Style Counts for Something

One of the redeeming features of Face Book is that it has facilitated the reunification of any number of us who grew-up together and came of age in the 60s and 70s.  I suppose we can thank COVID for more free time and screen time.  Add to this a milestone High School reunion only a couple of years ago.  After roughly 50 years of separation for some of us the reconnection has been a good thing.  

Plenty has changed for many of us; nevertheless, becoming reacquainted is A-OK by my standards.  FB has become our Town Square and gathering spot to share thoughts and opinions and remain in-touch. And while the pace of new friends and acquaintances may have slowed the list continues to grow.  In any event, one of those pals from the old neighborhood posted this photo on his FB page including his own words (italics) preceding it:

The Democrats saw Obama as their chosen one that would lead them into their socialistic utopia. When Trump was elected those same people realized that their utopic dreams were not going to be realized. They then started hating and attacking anything and anyone that threatened the " progress" they believed they had made politically and culturally in transfirming/destroying the USA.

 

So, their protesting and at times violence is the continuation of their deranged hatred of President Trump. If Kamala or some other person adored by their Party was directing these deportations there would be no issue no protests, no threats to Law enforcement personnel. Hypocritical in their thoughts and actions. Sad, real sad.

 

I commented with this:   

I was actually studying-up on this phenomenon this afternoon.  Under Obama, interdiction and deportation was hardly ever public and rarely involved any drama. Not even background noise. Interestingly, very close to same in the early years of the first Trump administration. I absolutely know what changed (because I took old fashioned notes).  10 guesses anyone?

 

The discussion that followed included defenses of President Trump considering everything from Trump Derangement Syndrome, generalized media bias, to perceived Face Book and iPhone (Apple) algorithm biases.   My childhood pal shared this:  I respect your research and notes Tom. Please share.  

 

So I did.  I had to cut and paste my notes from my laptop resulting in poor formatting; nevertheless editable.  They are as follows:  

Here’s a brief summary of deportations under Barack Obama (2009–2017) and Donald Trump - (both terms, including his second term starting in 2025) - focused on ICE/DHS removals/deportations by the numbers.  Note: The Trump second term is incomplete and stats both reflect that and are annotated.

 

Over the eight years (2009 - 2017) of Obama’s presidency, ICE and DHS reported approximately 3.1 million immigration removals/deportations. Highlights - FY 2012: ~409,849 deportations — one of the highest annual totals.  FY 2013: ~438,421 deportations — often cited as the highest year. 

 

Observations:

 

Deportations were high early in his tenure and declined later — partly due to changes in enforcement priorities and declining border apprehensions. Later years saw lower totals: ~235,413 in FY 2015 and ~240,255 in FY 2016

 

Obama’s approach focused more on recent border crossers and noncitizens with criminal convictions, rather than broad interior enforcement.

 

Trump Administration (2017 - 2021 & 2025 - ?)

 

First Trump term (2017–2021): DHS/ICE data shows fewer overall removals than under Obama, with around 932,000 deportations reported over those four years.

 

Second Trump administration (2025 onward): Data is less centralized, but multiple sources provide partial figures:  ICE deported nearly 200,000 people in the first seven months of 2025 alone. Some government estimates suggest combined deportations + other removals could reach ~300,000+ in FY 2025 under Trump’s enforcement surge. Public reports cite overall removals including border expulsions and voluntary departures in the hundreds of thousands by the end of 2025.

 

Observations:

 

Trump’s highest annual ICE deportation figures (e.g., ~267,000–300,000+) clearly have not surpassed Obama’s peak year totals (which were ~438,000 in 2013). 

 

The Trump administration’s enforcement in 2025 increased interior ICE arrests and targeted broader categories of unauthorized immigrants including many without criminal records. 

 

Data releases from DHS/ICE have been inconsistent, making comprehensive year-by-year comparisons harder than with historical Obama data.

 

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

 

1. Enforcement Priorities: Targeted Arrests vs. Universal Arrests

 

Obama:

Focused on enforcement priorities aimed at public safety: Serious criminals, national security threats and recent border crossers. ICE was supposed to emphasize these groups before acting on others; this constrained the agency’s interior enforcement focus.

 

Trump:

Early executive orders broadly expanded enforcement priorities to include all undocumented non-citizens as targets for arrest and removal. This resulted in enforcement shifting from a targeted, risk-based approach to a wide net aiming to arrest anyone removable under immigration law.

 

2. Criminal History Composition of Arrests

 

Obama:

A larger share of ICE interior arrests historically involved people with criminal convictions. ICE largely confined interior enforcement to those with broader public safety concerns.

 

Trump:

Recent data show a dramatic rise in arrests of people with no criminal records. Nearly 1/3 of those arrested in 2025 by ICE had no criminal history. Another report suggests tens of thousands without criminal convictions were picked up, contradicting official focus on criminals. Independent data also show a sharp shift in arrest composition, with non-criminal individuals making up a much higher share of total ICE detentions under Trump.

 

3. At-Large vs. Custodial Arrests

 

Obama:

ICE largely arrested individuals already in jail/prison (custodial arrests) via information sharing with local jails and prisons; use of at-large arrests (sweeps in communities) was more limited.

 

Trump:

ICE dramatically increased at-large arrests — apprehending people in homes, workplaces, and communities rather than primarily from jails. This shift meant broader, more public operations compared with the historically jail-linked approach.

 

4. Collaboration with Local Law Enforcement

 

Obama:

ICE cooperation with local police/jails — such as through Secure Communities — was significant but tempered by enforcement priorities and some jurisdictions’ non-cooperation.

 

Trump:

Expansion of programs like 287(g) dramatically increased the role of local police in immigration enforcement, allowing them to question and detain immigrants for ICE — a tactic scaled back or de-emphasized under Obama.

 

5. Detention Policy and Public Operations

 

Obama:

Fewer large-scale, publicized raids; enforcement often occurred in less visible ways (custodial transfers from local jails, routine immigration check-ins).

 

Trump:

Enforcement has included public raids, frequent at-large operations, and actions in “sensitive locations” that were avoided under prior internal DHS policies — including immigration court check-ins, workplaces, and neighborhoods. ICE has also faced criticism for increased detention populations and facility deaths tied to expanded enforcement.

 

6. Policy Framing and Quotas

 

Obama:

Restored a degree of prioritization to manage enforcement resources and judicial backlogs, focusing removal on higher-risk individuals in many years.

 

Trump:

Reports indicate daily arrest “quotas” and political mandates for mass enforcement, with leadership pushing ICE to meet broad arrest targets rather than focusing solely on prioritized categories.

 

Summary:

Obama’s ICE tactics centered more on defined enforcement priorities and collaboration with the criminal justice system; whereas, Trump’s approach expanded who could be targeted, expanded community arrests, and integrated local law enforcement more deeply, resulting in broader sweeps and more arrests of people without criminal records.

*Note:  The notion that I had burned about three hours time (time I will never get back) that same afternoon was a consequence of a FB post - including an eight year-old YouTube "Ride With ICE" video - from another neighborhood pal of mine.  It was thought-provoking and encouraged me to initiate some background as it didn't get anyone's interest on FB other than me and maybe one additional individual.    

 

Inasmuch as things went silent on my pal's FB page following posting my notes I added an additional comment for purposes of background (see asterisk above) on Sunday morning.  That comment, including the YouTube video, are as follows:

 

As a follow-up to my notes I posted yesterday I want to share that the inspiration for my inquiry into this subject was a post that (name redacted) put out there four days ago. 

 

In it he asked: "8+yrs ago Obama's Ice agent's were well respected heroes, just doing their job. wonder what changed?"  (Note: Video is dated August 25, 2017 making these Trump's ICE agents.  Typo?) 

 

The video is from 8 years ago and taken during the first year of the first Trump term. It's not very long so watch it to the end and then afterwards ask yourself  "what changed between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 with respect to ICE protocols and reflecting on the differences between the two Presidents and their approach to interdiction and deportation.

 

Not stirring things-up as I happen to think (name redacted) has raised an excellent point and asked a thought-provoking question.

 

 

Have you ever wondered what it's like during the life of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent?  Phil Shuman of Fox 11, Los Angeles, takes you along for a ride on August 25, 2017.

At the time of this post's publication that thread has gone silent.  No further discussion.  The point I was attempting to make (perhaps not very clearly) was we have the same President today as eight years ago.  Almost at the same point in time of each presidential term. 

 

The clip is from the first year of the first Trump term in 2017.  Contrast that with ICE operational procedures today - the first year of the second Trump term in 2025. 

 

Are there objective differences between ICE agents and their protocol between then and now?

 

If any, what may they be?  What, if anything, changed?

 

I have some working theories about how, and why, ICE evolved between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 

 

You?

New Year Night Sky

Yesterday I posted a video debunking the Face Book memes and misinformation about the Great January Planetary Alignment Hoax of 2025.

Today is guidance about the four planets that you can see with you naked eye (Uranus and Neptune are out there too but without optics they're not easily discerned).

The four brighter planets that you can spot together in the winter night sky include Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in what is referred-to as a planetary parade.

While the four planets will appear to line-up in the night sky this alignment is nothing new.  If you watched the video yesterday you would recall that this is what planets do in the ordinary scheme of things. 

In any event, for the initial couple of hours after darkness falls you should be able to spot Venus and Saturn in the southwest along with Jupiter situated higher in the sky and Mars in the east.

Fingers-crossed for cold, clear viewing conditions.

And don't believe bullshit posted on Face Book.  They haven't fact-checked much for years....

Storm The Bastille

On December 4, Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed outside the entrance to the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan, NYC.  He was in town to attend an annual investors meeting for UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare.

Authorities believe the attack was not a random act and are investigating it as an assassination.  The shooting occurred early in the morning and the suspect, described as a white man, fled the scene. As of the publication of this post the perp has not been apprehended.

No arrest.

No interrogation.   

No motive.

Plenty of speculation to go around.

It is unclear what motivated the incident or whether it was tied to Mr. Thompson's work in the insurance industry.  The police have yet to identify the shooter who is still on the loose.

Nevertheless, social media has exploded with an avalanche of vitriol, and glee over the murder of the insurance executive.  Sure, I get it.  People have had negative experiences with health insurance companies at some of the most difficult times of their lives.  But in the absence of the facts and circumstances of this killing has anyone considered taking a moment to take a breath and not get over their skis? 

I tried on a Face Book group to counsel restraint and got hammered.  I was slammed for not embracing the notion that a man responsible for millions of deaths of people for money got his comeuppance.  

UnitedHealthcare denied 32% more claims last year than any other insurer, it's not hard to figure out.

Posting a photo of Albert Bouria, CEO of Pfizer, from Prophetic Memetics someone else suggested that he just thought someone else might might be curious.  

Anybody else, beside me, consider that a passive aggressive threat instead of your garden variety internet troll?

It is interesting to me the instances of individuals who have flippantly shared that their grievances (large or small, real or perceived) are justifiably resolved at the point of a gun.

It is a chilling observation to note that killing someone for a slight, a political difference or an insurance dispute is justified. 

Regrettably, this is what can happen when there are no appropriate channels for people to make meaningful change to a malign system.  The Supreme Court has allowed unlimited money in our politics and politicians are voting with their corporate overlords, including health insurance companies.  

My sense is that government is broken and simply does not work very well for the average American.  As a consequence they despair.

If this shooter becomes a folk hero it will be appalling; but not surprising.  I have shared many times that capitalism is messy business.  Perhaps we've arrived at a Storm the Bastille moment where the murder of both oligarchs or a neighbor with an offending bumper sticker becomes normalized.

I sure hope not....

Fact Checking

From the FB cesspool of lazy economic thought there is this click bait making the rounds of the most fervent of my MAGA pals.....

 

Her unrealized TAX isn’t only applicable to your home. It’s applicable to any asset you own.
Car
Guns
Furniture
Jewelry
Art
Pensions
Stocks
Land and one of the biggest ones of them all 401K’s!

 

 

 

This precious nugget (likely the work of a Russian or Chinese Troll Farm) is hilarious. Thanks for bringing a grin to the face of this recovering financial guy.

It is important to note that, as always, major tax proposals like this face significant hurdles to becoming law.  Even if Harris becomes President of the United States, any major tax changes that might impact entrepreneurship and venture capitalism would require congressional approval.  Considering the deep divide in Congress the likelihood of a controversial proposal such as a tax on unrealized gains has an exceedingly low probability of passing into law.

So, aside from the fact that capital gains tax treatment does not apply to pensions, 401ks, IRAs and other retirement plans this presupposes the following:

Kamala Harris wins the Presidency.

The democrats win the House.

The democrats win the Senate.

The proposed legislation passes the House and Senate without any modification or mark-ups.

And President Harris signs it into law.

So, before my Face Book friends pee their pants over this; this is what it looks-like.  (Edited for brevity):  

• It applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth (.01% of the population) who do not pay at least a 25% tax rate on their income (inclusive of unrealized capital gains). Payments can be spread out over subsequent years.    

• Within that $100 million club, you'd only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in liquid assets such as stocks, bonds and crypto currencies; not shares of privately-held business or real estate.  One caveat for this illiquid group is that there would be a deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon exit.

• In short, it would not apply to middle-income Americans like you and me. Or most startup founders or investors.  If I had to hazard a guess, it singles-out top hedge fund managers.
  

____________________________________________________________________

 

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

 

- H.L.Mencken

Arithmetically Challenged

In the 1980s A&W attempted to compete with McDonald's Quarter Pounder by selling a 1/3 pound burger at a lower price.

The promotion failed because most of the public thought that the 1/4 pound burger was larger.

This is why it is a waste of valuable bandwidth to attempt to win hearts and minds by means of facts and truth with some people on Facebook.

L'Oréal to Remove the Word 'Whitening' From Its Products

Earlier this evening I posted the following on Face Book - only to take it down after reconsideration.  Upon reflection - better to publish my musings here instead of unnecessarily agitating anyone on Face Book.  The world is already too agitated.  After all, attendance here is voluntary.  Everything on FB is pretty much in your face on a subscribers news feed.  Besides, I can always redirect back to this venue if needed on Zuckerberg's cesspool of sloppy information.
_________________________________________________________________________ 

 L'Oréal to Remove the Word 'Whitening' From Its Products

Interesting to me was the news when I initially saw it this afternoon courtesy of a trusted friend.  At first blush my mind instantaneously flipped to:  ‘This is PC run-amok’.

Following a few moments of reflection while weeding in the garden it occurred that maybe I was letting one of my many biases cloud my thinking.  My former professional instincts have gathered a hint of rust in retirement.  And there is no longer a Bloomberg Terminal starring me in the face.  In any event, what I knew for sure was that L'Oréal is a ginormous company and that there might be more to this news than what we see on the surface.

I checked the interweb and with a few clicks learned that L'Oréal S.A. is the world's largest cosmetics company - a multinational with divisions in Europe and two additional continents. Global revenue in 2019 was about 30 billion € and they employ more than 80,000 individuals around the world.

The link at the bottom of this post redirects to the Harvard Business Review.  It is quite illustrative on many levels that much of L'Oréal’s corporate success derives from mastering the business side of multiculturalism. 

Who knew?

It is their business model.

The lesson from this news (to me at least) is that we all have triggering biases as a consequence of how we were raised, our culture, value system, etc. 

What I learned in almost 40 years of my previous life is that capitalism’s only bias is making money and that requires taking calculated risks.  And, of course, tailoring a plan and a portfolio to an individual client’s goals.  Professionals implicitly know that there is little if any room for risking the potential deleterious impact of personal biases in the very personal financial decisions of others seeking their guidance. 

Translation:  Ignore capitalism at your own peril.

There is already faux FB outrage about this announcement.  And I am hardly surprised.  What I will point out as a recovering financial guy is that it is not intellectually challenging to flip-off a 100 year-old multinational business as simply being politically correct.  It goes deeper.

L'Oréal is obviously taking a risk - and they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to take pains that this is a smart business decision. You can bet they surveyed, market-tested and focus-grouped this decision until the cows came home.

They likely know exactly what they’re doing - and why.  Moreover, attention-grabbing news like this during our troubles is basically free marketing.

Only time will tell if they got it right.

Between you and me I’d bet on them - not the laureate of random FB experts who couldn’t tell a share of stock from a brick.

Don’t take my word for this – I don’t give financial advice any longer.  I only warn of generally incomplete and useless FB content.

Call your trusted financial advisor on Monday for a professional opinion.

You may link to the Harvard Business Review here.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

As a casual observer to the manure storm Oscar Munoz (United Airlines CEO) created with his tone-deaf and continually-evolving non-apology, now-apology, for dragging a booked, paid and seated customer off of an aircraft I will make only one observation.  Maybe two.

I am exceedingly disturbed by the use of law enforcement personnel to enforce United Airlines policy.  The passenger did not pose a threat to the passengers or aircraft and broke no laws.  The officers should have simply informed United that there was no law enforcement issue at hand, that this was an airline policy matter and politely vacated the aircraft.  Instead, they acted as bouncers and enforcers for what should have remained a seemingly benign matter.

I have some advice for Munoz - if you want to seat a deadhead crew in lieu of paying customers you simply have to free-up the necessary seats by upping the ante for the privilege.  Raise the bid price so to speak.  Suck it up.  UAL can pay the freight.  Capitalism works most of the time you know. 

And for anyone holding out the false hope that a boycott of United Airlines is going to change their behavior - fuggetaboutit.  With only a handful of airlines dominating the major routes that is simply impossible.  Wishful thinking.  A good YouTube video, Facebook posting or twitter storm yields better and fast results - particularly if you lose market cap in the process.

Flying sucks nowadays as it is.  This goon squad thuggery simply rubs salt in the wounds.  A good beat-down on social media hurts.  Particularly since the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are the same as living, breathing people...

Perception Versus Reality

If you listen to Trump supporters and believe all of the nonsense you can tolerate on Face Book poor Donald Trump has been unable to accomplish anything.  No tax cuts, no Obamacare repeal, nary a thing.  The press is fake, the Democrats are obstructionist.  The leakers are taking leaks all over the place.   Alas, his grief-stricken minions would tell you the President has been hamstrung.  The world is against him.

Nay, nay, I say.  

So far, Trump has signed a a couple dozen executive orders, signed five bills into law, seen 13 members of his Cabinet confirmed, nominated a Supreme Court justice, sent 168 (undeleted) tweets, fired one acting attorney general and demanded the resignation of his own national security adviser.   

In less than a month Trump has accomplished more than Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan or Carter over the same period of time.  

Stop whining and pay attention people.

Sheesh...

Thoughts on Digital Manners

If you spend enough time on Facebook you will eventually come around to the notion that facts and factual information is problematic for some people.

If their closely-held beliefs are undermined by factual counter information these individuals feel threatened and oftentimes respond with insults and dismissive posts.  Which is understandable – they live in an echo chamber.

There are plenty of smart people to go around and you don’t have to call them names or dismiss them out of hand simply because you disagree with them.

On the other hand, if someone is advancing some sort of perverse fraud by preying upon the vulnerabilities of individuals with legitimate grievances and misleading them - then that would be wrong.  And the wrongdoer should be called-out and held to account.

Eschew the glib and flippant memes and digital aggression.  Forget the drama.  'Tis better to be circumspect.