Thursday, June 20, 2019

Visiting Column #17 -- The Land Mines in the "Reparations" Discussion

It seems pretty silly that the Democrats in Congress, the party that supported slavery for generations, and which even in 1964 did not support the Civil Rights Act as strongly as Republicans in Congress did, are now pushing a proposal for a committee to discuss the possibility of "reparations" -- some kind of cash payments -- to the descendants of American slaves.  But they are, which tells you that it must have something to do with votes.

That would explain why they're not, in the same discussion, bringing up some of what I will call "land mines" in the whole notion of reparations.  If it were brought up in the face of the reparations types, they'd have to come up with an argument, when they don't, of course, have one.

I have heard reparations described as "payments to people who were not slaves by people who never owned them", and unfortunately that is not the only problem with the whole notion.  But we can start there.

We MIT grads tend to be almost immediately analytical in our thinking, even biology majors like me.  At most all of our final exams, we brought books, notes, calculators (OK, we brought slide rules in those days before the invention of calculators), anything we needed.  I brought beer to my sophomore thermodynamics final).  They wanted you to think, not memorize.

So naturally when I heard of the reparations idea being barfed up again, I started thinking of why it was a stupid idea and impossible to implement.  And I analyzed.

Slavery was outlawed in the USA in the 1860s, which means that all former slaves are dead.  All slave-owners are dead as well, as are all their children.  Now I can name you two people still alive whose grandfather owned slaves, brothers Lyon and Harrison Tyler (actual grandsons of the tenth president, John Tyler), but I think we can call them the exception.

None of my ancestors was in the USA as early as 1865 and so none owned slaves.  According to the 1910 Census, both of President Trump's paternal grandparents were born in Germany after 1865, and we know the president's mother was born in Scotland.  So his family had nothing to do with slavery in the USA.

Back to the analytics then, and lets stay on the "to" side of the equation.  Let's say for example that we actually want to do a reparations deal.  That involves a payment, which means from someone to someone -- and an amount.  We'll look at the "to" part first.

Let's say that we establish a value that a purely descended-from-slaves person would get.  Let's say $100,000 just for argument's sake.  In order to qualify for that, you must be able to document that every single one of your ancestors in one generation were slaves.  Why?  Well, clearly such a person is more "entitled"than someone only descended, say, on their mother's side from slaves.  If there was "harm", they only were "harmed" half as much, right?  They'd only get $50,000.  Only one grandparent purely descended from slaves?  You get $25,000, and you'd better prove those relationships.

How about the time value?  Remember that someone 40 years old today probably had 32 direct ancestors in 1850, and 128 in 1800.  Notwithstanding the fact that a claimant to a pure (highest value) reparation, the full $100,000, would have to demonstrate that all 128 of those ancestors were slaves, there is another dimension to that.

Slaves were being imported in 1850 as well.  How does someone, all of whose ancestors came over in 1850 and therefore slaved for "only" 15 years, compare in reparations to someone whose ancestors were already in the USA in 1700 and lived their whole lives as slaves?  Shouldn't the descendants of relative newcomers get less of the pie than those ancestors slaved for generations?

The calculus has to handle that too.  Verified ancestry percentage, verified time as a slave.  That will be fun.

Lots of land mines on the "from" side as well.  John Brown was a notable abolitionist, a white man who fought slavery to the bitter end and was hanged for the Harper's Ferry raid of 1859.  He died for the cause, so to speak.  Do his white descendants get a proportional discount on their reparations bill, having sacrificed their ancestor (and two of Brown's sons, who died in the raid) to the cause?  How, in any sense of fairness, should they have to pay as much as a slave-owner's descendants, right?

And of course, the same argument applies to pretty much any Union soldier's descendants, those who fought, those who died for the same cause.  Now they're supposed to pay -- "again", as it were?  And of course, any retroactive credit they get has to be apportioned for the percentage of their shed blood their descendants have.  Got to keep it fair, you know.

And once you get into a "credit" computation -- and you have to, to be fair -- you have to go to the "to" side again.  It's not like we have done nothing to offset the effects of slavery on black Americans.  How much of that $100,000 has already been paid over the years in the form of racial preferences, job points, affirmative action, college admissions, court decisions that take race into account?  Aren't we going to factor that in?

I hate to say, before my last point, "finally", because just the few land mines I mention above in computing a reparations deal themselves make it almost impossible to implement (and just try to prove that you had even one slave ancestor in 1800, let alone 128 of them).

But "finally", there is one more point.  Let's assume that we could do all that, and that at some point there is a reparations settlement that pays the deserving and does not dun people whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery.  Money gets transferred.  Reparations are implemented and paid.  All done.  It's over.  It's so over.

Now what?

In my view, that's the biggest land mine.  At the point at which reparations are paid, black Americans no longer have the right to claim any preferences whatsoever based on the presumption of a history of slavery.  You wanted it, you got it.  Here's your check, now you've been paid and no one owes you anything anymore.  It's up to you to become self-reliant and teach your children self-reliance, because you can't rely on preferential treatment anymore.

Reparations could become the biggest weapon for non-black Americans in the future, predicated on the idea that, having won a settlement, black Americans' claims are over and no longer can be used.

I've often written that the left does not want solutions; they want problems (mostly perceived) to exist forever so they can claim that only all-powerful government can solve them.  This one would backfire on the left in ways they could only imagine.

But they read it here first.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Monday, June 10, 2019

Visiting Column #16 -- Tariffs and Diplomacy in the Land of Trump

Some brilliant clown who runs the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (I think his name is actually "Brilliant", but we don't critique names here, just ideas) was asked about President Trump's efforts to influence Mexico on immigration enforcement with a tariff threat.

I don't believe Mr. Brilliant's actual words are fresh in my mind, but he rambled on about what a terrible idea it was to link tariffs to foreign relations, because it would cost American consumers in additional price hikes on imported goods, blah, blah, blah.

Now let's recall that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is vehemently opposed to border security, since they are funded in part by large companies that rely on illegal immigrant labor because it's so darned cheap, human trafficking and drug cartels notwithstanding.  The old Chamber is no more interested in fixing the porous border for their own reasons than the Democrats are for their own reasons (i.e., illegals voting Democrat).

So Mr. Brilliant went to the same well that the Democrats have been going to, criticizing the president for doing things in a way that, you know, works, but using a strawman argument regarding higher costs to the consumer.

Now, "strawman" might not be the right term here.  Yes, if we were to impose tariffs on Mexico, certain items we import would become more expensive, like Corona Light and cars manufactured there.  It's not that this wouldn't happen.

It's that it won't.

The prices won't go up because ultimately the tariffs on imported goods from Mexico are not going to be imposed, and yes, I know that they have already been suspended as I write this.

You see, the tariff threat, while an absolutely real threat from President Trump, was never going to have to be imposed.  Mexico can absolutely not get into such a fight with this president; they will lose at a time when the Mexican economy cannot bear the loss of the American market or challenges to its entry there.  So they backed down, agreeing not only to protect their borders and act on illegal immigration, but to have to do so reliably, lest the tariffs be reimposed.

Donald Trump knew that; using strength is how he has operated his whole life.  He has been repeatedly frustrated by the USA being unwilling, under his predecessors, to leverage the economic might of our country when it is in the interests of the people of the USA.  He is perfectly willing to do so and, here, he has.  To his delight (but surely not surprise), it actually worked -- the Mexicans were absolutely sure that he would indeed impose tariffs if they did not act, and it was less painful just to act.

They folded like a cheap suit.

The same lesson is not lost on the Chinese, the EU and others who have taken advantage of previous presidents.  This president has no problem doing what is in the best interest of his own people, at the expense of other countries over which he has no authority and almost as little interest.

Do not for a moment think that many, if any, tariffs, actually will need to get imposed; they are a threat but not a bluff.  No other economy can stand the suspension of access to the American marketplace, and they will do what is necessary to stay connected, even if it means capitulating to President Trump, the first president in memory to be willing to put America first in this regard.

Mr. Brilliant, as we know, does not want the border fixed; he wants a regular flow of cheap labor no matter what.  But there's no excuse for Nancy Pelosi or anyone else worrying out loud about how tariffs will hurt the American consumer (whom they never worried about before Trump anyway).

They know now that those tariffs will never happen, and that we have only scraped the surface as far as using our economic leverage to achieve political gains with our allies and adversaries.  Of course, since the American left should be supporting those tariff threats, in that they represent a way to achieve positive gains for the USA, they should absolutely be supporting President Trump and not opposing him.

It would be so much more helpful if our economic adversaries looked at Washington and saw a united front, saw that both parties were willing to stand up to the rest of the world and say "Enough" to their abuses.  China would roll over in a heartbeat, even though they will likely do so regardless.  But at least they would see that "waiting out Trump" would not be a viable option.

But Donald Trump wants what is good for the USA, we know now.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Democrats, well, not so much.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Visiting Column #15 -- Playing Out the Impeachment Musical

It should probably have music written for it, in the style of an early-1960s Broadway musical with production number choreography, that sort of thing.  Since we know how it will play out, and how it will end, it's best to try to dress up the pig as well as possible.  Score it for strings, percussion, standard woodwinds and brass.

I'm talking, of course, about the whole impeachment charade.

As of this writing, lots of Democrats in Congress are running around flapping their jaws about impeaching President Trump, although on what grounds few of them will offer a hint.  It does bear mentioning that they are doing that at the expense of actually legislating, actually addressing what anyone thinks are the problems we face in the USA.

It also bears mentioning that Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, is decidedly not a fan of this dance.  She is well aware that, if properly handled by the Republicans, an impeachment proceeding will serve to ensure the reelection of President Trump, and it is a sure thing that the GOP will handle it properly -- the GOP knows it, too.

So the Democrats don't actually have to go through with the process, as it has no chance of ultimate success and no support from the speaker.  But with the weird statement earlier today by Robert Mueller, in an effort to avoid his having to face a congressional committee hearing, Miss Nancy will have no choice but to capitulate and allow an impeachment hearing and a vote to be taken.

Mueller never wants to face Congress, mind you.  For the record, it is because he does not want to be asked "If you knew immediately that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, why didn't you say so before the election in 2018?" and have to answer that, even though all America wants to know.  So the farce will go on.

And here's what will happen.  Cue the strings.

Jerry Nadler, the bumbling chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold hearings to recommend that the full House take a vote on impeachment.  He's already on record as favoring it, and couldn't wait until Mueller was done talking before tweeting out that it's inevitable, actual justification be darned.

The Republicans on the Committee will show up there, of course.  They will politely use their five minutes or so each to point out that impeachment is a sour and miserable way to express a party's political disagreement with a sitting president, and that by the Democrats doing a stunt instead of legislating, it makes a lot of sense for voters to dump the Democrats next November.  If they know what's good for them, the Republicans on the Committee would each be wise to use their time for a little ol' campaigning speech.

The Committee vote will be on party lines, of course, meaning that a resolution of impeachment, with or without grounds, will get voted out of Nadler's side of the Committee and sent on to the House.  Nancy Pelosi, with no choice but to schedule a vote, will do so at the earliest possible time.

Why? The longer the process drags out, she knows, the worse it looks for the partisan Democrats, she knows.  It gives more air time to the embarrassing radicals in her party that are getting a lot of air right now, to the detriment of her chances of keeping the House in 2020.  She'd be wise to get the floor vote out of the way, and the whole inevitable mess off her plate and over to the Senate.  The Republicans will try to drag the House process out, quietly, of course, the better to keep the Cortezes, Schiffs, Nadlers, Tlaibs and Omars in public view where they will unashamedly embarrass their party without knowing it.

The vote will happen, of course, and with the Democrats holding a majority in the House, and few if any of them possessing the moral courage to vote against a political accusation toward their opponent, it will indeed pass.  Interestingly, we can expect that some Democrats we already know oppose impeachment, like Steny Hoyer and Pelosi herself, will vote for the Articles rather than risk losing the support of the radicals.  None will be in any future Profiles in Courage book.

With the political House majority having voted, President Trump will have been technically "impeached", as were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton before him.  Mitch McConnell will then have to figure out (hint: he already has) which of two paths to take -- either ignore the House vote and never bring it up, or, as he actually will do, go through the actual trial in the Senate.  Chief Justice Roberts will preside, and senators, all of whom already know how they'll vote, will make a speech and cast their votes.

Ultimately, the vote will come nowhere near the two-thirds needed to remove the president, and the whole thing will come to a sad "poof."  The only question in the Senate is whether McConnell will want the process to play out for a while (again, making the Democrats look like fools as they'll have their imbeciles-in-chief like Warren, Harris and Booker sucking up air time).  Letting it drag out a bit could poison the nation's attitude toward the Democrats in time for the 2020 elections.  Oh, darn.

While all this is going on, President Trump will be paying far more attention to the needs of the nation; the economy, foreign affairs, etc., will take his time while the Democrats come off as petulant and political to the point of being willing to corrupt a Constitutional process for their own power grab.

And if this is allowed to drag out through perhaps next spring, it will leave the Democrats' candidate for president with nothing whatsoever to run on.  He or she will be perceived as the titular head of a party with no plan to improve the country, and interest only in more and more power -- much as was seized by the Democrats in 2008 and 2009, when the first thing Barack Obama did was to grab the health insurance market for the government.  And we know how that went over.

The final act will take place when Donald Trump is reelected with even more states than he won in 2016.

And that, friends, will be a good thing.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Friday, April 19, 2019

Visiting Column #14 -- Kate Smith and Mickey Mantle

I truly don't have to come up with more reasons to hate the New York Yankees.  I dislike the city itself, can't abide being there (it was tolerable when Rudy Giuliani was mayor, but not before or since), and truly despise the team itself.  It has always been a pretty strong negative feeling for me toward the team, but it got worse as I grew up and realized that they could simply buy whomever they wanted for their lineup, and other teams couldn't.

The point is that it doesn't take much for me to generate more dislike for the Yankees.  Duh.

So when they actually do something really stupid, I have to celebrate, even if there is nothing good actually to celebrate, other than perhaps getting others to share my contempt for the organization.  And man, did they go south on the IQ meter.

As you know, during games, the National Anthem is played or sung (or both) before the start of the game.  Since around 9/11 or so, it has also been customary to perform "God Bless America", the great patriotic number, during the seventh-inning stretch.  Even prior to 9/11, that was a custom in some places.

At Yankee Stadium, it had been a tradition to play a recording of Kate Smith (1907-1986) singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch, and that was how their stretches went for many, many years.

Well, not now.

Back in 1931, as a young singer, Kate Smith recorded a song called "That's Why Darkies Were Born", from a musical of the time.  Now, the setting was satirical, even for 1931; the song was meant to satirize racism, not reflect it, in the context in which it was written, set and sung.  Paul Robeson, one of the great black singers in that era, it should be noted, also recorded it.  And Robeson was not exactly a shrinking violet about race issues.

So somewhere along the line, someone dug up a recording of Kate Smith singing "That's Why Darkies Were Born" and decided to whip up a frenzy about it.  They cast Kate Smith as a racist on the basis of that recording alone, ignoring the satiric context, and the inconvenient fact that Robeson also recorded it. And, I suppose, they ignored whether there is any actual evidence of her being racist.

But the Yankees, morons that they are, decided that anyone who would record that is unfit to have her voice played in the seventh inning at Yankee Stadium.  That's where we stand right now, and I'll bet you $2.75 Canadian that you never hear Kate Smith at Yankee Stadium again.

OK, fine.  Darned if those Yankees will ever have their overpriced seats besmirched by some accused racist singer!

Except there's kind of another inconvenient fact that the Yankees may have to confront.

Just beyond the center-field wall in the House That Money Built, is an area called Monument Park, where the Yankees have put up granite monuments to honor former players and managers, and where they have hung their numerous retired numbers.  It succeeds the version that was in the first Yankee Stadium, and is assumedly more elaborate.  People tour that area, though I have never been there and have no reason to.

Now Mickey Mantle, good old number 7, is honored with a plaque and a retired number out there.  The Mick has been dead for a while, but his memory is there for the looking if anyone wanders around Monument Park, and there is no plan to do anything about it.

But maybe they should.

I have probably noted, a few hundred columns back, that as a reader, I prefer books about baseball, and strongly prefer biographies from the very, very few writers capable of doing the detailed, painstaking research needed to bring these people to life.  For every brilliant Ted Williams bio written by Ben Bradlee or Leigh Montville, there are forty books that are simply pap, lightly researched and just out there to waste paper and sell fodder.

One author, though, whose works are truly inspiring in the diligence of their research is Jane Leavy, the Washington-based author of works on Sandy Koufax, Babe Ruth and ... Mickey Mantle.  I have read her first two and am, as I write this, a quarter through "The Last Boy", her work on Mantle.

There is, of course, a wealth of legend and some generally-known facts about Mantle that we've always had.  He was the "Commerce Comet", out of Commerce, Oklahoma, that the men in his family died young, and that he was an outsized drinker, partier and carouser who thought he, too, would not see age 40.  And, of course, he was a great switch-hitting outfielder with huge power, an MVP and Triple Crown winner, lots of World Series, all that stuff we always knew.

Leavy has, through extensive research, interviews, and all the things we wish all writers did, broken down Mantle's youth and what made him the person he was.  And one thing that person was will not exactly please the Yankees.

Commerce, Oklahoma was quite white.  It was a zinc and lead-mining town, mostly "mined out" by the time Mantle was a child in the '30s and '40s, and lead miners in Oklahoma were not exactly the most racially sensitive folks out there.  That's how Mantle grew up, as a professional baseball player signing right after high school, in an organization that did not integrate until Elston Howard joined the team years later, well, you get the idea.

So perhaps, heaving read of his upbringing, I was less startled than many to hear that it was something the young ballplayer did, when Leavy related Mantle lowering a car window to yell at a black man in the streets to "take a bath", after regarding him with an unpublishable epithet.

We don't do that in 2019.  We don't imagine anyone doing that in 2019.  But the familiar racism of the era of Mantle's youth seems extreme even for that era, simply unprovoked verbal attacks starting with race.

I know our instinct is to write it off as "the times", but the Yankees have put themselves in an ugly and uncomfortable place now.  How, I have to ask, do they square maintaining a monument to a player of well-documented racist attitudes, with banning the playing of the recording of a singer for having done a song that was, in actuality, a satire on those attitudes?

Paul Robeson, by the way was not only a singer but played in the NFL, which black players could do then.  Suppose instead of football, he had played baseball -- as a Yankee.  And, let's say, he had been great enough for a monument in Yankee Stadium.  It's not that big a stretch; he certainly was a professional athlete.

He recorded the exact same song.  They banned Kate Smith for not a single racist accusation, save for the singing of that particular song.  What would they do with Robeson, who did the exact same thing?

And let's face it, although in his later years Mickey Mantle took far more racially-accommodating positions (again, as documented in Leavy's book), he was not only clearly more backward in his racial attitudes, for a goodly portion of his life, than Kate Smith ever was, but is honored in Monument Park a whole lot more than she is.  How do the Yankees possibly not have to pull down his plaque?

I don't know how this will end, but boy, it has to.

I'm just glad the ones most embarrassed by it are the Yankees.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Visiting Column #13 -- Tax Returns, Subpoenas and Stalin

As I start this, the Democrats in Congress, through their various committees, are trying to do a subpoena of President Trump's tax returns for some number of years back.  They are threatening to hold someone or other in contempt if they don't get their way.

At the same time, over in Moscow, Vladimir Putin is doing what Putin does, whatever that may be, but I am assuming that along the way it involves (or includes) taking care of his opposition one way or the other.  After all, he has no real challenge to his power, so he can do as he likes, and that includes arranging for opposition to disappear somehow.

I don't think we want to get there in this country.

Barack Obama tried, allowing his FBI to be corrupted into becoming an espionage agency on an American political candidate who opposed his hand-picked successor, Hillary Clinton.  The political cruds at the top of the FBI used a fraudulent opposition-research document as an excuse to spy on Americans even without a crime being suspected or, as we now know, having been committed.

And now the Democrats in the House are trying to pull a very Putin-like trick, having failed to keep Donald Trump from being elected, and then failing at trying to use the FBI's corrupt leadership to get him out of office.  They are searching for a crime where none is known to exist.

Now I suppose that I'd rather have seen Barack Obama's transcript in college, than Trump's 1040s.  After all, I understand college transcripts, where I'm less convinced on the tax returns that I could properly interpret them, even though I have a lot of experience in that area -- enough to know what is not going to be found there.

Donald Trump was part owner of a huge construction company for most of his life.  That was his primary source of income and, given the vagaries of the construction biz, it can be safely assumed that his income ran all over the place, maybe $500 million one year, $1.5 billion the next, $400 million the year after, and so on.

But that income came through the business.  I assume he was paid a huge salary that was a regular amount, and then on top of that, he would have paid taxes on income that flowed through to him depending on how the Trump Organization is organized as a corporation (it is an LLC, so I assume net income flows to its owners).  Plus, there were books and other revenue streams as well.

I assume that there is almost nothing that a tax return could provide as far as insight into the business, unless they were to try to get their hands on the business returns, which is a whole 'nother thing.

So at what point is someone going to stand up and ask the logical two questions:

(1) What crime, specifically, is the president suspected of having committed, when?
(2) What compelling evidence exists of that crime that warrants subpoena of personal information?

You see, absent an actual crime, Congress has no business looking for that kind of material and, given the intelligence of the Democrats' leading voice, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, it can be very, very safely assumed that they have no more capacity to understand a tax return than my cat does.  And I have a very intelligent cat.  Does AOC even realize that all the dealings of the Trump Organization would be totally absent from his personal return, save the little detail from the Schedule K-1?  Does she know what a K-1 is?

But it's the absence of a crime that bothers me.  This is not Putin's Russia, and it's not Stalin's Soviet Union, and Putin learned from those who learned from Stalin. 

The very first time that a Congress goes off on a "Here's the person, find us a crime" investigation, it sets a precedent that such behavior is OK, and once it is used by one party, it is fair game for another.  I would like to think that the Republicans are better than that, but if it took that to unwind the dirt of the Clinton Foundation, I'm not sure they could hold back in a future situation.

I can read a tax return, my friends.  I used to prepare them professionally, and I know what is and is not in them.  Having heard what some of the morons on the left say they think they'll find in Trump's 1040 tells me that they're going to have to invent a lot of interpretations that aren't there to explain what I expect will be found -- what won't be.

But then again, when the economy tanked under their president and roared under the current one, I suppose they have to do something.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Friday, March 29, 2019

Visiting Column # 12 -- Shall We Teach THIS, Please?

We are subjected on about a weekly basis to factual errors in economics on the part of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the "honors" graduate of Boston University in economics and, until recently, bartender, who appears to have sucked the oxygen out of contemporary political discourse.

This leaves us to determine if the biggest downer is that the people of her district in the Bronx couldn't come up with anyone better than a bartender to represent them, or for the poor Economics Department up there at BU, that gives degrees "with honors" to someone who apparently can barely count change.  Or, worse, that their degree is so useless that six years later their honors graduates are reduced to tending bar.

Or, perhaps, the Democrats, who are stuck having this ninny representing the current thinking of their party.

Either way, this all sort of led me to the thesis of this piece.  You don't have to have an economics degree, even from BU, to know that when you chase Amazon out of town and claim the tax break "can be spent elsewhere" as if it exists after chasing away the jobs it would produce, you're showing a total lack of understanding of what you are supposed to have studied.

But do we actually think that most incipient high school graduates from the class of 2019 would be able to explain why her logic is totally blank?  I don't.  I don't think so because I wasn't taught that sort of thing as a high school senior in 1969, and I'm pretty sure that the left has sufficiently drained any remaining unbiased economics training out of contemporary curricula 50 years since.

Now, I don't think that we have to mandate a full year of economics for high school students, but with the "block scheduling" more prevalent in today's high schools, featuring half-year classes, it would seem that we could provide a semester's curriculum on "handling money for life" that would not only help teach teenagers about micro-economic concepts like debt, savings and compound interest that affect their family, but perhaps some macro concepts about business, taxation and tariffs so they understand the terms.

There is one specific lesson that I believe spans both the micro and macro sides, that I think could be taught in two sessions and which would have immense benefit to every student, even if it is NEA union members doing the teaching (ugh).

That is the notion of the value of labor.

I'm on record as having espoused the notion that people should be paid not what they need, but what their value is to their employer -- within reason, of course ("reason" includes the value of longevity, the prevalence of available labor, the niceness of the employer, etc.).  That value is the fundamental driver of wages, after all, and it would be extremely helpful if children came out of high school with an understanding of that -- seeing things, albeit briefly, through the eyes of the employer.

My first professional job was for $11,000 a year as a programmer for the old Burroughs Corporation in Boston.  But before that time, I had made (in no order) $3.00 an hour behind the desk of a bowling alley, $3.00 an hour working landscaping, $2.50 an hour behind the desk of a different bowling alley, $3.00 an hour sweeping up a cabinet-maker shop, and $8,000 a year as the statistician for the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts (which I don't regard as "professional" since I did only clerical work).

No one taught me this lesson, but I came to understand, osmotically, that the reason that I wasn't paid more than I was, was because my work wasn't really worth more to the people paying me.  I could have done a brilliant job behind the desk of that bowling alley, but it wouldn't have generated any real amount of new business for the place that I could claim credit for -- my job was to keep things going and avoid problems.  Avoiding problems was worth $3.00 an hour in 1971, and if I didn't take it, some other kid would.

What, I would ask, if today's high school graduates had at least a fundamental understanding of business accounting?  Not that they have to get the notion of debits and credits and double-entry stuff and the like, but at least to understand the difference between an income statement (or P&L) and a balance sheet.  In other words, to know what an asset or a liability is, and why having a high income doesn't mean, a priori, that you are wealthy.

If they came out knowing that "tax breaks for the wealthy" is an oxymoronic concept, since we don't really tax "wealth" except for property taxes, that might be nice.

If they came out knowing that a business can have high revenues but not be profitable, that would be nice.  Top line, bottom line ... that sort of thing.

Mainly, though, it would be great if they came out with enough understanding of how a business makes profit.  How it earns money but has to expend that money on labor, rent and operating expenses, and if anything is left, well, that's what "profit" is.  How the amount left after rent and operating expenses determines what kind of salary budget can be available, and how that becomes the real driver of wages in the private sector.

And that the private sector operates under different guidelines from the way government works, mostly.

If our next generation applies for a job with the understanding that what they will be paid stems not from how big their mortgage is, or how many kids they have, but rather what the business has available to pay employees, well, that would be a winner.

Because then they would understand that, in order to earn more, they would have to make the connection between the service they provide their employer and how that service produces more revenue or lowers costs.  If a better job brings in more revenue to the company, then it can be rewarded with a raise.

It seems so simple, but if even honors graduates from Boston University in economics don't grasp that concept, then perhaps we need to find a way to get it across in high school.

I'd love to teach it.  May I, please?  Oh, wait.  I just did.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Visiting Column #11 -- Where a Third Party Could Actually Happen

If you go back to the very, very first column on this site, you will be aware that I have believed that there is no such thing as a "moderate"; that people's opinions on a variety of issues assort so readily into two poles that it is impossible for someone claiming to be "moderate" or "centrist" to have sufficiently popularly-supported opinions to have a third party congeal around him.  Or her.  Or whatever (it is 2019, after all).

Never, however, did I account in that well-reasoned position for the possibility that a third party could indeed materialize, as long as it was not in fact an attempt at some form of centrism, but actually one which planted its flag to the distal ends of the scale.

Specifically, I am observing the curious dissipation of the Democrats.  The party that was once a mishmash of union types, people between 20 and 30 whose brains hadn't yet developed, urban black voters, etc., has mishmashed itself into an odd group today.

The Democrats have always tried to represent themselves as for the "downtrodden" in society, trying to pit themselves against the Republicans, whom they portrayed as the party of big business.

Now, in order to do that, they have been continually adding new versions of "downtrodden" -- where it was once women and black people, they have been gradually adding new presumably aggrieved groups.  Those groups now include Muslims, gays and lesbians, transgender people, illegal immigrants, people with every psychiatric disorder under the sun, and the psychiatrists who keep adding newly-described disorders to that list.

Of course, that's a problem.  For example (and there are more), it's not anti-Semitic to say that Jews in the USA have voted heavily Democrat over the decades, even when it was not in their best interest to do so.  And when there were hardly any Muslims in this country to speak of, that was not an issue.  But now there are, and these two historically antagonistic groups are not cohabiting well under the idyllic tent that the 2019 Democrats claim to be, particularly when it comes to Israel.

The Democrats' response has been to try to widen the door to that tent even further, and that has furthered the bottom line argument of the left -- that Government is the source of all solutions, and if you vote Democrat and for big government, you will get taken care of.

In other words, whoever you are, we of the left will give you whatever you want -- free this, free that -- and create a socialist paradise to get there.  Rainbows.  Unicorns.  Sort of like that "Imagine" song that I always hated.

Now, that old party, the one with union types and the like, well, they know better than to believe that kind of crap, but they're also historically antagonistic to voting Republican unless it is an exceptional situation -- Ronald Reagan on the 1980s, or Donald Trump in 2016.  They might vote for Joe Biden in a primary, but they can't support Bernie Sanders, or Kamala Harris, or Spartacus, or Pocahontas, or "Beto", or pretty much the rest of the current Democrat candidates.

And it won't be Biden, an old white guy, getting the nomination of a party that is trying to find a half-black transgender Muslim female abortionist to run, as if they're trying to win a government contract by checking every preferenced group.

Every single one of those candidates is pushing further and further to the left, promising everything for free even while ignoring Constitutional guidance.  And in that drive toward socialism, what passed for mainstream in the Democrat Party is wondering what hit it, including Nancy Pelosi, who is trying in futility to run to the head of the stampede to look like she is leading it.

That is the point.  There is a fertile ground for a new party, and it is not in the fields of the old Democrats but in those of the new ones.

Here is the prediction, or at least something I thing could easily happen.  The Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders or one of that type, and get defeated in 2020 again.  This time, realizing that they can't keep trying to blame the election on Trump and going all Mueller on him, will look inside, and the split will be permanent.

One or more of the losers in the primaries, and possibly including the losing nominee, will realize that they can't stay old-time Democrat.  A New Socialist Party, further out than traditional Democrats, will be the answer.  This third party will leave the Democrats and will quickly pick up all those aggrieved groups and split them off.

They'll even win some House seats and possibly a Senate seat or two in places like California and Massachusetts, depending on what happens to the Democrats remaining.  And we will have three parties.

Except that the third party will be an extremist one as opposed to a centrist one.  I think it is not inevitable, especially given that the mainline Democrats in power today will realize that they'll lose power completely, and God knows they're only about power.  They'll fight hard.

But much as people both calling themselves "Democrats" are at a state of verbal war regarding issues like Israel, the Democrats of 2019-20 are inevitably splitting, and I believe it is the socialist wing that will be what leaves and creates its own "tent."

Let's look back in a couple years, shall we?

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Monday, March 4, 2019

Visiting Column #10 -- What the Tax Cut Pays For

I have now done my taxes for 2018.

OK, I didn't do them myself; we have an accountant prepare them since I am a sole-proprietorship business, as a private consultant to a small number of defense contractors.  When the tax law is overhauled, you're better off ensuring that the law is being followed, especially when the IRS has already audited you once.

But inasmuch as I used to do taxes when my best girl and I owned a tax-processing business a few decades back, I always go over my return after it is prepared.  So I like to think I am astute enough to take a hard look at the changes in tax laws over the years.  In particular, I looked at the difference between what my household's income and expenses were this year under the new tax law, vs. what they would have been under the law for tax year 2017.

Well, surprise, surprise.  Had I had the same figures the previous year -- and for the record, I pretty much did -- I would have paid well over $4,000 more if President Trump had not pushed through the reform in the tax law.  In other words, had Hillary Clinton been elected, my family would have been demonstrably $4,000 poorer, and that money would have been in the hands of a rapacious Congress that would have spent it on a host of things I disagree with.

I suppose that, as a proportion of income, I am in line with most filing Americans, certainly those who are independent business types, in the improvement in my tax posture vs. the old law.  But interestingly, I wanted to put my benefit in perspective.

You see, as I wrote a number of times a few years back (including here, the most fun piece), I am still recovering from what Obamacare did to my family.  As you will read if you follow the link, we were quite comfortable with the health insurance policy we had up through 2014, when the worst aspects of Obamacare kicked in.

We were quite healthy, and therefore had a fairly low-priced, high-deductible policy that had worked well for us.  Since I did not have employer coverage (being independent), I had to go find my own policy, and did indeed obtain a family policy that worked.  In 2014, the premium was $550 a month, and it covered a 63-year-old couple.  Just as we wanted it.

In 2015, however, we were not so lucky.  Obamacare, passed a few years earlier, had finally kicked in, the Jonathan Grubers of the world having helped Obama ram through a lapdog Congress the notion that people were too stupid to decide what coverage was appropriate.

Where we had the plan we wanted in 2014, that policy was now illegal for our insurance company to offer in 2015.  We could only buy one of three offered in Fairfax County, Virginia, where we lived.  That was it.  The least expensive of the three was $1,090 per month for the two of us, that high partially because we now had to pay for coverage we neither wanted nor needed -- even Gruber would have to admit that a pair of 64-year-olds didn't need maternity coverage, and certainly not pediatric dentistry, given that at that time our younger child was 34.

But we had to pay for both, and between that extra, useless coverage and the lack of competition in our county, we had to pay through the nose until mercifully we turned 65 in 2016 and could switch to the coverage of Medicare -- which we had been already paying on since 1974, but had not yet received any benefit previously.

In just that year and a half, my wife and I paid about $9,200 more, because of the Obamacare law, than we would have had the law never been passed.  And here is the real crime in all this -- that $9,200 didn't go to the Government.  Nope -- every penny of that additional cost to my family went to the insurance company, Aetna, Inc., which happily sold me a policy for thousands more than I needed or wanted.

In case you were wondering who privately was thrilled when Obamacare was passed, you can start in Hartford, where the suits in the insurance industry was doing cartwheels.

So tax cuts.  OK, the way I look at it is this: The government cost me $9,200 in medical insurance premiums I should never have had to have paid, by passing a law that now, with the individual mandate gone, is probably unconstitutional.  I want that money back.

And now, with a different president in office and some shiny new tax laws in place that actually encourage businesses to grow and expand, and carry the economy even beyond the heights that President Trump has already brought it, well, it's my turn.  As long as Congress doesn't mess around with the tax law, somewhere around May of 2020 I will have broken even, and the tax law will have paid me back for what Obamacare took from me.

Needless to say, my individual case is being replicated nationwide.  Thank God.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Friday, March 1, 2019

Visiting Column #9 -- The Performing Arts and the People

OK, I haven't written for a while.  This piece has the kind of title that might get a few more people to read it, than if I titled it more in line with its topic.  But it is going to be a more interesting, or at least curious, read than a more precise titling would have suggested.

The "arts" fall into two broad categories, in one way of slicing it.  There are the -- I don't know, "productive arts", where there is a tangible product as their outcome, like a painting, a book or sculpture. People come to see the product and marvel or jeer, accordingly, but save any decay, the product lasts and is the same thing tomorrow as today.  The "artist" is the creator.

The other would be the performing arts.  That's very distinct for a key reason.  There are then two artists in play; one is the creator (and arranger) of the musical composition or play or whatever; the second is the individual or group that performs the piece.  They can be separated by centuries.  Both need to be good in order for the "art" to come forth; a great cast couldn't save an atrocious play; a top orchestra can't make "Louie, Louie" sound like music, and Beethoven's Fifth as played by a third-grade band will not sound great -- except to the parents, maybe.

For the last 35 years, my performing art of choice has been the barbershop quartet (and, to some extent, the barbershop chorus).  I performed for 25 of those years, and four times was fortunate to be part of an international championship group.  But the organization devoted to its continuation is in serious jeopardy, and losing members -- even as the best of its performers today are as good or better than anyone performing the style has ever been.

That's what I wanted to write about today.  And it's a philosophical discussion I can't solve.

Briefly -- the organization is the Barbershop Harmony Society, long known as the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America.  It is based in Nashville, and has about 700-800 chapters in the USA and Canada, but is now under 20,000 members.

The art form itself is a style of music with four parts, a lead (melody), one part (tenor) above the melody, a bass singing foundation chord parts, and the baritone singing whatever note is left.  There are distinct rules of harmony at play, which are logical when you hear the music, but complex when written down -- so I won't.

Here's the thing.  Barbershop music is about as schizophrenic as it can get.  When it is done by a champion quartet or chorus or a high-level competitive group, it is mind-boggling how good it is.  Those rules of harmony are made to blend four sounds rapturously when done right.  They produce so many overtones, that you regularly hear five or six harmonically-pure notes per chord amidst a beautiful blended and large sound.  The story of the song is also conveyed sincerely -- that's also important -- and the musical theme is conveyed ideally.

On the other hand, when it is done poorly, as we too often hear, it is painful to listen to.  Men who are not good singers to start with, can make their offerings so unpleasant that your ears bleed, at least figuratively.  You just don't want to hear that, and it does no one any good.

So what is the problem?  Just this.  Virtually all men's barbershop is done under the auspices of the Barbershop Harmony Society, either by a BHS-chapter chorus or BHS-member quartet.  But while the very best of these performances, jaw-dropping as they can be, are spectacular, they are generally the exception.  Those who win contests are fabulous, but not in the majority.

Of those 700-800 chapters out there, the preponderance are of an average age over 55 or 60, beyond the age at which an amateur, untrained voice is at its peak.  These are the performers who, by default, are most often charged with "preserving the style", which is the formal mission of the Society.  And they generally feel that the way to preserve the style is to perform it.

They're right, of course.  At least someone has to perform it in order for those unfamiliar with it to like it enough to want to preserve it.  The problem is that these chapters get together once a week, often just 20 or so men, and spend the night singing -- mostly not very well, and mostly nothing you would regard as entertaining.  And they do shows, too, where they do this in public.

Ultimately, this is a conflict that is diminishing the membership of the Society.  As older members pass away, despite substantial efforts to bring youth into the contest venues, the numbers are not being replaced and the membership declines.

This is not a new phenomenon; we have been dealing with it for several decades.  The reason I am writing about it, and the reason I feel you might be interested in reading about it, is that it is a conflict that has analogous situations in other aspects of the arts -- the people with the responsibility for preserving the art form are singularly incapable of performing it well enough to attract others into sharing the interest, and thus preserving it.

When I was younger and far more active -- I stepped off the stage in 2009 and no longer sing, although I retain my membership -- I strongly advocated for the BHS to stop thinking of itself as a member-service organization, and to start thinking of itself as a performing-arts preservation one.  I suggested that, while we could keep the chapter structure, it no longer be the sine qua non of the organization -- that our primary goal be to have the largest possible population in North America exposed to the best we had to offer.

I still believe that, although there is always the second half of the equation to worry about.  That is, after someone has heard a champion quartet and says "I want more of that", what do we offer them?  What do we want them to do to help preserve the art form?  If the guy whose attention we get, can't really sing too well, what can he really do, and how do we leverage his interest?

That was where we kept running into the performance vs. preservation conflict; the member service organization vs. arts preservation organization conflict.  For decades, small choruses around the USA and Canada would have a show, and maybe bring in a high-quality guest quartet.  A good young singer would happen to be in the audience, and get so excited by the guest quartet that he would show up at the chapter's next Tuesday rehearsal, only to find 22 guys, 21 of them over 60, croaking out sounds not at all reminiscent of what attracted the young man in the first place.  He is never seen again.

I hate to raise all this without having an actual solution.  The best I could suggest would be for the Society to professionalize a half-dozen of its best quartets and send them on tour to every possible high school and college.  To try to overhaul the prevailing stereotyped notion of four guys in striped vests and straw hats not singing that well.  To create a ten-year plan to change the accepted notion of what barbershop is.  After all, people's impression of the "a cappella" style in general (barbershop is one subset of that style) has already been able to change through shows like Sing-Off and the work of a few dedicated individuals such as Deke Sharon.

BHS has opened its doors to female members recently, after being male-only for 80 years.  For the sake of the harmony itself, that's not a great idea (the overtones are somewhat diminished in the female range), and to be sure, I expect this had a lot more to do with legal-adjacent concerns about male-onliness, and more to do with offsetting the declining membership.  Contests at the top level will still be male only for now.

Of course, why I dislike that notion has nothing to do with the music, or genders.  Not much, anyway.

I dislike it because it is taking up a huge chunk of effort, but it has nothing to do with preserving the style and advancing the promotion of the style -- and everything to do with the notion of BHS as a membership organization.  As long as BHS thinks of itself that way, it will continue its long slide into irrelevance, no matter what gender its membership has.

I have the greatest respect for what is often called the "Joe Barbershopper", the guy in the little chapter in a small town who wants to enjoy his hobby on Tuesday nights.  He should be allowed to do so without anyone telling him not to.  I am not.

But while he may be called the "heart of the Society", to celebrate him is antagonistic to the Society's mission -- preserving an art form.  That preservation is going to be done when the nation, hungry for actual talent after years of having celebrity foisted upon them as "singing talent" (coughRodStewartcough), sees what the best of our artists can do with a great arrangement of a song suitable to the style.

Were it up to me, I would start focusing on developing and funding the performances at the highest level, and getting them in front of national audiences, even if a few bucks needs to be moved from some programs that are designed for the local chapter.  Say, this kind of performance, if you're wondering.

What happens after you listen to something like that?  Well, you want more, so you start picking through YouTube, and getting a bit more familiar with the range of music such groups can do.  And you start downloading albums.  That's "preservation by listener."  Only if you're an actual singer do you think about how to perform it, and maybe inquire into it, and maybe then check with the Society.

But if we turn into producers and promoters, as opposed to being overwhelmingly a membership organization, we add the possibility of actually perpetuating the art form as opposed to suppressing it.  If people get to where they hear "barbershop" and think -- well, more like what that video clip looks and sounds like, and less like the stereotype, less like their local 23-man group -- at that point we will have done more for preserving the greatness of the style than we'll have done in the 80 years previously.

That won't go over well internally, and this piece would greatly bother the leadership of the Society if and when they read it.  It would have to bother them; their premise is that we exist as an organization for the membership.  My premise is that we exist to preserve the style of the music.  At the moment, those two goals are in conflict.  And at the moment, the hemorrhaging rolls are indicating that we're failing.

I want to preserve the music by promulgating the best of it.  I want our focus to be getting the best performers and the best performances on stages, on line, into the public consciousness.  In no other form of music is the equivalent of Charlie's garage band put out there and try to portray that as representative of the best, as an entertaining act, as actual talent.

We can do better.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Monday, February 11, 2019

Visiting Column #8 -- Revisiting Global Warming

Over four years back, when I was new to writing this column and dumping out on a daily basis some things I'd wanted to say for a long time, I did a column on global warming and the alarmists on the left

My point, then, was that we knew that the leftists who were trying to make global warming an excuse to socialize the nation were being disingenuous.  My premise was that if we were talking about climate change, there was no reason that every single outcome of it was a bad thing, yet you never once heard a lefty mention anything good that would befall the earth.

That, I wrote, was prima facie evidence that the left was just using fear of global warming for their insidious, socialist ends, rather than actually to do something positive for the planet.  And clearly, there are some good outcomes if the planet's temperature kicked up a degree or two.  I believe that I mentioned the fact that a bazillion square miles of land in Canada and Russia would become suitable for agriculture and ranching, a huge boon to those trying to feed the hungry.

There's no question about that, of course; it's just a matter of how much warmth would lead to how much increase in agricultural productivity, at least until the next Ice Age comes and hauls us back into a deep freeze, as it eventually will.  We would actually know the answer, of course, if universities weren't so rigidly leftist that no one is allowed to do a paper on the topic.  God forbid, you know, that climate change might be actually a good thing.

And that was my point.  Climate change is by definition "change."  Change is not, a priori, good or bad.  We should expect a reasonable balance of positive and negative outcomes, not the Hades on earth that the left would have you think.

What I didn't say was this.  The global climate is a complex thing, of course.  It is great in Hawaii, cold at the Poles.  The vast "temperate" areas on earth vary all over the place -- it's what we call "seasons."  Although I live in a sort of sub-tropical area, I spent nearly 40 years in northern Virginia, where the temperature could vary from near zero degrees (F) in February to 100 or so in July and August.

Without leaving home, I dealt with literally a 100-degree variance on an annual basis.  Now that, friends, was climate change!  But I stress the part where I said I "dealt with it."  I did, and a few million other northern Virginians did too.  We turned on the air in the summer, and hauled out the snowblowers and the ski jackets in winter.  Duh.  We dealt with it.

That's what I don't understand about the global warmist alarmists.  Do they not think that if the temperature slid up a couple degrees, we couldn't just deal with it?  Or that "dealing with it" would be a heck of a lot easier than socializing the entire economy?

Here's the thing.  To say that we need to fight climate change is to say that the current temperature norms are perfect; that they are exactly what our global temperature should be.  That the current flora and fauna habitats in February 2019 are ideal and must not be changed, even though the flora and fauna regularly have adapted to broad climate fluctuations for millions of years.

Does anyone believe that?  How does a huge population on earth regularly sustain 100-degree variances in the course of a normal year, but according to the left, if that 100-degree variance phase-shifted even a couple degrees up, the planet would suddenly be uninhabitable?  Moreover, that we need to kill our entire energy model to prevent that from happening?

You know how you never get a straight answer from a leftist if you ask what the highest rate that anyone should ever have to pay out of his income in taxes?  They won't tell you that, because then they can't try to get even more from you.

Well, the same applies here.  Has anyone asked a climate-change fanatic to describe what the perfect climate model is?  What, I would want to ask them, would constitute the actual goal of their movement, as expressed in a high and low temperature for every nation on earth?

You won't get it, of course, because the left never gives you an endpoint, lest once it is reached they no longer have an excuse for running your life.  But even if they did, there is Part Two of the question:


What, I would ask, is the reason that that particular temperature pattern is so in need of preservation exactly as it is, that it is worth overhauling the entire world economy and energy model in a doomed effort to keep it that way?

I would tell you that all the points in this column are precisely, collectively, why I will never subscribe to the notion that we should lift a finger to change, or prevent the change of, our planet's climate.

I encourage those of opposing views to answer me.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Visiting Column #7 -- Declining Value of WAR

If you are a baseball fan -- and if you are, you already know this is to be a piece on baseball -- you have hear the term "WAR."  You may know what it means, or not, but you know it is something important.

A very quick explanation: WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement", and is a fairly recent metric used to evaluate major-league players.  Essentially, it boils a whole bunch of evaluative factors -- hitting, base-running, defense -- into a single number that represents how many more wins a player's team achieved with that player on the field, vs. what the team would have had with a "replacement player", i.e., a player brought up from the minors.  There is also a version for pitchers, but let's ignore that for the moment.

WAR is cumulative; you can speak of the number of WAR earned during a season, or over a career.  So a player with skills exactly those of a rookie brought up from AAA would be rated at a 0.0 WAR, while a player with a 10-WAR season (or even more) has had a historically phenomenal year.  For example, two position players -- Mookie Betts (10.9) of the Red Sox and Mike Trout (10.2) of the Angels -- had WAR over 10 in 2018.

Finally, there are several versions of WAR out there, depending on which source's formula is used; primarily we use either bWAR or fWAR, named after the site that computes it.  They differ in minutiae regarding the value of things like base-running, but regardless, both use the currency of wins, boiling their analysis into number of wins a team earns vs. a replacement player in the position.

I bring all this up not for statistical purposes, but for a monetary one.

We of an analytic bent couldn't help but try to take WAR a step further.  Major league salaries are always an interesting topic, at least to me, since I write about them a great deal.  And as I write this, there is a fascinating dual case of two outstanding free agent players who are both excellent, young and, as the equipment trucks are already en route to Florida and Arizona for Spring Training, without a job.

We are talking, of course, about the shortstop Manny Machado, late of the Dodgers but mainly an Oriole throughout his career, and the outfielder Bryce Harper, a National through the expiration of his contract this past October.

Fans have been anticipating this offseason for several years, when it seemed that both would be free agents in the same season.  Machado toiled for the low-budget Orioles, who couldn't afford him, and Harper played for Washington, which could afford him and offered a huge contract while he was still a player there, but he is represented by Scott Boras, an agent who insists his players go to free agency.  So this was coming.

Needless to say, countless words have been written in the press about the gargantuan salaries each would get, and where they would fit into the small number of teams which could actually afford such numbers -- and had an actual opening.  And those numbers were huge -- multiple articles had forecast Harper getting $400 million over ten years, even though no player has ever gotten close to an average annual value of $40 million.  Machado was not far behind.

They had projected these numbers based on WAR, of course.  They used very common schemes that in recent years have put a dollar value on one point of an arbitration-eligible or free agent player's WAR -- four or five million or so, although I really can't tell you what the current analysts use.  I can't tell you because I really don't care; salaries to me are based on such varied criteria that I think such ratios are of no real value.

But they're out there, and they were used liberally by players, agents and teams.  More importantly, they are used constantly by the media to project ludicrously-high salaries -- and, as they say, "sell papers."

That, friends, is a mistake.

The mistake is that, even if you concede that a ratio could hold for players in the lower echelons (i.e., for whom all 30 teams could financially compete), it is not a linear relationship.  That is, once you are talking about a top-rank player in the $20 million/year or higher bracket, the parameters change.

There is a finite supply of those players, but the demand dips accordingly.  In the case, say, of Harper, more than half the teams simply can't afford him; they can't afford to tie up that high a percentage of their payroll in one player.  At least two of the big-money teams, the Yankees and Red Sox, have full outfields and simply don't need him. 

As I have written, it isn't whether (in this case) Harper is "worth" $40 million to such teams, but whether the upgrade over whichever outfielder would be replaced is worth the difference in salary, and in those cases, he simply is not.

From what can be believed in the latest press accounts, the actual salaries are going to be much less.  Machado has only 3-4 teams even negotiating with his agent, including the White Sox, Phillies and maybe the Padres, while Harper is talking with Washington, the Phillies and maybe the Dodgers.  But for now, it is just talk.

And the numbers we're hearing are nothing at all like the talk -- we hear that Machado was offered "only" $175 million over six years from the White Sox and may not even have another offer, while Washington appears to have confirmed that the ten-year, $300 million offer to Harper they made last year is still on the table -- or maybe not. 

The potentially 10.0-WAR players simply are not seeing the dollars-per-WAR curve apply to them -- and Machado has never had over 7.0 WAR in a season, while Harper hit 10.0 in 2015 but has not been not over 7.5 since.

I believe that is because the ratio, so touted by the people who create it and swear by it, is not a linear but an asymptotic one, that is, it flattens as salaries approach the ridiculous levels.  It has to, since the demand factors that are maximized when we're talking about an "average" or "good" player, are minimized when only a few teams can participate.

WAR, from whichever source, is an excellent way to ascribe value to players, both seasonally and over a career, expressed as wins added.  But salaries are simply not proportional, and while arguably they should be, or at least should approximately be, absent a salary cap and present enormous greed (and a hyperactive media), they simply won't be what people think they are.

Owners learn, too.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Monday, February 4, 2019

Visiting Column #6 -- No Room for Daddy?

As I write this, Virginia's governor, Ralph Northam, is calling an emergency meeting of his staff to try to decide whether to step down in the wake of the discovery of a racially-charged picture on his page of the Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook.

To be kind, Northam did not have a good week.  But whether or not he actually was one of the two individuals in the yearbook -- one in blackface and the other a Klansman in a hood and robe -- is of no concern to me.  Of course, I'm 100% certain that if the lieutenant governor had been a Republican, the chorus of screams for his resignation would be far quieter, hypocrites that the left can be.

But I digress.

Northam's bad week started when he went on a radio show in Washington and, to the horror (I assume) of the interviewer and most of the listeners, described a bill that had been proposed in the Legislature up there to deregulate abortions.  Specifically, it would literally allow an abortion up to (and I quote him) dilation, meaning within hours or minutes of an actual delivery -- as "late term" as humanly, or I guess, inhumanly, possible.

But that wasn't enough.  Northam went on to clarify even more, and here is where I got pretty steamed.  He described the timing of when an unborn child could be killed, and added that it included after birth.  That decision, he stated, would be "up to the woman and her physician."  Yes, he was very clear that a baby could be killed right after birth if the woman and her doctor okayed it.

I'm on record, as you who are regular readers know, as being far from passionate about the abortion issue.  It has mercifully never affected me personally.  I suppose that as a Christian, with sympathy for all, that I am offended by what we could call "abortion for convenience", while not being offended in cases of rape, incest, severe genetic abnormality.  The law will never sort that out, and I don't expect it to.

Moreover, because it is a moral issue, it needs to be up to the States and not to the Federal government to decide what is legal, according to the moral leanings of the people of that State.

But let's set that aside and return to Northam's comment on air.  I'm going to paraphrase here, but he did say this, whatever words were used: According to the proposed law, supported by Gov. Northam, a living baby can be legally killed, after it is born, if the mother and her doctor say it is OK.

The mother.  The doctor.  Isn't someone missing?

Even if you are to concede the weird leftist argument that a fetus is "part of the mother" and therefore all decisions about its life belong solely to her, once a baby is born alive, the rules change.

Once a baby is born, it is not the exclusive province of the mother to decide its fate.  Now (and, in my judgment, during pregnancy as well, but so be it), there are two parents and any decision about what happens to that child belongs to the father equally with the mother, whether or not he is a present figure in the life of the mother.

I have not heard a single word about this point of view, although perhaps there would have been more people to think about it had the networks actually paid any attention to Northam's radio interview -- outside of Fox, barely a minute of network and cable news even mentioned it -- NBC, ABC, CNN and NBC totally ignored the story.

But I didn't.  And I will scream from the rooftops that once a baby is born, there are two parents who both need to be involved in any decision to terminate the life of a living, born child.  I will scream from the same rooftops that if the father is not in the picture, it is still vital that he be found and brought into the decision before such a drastic step is taken.

Because at that point we're talking about a baby, not a body part.  And as it takes two to create it, it needs to take two to decide its fate.

How uncivilized would any decision to the contrary be.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Visiting Column #5 -- Did I Have to Sit There?

So this is not about a challenging trip on a commercial flight, or anything remotely like that.  It is, however, a brief vignette from my life way back when, and yet another opportunity to go back and laugh at myself and invite others to do the same.  I can actually do that.

Many, many years ago, in the far-off land of Massachusetts, I was living in Boston and performing in comic operas for a living, or at least to supplement my living.  I had an actual day job back then, but this was adding to the fun in my life -- usually.

Naturally, as a performer of Gilbert and Sullivan productions, I had grown to admire the most famous performers of the genre, which at that time meant those associated with London's D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, which was actually founded 100 years or so earlier by the impresario Richard D'Oyly Carte, to produce those very operas as they were written.  Until 1982, when the Company closed, they were the place where the original direction of the author and composer were protected and faithfully performed.

Although the operas themselves have different settings, are set in several different countries and the stories are different, for the most part there are characters common across all of them -- the lead tenor and soprano, for example, who may or may not end up together at the end as they do in "HMS Pinafore" and "Pirates of Penzance" -- but don't in "Ruddigore" or "Patience."  There is a part in most all the operas for a large bass-baritone, and for a lower-voiced soprano with a flair for comedy.

And, of course, there is the "little man who dances around the stage and sings the patter song", as the British comedienne Anna Russell declared long ago in one of her routines.  Those not very familiar with the genre still know him as the "model of a modern major-general" or the First Lord of the Admiralty, who sings "When I Was a Lad ..." -- that guy.  And there's one of them in all the operas.

Naturally, over the years the performer in the D'Oyly Carte who played those roles, in any era, became the "star" of the Company.  John Reed, who performed the roles brilliantly for over 20 years until shortly before the Company closed, is the one that most people alive today would have seen, and certainly heard on the recordings done the last few decades of the Company.  I was privileged to have seen him in a number of performances during their USA tours.  We think of the eras of the Company in terms of who played those roles.

Martyn Green took that position on in 1934 and performed with the D'Oyly Carte for the better part of the next 20 years, with a break during the Second World War, until 1951.  He was certainly famous as a performer before and after that tenure, but it was as the comedian with the Company that he was best known.

I had read a book many years back which may have been about him directly, or perhaps in which he commented.  It might have been an article, actually -- I can't recall.  But I do remember that he was discussing W.S. Gilbert himself, and on being unable to answer a particular question, Green was quoted as saying "[I can't answer that], I only sat on Gilbert's knee once [as a small boy]".  Green was born in 1899, and Gilbert died in 1911, so the story makes sense.  For some reason, I recalled that.

In 1974, I was just beginning the first years of my performing career, such as it ever became.  Martyn Green, who had moved to the USA years before, was coincidentally performing on Cape Cod in a production of "HMS Pinafore" as a guest in a summer stock show.  He was just 75 at the time, and I was 23.  You figure, you have only one chance to see the Martyn Green, and it wasn't too far, so I went to see him and perhaps shake hands afterwards.

Now, understand that Green had lost one leg 20 years earlier in a horrific elevator accident, and made his way about on an artificial left leg.  So his performing did not include a lot of that "dancing around the stage" that Anna Russell had described, but you would simply have watched, had you not known that, and inferred simply that an older gentleman was no longer as spry and needed a cane to get around.  The performance was pretty good, but it didn't matter; we were there to see whatever version of Martyn Green was still there.

So afterwards, as is frequently done, the cast of the shows lined up outside for the audience to meet and greet, and at the end of the line Martyn Green sat and shook hands with people.  Naturally, I got in that line and, at my turn, approached him with a smile.  "You did sit on Gilbert's knee, correct?", I asked him.  He acknowledged that he had.

I couldn't help it.  "Would you mind if I sat on your knee for a second?", I asked.  He was a bit nonplussed, but readily said it was OK.  I'm a pretty small person to start with, and I only "sort of" sat on his knee, respecting his age, his mono-legged status and the relative propriety of the request.  I have to think that the friends I had gone with just shook their heads at me, because it was certainly something I would do.

Martyn Green died the following February at 75 years of age.  He once sat on W.S. Gilbert's knee, around 1904, and I sat on Martyn Green's knee in 1974.  The chain goes on.

You may stop laughing now.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Monday, January 14, 2019

Visiting Column #4 -- Put "Our" Money Where "Your" Mouth Is, Nancy

So Nancy Pelosi, the farmer's wife to Chuck Schumer's farmer from Grant Wood's American Gothic in their recent wooden response to President Trump's address to the nation last week, thinks that walls are immoral.

"Immoral", she says, in the same tone that she usually uses when she is saying something for political purposes that she knows not to be true.  Of course, whether a border wall is immoral or not can't be true or false, since morality, in the eyes of the left, is a relative notion that shifts depending on whether it can create votes for Democrats or not.

You know, and I know, that she means none of what she is saying.  We know that morality does not apply to nations protecting their own borders from illegal crossings, human trafficking, drug smuggling and gangs, unless we decide they are indeed acutely moral because they prevent all those bad things.

And they do of course.  Just ask the Israelis.  Or our own Border Patrol.

But Democrats need to stick to their narratives for at least six months, after which the sympathetic leftist press has long since moved on, and refuses to dig up clips of them saying the opposite of what they are proposing then, later.

Never mind.  Nancy Pelosi thinks walls are immoral this week, and she is the Speaker of the House for some reason, meaning that she controls the legislative agenda of the House of Representatives.  And apparently, based on her opposition to authorizing $5 billion to extend the current border wall, she has some newfound concern for our Federal budget.

But morality should overcome any of that fiscal sanity, right?

That gets me to my central point.  If Nancy Pelosi thinks that new wall construction would be immoral and so wrong, then it is logical that the wall already built is equally immoral.  And if it is equally immoral, it needs to be removed.

So Nancy -- here is my point:  Why, if you think that border protection via barrier is immoral, have you not already introduced legislation to fund the removal of all border walls at our southern border?

Walls either are or are not immoral; they either do or do not work.  Now, we all know that they are very moral, and we certainly know that they work.  But Pelosi has now gone on record as saying the opposite, and it is past time for her to introduce a bill that would authorize taxpayer money -- yours and mine -- to do what, in her eyes, is the "moral" thing and tear down the existing wall.

You have to ask why she hasn't already done that.  Could it be that the Border Patrol, from rank and file all the way up to the last five Directors, would scream bloody murder and cause her to lose the narrative?

But she already said it is immoral.  There are no two ways about it; if it is wrong it needs to be removed.  And if she does not introduce a bill to do so, she is a coward of the highest degree, not standing up for what she claims to believe in.

So how 'bout it, Nannykins?  Put our money where your mouth is.

Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Visiting Column #3 -- Accelerating the Off-Season

Earlier today, I happened to come across a few articles bemoaning the rather dull Winter Meetings by Major League Baseball.  There has been a signing or two, and a couple minor trades, but when the Meetings are advertised as the place "where things happen", and the press piles into whatever hotel is the headquarters to follow what is happening -- but nothing happens, it's a downer.

The reasons are several, but I can point to one, and his initials are Scott Boras.  And I have a solution at the end of this piece.

Scott Boras, of course, is a sports agent, meaning that he negotiates contracts on behalf of his clients, which for this piece's purposes are major-league baseball players.  Keep that in mind.

With the World Series ending by about November 1st, and Spring Training beginning in mid-February, that's about three and a half months for free agents to figure out where they are going to play when the following Spring Training begins.  Typically, there are a few dozen free agents in a given season, and only a handful, 4-5 at most, are primo players.

The annual dance, of course, is between the teams with needs at certain positions, and the players who play those positions.  The teams want the players they covet, and the players are trying to get the most money.

Of course, there are risks on both sides.  If you are a very good, but not "primo", player, the teams needing you may be waiting to see if they can first sign the primo player at your position.  Then if the primo player signs elsewhere, you want to make sure you get a job, and the teams which missed out on the primo guy want to make sure they get a very good player.  So there are risks on each side, and neither has a sense of control.

If that was almost clear, you will understand when I say that the fates of most free agents, and the rosters of most teams, are all waiting on one thing -- the signing of the primo players.  If that were to happen early in the off-season, then all the other dominoes could fall neatly, players would know where they're going, and teams would know their rosters.

But for the most part, it does not happen in the off-season, despite the extended tumult the delay causes.  And that goes back to the agent who is never in a hurry to get his player clients signed.  That would be Scott Boras.

Now in fairness, Boras is doing his job, which is to get the most money for his clients and the highest commissions for himself.  To do that, he drags the negotiations out with multiple teams -- and we're talking about his primo clients here -- to where Boras clients often don't sign until January or February.

While that shouldn't matter, it does.  The delay in signing primo Boras clients drives the market for all the other players at those positions, whose salary offers are frequently linked to the relative value of the contracts of the primo players at their positions.  Now, a few smart, non-Boras free agents sign early in the season, to make sure they have a job.  They may not quite get the contract they wanted, but they have more choice of teams, and know where they're going to play long before Spring Training.

So the Boras delay tactic has only one salutary effect, and that is for a very few players -- his top ones -- and, of course, for Boras.  The hope on his part is that the passage of time may add more teams into the mix and drive up prices.

The negatives?  Lots.  The other players, particularly the very good, next-tier free agents, have to wait until Boras's primo clients sign, because their best market will be with the teams that fail to sign the top Boras client at their position.  They hate that, because either they wait, or they take less to sign earlier in order to ensure they have a job where they'd prefer to be.

The teams hate the Boras delay as well.  All of them do.  They want to plan; they want roster certainty and they want cost predictability.

And so, as we get to the Winter Meetings in mid-December each year, little ends up happening.  For example, this year, the now-former Washington outfielder, Bryce Harper, is a Boras client.  He is not signing anytime soon, and that is delaying the signing of Manny Machado, a shortstop whose agent wants him to get a bigger contract than Harper, and so is waiting on that move.

Teams needing an outfielder or a shortstop, with the revenues to pay a big salary, will make a far different decision if they sign one of the two, versus what they do if they lose out to another team.  And if Harper doesn't sign until, say, February 1, there are a bunch of teams not knowing who their outfielders will be, and others not knowing who their shortstop will be.  The "losing teams" end up having to scramble, while the other free agents at those positions can't make life plans until right before Spring Training.

So ... this is, of course, a problem, in everyone's eyes except those of Scott Boras.

Well, Major League Baseball owes Boras nothing, and therefore should feel free to take action that will make this situation a whole lot better for all teams and for most players.  And there is, of course, an answer.

I propose that no contract for any player, with an average annual value above $2 million may be signed between January 1st and the date of the first regular season game.

Think about it.

All free agents of decent quality will obviously be paid more than $2 million a year.  So in order to be available to start the season, they need to sign a contract before January 1st.  The teams gain roster certainty comfortably in advance of Spring Training, and the players all know, pretty much, where they will be playing.  And, of course, the Winter Meetings would be a deserved center of offseason attention.

More importantly, November and December provide plenty of time for the negotiations that need to take place -- instead of everyone stalling and goofing around, as soon as the World Series is over, the negotiations can start.  Any linkage between what one player makes and another player's offer is clear earlier in the offseason.

And -- there will be immense pressure on the very few primo free agents to sign early enough to leave time before January 1st for teams that don't sign them to deal with the remaining free agents at the positions of need.  I'd be certain that if that rule were in place now, and Machado or Harper waited until December 31st to sign, he'd be taking beanballs every other game.  The players take care of their own, you know.

We have problems, we have solutions.  Comments are welcomed below.

Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at or on Twitter at @rmosutton