The Good Old Days? White House Fights the Free Market

The current occupant of the Oval Office would have me believe he’s The Champion of Small Business In The Face Of The Evil Empire of….Amazon.  Spare me.  (And, NO, the USPS isn’t going broke because of the shipping contract the company has with Amazon. It has much more to do with the Republican supported and enacted restrictions on its pension plan, which require inordinate prepayments into the plan. [IG Report]) So, returning to the topic at hand, let’s start with the proposition that nostalgia isn’t conducive to successful retail marketing.

A Little History 

Extrapolated into the realm of the ridiculous, there was a time before Macy’s and Bloomingdales (1858, 1861) when shoppers roamed among small retailers along commercial corridors.  Add the installations of elevators and escalators and the retailers could further “departmentalize” their offerings.  Surely there were objections from smaller retailers at the time, and there were probably others who decried the Memphis Piggly-Wiggly grocery store’s 1916 decision to let customers get their own items from the shelves rather than have a clerk do the accumulation.  However, it’s unimaginable to give any credence to the notion that innovations in retailing are necessarily nefarious.

The department stores faced competition beginning in 1872 from Aaron Montgomery Ward whose catalog advertised shipping via Express rail services, and from Richard Sears. Their catalog sales were boosted by the decision in 1913 to have the Post Office deliver domestic packages. [AtlasObs]  Again,  to assert that companies like Amazon, which depend on Internet ordering systems are somehow essentially different from the innovations adopted by Ward and Sears is risible.  What we might be hearing from the White House is the lament for brick and mortar retailers who rent property?

Another Change in Retail Habits

We’ve moved from shopping along Main Street, to shopping from catalogs, to shopping from online catalogs.  And, yes, Amazon is now a big presence in the retail system:

“The simplest explanation for the demise of brick-and-mortar shops is that Amazon is eating retail. Between 2010 and last year, Amazon’s sales in North America quintupled from $16 billion to $80 billion. Sears’ revenue last year was about $22 billion, so you could say Amazon has grown by three Sears in six years. Even more remarkable, according to several reports, half of all U.S. households are now Amazon Prime subscribers.” [Atlantic]

However, this is an over-simplification which goes nowhere toward explaining how a chain store founded in 1962 in Arkansas has grown into a 2,000,000+ employer, or why Target seems to be holding its own in the Big Box Store category.  Notably, both Walmart and Target have an Internet operation.

We can lament the demise of the brick and mortar retailers, but as the Atlantic article points out, part of the hard, sad, truth is that we simply built too many of them.

“The number of malls in the U.S. grew more than twice as fast as the population between 1970 and 2015, according to Cowen and Company’s research analysts. By one measure of consumerist plentitude—shopping center “gross leasable area”—the U.S. has 40 percent more shopping space per capita than Canada, five times more the the U.K., and 10 times more than Germany. So it’s no surprise that the Great Recession provided such a devastating blow: Mall visits declined 50 percent between 2010 and 2013, according to the real-estate research firm Cushman and Wakefield, and they’ve kept falling every year since.” [Atlantic]

Toss in a measure of stagnating wages and decreased levels of discretionary spending and it’s little wonder the mall traffic is declining.

“After adjusting for inflation, wages are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973, with annual real wage growth just below 0.2 percent.[1] The U.S. economy has experienced long-term real wage stagnation and a persistent lack of economic progress for many workers.” [Brookings]

Those “many workers” are deciding the Big Box, and online bargain offers, are preferable to mall browsing.   We overbuilt malls, organized them around “anchors” which are looking at declining sales from Big Box, discounters, and online shopping, and thus shouldn’t be surprised when the free market works.

That the current president is upset with the reportage of the Washington Post, owned by the same man who founded Amazon, is no surprise either.  However, that doesn’t fully explain his antagonism which may also be a function of being a real estate developer, and a real estate developer who seems to be freighted with altogether too much nostalgia for those “Good Old Days” when we’d take the transit or pile into the family wagon to shop on site.   There have been major innovations in retailing since the first butcher opened his first shop and accepted payment in cowrie shells.

The Nevada Situation

Obviously, the largest factor in the Nevada is “Accommodations and Food Service,” read: Casinos and restaurants; but the second largest employment category is good old fashioned retailing.  As of the SBA’s 2017 report, there are 140,879 people employed by retailers; of this figure 39,947  are employed by small businesses, or about 28%. [SBA pdf]

There’s reason for cautious optimism in southern Nevada with regard to wages and spending, but …

“The Las Vegas MSA’s 12MMA of average weekly earnings (not inflation-adjusted) went up by another $3 in November. This was the 4th month in a row nominal average weekly earnings rose by $3, continuing a steady streak of growth started just over 3 years ago in September 2014. On a YOY basis, the 12MMA was up $37 (5.0%) from November 2016.

When considered on an inflation-adjusted, YOY basis, earnings rose by 2.8% in November 2017 compared to November 2016, reaching $669 (in 2007 dollars). This was an increase of $1 from October. Las Vegas’ average weekly real wage is now $82 (10.9%) below the most recent inflation-adjusted peak of $751 that occurred over 10 years ago in August 2007. The trough occurred in February 2012 at just over $616, so Las Vegas remains much closer to the trough than the peak.” [StatPak]

If we’re looking for significantly increased demand to boost the southern Nevada retail sector further, something is going to have to happen to those average weekly wages.  The picture for northern Nevada is slightly more optimistic:

“While Washoe County’s economy continues to benefit from rising taxable retail sales, the YOY growth rate has fallen considerably from a year ago. In November 2017, the rate of growth was 6.2% YOY, or 3.2 points lower than the year period ending in November 2016. However, when compared to the month prior, it is down 0.2 points. Taxable retail sales reached $686.8 million in November, having already surpassed, in March 2016, the previous peak on a nominal basis (not inflation-adjusted). As the chart shows, Washoe’s taxable sales growth is very near the state average at just 0.4 points below.

Success in business attraction and retention is driving the region’s economy and is the primary cause of growth in taxable retail sales, though increasing visitation has also contributed.”  [Statpak]

One other factor to be considered before pronouncing Amazon as the harbinger of demise for retail malls is good old fashioned demographics. Neighborhoods change, people move, and the “centrality” of a mall constructed in the late 1960’s or 1970’s may not reflect the residential and traffic patterns 40-50 years later.

And yes, I remember shopping for vinyl records in Park Lane Mall ages ago… when I was still playing vinyl records… before I shifted to CDs … before I downloaded … anyone who expects (or wants) retail endeavors to remain constant in the tides of time will have about as much success as King Canute attempting to command the liquid form of tides.

Comments Off on The Good Old Days? White House Fights the Free Market

Filed under Economy, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics

Flashback: The Long Telegram

Every once in a while at least one of the pundits on the Chatty Channels appears to have a functioning grasp of the history of US / Russian relations, and a sense of how prescient former diplomats have been in the past.  Such was the case when Ambassador Kennan’s 2/22/46 “Long Telegram” was referenced.

Kennan was describing “soviet” policy in post WWII relations but he might easily have been describing current Russian foreign policy.  What are some important Russian goals? Are they similar to what Kennan listed in 1946?

“(a) Everything must be done to advance relative strength of USSR as factor in international society. Conversely, no opportunity most be missed to reduce strength and influence, collectively as well as individually, of capitalist powers.

(b) Soviet efforts, and those of Russia’s friends abroad, must be directed toward deepening and exploiting of differences and conflicts between capitalist powers. If these eventually deepen into an “imperialist” war, this war must be turned into revolutionary upheavals within the various capitalist countries.

(c) “Democratic-progressive” elements abroad are to be utilized to maximum to bring pressure to bear on capitalist governments along lines agreeable to Soviet interests.

(d) Relentless battle must be waged against socialist and social-democratic leaders abroad.”

“…deepening and exploiting of differences and conflicts between capitalist powers” isn’t far from the current Russian efforts to create divisions and undermine coalitions like NATO, the European Union, and the United Nations.  We should also notice that it was, and is, a Russian goal to create problems for western nations both “collectively as well as individually.” Then as now.   There is another paragraph which deserves reflection, and Kennan delves into the origins of Russian opposition to western nations.

“At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.”

This analysis goes a way toward explaining the Russian efforts to control news, indulge in state propaganda instead of a free press, and its propensity to destroy those who would provide information about Russian machinations to western authorities.  [EveningStandard] Witness the changing Russian stories about the Salisbury Attack: (i) It wasn’t Russia; (ii) If it was a Russian nerve agent it wasn’t us; (iii) We don’t know if it’s Russian because the British won’t share all the elements of their investigation; (iv) It’s a false flag operation by the British themselves. As the British Prime Minister explained, there really is no other plausible narrative concerning the Salisbury Attack other than Russian operations.

Substitute “Russian” for “Soviet” in the Kennan telegram, and we see substantiation for the Prime Minister’s conclusion:

“Soviet policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes: (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Soviet Government; and (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Soviet Government does not admit responsibility.”

Kennan’s perspective is also applicable to current Russian diplomatic “objectives.”

“(e) Everything possible will be done to set major Western Powers against each other. Anti-British talk will be plugged among Americans, anti-American talk among British. Continentals, including Germans, will be taught to abhor both Anglo-Saxon powers. Where suspicions exist, they will be fanned; where not, ignited. No effort will be spared to discredit and combat all efforts which threaten to lead to any sort of unity or cohesion among other [apparent omission] from which Russia might be excluded. Thus, all forms of international organization not amenable to Communist penetration and control, whether it be the Catholic [apparent omission] international economic concerns, or the international fraternity of royalty and aristocracy, must expect to find themselves under fire from many, and often [apparent omission].”

Using the evaluation offered above by Ambassador Kennan, the negative diplomatic reaction to the US President’s failure to mention Article 5 of the NATO agreement last June is more understandable.

Among the recommendations there’s this paragraph from the 1946 document which should remind us that “America Alone” is not the best way to face the Russian regime:

(2) Gauged against Western World as a whole, Soviets are still by far the weaker force. Thus, their success will really depend on degree of cohesion, firmness and vigor which Western World can muster. And this is (?) factor which it is within our power to influence.

“Cohesion, firmness, and vigor” should be a matter of collective response between and among western nations if Russian policy is to be thwarted, not a policy of disengagement with our allies.

Kennan’s last recommendation is poignant and compelling:

(5) Finally we must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After Al, (?) the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.

I’d highly recommend going to the link for the entire document, and taking a few moments to give serious consideration to its insights, and applicability to today’s diplomatic situation.

Comments Off on Flashback: The Long Telegram

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

We Are Not Being Well Served: A Lethal Pattern of Administration Obstruction

We aren’t well served when the Department of Justice declines to work WITH state officials to implement policy.  When the DoJ dithers about assisting Nevada’s attempt to improve the background check process for firearm purchases — [NV Indy] Gee, it almost seems like someone at the federal level is doing a bureaucratic dance routine to subvert the intent of those who want to expand background checks?  Someone doesn’t want to alienate the powers that be at the NRA?  Meanwhile candidate Adam Laxalt, subservient as ever to the NRA line, must be pleased with Governor Sandoval’s discomfort.

We also aren’t well served by the right wing echo chamber which has now evidently decided that if they can’t find logical arguments to deflect the demands made by the kids in March for Our Lives they will happily start tooting the Swift Boat Parade Brigade horns with personal attacks on the kids themselves.  [TampaBT] [WaPo] [KCStar] However, ad hominem is all too often the preferred argument for many on the right side of the political spectrum.  These people might be dismissed as small people with smaller, narrower, minds except that they have the ear of the current mis-administration, and those ears are receiving messages out of step with American concerns.  Listening to these radical voices obscures national issues we should be focusing upon.

Nor are we well served when the message comes from the podium at the White House briefing room that the Department of Justice will take no role in the investigation of the shooting of Sacramento citizen Stephon Clark.  There’s a pattern here.

The FBI will not facilitate the implementation of Nevada’s Question 1 decision. The Department of Justice will take its sweet time promulgating rules concerning the sale of bump stocks (see Las Vegas concert massacre). The Department of Justice will do an about-face on federal participation in the investigation of law enforcement use of lethal force on members of minority communities.  This pattern may explain why the citizens of Nevada continue to be frustrated by the lack of Question 1 implementation, the citizens of the US continue to see protests related to Black Lives Matter, and young people bemoan (and organize) against the inflexible obstruction to their demands for sensible restrictions on gun ownership and sales.

What the pattern won’t accomplish is the solution to any of the problems addressed by the Black Lives Matter organization or the young people involved in March for Our Lives.  The two issue areas are not unrelated.

Bullets fired from guns kill people.  The bullet may be a .223 round (5.56 mm) coming at a person at 3,330 feet per second (about three times the velocity of a typical Glock pistol.) [BI]  The bullets may also come from a Glock 19 or the Glock 22, or perhaps the Smith & Wesson M or P9, the most popular service handguns for law enforcement personnel. [SRI]  Instances of bullets being fired by one human being at another human being, or beings, should be investigated fully.  We have no problem with this concept when thinking about murder investigations in general.  We do have a problem with the concept when it’s in the context of a mass shooting or in a case of the use of lethal force by a police officer.

In the instances of mass shootings authorities appear to want to investigate everything except the actual cause of death — the AR 15 is often the weapon of choice for mass shooters [BI] who want to use the gun as it was designed — to cause the greatest level of lethality in the briefest possible time.  If we know the level of lethality associated with the use of assault style weapons like the AR 15 why don’t we directly address the issue of whether or not these should be in the hands of civilians?

In the instances of officer involved shootings almost the first thing reported is that the “officers feared for their lives.”

“Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.

An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.” [Guardian 2015]

Question: Why do law enforcement personnel “fear for their lives” more often when confronting a person of color than when facing a white person?  I think we know the answer, it is just that this aspect of the problem isn’t something the present Department of Justice is particularly interested in pursuing.

We aren’t well served by an administration which will not admit the vast scope of the problems presented by mass shooters and highly questionable use of force by some members of law enforcement.  These are national problems which beg for national solutions, whether the current Department of Justice wants to step up to the plate or not.


The kids have broken the 10,000 contract plateau in their Parents Promise To Kids project.  Right now it’s at 10,127.  That’s 10,127 parents, grandparents, and other interested people who have pledged to kids they will make gun reform a major feature in their voting decisions.  Step Up. Thank You.

Comments Off on We Are Not Being Well Served: A Lethal Pattern of Administration Obstruction

Filed under Gun Issues, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Isabelle Robinson Takes Us To School

Nag Nag Nag.  The kids at Parents Promise To Kids have picked up 9,725 parents and family members for their contract project as of right now.  We can do a bit better. They should break 10K today.  Take a minute to make a difference.

Reading material:

This isn’t recommended reading — it should be required reading.  Isabelle Robinson, a senior at Stoneman Douglas HS speaks to the ill informed suggestion that students are responsible for “making peers feel better,” and thus less likely to commit atrocities.  She’s right.  The “WalkUpNotOut” proposal is a distraction, and for my money a very dangerous distraction.   Let’s agree, if only for the sake of the argument, that discussions about mental health and adolescent issues are a diversion from the very real problem of access to guns.

In the aftermath of the Columbine massacre, (April 20, 1999) in which two very disturbed youngsters hauled firearms, and propane tanks, into their high school with every intention of either shooting or blowing their cohorts to bits, we discussed “bullying” ad nauseam — to the detriment of closing the gun show loophole.  No, the kids at Columbine almost twenty years ago were no more responsible for the actions of the criminals than the young people in Parkland, FL are responsible for the damage done to their lives.  Robinson puts it succinctly:

“This deeply dangerous sentiment, expressed under the #WalkUpNotOut hashtag, implies that acts of school violence can be prevented if students befriend disturbed and potentially dangerous classmates. The idea that we are to blame, even implicitly, for the murders of our friends and teachers is a slap in the face to all Stoneman Douglas victims and survivors.”

Please don’t misunderstand me, anti-bullying programs and rules are positive and useful.  However, never mistake an exercise in victim-blaming for a substantive suggestion toward solving our gun violence problems. Never mistake assigning “mental illness” as the culprit when it’s access to guns that increases the lethality of the incidents. Surely no one is suggesting that teens acquire the nuanced information in the current literature on the subject of violence and mental illness.

“Taken together with the MacArthur study, these papers have painted a more complex picture about mental illness and violence. They suggest that violence by people with mental illness — like aggression in the general population — stems from multiple overlapping factors interacting in complex ways. These include family history, personal stressors (such as divorce or bereavement), and socioeconomic factors (such as poverty and homelessness). Substance abuse is often tightly woven into this fabric, making it hard to tease apart the influence of other less obvious factors.”  [Harvard Health]

If the experts admit it is difficult to analyze and evaluate the factors — obvious and obscure — involved in mass killings, then certainly it doesn’t do to prescribe such a bromide as ‘if you’d only been nicer to  him…’ in the present instances of gun violence.

Of all the assaults on the Parkland, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles (etc) students who spoke so eloquently on the subject of gun violence during the March for Our Lives rallies, none seems more insidious than to suggest that they could have ‘prevented’ the heinous crimes IF they had been proactive little saints.  They are the victims.

Has anyone suggested that the concert attendees in Las Vegas might have been more involved in the mental illness factors contributing to the slaughter on October 1, 2017?  Were the movie theater goers in any way responsible for the shooting in Aurora in July 2012?  Were the church members responsible in any way for the outrageous shooting in Sunderland Springs, TX November 5, 2017? The answer if obviously a resounding “no.”  However, too many people have expended too much wind re-litigating the diversionary arguments of Columbine.  I’d urge a careful reading of Isabelle Robinson’s essay, it’s definitely an “A” grade example of student writing. And, an “A” grade rebuttal to the distraction tactics of the radical gun lobby.

Comments Off on Isabelle Robinson Takes Us To School

Filed under Gun Issues, Politics

Bits and Pieces: Parents Promise To Kids, etc.

A reminder: The “kids” — those who have been behaving more like the adults than the adults of late — have a project in which they would appreciate our participation.  It’s Parents Promise to Kids.  They’re up to 9,221 downloads of their contract form.  Please click over to their site, download the contract, and participate in their newest project.

Recommended Reading:   DB’s not done this for a while, and now seems as good time as any.

“The state plans to move a program to identify and treat children and young adults in the earliest stages of serious mental illness in-house next month, a move that officials say will allow them to better leverage Medicaid dollars to pay for mental health services.” Nevada Independent to read more.

“Three political watchdog groups have filed complaints against Clark County District Judge Susan Johnson over comments she made regarding President Donald Trump, despite a finding from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline that her statements were OK.”  Read more at the LV Review Journal.

Also in Las Vegas: “Experts say this desert valley of shimmering lights and more than 2.1 million residents — its workforce dominated by casino, hotel and restaurant employees — has a growing affordable-housing crisis.”  LV Review Journal.

A nationwide problem: “Time and again, the nation has mourned the loss of black lives and taken to the streets and social media to demand both an end to these killings and accountability for those involved. Here are 20 other cases where officers have escaped prosecution and walked free.”  Huffington Post.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Bits and Pieces: Parents Promise To Kids, etc.

Filed under Politics

What’s Next? The kids are already ahead of the pundits

For all the pundit palaver on television opining about “what’s next?” please be advised the kids are already ahead of the game.  We can reasonably assume that while the stage was being dismantled there were youngsters working on their ParentsPromiseToKids web site.  The site is simple and direct.

“Students Adam Buchwald and Zach Hibshman, both juniors at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, have taken the initiative to create the organization “Parents Promise To Kids” to ensure that children’s voices are HEARD! In our movement, we urge parents to make a promise to their children that they will vote for politicians who choose your children’s safety over guns! Children under the age of 18 are not permitted to vote for our leaders; however, their parents are. We want parents to sign a contract to promise their children that they will vote for politicians who will keep our schools safe. Parents, make a promise to your kids!”

The instructions are simple and direct:

In order to be apart of our movement, we would like parents to sign a contract, print it, and take a picture with their children to show their support against guns. Please refer to our contract page.

There are contract forms for parents, for grandparents, and a general contract for “interested others.” Download. Print. Share.  As of today 8,521 individuals have downloaded the contracts.  It’s the next step to assist those youngsters who are as yet too young to vote in our elections, but unfortunately not too young to be the targets of gun violence.

Your support would be appreciated.  (In the time it took to type this post the number of downloads moved from 8,513 to 8,527.  Join the movement.)

Comments Off on What’s Next? The kids are already ahead of the pundits

Filed under Gun Issues, Politics

Nevada’s Most Super Sensitive GOP Staffer (with suggestions for alternative messages)

Before all elseMarch for Our LivesReno 11:30 AM, Downtown City Plaza (10 N. Virginia Street) Saturday, March 24, 2018.  Forecast: Mostly sunny, 45F high.

March for Our LivesLas Vegas 10:00 AM, Smith Center for the Performing Arts, downtown Las Vegas 361 Symphony Park. March 24, 2018.  Partly cloudy, 70F high.

March for Our LivesMesquite 10:00 AM, Mesquite City Hall, South Yucca St. and Mesquite Blvd. March 24, 2018.  Partly cloudy, gusty wind, 73F High.

March for Our LivesTruckee (CA) 11:00 AM, Truckee Regional Park, rodeo staging area, Brockway Road, March 24, 2018.  Possible chance of  snow showers (50%), 31F high.

And then there’s Mark Amodei (R-NV2)  whose staff was offended by a student dropping the F-word during a call to his office concerning gun control issues.  According to Amodei, the staffer called the young man’s high school without asking for retaliation or retribution. Amodei promptly ascribed the teen’s suspension to the school and took no responsibility for what happened — which SO sounds like the District 2 representative.

And here’s another Amodei-an excuse for the ages:

“Amodei defended his staffer and said no apology is necessary. The congressman said the situation was not a matter of shutting down the student’s First Amendment rights.

“I’m not apologizing because my guy accurately described what happened in the phone call,” he said.

Amodei said the student’s rudeness prompted Arturo Garzon, who serves as one of the Nevada Republican constituent services representatives, to call the school. Garzon managed to reach the principal by chance, he said.”

Just a few points to make here.  First, no one appears to be arguing about what the young man said.  No one is arguing about whether what our super sensitive staffer heard. No one is arguing that the super sensitive staffer didn’t relay this information.  However, no one should be buying the excuse being shopped by the Representative.  What we might want to ask is: If the person who dropped the F-bomb in the course of calling the Congressman’s office was a 45 year old man — would the super sensitive staffer have called the person’s place of employment?  If the constituent caller was a 30 year old housewife, would our super sensitive staffer call the spouse?  If the caller was an 80 year old retiree would our super sensitive staffer call the retirement home?  Somehow I don’t think so.

Yes, our Super Sensitive Staffer has “first amendment rights,” and is entitled to be as offended as Great Auntie Ellie might be; what he does NOT have is the privilege of whining to a person’s school, place of employment, or others in authority, to express that sentiment to the detriment of the individual.  The ACLU argues that a constituent has the right to expect a reasonable measure of privacy:

“We at the ACLU of Nevada and the public would certainly welcome Congressman Amodei’s justification of his office’s retaliation against his constituent. While congressional staffers do have First Amendment rights, they do not have rights to retaliate against constituents by exposing their confidential conversations and communications,” Story said. “Every constituent petitions the government with an expectation of privacy, if their opinion is to be made public, that choice is the constituents to make, not the Congressman’s or his staff’s. The oath the congressman swore to uphold applies to every constituent, not just the ones with whom he agrees.”

There’s a bit more to examine here:

After this call, a staffer from Congressman Amodei’s office called Noah’s school and, in an act of unconstitutional retaliation, reported this conversation as “offensive.” Noah was then suspended for two days for “disrespectful behavior/language,” even though none of his speech was directed at school staff or other students.

It would seem that the Super Sensitive Staffer decided to not only contact the school with a direct report of the young man’s comment, but added his own opinion stating the call was “offensive.”  Indeed, the Super Sensitive Staffer may have his opinion, but why else would he call McQueen High School unless he intended for the school to do something in retribution for the so-called “offense?”  To do so would leave us with the impression that our Super Sensitive Staffer is the sort of person who would hang out at the mall, and then call schools should those wearing their school identifying clothing engage in public displays of affection?  “I just thought I should tell you that _____ was hanging out with a ____ at the mall, and they were…kissing…in public…right there in front of everyone…”

As a public service, Desert Beacon offers a glossary of terms one might wish to use during calls to Congressman Amodei’s office lest his Super Sensitive Staffers be “offended.”

For “get off your f-ing asses” we might substitute the following:

Please abjure fornication with a beast of burden (or posteriors, backsides) such that time is available for legislative action. 

Do terminate coition with any equus asinus (or buttocks, bottoms) for an interval of sufficient length for the consideration of necessary legislation.

It is requested that coitus be interrupted with a neddy (or hindquarters, fanny, rumps) so that legislative issues might be discussed and debated.

We call for the cessation of copulation with any and all burros (or derriéres)   in order to give ample time to consider the passage of desired legislative action.

We encourage the Representative to discontinue any intimate relationship with donkeys (or posteriors, fundaments) so that necessary legislation may be considered and enacted. 

Here’s hoping other Amodei constituents will find these suggestions helpful when dealing with Amodei’s Super Sensitive Staffers.  Good Luck.

Comments Off on Nevada’s Most Super Sensitive GOP Staffer (with suggestions for alternative messages)

Filed under Amodei, Nevada politics, Politics