OrangeVerse XVIII: Keep on Truckin'

The president took himself and his entourage off to Pennsylvania to talk to truckers about taxes last week. And he did talk about the Trump tax plan at length: lower corporate rates and lower personal rates, eliminating the death tax, repatriating foreign profits, and so on.

But as always, it's the rest of the story that's so interesting. Let's check in and see how well versed the president was at this event.

Why Here? Why Now?

We are here

today to

discuss

our vision

for America's 

economic revival

which has already started

It started

on November 8th.

Nothing Happens
Nothing gets done
in America 
without the hardworking
men and women
of the
trucking industry.
Do we agree
with that?
Do we agree?

Moving is Growing is Firsting
When your
trucks are moving
America is growing
Do you agree?
That is why
my administration has taken
historic steps
to remove the barriers
that have
slowed 
you
down.
America First
means putting
American truckers
first. 

If You Knew Susi

Joining us today

is Susi Schlomann

a retiree...

Where's Susi?

Where are you Susi?

Where's Susi?

Hi Susi. 

How are you doing?

You're going to be

happy

with this right?

Because you know

what

I'm going to say.

Thank you

Susi.

What I Want

I've had rich friends

of mine come up

to me and 

say, Donald,

you're doing

this tax plan - 

we

don't 

want

anything.

We

don't.

Give It Up

So many people

have come up

to me and say

give it to the

middle class.

Give it

to people

that need it.

Give it

to people

that want to

spend it.

You would be

surprised. 

Give It Up, Redux

But you 

finally

have a government

and frankly you

finally

have somebody

who has

given up

a lot.

My other life

was

very good. 

I have to be - 

I had

a very good life.

I had

a very good life.

But you know what, 

I'm having

a better life

now

and I'm helping

people.

It's a Grand Old Flag

The American flag

do we love

our American flag?

Right?

I think people forgot

how patriotic we are...

how much we love our country.

But American flags

will soar

high above the roads.

Our cities and towns

will proudly

display

that flag.

We Built this Future

Our children

will be raised

in homes

filled with love,

communities

filled with airplanes

that are going

back, and forth,

that's OK but 

communities

filled with hope

and a nation

filled with pride.

We will build

this future

together

as one people

and one nation

under God.

Trump in Transition (v23)

The transition continues. Or not...

Donald Trump, who has been touting his economic successes since even before he was elected, has been particularly vocal about them lately.

His speeches, interviews, and weekly addresses have been dotted with glowing reports about how great companies are doing, how great the economy is doing, how many jobs have been created and so on for months.

Here are a couple of his retweets from earlier this month, one from Trump Business News and one from his daughter Ivanka:

And here's a string of his own tweets from earlier this week:

Now, don't get me wrong, it's great that the American president is championing the American economy - one of the many hats the president wears should be cheerleader for the country. But this president?

Well, we know he's not shy about slamming American companies - ask Macy's.  And he's not shy about slamming entire industries - ask the solar energy sector where, if Trump's suggested tariffs go into effect, we could lose more jobs - perhaps 88,000 -  than are employed in the entire coal mining industry - about 54,000. Not bad for the greatest jobs producer God ever created.

Now, it's the health insurance sector which is under presidential attack. Here's a tweet from this morning, proudly taking credit for the "plunging' of insurance stocks after he signed his Executive Orders  on the Affordable Care Act this week:

Yeah -- sometimes this president's the cheerleader, and sometimes he's the guy who pees in your pool.

TGIF 10/13/17

Boy, I'm glad it's Friday - and I bet I'm not the only one.

For example, how'd you like to be the folks in charge at NBC, the network that gave us the Donald Trump is a bleeping moron story and the Trump talked about a ten-fold increase in nukes story, but didn't give us the Harvey Weinstein story?

At least the Peacock network wasn't alone in that last part.

While Meryl Streep made it clear that not every single body knew about Weinstein and his decades of alleged predatory behavior, it seems to have been a incredibly poorly kept secret. A joke at the Oscars; a joke on 30 Rock; an undercover investigation in which the NYC District Attorney did nothing... Opportunity lost, over and over and over.  How, or why did that happen? That will have to come out in the post mortem.

Meanwhile, reports are that Weinstein is seeking treatment for a problem he doesn't have: sex addiction. That we have to remind people in this day and age that predatory behavior such as that alleged against Weinstein is about power, not about sex, is almost as sad as the apparent willingness of all those everybodies to cover up his behavior for all these years.

Meanwhile, did you hear that Trump has pulled us out of UNESCO?  This United Nations organization, which now seems to focus on designating heritage sites, was once more focused on battling extremists and promoting peace. The US is leaving, we've been told, because of the anti-Israel biases exhibited by UNESCO, particularly in naming part of the West Bank city of Hebron a Palestinian world heritage site.

What was less publicized in reports I heard today is that we have a checkered history with UNESCO, going back decades.  After leaving in 1984 during the Reagan Administration, we  rejoined in 2002; stopped paying our annual dues in 2011 over the admission of Palestine as a member; and lost voting rights in 2013.  I point this out so that people know this isn't just another case of Trump undoing what Obama did. Had that been the case, he would go all in, pay twice what we owe and welcome Palestine to one of the Trump White Houses for a spin on a golf cart.

He did, however, strike two blows against the Affordable Care Act. One will make it easier for 'association' plans to form, across multiple states in some cases; these plans may offer fewer benefits than required for other products under the ACA, along with some other changes. The other was to end the cost-sharing reduction payments to health insurers. Under the ACA, insurers are required to provide subsidies to many subscribers for out of pocket expenses; those costs have been  reimbursed to insurers by the federal government - until now. Barring action by Congress o formally appropriate the money at least in the short term, the CSRs are done.

Trump noted that these were merely subsidies to boost insurance company profits and hey, look at their stock prices! Darn -- he's been tweeting like mad about how the stock market is up and our retirement plans are doing great as a result -- which I thought was a good thing in his worldview, but I guess not when it comes to something that has 'Obama' in its name.

TGIF, indeed.

Wondering on Wednesday (v107)

Boy oh boy - I'm sitting in Wonder Land tonight, for sure -- I even wonder where to start, there's so much to wonder about.

Let's tackle "doing something about guns" in the aftermath of yet another act of domestic terrorism, the mass shooting in Las Vegas.  Whenever we have one of the heinous acts, the initial and forceful reaction from both sides of the aisle is that we do something.

On the one hand - let's call it the left/middle hand - there is a desire to make it harder (but not impossible) for people to get their hands on guns and ammo. On the right/middle hand, there's a corresponding desire to maintain the status quo, because laws won't stop people from doing bad acts, so more laws won't make us safer.  (On the fringes, left and right, the positions are more extreme, of course.)

So, it was interesting to hear that even the NRA was OK with some kind of action on 'bump stocks,' the thing used by the killer in Vegas to make his semi-automatic weapons function more like automatic ones. Now, before you get all excited, the NRA would not support a ban on those things, mind you, but they would be amenable to 'regulating them differently.'  Meaning, as Paul Ryan clarified,

We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix.

Which really means, he has no intention of having House members have to go on the record supporting additional gun controls, and he has no problem pinning the action on the president.  And that makes me wonder, which two existing gun regulations will face the firing squad to allow for the new one on bump stocks to be put in place?

Let's segue to another major issue of people behaving badly: immigration. The president announced a list of DACA tradeoffs that many Dems (and even some Reps) have identified as deal breakers, including funding the beautiful, well-endowed see-through wall, and cracking down on sanctuary cities.

I do wonder whether Trump the deal maker thinks this is a good way to start negotiations, or if he simply forgot that he's got to finish his first term before he needs to run for his second (which I wonder regularly, truth be told). But more than that, I wonder why the answer on immigration is not "cracking down and enforcing the existing laws" instead of trying to get new laws - and that multi-billion dollar wall -- on the books?

I mean, if that answer is good enough for when dozens are killed and hundreds are wounded at a concert, or when school children and teachers are murdered, or when members of a bible study group are murdered - by Americans, by the way - why wouldn't it be the answer when a bunch of illegal immigrants come here to steal American jobs?

Moving on, how hard must it have been, I wonder, for Hillary Clinton to issue her statement about Harvey Weinstein? I mean, after going through what she did with Bill...?

And finally, what are the Boy Scouts up to, I wonder? On International Day of the Girl, they decide to announce that girls can become Boy Scouts, including Eagle Scouts?

Donald Trump Jr is wondering about that one, too.

What's got you wondering?

Trump in Transition (v22)

The photo for today's TiT post is larger than usual, on purpose.

It represents the size of the president's IQ, which, we're to believe, is way more bigly higher than that of Rex Tillerson.

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the president's sense of humor, which, we're to believe, is what the whole "my hands are way more bigly than Rex Tillerson's" tweet was all about.

Oh wait -- did I say hands? I meant IQ. I meant IQ!

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the frustrationburger the president is eating because he's not being bigly recognized enough for what he's doing for Puerto Rico. After all,

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the sigh of relief that the president has sighed, as he's not really been called upon to comment on the Harvey Weinstein thing. Oh sure, Trump said

I've known Harvey Weinstein a long time. I'm not at all surprised to see it.

But that was about as far as things went, other than declaring again that locker room talk is nothing to worry about.

No one called upon him, as a leader, to condemn Weinstein's actions, as they have called upon Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others to do. And while Weinstein was a Democratic donor, not a GOP donor, should that matter?

Shouldn't the president champion protecting women from all sexual harassment, and all harassers, whether it's  Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly or Donald Trump? And shouldn't he do that without prompting?

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the ego that a person has to have to think that this administration, this president, and Republicans generally, are not getting their fair share of TV time on the late night shows. Look:

Shouldn't he know that when they're talking about him, constantly, it would be almost impossible for him to have more time? Shouldn't he be aware that Fox News is the 24/7 pro-Trump network (a few words from Shep Smith notwithstanding)? And that no one else - no elite Hollywood star, no other politician, no other social media star, has such a thing working in their favor?

In fact, when you consider the amount of coverage Trump gets, it seems that the late night hosts and the Dems should be begging for more time.

What does all of this have to do with Trump transitioning from something into a president? Nothing, I guess -- and everything.

I can't count how many times he told us all he was all about America First, but every day, he does his goodgoddamnest to show us how important it is that he put himself first.

Transitioning away from that might take a while longer.

Religious Liberty vis a vis the National Anthem

Let's consider for a moment that silently taking a knee and remaining quiet for the two minutes it takes to get through the national anthem at a football game is not a protest, but is instead an expression of the deeply held belief that racism, discrimination, and the killing of blacks by white police officers are all morally reprehensible acts and as such, they must be brought to light so that others will recognize them for what they are, will not participate in them but will instead condemn them, thereby empowering us to eliminate these acts from society.

If we look to the press release issued last week by US Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on federal protections for religious liberty, it seems it might make things significantly more interesting, and significantly more difficult for white billionaire NFL owners, the white billionaire president and white billionaire advertisers to pressure or take action against the athletes who act on their freedom of religion.

Here are some excerpts from the press release (emphasis added):

Our freedom as citizens has always been inextricably linked with our religious freedom as a people. It has protected both the freedom to worship and the freedom not to believe. Every American has a right to believe, worship and exercise their faith....

As president Trump said, "... (this administration) will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore."

..Trump promised that this administration would 'lead by example on religious liberty,' and he is delivering on that promise.

According to the Sessions memo, which can be accessed from the press release, the following "principles of religious liberty" and their supporting statements are true:

Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs...it also encompasses religious observance and practice...

The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs. 

Americans do not give up their freedom of religion by participating in the marketplace, partaking of the public square or interacting with government. 

Government may not restrict acts or abstentions because of the beliefs they display.

Except in rare circumstances, government may not treat the same conduct as lawful when undertaken for secular reasons but unlawful when undertaking for religious reasons.

Much as government may not restrict actions only because of religious belief, government may not target persons or individuals because of their religion.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief...

Only the interests of the highest order can outweigh legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. 

Employers...may not fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of that individual's religion...  

Apply these principles and this guidance to the NFL players who kneel respectfully during the anthem as an expression of religious liberty, vs. an expression of free speech, and what do you have?

• Protected demonstrations of religious belief, just as protected as the sign-of-the-crossing and pointing to the heavens that occur throughout athletic competitions of all kinds as both a preliminary and celebratory action;
• people maintaining religious freedom while participating in the marketplace, just like those who bake - or don't bake - for customers, or who sign - or don't sign - marriage licenses as government employees; 
• people who are protected from bullying and targeting by the government, including by the president, the vice president and other members of the administration, who see linked arms as a positive display but kneeling as a negative one; 
• people who are protected from having their beliefs challenged as not being deeply enough held;
• people who are treated as fairly with respect to their religious beliefs as are companies that sell tchotchkes; 
• and employees whose ability to earn a living in their chosen profession is not hindered because of their religious beliefs.

That's what our American tradition of religious liberty means, right? 

Or, do these principles only apply when someone is trying to discriminate against gays, or when someone is trying to deny women access to contraception?

Primary Relevance for California

The California legislature recently approved SB 568 which, now that it's been signed by Governor Jerry Brown, will move all of the Golden State's primaries to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

It's easy to understand why they'd want to make a change on when they hold the presidential primary; after all, California has the country's largest population and, in 2016, more registered voters than the population of 46 states, so it does seem a little out-of-kilter that those voters have no say in picking the candidates to lead our country. In 2016, for example, Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination the day before California's primary.

And, from an issues perspective, it makes sense to many as well.  Here's state Senator Ricardo Lara, the author of SB 568:

Moving California's presidential primary to March from June means candidates in both parties can't treat immigration, climate change, criminal justice reform and investing in jobs and innovation like afterthoughts, as they did too often in 2016. 

For state and local offices, the move might not make as much sense. Opponents expressed concern that the earlier primary might cause potential candidates to think twice about challenging well-funded incumbents. Assemblyman Matt Harper notes about his colleagues

Some of you may love that, but I don't think it's right for the voters. I think it's incredibly short-sighted. 

They've tried this before, in 1996 when the move to March put them behind only 27 other state caucuses and primaries, and again in 2008, when moving to February moved them up a couple of slots voting behind only two dozen states during that race.

In an editorial in the Mercury News about the current proposed changes, the writers reminded everyone what happened in 2008:

California's early vote may have 'mattered' more than it did in previous years, but voters didn't see any more of the candidates in previous years. Nor did the candidates focus on issues of special significance to the state or region 

They also express a concern that moving the primary "could have a dramatic effect" - but not necessarily a good one.

The sheer size and population of the state means that candidates will need huge amounts of money to be competitive. An early California primary may weed out good candidates who, by proving themselves in smaller states could have been contenders. 

And, because SB 568 ties all primaries to the same date:

The early primary also poses problems in local and state races. If, for example, a city council incumbent loses in the primary, he or she would serve as a lame duck for nearly 10 months before the winner takes office.

All of the reports I'd seen indicated there was no guarantee that this bill would be signed, especially given that the Gov had expressed some concerns himself, and there was additional concern that the national parties, who at least try and run a tight ship on the presidential primaries (Dems in 2016 notwithstanding), might be less than delighted, but in the end he did sign, without fanfare.

There's definitely room for improvement in the way we choose presidential candidates, and having a state as potentially influential as California actually have relevance is a good start. So is starting any of those conversations now, to be ready for 2020, regardless of who ends up being in the race.

Wondering on Wednesday (v106)

Reuters photo

OK, I'm wondering if maybe that whole thing about president Trump being a real estate developer was #fakenews?

I mean, are we sure he wasn't one of those people who randomly launched tee shirts into concert crowds?

I was pretty sure that the remarks at the Celebrate Me rally he held for the press was bad enough (you can read some of those comments in Tuesday's OrangeVerse post -- but I had to cut out a ton of it to stay sane; his full comments are here). But then, he tossed a Bounty of Viva to Hurricane Maria survivors??

Somehow, I'm thinking the people of Puerto Rico are not impressed with his remarks, or with the hurling of paper products any more than San Juan's mayor, Carmen Yulin Cruz, was:

This terrible and abominable view of him throwing paper towels and throwing provisions at people, it really - it does not embody the spirit of the American nation, you know?

But the Social Media president? He was not wondering at all, about his visit, tweeting

A great day in Puerto Rico yesterday. While some of the news coverage is Fake, most showed great warmth and friendship.

Does this mean that most of the media showed great warmth and friendship? Most of the Puerto Ricans? Most of the people who caught the paper towels? Most of the people who were paid to show up and say nice things about Trump?  I wonder, I really do.

Separately, we continue to get round the clock updates from various news outlets about the terrorist attack in Las Vegas.  And, of course, we know it's "too soon" to talk about having conversations about maybe doing something about why so many people die or are injured from some kind of shooting each year in the US.

We may talk soonly or laterly about making guns easier to silence to protect the ears of the people who use them, but maybe we won't even get to that until after we get a massive tax cut for the rich and corporations. And by rich and corporations, I mean the middle class.

Speaking of protecting people's ears, I wonder how it was that swimmers figured out they could use earplugs to keep the water out of their ears? And how was it that someone designed earplugs for shooting?

And speaking of  massive tax cuts for the middle class, I don't know about you, but as sure as I'm sitting here, I'm really looking forward to filing my taxes on a postcard.

I'm not even remotely wondering about the lack of security there -- I'm just happy that the government is looking to shore up the Post Office after all this time.

OrangeVerse XVII: Puerto Rico

The president held a rally in (oops, my bad) visited hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico today, and boy was he proud of himself. So proud, he made everyone else tell him how wonderful he and his administration are. And then he was bigly very proud. Here he is in his own words.

Trip Advisor? 4 Stars!

Well thank you very much.

It was a

great trip

and a beautiful place.

I've been to Puerto Rico many

times, as I think,

most of you have known.

And I've always loved it.

And your weather

 is second to none but every

once in a while

you get hit. And

you really got hit - 

there's no question

about it.

Suddenly A Category 5 Rang Out

And then all of a sudden

we said there's another one 

heading out 

to Puerto Rico...

but it wasn't one -- it was two!

And I was going to 

be here

a week ago

if you remember

and that was the day 

of the hurricane --

that was the day

of the second

hurricane.

So Brock

has been unbelievable and

this has been

the toughest one.

This has been

a Category 5,

which few people

have ever

even heard of --

a Category 5

hitting land.

But it did

hit land - and 

boy, did it 

hit land.

My People, Tis of Thee

And to all of my people - 

And I have to say

General Buchanan...

there's no doubt about it

you are a general.

There's a reason 

you're a general,

right?

But he's no games:

I said

give me a general

I don't want to have any --

I don't want

to have a general

that plays games...

Not My People? Tis of Thee!

Your governor has been - 

who I didn't know

I heard very good

things about him.

He's not even from my party

and he started out right

at the beginning

appreciating what we did.

And he was

tremendously supportive

and he knew the 

level of problem

that you had

at the beginning

before

and the level -- 

what happened...

right from the beginning

this governor

did not play politics.

he didn't

play it at all.

He was saying

it like it was

and he was

giving us

the highest grades.

And I want to

 -- on behalf of our country --

I want to

thank you.

One Shoe Drops

And Mick Mulvaney is here -

right there - and

Mick is in charge

of a thing

called

"budget"

Now, I hate

to tell you

Puerto Rico,

but you've thrown

our budget

a little out of whack

because

we've spent a lot 

of money on

Puerto Rico

And that's fine.

We've saved

a lot of lives.

And The Other Shoe Drops

If you look at the

--every death is a horror.

But

if you look at a

real catastrophe

like Katrina and

you look at the

tremendous

hundreds

and

hundreds

and

hundreds

of people

that died and

you look at what

happened here with really

a storm

that was just

totally overpowering

--nobody

has ever seen 

anything like this.

Gimme the number!

What is your

death count,

as of this moment?

17?

Sunday School 10/1/17

We only had time for a couple of quick classroom visits today.

First, we checked in with John Dickerson on CBS' Face the Nation. Guests today included House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. A lot of the discussion was on the new tax plan that the Republicans have been pitching. 

Needless to say, there's a difference of opinion between what Ryan and Schumer think will make sense for the middle class, who are the targets? objects? pinatas? of the new tax plan. Here's part of what Ryan said.

Well, first of all, the whole purpose of this is to get a middle class tax cut, to help the people who are working paycheck to paycheck and keep more of their own hard-earned dollars. They haven't had a break in a long time. Our economy's been growing between one and two percent for a long time. We haven't had three percent growth in about a decade, and that means workers are struggling.

Dickerson asked specifically what would happen to the blue collar worker's paycheck, and pressed Ryan for a promise (which I think was a waste of time, but maybe that's just me). Here's Ryan:

You know some money's coming to you. We're going to double that standard deduction. We're going to make it so he can fill out his taxes on a postcard. We're going to lower his taxes. That's really important. So he has more take-home pay. But here's another component to that is look at this machine shop, this business pays about a 40% tax rage but it competes with companies all around the world who pay an average 22 1/2% on their taxes.

So we're going to lower the taxes on this business so it's globally competitive, so it can compete with its foreign competition. And then we're going to give this business an ability to write off investments they make in this business to buy more machines, to hire more workers, to raise wages. That, to us, is really important.  

Dickerson pushed some more, noting that it sounded like rich people (estate tax people, carried interest people, the alternative minimum tax folks - they make out great, what about the middle class? Ryan, again:

Can I go through that? Can I get through that? We're going to double your standard deductions so you can file your taxes on a postcard. We're going to take people who are in the 10% bracket and put a lot of that money in a zero% bracket. We're taking the 15% bracket down to 12%. We're going to get rid of the marriage penalty. We're going to increase the child tax credit. We're going to maintain critical things like incentive for home buying, charitable giving, education,. Those are all middle class tax things. The purpose of this is to help people who are living by a paycheck keep more of their own hard-earned money but also get more jobs, a faster-growing economy.

And on and on it went.  Ryan pushed the "American businesses pay 40%" mumbo jumbo, which we know is not the case most of the time, and even when Dickerson pushed back, he didn't back away. We need to help our businesses compete by lowering taxes, period end of sentence seemed to be the answer. He promised a deficit-neutral plan, and that a growing economy will help us retire out debt more quickly, and he talked about entitlement reforms. He talked about doing things in 'regular order' and he talked about doing things via reconciliation (the process that brought reforming the ACA to its knees) as if you could follow both of those processes at the same time.

And, he noted bipartisanly,

We do work with Democrats, but we're not going to give Chuck Schumer the ability to filibuster this bill because we think that would derail tax reform. 

Which segues nicely into Dickerson's discussion with Schumer, disagreed with basically everything Ryan said.

We Democrats sent a letter to the Republican leadership and the president, said that here were three things that we thought that tax reform ought to have. 1) Tax breaks out not to go to the top 1% but ought to be focused on the middle class.  2) it out not to blow a hole in the deficit and 3) it ought to be done in a bipartisan way, not through reconciliation.

Unfortunately, the Republican plan doesn't agree with any of those. First, it's completely focused on the wealthy and the powerful not on the middle class Second, it blows a huge hole in the deficit. And third, they said they're going to do it through reconciliation. That's a partisan process. It excludes Democrats. It's the same process that led to the demise on health care. And let me just address one thing, John. Speaker Ryan keeps saying it helps the middle class. That's not true. What he's saying and what the plan is are totally different. 

Schumer pointed out that the tax policy center said

...80% of the tax breaks in their plan are aimed at that top 1%. And the top .1%, the people who make over $5 million, who are one in 1000, get a tax break of over a million dollars.

And he also pointed out the loss of state and local deductibility, which will likely be lost (because it doesn't fit on a postcard, I'm assuming). And, he pointed out the huge failure of the Kansas experiment, which was all about cutting taxes and the miraculous growth that would come from that.

They dramatically cut taxes and said "There's going to be growth and an increase in the surplus." Well, after they did it, they predicted the surplus would go up $300 million; it went down $700 million. They had to cut money for schools and infrastructure And then they had to put in a tax increase. 

And so it goes. And so it goes.

Quickly, here's what was happening at Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, who was joined by Brock Long, the head of FEMA.

As background, the mayor of San Juan is chastising Trump for not responding quickly enough after Hurricane Maria; Trump is criticizing her leadership, slamming Puerto Ricans, and tweeting his brains out to the people of Puerto Rico (the majority of whom are without power or communications) about #fakenews, those pesky reports that administration is not doing enough, fast enough, to help compared to what they did in other areas.

Long talked about his pushing forward, pushing in and pushing forward (it started to feel a little creep there for a bit) and in the end Chris Wallace asked what it was going to look like for Puerto Rico in the coming weeks.

Weeks from now? Well, you know, the key is, it's a couple of factors. Right now, you know, many days ago, we mission-assigned the Army Corps of Engineers to do one very important job, emergency power, but also begin rebuilding the grid. So, getting power back is obviously the most important thing.

In conjunction with that we're trying to work with the private sector to get telecommunications back up. The governor's reporting this morning that about a third of telecommunications has been put back up after two major hurricanes an all the equipment that was damaged, telecommunications is about a third, you know, back up and running. 

So, we have to get the power up. We have to get communications back up And then the bottom line is, that that takes a long time because it was almost a total loss when it comes to the power grid. And so, it's going to be multiple - multiple months before power is restored to many of these areas and that's just a reality. 

That's what we were saying before the storm hit and I think people have to remember that. Going into the storm, we were -- we were setting expectations that this is going to be a nightmare for Puerto Rico. 

There's your "fake news" right there, folks. From the horse's mouth.

See you around campus.

TGIF 9/29/17

Earlier this week, president Trump lost his first election since being elected last fall. And he lost his patience with just about everyone, it seems.

You'll remember, 'he' was successful in winning all of the replacement elections for the folks who left Congress to become cabinet members; the results of those elections I think were as much attributable to  Democrats struggling to get a message out vs. just throwing dollars from all around the country at the different races.

Over the past several weeks he had been running a full-bore Twitter campaign, and even held a rally in Alabama in support of Big Luther Strange, the 'loyal' candidate in the race against Constitution disregarder Judge Roy Moore.  Moore, with the support of Trump's former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, took the primary race.

The outcome for Trump? He started deleting his Big Luther tweets, although he may or may not have time to get all of them taken care of between his "we're doing great in Puerto Rico" messaging and his yelling at his cabinet members and his stumping for his once-in-a-lifetime tax reform for the rich program and threatening #NoKo with war and whatnot.  (In case you're wondering, here's some analysis on the legality of him deleting his tweets).

The outcome for Bannon? Tossed from the White House, reinvigorated at the helm of Breitbart news, and boldly defying his former boss. And oh -- attacking any candidate that has the support of Mitch McConnell (Strange had that, you see), even if it means going on the air against Trump to tell people the best candidate for Trump's agenda. Which, of course, is fascinating -- the guy who has the agenda doesn't even know who best will support it?  Or maybe the better question is, which agenda are we supporting, anyway?

Arizona Senator John McCain confirmed earlier this week his doctors say his prognosis is poor, which is not stopping McCain from doing his job in the Senate, nor is it stopping the president from continuing to bash him for his 'no' vote on the last best hope to make a mess of the Affordable Care Act while not repealing and replacing it.  Trump tweeted a montage of McCain saying the ACA needed to be r-and-r'd. And, according to Axios, Trump is physically mocking McCain's thumbs down vote in July.  Which simply can't be true, since he has never and would never mock anyone who has a disability, or, you now, serious injuries incurred as a POW.

One final note:  a while back, I expressed my dismay that SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch was going to be giving a speech - at Trump's Washington DC hotel - a few days before the start of the 2017-2018 court season. The speech, which was given yesterday at a luncheon for the Fund for American Studies, was met with a few dozen protesters trying valiantly to create the 'din of democracy' that Gorsuch mentioned. He also included this comment:

To be worthy of our First Amendment freedoms we have to all adopt certain civil habits that enable others to enjoy them as well.

Civility? That thing we're seeing none of from the White House these days?

The hotel, of course, is the subject of a number of lawsuits, many pointing at the Emoluments Clause forbidding a president from accepting foreign 'gifts' - and it's possible that these cases will end up before the Supremes at some point...along with all of the other Trump related cases that might be end up there... which is why I was not thrilled with Gorsuch participating in the speech there in the first place.

On the plus side? The president will be relentless in expressing his displeasure with "his" Supreme Court Justice should Gorsuch rule against him at any time -- so I'll hold out hope for that.

In the meantime, TGIF.

Wondering on Wednesday (v105)

I wonder: can you tell, just by looking at the average person, dressed and acting in an unremarkable fashion, whether they're religious? Liberal? A Nazi? Trans? Patriotic? Can you see into their heart of hearts just by looking at them?

And I wonder, looking at the average member of the military, can you tell whether they're in the service to defend the flag, or to defend our Constitution, or just because they want to take out a bad guy?

Wondering further, when you hear me talk about "American ideals" are you thinking what I'm thinking? And, wondering most, what exactly is the 'correct' definition of patriot? Of American? And who gets to define that?

Does the president have the right to define it for us? Do you have the right to define it for me? Or me for you? Or is it the most American ideal of all, that we each have the freedom - and the responsibility - to be the best kind of American we can, as we define it?

I wonder, when people watched or heard about what happened at NFL games on Sunday, whether they questioned the motivation of  the players who participated? Are they on board with the real reason for the protest - racism, discrimination, blacks dying at the hands of the police - or are they just pissed that the president called one of them an SOB and so they're all SOBs?  And I wonder, are the people who were booing all upset about the same thing? Can we be sure, without talking to each of them?

Are the owners really standing in unity with the players? And, I wonder if they're united for something, or if they're united against someone? Because there's a real difference there. Shannon Sharpe had some interesting opinions on all of this.

So did the wife of Pat Tillman, the former NFL player killed by friendly fire back in 2004. She found her husband the subject of a meme suggesting that he would have been against those 'anthem protesters' which is not the case.

Speaking of standing united, the president is going to head to Puerto Rico soon, to view the horrific damage from Hurricane Maria. I supposed, if Melania goes with him, we'll have to put up with more questions about her footwear -- and for the record, she wore her heels on the walk from the White House to the helicopter, but she never wore them in Houston. Those who said she did were saying it on purpose.

On Twitter, the Governor of Puerto Rico said he "briefed @POTUS in the Situation Room and thanked him for his leadership, quick response and commitment" which of course both @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS retweeted. But most of the quick response, it seems, came before Maria actually hit. And a pre-landfall emergency declaration, and post storm disaster declarations can only go so far, as Rosello noted in an interview with Bloomberg.

Administration, they've been helpful up until now. But we need more help. We need more help. We need more resources. And at the same time, Congress solidarity and all of the help they've pledged through social media and phone calls with our staff. Now is the time to materialize it.

For his part, Trump noted

We've had tremendous reviews from government officials. This morning the government made incredible statements about how well we're doing.

This, as we watch folks stand in water lines, food lines, gas lines, and gather around random working cell towers trying to reach the outside world. 

But united we stand  - including the five living presidents. As they did for Harvey and Irma victims, they're fundraising for Maria victims.

United we stand, where locally the Boys and Girls Club is collecting donations for Puerto Rico; the same thing is happening across the state of New York, which has long had the largest population of Puerto Ricans in the US (that's now being challenged by Florida), and across the country.

United we stand. And wondering again: when you hear me talk about "American ideals" are you thinking what I'm thinking? And, wondering most, what exactly is the 'correct' definition of patriot? Of American? And who gets to define that?

There You Go Again, Again

How's that quote go?  Those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it?

Above, you can see that the president retweeted a picture of the late Pat Tillman,who was killed by friendly fire while serving in Afghanistan in 2004; the comment from the original user, who calls himself a Trump supporter 110%, suggests that it's dishonoring Tillman, himself a former NFL player, to kneel during the national anthem.

Do you think anyone thought to check with Tillman's widow, to see what she thinks about her husband's name and likeness being used in this manner? Uh, that would apparently be a no.

Here's her statement:

As a football player and soldier, Pat inspired countless Americans to unify. It is my hope that his memory should always remind people that we must come together.

Pat's service, along with that of every man and woman's service, should never be politicized in a way that divides us. We are too great of a country for that.

Those that serve fight for the American ideals of freedom, justice and democracy. They and their families know the cost of that fight. I know the very personal costs in a way I feel acutely every day. The very action of self expression and the freedom to speak from one's heart - no matter those views - is what Pat and so many other Americans have given their lives for. Even if they didn't always agree with those views. 

It is my sincere hope that our leaders both understand and learn from the lessons of Pat's life and death, and also those of so many other brave Americans.  

And yes, this is not the first time or even the second time this has happened. Much as Trump co-opted music that he liked or thought made a statement throughout his campaign, without permission of the artists, he and his allies have also done this type of thing with others whose lives were lost.

US Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in Benghazi, has been a frequent pawn in the Republican playbook.  His mother was forced to issue a terse statement asking them to cease and desist the "opportunistic and cynical use" of his name.

The family of Kate Steinle had the same problem, when "Kate's Law" starting making the rounds after she was killed by an illegal immigrant. Her family didn't want her name to be "in the center of a political controversy" and, as is the case with Tillman and Stevens, the family does not hold the same beliefs as those taking her name in vain.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. And repeat it. And repeat it, it seems.

But I guess you can do that when you think you have exclusive rights to defining patriotism and what it means to be an American, and when you think that you have the right to enforce that opinion on American citizens, companies and organizations.

I guess.

I looked for, and did not see, a note from the patriot in chief to his 39 million real and fake Twitter followers that he apologizes for yet again using someone's name for his own political gain. I'll keep an eye out, and will let you know if I see it.

The Update Desk: TGIF 9/22/17

One of the topics in last week's TGIF post was the latest attempt by the Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  News had broken that Arizona Senator John McCain was going to vote no, and I had hoped that others would join him and Kentucky's Rand Paul to kill the bill.

Over the weekend, and really to no surprise at all, the authors of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill sweetened the pot, ostensibly to help states and balance the distribution of funds for the block grants that states would get and use to develop a health care plan that made sense for them. Except that the states to benefit included homes of the announced or expected 'no' votes, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

There were updates for us today, including

• some 50 disability activists were arrested after protesting a Senate Finance Committee hearing (the only one scheduled on the current bill)
• a report from the Congressional Budget Office noting that millions more would become uninsured under the GCHJ plan. The CBO report will not be comprehensive, because they simply don't have time given the September 30th deadline to get something done under 'reconciliation' which requires only a Mike Pence majority to pass legislation.
• Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, announced her opposition to the revised version of the bill, joining McCain and Paul who had previously said no - and making the bill Pence-proof.

So, what happens now?  That's up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the man who will decide if it's worth it to actually put a losing vote to the floor, to publicly shame the defectors and put them at risk in their next election. 

He might do that, or he might not, since at the same time he shames those who are agin him, he exposes himself  -- again -- as a poor leader unable to rally his troops, and sets himself up for even more bigly criticism from the president. 

Maybe he withstands that criticism, and thinks about what it seems Americans want: corrections to the Affordable Care Act. The majority of us, according to poll after poll after poll this year, want to keep and fix the ACA, not repeal it and replace it with something that doesn't even begin to come close.

Democratic and Republican governors have a plan they say will work -- 10 of them sent McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer a letter a week or so ago, asking them to drop their nonsense and take a look at something reasonable. 

If McConnell is half a leader, he'll sit down with those governors - Democrats Hickenlooper, Bullock, McAuliffe, Bel Edwards and Wolf, and Republicans Kasich, Walker, Sandoval, Scott and Baker - and Schumer, and get to work accomplishing something that will actually do some good, rather than just crossing off a campaign promise - even one that's seven years old, and counting. 

Trump in Transition (v21)

I keep thinking that I'm going to be able to retire the TiT theme; after all, Trump's been president for a few days over eight months now. 

Shouldn't he be done transitioning from a blowhard NYC real estate developing, serial bullying, failed reality TV show hosting, crowd-counting, name-calling, frequently golfing, constantly rallying, Hollywood elitist (with a bought-and-paid-for star on the Walk of Fame to prove it) who uses the government to pad the coffers of his family business by now? 

The last time I did a post in this theme was when Trump talked with his generals and decided that everyone else's transgender people shouldn't be allowed to serve our country because they were too expensive from a healthcare perspective - which, of course, was a complete lie, as are many of Trump's declarations. Screw your patriotism, you volunteers who stood up to defend our country. We don't need you, we don't want you, you cannot serve. Screw you.

And once again, Trump is on the 'screw your patriotism' bandwagon with his latest pronouncement that the NFL should fire anyone who does not stand for the national anthem. And, by extension, that Colin Kaepernick should continue to be unemployed. 

As a private individual, using his personal Twitter account, not his official POTUS account (which he ignores), Trump has been vocal on this subject for the past couple of days:

If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL, or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect...

...our great American Flag (or Country), and should stand for the National Anthem. If not, YOU'RE FIRED! Find something else to do.

Roger Goodell of NFL just put out a statement trying to justify the total disrespect certain players show to our Country. Tell them to stand!

If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place. Fire or Suspend!

...NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games, yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S.

Those SONSOFBITCHES, they out to be FIRED! And we should BOYCOTT! And the NFL owners are FRIENDS OF HIS, dammit! And bloodthirsty supporters in Alabama LOVED what he said, yessiree they did! He's the PRESIDENT and don't you FORGET IT!  #AMERICAFIRSTGODDAMMIT! And those players, they're paid with TAXPAYER DOLLARS! And SCREW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! And SCREW YOU, black athletes! And SCREW YOU STEPH CURRY even though you play with a round ball not one of those funny ones! Just SCREW YOU!

And I JUMPED UP and SCREAMED JUST LIKE HOWARD DEAN!!!

No, really, I just sat here for a moment, after catching my breath - for that was quite the explosion of capital letters and exclamation points!  And, I thought, it's SAD (quoting the president, here).

 It's sad that he feels his personal patriotism, and the well-being of our country, are threatened by some athletes behaving differently, but respectfully, during the national anthem. 

It's sad that the president, who is divisive both in his own language and his administration's policies, seems to think that Americans need to be in lockstep in order to, well, be Americans. Will we be receiving national uniforms? Holding parades along the inauguration route? Are we going to have to learn a special salute? I'm willing to start now, I guess, or should we wait until the patriotic pictures are painted on buildings across the land?

I last stood for the national anthem (because that's what I was taught to do), last Friday night, at the symphony. Only at the first concert of the series do we get to hear the orchestra play it; they don't at every single performance. The audience, which trends older, sings along, and claps when it's over - not with a stanza or two to go, but when it's actually over. I assume anyone who was able stood, but I don't worry about whether they did or not, and I'm sure no one was waiting, pen and notepad ready, to take down the seat numbers of people who didn't and kick them out of the hall. 

I don't mind the kneeling or the raised fists. I mind the drunken shouting that passes for acceptable patriotism in stadiums and arenas across the land much more than I do the protests. My husband is not a fan of the kneeling, so much, but a raised fist doesn't bother him. 

Do I feel threatened, as our still-transitioning president appears to, by people who are willing to take a stand on a very public stage? 

Hardly. Truth be told, I'm encouraged by their actions, and by their patriotism. 

• It IS patriotic to question your country and actions taken on her behalf by people in positions of authority.
• It IS patriotic to ask your country to be better, to do better.  
• It IS patriotic to ask your country to take a hard look in the mirror, and to try and think differently about things. 
• It IS patriotic to ask others to consider doing these things, too. 

It's much more patriotic to do that than it is to stand, drunkenly or soberly, with or without removing your hat, with or without placing your hand on your heart, in a stadium shouting over the national anthem.

It's significantly more patriotic to do that, than to have an American flag waving between your cab and the trailer you're hauling, like the guy I saw on the NYS Thruway last week. The flag was in despicable condition - filthy dirty, gray with soot and road dirt, stained, the colors barely discernible. The ends were shredded; perhaps as much as a third of it had gone into the wind, and it was torn in several spots where the stripes were sewn together. It looked like something you'd find in a dumpster, to be honest. But the truck driver sure is patriotic - he's displaying the FLAG!

It's also a whole helluva lot more patriotic than standing on the world stage engaging in a third-grade, name-calling pissing match with foreign leaders, which is how president Trump spent the rest of last week.

Yeah, it's too early to retire this theme.