Tidbits Political Quotations
To Accompany the November 15, 2016 edition of Tidbits
Bob Jensen at
Trinity University

It's hard to beat a person who never gives up.

Babe Ruth, Historic Home Run Hitter
What's sad is to witness what Syria has become because nobody will give up.

And "because they're nonstate actors, it's hard for us to get the satisfaction of [Gen.] MacArthur and the [Japanese] Emperor [Hirohito] meeting and the war officially being over," Obama observed, referencing the end of World War II.
President Barack Obama when asked if the USA of the future will be perpetually engaged in war.

Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.
T.S. Eliot

There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.
Leonard Cohen

Be brave enough to start a conversation that matters.
Margaret Wheatley
Even conversations that are not politically correct.

We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us.
Joseph Campbell

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton
Why were nearly all poll statisticians thinking alike in 2016?

If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there.
Yogi Berra

Happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder.
Henry David Thoreau

Wildlife populations plunge almost 60 percent since 1970: WWF ---

Tax Rate Of S&P 100 Companies ---
There are some surprises here

List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin ---

Voter Turnout Percentages ---
Also see https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/10/why-did-trump-win-in-part-because-voter-turnout-plunged/

7 charts show who propelled Trump to victory ---

Nate Silver's blog is pointing out that Clinton also failed to win over white females who did not graduate from college ---
In other words, a serious number of women prevented a woman from winning this election.

What’s also important here is how poorly Hillary Clinton did. She got 6 million fewer votes than Barack Obama did in 2012, and nearly 10 million fewer than he did in 2008 ---

Hillary spent nearly twice as much per vote as her opponent ---

Yes, You’re Right, Colleges Are Liberal Bubbles. Here’s the Data ---

 The relevance of gerrymandering to the U.S. presidential election, however, is tenuous at best. Only two U.S. states use congressional districts to decide on electoral college votes (State X and State Y), and it’s not clear whether the impression of closeness in a congressional race impacts voter psychology in the presidential race
Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?
Jensen Question
What states are State X and State Y above?
Hint:  They are known for corn husking and lobsters.

Trump Becomes the Richest President: The Net Worth of All the American Presidents ---
This 2010 article estimates Trump's wealth to be in the $2.9 - $10 billion range. However, others later put a much lower estimate on his wealth.
The Forbes' estimate places his wealth at about $4 billion.
There are nearly 2,000 billionaires in the world with about 400 being Americans and nearly 200 of those  being in the Democratic Party such that people who claim almost all billionaires are Republicans have not done the research.---
Also see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/09/28/the-definitive-look-at-donald-trumps-wealth-new/?ss=forbes400#7fe6e60b7e2d
Trump probably had less campaign support from wealthy people than any viable presidential candidate in recent years, Democrat or Republican. The very wealthy Koch Brothers purportedly froze Trump out although they generously gave to other candidates for public office. Purportedly the Koch Brothers also donated $900 million to the Clinton Foundation (do you wonder why?) ---

Francine:  President-elect Trump does not have to relinquish control of his business empire but he does have to disclose ... ---
The Article Provides An Asset By Asset Breakdown Of Donald Trump’s Major Assets

The Bottomless Ignorance of Donald Trump ---

Whoopi:  16 Celebrities leaving America upon Trump becoming President ---

Clinton Lies About Lying About Her Lies The newly revived email controversy shows how she manages to be less trusted than Trump ---

The Democratic National Committee is Completely Corrupt
Liberal Activist Susan Sarandon

CNN Fires Donna Brazile for Rigging Debates --- Giving Hillary Questions in Advance ---
Jensen Comment
The sad part that comes as no surprise is that Hillary Clinton willingly cheated. Under the pay-to-play policy Donna may even get a high level appointment in the incoming White House.
Bob Jensen's threads on celebrities who cheat ---

Bad News From CBS News
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is returning thousands of dollars in donations linked to what may be one of the largest straw-donor schemes ever uncovered. A small law firm that has given money to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Harry Reid, President Obama and many others is accused of improperly funneling millions of dollars into Democratic Party coffers. The program was exposed by the Center for Responsive Politics and the same team of Boston Globe investigative reporters featured in the movie “Spotlight.” The Thornton Law Firm has just 10 partners, but dollar for dollar, it’s one of the nation’s biggest political donors, reports...

CNN: FBI Agents Tell Us DOJ Put Up Politically Motivated Roadblocks During Clinton Foundation Probe ---
Should the new name be the Department of Injustice?

A list of Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's 'sins' shows why they are both unpopular ---

Scott Adams (Dilbert) Does a Risk Analysis of Both Clinton and Trump ---

Canada is overjoyed by the Trump victory. Now the USA will send them more of our workers and Canada will send us more oil (maybe through the Keystone pipeline)
Bob Jensen

From California to Maine, voters are being asked to raise taxes in a rash of state ballot initiatives. “State government revenues have swelled 30% in the last five years. That’s a bigger raise than most workers have received, but public unions and their friends are asking voters for more at the ballot box on Nov. 8,” explains a Journal editorial. ...Joel Fox has more on the multiple tax-hike proposals before voters in California.

Socialism's Bad Year in South America
In less than one year Brazil, Argentina and Peru have all sworn in new center-right presidents, replacing leaders who had been allies of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez. Last week the South American backlash against chavismo continued its continental sweep when Chile held nationwide municipal elections ---

Out Of 199 Quotes, 40 That Reveal Donald Trump’s Ethics --- |

The Atlantic:  A (WikiLeak) Memo Serves as a Roadmap to the Clinton's Tangled Finances ---

WikiLeaks: Chelsea's Husband Used Clinton Foundation to Advance His Hedge Fund ---

The Atlantic:  The Problem With How Higher Education Treats Diversity ---

The Most Expensive Yachts in the World With Michael Jordan's Yacht Being the Most Disgusting ---

Yeah Right!
Huma Abedin Swore Under Oath She Gave Up 'All the Devices' With State Dept. Emails ---

Elizabeth Warren, the Prisoner of ‘Powerful Interests’ The Massachusetts liberal rails against money in politics—so she should pay back union help.---

The Atlantic: When a President Banishes Science from the Whitehouse

The Department of Justice is Rigged to Circumvent the Freedom of Information Act
One piece of evidence comes from WikiLeaks, in a hacked email between the chairman of the Clinton campaign, John Podesta, and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik. It was sent in May of 2015 via a private Gmail account, which has become the favored way for Obama employees to hide communications from the public. “Heads up,” Mr. Kadzik warned, informing the campaign about a coming hearing and a recent legal filing about Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
by Kimberley A. Strassel

Detroit Pistons head coach Stan Van Gundy blasted US President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday in a nearly six-minute rant. Speaking to media before the Pistons' Wednesday night game against the Phoenix Suns, Van Gundy said he was stunned and "ashamed" of the US for electing Trump.
Jensen Comment
I wonder if Detroit city officials shuddered at this rant given that they are asking for hundreds of millions in new Federal aid for their schools and infrastructure while emerging from bankruptcy as a city.
Not at all smart Stan Van the Stupid Man

Seattle Socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant told protesters to shut down Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington DC. ---
Another great happening in support of Trump's re-election in 2020"=
Doesn't this Ms Sawant know why white workers in America voted for Trump in anger at leaders like her

Time Magazine:  Iowa Police Shooting Renews Calls for ‘Blue Lives Matter’ Legislation ---

Taxing the Rich in Four Charts ---
Currently the Top 50% pay nearly all of the USA personal income tax collected and a lion's share of the property taxes
Lower income folks pay sales taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (if they have jobs), fuel taxes, etc.

I write a book about the left shuttering down the right, and YouTube is restricting my video about it; Talk about proving a point ---
Kimberly A. Strassel --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Strassel
Jensen Comment
Kimberly will wait forever to get an invitation to speak about her book on a USA college campus.

Hi Elliot,

I suspect you're correct on this sensible reply except that after Kimberley went public on YouTube censorship YouTube censors went whole-hog on admitting videos about her book. It would seem that it does not take much to lower the censorship bars on YouTube. Actually, given the amount of nudity and worse porn carried on YouTube these days it does not appear that the censorship bars are very high on YouTube.

I suspect there are not really many (any?) bars to videos on YouTube.

Exhibit A There are even YouTube videos on how to make pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs.

Exhibit B

There are explicit videos on YouTube about how to improve masturbation technique.

Political Correctness on Campus The problem I have with political correctness is that activists on the left became so physical that universities like Harvard, DePaul, Syracuse, and others are banning conservative speakers not for academic reasons but for security reasons. Activists have learned that universities are cowardly (prudent?) and will not take security risks in the name of free speech. The greater the loudness and intimidation the greater the chance of administrative banning a conservative speaker like Ben Shapiro from campus. Ben Shapiro? Get serious! Maybe he should be banned for ignorance.



Boston Globe:  Elizabeth Warren prime recipient of questionable law firm donations ---

Animated map shows the most dangerous countries in the world for tourists ---

Well, the rifleman’s stalking the sick and the lame
Preacherman seeks the same, who’ll get there first is uncertain
Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks
Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain
False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin
Only a matter of time ’til night comes steppin’ in

Bob Dylan


Jensen Lament

It will be interesting to see if a win for Trump is a shot in the arm for Bernie Sanders. He may be too old to run again, but millennials may dig down to find his replacement in the socialist movement.


Personally I don't think Trump's win was a repudiation of gender.  Many voters really do want to drain the swamp of Republicans and Democrats in power. It was also a vote against power lobbies (Wall Street, Labor Unions, CEOs, etc. ) that funded Clinton's campaign.


Let's hope Trump finds some good assistants to guide the USA through the coming years of domestic and global turmoil.


The Bottomless Ignorance of Donald Trump ---


I've never been a fan of Susan Sarandon's politics. But she pretty much says it all in one sentence.


The Democratic National Committee is Completely Corrupt
Liberal Activist Susan Sarandon


Clinton Lies About Lying About Her Lies The newly revived email controversy shows how she manages to be less trusted than Trump ---


CNN Fires Donna Brazile for Rigging Debates --- Giving Hillary Questions in Advance ---
Jensen Comment
The sad part that comes as no surprise is that Hillary Clinton willingly cheated. Under the pay-to-play policy Donna may even get a high level appointment in the incoming White House.
Bob Jensen's threads on celebrities who cheat ---


It will be interesting to see if a win for trump is a shot in the arm for Bernie Sanders. He may be too old to run again, but millennials may dig down to find his replacement in the socialist movement.


A Loser in the Election Outcomes is a Leading Statistician Named Nate Silver (he should be having crow for breakfast)
This was His Final Forecast On the Morning of Election Day

Throughout the election, our forecast models have consistently come to two conclusions. First, that Hillary Clinton was more likely than not to become the next president. And second, that the range of possible Electoral College outcomes — including the chance of a Donald Trump victory, but also a Clinton landslide that could see her winning states such as Arizona — was comparatively wide.

That remains our outlook today in our final forecast of the year. Clinton is a 71 percent favorite to win the election according to our polls-only model and a 72 percent favorite according to our polls-plus model. (The models are essentially the same at this point, so they show about the same forecast.) This reflects a meaningful improvement for Clinton in the past 48 hours as the news cycle has taken a final half-twist in her favor. Her chances have increased from about 65 percent.

More Politics

Our forecast has Clinton favored in states and congressional districts totaling 323 electoral votes, including all the states President Obama won in 2012 except Ohio and Iowa, but adding North Carolina. However, because our forecasts are probabilistic, and because Clinton’s leads in North Carolina and Florida especially are tenuous, the average number of electoral votes we forecast for Clinton is 302, which would be equivalent to her winning either Florida or North Carolina but not both.

Jensen Comment
I'm a great admirer of Nate Silver. In fairness he gave much lower probability to a Clinton win than most other poll forecasters.

Interestingly, Nate Silver also admitted some years ago that he made a mistake predicting Scott Brown would lose in the election for Ted Kennedy's senate seat. That one he blamed on non-stationary states. He contended that he was wrong because so many voters changed their mind in favor of Brown on election day.

The main technical conclusion is that statistics as a discipline does poorly in in non-stationary worlds.

November 9, 2016 reply from Paul Williams

Not sure this makes Nate Silver the loser; it makes statistical
modeling the loser.  Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have a book
titled Democracy for Realists, which takes aim at the accountics style
of research that now dominates political science.  Models may do okay
in "stable" times, but fail miserably to account for the inherent
instabilities that bedevil politics (and economics).  For too long the
social sciences have been anchored to rational decision theoretic
models and Achen and Bartels argue that for political science it is
bunk.  People vote as herds; they don't calculate.  In other words
they are occasionally "irrational" and, thus, unpredictable.

Bob Jensen's threads on what went wrong in statistical science and accountics science ---


The president-elect’s analysts picked up disturbances others weren’t seeing—the beginning of the (angry) storm that would deliver Trump to the White House ---

Nobody saw it coming. Not the media. Certainly not Hillary Clinton. Not even Donald Trump’s team of data scientists, holed up in their San Antonio headquarters 1,800 miles from Trump Tower, were predicting this outcome. But the scientists picked up disturbances—like falling pressure before a hurricane—that others weren’t seeing. It was the beginning of the storm that would deliver Trump to the White House.

Flash back three weeks, to Oct. 18. The Trump campaign’s internal election simulator, the “Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,” showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That’s because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida—but only by a small margin. And in some states, such as Virginia, he was winning, even though no public poll agreed.


Trump’s numbers were different, because his analysts, like Trump himself, were forecasting a fundamentally different electorate than other pollsters and almost all of the media: older, whiter, more rural, more populist. And much angrier at what they perceive to be an overclass of entitled elites. In the next three weeks, Trump channeled this anger on the stump, at times seeming almost unhinged.


“A vote for Hillary is a vote to surrender our government to public corruption, graft, and cronyism that threatens the survival of our constitutional system itself,” Trump told an Arizona crowd on Oct. 29. “What makes us exceptional is that we are a nation of laws and that we are all equal under those laws. Hillary’s corruption shreds the principle on which our nation was founded.”

His hyperbole and crassness drew broad condemnation from the media and political elite, who interpreted his anger as an acknowledgment that he was about to lose. But rather than alienate his gathering army, Trump’s antipathy fed their resolve.

He had an unwitting ally. “Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump’s message,” says Steve Bannon, his campaign chief executive officer. “From her e-mail server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of.”


Trump’s analysts had detected this upsurge in the electorate even before FBI Director James Comey delivered his Oct. 28 letter to Congress announcing that he was reopening his investigation into Clinton’s e-mails. But the news of the investigation accelerated the shift of a largely hidden rural mass of voters toward Trump.


Inside his campaign, Trump’s analysts became convinced that even their own models didn’t sufficiently account for the strength of these voters. “In the last week before the election, we undertook a big exercise to reweight all of our polling, because we thought that who [pollsters] were sampling from was the wrong idea of who the electorate was going to turn out to be this cycle,” says Matt Oczkowski, the head of product at London firm Cambridge Analytica and team leader on Trump’s campaign. “If he was going to win this election, it was going to be because of a Brexit-style mentality and a different demographic trend than other people were seeing.”

Trump’s team chose to focus on this electorate, partly because it was the only possible path for them. But after Comey, that movement of older, whiter voters became newly evident. It’s what led Trump’s campaign to broaden the electoral map in the final two weeks and send the candidate into states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan that no one else believed he could win (with the exception of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who deemed them “Brexit states”). Even on the eve of the election Trump’s models predicted only a 30 percent likelihood of victory.

The message Trump delivered to those voters was radically different from anything they would hear from an ordinary Republican: a bracing screed that implicated the entire global power structure—the banks, the government, the media, the guardians of secular culture—in a dark web of moral and intellectual corruption. And Trump insisted that he alone could fix it.


Continued in article

Jensen Comment
Trump did not create all this anger in working Americans. He exploited the anger that was discovered.


After posting the above a Trinity University faculty member sent the following message about Trump's San Antonio Data Center:

Bob, FYI, the guy running Trump's data center here in SA was run by a Trinity grad....Brad Parscale '99.


Seattle Socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant told protesters to shut down Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington DC. ---
Another great happening in support of Trump's re-election in 2020"
Doesn't this Ms Sawant know why white workers in America voted for Trump in anger at leaders like her


Hillary Clinton Blames FBI Director James Comey for Election Loss ---
How naive can you get? This is like blaming the teacher for your ignorance.
I would say to Hillary that her emails are not among the major angers of Trump's supporters. She did not suitably address their major angers ---
 riots, immigration hordes, home invasions, budget deficits, and unfunded entitlements (think Social Security benefits and unsustainable Medicare/Medicaid).


A Politically Incorrect Message from Bob Jensen
Just to let you know at the start of this message I voted for Clinton and worry much about the intelligence and temperament of President Elect Trump.
Bob Jensen



There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.
Leonard Cohen



Be brave enough to start a conversation that matters.
Margaret Wheatley

Even conversations that are not politically correct.


We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us.
Joseph Campbell


If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton
Why were nearly all poll statisticians thinking alike in 2016 except for Trump's hired data center in San Antonio?



The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton. Relatedly, turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won ---



Bernie Sanders Blames the Democratic Party for the Trump Victory ---
Jensen Comment
It's more complicated than Bernie and leading progressives are admitting when turning a blind eye to the deepest angers among Trump's constituency, angers that are not politically correct.



Nate Silver's blog is pointing out that Clinton also failed to win over white females who did not graduate from college ---
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/    tion
In other words, a serious number of women prevented a woman from winning this Presidential election



The Atlantic:  Racism Went Viral and Trump's Supporters Really are Deplorable 
This article essentially says virtually anybody who voted for Trump is an ignorant lemming and/or a deplorable racist.
The conclusion not mentioned is that police are deplorable since  the police unions supported Trump.


Jensen Illustration of Two Types of Anger in the USA


Illustration of Anger Type 1 as portrayed by the media (such as The Atlantic) and politically correct college professors and students


"A Ferguson cop shot and killed an unarmed black teenager."



Illustration of Anger Type 2 dominant among Trump's "deplorable" voters and police unions supporting him


"Rioters attempted to loot and burn down the town of Ferguson after a huge and bullying black teenager high on marijuana tried to take the gun away from a wimpy cop."


 Angers illustrated above do not fully divide according to race.
Many whites, especially all those who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, have more Anger Type 1 than Type 2.



Many non-whites including blacks, Asians, and Hispanics have more Anger Type 2 even though the Anger Type 2 is proportionately more dominant among male and female white voters without college diplomas.

Trump's voters are more inclined to be angry when athletes and others make a constitutionally-correct spectacle of disrespect for the National Anthem and the USA Flag over Anger Type 1



Racial angers, especially anger at police, surfaced more in the 2016 election than in the 2008 and 2012 elections where a progressive African American was elected two times to be President of the USA


President Obama is very proud of his appointments of Supreme Court Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. But these appointments became Hillary Clinton's worst nightmares. An increased number of her opponent's supporters feared that her future appointments to the Supreme Court would team up with Kagan and Sotomayor to take away the first line of (2nd Amendment) defense against home invasions and nut cases.

Seven of the 10 Most Dangerous Crime States Where People Feel Unsafe Went to Trump ---


Of course there are many other angers among Trump's "deplorable" voters other than racial issues. I personally think many of Trump's voters are furious over the Democratic Party's "perceived" drive to put some penises into the locker rooms of the YWCA.



Many of Trump's voters are angry about his morality history, his disrespect for women, and his ignorance about government and business (where he failed a lot), but these angers remained less important to Trump's supporters than their other angers.


Perhaps unjustly too many of Trump's supporters think the Democratic Party wants open borders and amnesty for anybody who enters the country illegally.





Liberal economists smarter than me tend to place most of the blame on economic angers among Trump's voters. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz places the blame for Trump's win on the following ---
Personally I think Professor Stiglitz is talking over the heads of most of Trump's supporters worried about riots, immigration hordes, home invasions, budget deficits, and unfunded entitlements (think Social Security benefits and unsustainable Medicare/Medicaid).



The sad thing about the 2016 election is that anger seemed to be the dominant sentiment among voters for Clinton and voters for Trump. The USA became an angry and divided nation. Of course it was this way before November 8, 2016.
The USA seethed in anger from the very beginning of the 21st Century. The angers are growing worse and worse --- angers that a Trump victory will probably not defuse.



Even if President Trump's a skilled magician, there are no magical solutions anywhere in the hat.
At this point we just do not know what to do with skilled and unskilled workers who will increasingly be displaced by technology. Exhibit A includes the workers in Wal-Mart's warehouses ---  workers now being displaced by automation. Exhibit B contains the Wal-Mart store employees that will eventually be on the streets due to online shopping at Wal-Mart, Amazon, etc. Exhibit C will eventually be driverless 18-wheel trucks barreling down their own lanes on freeways and turnpikes. Exhibit D will be robots screening patients at medical clinics. Exhibit  E will be teacher robots on campus and online.  ETC  ETC ETC

Where will the jobs be when angry students graduate or get their competency badges?


MIT Newsletter on November 12, 2116


These stories all help explain why the election of Donald Trump is partially a technology story. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania flipped from Democratic to Republican for many reasons, but one of them was the sense among many blue-collar workers that they are being left out of today’s economy. Whether automation is primarily to blame for that—rather than, say, trade or tax policy—is far from clear. But as editor David Rotman wrote this summer: “While the high-tech industry creates impressive wealth for itself, much of the country is mired in a sluggish economy. It might be that driverless cars and other uses of advanced AI will eventually change that, but for now these technologies are not radically transforming the economy.”


MIT:  How Technology Is Destroying Jobs



MIT:  Technology and Inequality


Jensen Comment
My conservative hero Milton Friedman proposed that a relatively generous negative income tax replace all forms of welfare, food stamps, disability support, etc. Even if a negative income tax becomes economically feasible to a point where people have a choice not to have paying jobs in the economy (and live much like unemployed Cubans in front of their tiny houses clutching their ration books) most unemployed and educated people living minimally with ration books or income tax support checks will be angry and depressed.



A huge problem is psychological.
People get most of their feeling of worth from their labors. Hobbies can and often do suffice as replacements for paying jobs, but in many instances people judge the worth of their hobbies by size of payments for their produce. A cellist more likely than not is an unhappy cellist if the symphony pays zero for his/her labor. An author is more fulfilled when readers buy the books. What canvas painter wants a house full of pictures that cannot even be given away? Volunteer work often does not relieve boredom for retirees seeking paying hobbies such as writing books or selling antiques.



If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there.
Yogi Berra



Happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder.
Henry David Thoreau



Joan C. Williams --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_C._Williams


University of California Hastings School of Law --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Hastings_College_of_the_Law

Would Harvard have published this on or before November 7, 2016?


"What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class," by Joan C. Williams, Harvard Business Review, November 10, 2016 ---


. . .



Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.


. . .



Avoid the Temptation to Write Off Blue-Collar Resentment as Racism

Economic resentment has fueled racial anxiety that, in some Trump supporters (and Trump himself), bleeds into open racism. But to write off WWC anger as nothing more than racism is intellectual comfort food, and it is dangerous.

National debates about policing are fueling class tensions today in precisely the same way they did in the 1970s, when college kids (and professional athletes) derided policemen as “pigs. This is a recipe for class conflict. Being in the police is one of the few good jobs open to Americans without a college education. Police get solid wages, great benefits, and a respected place in their communities. For elites to write them off as racists is a telling example of how, although race- and sex-based insults are no longer acceptable in polite society, class-based insults still are.

I do not defend police who kill citizens for selling cigarettes. But the current demonization of the police underestimates the difficulty of ending police violence against communities of color. Police need to make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations. I don’t. If I had to, I might make some poor decisions too.

Saying this is so unpopular that I risk making myself a pariah among my friends on the left coast. But the biggest risk today for me and other Americans is continued class cluelessness. If we don’t take steps to bridge the class culture gap, when Trump proves unable to bring steel back to Youngstown, Ohio, the consequences could turn dangerous.

In 2010, while on a book tour for Reshaping the Work-Family Debate, I gave a talk about all of this at the Harvard Kennedy School. The woman who ran the speaker series, a major Democratic operative, liked my talk. “You are saying exactly what the Democrats need to hear,” she mused, “and they’ll never listen.” I hope now they will.




Jensen Comment

Note that the election results were reported on November 9, 2016


Not what I think of as politically correct and definitively not what I expected a University of California woman professor  to write in the HBR before or after the election results were reported.


Joan C. Williams is Distinguished Professor of Law and Founding Director of the Center of WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.




The Legacy of Harry Reid That the Media is Avoiding

From the WSJ Newsletter on November 11, 2016

A separate editorial notes that Sen. Harry Reid “will be gone with the current Congress but Republicans may miss him considering all he has done to help them. By killing the filibuster for nominees, he has made it easier for Mr. Trump to get his nominees confirmed and fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. By stretching the rules for budget reconciliation, he has set a precedent for Republicans to repeal much of ObamaCare by ducking a filibuster.”


More at


Jensen Comment
Of Trump does not have the necessary Senate votes to make for smooth sailing on controversial issues. There's a cloud of anger hanging over Washington DC.



Henry Kissinger --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

Jensen Comment
Perhaps Henry is too old and out of touch the world as we know it today, but then again I'm no expert on the global world today. Read that as meaning I'm too ignorant to judge him or The Obama Doctrine ---
It is a dangerous time with renewed Cold War tensions with Russia and Iran complicated by rising naval power of China in Asia added to decades of troubled times with terrorists throughout most of the world. All this is too troubling for my old bookkeeper's brain in retirement.

The Obama Doctrine --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Doctrine


The Lessons of Henry Kissinger: The legendary and controversial statesman criticizes the Obama Doctrine, talks about the main challenges for the next president, and explains how to avoid war with China ---
Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, December 2016 ---

 . . .


This past spring, shortly after The Atlantic published my article The Obama Doctrine,” about the president’s foreign policy, I got word that Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, and the most consequential and controversial American foreign-policy maker of the past several decades (or maybe ever), had been expressing to a number of mutual acquaintances his critical thoughts about the article, and about Obama’s management of world affairs. I called Kissinger, because I was eager to hear those thoughts. He was, at that moment, making a series of cameo appearances in the presidential campaign—Senator Bernie Sanders had recently castigated Hillary Clinton during a Democratic debate for the sin of seeking Kissinger’s approval—and I also wanted to hear his thoughts on the bizarre election season.

Kissinger did indeed have many thoughts. I suggested that we have an on-the-record conversation about them. Even at 93, his desire to convince people of his essential rightness still burns, and he agreed to an interview almost immediately. But, being Kissinger, he outlined a set of immoderate demands and conditions that would govern the public presentation of our conversation. He also asked me whether the article that resulted from our interview would be published at the same length—more than 19,000 words—as my original article about President Obama. “Dr. Kissinger,” I said, “that was an article featuring several interviews with the sitting president of the United States.”

He paused. “Please write the following down, and print it in your story as a first-person observation,” he said. “ ‘Though Kissinger has been out of government service for several decades, I found his egomania to be undiminished by time.’ ”

At another point, sensing my frustration with his demands, he said, “I must give you some grounds to write about my paranoia.” Finally we came to an agreement. I would record our conversation, and transcribe it, and then show it to him, and he would, he promised, make changes only in order to clarify points or expand upon his arguments. (He kept his promise.)

Continued in article

Criticisms of The Obama Doctrine ---




11 OECD countries with the best quality of life in the world ---



Jensen Comment
Most of these top-ranked nations have relatively low populations. An exception is the USA


Most of these countries have non-diverse immigrant populations and are openly resisting immigration. Exceptions are the USA, Sweden, and Canada. Canada is somewhat unique in that it unabashedly sells immigration rights.


Car ownership is not easily affordable in most of the top-ranked nations, thereby making car ownership more of a luxury than a necessity. Exceptions are the larger nations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the USA.


Aside from the USA the small spaces of living quarters and private yards does not seem to matter as much in the other nations (including Canada) ranked above. I'm not certain about Australia on this criterion, but I did think living quarters were smaller in New Zealand when I visited that lovely nation. Except for urban centers in the USA Americans love large houses and big yards. I'm sure our love of large houses is enabled heavily by cheap energy prices relative to most other parts of the world. When I had leaves in Canada I was told that climate affected housing and yard sizes. Small houses take less energy to heat. Tightly-packed houses serve as wind breaks and have fewer miles of streets to plow.


Most of these 11 nations do not have any mega cities with the exception of the USA ---


The dominant race in each of these 11 countries is white. However, quality of life is relatively high in some non-white nations like Japan. Now that Germany and many of nations having the "best quality of life" are turning their backs on Syrian and other Islamic refugees we have to worry where they will go for a new life. Prospering Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran don't want them. Germany, France, Sweden, the USA, and Canada will eventually offer the best life to some of these suffering families, but there are so many more refugees than places willing to welcome them in great numbers. The USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand will have to make more room for these people who for the most part want no more terrorism in life. If only they could overcome ancient differences and work peacefully be given the resources to rebuild their homelands, but this is probably just wishful thinking at this point. I have no answers other than compassion just surface for wartime refugees.



Question for Hugely Biased Late Night Television Comedians
Who's having the last laugh?
This is something for them to think about for future elections.
A majority of voters may not be laughing (or even watching) because of this bias.

Related Question
Although some students are attracted by bias in courses does such bias also turn off students?
At some universities, particularly private universities with high tuition, the students are often more conservative than the faculty.
The AAUP suggests leaving politics entirely out of courses unless designed in a curriculum plan for selected courses.


And We Gave a Paul Krugman Nobel Prize for a Lousy Forecast Like This


Paul Krugman has already had to walk back his prediction of a global recession following Donald Trump’s presidential victory last night. His initial post on the New York Times’ website was confidently apocalyptic about the prospects of Donald Trump plunging the world into a depression: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” He concluded by saying, “So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.” Markets rebounded in the morning after . . .


A comprehensive Accounting of U.S Spending ---

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer

Steve Ballmer’s new project involves lots and lots of Excel spreadsheets. When not on the sidelines of Los Angeles Clippers games, the former Microsoft CEO—along with a team of about 25 data geeks— has been poring over decades of government documents to create a comprehensive accounting of U.S. spending. Ballmer describes it as a “10-K for the government.

The scary part is  the $100+ trillion as yet unbooked obligation for entitlements such as the unsustainable Medicare and Medicaid ---


The FBI versus the DOJ:  A House Divided


Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundation ---

Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said. Agents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” these people said. The account of the case and resulting dispute comes from interviews with officials at multiple agencies.


Starting in February and continuing today, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and public-corruption prosecutors became increasingly frustrated with each other, as often happens within and between departments. At the center of the tension stood the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers, who some at the FBI came to view as exacerbating the problems by telling each side what it wanted to hear, these people said. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Capers declined to comment. The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue, they said.


These details on the probe are emerging amid the continuing furor surrounding FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure to Congress that new emails had emerged that could be relevant to a separate, previously closed FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement while she was secretary of state. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama took the unusual step of criticizing the FBI when asked about Mr. Comey’s disclosure of the emails. Amid the internal finger-pointing on the Clinton Foundation matter, some have blamed the FBI’s No. 2 official, deputy director Andrew McCabe, claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation. At times, people on both sides of the dispute thought Mr. Capers agreed with them. Defenders of Mr. Capers said he was straightforward and always told people he thought the case wasn’t strong.


Continued in article


CNN: FBI Agents Tell Us DOJ Put Up Politically Motivated Roadblocks During Clinton Foundation Probe ---
Should the new name be the Department of Injustice?



"Social Security's IOU Trust Fund:   Trump won't solve the problem. Clinton will make it worse," by Veronique de Rugy, Reason Magazine, October 27, 2016 ---

. . .


That the Social Security Program is insolvent isn't debatable. Social Security faces a $10 trillion funding shortfall. Since 2010, Social Security has been running a constant cash flow deficit, meaning that the taxes collected for the program aren't enough to cover the benefits paid to beneficiaries. To fill the gap and keep the checks going out, the program has been drawing from federal trust funds. However, the government's trust funds aren't like trust funds in the real world. Trust funds in the real world contain assets; the government's trust funds basically contain IOUs. What that means in simple terms is that the government already has to go further into debt to pay Social Security's bills—and it's only going to get worse.


Even if one believes in the sanctity of the government's combined trust funds in general, Social Security's will be exhausted by 2034, thus triggering a benefit cut of roughly 25 percent. However, since President George W. Bush tried and failed to reform the program in 2005, Congress has abdicated its responsibility by simply avoiding the issue.

On the campaign trail, things are arguably worse. The two main candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have promised to leave Social Security untouched. When asked about what they would do about it during the debate, Trump responded: "I'm cutting taxes. We're going to grow the economy. It's going to grow at a record rate." That's all well and good, but we can't grow our way out of this mess. That's largely nonsensical. Clinton doesn't want to cut benefits, either, but she'd actually exacerbate the problem by raising taxes on the rich while increasing benefits for lower-income Americans. Though the tax increase part of her plan might extend the life of the program, it wouldn't fix much. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget looked at the issue and found that some increase in revenue would occur in the short term, but a cash deficit would return within 10 years and grow over time. It concluded: "This change would close just over one-third of Social Security's structural gap by 2090. In other words, a substantial portion of the fix defers the problem, but does not fix it." And that's calculated even before she starts to spend more on Social Security. But even that's probably too optimistic, says the American Enterprise Institute's Andrew Biggs in a recent Forbes column, because her "tax increases on the rich would boost revenues by far less than she imagines because of rarely-discussed interactions with other parts of the tax code."

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
Even more disastrous are the unsustainable Medicare and Medicaid entitlements. Why? Because we can print money to meet our more--or-less fixed social security obligations even though that would be highly inflationary (can you loan me $100 for a cup of coffee?)


Medicare and Medicaid entitlements cannot be solved by printing money because government is obligated to pay medical bills that will go up and up when inflation goes up and up. This of course can be changed to make these entitlements more sustainable, but neither the White House nor Congress is willing to take political risks of messing with Medicare and Medicaid entitlements that will eventually drive the USA economy to ruin along with other pending entitlements like free college education and more free Medicaid entitlements.


Bob Jensen's threads on the pending entitlements disaster ---



Greenspan: Worried About Inflation, Says “Entitlements Crowding Out Investment, Productivity Is Dead,” by Mike Shedlock, Townhall, March 22, 2016 ---

. . .

Greenspan was critical of negative interest rates but refused to comment directly on the recent decision of the ECB. He is also worried about interest rates and the level of debts.
  • Entitlements now probably require a three to four percent growth rate in the United States.
  • Rate cuts, negative interest rates, buying corporate debt is no part of the solution.
  • Gross domestic savings as a percent of GDP has been declining over the years largely because entitlements have dug into them.
  • You just can’t print money and buy the infrastructure. Productivity will only increase if there is savings behind the investment.
  • We should be more concerned about inflation than we appear to be.
  • The issue is how long can we maintain long-term interest rates by continuously pushing money into the system, at rates which I would say, human psychology doesn’t continence.

Interview Transcript Courtesy of Bloomberg

DAVID WESTIN: Thanks very much, Stephanie. So we are here sitting with Dr. Alan Greenspan, who led the Fed for eighteen and a half years. I ask him, he’s very precise about this. So welcome to Bloomberg GO. It’s great to have you here. Beyond that, he’s really one of the major economic thinkers of our era.

So we had the Bank of England just hold their rates. We had the Fed yesterday, we’ve had the Bank of Japan. It’s all about central banks right now. Everyone one of those central banks, whatever their approach, is focused on growth and the problem of getting growth going. …..


The IRS Scandal, Day 1275:
The Impact Of The IRS Scandal On The Investigation Of The Clinton Foundation

. . .

This IRS review has not generated similar waves as Department of Justice probes into the foundation, and has largely been forgotten in the campaign's melee. It's just not as sexy as private email servers, FBI infighting and charges of political pressure applied to law enforcement.

But even though this examination is less scrutinized and is harder to conceptualize, it's impact may be important. The report won't likely be done in time to influence the presidential campaign — even though the review started more than four months ago — but it could certainly influence the first term of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

As with anything tax related, the status of the foundation may be determined using rules few understand. And that makes understanding the work at 1100 Commerce St. in Dallas that much more important. 

In Washington, D.C., many things start with words printed on congressional letterhead. Earlier this year, 64 GOP members of Congress asked the IRS to investigate why the foundation can keep its nonprofit status. The letter includes “media reports” claiming pay-to-play relationships between former President Bill Clinton, who received large speaking fees, and decisions made by Hillary Clinton to approve choices that benefited foundation donors. The sources of these reports range from The New York Times to hit-piece investigative books.

In July, the IRS sent letters back to the Congress informing members the review had begun. The letter also noted that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE) office in Dallas would be conducting the review.

IRS spokespeople in Dallas and Washington won’t say why the review is being conducted in Dallas. Spokespeople claim even this information would violate rules — Code 6103, staff make sure to cite — that stop them from discussing ongoing examinations. IRS officials declined to provide details about the Dallas office, including its size, or comment on the TE/GE work in general. ...

The TE/GE focuses on nonprofit groups, which is specialty work that requires experience. “They are pretty much career people,” says Ben Stoltz, an attorney with Perliski Law Group, a Dallas boutique firm with half of its business representing nonprofit groups. “It’s a different side of the IRS than people are used to seeing. ... They're generally very cooperative, but they're also the watchdogs."

The mix of awareness and enforcement dovetails with cases that get publicity. "They have a limited budget, which is a problem, so they have to pick their targets wisely," Stoltz says. "Because this is a high profile case, they can make an example and show that no one is above the law.” ...

Instead of money changing hands, the IRS is looking to see if the Clintons traded money for preferential treatment. The IRS rules lay out what qualifies as inurement:

Any transaction between an organization and a private individual in which the individual appears to receive a disproportionate share of the benefits of the exchange relative to the charity served presents an inurement issue. Such transactions may include assignments of income, compensation arrangements, sales or exchanges of property, commissions, rental arrangements, gifts with retained interests, and contracts to provide goods or services to the organization.

Given this language, citing “gifts” and “quid pro quo benefits” in emails is a pretty bad move for anyone involved in a nonprofit group. Another bad move: When senior Clinton advisers like Doug Bland call the intersection of the foundation fundraising and the former president’s personal activities “Bill Clinton Inc.” ...

This all leaves the IRS investigation in Dallas as a sideshow to the main Clinton Foundation events playing out in the offices of other federal agencies. However, if other investigations expose pay-to-play schemes, the IRS could take that into consideration, strip the foundation of its nonprofit status and seek payment of back taxes.

Continued in article



Out Of 199 Quotes, 40 That Reveal Donald Trump’s Ethics --- |


The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment ---


Time Magazine
A 2011 memo made public Wednesday by Wikileaks revealed new details of how former President Bill Clinton made tens of millions of dollars for himself and his wife, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, through an opaque, ethically messy amalgam of philanthropic, business and personal activities. The memo was written by Bill Clinton’s longtime aide, Doug Band, and is among tens of thousands of emails apparently stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, in what U.S. officials believe is part of a massive Russian-backed attempt to disrupt the U.S. election.

The Atlantic:  A (WikiLeak) Memo Serves as a Roadmap to the Clinton's Tangled Finances ---

All of that became clear in the latest batch of hacked emails released by WikiLeaks, which include messages from Band and a 12-page memo that he wrote both explaining and defending his and his company’s work on Clinton’s behalf. For Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the publication of the Band memo is yet another WikiLeaks-induced headache, as it provides even more detail into the unsavory-if-not-illegal intersection of interests at the heart of her family’s philanthropic work.

Band, now 44, was to Bill Clinton what Huma Abedin has been to Hillary. He started as a junior staffer in the White House straight out of college in the 1990s, and once the Clintons left office in 2001, he never left Bill’s side.

Continued in article

Read the memo at


The Atlantic:  Clinton's Believability Problem ---


Jensen Comment
We will probably have to ignore ethics criteria on election day. Donald Trump appears unprepared to lead even his own party. Hillary Clinton is an entitlements spending disaster, but like Obama she will probably be held back by a reluctant Congress and poor leadership skills in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court.


In my opinion these are the two worst choices in decades in what became the tabloid election year in USA history. A Clinton victory will be less divisive in what's become a dysfunctionally divided USA. I plan to hold my nose, vote for Clinton, and be thankful I'm no longer young.


The Atlantic:  The First Broken Promise of the Hillary Clinton Presidency ---

Washington Post:  Jury finds reporter, Rolling Stone responsible (for fabricated rape article)---

. . .

The jurors reached a verdict Friday after deliberating across three days. Eramo has asked for $7.5 million in damages, but can now argue for a different sum following the verdict. The argument for damages is scheduled to begin Monday.

Regardless of potential damages, the verdict showed the jury’s willingness to slam a major media outlet for the impacts of getting a story wrong. Originally hailed as a brave triumph of reporting for its raw accounts of rape and attempts at bringing accountability to a storied public university, the article led to protests of the U-Va. administration, vandalism of a campus fraternity, and outrage among sexual assault prevention activists. Once its flaws were exposed, the article’s deeper message of the effects of campus rape — a pervasive national problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy reporting.

Continued in article

Harvard Business Review:  Are CEOs Overhyped and Overpaid? ---

Jensen Comment
I think the answer is yes on both counts. Of course CEOs often matter to the success of the firm, but more often than not their compensation is outrageous. Even when linked to performance like stock prices their role is only part of the reason for stock price changes.

Bob Jensen's threads on the outrageous compensation of corporate executives are at
I'm especially upset about golden parachutes that outrageously reward failure.

Stanford researchers weigh in on a contentious debate around changes to an important renewable energy incentive (net metering)---

More American homeowners are investing in residential solar power systems, thanks in part to regulations that enable such installations to sell surplus electricity back to utility companies at retail rates.

Solar Soundcloud

Listen to This Story

But that regulation, called net energy metering, is a victim of its own success. Electric utilities are required to buy this rooftop-generated electricity at rates far higher than the wholesale rates that they would have otherwise paid for the same energy. These additional costs, in turn, are passed down to all ratepayers, effectively acting as a cross-subsidy.

Now regulators and lawmakers in dozens of states are reevaluating their policies — and their decisions will have a major impact. “There’s a lot of fighting in state capitols,” says Stanford Graduate School of Business professor Stefan Reichelstein, “and it’s going to shape how quickly the whole residential and commercial segment of the industry will grow.”

New research from Reichelstein and coauthor Stephen Comello, director of the Sustainable Energy Initiative, examines three states that have already enacted changes and calculates the threshold to keep the solar industry humming without undue economic support.

Beware the Death Spiral

When net metering policies were first introduced in the 1980s, they were an important mechanism to help jumpstart the solar industry. While the details vary by state, these policies typically call for owners of solar systems to be compensated for the surplus electricity they feed back into the grid at the going retail rate. Utilities are required to buy this power, even though they could procure the electricity at a much lower rate on the wholesale market. In California, for example, rooftop solar customers can sell back electricity at around 17 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas the utility could buy it on the wholesale market for around 4 cents per kWh.

The utilities opposed the agreement initially, Reichelstein says, but “at the time the solar industry was so tiny that the utilities shrugged it off.”

Now, solar costs are dropping and demand is spiking, changing the economics of residential solar installations and the need for net metering. Some even speculate solar incentives will lead utility companies into a “death spiral.”

This threat unfolds like this: As more customers install solar panels, a utility will sell less electricity in total. Since the utility also incurs fixed costs in order to maintain the overall grid infrastructure, the rate it charges for electricity goes up even as it sells less of it. This makes installing solar panels even more attractive to more people, which means the utility sells even less and charges even more. And so on down the spiral.

Even if encouraging more solar deployment is desirable, this is not a happy scenario for the overall health of the industry. For one thing, while solar customers add to the overall infrastructure burden by requiring two-way flow of electricity, those costs tend to get shifted onto the remaining non-solar customers while solar developers reap tidy profits.

“With retail rates going up and the cost of solar going down,” Reichelstein says, “the margins are getting fatter for the solar companies. But those margins are based on the support mechanism of net metering.”

For customers, Comello says, net metering can amount to a subsidy for the rich. “Those who own their home and are more traditionally well off are the ones who have the advantage. Whereas if you live in an apartment or don’t have the means to install solar panels, you’re cut off from all the benefit while paying more for your electricity.”

The Happy Middle

As regulators and lawmakers across the country look to revise net energy metering policies, the open question is what they will look like in their next incarnation.

Continued in article

Elon Musk's solar shingles are a lot like the forever-lasting slates of the 19th Century---

Also see

Jensen Comment
In my opinion this sounds like a great advance in solar energy and roofing in warmer climates. I continue to be concerned about selling our souls (read that economic freedoms) to China (and maybe Chile) for lithium in backup batteries.

Melting snow on a roof at below-zero temperatures is not always a great idea in these parts since our cottage sometimes has several feet of snow on the roof. Here's what happened in our cottage before we added more rim insulation to stop roof melting in cold weather. Sides of our cottage became coated with thick ice that could have been damaging year after year until we added the roof insulation to prevent roof melting in very cold weather. It was almost like living in an ice-covered igloo.

There also is an issue roof leaks. Leaks in a solar-shingle roof may be much more difficult to repair. I guess time will tell.

Solar shingles are not a new idea. I'm not sure why they've not caught on before now. Perhaps Musk's shingles will be better.

The Past and Future of Higher Education
The Chronicle’s 50th anniversary is an occasion to take stock of the world we cover. What ideas and arguments might shape the next 50 years?


The fact that this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education is closed to comments pretty much says it all.

Jensen Comment
I can't believe it! All these so-called experts ignored some of the biggest disgraces that descended on Higher Education in the past 50 years.

The biggest disgrace in the past 50 years of higher education not mentioned in the above report is grade inflation where the median grade in the USA moved from C+ to A-. The main reason for this disgrace is that colleges made student evaluations influential in faculty tenure and performance decisions. Now it's truly disgraceful here on our Lake Wobegon campuses ---
In fairness Brian D. Caplan did mention the "credential inflation" that accompanies the greatly increased share of the population going to college. But the other experts largely ignored "credential inflation."

The second and somewhat more varied disgrace is the struggle for freedom of speech on campus the wave of political correctness, another topic that the Chronicle apparently feared to raise in this report ---
The report finds all sorts of excuses to defend political correctness.

A third disgrace in the hiring bias of faculty in higher education. It's not at all uncommon for over 90+% of the faculty on campus to be members of the Democratic Party. Harvard's conservative political scientist Harvey Mansfield once warned a non-tenured Harvard professor who whispered to Harvey that he too was conservative. Harvey advised that non-tenured professor against "raising the jolly Roger" until after attaining tenure. Harvey was serious in this instance. Fifty years ago college campuses had conservative thought in the curriculum and focused on the writings of such conservative theorists as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Now such writings are not politically correct. Bravo to the University of Colorado for creating a professorship for a conservative thinker so there could be at least one on campus.

A fourth and even more controversial topic avoided is the main difference between higher (tertiary) education in Europe versus the USA. In many parts of Europe like Finland and Germany college education and other forms of Tier 3 tertiary education is funded by taxpayers.
But to make high-quality education affordable admissions to college are restricted to less than 40% of the Tier 2 graduates ---

The larger proportion of Europe's Tier 2 graduates get training in the skilled trades, but this training is funded by the private sector in apprenticeships and other forms of on-the-job training. In the USA some form of taxpayer-funded low-cost education is available in or very near every small community where community colleges and other college branches cover the nation.

Now a movement is underfoot to provide free college to virtually all Tier 2 graduates as if all these graduates are ready, willing, and able to master higher education after graduating from our deteriorating high schools in terms of academic quality. The main failing in the USA is the failure to provide sufficient incentives for the private sector to hire and train those Tier 2 graduates who are are desperately in need of hiring and job training alternatives. The model of trade school or college degree to skilled jobs is just not working very well. Business firms need more European-type incentives to hire and train Tier 2 graduates.

"What Can the U.S. Learn From Switzerland, a World Leader in Apprenticeships? by Kelly Field, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 02, 2016 ---

I have gripes in other parts of the Past and Future of Higher Education report that mostly overlooks the progress that has been made in minority education. Much attention is given to racial issues and minority education. However, the responders overlook many of the positive things that have taken place. For example, more than 30% of the graduates from some of our most prestigious universities are minorities, and many of these attended those universities with free tuition, room and board.
Search for Stanford (37%), MIT (32.7%), Harvard (31.6%), Princeton (32.5%), Cornell (32.4%), Texas A&M (30.1%). etc.
Perhaps it's still not enough, but some credit should be given where credit is due. Need I mention that over 50% of the graduates in USA higher education are female. In my field well over 50% of the new hires by CPA firms are female, and there are award-winning affirmative action initiatives to make it easier for women to become partners in CPA firms. The professionals in CPA firms 50 years ago were virtually all males.

I could go on, but in my opinion this The Past and Future of Higher Education report would not get a C grade in any of my courses.

Tertiary education --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education

Tertiary education, also referred to as third stage, third level, and post-secondary education, is the educational level following the completion of a school providing a secondary education. The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as institutions that teach specific capacities of higher learning such as colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers.[1] Higher education is taken to include undergraduate and postgraduate education, while vocational education and training beyond secondary education is known as further education in the United Kingdom, or continuing education in the United States.

Tertiary education generally culminates in the receipt of certificates, diplomas, or academic degrees.

The USA already ranks high in terms of college graduates
Countries with the highest proportions of  college graduates ---

  1. Russian Federation 54.0% (quality varies due to rampant cheating and corruption where students can buy course grades and admission)
  2. Canada 48.3% (shares grade inflation problems with the USA)
  3. Israel 43.6%
  4. Japan 41.0%
  5. New Zealand 41.0%
  6. United States 40.3% (colleges vary greatly in terms of admissions standards and rigor for graduation)
  7. Finland 36.4%
  8. South Korea 34.3%
  9. Norway 34.2%
  10. Australia 33.7%

Germany college education is free by Germany is still under the OECD average in terms of proportions of college graduates at 23.9% ---
http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2010/09/education-governments-should-expand-tertiary-studies-to-boost-jobs-and-tax-revenues.html .

One of the major reasons admission to German schools is elitist is that free education is expensive to taxpayers. In 2009 the Berlin Senate decided that Berlin's universities should no longer be allowed to pick all of their students. It was ruled that while they would be able to pick approximately 70% of their students with the remaining 30% allocated by lottery. Every child is able to enter the lottery, no matter how he or she performed in primary school. It is hoped that this policy will increase the number of working class students attending a university.

A common myth is that nations that tightly restrict free college to the intellectual elite provide other forms (learning vocational trades) of free tertiary education.
OECD Study Published in 2014:  List of countries by 25- to 34-year-olds having a tertiary education degree ---
No nation provides more than Israel's 49% of free tertiary (trade training or college education) to more than Israel's 49% funded by taxpayers.

The USA, in my opinion, offers the most opportunity to the highest proportion of Tier 2 graduates to go to college. Even small towns across the USA have community college campuses and branch campuses with almost no admission standards for people who want to work toward a college degree or training certificate. Sadly, ACT testing results show that less than half of the USA's high school graduates are prepared to go to colllege. Compounding the felony is the fact that college degrees in the USA vary widely in terms of learning quality. Many of the USA's  graduates are no better or worse than Tier 2 (high school) graduates in Europe. In some cases the diplomas aren't worth the paper their written on let alone the thousands of dollars borrowed to get these useless diplomas.

Across the board from the worst to our most prestigious universities grade inflation is rampant to where the median grade across the USA is an A-
I fear that when college is free for all in the USA the median grade across the USA will climb to A+ and admission standards will fall to zero as colleges of poor quality compete to suck up the taxpayer subsidies that make college free for everybody.

What the USA lacks relative to Europe are networks of apprentice programs in the skilled trades where companies rather than taxpayers foot the bill for the training.

"What Can the U.S. Learn From Switzerland, a World Leader in Apprenticeships? by Kelly Field, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 02, 2016 ---

More Americans Leave Expensive Metro Areas for Affordable Ones ---

Jensen Comment
The article fails to point out that efficient public transportation differences make some metro area loss of middle and lower income people worse than others. For example, lower-income workers like school teachers forced out of San Francisco have the wonderful BART system for commuting in from east of the San Francisco Bay. New York, Boston, and Chicago have good metro systems to lower cost living areas. Palo Alto, San Jose, San Diego and Honolulu have lousy commuting alternatives other than by congested freeways. For example, Palo Alto now provides subsidized housing for public service workers who would not otherwise apply for those jobs. Sadly, installing new and better subway systems is now enormously expensive, especially for cities having vast urban sprawl like San Diego and Los Angeles where the subway tunnels would have to run for miles and miles and miles

Aaron Schock --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Schock

Former Republican Congressman from Illinois Will Be Indicted ---

November 11 Message from Bob Jensen

Hi Arnie,

Certainly we would not be having some conversations if Trump had lost. We would not be laughing at the statisticians and the poll data collectors.

We would not be puzzled about why a large number of white women who did not graduate from college probably prevented a woman from becoming President of the USA ---

I would probably not have brought up the Trump Hotel 2002 Pro Forma SEC investigation. That would've remained old news if Trump lost the Presidential election.

There were not as many serious complaints about the Electoral College system when Obama won in 2008 and 2012, although I suspect that the losing side always tries to whip that puppy somewhat.

If Clinton won I would certainly be expressing my concerns about the expense of  free college education for everybody who wants one and a free ride for those students who don't really want to shed blood, sweat, and tears earning a diploma.

If Clinton won we probably would be lamenting that she bought the election since she spent twice as much for every vote as her opponent with Wall Street funding, union funding, etc.

Some would probably lament that Hillary Clinton possibly beat out Bernie Sanders when she and the DNC cheated him in a number of ways --- only one of which was cheating on the debates. That will remain a fight within the Democratic Party, but I don't think it's as relevant as it might have been if Clinton became President.

We would probably be taking a more serious look at the WikiLeaked email messages of Hillary Clinton. Now all will probably be forgiven and swept under the FBI's carpet.

If Clinton had won there would be a lot less moaning and weeping and sobbing on academic blogs like that of the Chronicle of Higher Education where the doomsday laments are getting nauseating. If we survived Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush we can probably survive Trump. He'll be too busy managing his resorts and copping feels to worry about to a point of moving to Canada.

And (seriously) ocean temperatures will probably be cooler over the next four years with more ice forming at the poles. California will probably have drier years than 2016 --- which is a good reason for California not to secede from the Union just yet.

My point is that we would be having conversations on the AECM if Hillary Clinton had won, but those conversations most certainly would be different.



Book Review of
magining a Good Islamic State
While the idea of a caliphate is used and twisted by Islamists for sinister and brutal ends, the concept is not in itself threatening or dangerous.---

Jensen Comment
When ISIS finally surrenders its arms (not necessarily its terrorism) President Trump or his successors face the very difficult task of getting all the religious and cultural factions of Iraq, Suria, etc. to live peacefully with one another. President Obama failed miserably in helping Iraq recover from the downfall of Saddam. It seems he simply ignored the takeover of Iraq's government by the Shiites.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could allow the Middle East to resolve its own troubles now that we're becoming less dependent upon oil? That of course is a pipe dream given the powder keg of nuclear-armed Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and the never-ending hatred of Israel. And there's the enormous cost of rebuilding Syria to a point where refugees who want to can return to their homelands.

Why would anybody want to be President of the USA?
My guess is that President Obama is counting the days before the load is taken from his shoulders.


    Finding and Using Health Statistics --- http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/usestats/index.htm

    Best Medical Schools in the World (2013) ---
    More of the Top 50 are in the USA relative to any other nation.

    World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 ---

    Bob Jensen's threads on economic statistics and databases ---

    Medicare Fraud is Rampant ---

    Jensen Comment
    Colorado voters overwhelmingly  rejected a statewide universal health insurance program that would've more than  doubled taxes in the state ---



     I'm in favor of a government-funded basic health care plan, but I don't think any state can afford to go it alone. Someday there  will have to be some type of national plan. Unfortunately, any such plan will probably be put on hold during the Trump era that will most likely add more subsidies for big insurance companies and ambulance-chasing lawyers.

    The good news is that the many hospitals and doctors that previously closed their doors to people insured by Obamacare will probably soon open their doors once again to patients left out in the cold. 

    At the moment, however, nobody knows just what will replace Obamacare.

    News Item Prior to November 8 Election of President Trump
    Major Chicago Hospitals Not In 2017 Obamacare Marketplace Plans -

  • Some of Chicago’s largest hospitals said they will not be part of any Cook County Affordable Care Act marketplace plans in 2017.

  • University of Chicago Medical Center and Rush University Medical Center both said they don’t plan to be in network for any Obamacare marketplace plans next year. 

  • The change means patients with doctors at those hospitals will either need to find a plan off the marketplace, and lose Obamacare subsides, or find a new doctor.

  • Northwestern Memorial Hospital said it will also be out of the marketplace, but will have exceptions for some of its partner hospitals.

    Continued in article


  • According to emergency room physicians Obamacare made it much worse for emergency rooms.
    American College of Emergency Room Physicians
    The Uninsured: Access to Medical Care Fact Sheet ---


    Jensen Conclusion
    At the moment nobody knows just what will replace Obamacare. Hopefully that replacement will not dump more uninsured on emergency rooms.


    "Accountability for ObamaCare:   Democrats should pay a political price for this historic failure," The Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2016 --- |

    ObamaCare has suddenly been injected back into the 2016 election debate, on the news of the law’s 25%-plus average premium increase for 2017. Even Donald Trump is talking about it. With only two weeks to go, this is a moment for voters to hold accountable the Democrats who imposed this debacle on the country over voter objections.

    Next year’s enormous price increases are merely the latest expression of ObamaCare’s underlying problems, and the dysfunction is undermining the health security of Americans who lack employer coverage. A wave of major insurers have quit the exchanges, and those that are left have raised deductibles and copays and restricted choices of doctors and hospitals. The public is witnessing—and the unlucky are experiencing—the collapse of one progressive promise after another.

    At every stage of the ObamaCare saga, liberals said not to worry. Sure, the law was unpopular when Democrats rammed it through Congress on a partisan vote in 2009-10, but voters would learn to love it once the subsidies started rolling. That didn’t happen, and in 2014 President Obama tried to buck up Democrats by saying that “five years from now” people will look back on the law as “a monumental achievement.” Two years later it’s worse.

    Nothing could shake the liberal faith in their supposed landmark: Not the Healthcare.gov website fiasco of 2013, or the millions of individual health plans that were cancelled despite President Obama’s promise about keeping them. The left kept the faith as the entitlement subtracted from economic growth, hurt incomes and killed jobs. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber called the critics stupid, and Mr. Obama denigrates anyone who disagrees with him as illegitimate or politically motivated.

    Now reality is confirming what the critics predicted. ObamaCare’s regulatory mix—benefit mandates, requiring insurers to sell coverage to all comers, and narrow ratings bands that limit how much premiums can vary by health status—was tried by several states in the 1980s and ’90s. Every one saw the same results that are now unspooling nationally: high and rising costs, low and declining enrollment, and less insurer and provider competition.

    The Affordable Care Act was supposed to solve these predictable disruptions with subsidies and a mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But most people don’t think ObamaCare plans provide value for the money, especially if they are non-subsidized.

    So now the liberal line is that ObamaCare has a few problems, but don’t worry: The same geniuses who wrote the law know how to fix it. The Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren left wants a new “public option,” higher subsidies, more price controls and even more intrusive regulatory control. Hillary Clinton has endorsed all of this.

    “The Affordable Care Act has done what it was designed to do,” Mr. Obama declared last week in Miami, apparently meaning that the law has reduced the number of uninsured. But most of the coverage gains have come from dumping patients into Medicaid, a failing program that provides substandard care. Nominally private exchange plans increasingly resemble Medicaid too.

    Mrs. Clinton may be horse-whispering Ms. Warren now, but ObamaCare’s failures aren’t likely to bring the U.S. closer to their single-payer nirvana any time soon. ObamaCare was the best Democrats could do when they had a 60-vote Senate supermajority and bought off interest groups like the insurers, hospitals, drug makers and American Medical Association.

    The only way to break the ObamaCare status quo is if the public returns a Republican Congress to Washington. If Republicans can hold the Senate amid a Clinton victory, they’d be in a better position to negotiate solutions along the lines of the House GOP “Better Way” blueprint that would start to repair the individual market and create incentives for more choice and competition.

    Take Wisconsin, where Democrat Russ Feingold cast the deciding 60th vote for ObamaCare and voters fired him for it in 2010. He’s back hoping voters forget. Evan Bayh, who also cast the deciding vote before retiring to become a superlobbyist, is back facing Indiana voters and Hoosiers can deliver a verdict.

    In Arizona, premiums will rise a mind-boggling 116%, only two insurers are still selling plans, and John McCain has made ObamaCare a major theme. His opponent, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, calls ObamaCare her “proudest vote.” Katie McGinty likes to say Pennsylvanians should be “proud of ObamaCare,” though the commonwealth is slated for a 53% increase. A memo about ObamaCare pride month must have gone out from Democratic HQ.

    Mr. Trump has missed a chance by not prosecuting a consistent case against ObamaCare, despite Mrs. Clinton’s past as the chief architect of its HillaryCare prototype in the 1990s. As that episode shows, the longstanding progressive goal has been to centralize political control over American health care.

    Now voters are finally seeing what happens when the planners try to design a single health-care solution for a large and diverse country. Mr. Obama called ObamaCare “a starter home” in Miami. Republicans ought to campaign as the bulldozer.

    October 29, 2016 message from Zafar Khan

    Making a killing under Obamacare: The ACA gets blamed for rising premiums, while insurance companies are reaping massive profits.

    October 29, 2016 reply from Bob Jensen

    Hi Zafar,



    It would seem that if the insurance companies were making a "killing on Obamacare" they would not be dropping out of Obamacare like flies at the start of winter. Even the biggest insurance companies are dropping out of Obamacare exchanges. For example, Blue Cross stopped covering Obamacare plans in Tennessee after purportedly losing $500 million on ACA coverage.



    The big insurance companies are "making a killing" on traditional medical insurance coverage such as the employer plans they carry and their overpriced supplemental Medicare plans. The biggest fraud of all, in my opinion, is AARP that makes a killing brokering an overpriced supplemental Medicare plan.



    Then last week BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee announced it would leave three of the state’s largest exchange markets—Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville. “We have experienced losses approaching $500 million over the course of three years on ACA plans,” the company said, “which is unsustainable.” As a result, more than 100,000 Tennesseans will be forced to seek out new coverage for 2017.
     ObamaCare’s Meltdown Has Arrived ---

    Bob Jensen



    Bob Jensen's universal health care messaging --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Health.htm



    Bob Jensen's health care messaging --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Health.htm 

    Bob Jensen's Home Page --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/