Let's look at the Senate plan as diagnosed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is nonprofit and government-sponsored. It's the group that determines the effects of bills for the Congress. All of these observations are taken directly or paraphrased from the 49-page CBO report:
• 15 million more people would be uninsured next year because there's no penalty for not being insured. That's the headline. But there's a side effect. If healthy people leave the market because they don't think they need it, that means the pool of people with insurance is now sicker by comparison. That means there's more risk in the pool, which means premiums rise for those who are insured.
• 22 million uninsured by 2026 because the lower subsidies and lower spending on Medicaid will push people out of the market.
• The bill saves $321 billion over 10 years (roughly $32 billion/year) for the government. Two things to unpack here. First, while the spending is up for Medicaid from what it is now, it's down by about 3/4 of a trillion dollars compared to its current budgeted amount for the future. Second, there's about $400 billion in subsidy reductions. There are only two ways, per the CBO, that this bill saves money for the government: Less than expected spending (cuts) in Medicaid and less than expected spending (cuts) in subsidies/tax credits.
• Insurance premiums on marketplace plans would rise until 2020 then decrease after that, the CBO projects. The why is important here: Healthy young folk would buy less comprehensive plans that cost less. (Insurance covers 58 percent of costs rather than roughly 70 percent of costs, for example.) These less comprehensive plans cost less because the insurance company covers less of the tab -- therefore incurred expenses fall on the patient's shoulders. It's a shift in the cost from the premium to the co-pay/co-insurance/deductible amount.
• Obamacare created a list of essential health benefits (EHBs) that every health care plan has to meet. One of the provisions of the BRCA is that states can add or subtract things from this list with a waiver. People who use those services covered by an EHB that is later waived by a state would have "substantial increases" in premiums or out-of-pocket spending. It also means there's no annual or lifetime limits once something's off the EHB list. Real-world example: Let's say you live in South Dakota, and South Dakota decides maternity health is no longer an EHB. In that case, your maternity coverage just got a lot more expensive and there wouldn't be an annual or lifetime limit on how much you'd have to spend out-of-pocket.
• There'd be a six-month waiting period before coverage can start for people in the health insurance marketplaces. This is to prevent healthy folks from jumping on board when they got sick and jumping off after health insurance has picked up a portion of the tab.
• Obamacare said that older people (50s/60s) can be charged premiums up to 3 times higher than young people (20s/30s). That number would jump to 5 times in the BRCA. This has the effect of lowering premiums for young people while increasing premiums for older people (p. 25). If you're eligible for subsidies, great -- the CBO thinks you won't see much change in cost. But if you're ineligible for subsidies, older people will get a "much higher" cost.
• It took me a minute to decipher this one, but there's an Obamacare rule that caps the percentage of premiums that go toward profits/administrative costs for insurers. This bill would repeal that requirement and leave it to the states. The CBO thinks half the states would repeal it or go with a higher cap percentage. In states with little competition in the marketplace, this means premiums would go up. Subsidies would cover most of that, but... that's kind of the case with premiums under Obamacare, too. The GOP has made a big stink over the premium increases under Obamacare, even though most of those are covered by subsidies.
• For most lower-income people, you'd pay a similar premium for worse coverage -- higher deductibles and less percentage covered by health insurance.
• For those under the federal poverty line and ineligible for Medicaid, you could get tax credits in a way you can't under Obamacare. That's good. But the deductible would be 1/3-1/2 of their ANNUAL income. That's bad. The CBO believes most would skip health insurance because it's not a practical expense. This goes for a lot of others, too: If people are paying the same for worse coverage, they'll drop the coverage.
• There are a couple deductions in this one, but using a few of the points above (5:1 ratio instead of 3:1 for older patients and worse coverage = dropping the coverage), it's clear this bill will hurt older people who are ineligible for Medicaid the most. They'll either have to pay way more in deductibles and share of costs or they'll simply drop coverage -- which causes a decline in health outcomes.
• States would have a per-capita cap on Medicaid spending. This would mean tough choices for states in who is available for Medicaid or what services are available. In short, Medicaid would be cut, but the decision on what to cut would be left to the states. This is Congress' method of passing the buck — we're not the bad guys, it's the states who decided to do cut/eliminate X. Disabled children are exempt from this cap, however.
• Many states would likely use work requirements for non-disabled, non-elderly, non-pregnant people to make sure someone is eligible for Medicaid. This is currently banned for Medicaid.
• Under Obamacare, more states are expected to expand Medicaid for those up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line. Under this law, no additional states will expand Medicaid. Why? Under this law, the federal government won't match costs by as much -- it's a disincentive for the expansion of Medicaid if this is passed.
• There's $2 billion for the opioid crisis nationwide.
• It would repeal a $1-2 billion/year fund that awards grants for prevention, wellness and public health activities.
• An individual makes $56,800. If they're 21 years old, their premiums go down roughly $1,000/month. If they're 40 years old, premiums don't change much or go down slightly. But if you're 64 years old, premiums go from $4,400/month to $16,000/month under the bronze plan (read: worse benefits) plan and from $6,800/month to $20,500/month under the silver plan!
• Same scenario, but they make $26,500. At 21, their premiums would rise by about $500/month. At 40, premiums would rise by roughly or more than $1,000/month. At 64, premiums would rise by $2,000-$4,000/month. This is because of less-generous subsidies.
• UPDATE: I had seen from other observers that the bill was mostly a tax bill wrapped in a health care package. I don't see exactly the same numbers they did, but I did find this: Revenues in the form of taxes on corporations and the wealthy would drop by $700 billion. That's twice as much as it "saves" the government.
Chronicles of the Low Road
These days, there are two important times for news to break. The first is 4:30 p.m. Central (as I discussed here about when the Washington Post breaks news) and the other is 7 a.m. Central. That's when the President of the United States wakes up and gets on Twitter. Often he says something stupid that takes up the oxygen in the news cycle for the day. Today, that was picking a fight with the MSNBC "Morning Joe" co-hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. He used personal attacks on each, calling Joe a "Psycho" and Mika "Low I.Q. Crazy". He also attacked Mika for her looks, because... ?
This clearly crossed the line of civility or dignity one might expect from a national leader. As you would expect, Democrats came out upset about it. But there was plenty of opposition from the right, too. It wasn't just moderates and Trump opponents like Ben Sasse or Susan Collins or Lindsey Graham, though they were outspoken about it. Instead, some of it came from staunch conservatives like Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch. That's a good sign — that there are calls for civility and respectfulness from members of his own party. I appreciate these comments, because they re-draw the line in the sand of what is acceptable and what is not in politics. I'm glad they're taking a stance on how politics should be handled. They may not matter much, but it helps create distance between them and Trump — though I don't expect this will cause any permanent split.
But the problem comes from people like Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and Melania Trump spokesperson Stephanie Grisham, both of whom painted Trump as a victim who was fighting back. In their words, Trump had been under attack, and it was necessary to "[fight] fire with fire" and "hit back 10 times harder." They don't seem to recognize that Trump himself had elevated the matter. (Quick sidebar: Melania Trump has said one of the main focuses she'll have as First Lady is against cyberbullying. Yet here is an example of her husband engaging in cyberbullying, and her spokesperson not only calls it OK, but seems to encourage it. Guess stopping cyberbullying starts in your house, but not hers.)
I found myself agreeing with Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who made the connection to the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise last week. Following that tragedy, there were calls from legislators on both sides for civility and respectfulness from political opponents. Lankford said: "National and local leaders, including our President, should model civility, honor and respect in our political rhetoric. The President's tweets today don't help our political or national discourse and it does not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue." Amen, Senator.
Summary Judgments
I could go into the laborious details, but Seattle was one of the first cities to adopt $15 an hour minimum wage. A new study finds that workers were helped by the first minimum wage hike, from $9.47 to $11, but were harmed by the hike from $11/hour to $13. I'm all for an increased minimum wage, but it should be reasonable and productive for the results desired. This study indicates $15/hour is a bridge too far, but a more reasonable middle ground ($10? $11-12 in major metro areas?) might have some success. • • • If you only read one thing today, read this. It's by my friend Kendall Brown (we went to OU together and worked at the Daily together). It's heartbreaking and honest and important to read stories like this — actual faces to the 22 million who could lose coverage under a Republican health care plan. • • • I've had some terrible runs lately. I haven't had a good 4-mile run in a week or two. My plan for this week got a little shaken by storms during my run window. So now I've got to fit in a run tomorrow and Sunday before I run the 4-mile race on July 4. I'm apprehensive, just because I don't feel ready like I was, say, a month ago. • • • Evie has been letting me do her hair more. Poor girl... she doesn't know how bad I am at it. She asked Alyson for "two ponytails" the other day. It was adorable, and my eyes just turned into cartoon hearts. But I can't tell her -- she gets shy about it.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Special Election Education
There have been four special elections since the President has completed his hiring process. Those have been for Kansas House District 4 (Wichita area), Montana (whole state), and as of Tuesday, Georgia 6 (Atlanta suburbs) and South Carolina 5 (north-central part, but there's not a nationally recognizable town in the district). There are positives and negatives for both Republicans and Democrats here. Democrats can take a moral victory, while Republicans can take an actual victory. Let me explain.
Republicans won all four races. All four. At the end of the day, they didn't lose a seat. That's great news for the GOP. In fact, let me say it: that's the most important thing for either the GOP or the Dems. While the Dems have gotten close, the GOP has kept winning. Style points don't matter: A win is a win is a win, and right now, in the game of politics, the GOP is winning.
But. A deeper look shows the GOP shouldn't celebrate too much. Each of those four districts were heavily GOP districts. That should be obvious by the fact that the whole reason for there being an election is that Trump appointed GOP colleagues to his Cabinet — this was GOP territory. And yet all four of these races were decided by less than 7 points — single digits. That's important in a broader context:
• Kansas House 4, 2016: Republican won by 31 and Trump won by 27.
• Kansas House 4, 2017: Republican won by 7.
• Georgia House 6, 2016: Republican won by 24 and Trump won by 1.
• Georgia House 6, 2017: Republican won by 4.
• Montana House, 2016: Republican won by 16 and Trump won by 21.
• Montana House, 2017: Republican won by 6.
• South Carolina House 5, 2016: Republican won by 20 and Trump won by 18.
• South Carolina House 5, 2017: Republican won by 3.
If you're into advanced metrics, these districts average out to be about 18.3 percent more Republican (GOP +18.3) than the rest of the country based on the last four elections. And in this round, the GOP-Democrat margin averaged out to be Republican +5 percent (GOP +5). One good political observer noted that Democrats have over performed in all these special elections by at least 7 percent. If you're a Democrat, that's potentially enough to swing the House in 2018 — midterms are usually terrible for the in-power party, and the health care bill probably won't go any better for the GOP than it did for the Democrats.
Both parties are forgetting the lessons they should have learned from the other. The GOP should have learned from the Democrats that messing with health care is really, really hard. It's easy to mess up and hard to get right, especially with a smart opponent. They also should know that their House majority is on a knife's edge, and nearly every midterm ends poorly for the party in power. The Democrats should have learned from the GOP how to be a good minority party. The GOP obstructed, they annoyed, they opposed the Obama administration at every opportunity. AND THEY WON. If you're picking between moral victories and actual victories, actual victories are the most important.
Or, if you want a better version, read what Dan Rather wrote on Facebook. Dude's pretty smart.
Police Shootings
When the black community calls out for justice, they're really tired of police getting off when they shoot unarmed or legally armed black people. I'll set aside the murky situation of the Sylville Smith case in Wisconsin (the cop there also was acquitted of all charges).
• Unarmed Eric Garner was killed by a police officer who used an illegal chokehold on him for selling loose cigarettes on the street. Eleven times Garner said he couldn't breathe. The officer was not indicted.
• Unarmed Terence Crutcher was killed by a police officer who said she feared for her life. Crutcher had his hands above his head when he was shot. The officer was acquitted.
• Philando Castile was killed by a police officer after Castile warned the officer that he had a firearm during a routine traffic stop. The officer fired into a vehicle with Castile's girlfriend and 4-year-old daughter. The officer was acquitted this week.
• Unarmed Michael Brown was killed by a police officer. While the details are quite murky, it's clear to say that the police officer was not indicted.
• 12-year-old Tamir Rice was playing with an Airsoft pistol at a park. Officers never told him to put down the gun, nor did they hear the dispatcher telling them it was a toy. Within 2 seconds of arrival on the scene, they shot and killed Rice. The police officers were not charged (though they were later fired).
• Unarmed Gregory Gunn was Tased three times, beaten with a nightstick and shot five times by a white police officer (the officer claims there was an altercation). The officer has been charged, but not convicted yet.
• Unarmed Samuel DeBose was killed by a police officer after refusing to give his driver's license and pulling away from a routine traffic stop. He was not violent toward the officer, but the officer shot him. The first trial was ruled a mistrial because jurors could not agree. The second trial is at the jury now, but deliberations are in their third day, which is not a great sign for a decision either way.
• Alton Sterling had a firearm, but could not possibly have been wielding it at the time he was shot and killed. He was, at the time of the shooting, pinned to the ground with one officer kneeling on his chest and the other kneeling on his thighs. The officers have not been charged nearly a year later.
• Unarmed Brendon Glenn was killed by a police officer after being shot in the back, apparently while trying to push himself up off the ground. The officer who shot said that Glenn had his hand on his partner's weapon. Video evidence shows otherwise. The officer in question has not been charged as of yet, but the police chief has recommended that charges be filed.
• Freddie Gray was restrained by leg irons and handcuffs in the back of a police van. He was not given a seat belt, and his neck was broken during the ride. The officers were acquitted of wrongdoing.
• Laquan McDonald had been aggressive toward police earlier in the night, but at the time of his death was walking away from the police officer, who had arrived six seconds earlier. The officer shot him 16 times in 15 seconds. The officer has been charged, but is free on bail.
The only exceptions I could find were:
• Michael Slager, who shot Walter Scott in the back as Scott was running away. This was the case with the infamous video tape that made national news. Slager pleaded guilty in May to one count of violating Scott's civil rights in exchange for a likely lighter sentence. (Though it's worth noting his criminal trial for murder ended in a hung jury-caused mistrial. Those murder charges were dismissed as part of his plea deal.)
• Peter Liang, who shot Akai Gurley, was convicted of manslaughter and official misconduct. He was startled in a dark stairwell when he shot his gun. The bullet deflected off a wall and killed Gurley. Though it's worth noting a judge reduced his charges and he will only face probation and community service.
When unarmed black men die, the officers involved are only occasionally charged. It's even more rare that the case gets to a jury. It's even more rare that a jury returns a guilty verdict — I haven't found one, with the possible exception of the Liang case, who wasn't even aiming at the victim. Nearly a dozen deaths, but little justice. In most of these cases, the family has filed a civil case, which is almost always settled out of court for millions of dollars. It's also not an admission of guilt, as people famous for settling will tell you. Simply put, it's not justice.
Summary Judgments
I don't have a lot of time to get into it, but the Senate Obamacare repeal is out. Next week, they'll vote on it. Maybe they'll make concessions to get the four conservatives to vote for it (otherwise, it'll fail). But any act to do so risks the moderates. I don't know what's going to happen, but it may already be passed by the time I write this next week. In short, it looks like a slightly improved House bill that should still leave no one pleased. • • • My next race is on July 4. It's a 4-miler. Not much to say on that front, other than I've been practicing and my times are improving. That said, I've had a few portions of walking lately, and that's not something I like to do. • • • I like to make up songs for the kids a lot. The other day, I sang to Evie "I love my Evie, oh I love her so." Evie: "I don't love you." HARSH. Unsure, I tried again. Same result. RUTHLESS GIRL. Note: She said she loved me a few minutes later.
Republicans won all four races. All four. At the end of the day, they didn't lose a seat. That's great news for the GOP. In fact, let me say it: that's the most important thing for either the GOP or the Dems. While the Dems have gotten close, the GOP has kept winning. Style points don't matter: A win is a win is a win, and right now, in the game of politics, the GOP is winning.
But. A deeper look shows the GOP shouldn't celebrate too much. Each of those four districts were heavily GOP districts. That should be obvious by the fact that the whole reason for there being an election is that Trump appointed GOP colleagues to his Cabinet — this was GOP territory. And yet all four of these races were decided by less than 7 points — single digits. That's important in a broader context:
• Kansas House 4, 2016: Republican won by 31 and Trump won by 27.
• Kansas House 4, 2017: Republican won by 7.
• Georgia House 6, 2016: Republican won by 24 and Trump won by 1.
• Georgia House 6, 2017: Republican won by 4.
• Montana House, 2016: Republican won by 16 and Trump won by 21.
• Montana House, 2017: Republican won by 6.
• South Carolina House 5, 2016: Republican won by 20 and Trump won by 18.
• South Carolina House 5, 2017: Republican won by 3.
If you're into advanced metrics, these districts average out to be about 18.3 percent more Republican (GOP +18.3) than the rest of the country based on the last four elections. And in this round, the GOP-Democrat margin averaged out to be Republican +5 percent (GOP +5). One good political observer noted that Democrats have over performed in all these special elections by at least 7 percent. If you're a Democrat, that's potentially enough to swing the House in 2018 — midterms are usually terrible for the in-power party, and the health care bill probably won't go any better for the GOP than it did for the Democrats.
Both parties are forgetting the lessons they should have learned from the other. The GOP should have learned from the Democrats that messing with health care is really, really hard. It's easy to mess up and hard to get right, especially with a smart opponent. They also should know that their House majority is on a knife's edge, and nearly every midterm ends poorly for the party in power. The Democrats should have learned from the GOP how to be a good minority party. The GOP obstructed, they annoyed, they opposed the Obama administration at every opportunity. AND THEY WON. If you're picking between moral victories and actual victories, actual victories are the most important.
Or, if you want a better version, read what Dan Rather wrote on Facebook. Dude's pretty smart.
Police Shootings
When the black community calls out for justice, they're really tired of police getting off when they shoot unarmed or legally armed black people. I'll set aside the murky situation of the Sylville Smith case in Wisconsin (the cop there also was acquitted of all charges).
• Unarmed Eric Garner was killed by a police officer who used an illegal chokehold on him for selling loose cigarettes on the street. Eleven times Garner said he couldn't breathe. The officer was not indicted.
• Unarmed Terence Crutcher was killed by a police officer who said she feared for her life. Crutcher had his hands above his head when he was shot. The officer was acquitted.
• Philando Castile was killed by a police officer after Castile warned the officer that he had a firearm during a routine traffic stop. The officer fired into a vehicle with Castile's girlfriend and 4-year-old daughter. The officer was acquitted this week.
• Unarmed Michael Brown was killed by a police officer. While the details are quite murky, it's clear to say that the police officer was not indicted.
• 12-year-old Tamir Rice was playing with an Airsoft pistol at a park. Officers never told him to put down the gun, nor did they hear the dispatcher telling them it was a toy. Within 2 seconds of arrival on the scene, they shot and killed Rice. The police officers were not charged (though they were later fired).
• Unarmed Gregory Gunn was Tased three times, beaten with a nightstick and shot five times by a white police officer (the officer claims there was an altercation). The officer has been charged, but not convicted yet.
• Unarmed Samuel DeBose was killed by a police officer after refusing to give his driver's license and pulling away from a routine traffic stop. He was not violent toward the officer, but the officer shot him. The first trial was ruled a mistrial because jurors could not agree. The second trial is at the jury now, but deliberations are in their third day, which is not a great sign for a decision either way.
• Alton Sterling had a firearm, but could not possibly have been wielding it at the time he was shot and killed. He was, at the time of the shooting, pinned to the ground with one officer kneeling on his chest and the other kneeling on his thighs. The officers have not been charged nearly a year later.
• Unarmed Brendon Glenn was killed by a police officer after being shot in the back, apparently while trying to push himself up off the ground. The officer who shot said that Glenn had his hand on his partner's weapon. Video evidence shows otherwise. The officer in question has not been charged as of yet, but the police chief has recommended that charges be filed.
• Freddie Gray was restrained by leg irons and handcuffs in the back of a police van. He was not given a seat belt, and his neck was broken during the ride. The officers were acquitted of wrongdoing.
• Laquan McDonald had been aggressive toward police earlier in the night, but at the time of his death was walking away from the police officer, who had arrived six seconds earlier. The officer shot him 16 times in 15 seconds. The officer has been charged, but is free on bail.
The only exceptions I could find were:
• Michael Slager, who shot Walter Scott in the back as Scott was running away. This was the case with the infamous video tape that made national news. Slager pleaded guilty in May to one count of violating Scott's civil rights in exchange for a likely lighter sentence. (Though it's worth noting his criminal trial for murder ended in a hung jury-caused mistrial. Those murder charges were dismissed as part of his plea deal.)
• Peter Liang, who shot Akai Gurley, was convicted of manslaughter and official misconduct. He was startled in a dark stairwell when he shot his gun. The bullet deflected off a wall and killed Gurley. Though it's worth noting a judge reduced his charges and he will only face probation and community service.
When unarmed black men die, the officers involved are only occasionally charged. It's even more rare that the case gets to a jury. It's even more rare that a jury returns a guilty verdict — I haven't found one, with the possible exception of the Liang case, who wasn't even aiming at the victim. Nearly a dozen deaths, but little justice. In most of these cases, the family has filed a civil case, which is almost always settled out of court for millions of dollars. It's also not an admission of guilt, as people famous for settling will tell you. Simply put, it's not justice.
Summary Judgments
I don't have a lot of time to get into it, but the Senate Obamacare repeal is out. Next week, they'll vote on it. Maybe they'll make concessions to get the four conservatives to vote for it (otherwise, it'll fail). But any act to do so risks the moderates. I don't know what's going to happen, but it may already be passed by the time I write this next week. In short, it looks like a slightly improved House bill that should still leave no one pleased. • • • My next race is on July 4. It's a 4-miler. Not much to say on that front, other than I've been practicing and my times are improving. That said, I've had a few portions of walking lately, and that's not something I like to do. • • • I like to make up songs for the kids a lot. The other day, I sang to Evie "I love my Evie, oh I love her so." Evie: "I don't love you." HARSH. Unsure, I tried again. Same result. RUTHLESS GIRL. Note: She said she loved me a few minutes later.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Watching WaPo
The Washington Post was the newspaper at the center of taking down Richard Nixon. In case you haven't been paying attention, they may be responsible for taking down another president. I have made a habit lately of checking the Washington Post's website at 4:30 p.m. every afternoon. There have been several 4:30 p.m. bombshells in the last few months by the Washington Post, the most recent one this week: Robert Mueller's team is investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice. If you want the fairest, best coverage of what's going on in Washington, read the Post's reporting.
But why does this tend to happen? Why does it happen that these stories come out at roughly 4 p.m. Central time, and how do they decide what to run? Luckily, I had the opportunity to job shadow at the Washington Post back in the summer of 2005. I won a scholarship through OU, and my student media director opted to send me to Washington to job shadow a series of OU alumni in D.C. instead of using those funds to attend a conference. It was a fun five days.
Anyway, first is the issue of timing: 4 p.m. Central time = 5 p.m. Eastern time. They're trying to get the biggest news of the day out by the end of the traditional work day so that they can get out early editions of the paper (for hotels and outlying areas) or so that their reporting is picked up in time by other news media (evening television and radio broadcast news, mostly). The big news of the day must be properly and heavily edited, so it's probably one of the earliest things completed, so that there's more time to comb through the details.
But the other issue is how the paper decides what to print. This meeting is called the "budget" meeting, and almost every paper I've ever been in has had one, though my paper held it once a week because of our size. I was honored to be able to sit in on one of the Washington Post's budget meetings when I job shadowed there. Note: I said "one of" -- the Washington Post has more than one a day. If I remember correctly, the first wasn't as important and is mostly the lower-level editors talking about what they're working on. The other one (which I attended) was later in the day, like 3:30 p.m. or so. That's the one where the editor-in-chief attends, and each department brings their best stories to the table. Everyone in the room gets a printout of all the stories that are in the pipeline (I think it was 3-4 pages long, front and back), and each departmental editor shares their most important or best stories. Sometimes they'll say something like "We'll need another day to finish that story, so we'll use X story instead." But after every department's had its say, the editors discuss which story/stories would be on the front page and their placement. The best/most important/most newsworthy stories get "top of the fold" billing for maximum exposure on the stands. Sometimes they'll determine placement on the web or timing, too.
Not every day means breaking incredible political news or making presidents sweat. The day I was there, it was August and then-President Bush was on vacation (or getting ready for vacation) at his ranch in Texas. The centerpiece photo of the paper that day was from Washington Redskins training camp of a rookie quarterback tossing the ball in the air.
Sessions with Sessions
I didn't expect much from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony on Tuesday. Perhaps it's because he was such a partisan for Trump. Perhaps it's because I've long seen him talk his way into odd positions when he was a senator. Perhaps it's because I expect any AG to be smart enough not to put themselves in a bad situation when being questioned. Of CNN's 6 questions for Sessions, it was easy to see Sessions getting through the day with few surprises.
I was not surprised. There were a few testy moments, but it was largely exactly what I said last week about grandstanding, just with the roles reversed. This time, most Democrats were trying to sound tough against Sessions, but largely spent their time pontificating rather than asking yes-no questions or tough, probing questions. Many Democrats could have saved their time whining that Sessions was impeding their investigation by not answering questions and simply asked better questions, like Sen. Angus King, I-Maine. The Republicans spent their time talking in circles (read: wasting time) and asking softball questions, like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. All told, Sessions was a good soldier, said plenty to make the GOP happy (Fox News web headline framed Sessions as defending his honor/taking on critics/calling out "lies"), gave away next to nothing of note, and stymied Democrats with non-answers. I can see the GOP rallying around Sessions' testimony while Democrats complain that he wasn't being helpful. This was not the bombshell that the Comey testimony was.
That's not to say there weren't some confusing moments:
• Sessions kept saying that he wouldn't answer some questions because of private conversations with the president (which are protected as executive privilege) while noting that he was not actually invoking executive privilege. He was doing it to protect the President's right to use it if he wants. But he went in and out on that, as Sen. King noted. But more importantly, it's preposterous -- it's like saying "I'm not pleading the Fifth, but I'm refusing to answer in case I want to plead the Fifth later, even though I'm testifying under oath right now." It was a weird answer that Democrats are rightfully hitting him on.
• Sessions says that Trump asked him and Deputy AG Rosenstein for a recommendation on Comey, but Trump did not share his plans to fire Comey regardless. This is also weird, but Sessions blames Comey's investigation of Hillary Clinton for his firing. But at the time of the Hillary Clinton investigation, Sessions had nothing but praise for his handling of the case. It doesn't add up.
• Further on that point, Sessions said he was stunned that Comey announced the results of the Clinton investigation, superseding then-AG Loretta Lynch, and that was part of his reasoning for Comey's firing. But Lynch had already recused herself from the investigation because of a 10-minute "tarmac meeting" with Bill Clinton. She'd announced by then that whatever decision Comey made, she'd follow through with. So... Comey had the green light there.
• At one point, Sessions said that it wasn't improper of Trump to meet with Comey one-on-one, but it was improper for Comey to share details of that meeting. This sounds like it's making Comey out to be the bad guy, but ignores the context — Comey didn't share those details until Trump, in his firing of Comey, thanked Comey for stating three times that Trump wasn't under investigation. That's Trump sharing the details of the meeting, and Comey trying to clarify/explain it, not Comey being the original leaker.
• Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., (full disclosure: I have a friend who works for him) read a letter that basically admitted to a third meeting between Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but also noted it was at a reception and probably didn't have enough time to have a meaningful conversation. (Quick aside: If Lynch recused herself from the Clinton investigation for a 10-minute "tarmac meeting," then surely 10 minutes at a reception is an established amount of time to have meaningful conversations, right?). Sessions had spent the rest of the testimony denying a third meeting ever took place, but noted he may have just forgotten about one, only for Lankford to say, in effect, that it happened but was no big deal.
• Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., got told to back off when she was pressing Sessions. I thought she was just being prosecutorial like those before and after her, but... whatever. Anyway, while she clearly had no patience for Sessions' folksy nature, she asked one good question that separated this testimony from Comey's. Her question was if Sessions had any written materials he could use to jog his memory. Comey had extensive notes and had very few "I don't recall"s. Sessions repeatedly said he didn't recall and didn't have any notes to fall back on. It spoke to the quality of the Comey testimony versus Sessions'.
On Recent Shootings
I don't want to spend a lot of time on the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise. The response has been appropriate and sensible. Speaker Paul Ryan gave a tremendous speech. The Democrats were praised by Republicans for leading a prayer. Sen. Bernie Sanders gave a good speech denouncing the shooter and denying violence, especially since the shooter was a former Sanders supporter. It was handled the way incidents like this should be handled: with grace, care, unity and sensitivity.
I've seen some bloviators (Franklin Graham comes to mind) on the right blame the rhetoric on the left for the violence. But this is not a left-right thing. It's on both sides. Just a few weeks ago, the opposite case happened: two people were killed by a man in Portland, Ore., for standing up for a Muslim woman. These commentators who blamed the left cited such great liberal thinkers as Kathy Griffin and that one performance of Julius Caesar that implied Trump was Caesar. Those folks don't speak for liberals any more than Ted Nugent speaks for conservatives. The danger is not when entertainers or those without power say and do stupid things. The danger is when candidates themselves call out for violence either from the dais or imply it with their actions. Keep an eye out for that on both sides, and see who is the aggressor.
Summary Judgments
I found it interesting that John McCain is calling Trump's leadership weak compared to Obama's. McCain is not exactly a friend of the man he lost to in 2008, but he seems to be one of the biggest Republican critics of Trump, and also one of its swing votes. In fact, he helped kill an environmental bill a few weeks ago when he went against the party line. Something to watch, perhaps. • • • I like Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand, D-N.Y. But her curse words in a public setting, as well as a seeming rise in the use of curse words by Democrats, is sending the wrong message. It's an abandonment of the "They go low, we go high" line by Michelle Obama. It cedes a little bit of the moral high ground to the GOP. While it signals a "We are so serious about this, it's worth cursing about" sort of thing, it also doesn't play well with undecided voters and Christians who are wary of Trump. • • • In all the hubbub about Russia, the Senate passed a bill to codify and deepen sanctions against Russia. McConnell (no friend of Russia) tied it to the Iran sanctions bill — which Trump has touted, so Trump would almost have to sign it. Further, it takes the lifting of those sanctions out of the president's hands if signed. Rather quiet, but solid bipartisan move. Good job, Senate. • • • Interesting catch by NBC News of all the times Trump said Clinton would be stymied by investigations, but now it's he who is stymied by FBI investigations. • • • I ran the Dirty Duo 5K on Saturday and didn't feel all that great about my run. I did OK the first half, which was mostly downhill, but then had to walk most of the second-half uphill segments. They were sharp uphills, but I'd rather not walk. I finished in 38:20 and 39th overall. I thought I did terribly. Turns out, my time was 2 minutes faster than last year, and I think they even added an obstacle to the course. So all in all, not bad. Of course, I haven't run yet this week, so... back in the saddle tomorrow. • • • "Don't get me wet, water!" -- Roland, playing near the sprinkler.
But why does this tend to happen? Why does it happen that these stories come out at roughly 4 p.m. Central time, and how do they decide what to run? Luckily, I had the opportunity to job shadow at the Washington Post back in the summer of 2005. I won a scholarship through OU, and my student media director opted to send me to Washington to job shadow a series of OU alumni in D.C. instead of using those funds to attend a conference. It was a fun five days.
Anyway, first is the issue of timing: 4 p.m. Central time = 5 p.m. Eastern time. They're trying to get the biggest news of the day out by the end of the traditional work day so that they can get out early editions of the paper (for hotels and outlying areas) or so that their reporting is picked up in time by other news media (evening television and radio broadcast news, mostly). The big news of the day must be properly and heavily edited, so it's probably one of the earliest things completed, so that there's more time to comb through the details.
But the other issue is how the paper decides what to print. This meeting is called the "budget" meeting, and almost every paper I've ever been in has had one, though my paper held it once a week because of our size. I was honored to be able to sit in on one of the Washington Post's budget meetings when I job shadowed there. Note: I said "one of" -- the Washington Post has more than one a day. If I remember correctly, the first wasn't as important and is mostly the lower-level editors talking about what they're working on. The other one (which I attended) was later in the day, like 3:30 p.m. or so. That's the one where the editor-in-chief attends, and each department brings their best stories to the table. Everyone in the room gets a printout of all the stories that are in the pipeline (I think it was 3-4 pages long, front and back), and each departmental editor shares their most important or best stories. Sometimes they'll say something like "We'll need another day to finish that story, so we'll use X story instead." But after every department's had its say, the editors discuss which story/stories would be on the front page and their placement. The best/most important/most newsworthy stories get "top of the fold" billing for maximum exposure on the stands. Sometimes they'll determine placement on the web or timing, too.
Not every day means breaking incredible political news or making presidents sweat. The day I was there, it was August and then-President Bush was on vacation (or getting ready for vacation) at his ranch in Texas. The centerpiece photo of the paper that day was from Washington Redskins training camp of a rookie quarterback tossing the ball in the air.
Sessions with Sessions
I didn't expect much from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony on Tuesday. Perhaps it's because he was such a partisan for Trump. Perhaps it's because I've long seen him talk his way into odd positions when he was a senator. Perhaps it's because I expect any AG to be smart enough not to put themselves in a bad situation when being questioned. Of CNN's 6 questions for Sessions, it was easy to see Sessions getting through the day with few surprises.
I was not surprised. There were a few testy moments, but it was largely exactly what I said last week about grandstanding, just with the roles reversed. This time, most Democrats were trying to sound tough against Sessions, but largely spent their time pontificating rather than asking yes-no questions or tough, probing questions. Many Democrats could have saved their time whining that Sessions was impeding their investigation by not answering questions and simply asked better questions, like Sen. Angus King, I-Maine. The Republicans spent their time talking in circles (read: wasting time) and asking softball questions, like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. All told, Sessions was a good soldier, said plenty to make the GOP happy (Fox News web headline framed Sessions as defending his honor/taking on critics/calling out "lies"), gave away next to nothing of note, and stymied Democrats with non-answers. I can see the GOP rallying around Sessions' testimony while Democrats complain that he wasn't being helpful. This was not the bombshell that the Comey testimony was.
That's not to say there weren't some confusing moments:
• Sessions kept saying that he wouldn't answer some questions because of private conversations with the president (which are protected as executive privilege) while noting that he was not actually invoking executive privilege. He was doing it to protect the President's right to use it if he wants. But he went in and out on that, as Sen. King noted. But more importantly, it's preposterous -- it's like saying "I'm not pleading the Fifth, but I'm refusing to answer in case I want to plead the Fifth later, even though I'm testifying under oath right now." It was a weird answer that Democrats are rightfully hitting him on.
• Sessions says that Trump asked him and Deputy AG Rosenstein for a recommendation on Comey, but Trump did not share his plans to fire Comey regardless. This is also weird, but Sessions blames Comey's investigation of Hillary Clinton for his firing. But at the time of the Hillary Clinton investigation, Sessions had nothing but praise for his handling of the case. It doesn't add up.
• Further on that point, Sessions said he was stunned that Comey announced the results of the Clinton investigation, superseding then-AG Loretta Lynch, and that was part of his reasoning for Comey's firing. But Lynch had already recused herself from the investigation because of a 10-minute "tarmac meeting" with Bill Clinton. She'd announced by then that whatever decision Comey made, she'd follow through with. So... Comey had the green light there.
• At one point, Sessions said that it wasn't improper of Trump to meet with Comey one-on-one, but it was improper for Comey to share details of that meeting. This sounds like it's making Comey out to be the bad guy, but ignores the context — Comey didn't share those details until Trump, in his firing of Comey, thanked Comey for stating three times that Trump wasn't under investigation. That's Trump sharing the details of the meeting, and Comey trying to clarify/explain it, not Comey being the original leaker.
• Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., (full disclosure: I have a friend who works for him) read a letter that basically admitted to a third meeting between Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but also noted it was at a reception and probably didn't have enough time to have a meaningful conversation. (Quick aside: If Lynch recused herself from the Clinton investigation for a 10-minute "tarmac meeting," then surely 10 minutes at a reception is an established amount of time to have meaningful conversations, right?). Sessions had spent the rest of the testimony denying a third meeting ever took place, but noted he may have just forgotten about one, only for Lankford to say, in effect, that it happened but was no big deal.
• Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., got told to back off when she was pressing Sessions. I thought she was just being prosecutorial like those before and after her, but... whatever. Anyway, while she clearly had no patience for Sessions' folksy nature, she asked one good question that separated this testimony from Comey's. Her question was if Sessions had any written materials he could use to jog his memory. Comey had extensive notes and had very few "I don't recall"s. Sessions repeatedly said he didn't recall and didn't have any notes to fall back on. It spoke to the quality of the Comey testimony versus Sessions'.
On Recent Shootings
I don't want to spend a lot of time on the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise. The response has been appropriate and sensible. Speaker Paul Ryan gave a tremendous speech. The Democrats were praised by Republicans for leading a prayer. Sen. Bernie Sanders gave a good speech denouncing the shooter and denying violence, especially since the shooter was a former Sanders supporter. It was handled the way incidents like this should be handled: with grace, care, unity and sensitivity.
I've seen some bloviators (Franklin Graham comes to mind) on the right blame the rhetoric on the left for the violence. But this is not a left-right thing. It's on both sides. Just a few weeks ago, the opposite case happened: two people were killed by a man in Portland, Ore., for standing up for a Muslim woman. These commentators who blamed the left cited such great liberal thinkers as Kathy Griffin and that one performance of Julius Caesar that implied Trump was Caesar. Those folks don't speak for liberals any more than Ted Nugent speaks for conservatives. The danger is not when entertainers or those without power say and do stupid things. The danger is when candidates themselves call out for violence either from the dais or imply it with their actions. Keep an eye out for that on both sides, and see who is the aggressor.
Summary Judgments
I found it interesting that John McCain is calling Trump's leadership weak compared to Obama's. McCain is not exactly a friend of the man he lost to in 2008, but he seems to be one of the biggest Republican critics of Trump, and also one of its swing votes. In fact, he helped kill an environmental bill a few weeks ago when he went against the party line. Something to watch, perhaps. • • • I like Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand, D-N.Y. But her curse words in a public setting, as well as a seeming rise in the use of curse words by Democrats, is sending the wrong message. It's an abandonment of the "They go low, we go high" line by Michelle Obama. It cedes a little bit of the moral high ground to the GOP. While it signals a "We are so serious about this, it's worth cursing about" sort of thing, it also doesn't play well with undecided voters and Christians who are wary of Trump. • • • In all the hubbub about Russia, the Senate passed a bill to codify and deepen sanctions against Russia. McConnell (no friend of Russia) tied it to the Iran sanctions bill — which Trump has touted, so Trump would almost have to sign it. Further, it takes the lifting of those sanctions out of the president's hands if signed. Rather quiet, but solid bipartisan move. Good job, Senate. • • • Interesting catch by NBC News of all the times Trump said Clinton would be stymied by investigations, but now it's he who is stymied by FBI investigations. • • • I ran the Dirty Duo 5K on Saturday and didn't feel all that great about my run. I did OK the first half, which was mostly downhill, but then had to walk most of the second-half uphill segments. They were sharp uphills, but I'd rather not walk. I finished in 38:20 and 39th overall. I thought I did terribly. Turns out, my time was 2 minutes faster than last year, and I think they even added an obstacle to the course. So all in all, not bad. Of course, I haven't run yet this week, so... back in the saddle tomorrow. • • • "Don't get me wet, water!" -- Roland, playing near the sprinkler.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
How Hot is Your Water? Comey, Trump, Kushner, Flynn
Congressional testimony is usually a place for grandstanding — but not typically by the person testifying. It's an opportunity for Congress to use their questions to push their narrative. Republicans repeatedly asked questions on Thursday about the meaning of words ("hope"), how Comey should have stood up to Trump more forcefully because Trump is new to politics (?), and if Trump had wanted Comey to drop the investigation, wouldn't Trump have said so more frequently and forcefully (??). Meanwhile, Democrats asked questions that they knew they wouldn't get an answer to on camera: Isn't this obstruction of justice, did Trump collude with Russia, and "why should we [and by extension, America] believe you?"
While there were a few surprises, this was not the popcorn-chewing, must-watch Congressional testimony that many were expecting. It almost never is. There's a reason C-SPAN doesn't win many ratings battles. Most of the bombshell information Comey will tell Congress is being held off-camera with senators. The public isn't allowed and won't find out, for a) ongoing investigation reasons and b) potential classified reasons. So... who's in trouble here, and how much trouble are they in?
James Comey
There are some shots being taken by desperate Republicans, but it's pretty clear they're kind of toothless. The worst accusation is that Comey leaked to the press, which he admitted to doing in testimony on Thursday. There is, however, a reason for that: He had already been fired, his memos weren't classified, and Trump had tweeted and given interviews attacking Comey and the FBI. In short, he was under attack and fought back, so to speak. So far, the only people to say Comey is lying are extremely close to the President: President Trump's own lawyer and Donald Trump Jr. So what hot water is Comey in? None. He's got nothing to lose, and his part in this is essentially over, barring any more hearings. Not all characters in the play make it to the third act, and he has played his part.
Water temperature: Soothing hot spring
Donald Trump
There's an adage about frogs: If you put one in boiling water, it'll jump right out. But if you put one in cold water and slowly heat it up, the frog won't recognize the danger until it's being boiled alive. It's not true, but it's best used as a metaphor. President Trump is in increasingly hot water. This whole Congressional testimony ended up asking the question: Who do you trust more, James Comey or President Trump? Each has now called the other a liar, and one brought detailed notes to the party and welcomed the "tapes" that the other intimated he had. Anyway, President Trump was not originally under FBI investigation, as Comey testified and told Trump. He was not the focus of the investigation. However, the FBI didn't want to be public with that in case it changed and they had to retract it. There was a great moment when one senator asked Comey if he was fired because of the Russian investigation. Comey replied that Trump's already admitted to that on camera. Where Trump is in trouble is the obstruction of justice charge. If your Mom says "I hope you can do [X] in the next hour", then you'd better get X done. While legally speaking, it might be enough to avoid courtroom charges, it certainly meets the threshold of obstruction of justice in an impeachment sense. Trump wasn't originally a focus of the investigation, but the more he meddled with/involved himself in it, the more he implicated himself. Nixon was the same way — he didn't necessarily know about all the dirty things being done in his name, but he certainly tried cleaning up the mess after the fact. That's what did Richard Nixon in, and it could be, one day, stops Donald Trump. But for now, he has a sympathetic Congress, so it's doubtful anything is coming soon.
Water temperature: Heating up, but the frog's still in the pot
Jared Kushner
There are several worrisome issues with Kushner, like the meeting with Kislyak or the head of a major Russian bank. But let's focus on just one aspect for Jared Kushner: the reports that, with Lt. Gen. Flynn, he attempted to set up a secret back channel with Russia after the election but before inauguration. He even supposedly asked to use Russian embassy facilities to communicate. This is a good link about how WAY across the line that was. Short version: Kushner wasn't an official part of the Trump administration at the time. He was a private citizen attempting to make secret contact/diplomacy with a foreign country. Private citizens can't perform diplomacy with foreign powers, per the Logan Act. Back channels can be OK, but they have to be monitored by the FBI. There are two ways to save himself, and both involve throwing someone under the metaphorical bus: 1) President-Elect Trump told me to or 2) Flynn said we should.
Water temperature: Near boiling
Lt. Gen. Flynn
You know all those things I said about Kushner? Flynn's the same, except he can't claim ignorance about proper channels and such. He was already one of the country's top security advisors, and certainly knew better. Further, I think you can read into Trump worry a little bit here. Trump didn't ask Comey to let Kushner go, he asked about Flynn, who had already left his administration. He's long been a target of the investigation, there's a lot of reported "smoke" around him, and there are already subpoenas out for his business records. It's not looking great.
Water temperature: Boiling!
Trump's Tweets
I've said before that the media reads too much into Trump's tweets. About a dozen of Trump's controversies would never have happened if he didn't have Twitter. But that's kind of the problem, since it's his best form of communication. Sean Spicer said to treat his tweets as official statements. Fine, that's great! We'll take them seriously, then. Then today Sarah Huckabee Evans said that she wasn't sure if there were tapes of Comey's conversations, which is something Trump said in a tweet. So she's saying not to trust the tweets. So their advice is: Listen to his tweets, except when you shouldn't?
Note: Sorry this post is so Trump-centric, but he's kind of sucked the air out of the room lately. This week was supposed to be "Infrastructure Week," which would have been interesting to me. But the Comey stuff has taken the attention.
Summary Judgments
I'll miss Bob Stoops. I lived in Oklahoma during the dark ages of OU football: John Blake and Howard Schnellenberger. Yet I somehow became a fan. Then I watched from afar as they won the championship and I ended up going to school at OU, where I saw Adrian Peterson and Jason White play in person. Those were fun years. Stoops made OU matter again, and they haven't really dropped off that much — always in discussion for a Big XII title or a national championship run. I'm still shocked he's retiring at such a young age, but it's worth noting his dad dropped dead on the sidelines at an age two years younger than Stoops is now. • • • Alyson and I just finished the new season of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Man, that's a good show. • • • We're also one episode from finishing the first season of Handmaid's Tale. I go back and forth on whether I like it or not, but I know Alyson loves it. I just find it so damned bleak. I love dystopias, but ... there is no hope in Gilead, which makes me depressed. And no, I haven't read the book. • • • Ran a 4-miler with Alyson's cousin and my friend Paul on Wednesday. It was a record time for me of 41:13, but I walked a few hills. I pushed myself too early and then had nothing left for the hills at the end. My next run is a 5K mud run on Saturday. I'm pretty excited. • • • We've had a lot of whining lately. A LOT. But we took the kids to the nearby tennis courts to "play" tennis this week. Alyson and I finally got to the point of lightly playing ourselves while Roland chased after balls and Evie tried to hit a ball over the net. She kept saying "I'm a good player!" as she held the ball behind the racket and just kind of tossed it. That's... kind of the best you can expect with 2 year olds.
While there were a few surprises, this was not the popcorn-chewing, must-watch Congressional testimony that many were expecting. It almost never is. There's a reason C-SPAN doesn't win many ratings battles. Most of the bombshell information Comey will tell Congress is being held off-camera with senators. The public isn't allowed and won't find out, for a) ongoing investigation reasons and b) potential classified reasons. So... who's in trouble here, and how much trouble are they in?
James Comey
There are some shots being taken by desperate Republicans, but it's pretty clear they're kind of toothless. The worst accusation is that Comey leaked to the press, which he admitted to doing in testimony on Thursday. There is, however, a reason for that: He had already been fired, his memos weren't classified, and Trump had tweeted and given interviews attacking Comey and the FBI. In short, he was under attack and fought back, so to speak. So far, the only people to say Comey is lying are extremely close to the President: President Trump's own lawyer and Donald Trump Jr. So what hot water is Comey in? None. He's got nothing to lose, and his part in this is essentially over, barring any more hearings. Not all characters in the play make it to the third act, and he has played his part.
Water temperature: Soothing hot spring
Donald Trump
There's an adage about frogs: If you put one in boiling water, it'll jump right out. But if you put one in cold water and slowly heat it up, the frog won't recognize the danger until it's being boiled alive. It's not true, but it's best used as a metaphor. President Trump is in increasingly hot water. This whole Congressional testimony ended up asking the question: Who do you trust more, James Comey or President Trump? Each has now called the other a liar, and one brought detailed notes to the party and welcomed the "tapes" that the other intimated he had. Anyway, President Trump was not originally under FBI investigation, as Comey testified and told Trump. He was not the focus of the investigation. However, the FBI didn't want to be public with that in case it changed and they had to retract it. There was a great moment when one senator asked Comey if he was fired because of the Russian investigation. Comey replied that Trump's already admitted to that on camera. Where Trump is in trouble is the obstruction of justice charge. If your Mom says "I hope you can do [X] in the next hour", then you'd better get X done. While legally speaking, it might be enough to avoid courtroom charges, it certainly meets the threshold of obstruction of justice in an impeachment sense. Trump wasn't originally a focus of the investigation, but the more he meddled with/involved himself in it, the more he implicated himself. Nixon was the same way — he didn't necessarily know about all the dirty things being done in his name, but he certainly tried cleaning up the mess after the fact. That's what did Richard Nixon in, and it could be, one day, stops Donald Trump. But for now, he has a sympathetic Congress, so it's doubtful anything is coming soon.
Water temperature: Heating up, but the frog's still in the pot
Jared Kushner
There are several worrisome issues with Kushner, like the meeting with Kislyak or the head of a major Russian bank. But let's focus on just one aspect for Jared Kushner: the reports that, with Lt. Gen. Flynn, he attempted to set up a secret back channel with Russia after the election but before inauguration. He even supposedly asked to use Russian embassy facilities to communicate. This is a good link about how WAY across the line that was. Short version: Kushner wasn't an official part of the Trump administration at the time. He was a private citizen attempting to make secret contact/diplomacy with a foreign country. Private citizens can't perform diplomacy with foreign powers, per the Logan Act. Back channels can be OK, but they have to be monitored by the FBI. There are two ways to save himself, and both involve throwing someone under the metaphorical bus: 1) President-Elect Trump told me to or 2) Flynn said we should.
Water temperature: Near boiling
Lt. Gen. Flynn
You know all those things I said about Kushner? Flynn's the same, except he can't claim ignorance about proper channels and such. He was already one of the country's top security advisors, and certainly knew better. Further, I think you can read into Trump worry a little bit here. Trump didn't ask Comey to let Kushner go, he asked about Flynn, who had already left his administration. He's long been a target of the investigation, there's a lot of reported "smoke" around him, and there are already subpoenas out for his business records. It's not looking great.
Water temperature: Boiling!
Trump's Tweets
I've said before that the media reads too much into Trump's tweets. About a dozen of Trump's controversies would never have happened if he didn't have Twitter. But that's kind of the problem, since it's his best form of communication. Sean Spicer said to treat his tweets as official statements. Fine, that's great! We'll take them seriously, then. Then today Sarah Huckabee Evans said that she wasn't sure if there were tapes of Comey's conversations, which is something Trump said in a tweet. So she's saying not to trust the tweets. So their advice is: Listen to his tweets, except when you shouldn't?
Note: Sorry this post is so Trump-centric, but he's kind of sucked the air out of the room lately. This week was supposed to be "Infrastructure Week," which would have been interesting to me. But the Comey stuff has taken the attention.
Summary Judgments
I'll miss Bob Stoops. I lived in Oklahoma during the dark ages of OU football: John Blake and Howard Schnellenberger. Yet I somehow became a fan. Then I watched from afar as they won the championship and I ended up going to school at OU, where I saw Adrian Peterson and Jason White play in person. Those were fun years. Stoops made OU matter again, and they haven't really dropped off that much — always in discussion for a Big XII title or a national championship run. I'm still shocked he's retiring at such a young age, but it's worth noting his dad dropped dead on the sidelines at an age two years younger than Stoops is now. • • • Alyson and I just finished the new season of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Man, that's a good show. • • • We're also one episode from finishing the first season of Handmaid's Tale. I go back and forth on whether I like it or not, but I know Alyson loves it. I just find it so damned bleak. I love dystopias, but ... there is no hope in Gilead, which makes me depressed. And no, I haven't read the book. • • • Ran a 4-miler with Alyson's cousin and my friend Paul on Wednesday. It was a record time for me of 41:13, but I walked a few hills. I pushed myself too early and then had nothing left for the hills at the end. My next run is a 5K mud run on Saturday. I'm pretty excited. • • • We've had a lot of whining lately. A LOT. But we took the kids to the nearby tennis courts to "play" tennis this week. Alyson and I finally got to the point of lightly playing ourselves while Roland chased after balls and Evie tried to hit a ball over the net. She kept saying "I'm a good player!" as she held the ball behind the racket and just kind of tossed it. That's... kind of the best you can expect with 2 year olds.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
150 Words or Less on 9 Recent News Stories
I like giving myself challenges. I also know that I tend to be too wordy. So I'm giving myself a limit of 150 words on many subjects instead of a single deep dive. It's still 1,000-1,500 words, so... mission accomplished? Anyway, let's get into it:
Racial gerrymandering
There were strange bedfellows in a recent Supreme Court case. You'd be hard pressed to find a similar assortment of justices on one side of a case. In a 5-3 ruling, Clarence Thomas (!) sided with the more liberal judges to rule two North Carolina Congressional districts illegal. The ruling was that N.C. GOP leaders used race to illegally pack two districts with black residents — likely Democrats.
Those last four words are key, because racial gerrymandering is illegal. Partisan gerrymandering isn't illegal necessarily (though one case will soon decide that). This brings me back to a broader issue: Why do we allow even partisan gerrymandering? Lawmakers are not secretive about their plans for greater power, but do the people want to let the parties choose their voters rather than the other way around?
Trump/Russia
Every day there isn't a major revelation is a breath of relief in the White House. But there are bad omens coming from D.C. Robert Mueller has reportedly been given authority to investigate a possible cover-up of Trump-Russia connections, including obstruction of justice. President Trump will reportedly hire a private attorney for Trump-Russia issues. These are not good signs, and both indicate an escalation in seriousness related to the charges. The Mueller investigation is necessary, but it's a dice roll for both sides. If Mueller finds nothing, Democrats have no room to complain. If he does, the GOP should run. However, it also takes time. This won't be over by fall. It won't be done this year, I bet. Honestly, we'd be lucky if it's done by the midterms next fall. That buys both sides time to pretend the other is lying... and wait for the die to be cast.
FCC and Colbert
The FCC chose not to punish Stephen Colbert for a crude joke about the President. Funny thing is: They were never going to. Punishing an entertainer for saying something (crude or not) critical of the president is something out of a lesser country. We are not that country. Censorship is the first step toward authoritarianism. And we still have a long way to go for that. And as for what Colbert said: he's rarely that crude, but cruder things have been said by others, including the President. I'm sure he regrets his choice of words, but I can't imagine him ruing the day he needled at a weakness of Trump.
Kathy Griffin
Speaking of "cruder things", there's Kathy Griffin, who was photographed holding a bloody fake head of Trump. The outrage cycle spun up, she apologized, she asked for the photos to be taken down, and then she was fired from CNN's New Year's Eve duties (Is that even a punishment?). That's how the outrage cycle is supposed to go: anger > person at fault apologizing/sincerely or insincerely attempting to mitigate damage > punishment. Yet I can't help but compare the reaction from the right to other outrages: "Grab them by the pussy," "not a war hero," anything related to Khizr Khan, the Obama birth certificate complaints, Hillary's stamina, accusing Ted Cruz's dad of being related to the JFK assassination, etc. We rewarded him with the highest office in the land. Greg Gianforte punched a reporter and was still elected in Montana. No apologies* and no punishments.
*Technically, Gianforte did apologize, but it was after the election -- literally in his victory speech. So he already got his reward, and then swept the incident away.
Hard to fill FBI seat
Funny how no one wants the job. Trump has already hit reset on the search for a new FBI director after five people pulled out and the remaining 2-3 didn't meet his standards. It seems like a tough job. Given the controversy involved, I would expect a quiet announcement that acting FBI director Andrew McCabe ends up getting the word "acting" dropped from his title.
Seth Rich
I'm glad to see Fox News do the right thing and recant its stories on Seth Rich. In case you missed it, Fox pushed a story that DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered last summer because he had leaked DNC documents to Wikileaks. Long story short, that was based on a lie. The family was outraged and called for Fox to recant — which they did, several days after the fact. The problem for me was that the Seth Rich story was foxnews.com's top story for a day or two. It led the coverage on the network. Not only was this during the middle of the Comey/Russia revelations, it was supplanting it in conservative media while most other media sources were on the topic critical of the president. Although a recant came, it was like a whisper of "sorry" after shrieking "WOLF!" for three days.
Trump budget
Budgets from the President are kind of dumb. They don't really mean much, other than a pie-in-the-sky wish list, no matter the party. With a sympathetic Congress, maybe it can act as a signpost for the direction they'd like to go. That's really what the presidential budget is: a description of the president's priorities with dollar signs attached. Which is why Trump's budget was so surprising. It included trillions of dollars in a math error, it cuts from food stamps, it cuts disability aid, it cuts the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, it cuts the Community Development Block Grants, etc... It's been interesting to see both Democrats and many Republicans come out against the budget and say that it's dead on arrival. We'll see at the midterms if Trump's priorities align with his voters'.
Trump and international leaders
President Trump is not making a lot of international friends. During his recent foreign swing, the French President intentionally mangled his hand in a handshake because of Trump's noted handshake power plays. Macron also appeared to avoid Trump to show direct love to Angela Merkel. Speaking of Merkel, Trump said that the Germans are "bad, very bad" after Merkel said that her country can't rely on the U.S. and the U.K. for its own protection anymore. Trump's "shove" of the Macedonian prime minister was not a good look. All told, none of these incidents are that much. But in a broader scope, they tell a story that the U.S. is losing its clout on an international stage, and some of that may be due to our leader.
Climate Agreement
There are 195 countries in the Paris Agreement. That's significant, as the United Nations only recognizes 193 countries (others include the two Koreas, Taiwan, and the Vatican). Now, President Trump is under consideration for pulling out of the climate agreement. There are only two notable countries not in the Paris Agreement, and for differing reasons: Syria, because they are in a civil war, and Nicaragua, because they don't believe the agreement goes far enough (!). Speaking very broadly, the U.S. and China account for about 20-30 percent each of the reduction in carbon emissions. The rest of the world is 50 percent. The U.S. goals are easy to meet and will probably be met regardless of Trump's move. Which further prompts the question of why? If it's an easy goal and builds bridges with the rest of the world, what are we trying to prove?
Female Superheroes
Wonder Woman comes out on Friday. Captain Marvel is coming soon. There's supposedly a Phoenix-centric X-Men movie on its way. But until now, when was the last superhero movie focused on a single woman? Maybe the bombs Elektra and Catwoman? So I got to thinking about which female superheroes should be next to star in their own movie. I came up with a list of 20+ super heroines.
The problem is that many of the most prominent female superheroes are either a) derivative of some male superhero, like Supergirl or Batgirl or, sadly, She-Hulk or Hawkeye Kate Bishop b) they are more known for being part of a team, and may not have enough to stand on their own as the lead of a movie, like Incredible Woman or Black Canary or Storm or Liz Sherman or Domino. So I ruled out some of them out. I also ruled out a few who I don't think have quite enough to sustain their own 2-hour movie (sorry, Huntress and Black Cat).
Here are some ideas, with brief commentary:
• Black Widow — she's already in the Avengers movie, but her backstory needs fleshed out. Do this.
• Zatanna — could be DC's female Dr. Strange. Could also fit into a Justice League scenario. But also has an interesting family history that could make for a good movie.
• Miss Marvel (Kamala Khan) -- Muslim-American teen girl from Jersey City with stretchy body part powers. This writes itself and is relevant. Also is an Inhuman, apparently.
• Angela -- Angel/Heaven's bounty hunter who turns out to be the sister to Thor/Loki. She's a badass. She also goes and takes over Hell to save the soul of her woman. That's a good story.
• Squirrel Girl — I would pay to see this one. Sweet girl with a rather silly power but can take down the most powerful people in the universe, including Thanos, Galactus and Dr. Doom. Yes, please.
• Miss America (America Chavez) -- LGBTQ Latina with Superman powers and some dimension-hopping skills. She once threw a shark over Dr. Doom's wall. She's cool, though her origin is... wonky.
• Oracle -- Batgirl got shot/paralyzed by the Joker and becomes computer expert. Starts own team of female superheroes. Babs Gordon is the best, and you could even get Nightwing to drop by.
• Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur -- 9-year-old black girl genius and red T-Rex. She has Inhuman abilities to switch minds with Devil Dinosaur. A fun romp for kids.
• Witchblade -- Not a DC or Marvel property, but hard-nosed NYPD detective gets symbiotic relationship with sentient body armor/weaponry. The armor decides what she needs in a situation, which could be a good relationship exploration.
• The Question (Renee Montoya) -- I am a huge fan of Vic Sage, the original Question. But moving the title onto former Gotham City detective and Batman-adjacent Renee Montoya was a brilliant move. The Question, in any iteration, could stand on its own.
Summary Judgments
The relatively silly reaction to President Trump's "covfefe" tweet is one of those amusing distractions we all need from time to time. What I liked was it might be the first time I've ever seen Trump seem to embrace an imperfection — he tweeted again about it, and seemed to laugh at himself. That was good, I think? (That said, if Rogue POTUS Staff is real, then the self-laughter was short-lived. • • • I ran 4 miles in 42:15 last week. That's 3 minutes shorter than my time in early March, which had snow and a big hill. Still: Three minutes less! • • • While Roland is the funniest little kid, Evie can have moments. At day care, I learned that she broke Miss Ashley, who has been doing this for 15 years and said she's never had a kid do this. Evie was sent to timeout and refused to apologize. So Miss Ashley brought her up front (big deal punishment at day care) to sit until she said she was sorry. Evie just shut down and didn't do anything. 10 minutes go by: nothing changes. Every time Ashley would try to get her to apologize, she'd grump no and just sit there. After an hour of this, Miss Ashley and Evie's teacher Miss Hillary realized Evie wasn't going to back down, so they gave up and let her go back to class. Alyson and I find this story hilarious, only because it didn't happen to us.... but it happens to us often, too. She'll be a fun teenager.
Racial gerrymandering
There were strange bedfellows in a recent Supreme Court case. You'd be hard pressed to find a similar assortment of justices on one side of a case. In a 5-3 ruling, Clarence Thomas (!) sided with the more liberal judges to rule two North Carolina Congressional districts illegal. The ruling was that N.C. GOP leaders used race to illegally pack two districts with black residents — likely Democrats.
Those last four words are key, because racial gerrymandering is illegal. Partisan gerrymandering isn't illegal necessarily (though one case will soon decide that). This brings me back to a broader issue: Why do we allow even partisan gerrymandering? Lawmakers are not secretive about their plans for greater power, but do the people want to let the parties choose their voters rather than the other way around?
Trump/Russia
Every day there isn't a major revelation is a breath of relief in the White House. But there are bad omens coming from D.C. Robert Mueller has reportedly been given authority to investigate a possible cover-up of Trump-Russia connections, including obstruction of justice. President Trump will reportedly hire a private attorney for Trump-Russia issues. These are not good signs, and both indicate an escalation in seriousness related to the charges. The Mueller investigation is necessary, but it's a dice roll for both sides. If Mueller finds nothing, Democrats have no room to complain. If he does, the GOP should run. However, it also takes time. This won't be over by fall. It won't be done this year, I bet. Honestly, we'd be lucky if it's done by the midterms next fall. That buys both sides time to pretend the other is lying... and wait for the die to be cast.
FCC and Colbert
The FCC chose not to punish Stephen Colbert for a crude joke about the President. Funny thing is: They were never going to. Punishing an entertainer for saying something (crude or not) critical of the president is something out of a lesser country. We are not that country. Censorship is the first step toward authoritarianism. And we still have a long way to go for that. And as for what Colbert said: he's rarely that crude, but cruder things have been said by others, including the President. I'm sure he regrets his choice of words, but I can't imagine him ruing the day he needled at a weakness of Trump.
Kathy Griffin
Speaking of "cruder things", there's Kathy Griffin, who was photographed holding a bloody fake head of Trump. The outrage cycle spun up, she apologized, she asked for the photos to be taken down, and then she was fired from CNN's New Year's Eve duties (Is that even a punishment?). That's how the outrage cycle is supposed to go: anger > person at fault apologizing/sincerely or insincerely attempting to mitigate damage > punishment. Yet I can't help but compare the reaction from the right to other outrages: "Grab them by the pussy," "not a war hero," anything related to Khizr Khan, the Obama birth certificate complaints, Hillary's stamina, accusing Ted Cruz's dad of being related to the JFK assassination, etc. We rewarded him with the highest office in the land. Greg Gianforte punched a reporter and was still elected in Montana. No apologies* and no punishments.
*Technically, Gianforte did apologize, but it was after the election -- literally in his victory speech. So he already got his reward, and then swept the incident away.
Hard to fill FBI seat
Funny how no one wants the job. Trump has already hit reset on the search for a new FBI director after five people pulled out and the remaining 2-3 didn't meet his standards. It seems like a tough job. Given the controversy involved, I would expect a quiet announcement that acting FBI director Andrew McCabe ends up getting the word "acting" dropped from his title.
Seth Rich
I'm glad to see Fox News do the right thing and recant its stories on Seth Rich. In case you missed it, Fox pushed a story that DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered last summer because he had leaked DNC documents to Wikileaks. Long story short, that was based on a lie. The family was outraged and called for Fox to recant — which they did, several days after the fact. The problem for me was that the Seth Rich story was foxnews.com's top story for a day or two. It led the coverage on the network. Not only was this during the middle of the Comey/Russia revelations, it was supplanting it in conservative media while most other media sources were on the topic critical of the president. Although a recant came, it was like a whisper of "sorry" after shrieking "WOLF!" for three days.
Trump budget
Budgets from the President are kind of dumb. They don't really mean much, other than a pie-in-the-sky wish list, no matter the party. With a sympathetic Congress, maybe it can act as a signpost for the direction they'd like to go. That's really what the presidential budget is: a description of the president's priorities with dollar signs attached. Which is why Trump's budget was so surprising. It included trillions of dollars in a math error, it cuts from food stamps, it cuts disability aid, it cuts the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, it cuts the Community Development Block Grants, etc... It's been interesting to see both Democrats and many Republicans come out against the budget and say that it's dead on arrival. We'll see at the midterms if Trump's priorities align with his voters'.
Trump and international leaders
President Trump is not making a lot of international friends. During his recent foreign swing, the French President intentionally mangled his hand in a handshake because of Trump's noted handshake power plays. Macron also appeared to avoid Trump to show direct love to Angela Merkel. Speaking of Merkel, Trump said that the Germans are "bad, very bad" after Merkel said that her country can't rely on the U.S. and the U.K. for its own protection anymore. Trump's "shove" of the Macedonian prime minister was not a good look. All told, none of these incidents are that much. But in a broader scope, they tell a story that the U.S. is losing its clout on an international stage, and some of that may be due to our leader.
Climate Agreement
There are 195 countries in the Paris Agreement. That's significant, as the United Nations only recognizes 193 countries (others include the two Koreas, Taiwan, and the Vatican). Now, President Trump is under consideration for pulling out of the climate agreement. There are only two notable countries not in the Paris Agreement, and for differing reasons: Syria, because they are in a civil war, and Nicaragua, because they don't believe the agreement goes far enough (!). Speaking very broadly, the U.S. and China account for about 20-30 percent each of the reduction in carbon emissions. The rest of the world is 50 percent. The U.S. goals are easy to meet and will probably be met regardless of Trump's move. Which further prompts the question of why? If it's an easy goal and builds bridges with the rest of the world, what are we trying to prove?
Female Superheroes
Wonder Woman comes out on Friday. Captain Marvel is coming soon. There's supposedly a Phoenix-centric X-Men movie on its way. But until now, when was the last superhero movie focused on a single woman? Maybe the bombs Elektra and Catwoman? So I got to thinking about which female superheroes should be next to star in their own movie. I came up with a list of 20+ super heroines.
The problem is that many of the most prominent female superheroes are either a) derivative of some male superhero, like Supergirl or Batgirl or, sadly, She-Hulk or Hawkeye Kate Bishop b) they are more known for being part of a team, and may not have enough to stand on their own as the lead of a movie, like Incredible Woman or Black Canary or Storm or Liz Sherman or Domino. So I ruled out some of them out. I also ruled out a few who I don't think have quite enough to sustain their own 2-hour movie (sorry, Huntress and Black Cat).
Here are some ideas, with brief commentary:
• Black Widow — she's already in the Avengers movie, but her backstory needs fleshed out. Do this.
• Zatanna — could be DC's female Dr. Strange. Could also fit into a Justice League scenario. But also has an interesting family history that could make for a good movie.
• Miss Marvel (Kamala Khan) -- Muslim-American teen girl from Jersey City with stretchy body part powers. This writes itself and is relevant. Also is an Inhuman, apparently.
• Angela -- Angel/Heaven's bounty hunter who turns out to be the sister to Thor/Loki. She's a badass. She also goes and takes over Hell to save the soul of her woman. That's a good story.
• Squirrel Girl — I would pay to see this one. Sweet girl with a rather silly power but can take down the most powerful people in the universe, including Thanos, Galactus and Dr. Doom. Yes, please.
• Miss America (America Chavez) -- LGBTQ Latina with Superman powers and some dimension-hopping skills. She once threw a shark over Dr. Doom's wall. She's cool, though her origin is... wonky.
• Oracle -- Batgirl got shot/paralyzed by the Joker and becomes computer expert. Starts own team of female superheroes. Babs Gordon is the best, and you could even get Nightwing to drop by.
• Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur -- 9-year-old black girl genius and red T-Rex. She has Inhuman abilities to switch minds with Devil Dinosaur. A fun romp for kids.
• Witchblade -- Not a DC or Marvel property, but hard-nosed NYPD detective gets symbiotic relationship with sentient body armor/weaponry. The armor decides what she needs in a situation, which could be a good relationship exploration.
• The Question (Renee Montoya) -- I am a huge fan of Vic Sage, the original Question. But moving the title onto former Gotham City detective and Batman-adjacent Renee Montoya was a brilliant move. The Question, in any iteration, could stand on its own.
Summary Judgments
The relatively silly reaction to President Trump's "covfefe" tweet is one of those amusing distractions we all need from time to time. What I liked was it might be the first time I've ever seen Trump seem to embrace an imperfection — he tweeted again about it, and seemed to laugh at himself. That was good, I think? (That said, if Rogue POTUS Staff is real, then the self-laughter was short-lived. • • • I ran 4 miles in 42:15 last week. That's 3 minutes shorter than my time in early March, which had snow and a big hill. Still: Three minutes less! • • • While Roland is the funniest little kid, Evie can have moments. At day care, I learned that she broke Miss Ashley, who has been doing this for 15 years and said she's never had a kid do this. Evie was sent to timeout and refused to apologize. So Miss Ashley brought her up front (big deal punishment at day care) to sit until she said she was sorry. Evie just shut down and didn't do anything. 10 minutes go by: nothing changes. Every time Ashley would try to get her to apologize, she'd grump no and just sit there. After an hour of this, Miss Ashley and Evie's teacher Miss Hillary realized Evie wasn't going to back down, so they gave up and let her go back to class. Alyson and I find this story hilarious, only because it didn't happen to us.... but it happens to us often, too. She'll be a fun teenager.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)