The fight for the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, (S. 386)

November 12, 2019

One of the recent legislative bills that was introduced this year was Senate Bill 386 (S.386), The Fairness for High-skilled Immigrants Act by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).  The bill's essence was to remove the 7 percent cap provision on high-skilled immigrants coming from a particular country.  The legislation is to counter a previous law that tried to institute fairness from who receives Green Cards after their permits to work in the United States and to make sure that no one country dominates receiving the coveted legal immigration status for its citizens.  In other words, it eliminates a 'country of origin' restriction. For example, the current system in place limits that India receives a maximum of 20 percent of the legal work permits (H-1B visas), most of whom enter the IT sector throughout the country.

_________________________

The topic of immigration has become an intense topic in the last three years, most notably due to the inauguration of President Trump, and his inflammatory rhetoric during his introductory news conference announcing his candidacy.  However, the focus has been on immigration of low-skilled workers, a large number of whom are undocumented.  What has not been discussed ad nauseam from media networks has been the proposed changes to the H-1B visa laws, which is a temporary visa category that allows companies in the United States to petition for high-skilled foreign individuals to work in "specialty occupations" in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, and who act as the individual's sponsor while they work in the country.  Some critics of this policy say that companies use this method to hire foreigners who can work for less money since they do not hold Green Cards or permanent residency. Both for and against this policy make salient points. These H-1B visas allow large American conglomerates to seek out coveted graduates in prestigious academic categories, while not having to pay fair market wages if they were U.S. citizens, as some critics allege.

Tech companies do tend to seek those who qualify for the H-1B visa program, saying that they do not have enough talent within the U.S. to fill many of the open positions.  However, American universities tend to produce the most graduates worldwide in STEM fields, although the areas that tech firms need the most are in engineering and product development.  American colleges and universities produced only 56,000 graduates in Information Technology and Silicon Valley firms have professed that they have many unfilled positions. Most of the H-1B visas tend to be given to outsourcing firms, primarily for their contracts in the United States. The visas are primarily for contract work for outsourcing and consultancy services.  Those companies include Infosys, Wipro, and Tata Consultancy Services, which are the largest. The Economist provided data that by 2020, there could be almost 1 million computers and IT jobs that could be vacant and need to be filled. Tech companies have to petition the U.S. government for an applicant they want and have to make sure that any immigrant who comes over on an H-1B must have at least a bachelor's degree, but many do in fact have Master's level of education.  These companies also must pay thousands of dollars in petitioning the government, so any effort on the part of the tech companies is due to chasing talented individuals.

The IT outsourcing firms get the lion's share of H-1B visas, and not the Silicon Valley tech companies as one would believe.  The stories that are promoted in the media where American workers who have to train their replacements are in IT services for large companies.  It is not for engineers and software developers, which is considered the most sought after occupations within the tech sector.  These IT firms tend to hire H-1B workers for low-end entry-level work ($60,000-$70,000).  The common misconception is that highly-qualified American workers are passed over in favor of immigrants in the same field.  While that is true in some instances, it is not wholly accurate. This is the crux of the issue.  The H-1B visa was intended to provide an opportunity for American corporations to bring in talented STEM graduates, but the law has been used instead to give outsourcing firms in the United States a loophole to bring in IT workers who are given below-market salaries for the work that could be done by American IT workers.  Senator Mike Lee's bill does not seem to clarify what type of jobs the alleviation of country caps will bring in.  It simply allows for a cap to be lifted on the number of applicants who are given the visas.  Does this benefit American companies, while preventing American citizens from finding those jobs available?

Another aspect of this debate is a push to get more women into STEM fields.  While that is a good thing, there have to be jobs open for them to apply.  Approximately 50% of all graduates in the STEM fields do not find employment within the field they studied for at U.S. colleges and universities. For some, it is due to finding gainful employment with a financially better opportunity outside of their field of study, while for others it is due to the lack of openings.  Senator Mike Lee's bill will make it harder for STEM graduates to find work as IT professionals, but I don't think it will harm those who graduate with engineering or software development degrees.  The tech companies are supportive of any legislation that allows for more immigrant graduates who have high levels of education.  Congress needs to make a determination that S. 386 will not impede Americans finding employment.

I would recommend that any reconciled bill of S.386 must show what types of positions the lifting of 'country of origin' restrictions for H-1B visas and subsequent pathway for Green Cards are being sought after. Specifically, are they for IT services positions (not in-house) since these are the positions that affect Americans in IT the most?  This will give Congress the opportunity to prevent companies from seeking large numbers of H-1B applicants for IT services that are given to foreign outsourcing companies. Instead, any signed law regarding H-1Bs should ensure that most IT positions within American corporations are given to Americans first, and if not, the evidence must show that no Americans are qualified to fill those positions.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) wants public hearings on this matter, and that is a good sign that whatever intentions there are for S.386, it will be transparent. There is no rush to pass a bill that deals with income for Americans.  Any issues that affect American jobs in a coveted field should not be diverted to firms specializing in outsourced IT jobs. I hope Senator Mike Lee is in no rush to get S.386 passed, for one of the few remaining options Americans have is to ensure that Congress protects their chances at a professional livelihood and provides opportunities for Americans first.

What is wrong with the United States Men's National Soccer Team?

October 18, 2019

Recently the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) played a FIFA sanctioned, regional tournament game against Canada, and to everyone's shock, lost 2-0.  This result came on the two-year anniversary when the United States was knocked out of qualifying for the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia during a rainy evening in Cuavo, Trinidad &Tobago. The US Soccer Federation (USSF) waited for a little over a year to hire their new coach, Greg Berhalter, who happened to be the brother of the Federation's Chief Operating Officer (COO), Jay Berhalter. This hire and the process that chose him was not well received by die-hard fans. If that wasn't troubling enough, the men's team has not climbed out of their rut, and continue a slide into irrelevance.

_____________________________

The loss to Canada was not what the Federation had expected with the hiring of Greg Berhalter, who was hired to bring about a fresh and improved tactical approach after the October 2018 disaster in Cuavo. It was labeled by American soccer media and fans as the lowest the USMNT has been in years. The state of the men's program is a troubling sign, which is in stark contrast to the women's program, which this past July won their second consecutive FIFA Women's World Cup (and fourth overall) over the past 28 years.  That's pretty amazing.  Why have the women achieved success on a regular basis while the men's golden generation peaked about 10 years ago (the American team's best finish at a men's world cup was in 2002 when they narrowly lost to Germany in the Quarterfinals, after beating regional arch-rival Mexico in the Round of 16)?

Part of it is due to Title IX, the collegiate law that was signed by President Nixon in 1972 to give women opportunities to play and succeed in sports.  The two most popular sports for women were basketball and soccer.  Women were allowed to play competitive soccer through the NCAA and the United States Women's National Teams (USWNT) had a massive head start globally. At the time of the first FIFA Women's World Cup in 1991, very few nations allowed girls to play, and most of the women's national team opponents consisted of amateur and part-time players, who did not train regularly and only received consistent playing time when they attended American universities.  This talent imbalance allowed the US women to dominate subsequent women's World Cups, and Olympic tournaments, which were considered a varsity-type tournament for the women as well (for the men, it was an Under-23 tournament).

Soccer in the United States was an afterthought in America during the 20th century, the lone bright spot being the United States shocking victory over England in the 1950 FIFA World Cup in Brazil.  It was the best World Cup result for the USMNT for many years to come. This was so especially since England invented the game and was a world power and whose football association boycotted the previous three tournaments before World War II.  What was amazing about the victory was the US team was comprised of mostly amateur and semi-pro players.  It remains to this day, one of the greatest triumphs of the men's team.  It wasn't until 1990 that the USMNT qualified again for the World Cup since 1950 after beating Trinidad & Tobago (this country seems to play a major role in the positive and negative trajectory of the USMNT).  That began a run of eight consecutive world cup appearances.

There were ambitious programs to improve the quality of players through the US Soccer Federation's "Project 2010," which was to try and win the FIFA Men's World Cup by 2010. A tad ambitious and arrogant, but it was an attempt at an aspirational path for the USMNT. The goal was to find and give US men's players the tools to be successful on the field, backed by the Federation's resources.  It was a grand plan, but one that was not able to bear fruit in the way the USSF intended.  Some great players came out of that era (1996-2014): Landon Donovan, perhaps America's greatest ever player, Clint Dempsey, goalkeeper Tim Howard, Jozy Altidore, Steve Cherundolo, Eric Wynalda and Brian McBride are just some of the players who represented the United States. These men's players formed the core of the teams that won regional Gold Cups and competed well in World Cups, thereby winning praise for American soccer from the international community.  Now that most of those players have left, USMNT fans are asking what has happened to the talent pipeline?  The recent results have not been promising as to whether the USSF can work with Major League Soccer (MLS) to find, grow and develop talent for the international stage.

I think this is where the problem really lies.  The USSF has a role to play in ensuring that its most talented players are in the best possible situations with the right clubs to grow and develop (for their own career, as well as the national team) and keep an eye on their progress so that the USMNT coach can select the best players to win international competitions. However, most of the heavy lifting needs to be done by MLS clubs and their technical coaches.  "Soccer" countries that win international trophies tend to be successful because the federations of those countries work in harmony with the clubs of their top-flight leagues.  MLS works with the USSF, but primarily to ensure that its marquee players are chosen for national team duty, and then sell those players and the team to sponsors.  The USSF and MLS simply want to make money. Neither seems to have a pressing interest in finding the best talent or trying to recruit great athletes to play soccer.  Most leagues and teams do, but American soccer, on the men's side, is "behind the 8 ball" if you will. They have to make inroads in player development and technical ability since Latin America, the African continent, Asia and Europe are years ahead in terms of talent acquisition and development than in the United States.

The problem is made worse by the cozy, intertwined, and laden with the conflicts-of-interest relationship between US Soccer, MLS and the marketing and licensing arm of the league, Soccer United Marketing (SUM).  It is a relationship based solely on the ability to generate positive revenue streams for MLS, of which US Soccer gets some remuneration for their joint effort. This presents a serious challenge to find soccer players of quality.  MLS has a salary-cap restricted payroll, which means that most teams have a budget of $4.5 million. That is peanuts compared to the mega-club payrolls in rich European leagues.  However, David Beckham's arrival in 2007 ushered in the "Beckham" rule, which allows teams to sign players to incredibly lucrative contracts, of which a tiny portion counts against the salary cap.  The league office promoted this measure so MLS teams can sign superstars or players whose value was too large for a regular contract.  David Beckham (LA Galaxy), Thierry Henry (NY Red Bulls), Carlos Vela (LAFC), and recently, Zlatan Ibrahimović (LA Galaxy) were players who were signed using this provision.

This is all well and good for visibility, and for corporate and television sponsors, but it does not improve the general theme of what ails the USMNT, which is bonafide American soccer talents plying their trade in the United States, or the top leagues in Europe.  Soccer has always been the sport the middle and upper-middle-classes, whose parents put their kids into it when they start playing sports. Eventually, with boys, there are other well-established sports options (basketball, Little League baseball, Pop Warner football, etc.) that pulls some of the most talented boys away from soccer.  If the sport is to find multiple generational talents, it needs to seek out those players in immigrant communities, especially low-income Hispanic and African-American kids who may not have access to travel teams like wealthy children have, nor the means to pay for playing on teams.  It is known as "Pay for Play," and most of the children who benefit from this concept generally come from wealthy (and generally white) communities across America.  For most of these boys, the goal is to receive a soccer scholarship from a university.  Soccer stars who play in Europe play the sport through various club academies and most come from poor communities throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia and parts of Eastern Europe.  If America is to compete with this process, it has to do more to recruit and retain talented soccer players to go through MLS academies and hopefully make contributions for the club's first team.

Big European clubs (Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Manchester City) are setting up offices in the US, and are hoping to attract new fans and find standout soccer players to move to Europe and gain technical coaching that is required to succeed at the highest level.  Does MLS do this enough? They recently forced all clubs in the league to open academies, but because it is free, and due to various labor laws in the United States, they cannot sign star talents until they are at between 16 and 18 years of age.  In some cases, despite the time, money and effort to groom these players to play in MLS, a handful of rich clubs with global appeal sign these kids to move to Europe.  This is a financial loss for the clubs, who lose any chance to recoup their investment in their kids to stay and play in MLS.  The league is not doing enough and must do more to keep star talents in their own backyard.  This is where the war is lost in trying to compete with soccer nations with rich histories, trophies, and legendary players.  The USSF and MLS must do more to get athletic superstars to play their sport, and part of the failure to draw players is the relatively low salaries of MLS, compared to the riches of Europe.

If MLS is not doing enough, then the USSF cannot do much more than what the league is doing, because national team players have to receive quality training from somewhere. I feel that some MLS owners do not care enough, because the passion for the sport is nowhere near what competitive owners in the British Premier League, Spain's La Liga, Italy's Serie A, France's League One or the German Bundesliga do to seek the world's best talents. If even 40% of owners were passionate about the sport, they would be aggressive in their approach (even with the league office itself), to find ways to mine the country for exceptional talent and find financial compensation to keep many of the players in the United States.  Right now, European leagues have the resources to sign the best talent. MLS does not have the cultural cache, brand awareness or loyalty, or provides an incentive to keep players in the league. Until that changes, I do not see the USMNT contending for any international trophies (outside of regional tournaments).  The Federation, MLS teams and owners must care more, and fans of the men's team must demand more, and show their displeasure with their viewership and dollars.  If that doesn't move either the USSF or MLS to make drastic changes, the USMNT will remain in their rut and will fade into a foreseeable irrelevance. That is not something a fan of the team wants to hear.

Is Tulsi Gabbard the Democratic Party's Enigma?

September 26, 2019

While most of the media focus on the battles between most of the known Democratic aspirants to the White House, very few outlets are spending any time getting to know Tulsi Gabbard, an enigma to the party faithful, but who is an interesting candidate not too many people are talking about.

________________________________

Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), is an enigma in party circles.   Although she has not played any effort in passing noteworthy legislation, she has won some support for bucking the Democratic party at times.  During the 2016 presidential campaign, she went against the DNC and vocally supported Senator Bernie Sanders.  As a result, she was forced out from being a DNC insider and a member of the senior staff itself.  Backers of Hillary Clinton were furious about her open stance for Mr. Sanders. However, she was not afraid of any political blowback.  Even though Clinton secured the nomination, Ms. Gabbard chose to not be ashamed or bullied about her vocal support of the Sanders campaign. I was impressed with her courage, and it showed that she can make her own choices independent of the party establishment.

Tulsi Gabbard was one of the first candidates to declare her candidacy for the White House in 2020.  The national media gave her some exposure but relegated her to the lower tier of candidates.  Her shining moment came in the second official Democratic debate, where she tore into Senator Kamala Harris's record when she was Attorney General of California, specifically her prosecutions of those charged with minor drug offenses, denying bail to those who were not a threat to society, and a host of other opportunities where she had the power to make changes in criminal justice reforms.  The concerted attacks were so effective that to this day, Senator Harris has not recovered from her peak position after attacking Vice-President Biden about his past history relating to forced busing.  Senator Harris has not regained her momentum and has fallen off her trajectory that she now trails upstart Andrew Yang in one poll in her home state.  That is pretty good for a relative unknown.

It is too bad the mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC continue to downplay her candidacy and will not give her more platforms to showcase her policy goals and vision for the country.  One can venture to guess that her positions did not win her any allies amongst the DNC and the leftward media, and her absence on the third debate stage was seemingly due to her numbers in any of the "preferred" national polls that determined the candidates selected for the debate. This despite her meeting several of the "qualifications" which included campaign donor threshold, and position in various polls; even though some of the polling companies were not selected by the DNC's non-transparent determining requirements.

Ms. Gabbard is very vocal of her criticism of President Trump, especially of this support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's bombing campaign against Yemeni rebels, and its bellicose saber-rattling against Iran.  She also supported Senator Sander's position of withholding material and financial aid to Israel due to its intransigence regarding settlements in the West Bank.  This position will not win her any friends within the pro-Israel segments of both parties, which is extremely influential and powerful.  However, if she can continue her momentum despite opposition by well-funded pro-Israel groups, it could put a scare into the coordinated campaign by both the DNC and the media to "select" preferred candidates in the run-up to the Iowa Caucus next February.

I wonder why the Democratic Establishment does not want her to be front and center within the nomination process to choose a nominee to challenge President Trump.  She is of Samoan descent, a convert to Hinduism that has served her country as a member of the Army National Guard and was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait as a medical officer.  She is the first Hindu to serve in Congress.  Ms. Gabbard has an amazing American story, yet the party is not championing her candidacy.  She checks many of the boxes of "intersectionality," which is a combined set of characteristics that would make her popular with the progressive base.

For some reason, she does not have as much support from the Democratic voter as she would like to have.  I don't know if that is because she does not have a large platform from which to espouse her beliefs and policy goals, or that the party's leaders are not excited about her candidacy.  Perhaps they want someone who can assuredly beat Trump, and for many, former Vice President Biden is that person.  I think Mr. Biden has large support due to his positive time as President Obama's valued Vice President.  That has garnered a large percentage of support amongst the party's African American base.  Tulsi Gabbard should be able to make her case to those voters, but perhaps their loyalty to his association with Mr. Obama is what will carry him to the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary.  If Vice President Biden falters, then Elizabeth Warren seems poised to benefit the most, not Ms. Gabbard.

She has some positions that would be popular with many Democrats, including receptiveness to the DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), wanting the United States to move away from the use of fossil fuels, the removal of dark money in politics through campaign finance reform, and criminal justice reform, and as a fierce advocate for anti-interventionist foreign policy, to name a few.  However, some issues that could be the reason for her lack of larger support is that during her time as a Hawaii legislator, she was against gay marriage, an issue that was supported by her father, through the Alliance for Traditional Marriage.  She has since apologized for her previous position, and now supports members of the LGBTQIA community to be able to marry with full federal protections.  Despite this, the gay community, of which Hawaii has a large number of residents and who are part of this constituency, do not want her to win the nomination.  Ms. Gabbard was initially against abortion, and considered herself pro-life, but has now shifted to protecting a woman's right to choose. Feminists do not trust her because she changed her position and feel it could be a political calculation, instead of a passionate position.  Additionally, she has shown support for India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who is a Hindu nationalist.  Christian evangelicals will not support someone who feels a kinship with a leader who has allowed Christians in India targeted by Hindus who do not want the country to protect equal rights and status to those other religious denominations.

Representative Gabbard has many qualities that would make her an effective champion for Democrats in the general election against President Trump.  However, what ultimately defeated Senator Sanders during his run was staunch opposition by mega party donors, superdelegates, covert opposition by the liberal media of CNN, MSNBC, the network news, and bloggers, who ultimately will doom her candidacy too.  Which is sad, since she is one of the true independent voices for progressives, and she is passionate about a new foreign policy for America, one that is prudent, does not promote interventionist wars in the Middle East, and who articulates this as a combat veteran, and also a patriotic woman to boot.  The Democratic party will miss a chance to nominate someone who can make serious change in how the country grows into a mature superpower.  Unless she can win new hearts and minds, now that she has qualified for the fourth Democratic party debate in October.  While enigmas can be a mystery, when they are discovered, they can be powerful and inspiring. Too bad Democrats seem poised to overlook and ignore this interesting political enigma.  It could have been for the best.

Book Review: Justice on Trial (The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court)

August 27, 2019

Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino wrote a powerful book, Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, detailing the controversial and emotionally draining Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.  It was a thorough examination of the contentious hearings and the intense battles revolving around the main protagonists in this drama, Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

________________________

The book provides information and nuggets of interest that give a different perspective about what Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through during the confirmation.  In it,  a considerable section was devoted to providing background on the contentious senate hearings for the confirmation of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, respectively.  The authors believed that the failed confirmation of Robert Bork, who was a distinguished justice, was because he fell on the wrong side of the abortion debate. It was used as a lightning rod to kill his chances of serving on the nation's highest court.  Clarence Thomas was a test subject on a new issue that Democrats used to damage his candidacy, namely sexual harassment.  The star of those hearings in addition to Mr. Thomas was Anita Hill, who was front and center after accusing the justice of years of repeated sexual harassment.  Ms. Hemingway and Ms. Severino believed that those two hearings laid the groundwork for the Kavanaugh hearings, with sexual assault the new issue from which to destroy a conservative justice's chance to serve on the Supreme Court.  

Justice on Trial makes the case that the court was never designed to be a prize for the party that controls the White House.  Its purpose is to simply determine if any legislation is Constitutional or not, a designed check on Congressional overreach. The nine members of the court were never meant to have a starring role. The debate between Americans grew from respectful dialogue about various issues into political warfare to determine how presidents and political parties have a lasting legacy, and it centered on the court's justices to rule on subjects that were important to the parties' supporters.  Since both Republicans and Democrats have issues that are dear to their hearts, confirming of judges for the high court has become a zero-sum game.  For Republicans, it is the belief that the Constitution is not a document that needs a lot of edits and re-writes, and should be protected from constant change.  Conservatives believe that Congress should not pass legislation that alters the Constitution.  If there are changes to the document, it needs to be done through amendments passed through 37 states' ratification. Democrats feel that it is a living and breathing article and that it is designed to be altered to match the evolution of American society.

These competing viewpoints along with the breakdown of political discourse has made the Supreme Court the latest and far-reaching battleground.  The failed Bork and successful Thomas confirmations set the stage for the most divisive and contentious hearings, which the book details.  The idea that a potential Supreme Court justice will have to defend his behavior which involves sexual assault and rape accusations is something that the court and Congress have never dealt with before. The authors wondered if these types of gut-wrenching hearings will put off good jurists from serving on the high court. In the age of social media, anyone with a camera can make something go viral. It presented a new layer in political warfare, at a time when calm and deliberative dialogue was sorely needed.

The book's authors provided a detailed initiative by conservative groups, which included the Federalist Society, a passionate group of legal minds who want to preserve the Constitution and seek federal judges who will protect the "originalism" of the Founders's intent of a limited government and protection of free-market principles. Other prominent groups, such as the Judicial Crisis Network, and prominent member Tom Fitton, coordinated the various conservative groups so that they could present a united front and give Brett Kavanaugh support through media platforms. Carrie Severino, one of the book's authors, works for the organization as well and serves as Chief Counsel and Policy Director.  These groups worked to give supporters of Mr. Kavanaugh background of his legal opinions and prepared the judge for his important day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The first hearing was uneventful, including opening statements and question and answer sessions, except for the protests that delayed Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony.

Justice on Trial described Senator Feinstein's knowledge of a potential witness who made the claims that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in high school and once the name leaked, the revelation caused the confirmation battle to go nuclear.  Ms. Severino and Ms. Hemingway wrote about how the witness's identity and claims were withheld and later leaked to supportive liberal newspapers, and how this put Mr. Kavanaugh's family through trying moments, including liberal activists who attempted to smear the judge's reputation and put enormous pressure on the Committee to vote against his ascension to the court. The Democratic effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh was intense and never seen before. The book gave insight into the war rooms that were run by the conservative groups to give a real-time defense of Mr. Kavanaugh and counter the claims made by the witness, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, her legal counsel and her allies in the Democratic party.  Justice on Trial talked about President Trump's unwavering support who encouraged Mr. Kavanaugh to fight for his reputation. The judge passionately voiced his support for Dr. Ford, but at the same time, gave a powerful testament of his reputation, the way he had lived his life, and how he will uphold the law as it is written.  

I was impressed with the in-depth analysis of what both sides did to prepare, the battles raging with the president's inner circle, including the White House counsel, Don McGahn, who worked hard to defend Judge Kavanaugh. President Trump was adamant that Mr. Kavanaugh defend his honor to the country and wanted his choice to survive the hearings and played a large role in Republicans presenting a united front to secure Judge Kavanaugh's seat.

Ms. Severino and Ms. Hemingway gave some interesting nuggets as well, such as First Lady Melania Trump's doubt regarding the accusation, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley's attempt to keep his colleagues on a respectful and considerate path, while keeping the committee on track for a vote to the full Senate, along with the sex crimes prosecutor hired by Senate Republicans to question Dr. Ford. This was done so that an all-male Republican side of the committee would not have significant loss of public perception, so America could sympathize even more with Dr. Ford, and force Republicans to end the nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh.

Even though the country is immensely divided on many issues, I strongly urge those who want a different perspective on this fight to purchase or read the book.  Despite both authors' conservative leanings, I was impressed with the detail, the intent to interview many players in this drama and create a narrative that would give the reader what all went into the confirmation.  I was interested in the stories of everyone involved, how the Republicans coordinated with the outside groups who were vested in defending the rule of law, the desire by those who knew Brett Kavanaugh protect a judge's reputation (whether or not you agree with Mr. Kavanaugh's character).   One of the casualties of the emotionally draining process was that it could deter brilliant legal minds from public service, something which is sorely needed today. There is no perfect individual for public service. I encourage the reader to evaluate the book on its merits with an open mind. The result will be to gain a new perspective on what we can do better about how we vet and approve nominees to important positions of our government as defined by the Constitution. Choose a fair standard for all to follow. It is good to gather viewpoints from all sides, and that knowledge will help define a comprehensive understanding of what happened and will prepare us for a better future.

Enjoy the book.

What the Impeachment push by Democrats will ultimately produce.

August 1, 2019

The recent testimony by Robert Mueller was supposed to bolster the Democratic party's push to impeach President Trump.  However, based on opinions of those who read the report in the media, especially the conservatives, there was really nothing new to be gained from the hearings. The Democratic plan backfired, and even though the party still pushes impeachment, public opinion on the matter has not moved favorably towards them.

_______________________________

Elements within the media, most notably on the liberal side, promoted the hearings as a surefire way to garner public support to impeach President Trump.  However, Mr. Mueller's testimony was not exactly how the Democratic party wanted it to go. At the hearing, he faltered in finding the specific details in the report, and when asked, he appeared at times to be indecisive.  In fact, the battle lines were already drawn, and members of the House Judiciary Committee asked their questions to Mr. Mueller according to how they wanted to portray the so-called findings.  Democrats asked Mr. Mueller questions trying to lead the witness to provide responses that aligned with their goals.  Republicans asked questions to drive more doubt into what exactly the findings were, and attempted to paint the witness as lacking credibility.

However, to be fair, those who do not like President Trump feel that there is ample evidence to prosecute impeachment.  Those who support Mr. Trump, who have read the Mueller Report, believe there is nothing in the report that can be used to effectively charge and impeach the president.  Where does this lead the country?  Americans at their core, despite their differences with each other, love their country and will never support any president who has shown to betray the country.  If the Democrats get their wish and get to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump, will they be able to sway the country to support a conviction in the United States Senate?  For this to happen, the evidence must be damning and prove without a doubt that President Trump colluded with a foreign power.  Is this the main goal of the Democratic party?

I personally believe that if the Mueller Report provided findings that could paint the Commander-in-Chief as having betrayed the United States, there is no amount of interference the Republicans could throw out that would protect a politically wounded Donald Trump.  The report did not find anything conclusive.  Media members alluded that prospective members of the Trump campaign team were lured into clandestine meetings with Russian intelligence assets.  I say they need absolute proof in order to damage him permanently.  If Articles of Impeachment make allegations of this and can show concretely, intent to obstruct justice or proof that President Trump's campaign team worked with a foreign government, he is toast and could spend the remainder of his life in prison.  On the other hand, if this impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial are politically motivated, then the country will be divided even more. Neither Republicans or Democrats will be encouraged to work with the opposing party, and the government will perpetually grind to a halt, including appropriations (spending) bills. The government will neither have the money, including the Defense Department, and that scenario will embolden China and Russia to flex their muscles on the international stage.  China will work to control the South China Sea, Russia will move to bring Ukraine back into a safe Russian orbit, and also work to openly undermine NATO instead of doing so covertly.  Turkey might be the first domino to fall, especially since the US cut them from the F-35 program after Turkey purchased Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.

Instead of impeachment, my take is that the Democrats should go after President Trump's economic record, and show that the rosy projections the administration is presenting to the country are not as good as they portray.  In terms of jobs, what are the kinds of jobs? Are they well-paying and mid-level management, or are they part-time or seasonal?  If the jobs do not allow Americans a high quality of life, then the Democrats must show they can do better.  On foreign policy, the party must present better leadership regarding the Middle East, stronger force projection against China, and full-throated defense of the strategic NATO alliance.  These things, along with an aggressive attempt to get their own voters to turn out, and to convince independents and moderate Republicans to give up on the president.  This will work out better for the Democrats rather than a hostile and vindictive impeachment trial. Healthcare and immigration are the best bets to provide aspirational changes for most Americans. Additionally, having better healthcare and immigration proposals will put the administration on its heels to come up with something better, or at least make inroads to solving those problems together.

However, I don't think the Democrats are being led by savvy leaders.  Speaker Pelosi wants to retain her speakership, but impeaching President Trump may not protect her position of power if the process backfires again, like the Mueller probe and public hearings.  Senator Schumer of New York is too partisan and doesn't seem like he will help win back the Senate.  The Democrats are better off being the adults in the room and showing the American people that their ideas will improve their lives.  Time will tell if the party comes to its senses.

The Democratic Party Debates...Who Runs the Asylum?

July 23, 2019

The two days of the Democratic Primary debates saw a lot of movement in the polls after the dust settled.  Kamala Harris was the biggest winner, and the primaries are shaping up to be an interesting fight between the various wings of the party and who will determine the party's destiny for the foreseeable future.

__________________________

The first two Democratic debates were the first chance for the country to take a look at the 20 (at the time) candidates who had declared for the White House in 2020.  The first night featured Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker, Bill DeBlasio, John Delaney, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, John Inslee and Tim Ryan.  Of those mentioned, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, and Tulsi Gabbard stood out, at least according to Google searches.  Personally speaking, while Julian Castro won viral moments, I believe Tulsi Gabbard was the best candidate on the stage. She was calm, deliberate and made sound points on the best foreign policy for the United States.  I think Ms. Gabbard came across as the most impressive candidate, but watching on television, I could not wonder if MSNBC was covertly trying to prop up its preferred candidates, Senators Warren and Julian Castro, who got most of the speaking time, while Tulsi was left to speak in short bursts, and was drowned out by audience reactions to obviously rehearsed lines from Mr. Castro and Beto O'Rourke. Additionally, her mike during the debates mysteriously cut off and she was not able to enter into discussions on various topics.  For those scarred by how the DNC handled Bernie Sanders in 2016, it appears nothing has changed.

The second debate featured Marianne Williamson, Oprah's former guru, John Hickenlooper (former Governor of Colorado, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, California Senator Kamala Harris, New York Senator Kristin Gillibrand, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Eric Swalwell.  The frontrunners for this debate were obviously Mr. Biden, Senators Harris, and Sanders. At a distance, Senator Gillibrand was in the picture, but her support is inconsequential at this moment.  Most did not stand out by providing any substantive policy proposals.  Instead, it was risk-averse, bland talking points for the majority in the group on stage. Pete Buttigieg tried to speak about race, but Kamala Harris provided the best moment when she criticized Joe Biden's working relationship in the Senate with two former segregationists.  Senator Biden did his best to work with those he disapproved of and realized during his early years in the Senate that in order to pass legislation that would benefit the American people, he needed to work with members whose beliefs he disagreed with.  This is what most people in the country have to do in their professional lives on a weekly basis.  Senator Harris chastised Mr. Biden for his desire to have a working relationship with those senators who opposed federal busing programs. Ms. Harris said that she benefited from busing, and was one of the first students who was bussed to her school. She even created a hashtag (#thatlittlegirlwasme) that she miraculously made into a t-shirt immediately after the debates.  Total coincidence, right?

I would venture to guess that this exchange was premeditated by Senator Harris since Biden was the front-runner, and she needed a viral moment to gain supporters and move up in the polls. It worked.  Mr. Biden for his part did not react quickly and counter her accusations with a forceful defense of his record on behalf of his constituents, and what he thought he needed to do to benefit the American people.  His clumsiness did not win him any new supporters and seriously challenged his standing atop voter preference.  Some of his major donors have abandoned him.  Democratic party insiders want someone who can be as effective a flamethrower as President Trump, and Mr. Biden did not give primary voters that impression during the night.

The other candidates did not stand out.  There were empty platitudes about embracing immigrants, being closer to American ideals, providing Medicare for All, and other Democratic policies sound nice but require immense taxpayer funding.  We live in an age where extensive follow-up or in-depth analysis about what funding policy requires, or for how long, nor for the term of the funding is never asked.  America is so divided that neither party needs to provide a sound solution for what they oppose.  Republicans want to overturn the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare," but do not give any concrete options that are a better alternative.  Democrats think President Trump colluded with the Russians and overturned vote totals in the last presidential election, but do not provide proof that a crime was committed.  Liberals had pinned their hopes on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, but nothing in the report gave any credence to accusations.  I am not arguing that President Trump is absolved of anything, but is there any evidence that can turn the public mood against the president, which can be used to impeach and convict him?

If the Democrats do not get their act together and nominate someone (Tulsi Gabbard in my opinion)  who can wither President Trump's barbs and nicknames and effectively counter his bluster with popular and pragmatic solutions to the nation's ills, Donald Trump will get re-elected easily. Ms. Gabbard has "the right stuff," and has a good sense of America's military role in the world is (nation-building should not be its central purpose).  Additionally, I think she can handle his zingers and affinity for nicknames for his opponents.  I am confident she will give it back to President Trump and will not cower under the pressure in the presidential debates.  Unfortunately, the Democratic party's key donors have not given her fundraising dollars, part of that I believe is to wait and see which White House aspirant shows some serious mettle. The other idea is that most of the money people within the Democratic party want an insider who can effectively win back the White House.  For many of them, Mr. Biden is the preferred choice. Senator Harris has potential, however, but she has a lot of baggage that no one has brought forth into the discussion, nor has she made proposals that the country can get behind. How she handles this pressure will determine if her recent surge will morph into a tidal wave towards the nomination.

As of now, the Democratic party does not have a message that will rally their base but also win new fans from Republicans and independents. Will the inmates still run the Democratic asylum or will the party head to the wilderness for the foreseeable future?

Women's World Cup 2019

July 2, 2019

The world converges once again to celebrate the sport of soccer, this time for the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup. After three weeks, the tournament has concluded the Group Stage, Round of 16 and Quarterfinal matches and this week determines which teams will play for the Final on July 7th.

__________________________

Quarterfinals

England v Norway (3-0)

Even though England had won all of their group games, I thought this round was going to be a tougher challenge than their Round of 16 game against Cameroon (3-0).  However, England came out on firing on all cylinders and the Norwegians did not really answer the initial goal and were decisively beaten by England, 3-0. I expected the Norwegians to win, primarily because they looked good in their three group games (including a 2-1 loss to France), and felt they had the players to advance to the Final.  They are a young team and have the right pieces to mount serious challenges to future World Cups. What is impressive with the English team is that it has conceded just one goal this tournament by Scotland in the group stage. I was impressed with their grit, and now feel they might be able to put up a better challenge to the United States than France.

United States v France (2-1)

This was billed as the de facto World Cup final, in which the tournament's two highest-profile and heavy favorites played each other.  This was expected to be a close and hard fought game, and it lived up to its billing.  The US took a 2-0 lead, and during the 2nd half, France started to tire and the United States was in command, both in terms of possession and controlling the pace of the game.  It was not until the 80th minute that French defender Wendy Renard scored a header on a set piece, and cut the US lead to just one goal (2-1).  Unfortunately, the host country could not mount any serious challenges save for a few close calls on the US goal, but none went in.  Megan Rapinoe, who I believe is the best player of this tournament, scored two goals, which matched her two goals (both penalties) in the Round of 16 game against Spain.  She is the most important player if the United States hopes to repeat as World Cup champions.  Alex Morgan, the talented and popular striker on the team, has been absent for most of the games after the 13-0 Thailand massacre.  I  assume she is hurt and is not playing well due to an undisclosed injury.  Hopefully, she will bounce back in the next two games.

Germany v Sweden (1-2)

I was absolutely shocked that Germany lost this game. Sweden looked very unimpressive in their only difficult game, against the United States in the group stage, where they lost 2-0.  Germany was one of the teams I felt could hold their own with the powerful US squad, and it was reinforced with the Germans not conceding a goal in this World Cup.  I expected Sweden to put up a fight, but eventually lost to the Germans.  The game was pretty even throughout, and the Swedes did not falter under pressure after the Germans opened the scoring and held a 1-0 lead. It was short-lived, and the Swedish women answered with their own scoring to tie the game just before halftime.  In the second half, the Germans missed several opportunities to take the lead. The Swedes were patient and waited for the right chance to score another goal, after which they never relinquished their lead.  The Swedes did not play all their starters in their loss to the United States, which I read on media websites was on purpose.  The coach felt that the US was going to win their group, and as a result, would be in the tougher half of the tournament bracket.  I guess his strategy paid off, since the Swedish team is now in the Semi-Final, against a tough Dutch team.  If the Swedish women can get by the high-scoring Oranje, it will set up a mouth-watering final against their new rivals in international soccer, the United States, the reigning world champions.

Italy v Netherlands (0-2)

The Italians were one of the feel-good stories of this World Cup. It was 20 years since the Italian women last made a World Cup, and they certainly made an impression.   They shocked Australia in their first group game.  The Matildas were one of the pre-tournament favorites, with striker Sam Kerr leading their attack.  She scored 5 goals in the tournament, but she did not play well in their loss to the Italians.  Group C turned out to be the best group, with Italy, Brazil, and Australia each earning 6 points.  Since the Italians owned the tiebreaker due to their win over Australia, they won the group and defeated China in the Round of 16.  I felt they were the better team going into their match against the Netherlands, despite the Dutch being in command of each of their games during the group stage.  I was pulling for the Italians, however, because they were an entertaining group of players.  However, in the Quarterfinal, the Netherlands played extremely well.  The Italians had a few chances to score, but could not put it past the Dutch keeper.  The Netherlands were in control for most of the game and scored both of their goals off headers from set pieces.  This is the Netherlands' first time making the World Cup Semifinals, and their large number of fans who travel will be a huge system of support for their next game.


Semifinal Match-Ups

United States v England

This game will be fun. Both countries have long and historical ties with each other, and the English recently beat the United States in a friendly tournament that is held annually in the US, the SheBelieves Cup, which England won as well.  The Lionesses were a disastrous own goal from making the final of the 2015 World Cup in Canada, and they are playing to prove they belong amongst the world's elite national teams.  Although I had initially felt the Norwegians would prove to be the better team in their Quarterfinal matchup, England never let Norway back into the game after scoring their first goal.  The final goal (3-0), a screamer from Lucy Bronze, was an exclamation point to English aspirations to bring a World Cup back to the country that invented the sport. The United States has made their 8th straight Semifinal appearance, which is a record for any team, men's or women's.  Outside of the decisive victories in their group games, the US women have not been impressive in their advancement through the knock-out rounds.  They barely escaped Spain, courtesy of two penalties, one of which was dubious, but nonetheless, they made it past the up-and-coming Spanish women.  Their victory against the French was decisive, but I think it was more due to the French wilting under the enormous pressure (which for them is par for the course) playing in front of their home fans and for the massive implications for French women's football to win the World Cup on home soil.

The English will prove to be a better test since they are hungry to prove they are an elite squad.  Their backline will give the American women a stiffer test, and the front six of England will be eager to attack a weak defense of the United States.  Not to mention the Ameican keeper, Alssya Naeher, who has not been tested too much, and her play does not give anyone confidence she can handle the kind of pressure that is required for the final four of the tournament.  If the English can put shots on target, I think they can score and give the US women a serious challenge to repeat.  Victory is possible, but the Lionesses will have to play the game of their lives.  Are they up to the massive implications of this game?

* Prediction: USA 2, England 1

* This post was uploaded after the game (even though I predicted the correct score!), and Alyssa Naeher did block a PK, so she proved her worth in the game after all.  


Netherlands v Sweden

This game was a match-up that I did not foresee happening at this stage of the World Cup.  I felt the Netherlands would get out of their group, but would eventually lose to Italy in their Quarterfinal match.  However, after Sweden's surprise triumph over the Germans, I have a newfound respect for the Swedish ladies. The game was very much controlled by the Swedes and the Germans could not mount any serious scoring opportunities, save for a few close calls at the end of the match.  There were some good passing exchanges between the Germans, but the Swedish ladies controlled the pace and rhythm of the action. I thought the Italians would come out exerting pressure, but most of the top scorers could not make a dent in the backline of the Netherlands team.  Perhaps the gravity of the world stage got to the Italian team, and they could not overcome nerves.  One will never know.  On the positive side, if the Italians can build on their World Cup run, it could bode well for future generations of Italian women's football.  I for one am rooting for them and expect great things from this team in the future.

This Semi-final appears to be the game that could go either way.  The Swedes are good team, but they do not have anyone that I can recall who puts a scare in a defense.  They might have to score on set pieces close to the goalie box or wait patiently for a counterattack that will catch the Dutch off guard.  The Swedish ladies cannot afford to be listless like they were against the United States especially against a team with a bevy of goal scorers who are capable of putting balls in the back of the net.  They have to be aggressive, confident and must make use of any scoring opportunities. Based on what I have seen, I think this game will come down to Extra Time, where the Netherlands will get the lone goal that will see them advance to the Final, against the United States.

Prediction: Netherlands 2, Sweden 0

Culture Wars Redux: Abortion is Front and Center Again

June 16, 2019

With the recent abortion bills signed into law in Alabama and Missouri, will this be a huge issue in the 2020 election?   

______________________________

Two states have recently passed anti-abortion laws that prevent the termination of a pregnancy if a fetal "heartbeat" can be detected.  Alabama recently signed their bill into state law by Governor Kay Ivey, and it is the most restrictive bill that makes it criminal for any physician or abortion-care provider to perform an abortion.  Missouri did so as well, just a week or so after Alabama, but it was less restrictive. This is in addition to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used to provide for abortions except in the case of rape and incest. For most voters in the United States, abortion is not the single most pressing issue they worry about.  Having a good economy with stable jobs to support their families is the topic that matters most.  So why the sudden decisions to sign these bills into law?  For religious conservatives and "pro-life" supporters, ending the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, which protects medical privacy in relation to abortion, is paramount.  Their argument underlines the belief that babies have no one to protect them, so those conservatives work to protect life itself.  Proponents of pro-choice policies feel that conservatives are just using the court's ruling and abortion itself as a way to police a woman's sex life.  By making abortion illegal, women will think twice about having sex lest they have to bring an unwanted child to term. In effect, freedom for consequence-free sex becomes an obstacle to a woman's quality of life.

A woman should have the choice to determine if she wants to keep a baby or not.  Once the baby is born into the world, what support systems do the mother and the new child have? Certainly, having access to affordable child care and post-natal services are not available to all women. It is not easy to raise a child, let alone by a single parent or mother and especially if that woman is poor, young and lacks any financial resources. Parents who resent their children for impacting their lives can have adverse effects on everyone involved.  It leads to mental health issues and untold consequences, poor relationship choices (for women, staying with an abusive partner) or with men, using violence as a means to deal with issues relating to the relationship with one or both parents.  I don't think it is as simple as "protecting life," as conservatives feel. This issue is far more complex than people acknowledge.

A recent documentary by CNN showcased the abortion debate and provided some in-depth analysis.  The primary focus was about reproductive rights and reproductive justice. The show touched on the idea that the welfare of the mother is equally important, providing women with the necessary support system for either delivering a baby or terminating a pregnancy. Hardships women face in the contentious conflict between the powerful pro-life forces and those passionate about a woman's choice in the matter was discussed in a thought-provoking way.

In this debate, few people shed light on the immense societal and cultural difficulties affecting sexual behavior in women. The burden is on them to absorb the fallout of an unplanned pregnancy.  For a fair and inclusive debate, men must be included regarding their roles as well.  For those women who want to keep their pregnancies, proper care and health for the mother are necessary.   Planned Parenthood provides screening for sexually transmitted infection (STI), cancer and sex education.  Anna Corbin on Twitter found that infant mortality rates and maternal mortality decreased in states that expanded Medicaid, and rose in states that did not. Governing.com provided information that of nine states which passed abortion-restricted bills this year, five had chosen not to expand access to Medicaid.  Having affordable and easy access to quality health care is important, and conservative states that turned down this expansion is proof that the health of the mother and child were not a priority.  If women do not have those health care choices, options for them include emergency contraception, or "Plan B."  However, in order for those drugs to be safe and effective, the person using it needs to be under medical supervision.  Without proper physician oversight, Plan B drug use can lead to bleeding, infections, later infertility, and even death.

I believe it is best to keep this personal decision to have a baby between both adults, with the final say with the woman who has to care for the healthy pregnancy. Abortion should be performed as a safe, timely and medically supervised option for women, but I also feel that society must provide women quality of life options (sex education, access to good health care) to prevent unwanted children.  If a woman makes the choice to bring a new child into her family or her life, there must be resources available for proper education, prenatal care and opportunity to nurture that life.  If access to health care is removed, it will create an unhealthy future for the mother and the child.  I know religious conservatives will not favor it, but unless there is a financial and mental health support system for the mother for the life they care so much about, it is unconscionable to force women to care for a life they do not want.

Are Uber and Lyft IPOs really worth the ride?

May 10, 2019

Popular rider share companies, Lyft and Uber, recently went public to great fanfare over the past month.  Lyft, after a successful opening, saw their share price drop so much that it does not reflect investor confidence in its business model. Uber, which is a bit more popular and has branched out into food delivery and luxury driver service, has seen their share price drop as well. Are these companies worth investor belief in their futures?

__________________________

Lyft and Uber have been two of the most anticipated Initial Public Offerings (IPO) for this calendar year.  Lyft saw 70 million shares change hands on its first day of trading as a public company in March 2019, and it currently sits at a valuation of roughly $23 billion, with shares close to $72 per share. Its value has dropped close to 30% after its first day.  I am not surprised by this since it reported a loss of $800 million in 2018.  It is the second largest ride-sharing company (behind tech titan Uber), and investors seem to think it will eventually mature and become a successful company.  Some analysts provide Amazon as an example of a company that didn't turn a profit for almost a decade before becoming the juggernaut it is today, with close to processing 50% of all online purchases.  That is mind-boggling.

Investors see value in Lyft and Uber and believe that they will turn into profitable companies.  Lyft has been known to offer cheaper rides than its rival and has benefited from the stumbles of its much larger competitor, as for instance when founder Travis Kelanick was alleged to have fostered a hostile workplace environment. In addition, Uber has a similar reputation for its treatment of its drivers, along with rider safety issues.  Lyft has a smaller market share of roughly 40% and operates mainly in the United States and Canada, while Uber operates around the world.

Uber filed for its public offering in the middle of April and went public today, May 10, 2019.  As of this writing, the stock price traded below ($41.50) the IPO price of $45 and closed 7% below its market value, and investors and analysts currently value it at $76 billion. The company took in close to $11 billion in revenue for 2018, and has a 60% market share, is better known and used more than its competitor in many countries.   Investors could be more bullish on Uber because it is a larger and more visible company.  Others may invest in the hopes that it stabilizes after going public with its stock offering.  However, signs show that perhaps the smart money is still a hedge on your bets because revenue growth has slowed, along with fierce competition from ride-sharing and taxi company rivals in other countries.  Also, it is less likely that the company will be profitable in the short-term (and long-term is cloudy as well).  There are proposals to turn Uber's drivers into actual employees of the ride-share company, which is vehemently opposed by the company's leadership, which could make it even harder to show a profit.  As of their market introduction, Uber did not offer any sort of stock options for their drivers, who are contract workers, and thus ineligible. On the first day of trading, Uber drivers staged a protest to bring attention to these and other work conditions.

What is the viability of these companies?  Initial public offerings do bring out cheerleading from analysts on CNBC and Bloomberg, but I expect immense problems ahead.  Waymo (a division of Google's parent company, Alphabet) are working on driverless cars.  Will these challenges from their rivals eat into the business model?  Financial reports have stated that Waymo algorithms and software is way ahead of Uber and Lyft, and could pose enough of a threat for the viability of those ride-share companies. Experts in the financial services industry and Wall Street feel that the business goals of these large companies amount to projections and "hopes" that their models will show increased revenue and will prove to be a good investment.

In the so-called "gig" economy, where there are opportunities for citizens to bring in additional revenue to their primary jobs, it does seem an option, but may not be popular for society at large.  Mileage and vehicle maintenance will affect driver overhead, and tips may not be consistently large enough to make this a permanent job.  There are numerous articles providing statistics that independent contractor jobs will be more prevalent in the future, despite the fact that companies these folks work for may never turn a profit.  I believe many of the jobs created by the American economy that Presidents Obama and Trump herald tend to be freelance, temporary and part-time.  Ride-share jobs do not allow people to earn an actual living wage but provide an opportunity to make a little extra money in addition to their primary jobs. Will this be the future that America's powerful economy will turn, and will it be good for the country? I doubt with this type of income, Americans will be able to buy homes, cars and other items that increase their quality of life.

If autonomous cars become a regular thing on city streets, it will lead to slower and more burdensome traffic in major transportation areas. Interaction between driverless cars and human drivers will not make traffic better, but worse. At the present time, the goal is to reduce cars and their resulting congestion on the road, which presumably will reduce smog and pollution.  The Canadian town of Innisfil (a suburb of Toronto) attempted to "Uberize" its public transportation system and took notes on its benefit to see how it played out.  It seemed successful initially, with most drivers and passengers providing positive feedback.  The city eventually had to raise fares by $1 and put a cap of 30 rides per month per user to reduce congestion. Review by one of the city's leaders felt that though this experiment was a net positive, it could not be a substitute for a well-designed, efficient public transportation system.  Uber and Lyft may read the tea leaves and tout this as an example of the benefits of ride-sharing, but I doubt that mega cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, and Boston will be able to completely replace taxpayer public transportation systems.

These companies and the autonomous driving cars of Wymo believe that replacing personal trips with other ride-share cars will make commuting better. Investors believe that a decrease in owning cars will fuel these companies' financial growth. Even though I like meeting people, I don't want to get to know my neighbors by sitting in their cars frequently while traveling to meet up with friends. I am uncertain if investors will continue to contribute their money to companies that do not alleviate traffic all that much. If they do, they are taking a massive gamble that ride-sharing will make mobility in cities much better.  Time will tell if the ride-share method Uber and Lyft of getting around cities will pay off in the long-term.  Will investors stay for the ride?

_____

* Please check out an article in National Review ( JAMES P. SUTTON, July 12, 2019) that touched on this subject as well.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/uber-and-lyft-bubbles-about-to-burst/

Are the Golden State Warriors the Greatest Dynasty Ever?

April 24, 2019

The Golden State Warriors are cruising along in the NBA Playoffs yet again.  The team is on pace to make its 4th consecutive Finals, and have won 3 of those (and two in a row).  Are they team to beat again?

[Update:  'The Greatest Dynasty Ever' lost to the Toronto Raptors, in the NBA Finals, 4 games to 2, so my declaration just took a major hit!  Oh well.  Enjoy the article, nevertheless.  - Hof7G].
__________________________

Will Steph Curry, the greatest shooter of the modern era, along with Klay Thompson, Draymond Green and Kevin Durant win their 3rd title in a row?  Even though Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls won three consecutive titles twice (6 overall), I think these Warriors are the greatest dynasty in the NBA's history.  What is the reason for this opinion?  The team has basically assembled one of the most amazing arrays of talent in the modern era (1980 - Present). The Showtime Lakers, the Jordan Bulls, the Kobe/ Shaq Lakers and the quiet era of the San Antonio Spurs were all fabulous teams, but none have the talent level of the current Warriors.  Magic Johnson's Laker teams had great talent, but they had to work hard for every title. Additionally, the basketball talent in the '80s was fairly distributed amongst good teams (Mark Aquirre in Dallas, Doctor J in Philadelphia, Isiah Thomas in Detroit, Eric Sleepy Floyd in Golden State, Ralph Sampson in Houston and Larry Bird, Dennis Johnson and Kevin McHale with the Celtics, etc.).  The '80s Lakers won 5 titles, played in 8, the Celtics won 3 and played in 4, and the Detroit Piston won back to back titles in '89 and '90 to close out the glorious decade.  

The 1990s belonged to Michael Jordan, and there was no one close, even though the Houston Rockets and their fans could fervently protest, with their two titles.  The Chicago Bulls of that decade were superb, but that was due to Jordan standing out on a team with Scotty Pippen, Bill Cartwright, Steve Kerr and Tony Kukoc playing strong roles on the team as well.  The 21st Century saw the Lakers return to the pinnacle of the sport with their 5 titles, while the San Antonio Spurs, Boston Celtics, and LeBron James's Cavaliers providing noble champions too.

However, this incarnation of the Warriors has so much generational talent, I feel they play the regular season on cruise control, putting out a minimal effort because most of their games are never in doubt.  The analysts on ESPN and TNT make a fuss when the team loses a game by a significant amount, or they lose a few games in a given two-week span.  I think they just do not have the attention span to care about most of their games, due to the obscene level of play by Steph Curry, Durant, Thompson, and Green when they are on the floor together. Not to mention that the very long season requires resiliency. The Warriors have it. The team does what it needs to do to secure a high seed in the playoffs and then takes care of business against the teams in the Western Conference and the sacrificial lamb that is provided by Eastern Conference.  Their only blemish during their current reign was losing a Finals series when they were up 3 games to 1 and saw Lebron James use his power to will the Cavaliers to their lone title in 2017.  This year's team so far has defeated the Los Angeles Clippers this week, 4 games to 2. The last time they lost two games in a series was in the 2016 Finals, which Lebron and the Cavaliers won. It sets up a mouth-watering second-round series against the Houston Rockets.  The Warriors should win this series as well, but James Harden and Chris Paul should play well.  The conference finals should see the Warriors play the strong Denver Nuggets or the Portland Trail Blazers (although I think the Blazers are the hotter team) but Denver won a "death match" series, 4-3, over the resurgent Spurs Saturday night. They have the momentum to have an advantage against the Blazers and their red hot duo of Damian Lillard and Enes Cantor. This series against the Blazers should give the Warriors a good test, but I think the weapons Golden State has will provide the necessary ability to close this series out.

I think the Celtics will overcome the Milwaukee Bucks (over 7 games) in the Eastern Conference Semi-Finals.  While my heart would love to see the Bucks make it past the Celtics, I believe the Celtics are better equipped to make the conference finals. I am confident the Celtics will also beat a tough Toronto Raptors team.  This Raptors team is different from years past, and they are good enough to make the Finals, but again the superb coaching and Celtics players will put them through.

The last two will be the Golden State Warriors and the Boston Celtics. This NBA Finals will be the series which determines the Golden State Warriors' destiny.  If they can dispatch a well-led, talented and mature Celtics team, then the Warriors can rightly claim the title of the NBA's greatest team.  This is the last stand of the current lineup for Golden State since there are strong rumors that Kevin Durant will leave and head to New York and play for the Knicks.  With the amount of talent the Warriors have, their record of 4 titles in 5 years, plus having the league's best win-loss record a few years ago, Golden State can lay claim to the NBA's best team, all-time.  It will be bittersweet since this year could also be the last time we see the Warriors in their current line-up before major stars depart for greater pastures.  Enjoy watching this great team while everyone can.

Tiger Roars Again at the 2019 Masters

April 14, 2019

(Updated from a previous blog post on 8/16/18)

The conclusion of the latest edition of the 2019 Masters golf tournament saw a very familiar and popular face, Tiger Woods, win the tournament.  I recently wrote about Tiger's very good year in 2018 and thought he may able to gain some success before he fades into the Twilight.  Did his destiny change after Sunday?

Tiger's recent win at the 2019 Masters tournament in Augusta, Georgia showed the familiar signs of the previous early century reign of Mr. Woods: lurking close to the top of the leader board, his peers lacking the mental toughness to close out simple putts, hearing the massive roars of the gallery to let them know golf's last remaining titan was closing in on them. Tiger also gave every indication that his hallmarks of success included a laser-like focus on the job at hand, slowly closing in on his competitors, an ability to make putts and protect his long game effortlessly.  When I paid close attention to the sports pages and the news on Sunday, I saw familiar things like the collapse of his opponents, and the general fear when those who have a chance to close out a major tournament with Tiger in contention, cannot, and succumb to the Tiger Woods aura.  In the end, everyone knows who is going to win.  That is part of the Woods Legend. His record when he is tied for the lead, or leading in any major tournament is a mind-blowing 14-1.  How many golfers are that automatic when leading or have a share of the lead?   Simply put, Tiger Woods is the greatest closer in the world in golf and no one will touch that record for some time. Perhaps ever. There may be another shooting star that captures the public's mind, but I doubt he will ever be this good on the last day of a major tournament.

Polarized America: Why demonization of others is harmful

March 21, 2019

The news stories of Jussie Smollett and his fake hate crime accusation and former Coast Guard employee planning a mass murder plot shows America needs to stop demonizing those who have different viewpoints of our country.  It will lead to violence.  

___________________________________

The election of 2016 and its effects was the first major battle about the major divisions within the United States.  For liberals and Democratic voters, Donald Trump's shock victory led to immense anger.  From the moment President Trump took the oath of office, half the country (at least what the media portrayed) wanted to see the new president impeached for a variety of reasons.  His supporters, who sometimes wear the now infamous red "Make America Great Again" hats, are public enemy number one with those who dislike the President.  Trump supporters wear the hats as a badge of honor and pride, and in some cases, use it to trigger immense emotions of Democrats in my opinion.  Several events over the past few months have brought this anger and vitriol towards those who wear the MAGA hats.

The first was the incident at the Lincoln Memorial, where boys from an all-boys school in Kentucky, Covington Catholic, were seen congregating at the memorial, while a militant group, the Black Israelites, started to spew invective towards them. During the event, a former military veteran, who was also a Native American, approached one student banging a drum, allegedly trying to defuse the situation.  The media picked up on one particular student, Nick Sandmann, who stood still and smiled while the veteran, Nathan Phillips, sang and chanted at Mr. Sandmann.  National media ran with this story, especially the so-called liberal media, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times and commented on the arrogance of the MAGA student.  He was vilified in the press and was appropriated as the face of arrogant Trump supporters.  Celebrities on Twitter condemned him to a representative of white supremacy. Some implied that those who knew where he lived or see him in public punch him in the face.  

Mr. Sandmann did not make any rude comments, or tried to goad Mr. Phillips into a confrontation, but simply stood and smiled.  Liberals took that smile as simple arrogance and a proxy for the extreme views of a tiny segment of those who support President Trump.  It painted a young man as an enemy of all that is good, at least amongst liberals.  Nathan Phillips was portrayed in a sympathetic and heroic light and was painted as a sympathetic figure fighting Trump voters. It was later found out that Mr. Phillips was mischaracterized as having deployed overseas during the Vietnam conflict when in fact he was just active duty in the Marine Corps.  This was overlooked in an effort by certain media outlooks to paint Mr. Phillips in a heroic light when "fighting" bigotry with the Covington Catholic kids.  CNN and MSNBC wanted to create a sympathetic figure in Mr. Phillips while portraying the mostly white students as the aggressors (some reports alleged the boys did not act the angelic part either earlier in the day, to be fair).

Jussie Smollett is a bit character on a Lee Daniel's produced show on Fox, called "Empire."  It was a huge hit for the network, but the numbers over the last few weeks have seen viewership decline, including after Jussie was alleged to have created the incident himself.  In February of this year, it was reported that while Mr. Smollett was walking home after picking up a Subway sandwich, he was attacked by two men wearing MAGA hats, shouting racial and gay slurs while he was fighting them off.  Additionally, he reported that one of them put a noose around his neck, details which further inflamed people who heard about it.  After an investigation by the Chicago Police, it was determined that Jussie Smollett created the scenario and got two Nigerian immigrant brothers to commit the attack on himself, primarily because of an alleged letter sent to Fox Studios (where the show is produced) threatening him with violence. It is alleged Mr. Smollett sent the letter himself as well. He was angry about a lack of response and assumed he was of no value to the show since he did not command a high salary.  Many Democrats and liberal media political pundits poured gasoline on the fire, and it seemed they relished with glee that this happened to an African-American actor, and the assailants were the new enemy of the progressive left, white men wearing MAGA hats.  Once it was found out that the alleged attack was not real (some say hoax, but a trial will ultimately determine that), many progressives, including the media did not apologize and kept even a small hope that Mr. Smollett will be proven right.

Coast Guardsman Paul Hasson was arrested once it was found out he was making racist and white supremacist diatribes online for years and was caught by someone within the Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C. where he worked who tipped off the FBI about his posts.  The FBI raided his house and found out he had stockpiled numerous weapons for a predetermined attack on society, where he had hoped to kill hundreds of people.  Federal prosecutors alleged he was amassing weapons since 2017 and planned on assassinating prominent Democratic lawmakers, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Kamala Harris and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and additionally members of the media from MSNBC and CNN.  I no doubt believe he was motivated by the hostility many Americans show towards those whose political views differ sharply from their neighbors, friends, and co-workers. There are some Trump supporters who use the polarizing president as an excuse to commit violence.  While I feel that does not reflect the many of the president's supporters, this type of behavior by a small few should be prevented at all costs.  Most importantly, we as citizens should speak out against it whenever it happens. Americans need to be vigilant and report suspicious behavior to their local law enforcement, or the FBI. Many of us who care about courteous and passionate political discourse would want those who wish to harm others arrested and prosecuted by law enforcement and the judicial branch.

These specific instances were discussed because of the challenging times during the Trump Administration.  Politics has become more savage, and attacks against current legislators, especially potential candidates have become exponentially worse.  These three examples of how dangerous American democracy has changed the way we talk to, and about each other.  With the Covington kids, there were celebrities tweeting about literally punching Mr. Sandmann if anyone were to see him in person.  This is a high school kid, who was caught in the political crossfire and some progressives wanted to make an example of him, simply because he resembled a typical young Trump fan. More importantly, it seemed Leftists (militant liberals) wanted him to become what they hated about Trump fans (who are predominately white, I presume) and hoped to exercise their anger at them.

It was similar to those same progressives and Leftists who thought the Jussie Smollett attack was real. There is some serious anger by progressives at those who voted for and continue to support President Trump, and incidents with the preferred villains are cause for spouting vitriol and at times, violence against fellow Americans.  On the other side, Paul Hasson, the Coast Guard officer who wanted to actually commit violence against liberals is treated much the same way by militant supporters of the president.  If he was not caught, one cannot imagine the carnage he might have caused.  I wanted to bring up these examples of how angry the country's citizens are at each other.  The Civil War had its beginnings with similar opposition amongst Americans to see the humanity in each other (notwithstanding those Africans in bondage who were brought over from the west coast of the African continent).

Democracies must find a way to bridge conflicting viewpoints and try to compromise on some level.  Our Constitution's Founders wanted the American experiment to feature divided government and with its implications for elected legislators to work out policy between the opposing viewpoints. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, in that we elect our leaders, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect the rights of all, against a tyranny of the majority.  As a nation, we are hurtling towards serious conflict.  There are blogs and message boards discussing a 2nd Civil War.   This kind of talk is shameful. Armed conflict will ruin any chance this country has of healing and working out differences in a humane way.  One of the goals of the Christchurch shooter was to cause mayhem between "civilized" whites of European descent and ethnic minorities in most Western-style countries.  I would hope calmer heads will prevail and get people to recognize that we all have different opinions about issues that are of importance and a better way awaits those who are brave enough to find it.

Democrats 2020 Field: How do the candidates shape up?

February 20, 2019

The Democratic Primary field is off to a running start.  What are the chances of those who have announced to take on President Donald Trump that can actually win?

______________________________

So far the Democrats' nomination campaign for Armageddon (2020) has started, and it has not been boring.  A large number of Democrats or those who lean Democratic have thrown their hat into the three-ring circus that is a Presidential Primary.  The first few who have announced formally include California Senator Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, former Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, New York Senator Kristin Gillibrand, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, former Maryland Congressman John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg, South Bend Indiana's current mayor, and Oprah's former advisor Marianne Williamson.  That is a big group, but it stands to get much bigger, especially if former New York Mayor and founder of Bloomberg News Michael Bloomberg and current mayor Bill de Blasio enter the race.  As of February 19th, Senator Bernie Sanders has made a formal announcement that he will run again, and he is going to get a lot of press like he did last time in 2016.  One of the new requirements the Democratic party initiated after 2016 was that anyone who runs as a Democrat must be a registered Democrat in order to enter their primaries.  This could be known as the "Bernie Rule." Former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden has not declared as of yet, but if he does, he, along with Senators Sanders and Harris will be three of the most followed candidates.  Polling shows that those three garner the most interest, but time will tell if anyone breaks away from the pack.

Most are very liberal, but Mr. Bloomberg ran New York City as a Republican.  He has enormous wealth from which to gain media support and an ability to create an effective network of offices in every state. Once the official DNC debates kick off in the middle of the year, more candidates will make it hard for a particular candidate to stand out and get increased public support.  I think many Democrats will want Mr. Bloomberg to challenge President Trump, simply because of his large personal wealth to find information on Mr. Trump that the media has not been able to discover to use against him. In addition, Mayor Bloomberg has the confidence to throw whatever insults President Trump hurls at him with equal gusto.  If he declares his intent, he must leave the gate running and have the essential elements in place to ward off any serious challengers.

Of the Senate Democrats who have announced so far, Senators Harris and Gillibrand have the most visibility, due in part to being senators from two high profile states with large and prominent media markets.  As such, the DNC would prefer that one of them locks up the nomination early, thereby avoiding the problems Hillary Clinton had in dispatching Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in 2016, who despite his underdog status won 20 primaries and close to 16 million votes.

Although the DNC is not making it obvious, I personally believe that the Democrats would like Senator Harris, with her biracial background, from the donor and electoral vote-rich state of California, to win the Democratic nomination running away before any serious challenger can gain any momentum.  She spent time as the District Attorney for the city of San Francisco, California's Attorney General and is currently the junior senator from California.  There was a recent online column by former Assembly Speaker and Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown, who detailed being her mentor and having dated her in the '90s while Ms. Harris was given prominent and well-paying city commissions to propel her political career.  Some might say talking about this time in her life is sexist, but if you were given a leg up in your career by someone who you had dated, it is fair game to talk about it, but it should not diminish any of her accomplishments and rise through the ranks in the state. Senator Harris has declared her support for Medicare for All, something progressives are clamoring for, along with her interest in Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal initiative.  These are obvious plays for Democratic primary support, but other candidates have stated their endorsements of these ideas too.  Ms. Harris must show detailed policy proposals that will help gain interest in her candidacy. Character and ethics are part of the audition for becoming President of the United States, so Ms. Harris should not shy away from stating her case and include things that the public might have questions about, including her personal life.  If she can handle it well the voters will be impressed, and her front-runner status will be cemented.

Senator Gillibrand is also from a valuable voter-rich state, one with media, finance and a large film and television industries from which to draw large contributions.  She could make life difficult for Senator Harris.  Ms. Gillibrand is a well known and prominent feminist and she will gather a lot of votes from Hillary voters in New York, who would like to see New York make history sending the first woman to the White House.  However, I don't see Senator Gillibrand with the needed gravitas to fight off serious challengers.  Even though she is an accomplished lawyer, and has spent a good amount of time in the House and Senate, I don't see her overcoming the financial and popular support Senator Harris will bring with her during the primary fight that will sure to come. Not to mention she was a lawyer representing Phillip Morris during the Clinton Administration's legal fight against the tobacco companies, and her law firm's infamous client, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Her voting record in the House was markedly different from her liberal record in the Senate. Debates can be where campaigns are won and lost, and where momentum is generated the most, but I don't see Senator Gillibrand being able to win those with the baggage of her prior House votes and her legal career prior to politics.

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota will come into the race from the coveted geographical region of the Midwest, an area that the Democrats need in order to win back the White House. Hillary Clinton lost parts of that region, winning only Illinois and Minnesota, but losing Ohio and Michigan.  Even though she has a warm, on-air personality, there have been recent stories in the Huffington Post, Vanity Fair and a few other publications who detail her difficult and unduly demanding treatment of her staff. Additionally, I do not know or recall any prominent piece of legislation she shepherded through the Congress that passed and was of some benefit to the American people.  Despite this, the country is at a time when having no serious accomplishments in the Senate (or elected public service for that matter) has any bearing on whether a person can be taken seriously as a future occupant of the White House.  So, Senator Klobuchar can gain traction, but she needs to win debates as well, with memorable quotes and viral zingers that will propel her to a position of contention.

While Senators Harris, Gillibrand and Klobuchar have potential, I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign is dead without even contesting a primary.   Her bungled attempt to show her native American ancestry turned out to be a farcical amount found in her DNA. Donald Trump had a field day when she initially brought into the open her allegedly American Indian roots, calling her "Pocahontas." Additionally, her informal announcement while attempting to be a "regular" person having a beer on a live webcam looked phony and lacked any sort of spontaneity that voters love and social media salivates for.  Her speaking delivery won't win over any new voters, but she is another accomplished woman, who has taught at Harvard Law School and has been a strong advocate for financial protections for the American consumer. Her support for and advising the Obama Administration on the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was important. That should be her angle and the direction her campaign should take, but her clumsy handling over parts of her life story could damage her with a Democratic electorate that desperately wants confidence in a candidate who can defeat President Trump.

Among the remaining candidates, former CEO Howard Shultz is thinking about running as an independent candidate, a thought so troubling to Democrats that they are angry he could tilt the 2020 outcome towards Donald Trump.  They are also nervous because of his double-digit showing in the polls in name recognition, something that other Democratic candidates do not have. Like President Trump and Mayor Bloomberg, Mr. Shultz is incredibly wealthy and can self-fund his campaign. That is something that could be intriguing for primary voters who look to a candidate that can challenge the financial power of the Republican National Committee.  The remaining candidates mentioned do not have any serious chance to get nominated by the Democratic party, and I assume are doing this for increased visibility for future speaking engagements or as a contributor for one of the main cable news channels.  Most are unknown and will have a tough time raising the requisite money for the media and political class to be impressed.  Money is what gives the allure of a serious challenger to President Trump.  Having a strong fundraising operation is key to winning key endorsements and support from influential donors and elected officials throughout the country.

So far, who is the front runner in my opinion?  Senator Sanders has raised a lot of money ($5.9 million in 24 hours) since he officially declared, and he has a large following, but the mood of the Democratic base has changed. It is more left-wing intensive, and less capitalist. Most Democratic voters want someone who they know can beat President Trump, and while he did well in 2016, will that support follow him to the nomination in 2020? The party tends to like policies that are socialist in nature, but will that translate well with the general electorate?

Mr. Biden has some sympathetic support due to his deceased son's wish that he challenge the Clinton Machine in 2016. Does he have what it takes to win the nomination, especially since he has run twice before, and did not fare well as a candidate?  Right now, polling shows he has support, but in the age of #Metoo, with his treatment of Anita Hill during the Senate confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas in 1989, and with the powerful testimony Ms. Hill gave, will female voters in the Democratic party favor him now? I don't see his candidacy gaining traction, and I feel that his window to win the White House has passed.  Plus, his age goes against the activist wing of the Democratic party, who tend to passionately like newcomers to the party like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although that might not hurt Senator Sanders. Younger voters can feel his genuine passion for what he believes.

Based on the value of her state's electoral votes (54), her fundraising prowess, high media visibility, prominence in the Senate, intersectionality (levels of perceived oppression, a Democratic party metric), in this case, her biracial female ethnicity, Senator Kamala Harris should be the one to beat in 2020.  However, as political consultant Paul Begala said on Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO), the true nominee of the party will distinguish himself or herself during the primary process.  Based on what she brings to the table, in terms of what the Democratic party is looking for, I think Senator Harris will win the nomination.  While I don't doubt that others who have declared their intentions to run (so far) have their own positives, I don't see anyone proving a better chance to challenge President Trump than

2020 is going to be a fun year.  Hold On, Everybody!