President Trump v. Harvard: The Free Speech Showdown America Needs?

May 11, 2025

The new Trump Administration has brought a new raft of ideological fights.  Recently, the White House has threatened companies, law firms, and the like to adhere to the new conservative administration in Washington, D.C.  Many have given in to win favor with President Trump.  One of the old-money institutions that has drawn a line in the sand, daring the Trump Administration to cross it, is the venerable bastion of higher learning, Harvard University. Is this the 1st Amendment fight this country needs? Is it really about anti-Semitism? Or is it a battle between a controlling presidential administration and an academic institution protecting its ability to operate however it wants, including protecting its progressive agenda, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)? 

________________________________

Recently, the gauntlet was thrown down by the Trump Administration to deal with what it perceives as anti-Semitism on campuses throughout the country. The President threatened to end the federal grant money allotted to Harvard if the university does not clamp down on what is perceived to be aggressive positions against Israel by some students during its military operations against Hamas.

While the issue has been a contentious one for supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians, the debate has veered off the rails into what is now a psychological battle to win the hearts and minds and to define clear battle lines of what is right and who is wrong.  Who gets to determine that, though?

College students have always been at the forefront of expressing their opinions on many issues (which is what going to college is partially about), and American universities have encouraged this from their creation. Proper debates are the best sunlight on issues that divide people. The Free Speech Movement sprang up on college campuses during the tumultuous 1960s, during the height of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. Student activism moved on from that era to other issues, including the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan's domestic policy in the 1980s, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, to name a few.

Why has the federal government been involved in this particular battle? While anti-Semitism is a scourge that needs to be stopped in its infancy, I feel the primary motive of the Trump administration is the heavy pressure from wealthy donors who are worried that the general narrative regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shifting from a traditional pro-Israel position to a more nuanced opinion (in some cases sympathetic to the plight of women and children in the Palestinaian territories, especially from American university students).  Older Americans, especially religious conservatives and some Democrats, have always held the belief that supporting Israel, no matter what, is the best course of action for the United States to take publicly. Younger people, especially students, don't exhibit the opinions and beliefs their parents share. The expansion of people who espouse those views and their subsequent activism, notably on college campuses, is what is causing alarm amongst Israel's most passionate supporters.  

Countless marketing and advertising campaigns are promoting the perception that there is a spike in anti-Semitic incidents throughout the country, notably in the form of protests, including on university campuses.  Universities must protect students of all religious backgrounds from harassment and personal and physical attacks while at the same time ensuring robust opportunities for the student body to engage in healthy and productive, and safe debates.  The challenge is to do this while not infringing on free speech, protected in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

A few members of Congress introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in 2023 (H.R. 6090), which was an attempt to allow the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism when investigating complaints of discrimination from schools that receive federal assistance against any person of color, race or religious affiliation.  The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which can, in some cases, morph into hatred." I support aggressive attempts to root out actual anti-Semitism. At the same time, I want to ensure that this campaign does not use the projected perception of anti-Semitism to curtail good-faith opposition to Israel's military actions that negatively impact noncombatants who are not part of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer, journalist, and podcaster who considers himself a liberal, recently interviewed two Jewish academics on his podcast: professors Eli Meyerhoff (Duke University) and Emily Schneider (Northern Arizona University). They discussed the actual levels of anti-Semitism while debunking what the mainstream media promotes. These types of honest and pragmatic discussions are needed at this time.

The former president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, along with other Ivy League schools and prestigious institutions, was at the center of several Congressional anti-Semitism hearings last year. Members of Congress, such as Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), did not find the methods and policies these schools were using to target anti-Semitic protests sufficient. Ms. Gay later resigned due to a plagiarism scandal, but the public perception following the hearings expedited her departure. In my opinion, President Trump targeted the institution because Harvard is at the pinnacle of prestige in American academia. Although these protests occur at other universities as well, he wanted to send a message to the alumni and students protesting Israel's military operations in Gaza.

All sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves and their citizens, including Israel, but what has changed public opinion is the level of military action proportionate to the attacks on the country.  Certain areas of Gaza resemble post-war Germany, with buildings destroyed and complete neighborhoods unlivable. Those images, along with human casualties, notably women and children, are what young people see on YouTube, TikTok, and other online platforms. The raw emotions of what young people viewed galvanized the desire to protest this conflict, much more than in years past. Conversely, the October 7th attacks in 2023 against Israel by Hamas militants had the same effect on the Jewish diaspora around the world, too.

Is this push by President Trump to protect a one-sided position on the Israel-Palestinian conflict at the urging of his donors and supporters of Israel? As President, he does have a responsibility to root out all forms of bias or hatred towards any ethnic or religious group in this country.  Any chief executive needs to do this, for it will show that they are attempting to protect human dignity and will be seen as trying to unite the country.  Limiting or ending anti-Semitism is a noble and just cause, but it should not be used to eliminate, oppose, or bully any American citizen with a different position on this issue.  Nor should it be used as a shield to protect a narrative beneficial to a country, or stop any good-faith debate.  

Protecting and enhancing freedom of speech is a sacred right in the United States, and it should never be abridged or targeted in the name of cleansing public discourse, regardless of the passions involved or how divisive it can be.

The 2025 Los Angeles Fires: Has Southern California Cool Gone Up in Smoke?

 

February 13, 2025

By now the entire world has spent the first few weeks in January this year watching Southern California ravaged by fire storms.  Several major fires started within a few hours of each other, causing severe damage to thousands of homes, with the most hard-hit areas being Pacific Palisades and Altadena.  What can be done to better prepare the region to save lives and property? Californians need to know if this is the new normal during fire season.

_____________________________

The new year began with fireworks that ominously preempted a reign of wind and fire that nearly brought Los Angeles "to its knees" and ended with acres of scorched earth, thousands of destroyed homes, and ruined dreams. This was the most destructive fire season on record and was something many lifelong residents of this great city will never forget. During the height of the destruction, there were roughly 6 major fires that first responders in Los Angeles County were dealing with:

The Palisades fire (Pacific Palisades) and the Eaton fire (North Pasadena, Altadena, Sierra Madre) caused the most damage and were the hardest to contain. The Kenneth Fire and Sunset Fires briefly caused people to be evacuated but were nowhere near the level of the two major burn areas. These two regions accounted for the largest loss of homes during the period of non-containment of the major fires as you can see in the maps.  The Palisades fire burned over 23,000 acres and destroyed over 10,000 homes, while the Eaton fire burned through 14,000 acres, and 7,000 homes were gone.  As of this week, the fires are now fully contained, according to the Cal Fire website. The Palisades and Eaton Fires are now the most destructive in Los Angeles County history, with some estimates damages could top $150 billion.  Even though many residents in those neighborhoods are defiant about their circumstances, there is no way to determine what the region will look like 5-10 years from now.

As with any natural disaster, in addition to the stories of neighborly assistance and support, courage shown by firefighters and first responders, and politicians promising "new beginnings," there are ever-present real estate developers and construction companies waiting in the wings for opportunities.  These include government contracts procured through their lobbyists or seeking out homeowners and offering them a flat price for their homes. This process is the next phase of post-containment. 

The desire by developers to update and change zoning code construction designations has been known for years, moving away from  "R1" (single-family use homes in low-density areas, i.e. single-use homes on a plot of land) to "R3," which would allow for multi-property homes, duplexes, and apartments on a single-use plot of land in newly transformed, high-density neighborhoods.  I think this might be pushed more intensely in Altadena, because it is a primarily middle-class enclave, unlike the wealthier Pacific Palisades neighborhood, where opposition to R3 zoning comes with more financial resources for legal challenges. Although, Magic Johnson has pledged to support Altadena residents as best he can since a significant percentage are black. 

This follows a pattern of recent statewide efforts by Governor Newsom to find solutions to California's housing shortage, which includes his recent signature into law last October of 2023 Senate Bill 450, which streamlines the process for certain R3 zoning construction projects. Introduced by State Senator Bob Wieckowski, the bill was introduced to help facilitate enhancements to the original Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was a serious, well-intentioned attempt to alleviate the shortfall.  The bill would allow for the construction of two housing units within a single-family residential zone among other things. I guess it is serendipitous that these new laws came into effect before a massive natural disaster which will benefit politically connected construction companies and developers to build densely packed homes in decimated neighborhoods. The largest donor for Governor Newsom in 2022 was listed as "N/A." 

I feel this agenda will increase property tax from more R3-zoned properties (revenue for the state budget), add new voters, many from outside Los Angeles County (to increase one-party rule and put out of reach any bonafide opposition), and ease unhealthy air pollution (smog) on our freeways (electric car purchase requirements, anyone?).  Interesting times ahead!

It is not a good look when the 'vultures' start circling a neighborhood after a natural disaster. However, it is a subsequent pattern of late, especially after the Lahaina Maui fire in 2023, which destroyed many historic homes.  I remember the whispers online and in the media that with so many properties destroyed in a valuable, picturesque area in a tropical paradise, this was too good of an opportunity to miss for those with a financial stake in any new construction after the loss of property.  A large number of the residents of Lahaina were not upper class.  I was saddened by the fact that the loss of these homes was so much more than rebuilding an asset for a real estate portfolio for them.  It was the center of family life and community for many generations. 

Homelessness grew exponentially after the fires in Maui, and that could happen in Los Angeles after the loss of so many middle-class homes.  The legislation to facilitate the construction of R3 zone multi-home, low-density building projects to alleviate housing shortages could keep out of the spotlight the increase in the unhoused, many middle and low-income residents from these fires. Will these Los Angeles residents, many of whom are not wealthy, have the money to buy the new SB8 homes in the post-wildfire Southern California landscape? 

I think it is better to have an in-depth study with the participation of all parties (legislators, Cal Fire, Los Angeles County Fire Department, homeowners) that dealt with these horrendous fires. The investigation should focus on the root causes, especially methods to deal with human behavior.  Subsequent inquiries about the following should be asked as well:  

1. Why was the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) reservoir near Pacific Palisades empty for routine maintenance before a major fire season?
2. Why were so many fire department vehicles awaiting repair or activation when they could have been put to good use during the most destructive phase of fires' non-containment?
3. The fact that there were budget cuts in the past two fiscal cycles for the Los Angeles Fire Department, juxtaposed with images of heroic firefighters appearing overwhelmed due to underfunding for equipment and personnel, is of major concern that needs intense critical review and remediation.

Most wildfires in Southern California are caused by humans (homeless persons, lit cigarettes, unattended campfires, burning debris, and equipment malfunctions). One of the worst wildfires in recent memory, the El Dorado Fire, which led to the death of a firefighter, was caused by an innocuous gender reveal party in 2020. 

Furthermore, to reduce the dry brush in the areas near neighborhoods and major freeways, cities in Southern California must work with utility companies (Southern California Gas, Southern California Edison, PG&E), Caltrans, and Governor Newsom to remove any old equipment that could potentially cause sparks, power lines that are close to trees or brush that are potential fire hazards, and to make serious investments in infrastructure that will prevent future fires, besides predisposing weather conditions. New homes should have fire-retardent materials, especially for the roof, with carefully designed vents to prevent embers from entering the attic.   

These catastrophic fires ruined lives and were traumatic for those who survived, and who saw their dreams and memories burn to the ground.  I would like the 'better angels of our nature' to focus on learning from this experience, emphasizing building better homes with stronger materials.  Additionally, I hope Los Angeles city officials and state politicians show fortitude in dealing with construction companies and developers and push back on their profit motives to radically change the social fabric of these wonderful neighborhoods and allow many residents to rebuild their lost homes.  It would be an additional tragedy if administrative red tape did not allow many to move back due to delays in cleaning debris from their destroyed homes and they eventually move away.

The region of Southern California is one of the best places in the world to live.  People here deal with many challenges, much like others around the world.  We need to protect against environmental hazards and encourage proactive vigilance towards human criminal behavior for arson, which makes life difficult to live here and forces people to move. We can do better, we must do better and not let this part of the world lose its cool.

   

2024 Election Aftermath: Once the Rubble has Cleared, What Now?

 

January 1, 2025

Whew! Election Armageddon has come and gone, and there has been very little looting and no burning of buildings, which many Americans were worried about, including myself.  After a steady avalanche of political ads for almost a year, it's "All Quiet on the Election Front."  As many political prognosticators had projected, Donald Trump was re-elected to the Presidency, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, winning the Electoral College 312-226, and surprisingly, the popular vote by two million votes. It is something a Republican has not done in nearly 20 years.  After the dust has settled, what are the takeaways and what do the next four years have in store for the country?

__________________________

Even in January 2020, when the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, left Washington, D.C. on a Special Air Mission (Air Force One when not used by any current President), many knew that he would become the prodigal chief executive and try to win back the White House in 2024.  Democrats felt they had a good opportunity to defeat the former President for the second time.  So, what happened?  What were the main themes of their massive defeat against Donald Trump?

Polling:  As in previous presidential contests, the polling showed that the race was close and within the statistical margin of error for either candidate.  This was the case for several months of the campaign, especially after President Biden formally ended his re-election campaign.  Most of the major polling sites (FiveThirtyEight.com for example) showed the race fairly close, or even with Vice President Harris in the lead, within the margin of error.  When comparing polling with the actual election results, something doesn't add up.  Either the sample sizes used were confined to small groups that, while qualified as legitimate polling, did not produce outcomes that matched the collected data. President Trump won the Electoral College by a fairly large margin, which a Republican president has not achieved since Ronald Reagan in 1984.  That meant the polling did not reflect public sentiment around the country.  Why was this?

My theory is that polling companies are businesses, which run on money. Supply and demand. Political campaigns, non-profits, wealthy donors, and others who had a vested interest in former President Trump being defeated, likely sought out desired information that reinforced their biases and wanted data and polling to reinforce their political views.  The Harris-Waltz campaign worked in conjunction with these people because they wanted to translate that intense dislike of President Trump into financial contributions to the cause.  As a result, the campaign was able to generate close to 1.2 billion dollars, a staggering amount within a short window (slightly over three months). As such, the polling data that was presented hid the true opinions of voters in favor of financial incentives for vested parties.

Harris Campaign Failures: Since President Joe Biden abdicated his presidency, the mood amongst Democrats was buoyed by early optimism that a younger, dynamic candidate would increase the political fortunes of the party heading into pivotal Election Day.  However, those feelings did not protect Vice President Harris from the political liabilities whispered about her during her time in Washington, D.C.  This included no major legislative accomplishments as a Senator representing California. She was able to make a positive impression on certain voters, however, with her aggressive questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, which boosted confidence in her slightly.

Ms. Harris was able to perform reasonably well during her one debate with former President Trump, although the bar was set very low and the media did not pressure her or fact-check her the same way they did Mr. Trump.  Her selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz did not provide any sort of boost either.  Mr. Walz did not energize men in her party, or Republicans or even independents, and that was not a good sign.  During media interviews and campaign stops, she did not provide any comprehensive background on her policy positions, and there was a dearth of solutions to current problems, which in turn gave voters the impression she was not the right person to move the country in a better direction.  Some party insiders wanted her to choose popular Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, but I think Ms. Harris didn't want her V.P. candidate to upstage her, and also appease the far-left activists who were the most vocal on social media, on her most liberal flank.

Trump Campaign Successes: On the other hand, even though Mr. Trump did not appeal to the general public for various reasons, he was able to make inroads with certain political demographics that Republicans have not been able to reach or improve on in decades. Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic in the United States, and although Vice President Harris won overall with this group, she only carried them by 8 points overall, (but Mr. Trump won Hispanic males by a point), whereas President Biden won them by 33 points in 2020.

What was the reason for this? Partly, it can be attributed to voters feeling that he was genuine (or at least he was good about faking it), and his policy positions were said without fear or favor. Most notably, this related to illegal immigration and closing the southern border, which weighed heavily with a majority of voters this election cycle. Whereas Vice President Harris showed a lack of positive impression from independents and Republicans who were open to being swayed. One of the most loyal voting blocks for Democrats, black voters, still voted overwhelmingly for the party, but Mr. Trump won 10% more (20% overall) than when he lost the election four years ago.  Most of that increase was due to an aggregate increase in support from men of all stripes, but especially black men, which is impressive, considering the political alignment with this voter group and the Democratic party for many decades.

Cabinet Picks: One of the interesting things that former President Trump did in this election campaign that has not been done before was to announce his cabinet choices before the votes were cast.  It gave Americans the vision Mr. Trump was advocating before he was sworn in, and if citizens liked those choices, it gave them an additional reason to vote for the former president. He stated that he would appoint Kash Patel, a loyal lieutenant in his previous administration as the Director of the FBI, he floated the idea of Vivek Ramaswamy with a plum Cabinet position, but ultimately gave him and Trump Whisperer Elon Musk the task of creating the "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)," a clever double entendre meant to invoke a better, smarter and well-run government which coincidentally also shares the name of a cryptocurrency Mr. Musk supports (DOGECOIN).

Additionally, he included in his potential cabinet choices other vocal Trump supporters such as former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence(DNI), controversial Defense Secretary-designate Peter Hegseth, formerly of Fox News and combat veteran, former  Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as Attorney General for the Department of Justice, and litigator, vaccine skeptic and Democratic party family scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So far, only one Trump cabinet pick was forced to resign, Matt Gaettz, after the House of Representatives was forced to publish an internal ethics investigation.  Will others, such as Pete Hegseth, not get confirmed, or forced to bow out prematurely? While he didn't officially endorse all these cabinet positions before November 5th, he didn't deny their potential involvement in his administration. Perhaps to unofficially gauge public approval of them to determine if they pass muster? Mr. Trump, as of now, continues to support his choices.

Prognosis: President Trump was able to secure a second single term because of a combination of factors, some of which were not in his control, while others were a result of this campaign.  President Joe Biden was told he needed to resign by serious Democratic party players behind the scenes, rumored to include Senator Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi, and if rumors are true, former President Barack Obama. The push came after Mr. Biden performed poorly (on an aesthetic level) in a single debate with Mr. Trump.  As a parting shot, Joe Biden endorsed his vice president, which put pressure on Democrats to coalesce around Ms. Harris. As stated before, she was able to generate money for her campaign, but it has been questioned if that money was spent wisely, which included lavish outlays for a women-centric podcast interview ("Call Her Daddy" with Alex Cooper), interview with Oprah Winfrey (Harpo Productions), etc.  When you lose a presidential election, the campaign's strategy, tactics, and fundraising expenses will be reviewed and scrutinized, and fairly or unfairly, be a representation of the candidate and how they would govern themselves.

Time will tell if President Trump delivers on his many promises, including lowering grocery prices, avoiding costly military quagmires, peace and prosperity for a majority of Americans, little to no scandals, and an honorable administration that the American people are supportive of.  However, if he reverts to the political showman who prefers rallies instead of governance, and the effective leadership he espoused, he will cause problems for his party, they will lose one or both the House of Representatives and the Senate, investigations will be opened against him, and it will be four years of chaos, conflict, and the continued fragmentation of our democracy.  

It's "All Quiet on the Political Front" for what's left for 2024. 

Happy New Year!

Now that 2025 has arrived: Buckle Up.

Governor Gavin Newsom Counters Disinformation: Is The First Amendment the Real Target?

 

November 4, 2024

Over the past few years, California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law several measures meant to counter the use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content for malicious political ads, the use of famous people and celebrities' likenesses without their consent, employing deepfakes, false images and videos of people to sell an agenda to influence elections that are categorically fake and untrue. Deepfakes are manipulated video forgeries, using the likeness of a well-known person. This year, he signed into state law AB 2655 to protect the digital likeness of actors and performers from having their images used by AI.  It follows laws passed and executed in 2019, AB 730, and AB 602, all of which were introduced by state Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) to combat the use of deepfakes of celebrities in political ads and adult sexual content without their permission.  Are these laws intended to counter disinformation, or a subtle attempt to circumvent the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech?

___________________________________

Artificial Intelligence is the new liquid gold for the 21st Century, a commodity everyone wants to be involved with, not just the large Silicon Valley tech companies. It has the potential to harness enormous power to transform companies and improve the lives of individuals across the world. AI will be used to generate new revenue streams and create new industries of commerce. With great power comes great responsibility, in this case, to ensure that AI is not used in any nefarious way.   

Time magazine's September 16th issue focuses on this phenomenon and the emerging leaders within tech firms, along with individuals, like Google AI visionary Ray Kurzweil, who will be at the vanguard of this technology and balance that through the challenges of using AI.  As an example, actors Scarlett Johansson and Anil Kapoor used their visibility and the legal system in India, respectively, to expose how AI can use the likeness of someone without their consent to promote a message or agenda. Both were successful in forcing meaningful change on this delicate subject.

The newly signed laws in California were brought forth to bring about similar protections in the state:

AB 602 gives residents of the state the ability to seek legal recourse against any individual or entity that creates deepfakes that place their likeness in any adult content of a sexual nature without their permission. While some deepfakes are humorous and poke fun at people or what they say, in many cases, they are the likeness of famous women in adult sexual situations. This bill is a good idea, with noble intentions, and I hope it protects the average Californian when needed.

AB 730 makes it illegal to distribute videos or other media that manipulate or distort speech or behavior intended to discredit a politician within 60 days of an election. Assemblyman Berman felt that deep fakes and altered videos (of famous and well-known politicians like Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and Kamala Harris for example) could mislead voters and disrupt elections.

I think parody videos can be funny, it's good for voters to have a good laugh at the expense of their leaders. It is a sign of a healthy democratic system. I also understand why there needs to be some protections so that these videos are not misleading.  If the creators were required to put a disclaimer before their parodies were shown, like "This is not an official campaign video, or endorsed by any campaign, but it is purely intended for satire," and scroll to the bottom of the screen, or something to that effect.  It would let the viewer know that it is not an official pro or con video for any candidate but that its primary purpose is humor and to poke fun at an adult.

AB 2655 was the final bill related to AI introduced and eventually into law by Assemblyman Mark Berman (that fella sure was busy with AI-related legislation, he must be passionate about it).  The law requires online platforms to remove entirely or at least label deceptive and digitally altered or created content to elections during specific periods.  In addition, these platforms require certain mechanisms to allow users to report such content. The bill allows candidates, elections officials, the state's Attorney General, and local district attorneys to issue injunctions against whichever online platforms for noncompliance with the law.

The issue for me is not that certain parodies, which use the realistic likenesses of celebrities and politicians can be misleading, and can cause confusion and voters to believe something which they mistook as real.  I fully support preventative methods of purposefully lying to voters about a candidate's statements or behaviors, on behalf of any party or campaign.  

These measures are slowly encroaching on the 1st Amendment, probably the best and most powerful amendment to the United States Constitution. Its purpose is to protect the ability for anyone to speak their mind, and say whatever they want, without the threat of imprisonment or punishment by the government.  Protected speech is not words or speech that people agree with and support, but those that you inherently disagree with and abhor.  It is powerful because when it comes time for an American citizen who disagrees with certain speech, their speech will be protected equally under the law.  

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who is running with Vice President Kamala Harris, proposes the need to push back on free speech as equated with yelling "fire" in a theater.  This analogy is based on a case that was argued at the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). At issue was the use of words that lead to threatening or endangering others. The Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, was notable because it debated the clear and present danger test, which held that "words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."

Using that SCOTUS case as a reason to push back against the 1st Amendment is not a fair implication.  As said earlier, combating AI-generated videos using celebrities and well-known politicians without consent to present a false viewpoint or an agenda is wrong and should be dealt with. However, safeguarding the primary amendment to our Constitution, so that Americans can enjoy the freedom of humor directed at a politician or public figure, or express their disagreement with policies that are not popular or well-liked should also be equally preserved.  One of the great privileges of living in the United States is that we can criticize our leaders freely, and to continue to be a people living under liberty, speech must be free, and protected.

* This was not written by a bot, ChatGPT, or HAL-9000, but rather by a sentient person with emotion and feelings.  😏

Is Taxpayer-Funded $150,000 Home Loan Asisstance to Undocumented Immigrants A Good Idea?

 

September 23, 2024

Recently, the California Assembly and State Senate approved AB 1840, a measure introduced by California Assemblyman Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno), which would allow undocumented immigrants access to a state program that provides interest-free loans up to $150,000 to cover down payments for new home purchases. The program originally aimed to allow more Californians to own a home.  Unsurprisingly, many media outlets, including X owner Elon Musk, picked up the story and ran with it. Governor Gavin Newsom, cognizant of how this looks to potential voters in a Presidential Primary, has vetoed the bill.

__________________________________

Assemblyman Arambula created this bill to enhance the California Dream for All (CDA) program. It was designed to give state residents in the lower socioeconomic tiers access to capital to assist their desire to own homes.  According to its website, the CDA is administered and run by the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA), which generates revenue through mortgage loan repayments, rather than taxpayer money, which proudly says it has a self-sustaining business model. The CHFA uses a concept called the "shared appreciation loan," in that borrowers do not pay interest.  Rather, when they ultimately sell the home, the homeowner only has to pay back the original loan amount, plus 20% of the appreciation of their property. An ABC News story explained that the loan covers 20% of the purchase price, or up to $150,000 to cover a down payment or closing costs.

The article states that the loan must be paired with a 30-year fixed interest rate first mortgage from the CHFA and the recipient of the loan assistance only has to make payments on the shared appreciation loan once the first mortgage is paid off. The program began with an initial amount of $500 million, but the agency blew through $300 million of that money within 11 days. It seems to be a very naked attempt to win the hearts and minds of an ever-growing, potentially powerful voting demographic to lean a certain way, ideologically.  However, California is a solidly safe state that votes overwhelmingly for the Democrats, so this statewide home loan initiative doesn't make too much sense.

California was one of the first states, in conjunction with a goal of the Democratic party, to give Americans in the lower economic tiers access to homeownership and to build on generational wealth to pass on to their descendants. Those good intentions were the basis for the 2008 financial crisis. It resulted from the aggressive nature of loaning money to people who could not repay their obligations. While I think that is a noble goal with kind-hearted benevolence, the task is troublesome and as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."  The consequences of an action can be far different from what is hoped for.

It would be interesting to know why this bill was even introduced in the state legislature, but vetoing the measure was an easy call. I don't pretend to know Governor Newsom's intentions, but I suspect one of the reasons may have to do with his presidential political aspirations. This is why most likely he will also veto a measure that was introduced by State Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Boyle Heights), which would allow undocumented immigrants to receive unemployment insurance. While citizens of the state are struggling in this economy, providing additional, tangible benefits to non-citizens won't win any support from independents and conservatives if you do want to win higher office. The Republican party would likely hang those signatures around the neck of his presidential aspirations.

The process of getting a home loan requires a dependable income over a necessary period, healthy savings, good credit, valid social security numbers, IRS tax records, and thorough vetting by banks. Many American citizens cannot qualify using that criteria.  So what do Assemblyman Arambula and others who supported and voted for this bill think undocumented individuals have metrics to qualify for the CDA? To own a home, is the "American Dream."  The original Dream for All program was designed to do this.  Expanding the language of the program to include undocumented immigrants for reasons not discussed publicly seems curious.

For the FY2024-25 fiscal year, the Legislative Analysts's Office of California projects a budget deficit of $68 billion (there are varying projection estimates from media publications). While Governor Newsom is trying to close the gap with tax increases and reductions in expenditures for other programs, AB 1840 is unlikely to make any improvement in revenue for local communities and the state.  The population for the updated CDA program is not large enough or financially secure enough to justify the generation of funds to offset deficits too much. 

Private equity companies in the United States are buying smaller, or middle-class homes in large numbers.  One of them, Blackstone, uses a subsidiary (Invitation Homes) to buy reasonably affordable homes with the intent of providing rentals to potentially deserving, aspiring homeowners, or young, married professionals buying in cities where jobs are plentiful such as Atlanta, Charlotte, and Phoenix. When large numbers of people move to those regions, having to rent initially before purchasing a home, is where these companies make their money from these home investments.  

Something similar could be happening in California.  It is the state with the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the country. AB 1840 could use the same principle that Invitation Homes does when buying those "middle-class" homes.  It will allow more people to access home ownership, which (it is hoped), would give the state legislature additional funds to pay off debt and move money to other areas. The CHFA would receive money once a home is paid off or sold, and redistribute that money back to the program (in theory) but this takes time, and with it comes uncertainty and opportunity for defaults and losses. Local cities would have revenue from property taxes to improve those communities.  This concept of undocumented immigrants having an easier method to buy a home than hard-working American citizens, and legal immigrants, who follow the rules seems unfair though.

The most likely reason that AB 1840 was introduced and passed in the California legislature was primarily financial, in that counties throughout the state see this as a way to generate revenue from property tax, regardless of who buys the home, or how it was financed. Additionally, owning a home creates demand for surrounding businesses to help maintain that home (HVAC, plumbing, gardening, general contracting), which in turn generates sales and income taxes for supply chain items and increased staffing for those businesses on a micro level.  The larger question is whether these individuals are capable of financially sustaining this model.

This measure needs in-depth investigation so that the real intent and agenda of this bill can be brought into the public sphere for the sake of transparency. The activists and supporters of AB 1840 will probably fight to have this bill re-introduced with either a different governor or a more supportive Democratic president in the future. What better time than now, to find out why this needed to be introduced and came within a whisker of being law. 

 

What Role Do Think Tanks Play in Formulating American Policy?

 

August 13, 2024

If Americans pay attention to current events, and politics, or even read online publications, at some point they will hear or read about "Think Tanks," which sounds like a prestigious term. Think tanks began as organizations that perform research and are advocates on various subject matters, including social policy, political movements, economics, and military strategy. Most think tanks are non-governmental organizations, but a few are tied to government agencies, some created by defense contractors, multi-billion-dollar corporations, and military entities such as the military-industrial complex companies (Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, etc.) and the Department of Defense. What role do these think tanks play in American domestic and foreign policy, and is it good for the country in terms of how we formulate policies that are best for the country's direction?

_________________________________

Think tanks have been around for decades, with experts in various fields, either in a residency program or working full-time, until "friends" in a new presidential administration recruit them to serve in senior positions. These organizations focus on research regardless of whether the government requires it, or a university initiates the request to use resources from fundraising donations. Additionally, they may not be at the mercy of political winds unless their donors have specific ideological perspectives.  Their empirical data collection and findings are used by legislators and government administrators as the basis for laws and public policies. Some good things come out of the think tank world, but other factors contribute to more federal policies that are enacted.  

Think tanks became more partisan, due in part to an ever-divisive political discourse; as such there are both influential liberal ones (Roosevelt Institute, Center for American Progress) and others, as well as conservative think tanks. Certain specific organizations cater to the worldviews of their wealthy donors (such as the CATO Institute, with libertarian Charles Koch as a co-founder, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, funded in part by Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban) and ideological (such as John Birch Society, Federalist Society), and those that skew center-right (Hoover Institute).

Over the last 30 years or so, think tanks have been used more often to help determine legislative initiatives (both domestic and foreign policies) and they have become invaluable for both major parties for administration staffing, and policy ideas.  Additionally, they have been used for Supreme Court recommendations, judges on the federal bench including appellate openings, by different administrations, executive staffing within federal agencies, and suggested policy directives.

There are think tanks that have considerable endowments, along with individuals with expertise that have seen their influence increase and sway members of Congress in both parties.  However, this blog will focus on organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the John Birch Society, and the Federalist Society.

Heritage Foundation (HF)

This conservative think tank was created in 1973, which included some seed money from wealthy beer magnate Joseph Coors, and was also led by co-founders Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner.  It is one of the most well-known think tanks, whose headquarters are in Washington, D.C, and its influence is considerable. I believe many planks within the Republican party platform have been incubated in the halls of this think tank, and their fingerprints are on many legislative bills passed by Republicans in Congress.  The organization created a subsidiary to influence conservative members of Congress called "Heritage Action," which focuses on opposition to ideas such as climate change and Critical Race Theory (CRT), to name a few.

The foundation gained influence beginning in 1981, during the transition by the newly elected Ronald Reagan, which published a set of books called "Mandate for Leadership," which was a directive for dismantling the overbearing administrative state.  The proponents who initiated it were given prominent positions by the Reagan Administration to ensure the implementation of many of the books' proposals.

During the 8 years of Reagan's presidency, many of the ideas that became synonymous with his time in the nation's capital were fermented at the foundation, which includes the "Reagan Doctrine," where the United States provided economic, military, and other forms of support for governments around the world fighting communist movements (Angola, Nicaragua and Afghanistan) and the use of an integrated satellite network to combat a Soviet ballistic missile threat, known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly known as "Star Wars."

A new proposal that has gathered consciousness around the country (but most certainly with the media) is called "Project 2025" and includes initiatives to give the President expanded and specifically, central control over the expansive government.  The goal is to give the chief executive more encompassing powers, such as treating all federal employees as political appointees, who can be easily fired at will. It is part of the conservatives' desire to make the chief executive fall under the "unitary executive theory," where the President of the United States has immense influence and power to reshape the government (both policy-wise and personnel-wise) under their own image. Some of these ideas include partisan control of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to name a few. In addition, reductions in environmental and climate regulations are in favor of fossil fuel production and refinement.  Former President Trump has read it but has stated publicly (while campaigning anyway) that he does not plan to enact the publication's agenda as his own. It remains to be seen if he is being honest.

John Birch Society (JBS)

This is another well-known conservative think tank headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, and founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr.  While this organization is familiar to those who follow American politics, it lacks the clout and influence of the other think tanks.  It is viewed by liberals as an ultra-conservative, even fundamentalist society that promotes extreme conservative orthodoxy.  A prominent conservative, the late William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, sought to push this fervent group of conservatives away toward the fringe of national Republican discourse and relevance while he was active in party politics. Their membership includes some of the business class, the suburban middle class, and wealthy Americans.  

The organization's primary goal was to combat communist ideals at home through politics, but lately, it has morphed into a reactionary, conspiratorial political organization. The JBS was fearful of "one world government" organizations and agreements, such as the United Nations (UN), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Their reasoning was that the U.S. Constitution was devalued and superseded by their agendas. The organization was not in favor of the Federal Reserve System and want it to be audited regularly and eventually dismantled. 

Even though it is not primarily a religious organization, the JBS played a role in the elevation and support of the Moral Majority (Rev. Jerry Falwell) and conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly. Some within GOP circles felt that although their influence was thought to have peaked in the late '60s and early '70s, their ideals and beliefs have morphed into the current strain within populist members of the Republican party's base of voters.  However, since the views of JBS are too extreme for even the moderate wing of the GOP and the business community as a whole, they are not as influential as in years past.

Federalist Society (FS)

Outside of the Heritage Foundation, I believe this think tank has the most influence on Republican politics and has seen its efforts rewarded on a national scale. It was founded as a legal organization that promotes conservative and libertarian principles behind legal scholarship.  Chapters were created at law schools around the country to counter perceived liberal bias at those institutions, and to promote ideas that are more aligned with the Constitution. An additional motivation for the founders was to work to promote judicial restraint, rather than the activist advocacy that many conservatives felt jurisprudential law was moving towards. The logo is of James Madison, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and author of The Federalist Papers, and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Major donors in its infancy include the conservative power brokers at the Scaife Foundation and Koch family foundations.

Ambitious, right-leaning lawyers, wanting federal judgeships, and senior positions within Republican administrations, seek out and are vetted through the Federalist Society. To some, it acts as a sort of "de facto gatekeeper," according to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, legal scholar and constitutional law expert, and Chair of the politics department at Pomona College. 

It is the power broker for law school graduates who seek to bolster and strengthen their ambition within a conservative legal community. Former senior executive Leonard Leo felt that the Society was primarily created to build a community that would protect its core beliefs and be self-sustaining and self-driving. A fact worth mentioning is that it is one of the greatest success stories in terms of a student group that matriculated to a powerful institution in Washington, D.C.'s political scene. Their power and reach are exhibited within the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), where five of the nine justices are open about their membership, beginning with law school and with the Society. 

Its members and alumni have played significant roles in important cases of legal precedent, contributing a part to rulings (as supporting players, lawyers before the bench, etc.), including before the SCOTUS that conservatives favored.  One, District of Columbia v Heller, SCOTUS ruled that each specific individual, and not the collective right, could keep and bear arms. It supported the Federalist Society's primary goal for fewer regulations, across the board, both for individuals who want to purchase and bear guns on their property, or with proper licensing, on their person in the District of Columbia. The Federalist Society was instrumental in shifting public and court opinion, over many years, to a position that was favored by the organization.

In Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court weakened regulations for campaign finance, where the majority opinion favored incorporating the free speech clause of the First Amendment into contributing to political campaigns. Those Justices felt that it was an overreach by the government to restrict or prohibit independent expenditures for communications (or financial contributions) by nonprofit corporations, for-profit entities, labor unions, and other types of associations such as the conservative non-profit called Citizens United. The organization was also very active for years on this subject, focusing on lobbying efforts for members of Congress, working to move the public's perception of this issue, and was ultimately successful in its efforts. Critics felt it tilted the scale for influence to corporations and labor unions, to an even greater level, and removed individuals, unless wealthy, to the fringes of political relevance.

The Way Forward

These three examples provide a glimpse into why think tanks have proliferated over time, and why they no longer just partake in scholarly research, gathering data, and presenting findings but rather have a strong influence on those in Republican leadership.  Many governments around the world along with corporate and military interests have realized how useful it can be to create think tanks, advocacy organizations, and research institutes that provide the impetus for policy.  The benefit that these organizations do in terms of research is that their work continues as long as the term for the funds is pre-established.  With government research, information can be canceled or thrown out depending on when a new party controls Congress or the White House. To avoid this, many of the backers of think tanks and advocacy organizations (one would assume) may feel it is better to contribute to those types of entities, rather than lobby their members of Congress to provide taxpayer funds for special projects or advocacy.

Take for instance think tanks that are associated with or tied to military defense contractors.  What is their primary motive? To provide case studies or data that support an increase or justification for military spending.  Some of the profits from these large, affiliated corporations use some of their profits to invest in their think tanks for research that will support an increase in weapons projects, design, and purchase.  If they get their way, and if they are publicly traded corporations, this will see their stock price go up, leading to more profits.  It is a pretty smart method in my opinion.  Experts who are quoted or given platforms on traditional media arguing for a legislative bill related to defense spending don't necessarily disclose the source of funding for their research. When presented to unsophisticated citizens, it comes across as an independently researched basis for a particular funding initiative.

Due to this successful method, think tanks have proliferated across many industries in numerous countries propositioning for fewer regulations related to banking, finance, or government programs. American think tanks have shown the best way to influence media and legislative bodies to support their positions. These organizations have mastered the art of advocacy and in the future, funding, de-regulation, and policy positions will most likely come from think tanks, and it is the best way to convince the general public, or whatever audience is needed to sway opinion to get their desired outcome.  The American think tank advocacy model is what corporations, media platforms, and politicians will use to win arguments, and most importantly, direct the money flow to the right people and companies.

US Men's Soccer's "Golden Generation" Lays a Golden Egg at the Copa America

 

July 16, 2024

This year's Copa America, South America's regional national team tournament, was to be played for the second time in 8 years in the United States. The International Federation of Football (FIFA) will have a larger presence in this country; it was to be the first of well-known and prestigious tournaments over the next four years that would increase the profile of the sport in the U.S.: Copa America (2024), FIFA Club World Cup (2025), FIFA World Cup (2026) and 2028 Olympics.  The participation of the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) was to be a bellwether for how the team can perform against excellent competition.

______________________________

The 2024 Copa America was to be one of the first competitions that hopefully would, in the hearts of soccer fans, bring about an era of soccer that would win over casual fans of the sport.  The inclusion of the USMNT would allow the players to be tested against national teams from South America with impressive pedigrees such as Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Colombia, all of whom produce legendary players who play at the highest level in Europe.  This tournament was to be a good test for the U.S. men, and being put in Group C with two winnable games against Bolivia, and Panama, along with a tough one against Uruguay sure looked that way.  

Group Games

USA v Bolivia

Their first game against Bolivia was pretty solid, with Christian Pulisic, the star talisman for the U.S., scoring the opening goal and Folarin Balogun netting the second insurance goal.  The team had other missed chances to send a strong message and score more goals to pad their goal differential, but a win was a win.  

USA v Panama

Disaster struck in the second game for the U.S., when in the 16th minute, Tim Weah, son of legendary Liberian striker George Weah, was given a straight red card for a retaliatory gesture against a Panama player.  That put the USMNT down a man for the rest of the game, but their fortunes seemed to change when Folarin Balogun scored a pretty goal for the Americans in the 22nd minute, which bounced off the right post and into the net.  This gave the U.S. a much-needed boost of confidence.  Sadly, it lasted for only four minutes before Panama's Cesar Blackman sent an equalizer at the 26th-minute mark, into the American net when U.S. defender Cameron Carter-Vickers was unable to deflect or kick away.  

For the remaining minutes, the USMNT was content to play from the back (as the goalkeeper or backline defenders initiate ball movement forward). This meant playing most of the game in their half of the field until good opportunities were presented for a counter-attack. The USMNT had some good opportunities to score, from Pulisic (shot hit the crossbar), and 2nd-half substitute Ricardo Pepi whose header lacked power and fell into the hands of the Panama goalkeeper.  The fatal go-ahead goal by Jose Fajardo came in the 83rd minute. It looked like replacement goalkeeper Ethan Horvath should have been able to stop it but didn't get the job done. The subsequent red card given to Panama's best player Adalberto Carrassquilla at the 88th-minute mark for a rough tackle put both teams at even strength, but the damage was done and the United States was not able to recover a draw, much less a win.

The United States had to secure three points in their final group game against one of the tournament favorites, Uruguay ("La Celeste").  They were led by a mad scientist type of coach, Marcelo Bielsa.  whom some call "El Loco," based on his all-out approach to pressing in his opponent's half of the field and aggressive fouls against their opponents.  I feel his style is the South American version of the Netherlands' groundbreaking 'Total Football" introduced in the 1970's.

The U.S. was supposed to have taken care of qualifying for the knock-out rounds by beating Panama, but being a man down and giving up a late goal changed the outlook.  It required a tall task of overcoming a tough Uruguay side.

USA v Uruguay

Their final group game started well, with the U.S. mirroring Uruguay's tough pressing and countering.  The USMNT even had some good scoring chances, but were not able to capitalize on any of them.  They went into the half tied 0-0, and were 45 minutes away from qualifying for the next round, with a little help from the Bolivians.  U.S. coach Greg Berhalter was even signaling to his team later on that Bolivia had tied Panama in the second half, so all the USMNT had to do was hold on for dear life and draw Uruguay.  That dream didn't last too long, as Panama netted two insurance goals past the Bolivian goalkeeper.  During this time, a Uruguayan player placed a rebound off of a free-kick from teammate Ronald Aruajo in the 66th minute. Replays looked as though it may be offside, but ultimately video assistant referee ("VAR") let the goal stand. That put to death the American dream of going deep into the Copa America.  It was the worst tournament outcome for the U.S. men in twenty tournaments on home soil.

Where does the USMNT go from here?

The time for recriminations has begun, especially for coach Greg Berhalter, who was never the person many USMNT fans felt was the right coach to begin with.  A lot of questions will be directed toward the USSF as a whole, and its board members, in addition to Greg Berhalter, that will also generate a lot of anger and frustration.  

What ails the men's program?  Many indicators on and off the playing field provide a glimpse as to what is wrong.  Let me lay them out:

• Many countries, through their national teams, possess a certain style of play.  Think Netherlands and "Total Football,"  Brazil and their legendary "Jogo Bonito,"  Italy and its suffocating defensive style, and Spain's "Tiki-Taka".  The USMNT doesn't have a particular style or formation, and it changes with each new manager.  It lacks a coherent philosophy when they play, and it shows.
• The American men have not established a strong culture based on anything in particular.  Whereas the U.S. women, with the help of the Title IX federal law, were able to create a pipeline for talent, coupled with the rest of the world that showed little interest in women's soccer (at that time, not currently) and thus creating an exemplary record of winning FIFA World Cup titles (four) and producing elite players (Mia Hamm, Alex Morgan).  The U.S. men have no comparison with their peers, and that hurts their legacy.
• Youth soccer in America is a notorious pay-to-play format, where families with means have access to good coaches, practice fields, and a network to help promote their child's journey. 
• Leagues around the world have an academy system for individual teams, which is free to those who have talent (regardless of socio-economic background, which is key), and those teams spend considerable time and effort in molding players who can fit their style of play and thrive on the senior team. The top-flight U.S. league, Major League Soccer (MLS) has made some improvements to their academy system, but not enough.
• The USSF can make mistakes in their hiring of coaches for the USMNT; Greg Berhalter has had a mostly unimpressive tenure, especially with the recent failure in the Copa America this month, and many fans were justly calling for his dismissal after the U.S. was eliminated.

For the fortunes of the USMNT to change, some of the above points must be addressed.  A philosophy that men can adopt for their team's character is good but needs more thought.  Perhaps finding a Sporting Director at the U.S. Soccer Federation who will stay in the position for quite some time and work with senior team coaches to develop that philosophical playing style could be one solution.  It is hoped that philosophy will slowly develop a culture that the rest of the world will acknowledge, and should propel the USMNT to better success.  

Additionally, the youth soccer system in this country needs a massive overhaul. Around the world, talented kids are steered to environments where their careers can be nurtured for personal growth and success. Instead, players here dream about getting a college soccer scholarship. That should not be how the men's program should develop talent. I feel American players should begin their pro careers in MLS (that is one route), and then go to Europe's best leagues. Pursuing higher education can be done later.

Do I think these changes are going to happen soon?  I don't have a strong feeling about it.  The powers that be that have influence and control, at the U.S. Soccer Federation, and at MLS, are not interested in reform. They are like protective fiefdoms that aren't on the same page consistently to achieve big things but would rather keep things the status quo. The wrong people (pay-to-play coaches, MLS owners) are making money instead of the right people (the players). That is why I think the trajectory of the USMNT will plateau for the foreseeable future, and nothing will improve on the field.  

I see more failures in international competitions for American men and a lack of regular introspection. A week after the Americans were eliminated, Greg Berhalter was fired by the USSF from his duties as the men's team coach. A coach they chose not to hire, Jesse Marsch (former MLS, and occasional USMNT player), led Canada to the Copa America semifinals, which was for him, an amazing achievement.

The U.S. Soccer Federation has an opportunity to hire a dynamic coach who in turn will assemble a great team for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and if they achieve success, could win the hearts and minds of the country.  However, the federation must get it right in terms of who it hires.  The coach will have just a short two-year window to sift through the men's talent pool and find the players who can work inside the coach's playing style.  The names being openly discussed include Jurgen Klopp (former Liverpool manager), Herve Renard (former Saudi men's team and current French women's coach), Patrick Viera (former France player and MLS coach), and a few American options, Steve Cherundolo, (current MLS coach at Los Angeles Football Club), B.J. Callaghan (former USMNT assistant and current MLS coach in Nashville). Many of them will turn down the opportunity, but the federation should still have high aspirations.

I believe the USSF will ultimately choose a coach based on metrics that have nothing to do with soccer but with an emphasis on the financial aspects.  The federation wants someone who will be a loyal and obedient "company" man, someone who will pick a large number of MLS players, based on the wishes of MLS Commissioner and USSF Board Member Don Garber.  Additionally, since it is a two-year window leading up to the World Cup, priorities will be on marketing and storylines not really important in the grand scheme of things.

While I hope the federation changes how it operates and picks a coach who will help the USMNT win, I think in the end, nothing will change.  The USSF knows soccer is not the most popular sport in this country, and as such, there is a lack of accountability for the choices senior executives make.  That makes everyone comfortable, and when people are comfortable, there is no pressure to get it right and succeed on the field, where it really matters. 

Will The WNBA Benefit From The "Caitlin Clark Effect?"

 

May 22, 2024

This year's NCAA women's March Madness tournament was the Caitlin Clark coronation story.  She rose to fame last year in the same tournament when her skills took the University of Iowa Hawkeyes to the final, where they lost to Louisiana State University (LSU).  That game had a seminal sporting event's trappings: two good teams, stars, and memorable moments. A notable one showed LSU star Angel Reese waiving her hand mockingly in front of Iowa's Caitlin Clark's face during Hawkeye's loss.  The spotlight shined bright on her this past college basketball season.  Can she elevate the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA), which has never captured the nation's interest in its history, to new heights? 

__________________________________

The lasting effect of last year's title game was that Caitlin Clark would have much more media pressure around her during her final college season in 2024.  As such, the hype train for her was through the roof, and she delivered by scoring baskets from long range that got the attention of ESPN's Sportscenter regularly.  Her popularity was greater than many men's college basketball players, and the ratings for this year's women's championship were higher than the men's title game.  

The hype train left the station last year and has been cruising since at a frenetic pace.  Once the women's tournament started this year, it was "all Caitlin, all the time."  Her performances throughout the tournament brought many people to her games and increased viewership on television.  She and the Hawkeye women returned to the title game again in 2024, but this time they lost to a very talented University of South Carolina Gamecocks team, led by former college and WNBA legend Dawn Staley.

Analysts at ESPN and other sports media were heralding a new era in women's basketball, and specifically, the WNBA.  Since its inception, the league has not been very popular, drawing sparse crowds and even lesser interest when the games were televised on ESPN and ABC.  Despite having great players over the years, none had been able to capture the nation's interest amongst basketball fans, including those of the National Basketball Association (NBA). Casual sports fans were an even harder group to show interest in, and some in the media stated the WNBA existed solely on the benevolence and financial support from the NBA.  To a large extent, that was true.  However, over the past few years, many corporations have provided much-needed sponsorship money, which has helped generate revenue for the women's league. I do feel that support was generally due to corporate alignment and financial benevolence with social justice movements after the death of George Floyd, and the WNBA benefited from that largesse. However it came to be, that financial help has seen the league increase its revenue, which is a good thing.

Ms. Clark's arrival on the scene the past two years has brought in sports fans to watch women's basketball, something that was a welcome sign for fans of the game.  College basketball, even for the women, had healthy crowds and good fan support, although college sports attendances in smaller towns without professional teams generally were good for all university-affiliated teams. 

For many years the players of the WNBA played in below-capacity arenas (including the cavernous homes of the NBA franchises).  Some teams had to finally move their games to smaller capacity arenas to give their teams some semblance of a 'home court advantage.' 

The intense media coverage of Ms. Clark's college games over the past two years, including those of the NCAA tournament, saw television audiences increase by the millions when the Iowa Hawkeye games were shown.  This year, the NCAA women's final drew over 18.9 million viewers, more than 500,000 more than the men's final.  That had never happened before and gave hope to those whose fervent support of the ladies could be sustained for the long term.  Additionally, the recent WNBA draft had over 2 million viewers, which was also a record. One could ask, is this the "Caitlin Cark effect", or does the WNBA have genuine momentum?

While fans of the women's game promote the idea that once people have "seen" their performances, attendance and viewership would go up, I feel otherwise.  Men and women are built differently; men have more muscle mass, in addition to a higher center of gravity that allows them to jump higher (dunking comes to mind), while proponents of the ladies' game said the WBA plays the game the way it is supposed to, with an emphasis on fundamentals (passing and ball movement).

Overall, the NBA is still more popular (at least over the last 40 years) and even though social justice causes have turned off some fans in the past few years, the product tends to be better than the WNBA overall. Major networks are still willing to spend considerable money to carry NBA games. Despite this, Caitlin Clark could change the league's fortunes for the better.  Already, due to pressure from media circles after Ms. Clark was seen wandering through an airport with minimal security, the WNBA has decided to use charter flights for the remainder of the FY24 season.  Despite WNBA players in the past advocating for these flights, the league avoided mandating them because of their cost, and many teams in the league have owners for whom those costs would be prohibitive for their balance sheets.  I believe the WNBA Commissioner, Cathey Englebert, changed course because she felt with the new scrutiny, and companies wanting to be associated with Ms. Clark and the league,  the potential revenue increase, along with a better media rights deal within the next year or so, the cost of chartering would be recouped.

Time will tell if Caitlin Clark can put the WNBA on her back and take it to new and profitable heights. The lack of interest and popularity was never really about sexism and misogyny as feminists and women's sports advocates claim. If you run a business, and you want the general public to care about your product, you have to give people a reason to care.  That is the job of the players and the league, not the average fan.  There has to be an interest or focus on a player (or several for that matter) for fans to spend their hard-earned money going to games or devoting time to watching their product on television. That is where the WNBA fails.  I assume the WNBA league office believes since it is a women's professional basketball league, it should generate the same revenue, interest, and fan support as the NBA, simply because they do the same thing.  That is absolute nonsense, and is extremely arrogant, with a large dose of entitlement to boot.

The WNBA product requires a lot of improvement, and should not be compared with the NBA, ever. They are totally different games for a reason (as mentioned above) and fans of the women's league must focus on different marketing strategies.  With Clark, the league was gifted a once-in-a-lifetime talent, who consistently delivered in competitive collegiate environments.  Fans of the WNBA will hope she can do the same in a professional environment, but the burden cannot solely be on her, which would be unfair.  The league needs to find and promote colorful personalities, healthy conflict, and dramatic rivalries, much as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson's 'Boston Celtics vs. Los Angeles Lakers' battles did for the birth of the modern NBA in the 1980s. This momentum in turn led to its evolution and zenith with Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls in the 1990s. Will Caitlin Clark be the WNBA's Jordan? No, but she doesn't need to be.  What she must do, is usher a modern birth of the league, a catalyst that helps the league sustain progress to one day have a healthy business where the players get paid their market value, and fans continue to show up and spend their money.  

If she can do that, that is a great legacy to leave to future players in the WNBA.

 

Is Solving Homelessness California's New "Goldrush?"

 

April 29, 2024

Homelessness has always been prevalent in America, since its creation.  However, over the last twenty years, Americans have seen an increase in those who live on the streets, which has become a serious problem. It has become a campaign issue for Congress members and those running for President of the United States.  The recent reaction has been for cities and certain states to provide large amounts of taxpayer money to "solve" the problem, but it has created a new "Gold Rush" in California.  Will government funds solve this crisis?

__________________________________

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profits have made a mad dash to their local city councilmembers and California legislators with their hats out for tax funds to alleviate cities of their homeless problem.  Residents of cities and the state government have noticed an alarming trend of homeless people in their neighborhoods, on public transit, and within trendy locales, which has seen spikes in alcohol-related arrests by police and releasing of bodily waste in public near restaurants, luxury residences, and places of work.  It has generated anger and exasperation among residents, especially in large cities, and has become a campaign issue for many politicians. In some cases, the reaction has been to provide taxpayer funds to combat it. 

One of the catalysts was President Reagan's initiative in the early days of his administration, with the help of Congress, to effectively end any funding of the Mental Health Systems Act (MHSA-1980), a program created by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. That bill was part of a movement from the 1970s to rehabilitate people who suffer from mental illness, whereby the federal government provided grants to community mental health centers, part of a comprehensive desire to coordinate mental healthcare, and social support services.  The essential repeal of the MHSA was done with the tacit agreement by a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and a Republican-controlled United States Senate, included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.

This endeavor pushed a vulnerable population who required strong advocacy and care out of medical institutions and onto the street. They had to find local organizations, or state programs, to help them if available. Since then, states and local municipalities have had difficulty dealing with a population that seems to increase. In addition to mental health issues, the other root causes are a lack of housing and financial hardship, alcohol and drug abuse, and these life challenges have affected people in California the most. The National Institutes of Health states that between 30%-40% of homelessness is related to alcohol abuse, while 10%-15% are from drug addiction and dependency, and points out that having alcohol and drug-free housing is essential to recovery.

Many American cities have sizable homeless populations, but according to CBS News, New York and Los Angeles have about 40% of the country's destitute and homeless. Recently elected Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass promised to find housing for many of her city's homeless population, which was a major theme of her campaign, one on which it seems she wants to deliver.  According to local news sources, that program, called "Inside Safe," initially removed 2,000 people off the streets and, along with current and new programs, relocated 22,000 people into temporary housing, an increase of 5,000 from the previous year.

Mayor Bass's initiatives follow a 2016 countywide measure (Prop HHH) that earmarked $1.2 billion to build 10,000 apartments for the homeless within a decade, which passed with popular support. There was hope that this would transfer many homeless persons into those apartments. KCRW provided a report authored by Anna Scott and Saul Gonzalez, on what has happened so far at the five-year mark. While the proposition had good intentions and has generated a large amount of taxpayer funds, it has not achieved the primary goal of building affordable housing for the homeless in the city yet.  

Developers within Los Angeles have immense power through their lobbying of the mayor and city council.  Additionally, to build projects, these companies have to solicit funds through banks and government loans, using financial commitments from those entities as leverage for additional funding. After several rounds of submission and approval, Scott and Gonzalez note the process requires a lot of money and can be exhausting.  Apparently, this is where most of the $1.2 billion has gone toward. Prop HHH was intended to make it more efficient to eliminate the red tape and wasting of funds, but the "administrative blob" was too entrenched.  They also state that some things were also out of the city's control, which exacerbated the problems.  These include changes to the corporate tax rate, reduced under the Trump Administration, which diminished the need for write-offs and tax credits, which was a major source of affordable housing funding. Private companies and entities buy those credits in exchange for cash for the developers. At the time of the article, only 1,000 of the proposed 10,000 units were built, while most of the money had already been committed or pledged. The KCRW article paints a good picture of the overlapping issues relating to homelessness, good intentions, and government red tape.  

Over time, the state of California has introduced statewide ballot measures during election years to provide proposed solutions, albeit at taxpayer expense. A lot of money gets allocated via a legislative general fund and then distributed amongst the NGOs and non-profit entities, but the problem is widely visible and persists.

In California this year, the Associated Press (AP) stated during the March Primary, this latest proposal, Proposition 1 passed with a razor-thin success rate because residents of the state have paid for homeless measures before, but nothing seemed to have changed. Voters knew that Governor Newsom invested billions of dollars to deal with homeless populations within the state's cities, but there has been no visible improvement. The language in the proposition focused on creating new mental health treatment, finding more housing, and rehabilitating those within the temporary housing system into productive members of their communities.

Homelessness is a serious challenge for large cities in the 21st century.  The seeds for the issue (mental health struggles, financial hardship, loss of family, substance addictions) are watered by benevolent intentions from concerned citizens without any results-driven metric. The funds generated through taxation are then used for issues not related to actually combating the problem.  While those who are homeless persist, the elected officials, activists, and NGOs dealing with the problem come up with new and "better" reasons for funding, but the problem remains unchanged.  

Conservative cable news pundits claim that the reason California has a large homeless population is that individuals arrive from other states, and it is primarily due to generous benefits.  However, an article in The Atlantic presented an empirical study with data that shows most of the state's homeless are residents who have lost homes due to financial hardship in the same county where they are living on the street, a surprising finding. What can be done? It would be good to ensure most state residents have immediate options available to them to avoid going the shelter route and reduce the influx of people without help.

If these proposed programs can avoid the same red tape that other county initiatives encounter, then money will be used for its intended goal.  A good step in that direction was the recent news that the homeless programs within the city of Los Angeles will be audited by an outside firm, approved by the Los Angeles City Council.  How the funds are being used by collecting and reviewing service providers' metadata can bring forth better solutions. For instance, the audit needs to determine the varying types of reasons people fall into homelessness within the city and provide a breakdown according to:

• percentage with a substance addiction
• percentage with mental illness or combined with addiction
• percentage coping with financial hardship

In the current economic climate, it would not take much for the average American to lose their housing and fall into homelessness, and we should be aware that it can happen to anyone at any given moment. Having empathy for those who struggle is good, but it should not be taken advantage of by elected officials and those who want to make a profit from those good intentions.

I believe that those homeless who are housed under city initiatives must be grouped together based on similar situations. Once data has been collected, it would be smart for city agencies to separate those who need rehabilitation and healthcare, and those who need shelter until they are financially independent again. It would be a challenge for those who are living on the streets because of bankruptcy, and who must share housing with those who suffer from mental illness or drug addiction and require rules-based, case-managed administration.  It will pose obstacles of compatibility to those individuals or even families facing different challenges who are forced to live together in a building or in similar settings.

I wonder whether "solving" homelessness is like the military-industrial complex's business model, in that funds are needed to combat dictators and authoritarians who threaten America and to protect the country. Regardless of the validity of these threats, money still transfers out of the government treasury regularly and into the willing hands of the defense contractors who build more weapons and hardware than what is requested. It is funny how these threats never go away, but neither does the money flow.  Either the problem is meant to persist, but never solved, or the underlying administrative hurdles are too entrenched to mitigate. There is too much money to be made by those who have skin in the game keeping the problem around, and there are many voters who are willing to keep the "Goldrush" open for business.

I would be happy if I was proven wrong, however. Hopefully, voters will see in their neighborhoods the good-intentioned proposals actually rehabilitate those with mental health struggles, addictions, and financial distress and provide shelter for those who actually need it, and deliberately and purposefully eradicate this problem.