For a moment, forget every narrative and focus only on the children. Babies beheaded. Burned in their cribs. Toddlers torn away from their parents, taken as hostages, thrown in cages, and currently being tormented like zoo animals. Infants in body bags. Children, but a few years old. Alone, confined, and terrified. The most innocent of lives.

If your first reaction - let alone any reaction - was analogous to “this is resistance,” or “this is justified because of…” or “you can’t look at this in a vacuum,” or “I condemn this but understand why Hamas did it,” take a deep breath and do some soul searching. Anybody attempting to justify or contextualize decapitating an infant or a three-year-old taken hostage and held captive in a cage not even fit for a farm animal makes them grossly and willfully misinformed, demented, or abjectly anti-Semitic.

Chopping babies heads off – and let us be clear, be them Jewish babies, Palestinian babies, any babies - and holding children hostage, and there is no need to preface with “innocent” - because all babies and children are innocent - is never justified, not a form of resistance, and not understandable because of A, B and C, or X, Y or Z, or ever.

Imagine if it was an African child, an Asian child, an Irish child, or any child. Imagine if it was your baby in a body bag or in a cage. Ask yourself, would your response be the same? Would your silence still be heard everywhere?

Hamas

Racism, self-serving lies shaped to conform to a predetermined narrative, and sheer laziness in learning about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict have created a gaping asymmetry between the grasp of facts and strength of opinion on this topic.

Many of our readers make the valid argument that Palestinians in Gaza are suffering mightily. At TQC, we agree - Palestinians are suffering, but why are they are suffering? This is the most important question, yet it is constantly neglected.

Palestinians anguish in Gaza is because of Hamas – a globally designated terrorist organization - and their political leaders, not Israel, Jews, or the United States. This is one of the most significant but neglected facts. Regrettably, too many “human rights” activists, politicians, and journalists refuse to accept this fact, and other key facts below, that might not conform to their own ideology:

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.

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.”

Take a well-deserved reprieve from the chaos of your day and play, TQC Trivia! Pets. Answers are provided below along with interesting and fun supplemental information.

1) Q: What percentage of American households own a pet?

A) 15%
B) 55%
C) 68%
D) 79%

2) Q: How much money do American’s spend on their pets annually?

A) $500 million
B) $50 billion
C) $70 billion
D) $99 billion

3) Q: What is the most popular dog breed in America?

A) Labrador
B) Poodle
C) Goldendoodle
D) German Sheperd

4) Q: What is the most common pet in America?

A) Dog
B) Cat
C) Fish
D) Reptile

5) Q: What percentage of dogs are overweight in America?

A) 12%
B) 28%
C) 56%
D) 70%

6) Q: What percentage of pets are covered by health insurance in America?

A) 2%
B) 10%
C) 25%
D) 50%

7) Q: How many accredited veterinary schools are there in America?

A) 10
B) 30
C) 100
D) 300

8) Q: What is the largest (by weight) pure bred domesticated dog in the world?

A) Great Dane
B) English Mastiff
C) American Bulldog
D) Chihuahua

9) Q: What is the largest (by weight) pure bred domesticated cat in the world?

A) Maine Coon
B) Norwegian Forest Cat
C) Chausie
D) Savannah Cat

10) Q: Which of the following dog breeds are hypoallergenic?

A) Poodle
B) Beagle
C) Labradoodle
D) None of the above

On November 2, 2021 New Yorkers will head to the polls to elect a new mayor. That exercise will be a formality; the winner will already have been determined. Democrats outnumber Republicans in New York City (except in the borough of Staten Island); hence, whoever wins the Democratic Primary on June 22nd is certain to become the next mayor of the Big Apple.

Bill DeBlasio

The mayor-elect will be tasked with a litany of gargantuan challenges, thanks in no small part to New York’s sitting mayor, Bill DeBlasio. Mr. DeBlasio will be remembered as one of the worst mayors in New York’s history. He inherited a city on the ascent, presided over its decline, and has refused to accept any responsibility for it. Furthermore, DeBlasio has made a mockery of his daily press briefings by offering the same generic responses to questions regarding NYC’s acute increase in violent crime, stating it is “not acceptable” or “will not be tolerated.” Still, he never offers any substantive solutions to what is “not acceptable” and “will not be tolerated.” To be fair, some of the issues affecting NYC are not unique. They are a microcosm affecting many large metropolises in America. That said, DeBlasio’s abysmal management has compounded New York’s current ills.

Ranked Choice

At TQC, we believe the candidate best suited to reinvigorate NY is Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams. Before we delve into specifics, it is worth explaining some pertinent changes that will affect this year’s mayoral primary.

For the first time, a process called “ranked-choice” will be used to determine the winner. In a “ranked-choice” election, instead of casting a vote for one candidate, voters pick several candidates – in this case up to five – in order of preference (voters can still choose only one candidate if they wish). If any single candidate receives over 50% of 1st preference votes, the election is over, and they win. If no candidate receives over 50% of 1st preference votes, the candidate who finishes last is eliminated. Any votes for the eliminated candidate are then redistributed and the votes re-tabulated. This will continue – round after round - until there are two candidates left.

An interesting quirk about “ranked-choice” is that a candidate can win a plurality of votes in the 1st and subsequent rounds but end up losing the election. An interesting stipulation about New York’s “ranked-choice” system is that if any candidate receives a majority of 1st place votes in any round after the 1st round, they do not win. Instead, the process continues until two candidates are remaining, of which the one with the most 1st place votes will be declared victorious.

Critics of “ranked-choice” argue the system is opaque and confusing to voters. In fact, two lawsuits were filed to stop the city from utilizing a “ranked-choice” primary. Both were defeated.

Eric Adams

Eric Adams was born in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn in 1960. He graduated Bay Side high school in 1978. Adams earned an associate degree from the New York College of Technology, a BA from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and a Masters of Public Health (MPA) from Marist College.

Mr. Adams worked for the New York City Transit Police and then for over 20 years at the NYPD, rising to, and retiring at, the rank of Captain. In addition to serving as Brooklyn Borough president, his political credentials include serving as a state senator from 2006 to 2013.

Current Concerns

According to multiple polls, crime and public safety are the top concern of New Yorkers. And for good reason. Homicides were up 43% from 2019 to 2020; shootings were up 97%. This year, murders are on pace to rise a further 20% compared to 2020’s grim statistics. Indeed, New York has seen a surge in violent crime that has degraded the quality of life and left New Yorkers on edge. Though crimes have risen in virtually all areas of NYC, a disproportionate number are occurring in New York’s poorest neighborhoods. Of course, all New Yorkers have a right to a basic level of law and order irrespective of the community in which they reside. Eric Adams is the right man to make New York safe again.

Last week, a female friend of this author was the victim of stalking. The stalker threatened her in a sexually aggressive manner over text, waited outside her apartment building, attempted to gain entry, and had an altercation with the victim’s mother. Like many stalkers, she knew the subject.

They originally met in 2003 where he served as a part-time employee/handyman at her place of work. He was a “good worker, consistent, respectful, and trustworthy.” After her employer dissolved, he remained in contact with many former colleagues and occasionally performed odd jobs in their residences.

It would be an understatement to say my friend now regrets contacting him about doing some cosmetic work in her apartment. He was to begin last week until…

Timeline

Friday June 11th: Victim arrived home and found evidence the subject had been at outside her apartment building. He left sexually suggestive stickers on the (outside) door and commented on her social media.

Saturday June 12th: At 8pm the victim began receiving unhinged, menacing, and lewd texts. Other text messages stated the subject would be waiting for her outside her building.

Sunday June 13th (AM): Subject appeared outside victim’s building and had a verbal altercation with victim’s mother. Victim called the police. Police canvassed the neighborhood but were unable to locate him.

Sunday June 13th (PM): Victim locates subject while looking out her window and calls police. Subject is arrested for two counts of stalking. Judge issues an order of protection and releases the subject. A court date is set for 12/14/21.

Monday June 14th: Subject immediately violates the order of protection (texting).

Tuesday June 15th: An arrest warrant for violating an order of protection is issued.

Wednesday June 16th: Victim speaks to the District Attorney (DA). The DA informs the victim that violating the order of protection afforded to her is not considered “domestic violence.” Hence, if he is re-arrested, they would have to release him again after 24 hours. Victim is informed that “their hands are tied” because of bail reform. Victim is advised not to return to her apartment without an escort and to move out of her neighborhood.

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.

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.

At TQC, we have previously argued that nonsensical calls to “defund the police” cost Democrats seats in last year’s general elections. Furthermore, we have been critical about the dearth of support among too many left-wing politicians for honest law enforcement officers who protect and serve their communities professionally, ethically, and whenever possible, peacefully, often under extreme duress.

The GOP has anointed itself the party of “law and order.” Generally, they have been more vocal about supporting the men and women in law enforcement. They’ve griped that good police officers deserve dignity and respect too, and they are not receiving enough. We agree.

Hypocrisy

On the morning of January 6th, then President Donald Trump urged his supporters to head to Washington, “fight” and “take back our country.” A few thousand Trump loyalists dutifully obliged.

Later that day, an unruly mob of Trump supporters overwhelmed a woefully underprepared U.S. Capitol Police Force (USCPF), breached the Capitol, attacked law enforcement personal, and ransacked the building. For some, it was a last-ditch attempt to thwart the certification of President Biden’s “stolen” victory. Others who joined the mob probably did not know, or care, what the certification process even was. One man was filmed sitting at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk with his feet up, looking like he was getting ready to crack open a beer and watch a football game.

Most Americans – Democrats and Republicans – were appalled. The response – or lack thereof, especially from members of the party of “law and order” – was equally appalling, as it was hypocritical.

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

1) Q: What is the world’s most venomous fish?

A) Puffer
B) Candiru
C) Stonefish
D) Piranha

2) Q: What is the world’s smallest fish?

A) Danio
B) Corfu Dwarf Goby
C) Chili Rasbora
D) Photocorynus Spiniceps (Anglerfish)

3) Q: What is the world’s most commercially harvested fish?

A) Goldfish
B) Alaska Pollock
C) Anchoveta
D) Skipjack Tuna

4) Q: What is the most consumed seafood in America?

A) Salmon
B) Tuna
C) Catfish
D) Shrimp

5) Q: How many commercial fishermen ply their trade in the United States?

A) 4,000
B) 14,000
C) 40,000
D) 400,000

6) Q: What is the world’s deepest dwelling fish?

A) Mariana Snailfish
B) Mullet
C) Giant Squid
D) Sculpin

7) Q: What fish has the shortest lifespan?

A) Common Carp
B) Sign Eviota
C) Turquoise killifish
D) Siamese fighting fish

8) Q: What fish is harvested primarily to produce animal feed?

A) Grouper
B) Mackerel
C) Trout
D) Menhaden

9) Q: What is the most farmed fish in America?

A) Salmon
B) Carp
C) Catfish
D) Tilapia

10) Q: What is the world’s fastest fish?

A) Black Marlin
B) Sailfish
C) Bonefish
D) Swordfish

ANSWERS

1) (C) Stonefish. Note: The stonefish is the world’s most venomous fish. Typically found in warm water along coral reefs in the Indian and Pacific oceans, stonefish move slowly and camouflage themselves within their surroundings. Encounters with unlucky swimmers occur when human’s inadvertently step on them, thus becoming victims. If left untreated, the venom from a stonefish can result in death. However, if appropriately prepared, stonefish are edible and considered a delicacy in parts of Asia. Piranhas – made famous by the 1978 movie “Piranha,” - are the most infamous of the world’s poisonous fish but are not the deadliest. In fact, most Piranha’s prefer plants over people; attacks on humans are rare. Pufferfish are referred to as “fugu” in Japan. They are poisonous, but like the stonefish if cooked properly by a trained chef, they are edible.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contrary to popular belief, the most important person to recently announce their retirement was not Tom Brady. Last week, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (83), the oldest pillar of the SCOTUS’ liberal wing, announced his retirement at the end of this term. Breyer’s decision came on the heels of an intense pressure campaign from left-wing activists, determined to ensure that sitting President Joe Biden would nominate the next SCOTUS justice.

Justice Breyer’s retirement will not tilt the ideological makeup of the court. Presuming Biden appoints a left-leaning justice, conservatives will still hold a comfortable 6-3 advantage. However, had Justice Breyer decided to remain on the court, and Biden & Co lost their razor-thin majority in the senate this November, a GOP lead upper chamber would have surely stymied Biden’s nominees. This potential scenario horrified Dems, still seething about 2016 when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to hold a vote to confirm Merrick Garland, who was Barack Obama’s nominee. Then, in an about face, McConnell & Co confirmed Amy Barrett, President Trump’s nominee, just weeks prior to election day, in 2020.

The Politicization of the SCOTUS

That SCOTUS has become politicized is an unnerving microcosm of our time. In the past, justice nominations were cordoned off from the odious horse trading that permeates other branches of government. In fact, before the internet age, with a few notable exceptions most Supreme Court nominees enjoyed significant bipartisan support.

Justice Breyer was nominated by democrat Bill Clinton and confirmed 87-9. The recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another Clinton nominee, was confirmed 100-0. Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court was nominated by republican Ronald Reagan; she too was unanimously approved.

A shift began after the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election. Senate Dems, still upset about Al Gore’s controversial defeat, filibustered an unprecedented number of President George Bush’s judicial nominations. In response, the GOP controlled Senate considered changing the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold, the so-called “nuclear option.” However, after adding to their majority in 2004, republicans no longer needed to explore this path. In 2005, President Bush nominated Justice John Roberts to the SCOTUS. He was confirmed, but 50% of Senate Dems voted against him. That same year, Bush nominated Samuel Alito. Alito was also confirmed, but only four Democrat senators supported him.

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. That morning, Trump urged his supporters to head to Washington, “fight” and “take back our country.” He unilaterally declared that “we will never concede (because) you don’t concede when there is theft involved.” After that, any goodwill we harbored towards him, vaporized.

Since then, Donald Trump has continued to beat two dead horses: that the presidential election was rife with fraud thereby “stolen” from him, and that former Vice President Mike Pence could have overturned the results. If anybody dare question the lies Mr. Trump peddles, Trump calls them a liar and / or accuses them of being “disloyal.”

Lies Damn Lies & Statistics

When hundreds of millions of people vote for anything, including a presidential election, it would be a statistical impossibility if there were not a few irregularities and isolated instances of outright fraud. That said, to cherry-pick specific instances of malfeasance – “this ballot was submitted by a dead person” or “that ballot was mailed in past a deadline” - and claim its representative of the general election process is nonsense and undermines the integrity of our democracy.

Often when we make this point, our friends on the right counter that while they cannot produce tangible evidence of widespread fraud, mail in balloting and remote everything clearly favorites Democrats because more Dems vote by mail. We agree with all that. However, the way in which a vote is cast, and voter fraud, are two mutually exclusive things. It is incorrect to conflate the two. When we make this point, our friends on the right counter that it is easier to commit fraud when voting my mail. It might very well be. But arguing that it is easier to commit fraud by mail does not equate to systemic fraud being committed by mail (or in person). If it did, the evidence would have been delivered a long time ago. Indeed, both of Donald Trump’s accusations are patently false, and frankly, pathetic.

After the election, a right leaning SCOTUS (of which three justices, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were appointed by Donald Trump himself) rejected legal challenges pertaining to the election in Wisconsin and Texas. Bill Barr, Trump’s former Attorney General, and unabashed conservative said, “we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.” Not surprisingly, this did not deter Donald Trump from promoting his self-serving lies.

The reasons Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine are multi-faceted and encompass far more than what can be conveyed in this post. The mainstream press, on both sides of the political divide, has reported on the invasion without interruption. That is good.

Before last week, many Americans had no idea where Ukraine was located or knew anything about the former Soviet Republic. Some still do not. Indeed, an overly apathetic America, especially those individuals born after the Cold War, must understand and appreciate the seriousness of Mr. Putin’s actions, what they mean for Ukraine, Europe, democracy, and their own freedom.

Putin’s unprovoked atrocities have finally awoken America and its NATO allies after a decades-long, post-cold war induced, coma. Coordinated sanctions levied against Russia have been sweeping, SWIFT (excuse the pun), and severe. Military, financial, and logistical assistance is now being provided to Ukraine.

After its transgressions in Word War 2, Germany forswore providing any lethal weapons to other countries. In a stunning policy reversal spearheaded by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Germany suddenly pivoted, agreed to send Ukraine weapons, and announced it would ramp up defense spending. Even Switzerland, a bastion of international neutrality, has condemned and slapped sanctions on Russia.

In this post, we will provide two (very) abbreviated summaries of the events leading up to Russia’s invasion. However, as we feel the coverage of what is transpiring has been comprehensive, we will dedicate a part of this post to another, less reported concern stemming from the war: rapidly rising prices for agricultural commodities and how this translates into food insecurity across the world. We will end this post with some interesting facts about Ukraine.

A (Very) Abbreviated Summary Part 1: Ukraine

In 2014, most Ukrainians were delighted that an association agreement with the European Union (EU) had been signed, sealed, and delivered. The vast majority (~75%) of Ukrainians envisioned themselves as members of the EU; this agreement portended membership into the club. However, President Viktor Yanukovych, corrupt to the core and puppet of Vladimir Putin, scuttled the deal, and pivoted towards Russia. Ukrainians were horrified. Mass protests took place across the nation. Yanukovych’s thugs – at the prodding of Putin & Co - responded by muzzling protestors with force. Civilians fought back and violence ensnared the nation. Activists were beaten and many were killed. The international community strongly condemned Yanukovych. Under mounting pressure, he fled to Russia in disgrace.

New elections were held, and pro-west candidate Petro Poroshenko was sworn into office. Poroshenko – pro Europe but far from perfect - was succeeded by the current President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former comedian, actor and political novice. Zelenskyy ran on a platform to root out the odious corruption and self-dealing that had permeated Ukrainian politics.

A (Very) Abbreviated Summary Part 2: NATO

At TQC, every so often we switch gears, take a reprieve from the hot button topics that are typically the subjects of our posts, and replace them with something lighthearted and fun. With that in mind, for this week we have decided to offer our readers a chance to take a break and play TQC Trivia! Fruits & Veggies. Answers are provided below, along with interesting and fun supplemental information.

Fruits & Veggies

1) Q: What is the most popular fruit (measured by production) in the world?

A) Banana
B) Tomato
C) Avocado
D) Onion

2) Q: What is the most caloric vegetable in the world?

A) Potato
B) Pea
C) Garlic
D) Turnip

3) Q: Which U.S. state produces the most oranges?

A) Florida
B) Washington
C) Georgia
D) California

4) Q: Which U.S. state produces the most peaches?

A) South Carolina
B) New York
C) Georgia
D) California

5) Q: Which U.S. state produces the most blueberries?

A) Washington
B) Oregon
C) California
D) New Jersey

6) Q: What is the most expensive vegetable in America?

A) Pinto Beans
B) Asparagus
C) Radish
D) Avocado

7) Q: Are berries fruit?

A) Yes
B) No
C) Some
D) Most

8) Q: Which fruit contains the most protein?

A) Guava
B) Avocado
C) Peach
D) Apple

9) Q: Which is the least caloric vegetable?

A) Spinach
B) Alfalfa Sprouts
C) Kale
D) Watercress

10) Q: Which fruit contains the most sugar?

A) Strawberry
B) Lime
C) Fig
D) Lychee

ANSWERS
1) (B) Tomato. Contrary to popular belief, the tomato, scientifically known as Solanum lycopersicum, is a fruit. Worldwide, ~180 million metric tons of tomatoes are harvested each year, earning it the distinction of world’s most popular fruit. The versatile tomato is a good source of vitamin C, vitamin K (helps with blood clotting), and an antioxidant called lycopene, which is understood to have anti-inflammatory and other health benefits. Bananas rank number two. Avocados do not crack the top 15. Onions are not fruits.

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.

On Thursday April 7, an Islamic extremist walked into a crowded bar in downtown Tel Aviv, Israel shot two innocent Israelis to death, and wounded ten others. Regrettably, this attack was not atypical. Since late March, 14 Jews have been murdered in Israel, in four separate terrorist attacks. Numerous others have been seriously injured.

After the attack in Tel Aviv, Israeli law enforcement officers located the culprit and shot him dead. If the attacks continue, Israel will surely continue to respond and take stronger countermeasures, including using lethal force.

Despite the atrocities taking place in Israel ahead of Passover and the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, many people are unaware of their happenings.

Unbalanced Reporting

A government taking action to protect its citizens in response to terrorist attacks is normal. What is abnormal is that time, and again, when Islamic radicals target Israelis, the mainstream press all but ignores it. However, when Israel inevitably responds (and regrettably lives are lost), Israeli “aggression” is often the lead headline across news outlets, thereby making Israel look like the culpable antagonist.

Per the norm, the mainstream press has been loath to report the recent terrorist attacks. The Twittersphere has been eerily quiet. When questioned why, many news outlets responded that they did in-fact report what was happening in Israel, and technically, they would be correct. An astute reader might locate a short article in the middle of a newspaper sandwiched between an advert and another unremarkable story, or on a webpage after a few clicks.

When Israel responds, the story will most likely be front-page news or at the top of an internet landing page. Then, “human rights activists” will lambast Israel for responding “out of proportion” or in an “unbalanced” way. At TQC, we find such accusations odd. As any other sovereign nation would do if its citizens were under attack, Israel defends them. Like few other sovereign nations do, Israel always exercises tremendous restraint when doing so.

Eggs are an American staple. They are cheap, nutritious, and ubiquitous. Any retailer that sells foodstuffs, from gargantuan supercenters to a corner bodega, a budget store to high end grocer, is sure to carry a wide variety of eggs. And for good reason. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Americans consume ~300 eggs per person each calendar year, up from ~250 in 1991. (The highest per capita rate of egg consumption in the US was ~400, in 1945.)

Americans’ penchant for eggs and their increased interest in how food is sourced, have resulted in an egg marketing plethora. Manufacturers slap a dizzying array of labels on their egg cartons. To that end, have you ever been mystified, even overwhelmed by labels declaring a container of eggs you’re eyeing as “organic” or “omega-3 enriched” or “free-range, free-roaming or pasture-raised?” We certainly have. What about “cage-free or certified humane.” What does all this jargon mean? Is it just world salad, or truly meaningful when determining what kind of egg to use in a salad?

We decided to find out. But before we detail our findings, let us first introduce three other oddities of the egg industry that directly affects egg aficionados everywhere: Size, Ratings, and Color.

Size

The USDA ascribes six different weight classes per dozen shelled eggs. From smallest to largest they are peewee, small, medium, large, extra-large, and jumbo.

Peewee: 15 oz. These eggs come from younger hens who lay eggs intermittently. They are almost impossible to find in grocery stores.

Small: 18 oz. Small eggs are also known as “pullet eggs.” Like Peewees, they are not readily available in most stores.

Medium: 21 oz. The smallest eggs consumers can find at most supermarkets.

Large: 24 oz. The most common egg. Most cooking recipes assume the chef will be using large eggs.

Extra-large: 27 oz. Sometimes baking recipes specifically call for extra-large eggs.

Jumbo eggs: 30 oz. The largest eggs available for public consumption. They are not available in all markets but are easier to find than peewees and small eggs.

On Monday May 2, Politico released a leaked draft opinion from the SCOTUS penned by judge Samuel Alito. Its authenticity was corroborated by Chief Justice Roberts. The opinion suggested the high court will overturn Roe v Wade when it formally rules on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization this summer.

Draft opinions are not final; justices can and do change their minds. Nonetheless, if the opinion becomes law, a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion would be nullified. Instead, individual states would determine if the procedure can take place within their respective borders.

After the SCOTUS draft found its way into the public domain, unsurprisingly staunch pro-lifers were elated, while steadfast pro-choice supporters were furious. Notwithstanding, liberal states concentrated in the northeast and west coasts have already committed to maintaining and expanding abortion access. In contrast, thirteen red states have legislation pending to make abortion illegal if Roe is reversed.

This post will not debate the legal and moral underpinnings of abortion. Those arguments have endured for thousands of years – Hippocrates was pro-life, Aristotle was pro-choice – and will continue for the foreseeable future. However, despite the rage and vitriol espoused by extremists on both sides of the abortion divide, many Americans actually have centrist points of view surrounding abortion, a procedure that ~23% of American women undergo at least once before the age of 45. To note:

• Most Americans (60%) believe that abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester.

• Only a small minority (13%) of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in the 3rd trimester.

• While ~50% of Americans see abortion as morally wrong, only 20% believe it should be outlawed.

SCOTUS Leaks

After Politico dropped their legal bomb, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, "I can’t emphasize enough, as someone who has covered this court for 30 years, who’s written two books on the court, there has never been a leak anything like this…There’s never been a leak of a vote — much less an actual opinion, much less in a case of this significance.” Mr. Toobin is not entirely correct. A leak of this magnitude is undoubtedly exceptional, especially given the politically charged nature of the case. That said, while extremely rare, SCOTUS leaks are not entirely unprecedented.

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.

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:

Recently on a Saturday morning, I walked into my local Duane Reade in Manhattan to pick up a prescription. The pharmacy opened at 9 am; I had ~10 minutes to burn. I sat in a folding chair a few feet from the pharmacy counter and casually perused my phone for news headlines. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a man casually placing an array of goods into a plastic garbage bag; oblivious to the prying eyes of the Duane Reade employee looking scornfully at him.

I looked up. There were still a few minutes until the pharmacy opened so I decided to strike up a conversation with the Duane Reade worker. She told me this man was a “regular.” “A regular,” I asked? “Yes”, she said, and went on to detail his routine: He casually walks into the store, fills a bag full of items to his liking (or with the highest resale value) that have a cumulative dollar value of just < $1,000, to ensure his crime is only a misdemeanor, and walks out. (In NY State, 4th degree grand larceny is defined as theft over $1,000 and below $3,000.)

No Consequences

The Duane Reade employee was pleasant and eager to converse. As such, we continued our conversation for a while longer. While shaking her head in disbelief she said, “if I took a can of Pringles without paying for it, I’d get fired. This guy walks into the store, steals $999 dollars’ worth of stuff, doesn’t even hide the fact that he’s stealing in broad daylight, and without a second thought walks out of the store with a bag full of stolen merchandise.”

I then shook my head in disbelief and asked if employees ever tried stopping him. “We are not allowed” she sighed. Then I asked if they even bother calling the police. She told me they do, but he’s usually gone before they arrive. “Occasionally they arrest him, but he is back on the streets in < 24 hours.”

Unfortunately, incidents like these are now commonplace in New York City. Indeed, we have reached an inflection point where repeat offenders for shoplifting and other petty crimes face so few consequences, that it has emboldened them to commit even more crimes.

Major League Baseball (MLB) is often referred to as America’s National Pastime. It is also a treasure for statisticians and data geeks alike. Indeed, baseball statistics carefully logged from over 218,000 games spanning 150 years, are available free of charge to anybody. In fact, many baseball teams hire “quants” to parse through and reconcile the raw data to obtain an edge against the competition. Probability and Statistics professors incorporate the data into their course offerings. Sports writers and everyday fans use it to compare players over multiple generations and help decide who reaches the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Some of our readers do not like baseball; we do not care for it much ourselves. However, a cool thing about baseball is one need not be a fan to marvel at the sheer magnitude of meticulously recorded statistics and how they are applied across various disciplines for learning and fun.

To make this trivia more relevant for non-fans, we have refrained from mentioning too many specific players. Instead, we focused on interesting facts and data points. Answers are provided below, along with fascinating supplemental information.

1) In baseball, what does “hit for a cycle” mean?

A) Smashing 4 home runs in one game.
B) Hitting a single, double, triple, and home run in the same game.
C) Walking 4 times in the same game.
D) Hitting a home run in 4 consecutive games.

2) What is a “no-hitter,” and can a pitcher toss a no-hitter and lose the game?

A) When a pitcher does not allow any batter on the opposing team to reach a base, no.
B) When a pitcher does not allow any batter on the opposing team to get a hit, yes.
C) When a pitcher does not allow any batter on the opposing team to reach base, yes.
D) When a pitcher does not allow any batter on the opposing team to get a hit, no.

3) Has a major league pitcher ever struck out all 27 batters in a nine-inning regulation game? If not, what are the most batters a pitcher has struck out in one game?

A) No, 21
B) Yes
C) No, 20
D) No, 15

4) How old was the youngest person to ever play in a MLB game?

A) 18
B) 17
C) 21
D) 15

5) What are the most consecutive MLB games played by a National League player?

A) 2,632
B) 2,130
C) 1,207
D) 807

6) What is the rarest MLB feat?

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.

In the United States, over 100,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant; many will die – including over 6,000 patients this year alone - before they are lucky enough to receive one.

Researchers are working diligently to alleviate the organ shortage. For example, doctors are experimenting by transplanting genetically modified pig organs into brain-dead humans. Another tantalizing possibility is lab-grown organs. However, these and other research into the field is preliminary and yet to enter clinical trials, and fraught with ethical issues.

This then begs the question: can and should anything be done today to remedy the deadly supply/demand imbalance for human organs? In our view, the answer is yes.

A market-based system to buy and sell certain body parts would help correct an imbalance that kills ~6,000 Americans per year. Horrified at this suggestion? Prima facie, we were too.

There are certainly moral and “ick” factors that surface. But after removing emotion from the calculus, we concluded that buying and selling certain body parts was indeed an appropriate solution. Before we argue the merits for an organ exchange, let us introduce a few interesting facts about organ transplantation in America:

Key Facts

• According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), in 2021, 41,354 organ transplants were performed in America.

• When an organ becomes available, primary deciding factors regarding allocation are need, location and compatibility.

• Since data collection began in 1988, ~850,000 organ transplants have been performed.

• In 1954, the kidney was the first organ to be successfully transplanted, followed by the liver (‘67), heart (’68), and lung (’83).

• Organ “rejection” was – and still is – a primary concern for recipients. The first effective medicine to combat rejection (by suppressing the immune system) was Cyclosporine, introduced in 1983.

• According to the American Transplant Foundation, “organs that can be donated after death are the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas, small intestines, hands, face and uterus. Tissues include corneas, skin, middle ear veins, heart valves, tendons, ligaments, bones, and cartilage.”

• The most bestowed organ from living donors are kidneys. Other organs that living donors can offer are portions of lungs, livers, pancreas, and intestines.

• ~6,500 living organ donor transplants are performed each year, ~33% of recipients are not related to the donor.

• Kidneys are the most transplanted organ, followed by livers, and hearts.

• The cornea is the most transplanted tissue, over 40,000 transplants take place per year.

Organ Exchanges

Organs can lawfully be purchased for research. A market for organs that can be donated by the living does not exist and is currently outlawed in the United States (and everywhere else except Iran). This should not be.

The thought of an exchange to buy and sell organs certainly has an “ick” factor, but the indisputable facts are these: There is an acute shortage of organs in America. This translates into over 100,000 people currently on a waitlist for a transplant; with ~5 needy people added each hour.

Worse, ~6,000 Americans die annually – and in our view unnecessarily - or ~17 everyday, waiting for an organ transplant. See the table below for a snapshot of mismatches for key organs:

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.

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").”

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.”

Chess: a thinking man’s (and woman’s) game of intellect, patience, and prestige; a mechanism to exercise one’s brain. Chess is global. Hundreds of millions of amateur players partake. Professionals play in sanctioned tournaments – in person and online - that pit the very best in the world against each other.

Although quite popular, Chess is a staid game. News typically stays out of the mainstream press and is relegated to chess focused newsletters and websites; matches are rarely televised. Of late, however, chess has been embroiled in a salacious cheating scandal. Before we delve into specifics, let us first explore a brief history of chess, and more.

History

The antecedent to modern day chess was a game called Chaturanga, that originated in India in the 7th century. It was a tactical game though the precise rules remain a mystery. However, what is widely accepted is that Chaturanga was the precursor not only to chess, but also to other popular board games like Xiangqi, Shogi, and Makruk. Chaturanga then spread to Persia. From there Persian traders introduced the game to Europe, and beyond.

Before modern-day Chess came into being around the year 1500, the Queen, originally called a “ferz,” in Farsi (Persian), was the weakest piece on the board. Bishops were also weak; both pieces were slow-moving. As a result, the games progressed at a glacial pace.

At the beginning of the 16th century, the rules changed. As many people are familiar, The ferz – now referred to as a Queen – became the game’s strongest, most versatile piece. The Bishop also became a key piece, permitted to move diagonally across the entire length of the board.

Benjamin Franklin helped popularize Chess in America. An ardent supporter of the game, In 1750 he penned an essay entitled The Morals of Chess. In it, he argued that Chess could help in many facets of one’s mental development and advocated for a strict moral code among participants.

The first U.S. Chess Championship was held in 1845 for men and 1937 for women. The National Chess Foundation, later known as the USCF was established in 1939.

Bobby Fischer

American Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) is American history’s most famous chess player. He was also an unabashed racist, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and anti-American, who stated he was happy the attacks of 911 happened.

In September 1972, Fischer took part in a celebrated chess match against Russian Boris Spassky. The match was marketed as an intellectual cold war. Fischer won. In August of ’72, he graced the cover of Sports Illustrated (it was not the swimsuit issue). After that Fischer did not play in public for nearly two decades.

In 1992 Fischer played Spassky in a rematch. A purse of 5 million dollars was on the line; (still) the largest in chess history. The match was to be played in the former Yugoslavia. However, the United States had an embargo against Yugoslavia. Fischer was forbidden to play there, per U.S. order. Fischer physically spat on the order, played and won the match, and a warrant was subsequently issued for his arrest.

Fischer lived as a fugitive for the remainder of his life. First, he lived in Budapest, Hungary. From there he moved to the Philippines, then Japan. He was arrested in Tokyo for using an invalid U.S. passport and imprisoned. While in jail, Fischer married Miyoko Watai.

Thanks to a combination of deft political maneuvering and pockets of eccentric compassion, Fischer eventually managed to secure citizenship in Iceland. He lived for the remainder of his life. Fischer died at the age of 64 from kidney failure.

Chess Rankings

There are many rankings’ systems in chess including the Ingo System, Harkness System, and the Glicko Rating System. However, the most common ranking system is called the Elo System, invented by a man named Arpad Elo. The United States Chess Federation (USCF) adopted the Elo System in 1960. The international chess body (FIDE) followed suit in 1970.

Tired of hearing pseudo-intellectual business verbiage? Annoyed by the ever-increasing number of hip buzzwords concocted by management gurus to help - drumroll please – “streamline your business processes”? Indeed, some of the vernacular borders on the absurd. Other catchphrases do little but provide answers to everything but solutions to nothing.

At TQC, we are often left scratching our heads asking, “what does this word or phrase even mean?” To that end, we have compiled a list of ten overused business buzzwords that are seeping into everyday general usage, especially in (gasp) politics.

Word Salad

• Synergistic Benefits: A “tried and true” (another annoying phrase) favorite. It is often used in conjunction with business mergers and acquisitions (M&A) whereby the acquiring firm touts the benefits of the combined entity. Usually, however, these synergistic benefits fail to materialize. Empirical data clearly demonstrates that most mergers, especially those involving public entities, destroy rather than enhance, shareholder value. Expect the M&A machine to continue. Acquisitive CEOs are not inducted into the CEO hall of fame by not consummating deals.

• Value Added: This is one of the more irritating terms on our list. It is grossly generic, overused, and is incorporated into management vernacular when something measurable to quantify exactly what value is being added, typically does not exist.

• Not acceptable or will not be tolerated: The idea of something being “not acceptable” is reasonable. Our main gripe with these terms is that while many managers and politicians are quick to utter them, they almost never offer any substantive solutions to what is “not acceptable” and “will not be tolerated.” The result is the same snafus get repeated over and again.

A week before Christmas, the New York Times delivered a sobering gift to congressman Elect George Santos: an expose of lies, nefarious business dealings, and potential campaign finance violations.

Certainly, George Santos is far from the first lawmaker to lie about his credentials. Indeed, if we listed every U.S. senator and congressperson that fibbed on their resume, we would be writing for far longer than our readers would stay interested (please at least finish this post!). However, the degree to which Congressman-Elect George Santos embellished his credentials is nothing short of mendacious political prostitution.

After he was exposed, Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said, “The Ethics Committee MUST start investigating immediately.” His tweet made us chuckle. A “political ethics committee” is nothing short of an oxymoron. Additionally, Torres plans on introducing a bill that would make it a crime for candidates to fib about their qualifications. This then begs the question: if Torres’ bill becomes law, would enough honest candidates be left to fill all the vacancies?!

While being interviewed on television, Santos issued an unremarkable, canned apology, conceding that “my sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry.” In our view, that should not suffice.

The House of Representatives has the “ways and means,” excuse the pun, to investigate and issue civil penalties before a congressperson-elect is inaugurated. In this egregious case they should exercise that option. Most likely, they will not.

Unfortunately, Santos’ lies and the most common response to them represent a microcosm of what ails American politics. When a member of a political party sins, most members of their own party either clam up, shamelessly defend the subject, or deflect blame. Representatives of the rival party call for the subject to be guillotined. And vice versa. There is a gaping lack of consistency across political lines.

A Summary of Congressman-Elect Santos’ fantastical (and sort of amusing) lies are below:

• Claimed he is Jewish but was raised a practicing Catholic.

• Claimed his mother fled socialism in Europe.

• Claimed he attended the prep school Horace Mann.

• Claimed he graduated from Baruch College.

• Claimed he worked at Goldman Sachs.

• Claimed he worked at Citigroup.

• Claimed 9/11 took the life of his mother.

• Claimed he founded the not-for-profit organization Friends of Pets United.

I am Jew-ish

In his biography, George Santos claimed that he was a “proud American Jew.” When pressed, Santos said, “My heritage is Jewish, I’ve always identified as Jewish. I was raised a practicing Catholic…Even [though] I’ve not, not been raised a practicing Jew, I’ve always joked with friends and circles — even in the campaign, I’d say ‘Guys, I’m Jew-ish.’ Remember, I was raised Catholic.” Umm, say what?

To compound his gibberish, Santos also stated his familial name was Zabrovsky – proceeded to raise money under it – and that his grandparents changed their last name to Devolder. However, many sources could not find any evidence to substantiate this. A genealogist found “no sign of Jewish and/or Ukrainian heritage and no indication of name changes along the way.”

Socialism

In a radio interview in 2020, Mr. Santos claimed his mother left Europe to flee socialism. In another interview that year he said his mom immigrated to the US from Belgium. However, genealogical records reviewed by multiple news agencies show that his mother was born in Brazil. Said Santos, “My father fled socialism in Brazil. My mother fled socialism in Europe, and they came here and built a family. And today they can be proud to have a son who is a well accomplished businessman, who is now running for United States Congress. That’s something that wasn’t in the cards for my family.” The part about Santos running for congress is true. The rest is a farce.

Horace Mann

George Santos claimed he attended Horace Mann, a prep school in the Bronx, but had to withdraw four months before graduating because his family fell into financial distress during the housing bust in 2008. His explanation, “We were hit a little earlier on with the overleveraging of real estate. And the market started to implode. Um, and the first thing to go was the prep school. You know, you can’t afford a $2,500 tuition at that point, right? So anyway, um, I left school, uh, four months to graduation.” When contacted, a spokesman for Horace Mann said there was no evidence George Santos ever attended the school. Additionally, the tuition at Horace Mann is about 20x higher than $2500. And we could not find any lies about him receiving a scholarship!

The conclusion of 2022 marked The Quintessential Centrist’s fourth full year. At this time, we 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.

Last year was challenging. But true to our directive, we did not “take the fifth” and instead tackled some extremely hot-button topics, many of which elicited passionate responses on both sides of the political divide.

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 23 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: Lost In Transplantation, Lia Thomas, Make America Great Again, and Progressive Hypocrisy. 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.

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.)

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.”

Over four years ago, we posted our inaugural issue of The Quintessential Centrist. Our latest piece, Another Mass Shooting, marked our 150th post since TQC was launched to counter the stark polarization that permeates our political and journalistic discourse, particularly online.

Given the diluted, sensation-driven, 24/7 news cycle, it's crucial to reflect and reexamine hot-button topics from the past. To that end, this post will feature links to eleven past articles that generated voluminous amounts of commentary and debate amongst our readers, ordered by their publication date.

If you missed any of these essential pieces, we encourage you to take a moment and read them. If you have already done so, consider re-reading them and ask yourself if your views have changed.

It is important to note that when deciding to read an article, we implore everybody to finish what they started. Please don’t stop midway through an article if you encounter a viewpoint that upsets you or that you reject. Sometimes, readers challenge us when they disagree with our position. Of course, we welcome the feedback and encourage dialogue, but in some instances, it becomes apparent that the person stopped reading the article midway through.

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.

At TQC, every so often we switch gears, take a reprieve from the hot button topics that are typically the subjects of our posts, and replace them with something fun. With that in mind, for this week we have decided to offer our readers a chance to take a break and play TQC Trivia! The Periodic Table. Answers are provided below, along with interesting and fun supplemental information.

1) How many elements are on the periodic table?

A) 18
B) 108
C) 118
D) 1018

2) What was the first element discovered on the modern periodic table?

A) Oganesson (Og)
B) Hydrogen (H)
C) Cesium (Cs)
D) Molybdenum (Mo)

3) What is the most abundant element on planet Earth?

A) Oxygen (O)
B) Helium (He)
C) Potassium (K)
D) Hydrogen (H)

4) What is the rarest stable metal on the periodic table?

A) Uranium (U)
B) Astatine (At)
C) Francium (Fr)
D) Tantalum (Ta)

5) Which element is considered a “rare earth” metal?

A) Neodymium (Nd)
B) Gold (Au)
C) Silver (Ag)
D) Copper (Cu)

6) What is the most radioactive element?

A) Uranium (U)
B) Technetium (Tc)
C) Helium (He)
D) Polonium (Po)

7) What is the most unstable element?

A) Francium (Fr)
B) Neon (Ne)
C) Argon (Ar)
D) Radon (Rn)

8) What is the most conductive element?

A) Silver (Ag)
B) Copper (Cu)
C) Gold (Au)
D) Lead (Pb)

9) What element has the highest boiling point?

A) Helium (He)
B) Tungsten (W)
C) Scandium (Sc)
D) Palladium (Pd)

10) What is the heaviest element?

A) Gold (Au)
B) Praseodymium (Pr)
C) Germanium (Ge)
D) Oganesson (Og)

ANSWERS

1) (C) 118. Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) is credited with organizing elements into a periodic table. Back then 63 elements existed. Today the periodic table consists of 118 elements including four “super heavy” elements discovered after 2000. The modern periodic table is organized by atomic number – or the number of protons each contains - and grouped in vertical columns by elements with similar properties. A rudimentary breakdown is between metals and nonmetals (gasses). Metals are further grouped into alkali, alkali earth, transition, and so forth. Gasses are known as inert (18 of them) or other non-metallic, such as oxygen and nitrogen. Three elements: Bromine, Cesium, and Mercury, are liquid at room temperature.

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.

On June 29, by a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned affirmative action. No longer can colleges and universities use race as a factor for admissions since doing so violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, the SCOTUS decision did not apply to military academies (citing national security as the reason). Additionally, the decision allows colleges and universities to consider how an applicant’s race might have affected their life.

Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Nonetheless, the court’s decision outlawed affirmative action and reversed four-plus decades of legal precedent.

SCOTUS’ ruling was the culmination of a protracted effort spearheaded by Edward Blum, president of an organization called Students for Fair Admission (SFFA). In 2014, SFFA filed suit against Harvard (and the University of North Carolina) in 2014 alleging racial bias in the admissions process.

At TQC, we agree with SCOTUS’ decision to end affirmative action. However, we believe that scrapping race-conscious admissions should be done in conjunction with abolishing legacy admissions, applying wealth-based affirmative action (which is legal), and ending scholarships for what former Harvard president Larry Summers eloquently referred to as “aristocratic sports.”

Public Opinion

When SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade earlier this year, there was public outrage as most Americans disagreed with the high court.

In this case, protests have remained nuanced, which is not surprising because most Americans agree with SCOTUS’ ruling.

According to ABC News/Ipsos, 52% of Americans agree with the high court’s decision, approximately 33% disagree, and 16% are unsure. Broken down by party, 75% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents agreed with SCOTUS’ decision. Broken down by race, convincing majorities of Whites and Asian Americans support the ruling, Hispanics are split 50/50, while most Black Americans disagree.

Not surprisingly, most (but by no means all) Asians decried affirmative action. For them, it was a “double whammy” as they were penalized because of their race when applying to selective schools and were targets of racial discrimination in general, especially since the Covid pandemic.

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…”

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?

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.

We believe Donald Trump represents many of the worst elements of capitalism (at The Quintessential Centrist, we believe that despite its flaws, capitalism is by far the most effective system, besting socialism, communism, or any other "ism"). TQC will not consider endorsing Trump in the 2020 presidential election unless his opponent is a radical like Elizabeth Warren or socialist like Bernie Sanders.

The President of the United States must hold himself to standards that are materially above of what is expected of an ordinary citizen, regardless of the circumstances. Trump certainly has not adhered to the higher level of personal conduct that is a non-negotiable precondition to serve as Chief Executive of the United States. Frequently, his behavior is indicative of somebody who is thin skinned and downright infantile; this does not even include his terrible habit of tweeting about high level policy issues. To be sure, he has denigrated the office and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up; an impressive feat given the long lineage of ethically challenged men and women who have served in both chambers of congress.

As we have reiterated in past issues, at The Quintessential Centrist, 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 the past, TQC has supported both Democrats and Republicans on specific issues. On those occasions where we focus on specific politicians, our analysis is predicated on three important “P’s”: person, polices and principles, and not the party with which they happen to be affiliated.

Before illustrating where in our view President Trump is correct, we would like to preface those arguments with the following:

Overall, we are not Donald Trump supporters. We did not endorse Trump in ’16. This author did not vote for Trump (or Clinton) in the last presidential election. We explained why we favor centrist Howard Schultz and encouraged him to declare himself a formal candidate in our February 10th issue.

Two weeks ago, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) succeeded in disenfranchising her constituents, including many of her supporters, and bragged about it:

“Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.”

Of course, AOC was referring to her "successful" grassroots campaign to protest Amazon corporation's efforts to establish a beachhead, and thereby 25,000 quality jobs and ancillary benefits, in Long Island City. Not only were AOC’s efforts misguided, they were selfish and undemocratic; 70% of New Yorkers actually supported Amazon building a headquarters in their city. Even progressive New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio challenged Cortez:

“As a progressive my entire life — and I ain’t changing — I’ll take on any progressive anywhere that thinks it’s a good idea to lose jobs and revenue because I think that’s out of touch with what working people want….I came up watching the mistakes of progressives of the past, unfortunately what happened in this city when it almost went to bankruptcy in the 1970s. I saw all the times progressives did not show people effective governance and all the times progressives made the kinds of mistakes that alienated working people…”

Fellow Democrat and New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo chimed in:

“…a small group [of] politicians put their own political interests above their community – which poll after poll showed overwhelmingly supported bringing Amazon to Long Island City…”

One thing is for certain, congressional freshman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is certainly a sophomoric operator with whom to be reckoned. As a sitting congresswoman, she is in a position of power and influence. Regrettably, that authority, as we saw with Amazon, can be abused and used to the detriment of the very people she claims to champion.

Other than President Trump, no other U.S. politician has recently been so successful at generating controversy through a combination of self-serving misinformation, scaremongering and willful ignorance as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Though some on the far-left cannot seem to get enough of Ms. Cortez, she has repeatedly contradicted herself, showed a stunning lack of basic knowledge (or willful deceit) and proved to be highly hypocritical in her personal conduct. In AOC’s reality, it is ok if she is incorrect as long as she is wrong for the right reasons. Her message should supersede facts, which should not matter as much when living in President Trump’s America.

The Quintessential Centrist’s core mission involves offering readers an elevated discourse that blends news, careful analysis and viewpoints from the left, right, and center of the political continuum. There is a sizable contingent of centrist-Americans who are interested in compromise, open to reasonable ideas, and whose main objective is facilitating legislation that will benefit the country, bridging ideological differences and helping to unite our bitterly divided nation.

This week TQC presents six centrist ideas, that if implemented prudently and responsibly, have the potential to improve America by making our nation safer and more equitable for the majority of its citizens. These represent topics that The Quintessential Centrist intends to continue researching.

TAXES:
At TQC, we believe in a progressive tax code. People who earn more should pay more. However, a progressive tax code must be applied with levelheadedness and proportionality. We agree with the position taken by many on the right side of the aisle who argue against excessively high marginal tax rates. A disproportionate number of people who would bear the burden of all in marginal tax rates over 50% and / or be subjected to “wealth taxes” proposed by politicians on the left, are responsible for creating a disproportionate number of jobs in America. We must be careful not to impose a marginal tax so burdensome that it takes away job creators' economic incentive to offer employment opportunities for working Americans. That is suboptimal for all Americans. It is important to keep in mind: most higher earning salarymen and women in the United States already do pay significantly more taxes, as they should.

We align ourselves with many on the left side of the aisle who argue that although marginal tax rates are higher on the wealthy, it is unjust that certain rich individuals can use the tax code to their advantage and lower their tax rate to a level lower than what working class Americans pay, in some cases to 0%. Hedge Fund managers, Family Office principles and Private Equity partners are typically wealthy individuals. By utilizing “carried interest,” they can reinvest profits back into their respective entities vs. paying ordinary income tax on short-term capital gains. Real estate investors often use 1031 exchanges to roll proceeds from property sales into new physical assets thereby shielding their gains from income tax. At TQC, we do not begrudge those individuals for utilizing the existing tax code to lower their tax bill; any rational person would do so. That said, “carried interest,” 1031 exchanges and other unquestionably regressive loopholes in the tax code should be closed. Without debate, these loopholes disproportionality help wealthier Americans. Very few middle-class and working poor Americans benefit from these carve outs. We believe that is unfair to all Americans.

TERM LIMITS:
We support the introduction of term limits for members of the U.S. Congress & U.S Senators. Politics is the second oldest profession in the world. Unfortunately, it shares many properties with the oldest profession in the world. Too many politicians on both sides of the aisle allocate too much of their human capital selling themselves rather than performing the tasks and achieving the results they were elected to do. Instead, they often draft and vote for legislation that serves little purpose but to afford themselves a higher probability of getting re-elected while selling out the majority of the people they were voted into office to represent. Of course, there are exceptions to this generalization. Certain Democratic and Republican lawmakers do put the American public before themselves; sadly, they are in the minority. Term limits are a simple, sensible idea that will better align politicians' intentions with the will of the people who voted them into office.

The boarding process today on all commercial airliners is completely irrational. Consider the following: in return for purchasing a first or business class ticket or being a premier rewards card holder, a customer is granted the privilege of boarding.... first? This makes little sense to me.

If an air traveler is about to give up all control of his or her well-being and board an overcrowded flying tuna can, with parts constructed by the lowest bidder, piloted by a complete stranger, with germ-tainted re-circulated air, with 1/4 inch of aluminum separating them from sudden death at over 35,000 feet, they should have no interest whatsoever in wanting to board first. Wouldn’t they want to board last? Why spend any more time on that plane than need be ?

I’ve discussed my argument with some peers. The most common pushback I get has to do with baggage. Most airlines charge for checked bags. As a result, any bag that can fit in the overhead spaces is placed there, to avoid paying a fee and having to wait to claim your luggage at one’s final destination. Boarding first guarantees you will find space for your luggage. I understand and appreciate this argument, but it doesn’t suffice, especially given how airlines price their seats today. Most basic economy tickets are situated in the rear of the aircraft. Most people place their luggage at or near the row they are assigned. Furthermore, in the business class section of a plane, only those passengers who purchased business class seats can use the overhead bins in that section. Bottom line: people who purchase premium tickets or hold a rewards card should be called to board last, not first.

"It is indeed ironic that tenured economics professors lecture students about the wondrous efficiencies of a free market, but function in a closed ecosystem of their own. When the time comes to discuss oligopolies and cartels, what better example to use than themselves?" - TQC

When the Quintessential Centrist published a piece on the student loan crisis, it touched on some ancillary topics which deserved greater attention. Tenured positions for college and university professors was amongst the drivers to which we alluded that were unnecessarily driving up the cost of a college education and thus, leaving a generation of young Americans bogged down by student debt. For the purposes of this discussion, we provide a brief history of tenure, assess some of its pros & cons, and ultimately delve into whether it makes sense to maintain what many see as an arcane system.

Tenure, which essentially is lifelong guaranteed employment, first emerged in the US in the post-Civil War era as a means of emphasizing the importance of higher education. At the time, the tenure model adopted by German universities was favored by American educators and that model has remained fundamentally unchanged to this day. In the US, the practice of tenure was institutionalized with the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915. At inception, freedom of thought and speech without the threat of persecution was one of the central tenets of the AAUP. Faculty members were protected from termination should their academic research and resultant conclusions not be met favorably. In other words, this was the academic equivalent of First Amendment rights.

Not to bore our readers with exhaustive history, but this is a salient and fundamental piece of the story. By 1940 the AAUP formalized a Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The Statement defined tenure as “(1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.” Proponents of tenure point to the wording of this statement as it emphasized both academic freedom as well as economic security.

Furthermore, tenure can add to the cache of institutions of higher education. The process by which to obtain tenure is rigorous. It typically requires in-depth and meticulous independent research and approval through a peer review process, which hopefully leads to a candidate being awarded a PhD. As more published, recognized experts in their respective field add value to a college’s reputation, a positive feedback loop ignites, which leads to the most qualified students vying for admission, driving benefactors to write big checks, and the school to build even more comprehensive research facilities. This attracts the best and the brightest in academia looking for a place to hang their hat and more prospective students to apply.

Shoplifting & Theft

American retailers lose ~$50 billion dollars per year courtesy of theft. Shoplifting accounts for most (36.5%) of those losses. Employee theft, administrative errors and vendor fraud are responsible for most of the balance. According to Shopify, the most-shoplifted items include:

• Electronics
• Cigarettes
• Pregnancy Tests
• Handbags
• Weight loss pills
• Pain relievers
• Infant formula
• Alcohol
• Razors

"Thou shalt not steal" is one of the Ten Commandments of the Jewish Torah (known to Christians as the first five books of the Old Testament), which are widely understood as moral imperatives by legal scholars, Jewish scholars, Catholic scholars, and Post-Reformation scholars. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men's labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property.”

• The Bible is world's most shoplifted book. Most are swiped from hotel rooms.

Dangerous Animals

The Cone Snail, sometimes referred to as the “cigarette snail,” is a mollusk that typically measures ~5 inches in length. It is considered the 9th most dangerous animal in the world by Conde Nast Traveler (CNT). If you are ever on holiday in the Caribbean, you might be unlucky enough to meet one, especially near the vicinity of a coral reef. Cone Snails are gorgeous animals defined by their peculiar shape and beautiful shell. Look, but do not touch; they are one of the most toxic creatures on earth. Fortunately, only a few people have ever had the misfortune of being stung by one (there is no antivenom). If you happen to get stung by a Cone Snail, do not bother going to the ER, you will be dead on arrival. Instead, smoke a cigarette. The Cone Snail’s highly toxic and concentrated venom causes paralysis then death in the time it takes the average smoker to finish a cigarette, hence the snails nickname.

Ever since high school, I have taken a keen interest in physical fitness, worked out consistently, read different books and periodicals and consulted with many fitness pros to broaden my knowledge base on the subject. I have logged thousands of hours in the gym testing out numerous weight lifting (anaerobic), aerobic, stretching and dieting routines, using myself as a human guinea pig. Since then, I have tailored many strength training and conditioning programs, stretching routines, and given copious amounts of nutritional advice to family, friends and fellow gym rats. When I was in my twenties and early thirties, a disproportionate amount of inquiries that came my way were about lifting weights and stretching. Once I turned 40, the majority of questions I received had more to do with diet and weight loss.

Mythos

Does a “diet” exist that people with an average amount of willpower can actually stick to over the long term, does not deprive them of their favorite foods and is well-balanced? The short answer is “no.” Indeed, the number of get slim quick gimmicks, get lean fast fads, and other enticing offers that conveniently find their way into our inboxes (talk about “junk” mail), mailboxes, across our computer screens or in books and magazines is mind boggling, can be overwhelming and most importantly, are of little long term practical value. The notion of the term “diet” is temporary, which is why they often fail; it inherently implies a short-term solution to eating and lifestyle choices that will revert to the mean. Below is a sampling of three of the most famous diets:

The South Beach Diet: In this diet, the subject must eliminate “bad carbs” derived in part from sodas, candy and cookies and eat protein, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and “good carbs” derived in part from brown rice, corn and legumes.

The Paleo Diet: Commonly referred to as the “caveman diet.” Only foods that existed hundreds and thousands of years ago before the advent of modern food processing technology, are allowed to be consumed. Meat, fish, nuts and vegetables are permissible. All grains and processed foods are not.

The Atkins Diet: The most famous of all fads. The original Atkins Diet simply instructed its participants to avoid all carbohydrates; fried eggs and bacon where fine. The new Atkins Diet is “healthier.” It includes leaner protein and “good carbs.” However, whole grains are not allowed until later, once the dieter enters the “maintenance phase.”

All three of these diets are rigid, not particularly well balanced, and close to impossible to stick to over the long term. The primary reason is because they all deprive of us of some of our favorite foods. That is no fun and tends to put people in rotten moods.

One of the costliest and, unfortunately, consistent mistakes many investors make is to purchase a stock and employ a “stop” price, where they will sell their stock if it declines by a predetermined amount, typically 5% or 10%. Arbitrary stop prices potentially preserve some capital in the short term, but often prevent investors from making multiples of the money they saved from using the “stop” price, in the long term. In fact, utilizing a “stop loss” will almost guarantee that an investor will grossly underperform an appropriate benchmark consisting of a basket of stocks. The reason for this is simple: almost every single publicly listed stock that doubles, triples, quadruples, quintuples or even sextuples over a one, two, five etc., year time horizon declines at least 20% in between doubling, tripling, quadrupling or quintupling, etc., at least once, and often, many times.

Absent a corporate takeover, the results of a late stage clinical trial for a small biotech company, or another atypical event, stock price gains (and losses) are almost never linear. Let’s use a few real-life examples to help frame our argument:

Over the last five years, the shares of Netflix (NFLX) have gained over 500%. However, in between quintupling during half a decade, NFLX suffered a 30% drawdown in March/April of 2014, a 38% sell-off in August of 2015, and plummeted 45% in 2018. Had an investor sold NFLX during anyone of those three corrections they would have missed out on a large percentage of NFLX’s price appreciation. Over the last five years, the shares of Amazon (AMZN) have risen over 550%! However, in between almost sextupling in those five years, AMZN lost 28% in January/February of 2016, 13% in August of 2017, 16% in March of 2018 and 33% in the 4th quarter of 2018. Had an investor dumped AMZN at any point during those four acute sell-offs, they would have forfeited a substantial sum of money.

Worth noting is that this phenomenon is not just limited to technology or biotech stocks. It applies to blue chip companies as well. For example, the shares of Bank of America (BAC) have doubled since 2014. But in between generating a 100% return over a five year period, BAC corrected 17% in April/May of 2014, 17% in August of 2015, 40% in January/February of 2016, 25% in June/July of 2016 and 33% in 2018. Had an investor panicked and sold BAC on a negative headline during any one of the examples listed above, they could very well be sitting on a realized loss, despite BAC doubling over the last five years. Even stodgy, safe and steady Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), one of the lowest volatility stocks in the S&P500, has grinded out a gain of 33% over the last 5 years (investors were also treated to dividends). However, in between rising 33%, JNJ traded down 10% in September/October of 2014, 10% in January of 2016, 10% in the last 6 months of 2016, 14% in January of in 2018 and 14% in December of 2018. If an investor sold JNJ during any one of these drawdowns, their investment portfolio might very well be in need of a JNJ band-aid.

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.

Every election cycle lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle often campaign on vague platitudes, pretending to be change agents who will finally catalyze transformative action on a range of issues like:

“Making the American dream accessible again.”
“Providing opportunities to all Americans.”
"Ensuring our children don’t bear the burden of our profligacy.”
"Supporting middle class wage growth.”
"Making education affordable.”
"Lowering the cost of healthcare.”
"Preserving the planet and protecting our resources.”

And so on...

Aside from a shrinking minority of centrists in Washington who actually work to build consensus across party lines, Republicans and Democrats have their own distinctive ideas about how to facilitate these grand plans. Unfortunately, the only consistent aspect of all these respective ideas is that they are overly grandiose, lack important details, economically unviable and politically dead on arrival. So in the run up to election day, we are promised the same things we hear in every election cycle but rarely, if ever, witness any substantive action once lawmakers are voted in to (or out of) office.

What if we told you there was a simple way to translate these grand intentions into reality with a politically sensible approach that would be agreeable across party lines? There is. And it cost nothing.

Democrats and Republicans can and should work together to repeal unnecessary and prohibitively expensive occupational licensing laws. When being licensed is in the public's interest, reciprocity agreements between states should be enacted. Lawmakers should also eliminate arbitrary education requirements for most trades. In doing so, they would actually endorse the economic and fiscal pillars that underpin conservative arguments while also appealing to progressive and egalitarian causes underpin liberal viewpoints.

License to…Shampoo

In the 1950’s, very few (~5%) professional occupations required a license at the state level. Today ~30% of all professional occupations require some sort of license across the 50 states in the union. The result: a complex, grossly inefficient web of inconsistent state and local laws pertaining to professional licensing. A report prepared by the Obama Administration’s Council of Economic Advisers & Department of Labor highlighted the fact that “over 1,100 occupations are regulated in at least one state, but fewer than 60 are regulated in all 50 states – suggesting that many of these requirements may not be necessary."

In the majority of states, a person must have a high school diploma or a GED to become a barber. This arbitrary requirement is absurd, unnecessary and discriminatory. Why would earning a high school diploma (or GED) make anybody more (or less) qualified to cut somebody’s hair? Solving basic algebra won’t render someone more qualified to eradicate a split end or sculpt a mohawk. There is no causal relationship to suggest this. This onerous requirement merely prevents somebody from practicing a trade and earning a decent wage.

Barbers aren’t likely to be replaced by robots anytime soon. Pursuing a career as a barber ostensibly allows those who are seeking to make an honest living to do so. Prohibiting someone from becoming a barber because they lack a degree is senseless and discriminates against people who lack the aforementioned academic credentials.

On October 8th, 2017 the former senior senator from Tennessee Bob Corker tweeted, “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.” True as that might be, at The Quintessential Centrist, we cannot help but point out the irony in this tweet. For in the state of Tennessee, “permission to shampoo hair requires taking two exams, at a cost of $140, plus a $50 annual fee. On top of that, someone must take 300 hours of training ‘on the theory and practice of shampooing,’ at a cost of upwards of $3,000 for the tuition." But here is the kicker: no facility in the state currently even offers a course in 'shampoo tech.' Effectively, their only options would be "a) to go through the more rigorous and expensive process (1,500 hours and tens of thousands of dollars in tuition) of obtaining a cosmetology license, or b) to wash hair illegally…(and) face up to six months in prison and a $500 criminal fine, or a $1,000 civil penalty…” Apparently, the adult day care business is flourishing quite nicely in the Volunteer state.

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.

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."

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.

This Sunday November 10th, at 1PM EST, The New York Giants will host The New York Jets at MetLife Stadium, the venue in East Rutherford, NJ, where both teams typically play their home games. To say that both organizations are struggling would be an understatement. Sadly, struggling is nothing new for the “same old Jets,” the widely-used catchphrase fans use to describe the anticipation (finally) of success, only to be let down, time and again.

New York Jets

Many die-hard Jet fans – including this one - point to a divisional playoff game vs the Cleveland Browns in 1986 when the football gods decided to put the Jets in the penalty box. The men in green were leading by 10 points late in the 4th quarter. The Browns had the ball and were facing a second down and 24 yards to go. Star defensive end Mark Gastineau sacked Browns quarterback Bernie Kosar; it appeared the Browns would be in a desperate 3rd and 24. But a flag was thrown; Gastineau was penalized for roughing the passer, a foul that is (too) common today but relatively rare back then. The Jets protested to no avail. The Browns subsequently drove down the field and scored a touchdown. After stopping the Jets and getting the ball back, the Browns tied the game with seconds remaining on the game clock. In the first overtime neither team scored. The game was settled with ~2 minutes remaining in the second overtime when Browns kicker Mark Mosely booted a 27-yard field goal to seal the victory. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Jets have not won their division (the AFC East) since 2002, and only once before then in 1998. They have not made the playoffs in almost 10 years when a then over-hyped quarterback named Marc Sanchez “lead” the team to back-to-back AFC Championship games in ’09 & ’10. In reality, it was a stout defense and power running game that enabled the Jets to advance that far. A microcosm of the Jets folly was Sanchez’s famous “butt fumble” that occurred on Thanksgiving Day in 2012, on national television, the seminal moment in a 49-19 lashing courtesy of the New England Patriots. Another embarrassing spectacle in Jets history was the “fake spike” engineered by Dan Marino and the Miami Dolphins in 1994. That play propelled the Dolphins to victory and took the air out of the Jets season.

Over the past three decades, Jet supporters have been teased on numerous occasions as it appeared that “greener” pastures lay ahead. There have even been brief windows of success within the multi-decade malaise of New York Jets football. In addition to the back-to-back AFC Championship appearances, the Monday Night Miracle will forever be a bright spot in Jets history. Unfortunately, one of the few things the Jets have done consistently during this span, even during times of reprieve, is come up short. In 1998 after winning the AFC East, the Jets were one game away from reaching the Super Bowl. The Denver Broncos ended that possibility by scoring 23 unanswered points in the second half of the AFC Championship game, which resulted in a 23-10 Broncos victory. In 2004, (historically) reliable kicker Doug Brien missed two 4th quarter field goals that would have sent the Jets to the AFC title game.

In a 2013 pre-season game, Marc Sanchez was inexplicably playing behind the 2nd team offensive line. They proved porous. Near the end of the game, Sanchez absorbed a hard hit and injured his shoulder. Rookie Geno Smith was summoned and started all 16 games of the season. The team finished 8-8. Smith improved in 2014 but had a weak supporting-cast. The Jets struggled and finished with just 4 wins against 12 losses. Nevertheless, the future appeared bright with the young talented Smith under center. Expectations were lofty leading up to the 2015 season. However, in a stunning example of intra-squad dysfunction, during training camp of that year, Smith was involved in an altercation with teammate. Reserve linebacker IK Enemkpali was enraged that Smith failed to repay him $600 for a plane ticket to a football camp. Unable to settle their differences through dialogue, a fight ensued. Enemkpali punched Smith in the face. Smith suffered a broken jaw. His season was over before it started, his fate as a Jet all but sealed. He is currently a backup for the Seattle Seahawks.

Selecting 1st round draft busts is one area where the Jets have excelled. This has been a specialty of Jets management since quarterback Richard Todd was selected in the first round of the 1976 draft. Other notable 1st round busts include WR Lam Jones (’80), RB Roger Vick (’87), RB Blair Thomas (’90), QB Browning Nagle (’91), DT Dewayne Robertson (’03), LB Vernon Gholson (’08), DB Kyle Wilson (’10), DE Quinton Coples (’12) and DB Dee Milliner (’13). While QB Christian Hackenberg was not selected in the first round - he was a second-round pick - he deserves special mention. The Jets selected Hackenberg with the 51st pick of the 2016 draft. He was signed to a four-year contract worth $4.66 million, with $1.6 million guaranteed. The Jets cut him after two seasons. He never stepped on the field in a regular season game. He is currently out of football. Jets management accomplished an even more stunning feat of ineptitude by selected Jachai Polite in the 3rd round of this year’s draft. Polite was given a $1.12 million dollar signing bonus. After paying $100,000 in fines for being late to team meetings, the Jets released Polite before this season even began! He is currently on the Los Angeles Raiders’ practice squad.

At the Quintessential Centrist, our goal is to furnish you with fresh perspectives from across the political, economic and social spectrum. We strive to promote ideals and tenets of the center - where compromise is often found - through our in-depth columns, articles and analysis.

The internet, print, broadcast, and social media can all be sources of interesting and timely information. However, TQC believes that books often times contain some of the most pertinent and thought-provoking facts, figures and opinions. Some books are packed with quantitative information and hard data. These books we find help us buoy (or challenge) our arguments and in some cases, tightly held beliefs. Other books are more qualitative in nature; typically adding value from a top down perspective, incorporating ideas and values across the ideological spectrum. The very best titles challenge us to think objectively, critically, self-reflect, and potentially change our minds. Below we highlight a few of our favorite books we have read over the past year.

Energy and Civilization: A History by Vaclav Smil

The 35th of an incredible 36 books penned thus far in his illustrious career; Vaclav Smil, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba in Canada, offers his readers a fascinating history lesson on mankind, their relationship with, and consumption of, energy and natural resources. Be forewarned, this book is data heavy and granular in presentation. It requires the readers undivided attention. That said, it is well worth investing the time to read it as it is jam packed with important facts and figures. Energy and Civilization helped us examine more critically man’s relationship with the planet he lives on, and off.

Spousonomics: Using Economics to Master Love, Marriage, and Dirty Dishes by Jenny Anderson & Paula Szuchman

Authored by New York Times reporter and Gerald Loeb Award winner Jenny Anderson and Paula Szuchman, former managing editor of The Daily Beast and Page 1 editor at The Wall Street Journal, Spousonomics is a very fun and informative book that uses classic economic principles to target, tackle and remedy issues that arise in almost every marriage. Do not be deterred if you have never studied finance or economics. The examples given in this book are in layman’s terms (not theoretical numeric formulas), easy to understand, and applicable to “real life” situations.

Solitary by Albert Woodfox

Albert Woodfox, is a human rights activist and part of the “Angola 3.” Woodfox spent 40 years in solitary confinement at Louisiana’s infamous Angola Prison for a crime he did not commit. During his time at Angola, Woodfox endured unimaginable physical and psychological torture. This book captures the endurance of the human spirit, America’s (often) unfair and biased legal system, it’s (sometimes) ugly history, as well as progress. We do not agree with all of Woodfox’s arguments, especially concerning capitalism, but we recommend reading his memoir.

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.

2019 was the first full year for The Quintessential Centrist (TQC). We would like to thank all of our readers for playing an integral role in our growing platform, an online forum that incorporates ideas and values across the ideological spectrum.

TQC is a work in progress. 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.

Over the course of 2019, 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 47 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. We were extremely pleased with results of TQC’s Position On Gun Control. Many staunch conservatives accused us of being closeted liberals. An overwhelming number of liberals accused us of being a mouthpiece for the right. Hence, our piece on gun control was “on target.” Perhaps not so surprisingly, TQC’s Position On Abortion, proved catalytic for similar responses from both sides. This reassured us that we split the goalposts down the middle on that always controversial issue. We also received equally representative takeaways from Super Bowl LIII, Cash Bail Should Be Abolished, Fast Fashion Fails To Look In The Mirror, Planes, Trains & Emotional Support Animals, Touchy Subjects, and Religious Freedom vs Discrimination.

Between the coronavirus, divisive politics, climate change, terrorism, turbulent stock markets and a myriad other serious concerns, it is understandable that many Americans are feeling apprehensive and, perhaps, even out of control. At The Quintessential Centrist, we have opined on the aforementioned subjects and will continue to fulfill our mandate to offer readers ideas that blend news, analysis and viewpoints from the left, right and center of the political continuum. That said, we wanted this issue of TQC to give our readers a reprieve from the recent anxiety inducing newsflow. Go on, take a few minutes to relax, be amused, and learn a thing or two. Below you will find some fun facts about words that make up the English language.

Longest Words:

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (34 letters)
Pronunciation: su·per·ca·li·fra·gil·is·tic·ex·pi·a·li·do·cious
Definition: extraordinarily good; wonderful.

By far the most famous, this 34-character word has been ingrained in American culture since the world famous 1964 Disney musical film, Mary Poppins: "...Even though the sound of it, is something quite atrocious, if you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!"

Over last two weeks, we have witnessed a tectonic shift in the fortune of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination and the opportunity to defeat Donald Trump in the November 2020 presidential election. After Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suspended her campaign following a disastrous third place finish in her home state, the field was reduced to just two formidable candidates: Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and former Vice President, Joe Biden.

In rapid succession, candidates dropped out of the running. Mayor Pete Buttigieg ended his campaign on Sunday, March 1st. A day later, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) dropped out. Michael Bloomberg followed, announcing his retirement on Wednesday, March 4th. (Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Andrew Yang left the contest earlier on.)

Ms. Warren has yet to formally endorse a candidate; she will probably do so in the near term. Neither has Andrew Yang, who might be unwilling to do so unless that candidate supports universal basic income, a cornerstone of his economic plan. But Senators Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bloomberg and a few other fringe candidates have all thrown their weight behind Mr. Biden. These former democratic nominees put ego aside for the sake of the Democratic party and united to support the former VP. They believe in the rapidly emerging political reality: Mr. Biden, a centrist, has the best chance of defeating Donald Trump in a general election.

We agree, as do the betting markets. Punters currently make Joe Biden a 1 to 7 favorite to secure the Democratic nomination. Senator Sanders is currently a 7 to 1 underdog. Hillary Clinton, who has not even announced her candidacy, is currently trading at 16 to 1. With respect to the general election, currently bookies make Trump a 2 to 3 outright favorite, no matter who he ultimately ends up running against. That said, as of now, in a hypothetical head to head competition, oddsmakers see Trump easily trouncing Bernie Sanders while Joe Biden would prove to be a more formidable adversary.

Moving Forward

There is now a clear distinction between the leader of the 'progressive' wing of the party - represented by Bernie Sanders, and the moderate wing of the party, embodied by Joe Biden.

We reject Bernie Sanders. His ideas are outlandish and he is not a proponent of capitalism. However, capitalism - when subject to reasonable rules and regulations - is the system that has made the U.S. both an economic and military powerhouse. It is the system which, through competition, innovation and creative destruction, expands the economic pie. Let us be clear, the current state of capitalism in America certainly has its flaws – oligopolies in the technology sector that stifle competition are a glaring example of one – but they can (and should) be remedied. Socialism, especially the kind Senator Sanders espouses, is a flawed system unto itself.

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.

Despite a week of sensationalized reporting, the U.S. is not facing an imminent invasion by the Asian giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia), but equally we cannot be complacent about the potential destruction the recently dubbed “murder hornet” could inflict. Put simply, while the murder hornet poses little direct threat to human beings, if left unchecked, the insect could hinder our food supply chains. There is still time to trace, track, contain, and eliminate this pest. The onus is on us to do so.

Clearing Customs

Native to Japan, China, Southern Russia and South East Asia, the Asian giant hornet was first identified in the Western Hemisphere in Vancouver Island, Canada in September 2019. The first sighting in the United States was recorded in December 2019, just over the border in Blane, Washington. How the insect arrived in North America is unclear; most theories point to it hitching a ride in a shipping container, or possibly, on a person.

Murder Hornet

The murder hornet is an imposing insect. On average, “workers” are almost 2 inches long, sport a ~3-inch wingspan, and a ¼ inch long stinger (insert joke here) capable of injecting a powerful venom. “Queens” are even larger and can grow to over 2 inches in length.

Contrary to published rumors and hysteria online, unless provoked, the Asian giant hornet usually leaves humans alone. In a typical year, under 100 people succumb to hornet stings. Of those, most occur in Japan where the giant hornet is consumed as a delicacy, usually in rural parts of the country. The few Homo sapiens who have been stung compare it to a warm nail or knife being driven into the affected area – extremely painful – but not fatal. Indeed, the “murder” hornet can only commit such an atrocity by committee, in a swarm.

The immediate aftermath of the 2016 presidential election ignited much discussion as to the merits of the electoral college system. Quite simply, does this system accurately represent the will of the American voter?

In 2016, Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by ~3 million votes, or ~2%. Prior to Trump’s electoral college triumph by the tally of 304 to 227 (270 electoral votes are needed to win) there had been four other occasions where an elected president lost the popular vote.

In 2000, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore 271 to 266 despite losing the popular vote by ~500,000 votes or, <1%. The 2000 election was the closest in modern day history and had a particularly low (~51%) voter turnout.

The three other instances where a president was elected despite losing the popular vote occurred in the 19th century. In 1824, John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson despite Jackson having received 10% more popular votes. In a hotly contested 1876 election decided by 1 electoral vote, Rutherford B. Hays dispatched Samuel J. Tilden. And in 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote but secured an electoral college victory over sitting president, Grover Cleveland.

Your Vote (Probably Does Not) Matter

America is deeply polarized. Most citizens in states located in the northeast and west coast vote for Democrats. In November, without a doubt, their electoral votes will be awarded to former Vice President Joe Biden. Most citizens in states located in the interior and south of the nation vote for Republicans. Their electoral votes will be awarded to President Trump.

There are ~320M people in America, of which ~255M are 18 years of age and can legally vote. However, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, only four states: Arizona (11 electoral votes), Florida (29), Georgia (16), and North Carolina (15) are considered “toss-up” states in the upcoming presidential election. This is particularly disheartening because the voting population of those four contested states is ~38.5 million people, or just ~15% of voting age Americans. Both Politico and Sabatos Crystal Ball’s analysis also place Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) in the “toss-up” bucket. With a population of ~4.5M people, that barely moves the needle on a national level, bringing the total number of voting age American’s in contested states to ~16.5% of the total. Some pundits argue that Texas (38 electoral votes) should also be considered a “toss-up” state. If former VP Biden wins TX, he is all but assured victory. For illustrative purposes, even if we assume that both WI & TX (pop.29M), in addition to AZ, FL, GA, & NC, are “toss-ups,” still only 28% of Americans would live in states that “matter.” (In 48 states, “winner takes all” electoral votes. Nebraska & Maine split their electoral votes using a blend of a statewide popular vote and broken down further, by district.)

At TQC, every so often we switch gears, take a reprieve from the hot button topics that are the subjects of our weekly posts, and replace them with something lighthearted and fun. With that in mind, for this week we have decided to offer our readers a chance to take a break and play a moderated iteration of the popular game show, Wheel Of Fortune. First, try and solve each of the five puzzles. Then, at the bottom of the post, find the correct answers along with corresponding fun facts about each word or phrase. Enjoy!

SUBJECTS:

1) Vol-a-ic E-u--ion-

2) B-ck T- T-e F-t--e

3) A-p--as

4) --n-ing M-c-ine-

5) W---l -f F-----e

TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC
TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC TQC

ANSWERS:

Volcanic Eruptions

Volcanic Eruptions are measured on a scale from 1 to 8 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI). The largest eruption ever recorded took place at Mount Tambora, Indonesia in 1815. The explosion registered a 7 on the VEI. The boom was so deafening that it was heard in Sumatra, Indonesia, an island ~1200 miles away. Over 70,000 people perished in the eruption and its aftermath, from lava flow and ash. The volcano is still active.

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.”

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.

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

1) Brazil:

A) Rio de Janeiro
B) Sao Paulo
C) Brasilia
D) Manaus

2) Norway:

A) Oslo
B) Bergen
C) Trondheim
D) Kristiansand

3) India:

A) Mumbai
B) Kolkata
C) Pune
D) New Delhi

4) New Zealand:

A) Auckland
B) Christchurch
C) Wellington
D) Dunedin

5) Canada:

A) Toronto
B) Ottawa
C) Montreal
D) Vancouver

6) Vietnam:

A) Hanoi
B) Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon)
C) Da Nang
D) Dong Ha

7) Morocco:

A) Rabat
B) Casablanca
C) Marrakesh
D) Tangier

8) Kazakhstan:

A) Astana
B) Almaty
C) Nur-Sultan
D) Karagandy

9) Australia:

A) Sydney
B) Canberra
C) Melbourne
D) Perth

10) Namibia:

A) Windhoek
B) Walvis Bay
C) Uis
D) Ondangwa

ANSWERS:

1) (C) Brasilia. Note: Rio de Janeiro was the capital of Brazil until 1960. Sao Paulo is Brazil’s most populous city (~12,200,000). Brasilia, the current capital, is the nation’s 3rd most populated (~3,000,000) metropolis. The city was constructed in the 1950s to spur migration to the sparsely populated interior of the country.

2) (B) Oslo. Note: Oslo has served as Norway’s capital since 1814. Located in the south east of the country close to Switzerland, it is home to ~11% of Norway’s population. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo. Bergen is the largest city on Norway’s east coast. It was once a central trading hub in Europe. Its fish market has been in operation since 1276! Trondeim is a tech savvy city with a vivacious startup scene.

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).

On Monday November 9, the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and BioNTech announced positive Phase 3 results for their coronavirus vaccine candidate. Data suggests their vaccine is over 90% effective in preventing the transmission of COVID-19. This was better news than most experts had anticipated; virologists were hopeful for 70% efficacy and a growing consensus was that a 50% success rate would have cleared the bar for approval.

Additional safety data should be ready within two weeks. Assuming the vaccine is officially deemed safe – there have not been any major problems in trials involving tens of thousands of volunteers - Pfizer and BioNTech will apply for emergency use authorization from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) by month-end. Immunizations could begin in December; there are 50 million doses (25 million vaccines) ready to be deployed. A vaccine requires two jabs. The firms aim to produce 1.3 billion doses in 2021.

Results from another biotechnology company called Moderna are expected imminently. Hopes are elevated for another dose of positive news; the properties of Moderna’s vaccine are similar to that of Pfizer and BioNTech’s.

A Dose Of History

Throughout history, some of the most important medical breakthroughs involved the successful development of vaccines that neutered an array of highly infectious diseases. Despite some misinformation or shall we say, “fake news,” spread by anti-vaxxers, approved vaccines are very safe and extremely effective.

Below is an abbreviated history coupled with interesting supplemental information on some of the most important vaccines ever developed.

1796: Smallpox. The smallpox virus was caused by two related pathogens, Variola major and Variola minor. Smallpox was one of the most infectious, debilitating, and deadly diseases known to mankind. ~30% of patients who became infected, died. Many of those who survived were left permanently disabled and or disfigured.

Although attempts at inoculation date back to the 1500s, the British physician Edward Jenner is credited with developing the first (albeit rudimentary) smallpox vaccine. Doctor Jenner observed that milkmaids infected with a mild virus called cowpox seemed to be immune from acquiring smallpox. To test his hypothesis, Jenner deliberately infected a small child with cowpox. He accomplished this feat by scratching the boy’s arm and introducing the open wound to the cowpox virus taken from the pustules of an infected milkmaid. A few months later, Doctor Jenner attempted to infect the boy with the deadly smallpox virus via pus taken from an existing smallpox victim. He was not successful. Jenner’s initial suspicion was correct; the cowpox virus had indeed conferred immunity to the deadly smallpox virus. Until a more efficient smallpox vaccine was developed in the mid 1850s, antibodies from the cowpox virus helped protect people against smallpox.

Unfortunately, mankind did not gain an upper hand on the smallpox virus until the back half of the 20th century, when a massive coordinated global inoculation effort resulted in the disease officially being declared eradicated in 1980 (the last naturally occurring case was documented in 1977; the last outbreak in the United States occurred in 1949). To this day, smallpox is the only disease that has officially been 100% eradicated; thank goodness. To put in perspective how deadly smallpox was, consider the following data: In the last 100 years of its existence – 1880 to 1980 - smallpox is thought to have killed ~500 million people. We had to triple check this estimate to ensure it was accurate.

"Conservatives sometimes resist change when change makes good sense; liberals sometimes yearn for change when change makes little sense."

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but a working clock can be wrong 23 times a day."

"When somebody is emotionally incapable of doing what’s rationally obvious, it’s impossible to effect change."

"A man who juggles too many balls in the air is bound to end up with his head down."

"If you try and dance in-between raindrops, most likely you will end up getting soaked."

“I'm Casey Kasem.” That simple phrase was a mainstay of the 1980’s. It marked the beginning of Casey Kasem’s weekly radio show, American Top 40 (AT40). For a few hours each week, Kasem commanded the attention of music fans across America as he counted down the top 40 hits in the USA. During his show, Kasem intertwined a treasure chest of music and biographical trivia. Each week, he chose a letter from a fan and read it on the air. Indeed, Kasem had an uncanny ability to weave a cheesy, poorly written letter, into a heartfelt story that captivated his listeners. At its conclusion, Kasem would call out the author by name, “…Katie in Nebraska…Robert in Wyoming…”etc, and dedicate a song to them. After the countdown was complete, Kasem signed-off the same way each week, reminding his audience to "Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars."

An Abbreviated History

Kemal Amin "Casey" Kasem was born on April 27, 1932 in Detroit, Michigan. His initial foray into radio was at Northwestern High School where he announced sports. After high school, Kasem attended Wayne State University where he pursued a degree in education. He was drafted into the military in 1952 and subsequently sent to Korea where he served as the DJ on the Armed Forces Radio Network.

Following the Korean War, Kasem toiled at several different radio stations and locations including WJBK in Detroit, WBNY in Buffalo, KYA in San Francisco, and KRLA in Los Angeles. He also appeared on screen securing bit parts in a few low budget films and appeared on network TV, in Hawaii-Five-O. While hosting a TV show on a local station, Dick Clark noticed him and offered him a position to host a teenage music show. It was, however, Kasem’s voice that would be his ticket to success. In 1969, he landed a role that would make him famous, serving as the voice of Shaggy on the popular show, Scooby-Doo. In the 1970’s, the decade AT40 was born, Kasem continued acting, doing voiceovers and narrating.

American Top 40

In 1970, Casey Kasem co-founded and launched American Top 40. The show was initially aired on seven stations and soon thereafter went nationwide. Since its inception, AT40 has experienced multiple iterations. Kasem hosted the show from 1970 to 1988 and from 1998 to 2004 (he was replaced by Shadoe Stevens in 1988 because of a contract dispute). In 2004, Ryan Seacrest took over and is the current host of AT40. However, the apex of the show's success was in the decade of the 80’s

On Monday, December 14, electors in all 50 states cemented Joe Biden’s victory; there were no “faithless electors” (see notes below). A final procedural requirement before Mr. Biden is inaugurated will take place on January 6. Vice President Mike Pence will oversee a joint session of Congress; electoral totals from each state will be tallied and a result announced.

Despite Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the election “was stolen,” in an interview with the Associated Press, former Attorney General Bill Barr (he resigned this past Monday) made it known that “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”

Monday’s vote, Mr. Barr’s findings (or lack thereof), and dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges by Trump & Co. – this past week SCOTUS rejected cases in Wisconsin & Texas – have catalyzed most republicans that had not already done so to recognize Joe Biden as the victor. Said Senator John Thune (R-SD), “At some point, you have to face the music.” Argued Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), “Like it or not…the process is what it is and the Constitution will be followed.” Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) congratulated Mr. Biden as did foreign leaders including Vladimir Putin, Andrés Manuel López Obrador & Jair Bolsonaro.

Before President-elect Biden and his wife Jill move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, let us reflect upon Donald Trump’s four years in the oval office. To that end, we will begin with a brief, top-down assessment of his performance, followed by bullet points framing specific policies we supported, and rejected.

Trump Stamp

The President of the United States must hold himself to standards that are materially above those expected of an ordinary citizen, irrespective of circumstances. Donald Trump certainly has not adhered to the higher level of personal conduct that is a non-negotiable precondition to serve as Chief Executive of the United States. In fact, he has denigrated the office of the president and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up; an impressive feat given the long lineage of ethically challenged men and women who have served in both chambers of congress.

Regrettably, too often, even when Donald Trump accomplished something substantively positive and or did the “right thing,” he diluted his own achievement with antagonistic, impulsive remarks that did little but divert the public’s attention away from his actions and onto his words. That was certainly a shame. Because in our view, more than a few of Donald Trump’s policies, were ones we agree(d) with, including but not limited to:

• Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

The average global corporate tax rate is ~24%. The previous U.S. corporate tax rate of 35% was simply not competitive. It encouraged tax arbitrage across jurisdictions that increased the cost of commerce and ultimately reduced the Treasury Department's corporate tax receipts. Trump was correct to reduce the corporate tax rate 21%. Consequently, America is now a more economical place to conduct business.

• Engaged the leaders of Historically Black Colleges & University (HBCU), increased federal funding for HBCU’s and forgave loans to HBCU’s in precarious financial positions.

Trump has “been beating the drum on HBCU’s as a cornerstone of his education platform from month one of his time in office…These seeds have been sprinkled under him” - M. Christopher Brown, president of Kentucky State.

“The action and the money don’t lie.” - Harry Williams, head of the Thurgood Marshall Fund.

“He did some substantive things.” - Jarrett Carter, HBCU Digest.

• Withdrew from Iran deal & imposed harsh economic sanctions.

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.

We want to preface this post by informing our readers what this week’s blog is not about:

• Donald Trump holding the distinction of being the first president in American history to be impeached twice.

• Whether it behooved Congress to pursue this path only days before Trump’s term ends.

• When and if a Senate impeachment trial should proceed.

• Whether VP Mike Pence could have invoked the 25th Amendment to remove Trump.

• If Congress can invoke the 14th Amendment to remove Trump.

Civics Lesson

These interrelated topics have been debated ad nauseum by both the liberal and conservative press since the happenings of January 6, when a mob stormed the Capitol building.

Many Americans are familiar with the term “impeachment.” Few people are aware of the 25th and 14th Amendments, and even less so the granularities associated with them. Nonetheless, these terms, along with corresponding hypotheticals, are being carelessly thrown around as if they are almost interchangeable.

Time for a civics lesson: Impeachment, the 25th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the nuances around what exactly each means not only for Donald Trump but any sitting president in the future.

Impeachment

Step 1: The House Of Representatives proposes articles of impeachment.

Step 2: The House votes.

Step 3: If a simple majority votes in favor, the president is then “impeached.”

Step 4: The Speaker of the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Step 5: The Senate holds a trial.

Step 6: If a two-thirds majority vote to convict, the president is removed from office.

Key Questions & Answers:

Q: Can a president be impeached, and a trial held after his term ends?

Almost two years ago, TQC penned a blog post on Anti-vaxxers. Little did we, or the world for that matter, know how that debate would quickly resurrect itself at the forefront of global discussion. In that piece, we highlighted the misinformation spread by Anti-vaxxers, the destructive consequences of forgoing vaccination, and debunked the most common arguments against immunization. We were constructively critical of parents and their illogical refusal to inoculate their children against viruses including the mumps, measles and even a virulent disease like polio. In this week’s piece, we will focus on the growing number of adults who are eligible to receive a vaccine against COVID-19 but are refusing to get inoculated; and counter some outright lies and ½ truths that have permeated our society about COVID-19 vaccination.

Fallacies

The approved vaccines for COVID-19 are very safe and extremely efficacious, including against most mutations of the virus. Unfortunately, though data is patchy and has been subject to revisions, most polls indicate that ~20% of eligible American adults will refuse a jab. This is not surprising. Many of the same Anti-vaxx parents who are steadfast in refusing to inoculate their children, are making similar flawed arguments against protecting themselves against the coronavirus. In addition, Anti-vaxxers have been extremely effective (and strategic) at leveraging the anti-mask / anti-government cohort to help spread misinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccines approved to combat it.

Worryingly, the Anti-vaxx movement is growing. There are hundreds of Anti-vaxx themed accounts across various social media platforms. Estimates suggest they attract almost 60 million followers among them. Some ill-informed people believe and promote Anti-vaxx hogwash about COVID-19 vaccines being an experiment in DNA altering gene therapy, part of a government surveillance mechanism and or having dangerous adverse side effects. Many others do not. For them, a profit motive is behind their dubious actions. Some hawk “natural” remedies for ailments otherwise neutered by vaccines, including for COVID-19. Others profit from attracting advertising dollars to the sites they control that peddle these “remedies.”

One particularly persuasive Anti-vaxxer is a man named Del Bigtree, leader of an Anti-vaxx group called Informed Consent Action Network. In baseless assertions buttressed by little more than hot air, Mr. Bigtree has asserted to his ~350,000 social media followers that COVID-19 is no more harmful than a “cold,” wearing masks is hazardous to your health, and that the COVID-19 inoculation effort is an “experiment” that puts people’s lives in jeopardy. Unfortunately, Mr. Bigtree is not alone in spreading fallacies and having the audacity to solicit cash donations from the subjects he is spreading misinformation to.

It is not surprising that Anti-vaxx promoters have been so successful: It is materially easier (and profitable) to infect people with fear underpinned by sensationalism, than to educate people with knowledge underpinned by science.

Facts

There is exhaustive scientific evidence and hard data that demonstrate vaccines are a safe and effective means of preventing diseases that can cause permanent disabilities or even death. Throughout history, some of the most important medical breakthroughs involved the successful development of vaccines that crushed an array of highly infectious and lethal diseases including Smallpox, Bubonic Plague, HPV (Cervical Cancer), and Polio.

Remember the flu? The CDC and most epidemiologists agree that we are in “peak” flu season. By this time last year, almost 20 million Americans had contracted the Flu, ~200,000 had been hospitalized, and ~10,000 died, including ~100 children. In fact, in a typical year:

• Between 5% (~6,600,000) and 20% ( ~66,000,000) of American citizens contract the flu.

• ~250,000 Americans are hospitalized due to complications from the flu.

• ~35,000 Americans succumb to the flu.

This year is atypical. Though February usually marks the apex of the seasonal flu in America, remarkably, we have seen almost zero – you heard that correctly – close to zero documented influenza cases in the United States.

The Mayo Clinic conducted 20,000 flu tests between Dec 1st and Feb 1st, none came back positive. Of 800,000 samples tested by The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), just 1,500 were positive. Extrapolating these figures and applying them to a broad swath of America, in what is typically the most brutal time of year for influenza, just ~.02% of people are testing positive. Furthermore, thus far, just a few hundred people have been hospitalized and there has been only one documented fatality.

These figures are truly stunning, but are they surprising? Probably not.

Why?

The influenza virus shares some similarities to the coronavirus, including how it is communicated. According to the CDC, “People with flu can spread it to others up to about 6 feet away. Most experts think flu viruses spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. Less often, a person might get flu by touching a surface or object that has flu virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes.” Sound familiar? Of course, it does. This is synonymous to how COVID-19, and other variants of the virulent coronavirus, are transmitted.

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.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest" - Benjamin Franklin

“Time” is a limited resource that has alternative uses. As such, it should be allocated to where the expected returns are highest. “Experts” opining as to why the stock market is moving in one direction or another on a day to day basis represent one of the biggest wastes of human capital. Few endeavors have consumed more energy and money, that’s been empirically proven to be impossible to prove: consistently predicting short term moves in the stock market and explaining why those moves happened.

People tend to feel vulnerable when they can’t draw definitive conclusions as to why something happened. Why did “X” cause “Y” to do this or that? How did “X” and “Y” affect “Z”? The market and its plethora of “experts” serve as a defense mechanism for the human mind. Because there is so much information and events continuously happening, an “expert” can easily "justify" the rationale behind these events. The truth is that absent a major binary event like a terrorist attack or a viral outbreak, nobody can ever have a high or even a reasonable degree of certainty as to the short-term directional movements in the stock market. Usually, “no idea” is the most specific and accurate answer one can offer regarding many market moves.