A Fear Filled Room

The eyes of the nation were on a small room in the Dirksen Senate Building in Washington, D.C.  A room filled with fear.

The fear of 11 white, male, Republican Senators who feared that if they themselves had questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, those questions would come back to haunt them in their next reelection campaign.

The fear of the supporters of Brett Kavanaugh that a delay in the confirmation process beyond November's mid-term elections would result in his nomination being defeated.

The fear of a man named Mark Judge who refuses to testify regarding these allegations.

The fear of Donald Trump that yet another of his moves would end in failure, like the effort to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The fear of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that she wouldn't be treated properly by her inquisitor.

* * *

If Judge Kavanaugh is so interested in restoring his reputation, in clearing his good name, why wouldn't he welcome any and all investigations?  If he is sure that his calendar and the support of his high school friends are proof that he is innocent, he should welcome a full investigation.  He clearly does not.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's life is irreparably damaged.  She had nothing to gain from coming forward and she has lost quite a bit.

Senator Grassley is currently spouting false equivalencies comparing the nomination processes for Justice Kagan and Justice Kavanaugh in terms of records being sought.  The failure of Republicans to request the records of Justice Kagan from her time as Solicitor General has no bearing on the fact that Democrats requested and were refused access to records from Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House.  The actions of Judge Kavanaugh during his time in the Bush White House should not be kept under lock and key.

While it is certainly understandable that one would be agitated and upset by allegations against them, that does not justify the temperament and behavior displayed by Judge Kavanaugh during his testimony after Dr. Ford testified first.  They are behaviors that show his unfitness to be elevated to the Supreme Court in and of themselves.

How can Judge Kavanaugh be so intelligent, so aware and supportive of the advancement of women and yet have had no knowledge of the sexual improprieties of Judge Alex Kozinski, when he was a clerk for that judge?

As of this morning, it has been 9,847 days since Anita Hill was testified.  Senators Grassley, Hatch and Leahy were on the Senate Judiciary Committee then, and they are on it now.  There were 14 white men on that committee then.  Seems little has changed, doesn't it.

Senator Hatch of Utah pointed out that it has been 81 days since Judge Kavanaugh was nominated.  He seems to have forgotten that 293 days passed from the day that President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court until it expired because Senate Republicans played partisan politics to prevent that nomination from ever being considered.

The Judicial Branch of our government would be free from partisanship in an ideal world.  In the real world, everything in D.C. is political.

Senator Jeff Flake has announced he will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.  I tweeted this right after that was announced:

Any chance @JeffFlake had of being relevant in the 2020 presidential election just went up in smoke with his decision to vote to confirm #Kavanaugh.  #IBelieveChristineBlaseyFord

— Brian Milinsky (@cyclist1959) September 28, 2018

* * *

At that point I had to leave to run some errands and head to work.  When I arrived home late on Friday night, things had changed remarkably.

After that moment, Senator Flake flinched.  He brokered a deal out of the public eye wherein there would be a Senate floor vote on the Kavanaugh nomination but only after an investigation by the FBI into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

The probe must be completed within one week.  The White House claims it has given the FBI what Donald Trump described as "free rein" but there are multiple sources reporting that White House Counsel Don McGahn is controlling the scope of the investigation and that the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared the list of people who will be questioned.

Supreme Court nominations have been a partisan problem that has only worsened in recent years.  In 2013 it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, who first invoked the so-called nuclear option to allow the Senate to avoid filibusters of executive branch nominees and judicial appointments, except to the Supreme Court.  Of the ten Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, nine of them were in the Senate in 2013 and voted in favor of eliminating their right to filibuster a nomination (CA Senator Kamala Harris wasn't elected to the Senate until 2016).

Then in 2017, Senator Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to include SCOTUS nominations.  He was a vocal opponent of the move back in 2013.  The ever shifting priorities of partisan political polarization at work.

Senator McConnell abrogated the right of President Barrack Obama to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court to replace the late Antonin Scalia.  It wasn't a lack of the qualifications of the nominee that motivated McConnell.  It was the hope that they could hold off considering the nomination of Garland until after the November election; and in a strategy suggested by Senator Flake, confirm Garland in the lame-duck session to avoid a "more liberal" nomination from Hillary Clinton.

Is it right for the Democrats to try to do the same thing to the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh?  I don't believe it is.  But I do not find Judge Kavanaugh to be qualified, without regard to the allegations of sexual impropriety against him.  His lack of complete honesty about his college drinking while under oath, and his failure to deal with the allegations against Judge Alex Kozinski, when he worked for him are what render him unqualified in my view.

It will be an interesting week.

The CA Legislature's budgetary sleight of hand is phenomenal

The mid-term elections are on November 6, 2018.  In addition to the key issue of Democrats trying to take control of the U.S. House and Senate, there are other issues facing voters.  There are 11 propositions on the ballot, numbered 1 through 12 (there is no Prop 9 on the ballot).

The most important and controversial of these is undoubtedly Proposition 6, which would repeal the gas tax increase signed into law by Governor Brown in April of 2017.  It raised a number of taxes involving transportation, most notably increasing the state's tax on gasoline sales by 12 cents per gallon.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial calling for a "No" vote on Prop 6.  Interestingly, Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times wrote about the subject this past March.  Here is an excerpt:

"Critics of SB1 rely on generic suspicion of public officials' motivations and hostility to taxes to carry the day.  "We've suffered through three decades of diversion of transportation dollars," says Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. "Having been told repeatedly that transportation dollars would be spent for transportation and not seeing that coming about, obviously we're very skeptical." He asserts that even without the SB1 levies, California would still be in the top five of states in gas and vehicle taxes. "It's not like we'd be starving the state for revenue."

When we were sold this gas tax back in 2017, we were told the money would be going to fix problems with the highways and city streets.  The fact that the word "rail" can be found no less than 30 times in the text of the bill is indicative that we weren't paying attention.  The Brown Boondoggle known as the High Speed Rail project is too expensive.  It doesn't deal with potholes, broken highway infrastructure and so on.  It also doesn't deal with the problems one experiences trying to get around metropolitan areas during rush hour, when there are too many vehicles and not enough traffic lanes.

But our state's government is very good at performing sleight of hand magic with our tax dollars.  So good in fact, they should be appearing at the famed Magic Castle here in L.A.  Witness what they did with the 34%.

What 34% do you ask?  Why the 34% of state lottery revenues that we were promised would go to state education expenses when we passed Prop 37 back on November 6, 1984.  34 years to the date that we will go to the polls to attempt to repeal this gas tax increase, we voted on a Proposition whose ballot summary read as follows:

"Amends Constitution to authorize establishment of a state lottery and to prohibit casinos. Adds statutes providing for establishment of a state-operated lottery. Of the total lottery revenues, requires that 50% be returned as prizes, not more than 16% be used for expenses, and at least 34% be used for public education. Requires that equal per capita amounts of the funds for education be distributed to kindergarten-through-12 districts, community college districts, State University and Colleges, and University of California. Contains numerous specific provisions concerning the operation and administration of lotteries and funds. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: The effect of this measure on state revenues cannot be predicted with certainty. Once full range of games is operational, estimated yield would be about $500 million annually for public education. Yield for first two years would be less. Estimated 80% of yield would go to K-12 schools, 13% to community colleges, 5% to California State University, and 2% to University of California."

I wrote two blog entries on the topic of the 34% in January of 2016.  The first entry pointed out that while the percentage of lottery revenues going to education declined from 35.1% in 2006 to 26.38% in 2014.

I just checked the most recent annual financial report from the CA Lottery, which you can read here.  It brags about how the lottery revenue of $6.28 billion and $1.56 billion of that going to education are new records.  It fails to mention that those numbers represent a historic LOW of 24.8% of money spent on the lottery going to education.  We were promised 34 cents on the dollar and we're being severely shortchanged.  Why should we think the gasoline tax situation will be any different?

I'm voting YES on Proposition 6.   

An interesting scenario

Since the announcement that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will testify before the U.S. Senate regarding her allegations that Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party while they were both in high school; the talking heads on cable have been spinning one scenario after another.  All are speculative, but some are more interesting than others.

One such scenario breaks down using the following timeline:

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh fails or is withdrawn.
Democrats take control of the Senate in the mid-term elections.
Trump nominates a less controversial candidate to serve on the Supreme Court.
The Democratic majority in the Senate applies the version of the Golden Rule to current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and does unto Trump's next nominee what McConnell did to the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

Could this happen?  The first item in the timeline is definitely possible.  Nate Silver's website 538 dot com claims there is one chance in three that the Democrats can take back the Senate, so while it isn't likely, it is indeed possible.  There is no doubt Trump would nominate another person to the court, possibly a conservative female judge, which will make it more difficult for female Democrats to oppose the nomination.

Let's assume all of that comes to pass.  The biggest IF in this scenario is whether or not Senate Democrats would use their majority status to sit on a nomination of a justice for more than twice as long as the Senate Republicans refused to hold a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland.  Especially when those same Senate Democrats accused their Republican counterparts of shirking their Constitutional responsibility by refusing to provide the "advise and consent" that document calls for them to furnish.

While it would seem "fair" under the concept of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, nothing could be further from the truth.  The role of the Senate is to give advise and consent, not force a protracted delay in hope that their party will be able to make a nomination that is more in line with their beliefs.  I do hope that the Democrats take control of the Senate in November.  However, I also hope that they will use that power in a much wiser manner than McConnell and his minions have done.

Examining another meme

Many memes have been spawned by the battle over the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.  This one caught my eye.

My first thought was to check its accuracy.  The vote tally is accurate as stated in the meme and you can check that here.  It turns out that a number of those Senators who voted no on this bill are still in the Senate.  Here is a list, along with the year they are up for reelection.  The list does not contain those who are no longer in the Senate, or who are retiring at the end of this year.

John Barrasso (R-WY) – 2018

Roy Blunt (R-MO)  - 2022

John Boozman (R-AR) - 2022

John Cornyn (R-TX) - 2020

Ted Cruz (R-TX) - 2018

Mike Enzi (R-WY) - 2020

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – 2020

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - 2022

Jim Inhofe (R-OK) - 2020

Ron Johnson (R-WI) - 2022

Mike Lee (R-UT) - 2022

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) - 2022

Rand Paul (R-KY) - 2022

Jim Risch (R-ID) - 2020

Pat Roberts (R-KS) - 2020

Marco Rubio (R-FL) -

Tim Scott (R-SC) - 2022

John Thune (R-SD) - 2022

* * *

Anyone who will vote in an election involving these men in the future should pay heed to how little they truly care about preventing violence against women.  Attacking the victim is unacceptable, unless there is proof that the victim is lying.  While cases like that of Brian Banks (he spent five years in prison after a woman named Wanetta Gibson made a false accusation of rape) do exist, people like Donald Trump all so often automatically believe men accused of sexual impropriety have done nothing wrong.

That's because in their eyes, such behavior isn't a problem.  That's the mindset we're dealing with.  That is what has to change.

At the same time, there needs to be a far heavier price paid by women like Wanetta Gibson who make false accusations of rape.  The damage they do with such accusations ruins lives, often beyond repair.

Stop attacking victims!!

The Politics of Unifying and Dividing and other stuff

At the celebration of the life of Senator John McCain in Washington, D.C., he invited two of his political rivals to deliver eulogies.  George W. Bush and Barrack Obama.  Men who kept him from achieving his ultimate goal, to be president of these United States.  One more demonstration that he was interested in uniting rather than dividing the American people.

Donald Trump has no interest in uniting all of the American people.  He is solely concerned with unifying those who are willing to allow him to not just perpetuate the inequality of wealth and income; but those who will sit silently as he widens the gulf between the haves and have-nots.  As long as he supports their xenophobia, their pseudo-religious fervor and the ignorance of the historical fact that we are a nation of immigrants, they will allow him to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The only way to address this is to get out and vote in November.  Vote Republicans out to limit the damage that Trump can do during what needs to be his limited remaining time in office.

* * *

Speaking of damage caused by the #LiarInChief, there is this:

Two long running, Obama era, investigations of  two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

He is referring to the investigations and indictments of Chris Collins, and Duncan Hunter, the first two members of the House to support his campaign.

Describing these two investigations as "...long-running, Obama era, investigations..." is a baldfaced lie.  The criminal acts allegedly committed by Mr. Collins did not occur until AFTER the inauguration of Donald Trump.  The investigation into the acts allegedly committed by Mr. Hunter and his wife was not opened by the Justice Department until AFTER the inauguration of Donald Trump.  That investigation was opened in March of 2017.

In the indictment of Mr. and Mrs. Hunter, 200 separate instances of the misuse of campaign funds are laid out in detail.  There is no way that spending nearly $250 for luggage for a personal vacation to Italy is a proper campaign expenditure.  They spent $14,261.33 for that vacation itself.

A plane ticket for a family pet (rabbit)??  The indictment claims Mr. Hunter spent $399.06 at Best Buy to purchase a camera to photograph a family vacation in Idaho.  Then, the indictment alleges, he told his campaign treasurer that he actually bought ink, paper and computer software.

This is not a politically motivated witch-hunt.  Both of these cases involve alleged violations of federal law.

Donald Trump's notion of delaying investigations and/or indictments so as not to influence elections rings hollow given the renewed inquiries into the Clinton email "scandal" back in 2016.  The people who are going to send someone to Washington, D.C. to represent them have the right to know what that individual stands accused of.

* * *

Random Ponderings:

Nike's decision to make Colin Kaepernick the face of their "Just Do It" ad is causing controversy.  If people want to burn their Nikes, or go out and buy some, they should just do that.  Me, I might even go buy a pair of Nikes since I'm in need of a new pair, although I usually choose ASICS.  This issue reminded me of another Nike commercial with a tagline I like better than Just Do It.

If Wiz Khalifa wants to let his son ride the bus to school, that's his choice.  He isn't riding the public busses, but a private bus service to the private school where Wiz is paying more than $30,000 for tuition.  I think the kid is safe on that bus.

Update:  James P. Baldwin continues to top the list of the California Franchise Tax Board's Top 500 delinquent taxpayers with an unpaid balance of $266.4 million.  Interestingly, the FTB list shows Mr. Baldwin's contractor license as still active, but the Contractor License Board's website shows it suspended due to failure to pay taxes...and failure to provide proof of workers compensation insurance.  Wonder if he's still in business.

I'd love to see billboards in Texas displaying Trump's comments about "lying Ted Cruz" during the next few weeks before the election.

If I were given the opportunity to interview Monica Lewinsky in front of an audience, I'd have taken the time beforehand to ask if there were any off-limits topics.  An interviewer in Israel asked her if she felt Bill Clinton owed her a personal apology and she walked off the stage without answering.  Then again, the interviewer was told beforehand the question was off-limits and still asked it.

It was vandals who changed the marquee sign at an Arby's in Minnesota.  I won't repeat the message, but I hope the people who changed it are caught.

There is a gun store/range in Hawaii that says 70% of the people who come in to shoot are from Japan and China, nations with extremely tight gun-control laws.  Sounds like a good business to be in.