California ballot 2016 - Proposition 56

The big lie from the campaign to stop Prop 56 is contained in this commercial.

Proposition 56 will not cut school funding in any way.  The claim by the tobacco companies who are behind the No on 56 campaign are trying to mislead voters into thinking that Prop 56 will steal money from education.  Instead, this proposition was written to address health issues specifically, and to avoid having the new tax revenues it would create being added to the state's general fund where current law would mandate a big chunk of this tax on cigarette sales go directly to school funding.

Prop 56 seeks to boost the California excise tax on a pack of cigarettes from its current level of 87 cents per pack by an additional $2.00.  That is an increase of nearly 330% in this tax, which is assessed on top of a federal tax of $1.01 per pack plus state and local sales taxes.

Where does California fall in terms of how other states tax the sale of a pack of cigarettes?  The nation's high by state is New York where the total state tax is $4.35 per pack.  The low is in Missouri, where the state tax per pack is only 17 cents.  The nationwide average is $1.65 per pack.

This would be the first increase in the CA cigarette tax since Proposition 10 passed in 1998.  The current tax is allocated as follows:

• 10 cents goes to the General Fund. About $84 million was raised for the fund in fiscal year 2015-2016 due to this allocation.
• 25 cents goes towards tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income persons, and environmental protection. Proposition 99 of 1988 created this portion of the tax. About $259 million was raised for these services in fiscal year 2015-2016.
• 2 cents goes towards breast cancer screenings and research. For fiscal year 2015-2016, $20 million was raised for these services.
• 50 cents goes towards early childhood development programs. Proposition 10 of 1998 created this portion of the tax. About $447 million was raised for these programs in fiscal year 2015-2016.

As with any ballot proposition, one has to look at the sources of funding behind the Yes and No arguments to find out just who the real special interests are; in spite of commercials claiming there are other interests at work.  The No campaign is being funded by tobacco interests, primarily the firms of R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris.  The Yes campaign is being paid for by the California Hospitals Committee on Issues (CHCI), supported by hospitals; and by billionaire Tom Steyer.

It should be noted that CHCI is spending heavily on another proposition, Prop 55 which is the attempt to extend the tax on California's highest income earners that was created by Prop 30.  Here their interests are quite clear.  The bulk of the funding created by Prop 56 will go to fund Medi-Cal programs.  Some would go to programs to prevent/stop smoking and there is a tiny bit for research into diseases that are tobacco related.

The motives of the makers of cigarettes are obvious.  They want to keep the price of their product low, to stop further reductions in sales in our nation's most populated state.  In fact, California has the second lowest rate of smokers among its population, second only to Utah.  But even with that low of a rate, the size of the state's population makes this an issue important enough to the manufacturers of cigarettes that they have given over $50 million to fund the No on 56 campaign.

You need to make up your own minds, but now you have more information.  Me, I'll vote yes on Prop 56.

Denial - The river fueling the Trump Campaign

Hillary Clinton claims Donald Trump called climate change a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese during the first presidential debate.  Trump's response "I did not say that.  I do not say that.  I do not say that."  The problem is that he said just that in a tweet in November of 2012.

An objective evaluation of this would be that Trump lied. The same type of objective analysis would determine that the following list of Trump statements are also lies:

Stop and frisk was not ruled unconstitutional in New York.
Hillary Clinton started the birther controversy.
He did not initially support the war in Iraq.
NATO opened a terrorism division because of his comments.
We can learn more from his financial disclosure forms than from his tax returns.
His claim he never said Muslims would be subject to profiling under his policies
His claim Hillary Clinton has no child care plan.

And many, many, more.

The question is why?  How pervasive is Trump's lying?  According to Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale, there was one nine day period where Trump told 64 unique lies.  Some claim he is simply a pathological liar while others attribute his penchant for prevarication is simply a symptom of a narcissistic personality disorder. 

I do not know that either is completely provable.  What I do know is that there is a truth here.  That truth is that his supporters don't give a darn about what lies he tells.  He believes in dissembling and said so in his first book.  In The Art of the Deal he wrote “I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.” 

He has become so entrenched in this mindset that he has made a major leap beyond hyperbole and now believes (rightly so) that he can get away with baldfaced falsehoods.  The biggest lie he is selling at the moment is that he is an outsider, an agent of change.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Trump wants to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans (including himself, BTW).  So has every Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan.  He claims he can achieve reductions in government spending by eliminating waste.  So have the other Republican presidential nominees.   Analyses of his economic and tax proposals by independent organizations show they would add trillions to the national debt, just like the plans of those predecessors who ran as Republicans.

This is the same old failed formula but in a shiny new wrapper of orange spray tan and expensive tailored suits that aren't made in Mexico and China like Trump's signature clothing lines are.  That is the big lie.  The one he doesn't want you to see.  So he keeps telling smaller lies to distract you.

 

Breaking the law

The supporters of Donald Trump continue to harp on the fact that they believe that what Hillary Clinton did with her handling of email through her private email server was a violation of the law.  The FBI investigation did not say it was or it wasn't, it simply concluded that it would not be possible to successfully prosecute her for her actions in that matter.

Fair enough.  Consider her to be a lawbreaker if that's what you believe.  What about Donald Trump's violations of the law?

In 1972 Trump was accused of racial discrimination, a violation of the law by the U.S. Justice Department.  If he was truly innocent, why did he settle?  A detailed account of the events as they transpired printed by the Washington Post raises serious challenges to Mr. Trump's claims it was a "minor settlement" and his assertions that the Justice Department couldn't prove its case. 

He is accused of attempting to cheat employees at his places of business out of overtime wages.  Again, why is he settling these cases when he claims he hates to settle?  These aren't old cases either, one involving a Trump business in Miami involving 48 employees was settled just this year.

It is a violation of federal law to use funds from a not for profit to pay personal or business expenses.  The Washington Post has also detailed how Mr. Trump has allegedly violated this law as well.  The Post article provides evidence to back up its claim that the Trump Foundation paid out $258,000 that was to settle Trump's legal matters not related to the foundation.  The Trump campaign responded by claiming the article was "peppered with inaccuracies" and that the author, David Farenthold was biased against him.  It isn't bias to demonstrate facts that make someone look bad.  Where is the list of the so-called inaccuracies in the Post article?  It doesn't exist because there are none.

There are no truly honest politicians.  But as reported recently in the L.A. Times, Trump's level of lying during the 2016 presidential campaign reaches a new level of dishonesty.  What are some of his lies, according to the Times?

He lies that taxes in the U.S. are among the highest on Earth.  Untrue.
He lies that Hillary Clinton personally started the birther rumors.  Untrue.
He lies that he opposed military intervention in Iraq and Libya from the start.  Untrue.

How far does this go among his supporters.  That Times story quotes a retired finance professor who is a Trump supporter as claiming Trump was right to claim President Barrack Obama was born outside the U.S.  "He was born on a naval base in Mombasa, Kenya — that’s what I think,” Roberts said. “I’ve done some research.”

Here's the really sad truth as I see it, a few hours before the first presidential debate.  You could wave all of the documentation regarding what Trump has lied about and done illegally (or immorally) in front of those supporters and it would not matter one iota.  That's a testament to what a great con artist he is, and what a danger he presents.

Weekend news items

Dollar General is a chain of stores with over 12,000 locations in most of the U.S. States.  They were just ordered to pay a former employee $277,656 after firing her for stealing a $1.69 bottle of orange juice.  Turns out the employee is a diabetic and took the juice to drink so she wouldn't suffer a hypoglycemic attack.  She drank it before paying and that's a violation of company policy.  She paid for it after her symptoms subsided.  The jury sided with her after the EEOC took legal action on her behalf.  REPORTER'S NOTE:  The company has a policy that allows people in this type of situation to keep a drink of their own with them at the register but her supervisor did not let her.  I wonder what the firm did to the supervisor?

* * *

Lance Sanderson just graduated from Christian Brothers High School in Memphis.  Sort of.  He had to spend his senior year at home, as the school made it clear he was no longer welcome on campus.  That's because he had the temerity to believe something written in the school's Code of Conduct:

"Students at Christian Brothers High School promote the spirit of Christian charity and fraternity among themselves each day at school and at all times when they are in the company of their classmates.  All CBHS students should feel safe, secure and accepted regardless of color, race, background, appearance, popularity, athletic ability, intelligence, personality, sexual orientation, religion or nationality."

It is an all-male school and Lance is gay.  He had the nerve to believe that it was okay for him to ask the school for permission to bring another boy as his date to the homecoming dance.  As detailed in a article on the ThinkProgress website, his principal belittled him.  Ultimately his request was denied and he was ordered not to return to the campus at the outset of his senior year.

Fortunately his future looks bright as he is now attending DePaul and he has found a job in the area.  REPORTER'S NOTE:  If you are going to publish a philosophy in your school's handbook, be prepared to live by it.

* * *

That's a photo of the late Lee Marvin, starring in the 1980 movie The Big Red One.  You know, the other movie Mark Hamill was in the year that Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was released.  The film was written and directed by Samuel Fuller and he served in that notable unit.

The U.S. Army's 1st Division is the oldest continuously serving U.S. Army division and it is in the news because of an investigation into its commanding officer, Major General Wayne Grigsby.  A story in a Topeka, KS newspaper (home of the 1st Division at Fort Riley) gives no reason for the suspension of General Grigsby from his duties.  The Army refuses to comment other than to say there is an official investigation going on.  REPORTER'S NOTE:  Given the recent incidents involving other senior military officers being "relieved" of duty for adultery/fraternization/sexual escapades, I can't help but wonder if that is what is going on here.

* * *

Monday night will be the first of three presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  Mark Cuban will be sitting in the first row, according to his tweet.  One particular quote from Mr. Cuban is worth repeating.  "Let’s put it this way, if he came on 'Shark Tank,' I wouldn’t make the investment. I just don’t see him as being capable in the least bit."  REPORTER'S NOTE:  I think the Clinton campaign is hoping the presence of Cuban, who is well known for "trolling" Trump, will distract the Republican nominee.  It might work.  It might not.  But it will make the debate even more interesting to watch.

* * *

Speaking of The Donald, a piece from Bloomberg.com explores how Trump's run for the presidency may be negatively impacting his brand and its various businesses.  Here is an excerpt:

"A walk around the lobby of the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York suggests one reason why. On a recent afternoon, a Tennessee family in matching khaki shorts browsed through merchandise in the building’s store; a young, tattooed couple with backpacks ate ice cream in the food court. The crowd was there to get photos taken in front of the gold-lettered Trump name above the entrance; they didn’t appear to be in the market for $500-a-night hotel rooms."

REPORTER'S NOTE:  Trump's businesses are mostly aimed at a high-end customer base.  Those are the people who are better educated and who earn more money, traits not typical among his base of supporters.  As a private company we will never know the real impact of his campaign on his brand's profitability.  But we do know he's holding every possible event for his campaign at one of his facilities and the campaign is paying full-price for them.

* * *

Vin Scully called his final game at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, where for the past 50+ seasons he has been the team's announcer.  67 years in total.  And it was a final play call for the ages.

Maybe not quite as legendary as this one though:

All I can say for certain is that Los Angeles has been blessed with three of the greatest ever play-by-play announcers.  The late Chick Hearn behind the mic for the Lakers.  Vin Scully in the same job for the Dodgers.  And Bob Miller, who will continue to call games for the Kings next season, although with a reduced schedule.  We are a fortunate city indeed.

Murder or Manslaughter, at least there was an indictment

It is a list of names that is growing in number and in the frequency of additions. 

Amadou Diallo
Kendra James
Ronald Madison
Sean Bell
Manuel Loggins, Jr.
Ramarley Graham
Rekia Boyd
Jamar Clark
Yvette Smith
Tamir Rice
Laquan McDonald
Akai Gurley
Ezell Ford
Michael Brown, Jr.
Christian Taylor
Walter Scott
Brendon Glenn
Samuel DeBose
Gregory Gunn
Alton Sterling
Philando Castile
Terence Crutcher

This is an incomplete listing of black men and women who were not armed at the time they were shot and killed by police officers.  The officer who shot the latest victim, Betty Shelby has been charged with manslaughter in the death of Mr. Crutcher.  Reading the comments sections of various threads regarding the arrest and charging of Officer Shelby is very interesting.  I see several common themes.

The charge should have been 2nd degree murder.
She will never be convicted.
Finally, we're seeing an officer charged in the death of a unarmed black person.

Let's examine them one at a time.

Oklahoma law defines 2nd degree murder as:

Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:

1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual; or
2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.

Could Officer Shelby's actions be construed as "...evincing a depraved mind...?"  Perhaps but it would be a bigger stretch than convicting her under the criminal act she is charged with.  I'm not saying definitively that a charge of 2nd degree murder might not be more appropriate; but I think such a charge is much more likely to result in yet another instance where a cop is acquitted for shooting an unarmed person.

That she will never be convicted is an easy belief to understand.   The four officers charged with 2nd degree murder in the case of Amadou Diallo were all acquitted.  The DA declined to charge the officer who shot Kendra James in the head.  This past April, 11 years after the shooting death of Ronald Madison, five New Orleans cops pleaded guilty to reduced charges.  They'd been convicted in 2011 but their convictions were set aside due to prosecutorial misconduct.  In the shooting deaths of Sean Bell, Manuel Loggins, Jr., Ramarley Graham, Rekia Boyd, Jamar Clark, Yvette Smith, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown and others, there was either an acquittal or no charges were brought.

I think the fact that Officer Shelby has been charged is a step in the right direction.  Ray Tensing, the officer who killed Samuel DuBose has a murder trial starting next month in Cincinnati.  A grand jury will consider murder charges against Officer Aaron Smith in the shooting of Gregory Gunn.  Former officer Michael Slager was indicted by a grand jury for murder and also faces federal civil rights violations and obstruction of justice charges in the shooting of Walter Scott.

This does NOT mean the tide has turned.  Local prosecutors will never be completely free from a potential conflict of interest whenever they are investigating/prosecuting local law enforcement personnel.  That's because of the fact the prosecutors are dependent upon the cooperation of the cops in their efforts to convict anyone they bring to trial in criminal cases.  My belief that the only way to make real progress in handling the shooting of civilians by cops is to have outside agencies investigate and prosecute these matters remains unchanged. 

We will never know the true origin of the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied."  William Penn said "to delay justice is injustice."  The Magna Carta includes Clause 40 which reads "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."  The late Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote "justice too long delayed is justice denied"justice too long delayed is justice denied" in his letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963.

It would be much better for all if we could get instant justice in these cases.  In the shooting of Terence Crutcher, we should wait and see what happens with the case that has been brought before we judge whether or not the charge is appropriate, and/or a mistake.

Developers LUVE to donate to oppose Santa Monica measure LV

There will be lots of decisions to be made on the November ballot.  Coming out of mothballs, the Centrist Party (membership still holding firm at one) will examine the national and statewide ballot over the next few weeks.  But first, a look at Measure LV, an anti-development measure on the ballot in my hometown of Santa Monica.

Simply put, this measure will give the residents of Santa Monica a voice in the approval of any development in the downtown "core" area that would exceed 32 feet in height (equivalent to three stories tall).  The link above contains the pro and con arguments regarding Measure LV.  Personally I'm of the mind that Santa Monica is overdeveloped already, as demonstrated by the absolute gridlock one will experience trying to enter or the leave the city during rush hour.

According to campaign finance documents on file with the City of Santa Monica, through June 30, 2016, two developers had donated a combined total of $125,000 to "Housing & Opportunity for a Modern Economy (HOME)."  NMS Properties, LLC gave $100,000 and Century West Partners, LLC gave another $25,000.  They broke open the checkbooks again in September and put another $125,000 and $50,000 respectively into the HOME coffers.  Aside from a $10,000 contribution from a PAC of apartment owners, HOME has reported no other contributions to their campaign.  Considering they had over $78,000 on hand as of June 30th, look for them to spend big between now and election day.

What caught my eye about this race was a FB post. It mentions that HOME paid $8,000 to Jade Ranch Consolidated LLC.  I checked the CA Secretary of State business entity page and found that one Kevin J. Trisler is the agent for service for this LLC.  Jay Trisler is a retired Santa Monica Police Department who is, as noted in the FB post, current chairman of the SMPD Police Officers Association.

I checked the records and found that one Kevin J. Trisler was a SMPD lieutenant in 2015 who was paid a total of $360,000 in pay and benefits (probably a payout of accumulated sick and vacation time prior to retirement, although that's speculation) that year.  Seems to me that the HOME spokesperson Jay Trisler and the owner of Jade Ranch are one and the same.

Nothing illegal about receiving a payment through an LLC for one's services.  The income must still be reported on the federal tax return of the business entity that comprises the LLC.  But why would someone form a LLC (in 2015) to pass a payment of $8,000 through when the LLC will be hit by annual fees of $800 for 2015 and 2016?  To attempt to conceal the payment and the fact that Mr. Trisler is being paid to be HOME's spokesperson?

Even more interesting is the fact that as of September 19, 2016 anyone who is lobbying Santa Monica officials is required to register with the city.  The list of lobbyists was supposed to be on the city's  website as of that date.  Their webpage has not yet been updated with that information.  Is Mr. Trisler contacting members of the City Council or other city employees/officials?  Has he registered as a lobbyist?

Stay tuned. 

Retired USMC Colonel calls out the NFL

Jeffrey Peters is a retired United States Marine Corps Colonel who wore the nation's uniform for 26 years.  Now he's written a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Gooddell taking issue with the NFL's non-response to the growing protest against the national anthem.  It reads:

"Commissioner,

I’ve been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl and Giants Stadium.

I missed the ’90-’91 season because I was with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm. 14 of my wonderful Marines returned home with the American Flag draped across their lifeless bodies. My last conversation with one of them, Sgt Garrett Mongrella, was about how our Giants were going to the Super Bowl. He never got to see it.

Many friends, Marines, and Special Forces Soldiers who worked with or for me through the years returned home with the American Flag draped over their coffins.

Now I watch multi-millionaire athletes who never did anything in their lives but play a game, disrespect what brave Americans fought and died for. They are essentially spitting in the faces and on the graves of real men, men who have actually done something for this country beside playing with a ball and believing they’re something special! They’re not! My Marines and Soldiers were!

You are complicit in this! You’ll fine players for large and small infractions but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this. Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner.

What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs publicly?
I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone?

Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game!

You condone it all by your refusal to act. You’re just as bad and disgusting as they are. I hope Americans boycott any sponsor who supports that rabble you call the NFL. I hope they turn off the TV when any team that allowed this disrespect to occur, without consequence, on the sidelines. I applaud those who have not.
Legends and heroes do NOT wear shoulder pads. They wear body armor and carry rifles.

They make minimum wage and spend months and years away from their families. They don’t do it for an hour on Sunday. They do it 24/7 often with lead, not footballs, coming in their direction. They watch their brothers carted off in pieces not on a gurney to get their knee iced. They don’t even have ice! Many don’t have legs or arms.
Some wear blue and risk their lives daily on the streets of America. They wear fire helmets and go upstairs into the fire rather than down to safety. On 9-11, hundreds vanished. They are the heroes.

I hope that your high paid protesting pretty boys and you look in that mirror when you shave tomorrow and see what you really are, legends in your own minds. You need to hit the road and take those worms with you!

Time to change the channel."

I will be the first to recognize that Colonel Peters has every right to express these sentiments as he had done so eloquently.  I personally do not like these protests and like Colonel Peters I recognize the right of those players who are engaging in them to do so.  We are not required to like it, or agree with it, as long as we remember they are doing nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Before I take issue with some of the contents of this letter let me expression another belief of mine.  Those who volunteer to defend our nation do not do so because of a flag.  It is a symbol only.  A revered symbol worthy of our respect, but a symbol nonetheless.  Don't take my word for it.  Let's hear what another retired military officer has to say on the subject.

"American soldiers in battle don’t fight for what some president says on TV, they don’t fight for mom, apple pie, the American flag --- they fight for one another"

That is a quote from Lieutenant General Harold "Hal" Moore, US Army (retired) whose heroism at the Battle of Ia Drang was recognized with the award of the Distinguished Service Cross, our nation's second highest medal for valor.

I am not trying to minimize the importance of our nation's flag or national anthem.  I'm trying to point out that they are symbols of what our nation represents.  Our Founding Fathers felt that freedom of expression was so important that it was listed first in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is stupid to penalize NFL players for twerking in the end zone.  But the fact that this penalty exists doesn't make that "worse" than disrespecting the flag/anthem.  It makes it a violation of the rules and like the Marine Corps, the NFL has rules and they are enforced no matter how silly.  

Take the case of former Marine Corps Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling.  She was ordered to remove biblical verses from her desk at work and refused.  She was court-martialed, reduced in rank and given a Bad Conduct Discharge (which means almost no veterans benefits).  She lost her appeal of the discharge last month at the nation's highest court reviewing military issues.

It is inarguable that such conduct where orders are being violated is a bad thing, contrary to the concept of good order and discipline.  Just like excessive celebrations in an NFL end zone are prohibited because they cause delays and are disruptive.  

Let's compare the infraction of Lance Corporal Sterling with that of retired General David Petraeus.  He admitted after retirement that he engaged in an extramarital affair but the military took no action against him for the affair.  Retired officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Adultery is a specific violation of the UCMJ.  Are we to find that displaying a biblical verse is worse than adultery?  Both involve violating orders.

Colonel Peters can call for boycotts and continue to criticize the NFL and those players who continue to protest.  That's what makes our nation great.  But his best move is to follow his own advice at the bottom of his letter.  Change the channel, Colonel.

Edit:

Almost a year later, the protest of NFL players taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem continues.  The argument over whether the failure of Colin Kaepernick to be signed by an NFL team is based on systemic racism, the potential reaction of fans, or his actual value as a quarterback rages.

On a personal level, I do not like these protests.  I also wholeheartedly support the right of these players to do what they are doing.  The NFL would be well within its rights to institute a rule prohibiting such protests.  Wisely, they have not done so. 

Considering that African-Americans make up 68% of the NFL's players, to argue that owners are engaged in racism on an institutional level seems a bit far-fetched.  Would team owners treat a Caucasian quarterback who had done what Kaepernick did any differently?  I believe that if an owner thought that signing Kaepernick would lead his team to the playoffs, he'd sign him in an instant.  Backlash or no backlash.  Fans who threatened to stop buying tickets and watching a team because their signed Kaepernick would come back the moment he began winning games.

Random ponderings while resting on a rare day off

This clip is from 2011

Donald Trump making "birther" claims.  Now over five years later, he has finally stated that President Barrack Obama was born in the United States.  No apology for all of the attacks. And better still, he is now blaming Hillary Clinton for starting the birther controversy.

This is not a new claim, Trump tweeted in 2015 that Hillary had started the birther controversy.  This claim has been thoroughly debunked already, but Trump repeats it anyway.

Why am I not surprised?

* * *

Mark Wahlberg has dropped his application for a pardon for his conviction back when he was 16.  He assaulted two men and spent time in jail.  The claim in news stories that he had caused one of his victims to lose an eye turned out to be false.

“It was one of those things where it was just kind of presented to me, and if I could’ve done it over again I would never have focused on that or applied,” Wahlberg said of the pardon application, which was met with protests from an Asian American activist group when it was announced in 2014.

Funny thing is when this story broke in 2014 Wahlberg said the reason he was seeking the pardon was that his felony conviction prevented him from being a "concessionaire" in California, a problem since he owns a share of the family business, Wahlburgers.

I don't know that I believe he wouldn't do it again if he had it to do over, since he had a sound business reason for making the request.

* * *

The wife of writer/director Derek Cianfrance wrote an essay taking film critics to task.  I agree with her criticisms of those outlets who violated the embargo and released their reviews of the film before it was shown at the Venice Film Festival.

But when she writes "The critics are not a voice for the people, yet they can affect the reputation and success of the movie. By writing early and with vehemence against The Light Between Oceans, it probably lost a couple million dollars in its first weekend. The first weekend is still the most important weekend for the movie. It determines the life a movie will have in theaters."

How is it that we (and if I'm taking this a little personally it might have to do with the fact that I was finishing up my review of her husband's movie when I read her essay) are not at least voices that people pay attention to if we can have such a major impact on a film's opening weekend box office?  And just which of the five reviews that violated the embargo contained "vehemence" against the film?

She goes on to point out "of the reviews that came out that first weekend, 78 percent were by men. Many of these were giving Derek the slapdown,” she continued. “Women who see the film love it."  

So why is it that when I did an analysis of the 125 critic reviews currently posted at the Rotten Tomatoes website, it appears that a higher percentage of male critics liked the film versus female critics?  Of the 98 reviews by men, 60% of those rated the film as fresh.  Of the 29 reviews by women, only 55% rated the film as fresh.

The tomato-meter shows a 58% rating from critics.  Normally if audiences like a movie, their ratings are much higher than the critic ratings.  The audience rating is 68%.

Again, her complaint about the violations of the embargo is valid.

* * *

Abby Wambach, who has been open about her own struggles with substance abuse, was very critical of the comments of Hope Solo where she called the Swedish team that beat the U.S. at the 2016 Olympic Gamea, "cowards."

Solo got a six months suspension from the U.S. Women's Soccer team for those comments.  She deserved that and more.

* * *

Trump's Child Care plan (and I use the term loosely)

Donald Trump has revealed the details of the child care and maternity leave plan he described in a speech.  At first it sounds great.  "The Trump plan will exclude childcare costs from the income tax from birth to age 13, the period where children need supervised care, and will include adoptive parents as well as foster parents who are legal guardians of the child."

The current Child and Dependent Care Credit is available for parents from birth to age 13.  It includes adoptive and foster parents who are legal guardians.  So far nothing new.

His plan goes on to say "The exclusion would apply to a variety of different kinds of childcare—institutional, private, nursery school, afterschool care, and enrichment activities—affording choice to parents. The deduction would be limited to the average cost of childcare in the state of residence for the age of the child" 

Costs that vary greatly.  According to a 2014 piece in the Boston Globe, the average annual cost for full-time newborn infant care ranges from a high of $21,948 in Washington, D.C. to a low of $4,863 in Mississippi.  The Center for American Progress said that in 2010 the percentage of household income that went to childcare for families where all children are five or younger is 10.7%.  So in order to afford the cost of full-time newborn care in D.C., a family has to have a household income of over $205,000 to afford that care.  For the family in Mississippi, their income needs to be just under $45,500.

Under the current Child and Dependent Care credit, the D.C. family would be able to take a direct credit against their income tax of $600, based on the maximum amount of expenses allowed (which is $3,000).  What's interesting is that this is the same amount of direct credit that the family in MS would get.

Under Trump's plan, the family in MS would get 15% of $4,863 or $729.  A slight improvement.  But the family in DC would save 25% (or more) of that $21.948 or $3,292.  As with anything else Trump is talking about, the more well off you are, the more you benefit.

The current credit requires that in a two parent household, both parents be working, seeking work, be full-time students or be disabled.  Under Trump's plan, the credit would be given to households where one or both parents are stay-at-home parents.  The lower the family income the less likely that a parent can stay at home to care for a child.  Again, benefiting people with higher incomes.

Trump's plan also provides for benefits for eldercare in the home with a maximum amount of $5,000 being excluded from taxation.  That is only an increase of $2,000 over the current allowable expense limit, and since it will be an above the line deduction, it could be worth more...or less than the current credit.  The higher the household income, the more valuable that credit would be.

The Trump Plan includes the following statement, "While an above-the-line deduction is a significant tax benefit, it may not provide sufficient relief to the lowest-earning taxpayers. To get real benefits to lower-income taxpayers who can't use the exclusion against the income tax because they have no income tax liability, the Trump plan would also provide them a boost in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This boost would be half of the payroll taxes paid by the lower earning parent, and would be subject to an income limitation of $31,200"

 Misleading as all heck.  According to IRS Publication 596, a two-parent family with two children can earn no more than $47,600 to get an EITC credit of $500.  The lower salary if both parents work would have to be less than $23,800.  The value of this "enhanced" EITC is far less than the maximum of $1,200 claimed by the Trump Plan document.

I could go on exposing the fallacies of his plan but see no need to go further.  That's because all of these things will reduce current tax revenues when we are already running budget deficits.  Trump claims that the savings his changes to unemployment will generate is ridiculous. 

Typical Trump.  Bait and switch.  Promises he can't deliver on.

Random Ponderings

I was awake when 9/11 was first shown on the news.  I was online and one of my online friends called me and told me to turn on CNN.  I was shocked.  I sat in disbelief.  In some ways I still have trouble believing the events of that day transpired.  It changed the world we live in.  We must always be vigilant and never forget.

* * *

When I saw the movie Sully today I was seated in seat F-18.  Should that have meaning?

I'm guessing C.M. Punk should have stuck to wrestling.  He gave MMA a great effort but he just doesn't have it.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the U. S. Senate does not HAVE to act on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.  I don't like what she's saying but she's right.  This is a flaw in the Constitution that will probably never be repaired.

What this guy did in the video below deserves a punishment much harsher than the law calls for.

As many episodes of the original Law & Order as I've watched since I got out of the hospital in 2011, I still can't decide if Jill Hennesey or Angie Harmon is my favorite Assistant DA.

So Donald Trump wants to have the debate with no moderator.  If that ridiculous request were approved, the next thing he'd want is no Hillary at the debate.

Fans of the Dodgers have to be impressed by the new maturity and focus that Yasiel Puig has shown since being called up from the minors.

I had no idea that Manson Family murder victim Sharon Tate did 15 episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies, playing a secretary at the bank.

Two thumbs up to the NCAA for pulling championship events from North Carolina over its discriminatory anti-LGBT law HB2.

The secret video that wasn't included in the below scene from Dancing With the Stars where protesters rushed the stage while Ryan Lochte were tackled by security was the vote of the judges to award four 9s to the security guard's takedown.

I'm watching old episodes of Match Game from the late 1970s on the Game Show Network as I write this.  I wonder what the contestants who were on these shows think about them if they ever happen to watch them again.  I know I would not want to see myself again on Shop Till You Drop.

Deplorable Language

These videos might help us understand something.

 

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is being taken to the woodshed by the Trump campaign for the following remarks.

Donald Trump's response was to say,“Isn’t it disgraceful that Hillary Clinton makes the worst mistake of the political season and instead of owning up to this grotesque attack on American voters, she tries to turn it around with a pathetic rehash of the words and insults used in her failing campaign?”

Aside from the fact the biggest mistake of the political season was that of Republicans to make Mr. Trump their nominee, I'm not sure I understand the problem with Secretary Clinton's remarks.

Do you find racism deplorable?  I do.
Do you find sexism deplorable?  I do.
Do you find homophobia deplorable?  I do.
Do you find xenophobia deplorable?  I do
Do you find Islamophobia deplorable?  I do.

Are people who possess one of these beliefs deplorable?  If all they ever do is hold the opinion and they never express it in any way other than in their minds, no.  But few keep such beliefs internalized.  They espouse their chosen beliefs.  Some of them express them in non-verbal ways that harm others.  Such people are indeed deplorables.  So to lump them into a basket is not so far-fetched.

The problem with Secretary Clinton's remarks is that she generalized.  Had she specified that there are many Trump supporters with those beliefs and that such beliefs are deplorable, we wouldn't have anything to think about regarding her remarks.

One man acts and it may hit thousands in the wallet

I wrote a blog back in May about the tax situation in California that was inspired by a George Skelton column in the Los Angeles Times.  In that blog I pointed out that a recent decision by a resident of New Jersey, one David Tepper to move to Florida was going to cost New Jersey tens of millions in lost income tax revenue.

Now with the stroke of a pen, Governor Chris Christie has potentially solved the problem.  According to a piece written for Forbes by my favorite writer on things related to taxes, Kelly Phillips Erb, Governor Christie has ended tax reciprocity between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  What that means is that up until Governor Christie ended the policy, people who lived in PA and worked in NJ were taxed where they live, rather than where they work.  Considering how many people do so, it makes their lives a lot less complicated.  They need file only one state income tax return.

That is going to change for anyone living in one of the two states and working in the other.  What it could mean is over $150 million more in tax revenues for New Jersey.  That revenue is going to come from the Pennsylvania coffers to some degree.  It means those living in PA and working in NJ will pay state tax at a higher rate.

The Pennsylvania state income tax rate is a flat 3.07%.  The top tax rate in New Jersey is nearly 9%. What I find really interesting is that someone currently working in NJ and living in PA, with a family of four, won't pay more state income tax in NJ until their income goes above roughly $125,000.  So only the really high income taxpayers will pay more.

What Governor Christie, who might have been the Czar of Fast Food in a Trump Administration, is doing is robbing the coffers of his neighbor state to try to balance the budget of his own state.  It isn't legally wrong, but after decades of the agreement being in place, perhaps it could have been handled differently.