Colin Kaepernick and the National Anthem

I've seen an increasing number of veterans who are supporting Colin Kaepernick's choice to refuse to stand during the playing of the national anthem.  I am a veteran.  I do not like his choice but I will defend his right to do so. 

I do find it interesting that there is a law in our nation that says he should not be doing what he is doing.  Title 36, U.S. Code Section 301 reads as follows:

(a)Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—

 

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

 
Note that this law indicates that one "should" and not "must" and it contains no provisions for penalties against anyone who violates it.  Why bother with this law?  It seems to me that it violates the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.  Because if burning a United States flag is constitutionally protected free speech, so is choosing not to stand during the playing of the national anthem.

So we are clear that government at any level has no place in this discussion.  Now the question turns to the NFL and the team he plays for and what they choose to do.  So far they have supported what he is doing.  That is their right.

Then we move on to those who are criticizing his refusal to stand.  Let me quote something that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote on the subject.

"What should horrify Americans is not Kaepernick’s choice to remain seated during the national anthem, but that nearly 50 years after [Muhammad] Ali was banned from boxing for his stance and Tommie Smith and John Carlos’s raised fists caused public ostracization and numerous death threats, we still need to call attention to the same racial inequities. Failure to fix this problem is what’s really un-American here."
 
Again I do not agree with Colin Kaepernick's choice to remain seated during the playing of the national anthem but he has every right to do so.  I also believe that people who disagree with his choice have every right to voice their criticisms.  Clearly death threats are not an appropriate reaction in any situation.  Stupid and amusing memes seem to be the order off the day and while they accomplish little, they can be entertaining.  I've seen no one who disagrees with what Kaepernick is doing enough to try to do something meaningful, like organizing boycotts or the like.  Nor would that accomplish much.

A number of sports media outlets are speculating that Colin Kaepernick's time in the NFL won't last a whole lot longer.  The 49ers are expected by a number of analysts to cut Kaepernick and not because of his protest activities.  He's coming off of injuries and has not done well in the preseason.  If they keep him on the roster after the season begins and he is injured, then the team is on the hook for his 2017 contract salary.  That is $14.5 million and that's a big risk on someone who doesn't seem to be coming back from the injuries he has suffered.

Sources say that a number of NFL team executives will not sign Kaepernick if the 49ers release him, because of his decision to stay seated during the national anthem.  Before you criticize those people, remember, they have every right to choose who they do and do not sign to contracts. 

One last thought.  To those who say that Colin Kaepernick should spend some of his millions to battle racism rather than engaging in what they consider a meaningless protest, you have the right to offer that criticism.  And I have the right to say that in my opinion it is none of your business how any private citizen chooses to spend the money they have earned, as long as they do it within the law.

It's not my Vegas anymore II

Last year after I went to Las Vegas for the first time in a decade to compete in the National Trivia League tournament finals, I wrote a blog entry about how it was no longer "my Vegas."  That was the first annual tournament.  The second annual version took place on August 27th and I was again in Las Vegas, for the first time since last year's visit.  Sadly, after we finished 3rd in the inaugural tournament, we did not do so well in our second effort.  But it was fun.

It also got me thinking about how much Las Vegas has changed, even more than I wrote about in last year's blog.  30 years ago, the hotels and casinos on the Las Vegas Strip were (as best I can remember):

Aladdin

Ballys Grand

Barbary Coast

Boardwalk

Caesar’s Palace

Castaways

Circus Circus

Desert Inn

Dunes

El Rancho

Flamingo

Frontier

Hacienda

Holiday

Imperial Palace

Marina

Nob Hill 

O'Shea's

Riviera

Sahara

Sands

Silver City

Silver Slipper

Slots O’ Fun

Stardust

Tropicana

Westward Ho

Today, the Aladdin is now Planet Hollywood.  The Barbary Coast is the Cromwell.  Boardwalk is now the site of the Mandarin Oriental, a five star resort but without a casino.  The Castaway (a personal favorite of mine) is now the home to the Mirage and Treasure Island.  The Desert Inn (once known as Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn) is the site of the Wynn and the Encore.  The Dunes is the site of the Bellagio.  The El Rancho (where I used to bowl in a league at their bowling center) is the site of the still unfinished Fountainbleu.  The Frontier is the site of the planned Alon Las Vegas.  The Hacienda is occupied by the Mandalay Bay and the recently rebranded Delano.  The Holiday is now Harrahs.  The Imperial Palace (once home to a gigantic private collection of Adolf Hitler memorabilia) is now the Linq.  The Marina is now home to the MGM Grand, which was once the name of the hotel now known as Ballys.  The Nob Hill is now known as Casino Royale and caters to low-rollers.  The Rivera was recently demolished.  The Sahara is now the SLS.  The Sands is now the site of the Venetian and the Palazzo.  The Silver City (once the only non smoking casino in Las Vegas) is now a shopping plaza.  The Stardust was demolished to make way for a new hotel/casino but construction stopped years ago.  Now the new owners hope to open a new property on the site sometime in 2018.  The Silver Slipper was demolished and replaced by a parking lot.  

In addition to all of that, the Strip is now home to these additional hotel/casinos:

Aria

Cosmopolitan

Excalibur

Luxor

Monte Carlo

New York New York

Paris Las Vegas

* * *

To offer some additional perspective, consider this.  On November 4, 1986, I was working part-time as a reporter/anchor for the only all-news radio station in Las Vegas.  It was election night.  It was the night that Harry Reid was first elected to the U.S. Senate.  I had covered his campaign during the primary and general election run-up but on this night I'd been assigned to cover the race to replace Harry Reid in Congress.  

As I was about to leave to visit the election night locations of both of the candidates for the Congressional seat, I was told that I had to go to a trailer park on Las Vegas Boulevard and cover a fire there first.  That trailer park was on the Strip, where the New York New York and Monte Carlo properties now sit.  Some of the land around it was actually empty at the time.

Fast forward nearly three decades and now there isn't an unused square inch of real estate in that block.  Technology has eliminated a number of jobs in the casino industry.  You don't see people walking around slot machine areas carrying belts of rolled coins.  There are no more change booths.  Slot machines accept bills and pay out winnings (or what's left of a player's initial deposit into the machine) on slips of paper that can be fed into another machine that will dispense bills and coins.  I wonder what the very nice change girl who "sold" me the roll of quarters I hit a royal flush with is doing these days.  She would have had to find another job once those machines took over and she was young at the time.

Since hotel coffee shops are a thing of the past, the number of food service workers isn't what it once was.  Never mind that food is now much more expensive in a hotel/casino.  Snacks at the gift shop are nearly twice what they cost elsewhere.  The room rate wasn't bad, but that resort fee of $29 a night sucks.  $29 a night for free wi-fi, local calls and the ability to use the spa where a 50 minute massage is $195.  The upscale Burke Williams spas in So Cal charge $119 for the same 50 minute massage.  I pay $49 for the same service at a local chain that's not quite so upscale.

In 2005 I paid $90 for a full hour massage at the Luxor Hotel spa.  So it isn't just inflation.  In fact, in those days there wasn't a resort fee and that $90 saved me the $20 spa use fee.  So under today's system where the resort fee is mandatory, that massage at the Rio was even more expensive in comparison to the 2005 experience.

It really isn't my Vegas anymore.  But I'll go back next year for the trivia tournament.

After the latest gaffe from paid Trump campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson, perhaps it is time to review them and examine a conspiracy theory I expect Trump and his supporters will advance in the wake of his impending defeat in November.

He hasn't changed his position, he's changed the words that he is saying.  If there were awards for most outrageous attempts at spinning an issue, that would be worth of a lifetime achievement award.  It's noteworthy, even coming from a woman who:

Blamed President Obama for the death of Captain Humayun Khan in Iraq, in the wake of the speech given by the father of Captain Khan at the Democratic National Convention.  Captain Khan was killed in 2004, long before President Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Blamed President Obama for "tens of thousands of soldiers that have been lost. One million wounded" when the actual number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 has been less than 6,000.  Number of wounded less than 100,000.

Claiming in June that Trump's original proposal to ban Muslims did not include all Muslims (of course the original press release from December of 2015 does indeed propose banning all Muslims).

Questioning whether or not Senator Marco Rubio was even eligible to run for President.  This one is a hoot.

Senator Rubio was born in Miami, to parents who weren't citizens at the time, and this moron is questioning whether or not he is "...a naturalized citizen?"  Does she really not get it that when someone is born on U.S. soil, they are a citizen by birth and do not need to go through the naturalization process?  I guess so.  Then she compounds her error by referring to the "anchor-baby law."  I think we should ask Captain Khan's father to send a pocket Constitution to Ms Pierson so she can refresh her understanding of it.

* * *

Now on to the conspiracy theory I believe we may hear from Trump or his surrogates once he loses in December.  He will claim that Ms Pierson, along with others who have worked as paid employees on his campaign were actually working for the Clinton campaign to sabotage his attempt to gain the presidency.

He's going to engage in one of the biggest ever blame games once he goes down to defeat, and this will quite probably be a part of his theorizing about why he lost.

Be ready for the spin doctoring of Trump's political demise.

A Primer on some Debt Issues

Remember this past June when John Oliver, host of Last Week Tonight made headlines by purchasing $15 million worth of medical debt for $60,000 and then finding a way to forgive the debt so those who owed the money would not face any tax consequences?

Because that item continues to make the rounds online I thought a review of a few of the facts about what he did might be in order.

Why was the debt so inexpensive to purchase?

Buying this debt for four cents on the dollar was only possible because all of the debts that made up the total amount were beyond the statute of limitations.  That means that whoever owns the debt cannot file a lawsuit or use the legal system to collect.  They can still contact the person who owes the money but in doing so they are supposed to comply with the federal statutes that were passed by Congress to protect us from debt collectors.

What happens if I make a partial payment on my debt when it is beyond statute?

You restart "the clock" on the statute.  When I was hospitalized for a year and my former employer illegally canceled my health insurance while I was in a coma.  In spite of my going on Medicaid, there were some very large medical bills that weren't paid due to the incompetence of the billing offices of the providers.  As a result they tried to collect them from me.  Under California law after four years have passed the debt collectors can no longer sue.  That did not stop them from calling me incessantly.

Had I been foolish enough to make a partial payment "in good faith" as many of them tried to get me to do, that would have restarted the four year period during which they could take legal action.

So if you owe someone money that is beyond the statute of limitations, while it may negatively impact your credit (after seven years the negative credit reports will disappear from your file), you may not want to make a partial payment.  If you feel a moral obligation to pay the debt, save the money up and pay it in full.  

What about paying off the debt for less than is owed, in a settlement with the collector?

Every year I have at least one tax client who comes in with a Form 1099-C.  That's the form where a creditor reports to the IRS that they have written off (another term for forgiven) a debt in whole or part.  The result can have tax implications to you.

Example:  If you owe a credit card company $10,000 and they agree to accept a payment of $5,000 as payment in full, you will get a 1099-C for the remaining $5,000.  You will owe income tax on that amount under a theory known as Cancellation of Debt (COD) income.  Because you received the money and wound up not paying it back, the IRS considers it to be income.

Do not despair.  If it turns out that on the date the debt was written off, you were insolvent to the extent of the amount of the debt, then the debt that was canceled will not be subject to income tax.

Example.  In the instance above, the taxpayer has COD income of $5,000.  They have $30,000 in assets and $40,000 in debts on the day the $5,000 in debt was written off.  Since the amount that they are considered to be insolvent ($40K debts - $30K assets = $10K and $10K > $5K), the debt is excluded from income on Form 982.

Can the debt collectors call me all the time?

No.  The link above that takes you to the FTC website explains the rules about how and when collectors can contact you.  You can put a request in writing to a debt collector or agency to stop contacting you.  If they continue to do so after you have made a written request, you have recourse. There are links on the page I linked to above where you can file a complaint against the debt collector.  You can also sue them.

Will the people whose medical debts were forgiven by John Oliver have to pay tax on those amounts?

No.  Because he donated the debts to a non-profit that specializes in forgiving debts, there will be no tax liability.  There is a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that prevents COD income from being subject to taxation when whoever is forgiving the debt is doing so as an act of "detached and disinterested generosity."

Before responding to anyone attempting to collect a debt, explore your rights and if you have a question, seek assistance.  There are consumer protection agencies you can contact.

The mother of all false comparisons

Jerry Falwell, Jr. is the President of Liberty University.  He holds a BA and a JD and yet apparently during all of that time he apparently did not learn a lot about World History.  How else can one explain this statement by Mr Falwell:

"We are at a crossroads where our first priority must be saving our nation. We need a leader with qualities that resemble those of Winston Churchill, and I believe that leader is Donald Trump. As Churchill did, Trump possesses the resolve to put his country first and to never give up in a world that is increasingly hostile to our values.We are at a crossroads where our first priority must be saving our nation. We need a leader with qualities that resemble those of Winston Churchill, and I believe that leader is Donald Trump. As Churchill did, Trump possesses the resolve to put his country first and to never give up in a world that is increasingly hostile to our values."

He wrote that in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, and to paraphrase the late U.S. Senator from Texas, Lloyd Bentsen, Mr. Falwell, I know the biography of Winston Churchill and Donald Trump is no Winston Churchill.

Let's make a few comparisons of these two men, beginning with their military service.

Trump - None.  Believes his time in a military high school gave him more knowledge of things military than most of us who have served.

Churchill - Seven years of military service following his graduation from the Royal Military College at Sandhurst.  He was an officer, rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel and served on the Western Front during WWI.

Their respective beliefs about the valor of prisoners of war:

Trump - Denigrates those who were POWs.

Churchill - While working as a civilian war correspondent was captured during the Second Boer War and escaped from the POW camp he'd been imprisoned in.

Political Experience:

Trump - None

Churchill - Six decades as a member of Parliament.  Home Secretary.  Minister of Munitions.  Secretary of State for War.  Secretary of State for Air.  Secretary of State for the Colonies.  Chancellor of the Exchequer.  First Lord of the Admiralty.  Minister of Defence.  Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice, for a total of nine years.

Sorry Mr. Falwell but your comparison is ridiculous.  There is NOTHING Churchillian about Donald Trump. 

Title VII and what it does/doesn't cover

Meet Aimee Stephens

Ms Stephens is a transgender woman who informed her employer in July of 2013 she was going to begin her transition.  She probably had no inkling what an impact her announcement would wind up having.

On August 18, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Sean Cox ruled that Ms Stephens' former employer could use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to successfully defend itself against the discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on Ms Stephens' behalf.  Unless she prevails on appeal, this is a victory for R.G. and G.R. Funeral Homes, her former employer.

LGBTQ organizations, columnists and the media are reporting that Ms Stephens was fired solely because she is a transgendered woman.  The judge's ruling doesn't say that, in so many words, but it says a lot.

This court had previously rejected the EEOC's attempt to expand Title VII to include transgender status or gender identity as protected classes. 

The judge's ruling also states that there is no dispute that job performance was not an issue in the termination of Ms Stephens. 

The ruling states that based on a precedent in a sex-discrimination case involving Price Waterhouse and sex discrimination, a claim could proceed on the basis that the employer provided work clothing for male employees but not female employees.

The ruling granting summary judgment to the employer is based on two defenses:

1.  The employer's sex-specific dress code, requiring male employees to wear a suit jacket and pants, with shirt and tie, and requiring female employees to wear a skirted suit does not constitute "impermissible sex stereotyping" under Title VII.

2.  The employer is entitled to an exemption under the aforementioned Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the remedy sought by the EEOC on behalf of Ms Stephens would impose "...a substantial burden on its ability to conduct business in accordance with its sincerely-held religious beliefs."

What's really interesting about this is that the genesis of this ruling can be found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the case where the court ruled that "closely-held corporations" are exempt from laws its owners object to on a religious basis, provided there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interests.

I'm all for affording people the right to practice their religion as they see fit, right up to the point where those practices harm others.  This ruling could be used by big companies like Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby to discriminate against transgendered employees because of the religious beliefs of the owners of these closely-held corporations.  That's frightening, at least in my mind it is.

Latest woman to attempt Marine Corps Infantry Officer School Fails

Back in 2015, 29 female officers took and dropped out of the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course.  All of them failed to pass the course.  Then in December of last year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that all military jobs would be opened to women.  Back in April of 2016, the first woman to take the Infantry Officer Course dropped out after she failed two "conditioning hikes."  Like any other officer who fails to complete the course on their first attempt, she was given another opportunity.  Her second try began in July but again she was dropped from the course after failing a second conditioning hike.  Now she's been given another Military Occupational Specialty (MOS).

The media is giving this failure more attention than it deserves.  Most articles comment on the fact that at present there are no other women scheduled to attend the training.  Some quote Marine Corps General John F. Kelly (retired) when he was still serving as Commander of the United States Southern Command.  General Kelly said "If we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers -- any real numbers come into the infantry."

The Infantry Officer School is an extremely difficult course.  Of the 97 students in this class, there have been 34 students who have been dropped.  That's a failure rate of over 35% and the course will undoubtedly lose more students before graduation on September 20th of this year.  That's not to say that it is the military training course with the highest failure rate.  That honor goes to the Air Force's Pararescue training course, which has an average course failure rate of 90%.  Army Ranger training and Marine Corps Scout Sniper training have average drop-out rates of over 60%.  This data is just here to provide perspective.  This woman attempted and failed a course that more than four of every ten men who try it, fail.

Lewis B. Puller, Jr., was the son of the one of the most famous Marines who ever lived.  In his Pulitizer Prize winning autobiography, Fortunate Son, he wrote something about the demands of Marine Corps training for officers.  Before the Infantry Officer School, an officer must go to one of the military academies, or pass Officer Candidate School, another difficult course.  One of his OCS classmates who failed OCS was the clerk who processed Puller Jr.'s orders to go to Vietnam.

The fact that this woman qualified to attend the Infantry Officer School is in and of itself an achievement.  She got to a point many men did not reach.  That is something the media seems to be ignoring.  Instead they're focused on how she was unable to pass this course.  I admire her for having the guts to try.