All posts by Dr. ESP

Selective DEI

Culture, Politics

If you think “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) is a thing of the past, you would be sorely mistaken.  The only thing that changes is the target audience and the perceived threats.  Nothing makes this point more clearly than the following headline in the latest edition of the on-line University of Virginia newsletter “UVAToday.”  UVA Shares Report From External Review of Nov. 13 Shooting.  The report was in response to the shooting deaths of three UVA football players and wounding of two others on a bus that had just returned from a field trip to Washington, D.C.

The report contains several recommendations designed to ameliorate the possibility of similar future incidents, many of which were implemented prior to the report’s weekend release.  They include:

  • Expanded Threat Assessment Team Resources to include two full-time, licensed psychologists to serve as the associate and assistant directors of the Office of Threat Assessment; two response specialists; Housing & Residence Life representation; and a Victim Advocate/Threat Assessment Team liaison from the University Police Department.
  • Established an Office of Threat Assessment to more effectively lead the Violence Prevention Committee and execute the case-management recommendations of the Threat Assessment Team.
  • Enhanced Threat Assessment Team operating procedures and training opportunities, including the immediate investigation by the University Police Division if a firearm is reported to be on Grounds or in the possession of an individual who lives on Grounds.
  • Increased training and staff awareness on entering a dorm room to inspect for health and safety-related concerns.
  • Approved a permanent Emergency Operations Center to allow the University to activate the center without delay in response to emergency events.
  • Reorganized Student Affairs support resources – now known as the Care and Support Services, and Policy, Accountability and Critical Events units – to better discuss, review, triage and respond to student concerns and any necessary disciplinary actions.

Additional psychologists.  Response specialists. Victim advocates. Enhanced assessment.  Training and staff awareness.  Immediate response.  Care and support services to deal with student concerns.  Sound familiar?  These are some of the exact same services that used to be provided by university DEI programs for minority students which are now being shut down due to threats of extortion by the Trump administration.  I know.  You might argue that UVA’s enhanced efforts are focused on the threats to student safety resulting from physical violence.  Need I remind you of the lessons we learned from soldiers returning from Vietnam or first responders on 9/11.  All scars are not visible.

Or how about the new DEI program at Columbia University.  At the same time DEI efforts in support of minority students are being dismantled, the Columbia website touts efforts to address antisemitism.  Under the heading “Columbia Resources,” the university lists academic programs such as the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism, General Mental Health Support, Reporting Bias and Student Life Programming.

Do not get me wrong.  Gun violence and antisemitism are serious problems that deserve our attention.  But why are DEI-type activities okay when it involves threats to certain populations and not for others?  Is it the Don Ohlmeyer doctrine?  “The answer to all your questions is MONEY!”  Would Columbia University still have DEI programs for Black, Hispanic and Arab students if their parents were the major donors for whom buildings and schools are named?

Did some DEI programs have excesses that blurred the lines between support and overreach?  Probably.  However, the current situation strikes me as worse than the Elon Musk “DC Chainsaw Massacre.”  Instead of simply eliminating  USAID, it is akin to replacing it with USAIW, (U.S. Agency for the Independently Wealthy).  Oh, wait!  Isn’t that exactly what the combination of DOGE and the Trump cuts are going to do?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Grandpa Takes the Field

Economics, Sports

Boston Celtics sold for $6.1 billion to group led by private equity executive Bill Chisholm, a record for a U.S. sports team.

~CNBC.COM

After finishing with a league-worst 3-14 record last season, the Browns have increased the prices of their season ticket packages by an average of about seven percent.

~Crain’s Cleveland Business

There’s something quite ludicrous about someone who already has, say, $5.1 billion running off to his city with his fedora in hand.  Yet this is what sports team owners do on a regular basis.

~Inc. Magazine

Forget the days when ownership of a sports franchise was a wealthy person’s “give back” to the community.  Owners now see it as among the  most lucrative investments in their portfolio.  Just ask the previous Celtic’s owner, the Grousbeck family, who purchased the franchise in 2002 for $360 million, a 1,694 percent ROI  in 23 years. And how will the new owners recoup their $6.1 billion investment?  As noted above, raising ticket prices or threatening to move the team if its current home city does not pony up taxpayer dollars to subsidize a new, state-of-the-art stadium or arena.  The final piece of this three-legged stool is media revenue, which like ticket sales, depends on the size of the audience.

To increase fan interest in any number of sports, owners and league management have proposed or implemented changes which they believe will attract more fans to attend games or watch on television.  Some changes make sense, perhaps, the best example being baseball’s pitch clock to do away with the egomaniacal  histrionics of those who thought the mound was akin to the Globe Theater.  Sadly, Major League Baseball (MLB) refused to quit while it was ahead. They created the “runner on second” rule for extra innings where the team starts with a player at second base.  But it only applies in the regular season.  The lifelong memory of sitting in the stadium until the wee hours of the next day is no longer a possibility.  And why was it a “lifelong” memory?  Because it happened so rarely, few fans ever had a similar experience.

And then came this “brilliant” concept.  MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred recently floated the idea of a “Golden At-Bat” rule that “would allow teams to choose one at-bat in a game to send any hitter to the plate, regardless of the batting order.” (ESPN)  Fortunately, negative feedback forced Manfred to back off, saying, “To go from the conversation stage to this actually showing up in MLB is a very long road.”  Hey Rob, did you forget you’re the genius who started the conversation?

Though baseball is a piker when compared to the National Football League.  Consider the following.

  • More than doubling the length of the half-time intermission during the Super Bowl to accommodate musical extravagances.  On more than one occasion, this extended break completely changed a team’s momentum and the outcome of the game.
  • Creating a kick-off scenario which challenges the time/space continuum in the name of player safety while proposing to add an 18th regular season game to the schedule.
  • Knowing an additional game would be detrimental to players’ health, one version of the 18-game season would require players to sit out two of those contests.  Too bad if you paid top dollar for seats to watch your favorite player on the sidelines in street clothes.
  • Imposing a penalty on an offensive lineman whose head does not line up with the center’s behind.
  • Thursday night football.  Forcing teams to prepare for a game without the prerequisite time to recover from the previous one.
  • Spreading telecasts across two broadcast networks, two cable networks and two streaming services so viewers never know where to look for games or have to subscribe to additional platforms.  Is pay-per-view far away?

Not to mention fútbol/soccer.  A sport that uses technology called “Video Assistant Replay” (VAR), a fancy name for instant replay, for every offside violation cannot figure out how to operate a game clock.  I can only imagine the outcry if the World Cup champion is determined by a goal scored after the announced stoppage time in the second half has lapsed.

But let me close with my own sport of choice–golf.  The beauty of the game sportswriter Rick Reilly dubbed “A Good Walk Spoiled” is the environment in which it is played.  Recently, Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy and the PGA Tour decided that the challenge of uphill, downhill and sidehill lies further complicated by the weather du jour could be moved from its natural home to an indoor arena with fake grass mats, projected holes and an undulating green with hydraulic lifts that change throughout the contest.  The extent to which this setup resembles little that is associated with real golf was proved when the best player of this generation Woods confused a simulated 190 yard shot with a 90 yard attempt.  It produced a good laugh, but not golf.  Hopefully, it will go the way of World Team Tennis.

What do all these sports have in common?  The guardians of each do not have enough faith in what makes their respective domains special.  So they do things that bastardize the original concept in search of new audiences.  Why?  Because it takes time to educate the next generation about the challenges, strategies and nuances that makes one appreciate what is happening on the field, gridiron or course.  Because a parent cannot afford to take his or her children to a ballgame and share “inside information” about the game.  For example, the first time I took my daughter to a Royals game in Kansas City, I explained why walking the lead-off batter was a mistake.  One out of three times, the walked batter eventually reaches home base.  Twenty-five years later she reminded me of that statistic while watching an Orioles game at Camden Yards.  Instead of constantly looking for gimmicks to grow an audience, maybe owners and commissioners should figure out how to increase these interactions among long-time and potential new fans of their sports.

Grandpa has to go now.  It’s time for his seventh-inning nap.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Write

Culture

As some followers of this blog are aware, I co-host a monthly series titled “Cinema and Conversation” at our local book store (Story and Song).  The host each month screens a favorite film, then facilitates a discussion around the central theme and how the director, actors, et.al. present that message.  I have only one hard and fast rule when it comes to each month’s selection.  NO BLOCKBUSTERS.  The metric I use is all-time domestic box office.  I have never chosen a movie that is ranked in the top 2,000 (the threshold domestic box office being $47.4 million.)

How does this affect the selection?  Since the inaugural event in June 2018, not a single movie among my past choices has been dependent on action sequences (especially car chases) or special effects, with the possible exception of Andrew Niccol’s “S1m0ne” in which a supposed CGI generated actress is portrayed by the real Rachel Roberts.  What they do have in common is exceptional screenplays (many of which have won or been nominated for Academy Awards) and outstanding performances by actors who breathe life into the screenwriters’ words.  Concerning the latter, I find I subconsciously pick films which star individuals who do not qualify as cinematic idols, but time and time again deliver memorable performances in secondary roles.  For example, the cast on multiple occasions has included Joan Allen, Patricia Clarkson and William H. Macy.

Prior to last November’s election, the central themes of my selections revolved around a social or political issue,  They included:

  • Bend It Like Beckham (cultural biases)
  • The Front (blacklisting and censorship)
  • Eye in the Sky (the ethics of drone warfare)
  • Flash of Genius (protection of intellectual property)
  • Man of the Year (electoral integrity)
  • Defending Your Life (personal reflection)
  • Good Night, and Good Luck (the role of a free press)

After the election, cognizant of my audience’s exhaustion about all things political, I decided to opt for films that address my personal bias about the filmmaking industry.  Why do so many new releases depend on action or CGI instead of the screenplay?  The answer, of course, lies in the conflict between cinema as a art form and filmmaking as commercial enterprise.

I discovered the best way to explore this dichotomy was through three movies about the process by which movie studios evaluate and cull potential projects, and how once picked, they evolve from original concept to production to final edit.  The first film in this trilogy was Robert Altman’s 1992 production of the “The Player” starring Tim Robbins in his first leading role.  Some critics call “The Player” Altman’s middle finger to Hollywood following his exile after disastrous big-budget, box-office flop, “Popeye.”  In one interview, Altman says he wishes he had been more vicious.  “I think we were too nice to Hollywood in the film.”

The central theme is Hollywood’s reliance on seven formula elements on which success are dependent.  In the following sequence, producer Griffin Mill (Robbins) explains this process to his latest girlfriend June Gudmundsdottir (Greta Scacchi) and why Mill rejected her previous boyfriend’s script.

Griffin: It lacked certain elements that we need to market a film successfully. 
June: What elements? 
Griffin: Suspense, laughter, violence. Hope, heart, nudity, sex. Happy endings. Mainly happy endings. 
June: What about reality?
Griffin:  You’re not from Iceland, are you?

To prove Mill correct, all you have to do is look at the domestic box office numbers for the 10 films nominated this year for the best picture Oscar.  As of March 1, only two exceed $100 million in ticket sales:  “Wicked” ($472.9 million) and “Dune: Part Two” ($432.5 million).  Neither received nominations for best screenplay, original or adapted.  Not unexpectedly, “Dune: Part Two” took home the Oscars for best sound and best achievement in visual effect while “Wicked” won in two categories: achievement in production design and achievement in costume design.  In contrast, the two front runners for best picture both won screenplay Oscars:  “Anora” (original screenplay) and “Conclave” (adapted screenplay).  Yet, their March 1 box office totals were $15.7 million and $32.2 million, respectively.

While “The Player” focuses on efforts of screenwriters to pitch their concepts to studio executives, the second film in the trilogy, Spike Jonze’s 2002 film “Adaptation” takes a different tack.  In this narrative, the studio hires a screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) to develop a screenplay based on a unique book “The Orchid Thief” by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) for which the studio has already purchased the rights.  In the end, the film demonstrates the difference between a movie “based on” a source work and one “inspired by” the original material.  “Based on” requires the script be largely true to the source.  “Inspired by” suggests only that the story draw on the narrative, characters and/or settings from the original material.  “Adaptation” explores how this line gets blurred when balancing the competing goals of art versus commercial success.

Due to Story and Song’s licensing agreement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), we cannot share the name of a film or the actors in promotions for “Cinema and Conversation.”  At this time, all I can say about the third film in this trilogy is that it demonstrates how the process of bringing a story to your local theater or streaming television can go completely off the tracks.  If you live in NE Florida, I hope you will join me next Wednesday (March 19, 2025) at 5:00 pm at Story and Song for the final episode of this trip through Moviemaking Wonderland.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Economic Idealism

Economics

You can’t have everything.  Where would you put it?

~Comedian Steven Wright

The new economy still plays by the old economy rules.

~Nobel Laureate Economist Paul Romer

Wright was half-right, half wrong. Case in point?  At the height of post-COVID inflation, every economist west of the Atlantic coastline predicted the Biden administration faced an inevitable recession and higher unemployment if the Federal Reserve Bank raised interest rates to tamp down inflation.  However, unlike Wright’s warning, the American economy got everything it wanted–no recession, lower inflation, unprecedented job growth, record low unemployment, increase in wages, a stock market at all-time highs and rising consumer confidence.

How was the Biden administration able to do this?  Two very simple reasons.  Policy makers did not get drawn into the false choice between fiscal and monetary methods of juicing the economy.  And they had decades of historic data which provided guidance about the purpose and timing of these competing economic theories.

Remember, before Joe Biden took his oath of office, the unemployment rate peaked at 14.8 percent in April 2020.  In March 2021, Biden signed the American Rescue Act which provided $1.9 trillion in fiscal stimulus.  By the first anniversary of the law’s passage (March 2022), the unemployment rate fell to a historic low of 3.7 percent. 

That same month, the Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) raised interest rates on “federal funds” (the short-term interest rate at which banks lend money to each other overnight to ensure liquidity) from 0.25 to 0.50 percent, the first increase since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020.  The Fed would continue to raise the federal funds rate for the next 16 months to fight the inflationary impact of the stimulus package and disruptions in the supply chain for goods and services, until it reached a high of 5.50 percent in July 2023.

Where did Steven Wright miss the boat?  American voters did find a place to put this surprisingly ideal economic environment.  OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND.  Thanks in part to poor messaging by the Biden administration.  But mostly due to the “glass totally empty” fairy tale shared with sleepwalking Americans nightly on Trump state media.  Could the government have brought down inflation more quickly through even higher increases in interest rates or less fiscal stimulus?  Of course, but at what cost?  That is the point at which we need to heed Paul Romer.  The old economic rules would still apply.  Such drastic actions would probably have made the economists’ prediction of a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Would the MAGA-verse and its media echo chamber be any less critical with a lower inflation rate but more Americans without jobs and income to take advantage of the more stable pricing?  I think you know the answer.

So now we have an administration that is on the path of applying both fiscal and monetary policy for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time.  John Maynard Keynes, the father of fiscal economic policy, would tell us economic stimulus is most effective during downturns, not when the U.S. economy has experienced four years of sustained growth despite the odds of a recession.  To make matters worse, Donald Trump wants to eliminate The Fed’s independence to set interest rates, making that function more susceptible to political whims rather than impartial analysis.

SPOILER ALERT.  The regional Fed bank in Atlanta is now predicting the U.S. economy will shrink 1.5 percent from January-through-March 2025.  This decline, which is attributable to uncertainty associated with Trump’s across-the-board tariffs and lower consumer confidence, will give Trump and the MAGA Congress a justification for a stimulus package made up largely of tax breaks for the wealthy and major corporations.  Seems like the only history the Trump economic team has been reading is the infamous quote by Vietnam War era Lt. Colonel John Paul Vann to justify napalm bombing as a counterinsurgency tactic.  “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.”  And how did that turn out?

POSTSCRIPT

On last night’s edition of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver honed in on Trump’s proposal to eliminate federal income tax on tips, a targeted gimmick to appeal primarily to hospitality industry workers.  Sadly, Kamala Harris chose to also endorse the change in tax policy.  Oliver gave a number of reasons why the no-tax-on-tips idea might not be a good one and why it would be extremely hard to implement.  But he left out what may the most obvious reason this tax break would be unfair.

Since Trump originally made his no-tax-on-tips pledge at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, I will use the hospitality industry there as an example.  According to the website GLASSDOOR.COM, “The estimated salary range for a food server at the Bellagio in Las Vegas is between $54,510 and $168,543per year, depending on seniority.”  In contrast, SALARY.COM reports:

As of March 01, 2025, the average annual salary for a Public School Teacher in Las Vegas, NV is $59,989. According to Salary.com, salaries can range from a low of $41,053 to a high of $85,207, with most professionals earning between $50,077 and $73,189.

No one should be surprised.  Oliver pointed out that most servers at many lower-end restaurants, even with tips, do not make enough money to have any income tax liability; so the proposal would be of no benefit to them.  However, those at establishments that cater to the most wealthy would be the primary beneficiaries, while school teachers would likely face a tax increase based on the “Big Beautiful Bill” working its way through the House of Representatives.  One more reason Trump says, “I love the uneducated.”  They cannot do the math.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Missing the Key Point

Culture

This morning, the Huffington Post reprinted a post on X from a USDA worker in Kentucky who was fired on Valentine’s Day.  In case you missed it here are a couple of excerpts.

Donald J. Trump. Hello Sir. I am one of the probationary employees terminated by the Doge at 9:00pm last night; February 14. I voted for you, Sir, three times, and I still support you.  My termination letter said I was being let go for performance reasons. I know that’s not true; I am an excellent employee. 

I’m the only [redacted] in the State of Kentucky and my work here is valued and honorable. Each time I voted for you, it was because I knew you’d make things right and you’d fix the wrongs. I’m counting on you now to make this right too.  I’m pleading with you to reinstate my employment and give me my job back.  Please, Mr. President.  Thank you.

As of this morning, there were more than 2.5 million replies on X. As expected, responses from the non-MAGA community were laced with schadenfreude.

Do these people think they are going to get an exception because they are Trumpers? The leopard is not going to put your face back on.

More surprising were the responses from MAGA loyalists.  As HuffPost reported, “In response to the post, little sympathy was found from MAGA-supporting commenters.”  They provided the following as an example.

This is business ppl. You don’t sacrifice a country with bankruptcy to let ppl keep a job. They are very employable. Does it suck. Yes but it is a necessary evil.

What the HuffPost writer missed was the extent to which Trump supporters on both sides of this discourse are now captives of MAGA-THINK.  Let’s begin with the laid-off Kentucky USDA employee.  In the above excerpts from his original post he uses the word “I” or “my” a dozen times.  Not once does he suggest there might be other USDA staff whose work is also “valued and honorable” or were terminated for cause despite being “an excellent employee.”  Nor does he defend USDA.  Does he not realize his “valued and honorable” work derives from the agency’s congressionally mandated mission?  His main message?  “Help me.  To hell with everyone else.” 

He also makes it perfectly clear he believes in identify politics though I’d bet the farm he cheered when Trump signed an executive order shutting down all federally fundrf DEI programs.  It may not be race or gender, but claiming you should be privileged solely because you are a full-fledged member of MAGA-World smacks of the worse kind of favoritism.  Being part of this preferred class does not depend on some accident of birth or inherent trait.  Anyone can join.  All you have to do is make a Faustian deal and hand over your moral soul to King Donald.

The same holds true for those who suggested laid-off employees need to realize their termination was “a necessary evil” of Trump’s divine plan to make America great again.  Will they feel the same way when they lose their Medicaid benefits or they have thousands of dollars in daycare expenses because their young children no longer go to Head Start classes?  Or when they finally realize Elon Musk will get a multi-million dollar tax break while the cost of everyday goods and services rise as a result of Trump’s tariffs?  Are they going to rush to Truth Social and post, “I voted for you three times.  I still support you.  But please, I thought you were only going to punish the non-faithful.”

My message to both these segments of  the MAGA universe.  “Does it suck?  Yes, but it’s the unnecessary evil you made possible.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP