A general gives a speech - was it enough?

Lt. General Jay Silveria is the Superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, Colorado.  He recently gave a stirring speech after racists messages were left on message boards outside the doors of five African-American cadets.

According to the website Military.com the 10th Security Forces Squadron at the Air Force Academy is investigating the incident.  I suspect they are being joined in that effort by the local detachment of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations at the Air Force Academy.  For fans of the CBS police procedural series "NCIS", this is the Air Force's equivalent of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

That's all well and good and I am sure they will do their best.  While my late father dreamt of my becoming a commissioned officer, it wasn't my dream.  I never wanted to be a lieutenant, let alone a lieutenant general.  But if I were the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, I would have gone further than just this brilliant speech.  Further than having the local law enforcement and OSI personnel conducting an investigation.

This is the Cadet Honor Code at the Air Force Academy:

We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.

In 1984, the cadets themselves voted to add an Honor Oath to the code:

Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably (so help me God).

If I were the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy I would not rely on the law enforcement investigation.  I would call the highest ranking cadet into my office (If Wikipedia can be relied upon, that's a Cadet Colonel named Elliot Knowles) and have him (her) standing tall in front of my desk.  I would say "I want you to line up every single cadet and one at a time, ask them:

Did you write those racist messages?
Do you know who did?

The penalty for an honor code violation is normally disenrollment from the Academy.  I submit that living honorably involves not doing, condoning or hiding this kind of racism.  Whoever did that does need to "...get out..." of the Air Force altogether.

I have questions

That's Anila Daulatzai, a 46 year old college professor being forcibly removed from a Southwest Airlines flight.  She claimed to have a life-threatening allergy to dogs and wanted the airline to remove the service dog and pet dog that were on her flight.

I would like to know if she really does have an allergy to dogs that could kill her, why isn't she carrying her own Epi-pen, rather than asking the airline to provide one?

* * *

In the speech he gave in Indiana, Donald Trump said this:

"Our framework includes our explicit commitment that tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected.  They can call me all they want.  It’s not going to help.  I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me.  Believe me."

I would like to know if the plan is or isn't bad for him, so I'm asking him to release his tax returns so we can see just how bad it really is for him.

Yes, I do not believe him.

* * *

That is Reality Winner, the former U.S Air Force linguist who is charged with "willful retention and transmission of national defense information."  She was working for a firm that is contracted with the National Security Agency when she allegedly accessed documents showing attempts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.

According to information released recently, she snuck the documents in question out of her workplace by folding them in half and putting them into her pantyhose.

I have two questions here.  While they don't do "pat-downs" for documents, wouldn't folded documents be visible in pantyhose?  And more importantly, since her lawyer is seeking to suppress her statements to the FBI on the grounds that she was not read her Miranda rights; is some FBI special agent really stupid enough not to give a proper Miranda warning before questioning a suspect?

* * *

This next set of questions is unavailable due to this blog's ban (which I admit to violating on occasion) regarding Kardashians.

* * *

Floyd "Money" Mayweather is claiming he is now a member of the billionaire's club, thanks to his recent $300 million+ payday from his bout with Connor McGregor.

I would like to know if he will still be a billionaire after he pays the taxes on this most recent bountiful payday.

* * *

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was interviewed for Playboy Magazine by Robert Scheer with then Playboy editor Barry Golson in the room.  That's when candidate Carter said this:

"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes that I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife."

I would like to ask President Carter why he claimed (apparently falsely) that he was unaware the reporter had turned his recorder on surreptitiously to record that sound bite; a claim Mr. Scheer debunked after the release of Carter's tome.  

* * *

Former member of Congress and current Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price came under scrutiny for his travel on chartered aircraft on government business.  Now he has announced that he will repay the government nearly $52,000 to cover the cost of "...his seat."

The actual cost of the travel was estimated by Politico (they broke the story) at more than $400,000.

I would like to know why Secretary Price isn't reimbursing the government for all costs in excess of what the government would have paid, had he and his staff traveled on commercial aircraft.

* * *

The Liar-In-Chief has been earning his nickname this week more than ever.  Check out this tweet:

With one Yes vote in hospital & very positive signs from Alaska and two others (McCain is out), we have the HCare Vote, but not for Friday!

The problem is, there were no Republican senators in the hospital.

Why would the Moron-In-Chief continue to lie about something that is so easily proven to be false is what I'd like to know.

* * *

Now that the Cellino and Barnes law-firm divorce is happening and there are new commercials for Barnes with the phone number "One Eight Hundred, Eight Million' when will we see commercials from Cellino and what phone number will he land?

* * *

Trump's Troubles

The Liar-In-Chief endorsed Luther Strange in the Republican primary runoff in Alabama's special election to choose a United States Senator.  Mr. Strange was appointed to the seat vacated by Jeff Sessions after he resigned to become the nation's Attorney General.

Mr. Trump went to Alabama to campaign for Mr. Strange, but Roy Moore won easily with a margin of nine percentage points.  Ordinarily, a victory in a Republican primary in Alabama in a U.S. Senate race is victory in the general election.  In fact, when Jeff Sessions sought reelection to his Senate seat in 2014, he ran unopposed.  Consider the fact that Alabama's delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives is seven seats and six of them are held by Republicans.

And yet, there may be a glimmer of hope that Democrats might pull a rabbit out of the hat in the December special election.  Mr. Moore will face Doug Jones, a former U.S. Attorney in Northern Alabama.  The election will be held on December 12th, a factor that may well cause voter turnout to be lower than the already low projections.

Analysts believe that if Mr. Strange had won the runoff, the DNC would have paid little to no attention to the special election in December.  But the controversial views of Roy Moore; which have twice led to his being removed from the Alabama State Supreme Court, create liabilities.  At least that is what some believe.  I suspect this is just wishful thinking.  His extreme opposition to same-sex marriage is controversial around the nation but in Alabama, many share his views.

When the results are in, it may be coal in the stocking of Donald Trump for Christmas.  The last thing he needs in the Senate is a senator who got there by basically running against Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

* * *

Agent Orange is also frustrated because the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is once again dead in the water.  Needing 50 Republican votes to allow Vice-President Pence to cast a tie-breaking vote for the travesty of a bill known as Graham Cassidy, four of the Senate's 52 Republican members said they would vote no.

Another campaign promise that will go unfulfilled.  More political capital wasted.

* * *

The fact that there were two other natural disasters in the U.S. (Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) prior to the devastation of Puerto Rico by Hurricane Maria is not an excuse for the completely inadequate response to the plight of Puerto Ricans by the Trump Administration.  It may be a mitigating factor, but there is no question that there were and are additional resources that could be brought to bear to aid the more than 3.4 million people who are without power.  Running low on supplies.

With all of this going on, the leader of the  Morons (who) Are Governing America are focused on the symbolic protest of some NFL players by taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem.

Let's go back and examine what Colin Kaepernick said when he began these protests all by himself:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

This isn't about slavery.  It is about the fact that more than five decades after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, people of color in this nation continue to be oppressed.

Much was made about a study published last summer by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer, Jr. claimed that while blacks are more likely to be pushed, shoved, handcuffed and so on by the police, there is no racial bias in the police shootings of blacks.

Considering that this study was released in a month where 23 of the 72 people shot by police (according to the Washington Post), it was controversial.  Then another study was published, this one by a professor of health management and policy at Drexel University.  James Buehler's work demonstrated that black men are 2.8 more times likely to die during encounters with police than whites.

The Moron-in-Chief is trying to frame these protests as being disrespectful to the flag and the military, when in fact, they are trying to highlight the disparate treatment of people of color at the hands of law enforcement.

This is also almost certainly related to Donald Trump's obsession with and failure to become the owner of an NFL team.  Look at this letter penned by the late John Bassett to his fellow USFL team owner, Donald Trump:

* * *

To summarize, we are at a moment in time where North Korea is threatening to shoot down our aircraft, even outside of their own airspace; where millions are dealing with a natural disaster where they have no electricity and rapidly dwindling supplies of food and water; where our nation's labor participation rate remains unchanged; where the gap of income and wealth inequality is rapidly expanding and where the legislative agenda of Donald Trump is floundering - and he's tweeting about #TakeAKnee.

Could it be that he's trying to distract us from all those other things with these tweets?

Is a White House invite still an honor

Donald J. Trump took to Twitter to blast Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors, when he "hesitated" about accepting an invitation to the White House.  It's tradition, as the Warriors won another NBA title this past season.  Trump tweeted:

"Going to the White House is considered a great honor for a championship team.Stephen Curry is hesitating,therefore invitation is withdrawn!"

Sorry Mr. Trump but you are wrong.  It was an honor for a championship team to receive an invitation to the White House, but the honor contained in such an invitation vanished on January 20, 2017.  The date you took the oath of office, an oath you violate regularly by pretending the laws of this nation do not apply to you.  The Emoluments Clause, for one.

When your predecessors served and invited championship teams to come to the White House, they were presidents who practiced the politics of inclusion.  You practice and preach the politics of exclusion.  The politics of divisiveness.  Your primary interests are stroking your ego and fattening your bank balance, rather than trying to improve the lot of the average American.

You fail to grasp a simple but critical fact.  The fact that you are no better and no worse than Stephen Curry, or one of the ball boys for the Warriors, or a homeless person who lives within sight of the Oracle Arena in Oakland, home of the Warriors.  Let me remind you of some words that you ignore regularly.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Have you ever read the text of the Declaration of Independence, Mr. Trump?  The Constitution?  The Federalist Papers?

Do you realize that the majority of the American people see through your lies and realize that you are much more interested in making your fellow members of the One Percent richer at the expense of the rest of us?  You advocate for a so-called healthcare bill that will spend billions less on healthcare and lie to us that it will provide more and better coverage.  

You call for NFL players who exercise their freedom of speech by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem to be fired.  You claim they are disrespecting the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces.  In fact, your decision to dodge the draft to avoid the risk of being put in harm's way by claiming you had heel spurs is far more disrespectful to this nation than anyone taking a knee.

Mr. Trump, is it possible that your frustrations with the NFL players protesting, and the changes to the rules to better protect the players more about your utter failure to buy an NFL franchise?  

You would be better served by spending your time, energy and tweets on your legislative agenda and governing, rather than pontificating about professional sports.  You've proven you have no business owning a sports franchise or league.  Better you finish attempt to prove your fitness to be president, something I believe is beyond your capabilities.

Donald J. Trump is the living embodiment of the Peter principle.  

Thursday thoughts

Jemele Hill is a sports journalist who was recently promoted to be one of the two hosts of ESPN's flagship program, SportsCenter.

On 9/11 she sent out a Tweet that read as follows:

"Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists."

In response, White House Press Secretary made a statement:

The Reverend Al Sharpton says that he will organize and lead a boycott of ESPN if they fire Ms Hill.  Colin Kaepernick has Tweeted out his support as well.  Essence Magazine published a piece on their website commending Ms Hill for the stance she took and saying she had the right to post her Tweet.  Here's an excerpt:

"Hill has the right to speak through her personal Twitter account because 1) It's per safe space and 2) She's on a sports show about sports - not politics or race relations."

For their part, ESPN issued a statement:

“The comments on Twitter from Jemele Hill regarding the President do not represent the position of ESPN.  We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate.”

* * *

The thing is, ESPN has every right to fire its on-air (and behind the scenes) employees for their words, written/spoken/tweeted.  They fired Curt Schilling, whose views are conservative and controversial all at once.  While Hillary Clinton was still a presidential candidate, Schilling said she should be "...buried under a jail somewhere."

So why isn't the fact that ESPN fired Schilling for his inappropriate comments and isn't firing Hill for her inappropriate comments; proof of ESPN's liberal bias?  That's what Fox News and others who have their own conservative bias are claiming.  Do they have a point?

Only at the top of their dunce caps.  The difference between Curt Schilling and Jemele Hill is that Schilling was warned several times about his words, while this is the first time that Hill has violated the social media policies of ESPN.

Further, Hill made it clear that she was speaking as a private person and not as the face of ESPN when she made those comments, in a later Tweet.

"My comments on Twitter represented my personal beliefs.  My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfavorable light.  My respect for the company and  my colleagues remains unconditional."

I think it is just fine that ESPN made the choice to give Ms Hill a second chance.  Mr. Schilling got several second chances and just refused to understand that freedom of expression is not freedom of consequence for that expression.

At the same time, Essence Magazine should realize that a person's personal Twitter is only a safe space when it comes to consequences from the government.  Only government entities are proscribed from imposing consequences on speech.  Businesses, publicly held and privately owned, can impose consequences for what their employees say.

Talk of Tax Reform

I follow Kelly Phillips Erb (@taxgirl) on Twitter.  I also subscribe to the wonderful articles she writes about income taxes for Forbes Magazine.  She put out a call to the tax professionals to submit their thoughts on tax reform and she will put some of them into the magazine/website of Forbes.  I did not want to do that, but I was inspired to jot down some thoughts on tax reform for my much smaller audience.

Before talking about reforming the tax system in the U.S., a basic understanding of some information will help.  Let's begin with the sources of federal tax revenue.  This data is from the Center of Budget Policy and Priorities and represents FY2015.

Income tax - 47%
Payroll tax - 34%
Corporate tax - 9%
Excise, estate and other taxes - 9%

So right off the bat we've learned that more than half of the tax revenues available to the Congress to spend on the people's business come from sources other than the individual income tax.

Now let's look at who is actually paying the income tax (and yes Virginia, we will get to that Mitt Romney gaffe about the 47%).  This data is from the Tax Foundation.

Income Range        % of income paid in taxes      % of all income taxes paid

Top 1%                   20.58%                                   39.48%
5% to 1%                15.38%                                   20.48%
10% to 5%              11.25%                                   10.91%
25% to 10%            21.70%                                   15.90%
50% to 25%            19.82%                                   10.47%
Bottom 50%            11.27%                                   2.75%

As for what income ranges make up these groupings:

Top 1%                      More than $465,626
5% to 1%                   Between $188,996 and $465,626
10% to 5%                 Between $133,445 and $188,996
25% to 10%               Between $77,714 and  $133,445
50% to 25%               Between $38,173 and $77,714
Bottom 50%               Below $38,173

Asking someone who is earning less than $38,173 to pay over 11% of their income in income tax is a much bigger burden in their ability to exist than asking someone who is earning more than $465,626 to pay 20.58% of that income in income tax.  As pointed out in the excellent documentary film from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, "Inequality for All" we have a vast inequality of income in our nation.  Tax reform cannot solve that, but it can help to reduce it.

That is the "social justice" lens through which some view the issue of tax reform.  There is another lens and it is the one that wants tax reform to reverse the slowing of the economy of the United States.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce reports that growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the U.S. in the 2nd quarter of 2017 was 3.0%.  NPR says it was only 2.6%.  What is not in question is that according to most sources, we've experienced 96 consecutive months of GDP growth since the economic meltdown caused by the so-called housing bubble burst.

The Liar-in-Chief keeps touting the shrinking unemployment rate as evidence that the economy is rebounding and growing, even though nothing he's done had anything to do with what has happened since his inauguration.  It sounds good.  But it does not present the entire picture.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks something called the Labor Participation Rate.  That's the people who are 16 and over who are working full-time or part-time, or who are unemployed but still seeking work.  It does not include those people over 16 who are no longer seeking employment.

In January of 2007, before the meltdown, the Labor Participation Rate was 66.4%.  When Barrack Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009, the rate had fallen to 65.7%.  Three years later, in January of 2012, it had fallen all the way to 63.7%.  When the Liar-in-Chief was inaugurated, it had fallen down to 62.9%.  As of the report for August 1, 2017, it remains at that level.

So we now know that the percentage of the population 16 and over that is working or trying to work is down 4.5% since that economic meltdown.  That is not a recovery by any stretch of the imagination.

Any attempt at tax reform needs to address this as well as the inequity of the tax burden on the population in the two lowest income groupings identified above.

Why do corporate tax revenues represent only 9% of the total tax revenues when the top corporate tax rate is 35%?  Because while that top rate exists, few corporations pay it.  While the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the effective rate paid by corporations on average is right in line with what corporate tax rates are in other comparable countries.

* * *

These are the things that need to be put on the table when Congress begins to discuss tax reform.  These and the real problem, which is that individuals and corporations lobby Congress very effectively to perpetuate. 

Let's visit history for an example.

The top is definitely a photo of Howard Hughes.  The bottom is reportedly one of the last photos of Hughes before he died.

In 1953, Howard Hughes was informed by the then Secretary of the Air Force, Harold Talbott, that his Hughes Tool Company was in danger of losing all of its government contracts.  The reason was the increasing erratic behavior of Hughes himself. 

The solution was a brilliant idea.  Hughes created two new organizations.  Hughes Aircraft, which became owner of the most profitable portions of the Hughes Tool Company, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  The HHMI was to be a nonprofit corporation doing research to benefit mankind.

The result, when all was said and done, was that Hughes received $2.5 million from the HMMI annually for every $1 million in spent on research.

But there was an initial problem.  The IRS refused to designate the HHMI as a tax-exempt organization.  Mr. Hughes found a solution.  He lent $205,000 to Dick Nixon, the brother of then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon.

Yes, there were once Nixon Burgers.  The loan was to bail out the failing Nixon Family Restaurant business owned by Dick, but it went bankrupt in spite of the injection of cash from Hughes.  Not long after this, the IRS relented and gave the HHMI the desperately needed tax-exempt status.

* * *

Big pharma lobbies and as a result, Medicare cannot negotiate lower prices for prescription medications.

Another component of the complexity of the tax code is that the Congress uses it to engage in social engineering.  They give child tax credits to promote procreation under the guise of "helping parents."  Of course, if you're married filing jointly and your income is more than $130,000 you lose those credits.  If you're a single parent, they disappear when income goes above $75,000.

Construction of new homes and home ownership are desired, so there is a mortgage interest deduction.  Charitable giving is desired so there are deductions for charitable contributions.  The average person who isn't covered by a retirement plan at work can put $5,500 ($6,500 is over 50) into an Individual Retirement Arrangement annually.  But a self-employed person can put up to 25% of their net profits, up to a maximum amount of $53,000 into a Simplified Employee Pension IRA (SEP-IRA).  The wealthy lobby for tax breaks while the bulk of the people are subject to the whims of those able to influence tax law.

That is what needs to be reformed more than anything else.

Thursday evening thoughts

The WWE wrestler known as "The Big Show" is marketed as the "World's Largest Athlete."  Is he?  He reportedly stands 7 feet tall and weighs 383 pounds.  Hong-Man Choi is a MMA fighter from South Korea who stands 7'2" and weighs 352 pounds.  He is taller than Big Show.  The sumo wrestler known as Ōrora may stand only 6'3" but he weighs 635 lbs.  He is obviously much heavier than Big Show.  Because we are so focused on biggest, best, strongest and so on, it comes down to what yardstick is being used to measure.

With all of the hyperbole from the media about Hurricane Irma, it is difficult to know if it is the strongest hurricane ever and so on. Like anything else, measuring is all about methodology.

How many different ways can we measure hurricanes?  Sustained wind speed?  Barometric pressure in the eye?  Distance from the eye at which hurricane force winds are generated?  Tropical storm winds by distance?  Gale force winds by distance?

Then we get into geography.  Are we talking about hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean proper, or the Atlantic basin, which also includes the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico?  Do we exclude Pacific Ocean hurricanes?  Typhoons? 

Wait, how do hurricanes differ from typhoons?  Geography.  Typhoons form in the Northwestern Pacific basin.  Hurricanes and typhoons are all tropical cyclones.  Let's take a look at the most current National Hurricane Center update on Irma, as of 11 pm, EDT (that link gets updated frequently).

The top wind speed of Hurricane Irma has decreased from its high of 185 mph to 165 mph.  That's a difference that makes no difference in terms of its ability to destroy structures, but it seems people are more and more focused on biggest/best these days. 

Three other Atlantic Basin hurricanes also had top wind speed of 185 mph.  They are the unnamed "Labor Day" hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Gilbert in 1988 and Hurricane Wilma in 2005.  Hurricane Allen is the record holder at wind speed of 190 mph

If we use lowest barometric pressure as the measure of "power" or "intensity," the list of hurricanes that had lower barometric pressures than Irma include the aforementioned Wilma, Gilbert and Labor day; along with Allen (1980), Katrina (2005), Dean (2007), Mitch (1998), "Unnamed" (1924), Ivan (2004) and Janet (1955).

All of these storms were incredibly powerful.  There's no need for the media to focus on largest, fastest, biggest and so on.  The point is that this storm is putting lives in danger. 

In late 1977, I went to Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi to attend a training course following the completion of basic training.  During the in-briefing on our arrival, our briefer told us the story of Hurricane Camille and the "hurricane party" that took place at the Richelieu Apartment complex in nearby Pass Christian.  There were reports that 23 people refused to evacuate and held a hurricane party.  Whether or not it really happened is still subject to debate, but the story that people would party in the face of danger captured my attention.

Walter Cronkite went to Mississippi to cover the aftermath of Camille.  He stood next to the concrete slab that was all that remained of the Richelieu Apartments and said "This is the site of the Richelieu Apartments in Pass Christian, Miss. This is the place where 23 people laughed in the face of death. And where 23 people died."

A shopping center replaced the apartments.  Hurricane Katrina destroyed that in 2005.

* * *

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO.  Five years ago he was asked to bake a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig, and refused.  The couple filed a complaint alleging that this was a violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law.

Now the case has reached the United States Supreme Court.  What makes this unusual is that the U.S. Justice Department has filed an amicus brief with the court that urges the court to side with Mr. Phillips. 

The ACLU, who represents the couple in the case, has criticized the Trump administration for that brief.  I don't blame them.  The conflict between religious freedom and civil rights is a tough issue.  I think that baking a cake is not taking part in a wedding. 

Could a laborer at a hotel refuse to move furniture around in preparation for a reception because the reception is for a same-sex couple?  We've already seen a judge in Oregon who didn't want to perform same-sex marriages forced to either perform them, or stop doing marriages altogether.  If this baker wanted to stop making any wedding cakes, that would be fine by me. 

* * *

Leslie Van Houten, a member of the Manson Family, has been granted parole by the California Parole Board. 

The question is, will Governor Moonbeam once again override the recommendation and keep the convicted murder behind bars.  She's been in prison since she was convicted back in March of 1971.  She was originally sentenced to be executed, but that was automatically commuted to a life sentence after the case that determined the death penalty in California at the time was unconstitutional.

I see no reason to release her, or any other murderer.  When you take another life and are convicted of murder rather than manslaughter, you should forfeit your freedom forever.

* * *

Outrage at the LiarInChief is Not the Answer

In the wake of the oft-delayed announcement that the LiarInChief, who claims to "...love the dreamers" that he was ending DACA, the outrage aimed at him is understandable.  But it is not the answer.

The answer contains 535 pieces and we know it as the Congress.  14 months from today, all 435 seats in the House and 33 seats in the Senate will be up for election.  We must unite and make sure that every current member of Congress understands that anyone who votes against legislative action to prevent the Dreamers from being deported will NOT stand any chance of being reelected.

We can and should make this an issue right now, rather than expressing anger and frustration.  It was the inaction of Congress that caused President Obama to sign the Executive Order that created DACA and we cannot allow that inaction to continue.  While comprehensive immigration reform would be ideal, at this moment we must focus on the Dreamers and preventing the xenophobia of Trump's base of support from shattering their dreams.

Rather than demonstrating outside the homes of Ivanka Trump and Jeff Sessions, we need to send a message to all members of Congress (but especially those 468 whose jobs will be at risk next November) that we are watching them.  That they need to work together to find a way to keep the Dreamers here.  There is no good reason to deport an adult whose only "crime" (and yes folks, it is a crime to enter this country illegally, no matter how much we say it isn't) was violating immigration law.  The children who had no say in the decision to bring them here lacked the mens rea to be judged guilty of illegal immigration.  To deport them goes beyond cruel.  It is inhuman.

It is also a waste of money.  Money that would be spent to provide them with due process, tax revenues and the economic input that they represent as part of our society.  They earn money.  They spend money.

I am outraged.  But I want to expend that energy in forcing the 535 Morons (who) Are Governing America to solve the problem. 

DACA, Amnesty and the Statute of Limitations

A very intelligent friend (he's a real rocket scientist) posted on Facebook, attempting to reframe the description of allowing people who entered the U.S. illegally to remain as something other than amnesty.

"Some people seem to be hung up on the concept of "amnesty" for unlawful immigration. What if we call it "statute of limitations" instead ? There's plenty of precedent for the idea that you don't prosecute people for minor crimes, or even some felonies, after enough years have gone by. Congress could establish a federal statute of limitations for violating immigration laws. Maybe five years?"

As pointed out by University of North Texas Assistant Law Professor Brian Owsley (a former federal magistrate judge) in an excellent essay on the topic, there already is a statute of limitations for violations of Title 8, United States Code, § 1325.  It is five years.  But the statute does not begin to toll until the date that the person in the U.S. illegally is "discovered" by the federal government. 

A memo issued by Department of Homeland Security in November of 2014 involving the expansion of DACA pointed out that "...Deferred action in one form or another dates back to the 1960s.  Deferred action per se dates back at least as far as 1975."  From the moment that DACA was put into place, it was made clear that it was a temporary deferral of action against those "protected" by the executive order, and not meant to be permanent.

Because those who are in favor of mass deportation of anyone in the U.S. illegally would claim that the presence of someone who did not enter illegally is an ongoing crime; establishing a five year statute of limitations solely for illegal entry would not work.  Those same naysayers would say that any attempt to use statute of limitations to replace amnesty would be nothing more than semantics.

There is no question that punishing children for being brought here when they were too young to be held responsible for how they entered this country is wrong.  The problem is, that under the law as it currently exists, there is no way for those people to find a path to permanent residency/citizenship while remaining in the U.S.

The argument that those here illegally are not paying taxes and making contributions to the economy is ridiculous.  Whether they work using a "fake" Social Security number or under the table, the money they earn is returned to the economy.  As long as Plyer v Doe and EMTALA is the law of the land, education and emergent medical care are going to be provided to everyone without regard to the legality of their presence in the United States.

What is needed is not a work-around or an executive order.  DACA was never meant to be a long-term solution.  It ignores the reality that while the numbers appear to be smaller these days, people are still coming into our country in violation of the immigration laws.  We need true reform of the system that addresses both those who are here, and those who want desperately to come here.

That would be just one step in the right direction.  Immigration reform is only one area of concern.  As long as we have the vast level of income inequality within our borders, and continue to focus on stock market growth for the wealthy at the expense of the poor, our nation is in serious trouble.

Shocking Sunday Morning

The first thing I saw this morning after awakening was the news that Walter Becker had died.  I've spent all day processing this, occupying my mind with other things.  Mindless computer games, Twitter hashtag stuff and so on.  13 hours later, I am still numb.

I don't claim to have one favorite band or one favorite musician.  But Steely Dan's music was a part of my life from the first time I bought my copy of Can't Buy a Thrill in 1972.  How important was and is their music to me?  Consider this.

That's the cover of the 1985 compilation "album" titled A Decade of Steely Dan.  The term album is used loosely because as I discovered when I tried to buy the album, it wasn't available in that form.  It was only being sold as a compact disc.  I did not own a compact disc player yet, but I bought this CD anyway.

Remember this movie?

Maybe this will help.

While my days as a DJ at a certain roller disco in South Florida were one of the influences that led me into my brief but enjoyable time working in commercial radio; FM the movie and the music of Steely Dan were also influences on that career choice.

Their music is incredible and indelible.  The fusion of jazz and pop, their ability to use multi-tracking to ensure each instrument's sound comes through clearly without overpowering each other and the outstanding musicianship of the people they chose to work with may never be duplicated.  Did you know that Jeff Porcaro and David Paich of Toto, both worked with Becker and Donald Fagen prior to forming their own group? 

It has been over four decades since I bought my first Steely Dan music and I still listen to their tunes regularly.  Not just the hits either, although I will say that the following tune is my favorite among their discography.

The Midnight Special was another musical influence.  I cannot count how many nights I would wait up to watch this in the days before VCRs, DVRs and the like.  Watch it when it was on, or simply put, it was gone.

Their lyrics were also inspired and inspiring.

Peg

I've seen your picture
Your name in lights above it
This is your big debut
It's like a dream come true
So won't you smile for the camera
I know they're gonna love it

I like your pin shot
I keep it with your letter
Done up in blueprint blue
It sure looks good on you
And when you smile for the camera
I know I'll love you better

Peg
It will come back to you
Peg
It will come back to you
Then the shutter falls
You see it all in 3-D
It's your favorite foreign movie

Walter Becker was only 67 years old.  Gone far too soon.  RIP, sir.  Your music and lyrics will live on for eternity.

What I'd Do Differently

In pondering the path of the United States given the current woeful state of our federal government, with an incompetent self-aggrandizing individual occupying the Oval Office; with men and women who belong to his alleged political party in control of both chambers of the Congress, yet lacking the moral courage to speak out against his actions...I thought, how could the system we have in place been structured differently to prevent this perfect storm of political disaster.

While these proposed changes will never happen, one can dream on a Saturday afternoon as the Coward-in-Chief and his heel spurs dumps bad decisions en masse under the cover of a major hurricane.  So here goes.

The changes to our Constitution that limited a president  to two terms did not go far enough.  We're not even one full year into the Trump administration and he is already running for reelection.  That was part of the problem during the last 15 months or so of every single president who has served two elected terms since Ronald Reagan was first elected.  A president's attention should not be divided between executing the duties of their office while seeking to be reelected to that office.

A president should be elected to one six year term in office.  That eliminates the need to pander to the public in order to seek reelection and frees that person to act as they see fit without regard to having one last election facing them.  Unless of course they are Gene Hackman in a bad movie and after serving two terms as President they are going to seek the office of Mayor of Mooseport.

If the vice-president, a senator or a member of the House wants to run for a different office, they should be required to resign their current office.  Members of the Senate campaigning for the presidency or as part of a party's ticket as the nominee for the vice-presidency are not properly representing those people who elected them when they are on the campaign trail.

CNN reports that back in 2007, then Senator Obama missed 80% of the votes in the Senate in September and October.  Joe Biden missed 67% of the votes during the same period.  The job of an elected official is to represent their constituents, not to run for a different office. 

I'd like to see election of members of the House held only every four years, with 50% of the House standing for reelection during each cycle.  Even with the advantage incumbents have during their reelection bids, the influence of money in elections has every single member of the House seeking reelection almost the moment after being sworn in for their current term.

These things won't come to pass, but it was fun to dream if only for a few moments.

* * *

As reports of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey in Texas continue to pour in, the state's two U.S. Senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn are already calling on the state's governor to expedite federal aid for their state.  The same kind of aid that both voted against giving to New York and New Jersey after Superstorm Sandy.

Senator Cruz says he voted against the aid package back then because it was filled with pork-barrel spending.  The fact is, he was correct that it was.  Our elected leadership uses such legislation to spend on both needed things and unneeded things, under the cover of providing assistance to those who need it most.

Wonder what would happen if an aid package were to be introduced into the House that was limited solely to providing assistance in those areas declared disaster areas, and amendments to the legislation that would spend money elsewhere would be prohibited?

Never happen, I know.

* * *