Thanks for your support

Remember this?

Loved their tagline "...thank you very much for your support."

I suspect that Shannon Daniels, principal of Stanley Elementary school in Swampscott, MA is not saying about schools superintendent Pamela Angelakis these days.  She had the support of Ms Angelakis back in February when Ms Daniels announced that she was transgender.  She sent out a letter to the school community announcing her decision to become Shannon.  She was born Tom Daniels, a biological male.

A Boston Globe story published 2/7/2018 cites a second letter from Ms Angelakis to the school community containing the following language:

“As pointed out in [Daniels’s] letter, getting to the point of being willing to share those feelings has been a long and challenging process,” Angelakis said. “I hope you will join me and the entire district leadership team in offering Principal Daniels our acceptance, understanding, and support.”

I saw an Associated Press blurb published by the New York Post today saying that Ms Davis will not be returning to Swampscott Elementary next fall.  She will not be returning to the school as an interim principal has been appointed.  No info about what had caused that decision to be made and the obvious implication was that the school district wasn't bringing Ms Daniels back because of her decision to transition.

But is that the whole story?

A group of parents signed a petition expressing a vote of "No Confidence" in Ms Daniels.  They cited conflicts between staff and Ms Daniels and the defeat by the town's voters of a reconstruction project to phase out their aging building.  At an earlier meeting with parents some of them had suggested that Ms Daniels had chosen to transition to achieve "protected status."

One other fact was missing from all of the news coverage of this story, both the woefully inadequate AP piece, and the excellent reporting from the Boston Globe.

On November 23, 2011, then-governor Deval Patrick signed into law in MA a ban on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

I think that's a pretty important factoid to be omitted from news coverage.  

Maybe Ms Daniels chose a less-than-best moment to announce her transition.  That's no reason for her to have her career ended.

Random Insomniac/Stress Ponderings

Yesterday was my 4th consecutive 10+ hour workday.  My office manager pushed me to the limit by asking me to take on a client who wasn't on my schedule.  While it was a return that was too complex for the person it had originally been assigned to, that isn't my problem.  When I'd asked not to be given that extra client, because I'm backlogged, she initially agreed.  Then she reversed herself and told the client I'd help them BEFORE asking me to change my mind.

Ordinarily I wouldn't mind.  But yesterday was March 13th.  Tomorrow will be March 15th and that is the deadline for filing Partnership and S-Corporation returns.  I have several of those left to complete and that's going to be even tougher now.  As a result, on my so-called day off today I'll be in the office for more than the two hours I'd agreed to.  I agreed to go in to meet with two long-time clients who couldn't get in to see me otherwise.  As a result the added stress had me up just after midnight tonight.

April 18th cannot come soon enough.

* * *

Last night I watched the election coverage.  Election you ask?  Yes.  There was a special election in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District.  This is a district that Donald Trump carried by 20 points in 2016.  A district that was so staunchly Republican that in 2014 and again in 2016, there was no Democratic candidate running to oppose incumbent Timothy Murphy.  Murphy resigned last year when his extramarital affair and alleged hypocrisy about his anti-choice statements came to light.

I don't normally donate to political campaigns.  I did donate to the campaign of Conor Lamb, the Democratic candidate in last night's election.  I did it because I want to see the trend of Republican defeats in these special elections.  I'm watching talking heads on cable news trying to dissect why this election was so close, and the split within the Democratic party.

Money is definitely a factor.  CNN reports that about 80% of the $13.3 million in outside spending in this campaign was in support of the Republican candidate, Rick Saccone.  I'll admit to having grown extremely frustrated at the deluge of emails asking me to donate more, once I'd made a small contribution to Lamb's campaign.

I don't blame the candidate.  I blame the process.

This district has been staunchly Republican for a long time.  Why might Lamb win?  He didn't outspend Saccone.

But even if Lamb wins, the fact is that unless Democrats can unite before the mid-term elections, they cannot regain control of the House, or Senate.

* * *

Picking this up Friday morning on a rare, full day off  Election results are in:

Breaking News: The Democrat Conor Lamb has an insurmountable lead in a Pennsylvania House race in Trump country. We’re calling it in his favor.https://t.co/mGgHxH6AQ2

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 14, 2018

Trump and his sycophants are trying to blame this on Rick Saccone as being a weak candidate.  Funny thing is, even a weak candidate shouldn't have lost a district that Trump carried so easily in 2016.  That hadn't elected a Democrat since Murphy won in 2002.

Other Republicans are trying to spin this that Lamb isn't a "true" Democrat, that he ran on a conservative platform.

There are people who will vote for whatever Republican is in the race.  There are people who will vote for whatever Democrat is in the race.  It is those "swing" voters who will choose the best candidate that the parties need to get hold of.

At least that's the conventional wisdom.  But the tragedy in Parkland, FL gives us another path to winning control of the House and Senate this November.  How many 17 year old high school students will turn 18 this year?  Given the failure of Republicans to respond to these mass shootings with anything other than thoughts, prayers and inaction, most of them would support candidates who support action rather than hand-wringing and platitudes. We need to get them registered to vote and get them to the polls.

* * *

OPR is the acronym for the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility.  They handle investigations into allegations of misconduct of FBI employees.  Andrew McCabe, former FBI deputy director may be fired just before his retirement with full benefits from the FBI, because OPR is looking into his actions in allowing high ranking FBI officials to talk to reporters back in 2016 about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and allegedly misleading Justice Department officials about his actions.

It is a crime to lie to an FBI agent.

If the investigation isn't finished before he retires, he will apparently get to keep the benefits.

Is this Trump being vindictive?  Oh hell yes.

* * *

WrestleMania is coming up and what was going to be billed as the "Fabulous Moolah Battle Royale" has had its name changed.  For the uninitiated, a Battle Royale is a match featuring a lot of wrestlers competing to be the last person in the ring.  Wrestlers are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope and having both of their feet touch the ground.

The outrage that caused the name change has to do with allegations that the woman who was known as the Fabulous Moolah, Mary Ellison, had financially and sexually exploited the female wrestlers who came to her for training.

Finding a balance between trying to honor the icons of sport and what they may or may not have done outside of the arenas in which they competed is tricky.  The name of Shoeless Joe Jackson is forever tainted by the events of the Black Sox.  Did he really throw the 1919 World Series?  He hit .375 and made no errors.

What is different today is that information and headlines spread instantly.  The backlash against honoring the Fabulous Moolah started as soon as word of the naming of a match for her transpired.  Anyone and everyone has a voice, thanks to social media.

* * *

Sanctuary, Defiance and Authorities

The Trump Administration (no, you don't get to throw up in your mouth at the sound of that phrase) is suing California over three laws the state has passed into law.  These three laws prevent businesses and law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in their attempts to deport those in the country illegally.

To be clear, the federal government has the legal authority to deport anyone in this nation illegally.  That is how the laws are written.

It is also abundantly clear in the minds of many that there is no moral authority to deport anyone whose only criminal act was entering our nation in violation of our immigration laws.  That is especially true when referring to the "dreamers" who were protected under DACA.  They were not of age to make a choice about coming to the U.S. illegally.

California SB 54 prohibits state and local police agencies from notifying federal officials in many cases when immigrants potentially subject to deportation are about to be released from custody.

California AB 450 prohibits business owners from voluntarily sharing information about their employees with federal immigration agents.

California AB 103 requires that federal detention facilities be inspected by state authorities.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California issued a statement regarding this lawsuit.  

"This lawsuit is just the Trump administration's latest act of desperation to force California to cooperate with its dragnet round-ups and expulsions of immigrant residents.

With this lawsuit, the Trump administration is really saying that its racist immigration agenda, aimed at eliminating legal and unauthorized immigrants from our country, depends on California's cooperation.

But California wants no part in furthering Trump's unconstitutional and in-American agenda."

So it is clear that the ACLU is in favor of states passing laws that impact enforcement of immigration law.  They don't see this as a violation of the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Funny thing is, that less than a decade ago, the ACLU took the exact opposite position in another instance of a state passing a law on immigration enforcement.  Arizona.

Arizona's SB 1070 imposed harsher, stricter standards on state and local law enforcement agencies in the state. An article in the Arizona Republic newspaper back then contained this:

"Annie Lai, an Arizona ACLU lawyer, has been studying the law and agreed it contains "a number of constitutional flaws" that could bolster a legal attack.

"This is one of the most extreme and direct attempts by a state to regulate immigration law, and that is prohibited by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," she said. "The immigration-enforcement provisions do not have adequate safeguards that United States citizens, legal residents, Native Americans and other minorities will not be detained and arrested."

So how is it that the Supremacy clause does and doesn't prohibit states from engaging in passage of laws regulating immigration?  Seems simple, federal law trumps state law.

That is, until we consider just how these two attempts at imposition of state enforcement of immigration laws differ.  The federal government has every right to enforce immigration law.  They do not have the right to force states to assist in that enforcement.  

But I don't agree that the state of CA can impose sanctions on private employers who choose to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.  I think that's going too far.  The state of CA can certainly choose to limit how state and local law enforcement agencies choose to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities.  That is within their purview.

As always, immigration and the relevant issues require a comprehensive, long-term solution and our current Congress, as dysfunctional as it is, doesn't have the ability to craft such a solution.

The 2018 Oscars...a question and a thought or two

I'm a fan of Claudia Puig.  She is a nationally-renowned film critic and the president of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.  She sent out a tweet summing up the Oscars:

#Oscars2018:2 steps forward, 3 steps back.McDormand urging inclusive action was fantastic, shout-out to DREAMers & Del Toro's speech—lovely.Jordan Peele being 1st African-American to win screenplay was huge.BUT Gary Oldman winning despite domestic abuse is troubling.And Kobe too.

— Claudia Puig (@claudiapuig) March 5, 2018

That is what raised the question in my mind referenced in the title of this blog.  Actually it raises several questions.  First and foremost, what should the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) have done differently in voting in the categories in which Gary Oldman and Kobe Bryant were nominated?  Should they have chosen to vote for other nominees solely because of the accusations against those men?  Should the process by which they were nominated be altered so that those accused of sexual assault/domestic violence are not eligible for consideration?

Gary Oldman was accused by his then-wife Donya Fiorentino of domestic violence.  She claims that he choked her and hit her with a phone, in front of their children.  A police investigation resulted in no charges being filed.  A judge awarded sole custody of the children to Mr. Oldman.  Does that mean the accusation is false?  No.  But it is a "he said/she said" and isn't any more comparable to what Harvey Weinstein is accused of than what Carmine Caridi did to get expelled from AMPAS.

Kobe Bryant has maintained all along that the sex he had with a 19 year old woman was consensual.  Harvey Weinstein has been accused by so many women that the Oscars telecast had a sequence where three of the most prominent of his accusers came out on stage and talked about how "Time's Up!"

Do we forever exclude anyone accused by a single person of sexual assault/domestic violence from ever being given any award again?  Perhaps.  But then let's change the rules of the nominating process so it is clear who is and is not innocent enough to be considered for the recognition of their peers.  Hold that phrase, "...recognition of their peers" in the back of your mind for a moment.  I will circle back to it.

The bottom line in the entertainment industry is in fact all about the bottom line, financially.  The dollar, yuan, yen, euro, and so on, is what really matters in the plush offices where the decision-makers decide what projects get produced.

Roman Polanski has been a fugitive from justice since 1978.  In that time he's directed 13 films, one as recently as 2017.  He is still a member in good standing of AMPAS as far as I know.

Victor Salva is a convicted child molester.  Since being paroled in 1992 he's made nine films.  In 2001, his Jeepers Creepers was #1 at the box office the weekend it opened.

I don't expect Salva to ever be considered for an Oscar, but Polanski won one while unable to attend the ceremony because he fled the U.S.  That his victim says she has forgiven him doesn't change the fact he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.  So it is okay for a convicted sex offender to win an Oscar and remain an Academy member, but people who are accused and not yet charged should be denied award consideration?  I find this more than a bit confusing.

Kobe Bryant denied the rape allegation against him.  Gary Oldman denied being guilty of domestic violence.  Bill Clinton denied the rape allegation made against him by Juanita Broadrrick.  Those who defend Bill Clinton make much out of the fact that it took a long time for Ms Broadrrick to come forward.  Same thing can be said for almost all of the women accusing Harvey Weinstein.  So why does Bill Clinton get a pass from so many of the people who are so strident in saying people like Kobe Bryant and Gary Oldman should be denied the recognition of their peers?

We can never engage in shaming victims, nor can we question why they waited to step forward and tell their stories.  At the same time, do we immediately convict the accused in the court of public opinion and ostracize them permanently?

* * *

Speaking of the recognition of one's peers, something a Facebook friend wrote caught my eye and got me thinking about just what it means to win an Academy Award for Best Picture...in terms of which is really the "best."  He wrote:

"

I didn’t see all the movies, but “Get Out” was definitely better than “Shape of Water”"

In an excellent analysis of the nominating process, The Wrap makes it clear that a film can secure a Best Picture nomination with only 549 votes from the more than 6,000 members of AMPAS, and only 301 votes in the next round of that nominating process.

Even if every member of the Academy who is eligible to vote actually votes, it is still just over 6,000 people who are decided which is the "best" picture.

In some things, it is easier to quantify what is better than the rest, leading to a determination which is best.  The condition of rare coins is measuring with a system where 0 is worst and 70 is best.  The process is as scientific as possible, but yet one grader may see a coin as an MS-64 while another will evaluate it as an MS-65.  Given the vast difference in price between those two grades in a coin, it's an important differentiation.

We rate movies on scales of 1-10 (IMDB) 1-5 stars (numerous sites) and 1-100 (Rotten Tomatoes).  All of those ratings by critics are extremely subjective.  On Rotten Tomatoes,  The Shape of Water is rated 92% by the critics.  Get Out is rated 99% by the critics.

The Academy Awards carry prestige, and mean big money at the box office.  But as pointed out in a previous blog, the financial impact of a Golden Globe award is much larger than that of an Oscar.  A statistical analysis showed that the box office value of an Oscar is "only" $3 million, while a Golden Globe's box office value is $14.2 million.

But in the end, they are the subjective judgment of less than 7,000 people, some of whom are no longer "active" in the movie industry.

We should each decide which film we think best, enjoy awards season as best as possible and not stress over such trivial things when we have a Moron-in-Chief endangering all of us.