On the Passing of Jonathan Clements

I suspect that all who read these notes have been approached at some time or other – and likely multiple times – by persons or organizations wishing to serve as their financial advisors. I have invariably responded to these inquires over the years with the reply, “I already have the two best financial advisors one could ask for – John Bogle and Warren Buffett.”

We’ll get to how Mr. Buffett figures into our personal financial equation at the end of this note; the late Mr. Bogle, less well known to the American public, founded Vanguard, was perhaps the first advocate of index investing and certainly the most influential: the premise that if one believed that American Business, taken as a whole, would succeed over the long run, the results of low-cost index funds that tracked the financial markets’ performance would over time exceed the performance of virtually all managers of actively traded mutual funds and financial advisors. (Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index Fund remains the organization’s flagship fund.)

Messrs. Bogle and Buffett weren’t our original financial advisors. Around 1990, feeling out of our depth and aware that we needed to begin investing, we employed a financial advisor recommended to us by friends. However, by 1995, I had decided that although our advisor certainly wished us to prosper, he was necessarily seeking to serve two masters – his financial services organization [which offered actively-managed mutual funds with front-end loads (sales charges)] and us. [Many of us will recall the Lord’s observation that no one can serve two masters (Matt 6:24), although He was admittedly speaking in a somewhat different context. 😉] I decided to take the time to learn the barebones of the investment field so I could better assess our advisor’s performance. Once I started concentrating on it, the overwhelmingly most practical and understandable advice I received in those formative years was provided by Wall Street Journal Personal Finance Columnist Jonathan Clements. For years I kept a notebook filled with Mr. Clements’ late 1990s “Getting Going” columns. It was through his reporting that I became acquainted with the efforts and theories of Mr. Bogle. In pieces that ran during the years I was most actively developing my investment notions, Mr. Clements cited statistics demonstrating that Mr. Bogle’s theories were correct: (1) active fund managers’ and active individual investors’ costs were consistently significantly higher than index funds while at the same time they consistently trailed the index funds’ performance; and (2) that if one was willing to devote the effort, one could effectively “do it yourself” through a big fund house like Vanguard (Vanguard was not the only option), which provided excellent service, indexing acumen, and a wide variety of no-load, low-operating cost index funds. Mr. Clements also noted data that refuted active fund managers’ claim that their efforts better mitigated losses in “down markets” than index funds. He preached (this, again, was the 1990s) that medical statistics were beginning to indicate that one should plan on living longer than retirement analysts were then projecting and that one should spend, if not sparingly, at least not profligately – and invest the savings.

I was hooked. Here was a simple approach, apparently statistically sound, that an untutored guy like me could use to seek financial security over the long run while keeping his costs down: embracing the notion that one would never “win big” in the market by picking an individual stock like Amazon but, if one believed in the long term success of American Business, facilitate reasonable financial growth while hopefully limiting the chances of “losing big” by spreading one’s risk over hundreds or thousands of stocks. It is an approach that we have generally maintained over the last three decades – through the “Dot.Com Bust,” the Great Recession, and the brief but precipitous COVID crash — while in the initial years gently weaning ourselves from our advisor and the actively-managed funds in which we had been invested.

Sadly, Mr. Clements himself didn’t get the long life he advised his readers to plan for. He died of cancer on September 21^st at the age of 62. (When reading his columns, I intuitively sensed he was a young man, but didn’t realize that he was then in his early 30s, a full decade younger than we were.) Because of the impact he had on our financial life, I felt a true pang at his passing, and consider it appropriate to mark it in these pages.

So where does Mr. Buffett come in? He was a close friend of Mr. Bogle’s and is, of course, the world’s most accomplished and acclaimed investor – whom I am sure Mr. Bogle would have acknowledged was the exception to Mr. Bogle’s rule. (If there was an unstated core to Messrs. Bogle’s and Clements’ advice, it was: “There is only one Warren Buffett, and you ain’t him.”) Even so, in his 2014 letter to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Mr. Buffett, given his record and renown, provided perhaps the best endorsement for the approach espoused by Messrs. Bogle and Clements, I suspect then sending shockwaves through the financial advising community:

“If wise, [most investors] will conclude that they do not know enough about specific businesses to predict their future earning power. I have good news for these non-professionals. … [Their] goal … should not be to pick winners – neither [the individual investor] nor his helpers can do that – but should rather be to own a cross-section of businesses that in aggregate are bound to do well. A low-cost S&P 500 index fund will achieve this goal. … [B]oth individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. … So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm. My money, I should add, is where my mouth is: What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. … My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe that the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors – whether pension funds, institutions or individuals – who employ high-fee managers.”

Many of those who follow these pages are either in or close to retirement, and their investment approaches are probably already pretty well cast. However, for those at the beginning or middle of their careers, I recommend buying one of Mr. Clements’ books and absorbing his insights. (Since I read Mr. Clements “real time,” I never bought any of his books; in a recent quick internet search, I did note one title, The Best of Jonathan Clements, that I might first consider if intending to buy one of his volumes.) Even if one is more comfortable maintaining a relationship with a financial advisor, Mr. Clements’ notions might offer you another perspective that will better enable you to assess your financial advisor’s approach and performance.

In reflecting on Mr. Clements’ passing, I have come to realize that my laconic response to financial advisors’ inquiries over the years has been grossly derelict. When I am next approached by a financial organization or advisor seeking to provide me with investment advice (“when,” not “if,” I am approached – such organizations and advisors are ubiquitous), I will and forever after amend my response to indicate that I already have the best advisors that anyone could ask for: John Bogle, Warren Buffett … and Jonathan Clements.

Congratulations to the Brewers

Although their pace slowed a bit in the last month of the season, as all who care are aware, the Milwaukee Brewers managed to maintain the top seed in this year’s National League playoff structure with the best record in Major League Baseball. A little later today, they host the Chicago Cubs in the first game of the second round of the National League playoffs. Preoccupied with the toxic state of our political environment, I haven’t seen an inning of Brewer baseball this season. Since old baseball fans are as superstitious as old baseball players, I don’t intend to start watching now. I venture no opinion as to how they’ll fare against superstar-laden, heavy-payrolled clubs in the playoffs. That said – and being well aware that more than a few diehard Cub fans read these notes – I think every baseball fan can agree that given its relatively limited resources, the Brewers’ performance this year has been mighty impressive. I don’t expect to add anything further here about Milwaukee’s fortunes unless the Brewers reach the World Series, and I will find it completely charming if they do. (But then I certainly won’t watch 😊).

Go Crew.

On a Prospective Government Shutdown; the Comey Indictment

As all who care are aware, the federal government will shut down on October 1 unless Congress passes the appropriate funding measures. The first time the government faced such a deadline during President Donald Trump’s second term, a sufficient number of Democratic Senators, led by Senate Minority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer – to the extreme irritation of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — supported Republican, Administration-supported measures to keep the government open. (I agreed with Sen. Schumer.) Now, understandably even further inflamed by Administration policies that are increasingly autocratic and clearly favor the interests of the well-to-do over the impoverished, and frustrated with their own glaring political impotence, many on the left are urging that unless the Administration provides certain concessions to Democrats (which I understand primarily involve ensuring against the loss or maintaining the continued affordability of health care for millions of Americans of lesser means), Senate Democrats should withhold the votes needed to continue to fund the government, thus forcing a shutdown.

All who read any of these notes are well aware that I am appalled by the Administration’s priorities and terrified by the direction our country is heading. While I acknowledge that Democrats’ choice has moral as well as policy dimensions, I nevertheless submit that causing a government stoppage would be an egregious political blunder for Democrats. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the next time that Americans ultimately blame a government shutdown on the party in power … will be the first time. In these sorts of conflicts, the MAGAs have proven to be as savvy as they are ruthless. They don’t care if the government shuts down. One can easily anticipate that the Trump Administration will continue to pay federal debts, military defense costs, and immigration enforcement expenses, while laying off federal workers, trimming support for state services, Social Security benefits, Medicare reimbursements, and FEMA (remember, we’re in hurricane season). Timing is everything. The dangers to Americans’ health care costs that Democrats are seeking to avoid won’t meaningfully occur for months. On the other hand, how long will it take for those being laid off or on Mainstreet America to decide that Democrats are to blame for the jobs, benefits and services they’re losing now?

I’ll take this one: Democrats might be able to hold favorable public sentiment for about a week if they were skillful publicists. Unfortunately, Mr. Schumer and House Minority Leader U.S. NY Rep. Hakeem Jeffries couldn’t rally a class of kindergarteners to an ice cream stand. Democrats are seemingly expecting centrist voters, some of whom clearly either couldn’t discern or forgot that Mr. Trump incited an insurrection, ignored Mr. Trump’s 34 felony convictions, presumably believed that Mr. Trump would lower inflation while imposing tariffs, and were apparently confident that Mr. Trump would conclude the Russian/Ukrainian and Israeli/Hamas conflicts in one day, to look beyond the ends of their noses and grasp Democrats’ nuanced justification for bringing about a shutdown. I give the Democrats three days before they are publicly overrun by MAGA propaganda. The fact that Mr. Trump and Republican Congressional Leadership cancelled a negotiation session with Congressional Democrats scheduled for this week indicates that they agree with me.

I consider the October, 1974 Heavyweight Championship Title Bout between Champion George Foreman and Challenger Muhammad Ali to aptly fit the Democrats’ current situation. In the fight’s early rounds, Mr. Ali, the heavy underdog then well past his prime, let the younger, at that point stronger and more able Mr. Foreman punch himself out in the African heat before coming back to knock Mr. Foreman out. Mr. Ali understood that he had to absorb the punishment until the time was right to respond. If Mr. Ali had come out swinging too early, he would have lost.

The only way to win back America is to win at the ballot box. With all the obstructions I expect that MAGAs will institute to free and fair voting in 2026 and 2028, achieving electoral victory is going to be hard enough. Although it may be natural to focus on the 2028 presidential election, the Administration has moved so quickly to install an American Apartheid that the democratic aspirations of those who oppose its efforts may rest on Democrats’ ability to secure control of Congress in 2026. While premature gallant gestures will make some feel good, I would submit that Democrats cannot provide MAGAs with any pretexts that will enable them to shift blame for Americans’ difficulties elsewhere. I fear that progressives and liberals are living in their own delusional bubble as to how “the people” will ultimately attribute responsibility for the impending government stoppage. The time still isn’t right for a showdown. The one positive that could result from millions of Americans being callously deprived of their health care in 2026 is that no one – not even MAGAs – will blame Democrats. Democrats are so viscerally associated, across the political spectrum, with efforts to expand American health care that the coverage losses and degradations credibly predicted to occur in 2026 will be rightly blamed on the Trump Administration. If Democrats prematurely distract and inflame members of potentially decisive voter segments who may be having qualms about Mr. Trump’s leadership by forcing a government shutdown now, they may make their path to a 2026 electoral victory even harder than it already will be.

But what about the Comey indictment, you ask? I just added this reference to former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment yesterday to this previously-scheduled note to show you that I was still awake. While it remains important to note that the Administration was able to obtain an indictment from a panel of citizens who believed that there was probable cause, based upon the evidence presented to them by the Administration, that Mr. Comey had committed the crime for which he is charged, it is beyond any doubt that the United States Department of Justice is prosecuting Mr. Comey at President Donald Trump’s instruction because Mr. Trump hates him. The Administration’s action provides as clear a basis as we’ve had to date for the autocratic dangers I alluded to above. Frankly, although you have enough to worry about with your own psyche without hearing about mine, what surprised me most about the news of Mr. Comey’s indictment was that I received it with such equanimity. Then, I understood: the day this man was reelected, I knew what was going to happen. I already knew.

On Campaign Finance

“The laws which I shall promulgate will not be complete in detail (that would be an endless task), but will present the gist and sense of the provisions.”

Roman Statesman and Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero; The Laws

Over much of the last year, these pages have focused primarily on the threat to our republic presented by President Donald Trump and his MAGA acolytes. While the Trump Administration has moved even more quickly than I anticipated to establish an American Apartheid, in this note and at times in the future, I intend to venture sentiments as to how we might address various issues I consider of concern to the future of our nation – whether or not there is any realistic possibility of their being enacted. (The one addressed here would, given the Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, require a Constitutional Amendment or a reconstituted Court.) There may be points at which the suggestions I offer in one of these notes might be inconsistent with what I express in another; in a nation as complex as ours, there are always competing valid interests in need of reconciliation. In these posts, I am going to try to follow the counsel of Cicero, and set forth a “gist and sense” of direction on an issue without delving into detail. (We’ll see how well I succeed. 😉 )

“In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals, and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions – or corporations – to participate in politics. [Emphasis in Original]”

The late U.S. AZ Sen. Barry Goldwater; The Conscience of a Conservative

Mr. Goldwater’s book, published in 1960, was the first book I reread after I retired. Whether or not one agreed with him on all issues, he was a straight-talking, no-nonsense traditional conservative, not the MAGA variety. Since our nation, assisted by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, has gone in the opposite direction from that urged by Mr. Goldwater 65 years ago, we are confronted – as he in effect suggested we would be – with a concentration of political power in few hands. The premise that money is speech is absurd.

I would suggest that our body politic would be better served by the following rules:

Only natural persons can contribute to political campaigns. (No corporations, no labor unions, no centralized political parties, no Political Action Committees, etc., etc., etc.)

A natural person can only contribute to the campaign of a candidate for whom s/he can vote. (This would eliminate the flood of money into state and local races by outside influences.)

A natural person can only contribute to one candidate in a campaign. (Limiting the ability to curry influence with both sides.)

A natural person’s contribution limit is $3,500 per campaign, adjusted annually for inflation.

A candidate and the candidate’s spouse can contribute up to $50,000 to the candidate’s campaign.

Any campaign contributions a candidate retains at the end of his/her campaign (i.e., either as of election day or the day the candidate end/ceases active campaigning, whether or not the candidate formally ends or suspends his/her campaign) must be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the contributors (with appropriate sums from the cache deducted to pay the cost of returning the refunds).

It shall be illegal for any person to give money to or receive money from another person with the intent that the recipient will contribute the gift to a candidate’s campaign.

It shall be illegal for any person or organization to influence a natural person to contribute to any campaign.

It shall be illegal for any organization to fund or publish works explicitly or impliedly endorsing or criticizing any candidate or political party.

I have undoubtedly missed points that have occurred to you; there are certainly loopholes in what has been suggested; but you get the “gist and sense.” These notions may only be a start; but I would submit that instituting them would put us in a better position than we are now. Feel free to add any suggestions — or indicate why you feel what is set forth here is entirely misguided Noise 😊.

Stay well.

Jimmy Kimmel

You can write this post; you don’t need me. A couple of observations to support yours:

First, consider again ABC Late Night Host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Monday night regarding the assassination of MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk – comments I understand that Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr thereafter called the “sickest possible,” and suggested could cause the FCC to revoke ABC affiliate licenses — which seemingly resulted in Mr. Kimmel’s suspension:

“The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger pointing, there was grieving.”

Any humor there? No. Arguably in poor taste? Sure. But as political commentary, Mr. Kimmel’s remarks seem to me remarkably benign. The first half of his first sentence — if that’s all there was — has all the earmarks of having been torturously approved by an angst-ridden lawyer (who, if so, may well have also lost his/her job), and doesn’t allege that Mr. Kirk’s murderer was a MAGA adherent. The remainder of Mr. Kimmel’s comments — given what we’ve seen spewed from President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller since Mr. Kirk’s murder – is certainly tenable.

Second, not to be overlooked in the hubbub, is a social media post by Mr. Trump after Mr. Kimmel’s suspension, which declared in part:

“Kimmel has ZERO talent and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT” [Capitalization of ZERO by Mr. Trump; italics added].

I could remark on the obviously ominous relentless nature of that declaration, but won’t. After all, you’re writing this one.

On the Passing of Charlie Kirk

As all are aware, MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk, 31, was assassinated via long-range rifle shot on September 10. A few impressions arise, none terribly unique.

The first is my realization that as I decry MAGAs for staying within their own media silo, I clearly remain within my own. If you would have asked me on September 9 who Charlie Kirk was, I would only have been able to indicate that he was an alt-right influencer; I was not nearly as aware of him or of the outsized influence he apparently had on the MAGA movement as I am, for example, of Steve Bannon.

The second is the most important: no one should be a victim of violence, in the political sphere or otherwise. Mr. Kirk leaves a wife and two children. The terrible atmosphere of violence to which we have devolved need not be elaborated upon here. I understand that some on the right are loudly criticizing some on the left whom the rightists feel either haven’t shown sufficient remorse or perhaps indicated outright pleasure at Mr. Kirk’s demise. I don’t follow much in the social media sphere (quite an admission for a blogger 😉 ), but any expression of pleasure or satisfaction at Mr. Kirk’s passing is more than callous; it is barbaric. To the extent any such expressions have been made, those on the right are absolutely correct to condemn them. At the same time, although it is only human nature to feel more deeply the loss of those with whom one feels kinship, I would suggest that the rightists criticizing those on the left are entitled to expect the same level of regret from the leftists regarding Mr. Kirk’s passing that they themselves felt regarding the hammer attack on 82-year-old Paul Pelosi, or the June shooting death of liberal Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, or the spring arson attack on PA Gov. Josh Shapiro.

The third impression is as ominous as it is predictable. I have seen reported that in a video following Mr. Kirk’s death, President Donald Trump denounced the “radical Left” for rhetoric that he claimed to be “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today” – while failing to mention the incidents involving Ms. Hortman and Messrs. Pelosi and Shapiro. The President reportedly added, “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.” (Mr. Trump’s hypocrisy is, of course, palpable.) Also on the day of Mr. Kirk’s murder, the New York Times reported that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller tweeted, “All of us must now dedicate ourselves to defeating the evil that stole Charlie from this world.” [Emphasis Added] Coming from arguably the most partisan member of the Trump Administration, such an expression was chilling. It remains to be seen how aggressively the President and his acolytes will try to exploit Mr. Kirk’s assassination against their political opponents. In these situations, one rarely goes wrong assuming that they will proceed the most shamelessly.

Since Mr. Kirk’s assassination, I have become acquainted through various sources with a number of his pronouncements. Although Mr. Kirk was clearly an able, articulate, and bright man, I consider most of what I understand to be his positions to be abhorrent trash. I have seen one of his 2023 declarations, dealing with gun rights, quoted in several quarters, presumably because it is considered ironic by those who have cited it: “I think it’s worth [it] to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

While I have now confirmed that I agreed with Mr. Kirk on very little, I will nonetheless take the liberty of paraphrasing him: it is worth the cost of having those with whom we vehemently disagree speak and move safely among us so that we can all enjoy the First Amendment Right of Free Speech to protect our other God-given rights. That Mr. Kirk was struck down is as great a danger to our democracy as the divisive views he espoused. I understand that he frequently proclaimed his Christianity. May he, as I pray I will, be judged by a merciful God.

Sticking It to the Man by Getting Stuck

We’ll get to the main point of this note in a minute.

First, I’m old enough to actually remember U.S. NY Senator, former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. His life has been chronicled hundreds of times: at 5’9” or 5’10”, he was the shortest of the four Kennedy brothers – Joe, Jack, and Ted were all six foot tall or more – but the most feisty; the ramrod manager of his brother’s successful campaign for the presidency; as the Right Hand of the Man, the Kennedy Administration lightning rod tough guy who nonetheless provided the sagest advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis (because of his relationship with his brother, he could psychologically safely counsel a softer approach than the more warlike measures urged by the majority of President Kennedy’s Crisis ExComm team); a more passionate, empathetic figure than his brother – who was coolly intellectual behind closed doors – he had his Justice Department provide quiet assistance to the Civil Rights Movement, and in the years following his brother’s assassination was the most powerful advocate for Civil Rights in America. (Dr. Martin Luther King was the movement’s leader, but never had the influence with White America commanded of Mr. Kennedy, the closest link the grieving country had to its charismatic martyred president.) I doubt that any white American politician will ever again have the passionate allegiance of the black community that Robert Kennedy had the day he was assassinated. Not as gifted a speaker as his brother, he nonetheless inspired millions. He might or might not have made a great president of the United States; our great presidents have relished being president, while Mr. Kennedy was more comfortable being “the guy who stands next to the guy,” and only assumed a role at the forefront due to his outrage at the mistreatment of Black America and President Lyndon Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War (he and Mr. Johnson hated each other). But Robert F. Kennedy was without doubt in the top tier of the most important non-presidents America had in the second half of the last century. Immediately below is a link to Edward Kennedy’s eulogy at his brother’s funeral; it is worth listening to not only for Edward’s Kennedy’s description of his brother but for Robert Kennedy’s own words, which his brother quoted at length in the middle of his remembrance. Listening to these, I think one can assume that Robert Kennedy would be unspeakably saddened at how we have handled the more than half-century since his passing.

To state the obvious: I just took your time with the last paragraph because it aggravates me that for the rest of their lives most Americans younger than septuagenarians will primarily associate the name, “Robert F. Kennedy,” with the Senator’s namesake son, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is, of course, an idiot supported by pinheads misleading the gullible. Yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee’s meeting featuring Mr. Kennedy, Jr. allowed Senators of both parties to sound off but did nothing to protect public health or the scientific integrity of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We have a significant number of different pharmaceutical outlets in our Madison area, and have a number of friends over 65 who are desirous of receiving the latest version of the COVID vaccination despite the quackery being spouted by Mr. Kennedy, Jr. and his clown menagerie. You’d think that even under the unduly restrictive guidelines recently spewed by Mr. Kennedy, Jr.’s CDC, it would be relatively straightforward for anyone over 65 in the Madison area wishing a COVID vaccination to get one. But seemingly not so, at least not yet. Seniors compare notes of their experiences. As of earlier this week, one regional chain had yet to receive the new vaccination; a representative of another, larger, organization indicated that it was reluctant to proceed with vaccinations because it wasn’t sure of the new rules; another, yet more established pharmacy, told a friend of ours that it required a prescription to administer the vaccination, which our friend understood applied to all ages; but we found another – which, at least as of earlier this week, would administer the new COVID vaccination if simply provided with identification, age, and the same consent forms as have been required with past inoculations.

We scurried over. I don’t know how our request for a vaccination would have been received had we been under 65, but this was one instance where being of Medicare age was a true plus. We got our COVID shots.

The depth of emotion I felt as I got my shot made me recall my emotion when I received my first COVID vaccination in 2021. Then, it was immense relief: there seemed a way forward from the danger that had literally plagued us and cost millions of lives during the preceding year. This time, my depth of emotion was similar, but the sentiment was different; it was intense – no, savage – satisfaction at having thwarted, at least in this one case by this one old American, the buffoonery and confusion being foisted upon us by an Administration equal parts autocratic and moronic.

Get some perspective, you say: this week Chinese President Xi Jinping rallied the world’s primary autocracies against democracies that are currently in disarray due to President Donald Trump’s own dictatorial inclinations and incompetence, Mr. Trump currently appears intent on consolidating his American Apartheid, and getting the vaccination wasn’t that big a deal for me since Mr. Kennedy, Jr.’s CDC has authorized those 65 and older to get the COVID shot if they want it. True enough. However, I can’t do anything about the first, and can only protest and blog about the second; as to the last, even if Mr. Kennedy, Jr. is saying that I can get the shot – at least this year – we both know that he didn’t want me to.

We stuck it to The Man by getting stuck. It was … priceless.

In September, Baseball is Hard

Since I have addressed the fortunes of the Milwaukee Brewers here a few times over the years, it should be noted that as of today, the team, which lost one of its primary contributors to free agency during the past offseason, nonetheless surprisingly – nay, stunningly – maintains the best record in baseball. Notwithstanding its loss to the Philadelphia Phillies yesterday, it has a credible 5 ½ game lead in the National League Central Division over the Chicago Cubs, and respective 4 ½ and 6 game leads over Philadelphia and the Los Angeles Dodgers for the National League’s best record; if Milwaukee finishes the season with a better record than Chicago and either the NL East or NL West Division winners, it will be entitled to a first-round playoff bye. Although one might have reservations about the team’s ability to prevail in the postseason against payroll-heavy, star-studded heavyweights like the Dodgers, the Brewers are a heartening example of the little guy getting ahead.

Even so, as all of us with knowledge of the game’s history are well aware – and as the Brewers were reminded yesterday – in September, baseball is hard. On September 2, 1951, the Brooklyn Dodgers held a 5 game lead over the ultimate National League Champion New York Giants (although New York’s victory is tarnished by credible reporting that its late-season surge was aided by a sign stealing scheme); on September 2, 1964, the Philadelphia Phillies held a 7 ½ game lead in the National League over the ultimate World Champion St. Louis Cardinals; on September 2, 1969 (I know; this hurts) the Chicago Cubs held a 5 game lead in the National League East over the ultimate World Champion New York Mets; and on September 2, 1982, the Milwaukee Brewers held a 5 game lead in the American League East over the Baltimore Orioles [although this turned out happily for Brewer fans, it took two home runs by Most Valuable Player and future Hall of Famer Robin Yount off Baltimore Ace and future Hall of Famer Jim Palmer – plus a career catch at a crucial point by Leftfielder Ben Oglivie (not exactly known for his fielding) — in the last game of the season for Milwaukee to win the AL East].

You get the point. Although September 2 sounds like the playoffs are almost here, there is still a sixth of the season left to play. It remains to be seen whether this year’s Brewers have the grit and tenacity of the 1982 team.

All that said, this year it has been difficult for me to pay much attention to the Brewers’ success; as I watch President Donald Trump and his MAGA cohort dismantle our republic, I can’t escape the notion that any enthusiasm I have for a team’s fortunes is akin to a Czech’s optimism in early 1938 about his nation’s chances in the 1940 Olympics. I am hopeful that the intensity of the upcoming NFL season will provide me with an occasional temporary distraction that baseball, with its daily, languid pace – traditionally, the core of its charm — has not.

But don’t listen to me. In early 1942, Major League Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw M. Landis asked President Franklin Roosevelt whether America’s Pastime should suspend its season in light of America’s entry into World War II. Mr. Roosevelt responded with his so-called “Green Light Letter,” in which he indicated, “I honestly feel it would be best for the country to keep baseball going. … [E]verybody will work longer hours and harder than ever before. And that means that they ought to have a chance for recreation and for taking their minds off their work even more than before.” Despite my much more attentive following of the Packers than the Brewers in recent years, if given a choice between a Brewer World Championship and a Green Bay Super Bowl title, I would, in memory of the 1982 Brewers, opt for the Brewer World Championship.

So heed Mr. Roosevelt’s long-ago sentiments. A pleasant distraction has its place. Go to the ballpark and have a hotdog and a beer (avoid elitist crap like sushi and canned fruity alcoholic concoctions 😉 ). The days of summer are waning. Cherish those that remain.

The Standing of Labor

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor community exists within that relation. …

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages for awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires a new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.”

Abraham Lincoln; Excerpt from the President’s Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1861

Although many, including me, decry our seeming current descent toward autocracy, it is too easy to overlook that desperation spawns desperate measures, including the placement of hope in false Messiahs. I fear we have fallen into the trap that Mr. Lincoln warned about over 150 years ago. While there are obviously a number of factors that have contributed to our present dysfunctional political state, it is undeniable that almost a half century of policies encouraging greed over community have contributed mightily to where we find ourselves today. Former President Ronald Reagan started this transition. I consider Mr. Reagan a good man who truly believed that men, less regulated and less taxed, would do the right thing to ensure the betterment of all. He was wrong. I sincerely question whether our current president cares about the struggling millions, somehow blinded by calls of “freedom,” who follow him so ardently. May we see the adoption – under the next president, if not this one – of policies that will start to remedy the inequities that have so sullied the American experience. Let each of us take a moment during the coming weekend to remember and celebrate the efforts of those — both Americans and those from other lands — who toil, or yearn to toil, to make America stronger.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On California Legislative Redistricting

As all who care are aware, the MAGA-controlled Texas legislature recently enacted legislation redrawing Texas’ legislative districts in a manner that could net Republicans an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 Congressional elections, and the Democrat-controlled California legislature has responded with measures which, if approved by California voters, will redraw the state’s Congressional districts through 2030 in a manner intended to cancel out Republicans’ projected gains in Texas. Other states may join the fray. Commentators indicate that on the whole, these machinations favor Republicans.

Obviously, gerrymandering legislative districts at congressional and state office levels by both parties is nothing new, although computer analysis now enables unscrupulous legislators to eke out advantages previously unattainable. At the same time, as all who care are also aware, until this latest exchange by Texas and California, mid-cycle redistricting (i.e., between decennial censuses) has been uncommon.

I would suggest that it is difficult for any analyst to predict the final result of these maneuvers. Redrawing legislative boundaries seemingly narrows the controlling party’s advantage in previously “safe” seats, and Republicans could be running under fairly adverse political conditions as the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” take hold and if his tariffs reignite inflation as many economists predict. Republicans currently hold a 7-seat advantage in the House of Representatives. Since World War II, the average midterm loss for the party in the White House is 25 seats. Democrats lost 50 seats in 2010 under President Barack Obama. Republicans lost 40 seats in 2018, the last time Mr. Trump was mid-term. If Mr. Trump’s initiatives sufficiently irritate the weakest segments of his 2024 electoral support, the Democrats may reclaim the House even if the California initiative loses.

I have seen different credible philosophical arguments about ethical redistricting. Wisconsin is a prime example: the state, with 8 House seats, has a citizenry divided almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans, but the vast majority of Democrat-leaners are heavily concentrated in the Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) County metro areas. While one can argue that congressional districts should be drawn to reflect the state’s even political divide, one can also argue that given the geographic confines of the Democratic strongholds, a 6/2 Republican/Democrat split – the current Wisconsin House composition – is not unreasonable.

That said, there is no philosophical underpinning to what the Texas Republicans have done. They have redrawn their state’s Congressional district boundaries because they perceive it to be to their political advantage, and because they can. It is a pure power grab.

Long prelude to a simple point: I support the California Democrats’ redistricting efforts. In the past, I wouldn’t have. I have generally been of the mind that if one stoops to the MAGA level, it’s hard to determine who the scoundrels are. But it has become glaringly apparent that in the struggle to maintain our democracy, there are few holds barred. I’m putting my scruples aside. If the California Democrats’ effort passes, it will be smarmy, but no smarmier than the Texas effort, or any other state legislature’s partisan mid-cycle redistricting efforts. All of these measures are apparently lawful, if unprincipled.

In the summer of 1941, as Great Britain finalized an alliance with Communist Russia after Nazi Germany invaded Russia, Prime Minister Winston Churchill – always a strident critic of Communism – defended the pact in part with the observation, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Less elegantly, Baseball Hall of Fame Manager Leo Durocher is by legend reported to have declared, “Nice guys finish last.”

We have descended to the lowest defensible denominator. I feel that I no longer have the luxury of being fastidious.