RUSSIA? IRAN? HOW ABOUT CITIZENS UNITED!

 

Everybody is freaking out over the possibility that the Russians or the Iranians or the Chinese are meddling in our electoral process.

However, this is just a distraction serving to shield our eyes from the HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE POLLING PLACE: U.S. CORPORATIONS.

Based on the legal and constitutional status of corporations as individuals, the Supreme Court ruled that limited liability companies that have filed as corporations or have publicly traded shares can contribute unlimited funds to political action committees and separate segregated funds for the purpose of influencing the elections.

The ability of corporate money to control the message and influence the elections seriously dilutes the concept of "one person, one vote", since a well-crafted and well-funded messaging campaign can literally brainwash voters into changing their vote. This has led the sense that the individual is disenfranchised in the political process which has suppressed voter participation, further magnifying the effect of corporate money in elections.

But wait, it gets worse! U.S. corporations can be legally owned and controlled by foreign individuals and governments, and the board of directors of these corporations does not necessarily need to be made up of U.S. citizens, nor are they obligated to swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution.

The number of U.S. corporations controlled by foreign nationals or foreign governments numbers in the hundreds, including some iconic American brands:

Chicago Stock Exchange (China)
Budweiser (Belgium)
AMC Theaters (China)
Frigidaire (Sweden)
Firestone (Japan)
Purina (Switzerland)
Smithfield Foods (China)
Burger King (Brazil)
GE Appliances (China)
Motorola Mobility (China)
...and many more.

What is stopping the U.S. subsidiaries of these foreign corporations from contributing money to political action committees for the purposes of influencing the outcome of the election? Under current law, NOTHING!

So, forget about Russian Facebook ads and get corporate money out of our elections.

REVERSE CITIZENS UNITED NOW!

Superspreader or Superfaker?

 

Updated 10/29/2020

When the news broke that Hope Hicks, a trusted member of the Trump inner circle since 2014, had tested positive for COVID-19 I knew she was not going to be the only shoe to drop.

To date, at least 36 shoes have dropped, mostly related to a poorly organized Rose Garden ceremony to announce a new Supreme Court pick on September 26 that failed to implement even the most rudimentary COVID-19 precautions.

But, the largest shoe to drop so far is that of the President himself, who reported via Tweet in the wee hours of Friday, October 2 that he and the First Lady had tested positive for COVID-19.

Since the President's Tweet, the news reports related to his diagnosis and treatment have been extremely confusing and conflicting.

For example, the lead physician at Walter Reed tasked with caring for the President, Dr. Sean P. Conley, reported a short time after Trump's arrival to the hospital that he was feeling fine and had not received supplemental oxygen, a press conference that Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was sure to have seen. However, Mr. Meadows announced publicly on Fox News Saturday evening that the President's blood oxygen levels had dropped to 94% (which is statistically still in the range of normal for a fingertip monitor) and he had been given 2 liters of supplemental oxygen (which is virtually nothing at all, equivalent to about 20 seconds of oxygen delivered by a simple mask). Since protocol (and HIPAA laws) dictate that the lead physician in charge of care control the dissemination of information related to the health of the patient, what could have possibly compelled the President's Chief of Staff to go public with this conflicting information? Mr. Meadows had also added that the President was feverish and extremely lethargic.

Dr. Conley continued over the next several days, to provide a stream of reports that only served to confuse the public and health professionals who were watching. It was becoming quite apparent that Dr. Conley was not reporting the facts, but was instead reporting the story that the White House wanted the public to hear. By Sunday afternoon the stories coming out of the White House and the stories coming out of Walter Reed were so conflicted that the White House apparently instructed Dr. Conley to inform the press that he had been lying all along, leaving the White House narrative as the only "honest" version.

So, since it is safe to assume that none of the information coming out of the White House or out of Walter Reed can be trusted, we have to analyze what we DO know to be fact.

1. The White House announced that the President was mildly symptomatic on Friday, and witnesses reported that the President seemed to be "under the weather" and "tired" on Thursday. The White House subsequently reported that the President was suffering from respiratory insufficiency on Friday when he was administered supplemental oxygen. However, from what we know about the evolution of COVID-19, there is almost always a period of 7-10 days between the onset of first symptoms and the onset of breathing difficulties. Therefore, the President was not symptomatic long enough to develop viral pneumonia.
   
   
2. The President walked to Marine One and climbed the steps unaided. This was only minutes after allegedly receiving supplemental oxygen. Because of the risk of a serious fall, anyone receiving supplemental oxygen should not walk or climb stairs without support. Could the President have been wobbly, but insisted on walking to Marine One unaided for the optics? Yes, that is possible, but he certainly did not look like someone who was having trouble catching his breath or staying upright.
   
   
3. Dr. Conley reported that the President was doing "very well" and required no extraordinary measures after arriving to Walter Reed. Mark Meadows disputed that a few days later. Why did Mark Meadows do that? The answer might be that the President did not contract COVID-19 at all and the White House was concerned that the virtual lack of symptoms and effects from the virus would raise suspicion that the White House was lying. Therefore, Mr. Meadows may have made announcements to give the public the idea that the President was actually suffering from a moderate case of COVID-19.
   
   
4. The President recorded two videos from Walter Reed that were shared publicly. In neither of these videos does the President seem weak or lethargic, nor does he ever stop to catch his breath or show any signs of any respiratory distress, which conflicts with reports that he needed supplemental oxygen on two separate occasions.
   
   
5. The President left Walter Reed for a now famous "joy ride" to wave at supporters, which begs the question, "Was he actively COVID-19 positive at the time?" Because, if he were positive then getting into a sealed off SUV with other people for the purpose of a publicity stunt begs reason. A simpler explanation could be that the President was COVID negative and therefore the joy ride was risk-free.
   
   
6. The President's physicians have not released any test data or any scans that could serve to substantiate the claim of an active viral infection, perhaps because there never was an active infection.
   
   
7. The drug trials of a monoclonal antibody treatment from Eli Lilly similar to the Regeneron treatment that the White House touted as a "cure" and a "miracle" have been stopped because the treament has shown to be ineffective in testing on humans.
   
   
8. After only four days at Walter Reed, the President returned to the White House, ripped off his face covering, and proceeded to shoot staged videos which were later set to music to project the image of a "conquering victor returning from battle", which only serves to fuel the idea that this was all staged.
   
   
9. Two days after returning to the White House the President has resumed his regular schedule, including holding meetings in the Oval Office, in spite of still being in what is typically considered to be the contagious phase of the illness. The White House is announcing that the President is now, miraculously, COVID-free but will not provide evidence of two sequential negative COVID tests that are prerequisite before determining that a patient is free of the virus.

So, while the evidence is circumstantial, it does paint a picture of a White House that invented the narrative that the President had contracted the coronavirus and developed COVID-19.

Why would they opt to do that? I can see several reasons:

1. The President has been working overtime since the outset of this pandemic in trying to convince the public that COVID-19 is not something we should fear because he does not want the virus to adversely effect economic output and employment. He has opposed mandatory shut-down orders because of the economic impact on businesses and employees. He has opposed mask wearing and social distancing measures because they spread fear. Therefore, the idea that a 74 year old man could get COVID-19 and be over it faster and with fewer symptoms than one might expect from a common cold would play right into that narrative. In fact, in one of the prepared video statements made mere minutes after his return to the White House from Walter Reed, an apparently healthy and vital President is seen saying the following:
   
   
   "I just left Walter Reed Medical Center, and it is really something very special: the doctors, the nurses, the first responders. And, I learned so much about Coronavirus. And, one thing that is for certain: don't let it dominate you. Don't be afraid of it. You're gonna beat it. We have the best medical equipment, we have the best medicines, all developed recently. And, you're gonna beat it. I went, I didn't feel so good. And two days ago, I could have left two days ago. Two days ago I felt great, like better than I have in a long time. I said just recently, better than 20 years ago. Don't let it dominate, don't let it take over your lives. Don't let that happen."
   
   
2. The President and the White House have been pushing the narrative that cures for COVID-19 exist, including antivirals, monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies, even malarial drugs and in what was later claimed to be a hoax or a joke, bright lights, ultraviolet lights, and common household disinfectants. If the public believes that cures for COVID-19 exist they are less likely to be afraid of it and more likely to go about business as usual. Therefore, the White House and Dr. Conley made sure to announce that they had thrown the veritable "kitchen sink" at the President's viral infection, yielding nothing short of a "cure", while evidence emerging more recently shows that these "cures" are, in fact, ineffective treatments.
   
   
3. A theme of the campaign has been the notion that Donald Trump is faster, stronger and more energetic than his opponent. What could possibly feed the myth better than beating COVID-19 in record time while making his hospital stay look more like a visit to the spa?

So, what can we conclude from all of this?

1. The narrative coming out the White House, which from the early stages of the pandemic has been one of minimization and denial, is not going to change in light of recent events. In effect, the White House, in their misguided efforts to keep the economy afloat, are actively driving the infection rate and virtually insuring that things will get much worse before they get better.
   
   
2. The hallmark of the government response to the pandemic has been the dissemination of fake, false and conflicting reports, going back to early CDC claims that the use of face masks could actually do more harm than good, and this latest White House effort indicates that they are prepared to double and triple down on their commitment to say and do whatever best suits their narrative which insures that important future measures, such as convincing the public that any possible vaccine is safe, are doomed to fail.

Zero Commission Trades = Perfect Fed Revenue Opportunity

 

As self-directed retail investing has grown, so has competition for those trading dollars, leading many discount brokers to offer zero commission trades.

Zero commission trades are not good for the markets as they encourage churn and risky short-term trading strategies that lead to price dislocations and speculative bubbles. Evidence indicates that the rise of low and no-commission trading has coincided with a huge increase in retail trading volumes which has led to equity price bubbles which are putting billions of dollars at risk.

I view this as a perfect opportunity for the Federal Government to enter the fray an start charging a $5 per trade tax.

Not only would such a tax encourage thoughtful and longer-term investing, it would be a revenue win.

$5 per trade is an insignificant cost and not a barrier to entry to the retail investor. It will reduce the number of trades, which is a good thing. It will encourage a more conservative investment strategy, which is a good thing. And, it will raise much needed revenue.

The NYSE trades an average of 3.6 billion shares per day. And, due to the rise in retail trading, the average trade is only 200 shares. If the Feds charge $5 per trade they could raise $90 million dollars per day in taxes, from the NYSE ALONE! The NASDAQ moves approximately 4 billion shares a day, so combined revenue from both sources would be over $180 million per day, or about $3.9 billion per month.

Even if this tax leads to 20% fewer trades, the Feds could still raise over $3 billion per month.

So, if the brokerages are willing to offer zero commission trades, then they have created a perfect opportunity for the Feds to raise revenue and limit some risky behavior.

Gap Year

Due to technological hurdles, and not wanting to put the country's progress in containing SARS-COV2 at risk, Kenya has decided that public schools will not convene for the 2020-2021 academic year.

I believe that this is smart decision and one that other countries should consider, particularly those who are considering remote education for this academic year.

The final months of the 2019-2020 academic year were held remotely and I was offered the opportunity to witness the academic experience from the perspective of my daughters, who are 6 and 9. It was clear to me that they were not learning, or at least not learning adequately to even begin to justify the time spent in front of the computer screen, not to mention the tuition expense.

I have job experience as a classroom teacher to students in the 10-12 year old range, and I can unequivocally state that remote learning for those students would have been a mixed bag, at best. There simply was too much variability in the student's level of focus and the amount of home support available to them to predict good outcomes for many of these students. Are we to leave these students behind while the other half marches onward?

Also, teaching children, particularly younger children, is by necessity a very hands-on and interactive job. The physical presence of a charismatic and energetic instructor provides a focal point which is the beginning of the learning process. The interactions between the students and the instructor, and perhaps even more importantly between the student and his fellow students, are of vital importance. Debate, group problem solving, competition and other group activities are absolutely necessary to achieve real learning.

In the United States most school districts are marching ahead with remote learning without any data to indicate how the students will perform. If standardized testing at the mid-point of the 2020-2021 academic year indicates that it is not working, are we prepared to abandon the experiment or are we going to allow these unprepared students to advance to the next grade?

For all of these reasons, I encourage a debate over the option of taking a gap year, with the plan to reconvene in-person classes when conditions permit.

Censorship is Censorship

The popular uprising that has led YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook to censor the content published by its contributors will have an adverse effect.

By acclimating the population to the acceptability of censorship as a tool we are opening the door to officially-sanctioned censorship of viewpoints that the authorities disprove of.

We must keep in mind that the First Amendment protects the right of free expression, with certain limits (such as not crying out "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre).

Any action, both public and private that restricts that right is a step backward and toward authoritarianism.

What can we do, then, about general quackery published in social media under the guise of "news"? Well, we can counter lies with facts, and we can increase public awareness of the existence of the lies.

At the end of the day, no one will successfully control the Internet, and nor should they. We all must gain critical thinking skills so that all viewpoints can be expressed and filtered out.

Censorship is NOT the answer.

SAVE OUR DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCERS

I view it as critical to U.S. national security to preserve North American oil production.

Therefore, I propose a $20 per barrel tariff on all crude originating outside of the U.S., Canada or Mexico, effective immediately.

We must not allow North American producers to fail. They are now and will be our lifeline in the future.

US AGAINST THEM

So, was it really a Saudi hissy fit that led to a raft of supertankers loaded up and headed for the Gulf Coast?

If you listen to the "experts" and the pundits, you will not hear anyone speak honestly about why the West Texas Intermediate contract has tanked (and gone temporarily negative for the first time ever).

Of course, there is viral demand destruction with no end in sight.

Then, there is the "official line", which goes something like this: "The Saudis were pushing OPEC+ for big production cuts to stabilize prices against possible demand destruction, but the Russians wouldn't 'play along'. "Oh, no?" the Saudis proclaimed. "Well then, I'LL SHOW YOU!" At which point Aramco (the publicly traded Saudi national oil company) decided that they would open the taps to the fullest and would contract every available supertanker at 5x the going rate, fill them up, and send them steaming toward the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

Of course, the "official line" isn't worthy of repeating because it is patently false. The "spat" that is alleged between the Saudis and the Russians is pure theater to provide political cover for the horrible thing that they have done: they have driven a knife into the heart of the U.S. shale oil boom and into the U.S. financial system at a time when our sole focus is on containing a lethal viral pandemic that has curiously expanded in the U.S. far faster and wider than in any other nation.

Last year, the U.S., through pure grit, innovation and determination, took over the #1 spot in oil and gas production, in spite of having no easily accessible reserves. This achievement cannot be understated, as it played a big role in the U.S. economic resurgence on the heels of the financial crisis and "Great Recession". The Saudis and Russians have huge oil reserves, but unlike in the U.S., these reserves are easily accessible and very low cost. It is estimated that the Saudis can pull a barrel of oil out of the ground for about $12 and the Russians for about $18, compared to about $28 per barrel for the majority of U.S. producers.

What essentially happened here is pure Machiavellian strategy: the #2 and #3 producers joined forces at the cusp of the greatest energy demand destruction the world has ever seen to INCREASE PRODUCTION for the purpose of rapidly and decisively driving the #1 U.S. shale producers out of business based on the logic that at $12 and $18 they could outlast any producer at $28.

The global oil business is not a game for the faint of heart, and I recognize that. But, if you are in a fight with someone and they fall down for no fault of their own, you typically allow them to regain their footing before resuming the fisticuffs.

Of course, that would be far too gentlemanly for the Saudis or the Russians. I guess I can understand the Russian animus toward the U.S. as decades of sanctions have hurt those close to Putin deeply. But, et tu MBS? We all assumed that Saudi Arabia was an American ally. I mean, we have taken the most strident of hard lines against their sworn enemy, the Iranians. We have not put any restrictions on their arms purchases or strategic support during their (genocidal) war in Yemen. We have generally avoided conflict with Saudi Arabia and the U.S. presence in the Middle East is a bulwark that generally protects the Saudi Royal Family.

So, why did the Saudi leadership decide to take this action when it was patently obvious that dramatic supply increases would be catastrophic for U.S. producers and for the U.S. economy?

In 2007 - 2008 the U.S. convulsed as a huge number of mortgage-backed securities went tits up, leading to a severe banking crisis as most banks quickly found themselves to be severely under-capitalized. To put things in perspective, the tidal wave of defaults that are likely to result from the combination of the pandemic and the oil war could make the mortgage-back security fiasco look like an appetizer. Surely, the Russians and Saudis knew this.

What is in the process of occurring is that U.S. shale producers are shutting in as much production as they can, laying off anyone and everyone, and sitting down with their lenders to chart a path forward. Most of those lenders and going to take a bath on this, and the destruction of wealth will take decades to recover. Which means that when oil is back above $45 a barrel it is unlikely to see the same vigorous U.S. response. The U.S. #1 position is effectively finished, and this is bad for America.

Thank you very much, MBS!

P.S.

I have a theory as to why MBS wants so badly to fuck America, and it has a name: Jared Kushner.

Jared Kushner put forth such an bad faith effort toward an Israeli/Palestinian peace that the Arab world was deeply angered. The idea that the U.S. Administration would green light and rubber stamp such as ridiculous plan made all Arabs realize that the current government is not their friend or ally.