TERRORISM 101 AND SAN BERNARDINO... IF IT WAS TERRORISM THERE SO WERE THE OTHERS

Heads of French aristocrats on pikes.

OK, let's get this out of the way.

When you fly airplanes into building because you want to make a point and scare lots of people in the process you're a terrorist.

When you're running around killing people in white sheets and hooded masks because you want to make a point and scare lots of people in the process you're a terrorist.

And, yes, when you're shooting up an area and kill numerous people because you want to make a point and scare lots of people in the process you're a terrorist.

Conversely ...

The person in the Wild West who shot someone because they cheated him at cards is not a terrorist.

The person who walks in on a cheating spouse and kills the idiot who's there is not a terrorist.

The person who shoots and kills someone during a bank robbery is also not a terrorist.

Not many people are familiar with the history of the term, but the word terrorism is derived from the French terrorisme. It was first popularly used to describe state policy during the French Revolution's "Reign of Terror" (from March 1793 through July 1794). This period was famous for the rise of Maximilien Robespierre, the invention of the guillotine, and the mass murder of "enemies of the revolution."

While the term was originally used to describe state sponsored terror, it's now used to describe the killing of many innocent people simply because someone has an ideology or wants to make a point and - for numerous reasons - get their jollies scaring or terrorizing large groups of people in the process.

What's critical here is not so much the result of the act - killing lots of people because you're annoyed or disagree with someone - as much as the response to the result: Killing lots of people, and then getting a large number of innocent people to cower or live in fear. Getting people to cower and fear is the real goal.

This is what terrorism is about.

This is why we need to start thinking about how the media - and especially cable TV - has been callously manipulating the term "terrorist" for some time now in the United States.

What's at issue today is how pundits and assorted media hacks made it clear how they wanted to describe what happened in San Bernardino versus how they described the Planned Parenthood attack in Colorado.

Simply put, because the names sounded like they were from the Middle East we were told almost immediately that the San Bernardino shootings were done by possible terrorists. You and I know why. It doesn't matter that the issues surrounding the attack may have been work related.

The guy in Colorado, however, was clearly labeled a disturbed lone wolf - as were "lone wolves" Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh (who wasn't actually alone).

Worse, when guns are involved with the "lone wolves" they are referred to as a "lone gunmen" - as was the case with the shooting in Seattle Pacific University. Then there was the "mass shooting" performed by the "lone gunman" at UC Santa Barbara. No terror there, right?

And what are we to make of Cliven Bundy's "armed standoff" against the BLM? It was patriotically taken up by "Sovereign Citizens" because, you know, that's what patriots do when they're defending the rights of someone who's been mooching off of federal land for pennies on the dollar for years.

And let's not forget the attacks and murders perpetrated by extreme Christians and others that weren't labeled terrorism, but could have been if we used the medias current slippery slope in San Bernardino.

There's more. But you get the point.

If we're going to use the term, we should get it right, for everyone.

- Mark 

THE UNITED SYRIAN REPUBLIC ... THIS IS HILARIOUS

This clip is pretty clever ...

- Mark

Hat tip to John for the clip.

CORPORATE AMERICA NOW OWES MORE THAN IT DID IN 2008 ... HERE'S HOW IT HAPPENED

With record profits one might be inclined to think that corporate America and the economy are doing fine, right? Think again. Corporate America is in no position to lead the economic "recovery," and now owes more than it did before 2008.

________________________________

This happened because corporate America has spent years playing accounting tricks with their bailout-sourced money. As economist Joseph Schumpeter might have put it, corporate America has effectively been playing monopoly rather than building them. And they've gone wildly into debt in the process.

This is how it happened.

The Federal Reserve's post-2008 decision to bailout Wall Street and corporate America with a seemingly endless stream of cash has put a flood of money into our markets. Banks and pseudo banks around the world have been able to borrow lots of money at record low interest rates because of the Federal Reserve's bailout policy. Here's a useful, if not stunning, visual of the trillions made available to corporate America.

All of this money was supposed to lead to renewed investment, higher incomes, and more profits after the market collapse of 2008. Instead, dumping a boatload of money in to the laps of an already greedy and rich class of people has only exacerbated a trend that's been going strong for the better part of 30 years now: Wages are stagnating while profits, especially in the financial sector, have soared.

________________________________

_______________________________

How has this been happening, you ask? This is a good question, and takes us to the primary reason for this post.

While we can blame globalization (shifting jobs overseas) and new technology (replacing jobs with machines) for stagnating wages, the reality is favorable legislation (especially pro-globalization, anti-union, and low tax legislation) and regular bailouts (again, trillions of dollars) have allowed the financial sector to gobble up the vast majority of money made (i.e. profits).

The chart below, courtesy of Zero Hedge, shows us how regular bailouts and favorable legislation have made access to money so easy that corporate America effectively decided borrowing money to make bets in bond markets was easier than making real investments. So they got lazy and borrowed lots of money to make these bets. Today corporate America now owes 15% more than it did before the market collapsed in 2008.

_____________________________

"Gross Leverage" = Borrowed Money / Investment Grade Bonds = IG / High Yield Bonds = HY

________________________________

What's happened is corporate America decided to focus on smoke and mirror accounting tricks to boost their numbers. Specifically, corporate America:

* SMOKE: Used borrowed and low interest money (courtesy of the Fed) to pay dividends to impress and keep impatient shareholders.
* MIRRORS: Used borrowed money to buy back stocks, which artificially boosted popularity and pumped up prices.
* MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN: Used borrowed money to pursue costly mergers that may boost revenues and lower costs in the short term but - as Carly Fiorina's history of merger fiascos at Hewlett Packard demonstrate - often cause more problems than they're worth. 

In a few words, in spite of record profits, corporate America has not been investing in brick and mortar (or aps and software) projects. They've used favorable legislation and cheap money to borrow and play accounting tricks. Unfortunately, they've now borrowed more than they did before the 2008 market collapse. Once interest rates begin to move upward this debt and bond driven business model will begin to unravel.

Here's the real problem: While they will have no one to blame but themselves for choosing to play monopoly rather than build them, corporate America will no doubt blame others when the going gets rough.

And Wall Street will be at the front of the bailout line that, incredibly enough, is already forming.

- Mark 

YOUR THANKSGIVING TURKEY ... SOME THOUGHTS

Not many people know that I once spent a good deal of time studying the poultry industry in Mexico. In fact, I published several specialized reports and a book chapter with one of my research colleagues from the Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro several years ago. My experiences with the poultry industry in Mexico is just one of the reasons why I found this article on the increasing size of Thanksgiving turkeys so interesting.

In a few words, the super birds we see on our Thanksgiving table today have been artificially "engineered" to satisfy market demand. Today's stoop framed and debeaked frankenbirds are no accident, as this Mother Jones article makes clear.

I encourage you to read the article because it helps us understand two things about the modern poultry family (which include chicken, turkey, and quail among others). First, the size of our poultry "products" have been supercharged in unnatural ways. Second, the time needed to grow poultry has been sped up.

In our 2009 book chapter, for example, my colleague and I explain how chicken producers have employed new farming techniques to reduce the amount of time necessary to grow a four-pound chicken. A four-pound chicken no longer needs nine-and-one-half weeks to grow, as was the case in the late 1960s. Today you need just six weeks to grow a four-pound chicken.

What this means is that four production cycles per year (1960s) have been increased to 5.7 cycles per year because of improvements in technology, environment, and management.

A modern poultry farm, with two hatcheries.

In human terms this is the functional equivalent of engineering and modifying our environments so that children become full-sized "adults" (i.e. reach their 18-year-old size) by the time they're a 13-year-old.

There's more, but you get the point. Your Thanksgiving turkey is a frankenbird.

- Mark 

REFUGEE THURSDAY ... OUR THANKSGIVING?

- Mark

SYRIAN CRISIS REVEALS LONG-STANDING HYPOCRISY BEHIND GOP'S "PRO-LIFE / ALL LIVES MATTER" CLAIM

Many are still unaware that the Syrian refugee crisis represents the largest displacement of people in our time. At least half of Syria's pre-war population is now displaced, with most fleeing to neighboring countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and even Iraq. 

With the GOP doing their level best to use the Syrian refugee crisis to become America's racial and religious gate-keepers (once again) it's time to wipe away the hypocrisy from the Republicans "all lives matter" claim.

I've posted on the GOP's hypocritical pro-life position before, but it needs to be brought up once more since the GOP is turning their back on human life, again.

Specifically, if you have a "pro-life" friend, who likes talking about how they support the sanctity of life, you might want to ask them the following:

1. Do you support torture? 

2. Do you support the death penalty?  

3. Do you oppose euthanasia for the terminally ill?  

4. Do you believe that over 100,000 civilians killed (as collateral damage) in a reckless war of choice is justified?

If they answer yes to one or all of these questions - and they are opposed to letting any Syrian refugees into the U.S. - they do not appreciate the sanctity of life, and are not pro-life. They're pro-something, but it's definitely not pro-life. 

Seriously. How does turning a blind eye to torture, state sanctioned murder, human suffering, and mindless death make you a defender of the sanctity of life? How about those who say they are pro-life but who also work to deny food and health care to children and the working poor?

_______________________________

There's more, but you get the point. Many in the pro-life crowd have a demented vision of human dignity, and don't really appreciate the sanctity of life. 

- Mark

FEAR ... SOME PERSPECTIVE

- Mark 

MONEY, LIES AND BIGOTRY ... THE DOMINANT FEATURES OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA?

As several of you have noticed, I haven't posted much recently. There's a reason. Simply put, I'm swamped. That said, I'm seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. To help kick start this opening we have this article from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich below. He explains how ego and money, outright lies, and bigotry have become the dominant features of American democracy.

**********************

"THE PERILS OF CIRCUS POLITICS"

The next president of the United States will confront a virulent jihadist threat, mounting effects of climate change, and an economy becoming ever more unequal.

We’re going to need an especially wise and able leader.

Yet our process for choosing that person is a circus, and several leading candidates are clowns.

How have we come to this?

First, anyone with enough ego and money can now run for president.

This wasn’t always the case. Political parties used to sift through possible candidates and winnow the field.

Now the parties play almost no role. Anyone with some very wealthy friends can set up a Super PAC. According to a recent New York Times investigation, half the money to finance the 2016 election so far has come from just 158 families.

Or if you’re a billionaire, you can finance your own campaign.

And if you’re sufficiently outlandish, outrageous, and outspoken, a lot of your publicity will be free. Since he announced his candidacy last June, Trump hasn’t spent any money at all on television advertising.

Second, candidates can now get away with saying just about anything about their qualifications or personal history, even if it’s a boldface lie.

This wasn’t always the case, either. The media used to scrutinize what candidates told the public about themselves.

A media expose could bring a candidacy to a sudden halt (as it did in 1988 for Gary Hart, who had urged reporters to follow him if they didn’t believe his claims of monogamy).

But when today’s media expose a candidates lies, there seems to be no consequence. Carson’s poll numbers didn’t budge after revelations he had made up his admission to West Point.

The media also used to evaluate candidates’ policy proposals, and those evaluations influenced voters.

Now the media’s judgments are largely shrugged off. Trump says he’d “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, round up all undocumented immigrants in the United States and send them home, and erect a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.

Editors and columnists find these proposals ludicrous, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

Fiorina says she’ll stop Planned Parenthood from “harvesting” the brains of fully formed fetuses. She insists she saw an undercover video of the organization about to do so.

The media haven’t found any such video, but no one seems to care.

Third and finally, candidates can now use hatred and bigotry to gain support.

Years ago respected opinion leaders stood up to this sort of demagoguery and brought down the bigots.

In the 1950s, the eminent commentator Edward R. Murrow revealed Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy to be a dangerous incendiary, thereby helping put an end to McCarthy’s communist witch hunts.

In the 1960s, religious leaders and university presidents condemned Alabama Governor George C. Wallace and other segregationist zealots – thereby moving the rest of America toward integration, civil rights, and voting rights.

But when today’s presidential candidates say Muslim refugees shouldn’t be allowed into America, no Muslim should ever be president, and undocumented workers from Mexico are murderers, they get away with it.

Paradoxically, at a time when the stakes are especially high for who becomes the next president, we have a free-for-all politics in which anyone can become a candidate, put together as much funding as they need, claim anything about themselves no matter how truthful, advance any proposal no matter how absurd, and get away bigotry without being held accountable.

Why? Americans have stopped trusting the mediating institutions that used to filter and scrutinize potential leaders on behalf of the rest of us.

Political parties are now widely disdained.

Many Americans now consider the “mainstream media” biased.

And no opinion leader any longer commands enough broad-based respect to influence a majority of the public.

A growing number of Americans have become convinced the entire system is rigged – including the major parties, the media, and anyone honored by the establishment.

So now it’s just the candidates and the public, without anything in between.

Which means electoral success depends mainly on showmanship and self-promotion.

Telling the truth and advancing sound policies are less important than trending on social media.

Being reasonable is less useful than gaining attention.

Offering rational argument is less advantageous than racking up ratings.

Such circus politics may be fun to watch, but it’s profoundly dangerous for America and the world.

We might, after all, elect one of the clowns.

*****************************

- Mark

MORE EVIDENCE GOP TALKING POINTS ARE EITHER DELUSIONAL OR BUILT AROUND A PACK OF LIES

This just another reminder that, when it comes to Republican talking points about how horrible things are under President Obama, the GOP simply doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Here's the big picture.

Then we have the numbers when it comes to comparing how jobs and unemployment have fared under recent Democratic and Republican presidents ...

Then we have market performance by presidential administration.

One thing is clear. When it comes to comparing the difference between Democratic and Republican administrations from William McKinley through President Obama (Aug. 2012), Democrats outperform Republicans (by far) when it comes to Total Returns (787% vs. 332%) and Average Annual Return on investment (15.31% vs. 5.43).

__________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Since the graph above only goes through August of 2012, the total returns and average annual return on investment are much higher for President Obama and other Democratic administrations. This is because markets (both the NYSE and the DJI) have climbed significantly over the past three years.

So, yeah, whether it's how the GOP works to ignore how President Obama has worked to clean up President Bush's mess, or how they ignore Democratic administrations outperforming their Republican contemporaries in the market since the late 1800s.

Finally, in the FYI category, as I discussed last week, the jobs picture in the U.S. has improved significantly since the Republican Party announced that Obamacare was going to kill jobs in America.

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

There's more, but you get the point. Republican presidential hopefuls are either delusional or have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to the economy or their market talking points.

- Mark 

CELEBRATING STORIES OF BRAVERY AND MUSIC FROM THE U.S. MILITARY ON VETERANS DAY

This orchestra is made up of musicians from the U.S. military, and they're playing probably the best "Unchained Melody" instrumental you'll hear anywhere.

******************

As we celebrate Veterans Day I also thought it would be a good idea to remind ourselves of people who actually went to war when they didn't have to, and perished in the process.

Unlike our modern day cowardly politicians, and blow hard media pundits who cheer every war opportunity without sacrificing anything, these are Americans who had fame and fortune but also believed they should contribute more to the cause. Not one of the three individuals below were drafted or forced to abandon the charmed and comfortable lifestyles that would be part of their future (regular readers will recognize these stories from previous posts).

GLENN MILLER
Glenn Miller was a band leader in the swing era. His career was beginning to sky rocket with still recognizable hits like "In the Mood" and "Moonlight Serenade." In 1942, while making between $15,000 and $20,000 per week (roughly between $200,000 and $300,000 today), Miller decided to join the war effort. At 38 he was too old to be drafted, and was initially told by the Navy that they did not need his services. He convinced the U.S. Army that they could use him to help "modernize" their music, which allowed him to serve by entertaining the allied troops.

Miller and his 50-piece band played across Europe, and perished on December 15, 1944 while crossing the English Channel to play in Paris. Glenn Miller is still listed as Missing In Action.


PAT TILLMAN
Pat Tillman was a football player in his prime playing for the Phoenix Cardinals in the late 1990s. After the 9/11 attacks Tillman left a lucrative career in the National Football League to enlist in the U.S. Army at the age of 25. At one point Tillman turned down a multi-year $9 million contract from the St. Louis Rams because of the loyalty he felt towards the Cardinals. Before enlisting in the U.S. Army Tillman also turned down a 3-year $3.6 million contract offer from the Cardinals.

Tillman joined the Army Rangers and died in the mountains of Afghanistan under circumstances - first called an ambush, and later labeled as "friendly fire" - that remains a mystery for many today.

JOSEPH KENNEDY, JR.
The Joseph Kennedy, Jr. story is a unique one because of his family connections and wealth. His father made a name for himself on Wall Street, and as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Ambassador to Britain. His younger brother, John F. Kennedy, would become the 35th President of the United States.

A graduate of Harvard, Kennedy studied for a year at the London School of Economics before attending Harvard Law School. A delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1940, Kennedy was already fabulously rich as a young man because his father, as the story goes, gifted each of his kids $1 million (about $17 million today) so they could make their own way in life, while telling the family to go to hell if they wanted.

Kennedy voluntarily left Harvard before finishing his final year in law school to join the U.S. Navy in 1942. There he completed 25 combat missions, and volunteered for Operation Aphrodite weeks before his tour was up. He died on a mission over England.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

- Mark