Category: Out of the Box Thinking


“Trump is right. It (elite liberal media) is the opposition party. Indeed, furiously so, often indulging in appalling overkill. It’s sometimes embarrassing to read the front pages of major newspapers, festooned as they are with anti-Trump editorializing, masquerading as news.” — Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018)

Will the New York Times send editor-columnist-reporter super delegates to the 49th quadrennial Democratic National Convention, July 13-16 in Milwaukee?

How many Washington Post editorial writers will be casting delegate votes for their party-proclaimed, next president of the United States?

We are not talking about covering the every four years convention held in the red state (e.g., Wisconsin), the Democrats overlooked to their own electoral peril four years ago. Instead, CNN and MSNBC talking heads will be actively cheering/campaigning for their party’s nominee on public airwaves.

Forget about dispassionate analysis. Does that practice exist any longer, let alone straight reporting?

How many readers and viewers have become wise to NBC’s Chuck Todd, MSNBC’s Brian Williams, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, literally reading between the lines for the not-so-hidden political agenda? As your author has mentioned previously, they don’t even pretend to be fair any longer.

Some readers of this blog may immediately chastise Almost DailyBrett for not mentioning right-of-center, Fox News.

Isn’t Fox News partisan as well?

Doesn’t the obvious fact of 24-7-365 partisan media, support the premise of this blog that terrified news rooms made economic decisions to jettison objectivity and fairness to survive a digital onslaught, they were way too slow to recognize?

Eastman Kodak used to dominate the film photography market, and then digital imaging came along and the stodgy upstate New York company was too late to respond … way too late. The stock is mired in single digits, serving as a desultory money repository for brain-dead investors.

Billionaire Blockbuster founder Wayne Huizenga (1937-2018) was the talk of Wall Street in the late 1980s/early 1990s until … you guessed it … streaming video content (i.e., Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Disney … ) doomed his company. Today, there is precisely one Blockbuster with three employees in … Bend, Oregon.

The model of professional non-partisan objective media, which worked well for so-long, was personified by Walter Cronkite at CBS, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC, and Howard K. Smith at ABC.

Those days are gone, long gone.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)

Donald Trump is the newsroom gift from heaven that just keeps on giving.

He is without any conceivable doubt the president elite liberal media loves to hate. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush used to be tied for that distinction … no longer.

Donald Trump trailed Hillary Rodham Clinton big time in both paid media (e.g., political advertising) and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) in 2016 because he didn’t need it … massive earned media attention was more than enough to make up the difference.

Every outrage produced another coming unglued story, which in turn generated ever more attentive eyeballs and ears.

As a candidate and now as president every account, whether it contains a Trump hook or not, becomes a story about that man … Donald John Trump.

Iran shoots down a Boeing 737-800. You would think by the coverage that Trump actually pulled the trigger … Didn’t his actions and policies prompt the wreckage and loss of life?

Sure.

Syria’s brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad’s crossed Barack Obama’s “red line” in the sand with poison gas against his own innocent citizens in 2016, and the media shrugged its collective shoulders.

Trump orders the 2020 drone assassination of Iran’s military leader, Qasem Soleimani, and the partisan media goes, Defcon 1.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) arrives for a Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss transmitting the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. January 14, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst – RC2QFE9EVPID

Some may contend the shift to media partisanship (we are going way beyond editorial pages and commentary) and the death of objectivity and fairness is not a new story. Almost DailyBrett contends the intensity of media partisanship is off the rails and intensifying.

The media wants to pontificate, rant, rage and bloviate about the eventual downfall of Donald Trump. And when he is finally gone, what will they talk about?

Don’t worry. There will always be a Trumpian legacy to condemn for months, years, if not decades.

Schools of Partisan Journalism and Communication (SOPJC)

“And what are spies and politicians and journalists if not themselves selectors and manipulators of the truth for their own ends?” — British spy author John le Carre

In order to accommodate the shift to unbridled journalistic partisanship, university liberal journalism and mass communication schools (are there any other?) must amend their respective progressive curriculas to ensure that future “journalists” are equipped to lead the fight for socialist justice.

Can they psycho-analyze (without any psychology degree) those with offending political philosophies?

Can they filter information and factoids commensurate with partisan orthodoxy, and ignore anything and everything to the contrary?

Can they be absolute arbiters of the truth, however that term is previously defined?

Can they become warriors with note pads, cameras, recorders, boom mikes and smart phones?

Most of all can they advance the cause … the justice cause … without crossing the line into the dark side of advocacy public relations?

Have they have already meshed partisan journalism and political public relations into one and the same?

 

So if you win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and fuck off. OK?” — Comedian Ricky Gervais Golden Globes opening monologue

“You (Hollywood) know nothing about the real world.” There were cheers across the fruited plain for that one.

We are just so divided.

There are boujees, and there are bolshies.

There are demographic divisions (e.g., knuckle draggers vs. fairer sex).

There are psychographic splits (i.e., income, education, creed, politics …).

And then, there is the seemingly eternal class struggle between the Boujees and the Bolshies.

Almost DailyBrett always embraces the motto, “Buy Low Sell High,” definitely comes down squarely on one side of this divide.

But what happens when a group of Boujees gather together, and they are Bolshies as well?

Are they Boujee Bolshies? Are they Bolshie Boujees? Are they boozy Boujee Bolshies … ?

Take the reaction of Tom Hanks to Gervais’ “You know nothing …” lecture. You could have fried an egg on Forrest Gump’s face.

Did Anybody In Hollywood Vet Gervais’ Monologue?

Gervais was right. Sunday night was the last time he will ever host the Golden Globes or any other celebrity award show.

He took dead aim at the Hollywood Industrial Complex, and scored a direct hit to the collective gasping in the room and to the delight of those who have to make a real living in the fly-over states.

The great unwashed were laughing at Hollywood’s Gathering Storm of suppressed anger, and enjoying a sense of Schadenfreude at their expense.

From a public relations standpoint, Almost DailyBrett must ask: Were Gervais’ remarks reviewed and approved?

Maybe? Maybe not?

How many times has the nation endured their acceptance speeches, complete with personal commentaries about the rotten-and-evil United States of America?

Many have been thinking for eons exactly what Gervais had the temerity to say out loud … ‘You recited your lines beautifully. You went to a great acting school. So what? What do you know?”

The Hollywood majority embrace the concept of government dictated social equality and likewise they relish in a Bourgeoisie lifestyle, but please don’t take aerial photos of Bolshie Barbra’s Boujee mansion by the sea.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is for other people. You do know who originally promulgated that phase, Hollywood?

Or do you really know … nothing?

Limousine Liberals

How many bolshie Hollwooders showed up for the Golden Globes in boujee limousines.

Were they sipping lattes in their vehicles or something stronger?

Are they the most equal of the equals, using their celebrity platforms to spank the leader of the Free World and this country as well.

Bless his Limey heart: Gervais spoke in jest and told the bold truth. We really don’t care about Tom Hanks’ bolshie political opinions or any other of his boujee comrades.

Will the industry follow the Gervais’ advice for the upcoming Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, Tonys, Espys and all of the other awards shows the nation will collectively endure later this year, considering that 2020 is indeed an election year?

Don’t count on it. A boujee bolshie/bolshie boujee must be heard.

If you don’t believe Almost DailyBrett, just ask them.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/transcript-ricky-gervais-golden-globes-2020-opening-monologue-1266516

https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2017/06/30/what-youre-really-saying-when-you-call-something-bougie/37433439/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boujee

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bolshies

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/tom-hanks-ricky-gervais-golden-globes-face-viral

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7857415/PIERS-MORGAN-Ricky-Gervais-delivered-glorious-kick-Hollywoods-virtue-signalling-hypocrites.html

https://www.rickygervais.com/

Meteorology is above the pay grade of Almost DailyBrett.

The study of weather also seems to be beyond of the collective wits of the NFL and its partners in climatic crime, the national networks.

Let’s state the obvious: January is a cold winter month across the vast majority of the fruited plain.

Indoors are always heated and dry. Outdoors can be cold, wet, icy and even, snowy.

Southern climes tend to be warmer than northern climes.

The days start three hours later on the west coast than on the east coast. Generally, the west coast is warmer.

With the above preamble, one has to ask: Why did yesterday’s “Wild Card” game held in a climate controlled rectractable roof dome in Houston serve as the day game, and why was the outdoor “Wild Card” (40 degrees and foggy) played at night (kickoff at 8:15 pm local Foxborough, MA time?

Today’s early game … you guessed it is being played in a climate controlled dome in New Orleans, and the nightcap starts at 4:40 pm local time (e.g., dark) in Philadelphia.

Next week’s “Divisional” round is no better, in fact the times and venues may be worse.

The schedule was next Saturday calls for the early game … you guessed it … to be played at 1:35 pm PST in Santa Clara, CA.  The evening game is set for an 8:15 pm EST in Baltimore.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the NFL to reverse the order?

The Sunday, January 12 schedule makes no sense whatsoever. The early game is kicking off in Kansas City at 2:05 pm CST, and the night game (better have more than one for proper insulation) is set for the Frozen Tundra of Green Bay, Wisconsin at 5:40 pm CST.

Isn’t Green Bay way north of Kansas City? Why not reverse the order of these games?

Does The NFL Care About The Health And Safety Of The Fans?

Similar to major universities with football programs, NFL teams have lost control of their franchises to the major networks (i.e., ABC/ESPN, CBS, Fox, NBC).

What is only important is eyeballs, lots of eyeballs. And what is better is to have all these eyeball pupils focused on never-ending ads during prime time.

And what prime time is the most equal of the equals, the time zone of the Eastern seaboard (e.g., New England playing at night)?

Almost DailyBrett must ask here and now: What about the fans enduring super cold temps? Drinking all day waiting for the game? Driving home at ridiculous hours through fog, rain, ice and/or snow?

And what about the players, who must attempt to play one-and-done playoff games in frigid conditions, such as the “Frozen Tundra” of Green Bay?

Ever wonder why the attendance of NFL games (derrieres in overpriced seats) is down?

Certainly, fans will show up for playoff games … at least for now … but HDTV is HDTV. Our national pastime, which baseball long ago lost to football, may become suitable for TV studios with all of us watching on television or our mobile devices from comfortable venues with beer in the fridge and bathrooms down the hall.

Do you think the collective brain trust of the NFL and the networks could take into account weather and geography (e.g., warm places vs. cold places or indoor vs. outdoor games).

Assigning early kickoffs to outdoor games in colder climes and later games to domed stadiums and warmer climates makes perfect sense to your humble author.

For the NFL to make this simple change, does not affect the seeding for playoff games. In addition, the league would be making a positive statement about how its views loyal fans (e.g., season ticket holders), and its players (e.g., relations with the NFL Players Association).

Even though Almost DailyBrett is not and never will be an attorney, wouldn’t removing the specter of drunken or not fans being seriously hurt on a foggy, wet, snowy or icy roads reduce potential liability for the NFL?

And most all, the NFL would proclaim to the world that it really does understand the true meaning of the word, January.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28390167/2019-nfl-playoff-schedule-bracket-super-bowl-liv-coverage

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/07/how-the-nfl-gained-back-viewers-but-lost-attendance/#2d3b9cfc5bb7

 

 

 

“The mayor (Pete Buttigieg) just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave, full of crystals and served $900-a-bottle wine. Think about who comes to that? … Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.” — $12 million net worth Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

“According to Forbes Magazine, I’m literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire … This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass.” — South Bend Mayor Peter Buttigieg

Guess Almost DailyBrett has been drinking cerveza way too long.

The term beer cave projects the image of a bunch of guys downing bottles, tapping a keg, and binge watching football.

Some may simply envision and label the grunting, belching and scratching venue as a … ‘man cave.’

The very notion of a Napa Valley wine cave connotes a more upper-crust distinction.

A $900 bottle of Hall Winery fine cab (actually $185) on the house? S’il vous plait!

Always excitable Warren took issue with the image of people enjoying expensive vino in a plush wine cave in California’s Napa Valley. More to the point, she particularly doesn’t condone wealthy individuals attending a fundraiser on behalf of a pesky political rival, Mayor Pete.

Isn’t this the same Democrat senator who owns a $3 million home in Cambridge, MA. and a $800,000 DC condo?

Her political soul mate, $2.5 million net worth Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, even purchased the web domain name: peteswinecave. Sanders may presently lead Warren in the polls (Real Clear Politics average), but he trails her nearly five-to-one in net income.

Should latte sipping senators living in glass condos throw rocks?

Where was the invitation for Almost DailyBrett?

Guess one has to be a limousine liberal to be invited to a trendy wine cave to sip super-expensive cabernet sauvignon in crystal goblets on onyx tables.

Reminds your author of the infamous joke of USSR party leader Leonid Brezhnev inviting his mommy to drink Moskovskaya vodka in the Kremlin, cruise around in his Zil limo, and consume caviar in his private dacha.

Mother Russia proudly looked at her most equal of the equals son and said: ‘What happens when the Reds come back?”

A quote more apropos for this discussion is the infamous one by former California Speaker of the Assembly Jess Unruh’s (1922-1987): “Money is the Mother’s Milk of Politics.”

Your author’s boss first Attorney General/later California Governor George Deukmejian (1928-2018) raised $8.3 million in 1982 to be elected to the corner office in Sacramento. The Duke was outspent in the primary and the general election, and still won the governorship.

That amount is almost quaint by today’s standards, and downright puny in comparison to the $125 million Donald Trump’s re-election campaign raised in the last three months.

In some respects, Trump’s fundraising prowess is just the tip of his earned (media interviews/coverage), paid (advertising) and owned media (Twitter) communications juggernaut.

Revisiting An Ancient Argument 

Warren suggesting out loud that Mayor Pete is somehow being bought by billionaires sipping pricey cab in a wine cave is the latest twist on an age-old assertion.

Are the billionaires buying your fidelity? Did you sell out? Did they buy in?

Here are more germane questions: Are you going to award an ambassadorship to the Court of St. James or the Vatican for the federal campaign contribution maximum, $2,800?

How do you propose funding your campaign at 2019-2020 advertising rates, if you don’t raise dough from wealthy people … unless you are already a billionaire (i.e., Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer)?

Billionaire celebrity Trump was outspent and out-organized three-plus years ago, and overcame this deficiency by absolutely dominating earned media, thus sucking the air away from every other candidacy including Hillary Clinton’s.

Even though the knives are out for #45, he still rules every utensil and appliance in the mass communications kitchen.

He is not invulnerable. The time between now and November 3 is a political lifetime. No one, including Almost DailyBrett, predicted his election.

Do presidential incumbents have an advantage? Not always (i.e., Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush in rotten economies).

Presidential elections are not referendums, they are choices.

Both the incumbent and his inevitable challenger are going to need green manna from heaven to ensure their respective messages get to the electorate, particularly in swing fly-over states. Campaigns are expensive.

There will be even-more fundraisers in the coming months, hosted in a wine cave near you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/21/about-that-wine-cave-dinner-i-was-there/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/20/how-elizabeth-warren-built-a-12-million-fortune/#2b85f493ab57

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/04/12/how-bernie-sanders-the-socialist-senator-amassed-a-25-million-fortune/#1d4107fb36bf

https://nypost.com/2019/12/22/elizabeth-warrens-wine-cave-comments-spark-questions-about-her-donors/

 

Anyone mature enough to remember the 1964 presidential debates between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater?

How about the debates four years later between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey? Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972?

President Jimmy Carter, left, and Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, shake hands Tuesday night, October 28, 1980, in Cleveland, Ohio, before debating before a nationwide television audience. (AP Photo/stf)

There was precisely one presidential debate in 1980. Jimmy Carter was throwing the political equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, only to have Ronald Reagan remind the nation they were not better off after four years of Carter’s troubled presidency.

Almost DailyBrett is asking here-and-now: Are 2020 presidential debates a forgone conclusion?

Yes, there is the hallowed Commission on Presidential Debates. How many grande lattes at Starbucks does that fact, buy?

The first 2020 presidential debate is set for Tuesday, September 29 at University of Notre Dame followed by a vice presidential debate and two more presidential debates on college campuses in October.

One of the real questions that must be asked: Are there any objective impartial  journalists, at least pretending to be fair, who can moderate the 2020 debates?

If not, does that provide President Donald Trump the Twitter excuse for not participating in any of the presidential debates, ditto for Vice President Mike Pence?

In a world dominated by partisan polemics on television (i.e., Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Chuck Todd, Brian Williams … ), are there any real journalists left that can moderate a debate between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

Do you think that crying Martha Raddatz will ever referee another debate after showing her true colors on election night 2016?

Only 41 Percent Trust The Media, 36 Percent on Independents, 15 Percent of Republicans

Ever wonder why 69 percent of Democrats — according to Gallup — trust the media?

Could it be the media doesn’t even attempt to be fair anymore? Modern era journalism professor-types claim there was never a time of true objectivity and impartiality; these virtues are just so … yesterday.

As Almost DailyBrett opined more than once: Oppositional Journalism rules the day. That contention cannot be questioned any longer. Interpreting media elites should be required to register as special interest lobbyists.

LAS VEGAS, NV – OCTOBER 19: Fox News anchor and moderator Chris Wallace speaks to the guests and attendees during the third U.S. presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Tonight is the final debate ahead of Election Day on November 8. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Besides the likes of Chris Wallace and Bret Bair, are there any truly objective journalists who would be fair to The Donald and Bernie without “Feeling The Bern?”

Does the dwindling supply of truly fair (let’s drop the term, “objective”) journalists provide justification to President Trump to not debate in 2020. Would the celebrity truly bypass an open microphone on a national stage? Probably not, but he has the option to debate or not debate (he turned down a GOP primary debate in the last presidential election cycle).

As a former press secretary for California Governor George Deukmejian, we made the decision to skip 1986 gubernatorial debates with Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

As a result of our decision to not debate the second time around, the editorial pages of California’s elite media blasted our stand and wondered aloud about the fate of Democracy in the Golden State.

The California electorate knew these two candidates as they were contesting each for a second time in just four years. We were also cruising to re-election, winning 61 percent to 37 percent in the blue state’s greatest-ever landslide.

If Trump opts out of one, two or all of the debates, will he suffer on the editorial pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the talking heads on NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and other liberal networks scold the president?

What else is new?

Do the anointed in the Fourth Estate accept any blame that public esteem in the media is once again heading for an all-time low? Your author is betting the media next year will pierce the 32 percent nadir achieved in 2016, and go even lower.

If Trump decides not to debate (his standing in battleground state polls, the robust state of the economy, no new wars, radical socialist opponent … ), do the elite media — who no longer even attempt any more to be fair — bear any responsibility?

The answer is an obvious, ‘yes,’ but collectively they are too sanctimonious to admit the obvious.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

https://www.debates.org/2019/10/11/commission-on-presidential-debates-announces-sites-and-dates-for-2020-general-election-debates-and-2020-nonpartisan-candidate-selection-criteria/

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

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/oppositional-journalisms-victory/

Donald Trump Attacks Debate Commission, But Suggests He’ll Still Face Off With Democratic Nominee

 

The Pac-12 Conference needs a divorce, a final end to its slavery to ESPN.

Smug and arrogant ESPN does not even try to be fair anymore.

The only teams that matter are represented by their top five football Pharisees: Homers Kirk Herbsteit and Joey Galloway for Ohio State, and Rece Davis (Alabama), David Pollack (Georgia) and Jesse Palmer (Florida).

There are only four playoff spots and five major conferences, so someone is always going to be the odd-man out. And who would that nearly always be?

Certainly not a particular football factory in Ohio. And equally not teams suckled in the Cradle of the Confederacy.

Alas that means, the Pac-12 Conference is out in the cold again … only two appearance in six long years of the College Football Playoff (CFP).

Some have suggested expanding the playoff to eight teams, providing four more annual opportunities to expand the presence of the SEC. Some have offered the Pac-12 should reduce its conference games from nine-to-eight and schedule late season Southern-fried cupcakes instead (i.e., Clemson vs. Wofford, Alabama vs. Western Carolina, Auburn vs. Samford & Son).

Almost DailyBrett believes the left-coast schools need to embark upon nothing less than a Democratic Football Revolution, getting out of the College Football Playoff and bringing the Rose Bowl along for the ride.

Always The Granddaddy Of Them All

Let the Las Vegas Bowl in the new Raiders stadium serve as one of the six bowls that are rotated for the four/eight teams annually championed by ESPN for the playoff: Peach, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Vegas.

The Granddaddy of Them All, the Rose Bowl, will retain its hallowed tradition of always hosting the Pac-12 champion (e.g., Oregon Ducks this year) and the highest available team from the Big-10 (e.g., Wisconsin). The winner will be the champions of the Rose Bowl, and that has always been The Deal and it always should be.

Sorry, last year’s Rose Bowl game between carpetbaggers Georgia and Oklahoma will be the final game ever for non-Pac 12 and Big 10 teams.

Almost DailyBrett contends the Pac-12 Conference should return to the days of a tried-and-true round robin. Every Pac-12 team will play ever other conference team (six at home and five on the road one year, five at home, six on the road next year).

Instead of a 13th game each year for two teams in a tarped empty conference championship game on a desultory Friday night, that game and the two conference divisions will simply go away.

Everyone will play 11 conference games and two non-conference games (i.e., USC and Stanford can maintain their respective ties to Notre Dame, Utah to BYU, Oregon State to Cal Poly … ).

Make The Pac-12 Great Again

“If a college football game is broadcast on a network no one can watch (e.g., Pac-12 Networks) is the game actually played?”

Commissioner Larry Scott needs to be shown to the door along with his $5.2 million annual salary, the largest by far of conference commissioners.

He “pioneered” Pac-12 Networks along with its inability to sign contracts, shutting out most conference fans from its programming. What’s the point, Larry?

By almost any measurement, the “Conference of Champions” is failing. The conference doesn’t win anymore. It enters into one-sided agreements (e.g., $3 billion with ESPN and Fox) for 12 years. Worst of all, the Pac-12 bargained away its authority to set the times for conference member home games.

Scott believes the answer may lie with 9 a.m. kickoffs … stadiums open at 7:30 am, tailgates at 6 am, team prep begins at 4:30 am, parking lots at 4 am, game day commutes at 2 am.

Does something sound wrong?

Alas, this horrible TV deal runs thru at least 2023.

In the humble opinion of Almost DailyBrett, the new commissioner of the Pac-12 (an adult next time, please) needs to insist that each school hosting a home game will not be a mere commodity. The conference’s purpose should be more than filling ESPN “programming” holes.

The conference will play its games on Saturdays … only on Saturdays … between noon and 6 pm (exception: 7:30 pm Arizona and ASU home games in late August, September and early October for obvious reasons).

Each game time will be determined before the season, allowing fans to schedule game days and university development departments and alumni associations to coincide fundraising with football.

The true round-robin format generates head-to-head tie-breakers, ensuring the Pac-12 champion will undoubtedly be the Pac-12 champion. There will be zero opportunities for cup-cake games to pad won-loss records. Pac-12 teams will each play tough schedules, and that’s the way it should be.

The ultimate reward and team goal will be playing in the Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day.

The hallowed opinions of ESPN’s homers and their predetermined “playoff” will simply … not matter.

https://www.liveabout.com/rose-bowl-scores-791218

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-huskies/pac-12-revenues-dipped-by-12-million-in-2018-while-commissioner-larry-scotts-salary-increased/

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2019/12/canzano-college-footballs-troubles-will-be-punctuated-with-more-empty-seats-in-pac-12-title-game.html

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jul/30/pac-12-after-dawn-washington-states-mike-leach-sta/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/09/12/is-tv-ruining-college-football/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/6-a-m-tailgate-parties/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/the-conference-of-champions/

 

“Maybe Tribalism is just in her DNA.” — Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs senior chairman, on Senator Elizabeth Warren

Who gets hurt if the federal government requires Warren Buffett to sell 6 percent (approximately $5 billion) of his $86 billion in wealth each year, every year?

A.) The “Sage of Omaha?”

B.) Middle-class investors attempting to grow their portfolios for retirement, their children’s education or that special vacation?

How about … both?

If Warren’s punitive wealth tax takes effect, Buffett will be selling his shares … lots of stock … not as a result of market conditions but because Washington D.C. redistributors mandate these stock trades in the name of the greater public good.

And who decides what is “the greater public good?

Warren’s punitive 6 percent wealth tax (unconstitutional?) exercise applies to all billionaires. There would also be a 1 percent levy for all Americans with wealth exceeding $50 million each.

Wonder how many in coastal blue states (i.e., Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California, Washington … ) exceed that $50 million wealth figure? The vast majority of these households worked hard, invested wisely … and this is the thanks they receive?

How much money, which could be used for individual investment, would come out of our economy? How many shares will be forced sales in our public exchanges?

What are the unintended consequences of these arbitrary sales for those saving for retirement or their children’s education?

According to The Economist the cumulative impact of wealth taxes and many other planned hikes would constitute a cumulative 2 percent hit on our nation’s $21.4 trillion GDP.

Could a Warren Recession follow? Almost DailyBrett will take the “over.”

Selling Political Masochism In A Robust Economy

The debate that you have in America or Britain about taxing the super-rich just doesn’t exist here.” Janerik Larsson of Sweden’s Timbro

“Vilification of people as a member of a group may be good for her campaign, not the country.” — Blankfein on Warren

Almost DailyBrett has always contended that group masochism is a political loser.

Asking people to sacrifice their economic freedom, and to vote against their own personal and family best interests is a prescription for defeat.

The Economist reported this week that American retirees owned only 4 percent of all publicly traded shares in 1960.

Fast forward to 2015 and we find that retiree investments (i.e., IRAs, 401Ks, pensions) constituted 50 percent of all shares. Without doubt that figure sprinted even higher in the last four years considering the stunning continuation of the bull market.

Since November 8, 2016 (hmmm … what happened that day?), the Dow Jones has risen 52.8 percent from 18,332 to 28,015, the NASDAQ 66.6 percent from 5,193 to 8,656, and the benchmark S&P 500 47.0 percent from 2,139 to 3,145.

Should public policy compel American today’s and tomorrow’s retirees to sacrifice a significant slice of their financial future every year?

Shouldn’t we have the freedom to decide when to buy and when to sell? Does the government really understand the maxim: Buy Low Sell High?

Why should an ever-expanding  government go to war against achievers, and by doing so take direct aim at America’s Investor Class? Some see it as a socialistic assault on capitalism.

Let’s simplify the equation: Why should our government usurp our economic freedom?

Some will contend that we should all, chill out. Warren is floundering in the polls. She won’t win the Democratic nomination. Right?

Didn’t the experts say the same thing about Jimmy Carter? They were wrong, and years of economic malaise (i.e., double-digit inflation, unemployment, interest rates) and a crippling recession were the consequences.

Many in the political class point to Sweden as an socialist model for the U.S. to follow. And yet, Sweden has higher percentage of billionaires (e.g., founders of IKEA, H&M, Volvo and Spotify), and greater income disparity than the USA.

And yet Sweden abolished its inheritance tax in 2005 and its wealth tax two years later.

Hmmm … maybe we should look to Sweden for guidance.

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#b93a39d251c7

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/28/inequality-could-be-lower-than-you-think

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/in-sweden-billionaires-are-surprisingly-popular

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/14/lloyd-blankfein-mocks-elizabeth-warren-maybe-tribalism-is-just-in-her-dna.html

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” — Matthew 7:3

There are self-anointed coastal elites, who are just better … much better … than the unwashed masses in the fly-over states.

If you don’t believe Almost DailyBrett, just ask them. They will gladly tell you … and everyone else.

They implore that we all choose and practice kindness, but by their attitudes and actions they don’t seem to understand what the word really means.

They are perfectionists, who sit in Ivory Tower judgment of those, “who strive valiantly, who err, who come up short again and again.”

They are morally superior. Their world views are flawless. They are not “deplorable.” They will always place themselves in the upper “basket.”

If they have successfully climbed to the summit of higher moral ground, how come so many of them are so darn angry?

Almost DailyBrett must pause now and ask: ‘Have you ever seen a happy activist?’


Making “Elitism” A Dirty Word

“Being proved wrong has failed to get greens to rethink their doomsday assumptions. Instead, every decade sees predictions that planet has five or ten years left if extreme measures are not taken immediately.” — Joel Kotkin, Chapman University Presidential Fellow and Former Washington Post Bureau Chief

It must be nice to know that even if you’ve been proven wrong, you’re always right … err … always correct.

It gives you the right to go slow in the fast lane because you are driving … you guessed it … a Prius.

Even if their elitist candidate loses, they are somehow still above it all.

“Stupid”people made “stupid” choices. ‘Shouldn’t our votes count more than their votes? It’s only fair.’

Soon we will impeach their president. We will the elect our own president.

Cultural elitism and rightfully attaining the higher moral ground (as the term is defined) pertains to more than mere politics.

How about approved lifestyles?

Cows are solely responsible for the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest. The only appropriate answer? Enforced Veganism.

Proud to be gluten free and want everyone to know about it? TMI? The world must accommodate and openly sympathize with your glorified maladies.

Even though more than 1 billion people globally lack reliable electricity today in the 21st Century, there are actually leaders of nation states are actually daring to exhibit genuine and justified concern for the economic well being of their own citizens.

“How dare you!”

Only authoritarian states rejecting Capitalism (e.g., economic freedom) can truly wisely embrace Climate Stalinism. Giving the people the choice of protecting the planet and putting food on the table … ? Must suck to be you and hungry.

The chosen few are dedicating their Fridays For Future, and will take control of the other six days per week too … particularly a football Saturday. Elitist spoiled children (redundant?) scolded their respective august Ivy League universities for being “complicit in climate injustice?” Does that mean socialist justice/environmental justice … whatever justice … are the only answers?

What happens to your virtually guaranteed six-figure jobs upon graduation? If you are really opposed to capitalism, wouldn’t you become a 24-7-365 agitator? Didn’t think so.

Almost DailyBrett is totally on-board when it comes to Choosing Kindness. This blog has been a consistent platform for the practice of civility, objectivity and embracing other points of view.

Yes, there are actually people on our one-and-only planet, who do not buy your activist prescriptions let alone ingest your pharmaceuticals. There are times when the cure is worse than the disease.

Can you humor us and actually gaze your eyes downward from your higher moral ground, and realize and appreciate that others may have a different take on the world. And that’s okay.

You are all for celebrating diversity. Right?

Let’s go for it, and add a little kindness too.

Climate Stalinism

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/10/10/born-with-a-silver-foot-in-his-mouth/

 

“You control the debt; you control everything. You find this upsetting, yes? But this is the very essence of the banking industry, to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt.” – Actor Luca Giorgio Barbareschi as arms producer, Umberto Calvini, The International.

In the days of ole, one could buy a treadmill or an exercise bike and work out or employ it as a glorified laundry rack.

Now we have the recent Peloton IPO — (NASDAQ: PTON) — selling its bikes for $1,995 and treadmills for $4,000.

The key differentiator is streaming content (bike or aerobic instructor videos) for a recurring monthly charge of $39 or more. Peloton didn’t just sell a pricey bike and/or treadmill, they more importantly marketed a monthly obligation to a growing subscriber base … and that very well could include you.

The consumer bought high, and is paying even higher.

The stately The Economist reported the news and entertainment industry (i.e., Disney, Fox, ESPN, HBO …) along with major tech players (i.e., Apple, Amazon, Netflix) collectively spent $650 billion in the last five years on acquisitions and content, a sum greater than America’s oil industry.

For example the Mickey Mouse gang just unveiled Disney+ for only $6.99 per month (how long will that price last?), allowing binge watching of the Star Wars catalog to one heart’s content. The downside is another sliver of your financial independence given away for yet another monthly fee.

Sooner or later, the price of each kernel of streaming popcorn is going to add up.

They Have The Gravy, And You’re On The Train

During his Silicon Valley days, Almost DailyBrett was consumed by a litany of recurring payments (i.e., mortgage, utilities, taxes, insurance, car payments, credit card usage, mobile phones, cable, house cleaner, gym membership, pool maintenance, gardener …). In toto, all of these outstretched hands each month represented a seemingly out-of-control first-world dilemma on steroids.

Money was coming in, and going out just as quick each month. Similar to the IRS, each of the growing list of providers never forgot to remind your author of his annual/monthly obligations.

Even more than ever, our consumer-oriented economy (70 percent of the total) is predicated on enticing even more Americans to shell out an escalating amount of capital on a monthly basis, ensuring a consistent flow of money in one direction.

Hint: Someone is getting rich and it’s not the average Jane or Joe.

Some can avoid being “slaves to debt” to the bank (e.g., pay off your credit cards each month), but it’s way more difficult to avoid recurring annual (e.g., Amazon Prime or Costco memberships) and worse, monthly payments.

Let’s face it, some monthly outlays are unavoidable (e.g., utility payments). Most have mortgages or rent to pay every 30 days. Many have car payments. Even if you pay your total credit card bill religiously (which you should), it’s still a monthly obligation.

Almost DailyBrett doesn’t want to sound like a parent, but still must pose this question: How many of these recurring payments are absolutely necessary?

Shelter, food, power and water are essential to life. Most likely all or at least some of the above are financed/amortized through monthly payments.

Your author must ask, do we need a Netflix subscription on top of the cable bundle? We are already paying up the Wazzoo for up to and beyond 300 channels, the vast of majority we do not watch … and then we add on Disney+, ESPN+, Netflix and God knows what else.

And we are wondering what is happening to our money?

No Longer Driving The Top Line, How About The Bottom Line?

Follicly challenged Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) and others of the species are retiring … and Gen Xers (hatched 1965-1979) are not far behind.

Let’s face it, for most Boomers their peak earnings days are behind them.

If you can’t grow the top line, then reducing the bottom line is a great idea. Can one seriously reduce costs and still live a comfortable happy life?

Do you still require a mortgage? Can you downsize? Can you rent instead? Can you move to a lower-cost state or community?

Is good weather (e.g., California) worth the mounting hassles, congestion, rising costs and always higher taxes?

Can you avoid car payments? How about fixing up your ride?

And most of all, can you build a stone wall preventing new monthly payments from wrecking your budget?

If you must binge watch, is there a free way to enjoy the same content without the monthly ball and chain?

Retirement experts preach avoiding second (or more) homes, subsidizing adult children and overspending.

At some point, that one more monthly expense may prove to be A Bridge Too Far.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/14/who-will-win-the-media-wars

This week begins the most dreaded time of the year … the holidays.

And to spice up the “excitement,” Donald Trump is widely expected to be impeached by Democrats right before … Xmas.

And what will most families sooner or later discuss over spiked eggnog, hot toddies and all the fixings?

The Donald.

And you thought tolerating difficult-at-best relatives and in-laws in short doses was tough enough.

Almost DailyBrett has repeatedly opined that families are overrated, and that obviously includes relatives and in-laws (outlaws are wanted).

Even though Chevy Chase in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation attempted to portray the magic of joyous families gathering for the holidays, we all know better.

Maybe being Home Alone is a better deal?

During the holidays, we can detect the collective raising of blood pressures, the need to count to 10, and the anxious double checking of smart phones or watches.

When is the pace car going off the track, so we can blow this taco stand?’

It has always been wisely counseled to avoid conversations with family members about politics and religion, and that prod particularly applies to the holidays.

Aren’t the recounting of embarrassing stories at your expense, perpetrated by vindictive family members, bad enough?

And then there is Trump, Nancy and impeachment.

The polling firm FiveThirtyEight this past week reported that 46.3 percent of Americans support impeachment, 45.6 percent oppose impeachment. Four-out-of-five Democrats favor impeachment (80.3 percent), four out 10 independents (41 percent), and slightly more than one out of 10 Republicans (12.2 percent).

How’s that for a polarized country, and a perfect conversation to further divide even the most tribalistic of families?

Before Trump, we could always discuss Uncle Charlie’s drinking problem, our own bed wetting at four, atheism vs. Christianity, pro life vs. pro choice, NRA and gun rights, open borders vs, border walls and maybe come away from the family table detesting each other just a smidge more than even before … if that is still possible.

Ahhh … the holidays!

Is It Best To Make Trump Conversations Out Of Bounds For The Holidays?

There are those who want Donald Trump to simply go away, somehow without Mike Pence sitting behind the Oval Office desk and running for his own terms as president.

There are those who support Trump’s re-election and envision of four more years of buy low sell high.

And there are those who are duly frightened of a carnivorous government digging even deeper into their wallets … advocated by the present field of Democrats. The list of sensitive political topics goes on and on and on.

Are any or all of these subjects conducive to Happy Yuletide memories among families, including the in-laws?

‘Would you like a little nitro to go with your glycerin?’

Instead of que sera, sera and turning of the other cheek, how about actively managing the family and in-laws?

How about setting and adopting rules of engagement?

Give everyone something to do. Similar to a functional family, everyone has a chore.

Think about group activities to blow off negative energy, such as multi-player video games with customary gratuitous violence.

Close your eyes and imagine a family member(s) disappearing magically into thin air.

Feel better already, don’t you?

Most of all, declare certain topics including all political subjects verboten for the holidays.

Trump and impeachment sounds like a swell place to start.

Why engage that annoying (insert “liberal” or “conservative” in this space)? If you can’t change anyone’s mind via social media, why would you think you can sway face-to-face an irksome relative or in-law, particularly when booze is involved?

Almost DailyBrett remembers vividly a passionate friend railing against the NRA in the presence of a gun nut. After your author attempted to mercifully calm down the discussion, the same individual quickly revisited the subject, raising the pissed-off barometer to critical. There was almost a fusion meltdown in the form of a fist fight in a bucolic public setting.

Your author decided then and there it was a good time to go out for a breath of fresh air.

Sure wish that was an option when it comes to family gatherings in which gifts are judged (and returned), faults accumulate, embarrassments are revisited, and the precious nanoseconds until family events are over count down to zero.

Here is a novel idea your author has suggested in earlier iteration of this humble blog:

Can we simply hit the fast forward button on the remote and make it New Year’s morning at Brookside Golf Course in Pasadena? We will all be happily tailgating with friends under sunshine and warm temps.

And what will we discuss? Politics? Family?

Hell no, the Rose Bowl baby.

What time is kickoff?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

 

%d bloggers like this: