"S" is the letter of this election

Full disclosure. "D" was the first letter that crossed my mind then thinking about this edition of the blog. "D" for "disgusted", as many Americans find the Presidential choices this year lacking. But that's not covering new ground, and stating the obvious isn't my intent, nor is it in any way interesting. What's been puzzling me, however, is precisely why people are disgusted with the choices at hand. Read on, gentle people. The letter of this election is "S".



Yes, Hillary Clinton is a liar, and yes, it's not illegal, despite the best efforts of Congress to try and shame her and trick her into falling on some moral sword. Ain't gonna happen, and quite honestly, Americans are quite comfortable with liars, and many have been elected President. Hypocrites, on the other hand, are looked upon poorly, but that is a topic for another post. Establishing the lying part as an accepted baseline, what is it then about Secy. Clinton that is so damning that this is still a contest and not a foregone conclusion? THAT'S the real mystery of this election.

I don't think it's the dishonesty, the blind ambition, the pantsuits, the shrieking, or even the first husband, that keeps a good many Americans from jumping on the Hillary train. No folks, I think the best "S" word that comes to mind when I try and think of why Ms. Clinton is political Kryptonite is "smug". She's smug. Her staff are smug. Her campaign is, in a nutshell, smug. And very few things in American life piss people off more than smug. Smug is the rich kid in elementary school that acted like they were better than you because they (thought) they had more money. Smug is the frat boy or sorority girl who thought that the Greek letters on their button-down shirts or plastered across their Soul-cycled butts made them somehow more entitled to a lofty place in society. Smug is this kid:



A friend reminded me of a great quote the other day, attributed to Barry Switzer (of Oklahoma football fame), "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple". I mention the quote as a reference to being smug, not Ms. Clinton (IMO), as I personally think she's worked her ass off to get where she has, and to imply that she was given this or that is simply wrong.

Smug in the Clinton campaign is wrapped in the entitlement mentality that somehow, given her history of being first lady, Senator, Secy. of State, and fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation, that the Presidency is somehow "owed" her. But more importantly, that each and every step and action she's taken along this path is justified because it gets her to the goal she "deserves". Steps like the e-mail server, overnights the Lincoln bedroom, Whitewater, foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation. The problem is, smug doesn't live in a vacuum. Smug needs people to react. Those who buy into the premise that the "smugger", in this case Hillary, is in fact deserving of the attitude, versus those who think, "who the hell does she think she is". I do acknowledge some weirdness in this analysis, because plenty of examples abound of successful people who are not viewed as smug. Usain Bolt comes to mind. World's fastest man, and damn proud of it.



People LOVE him, myself included. He's fun. Hillary? Not so fun. Methinks she presents too much of a "woe is me" persona (eg. "flat broke") that simply rubs many the wrong way. Like anyone worth less than combined estimated $110 million net worth for Bill and Hill. If that's "flat broke", what does that make everyone else? Maybe, like the guy who was turned into a newt in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "I got better". Better indeed.


So if Hillary is smug, what does that make the Donald? So many possibilities, but searching for a single word to encapsulate what makes Trump unsuitable for so many people. It ISN'T that he's a boor, a bigot, and chauvinist, or a blowhard (although some may argue). No, if you don't think Trump's qualified, I think the reason to look elsewhere is because he's shallow. Shallow of thought, shallow of mind, shallow of...pretty much everything requiring analytical thought for more than the blink of an eye. Beautiful women? Check. Rich folks? Check. Dictators? Check. "Skin deep" is the perfect description. He sees what's on the surface, makes a complete judgement, moves on. So why is that so wrong? Well, because sometimes...that IS wrong. "Don't judge a book by it's cover" isn't an enduring saying for nothing. I'd venture to guess that Trump is more shallow than most Americans. But not all.

The "smug vs. shallow" aspect of this election feeds into my thoughts on where the status of the election is this week. Since the conventions, polling has shows Clinton persistently ahead of Trump in pretty much all metrics (popular vote, electoral college, Pokemon Go characters, you name it), Hillary has smartly played the political version of Dean Smith's "four corners offense", ie. run out the clock. Boring, but effective. And legal (snark). It's premised upon you being in the lead (hint, she is), and not giving your opponent any opportunity to score against you in the closing minutes. Ultimately there are no lingering style points in an election, it's win or lose, everything else is gravy. Following this premise I do express some surprise that the Clinton campaign has been so gung-ho about the Presidential debates. I presume this is because they see it as a chip shot, a face to face between the "most prepared candidate for President EVER" versus "The Apprentice". I would be concerned. Overconfidence CAN be a weakness.



But at this point it's still likely to be a successful strategy. Trump winning (and not with the Charlie Sheen sense of irony), requires something that simply hasn't happened before in a modern election...well, except for eight years ago. IMO for the Donald to win the Oval Office he has to do with disaffected previous non-voters what then-Senator Barack Obama did with young people. Get them out to vote. MUCH easier said than done, but maybe not impossible. These so-called "low information" voters may not be the social-media/internet/new economy part of the population, and thus may not be as readily accessible as a simple Tweet or Facebook post can reach. In a perverse way of life coming full-circle, it is possible that the most efficient means of reaching the potential (but not yet voting) Trump supporter is simple old-fashioned "snail mail" direct mail marketing, the very means by which Karl Rove (remember him?) made his fortune. That'd be weird.

But don't be mistaken, Hillary still has a formidable lead, but not insurmountable for the Donald. And, as has been oft said this season, anything can happen. And will. As usual, thanks for reading, I'll try and keep it interesting. There's lots of material here.

Presidential Candidates as Olympians

Full disclosure. I'm quite confident (there's a pun here, hang on) that most candidates, past and present, for the POTUS have thought of themselves as "Olympian" as some point in their narcissistic careers, but the funnier question (well, I'm trying) is, which Olympian?

It never occurred to me until yesterday that the Summer Olympics and the Presidential races follow the same every-four-years timeline, but then again I may just be ignorant. But the similarities abound. The continuing search for unique storylines, the Hollywood dramatization of otherwise-insignificant life events, the scandal and intrigue, the Olympics and Politics are a match made in reality TV heaven. But who plays whom?

Lets start at the top.

Donald Trump. Ryan Lochte.



Each raises the same question. "What the hell are they thinking!?". Enough said.


Hillary Clinton. Aly Raisman. With all due apologies to Ms. Raisman.



Immensely capable. Due to cruel twists (haha, I'm full of puns this week) of fate relegated to the sidekick shadows of charismatic leading men (Bill, Barack) and ladies (Simone, Gabby). A half-smile barely concealing near unbridled contempt at the fate of having to live in the same era as natural celebrities.



Ted Cruz. Chad le Clos. Neither an American. (Mr. le Clos only because Snidely Whiplash wasn't an Olympian as far as I can tell).



Two guys most Americans love to hate. Either could be the villain in the next installment of the "Die Hard" franchise.


Bernie Sanders. Andre De Grasse (the Canadian sprinter).

Of note was that Bernie was, in fact, a heck of a runner in his youth. But, like Mr. De Grasse, this time around Bernie has the misfortune of running, not against Mr. Bolt, but Big Money. It was never gonna happen. Maybe next time kid.

Usain Bolt. Simone Biles. Katy Ledecky. No Presidential candidates whatsoever.

Try as candidates might, there's really no comparing them to folks like this, who combine natural talents, hard work, perseverance, and reset the playing field. I didn't include Michael Phelps in this group as, while he's the most-decorated Olympian ever, his races still resemble races, while for these three, when they compete they're really in a "league of their own". The only other (relatively) current athlete that comes to mind is Tiger Woods. At his prime, it was him and history. Like it is for these three.

Politics is really a team sport, which is to say nowadays it's really a corporate sport. Political "superstars" are really a creation of good marketing and maybe a sprinkling of luck. Sports tries to do the same as well, but despite the packaged efforts of NBC and other others that seek to benefit from the perform, sometimes the awesome in sports come shining through. And that's a good thing. Hope springs eternal. Even in politics.



That's it for the Olympics edition! We'll get back to the mud-slinging next week. Thanks for reading!

Globalization is the Real Issue This Election

Full disclosure: the blog is an equal-opportunity offender, and I'm envisioning this post will be no different. The only conspiracy theory I don't plan to cover is the location where Jimmy Hoffa is buried (because everyone KNOWS he's beneath Giants Stadium, duh). So sit back and enjoy the rant.

Here's some quotes from the last week as background to this week's connect-the-dots argument:

 "An American election is a global election" - Francois Hollande, President of France

 "the TPP, which grew from a small FTA... will be a free trade agreement encompassing 40 percent of the world's population and one-third of the world's GDP." - Prime Minister Lee of Singapore

 "So I think there is a powerful economic case (for the TPP), just a basic bread-and-butter case to be made about why this is good for Americans workers and good for American exports and ultimately good for American wages, if it’s structured properly" (emphasis added by your blogger) - President Obama

Let's dispense with the more common single-issues voters typically cite as their decision maker on whom to vote for. Pro-life/Pro-choice, GOP/Democrat. Gun rights, same. But the quotes above, all of which came this week, really focused on an issue that has lurked in the background of this election season, but in reality is the "real" single issue that is defining the crazy behind all that's happened so far, on both sides, of the campaign isle, globalization. And I'm going to make the argument that, if you want to be a single-issue voter, THIS is the issue that matters.  

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology.

It's on the internet, so it must be true. But why is it THE issue now, and why should you even care? Because, gentle reader(s) (NB, I'm getting cocky, as I see from stats I have more than a single reader), I think that the answer to the question "are YOU for globalization?" is the IED that has wreaked havoc upon this particular election season, and for good reason. So do I think globalization is good or bad? It's my blog, so I don't feel I can be neutral, so overall, today in mid-2016, I'd have to vote "bad" for America (as well as 'Merica). Here's my shtick.

The first of many quasi-relevant digressions. I must admit, I've never been a "comic book" guy, but I do admire how writers can use comics (same holds true for science fiction. hell, it even holds true for Shakespeare) to illustrate (haha pun) ideas and concepts that on the face of it would be otherwise summarily rejected by the society of the time (now, middle ages, etc...). Being somewhat a populist at heart, my personal leanings in comics runs towards Bugs Bunny and Phineas and Ferb, but for many who love The Simpsons I think you know what I'm getting at. It's poking fun at institutions in a socially-acceptable way. But it can also be a way of addressing fears and concerns as well, as the picture above is intended. This is the "world security council" from Marvel's The Avengers. A shadowy (again, pun intended) and unelected group of "world leaders" who basically can pull the strings of worldwide events. Problem is, I happen to think this is reality, now. And it's called Globalization. And it frankly scares the crap out of me.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/true-cost-rio-summer-olympics-zika

So why might I think globalization is bad? I believe there's an enormous and significant gap between the ideal and reality of globalization, and the price of falling short of the ideal has been disastrous. Think about jumping from rooftop to rooftop, like the cool kids do in some James Bond movie. Awesome if you make it, sucks if you don't. I think globalization is like that, and I'll give some examples that President Obama won't. 

Let's see, where's an example of a worldwide, big-budget undertaking that has the world behind it and promises to benefit everyone. Give up? Turn on the TV tonight and watch the opening of the Rio Olympics. Estimates of cost (per the Google) have it at about 12 billion (that's billion with a "B"), of which the state of Rio is on the hook for about 4.6 billion. That's actually a bargain compared to recent Olympics past, but still a fair chunk of change. So what? Well, without citing numbers ('cause there aren't any), how much of that 12 billion dollars do you think might be benefiting (directly or indirectly) the quarter of the population (growing) that live in Rio's favelas (slums)? My guess is "uh, not too much". But before you ask the logical question, "where did all that money go?" DON'T, please don't, say that it "disappeared". Look, please use common sense, 12 billion dollars does not simply go "poof" and disappear. Ever. Even if you generously subtract the costs of the venue and infrastructure construction for the Olympics, there's a shit ton of money that went to the Rio "organizers", all of whom I'm sure weren't missing meals in the first place. 12 billion that didn't go to feed, house, or educate the poor, medicines for the sick, stopping Zika. Who are the organizers? Hence the comparison to the Avengers "world security council". They're not Presidents, they're not tabloid fodder. They're the financiers, the money-movers, the connected folk that make countries work. I submit to you that first, they don't work for everyone, and second, they do. Not. Care. And they're not only coming to a country near you, they're already here. We just don't widely appreciate it, 'cause we're too busy worrying about who's going to win this stupid election. 

So how am I going to make this post and equal-opportunity offender? Globalization isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue, it's an ESTABLISHMENT issue. The Koch brothers, Warren Buffett, George Soros. They're just globalization's poster boys, I'm confident there are many more I've never even heard of. But I'll tell you the only name I'm confident is NOT on that list. Donald Trump. Mr. anti-establishment. And I'm equally confident that he knows it, his kids know it, and it probably pisses them off. Persona non-grata in the globalization cool kids club. That anyone in real power would let the boorish self-proclaimed billionaire into this club is laughable, and that's simply not gonna happen. Hillary, on the other hand? It's not called the Clinton Global Initiative for nothing. Team Clinton is like The Bachelorette for world leaders, a trashy pop-culture audition for the group that meets at Davos to "solve the world's problems" with big thinkers like Bono and that young crook lady from Theranos. All talk, lot's of money, little to show for it. Again, when am I going to offend the GOP? Like right now, 'cause it's not just Billary and the Dems. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the devil-child of the Republicans, not the Democrats, and Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell are all over it. It's bread and butter Chamber of Commerce stuff; bigger, better, cheaper, outsourced. The Republicans version of lipstick on this pig is called "trickle down economics". Remember that? Yes, I'm an equal-opportunity offender. Trickle-down is the "lite" version of globalization, and TPP is simply this year's tagline. Another piece of evidence that we already are a country at the behest of the moneyed few? Citizen's United. Buying elections since 1998.

So if you're not mad at me yet, keep reading, I'll keep trying. So, you may argue, "Rio's uniquely screwed-up, that can't happen here." Well...no. Lake Placid, home of the 1980 "miracle on ice" is STILL paying off their Olympic debt. Sochi? Screwed. Athens? Worse than screwed (insert expletive starting with "F" here). The quote regarding insanity attributed to Albert Einstein is appropriate here, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Pouring billions of government money in on top to fellow billionaires and expecting it to somehow trickle down and improve the lives of the millions living in poverty (and worse) hasn't happened, and won't happen. Ever. Christ said, "you'll always have the poor". Damned if he wasn't right. Again.

But would a President Trump, with his opposition to TPP, change things? Simple answer, no. But I think he would be a speed bump, and not an express lane, which we get with Hillary. Yea yea yea, Hillary's against the TPP too. C'mon, I know I don't have any readers that gullible. Both she and her main man Tim Kaine were FOR TPP before they were against it (that John Kerry-ism never gets old, like "Lambert Field". Hilarious.). Nah, the real cajones in the anti-TPP fight were Bernie (my guy) and to a slightly lesser extent Liz Warren. Neither of whom are being invited to Davos anytime soon.

So how do I think globalization adversely affect 'Merica, and what can be done about it? Globalization affects economic classes differently, and while I don't think it's ill-effects are necessarily intended, they're present nonetheless, like lung cancer and smoking. You really can't separate them out. In 'Merica, anyone with a substantive investment in the stock market (either in an individual account, pension, IRA, whatever), is likely to at least have the opportunity to benefit from globalization. I figure that accounts for all white collar folk and above, and a fair number of blue collar workers that have retirement options (a shrinking number), and organized labor groups like teachers and public employees. Losers in the globalization movement: everyone else, and unfortunately, despite labor reports to the contrary, that number is growing. Geek NB, government employment statistics only include those actively looking for work. Folks who've simply "dropped out" of looking don't get counted. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Okay, big finish. Where does this lead? Unabated, globalization may lead to the establishment of a chronically dependent poor, a class of Americans with no legitimate shot at upward mobility. They may be employed, but will only make enough to subsist, and perhaps in the worst case only subsist with government support. This doesn't portend well for their kids either. Above that level is what I'm going to label the "churn", where there's social movement in a range above poverty and up to relative wealth, where hard work and smarts can move you up or down, but with an invisible ceiling hiding the attic of the uber-rich who set global economic policy, wage wars of convenience, and generally set the policies that govern our everyday lives. So what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, call it what you want, just don't call it Democracy. The quintessential articulation of the "American Dream", where with hard work and perseverance, ANYONE has a chance to better their future and the future of their children, is sometimes referred to in other less fortunate countries as "hope". I worry that losing hope may be the price we as a country and as a society will ultimately pay to have cheap goods from Amazon. I happen to think that's too high a price to pay.