The Frustrated CFO

What Is "Class"? - the American Mis-Confusion

Cate Blanchett as Blanche DuBois, BAM 2009

So, somehow I overheard ( which is shocking, believe me, because I don't really expose myself to this kind of news) that a few weeks ago "people" (who are they? some social media trolls?) got upset with Cate Blanchett ("they" always have a tendency of being upset for all the wrong reasons) on account of her calling herself "middle class"... And I thought: Aha! An excellent opportunity to clarify a thing or two!

Let me first confess: I have never been a big fan of Cate Blanchett as an actress... She has a good screen presence, no matter the setting, but that's about it . And I've even seen her on stage a couple of times too... Including in Liv Ullman's production of A Streetcar Named Desire, nearly 15 years ago. The critics and the audience raved about it, of course, but, as far as I was concerned, she lacked the emotional fragility necessary for the portrayal of a woman broken in that specific way of Blanche DuBois. I even got  myself in trouble with my fellow BAM patrons by not restraining my opinionated ass on account of that performance...  

But no matter, no matter - as this is not about her acting. This is about her socio-political statements...

(And that's another thing: Why the hell do people always care so much about what the actors have to say about politics, or social structures, or international relations... Why the fuck the general public bothers itself with listening to  what Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Madonna, or Cate Blanchett have to say about any of that instead of trying to utilize their own analytical capabilities and form their own opinions?)

So, here is how she described herself, while discussing her experiences of "working with refugees" (of some non-specific kind; yet, her Cannes' red-carpet dress speaks volumes with that bright and glossy forest-green inset she kept revealing): "I am white, I am privileged, I am middle class..." And somehow it wasn't the falsely apologetic tone of the whole thing, but the supposed mis-"classification" that got the people upset. Why? "They" explain: the actress's estimated net worth is $95 million. And "they" think that it disqualifies her as the "middle class".

Well, let's see... Even though half-American (on her father's side), Cate Blanchett was born, raised, and educated in Melbourne, Australia, and is encyclopedically considered an Australian actress. And in that country, as in all former and present parts of the British Empire, societal divisions are still very much defined by one's familial origins, the ancestry and the hereditary structures. It really has nothing to do with the size of one's coffers. There are two million millionaires in Australia - the prevailing majority of them are commoners. At the same time a blue-blood aristocrat can be dirt-poor. Therefore, by  these standards Blanchett is absolutely correct, deliberately honest, and entirely un-hypocritical - she is very much a middle-class product: mother's a teacher, father was a US Navy officer turned an ad exec.

Furthermore, the only American billionaire I knew personally (through a theater charity as a matter of fact) also tried to instill in his three children the idea that they were of the "middle class". He understood the hereditary class principles simply because his immense wealth placed him very close to the heart of the issue: he knew that his money didn't make him the upper-class.

And since we're talking about a screen/stage actor, here's an example from another frequently produced classical play - Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard... Keep in mind that Russia had been a monarchy with centuries-old ancestral aristocracy up until just 107 years ago... The play's central psycho-social conflict is focused on the impoverished hereditary landowners unable to hold on to their estates, including the symbolically precious cherry orchards. Meanwhile,  the wealthy merchant Yermolai Lopakhin, with his peasant familial roots, understands only too well that, in spite of his hard work and all his millions, he can raise himself in the old societal class hierarchy only as far as the middle...  Just like the billionaire I've mentioned above... Let me reiterate: the wealth doesn't make one an aristocrat. 

Generally speaking, the monetary approach to defining societal classes is very much the New World's notion, which makes me believe that Cate Blanchett's self-appointed critics are predominantly American. Not surprising at all.

The fact that here, in the States, the vast majority of people consider personal wealth to be the primal factor of the class distinctions is the testimony to two attributes very particular to our country:

A. The strength of our democratic, equal-opportunity roots. In spite of all sorts of privileges and preferential treatments applicable to various and variably defined through the stages of our history societal groups; and with full acknowledgment of the suffocating nepotism that's been stagnating our progress for decades now - we are still the most democratic country in the world. The state built without castes, aristocratic substructures, and governing rights based on the land ownership. A nation, which believes that a self-made celebrity is equal to the blue-blood royalty. We see nothing especially special in Beyoncé/Jay Z meeting up and chatting with Kate Middleton/Prince William. Hip-pop royalty, sovereign royalty - same difference... 

B. Our preoccupation with money above everything else. And this one is a trait that affects pretty much every single aspect of our nation's existence - socio-economic, political, and intellectual - not just the interpretations of the societal segregation into classes.

Case in point:

"It is without a doubt a reflection of our society’s values that lesser punishments are doled out to those who take away someone’s innocence, or even life, than to those who take someone’s money."  

                                                                            I Built This Prison, Part III, p. 344

But let's assume for a second that everyone around the world adopted the American way of thinking and dismissed the old-world traditions of the class division entirely... For the moment, let's just focus exclusively on the money factor...

Does general public really think that all those doctors at struggling hospitals and private practices, faceless partners in large law firms, CFO's of the companies barely breaking even - that they are the middle class?! Why? Because they  make lower, or even mid, six-figure salaries? Let me disillusion you about that! In a larger scheme of things, we are all poor - from welfare recipient to an owner of a multi-million-dollar company with a $500K annual salary. Monetarily, we are all the struggling lower class, with just a slight difference in the purchasing powers. None of us can afford to fly everywhere in the first class (let alone the private jets), stay in suites of the 5-star hotels, dine in restaurants with Michelin stars, casually buy designer bags and suits (especially at today's prices)... Unless, of course, these luxuries are paid by some companies or some other persons... Moreover, children of the welfare recipients have better medical care through the states or the cities and broader access to the educational finances than those of the wage-paid parents...

And Cate Blanchett with her who knows how securely kept millions is somewhere in the median sector of the wealth curve... Truly of the middle class, no matter how you define the matter. Because the ones in the upper portion of the plentitude are what I call "the really rich people" - the sort of folks the dreamers insert into their billionaire fairy-tale romance novels.   

 

BOI Reporting: Wellcome, Big Brother?

If you are a business owner and/or executive and you've used an online processor, like LegalZoom, to set up your corporate affairs; or outsource some of your in-house functions to a large service provider, like Paychex, for instance; or employ a fairly sizable CPA company to audit your books - it is most likely that these business partners of yours have notified you at some point last year that you are a subject to the new type of government reporting - the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI), due for submission to Financial Crime Enforcement (FinCEN) bureau of the US Department of Treasury. 

The rest of the business owners - those without an exposure to large business and/or professional networks - especially the ones running those small, private, neighborhood companies we supposed to cherish as a backbone of the American economy...  Well, I don't really know how they are meant to find out about this new reporting obligation. FinCEN promised to roll-out a whole awareness campaign with YouTube videos and stuff - but I personally haven't seen anything like that being pushed at me. Maybe if you search for it, you'll find something... But how would you know to look in the first place?

I personally discovered it via LegalZoom's notification sent to an entrepreneur whose books I help to keep. She casually mentioned it to me - I somehow sensed it seriousness and looked into it. Mainly for the sake of the small business owners around me, but also out of the feeling of foreboding this bit of information gave me.

It turned out that FinCEN was formed in 1990 (Wow! The things that fly over our heads! Even if we are somewhat politically alert.) under the parentage of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence with an official purpose

"to combat domestic and international money laundering, terrorism financing, and other financial crimes".

Naturally, it is a perfect agency to oversee the specific measures that have been formulated under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) signed into power by Congress in 2021 - the federal law pushed through under the banner of

"the government's efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures."

                                                         fincen.gov, January 29th, 2024

(Again! What ordinary citizen paid attention to that piece of shocking legal maneuvering?!)

One such measure, formulated in March of 2023, is the BOI reporting. I don't want bore my readers with every single rule and detail pertaining to this new corporate reporting duty. Just bear with me for a few important highlights I'm providing for those who didn't dive into this issue yet. 

A Beneficial Owner is a person who directly or indirectly exercises substantial control over the reporting company or owns at least 25% of its interests. Now, all senior officers - specifically: President, CFO, General Counsel, CEO, and COO; anyone with an ability to appoint or remove officers or a majority of directors; anyone who is an "important decision-maker"; and anyone (listen to this catchall) who has "any other form of substantial control" are qualified as Beneficial Owners and must be reported as such to FinCEN.

There is an interesting caveat: if a person is not a senior officer, but, nevertheless, exercises significant control over the reporting company through her employment there, that person doesn't need to be reported. I'm thinking: high-power controllers who value their privacy higher than the status, or simply don't want to expose their personal info for open access, should stop vying for CFO positions (assuming, of course, the pay is satisfactory). 

Any and all corporations, LLCs, and other entities created through the filing of a document with a secretary of State or any other similar office in the US is obligated to report. I carefully studied the 23 exceptions and can vouch that I personally never dealt with an entity that would qualify for an exemption. Nevertheless, everyone who deals with corporate matters of their businesses/employers is encouraged to study the relevant material at BOI FAQ.

Anyone whom the reporting company authorizes  to act on its behalf may file the BOI report. And this authorized filer, whatever their relationship with the company may be, MUST submit her full name, email address, and phone number. 

The information the reporting company must submit about itself is: full legal name, any trade names (DBAs, etc.), current street address of the principal place of business (to be updated when changes), its jurisdiction of formation or registration, and TIN. The whole kit and caboodle.

For the beneficial owners the reportable data is as follows: name, DOB, residential address, and ID# - either US passport or state driver's license - and the name of the latter's jurisdiction. And guess what? The reported ID must be uploaded into the database! Some people may feel relieved that at least they are not demanding the SSN's. But if you ask me: disclosing your picture ID and the place where you live! Seriously?

But get a load of this! In addition to the information on the entities, their beneficial owners, and those assigned to deal with this by their bosses, the financial crime fighters want to further collect the same info on the individuals they call "applicants" (starting with incorporating dates of January 1, 2024 and on), i.e. the individuals who directly file the documents that create or register the company and those who direct and control the filing. And that's pretty much any intermediary agent whose services you may engage in the process: accountants, lawyers, formation services, even the messengers delivering the application packages into the hands of the clerks.     

FinCEN openly discloses that any Federal, State, local, and Tribe as well as "certain" foreign officials will be allowed the access to thus compiled database for activities broadly described as "related to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement." No consents or even notices of the inquiries' subjects are required. On the other hand, financial institutions need to obtain a reporting company's agreement before being allowed to take a peek. But who in their right mind says "no" to a bank considering granting you a credit line, for example? Especially if it's a small entrepreneurial business. Most eager CFO's and CEO's wouldn't even bother asking who exactly will be looking.

The penalties for refusing or foregoing the BOI reporting include both civil and criminal repercussions: up to $500 per day of the violation, $10,000 fine, and up to 2 years of imprisonment.  

So, to summarize: millions and millions of Americans are now forced to make their personal information openly available for access by all and any domestic and international government entities as well as financial institutions, or risk criminal and civil prosecution. I absorbed all that, and I was like: Whoa! What?! George Orwell miscalculated his arrival by 40 years, for sure, but the Big Brother is definitely hear now - not in North Korea, Iran, Russia, China; but here in the United States of A as well as 30-something other "civilized" countries with similar regulations. Of course, I have to be objective about my reactions to such things: I was born and raised under the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union. Therefore, I have a tendency of seeing things related to governmental interferences in darker lights than most American citizens. I mean, Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985) is the avant-garde realism to me, not a dystopian sci-fi as it's conventionally classified.

 

Moreover, I'm a libertarian in my political convictions. Thus, personal and socio-economic freedoms are paramount to me. Even more painful for a small-business crusader like myself: Do we really need another negative consideration thrown at potential entrepreneurs considering going into business? It's fucking depressing - at least to me...

But guess what? It turned out that I was not alone in my fears of the government's infringing on our democracy. On March 1, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held the entire CTA, and BOI requirements in particular, unconstitutional. To the fundamental question of whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate millions of entities and their stakeholders the moment they obtain their formal corporate status from the state, the Court has answered that not only there are no constitutional provisions supporting such excessive claims of power, but there are also no citable precedents or sufficient legal nexus.

For the time being, the Alabama Court's decision protects from CTA's enforcement only the specific plaintiffs who filed the claim. We can hope, however, that it will encourage other companies, individuals, civil rights lawyers, etc. in other states, to join the effort of protecting our corporate and individual privacy. Meanwhile, every entity incorporated before January 1, 2024 have to file before the deadline of January 1, 2025 and those incorporated during 2024 - within 90 days after the date of official creation by the state. Starting 2025, the reporting timeframe will be shortened to just 30 days.

Here comes the funny part, though: If you decide to bother yourself with episode 17 of the final (10th) season of The Blacklist, you will be able to see how utterly futile these government efforts are. The vast network the FBI special task force is trying to dismantle during that episode is engaged not only in establishing the fictitious corporate fronts to cover the diverse criminal enterprising, but also in creating flawless, unimpeachable false identities for the individuals - real or virtual - who qualify to be their "Beneficial Owners" under the CTA's definitions.

I mean, it's pretty clear to all of us, isn't it? Those who want to stay hidden - will. Meanwhile, the rest of us will expose our identities to hell knows what kind of breaches and misuses. And if you think that that particular bit of The Blacklist fancy is as phantasmagorical as the rest of the show, we can agree to disagree: I thought it was the most realistic piece of plotting of the entire series. And I watched every single of the 218 episodes and liked quite a few of them too.                 

NPR Reports: Prisons Are Not Fit for the Elderly. What Else Is New?

MZ @ ACF 2019

On Monday, March 11th (I beg your pardon - it always takes time for me to summarize my reactions), NPR reported via Apple News (The U.S. prison population is graying fast... by Meg Anderson) that American federal and state prisons are not prepared to deal with their growing contingent of elderly inmates. Primarily because the correctional medical care cannot keep up with this demographic trend.

The provided statistical evidence illuminates the bleak reality: Apparently

"across the nation, between 1999 and 2016 the number of adults aged 55 and older increased 280%, compared to an increase of only 3% in those under 55."

But what else could we possibly expect? The multitude of our socio-economic problems affects all aspects of life, including the age mix of the prison population: the lifers with over thirty years of incarceration on their shoulders, the repeat offenders who cannot be absorbed into society and keep coming back even in the late stages of their lives, plus the older people who commit their first crimes out of hopeless desperation, yet become the subjects of our brutal sentencing customs nevertheless - it's only arithmetically natural for the proportion of older inmates to increase.

At the same time, it is absolutely unthinkable for any branch or twig of any governmental body directly or tangibly related to correctional codes to consider age-driven triggers for early releases. I mean, as it stands right now, only terminally ill inmates, with pretty much days to live, may qualify for this rare privilege. Anything short of that retains an inmate in prison until the sentencing conditions are fulfilled.   

It appears that the NPR reporter's main focus is to single out the truth of the aging prison population as the most crucial factor testing the limits of the correctional systems around the nations in keeping all of their charges healthy.  She further broadens the magnitude of the age effect in one of her leading arguments. Namely that prison is a difficult environment and "people behind the bars tend to age faster." To support this postulation the article quotes some studies by medical professionals specializing in Public Health, which claim that "incarcerated adults experience accelerated aging" (a term borrowed from engineering practice of specifically designed tests under aggravated conditions to speed up the aging of objects). One of the cited doctors suggests that "geriatric" in prison can mean someone as young as 50. 

Well, let's set the quality of prison medical care - for the entire imprisoned population, not just for elderly - aside for a moment. Because, first and foremost, I would like to contest the validity of the rapid-aging generalization itself. You see, I believe that it actually depends on the person and her attitude. For example, take me (who else would I take, really?): On the day I was sentenced I was 57 years 2 months and 3 weeks old. And yes, pretty quickly my hair gone completely gray. NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) prohibits hair-dying within its walls. (Unlike the federal prison network, which allows it.) And since I've been going gray since I was very young and started my regular visits to a colorist when I turned 35, I had no choice but to turn peppery gray in prison. And yes, Natura Bissē products couldn't be obtained in the commissary or pass through the package-room regulations. So, it was impossible to hide the gloomy state of mind behind the brightness of my skin... But other than that... After decades of sitting on my fat ass behind my office desk, I managed to use my time in prison to get myself into a much better physical shape than I've experienced in my entire life: Walking the significant distances between various destinations of Albion prison's camp and performing daily tasks of physical labor were at first difficult, than bearable, and eventually easy. I progressed from crawling to power-walking at a speed uncatchable by the smoking 20-year-olds. My first yoga class happened in prison and eventually I geared myself up all the way to the power-yoga level. Moreover, I've discovered a rowing machine in the gym... Eventually, I've developed muscles in places where I only had fat before. And I felt much healthier than I did outside... I felt 40. No joke... Age is really a very-very relative thing.

That said, however, it is an undeniable truth that cost of medical care for incarcerated individuals, guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution, has been growing exponentially. If not because of the aging per se, but due to the complex combination of factors, including the alarming health and longevity decline in the United States. Note: A recent Harvard study has determined that

"for every two Americans who died age 65 and under, one [MZ: 50%] would have been alive if they lived in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, or Portugal. An epidemic of chronic illness has also taken hold, with rates of heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, and obesity skyrocketing and impacting younger populations."

 

Thus, the percentage of sick people entering various jails and prisons, regardless of their age, is now much higher than anyone expects.  This, along with the persistently increasing price tags of pharmaceuticals and all health-related services, which we all experience whether we are "free" or incarcerated, multiplies the weight of the monetary burden on, already pretty fragile, shoulders of correctional systems. Naturally, the NPR article quotes a few prison officials complaining that it is impossible to care for the older inmates within the existing budget constraints. And I believe them: neither the states nor the federal government have enough money for comprehensive healthcare of incarcerated individuals to begin with; having funds for the permanent geriatric  needs - forget about it!

There is, however, one important factor entirely avoided in the article - maybe deliberately, maybe not: The inherent and persistent problem of the corrections - the utter mismanagement and inefficiency of whatever means they have on hand, sufficient or not. And I don't know, of course, maybe in the sampled states - Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota - everything is ran in the most methodical and productive ways; and if they had sufficient funds they would be able to medically accommodate prisoners of all ages (though my gut sours in doubt at that)... But I can testify that it would be an impossible dream (and when I say "impossible", I mean like a fan dreaming of dating her pop-idol) in the prison structure I had a misfortune to experience firsthand, i.e. New York State's women prisons - the most messed-up can of the administrative worms imaginable, if I have to say so myself.  

There are a couple of essays in "I Built This Prison" specifically related to this subject matter - the general mismanagement, the medical care, and the mix thereof. But here let me just mention a few facts. There are three female correctional facilities in the whole of NYS - one for each level of security: the maximum and the minimum are Downstate, in Westchester County, mere 35 miles from NYC and its multitude of high-quality medical care facilities; and medium located in God-forsaken Albion, practically a stone's throw away from the Canadian border, with the only hospital servicing the prisoners (Erie County Medical Center) 56 miles away. This latter prison camp is, of course, is larger - both in its capacity and the actual population - than the other two put together. And yet... The Albion Correctional Facility (ACF) has only a tiny medical office with no specialists, no OBGYN, no diagnostics, a few beds, and a handful (literally) of doctors that leave at 3 pm and don't work on weekends. On the other hand, the Regional Medical Unit (RMU), which can actually be qualified as a prison hospital because it is staffed with medical personnel, including doctors and RN’s on 24/7 duty, and, in addition to 20 infirmary beds, has 30 long-term care beds as well as the maternity and nursery divisions - that's, ladies and gentlemen, is, of course, in Westchester.

So, if an inmate happens to be pregnant or nursing, they have to be held in the maximum security prison regardless of their actual security gradation. The same goes for the legally blind as they cannot get walking assistance Upstate - and no one knows why. On the other hand, every one who is afflicted by ailments that bind them to wheelchairs, including murderers and other violent criminals, are invariably sent away to Albion - that's where the mobility assistance is provided, which is by no means a replacement for the proper medical care. Etc., etc., etc., etc. It's truly bizarre. And none of these three facilities can possibly deal with the needs of the aging population. In Albion, even 72-year-old women cannot obtain medical releases from their mess-hall job assignments, even if their feet double in size by the end of the day from edema - I've known them personally...

For further reading:

"I Built This Prison", Part III: In Case You Were Wondering About the State-Ran Healthcare 

"I Built This Prison", Part III: Through the Ass Backwards

                    

Clinton/Warren Ticket - Joke of the Week #1

Two blond lawyers wearing pantsuits with deep pockets walk into a bar.

"God, this joint is a mess!" complains the one with $60 million in her pocket.

"Don't worry," replies the one with $20 million in hers, "My Dad was a janitor.  I'll clean this place out in no time.  First, we will raise everyone's wages to $22/hours; and when the establishment goes belly up, I'll represent them in bankruptcy hearings, blaming everything on the banks."   

 

Quote of The Week: Cassandra's Curse

Quoted directly (as written) from the actual email sent today to the frustrated CFO by her CEO:

"Marina,

You are so right about the economy.  More than a half of the candidates I talked with today are looking for a job because they were laid off as the result of their companies' downsizing or being swallowed during hostile mergers.  One of the candidates worked for the same company for 20 years, and she is now looking for an entry-level job just to get stable employment with benefits.  Amazing!  Most people don't even know what's going on with the economy, because they listen to lies.

LF"    

On the Other Hand, There is John Oliver

The same gracious people who introduced me to Diamond & Silk also approached me with a suggestion that I watch the so called "Trump episode" of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.  Knowing my time constraints and quality standards, they weren't very insistent.  They said, "We think you may want to watch this one episode."  But I didn't need much convincing anyway.  After all, I liked John Oliver's Britishly offbeat, overly serious persona as a Senior British Correspondent on The Daily Show.  I was excited when he got his own HBO program and even watched the premier on its first airing.  It was quite good, but not stimulating enough to get on my must-watch list.  Plus, I was somewhat creeped out by the overly excited John Oliver.  So, that first episode was also my last.  But if people I respect singled out another one for me, why not?  

So, I watched it.  Twice.  And what I want to tell you is that John Oliver is a brave man.

Granted his audience is small - it averages 0.9 million viewers per episode.  Still, to go in front of 900,000 people and advertise yourself as a complete nincompoop, desperately ignorant of the most elemental insights every political commentator simply must have - that requires some seriously engorged balls.  How he isn't dead from embarrassment is difficult to understand for someone like me.  I mean, whatever subject he touched: public relations, social responsibility, campaign finance, corporate vs. individual contributions, wealth management, commercial lending, real estate, subprime mortgage industry, licensing - to put it mildly, he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.    

Well, I understand that John Oliver is "just a comedian" and encyclopedic standards should not be applied.  But the power of political satire has always been in the full grasp of the subject matter.  That's what gives laughter substance and makes it an effective weapon.  Of course, I know better than to expect such quality here; still, he's got some gall talking out of his ass like that.  Why discuss intangible assets with such authority, for instance?  Trust me, it takes some heavy-duty modeling to evaluate those.  My best guess is that Mr. Oliver is completely unaware how uninformed he comes off.  Who's going to tell him?  He is probably surrounded entirely by like-minded folk.        

But forget the intellectualism; the most shocking element of the program for me was Mr. Oliver's conspicuous hatred toward Mr.  Trump.  The level of outrage, the voltage of disdain!  You would think that Donald Trump's political agenda included cancelling the Bill of Rights and setting up labor camps!  (Wait, that's the candidate on the other side, isn't it?)  John Oliver was literally exploding with venom!  At certain point he reached the state that can only be described as explosively deranged.  

This spitting of lies and saliva at your opponents are, of course, the gold standard of yellow journalism.  This is exactly how it's done: stretching some tweeted scheduling inaccuracies of a man, whose appointment book is fatter than John Oliver's head, into political lies; or reducing one of the most critically acclaimed musicians of the 21st century (albeit a controversial personality), who smashed hip-hop standards and garnered high praises from the likes of Paul McCartney and Lou Reed, to a "sociopath with a finger-free anus." I guess, that's the brand of programming HBO was expecting when they gave John Oliver what he describes as "creative freedom." 

And making fun of immigrant's names?!!! That's just unseemly.  It's nice for Mr. Oliver that his name originates in such deep WASP annals that it's unlikely to be misspelled here in America.  But many Americans had there original names changed for the sake of assimilation (including Clinton and Sanders) or, even more frequently, misspelled upon entry by immigration clerks.  My mother is a Cohen.  There is like a hundred variations - Coen, Cohn, Kahn, Kohn, Koyen, Kagan, Kogan, Kogon, Kogen.  Ask you friend John Leibowitz (a.k.a. Stewart), Mr. Oliver, and he will explain to you that these are all the same names.   And my own names, both first and last?  I can fill a volume larger than John Oliver's Earth book with misspellings.  I am unequivocally in support of everyone's right to declare their political views; and, like Voltaire said, I will die for their freedom to do so; but that name bit has nothing to do with politics and it felt like a personal affront to me.   

This whole tasteless attitude directed specifically towards one presidential candidate has all the makings of media bullying.  And it sort of feels like HBO's mandate, doesn't it?  First, Oliver's outrageous escapade.  And now Ms. Lena Dunham, another HBO alumna with an even tinnier audience (700,000 viewers per episode average) but a larger bag of scandalous tricks, "threatens" the world with a promise to move to Canada if Donald J. Trump wins.  Wow, some people!  Not only their feminism but even their patriotism is skin-deep.  "I don't like the executive part of my government, so bye-bye America!"  I would expect a bit more gratitude to this country from someone with pilgrims on one side and Jewish immigrants on the other side of the family.  But way to put yourself back in the news with this political barbarism!

Don't even get me started on the improbability and the emptiness of this threat!  Moving to a "lovely place in Vancouver" and getting her "work done from there" only makes a person a short-term visitor to Canada.  It's just silly!  Trump still will be her President, she still will be paying federal taxes, and without a proper visa she will be asked to leave fairly soon.  Giving up US citizenship and actually immigrating to Canada - that would be a serious step.  And it's also a seriously difficult process.  Unless she already has a Canadian family, gets a job in the oil industry, claims a political refugee status (no, Trump's presidency will not qualify),  goes to school in Canada (a temporary solution anyway), marries a Canadian (maybe Taylor Swift can hook her up with Justin Bieber), or deposits $7.5 million with the Canadian government as an immigrant investor (with the supposed net worth of $12 mil and the only alive project going into the last season - I don't think so), she will have no chance to become a Canadian.  But let's say her celebrity status gets her there somehow.  I can only imagine her shock when she sees the tax bill and the diminished consumer basket she will be able to afford with the remainder of her earnings.  And all those gynecological issues she habitually bares for the general public - they will be subjected to the state-run Canadian medical industry; very different from the wonderful care she receives in one of the best hospitals in the world here in New York.           

Yet, apparently more celebrities are joining this unpatriotic trend of "moving to Canada" threats.  Well, it just shows you how politically unsubstantial, unjustifiably empowered, uninformed, and removed from reality these people are.   Ignorance is a bitch.  If I were on Hillary's campaign I would've recommended her to immediately separate herself from this anti-American movement.  

I cannot help but wonder whether these self-righteous entertainers with overblown egos (as well as their HBO bosses) understand that at the end of the day they are nothing more than tiny bolts in a humongous, stock-market fueled, corporate machine,  i.e the Time Warner Inc. conglomerate, whose CEO makes $35 million annual salary.  And come to think of it, considering the content-driven business model of a premium cable network such as HBO, this could be just a ploy of exploiting Trump's trailblazing persona for the sake of  maximizing the big corporate daddy's profits and public stock values.  I mean, the media is flooded with Lena Dunham's face like never before; and, according to HBO's statement, John Oliver's Trump episode broke the network's social media viewership record with 23 million YouTube and 62 million Facebook views.  Isn't it amazing how Donald J. Trump's Midas touch works?  He even turns the shit thrown at him into gold.     

But you know what the scariest thing is?  It's how fascist the supporters of both the democratic candidates are!  They don't leave room for others' right to speak freely at all.  These people are militant.  One has to be really brave to declare her opposition to Hillary or Bernie in the liberal circles of New York and Hollywood.  I guarantee you, these liberals wouldn't even think twice before secretly blacklisting  such a daredevil.  And heroism is dead (okay, almost dead). And so, with the exception of a few, people hide their true beliefs and yield under the oppression of these bullshit-spewing fanatics.  

Diamond & Silk: Keeping the Common Sense Alive!

Yes, I am a pessimist; especially when it comes to my expectations of people's abilities and attitudes.  I am the one who talks about the majority's intellectual deterioration every chance I get.  So, on rare occasions when I learn of people who don't fall in with the immense mass of inept dumb-asses, I am overwhelmed with excitement. There are not too many of them, but they do exist!

According to Donald Trump, it was his wife Melania who spotted Diamond & Silk (aka Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson) on the Internet. It is truly a blessing when a busy person has someone in his or her life who can sieve through the unmanageable mess of various media.  More so, when it is someone who knows you well, i.e. your friends or family, not just some staffer who is probably too snobbish to look for interesting v-bloggers on YouTube.  (Once they get "close to politics," they stick mostly to mainstream pundits.)  

I am too a beneficiary of someone in my immediate circle who found Stump-for-Trump ladies, watched a bunch of their v-blog installments , got wowed, and shared the videos.  

And what can I say? Diamond & Silk are awesome!  My sisters in Common Sense!  Genuine, smart, quick-witted, they are capable of crystallizing lofty economic issues and obscure political agendas into essential nuggets of coherent information.  Their explanations are logical and their messages are transparent.  With their personable approach they appeal to people's practicality: "This is what it means to you!" could be their motto.  And they never lose their cool, no matter how unfair and sinister they get attacked.

This is what Bernie Sanders' campaign wishes their grassroots were: Not the confused, unclear about Bernie's politics and their own reality overgrown babies (of all ages), willing to sell their country's principles and their own souls in exchange for a place at the socialist's "free" tit; but sure-minded, grounded in reality adults armed with iron-clad logic and sound comprehension of political implications.  Bernie's supporters will say "yes" to free college and "no" to tax increases within the same questionnaire.  But you ask Diamond and Silk about "free" college and they will explain to you in great detail and with unbeatable precision how much you will end up paying for it with your own blood, sweat, and sorrow.

It would be a mistake to discount Diamond & Silk's impact as negligible (which I'm sure their opponents do).  These two women are very significant in the fight for citizens' minds we are witnessing.  They are contributing and Trump knows it.  That's why he doesn't hesitate to bring them onto the stage to stand next to him.  There is nothing more valuable in politics than campaigning that doesn't come from the campaign's HQ.  Civilian activism - it's priceless!  

I am sure that Diamond & Silk are celebrating their candidate's progress furthered this week with an amazing sweep.  And I am positive these true patriots will keep fighting for their convictions.  I wish them unyielding strength for the struggles ahead!           

US Perilous Ally Threatens the White House

There is definitely something terribly fragile about the state of our foreign affairs if I need to discuss our phony "allies" in two posts back-to-back.  This time, it's not some unnamed "friend" - it's Saudi Arabia or, as many journalists call it, one of the "most awkward" of US allies.  The reason I feel the need to talk about it is that the present tension between us and Saudi Arabia is a stark exhibit of how monetary stimuli affect the White House politics.  

But before I can address the current events, some cursory background is mandatory.  At the very least it is important to understand why we are allies with Saudis in the first place and what's so awkward about this relationship.

Ever since FDR (that Grand Master of uber-strenuous alliances) struck some sort of a secret deal with the Saudi ruler of the time King Abdulaziz in 1945, the resulting relationship has been teetering on three main financial whales:

1.  Saudi Arabia is the largest customer of the US weapon trade; no other nation buys as much military equipment and armament made in the US than that tiny country with population of 31 million.
2. 11% of American oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, with over 1 million barrels pumping in every day - second only to Canada and ahead of our next-door neighbors Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.
3. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the largest foreign investors into US market-trading assets, specifically government bonds and corporate stocks (more related numbers below).

As in many money-driven relationships, the partners in this one don't really see eye to eye when it comes to non-monetary issues, especially with respect to social and political values.  Hence, the awkwardness.  Our President can laugh all he wants, but for those who care it's painful to know that the White House calls the country famous for its obscurantist interpretation of Islam, medieval punishments, and the harshest treatment of women "our ally." On the other hand, Saudis are not happy with US Middle-Eastern policies, especially in Syria, Iran, and Israel.  In fact, the Saudi foreign minister has been quoted as saying, "It's a Muslim marriage, not a Catholic marriage."

That's actually remarkably aphoristic:  Catholic marriage is for life.  No divorces are permitted, so the union is truly "till death do us part."  On the other hand, according to Sharia (Islamic law), Muslim divorce process is reduced to a single announcement of a husband to his wife, "I divorce you" (the phrase and the short ritual are both called talaq).  That's it - he says it and she is out on the street; no legal or even religious authorities need to be involved.  Apparently Saudi Arabia feels that the United States of America is its Muslim wife.  As I said, clearly the relationship is precarious at best.  

Into this volatile drama enters the bipartisan bill that, if passed by the Congress, may allow victims of 09/11 to sue foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia.  When was the last time you've heard of a yet-unapproved legislation proposal becoming a big international news item?  Well this one did, as soon as it hit the congressional floor.  How important is this bill to the White House?  It is so important that, according to the New York Times (our last frontier of journalism with original sources), the Obama Administration has been lobbying against it for quite some time, trying to squash it before it even got to the approval stage.   Unable to stop the bill so far, Obama went this week to Saudi Arabia to talk it over with the King.  

The administration's cover story for the bill-bashing activities, formulated on the record by the President, is the concern that this will give other nations a reason to put in place similar regulations against the United States. Well, even though we don't create disasters like 09/11, we do meddle in other nations' existence from time to time.   So, it's a plausible worry.  Only I don't buy it.  Why is he not going to any other countries that may be impacted by the bill, just to Saudi Arabia?  Why the President himself and not the Secretary of State, for example? You know why -  C.R.E.A.M.!!!    

The very same New York Times has also reported that our "ally" has already announced to the White House their retaliation strategy.  Does it have anything to do with "we-shall-sue-you-back" laws?  Nah, not surprisingly it's economic: they threaten to sell off $750 billion of American assets.  Now, that's what I'm talking about!  Money!  It talks and makes US Presidents bounce this way and that way on their strings.

I find it absolutely preposterous that some "commentators" immediately started calming themselves down and speculating that Saudis don't even have that much of US bonds and stocks; or that they wouldn't extinguish a huge cache of investments just like that, because they would lose money, etc., etc.  They sound to me like a bunch of ignorant optimists who either don't understand the extent of Saudi wealth, or are hiding their heads in the sand out of fear, or both.  But I am not like that.  I'd rather look into the face of the most damning scenario.  I think that Saudis wouldn't hesitate to act on their threat.  I also think that they are probably as conservative as I am and value their investments at the lower of cost or market.  Therefore, this specific amount, $750 billion, is exactly what they can do without any problem; moreover, with gains.   

Now, let's see what this amount means to the United States.  First, there is the most obvious implication of the threat - the one that's on everyone's mind.  $750 billion is about 1.7% of the total value (as of 12/31/2015) of American publicly-traded stocks and treasury bonds combined.  That's a pretty significant share.  (Just to give you an idea of the number's magnitude: the market capitalization, i.e. the total value of all outstanding shares, of Apple, Inc. [#1 ranked American stock] is $600 billion.)  Dumping huge buckets of equity shares and bonds into the market will start an obvious chain reaction: The stock prices will start violently dropping and bonds' discounts (percentages below par) increasing.  This will push other investors, especially day traders, into a panic and they will join the sell-off in attempt to recover at least some of their money, intensifying the effect and driving the prices further and further down.  As the result, (a) the stock market will experience a deep adjustment and (b) the US Dollar will be seriously devalued.  This, in turn, will affect the global markets, the international trade, the costs of raw materials, the deficit, etc., etc.             

And assets divesture could be just a first step.  It may be followed by another economic blow - the cancellations of arms deals.  There are always Russians, you know, with their outdated garbage, but it looks pretty sinister.  If weapons sales seize abruptly, first the military sector will need a bailout and then we shall see a contraction of the entire industrial sector.  Therefore, it is not surprising that the White House is concerned - there is a definite possibility of talaq (see above) here.  I'm sure Obama went to Saudi Arabia to promise them that he would veto whatever rightful laws the Congress might pass.

There is another significance to this number, though.  It can give you an idea of who owns the US marketable securities (and keeps their values high).  As of 10/01/2015, $12.2 trillion of those assets belonged to foreign investors.  This breaks down into 43% (!) of total outstanding US government bonds ($6.2 trillion), and 20% of all outstanding equity shares ($6 billion).  Now, as I said, not only that I think Saudis own $750 billion of American assets, I am sure that this is just a portion of what they have.  It's just hard for me to believe that they would divest of the entire lot, no matter how angry they are.   For argument's sake let's say it's 50% of what they actually have.  That would mean that the kingdom holds 12% of the total foreign investments into the US markets.  Remarkable!  

Of course, all this politico-economic rat-scuffling is very fascinating, but so is the human paradox.  Just think about it.  There always have been plenty of speculations about Saudis complicity in 09/11 attacks, but nobody ever came out with solid proofs.  If they exist, they are buried well.  And honestly, considering how fickle everyone's attention is nowadays, nobody would dwell on their suspicions too long; if only Saudis kept their guilty asses in low profile, pretending that they have nothing to hide.  But no!  They had to go to the Bush administration with, "Please, please, get us out of here ASAP," resulting in all those sweeping-away-in-helicopters shenanigans.  Nobody will ever forget that!  And now, this scandalous reaction to the bill!  Doesn't it sound like an admission of guilt? Wouldn't it be cleverer to stick to the not-guilty plea?  I mean, even if there are law suits, a country like Saudi Arabia can buy the best legal defense in the world.  On the other hand, it could be a matter of arrogance.  They must feel incredibly secure not to worry about appearances.     

Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton's Foreign Supporters

I am not an ophthalmologist.  So, I cannot explain why people can't see for themselves.  Nor am I interested enough in so-called human factors to start analyzing what makes people so confused.  But I am a career financial executive with multiple academic degrees and 30 years experience in international business relations.  As such, I can shine some light onto the monetary lining of certain political matters.  (And yes, it's always about money!)    

We are several months away from 2016 presidential face-off and the outcome of the Republican primary is still uncertain, but Hillary has already started her anti-Trump balls rolling.  In March, she and another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright (he-Clinton's appointee), declared that U.S. allies abroad are "definitely worried" about the idea of Trump's potential presidency.

Here I feel obligated to remind the readers that Madeleine Albright keeps repeating on record that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” thus forcing upon you the idea of vagina sisterhood as the highest priority for women - more important than our survival, well-being, principles, and ideals.  This is just to underscore the speakers' vantage point.  But you've got to love the ambiguity of their statement worthy of true foreign-affairs foxes: Which allies are they talking about?  All of them or just a few?  A couple, or twenty, or none?  

In the absence of clarity, we can only speculate, but I sure hope they are all worried.  Because, unlike all those professional politicians in the running,  Donald J. Trump is not going to play nice and be concerned about our allies' opinions of him personally or of America's policies.  For Donald J. Trump, American interests come first.  And it's about time for someone to care more about us than about all the beneficiaries of IMF, the World Bank, WHO, UN (with all its agencies, funds, and sub-funds), NATO, and any other foreign support system that gets most of its financing from our personal pockets via career global manipulators in Washington, D.C.       

And let me tell you something about those possibly "worried" nations: Their governments may officially declare themselves US allies and they may act as friends of Hillary's, but people there hate Americans.  Let me repeat that: they hate us with passion.  Many writers, journalists, filmmakers, historians, social and political analysts, here and overseas, have touched on the issue of global anti-Americanism.  Most of them, including our own liberals, explain and justify even the most unfair hostility towards us by entire nations and groups.  A logical person should not even bother with all that emotional theoreticism.  All you need is to cross the border.  

Anyone who traveled abroad (even as close as Canada, let alone Europe and further) and actually interacted with random people - not polite business partners in their office environments or paid service providers on the beaten paths, but with people on the streets, in cafes, in bars - can tell you about their personal interface with unabashed anti-Americanism: the way people look at you, the things people mutter under their breath, small bits that slip out in conversations, and even open hostility.  Let alone the burning of an American flag I've witnessed on Trafalgar Square the last time I was going to the National Gallery in London.  The truth is, you don't even have to go outside of NYC: half of the taxi drivers here have BBC UK stations on.  Oh my God!  The shit that pours out of those radios!   

Why do they hate us, though?  A lot of official data sources (BBC LOVES those Americanophobia polls) concentrate on "US cultural influence," such as it is.  However, that would be the easiest thing to resolve, actually:  if you don't like American stuff, stop going to McDonald's and your movie theaters - if there is no demand, there will be no supply and no "influence".  But no, the fucking Russia with their 81% of anti-American sentiment (second largest in the world after Jordan) leaves and breathes American cinema and TV.  And China (71%), being the largest movie market in the world, is singlehandedly responsible for all the bombastic crap that comes out of Hollywood nowadays.  So, obviously, the supposed "influence" is not the reason for hatred.

What is, then?  Well, let's sing it together:  It's all about money!  The jealousy!  The primal coveting that the Judeo-Christian canons have been trying so hard to eradicate!  American wealth has always been a sore spot for our "friends" and enemies alike.  And I am not talking about super-rich either.  It's the small things: the fact that so many of us can afford more than our peers overseas; that at each level of income we have bigger houses, more technology, and more food; that many of us can travel to their countries, but they cannot afford to come here; that our gas and coffee is still cheaper; that our cereal boxes and cat-food cans are bigger; that we have dozens of ketchups and mustards in an average supermarket, etc., etc.  It's really primitive: "They've got more and we hate it!"        

Except that the reality is not some two-dimensional surface.  It is constructed on the principle of cause and effect.  There are fundamental reasons why we've got what we've got and they haven't.   And if I had to narrow it down to the most defining one, I'd say that it's all about the interpretation of Equality.  

In many countries our politicians call allies (and some even adore, e.g. Senator Sanders), Equality is misinterpreted as a socialistic notion of public uniformity, with everyone in the same lower middle-range of bare necessities, regardless of their personal merits - gifts, entrepreneurship, ambition, drive.  Whether you are a lousy or an extraordinary worker, your opportunities are "EQUAL," because you granted your government the responsibility for redistribution of wealth.  On the other hand, our Constitution treats Equality in terms of fairness.  It is defined as an opportunity to try your hardest and make the most of your own abilities.  And this difference makes their hatred of us unjustifiable.    

Yes, we keep losing a grip and sliding off our own foundation due to the government's meddling, overpopulation, pervasive nepotism, illegal immigration, useless liberal education, etc.  But the bedrock is there; the shreds of meritocracy can still be detected; and we can still do better than any of our foreign allies.  So, why would we care about them?  

Trump obviously doesn't, but Hillary, on the other hand, must care!  Why?  Yet again, money.  She needs them and she works hard to get them wherever she can.  Just in the past few months Clinton has held 13 foreign fundraisers, including in London, Durban (South Africa), Munich, and Mexico City.  Yes, the capital of Mexico, which illegally exports their devastated citizens through the US border.  Apparently, it is much cheaper for Mexico to pay off Democratic presidential candidates than to create jobs.  Hmm, that's a thought!  I wonder who we can bribe to get rid of hipsters?

But seriously, who do I trust more?  Someone who is 100% financially and ideologically independent and is hell-bent on making our country prosperous again?  Or someone on the take from pretty much everyone and with the greatest concern for her own political status?  For me the answer is obvious.  But then again, unlike most of Hillary's supporters, I'm not the kind of person who would base her political allegiance purely on gender either.  Yes, I'm all about "girl power," but I am not biased in any way!  It appears that Ms. Clinton and I have the same physical attributes in the same places.  But so what?  The body parts is not how I evaluate humans.  What's in her mind, in her heart, and in her soul is far more important to me, and it doesn't seem that we have too much in common in those departments.

Well, as long as we are on the topic of feminism, let me share the information that really rubs me the wrong way:  It is a matter of public record that Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted money from King of Saudi Arabia (at least $10 million); King of Morocco ($1 million), and King of Oman ($1 million).  How about these feminist countries where, at the very least, women must hide their hair under a scarf?  Do I need to remind my readers that it is illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia?  Are all those vagina sisters of Hillary okay with this?

Coincidentally, the other day one of my attorneys was trying to convince me that you cannot blame fundraisers for unscrupulously raising funds wherever they can.  Just because Hillary takes money from whoever, he said, it doesn't mean that she will reciprocate with any favors.  This lawyer, being a Philadelphia man himself, was using Bill Cosby's example to illustrate his argument.  Why should Temple University, for example, even consider returning the money donated to them by the legally entangled comedian?  The money was given in good faith and there are no strings attached, he asserted.

Except, there are strings.  Strings are always attached to money.  Obviously, my attorney friend is being very naive.  Let's follow his example.  If such situation arose, do you think for a second that Temple University would refuse to accept one of Cosby's kids or grandkids as their student, regardless of their GPA's and SAT scores? It is a well-known fact that parents' donations ($200,000 - $5,000,000) buy kids' ways into exclusive prep schools and Ivy League universities.  And if you think that a valuable donor cannot suggest a grant candidate to the Research Allocation Committee, you don't know how this world works.      

And that's educational institutions - that's all they can give in return for the money.  Imagine what can be requested from the President of the United States! And don't doubt it for a second: when the donors come knocking on the door, Hillary will have no choice but to open it.  Because if you refuse, there will be no more fundraising in the future - not for her, nor for anybody else.  These are not alms, these are advances on political favors with global impact.  That's how the system works.  And she is no Trump.  She is a part of the machine and she will not rise against it.  

But forget all that political bullshit!  This whole issue of Trump-worried allies is far more personal than Hillary's donations.  Let's look inside our wallets, at our bank accounts, retirement funds, our very own economic well being; and with that in mind, ask yourself, America, do you want to be on good terms with some broke-ass foreigners, or do you want to rattle everyone's cage by having once again more personal wealth than your counterparts anywhere in the world?           

Photo Quote of the Week: The Millennial Conundrum

© 2016 Original by YAC. All rights reserved.