Happy Thanksgiving from the Springboard and a Little Bit of Prippa Rep Prepishny

Well, here we are, having arrived at yet another day of thanks and, well...food of course. Tonight, we will indulge in both turkey and ham, as is at least our family tradition along with all the usual fare found on most Thanksgiving dinner tables.

We'll see if the rolls, this year, make it out of the oven before someone finally realizes they aren't out on the serving table or a reminiscent odor of something burning permeates the air.

"The rolls!"

Last year may have been the first year in many years the rolls actually weren't burnt. So, just to keep the tradition alive and well, we burnt one anyway.

What am I thankful for? I suppose a lot of things. I always say any day spent above ground is a good day, and I suppose so long as I am above it now, writing this day's blog, that's a good day and I should be thankful.

I am thankful for my family, especially my wife who, for whatever reason I've never been able to quite put my finger on, still puts up with me after 16 years of marriage and 18 years of togetherness.

She's either insane. Or she loves me.

I am also, of course, thankful to you, dear reader, who comes by here from time to time and now and then to hopefully be entertained by my thoughts and opinions—and hopefully as well by my witty nature in delivery.

Is it witty?

I am thankful that, for whatever they are worth—and we all know that often they aren't worth much—that at least the polls seem to be indicating Trump's beating Biden and we may be able to end this nightmare we've been enduring for the past 3 or so years.

Speaking of Biden, might I also applaud him on yet another brilliantly delivered "address" to the nation when he pardoned this year's turkeys, Liberty and Belle, and in the time-honored tradition of Biden speeches, he was able to carefully stumble around his words like a drunk trying to pronounce supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

"They had to work hard and show patience, and be willing to travel over a thousand miles," Biden began. "You could say even this harder than getting a ticket to the renaissance tour, or, or, or prippa rep prepishny's tour..."

I think he meant Taylor Swift and Prepishny is probably Britney Spears of course. Either way.

May your day be filled with food, fun, great conversation, and newly created memories to be cherished for years to come. May your turkey be moist and delicious, and may your evening be pleasured by full tummies and perhaps a cocktail or two.

Or 6 or 10.

And may you be able to make your way to the comforts of your warm home safely, and better able to recite your speeches post cocktails than Biden could recite his sans any.

Happy Thanksgiving and I will catch you on the other side. Onward and upward and God speed or whatever else can be said about going forward with dignity, pride, and success. And thanks again for being here. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to find all of the latest writings from wherever I may write. And hey, Christmas is right around the corner, my wife has the credit card, and any money is helpful. Why not spin my album, Pink Flamingoes, a few times to help a guy out from things beyond his control? You can also check out my other blog where I talk about anything and nothing, The Springboard Journal.

A Blocking We Will Go

MOST RECENTLY I DECIDED TO CHANGE MY POLICY A BIT WHEN IT COMES TO BLOCKING OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. For years my longstanding policy on social media has been to engage the other side in any debate, feeling that in order to have a well shaped opinion on any issue one must be able to take in multiple viewpoints, and be open minded when it comes to how any issue is perceived, reported on, and what the opinions of others are. Sometimes I actually do change my position if the opposing argument is strong.

I am a conservative of course. But despite what some hard core conservatives may say, there are actually SOME liberals out there who do have the ability to think and formulate a common sense opinion.

I will admit it is rare. But I am not being fair minded if I simply discount every single liberal as a total idiot.Which brings me around to why I have changed my policy on social media blocking.

There is a trend, and it is certainly not a new one, for many on the left (and let's be fair, some on the right do this too, guys) to, instead of return with a valid and cohesive argument, they will simply start lobbing unfounded accusations, character assassinate, and respond by calling people names.

Racist and Russian bot are all the craze.

When the opposing argument begins to resort to that sort of thing I am of the mind that 1) there is no valid argument the other side can make, and 2) there is no argument I can make to change a mind or make a case for. So, why bother really? What's the point?

Sure. On some days it can indeed be fun. But honestly, more and more it just becomes an irritation. A back and forth of wasted energy that just gets more and more ridiculous and crazy the more you go along with it.

And then there's those lists the left has resorted to creating. They don't even bother to respond. They just put you on some unfounded list that places you into a corner that you really have nothing to do with, and accuses you of having a position you don't have at all.

It does not bother me. I should be clear about that. It does not bother me anymore, really, than being called a racist or a bot or any other moniker the left wants to place on me simply because I happen to disagree with their view of the world.

But it does mean there is no longer an argument.

The thing for me is that I know where I stand on any issue, and so whatever I may be accused of is really meaningless and pointless to try to defend. You cannot rationalize with someone who is simply incapable of seeing the other side's view.

I know I am not a racist. And I am certainly not a bot. So what value is there in trying to defend myself from these kinds of accusations? No matter what I say to point to the contrary, it is going to fall on deaf ears anyway.

So again, why bother.

Part of my policy of not blocking opposing viewpoints was that I thought it was borderline childish. In my mind, every time someone on the left blocked me I would envision a 5-year old clamping his palms to his ears shouting, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you." So my aim was not to become that childish figure on the right.

The problem is that when I offer my viewpoint, I try to support it with facts and reason, and a dose of common sense. Of course I am not always right. I would be naive to think that I could never be wrong. Which is also part of the reason I enjoy a reasonable exchange of ideas, because I am adult enough to acknowledge that I may not always have the right answer or viewpoint, and sometimes the left does.

It's the crazy that closes the door for me. And the crazy is simply getting to be quite thick these days. Even more as Trump derangement syndrome is in full force and the left is all but losing their minds as Trump is clearly winning on a number of fronts. And that's not just my conservative bias saying that. It's obvious.

Speaking of bias momentarily, that is also the one thing that still surprises me just a little bit these days, that the right can have a bias, but can also offer praise to the other side when the other side gets it right and will lambaste even our own when we get it wrong.

I can count on my fingers how many times I have seen a liberal hold one of their own accountable for anything.

Quick Shout: Hollywood Just Needs to Can It About Russia

I’m dumping my @facebook stock and deleting my page because @facebook profited from Russian interference in our elections and they’re still not doing enough to stop it. I encourage all other investors who care about our future to do the same. #unfriendfacebook pic.twitter.com/KHWgZzhhmp

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) February 6, 2018

WHEN WILL IT END, I WONDER? I am to the breaking point when it comes to this continuing narrative by the MSM and some of these idiots in Hollywood that the Russians essentially stole the election from Hillary Clinton. The thing is that we all know all too well that the facts just DO NOT BEAR OUT. They are beating a dead horse. And it's just making them look even more foolish than we already knew they were.

YES, it has been acknowledged that the Russians did pay for some ads. But what influence would that ultimately have? I mean think about it. What influence did the fucking polls have on swaying republican voters that Donald Trump had no chance of becoming president to stay home?

This is just becoming tiring and stupid. Puerile is a word that also comes to mind.

Welcome to the "Quick Shout" Segment

THE SPRINGBOARD WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE AN OPINION DRIVEN RESPONSE. Thus, as the title suggests, a good many of the posts found here spring from something happening or something said, and The Springboard essentially is responding to that. It's never been intended to be journalistic, and never was intended to serve as a news source even if to some extent a good bit of the content is news driven.

There are already enough sites and blogs out there that intend to deliver news. Here, this blog responds to it. Over the years of my doing this blog that really has not changed.

One of my aims entering 2018, however, was to begin the process of increasing the content here, and make posts quite a bit more frequent. There are several ways I have begun to do this. And one of those ways is the introduction of a new "segment" of the blog I am calling Quick Shout.

As I have increased my participation on Twitter one frustration has always been that sometimes I'd like to have the opportunity to expand more in response to something that has been tweeted. While Twitter has obviously relaxed its character allowances among other things, it still can be rather limited.

Quick Shout allows me to respond directly to a Tweet, or some other thing, do it in a more expanded manner, but still keep it short and sweet.

It is not intended to become the blog. Regular posts will still be written as they were before. It is simply an addition to the blog content presented here. Most of the Quick Shout content will be geared to, and tied to Twitter. Why? Because its a great source for engaging discussions, and even retorts. And it offers a great source of material from which to springboard from and further those discussions in a more detailed, and lengthier fashion.

Why have I decided to incorporate Quick Shouts into the regular blog? To me, it seems one can become bogged down trying to manage too many blogs, and because the nature and general format of this new segment are quite in line with the purpose and intent of The Springboard, it just seems fitting to me to keep it here.

What I'd love to see with it is more engagement from my readers in the form of comments. One area that has been lacking here for whatever reason. The Springboard gets an enormous amount of activity. But for whatever reason has never driven comments.

I think it should be an interesting new area of the blog, and hopefully you'll agree. We'll see where it leads us—and perhaps over time, as most things do, it may even evolve a little bit.

Timing For Amazon Prime Rate Increases Suspect

I AM NOT CHASTISING JEFF BEZOS OF AMAZON FOR RECENTLY ANNOUNCING HE WILL RAISE MONTHLY AMAZON PRIME RATES—ALTHOUGH HE WILL KEEP THE ANNUAL AMOUNT AT $99—but I do think that the timing of making such a decision may be a bit...well, off. The thing is not just that Amazon is nearly a trillion dollar market cap company, nor that Jeff Bezos recently took the lead in becoming not only the richest man in the world, but the richest man in history.

For me the decision is simply a bit confusing considering that at the same time we have the Trump tax cuts which will no doubt provide a significant boost to Amazon's bottom line, if you look at all of the numbers for the company...

AMAZON IS NOT EXACTLY HURTING FOR MONEY.

Amazon will be raising both its monthly prime rates from $10.99 to $12.99 and student prime rates from $5.49 to $6.49. That's an 18% increase for anyone who wanted to know, which I also think is quite a substantial increase.

Back in 2014 Amazon did also significantly increase its annual prime membership from $79 to $99 a year.

While Amazon cannot be denied anything at all for its benefit to American workers seeking jobs, and ones mind you that don't pay all that poorly either, and they also recently announced they have narrowed down their options for a second headquarters which will provide upwards of 50,000 new jobs, they also have not announced any worker bonuses after the tax cuts became law, nor have they mentioned increasing anyone's wages.

It should be mentioned that Jeff Bezos is also unusually non-philanthropic when compared to other billionaires on a percentage basis. Although he did recently announce offering $33 million to Dreamers for college—a bit of a controversial move no doubt.

But it begs a question for me when you put both that donation for the Dreamers into view along with his decision to raise prime rates and not offer bonuses or wage increases.

IS THIS JEFF BEZOS' WAY OF STICKING IT BACK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

Because we all know that there is a bit of a rivalry between the two, and we all know that invariably there is no love from Jeff Bezos for Donald Trump.

Or is this just another example of the real greed so many supposed "right wing rich" get accused of—but on the left, not the right, which by the way is usually how it actually goes. The greediest rich are often on the left, folks. And the rich on the left also tend to be far less philanthropic than the rich on the right.

SO BEZOS FITS PERFECTLY WITHIN THAT COMMON FRAMEWORK.

At the end of the day I do not think it is a big deal, nor do I think that current or new monthly prime members will think it is either. I own shares in Amazon and I have no intention of letting go of them any time soon. As a shareholder price increases are typically welcome since they help to boost bottom lines, and that of course helps to boost share value.

I only point out that I think the decision is a bit strange in its timing, and am very curious to know what the real basis for the decision was in the boardroom . We will never truly know of course. All we can do is speculate, and watch what happens next. Probably nothing. But it is interesting nonetheless. 

20 Year Old Mega Millions Winner

WHEN I READ ABOUT SHANE MISSLER, THE FLORIDA MAN WHO WON THE MOST REECENT MEGA MILLIONS JACKPOT, THE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS HOW OLD HE IS.

He's just 20 years old! He chose to take the lump sum which amounted to about $282 million. 

But there you have it. You just never know who is going to win or where, and it matters little how long they have been playing, and in the case of many lottery winners, whether they play at all until they hit the big one.

How many times have you heard a winner say, "I never played before, but something told me to buy a ticket this time."

UGH. I HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR YEARS AND HALF THE TIME I AM LUCKY IF I EVEN GET MY WAGER BACK!

Still, and I know it's as cliché as clichés come, somebody has to win. As I am a realist by nature, just based on the odds, I am practical in my thinking that perhaps no matter how often I play, or where I buy my tickets—I will probably never see a jackpot.

It's funny little mind games you play sometimes too. For example, I travel into several other states for my job. And so I can buy tickets in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Kansas quite often. Sometimes I think to myself, "Wow, this kind of increases my odds." In fact, about a year ago or so I had to travel to Fort Wayne, Indiana on business, and the jackpot of whichever multi-state lottery was kind of up there, and one of the town I passed through and did buy a ticket wound up being where the thing was won...

ONE WEEK AFTER I HAD BEEN THERE.

Granted, the store where the ticket was bought was also a different store, so while it was close, in reality it really wasn't. But in my mind? There was the chance.

I am happy for Shane Missler. From what he has said he is doing to manage the money, and what he wants to do with the money, maybe he will come out as one of the ones who didn't squander it all away in short time. That is always the tragedy of big lottery wins—sometimes the winners lose it all.

Either way, both the PowerBall and the Mega Millions have essentially reset. I will still play. I can't help myself. And hopefully one day I can be posting about my own big win. Only time will tell. 

Convenience And Luxury: Know the Difference

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT. LUXURY AND CONVENIENCE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Whatever do I mean? Look, there are so many people I know who confuse these two things, and it costs them an enormous amount of money.

You decide to go out and do some shopping for the day. You leave the house and somewhere in the process of shopping you decide you are thirsty. You stop at the local gas station and buy a bottle of Coke to satiate your thirst..

IS THIS LUXURY OR CONVENIENCE?

You might argue that you make enough money, and that you have enough money, and due to that fact alone, being able to buy that bottle of Coke while your out shopping is part of the luxury of having a supportive income.

But it is NOT a luxury. It is a convenience.

LET'S PUT THIS ANOTHER WAY. You go on a road trip and you know you are going to want to buy some bottled water somewhere along the way. You leave the house with 24 bottles of water in the refrigerator, but take none with you on the trip. You stop to fill up for gas and buy a bottle of water.

Is this luxury or convenience? IT IS CONVENIENCE.

Why is it convenience? In part because you decided to leave behind perfectly good and already bought and paid for water to avoid having to take it along. It is convenient that in the event you want that water despite that, someone will have it readily available.

In a way you could equate the logic to going on a vacation out of town. Do you opt to pack clothes you already have for the trip? Or do you opt to just buy those clothes as you need them while on the trip?

Let's put this yet ANOTHER way.

You get home from work and you simply do not feel like cooking dinner. You decide either to order out or go out to a restaurant. It's not that you do not have food available to cook in the cupboard or freezer. And it's not like you don't have the time or the ability to cook dinner. You just don't feel like it. This is a convenience.

So when is it a luxury if you decide to eat out or order in? When you decide to treat yourself to something special.

The long and short of it all is that when you start to break things down, the more you opt for convenience, the less you will be able to afford for luxury. Convenience costs the most even if luxuries are expensive since luxuries are partaken of, theoretically, less often than conveniences.

Drink cheap coffee Monday through Friday, and you may find you will have no problem treating yourself to something special on Saturday and Sunday. And because you have played your money right doing so, affording the luxury of doing so will not cost you as much.

I scrimp on the less important things so I can better afford the more important things.

What makes things worse for a good many people is they opt for both convenience and luxury. And at the end of the day when they look at their bank account what they find is...

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REAL MONEY...

And more often than not, they have debt which they have created as a result, and a lack of savings to speak of. It's really a conundrum. But one that, when  you know what the difference is, is entirely avoidable...

And who wants to splurge on an easy bottle of Coke when you can do so much more if you didn't?

Still Long Ford Motor Company

THE TRUTH IS, I HAVE OWNED FORD STOCK OFF AND ON FOR SO MANY YEARS I HAVE LOST COUNT. But each time I have reached a point to get out, I am usually very well invested in the company. That simply means I am a "constant buyer" of Ford Motor Company stock. And currently where I hold those shares, I also have my dividends reinvested, and anyone who has spent any time in the markets surely understands and appreciates the power of compounding.

I won't bore you with the details of how compounding works, or the benefits of it. But you can surely look it up if you want to know what it is, and how it works FOR your investment.

I have to admit for at least the past two years I have questioned my position in Ford. I mean, the whole point to owning shares of any company is to make money, right. Not just in terms of those compounded dividends mind you. But you want to see gains as well on the underlying shares themselves.

But anyone watching Ford Motor Company stock over at least the past year knows all too well that at best, the stock has performed rather sideways. And, in my humble opinion, Ford stock has actually UNDERPERFORMED. For whatever reason it has just had difficulty getting a good footing in the stock market, and was extremely underlooked.

BUT, in many ways that also presents a bit of an opportunity. Why? Simply put, to some extent simply because the stock has been so neglected by investors, it seems apparent (and the math seems to suggest it) that based on the actual performance of the company itself, the stock has actually been—and for a terribly long time—UNDERBOUGHT.

That just simply means that if you are indeed buying shares during this period, you are getting shares at a relatively good price compared to what the real underlying value of the shares happens to be. They're just not trading there because either no one is paying attention, or no one cares.

Okay, there has been STILL some lingering trepidation from the whole bailout thing of days past that befell the auto industry in America. BUT, YOU WILL REMEMBER FORD MOTOR COMPANY NEVER GOT BAILED OUT unlike ALL others in the U.S. auto business.

GM, on the other hand, did in fact take the money offered to them in the bailout, but as far as stock performance goes they really never did suffer the same woes Ford has ever since. But that's for another day.

So why I am still long Ford even after considering selling my shares several times over the past three or four months?

I just KNOW what the stock is worth, and I tend to think that eventually so will the rest of the market. The fact is that Ford is still very low on the debt side, they have cash to spend, and they are still largely benefiting from the Mullaly days, AND from the downsizing they did, along with the renegotiations they conducted with the unions and so on and so forth.

But what was it that sealed it for me today to decide to continue to be long Ford for at least a while longer?

It was just recently announced that Ford remains the #1 seller of pickup trucks in America. The F-150 is simply, according to the buyers, the best truck on the road and the sales prove this year over year over year DESPITE THE JOKES. No truck outperforms a Ford truck. Simple as that. Otherwise, someone else in the pickup truck portion of the market would be fast on their heels. It's simply not the case, and so jokes be damned, Ford trucks are #1. Still.

But did you also know that for FOUR YEARS IN A ROW Ford is also the leader in auto sales among U.S. carmakers? It's true. They have the lead four years running. Granted, they may not have the best selling car in America. But for the past four years they have outsold in total volume the other U.S. car manufacturers.

That's not really a small deal, folks.

What's more, they have been in an ongoing effort to make their luxury line of Lincoln cars more of an experience, and they have been succeeding in doing that. Moreover, the styling of Lincoln cars is vastly improving. Although I do feel they still have some work to do here to overtake Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes, and let's not forget that MANY higher luxury lines have begun to make more strides in the marketplace to get their cars into the hands of more buyers who otherwise might not have been able to afford them.

Aston Martin for example. Certainly Mazerati and Jaguar have been doing this. Jaguar, by the way, used to be owned by Ford.

And the stock has had a recent amping up of share price. So FINALLY, after quite a long time the shares are starting to show some signs of life. Granted, that can be short lived as has been proven in the past when shares ran up to nearly $18 a share and then dropped significantly back down into the $9-$12 territory and stayed there.

But here's something else that strikes me. That's the recent passing of the new Trump tax law. Look, NO ONE else in the U.S. auto industry is better poised to take advantage of the tax breaks, and since they already have the best selling truck in America, and are the best selling U.S. car maker in America, with more and more Americans who will invariably have more money in their pockets to spend on cars, OF COURSE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS GOING TO BE A STRONG BENEFICIARY OF THIS.

Bottom line is that I don't think Ford is out of the woods. Nor is their stock for that matter. This is a short term boost to their share price and I am not going to get ahead of myself thinking, "This is it. Now we go to the moon." But do I think Ford stock is headed for a newfound happy place? I do, and in full disclosure I am long Ford AND I intend to buy more shares within the next week.

I will be watching my Ford Motor Company stock very closely. But right now, based on what I know behind the scenes (all the math I won't bore you with), I see ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO SELL FORD MOTOR COMPANY shares right now. In fact, I'd BUY MORE.

Okay, okay...for those who want NUMBERS! I know you are out there. By 2nd quarter 2018 I see Ford's shares being traded for just under $16 per share. So for those who AREN'T privy to the quarters, that means that I predict Ford shares will be trading at just under $16 per share by the time my 45th birthday rolls around.

THAT'S JUNE 1ST FOLKS, AND I DO TAKE PAYPAL IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEND ME A PRESENT. 

Fear not. You can use some of your proceeds from Ford's rising valuation to send me a gift.

"I'm Drunk And I'm Driving."

If you heard someone telling you a story like this you'd probably think, "My God. That's a really tall tale." That is, a man spends his whole day drinking, and even somewhere along the line decided to swallow some methamphetamine as well, gets in his car drunk as a skunk, and then...

Wait for it...

Calls 911 to report himself drunk driving. Yes my friends, you have it right. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Florida resident Michael Lester did exactly this on New Year's Eve, calling into 911 to report that he was drunk driving. When the operator asked him for his location he basically stated he had no idea. He was too drunk to know. 

Not that he was really out to look after public safety from himself and his poor decision making. It appears that the man has a rather long rap sheet which includes previous DUI offenses, along with other crimes like hit and run, drugs, and battery. In fact, he actually at one point during the call told the 911 operator that he was driving around trying to get pulled over, even driving on the wrong side of the road several times.

Either way, he was off the street at least for the night, and it made for a pretty good story to boot. The cops who arrested him and the 911 operator who took the call will be telling this one for years to come at many a gathering.

A New Fox News?

PERHAPS THERE DOES INDEED NEED TO BE A "NEW" FOX NEWS IN THE NEWS MARKET. I thought I would never have said it, since Fox News has been a long-running, and quite frankly refreshing addition—in my opinion—the the news media. Especially when you consider that reporting has gone out the window, and most other "news" networks have become nothing more than the LIBERAL RAGS that their paper counterparts have become.

Think Washington Post, the New York Times, and of course there are local fare I am personally familiar with like the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

I will grant you that it has been more difficult to watch Fox News for me since the departure of Bill 

O'Reilly. But Hannity remains, and he is a force to be sure. I'll be honest with you, I had my reservations at first about Tucker Carlson, but lately I tend to think he's holding his own and doing actually what I consider to be A DAMN GOOD JOB.

Fox & Friends is, of course, still standing as the #1 rated morning show in America, and that happens to be a good thing.

Thank you to Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade for keeping it real. 'Nuff said!

But here's the thing. Unless you have been parked under a rock somewhere, there HAS been talk that Disney is in talks to BUY FOX NEWS. Now, when you think of Disney what is the first liberal thought that comes to mind.

ESPN.

Now, you mean to tell me with a straight face that if Disney does in fact buy Fox News that somehow the ideology of Disney, and what they've turned ESPN into won't trickle into Fox news reporting, programming, and the CULTURE of people they'll put on the air?

I say this despite the obvious FAILURE of other liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, and ESPN notwithstanding and my sense of business that why would you want to take a highly successful business model and highly profitable network into the realm of low ratings and low profits and falling viewership?

Well, it MAY WELL sound like a bit of conspiracy theory...but if they can silence the conservative voice of Fox News, they can make the other liberal networks more "relevant."

Arrive on scene Peter Thiel, a strong supporter of President Trump, and a co-founder of the PayPal empire. Not only does he feel that there is market for it, but all suggestions seem to indicate he also feels there is a need for it even if he has not come right out and said so.

Reportedly, Peter Thiel is looking into launching his own conservative network to compete with, and perhaps to rival behemoth Fox News.

What makes the whole thing more real? We have now learned that Thiel had some concerns earlier on, and was actually beginning to talk to former Fox guy, and now dead, Roger Ailes about the possibility, and even was suggesting they could pull over guys like O'Reilly and Hannity to the new network. Based on the "conversations," and the planned meeting that was to occur to occur just before Ailes died at 77, there is some indication that Ailes may have even been slated to head the thing.

What makes the whole story more interesting recently are the revelations about Steve Bannon, and the Mercers, who FUNDED Breitbart, and who are also supporters of Trump, who have now broken financial ties with Bannon based on his recent association with Michael Wolff who is publishing a Trump disparaging book with Bannon practically at the helm of it all. The Mercers are tied to Thiel.

Either way, I do have some serious concerns about Disney taking over Fox, and if they do, I think it may be just the right time to launch something to at least serve as a secondary source. But if Fox falls victim to liberalism as so many networks have under control of what is obviously a liberal company...

We can't get a new, conservative network up and running fast enough.

Massive Money In Online Ad Fraud

A FEW DAYS AGO I wrote about the annoying trend of websites who force you to click from page to page to page just to get through to the end of the article, and about all of those ads that load on each page...

AND THE JUMPITY, SCROLLY THING in the programming of the website that seems to want to force an accidental click of one of those ads.

You can read that commentary here if you wish to.

Because those websites invariably get paid for any of those clicks. Part of my suggestion was that advertisers must be going beserk because of all of these shenanigans since ideally they are paying for advertising, and CLICKS because what they are hoping for are ACTUAL BUYERS OF THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES.

Makes sense, right? Why else would you want to pay someone to share your wares unless you SHARE THEIR DOUGH.

wanted those who are being shared the wares to have some interest in what they are sharing, and

When I wrote the commentary I had completely forgotten about another aspect of the Internet. Click bots. Even better than causing an accidental click, why not just let a bot do the work for you? And that's what a ton of websites apparently happen to be doing.

Again, the question of why is a no-brainer. THEY ARE MAKING A TON OF MONEY DOING IT.

But did you know that there is actually a number placed on HOW MUCH MONEY is actually lost by marketers from online ad fraud caused by these actions? There actually is a number, and the amount might surprise you. It certainly surprised me!

DRUM ROLL PLEASE!

A marketing services company, WPP, did some study on this issue and found that the amount of money wasted on online fraud globally is somewhere around $16.4 billion. 

HW MUCH MONEY DOES $16.4 BILLION ADD UP TO? I thought I would do a fun little comparison since sometimes when you put a number into words, even with the word billion attached to end of it, it doesn't slam you in the gut quite as hard as if you put it into some kind of a comparison.

Stated well enough, at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, with $16.4 billion you could employ 1,087,533 workers for a year full time. Yep. Put into words that's a staggering 1.08 million workers.

Is the practice illegal? That I don't know for sure. I would assume that it may well be. But let's not forget one detail about the Internet that lets so many people get away with so much using it for nefarious purposes.

It is harder to track people, easier to mask locations, and a lot of this activity is even done overseas—sometimes even in third world countries where even if you knew who these people were, the likelihood you would catch up to them and put them into handcuffs is highly unlikely.

In SOME instances it is even suggested that rogue governments like North Korea may even be involved in these sorts of activities. Where there is money to be had, you can bet a lot of people are going to try to get away with whatever they can.

Biden Can Win 'Overwhelmingly' Against Trump in 2020?

OKAY, SO OLD UNCLE JOE IS A LIKEABLE GUY. Albeit, based on a number of pictures that have made their course across the Internet, he's also a bit of a creepy old guy. In other words, as horrible as it may sound, keep him away from the kids and the damsels in general.

But, the question is can he win the presidency?

According to ex-DNC chair Ed Rendell, he seems to think so. In his words, "Biden is just the guy the country is looking for."

WHILE I APPLAUD ED RENDELL on his analysis, and while I do also believe that BIDEN WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN A MUCH BETTER CHOICE THAN HILARY CLINTON AS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY in the last election, and MAY have even given Trump less of an edge, the fact remains that despite what the polls suggest, President Trump is still highly popular after one year into his presidency.

Add in the fact that despite what the lamestream news media will tell you, things are actually getting done, and Biden loses handily in 2020. 

And let's face it folks. The news is only going to get better. The fact is that you cannot argue with something very fundamental in the hearts and minds of the American people, and most importantly the AMERICAN VOTER. 

That's their pocketbooks and wallets if you want to know.

FOR ONE THING, THE NEW TAX LAW WILL BEGIN TO SHOW IT'S IMPACT AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY. That is, that's when the withholding tables are changed to reflect the recently passed new republican tax law. People are going to see a boost in their bottom lines come February, and if you think that won't be noticeable you are living on another planet.

Along with that, nobody can deny that so many economic standards are in territories that have not been seen for at least a decade, and I'd argue not in two of them, people HAVE TO ALREADY BE TAKING NOTICE THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT EVER WAS DURING THE OBAMA TERMS.

GDP is up, Hispanic unemployment is at historical lows, and so is the black unemployment rate. Consumer confidence is up. Jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector are making a bit of a comeback, and there are now more incentives than there have been in a very long time not only for American manufacturers to keep their shops open, but ADD OR REINTRODUCE SHOPS, and for some foreign companies, to LOCATE shops here.

Foxconn, which will be breaking ground in the near future in Wisconsin that will employ better than 13,000 people making over $50,000 a year on average, is a prime example of what's to come. They have never operated in the United States before. So this is quite an amazing development to say the least.

AND REALLY FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBURG. The fact is that there are going to be many more stories like that now that the corporate tax rate has been lowered to much favorable rates. Add in the reduction in costs for things like transporting those goods across oceans and you have a recipe well poised for success. And believe me, JOBS will follow, and Americans WILL take notice of the increased availability of not just jobs. But good ones that support families in terms of wages.

Furthermore then, what does Joe Biden have to run on? How is he going to support what will be the ever more clear failed economic policies of an administration he was part of, downplay what will be ever more clear SUCCESSFUL POLICIES in economic terms under Trump, and position himself as a strong contender better suited for the White House?

UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY BAD HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND 2020, I think the only rightful conclusion for Joe Biden's viability in 2020, and for Ed Rendell's analysis is wishful thinking.

But it also highlights a continuing disconnect, in my opinion, of the democrat party from reality. They are still unable to acknowledge the real reasons Clinton lost, and they continue to disregard what are real accomplishments and achievements of the Trump administration. They are really disillusioned. They are living in a fantasy world.

Look. Do I think Biden would make a bad president? I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that I think what we are going to see after the first four years is said and done with Trump in the White House is a highly successful presidency with undeniable and provable results that even the most staunch liberals in the lamestream media are not going to be able to deny, much less cover up or slant in their usual way.

Can Biden win against Trump overwhelmingly in 2020? If I am basing the idea on anything current, the answer is a resounding no. Trump will serve two terms. And those two terms are going to be a successful presidency that will mimic former successes like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and okay...I'll give you Bill Clinton. You can't deny he was a successful president too.

BEYOND ALL THAT, I think based on his age alone, Biden will be a nominee if he decides to run, and I think he just might. But he will never be in the White House again. Trump's going to be too successful, and the clock is not on Biden's side. Just saying.

There Is No History on History

SO, ONE MIGHT ASK WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE HISTORY CHANNEL ISN'T REALLY ABOUT HISTORY? Well, perhaps it is no different than what has happened to so many other "niche" cable channels before it, and presumably that will also come after it.

The Discovery Channel is far removed from what it originally was. So is TLC for that matter. And probably one of the first of the cable channels I can remember who made their mark that left their old purpose and format was none other than MTV.

DID YOU KNOW THAT AT ONE TIME MTV, ALSO KNOWN AS MUSIC TELEVISION, ACTUALLY AIRED MUSIC?

Yeah. MTV got its start doing 24 hours of music video presentation. So did VH1. Neither of those channels even compares to their former selves. They ditched that old programming what seems like a decade or more ago.

I am SURE it all has to do with ratings. Or, perhaps stated better, the lack of any. Maybe there is indeed another reason behind the changes these channels make to their lineups. But as republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put it once on Twitter, "Again no history. Change name of channel to 'Et Cetera.'"

AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO CARES RIGHT?

Yeah. I'll admit. There is some truth to that. Life is full of many more important things to get our panties in a bunch over. If nothing else, when you tune into The History Channel or Discovery or MTV, you ALREADY KNOW you're not going to get what the channel's name suggests as far as programming is concerned.

But I also think, despite the dollars and cents and the grab for ratings, why can't we simply have some channels in our cable choices that cater to smaller audiences who want specifically what those channels are offering? I mean, all of us certainly PAY ENOUGH to the satellite and dish and cable companies for all of those channels. 

Why do all 300 channels have to have the same, "most popular" content? Why do they all have to follow each other and all do the same thing? How is that choice? How is that better than what we had before? How does this differentiate one channel from the other? And then, if they are all going to have the same content, why have all the channels?

I really DON'T CARE AT THE END OF THE DAY what any of these channels decide to do with their programming. I generally narrow my choices down anyway. But one thing it DOES say to me is that eventually what it will do is push people more and more away from cable companies, and pave the way for either channels to individually compete on a separate basis, or will pave the way for alternative companies to set up shop and let people pay for the exact programming they are interested in watching. 

RIGHT NOW THESE CHANNELS GET PAID WHETHER YOU WATCH OR NOT. If things go a different direction and people pay for individualized content, channels like these won't be able to command as much from advertisers, and they will have to cater to very specific audiences with programming that matters pertinent to what they call themselves.

Roseanne Barr's Show Revival Will Crash and Burn

SOME THINGS ARE BETTER SIMPLY LEFT UNDONE. Like say, a revival of Roseanne. Despite my dislike for all things that Roseanne, a committed liberal, believes in outside of the show she did, I cannot deny that the show was a good one. I'd even go as far as to say it was iconic. 

Certainly one of the successes of the show was that it simply was a typical all-American family struggling through life as so many Americans do.

Simply put, it resonated resoundingly with typical everyday people like you and I.

FOR OTHER REASONS I think there were a lot of shows that had their day, and were profoundly successful for so many reasons it would be impossible to break it all down. Surely one such show that comes to mind is the Carol Burnett Show. The antics and the chemistry of that team of talented comedians was a force to be reckoned with to be sure.

For a long time I have even held, and do to this day, that the Carol Burnett Show was even perhaps one of the BEST COMEDIES ON TELEVISION ever. And while I'd love to see what's left of the cast come back and try it again...

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DO IT LIKE THAT AGAIN!

I remember a long time ago reading an article that asked Jim Carey why he never did a third PET DETECTIVE movie. His answer?

Jim Carey thought that by the time he'd jump into character for Pet Detective a third time around, he'd not be original anymore. He'd simply be doing an impersonation of the character he created and it wouldn't be funny anymore. Or good.

And so that was the end of Pet Detective. And I think he was right in his way of thinking to be honest.

Carol Burnett cannot come back and copy what she did with her show and be successful in doing that. Take another show that I think would fall under the same frame of thought.

SEINFELD!

Granted, here you have a cast who all are alive and well and quite frankly still funny. And they've mostly all gone on to have successful careers post-Seinfeld. But even if this team, and even the writers, all got back together to revive the show and hope to have a newly found success similar to the one they enjoyed before, they'd all be kidding themselves.

Seinfeld was funny for the show that it was. But it was also funny because it was fresh and everyone involved was having the time of their lives. Anyone would be a fool to think that they could do that again and have a successful show.

So, why does Roseanne think her show will be different? I really have no idea. Besides the idea that she essentially killed the show when her and Dan ultimately won the lottery. It was so far removed from the entire concept of the show that it just fell flat.

DO THEY COME BACK POOR AGAIN AFTER HAVING LIVED THE GOOD LIFE? AND DIDN'T HER AND DAN GET DIVORCED EVENTUALLY? 

I didn't do the research for this as I don't feel it is necessary, and honestly don't remember. Either way I don't it matters one iota.

Roseanne would do well do leave her show in the annals of history. There is even some thought that comes to mind that trying to revive the show may keep newer audiences from having any interest in tuning into any reruns of the old show.

IF THE NEW SHOW IS LOUSY, and I happen to think it will be, IT IS THE NEW SHOW AUDIENCES WILL REMEMBER.

In a nutshell, don't ruin a good thing is what I say. Of course, my advice is not really advise. It's just an opinion. And no one in Hollywood, and certainly not Roseanne Barr herself, will be reading this commentary and be persuaded to change her mind.

THAT ALL ASIDE, you do have some actors and personalities in their later years, their careers essentially dried up, who go on to pawn off their talents to skin creams, pain ointments, and dietary supplements. Maybe they need the money. Maybe Roseanne needs the money.

Or maybe she really has something up her sleeve that she can pull off her show's revival. I doubt it. But only time will tell. Will I tune in? Probably. Just because I am curious. But I think once the curiosity is done and my opinion is confirmed to be fact...

I'LL JUST MOVE ON LIKE I THINK SHE PROBABLY SHOULD...HAVE.

Sioux City Bee Farmer Loses All

FOR A BEE FARMER in Sioux City, Iowa, it turned out to be a terribly devastating tragedy when he discovered that vandals had knocked over and destroyed his beehives, leaving about 500,000 dead bees in the carnage.

For owner Justin Engelhardt this surely is NO WAY TO START OFF THE NEW YEAR as he told a local reporter that the vandals pretty much wiped out his entire business and he sees no way of recovering from the incident.

Certainly it is my opinion that the vandals be found as quickly as possible and swiftly brought to justice.

And the penalties should be stiff too. This is vandalism on a grand scale as it is probably not just the fact that these tools trespassed and destroyed a man's livelihood, but THEY ESSENTIALLY PUT THE MAN OUT OF BUSINESS!

I cannot imagine what the penalty would be for me if I were to walk into, say, a flower shop and destroy every flower or plant in the store.

Besides the fact that the act is totally uncalled for, it is also terribly pointless. What goes through the minds of some people? That's my question. Granted, as I often say in light of instances such as these, the fact that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND the mindset gives me comfort. 

I do wonder, however, whether this bee keeper at least had insurance? It doesn't seem to be the case if it is suggested that he will not be able to recover from this act. But it can serve as a lesson, perhaps, to other business owners who may have a similar type of business that perhaps they better make sure that they do in fact have some insurance...

JUST IN CASE!

The Internet Goes Click...Click...Click

It's a wonder to me that advertisers haven't gone beserk in some form or fashion from what seems to be the latest trend in Internet "storytelling." I mean, they spend a ton of money seeking out places to put their ads that will lure in what are supposed to be truly interested buyers of their products.

What's more, what's a click worth?

Well, money of course. Sure, a lot of these websites do get paid based on a certain number of impressions—and if you know what kind of websites I am talking about here, you know that every time one of their pages loads...

So do a ton of ADS!

So basically here's how these tend to work. You click onto a news story or something like that you might find say, on the Bing "homepage." Then you get suggested stories you might like somewhere after the article.

You click on one of those stories and a page loads...yep, complete with all those ads. It provides you some alluring detail...

Take as an example, "One Nike employee who costs the company the deal of a lifetime!"  It says "start slideshow" or something like that and now that you've gotten the bait you just have to click on, right?

So many people must do this, that's why these sites thrive.

So now another page loads, along with tons more ad displays, a picture perhaps as well pertinent to the "story" about to unfold. You'll notice that the screen jumps and scrolls itself. Funny how a lot of that jumping and scrolling occurs right around the time your pointer lands on "continue" or "next slide."

These websites are trying to force a click thru to one of those ads. Invariably to get PAID for that click. 

And that's not only annoying folks. But it is part of the reason I think the advertisers—the READERS notwithstanding—should be going beserk. 

The person clicking thru to that ad that advertiser is paying for probably has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in what the ad is about—let alone in buying anything.

Without question there's one more thing that comes readily to mind. The WEBSITE and the STORY WRITER has absolutely no interest in the story either. They are simply interested in getting PAID.

Now, on the surface there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone who writes anything on the Internet would like some form of compensation. It's not THE ONLY reason we do it. But getting some form of compensation from doing it is an added bonus that can help us to determine that the time we spend doing it is worth it in the end.

But there is something else annoying about this trend in websites. That is, in order to get through the whole "article," you're going to have to click through perhaps as many as fifteen pages. Each of those pages will have a paragraph or two that contributes to the story...

AND AGAIN! EVERYTHING IS JUMPING AROUND AND SCROLLING UP AND DOWN WHILE YOU ARE TRYING TO READ WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU TO ACCIDENTALLY CLICK AN AD!

Now. I do get the attention span thing. Or, the lack thereof which plagues society today and these websites understand that as well. It's another reason, in some ways, this tactic actually works. If someone clicks into an "article" and sees a standard article format with several paragraphs and a few pictures they are like to say, "Ugh, I don't want to read ALL that," and are simply going to move on—and tons of ads will never even get the pleasure of an eyeball.

To be honest I actually find these "articles" and the whole presentation a bit annoying if not entirely frustrating. I am extremely careful not to accidentally click an ad. In part because I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO THE ADVERTISER, and more importantly, I AM ACTUALLY THERE TO READ THE ARTICLE. I don't want to be distracted by having to go back from ad I didn't want to click on in the first place...

AND SOMETIMES THE PROCESS IS SO DAUNTING FOR THE PROCESSOR THAT IT OVERLOADS THINGS AND THEN THE SITE FREEZES AND YOU HAVE TO EITHER START ALL OVER, OR RESTART THE COMPUTER.

I personally much prefer a method I am using here for THIS piece. That is the "start-stop" method, or "forced break" method. You are using combinations of short phrases and paragraphs and all caps, italics, bold-face text and other things to give the reader breaks. It also detracts the reader LESS from the longer article format because on the surface, while it is longer, it doesn't immediately present itself as obvious.

It's not the way I prefer to write. But, I will say that given the choice on any of those articles that I am actually interested in the details of, I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO READ IT THIS WAY, THAN THE WAY MOST OF THESE SITES ARE PRESENTING IT. 

In some ways it actually does surprise me a bit that these sites DO INFACT work. It would seem to me that most people would find this sort of thing to be more of a nuisance than a great way to read an article.

But these sites also get an enormous AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, and for whatever reason the bigger "legit" websites cater to these "clickbait" websites. And so they get all the eyeballs. Other bloggers and article writers get shunned simply because they not only have a story to tell, but ACUTALLY WANT TO TELL THE STORY and would prefer that their story not be loaded up with all of those annoying distractions, jumping and auto-scrolling.

It is what it is, and as I have always said from a pure marketing perspective is that it continues to be done this way BECAUSE IT WORKS. I also know that writing an "article" in the format I have chosen here also works. I get the best hit counts when I write them this way as opposed to a more traditional format. 

And all that can be concluded from that is that until it doesn't work, the Internet, and the user, goes click...click...click...

Until either the readers get tired of it...or the advertisers pull the plug on it.

I do wonder though, out of all of those accidental clicks, how many people also accidentally pull out their wallets and their credit cards and actually buy what they have inadvertently clicked into? MAYBE THAT IS WHY ADVERTISERS have NOT gone beserk. Maybe it actually works? I'll never know because I avoid those accidental clicks like the plague.