The Bride of Frankenstein Is Back

The bride of Frankenstein is back on the hustings to haunt us.

Not content to have been chosen as her party’s 2008 nominee to be a heartbeat away from the presidency—but thankfully not elected—Sarah Palin now wants to influence the choice of the next Republican standard bearer. She’s thrown her support behind Donald Trump, a classic example of the blind leading the blind.

As populist speakers Trump and Palin are the mouths that roared. They can fire up an audience. But they lack depth, the ability to put together comprehensive programs based on a complex and nuanced understanding of an issue. Trump’s idea to solve the illegal immigration problem—build a wall paid for by Mexico and throw all 11 million illegals out—is a soundbite solution that fails to consider the legal status of children, the disruption of families, the economic impact of reduced labor in many industries where Americans do not want to work, such as on farms or meat/poultry processing plants, not to mention the absurdity of audaciously expecting Mexico to pay for a wall. But hey, it sounds good on the stump.

We can thank, ruefully, John McCain for saddling us with Palin, perhaps the least qualified person ever to grace a national election ticket. Even the discombobulated retired admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s vice presidential choice in 1992, sounded erudite compared to her.

Palin gave birth to the no-nothing Tea Party which only wants to tear down government, or, in her case, find excuses for behavior and commentary beyond the pale. She was such a good family role model that her daughter not once but twice had a child out of wedlock. And after her son was recently arrested for assaulting a woman she blamed his behavior on President Obama’s alleged indifference to the trauma American servicemen, including her son, suffered during their deployment in the Middle East. 

But here’s the problem with Trump and Palin: Too many of our fellow citizens are willing to give them a pass. They are willing to gamble our country’s future because they feel left out of its present. They forget that without Obama’s stewardship our economy would have tanked from mismanagement under Republicans; they forget that Obama has been president during one of the largest job creation periods in our history; they forget that the stock market has more than doubled under Obama (even with the recent downturn) and with that the value of their retirement plans; they forget that the car industry would have all but vanished without Obama; they forget that 17 million more Americans are now covered by health insurance (yes, Obamacare is imperfect but it is better than no insurance); they forget that Obama has championed alternative energy sources and that our country is now less dependent on imported oil; they forget that fewer illegal immigrants are crossing the Mexican border. 

Do they really want another land war in the desert? Do they really want the wealthy to get richer, with more and more influence? Do they really think in a global economy manufacturing jobs will return to our shores? Do they really think that investment in education and physical infrastructure can be postponed? Do they really think there is an armed forces anywhere in the world equal to ours, that we need to invest in new, costly armaments to fight 20th century wars while our true enemies take aim at real vulnerabilities in our power grid, our Internet and communications networks, our ports of entry, our water supplies? 

All they want to do is focus on a bogus claim that Obama wants to take guns away from individuals; or the misguided belief that ISIS can be carpet-bombed into oblivion; that nuking Iran is an option; that their lives would be better if the federal government stopped watching out for product and worker safety, that worker conditions would be improved if only unions would go away, that bosses would benevolently offer adequate raises and health care benefits. 

I don’t know about you, but it depresses me to write these things. Does it depress you to read them, depressing because you realize I am not making this up? 

Bravo, Mitt, But the Tail Now Wags the Dog

Let’s give Mitt Romney some deserved high-fives. On several levels, his selection of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate showed some strategic maneuvering and has altered the presidential campaign.

First, by announcing Saturday morning, Romney avoided a hammering in many “liberal newspaper” Sunday Op-Ed sections. The New York Times, for example, contained no commentary, not even an editorial, on the choice of Ryan in its Sunday Review section. But for a stinging rebuke of Romney’s tax plan, and Ryan’s pre-selection budget plan, read David Firestone’s analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/romneys-tax-plan-defies-the-rules-of-math.html?_r=1&ref=opinion 

Like Romney, Ryan is a numbers man. There’s little empathy Joe Six-Pack will be able to take away from either man. They supposedly are economic policy wonks, but there’s little little agreement they understand the anguish their plans would have on Americans who earn less than $200,000 a year. Moreover, media reports paint Ryan as a no compromise kind of guy, hardly the type Romney can say will help him instill a new working atmosphere in Congress. 

Romney-Ryan are the closest thing to “buddies on the campaign trail” since Clinton-Gore.  

I wonder, in vetting Ryan, how many years of tax returns did Romney’s team peruse? According to The Times the other day, when he was under veep consideration in 2008, Romney provided 23 years’ worth of returns to John McCain. I wonder, when running for Congress, how many years of tax returns has Ryan made available to the public? Will Romney now feel pressure to unseal more tax filings (keep in mind, he has yet to submit his full 2011 return).

Until now, Romney has chosen to run a “trust me” candidacy. Trust me I’ll be better than Obama. Trust me I’ll reduce the deficit. Trust me I’ll lower taxes without increasing the deficit. Trust me I’ll spend more on the military. Trust me I’ll improve the economy. Trust me health care will be reformed, just not under Obamacare. Trust me. Trust me. Trust me. Just don’t ask for details on how all this will be done, what programs would be cut to balance the budget.  

By selecting Ryan, Romney has put some meat on his bare-boned promises. Ryan’s budget has specifics, though not everything spelled out. Basically, by choosing Ryan, the tail now wags the Romney dog. Romney will have little leeway in being seen as a strict advocate of Ryan’s plan to cut support programs for the underclass and middle class, change Medicare, reduce education grants and food stamps. Romney has officially embraced class warfare, for as he’s stripping support programs away he is advocating lower taxes for the rich.

The net effect—the debate no longer is on Obama’s stewardship of the economy. The debate has shifted to the budget and how Romney-Ryan’s plan will disproportionally hurt minorities, blacks, Hispanics, the middle class, the working class, seniors, students, and anyone else who doesn’t earn at least $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married joint filers). Now both sides have vulnerabilities.

The net net effect is that conservatives will be energized to support Romney (something they already have done in their antipathy toward Obama). But at the same time Ryan’s nomination will energize progressives and independents who now have a darker blueprint of what a Romney victory would mean. If they were holding back from Obama before, hoping Romney would revert to his Massachusetts ways, they now have been disabused of that possibility. 

On a personal note, I’m happy Romney chose Ryan. I can say I almost met him. Our paths crossed during my trip last May to the Capitol with a group of Israeli trauma care providers brought to the States by Shalom Yisrael. The tall, lanky Ryan, with his widow’s beak hairdo reminiscent of Eddie Munster, walked right past our group. I reacted too slowly to stop him to introduce the group. Probably for the better. I might have expressed myself in a less than respectful manner. 

  

Foreign Affairs

Almost everyone agrees the linchpin issue in the upcoming presidential election will be the economy. No argument there. But I do have an opinion as to why foreign affairs commands relatively little attention, or respect, from the American public.

In my view, we can’t relate to people and countries where we cannot easily figure out the gender of those interviewed or profiled.

Humor me. Take this short quiz. Listed below are 12 names of people recently quoted in The NY Times. Your task is to match them to their countries and, more importantly, determine if they are male or female. Some countries are the answer for more than one person. The correct answers are at the bottom of this post.

Score 1 point for each correct answer of country and and 1 point for the right sex:

0-5 points qualify you to work at IHOP (the International House of Pancakes)
6-10 points qualify you to be Herman Cain’s national security advisor
11-15 points qualify you to be a guard along the Texas-Mexico border
16-20 points qualify you to be United Nations ambassador
21-24 points qualify you to be secretary of state

Names
1. Nargis Sethi
2. Ma Ying-jeou
3. Tsai Ing-wen
4. Bi-khim Hsiao
5. Keri Chang
6. Wen Jiabao
7. Chafik Chraibi
8. Shirin Ebadi
9. Wey Kwo-dong
10. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
11. Enver Baig
12. Dilma Rousseff

Countries
A. Brazil
B. Burma
C. China
D. Pakistan
E. Morocco
F. Iran
G. Taiwan


The B-word Is Back, Never Gone: Apparently, Jay-Z didn’t author the poem in which he renounced using the b-word in his songs to describe women, including his wife Beyoncé and his daughter Blue Ivy. Jay-Z told The NY Daily News the whole thing was a sham perpetrated by parties unknown.

Too bad. Jay-Z could have struck a blow for gender respect. Instead, he will continue to be a misogynist.


Now, back to the quiz...


Answers, including sex
1D-female; 2G-male; 3G-female; 4G-female; 5G-female; 6C-male; 7E-male; 8F-female; 9G-male; 10B-female; 11D-male; 12A-female

Human Infrastructure

His $447 billion plan to pump up the economy deflated by Republicans in the U.S. Senate, President Obama now is trying to reignite our fiscal health in piecemeal fashion. He’s pushing parts of his overall program one at a time, starting with a $35 billion package to keep teachers in the classroom and put more policemen and firemen on the streets. Though it might seem a laudable, even bipartisan goal, the GOP already has said it will vote to block its passage.

Which leaves me wondering, when did we as a nation turn against the public sector workers who are the foundation of our society? When did it become acceptable to strip away essential jobs in our communities while letting fat cats accumulate wealth beyond reason? When did we begin to demonize the very people to whom we entrust our most precious commodity, our children?

How would you like to leave your family every day for a job that puts you in jeopardy each work shift, that could cost you your life or could leave you injured for life because you were protecting society? Isn't it worth something to you to know others are ready to risk their safety for yours?

Sure, some cops are bigoted. Some overreact, are abusive. Some have behavioral problems. Haven't we learned anything from all the cop shows and movies about their tension-filled lives? How many of us would want to truly trade our daily routine for that of a policeman or fireman, knowing that around the corner on a mundane patrol or one alarm fire bell response death lurks? It might sound exciting for one day, even two, but as a constant condition of employment it would be hard to accept.

The infrastructure of a country is measured not just by the length and quality of its roadways, bridges and tunnels, but also by the soundness of its educational system. Teachers are its foundation. Sure, there are bad teachers, just as there are bad accountants, bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad truck drivers, bad waiters, bad you-name-it. Even bad bloggers. Tenure has been abused.

Let's reform the system but let's not abuse the teaching profession. If our children are our most precious asset, why wouldn't we want to pay the person who spends more daytime hours with them, the person who can influence their thinking and development, an above average wage? Aren't teachers doing a job at least as important as lawyers, as accountants, as stock brokers?

When it's my grandson Finley’s reading time, the books he chooses invariably depict heroes of the young—firemen, policemen, construction workers, teachers. Nary a computer wizard or Wall Street tycoon or lawyer or legislator or regulator or hedge fund trader in sight.

We are kidding ourselves if we believe society will be better off with fewer and lower-compensated teachers, policemen and firemen.

Economic Futures

Twice in the last week friends asked me if I were optimistic about the economy. Do they think my degree in economics and a career as a business journalist qualifies me to know more than, say, the pinheads at Standard & Poors who made a $2 trillion mistake when calculating their assessment of the credit worthiness of the United States? Do they think I know more than the complicit bean counters at S&P who valued Lehman Bros. AAA worthy even as it imploded and who gave favorable reviews to toxic mortgage-backed securities at the heart of the financial freefall of the last few years?

I’d like to say I responded with a positive take on the economy. But I would be as guilty as those fabricators at S&P who have done more to ruin our economy than a dozen Bernie Madoffs could. Yet even in their obfuscations there is a kernel of truth—there is little to be confident about the will or power of our elected officials to bring a sane, rational approach to a resolution of our financial crisis.

I’m perplexed about several parts of this unfolding story.

First, does S&P believe we need a balanced approach to setting a national budget? Does it believe only more program cuts are required, or are higher taxes on the rich and closing corporate and personal loopholes necessary as well?

Second, several interviews portrayed ordinary citizens understandably lamenting the debt ceiling deal. But in the same breadth they said they wouldn’t favor higher taxes, as desired by President Obama and the Democratic leadership. Do they not understand taxes would have gone up just for those households making more than $250,000? Have Republicans so brainwashed the common folk they believe their taxes would go up?

Third, given we live in a global economy where it is generally cheaper to manufacture in Third World countries than here in America, how long will it take for our citizenry to comprehend we are not going back to the time when the United States was the foundry of the universe. Think of most consumer products, from iPhones to digital cameras, from Christian Louboutin shoes to Nike cross trainers—they’re not made in America. During the last century we shifted from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy. Now we’re a service and information economy. Yes, there are remnants of our production prowess. But most new jobs will require the ability to say “would you like fries with that” or will rely on one’s skill to create platforms that aggregate consumers into marketable segments (at least those who retain enough money to spend on discretionary items). Or you will need to be part of the financial community that doesn’t produce an ounce of goods but earns dollars by the pound based on an ability to jimmy-up trades and market fluctuations (case in point: oil speculators with no tangible assets in the energy business who have driven up the price of gasoline and home heating oil).

Fourth, if Republicans are interested in putting Americans back to work, why don’t they push for legislation to benefit companies that hire more U.S. workers and tax those that outsource jobs?

Fifth, how can anyone see value in a bifurcated society? It wasn’t good when we discriminated based on color, or ethnicity, or sex. Yet our leaders are letting us devolve into a nation of haves and have-nots. Riots like in London, as well as the Arab Spring revolts, are demonstrations of the hopeless and destitute seeking relief against the accumulation of wealth in an elite. Verizon land-line workers are on strike. Even if you believe the company that the average Verizon workers makes $150,000 in salary and benefits, it is 120 times less than the $18.1 million compensation of the company’s CEO last year. It’s an obscene differential. Ivan Seidenberg makes $50,000 a day, every day of the year. Is his three-day compensation equal to an average worker’s full year? It’s not as if he invented a new form of communication, or discovered the cure for cancer, or helped solve world hunger. His job is to run a profitable company, even if it means squeezing his employees to pay more for health care coverage and their retirement plans. I’m not advocating wealth redistribution, but there really should be a limit on corporate compensation.

Jobs and Shifting Allegiances

Did you catch the CBS Evening News report last Thursday on the Dawsonville, GA, company that produces customized steel plates using a laser controlled machine? (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7374087n&tag=mncol;lst;1)

The gist of the story was technology has become vital to economic success and a main reason why massive job creation may prove elusive. Impulse Mfg. is enjoying 60% profit increases, but it plans no additional hires because technology has negated the need. A laser-guided machine, for example, can turn out one steel plate in 30 seconds, a task 18 workers previously accomplished in 30 minutes.

There you have it. Manufacturing, formerly a foundation of the middle class, no longer can be relied on to provide a stable economic underpinning in the Rust Belt and other regions of the country. Job losses no longer just result from companies shipping work overseas. Even those companies committed to domestic production have limited opportunities for American workers.

When I studied economics in college, 4% unemployment was considered full employment. It’s not beyond the pale to suggest today’s definition probably is in the 7%-8% range, especially when one considers all the aging baby boomers who lost their jobs in the recession and are finding it nearly impossible to secure comparable work and pay. National unemployment was reported in June at 9.2%.

The subtext of this job dislocation is the impact on national and local elections. The party in power, regardless of fault, often bears the brunt of voter disillusionment. That partly explains Republican gains in the 2010 elections. As we enter the 2012 election cycle, embroiled as we are in the pseudo give-and-take of the debt ceiling extension debate, it’s a toss-up which party will be viewed as the more sympathetic.

Old allegiances are fraying.

As inconceivable as it might have been just a few years ago, poor, young, uneducated white folks are more inclined to support the Republican party in 2011 than they were in 2008. The Pew Research Center’s latest poll, released last Friday, shows these core constituencies of non Hispanic whites have deserted the Democratic party.

“A seven-point Democratic advantage among whites under age 30 three years ago has turned into an 11-point GOP advantage today,” according to Pew. “And a 15-point Democratic advantage among whites earning less than $30,000 annually has swung to a slim four-point Republican edge today.”

Furthermore, “Republicans have made gains among whites with a high school education or less. The GOP’s advantage over Democrats has grown from one point in 2008 to 17 points in 2011 among less educated whites. Republicans have made smaller gains among whites voters who have college degrees (http://people-press.org/2011/07/22/gop-makes-big-gains-among-white-voters/).”

Can the shift be explained away merely as frustration with the nation’s economic woes? Is it a racist response to a black president? Is it proof the GOP attracts voters who vote with their emotions, not their brains?

Probably a little, or a lot, of all those reasons.

What cannot be denied, even by the most ardent Republican booster, is the policies of the GOP are weighted toward the wealthy, its support for social welfare and higher education programs is squishy, to say the least, and its job-creation programs so far are non-existent save for calls for lower taxes for the rich, or as Republicans calls them, “job creators.” Of course, even with the Bush tax cuts for the upper crust new jobs have not been plentifully created. (Okay, they can deny it all but they’d be kidding themselves; regrettably, they’re already doing a good job fooling many of the young, poor and under-educated.)

How absolutely discouraging. How absolutely unfathomable. How absolutely implausible. But it’s true.

The safety net will be pulled from under them if the poor, the young and the least educated elect conservative, Republican politicians. But getting them to see that is like trying to prove a negative. Until they suffer and can be brought back into the Democratic fold, many will vote against their best economic interests. We have only to look at the eight years of George W. Bush to see the damage that can be wrought—failure to acknowledge warnings of an imminent attack on U.S. soil, 9/11, two wars seemingly without end, lower purchasing power for the middle class and working class, no job growth, federal budgets that went from surplus to deficit, and a loss of respect throughout most of the world.

Some Not So Random Thoughts

Here’s a headline of a press release you wouldn’t want to send out if you ran a company:

“Ski Helmets Recalled by Swix Sport USA Due to Head Injury Hazard.”

Though the release stated there were no reported incidents or injuries, it clearly was not the best PR for a company that sells $99 helmets.

Every day scores of press releases come through my email account via PR Newswire for Journalists. I scan the headlines to see if any are unusual or otherwise worthy of further investigation. Here’s one from earlier this week that piqued my interest:

“Do You Know Your Vagina? Summer's Eve® Challenges Women Nationwide to ‘ID the V(TM)’”

Now, I was quite taken by the frankness of this message, so I clicked on the link, only to get the following note: “There seems to be a problem displaying the page you requested.”

Now that really piqued my interest. Okay, someone had the good sense to filter out potentially offensive messages. But I was still curious, so I googled Summer’s Eve and discovered the feminine hygiene company has embarked on an advertising campaign that is raising hackles. I’m not going to weigh in on this controversy, but as a public service, here’s a link to a story with links to the three ads in question. You be the judge: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/summers-eve-talking-vagina-ads-arent-racist-says-agency-133588 ((if the ads don't load, go directly to the company's Web site, http://summerseve.com).


The outside thermometer registered 100.2 degrees at 2:18 this afternoon (100.9 at 3:06). I know all of you are devout conservationists who willingly heed the call to raise your air conditioner thermostats to conserve energy. But if you have any feelings for me at all, you’d ignore those responsible impulses and power up the a/c. You see, years ago my parents gave me some Con Ed stock. So go ahead, cool down. It’ll do me good. It might even make you a little more comfortable as well.


I am all for full disclosure, but sometimes intelligent discretion is more appropriate. Case in point: In the June 26 Sunday NY Times Magazine (yes, I am woefully behind in my reading), the editors chose to include survey results for the following question from their Facebook page—"What’s your most memorable Disney-related experience?”

A rather ordinary poll. What fascinated me was the response level and the decision by The Times to print the data. Just 246 people chose to participate in the survey (107 had a positive Disney experience, 91 had a negative one and 48 “commented with an unrelated response”).

What could have possessed The Times to print such paltry feedback results? Rather than show interest, it shows disinterest or apathy bordering on disdain. Sometimes, it’s better not to print results when your sample size is so embarrassingly small and, worse, statistically not representative of the public at large.


Here’s another editorial decision that confounded me: A cartoon in the current issue of The Jewish Week shows two hackers “as the progressive media presents them.” One hacker above the title “Murdoch’s Media” is portrayed as a frowning devil. The other, a smiling angel, is described as “The WikiLeaks Guy.”

Really, people, are we so blind we can’t see the difference between a journalistic abomination and a self-righteous organization?

WikiLeaks is no angel, but its purpose is to expose evil and wrongdoing by governments and businesses. Its goal is transparency, so that the public can make informed decisions about foreign and domestic policies and corporate actions. Murdoch’s Media, on the other hand, hacked private accounts for salacious purposes. Are any national and international interests advanced by knowing the private messages of a murdered girl? Or the musings of Hugh Grant or other celebrities?


Sign of The Times: From one of my professional Internet business networks, here’s an inquiry to sum up the state of our economy—”Can anyone recommend a good debt collection agency?”