January 30, 2020--Chaos Theory

If you're obsessing as I am about the Trump impeachment trial, your focus is likely on the struggle about witnesses.

Almost all Republican senators appear to oppose having any and want to get to the business of exonerating Trump to allow them to get home in time to watch this weekend's Super Bowl. (This is literally true.)

And it appears that all Democratic senators will vote to include witnesses. Especially John Bolton.

To include witnesses and documents the Dems have to secure at least four maverick Republicans to get to the required 51 votes. This Kabuki drama is being fueled by the cable news networks that like nothing better than covering political horse races.

Republican senators are saying if four members of their caucus bolt and vote with the Democrats to call witnesses, as a quid pro quo, they will insist on subpoenaing Hunter Biden, who, along with his father, they contend, is at the center of all things Ukrainian. Including corruption. 

A few reflections--

If the Republicans are so eager to haul the Bidens in to testify under oath they can arrange that for later this afternoon. 51 votes are all that are needed to compel that and with 53 members the GOP already has the votes they need to force the Bidens to appear before the House.  

Speculate away as to why they do not seem eager to do so. My view is that they really do not want to have even the Bidens as witnesses since they know there is no significant dirt there to stir up and one never knows what will leak out if there is an open process. Perhaps, the truth.

And, if they are ready to vote to keep Trump in office, they also have the votes for that and could get that done in time for the kickoff.

I therefore see it to be likely that Mitch McConnell has the votes to squelch any move to call witnesses and therefore will let the witnesses and expulsion votes occur on Friday. He and Trump and all but two or three Republican senators are on board for that. They also assume the public, 75 percent of whom want witnesses, will be upset about a Senate coverup but within just a week or two will have moved on to the next outrage. Call it outrage overload. 

If you've been following what I've been writing you know none of this disturbs me. In fact, the opposite as I wrote last week--"the worser the better." 

The more things drift toward chaos, the better it is for Democratic chances to defeat Trump in November and take control of the Senate. The voting public will make Republicans pay for this shameful coverup.

I would feel otherwise and be focused on the upcoming House votes--on witnesses and Trump's fate--if there was any chance of attracting, say, 10 Republican to vote with the Democrats. That would be a different story with very different outcomes. 

I am thus a proponent of chaos. 

February 8, 2017--Over-Under

I have a friend who's a big sports fan. Especially of professional football. So Super Bowl Sunday is his national holiday. Bigger than Thanksgiving (though he can watch at least three NFL games then and ignore the turkey), more important than July 4th, and ditto for New Years (though again there are some games that day which he watches while the rest of us struggle with hangovers).

In truth, he's not really a sports or football fan. He's a sports gambler. He doesn't root for any teams except when he has a bet placed on one of them.

So a few days before last Sunday, when he said, "Can you believe the over-under?" I knew he was talking about the game and betting, but I had no idea what he meant.

"Over-under? I never heard of that. What is it?"

"Fifty-six points."

I continued to be confused, "Enlighten me. I don't know anything about this."

"That's the number of points that oddsmakers say both teams will score." Seeing I was still not following him, he added, "Not each team but the number of points both teams will score. The total of both of their points. Say the game ends with Atlanta scoring 30 points while the Patriots score 26. That would total 56 points." He grinned at his ability to explain this to someone as untutored as me.

"So if you want to do over-under who do you root for?"

"For both of them because if you bet under, you hope that the teams will score fewer than a total of 56 points. And if you bet over, you hope both teams' totals will be more than 56 points."

"Doesn't sound like any fun to me. I like rooting for one team to win and . . ."

"You can do that too by, say, betting on Atlanta and taking the points."

"Now you really have me confused. I just want to watch the game and hope it turns out to be an exciting one."

He waved me off as hopeless.

But it did turn out to be a great game and that made me happy especially since as a half-time-a-year Mainer, I was rooting for New England. They won and scored a total of 34 points. The Falcons scored 28 and so their combined score was 62 points, six points above the 56-point over-under.

You figure it out.

A day or two later, still thinking about over-under, I realized that many stock market investors think in exactly the same way. They too, we too are gambling and frequently on the over-under of a company's earnings. Particularly how actual quarterly earnings either meet, exceed, of miss quarterly income projections. And as with football betting, you win or lose on the over or under. It's not about a company doing well but whether or not it beats (is over) or misses (is under).

So when Amazon reported it's quarterly earnings last week--since we have Amazon stock which over time (the old fashioned way of investing in the market) has done very well by us--I was focused on how well its earnings and profits looked. More important to the majority of investors on the other hand, who see the stock market as a big casino, was its over or under. Would earnings hit, beat, or miss estimates. In other words, what would the over-under look like.

Amazon's earnings were $1.54 per share, beating estimates which foresaw only $1.35 per share, but the company's total quarterly earnings were "only" $43.74 billion, while estimates were looking for more, for $44.66 billion.

To complicate matters, revenue was up a noteworthy 22.4 percent compared to the same quarter last year.

Overall this should have been good news, but missing the earnings estimate, the under, was enough bad news for shares of Amazon stocks to drop nearly 30 points, or dollars, down to about $800 a share. Thus, our portfolio took a hit.

I told my friend about this and he wasn't surprised. "Like I always say, people will turn everything into action. In fact, if you're interested, the odds makers have already established a line for next year's Super Bowl."

"You're kidding."

"I'm not. They are saying that the Cowboys and Patriots will meet in Super Bowl LII. With the Pats favored by 4.75 to 1. If I were you I'd drop a couple of hundred bucks on New England. Use some of your Amazon money."

February 7, 2017--Glimmers?

My close friend, Dr. Gary Schwartzberg, the best audiologist on the east coast, has been in existential angst since Donald Trump was elected. It is hard to blame him.

But I have taken it as my mission to find things for him to consider that might ease his anguish. Perhaps some have been more stretches of my imagination than verifiably true, more wish than reality. However, struggling to offer him things to feel optimistic about, all right, to not make him crazy, I have come up with a few things these past few days that appear to have helped ease his political pain. Or at least to offer some brief solace.

Here's something I wrote to him over the past weekend, and what he said back to me--

GS  

Because of med-induced reduced energy this, which could be lengthy, will be brief. I am beginning to see some glimmers of hope. All in the realm of our cherished checks and balances-- Asserting that the U.S. government is not made up just of a powerful executive branch, the federal courts have begun to assert themselves. In at least two instances already there have been judicial rulings that suspended Trump's egregious Muslim-ban executive order. And Trump and his administration are obeying these rulings, albeit appealing them. This is most important. It suggest some acknowledgement on their part of the courts' authority and evidence of restraint on Trump's potential imperial aspirations. 

If this gets to the Supremes with the current 4-4 split the other court's rulings will stand. Of course, who knows what will be if the 9th seat gets filled. (it will). But about these kinds of fundamental constitutional matters even conservative justices (sometimes especially conservative justices) are very protective of the Constitution's separation of powers. Though, on the other hand, they have been over-tolerant of protecting presidential authority, which has grown exponentially since the Depression, World War II, and Cold War. Then, there is clearly a blood-struggle for primacy within the White House among some of the senior staff and Cabinet heads. There was a good WaPo piece a few days ago and a Time magazine cover story about the emerging feud between Bannon-Miller, who hatched the exec order without consulting with the Secretaries of Defense, State, or Homeland Security. All three entities headed by mature, powerful, and self-assured men who, if they will continue to act independently (and I feel will  considering who they are and with history watching), will at some point tell Trump it's either them or Bannon.  

And my guess is that Jared Kusher will soon try to pull the plug on Bannon as he did to get rid of Chris Christie. There may not be room enough in the West Wing for those two. Even Ivanka's brand is being hammered by the excesses of Bannon and Miller. Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus are no longer carrying her line.  I see these to be glimmers of some hope. Of course, as the criticism mounts, Trump may dig in and begin to act out more. Which could be dangerous. But I'm betting on Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly. And especially Jared and Ivanka. Trump is essentially a small-time mom-and-pop operator on steroids and if his kids do an intervention, it could get interesting and things could get a lot better.  And then thankfully there's the Super Bowl . . .   

SZ

Dr. S responded--

Steve, 

I do see the glimmers and believe that they are real.  Reasonable conservative and liberal federal court judges are beginning to step up to the plate; I am hopeful that more will be energized to do the same.  I read (maybe Times OpEd) that the “so-called judge” tweek was the one of the most dangerous of all--delegitimizing the fed court system.  I also agree, the more extreme and irrational the inhabitants of the White House are, the more likely things will implode sooner than later.   We spent the weekend with my daughter and her boyfriend.  I am encouraged at the intellect and progressive mindedness of some of our youth.   Enjoy the game and help us stay positive my friend.  

G

Then I wrote--

GS 

The Patriots are down by 25 points and I have the TV on mute. Most boring Super Bowl ever! So I have some time to send you one more note before turning it off altogether and hitting the hay. 

Did I read, or am I making it up, that the Trump adminsidtartion has decided not to use off-shore black-op interrogation sites where they torture captives? If true it's another glimmer and likely the result of General "Mad Dog" Mattis asserting himself. 

And in regard to checks and balances we shouldn't forget the American Street.  

Remember the Arab Street during the ill-fated Arab Spring? For the most part things got worse, but it did show the power of an aroused population, even in totalitarian situations. Here, now organized through social media, if the people remain motivated and turn out, that can make a big difference. Remember how street demonstrations helped bring down two presidents--Johnson and Nixon? 

Then again, I can't stop thinking that it may come down to Trump the father and father-in-law versus Steve Bannon, his surrogate whatever. I'm betting on the kids. 

SZ

And then from GS--

SZ 

Speaking of betting, turn on your TV. The Pats are now trailing by only 16 points. Never count them out. 

GS

Finally, I wrote--

GS 

Forget it. There are only a few minutes left and they need two touchdowns, each with two extra points. Can't happen. I'm going to sleep. 

SZ 

February 6, 2014--Macro Beer

Super Bowl ads often mark changes in the social culture.

This year there were all the warm and fuzzy ones that were clearly produced to pitch women who now constitute a growing, almost equal share of the NFL audience--46 percent of viewers of last week's Super Bowl were women. Forty-six percent. That's a surprising cultural shift in itself. Further, for obvious reasons, the League produced an ad that was designed to raise consciousness about the physical abuse of women. In desperate need of such conscious raising itself, the NFL probably feels it has discharged its duty.

Other ads addressed other changes in the fabric of America. One that stands out is the commercial for Budweiser that asked, "How should real beer be brewed?" Answering its own question, Bud proclaimed--"MACRO BEER." A clear slap at micro beer.

I wondered why Bud, so dominant in the beer-guzzling market, would waste millions to produce such an ad and then spend many millions more to broadcast it since and micro beer, to me, exists at the margins and comes with funny names such as Bad Tattoo, Fat Head, and the well-named Trouble.

But what do I know.

In yesterday's New York Times came the real answer--so-called craft beer now accounts for nearly 15 percent of the $100 billion US beer market. So Budweiser can no longer ignore these funky brewers, which I consider good news since Bud is literally tasteless and I am delighted to learn that more and more of the small, micro brewers are surviving. Some even thriving.

An earlier straw in the shifting cultural wind wafted by almost unnoticed two decades ago when sales of salsa surpassed ketchup. I do remember reading about that at the time but, like many others from marketing mavens to political pundits, missed the meaning, which is now so clear. Not only are Americans seeking to spice up their lives and enjoy full-bodied flavors but the population, in addition to getting older, is getting more youthful and more Latino.

Implications abound.

February 2, 2015--Halftime Show

Rona growled, "I just read they used 108 footballs in the Super Bowl. A separate one for each play."

"I wonder if they were all legally inflated."

"I think the NFL cared more how much they could sell them for as balls that used during the game."

"Everyone of them is a so-called 'game ball.'"

"Do you think they collected all the uniforms and sneakers and--"

"Jockstraps," I added. "And are selling all of that junk on eBay?"

"The same article said that balls from last year's Super Bowl XLVIII are selling on the secondary market for about $180 each so the bottom line of all this nonsense is not that huge considering the billions in other forms of revenue the Super Bowl generates."

"It's just a game but has become the single most-viewed event in America, sort of a national holiday."

"The cheapest tickets on StubHub were going for $7,000 each. And others sold for upwards of $40,000."

"Insane."

"I'll tell you what's really insane," Rona said, "More than 115 million viewers tuned in, though for sure it was a great game."

"Even crazier, 117 million watched Katy Perry during the halftime show. That's an even bigger mega-event."

"No surprise. She has more Twitter followers than anyone else in the world. Sixty-four million."

"Unbelievable. Who's second and third?"

"Justin Bieber has 60 million followers and the person in third place you won't believe."

"Taylor Swift?" I guessed.

"She's fourth. Guess again."

"Madonna?"

"Wrong again. She's sixth. In third place, with 54 million Twitter followers, is Barack Obama."

"I don't know if I should be depressed about this--especially the Justine Bieber numbers--or impressed that so many people know who the President of the United States is."

"Maybe," Rona quipped, "they think he's a rapper."

"Speaking of Barack Obama, do you know how many watched his recent State of the Union Address? All the networks, even Fox, carried it."

"About 52 million. I think I know where you're going with this."

"Maybe yes, maybe no."

"If more that twice as many watched Katy Perry than the SOTU, why not next year begin the halftime show with Lady Gaga or Rihanna and--"

"That would assure another 'wardrobe malfunction.'"

Ignoring me, Rona said, "And after the music and costume changes, have Obama deliver the State of the Union and--"

"And three-quarters of the 115 million viewers would take a bathroom break."

"Not if they showed a few Budweiser commercials with the Clydesdale horses and that cute lost puppy."

September 15, 2014--You Gotta Be a Football Hero . . .

There is so much hypocrisy when it comes to big time sports.

College kids in Division 1 schools play football and basketball in sold out stadiums which in many ways are TV studios since the big bucks come from the broadcast networks and cable outlets such as ESPN. But these athletes who are responsible for making millions for their schools are not allowed to have agents, accept free sneakers from Nike, much less get paid for their efforts.

Hypocrisy is rampant as well in professional sports, which unabashedly are all about money. The teams themselves are worth a fortune. The LA Clippers recently sold for $2.0 billion and the hapless Buffalo Bills are on the market and could yield a cool billion. Elite players can command up to $20 million a year for throwing passes, slam dunking, or hitting home runs. TV contracts to show NCAA football or basketball games earns teams tens of millions a year.

But in all sports, though making money is the bottom line, not unrelated to the drive for profits, athletes are expected to be role models, especially to children, and lead exemplary lives. Even though we turn them into literally larger-than-life superheroes, in their private lives we require these demigods to live normally. Even acts that to ordinary people might be considered misdemeanors can get them in serious trouble--suspended for a game or two or banned from playing and collecting their salaries for a year or even a lifetime.

While managing the Cincinnati Reds, the legendary Pete Rose was banned for life by the baseball commissioner for betting on games, though never against his own team. Again hypocritically, everyone knows that half the reason sports are as popular as they are is because of gambling, most of it illegal. Last year, for example, on the Super Bowl, on that one game, an estimated $119 million was wagered.

We are currently seeing more hypocrisy in action.

This time regarding the Baltimore Ravens' (former) running back Ray Price. "Former" is in parentheses because the Ravens terminated his contract when a video was broadcast of Price assaulting his then fiancée. The league itself became involved when the commissioner, Roger Goodell, (who earns $44 million a year) at first suspended him for two games but subsequently, under pressure from women's groups among others, made that suspension "indefinite."

What Rice did--and this isn't alleged--is reprehensible; but, to take a contrarian position, did what he did, as unacceptable as it is, justify ending his ability to earn a living as a football player? Especially since his now wife has forgiven him, asserting that what he did was, not to her, a relationship deal-breaker, and that he has apologized and wants to enter an anger management treatment program.

Yes, what the Ravens did, what the League did, was within their rights. The NFL Personal Conduct Policy statement, which is a part of every player's contract, stipulates that disciplinary action may be taken if a player commits "criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse; theft and other property crimes; sex offenses . . ."

Disciplinary action is permitted, the statement continues, for "conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players."

It's all about "reputation," which owners and league officials feel is linked directly to their bottom line--more than $10 billion in 2013--and since women now make an estimated 45 percent of the NFL fan base . . .

Rice's case feels as if it might be a rush to judgement or at least punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Is this one horrible act enough for the Ravens to have the power to terminate his contract? Shouldn't the NFL's disciplinary process require a conviction in a court of law before taking away one's livelihood? Are there other workplace equivalents? If an IBMer committed spousal abuse would that in itself justify barring him from the high-tech industry as the suspension will surely lead to Rice being banned for life from future NFL employment?

It is also ironic that football itself is substantially about violence, presumably controlled violence (though ask the dozens of former players who are now suffering from traumatic brain injuries how controlled it was). Football is largely about 300-pound men in versions of body armor slamming into each other with enough force to knock opponents flat. Even unconscious. It is our form of gladiatorial combat.

Just a few years ago, in 2009, the New Orleans Saints were found to have instituted a practice where players earned cash bonuses for inflicting injuries on the opposition, with the most money awarded for injuring quarterbacks enough so that they would have to be carried off the field on stretchers.

Not incidentally, though some of these hits were flagrant, not once during the 2009-10 season did game officials penalize any of them. And when the NFL learned of Bountygate, the discipline meted out to the Saints were mere slaps on the wrist compared to those imposed on Ray Price.