Ladies, Gentlemen and the Transgendered, please rise. The Kangaroo Court of the Democratic National Committee is now in session. The Honorable Donna Brazile presiding. Thank you. Please be seated. The chief prosecutor, the less than honorable Deborah Wasserman Schultz will now read the charges.
"This is the case of the Democratic National Committee's Kangaroo Court versus United States Senator Bernie Sanders and his Bernie Bros. The charges are as follows:
Count 1. That Senator Sanders and his minions attempted to thwart the nomination of our party's chosen candidate, Secretary Hillary Clinton.
Count 2. That Senator Sanders is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" to the Democratic Party, in spite of the fact that he has caucused with us for years, giving us a critical 51-49 majority in the Senate at a time when Dick "Shoot Em Up" Cheney was the Vice-President and could have broken any ties in favor of the hated Republicans.
Count 3. That Senator Sanders attempted to stop our concerted, concentrated efforts to shatter the highest glass ceiling in the land, by trying to thwart our plan to nominate a woman to serve as President of this nation.
Count 4. That Senator Sanders refused to drop out of the race, even after it was clear we would stop at nothing to prevent his being nominated.
These are the charges as presented this day, the less than honorable Deborah Wasserman Schultz, chief accuser. This is my last duty as Chairperson of the DNC and I will now transition into my new position as a high-level operative in the Clinton for President Campaign."
Do we need to wait for the verdict, since this is a Kangaroo Court? I think not.
Tonight brings the 2016 presidential nominating campaign to a close as the Democratic National Convention ends in Philadelphia. The two major party tickets are set. Hillary Clinton is the first woman to be the nominee of a major political party. For the sole reason that I fear for our nation's safety if Donald Trump were to win in November, I will vote for her in November. But I'm not happy about this choice I must make.
Did the leadership of the Democratic National Committee conspire to deny the nomination of its party to Senator Bernie Sanders? There is a lawsuit that was filed earlier this month by noted political science professor Bob Fitrakis that alleges the DNC was involved in voter fraud in at least 11 states. That's really frightening.
The system of "super-delegates" certainly seems to be a way of rigging the nomination process. A friend defended this concept as having stakeholders involved in choosing the nominee, but that goes against the idea of one person, one vote. Some votes should not be more important than others. The people and not the party leaders should be choosing the nominee.
Now what is in those emails? Here's a sampling.
Brad Marshall is the CFO of the DNC. He's the one who is shown in those leaked emails to have suggested questioning the religious faith of Senator Sanders.
“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to
ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has
a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make
several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would
draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is about to become the former chair of the DNC. In an email she called Jeff Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager a "damn liar" regarding the controversy at the Nevada Democratic convention. It's clear that state and national party leaders engaged in shenanigans to obfuscate the fact that the Sanders campaign had done a better job of organizing for the convention. What was projected as a 20-15 margin in Nevada delegates for Sanders should have ended up being a much narrower 18-17 result. The details can be found here.
When the Sanders campaign accused the Clinton campaign of improperly using the DNC joint fundraising campaign to benefit Secretary Clinton, the emails showed that a Clinton campaign attorney advised the DNC on how to respond.
These emails showed the pejorative usage of the term "Bernie Bro" for the most ardent of Sanders supporters.
Alexandra Shapiro is the Mid-Atlantic and PAC Finance Director for the DNC. In an email she described the fact that President Obama wouldn't travel 20 minutes for a donation of $350,000 as "fucking stupid."
None of the information contained in the emails shows or suggests that any illegal acts took place. But the DNC is supposed to be neutral in the campaign. It is clear that they were not.
Every member of the DNC leadership whose vile acts were exposed in these emails should be fired if they refuse to resign. I registered as a Democrat for the sole purpose of voting for Bernie Sanders in the California primary. I'm done with this party of lying cheaters. Back to being an independent, even if I will vote for their candidate in November.
Since I returned to the VA healthcare system in 2011 I've been a big fan. I'm still a fan but this week I got exposed to certain aspects of their system that really surprised me. This past Sunday I got there at 6:45 a.m. because I needed treatment for this upper respiratory infection that's been kicking my butt since last Friday. The sign on the check-in window reads "Between Midnight and Seven a.m., go through the door and check in with the ER desk."
I saw the sign and asked the guard to let me in. He refused. The security guard (whose name tag indicated his last name is Cox) told me that they'd just send me back up front to wait until 7 a.m. So I sat and waited an extra 20 minutes to begin being checked in. The person opening the triage desk didn't arrive until 7:05 a.m.
I got the treatment I needed and went home. But I got worse and I went back this morning. This time I got there at 6:00 a.m. I sat waiting outside the desk once I'd let them know I was there for ten minutes until a nurse who identified herself as "Ruth, the charge nurse" came out. She took my vitals. She promised me a breathing treatment and some water while I waited for the doctor to look me over. She put me in a bed and walked away.
About 20 minutes later I overheard her telling some of the other nurses that it was too close to shift change to take any additional patients and so "unless someone is dying, they can wait for triage" was what she said. I was understandably taken aback by this statement. Was this hyperbole? If someone came in who wasn't dying, but was bleeding, would they be made to sit and wait for 30 minutes?
Now I did not get seen by a doctor or given any water or anything else until 2.5 hours had passed. I'm okay with that. I was in discomfort but I was stable and given my medical history it takes time for a new doctor to bring themselves up to speed on my case. Once I was seen the doctors were attentive, a breathing treatment was administered, I got my water and they ran some tests.
I did get to spend 35 minutes waiting to be seen in the x-ray waiting room watching Jerry Springer's show and laughing as usual.
In the end there was nothing they could really do for me. They would have prescribed IV antibiotics if it had turned out I had pneumonia, as they originally suspected. But since it turned out not to be that particular ailment, they won't put me on antibiotics because of the risk of another bout with C-diff.
As I left the ER, the doctor told me to arrange for a follow-up with my primary care doctor in 2 days and I think what happened next may be part of the reason people have a perception that it's almost impossible to get treatment at a VA facility.
I walked to the primary care clinic on my way out and stopped at the counter to arrange an appointment for Friday. The clerk was very apologetic and pointed out that the next available appointment was for September 6th, and that I had an appointment of my own already on August 5th. But then he said the magic words. "Come in on Friday as a walk-in and you'll be seen that day."
Imagine that. Rather than walking away after being told there were no appointments for nearly two months, I found out there is a way to get the treatment I need, on the day that the doctor wanted me to be seen.
I got an unsolicited email the other day from something called PTIN.org. A PTIN is a number issued by the IRS to someone who is authorized to sign tax returns as a paid preparer. Every tax professional must update their PTIN annually with the IRS. Here's the email.
Message body
Congratulations, Brian
You have been selected to be featured as the "2016 Best Rated Tax Preparer" in Los Angeles.
We currently are looking for one Tax Preparer in the Los Angeles
area to submit to Google as the "2016 Best Rated Local Tax Preparer in
Los Angeles".
When you are listed as the 2016 Best Rated Tax Preparer in Los Angeles - we guarantee that you will get clients.
Sign up only if you are still interested in taking on more tax clients throughout the year - not just tax season.
WHY THIS PROGRAM WORKS:
When people search for a Tax Professional - they want the "best".
Since you will be listed as the "Best" in your area, you will get the call before anyone else.
When people search for a Tax Preparer online, YOU will show up prominently in the local search in Google.
We make it easy for potential clients to find you on Google - guaranteed.
Note: There are NO recurring monthly or annual charges to pay to be in this program.
Don't waste your money on expensive Internet marketing that doesn't work.
Sign up now for a one-time only fee of only $279. There are NO recurring monthly or annual charges!
1. We feature and submit your "Best Rated Tax Preparer" PTIN
Profile to Google so you show up in the local search in Los Angeles -
guaranteed.
2. We provide you with a "5 Star Rated" Review system for
Internet visibility and search optimization and use on your own website,
if you have one.
3. We add and feature you on the "Find the Best Tax Preparers" mobile app for the iPhone and Android platforms.
4. We feature your Best Rated Tax Preparer Profile on the
homepage of PTINdirectory.com when people search from your local area.
5. We add you to the exclusive list of "Best Rated Tax Preparers" which is easily accessible throughout PTIN.ORG. Wow. All that for the low, low price of $279. So I went to www.ptin.org and searched to see who is currently the best-rated tax professional in my zip code. There were no results. I searched within a 50 mile radius of four Southern California zip codes and found only one review of one tax pro.
Then I did a Google search for "best tax preparer" in Los Angeles. Imagine my surprise when my office was the top listed location in the resulting Yelp search. So I'm guessing I will do okay without availing myself of the services of PTIN.org.
I just saved $279. Guess I'll treat myself to dinner out.
At the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night, Senator Ted Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump. Many are saying that this is a breach of a pledge he took to support the nominee, whoever it was. After all, Mr. Trump made the same pledge. Why shouldn't Senator Cruz honor that pledge?
Donald Trump said he wouldn't honor his own pledge because the Republicans had treated him "very unfairly." So if he isn't bound by the pledge, why should Senator Cruz be bound by it? After all, Mr. Trump has been insulting Ted Cruz throughout the campaign. He tacked the word "lying" onto Senator Cruz's name. He insulted Senator Cruz's wife and threatened to "spill the beans" about her. He implied that the Senator's father was somehow connected to the assassination of JFK.
Insulting Senator Cruz's political positions is fair game. Insulting his family is not. As for the claim that Cruz started the war of wife insults, that's patently false. It was a super-PAC that took issue with Melania Trump, not the Senator himself.
I don't have a problem with Senator Cruz's choice to not endorse Donald Trump. Not because I loathe the possibility that Trump might win. It's because Donald Trump has no concept of what is and is not "fair."
* * *
While no formal announcement has been made, sources inside the NBA are reporting that the league will move its 2017 All-Star weekend events from the scheduled host city, Charlotte, NC. The decision is based on the lack of any action by North Carolina's legislature to alter the state's House Bill 2. House Bill 2 mandates that all transgendered individuals use the bathroom facility that matches the gender listed on their original birth certificate.
The decision is expected to cause serious economic damage to the local NBA franchise, the Charlotte Hornets. They are owned by former NBA superstar Michael Jordan. The 2014 All-Star weekend had an estimated impact of over $105 million for the host city, New Orleans.
I think it's a great decision by the league. If enough economic pressure is brought to bear on the state, its residents may finally force a change in this law.
* * *
Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News has resigned, most likely due to the lawsuit filed by former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson. New York Magazine is reporting that Ailes will be paid $60 million to walk away which is $20 million more than The Hollywood Reporter says is owed to Ailes on his current contract.
Whoever replaces Ailes (Rupert Murdoch has named himself acting CEO until a replacement is hired) faces a number of challenges. Megyn Kelly is already in the midst of contract negotiations on a new deal. Conservative pundits Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both have contracts that allow them to exit the network if Ailes leaves.
Considering that Fox News out earns CNN/HLN by a more than three to one ratio in terms of Operating Income Before Depreciation and Amortization (OIBDA), and the culture of loyalty to the leader Fox News rather than Fox itself, stock analysts are being cautious in evaluating the company's future growth projections.
* * *
Federal officials have announced that 112 immigrants, some of them here legally, have been arrested in California and face deportation.
All of these individuals have been convicted of and served time for violent crimes, were involved in gang activity or had multiple misdemeanor convictions that are not part of the Obama Administration's current policy of not deporting those who committed "minor offenses." All are eligible for deportation.
According to the L. A. Times, among those arrested this week was Carlos David Martin Ojeda, 46, a
sex offender convicted of attempted lewd and lascivious acts with a
child under 14 years old. Others included:
A 64-year-old Mexican national in Riverside County who was convicted of attempted murder of a peace officer in 1996.
A 46-year-old Tongan man previous convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
A 37-year-old Salvadoran man in Los Angeles with burglary and DUI convictions.
A 45-year-old Mexican national in Los Angeles previously convicted
of assault to commit rape and failure to register as a sex offender.
The California Trust Act prevents local jurisdictions from holding those convicted of non-felony offenses beyond the end of their sentence to be turned over to ICE. That's why these individuals were released back into the U.S.
How much money was wasted on tracking and capturing these people who were already in custody, but got off because the narrow definition of "felony" wasn't met? I can understand the logic of not deporting people for truly minor offenses while our system of immigration enforcement is so factured; but this is more than irresponsible. It is reprenehsible.
The City of Los Angeles is attempting to set limits on street performers, like these pictured above, in a one block area on Hollywood Boulevard. The block in question, between Highland and Orange Avenues is one of the most heavily trafficked in the area. The City Council has instructed the City Attorney's office to draw up regulations and has recommended that the number of permits granted each day be limited to 20.
Matt Balke is an actor/screenwriter who is one of the street performers who works on the block that is the subject of the proposed limits. Mr. Balke points out in an excellent op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times, that such limits are probably unconstitutional.
As Mr. Balke also points out, those who go to this block to intimidate passersby into giving them tips, and who violate the existing ordinance prohibiting "aggressive panhandling" won't pay attention to the permitting requirement, even if an unlimited number of permits are made available. The actions of those people who cause problems are why we all too often see this in that area.
So rather than limiting the number of performers who are issued permits, perhaps the City of Los Angeles could follow the example of Santa Monica and issue an unlimited number of permits; but limit the amount of time any one performer can work in a specific location.
* * *
There is an upside to the City of Los Angeles requiring street performers to obtain permits. The City of Los Angeles has a gross receipts tax. I doubt that any of these street performers are taking in more than $100,000 annually in tips, and would therefore be exempt from that tax. However, the requirement to comply with the City's annual licensing requirement would be much easier to enforce for those street performers who have to get that permit.
That might well make it more difficult for those performers to forget to claim their income from this work on their annual income tax returns. I'm sure that a law-abiding citizen like Mr. Balke is reporting his tip income on his tax return, but are all of them doing this? Cash businesses are the worst offenders when it comes to the so-called "tax gap." This refers to the amount of income taxes that the federal government doesn't receive because of the amount of income that goes unreported. A 2008 study estimates that the tax gap that year was between $450 billion and $500 billion. While forcing street performers to pay taxes on their cash income won't make a big dent in this amount, every dollar helps.
Accusations are being made that portions of the speech that Melania Trump delivered on Monday evening at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland was plagiarized from the speech that Michelle Obama gave at the Democratic National Convention back in 2008. Perhaps the problem was that this was the desktop of the computer she was using to write the speech.
Mrs. Trump's speech from this past Monday night.
"Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflect to this day on me and for my love of family and America.
From
a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard
for what you want in life: that your word is your bond and you do what
you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect. They
taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a
lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass
those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our
children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements
is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."
Mrs. Obama's speech from 2008
My mother's love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters.
And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: thatyou work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and
you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with
dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't
agree with them.
And Barack and I set out to build lives
guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because
we want our children – and all children in this nation – to know that
the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your
dreams and your willingness to work for them.
* * *
So what's going on here is that three distinct passages from the 2008 speech appear virtually verbatim in the 2016 speech. Is this plagiarism? Probably. Was it intentional? Unknowable with any degree of certainty. The concepts of working hard, keeping your word and the importance of not limiting dreams aren't original themes created by Mrs. Obama's speechwriters. Expression of those ideas in other words would not have been a problem. But the fact is, those sounded like and read like the exact language used by Mrs. Obama and that's the definition of plagiarism.
But here's the real issue. If the Trump campaign had properly vetted the speech, those passage could have been re-written. They made a fatal error in not doing so. Then they compounded that mistake by insisting that the speech wasn't plagiarism at all. The timing is interesting as the ghostwriter of Mr. Trump's first book, The Art of the Deal, now says he put "lipstick on a pig." Every attempt by the Trump organization to try to spin Mrs. Trump's speech as something other than plagiarism is also putting lipstick on a pig.
Why not fess us and admit the error, apologize and move forward?
Because Donald Trump appears to be absolutely incapable of ever admitting he made a mistake. His family and all of his minions therefore won't ever make that kind of admission.
The New York Times is now reporting on a related issue, that having to do with Mrs. Trump's biography on her website and the one distributed at the convention.
"Born on April 26, 1970 in Slovenia, Melania Knauss began her modeling
career at the age of sixteen. At the age of eighteen, she signed with a
modeling agency in Milan. After obtaining a degree in design and
architecture at University in Slovenia, Melania was jetting between
photo shoots in Paris and Milan, finally settling in New York in 1996."
The Times says that Mrs. Trump dropped out of that university after only one year and never graduated. The combination of this gaffe and the possible plagiarism are more evidence that the Trump campaign is not being controlled by the professionals they have hired. The family are neophytes in the field of politics in any area other than donations and influence-peddling.
Donald J. Trump is the most unqualified presidential candidate to be nominated by his or her political party since Andrew Johnson.
Once again a celebrity has done something really wrong and is now claiming they aren't the type of person who does what they did. 2015 Playboy Playmate of the Year Dani Mathers posted the following photo on SnapChat.
In the wake of the strong criticism she received for doing what she did, Ms Mathers posted a video apology.
Now let's review what she said in her apology.
"I just wanted to acknowledge a photo I accidentally posted here on SnapChat earlier today."
No. It wasn't an accident that you posted the photo. The only accident was that you posted it for anyone to see. You deliberately posted this photo for a purpose. The accident was that you didn't limit the audience for your post as you intended to do.
"...and let you guys know that was absolutely wrong and not what I meant to do. I have chosen to do what I do because I love the female body and I know that body shaming is wrong and that's not what I'm about and that's not who I am."
No. You intended to body-shame this poor woman in the eyes of whoever you intended to send this photo to. It is who you were at the moment you breached every single iota of proper protocol for behaving in a gym locker room. You don't take pictures of others, especially if they are stark naked. If a man had done this he would have already been arrested, as you should be.
"That photo was taken to be part of a personal conversation with a girlfriend and because I'm new to SnapChat I really didn't realize that I'd posted it and that was a huge mistake."
Proving your intended to body-shame this woman, but only among your friends. As though that's less wrong that what actually happened? As if body-shaming is alright as long as you don't do it publicly?
I'm not going to bother with the last part of her apology where she repeats her earlier lie that this isn't who she is. She's proven that claim to be false.
Now she's been suspended indefinitely from her regular gig on a L.A. area morning drive radio show. She's also been banned for life from any gym owned by L.A. Fitness, the gym where this happened. That is nowhere near enough of a consequence for what Ms Mathers did. The woman in this photo should sue her. The police should arrest Ms Mathers and she shouldn't be treated "differently" because she's a hot celebrity.
“He has no
consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the
moment. He really has an ego ... How has he gotten away with not turning
over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on
that.”
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president"
"If Trump wins, my late husband would say, 'Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.'”
The problem with these comments about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee isn't their content. The problem is who said them. That being Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There are a large number of people who agree with these statements. It would be difficult to successfully challenge the factual nature of some of the comments. He has an incredible ego and a complete lack of consistency. He should turn over his tax returns. I can say those things because I'm not a member of the judiciary who may be forced to recuse myself from participating in legal matters involving Mr. Trump.
Justice Ginsburg does enjoy the same First Amendment protections as everyone else. No one is going to attempt to legally infringe her right to speak out. But it is unwise. In fact, it is dangerous for members of the judiciary to comment on politicians like this. She should not have done this.
* * *
Anyone who thought Mr. Trump would not respond to Justice Ginsburg's comments would probably be interested in purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge or investing in condo developments on the moon. This was an opportunity for him to make a valid point in a "presidential" manner. It was a soft pitch that even a semi-competent politician could have hit out off the park. Trump swung and whiffed.
The "Her mind is shot" comment would have ruined the impact of any appropriate comment about how wrong it was of Justice Ginsburg to comment on the 2016 presidential race in general and about Mr. Trump in particular. Any observer of Justice Ginsburg during this past term's oral arguments or anyone who reads her recent written SCOTUS opinions would see she's still sharp as a tack. Criticizing her mental faculties is as wrong as her commentaries on Trump were. At least this time Mr. Trump managed to avoid a critique of her physical appearance.
Calling her comments "...very dumb..." is almost as bad. There were a number of things Mr. Trump could have called them. Ill-advised. Wholly inappropriate. Not something a member of the judiciary should be saying. Any of those descriptions would have actually scored a point or two for Mr. Trump with those who are not already paying members of his sycophantic supporters.
Two wrongs don't make a right. This was a missed opportunity for Mr. Trump. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Cops walk off the off-duty job at Minnesota Lynx home game
Here are the facts.
At a recent home game members of the WNBA Minnesota Lynx wore these t-shirts before the game.
Four members of the Minneapolis Police Department who off-duty and working as security for the game chose to walk off from their jobs after they saw the message on the shirts.
Minnesota PD Lieutenant Bob Kroll, president of the police union, commended the officers who walked away from their off-duty employment at the game.
Minnesota is an at-will employment state, meaning that an employer or an employee can end the employment relationship at any time.
In a prepared statement, the Minnesota Lynx said, "The Lynx organization was made aware about the concerns of the off duty
Minneapolis police officers who had signed up to work Saturday night’s
game vs. Dallas. While our players message mourned the loss of life due
to last week’s shootings, we respect the right of those individual
officers to express their own beliefs in their own way. At no time was
the safety of our game in question as Target Center staffs extra
personnel for each and every game. The Lynx and the entire WNBA have
been saddened by the recent shootings in Dallas, Baton Rouge, and St.
Paul. We continue to urge a constructive discussion about the issues
raised by these tragedies."
As Joe Friday might have said, those are the facts. The internet has of course exploded over this, with some supporting what the cops did, and some calling their commitment to "protect and serve" by walking off the job without notice. Some are calling the #BlackLivesMatter movement an anti-police message. It is not.
Again, for those who haven't yet got the message, let me break it down for you. It is true that all lives matter when viewed as a whole, but when blacks are being killed by cops at a rate three times that of the rate at which whites are being killed by cops, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The fact this perverted ratio exists would seem to indicate that cops don't view black lives as being of equal value to other lives.
I do not believe for one moment that any of the vast majority of law enforcement personnel go out onto the street with the goal of ending the life of a black person before end of watch. There may be a tiny fraction among the more than 700,000 of those cops in the U.S. that might wish they could accomplish such a thing, but I don't think that this disparity is caused by premeditation.
It is caused by a lack of non-lethal means of subduing suspects in the hands of cops.
It is caused by a lack of deescalation training in police departments across the country.
It is caused by the growing inequality of income that drives the economically deprived to turn to criminal behavior in the absence of alternatives; or because criminal behavior has the potential to be far more lucrative than earning an "honest living."
It is caused by the intense pressure of having to make life and death decisions in split second time-frames while technology enables society to second-guess the choices made thanks to the fact that there are cameras everywhere, recording everything; mixed with the fact that being a cop is one of the most dangerous and thankless jobs in our society.
When we see a white police officer shooting a black man in the back when there is no danger being presented to the cop or anyone else, the question of why needs to be explored as much as that cop needs to be prosecuted.
While Michael Slager, the cop who shot Walter Scott in the above video has been indicted for murder, the message of his death and so many others is a compelling indictment of how some cops simply aren't fit to do the job. Why aren't they weeded out?
I cannot help but agree with the sentiment of the Lynx players that the time for Justice and Accountability is long overdue.
Multiple sources are reporting that former basketball star Lamar Odom was escorted off of a Delta flight from Los Angeles to New York City. The reports claim that Odom was observed drinking heavily in an airport lounge before boarding the flight and that he vomited in the plane's galley and lavatory before being forced to leave the flight.
This incident comes in the wake of reports that Odom was forced out of the home that his estranged wife Khloe Kardashian had rented for him. TMZ is reporting that Khloe kicked out her soon to be ex-husband after a crack pipe was found in the home.
It's been less than a year since Lamar Odom was found lying unconscious in a brothel bedroom following a three day binge of drugs and sex. He was given only a 50/50 chance of survival after being airlifted to a hospital. Drugs and alcohol put him in that bed and apparently he cannot break free of them.
Addictions are not easy to break. But they are impossible to break when the addict has no desire to be helped. All of the love, support and attempt at intervention cannot make someone want to save themselves from the demons of addiction.
I know this all too well. I thought I'd written about this before but searching my past blog entries I can find no reference to "Jerry" and his problems. He was a friend that was in my unit on two different occasions during my time in the Air Force. He was an alcoholic. The Air Force goes through an ebb and flow of how willing they are to tolerate alcoholism (and other problems) with personnel. At times when reenlistment rates are high, the various types of "Quality Force Management" programs attempt to weed out the marginal performers or those with problems in other areas. Weight, physical fitness, and certain forms of bad behavior are ignored when it becomes difficult to keep proper staffing levels, particularly in critical skill fields. Jerry was a highly skilled aircraft maintenance technician. So the first time his drinking became a problem, there was no question the military would attempt to help. Usually, unless a serious transgression has taken place, a first time offender will be offered help. He was sent to a facility to dry out. When he returned he was required to attend AA meetings on a regular basis. He was subjected to random urine tests to ensure he wasn't drinking.
Years later, he slipped and got drunk. At this point, retention of aircraft maintenance troops was a real problem, particularly at the level of rank and responsibility that Jerry had reached. So he got something the Air Force didn't normally get. A second chance to go and dry out. He was told before going and after completing the program, he was out of chances. Any future incident involving drinking would end his career.
Jerry was a good guy. Married with kids, although after the second session of drying him out, he was moved into the dorms where I had once lived. I did my best to make sure he would succeed at staying dry. I checked up on his constantly. I made sure he had an active social life away from places where people would be drinking.
Then our unit was tasked to deploy some aircraft and personnel to Nellis AFB in Las Vegas. I went to the commander and asked him not to send Jerry. I felt it was too soon after his last trip to dry out. The temptations would be too great. My boss said that Jerry had to go on this deployment. He told me "even if I keep him here this time, he'll have to go on a deployment like this eventually."
He showed up for work looking okay but he was drunk and he drove a maintenance van into the wing of an airplane. That ended his career.
Now Lamar Odom's career appears to be over. I like Lamar. I'd like to see him survive. I'm afraid he won't. That makes me very sad. But unless he has a change of heart and decides he wants to make a change, nothing anyone else does will make a difference in the long-term.
The three tragedies (thus far) this week involving the homicide of two civilians at the hands of the police and five police officers by a civilian are a demonstration that the #BlackLivesMatter and the #AllLivesMatter counter hashtag are not equivalent.
Sixth grade math indicates that since Black lives are a subset of the All lives population set, they are equivalent. This is not the case. The numbers tell us this.
In 2015, between January 1st and November 20th, police killed 261 blacks and 508 whites. But that doesn't take into account the make-up of the population. Take that into account and during that period there were 6.2 blacks killed per million while whites were killed at a rate of only 2.1 per million. Put into simple language, during that time blacks were killed by cops at a rate three times that of whites being killed by those police officers. I'll get into more of the math in a moment.
Let's review the first two incidents. First the killing of Alton Sterling.
Mr. Sterling's left arm is clearly pinned by the weight of the officer. His right arm is not easily seen. But from the position of the two officers, it is easy to conclude that unless there was a weapon in his right hand that he could point at either of the cops, he did not present a danger requiring deadly force by the cops.
A larger question is why did the cops not have other means of subduing Mr. Sterling with them? No tasers or stun guns? No mace or pepper spray?
I have no doubt that if this were to be investigated by a local grand jury, local cops and the local district attorney, it is extremely doubtful that there would have been an indictment. That is why the Louisiana governor's immediate call for an independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice was the right move. Hopefully their investigation will come to the appropriate conclusion that these cops were completely wrong to take this man's life.
Now the killing of Philando Castile.
We don't see the actual moment of the shooting. We do know certain things. Mr. Castile did not have his weapon in his hands. He did, as required, notify the officer that he was armed and had a CCW permit. The fact that Mr. Castile was reaching for his wallet, as he'd been told to produce his license and vehicle registration, is not in question. The speed with which he was moving and whether or not the officer told him not to move before firing are not shown on the video.
There is no denying the fact that traffic stops can be among the most dangerous things for police officers. That doesn't excuse this. I don't have all of the facts but based on what I've seen this was not a justifiable shooting. To be fair, Mr. Castile was not shot for having had a broken taillight, as some will claim. He was shot by a cop who will claim he was in fear of his own safety.
Falcon Heights, MN, where Mr. Castile was killed, is a predominantly white community, 73.3% identifying as white in the 2010 Census. Was this a case of DWB? We will never know the truth. Jeronimo Yanez, the cop who killed Mr. Castile, had four years on the Falcon Heights police force.
This is a case that should also be investigated by the federal, not state or local governments.
* * *
These two horrific tragedies in no way justify what happened in Dallas. One suspect is dead. Police have other individuals in custody. We don't know how many snipers opened fire but we do know that five police officers are dead and seven others were wounded. The news media is pointing out in great detail that this is the largest single loss of life among cops since the 9/11 attacks.
Shooting cops in response to the deaths of blacks at the hands of cops is not going to make things better. It will worsen the situation. If police officers believe that they are targets they will become hyper-vigilant.
Rioting and destroying property as happened in Baltimore and Ferguson won't change things. It will make them worse.
It is time to realize that the #AllLivesMatter memes and hashtags are not the truth. That's because they do not matter equally. People of color in general and black in particular are killed more frequently by police officers.
Peter Moskos is an assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In a piece in the conservative Washington Times, Professor Moskos' data is used to support the hypothesis that more whites than blacks are killed by cops, but that the minority killings draw more outrage. "As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings
by race is notoriously incomplete, which may explain why Peter Moskos,
assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the
City University of New York, decided to use figures from the website
Killed by Police.
Based on that data, Mr.
Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from
May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also
found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other
races.
His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood,
arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s
data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race
of the person killed."
Making things worse are idiots like Donald Trump who tweeted out the following last November.
Trump's data supposedly came from an organization that doesn't exist. It's very wrong.
In point of fact, from complete FBI data for 2014, whites killed by whites was 82.4%. Blacks killed by blacks was 90%.
So we can conclude that the math shows minorities (especially Blacks) run a higher risk of being killed by cops.
The problem isn't limited to killings either, as I strongly suspect that minorities are also victims of excessive force by cops much more than whites are.
What can we do? First and foremost I repeat my call for investigation of every single officer-involved shooting be done by a disinterested agency. Not the local cops or district attorney's offices.
Secondly we must work to stop violent reactions to these murders under the color of authority.
Thirdly we must work to get the politicians who are willing to whitewash incidents like this.
We also cannot ignore the fact that the ever-growing inequality of income and lack of opportunity in the economically deprived areas of our country is a factor in the crime rate.
I don't normally pray. But today I'm praying. For the families of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. For the families of the Dallas police officers who have been murdered and those who were wounded. And for a stop to this unnecessary violence, both by cops and those seeking vengeance on them.
FBI Director James Comey issued a press statement today that made it clear the FBI is not recommending that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be charged over her actions in the so-called email scandal. While saying that "...no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" he did call the handling of classified material by Secretary Clinton to be "extremely careless."
Predictably Democrats are focused on the fact there apparently will not be a prosecution while Republicans are claiming the system is rigged. Donald Trump tweeted “The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said the FBI's decision "...defies explanation."
So what's really going on here?
The Comey Comb Over
No, the Director of the FBI does not comb over a bald spot on his head, but his press release certainly covers any real exposure that Secretary Clinton had in this email situation. Let's parse some of what he said: "Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified
information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal
system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to
mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly
negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly
remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage
facilities."
Clearly there isn't a felony violation here. The statute requires that for a violation to occur the action must have been done knowingly and willfully. Based on the requirement for security briefings to be conducted prior to and while access to classified information has been granted, anything was done knowingly. But the intent to disclose classified information does not appear to be present.
However, the decision to transmit emails from a private email server, where proper protocols for protection of classified information aren't present seems to be at the very least a misdemeanor violation of the law.
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110
e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to
contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the
time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time;
and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level
of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails
were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those
had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent." "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at
the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and
received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails
about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same
matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable
person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those
government employees with whom she was corresponding about these
matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for
that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we
also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the
U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that
is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."
So the FBI concluded that Secretary Clinton sent and received classified emails in spite of her claims she did not do so.
Troubling? Yes. Criminal? No. Indicative of transparency and honest? Hell no!
"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were
not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to
State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways.
Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on
devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain.
Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of
people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary
Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with
whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond."
Secretary Clinton had claimed that all of her work-related emails had been turned over.
Another Clinton claim debunked.
I'm of the belief that her transgressions in handling classified material do indeed rise to the level of a misdemeanor violation of the law. That the decision of the FBI to not recommend prosecution is politically motivated. I can't prove either of those beliefs but they are my personal opinions.
Proper Handling of Classified Information
In the days when I was handling classified information, use of personal computers was in its infancy. Prior to 1985 the military units to which I was assigned didn't have computerized word processing machines, let alone PCs. But the basic principles for handling classified materials have not changed. Protect that which is classified.
In 1981 I was stationed on Guam in a unit that had several offices on base. In one of those, where classified messages had to be prepared for transmission on an irregular but not infrequent basis, the administrative specialist lost her security clearance. So until her tour was over and a replacement with the proper clearance was assigned there, whenever they needed a classified message typed up; I had to go prepare it. I mention this to illustrate the proper handling of classified materials.
We were using the them modern IBM Selectric typewriters with easily removable typewriter ribbons in plastic cases. They were the correcting Selectric so there was a black ink ribbon and a white correction ribbon. Prior to preparing a classified message, I had to remove both ribbons and replace them with the "classified" ribbons from the safe. Ordinary ribbons were tossed into the trash. Classified ribbons went into the burn bag for proper disposal. In those days we had to use carbon paper to prepare the required copies of messages, as we did not have a copier approved for making copies of classified materials. The carbon sheets had to be counted and logged into the burn bag, as did everything else we put in that bag. In point of fact, one day when I was doingoneof those messages, I tried to apply the proper "Secret" stamp on the message and the stamp pad was out of ink. After re-inking it, I made a test stamp on a blank piece of notebook paper. The security officer insisted I log that blank page and put it into the burn bag.
Or to make a long story short, you go overboard to protect classified materials. Even general officers knew and did this (I'll get to General Petraeus in a moment). Secretary Clinton and those with whom she exchanged these emails did not do so. The result of their reckless handling of such materials led to this portion of Director Comey's statement:
"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did
not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail
domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully
hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors
potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such
direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the
private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton
was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that
Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a
large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal
e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending
and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated
adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible
that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal
e-mail account."
Scary.
The Petraeus Parallel
Let's review that Trump tweet.
"The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."
No Mister Trump, what General Petraeus did was not far less. It was much more.
Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information, improperly, to those individuals who did have the appropriate security clearance and need to know.
General Petraeus transmitted classified information, improperly, to a woman who might have had the appropriate level of clearance at the time, but did not meet the need to know basis test. Worse yet, the general gave this classified material to his extramarital lover. If anything, he got off easy, because an enlisted military member having an extramarital affair would have been punished for the affair itself.
So there is no parallel between the two breaches of the rules involving handling classified information.
Conclusion
What Secretary Clinton did was wrong. Anyone else would have been charged with a misdemeanor. But that doesn't change the fact that if the choice on the November presidential election ballot involves choosing between her and Donald Trump, I'll vote for Secretary Clinton. Not because I support her but because Donald J. Trump, in my mind, represents a clear and present danger to the future of the continued existence of the United States.
Sunday night saw history being made as Major League Baseball held its first ever regular season game on an active U.S. military installation. The Miami Marlins and the Atlanta Braves met on a specially constructed stadium on the grounds of Fort Bragg, NC. I was never assigned there, but at one point in my career it seemed almost a certainty I'd be sent there. Ultimately I wound up on Guam instead.
Because the one-time use stadium, constructed at a cost of $5 million to MLB had seating for only 12,500, nowhere near enough for every military person on the post to receive tickets. So a lottery was held. According to the local paper, those who got tickets for the game were supposed to list the name of any guest they would be bringing. This is where it gets tricky.
Zack Hample is a famous "ballhawk" who made it known he would pay up to $1,000 for a ticket to the game. He claimed in a tweet that a "friend" gave him the ticket. Maybe he did, but he definitely posted this ad.
Hample's story is that the friend got a 2nd ticket to take his girlfriend with him but the soldier's girlfriend doesn't like baseball; so he took Hample instead. That raises a couple of issues. First, is the soldier guilty of violating the terms of the agreement he signed? Without seeing the actual text it is hard to make a judgment. However, based on the newspaper story, the soldier was supposed to turn the ticket back in if the guest he named on the form he signed wasn't going to attend. In the civilian world that's not a big deal but for military personnel, that could result in consequences for the soldier. It depends on just how the command at Fort Bragg issues the instructions regarding issuing of tickets.
The decision by Mr. Hample to attend the game, as usual, has stirred up an internet hornet's nest of commentary. Some defend what he did, calling the sale of the tickets just part of our system of capitalism. Some who identify themselves as veterans don't see this as a big deal. But the defenders of Mr. Hample are vastly outnumbered by the critics. One woman who says she's the mother of a soldier stationed at Fort Bragg said in a tweet that Hample cost her son the chance to go to the game.
Several people who defended Mr. Hample claim there were empty seats at the stadium and I have no doubt this is the case. That's not the point. The point is that the ticket given to him should have gone to an active duty military person or the dependent of one. Or the actual significant other of that military member. Not to a self-aggrandizing collector of baseballs whose other passion appears to be playing video games on a competitive level. Hey, if you can earn money doing those things, more power to him. But not when his actions are at the expense of someone serving our country.
At least he finally issued an apology and said he was wrong.
I still think he's a jerk but the apology is a good thing. For him and all of us. A lesson to be learned.
I don't intentionally eavesdrop on the conversations of others when dining out. But on a recent breakfast outing I could not help but overhear a conversation. I never even turned around to see the people who were talking but there were three distinct voices. Two male voices and one female voice, as far as I could determine. They were talking about a movie they'd watched the previous evening.
The film they were discussing was Sliding Doors. At first they were talking about the infidelity aspects of the movie but then talk turned to the "what if" scenario. The woman asked the guys if there was one decision in their lives that they could do over, what would it be. And if they had that chance, would they actually take it.
Now I have way too much time on my hands these days, thanks to my various disabilities and the fact my part-time work is extremely limited at this time of year. So I already spend what is probably too much of that time thinking about what I've accomplished, what I failed to accomplish and how things could have been different.
We all make choices that we wind up regretting, sometimes the moment after making them. Take the case of the well-known baseball "ballhawk" Zack Hample. This past Sunday he attended the ESPN Sunday night game of the week, which was a special event. It was held on the grounds of Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The problem is the game was limited to active duty personnel and their dependents. While Mr. Hample claims he was taken to the game by a "friend" who serves in a unit where everyone got tickets, he'd posted ads on social media offering to pay $1,000 to anyone who got him into the game. Given the outrage on social media in the wake of the event, I'd wager Mr. Hample would love to get a "do-over" on that decision.
So I started thinking, is there one decision I'd want a do-over on? Would it be to apply myself in lass back in high school? If I had, I could have easily maintained a pretty high GPA. I would have wound up going to college instead of joining the military. Who knows what might have happened? Too many variables. Plus I wasn't really mature enough yet to fully apply myself to my classwork. I was more interested in bowling and my various part-time jobs.
How about the choice to marry, twice, both times ending in divorce? I could easily see how those choices wouldn't have had much impact on my life. I'd have saved some money but in both instances I learned very valuable lessons that help me deal with my life as it is today. So those won't do.
In 1980 I was faced with the choice of going to Guam or getting out of the Air Force altogether. I'd considered trying the Professional Bowler's tour. I had the skill and met the qualifications to join the tour, but I know in my heart I wouldn't have become a star. I needed to progress to a next level that I never quite reached in that game. Nope.
There were other choices in my life I considered and ultimately came to the same conclusions as with the above instances. The one that comes closest was a choice I made on a whim. It was early in 1984 and I'd just received orders for a permanent change of stations from Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS to go to Kwang Ju Airbase in the Republic of Korea. I was at the personnel office doing the paperwork and the clerk helping me asked "do you want to put in for a follow-on assignment and if so, to where?" Follow-on assignments were available back then if you were going overseas for a short tour (15 months or less) and allowed you to choose the base you'd be assigned to upon the conclusion of your overseas duty. I looked at a map of bases and decided that for a change I wanted to be stationed close to home. So I chose Nellis AFB, which is located just North of the Las Vegas strip. It seemed like the right choice at the time.
Right up until I was nearing the 75% point of my tour of duty in the ROK. My commander nominated me for an assignment to Japan. My unit's new HQ would be established there and they needed personnel for the advance team to establish that HQ. The two-star general that commanded the then Air Force Communications Command approved my CO's recommendation and I was selected for the assignment. The problem arose when the Tactical Air Command, which ran operations at Nellis, refused to release me from that follow-on assignment I'd so carelessly asked for before going to the ROK. The commander of TAC was a four-star general, so that was that and off I went to Nellis. Had I gone to Japan it would have meant a promotion and I'd have reenlisted yet again. Instead, I left the service two years later.
Going to Japan would have meant staying in the service until I reached retirement age. I'd have a pension today that would be nice. I'd have access to the base exchange and commissary at military bases anywhere in the U.S. Nearly free travel on military flights. But it would have also meant I'd have never taken my job at Crossroads, a job I loved for nearly all of my 17 years there. I cannot count how many people would have never been a part of my life. The people, the knowledge and what's transpired since I left Korea are worth far more in my mind than a pension and other benefits.
I guess the lesson is that you make decisions at the time with all of the information available and then move forward. You get no do-overs in life. Not until time travel is invented of course.
Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton went to FBI headquarters and was interviewed for over three hours as part of the investigation into allegations involving her use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The interview comes in the wake of the impromptu meeting between her husband, former President Bill Clinton and current Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch. Reporter's Note: The AG has said she's going to go with the recommendations of the FBI and DOJ senior attorneys in determining whether or not to bring charges against Secretary Clinton, and that's a good thing. Even if President Clinton did not discuss the investigation and potential charges against his wife with the AG, even the appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual wrongdoing; in the eyes of the public.
* * *
At some point after 2:00 a.m. on a Saturday night, a man was seen jumping off of the Venice Pier. David Rose left some of his belongings behind on the pier and those enabled police to quickly identify him. Authorities searched for him for seven hours before he was located at his home. As jumping from the pier is against the law, he could be charged. Reporter's Note: This moron should be charged for the cost of the search rather than being criminally charged.
* * *
A college student walking in NYC's Central Park lost a foot to what turned out to be a homemade firework. According to the New York Post, 18 year old Connor Golden was injured when he stepped on the device. Reporter's Note: Anyone who is making homemade fireworks and is not an explosives expert is a nominee for a Darwin Award.
* * *
Finding Dory won the weekend box office wars in spite of a 42.6% drop in revenues over the prior weekend. It is the 3rd week in a row for the film to top the weekend box office totals. New releases The Legend of Tarzan, The Purge: Election Year and The BFG took the next three spots with totals of $38 million, $30.8 million and $19.5 million respectively. Independence Day: Resurgence dropped from last weekend's #2 spot to 5th. Reporter's Note: It's a good news/bad news weekend for Disney, as they have a hit with Finding Dory and a big miss with Steven Spielberg's BFG. As for Independence Day: Resurgence, only foreign box office revenues are saving 20th Century Fox from a big loss. The domestic grosses for it are so low because it began with three strikes against it. 1. No Will Smith. 2. Two decades between the two films. 3. Too many movies with cataclysmic plots in too short a period.
* * *
As speculation swirls around who Donald Trump will name as his running mate, Newt Gingrich has made it clear that he is only interested in the job if it involves being more than just a figurehead/president-in-waiting. At an appearance in Colorado the former House Speaker said “I have a very simple test question: If it’s about funerals, I’m not interested.” Reporter's Note: As a former history professor, Mr. Gingrich is well aware of what John Nance Garner, Vice President during two of FDR's terms said about being vice president. Garner said "the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit."
* * *
AirBNB is using the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the Stored Communications Act and the 1st Amendment as grounds for a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco. AirBNB is saying that the city's new ordinance that calls for fines against AirBNB if it doesn't remove listings from hosts who don't first register their home with the city. The city's law requiring hosts to register has been around but the new ordinance that mandates platforms like AirBNB remove unregistered listings was passed by a unanimous 10-0 vote last month. Reporter's Note: The way the CDA is written, AirBNB is almost certain to prevail in their suit. It wasn't designed to regulate commerce, but to protect websites from being responsible for content their uses posted. I'm working on another blog about the "sharing economy" that I hope to publish soon.
* * *
Demi Lovato and Nick Jonas performed in Orlando this weekend and invited 30 or so of the staff from the Pulse Nightclub to be their guests. They held a meet and greet with the staffers from the site of one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history in the private suite the singers had arranged for them. Reporter's Note: Classy move by Lovato and Jonas.
* * *
A Charleston Gazette article says the largest private-held producer of coal in the U.S. is warning of layoffs that may involve 80% of its workforce. Murray Energy sent out the required layoff warning notices to more than 4,400 workers. U.S. law requires employers of more than 100 employees to provide a minimum of 60 days warning notice prior to a major layoff.
The company's president Robert Murray said its
expected layoffs are caused by “the ongoing destruction of the United
States coal industry” by the Obama administration and “the increased
utilization of natural gas to generate electricity.” Reporter's Note: The fact that the price of coal is roughly half of what it was five years ago might have something to do with the company's poor performance. This is not the fault of the Obama Administration, but the law of supply and demand.
* * *
its
expected layoffs are caused by “the ongoing destruction of the United
States coal industry” by the Obama administration and “the increased
utilization of natural gas to generate electricity.” - See more at:
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20160701/murray-energy-warns-of-mass-layoffs#sthash.K8nhLsxJ.dpuf
its
expected layoffs are caused by “the ongoing destruction of the United
States coal industry” by the Obama administration and “the increased
utilization of natural gas to generate electricity.” - See more at:
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20160701/murray-energy-warns-of-mass-layoffs#sthash.K8nhLsxJ.dpuf
Todd Starnes is a conservative commentator. He is a regular on Fox News and he recently wrote an opinion piece for the network's website. In it he tells the story of a restaurant in Penfield, NY and their desire to fly the banner shown below.
The problem with the banner is that the town has made it a rule that businesses are limited in banner posting. Each business gets an annual allotment of three weeks and The Five Mile Cafe had already used theirs up before submitting a request to post this banner between Memorial Day and Independence Day. The request was denied and according to Mr. Starnes, the town would be assessing fines against the owner, Jennifer Aquino. She insisted on re-hanging the banner outside after the attack on Orlando, in spite of the ban.
In the piece, published on the Fox News website on 6/30/2016 Mr. Starnes writes the following:
"Jennifer tells me she never imagined there would be a day like this in America. “I have lots of veterans in my family,” she said. “I
have a cousin who fought in Desert Storm so that we could have the
freedom to hang a banner that says, ‘God bless America.’” And yet we live in a nation where you can be punished for simply being patriotic."
The problem is, Mr Starnes apparently doesn't bother to worry about the facts of a situation in his attempt to stir the emotions of his readers.
That's not easy to read, but it is a copy of a letter that Penfield City Council member Paula Metzler wrote about the issue of the banner at the Five Mile Cafe. The important factoid from this letter is that at a meeting on May 25th, more than a month prior to the publication of the Starnes piece; an exemption to the three week allotment was granted to Ms Aquino.
So the statement by Mr. Starnes that Ms Aquino was being punished for being patriotic was in fact completely wrong. Those facts are darn inconvenient things, aren't they Mr. Starnes?
There is a larger issue here. In the more than 500 comments posted thus far on the Facebook page of the Five Mile Cafe, a number implied or outright stated that the limits on banners shouldn't apply to this one because those limits violated the free speech rights of Ms Aquino.
In general the courts have upheld limitations on signage as long as those limits aren't content-based. You can read more about this here. So the town's limits on banners based solely on the amount of time that a sign can legally be displayed are not a violation of any of Ms Aquino's rights.
What is more disturbing is the idea that because the message of Ms Aquino's banner is considered by the public to be patriotic, it should be exempted from those limits. What people just cannot wrap their heads around is that freedom of speech applies to all speech, except that where laws have been passed prohibiting them; where that law has been found to be constitutional. Shouting fire in a crowded theater, the time-honored example used to prove there are exceptions to free speech rights still works to prove that point.
So if an exemption was granted because of the content of Ms Aquino's banner, as Ms Metzler suggests in her letter, I find the granting of the exemption disquieting. Why is patriotic speech to be favored? If we have the right to express ourselves freely, all speech that is legal must therefore be legal.
If Ms Aquino were a supporter of Donald Trump and she wanted to post a banner that reads "Ban Muslims" then should she still receive an exemption? If she wanted to express solidarity with Kentucky's infamous county clerk Kim David, and post a banner that reads "Ban the Abomination of Same-Sex Marriage" does she get an exemption?
We can't protect some speech at the expense of speech we don't want to hear. The way to defeat hate speech isn't to limit or ban it, but to shine a bright light on it and those who express it.
