Wondering on Wednesday (v153)

I wondering, right off the bat, how anyone could have been unmoved by the president's press conference today, in which he mocked Republicans who didn't win their races, took credit for 'resigning' Jeff Flake, attacked the press, refused to answer questions he was asked, answered questions he wasn't asked, pretended that he was concerned about the environment, suggested that he would work in a bipartisan fashion with Nancy Pelosi, threatened to retaliate against any investigations initiated by the House, lied about why he still is not releasing his tax returns, and more. Transcript is here; video is here.

And I'm wondering how many people watched Nancy Pelosi's presser? For her part, she suggested they'd not investigate the president unless there was a reason, offered to work with the Rs, and so on - - what you would expect her to say. She also said she was the best person to be House Speaker.  And it seems she'll keep her leadership role. In addition to Pelosi, who's 78, Steny Hoyer, who's 79, and Jim Clyburn, also 78, want to remain in the top leadership roles. To which I can only sigh.

Pelosi can probably only sigh as well, as there's no question she was kicked out of the news cycle by the forced resignation of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. That saddens me, the Sessions ouster. He managed to hold on for so long. At least he wasn't dragged out of town to be fired, a la Reince Priebus. I wonder if the first thing he's going to do is go to Disneyland?

I'm also wondering about Chris Collins out in Western NY (or, as Brian Williams allegedly said, the northern tier of upstate NY).  You remember Collins, right? Multiple ethics investigations: a federal indictment for insider trading: tried to get off the ballot, couldn't, and yes - he won.  Well, I should say, he's projected to be the winner. He's up by around 2800 votes, so we'll have to see if there'll be a fight from his opponent. If he wins, does he show up to work with his former colleagues? Or does he fake a pulled muscle or something, I wonder?

And then there's the dead brothel owner who was elected to the State Assembly in Nevada. Dennis Hof, who was a Trump-ish candidate, won with around 68% of the vote. You can wonder away on this one all you want.

Here in New York, our Sonofa Gov won re-election handily; polls in the final days of the campaign showed Andrew Cuomo had only a 13% lead over Marc Molinaro, but in the end he won by over 20%. Three other candidates were also in the race, and in total got under 240K votes - but each had enough to keep their party on the ballot for the next four years.  I wonder what it will take for NYers to boldly go towards a different party, the Libertarians or Greens, or even the new one that just popped up on our radar this year, the Serve America Movement?

Not surprisingly, folks have looked at the electoral map for NY, which shows Cuomo won the cities - Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and NYC - plus Tompkins County (home of Ithaca, one of the most liberal cities in the country), Ulster County, and Long Island. Some are calling for  a new system, so that Cuomo wouldn't be the winner because he didn't win a majority of the counties...  For some, the fact that Cuomo has more than 1.3 million votes than Molinaro apparently is not enough - he has to win the geographical victory as well? I have to wonder about that logic.

How to wrap this all up?  Well, let's go with this: it's expected that by the time is all said and done, over 113 million people will have voted in the midterms. That's 49% of all eligibles. The obvious thing we can wonder is, will these folks stay engaged for the duration?  Will we continue to see women including women veterans and women of color, elected, or is this a one-and-done?  Will Dems leverage their victories from Tuesday into something that's sustainable?

We'll be wondering that at least through the 2020 election cycle, which starts now.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v21)

Almost exactly a week ago I was in the middle of writing this post.  

I was talking about Shelly Silver stepping down as Speaker of the Assembly here in New York, but vowing to fight to keep his seat as a member of that august body in the face of federal corruption charges.  And I had touched on SU throwing in the towel in the face of their NCAA investigation, and giving up the right to have Coach Boeheim's unranked guys play in any games after the end of the ACC's regular season.  And thinking gee, what a great year to give up post-season play, since the team has struggled in so many games already, with more losses than we are accustomed to in these parts.

And I was just starting to focus in on Andrew Cuomo, our Sonofa Gov, and his threats to forgo an on-time budget deal if he doesn't get ethics reform.  And then, well, then My Sweet Baboo decided to take a knee and propose, and I never did get around to finishing the post.  (I said yes, by the way).

So now, as I'm listening to the SU/Boston College basketball game, and casting a loving and appreciative eye towards the ring on my finger, here's what has me scratching my head tonight. 

Anthem Blue Cross was hacked by someone (perhaps the Chinese) and information including names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, employment information - all the stuff you'd ever need to set up some big time fake identities - may have been compromised for as many as 80 million people. And we were told on the news that, almost immediately after the breach was announced, all kinds of people who roam the netherworld were offering to buy the Anthem data. 

I'm not caught up in this one, at least so far. I was tagged in the Target breach (I shop there maybe once a year) and on a site where I shop for a necessity that is not available locally. For both of those, my card number was compromised, but nothing like what was taken in the Anthem case. I was offered free credit monitoring, which is what Anthem is offering folks. But  I'm wondering, is a few months of credit monitoring enough for the folks caught up in this massive breach? And if you're a crook, wouldn't you already plan on waiting more than a couple years, so as to get past the common free monitoring periods? I guess I'm thinking if you're smart enough to hack and steal this info, you'd be smart enough to know when to use it.  

And speaking of breach,  Brian Williams has been suspended by NBC without pay for six months, which amounts to about a $5 million hit in income and what is likely a lifetime ban as a newsman.  There's been a lot of analysis on why this might have happened (all the while the investigation is continuing, supposedly now expanded to include his expense accounts, as if an RPG hit might materialize there).  Lots of people are talking about what makes people embellish their records, inflate their value, exaggerate what happened to them, and why they would 'violate our trust' like this.  

But lots of people aren't talking about why, for example, NBC didn't appear to think much about trustworthiness when it hired the daughters of former Presidents Bush II and Clinton, as if they were real reporters? Chelsea Clinton did 'Making a Difference' stories and was reportedly paid some $650,000 for her troubles. Jenna Bush I think has become the official Bush Family Reporter, having done interviews with her dad, grandfather grandmother, mother, dog, childhood dolls... OK, maybe not the dog but you get the drift. 

What Williams did was wrong - but the network is not as trustworthy as they'd have us believe. 

Finally, the Supreme Court refused to stay an Alabama law allowing gay marriages.  This was an odd decision, in many people's eyes, because SCOTUS is going to decide on marriage equality before the end of the term. Clarence Thomas was up in arms about this one, as was Antonin Scalia.   

So: was a line crossed here by the Court? Was this a breach of protocol, or just a breach of Thomas's sensibilities? Can we no longer trust the Supreme Court? Has anyone really trusted them lately?

And now I'm left wondering, on this Wednesday, if that's really the crux of the issue: is the breach of trust really a big issue, if there's so little trust to start with? 

What Was She Thinking?

Statement from NBC News*

 Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the chief medical editor for NBC News, had been in Liberia covering the Ebola epidemic, and while there, worked with a free-lance cameraman who contracted the disease and is currently being treated.

popscreen.com photo

Snyderman and others of our team were brought home shortly after the cameraman was diagnosed, and were asked to honor a 'voluntary quarantine' lasting 21 days, during which they would be monitored for symptoms. 

As a "health professional" (which is how Dr. Snyderman refers to herself), she should have known better than to go out in public while under quarantine, and should have done everything in her power to prevent other members of the group from doing the same.

Sadly, that was not the case: multiple media outlets have reported that Snyderman and others were seen in a car outside a popular New Jersey restaurant, and that one of the people left the vehicle, went into the restaurant, and came back with soup. For that, we are deeply sorry. 

 In a statement that's being read on all of our broadcasts, Snyderman notes that she and others "remain healthy" and their "temperatures are normal" and that she  is "deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused" but she does not state that she herself violated the quarantine, only that "members of our group" did. For her lack of candor at this time, we are deeply sorry. 

While we talked with Dr. Snyderman, and were happy to read her statement, we made no mention of the specific incident which led us to this point, instead generically mentioning that Snyderman has been in the news. We did not report on our own employee's ill-advised behavior, and for that we are deeply sorry. 

The strongest message that Dr. Snyderman could have delivered at this time was to obey the voluntary quarantine, and  follow the advice of those who are best equipped and experienced with combating something like Ebola, which Snyderman, a cardiologist, is less prepared to do.  Instead, she chose to ignore the request. For her ignorance, we are deeply sorry.

She and her team are now under mandatory quarantine for the remainder of the 21-day period.  Police are now patrolling the area where Snyderman and members of her group are staying, probably as much to protect them from potential threats from the angry, frightened, confused and disillusioned people of Princeton as to ensure that the group stays inside for the duration of the quarantine. For the extra costs and the disruption to the people of Princeton, we are deeply sorry. 

Whether or not you believe that Ebola is a threat to Americans at home, and whether or not you believe the quarantine was necessary, are not at issue here. What is at issue are the actions taken by Snyderman and others under her sphere of influence. We strongly believe that her actions were irresponsible, and that they have embarrassed all of us here at NBC. For that, we are deeply sorry. 

We also strongly believe that the best place for you to get the medical information you need is from your doctor, and from your local public health officials, not from our photogenic medical editor or from our broadcasts. 

*which we'll see maybe on the twelfth of never.