The Latest “Scandal” – Nope October 30, 2016October 30, 2016 Check it out: Once Again, “Bombshell” Clinton Revelation Fizzles As Facts Come Out You absolutely need to read (and share) that if you (or someone you know) has been demoralized by the so-called October surprise. If you have more time, there’s this, sent in just now from one of your fellow readers, Alex B.: I am a life-long Republican who has been a “neverTrump” person since he announced his candidacy. I believe Hillary can do an excellent job and that she will work with Republicans more successfully than Pres. Obama. Country over party! Most of the media stories that have been written or broadcast about Hillary Clinton’s email practices have been variously incomplete, inaccurate, or wrong; examples of inexcusably sloppy reporting and journalistic malpractice. The folks who write about this know little about classification or the State Department’s procedure for handling classified documents and emails. Because the outcome of this election will have profound effects on stock market prices, I have spent a great deal of time studying this subject since FBI Director Comey announced the results of the FBI’s year-long investigation of the Clinton emails on July 5 and testified about the investigation before the House Oversight Committee on July 7. I would be happy to send you a multi-page email I’ve written arguing that widespread misunderstandings and misreporting of the Clinton email practices have made a mountain out of a molehill, including many false statements about what was on Clinton’s server by none other than the New York Times, including the very first sentence of their very first story. That initial March 2, 2015 article began with the following totally false phrase: “Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state….” That phrase should have said: “to conduct unclassified government business….” To omit the word “unclassified” likely misled all but the most knowledgeable readers to think Secy. Clinton routinely received emails and documents marked or designated Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential on her private server, which FBI Director Comey said on both July 5 and July 7 she decidedly did not do. This past Friday, the Times continued to make the same mistake – here — saying that Clinton exclusively used her private server for government business, when she clearly used the State Department’s separate SIPRNet and JWICS email systems for any material marked classified. There is no mention of SIPRNet or JWICS in the article Because the media virtually never does mention SIPRNet and JWICS, most people, including the media and most pundits, wrongly think Clinton routinely received, sent, and stored emails and documents marked classified on her private server. That belief is totally wrong! In his speech to the GOP convention in July, Rudy Giuliani said she had “tens of thousands” of documents marked classified on her server. She had NONE. To be brief, of roughly 44,500 emails that were on or had been on Clinton’s server, the FBI has found NONE marked classified when sent to her server. When the FBI asked the SENDERS of those emails or the government agency “owners” of the information in those emails years after those emails had been sent, if there was any material in those emails that SHOULD have been marked classified when sent, the senders came up with 113 about which they said, in effect: “Ooops, these should have been marked classified when we sent them. Our mistake!” What was the proper place for those 113 emails? Had they been properly marked, they would not have been sent to Clinton’s server! If marked classified, those emails would have been sent through one of the two State Department closed and secure systems for classified emails and documents, SIPRNet for Confidential and Secret emails and documents or JWICS for Top Secret emails and documents, both of which have to be accessed through a closed and secure room called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), from which nothing can be forwarded to a unclassified system like NIPRNet or Clinton’s server. Clinton would have accessed those 113 emails through one of three SCIFs installed in her office and her residences in Washington D.C. and Chappaqua. But, because those 113 emails came in unclassified through an unclassified system like NIPRNet, and because in government, it is the SENDERS’ responsibility to assign and be responsible for the classification, Clinton assumed those 113 emails (an average of one every two weeks) were UNCLASSIFIED (if she even read them). And the 33,000 that were deleted? Clinton turned over roughly 30,000 of her emails to the State Department and deleted another 33,000 that her lawyers concluded were personal. In its investigation last year, the FBI recovered 14,500 of those 33,000 (The New York Times says the number is 14,900) and found nothing marked classified. And there’s no reason to think they will find any such emails on the laptop Huma Abedin shared with her husband (from whom she has since separated). Regarding the new batch of emails disclosed by the FBI yesterday: If any of those emails were marked classified, it would be immediately apparent. There would be large headings and probably footers to indicate whether those emails are Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Had they been so marked they would NOT have been sent through NIPRNet and forwarded by Abedin to her shared laptop or to Clinton’s server, but would have been sent through SIPRNet or JWICS to be viewed and answered in one of three SCIFs installed in Clinton’s office and in her residences in Washington D.C. and Chappaqua. Donald Trump is the wrong answer to the right question. Tens of millions of us are right to be deeply frustrated and angry. But it’s not “the government” that should be blamed, it’s the Republicans who’ve determinedly prevented it from solving our problems. You want change? You want to break the gridlock? Just give us two years. Two years of a Democratic Congress and we’ll put Americans to work revitalizing our infrastructure – the Republicans blocked that. We’ll boost the economy and cut government subsidies by hiking the minimum wage – the Republicans blocked that. We’ll let you refinance your federal student loans at today’s low rates – the Republicans blocked that. We’ll enact the comprehensive immigration reform Marco Rubio crafted that passed the Senate 68-32 and that economists say would boost the economy – the Republicans blocked that. Just give us two years to get America really rocking! Just give us two years. Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.
Just Give Us Two Years October 28, 2016October 28, 2016 But first, your weekend entertainment: In case you missed Trump lavishly praising Hillary — watch and share. Two minutes. Have you seen the dinosaur clip? Amazing. How about vice presidential candidate Bill Weld more or less endorsing Hillary? And — OMG! — Samantha Bee on partial birth abortion. Also: In case yesterday’s “Truth About Obamacare” was too long, here it is in a tweet: The “25% Obamacare rate hike” Trump is alarming everyone about will actually bite just one-half of one percent of us. And while there are major things to be fixed and improved, Hillary’s the one to fix and improve them, not Trump. Donald Trump is the wrong answer to the right question. Tens of millions of us are right to be deeply frustrated and angry. But it’s not “the government” that should be blamed, it’s the Republicans who’ve determinedly prevented it from solving our problems. You want change? You want to break the gridlock? Just give us two years. Two years of a Democratic Congress and we’ll put Americans to work revitalizing our infrastructure – the Republicans blocked that. We’ll boost the economy and cut government subsidies by hiking the minimum wage – the Republicans blocked that. We’ll let you refinance your federal student loans at today’s low rates – the Republicans blocked that. We’ll enact the comprehensive immigration reform Marco Rubio crafted that passed the Senate 68-32 and that economists say would boost the economy – the Republicans blocked that. Just give us two years to get America really rocking! Just give us two years. Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute.
The TRUTH About Obamacare October 27, 2016October 27, 2016 During an event at his Florida golf course, the former reality TV star suggested that all of his “employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare.” However, the club’s general manager later clarified that at least 95 percent of employees are insured by the company. — Raw Story Well, not all his employees — 5%. See the difference? If you didn’t cheat yesterday (What Trump Really Thinks About Hillary) and click the “tomorrow” link, then here it is again, from the Washington Post: Obamacare has some problems. Here’s how we can fix them. By Paul Waldman “All of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare,” Donald Trump said today, which is odd because under the law, Trump should be providing health coverage to his employees, at least the full-time ones. That means that the actual problems with the Affordable Care Act don’t affect them. But it’s fair to say that the Republican presidential nominee is not the only one laboring under misconceptions about what the ACA is, how it works, what its genuine problems are, and how they might be fixed. In fact, most people don’t understand the law, and given how complicated the topic of health insurance and health policy is, you can’t blame them. So I’m going to try to offer a little context and perspective on the latest news about the ACA, in an attempt to get us all on the same page. As you may have heard, the Obama administration announced yesterday that premiums for certain plans on the ACA exchanges will rise in 2017 by an average of 25 percent. This is a serious problem, and in a moment I’m going to talk about how it can be addressed. But before we get to that, it’s important to understand that almost everything you’ll hear about this news from Republicans is either completely false or misleading. They want everyone to believe two things: First, that the administration just announced that premiums — your premiums, everybody’s premiums — will rise by 25 percent. Second, that this is proof that the ACA is a disaster and must be repealed. Both those ideas are false. Here are some key things to understand: This 25 percent average premium increase only applies to fewer than 2 million Americans. If you have employer-sponsored coverage, this isn’t about you. If you have Medicare or Medicaid, this isn’t about you. If you got your insurance on the exchanges but your income was low enough to qualify you for subsidies, this isn’t about you. It only concerns those people who get individual coverage on the exchanges but don’t qualify for subsidies — 15 percent of those on the exchanges. According to the government’s figures, that’s fewer than 2 million people, or about one half of one percent of the American population. The exchanges are only one part of the ACA. The ACA’s supporters often point out all the good things that the law includes, and for their part Republicans will try to assure people that they support those things too. But one of the ironies in this debate is that because everyone says they’re in favor of a provision like the ACA’s ban on insurance companies denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, there’s no controversy or argument about it, and it gets ignored. As Michael Grunwald recently observed, “The perks of Obamacare — insurance protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, a ban on insurer caps that limited payouts to expensive patients, delivery reforms that have helped produce the slowest cost growth in half a century — have been mostly uncontroversial and undiscussed.” But if Republicans were to succeed in their goal of repealing the law, all that stuff would disappear too, and we’d be back where we started — not to mention the fact that 20 million Americans would lose their coverage. We can address this problem if we’re willing to. The exchanges are not working as well as we had hoped, but there are changes we could make that would bring more insurers in and restrain premiums. This morning I asked Paul Starr of the American Prospect, one of the country’s foremost academic experts on health policy, what kind of changes would help bring down premiums on the exchanges. He offered this list: Require all insurers who want to sell in the individual insurance market to offer their plans through the exchange, so they couldn’t cherry-pick individuals outside the exchange (this is an idea championed by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution). Reduce the waiting period for those on disability insurance to get Medicare coverage from two years to six months to move some of the very high-cost enrollees out of the individual-market pool. Require any insurer that wants to offer a Medicare Advantage plan in an area also to offer a plan in the marketplace for under-65 enrollees. Have the federal exchange adopt the procedures used by California in actively bargaining with plans instead of acting as a passive clearinghouses. Create a public option for those aged 55-64 clearly identified as an early buy-in to Medicare. Create a second federally run public option for enrollees from 18 to 54. Restore the risk corridor and reinsurance provisions that have expired that were intended to protect exchange plans against adverse selection. These kinds of changes are meant to expand the risk pool to include both healthy and sick people, keep as many insurers in each marketplace as possible, and further increase competition via a public option — all of which might help to keep premiums down and make the exchanges work better. You might disagree with some of them, and some might have a greater effect than others. But the point is, the problems the exchanges are having aren’t so intractable that we just have the throw up our hands and toss the whole thing in the trash. There is a difference between large rate hikes that affect just half of one percent of us — and can be fixed — and large rate hikes that affect everybody, as Trump claimed. From the White House: Open Enrollment on the Health Insurance Marketplace begins on November 1 and ends on January 31; the deadline for January 1 coverage is December 15. Consumers can visit healthcare.gov to window-shop and compare health insurance plans for 2017. We have made tremendous progress thanks to the ACA. The law has improved coverage and lowered costs for the more than 80 percent of Americans already insured before the law was passed. And, it has expanded and improved coverage options for another 10 percent of Americans, dropping the uninsured rate to the lowest level on record. In 2017, 72 percent of Marketplace consumers will be able to find a plan for less than $75 a month. Financial assistance blunts the impact of premium increases for most people. Shopping around can save Marketplace consumers money. If every returning consumer nationwide selected the lowest cost plan within the same metal level they picked last year, average premiums paid would fall by $28 per month – 20 percent – compared to 2016. Marketplace consumers will be able to choose from an average of 30 insurance plans. Around 80 percent of Marketplace customers can choose from two or more issuers. Before the ACA, millions of Americans had no choices because of pre-existing conditions. And for those with employer-sponsored health insurance, plan choice is typically narrower; in 2015, 30 percent of people with employer coverage had one plan option. For the roughly 150 million Americans who get coverage through their employer – nearly 10 times more than the number of people in individual market coverage – premium growth remains much lower than in the past. Had premium growth since 2010 matched the average rate over the preceding decade, the average premium for family coverage would have been nearly $3,600 higher in 2016. Still, there’s more we can do to help, especially if Republicans stop obsessing over repeal. As the President has always said, we are open to working across the aisle on common-sense ways to strengthen the ACA, and the President has put forward his own ideas: The remaining 19 states should expand Medicaid, extending coverage to four million more Americans. Congress should increase financial assistance for young adults and middle-class families. Congress should act to offer a public health insurance plan in parts of the country still lacking in competition. Congress should continue to address increasing drug costs, for example by acting on the ideas put forth in the President’s budget. States should use the ACA’s innovative tools to design structures that work best for their residents. Give us a Democratic Congress and we’ll get this done.
What Trump REALLY Thinks About Hillary — And He’s Right October 26, 2016October 25, 2016 Take two minutes to watch. And share. Amazing. He thinks she’s terrific. He’s right! Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute. With your help, we just might get turn-out high enough to take back Congress, break the gridlock, and move the country into high gear. Tomorrow: The truth about Obamacare. Plenty of room for improvement, but not NEARLY what Trump has been claiming. (Surprise, surprise.)
The REAL Story On Syrian Refugees October 25, 2016October 25, 2016 Trump wants you to think Secretary Clinton’s on the wrong side of the “Syrian refugee” issue. I dare you to watch this “60 Minutes” report and agree. You will instead be relieved to know you are not at risk from these refugees; and proud that, in admitting them, America is being just who most of us want her to be. And then there’s Trump’s rant over ninth-month abortions. Like so much else in his campaign, it is ill-founded. (If you doubt that, click here.) He “stirs hatred and feeds self-vindication, and whether on paper it bears inspection for consistency, logic or soundness is immaterial.” He’s “a past master at throwing up verbal smoke screens . . . knows the effectiveness of massive oratorical assaults . . . knows how to give pledges that will be broken . . . his crudity frequently borders on downright vulgarity.” (Those quotes are not about Trump; they’re from the foreword to the 1941 book of Hitler’s speeches he kept by his bedside.) Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute (yes, even now!) — and here to see what Republicans are saying about Trump and Clinton. Help break the gridlock in Washington, elect a Democratic Congress, and see the things most Americans want finally enacted into law: massive job creation revitalizing our crumbling infrastructure; a higher minimum wage; the comprehensive immigration reform that passed the Senate 68-32; student loan refinancing — all of which would boost our economy and reduce inequality. (And more: sensible gun safety measures; lower prescription drug prices; campaign finance reform; restoration of the Voting Rights Act.)
Why You Find Hillary Clinton “Unlikable” October 24, 2016October 23, 2016 In case you missed this in Cosmopolitan (for whom I last wrote, on zoos, in 1971*), by Jules Barrueco: When a fly landed on Hillary Clinton’s eyebrow during the second presidential debate, some took it as further evidence that she is, in fact, a robot. “She didn’t even flinch!” skeptics observed, fascinated, while tweeting screengrabs of the resting insect. They joyfully continued the she’s-not-even-human joke, a characterization born from her notoriously stoic and unlikable persona. I, on the other hand, saw a woman who has perfected the art of looking unfazed at work, even when a small, bothersome pest converges on her. After all, the fly wasn’t the only small, bothersome pest who encroached on her personal space and failed to faze her at the debate that night. With Election Day less than three weeks away, those who plan to vote for Hillary largely fall into two camps. Some voters, like me, genuinely want her to be president. Others find her deeply unlikable and will give her their vote with the same enthusiasm they furnish for a shot of antibiotics. They’re unhappy about it but believe it’s the only way to prevent a dangerous germ from destroying them. As is often the case, my husband Al and I inhabit opposite camps. But on this issue, I can’t stop fighting to move him into mine. To be sure, Al and I have a strong marriage filled with love, respect, and healthy disagreements. We rarely push our views on each other, a pointless exercise between two type-A lawyers with strong opinions about everything. Our differences usually make our marriage interesting, but not this one. This one has ruined romantic dinners, driven me to the couch with my pillow tucked under my arm, and caused me to declare –jokingly, of course! – that I will divorce him if he doesn’t vote for her. Despite Hillary’s famously low approval rating, my own husband’s disapproval of her feels personal. Because I too struggle to be a woman, a professional, and a human – the elusive female hat trick. Like Hillary, I am not always the warm-and-fuzziest of women. In 2003, exactly 30 years after Hillary, I graduated from law school unaware of all the added hurdles that still exist for women. Over time, as I learned to navigate them, I became a better lawyer and less human person for it. I learned, for example, that if your skirt is one millimeter shorter than the unwritten industry standard, women might talk about you. If you wear a conservative, loose-fitting pantsuit, men might ridicule you. I discovered that no matter how good you are at your job, there will often be a man who thinks you are his secretary. And no matter how good you are at your job, there will often be a secretary not willing to work for a woman. I discovered that without an engagement ring, you could appear as an unstable flight risk. The day you show up with that ring, you could be labeled an uncommitted mommy-tracker with one ovary out the door. I found that many women delay motherhood until it might be too late so they can try to get ahead while they’re still contenders for promotions. I discovered that if you are too nice, you are a pushover. If you are too demanding, you are a bitch. I learned that striking a balance is not always easy or possible, and I learned not to worry too much about that because the robotic bitch always gets the promotion. I’ve been promoted twice. I found that some men did not stop doing disgusting, shocking things at work just because the 21st century arrived, and that you address those indiscretions at your own risk. I learned not to assume that a woman will take your side, because as it turns out, women are often the hardest on other women. Basically, I learned that success is easy, as long as you don’t look too good or too bad, your makeup is neither too sparse nor too heavy, the pitch of your voice is neither too high nor too low, you’re neither too nice nor too mean, too well liked nor too hated, too emotional nor too robotic, as long as you appear to have no interests or commitments or life besides work, as long as you have a husband but no children, and as long as you have no complaints – about anything. Is it any wonder that the only woman to make it this far toward the presidency is considered perhaps the most unlikable, least human of us all? We have, after all, watched Hillary at work for the last 30 years and interviewed her for the job of president for the better part of 10. It should come as no surprise that we don’t often see her softer side. And yet, her likability continues to be an issue, and not just with Donald Trump – who called her “such a nasty woman” during the final presidential debate – or his supporters, or establishment Republicans. She is famously disliked across party lines. A New York Times columnist once described her as looking “less like a human being and more like an avatar from some corporate brand.” A New York magazine writer confessed she had, in the past, “often compared [Hillary] to Darth Vader – more machine than woman” – and referenced the difficulty she “has long had in coming across as, simply, a human being.” And Kate McKinnon, Hillary’s Saturday Night Live doppelgänger, garnered laughs when she mockingly described her fake-self as “lovable,” declared she was “made of steel,”and referred to her own “human” father. It’s funny because it rings so true. I wish more people would see what I see: a woman behaving exactly how we are taught to behave at work. And although humans make mistakes, since Hillary doesn’t qualify as one, hers are not forgiven. Here’s the other thing about professional women trained to suppress their humanity: Eventually, when you work enough hours in the day, days in the year, years in your life, you can start to strip yourself of human traits even after you leave the office. You forget there’s another way, accustomed to letting so little of yourself be seen. Soon your work face becomes your permanent face, and before you know it, your husband points out that even your Bitmoji avatar never cracks a smile. “I just want people to like you,” Al said recently, after asking to prescreen an email I drafted about an unruly neighbor. He wanted to see which version of me shined through: his nice wife or “Miss Business”? A former law firm colleague gave me that name while pointing out my lack of human traits at work. I took it as a compliment of the highest order, flooded with relief that I was pulling the whole thing off. Fortunately, I married my opposite. Al’s lightness and silliness come as naturally to him as my resting bitch face comes to me. He reminds me to snap out of it and helps me find balance. After five minutes together, he jolts me back into my alternate reality, my other life outside the office. I am warm and light and silly again. A likable woman. A human woman. For all we know, Hillary and Bill might roast marshmallows over their gas stove, have spontaneous at-home dance parties, and cry while watching Zootopia together, like Al and I do. But we’ll never know that, and we don’t need to. Because when we see her,she’s at work. And we’re not interviewing her for the job of best friend, wife, or Girl Scout troop leader. That is why I defend her to my husband. I still have a kind and funny and likable person buried beneath the surface, and I hate being judged for the woman I have to be at the office. I accept the endorsements of people who know Hillary and say she is warm and lovely when the cameras are off. And even if she’s not, let’s give her a break. Most of us will never know what she endured trying to succeed as a 1973 female law school graduate. We should assume the hoops were plentiful and the hurdles were high, perhaps explaining why she always wears pants. Notably, after a series of recent missteps by her opponent, Hillary has seemed different, lighter, pumped up – and not just from her pneumonia medicine. “She’s so cocky lately!” Al said while we watched recent rally clips on TV. “I kind of like it!” Despite her unrivaled résumé, it was the first quasi-compliment he ever paid her. Maybe, at this critical time in the last weeks of the election, she’s finally ready to give us a glimpse of the human side we’ve been waiting for. Maybe she will convince Al, and others like him, that she’s more than a robot reciting policy statements in a pantsuit. But even if she chooses not to, or simply can’t because it’s all been stripped away, maybe it won’t matter. Maybe she will succeed – like she always has – in the face of not being conventionally likable. Because let’s not forget, the robotic bitch always gets the promotion. *I even got to fly to Tucson for the zookeepers convention as part of my research — “I’ll trade you one male giraffe for a female emu and a crocodile.” Fun!
Peter (of Paul & Mary) Has A New Song October 22, 2016October 23, 2016 Handsome Devil won’t be in theaters until this winter or spring — I just saw it last night at a film festival — but you heard it here first: so funny and affecting and terrific; something to add to your IMDB watch list for sure. Right this minute you can watch former Justice Souter (last half of the clip) warning — in 2012 — of the dangers to democracy when an ill-informed citizenry falls prey to a demagogue. It’s how the Roman republic fell. The parallels between Trump and Augustus could not be more timely; the contrast between Souter’s calm and Trump’s bluster, more stark. Truly powerful. And you have to read Sir Richard Branson’s account of his lunch with Trump: Some years ago, Mr Trump invited me to lunch for a one-to-one meeting at his apartment in Manhattan. We had not met before and I accepted. Even before the starters arrived he began telling me about how he had asked a number of people for help after his latest bankruptcy and how five of them were unwilling to help. He told me he was going to spend the rest of his life destroying these five people. He didn’t speak about anything else and I found it very bizarre. I told him I didn’t think it was the best way of spending his life. I said it was going to eat him up, and do more damage to him than them. There must be more constructive ways to spend the rest of your life. (Hopefully my advice didn’t lead to him running for President!) I was baffled why he had invited me to lunch solely to tell me this. For a moment, I even wondered if he was going to ask me for financial help. If he had, I would have become the sixth person on his list! I left the lunch feeling disturbed and saddened by what I’d heard. There are a lot of frightening things about this election; not least that policy has been pushed so far down the agenda. What concerns me most, based upon my personal experiences with Donald Trump, is his vindictive streak, which could be so dangerous if he got into the White House. For somebody who is running to be the leader of the free world to be so wrapped up in himself, rather than concerned with global issues, is very worrying. Later, I remember contrasting the lunch with a one-to-one lunch I shared with Hillary Clinton. Here we talked about education reform, the war on drugs, women’s rights, conflicts around the globe and the death penalty. She was a good listener as well as an eloquent speaker. As she understands well, the President of the United States needs to understand and be engaged with wider world issues, rather than be consumed by petty personal quarrels. Jim Burt: “Mrs. Clinton swept the debate series and did so masterfully. Anything I could say to the contrary would be a mere quibble. So, of course, I’ll quibble. When, early on, Chris Wallace asked the candidates if, with respect to the Constitution, the Founders ‘meant what they said.’ I wish Mrs. Clinton had responded along these lines: Chris, the Framers of the Constitution actually SAID what they meant as the purpose of the Constitution, in no uncertain terms, right in the Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Framers didn’t provide for Social Security or Medicare any more than they did for an Air Force, but they did say that the purpose of the Constitution was to, among other things, provide for the common defense – there’s the basis for an air force – and promote the general welfare – and there’s Social Security and Medicare. Whatever our government does needs to be measured against those few words of the Preamble. If a government action establishes justice, provides for the common defense, or promotes the general welfare and is not expressly forbidden by other language in the Constitution, then it’s constitutional and consistent with what the Founders said they meant. People who argue to the contrary don’t appear to have read the Preamble. Of course, it’s not too late for her to say that. Over and over, in fact.” Peter Yarrow, of Peter Paul & Mary, has posted “Lift Us Up.” “You will see my daughter Bethany singing this song surrounded by a bunch of folks sitting on the floor, the way we used to when we first sang folk songs — hearts bound together, asserting in song what we stand for as Americans and as ethical human beings. PLEASE HELP ME SPREAD THIS SONG.” Who can say no to that? If you bought any GEC (the former UPIP), you have the right to buy more shares even cheaper. (Call your broker if you have not already been notified.) Several of you have asked whether to exercise that right. Because I have money available that I can truly afford to lose (even after having lost a good chunk, on paper, as this stock has fallen ever further), I am doing so, fully — and oversubscribing for extra shares.
Twenty Days To Go October 19, 2016October 19, 2016 While one candidate is “on a presidential death march we’ve never seen before” — grotesquely coarsening and cheapening the national discussion, sowing dissatisfaction, division, and distrust (click that link if you have time) . . . . . . the other — eminently qualified, serious, steady, compassionate — hopes to put Americans to work in good jobs revitalizing our infrastructure; boost worker dignity and consumer demand (and lower government subsidies) by hiking the minimum wage; boost the economy and improve millions of lives by enacting comprehensive immigration reform of the kind that passed the Senate 68-32; reduce the burden of student debt by allowing federal loans to be refinanced at today’s low rates; enact the sort of sensible gun safety measures 90% of Americans favor — and much more. When they go low, we go high. Not perfectly, perhaps; but there really is a contrast. In that spirit, are you ready for two minutes of something actually uplifting? Watch this: “We are Democrats.” The “email” stuff is wildly overdone. Click here. The Benghazi tragedy –scandal-wise — is entirely without substance: WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria. . . . The Miami Herald (no Democratic puppet) has it right: “The narrative that Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils is patently wrong. Ms. Clinton is a pragmatic, tough-minded woman of accomplishment and political conviction with a demonstrated mastery of policy.” Not perfect, to be sure — read the whole thing. But “she fights the good fight, and she fights the right ones in the name of equality and democracy.” Twenty days to go. Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute — and here to see what Republicans are saying about Trump and Clinton.
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria. . . . The Miami Herald (no Democratic puppet) has it right: “The narrative that Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils is patently wrong. Ms. Clinton is a pragmatic, tough-minded woman of accomplishment and political conviction with a demonstrated mastery of policy.” Not perfect, to be sure — read the whole thing. But “she fights the good fight, and she fights the right ones in the name of equality and democracy.” Twenty days to go. Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute — and here to see what Republicans are saying about Trump and Clinton.
Not Rigged October 18, 2016October 18, 2016 Trump’s fraud claims are ridiculous. (Washington Post) You can read Republican election lawyer Chris Ashby’s thorough explanation of how difficult it would be to rig an election. . . . Or you can look at studies tracking voter fraud, like the now-famous one in which a professor at Loyola Law School traced years’ worth of votes and found only a few sporadic instances of possible — but not certain — fraud. Specifically: 31 incidents out of 1 billion votes cast. . . . Or you can use common sense. How do you find hundreds of people to go vote multiple times in precisely the right places to throw the election? . . . It’s hard enough to get folks to turn out to the polls once, let alone risk jail or deportation for voting more than once. Trump’s “locker room talk” excuse is ridiculous. (Vox) Dear Donald Trump: I played in the NFL. Here’s what we really talk about in the locker room. . . . So let me conclude with some advice for you, Donald. The next time you want to claim that something is “locker room talk,” take a moment to recognize the fact that were you in an actual locker room, you would be universally reviled as a cancerous, egotistical train wreck of a disgrace that no team could possibly find the time to employ and, honestly, would never even have on their draft board to begin with. John McCain vows to defy the election results. (Deadspin) He doesn’t think Barack Obama should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill Scalia’s vacancy — and if Hillary wins, he won’t allow her to fill it either. (One more reason to unseat him.) Hillary’s gay “nephew” tells you what she is really like. (Towle Road) . . . Throughout my life, I have only known her as my mom’s most supportive and loving friend. Hillary took me on my first roller coaster ride when I was 12 years old. She spoke at my high school commencement ceremony and took photos with every single one of my classmates. The woman who signs her letters as “Aunt Hillary” congratulated me when I came out of the closet, when I got my pilot’s license, when I married my husband and when we adopted our baby girl. She checked in with my family regularly while my mom underwent surgery and treatment for breast cancer. . . . . . . When you cast your vote for Hillary, I just want you to know you’re backing not only the most qualified presidential candidate in history, but a real person, a woman who values family, friendship and service to her fellow Americans above all else. You’ll be sending a message to my daughter that she can accomplish anything she sets her mind to. You’ll be electing a good girl. Most important: 38 years later, the New York Times still likes my book. Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute — and here to see what Republicans are saying about Trump and Clinton.
How Much Damage Could A Trump Presidency Do? October 17, 2016October 17, 2016 Apart, that is, from the extraordinary damage he’s already done — coarsening the public discourse and demeaning people; undermining confidence; retweeting white supremacists; stoking division, fear, and discontent; and just overall Debasing American Politics, as The Economist argues in its current cover story. For one thing, he would widen the toxic inequality gap still further. His tax plan — to the extent he has any real plans at all — would totally explode the deficit and provide a huge windfall for the wealthy. The top tenth of one percent (those with income above $3.7 million) would pick up an extra $1.3 million a year — a nearly 19% tax cut. And for billionheirs? He would eliminate their estate tax altogether, saving his own family $4.5 billion if his net worth is what he claims. (It isn’t, of course, but just suppose.) The Germans know a thing or two about running an economy. Read this: German Gov’t Thinks Trump Would Wreck US Economy. The Washington Post takes a wider view. “How much damage could a President Trump do?” it asks. “We can only begin to imagine.” Barbara Bush “doesn’t know how women can vote for” him, and Colin Powell calls him “a national disgrace.” Not a single major newspaper, save the National Enquirer, has endorsed him. USA Today has never endorsed in a presidential race — until this one: Hillary. He promised on tape in 2014 he would “absolutely” release his tax returns if he ran for president. He lied. And lied that he couldn’t release his returns while they were being audited — of course he can. And lied because his 2015 return — which was probably filed today if he waited until the last day — surely cannot yet have been selected for audit. In one corner, we have a professional wrestler, playing crudely for the crowd; a Putin admirer who kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside; an entertainer who feeds off the adulation of his audience. Mussolini meets Don Rickles — except Don Rickles was kidding. In the other corner, a steady, brilliant woman, deeply caring and eminently qualified for the job — with a lifetime of serious work to make a better world. I’m sorry if 30 years of vilification and eight Benghazi hearings have you feeling otherwise (and believing Gore said he invented the Internet, Kerry shot himself to get a medal, there’s no link between smoking and cancer, climate change is a hoax, Iraq was part of 9/11, Obama was not born here, or any of the other untruths tens of millions can be led to believe) . . . but the Republican-led Benghazi hearings wound up debunking the charges* . . . and while all including Secretary Clinton agree it was a mistake to have used a private server, the “email thing” is wildly overdone. The three little “C’s” out of tens of thousands of emails amounted to nothing — and were arguably less telling than the scores of huge “C’s” affixed to Trump housing applications. The frustrations both Trump and Sanders supporters feel are legitimate. But the solution is a Democratic Congress willing — where the Republicans were not — to put Americans to work rebuilding our infrastructure, to increase the minimum wage, to pass the comprehensive immigration reform that the Senate passed 68-32, and to allow refinancing federal student loans at today’s low rates. Those four things, taken together, would turbocharge the economy and — by continuing to improve people’s personal finances (median income rose a record 5% last year, after decades of stagnation) — gradually, I hope, assuage at least some of the anger and fear that, understandably, grip so many of our fellow citizens. Click here to vote, here to volunteer, here to contribute (and here to see what Republicans are saying about Trump and Clinton). *WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. . . . “