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!

Shutdown Showdown

January 25, 2019

President Trump allowed the government to "shut down" again for the second time during his presidency, mainly due to his intransigence for a border wall in specific locations.  Democrats did not want to negotiate with him and give any political victory before the 2020 election.  So, the government was again at an impasse, which now seems to be an annual tradition. 

____________________________

The United States government had been shut down for a record 35 days.  This political farce has become a yearly event, one in which one party refuses to give any sort of political victory to the president's party that controls the White House.  When President Obama was trying to pass the Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("Obamacare"), the Republicans, led by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, vowed to block any success by Mr. Obama and wanted him to serve only one term.  Subsequently, the ACA was to take effect in 2014 and the Republicans forced a shutdown in 2013 over funding for Obamacare and raising of the debt ceiling. Now, with President Trump in the White House, Democrats are riding the wave of shock, surprise, and anger of Hillary Clinton's defeat to rob Mr. Trump of any major legislative triumph in his first term.

This pattern may win political points with the ardent supporters of each party, but the long-term effects are extremely damaging to the country as a whole.  The United States government has accrued massive debt each year, and each subsequent year adds to the burden future generations of Americans will have to deal with.  Foreign governments and conglomerates who buy American debt will eventually get spooked with the precarious state of our financial health.  The constant shutdowns of our government are going to move America in a dangerous direction, and this practice has to stop.

The current mess is the result of a refusal by President Trump, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate to negotiate a settlement of policy differences relating to immigration and the building of a large border wall to restrict the illegal entering of immigrants into the United States.  The Trump administration asked initially $1.7 billion for the building of the wall but changed that amount to $7 billion.  The Democrats approved the first amount, but then balked at the larger number, which despite what the federal government spends on other programs, is a pittance. One wonders why the president did not push for the wall funding when the Republicans had control of both the House and Senate in 2017.


I suspect Speaker Pelosi and her caucus did not want to give President Trump any sort of political victory, even though the amount all parties are fighting over is trivial compared to what the federal government spends on the whole. The Democratic base hates President Trump and is very supportive of this confrontation with the President. Compounding this conflict are 800,000 federal workers who are struggling to make their mortgage, car and other payments because of their lack of a steady paycheck.  They are simply innocent players in a damaging, petty war between two political parties who grow more and more warlike in their fight with each other.  Those workers, along with the general public, continue to lose trust in American democracy and government institutions.

Recently, President Trump unveiled a proposal to protect (meaning delay) any action on so-called Dreamers (the DACA bill, which is known as the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). This would allow Dreamers, or children of undocumented immigrants, along with war-torn hopeful refugees (assigned Temporary Protected Status), a chance to live in the United States without fear of deportation for three years.  In return, the Democrat-controlled House would provide the requested funding of $5.7 billion for the border wall.  Democrats refused any consideration of this, and the government shows no signs of returning to business.  At some point, these federal workers, whose knowledge of the federal government and its intricate processes, will leave the federal workforce.  This will be an epic loss for our country. Regardless of how you feel about the government, having knowledgeable people who help a government function, one as large as ours, will not make things better.  

Conservatives have never been a fan of government, since their ideology promotes less government intrusion into the lives of citizens, and empowers those individuals to determine their futures, with religious and political viewpoints.  I feel that they are not too worried about the shutdown, which could be an excuse to see the government (and its power, basically) shrink to ineffective levels and not be a bother to Americans, especially wealthy citizens and large corporations, who want less taxation and intrusive and cumbersome regulations.  I do not share this belief.  At this time, the United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world.  It needs a strong government to administer functions of a western-style republic: provide funds for national defense, transportation infrastructure, support for education, focusing primarily on colleges and universities, effective law enforcement, a fair and ethical legal system, and opportunities for citizens in lower socio-economic backgrounds to move out of poverty and into the middle and upper classes.  

Democrats, I feel, use government too much to pander to their base by using the government to enact social engineering, such as, through laws that force companies to adhere to environmental regulations (some are good, like fuel efficiency for automobiles), and hinder corporations from their own goals, for gender and diversity agendas.

What is the best way forward from this crisis?

I think the Democrats should give President Trump his requested amount for the wall, even though it would anger their base.  If the government was open, and the Democrats were fighting Trump on other legislation, I could understand their intensity.  However, in this case, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will go into debt, miss mortgage payments, not have money for food, since many of them are like most Americans, and live paycheck to paycheck.  The amount both the Democrats and President Trump are fighting over is minuscule, but the ideological victory and the voter enthusiasm that comes with it is too great to avoid for either side.  

One of the sad parts of this fight is that many intelligent people who serve their country by working as federal employees could drop and that would not serve the country well.  A federal government that is staffed by mediocre people does not bode well for the preservation of those government institutions (such as the IRS, Department of Justice, Department of Defense).  

The Democrats should play the long game. They should allow President Trump his "victory" for border wall funding because, in reality, that amount would fund the amount needed for the wall in specific high-traffic areas where border crossings were frequent. During the next two years, the Democrats can stop the majority of the president's intended agenda, including the possible nomination of a third Supreme Court Justice.  Allowing federal employees to suffer in order to deal the administration a legislative defeat that can be used against them in the 2020 presidential election year.  Focusing on the minor amount is a hill the Democrats should not die on.

As of today, January 25th, President Trump announced a deal to end the shutdown. Perhaps in the future,  a session of Congress can pass legislation to prevent government shutdowns longer than two weeks? A bill could be introduced to not pay members of Congress until the shutdown is over (like many federal workers endure) and government resumes its core functions?  That could be one way to limit the number of shutdowns every few years.  I firmly believe something good can come out of this sad episode of our democracy.

Is this the beginning of the end for Facebook?

December 18, 2018

A recent New York Times article has shown that Facebook shared its user data, especially messages to friends, to over 150 other companies, including many in Silicon Valley.  Does this new piece of information start the beginning of the end of a tech giant?

________________________________

In a recent December 2018 New York Times article (Dance, LaForia & Confessore), it was discovered that Facebook, while creating its own protective information wall, shared user data (including messages to friends) to other tech companies such as Amazon, Spotify, and Microsoft.  It comes on the heels of founder Mark Zuckerberg testifying in front of a congressional committee, regarding the alleged hijacking of its site by foreign actors trying to influence the 2016 election,  discovery of data sharing, and accusations that it censored ideas and comments by conservative personalities.  The sharing of its user data did not have the best protection and was not as strong as it could have been.  After media reporting and user backlash, this doesn't improve the perception among some, like me, that Facebook has a serious crisis on its hands that could irrevocably ruin its high trajectory and profitable business model over the past 15 years. 

Personal user data and preferences have become the 21st century's most powerful commodity, especially in the proliferation of tech companies most of which are located in Silicon Valley.  Purchasing choices are the new "black gold (oil)," which companies desperately want so they can better provide items that people want to buy. In other words, if you know what people want to purchase, a company can tailor any type of production to what is selling well. It improves efficiency, reduces costs and increases profit margins. Knowing what people have the interest to buy is the intelligence that modern companies increasingly want to gain a market edge. Facebook realized this. Since the company did not manufacture a product, it had to generate revenue somehow.  Collecting the meta-data of its users, then packaging those characteristics and selling that information to advertisers and other companies allowed Facebook to generate positive cash flow.  As a result, billions of advertising revenue comes into the bank account of Facebook, buoyed by expansive user growth.  One can understand why their users' information is so precious to the company.

The New York Times article provided insight as to how the company took advantage of this information and sold it to other large Silicon Valley companies, who then tailored it to their advantage financially as well.  Privacy was not a major issue when Facebook began its rapid rise.  Only after investigative reports and complaints from users did the company enact the way it operates, at least on the surface, to change public perception.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) created a consent agreement with the company in 2011 to structure a better model in terms of protecting user data and to not share user data without explicit permission.  The recent revelations could threaten the purported agreement with the government, but Facebook has stated through its spokespersons that all companies who enter into contracts with the company must abide by Facebook policies.

One of the most troubling aspects of Facebook's agreements with other companies is Yandex, which is a Russian search engine.  The fact that a foreign-owned company, a Russian one to boot, was allowed to extract meta-data from Facebook users is cause for immense concern.  It is not too far to imagine that the country's intelligence services were probably given access to the data that Yandex collected.  If the Democrats were concerned with Russian "meddling," then this discovery should get the Intelligence Committee in the House to go into overdrive.  If any connection is proven between Yandex and the Russian intelligence community, then it could spur Congress into more investigations into Facebook, and this could drive company stock to dangerously low levels.  It might lead to Zuckerberg's ouster as CEO.

Facebook could be a test case for privacy, data collection and informational transaction laws that will determine the level of regulation for Silicon Valley tech companies in the future.  Since the company and its founder are an American success story, some legislators could be tepid about their desire for investigations.  However, providing transparency for tech companies will give their users confidence that their data will be treated with respect, much like a person's health records.  Here are some ways Facebook can provide that comfort to their users:

1) Provide all Facebook users with an upfront method to protect their data, a list of things to do so that each individual can determine on their own what information can be viewed, what is hidden and who can access that data.  Facebook has options in "settings" that have been around, but this needs to be done through a public relations initiative or a firm specializing in privacy, and have its employees in an official company capacity provide assistance to users to make these changes.  This will give the company positive impressions amongst its legion of users, and keep open the lines of communication and to build on that relationship.

2) Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should step down from the management of the company.  Both have played an integral part in obfuscation of their intention to providing users information to outside companies and withholding those key relationships with Congress, including Mr. Zuckerberg's testimony in front of a Senate committee. Their fingerprints are on the approval of working with and sharing user data with these companies, and their resignations would send a clear signal that Facebook is serious about making significant changes in how the company's business model functions.  Additionally, both Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg should testify in front of the committee again, and be honest and candid in terms of what they did, and how they plan to make changes before their removal from day to day operations of the company.

3)  Congress should introduce legislation to regulate the powerful and influential tech sector, including protecting the free speech for everyone. These protective rules must show that popular companies in Silicon Valley must be adherent to specific and open terms of relationships with their users, and how if any information that is shared with outside firms, it must be made public and what type of information can be shared.  I believe that this type of legislation can have strong bipartisan support, and it can go a long way to show that Congress does care about the privacy of American citizens, and for those who choose to conduct business with these influential companies, especially Facebook.

I feel that Silicon Valley companies must protect their users from manipulation, unfair business practices, and treat them with respect so that their associations with these companies are valued. New rules will introduce better management of those users. Hopefully, the future will make online interactions better for everyone involved, and provide a blueprint for new and emerging companies to properly seek the business of every citizen in this country.

How to solve the sad and tragic riddle known as gun violence in America?

December 8, 2018

As more and more of the country's citizens have experienced and survived mass shootings, many around the United States are trying to solve the gun violence epidemic.  What is the best way forward?

_______________________

Thousand Oaks, California becomes the latest city to experience the horror and tragedy of a mass shooting.  A former Marine (who shall remain nameless) walked into a country bar in Thousand Oaks and starting firing indiscriminately with a Glock semi-automatic pistol.  Many of those inside the Borderline Bar and Grill were college students enjoying a night out, as many their age do so around the country. The shooter fired more than 50 rounds into a crowded bar, killing 12 people, and later himself.  Once he arrived at the location, he immediately shot the security guard and the cashier at the front.  When he was close to the dance floor, the shooter proceeded to fire randomly into the crowd, while also throwing smoke grenades to sow chaos and confusion.  Many started to scatter and hide once they identified an intruder was firing on them.  A local Ventura County Sheriff, Ron Helus, responded to the 911 dispatcher and when he arrived on the scene, proceeded to enter the bar and find the shooter. Recent media reports state that a responding CHP officer, who either mistakenly made out Mr. Helus as the suspect, or in the confusion of gunfire, shot and fatally wounded him. It was an immense show of bravery considering the Sheriff's deputy did not know how many attackers there were and did his best to save as many people as he could. By the time other deputies arrived on the scene, it is believed that the shooter shot himself in the head.

The days that followed the national media went through their rehearsed motions, talking about acts of bravery, despite heavy confusion amongst the first responders.  Survivors were interviewed, and viral clips of anger, despair, and sadness were replayed over and over again.  Additionally, questions were asked about this epidemic ad nausea. Liberal (CNN, MSNBC) and conservative (Fox News) media took their usual positions and accused the other side of sowing division and inciting emotions from their respective viewers. Nothing new was brought to the discussion. 

As with many Americans who watched with sadness, I wanted to know how to move this issue in a different direction.  Liberals want more effective gun purchasing legislation, while conservatives dig in their defense of the 2nd Amendment.  The starting point should be that many Americans, who support the amendment, have guns themselves and for the most part, are respectful and law-abiding gun owners.  It would be foolish to think any member of Congress will introduce legislation to overturn the ability for Americans to purchase and own firearms.  At the same time, those who are responsible gun owners should listen to see what both sides can agree on and work out a sensible solution, something most Americans support.

Some surveys show that Americans are open background checks on ALL gun purchases, regardless of where they are purchased.  Gun shows are a point of contention with gun control advocates.  Gun owners who support the 2nd Amendment proclaim that even at gun shows, there are forms of regulation.  While increased background checks for all purchases are necessary, both sides of the debate do not focus on the facts that there are many problems that are part of the gun tragedies.  On one level, society is changing, with more women entering the workforce, and so men's roles are changing too.  While most men have grown up with and have experienced women in the workforce, there are some that cannot transition, and so they act out against a society that does not recognize them or feel their pain.  Secondly, many of the jobs men dominated, such as construction, manufacturing, and trucking, are slowly being phased out, and for many men, the future is not so optimistic.  Politicians in both parties do not seem to care about solutions and are more attentive to the Silicon Valley tech companies, whose advances in certain industries could be a reason that many male-dominated jobs are being eliminated.

American society is coming to grips with a myriad of problems that are causes, in my opinion, of gun violence.  Including the aforementioned job losses and difficult life transitions for men, there are issues relating to opioid drug abuse, thousands of (mostly) men returning from drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Internet voyeurism and expanding interactive video game usage (where gun violence is common).  These issues are some of the reasons America is producing thousands of emotionally stunted and broken people.  Women use other means (sex) to combat low self-esteem and lack of worth, while men tend to use violence as a means to an end. This is compounded by the relative ease of purchasing firearms.

That is where the discussion amongst Americans needs to start. It is not about more gun legislation or protecting the 2nd Amendment.  It is the confluence of damaged people (mostly men) who have easy access to firearms and using that weapon to exact vengeance on society.  A frequent subject mentioned is more access and treatment of mental illness, but I feel that is only part of the problem, and may not be the best way to handle this problem.

The core issue is that American society at large is not very forgiving.  If you struggle, financially, emotionally, physically, the United States can be a daunting place to live.  The massive influx of social media in our lives, the ease of commerce through online purchases, the commonality of both parents working, the lack of after-school options for kids all lead declining contact with other people and which lead to breakdowns on all levels between family members, teachers, and leaders in the communities around the country.  In fact, when five police officers were killed by a deranged gunman in Dallas, Texas, a few years ago, the former chief of police said that one of the problems in his community was that his police department had to be social workers, counselors, law enforcement officers, and therapists.  It was overburdened in terms of what the community was asking of his police force. A small group of people was expected to maintain order for millions. This may be an important factor contributing to gun violence in the United States of America.  When society breaks down, compounded with the ease to buy guns, and a large supply of those guns in society, mass shootings is the end result.  Enacting more gun legislation or infringing on the 2nd Amendment, which many people are passionate about, will not make inroads into the gun violence problem.

Some pragmatic solutions that can be implemented are offered below:

1) Mandatory mental health reviews for students (all school districts should find a discreet way to implement this.  If health officials are able to keep tabs on troubled students and collaborate with local law enforcement, hopefully, future Sandy Hook massacres can be avoided or diminished).

2) Better coordination between social workers, local law enforcement and federal agencies like the FBI when noting experiences with troubled students and individuals who have been known to cause trouble, or make troubling statements online through social media, so that those individuals can be dealt with.

3) Establish a free national hotline for those persons who want assistance, or have psychiatric issues and need an outlet.  This channel should also be available for those who know of loved ones, or individuals in the community who could pose a danger to society due to their behavior.  Friends and family should be able to refer loved ones who exhibit warning signs, were bullied in school, are dealing with trauma of any sort, and have their referrals investigated when manpower allows. This hotline must have certified negotiators, trained medical staff and also have the ability to contact local law enforcement and first responders to coordinate emergencies.  These measures will cost taxpayers more for the near future, but in the long run will be worthwhile.

4) The NRA and Congress must work together to provide legislation that warrants serious investigation and background checks for ALL gun purchases (and individuals too) in the United States.  Public opinion supports this measure, and it is up to the powerful gun rights organization to work with members of Congress to get this legislation passed.

5) American society, in general, must seek ways to provide a safety net or a network of support for the care of our returning veterans of foreign wars, opioid and general use drug addicts, and those who are lost in the fabric of American life.   Job programs, available mental health options, and counseling must be provided to those individuals who pose the greatest risk to themselves, and society.  This will allow dangerous people to either have options to address their grievances or help the police apprehend those before crimes are committed.

I think of most of these ideas can be implemented, the number of gun massacres will decline to a point of rarity. Every American citizen can play a vital role in helping to solve this dreadful problem.