Wondering on Wednesday 9/1/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to begin with this week's wondering? Well, how about with a time check?

It's been reported, primarily - but not solely - on the right, that President Biden checked his watch after each of the 11 fallen Americans were transferred from the plane to waiting vehicles at Dover AFB on Monday (two of the 13 transfers were private).  There is video, that has been widely shared, showing him do that once. And, it's been 'fact-checked' by the folks at Snopes that the scene in the video was at the end of the ceremony, after all of the victims of the ISIS-K suicide bomber had been transferred.  

Now, before you go all nutso on me about how Snopes is the Wikipedia of fact-checking and can't be trusted, know that they're not the only ones who have said this isn't true. And, regardless of how you feel about the fact-checkers, don't you wonder why, if this really happened 11t times, no one has video of it?  

And coming on the heels of the false reports that "no one from the Biden administration met the plane" for the dignified transfer on Saturday, when the plane hadn't even arrived yet, how much faith are we to put into a report like this one?

Are you also wondering about the fate of the American service dogs that were left behind in Kabul? I'm sure you've seen the reports from reliable sources such as Donald Trump, Jr., about our leaving crates of dogs at the airport. Other notables also chimed in, like Medicare fraudster Sen. Rick Scott (R-I Took A Huge Golden Parachute and Named it Responsibility).

"Infuriating. Biden stranded Americans. He stranded our allies. Now, he’s stranded our loyal K-9 warriors," Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., wrote on Twitter, posting American Humane's letter.

Sadly, for those who wanted to paint Biden as an animal hater, in addition to all the other stuff he's accused of being, we did not strand our service dogs. 

On Tuesday, the Pentagon denied that any dogs that had worked with the U.S. military were left behind in the country while acknowledging that a series of social media posts about nonmilitary evacuation of Kabul pets caused confusion.

"To correct erroneous reports, the US military did not leave any dogs in cages at Hamid Karzai International Airport, to include the reported 'military working dogs,'" said Eric Pahon, a spokesman for the Defense Department.

I wonder, if the real news out of Afghanistan is as bad as it is, why do people feel the need to make it worse? 

Speaking of making stuff up, there's the Big Lie, that the election was stolen from Former Guy. There was a fun little recording featuring Sen. Ron Johnson (R- Who Doesn't Love Moscow on July 4th?), who pretty much summed up the fallacy of Former Guy's theory that the election was stolen from him. Speaking about the results in his state, Johnson admitted that

There’s nothing obviously skewed about the results...If all the Republicans voted for Trump the way they voted for the Assembly candidates, he [Trump] would have won. He didn’t get 51,000 votes that other Republicans got, and that’s why he lost.

I added the emphasis for the folks in the back, and I wonder why that's so hard for the Rs to understand?

And speaking of rigged elections, the GOP's latest poster boy, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-Not the Naval Academy) has made it clear he's willing to fight over this. Speaking at a GOP event in his home state of North Carolina, he offered this.

If our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen then it's going to lead to one place and that's bloodshed.

Continue to be rigged? There's going to be bloodshed? Huh?

And I will tell you, as much as I am willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there's nothing I would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow American. 

In case you didn't know,  rising star Cawthorn lies about all kinds of things, including the accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down, and about being accepted into the US Naval Academy. Given that he'll lie about those things, I wonder why we should think that he's telling the truth about taking up arms against his fellow citizens? 

And while I don't condone gratuitous violence, I wouldn't wonder at all if the bloodshed Cawthorn spoke of eventually happens when someone who finally had enough of his BS hauled off and punched him in the nose.

And speaking of bullshittery and hyperbole, let us not forget about House GOP Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-You Better Watch Out if We Take Back The House, Dammit!), who seems to be in a bit of a snit about every action taken by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. 

The Committee issued a document preservation request to more than 30 telecom companies on Monday, a step taken in advance of a request for specific documents which is sure to follow. And McCarthy wasn't happy about that - at all. 

I'm not wondering about his response, or his threat - I mean, he's a ring-kissing #AlwaysTrumper after all - but I am wondering why he didn't include the traitorous RINOs Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney in his tweet? 

And I'm wondering if the GOP really is like an elephant. What if they don't retake the majority for a few cycles? Will they remember that they have to take out some of these great American companies that support all those great American jobs and help our great American stock market soar ever higher, making America even greater? 

What are you wondering about?

The Election Eve Post - 2016 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my darnedest to encourage you to vote.

I always enjoy looking at the prior year's post, and seeing what has changed and what hasn't. Last year at this time we were looking at Hillary vs. Martin, two Democrats, vs. Bernie, the I with a D next to his name. And, by this time, we were down to only fourteen Republicans; it's almost hard to remember when there was a clear choice between John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and you-know-who.

Locally, it's much quieter, although we do - again, gosh darn it - have one of the noisiest Congressional races in the country. Seems our district, which was once held by a Syracuse Republican for 20 years or so, continues to be a hot property. Some have said that if John Katko - the incumbent first term Republican - wins tonight, he too could be a 20 year man if he wanted. He's gotten a lot done, more than many, and he's had bipartisan support doing it, so we might have a save (or, would it be a steal?)

Here we are, facing a choice like none other, or maybe since the 1880's, according to one pundit. 

This is where we are, and we know what we must do.  

I’ll be voting.  And I want you to vote, too. 

Not because I say it's important; you should vote because it IS important.  

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you need it, with one addition, which you see in the picture above.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” (1) Actually “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.” (2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”? (3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote” (4), and that “A citizen of American will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.” (5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy. 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll  probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;” (15) “voting is a civic sacrament;” (16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.” (17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. If you need information on where to vote, or other assistance, visit Vote411.org or contact your local Board of Elections. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles DeGaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch)

Pay for Fray?

Did some Hillary Clinton supporters purposefully disrupt Trump rallies, perhaps even egging on some violence?

Quite possibly they did. It would not be surprising, given the rhetoric and level of aggression in his speeches, and the levels of passion shown by both his supporters and detractors.

Now, did they egg on those passionate supporters because they were paid to do so by some nefarious six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon plot cooked up by Democratic Party and/or Clinton campaign operatives? That's the story we're told to believe by the Project Veritas videos.

For those that don't remember, Project Veritas (PV) is the same group that alleged voter fraud and other crimes against ACORN, a group that was involved in advocacy efforts for the poor and underserved going back to the late 1970s or early 1980s, and of course with voter registration and advocacy efforts back in 2008 - you know, when America elected President Obama the first time.

The 'other crimes' included some bizarre "gee, we can't wait to get involved in sex trafficking with you" allegations against ACORN people by the PV actors. See, the PV actors passed themselves off as being interested in starting a brothel or similar pursuits, and pretended to be looking for assistance with their business. Appearing normally dressed during the conversations, James O'Keefe afterwards edited the videos with clips of him dressed as the picture-perfect Hollywood pimp straight out of a blaxploitation film.

Great stuff, honest stuff right there, trustworthy documentary film-making right there.

And while O'Keefe, the brains behind the current 'rigged system videos', ultimately paid a $100K fine related to his actions with the 2008 films, charges against ACORN  were not proven. But it didn't matter. Congress shut off funding to ACORN, similar groups, and allied groups, which caused a dry-up of corporate and charitable donations.

ACORN went bankrupt and is no longer in business, to the delight of folks who find their greatest happiness restricting the voting rights.  And, apparently, to the dismay of Republicans, who continued to specifically include mention of the group in legislation as recently as 2013.

Yes even though ACORN has been dead for over three years, so meticulous are the Republicans at keeping federal funds away from this organization that helped the poor and has never been convicted of a crime that they, in 2013, prohibit ACORN and its successors in interest from ever receiving federal funds.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) illustration

Mission Accomplished! Those Thousand Points of Light right there were snuffed out, in the true spirit of Compassionate Conservatism.

Thank you, ALEC, for carrying the voter suppression mission forward!

Project Veritas lives on, although given their track record and that of other right wing groups that make similar videos, one can reasonably question why they're still in business to parade around their videos.

Would you be surprised to learn that the Donald J Trump Foundation, a charity that appears to exist solely to pay personal bills and buy artwork of the Donald for the Donald, made a $10,000 payment to James O'Keefe in May of last year, one month before The Escalator Descended in New York City? Would that cause you any concern? Would you maybe take one and one and one and get three?

I won't mention a whole lot about O'Keefe and Breitbart news, other than to mention that Breitbart is where Donald Trump's current campaign chairman comes from.

Was there some kind of 'pay for fray' here involving the Clinton campaign? As is his M.O., O'Keefe has not released the full videos, only heavily edited versions so for now, at least, we really have no idea what actually happened, who actually did what, who actually said what, and well, you can actually get the drift.

Or, was there some kind of pay for fray on the part of the Trump campaign? Why would his charity make a payment to a discredited right-wing inflammatory video maker?  What charitable purpose is being served here? O'Keefe can get funding from any number of people or organizations - why Trump, why then?

Maybe that's no more a smoking gun than O'Keefe's videos - but there is proof that someone has been inciting violence in this campaign.

Donald Trump personally encouraged violence at his rallies, he surely did. And he personally incited violence against Hillary Clinton herself, with his comments about Second Amendment people being able to stop her from making Supreme Court appointments, and his suggesting that if her security detail was to disarm, well, you know...

Choose your poison: shady videos produced by a compromised right-wing activist alleging a candidate paid people to disrupt the opposition's rallies, or a candidate who personally incites violence and, it seems, paid a compromised right-wing activist to make some shady videos accusing his opponent of  paying people to be disruptive?

The System is Rigged (Part Three)

Is the system rigged? I remember fondly the days when Trump first spoke of a rigged system --It was to try and coax Bernie Sanders supporters over to the dark side.

Now, though, in the World According to Trump, there is not a single independently-thinking person who believes we are #StrongerTogether, no one who decided on their own to purchase an #ImWithHer t-shirt or plant a Clinton/Kaine yard sign, and certainly no one who is a #NeverTrump thinker has become one without being influenced by the Clinton Machine. Only Kool-Aid drinkers and indiscriminate Skittles eaters buy into that stuff.

No, all the Dems are in bed with Clinton, who is in bed with the media, when the media isn't in bed with itself, or digging up liars (whom Trump will sue as soon as the election is over and he's done suing the New York Times), or being banned when they say something mean or nasty.

Need proof? Look at all of these media contributions to the political candidates! 96% of those who contributed gave to Clinton, not Trump. Clearly the election is rigged by these television critics, sports and fashion editors, restaurant reviewers, local beat and tech gadget reporters, and so on, especially by those in, say, Shelter Island, NY and Liberty, MO.

Missing from the list: Any national political reporters or anchors. No George Stephanopoulous or Keith Olbermann here - because if there was, we wouldn't be reading about Russia Television's Larry King donating to HRC. The study did not consider talking heads and paid gabbers to be journalists, but if the finance director of the Washington Post is included, how is a talking head not?

I believe there should be a wall between journalists and the people and stories they cover, but absent a connection between donors and articles they wrote or influenced, what are we to make of this? Is 'the media' against Donald Trump, and complicit in creating the 'rigged system' of which Trump recently grown so fond?

Well, that might not be the case, or at least, not the way Trump thinks. There's an interesting study, released back in June without a lot of mainstream media attention; folks at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy looked at coverage in 2015 leading up to the primaries, or what they called the 'invisible primary' season, and found that

...during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers - a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls... The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of the Republican polls. 

The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race... For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her "bad news" outpaced her "good news," usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.  (Note: all emphasis added.)

Huh?. Rigged system, you say?

So what explains the news media's early fascination with Trump?...Although journalists play a political brokering role in presidential primaries, their decisions are driven by news values rather than political values. Journalists are attracted to the new, the unusual, the sensational... Trump fit that need as no other candidate in recent memory. Trump is arguably the first bona fide media-created presidential nominee. Although he subsequently tapped a political nerve, journalists fueled his launch. 

But wait - it's gets better.

Journalists seemed unmindful that they and not the electorate were Trump's first audience. Trump exploited their lust for riveting stories. He didn't have any other option...The politics of outrage was his edge, and the press became his dependable if unwitting ally.

Here's another interesting finding, that goes to what was reported. For Trump, a mere 12% of his coverage was about the issues, with 43% of the coverage being negative (particularly after the Muslim ban comments). For Clinton, more than double the amount of coverage was issues-related (stil a meager 28%) but the negative coverage was an overwhelming 84%.

In 2016, things continued on the same general level; Trump's overall coverage was 49% positive to 51% negative, with most of the negative coming after both Ted Cruz and John Kasich had dropped out of the race, when the balance tipped to 61% negative/39% positive.  Making things worse, the 2016 study notes,

The press did not heavily cover the candidates' policy positions, their personal and leadership characteristics, their private and public histories...Such topics accounted for roughly a tenth of the primary coverage. 

And yet, Trump is the one making the 'the media is against me' claims; it seems likely that argument could most substantively by made by the Clinton campaign, based on the Harvard studies and on the amount of free media the campaigns have received. According to this analysis published in The Economist,

Data from mediaQuant, an analytic firm, show that Mr. Trump has enjoyed a healthy advantage in 'earned media' or free media coverage, throughout his campaign....And Mr. Trump has consistently dominated the news compared with Mrs. Clinton - sometimes by margins as large as six to one.  

Trump's plan - hog the limelight "by crossing a sacrosanct political line, bask in the attention for several days, then do it again before your opponents have a chance to get noticed." - worked well against his 16 Republican opponents, but Clinton's free media eventually caught up with Trump after the Democratic convention, when his strategy was proving less successful.

What does this all boil down to?

As noted in The Economist's article, which was published in mid-August but still rings true today,

As his polling numbers drop, Mr. Trump is doubling down on his media bashing... this seems an unlikely strategy to win votes. After decades in the spotlight, Mr. Trump may at last be learning that not all publicity is good publicity.

I would only add that not all negative publicity is a sign that the system is rigged against you.

The System is Rigged (Part Two)

Is the system rigged?

Are dead people planning on voting at your polling place?

Is someone trying to influence the election?

No, no -- and of course they are!

The candidates are trying to rig the system in their favor, by focusing the conversation on what they're interested in, and not talking about things that can be vigorously debunked or fact-checked or talked over by the other guy or gal. They make stuff up; they tell obvious lies; they fire up their base and some actually buy votes although they'd never admit it.

They quote polls that show they're doing great (or at least not doing horribly), and talk about their path to victory and all that, and there are actually some people out there who believe every word they say. 

The DCCC and the House Majority PAC and the NRCC and a whole mess of other PACs and Super PACS are trying to rig the system in their favor, by putting up ads in districts where they don't belong, trying to con voters into voting against their own best interests, spending millions and millions of dollars taking words out of context and slamming them on television over and over and over and over and...well, you get the point.

Heck, even the New York GOP is trying to rig the system - and they're not alone. GOP money from states where Trump is expected to do well, or to lose big, is headed off to scare the crap out of people in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and other states in to voting correctly.

Governors and state legislatures are trying to rig the system, by gerrymandering and creating bizarrely shaped districts that centralize all of the opponent's base into fewer districts that they will win handily, leaving other districts to the gerrymanderers.

States are passing voter limitation laws right, and right and right and, well, you get the drift.

Republican-controlled legislators in states with Republican governors are bending over backward to make it harder for poor people, people of color, old people, and other traditional Democratic voters to actually cast a ballot.

Not because they fear dead people voting or anything like that - because they fear live people voting, And that's a pretty big difference, if you ask me.

Is the system rigged?  Sure, if you look at it with your eyes open. It's been this way for a long time, it's not new because it's Hillary Clinton running against Donald Trump. It's politics as usual.

It may appear rigged because Trump hasn't paid attention in the past, but for someone coming from the cut-throat world of Manhattan real estate development -- you know, bid-rigging, and shady backroom deals, lawsuits, people advancing their own agendas and narratives -- is what he's seeing now really all that shocking?

Is anyone really shocked? 

The System is Rigged (Part One)

Is your perception that "the system" is rigged?

Donald Trump tells us the system is rigged, especially the tax system, and only he knows how to fix it. That's what he told us at the Republican National Convention back in July. The tax system, mind you, which allowed him to legally take a $900M loss and erase his federal tax obligation for maybe eighteen years or so.

Trump has said half of Americans don't pay taxes despite crippling government debt. He has complained about hedge fund managers not paying taxes, people 'leaving the country' to avoid paying taxes, companies lobbying to not pay taxes, companies moving business outside the US to avoid paying taxes, deductions that allow people not to pay taxes, complained that 20% is not enough tax for President Obama to pay, and has even said that the more money you earn, the more taxes you should pay.

And yet, even as he has complained about OPT (other people's taxes) or the lack thereof, he took his $916,000,000 single-year loss, stretched that across many years, and then proclaimed himself a genius for doing so.

You follow that, right? He's a genius for taking advantage of something on his personal taxes but when other people take advantage of legal mechanisms to reduce their tax burden, those people are, well, I guess, the equivalent of poor people who don't pay any taxes at all because they don't make enough to live on. He's a genius, but everyone else needs to pay up?

Not only does he proclaim himself a genius, the one who knows more about our tax system than anyone -- anyone! -- but he accuses other people of doing the same thing, taking the crazy huge deductions, as if they all do it, those rich people.

Like Warren Buffet, currently the planet's fourth richest person, according to the Forbes real time calculation as I write this. (Trump is currently tied for #324, in case you were interested, with an estimated $4.5B, or around half of his announced wealth.) Trump said that "Warren Buffett took a massive deduction" however that appears to be a comment with which Buffett would beg to differ, as noted by his response.

Answering a question last night (note: referring to Sunday's debate) about his $916 million income tax loss carryforward in 1995, Donald Trump stated that "Warren Buffett took a massive deduction." Mr. Trump says he knows more about taxes than any other human. He has not seen my income tax returns. But I am happy to give him the facts. 

Trump hasn't seen them, but it's not because Buffett won't show them -- in fact, a couple of months ago, he offered to sit down with Trump, and have a chat.

I'll bring my tax return. He can bring his tax return...Just let people ask us questions about items on there. Nobody is going to arrest us. There are no rules against showing your tax returns. 

Back to Trump's comment in the debate, implying that he's not the only one who does this - as if that matters at all, since Trump is the one who's running for President and he is the one who has chastised others for not paying taxes. And are you noting a trend here? Trump admits to sexually assaulting women (even though he denies that's what he said) and apologizes for it, by saying Bill Clinton was worse. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that he takes a tax break and 'justifies' it by saying others did too.

Here's the rest of Buffett's statement on his own taxes.

My 2015 return shows adjusted gross income of $11,563,931. My deductions totaled $5,477,694, of which allowable charitable contributions were $3469,179. All but $36,037 of the remainder was for state income taxes.

The total charitable contributions I made during the year were $2,858,057,970, of which more than $2.5 billion were not taken as deductions and never will be. Tax law properly limits charitable deductions.

My federal income tax for the year was $1,845,557. Returns for previous years are of a similar nature in respect to contributions, deductions and tax rates.

I have paid federal income taxes every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year). I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward.

Finally, I have been audited by the IRS multiple times and am currently being audited. I have no problem releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither would Mr. Trump - at least he would have no legal problem. 

Why is it that politicians who think something is 'wrong' or 'needs to be fixed' feel compelled to take advantage of the very same wrong, broken thing? And yes, folks, Donald Trump is a politician. Don't be fooled when he says he's not.

Here's another famous New Yorker, our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo, who is a lot like Trump when it comes to saying one thing and doing another.

Cuomo, too, has told us the system is rigged. He has told us over and over that we need campaign finance reform in New York state, and particularly that we need to do something about the LLC loophole (allowing every LLC to contribute $150K annually to politicians and campaigns - in essence, encouraging people to establish multiple LLCs so that almost unlimited contributions can be made to elected officials, you know, to 'get their point across').

He says that, and he has proposed legislation to fix it, but it fails every time, in part, I'm sure, because while he's railing against the loophole, he takes millions from LLCs -- because it's legal to do so.

That's right. Just like Trump, Cuomo has a history of complaining about the very thing he is so adept at using to his advantage. With both of them, we are supposed to listen to the ire in their words, all the while ignoring the irony of their actions.

They tire me out, these glib politicians. Had they the courage of their convictions, they would not be taking  the 18-year carryforward or the $6M in LLC money, nor would they do any of the myriad other things they say are bad for us and need changing.

They tire me out.