Your Caffeine Addiction February 28, 2020February 28, 2020 But first: Ryan P: “Bloomberg is highly displeasing in the debates. He’s totally unlikable and takes responsibility for almost nothing. He has a lot of marks against him in both his policies and personal behavior in the past, and doesn’t seem to really even be a Democrat. What am I missing?” → He was terrible in the first debate and not good Tuesday night. Which is a shame, because as a manager — whether running a company or a city — he’s shown himself to be the best. And his massive philanthropy has shown him to care deeply about making the world better, in thoughtful strategic ways. If he were a natural politician, it would be perfect. He’s clearly not. But calm competence at leading massive organizations is sure something to be considered as we select whoever is going to lead the country. As for not being a Democrat (a label Bernie has also shunned), look at his plans and record and see whether they align with your own. If they do, consider that his having been a Republican for a while, and an independent, might actually appeal to moderate Republicans and independents, who don’t care so much about labels as they do about getting things done. Likewise, were he ever negotiating with Republicans in Congress — they might find it easier to find common ground with him than with some of our other terrific candidates. Finally, I refer you again to the Tom Friedman column from yesterday’s post that I trust everyone, at the highest levels, is thinking about. And now! As we speak, 90% of the world’s population is addicted to caffeine. Michael Pollan’s quick listen, subtitled, “How Caffeine Created The Modern World” (an hour twenty at 1.5X speed, since it’s about caffeine, after all), is free to Audible members . . . and documents, among much else, his experiment with kicking the habit. On a related note listen to this, from Steven Johnson’s TED talk (as 5 million others already have): . . . [T]he English coffeehouse . . . played such a big role in the birth of the Enlightenment, in part, because of what people were drinking there. Because, before the spread of coffee and tea through British culture, what people drank — both elite and mass folks drank — day-in and day-out, from dawn until dusk was alcohol. Alcohol was the daytime beverage of choice. You would drink a little beer with breakfast and have a little wine at lunch, a little gin — particularly around 1650 — and top it off with a little beer and wine at the end of the day. That was the healthy choice — right — because the water wasn’t safe to drink. And so, effectively until the rise of the coffeehouse, you had an entire population that was effectively drunk all day. And you can imagine what that would be like, right, in your own life — and I know this is true of some of you — if you were drinking all day, and then you switched from a depressant to a stimulant in your life, you would have better ideas. You would be sharper and more alert. And so it’s not an accident that a great flowering of innovation happened as England switched to tea and coffee. Have a great weekend. How cool is it that we get an extra day this month?
Beating Putin February 27, 2020February 26, 2020 Listen to the Daily: Why Russia Is Rooting for Both Trump and Sanders. Twenty-four important minutes. Because right now, Putin is winning, big-time. Tom Friedman’s plan to save the day: Dems, You Can Defeat Trump in a Landslide. A “unity ticket” with broad appeal. Yes, it would be “unprecedented.” But do you know what? With democracy and the habitability of our planet on the line, it’s time for unprecedented. I’d tweak Friedman’s picks a bit, and you’d likely tweak them in one way or another, as well . . . (It’s fine for Bloomberg to be Bernie’s Treasury Secretary, but not the other way around, so if it’s Bloomberg, Bernie would be the newly created “Inequality Czar?” And while we’re at it, either of them should name Al Gore “Climate Czar?” Or move Bernie to Health and Human Services, and Senator Warren, if she wants it, to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she created, and maybe the Federal Trade Commission, as well?) . . . but the overall point: we can’t let Putin win, destroying our precious democracy, the rule of law, the rule of reason, the rule of common decency — and the habitability of the planet. If you have resources to invest in a happy ending, click here.
It’s The Economy, Stupid February 26, 2020February 25, 2020 Guess what? Growth in median household income has slowed under Trump as compared with Obama. (Also: we’re losing our democracy and the habitability of our planet; but the economy is what people care about, so spread the word.) And speaking of surprises . . . A socialist is likely to win the 2020 election. No, not Bernie Sanders. In small part: . . . “Republicans howled that [Obama’s] U.S. auto industry rescue package was ‘the leading edge of the Obama administration’s war on capitalism’ and would set us on ‘the road toward socialism.’ [Yet] Trump’s farmer trade bailouts are more than double the size of the auto bailout [and] Republicans are unperturbed.” . . . Conservatives complain that Sanders and his socialist allies wish to bloat budget deficits. Under Trump, of course, this has already happened. The deficit in fiscal 2019 was a whopping 48 percent higher than it was in fiscal 2017, thanks to GOP policies. And while “Crazy Bernie” does intend to jack up tax rates to (partly) offset his spending, Trump has raised some taxes on Americans, too — he’s just done it more regressively, through taxes on imports rather than income. Trump’s version of socialism soaks the poor, not the rich. If conservatives are genuinely frightened by Sanders’s proposed downward redistribution of wealth, they might consider the sort of redistribution practiced by Trump — in particular, the many ways Trump has used his office to redistribute taxpayer dollars into his own pocket. Just last week, during a tour of western states, Trump elected to fly his entourage back to his hotel in Las Vegas each night rather than stay in the other cities he was visiting. Whatever Sanders’s flaws, at least he doesn’t try to steal everything that’s not nailed down. If you’re a Never Trumper worried that Sanders will take this country down the road to serfdom, beware: President Trump has already paved the path. Powerful though it is, it’s not clear to me this argument will resonate with a majority of the people, once Trump endlessly reminds them that Bernie honeymooned in the Soviet Union and saw some good in Fidel Castro, etc. Given the chance to explain, his thoughts make a lot of sense. But will people listen? Former George W. Bush speechwriter and Never-Trumper David Frum is alarmed, writing in the Atlantic: If Sanders loses badly as moderate voters swing away from Democrats . . . it will be a loss up and down the ticket, a loss that could not only reelect Trump, but also enable him, by preserving his elected bodyguard in the Senate and restoring his majority in the House. The question to weigh before Super Tuesday is thus not only Sanders versus Biden or Sanders versus Bloomberg. It is whether you prefer Speaker Pelosi or Speaker McCarthy, and Chairman Schiff or Chairman Nunes. The hopes of congressional Democrats hang in the balance in the fateful week ahead. One more reason Bernie — vastly superior to Trump — is not my first choice.
We Need To Stop Talking About “Threats” To The Rule Of Law February 25, 2020February 24, 2020 Because, as argued here, we’re we past that: “The dark days are not coming — the dark days are here.” It’s a story patriots should find 12 minutes to watch, as we lose our democracy to Vladimir Putin. The set up directly preceding those 12 minutes draws a contrast between Trump and George W. Bush. Not that W. was so wonderful, either. But consider: After a list of pardons was made public days before Bush was to leave office, a staffer discovered that the father of someone on that list had contributed $28,000 to the RNC the previous April. The contribution was of no use to Bush, who was not running for reelection . . . yet so alarming was the potential perceived impropriety . . . by the standards of 2008 Republicans . . . that Bush’s team jumped through hoops to intercept the document before it could be physically delivered, thus rendering the pardon void. Contrast that with how Trump — who is running for reelection — is selling pardons. And doing things — watch the clip — even worse. Bernie supporters were not happy with yesterday’s post, so I want to reiterate: if he does become our nominee, we must all make sure Bernie wins. Here’s a short analysis from Axios suggesting that he can. (“The evidence doesn’t back Democrats’ panic that Bernie can’t win.”) And here’s a thoughtful piece from David Leonhardt on how he might improve those odds.* My own happy-gene thought is that if Bernie is president, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will help guide him toward realistic strategies that make welcome progress toward the goals we all share. * To which I would add: don’t make crazy, inflammatory statements, like attacking Buttegieg for having accepted $2,800 from each of 46 billionaires. That’s $128,800 out of $80 million Pete has raised. It’s nothing. And many of those billionaires are, very likely, progressives who think, as Bernie does, their taxes should be higher; drug price should be lower. And if billionaires are all evil, to be demonized, how about millionaires? Where do you draw the line? At some point, I think, it would enhance Bernie’s chances to lighten up a little.
Maher, Barr, and Bernie February 22, 2020February 22, 2020 Bill Maher rhymes with Bill Barr. But that’s about all. Seven X-rated minutes if you missed them last May. Bernie is doing great at around 30% of Democrats . . . and Democrats are around 40% of the electorate . . . so (30% of 40%) Bernie has a strong core of 12% — terrific people who passionately support his goals. I share those goals; I just worry he might not beat Trump. Or that, if he did, he might not be best-suited to work with the Senate to move the ball down the field toward those goals. I shared many of Ralph Nader’s goals, too . . . and admired George McGovern . . . but at the end of the day, it’s not enough to be passionate and idealistic, even when 12% of the country is strongly behind you. It’s not clear how much of the worst on-line Bernie behavior is legit and how much from Russia, but here’s a post from a thoughtful woman who doesn’t like it one bit. (But who, like all of us, I hope, will support Bernie if he’s the nominee!) And here’s an Elizabeth Warren supporter with a unique take on Mike Bloomberg. (He ran against him to be Mayor of New York.) I bought some CNXM Friday with money I can truly afford to lose. Eventually, renewables will, let us hope, put the natural gas pipelines out of business but that could be a while. In the meantime, at $13.35, the stock yields 12% and hopes to grow those annual pay-outs at 15% a year through 2023. My goal here: collect a few dividends until such time as — wishful thinking? — the stock gets back into the high teens. If that happened in a year, I’d have earned in the neighborhood of 50% (tax-deferred in my IRA), nicely beating the 2% I could get from something entirely safe.
WheelTug Doubles Its Order Book February 20, 2020February 19, 2020 But first . . . economic perspective from Paul Krugman: . . . [W]hy are interest rates so low? The answer basically comes down to a global excess supply of saving: around the world, people want to save more than businesses are willing to invest in new factories, office parks, and so on. This leaves the world awash in savings that are all dressed up with nowhere to go, which is in turn a world in which bond markets are effectively begging governments to borrow and spend. And governments should take them up on the offer. The sensible, prudent thing to be doing now would be to borrow at these low, low rates and use the money for public investment: rebuilding our creaking infrastructure, subsidizing new technologies (especially green energy), and making sure that children have adequate health care and nutrition. Of course, we’re not doing that in America: the Trump administration is borrowing vast sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. . . . And now . . . As BOREF subsidiary WheelTug inches toward the hoped-for promised land, it took two inches forward this week with the signing of IndiGo and what could eventually be 1,084 WheelTug leased systems, roughly doubling the order queue. Big news in India. One of many press clips: IndiGo to enable faster ground operations and reduce aircraft turn-around time with WheelTug System How do you grow a world-class airline in a market constrained by infrastructure, capacity, competition, regulatory and emissions limitations? IndiGo has found the answer. The Indian aerospace market is unlike any other. The market is extremely promising from a demand perspective. Commercial air services at the ten busiest airports have grown between 50% and 160% over the last five years. While that market demand is extremely attractive, other aspects of the region are far more challenging. Indian airlines face: Limited airport capacity as airport tarmac space is often severely limited by surrounding, densely populated, urban areas. Emissions constraints in a country striving for a significantly cleaner future. Regulatory pressures on on-time performance that result in schedule padding and lower effective utilization. And a brutal competitive space that has bankrupted multiple airlines The winners in this market will be those airlines that find solutions to these challenges. IndiGo, an airline projected to be the largest in the world by fleet size, will be one of them. IndiGo recently signed a Letter of Intent reserving a large number of WheelTug® systems. WheelTug provides onboard electric motors, mounted into the nosewheel of aircraft, that will revolutionize ground operations. These simple systems enable aircraft to travel on the ground without tugs or engines. They will enable far more manoeuvrability and independence for aircraft in the ramp area. To complement the e-taxi system, IndiGo pilots will also have access to the WheelTug Vision camera/sensor array installed alongside the e-taxi system. Panoramic views displayed in the cockpit will provide pilots with the situational awareness required to manoeuvre aircraft quickly and safely. This is a game-changer for the Indian market. By moving aircraft in and out of gates faster (and in some cases, shortening time at the gate as well), IndiGo will be uniquely situated to make the most out of Indian airports limited tarmac availability. By significantly reducing emissions for aircraft and eliminating emissions from pushback tugs, IndiGo will be able to run cleaner and more efficient ground operations than any other airline. By reducing delays caused by ground equipment (particularly pushback tugs and congestion delays caused by jet start procedures and jet blast safety margins), IndiGo will be able to schedule their operations more tightly and realize far greater utilization than their competition – without concern for the financial penalties that prevent other airlines from doing the same. And by increasing efficiency, utilization and improving the passenger experience, IndiGo will be able to edge out their competition, offering prices and services that cannot be matched by any other airline in the Indian market. IndiGo has shown its leadership in the market and its dedication to serving the Indian market with ever more efficient, comfortable and affordable commercial air services. None of this matters unless and until the company successfully completes the FAA certification process. But having secured what the company believes will be adequate funding to do so, it seems to be worth a great deal more than the $30 million market cap the market currently assigns its publicly traded grandparent (well, barely publicly traded), BOREF. I know, I know. But you know, too: only to be bought with money you can truly afford to lose. (And use “limits” — the other day it dropped 50% on a sale of 2,000 shares, and then nearly doubled on a small purchase!)
Bernie Fans Should Like Mike, Too February 19, 2020February 18, 2020 Here’s why: The power of money — which he will spend to defeat Trump no matter who shines on the debate stage tonight. Tom: “Billionaires are buying elections. Bloomberg is said to have 13 or so billion, and DJT about 6 or 7. THE DIFFERENCE? When DJT descended the escalator, he outlined an agenda and met daily with voters. Bloomberg has very little contact with the voters. His agenda: WE HATE TRUMP. Guess what? Trump will destroy him.” → Interesting that our different views extend even to the candidates’ net worth. You live in a world where Trump is worth $6 billion and Bloomberg $13 billion. I live in a world where Trump’s billionaire status is likely but questionable (after having been fined $2 million for his non-philanthropy) and Bloomberg’s net worth is commonly agreed to be $60 billion (even after having given away $10 billion). As for his agenda and message, you need only click here to see he has a lot on his mind besides being appalled by Trump. To avoid Trump’s reelection — whoever heads our ticket — we need to avoid these three mistakes Mitt Romney made in 2012. Oh — and here’s a good question:
Tom Likes Mike February 18, 2020February 16, 2020 If the essential goal is beating Trump, from which all other progressive goals follow, then it’s hard to dismiss Tom Friedman’s logic. Tom likes Mike. Let me know what you think. And on stop and frisk? Can we just always note that — though a mistake! — its goal was NOT to oppress or humiliate young black men, but, rather, to save their lives. Friedman did not make this point, nor have I heard Mike make it. But to me it seems relevant. Motivation matters. To those who’ve written me outraged that DNC rules have changed to allow Mike on the debate stage, I would argue there are two things they may not have considered: First, that it was always known and agreed that the criteria would change as the primary process proceeded. The bar was set low at first to assure a great many people (twenty?) could get noticed and perhaps catch fire . . . and then gradually set higher so that, now eight months after the first debate, only viable candidates are being subjected to scrutiny. Does anyone believe that today — truly wonderful though they are — Cory Booker or Deval Patrick or Michael Bennet (to take just three), were they on stage in Las Vegas, could have realistically captured the nomination? Or, conversely, that Bloomberg is not realistically in the running? Which brings me to the second point: shouldn’t the other candidates and their followers demand Bloomberg be on stage so they can confront him? And so Democrats get to see him under fire? (And by the way? If the DNC had required him to show hundreds of thousands of small contributors, does anyone doubt he could have gotten them? The email writes itself. “Some of my advisers thought I should use my not having donors as an excuse to avoid the debates. Blame the DNC. But at the end of the day, I only want to win the nomination if people, evaluating me along with my worthy opponents, decide I’m their best choice. Which is why I’m revising my no-contributions policy to accept contributions of $1 each. Please click below to contribute that dollar and subject me to proper scrutiny on the debate stage. And by the way? May I just repeat here that if the people don’t choose me as their nominee, I will spend a fortune trying to help elect whomever they do choose. I’m not in this for some egomaniacal publicity stunt, as Trump was when, like a king, he descended the escalator. I’m in it because we need to restore competence and decency as we confront wages that are too low, health care costs that are too high, infrastructure that is crumbling, and a climate crisis that threatens the habitability of our planet.”) So please don’t fault the DNC for allowing anyone polling at 10% or more onto the debate stage — applaud it. It was the right decision. Click here.
Two Pathogens February 16, 2020February 13, 2020 1. The coronavirus: Five very clear minutes from a family physician. 2. The greater threat: Eight very clear minutes on how quickly a democracy can collapse. We assume “it can’t happen here.” It is happening. You really need to watch. And share. And, if you can, help. What better way to celebrate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln this magnificent President’s Day weekend?
The Opposite of A Cult February 13, 2020 But start with this: . . . That Catholic Charities has been replaced by Hookers for Jesus says much about Barr’s Justice Department. Friends of Trump are rewarded. Opponents of Trump are punished. And the nation’s law enforcement apparatus becomes Trump’s personal plaything. . . . Dana Milbank’s whole column is worth your time and dismay. And this: Challenging Trump for the GOP nomination taught me my party is a cult. Real conservatives think for themselves. Trump Republicans have been brainwashed. When I announced my primary challenge to President Trump last year, I knew running against him for the GOP nomination was the ultimate long shot. Even now, after impeachment, after three years of vulgarities, inanities, betrayals and racist screeds, he has a 94 percent approval rating among Republicans in the latest Gallup poll. . . . I hate to say it, but the GOP now resembles a cult. Joe Walsh’s whole column, also from the Washington Post, is likewise worth your time. The thing is: when you’re in a cult, you generally don’t know you’re in a cult. You reject anything — like Joe Walsh’s column or Mitt Romney’s principled vote or the fact that a million and a half more jobs were created in Obama’s final three years than in Trump’s first three — that conflicts with what you want believe. So you wind up believing Trump . . . . . . who believes Putin. (And if you can’t trust Vladimir Putin to have America’s best interests at heart, whom can you trust?) Watching all this, Putin must be giddy. Read the “post acquittal” view from Moscow: Russians Think Triumphant Trump Is More Their Man Than Ever. One more reason it’s imperative to wrest power from Trump and McConnell November 3 . . . which means funding the early-organizing snowball now, so it has plenty of time to accumulate volunteers as it rolls downhill. So (finally) what is the opposite of a cult? Denmark. Three inspirational minutes.