Month: August 2023

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of the northern Arizona scene. The photo that I’m using (My own from a recent visit.) is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 6×6 inch canvas panel.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have now begun the lush grassy growth carpeting the surrounding area. Things are moving along.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

People who want to protect the environment are called “conservationists” because they don’t want things to change in detrimental ways. If you’re being generous, you can say the same thing about political “conservatives.” They are more interested in preserving the “tried and true” than in experimenting with newfangled ideas and solutions. To them, there’s no reason to mess with traditional religion, traditional family structures, traditional gender roles, or traditional economic arrangements because what has worked in the past should work in the future. And if they don’t always consider that many things didn’t work too well in the past for a lot of people, I can still see both the basic impulse and general wisdom that underlies political conservatism.

Now, for conservationists, they can look at the terrible wildfires that are enveloping Hawai’i and correctly point out that the introduction of non-native grasses to the island state is a major contributor. These grasses were introduced when Europeans arrived and cleared land to raise cattle and grow pineapples and other crops. It’s an example of human-caused environmental change which always come with a risk of unforeseen consequences.

But what do we call it when political conservatives ban nicknames in public school? If I’m ‘Thomas’ but prefer to be called ‘Tom,” I could have a problem in Ron DeSantis’s Florida?

In an email sent Tuesday morning, parents and guardians of Seminole County students were advised that school districts in the state are now “required to develop a form to obtain parental consent to use any deviation or nickname from the child’s legal name in school.”

“If you would like for your child to be able to use a name aside from their legal given name on any of our campuses, we will ask for you to complete the consent form titled ‘Parental Authorization for Deviation from Student’s Legal Name Form.'”

The conservatism here is trying to prevent boys from using girls’ names or pronouns, and vice-versa, but it hits everyone. My son has used his middle name since nursery school and now he needs a waiver to prevent his teachers from using his first name?

This isn’t conserving anything. It’s nothing but panicked radicalism and political opportunism. It’s another example of why American conservatism doesn’t deserve its own name.

Welcome to another Midweek Cafe and Lounge. Here’s Willie Nelson teaming up with Sinead O’Connor to cover “Don’t Give Up”:

This was something I believe happened right after Sinead had been made persona non grata after her appearance on SNL. As much as I love the original Peter Gabriel/Kate Bush version, there’s something about this version that warms my heart.

Sláinte!

The New York Times takes a turn at pearl-clutching. They’ve enlisted Jack Goldsmith, who served in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Dubya administration, to warn us about all the perils of prosecuting Donald Trump for his failed coup. Goldsmith wasn’t the worst of Bush bunch. He authorized warrantless wiretapping which is a rather large mark against him, but he also essentially resigned over the administration’s torture policies. Maybe he’s the most reasonable Republican still alive, I don’t know.

Either way, his argument is unfocused hot garbage. It can be summarized as saying that a large portion of the country doesn’t have faith in the impartiality of the Justice Department because of a variety of things, mostly either relating to the Russia investigation of Trump or the Hunter Biden plea negotiations. In addition to this, because the prosecution is happening at a time when Biden and Trump are getting ready to face off against each other again, it looks like a politically motivated prosecution aimed at helping the president. Finally, he sees the charges in Jack Smith’s January 6 case as novel and thereby somehow dubious, in contrast to the Smith’s stolen documents case which he sees as grounded on well-established law and charges. For these reasons, he sees the decision to take Trump to trial over January 6 as “a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.”

To begin with, he makes a logical error when he distinguishes between the merits of Smith’s two cases but doesn’t distinguish between the harms they will cause.

Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, of his freedom of speech and of the contours of presidential power…

…The documents case is far less controversial and far less related to high politics. In contrast to the election fraud case, it concerns actions by Mr. Trump after he left office, it presents no First Amendment issue and it involves statutes often applied to the mishandling of sensitive government documents.

This probably has things backward in the sense that most people, regardless of partisan preferences, see the failed coup as a more obvious crime than the documents case. The documents case is really something that would not have been charged at all if Trump had simply turned over what he had, as Joe Biden and Mike Pence did when they discovered they’re still in possession of some classified material. It’s different than the January 6 riot, which everyone watched on their television sets. Hundreds of people have already been convicted for the participation in that riot, and if Trump is added to the list it won’t seem like it’s a double standard in that respect.

More importantly, insofar as much of the Republican base is already convinced that the DOJ is partisan and illegitimate, they’re not going to accept the documents verdict  because it is grounded in more established law. Those folks won’t see a lick of difference between convictions in either case. If every risk Goldsmith identifies with the January 6 case applies with equal force to the documents case, then there’s no point in talking about their relative merits.

He tries to get around this by adopting the disgraced ex-president’s talking points on his “intent…his freedom of speech and…the contours of presidential power…” He even makes the “criminalization of politics” argument, as if attempting a coup has “always been commonplace in Washington.”

It may also exacerbate the criminalization of politics. The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump lied and manipulated people and institutions in trying to shape law and politics in his favor. Exaggeration and truth-shading in the facilitation of self-serving legal arguments or attacks on political opponents have always been commonplace in Washington. Going forward, these practices will likely be disputed in the language of and amid demands for special counsels, indictments and grand juries.

Goldsmith’s argument really comes down a concern that prosecuting a coup attempt is something much of the country won’t like, and that as a result people who are okay with (right-wing) coup attempts will act badly in the future as a result. They’ll pressure Republican lawmakers to make specious criminal charges against Democrats. They’ll lose respect for the Justice Department and the rule of law.

But how exactly could these people have any less respect for the Justice Department and the rule of law than to renominate Trump as their presidential candidate?

It also must be pointed out that there’s another half of the country. The people who voted for Biden and Kamala Harris still have faith in the DOJ and the rule of law. Failing to hold Trump accountable for trying to steal the election would diminish that faith, leading to a complete lack of trust in the population. You can’t improve your image by losing the people who still support you.

I don’t know why the New York Times publishes this shit. Last week, it was the Washington Post arguing that it’s too hard to imprison Trump and he should get a fine and community service as punishment for his coup attempt. That’s a topic in our upcoming podcast.

Look, I know our country is in trouble and at risk of coming apart at the seams. We don’t need hand-wringing about it. We need to attack the source of the problem, which is indubitably the influence and criminality of Donald Trump. Can’t we just get on with it?

Like a normal American, I was rooting for the American team in the 2023 Women’s World Cup and was sad and disappointed when they lost to Sweden on penalty kicks over the weekend and were eliminated from the tournament. Overall, the team had preformed far below expectations in New Zealand during the opening phase, managing two draws and a lackluster 3-0 win over lowly-ranked Vietnam. It was good enough to advance to the knockout phase in Melbourne, Australia, but a second place finish in their group meant a tougher matchup going forward. Sweden is ranked third in the world. Nonetheless, the American women outplayed Sweden, dominating for 120 minutes. Only a heroic effort by the Swedish keeper kept the game scoreless. And then several American players choked on their penalty kicks and the chance to win a third straight World Cup was over.

Their loss was widely celebrated by the American right, which seems unpatriotic to me, but even many fans are blaming the team for this response, including commentator and former men’s World Cup player Alexei Lalas.

Don’t kill the messenger. This #USWNT is polarizing. Politics, causes, stances, & behavior have made this team unlikeable to a portion of America. This team has built its brand and has derived its power from being the best/winning. If that goes away they risk becoming irrelevant. https://t.co/J5yFxOuBet

— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) August 6, 2023

I don’t dispute that the women’s wildly successful past is the primary reason that women’s soccer in America has boomed in popularity, nor that domestic interest in the sport, and the conclusion of this year’s World Cup, will take a bit of a hit without the national team in the tournament. But I think “irrelevancy” is taking things several steps too far.

I think women’s soccer has arrived in America and the domestic pro league is growing and will continue to build an audience. Another World Cup championship would certainly have been helpful in that respect, but the foundation has been built and will survive this setback. For the foreseeable future, America will be considered one of the top teams in the world, and little girls will aspire to one day represent the country in international tournaments.

It’s true that some American players have been outspoken politically, which naturally will alienate half the country, but soccer as a sport is anti-racist and anti-fascist, so this isn’t off brand at all, nor is it inconsistent with the values the sport’s organizing bodies want to send. For example, when U.S. World Cup star Megan Rapinoe knelt during the national anthem, U.S. Soccer issued a new statement and policy:

U.S. Soccer affirms Black Lives Matter, and we support the fight against racial injustices.

U.S. Soccer Board of Directors voted to repeal Policy 604-1, which required our players to stand during the national anthem. The policy was put in place after Megan Rapinoe kneeled in solidarity with the peaceful protest inspired by Colin Kaepernick, who was protesting police brutality, and the systematic oppression of Black people and people of color in America. It has become clear that this policy was wrong and detracted from the important message of Black Lives Matter.

We have not done enough to listen – especially to our players – to understand and acknowledge the very real and meaningful experiences of Black and other minority communities in our country. We apologize to our players – especially our Black players – staff, fans, and all who support eradicating racism. Sports are a powerful platform for good, and we have not used our platform as effectively as we should have. We can do more on these specific issues and we will.

It should be, and will be going forward, up to our players to determine how they can best use their platforms to fight all forms of racism, discrimination, and inequality. We are here for our players and are ready to support them in elevating their efforts to achieve social justice. We cannot change the past, but we can make a difference in the future. We are committed to this change effort, and we will be implementing supporting actions in the near future.

In my book, when all the scores are tallied, the anti-racists and anti-fascists are never irrelevant, and if taking this kind of stand means half the country won’t support the team, that’s a problem with our country, not the team.

I want to talk about performance versus leadership. ABC News reports that “a few Republican presidential candidates polling near the middle and back of the primary field say they have found a fundraising sweet spot: Cash flows in when they jab at front-runner Donald Trump, even if their voter support doesn’t jump the same way.”

Okay, so ABC News took that discovery and went in a certain direction with it. Mainly they argued that some sharp criticism of Trump could help candidates who are having trouble meeting the threshold requirements to appear in the first primary debate. To make the grade, a candidate must be at least at one percent in the polls and have 40,000 unique donors from 20 different states. In other words, ABC News chose to provide a complete horserace take, ignoring any possible meaning in favor of playing armchair campaign  and finance manager. “Say bad things about Trump, win a boatload of new donors!”

A more interesting way to look at this is to ask what a politician should do with that kind of information besides fundraise off it. But to answer that question, I think we need to ask what role a politicians should play. Let’s think of the role of an entertainer, whether it be a standup comic, a musician, or an actor. Some entertainers try out material, see what gets laughs or sells tickets, and then they do their best to mold themselves into what the audience wants. Other entertainers focus on the process of artistic creation, and they hope what they bring forth will compel people to meet them where they are, to see things from their unique point of view.

Both are viable paths that require distinct skill sets. Not everyone knows how to find and give the people what they already want, and only the most skilled and original artists can create a new demand where none existed before.

Personally, I distinguish a bit among political offices in terms of what role should be played. People serving in legislative bodies should focus first on representing their constituents which necessarily means they should pay close attention to what they want. People serving in executive bodies have to govern, and they serve more varied constituencies. They should be focused more on making decisions and, if necessary, creating a demand for what they’ve decided. Having said that, presidents and governors should endeavor to keep their promises and legislators should be more than a rubber stamp for populist passions.

When it comes to Republican politicians, including the presidential candidates, if they focus on what the Republican base wants, well, they want Trump. The demand is strong and easy to discover. There’s still a (smaller) demand for criticizing Trump, but the best crowdpleaser for a Republican candidate would be to drop out an endorse the disgraced ex-president.  This essentially cuts off the option to mold yourself into the people’s choice and leaves only the option of being original and compelling.

If GOP candidates want to beat Trump, they need to create a new demand, and the demand has to arise from within the Republican electorate. This is distinct from how Trump won the nomination in 2016. His primary method was through performance. He gave countless rallies and kept honing his act based on the kind of reaction he received. Through this process, he became the latent demand. The audience molded him into the leader they craved. To be sure, he got off to a good start because his original act on the escalator in Trump Tower, showed he had a good feel from the start. But his main leadership role was to simply give people permission to have transgressive thoughts. After he unleashed that demon, the demon led him rather than the other way around.

But Trump’s presidency and post-presidency has created new latent demands. Many people won’t even realize what they’re craving as an alternative to Trump until someone comes along and expresses that feeling an original and compelling way.

It’s the difference between, on the one hand, opening a new restaurant by having people do taste tests until you arrive at the optimal menu and, on the other hand, introducing  a new cuisine that creates consumer demand that did not previously exist. In the first case, you’ll wind up with crowd pleasing sweet and salty dishes. In the latter, suddenly all of Grand Rapids, Michigan will be clamoring for new style of food.

To beat Trump, you have to be original. You’re not going to be sweeter or saltier, and initially you might not fit people’s palate. Your one advantage is that you know that a lot of people believe sweet and salty is bad for them, even if it pleases the senses.

The goal here is to defeat Trump because of the unique threat he presents, which means that a candidate shouldn’t criticize Trump simply because it makes fundraising easier. Moreover, Trump is the way he is largely because the Republican base molded him that way, so he’s a near perfect expression of the demand as it existed in 2016. He’s still wildly popular because the demand hasn’t changed that much, but it has changed.

A successful challenger to Trump will change it further still both by tapping into what’s already obvious (Trump is tiring to defend and possibly unelectable) and what’s laying undiscovered underneath ready to respond to a new attractive message.

A pop artist should study what is already popular and fill that need, but it’s unlikely they’ll suddenly become the most popular artist. An original artist has a better chance of arriving at the top of the mountain.

So, what to do with the discovery that poking Trump brings donors without moving poll numbers? One answer is to study the unexpressed feelings and beliefs that underly the action and then give people permission to express those transgressive feelings. Another answer is to create those feelings through an original message. In the end, people will only be led away from Trump by something they haven’t seen before. They can’t tell you what they want as an alternative because it doesn’t yet exist.

The job is to make it exist. The job is to lead the Republican base toward wanting something that is better for them.

 

Jah Wobble, perhaps best known for his brief stint as PiL’s bassist from 1978 until 1980, has had a moderately successful career for the last several decades. He continues to release new material, sometimes with his band Invaders of the Heart, and sometimes in collaboration with others, including his wife. His latest single, “Last Exit,” harkens back to his postpunk days. The video is appropriately apocalyptic:

While we’re at it, I’ll throw in a video of Invaders of the Heart covering “Public Image” (an iconic postpunk classic by Wobble’s former band, PiL):

A lot of the musicians I admire are maybe a decade older than me. Some are contemporaries. As Sinead O’Connor, who was roughly my age, recently reminded all of us, none of us is around forever. Let’s be grateful for those artists in our lives who remain vibrant well past their prime in terms of record sales or streams (which seems to be the thing now), and who continue to create. The world is a little brighter because of them.

Cheers.

Smithmas finally arrived on Tuesday, which somehow appropriately was Jerry Garcia’s birthday. It was a long, strange trip, requiring excruciating patience, but the now thrice-arrested, twice impeached disgraced ex-president Donald Trump will face justice for his effort to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. I couldn’t be more thrilled.

The special counsel, Jack Smith, delivered a “Just the Facts, ma’am” set of indictments. Rather than try to prove that Trump deliberately set off a riot or charge him with insurrection, Smith stuck to less complicated issues. First up, Trump is charged with engaging in a “Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government” in an effort to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election. No one can doubt that he tried to overturn the legitimate results, nor that he hatched a False Elector Scheme with coconspirators to effectuate this plan.

The second charge is “Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.” Specifically, this refers to the Joint Session of Congress held on January 6 for the purpose of certifying the election results. It requires proof that Trump attempted this obstruction in concert with other people, which he obviously did.

The third charge, “Obstruction of an official proceeding,” is the same but does not require proof of a conspiracy It has been successfully used against many of the January 6 rioters.

I’ll let the Washington Post explain the fourth charge:

Conspiracy against rights: This charge criminalizes any joint effort to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” people to stop them from enjoying their constitutional or federal rights. It was passed after the Civil War, when White vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan were terrorizing Black southerners who sought to vote or otherwise enjoy their rights under the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Its use was limited for many decades by Supreme Court decisions, but prosecutors brought the chargein the 20th century in cases involvingracist attacks on civil rights activists and ballot-box stuffing. It was also used against a Nixon aide who authorized the burglary of a psychiatrist’s office after the Pentagon Papers leak. Here, prosecutors argue Trump conspired to stop people from exercising “the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.” They must prove that was Trump’s intent.

This last one might seem a bit awkward. But I cast my vote in Pennsylvania and Trump did his utmost to see that my vote did not count. He therefore tried to stop me from enjoying my right to vote and to see my vote counted. When the sitting president of the United States attempted this, I felt injured, oppressed, threatened and intimidated.” Maybe that’s all that has to be demonstrated here, but Trump also used a mob to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate Mike Pence and the U.S. Congress into disregarding my vote.

The response from the right is somewhat predictable. They are focusing on Jack Smith’s effort to demonstrate that Trump knew his claims about election fraud were lies. When you read the 45-page indictment, you can see how much effort went into this aspect of the case.  The concern is that Smith might be setting a precedent that could criminalize reasonable and good faith efforts to contest election results. Relatedly, Smith could criminalize constitutionally protected speech, as lying in and of itself is not a crime. The right is asking whether Al Gore and John Kerry would be subject to imprisonment for questioning irregularities in their losing election bids, or if a future candidate might afoul of the law simply for being wrong about an allegation of fraud.

But I think a proper reading of the indictment shows that Trump isn’t being charged with lying nor with being wrong. His lies are central to the case for two distinct reasons. The first is to show intent and demonstrate bad faith. Trump was repeatedly told by experts and people in a position to know that his allegations were false. This was not an example of a losing candidate legitimately challenging election results that sets a limiting precedent for future challenges.

Secondly, knowing his allegations were false, he still repeated them not only in public but privately. The private lies, delivered to state election officials, state legislators, Justice Department officials, members of Congress and even his own vice-president, were intended to mislead and pressure them into taking illegal acts. The public lies were used to whip up a mob, so they were integral to his conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding. In other words, he wasn’t simply engaged in political rhetoric for the purpose of winning public support for a policy or an election, but he was lying as part of a plan to obstruct an official proceeding and violate our right to vote and have our vote counted.

What Smith does very well is show the shape of the overall conspiracy, which basically comes down to an effort to prevent the states from certifying that Joe Biden won or, failing that, for Congress to refuse to accept those certifications. Everything that was done in furtherance of this goal, including lying, then comes under the umbrella of the conspiracy. Taking meritless cases to court and losing is not part of the conspiracy because that falls under a political candidate’s legitimate avenues of redress. An exception to this might come in New Mexico where a meritless challenge was filed for the sole purpose of furthering the overall false elector scheme.

A key point to understand is that Trump needed a mob in Washington DC on January 6 because he felt a mob was required to exert pressure on his vice-president and members of Congress not to accept the states’ legitimate electors. He couldn’t assemble a mob in any other way than knowingly lying, so lying then becomes part of the conspiracy rather than simply the exercise of free or political speech.

As I previously mentioned, Smith did not charge Trump with insurrection. He also didn’t charge him with mail or wire fraud or anything related to his efforts to raise money off his lies. Earlier reporting indicated that Smith was looking very closely at how donations were solicited during the pre-January 6 time period, and how that money was eventually used, but perhaps getting into those areas was considered superfluous or likely to delay the trial.

I won’t question the decision to not charge in that area, but it’s one piece of the story that won’t get told at the trial. Trump’s voters will hear plenty about how their hero told them knowing lies, but they won’t hear about how he fleeced them of their money, and I think that’s unfortunate. You can fully understand Trump or the coup attempt without internalizing that he’s fraud and a scoundrel who sees the MAGA crowd as the easiest marks in the country.

Unlike in the Florida documents case Smith brought, the January 6 case will not have a Trump-appointed judge presiding. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan was chosen by random lot. A black woman born in Jamaica and appointed by President Barack Obama, she’s known for handing out tougher than average sentences to January 6 defendants. I don’t foresee her doing Trump any favors, although there’s no basis to question her fairness. There’s no question, however, that Trump will be unhappy with how the judge lottery shook out. If he’s convicted, he should expect a tough sentence.

Overstock is now Bed Bath & Beyond and Bed Bath & Beyond is now Overstock. If that sounds confusing, it’s really not. As the Washington Post reports, what really happened here is that Overstock bought Bed Bath & Beyond’s intellectual property for a nice fire sale price of $21.5 million. Now, why would Overstock make that purchase?

The simplest answer is provided by Overstock CEO Jonathan Johnson who said, “We thought we had a good operating model but a bad name; we thought Bed Bath & Beyond had a great name but a bad operating model.” Mr. Johnson was being polite because Bed Bath & Beyond filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April, so their operating model was obviously catastrophically bad.

As for why Overstock’s brand needed an overhaul, it’s complicated. The company original business model was based on selling liquidated merchandise from failed companies and neither consumers nor suppliers find that association appealing. Then there’s the lunatic flameout of their founder Patrick Byrne and his involvement in Donald Trump’s failed coup attempt. Here’s a reminder:

With a career-ending affair with a Russian agent, attacks on a professional nemesis he named “the Sith Lord” and constant references to a “deep state,” Patrick Byrne often pushed conspiracy theories and found himself ensnared in controversy — long before the former chief executive of online retailer Overstock promoted Donald Trump’s baseless claims of a rigged election.

Byrne, one of corporate America’s most vocal proponents of the former president’s falsehoods about the 2020 election, will be the latest figure from Trump’s orbit to meet with House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The longtime cryptocurrency advocate is scheduled to meet privately with the committee on Friday…

…The former furniture industry executive joined lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, as well as former national security adviser Michael Flynn, in the Oval Office on Dec. 18, 2020, days after the electoral college certified that Joe Biden had won the presidential election. While many of Trump’s legal advisers had accepted that he had lost the election, Byrne and others were pushing an idea that the president could use the National Guard to seize voting machines.

So, Overstock felt like their name was holding them back and found a new name that still rates pretty well despite the bankruptcy. It cost them virtually nothing, especially when compared with the costs and uncertainty of trying to build a new brand from scratch.

I think we can all agree that this is a savvy and sensible move by Overstock, but what does it tell us about Elon Musk’s decision to voluntarily do away with the Twitter brand and its friendly little blue bird? The company is now called ‘X.’ To refelect this, the bird is gone, replaced with a white X on a black background.

You youngsters out there may not realize it, but we used to use the word ‘Xerox’ as a verb to describe making paper copies of things. That’s because every office had a copying machine and Xerox had the biggest market share. Think about how much of an advantage that gave to Xerox over other copier-making companies.

Today, there are a lot of people who will say, “hand me a Kleenex” when they want a tissue. That’s free advertising and gives Kleenex a big advantage over competitors like Puffs and Scotties.

Everyone knows what a “tweet” is. People have trouble using a different word to describe posts on similar platforms like Trump’s Truth Social. I think Trump wants people to call those posts “Truths” but they will still say, “Did you see what Trump tweeted on his shitty social media site?”

That’s a demonstration of the cultural penetration of the Twitter brand, and it’s worth much more than the $21 million Overstock paid for the Bed Bath & Beyond name. People don’t know what ‘X’ is even though it’s suddenly showing up as an icon on people’s tablets and phones where the bird used to be.

I could go deeper into principles of branding, comparing the inviting and happy bird to the austere and off-putting X, but I’m not pretending to be an expert in marketing. I’m just saying, it is completely nuts to throw away a brand like Twitter. People are not going to say “I just posted an X.” You can’t even pronounce the plural version of X without people thinking you’ve been divorced multiple times.

The only thing defensible about this decision of Musk’s is that he destroyed Twitter for the users, so he really doesn’t deserve to keep the name. Calling Musk’s enterprise “Twitter” was misleading. Giving it a new name clarifies things.

But the shareholders must be pulling their hair out because this is the worst kind of corporate sabotage. It’s submental. Kleenex changing its name to ‘K’ would be a million times less stupid, but still monumentally stupid nonetheless.