Taking care of our Veterans

I published a blog two years ago today taking issue with the Liar-in-Chief's plan for "fixing" the VA.  After being sworn in, he issued an executive order that created the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, later made permanent by legislation.

As of 10/25/2017, that office reports that 363 VA employees have been suspended for 14 or more days.  57 have been demoted.  1,095 have been removed from the VA's employee workforce.  There were over 377,000 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs as of FY2016.  For the mathematically challenged, that's roughly 0.4% of the workforce that has been disciplined.

Seems like progress.  Except for the case of one Patricia Waible.  Back in July of 2016 she was a nurse's aide at the Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital in Bedford, MA.  She was supposed to make hourly checks on a patient by the name of Bill Nutter.

He was a veteran of the Vietnam War who had been exposed to Agent Orange during his service there.  He was also a retired police detective.  In July of 2016 when he was admitted to the VA facility in Bedford, he had just lost his remaining leg due to the complications of diabetes.  He was also suffering from a condition that could cause his heart to stop beating without warning.  That was why hourly checks had been ordered.

But Ms Waible was far too busy playing video games on her computer to be bothered with those bed checks.  Bill Nutter's heart stopped and he died.  At the time, Ms Waible signed a statement that she had performed the required checks and stood by that story until confronted with proof she had not left her computer the entire time she was on duty.  Then she confessed to what she had done.

How did the VA respond?  They transferred her to a different job, one in the cafeteria.  And there she remained until September of this year when the Boston Globe contacted the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, David Shulkin.  Ms Waible was suspended with pay pending an investigation and Secretary Shulkin plans to seek her termination.

Why did it take a newspaper's action to get the VA to investigate?  They knew something was wrong.  The nurse who discovered Mr. Nutter had died in his bed signaled to her supervisor that he was gone with the "slit throat" gesture.  She was on probation and terminated, so the fact that something had gone horribly wrong was not unknown.

* * *

Civil service and union protections are a good thing, to a point.  There is point beyond which they aren't such a good thing.

Remember the name Mark Berndt?  Or perhaps the Miramonte Elementary School?  In January of 2012, Berndt was arrested on multiple charges of spoon-feeding semen and giving semen-laced cookies to elementary students at Miramonte.

LAUSD suspended Berndt back in February of 2011, two months after the investigation had begun into his behavior with students.  They tried to fire him but a settlement was reached in June of 2011 that resulted in his being paid $40,000 and being allowed to resign.

Berndt pleaded no-contest and was sent to prison for 25 years.  The deal that allowed him to resign kept his retirement benefits intact.  Because his conviction took place before January of 2013, he will apparently keep those benefits.

It is an uneasy balancing act, protecting public employees from wrongful termination while still allowing those who have earned firing to be shown the door.

There is no possible justification for allowing a VA employee who couldn't be bothered to get up from her video game playing to check on a patient to remain on the payroll for more than a year after what she did was uncovered.  The system that allowed that to happen can't be fixed by firing just her.  Those who attempted to keep the death of Bill Nutter a secret all need to face the consequences of their actions.

The Last/Worst Act

Retired General and current White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly appeared on Fox News Channel's new show The Ingraham Angle, starring Laura Ingraham.

That's the full interview if you are inclined to watch it in its entirety.  Here is the full transcript of his remarks specific to a question about the removal of Confederate statues:

"Well, history's history. And there are certain things in history that were not so good and other things that were very, very good.
I think we make a mistake, though, and as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is today accepted as right and wrong and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'
You know, 500 years later, it's inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I think it's just very, very dangerous. I think it shows you just how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is.
I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it's different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

General Kelly is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts Boston and also has a Masters in National Security Affairs from Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, as well as a Masters of Science in Strategic Studies from the National Defense University.

Apparently he didn't do too well in studying history, or else he's decided to forget about some significant events in our nation's history that took place before the Civil War began.  Like something called The Missouri Compromise.  The fact it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and ultimately determined to be unconstitutional by the decision in Dred Scott v Sandford does not change the fact that there were attempts at compromise.

In the end, there was no way to reach a compromise between the North and South on the issue of slavery.  There had been an earlier compromise during the 1787 Constitutional Convention that black men would only be counted as 3/5ths of a man.  That's an abhorrent compromise viewed today and even at the time was considered somewhat controversial by those who gave in to the entreaties of those who represented slavery proponents.

There should be no statues of Robert E. Lee for the sole reason that people are usually judged by our worst act.  All of what Benedict Arnold may have accomplished prior to his turning traitor is forgotten by history because he was a traitor.  The accomplishments of Richard M. Nixon are many and yet largely ignored because of the stain of Watergate and his complicity in it.  

Like it or not, Robert E. Lee supported slavery.  Embraced it in fact, when he was administering the estate of his father-in-law, in spite of that man's will calling for emancipation of his slaves upon his passing.  Robert E. Lee publicly opposed racial equality.  After his graduation from West Point, he took the following oath:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

He abandoned that oath when he took up arms against the Union.

There is an argument to be made that honors earned prior to one's last/worst act should not be revoked without review.  We don't necessarily strip a soldier of their awards and decorations when they are court-martialed, although they can are often are removed from the service.  Rank may be reduced in some cases, even for officers.

Is it fair to judge a person by their last/worst act?  I think it is.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent.- Part 5

Kevin Spacey chose an unusual time to come out of the closet he has been in for so long.  It took an accusation from actor Anthony Rapp that Spacey came on to him when he was only 14 years of age.  Here is the statement that Spacey put out on Twitter:

Academy Award winning actor Kevin Spacey is using the Jerry Springer defense.  He's claiming he was drunk and coming out at the moment his alleged sexual harassment/assault is made public.  

I can believe that he may not remember something that happened when he was drunk, but that isn't an excuse for the behavior itself.  It could excuse the lack of memory but not the transgression.

There is a difference between Kevin Spacey and the others currently under the sexual harassment/assault/rape microscope at this time.  Dozens of women are accusing Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault and more than a few of outright rape.  Hundreds of women have come forward and leveled accusations at James Toback.  Roman Polanski actually pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl.  

Will other people come forward and accuse Kevin Spacey?  Only time will tell.

* * *

Lysette Anthony

Asia Argento

Sophie Dix

Lucia Evans

Trish Goff

Mimi Halyei

Natassia Malthe

Rose McGowan

Erika Rosenbaum

Annabella Sciorra

Cynthia Burr

Hope Exiner d'Amore

Ashley Matthau

Lacey Dorn

Three anonymous accusers

I picked these names and anon accusers out of the long list of Harvey Weinstein accusers because all of them have made allegations of rape or rape-like behavior.  He allegedly forced himself on these women.

Most of these incidents happened long enough ago that HW is probably safe from prosecution.  Not all of them.  Here's hoping he finds himself facing justice in the criminal court system.

Sunday Stuff

Bruce Maxwell is a 26 year old catcher for the Oakland Athletics.  He's been in the news three times this year.  Once when he became the only Major League Baseball Player to take a knee during the playing of the National Anthem.  The second time when he accused a waiter in a Huntsville, AL restaurant of refusing to serve him because of his having taken a knee.  Now, he's been arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at a female delivery driver.

The waiter denied Maxwell's version of events and says it had to do with one member of the Maxwell table having an expired ID and being refused alcohol service.

Reporter's note:  I suspect, given his apparent inability to throw out baserunners trying to steal, and the controversy he is generating, his days with the A's may be numbered.

* * *

Rose McGowan is now saying someone in the inner circle of Harvey Weinstein offered her $1 million to stay silent about sexual assault allegations against Weinstein.  She counter-offered asking for $6 million but quickly withdrew that proposal through her attorney.  People on her team were telling her to take the money to fund her art but she became disgusted at the thought of taking the money.

Reporter's note:  Given the ever-growing number of women coming forward and accusing Harvey Weinstein of what Whoopi Goldberg would call "rape rape" it is time to move past persecuting this man in the media and start prosecuting him in the courts.

Meanwhile, Adam Sandler is being criticized for putting his hand on Claire Foy's knee during their joint appearance on the Graham Norton Show.

* * *

A few Trump Terminology Translations:

"DO SOMETHING" - Do anything necessary to prevent me from being exposed for who I really am.

"Fake News" - News that makes me look bad, aka the truth

"Collusion with Russia never happened" - They ain't caught me yet.

"JFK files are released, long ahead of schedule" - I released them on the last date allowed by law.  Not ahead of schedule.

"Transparency" - Expose everything anyone else does, but keep my shit buried deep.

* * *

While I bleed Dodger Blue, and want them to win tonight's game, I give credit to the Astros organization for a great first pitch ceremony tonight.  I only wish George H. W. Bush had been able to throw that first pitch himself instead of calling in George W. Bush to relieve him.  Bush Sr. was a pretty good first baseman during his years at Yale University.  Did you know he played in the College World Series?

* * *

Jigsaw, the latest entry in the Saw horror franchise won the weekend box office battle in its opening weekend.  The Square, which I hope to see this weekend was the per screen champion, bringing in $38,000 per screen as it debuted in only two theaters.

The big loser at the box office is the first film released by The Weinstein Company after the scandal involving its co-founder, Harvey Weinstein broke.  Amityville: The Awakening opened on ten screens and did a total of $742 in box office.  That's a pathetic $74 per screen.

Maybe they can take comfort from the Shia LeBeouf movie Man Down which sold only one ticket when it opened in the United Kingdom.

* * *

Tim Brown is a writer for Yahoo Sports and he wrote an editorial piece criticizing the Major League Baseball commissioner, Rob Manfred for delaying the suspension of the Houston Astros' Yuli Gurriel until next season.

There is a rule in the contract between the players and MLB that mandates a suspended player get seven days after being notified of a suspension to request an appeal.  That would have guaranteed Gurriel would not miss a single game of this year's World Series.

Either Mr. Brown didn't know, or more probably, he knew but wanted to generate outrage and clicks on his piece.

* * *

ABC News reports that the Omaha, NE VA facility had a secret waiting list that kept 87 veterans from receiving psychotherapy care at the facility.

Reporter's note:  They blame this on training deficiencies, and yet no one was fired?

* * *

Punishing the wrong party

A. J. Burgess has spent much of his two years of life in hospitals.  He was born without any kidneys and must receive daily dialysis treatments.  He's grown enough to permit a kidney transplant and it turns out that his father is an ideal match.  Seems like an easy path forward to a long, healthy life for the toddler.

But Emory University Hospital has refused to perform the transplant because his father, Anthony Dickerson violated his probation.  According to the Huffington Post, Mr. Dickerson has been in and out of jail on "...misdemeanor theft charges and a first-degree forgery charge since 2011."

His most recent arrest, on charges of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and possession of a firearm or knife during attempted felonies violated his probation.  The police cooperated in getting him released on a low bond, in order for him to be available for the transplant.

But Emory says that he must first demonstrate "good behavior" for three or four months before they will reconsider doing the transplant.  That reevaluation won't take place before January of next year.  Will A.J. survive that long?  Should his father's transgressions deny him a chance at life?  Of course not.

This is wrong.  Very wrong.

There are related issues.  Should condemned prisoners receive organ transplants to prolong their lives is a topic that gets lots of discussion.  In November of 2011 there was a presentation at the Southern Thoraic Surgical Association on the topic.  The author is advancing an argument that prisoners on death row should be allowed to donate their organs after their death.

At the same time some people think that the condemned themselves do not deserve to receive donations of organs when they are going to be put to death anyway.

It is a highly contentious issue all around.  But the bottom line is a 2 year old boy shouldn't be put at risk of dying because his father violated probation.

* * *

Lazy morning random ponderings

Donald Trump had a few things to say:

"Well, I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am. You know – people don’t understand – I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is, I think, I really believe, I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.

What do the following folks have in common?

Stephen Hawking
Albert Einstein
Marilyn vos Savant
Marie Curie
Nikola Tesla

All were (are) extraordinarily intelligent.  And none of them ever had to say they are very intelligent.

Only someone who is insecure about their intelligent brags about it.  

* * *

That being said, let's look at a Trump "hit piece" published by a website that calls itself Bluedot Daily.  Here's an excerpt:

"Well, not only did Trump NOT go to an Ivy League school, we have some evidence that his college professors may not have thought much of him either.

“Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.”
Those are the words of the late Wharton professor William T. Kelley, who had Trump in class.

Let's give author JLyttle a solid one of out two.  Yes, William T. Kelley did make that statement about Donald Trump.  As to the first statement about Trump not going to an Ivy League school, let's dig a bit deeper.

Donald Trump attended the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.  Here is a list of all of the Ivy League schools:

Brown University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Harvard University
University of Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Yale University

Looks like Trump went to an Ivy League school after all.

* * *

Speaking of the Liar-in-Chief, today is the day he claims that he is releasing the classified government files on the assassination of JFK.  He doesn't come right out and say it was his decision to allow the release, but he has implied it.

In point of fact, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992 requires the release of all of the records that remain classified on October 26, 2017.  That's today.  The law does allow the sitting president certifies that: "(1) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (2) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure."

The idea that any information in the 5,000 or so remaining pages would contain any information that would satisfy those two requirements is ridiculous.  Yet Trump decided to accede to the requests of the FBI and CIA and allow redactions.

* * *

WARNING     WARNING     WARNING     WARNING    WARNING     WARNING

The video below contains profanity and some may find it disturbing.

The sons of the owner of a taco joint in Damascus, VA are the two men attacking the man who recorded this video.  Now they've been arrested.

There are some very...intriguing reviews of the place posted on Yelp in the wake of this video going viral.

* * *

Kelli Loos is going back to prison.  She served four years of a ten year sentence killing two men by driving while extremely intoxicated.  She was paroled in 2013 and got her driver license back in 2015 with the requirement that an ignition interlock device be installed in her car.  After multiple attempts to drive the car where her breath indicated the presence of alcohol in her system, a judge has sentenced her to 16 years in prison.

She had tried the Altoids defense, claiming that her having taken the mints before blowing into the device was what had caused the reading of alcohol in her system.

I think the system worked in this case.  She was given a second chance and failed to use it.  Some may think her sentence was harsh.  Was only four years enough for having taken two lives?

* * *

Congratulations to Cash Warren and his wife Jessica Alba, as she announced she is pregnant with their first son (they have two daughters).

* * *

Robert Guillaume has passed away at the age of 89.  We all remember him from his role as "Benson DuBois" on both Soap and Benson.  We remember him for a stirring portrayal of Frederick Douglass in the mini-series North and South.  We remember him for his having voiced the role of "Rafiki" in The Lion King animated feature film.

What we do not remember him for (at least most people were unaware of this) is that he was an incredible singer/musical theater performer.

* * *

For only $129.95 you can own one of only 2017 two-tone (blue and white) commemorative baseball bats celebrating the Dodgers first NL pennant in 29 years.

I'll pass.

* * *

Factoid:  Less than 10% of people contribute the maximum amount of $18,000 to a 401(k) plan through an employer.

* * *

Final thought.  I was out running errands on Thursday and heard two radio talk-show hosts discussing the reaction of a number of Republican politicians at the federal level to the continued questions regarding a divide in their party.  One said that the questions become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I find such questioning to be valid.  Republicans hold 52 of the seats in the U.S. Senate.  They hold 239 of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.  They hold the White House.  With such control, they should be able to pass major legislation if they were not divided.  Not one single piece of important legislation has been passed since the inauguration of the Liar-in-Chief.

Maybe they are more divided than they will admit.  Maybe it's a good thing to keep pointing this out.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent.- Part 4

One wonders if the newspapers in major metropolitan areas are going to have to add a new section to their daily offerings.  Their Entertainment section may have to include a sub-section on the latest Hollywood names to be accused of sexual harassment/assault.

The Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times has a story in which 38 women separately accuse James Toback of sexual misconduct.  His most recent directorial effort, The Private Life of a Modern Woman had its premiere last month at the Venice Film Festival.  By Tuesday, 200 additional woman contacted the Times to say they were victims of Toback.

Here's an excerpt from the Times piece:  "In his trailer on the set of “Black and White,” Toback knelt in front of actress Echo Danon and, she says, put his hands on her thighs, telling her, “If you look into my eyes and pinch my nipples, I’m going to come in my pants right now.” She resisted. She felt helpless. Eventually he backed down."

Are you thinking, as I did, that sounds eerily familiar?  Perhaps that is because in an article in the now defunct Spy Magazine (published back in March of 1989), Mr. Toback was profiled in a fold-out piece that is mysteriously missing from the archive of that issue maintained by Google Books.

"Listen.  I have an idea.  Stand up.  Come over here and touch my nipples.  Come on, just touch them.  Then I'll come and you can trust me, because you'll see that that's all I need to be turned on."

Other accusations involving Mr. Toback appeared in Gawker in 2008, 2010 and 2012.  I'd forgotten about the Spy Magazine article, although I read that magazine with relish every month from 1988 through its demise in 1998.  Yet like most of the public, I was unaware of this man's actions until publication of the article in today's L.A. Times.  Why is that?

Then there is this, the final portion of the Times article of today.  "Her manager told her not long afterward that he wanted to see her again. Her reply: He’s a vile person. And you shouldn’t ever send another woman to him."

Anyone care to wager on whether or not that manager followed the advice of that particular victim of Mr. Toback?

* * *

Therein lies the rub.  That manager, and countless others (not just managers but producers, directors and everyone else) did not protect women from people like Harvey Weinstein, James Toback and the others.

Fox News learns that Bill O'Reilly pays out $32 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit and promptly signs him to a new contract.

The Weinstein Company signs a contract with Harvey Weinstein that allows him to dispose of allegations of sexual harassment/sexual assault by paying settlements.

Quentin Tarantino says "I knew enough to do more than I did" and goes on to admit he knew of the settlement between Harvey Weinstein and Rose McGowan; and that Weinstein had victimized his former girlfriend, Mira Sorvino.

Matt Damon admits to having been aware of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment of Gwyneth Paltrow.

So why did these people continue to work with this man?

The same reason that the makeup artist who was dismissed from a film production after he harassed Blake Lively got a letter of reference from the unit production manager because, "no one wanted there to be bad blood."

Sexual harassment and assault has been universally ignored by the powers that be...not just in Hollywood.  However, I suspect is has been worse in the entertainment industry because the people in the corner offices are more concerned with the bottom line than the people who generate those profits.  As long as the company is making money, dealing with this kind of thing has been viewed as nothing more than the cost of doing business.

Is this legal?  There was an episode of Law & Order titled "Virtue" regarding a city councilman who had forced a woman working in the law firm where he was a partner to have sex with him; in order for her to become a partner.  I make mention of this episode because the closing argument made by the actress portraying his attorney where she defends his forcing this woman to have sex with him is right on point:

"So what? If we assume that everything Sarah Maslin said is true, my client is the quintessential sexist son of a bitch. He not only took advantage of Miss Maslin, he demeaned her. He humiliated her. He destroyed her dignity. As a woman, I'd like to go over there and smack him in the head. But as an officer of the court, all I can do is say, "So what?" Sarah Maslin was ambitious. She wanted to get ahead and she got what she wanted by her own choice. She alone determined her fate. Sure she may be emotionally distraught. But under the law, you hurt someone's feelings, you take out your checkbook. You do not go to jail."

Using power to force someone to have sex is not an injury of the victim's feelings, but that's how these people who consider such things nothing more than the cost of doing business view sexual harassment and assault.

Why did people like QT, Affleck and Damon continue to work with Harvey Weinstein?  To make movies?  Could they not make their movies with someone who wasn't known to them as a sexual predator?

Whose Wants Win

On Tuesday night, the Los Angeles Dodgers will take the field for Game 1 of the 2017 World Series.  Thousands of fans of the Blue Crew are clamoring for Hall of Fame broadcaster Vin Scully to return to the microphone for the play by play of this year's World Series.  I would love it if he were in the broadcast booth calling the game.

In spite of the online petitions being circulated, Vin has made it clear he does not want to be there.  "I honestly feel I don't belong there" he said in an email.  He is not seeking the spotlight that his taking over for Joe Buck on the TV broadcasts of the games could be seen as.

More than 55 years have passed since April 10, 1962.  On that night, the Dodgers played their first home game in the house that O'Malley built in Chavez Ravine.

That is Dori Martin and her sons Mike and Ricky racing to their seats on that April day so long ago.  Vin Scully was at the microphone for our Dodgers at that first home game.  He remained there until his retirement last season.

It is very easy to understand why so many people want him calling the World Series.  Vin's ability to paint pictures with words is on par with Da Vinci, Michelangelo or any other visual artist; if the pictures painted by his words could be captured on a canvas.

September 9, 1965

The final out of Sandy Koufax's perfect game.

October 15, 1988

Kirk Gibson's miraculous game-winning home run in Game One of the 1988 World Series.  Interestingly, today's Los Angeles Times had a great story by Bill Plaschke that gives some little-known background about how the events of Gibby's blast transpired.

* * *

That so many of us want this amazing man to be at the mic for the first Dodgers' World Series in 29 years speaks volumes about how much he is treasured.  But if we truly treasure this man, we should respect his wants over our own.  He's earned a rest if that is what he wants.  He has earned the right to step away from the mic.

Come Tuesday...

COD isn't about delivery in this case.

That is retired Army Lieutenant Will Milzarski.  He was working as a disability right attorney in Michigan when at the age of 40 he decided to rejoin the Army and go through Officer Candidates School.  It is a tough course for a young man and for a 40 year old, tougher.  He made it through and did two tours in Afghanistan where he was wounded.  He is now on disability for his traumatic brain injury, hearing loss and memory problems.  He had tried returning to his job with the state but retired due to his memory loss and inability to concentrate.

He was unable to repay over $220,000 in student loans and because the VA had declared him permanently and totally disabled, the Department of Education forgave those loans.  Then he got a notice from the IRS demanding payment of $62,000 in tax on those forgiven loans.

It is known as Cancellation Of Debt (COD) income.  The concept is simple enough.  You go to a lender and borrow money.  Because you are obligated to repay this loan, it is not considered income.  But the moment that you are no longer required to make repayment, the balance owed becomes income to you.  After all, you did get the money.

This logic is why monies borrowed for student loans can be claimed as education expenses as though the student had just paid the expense with their own money.  Same thing for medical expenses you pay by putting them on a charge card.  You may not pay off that balance for years, but you get the deduction

As a tax professional I see a lot of clients who have a COD income problem.  The two most common types are when a credit card debt was written off by the bank, or when a home is foreclosed on/short sold.  There's a special provision in the tax code that allows the COD income from an unpaid mortgage on your principal residence to be excluded from income.

Lieutenant Milzarski is being assisted in his battle with the IRS (and the state of Michigan, which is seeking another $8,000 in tax) by the Michigan State University Low-Income Tax Clinic.  They managed to get the amount of loan forgiveness subject to income tax from $223,000 to $161,000.  While the news articles don't go into detail on how this was done, it seems certain that they applied what is known as Exclusion of COD Income to the level of insolvency.  Basically, the amount by which you are insolvent (the amount by which your total debt exceeds your total assets) is used to reduce the amount of COD income that is taxed.  But the IRS refused to settle for less than the full amount owed (the clinic is appealing that decision).

The section of the Internal Revenue Code that governs taxation of discharge of indebtedness has a number of exceptions where debts that were forgiven are excluded from taxation.  They include:

Bankruptcy (obviously)
Student Loan debt when the debtor works in a specified profession
Participation in a Public Health Corps Loan program
Qualified Farm Indebtedness

Should Congress add a provision for excluding student loan debt forgiveness for disabled veterans?  Veterans in general?  Certain groups of veterans?  Why not all first responders?

I think that anyone who is considered permanently and totally disabled should be granted forgiveness of their student loans without subjecting them to COD income taxation on the forgiven amount, if they can demonstrate that repayment would constitute an undue financial hardship.  But the current position of the U.S. Department of Education seems to be to oppose loan forgiveness in almost any instance, and the IRS aggressively pursues instances of COD income.

Will this be dealt with in the current attempt to "reform" our income tax system?  Doubtful.  The Republicans in the House, Senate and White House are far more interested in giving more tax breaks to the wealthy.

Fake News, No. News Through the Lens of Partisanship, Seems So

Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, retired General John F. Kelly delivered some scathing criticism of Florida Congresswoman Frederica Wilson this past Thursday (10/19/2017) as he addressed reporters at the White House.


"I'll end with this: In October -- April, rather, of 2015, I was still on active duty, and I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami. And it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers in 1986 -- a guy by the name of Grogan and Duke. Grogan almost retired, 53 years old; Duke, I think less than a year on the job. Anyways, they got in a gunfight and they were killed. Three other FBI agents were there, were wounded, and now retired. So we go down -- Jim Comey gave an absolutely brilliant memorial speech to those fallen men and to all of the men and women of the FBI who serve our country so well, and law enforcement so well.

There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were three or four years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there, and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives.

And a congresswoman stood up, and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down, and we were stunned. Stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned."

There is a small problem with this criticism.  That's not what she said.  You can listen to her remarks for yourself.

So we have a president claiming a member of the House fabricated a claim regarding his phone call to the widow of Army SGT La David Johnson, a claim that is actually supported by others.  The Liar-in-Chief claims he has proof, but clearly there is none.

Meanwhile we have a retired general officer who has been charged with fabricating his own remarks regarding a speech by that same member of the House, and there is a video proving his claims were completely erroneous.

So how is the media covering all of this?

CNN published an opinion piece by a law professor titled "John Kelly Shows His True Colors" in which she wrote:  "If women were sacred, Kelly would not have referred to an elected member of Congress, a black woman, as an "empty barrel" -- an insult to Frederica Wilson's intelligence that was far out of line for someone who claims not to want to politicize this situation further. Neither would he have lied about what Wilson said at a dedication ceremony of an FBI building in 2015."

The Washington Post editorial board published an editorial saying General Kelly owes Representative Wilson an apology.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell tweeted, "Kelly is a better fit for Trump than media thought. He too invents lies to attack and insult women."

Over at the Fox News Channel, on their show "The Five" one of today's talking heads defended General Kelly.  When confronted with the fact that the video proved Kelly's comments regarding Wilson's speech were untrue, he pivoted to the same defense that Sarah Huckabee Sanders used to defend Donald Trump's lies about phone calls he claimed to have received from the President of Mexico and the leader of the Boy Scouts.  This talking head claimed that General Kelly must have been referring to conversations he overheard Representative Wilson having following her speech.

Sorry dude, but General Kelly was specific in making reference to Representative Wilson's speech, not conversations.

The lens of partisanship that our major media outlets are using to present the news of the day to us is giving some limited credence to the claims of the Liar-in-Chief regarding "Fake News."  It isn't that there are blatant falsehoods being published; rather we are being subjected to an ever increasing partisan slant to even hard news coverage.

As noted in this blog before, there is a marked difference between what a news outlet publishes and labels as opinion, news and commentary and just news.  The problem is they are blurring those lines more and more these days.

Lest you think my critique of what they are doing is limited to the conservative side of the media aisle, think again.  At the moment there is a story on the Los Angeles Times website related to the Harvey Weinstein imbroglio.  Titled "Here's a look at 27 newsmakers accused of sexual harassment, assault or related behavior" this piece names more than two dozen people of note who are so accused.

Donald Trump is one of the 27, as are former Fox News people Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly and Eric Bolling.  The Weinstein Brothers, Harvey and Bob are listed, as are Roman Polanski, R. Kelly and of course, Bill Cosby.

But there is no mention of William Jefferson Clinton.  How can you list famous folk accused of sexual assault, include the current Oval Office occupant and not mention the man who enjoyed what might have been the most famous act of oral copulation in world history??  It is reprehensible to give that man a pass by omitting his name from that list.

There is no denying partisanship is filtering the lens of news coverage by all media.  Sadly, there is no easy answer to this problem until the audience demands objective news coverage.

Donald Trump is a Liar - Part 3

The take on what the Liar-in-Chief has done since he was first confronted with the fact that he had not acknowledged the death of four U.S. Army Green Berets in Niger has varied widely.

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times wrote a piece titled "Our president can't even get a condolence call right."  They wrote:

"President Trump did not reach out quickly to the families of the fallen, and a question about why he had not spoken publicly about the deaths drew an all-too-familiar response from the president: lies, braggadocio and an attack on his predecessor."

Retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, who was the official spokesperson of the U. S. State Department during the Obama administration, and is now a CNN National Security Analyst penned an opinion piece for CNN titled "Stop the Politics and Honor the Fallen."  He wrote:

"His (referring to Trump) job, when required, is to send men and women into harm's way.  And should those men and women not survive the mission, his other job is to make sure they return home in a dignified, professional manner to families that will experience not only our gratitude but our conditional support.  President George W. Bush referred to this as being the "Comforter-in-Chief and it's probably the most important duty any occupier of the Oval Office obeys.

Mr. Trump has been derelict in that duty today."

We will get back to the most recent words from President George W. Bush in a moment, but first we need to examine some remarks from General John F. Kelley from today.

"So some Presidents have elected to call. All Presidents, I believe, have elected to send letters. If you elect to call a family like this, it is about the most difficult thing you could imagine. There’s no perfect way to make that phone call.

When I took this job and talked to President Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it because it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to. It’s nice to do, in my opinion, in any event.

He asked me about previous Presidents, and I said, I can tell you that President Obama, who was my Commander-in-Chief when I was on active duty, did not call my family. That was not a criticism. That was just to simply say, I don’t believe President Obama called. That’s not a negative thing. I don’t believe President Bush called in all cases. I don’t believe any President, particularly when the casualty rates are very, very high — that Presidents call. But I believe they all write.

So when I gave that explanation to our President three days ago, he elected to make phone calls in the cases of four young men who we lost in Niger at the earlier part of this month. But then he said, how do you make these calls? If you’re not in the family, if you’ve never worn the uniform, if you’ve never been in combat, you can’t even imagine how to make that call. I think he very bravely does make those calls."

I do not believe that Donald J. Trump deliberately attempted to disrespect Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Army SGT La David Johnson with his words.  General Kelly has a point that the usual protocol for such phone calls is that they are a private matter between the President and the family member being called.  But it was the choice of Myeshia Johnson to have the other people around her hear the phone call and that was her choice to make.

Given that the Liar-in-Chief was attempting to paraphrase words given to him by General Kelly, perhaps we should be more generous in reviewing that choice by the president.  However, if the reports are true that Mr. Trump did not know the name La David Johnson, then he still failed utterly in the job of Comforter-in-Chief.

Going back to what Rear Admiral (ret) Kirby wrote.  After positing that Mr. Trump owes an apology to Mrs. Johnson, he wrote:

"Such an apology is likely not forthcoming.  So the next best thing he -- and quite frankly everyone else, including Rep. Wilson -- should do, is stop.  Stop making it worse.  Stop throwing barbs and rejoinders.  Stop turning this into a political fight and focus instead on doing what must be done to honor the sacrifices these four men made."

Sorry Admiral Kirby, but with all due respect, it was the current Commander-in-Chief who began the process of politicizing this, along with every single other thing he talks about.  He made false, malicious allegations for the umpteenth time regarding President Obama.  He failed to take action in the proper time to honor these four soldiers.  When confronted with that fact, he tried to avoid being faulted by blaming others; as he does every time his flaws are pointed out to him.

Yes, Rep. Wilson is being a political opportunist and perhaps in the past this would be odious and inappropriate.  But as I continue to hear political pundits point out, by changing the game himself, Donald Trump has removed any sense of political norms from the process.  He started this fight.  For all of his self-professed "counter-puncher" claims, he often fires first and then when hit back, he claims the right to retaliate.  A right he does not give to those he attacks first.

Now is the moment for some of what George W. Bush said in a speech today:

"For example, our democracy needs a media that is transparent, accurate and fair. Our democracy needs religious institutions that demonstrate integrity and champion civil discourse. Our democracy needs institutions of higher learning that are examples of truth and free expression.
In short, it is time for American institutions to step up and provide cultural and moral leadership for this nation."

As Secretary Hillary Clinton correctly pointed out, Donald Trump has actually filed for business bankruptcy six separate times.  However, at this moment it his seventh bankruptcy that we should be most concerned about.  I make reference to the fact that the Trump Administration is utterly devoid of a moral compass and therefore, bankrupt in the ability to provide us with the moral leadership that President Bush was making reference to.

As he would say, "Sad!"

I say, tragic.

Donald Trump is a liar - Part 2

Let's review the number of U.S. military deaths in areas of combat operations since the Liar-in-chief took office:

January - 1
February - 1
March - 3
April - 4
May - 2
June - 3
July - 1
August - 6
September - 0
October - 5

Now let's review the number of U.S. military deaths in areas of combat operations back in 2010:

January - 36
February - 37
March - 37
April - 29
May - 40
June - 68
July - 69
August - 58
September - 49
October - 52
November - 55

The reason these numbers are important is that they represent the difference between the number of combat-related casualties during the year current White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly's son died after stepping on a land mine in Afghanistan.  That tragedy happened on November 9, 2010.

Did President Obama actually call then Lt. General Kelly, serving at the time as Commander of Marine Forces Reserve and Marine Forces North?  I don't know.  But we do know that General Kelly and his wife were at a breakfast hosted by President Obama to honor Gold Star families the following year.

When the number of military combat deaths in a month is in the single digits, it is expected that the President, in the role of Commander-in-Chief will take a few minutes to pick up the phone and call the families.  When those numbers rise into the dozens, it is an entirely different situation.

In October of 1983, 241 military personnel were killed in the bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut.  I do not believe for one minute that Ronald Reagan picked up the phone and called 241 families.  That's an unreasonable expectation.

But the deaths of five men in combat operations in one month does call upon the Commander-in-Chief to make five phone calls.  Those calls shouldn't take nearly two weeks to happen, unless there is some other crisis occupying the Executive Branch.  Given Trump's focus on other issues like golf, the NFL and kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem, obviously he isn't dealing with a crisis that would excuse the delay in his making those calls.

Now the Liar-in-Chief is denying that he told the widow of Army SGT La David Johnson that "...he must have known what he signed up for."

Congresswoman Frederica Wilson claims that is just what he did say and she was in the car with the widow at the time she got the call from Mr. Trump.  Trump says he has proof of what was said.  If he did, why hasn't he already released it?

On the other hand, we have proof that the Liar-in-Chief has lied about phone calls before.

Note to Donald Trump's designated lie whisperer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.  When your boss says he got a call and you try to spin it that he was referencing conversations that were in person rather than on the phone; that's your boss telling a lie.  It is not a bold accusation to call that a lie, it is stating a fact.

* * *

But now Donald Trump has done something that might be considered worse than lying.  He is using the personal tragedy of his Chief of Staff to try to defend one of his lies.  No one seems to be serving the interests of the Liar-in-Chief better than retired General John F. Kelly and yet Trump parades the combat death of the general's son around to defend his own falsehood.  Disgusting!  Sad!

Should presidential candidates have to pass a civics exam?

Now that it appears the effort to force Donald J. Trump to release his tax returns to get on the ballot in California for 2020 has failed, it is being suggested that presidential candidates be subjected to a basic level civics test.

Our top-secret sources in the Trump Administration have informed us that in anticipation of that coming to pass, they prepared an exam for the Liar-in-Chief and I've obtained a copy of the questions and his responses.

Question #1 - What is the First Amendment and how does it work?

Trump - "It's that lousy thing that lets the failing Fake News write things about me that are actually true but make me look bad.  It isn't fair.  They should be looking at all the great things I've done, like breaking 85 twice this month at Trump National in Virginia."

Question #2 - The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Who is the militia?

Trump - "My people who buy lots of guns and bullets to keep those liberals from overthrowing my government."

Question #3 - What is a bump stock?

Trump - "That's one of my best dance moves.  Here, let me show you."

Question #4 - What does the Third Amendment do?

Trump - "You mean there are more than two of those things?  I hear people talking about how the 25th Amendment will be how the Fake News and those leftists get me out of office, but I never bothered reading the Constitution."

(Author's note:  Most people don't know what the Third Amendment actually says)

Question #5 - Let's skip the Fourth Amendment and go right to the Fifth Amendment.  Based on case law, law enforcement agents must recite the Miranda warning before questioning a suspect.  Do you know who Miranda was?

Trump - "I sure as hell do.  He's that Broadway guy, Lin Man something Miranda who warned that I'm going to hell because of how I've handled the situation in Puerto Rico after that hurricane.  I forget its name.  My FEMA people have done a tremendous job in a bigly way in spite of how awful the local government had let things get.  Miranda don't know shit."

Last Question - Can you describe the landmark Supreme Court Decision in Brown v Board of Education?

Trump - "Brown is that jerk governor in California whose biggest accomplishment in life was banging some rock singer.  He hasn't done anything except run up deficits and smoke pot."

Thank you sir for your candor.

Donald Trump is a liar

I know, I know, that isn't news.  Or shocking.  What is shocking is the whopper he told on Monday, October 16th.

Of all the whoppers that the Liar-in-Chief has told since he was sworn in, this I one of the most outrageous.  When he talks in this video about days where he has made four or five such calls, I really wish that his phone bills were a matter of public record.  That's because until the four soldiers who were killed in Niger died, there has only been one, one week period, in which more than three military personnel perished closely enough together to warrant that many calls in one day.

On the day that the body of Army SGT La David Johnson, a 25 year old from Miami Gardens arrived back in the U.S., the Liar-in-Chief was too busy to be there.  He was playing golf.  Golf was more important to this man than paying the proper tribute to a man who gave his life for this country.

Let's review just how many military personnel have been killed in combat operations or while supporting combat operations since the Liar-in-Chief began his term (note:  this is not a list of all military personnel who died since he took office, only those deployed in combat zones)

January - 1
February - 1
March - 3
April - 4
May - 2
June - 3
July - 1
August - 6
September - 0
October - 5

26 men and women killed during the tenure of Donald J. Trump as the Commander-in-Chief.  He can't find time to mention all of them, let alone call all of their families.  But he has found time to make 69 visits to his various golf clubs and played at least 30 confirmed rounds of golf (according to www.trumpgolfcount.com).  He prioritizes golf above his sacred responsibility to offer comfort to the families of the fallen.  Disgusting!!

He claims that one or more of his generals told him that President Obama didn't call military families to honor their loved ones.  I'd wager every dollar in my wallet that he cannot produce one single general officer willing to back up that claim.  Not without giving that general a direct order to lie to the American people.  Donald Trump's contempt for Gold Star families is already a matter of public record.

No matter how well I express my own feelings on this subject, the words of San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich describe the asshole in the Oval Office best:

“This man in the Oval Office is a soulless coward who thinks that he can only become large by belittling others. This has of course been a common practice of his, but to do it in this manner—and to lie about how previous presidents responded to the deaths of soldiers—is as low as it gets. We have a pathological liar in the White House, unfit intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically to hold this office, and the whole world knows it, especially those around him every day. The people who work with this president should be ashamed, because they know better than anyone just how unfit he is, and yet they choose to do nothing about it. This is their shame most of all.”

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent - Part 3

The 54 member Board of Directors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) voted to expel Harvey Weinstein on Saturday.  I'm sure these men and women shook hands and hugged as the meeting broke up, engaging in self-congratulatory talk and then going on their separate ways.  They probably slept well thinking they had done something important.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  One of the people who is a member of that Board of Directors is Oscar winner Whoopi Goldberg.  The same Whoopi Goldberg who made a point of saying that what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer (I am not "outing" her as his victim, she stepped forward and self-identified long ago) was not "...rape rape."

She was trying to distinguish between the fact that he wasn't convicted of rape but of pled guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.  That was in 1977.  Four decades later he remains a fugitive from justice.  And he remains a member of AMPAS.  When he won his Oscar for Best Director for the film The Pianist, the same Meryl Streep who recently spoke ill of Harvey Weinstein praised this convicted child molester by leading the audience in a standing ovation for the fugitive.

Bill Cosby is still a member in good standing of AMPAS as is self-confessed child molester Stephen Collins.  Collins has been a pariah in Hollywood since his admission in 2014 that he had inappropriate sexual relations with girls under the age of consent.  Cosby will undoubtedly "...never work in this town again" but they were not expelled from the Academy for their transgressions.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.  I'm willing to wager that during the next week, more than one aspiring actress or actor will be told by a person in a position of power in the entertainment industry that they will advance in their career if they just "cooperate."  The membership of the Board of Directors of AMPAS may think they did a good thing but all they accomplished was to stick a Band-Aid on a gushing arterial bleed of epic proportions.

* * * *

Oliver Stone said "I’m a believer that you wait until this thing gets to trial,” Stone said of Weinstein, who through a rep denied all allegations of nonconsensual sex. “I believe a man shouldn’t be condemned by a vigilante system. It’s not easy what he’s going through either. During that period he was a rival. I never did business with him and didn’t really know him. I’ve heard horror stories on everyone in the business, so I’m not going to comment on gossip. I’ll wait and see, which is the right thing to do."

Then actress Carrie Stevens said that at a party at the home of Ted Fields, Stone had groped her breast and grinned about it.  Patricia Arquette described an encounter with Stone that doesn't constitute assault or harassment, but certainly sounds inappropriate.  Soon afterward, Stone backed off of his earlier defense of Harvey Weinstein.

This is not about "due process."  That is part and parcel of the systems of criminal and civil justice.

* * *

Jason Momoa told a bad joke about rape in 2011 and now faces criticism for telling it.  What took so long?

Terry Crew and James Van Der Beek say they were groped by men who are high up on the Hollywood food chain.

Blake Lively talks about how a make-up artist harassed her, even filming her while she slept.  It took the intervention of her attorney for the man to be terminated from that film project and she says he got a good letter of reference because "...nobody wanted there to be bad blood."

Tippi Hedren speaks out decades later on how she was mistreated by the legendary Alfred Hitchcock and some want to shrug it off as "just how things were back then."  It was wrong then and it is just as wrong (if not more so) now.

* * *

Ben Affleck finally apologizes for groping Hilarie Burton on MTV's Total Request Live.  On the air!!  It took someone mentioning that it had happened, as it seems everyone had forgotten about the groping.  Ms Burton responded by saying she never forgot and only then; more than a decade later did Affleck offer his apology.  He said "I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize."

Other women have come forward now to make similar claims about Mr. Affleck and on social media, the actor who is Batman in the DC Cinematic Universe is being referred to as "Buttman" for his affinity for grabbing women's asses.

If a man walks up to a woman he doesn't know on the street and gropes her, he's looking at criminal charges.  It is far too late for Mr. Affleck to be hit with a misdemeanor charge for that particular grope.

* * *

Bob Weinstein, Harvey's brother and business partner denies knowing that Harvey was a sexual predator.  "I thought he was literally just going out there cheating in a pervasive way."

That's tough to believe, given the fact that Bob was involved in the negotiation of his brother's contract with the company they founded back in October of 2015.  A contract that allowed Harvey to "cure" any allegations of sexual harassment by paying money and retaining his lucrative position as the company's president.

* * *

It wasn't issues of sexual harassment or assault that caused Kate Winslet to exclude Harvey Weinstein from her Oscar acceptance speech for her role in The Reader.  It was what she has described as "...the disgraceful behavior that went on - and I'm actually not going to because it's a can of worms that I'm not prepared to publicly open - nothing to do with sexual harassment, thankfully, lucky me. My god. I somehow dodged that bullet."

There is another side to Harvey Weinstein that no one seems to have a problem with.  His bullying.  His legendary temper.  He threw things at his employees.  But in Hollywood (and almost everywhere else) in the highest level of executive suites, as long as the bottom line looks good, behavior gets overlooked.

I used to work for a manager whose temper and ability to verbally excoriate her employees was legendary.  The one time she did it to me, I told her that I wasn't a child, I wasn't in the wrong and if she did it again, I'd walk.  She never did it again.  That doesn't make me heroic.  It makes me a serious taker of risks, because the people in power have the ability to ruin the careers of their subordinates.  This is why people don't report what people like Harvey Weinstein do to them.  Their futures are in jeopardy if they do.

The members of the aforementioned Board of Directors need to do more.  They need to hold every single member of their academy responsible for their behavior in the future.  Personally and professionally.  When an actress reports that a producer/director/writer/makeup artist/whatever has acted inappropriately, the claim needs to be investigated.  Professionally.  Until that happens, no progress has been made since the casting couch came to be.

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent - Part II

When yesterday's blog regarding the fact that Harvey Weinstein is the symptom of a much larger problem was written, TMZ had not yet reported that his contract with The Weinstein Company (TWC) contained some even more shocking language.  Here's a portion of the TMZ piece:

"According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job."

This tells us that the people at TWC who negotiated this deal with Harvey Weinstein and his lawyer were willing to look the other way if he sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or outright raped women; as long as he 'cured' the problem with money.  Money paid to the victims and money paid to the company.

One of the board members is quoted as having said that they all assumed that he was dealing with issues involving consensual sex.  Given that the misdeeds of Mr. Weinstein were "the worst kept secret in Hollywood" one has to wonder why in the world they would leap to that assumption.

Also unknown at the time was that Rose McGowan would say that "...HW raped me..." which certainly appears to be an allegation that Harvey Weinstein raped her.  This incident took place in Utah in 1997 in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival.  While Utah has eliminated the statute of limitation for rape as a crime, the change in the law doesn't apply to rapes where the original statute of limitations had expired prior to 2003.  In 1997 that statute in Utah was four years, so it seems Mr. Weinstein won't face criminal charges for this particular rape.

That raises another interesting point.  The women who were paid off to remain silent by HW signed nondisclosure agreements as part of their settlements.  Well sports fans, NDAs do not preclude someone who signed one from reporting a crime to the police.  

It is 5:39 a.m. as I write this, which means the #WomenBoycottTwitter movement is in its 6th hour.  Even though I wanted to play the @FindShotFirst movie trivia game this morning, I am supporting the boycott.  I will not tweet again until midnight tonight.

It is not enough to say we stand with the victims.  This list was compiled by Newsweek and will probably be outdated quickly as more of the victims call out this sexual predator for his crimes.

Ambra Battalia Guiterrez

Anglina Jolie

Ashley Judd

Asia Argento

Cara Delevingne

Dawn Dunning

Emily Nestor

Emma de Caunes

Gwyneth Paltrow

Jessica Barth

Judith Godrèche

Kate Beckinsale

Katherine Kendall

Laura Madden

Lauren O’Connor

Lauren Sivan

Léa Seydoux

Liza Campbell

Lucia Evans

Ramola Gara

Rosanna Arquette

Rose McGowan

Sophie Dix

Tomi-Ann Roberts

Zelda Perkins

Zoe Brock

Even listing their names is not enough.  I will not spend another dime on any film produced by the Weinstein Company until they take appropriate action.  That needs to include:

An admission that contracting with anyone who can cure their acts of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape with money was utterly wrong.

Cooperating in every single investigation of the actions of Harvey Weinstein

Promulgating a new company policy making it clear that even the slightest infraction of their new code of conduct relating to issues of harassment, etc, will result in severe repercussions.

Enforcing that policy.

Until then I will not review their one potential Oscar contending film, Wind River.  I will not discuss it in articles I write regarding "Oscar buzz."  I will not spend one dime on any movie released by TWC.  I will not watch any television program whose production they are involved in.  Good thing I am not a fan of Project Runway, which lists Harvey Weinstein as executive producer.  I was going to watch Tulip Fever, but it is another film I will not watch or review.  I will publish a complete list of movies and television programming from TWC separately (after I get through the tax filing deadline of October 16th).

This is not a new problem in Hollywood or everywhere else.  I will leave you to ponder how this was allowed to go on for so long, after you read the words of Tippi Hedren:

Silence is not just assent, it is complicit consent

At the moment, Harvey Weinstein stands accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment and in a few cases, rape.  Accused, not admitted or convicted.  Let me add that while I will refer to any claims of inappropriate actions on the part of Harvey Weinstein in this blog as "alleged" I believe every single one of those claims.

Harvey Weinstein is the symptom but he is not the problem.  The problem is that he isn't the only person; in Hollywood or anywhere else for that matter, who is abusing their power to sexually harass and assault people.

Dov Charney founded American Apparel and after his ouster in 2014 founded Los Angeles Apparel.  According to Fortune Magazine, Charney was asked by Bloomberg if he was "going down the same path having sex with his employees and his response was "that question is private and it should be private."

Just last month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, regarding claims that a 22 year old male shift manager was sexually harassed and then retaliated against by the general manager of the location.  She allegedly "...slapped, groped and grabbed his privates..." and then he was locked in a walk-in freezer.  In 2016 Chipotle was successfully sued by a young woman who was sexually assaulted and harassed by a store manager, when she was only 16.  The jury awarded her nearly $8 million dollars and it was alleged in the complaint that at least one other manager knew what was going on.

There's the rub.  Who knows what was and is going on?  The New York Times is reporting that when Mr. Weinstein's contract was up for renewal in 2015, the attorney who represented him in the negotiations says that the board was aware of "...three or four confidential settlements" paid out to women.  Multiple sources are reporting that the employment contract between Harvey Weinstein and the company that bears his name was signed, it contained a provision that he could not be terminated for any sexual harassment allegations from before 2015.  Bob Weinstein, Harvey's brother and still a member of the Board of the Weinstein Company issued a statement on behalf of the company that claimed these allegations came as a complete surprise.  The presence of this particular clause in the employment contract of Harvey Weinstein makes it seem the company was well-aware of what was going on.

The NYT reported earlier that actress Rose McGowan had been paid a settlement back in 1997 after an encounter with Harvey Weinstein.  She claimed on Twitter when she told Ben Affleck what Weinstein had done to her (Affleck and McGowan had worked together on 1997's Going All the Way) had said "Goddamnit!! I told him to stop doing that" in response to her claim.

Brad Pitt has confirmed that he confronted Harvey Weinstein about his behavior toward the actor's then girlfriend, Gwyneth Paltrow.  She says Weinstein had put his hands on her and made sexual advances at a "work meeting" in a hotel room.

Prior to founding the Weinstein Company in 2005, the Weinstein Brothers created Miramax Films.  They sold it to Disney for $80 million in 1993 and continued to run it until departing in 2005.

During that time; after he'd allegedly confronted Harvey Weinstein about what happened to Rose McGowan, Ben Affleck acted in the following movies from Miramax:

Shakespeare in Love
Phantoms
Bounce
Reindeer Games
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
The Third Wheel
Gigli (I never did get my ticket purchase refunded for this dog of a film)
Jersey Girl

Brad Pitt made two films with Harvey Weinstein after his own 1995 confrontation with the movie mogul.  Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Inglorious Basterds.  Some will point out that Pitt was involved in those movies because of his personal relationships with the directors of those films; George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino.

If a man had made unwanted sexual advances on someone you cared about, would you be willing to work with them in the future?  That's a tough call and while some may question Pitt's decisions I won't fault him for them.  But for Ben Affleck to have gone on making movie after movie with Harvey Weinstein seems to be assent to what he knew the producer was doing to women.

That is the problem.  By failing to call out sexual predators, assent to their behavior becomes consent.  Consent becomes complicity.

Harvey Weinstein is not the only Hollywood power player who has done these kinds of things.  Dean Cain told Fox News that what Harvey Weinstein was doing was the "worst kept secret in Hollywood."

Jessica Barth, one of the alleged victims of Harvey Weinstein told Seth MacFarlane about her encounter with Weinstein back in 2011.  Seth MacFarlane made a joke about Weinstein at the 2013 Oscars.

The women who worked at the Weinstein Company knew enough to tell each other not to be caught alone in a room with Harvey Weinstein.

The women who were his victims aren't the problem.  A victim has every right to remain silent, especially when people in positions of power can destroy their careers in an instant.  The problem is the people who were NOT his victims did nothing.

As Edmund Burke said so eloquently, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."  A whole lot of men and women in Hollywood, the tech industry, government and every single other area of our society are giving their silent consent to such behavior by remaining silent.

Speak out.  Speak up!  Support the victims.  Identify and punish the offenders!!

Stand, sit, kneel...

Looks like the pressure being brought to bear on the National Football League by the Liar-In-Chief is working.  NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent a letter today to the Chief Executive/Club President of every NFL team.  Here is an excerpt:

"The controversy over the Anthem is a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues. We need to move past this controversy, and we want to do that together with our players."

The players who are choosing to take a knee are not protesting the military, veterans or first responders.  They are saying that they want the nation as a whole to take action to stop the disproportionate killings of people of color done under the color of authority.

But people who do not want these issues to be dealt with have successfully managed to reframe the protests as being something they are not.

I am not alone among veterans who have no issue with the players choosing to take a knee.  There are veterans who vehemently disagree with that position.  That is what makes this a great nation.  The freedom to disagree.  The freedom to express our feelings without the government infringing upon our expressions. As long as they remain speech and ideas, rather than actions that may violate the rights of others.

Like it or not, the NFL is a business.  If they choose to make a business decision to require players to stand for the playing of the national anthem, that is not an abrogation of the First Amendment rights of the players.  Government is not infringing their right to protest, in spite of presidential pressure being applied.

The history of the playing of the national anthem goes back a long way, in fact before it was our nation's anthem.  The Star-Spangled Banner did not become our nation's official anthem until 1931.  It was being played at baseball games going back to 1897.

The claim that NFL players did not come out on the field for the anthem until 2009 is a mixed bag of fact and fiction.  It was not played regularly before the start of baseball games until after World War II.  After World War II ended, then NFL Commissioner Elmer Layden said that the playing of the anthem before football games should continue.

"The playing of the national anthem should be as much a part of every game as the kickoff.  We must not drop it simply because the war is over. We should never forget what it stands for."

But until 2009, NFL games played in primetime did not have the players standing on the sidelines for the anthem.  According to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy this was due to broadcast network timing concerns.  That timing changed in 2009.

I think the NFL should give players a choice.  Stand on the sidelines for the playing of the anthem, or stay in the locker room until after the anthem has finished playing.  While we are on the topic, every other activity at the game should stop during the playing of the anthem.  No concession sales (Dodger Stadium halted concession sales during the playing of the anthem the last time I went to a game, back in 2004), no walking from point to point.  Stop, face the flag and wait until the anthem is finished playing.

What do you think?