TOPIC: society
Issue 100
March 21, 2021
Our 100th Post

Thirty months ago, we posted our inaugural issue of The Quintessential Centrist. Today’s column will mark our 100th issue.

I created TQC to serve as a counterweight to the stark polarization currently affecting our political discourse and poisoning our society. Specifically, I was disheartened by how divisive the political and journalistic landscape had become, especially online. Rather than complain, I decided to act despite zero journalistic experience.

The result became The Quintessential Centrist, a platform that combines views and ideas from across the political spectrum. TQC promotes the ideals and tenets of the center - where compromise is often found - through in-depth columns, articles, and analysis underpinned by exhaustive research and data.

At our onset, I promised that we would not plead the 5th on hot button topics. We were challenged. Immediately after TQC launched, our nation witnessed a burst of extremely important social, political, epidemiological, and other issues that in one way or another, touched all Americans. They included: Black Lives Matter Movement, Election of Donald Trump, Impeachments of Donald Trump, MeToo Movement, Sexual Identifiers, Murder of George Floyd, Defund The Police Movement, COVID-19 Pandemic, Deteriorating China-U.S. Relations, Censorship, Cancel Culture, Capital Insurrection, Kneeling & The National Anthem, and so much more. True to our mandate, we posted on those and many other topics.

...
Issue 101
March 28, 2021
Alexi McCammond

In June 2020, Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue Magazine and chief content officer for parent company Conde Nast, argued that the publishing giant failed to give enough space to “Black editors, writers, photographers, designers, and other creators.”

On March 5, Conde Nast hired a young black journalist with an excellent pedigree named Alexi McCammond. On March 24, she was to take the reins as editor & chief of the popular periodical, Teen Vogue. Unfortunately, before she even had an opportunity to place photos of her family in her new office, she was forced to resign (aka was fired).

The reason: offensive tweets Ms. McCammond made a decade earlier while a teenager catalyzed a mutiny by Teen Vogue staffers and readers.

The cowardly decision by those involved at Conde Nast to oust Alexi McCammond is regrettable and, quite frankly, pathetic.

Alexi McCammond

Alexi McCammond was a rising star in journalism. She began her career while completing her studies at The University of Chicago, writing articles for a school paper called The Gate. Her first journalistic foray after college was doing freelance work, primarily for Cosmopolitan magazine.

Afterward, McCammond served as an editor for an online platform called Bustle. Next, she joined the politically-centric news organization Axios. During McCammond's tenure there, she was a key contributor to NBC and MSNBC. Her early achievements were recognized in 2019 when Ms. McCammond was named emerging journalist of the year by the National Association of Black Journalists. The following year she was named to Forbes 30 Under 30 list.

Heats For Tweets

In 2011, when Alexi McCammond was seventeen years old, she posted several offensive, politically incorrect tweets targeting Asians and the LGBTQ community. She also used the N-word to address a friend and wore a Native American Indian costume on Halloween. A sampling of the tweets is below:

• “Outdone by Asian. #Whatsnew.”

• “Give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don’t explain what I did wrong… thanks a lot stupid Asian TA [teaching assistant]. You’re great,”

• Retweeted a news story about professional baseball umpire Dale Scott coming out as gay, and added : “Why is this ‘newsworthy?’ It’s not.”

...
Issue 104
May 2, 2021
We Don't Want You Here

On April 21 Black Lives Matter (BLM) held a “peaceful” protest in Brooklyn, NY. While marching, the demonstrators stopped at a restaurant called Maya Taqueria, where some of those who participated began to scream at patrons enjoying dinner outside. “Stay the f--ck out of New York," they yelled. Soon thereafter, a leader of the protest stood on a table and conducted an orchestra of various chants that included phrases such as “we do not want you here…We don’t want your f--ing money…We don’t want your f--ing taqueria, owned by f--ing white men.”

Earlier in April, protestors interrupted diners at the Manhattan restaurant, Balthazar. They pounded on – and broke – some of the establishment’s windows and caused other property damage. That same evening, a Japanese restaurant called Omen Azen also sustained property damage.

These supposed “peaceful” protesting tactics – lambasting diners on megaphones, confronting restaurant employees, and in some instances damaging eateries property - have become ubiquitous in cities across America. This author has been a direct witness three times in a short time span.

We Don’t Want You Here

At TQC we support peaceful protests and encourage people to exercise their constitutional right to organize, speak up, fight for equal justice under the law, and to initiate discussions with the objective of facilitating positive change. Making people feel uncomfortable is an effective tool to do just that, and we support that tactic. Threatening people and or causing property damage crosses a line which is not commensurate with a peaceful protest; we reject those actions.

...
Issue 106
May 23, 2021
Palestinians Should Indeed Be Free - From Hamas

The history of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is fiendishly complex; it goes far beyond the scope of this post. Indeed, becoming an authority on this matter would require hundreds, if not thousands of hours of due diligence. It is a topic so intricate and granular that it could easily be the subject of a Ph.D. dissertation. To that end, anybody so foolish in attempting to explain this multifaceted situation, generations in the making, via a few pro/anti-Israel or pro/anti-Palestinian tweets or Instagram posts is at best blissfully ignorant and at worst, a complete fraud.

The objective of this post is to call out abject anti-Semites, dispel some biased falsehoods about Jews and Israel that have spread across social media like wildfire, and explain the façade behind Hamas. We will also critique some self-proclaimed civil rights advocates for their gross hypocrisy, self-serving lies, and willful neglect as it pertains to this issue.

The Catalyst Behind The Latest Violence

Per the norm when it encapsulates Israeli / Palestinian conflict(s), the mainstream press in America and throughout the world has yet again craftily repurposed this “new” news item to make Israel look like the culpable aggressor. (So much for Jews controlling the media).

Unbeknownst to most, the issue surrounding the latest escalations is not new news at all; it is an ongoing landlord/tenant dispute involving just a few properties in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, ~40 years in the making. During which time Israeli Courts have taken every possible step to avoid evicting Palestinian residents. Indeed, most people devoid of basic knowledge, full of expert opinion, and quick to opine online have no interest in understanding and appreciating the facts surrounding the property dispute in Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem.

Tensions were simmering early last week as the Israeli Supreme Court was due to adjudicate on the longstanding dispute. Simultaneously, police had put up barriers at Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate, where Palestinians congregate during Ramadan. (They were subsequently removed after requests by Islamic religious leaders). Israeli police entered the Al Aqsa mosque in response to stones and other items being thrown from the complex, TikTok videos of Jews being slapped in the face, and attacks on Jewish students.

Hamas, a terrorist organization whose own governing charter (you can find it online) in 1988 called for Israel’s destruction and whose leader, Fathi Hammad, recently urged militants to “cut off the heads of Jews,” issued an ultimatum to vacate the premises or face repercussions.

The Violence

Shortly thereafter, from hospitals, schools, and other civilian locations within Gaza and without warning Hamas indiscriminately fired hundreds of rockets at Israel, including Tel Aviv and other large urban areas. Many of these projectiles were intercepted by Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense shield. Some penetrated Israeli defense systems, maiming and killing private citizens and destroying property. A few missiles fell short of their intended targets(s), landed in Gaza, and killed Palestinians.

Israel was under bombardment. As any other sovereign nation would do if under attack, Israel defended itself. Like few other sovereign nations would do, Israel exercised tremendous restraint. Before launching a counteroffensive, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) warned over loudspeakers, via SMS text messages, leaflets, phone calls and other methods that they would be targeting specific locations in Gaza known to house Hamas militants and military gear. In short, the IDF said to private Palestinian citizens, “evacuate, an attack is imminent.” Then, Israel hit back.

Proportion

Hamas launched a rocket attack from Gaza into Israel targeting civilian areas. Again, let us be very clear, Hamas fired first. Israel responded and only after warning their adversaries that they would do so. And a ship of fools including the comedian Trevor Noah, lambast Israel for responding “out of proportion.” Perhaps there is no irony that Mr. Noah is a comedian; his reasoning is as flawed as it is laughable.

Ok, Mr. Noah, let us talk about proportion. Is an appropriate response by Hamas to police refusing to vacate a mosque until they deduced who was hurling rocks from the venue to launch a military offensive firing hundreds of rockets on Israel? How “proportionate” is that?

Israel always shows restraint when responding to Hamas’s terror attacks. The stark reality is that the IDF could vaporize Gaza in a nanosecond. But they do not. Unfortunately, through the lens of the anti-Semitic eyes of the international world order, Jews are never allowed to defend themselves. Indeed, when Jews commit any kind of violence – even when responding to violence in self-defense, not purporting violence - it is labeled as “oppression.” When Hamas launches rockets into Israel or Jews are blown up on buses, it is labeled as “resistance.” Below is a sampling of responses across social media:

“I would have killed all the Jews of the world…but I kept some to show the world why I killed them.”
-Veena Malik, a verified Twitter user quoting Adolf Hitler

“From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free!”
– New York Democratic Socialists of America

“As a black woman in America, I am no stranger to police brutality and state-sanctioned violence…We have been criminalized for the very way we show up in the world … Palestinians are being told the same thing as black folks in America: there is no acceptable form of resistance.” - Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)

“Israeli air strikes killing civilians in Gaza is an act of terrorism. Palestinians deserve protection. Unlike Israel, missile defense programs, such as Iron Dome, don’t exist to protect Palestinian civilians. It’s unconscionable to not condemn these attacks on the week of Eid…Many will tell you Israel has a right to defend itself, to safety and security, but are silent on whether Palestinians have those rights too.” - Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

“What they are doing to the Palestinian people is what they continue to do to our black brothers and sisters here ... So I want you to know this, as you all are marching for freedom of Palestine, please know that you must be marching for everybody’s freedom. It is all interconnected.” - Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

“Americans are scared to stand up to the incarceration of children in Palestine.”
– Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)

“We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Israeli forces are forcing families from their homes during Ramadan and inflicting violence. It is inhumane and the US must show leadership in safeguarding the human rights of Palestinians.” - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)

...
Issue 109
July 4, 2021
Statue of Limitations

Last week, a final decision was rendered to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue in front of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). The statue, on display since 1940, depicts the former president on a horse flanked by American Indians and African men at his sides.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858 –1919) was a committed environmentalist in a time when advocating for such a cause was rare. Roosevelt was integral in advancing the AMNH’s core conservationist values, fundraising, and political support throughout his life. As a result, his name adorns many rooms inside the AMNH – and outside the cultural institution - at Theodore Roosevelt Park.

While being “green” was an anomaly when Roosevelt lived, unfortunately harboring racist views - and in many cases acting upon them - was unremarkable. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “It’s more important to tell the truth about the president — pleasant or unpleasant — than about anyone else.” Unfortunately, the truth is that Roosevelt’s moral compass was probably not above this regrettable norm in America’s history.

A Mayoral Advisory Commission on City Art, Monuments, and Markers set up to examine sensitive city landmarks wrote:

“Height is power in public art, and Roosevelt’s stature on his noble steed visibly expresses dominance and superiority over the Native American and African figures.”

Coupled with some of Roosevelt’s viewpoints that would be interpreted as racist today, it is certainly understandable why some people would be offended by this monument.

The Left & The Right

Since the 1970s, the statue of Roosevelt on his horse has been defaced numerous times. At TQC, we reject defacing all public monuments as a form of protest. However, in some instances, we support removing monuments on public property if they are placed in an appropriate cultural institution for further historical study and reflection.

In our view, the left-wing protestors who deface & destroy statues - in some instances ripping them off their moorings, dragging them through the street, and tossing them into rivers or placing them in storage - are grossly misguided and doing the people they claim to be representing, a disservice. The right wing ideologues who argue that every statue on public land should stay put - not even moved to a historic institute - regardless of how abhorrent the subject’s past transgressions were, are insensitive and wrong not to consider other options for public viewing and education.

...
Issue 110
July 18, 2021
Til Debt Due Us Part

Last week, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) highlighted Columbia University’s Masters In Fine Art (MFA) Program, the exorbitant amount of debt graduate students incur to complete their degrees, and the low-paying jobs that await them after school. Indeed, gargantuan loans and low remuneration have left a growing number of Columbia MFAs with piles of debt they have little chance of ever paying off.

The Journal did an excellent job explaining the conundrum MFAs at Columbia face. However, scant attention was paid to who should be held accountable – the school, the students, or some combination thereof - for a ticking financial time bomb that is unsustainable.

In our view, both the debt-laden students and Columbia University bear a portion of the responsibility.

Columbia University

According to Julie Kornfeld, Vice Provost for Academic Programs at Columbia, master’s degrees “can and should be a revenue source.” And, indeed, at Columbia they are. Over the last decade, the cost of an MFA at the prestigious Ivy League institution has risen by a greater percentage than for a Bachelors degree in the same discipline. However, a disproportionate amount of financial aid at Columbia is awarded to undergraduates. Said university president Lee Bollinger “undergraduates have the most moral claim to financial aid.”

A strong case could be made to buttress Bollinger’s argument. But that said, another reason Columbia steers a disproportionate number of graduate students towards loans is because it buoys the universities’ bottom-line.

Grad Plus Loan

The federal Grad Plus Loan program was enacted by congress ~15 years ago. The “advantage” of a Grad Plus Loan: a graduate student can borrow as much money as they want (caps are in place for undergraduate borrowers). Funds can be used for tuition, room, and board.

Interest rates on Grad Plus Loans can be as high as ~8%. This is onerous to the borrower but makes no difference to the school. The key stipulation is that the university receives the entire amount of the tuition upfront. If a borrower defaults, the school has zero financial risk. For a set number of years (typically around 25) borrowers pay a fixed percentage of their wages towards debt repayment. Any unpaid balance can be written off; taxpayers absorb the losses.

...
Issue 111
August 1, 2021
Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Last week, The National Football League (NFL) released a memo outlining its COVID-19 policy for the upcoming season. The NFL will not be forcing players and coaches to get vaccinated; however, it is incentivizing them to do so.

Specifically, if a contest is cancelled because of a COVID outbreak and cannot be rescheduled, the team with infected players will forfeit the game, assume all costs associated with the cancelation, and players on both squads will not be paid that week.

Following the NFL’s memorandum, a cohort of furious players voiced their displeasure. Arizona Cardinals star receiver DeAndre Hopkins tweeted: “Never thought I would say this, but being put in a position to hurt my team because I don’t want to partake in the vaccine is making me question my future in the NFL.” Thereafter, Hopkins tweeted that his girlfriend’s brother “had heart problems” after being inoculated.

LA Rams cornerback Jalen Ramsey tweeted: “The NFL is pressuring/ influencing guys to get the vaccine. They are saying if there is an outbreak, the team will be penalized heavily…I know 2 people right now who got the vaccine but are covid positive.”

LA Raiders running back and anti-vaxxer Jalen Richard said unvaccinated players will be “playing in jail” this year.

Buffalo Bills receiver Cole Beasley who’s spoken regularly against receiving the jab tweeted, “nothing has changed, I’m still livin freely.”

New England Patriots linebacker Matthew Judon simply said, “The NFLPA (NFL Players Association) f–king sucks.”

Our View

At TQC, we often concur with libertarians on a myriad of issues. We believe in a smallish government and that individuals should do as they please so long as they abide by the law and do not impose their will on anybody by means of coercion or fear of reprisal. However, in extraordinary circumstances, we think there is a place for policymakers to enact and enforce sensible rules and regulations to protect public health and/or their own employees, so long as they are not onerous to abide by. The coronavirus global pandemic qualifies as such. Hence, we agree with the NFL’s COVID policy; it makes prudent sense.

...
Issue 113
August 29, 2021
Biden's Saigon Moment

On July 8, President Joe Biden discussed his plan for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan by a self-imposed August 31 deadline when he proclaimed, “The Taliban is not the North Vietnamese army…They’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. The likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country [of Afghanistan] is highly unlikely…There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of the embassy of the United States from Afghanistan…”

Those choice words would mark an inflection point of a humiliating, embarrassing, and injudicious example of a cataclysmic unforced foreign policy error. A month later, the Taliban had recaptured all the territory – and more – that it ceded to the U.S. and its allies, over 20 years ago. The Afghan army, “300,000 well-equipped — as well equipped as any army in the world,” according to Mr. Biden, gave up without a fight.

The Taliban captured Zaranj, the first provincial capital, on August 6. On August 8, three more provincial cities, Sar-e-Pul, Kunduz, and Taluqan, fell. On August 12, Afghanistan’s third largest city, Herat, along with Kandahar, were taken. Next up was Mazar-i-Sharif, a large city situated in the nation’s north. Then, Jalabad fell. On Sunday August 15, Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, was captured and the American flag was lowered at the U.S. embassy.

Embassy staff worked furiously to destroy hard drives and shred papers before they were whisked away to the airport under military escort. Parallels to the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Saigon inevitably followed.

Foot In Mouth Disease

Mr. Biden’s proclamation will probably go down in history along with these presidential quotes made famous by their inaccuracy:

“Read my lips, no new taxes” – George Bush

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” – Bill Clinton

“If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” – Barack Obama.

Those quotes certainly elicit a laugh. However, what is transpiring in Afghanistan is no laughing matter. It is, according to international human rights attorney Kim Motley who spent over a decade in Afghanistan, “a human-rights nightmare…this is like Saigon on steroids,” she said.

Airport

After the Taliban swiftly regained control of the country, a disorderly evacuation of U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, and loyal Afghans intensified. The ~2,500 U.S troops remaining in the country retreated to the airport. Additional troops were summoned for reinforcement.

Almost six thousand U.S. troops are now situated inside the airport. Americans - assuming they got through increasingly violent Taliban checkpoints, were allowed entry. Most have now boarded flights out of Afghanistan. Afghans have been less fortunate.

In disturbing scenes, thousands of Afghans have been – and are still - trying to enter the airport and secure a flight out of the country. Conditions are dangerous – children have been trampled to death – and unsanitary. Some Afghans have proper documentation, others do not. What they share is a justifiable fear of the Taliban.

In a harrowing video, desperate Afghans were seen running next to a C-17 military cargo plane taxiing down the runway. A few individuals grabbed hold of the moving giant, only to plummet to their deaths after it took off. One was a 17-year-old soccer star who played for the national team (football was banned by the Taliban when they previously ruled the country). Another refugee was later found dead in the aircraft’s landing gear.

Stop and ponder this thought: ordinary Afghans so fearful of retribution, they would risk death by attempting to cling to the outside of a moving jetliner, or hide in its landing gear, in a futile attempt to flee.

Rudderless

Over the last two decades, many thousands of Afghans worked tirelessly as translators, drivers, logistics specialists, and in many other occupations to help America. In return for their dedicated service, these heroes were offered something called a Special Immigrant Visa, or SIV. This program was signed into law in 2008.

When President Biden ordered a full departure from Afghanistan by August 31, the onus fell squarely on his administration to expedite SIV processing to provide deserving Afghans a safe relocation to the United States, as promised. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, as of last week “18,000 (SIV) applications were still waiting to be processed.” Some applications have languished for months, even years.

As of this writing, some fortunate Afghans have managed to reach the airport, get inside, and evacuate. (Too) many others are still stuck outside the gates, around Kabul, and in other parts of the country, hemmed in by Taliban checkpoints. Their lives are in danger.

...
Issue 117
October 31, 2021
Wealth Tax

This week bore witness to political jockeying between the centrist and progressive wings of the Democratic party. The objective: to reach a mutually agreeable framework to fund Joe Biden’s multi trillion-dollar infrastructure, climate, and social spending initiatives.

Ideas included limiting business loss deductions, a surtax on income over $10 million, a corporate minimum tax, tax on stock buybacks, and more.

One proposal is a wealth tax on unrealized capital gains of the wealthiest Americans. Iterations of this proposal have been worked on by Elizabeth Warren (D:MA), Bernie Sanders (I:VT), and Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D:OR).

Negotiations are fluid; though House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D:MA) contends the proposal is “dead.” That would be a good thing. Of all the tax proposals recently floated in Washington, a wealth tax is the most suboptimal. It is destructive to all Americans, not to mention, potentially unconstitutional.

Implementation Issues

Taxing unrealized capital gains is a horrific idea. It would not raise anywhere near the projected amount of revenues - the wealthiest Americans would spend millions on lawyers to save billions on taxes. What it would do is hamper the greatest engine of innovation anywhere in the world, the American entrepreneur, thereby thwarting economic growth and stifling job creation. Said The Economist, “Because this tax would apply only to securities traded on public markets, with different rules for stakes in privately held firms, it would deter entrepreneurs from floating their companies on the stock exchange. That would ultimately be bad for investment and the incentive to innovate.”

Another idea would be to apply a wealth tax on private investments. This would be fiendishly hard to implement and cause major dislocations across various private marketplaces, neutering investment, and innovation.

Consider the following: Entrepreneur X owns an interest in a start-up valued at $100. Six months later, the company’s prospects have improved, and the firm successfully raises a round of funding at $1000. Under the proposed wealth tax, Entrepreneur X would be taxed on the $900 increase in value of the start-up even though she has not sold her stake. This creates a litany of problems. How would Entrepreneur X satisfy her tax liability if she did not have ample cash on hand? Furthermore, a need to hoard cash for unrealized tax liabilities would be a grossly suboptimal use of funds. Those monies could otherwise be put to work investing in other entities, generating economic growth, jobs, and perversely, tax revenue.

...
Issue 118
November 14, 2021
Remember Afghanistan?

On August 29, we discussed Biden’s Saigon Moment where we highlighted the policy errors that culminated in America’s humiliating exit from Afghanistan.

In that piece, we concluded:

“It is in our nation’s strategic interest to keep a small number of troops - coupled with air support - in Afghanistan. Our complete withdrawal will quickly result in a vacuum of stability. Extremists will fill the void. We sincerely hope we are wrong.”

Three months later:

• The Taliban is ruling with an iron fist.

• Women’s rights have been gutted.

• Forced marriages are increasingly commonplace.

• The economy has collapsed.

• Afghanistan’s foreign reserves (~$9b) are frozen.

• There are severe shortages of basic goods, medicine, and foodstuffs.

• People are starving to death.

• Daughters are sold to settle debts.

• The government cannot pay its bills.

• Civil servants have not been remunerated in months.

• Power outages are routine.

Women’s Rights

One success story of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan was the steady progress made regarding women’s rights.

Before the U.S. invaded, women were treated like they were subhuman. Females could not leave the home without the accompaniment of a man, had to be covered from head to toe, and were forbidden to work, study in university, or even go to primary school. Often, they were forced to marry Taliban fighters when they were still children.

Over the course of ~two decades, many Afghan women gained status and autonomy. They became educated, financially independent, enjoyed vibrant social lives, married by choice, went to university, and established careers. Yet, in a matter of a few months, these hard-fought rights have vanished.

...
Issue 119
November 28, 2021
Kyle Rittenhouse

On Friday November 19, a jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse (18) of murdering Joseph Rosenbaum (36) and Anthony Huber (26) and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz (27) during protests and civil unrest in Kenosha, WI last summer, following the death of Jacob Blake.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Rittenhouse case served as another flashpoint that split the nation, mainly down political and ideological lines. Conservatives that rushed to his defense - many before the trial even took place - were jubilant that he walked free. They argued his case served as a poignant example of why the constitutional right to bear arms, and when appropriate, use them to defend themselves, must be maintained. Liberals that wanted him convicted – many before the facts were even hashed out in a court of law - decried the jury’s decision. They rejected Rittenhouse’s claims of self-defense, argued that his case was a textbook example of vigilante justice and would inspire more of it, and why gun laws must be tightened.

At TQC, after intently following the case and educating ourselves about the law in Wisconsin, we believe the jury made the correct decision. That said, any conservative who yelled “innocent!” and any liberal who screamed, “guilty!” before the case was even heard, and who did not bother to learn the facts of the case and about Wisconsin law, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

The only thing that a jury (or anybody) should consider when deciding a defendant’s fate are the facts of the case and state laws where the case is being adjudicated.

The Facts

In court, witnesses testified that Joseph Rosenbaum – the first individual Rittenhouse killed – acted belligerently and appeared to lunge for Rittenhouse’s gun before being shot. These accounts were seconded by Rittenhouse himself, who testified in his own defense. Rittenhouse said Rosenbaum ran toward him and had his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle as Rittenhouse began firing.

Richard Huber – the second person Rittenhouse killed – struck him on the neck with a skateboard before paying with his life.

Perhaps the most damming evidence came from the man Mr. Rittenhouse failed to kill, Gaige Grosskreutz, a paramedic who helped numerous wounded individuals that evening. Mr. Grosskreutz admitted in sworn testimony that he pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse the moment before Rittenhouse shot him. Grosskreutz testified that he drew his weapon because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Said one source, “the guy he didn't manage to kill admitted that he pointed his gun at him (Kyle). What more do I need to know?”

Perhaps this: what business did Kyle Rittenhouse - then just a 17-year-old teenager have being in Kenosha during violent protests, armed with a high powered-semi-automatic weapon? Does it not set a bad precedent when an uninformed kid can show up with a AR-15, which in and of itself is a provocative action? What was Kyle Rittenhouse doing outside a bar posing for a photograph with members of a far-right political group linked to violence? Why did Rittenhouse lie about being an emergency medical technician? ("I told him I was an EMT, but I wasn't," he testified.) At TQC, we believe no business at all.

However - and this is imperative - whether Kyle Rittenhouse’s presence in Kenosha was appropriate, was not what the jury was tasked with deciding. Whether Rittenhouse posed with white supremacists and/ or even if he is one himself, was not what the jury was tasked with deciding. Whether bringing a loaded gun into a volatile situation was provocative, or whether Rittenhouse was “asking for it,” was not what the jury was tasked with deciding. Whether Rittenhouse lied about having medical credentials, was not what the jury was tasked with deciding.

...
Issue 120
December 12, 2021
Rural America

Approximately 80% of Americans live in “urbanized' and “cluster areas" defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as “areas with 50,000 people or more” and “areas with between 2,500 and 50,000 people,” respectively.

Despite where most Americans reside, rural land encompasses ~95% of the surface area of the United States. Definitions of “rural” differ depending on the source and context. Generally, population density is an agreed-upon metric to measure how urban or rural an area is. A simple calculation – the total square miles of a space divided by the number of inhabitants – is used to derive population density.

Below, we will introduce ten of the most rural counties in America. Before we do, here are some interesting factoids about rural America on the state level:

• The states with the greatest percentage of rural residents are Maine (61%), Vermont (61%), West Virginia (51%), and Mississippi (51%). Interestingly, none of these states are home to any of America's 50 most rural counties.

• Alaska (AK) is tied for the state with the most (10) rural counties. This is not surprising; AK is the largest state in the union and the second least populated. That combination translates into a lot of sparsely inhabited areas.

• Wyoming is the state with the least number of people. Curiously, the Equality State, as WY is known because it was the 1st state in the Union to afford women the right to vote and elect a woman governor (Nellie Ross in 1925), does not harbor any of the 50 most rural counties in America.

• Nevada is one of the five most urbanized states due to the concentration of residents living in or around Las Vegas & Reno. The Silver State is also home to four of the 50 most rural counties in the nation.

• Interestingly, Texas has the second most rural counties and is the second most populated state in the Union.

...
Issue 121
December 26, 2021
From Pandemic To Endemic

The United States is facing an acute COVID outbreak, fueled by the new highly infectious, Omicron variant. Countrywide, more than 200,000 cases per day are now being logged. In addition, record rates of infections are being reported across major metropolitan areas including New York City, the epicenter of the first large COVID outbreak at the beginning of the pandemic in America. Nationally, hospitalizations are up ~50% since November, albeit from a low base. In locations where vaccination rates lag, many hospitals are quickly becoming overwhelmed (the United States has a good healthcare system, but very little spare capacity). Regrettably, the rolling 7-day average for deaths is 1,656 per day.

Indeed, as the number of positive COVID cases goes parabolic, fear has gripped the nation. People can be found snaked around corners in cities across America, waiting to be tested. Holiday parties have been canceled, colleges have closed campuses and migrated back to remote learning, businesses have told their employees to work remotely, Broadway has shuttered its curtains - again - and Christmas excursions have been shelved. Might all this be…good news?

Before arguing why we believe the answer is “yes,” we want to preface our arguments by clearly stating that we take COVID seriously. We encourage all Americans to get inoculated, be prudent around higher- risk citizens and wish those who are ill a swift recovery. Our thoughts go out to the unfortunate victims who succumbed to COVID.

From Pandemic To Endemic

With the risk of ending up with an egg on our face, we believe COVID cases will peak in the United States over the next few weeks and then drop precipitously. Even more encouraging, though far from experts on virology, from what we can discern, COVID is behaving similarly to other viruses that have morphed from pandemic to endemic: it is becoming more infectious but less deadly.

According to the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa where the Omicron variant was first identified, patients are 80% less likely to be hospitalized if they catch the Omicron compared with other strains. In a recent Scottish Study, Omicron hospital risk was ~66% lower than Delta. Another study from the U.K showed similar results.

Over the next 12-24 months, we suspect mortality rates for COVID and how we co-exist with COVID will converge with that of another endemic virus, the flu.

A Good Host

Unlike bacterial infections, viruses need a host - animal or human - to survive. When the host dies, the virus dies. Some viruses, including other coronaviruses like SARS (mortality rate ~10%) and MERS (mortality rate 40%), do not tend to become pandemics because they are too deadly. Specifically, too many hosts die before the viruses can reach escape velocity and infect hordes of people. Other coronaviruses, such as the common cold, are not thought of as pandemics because while they are highly infectious – every year, hundreds of millions of people “catch a cold” - most cases are mild.

...
Issue 122
January 9, 2022
Year End Review

This post will complete the third full year for The Quintessential Centrist. At this time, we would like to thank all our readers for playing an integral role in our growing platform, an online forum that incorporates ideas and values across the ideological spectrum.

Undoubtedly, 2021 was a particularly challenging year. But true to our mandate, we did not “take the fifth” and instead tackled some extremely hot button topics, many of which elicited passionate responses. The vast majority were thoughtful and considerate; a select few made us fear for our wellbeing!

We have certainly made mistakes and have done our best to remedy and learn from them. However, your constructive criticism helps us better accomplish our objective: to offer readers ideas that blend news, analysis, and viewpoints from the left, right, and center of the political and social gamut.

This year, we analyzed and opined on a broad array of topics related to politics, current events, culture, finance, technology, international affairs, and more. In total, we penned 28 articles. What did we get right? Where did we come up short? Which articles elicited the most positive, negative, and impassioned responses, etc.?

Whenever we received an approximately equal measure of critique from the left and right, we interpreted this to mean that we had fulfilled our objective of promoting the ideals and tenets of the center. To that end, we were extremely pleased with the responses to our work on Statue of Limitations, Bat S**t Crazy, and Unsportsmanlike Conduct. For these posts, many staunch conservatives accused us of being closeted liberals. An overwhelming number of liberals accused us of being a mouthpiece for the right. This helped reassure us that we split the goalposts down the middle on those hotly debated issues.

...
Issue 123
January 23, 2022
Medicine Politics & Messaging

Throughout history, the miracle of medicine has been politicized.

In the mid-1800s, a Hungarian physician named Ignaz Semmelweis plied his trade in a Vienna hospital. Dr. Semmelweis was baffled why a disproportionate number of mothers were dying of puerperal fever in one particular maternity ward. (Puerperal fever, or childbed fever, is a bacterial infection of the female reproductive tract.) Semmelweis observed that ~15% of all new mothers became sick and later died vs. only 1-2% of mothers in the hospital’s other maternity ward.

Determined to find out why Dr. Semmelweis worked feverishly (excuse the pun) and took copious notes on a vast number of potential factors between the two maternity wards. All his findings were unremarkable. In fact, after exhaustive research, the only difference Dr. Semmelweis noted was that doctors staffed the maternity ward with the abnormally high mortality rate; the other maternity ward was staffed by midwives.

Doctor Semmelweis excluded all potential determinants aside from who was delivering babies. Eventually, he unearthed what he believed was the cause of the disparity. In addition to delivering babies, physicians on the maternity ward were also dissecting cadavers with their bare hands. On numerous occasions, a doctor would dissect a cadaver and then later deliver a baby. By doing so, the doctor would unknowingly expose the mother to infectious bacteria. Conversely, midwives’ only duty on their ward was to deliver babies; bacteria were not introduced from cadaver to hands and thus onto the mother.

To prove his hypothesis, Dr. Semmelweis instructed all doctors and midwives to wash their hands with chlorinated lime before entering a delivery room. (In the 1850s, handwashing was an afterthought to both the medical community and the general populace. The consensus at the time was that germs spread via malicious odors in the air.) Semmelweis took special care to implore and ensure all doctors who had recently touched a dead body to wash their hands.

Astonishingly, as Dr. Semmelweis expected the mortality rate on the maternity ward staffed by physicians quickly converged to that on the ward staffed by midwives. Indeed, a simple hygienic step that almost everyone now takes for granted – handwashing - saved thousands of mothers and millions of lives thereafter.

Politicization & Ostracization

Dr. Semmelweis’ reward for applying rigorous science to answer one of the most head-scratching questions of his time? Ridicule. Colleagues called him crazy. How dare he claim that fellow physicians were the ones responsible for the deaths of so many women? Was he in cahoots with the makers of the chlorinated lime solution to earn outsized profits (might that sound similar to modern-day conspiracy theories regarding the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture COVID vaccines and tests?).

...
Issue 128
April 3, 2022
Lia Thomas

Last month, University of Pennsylvania transgender senior Lia Thomas competed at the 2022 women’s NCAA swimming and diving championships. Ms. Thomas won the 500-yard freestyle (crawl) event, besting second-place finisher Emma Weyant of the University of Virginia. Thomas’ victory capped off a record-breaking year for the Penn swimmer in which she captured numerous Ivy League records and trounced the competition. (In December, she won a 1650-yard freestyle race by 38 seconds, an astronomical margin of victory in swimming).

‘22 was Lia Thomas’ first-year swimming for the lady Quakers, and she dominated. Previously, Thomas swam for the men’s team where she had a solid, though unremarkable career. (After her junior season, Ms. Thomas sat out for one season while transitioning to a woman and underwent hormone replacement therapy.)

Thomas’ success on the women’s team elicited passionate responses from both sides of the ideological divide. Generally, supporters of Thomas viewed her as a courageous trailblazer for transgender athletes, celebrated her accomplishments, and rightfully pointed out that she broke no NCAA rules. Detractors cried foul, arguing Thomas’ record-breaking season should be null and void because she had an unfair physical advantage over the competition.

Important Nuances

There are some significant differences and more nuanced subtleties within the pro and anti-camps that are imperative to highlight.

Among those who do not believe Ms. Thomas should have been able to partake in swimming for the Lady Quakers are two distinct subgroups: individuals who believe Lia Thomas should not be able to swim because they are bigoted against trans-people; and those who fully accept transgender people and support trans rights, but believe that in this specific instance, Ms. Thomas should not have been allowed to participate. We vehemently reject the former and accept and subscribe to the latter viewpoint.

At TQC, we are not discounting the fact that people can and do identify with a sex other than the one on their birth certificate. However, we do not think this qualification entitles Lia Thomas or any other male who transitions into a female (transgender female) the right to compete in an event sanctioned for biological women.

Within the group of people who believe Ms. Thomas had a right to compete on the women’s squad, there are also two distinct subgroups: those who believe that Lia Thomas followed the rules currently established by the NCAA, underwent HRT to lower her testosterone levels, identifies as a woman, and was therefore correct to swim for the Lady Quakers (we can understand and appreciate this view, we simply disagree with it); and those who believe that anybody who says Lia Thomas should not have been allowed to swim is bigoted towards trans people. We emphatically disagree with this notion.

...
Issue 132
May 29, 2022
InFLATION

According to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), inflation is running at an 8.3% annualized rate, the highest level in four decades. Americans are worried. Over the last few weeks, Google searches for the “I” word have reached their highest levels ever, according to Google Trends.

On nightly newscasts and online, pundits opine on the subject. The consensus is that inflation is out of control and shows no signs of abating. Some “experts” even predict a return to the dark days of the late 70s and early 80s, when inflation peaked at ~15%, and the Federal Reserve was forced to raise interest rates to stratospheric levels, and by doing so, ushered the economy into a tailspin.

This week, investor William Ackman tweeted, “Inflation is out of control. Inflation expectations are getting out of control.”

At TQC, we respectfully disagree with him, and the consensus that inflation has run amok. In this post, we will argue that inflation has already peaked, is currently receding, and why it will continue to do so over the foreseeable future.

Shortages & Gluts

We believe inflation is transitory and will revert to its longer-term trend. Here is an important reason why.

Pandemics create shortages, which drive prices up, and gluts, which drive prices down. At the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, consumer behavior turned on a dime. People bought more (consumer goods) and did less (traveling, commuting, etc.).

Acute changes in buying habits exacerbated snarled supply chains resulting in retailers caught short of the items that people were suddenly demanding en-masse. In response, shops began voraciously competing for a limited number of those units to restock their shelves.

If a retailer knows they may not be allotted the number of units they desire, they will typically over-order. For example, if retailer X wants 100 units of Y but because of supply constraints only expects to receive 20 units of Y, they will order 500 units of Y, hoping to get ~20% of their order, or 100 units.

Microcosms & Macrocosms

A microcosm of this phenomenon occurred during the initial covid wave. Almost overnight, there was a surge in demand for hand sanitizer (and toilet paper)! Producers could not ramp production fast enough to satisfy demand. The moment a shipment arrived at a CVS or Rite-Aid, it was picked through in minutes leaving shelves barren. Hand sanitizers were hoarded and hawked on eBay for well above their suggested retail price. Retailers responded by over-ordering.

...
Issue 133
June 12, 2022
InFLATION Part Deux

One of the objectives of our blog is to encourage people from both sides of the ideological divide to understand and appreciate views that are not commensurate with their own and help forge a consensus on greater number of issues.

The good news: we did that in our last post. However, how we got there was far from ideal!

Most of our readers vehemently disagreed with our view that inflation has already peaked, is currently receding, and why it will continue to do so over the foreseeable future. In fact, the pushback was so impassioned that we felt compelled to respond to the main points of contention in a follow-up piece.

We Disagree With TQC

The primary pushback on our thesis was that while our inventory destocking argument resonated – and was in fact buttressed this past week by Target, which issued a rare mid-quarter press release stating they planed “additional markdowns” to clear excess inventory - we did not address the rapidly rising cost of energy, specifically gasoline. Other points of reader pushback related to rising home heating and AC bills, soaring food costs, and higher wages.

Our critics’ arguments were supported on Friday when the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest figures for the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI calculates the change in prices paid by the U.S. consumer for a basket of goods and services. Friday’s figures showed inflation running at an 8.6% annualized rate, the most elevated reading since 1981. Ouch!

The national average cost of a gallon of regular grade gasoline is $5.00, compared to $4.37 one month ago and $3.07 one year ago. Natural gas is close to $9/btu, up 130% since January. The price of corn, soy, wheat, and other foodstuffs are all up materially over the last few months. Companies are being forced to raise wages and lower standards to fill a plethora of open positions.

That said, how can we say inflation has peaked when it costs well over $100 to fill up an SUV and the price of gasoline shows no signs of abating? How can we argue inflation will recede in the future when it appears that it will cost homeowners twice as much to cool their homes this summer? Indeed, if we expect the rate of inflation to moderate (and believe inflation is indeed transitory), why are the cost of various food staples substantially higher? How will wage pressure subside when the current labor shortage is compelling companies to fill jobs that require a college degree, by an applicant with a GED?

Goods & Services

The answer is multifaceted. First, despite the public (and pundits’) fixation on the retail price of gasoline and other commodities, the fact is that today the United States economy is primarily underpinned by services, not manufacturing or agriculture.

Energy (which of course includes gasoline) accounts for only ~8% of the CPI; food is ~11%. Furthermore, the United States is more energy efficient than at any time in its history.

Over the last four decades American economic output expanded by ~300%, however demand for energy grew only ~50%. To help put these figures into context, consider the following data compiled by the bipartisan, Alliance to Save Energy:

...
Issue 136
August 6, 2022
Paternity Leave

Eleven days after our last post on July 10th, your correspondent became a 1st-time father. It has been a life (and diaper) changing experience. Fatherhood interrupted TQC’s bi-weekly schedule. Thank you for your patience.

Leading up to the birth of my son, I was told I would be sleeping less. I do. Laughing more. I do. Be thinking of him constantly. I am. And enjoying every moment of fatherhood. I am. Indeed, I miss that lil guy even when just a few feet and a sheetrock wall separate us.

Being a new parent piqued my interest in babies. Before we continue this post, please enjoy ten interesting facts about the smallest humans on earth. They have unique personality traits, but all share one thing in common: they love unconditionally.

Interesting Facts About Babies

• Adults have 206 bones, but babies are born with ~300 bones! The reason: a greater number of smaller bones make the baby more limber, allowing for an easier passage through the birth canal. As a baby matures, bones fuse over soft spots (ever feel one on a baby’s head, it is called a fontanelle) and form larger, more developed bones.

• Although babies are born with ~50% more bones than they will ultimately end up with, they enter this world without patellas, commonly referred as a kneecaps. The reason: The patella is sharp and has a pronounced shape. The absence of the patella helps keep the legs flexible. Again, this aids in the birthing process. Babies’ kneecaps form at ~6 months of age.

• Ever wonder how babies can drink from a bottle for long stretches without stopping to breathe? A commonly accepted myth – even by some pediatricians - is that babies can swallow and breathe simultaneously! This is not true. Click here to learn more.

• According to pampers.com, a newborn’s eyes “may appear gray or blue due to a lack of pigment. Once exposed to light, the eye color will most likely start to change to blue, green, hazel, or brown over a period of six months to one year.”

...
Issue 137
August 21, 2022
The Case For Nuclear Energy

At TQC we unequivocally agree with most credible scientists who believe global warming is “real.” Furthermore, the dangerous amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere contribute to a slow-moving ecological disaster, evidenced by highly abnormal weather patterns that have resulted in flooding of historically dry areas, droughts in wetlands, record heat, intense storms, and rising seas.

To forestall a lasting and irreversible (at least with today’s technology) destruction of the earth's ecosystem that will devastate societies and disproportionately hurt those least culpable for the crisis, *industrialized nations must set an example by swiftly transitioning to carbon-free sources of energy. That much is a foregone conclusion. How we get there, is not.

*(It is absurd and grossly hypocritical for Western nations, who are primarily responsible for ruining the environment, to browbeat impoverished countries, who had little to do with the current environmental calamity, to use cleaner and more expensive forms of energy. Sure, fresher air would be nice. But potable water and protein are more urgent.)

In the United States, installations of solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy are increasing exponentially year over year. And renewables continue to take market share from coal, oil, & gas. Those are good things. But currently, there is dearth of renewable power generation to compensate for the loss of more than a small percentage of fossil fuel power - as evidenced by your massive increase in energy bills - and will not be for the foreseeable future.

The good news is that a safe and carbon free source of energy already exists in the form of nuclear power. The upfront outlays to build a nuclear power plant are enormous; multiple times the cost of constructing a coal or gas fired plant or to install a renewables facility. But the life of a nuclear plant is long – up to 75 years - and nuclear power is very safe, efficient, and does not emit any greenhouse gasses.

Some Western nations such as France, Finland, and Great Britain have embraced nuclear energy. Germany has recently pivoted from a staunchly anti-nuke position to a cautiously welcoming policy stance. America's commitment to nuclear has been equivocal at best. In our view, this is a mistake.

US Energy Mix

Approximately 61% of America’s electricity generation is derived from fossil fuels including coal (~22%), natural gas (38%) and oil (1%). Renewables (wind ~9%, hydro ~6%, solar ~3%, other ~2%) contribute ~20%. Nuclear is currently ~19% of the mix.

Regarding carbon free energy, there are currently two ways to generate it without *intermittency: with nuclear and hydro power. It is difficult to obtain a permit to build a nuclear reactor. It is almost impossible to get a permit to construct a dam, let alone find a suitable location for one.

(*We do not know when the wind will blow or when the sun will shine. Insufficient wind equates to less output per wind turbine. A cloudy day equates to less generation per solar farm. Storage is available on a subscale basis. But the technology to store large amounts of power derived from solar and wind is not yet commercially viable.)

Currently, nuclear power plants generate ~half of America’s emissions-free energy. However, lack of attention, misplaced public and political opposition, and horrific long-term planning have gutted the industry and left it in secular decline.

The U.S. has 92 nuclear power plants in operation and still produces ~30% of the world’s nuclear energy. However, over the last decade, 13 plants have been shuttered prematurely due to a fundamental lack of understanding of energy economics and interplay between fossil fuels, renewables, and the environment. By contrast, only one new plant has connected to the grid and two more, at plant Vogtle in Georgia, are under construction.

...
Issue 139
September 18, 2022
American Trash

Proverb: One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. American trash – excuse the pun - is the subject of our latest iteration of TQC Trivia. Answers are provided below, along with interesting and frankly, appalling supplemental information.

1) Q: What percentage of the world’s trash do Americans generate?

A) 2%
B) 12%
C) 40%
D) 52%

2) Q: On average, how many disposable diapers are disposed of before a child is toilet trained?

A) 800
B) 1,800
C) 3,300
D) 9,000

3) Q: What percentage of the world’s children live in America and what percentage of the world’s toys do their parents throw away?

A) ~3% / ~20%
B) ~10% / ~30%
C) ~3% / ~40%
D) ~5% / ~25%

4) Q: How much food do Americans throw away daily?

A) 1,000 tons
B) 10,000 tons
C) 13,000 tons
D) 43,000 tons

5) Q: How many cell phones do Americans throw away daily?

A) 151 million
B) 15 thousand
C) 15 million
D) 416 thousand

6) Q: What percentage of American garbage encompasses paper and packaging materials?

A) ~28%
B) ~10%
C) ~65%
D) ~50%

7) Q: What percentage of American garbage is recycled?

A) 3%
B) 13%
C) 30%
D) 50%

8) Q: What state has the highest recycling rate in America?

A) California
B) New York
C) West Virginia
D) Maine

9) Q: What type of landfill is not currently recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency?

A) Municipal Solid Waste
B) Industrial Waste
C) Hazardous Waste
D) Green Waste

10) Q: How much clothing do Americas throw away annually?

A) 14 million tons
B) 4 million tons
C) 1 million tons
D) 7 million tons

ANSWERS

1) (B) 12%. Many Americans say they care about the environment; their actions tell a different story. The United States “trashes” the most waste of any nation in the world. Indeed, even though America is home to just ~4% of the world’s population, its citizens are responsible for generating ~12% of the earth’s trash. This translates into ~268 million tons of garbage per year. (China’s 1.4 billion people equate to ~18% of the world’s population and the country generates ~240 million tons of garbage per year.) More specifically, on average Americans generate ~4.5 pounds of municipal solid waste (MSW) per person, per day. Garbage history: In 1960, Americans generated ~2.7 pounds of MSW per person, per day, and 3.7 lbs. in 1980. In many social circles it is trendy to care about the environment, in far fewer circles are actions commensurate with words.

...
Issue 140
October 2, 2022
Migrants In Martha's Vineyard

On September 14, the latest partisan battle raging over illegal immigration escalated when Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis sent two planeloads of undocumented Venezuelan immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard, a left-leaning enclave situated off the coast of Massachusetts.

This followed Governors Greg Abbot (R-TX) and Doug Ducey (R-AZ), who’ve bussed thousands of illegal immigrants in their respective states to New York, Chicago, and other “sanctuary” cities.

DeSantis’ communications director Taryn Fenske argued that, “states like Massachusetts, New York, and California will better facilitate the care of these individuals who they have invited into our country by incentivizing illegal immigration through their designation as 'sanctuary states.’”

Left-leaning immigration advocates countered by calling DeSantis and his fellow governors’ actions cruel and appalling political stunts that preyed upon the misfortunate to garner support among nationalists in their base.

Immigration

To be certain, the battle over immigration has festered for decades. And there are fundamental philosophical differences across party lines. Nonetheless, both Democrats and Republicans share in the blame for what has become an untenable hodgepodge of bizarre rules and regulations that do little but confuse all stakeholders.

To call this regrettable would be an understatement. Immigration will be an increasingly important driver in determining whether our demographics remain conducive to economic vibrancy. Sensible reform is long overdue and desperately needed. Unfortunately, like most hot button issues before us, lawmakers have strong opinions on immigration but a weak understanding of the overly granular rules and regulations that underpin an unsustainable status quo many of them helped create. To that end, let us first (try) and clarify some of them.

There are three ways to enter the United States, legally, illegally, and via birthright.

Legal Immigration

To lawfully immigrate to America, a subject can obtain an immigrant visa, commonly referred to as a “green card”. A green card can be renewed forever, allows for unrestricted permanent employment, and provides a legal pathway to become an American citizen.

There are six main categories of green cards. Most green cards issued by the U.S government are family-based. The rules are convoluted but in short, if you are a relative of a family member who is a U.S. citizen or green card holder, you could be eligible for a family based green card.

The second most granted green card is employment based. There are five sub-categories of employment based green cards. Four of them (EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, and EB-4) pertain to specific skill sets of the applicant; their employer may need to sponsor their application. An EB-5 employment based green card can potentially be obtained subject to certain limitations if a foreign investor is willing to inject $500,000 - $1,000,000 into a job creating business or venture. Worth nothing, an employment based green card is different from an Employment Authorization Document, commonly known as a “work permit”. Work permits are not green cards. They are typically granted to foreign spouses of American citizens so they can work in the United States while their family based green card applications are being processed.

The other types of green cards are, Humanitarian, Diversity lottery, Longtime-resident and Other. Humanitarian green cards are issued to refugees and people seeking political asylum, victims of human-trafficking, or other related crimes. Diversity lottery green cards are granted to winners of a randomly selected lottery of 50,000 people per year from qualified nations with low immigration rates to America. Longtime-resident green cards may be granted to individuals who entered the United States – legally or illegally - prior to 1972 and have not left since. Other green cards can be issued for various reasons including but not limited to foreign nationals who assist the U.S. government, members of the media, and religious workers.

In lieu of a green card or immigrant visa, a subject can obtain a temporary visa or “nonimmigrant visa.” A temporary visa can typically be renewed subject to various restrictions and allows the subject to work, study, and live in the United States for several years. The most common temporary visa is the F-1 student visa. These are relatively easy to obtain but are not valid in perpetuity.

In theory, it appears from the information above that if a subject wants a green card, all they must do is discern which one to get, go through the application process, and wait for one to be issued. In practice, this is not the case. Green cards are not easy to procure. Discerning which one to apply for usually requires the help of an immigration attorney or specialist. Furthermore, many people are ineligible for a green card. Some reasons for ineligibility make good sense, others make no sense. Finally, if somebody qualifies for a green card, obtaining one is a long, complicated, and expensive undertaking that has no assurance of success.

Birthright

Another way to (legally) enter America is in a pregnant woman’s belly and be born in the United States. Regardless if the mother is a U.S. citizen or a non-citizen - tourist or illegal immigrant - if her offspring is born in the United States, her baby is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. The simple reason for this is because it is the law: “Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) a person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States automatically acquires U.S. citizenship, known as jus soli ("right of the soil").”

...
Issue 141
October 16, 2022
Kanye West

Last weekend, Kanye West tweeted, “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE…You guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.” In the same context, West argued that he could not be an anti-Semite “because black people are actually Jew.” (Defcon is an alert system used by the U.S. Armed Forces to indicate levels of severity in a crisis – clearly, Kanye was offering a play on this term).

West’s tweet was clearly anti-Semitic, reinforced bogus stereotypical misnomers about Jews, and was indicative of somebody who is mentally unfit.

Regardless of how sick – excuse the pun – one’s actions or words are, it is imprudent to diagnose anybody with a mental illness without having the credentials and opportunity to examine them in person.

This post will focus on a few disconcerting and interlocking themes that are prudent to address: anti-Semitism, lack of condemnation, and criticism of Jews when they defend themselves.

Hate & Vitriol

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), ~60% of all religious hate crimes are perpetrated against Jews, even though Jews encompass only ~2.5% of the U.S. population. Racist or bigoted tweets are not hate crimes, but they can facilitate them, especially when the author is Kanye West, an influencer with over 31 million Twitter followers.

Mr. West’s tweet was not an isolated incident of anti-Jewish virulence. Indeed, if we attempted to highlight and respond to every anti-Semitic tweet and dispel others filled with dangerous misinformation, we would be writing in perpetuity. Conversely, condemnations of anti-Semitic tweets are few and far between. And when they do happen, they lack the same oomph compared to when other races and religions are defended against racism.

Pause

Following Kanye West’s tweet, Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk, a billionaire with over 100 million Twitter followers who is in the process of finalizing an acquisition of Twitter for $44 billion tweeted “Welcome back to Twitter, my friend!” Musk later tweeted, “Talked to ye today & expressed my concerns about his recent tweet, which I think he took to heart.”

...
Issue 143
November 27, 2022
After the Midterms

In February of 2021, we wrote: “Before January 6th, TQC’s position was that Donald Trump was a depraved human who denigrated the office of the president and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up, but we credited him – and agreed with – some of his policies…After that, any goodwill we harbored towards him vaporized.”

Immediately after that and over the ensuing months, we argued that it would behoove the GOP to immediately pivot away from Trump and reject the two dead horses that he has continually beat since he lost the election: that it was rife with fraud thereby” stolen” from him, and that former Vice President Mike Pence could have overturned the results.

We added, “Democrats are in a horribly weak position. President Biden’s approval ratings are dismal, he’s been unable to pass a signature piece of proposed legislation (Build Back Better) while infighting between “the Squad” and more centrist Dems have sown division within the party…Republicans have a chance to massively outperform in November’s midterms. The roadmap for them is quite simple: repudiate and move on from Mr. Trump and proactively discuss substantive policies they champion.”

The GOP did not heed our advice to “call out Trump’s lies, forcefully condemn them, and move on from him.” Too many rank- and-file Republicans cowered under pressure and failed to challenge Mr. Trump openly. And The Republican National Committee (RNC) chose to defend Trump and discredit his detractors. The RNC’s stance was not only morally bankrupt but as we suspected, strategically inept.

The GOP performed horribly in the midterms. The “red wave” many had predicted and that the GOP hoped for, morphed into a red ripple. This, despite Mr. Biden’s appalling approval ratings, embarrassing gaffes, and ~8% headline inflation.

On the contrary, Democratic candidates' views appeared to echo ours from November 2020 when we argued that “Defund The Police Is Costing Dems Seats.” In the Midterms, those candidates declined to run on that and other more extremist ideology and were rewarded by voters.

Missed Opportunity

Midterms are typically unkind to a sitting president’s party; they almost always lose seats in aggregate. This election cycle was no different in that Dems – the sitting party – lost seats, but not nearly as many as the GOP would have liked. In fact, Republicans failed to retake the Senate despite needing to flip just 1 seat. They did manage to retake the House, barely, gaining materially fewer seats than anticipated.

...
Issue 147
February 12, 2023
Chat GPT: Writing My Own Obituary?

Over the last few weeks, you might have heard about a “revolutionary” piece of artificial intelligence (AI) software called Chat GPT, devised by a San Francisco-based startup called OpenAI and partially funded by the software giant, Microsoft. The software was released to the public in November of ’22 and in five days ~a million people signed up. Two months later, ~100 million people had tried and or are currently using Chat GPT, making it one the most successful consumer product launches of all time.

Pundits and futurists have already coined Chat GPT as the next “big thing”, a disruptive new technology that will both aid and displace humans in workforce and fundamentally change how we we interact with technology.

Microsoft v Google

Microsoft plans to incorporate Chat GPT into its Bing search engine to create an unbeatable value proposition and take back market share from Google, the industry leader that commands ~93% of the search market. (Bing has ~3% market share, followed by Yahoo, with ~1%.) The stakes are high. Google generated over $160 billion in revenue last year from search; every percentage point of market share Microsoft can manage to claw back is worth ~2b in ad revenue.

People are paying attention. The stocks of all things related to AI, including Microsoft, have surged in recent weeks. Many companies are announcing competing and or complementary products to Chat GPT. Google, who released a beta version of its own AI software called BARD, has lagged.

Precedent

Are the “experts” right? What exactly is Chat GPT and what does it do? We will provide more details later in this post but if the thought of AI enabled bots displacing humans makes you shiver, take solace.

Seemingly whenever a technological breakthrough is upon us, analysts predict that jobs will be displaced, people will suffer, and bad actors will use the technology to commit crimes. History has taught us that these predictions are usually partially right, but mostly wrong.

While a small minority of directly affected people sometimes do, in-fact become dispensable, and most new technologies are harnessed for nefarious purposes by a small minority of miscreants, new technology and inventions typically prove beneficial to the great majority of society and spur demand for new types of jobs.

(Economists refer to predictions of innovation detracting from jobs as the Luddite Fallacy. The word Luddite is now used to describe somebody who is opposed to new technology. Originally, the Luddites were English mill workers in the early 1800s who banded together and destroyed innovative machinery, specifically knitting frames, and looms, which they worried would threaten their livelihoods.)

...
Issue 149
March 26, 2023
(Bank) Run Forrest, Run

Vladimir Lenin said, “there are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” Perhaps nowhere is this truer than in the (normally) staid field of banking.

The 2008/09 financial crisis was catalyzed when a housing bubble – fueled by irresponsible and predatory lending, a dearth of individual accountability, and shoddy securities comprised of subprime mortgages - popped. The panic began with a rarely-mentioned, isolated “run” on a Florida investment vehicle underpinned by some of these securities and culminated with the undoing of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual and the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Government-brokered mergers forged hastily over a weekend, and taxpayer-funded capital injections into the largest financial institutions were executed to prevent a cataclysmic meltdown of the banking system.

Then Wall St sobered up. Stricter rules and regulations were implemented that required banks to hold more high-quality capital, restricted proprietary trading, and subjected the largest lenders to annual “stress tests.”

For over ~10 years the banking sector trudged along swimmingly, navigating the covid crisis and its aftermath without a hitch. Then something broke.

Houston, We Have A Problem

On March 10, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the nation’s 16th largest and primary lender to VC-funded startups and other tech firms, collapsed. It was a stunning display of what transpires when a bank run coincides with instant access via smartphone apps and mobile money. The bank was vaporized in ~48 hours after a botched capital raise triggered a run on its deposits. SVB was the second-largest bank failure in American history (The collapse of Washington Mutual was the largest.)

Days later, New York based Signature Bank was the target of a bank run and was seized by regulators. Other regional banks began to wobble after suffering their own waves of deposit outflows. Their fate is to be determined.

(The contagion spread overseas. Counterparties grew increasingly leery of transacting with Credit Suisse (CS), the venerable 167-year-old Swiss investment bank. On Sunday March 19, CS was forced into the arms of its crosstown rival, UBS, in a government-brokered transaction.)

A Brief History

The bank run that sealed SVBs fate was hardly unique. In fact, most bank runs share important characteristics. We will go into more detail about SVBs demise later in this post. But first, a (very) brief overview of the most significant bank runs in American history:

• Panic of 1819: The first financial crisis in the United States. The primary cause was over-speculation in land which led to the overproduction of agricultural commodities. The prices of both then collapsed. Multiple banks failed and a depression ensued.

• Panic of 1873: This crisis was catalyzed by frenetic buying in railroad stocks fueled by the public’s fear of missing out (FOMO), and credit extended by various investment banks. A price bubble formed. When it burst – as all bubbles eventually do - many investment and commercial banks went bust. A severe depression ensued that lasted years.

• Panic of 1893: After silver mines opened across the American west, overproduction led to an acute price drop. This in turn led to a decrease in the money supply and ushered in deflationary pressures. Many banks and businesses failed. A multi-year depression followed.

...
Issue 15
February 17, 2019
Senior Syphilis

If the title of this article is meant to shock or be misconstrued, it is neither. This week’s topic of discussion is not about American youth and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), rather we will delve into an unheeded demographic where STDs are becoming evermore prevalent: the elderly. Unfortunately, senior citizens in our society are too often overlooked and sometimes outright ignored. Nowhere might this be more apparent than in the lack of focus, education and care for the aged who are becoming infected with STDs at an alarming rate. This must change.

While older people tend to be mindful of their blood sugar, blood pressure, cardiac care and more; many are startlingly ignorant of the epidemic that’s taken hold of their communities. STDs? Why would those even apply to them if they are not of child rearing or producing age? One reason is the lack of basic education and effective communication by health care providers. Another impetus is societal neglect. Simply put, older people are marginalized when it comes to many relevant public service health campaigns. As a result, they do not consider themselves a high-risk group for STDs. This false sense of immunity coupled with the fact that older people tend to have more compromised immune systems, increases the probability that the elderly will acquire a sexually communicated disease.

Needn't we forget that many senior citizens are products of the Baby Boomer Generation. They came of age during the sexual revolution. Their attitudes towards sex combined with the use of drugs like Viagra & Cialis have made an the active sex life well into retirement all but commonplace.

In late 2018, the US News & World Report published an article that encompassed some sobering statistics: "A recent analysis of patients on Athenahealth's network found that patients over age 60 account for the biggest increase of in-office treatments for sexually transmitted infections. The report found that in adults over age 60, diagnosis rates for herpes simplex, gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis B, trichomoniasis and chlamydia rose 23 percent between 2014 and 2017.” In 2014, Psychology Today published a piece with the following lead in sentence: “According to the Center for Disease Control, among our senior citizen population sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are spreading like wildfire. Since 2007, incidence of syphilis among seniors is up by 52 percent, with chlamydia up 32 percent." The examples above were published in the mainstream press. And while there has been much written on this particular phenomenon, the stories tend to be buried in the back pages of a newspaper or relegated to the preserve of medical journals.

...
Issue 150
April 16, 2023
(Another) Mass Shooting

On April 10, yet another mass shooting occurred in America. This one, in Louisville, KY. A 25-year-old gunman named Connor Sturgeon walked into his employer, Old National Bank, armed with an AR-15 that was legally purchased, and opened fire. The gunman killed five colleagues and wounded others, all while live-streaming his rampage on Facebook. Sturgeon was subsequently killed by responding police officers but not before shooting two deputies, critically injuring one.

Immediately following the shooting, politicians predictably talked past each other. Democrats reiterated their call for stricter gun control and more resources for mental health. The GOP stressed that random acts of gun violence are rare, and the bigger problem lies with soft-on-crime prosecutors that fail to punish criminals in a manner commensurate with their crimes, thereby perpetuating an increasingly violent crime cycle.

As You Were

The shooting in Kentucky was the 146th mass shooting in America in 2023. According to the Gun Violence Archive, a mass shooting is “any incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are wounded, or killed.”

Regrettably, the increased number of these incidents has rendered them unremarkable, so much so that they can all but be pre-scripted: A disgruntled perpetrator commits a senseless act of violence with a firearm, live streams it on social media to draw attention to himself (most perpetrators are men), Democrats and Republicans blame each other, the social media platform that hosted the content absolves itself of any responsibility, while the public has become so desensitized as to collectively shrug their shoulders and move on.

Gun Control

What can be done? Few issues are more divisive and held hostage by the extreme wings of both parties than the debate about guns in America. The sensible middle where compromise is often discovered – and perhaps surprisingly, where most Americans’ viewpoints lie regarding gun control - has been relegated to irrelevance.

A minority of staunch gun rights advocates are incorrigible and unwilling to entertain even the most benign ideas pertaining to gun control. This includes the need for any type of licensure, background checks, or making military grade-weapons that have no practical purpose other than for illicit activities illegal.

Certain anti-gun activists are equally as unreasonable. They refuse to consider anything but a blanket ban on both the sale and possession of all firearms. Their arguments are usually overly general, lack substance and are buoyed by silly statements such as “just get rid of guns” or “there should be no guns.” The fact is there are ~400 million guns in circulation in the United States, the vast majority of which are owned by law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, the probability of legislation being passed to confiscate those guns is zero. We must work with what the facts are, not what we may (or may not) like them to be.

Unbeknown to many on both sides of the political divide, most gun owners do support thoughtful regulation and consistent licensing procedures regarding the purchase, sale and usage of firearms. Many are in a moral quagmire, stuck between what they support – thoughtful streamlined rules and regulation – and the legitimate worry that new laws introduced to curb gun rights will set off a cascade of ever more restrictive legislation; with the end game being an outright ban on private firearm ownership.

Our view is that U.S. citizens should maintain the right to purchase and utilize most firearms subject to federal regulation including being licensed and undergoing a background check. The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, when James Madison penned the 2nd Amendment, machine guns, military-grade assault rifles and bump stocks – which effectively turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons - did not exist. Hence, we must apply common sense and rationality when applying text written in 1791 to the present.

To that end, military grade assault rifles should be outlawed. These weapons have no place in society except for law enforcement and the military. They serve one primary purpose - to hurt and kill people. These weapons are not useful or needed to hunt, shoot skeet, or for target practice. They should not be available to private citizens. Indeed, in 2008 as part of the District of Columbia v. Heller, The Supreme Court found “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

...
Issue 152
May 28, 2023
Death On The Subway

Earlier this month, a mentally unstable homeless man named Jordan Neely began aggressively harassing passengers aboard a New York subway. A 24-year-old former marine, Daniel Penny, intervened and subdued Mr. Neely in a chokehold. Minutes later Jordan Neely was dead. Mr. Penny was arrested and charged with manslaughter. He could serve up to 15 years if found guilty.

Unfortunately, crimes committed in New York’s transit system are commonplace. Since 2020, 27 people have been killed on the subway, hundreds more assaulted, and thousands harassed. Local news will sometimes report on the most horrific crimes, like straphangers being pushed into moving trains, onto the tracks, or sexual deviants exposing themselves. But typically, even when an incident results in death, it does not make the national news.

Two primary reasons this alleged crime garnered national attention were because the victim, Jordan Neely, was black, and the perpetrator, Daniel Penny, was white and it involved a debate about vigilante justice. Secondary reasons included a shortage of mental health services in New York and other major metropolises and a general decline of public order.

Preordained Conclusions

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this case has split the nation mainly down political and ideological lines.

Daniel Penny’s supporters, most of whom lean to the right, called his actions heroic. They argued his case served as a poignant example of a man defending his fellow citizens from a mentally unhinged individual threatening to cause bodily harm to one or many innocent people; race was not a factor. Those in the pro-Penny camp argue he never intended to cause lasting physical harm, let alone death. They maintain that while regrettable, Neely’s death was clearly accidental and that Penny was justified in putting Neely in a chokehold. They noted that two other individuals who have not yet been named or charged subdued Neely too.

Presidential Candidate Ron DeSantis (R-FL) called Daniel Penny a good Samaritan and said, “let’s show this Marine… America’s got his back.” Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) referred to Penny as a "Subway Superhuman,” (whatever that means). Supporters have donated ~2.6 million dollars to his defense fund.

Critics, the overwhelming majority of whom lean left, rejected Penny’s claims of self-defense and/or defense of others. They point out that Neely never physically assaulted anybody on the train before Penny intervened. They argued that Neely’s case was a textbook example of vigilante justice and would inspire more of it, highlighted the failures of the (mental health) system in New York, and has a big racial component. Almost all critics agree that Daniel Penny was appropriately charged with manslaughter, with some advocating for a murder charge.

Said Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), “Jordan Neely was murdered…because he was crying for food.” Al Sharpton said, “If you do not prosecute ... you will set a standard of vigilantism that we cannot tolerate.” New York Public Advocate Jumaane Williams (D-NY) added “I don’t know the intent of Daniel Penny when he choked #JordanNeely to death, nor all that happened before the video began…I do know that if a black, homeless man choked a white marine to death because he was scared, he'd be sitting in Rikers unable to pay the bail set for him.”

In solidarity with Jordan Neely, protesters gummed up subway stations, some jumped onto the tracks, others refused to let passengers disembark from a train idled at a station and chanted “no justice, no peace.” At least seven people were arrested.

In our view, any conservative who yelled “hero!” and any liberal who screamed “murderer!” before all the facts of this case are presented and who did not bother to educate themselves about the laws regarding self-defense in NY should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The only things anybody should consider regarding Daniel Penny’s fate are the facts of this case and the state laws pertaining to self-defense in New York.

...
Issue 154
July 9, 2023
The Other Maritime Tragedy

On June 18th a submersible called Titan, operated by the private company OceanGate, was deployed ~400 nautical miles off Newfoundland, Canada, in the North Atlantic Ocean. The submersible, bound for the Titanic shipwreck some 12,500 feet deep, was carrying four tourists and a pilot. By now, just about everybody knows Titan never reached its intended destination; it imploded a few hundred feet from the sunken ship. The accidents probable cause was a catastrophic hull failure under immense deep-sea pressure.

(The deepest part of the ocean is called the Mariana Trench, located in the Pacific Ocean, a few hundred kilometers southwest of Guam. It is ~36,000 feet deep. Only three people have ever reached those depths. In 1960, Lieutenant Don Walsh of the U.S. Navy and Swiss oceanographer Jacques Piccard made the trip in a specially designed submersible called the Trieste. In 2012, explorer and filmmaker James Cameron visited solo in a 24 ft craft called the Deepsea Challenger. At those depths, the atmospheric pressure is approximately 16,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) compared to just under 15 lbs per square inch at sea level.)

The tragedy of the Titan received extensive coverage from major news organizations in America and around the world. We learned the names of the passengers, what they did for a living, and their life stories. We heard from former passengers who described the Titan submersible as shoddily built, piloted with off-the-shelf parts, including a video game console. There were reports of past structural issues and numerous former missions were aborted.

Stockton Rush, the CEO of OceanGate, piloted the Titan. Posthumously, Rush has been scrutinized for his cavalier attitude towards safety including shrugging off generally accepted maritime safety protocols. Hamish Harding was a British billionaire, explorer, and CEO of Action Aviation, an aircraft broker. Shahzada Dawood was a member of one of Pakistan’s wealthiest families and owner of a business conglomerate called Engro joined the expedition along with his 19-year-old son, Suleman. Paul-Henri Nargeolet, the former director of Michigan State University’s Center for Maritime & Underwater Resource Management, a trained professional in deep-sea salvage, Titanic expert, and the first to retrieve artifacts from the ship in 1987, was aboard.

News agencies emphasized that all the passengers were either phenomenally wealthy or related to people who were and reserving a spot on the Titan cost $250,000.

...
Issue 156
September 3, 2023
Obesity & Ozempic

On August 14, the Wall Street Journal published an article by Betsy McKay titled Ozempic Settles the Obesity Debate: It’s Biology Over Willpower. The article postulated how the success of a new class of drugs called glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists all but prove that biology is the primary determining factor of a person’s weight. The author quoted endocrinologist Dr. Florencia Halperin who argued, “This is not about willpower or personal choice…This is about your brain driving behaviors” and Dr. Louis Arone, professor of metabolic research at Weil Cornell Medical College who argued that “What these drugs have proven is that patients are right: It’s not their fault.”

Not at all? While biology is a meaningful determining factor of one’s body weight and should not be discounted, in our view, the article did not give proper credence to important social factors and personal accountability in determining one’s health.

The Drugs

The drugs cited in the article are Ozempic and Wegovy, manufactured by a Danish company called Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro, made by Eli Lilly. Ozempic was initially developed to control diabetes, but patients treated with it reported decreased levels of hunger, which led to significant weight loss. Wegovy is a later iteration of Ozempic – they both contain the active ingredient semaglutide - but is administered at a higher dose. Mounjaro, which acts on both GIP and GLP-1 receptors and contains the active ingredient tirzepatide, was shown to effectuate even more weight loss than Wegovy and Ozempic. New findings suggest all three drugs might also combat heart disease and stroke.

Though only Wegovy has been explicitly approved for weight loss, “off-label” usage of Ozempic and Mounjaro has surged. In fact, all three drugs have proven so popular (and effective) that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly cannot satisfy current levels of demand.

Biology

To be certain, biology is a powerful driver of a person’s susceptibility to becoming obese. To that end, people should tread carefully before judging others and instead consider that certain individuals are, in fact, predisposed to get heavy. Indeed, thousands of genes are associated with how much a person weighs. The effectiveness of GLP-1 and GIP agonists buttress this fact. Per the article:

“…Primitive parts of the brain that control breathing, heartbeat and other essential functions collaborate with hormones and the central nervous system to determine how much fat the body wants to have and keep it at the set point. The system has been shaped by thousands of years of humans foraging to survive…The brain maintains the dial setting or set point by regulating how much a person eats. Ozempic, its sister drug Wegovy and another, Mounjaro, lower the dial setting, or set point, by acting on the brain to reduce hunger and make a person feel full sooner…”

...
Issue 158
November 12, 2023
Pro-Palestinian Or Anti-Semitic: Setting The Record Straight

To set the record straight, this article will explore various themes such as “Colonization,” “Free-Palestine,” “Open Air Prison,” “Apartheid State,” “Genocide,” “Ceasefire,” and “Free-Speech.” The format of this blog post will differ slightly from our usual style, incorporating both facts and rhetorical questions.

Colonization

Jews have lived in and around the Middle East for thousands of years. Before 1948, there was never a “Jewish state” or a “Palestinian state.” In 1947, the United Nations (UN) proposed a Jewish state and Palestinian state. The Jews accepted, but the Palestinians, along with other Arab nations rejected the UN’s two-state solution and declared war on Israel.

Unlike in the United States, where Native American land was appropriated, Israel was established in 1948 through a United Nations (UN) resolution, not land theft.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume that everybody who denies history is right and Israel did steal the Palestinians’ land. If one subscribes to the notion that Hamas’ attacks, which specifically targeted civilians, were “justified” as a form of “resistance” because Israelis “stole” or “colonized” Palestinian land, ask yourself this question: If a group of Native Americans gang raped your daughter and then shot her in the face, would that be “justified” as a form of “resistance” because Americans stole their land?

If the answer is “no,” take a moment to reflect on why that is.

If your answer is, “Well, my daughter had nothing to do with the previous generation of Americans that stole Native American land,” then ask yourself this question: Did the babies Hamas murdered and teenagers they gang raped then burned alive, and children they took as hostages have anything to do with Israel stealing Palestinian land?

If your answer is “yes,” we suggest you seek psychological counseling.

On multiple occasions including but not limited to 1967, 1978, 1993, 1995, 2000, etc., Israel, in concert with other world leaders has offered/proposed land, a two-state solution, and multiple other initiatives for peace. Every time, these offers were rejected by the Palestinian leadership. This is not the fault of ordinary Palestinians; it is the fault of their corrupt “leaders” who depend on and exploit their hopelessness for personal gain and to remain in power.

Palestinians Should Indeed Be Free – From Hamas

In May 2021 we penned a blog titled “Palestinians Should Indeed Be Free – From Hamas.” It remains relevant. We wrote, “We have no gripes about anybody supporting the rights of peaceful Palestinians. However, if you want to advocate for ordinary Palestinians, one correct way is to vociferously condemn Hamas.”

Top henchmen at Hamas, Abu Marzook ($3 billion), Khalad Mashal ($4 billion), and Ismail Haniyea ($4 billion) are billionaires; many others are multi-millionaires.

Multiple choice: How did they amass such wealth?

A) Manufacturing and selling advanced semiconductors.

B) Winning Mega Millions.

C) Stealing from their own impoverished citizens.

The answer is (C). Hamas’ “leaders” steal money intended for the betterment of the Palestinian people and use the funds to enrich themselves. Multiple billions of dollars from the international community intended to build housing, roads, schools, bridges, power plants, water desalination plants, etc., in Gaza are stolen and find their way to Hamas’ leaders bank accounts for their own financial benefit and to procure weapons. To be fair, Hamas does spend a portion of the funds on infrastructure: they built a labyrinth of fortified underground tunnels for the exclusive use of their militants outfitted with advanced climate control features and communications equipment to store munitions, supplies, launch rockets, take hostages, and take cover when Israel defends itself.

Hamas then strategically blames Israel for Palestinians’ decrepit standard of living. “Look, no schools, no roads, no ports, no tunnels (for civilians), poor healthcare” and make bogus claims that Israel is “oppressing them.”

Open Air Prison

One argument “Free Palestine” protesters make is that Israel maintains a highly fortified border, requires onerous security checks for Palestinians to cross into Israel, and carefully monitors the flow of goods in and out of Gaza via their shared border. This makes life difficult and frustrating for Palestinians, some of whom reject Hamas and their ideology. All this is 100% true.

Another argument some “Free Palestine” protesters make is that while the atrocities of 10/7 were regrettable (other protestors think they were “exhilarating”), “you cannot look at them in a vacuum.” Ok then; why did a fortified border wall have to be constructed in the first place? Why do all those checkpoints exist? Why is the flow of goods closely scrutinized? And why does the Israeli government spend billions of dollars per year on these initiatives?

The reason is that Hamas, the terrorist organization that “governs” Gaza openly states in their governing charter (you can find it online) its intent to destroy Israel and murder Jews. (They obliged on October 7th.)

If you lived in country A, and the government of country B’s stated objective was to wipe country A off the face of the earth and murder its Jewish citizens (~20% of Israel is Arab), would it not be prudent for country A to employ every available resource to prevent country B from carrying out its stated intentions?

...
Issue 159
January 22, 2024
What Is Going On Here?

On January 12th, enraged protesters demonstrated outside the Yemeni Mission in Midtown Manhattan. The group, however, wasn’t there to denounce the Houthis, Yemen-based militants that launched numerous missile and drone attacks against US troops, naval vessels, infrastructure, and private commercial shipping liners in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea. Contrarily, they were demanding that the U.S. and its allies stop defending themselves and were denouncing America.

At TQC, we find this as disturbing as we do unfathomable.

The Houthis: A (Very) Brief History

The Houthis are a militant group based in Yemen, loosely affiliated with Iran, which has supplied them with a diverse portfolio of weapons, including guns, attack drones, and anti-ship missiles. Following the overthrow of Yemeni strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2014, the Houthis became embroiled in a civil war with the internationally recognized government. Once confined to Yemen’s sparsely populated north, after Saleh’s overthrow, the Houthis expanded their footprint, including seizing many of the country’s cities, including the capital, Sanaa.

In 2015, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia intervened. The Saudis believed they could dispatch the Houthis in a matter of weeks and reinstall the internationally recognized government; they miscalculated. Almost a decade later, fighting continues with Iran supporting the Houthis via artillery and money, and the Saudis backing the government.

In 2022, the U.N. mediated a ceasefire, which lapsed after six months. Meanwhile, eight years of war has rendered Yemen a failed state contending with arguably the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Fighting has left over 150,000 people, including fighters and civilians, dead. Tens of thousands more have died from starvation and lack of medical care. Four-fifths of the population live in poverty.

...
Issue 160
March 10, 2024
Peaceful Protests?

Over the last few months, anti-Israel “protestors,” along with unabashed antisemites in major metropolises and on college campuses, have invoked calls for “resistance by any means necessary” and “there is only one solution: intifada revolution!” and, “globalize the intifada.”

Peaceful Protests

These sophomoric yet dangerous chants bear clear antisemitic undertones, in addition to thinly veiled insinuations that murder, rape, and kidnapping Jews are justified in the “struggle” against Israeli “colonizers.”

At TQC, we find these chants deplorable, deeply misguided, and exploitative, especially of the ignorant, by morally bankrupt leaders who reduce complex conflicts into overly simplistic black-and-white binaries to advance their agenda at the expense of the very people they claim to care about.

As repulsive as these moronic slogans are, they are protected under the First Amendment and therefore are permissible.

A protester does not have to be polite. Vulgarity is protected under the constitution. To quote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), “The whole point of protesting is to make people feel uncomfortable. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable, that’s the point.” We typically disagree with AOC, but she is correct on this point.

However, unlike most speech (not all speech is protected under the First Amendment), criminality is not protected under the Constitution. Lawbreaking is where we draw the line. Regrettably, when it comes to anti-Israel protests that line has been crossed numerous times.

Violent Protests

A recurring theme we hear is that, despite what we see on television and read about in the papers, the vast majority of anti-Israel protests have been non-violent. Perhaps that is true; perhaps not. However, one need not punch somebody in the face to be violent, incite violence, or condone it.

...
Issue 20
March 24, 2019
The Student Debt Crisis & What Can Be Done About It

“Getting a college degree has long been integral to the mythic promise of American opportunity. Yet for millions, it’s become exactly that, a myth---and a very expensive myth at that. The average student leaves school carrying $30,000 in debt. More than 40% of students who enter college fail to earn a degree within 6 years, and many of them wind up in the workforce lacking the credentials and practical skills required to get ahead.” - Bloomberg

A few weeks ago, following an exhaustive investigation by the FBI, dozens of privileged individuals including some public figures were charged by the United States Department of Justice with crimes that included racketeering, fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The offenses encompassed parents creating fictitious profiles of their children in order to bolster their chances of gaining admissions to selective universities, including highlighting athletic achievements for sports they did not participate in. Some high schools didn’t even field a team for the sport the prospective student was being profiled for! Other despicable actions included paying college entrance exam proctors to supply answers to tests, and outright bribery. Subsequently, both liberal and conservative factions of the mainstream press have had a bonanza highlighting the legitimate inequities regarding the college admissions process.

The Quintessential Centrist agrees that the college admissions cheating scandal is newsworthy. A few in the media have even written about how ultimately, it’s the children who will bear the brunt of their parents’ maleficence. That’s true; however much more widespread problems warranting investigation, thoughtful debate, and corrective action are the overbearing cost of a college education which has consistently outpaced inflation, the increasing amount of debt students incur to secure a college degree, and the fact that a growing number of employers (and students) maintain that the education our colleges provide is not commensurate with the skillsets they are seeking in new hires.

In an effort to frame this slow-moving crisis – and make no mistake, it is a crisis – consider these jarring statistics:

• In 2018, ~70% of college students took out loans to pay for their education.

• “According to figures from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, between January 1989 and January 2016…the cost to attend a university increased nearly eight times faster than wages did…”.

• Since the late 1990’s, colleges and universities have raised the price of education faster than any sector except healthcare.

• There is $1.56 trillion dollars of student loan debt outstanding. Aside from home mortgages, student loan debt represents largest consumer debt segment in the United States. To put $1.56 trillion dollars of student loan debt in context, consider that total credit card debt in America totals ~1 trillion dollars; and keep in mind, there are many more credit card holders in The United States than student loan borrowers. Hence, not only is the notional value of student debt roughly 50% larger than credit card debt, the dollar amount of student debt per borrower (~$30,000 per person) is exponentially higher than for credit card borrowers (~$5,700 per person).

...
Issue 24
April 28, 2019
Rich Lives Matter More

Wealth and its associated privileges afford much insulation and protection. However, it cannot safeguard against unexpected tragedy or death. Yet in the aftermath of the devastating Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka that have, to date, claimed 359 lives, the mainstream media has allocated a disproportionate amount of news coverage to the wealthiest victims. This subtly implies that rich lives matter more, or at least sell more newspapers and online advertising. At TQC, we find this troubling to say the least.

The day after the bombings, multiple news organizations highlighted the death of three of the four children of Danish billionaire Anders Hoch Polvson, who operates retail giant ASOS. Overnight, his story became - albeit indirectly – in part that a billionaire was not insulated from this act of terror. Of course, having to attend the funeral of ones’ own children under any circumstance is unfathomable. Our heavy hearts go out to, and we sympathize with, the Polvson family and all those affected by this senseless act. Unfortunately, the subtext of some media coverage implied that his loss was somehow greater because of his wealth. Mr. Povson’s story was not the only example of the mainstream press allocating an abundance of reporting resources on privileged persons affected by this terrorist attack.

There was considerable media focus on student Kieran Shafritz de Zoya, a fifth grader at the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. The school’s alumni include the children of several Presidents. In his grief, the boy’s father spoke of how Kieran aspired to be a neuroscientist but those dreams ended when terrorism claimed his life. Other prominent victims included Sri Lankan celebrity chef Shantha Mayadunne and a young relative of Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. These were among the figures given notable mention in the press coverage. Indeed, the media seemed astonished that the affluent were among the victims.

...
Issue 25
May 5, 2019
Notre Dame

On April 15th, flames engulfed and almost destroyed the iconic Cathedral of Notre Dame, in Paris, France. In the immediate aftermath of the blaze, people all over the world pledged vast sums of money to help pay for Notre Dame’s rehabilitation. This triggered a “fire storm” – excuse the pun - of controversy across social media. There was outrage that so much money could be raised at such breakneck speed to rebuild this venerated physical structure despite the many blights facing humanity. Wealthy French businessmen and philanthropists bore the brunt of the criticism.

Actress and activist Pamela Anderson expressed concern that a children's charity benefit she had recently attended also raised money to help rebuild Notre Dame de Paris.

Belgian golfer Thomas Peiters echoed Ms. Anderson’s concerns. He contended that “Kids are starving to death in this world and EU wants us to donate to rebuild a building ...I don’t understand.”

American writer Kristan Higgins chimed in, “Donate to help Puerto Rico recover. Donate to get the people of Flint clean water. Donate to get kids out of cages. Jesus didn’t care about stained glass. He cared about humans.”

Simon Allison, a well-respected reporter in South Africa noted, “In just a few hours…650 million euros was donated to rebuild Notre Dame…In six months, just 15 million euros has been pledged to restore Brazil’s National Museum (that was damaged in a fire last September). I think this is what they call white privilege.”

Anderson continued via Twitter:

"Last night we attended @OM_Officiel annual Gala to help raise money for youth suffering in Marseille - full of good intentions. While raising a meaningful amount of € for a great cause. Then ‘big surprise auction item’ came to raise money for rebuilding Notre Dame???" "Surely the children suffering in Marseille could have used the 100,000 € more than the church that has already received over a billion in donations by billionaires....I hope they will reconsider and give to where it is needed. to the community here in Marseille where it was intended. And would go much further in making lives better."

She makes a valid point.

Anderson and her boyfriend Adil Rami, a defender for the French soccer team, Olympique de Marseille, are avid supporters of his football club's children's charity. They were dismayed that a portion, albeit small in comparison, of the proceeds would be allocated to another cause. To this specific point, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rami are correct; a charity created for and that subsequently earmarked funds to be deployed towards a specific cause should not re-allocate resources to another cause, however worthy that cause may be. Anderson is well known for her activism and philanthropy, supporting a range of causes from animal welfare to climate change and beyond. While we may not agree with all of Anderson's politics – she has publicly advocated for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, an accused rapist and leaker of top secret information - or the causes she supports, we can all agree that helping children in need is a most noble and worthwhile pursuit.

...
Issue 26
May 12, 2019
Horseracing

On Saturday May 4th Maximum Security, the clear (unofficial) winner of the 145th running of the Kentucky Derby, was disqualified. After the race was over, two jockeys filed objections. They argued that Maximum Security committed a foul under the rules that govern horseracing in the state of Kentucky. After ~20 minutes of suspense, three judges or “Stewards” as they are known in the sport, upheld the competing jockey’s objections and made a unanimous decision to disqualify Maximum Security for violating Section 12 of rule 810. That rule stipulates that disqualification is warranted if "a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey." Maximum Security thus became the 1st horse in Derby history to be disqualified on race day (though in 1968, Derby winner Dancer’s image was eventually stripped of his title for receiving performance enhancing drugs).

Through their attorney Barry Stilz, Maximum Security’s owners, Gary & May West, immediately appealed the Steward’s decision. It was denied. The West’s could theoretically pursue legal options but the odds of any substantive changes are shall we say, a “long shot.” Thus, Country House, a 65 to 1 long shot in his own right was declared the winner while Maximum Security dropped to 17th place.

For the record, at The Quintessential Centrist, prior to this year’s Kentucky Derby, we did not know much about horseracing. For this piece, we thoroughly researched the sport and its rules. We also conducted interviews with several knowledgeable racing fans. And as always, we welcome our reader’s feedback. Your thoughtful comments, ideas and opinions are a material part of what helps us improve our process. We thank you in advance for your participation.

Taken what we have gathered over the past week via our own due diligence coupled with probing interviews, our view is as follows: from the untrained eye, it appeared that Maximum Security clearly veered out of his lane and impeded other participants. Under the state of Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) rules, this is a violation that warrants disqualification. That said, we wonder if there was room for the Stewards at the Kentucky Derby to be more holistic and qualitative in their approach.

At TQC, we are avid (American) football enthusiasts and as such, have the benefit of a deeper understanding of the nuances surrounding the sport. In the National Football League (NFL), one of the most common penalties in the game is “holding.” If officials wanted to, they could throw a flag for “holding” on essentially every single play. That said, referees typically only penalize a team for “holding” if the foul was either blatantly obvious no matter where on the field it took place, or it had a material impact on the play. We enjoy watching basketball too. In the National Basketball Association (NBA), players often take an extra half-step or “travel” when penetrating towards the basket. While “traveling” is not permitted under NBA rules – and when called results in a change of ball possession – officials rarely blow their whistle for this offense. “Traveling” occurs frequently. Unless the “travel” was egregious and or allowed for an easier pathway to produce a basket, it is often ignored.

Of course, “holding,” violations in the NFL, “traveling” violations in the NBA, and disqualifications in horseracing are subjective judgment calls. It is extremely difficult to get it right all the time. Mistakes do happen. That said, we would think in a race with 19 live animals weighing upwards of 1,000 pounds each, it would be abnormal for bumping and crowding not to happen. In our view, technically the correct call was made, but the Stewards probably should not have made the call. Maximum Security clearly impeded other horses, but would it have made difference in the outcome of the race? At least pertaining to which horse ultimately won? We would say unequivocally no, it did not. Maximum Security won by over a length (a legitimate argument could be made that Maximum Security’s foul affected the 2nd and 3rd place finishers in the race).

...
Issue 27
May 19, 2019
The DC MTA Debacle: Four Wrongs Don't Make A Right

One of the supposed virtues, ostensibly, of social media, is to forge dialogue and bridge divides between people. It is, however, increasingly doing the opposite. Online discussions are morphing into something more sinister where civic-minded individuals are lambasted for even constructive criticism of those flaunting rules. To boot, the First Amendment is rapidly becoming a victim of the political correctness movement.

Generally, despite highly publicized cases of hate crimes and anti-Semitism, America is more racially equal and harmonious now than it was generations ago. That said, there is no doubt that African Americans and certain other minorities still receive the short shrift in many areas of life. Those of us historically literate and socially aware, irrespective of our political leanings, are rational enough to acknowledge this. Furthermore, before the advent of body cameras, smart phones and other recording devices, the level of abuse that disproportionately affected people of color was materially higher. Technological advancements have prodded most members of our society to hold themselves to a higher standard. However, in this case of Natasha Tynes and The Washington, DC Mass Transit Authority (MTA), technology was a contributing factor in degrading all parties involved.

This recent “scandal” was precipitated by Jordanian American World Bank employee Natasha Tynes, who reported a black female employee of the Washington, DC MTA for eating while on the job, a violation of MTA rules. When Tynes singled out the MTA employee, she was effectively told to mind her own business, at which point she took a picture of the employee eating and posted it along with a complaint to the DC MTA, on Twitter. The ensuing backlash – against Ms Tynes, a minority in her own right – was as absurd and misguided as Tynes’ own overreaching action against a fellow citizen for a trivial violation. Ms. Tynes was accused of being a snitch, a racist, and compromising the employee’s livelihood.

More importantly and as equally unbelievable, Tynes’ spineless book publisher, California Coldblood, and its distributor Rare Bird, suspended working with the author on her new novel, They Called Me Wyatt. California Coldblood tweeted: "Natasha Tynes ...did something truly horrible today in tweeting a picture of a metro worker eating her breakfast on the train this morning and drawing attention to her employer…Black women face a constant barrage of this kind of inappropriate behavior directed toward them and a constant policing of their bodies…we do not condone (Tynes') actions and hope Natasha learns from this experience that black women feel the effects of systematic racism the most and that we have to be allies, not oppressors." We disagree with their decision. Tynes did not deserve to lose her book deal. Even if her actions were motivated by racism – and we have no reason to believe they were - her publisher and distributor have no proof that race was a motivating factor in her action.

...
Issue 35
July 21, 2019
Sacking the Sacklers

In November 2018, The Quintessential Centrist’s inaugural issue covered the opioid crisis and the efficacy of fast acting antidotes such as Narcan and Evzio to counter overdoses. At the time of publication, there had been plenty of ongoing media coverage as to the role of Purdue Pharma in perpetuating the opioid epidemic. Purdue’s legal troubles began in 2001 when the company was sued by the state of West Virginia, which was effectively ground zero for the opioid crisis. The state claimed that Purdue inappropriately marketed their drug, OxyContin, and hid “from doctors the extent to which OxyContin's morphinelike qualities could lead to addiction.”

At the Quintessential Centrist, we have sometimes been a vocal critic of the government for regulatory and judicial overreach, which, we believe can stifle economic growth, innovation and job creation. But with respect to Purdue Pharma and its role in propagating the opioid epedemic, both state and federal governments are right to prosecute the company to the full extent of the law.

According to the CDC, 400,000 people perished from opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2017. Beyond just the death toll, the economic and social costs have been stunning. An article penned in 2016 in The Science Daily approximated the economic cost of the opioid crisis at over $78 billion dollars. The numbers are certainly much higher today. The social costs have been equally if not more enormous as the nuclei of tens of thousands of families have been hallowed out, the fabric of entire communities shredded.

Purdue Pharma is certainly not the only company to produce opioids; publicly listed firms such as Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Teva Pharmaceuticals and Allergan are involved in the space. Indeed, every pharmaceutical company found to be complicit in monetizing the opioid crisis should be held accountable. Recently, Teva quietly settled a related lawsuit while JNJ continues to fight in court; next month a ruling is expected. The outcome should be carefully watched as it will set precedent. But Purdue, a private company controlled by the prominent Sackler family, is disproportionately to blame for this societal disaster. From their unscrupulous marketing tactics, refusal to accept responsibility and then to plan to profit from the very crisis they spawned, their actions are reprehensible.

...
Issue 37
August 4, 2019
Cash Bail Should Be Abolished

“Whether you’re in jail for three days, three weeks, three months or three years, it’s an accelerator of human misery,” said Jonathan Lippman, the former chief judge of New York State’s highest court and currently the chairman of an independent commission on criminal justice reform. “You come out a changed human being.” - NYT

At The Quintessential Centrist, our view is that under most circumstances, cash bail should be abolished. Reason being, it is one of, if not, the most explicit example of legal discrimination currently being practiced in America. The use of cash bail is categorically unfair and a blatant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, because it directly discriminates against poor people. A compelling argument can also be made that cash bail indirectly discriminates against blacks and other minorities that represent a disproportionate number of subjects in the criminal justice system. Before further delving into why cash bail is unfair, it is helpful to first have a basic understanding of how the “system” functions.

The Process of Entering the “System”

To navigate each individual states’ particular laws pertaining to jail and bail is a granular, fiendishly complex undertaking. For the sake of simplicity, we will focus our attention on New York City.

Let us consider a common misdemeanor, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 7th degree (NYS penal code 220.03(a)), which until late 2018 included marijuana. Police stop you and allegedly find you in the process of a criminal act. They have 3 choices:

a. Let you go.

b. Give you a Desk Appearance Ticket (“DAT”), which means you are free to go home but must return to court in approximately 6 weeks to be arraigned before a judge. Generally, DAT’s are given to first-time offenders for petty larcenies, traffic and vehicular crimes or violations like disorderly conduct; and occasionally, for a nonviolent felony like grand larceny.

c. Cuff you and bring you back to the police precinct to write up the arrest report, check for any previous arrests etc., electronically scan your fingerprint and retina, take your “mug shot,” and place you in a cell until you’re ready to “get booked” at Central Bookings. At a minimum, you will spend at least one night in jail – detained and monitored by the Department of Corrections.

Central Bookings: This is a basement-level area with multiple jail cells (covered in wall scratching’s of graffiti with gang symbols and cries for help alike). This is where Dept. of Corrections first steps in, but you are still technically under the custody of the NYPD.

Arraignment

If you cannot afford a lawyer, a court-appointed public defender (either Legal Aid Society or one of the borough specific agencies) will be assigned to you.

In Manhattan, the prosecutors in arraignments are typically first-year attorneys, fresh out of law school. They read the allegations against you aloud. The “offer” they recommend to the judge is generally predetermined by a superior who read the police complaint – one of a couple hundred – overnight in a dark cubicle and decided this offer based on the highest level “charge” written by the arresting officer.

...
Issue 39
August 18, 2019
"Yes Hello, I'd Like To Cancel My Equinox Membership"

Last week, there was a social media tweet storm followed by a sprinkle of “protestors” who made a conscious decision to cancel their Equinox membership and / or stop paying for SoulCycle classes because Steve Ross – a passive investor in the aforementioned entities – hosted a fund raiser for Donald Trump at his home in Long Island.

At TQC, we respect the right of Equinox members to cancel their membership in order to keep their discretionary dollars from somebody they (apparently) disagree with politically, or for any reason for that matter. Unfortunately, for some of the protestors whose objective it was to financially impair Mr. Ross, quitting the gym won’t make a dent in his wallet. However, it could materially impact the bank balances of the employees – often young men and women of modest means - who work at Equinox.

Many Equinox employees are hardworking students working to subsidize their education or are young trainers trying to make contacts with the goal of building of a client roster to grow their book of business. It is a shame that if anybody is to bear the brunt of a cancelled gym membership, it’s going to be them.

Additionally, in our view, many of the protestors’ angst are misplaced. We have never met Steve Ross; everything we know about him we learned from indirect sources. That said, 99% of the people who canceled their gym membership have never met Steve Ross either, and know next to nothing about the man, other than that he supports Donald Trump. In this case, a better allocation of their discretionary dollars would probably go to supporting a politician that stood for what was important to them or perhaps donating the money or their time to a charitable cause of their choice.

If You Support Donald Trump, That Makes You a Morally Corrupt Person?

In our February 24th issue, we posted an article titled Where We Think Trump is Right. In it, we reminded our readers that:

“Our platform promotes civil discourse irrespective of political leanings. This, more often than not, involves highlighting and examining some uncomfortable hypocrisies. And it almost always involves rejecting overly-simplistic black-and-white binaries.”

In 2016, Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by ~3 million votes. That said, ~63 million people or ~47% of people who casted a ballot, voted for Mr. Trump. There are certainly a minority of Trump supporters who are unabashedly racist, and another sub-sector of Trumpists who might harbor racist views but don’t actively promote or act on them (we would be remiss not to point out that racist views do not just apply to Trump supporters and the far right. Some Clinton supporters and current radical Democrats are racist, too). That said, to lump 63 million adult Americans who support Donald Trump, toss them (and Steve Ross) into one bucket and label them uncaring, stupid or racist etc., is ignorant and simply wrong in its own right.

At TQC, we do not support Donald Trump, but we do stand behind a few of his policies when they make sound sense. We also believe that somebody can support Trump and be a perfectly law abiding, tax paying, charitable-giving, community-building, socially-accepting, job-creating, generally decent human being, as Steve Ross appears to be. Indeed, just because somebody is a Donald Trump supporter, doesn’t necessarily make that person evil or morally corrupt. However, an argument could be made that anybody who thinks it does, is closed minded and divisive themselves.

...
Issue 40
August 25, 2019
XXX Pornography XXX

The Internet has connected people on many fronts. It has also rendered access to adult content so ubiquitous that it is almost a truism that everyone with web access has seen pornography online.

According to Similairweb, Pornhub is the 6th most popular website in the United States, trailing only Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon and Yahoo, and ranking ahead of Twitter and eBay. In fact, three of the top ten most popular websites in America feature adult content.

When comparing websites, giving heavier weight to duration on a page vs number of page visits might yield somewhat different results; but even factoring in the potential for variance, it is indisputable that pornography is indeed one of the most commonly sought after “goods and services” available online.

Astonishingly, Pornhub compiles and aggregates an exhaustive amount of user data via its Pornhub Insights tool. The wealth of available information is staggering. Here is a snippet of what we found for the year 2018, the last full year for which data has been compiled:

• Visits to Pornhub totaled 33.5 billion over the course of 2018, an increase of 5 billion visits over 2017.
• Pornhub’s servers served up 30.3 billion searches, or 962 searches per second.
• Pornhub’s amateurs, models and content partners uploaded an incredible 4.79 million new videos, creating over 1 million hours of new content to enjoy on the site.
• The average visit duration in the United States was 10 minutes and 37 seconds. On a more granular level, users in Mississippi, South Carolina & Arkansas spent ~10% > average on the site, while users in Kansas, Nebraska & Utah logged ~10% < the mean.
• The most popular times to view porn was between 4pm – 5pm & 10PM – 1AM.
• ~28% of Pornhub’s users were women, a 3% increase from 2017.
• 25-34 year olds made up the highest percentage of users, at 35%. The average age of Pornhub viewers is 36.
• During the NFL Super Bowl, Pornhub traffic plunged 26%. During Thanksgiving people apparently ate their feelings instead; traffic dropped 13%. Nobody wanted to be “that guy” on New Year's Eve, when visits to the site dropped by 38%.
• Kim Kardashian’s sex tape is still Pornhub’s most watched video of all time with 195 million views.

...
Issue 41
September 1, 2019
LGBTQC

In the past week, we reviewed the Annual Student Medical Form provided by a New York City private school to parents on behalf of their children prior to the commencement of the academic school year. We neither have access nor would we disclose student’s personal information; and have decided not to disclose the name of the school because the majority of students are minors. Along with the standard space for name, address, phone numbers, etc., part of the form contained the following options:

• Sex Assigned At Birth: Male / Female / Intersex
• Gender Identity: Girl / Boy / Trans Boy / Trans Girl / Non-Binary / Genderfluid / Other
• Students Affirming Pronouns: SheHer / HeHim / TheirThem / Other

Meanwhile at Columbia University, incoming students are encouraged to input their personal information into Columbia Health’s portal. In addition to ensuring that students have been inoculated (no sure thing given the misinformation spread by misinformed antivaxxers), reported their appropriate personal/family medical history and so forth, Columbia provides students space where they can “identify and edit their gender identity.” The options are as follows:

• Agender
• Bigender
• Female (cisgender)
• Female (transgender/female identified/MTF)
• Gender fluid
• Gender nonconforming
• Genderqueer
• Male (cisgender)
• Male (transgender/male identified/FTM)
• Nonbinary
• Pangender
• Transgender
• I identify as follows

Columbia prefaces this section of the form with the following statement: “Should these terms be unfamiliar, please note that the ‘female cisgender’ means female is the gender you were assigned at birth and you are female identified; ‘male cisgender’ means male is the gender you were assigned at birth and you are male identified.”

We appreciate the clarity, but it came woefully short for this author, who graduated university barely twenty years ago. Before reading this form, the author had never even heard of Agender, Bigender, Nonbinary, or Pangender. Apparently, neither had Microsoft Word, the most commonly used word processing program in the world. When first typed out, many of these terms were underlined in red, and had to be manually added to Word’s dictionary.

Does the fact that an elite private school offers parents a choice of the affirming pronoun in addition to “she/her” and “he/him,” a “their/them” option and that Columbia University, an Ivy League institution that attracts some of the brightest minds from all over the world, had to put a disclaimer in its own health form regarding how to explain the gender choices they provided, indicate that the inclusivity pendulum has swung a bit too far left?

Regarding Sex Assigned at Birth, we found the choices Male, Female & Intersex to be unremarkable. While the overwhelming majority of people are born male or female, various studies have borne out that depending on the criteria used, between .005% and 1.7% of people are indeed borne intersex. In the United States, ~3.75 million babies are born each year. Even using the conservative .005% data point would still translate into approximately 18,750 intersex babies born each year. The aforementioned private school was correct to include Intersex as a choice.

...
Issue 43
September 22, 2019
Are Wedding Parties A Waste of Money?

Last year, approximately 2.5 million weddings took place in the United States. According to the Knot, the average cost of a wedding in America in 2018 (excluding the Honeymoon) was $33,931. That would equate to ~85 billion dollars per year spent on that special (or not so special) day. Irrespective that ~50% of all weddings end in divorce (and 50% of those that don’t probably should) the question remains: Are wedding parties a waste of resources that should be allocated to more appropriate causes?

In March, The Quintessential Centrist discussed the student loan crisis and potential remedies. To forgo lavish spending on nuptials was not a solution we offered. It should have been. While a select few fortunate young couples in America are lucky enough not to be in an “either/or” situation, the overwhelming majority of newlyweds (and their families) should make a conscious choice between spending on a sumptuous wedding, putting the money into a college fund, or making a down payment on a home.

Wedding Ca$hers

While the average wedding costs just south of $34,000, there are considerable variations when broken down by region. At the state level, the least expensive places to get hitched are in Mississippi ($15,581), Alabama ($17,766) & Arkansas ($17,935). The most expensive states to ruin your life in (just kidding) are Hawaii ($39,078), New Jersey ($38,049) & Connecticut ($36,971). The most expensive place to get married is in Manhattan, in New York State, where the average wedding runs close to $100,000 ($96,910).

Real Life

Wisconsin ranks #25, smack in the middle of the pack, with the average cost of a wedding running $24,681. Wisconsin also ranks 23rd in median household income at $54,610. The median home price is $187,100. In the Badger state, the average cost of instate college tuition, room and board workout to ~$18,000 per year.

Let us assume that an imminently married couple in Wisconsin is considering whether or not to divert $24,681 intended to pay for their “average” wedding into a tax-sheltered education IRA for their impending offspring. From 1957 to 2018, the average annual return for a broad basket of stocks has been ~8% (Prior to the mid 1950’s, stocks returned ~10% per year). To be conservative, let’s assume this couple picked a subpar stock fund that returned just 6.5% per annum until their child was ready to attend college. When their child turns 18, that initial $24,681 investment, even returning just 6.5% per year, would be worth $76,675! To be fair, we must factor in annual education costs increases. “The average rate of education inflation at public universities is 2.9%.” Using this methodology, by the time this child is ready to depart for university, the average cost of tuition, room and board at a state school in Wisconsin will be $30,112. $76,675 dollars would cover over 2 years of tuition, room and board. Keep in mind that ~70% of college students are forced to take out loans to pay for their education and leave school with ~$30,000 in debt. Put simply, it would behoove this couple to forgo spending $24,681 on one night (perhaps not) to remember, and put the money towards their unborn child’s education.

...
Issue 44
September 29, 2019
Fast Fashion Fails To Look In The Mirror

“The primary objective of fast fashion is to quickly produce a product in a cost-efficient manner to respond to fast-changing consumer tastes in as near real time as possible.”

Fast fashion emerged in the 1980s as a way to deliver high-end designer styles quickly and inexpensively to the mass consumer who could not necessarily afford couture. With fast fashion trumping even the traditional "ready to wear" or, prêt-à-porter, aspiration no longer equated to sheer hopefulness, it could become reality without breaking the bank. Fast fashion plus the emergence of social media influencers, combined with immediate online access to apparel have proven to be a potent combination; since the 1980s consumption of clothing and accessories has grown exponentially.

The downside to the plethora of fashionable but cheap garments made possible by fast fashion leaders Zara (owned by the innovative Spanish firm Inditex), H&M, C&A, and others are abysmal working conditions for the textile workers who stitch the garments and massive degradation to the environment. The irony of fast fashion is that many of the trend setting consumers who represent a large component of the demand for stylish cheap clothing, are the same people who fight for “social justice” and claim to be stewards of the environment.

Think About This The Next Time You Buy A Cheap T-Shirt In 5 Different Colors

The global fashion industry accounts for ~2% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Zara alone can “manufacture over 30,000 units of product every year to nearly 1,600 stores in 58 countries." In a 2015 documentary titled "The True Cost", Director Andrew Morgan travels globally to delve deeper into the provenance of our clothing, the impact on the environment and human rights. According to the documentary’s website, 97% of our clothing is manufactured overseas while global consumption of clothing runs at 80 billion pieces.

After the oil and gas (O&G) industry, the fashion industry is the greatest contributor to environmental degradation. It takes “up to 200 tons of fresh water per ton of dyed fabric and 20,000 liters of water to produce just 1 kg of cotton.” The World Resource Institute notes that it requires 2,700 liters of water to manufacture one shirt, which equals enough drinking water for the average person for ~2.5 years. This statistic is even more jarring when coupled with the fact that close to 800 million people – over 10% of the world’s population - do not have access to safe drinking water.”

...
Issue 46
October 13, 2019
Planes, Trains & Emotional Support Animals

This week, The Wall Street Journal reported that restaurateur Besim Kukaj, proprietor of several eateries in Manhattan, was fined $64,000 after employees of his restaurant, Limon Jungle, refused to seat a patron who was accompanied by a service dog. Mr. Kukaj was forced to pay the customer, Harvey Goldstein, $14,000 and $50,000 to the city of New York. Judge John Spooner presided over the trial. He acquiesced to the NYC Human Rights Commission by raising the initial fine from $25,000 to $50,000. His rationale: “in the absence of adequate civil penalties, there is a risk that businesses will continue to do as respondents have done here—ignore the commission and write off their discriminatory conduct as a mere cost of doing business.”

As we have already noted, Mr. Kukaj is an established businessman who owns many restaurants in New York City. He has the resources which should have been properly deployed towards appropriate staff training in accommodation of disabled patrons. Barring a few specific exceptions, services dogs should be permitted entry into any venue with their owner so long as they are on a leash and obedient.

The terms “service dog” and “emotional support animal” (ESA) are incorrectly used interchangeably. A service dog is a highly trained canine that provides a range of specific functions to people with legitimate medical disabilities. (Worth noting is that service animals are almost always dogs. On occasion, they can be miniature horses).

Service dogs typically cost tens of thousands of dollars and undergo rigorous training to efficiently and effectively accomplish one or a few super specific tasks to aid a disabled owner, often under pressure and/or in difficult situations. They can potentially save their owner’s life.

A service dog is “offered legal protections through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that emotional support animals do not get. You can take a service dog almost anywhere that you go and they legally cannot be denied access. Legal protection of an emotional support animal is (typically) limited to housing and air travel.” Some of the specific tasks service dogs perform are as follows:

• Lead a visually impaired owner
• Anticipate and alert its owner to an oncoming seizure
• Answer the door (by pulling a lever)
• Bring its owner medicine & mail
• Bring a phone to its owner (and even bark into a speaker phone)
• Bark to get the attention of others if its owner is in trouble or unable to communicate
• Bark in the case of an intruder
• Alert its owner in case of a fire
• Help its owner stand up, sit down, negotiate stairs, etc.
• Provide psychological support

...
Issue 47
October 20, 2019
25 Facts About America

Food

• Americans discarded $165 billion worth of food last year. That equates to roughly 150,000 tons of food per day, or ~40% of the total. "Fruits and vegetables are the most likely to be thrown out, followed by dairy and then meat."

• ~12% of Americans do not have enough to eat on a daily basis.

• "The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines 'food insecurity' as the lack of access, at times, to enough food for all household members. In 2017, an estimated 15 million households were food insecure. The following 8 states have the highest rates of food insecurity in America: Mississippi (18.7%), Louisiana (18.3%), Alabama (18.1%), New Mexico (17.6%), Arkansas (17.5%), Kentucky (17.3%), Maine (16.4%), Oklahoma (15.2%)."

• In the early 1970's, Americans consumed ~2,200 calories per day. Today, the average American eats ~2,700 calories per day.

• "Three of the most caloric fast casual meals in America are: Chili's Crispy Honey Chipotle and Waffles containing 2,480 calories, 125 g fat (40 g saturated fat, 0.5 g trans-fat), 5,240 mg sodium, 276 g carbs (11 g fiber, 105 g sugar), and 63 g of protein. Applebee's New England Fish and Chips consists of 1,990 calories, 137 g fat (24 g saturated fat, 1.5 g trans fat), 4,540 mg sodium, 134 g carbs (10 g fiber, 14 g sugar) and 55 g of protein. Finally, Olive Garden's Chicken and Shrimp Carbonara weighs in at 1,590 calories, 114 g fat (61 g saturated fat, 2 g trans fat), 2,410 mg sodium, 78 g carbs (4 g fiber, 12 g sugar) and 66 g of protein."

...
Issue 5
December 2, 2018
Gentleman’s Clubs and Nail Salons

At The Quintessential Centrist, we believe its important to be balanced and prudent. Sometimes, that involves highlighting and examining some uncomfortable hypocrisies.

In New York City, the competition amongst nail salons is fierce. There are often two competing salons on the same square block. The welcoming signs and smiling faces mask a painful reality; this a business model partially underpinned by human trafficking and other blatant civil rights violations. While human rights abuses in the sex-trade and related industries are well documented, similar violations in the nail salon industry are rarely mentioned in the press. Here is one exception.

A disproportionate number of nail salon employees are undocumented immigrants. Hence, this is a particularly vulnerable demographic for a myriad of reasons. Their remuneration is often below minimum wage, including tips. And those are the more fortunate ones. Others are not compensated at all while many are subjected to mistreatment at the hands of their employers. The working conditions can be abysmal. Young women are often exposed to toxic chemicals without proper protective gear. As their wages are so low, these vulnerable employees have little choice but to "live" in overcrowded one-room dwellings, many of which lack basic safety features. These homes are often as unhygienic as the salon's where they work 12-14 hours a day in, tending to the hands and feet of "exhausted" patrons.

...
Issue 52
November 24, 2019
Touchy Subjects

According to the United Nations, between 1 and 2 million Chinese citizens comprised of mostly Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities are currently interned in "re-education camps” Xinjiang, China. Supposedly, these de-facto concentration camps were created in or around 2015 under the regime of current Chinese President Xi Jinping. His government’s alleged primary objective: to change “the political thinking of detainees, their identities and their religious beliefs via indoctrination and torture.” Purportedly, these facilities are staffed by armed guards, surrounded by walls and fences and are under 24-hour surveillance. Allegedly, almost none of the internees were granted a trial. This makes sense; because according to sources, the vast majority of the prisoners housed in these facilities have never actually been accused of or convicted of any offense.

Remarkably, despite lawmakers from both sides of the political divide imploring President Trump to stand firm in his negotiations with China, and 24-hour news coverage about China, tariffs and trade, there has been minimal coordinated global action to mitigate these purported human rights violations. Is the reason because it’s not worth an American politician’s time to allocate resources to the Uyghurs' cause? Because reporting on alleged events in Northwestern China attract scant interest (and eyeballs) that drive advertising revenue? Or is it because there is a lack of hard evidence about these “re-education” facilities and what allegedly transpires in them, or combination thereof?

Due Process

You might have noticed that we’ve taken special care to preface potentially inflammatory statements with “According to,” “Supposedly,” “Purportedly” and “Allegedly. Reason being, we do not have any conclusive proof to corroborate them. That said, there is a reasonable amount of credible evidence, albeit from a small sample size, that they could be accurate.

In an article originally written by David Stavrou published in Haaretz Magazine with a moving excerpt reprinted in TheWeek, former detainee Sayragul Sauytbay detailed her experience and what she says she witnessed on a routine basis inside China’s re-education camps.

According to Ms. Sauytbay, prisoners are routinely:

· Shackled

· Shaved

· Starved

· Raped

· Electrocuted

· Beaten

· Brainwashed

· Housed in cramped quarters

· Fed soup and bread

· Forced to defecate in a bucket

· Forced to recite Communist Party songs

· Forced to say “I am Chinese,” and “I love Xi Jinping”

· Forced to serve as guinea pigs for medical experiments

Precedence

Earlier this month, Republican Senators Jim Inhofe and Roger Wicker implored President Trump to take an even more defiant stance on Chinese intellectual property theft. In a joint statement, they said “if Chinese companies are allowed to remove the profit incentive for standards-based wireless research with repercussions, we will soon face the globally undesirable reality that the only companies conducting this research will be those in non-market economies that do not share our values or have our best interest in mind.”

...
Issue 53
December 8, 2019
It's Your Birthday, Thank Mom

My birthday was on December 2nd. Before sunrise, my phone blew up with “Happy Birthday” texts, many of which were likely prompted by Facebook reminders. These continued at a steady pace throughout the day. Some people chose to wish me a “Happy Birthday” via Facebook itself. A few “Birthday emails” made their way into my inbox. Traditionalists picked up the phone and rang, one (ready for this) from a land line. I even received a letter in my (gasp) physical mailbox.

Texts were the easiest to respond to. The majority of my well-wishers did not say “Happy Birthday Chris.” They simply texted what seemed to be a canned “Happy Birthday.” Thus, “Thank you, I appreciate it” was generic enough a response that cutting, pasting and using it to acknowledge those acknowledgments more than sufficed. Most of the balance of the texts read “Happy Birthday Chris.” Alas, these required individualized responses. I had to say, “Thank You (insert name here), I appreciate it.” Facebook posts were easy to “like” - err - respond to. Emails required a more in-depth retort. “Happy Birthday Chris, I hope you are well” obliged me to ensure my well-wishers via this medium that, indeed, all was ok in my world.

Mom’s Should Receive Our Happy Birthday Wishes

Most of us, myself included, feel obliged to wish friends and family members a “Happy Birthday.” Rarely, if ever, does anybody say “thank you” on our birthdays to the women that were primarily responsible for bringing us into this world: our respective mothers. We should make a point to do so. Moms endure stress, physical trauma, often get sick during pregnancy, put careers on hold and generally sacrifice so much to usher us into this ecosphere. They should be the recipients of our “Happy Birthday” wishes.

...
Issue 55
December 22, 2019
Circumcision & Jewish Tradition

In accordance with Jewish custom, when a newborn boy is 8 days old, he is circumcised. Traditionally, a mohel, a Jewish person trained in the practice of "brit milah,” or circumcision, performs this religious and cultural rite of passage. The procedure is typically done in the home, followed by a celebration over Jewish-style cuisine, drinks, and conversation. When asked why, many Jewish parents say they circumcise their sons simply because it is “tradition.” Specifically, the ritual of circumcision is a rite of passage, a symbol of “total obedience to God’s will.” At the ritual's onset, it was also believed that circumcision provided a way of distinguishing a Jewish boy or man from others, particularly those who might seek to inflict harm on, or "pose as Jews." Today, circumcision is widely practiced outside Judaism - for religious, cultural and health reasons.

Tradition or Barbarism, or Both?

Religious traditions can be wonderful in drawing communities and families closer; they create an innate bond and sense of identity. But when do we reach an inflection point where a cultural or religious ritual that’s historically been socially acceptable, is considered barbaric and generally looked upon by society with disdain? For an example, look no further than the brit milah itself. In accordance with Jewish law, a mohel “must draw blood from the circumcision wound.” Up until the 1800's, the “m’tzitzah” or removal of the blood, was effected by the mohel who would suck the blood off the newborns penis. Centuries ago most Jews were unmoved by the thought, let alone the act, of a grown man putting his lips on an 8-day old’s penis to “clean” the wound. Of course, today all but the most regressive people cringe when they learn about this part of a bris that was formally commonplace.

In the ultra-religious Haredi sect, a mohel still removes the blood using his mouth. Regrettably, this abhorrent “custom” which most people would (now) argue is analogous to sexual assault, has resulted in multiple cases of an incurable sexually transmitted disease (genital HSV-1 or herpes) being communicated from mohel to baby. A newborn’s immune system is not fully developed. The herpes virus is usually an unpleasant annoyance for an adult; it can kill an infant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has documented cases of death resulting from herpes acquired via transmission from mohel to newborn.

Fortunately, today almost all mohels remove the blood with a suction device. But 100 years from now, might our descendants reflect back upon the present-day customs of the brit milah and cringe in a similar way to us when we learned about the related practices of the past?

Personal Experience

I am Jewish. I have attended a few brit miloht (plural for brit milah) in years past. While I remain malleable and welcome a respectful debate, my current position is that I will not attend any more of these "celebrations." I cannot in good faith – excuse the pun – take part in any social, cultural or religious gathering consuming Jewish fare, drinking wine and conversing, to celebrate a newborn boy’s religious rite of passage that involves his penis being handled by a grown stranger. In my view, doing so would be perverted and tantamount to child abuse.

...
Issue 58
January 19, 2020
Movie Review

At The Quintessential Centrist, we always think of new and relevant ways to engage our readers and provoke meaningful dialogue. Music, film, theater and TV productions as well as other forms of media are some of the most powerful conduits that shape our culture. Artistic expressions are often a reflection of the society in which they’ve evolved, yet conversely serve as catalysts for influencing future cultural trends.

In 2020, TQC will occasionally offer thoughtful reviews of important films, music, television, art installations or theatrical releases that we believe harbor important themes or messages relevant to our cultural dialogue. The first two films we reviewed in 2020 were in fact released at the very end of 2019: The Two Popes, and Uncut Gems.

The Two Popes

The Two Popes is a semi-fictionalized account of conversations between former Pope Benedict XVI (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and the current pontiff, Pope Francis (Jonathan Pryce). The two men, though ideologically opposed, discuss their concerns and hopes about the current state of the world, the church’s future and their own.

Irrespective of one’s views on the church, the papacy, or organized religion in general, this is undoubtedly a beautiful movie worth every accolade. The scoring, the cinematography, directing, dialogue, and above all, acting, are magnificent. Jonathan Pryce embodies the humble strength of then-archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and his delivery in Spanish, in Italian and Latin, with perfect dialect, is sublime. Sir Anthony Hopkins lives up to his past accolades with a performance that accurately conveys the sobriety of the former pope while surprising us with a touch of irony.

The film requires no suspension of disbelief as these two craftsmen embody their characters so effortlessly. For this alone, the movie is well worth viewing to absorb the fine performance of two brilliant actors. In an era where gratuitous violence, sexual content and vulgar language permeate most films, it is refreshing to see a movie that thoroughly entertains and delights without resorting to Hollywood trappings and other lowbrow optics.

The Catholic Church is currently the subject of much controversy. As such, there are challenges to separating art from the subject matter at hand. Some people argue that the current pope is too liberal, too political; others contend that the former pope was too conservative. In recent years we have become painfully aware of the various scandals, hypocrisies, and shortcomings that have cast serious aspersions on the sanctity of the Catholic Church. The Two Popes addresses these topics using an approach that satisfies movie buffs but likely will not satisfy church-detractors.

The exchange between the two Popes of different eras in a rapidly changing world where the Church is no longer as sanctified needs to be appreciated without vilification. The Two Popes serves as a reminder that there are many fine people who have dedicated their lives to serving God. Indeed, to only focus on the shortcomings of the church would miss the entire point of the movie itself, which, at its core, is a story of how even those who are ideologically opposed can open their hearts and minds to one another and form, even if at first grudgingly, respect and appreciation for the other’s point of view.

...
Issue 59
January 26, 2020
Trump's Impeachment

On January 7, 1999, William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, became only the second sitting president in US history to be officially impeached. Prior to Clinton’s impeachment, the last (and only) president to be bequeathed with that distinction was Andrew Johnson, in 1868. (On August 4, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned before he was officially impeached). The charges of perjury and obstruction of justice levied against Clinton stemmed from an extramarital affair with then-White House intern, Monica Lewinski. On February 12, 1999, the Senate deliberated President Bill Clinton’s fate. He was acquitted of both charges, apologized to the American people, and went on to complete a successful second term. (Andrew Johnson was also acquitted. Thus far in this country’s history, a sitting president has never been removed from office following impeachment.)

Captivated

I vividly remember my whereabouts when the senate voted to exonerate Clinton. It was a few days before the annual Mardi Gras celebration; a collection of friends and I decided to travel from our respective colleges and meet in New Orleans to partake in the festivities. We watched the news unfold at an off-campus house near Tulane University.

Time seemingly stood still. Imagine, college students in the midst of America’s biggest party in The Big Easy suddenly ceased exchanging beads, beers, and DNA and watched the television intently, with a tinge of nervous energy. That day many Americans remember where they were and what they were doing. The entire nation was captivated by this important event, a seminal moment in American history as the president’s fate would soon be decided.

Fast Forward ~20 Years

On December 18, 2019, Donald Trump became the third president to be impeached. His trial is currently ongoing. As expected, political bigwigs from both parties have dug in their heels. News correspondents dutifully report on the day’s relevant events. And political junkies are glued to their device of choice to absorb as much up to the minute news that can permeate their brains. But for many, the default reaction to Trump’s impeachment has been a collective shrug of the shoulders. Indeed, the most remarkable aspect of President Trump’s impeachment proceedings, is how unremarkable the news is to most Americans.

...
Issue 61
February 9, 2020
Dear Congresswoman Plaskett

The United States Virgin Islands (USVI) consist of four major islands: Saint Thomas, Saint Croix, Saint John and Water Island, and ~50 minor islands, rock formations and coral reefs. The vast majority of USVI inhabitants reside in Saint Thomas (pop. 52,000) & Saint Croix (pop. 51,000). Approximately 5,000 people live on Saint John and ~200 on Water Island.

The USVI is an “at-large congressional district.” This means it is not entitled to designate a voting member of Congress, but can elect a delegate to participate in debates, sit on committees and advocate for the Virgin Islands. The current Congresswoman representing the USVI is Stacey Plaskett (D).

Dear Congresswoman Plaskett,

I was born in Saint Thomas and lived on the island for a few years. This past weekend, I came back to visit and spend time with one of the most wonderful women I know, a second mother to me. Her name is Marion. She 77 years old; age is beginning to catch up with her.

While chatting in her living area, I asked why she did not have her air conditioner running. She replied that she could not turn it on. I inquired if it was broken; it was not. Congresswoman Plaskett, Marion can no longer use her air conditioner because her utility bill has tripled since Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority (WAPA) restored "service" (or lack thereof) following the hurricanes that ravaged the USVI.

Ms. Plaskett, Marion is fortunate. While far from rich, despite a ~3-fold increase in her utility bill, she can still afford basic necessities, but many of your constituents can not. They are allocating such a high proportion of their income to rapidly increasing energy bills that some are being forced to go without basic goods.

...
Issue 65
March 15, 2020
Coronavirus Update

As of this writing, COVID-19 (the coronavirus) has spread to 118 countries. Approximately 165,000 people have been infected, ~6,300 have died and another ~5,600 are in serious condition (~76,000 have recovered).

In the United States, there are ~3,100 confirmed cases of coronavirus, 62 patients have died and eight have recovered. Unfortunately, the number of cases in the US (and possibly other nations) may be grossly understated as we are in the early stages of this pandemic. In part, this is a result of early inaction and complacence. Earlier this week an expert with the Harvard Global Health Institute, Ashish Jha, asserted that the United States government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak has been "much, much worse than almost any other country that's been affected…I still don't understand why we don't have extensive testing. Vietnam! Vietnam has tested more people than America has…Without testing, you have no idea how extensive the infection is…we have to shut schools, events, and everything down, because that's the only tool available to us until we get testing back up. It's been stunning to me how bad the federal response has been..."

Renowned virologist, HIV/AIDS expert and Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci made the following statement to lawmakers this past week: “The system is not really geared to what we need right now - what you’re asking for - that is a failing…It is a failing. Let’s admit it.”

He makes a valid point. As the human tragedy unfolded at the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China in late 2019, government officials around the world were given a head start to prepare for and implement practical measures to help contain the spread of the virus. South Korea was exemplary. Given its proximately to China, COVID-19 quickly permeated its borders. However, South Korean authorities learned from China’s experience and took quick, decisive action. They moved swiftly and tested tens of thousands of people, isolated infected patients and aggressively disinfected public places around the country. They curtailed travel, shut public gathering places, closed schools and limited the number of people who could loiter together. The result: Data suggests the epidemic has already peaked there with ~8,200 cases, 75 confirmed deaths (a mortality rate of ~.01%) and 834 recovered.

In contrast, our government’s initial “response” was unconscionable. One of the basic functions of a government is to take all reasonable measures to keep its citizens safe. The US government fell well short of that responsibility. We had a 6-week head start to prepare (longer than South Korea) but instead took a lackadaisical approach. The fact that there aren’t even enough testing kits to go around after witnessing the outbreaks overseas is a gross abdication of responsibility to American citizens. Now Americans find themselves in a defensive, reactive stance.

No Slacking

Using back of the envelope math, if ~165,000 people are officially infected and 6,300 have died, that equates to an average mortality rate of ~4%. In nations whose demographics lean older and developing countries, many of which have underfunded and or rudimentary healthcare systems, the death rate might be higher. In many westernized nations, the mortality rate will probably be lower; but only if their respective healthcare systems are not overrun.

The United States has an excellent healthcare system, but very little spare capacity. And because we are playing catchup, the math tells a particularly disheartening story. Consider the following: there are ~950,000 hospital beds throughout the nation, 2/3rds of which are typically occupied at any one time. This leaves just ~300,000 beds available to be utilized. Measures can be enacted to help free up space including canceling all non-essential and elective surgeries. But the stark reality is that we have very little buffer to absorb an acute influx of patients. Furthermore, because of the infectious and highly contagious nature of this disease, coronavirus patients require a tremendous amount of medical resources. They must be isolated, many will require round the clock monitoring, ventilation machines and other medical gear, many of which are in short supply. Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals must take extra precaution to ensure they themselves are not infected (The hero doctor who rang the alarm bell in China was infected and subsequently succumbed to the virus).

...
Issue 66
April 12, 2020
Coronavirus Update #2

A week after our last post on March 15th, this author became symptomatic and subsequently tested positive COVID-19. It was a relatively mild case. However, the adverse effects of the virus disrupted our schedule. We thank you for your patience during these unprecedented times.

In the weeks following the maelstrom caused by the coronavirus, we have been intently focused on the corresponding data. Many areas of America are only now beginning to see an exponential uptick in infections. But at the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak in New York City, and in other “hot spots” like Detroit and the state of New Jersey, evidence suggests that we have reached the peak in terms of infection rates, hospitalizations, intubations and casualties. Worth noting is that while death rates remain elevated, bear in mind that mortality is a lagging indicator. Indeed, in these parts of the country, we are cautiously optimistic that we have inflected towards recovery, albeit in nonlinear fashion.

In New York City, hospitals are operating at or near capacity and health care workers are short of protective gear. But unlike Italy where care has had to be rationed – when doctors pick who lives and who dies – it appears that NYC will get through the apex of its crisis with enough ventilators, ICU beds and other necessary equipment to avoid the unthinkable.

Below we highlight nine key themes that have emerged from the coronavirus pandemic:

The Victims

The coronavirus pandemic is a human tragedy. The speed and ferocity with which COVID-19 has claimed, and disrupted lives is unprecedented in recent history. As of April 12th, in New York City alone, over twice as many people have perished from the coronavirus than on 9/11. On a national level ~22,000 people have died in just ~2 months. To help put these numbers in perspective: over nine years (1965-1974) ~58,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam. Regrettably, despite evidence of the “curve flattening,” we might eclipse that number in a matter of weeks.

Globally, the coronavirus has infected close to ~2,000,000 people (the true number is probably exponentially higher as many people are never tested and/or are asymptomatic) and killed ~114,000 in a few short months. Italy (~20,000 deaths) and Spain (~17,000 deaths) have suffered tremendously, especially in proportion to their overall populations. France (~14,000 deaths) has been hard hit, as has the U.K. (~11,000 deaths), who’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson was recently hospitalized with the virus.

At TQC, we empathize with those people who have been directly or indirectly affected by COVID-19, and with those who might be in the future.

The Healthcare Providers

Every evening at 7pm EST, New Yorkers have taken to clapping, cheering, banging on pots, pipes and pans, and playing music in recognition and appreciation of the healthcare workers who are risking their lives to care for COVID-19 patients. This exercise has been repeated in similar formats around the world.

Let us all join in and take a moment to express our gratitude to all the health care professionals - doctors, physicians’ assistants, nurses, nurses’ aides, EMTs, support staff, and all others who have and continue to put themselves at the greatest level of risk – sometimes without adequate protective equipment - caring for coronavirus patients. Hats off to you all.

Doctor Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has proven himself to be a true leader and a face of reason, transparency and prudence, keeping Americans well informed about the coronavirus epidemic. Let us not forget, Dr. Fauci is nearing 80 years old and still on the front lines fighting tirelessly to keep the American public safe.

Recently, while discussing hygiene and disease, Dr. Fauci said, “I don’t think we should ever shake hands again.” If we ever get an opportunity to do so, we sincerely hope Doctor Fauci makes an exception for us. A handshake is the very least we could do to recognize his courageousness.

The Government’s Response

Our government’s initial “response” was lackluster to say the least. One of the basic functions of a government is to take all reasonable measures to keep its citizens safe. The US government fell well short of that responsibility. We had a 6-week head start to prepare but instead took a lackadaisical approach. President Donald Trump did not act swiftly enough. At first, he minimized the threat of COVID-19 likening the virus to the flu, contradicted the advice of Dr. Fauci, made no effort to secure more N95 masks, protective gowns and ventilators, and failed to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) in a timely manner. (The DPA was passed in 1950. It enables the Federal government to force private companies to manufacture specific products in the event of a war or national emergency). The fact that there were not even enough testing kits to go around – and they are still in short supply - after witnessing the outbreaks overseas was a gross abdication of responsibility to American citizens.

To be fair, in addition to Trump & Co, many people, including scientists, also did not take the threat of coronavirus seriously. Some experts believed the outcome would be analogous to the respective SARS & MERS epidemics, and remain mostly contained to China and the Middle East. (There were 27 reported SARS cases in the United States; nobody perished. There have been two reported cases of MERS in the US, both patients survived).

Furthermore, during Barrack Obama’s tenure in office, our nations’ stockpile of N95 masks and other protective gear was depleted and his administration did not take adequate steps to replenish it. According to USA Today: “There is no indication that the Obama administration took significant steps to replenish the supply of N95 masks in the Strategic National Stockpile after it was depleted from repeated crises. Calls for action came from experts at the time concerned for the country’s ability to respond to future serious pandemics. Such recommendations were, for whatever reason, not heeded."

...
Issue 68
April 26, 2020
TQC Trivia

Take a well deserved reprieve from the chaos that has engulfed us and play, TQC Trivia! Answers are provided below along with interesting and fun supplemental information.

1) Q: What is the most popular female baby name this decade?

A) Isabella
B) Sophia
C) Emma
D) Ava

2) Q: What film is widely credited as the first "talkie" (non-silent) movie?

A) The Jazz Singer (1927)
B) The Idle Class (1921)
C) Speedy (1928)
D) L’Argent (1928)

3) Q: What company is the only original member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) still in existence today?

A) IBM
B) General Electric
C) National Lead
D) ExxonMobil

4) Q: Which quarterback has the highest National Football League (NFL) Passer Rating?

A) Tom Brady
B) Aaron Rodgers
C) Joe Montana
D) Drew Brees

5) Q: What is the bestselling music album of all-time?

A) The Beatles - The White Album
B) The Eagles - Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975)
C) Michael Jackson – Thriller
D) Led Zeppelin – Led Zeppelin IV

6) Q: What is the longest nonstop commercial flight?

A) Los Angeles - Singapore
B) Dallas - Sydney
C) Atlanta - Johannesburg
D) New York - Singapore

7) Q: Which is the least populated state in America?

A) Idaho
B) Vermont
C) Wyoming
D) Alaska

8) Q: What percentage of American’s own smartphones?

A) 96%
B) 81%
C) 66%
D) 48%

9) Q: What was the first public company to command a trillion-dollar valuation?

A) Amazon
B) PetroChina
C) Microsoft
D) Apple

10) Q: Who is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s basketball Division 1 all-time leading scorer?

A) Pete Maravich, Louisiana State (LSU)
B) Reggie Lewis, Northeastern
C) Kurt Thomas, Texas Christian (TCU)
D) Larry Bird, Indiana State

11) Q: What is the smallest country in the European Union (EU)?

A) Vatican City
B) Monaco
C) Malta
D) Cyprus

ANSWERS

1) (C) Emma. Note: Over the last 100 years, the most popular female baby’s name is Mary. For boys, the most popular baby's name this decade is Noah. Over the last century, it is James.

...
Issue 69
May 3, 2020
Food For Anxious Thought

There is no shortage of data that underpins what is painfully obvious, even to the untrained eye: as a result of COVID-19, this quarter will probably mark the worst contraction of America’s economy since the Great Depression in 1929.

Another corollary courtesy of the coronavirus is opaquer yet damaging nonetheless: its effect on Americans suffering from mental illness and the impact of those who are newly battling this silent epidemic.Quarantine, as prescribed by lawmakers for the sake of the greater good plays a prominent role. Uncertainty about the future, adjusting to the “new normal” and worries about economic security are also factors that contribute to the newly afflicted.

We know what some of you are already thinking -- Americans are over-diagnosed with mental ailments and over-prescribed medication. These are not empty arguments. But using conservative estimates to control for over-diagnoses, ~17% of Americans experience a mental illness at least once and ~4% of Americans live with a serious disease of the mind. Since COVID-19 reared its ugly head, rates of anxiety, depression, suicide (and domestic violence) have markedly increased.

Be “Mindful”

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental illness in the United States. They develop from a "complex set of risk factors, including genetics, brain chemistry, personality, and life events" and often co-exist with depression, a separate illness that carries its own (sometimes overlapping) set of symptoms and risk factors.

Prior to the coronavirus permeating America’s borders and forcing governors across the nation to institute shelter in place orders, according to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA), the numbers of Americans suffering from the following mental illnesses were as follows:

• Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) (~7 million)

• Panic Disorder (PD) PD (~6 million)

• Social Anxiety Disorder affected (~15 million)

• Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) (~2.2 million)

• Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (~8.5-9 million)

• Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the leading cause of disability for ages people aged 15 to 44, impacted more than 16 million people.

• Persistent depressive disorder (PDD), a form of depression lasting least two years or longer (~3 million)

• Bipolar disorder, which is not on the same spectrum as traditional depression or anxiety disorders, affected just over 2 million American adults.

*In depth explanations of each genre of anxiety and depression are nuanced and extremely complicated subjects to tackle. Their granularity goes well beyond the depth of this post. They can, and should be, topics of a separate TQC article, penned by an expert in the field.

...
Issue 71
May 17, 2020
Office Space

Office Space, starring Jennifer Aniston and Ron Livingston released in 1999, is a comedy that portrays a group of disenchanted employees toiling at a software company at the dawn of the Internet age. The movie scored decent marks with critics but fared poorly on the big screen; it barely recouped its production cost. However, with the help of Comedy Central airing the film over 30 times, Office Space garnered a cult following, particularly with tech workers, and subsequently performed well on video and DVD, sold millions of copies and established itself as a classic film favorite among movie aficionados.

Office Space was a comedy. In contrast, the current state of the commercial office space market in America could be mistaken for a horror movie. Economic shutdowns enacted to stem the spread of Covid-19 have rendered office buildings across swaths of America eerily vacant. Many tenants are unwilling and / or unable to pay rent. In turn, landlords with existing mortgages are having difficulties servicing their debts and covering operating costs.

Pundits have chimed in, claiming the behavioral changes forced upon us by the coronavirus will permanently impair the market for office space. As companies quickly conclude that their employees can be equally as productive working remotely as they can “at work,” they will look to cut costs by reducing their office footprint.

Stocks of publicly traded real estate investment trusts (REITS) have been decimated. The shares of Vornado (VNO), which owns office towers in major metropolitan areas, have been halved. New York City stalwart SL Green’s (SLG) stock is down by almost two-thirds. Conversely, shares of Microsoft (MSFT), Zoom Video (ZM), Teladoc (TDOC), and other companies that benefit from the physical-to-digital shift have soared despite the recent stock market malaise.

...
Issue 72
May 31, 2020
Protecting Our Seniors

As of this writing, the coronavirus has officially infected ~1.8 million Americans and claimed the lives of over 104,000. Though COVID-19 has touched every demographic in all 50 states, the virus has not preyed upon its victims uniformly. Americans over 65 years old have borne a disproportionate brunt of the coronavirus’ wrath.

Senior citizens represent ~15% of the nation’s population, but account for ~80% of all COVID-19 related deaths. Broken down by sub-sector, the mortality rate for patients in their 60’s is ~4%, doubles to ~8% for those between 70 and 79 and is most pronounced for octogenarians, where ~13% of those (officially) infected succumb to the disease.

During these treacherous times, we owe it to our seniors to take reasonable precautions to protect them. Below are 8 common sense ideas to help keep our most vulnerable citizens safer until the coronavirus pandemic abates. These proposals are certainly not a panacea, but they could make a difference at the margins, particularly as communities across America re-open for business and leisure.

1) Low(er) risk Americans should respect social distancing rules, wash hands frequently, and always wear a mask in public. At times, these temporary requirements can be frustrating and a bit of a nuisance. However, these sensible directives are not in place to infringe upon anyone's individual rights; they curb the spread of COVID-19 and help keep older Americans and other high(er) risk people healthy. (Unfortunately, some individuals are not adhering to the advice of medical experts. Their careless actions: partying on the beach, congregating in large groups, not wearing masks in public etc., is dangerous, selfish and leaves everybody – especially older Americans and those with pre-existing conditions - at heightened risk).

...
Issue 74
June 14, 2020
Censorship

On Sunday June 7th, the editor of The New York Times (NYT) editorial page, James Bennet, resigned following the publication of an op-ed called “Send In The Troops,” penned by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas. In the “controversial” letter, Senator Cotton argued that President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and send in federal troops to restore law and order in cities where rioters had overwhelmed local law enforcement. The moment it was published, executives at the Times faced a backlash from many journalists and support staff. NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg called Cotton’s piece “fascist.”

Regrettably, in a spineless act of capitulation, “leaders” at the Times all but forced Mr. Bennet out the door. Then, in a pathetic attempt to mollify their outraged employees (and some readers), the newspaper released a statement explaining where they came up short. NYT publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger released a generic statement that could have been cut and pasted from any corporate boardroom: "While this has been a painful week across the company, it has sparked urgent and important conversations.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard: when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state ,to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law, or to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights.

The Insurrection Act has been invoked 20 times in America’s history. On 13 occasions, federal troops were sent following formal requests by state authorities. On the other occasions (7) the sitting president did so of his own volition. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, by Republican George Bush. The state of California requested federal help following the riots that occurred after the infamous Rodney King verdict. Unbeknownst to most, Bush also invoked the act in 1989. He dispatched troops to Saint Croix following civil unrest that ensued after Hurricane Hugo leveled the U.S. territory. Prior to that, the Insurrection Act was invoked four times by Democrat Lyndon Johnson to quell riots in the late 1960’s and three times by Democrat John F. Kennedy to enforce federal desegregation laws and stop rioting that stemmed from the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision. In the late 1950’s, Republican Dwight Eisenhower invoked the act to protect the Little Rock Nine. Presidents Bush and Johnson acted after local authorities requested federal assistance. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy did so without an “invitation”

Upon Further Examination

Let us breakdown, paragraph by paragraph, Senator Cotton’s op-ed piece that caused a mutiny among many Times staffers and resulted in James Bennet “resignation”.

“This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s.” TQC Take: There were indeed incidents of violence that included unprovoked attacks on law enforcement officers, law abiding citizens, businesses, and people defending their businesses. That said, because this was the opening paragraph, Senator Cotton should have made a point to draw a distinction between the majority of protesters that were peaceful, and a small minority, that were not.

“New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by while Midtown Manhattan descended into lawlessness. Bands of looters roved the streets, smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some even drove exotic cars; the riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements.” TQC Take: We cannot say for certain what Mayor Bill de Blasio was doing that Monday. That evening, Midtown Manhattan did descend into lawlessness. Senator Cotton's description was accurate.

“Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence. In New York State, rioters ran over officers with cars on at least three occasions. In Las Vegas, an officer is in 'grave' condition after being shot in the head by a rioter. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot as they attempted to disperse a mob throwing bricks and dumping gasoline; in a separate incident, a 77-year-old retired police captain was shot to death as he tried to stop looters from ransacking a pawnshop. This is 'somebody’s granddaddy,' a bystander screamed at the scene.” TQC Take: The incidents Mr. Cotton described happened. Whether or not law enforcement bore the brunt of the violence is debatable. On a few occasions, police officers in New York City and elsewhere used excessive force against protestors. Despite what we saw on television – peace is bad for ratings - most protesters and police showed restraint. Some politicians cowered in their defining moments; others exhibited leadership.

...
Issue 75
June 28, 2020
Q&A With TQC

We will kick off our TQC Q&A Series with a question and answer session regarding the current environment of the art world, market, and related subject matter, with Suzanne Geiss. Ms. Geiss brings over 25 years’ experience in the industry advising ambitious private and corporate collections and curating gallery & museum exhibitions.

In 2010, Geiss founded the Suzanne Geiss Company, specializing in post-1960s artworks and private collection building paired with a dynamic public exhibition and performance program. In addition to her activities as a curator and consultant, Geiss currently serves as President of the Board of Performance Space New York and is pursuing a graduate degree in art, performance, and social justice.

tQc: Before delving into our subject matter, please share with us how you established yourself in the art business?

It was never my objective to be on the transactional/advisory side of the business and own a gallery. My intention was to be an artist. However, following my college graduation in order to convince my parents that I was doing something “productive”, I got a job at the Andre Emmerich Gallery on Manhattan's Upper East Side, as the receptionist.

It was the mid 1990's, the art market was experiencing a downturn; sales were few and far between. One afternoon a gentleman came in inquiring about works by Hans Hofmann. The gallery director thought it was just a "tire kicker" so they sent me - the receptionist - to deal with the visitor. I thought to myself, why are they sending in a 22-year-old to try and sell a painting, but I figured, what the hell, let me give it a go. So I picked out a Hans Hofmann painting, with a title that particularly resonated with me and I just riffed on it. To my own disbelief, and the disbelief of most of the other people that I worked with, I sold the painting for a record price (for a Hofmann) at the time. Magically, my title changed from secretary to "assistant director." It was a unique opportunity and one that would be unlikely to happen in today’s art world.

tQc: Generally, what are some of the biggest changes you have witnessed in the art business since beginning your career almost 30 years ago?

The art market has become more professionalized, more corporate. When I first entered the business, it was a much smaller ecosystem centered around a core group of collectors making Saturday afternoon gallery visits. Presently, collectors are increasingly using art as a financial instrument and thus require analysis based on criteria that is often mutually exclusive from the art itself.

Of course, the other big change has been on the technology side. The internet shifted the balance of power away from all but the very largest galleries. For the first time collectors could easily research and compare prices between galleries, access previous auction results, and observe what other market participants (collectors, speculators, dealers, etc) were collecting. Offering work through email was revolutionary. (Previously if you wanted to connect with a client outside your city you mailed them a slide or transparency)!

Lastly, social media has given artists a medium to connect directly with their audience, squeezing out more and more intermediaries.

tQc: “Conservatism” and art seem to be at loggerheads. Can an individual be both "conservative" and "accepted" in the art world today? If so, how? If not, do you consider that hypocritical of what the art world espouses to be?

Good question and not one I’ve been asked before. Thinking about “conservatism," well yes, it seems to be diametrically opposed to art. I am generalizing here but I think it’s fair to say that most artists are interested in more progressive issues, while some collectors land on the more conservative end of the spectrum. That said, the art world is unique because you have a place where these communities come together. Artists are often at the forefront of social and political engagement putting them in a position to be effective change agents. Sometimes (again I want to be clear that this is an oversimplification, I’ve met and dealt with many progressive collectors) collectors are at the other end of the social or political spectrum. Art provides an opportunity for people that might not otherwise mingle to do so. That is wonderful.

...
Issue 80
August 16, 2020
Homeless On The Upper West Side

At the Quintessential Centrist, we typically do not post about hyper-local issues. Occasionally, however, a subject arises that is both important and a microcosm of a larger problem. Currently, many cities throughout our nation are dealing with increasing levels of homelessness amid the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, the complexities of managing the homeless population during a public health crisis are enormous; the added stresses on local governments and affected neighborhoods, particularly acute. Manhattan’s Upper West Side (UWS) is indicative of what many communities in cities across America are suddenly grappling with.

To mitigate the spread of the coronavirus, The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) relocated thousands of homeless people from crowded shelters into hotels and other dwellings located throughout the city. In Manhattan’s UWS, a pleasant, family orientated neighborhood, approximately 600 hundred homeless men were placed in three hotels: The Lucerne, The Bellnord & The Belleclaire. Many of the vagrants are drug addicts. Some are mentally ill and, at times, violent, especially when intoxicated. A few of the men are registered sex offenders. In fact, ~a dozen sex offenders are staying in The Belleclaire, a block from the local public school.

Since these men arrived, the following are a list of violations witnessed by concerned citizens residing nearby:

• Public lewdness

• Public urination

• Public intoxication

• Shooting drugs and discarding hypodermic needles on the street

• Aggressive panhandling

• Disturbing the peace

• Disorderly conduct

• Sexual harassment

• Theft

• Robbery

NIMBY VS YIMBY

The result: what was once a “tolerant” neighborhood that resolved most differences amicably has become a tinderbox of anger, anxiety, and accusations. While the current situation might appear simple - one group does not want homeless people in their neighborhood, another group thinks homeless people have the right to shelter in the UWS - the reality is more complex.

To help frame the happenings and sentiment on the UWS, we have broken down its residents into separate buckets:

Bucket 1: The “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) folk. Residents in this bucket do not want homeless men in their neighborhood, period. In their view, the UWS is an expensive, family orientated enclave. Apartments are costly to purchase, rents are high, and the tax burden significant. In exchange for these outlays, these people expect a high quality of life, clean and safe streets, quality public schools and the right to live without crowds of homeless people. Anybody who argues otherwise is delusional and does not truly have an equity stake in their community. In short, “not in my back yard.”

...
Issue 81
August 30, 2020
The Future Of New York City

On August 13th hedge fund manager, entrepreneur and business owner James Altucher penned a convincing essay titled “NYC Is Dead Forever. Here’s Why.”

One week after Mr. Altucher’s piece was reprinted in the NY Post, comedian Jerry Seinfeld passionately refuted Altucher’s claims in an Op-Ed published in the NY Times titled “So You Think New York Is ‘Dead’ [It’s not.]" Immediately thereafter, Altucher shot back with his own rebuttal, dissecting and rejecting Seinfeld’s argument’s in a NY Post editorial titled, “Sorry Seinfeld Your Love of NYC Won’t Change The Facts About Its Crisis.”

Mr. Altucher and Mr. Seinfeld have differing points of view, but one thing is for certain, the coronavirus has walloped New York City. The Big Apple has 239,000 officially recorded cases of COVID-19 – statistical samples point to the real number being 10-15x higher - and ~24,000 fatalities. The city’s economy has been battered. Many local businesses have gone bankrupt and or barely surviving. National employers have instructed many of their personnel to work from home. Office buildings sit eerily vacant. Commercial and residential real estate values have plummeted. Unemployment is up. Broadway is shut. Gyms are closed. Most museums and other cultural attractions are still shuddered. Tourists are hard to find.

There is tension in the streets. New Yorkers are on edge. Violent crime, including homicide, has risen materially and shows no sign of abating. Burglary is up substantially too. Some frightened citizens are carrying “mugger money,” (cash people kept in a separate place on their person during the crime ridden 70’s and 80’s) again. Almost 500,000 New Yorkers (~5% of the city’s population), many of which are high wage earners that contribute disproportionately to its tax base, have fled Gotham for safer havens. Some will never return. In part, as a result, city tax receipts have collapsed, social services have been cut, the Mass Transit Authority (MTA) is in financial (and physical) tatters and there is an acute homeless crisis.

Our View

This author resides in NYC and is penning this article from the borough of Manhattan. In our view, New York City is not dead, but it is certainly in critical and unstable condition. Compounded by the gross ineptitude of local “leaders” and lack of federal assistance, it will almost certainly continue to wither and deteriorate in the near term. However, our base case differs markedly from the plethora of apoplectic doomsayers who argue that NYC’s best days are in its rear-view mirror.

...
Issue 82
September 13, 2020
Q&A With TQC

We continue our TQC Q&A Series with a question and answer session focused on the sports memorabilia and collectibles market with Ezra Levine. By way of introduction, Mr. Levine is the CEO of a startup called Collectable whose goal is to revolutionize the multi-billion-dollar sports memorabilia and cards industry. Collectable is a fractional ownership investment platform and marketplace that enables the general public to own shares of the most sought-after sports memorabilia in the world.

In addition to leading Collectable, Mr. Levine also serves as the Chief Strategy Officer & CFO of The Spring League, a professional developmental football league that organizes talent showcases throughout the United States. Prior to this, he was a Portfolio Manager & Trader at Hilltop Park, a NYC based hedge fund.

Mr. Levine graduated from the University of Michigan in 2010 and earned an MBA from New York University in 2016.

tQc: Ezra, we appreciate you taking some time to sit down with us today. Before we delve into our subject matter, tell us something else about yourself that our readers might like to know?

Excited to be here. As a frequent TQC reader, I appreciate your weekly insights and thoughtfulness. I grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I now live with my wife and 15-month old son, Eli. As a matter of fact, my dad has been the senior rabbi of Congregation Rodeph Sholom for ~30 years. I also love to golf and play tennis in my free time.

tQc: Please explain what Collectable’s mission is?

We are applying widely accepted financial market principles to a fragmented, and in many ways antiquated, memorabilia and card market. Think of Amazon stock. You can purchase shares of Amazon on a public stock exchange without needing two trillion dollars to acquire the whole company. By fractionalizing high value sports collectibles, we enable people to purchase equity or fractional stakes in expensive memorabilia in a similar way they might purchase stock of Amazon or Apple.

In addition to operating a fractional ownership marketplace, we create sports related content and will be rolling out a digital and live events business shortly.

tQc: What is Collectable’s value proposition?

As a fractional ownership platform, our primary value proposition is access. We allow all sports fans, collectors, and investors the ability to invest in some of the finest, most valuable, and most culturally and historically significant sports memorabilia in the world.

tQc: Talk to us about demographics and your target market. Isn’t sports memorabilia and card collecting an older person’s hobby? Are young people even interested in this space?

It’s a good question. Collecting and investing in trading cards and related memorabilia have traditionally been considered an older person’s hobby. To that end, we have a tremendous pipeline of vintage items that will appeal to older collectors, investors, and fans. However lately, trends have been skewing younger. In fact, card collecting has quietly become a cultural phenomenon. We plan on leveraging that momentum by educating younger consumers about our unique product opportunity.

...
Issue 83
September 20, 2020
We Hope They Die

On Saturday September 12, two Los Angeles county deputies were ambushed at point blank range. The officers were sitting in their patrol car across the street from a metro station in Compton, CA when a gunman walked up to their vehicle and opened fire. A female officer and 31-year old mother to a 6-year-old boy, was shot in the face. Despite her life-threatening wound, she was able to radio for help and apply a tourniquet to her partner, saving his life.

We Hope They Die

The deputies were rushed to Saint Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, CA where they underwent emergency surgery. Soon thereafter, “protesters” gathered outside the hospital – blocking ambulances carrying critical patients from entering the premises - and chanted, “we hope they (the officers) die”

After strongly condemning the shooting, Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villaneuva challenged NBA superstar, LeBron James, to match the $175,000 reward being offered for information regarding the crime. Said Villanueva, "I want to make a challenge. This challenge is to LeBron James, I want you to match that and double that ($175,000) reward, because I know you care about law enforcement…we need to appreciate that respect for life goes across professions, races, creeds and I'd like to see LeBron James step up to the plate and double that."

Mr. James has publicly condemned the murder of George Floyd, demanded justice for Breonna Taylor (this week Ms. Taylor’s family settled a civil suit and was awarded $12 million dollars by the city of Louisville) and Eric Garner and expressed his indignation following the shooting of Jacob Blake. James has also been outspoken on various media outlets expressing his general disdain for police shootings involving black people. In one of Mr. James’ many tweets, he said, "I know people get tired of hearing me say it but we are scared as a Black people in America…Black men, Black women, Black kids, we are terrified…"

Responsibility

After Sheriff Villanueva’s plea, some people argued James’ should indeed open his wallet, while others vehemently disagreed and critiqued Mr. Villanueva for his ask. In our view, it is not LeBron James’ responsibility to match the $175,000 reward currently being offered for information about the attempted murder of two deputies, nor is it his obligation to offer any financial incentive to do so for that matter. However, we do think LeBron James, other famous athletes, celebrities, and especially politicians who are outspoken critics of police, have a responsibility to use their respective platforms to condemn this abhorrent act.

A few police officers are bad people. Most police officers protect and serve their communities professionally, ethically, and whenever possible, peacefully often under extreme duress. They deserve dignity and respect too. Right now, they are not receiving enough.

...
Issue 85
October 11, 2020
Trump Contracts The Coronavirus

In the early morning of Friday October 2 President Donald Trump, after claiming in a debate the week prior that he “wears a mask when he needs to”, became one of ~8 million documented coronavirus victims in the United States. Per Trump’s usual means of communication, the president informed the public via Twitter that he had indeed tested positive for COVID-19.

President Trump’s heightened risk factors: being male, elderly (74), and overweight (Trump eschews tobacco and alcohol, but has a fondness for BigMacs) – put the odds of him dying or becoming critically ill at ~3% and ~12.5%, respectively (though these percentages are probably too high given the level of medical care available to the President of the United States vs the general population).

The day of his diagnosis, President Trump was transported to Walter Reed Medical Center. He was given supplemental oxygen, began a 5-day course of the antiviral drug remdesivir, pumped full of dexamethasone, a steroid typically administered in severe COVID cases, and supplied with an experimental antibody drug, compounded by a company called Regeneron.

Prior to being discharged, Trump – still contagious - left his hospital room to express his gratitude to supporters surrounding the facility. In doing so, he needlessly exposed secret service agents who were assigned to his limousine; Trump waived to his fans from the back seat. Then Trump (presumably) used taxpayer money to buy pizza pies for his well-wishers outside Walter Reed. Harmless enough, if not for the fact that enabling strangers to congregate while reaching for slices of pizza amid a viral pandemic communicated via close personal contact is irresponsible.

On October 5, President Trump was released from Walter Reed. He tweeted, “I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”

Though less than a week removed from contracting the coronavirus, we cannot disprove the last sentence of that tweet. We can – and do – disapprove of Mr. Trump’s communication regarding the coronavirus pandemic, except for at the onset of it. We expand on this later in this post.

Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

There is no shortage of outright lies that Donald Trump has propagated with regards to COVID-19. In late February, Mr. Trump said “one day, it’s like a miracle – it will disappear.” On March 6, just as the severity of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming apparent, President Trump said that if “somebody wants to be tested right now, they’ll be able to be tested.”

At the time, there was a national shortage of testing kits. Only the most acute patients were tested, and the results often took over a week. Later that month Trump said the FDA had approved hydrocholorquine to treat the coronavirus. This was untrue then and remains the case today. In March, no drug was approved specifically to treat COVID.

...
Issue 87
October 25, 2020
Adulting

By law, a person is considered an adult when they have reached the age of “majority.” Many nations set their respective age of majority at 18 years old. In America, the age of majority is established by the states; it is age 18 in all but 3 states in the union, 19 in Alabama & Nebraska and 21 in Mississippi (and Puerto Rico). Prominent nations that set a lower threshold include Indonesia (15) and the United Kingdom (16). Others, however, set a higher threshold such as Canada (19), Japan (20), and the UAE (21).

In the United States, while most citizens are considered “adults” when they turn 18, and all 18-year-olds can vote in a presidential election, young adults are still prohibited by law from engaging in several “grown up” activities, including purchasing alcohol and tobacco.

Drink To This

In December 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified. The 21st Amendment is best known (and appreciated) for ending Prohibition. It is unique in being the only Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that amended a previous amendment: in 1920 congress banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol via the 18th Amendment.

Following Prohibition, almost all states set their respective legal drinking ages to 21, inline with the legal voting age. The prevailing logic was that if somebody was old enough to vote, they were responsible enough to drink.

In 1971, the 26th Amendment was passed, which lowered the federal voting age to 18. The push to lower the federal voting age was spurred by the conscription of men as young as 18 years of age into the Vietnam War. Many states in turn adopted 18 as their new legal age to purchase alcohol. The prevailing logic was that if somebody was old enough to die for their country, they should be responsible enough to purchase a beer.

Soon thereafter, there was an acute rise in the number of drunk driving incidents. Whether or not the corresponding increase in DUIs and alcohol-related traffic deaths was causal, or merely correlative, to the reduction of states’ legal age to purchase and consume alcohol has been the subject of fierce debate. Nonetheless, in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan spearheaded a coordinated effort to enact federal legislation to prod states to raise their legal drinking ages. The culmination: on July 17, 1984, to the dismay of college students (and high school seniors) across America, Ronald Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA). This federal mandate strong-armed the states to fall in line and raise their own legal age requirements. Specifically, if they did not comply, they would lose 10% of their federal highway funding. It worked. By the end of the 1980s all 50 states raised their legal minimums to 21 (Puerto Rico, Guam & The U.S. Virgin Islands remained at 18. Louisiana briefly lowered its drinking age back to 18 in the mid 1990s).

...
Issue 90
November 22, 2020
"Defund The Police" Is Costing Dems Seats

Final exit polls taken a week before election day predicted a landslide victory for Joe Biden and corresponding “blue wave” in congressional, senatorial, and local elections.

The result: Donald Trump was repudiated, barely; a mere ~75,000 votes across five swing states will prevent him from returning to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at least not in 2021 (see endnote below).

More worrisome to Democrats was the shellacking they took down ballot. The GOP will probably retain control of the Senate (there are two runoff contests in Georgia on January 5th. Republicans need to win 1 of 2 races to retain their majority). In the House of Representatives, political pundits foresaw Dems picking up ~15 seats and solidifying their majority. Instead, the GOP appears to have gained ~10 seats, significantly narrowing their deficit. Democrats also failed to flip any state legislatures blue, which many analysts said they would do.

In a desperate attempt to save face, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi deemed the election results “a great victory.” Centrist Abigail Spanberger of Virginia was more accurate, saying what many moderate Dems were thinking, "If we are classifying Tuesday as a success from a congressional standpoint, we will get f***ing torn apart in 2022.”

Why?

Why did Democrats severely underperform relative to expectations? The answer is not that all ~70 million people who voted for Donald Trump and other members of the GOP are racist. As Brett Stephens argued in a recent New York Times Op-Ed, “Motives are complicated: It is perfectly possible to see Trump for the reprehensible man he is and still find something to like in his policies, just as it is possible to admire Biden’s character and reject his politics.”

...
Issue 93
December 27, 2020
Year End Review

This post will complete the second full year for The Quintessential Centrist. At this time, we would like to thank all our readers for playing an integral role in our growing platform, an online forum that incorporates ideas and values across the ideological spectrum. 2020 was a particularly challenging year. But true to our mandate, we did not “take the fifth,” and instead tackled some extremely hot button topics, many of which elicited passionate responses. The vast majority were thoughtful and considerate; a select few made us question our personal safety!

We have certainly made mistakes and have done our best to remedy and learn from them. Your constructive criticism helps us better accomplish our objective: to offer readers ideas that blend news, analysis, and viewpoints from the left, right, and center of the political and social gamut.

This year, we analyzed and opined on a broad array of topics related to politics, current events, culture, finance, technology, national security, health and wellness, international and domestic affairs, the arts, and more. In total, we penned 35 articles. What did we get right? Where did we come up short? Which articles elicited the most positive, negative, and impassioned responses, etc.?

Whenever we received an approximately equal amount of critique from the left and right, our take was that we had fulfilled our objective of promoting the ideals and tenets of the center. To that end, we were extremely pleased with the responses to our work on Black Lives Matter, "Defund The Police" Is Costing Dems Seats, Censorship & George Floyd. Many staunch conservatives accused us of being closeted liberals. An overwhelming number of liberals accused us of being a mouthpiece for the right. This helped reassure us that we split the goalposts down the middle on those hotly debated issues.

...
Issue 96
January 31, 2021
Are Athletes Next?

Many of our readers remember the late 1990s: The Internet 1.0, the.com craze, the “new economy,” Y2K, and the advent of inexpensive online stock trading. Beginning in or around 1998, until the spectacular “tech wreck” that commenced in 2000, seemingly any stock with a “.com” attached to its name experienced a period of parabolic price increases. Most of these companies (Pets.com, eToys, theglobe.com, etc.) went bust. A few were absorbed into other entities for pennies on the dollar.

During the .com boom, everybody wanted to get in on the action. And for the first time, “everybody” could. For just $10 or $20, online discount brokerages like E-Trade and Ameritrade provided platforms for retail investors to buy shares of the latest.com star.

(The timing of this post is fortuitous. We are in the throes of another speculative stock mania. That will be next week’s topic of analysis. Stay tuned).

Wall Streeters

Beginning in the 1980s, inspired in part by the blockbuster film “Wall Street,” bankers and traders were the envy of the public. The release of that movie also spoke to the times when Wall Streeters were Masters of the Universe and their excesses on display for all to see. In the decade leading up to the new millennia, online trading coupled with the .com craze exacerbated this phenomenon. Indeed, Wall Streeters and the new kids on the block, “Hedge-Funders”, were larger than life characters who could seemingly do no wrong. For a while, they enjoyed cult-like status, immune to the perils of the public’s wrath. Then 2009 happened.

The subprime mortgage fiasco ignited an intense backlash against the entire finance industry. Bailouts at taxpayer expense (the government was reimbursed, and taxpayers earned a handsome profit from their “bailouts”) enraged Main Street. No matter that a small minority of bad apples were primarily responsible for the complex financial instruments that brought the financial system perilously close to collapse; anybody who worked on wall street was suddenly a villain.

Tech Bros

Following the .com bust, the tech industry went through adolescence and (im)matured. The result: trillion-dollar companies run by billionaire “Tech Bros” in charge of seven-figure software engineers showered with plush perks. The founders of these new economy stalwarts and their army of lieutenants were adored by the public and envied for their genius and newfound wealth. Advanced technology had ushered in exponential quality of life improvements through efficiency gains and democratization of information. The former “geeks” were the new kings in town. Then #MeToo happened.

Bloomberg news anchor Emily Chang published “Brotopia: Breaking up the Boys Club of Silicon Valley” depicting the sexist and misogynist culture of Silicon Valley. Big Tech had abdicated its responsibility to establish meaningful standards in the quest for workplace dignity and equality for women and minorities. Indeed, regarding protections, opportunities for advancement and recognition of women and minorities, Silicon Valley finds itself today, where Wall Street was a generation ago. Coupled with the increasing scrutiny of being oligopolistic gatekeepers of (mis)information, TechBros were no longer immune from the public’s ire.

...
Issue 97
February 7, 2021
GameStopped

Last week, in a historic sequence of events on Wall Street, the struggling mall-based videogame retailer GameStop (Ticker: GME) was the subject of an epic “short squeeze” ignited primarily by individual investors on the Reddit message board r/wallstreetbets (WSB). Members of WSB implored each other to purchase shares of GME; a buying frenzy ensued. The stock, heavily “shorted” by certain hedge funds and other professional investors increased to nearly $500, up from just ~$20 in early January. Additional stocks including AMC Entertainment (AMC), BlackBerry (BB), Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY), and a few others were caught up in the buying hysteria. Hedge funds and other professional investors suffered severe losses. After the fact, certain WSB members and other retail investors were in a jovial, celebratory mood. Together, they bet against the supposed smartest people in the room…and won. It was an apparent victory for the little guy. Or was it?

What Happened

During the speculative mania’s zenith, the retail stock and options trading platform Robinhood enacted sudden changes to their platform. Without warning, account holders were banned and or severely curtailed from trading in the shares of GME and other heavily volatile stocks; only sell orders to liquidate existing positions were permitted. Immediately thereafter, a collective rage took hold.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle, Robinhood customers, market pundits, and even entertainers lashed out at Robinhood. In their view, the brokerage firm’s actions unfairly punished individual investors while professionals were left unscathed. Said David Portnoy, founder of the popular website Barstool Sports, “@RobinhoodApp entire business model is to cater to the exact people they are now trying to fck with and scare into selling. They will never recover from this.” As usual, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blamed “hedge funds, private-equity firms and wealthy investors…for…treating the stock market like their own personal casino while everyone else pays the price.” Gavin Wax, President of the New York Young Republican Club accused Wall Street of “corporatizing the American dream and making a mockery of American freedom.” Curtis Sliwa, founder of The Guardian Angels, a “volunteer organization of unarmed crime-prevention,” apparently had a change of heart when he encouraged his followers to “get these hedge-fund monsters before they get us.” In a rare moment of unity, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) (D-NY) & Ted Cruz (R-TX) both voiced their displeasure at Robinhood for helping hedge funds to the detriment of day traders. How ironic, for the first time in political history, AOC and Ted Cruz agreed…and they were both wrong. Let us be clear, the optics (and explanation) of what transpired were abysmal. That said, the statements above are categorically incorrect, highly irresponsible and were spit by people who share one important property in common. They have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

In truth, the happenings of last week were complex, multi-faceted, and extremely granular. They involved the plumbing of financial markets that very few people, except dedicated experts, fully comprehend. In fact, many people who work in finance themselves do not fully grasp the magnitude of terms such as T+2 trade settlement, margin calls, margin loans, collateral, collateral calls, implied volatility, and so forth, that are closely intertwined and imperative in maintaining an orderly process of buying, selling, and shorting stocks and settling those trades. In this post, we will try our best to explain, in plain English, what transpired and dispel many of the falsehoods that are circulating on (and off) line.

...
Issue 8
December 23, 2018
Santa's Identity Crisis

While many families are hunkering down for a festive Christmas, the mood in the Claus household is more somber. And perhaps with good reason. Santa’s identity faces challenges with some clamoring that he should be neither a man nor a woman while others say he should be a man. But fear not Mrs. Claus, for based on a survey conducted by Graphic Springs, 19% believe Santa shouldn’t lay claim to any gender, while 10% say he should be woman and an overwhelming 70% say he should retain his male gender status. While we can be reassured that Santa in his current rendition is not about to be usurped any time soon, that this dialogue is even taking place defies comprehension.

Christmas is one of the few holidays that have transcended religion. It is a unifying time of the year for many. Indeed, the lore of Santa, the North Pole, toy making elves, and reindeer is cheery and warming but also rooted in compassion. The original Saint Nicholas, upon whom Santa is predicated, was actually a Greek Bishop born in the 4th century. He was known for his charitable acts of providing gifts to the poor. The ongoing tradition of gift giving to children post St. Nicholas was, in fact, in honor of his name day on December 6th. At the behest of Martin Luther during the Reformation, the date of gift giving was redirected to Christmas Eve as homage to Christ. While the Reformation gave rise to other traditions such as Christmas Trees, carols and Christmas markets, St. Nicholas endured and became Santa Claus. This evolution over 1600 years has put the Claus family firmly on the map.

...