Went to Costco Today

President Obama spent part of his day-after-State-of-the-Union-speech in a Costco store. So did I. I was shopping for food and general merchandise. The president was shopping for public approval for his pitch to hike the minimum wage and close the opportunity gap in America. But in a more distant, more important, sense, he was shopping for votes to secure his legacy.

Though he outlined half a dozen areas where he said he would take executive action if Congress did not act as he wished, 2014 will be remembered more for the impact the president will have on the elections next November than anything else.

Simply put, Obama must electioneer hard and long for Democratic Senate and House candidates to avoid facing Republican majorities during the last two years of his second term. If he fails, he will become the “veto president” as Republicans try over and over to undo any and all of the progressive legislation passed in the last five years, especially the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. He also must support state candidates so more “blue” governors and state representatives and senators are elected.

Obama is surprisingly aloof for a politician who has achieved the highest office in the land. He does not mix well with his former peers. His disinterest in hitting the hustings in 2010 led to a GOP majority in the House and, more disastrously, to Republican victories in many state legislatures and governorships. In turn, that led to realignment of many congressional and state districts into safe, gerrymandered Republican territories, safe, that is, until the next census in 2020 mandates a new reapportionment of legislative seats. 

It might be impossible for Democrats to retake control of Congress until 2022. Keeping their majority in the Senate, therefore, becomes a priority, for Obama and any Democrat who hopes to inherit his chair in the Oval Office in 2017. So Hillary, Andrew, Joe and anyone else who has White House aspirations, now’s the time to really crave the type of chicken served at all those political dinners across the country. 

Aside from being aloof, Obama has also shown a tendency to have limited concentration on any one key issue, with the possible exception of sending drones or Navy Seal teams to excise terrorists. But if he is to be believed, that his presidency will be judged by how well he manages to place the country on a journey toward economic equality, he, and Michele, must hit the road, together and separately, to stump for Democrats. For it’s his legacy that is at stake.

Detonate the Nuclear Option

It's time Democrats faced reality. It's time they detonated the so-called Nuclear Option in the U.S. Senate by changing the rules to eliminate the ability of a minority—even one senator—to thwart the will of the majority. The nuclear option would empower a simple majority of senators to pass legislation or affirm presidential appointments (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/politics/senate-democrats-consider-move-to-curb-filibusters.html?ref=politics&_r=0). 

Under current rules, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate, to end a filibuster. As neither party has 60 members in its caucus, even one senator can hold the government hostage. For example, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has held up presidential appointments until he is satisfied he has all the information he wants on the Benghazi affair. Similarly, Republicans have stymied President Obama’s efforts to appoint three judges to the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Democrats have threatened before to change the rules. They demurred because they feared what would happen if Republicans ever gained control of the Senate. Here's what would happen: The GOP would not hesitate to employ the nuclear option. Any party that already has shut down the government, toyed with defaulting on the national debt, and blatantly said its mission is to thwart anything the president does would not hesitate to change the rules and emasculate a Democratic minority. Just look at actions Republicans have taken in state legislatures. They repeatedly have passed measures dear to Democrats. They have enacted laws to stifle voting opportunities for minorities, have curtailed a woman’s right to choose, have diluted the rights of unions, and have redrawn (gerrymandered) voting districts to ensure GOP majorities until after the next census in 2020. 

It is foolish to think the Yahoos in the Republican Party would not opt for nuclear political warfare should they succeed in securing a majority in the Senate. 

Haven’t the Democrats learned anything over the last five years of Obama’s presidency? It might have been nice to try to work with Republicans during the first two or three years, but being nice has merely emboldened Republicans. Perhaps, if Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had shown some backbone the GOP would have sought common ground. As it stands now, Republicans have no problem testing the limits of their power, limits that Obama and Reid have not strongly enough delineated for them. 

Bottom line: Democrats have nothing to lose. Start the countdown now: 10, 9, 8, ... 

Coming Out for the Good of the Country

He's been vilified as an opportunist, a politician who changed his position on same-sex marriage only after someone close to him made an impassioned appeal for the rights of gay couples to wed. No, I'm not talking about Senator Rob Portman (R-OH). I'm referring to Barack Obama, who only last year, only after his vice president came out strongly for it, publicly endorsed same-sex marriage. Obama shifted his position after failing to go all the way four years earlier when running for president. Back then he merely favored civil unions. That was his stance through the first three years of his presidency, till Joe Biden spoke up and forced his hand. 

Was it a political calculation? Of course it was. Do Democrats and liberals admonish him for it? A little, perhaps, but nowhere near the venomous reaction they have had to Portman’s about-face. 

Was Portman’s conversion from opponent to supporter of same-sex marriage a crass political maneuver motivated solely by his son’s coming out, or did he arrive at a more tolerant state of mind after deep reflection subsequent to learning of his son’s homosexuality? Should Portman be applauded for his change of heart or vilified for hypocritically altering his position only when he and his family were personally touched by the reality that affects maybe 4% of the population? Did Portman show leadership by changing his position based on new family data, or would it have been a higher form of leadership to be out front on this issue, without any personal motivating force?

One of the more ill-used terms in political dialogue is that of “flip-flopper,” used with devastating effect against John Kerry when he ran for president in 2004. Mitt Romney took many a hit during his recent campaign for his one-day-this, one-day-that rhetoric. But do we really want politicians to cling to outdated positions, to rigidly stick to dogma even when public sentiment has overwhelmingly shifted? Even before the public has changed its collective mind, don’t we want our leaders to lead? Don’t we want them to bring us along to a more enlightened world?

Yes, back in 1996 then congressman Rob Portman was one of the co-sponsors of the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. As president, Bill Clinton signed it into law. Just as Clinton has changed his mind (and Hillary Clinton just announced her support for same-sex marriage), so has Portman.  

Should it matter why Portman now believes in equality? I don’t think so. Even if it’s part of a new charm offensive by Republicans as part of their effort to woo minorities, women and independent voters, I’m all for it. I’m all for Republicans going on the record in support of progressive ideas. 

Why? Because I don’t believe hard core rank and file conservative Republicans will sit idly by as plank after plank of their reactionary party platform is torn away. The GOP hierarchy today released a report on why they lost the 2012 election and what needs to be done to win in the future. They have to reach out to blacks, to Hispanics, to women, to LGBTs, to those struggling to survive on an absurdly low minimum wage, to those who need Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare. 

At the state level, however, conservative Republicans will continue to push bills that deny women rights, that deny workers rights, that befoul the environment, that allow guns in schools, bars and other inappropriate places, that discriminate against everyone but the wealthy. 

We’ll be left with a bifurcated Republican party. And like the gay community they do not want to sanction coming together, the GOP will not be able to consummate a reversal of its out-dated, outlandish moral and political positions.

Ennui. Apathy. World-Weariness. Tedium

I consider myself a fairly engaged and knowledgeable observer of politics and world events. But I must admit to a high degree of ennui as it pertains to the machinations of Congress and the president as we draw near to the deadline for implementation of the sequester that will strip many social welfare, education and defense programs of much needed funding if a budget agreement is not reached by Friday.

I’m tired of reading Paul Krugman, David Brooks and countless other thought leaders argue for sanity from the other side. It just is not going to happen. It must be disheartening if you’re a pundit who daily doles out advice and never sees any tangible movement toward compromise. We might still live in the greatest democracy in the world, but it is far from being a paragon of virtue and efficiency. 

Our democracy at present is dysfunctional. When one senator can effectively stop the nation’s business just by threatening a filibuster, we no longer can say the Senate is the greatest deliberative body in history. 

As an aside, I noticed that Pope Benedict XVI changed the rules of the conclave that will elect his successor. He has authorized the cardinals to begin their conclave once all their members arrive in Rome. They no longer have to wait 15 days from the time the papacy is vacant. Benedict is retiring Thursday. 

What struck me as questionable in Benedict’s action is that he left open the prospect of mischief by any one cardinal who might choose to delay his arrival in Rome. Just as Tea Party senators, or just plain conservative Republicans, have stymied President Obama and Democrats, the same fate could befall the Church should just one disgruntled cardinal resent changes in the Holy See. 

Anyway, back to my lament about American politics. It’s gotten so bad that I regularly skip reading the front of The NY Times and immediately skip to the Arts section. Maybe all those years reporting and editing news of the retail industry has made me into a metrosexual more interested in style and worldly goods than world affairs. Whatever the case, it’s a lot more fun noting the incongruities of the metrosexual-inclined.

Take, for instance, two press releases that appeared back to back in my in-box even before the Academy Awards telecast finished. They represented a clash of metals, gold vs. platinum. On the one hand, celebrities like Catherine Zeta-Jones, Kristen Stewart, Kathryn Bigelow, Renee Zellweger, Olivia Munn, Nicole Kidman, Gloria Reuben, Jane Fonda, Jessica Chastain, Samantha Barks, Catt Sadler, Octavia Spencer and Naomi Harris were decked out in gold jewelry, while the likes of Anne Hathaway, Jennifer Garner, Amanda Seyfried, Naomi Watts, Adele, Kerry Washington and Zoe Saldana chose to show off platinum baubles. Does it matter to the ordinary viewer? Probably not. But it sure beats thinking about which political party is more attuned to what the public wants.

Indeed, here are some data from a January 17-22 Harris Poll that reveals how divergent Republicans and Democrats are in their approach to handling budget cuts: 

As could be expected Democrats favor cuts in defense spending 61% vs. 21% by Republicans, while 74% of GOP members want to chop federal welfare spending vs. 32% of Democrats who so desire. 

For a look at why Republicans will have a hard time convincing the electorate they are a party of the future, consider these numbers: by a more than 2-1 margin over Democrats, Republicans want to cut the food stamp program, federal housing programs, spending for mass transportation, pollution control measures, federal aid to cities, and federal job training programs. They are more than four times more likely to favor cuts in health care spending and federal aid to education. By 48% to 29% they want to cut federally funded scientific research programs. 

Just how out of whack is the Republican view? From 1980 to 2013, of the 19 programs studied by Harris, only one—defense spending—registered an increase in the number of consumers who desired spending cuts. All the others saw a reduction in those who favored slashing the budgets of the respective programs. 

It’s too difficult to make sense of it all. Instead, let’s turn to another survey, from Harris Interactive, about one of the more vexing issues troubling mankind, or at least those men and women who live together in marital bliss, or discord. Sponsored by Bosch Home Appliances, the survey purported to shed light on something that can come between partners—the proper way to utilize a dishwasher. Apparently, the biggest fight couples have is over the need to pre-rinse dishes. Six out of 10 husbands and wives argue about this. For the record, Bosch says pre-rinsing is not required. I’ll spare you details of the rest of the survey. Your welcome.

Well, that’s enough metrosexual news for the evening. It’s time to watch Fashion Police’s recap of the Oscars.

Super Bowl Forecast, Shopping with Kids, Container Ships, Gerrymander Blues

Want to know how the Super Bowl will turn out so you can spend your time concentrating on the commercials? Read on ...

The Baltimore Ravens will get off to a fast start. At the end of the first quarter they will be leading the San Francisco 49ers 13-3. San Francisco will score a touchdown midway through the second quarter, but the Ravens will counter with a TD in the closing seconds of the quarter to take a 20-10 halftime lead.

The 49ers will score at the start of the second half, but Baltimore again will show its resiliency by scoring a touchdown. It will be 28-17 at the start of the fourth quarter. San Francisco will close the gap to 28-24 with slightly under 10 minutes to play. Neither team will be productive for the next five minutes, then San Francisco will recover a Baltimore fumble, leading to a go-ahead touchdown with just under two minutes to play. The Ravens' next drive will stall on their own 35 yard line, forcing quarterback Joe Flacco to show his arm strength by heaving the ball more than 70 yards to the goal line as time expires. In a jump ball for either the winning touchdown reception or a successful pass defense, San Francisco will intercept, Flacco’s first interception of the post-season. Final score, San Francisco 31, Baltimore 28.

Knowing my devotion to Costco, Allison sent me several cute pictures of our grandchildren seated in a shopping cart at their local Costco (if you want to see for yourself, here’s a link: http://www.findingfinley.blogspot.com/). 

The picture of the kids in the shopping cart reminded me of a play group friend's mother when Dan was very young. She brought her two kids to the supermarket. Her baby was about three months old, so she put her in her car seat inside the shopping cart and sat her three-year-old boy up front. 

As they went through the store she would hand stuff to the toddler to put into the cart. All went well till they visited the canned goods aisle. It was like incoming missiles on the baby as the boy kept chucking cans over his shoulder onto his young sibling. When the mother finally realized why her baby was screaming, she freaked out and started running away from the cart. She eventually regained her composure, never again to make the mistake of putting the baby in the shopping cart basket area. 

News came Saturday that a potentially crippling strike in ports along the Eastern Seaboard had been averted. Container ships would continue to be loaded and unloaded. 

Not earth-shattering news to most, if not all, of you, but of interest to me because of a tour of a cargo ship I had arranged for a conference on supply chain logistics back in 2007. The Port of Oakland is not the most active on the West Coast, but it did provide a working backdrop for those on the tour. 

Forget your memories of cargo ships and longshoremen’s activities from the Marlon Brando movie, On the Waterfront. Loading and unloading ships is a highly mechanized activity today. Cargo is shipped in containers, stacked high on deck and deep below deck. 

We toured the APL (American President Lines) Thailand, built in 1995. The ship traversed the ocean between Asia and North America on a 35-day sequence that included a nine-and-a-half day voyage to Asia and a 10-day return trip. Ports of call included stops in Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Usually, each stop was less than 24 hours. The 276 meter x 40 meter APL Thailand, with gross tonnage of 64,502, had a 23-person crew which at the time included three women and two cadets from the Merchant Marine Academy. 

As we watched from the bridge, containers would be hoisted and moved into place. It looked like a giant Jenga game was being played as containers were stacked tightly together, with everyone hoping nothing would be done to make the pile tilt over and crumble. The efficiency was mesmerizing. As captivating as any example of human and robotic efforts to maximize the use of every square inch possible while knowing that on the open ocean an incorrect consolidation of containers could impact the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Sunday’s NY Times carried a submission from Sam Wang, an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton and the founder of the Princeton Election Consortium. It’s another warning about the evils of gerrymandering and how Republicans, for the most part, are trying to steal elections by altering the significance of the popular vote (Democrats, so far, have not been as open in their pursuit of hegemony). 

I bring Wang’s opinion to your attention (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?ref=opinion&_r=0) chiefly to get you to look back at the last map among the ones I posted last week that displayed the sliver of Democratic congressional districts, even in states where President Obama garnered enough votes to color them blue (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=012513&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief). 

For sure there are progressives living in the rest of the country. But when you see the stark reality of the  Democratic districts versus the enormous land mass of the Republican districts, as currently drawn up, one cannot fail to understand how divided our country truly is. 

Who's to Blame and The Dems' Giant Problem

Here’s an example of what I just can’t seem to understand about the American electorate:

On the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley Monday night, Chuck, an independent North Carolina voter, explained why he was volunteering to help elect Mitt Romney after working for Barack Obama in 2008. He lost his job as a salesman for a plastics company in 2009. He blamed Obama for making unspecified decisions that have left him unemployed since then. He blames Obama for losing his house and for being temporarily homeless. “I don’t feel I would have lost my career and so many others would be struggling if they would have made different decisions and our country was in a better state,” said the 46-year-old. 

He was obviously pained. Byron Pitts, the CBS News correspondent, pointed that out. But was Chuck kidding or just numbed by his experience? The economic stresses that cost him his job and home were deeply in play before Obama took office. Businesses rarely lay off salesmen if there’s a hope of getting fresh business. Yes, more people lost jobs after Obama was sworn in, but over the last 30 months there has been a net gain in jobs every month. 

Are Chuck and like-minded voters happy that even as corporate profits soar, even as they pile up cash, companies are not eager to hire back workers? Are they content to watch the earnings power of the working class and middle class erode as the corporate elite fatten their bank statements? Do they really believe in trickle down economics? Have they forgotten what adherence to that mantra meant during the Bush years? Have they not watched as Republicans in Congress stomped on any jobs initiative proposed by the president? 

Earlier in this campaign season it was explained that many hard-pressed workers don’t vote their wallets but rather vote their religious conscience. If they oppose abortion, they’d rather see a Republican in office because they would rather have the reward of a good hereafter than a good material life. But that doesn’t explain Chuck et al. I just don’t understand ...

Tackled: It is widely reported Democrats have the advantage among women and minorities. Republicans have more loyalty among white working class and middle class male voters. Last week Mitt Romney & Company tried to appeal to women. This week the Democrats hope not only to solidify their appeal to women and minorities but also to change some minds among the GOP-leaning faithful and independents, especially those men. Wednesday night they will feature Elizabeth Warren, candidate for Senate from Massachusetts and the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and former president Bill Clinton. Clinton is sure to wow the audience in Charlotte and for that matter, many who tune in to the convention coverage.

Only problem is, many of those desired white male voters will not be watching. They will be glued to their TV sets taking in the season opener of the new National Football League season pitting the Super Bowl champion New York Giants against their arch-rival, the Dallas Cowboys. The game will be carried on NBC, so forget about seeing Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw provide live convention coverage and analysis. Warren and Clinton will be speaking from 10 to 11 pm, during what probably will be the third quarter of the game. Even a lopsided score at that time won’t drive viewers away from the gridiron. 

Women might seek refuge from the football game to watch the convention speeches. Perhaps Warren and Clinton might swing some more of them into the Democratic column. In a tight race, that could offset the wattage lost by having Democratic star power tackled by a Giants-Cowboys football game. 

What I'd Like to Hear, Part II

Having been disappointed by Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech, I thought it only fair to delineate what I expect from Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats this week during their national convention. Yes, Obama inherited a blown up economy, two quagmire wars and mounting deficits. It won’t be enough to recount his successes in bringing home the troops from Iraq and setting a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. It won’t be enough to say he ordered the mission that killed Osama bin Laden and many other drone strikes that have decimated the leadership of al-Qaeda. It won’t be enough to say he saved the auto industry. It won’t be enough to say unemployment would be a lot worse without the stimulus package he pushed through. It won’t be enough to say Obamacare was passed. 

It won’t be enough because Americans always choose to look forward with nary a glance in the rear view mirror. So, Barack, what will you do for us in the next four years? How will you work with Congress? Will you vigorously stump for a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, or will you fight just for the Oval Office chair Clint Eastwood parodied last week? How will you convince us you would not squander a majority in both branches of the legislature if you’re lucky enough to get them? How will you show us you wouldn’t be an emasculated president if Republicans win control of the Senate? Or even if they just retain their House majority? 

Let’s be brutally honest. The last two years amply demonstrated that being chief executive vouchsafed your war powers and your foreign policy visions. But Republicans in the House and Senate effectively stymied your domestic initiatives once Democrats lost working majorities in both chambers. So as they say in Texas Hold ‘Em poker, are you going to go “all in?” Will you appeal directly to the American public and make the case for Democratic congressional and Senate candidates? Congress’ approval rating is at an all-time low because nothing, nothing is being done under the present configuration. 

You need to sell the total Democratic package. You need to set forth a vision and a program, a specific program, to get more people back to work. To create more jobs. To reduce the deficit. To prosecute white collar criminals in the financial industry with the same vigor that ordinary people face when they violate the law. To rebuild the infrastructure of our country, not with lofty words but with real projects that put people on the payroll. Will you fight for an increase in the minimum wage so working families can gain some additional purchasing power? How will you protect the solvency of Medicare and Social Security? How will you project American strength versus China and Russia? Romney has chosen belligerency. You must show strength, not appeasement. 

Romney tried to sell disappointment in Obama offset by trust in a largely unknown challenger. Obama must emerge from his convention as a battler, a leader who will fight not just to retain his job but as someone who will champion the middle and working classes with specific programs. Programs to create jobs. Jobs. Jobs.

Nepotism and Consumer Facts

The last episode of this season’s Mad Men ended with Don Draper employing nepotism to secure his wife a featured spot in a television shoe commercial. During my tenure as an editor and publisher I practiced nepotism four times, placing Dan when he was three years old in a Pac-Man sweatshirt for a picture accompanying a story we did on licensed merchandise, a second time 10 months later later dressing Dan and 13-month-old Ellie in kids’ overalls for an article on childrenswear, a third time five months later posing Ellie in a stretchie for an advertising supplement for Gerber baby products, and the last time enlisting Gilda’s sister’s family for an advertising supplement on activewear.

That last bit of nepotism turned out to be part of a cruel exchange of modeling time for a few pieces of apparel. The supplement was going to run in early spring, so we needed to shoot in January. Outdoors. By the ocean. Barbara’s family at the time lived in Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn. We agreed to photograph them one sunny day. 

Sunny it was. But with the wind chill it was below 20 degrees on the beach. The activewear tops and bottoms provided scant protection to the biting cold for Barbara, her husband and their three children, ages 5, 10 and 12. I know because I was out there on the beach as well. Bundled up in my winter coat, hat, earmuffs and gloves. Freezing my bejeezus off. We had to stop shooting after about 45 minutes. The photographer’s camera froze. 

As long as we’re talking media and advertising, here are some interesting “facts” culled from several press releases and articles:

According to Buyology, Inc., a market research firm that studies “the deeper, non-conscious, 85% of human decision-making that drives customer preference for brands,” the political differences between Democrats and Republicans extend to the consumer brands they prefer. For example, in the category of most desired coffee shop, Democrats favor Starbucks; Republicans savor Dunkin’ Donuts. 

Among the 200 brands studied by Buyology, here’s how the parties split on seven other categories: 

Most desired car—Jeep for Dems, BMW for GOP

Most desired insurance—Progressive for Dems (could they have been influenced by the name?), Allstate for GOP

Most desired electronics—Sony for Democrats, Sharp for GOP

Most desired TV channel—Animal Planet for Dems, History Channel for GOP (figures)

Most desired restaurant—Wendy’s for Dems, Subway for GOP

Most desired gaming system—Wii for Dems, Xbox for GOP

Democrats and Republicans found common ground on the following: Coca-Cola as their favorite beverage, Visa their most desired financial service, Google their most desired Internet brand, Apple the most desired technology and Olay the most desired beauty brand.

Here’s what passes as startling news these days: A survey by Harris Interactive of 2,212 U.S. adults ages 18 and older, done on behalf of CouponCabin.com, found nearly three-in-four (72%) would be more likely to buy organic food items if they were less expensive than regular grocery items. 

Duh! How’s that for discovering consumers would buy something if it cost less?

By the way, according to Grocery Headquarters magazine, 52% of dads say they are the primary food shopper in their households. I’ve been part of that majority for years, even before retirement.

With Father’s Day approaching this Sunday, another coupon Web site, RetailMeNot.com, is out with a survey claiming 77% of adults feel moms receive more attention on Mother’s Day than dads do on Father’s Day. Moreover, just 54% of the 1,005 adults surveyed jointly with Ipsos Public Affairs typically purchase a gift for dad, compared with 71% of survey respondents who tend to buy Mother's Day gifts for mom. 

The numbers sound reasonable to me. The preferred Father’s Day gift, said 40% of the men surveyed, was quality time with the family, such as an outing or dinner. I guess I’m normal—when Gilda asked me earlier today what I wanted to do on Father’s Day I suggested eating out. And that’s from someone fortunate enough to be married to a gourmet cook.