Baseball Hope Springs Eternal

I hate this time of the baseball season.  It is early enough in the season where few teams have been mathematically eliminated, yet far enough in that most teams should know better about their chances but delude themselves with false optimism.

For example, let’s take the New York Yankees.  At the trade deadline they uncharacteristically became sellers, unloading two All-Star relief pitchers, Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman, to contenders in exchange for prospects, and for good measure they unloaded their best hitter, Carlos Beltran. Yet, even after all this activity, I heard an ESPN talking head (maybe a former Yankee, but I don’t recall) say the old cliché, “The Yanks aren’t out of it!”

Speaking mathematically, that is technically correct.  At the time the Yanks were 58-56, only 3 ½ games out of the second wild card position.  With 50 games to go, why couldn’t they make up 3 ½ games?

The answer is because they are a .500 team after 70% of the season.  That is a pretty good sample size.  Baseball Reference gives them a Simple Rating System rating of -0.1, meaning that factoring in strength of schedule they are actually a below average team (an average team has a SRS of 0).  To get to a reasonably good number of wins to make the playoffs, like 87, they’d have to go 29-19 or play .600 the rest of the way.  Is there any reason for thinking a .500 will become a .600 team after giving away their two best closers and best hitter?  It isn’t impossible, but I estimate the odds of it happening are less than 3% NOT factoring in the loss of talent.

The Yankees are only 3 ½ games out of the second wild card spot, but they are behind the Tigers, Mariners and Astros.  This means that the Yankees would have to play 3 ½ games better than three teams ahead of them (who obviously have a better record than them right now), plus hope no team behind them passes them.  Add in the fact that the Yankees have a losing record against the other teams in the AL East, and their prospects of inning diminish even further.

Manager Joe Girardi said the reason why he refused the play A-Rod at third base in his final game was because he was trying to win ballgames.  I guess he didn’t get the memo from Yankee management that by trading for prospects the Yankees are now playing for the future, not to win.

And even the above argument is all about getting to the second wild card spot.  In the four post seasons since the implementation of the second wild card spot, the team eking its way into the playoffs by that method has only won in the next series twice out of eight times (St. Louis in 2012, Chicago in 2015), but none went any further.  So winning the second wild card slot is hardy a road to the World Series (granted this is a small sample size, plus in 2014 both San Francisco and Kansas City made it to the World Series as first wild card teams).

I’ve always lived by the rule of thumb that if your team is at or below .500 on August first, don’t get your hopes up.  Even a returning superstar would be hard pressed to drive a team to the playoffs that had as many losses as wins that late in the season.  As the old saying goes, wait ‘til next year.

RIP David Huddleston

RIP David Huddleston

Memory is weird.  Has there ever been an actor or actress you were familiar with who appeared in dozens, maybe hundreds of TV and movie roles, yet your best memory of them is in something that time has completely forgotten?  That is my experience upon hearing about the death of David Huddleston.

According to IMDB Huddleston had 145 acting credits, including iconic roles in The Big Lebowski (as the title character) and Blazing Saddles.  He received an Emmy nomination for playing Kevin’s grandfather on The Wonder Years.  He played the title character in the movie Santa Claus.  He was one of those character actors who seemingly popped up on every major (or minor) TV series in the 1970’s, ‘80’s and ‘90’s, from Star Trek: The Next Generation to The West Wing to Blansky’s Beauties. 

Yet I remember him from what I have long described as the single worst television show ever committed to the airwaves, a short-lived (7 episodes) NBC comedy from 1979 called Hizzonner.  The IMDB page is woefully absent of details, but if I recall correctly the show featured not only Huddleston’s acting ability, but also his writing, singing and dancing chops.  If I am correct, this information is sorely lacking from both the IMDB synopsis and the show’s Wikipedia entry.

The show was about a genial small town mayor, played by Huddleston.  Again, my recollection is that Huddleston had a hand in creating the show and writing for it (IMDB has no writing credits for Huddleston, so I could be wrong).  I recall in one episode Huddleston broke into a song and dance as if it were a musical (a very small, low budget musical).

The IMDB entry says it co-starred Diana Muldaur (a veteran TV actress from the original Star Trek and LA Law) and Gina Hecht (later on Mork & Mindy).  I remember nothing of them.  I do recall Huddleston’s co-star Don Galloway, hot off his supporting turn on Ironside.  All I remember of Galloway was that, as a comedic actor, he was stiffer than a block of wood.

I don’t mean any of this as denigrating Huddleston’s talent.  He had a long, successful career as a character actor, and even if Hizzoner was a bad show, it was good enough to get on the air at a time when there were only 3 networks.  You have to be really good to make the worst show on television.

So while everyone fondly recalls David Huddleston from The Big Lebowski (I love the Coen Brothers, but I don’t get that movie), I think of an all-but-forgotten sitcom that he put his unique stamp on.  I won’t be lobbying for a release of the complete Hizzoner on DVD (assuming the tapes of the show were preserved somewhere), but if it was on Netflix I’d check it out.

Alas, it seems like the only surviving traces of Hizzoner exist in my fading memories.

Movie review: Beyond

Movie Review: Star Trek Beyond

There’s an old vaudeville joke about the fourth wife of a gentlemen and the honeymoon; she may know what’s expected of her, but she’s not sure how to make it interesting.  That sums up the problem with the Star Trek movies in a nutshell.  After 50 years (50!) we want our Star Trek movies to meet our expectations and also surprise us.  That may be too much to ask.

The latest incarnation in the Star Trek saga is Beyond, although “Yawn” might be a more apt title.  It hits all the familiar Trek tropes—Spock and McCoy bicker, Scotty does magic in engineering, a seemingly invincible foe is overcome by Kirk’s ingenuity and daring.  The movie is light on Kirk’s womanizing, as the main female in the film seems more interested in Scotty than Kirk, but then the actor playing Scotty (Simon Pegg) co-wrote the screenplay, so that explains that.

The plot is more straightforward than the plot to Into Darkness, thank goodness.  An unknown alien arrives at the Starbase Yorktown with a story about how her ship was attacked on the other side of some space cloud, and of course Kirk, who is contemplating transfer to a desk assignment, naturally volunteers to investigate.  Upon arrival the Enterprise is set upon by the same entity that attacked the alien.  The Enterprise is overcome by a swarm of seemingly tens of thousands of small one-or-two man ships that easily slice through defenses designed to stop Romulan Birds of Prey and other large destroyers.  The crew evacuates and find themselves on different parts of the planet below.

Of course Spock (Zachary Quinto) and McCoy (Karl Urban) end up together so they can carry on like an old married couple.  Kirk (Chris Pine, once again doing an admirable job of filling William Shatner’s shoes) ends up with Checkov (the late Anton Yelchin) on the wreckage of the saucer section.  Scotty lucks out and is rescued by an attractive alien (Sophia Boutella) who wields a mean quarterstaff.  It is debatable which Scotty finds more attractive, her physique or the fact that she jury rigged a derelict star fleet vessel into working as her home.

The plotting is sloppy and slipshod, not surprising given that this was Pegg’s first experience with a science fiction screenplay.  For example, I was convinced that the make-up department had done a bad job on the main villain, Krall (Idris Elba), because his alien make-up seemed inconsistent.  Very late in the film it is revealed that he somehow has the power to alter his appearance; this is information that should have been clarified and explained earlier.

Also unexplained is the main big bad, some device that somehow could kill everyone on Starbase Yorktown, or any planet.  It serves the same purpose as the red goop in the first Star Trek reboot in 2009, when a small drop destroyed the planet Vulcan (or for that matter the Infinity Stone in Guardians of the Galaxy).  What is it?  We don’t know.  How does it work? If the screenwriters told us, then someone might nitpick the science and tell the internet.  So just accept that it can kill lots of people.

Of course since we don’t know how it works, that makes Kirk’s plan to stop it equally arbitrary.  And man, is it arbitrary.  It reminded me of what I perceive to be the difference between the original Trek in the 1960’s and the Next Gen version—in the original Trek, a problem would be posed in the first 10 minutes, and Kirk spent the next 45 minutes looking for a solution; on Next Gen, Picard took 45 minutes to figure out what the problem was, then ordered Giordi to push a button to fix it.  It is impossible to feel ANY tension in the ending because we know Kirk isn’t going to fail, the seemingly invincible enemy has a flaw, and Starbase Yorktown won’t have piles of corpses lining its nice shiny streets at the end.

How can you make a dramatic movie if there are no stakes?  The original movies solved the problem brilliantly by killing Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  After that there was no assurance that Sulu or Uhuru might survive the next movie.  At least for a while.

This is the problem with the recent spate of superhero movies.  Who’s going to die at the end of Captain America 3: Civil War?  Will Superman kill Batman, or vice versa?  And who cares if the endings are predictable, when Superman v. Batman: Dawn of Justice gets universally panned and still makes “only” $875 million worldwide?  Or Suicide Squad gets mediocre reviews and still laps up $135 million domestic on its opening weekend?  Filmmakers keep giving us unsatisfying screenplays because a) they are demanded by the studios and b) they make money anyway (except of course the Fantastic Four reboot; nothing could save that).

I can’t fault director Justin Lin, taking over directing duties from J. J. Abrams.  Lin is a fantastic director, as proven by his contributions to the Fast and Furious franchise (not to mention the Community paintball episode; yes, that was his last credit before Fast Five).  No one could make this oatmeal into a five course meal.

I’ve wondered about Abrams’ contribution since the Star Trek reboot.  That film had some great tweaks on the Trek-verse, from Uhuru being with Spock instead of Kirk to Spock meeting Spock Prime.  However, the central plot had numerous holes that were filled by simple good will towards the franchise. Then in Into Darkness, Abrams’ doubled back and tried to remaking Star Trek II with similar tweaks; as Scotty once said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” 

What made the original Star Trek great was NOT Gene Roddenberry’s “optimism” but the fact that they hired honest to goodness science fiction writers like Harlan Ellison and Theodore Sturgeon because there were no sci-fi writers in TV at the time.  Now we get a movie script co-written by non-SF writer Simon Pegg, who is gifted at comedy but doesn’t think in science fiction terms. 

Star Trek 4 has been green-lit; here is hoping they bring in a better writer because after Into Darkness and Beyond the move franchise is on life support.

Jordan speaks, but what does he say?

Someone once summarized the first three laws of physics as: you can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t quit the game.  I have to admit that sometimes life feels just like that.  But then I think, at least I’m not Michael Jordan.

Jordan released a statement about the racial tensions that have escalated recently in America.  His pronouncement was endlessly hyped by ESPN, partly because of Jordan’s stature among the American people, partly because he chose to release the statement on The Undefeated, ESPN’s sub-domain for African American related sports issues.  Jordan solemnly intoned that he could no longer remain silent about the violence that was occurring in America, and then Jordan took a strong, potentially controversial position.

He was against it.

This gets to the core problem with people urging athletes to be more like activists, to take stands on public issues, and to try and emulate role models like Muhammad Ali and do something to solve the social problems facing our country.  Jordan, who famously (and apocryphally) was alleged to have refused to take controversial stands in the past because “Republicans buy sneakers too,” said he could no longer remain silent; then he proceeded to say nothing.  The message, no doubt written in some degree by hired press agents, was designed to be as inoffensive as possible.  How can we solve the problems being discussed if we can’t say anything that would offend anyone?

ESPN’s Bomani Jones made an insightful point on ESPN’s Around the Horn when he pointed out that the statement used passive language when referring to the African-American victims of police violence (“the deaths of African-Americans at the hands of law enforcement”) but a more active voice when referring to assaults on police officers (“the cowardly and hateful targeting and killing of police officers”).  The former sounds like an excerpt from one of those fake apologies, where someone says, “I am sorry for what happened” instead of “I’m sorry for what I did.”  Apparently the deaths of the African-Americans by police officers weren’t cowardly or hateful.

My point is this—we want, or some people want, athletes to speak out on social issues.  But what do we want them to say?  What can be said that would actually help?  I’m not saying all athletes are stupid, but it is a little extreme to expect someone who spends most of his time trying to stop LeBron on a pick and roll to come up with the answer for race relations in America.

Jordan did more than talk.  He gave $2 million to help solve the problem.  But once again, he edged away from making any real statement.  $1 million will go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  They are an old and respected institution, and I am sure that money will be put to good use, but how does this impact the issue at hand?  Will the NAACP file a class action lawsuit against all police departments in America?  Will the NAACP represent the families of those African-Americans who happened to die while in police custody?  Will legal action ease tensions between White police officers and African-American communities?  Lawsuits rarely have a soothing effect.

The other million bucks will go to the International Associations of Chiefs of Police’s new Institute for Community-Police Relations.   Will they use this money to understand the positions of those in the African-American community who are afraid of the police?  Will they try to gain insight into the reasons why White police officers are so quick to use deadly force in confrontations with unarmed African-American suspects?  Or will they buy a million dollars’ worth of jelly donuts?

Jordan says he can no longer stay silent, and then proceeds to say nothing.  Saying he can longer remain silent makes it sound like he was being compelled to not speak on public issues, when in fact he was freer than most because he could command any forum he wanted. He just didn’t want to.  Maybe he thought it might hurt his endorsement deal with Hanes; maybe nothing occurred to him.  But no one was keeping him silent against his will.

Wanting athletes to be good, involved citizens is natural.  But expecting any of them to actually know what to do or how to make things better is futile.  Maybe Jordan’s $2 million will accomplish some change; it is $2 million more than I’ve given. But to me it’s like saying you want to help world hunger, then eating at a restaurant because they donate their left overs to a food bank.  It helps, but it isn’t solving the problem.

So Jordan can’t win—if he says nothing, he gets slammed, but if he speaks and says pablum, people like me mock him.  He can’t break even; his stature isn’t enhanced by stepping into this issue, and now that he has what will be the next issue on which he can’t stay silent?  And he can’t quit the game, because when did Michael Jordan ever quit?

Much Ado About Sulu

We love to put things (and people) into boxes.  It makes it easier than actually dealing with the complexities that accompany human nature.  All cops like donuts, all African-Americans like hip hop, and all gay men are fabulous at fashion.  But when people break out of their boxes, it can be confusing.

The new Star Trek movie has generated some controversy because it was decided to reveal that the character of Sulu, played in the movies by John Cho, would be gay as an homage to George Takei, the actor who originated the character on TV and who came out of the closet after the show ended. But then Takei released a statement saying he was “disappointed” by the decision to revamp an existing Trek character, and suggested if they wanted a gay character they should have created a new one.  Zachary Quinto, the openly gay actor who plays Spock in the films, said he was "disappointed" by Takei’s disappointment.

Can’t we all just get along?

Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty and is one of the co-authors of the script, defended the decision to make Sulu gay as an idea they loved once they’d come up with it.  He also pointed out that the Star Trek movies take place in an alternate time line from the TV series (because Kirk’s father died fighting time-traveling Romulans when Kirk was born; you did see the first movie, right?) and so any changes (like Uhuru being into Spock and not Kirk) were acceptable.  This is an interesting argument until you try to work out how Kirk’s father dying would turn Sulu gay.  If sexual orientation is genetic, how would Kirk’s father’s death affect Sulu’s genetic makeup?

What I find most interesting is the assertion by everyone that the original Sulu on the TV show was straight.  How do we know this?  It’s not like Sulu was ever seen with a girlfriend, although he was sort of making goo-goo eyes at one of the female space hippies in one episode.  He was certainly at ease in San Francisco in The Voyage Home, although he explained that he was born there.  And in the episode The Naked Time I wouldn’t exactly call his running around shirtless with a foil terribly manly.

Star Trek being a product of 60’s TV we didn’t know much about any of the crew’s sex lives.  Nurse Chapel had a male ex-fiancée before she got the hots for Spock, so she seemed definitely straight.  Kirk’s womanizing is notorious, but for all we know Kirk might have chased anything with two legs and some sort of orifice.  Spock was Vulcan, and on Vulcan it appears that thanks to Pon-Farr marriage is all about procreation, just like Republicans think it should be.  Chekov had an ex-girlfriend.  Uhura seemed attracted to Kirk, but who knows what happened when she and Yeoman Rand got together for drinks on a Saturday night and started lamenting about the Captain’s unattainability.  I’m thinking about that now and . . . I’ll be in my bunk.

Both sides make good points.  Takei is correct to say that changing an established character seems like a bow to PC-ness and that they should have created a character that was gay from the character’s inception.  Pegg is right to reply that then the new character would be identified as “the new gay character” and wouldn’t be as integrated into the show as an iconic character such as Sulu.

The bottom line is that you have to be very careful when making assumptions about a group of people and how any individual will react to something.  Gays are not, pardon the expression, homogenous.  Some may want Gay Pride parades and to be thought of as “special” while other may just want to be thought of as normal and no different from anyone else.   Everyone should be treated as an individual, and not merely as a member of a group, especially a group they had no choice in joining.

At least this puts the whole “Japanese Sulu is being played by a Korean actor” controversy firmly behind us.

Women's tennis--Who Is the GOAT?

Let me start by saying I find it highly inconvenient that the expression used to designate someone as the best at their sport—Greatest Of All Time—has an acronym than is a synonym for the worst athlete of all time, goat.  The English language is funny that way.

Now that Serena Williams has done the inevitable (on her fourth attempt) and tied Steffi Graf’s record for most major titles, many have contemplated the question of who is the greatest women’s tennis player of all time?  My answer—I have no idea.

With all due respect to Helen Wills Moody, it comes down to three contenders—Serena, Steffi, and Martina Navratilova (a player so great, there is a tennis player named after her in the tennis Hall of Fame).  So, how to decide?

It would not be fair to suggest imagining the players playing each other in their primes.  If Martina in her prime were to time travel to 2014 to play Serena, her wooden racket would shatter the first time she made contact with one of Serena’s 120 MPH serves.  Have you seen film of Martina playing Chrissie Evert back in the 1970’s?  They look like two socialites politely hitting a badminton shuttlecock  back and forth to one another.

A numerical count of major wins puts it at Serena and Steffi 22, Martina 18.  But Martina lost 4 finals to Chris Evert, and 4 to Steffi starting when Martina was 31 and Steffi was 18 and ending in 1989 when they were ages 33 and 20 respectively.  Steffi’s main competition was Monica Sees, who was taken out by a crazed German tennis fan and missed the prime years of battling Steffi.  Offhand I’d say Martina faced more competition during her singles career.  Both Martina and Steffi faced harder competition that Serena has.

Serena has faced little competition during her career, other than her sister.  Unfortunately, because of the complicated nature of their sibling relationship, almost all of their matches have produced substandard tennis.  Serena’s closest competitor outside her family has been Maria Sharapova, whom she defeated 14 times in a row, so that’s not much of a competition.  How weak is women’s tennis right now?   One of the semi-finalists at Wimbledon was unseeded, and another was a 36 years old who has an auto-immune disease.  One of the women nominated for a 2016 ESPY for top female tennis player was retired.  The biggest question about Serena’s 22 major titles is what took her so long?

Which raises another point; Serena and Steffi are tied for major titles at 22, but Steff’s came in a 12-year period.  Serena has taken 17 years to tie her, meaning her ability to win as many majors is a factor of longevity (and weak competition), not peak value.  Serena has won an astonishing nine major titles after the age of 30. Steffi won her last major, the French, at age 29 a couple of months before her 30^th birthday.  So if Serena is better than Steffi, it is only because she lasted longer.

Let’s throw something else into the mix—doubles!  Steffi didn’t play a lot of doubles, although she did win a single major title in doubles at Wimbledon in 1988.  Martina is one of the greatest doubles players of all time, maybe the second best to John McEnroe.  Martina won the grand slam in both doubles and mixed doubles, to go along with her singles grand slam.  Martina also won the US Open mixed doubles at age 50.  Yes, 50.  Serena has had an impressive doubles career with her sister, winning a career grand slam, but has not won the Australian Open or the French Open in mixed doubles (but did reach the finals in both, once). 

So—Martina had the stiffest competition, but you can hardly fault Steffi for a fan attacking Monica Seles.  Steffi had the most success in a short period of time.  Serena has been the most dominant, but that’s largely because of a weak field. 

If I had to choose a tie break, I’d pick Steffi, for the simple fact that she has the Golden Slam, winning all four majors and the Olympic Gold medal in 1988.  Serena had the chance for a Golden Slam this year, but she lost the Australian and French Opens.  It’s a fluke stat (you have to win a grand slam in a year that features a Summer Olympics), but with a choice this close anything tips the balance.  How many more majors does Serena have to win to tip the balance back?  Let’s see how many more she wins.

Debt

It’s been a long wait, we’ve had to slog through a lot of bad TV, but finally, finally, the world is right again: Mr. Robot is back on the air.  Or rather, on the cable since Mr. Robot is on the USA network, part of your friendly package of basic cable channels.  And the day after the season 2 premiere, the show’s first season was rewarded with 6 Emmy nominations, including best drama, best writing for a drama, and best actor for Rami Malek.

A side note here—Saturday Night Live got 6 acting nominations—Supporting actress in a comedy series, two best guest actor in a comedy series, and three best guest actress in a comedy series.  This makes no sense to me.  First, these are the “Prime Time Emmys” and last I checked 11:30 PM on Saturday wasn’t Prime Time (and the show famously called its cast the “not ready for prime time players); second, the show technically isn’t a comedy.  And not just because it stopped being funny in 1986, but the show is generally nominated in the area of variety shows.  It is nominated for best directing for a variety series, outstanding sketch variety show, and so on.  So why are the performers nominated in the comedy show category?  There are serious actors playing actual characters on sitcoms, and this show sucks up 6 nominations for people in sketches.  Someone explain this.

Anyway, there are two overarching themes in Mr. Robot, both touching on a keystone of modern life.  One is cybersecurity; how safe can you be when your password to all your accounts is 1234Five? The other is debt.  Angela is desperate to take a high paying job at the company that murdered her mother because she has nearly $200,000 in student loans.  Fsociety’s plan to free the world was to wipe out the debt that was forcing everyone to give up their freedom.  In the real world, you can’t turn on a radio or TV without hearing a string of commercials for bankruptcy help, debt relief, or payday loans.

How did we get here?  The start was a 1978 Supreme Court case called Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v First of Omaha Service Corp.   At that time, states had what were called “usury laws” that prevented lender from charging more than 5 or 6% interest on loans, maybe going into double digits.  But nowhere near interest rates exceeding 20% like you see today.  But in the Marquette case, the Court held that state usury laws didn’t apply to national banks, which were governed by the state they were headquartered in.  Suddenly every credit card company moved to South Dakota, which essentially had no cap on interest than could be charged.

So, if you couldn’t pay off your balance, the result was not a small increase in your next payment but a huge increase.  And if you couldn’t pay that off, the debt escalated quickly, so that what started as a small financial hiccup could easily transform into an unbearable burden similar to indentured servitude.

The second factor is wage stagnation that has caused the standard of living to flat line for blue collar workers for the past 30-40 years after adjusting for inflation.  The baby boomers may be the last generation in America who had it better than their parents, or maybe the Gen Xers, but anyone after that is looking at a far tighter job market and few prospects for increasing his or her standard of living.

So if your wages aren’t going up, but you want to feel like you are doing better, what do you do?  Borrow!  You probably ignored the notice from your bank that you credit card interest rate went from 6% to 19%, so you just start using your plastic (which the banks are thoughtful enough to provide you). 

As The Motley Fool explained recently, people tried to keep up with the Jones by going into debt.  From 1960 to 1980 household debt held steady at 60%, but it was 80% by 1988, 90% by 1996, and 125% by 2007.  Around the same time banks started handing out mortgages to anyone with a pulse, to help with the American Dream of owning a home.  If you want to know more, watch (or read) The Big Short.

Oh, I forgot to mention that while banks were busy making money loaning money to people who couldn’t afford it, they were also busy hiring lobbyists and lawyers to attempt to gut bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for people to get out from under their debt burden.  This is why most advertising for bankruptcy lawyers often contains the line, “Bankruptcy laws may be changing soon.”  Hint--they won’t change in debtor’s favor; who do you think has more money to influence Congress, banks or people in debt?

This is why we are now seeing the twin political movement of Tea Partiers and Bernie Sanders supporters.  The system has been rigged against individuals with no impulse control, and now the debt hole is so deep most people can’t get out.  Students graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, loans which can’t be discharged in bankruptcy.  By the time they are out from under that, they’ll have a mortgage, a bigger car than they need (maybe two), and tiny mouths to feed.  If they are lucky they’ll die before their 401(k) run out.

Tea Partiers live in a naïve world where we can ignore globalization and have an industrial-based economy where people with high school degrees had good paying jobs; to do this we need to seal our borders (from both people and goods) and have the government take less out of every paycheck/  Sanderites live in a naïve world where the government can provide free things to people efficiently so there is less pressure to buy stuff. 

Both we be disappointed by the results of the 2016 Presidential election.