The Pirates of Penzance

Pirate King:
For some ridiculous reason, to which, however,
I've no desire to be disloyal,

Some person in authority,
I don't know who, very likely the Astronomer Royal,

Has decided that,
although for such a beastly month as February,
twenty-eight days as a rule are plenty,

One year in every four his days shall be reckoned as nine and twenty.

Through some singular coincidence,
I shouldn't be surprised if it were owing to the agency of an ill-natured fairy

You are the victim of this clumsy arrangement,
having been born in leap-year,
on the twenty-ninth of February;

And so, by a simple arithmetical process,
you'll easily discover,

That though you've lived twenty-one years,
yet, if we go by birthdays,
you're only five and a little bit over!

Yep - Gilbert & Sullivan have something to say about Leap Year!

semi self-promotion... the other half is GOTV

GOTV: "Get Out The Vote!"

Democrats Should Be Very Nervous About Their Terrible Turnout Numbers

YES! - Dems should be concerned.

The ONLY way to avoid "President Trump" come November is for Dems to VOTE!

I'll try a Pay it Forward kinda thing.

(This is the self-promotion bit.)

If you like this blog, recommend it to three (3) friends.
... and ask 'em to do the same.

My main concern is NOT increasing readership... trust me.

My main concern is getting Dems to the polls come November!

If we don't VOTE, we could well be stuck with President Trump.
(This would be BAD!)

I don't get it

The Republican Party’s implosion over Donald Trump’s candidacy has arrived

Divisions within GOP over Trump's candidacy are growing

I don't get it.

Here's my (entirely self-promoting) previous post:

Just for fun: an open letter to the GOP

Trump is the CREATION of the "Establishment" GOP!

Why are they now so surprised?

Hosea8:7
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...

... a possible anti-Trump meme

Donald Trump stumbles on David Duke, KKK
By Eric Bradner, CNN
Sun February 28, 2016

"Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump said.
...
"I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," he said. "So I don't know. I don't know -- did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."

No, I'm not talking about Trump's appeal to white sumpremacists, or their endorsement of him.

I'm talking about his willful, fully acknowledged ignorance about ANYTHING!

"I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about."

I'm not going to dig through any of Trump's past rants to verify this, but I'd bet that he has stated, "I don't know...!" frequently...
... most likely in response to uncomfortable and discomfiting questions like the one above.

Maybe someone with more stomach than I could dig through published interviews & videos and put together a nice 30-second TV spot:

"I don't know... "

"I know nothing about..."

"I don't know... "

"I know nothing about..."

"I don't know... "

You get the idea.

This headline scared me... till I read the explanation

Former CIA Head Explains Why Armed Forces Can't Legally Obey Trump
"If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act."

This had a frightening Seven Days in May sound to it... till I read General Hayden's explanation:

Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA and CIA, thinks some of presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign promises are so unlawful that the U.S. Armed Forces could not follow them as orders.

These include Trump's claim that people deserve to be waterboarded even if it doesn't work and that he would target the families of terrorists. The internationally recognized Geneva Conventions bars such action.

"If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act," Hayden said Friday during an appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher." "You are required not to follow an unlawful order that would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict."

I was in Army Basic Training some seven (7) years post-My Lai.
Two full days of classroom instruction were devoted to the distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful" orders, and our duty to obey the first and REFUSE to obey the second.
'Twas a lot for young recruits to wrap our heads around.

Yep - waterboarding is TORTURE under international law... heck, we prosecuted Japanese officers as war-criminals for this act in WWII.
Yep - deliberately targeting non-combatants - even if the families of bad guys - is ILLEGAL under international law!

For what it's worth: the Federal Government working for ME!

For the past few days I've been publishing graphs reflecting various economic trends.
These graphs have been based on data collected, compiled, and conveniently distributed by the Federal Government!

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has been the source of GDP numbers.
The Census Bureau's Current Population Survey has provided data on household income and home prices.

With these readily available data, ANYONE can pretend to be an economist!
The data are empowering!
... and they're provided more-or-less FREE!
("more-or-less": one does need internet connectivity to access the data... and, yes, my taxes do support these Federal agencies.)

If you don't like the way I slice & dice the data, or perhaps object to my choices (e.g., using "household income" as my preferred metric), YOU can access the raw data YOURSELF and do your very own analysis!
I've used only a few of the myriad tables available on these websites! - Go for it!!!

I AM a Socialist!

We the people of the United States, in order to

form a more perfect union,
establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which of these do the GOP hopefuls NOT want to pay for?

Okay - everyone is for "common defense".
Spend zillions of dollars on the military.

But other than that?

"A more perfect union"? - all I hear is Mexicans and Muslims are BAD! REALLY BAD!!!

"Justice"? - ... I'd love to say they've all said, "Lock 'em all up!"... but in fact, no one has said ANYTHING about JUSTICE.

"Domestic tranquility"?... again, no word about this.
Just build a wall.

"General welfare"? - Obamacare is BAD! ... but we've not a clue how to fix or replace it.

"Blessings of liberty"?
Torture good.

... and again: no clue how we're gonna pay for any of this.
... oh, yeah - I forgot: CUT TAXES!

(I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to work.)

"The rich get richer"? - is this a Law a Nature?

... alternative title:

Yes! - Let's TALK about the redistribution of wealth!

Below is a graph depicting another ratio:

Household income:

(Upper 5%)/median

I went to the trouble of drawing a line through the points - it's pretty darn linear!

If this were hard science one would be tempted to say, "Hey, we've discovered a Law of Nature!"
I doubt Galileo's data for his Law of Falling Bodies fit a curve quite so well.

In 1975 - the earliest year for which I have complete data, the top 5% of households earned about 2.7x the median household.
In 2014 - the latest year for which I have complete data, the top 5% of households earned just over 3.8x the median household.

Note:
I'm talking about the upper 5% of households, not the infamous 1%.
These aren't the super-rich, just the "pretty-darn-well-off" folks.
The median? - Well, those are the folks smack-dab in the middle - the truly MIDDLE class.

Every year, year after year...
... the top 5% of households gain about 2.8% on the rest of us!
What's going on here?
IS this a Law of Nature?

Just another graph

... this one presents a ratio:

(median home price)/(median household income)

For most of the period covered - 1975 - 2014 - this was reasonably stable at just over 3:

The "typical" house was priced just about 3x the "typical" household income.

Then we hit the housing bubble, when the ratio climbs to about 5:

The "typical" house was priced 5x the "typical" household income.

This should have been a clue that housing prices were NOT properly aligned with the over-all economy!

Then the ratio heads down, till 2012, when it starts to head up again.

The up-tick?
Housing prices are recovering.
Median household income is NOT.

The "recovery" from the Great Recession has NOT been visible to the truly MIDDLE class!

Hillary or Bernie?

I don't care.
Either one of 'em is preferable to ANY of the GOP hopefuls!

I've probably said this before:

When I'm optimistic I hope that Trump will be the GOP nominee.

When I'm pessimistic I fear that Trump will be the GOP nominee.

... 20% of my fellow citizens

... live on no more than $21,500/year.
This is HOUSEHOLD income.

I just checked - a really CHEAP 2-bedroom apartment in Albuquerque is more than $500/month.
That doesn't include utilities.
Let's figure another $100/month for utilities - that's $600/month.
That's one-third of your monthly income.

This is HOUSEHOLD income - you've got kids.
Kids who need clothes and food.
Kids who have other expenses - daycare, school, transportation...

Pretty soon you have NO extra disposable income - everything you earn has gone to pay for basics.

Yeah - you're not contributing much to GDP, but you're contributing EVERYTHING you have!
Every dollar you make you spend!
Maybe you should get a reward.

(By contrast, every dollar that Trump makes is pretty much sequestered - it is out of the economy.
In relative terms, HE contributes almost NOTHING to GDP!)

... and still more "Tale of Two Dollars"

Here's a graphical representation of GDP components:

The GOP candidates favor...
1. cutting Gov't spending (defense, infrastructure, education, social safety nets, etc.)
2. cutting taxes on private investment
3. maintaining a strong dollar.

The effects of these policy proposals?
1. cutting Gov't spending really does cut employment and overall economic health. Yeah - all that defense, infrastructure, education, and social safety net spending really DOES create JOBS.
At least two of the leading GOP contenders are U.S. Senators - they currently make THEIR livings from Gov't spending!!!

2. Private investment is a relatively SMALL component of GDP: about 17%. (LESS than Gov't spending!)
... and the tax breaks you give to Quote "Job-Creating" Unquote investors? - they really are NOT creating jobs with the extra $$$.

3. A strong dollar? - mitigates AGAINST balance-of-trade. A strong dollar means NOBODY is buying our stuff! - we're spending $$$ buying every one else's stuff!

... and not ONE of the GOP hopefuls suggests anything that'll help the middle class - all us folks making $110,000/year - if we're REALLY lucky!

I've said it before & I'll say it again:
CONSUMER SPENDING drives the economy.
NOT business investment.

If consumers aren't spending there's no reason for businesses to invest!

... more "Tale of Two Dollars"

... one of the GOP candidates - Marco Rubio, the darling of the "GOP establishment" - proposes cutting the capital gains tax to 0%!!!
He REALLY hates labor!

A Tale of Two Dollars (a dramatization)

Here's that last story, "A Tale of Two Dollars" in a dramatic presentation:
">
... yeah, I've posted this before... but I'm really proud of it!

A Tale of Two Dollars

At the top we see a construction foreman. He works hard, and earns about $70,000/year. His wife also works, as an elementary school teacher, and earns about $40,000/year. They have one child. Together they earn about $110,000/year - at the 80%-ile of household incomes, which makes them upper middle class.
That dollar? It's taxed at 25%.

Below this fellow is his twin brother, who plays the stock market. He earns about $210,000/year. His wife doesn't work - she's a stay-at-home mom. They also have one kid. Their household income is that $210,000 - 95%-ile of household incomes: upper-upper middle class.
His dollar?
As "capital gains", it's taxed at 15%.

This is NOT an income tax.
It's a tax on labor!

Here's a graphical representation.
The lower dollar is the one earned.
The middle dollar is the one taken home by the player in the stock market.
The upper dollar is the one taken home by the construction foreman.

David Brooks and the pink rug

I'll start with a repost, from 4 Dec:

No, Donald Trump Won’t Win
David Brooks DEC. 4, 2015

Somewhat bizarrely, he starts by talking about buying a rug. The pink one really stood out, and he liked it a lot on first glance... ... but then he decided the blue one would be easier to live with.

He then suggested that Donald Trump is the current "pink rug" of the GOP "likely primary voter".

This may have been a nice homey analogy... IF he'd been able to suggest a plausible "blue rug" alternative.
But - no.
In fact, Brooks doesn't even TRY to suggest a plausible alternative.
The best he can do is to suggest that

When campaigns enter that final month, voters tend to gravitate toward the person who seems most orderly. As the primary season advances, voters’ tolerance for risk declines. They focus on the potential downsides of each contender and wonder, Could this person make things even worse?

When this mental shift happens, I suspect Trump will slide.

Really?

Where's the blue rug?

Hmmm... Mr. Brooks has been a big fan of Marco Rubio, believing he will end up being the "blue rug".

I wonder now if Mr. Brooks might be willing to consider one of the DEMOCRATIC candidates.

He could even invoke his hero, Ronald Reagan:

“I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.”

... of course, Mr. Brooks would have to paraphrase this:

I didn't leave the Republican party; the Republican Party left me!

Weather

For the past week it's been in the 70s here in Albuquerque.
Yesterday it cooled off a bit - it was only in the mid-60s.

Today it's snowing.

What's wrong with these people?

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

Perhaps a 28th Amendment is needed:

No President during the 4th year of his term, whether his first or second term, shall be allowed to exercise any of his duties or fulfill any of his obligations under Article II of this Constitution.
No Democratic President during his term in office shall be allowed to exercise any of his duties or fulfill any of his obligations under Article II of this Constitution.

Just sayin'.

This my nephew-in-law!

L.A., as in Laboratory

By Jim Tranquada

Two years ago, Jeremiah “Jem” Axelrod—an adjunct professor of history, American studies, art history, and urban and environmental policy at Oxy—was inspired by his colleagues and students’ enthusiasm for ­research on Los Angeles to design and propose a new institute dedicated to teaching and research about the city.

This fall, just before Thanksgiving, Axelrod had the pleasure of formally announcing the launch of Occidental’s new Institute for the Study of Los Angeles. Rooted in the College’s strategic vision of an academic program intertwined with all that metropolitan Los Angeles has to offer, the institute and its interdisciplinary mission are the product of a collaboration between dozens of faculty from 11 departments, a long list of community partners, and President Jonathan Veitch, who secured a major grant from Howard Ahmanson ’72’s Charitable Community Trust.

Just for fun