Sunday School 12/9/18

I only had time for one classroom today, and it was ABC's This Week, with Martha Raddatz in for George Stephanopoulos.

Not surprisingly, most of the conversation had to do with the reports from the Mueller investigation last week, including information about multiple contacts between Russians and people close to the president during the campaign.

Joining Raddatz today were Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Rubio, in response to a question on whether Trump was lying when he said there was no contact between anyone on his campaign and Russians was all over the map. Basically, we know more now than we did but we don't know everything and I support the investigation and always have, you know but we need the truth and all of the facts and did I tell you I support the investigation? And, oh by the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee is also great, and working bipartisanly hard on stuff but everyone needs all the facts. And so on. And so on. And so on.

Raddatz pressed him after the rambling non-response, noting there were at least five people who were 'receptive' to Russian outreach: Cohen and Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos, and Donny Jr., and could all of that really be coincidence?

Look... there's no way to spin this... this has not been a positive development for the people that are involved in this. But I just think, and we have learned over time, that it is important for all of this to be out there before us, within full context, compared to other information, before we begin to make political judgments. 

He added that no one's above the law and stuff, but political judgments are different, and we need all of the info, and so on. And so on. .

Raddatz tried to get Rubio to say whether he agreed with the president or Mueller's team on Michael Cohen's statements; there was more call for more information, including about corroboration, but that:

 And now you have the testimony of a witness who is facing criminal charges and looking for leniency vs. someone who denied that it occurred the way they said it occurred.

It was at this point that I wondered why he was booked on so many shows today - and then, I found out. He did offer an opinion -- alert the media! -- on whether Trump should pardon Paul Manafort.

I think it would be a terrible mistake if he did that, I do. I believe it would be a terrible mistake. You know, pardons should be used judiciously. They're used for cases with extraordinary circumstances... I don't believe that any pardon should be used with relation to these particular cases. Frankly, not only does it not pass the smell test, I just -- I think it undermines the reason why we have presidential pardons in the first place. And it think, in fact, if something like that were to happen it could trigger a debate about whether the pardon powers should be amended given these circumstances. 

Moving on to Sen.Murphy, he wouldn't say whether impeachment was the right path, as was suggested by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), but that

We  have reached a new level in the investigation. The special counsel is starting to show his cards, and these are very serious allegations. This is a president who is now named as an unindicted co-conspirator, the allegation is he committed at least two felonies to manipulate the 2016 elections.

But, he also noted, Rubio is not wrong that all of the facts need to come out. He just got there a whole lot more quickly, and with a whole lot more clarity.  As to the question if there are any impeachable offenses,

So listen, I think you are beyond the stage that led to impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, whether or not you think that was worthy of impeachment or not. I still think it's important for Congress to get all of the underlying facts and data and evidence that the Special Counsel has before we make that determination.

He also suggested that all of those facts that he and Rubio were talking about need to come, and soon.

I mean I think it's important for the special investigator to give Congress what he has sometime early in 2019 so that Congress can make a determination. If the president did, in fact, collude with Michael Cohen, it doesn't really make sense for Congress to get that report from the special investigator in 2020, we need that next year. We need that as soon as possible.

Raddatz asked if Murphy still felt that Mueller's investigation needs 'protection' and if he would consider holding up a budget vote in order to pass such a protection bill.

You know, I am certainly going to look at all of our options to try and force a vote on legislation that would protect the special counsel. I'm also worried about General Kelly leaving the White House. I imagine that he was one of the people that was attempting to convince the president not to fire Mueller, to not issue pardons as a means of trying to influence the investigation

And who replaces Kelly, Murphy says, is important and potentially makes his legislation more important too, as Mueller could be at increased risk. He also thinks things have moved into a new phase, and

...this investigation is now starting to put the president in serious legal cross hairs, and he should be worried and the whole country should be worried... Listen, nobody's rooting for the president to go down in this manner. This isn't good for democracy but this investigation may ultimately lead to Congress taking action.

Murphy had previously said he wasn't planning on running for president in 2020; Raddatz wanted to know if that was still true. He was sort of non-committal, talking generally about 2020 but about himself saying only

...we need a candidate who's 100% authentic, who is tough and can challenge this president on both domestic policy and foreign policy and I'm simply going to make sure that we have a candidate that fits that bill.

 He  Rubio'd on any of the potential candidates Raddatz mentioned - Biden, Sanders, Warren, Booker -  but said a big field is good and that there "a lot of different models that would eventually work," whatever that means.

See you around campus.

An 'Animal House' Approach to 2020

Remember Animal House, the classic 1978 movie about the men of Farber College's Delta Tau Chi fraternity and their mortal foe, Dean Wormer? Wormer's the guy who put the frat brothers on double secret probation, leading to Bluto (John Belushi) giving this rally the troops speech:

What? Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!... It ain't over now, 'cause when the goin' gets tough, the tough get goin'!  Who's with me? Let's go! Come on...

Bluto heads for the door, but he's got no troops behind him.

What the f--K happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts. huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst. 'oooh, we're afraid to go with you, Bluto, we might get in trouble. Well, just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this! Wormer, he's a dead man...

It's at this point that Bluto's frat brother Otter (played by Tim Matheson) joins in; the end of his speech is where this op-ed from the WaPo's Jennifer Rubin picks up.

I think we have to go all out. I think this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!

Rubin's Otter would be the man - or woman - who steps up and challenges Trump in a primary. After all, she notes, all the polls show Republicans overwhelmingly support the president, and the midterms show that distancing yourself from Trump doesn't bode well for your future.  But, as Otter noted, sometimes that futile and stupid gesture is sometimes required and

A primary challenge to Trump would be quite helpful if the goal is to make certain he's not re-elected in 2020. 

She outlines four reasons why this would be the case.

There's little downside to the effort itself. The challenger would lose, Trump would win; that's both likely and the worst that could happen. She compares this to horse racing, where the lead horse wears down the favorite, typically allowing a stablemate to come in and steal victory at the last moment. But, she points out, sometimes the lead horse actually wins. Possible 'lead horses'? She suggests Mitt Romney perhaps, or Jeff Flake - people who have enough stature of their own to stand up to, ridicule and provoke the president. 

Primaries against a sitting president are funny things. She references Eugene McCarthy's loss to LBJ in 1968's New Hampshire primary and points to that as what prompted RFK to enter the race and Johnson to withdraw. The moral of that story, she says?

...you never know what will happen in a dynamic race and what the prospect of losing may have on an unpopular, besieged incumbent president.

This week has reminded us that Trump cannot handle the pressure of Robert Mueller breathing down his neck and the potential for increased Congressional scrutiny, now that Dems have taken back the house. (note: the op-ed was written in mid-November).

Imagine if Mueller indicts Donald Trump Jr. or proves that Trump aide Roger Stone was plotting with WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange. Think about what Trump will do in the even of a damning Mueller report...

Her point here, and I think it's completely valid, is that Trump will really lose it, perhaps doing something that finally will convince the Republicans that he's not ready for a primary, much less a second term. One example of 'losing it'? Pardoning everyone in sight, maybe quitting with a demand that VP Mike Pence would have to pardon everyone...  scary stuff right there.

A primary run doesn't preclude a third-party run by a different candidate. In the event Trump does win the GOP nomination, a moderate Republican could challenge him via a third-party line.She quotes fellow WaPo writer David Weigel, talking about Ohio's John Kasich explaining how this could work.

Kasich was speculating on what it would take to break the two-party system wide open. He imagined a 2020 matchup between Trump and a left-wing Democrat that would create 'a vast ocean between the parties.'"

That's the point at which a well-known moderate could enter the race and provide a viable alternative for both parties. As I read this I'm picturing the white horse appearing out of a cloud of smoke - but I can't figure out who's in the saddle...it could be Kasich, I guess. As Rubin notes,

Kasich occupies an enviable position. A non-candidate with high name ID can continue to criticize Trump  and urge his fellow Republicans to hold Trump accountable for his rhetoric and actions.

The bottom line, for Rubin? Folks leery of a second Trump term should be prepared to take whatever chance presents itself for taking him out before the nomination, or to find a moderate or centrist to hit him from the outside the two-party system. 

You see, running against Trump in a primary may not be so futile or stupid after all.

Otter - and Bluto - would approve. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v156)

There was mourning, and retrospection, and celebration today, as we paused, for a couple of hours, for the state funeral of President George Herbert Walker Bush, #41. And there was also wondering, it being a Wednesday.

I found much of the funeral very moving, but I was struck more by the comments of his pastor than I was by those of President George W. Bush. I think I tend to be more shocked by deeply personal comments from someone who has an 'official' role than I am by a family member, where it would be more shocking if those comments were missing.

As to any wondering about today's events, I do have to wonder why the medial seems so stuck on talking about president Trump and how he managed to sit next to President and Mrs. Obama without there being some kind of incident. I can only surmise that they missed the antagonistic tweets they're accustomed to seeing all day long.

Also on the wondering today? USA Gymnastics has filed for bankruptcy, apparently to protect their finances in a way that they never protected the hundreds of girls and young women who were victimized by Larry Nassar. According to Kathryn Carson, the chair of the organization's board,

Our organization is a financially solid going concern but for the hundred lawsuits that we do have out there. That is the primary reason that we made the filing, to use the Chapter 11 process as a vehicle for resolving those claims.

The organization's official statement noted, in part,

This filing will enable USA Gymnastics to continue to support its athletes, to fully operate and meet its responsibilities to the entire membership and to expeditiously resolve the claims made by the survivors of sexual abuse perpetrated by Larry Nassar.  

We owe it to the survivors to resolve, fully and finally, claims based on the horrific acts of the past and, through this process, seek to expedite resolution and help them move forward... 

I honestly wonder whether this will be better for the victims, who truly deserve to have these cases resolved once and for all, or if it will be better for USA Gymnastics.  I'm hoping it's the former.

Democracy is collapsing in Wisconsin - again - as the Republican majority passed legislation in the wee hours of the morning that limit the incoming Democratic governor. You know, that whole "will of the people" thing that Republicans have no problem ignoring when it suits them. Just ask Merrick Garland, right?

Among the changes they approved, and that lame duck gov Scott Walker has said he'll sign, are a cut in the early voting time period. I have to wonder why it is that those pesky Dems take so darn long to vote.

Why are they doing all of this?

We do not believe that any one individual should be able to come in and with the stroke of a pen eliminate things that went through the legislative process as a result of listening to the people of Wisconsin.

Those people of Wisconsin, they can apparently only be listened to once, it seems. So I wonder, why did they even bother having an election?

There's more wondering out there, of course -- but we'll have to save it for another Wednesday.

Sidebar: Guns and Money

In my post the other day on how investors are looking to get some key principles implemented by gun manufacturers, I talked about the many ways that folks are considering, or already using, to try and change processes that allow guns to get into the wrong hands, or to keep guns from becoming extraordinarily capable of mass destruction (as opposed to being only ordinarily capable of such destruction).

There were several approaches in the post, but there's one more that wasn't mentioned. It's the one taken by former President George HW Bush back on May 3, 1995:

Dear Mr. Washington,

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of NRA, defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or ATF people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people. 

Al Whicher who served on my [United States Secret Service] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country - and serve it well he did.  

In 1993, I attended the wake for ATF agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer who did his duty. I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi. 

John Magaw, who used to head the USSS and now heads ATF, is one of the most principled, decent men I have ever known. He would be the last to condone the kind of illegal behavior your ugly letter charges. The same is true for the FBI's able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed Mr. Freeh to the Federal Bench. His integrity and honor are beyond question.

Both John Magaw and Judge Freeh were in office when I was President. They both now serve the current administration. They both have badges. Neither of them would ever give the government's "go ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law abiding citizens." (Your words) 

I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed to most of the NRA's objectives, particularly your educational training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

 However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of NRA, said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name for your membership list.

Sincerely, [signed] George Bush.

That's right -- resigning from the NRA is another tactic that might add to the critical mass I think we need.

Bush did it because he didn't like how the organization talked about other Americans,specifically those who served in government and law enforcement. Today, it could be because of their seemingly cavalier approach to what's happening all too often in our country. If enough people do this, it could might reduce their cash flow and  perhaps limit their political influence in the process.

If enough people do it, of course.

And while the 'Mr. Washington' the letter was addressed to -- then NRA president Thomas Washington -  died suddenly only a few short months after this letter from Bush,Wayne LaPierre is still around and still speaking with unabashed recklessness on behalf of the NRA. If ever a good man with a gun wanted to exert some pressure on the NRA, now's a great time to give it a shot.

All roads lead to Rome, they say...

Quick Takes (v30): Guns and Money

Quick Takes

Most of us are familiar with the old adage "all roads lead to Rome." We intuitively know that every single road doesn't lead to Rome, but that there are many ways to get there, some of which require more effort and stick-to-it-iveness than others. 

For the purposes of today's post, let's recognize (and celebrate, in my case) that there's more than one way to 'get thee' and do something about guns in America. Here's a headline that appeared in the business section of my local paper:

Investors push gun industry for reforms

The article, from Bloomberg, talked about a group of 13 investors, including state pension funds in California, Florida and Connecticut, among others, that collectively have trillions of assets under management, and who are

banding together for the first time to pressure gun manufacturers and sellers to make firearms "safer, more secure and easier to trace."

The approach is not to threaten to divest from the manufacturers; instead, it's to apply pressure on manufacturers to encourage them to make changes that comply with five Principles for a Responsible Civilian Firearms Industry which focus on new technology; dealer standards; training and education programs; best practices in background checks, inventory management, and point of sale policies; proactive assistance to law enforcement; and collaboration with the signers of the Principles moving forward.

Christopher Ailman, who's the Chief Investment Officer for the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), said that

As investors, we're focused on taking steps to reduce risks while increasing the long-term value of the companies in which we invest. But as individuals, we are also deeply saddened by the gun-related tragedies our country is experiencing. We hope these principles serve as the start of a new conversation to address gun safety in the civilian firearms industry, and we look forward to progress through the reasonable and broad framework for engagement they provide. 

Ailman also noted that CalSTRS has tried this before. According to this NY Times article from December 2012, after the Sandy Hook shooting, the fund had about $750M invested in Cerberus Capital Management, which in turn was invested in the Freedom Group, which manufactured the Bushmaster rifle used in Sandy Hook. Here's what CalSTRS had to say:

At this point our investment branch is examining the Cerberus investment to determine how best to move forward given the tragic events of last Friday in Newtown, Conn.

Back then, there was little expectation that things would change. The problem? Firms like Cerberus and others are obligated to maximize their investors' funds, even if that means holding positions in 'sin' companies such as guns, gambling and tobacco.

Similarly, it might be a while before any impact from these Principles and these investors is seen. After all, there's long been concern from manufacturers that things could change - and yet... Here's just one example, excerpted from a note to investors about a (shelved) IPO that predates Sandy Hook:

The regulation of firearms and ammunition may become more restrictive in the future and any such development might have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, regulatory proposals, even if never enacted, may affect firearms or ammunition sales as a result of consumer perceptions. 

Two manufacturers -  American Outdoor and Sturm, Ruger - both recently had shareholder proposals approved, asking for reports on gun violence and the risks of selling guns. And while the reports didn't spur any changes in product offerings, I think it's safe to say that Americans will continue trying to find ways to deal with our mass shooting problem, whether we call it a gun problem, a mental health problem, a domestic terrorism problem, or something else entirely. A rose by any other name, and all.

Whether it's investment, divestment, or other shareholder actions; changes to the background check process; voluntary changes by manufacturers, perhaps to include limiting sales of ammunition or or eliminating the sale of bump stocks; increased opportunity for mental health treatment; ER research on gunshot victims; or what have you, sooner or later, I think we'll reach some kind of critical mass where common ground can be found.

The Update Desk: Cross-town Development

Back in October 2016, I wrote about a successful local company and their approved request for economic development money. Here's some background, from that post.

BlueRock Energy Holdings, a local company started by a guy who used to work for Niagara Mohawk (now National Grid), sells energy to commercial and residential customers in New York and, in December 2014 announced they were expanding into Pennsylvania and Connecticut. They also created a second company, one that focused on "energy efficiency consulting." All good stuff, right? Local guy, home-grown company, and a growing business - expanding from 47 to 87 employees "over the next two years" they said back in 2014.

In September of this year, they announced that they had outgrown their office space in Syracuse's Franklin Square and would moving to larger space in what's now called Barclay Damon Tower (the old Marine Midland Tower on Warren and Jefferson). They're going to have around 13,800 square feet of space in their new location, compared to around 8,600 in their old space. We also learned that the company now has 67 employees and "expects to create at least 13 more jobs over the next five years."

And here's what they asked for, and received, in tax breaks for that move:

BlueRock has applied to the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency for an exemption from sales taxes on the $485,000 it expects to spend on furniture and fixtures and other equipment and materials for the new office (emphasis added). The sales tax exemption, if approved, would save the company $38,800 though it would have to pay the agency $5,850 in fees.

So a successful business, an awarded business, a business that supports multiple professional sports teams, is moving less than a mile driving distance, and we're paying them $32,950 to do it?

Why yes, yes we did. And now, two years later, we learn that the company is again making some changes:

Syracuse's BlueRock Energy has sold a big piece of its electric and natural gas business but says it will continue operating with a new focus. BlueRock sold all its electric and natural gas customer contracts in New York and some in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Marathon Energy, of Queens.  

BlueRock founder, President and CEO Philip VanHorne said the company is refocusing on selling solar energy and providing energy services, such as LED lighting, building controls and HVAC upgrades. He said the company will keep its headquarters in downtown Syracuse. 

Why the change? Well, for starters, NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo has set a pretty high goal for the Empire State and how we use renewables. As part of his Reforming the Energy Vision initiative, he's asking that NY achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels; requiring that 40% of electricity come from renewable sources, and looking for a 600 trillion BTU increased in statewide energy efficiency. And, according to VanHorne,

Solar is definitely a growth area for us. There's lots of opportunity here.

The sell-off of the electric and gas business was "strategic" VanHorne said, but made it clear they're sticking around.

We're continuing in business. We're not shutting down. We're changing focus.  

There was no announcement on how much the contracts were sold for, or how many were sold.

So what does all of this mean for the company's employees?

The good news? Marathon is hiring 24 BlueRock folks, in both sales and operational roles, and they'll be opening an office in Salina in January, their first in upstate NY. Jerry Drenis, the company's President, noted

We're fully committed to the upstate ares. We're very happy with the people we've hired there. This was a natural acquisition for us.

I've not seen anything on whether Marathon is going to be seeking taxpayer assistance for their new office, or whether they've committed to any additional hiring. For their part, BlueRock  now has 30 people, instead of the 67 it had back in 2016 when they got the tax breaks for moving to their larger headquarters.

Obviously I want local companies to be successful, but I also want our elected officials to be good stewards of our tax dollars - and I can't help thinking (again) that there has to be a better way to do economic development than we do it around these parts.

An easy starting point seems to be not giving companies money for furniture, fixtures and other equipment; maybe then we could work up to outlining the things that are deserving of our incentives.

Sunday School 12/2/18

Today we'll spend time in the CBS Face the Nation classroom, since we missed them on last weeks' rounds. As I'm sure was the case in the other classrooms, there was a considerable amount of time devoted to remembering President George Herbert Walker Bush, who passed away on Friday at the age of 94.

Host Margaret Brennan talked with her CBS colleagues Bob Schieffer and Norah O'Donnell, as well as with his former staffers  Secretary of State James Baker, who was with him on Friday, and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Both shared personal and professional memories of 41.

Elsewhere on the show, Brennan talked with Sunday regular Senator Mark Warner, (D-VA) about Bush first of all. Warner outlined a distinction between the Bush brand of Republicanism and the current version - the key difference being moral character.

President Bush was a class act and I think he realized, and reflecting on this program this morning, American leadership is critical. But that leadership needs to be both economic, military but also moral leadership... He always knew that America was stronger with alliances and the rest of the world looked to that American leadership in all those realms, as I mentioned - militarily, economically, but also morally, and I think it would be -- all of us as we reflect on his legacy to remember that those lessons are still important for all of us to keep in mind. 

They also talked about the Senate Intelligence Committee, and about Michael Cohen's guilty plea for lying to Congress; that all came about because the Mueller team asked for a transcript of Cohen's testimony before the Committee.  Warner noted that if you lie to Congress, they'll go after you and they'll make a referral to Mueller if necessary - and that a number of referrals have been made. He also noted,

I think if I'd been a Republican delegate going into the summer of 2016 I think it would have been a relevant fact to know that actually Donald Trump was still trying to do business with the Russian government; maybe that's why he was so reluctant to say anything bad about Vladimir Putin.

Even though, of course, Trump denied as a candidate and continues to deny any prior relationship with Russia or any business dealings with them - at least until this week, when he describe loose and very cool business practices.  And, he pointed out that it can be argued whether whatever happened was a crime, but the president's still a liar.

Brennan wondered whether Cohen was ordered to lie; Warner doesn't know but thinks it's a relevant question. She also pressed him a little on the referrals he mentioned, asking if that meant the Committee has told Mueller that "a number of Trump associates are lying and we have proof of it." He was non committal on details but that they have an ongoing relationship with Mueller, but that the Committee is a counterintelligence investigation vs. the Special Counsel, a criminal investigation. And, that

...We want to make clear that lying to Congress is a crime. 

Next up, the unpronounceable USMCA, the new trade agreement that's so much like the old one, NAFTA (see how that rolls off the tongue?)  Warner thinks, without having fully reviewed the new agreement, that it could probably have been renegotiated within the existing NAFTA framework. And he expects push back from Congress on both sides of the aisle.

From the panel discussion, here are a couple of highlights:

Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic) on what people on Capitol Hill are thinking about the investigation: ...this week I was asking a number of Democrats how aggressive they think (the Russia investigations are) going to get. They think it's going to get extraordinarily aggressive and we're going to be entering a whole new phase where the subpoenas are going to be coming, flying fast and furious, and the fights between the White House and Congress over who can - who will be able to testify are going to be ferocious.

David Nakamura  (WaPo) on agreement with China from the G20, which Trump called a 'major success': I think it's more a limited success. It did avert, you know.. the next level of this trade war with China because new tariffs could go or have gone into effect at the beginning of next year. But they seem to have averted that at least for 90 days. They basically said they're going to have a truce, sort of a temporary cease fire on these tariffs.. But I think more deeper analysis shows that these intrinsic problems between US and China on trade are not going away and to say it could happen within 90 days is somewhat unrealistic. 

I'll close with something from Schieffer from almost 40 years ago, a conversation with Bush 41 on toughness. Schieffer set it up by saying

He ran for president when Reagan left office but his campaign got off to a terrible start. George Bush was a nice man - modest, kind, a man who actually wrote thank-you notes. Trouble was, some mistook niceness for weakness. The question, "are you tough enough?" was asked of him repeatedly. 

Here's Bush answering that question on FTN in 1979:

I equate toughness with moral fiber, with character, with principle, with demonstrated leadership in tough jobs where you emerge not bully somebody, but with the respect of the people you led. That's toughness. That's fiber. That's character. I have got it. And if I happen to be decent in the process, that should not be a liability. 

Yes - that should not be a liability.

See you around campus.

TGIF 11/30/18

What kind of week did you have? 

Was it better than, say, Paul Manafort? I'd say probably. Manafort got himself in to a little hot water with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, will lose his plea deal, and may face new charges and another trial. And, at the same time he was lying and violating his deal with Mueller's team, Manafort's lawyer was sharing information with the president's legal team - pretty ballsy, for sure.  For more information on the trials and tribulations and twists and turns of the Manafort saga, check out this link to stories he's mentioned in from The Guardian.

Was your week better than, say, Michael Cohen's? We now know that he's admitted lying to Congress, which is a bad thing, but he's definitely living up to his 'putting family and country first' mantra much more so now than his old "I'd take a bullet for Donald Trump' mantra of the past - and for that, I like the new Cohen more than the old one. And shame on the GOP for coming to a quick conclusion that there was no 'there' there in their House investigation. You know, the "we love you, man!" probe that was full of nonsense and Nunes... 

The president himself, well, he's not had the best week ever, with these new issues coming out of Mueller's camp. And while 'he' did 'win' the Mississippi Senate runoff between the 'front row seat the the hanging' Republican and 'the guy with the same name as those TV awards' Democrat, Trump and his family (Eric, Donny Jr, and Ivanka) and even Mike Pence all 'lost' the race for the NY House seat, as Claudia Tenney finally conceded to Dem Anthony Brindisi. But, silly me, those House races don't matter, the president doesn't care about them, I forgot.

But there were folks who had really good weeks. Like Riley Morrison, the 9-year-old girl - or should I say, the 9-year-old basketball player - who was disappointed in NBA star Steph Curry, and let him know about it. She wrote him to complain that his signature shoes were only sold under the Boys section of the Under Armour website. Here's an excerpt from Riley's letter to Curry:

I know you support girl athletes because you have two daughters and you host an all-girls basketball camp. I hope you can work with Under Armour to change this, because girls want to rock the Curry 5s, too.

That oversight was quickly corrected - you'll find the Curry 5s under both the Boys and Girls sections of the UA website now. And there's more, as you can see from Curry's response to Morrison. After letting her know the website issue was being corrected, he added:

I want to make sure you can wear my kicks proudly -so I am going to send you a pair of Curry 5s now and you'll be one of the first kids to get the Curry 6. Lastly, we have something special in the works for International Women's Day on March 8, and I want you to celebrate with me! More to come on that, but plan to be in Oakland that night!

And finally, there's a group of people who had also had a really good week. Over 100 NICU nurses at Mercy Children's Hospital in St Louis won $10,000 on the Mega Millions, and promptly donated the money to two coworkers. One had lost her son to suicide, the other's husband is battling cancer. They needed the money more than the winners, and the winners needed to help others more than they needed their post-tax $50 each.

These last two stories made my week a little better; I hope they do the same for you.

Grains of Salt (v39): Innovation Station

Grains of  Salt

What's a city to do when there are more services needed than it can possibly provide?

Try something completely different, that's what.  And that's what Syracuse is looking to do, by joining the Startup in Residence  (STiR) program.

STiR works with city and state government partners to formalize 'challenges' that startups from around the world can apply - think of kind of a matching program. A scope of work is developed and then over a sixteen week residency, the government and startup collaborate on researching, designing, building and testing solutions. If, at the end of the residency, the agreed-upon scope of work and requirements are met and a good relationship has been developed, the government secures the services of the startup to implement the solution. Sounds like a really cool program and one of those 'win-win' situations we hear about so often:

• governments get innovative solutions to problems, as well as a partner to implement them;
• startups get access to customers that are looking for what they have to offer, vs. having to generically pitch their ideas
• and citizens get proven solutions to problems that may otherwise go unsolved.

Syracuse put five challenges out for consideration:

• Autonomous snow clearing technology for sidewalks. We have miles of them, and many of them are not the perfectly smooth concrete that we see around office buildings or shopping mall. Instead, they're busted concrete, or asphalt on top of concrete, or full of roots and dirt and what not.  Bottom line? We need something that's going take a beating and keep clearing the snow. This one's important, not only because we get a lot of snow, but because uncleared sidewalks put residents on the street - school kids, the disabled, and the elderly among them.

• Crowdsourcing platform for low-income renters to obtain loans for their security deposits. This one's interesting - come up with a way to connect people who are willing to do short-term small dollar loans for folks who need help pulling together the deposits for apartments. This can be overwhelming for people, particularly those who are forced to move for reasons outside their control (landlord issues, code violations, 'included' utilities not being paid, and so on).  Sadly, Syracuse has a high percentage of residents who are 'housing unstable' who could be helped by this type of program. The solution being looked for would be similar to Kiva.org, a global platform that connects lenders and small business owners.( Here's a glimpse into US lending opportunities, in case you're unfamiliar with this program - I was.).

• Data analytics platform for waste management. While there are some rules and regulations governing how much and what kinds of trash can be put put for pickup by the Syracuse DPW, we're data-challenged and can't track who might be violating the rules. In addition, without good data, it's hard to optimize the routes and pickup schedules, increase productivity, help us with sustainability, and, frankly, help generate revenue by being able to provide who's violating the rules and collecting fines when they do. It's also a good thing for neighborhoods as a whole, and particularly for folks who live near the ones who break the rules. 

• A permit-management platform. This challenge seeks a way to centralize and track all transactions related to the permitting process for the city. The current process is outdated and cannot accommodate the reality: multiple departments being involved in the review and approval process, frequently working concurrently on the same application. It's a cumbersome process for the city, and an annoying one for applicants, who may be asked to provide the same information multiple times. The ideal solution would provide transparency for the city and for applicants, establish a solid workflow for applications, and track and archive all of the comments, decisions, questions and so on. And, of course, there's money to be saved if this one comes to fruition - increased productivity and better instructions for applicants are just a couple of opportunities on that front. Customer satisfaction is also an almost guaranteed outcome.

• Citizen engagement tool for the Trauma Response Team (TRT). I have to confess I was no aware we had a TRT in Syracuse. The TRT is currently dispatched, along with police and EMS, when a trauma occurs in the community, and members act as moderators between citizens and law enforcement. Without an effective messaging and engagement platform, they're left relying on word of mouth and social media to reach out with ongoing communications, which is hardly ideal. Engaging stakeholders and increasing trust may help lead to a reduction in violence, too. 

I'm intrigued by the whole STiR program, by the challenges Syracuse has put on the table, and by the continued outreach to any willing partner to help find solutions to problems. I'm looking forward to following these projects as they progress. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v155)

Welcome, friends, to our regular wondering and wandering through the news. Here's a snipped of what's on my wondering mind.

Facebook is under fire again, this time facing grilling from an international panel that's frustrated with the social media behemoth for a host of reasons, including privacy issues, not being able to control misinformation and propaganda, and worse. CEO Mark Zuckerberg did not attend, which did not endear his company to the inquisitors - no wondering there.

But what I do wonder about is this: if you think Facebook has an obligation to protect us from ourselves and our inability to discern what's real from what's fake, what's intentional misinformation from what's an accidental share of something outdated, or from the general threat of interference in elections, who else should ace the same solution, whatever that might be? Would be be everyone below or to the left or right of the green box on the Media Bias Chart 4.0? Or would the yellow box get to stay  too, as long as it was heavily disclaimed?

And, as I've wondered before, who's more dangerous, a 400-pound guy in a basement, the Russian intelligence machine,  the Chinese government  picking pro-Trump industries for tariffs, or the president himself?  For example, here's just one of the president's many actions on Twitter today:

That's right - the president of the United States retweeted this picture today.  #MAGAMA, if you know what I mean.

Also today, NPR reported that enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans is down some 400,000 people in the first 17 days this year compared to last year. Also down this year? Spending by the feds on support for enrollees in the plans.  In 2016, $63 million was spent on funding for navigators, the people who help others, in person, find a plan and get enrolled. Last year, it was $36M, and this year? $10M.

Now, we can somewhat logically guess that some of the decrease in enrollment is because of the lower unemployment rate; after all, most of us get our insurance through our employers not through healthcare.gov, the federal exchange. But it's hard not wondering how much further the Trump administration will go to 'repeal' the ACA by continually drying up the funding. You know, like they  might do with the Mueller investigation...

Finally today, I can't help wondering whether the speech by Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, was driven at least in part by the president's treatment of Powell and not only by the collective thinking of the central bankers. From this article on The Street,

Prior to Powell's appearance, Donald Trump criticized him and the Fed in an interview with the Washington Post in which he accused the central bank of pushing US stocks lower and triggering a decision by General Motors Co. to shutter five plants in North America and two additional plants outside North America, and cut 15% of its salaried workforce. 

Trump  told the Post in an interview that he wasn't "even a little bit happy with my selection" of Powell to head the Federal Reserve, adding that the Fed's current stance on interest rates was "way off base." Trump's remarks followed a similar interview with The Wall Street Journal in which he accused the central bank of being a "bigger problem than China."

Now, maybe Powell is another Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, a guy who will continue to do his thing in spite of the obvious attempts at interference from his boss. But at the end of September, Powell suggested our low interest rates was no longer necessary, suggesting that rates would continue to rise in the near future. I don't pretend to understand this stuff, but the timing of this change, which delighted the market today, is interesting. 

And one thing we won't have to wonder about much is how soon the president will being tweeting about the stock market again.

There's more out there we could focus on -- what's on your list, I wonder?

OrangeVerse XXXVII: Giving Thanks

As he did last year, the president spent some quality time on the phone with members of the various branches of the military for Thanksgiving. 

And as I did last year, I found poetry in his words, although in the spirit of the season, I'm offering only one excerpt this time around.

Perhaps the rest of it will pop up in a different poetry reading; we'll see.

What are you most thankful, Mr. president?

For having a great family

and for having made 

a tremendous difference in this country.

I've made a tremendous difference

in the country.

This country is so much stronger now

than it was when I took office,

that you 

wouldn't

believe it.

And - I mean,

you see it,

but so much stronger

that people can't

even believe it.

When I see foreign leaders

they say,

"we cannot believe

the difference in strength

between the United States

now and the

United States

two years ago.

Made
a lot

of progress.

Thank you very much.

Sunday School 11/25/18

I spent some time with the gang on Face the Nation this morning.

Joining Margaret Brennan were lame duck House Benghazi Hunter Troy Gowdy (R-SC), Maine's Independent Senator Angus King, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-D-DS-S-OS). Here's what was on their minds.

Gowdy spoke about the subpoena issued to former FBI Director James Comey inviting him to a closed-door session and Comey's objection to that, due to the selective leaking that occurs. Gowdy himself had previously noted that Congressional investigations "leak like the Gossip Girls" and Brennan wanted to know whether Comey was right to object to the closed-door hearing.

You know, Margaret, I don't get a chance to say this very often, but I do think Jim Comey is right. Leaks are counter productive whether Jim Comey is doing it, the FBI is doing it or Congress is doing it... 

But the remedy is not a public hearing, Gowdy said; it's videotaping closed door hearings and releasing the video and transcript to the public after removing anything classified. He also noted that

...people act differently where there aren't cameras in the room. Trust me when I say that. 

To which I say, by all means, trust him when he says that.  I mean, really - trust him when he says that.

He also talked about Ivanka's emails (we need to ensure the Presidential Records Act is being followed) and about the politicization of the judiciary. I do have to agree with him that politicians, pundits and the media in general label the SCOTUS justices, either on ideology or on who appointed them and that

I wish everyone would stop, including the media, referring to judges based on who put them in office.

King was there to talk about the military being on the border, what they can and can't do because of posse comitatus restrictions on soldiers acting in a law enforcement role, and that the Armed Services Committee would like to get some questions answered. And, he talked about the administration's response to the CIA's report on murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Well, my first response to that is the CIA doesn't do 'feelings.' They do assessments and they do assessments based on intelligence from all sources... I cannot talk about what happened in (the CIA) briefing... And you know we're not going to find an email that says "don't forget the bone saw" but it was pretty clear...

To everyone but the president, I guess.

Sanders was there, ostensibly to talk about his book, but Brennan asked about other things, including the post-Thanksgiving Friday afternoon drop of the administration's dire climate change report. Sanders noted how Americans need to come together and move away from fossil fuels towards sustainable and renewable energy sources That would drive jobs, he says, and show leadership to the world, as well as leaving a healthier planet for future generations.

Brennan also questioned him about his call for Dems "to launch a kind of new contract with America" but with left-leaning provisions. She wondered whether it was a legislative agenda or a platform for his presidential run in 2020.

It's a legislative agenda, Margaret...back in 1994 Newt Gingrich, who I disagree with on everything, really had a bold right wing agenda, and I think we should learn from that. This is what the American people want. And we should do it. 

What we want, he said, is a living wage (he thinks fifteen bucks an hour), pay equity for women; Medicare for all; tuition free public colleges and universities; and dealing with climate change, our broken criminal justice system and immigration reform.

And the question is whether Congress has the guts to stand up to the big money interests who want more tax breaks for the rich, who want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Or we stand up for the shrinking middle class and we demand a government that represents all of us and legislation which represents the working families of this country.

Brennan's pundit panel was unanimous that while Sanders says this is a legislative agenda, he's definitely running in 2020. They also agreed that his path to victory will be difficult, even if they didn't fully agree on the reasons why.

See you around campus.

What's a Charitable Heart to Do?

I have found that, among its other benefits, 

giving liberates the soul of the giver. 

~Maya Angelou

Lots of folks give generously of their time or money throughout the year, but this is the particular 'season of giving' that inspires many folks to jump in and give, or give even more than usual, to help others.

Truth be told, it's almost impossible not to hear opportunity knocking, whether it's something you get in the mail, a personal appeal such as the Salvation Army bell ringers, or an 'add this coupon' solicitation at the grocery store checkout. And don't forget television commercials, and newspaper ads (yes, I still read the newspaper).  The hardest to avoid? The multitude of opportunities that bombard us on social media. 

You know the ones: fundraising for national events such as hurricanes and wildfires, which are sadly all too frequent lately; or medical charities like St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, dozens of cancer-related organizations, Planned Parenthood, and the like; animal rescue groups; and of course, many groups that devote their time and resources to active duty military and veterans. There is literally a charity for every cause imaginable, and for some that are unimaginable. 

And what could be wrong with these? A couple of things come to mind, first and foremost being the possibility that what we're seeing may be a scam. We've seen the headlines, right? Below are two from my neck of the woods:

• Police: Parents faked son's cancer to get donations
• Former charity CEO sentenced to prison
  

Some people will do anything to help themselves; other people will do anything to help others, including accidentally sharing fake or outdated information on social media, with the best of intentions. One share becomes five, becomes twenty, becomes fifty - and that's just the start of it. The outcome can be that people possessing a charitable heart end up doing something that won't fulfill their intentions - and that stinks.

How do you know if your desire to do good will result in good being done? Here are some quick options that might cost a bit of time, but will save in the end:

• Fact-check the information. Snopes.com and similar sites are not perfect, but if you enter a few keywords, you're apt to get a sense as to whether something is on the up and up, or if it's outdated information, which is more often the case.
• Look up the sponsoring charity on Facebook; often they'll have information about fundraising or other campaigns they are doing, as well as explanations for why they're not doing something you might see on social media. Check their other social media sites as well.
• Use one of the charity rating sites (CharityWatch, Charity Navigator, and similar) to learn more about the charity; be sure to check for any donor alerts or articles about the charity.

It's hard to escape Black Friday and Cyber Monday, with all of the fanfare, news stories, projections, and all of that. And of course, there's Small Business Saturday, too, designed to get people into the web and bricks-and-mortar doors of small companies.

Maybe a little less popular is Giving Tuesday, but it's a great opportunity to make a difference. On the website, you can search for local or national charities, pick a favorite, and make your donation. In some cases, donations might be matched, so keep your eyes peeled.

A few years back, I made the decision to support local charities instead of national organizations; keeping my charitable dollars local just makes more sense to me, especially when the national charities have so much already, have celebrity support, telethons, infomercials, etc. Meanwhile, local nonprofits sometimes struggle to keep critical programs alive - not just now, but throughout the year. 

If you want to optimize your giving to your desired charity, whether it's local or national, here are some additional things you might consider:

• If you're a PayPal user, consider the PayPal Giving Fund, which allows you to donate from your PayPal account directly to your favorite charity's PayPal account, without any fees. This is available year-round. 
• Reach out to charities in your own backyard to find out what they need, if they're running any campaigns, and so on. If you're not familiar with local organizations, try your United Way website, or go to Great Nonprofits to find some; you can filter by location, issue/cause, and rating. 
• Consider adding 3% to donations you make online to charities (some will ask you if you want to do this), which allows you to pay the fees and your charity to get the full value of your donation.
• If your charity offers a thank-you gift in return for your donation, look for the option to refuse it. This may seem like a small thing, but if everyone did that, the charity might be able to reduce its fundraising costs and use more of your money for the programs you want to support.

So, back to our central question - what's a charitable heart to do? 

Liberate your soul. Give freely to organizations and causes that matter to you, using trusted donation mechanisms. Don't be afraid to trust, but verify, even if it makes you feel 'judgy.'

While monetary donations are always welcomed, and sometimes preferred, 'giving freely' includes giving your time, offering your skills, or parting with your no-longer-needed, gently used clothing, furniture, or home goods. It's giving blood - or even your old car. Here's some info on car donations from the NY AG's office; check with similar agencies where you are.

Do as much good as you can, because all donations matter. Large or small, recurring or one-time, local or national - they all matter. 

Sunday School 11/18/18 (pt 4)

In the final part of the president's interview with Chris Wallace, we learn about his toughest decision, his relationship with the military, and how he ranks his own performance, which I'm saving for last.    The first three parts of the interview are available here, here and here.

Wallace asked Trump about term limits. The question is a piece of work:

Can you envision a situation - you talk about six more years. Can you envision a situation well into your second term where you think you're so good for the country and so essential to the progress of the country that you would try and amend the Constitution so you could serve a third time?

Fortunately, Trump didn't take the bait.

No, no. .. Just won't happen, it's not -- I think the eight-year limit is a good thing, not a bad thing.

On the Veterans Day weekend debacles, including Trump's insistence that it was the Secret Service that prevented him from going to the first cemetery, not the weather, which came up previously in the interview as well.

Wallace did not ask why Trump did not join his fellow world leaders for the trip to the Arc de Triomphe; he and Putin both arrived separately. It reminded me of the time Trump rode behind as the other leaders walked, together, at the G7 summit in Italy. He did ask why Trump failed to go to Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day.

I should have done that, I was extremely busy on calls for the country. We did a lot of calling as you know...I probably - you know, in retrospect, I should have and I did last year and I will virtually every year.

He did not do it last year either - he was out of the country, but what's another lie?

But we had come in very late at night and I had just left, literally, the American Cemetery in Paris and I probably assumed that was fine and I was extremely busy because of affairs of state - doing other things. But I would have - I would have done it. 

OK, sure. Calls and affairs of state and other things.  Notably, there are no readouts of any Veterans Day calls on the White House website, for what it's worth.

On why he hasn't visited our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Well, I think you will see that happen. There are things that are being planned. We don't want to talk about it because of - obviously because of security reasons and everything else. But there are things that are being planned. As you know I was very much opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it was a tremendous mistake, should have never happened. 

I don't think anybody's been more with the military than I have, as a president. In terms of funding, in terms of all of the things I've been able to get them, including the vets. I don't think anybody's done more than me. 

I've had an unbelievably busy schedule and I will be doing it. On top of which you have these phony witch hunts. On top of which - I mean, we've just been very busy. But I will be doing that. '

What an incredibly insensitive thing for the Commander-in-Chief to say, don't you think? Especially when one looks at his unbelievably busy schedule aligned with his own words to us before he was elected.

• I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf. (Trump statement, August 2016) 
• Trump Has Spent 150 Days, or 25% of His Presidency at Trump Golf Clubs (August 2018 Newsweek headline)
• Trump has visited a Trump property or held a rally on more than half of the days in the past three months (September 2018 Washington Post article)

Why I would have loved for a follow up question - you know a, "what, do you think I'm stupid?" or something, but instead Wallace switched gears, telling Trump that Republicans who like what he's doing but dislike that he's so divisive.

I think if I was a, you know, more modified, more moderate in that sense, I don't think I would have done half of the things that I was able to get completed. With that being said, other than you have to have a certain ability to fight back and as you know, people have - you know, they take strong stance on me both ways, you know, love and hate. I'd like to see it a little bit, maybe, right down the middle.

But tone is something that is important to me. But a lot of times you can't practice tone because you have people coming at you so hard that if you don't fight back in a somewhat vigorous way, you're not going to win. And we have to win. This country has to win.

We have a lot of victories coming and I think if I - if I go too low-key, we're not going to have those victories.

Now, mind you, Wallace posed his question after talking about Trump's negative comments about Mia Love, April Ryan, Yamiche Alcindor and Abby Phillip. I wasn't sure that being victorious over a Republican Senator and three reporters, all women of color, was so important to our country, were you?

Wallace also asked Trump about his toughest decision as president; Trump said North Korea, and that he's got a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, even though, Wallace asked, that they might still be working on nukes?

Yes, Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. I don't believe that, I don't. And you know, could. And which is - if it  - if that's the way it goes, that's the way it goes. You know, I go with the way we have to go. But so far, it's been good. We have a good relationship. We made, I think, some great decisions for the - for the people of this country.

And I do, you know, I put America first and other countries should put themselves first. It's not like we're  - we should put - and everybody else should be second to us. No, other countries are proud of their countries and their leaders should put their countries first. But we were putting our country in many cases last. We were more worried about the world that we were worried about the United States. That's not going to happen with me. 

Note again his disregard for the United States intelligence community: maybe it was Russia, maybe it was somebody else. Maybe they are testing nukes, maybe they aren't. Maybe it was the Crown Prince, maybe it wasn't.

Maybe he believes the experts, maybe he doesn't.

Maybe he understands that disagreeing with the sum total of our best and brightest intelligence folks shows us as untrustworthy to our allies, maybe he doesn't.

The final exchange we'll look at between the two of them is this one:

CW: Where do you rank yourself in the pantheon of great Presidents? There is Lincoln and Washington, there's FDR and Reagan. Do you make the top 10? 

Trump: I think I'm doing a great job. We have the best economy we've ever had.

CW: So, where do you rank yourself?

Trump: ... I would give myself, I would - look I hate to do it but I will do it. I would give myself an A+ - is that enough? Can I go higher than that? 

See you around campus, where we grade on a more realistic curve. 

Sunday School 11/18/18 (pt 3)

More of the president's interview with Chris Wallace; here are links to part one, with updates on the current state of the White House and the Russia investigation, and part two, discussing the midterms and the murder of WaPo journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In this session, Trump shares his thoughts on the media. Oh, yeah - and attacks a Navy Seal, but we'll hit that separately.

The medial first. Wallace asked about CNN's Jim Acosta, who had his pass temporarily restored, and what Trump thought about that.

But I will say this, look, nobody believes in the First Amendment more than I do and if I think somebody's acting out of sorts, I will  leave, I will say thank you very much, everybody, I appreciate you coming and I'll leave. And those reporters will not be too friendly to whoever it is that's acting up.

Of course, that belief in the First Amendment doesn't extend to protesters, or authors.

On why he bothers to call on Acosta:

Actually I like to do it but in many cases I don't. He'll stand up. He's unbelievably rude to Sarah Huckabee who's a wonderful woman, unbelievably rude. And I see that and I actually ask here the same. Why do you call on these people who are so nasty?

Because he likes to fuel the fire, of course. He also offered a solution:

I think one of the things we'll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don't have any air time, although I'll probably be sued for that and maybe win or lose it, who knows? I mean, with this stuff, you never know what's going to happen. 

In general, Wallace did his best to get Trump to understand that no presidents 'like' the media, but none have had the visceral reaction to them that Trump exhibits. Let's start with the fake news being the enemy of the people. Here are his answers strung together.

That's true. 100 percent. Not the media, I'm glad you're finally calling it correctly because they like to leave the 'fake news' -

So, the people that are supporting me in particular, they're very smart people. They're hard working, brilliant, great people. They know when the news is fake and they get angry when they see all of the fakeness that I  - frankly -  Chris, I'm calling the fake news is the enemy - it's fake, it's phony. 

On being "seen around the world as a beacon for repression" by authoritarian leaders (many of whom Trump admires),

I can't talk for other people, I can only talk for me. I will tell you - Chris I'm not talking about you - but you sometimes maybe. But I'm not talking about you. The news about me is largely phony. It's false. Even sometimes they'll say, "Sources say." There is no source, in many cases - in cases there is. But (the news about me) ninety-four percent negative.

The last word from him on this:

I am calling fake news, fake reporting, is what's tearing this country apart because people know, people like things that are happening and they're not hearing about it. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 11/18/18 (pt 2)

In part one of the president's guest lecture facilitated by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, the president was just getting warmed up, talking about how fabulous things are at the White House, and about the Mueller investigation, among other things.

Let's pick up after that, when the president talked about the horrific murder of WaPo journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi killers. Trump said he has not listened to the tape that we received from the Turkish government. There's no reason, he said, because it's a 'suffering' tape and he's been fully briefed.

Asked about his conversations with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, and whether MBS lied to him Trump's answer was, well, honestly, coming from a deal maker and an incredibly proficient liar himself, seemed pretty weak.

I don't -- I don't know. You know, who can really know? But I can say this, he's got many people now that say he had no knowledge..

Yes, he told me that he had nothing to do with it, he told me that -- I would say maybe five times at different points... as recently as a few days ago.

Wallace asked if Trump just lives with it because he needs MBS.

Well, will anybody really know? All right, will anybody really know? But he did have certainly people that were reasonable close to him and close to him that were probably involved. You saw me put on very heavy sanctions, massive sanctions on a large group of people from Saudi Arabia. But at the same time we do have an ally and I want to stick with an ally that in many ways has been very good.

Not, apparently, allies like the ones we have in Europe or North America, because those, we've been told, have been very bad, and Trump insults them and threatens them almost daily.

On the loss of 35-40 seats in the house, and Trump's reaction the day after the election that it was "almost a complete victory," Wallace was trying to get his questions answered and Trump wasn't having it.

I won the Senate, you don't mention that...

Excuse me - I won the Senate - I think they said 88 years...

Are you ready? I won the Senate and that's historic too because if you look at presidents in the White House, it's almost never happened where you wont a seat. We won -- we now have 53 as opposed to 51 and we have 53 great Senators in the US Senate. We won. That's a tremendous victory. Nobody talks about that. That's a far greater victory that it is for the other side. Number two, I wasn't on the ballot. I wasn't  - No, I said, look at me --

But I had people and you see the polls how good they are, I had people that won't vote unless I'm on the ballot, OK?  And I wasn't on the ballot. And almost everybody that I won --I think they said it was 10 out of 11. And I won against President Obama and Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama in a great state called Georgia for the governor. And it was all stacked against Brian and I was the one that went for Brian and Brian won.

Look at Florida. I went down to Florida. Rick Scott won and he won by a lot. I don't know what happened to all those votes that disappeared at the very end. And if I didn't put a spotlight on that election before it got down to 12,500 votes, he would have lost that election, OK? In my opinion he would have lost. They would have taken that election away from him. Rick Scott won Florida... 

He continued, mentioning Ron DeSantis (Florida Governor), "a wonderful man named DeWine" (Ohio governor). And then

I didn't run. I wasn't running. My name wasn't on the ballot. There are many people that think I don't like Congress, that like me a lot. I get it all the time, "Sir, I will never vote unless you were on the ballot". I get it all the time. People are saying "Sir, I will never vote unless you're on the ballot." I say "No, no, go and vote". "Well, what do you mean?" as much as I try and convince people to go vote, I'm not on the ballot.

Except we all saw the clips a vote for (her) is a vote for me, a vote for (him) is a vote for me, a vote for (everyone) is a vote for me, lather rinse repeat.

But what's especially important? Beating Barack Obama and Michelle Obama and Oprah in those Senate and gubernatorial races, and of course, pretending that losing the House was meaningless. Had he won the house and lost the Senate, you can be sure he would have been doing the same thing.

And all of those people who turned on him, the ones Wallace mentioned?

You lost in traditionally Republican suburbs, not only around liberal cities like Philadelphia and DC but also red-state big cities like Houston and Oklahoma City. You lost among suburban women. You lost among independents, and in three key states that I think you remember pretty well - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan - you lost both governor seats and the Senate seats.

They don't matter either, I guess, because he beat Obama.

See you around campus.