TGIF 1/10/20

Just like that, it's Friday again...  Ready for this week's picks for the good week/bad week picks?

Let's give the president a bit of a pat on the back - he took out a terrorist, after all. It may have been for less than honorable purposes, if this Wall Street Journal reporting is true - but he did take out a terrorist.

Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.

The administration's team that went to talk to Congress to give the details about the mission that took Soleimani out had a mixed week. Secretaries Mike Pompeo (State) and Mark Esper (Defense) were joined by Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley and CIA Director Gina Haspel were well received by most Republicans, but less so by Democrats. Here's what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had to say.

As the questions began to get tough, they walked out. There were so many important questions that they did not answer. 

At least two Rs, though, were unhappy. Rand Paul was one of them. The other, Utah Senator Mike Lee, had a good week I think, given how forcefully he responded to the briefing. Calling it "probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate," he specifically cited the administration's contention that debating or discussing the possibility of any additional military action against Iran would "be emboldening" the regime. 

One last thing on the whole terrorism issue: just today, we're learning that at the same time we successfully killed Soleimani, we unsuccessfully tried to take out another Iranian military leader in Yemen. According to this WaPo article,

On the day the US military killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad, US forces carried out another top secret mission against a senior Iranian military official in Yemen, according to US officials. 

The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran's elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four US officials familiar with the matter. 

I guess that means Shahlai had a good week? 

Who else is having a week?  Well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for one. She's moving, finally - to the relief of many in the House, as well as many of us out here in citizen land - to choose the House Managers for the Senate trial, and to get the Articles of Impeachment that were approved in mid-December sent over for the next phase. In my opinion, Pelosi's had a bad week.

• Some of her own flock were suggesting publicly it was time to get this moving;
• having no say, really, in what happens in the Senate, she was merely sitting on the sidelines as Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer fought about what the trial would look like; 
• Several senators threatened to change the Senate rules to declare this all a nothingburger if the Articles weren't sent over timely; and
• McConnell voted his support for just such a proposal.

I can only guess that Pelosi was hoping the trial would still be going on come February when Trump is set to deliver his State of the Union address (need to get my drinking game board ready for that!) but instead, we're likely to have an even more emboldened and unhinged message from him. Honestly, much as I hate to say it, that bastage McConnell had another 'better than his opponent' week - and that makes two in a row.

And, from the Democrats on the campaign trail:

• Marianne Williamson, who back in December let her campaign staff go, today announced she was ending her campaign for President. It was hard to know she was still in the race, since she's not been on the debate stage and apparently hasn't been saying anything overly noteworthy out on the hustings. It's probably a good week for her, I think.
• That guy from Vermont is now leading likely caucus-goers in first place votes, coming in at 20%, with Elizabeth Warren (17%), Mayor Pete Buttigieg (16%) and Papa Joe Biden (15%) in results from the Des Moines Register poll released this evening. 
• Mayor Pete also picked up an endorsement this week, from Rep. Anthony Brown of Maryland; Brown is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

There's always more, but we'll leave it here for this week.

Email of the Week (v5)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

Since last week, I've gotten another 94 emails from the six candidates I'm following: Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, that guy from Vermont, Andrew Yang, Mayor Pete, and Elizabeth Warren. The latter two, with 26 and 22 emails, respectively, accounted for more than half this week's total.

For the most part, the candidates were all about their Q4 fundraising - or their opponents' Q4 fundraising, as the case may be, and all about caucusing in Iowa, less than a month away now.  They're buying ads, they're getting endorsements, they're getting positive press, want to give me stickers, and want me to give them my opinions. All of that made it hard for me to find an email of the week, until boom - there it was. The email that was to the point, was unique, spoke to people in simple terms, and left no questions about what the candidate was up to.

And so, without further a-doobie, here's our coveted Email of the Week.

Quite frankly, our criminalization of cannabis is stupid and racist. 

Cannabis has been legalized in 33 states and the District of Columbia. It is short-sighted and illogical that it is still considered a controlled substance by U.S. federal law.

What's worse is that thousands of Americans are in jail for marijuana-related offenses, particularly people of color.

If you agree that we should proceed with full legalization of marijuana and pardon those in jail for nonviolent marijuana-related offenses, add your name to our petition:

ADD YOUR NAME

As president, Andrew Yang will:

Support the full legalization of marijuana at the federal level and remove it from the controlled substances list. 

Expunge the federal convictions of all marijuana-related use or possession offenses. 

Identify non-violent drug offenders for probation and potential early release.  

Stand with Andrew by adding your name to this petition.

Let’s keep putting Humanity First,

Team Yang

What is it they used to say, smoke 'em if you've got 'em?

Quick Takes (v47): Billionaires Buying Elections?

Quick Takes

Catchy headline, right?  Those big bad billionaires and their money making a mess of things?  Well, maybe, and maybe not. Let's take a look.

First, the 'maybe' or, more correctly, the 'actual.' This NY Post article from late December caught my eye, which shouldn't surprise regular readers who know how I feel about political advertising.

The article was about the impact that spending by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was having on ad rates for all of the candidates, including Bloomberg.

He’s a one-man stimulus package! 

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending so much money on television spots across the country that it’s causing ad rates to soar, a new analysis shows. 

That's right - Bloomberg's spending has resulted in a 22% increase in a "typical TV market," the article says, pointing to an analysis by Advertising Analytics. As a for instance, 

Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added. This is partially attributable to Bloomberg’s $1 [million] buy increasing the political spending in the market tenfold. This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of any market. 

And, the article noted that Bloomberg is "shelling out an average of $25.5 million a week" on ads since he entered the race in November, according to the Post's research. At that pace, Bloomberg will spend over $350M before the New York primary in late April; he could spend over $1B if he gets the nod to take on Trump, according to the experts. And, 

“With no end in sight for his ad blitz, we will continue to collect data on the way Bloomberg’s spending affects rates in markets across the country,” the analysis said.There’s no historical comparison to Bloomberg’s early ad spending, said John Link, Advertising Analytics vice president of sales and marketing. 

So then: it's clear that Bloomberg's spending is having an influence - the question is, does it have the hoped-for influence, the kind that swings voters from the undecided column or from another candidate's column, to Bloomberg's? 

That's where the 'maybe not' part comes in.

According to this end-of-December article from Reason.com, 

Bloomberg, Steyer Showing Money Can't Buy Elections After Failed $200 Million Ad Blitz

The two Democratic billionaires have spent a combined $200 million on campaign ads already. That doesn't mean much to them, but the opportunity costs are staggering.

The article, by Eric Boehm, noted that Bloomberg and fellow billionaire candidate Tom Steyer have "launched themselves all the way to... the middle tier of the Democratic primary field" even though together they've spent some $200M on television ads, most of it by Bloomberg. That vastly overshadows the piddly amounts spent by the other candidates, none of whom has spent more than $18M according to a Politico report Boehm cites in his article.

And Boehm suggests that the polling performance of both Steyer, who's been on the stage in the past few debates and Bloomberg, who doesn't seem to care about the debates at all, may disprove the cry from other candidates that the billionaires are going to buy the election. 

Further, trying to buy  a nomination may not be the best way to go about driving change.

...the two billionaire candidates are providing a real-world lesson about opportunity costs by setting fire to their huge campaign war chests. They've got the means to change the world but getting involved in politics isn't the best way to do it.

It's early yet - the first votes won't happen until early February, and Bloomberg is not even paying attention to the early states, focusing instead on the Super Tuesday states where there are a boatload of delegates up for grabs, but if things hold true, Boehm may be right when he says that

Yes, it's certainly true that money can buy access and influence in the political process. But when it comes to campaigns, money is only as good as the results it can produce...

And if they can't buy the election, couldn't these guys do more by not running for president?

Focusing on comments made by Tom Steyer, Boehm points out that "you don't need to be president to create jobs" but you need capital to do it - which the billionaires have. And he notes that the private sector, not government, will likely be the impetus for the new ideas and products that we'll need to really tackle the climate crisis, which is Steyer's number one priority. And, Steyer's in a position to support the companies that will be on the cutting edge of that innovation - a better way to burn through cash, it seems, than buying political ads.

Similarly, he points to opportunities Bloomberg has to spend his money on things like "a $100 million campaign to inform Americans about health eating" instead of "the Big Gulp ban President Bloomberg would likely try to sign."

Finally, Boehm makes reference to what I think is a primarily a Sanders push to severely restrict how the Democratic National Committee can raise money (with no impact on its GOP counterpart) and implement public funding for federal elections and national conventions, among other things - and the irony of what that would really mean for other billionaire Mikes and billionaire Toms.

It's also worth noting that the post-Citizens United world that Democrats who actually stand a chance of being elected president want to build would be a place where self-funding billionaire candidates would enjoy a relatively easier path to electoral success. By trying to reduce everyone else's ability to speak, Democrats would let the future Bloombergs and Steyers dominate the airwaves even more than they do now. And those guys could use all the help they can get, it seems.

Definitely something to think about.

As an aside, it's also worth remembering that, back in 2008, Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to refuse federal funding - before the Citizen's United decision truly opened the floodgates. And, he also was the guy who got rid of public financing for national conventions. Why? Because there was so much money in the system already, there were plenty of creative ways to get even more money into it, including campaigns to attract small donors,  and, honestly, because the Dems suck at raising money compared to the Republicans.

Sunday School Extra Credit 1/5/20

This week's Extra Credit is the all-Pompeo edition, as the Secretary of  State made appearances in all of the five main classrooms. Because similar questions were asked in all classrooms, I'm just providing some of the many comment Pompeo made.

Each of the quotes is a standalone item, ostensibly in response to a question but many just to get the message out regardless of what was asked. I've italicized a few things for you, the reason for which will be clear by the end of the post.

Let's start with This Week.

We took him off the playing field... president Trump made the right decision to stop Qassem Soleimani from the terror campaign that he's been engaged in Against America, not only five years ago and 10 years ago, but on December 27th when an America was killed...the world is a safer place. We are taking the actions that we need to take to protect American interests, not only in Baghdad and in Iraq but throughout the region.

The intelligence assessment made clear that no action, allowing Soleimani to continue his plotting, his planning, his terror campaign, created more risks than taking the action that we took last week. We reduced risks.

This - this is a regime that has been acting against American for an awfully long time. And we are suffering from eight years of neglect and we're trying to push it back. We're trying to contain them.... We're trying to correct for what was the Obama administration's appeasement of Iran. And we have to - we have to do that. We have to continue to do that, or Americans will be less safe. 

...we're working diligently to execute our strategy to convince the Iranian regime to act like a normal nation. The Iranian people are demanding it. We are supporting it and we will be successful. 

And from Meet the Press:

We could see that he was continuing down this path, that there were in fact plots that he was working on that were aimed directly at significant harm to American interests throughout the region, not just in Iraq. 

We suffered from eight years of Iranian support from America. We gave them billions of dollars. We gave them resources. We allowed countries to trade with them, to build up there economies. What we are now having to correct for is the enormous economic activity that took place during this Iranian nuclear deal that President Trump rightly got out of in May 2018. It's taken a little bit of time, and it will continue to take time, but we are going to restore deterrence. We just had a big hill to climb up, Chuck. We've seen hundreds of thousands of people killed in Syria. Millions have to depart the region. We've seen...all of these terrorist organizations, the Shi'a militias, the Shi'a militias that we are now challenged to push back against today, all underwritten by American policy during the Obama administration....

We want the regime to change its behavior. And ultimately, the leadership in Iran will be determined by the Iranian people. We saw the protest. I am confident we will continue to see protests. They weren't protesting against America. They weren't protesting saying, "Death to America." They were demanding that the Iranian leadership behave in a way that takes care of the Iranian people. 

Now, from State of the Union:

...we're trying to restore deterrence that, frankly, is a need that results directly from the fact that the previous administration left us in a terrible place with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Team Obama appeased Iran, and it led to Shia militias with money, Hams, the PIJ, hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed by Soleimani himself. 

We - we have provided them clear guidance about what it is we have as an expectation. We have worked with them. We tried to have conversations with them. It is important that they understand that American will no longer behave the way it did during the Obama-Biden administration. We will no longer appease. We will no longer tolerate. 

There are clearly actors that go beyond Soleimani. We're still doing the work we're doing. And that's why we're still preparing. That's why we're still flowing forces to the region. That's why we're doing all the things we're doing, building our our coalition, making sure our partners are defending our embassies and diplomatic facilities and military installations all throughout the region. 

We are setting the conditions for a successful and safe America, prosperous American at home, secure America abroad.  

And from Face The Nation:

We've been under threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran since at least 2015 when the previous administration made the mistake of entering that horrific nuclear deal and gave money and resources to this regime.

To take a terrorist off the battlefield does not increase the risk of terror. The risk of terror is increased by appeasement. That's what the Obama - Obama-Biden administration did. It's what president Trump will never do, Margaret. 

The instability they have created for our ally Israel, for our partners, the Saudis, our friends, the Emiratis, all of these countries, Soleimani and his band of Merry Brothers have been a negative influence in the region for an awfully long time.

We understand the obligation to share with the American people why it is we're taking the actions we can and we will do so. (p)resident Trump has done so in tweets. I've done so in messages. I'm sitting here with you today articulating why it is in America's best interest, the action we took. 

There - there remains enormous sets of risks in the region and America's preparing for each and every one of them. That includes not only the threats from the proxy militias in Iraq, but in the region more broadly along every victor, including cyber.

And finally from Fox News Sunday:

We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there to fight the counter-terror campaign. And we'll continue to do all the things we need to do to keep America safe. 

So, we'll have to take a look at what we do when the Iraqi leadership and government makes a decision, but the American people should know we'll make the right decision. We will take actions that, frankly, the previous administration refused to take to do just that. 

Well, Chris, the American people know that there's a strategy. There's a strategy that has been several years in the making now, that we've been working on. It's been a diplomatic strategy. It's been an economic strategy. You're now seeing elements of the military strategy...We made clear that this cost would be brought home to them, to the leadership regime in Iran, and that we would raise costs. We wouldn't just attack their asymmetric efforts, we would response in a way that imposes costs on the decision-makers who are putting American lives at risk. 

Remember where we came in. In 2015, the Obama-Biden administration essentially handed power to the Iranian leadership and acted as a quasi-ally of theirs, by underwriting them -- underwriting the very malicious - that killed Americans.

Endless wars are the direct result of weakness, and president Trump will never let that happen. We're going to get it right. We're going to get the force posture right. We're going to get our facilities as hardened as we can possibly get them, to defend against what Iran may potentially do. 

The Obama administration created enormous risks to the American people in Iran. This administration is working to reduce that risk. 

Here's my take on all of this:

• The question on whether there was, or still is, any imminent threat to America or Americans beyond the risk that exists on any given day was asked, in some way or another (even multiple times in multiple ways), and it was never answered.
• The number of times Pompeo managed to work in references to the Obama administration was breathtaking. It seemed he was trying to make the point that us attacking another country's leader was the fault of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, not a conscientious decision on the part of the current administration.
• That point is noteworthy because, at the same time they're having us believe that every action taken is a direct result of 'appeasement' on the part of the previous Administration, they are telling us that Soleimani has been a threat to America, Americans, and our interests for decades - plural. After all, Soleimani had been in charge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds force since the late 1990's. But, of course, nothing bad happened before November 2008, as we know.

I'm trying to be less cynical in 2020 - and this classroom experience seems designed to be an early test of my intention.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/5/20

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was all over the place this morning, with appearances in all of the Sunday classrooms. Also making appearances? Senator Elizabeth Warren (Meet the Press) and both Warren and Pete Buttigieg  on CNN's State of the Union.

Because I've committed to highlighting the candidates for the Dem nomination when they appear, we'll look at Warren and Buttigieg here, and save Pompeo for this week's Extra Credit report.

First up, Warren and Chuck Todd; here are some highlights.

• Warren says we're not safer because Soleimani was killed, rather, we're "much closer to the edge of war" and wonders "Why now? Why not a month ago? Why not a month from now?" She also sees similarities between this latest action and how the administration responded to the Ukraine situation, which was all about Donald Trump acting in his own best interests. And how we need to know that's now what happened here. 
• On her support for the USMCA, what's called NAFTA 2.0, which she previously opposed, she said the "Democrats got in and negotiated a very different deal than we had a year ago" even as she said it wasn't a "great arrangement," noting that workers and farmers have been hurt by the Trump administration and need support.
• In response to a question on how voters should see her backing away a little from her original Medicare for All plan and from USMCA/NAFTA, she spoke about being "practical" so that we can get relief to farmers and workers, and then take action as president, negotiating a different deal, one that 'raises labor standards around the world" among other things. Similarly on health care, she'd do what she was allowed to do without Congressional approval, including lowering drugs costs and supporting the Affordable Care Act. She "wants to get as much relief to as many people as quickly as we can," saying that "ought to be the job of the President of the United States." Then she can move with Congress on M4A. 

Moving over to CNN's State of the Union, Warren's discussion with Jake Tapper was pretty similar to what she said on MTP; here are a few things that were different.

• Tapper asked her "as president, would you not prioritize the US military killing the leaders of the organizations designated terrorist organizations," a question she did not answer; instead she reiterated the comments made earlier with Todd.
• He asked how she'd "counter the argument" Joe Biden is making, that people are supporting, that he's the best candidate from a foreign policy perspective. She didn't really come close to answering that one either, speaking in generalities about having to get out of the Middle East, working with our allies, dealing with China and Russia and climate change - but not a word on her experience compared to Biden. 
• On impeachment and general criticism from Sen. Dick Durbin about senators not being impartial, Warren talked about the separation of powers, and the administration's failure to release any information that's been requested, noting "Boy, that tells me this is someone who has violated the law. And this is someone who needs to be accountable. No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States, and that is what impeachment is about."

And here are highlights from Tapper's interview with Mayor Pete. 

• He said that "just because Soleimani deserved" what he got, it doesn't mean that taking him out was the right strategic decision, and that we deserve more information from the administration on the consequences for Americans in the Middle East and around the world. He also said as Commander in Chief he "would never hesitate to use force if it was necessary" to protect American lives, but doing so "has to be better than the alternative." 
• On the Biden/foreign policy question. Mayor Pete said his own judgment is informed by his military service, and understanding how much is on the line when we ask our troops to go and carry out our foreign policy. He also reminded Tapper of the generational thing, that "you could be old enough to enlist...to be on one of those planes going to Kuwait right now, and not have been alive when 9/11 happened." 
• As to Tapper's saying Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's qualifications  are similar to his own, Buttigieg pointed to the support he's gotten from "over 200 very well-respected civilian and military former national security officials, ranging from a former deputy director of the CIA to a former National Security Advisor to a former Secretary of the Navy." 
• Regarding Senator Warren's attacks that he's a favorite of billionaires and corporate donors, and that he's all about what's impossible, he said that he's "running based on what's possible..." and on what "will actually unify and not polarize more of the American people." And, basically, if you don't understand that, maybe you need to learn more about his policies.
• Again, staying with Warren's attacks, Tapper asked if Buttigieg would match her commitment to not appoint any high-dollar donors as ambassadors. Anyone he appoints "will be there on their merits, and will be neither qualified or disqualified based on the idea that they supported and believed in my campaign."
• And the last attack, regarding a suggestion by Sen. Amy Klobuchar that Mayor Pete lost his only statewide race by 25 points, so how can he win Michigan? He said, he's a Midwesterner  "who has executive experience building an administration, leading a government, guiding a population, in addition to" his military and other experiences. 
• And, he added that one thing most presidents and nominees have in common "is losing an election or two. I was under no illusion what I was up against the first time I ran as an unknown figure in 2010, one of the biggest Republican years in history" in his very conservative state. He added, "I have learned as much from the races and the moments in life that didn't go my way as I have from the ones that did." He's a better candidate, he said, and would be a better president, too, because of that. 

See you around campus - and check back for the Pompeo Extra Credit, which should be fun.

In Case You Missed It (v17)

Time for your recap of this week's posts, in case you missed any of them.

Sunday School brought a rare interview with Andrew Yang. one of the now 12 Democrats and one independent still in the race to face Donald Trump in November. Yang sat down with Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week, and this comment from the December debate was front and center, for one reason, but it should have been for two.

Why am I the lone candidate of color on this stage? Fewer than 5% of Americans donate to political campaigns. Do you know what you need to donate to political campaigns? Disposable income. I guarantee if we had a Freedom Dividend of $1000 a month, I would not be the only candidate of color on this stage tonight. 

There was a special edition of MTP Sunday; Chuck Todd and his guests talked about truth, lies, social media, Russia, Trump, Ukraine, and more, all focused on our 'post-truth' society, which was the focus of this week's Sunday School Extra Credit post. In the first segment, we heard from Martin Baron (exec editor of the WaPo) and Dean Baquet (exec editor of the NYT). Among the topics they discussed was why politicians sometimes lie, and the role of journalist when they do. Take a look. 

I'm not convinced that people want to be lied to. I think people want to be comforted. And I think politicians sometimes say comforting things to them, and our job is to jump into the breach and jump into those conversations, to do the deep reporting, to say "look, I'm sorry. What I have to say may be uncomfortable. But that think you just heard that made you feel good is a lie." And I think that's our job. 

There was so much in that MTP show that I had to do a Sidebar on it, mostly because there were so many questions that were not asked, not answered, or both. Here's one example.

The role of the 'media star' - the Sunday Show and cable show hosts, the nightly news anchors are just some examples. This is more of a TV thing than a print thing, but there are media stars in print, too. The oversized personae of these folks actually gets in the way of the news they're reporting, or the conversation we're supposed to be learning from. Case in point? Chuck Todd, again, and his conversation with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in which Todd fought harder than ever before - on a question about Johnson 'wincing' at something. What was the point of that battle, and all the kudos he received? 

In this 'end of year' entry, I looked at the Top Posts of 2019.  The posts covered Syracuse, Albany, Anywhere, just like I say in the blog Pages.

The top post was news in January from The Update Desk about the Allyn Family Foundation (AFF) and a new, mixed-use property it's developing in the city of Syracuse, which will house a food hall and market, office space for not-for-profit organizations, and residential units.

The post talked about a naming contest, what voters thought of the choices, and what happened when that feedback was shared. In the end, I noted,

The post was about a foundation, and a building, and a name - but it was more about the value of listening and responding to constituents, something that we often wish happened more - and something the majority of us can learn to do better. 

This past Thursday Julian Castro suspended his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sadly,

Like Kamala Harris before him, Castro never really got traction where it mattered - from the media. That lack of traction translated to poor fundraising, which translated to poor polling. Together, the fundraising and polling led to missed debates, which fueled further lack of interest from the media.

His announcement to supporters and subscribers earned him the coveted Email of the Week - here's an excerpt.

We traveled to communities not typically visited by presidential candidates to shine a light on important issues. We walked the storm drain tunnels beneath the Las Vegas strip where folks experiencing homelessness take shelter. We crossed the border to Matamoros, Mexico to see the effects of Trump’s immigration policy. We met with people living in a trailer park in Waukee, Iowa, after a corporate landlord jacked up their rent.

He promised to stay involved, and I hope he does.

And, then, almost before I knew it, it was TGIF time, and not surprisingly, a couple of our usual suspects were on the bad week list. Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer traded barbs, with McConnell getting the best of it.

Both spoke to an empty Senate chamber today, with the former saying

We are content to continue the ordinary business of the Senate while House Democrats continue to flounder. For now. If they ever muster the courage to stand behind their slapdash work product and transmit their articles to the Senate, it will then be time for the United States Senate to fulfill our founding purpose.

Not only that, but McConnell reminded posterity of Things Chuck Schumer Said back in the time of the Clinton impeachment.

He voted against the articles both in the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor. And a major part of his Senate campaign that year - listen to this - was literally promising New Yorkers in advance that he would vote to acquit President Clinton.

Yeah, fun times with McConnell, always.

And finally, today, I took a look at another medical care case out of Texas, where the laws of the state sometimes seem to get in the way of doctors, of patients and their families, and embroil everyone in big ethical issues - whether it's who treats who, or who decides who gets treated. The current case, involving an 11-month-old child, is heartbreaking on multiple levels, leaving one medical ethicist to point out that

These cases get framed as political battles, when in fact there's a tragedy at the heart of the case that could pull people together. 

 As can so many things...

So there you have it -- the week in a nutshell. If you don't want to miss them as they happen, you can subscribe to posts by entering your email in the 'Instant Gratification' box at the top of the right sidebar.

Another Heartbreaking Case from Texas

Health care is a very touchy subject under the best of circumstances - ask any politician who's had to vote on giving or taking away any kind of health care itself, or, more often, giving or taking away health insurance. Ask a judge who has to rule on any case related to either health care or health insurance - there's no fun there, as we've seen. 

For folks in Texas, though, the issue seems even more fraught than usual - again. Here's some history on the twisting, turning journey that can be health care in the Lone Star State. 

In April of last year, I posted about the host of bills before the Texas legislature that would allow people with deeply held beliefs to not provide care to LGBTQ Texans. Here's a snippet.

...would allow state-licensed professionals to refuse to serve LGBTQ people if they cite their religion has advanced out of committee in the Texas senate.  Senate Bill 17 would prevent state licensing agencies from denying or revoking licenses from professionals - including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and even barbers - if they claim to be following a "sincerely held religious belief."

I noted that, while the bill protected some folks from having to violate their beliefs, that protection didn't extend to everyone.

It's OK though - apparently law enforcement officers have to keep their religious beliefs in check, and even doctors will have to set their beliefs aside for "life-or-death" situations.

And remember, the same Texas that wants to make all of these discriminatory protections for some of their residents and against others, is the Texas that already discriminates against the moral convictions of people, based I guess on the deeply held beliefs of the state, not even the beliefs of an actual person.

That's right: Texas already discriminates against people who want to control health care decisions for family members - but they can't do that if the patient is pregnant. Here's a snippet from my post in 2014 on the horrific case of the Munoz family. 

Marlise Munoz, a mother in her 30's and an EMT, was found unresponsive by her husband Erick, who's also an EMT. He did what he could to try and revive her, as did folks at the hospital, but ultimately the were unsuccessful and Marlise has been on life support since November 26^th, after suffering what doctors believe was a pulmonary embolism. She's being kept alive mechanically, even though her husband has indicated that he and his wife had specifically discussed not wanting to be kept alive on machines; her parents agree. 

And yet, there she lies, brainwaves flat, machine-supported. 

Why? Because Mrs. Munoz was pregnant – 14 weeks at the time of her collapse, now nineteen weeks or so - and under Texas law, life support cannot be withdrawn from a pregnant person. 

That case was the subject of a documentary, 62 Days, covering the family's fight to change the laws that were used to wreak havoc on them. 

And now we have another Texas case full of conflict. I can't decide if this one's worse than the Munoz case, or if it's merely just as horrifying. Here's some info from the WaPo article that brought this one to my attention, about a child named Tinslee Lewis.

Inside a Texas children’s hospital, an 11-month-old girl lies paralyzed and in constant pain. She can breathe only with a ventilator. A suite of medications keeps her alive. 

Tinslee’s condition, doctors say, will never improve. 

The article also notes that every medical procedure performed "causes more suffering," even changing her diaper - and, perhaps most horrifying,

Tinslee also experiences "dying events" that require aggressive intervention two or three times per day. 

The hospital has tried to find another facility that will take her, but so far more than 20 have refused, saying they couldn't correct her condition; the hospital now wants to end life support. A judge has refused to approve an injunction  to continue her care, a decision the baby's mom, Trinity Lewis, is planning to appeal. 

The article points out that this case, like the others, goes beyond what's legal and into what's ethical - something that we - regular folks, politicians, and activists on both sides of the 'life' issue - apparently don't agree on.

Texas AG Ken Paxton argued in a letter to the court that "the Texas law that allows doctors to discontinue treatment violates patients’ constitutional right to due process." On the other hand, though, "The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and the Coalition of Texans With Disabilities, among other groups, are backing the hospital." There's also some disagreement on the part of the anti-abortion folks. 

While Texas Right to Life took Lewis’s side, the Texas Alliance for Life and the Texans for Life Coalition have said they agree with the doctors. 

Even folks in the medical ethics field are not aligned, it seems. There's a conflict between what doctors say - and how they say it - and what parents hear from the doctors, see in their child, or what they want to hear and see. The first comment below is from Charlie Camosy, a theology professor at Fordham. The second is from Ann Mongoven, associate director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University., again from the same article.

Two things get conflated here: One is the medical expertise of the doctors, in which case, they do know best. But determining whether this baby has a life that's worth living have very little to do with your medical expertise. It's an ethical question.  

They're not saying that [Tinslee's] life isn't worth living. What they're saying is, 'I am making her suffering worse, and my job is supposed to be the opposite.'

Professor Camosy leans towards letting the patient or their surrogate make the decision, rather than letting it fall to the medical experts. Mongoven pointed out that "the heart of the matter" gets obscured, no matter who makes the decision, and that

These cases get framed as political battles, when in fact there's a tragedy at the heart of the case that could pull people together. 

The tragedy would be there whether Texas had laws on the books for cases like this one, or the Munoz case from a few years ago, or that allow a practitioner to withhold services from a patient based on a 'deeply held belief'.'  The ethical questions would also be there, with or without any related laws.

But the question is, do the laws help in any way, or do they only make these situations worse? 

TGIF 1/3/20

Friday? Already?

Here are a few folks who had either a good week or a bad week, in no particular order.

NY State Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb warned folks back in December about the dangers of drinking and driving. He was charged with doing just that on New Year's Eve, after crashing his state SUV when he missed a turn that would take him home. Kolb has resigned his leadership position, but will remain in office at least for now. He's also "seeking professional help in order to heal, learn, and fully address the challenges" he and his family are facing. This, folks, is a bad week personified.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-White House) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are having a bad week - or, I should say, another bad week. Both spoke to an empty Senate chamber today, with the former saying

We are content to continue the ordinary business of the Senate while House Democrats continue to flounder. For now. If they ever muster the courage to stand behind their slapdash work product and transmit their articles to the Senate, it will then be time for the United States Senate to fulfill our founding purpose.

Not only that, but McConnell reminded posterity of Things Chuck Schumer Said back in the time of the Clinton impeachment.

He voted against the articles both in the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor. And a major part of his Senate campaign that year - listen to this - was literally promising New Yorkers in advance that he would vote to acquit President Clinton.

I had to fact check that, I did - because any time Mitch McConnell is giddy about something, I go looking for confirmation. And, yes, I found it probably the same place McConnell did -- in this CNN article from last month, which includes some history on Schumer's comments. Among the best of them was this line from a debate with Alphonse D'Amato, his opponent in 1998.

Senator D'Amato is the only person in America with no opinion on the matter. He should tell New Yorkers where he stands because his past actions show we cannot trust him to do what is fair instead of doing what is partisan. How can we trust Senator D'Amato to do the right thing on impeachment when he doesn't tell us how he eels and when time and time again he doesn't tell us the truth?

And people think that social media is bad? Heck, just roll the tape from 20 years ago - easy peasy, especially since so many of our Senators and Representatives have been around way to long.

Who else had a noteworthy week?  NY's Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, who has been releasing proposals in advance of his State of the State address. I can't tell if he's having a good week or a bad week - so status quo here in my neck of the woods.

He's up to 20 or so proposals already, including one dealing with the craft beverage industry. That proposal include getting rid of some Prohibition-era laws that are still on the books, and it also addresses the Sale of Alcohol in Movie Theaters.

With increased competition and diversification of video creating and consumption methods, movie theaters faced with competition have been investing in upgrades and advancements to the movie-going experience. While these investments are attracting new audiences, they have increased operating costs with many theaters struggling to pay for these upgrades without additional sources of revenue.

Listen, if you're a business and you're trying to fight the competition by making upgrades you cannot afford, I wonder if you've got the best business plan... maybe a consultant would be helpful? Or a generous local banker? But there's no need for that, when we've got the Sonofa Gov.

Under the Governor's proposal, adults holding tickets to movies rated PG-13 or higher could purchase alcoholic beverages, provided only one drink could be sold to a customer at a time. This proposal will provide theater operators with additional revenues, assist in the economic development of downtowns, and provide New York craft producers with additional retail outlets. 

This one I have to read in more detail when it comes out, if only to see how sending people to movie theaters, most of which are located in malls and suburbs, is going to assist in the economic development of downtowns.

TGIF, everyone.

Email of the Week (v4)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on. 

Since last week, I've received 140 emails from the folks I'm still following: Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang. 

I anticipated I'd be sharing New Year's wishes from the candidates today, but instead I'm sharing something I thought would have come a long time ago: notification that Julian Castro, the only Hispanic in the field, is suspending his campaign. Early on, his emails were among the most desperate seeking donations, blocking out any other message he was trying to share. In fact, I took his email subject lines and wove them into a story of desperation - it was that bad at the end of October, and didn't really get all that much better.

Like Kamala Harris before him, Castro never really got traction where it mattered - from the media. That lack of traction translated to poor fundraising, which translated to poor polling. Together, the fundraising and polling led to missed debates, which fueled further lack of interest from the media.

There's a theme in there, and it's not a difficult one to see, is it? Anyway – here’s our coveted Email of the Week. 

Friend,

I’m so proud of the campaign we’ve built together. We’ve accomplished so much together and made our mark on history.

We’ve stood up for the most vulnerable Americans—folks who are left out, cast aside, marginalized. We’ve fought for not only the middle class, but also the poor and those who are struggling the most.

We’ve put forward some of the most bold and comprehensive policy that rivals any candidate. We were the first to release polices on immigration, lead exposure, police violence, Indigenous communities, farmworkers, foster care, and hunger. And we set the pace on so many other important issues.

We traveled to communities not typically visited by presidential candidates to shine a light on important issues. We walked the storm drain tunnels beneath the Las Vegas strip where folks experiencing homelessness take shelter. We crossed the border to Matamoros, Mexico to see the effects of Trump’s immigration policy. We met with people living in a trailer park in Waukee, Iowa, after a corporate landlord jacked up their rent.

We’ve told the truth at a time when lies come easy out of the White House. We were the first to call for Trump’s impeachment. We said frankly from the debate stage that police violence IS gun violence. And we said that it’s time for a state other than Iowa or New Hampshire to vote first, so that our primaries reflect the diversity of our party and nation.

This campaign left our politics better than we found it—and that’s due in large part to you. You made phone calls, knocked doors, donated, and told your friends and family about our vision to put people first. I can’t thank you enough.

That’s why, it’s with a heavy heart and profound gratitude, that today I will suspend my campaign for President of the United States. With the Iowa caucuses just around the corner, and given the circumstances of this campaign season, I have determined that it simply isn’t our time.

I know this news hurts—but I’m not done fighting. I’m going to keep working to build an America where everyone counts, and where Democrats win races up and down the ballot.

I hope you’ll join me in that fight.

With gratitude,
Julián

I wish that the Castro who appears in the video announcing the end of his campaign had gotten even a little bit of attention from the media; had that happened, we could be looking at a very different debate stage later this month, one that is more representative of the Big Blue Tent that is the Democratic Party.  

How many are still in the race? Well, there are 13 Dems (and that guy from Vermont) still theoretically in the running; the number left in the race is equal to the number who have dropped out, if you can imagine that.

How many of them would you recognize if you bumped into them at the grocery store or the coffee shop? I'm guessing I'd know probably only a handful, and I pay attention to this stuff more than most folks I know. And that 'identity crisis' is something I'll address in another post.

Top Posts of 2019

With the new year upon us, I've been cranking up the thinking and planning sections of my brain, as I'm sure many of you have. For me, that included some penciled in 'wish I could do better on...' things. Not resolutions per se, but intentions I hope to be mindful of this year.  

And it also included my annual look at the blog, updates to the Pages, considerations on changing the layout (none this year, or at least none now), and I also looked at last year's posts. In the course of that, I identified the five posts that appeared to spark your interest the most. Let's take a look. 

The top post was news in January from The Update Desk about the Allyn Family Foundation (AFF) and a new, mixed-use property it's developing in the city of Syracuse, which will house a food hall and market, office space for not-for-profit organizations, and residential units. A public name-the-market contest was held, and that's where our story picks up.

I vaguely remember the social media post where we could vote, and the overwhelming number of comments asking why it didn't mention Syracuse or the Salt City...

And it turns out, the AFF listened to what people wanted, and the name has been chosen: the Salt City Market. It's perfect, and it's a perfect example of ensuring the kind of community buy-in that the organization is looking for. Maarten Jacobs, one of the AFF folks, said

We want this to be a space that people feel they have ownership of the minute it opens.

The post was about a foundation, and a building, and a name - but it was more about the value of listening and responding to constituents, something that we often wish happened more - and something the majority of us can learn to do better. 

Number two was a TGIF post, also from January, dealing with the Covington Catholic High School kids and their interaction with a Native American Vietnam-era veteran, and the media reaction to it. But the post also included someone else who had a bad week: the president. Among other things, 

• five former DHS secretaries, including his own former Chief of Staff General John Kelly, admonished him to get the government reopened;

• he tried to bully his way into delivering performing his State of the Union address as originally scheduled, saying he was going to show up at the appointed time, until

• Nancy Pelosi let him have it with both sides of her gavel, telling him in no uncertain terms that she would not allow that to happen; 

And my favorite part?  

• he threatened to find an alternate location, finally caving in a tweet around midnight (presumably after talking with Sean Hannity) that he would accept Pelosi's decision

In November, the third most popular post also involved the president; this time, it was his proclamations which attracted the attention of the Irony Board. 

This year, in addition to celebrating our Native American heritage, we are celebrating several other things, including National Veterans and Military Families Month, with a proclamation noting (in part - ed)

...Together, we remain committed to fostering a national community of support for these brave heroes and their families.

This president signed this proclamation? This president, the guy who mocked a Gold Star family for speaking out against him; who assaulted the life and memory of John McCain; who deports  immigrant veterans despite the promise of citizenship for their patriotic service or the immigrant families of our veterans and soldiers; and who most recently has turned his "eternal gratitude" on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman? 

But that wasn't all. Similar ironies were rampant related to his proclamation on our first-ever celebration of  National American History and Founders Month. It's mind-boggling, it really is. 

Coming in at number four? News in March from  The Update Desk, again, on our grand experiment here in New York with commercial casino gambling.

As has consistently been the case, the news is not good for our Vegas-style casinos in the Finger Lakes area, the Southern Tier, the Capital region, and the Catskills.  Leading the way, again, is the del Lago Resort and Casino down the Thruway a bit from Syracuse.

We're told of another downgrade in their credit rating and a likely continued 'negative' outlook.

If the two-year-old del Lago Resort and Casino in the Finger Lakes is to survive, it's going to need new cash investment or face a difficult restructuring of its debts and finances.

The issue? Lower than expected revenue growth and, oh yeah -- too many other opportunities for throwing your money away. The same issues confound the other three, which are not meeting their revenue estimates, either. del Lago was about 57% short of projections...

The financial issues for del Lago and the other casinos have only continued since then; I'm confident I'll have multiple updates on this subject again this year. 

And rounding out the top five was a Poll Watch entry from April, with information gleaned from a Fox News poll taken in March. As did many polls back then (and more current ones as well), it referenced the president's negative approval rating and the even more negative gap between strongly approving and strongly disapproving respondents. 

It also talked about a handful of key issues that have been part of the president's plan, and noted that on three of the four issues, he was under water with respondents.

Questioned on Trump's handling of four key issues - the economy, taxes, immigration, and health care, only on the economy, at +8, did he have a net positive. On taxes (-7), immigration (-13) and healthcare (-15), his approves were below his disapproves. Even worse, the numbers on his signature piece of legislation, the Christmas tax cut, are down from a year ago.

Of course, the only polls that matter are the ones that show him in a positive light, that show him to be the president he thinks he is.  That, too, will continue this year, I'm sure. 

In to 2020 we go - not knowing what will catch your eye this year, but intending to do just that. I hope you stick around.