Another Death in Vietnam

My brother Bobby was killed in Vietnam. We didn’t know it at the time, for that matter nether did he. It took 43 years for the herbicide that entered his body at age 21 to end his life. The Agent Orange causing the particular lymphoma that killed him was just as reliable as the bullets, bombs, accidents, and illnesses that took the lives of the 58,220 Americans that were recorded as dead “in-country” during that military engagement.

There’s undoubtedly no accounting of what the real number of Americans lost was, any more than the incomprehensible number of non-Americans who died with them and since. There’s also no telling when it will end.

Lately I am weighted with pangs of responsibility in realizing I am of the last generation of Americans to remember firsthand what we as a nation were experiencing at that time, roughly between the years 1965-1972. What should I be sharing…what should I just forget?

The historical experience of World War II was quite different, as I was taught by my father’s generation and in countless stories and films.  There was near total engagement by the American population. Even with carnage that pales all military conflicts that have followed; the unification toward a common goal resulted in a remembrance that is mostly Romantic. The somewhat unique American post-war euphoria that resulted from that Romance is the “Great” in Donald Trump’s “Great Again”.

Vietnam was essentially its antithesis.  It was ill-conceived, non-transparent, over-weighted in politics, ultimately divisive, and too easy to discount and disregard.  If it weren’t for the existence of a draft carried over from WWII and Korea, the whole conflict might have been relegated to second page news and its opposition might have more resembled our recent fiasco in Iraq.

Thankfully the lessons it left are not clouded in Romance and their relevance has never been more important than they are today in Trump’s America.

What I remember from the Vietnam War era and how it relates to 21^st century America is not the foolish ideological tools that were used by equally foolish leaders to begin and sustain the conflict. What I’m recalling is how the nation reacted to that foolishness daily and why. Such was the national response to the War that lunacy became lucid and, therefore, insulated from reason.

The presentation of the Vietnam War to the American people was insidious.  It started slowly, utilizing the undercurrent of manufactured fear of Communism to justify deaths and injuries.  Long before the devastation of the Conflict reached its height, the bullshit of falling dominos to the “Red Peril” vanished. It simply became a “them vs. us”.

News reporting on the War basically folded into the routine of people’s lives.  There was little to report daily other than the number of dead and wounded, and where in that little country it occurred. In 1968, an average of 46 US soldiers were killed every day, with 6 to 8 times that many wounded or injured…every day. The Pentagon and the White House released whatever they could to make it sound acceptable. The most common was to list North Vietnamese (and Vietcong) killed and wounded in numbers so large the accounting was not believable. But few expressed skepticism and it was hardly questioned.

You see, as a Nation, we got used to it. Protesting was considered unpatriotic and didn’t really take hold among ordinary Americans until the 5^th year of the War. Nixon was elected in 1968 by the “silent majority”.  Like Iraq, if people didn’t have someone in the conflict the news of the War was just and only that. The current day's news made yesterday's vanish into desert air.

Donald Trump has not (yet) drawn us into an extended military conflict, thankfully. His “playful” attitude regarding nuclear weapons gives pause, but for now the lesson of Vietnam doesn’t actually relate to how we are reacting militarily.  It relates to how we as a nation are reacting to the fundamental functioning of government.

If Donald Trump feels he has a mandate it is based on an irrational concept that he was elected to dismantle whatever he can and by whatever means he is able.  He has no more ideological basis for his attack on the existing US Government than Johnson or Nixon had in perpetuating the Vietnam War.  He is freewheeling and his disabling narcissism has resulted in him being surrounded only by his family and those who were loyal when anyone with a half a brain viewed him as scary clown.

The truly serious problem is that the Nation and the media have gotten used to it. His and his administration’s bizarre actions have become habitual and routine. There have been so many instances of disinformation, distasteful antics, subversive behavior, incompetence, nepotism, pandering, lying, and psychosis over the course of the election and the first few weeks of Trump’s term no one is keeping count anymore. And those are just the public ones.

Nearly any one would have torpedoed a prior administration.

Just like another death in Vietnam, the next Trump shoe to drop hardly moves the meter, and even then only briefly.

The danger is that complacency to incompetence, indecency, corruption, and (most of all) dishonesty may take many years to undo. In nations that find difficultly in thriving, these factors seem often insurmountable, especially where public division is encouraged.

We should be raging against legislators who think they can personally benefit by supporting this dangerous new “normal” and to media moguls who are devoted first to ratings.  To want and expect something better from government we need a better government, not its elimination in favor of some kind of chaotic oligarchy.

Reject any legislator who supports Trump, restore the Fairness Doctrine (ended in 1987), and seek with an open mind to understand why overall health care in the United States (and ONLY in the United States throughout the developed world) is an abject fiscal failure.

We don’t want another Vietnam lingering around for another four decades or longer.  

A Dead Rose By Any Other Name

Let’s try to get this straight…again. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, is primarily a health care concept first proposed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1993 to counter, along with other Conservative initiatives, the health care plan delivered to Congress by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The idea of Obamacare having its origins in Conservative lore is repugnant to Republicans. Their challenges to that history at best persuaded Politifact to rate the Heritage connection as only half-true. Politifact hung the “untrue” portion of that rating on fact that the proposal did not have universal Republican support. Of course, no other proposal did either.

I disagree with Politifact. The argument that the ACA wasn’t a Republican plan may have some legs, but to suggest that the origins were not Conservative is ridiculous.  Talk to Mitt Romney.

The delivery of health care in the US is unique in the modern, developed world. To my mind it was a natural result of how nations around the world recovered from the devastation of World War II. The US was the only major participant in the War to end it without homeland destruction.

Other nations were forced to construct health plans that were centrally controlled in order to serve dislocated and impoverished populations. The clearest example of this was the universal health plan created by the United States for the Japanese people in 1946. It was a plan US Conservatives today would label as Socialist mania. The Japanese, on the other hand, have been quite satisfied ever since.

The US after the War was more concerned with economic growth and finding the people to fuel that growth. People were making money and, frankly, health care wasn’t that expensive. Employers, in order to attract and retain labor, began to offer complete health care as a benefit of employment.  Health care slowly became an industry, and, like all industries, the measure of success was defined by profit.

Flash ahead 60 years and we find (which should be to the surprise of no one) that health care in the US cost multiples more than any other place on earth.  Given the expense, access to health care has been reduced or eliminated for large segments of the population. Yes Houston…we have a problem.

Conservatives however have an additional problem.  As they support and represent those on the receiving end of the multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth (the health care “providers”) they needed to come up with some kind of plan that would increase access, reduce cost and still deliver satisfactory profits to the providers. By any standard, Obamacare does just that…well, except for the “reduce cost” part.

You see, Republicans and Conservatives generally have an almost religious zeal for Capitalism and supply-side economics. They feel if you give people enough choice the cost will find its naturally low level. They also tentatively accepted the idea of forcing everyone into the pool, i.e. the individual mandate.  The problem, of course, is that health care is a totally inelastic (service) commodity; the demand does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Further, the choice of provider is generally not impacted by cost. You all know this. When my kid is sick I’m not going to go shopping down to Wal-Mart to see if I can find a doctor on clearance.

The Democrats knew this too, so they bet it all on including one additional factor into their 2010 plan – the Public Option.  This would have been essentially a “buy-in” Medicare, and if enough people chose it, it would have allowed the Federal Government to begin to have central control of pricing services, and likely force private insurers to match those costs.  However, in order to be politically successful the Obama Administration caved in (thank you Joe Lieberman), the Public Option was dropped, and the 1993 Conservative Heritage Foundation plan morphed into law.

So why don’t the Republicans and Conservatives want to keep Obamacare?  Why did the Republican House vote to repeal the law over 60 times? Why don’t they vote to repeal it now?

This is what I believe: I believe the primary thing they want to repeal is the name. Republicans named it Obamacare because they wanted to use it as a political wedge. Now they’re faced with eliminating a plan which is more closely aligned with their moneyed constituency than anything else they could devise. However, they can’t embrace it now. My God…it’s called Obamacare.  They named it. They’ll never get rid of that name unless it’s significantly revamped.  Yes Houston…they have a problem.

Obamacare was a step in the right direction. Access to health care was greatly improved and financial devastation as a result of ill health was curbed.  It was destined to fail in the critical area of cost; however no more than what was occurring prior to its inception.  It needed a back door to centralized control of cost. Even if Conservatives can find a way to change the name or simply take us back to the melee we came from in 2010 the problems will persist.  

Until the electorate begins to vote in their own best interest, and not unwittingly support the big dollars that profit from the obese health care industry, nothing is going to change. The dead rose that is Obamacare will smell just as bad and likely worse, with whatever label they choose to use.

It was American ingenuity that created the Japanese health care system and for me I think Cherry Blossoms smell just fine.

Steve Bannon: America's Joseph Goebbels

Using Nazi Germany to make current day comparisons is essentially a cottage industry within the extreme ends of the political writing community.  It rarely makes much sense.  For all the hate leveled against Obama for his, supposed, liberal-socialist-left leanings there was at least an equal number of portrayals of him as Hitler incarnate.  Actual history is seldom a source for expressing emotions.

Now we have Trump, and once again Hitler “similarities” are trucked out as a means to convey emotions.  The reason is obvious…simplicity.  Trump and Hitler, it says it all in three words. Trump is evil for all the reasons Hitler was evil, or so it might go, just as it was leveled against Obama. For the most part we have become a nation that likes our observations limited to 15 second sound bites or 140 character Tweets.

Obama was not a Hitler, Trump is not a Hitler, and America is not the Germany of 1932-1939.

The real loss, however, is not the mischaracterization of the United States or its leaders with Nazi Germany.  What we lose is a perspective on how history actually evolved and the genuine lessons available to us as we plod through the making of our own history.

Nazi Germany provided a wealth of information on human interaction because of the dramatic and devastating consequences of the actions taken by that government over a very short period of time.  The more apt characterization would be that of a disease that broke loose from modern social immunities and brought humanity to its knees.

However, just because a Nazi Germany is more than unlikely in an age of trans-global economic interests and potential nuclear warfare, it doesn’t mean that symptoms of the social disease that infected the world in the middle of the last century are not present today. The US has gotten the sniffles and it looks like it’s going to get worse.

Fascism simply defined is the use of ethnically cleansed Nationalism to sustain authoritarian control over an economy consisting primarily of private property (typically managed in the hands of few people or institutions).  It gained popularity in the 20^th century as a reaction to both un-tethered free enterprise (which bore the depression of the 1930s) and liberal social change, which was viewed as a disenfranchisement of Christian Caucasians.

Compared to the 1930s, especially in Europe, we in the US currently live in a time of unprecedented prosperity, as do most Western nations.  Nevertheless, the new President, both before and after his election, has lectured unceasingly about how retched and pitiful conditions are in the US. In my world I have not encountered a single “Make America Great Again” supporter who had any legitimate personal reason to yearn for the past (other than to simply be younger).

The historical lesson to be learned from Nazi Germany (circa 1933-1939) is that using ethnic and nationalistic arrogance to combat trumped up fears (excuse the pun) works, and people like Steve Bannon know it.

Joseph Goebbels was Hitler’s head of the Propaganda Ministry in Nazi Germany and Hitler’s closest advisor, staying with him till they both committed suicide in their famous Berlin bunker in 1945. Highly educated (PhD), he adopted a successful plan to control information regarding Hitler and the internal enemies Hitler used to promote fear (i.e. Jews, homosexuals, atheists, Gypsies, the mentally handicapped, and Slavic people generally).

Whether Goebbels believed any of the hate propaganda he formulated is speculative at best. But no matter, he loved the power and influence it brought. It was self-fulfilling.  Paradoxically, the better life for the average German got, the more the manipulation worked, eventually leading him and Hitler to convert domestic power into military conquest and devastation.

The similarities with Steve Bannon are compelling, even if Bannon only resembles a Jr. Whopper on a Facist menu.

Bannon (63) is reasonably well educated and, after a short stint in the Navy, gained modest success and valuable production experience in the film industry. Early in his 50s he began to produce documentaries directed at Right-Wing ideologues that resonated with the Clinton-haters in the 1990s. In that effort he crossed paths with Andrew Breitbart, a young far-Right Conservative publisher who reportedly (and interestingly) compared Bannon to the talented Nazi propagandist filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl.  

Later Bannon (and others) teamed up to create Breitbart .com, a web far-Right “news” site that is now associated with the so-called “alt-Right”. It later included talk radio.  After Breitbart’s premature death, Bannon took over Breitbart,LLC and, with emphasis on conspiracies and anti-“Liberal/Government/non-Christian” topics, extended its appeal. Without going into detail, let’s just say it made for fun conversation around the table at a Skinhead Thanksgiving.

Bannon put increased emphasis on Nationalistic and anti-Islamic rhetoric to increase his “market share” of the Conservative echo chamber. However, he is exceedingly unappealing physically, with a comportment that would fit in nicely with life lived beneath a bridge. He needed a Donald Trump. It is likely he saw an upside to an alliance with Trump whether Trump won the election or not.  You might remember there were active news leaks about a possible Trump Channel after a Trump loss.

Trump’s recent Twitter fit about Bannon pulling his strings is understandable. Hitler would have reacted the same if it had been suggested that Goebbels was running the ship of State.  Narcissists can never accept that kind of submission of their egos.  Still, if a husband only does what his wife whispers to him it begs the question of who is in charge.

Again, we are not living in a failed republic as was Germany in 1934. A majority of us actually hate Trump and it’s more likely than not that number will grow.  Still, history of what occurred during periods that were larger than life should retain value.  They tell us that while Steve Bannon is in place we will continue to see the effort to discredit the media and inflame fears.  Whether it’s terrorism, the Courts, Muslims, gun-grabbing Liberals, villainous voters, or bathroom identity we are in for a whirlwind of disinformation. 

Bannon is going to try to grab this Nation by the Goebbels. I don’t think it’s going to work.

Manchurian Candidate?

For those not familiar with the term, Manchurian Candidate has become a phrase to reference individuals in high office controlled by a foreign entity. Coined by the book of the same name by Richard Cordon in 1959 (followed by two films), Cordon described an attempt to overthrow the US Government with the use of a brainwashed, sleeper agent-assassin by the Chinese and far Right-wing US government officials.  American heroics win out in the end (of course).

Such stories make for good thrillers, but reality tends to have fewer thrills and more tendencies to plod through traitorous or witless waters.  Modern history shows that subversive intensions may resemble thriller plotlines, but the means to get there (if ever) end up being just so many rolls of the dice.

Lately it’s beginning to appear that Vladimir Putin has been rolling a lot of dice.

An important thing to remember about Russia (I’m talking to you Lindsey Graham): the ideological cold war is over.  The use of Communism as a means to vilify Russia (or China for that matter) is done – stick a fork in it. It was never truly valid anyway since the USSR or China never trucked out a political or economic system that even bared a resemblance to Marxist Socialism.  However, embracing a bogus ideological conflict certainly worked for stirring up the natives on both sides.

Russia, a nation of 144 million people (40% the size of the US), is not our enemy, any more than we are theirs.  We are in competition with them for resources and influence and it’s weighted immensely in our favor.  It’s just unfortunate that hanging over that competition is enough destructive force to destroy humanity many times over.

Russia has continued to embrace a strong authoritarian central government with severe controls (including violence and terror) over internal dissension.  In Ancient Rome this might have worked pretty well, but in modern times such a political system has had short-term success at best. Nevertheless, it looks like the US has taken a giant step in the same direction, and for Putin that works out just fine.

The US economy is mammoth compared to Russia’s.  Russia’s economy (by GDP) is just slightly bigger than Mexico’s (Russia 13% larger), and considerably smaller than Canada’s. The US economy by comparison is 1700% larger than Russia’s.  Putin has no field on which to compete with the US except perhaps in oil, vodka and caviar…well, maybe just caviar.

So what are the thriller-plot intensions of V. Putin anyway? Internally he personally wants to retain power and make money, both of which he is succeeding to do, often times with KGB style brutality and censorship. It has been reasonably estimated he has amassed personal wealth in the tens of billions of dollars.  His influence is self evident. However, in order to maintain both goals, his external aim would logically be to expand his pie (e.g. Ukraine & Georgia) using his disproportionately large military, and neutralize the West (e.g. USA) from interfering.  This is where he starts rolling the dice.

Now just suppose he obtained compromising information and/or documentation on Donald Trump. Even Mr. Spock would find it logical to believe it would be common practice for the Russians to obtain dirt on any high profile Americans they could, especially those who actually spend time in Russia. What kind of gigantic egos do you think might be susceptible to falling prey to that kind of scrutiny? Let me guess…roll the dice.

Perhaps seeds were planted or it was serendipity for Putin, but you can guess he possibly (likely?) went into a Soviet style happy dance when he saw Trump riding down that escalator.  Like everyone else though (including Trump) he probably didn’t believe Trump could win the Presidency, but what the hell…roll the dice.

Hacking Hillary and getting caught was a reasonable gamble with a limited downside, a good roll of the dice. Still, what other assets has Putin used to advance the possibility of a President Trump?  The flattery was useful and I’m sure it was breaking them up with laughter in the Kremlin as they listened to Trumps comments, but what backdoor efforts might have been made to make the White House a partially owned Russian subsidiary?

As yet we don’t have any hard verification, but the circumstantial evidence continues to mount up.

With Trump’s campaign for the nomination floundering under the amateur management of Lewandowski, how did Trump come up with savvy Paul Manafort who successfully took the Trump campaign through its Mid-Atlantic one-two punch?  Just as mysteriously, when Manafort’s strong connections to Russia started to generate scrutiny he was summarily fired and disappeared (note Lewandowski remained within Trump circles).  Should we wonder who really fired him? Did Trump ever fire The Apprentice who sold the most hotdogs? I think not - roll the dice.

Now when the impossible has became reality and Putin basked in the glow of success (note his response to further US sanctions was to invite American children to his Christmas party), we start to get wind of, perhaps, some of that earlier craps rolled via Britain’s Mi-6 straight into FBI addendums. Did the Russians manage to squirrel away some nasty stuff on The Donald years ago? Why would we think that?

Mike Flinn as the new National Security Advisor is one reason. He was so comfortable in his relationship to the Kremlin that he got on the phone to “do nice” with the Russian ambassador right after sanctions had been levied against them. But even more compelling is the odd-ball choice of non-diplomat, ex-CEO of Exxon Mobil Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, who is so honored by Putin as to receive their highest non-Russian award; the Award of Friendship.  You can just feel the love.  

Note that in any world we all thought existed, Tillerson’s relationship to Russia would have totally disqualified his appointment as head of the State Department.  That Republicans have jumped ship from that world we knew is gut-wrenching.

Do I think that Flinn or Tillerson are sleeper agents worthy of their own episode on The Americans?  Frankly no.  Still, these are men whose opinions regarding the US relationship to Russia will matter more than Trumps, as the TV-schooled, Twitter King makes good on his promise to defer the running of the Nation. When Russia continues to expand its control (e.g. Ukraine), don’t look for Tillerson, as the leader of US foreign policy, to join with European condemnation.

Was Donald Trump a Manchurian Candidate? Not in a Hollywood sense, except perhaps if you could inject a Manchurian Candidate into a Three Stooges movie. However, to the extent Russia is holding some filthy dirt on The Donald (which I personally believe is likely) and, of course, has the evidence of their relationship, it may make Trump as close to a Manchurian Candidate as Putin could hope for.

Incredulous?

I am dumbfounded by the media response to the beginning of the Trump administration. As much as I wanted to continue a hiatus from writing about anything Trump, I am drawn to express the obvious. Am I alone in my observations? Let me know.

One might think it a Republican strategy to cloud the news of the far Right-Wing executive actions and hiring by the President in these first days by his making irrational pronouncements on such things as crowd size and the election results. I think that is only coincidental. The policies that Trump is signing or the people he is nominating are likely not generated by him. He simply doesn’t have the knowledge to do so, a reality he demonstrated repeatedly over the past year and a half.

His comments about factual circumstances that directly affect the perception he has of himself do, however, come directly from him, probably to the consternation of those looking to control the White House.

I have listened to media reporting and subsequent discussions about his off-handed, Tweeted, and official explanations (from Sean Spicer) stating his “belief” that the crowd size at his inauguration was the largest ever and the true popular vote count exceeded Clinton’s.  They (the media) express themselves as if it were a point of wonderment. “Why is he doing this (?)” is a constant remark, as if it were a departure from everything we have experienced to date.

The remarks (from the media) are framed in a way to make it appear that Trump has some kind of rational, self-interested purpose in taking simply odd-ball positions on these facts of little consequence.  Opponents of Trump want to frame the observations as displaying his diabolical desire to lie in order to achieve his own ends. Both conclusions are as off-balance as the Trump pronouncements themselves.

For reasons having nothing to do with Trump, I have spent considerable time trying to learn what I could about the condition known as a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).  I concluded well before the tragic election that Trump has this disorder, and it is not as simple or innocuous as people may casually believe.

Narcissistic behavior is as common as running water. It affects, to some degree, virtually everyone (barring the occasional Mother Teresa).  However a NPD is relatively rare, existing at the far end of narcissistic behavior spectrum.  It is considered to exist when the patient is controlled by the condition in such a way as to conflict with reason or rationality.

No media organization wants to suggest it, but it is reasonable by the public evidence to conclude that the man just made President of the United States is mentally ill.  He has a condition which can only be managed with the combination of his acceptance of the condition and professional medical treatment. It is hard to imagine either taking place.

What does this mean? What are the possible consequences?

Donald Trump does not arrive at the bizarre conclusions that he does because, as many recognize, he has a colossal ego. He disputes obvious facts, such as number counts, because he does not recognize that he could be the cause or reason for what appears, on the surface, to be a failure. He cannot help this. If he cannot find a specific individual to blame (real or imaginary) then his only recourse is to shoot the messenger.

The consequences of a person with a NPD in such a powerful position, to my mind, range from muddled to truly frightening governance.

The American Presidency is simply a hot caldron of events for which some, if not substantial, conflict of opinion always exists.  The fact that we can see a President virtually age dramatically before our eyes is no accident.  Trump’s future reaction to critical opinion should be predictable, as should the subsequent reactions of his handlers. The first and most obvious will be the opaqueness of his administration.  This is already happening and we’re only days into his term.

The Trump administration will implode into a black hole of non-information provided to the public. We see this already with gag orders being disseminated throughout the agencies under his control. The reason why is due to the most scary aspect of his NPD – paranoia.  You must understand that in his attempt to deflect blame for anything that reflects poorly on himself he actually believes what he says. He believes that he won the popular vote; he believes more people turned out for his inauguration than ever in history.  Evidence is meaningless.

Additionally, Mr. Trump’s condition, with its associated fears, makes him susceptible to conspiracies; however, the real danger is that once he has put his “credibility” behind a conspiracy he cannot back off without admitting failure.  Do you remember the tens of thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11? If you think he now believes Obama was born in the USA you’re kidding yourself.  His condition doesn’t allow it. The most damaging conspiracy he currently embraces involves an entire industry: the American media lining up against him with dishonesty.

What is going to be less noticeable due to the lack of transparency is how that paranoia will affect the individuals working for him and even the military.

The people around him will begin to understand the risk they take in being out front on an issue that goes bad. Low profile will be the new standard. Disillusionment will be rampant. As he is clueless on the initiatives and/or Bills Republican leadership gets him to sign, he will blame them for every wrinkle that takes place as a result. There will be no joint mea culpa in the Trump Administration.

When a likely external terrorist attack occurs for the first time since 2001 (and on “his watch”), expect wholesale bloodshed of government officials and agencies and, unfortunately, a manic response by law enforcement and/or the military.

I feel the Nation would be better served by the Media beginning to question the rationality of Trump’s assertions instead of just questioning, with their incredulity, his motives. A President with a NPD either needs to leave office or have the condition treated. The latter would at least let the next four years fall into a holding pattern of inactivity or until Congress can be readjusted in 2018. The alternative is to release on the Nation and the World potential chaos.

Why You Should Care

Let me cut to the chase. This posting is about Estate Taxes, known in the tax world as Transfer Taxes, or called by either dim or conspiring Conservatives as The Death Tax. It is also a posting about how you can know something about your world and still not have a conceptual understanding of it.

We all know there is a concentration of wealth in the United States. Historically there has always been a small wealthy class and such has been no different in other countries around the world. Yet the subject makes news, mostly in the liberal intellectual circles, and for good reason.

It is perhaps the single most destructive condition that can beset growth in a modern economy and undermine democracy as a viable social structure.  If wealth inequality in America was a cancer, we are now at stage 4.

Politicians pander to it from different directions. Economists and authors address it to a limited audience. People like Bernie Sanders try to elevate it to the level of a populous revolution.  For the most part all of this is ignored by the vast majority of Americans.

Statistics regarding this concentration float about somewhat. A common one, for example, claims that 40% of all private assets in the United States are owned by 1% of the population. Another is that the bottom 80% of the population own 15% of the Nation’s wealth.  Although the numbers may vary slightly, there are none that contradict the vast disparity or the general accuracy.

In an attempt to confuse the issue the subject is often misdirected (by interested parties and media alike) to differences in published rates of income, where the disparity is around one-tenth as extreme. Income minus expenses is the engine of wealth accumulation, but, as is commonly known; most wealth is accumulated by “income” that never sees the light of day, statistically speaking.

Whenever you hear wealth disparity described in terms of income either you or the source have been led astray.

My befuddlement relates to why these blatant facts are so meaningless to a majority of adults in America?  Even most of those few who see the extreme nature of the inequality are neutral as to the problems created therein. What are the problems? Immense.

They include stagnation of economic growth, disenfranchisement of the working poor, undermining of democratic rule, formation of oligarchies, increase in class dependencies, and international policies that are not representative of the nation as a whole…to name a few.

However, the affects are the subject of another post. Here I want to look at the why in the question why don’t people care, and the how in the question how can we make it better.

Most Americans, say 90% (just a guess on my part, could be bigger), live in a world of 5s, 10s, and 20s. Whether it is the person who lives with assistance, who works paycheck to paycheck, or who lives comfortably without financial fear, he or she moves through their fiscal life with numbers they can understand.

The use of money is conceived in multiplies of what one can actually hold in their hand. Children are still taught about finance with coins placed in their grasp. A $10,000 windfall is a big deal.  It doesn’t matter if generations affected by inflation view the cost of a tomato differently; it is still understandable, despite how inflation may impact behavior.

What people don’t understand is hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, or trillions. These numbers are a conceptual black hole for everyday Americans and therefore are not calculated into how we intellectually or emotionally view the world.

Bernie Sanders consistently makes reference to the Billionaire Class without giving it much definition. I define it as individuals with over $200 million in net assets that have relative liquidity.  I do so because I feel that number is a point in which the number itself loses all meaning to the average American. It could be more or less, but no matter.  There is no rational association the average American can make with someone who controls that kind of wealth...and the wealthy know it.

You know the truth when you hear Americans of limited means honestly argue that the wealthy are “the jobs creators”, that they pay “more than their fair share of taxes”, that addressing the issue is “class warfare”, that they achieved their great wealth from “hard work” (as if they dug it from the ground), that they are burdened by “Government regulations”, that Government spending is un-American, or that the only answer to national concerns like education, health care, or even the military is the “free market”. These everyday Americans cannot assimilate the wealth of those they are unwittingly defending. They are sadly duped.

How in this muddled mess can we change things? There are many ways to begin to tilt the nation toward greater equality and, as a side effect, greater prosperity… too many to cite here. The one I want to address is by far the best, because it, over time, redirects assets based on the obscene accumulations themselves.  It is Transfer Taxes (aka Estate Tax, “Death Tax”, Gift Tax, Inheritance tax).

These Transfer Tax laws currently affect less than one-tenth of one percent (>0.001) of Americans.  You’re not even in the game until your taxable net worth is over $5.3million (twice that for couples). However the tax laws are extremely complex and over the years modifications (aka loop holes) have been built into the law allowing the tax to be dodged in part or entirely. Current revenues from Transfer Taxes amount to less than three-tenths of one percent (>0.003) of the Federal Budget.

If you are an ordinary American citizen and want to make one small step in the right direction, support those who advocate rigorous Transfer Taxes.  Leave or even increase the current starting level of taxation ($5-10 million), but tax rates should rise above that to total taxation of 50 to 75% or more.  Your individual with a billion dollars in net worth would leave his/her heirs to struggle along on say $300 million.  Are you kidding me? There is no argument here, just a lack of conceptual understanding.

This is not injustice.  The “system” in the words of our current billionaire leader “is rigged”, and has been for at least the last 50 years. It’s been rigged for a selective few (including him) and redistribution into spending for the benefit of the nation as a whole is in order. The revenue from those transfer taxes could, for example, cover the cost of healthcare for the entire nation for decades and beyond.

Think about that the next time you pay a health insurance premium or forgo health care due to cost; while Trump and his family pay for concierge doctors from the money they find in their sofas. Perhaps that's something you can understand.

It Could Get Dangerous

I am trying desperately to ignore the “Trump transition” just to have a brief period of peace, but it is getting so, so hard to do. Restricting my news consumption to NPR didn’t help. One of the latest news blurbs violently tipped me from my lotus position.

Trump decided to have a “summit” meeting with television news executives and on-air news personalities (TV news anchors and reporters with high exposure).  He demanded that the meeting be off-the- record, and, for reasons I cannot fathom, they agreed to it. When I heard this I felt foundation cracking beneath my feet.

There are exactly two things that comprise the bedrock of American Government as a successful long term social design, at least if success is defined within the context of world history. They are (1) the making of open and free speech sacrosanct, and (2) the establishment of and faith in an independent Judiciary.  I don’t know how many legs hold up the American “stool”, but either one of those two go and the whole thing falls into something else.

The meeting was unprecedented and rightfully so. It had never happened before because it should never have happened in the first place. For a President or President-Elect to hold such a private meeting is, literally by definition, intimidation of a free press, even if all they talked about was Thanksgiving recipes.

As it happened (as leaked) they didn’t talk recipes, instead the news people were lectured to by both Trump the bad cop then Trump the good cop. He first expressed his displeasures with the news media singling out specific people , then showed them how fair he was (it was leaked that he said he “likes Obama”….please). It all had shades of The Apprentice.

That Trump would want to do something like that is no surprise. It is quite consistent with his modus operandi and reality TV mentality. What is so surprising is why these news media people agreed to the terms this government mogul set. Why, why, why would any of them agree to an off-the-record meeting?  

For God-Sakes…these are news people! They, if anyone, should know the importance of the public not being shielded from how it (the public) is to receive information. In case anyone noticed, some television news networks didn’t even report on the meeting, nor commented on it when someone else brought it up in an interview.

This all harkens back to my previous post that the Trump Administration is on track to become the most opaque in history, possibly run by someone who is isolated and mentally unstable. If Trump goes to war with free speech (hell, he’s already attacking Saturday Night Live and Broadway) then the uncertainty of what is making our Government tick could become a cancer.

How could this create havoc? Economically it could hurt, but the reality is the President has limited power over the Economy directly, except for his inability to successful react to crises and thwarting progressive change.  It is internationally where Trump’s isolation could make this world a different place.

The goal of Terrorists is simple. There are no conquering Armies in the extreme Islamic world to march over nations like 12^th century Mongols. They seek through individual actions the disruption of Western society. They don’t care how or what it leads to, just that it happens. Their end game is irrational because their ideology is irrational. They have to love the idea of an American President that has the potential of being so malleable.

How do you think they (terrorists) might deal with an unstable American President who has his name in huge letters on 33 buildings around the world? How would Trump react to an assault on him personally?  How are the American people going to know about how they are being led when the press and news media are shut off from the President’s administration? When his primary concern is his own financial empire, how would he act in response? Who would pay the price?

The news media cannot abandon the American people. They should overtly back the First Amendment to the Constitution by publically and aggressively demanding transparency of the Trump Administration, and attacking disinformation. Not enter into his Tower with their tails between their legs. If, God-forbid, Trump and his Republican Senate can pack the judiciary with beholding individuals, it could blind the American people for decades.

Kum Ba Yah? I Think Not

Via social media I was directed to an uncharacteristically serious soliloquy by Stephen Colbert given the evening of (what will forever be known as) The Election. He, of course, was trying to publicly react to this event for which humor had no place.  For him, like many, many people, the election of Donald Trump had been elevated to the level of tragedy.

His presentation was similar to other statements by well know people, including Obama and Hillary herself, but with equal or better eloquence and some attempts at distraction. He chose to accept and look beyond The Election, reflecting with remorse on a divided America and encouraging hugs for your politically erstwhile neighbors. 

They all sounded to me like kum ba yah moments, directed at those who are limping through the various stages of mourning.

These comments are not much different than claims consistently made by politicians through election cycles, albeit with less gut retching incredulity. Even Donald Trump has claimed to be the one guy to pull everyone together. Fortunately for Trump, according to him, he’s loved by everyone, so perhaps his task is less challenging.

I felt the same when John Kerry lost his bid for the Presidency.  With a son in Iraq I was truly devastated when the Nation decided not to change course. Yet I still felt that we could move on without fear to change the future even if it wasn’t going to happen in the following year.

I’m sorry, but this time it’s different.  Kum ba yah won’t cut it.  Buckle your seatbelts for we are in for a rough ride.  We’ve just forced the pilot to parachute out and turned over controls of the plane to the loud mouth guy sitting up in first class, whose most accomplished skill is hitting a flight attendant’s butt with smoked almonds.

Still, it is entirely possible that The Donald may, in fact, bring everyone together for we all sit in the same plane, Conservatives, Liberals and Independents alike.  We may all learn that there is nothing that brings people together like the communal fouling of breeches.

There are two aspects to Donald Trump and, therefore, his Presidency to look for, both of which I have repeatedly brought up in this blog. Each is a dominant characteristic, likely uncorrectable, and capable of profound National disturbances.  Other than duck and cover I don’t know how Americans are to prepare.

One of the few honest and accurate claims Trump has made about himself, maybe the only one, is that he is unpredictable.  He views that as a virtue, and in certain circumstances he has probably used that characteristic to his advantage. However, for the new job he assumes next year that lack of predictability will have far reaching negativity.

If Conservatives think they can predict that he will respond to their issues with vigor I believe they will be more than mildly surprised.  Trump was never a Conservative ideologue.  He is a free floating pragmatist.  The press and the pundits will be spending their time trying to apply meaning to his last action or statement.  He might support the fight against climate change one day and the next advocate a return to coal fired electrical plants. There will be no wall, but immigration…who knows? I wouldn't be the least surprised if his nomination for the Supreme Court was Merrick Garland.

The problem, of course, is that the world, especially finance and business, runs on some semblance of predictability. As time goes by markets will suffer badly and the economy will face puzzling challenges, inflation for one as currency markets are destabilized.

It will be much like a busy intersection where the red, green, and yellow lights change at random times and in random order. There will be accidents.

Internationally that kind of uncertainty creates its own set of problems, even dangers. There will be insurgent aggressiveness on the part of immerging powers such as Russia and China.  Without the stabilizing effect of the US, the European Union could slide back further (post Brexit) into its own nationalistic isolationism causing its dissolution.  NATO and the United Nations will both be made less relevant if not actually neutered.   

There is no way to underemphasize the importance of reasonable predictability in a world of uncertainty. Without it the result is chaos. If Trump actually performs as promised, he will lower the flaps and our plane will take a 45 degree nose dive toward Mother Earth.

The second, equally scary, aspect of President-elect Trump is that he has a clinical narcissistic personality disorder.  I mean that.  He is not like someone with that problem, he has the condition.  That means, among other things, he cannot accept responsibility for his actions which result in something other than (his concept of) personal success, and he must overtly find someone or something else as the cause.

There are numerous characteristics to this disorder, but for a President there is one (not to be puny) that trumps them all: paranoia…spiked with delusion. 

The American Presidency is like a line that connects a bunch of dots, each dot being a crisis. Given that Trump, through no fault of his own, has virtually no experience running a small bureaucracy let alone one as massive as the most powerful nation and biggest economy on the planet. Remember, all his experience was within his own little fiefdoms.  To use a metaphor; he hired and fired at will and whim. Bottom line is he is going to screw up either by his own choice or by choosing the poor advice of the incompetents he may surround himself with.

The buck will not stop with him.

He will begin to blame anyone and everyone around him or take unprecedented actions against institutions like the Press. That will distance him from members of his Administration which will intensify his irrational fears of, for example, conspiracies against him. The only exceptions will probably be his children. It is no accident that this man who claims that everyone loves him has no real friends, as has been published. The dangers of this condition in a President with extraordinary powers are frightening, much of which we may not know until it’s too late.

The opaque nature of his Presidency will make the Nixon Administration look like Saran Wrap.    

I for one am quite glad that he has already announced that his three older children and son-in-law are to join him in managing his Administration. They may be the only bulwark that keeps him from running amuck or doing something cataclysmic due to his own isolation.

Both these interpretations of a Trump Presidency sound horrific…because they are.  The end results could vary widely.  If we’re lucky he’ll decide to be a one term President, which would be consistent with his personality. We would not have to face his being President and running for office simultaneously…just think about that in the context of what we just experienced. Hopefully we can get out of this tunnel without avalanches at either end.

For Stephen Colbert: well with Trump and notables such as Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christy, and Sara Palin as the flight crew, we should have a few chuckles even if the plane never reaches the tarmac. Just don’t let Trump see you laughing. 

Sorry Bernie

With hindsight it is not difficult to make the argument that Bernie was correct back in the spring. He did have a better chance to win the Presidency than Hillary Clinton. Even considering the beating he would have taken as a “Communist” and “anti-Capitalist” for his ridiculous need to label himself, I now truly believe that Trump could not have cast a big enough shadow over him had Sanders been his opponent.

The populism that supported Bernie would have more than cancelled out Trump’s bizarre following.  That fact could be seen during the primaries, but I still didn’t support Bernie though I liked him and what he stood for…a lot.  I favored Clinton over Sanders because I thought Bernie was too old, a factor that really has no intrinsic substance.  I thought his claims to Socialism to be too toxic and unexplainable to an undereducated Nation. I felt he didn’t have the depth of international experience as did his opponent.

However, the main reason I supported Hillary over Bernie was because she is a woman, and I personally believe America is woefully late in putting real teeth into what has been to date lip service in dealing with gender inequality. Besides, male political leaders over recent decades have generally failed miserably and I don’t discount testosterone as being an underlying cause.

No do-overs unfortunately.  Sorry Bernie…sorry America.

I have to consider why I was so wrong to let head overrule my heart. I saddled up to the TV election night figuring I was going to watch the New England Patriots play the Virginia Cavaliers and I had happily bet my granddaughters’ futures on the Pats.  Here are, to my mind, the six primary reasons I lost my bet (in ascending magnitude)

6) Abortion. It was barely touched by either campaign but a continuing loser for Progressive Democrats. They fail to understand that there are tens of millions of Christian Conservatives who vote on this issue alone, virtually blinding them to anything else. Pro-choice advocates continually fail to see the common ground and validate the emotions of those who believe there is political solution to this issue.  Hillary was no different.

5) James Comey and the FBI. As the election ended up extremely close (60,000 votes switched in the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and probably Michigan would have changed the outcome) it is perfectly reasonably to claim that Comey’s editorial rant against Hillary in July and his late October letter, which caused speculation on post-election indictments of a President-elect Clinton, was clearly enough to either sway large numbers of voters, keep them from the polls, or motivate them to vote against Clinton. No single individual did more to elect Donald Trump than James Comey...period.

4) The Media. Perhaps the nearly comical irony is that Trump riled against a Media that was the major supporter of his campaign. Seeking cash producing ratings gave Donald estimated $billions of free coverage. Bad or good was irrelevant.  There was so much coverage that no one idiotic bumble by Trump could have an impact. After a while all anyone really heard was the Trump name, which of course has been the secret to his lifetime success (not having to hear that name after November 8^th was my single biggest glee of anticipation). 

Do you remember the virtually insane insistence that he saw thousands of (supposed) Muslims in(specifically) Jersey City, NJ cheering as the NY Trade Center buildings went down on 9/11? It never came up again by Democrats, media, or otherwise.  Why? When the media publishes hundreds of similar statements, or when Politifact burns more pants on Trumps account than there are pants at Macy’s, it all becomes a blur…to Trumps advantage.

Had the 38 year old Fairness Doctrine not been jettisoned by Reagan in 1987 this one sided coverage would never have happened.

3) The polling and prognosticators. There is a lesson in here that will hopefully surface by the next national election.  What national polling did this year made me wake up November 9^th feeling personally violated.  The reasons why the polling was so wrong deserves its own analysis, but the impact of inaccurate polling I cannot understate here.

Two weeks before the election the media analysis of polling was speculating on a Clinton landslide.  There is no way you can go, especially with voting already underway in many states, from landslide to loss without there being incompetence.  The effects are huge. It kept away unenthusiastic Clinton votes because they viewed it as a done deal, it motivated moderate Trump supporters just to make their own statement.  There was undoubtedly a “Brexit” style vote where people voted for Trump to register their protest of (whatever) because they were confident from the polling that the nut case would never be elected.

2) The Clinton Campaign.  Perhaps over time we will learn who the prime mover was, but the Clinton Campaign was ill-conceived and poorly executed.  They were handed possibly the most undesirable and easily beatable opponent one could conceive.  They then proceeded to feed the beast and starve themselves.

The character and nature of Trump was baked in and out of the oven by the end of his Keystone Cops convention.  Still, the Clinton Team spent (I’m guessing) 90% of the rest of their campaign arguing what everyone already knew.  They failed to see that the extensive history that Hillary had, good and controversial, needed to be told…and sold.  They really never fought to give us reasons to vote for Hillary. 

In the 2^nd and 3^rd debates she should have dismissed Trump outright and not brought up a single negative, rather to focus on issues and national pride.  Even though she was considered the “winner” each time, I felt disappointed and nervous.  She won the anti-Trump vote, but she never sealed the deal on the “for Hillary” vote. The fact that she is personally a mediocre campaigner made that essential.

So what is my number 1 reason?  Simple. The main reason Hillary lost was because she is a woman…it’s just that uncomplicated.  Change that one fact, with all other things being equal, and “Mr.” Clinton wins. If Trump had fouled up his email to no consequence it would fallen to number 783 of all the reasons to reject him. This is obvious by the immediate facts of the election but over time will become more obvious.  This Nation is currently not ready to see women as leaders and that attitude is true for both American men and women.  The ramifications of this reality have their own trajectory in business, but opponents are gaining ground. It still lags, though, in Government and certainly lags compared to the rest of the Western World.  You’ll find it far more consistent in places like Russia and China.

As I’ve written before in this blog, the real problem with this issue is not men. The problem is American women. There is a view primarily among those pre-Vietnam and baby boomer generations that being a feminist is essentially un-feminine.  They are unable to see or perhaps even accept the changes that are taking place in our societies, or they are often guided by antiquated religious dogma.  Therefore, they consider the issue of gender inequality as it affects them, rather than to think of it as they look down at their daughters and/or granddaughters.  I am profoundly sadden to believe that at age 67 I might not live to see an American woman become President and Commander-in-chief.  It may have to wait until half the baby boomers have passed on or living on Ensure IVs.

To think that I’ve got Donald Trump instead is nothing but proverbial salt in the wound…and plenty of it.

Predicting the Unpredictable

Tim Kaine had a lost opportunity last Tuesday night in his “debate” with Mike Pence. No, he actually had several lost opportunities in failing to present himself to the American people as someone with a broad view of this election.

Instead, contrary to his personality and demeanor which is well known in this State, he followed the Clinton campaign strategy to try and score points by aggressively trapping Pence into contradicting Trump’s positions or to make him fumble by agreeing with the Trump absurd-o-mania.

Score points with whom?

Trump’s core support is baked in. Changing their view of Trump by pointing out the obvious is like trying to make the yoke of a hardboiled egg runny by cooking it longer. Even so called “independents” are saturated with the Donald’s endless parade of psychotic observations, opinions, and predictions.

Sure Trump won’t release his tax returns, but at this point no one expects him to.  I don’t. That train has left the station, along with all the other trains, boats, and planes that represent the disgraceful candidacy of Donald Trump.

Someone with an audience needs to step up and begin a discussion not solely directed on what a troubled person such as Trump has said and done to define himself so crudely, but what he represents to the Republican Party specifically, and the ideologically conservatives in general. These are things that will still exist after the Donald is left on history’s political trash heap.

There are numerous points that can be illuminated. From his emphasis on not being “politically correct” to broaden nuclear warhead proliferation to torture to tax breaks for the wealthy to ethnic profiling to….oh hell, you know what I mean.  It’s all been out there for months.

In this posting I want to reflect on one little subtle claim Trump has made that makes a big difference.

On numerous occasions at rallies or in interviews Trump has taken pride in making a specific claim about himself.  “I am unpredictable” he has stated in very simple terms. He has taken specific satisfaction in applying this characteristic to how he would engage in foreign affairs, but he has liberally applied it to how he approaches any “deal”.

This embracing of unpredictability is not a small thing.  Predictability is the single most important counterbalance to chaos. To advocate unpredictability is to advocate for chaos. This is what Trump believes and, for once, I believe him.

In our social world we cannot predict with certainty, but it is important that one should not equate predictability with certainty.  Certainty is reserved for physical law.  Predictability is what we aspire to in business, government, and our personal lives.  Without it no business could survive or even begin, government could not create useful legislation, the military would run amok, and relationships could not coalesce.

Most human endeavors begin with an assessment of the outcome. The greater confidence in the predicted outcome the less we are encumbered by risk.  When there is less sense of risk there is less anxiety and a greater probability of achieving goals.  Chance and error do enough to undermine our predictions; we don’t need national leaders to empower pandemonium as a quality of government.

Mixing unpredictability with nuclear weapons, for example, is virtually a formula for the annihilation of the human species.

I’ll make these predictions if Trump is elected: the stock market will drop precipitously over the next four years, the housing market will collapse, racial and ethnic instability will increase dramatically, the United States will become isolated among nations, deficits and (therefore) the National Debt will soar, and those that view the United States as a pariah will be elated and feel justified.

These, I believe, would occur not because Trump is misogynistic or a racist or a narcissist or simply coarse and vulgar at every level.  These things would happen because he is unpredictable and, as they say, the fish rots from the head.

I heard one commentator describe people casting a vote for Trump as them throwing little Molotov Cocktails at the government. I think that image works. A random bombing without thought of the consequence is exactly where the Donald wants to be.