Wondering on Wednesday 3/20/24

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Huh... A billionaire can't pay his bond, and can't find people to help him; I wonder how that happens? And I wonder whether at least some of the companies that won't help aren't helping because they simply don't want to be involved with him, rather than because they really can't help him? I'm also wondering, a bit, why the family doesn't tap their Russian connections, where they used to get 'all the money they need' for the business, or why Jared doesn't message his BFF, the Saudi Crown Prince, for help?

Speaking of help, the GoFundMe to raise money towards the penalty has crossed the $1.5M threshold, with over 26,000 donors contributing to the cause. I really wonder who contributes to something like this - it takes a special kind of person to want to donate money to help a billionaire meet his legal responsibilities, I think.

Dartmouth men's basketball players voted to unionize earlier this month after they were deemed to be employees of the school by a regional National Labor Relations Board office. Needless to say, that prompted a whole lot of discussion on what this means more broadly for the NCAA: how will athletes be paid, how much, and would it be only for their season, or for the entire year, what about NIL, and so on. 

Me? I can't help wondering what the $3.6B in scholarships given to 180,000 DI and DII student-athletes is for, if it's not payment for their services?  

And since we're talking about the NCAA, I also wonder why it insists on opening Pandora's Portal of Program Doom before the seasons are officially over? It happens with football, and now basketball. What on earth is the point of encouraging players to end their season before their season ends?  

Finally, I wonder whether NCAA executives have considered changing careers?  They would make, um, "perfect" additions to pretty much any political office, right? They have all the critical experience: they know how to grab as much money as possible from sponsors and donors, make ridiculous rules that even they don't understand, ignore how those rules impact their constituents, and wait for someone else to fix the mess for them, like they're doing with NIL. If that's not a perfect fit, I don't know what is. 

Back to the billionaire. Donald 'Orange Jesus' Trump, a man alleged to have shared our national secrets with members of his residence/private club, is now eligible to receive national security updates as the presumptive Republican nominee. Given his propensity for blurting out whatever the hell crosses his mind, creating alternative facts at the drop of a hat, and his um, alleged inability to differentiate what's his and what's government property, I'm wondering if we should limit what's shared to only weather forecasts with national implications.

Think about it: the forecasts are specific as to locations, risks, potential damage, and populations impacted. Depending on the situation, forecasts even include global modeling. Surely, they should count as 'national security,' right? I wonder - only a little bit, though - what else a narcissist like the OJ would need. Shouldn't knowing how many of his followers, how many "real Americans," are in the path of a storm, or at least within the Cone of Uncertainty sponsored by Sharpie, be enough? 

Trump is suing George Stephanopoulos (and ABC News) for defamation because Stephanopoulos called him a rapist during his incredibly embarrassing interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC). In the interview, Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Trump was "found liable for rape" by a jury, which is untrue; the jury in the first E. Jean Carroll case found that he did not commit rape under the definition in NYS law at that time. It was Judge Lewis Kaplan who determined that Trump committed rape 'as commonly understood.' 

I wonder if George has considered that he could lose this case? After all, his interview was dripping with malice, towards Trump and Mace. I also wonder if he has second thoughts about inviting a Congresswoman on his show, specifically because she publicly talked about her own rape, specifically to shame her about her political decisions? And the one I wonder the most about: did his wife welcome him home with open arms after that grotesque interview?  I sure as hell hope not.

One last little bit of wondering on this one, now that NY has changed the definition of rape to match what Judge Kaplan said people understand 'rape' to mean, is someone responsible for updating the myriad references to sexual assault in the NYS criminal code before this change goes into effect in September? Are sentencing guidelines being updated? Are DAs receiving training on how to present cases to grand juries? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

In Case You Missed It (v24)

A busy week here at the pastiche.  If you missed anything, I've got you covered.

We started out the week with Sunday School classrooms jam packed with presidential candidates.  Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer and Pete Buttigieg were making the rounds this morning, with Klobuchar hitting four classrooms and Steyer two.  Papa Joe hadn't been around in a few weeks, it seemed, but he was happy to open up with Chuck Todd. 

On his campaign and whether he's got the urgency, the fire that people want to see, he said maybe being so polite and positive wasn't the best approach after all, but he supported his moderate proposals by saying if he gets elected he'll be "one of the most progressive administrations" in the country's history.

We moved into back-to-back poetry readings. That's right: we had an OrangeVerse entry that was all about presidential pride, including a tip of the hat to his own dreadful remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. But before that part, we had this.

Transcribe This...

Fortunately for all of us

here today and for our country

we had transcripts.

We had transcribers

professional transcribers. 

Then they said Oh, well, maybe

the transcription is not correct.

But Lt Colonel Vindman and his twin

brother - right? - we had some people 

that - really amazing.

In the second OrangeVerse,

we're well into his remarks in this part, and finally he starts talking about people other than himself - and that got me thinking about that old childhood game. You know the one, where you call out for people to come on over?

Red Rover, Red Rover...

But we have some of

the folks that are going to be leaving

right after this, and they work hard - 

and they did work hard. 

Well, we got Grassley, and Nadler, and Lee, and Romney (or maybe it was Trump himself) and more. And he's still talking...

Then it was Wednesday, and time for our weekly Wondering. Among other things, we learned that

...since January 20, 2017, the day Trump officially declared his intent to run for re-election, his campaign has put $1.9 million of donor money into the president’s private business.

After an itemization of most of that nearly $2,000,000, I had some wondering, for sure:

I don't know about you, but I have to wonder a couple of things: first of all, is there NO non-Trump-enriching space available? And second, is there any wondering why the FEC isn't up to full strength?

And one more - do the folks who are spending all of their money on Trump properties (the same as they did back in 2015 and 2016) do this on their own, or because they know if they didn't, they'd be out of a job?

After Wednesday's debate, I had to do what the real pundit do and declare some winners and losers. I agreed with some of the experts on some things, but not with all of them and definitely not on everything.  And, because I can, I updated how I did with my chosen keywords for the obligatory debate drinking game.

Finally, here are the keywords (from yesterday's post) for my debate drinking game that scored me a beverage: delegates; Super Tuesday; South Carolina; people of color; Nevada Culinary Union; stop and frisk; Elizabeth Warren. (I admit I took some liberties with that last one, scoring three times when other candidates at least said her first name. Which, as noted above, is more than some pollsters bothered to do.)

The debate post (honestly, the post, not the drinking game) slowed my progress on our candidate Email of the Week.

Rather than leaving you hanging, here's how things shook up, with an extra day for them to get their points across. Mayor Pete continues to lead the pack in sheer volume - that's been a trend for quite a while.

And then, almost as if by magic, it was TGIF time. I talked a little about whiny people, and billionaires (and one who is both whiny and a billionaire).

And speaking of that other whiner, and speaking of doing it better, you can say lots of things about Mike Bloomberg and his campaign to beat the whiner, but be sure to say he's got the best darned ads. 

Honestly, you need to see the ads...

And earlier today, I shared some of the history I found on endorsements given - or not given - by the Nevada Culinary Workers Union.  Here's a hint: they didn't make an endorsement in 2016, either.  Which means, one union worker said, that people are on their own.

Caucus results are coming in, and with a mere 3% of the vote counted, Sanders is leading the pack. In the end, we may never know why people are voting the way they are.

The best we might hope for is that the results will be known, with confidence, before midnight.

And now, a couple of hours later, it looks like my hope about getting the results will be realized. The race has been called already, and it's not close.

So, there you have it: this week's veritable pastiche. Don't forget, you can drop your email in the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar and never miss a thing.

See you tomorrow for Sunday School.

The Missing Union Endorsement

There's an edition of The Field, the NY Times podcast, making the rounds on social media this morning. It's all about the Nevada Culinary Workers Union not making an endorsement in this year's caucus.

Instead of an endorsement, there was a union scorecard, focusing on the three goals the union believes are important: immigration, jobs, and health insurance. On the first two, as we know, the candidates are very similarly aligned - they all want good union jobs, and lots of them, and they all support protections for immigrants. Where the candidates diverge, as the union sees it, is on health insurance. TGFV will end their coverage; Elizabeth Warren will eventually replace it, and the moderate candidates will protect it.

That scorecard, and other information from the union leadership, has led some pro-TGFV supporters to holler fraud, to holler election interference, and to holler about that darned rigged system, which we hear about with every perceived slight. Everything is an offense against him; everything is an attempt to keep him from his rightful claim to the throne, it seems.

What 's so weird is that no one remembers, or chooses to talk about the union not endorsing anyone the last time around, either. There was no endorsement in the 2016 election, when it was a very close race between TGFV and Hillary Clinton.

From Adam Nagourney's February 2016 piece in the NY Times,

When it comes to labor powerhouses in Nevada, few organizations quite match the Culinary Workers Union; 57,000 strong, more than 50% Latino, with an 80-year history of labor advocacy on the Strip and a record of turning out its members in political campaigns. But the decision to stay out also appears to be, at least to some extent, a legacy of the bitter Democratic caucus battles of 2008, when the union endorsed Barack Obama in the final weeks of the campaign. Mrs. Clinton's supporters took the Culinary Workers to court to challenge its voting procedures, while an angry Bill Clinton went casino to casino, urging workers to defy their union and support his wife. 

"It's unforgivable,” a union radio advertisement said at the time of the Clinton camp’s maneuvers. 

Obama won the endorsement, and more delegates, even though Clinton won the popular vote.

Fast forward to 2016 (again, from Nagourney's article)

The union’s decision is also powerful evidence of just how unsettled this race is, with the absence of much reliable polling and a rising sense in both campaigns that the fight is tighter than it appeared just a few weeks ago... And, by many accounts, this union — which Mrs. Clinton had once counted on as a strong supporter — is just as divided as the state appears to be, and union leaders are wary about pushing through an endorsement that could split its ranks.

The candidates had some work to do, and again, ran afoul of the union, just like in 2008.

With union leaders professing neutrality, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders have moved to win support of the members on their own, with mixed success. Union leaders rebuked Mr. Sanders's campaign after several of his workers, handing out stacks of pro-Sanders literature, posed as culinary employees to gain access to the private cafeteria where union members go on break. 

"It's completely inappropriate for any campaign to attempt to mislead Culinary Union members, especially at their place of work," Geoconda Arguello-Kline, the secretary-treasurer of the union, said in a statement. Yanna Cancela, the union's political director, said in an interview here that the union viewed it as a "huge problem" and that she had complained personally to Mr. Sanders's campaign. Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, later apologized.  

The union leaders knew that both Sanders and Clinton had supporters among union members - but it was heading to the negotiating table and one union leader said they

want to be very unified dealing with the companies, and we don't want anything polarizing our members. 

Today, Geoconda Arguello-Kline is the head of the union, and is taking a lot of heat from Sanders supporters. According to the podcast, Arguello-Kline got a text from her daughter, with screenshots of tweets about her mom; here's a sample.

F--- off Geoconda. If Sanders loses and we don't get Medicare for All and a union worker gets cancer and gets fired and he or she dies, their blood will be on Geoconda Arguello-Kline who for selfish reasons decided to spread these lies.

The assumption that this kind of message was coming from Sanders supporters is what led to a discussion during the debate the other night about how the candidates have a role to play when it comes to their supporters. Here's Senator Warren.

Look, I have said many times before, we are all responsible for our supporters. And we need to step up. That's what leadership is all about.

And here's what Mayor Pete said about it.

...but at a certain point, you've got to ask yourself, why did this pattern arise? Why is it especially the case among your supporters that this happens? ...Look, people know the way your supporters treat them.

And the response?

Well, Pete, if you want to talk to some of the women on my campaign, what you'll see is the most ugly, sexist, racist attacks that are -- I wouldn't even describe them here, they're so disgusting...

I saw some of those tweets regarding the Culinary Workers Union. I have a 30-year, 100% pro-union voting record. Do you think I would support or anybody who supports me would be attacking union leaders? It's not thinkable.

Meanwhile, according to this article from Nicole Karlis for Salon.com, trying to get out the vote is what the union is focusing on - that, and enjoying their time in the spotlight, it seems.

"I've never heard the Culinary Union mentioned on a debate stage so much," Culinary Union member Marc Morgan, 59, told Salon. "We have such a voice [in this election]."  

Karlis wondered if there were "murmurs or sly endorsements" going on during the phone banking, but Morgan, one of several union members manning the phones, said no. 

I'm just encouraging voters to go out and participate, and I think that's most important. We want them to vote Democratic, and to beat Trump.

Karlis talked to another phone bank worker, Diane Woodman, who said that the union sitting this one out changes things.

It's different for our members because they basically have to make decisions for themselves for this election. They know our stand on what we need to protect as far as our union goes and what's important to us because we fought for it for years and years, so they will make their own decision, which is a first for them.

To me, that's one of the saddest things about this entire mess: that voters making their own decision, rather than doing what the union tells the, is "a first for them."

Caucus results are coming in, and with a mere 3% of the vote counted, Sanders is leading the pack. In the end, we may never know why people are voting the way they are.

The best we might hope for is that the results will be known, with confidence, before midnight.

The Irony Board: AOC's Not Paying Dues?

I love me some good irony, don't you?

And that's just what we have today, with this article from The Hill about how progressive favorite Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC as she's known - the very pro-union AOC -  is apparently going to refuse to do the one thing almost all union members do: pay their dues.

According to The Hill's reporting,

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Friday defended her decision not to pay dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) saying she would seek to funnel money directly to Democrats in tough races. 

Asked by The Hill if she intended to pay dues to the House Democratic campaign arm this cycle, Ocasio-Cortez replied, "I don't think so." 

Huh?  How's that again?

Ocasio-Cortez, who "has emerged as one of the Democratic Party's most prolific fundraisers in the House," outraised all other House Dems in Q3 2019, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She and the Speaker have clashed in the past, and according to the article, she's had issues with the DCCC as well,

particularly after it began sidelining vendors who work with candidates seeking to challenge incumbent Democrats in primaries. 

Instead of paying the ~$250K dues, she's hoping to raise that money and give it to other candidates - House Dems, and "non-incumbent candidates." And, her behavior is not making other members of her union happy. Rep. Gregory Meeks, also from NY, said this in an interview on Fox.

Sometimes the question comes: 'Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority? And do you want to be part of a team?'

An unnamed Dem was, according to Fox, "less diplomatic."

Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills. She's always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is, leaving her friends with the bill. 

And, of course, helping progressive candidates in battles against incumbents like Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas (who has paid his dues) is not sitting well with her fellow Dems. Cuellar said of AOC supporting his primary opponent,

Certainly, these are new times, which is something that we certainly don't agree with. To have people try to purify the caucus because they don't agree with them - 100%, I certainly don't agree with that. Hopefully we will start to get away from this circular firing squad.

 For her part, AOC says she's "happy to support some incumbents, but it's not just a blanket rule."

And speaking of a 'blanket rule', I always thought that everyone in the union was supposed to pay the dues - even people who disagreed with what the union was doing, right? That doesn't get you a pass - not according to politicians, anyway. Some courts have ruled in favor of the 'don't want to pay' crowd, but you won't find a lot of Democrat pols taking that position.

And I thought that union members didn't attack their own? I get that you can support a different slate of candidates for union leadership roles than the incumbents, for example - free and fair elections being part and parcel of the union construct, and all. But refusing to support your fellow members?  That goes against everything the labor movement and the pro-labor politicians stand for, doesn't it? I always thought it did.

I wonder what would happen if all the folks who are in unions today, or who get all the union jobs proposed under the Green New Deal all the sudden decided that paying dues was for the birds? I'm pretty sure a certain congresswoman would have something to say about that...

Grains of Salt (v52): Syracuse's New Police Union Contract

Residency requirements. Leadership incentives. Longevity increases. Incentives for veterans, bilingual officers, and those with higher levels of education. 

These are the changes in the new Syracuse Police Department contract that's been approved by the rank and file, and is pending approval by the Syracuse Common Council. 

I have to say, I was excited that we even got to talk about this kind of thing in the negotiations, and thrilled that the union has agreed to the contract, which I anticipate will be passed by the Council. 

In Chris Baker's article from The Post-Standard | syracuse.com, we learn how this all came to be: an agreement on what the goals were, before the two sides even started talking about specific language. 

Frank Caliva, the city’s chief administrative officer, said the negotiation process, which was about six months long, was unlike many previous contract settlements. The two sides agreed to a series of objectives before deciding on specific contract points.

This is particularly important, given the relationship between Chief Kenton Buckner and union president Jeff Piedmonte and the rank and file.

I've long felt that city employees, particularly teachers, firemen, and police, should be required to live in the city. I grew up understanding that this was the right thing to do, with parents who passed on buying a house they loved because it was just outside the school district where my Dad taught. Instead, they lived in the village, and we grew up with a bunch of other kids who had parents with the same crazy idea.

There were consequences from that decision. Our house got egged a couple of times at Halloween; if memory serves, there was one year where no costumes were involved, so Dad knew who did it.  The kids knew he knew, and the eggs got washed off the house pretty quickly. My brothers and I took a little heat from other kids sometimes, people telling us Dad was a jerk and mean; and frequently we were asked for help on tests and stuff like that, as were the children of the French teacher, and the business teacher, and the science teacher, and the math teacher, and the English teacher. We all survived.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the potential threats to police officers and their families aren't greater than the potential threats to a social studies teacher and an elementary school teacher (my mom also taught in the same district) - but the benefits of having a police officer in the neighborhood, in the community, in the park, with their kids on Pop Warner teams and so on, are significantly greater than 'just' having a teacher down the block.

So, yes, I'm delighted that the next class of officers graduating from the SPD's academy will have to find a place to live in the city within six months of graduation, and meet the same residency requirement that our firefighters do. Honestly, I hope one moves into my neighborhood the next time there's a house for sale.

And I hope that officers will take advantage of the other contract provisions, including the longevity and leadership bumps, so that we don't lose our best people as soon as they become eligible for their pensions. We need to keep the good ones, and incentivizing them to stay is a good start.

Another thing that everyone's working on? Getting young people onto the force. In another of Baker's articles, we learn that the city's seeking state money to help build a program to get kids who are interested in becoming police officers into non-officer positions with the SPD. First Deputy Chief Joe Cecile pointed out the issue they hope to resolve.

At 18 you said you want to be a police officer, but we lost touch with you until you're 20 and a half. We're trying to fix that by bringing them on the department, giving them a job learning the department. 

The program, which will be housed at the SCSD's Fowler Public Service Leadership Academy (PSLA),  appears to expand upon the school's existing law enforcement education programs.

Another potential benefit? Improving the diversity of the force, which is not where it should be, based on the makeup of our community as a whole.

I'm hopeful about these changes, as I have been about many of the other positive changes we've seen with new leadership in the city and the county. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to be thinking about, and collaborating on, in order to move things forward.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v29)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

We've talked about the new high-speed legislative agenda here in New York this session, now that the Dems are in charge of the whole shebang that is NY's state government.

One of the items in that agenda was a tip of the hat towards campaign finance reform. Recently, in that regard, our Sonofa Gov signed legislation that closed the LLC loophole, from which the governor and many other elected officials have benefited greatly over time. LLCs now are stuck with the same $5,000 limit, and there's also additional transparency required. Other changes to how we vote in NY were also made.

I say tip of the hat, because there's so much more that can be done, in my opinion, and as I was catching up on last week's newspapers, I saw my state Senator Rachel May's commentary in the op-ed section of my local paper talking about campaign finance reform. And while that reminded me that I'm still waiting for a response on a few questions I sent her 10 days ago on the failed Amazon deal, I was interested in what more she thinks needs to be done on one of my favorite topics.

She referenced two additional things we need: reducing the amount of money individuals can give, and "amplifying" the power of small donors.

Let's take a look.

The Update Desk: Please Say it Ain't So

I'd love to say it ain't so, but it is in fact so, according to these updates:

• The Associated Press tweeted  BREAKING: Amazon drops New York City as one of its new headquarter locations, will not search for another.
• Reuters tweeted BREAKING: Amazon says it will not build headquarters in New York after mounting opposition $AMZN
• J David Goodman tweeted AMAZON CANCELS PLAN TO COME TO NEW YORK "After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens" - Amazon spokeswoman Jodi Seth

And here is the statement released by Amazon, as published in the NY Times:

After much thought and deliberation, we've decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens. For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long term. While polls show that 70% of  New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.

We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion - we love New York, its incomparable dynamism, people and culture - particularly the community of Long Island City, where we have gotten to know so many optimistic, forward-leaning community leaders, small business owners, and residents. There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams.

We are deeply grateful to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and their staffs, who so enthusiastically and graciously invited us to build in New York City and supported us during the process. Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have worked tirelessly on behalf of New Yorkers to encourage local investment and job creation, and we can't speak positively enough about all of their efforts. The steadfast commitment and dedication that these leaders have demonstrated to the communities they represent inspired us from the very beginning and is one of the big reasons our decision was so difficult. 

We  do not intend to re-open the HQ2 search at this time. We will proceed as planned in Northern Virginia and Nashville, and we will continue to hire and grow across our 17 corporate offices and tech hubs in the US and Canada. 

Thank you again to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and the many other community leaders and residents who welcomed our plans and supported us along the way. We hope to have future chances to collaborate as we continue to build our presence in New York over time.

It will be interesting to see who, now, will be creating the 25,000 $150,000 promised jobs that would have helped create and support countless small businesses that would have spun off from this project, and how long it will take for those jobs and small businesses to materialize. And unionize, of course.  I'll wait patiently for that.

And I'll wait patiently for all of the politicians who proudly declare that they won't accept corporate money to similarly disavow union money.

And, I'll wait patiently for the Dems in the NY Legislature to immediately meet with NY's  Congressional delegation - Schumer, Gillibrand, and all the folks in the house, including AOC -  to demand legislation to update corporate tax regulations so that so that American companies like Amazon can no longer legally have a $0 federal tax liability - and I want them to do that FIRST, before they worry about taxing the rich businessmen who own and run the companies that they so desperately do not want here in the Empire State. 

Waiting patiently, but not holding my breath (I'm not an idiot).

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v27)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

In Thursday's post, the first in a series on our Sonofa Gov's State of the State, we looked at the accomplishments of the Cuomo administration, covering a whole lot of bases.

Today, we start looking at what's on the new progressive agenda Andrew Cuomo and the Democratic majorities in the Assembly and Senate plan on bringing to us.

Some things have already been delivered, as the legislature got right to work as soon as they were sworn in. Here's what was called for in the SOTS:

• Reproductive Health Act
• Comprehensive Contraceptive Coverage Act
• Criminal Justice Reform
• Updating the SAFE Act
• Voting Reforms
• Passing the Equal Rights Amendment
• Child Victims Act
• Dream Act
• Legal Adult Use Cannabis
• Campaign Finance Reforms
• Green New Deal
• Sports Betting
• Pro-Labor Protections
• Tax Reforms
• Rent Regulation Reform
• Continuing the Build New York program
• MTA changes

Cuomo appreciated that there's a lot of stuff in that wish list.

It's a lot. No doubt about it. But there's been a lot that has been bottled up for many, many years that we couldn't get done. And in many ways I feel the state is now liberated with the Senate Democratic Caucus and we can get these things done and we can get them done together and pass a new budget and I believe we can get them done within the first 100 days to show this state a new reality.

Some of it already has been done, or will be done soon. Let's take a look.

Wondering on Wednesday (v138)

Wondering, wondering, wondering... about hypocrisy, tonight.

I wonder if the people who are outraged - outraged, I tell you! - about Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a Virginia restaurant were equally outraged when gays were refused services? It's funny, because some of the same people who think the latter is OK think the former is not. And suggesting that 'we' (meaning liberals, or Democrats) would be outraged if a gay person was denied services, when we all should be outraged when that happens, right? And not for nothing 'we' already did the outrage thing on this, resulting in marriage equality, among other things.

I also wonder about people who think protesting administration officials is 'discrimination' - what particular protected class might Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen represent?

And how about Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao rising to the occasion and defending her man, Kentucky's Republican obstructionist Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? If you haven't seen it, you can watch it here -- and the article raises some interesting points, too, about how conservatives in particular reacted the incident. I can't help wondering if they get how bad they look?

Speaking of how bad they look, I wonder if the folks who think it's wrong for a business owner to refuse service to someone think it's OK when the president calls upon his followers to boycott American businesses? You know, when he gets mad at Amazon, or Nordstrom, or anyone else? Is it OK for him to do that in his official capacity, I wonder?

Thinking about the Supreme Court decision today that people can't be forced to pay fees to support non-political activities of unions, even if they directly benefit from those activities, made me think about another Supreme Court decision: the one about companies having deeply held beliefs.

Consider the argument about people working for companies like Hobby Lobby, which doesn't believe in providing certain types of contraception that are required benefits under the Affordable Care Act.  It's been said many times on my social  media pages and possibly yours as well, that a person doesn't have to take a job if the benefits aren't to their liking, and if you go to work for Hobby Lobby you know what you're getting, blah blah blah and you don't have to work there if you don't like it yadda yadda yadda. 

I wonder why a person who thinks it's OK for someone to be denied a benefit based on a company's belief thinks it's OK for person to get (for free) a benefit their coworkers pay for? How can both of these be OK?

I wonder about civility in the age of Trump. You know: talking about penis size during a presidential debate, and about the physical appearance of his female opponents, and of course the Access Hollywood tape, and promising to pay anyone arrested for assaulting protesters at his rallies, and all of that stuff and of course,lying about President Obama's birth certificate.

When the president says stuff (and by stuff I mean outright lies, abusive comments, insulting comments, derogatory comments, denigrating comments, racist comments, sexist comments, abject falsehoods and the like) it's OK, it's all rah rah and #MAGA and #AmericaFirst and the like, with not the slightest concern for civility or honesty or humanity, but when an FBI guy does a little reassuring pillow-texting with his paramour, all bets are off and he's nefarious and everything is deadly serious and he has to be lying about it being innocent? Why is that, I wonder? Why does nothing the president says or does matter, but everything everyone else says and does matters as if it were life and death?

And I'll stop after this one: why must the Mueller investigation end, I wonder, when it's been going on for not even 14 months and is producing results -- indictments and guilt pleas -- when the Benghazi investigations - 7 or 8 of them, I think? -  lasted years, cost millions, and resulted in nothing?

I wonder about all of this, I do. I could keep going, but I think you get the gist.  The outrage! Oh, the outrage!

No -- make it faux, the outrage.

About that, I don't have to wonder.

TGIF 2/2/18

Hey everyone -- desperately seeking advice today, while celebrating that it's Friday.

Like many folks who got paid today, I got my Republican tax cut 'raise' and boy, I'm struggling trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with it.

Seriously!

Am I supposed to be a 'good' American and immediately spend it? If I'm supposed to spend it, what are the rules for that?

Can I spend it online, or do I have to spend in a bricks-and-mortar establishment? And, would it be OK to spend it in a store that the president doesn't like?  Can I actually spend it at Macy's, or Nordstrom?

Do have I to spend it on something actually made in America, or is it good enough to buy from an American company, even if the product is made someplace else?

If I decide to purchase something that is made in America, do I have to get something that was made by an American company, or is it OK to purchase something from a foreign company as long as they employ American workers?  You know, like solar panels for the roof or something.

Does it have to be made by a union member? By someone earning at least $15 an hour? How am I supposed to know if either of those are true?

And what if I wanted to get a car? Some of those are made with parts from other countries, but they're assembled here in America - would that count as a Made in America purchase?

Can I purchase fruit or veggies for the Super Bowl party?

I'd be OK with that, as long as I can tell whether my purchase was picked by an American, or by a legal immigrant, because I certainly don't want to get anything that was handled by an illegal one that's stealing a job from an American.

I'd want to get something from a small family farm, if I could, not a factory farm. But then, sometimes the small family farms are in co-ops and so their stuff may look like it came from a factory farm. How am I supposed to tell?

Is the Wegmans Organic Farm a family farm? And if I start buying only organics, isn't that going to put Americans who make pesticides out of work, and drive down our economy?

Gosh, it all seems so very confusing trying to spend the money the right way -- maybe I should save the money for a rainy day, or for my retirement?

I can put it in the bank, I guess - but can I use the ATM, or do I have to actually deal with a teller? I wouldn't want to put a person out of work, but the ATM is so easy. Does anyone know if any of those are made in the USA? Programmed in the US, at least?

I could use the money to make an extra payment on my credit card, I guess. But then that won't stimulate the economy at all -- it'll actually take money out of the economy twice: first when I don't spend the money directly, and second when the credit card company doesn't get any interest. I wouldn't want that.

Maybe I'll pay for a subscription to the Washington Post, or the NY Times. Oh, crap -- that's Bezos and fake news and more fake news.  I better not do that.

Damn. I really am struggling with this. Hopefully I'll get it all figured out before I have to go back to work on Monday.

TGIF.

Grains of Salt (v6): Dues Not Deals

Regular readers know that I'm not a huge fan of giving away tax dollars to corporations or organizations that don't need them. Or maybe, I should say, to those who shouldn't need them.

And so, naturally, I'm intrigued by an article I saw in Sunday's paper about MACNY, the Manufacturer's Association of Central N, and a couple of state senators, David Valesky and Jeffrey Klein, both members of the Independent Democratic Conference. The pols have proposed that MACNY "administer a centralized apprenticeship program for local factories."

You see, our manufacturing employees are getting old - average age is 56, according to MACNY's President, Randy Wolken. They're probably tired, too, I'd guess - most manufacturing jobs are not as easy as say, my desk job - and it makes sense that we need to have replacements at the ready as these folks start to age out of the workforce.

Wolken also noted that

With the $500,000, if it's added to the state budget, MACNY could run a central apprenticeship program that would reduce costs and administrative red tape for all local manufacturers. Much of the state money would pay for administrative costs involved in running the program. 

MACNY's website shows they have more than 330 member firms. Not all of them are manufacturers, but there are a lot of notable regional companies, many with global reputations, such as Welch Allyn, SRC, Lockheed Martin, Corning Inc, Tessy Plastics, and Par Technology among them. And, certainly, there are lots of smaller companies and likely some start ups who have signed on for the benefits of membership, which include networking, governmental affairs, shared purchasing services, and yes, training opportunities and consulting services.

MACNY's reach extends far outside the Central New York Area. This is important, I think, when we talk about coughing up $500,000 to help train employees. They are not a little trade group for Syracuse and Onondaga County - they're a trade group for everyone, from Rochester to Albany, from Watertown to Binghamton and Elmira. Do they really need half a million in taxpayer dollars to organize a training program, particularly when much of the money, by their own admission, is for administrative costs??

Our economy is such that, in many places, we don't build things anymore: we pour things. That's right: instead of opening companies that make things, we open coffee shops, places which tend to pay less than a good manufacturing job would pay. I mean, there are over 40 Dunkin' Donuts alone within 10 miles of me. We have a fairly new one, completely drive through, built in the shadows of the I-81 interchange with 690 East.

This one may very well come down whenever we decide what we're going to do with the interstate, which makes me question whether the group that built the tiny little DD has designs on a government payout of their own down the road. But I digress.

Folks say that part of the reason we have high unemployment and that we don't build things anymore is that factories cannot find skilled people to hire, and so jobs - good paying jobs, ones that might pay as much as tomorrow's minimum wage - go unfilled. If the jobs could be filled, we're told, we could grow our economy, and we could stabilize our population base, and we could support all of those coffee chains that dot the landscape, and make it possible for small businesses and start ups to grow, and, well, you get the picture.

But again -- does an organization with MACNY's membership and reach really need half a million in taxpayer dollars, no matter how pure their motives and how valuable the services that would be offered if the money was there?

Throw in one more point mentioned in the press coverage of this initiative, and my thinking becomes more clear:

The two (senators) were surrounded by officials from local labor unions and the MACNY who support the concept...

Use your dues, folks- not taxpayer dollars - to support your members and their training needs.

You Want Me to Solve the Problem? Fine!

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been having a Facebook conversation with a friend of  a friend, a man who apparently thinks that most if not all Dems are commies and that the only right thinking comes, naturally, from The Right.

What started our discussion was his comment that public employee unions need to be abolished, because 'when you have elected officials accepting contributions from unions and then having to negotiate with them", there’s an obvious conflict of interest. 

Even though I'm not the biggest fan of unions, I suggested that the same obvious conflict of interest exists when you have elected officials taking money from businesses, lobbyists, trade organizations, other legislators, etc., who then go and write or vote on legislation that will directly benefit their donors, and further that this happens equally frequently and is equally bad.

Surprisingly he agreed with me, but then put the burden on me:  

Sue, you’re absolutely correct and when you can figure a way to make legislators vote to remove the money from politics we’ll all be better off.

Typical. The R’s blame the D's and their union backers for bankrupting the country,and then leave it up to us to solve the problem of money in politics too?  Sheesh – talk about shirking responsibility.

But fine, I said to myself. There IS a way to do this, if we really wanted to. And I appreciate that's one big honking 'if'. Here are a few dozen suggestions.

All levels of government:

Implement term limits. Eliminate pensions for elected officials. Allow campaign contributions only from actual living breathing people. Period. Ban contributions from outside the district.  Limit how campaign contributions can be spent. Prevent legislators from setting up Political Action Committees. On the slim chance that a politician leaves office before death, return all remaining campaign contributions to the local jurisdiction’s general fund.  

Require legislators to be present and accounted for, for all votes.  Record all votes as either Yes, No, or Chicken. Do not allow voice votes on legislation. Require legislators at all levels to abide by the laws they pass, no exceptions.  Do not allow attachment of unrelated amendments or language to any legislation.

Reduce the number of committees, sub-committees, and the leadership positions that go along with them. Remove elected officials from the redistricting process. Permanently ban former elected officials from lobbying. Honor the voters: don’t appoint the spouse of an elected official to fill out an unexpired term of their spouse. Do not appoint someone from a different party to fill out an unexpired term. 

Here in New York:

Stop paying full time salaries to part-time legislators.  Stop paying per-diems to legislators who take the job knowing that they’ll have to work in Albany even if they don’t live there. Ban fundraising while the legislature is in session (not only in Albany and in the home district, but in other cities where politicians are prone to congregate).

For the privilege of ‘franking’, political mailings must be black and white only, use a standard format, must be sent to all residents in the district only once a month while the legislature is in session, and must include the legislator’s voting record for that month. Mailings sent when the legislature is not in session must be paid for by the official, out of their own money.  

And finally:

Any mailings sent by any elected official within six weeks of an election in which the official is a candidate must include a black-box warning similar to that on cigarettes or prescription drugs stating:

WARNING: This is NOT official correspondence from an elected official. 

It is either flattering gibberish intended solely to encourage you to vote for this person again in the upcoming election, or it is derogatory nonsense intended to discourage you from voting for their opponent.

Believing what you read in this notice may cause you to make a bad decision when you vote.

Please choose carefully.