Category: Crisis Communications


A “memorable” $211,703 Porsche or Land Rover?

A “visible” $86,423 Rolex?

And let’s not forget the applicable taxes on these two giveaways: $179,977 and $38,005 respectively.

For those scoring at home, Salesforce.com (NYSE:CRM) provided $516,108 in goodies to one man: newly minted co-CEO Keith Block, 57.

The Salesforce.com Compensation Committee justified the corporate largesse in its proxy statement filing:

“In this case, the committee approved this award because it believed that recognizing Mr. Block’s leadership and success in achieving company goals was warranted, and that doing so in a memorable and visible way would be motivational not only for the executive, but for other employees who observe exceptional performance being rewarded in exceptional ways consistent with the company’s philosophy of paying for performance.”

Paying for exceptional performance?

Does Block walk on water? Does he change water into wine? Does he dole out loaves and fishes to feed the hungry?

Before being named co-CEO last August, Block was already earning $2.3 million annually in salary and bonuses (not including stock option exercises) as the company’s vice chairman, president and chief operating officer.

Almost DailyBrett extensively researched and taught the relationship between fiduciary responsibility (doing well) and corporate social responsibility (doing good) as a master’s student at University of Oregon and later as a PR professor at Central Washington University.

Your author also served as the director of Corporate Public Relations for LSI Logic (NYSE: LSI) for a decade including preparing 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K news releases and regulatory filings for financial media and the SEC.

More to the point, Almost DailyBrett is a long-time Republican, free-enterprise supporter, and up-to-now a more than satisfied shareholder of Salesforce.com founded by fellow USC alum Marc Benioff.

Let’s state here and now: giving away a cool car and groovy watch (plus paying related income taxes for these two goodies) is inconsistent with Salesforce’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders … including not trying to be SaaS-see,  yours truly.

God help the company’s corporate PR department.

Ready to make chicken salad out of chicken feces?

How do you defend the indefensible? How do you stand-up on behalf of the untenable? Did the Compensation Committee discuss its decision with the PR types before giving away a Porsche and a Rolex to Monsieur Block?

And where is Salesforce.com located? San Francisco.

Do you think Bernie, Kamala or Elizabeth supporters residing in the Sodom and Gomorrah by the Bay are going to seize about this outrageous caper as an example about everything wrong with corporate America?

Occupy Salesforce?

Publicly traded corporations (e.g., Salesforce) provide the products we need (e.g., enterprise software), employ millions (e.g., CRM, 29,000) and provide a return on capital to millions investing in their retirement, health care or children’s education.

Buy-side (i.e., mutual funds, retirement systems) and sell-side (i.e. Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley) institutions hold 82 percent of Salesforce’s 774 million shares outstanding.

In contrast, Almost DailyBrett is a lowly Charles Schwab retail investor with 300 shares.

If your author threatened to sell all of his shares because he is upset by the Keith Block giveaways, would company even notice, let alone care?

Heck, your author’s holding is a friggin’ corporate rounding error.

Salesforce has demonstrated by its regulatory filing temerity, it really doesn’t take fiscal stewardship and fiduciary responsibility seriously.

Actions speak louder than words. The perception and reality both stink.

No carefully massaged explanation and no amount of corporate social responsibility (CSR) – including calling for local tax increases to take care of the homeless – are going to change the undeniable fact that giving away a luxury car, a costly watch and paying the related taxes for one lousy executive … is wrong.

Dead wrong to be precise.

Almost DailyBrett editor’s note: According to Business Insider, the company did not disclose the exact make or model of Keith Block’s new car and watch. However, an educated guesstimate was made by the digital publication based upon the disclosed sales prices and related tax payments for the two luxury items. If the company actually bought Block a Lamborghini instead of a Porsche, your author will accept personal responsibility for the egregious mistake.

https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-ceo-keith-block-car-watch-2019-4

https://www1.salary.com/Keith-Block-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-SALESFORCE-COM-INC.html

https://www.salesforce.com/company/leadership/bios/bio-block/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/fiduciary-responsibility-vs-corporate-social-responsibility/

 

 

 

“This was not a hockey play. Instead, it’s a player retaliating against his opponent, using his stick as a weapon for forceful and direct head contact.” — NHL Department of Player Safety

One is a penalty. The other is a felony.

As is often said about hockey: They play with knives on their feet and clubs in their hands.

And Saturday night on national television that club was delivered with a vengeance to the head of an opponent.

The cross-check blow with a hockey stick by Toronto’s notorious Nazem Kadri to the skull of Boston’s tough Jake DeBrusk was evil and premeditated with the undisputed intent to seriously, if not permanently injure DeBrusk.

The play was not reflective of a tough collision sport. Instead it’s a felony in any other segment in our society … but not in the NHL.

As former New York Rangers forward Sean Avery said: “The only problem with Kadri’s hit was that he didn’t take the top f****** row of DeBrusk’s teeth.”

That quote, which cannot be quickly dismissed as merely anecdotal, reflects the vicious mind set of the NHL and its teams. And you wonder why hockey is the number four of America’s big four sports: Football, Basketball, Baseball … and Hockey.

The NHL’s oxymoronic Department of Player Safety held a hearing with Kadri Monday and suspended him for the remainder of Toronto’s first-round Stanley Cup series with Boston. NBC commentators Keith Jones and Eddie Olczyk went further in their post-game analysis, strongly recommending that Kadri be banned for at least 10 games.

BOSTON, MA – APRIL 13: Nazem Kadri #43 of the Toronto Maple Leafs reacts after a fight with Jake DeBrusk #74 of the Boston Bruins in Game Two of the Eastern Conference First Round during the 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs at TD Garden on April 13, 2019 in Boston, Massachusetts. (Photo by Adam Glanzman/Getty Images)

Almost DailyBrett is asking the obvious question: If one deliberately and systemically commits assault and battery in order injure and maim an enemy, wouldn’t that action constitute a felony worthy of significant prison time?

Why shouldn’t the same standard apply to the NHL? Kadri’s hit on DeBrusk was not hockey, it was criminal.

When Will Someone Be Murdered On The Ice?

What will it take to put an end to the ugliness?

Whether hockey is reflective of the increasing violent nature of our society, your author will leave that question to those with higher pay grades.

Some will conclude that Almost DailyBrett is being overly dramatic … or maybe a little soft.

Your author has been a hockey fan since 1967 when the NHL expanded beyond the original six (Boston, New York, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, Detroit) to the second six, including two favorites the Los Angeles Kings and Pittsburgh Penguins.

Hockey is a simply fantabulous game as vividly illustrated by Al Michaels’ famous, “Do you believe in miracles? …Yes!” The Disney movie “Miracle” beautifully brings back that magic 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics game between the young USA and the machine from the USSR.

And let’s not forget the US women prevailing in a gripping overtime shootout against Canada in last year’s Olympics in Korea … South Korea.

The NFL after congressional hearings and lawsuits has finally started taking helmet-to-helmet concussions seriously. College football has gone further with the institution of replay-reviewable targeting fouls with offenders being thrown out of the game.

The Kadri blow against DeBrusk last night deserves more than remainder of the first playoff series suspension (three-to-five games), it warrants the attention of one or all of the above: The Suffolk County District Attorney, The Massachusetts Department of Justice; The U.S. Department of Justice: The U.S. Congress (subpoena power).

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman listens as he meets with reporters after a meeting with team owners, Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012 in New York. The current collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players expires Saturday at midnight. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman needs to move away from the assumed liability mentality of the league. Yes, the players are playing an exciting fast-paced violent sport. There will be inevitable injuries as a result.

Having said that, no one should put his or her life on the line to play what should be a great sport. It’s been long past time for the NHL to clean up its gratuitous violence  on behalf of the players, fans and the image of the game.

If the NHL cannot or will not take serious enough action against the Nazem Kadris on the ice, maybe it will be time for county, state and/or federal authorities to put these thugs on ice … maybe even for years to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agDjIXQCBrc

https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-bruins/2019/04/14/sean-avery-shares-expletive-filled-rant-about-bruins-winger-jake-debrusk

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/news/nhl-playoffs-2019-maple-leafs-nazem-kadri-could-get-suspended-in-postseason-again-for-high-hit/1ug8vla0m5n0e1gywn4t1d8tl3

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2019/04/13/playoffs-nazem-kadri-hit-jake-debrusk-bruins-leafs/3463040002/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/this-is-your-time/

“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” – Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor from 1962-1981

 “As a former journalist and former press secretary, you should know there has never been ‘objective journalism.’” – Professor teaching digital journalism to college students

“Never” leaves absolutely no room for nuance, much less retreat.

According to my dear faculty colleague and friend (and presumably many more kindred spirits), objective journalism “never” existed even at times (e.g., 1960s and 1970s) when Walter Cronkite was widely regarded as “The Most Trusted Man in America.”

If you don’t believe the ex-cathedra summation by a Ph.D in Journalism, just visit your nearest modern-day college journalism/communication (indoctrination) classroom.

Or how about famous correspondents crying on national television when political results do not match their impeccably high moral standards (e.g., ABC’s Martha Raddatz on 2016 election night or MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow upon the 2019 release of the Müller Report conclusions).

As a cub reporter covering politics on a daily basis way back in the stone-age 1970s, there were times when your Almost DailyBrett author nodded his head, rolled his eyes or told a cynical joke … as skeptical reporters are prone to do.

We all harbored our own personal opinions, just like everyone else.

The real question is whether our opinions unprofessionally showed up in our copy and/or broadcasts? Were we truly open-minded, professional and yes, objective in carrying out our responsibilities to readers and/or viewers?

The best reporters/correspondents covered both sides of a given issue (e.g., California’s Proposition 13 tax revolt), and most importantly did not allow their personal analysis and interpretation to corrupt and pollute their stories.

As a former press secretary to a Republican governor, Almost DailyBrett knew for a fact the vast majority of reporters, editors, and correspondents were philosophically aligned to the left side of the great political divide.

Having acknowledged the obvious, virtually every reporter played a great devil’s advocate to elicit the strongest (and most newsworthy) response from yours truly. In almost all cases our point of view was fairly represented in the resulting copy or broadcast.

There were times when your author detected a bias in the questioning toward a predetermined narrative. In these cases, all responses that corresponded to the story line were seized upon and all those that didn’t fit were ignored.

Your author called out these unprofessional reporters for exhibiting a preset philosophical bias, resulting in an unpleasant conversation.

These unfortunate instances were the exception then; they are the norm today.

What Are Future Journalists Being Taught In Today’s Universities And Colleges?

Instead of actually covering the news for a grateful public, are future reporters, editors and correspondents being groomed by doctrinaire university professors to be the next wave of social justice warriors with notepads, microphones and cameras?

Is their mission to take the side, to advance the cause, to silence the opposition and ultimately bring down a president?

Rather than reporting the news, will they use their journalistic licenses to fashion stories, which are really poorly disguised or denuded editorials, interpretation and analysis that conform to the narrative?

If the prescribed goal is an ever-present, all-powerful taxing, redistributive, gift-giving socialist society, will tomorrow’s “journalists” be only favorable in their coverage to facts that conform to the orthodoxy? Likewise, will they be cynical, dismissive and downright hostile to any statements that do not pass social justice litmus tests?

Maybe that explains journalistic mutations in the forms of Jim Acosta, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow?

It was widely known that Walter Cronkite was liberal in his political orientation. Having said that, he always insisted upon fairness – yes objectivity – in the coverage of Democrats and even Republicans.

Some will claim the media’s collective decline in public esteem is directly attributable to their new-found designation as “the enemy of the people.” They will place 100 percent of the blame at the feet of the 45th POTUS.

Almost DailyBrett believes the media elite needs to collectively reassess the unfortunate trend toward oppositional journalism, interpretation, analysis and editorializing, and once again embrace professionalism in the form of true objectivity.

Let’s hope objectivity can once again rise from the ashes.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/brinkley-walter-cronkite/index.html

https://cronkite.asu.edu/about/walter-cronkite-and-asu/walter-cronkite-biography

https://brandingforresults.com/walter-cronkite/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/dan-rather-father-of-affirmational-journalism/

“The news blindsided many liberals — particularly those with an ambient knowledge of Rachel Maddow’s nightly monologues on MSNBC.” – Amy Chozick, New York Times

“The 3 biggest losers from the Mueller report in order: the media, the media, the media.” – Rich Lowry, National Review

Trump won. The liberal media elite declared … “victory.”

The two-year hunt by oppositional journalists for WMDs came to an end. It was a dead scud.

The long-awaited $25 million Müller Report didn’t quite read the way they wanted. It was a dud.

Ahh … Rachel Maddow can rewrite it for you.

Chris Matthews is tan, rested and ready.

As they say in politics … “When in doubt, declare victory!’

The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer declared the Müller report a great success, but no one seems to be clapping in the tony enclaves of Manhattan, Inside the Beltway or in Hollywood.

Let’s see how do Oppositional Journalists proclaim unmitigated victory? Has the comb-over dragon been slayed?

Our ratings are up (e.g., MSNBC … even CNN). Our print and digital subscriptions have soared (e.g., NYT, WAPO). They generated a combined 8,500 Russia probe stories to prove their point.

Almost DailyBrett remembers a time when objective journalists didn’t seem to care about their respective employers buying low and selling high.

Former FBI Director Robert S. Müller III was going to be the savior of the Republic. Let the impeachment proceedings begin!

Stephen Colbert still generated late-night “comedy,” but deep down inside … it’s painful. It has to hurt.

As Yoga Berra once said: “It’s like deja-vu all over again.” For the folks at CNN and MSNBC, it was a replay of November 8, 2016, even though some are now asserting a “cover-up” (e.g., MSNBC’s Joy Reid) and “obstruction of justice.”

Spin Control by the Media, For the Media

“They let all the normal rules of balanced reporting fly out the window as they competed with each other over who could land the biggest Pulitzer prize-winning Trump/Russia sucker punch that would KO the President they loathe.

“Only it turned out they were all punching thin air.” – Former CNN anchor Piers Morgan

“We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did.” – Jeff Zucker, CNN president

Walter Cronkite just turned over in his grave.

Almost DailyBrett has long advocated a return to the days in which political reporters were not serving as the Praetorian Guard for the progressive socialist left/Democratic Party.

Your author yearns for the days when most reporters/correspondents could claim the virtue of objectivity, and still pass the giggle test.

Yet as the ink dries on the Müller Report and President Trump basks in the glory of no collusion with Russia/no further indictments (not to mention media darling Michael Avenatti being led off in handcuffs for his $20 million blackmail attempt against Nike), the elite liberal media is resetting its bearings on electing a Democrat in 2020.

The question that must be asked: Have they learned anything from 2016?

Will they continue to arrogantly use the print and digital pages of the NYT and WAPO, let alone CNN and MSNBC, to denigrate the millions that work and live in the red states?

Remember the “Basket of Deplorables”?

The 12th Amendment (e.g., Electoral College) of the U.S. Constitution is NOT going to be amended/rescinded before the 2020 election, if ever.

Red states must be flipped for Bernie (or a reasonable facsimile) to become the 46th president of the United States. How many in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. follow liberal media talking heads and angry columnists?

In many ways it seems the elite liberal media types are talking to each other and preaching to the choir.

Democrats know they can only win California’s 55 electoral votes once regardless of the margin of victory. Hillary prevailed in the Golden State by 4 million votes. She only needed to win by one vote.

The liberal media elites will demand that red state voters change, and see the wisdom of social justice warriors commanding and controlling their lives through a greatly empowered government.

Almost DailyBrett suggests a little exercise of humility at CNN and others. If so, maybe the struggling network can return to the days of Bernard Shaw asking the tough question … even to the Democratic nominee at a presidential debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/business/media/mueller-report-media.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/mueller-report/585631/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/22/chris_matthews_why_was_there_never_an_interrogation_of_trump_how_can_mueller_let_him_off_the_hook.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6847671/PIERS-MORGAN-Mueller-report-shows-collusion-disgraceful-hoax.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_7wPf9geSM

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

“We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.” – Chelsea Clinton responding to vile remarks by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota)

“I’m so sorry that you feel that way. Certainly, it was never my intention. I do believe words matter. I believe we have to show solidarity.” – Chelsea Clinton apologizing to NYU students

There is a time-and-place for everything, including offering first-ever sympathy to a member of the privileged Clinton family.

There are some misguided souls who contend the First Daughter stepped in rhetorical excrement, when she dared to voice disapproval of Rep Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks.

When Chelsea subsequently went to a NYU commemoration service for the 50+ fatalities of the Christchurch mosque shootings, she was quickly disinvited by moral high-ground students.

These rocket scientists suggested that Chelsea with her condemnation of anti-Semitism actually aided-and-abetted the New Zealand mosque massacres by some crazy from Australia.

What?

Almost DailyBrett is missing the “logical” connection between Chelsea’s appropriate remarks against anti-Semitism and their supposed inducement of hate crimes directed at mosques on the other side of the planet. Maybe someone can explain the cause and effect … or maybe not.

Chelsea subsequently apologized for standing up for the long-oppressed-and-persecuted Jewish community, and having the courage to condemn Rep. Omar’s repeated anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile over at CNN, Democratic political strategist Paul Begala labeled President Trump’s Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his converted-to-Judaism First Daughter, Ivanka, as “cockroaches.”

Reminds this author of Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s remarks, stating he was not anti-Semitic, but “anti-Termite.” Almost DailyBrett fully expects Begala to have both wrists slapped with a follow-up pat on the posterior by the anti-Trump hierarchy at CNN.

In direct contrast to Chelsea, Begala did not and most likely will never apologize for his cockroaches’ remark and will live to offend another day.

By defending Chelsea in this case Almost DailyBrett is proclaiming here and now, he is not going soft on the Clintons. Your author has a proud perfect record of voting against the Clintons: Bill in both 1992 and 1996, and Hillary in 2016.

If Chelsea runs for president as your author predicted in 2016, she will not want to be seen in any way, shape or form as being anti-Muslim by standing up against those who resort to anti-Semitism … thus the apology.

This blog has also taken issue with the outrageous $600,000 payments by Brian Williams’ NBC News for four “reports” produced by the First Daughter, even without the benefit of a Journalism degree or past experience in the field.

America’s “Cultural Revolution”?

“The air is full of accusation and humiliation. We have seen this spirit most famously on the campuses, where students protest harshly, sometimes violently, views they wish to suppress.” – WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan

Taking care not to be overly dramatic in her words, Noonan made comparisons to China’s Cultural Revolution of the 1960s/1970s in which Chairman Mao called upon China’s university students to weed out the nation’s intelligentsia, particularly those who were deemed to be not following the party line.

Is the same occurring on America’s college campuses, particularly those Hollywood-and-hedge fund manager types (e.g., Lori Loughlin of “Full House”) conspired to gain unjustified admission for their party-hard offspring?

Chairman Mao used students as the “Red Guards” to police and ultimately silence anybody not following the collectivist agenda.

In direct comparison, American universities have a record of disinviting accomplished women such as International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde (Smith College), former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (Rutgers University), and now Chelsea (NYU).

Are these students exhibiting misogyny and maybe in one case, demonstrating racism, or do social justice progressive principles negate any concerns that apply to sexism, racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism?

Do these students have any concerns about anti-Semitism?

CNN doesn’t seem to care, so why should these elite-university students?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/video/cnns-paul-begala-criticized-for-comparing-ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-to-cockroaches/vp-BBUMrRn

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-news-lori-loughlin-hires-ex-enron-prosecutor-20190318-story.html

http://www.peggynoonan.com/get-ready-for-the-struggle-session/

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-paul-begala-slammed-for-referring-to-ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-as-cockroaches

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/chelseas-nbc-600k-tv-gig-and-aspiring-journalists/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/chelseas-presidency/

“(The intent of the Tax Wall Street Act is to) drive leeches that are front running the market out of business.” – Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) on CNBC

Is the Eugene, Oregon-based author of Almost DailyBrett, a lecherous leech?

Your author builds a career. Your author works all of his life. Your author pays his fair share of taxes. Your author chooses the time (2018) and place for his retirement (Eugene).

Sounds good, but …

My congressman, Mr. DeFazio, wants to double tax everyone’s retirement with a 0.1 percent tax on every stock or mutual fund trade we will ever make as long-term investors, conceivably until it’s time to meet our respective makers.

Ostensibly, DeFazio’s tax targets high-frequency/high-velocity investors, many disguised as algorithms. The only problem is his sweeping tax also applies to millions of real middle-class people … including retail investors residing in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District.

All they want to do is invest their already taxed discretionary income to fund their retirement, pay for their children’s education (e.g., University of Oregon) and maybe to pursue their dreams. Alas, Rep. DeFazio has introduced the “Tax Wall Street Act of 2019” with its punitive stock and mutual fund trade tax.

Mr. Congressman, my family is not Wall Street in Manhattan. We are East of Willamette Street in Eugene.

The honorable congressman thinks he is punishing Wall Street, when he instead is taking dead aim at America’s investor class or the 52 percent of Americans (approximately 170 million), who invest in individual stocks or mutual funds.

Many of these mutual fund investment trades are made by pension managers and by individual employee managed 401Ks at work (e.g., public employees, including school teachers). Almost DailyBrett maintains a humble retail account with Charles Schwab. Sorry, no Goldman Sachs for me.

Why are you (DeFazio) sticking a Wall Street tax on all investors who live in your district, and any other investor in every congressional district across the fruited plain?

DeFazio’s Dithering Performance on CNBC

CNBC’s Kelly Evans asked you point blank on “The Exchange” last week why you didn’t “target” high-velocity algorithmic day traders instead of proposing a sweeping tax, which applies to every middle-class investor in the country.

You dithered, Congressman DeFazio. You know, you did.

When Evans inquired about the use of the projected $777 billion in additional revenues, you suggested restoring some of the expanding deficit triggered by tax reform. Congressman DeFazio didn’t know where and how the money will be spent. He only wanted to sock-it to Wall Street and with it, middle-class investors.

Maybe, you should Occupy Wall Street? How did that movement work out?

Fortunately, there are enough adults in the House of Representatives and certainly in the U.S. Senate to ensure this bill goes absolutely nowhere.

Having made this point, the coast is not clear. The mindset of my congressman and his partner in crime, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and without a doubt many others in positions of immense power, indicates an antipathy to all publicly traded companies (none of which are headquartered in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District).

Every issue large and small seemingly requires the same remedy: a new tax.

Congressman DeFazio, you need to understand that middle-class retirees in your district have already been taxed on their nest eggs. Under your plan, each-and-every-one of your investing constituents will pay an additional tax just for the right to continue to invest their hard-earned money on their futures.

You know you are wrong, but you will piously insist you are right … err correct.

Almost DailyBrett has never been a “high-velocity” trader and never will be.

Just hoping to keep up my velocity for years to come.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/08/rep-peter-defazio-on-the-tax-wall-street-act.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/wall-street-tax-act-financial-illiteracy-in-congress/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/its-premature-to-start-freaking-out-over-the-wall-street-tax-act-liz-ann-sonders

http://investsnips.com/publicly-traded-companies-in-oregon/

 

 

 

 

“As for the future in Russia and what will happen there, I can’t say I’m safe. I don’t know.” – Edward Snowden, speaking via internet video last year to a crowd in Austria.

Reportedly, Snowden’s asylum status in Russia is assured until 2020, and then …?

Almost DailyBrett earlier conjectured whether Snowden would be a lowly pawn on Vladimir Putin’s chess board, ready to be traded back to the United States.

The question now must be rhetorically asked … does the US really want him back?

Given the choice of nationally televised show trial or a desultory life in exile, which is the best public relations course of action for the United States when it comes to “whistle blower” Edward Snowden?

Snowden has been Vladimir Putin’s guest since June 24, 2013, or 2,070 Moscow days and nights, if you are scoring at home. Snowden faces up to 30 years in the slam back here for two violations of the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 … assuming he can be convicted in a court of law.

And if Snowden is actually convicted, what would be the cost in terms on the reputation and image of the United States of America? There are some who see Snowden as some kind of champion … their hero … who will openly root against the U.S. Department of Justice.

Can you think of any celebrity lawyers, who would eagerly defend Snowden in an upcoming epic made-for-television-and-social media trial under the glare of the television lights, cameras and boom microphones?

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Ringo H W Chiu/AP/REX/Shutterstock (9691996n)

After representing porn star Stormy Daniels, the ubiquitous Michael Avenatti … and other reptilian lawyer types just like him … presumably would have zero compunction defending leaker Snowden, maybe even on a pro bono basis.

The question, which would predictably and eventually ensue: Is Snowden on trial or the National Security Agency (NSA)?

A preview of coming attractions would be the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial in which the guilty football stud was acquitted in a court of law, and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was convicted (in the courtroom of public opinion).

Even though parallels are never perfect, the flight of another traitor to Russia, Kim Philby, brings into the discussion whether it is best of leave the housing, feeding, caring and nurturing of Snowden to warm and fuzzy Vladimir Putin?

Kim Philby Died in Russia. What Will Happen to Snowden?

“How sleepless must be Kim Philby’s nights in Moscow? … How profound he and others like him must be aware that the people they betrayed are going to be the victors in the end.” – President Ronald Reagan

British spy novelist Ben Macintyre in his 2014 best-selling “A Spy Among Friends,” provides nearly exhaustive detail of Philby’s treachery and betrayal of Mother England as he labored as a mole for Russia’s KGB for three decades … at a cost of hundreds of allied agents.

When Kilby finally confessed in his Beirut apartment in 1963, and his words were recorded by Britain’s counterespionage MI6, it seemed relatively easy for the Brits to simply arrest Philby and transport him back to London for the Mother of All Trials … and yet he was able to easily defect to Russia.

Was MI6 lame in carrying out its responsibilities or was it better … for Philby to simply escape into the outstretched arms of the KGB? Philby lived out the rest of his days — even though he once tried to slash his wrists — in numbing exile in Communist Russia until he passed away in 1988 at the age of 76.

Did the Brits suspect that transferring Philby back to London would result in embarrassing courtroom proceedings in which MI6 would also be on trial? Maybe it would be less painful, if the Soviet Union used Philby for propaganda purposes, which is actually what transpired.

Snowden, 35, will celebrate his sixth anniversary in Russia on June 24. If the American whistle-blower reaches Philby’s final birthday at 76-years-young, the year will be 2060.

What will Snowden say on his 47th anniversary as presumably a citizen of Russia? Will he have anything new to offer? Will he deep down inside miss the opportunity of another Oliver Stone Hollywood epic, complete with his show trial?

Would Alec Baldwin play Snowden?

Maybe he could be buried in the Kremlin Wall with traitor John Reed as played by Warren Beatty in “Reds?”

Or Snowden could join Kim Philby in Moscow’s Kuntsevo Cemetery?

Most of all … will we care?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/19/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-says-hes-not-safe-russia/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/has-edward-snowden-become-putins-pawn/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/the-coming-presidential-pardon-of-edward-snowden/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/pr-advice-for-edward-snowden/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profits-and-losses-of-treachery-victims-of-kim-philbys-betrayals-are-staking-a-claim-to-the-cash-1447065.html

 

 

 

 

 

Ever wonder how Venezuela became … Venezuela?

Almost DailyBrett at one time expected that Amazon would announce Austin, Texas as the recipient of HQ2 with its estimated $50 billion total investment and upwards to 50,000 technology positions with full benefits.

As a major technology hub, Austin offers a well-trained workforce, the capital of a right-to-work state, no state income taxes, and politicians’ favorably predisposed to corporate capitalism. In addition, Amazon bought Whole Foods in 2017 for $13.7 billion, which is based in … Austin.

Instead, Amazon selected Northern Virginia with it well-educated workforce and proximity to the infinite wisdom emanating within the Beltway. The other choice, which raised more than a few eyebrows, was heavily unionized and über-taxed Long Island.

The original thinking was Amazon would be welcomed with the prospect of providing 40,000 real positions with annual salaries averaging $150,000 and full benefits – not strip mall jobs – and $27.5 billion in new tax revenues during the course of 10 years. Yes, there were $3 billion in tax incentives from the State of New and New York City and these are always controversial.

Let’s see $3 billion in exchange for $27.5 billion in new revenues and 40,000 direct high-paying positions, not counting all the indirect economic activity supporting Amazon HQ2 in terms of suppliers, vendors and utilities.

Buy Low, Sell High?

Alas the United States is a divided nation, not just Democrats vs Republicans … but more to the point: Socialism vs. Capitalism.

Some wish to punish Amazon and its wealthiest dude on the planet boss, Jeff Bezos, for pioneering digital retail, employing 613,300, generating $232 billion in annual revenues, and stimulating $798 billion in investor market capitalization.

Amazon was greeted to Gotham by a buzz-saw of those who disdain capitalism in favor of command-and-control socialism.

As a former gubernatorial press secretary, the author of Almost DailyBrett imagined what it would be like to be relaying really bad news to the boss – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – and answering the flood of media calls.

The alternative of a root canal is looking real attractive right now.

Ever hear the one about banging your head against the wall?

It only feels good, when you … stop.

Is Amazon Serious?

Is Amazon just firing a shot across the bow?

“It (loss of Amazon investment) would certainly undermine confidence in governance. You can’t empower anti-capitalist ideologues and expect the capitalists to embrace them. I still think they will work this out, because the embarrassment would be severe.” – Joel Kotkin, Chapman University professor of Urban Studies

“You have to be tough to make it in New York City. We gave Amazon the opportunity to be a good neighbor and do business in the greatest city in the world. Instead of working with the community, Amazon threw away that opportunity.” – New York Mayor Bill de Blasio

“Threw away” constitutes fighting words.

These provocative words make it more difficult for the City of New York and Amazon to “work this out.” Why did da Mayor challenge Bezos’ manhood (we know it exists) in the first sentence of his prepared statement, and then charge the company with throwing away an opportunity in the concluding sentence.

Hey Mr. Mayor ever heard of the words … “disappointed”? … “concerned? … “let’s talk”?

If New York bids adieu to 25,000-to-40,000 Amazon positions and $27.5 billion in tax revenues in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ congressional district, will those who are cheering today be demanding social justice from New York state and city tomorrow?

Even China with its brand of authoritarian capitalism figured out that buying low and selling high is the best way to provide prosperity for its people.

New York had the prospect of becoming a lucrative technology hub … but it “threw away” that opportunity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyregion/amazon-hq2-queens.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alyyale/2019/02/13/leaving-long-island-city-what-losing-amazon-hq2-would-mean-for-nycs-future/#18d48f01127c

https://nypost.com/2019/02/14/de-blasio-amazon-threw-away-great-opportunity-in-nyc/

 

 

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” – President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 1961

“Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.” – FAQ for the “Green New Deal,” 2019

“Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it’s been.” – Grateful Dead, Truckin,’ 1970

Almost DailyBrett remembers those who said same-sex marriage would never happen.

There were those who said that recreational marijuana would never be legal, let alone pot shops on virtually every street corner.

And that states (i.e., Virginia, New York, Vermont) would never adopt up-to-the-nanosecond-of-birth (and beyond), abortion.

They are all now reality.

Will the next breakthrough come in the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI), or income redistribution from those who achieve to those … who voluntarily do … nothing?

Call it the ultimate in cradle-to-grave dependency: The government taxes entrepreneurs/job creators up the wazoo to pay living-breathing recipients for the privilege to sleep-in-to-noon, play video games, binge watch, smoke dope, drink beer and repeat the cycle the following day.

Seems a long way from the days of JFK, once a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, calling for nationwide patriotism to Ed Markey, a present-day Democratic senator from … you guessed it … Massachusetts, advocating taxpayer payments to those “unwilling” to work.

To be fair, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Markey and other Green New Dealers, claimed it was a “mistake” for the plan’s FAQ to be distributed to the media … who in turn reported the details of the proposed give-away to those who just don’t want to work.

How did the word “unwilling” end up on a draft FAQ, if Universal Basic Income isn’t a part of the thinking of the Green New Dealers?

Talk about a public relations disaster.

Announced Democratic presidential aspirant and entrepreneur Andrew Yang, has actually dug into his own pocket to pay one family in New Hampshire and another in Iowa $1,000 per month to demonstrate the benefits of UBI.

The vast majority will rightfully ask ‘Andrew Who?’ but give him credit for having the courage to introduce Universal Basic Income into the Democratic presidential primary season social justice debate.

Will UBI be part of the party platform at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Your author will take the “under” … for now.

If there are millions of people voluntarily not working (e.g., approximately 32 percent of working age males, source American Enterprise Institute), maybe the government can give them a hand as the face the repetitive boredom associated with doing and accomplishing … nothing.

Paying People To Do Nothing?

Almost DailyBrett never thought he would be compelled to ask: Is it moral for the government to take money from hard-working taxpayers to give it to those … who decide on their own to do nothing, achieve nada, and give zero back to society?

The debate about whether or not to establish a “safety net” for those adversely impacted by deep economic cycle downswings has long been decided. The questions remain about the extent, costs and durations of these assistance programs.

UBI is the ultimate public assistance cocaine dressed up as a basic right. The recipients are forever hooked to the green drug. The government is now obligated to forever keep providing this largesse to those who unwilling to work.

The pressure will always be present to increase UBI payments to keep pace or even exceed inflation, regardless of the consequences to the annual deficit or the rapidly accumulating national debt. The insatiable demand for more redistribution tax dollars for the do-nothings will accelerate.

Any efforts to curtail or reduce Universal Basic Income will trigger a cold-turkey effect (see “Yellow Vests” or gilets jaunes on the streets of Paris). The “program,” once launched will be eternal and unreformable.

Eventually, who is going to say “no” to free money from the government? Isn’t it in the recipients’ “best interest” to stay on the government gravy train? Don’t they as Americans have a right to not work … and get paid for it too?

Despite the obvious moral questions, the public policy fight over Universal Basic Income is closer to the beginning rather than the end. Those who worry out loud about the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) – a good example is Elon Musk – have already pointed UBI as another tool in the safety net.

Universal Basic Income is not a safety net, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.

UBI is a shameful governmental give-away pure and simple.

Strong Almost DailyBrett opinion to follow.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-media-attacking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-2019-2

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-green-new-deal-and-a-universal-basic-income/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/10/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income-to-protect-jobs-from-automation.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/universal-right-to-a-paycheck/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/deadbeat-boyfriends/

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: