TGIF 9/22/17

Random thoughts as we cross off another Friday on the calendar:

Is it a thing now, for people to drive cars that are clearly so low on blinker fluid that their turn signals simply cannot signal their turns? (Asking for a friend.)

Now, on to more weighty subjects: Arizona Senator John McCain must truly be channeling his dear friend Ted Kennedy again. McCain and Kennedy were tied together in politics, and now in health -McCain's brain tumor is the same kind that Kennedy had.

Late this afternoon, McCain went on record as a no vote on the "last, best chance" for Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I can't help thinking that he's remembering the passion with which Ted Kennedy fought to bring health insurance to millions of Americans, even as he fought his own diagnosis, and that he can't imagine being responsible for taking health insurance away from millions of Americans.  Kudos to you, Senator McCain. Hopefully a couple of other Republican senators will follow in your footsteps and do the same.

News broke yesterday that the brain of Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriot who was convicted of murder and then took his own life in jail at the age of 27, was suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. Based an examination of his brain tissue, he was at stage three of the disease (stage four is the max); his was the "most severe case they had ever seen for someone his age" according to attorney Jose Baez, who is suing the Pats and the NFL on behalf of Hernandez' daughter. This suit is outside the class action suit in which the NFL is paying a billion dollars to retired players from whom the league allegedly hid the risk of CTE. The league has promised a vigorous defense; the Pats have not yet responded.

Also, speaking of the NFL, Colin Kaepernick is still unemployed. There was an interesting discussion on WBUR's On Point radio show today (you can listen to the podcast here). Kaepernick is a better quarterback than many of the 28 starters and their backups - it's foolish, some say, to pretend that he's not qualified to play.

One thing is different now than it was in the past. Today, NFL players are not afraid to speak out in support of Kaep and are not afraid to show their own activist streaks. And some are even comfortable continuing to protest this season, after Kaep paved the way for them. There's more courage around speaking out, albeit silently, about injustice and discrimination and racism, which ARE a fact of life in America whether we're willing to admit it or not.

It's quite a bit different than it was a year ago, when Myke Tavarres was an unsigned rookie looking to make the team for the Philadelphia Eagles. As I noted in my post at that time, Tavarres announced his decision to participate in a protest, saying this:

In this situation, I've really got nothing to lose. I'm a rookie free agent, haven't signed any major contract, so there's not a lot of money on the line, I don't have any big endorsement deals on the line. Really what's at stake is my pride and what kind of man would I be and what kind of African-American would I be if I didn't stand my ground on this issue we have today?

Until his agent sat him down and read him the riot act, and Tavarres apologized for being a distraction.

I want to make change in this world but sitting down during the national anthem just isn't the best way to do it. With that being said, I do plan on finding a better way. 

He ended up being cut by the Eagles in 2016, and by the Saskatchewan Rough Riders of the CFL earlier this year.

Meanwhile, Kaep's jersey continues to be a best seller, even though he's not even in the league anymore. And I continue to be pretty darn sure that people are not standing in their living rooms during the national anthem.

TGIF.

Wondering on Wednesday (v104)

The Republicans in the Senate are working hurriedly to try and rustle up enough support to drag Mike Pence in for a potential tie-breaking vote, by September 30th, on a last, best chance to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something that I heard Kentucky's Rand Paul describe as merely taking money away from blue states and giving it to red states.

Jimmy Kimmel, whose son was born with a congenital heart defect, met months ago with Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, one of the coauthors of the current bill. At that time, Cassidy coined the phrase 'the Jimmy Kimmel test' which any bill would need to pass, according to Cassidy: coverage for preexisting conditions, no lifetime caps, and insurance had to be affordable. Fast forward to this week, where Kimmel called Cassidy a liar on his show. 

Cassidy says Kimmel doesn't understand the bill. 

No one understands the bill, least of all the people who will be expected to get insurance coverage under it. And the people who are working on the bill don't understand anything other than they said they're repeal and that's what they're going to do, dagnabit. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office hasn't chimed in, and may not have the chance to - but pretty much everyone - except 15 Republican governors, that is -  is against it, or afraid of it, or, to Cassidy's point, doesn't understand.

Paul is a no vote already. Susan Collins of Maine, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Arizona's John McCain are the other three who should vote against the bill as well, and free up the Senate to enact bipartisan reform to fix the Affordable Care Act and stop trying to bullshit their way into destroying one sixth of the US economy. 

I wonder if they - or any other Republicans - will have the courage to vote no?

Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump machine - the campaign and, perhaps, the administration as well - is barrelling along, with Paul Manafort clearly in its sights. Reports have said Manafort can expect to be indicted; that the feds picked the lock on his house early one morning to gain entrance for a search; that he met with close Putin allies during the campaign to update them about the campaign; and yes -- there were phone calls that were recorded, and the president is on the recordings. 

Someone suggested there was now no turning back -- Mueller's investigation will result in outcomes, of that there was certainty -- "even if Mueller was fired" by the administration. 

And I wonder two things here: would Trump really have the audacity to fire Mueller?  And will Manafort be the only one?

Finally, and sticking with the investigation aspect of tonight's post, the former Office of Government Ethics (OGE, now known as the OTBE - Office of Turning a Blind Eye) appeared to say it was OK for administration folks to receive anonymous donations - from lobbyists or other interested parties with money to burn - to cover legal fees related to Mueller, Inc. Some will say this is all OK, because Clinton. William Jefferson, that is, not Crooked Lyin Lock Her Up Hillary. 

Seems this question was posed back in the 1990s, and it was deemed to be technically legal, but people were subsequently advised not to take any contributions from lobbyists, anonymous or otherwise. The OTBE clarified that the original decision from 1993 stands, and strongly encouraged a deeper dive for each case. 

Not to worry, though. The RNC has stepped up to offer assistance, and has paid close to $450,000 (so far) to assist with Donald and Donny's legal fees; Trump is also dipping into his campaign coffers to help pay the bills, bless his heart.

And I can't help wondering, again, where is the swamp and who's pulling the plug?

OrangeVerse XVI: So-So-Sovereign

The president spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations today. Poetry abounded.

First, America First

Fortunately

the United States has

done very well since Election Day last

November 8th.

The stock market

is at an all time high - a record

Unemployment is at its

lowest level in

16 years and

because of our

regulatory and other

reforms, we have more 

people working in 

the United States today

than ever before.

Companies are

moving back, creating

job growth the likes of which

our country

has not seen

in a very

long time.

What time is it?

To put it 
simply we meet
at a time
of both immense
promise and great
peril it is
entirely up 
to us whether
we lift
the word to new
heights or let
it fall into a
valley
of disrepair.
We have it 
in our power
should we choose, to
lift millions
from poverty to help
our citizens realize
their dreams and
to ensure new generations
of children are raised free
from violence
hatred
and
fear.

Realism
For the
diverse nations of
the world 
this
is our hope:
We want harmony
and friendship
not conflict
and strife.
We are
guided by 
outcomes not ideology.
We have a policy 
of principled
realism 
rooted in shared 
goals interests
and values.

So-So-Sovereign
their sovereignty
peace, sovereignty, security
their sovereignty
core sovereign duties
other sovereign nation
strong, sovereign nations
strong, sovereign nations
strong, sovereign nations
people are sovereign
of sovereignty. Our
be sovereign
the sovereignty
our sovereign duties
threats to sovereignty
the sovereign rights
the sovereign rights
to sovereignty, security
respect for sovereignty
strong, sovereign and
their sovereignty
of sovereignty, security and
prosperity for all.

Grains of Salt (v25): The Syracuse Skyway

In the 9/3/17 Syracuse Post-Standard there's a headline that reads:

A loftier vision for I-81:

The Syracuse Skyway

The headline is tied to a commentary piece that also appeared on Syracuse.com on August 29th. The author, Jacob Alan Roberts, is an artist, entrepreneur and community developer, according to the bio published in the paper. 

He notes in his piece that the suggestions to date on the I-81 project, which include a new, wider viaduct, a tunnel, and a torn down viaduct with a 'community grid' in its place

...won't result in anything cathartic, or even remarkable, if we modify the next iteration of our "great wall" without having a clear, mutual priority of healing the community and revitalizing its longstanding socio-economic depression...

Although "community grid' advocates contend that a complete tear down and replacement boulevard would cost almost half a billion less, would avoid the demolition of 20 downtown buildings, require fewer years for construction and would free up land for development, I don't share their vision.

I say, let's go further and make a bold statement about our future. What if, instead of demolition, we "recycle" that epic eyesore and convert the elevated infrastructure into a raised, linear park with placed to enjoy the outdoors, play, stroll and lounge while viewing Syracuse's historic and fast-developing skyline?  

Roberts goes on to talk about how his Skyway could function: jogging paths, outdoor art, an environmental marvel with gardens fed by porous pavement, a treed canopy, and such.  His ideas are similar to what's currently being done with New York City's Skyline and other projects, including 18 in the US.

He closes by saying:

I understand my proposal for the "Syracuse Skyway or the "Peacemakers Pathway" is a long shot but some long shots pay off big. Hopefully, in the name of a cool, clean and green future, full of innovation, sustainability and outside-the-box thinking, local I-81 stakeholders will pause for deeper consideration.

NY DOT photo

I love this idea! In fact, I proposed the same thing --  back in June 2014 --  except I called my version Viaduct Park.

The park could be located somewhere in the general neighborhood of the red box on the picture shown here.

The actual boundaries would be determined  by where the viaduct was cut off from traffic on the north and south.

Once that's done, here's how I envisioned this could work:

• Add access points at each end and in the middle, using a combination of ramps, stairs, and pedestrian bridges.  At least one access on each side would need to be an elevator. 
• Engage the folks from local colleges, most importantly SUNY-ESF and Cornell, because we'll need landscape designers, maybe even a contest, to come up with the best plan which would ideally include a combination of covered and uncovered places, seating areas,  a measured walking path, and native landscaping. Maybe a portion could be used as an educational space where master gardeners help community gardeners?
• Engage the Save the Rain people to make sure we are incorporating re-use of rainwater and snow runoff, similar to how we're doing it at the War Memorial.
• Engage local engineering firms to assist with the project, particularly those with green building and alternative energy experience, so we can figure out two things: (1) how to make it brighter underneath the park, one of the big concerns with the existing viaduct (and in part why the new viaduct options include making it so much higher) and how to use solar energy to light the park itself. 
• The primary mode of transportation in the Park would be feet, but if necessary incorporate a couple of spots so that folks on bikes won't be forced across the busy Boulevard, but could go up and over it to get to the other side.

I encouraged engaging people as a goal of the new I-81:

Seriously -- if we're going to spend  over a billion dollars, let's get something out of it that will bring people to Syracuse, rather than having them just fly on by. Why don't we think about engaging people rather than only on getting them from A to B as fast as possible?

And, I wondered, what could our new Viaduct Park become?

• A place to hold our city festivals that doesn't require shutting downtown streets for multiple weekends each year, causing nightmares for businesses, pedestrians, and motorists. Or, if we were bold, a way to have multiple festivals downtown at the same time, with Centro shuttles running between them...  
• An elevated place from which we could watch fireworks over downtown...
• A place that people would come to, on purpose, and then branch out into the city for food and other entertainment, spending much needed dollars at our local businesses...  
• A complement to the downtown historic district and to the renewed Inner Harbor, connected via marked walking trail to the Creekwalk...

Yeah, I like this idea --  I like it a lot.  

Sunday School 9/17/17

So, let's do a quick run through the halls and see what was on tap in the classrooms today.

First up: NBC's Meet the Press where Chuck Todd entertained Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, and they spoke about immigration, Trump dealing with Democrats, Cotton working with Mitch McConnell, and Cotton serving with a transgender soldier.  

The highlight for me from this section? When Cotton said Trump didn't have a leadership problem, he had a membership problem. 

Vermont Senator "I'll Become a Democrat When I'm Good and Ready to Become One and Not a Minute Sooner" Bernie Sanders was also on the show, talking about Medicare for all, single-payer healthcare, cutting costs, replacing private insurance premiums with Medicare premiums, and saving 10- 16% in admin costs; and about how much he helped Hillary Clinton after she beat him in the primaries. 

The Bernie highlight was when he basically said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I kid you not. 

On  ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, George talked in a taped interview with British Prime Minister Teresa May about the bombing in the Parsons Green station, president Trump's unhelpful tweets about the incident, and about her upcoming visit to the UN where she'll talk about how terrorists use the Internet not only for planning but for spreading extremism.

HR McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, joined Stephanopoulos and talked about the travel ban, and how that's a good way to keep bad people out and the possibility that we'll see a stronger travel ban here in the States. And they discussed Trump's upcoming address during UN Week, and his prior comments about the UN not being a friend of the United States. McMaster said Trump would address the need for reform, otherwise the UN can't be effective. Extra popcorn for that speech has been ordered. 

Adam Schiff, the California Democrat, also joined. The highlight of his comments came after viewing the gif of Trump hitting a golf ball which then supposedly hits Hillary Clinton in the back, causing her to fall down. Schiff noted, in response to the question on whether the retweet may have impacted the perception of Trump's outreach to Democrats (a dumb question, I thought), Schiff answered generally that there was no reason to think that Trump's outreach was anything other than "purely transactional" and that Trump is a man free of ideology. For me, that's the high point of This Week.

There was more on the other networks, but this was enough for me. See you around campus.

The Update Desk: Grains of Salt (v24)

The other day I told you that Onondaga County's District Attorney-for-Life William Fitzpatrick did not have sex with that woman.

Oh - sorry - my bad. I told you he "did not endorse" Derek Shepard, the incumbent County Legislator for the towns of Elbridge, VanBuren and Baldwinsville, in the primary against challenger Ken Bush Jr. (Bush won.)

What Fitz did, rather, was to "criticize those policies that undermine public safety and support those policies that advance it, by freely and vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individual involved in those issues" which he's entitled to do under a code that he helped write.

Here's the transcript of the message, which you can listen to here:

Hi. This is District Attorney Bill Fitzpatrick. I'm sending you this message on September 11th, when many of us are remembering the horrible events of sixteen years ago. And I of course think about the death of my cousin who was a firefighter in New York City and died on the 40th floor of the North Tower. Jeff Olsen was a man who loved public service much as I do. I've been lucky enough to be your DA for 25 years, and I care passionately about public safety.

One of my great allies in that concern has been Derek Shepard, your county legislator. Derek is a great American who has allied with me on many, many issues involving your safety and the betterment of this county. He understands that fiscal responsibility has to be balanced with a goal of keeping us safe, and no one has done that better, in my opinion, than Derek.

Thank you, Derek. I look forward to working with you for many, many years in the future. And thanks to all of you for your support over the years in keeping me your district attorney. And remember, on Tuesday, when you pull that lever, how lucky we are to live in the greatest country on the planet Earth.  (Paid for by RLCC.) 

Now, I've listened to Fitz's message a few times, and I've gotta tell you, it's far from vigorous. Does that recording even remotely resemble any of these 'vigorous' synonyms and related words?

Come on -- Fitz is a guy who will scream in court until he's hoarse - and we're supposed to believe this is him criticizing anything? Or speaking out about any kind of policies?

Heck no. This is him endorsing Derek Shepard, plain and simple.

The fact that he was oh-so-careful to actually say 'public safety' in the message was him doing exactly enough to pass 'official' muster, but it just as clearly shows how close he will get to crossing the line and doing something he, as a DA with 25 years of experience, knows he's absolutely not allowed to do.

Anyone in the ethics business understands that perception is reality - and the damage from the perception can be even worse than damage from the actual bad act.

If you get caught doing something wrong, you can apologize, try and convince people you didn't know better, throw yourself on the mercy of the court and public opinion, and generally people will forgive you. You can even do your time and come out on the other side as a better person.

It's much harder to change a perception - especially when you don't even recognize the possibility that it might be correct.

TGIF 9/15/17

Finally! It's time for a random thought or two to end the work week.

We've talked before about Texas and how everything there is, simply, bigger. Bigger conservatism, bigger interference in the doctor-patient relationship, bigger everything.

And now, we have another example of 'bigger', one that I am not sure how exactly to characterize.

Apparently, in the Lone Star state, you can have a sign put up along the highway to memorialize someone killed in a motorcycle accident. You pay your $350, and you  provide the victim's name and some other info, and up goes a blue sign with a red cross on it, along with the information you provide. The sign stays up for a year, and it must have the cross, regardless of the victim's religion.  Why? Because a law passed in 2011 says so.

The symbol was suggested by the motorcycle community, which worked with legislators on the bill. The bikers don't consider it a religious symbol; to them, it's a 'motorcycle' symbol.

And the legislators who worked on the bill? They either didn't care that the motorcycle folks wanted a cross on the signs, or they took advantage of it as a way to advance a cause, and now, here it is.

I have to admit, my first reaction upon seeing one of the signs would be that the cross denoted the Christian faith of the victim, and I'd expect at some point to see one with a red Star of David or other religious symbol.

But, that's not going to happen. Because this is Texas, and everything is bigger there. Or something.

Speaking of things that go 'or something' in the night, let's go to Florida for our next random story.

It's now legal for a parent, or any resident, to challenge the instructional material used in schools. The law was pushed by the Florida Citizens Alliance, which objected to a number of things they've seen in textbooks or on reading lists, including such things as:

• political indoctrination
• religious indoctrination
• revisionist history
• distortion of our founding values and principles
• pornography
• downplaying of individual liberties, and
• promoting reliance on the federal government

And that's before they even get to evolution and climate change. Guidance is being developed by the Florida Department of Education to help school districts deal with the inevitable challenges. It should make things interesting, that's for sure. 

Finally, speaking of making things interesting, the long-awaited book from Hillary Clinton has arrived; I suspect conservatives in Texas, Florida and elsewhere are not as enamored of her multiple explanations on What Happened as some others. (The book has been fact-checked for what's it worth.)

She's starting a book tour next week, and on all the shows that matter ahead of that - but I think I'll wait a bit before pulling the trigger on Amazon Prime.

I can't help thinking that the book and the tour and the interviews will serve to somehow overshadow the people who are working to get things done, and that focusing attention on what didn't happen is much less important than focusing on what will.

TGIF.

Grains of Salt (v24): Fitz and Starts

I find it hard to believe it's been almost nine full months since I last talked about William Fitzpatrick, our District Attorney for Life in Onondaga County.

Fitz has been a frequent topic of conversation around here, most of the time in posts about ethics, campaign finance reform, and, I have to admit, possible over-exertion in the line of duty.

The latest activities bringing him back to these pages fall into the first and last of those linked buckets.

According to this report, Fitzpatrick apparently went door to door with Derek Shepard, candidate for Onondaga County Legislator, who lost in Tuesday's primary to Ken Bush Jr. Fitz also also made a robocall on Shepard's behalf.

Both of these actions would at least appear to be conflicts, or appear to be ethical violations, or at the very least, appear to be examples of poor judgment. After all, The Right Thing: Ethical Guidelines for Prosecutors states, in part:

District Attorneys and their assistants may not endorse political candidates, except that in some counties assistants may be permitted to engage in political activity in support of the re-election of the District Attorney by whom they are employed. 

And, Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors and Other Government Lawyers (Amendment Effective July 1, 2012) notes, again in part:

...Thus, it is reasonable and proper for District Attorneys and members of their staffs to engage in activities that do not compromise their office’s efficiency or integrity or interfere with the professional responsibilities and duties of their offices.

District Attorneys may engage in the following conduct (emphasis added): 

1. Register to vote themselves, and vote. 
2. Have membership in a political party
3. Contribute money to political parties, organizations and committees.
4. Attend political/social events. 
5. Participate in community and civic organizations that have no partisan purposes.
6. Sign political petitions as an individual. 
7. In order to demonstrate public support for the nonpartisan nature of the District Attorney’s office, a District Attorney should consider accepting the endorsement of more than one political party when running for office. 
8. District Attorneys are entitled to criticize those policies that undermine public safety and support those policies that advance it, by freely and vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individuals involved in those issues.

Fitz believes his actions on behalf of Shepard, a County Legislator representing the towns of Elbridge, VanBuren and Baldwinsville since 2011, meet the requirements of number 8 in the code, in that promoting the candidacy of one person over another is "criticizing policies that undermine public safety and supporting those policies that advance it" or else it's "vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individuals involved in those issues."

Specifically, (again, emphasis added) 

Fitzpatrick said he considered Bush a threat to public safety because as a legislator Bush would likely fight against funding for the DA's office. "I consider that a danger to the office in terms of our budgetary needs."

And I laughed, and laughed, and laughed.   But wait - there's more!

Note that Fitzpatrick's son was involved with Shepard's campaign, and also note that the DA threatened to sue Bush because of a Facebook page that, according to the DA, could have confused someone that they were looking at the official Town of Elbridge page, when in fact they were looking at a page Bush has maintained for years. About Bush's Facebook page (which he had been maintaining for years), Fitz said

While the page did not claim to have an official affiliation with the Town of Elbridge, it had that appearance, and it did not disclaim affiliation.

Rolling on the floor laughing now!  Hold on... Hang on... OK OK - sorry. Had to catch my breath...

Let's review:

• A candidate running against the guy the DA's son is consulting has a social media page that is truly not something it that it does not claim to be, but in the DA's eyes it could possibly be confused with some other page (with literally thousands of fewer friends, by the way), so the DA threatens to sue the candidate.
• The DA goes door to door with the candidate his son consults for, greeting voters and all, and also does a recorded message for that candidate, which was paid for by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, and which launches the day before the primary, but that's not an endorsement of the candidate.

Seriously - I laughed and laughed.

At the zeal with which the DA protected voters from the outside guy running against the candidate supported by the Republican party leadership (and Fitz's son).

At the nonsensical nature of Fitz's concern for my personal safety as a resident of Onondaga County.

At his apparent lack of appreciation of the irony in threatening someone over the appearance of a conflict, while participating in not one but two very 'conflicting' acts himself.

At the insanity of designating someone who might cut the DA's budget as a threat to public safety, a term previously reserved for gang members, predatory sex offenders, and drug kingpins. How things have changed.

At the absurdity of him thinking we'd actually believe that he wasn't endorsing a candidate.

At how little he understands (or cares) how the crap he does undermines public trust in elected officials.

At how glibly he's able to justify his behavior at each and every turn, from a legal perspective, while being completely tone deaf to the optics, and the ethics.

At how stupid he must think we are.

(Oh, crap --  I hope he doesn't consider me a threat to public safety for disagreeing with him... )

Wondering on Wednesday (v103)

So, I wonder what Donny and Chuckie and Nancy are having for dinner, this Wednesday?

No -- actually, I don't care what they're having. (FYI, if you're interested, we had hot dogs and pasta salad; I suspect the three of them are likely eating better, don't you think?)

Another thing I don't care about is pundits and other folks falling all over themselves to talk about Trump being presidential by talking to people from the other party, or say this is the (latest) 'pivot' from candidate to officeholder to president.

As I've noted before, we have allowed the bar to be set so low that it's almost impossible for him to fail. It's time for us to hold him to the same standard as every other president - and that means we don't have to fawn all over him every time he does something, if only for a fleeting second, that makes sense.

I've wondered before exactly why it was that Congress required the US Postal Service to prefund 75 years worth of retirement benefits, something not required of any other part of government or by any private businesses, for that matter.  That decision, made back in 2006, has imperiled the USPS ever since, making it nearly impossible for the agency to succeed.

So, even though we have states doing some, most, or even all of their elections by mail, and even though we're seeing an increasing trend in the use of mail order pharmacies for prescription drug insurance plans, the USPS may need a 20% increase in the price of stamps to stave off bankruptcy, and to "improve delivery service.

I'm wondering how much of an improvement we need? Here in The Valley, we get mail delivered six days a week, seven if I count how amenable Amazon is to getting me my stuff. in a hurry. But what I wonder even more is, why does Congress seem to spend so much time naming post offices?  Check out these comments (from 2010) made by former Speaker of the House Crying John Boehner:

With all the challenges facing our nation, it is absurd that Congress spends so much time on naming post offices, congratulating sports teams, and celebrating the birthdays of historical figures. It's time to focus on doing what we were sent here to do.

The same article, published in 2015 notes that since 2011, post office naming bills made up 16 percent of all legislation passed, dropping to only 13% in in the most recent Congressional session. And, it points out, the cost of 'naming' is covered by the Post Office -- as much as $5000 for some of them. I gotta tell you, that takes some real cojones, doesn't it?

We're going to make you set aside money for retirement benefits in advance for three quarters of a century! And then, we're going to rename your stores - and make you pay for the new signage! But wait, there's more! We're going to make you beg to raise prices! And, this is the best part, it really is - we're going to listen to our lobbyists and campaign donors instead of you when we make a rate increase decision!  Isn't this great?!

Isn't this great, you wonder?

Yeah, not so much. But it does clearly illustrated what we're up against, doesn't it?

Grains of Salt (v23): Primarily Thinking

For those of us in New York today, September 12th is primary day. Here in the city of Syracuse, Democrats had a big decision to make: we had a three-way race for mayor, which is unusual.

Regardless of today's primary outcome, there will be at least four candidates on the ballot for the general election: a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, and an Independent. It's possible the Democrat could also be on the Working Families line, but it's not guaranteed - meaning, we could have five in the general. It's a mess this year -- an interesting mess, for sure.

At the beginning of the campaign season, I believe there were seven candidates vying for the Democratic Party's designation to succeed Stephanie Miner, our current term-limited mayor. The one who ended up winning the designation had run unsuccessfully four times before, including in 2009 when he lost in a primary to Miner. The other remaining candidates are the current city auditor, and the former chief lawyer for the city.

I admit I took longer than usual to make my decision, and I'm not sharing it here, of course, but I do want to share a couple of observations.

First, I always take advantage of the opportunity to sign a petition; I've signed for people who are not my favorite, over the years, to try and ensure had a choice. This year, no Democrat petition carriers came to the house - or if they did, the didn't manage to do it when we were home - and work from home several days a week. I waited for calls, I waited for door knockers and door stuffers, and nothing.

I ended up signing a petition for the independent, exercising my right for the only person who seemed interested. And then, I never heard from him again - for weeks and weeks, I heard nothing. And, when I thought I had finally heard from him, the mail was actually for my husband, who's registered as an Independent.

I got lots of mail from the Democrats, the three that stayed in the race. (I think I got more from the candidates for City Court Judge than I did for the mayoral candidates).  I would say the volume of mail favored the former corporation counsel more than the repeat candidate. I answered polls about the race a couple of times, happily offering my honest opinion on a scale of one to seven, one being most favorable (or maybe seven was most favorable, I can't remember).

Last night, around dinner time, I answered the phone and spoke with a nice gentleman who wondered if I planned on voting today. I answered yes, and he asked me if I was going to vote for his candidate. I answered that I was not sure yet what I was going to do. He sounded surprised -- shocked, actually - - and then simply encouraged me to vote. I promised I would and almost as an afterthought, he asked if I needed a ride to the polls. I told him we were set (we usually walk) and he said "OK, remember to vote" and hung up.

I held the phone in my hand after he hung up, wondering why on earth he didn't even try to convince me to vote for his candidate. He didn't ask why I was undecided, and didn't ask if I wanted more information. He just said "Candidate A is a great person," as if that alone was enough of a reason for me to vote for A.

This afternoon, we voted. I was number 80, which is actually pretty good for a primary at my polling place. When my husband and I arrived, we joined three other people in line, and the election workers noted that we five had formed the longest line of the day.

Tonight, two hours before the polls closed, I received a robo call from the former corporation counsel, reminding me it was primary day, and offering me a number to call if I needed a ride to the polls.

And now, as I finish this post, polls are closing across the city. It's going to be interesting to see who ends up winning; whether that person will have the support of their vanquished opponents; and whether the will of the party is strong enough to quash two insurgents.

As a friend of mine has asked, haven't Democrats learned anything in the past couple of years? Are we going to splinter and faction ourselves out of City Hall?  Let's sit back and see what happens.

Quick Takes (v21): Now is Not the Time

Quick Takes

I opted not to attend Sunday School today, but I did want to check in with a quick take on timing.

As in, how one defines a good time for something, vs. a bad time for something, vs. the possibility that there will NEVER be a good time for something. Ready?

I'm not sure anyone is making a direct connection between climate change and hurricanes, but there may be some correlation, some of the science suggests: water temperature. The warmer the water, we're told, the stronger the hurricane.

And there seems to be at least some agreement that the waters in the gulf and the Atlantic are warming, whether it's a cyclical thing, or the result of man-influenced climate change. But - we're not allowed to talk about that: it's one of those conversations.  

You know - the kind we're not supposed to have right now. Because the Heritage Foundation told us it would only make things worse.

Here's why, according to a study referenced in the link above:

The bottom line in this analysis is that both observations of the past decades and models looking forward to the future do not suggest that one can explain the heavy rains of Harvey by global warming, and folks that are suggesting it are poorly informing the public and decision makers.

So: now, as we are trying to deal with the aftermath of two massive hurricanes, with potential rebuilding costs of $180B (Texas) and perhaps $200B (Florida), not counting the rest of Harvey and the damage to other US territories in the Caribbean, we shouldn't be gumming up the works, the conservatives tell us.

Further, these policies (addressing climate change - ed.) will destroy economic wealth, meaning fewer resources would be available to strengthen infrastructure to contain the future effects of natural disasters...

But, while this is not the time to talk about climate change, it is the time to talk about economic wealth.  Because the president said so, at his Camp David Cabinet meeting on September 9th (emphasis added):

To create prosperity at home we'll be discussing our plan for dramatic tax cuts and tax reform. And I think now with what's happened with the hurricane I'm going to ask for their speed up. I wanted to speed up anyway but now we need it even more so. So we need to simplify the tax code, reduce taxes very substantially on the middle class and make our business tax more globally competitive. We're the highest anywhere in the world right now...

So, to recap: it's never a good time to talk about climate change and man's possible impact on it, certainly not when we're dealing in the moment with two catastrophic hurricanes, because talking about "climate change" puts wealth at risk and without wealth we can't recover from disasters which might be influenced by man's impact on the climate.

But, it's always a good time to talk about reducing taxes on human people, and especially on bricks and mortar people, because that helps take our minds off two catastrophic hurricanes that are particularly devastating to those who already have so little.

Got it?

The Sins of their Parents

While some of the conversation around the ending of the DACA program has centered on the constitutionality of President Obama's executive action (or the lack thereof), a lot of the discussion has focused on the fact that these folks are here illegally and therefore they need to be sent home, or that they're taking jobs away from Americans and for that reason they must be sent home; or even that they're criminals and for that reason, they need to be sent home.

Here's a snippet from the statement by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on the "orderly transition and wind-down" of the DACA program making those points:

The decades-long failure of Washington, DC to enforce federal immigration laws has had both predictable and tragic consequences: lower wages and higher unemployment for American workers, substantial burdens on local schools and hospitals, the illicit entry of dangerous drugs and criminal cartels, and many billions of dollars a year in costs paid by US taxpayers. Yet few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system. Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers and job seekers.

No one really thinks that any significant portion of the Dreamer population is made up by gang-banging drug dealers who are stealing jobs from Americans.  And, if Congress is again unable to craft and pass immigration reform legislation,  I see no reason to punish this particular segment of immigrants for the sins of their parents.

Seriously -- under what other circumstances do you think it's appropriate to punish children for the crimes of their parents?

• What would be the correct punishment for children of people who operate meth labs, partake of child pornography, or rob banks?
• What would be the appropriate punishment for college-graduate, gainfully employed, tax-paying children of gang members?
• How, exactly, would you punish Henry and Nancy, whose father murdered their mother, my friend and former coworker, eleven years ago next month? 

I know, I know -- there's nothing to worry about. The administration has promised that deporting the DACA people will not be a priority, but who can believe that? 

Why should any of these people trust the government now, when it was the government that promised them they would be safe if they came out of the shadows, gave their information, paid the price to obtain and renew their temporary green cards, got jobs or started companies, paid their taxes, and maybe enlisted and served honorably defending our country in the military?

Speaking of the military and trusting Trump, maybe someone should ask the LGBT community about that?

TGIF 9/8/17

Here are this week's random thoughts; deep thinking is coming tomorrow.

We ran into a friend at a festival here in town this evening, who told us the story of getting a ticket for running a red light on his commute to work. He said he immediately, without prompting, started explaining to the officer that he was listening to news radio and it was at the time that they were talking about Trump's decision on DACA that he got so angry and frustrated that he stopped paying attention land that's how he ran the red light.

Sadly, the officer wasn't having any of it, and our friend got no relief for the infraction. But, this is New York, and we historically have a hard time not acting on stuff that doesn't need action. How long before we codify 'listening to the radio' becomes a specific category of distracted driving, like texting or talking on the phone or taking a selfie? Or better yet, how long before we see 'It Can Wait - News Radio Stop" signs on the Thruway?

Speaking of New York, we're one of the states that has sued president Trump for his decision to end the DACA program. There are now 15 Blue states and the District of Columbia involved in the suit. Am I the only one who sees comedy in this? After all, one of the alleged reasons for the administration's decision to wind the program down was the threat of a lawsuit by Red states.

What's interesting is that neither the Red nor the Blue states are suing the right people: that would be the 535 member of Congress who can't, or won't, come to term on legislation that 'fixes' integration. Can the Attorneys General get together and take on Congress in court?

We learned in an earlier TGIF post that Wisconsin is 'investing' three billion dollars in incentives to bring Foxconn to Paul Ryan's district er - I mean - to a depressed area of the Badger state. Which is fine, I guess; I mean, if you're willing to take 250 million bucks out of the education budget and put it into keeping a professional sports team in Milwaukee, why wouldn't you be willing to bet the farm for a foreign company promising to bring jobs to your state?

Why is what's happening in Wisconsin relevant tonight? Well, because we're about to see a battle royale across North America for rights to bet a totally new farm on the new second headquarters for Amazon. Per the company's website:

We expect to invest over $5 billion in construction and grow this second headquarters to include as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs. In addition to Amazon's direct hiring and investment, construction and ongoing operation of Amazon HQ2 is expected to create tens of thousands of additional jobs and tens of billions of dollars in additional investment in the surrounding community.

Now we all know how much time the president has spent talking about the Foxconn project - #jobsjobsjobs and #MAGA and all that -- but how much time has he spent talking about an American company looking to make an investing in an American city and hiring American workers?

That would be zero. Zip. Nada.

Why?  Because Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, owns the Washington Post. 'Nuff said.

TGIF.

Wondering on Wednesday (v102)

It's Wednesday, again? OK, here comes the wondering.

As thing slowly, oh so very slowly start returning to some semblance of pre-Harvey normal in Texas, the costs to rebuild are simply staggering: $150 to $180 billion, Governor Gregg Abbott has estimated - and that dwarfs the $110B Hurricane Katrina cost. Where does one get $180B in a time of need? That's a great question on which to do some wondering. 

I mean, today a deal was reached in Washington to quickly pass FEMA some $8B - literally chicken feed -- and we had to raise the debt ceiling to do get that done. The agency is spending millions of dollars an hour on Harvey relief; Irma is heading towards Florida, and wild fires are burning in nine states out west. Look at this in the framework of the Trump budget, which has suggested significant cuts to FEMA, as well as to other agencies involved in disasters in some way, shape or form, and we've got a real disaster on our hands if Congress can't figure something out. Are you feeling confident, I wonder?

And speaking of Congress, I wonder how long House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader will be licking their wounds, after president Trump agreed with #ChuckandNancy on that FEMA bankroll and a three month bump for the debt ceiling, instead of the 18 month deal the Rs were looking for, or even the six months they would have settled on.

Here's Jim Newell, writing on Slate.com about the 'deal' Trump made (which included zero negotiation by the dealmaker in chief):

It is, to the letter, the request the Democrats had made and that Ryan and the leadership team had decried as an affront to God immediately after. Trump's move forces congressional Republicans to have to make multiple, painful debt ceiling votes ahead of the midterms and it preserves the Democrats' leverage in the December spending negotiations.

Was it because Trump can't stand a meeting that lasts more than a New York minute? Is it that he finally figured out he's going to need Dems to get anything accomplished, because the Republican leaders have shown they have no control over their own ranks? We may never know, but Trump thinks he made a deal and that's all that matters, I guess.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson, who has come to terms with the arm-twisting that got him to take a government job after he told us all he didn't want one, was also talking about Harvey, in his usual childlike manner.. In an interview with Rachel Martin on NPR's Morning Edition, Carson told us HUD had people on the ground in Texas, breaking through red tape and trying to help the tens of thousands of families who need help, and figuring out what properties are OK and which need rehab.

Martin asked about the red tape comment and wondered what was different this time compared to Katrina and Sandy and Rita. She asked him for specifics.

Specifically, we sent many agents out into the field with the specific charge of determining how things can be done as opposed to why they can't be done. If you're familiar with bureaucracies, you know that as soon as you come up with a good idea and you're ready to do something, someone says oh, you can't do that because of this. And, you know, I hate that. 

Wonder with me, if you will, what look Rachel Martin had on her face when she heard that answer?
I'm sure she has a fantastic poker face; anyone who does interviews must have one, unless they're a late show host, in which case all bets are off. But that's why they have follow up questions, right?

And so you believe that by putting your agents in the field to just come up with solutions - and then you can just green light them? I mean, there are some real obstacles. there are real reasons that...

Obviously (said Carson), you look at those things. But anybody who's familiar with government bureaucracy knows exactly what I'm talking about.  

Um, OK. Sure, the government moves as fast as molasses in winter, and we all know there are lots of barriers to getting good things done, but those barriers also serve to keep awful things from being done, too.  Especially in the midst of a disaster, where fraud is rampant and every Tom, Dick and Harry with a scam is only a flooded basement or fake charity away.

So where does all of this leave us, this Wednesday?

Let's recap: part of Texas and Louisiana are still under water, and another massive hurricane is threatening Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. Parts of the northwest, usually rainy, are bone dry and on fire. Republicans control all three branches of the government and have literally no control over anything.

And the president? Is it any wonder he's left Washington, after the great day he had? Nah. He's off selling his tax plan, his own full basement, if you will, to the folks in North Dakota.

Talking About DACA

You've heard the news - DACA is rescinded unless Congress comes up with a plan that will save it by March 2018. The program was enacted by President Obama in 2012, and it allowed those who were brought to America illegally as children and who have been here continuously since 2007 to pay $495 each to apply for DACA benefits, and pay $495 every two years to renew their application, undergo the background check, and receive permission to work, to go to school, to serve in the military, to pay taxes, and so on. Criminals and gang members need not apply. 

There are some 800,000 people in the program whose long-term fate is now unknown. Will their employers keep them, knowing that they can be eligible for deportation if Congress doesn't act? Should they pay for their next semester of school? Should they re-up for the military, or get out now?

And, what happens if they get deported? They have no home - many came here at the age of two, three, maybe six years old. The have siblings who are American citizens, parents who are illegal, and they are here because we invited them to come forward, out of the shadows, go through the application process, and get our stamp of approval. 

We happily took their application fees, to the tune of around $400,000,000 not counting renewals - but now, they're job stealers. Oh, sorry - now they're pawns in a game of It's All About that Base. Oh, wrong again, sorry. Now, they're victims of an unconstitutional act by the former president, and so, their time is up.

Here's what a variety of people are saying about the decision, announced not by president Trump, the coward, but by his immigration hardliner Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak? - Barack Obama

At this point the question is, 'Okay, you no longer have that legal, that status that President Obama gave you and he had no authority to give you. So, you're back into your illegal status, I would suggest go home and get in line, come into the United States legally, then get a green card, then become a citizen. "Do it the right way like so many hundreds of thousands of your countrymen are trying to do. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with following the law?" - Kris Kobach

I think that it's a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients; that over 950,000 of those are African Americans in the same age group; over 870,000 unemployed Hispanics in the same age group.  Those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs. - Sarah Huckabee Sanders

The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it. This is a sad day for our country. - Mark Zuckerberg

First, let’s not think Trump — who invites cops to abuse suspects, who thinks ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio was “doing his job” when denying others their constitutional rights and who issued the Muslim ban — cares about the Constitution (any of the “twelve” articles). Trump says, “We love the dreamers. … We think the dreamers are terrific.” But in fact he loves the applause he derives from his cultist followers more than anything. Otherwise he’d go to the mat to defend the dreamers and secure their legal status. - Jennifer Rubin 

250 of my Apple coworkers are #Dreamers. I stand with them. They deserve our respect as equals and a solution rooted in American values. #Dreamers contribute to our companies and our communities just as much as you and I. Apple will fight for them to be treated as equals.. - Tim Cook 

Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue! - Donald Trump

That last one? Yeah, who knows what he's talking about.

The Update Desk: It's Bad Out There

When I did the Poll Watch post the other day, there were some questions that were 'embargoed' until further notice.

Fox News has now released the additional details from the poll, including several questions asking how well particular words describe president Trump.  Let's take a look at the questions and some of the more interesting demographics.

• Presidential: 13% extremely well; 56% not at all. Only 29% of Republicans, 24% of conservatives, 29% of white evangelicals, and 30% of Trump voters think this is an apt description.

On specific leadership qualities, the results weren't really all that much better.

• Strong leader: 21% extremely well; 48% not at all. For Republicans (R), conservatives (C), white evangelicals (WE), and Trump voters (TV), the 'extremely well' percentages are 43%, 36%, 43%, and 30%, respectively.

• Moral leader:  14% extremely well, 55% not at all;  30% (R),  24% (C), 30% (WE,) and 31% (TV) think this describes him extremely well.

• Steady leader: 16% extremely well; 53% not at all. 34% (R),  28% (C), 34% (WE), and 35% (TV) put themselves in the 'extremely well' bucket.

Wow. Strong, moral, and steady, and never more than 35% of his voters think those are fitting descriptions? I thought his fans would rate him higher on these.

• Competent: 21% extremely well, 45% not at all. Here he does better: for his R, C, WE, and TV, the 'extremely well' percentages are 42%, 38%, 40%, and 44%, respectively.

• Knowledgeable: 16% extremely well, 43% not at all. 31% (R), 27% (C), 34% (WE) and 35% (TV).

• Problem solver: 19% extremely well, 47% not at all. 40% of (R), (WE), and (TV) said 'extremely well' while (C) came in at 35%.

• Everyone thinks 'outsider' is an extremely good description; similarly, everyone agrees 'he says what he thinks.

Not a lot of surprises in that second grouping. He did well with his natural constituencies on both competence and problem-solving, even though he's yet to solve any significant problems legislatively.

The last couple of questions is where things got interesting. The first question asked how well the word 'unstable' described Trump. Surprisingly, 60% of survey takers think the president is unstable to some degree.  

• Fully a third of respondents, 33%, thought it described him extremely well; 11% thought it fit him very well, and another 16% thought it described him somewhat. 

• This crosses all demographics: men (57%), women (65%), whites (57%), nonwhites (72%), under 45 years old (56%), 45 and older (56%), incomes less than $50K (62%) and $50K and over (61%). Those are pretty astonishing numbers, don't you think?

• Even Republicans (30%), Conservatives (39%), and White Evangelicals (41%) fell in line when all categories - extremely well, very well, and somewhat well - were combined; only Trump voters thought this was less true, with a 23% combined score. 

And the last question? How well does the word 'bully' describe Trump?

•  39% thought this fit him extremely well; 14% thought it fit him very well, and 20% thought it fit him somewhat well. That's right -- 73% of those surveyed in a Fox News poll think the president is a bully. 

• That includes a majority of Republicans (51%), conservatives (56%), and white evangelicals (59%) who believe this is true. 

• Even 44% of Trump voters find this to be true. 

So, let's recap: the president is an unstable, mildly competent, somewhat knowledgeable iffy problem-solving bully, whose leadership style is not strong, steady, moral, or presidential.

Yay, us, or something. #MAGA #Winning #WhatTheSniff

Sunday School 9/3/2017

I decided to stroll over to the CNN classroom today, and see about the State of the Union.  Dana Bash was hosting today.

Guests were the governor of Texas, Gregg Abbott, and California Congressman Adam Schiff, the Democrat's number one on the House Intelligence Committee. And, the other Arizona Republican senator who is not named by president Trump - not the one who cost us the Obamacare repeal and replace; the other guy:

And nobody wants me to talk about your other senator, who's weak on borders, weak on crime, so I won't talk about him. Nobody wants me to talk about him. Nobody knows who the hell he is. And now -- see, I haven't mentioned any names.

Yeah, that guy was on the show, and that's where today's lesson will focus.

Bash talked with that guy, Senator Jeff Flake (a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), about what's going on in the Koreas, starting with Trump's critical tweet about South Korea, in which he noted "appeasement won't work." Flake refused to characterize the president's tweet, but noted that South Korea "certainly will be with us in whatever we decide." Bash wondered whether Trump's rhetoric was backing us into a corner.

Well, what we have been doing over the years has certainly not slowed the advance of their nuclear program, but I don't think that harsh rhetoric does either.... Certainly, sanctions are - are not, you now, arresting that development either. So just about nothing we have done so far has helped slow it down. They seem intent on moving forward.

Bash shared this statement from the president's personal white nationalist, Steve Bannon.

There's no military solution to North Korea's nuclear threats. Forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military solution here. They got us." 

Flake responded:

But obviously, that's something that they have to consider and everyone dealing with this situation has to consider. This -- there -- there - you know, it becomes cliche to say there are no good options here, but there really aren't. 

Bash threw another grenade at Flake, this time quoting former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and wondered if Flake shared Clapper's concern:

I worry about,frankly, you know, the access to nuclear codes. If in a fit of pique, he decides to do something about Kim Jong-un, there's actually very little to stop him.

Here's his answer (there was a follow up nudge from Bash in here):

Well, I -- I do have good confidence in our national security team and those who are advising the president. And the president doesn't have experience in this -- in this kind of situation, but few presidents do when they come into office. And I'm confident that the people around the president are giving him good advice, and I believe that he will follow it. I sure hope he does. Obviously, you like a leader that's measured and sober and consistent. Our allies want to hear that. I think our adversaries need to hear that. But we have got a good team around the president... I have had my concerns, I think everyone has, at some of the statements that have been made by the president with regard to NATO and other areas in foreign policy. Like I said, I think we -- we want somebody who is -- who is measured and sober and consistent and conservative in this regard. But he has a good team around him, and I have confidence in them. 

She closed this part of the interview asking Flake for his opinion on Trump's threat to pull out of our trade deals with South Korea -- an ally of ours, by the way:

I -- I don't think that that would be good in any circumstances. Now, it's particularly troubling, given what South Korea is faced with. I think that we need to do more trade, not less. And withdrawing from trade agreements is a very troubling sign. 

Moving on to the potential that Trump will cancel DACA, the program that protects from deportation those children brought here illegally by their parents. Flake believes we need to "take immediate action to protect DACA kids." (As I was working on this post, word came that Trump will indeed cancel DACA, but with a 6-month delay, assuming he sticks with the decision.)

Bash asked if this Trump should go back on his promise, "very popular among Republicans in places like your state" to repeal DACA? 

Flake's answer is spot on.

Because it would be the right think to do to go back on a promise. Obviously you hope that presidents keep some of their campaign promises and you hope that they ignore others. This is one that he ought to ignore.

There are 800,00 DACA kids, kids who were brought across the border. The median age, I think, is six years old when they came across the border.  They should not be punished for the sins of their parents. That's just the basic principle that we ought to follow here. They are in -- either in school or have graduated and are working. Almost all of them, I think 90-some percent of them, are in the work force. To remove them from the country, to split up families like this, is just not the way we ought to go. 

Bash's follow up question? "If the president says that he will extend the protections for dreamers, but do it in exchange for funding from Congress, from you for his border wall, would you go along with that compromise?"

Obviously, all of us believe in border security. It depends on what he means by the wall. And we still really haven't seen what he means by the wall. If that's a metaphor for border security, we can certainly support that. But if he's talking about a solitary brick and mortar 2,000 mile edifice on the border, then no, nobody ought to support that. So, we really  haven't seen what the president is really talking about when he talks about the wall. 

Other than it must be aesthetically pleasing, maybe solar, and perhaps see through so we can be safe from the sacks of drugs being tossed over it.

Or, maybe, so we can duck from the agricultural workers and laborers jumping over it to steal jobs from Americans.

See you around campus.

Poll Watch: It's Bad Out There

If you're the president and you hate the mainstream media except for Fox News, which you pretend is not the mainstream media, you're apt to look to Fox News for your good news, right?

Well, the latest poll from Fox, released on Wednesday, is not the kind of good news president Trump would be looking for.

Sure, his approval rating is holding steady at 41%, and the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of him is down a percentage point, even though the overall disapproval rate is up 2 points to 55% from the July numbers. The shift there was in that small category who 'don't know' whether they approve or disapprove. Assuming that's the conflicted group ("yes, he says and does horrible things, but Hillary..." or "he's going to save me money so I can look past all the rest of it..."), I'm surprised it's not a larger percentage of registered voters. I guess it shows how easy it is to justify things (and yes, this kind of justification is a bipartisan trait, don't start yelling at me).

Here are some of the topical disapproval numbers:

• Economy: 43%
• Terrorism: 45%
• Afghanistan: 43%
• North Korea: 50%
• Immigration: 54%
• Taxes: 45%
• Environment: 56%
• Russia: 56%
• Health care: 60%
• Race relations: 61%

There will almost certainly be a shift in those numbers on the next poll; for example, 18% of those surveyed don't know whether they approve or disapprove of his performance on taxes - one of his signature legislative ideas -  so we'll have to watch what the reaction is if he's unable to get tax reform through "the swamp." Other categories with high 'don't know' numbers are Russia (10%) and Afghanistan (15%).

Speaking of the swamp, Congress still has an abysmal 15% approval rate, but the number of people with mixed opinion on that bumped up by 2%. Are those the people who are happy that Loser John McCain gave his thumbs down vote on health care, maybe?

On the positive side, 28% say they're sleeping better with Trump in the White House; 40% indicate no change. And, just about everyone who voted for Trump - 96% of them - are satisfied with their vote. That's way more better than Clinton; only 93% of her voters are still satisfied with their choice. #winning

Other interesting outcomes?

• Trump constantly talks about the economy and how well he's doing there. However, only 4% are very satisfied with how things are going, compared to 32% saying not very satisfied and an equal number not at all satisfied. Only 6% give an 'excellent' rating to economic conditions; 45% give an 'only fair' rating here. 

• 56% of survey responders believe Trump is tearing the country apart; 11% are unsure, leaving only 33% who think he's pulling us together. Note that he's been calling for unity since his speech on election night, and most recently, following the violence and murder in Charlottesville. 

• On that subject, only 41% of those surveyed believe Trump respects racial minorities; 43% believe whites are favored over racial minorities, and more than half (52%) believe that the white supremacists were more to blame for the violence. 56% disapprove of how Trump responded to everything that happened. One more question on this subject: 47% think that white supremacists are a bigger threat to America than the media, even though 70% think that Trump dislikes the media more than he dislikes white supremacists. Clearly, he is not at all convincing on this stuff. Not. At. All. 

• Trump's other big initiative, the border wall, is not faring well in the survey, either. Only 39% favor building one; of those, only 45% think shutting down the government if the wall is not funded is a good idea.

The silver lining for Trump in the poll? A slight majority of participants - 42% - were Democrats, so he can point to that, if he wants to, as a reason the outcomes are not as bigly fabulous as he would like. And, I think on every single question, white evangelicals were by far the most supportive demographic in the survey. 

That will almost certainly make him feel better -- and will almost certainly mean we'll see a whole lot more of him talking directly to his base and a whole lot less of him unifying the country.