Ugly On Purpose?

Back in the 1980s and into 1990s, Almost DailyBrett drove a sleek and sexy BMW 635csi.

She was beautiful. She was well-designed. She was high maintenance. It cost a fortune to take her out to dinner.

That was then, this is now.

Today Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) at $185 billion and counting has a higher market cap — stock price x number of shares — than the three legendary German auto designers/manufacturers combined (i.e., BMW. Daimler AG, Volkswagen) at $151 billion.

How can that be?

The time-tested names Bayerische Motoren Werke (1916),  Daimler (1926), and Volkswagen (1937) are legendary and enduring symbols of German engineering. Having acknowledged this undeniable fact and provided the totally justified praise, one still must ask: Do these companies and their respective stock prices point to the past or to the future?

After all a company’s stock price is a forward — rather than a — lagging indicator. Right?

Visiting the BMW Museum and BMW World in München in 2017, your author was impressed by the company’s century-long achievements when it came to the design of internal combustion engine automobiles and motorcycles. Having said that, the story fell off — literally the wheels came off — when it comes to electric vehicles (EV). The BMW offering is an ugly duckling.

Is this Bavarian econo-box with an electric charger, “The Ultimate Driving Machine?” Seriously?

Do you think that Elon Musk is quivering in his boots? The BMW i3 EV box looks like … a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf. Are those auto also-rans now competitors to BMW?

Considering that BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen — let alone long-time American and Japanese competitors — have been making gas powered vehicles for decades, do they really want to cannibalize their existing businesses? Are their collective hearts really into no gasoline, no emission, clean and environmentally responsible EVs?

The answer may be found in their ugly EVs. Can you see the difference between the sleek lines of the 20th Century BMW 635 csi and the boxy contours of the 21st Century BMW i3 EV? Did the same company design these vehicles?

What happened? Why is BMW going backward?

Tesla Is A Pure Play

Before going further, Almost DailyBrett must provide a consumer warning after buying and selling Tesla stock five times before, making a nice profit four times. Your author owns a handful of TSLA shares now as he writes this submission.

Musk will never be hampered with the concern about competing against his own business. Tesla designs and manufactures EVs, ion lithium batteries and related software. Does the South Africa Wunderkind have a singleness of purpose? Of course not, he also guides privately held SpaceX in his spare time as the company propelled Americans into space for the first time since 1998.

As $400 million net worth Mr. Wonderful investor Kevin O’Leary recently said, Tesla is the way that investors can participate in the SpaceX story. Tesla is four figures expensive and has an astronomical 89 times forward earnings P/E ratio (stock price/forward annualized earnings per share). Shareholders need to watch this volatile stock carefully and take Maalox on the side.

For the time being, TSLA is a trading stock not a long-term buy and hold.

Now that the requisite investor warning has been issued, it’s perfectly acceptable to be dazzled by the beauty of Tesla’s sexy cars. In an absolute marketing coup, Musk showed off Tesla’s truck, semi and most of all its sexy lineup of cars — Model S sedan, MSRP $74,990, Model 3 sedan, $37,990 and Model X SUV, $79,990 — to car aficionado former Tonight Show host/comedian Jay Leno.

“Jay Leno’s Garage” is a prime-time show, following “Shark Tank,” on Wall Street on steroids network, CNBC. One can only imagine the average wealth of “Garage” and “Tank” viewers. Heck, Musk and Leno even showed off the Tesla roadster, which will only set you back about $200,000.

Is it time for Almost DailyBrett to trade in his Miata roadster? Don’t think so.

When it comes to Tesla, the company is pointed toward a no-combustion engine, no gas-guzzling and no emissions-into-the-atmosphere future.

While other companies are kicking and screaming as they are being dragged along to the electric vehicle horizon, Tesla is the pioneer, best in breed and No. 1 EV and ion lithium battery innovator all rolled into one.

Is TSLA a cult stock, based upon the Steve Jobs-type innovation of Elon Musk? Yes.

Is that a good enough reason, not to buy the stock? Does sex sell?

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND/members

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/every-electric-car-ev-range-audi-chevy-tesla/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/112315/net-worth-shark-tank-cast.asp#2-kevin-oleary

 

Wall Street Is Main Street

Which Californian would you rather have running your business: Tim Cook or Gavin Newsom?

Taking into account that Covid-19 indiscriminately hit both Apple and the State of California at the same time in the same place, which entity performed better under nearly identical circumstances?

Under Governor Gavin Newsom’s watch, California with the nation’s highest income taxes (13.3 percent at the apex) and an average sales tax of 8.66 percent recently reported its record $21 billion surplus is now an unprecedented $54.3 billion deficit … that’s a staggering $75.3 billion switch if you are scoring at home. Nonetheless, the state found $75 million in the form of a pander payment to California illegal aliens.

Will they be eligible to vote … some day?

As the chief executive officer of $260 billion Apple with $44 billion in cash reserves, Tim Cook just announced the reopening some of Apple’s national stores this week with many more to follow. The company achieved a 37.8 percent gross margin and 14.3 percent to the bottom line in FY 2019, returning quarterly dividends of $0.82 per share for its shareholders.

As a member of the growing California Diaspora and a best-in-breed investor, who would Almost DailyBrett choose as a responsible fiscal steward?

Hint: Apple shares are up 7.25 percent this year, despite the Corona virus. As CNBC’s Jim Cramer repeatedly has proclaimed, he is only interested in a stock’s future. Share prices are a leading … not trailing … indicator of future performance.

Apple is a leader. California is a laggard.

The same is true with other best-in-breed publicly traded companies including Salesforce.com, Gilead Sciences, Lululemon Athletica, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Nike, NVIDIA and Starbucks. Is the present iteration of California anywhere close to … best in breed?

If California was publicly traded, would a responsible investor select the Golden State or no state income tax Texas and/or Florida?

As the former press secretary for the former Governor of California George Deukmejian (1928-2018), my love for the Golden State is true … your author loathes the present crew in Sacramento. Just ask Tesla boss Elon Musk.

Peddling A False Choice

The bull statue on Wall Street and the True Value hardware store on Main Street are not mutually exclusive.

The countless suggestions of a Berlin Wall type of divide between the two streets is a false choice. Even the stately The Economist fell into this trap.

The reason is simple, millions of investors who live on Main Street, the side streets and the suburbs. Gallup reported that 55 percent of Americans own stocks and/or stock based mutual funds … before Covid 19. America’s Investor Class certainly took a hit with the virus, but there are tangible results indicating without any doubt that investors are coming back, money is coming off the sidelines … heck the NASDAQ is up for the year.

Those who project the end of Capitalism may even be the same to predict the Republicans were the Whigs of the 21st Century, heading for extinction. Whatever happened to these rocket scientists?

Many in America’s investor class are fond of ETFs or Exchange Traded Funds and other versions of mutual funds. Your author is an investor in Fidelity’s Contrafund with $112 billion assets under management (AUM). The fund invests in large caps including Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway (think Warren Buffett), Adobe, Google …

Cash needs to be a significant portion of any responsible portfolio, which should include a mutual fund or two.

Almost DailyBrett must pause and ask the investor class (anyone who would care to listen), how about being the manager of your own mutual fund (no fees or commissions)? Why not build a portfolio with your own selection of best-in-breed stocks (e.g., Apple)?

To some, this approach may be too risky. To others, do you really need a paid-by-you investment advisor to tell you that Nike is the number athletic apparel manufacturer in the world? Why not buy the stock when the next inevitable dip comes around?

Buy Low Sell High.

For the most part, America’s Investor Class radiates out from Main Street. To suggest that Wall Street needs to be reined in and economic freedom should be curtailed by those who determine the so-called Public Good is contrary to the best interests of millions investing for retirement, a child’s education, a dream house or a new business.

It takes a free market to raise a child.

Wall Street is Main Street.

P.S. Be careful about investing in The State of California.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/07/the-market-v-the-real-economy?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/07/california-faces-a-staggering-54-billion-budget-deficit-due-to-economic-devastation-from-coronavirus.html

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/10/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results/

State and Local Sales Tax Rates, 2020

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/california-to-give-cash-payments-to-immigrants-hurt-by-coronavirus.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/06/20/californias-growing-diaspora/

What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks?

State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2020

Farewell To The Grip And Grin?

Does the Grip and Grin come before or after the Dog and Pony Show?

In the 2020/2021 “New Normal” will we even plan … let lone participate … in the Grip and Grin?

Will the Dog and Pony Show (e.g., presentation, briefing), more times than naught, be forever transformed into a video conference?

How does one shake hands via digital video? Isn’t physical proximity, necessary?

Almost DailyBrett knows from years of experience that oodles of events — from weddings to political fundraisers — include receiving lines.

The guest(s) of honor is/are required to assume a mannequin stance, participate in small talk, sport an artificial grin and most of all, shake hands.

Will the Corona Virus/COVID 19 (let alone the next little pandemic bugger) put an end to the unhealthy practice of shaking hands? Will germaphobes and/or hypochondriacs figuratively spike the ball in the back of the end zone?

Your author has always been somewhat envious of the evil-and-reclusive shipping magnate Karl Stromberg (Curd Jürgens) in the best Roger Moore movie as James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me.

James Bond was informed in advance that Herr Stromberg did not shake hands, and yet Mr. Shaken-and-Not Stirred stuck out his paw upon meeting the villain … and sheepishly was forced to withdraw.

What if the custom of handshaking is withdrawn … for good? The same would apply to high fives to kissing on both cheeks as is the custom here (the former) in other cultures (the latter)?

What if we greeted each other verbally and waved (the elbow pounding greeting doesn’t fly)? Don’t military types salute each other? There are ways to show respect without the Grip and Grin.

The End of Shaking Hands Judgments

“A grip and grin should be sincere. If not, then what is the purpose?” — Almost DailyBrett, Grip and Grin Controversy

As a dude, Almost DailyBrett knows that males make judgments based upon the strength (or lack thereof) of the handshake of other hombres. A wimpy handshake many times elicits a corresponding rolling of the eyes, and immediate negative impression.

Is that fair? Can you tell a book by its cover? Can you judge the character of a man by his handshake grip?

Almost DailyBrett wrote a decade ago about the custom of handshaking (e.g., Sir Walter Raleigh in the 16th Century). Five centuries of gripping and grinning constitutes an accepted and widespread practice, but does mean we can’t change?

Your author wrote before about the awkward situation of not shaking the hand of someone, who is an adversary, enemy or someone you loathe, despise or even hate (hate to use the word, “hate”).

For example, The Donald didn’t shake Nancy’s hand at the obligatory State-of-the-Union (SOTU) speech. She in turn tore up his speech. What if there was zero expectation of a handshake, would the text of the SOTU address still be in one piece?

Maybe the political theater was orchestrated in the first place? Trump never intended to shake Madam Speaker’s hand, and Nancy fully intended to rip up his speech to fire up her troops.

For folks, who do not hold the highest offices in the country, there still is the judgment call that comes from the must-I-shake-the-bastard’s-hand vs. can-I-refuse-to-shake-the-bastard’s-hand decision?

As confessed 10 years ago and repeated now, your mortal and fallible Almost DailyBrett author in virtually all cases has embraced the reptilian hand of an adversary, but there comes a time … when you cannot or will not shake the bastard’s hand.

You may not be proud, but you are not ashamed. You stood up for yourself.

For the most part, Almost DailyBrett refrains from ex-cathedra statements, but will do so in this case:

With COVID-19, germaphobes and hypochondriacs will be empowered more than ever, and therefore even less enthusiastic about the practice of shaking hands.

Even with the corona virus pandemic, it will still be difficult to brake a 500-year grip-and-grin tradition.

That doesn’t mean that society shouldn’t seek a more sanitary way to greet family, friends, colleagues, adversaries … and even, enemies.

 

Getting to grips with germaphobia

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/grip-and-grin-controversy/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/tearing-up-the-speech-paying-the-pr-price/

 

 

The Greatest Oregonian Of All Time: Phil Knight

Muhammad Ali was the self-proclaimed, ‘Greatest of All Time.’

And then Joe Frazier walloped him with a massive left hook, sending Ali and his pretty red tassels sprawling on the canvas.

The lesson: Be careful about labeling someone, anyone — particularly anointing yourself — as the ‘Greatest.’

As an on-and-off naturalized Oregonian since 1975, Almost DailyBrett believes it’s now safe to make the call about the state’s greatest-ever citizen.

Hands down, it has to be Phil Knight.

Happy Birthday #82, Uncle Phil.

Some may want to immediately contend that Knight is being named Oregon’s greatest simply because he the 16th wealthiest in the world with an estimated fortune of $35.9 billion (Forbes). Bernie Sanders says billionaires should not exist. Oregon should be proud that Phil Knight more than exists; he thrives and cares.

To be considered by Almost DailyBrett for this lofty honor, one has to be born in Oregon. Salem lists among its most influential: President Herbert Hoover, Governor Tom McCall, trail blazers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, but alas … none of them were born in Oregon.

Some worthy native Oregonian candidates for the ‘greatest’ designation include: Oregon track coach Bill Bowerman, Senator Mark Hatfield, author Ken Kesey, Senator Wayne Morse, runner Steve Prefontaine and democratic socialist John Reed.

Sorry being the only American to be buried in the Kremlin Wall (played by Warren Beatty in the interminable “Reds”) does not put Reed at the very top of the greatest Oregonians list.

Why is Phil Knight the greatest? Let’s Just Do It.

Never In Recorded History Have So Many Oregonians Owed So Much To One Man

If one Googles (21st century verb) the word, “entrepreneur,” the image of one Philip Hampson Knight should serve as the definition.

His best seller, “Shoe Dog,” tells the story of how he turned a $1,000 loan from his father and almost failing about nine times, he actually turned the proverbial corner with his athletic apparel company, Nike.

Today, Almost DailyBrett is a happy-camper-investor for many moons in the global athletic apparel market leader by far, Nike (NYSE: NKE).

The total amount invested in Nike stock is $156 billion (e.g., Feb. 21 market capitalization figure) with shares trading at 35 times multiple compared to the prior year’s earnings (P/E ratio).  Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike reported annual revenues of $39.1 billion in FY ’19. In total, 70,000  employees work for Nike globally, 8,000 of them in Oregon.

Without any doubt, Phil Knight’s Nike is the largest and most influential publicly traded company in the history of the State of Oregon. Think of Nike this way, great company, great products, great employer and great publicly traded company. How’s that for fiduciary responsibility?

Nike pioneered its much copied marketing campaigns celebrating The Athlete: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, LeBron James,  Rafael Nadal, Kevin Durant, Rory McIlroy, Stephen Curry and many, many others.

Almost DailyBrett has not always agreed with Nike’s marketing decisions (e.g., Nike Takes A Knee), particularly designing and selling apparel associated with NFL persona non grata, Colin Kaepernick. Your author has never expected perfection with any individual or organization (impossible distinction to achieve, let alone maintain), and the same is true with Nike.

Giving Back To His Native State, Oregon

“And here at home in Oregon, we believe the potential to arm our talented young people with the skills and tools, they will need to have a lasting impact on the world and to pursue rewarding careers, make such (charitable) investments essential.” — Phil Knight upon making a $500 million pledge to the University of Oregon for a new science center

When discussing Uncle Phil’s financial impact you are reaching the end of the beginning of the Phil Knight story, not the beginning of the end. Knight’s legend particularly revolves on his giving back to his native Oregon and the world.

Preparations for the opening of the Knight Cancer Research Building, August 21, 2018. (OHSU/Kristyna Wentz-Graff)

Considering that Phil’s business strategies and his company focused on sports (e.g., track and field), it’s only natural to first emphasize his sports philanthropy, particularly for his alma mater, the University of Oregon (e.g., BA in Business Administration, 1959). He has given more than $300 million (and counting) to the school’s Athletic Department, including $100 million to the UO Athletics Legacy Fund.

Academically, he contributed the lion’s share to the $27 million renovation to the University of Oregon Knight Library. The name of his late father and 1932 Oregon Law grad, William W. Knight, adorns the 68,000-square foot UO law school.

He has also directed $500 million-plus to Oregon Health Sciences University’s (OHSU) Knight Cancer Institute, and $125 million more to establish the OHSU Cardiovascular Institute.

Knight’s generosity is not limited to Oregon universities, as he gave $105 million to the Stanford Graduate School of Business (e.g., MBA, 1962). Recently, he pledged another $400 million to Stanford to establish an on-campus new graduate scholarship program.

With all due respect to the memories and accomplishments of Governor McCall and Senators Hatfield and Morse, Bowerman, Pre, Kesey and Kremlin Wall fixture, John Reed … none of them rose to the level of entrepreneurial and philanthropic success and impact on Oregon’s past, present and future than Phil Knight.

Yes indeed without any conceivable doubt, Phil Knight is the greatest Oregonian of all time.

https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/explore/notable/knight.aspx

https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/explore-oregonians.aspx

https://www.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/erry-2018/07/227b06fbff2915/the-100-greatest-oregonians-ev.html

https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#39cd30857e2f

https://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-endorsements-nba-golf-tennis-2019-6

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2016/10/phil_and_penny_knight_will_giv.html#incart_river_index

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/taxing-uncle-phil-to-death/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/09/04/nike-takes-a-knee/

Tearing Up The Speech; Paying The PR Price

“I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president.” — Speaker Nancy Pelosi responding to a question whether she hates Donald Trump.

“If Nancy Pelosi fears images of her ripping up the speech, perhaps she shouldn’t have ripped up the speech.” — Tim Murtaugh of President Trump’s re-election campaign

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

As a public relations counselor and message developer for eight years in gubernatorial and campaign politics, Almost DailyBrett would have advised Speaker Nancy Pelosi to maintain her high-ground advantage once President Trump refused to shake her hand prior to the Feb. 4 State of the Union Address.

The stories would be about Donald Trump, essentially walking over his own speech.

Instead Nancy stooped even lower, petulantly tearing up Trump’s speech before the President of the United States had even left the dais. She knew her actions — ripping up page after page — would be captured by the television cameras and by excited members of her own caucus, but they also wiped out her moral and image advantage over Trump for the evening.

Didn’t Michelle Obama once say: “When they (Republicans) go low, we (Democrats) go high”?

Worse yet is the ammunition Madam Speaker provided to the videographers and Meme-sters of Trump’s campaign and sympathetic political action committees. It’s amazing what talented people can do with Apple’s Final Cut Pro video editing or still frame software and a little time.

Sure enough a new video surfaced and was seen by 11 million+ with Trump’s gallery introductions of a black school child, a military wife being reunited with her stationed overseas husband, a surviving member of the Tuskegee Airmen … inter-spiced with images of Nancy … tearing up the speech.

Predictably Nancy’s political team went bat excrement, but the political damage was already done. The sequence was obviously altered, and the rightness and wrongness can be argued.

Here’s the main point: Why give political opposition manna from heaven?

Wouldn’t tucking the speech away and simply claiming victory in the form of moral superiority be a better course of action for Speaker Pelosi?

Do Nancy and Donald Hate Each Other?

“Are you (Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff) suggesting the president didn’t make those remarks or the speaker didn’t rip the speech?” — Andy Stone of Facebook

“What planet are you living on? This is deceptively altered. Take it down.” — Drew Hammill, speaker’s deputy chief of staff

The speaker’s office demanded that Facebook and Twitter pull the manipulated video. So far the two social media leaders have stuck to their internal policies and allowed the video to run its course.

Predictably Trump’s campaign is celebrating a made-for-television commercials windfall, which literally dropped in their collective laps. It easily beats Madam Speaker mocking the president in an earlier State of the Union address.

Before taking issue with Speaker Pelosi’s public relations counselors, Almost DailyBrett must ask whether she would even listen to prudent advice?

The same question can be posed for those who attempt to manage communications for Donald Trump.

With the advantage of political hindsight and looking back two weeks, Trump should have shaken the speaker’s hand, and Nancy should have simply put the state-of-union speech back into the presidential envelope.

Donald Trump won the evening because he delivered one of the best speeches of his career with CBS News reporting a 76 percent viewer approval of his prose.

What is the most important public relations of all? Personal public relations.

In a race to the bottom with Trump declining to shake hands and Pelosi ripping up the State-of-the Union address, Madam Speaker finished in first place.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-trump-video-state-of-the-union-turning-point-usa/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/nancy-pelosi-lashes-out-at-reporter-who-asks-if-she-hates-trump.html

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/429148-president-trumps-approval-rating-rises-after-state-of-the-union

Did California Legislate The Homeless Nightmare?

“Many of the people living on Los Angeles’ streets lack health as well as homes. They were put there by social policy, legacies of the mid-1960s when California was a laboratory for reform–and they sit there as another reminder of reform gone awry.” — Sherry Bebitch-Jeffe, USC Institute of Politics and Government, March 22, 1987

California’s road to homeless hell was paved five decades ago with landmark legislation with good intentions.

According to repeated KNBC (Burbank) I-Team reports, the City of the Angels has become the City of Trash. The number of homeless on the streets of the City of Los Angeles today (does not include the remainder of the Southland) would fill a 36,000-seat stadium.

A similar count of homeless in San Francisco City-County jumped 30 percent year-over-year to 17,595 last year (does not include the balance of the Bay Area).

California with its 12 percent of the nation’s population is “home” to 22 percent of the country’s homeless.

And with these ever increasing numbers of homeless comes ubiquitous mounds of public excretion, piled-up garbage and epidemics of disease-carrying vermin (e.g., rats). The number of Los Angeles typhus cases reached 93 in 2019, the predictable result of homelessness, trash, filth and rats.

As a former gubernatorial press secretary (e.g., Governor George Deukmejian), Almost DailyBrett knows it wasn’t always this way in the Golden State. There was a wonderful time when California was a great state with a great governor. Alas, that era has passed.

There was a much earlier time when mentally distressed Californians received care in safe state hospitals.

They weren’t on the street. Now they are seemingly everywhere.

And if you try to reverse the tide you are a mean-spirited, insensitive bad person, who wants to “warehouse” the homeless. As a result, no one does anything except throw more money at the problem.

Los Angeles passed a surcharge on top of the county’s staggering 10.5 percent sales tax, and $1.2 billion in bonded indebtedness for temporary homeless shelters.

What’s next?

And yet there was a day in which California “warehoused” the homeless … another way of saying, the state took care of the safety of all of its citizens.

The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS)

As a cub reporter for the Glendale News-Press, your author covered the funeral of Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (1901-1981) at the Church of the Lighted Window in La Canada-Flintridge, California.

A virtual who’s-who of California politics attended the service including then-Governor Jerry Brown and then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown among others. “Papa Frank” was revered as a compassionate man, who took a sincere interest in people most would rather put out their collective minds: the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled.

Unarguably, there was horrific unfairness with involuntary confinement to California’s mental hospitals (e.g., Camarillo). Lanterman wanted to address the specter of people being held without recourse for years, decades or even the rest of their natural lives.

Alas, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967 cure (e.g., homelessness) proved over time to be worse than the disease (warehousing). Lanterman was an Assembly Republican. Nicholas Petris and Alan Short were state Senate Democrats. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was signed into law by then Governor Reagan in 1967. The legislation is a product of the days when California actually had two political parties.

The legislation came with predictable public relations alliteration as it was designed to end, “inappropriate, indefinite and involuntary commitment.”

The well-meaning deinstitutionalization bill was intended to save taxpayer dollars (e.g., Reagan interest) and end warehousing (e.g., Lanterman, Petris and Short legislative intent). The mentally ill (except for the most serious of cases) were released into the community with the notion of seeking community care.

Some homeless did just that, they went to their community providers and took their pills. Others … way too many others … ended up on the streets.

The evidence can be seen in a slow-motion Disney-style ride in a traffic jam plagued vehicle passing literally hundreds of tents lined up along California major and minor city streets.

Be Wary Of Social Engineering; Practice Tough Love

The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act is yet another example of best-intended social engineering with unfortunate unintended consequences, impacting two generations of humanity, those fortunate enough to live in homes and apartments, and those forced into hard-sleep hell.

Will there ever be those in positions of trust with the courage to say, ‘Enough is enough.’

Some may blame California’s crazy housing and rental prices as contributing to the problem. No doubt. But the evidence appears clear that California legislated the crisis by emptying the state hospitals, and the result is visible virtually everywhere, everyday … 24-7-365.

There are people on the streets (e.g., Union Square in San Francisco), who are a danger to themselves and others. They don’t need temporary shelter only to return to homeless squalor in short order. Instead, they need tough love. They need to be moved into safe and secure state mental hospitals to receive the care they so desperately need.

Almost DailyBrett believes the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act needs to be repealed, and replaced with legislation that does not return to inappropriate, indefinite and involuntary commitment.” 

Instead the state will have authority to remove mentally ill homeless from the streets and to acknowledge the outsourcing of care was an undeniable failure. The homeless mentally ill need to be cared in a stable and safe environment, benefiting them and Californians as a whole.

It just seems that courageous California public leaders are in short supply, and the homeless are everywhere.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/trash-rats-cover-homeless-encampments-in-la/2304741/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-03-22-op-14759-story.html

https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/publications/understanding-the-lanterman-petris-short-lps-act

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/10/19/homelessness-is-declining-in-america

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_D._Lanterman

Has All Media Become Partisan Media?

“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?

 

Boujee Bolshies?

“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/

What Part of January Does The NFL Not Understand?

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

 

 

 

Invitation To A Wine Cave?

“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/