I've meant to write about this CNBC article for a long time, ever since it was published last November 11 -- almost a year ago.  But Trump keep getting in the way, and ultimately it wasn't "dated," and the point of it held true even as months passed, so I kept putting it off.  But enough already.  Let's finally get to it.  (Hey, I may be slow, but I'm diligent...)

As the article states, "These charts show how Democrats represent the growing modern economy -- and how Republicans are left behind" 

The point of the article is that the Red districts that Republicans represent over the "smaller, fading segment," of the U.S. economy with a work force that is "less-educated" and relies more on traditional manufacturing and resources. On the other hand, Blue districts represented by Democrats are "the larger, growing one, fueled by finance, professional services and digital innovation."

This is just one of the several charts in the article and tells the point most clearly and easily --.

To be clear, the point of the article -- and my addressing it -- is not to be against working men and women.  After all, both sides of the discussion are working men and question.  At issue is which industries are most productive and helping the most to drive the U.S. economy

The article looks at the 2016 presidential race to make the point even clearer.  It notes that Trump won 2,584 counties compared to 472 counties that were won by Hillary Clinton.  (To be clear, they are addressing "counties," not districts and not votes.  A county is a land mass, while voting districts are broken up more equitably.)  But the study by experts at the Brookings Institution showed that these significantly-fewer counties that voted for Hillary Clinton "accounted for nearly two-thirds of U.S. economic output."

Brookings took their study into the 2018 House mid-term election. At the time the article was written, a few races were still yet to be decided, but they were able to break figures down by district here.  And the number of  districts won by Democrats in the Mid-terms accounted "for 61 percent of America's gross domestic product, [while] districts won by Republicans 38 percent.

I also found one of the article's conclusions especially telling.  As Brookings researcher Mark Muro notes: "The Democratic Party and Republican Party, at this point, really do occupy different economic worlds and represent different economic worlds."

You can read the whole article here.


​

The Washington Post had a major story yesterday which Rachel Maddow devoted most of her show to last night, about Russian influence in the United States, mostly focusing on a $200 million deal in Kentucky to build an aluminum factory the day after which Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked sanctions against the Russian oligarch -- and Putin's close ally -- who owns the company.

At the heart of one issue is that if the factory wasn't built, then a great many people in Kentucky who are desperate for jobs would lose theirs at the new, upcoming plant.  It's a deeply understandable concern.  On the one hand, jobs for those in need.  On the other hand, Russian influence over the Senate Majority Leader to direct policy of the entire United States.  Including, for instance, McConnell blocking any efforts to protect the country against Russian cyber-attacks in the 2020 election.

Much as its a deeply understandable concern and there are two sides to the issue, that doesn't mean the two sides are equal.  Losing the jobs would be devastating to those workers.  But then, the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place if it meant giving Russian control in U.S. policy.  The "greater good" is seems to me far, far greater.  And that means the deal should be stopped, in order to protect the United States.

It should be noted, to keep full perspective, that this same Russian oligarch, Sergei Deripaskov -- who worked with convicted felon Paul Manafort and, again, was on the sanction list for serious reasons -- has already contacted governors in eight other states about building factories in their states, as well.  No doubt to have further Russian influence there.

To be very clear, having said that I don't think the aluminum factory deal should go forward, I feel terrible about the people in Kentucky who don’t have jobs.  But we shouldn’t have this factory there in the first place for those jobs to be able to “taken away.”  And maybe if so many people are out of work in Kentucky, maybe Republicans shouldn’t have tricked people into thinking coal was coming back, but instead train people for new green environmental industries.  Or…or maybe we should increase unemployment insurance rather than lower taxes and then cut back the unemployment benefits program.  Or maybe we should create a federal jobs program like FDR did in the New Deal.  Yes, yes, I know that conservatives hate liberalism and hate FDR and hate social welfare programs.  But when you don’t have those programs, one of the results is destitute people who are willing to sell their country out to the devil who offers them a way to do so.
 
Just because I don’t think they should have jobs from a Russian company trying to subvert the United States doesn’t mean I think we should ignore their plight.  After all, I’m not a conservative -- I don't believe in only “What’s in it for me?” and "I got mine, you're on your own."  I believe in helping those in need.  Just not by selling out the rest of the United States.  So I think there are things we as a country could do for them.  And if those people out of work find “liberal” solutions distasteful, they don’t have to take advantage of them.  They can stay out of work without some form of government assistance or government jobs programs trying to help them if they want, it's a free country.  They can rely on churches and private business to set up shelters and food programs -- though clearly that hasn't been working which is why they're out of work and desperate.  But if they really do want to pass up on liberal assistance, it would their choice.  Personally, I don't they would pass up on the opportunities to help their lives if offered them.  Just like people didn't during the Depression, and just like they don't pass up on Social Security and Medicare when then become available to them, no matter how "liberal" the programs are.  Personally, I think liberal solutions to give you help for a better life are much better than selling out your country – or starving.  But that's me.

Apparently Republicans, and Mitch McConnell as their Senate leader, feel differently.  

And Mitch McConnell is SO upset that he has been given the nickname of "Moscow Mitch."  The heart just bleeds for him.  But then, apparently that's what we bleeding-heart liberals do...

If you missed Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on HBO this past Sunday, fear not, for we have it for you.  It's a look at prison labor.  I didn't find it one of their better efforts, but then the standard is so high, so it's still pretty good, often quite funny, and occasionally there are some very interesting angles, most notably when it comes to third-party businesses.

If you didn't see Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Sunday, we're here to help you catch up on your viewing.  The main story was a very interesting one on eCommerce -- and more specifically, fulfillment warehouses.  Though it doesn't deal solely with Amazon, nor do they say it's the worst example, Amazon is clearly the most visible of the genre, and so the focus of the story.  It's informative, well-done and, as always, they find ways to make it very funny while describing how problematic the system is.

Sometimes in the word political, soul-crushing angst we have to go instead for froth on occasion, and if we're going to rant, we can do so with the comfort of knowing it really doesn't matter.  It's just personal, not something that puts national security and world economics at risk.  So, thank good for small annoyances!

I suspect that the Volvo TV commercial with the opera singer is fairly popular.  After all, it's been on the air for six months at this point.  That's the one that asks the question "Can you design an SUV for an aria?" and shows how classy the Volvo is because a Mozart aria from The Magic Flute" plays throughout.

Personally, it makes me nuts. I may be in the minority -- but it still makes me nuts.  To be clear, I don't mind that while the public likely thinks it's such a sweet piece of music, in fact "The Queen of the Night" aria is sung by a murderous villain to her daughter,

Opera fans watching this commercial must cringe, if they’re not guffawing. That’s because the music on the soundtrack is no paean to grace and lovingkindness, but the homicidal signature aria of one of the most monstrous characters in the canon.  As Michael Hiltzik wrote about the ad in the L.A. Times, "she’s one vicious specimen. Think Cruella de Vil times 1 million."

The German aria begins with the words that in English mean “The vengeance of hell,” and eventually get to “Death and despair flame about me. Hear, gods of revenge, Hear a mother's oath!”  As she tells her daughter, the girl must commit murder or be "disowned, abandoned, destroyed -- forever.”.

But that's okay if people don't know what's actually be said.  What you don't know can't kill you, as the expression goes, although if you're driving at 80 MPH and don't know a blind, cliff drop-off is just around the bend, I wouldn't rely on wise adages saving you.  That aside, if people like listening to an aria, fine.  It puts things in more of an odd perspective for those who do know the opera, but so be it.

To be clear, it's a fairly well-produced commercial, and from Volvo's history I assume that it's a fine SUV.  What rubs me the wrong way is the performance of the singer, which (as I said) I suspect most people love, and certainly do from comments on YouTube.  The singer, Emily Cheung, might be wonderfully talented, but she was given a light-hearted, almost sweet arrangement that -- to my ear -- makes the number thin and just on the good side of screechy.  She's not straining to hit the notes (in what is a very difficult number), but they don't seem to come fluidly, and the result ends up sounding, as Hiltzik describes it, "chirpy."  To me, it's like she's reaching to grab each note individually, rather than having them already deliciously filling her basket.

For the longest while, I've thought that perhaps it's just me.  (Or me and Michael Hiltzik...)  After all, the ad has been running for half a year with no end in sight.  But then just the other day I received a premium gift for donating to a classical music radio station, WFMT in Chicago.  It was a CD with a variety of classical selections -- including "Queen of the Night" from The Magic Flute.  When it came on, I immediately sat up and thought, "Oh, okay, so it isn't me.  That is how I thought it was supposed to sound."

Here's the ad --

When I moved recently, I had to cancel my Spectrum cable account and then get the new Spectrum system for my new address.  There are many good things about the new system -- which is cloud-based -- though some options take far-too many extra clicks to accomplish which is a bit annoying.  But that's not the point here:  bottomline, some things better, some worse, fine.

The larger issue is that, being a new, cloud-based system, all the hiccups haven't been worked out yet.  Like often getting an error message, "We're sorry, the program guide can't be accessed right now."  Or the screen image gets all pixilated and becomes unwatchable.  And other cloud-glitches.

By the way, lest you get the wrong idea, this isn't a rant about Big Cable, or technical support, or any of the normal complaints available to make about cable.  It's about idiocy.  I'll get to that.

So, to be clear, the problem here isn't that there are hiccups in a new system.  I write about technology and understand that new versions of software do have bugs that need to get worked out.  But -- what I also understand is that generally they get "worked out" during the beta testing program and before the product is released to the public to pay for.  And though that's not the issue here either, being a beta tester AND paying a lot of money each month for the honor is not a good standard, and is the foundation of the point at hand.

Yes, there are annoyances, but I do get it.  Life is full of annoyances, and I don't expect cable to be any different.  I do have other expectations, though, and we're about to get to that.

A few nights ago, there was a bigger problem than usual.  Again, not The Worst Problem in the World at all -- -- they took the system down in the late evening, rather than a more sensible 3 AM morning -- but a big enough deep sigh "final straw" to call Spectrum the next day to discuss my beta tester status.

I knew it wasn't the tech person's fault, and I was thoroughly polite.  In fact, I explained all the things I liked about the new system, as well as a few of the bigger problems.  Actually, I wasn't even going to mention the specifics, but the customer support fellow kept asking me, because he wanted to make a record of it.  Good for him.  In fact he did a good job.  Mainly, I just wanted to make the point that Spectrum should never have released the system until it was ready and instead make subscribers the beta testers who pay for the honor.  He understood all the problems, he'd heard of them from others, and understood too the issue of releasing the software before it was ready.

Now, when I make calls like this in the past, I tend to leave it there to see how customer service handles things.  When I'm had problem with Spectrum in the past, for instance, they've always said they'd rebate the cost of service for that day of the problem.  No, it's not much but they make the effort.  Fine.  Good for them.

This fellow was very polite, but clearly wasn't authorized to do more than ask questions and be polite.  Finally, realizing this, I did what I almost never do.  I said that having to pay A LOT to be a tester of a system screwing up A LOT, is not how things should be, and I thought it would be proper to get some sort of rebate for all the times the software isn't working.

And that gets us to the point.  Yes, I know, it took a while to get here, but hopefully the ride was comfortable.

The short version (oh, now, I hear you cry, he inserts a "short version"...)  is that the fellow had to go check with his supervisors what he could do.  After about 10 minutes -- coming back on line every once in a while to thank me for my patience -- he said with great pride that he could offer me...a whole $10 rebate!  Although (and this is the good part), he made clear very pointedly to make sure I understand that this is a One-Time Only Offer for the year.  Yes, they would rebate that $10, but wouldn't be able to do so again until next year.  "How was that?" he asked.

All I could do was laugh.  Literally.  I said I knew it wasn't his policy, and I appreciated all the time he'd spent on the line, and I thanked him for diligently checking to get that answer -- "But," I added, "You do know that that is ridiculous."

And it was ridiculous.  It's not just that the amount is paltry -- honestly, I wasn't looking for a big pay day -- but the "one-time only" limitation was insulting.  It's as if they're doing you a favor.  Worse, it means when the system keeps screwing up, as it will, and already has, they're off the hook.  And it doesn't take much effort to now that there is a wide range of things they could have done instead, including for just one example, offer a premium service for a month.  It would cost them absolutely zero, and it could even make them money if you end up liking it and subscribing.  But no, $10 one-time only rebate for the year.  On a bill, for some people -- if they have lots of add-on premium extras, get their phone service and also mobile service --  of $4,000 to a year, I would imagine.

I knew that that was the resolution, and let the matter dropped.  There was no need to continue the conversation, and I said goodbye and thanks, and then hung up.

Again, I understand software problems.  I even understand using subscribers to test your software while telling them they're getting The Latest technology.  And I understand that the tech glitches are only occasional, albeit steady.  I have no huge issue with that.  The benefits of cable are worth it to me.  And I've pleased well-enough with Spectrum tech support.

But then I also understand dealing with tech companies, which I have done professionally for the past 20 years, writing my tech review column for the Writers Guild of America, and at one point the TV Academy.  And $10 for a one-time only yearly rebate -- from a corporate monopoly -- is...ridiculous.  Indeed, more to the point, it's foolishly short-sighted. And counter-productive, since it risks driving customers away who might be paying for ALL of Spectrum's services, not just having a TV hiccup.

Yes, I know, it's cable.  Many people have far-worse cable problems.  But this really isn't about "problems."  It's that I'm still laughing at the "We can give you $10!!  Once."  And if we screw up again, it's on you.

But what makes me most annoyed it that I didn't reply, "That's okay -- you keep the 10 bucks.  Spectrum clearly needs it more than I do."  

This past Sunday on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the main story they covered was on opioids.  It's the second time they've reported on the subject, though this time it was from the perspective of distribution companies but mostly the Sackler family that's behind the drug's growth.  

The story is pointed, angry and very funny -- but it reaches it's peak with one of those twists that the Oliver team does so well, especially when they want to be scathingly snarky.  And as clever and funny as that is, they ratchet it up a notch with a further twist that is laugh out-loud funny.  Much as I want to explain why, I just don't want to give it away.

In fact, they then even make an additional bonus twiist, and all I'll say is that after you watch the video you can more about it here.  It will be clear.

I don't want to say much about this before you watch it.  I'll just note that although at its core it's an ad, beyond that It's lovely, smart, heartbreaking and wonderful.

Having watched it now, I'll add that you can find what's addressed here.

The main story on last night's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver seems an unlikely one -- a look at mobile homes.  But it's very good, delving into to repellent practices in the industry -- done with solid insight, outrage and lots of humor.

On this past Sunday's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the topic of the main story was professional wrestling.  It is not a subject I have any interest in, although happily the show took the one perspective I could tolerate -- trashing the owner of the WWE, Vince McMahon, quite an odious man.  While I don't find professional wrestling the wonderful entertainment that Oliver does, I think they did a terrific, often very funny, but also blistering and at times even touching job at dealing with the problems McMahon has created for so many of his employees -- in large part because he's been able to get away with calling them independent contractors rather than employees, which they are.

My one quibble with the story was one aspect of McMahon's story which got totally ignored.  I don't know if it was an oversight (and if it was, it's a major one), or they didn't want to go in that direction, but I think they should have.  And it's that McMahon's wife Linda not only is a former Republican candidate for the Senate in Connecticut (which she lost), but she's been in the Trump cabinet for the past two years as head of the Small Business Administration.  Only the other day, she announced she was leaving the post -- but to lead the major Trump for 2020 Re-election PAC, America First Action.  Personally, I think that's important to at least have mentioned.
​