The Frustrated CFO

The Problem of the Brain

Funny how things happen sometimes... Lately, I've been brightening my time on the walking pad (wonderful, but incredibly boring exercise) by re-watching movies from my fairly extensive DVD collection. Every day... I'm not even choosing them - just going in the order my collection is organized: European arthouse, American Classics, American arthouse, etc. And so, believe it or not, on the very day I popped in John Cassavetes's "Gloria" (1980), starring his wife Gena Rowlands, their son Nick Cassavetes publicly announced that Ms. Rowlands (now 94) has been living with Alzheimer's disease for the past five years... Heartbreaking...

We hear a lot of that lately, don't we? More and more people live well into their 90s nowadays: Mel Brooks is 97, William Shatner - 94, Lee Grant - 98, Clint Eastwood - 94, Jimmy Carter is an astonishing 99... And it's not just celebrities. From Scarsdale to Hong Kong, I know people who lived to see their great-great-grandchildren born... Some of them keep their wits about them just fine, but quite a few fall victims to the age-driven degenerative tendencies of the neurons in the human brains; the ones that force the elderly to develop various conditions leading to dementia... Just like poor Gena Rowlands...

Do you ever think about the reasons behind this trend? I do. In fact, I'm so paranoid about the conditions of people's brains, I've been thinking about this since I was in my 30s. And the way I see it, one of the main underlying causes is the profound disparity between the advances in cardiology vs. neuroscience.

Nowadays, people get their heart valves repaired and replaced, their damaged and destroyed arteries bypassed in triple and quadruple ways, their entire dying hearts transplanted straight into the medical waste and exchanged for the healthy ones obtained off of some unfortunate (but robust, nevertheless) recently departed individual. And all these marvelous procedures end up regenerating cardiovascular wellbeing,  rejuvenating the throbbing engines by decades... 80 and 90-year-olds run around with tickers as vigorous as those of the well-fit 50-year-old youngsters.

On the other hand, the Brains... I don't think they can 3D-print them even in the most secretive of all evil laboratories in the world. (To the best of my knowledge and research, you know.) And so, very frequently these healthy hearts end up beating for people who can't recognize their children, can't take care of their basic needs, have no clue  who and where they are. Did you know that people may live with Alzheimer's for as long as 25 years? It's been 5 years for Gena Rowlands, but poor Joanne Woodward, now also 1994, has been living with that diagnosis since 2007. 

For me personally (and I absolutely mean it): I would not want anything working properly in my body, let alone having a heart capacity to last for any extra number of years, if I couldn't know my daughter sitting in front of me. Fuck that shit! And I was seriously concerned when ten years ago my father, then turning 80, was going for his second stent placement... But his memory and mental faculties were above par for his age and nobody even asked me to contribute my opinion... He was desperate to get rid of the pain in his chest and the shortness of breathe... And I felt terrible even having those thoughts in my head... 

Thankfully, I knew that I weren't alone and that there were other people who also came to experience such concerns - and not just on a speculatively statistical level, but in a very tangible, first-hand way: Two years prior, in May of 2012, I've read Michael Wolff's cover article he wrote for New York Magazine: A Life Worth Ending - an incredibly intimate account of his and his siblings' journey through the ordeal of caring for their mother whose heart, through prior surgical intervention, was much younger than her brain. Granted, the article was focused on the healthcare costs associated with such parental conundrum as well as already familiar to me by then subject of Long-Term Care insurance policies... Still, Mr. Wolff's is a master of narrative nonfiction and his account of this familial ordeal was deeply emotional and relatable.     

I am a very private person who rarely shares (or even communicates - to be honest) with other people. And so that article was basically the first confirmation to me that I weren't crazy or sinister to be thinking about these matters. That there were other people who agreed that we should be acutely guarded against all those frivolous heart repairs for elderly. That it would be not just prudent, but ultimately humane to be considerate of the possibility that these surgeries may destroy, not improve, the quality of their future lives - if the dementia comes knocking. 

Universally speaking - I would even say, on the politic0-scientific scale of the matter - we can move in two directions towards a kinder, more reasonable, and, in the long run, beneficial for everyone concerned resolution of this, unfortunately very frequently occurring, predicament.

On one hand, we can attempt to make it compulsory for cardiologists to be more responsible when it comes to recommending surgical interventions for people over certain age and more holistic in their patient care with consideration of conditions beyond their direct specialties. Even more important, we (the elderly and their caretakers as the unified interest group) can insist on being provided with the full disclosure regarding the scope of future possibilities, including the one of the longer life marred by mental incapacity.

But here we have finally arrived at the fiscal side of the issue at hand. (I hope you didn't really think I've forgotten about it.) The cardiovascular mending is the biggest cash cow of the medical industrial complex. Heart conditions are #1 most expensive group of chronic diseases. It's literally impossible nowadays to find a relatively recent statistics on anything, but in 2016 adult cardiovascular spending came to a sweet little sum of $320 billion! Of which 54% was covered by public insurance, i.e. Medicaid and Medicare, and 37% by private insurance. That's 91%, or $291 billion of automatically collectable funds. It's hard to imagine the hospital systems, particularly their boards and  investors, giving up any portion of that income - humaneness be damned!  

Yet, there is an alternative route of action: to finally start bearing down on this stumbling block of the aging Brain and attempt to, at the very least, match its longitivtiy of the repaired hearts. And I'm not talking about some sci-fi scenarios here either. Researchers working in the stem-cells limitless field of opportunities already made significant inroads into the possibilities of treating a broad spectrum of neurological conditions, including the ones leading to dementia.

Unfortunately, this area of science is suffering from the - really unimaginable in our "enlightened" times - plaque of "ethical" debates, particularly around the matters of embryonic stem cells. And it is an undeniable reality that entirely baseless, anti-scientific, purely political positions still prevail, thus influencing the legal landscape around the matter; slowing down - instead of spearheading - the advancement towards the younger brains. And, just like with the reproductive rights, the antis here are preoccupied with the status of embryos.    

Actually, whether it deals with embryos or not, officially stem cell research is legal in the United States. However, it's subject to state-specific laws and federal funding restrictions. And even the embryonic stem cell research is not technically illegal. But! The federal funding (the source responsible for over 50% of all American academic R&D) is categorically prohibited for both the creation of new embryos - reproductive (remember Dolly?) or therapeutic (the creation of stem cells entirely independent of the fertilized eggs) alike - as well as for the distraction of embryos. The latter is especially significant as it includes the process of obtaining stem cells from the existing human embryos - unused and donated by their creators through the fertility banks. In other words, as it frequently happens with our government, everything is dumped into the same suppressive bucket, regardless of the source and purpose.

Believe you me: I'm as much in opposition of the reproductive cloning as the most reactionary conservatives from the heart of Arkansas. I mean, let's leave the  artificial creation of multiple identical offsprings in the realms of science fiction. Nobody is that special and we truly already have too many people on this planet. And cloned sustenance - no, thank you!

But the therapeutic cloning with hopes to eliminate dementia?! What's wrong with that? Why do these strange people keep caring more about never to be born embryos than about the living, breathing, and suffering humans. Many of them quite accomplished individuals. Please, let the scientist use those donated bits of cells! Please, give them grants to hurry this shit up! Aren't you afraid that these terrible neurological tragedies may befall you?           

And it's so fiscally nearsighted too! Cause imagine the billing volume that can be generated by curative methodologies directed at not just dementia, but also paralysis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's decease... Leukemia, lymphoma, neuroblastoma... Etc., etc., etc. - virtually no limitation to the scope of the applications. Including the heart failure!

But I guess, on the Capitol Hill religious lobbying trumps even HMO lobbying... And so, we remain stuck between the cardiologists who can make you ticking like a fucking clock for decades and the helpless neurologists absolutely unequipped to deal with the sad state of the Brains.        

 

 

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.                 

On Columbia Campus or NYS Prison Camp, Antisemitism Is Inescapable: "I Built This Prison" Memoir Excerpt

© Marina Zosya, My Personal Nazi Brigade - Self-portrait in Mise-en-scene, ACF, 2019

Over and over again, I am consistently stunned by the political blindness of hate. It's incomprehensible to me. How can people loathe all Catholics because they still worship the papal Christianity or all arabs because of 9/11 and ISIS? Or how pro-Palestinian convictions automatically translate into hostile animosity  towards all Jews dispersed throughout the globe - many of whom are not religious whatsoever, have never been and don't plan to go to Israel, and some (especially here, in the States) don't even understand what the conflict over there is all about? Aren't the haters at all concerned that their blanket enmity completely obscures the essential meaning of their political standpoints? Shouldn't they be more focused and direct their efforts against the forces behind the territorial and largely economic conflicts? What can possibly be achieved by inciting violence against the students and the teaching staff of an educational institution 5700 miles away from the epicenter of the military actions? It's truly bizarre!

On the other hand, I'm quite accustomed to the pervasive, persistent, and profuse plain-ass antisemitism no matter how many political, nationalistic, self-righteous, and morally confused shrouds anyone throws over it. Look, I was born in the most antisemitic country in the world - Soviet Russia, with its pre- and post-revolutionary history of oppressing my relatives and ancestors going back centuries.  Thus, as the Soviet Jew I was raised to believe that antisemitism is simply written into the genetic code (my mother was among the first generation of Soviet physiology students to be taught genetics at universities in the 50s) of every non-Jew and there is nothing we can do about it: Whether openly or secretly, and with some even subconsciously, goyim will despise you. Live with that. Period.

And when I escaped Russia, the Soviet Union, though on its last legs, was still live and kicking, the communists were still in power (many of them still are - lightly disguised), and anti-Jewish state policies were still as prominent as the nationalistic hatred of the Russian populace. But, of course, decades of the subsequent NYC living... It lulls you with its ethnic diversity, and religious freedoms, and Jewish mayors, and Philip Roth, and Woody Allen, and Kubrick, and the overwhelming popularity of Seinfeld and Friends, and everybody eating lox on their bagels... And you (I mean me), a cultural non-observant Jew, start feeling... Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say "free of the ethnic bias", but you definitely push to the back of your Jewish kop the teachings of your grandparents - that if you ever forget that you are a Jew, there will be an antisemite nearby to remind you.

Of course, Ivy League schools, even those - like Columbia University - located in Manhattan, are nothing like NYC. Their student bodies, professorial staff, and administrations consist mostly of transient people from all over the world. Not just all fifty states of our own nation - most of them not nearly as diverse as our city, but from the foreign countries with their own socio-economic backgrounds as well. These people are here not because they belong, but because it's good for their resumes - if I had to generalize. So, it shouldn't be surprising at all that these educational institutions are prone to become fertile grounds for antisemitic protests.

And apparently the ones at Columbia earlier this week got so threatening, Jewish religious leaders urged students to STAY HOME (!!!) Here, IN NEW YORK CITY! And the university's administration (as well as the law enforcement - let's be honest) are so powerless in the face of these protests, the solution they offered is online classes! This is Columbia we're talking about!

I don't even know, though, why I'm so shocked. I mean, I've already got exposed in the fairly recent past to similar displays of open antisemitism and the passivity by "the powers that be". Because, guess what? The New York State prison system is even further removed from NYC than the hodgepodge of Columbia campus. It's staffed entirely with ethnically and culturally isolated upstate prison guards; and among the inmate population, there are plenty of multigenerational neo-Nazis - proud to display their various tattooed insignia and the compatible attitudes - as well as intellectually confused people.

From "I Built This Prison", Part III - Impressions of Imprisonment, •The Jewish Things•:

"...In Albion... I’ve got exposed to antisemitism of all stripes and colors - the white-bred upstate xenophobia, the ignorant multi-racial criminal-element loathing, the semi-religious misconfusion, and the pure Aryan “pride”.    

Funny, how some naïve individuals sometimes ask how Russians always knew that I was a Jew without even checking my official documents. Well, my Albion experience has proved all over again that Russian, German, American, or of any other origin - an anti-Semite always knows. By simply looking at you. Even though you are secular and wear no other ethnic attributes than your own face.      

***

I just couldn’t get used to this shit all over again. Even two years in, it was still hurting.

On the way from OMH meds, Sherri Ellis called me “old stinking Jew”, because she thought I looked at her funny. On previous occasions she called me a “nasty Jew” – she was definitely escalating. Oh, she kept her antisemitism in check when she asked for my help with her ASAT reinstatement after being kicked out for dirty urine. Now, this. Nobody had used that specific slur on me since the Soviet Union. And there was nothing I could do about it – not even talk back to her violent mug: if she lunged at me, both of us would’ve been sent to SHU.

            Heather Mims was walking next to me. She was shocked: “What are you doing being Jewish?” was her question. That was easy to brush off, actually. She knew me for two years and didn’t realize I was Jewish. Hers was the antisemitism of geographical isolation not of consciousness. She was from a tiny village on the Canadian border.

            I was more offended by Trish D: “I despise you because you are a Jew,” out of nowhere she spewed at me from across the messhall table. I was lost for words and I couldn’t just leave before a CO’s release… But several women at that table instantaneously joined forces in berating Trish for her unacceptable racism and un-Christian hatred. I felt as if a row of warriors was shielding me from the enemy. 

***

            Yet, most of the time you are unprotected, alone…

            Did you know that not all Nazis that fled Germany at the end of WWII and escaped the justice, ended up in Latin America? Thousands of them were accepted in the United States and many ended up in upstate New York.       

In prison, I’ve discovered that a chunk of their offspring constitutes a sizable part of our state’s neo-Nazism movement: children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Quite a few of them wore the guards’ uniforms, far more – the state’s greens. Some with no other signs of the fascist distinction but their openly hateful attitude. Others - walking around with the swastikas, SS bolts, 88 (numerical code for HH – heil Hitler), 4/20 (Hitler’s birthday), etc. tattooed on their necks, chests, and arms…

But twenty-something Amanda in the fourth of my Albion’s residences had a huge flower arrangement on the back of her neck. She was tiny, very blond, cutely pixyish, terribly flirty – especially with young white officers. A very sociable kid, friendly with everyone. A cleanliness freak and a cleaning ace. She bore a tongue-breaking last name that started with W, which, together with her partiality towards German rock bands, left no doubt of her descent. She chirped at me and offered to do my chores for cigarettes. She lived in a row of cubicles that shared back walls with my row, two cubicles down.

You were not really allowed to wonder around the dorm and cube-visiting was strictly prohibited. But if you needed to get something from somebody and you asked for permission to do so, depending on the CO, you might’ve been granted a 2-3 minutes trip to someone else’s cubicle. My cooking time-slot was coming up and I needed to retrieve my Mrs. Dash from somebody who lived next to little Amanda.  

As I was passing her entryway, my sideview caught something on her board that froze me on the spot. The picture was affixed right in the center - a cutout from some cheap-paper publication, an old black-and-white photographic portrait of SS Oberstumbannführer Adolf Eichmann – the architect of the Holocaust. The man who proposed that exterminating every Jewish child and adult would solve all German problems and then proceeded to manage the logistics of the mass slaughter.

She was in her cube, cleaning. I stepped in, “Why do you have this photo?”

“Do you know who he is?!” she exclaimed. Not in the way that she couldn’t believe that I recognized him, but in excited, starry-eyed, groupie way. “I’m obsessed with him… Do you want to see my books?” She started pulling hardcovers from her locker and shoving them at me one after another. Half of them were in German. I saw ‘Mein Kampf’ and something with the word “Aryan” on the cover… and then I stopped looking… She was chattering something about her dear great-grandfather, but I stopped listening… I walked out. I was nauseous…"

To continue: p. 428 

       

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 #2

Two blond lawyers wearing Mao suits walk into a bar.

"Look at those hussies frolicking in their despicable sexy dresses," says the younger one.

"Don't worry," replies the senior, "I'll text my Saudi and Omani pals to come over.  They'll cover those floozies from head to toe in a blink of an eye."

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"    

The Struggle Is Real for Employers As Millennials Enter the Workforce with Their Own Value System

Like many hiring execs, I still have an employer account with Monster.com, even though the time when they dominated the job-hunting market has passed.  Nowadays, they are not even at the top of the industry leaders list.  Still, we got used to them in the 17 years they've been around.  And they do try their best to provide the paying clients with value-added bells and whistles beyond the standard ad posting:  resume matching, database searching, description writing, HR Resource Center, and whatnot.  

One of these add-ons is the email service that blasts recruitment articles to all registered users.  I usually ignore these emails, but the last one had an article with an enticing title The Real Reason Millennials are Leaving Your Company.  

The first thing that caught my eye was the singular "Reason."  I thought, "The author was able to identify a single, most fundamental cause of what appears to be a case of chronic pins and needles in the millennial butts?  That's remarkable!"

I got even more curious reading the logline.  It talked about an abundance of options, "a plethora of jobs" that allow millennials to be "super selective" in their career choices.  Moreover, it promised expert advice to employers on how to keep the "valuable millennials" in the work seats.  I was like: This must be one of those sci-fi imagine-if humorous thingies, because these statements, if not drenched in undiluted sarcasm, can only refer to some remote planet in an unknown universe.  Here on Earth, right now, most of the millennials you and I know are either unemployed, or work jobs that have nothing to do with their chosen professions (let alone vocations), or stretch their schooling to avoid facing the bleakness of the job market.  I mean, there are premium cable shows and broadcast sitcoms about it.   

And, "valuable millennials?"  Yes, they exist, in small numbers and tiny clusters, and you ought to be very lucky to have them around.  But generally speaking: the state of our arts and entertainment is a testimony of young people's value and their values.  And when it comes to hiring, you need to go through 800 entry-level resumes to find 3 candidates who can write a coherent sentence, even though (I'm talking to you, senator Sanders!), all of the applicants have college degrees.     

Opening the article immediately dispelled all enthusiasm.  Firstly, no pinnacle reasoning was crystallized.  The piece was divided into subsections addressing different causes for millennials' job mobility.  Since the author is not a Canadian afflicted by the national inability to pluralize words, I can only attribute the use of the single form in the title to writing and editing sloppiness.  And, of course, there was not a single whiff of alien or any other humor.

In fact, the self-branded Talent Maximizer® Roberta Matuson, who wrote the article, takes herself and her "advisory" role very seriously.  In complete solemnity she lists the following as the reasons why the millennials don't want to hold on to their jobs (with my commentaries):

• Millennials want to work for companies that help to improve society.  Ms. Matuson suggests that those employers who want to retain Millennial workers should "take a closer look at the organizational purpose," assess how the company's mission impacts society, and redefine its purpose.

To paraphrase Woody Allen, "What's wrong with this?  Everything!" 

First of all, what does the lame formula "improved society" mean?  What's a "better society" for one person, is hell for another.  The massive support of Bernie Sanders by young voters clearly shows that they want to live in a welfare state.  I, on the other hand, have been preaching no government interference and market economy my whole life.  I would understand if the focus was more specific - let's say on environmental issues.  If employees of different ages boycotted the fracking industry, for example, our society would seriously benefit in the long run.  But I doubt we are talking about future impact here.  I'm pretty sure that if the fracking industry started providing free daily lunches to local people, the millennials would think of them as employers with a positive mission!  Never mind the explosions and the fiery faucets.

And what happened to the old-fashioned purpose of being profitable, staying in business, and continuously providing jobs?  It's not good enough?  Do all millennials want to work for non-profits spending grants, or public companies depleting investors' pension and college funds?

• Millennials need constant external motivation: nurture, praise, repeat.  A shout-out here, a lunch with a boss there, or an invite to an off-site event, Ms. Matuson suggests, will help to demonstrate that the employers care.  Otherwise, the millennials will leave, because "the recession is over."  

Well, this is not the first time I am confronted with the suggestion that what I call "hugging motivation" is more important to younger people than fairness, objectivity, professional growth, adequate compensation, etc.  Don't get me wrong, the acknowledgement of one's achievement is incredibly important, but only if it's deserved.   Constantly patting on the back some unimpressive, low-value jackass out of fear that they will leave - that would be a betrayal of my work ethics and a violation of my fiduciary duty as a CFO.  Merit-based rewards, people!  That's what made America great in the first place and that's what will bring the greatness back! 

And here she goes again with the sci-fi twist: the recession is over!  Where?  In Alpha Centauri?  Oh, wait - on the front page of The Wall Street Journal and in government reports.   In real life, we are in the permanently recessive stage of economic decline with no prospects for upward turn.  This slow sliding may feel to the uninitiated as a flat plateau, but just you wait - we are bound to experience some dramatic crashes as well.

• (Brace yourself for this one, cause contrary to the previous statement:) Compensation is important to millennials, especially if they have student loans.  "If you don't pay the millennial whatever he or she thinks they are worth," they will leave.

So, no matter how much you praise them, and hug them, and take them to lunch, the old-school paycheck still matters! Except there is nothing old-school about it either.  Back in the day, wages were determined by clear and tangible factors: the sophistication of the job, the level of expertise, the scarcity of QUALIFIED professionals on the market.  But apparently it doesn't work like that with the generation of people who were born after The Breakfast Club and Back to the Future came out.  The key to their adequate compensation is their own self-worth.  We must pay them whatever they think we must pay them.  And don't forget, the employers need to account for the student loans!  Essentially the implication is that we have to pay them what they NEED and not what they earn.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" maybe sounds right to Sanders's supporters, but it is not the principle that lies in the American foundation.  You know whose principle that is?  Marxists-communists!

• Millennials require work-life balance.  

Just the millennials?  Is that what the article's author actually believes?  That millennials should be treated preferentially when it comes to working hours, paid time-off, etc.?  That there should be two different HR policies in every company, one for millennials and another for the rest of us chickens?  That's age-based discrimination, isn't it?   

I've always believed in the importance of work-life balance and regularly wrestle with the owners to ensure that every employee has access to the same set of benefits and perks.  And what my experience shows is that the millennials take the full advantage of these packages like no one else; sometimes to the point of abuse.  90% run out of the office the minute the clock strikes the official end time, no matter what's happening with the work.  Many don't even spare a few seconds to shut down their computers (yet all of them fancy themselves "environmentalists").  Just last year, I had a millennial employee who was out for 15 working days in the 5 months I tolerated her bullshit.  I've never had to deal with that kind of attitude before the millennials entered the workforce.         

The truth is that you don't need to be an HR expert to formulate your ideas about the reasons behind the millennials' prevalent job discontent.  Any experienced manager with a keen eye and some human insight can draw up a comprehensive list.  And here is mine (in no particular order):

1.  Many millennials, especially liberal arts majors, have a hard time defining their purpose and developing a sense of belonging at a job.  This is primarily because they go to college to learn... nothing.  I'm not even talking about slacking and partying.  There are so many narrow-niche bullshit "liberal arts" degrees out there, most bachelor graduates acquire no practical knowledge.  And it makes thinking of a career path very difficult.
2. Much scarier, they are not equipped with any basic learning skills.  They can neither study on their own, nor operate with minimal supervision.  Not able to absorb new knowledge, they feel like failures and will eventually leave for an "easier" job.
3. Turns out that the damned phone is a millennial Achilles heel.  The millennials are so used to texting, tweeting, and posting, 85% of them are afraid of talking on the phone.  When confronted with a job that entails constant voice-to-voice interactions, which are a plenty,  they opt to quit.
4. Aside from athletes and health freaks, young people nowadays live incredibly passive lives.  Some people say that the abundance of streaming content is to blame, but we all know that way before YouTube (2005) and  Netflix's streaming (2008), young people were already glued to their computers and game consoles.  Thus, they suffer terribly on the jobs that require them to be out of the office most of the time - selling, pitching, servicing, etc.  According to some HR professionals, this is one of the millennials' biggest complains.    
5. The bulk of this generation grew up with no discipline or structure, both at home and at school.  While being a non-conformist is an invaluable quality when it comes to independent thinking and artistic expression, in a survival-driven business environment the lack of self-control, inability to follow rules of conduct, and disregard for subordination can make one's life pretty unbearable. 
6. They want to be hugged and cuddled all the time.  Many of them crumble under pressure and cannot deal with reprimands.
7. I know it sounds like a cliche at this point, but it is true - they do want trophies just for showing up, because that's what they are used to.  As a result, they develop a clinical deficiency of self-motivation for achieving merit-based recognition.  They shy away from competitive environments where hard work and achievement translates into tangible rewards of raises, bonuses, and promotions.
8. Celebrity-saturated social media made the majority of millennials into unsettled zombies who are preoccupied with fantasies of becoming instantaneously rich and famous.  I guarantee that the star-struck ones will continue moving from one job to another, feeling extremely discontent.   
9. The majority of the millennials are not prepared to be self-reliant.  The livelihood of many a chronic quitter usually doesn't depend on their own paychecks; they expect to be continuously supported by their parents.  
10. And some young people, just like in every generation before them, are restless because they want to be adventurers; they are afraid that Life will pass them by.  The boring job can wait; while they pursue their dreams.  And, of course, sadly, most of them are confused, and don't know what they want, and don't have any ideas, or talents, or clues.  But let me tell you: that is the only good reason to quit your job (assuming you can afford it).  All the others are just weaknesses and incompetence.           

 

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.  

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.