Author: A.T.

So Friday’s New York Post headline was: Clinton charity gave $2M to company owned by Bill’s ‘friend’.

In fact, the Clinton charity gave ZERO to the company (part-)owned by Bill’s ‘friend.’

Which I know because, as the Post notes, I, too, own part of the company.

How could the Post have gotten it so wrong?

(There is a difference between $2 million and ZERO, no?  If I told the world you’d misappropriated $2 million when in fact you’d misappropriated nothing, wouldn’t you feel I got it wrong?)

[Update: now, when you follow the link, the headline has been changed from “gave $2M” to “arranged $2M pledge.”  The full-page printed front cover, meanwhile, reads:  BUBBA STEERED CHARITY $$ TO ‘FRIEND’ BLOND BOMBSHELL.]

The Post — owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp — based its story on this lengthy front-page piece in the Wall Street Journal — also owned by Murdoch’s News Corp: CHARITY AIDS CLINTON FRIENDS.

It didn’t come right out and say anyone did anything wrong (or at least I don’t think it did; it was actually kind of hard to tell).  But there was sure a lot of ominous innuendo.

Kevin Drum’s take on the piece (in part):

. . . The story meanders through nearly 2,000 more words, but it can be summarized pretty easily:

• Energy Pioneer Solutions is a startup company that insulates people’s homes and allows them to pay via their utility bills. It’s owned by several Democratic Party donor types and other assorted worthies.
• Six years ago, a Canadian philanthropist named Kim Samuel decided to make a $2 million commitment to the company. (Though in the end, she decided to commit only $500,000.)
• For some reason the Journal doesn’t explain, Samuel routed this commitment through the Clinton foundation instead of just giving it directly to EPS.

And…that’s about it. . . .The Journal article does its best to make this sound shady in some way, but I’m not really seeing it. Can anyone help me out?

Actually, even this summary is a little misleading. Samuel’s money was not “routed through the Clinton foundation,” and neither are any of the other hundreds of “commitments” people and corporations make at the Clinton Global Initiative each year, so far as I know. Her money was invested directly in the company — not donated to it — as was mine.

And lots of the “commitments” at CGI are meant to be profit-making.  For example, here’s a report of Richard Branson’s $3 billion commitment to combat climate change. Obviously, this money was not “routed through” the Clinton Foundation.  And like Ms. Samuel’s commitment, it was not a gift, it was a planned investment.

That’s one of the key things the Clinton Global Initiative does:  It encourages — some might say inspires — business leaders of all political stripes to do more good in the world. Why is that bad?

Walmart is surely a profit-driven enterprise. I was in the CGI audience the year its CEO committed to reduce packaging across its global supply chain by 5% — as reported here — an initiative equivalent to reducing shipping costs and diesel fuel consumption and carbon emissions by some crazy huge number . . . with the hope (I assume) that once the 5% was achieved, they’d shoot for more.  Read the article.  It’s the nuts and bolts of making the world better, and the kind of thing the Clinton Global Initiative has been working to encourage and catalyze for a dozen years now.  And, yes, it could increase Walmart profits.

Meanwhile, here‘s a story about another Walmart Clinton Global Initiative commitment to empower girls and women around the world.  That one has no direct profit-motive.

Whatever you may think of Walmart — my own view is that a lot of fine people work there, constantly balancing “low prices” for their costumers and high profits for the shareholders, on the one hand, against the good of workers, society, and the environment — isn’t it a good thing that CGI encourages them to shift that balance a bit toward workers, society, and the environment?

I was also in the audience when a foreign bank presented its commitment to restore the sight of some huge number of Africans suffering from cataracts.  When I heard that the cost was just $30 per operation, I added $10,000 of my own to their much larger commitment (well, they’re a big bank!), unable to resist the prospect of changing 300-plus families’ lives with a single donation.  (It’s not just the blind person who becomes sighted; it’s his entire family that no longer has to care for him.)

CGI gives worthy projects, of whatever type — for-profit and non-profit — a stage from which to make a brief presentation that may attract more investors and contributors.

To me, things like the Carter Center (which has, among so much else, eradicated an agonizing disease, and which I also proudly support) and the Clinton Foundation, are wonderful forces for good.

But in a political season, if the New York Post can feed people’s cynicism and sell more newspapers — well, no one ever said Rupert Murdoch built his media empire out of a lust for journalistic excellence.

So back to the Journal’s story.  The reporter contacted me, asking how I became involved, and so on, and I emailed him, in part:

I met Scott Kleeb when Howard Dean invited him to a DNC fundraiser as an example of the kind of terrific young candidate his Fifty-State Strategy was encouraging.

I wound up supporting his Congressional race and then his Senate race – tough things for a Democrat to win in Nebraska, but he acquitted himself well – and when [after he lost] I heard his Energy Pioneer story I was immediately drawn to invest – energy efficiency, and particularly, home energy efficiency, is the low-hanging fruit in combating climate change – and with my modest initial investment, I wound up owning a small percentage of the company.  It grew, because ultimately, between loans and equity investments, I’ve wound up putting a little more than $1 million into this effort, part of which was done as part of a commitment Kim Samuel and I made at the Clinton Global Initiative, which I’ve been proud to support since the first one a dozen years ago.

Energy-efficiency and the climate crisis are among the myriad causes to which President Clinton is committed and on which he is astonishingly well informed.  I will never forget being at a small fundraiser near the end of his presidency when he recommended everyone read Amory Lovins’ then-new Natural Capitalism.  Amory and I were classmates until he dropped out – Harvard was not challenging enough for him – so I knew all about his amazing work, but how did the President know?  Well, of course, President Clinton knows, and cares, about almost EVERYTHING that’s important.

I was excited to call Amory and tell him about this, but apparently he had long been an adviser to the President on these matters, so he was pleased but not surprised . . . and I wasn’t surprised to see Amory, for years, at CGI . . . or that President Clinton was psyched about the potential for EPS and making America’s housing stock more efficient, cutting CO2 emissions, and lowering consumers’ energy bills.

In other words, the former president has always been passionate about this stuff and eager to move it forward.  The slant the Journal and the Post preferred was that it just sounds sketchy to them that the former president would want to help a worthy start-up part-owned by friends of his (none of it, again, with Foundation money — zero).

Here’s how Inside Philanthropy covered the Journal‘s story:

Hit Job: A Closer Look at the WSJ’s Clueless Attack on the Clinton Foundation

. . . Some of the allegations about the foundation have been truly unsettling. Let’s hope smart reporters keep digging around.

Yet other allegations about the Clinton Foundation have been almost comically clueless in their failure to understand modern philanthropy or how this unique outfit operates.

A new story published in the Wall Street Journal, by James Grimaldi, falls into the latter category. . . .

If you look at CGI’s record, you’ll know that it makes total sense that Bill Clinton would seek to arrange financing for Energy Pioneer Solutions. The fact that he was connected to some of those involved is immaterial. Most of us find out about cool ideas and projects through our personal or professional networks.

To me, the only mystery in this story is why James Grimaldi would write it—trying to concoct a scandal out of a smart impact investment made six years ago. After all, this is the same James Grimaldi who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2006 for his investigation of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

I have two theories as to why Grimaldi got this so wrong.

First, like most reporters, he just doesn’t understand either the Clinton Foundation or impact investing. . . .

Or maybe not, which leads me to my second theory—namely, that this story is really about sniffing out a Clinton sex scandal. The New York Post wasted no time today linking one of the original owners of Pioneer Energy Solutions to Bill Clinton in a romantic way, plastering the allegation on its cover and, in the process, badly mangling the WSJ story. The Post depicts the Clinton Foundation itself as making a payout to the company, as opposed to simply arranging financing. Clearly, one reporter on Rupert Murdoch’s payroll didn’t closely read what another had written. . . .

And it goes on from there.

Finally, if you’ve made it this far, some facts from the Foundation itself.  The whole thing is interesting, if you care about healing the world, but start with this snippet:

Since 2005, members of the CGI community have made more than 3,400 commitments that are improving the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal and New York Post chose to focus their front-page stories on a single one of those 3,400.

And to lead people to believe that the former president used $2 million of his foundation’s money to aid a for-profit company owned by his friends . . . when in fact ZERO dollars were so used.

Zero.

[This is not Friday’s column — Donald Ducks.  But it may be Monday’s  column, if I get lazy.  I just figured I should put it out sooner rather than later, as the WSJ hit piece echoes around the world.]

Have you seen the Trump vs. Sanders debate on Comedy Central?  More than 4 million people have.

Have you seen “Kids React to Donald Trump“?  Nearly 10 million people have.

Have you seen that Donald ducks releasing his tax returns?

(Actually, a friend notes — thanks, Paul! — he ducks almost any detailed answers when pressed.  Perhaps most famously when a Washington Post editor asked about his potential use of nuclear weapons and Trump answered, “I’ll tell you one thing. This is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around [the table] so I know who the hell I’m talking to?” And that was the end of that.)

Let’s hope the next 180 days have a happy ending, however cartoonish one of the candidates, however entertaining or horrifying the campaign.  Namely, that as November 8 draws near, voters get as stone cold serious as the stakes require.

Otherwise, as I quoted the Economist yesterday, Trump’s triumph will be America’s tragedy.

On that cheerful Friday-the-13th note . . . have a great weekend!

The cover of The Economist:

Trump’s Triumph, America’s Tragedy

. . . [I]t is now clear that Republicans will be led into the presidential election by a candidate who said he would kill the families of terrorists, has encouraged violence by his supporters, has a weakness for wild conspiracy theories and subscribes to a set of protectionist and economically illiterate policies that are by turns fantastical and self-harming.

The result could be disastrous for the Republican Party and, more important, for America. Even if this is as far as he goes, Mr Trump has already done real damage and will do more in the coming months. Worse, in a two-horse race his chances of winning the presidency are well above zero.

It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him. His demeanour may become more presidential (though there was little sign of that in this week’s bizarre and baseless pronouncements that the father of Ted Cruz, his erstwhile rival, had been around Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy). What he will almost certainly not do is change political course. For it is increasingly clear that Mr Trump has elements of a world view from which he does not waver. These beliefs lack coherence or much attachment to reality. They are woven together . . . with a delight in conflict and disregard for facts . . . But they are firm beliefs and long-held. . . .

. . . Mr Trump’s triumph has the makings of a tragedy for Republicans, for America and for the rest of the world.

With most of you, of course, this is just preaching to the choir. And Sarah Palin will not be persuaded — what could The Economist know about economics or world affairs that she does not?  She can see Russia from her porch.

But for anyone somehow on the fence — or supporting Trump but open-minded (is anyone open-minded anymore? or do we just all think we are? I know I am*) — I commend the entire article. (The above is excerpted from what The Economist calls its “leader” — a sort of executive summary.)

And if that weren’t enough, here are 12 cartoons from around the world.  It’s fair to say, much of the world is horrified that someone who could do this — knowingly on camera, no less — might next year be president.  But if we don’t all pitch in, it could happen.

Have a great weekend.

*Irony intended. Though I do try.

Paul Lerman:  “Re Friday’s one minute of Republicans on their presumptive nominee, I wanted to be sure you saw these — Colbert is just too funny!  A Brief History Of Laughing At Trump — only a minute, not to be missed.  Why Would God Let Trump Happen? — six minutes.”

And as a bonus, Paul offers: To Know Ted Cruz Is To Wish You Didn’t (funniest set-up of Carly-Fiorina-falls-clip of all of them – by FAR).

Sorry yesterday’s post was late.  I assume you dropped everything when it arrived and spent three-plus hours watching those two Trump movies.

You deserve a little breather today, so it’s just a minute that should bring a smile to the face of anyone who likes the work Vincent Van Gogh . . . and another four for anyone who wants to enjoy an illustrated version of Don McLean’s surpassingly beautiful “Vincent.”

First, a coupla films that may be of interest, one old, one new.

The old one: In 1991, my friend Jesse Kornbluth wrote a 70-minute documentary called “Trump: What’s The Deal,” that Leonard Stern paid for. Trump killed it. It’s just back, now on iTunes, and getting some traction.  Watch the trailer and, if it interests you, the movie.

The new one: The Making Of Donald Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgawv-3oDcQ

Now that he’s won the nomination and people are coming to terms with it, it seems to me they are liking it even less. Buyer’s remorse?

(And how interesting he’d recruit an ex-Goldman Sachs guy to chair his finance committee . . . and that this guy who can’t be bought, who’s self-financing, has seemingly only loaned his campaign the money spent to date, which now may well be paid back from big-dollar campaign contributions.)

He’s recently floated the possibility he’d shrink our National Debt by buying in United States Treasury obligations — that “full faith and credit” stuff the world relies on — for fewer than 100 cents on the dollar.  Kind of like Greece.  That could trigger global financial collapse, which could trigger the kind of depressions that sometimes lead to trade wars and world wars.  But never mind that: Hispanics love him, and he will defeat ISIS in a matter of months.  He’s long had a plan to do that.  He won’t reveal the plan to the voters lest he tip off ISIS; and he won’t share it with the Secretary of Defense, because — though more patriotic than anyone who’s ever run for president, and also in better health, and richer and smarter — he doesn’t want to defeat ISIS unless and he’s President.  He also won’t release his tax returns because he’s being audited.  (What possible difference does it make that he’s being audited? That has zero bearing on his ability to release them or the results of the audit.)

Everyone assumes Trump will be the nominee, and, yes, he probably will.  But it’s so nuts — so wildly irresponsible — I’m still not sure the Republican Party will permit it.

If you want to take a flyer on the possibility that it won’t, “brokered convention futures,” as it were, can be had over at PredictIt at 8 cents on the dollar.  I’m not buying any.  But if they trade down to 2 cents I might.

Really: can they possibly run this man as their standard bearer?

Watch a movie or two and you decide.

You’ve surely seen it by now — one minute of Republicans on their presumptive nominee.  They are spot on.

But David Roberts explains why the media will spend the next six months lifting Trump up and tearing Clinton down.

. . . The machine is simply not built to handle a race that’s over before it’s begun. . . .

. . . “That giant clicking sound is 10,000 Republican consultants and activists deleting their #NeverTrump tweets.” . . .

It’s long, lively, and well worth your time.  (Thanks, Matt Ball!)

Have a great weekend.

So after all those “It Won’t Be Trump” posts — here and here, for example — it apparently will be Trump.  The choice of the Republican Party.

Leaving aside all the rest — can you imagine Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln mocking the disabled? — there is a certain irony in this.

The leaders of the Republican Party clearly don’t want him; but he has successfully tapped into the frustration that tens of millions feel at the increasing difficulty of their lives . . . which (and herein the irony) has resulted from the strategy of those very same Republican leaders.

To wit: Refusing to create millions of good jobs revitalizing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure; holding down the minimum wage; busting unions; preventing federal-student-loan refinancing at today’s low rates; refusing Medicaid expansion; killing the immigration bill passed 68-32 in the Senate that economists widely agree would have boosted the economy for everyone . . . all the while slashing taxes on wealth and shifting political power to the wealthy.

Anyway, I was wrong.  Mr. Trump will almost surely win the nomination.

What’s more, the bettors over at PredictIt give him a 39% chance of being our next President.

The.

World.

Shudders.

But that brings me to the point: this short video from George Takei.

As a party officer, I’m neutral and, in any event, agree with Bernie Sanders: on their worst day, either of our two fine candidates would be 100 times better than the Republican alternative* . . .

. . . but for all my neutrality, watch what George Takei has to say to his fellow Bernie Sanders admirers, and pass it on.

If we all pull together, whether it winds up being for Hillary or for Bernie, Trump supporters will come up short.

And — in my view — they will be far the better off for having done so.

Just as — in my view — all but the wealthiest Bush supporters (and perhaps even most of them) would be far better off today if Bush had come up short.

Which he did, but don’t get me started.

*I’m aware many Republicans believe just the opposite — that four or eight more years like the last Clinton and Obama years would be a disaster, inevitably bringing yet more job growth (33 million net new private sector jobs created under Clinton/Obama, versus 747,000 under the last two Republican presidents), yet more deceleration of our National indebtedness, yet more emphasis on diplomacy over war, yet more efforts to improve health care, raise the minimum wage, encourage research and development, protect the environment, ban assault weapons — yet more efforts to advance equality and celebrate diversity and make it easier, not harder, to vote. I’m aware that many — somehow — believe these are things to be feared and avoided. And that if only Donald Trump were in charge, he’d get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, and all the rest, because tough talk and impossible promises** are the secret sauce that solve complex problems.

**Then Governor Bush promised that “by far the vast majority” of the benefits of his giant tax giveaway-to-the-rich would “go to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.”

A while ago I suggested taking a chance on Puerto Rico’s distressed general obligation bonds. The chickens have been coming home to roost for quite some time now but seem finally to have arrived, as explained here, in the New York Times, or here . . . far more colorfully . . . by the great John Oliver.

I don’t see their ever becoming worthless; but interest payments could well be delayed and/or reduced.

The main thing: how do we help restore vitality to the Puerto Rican economy?

Maybe not entirely, but this display is still pretty amazing.  (Thanks, Ross!)

Watch Intel’s Drone 100, a magical and elaborate airborne music and light experience created by a fleet of 100 unmanned aerial vehicles.  The team created an outdoor flying drone light show synched to a live orchestra.

When all 100 light-equipped drones danced and painted 3D shapes and messages in sky above Hamburg in early November, 2015, a new record was born. Dubbed Drone 100, the spectacle set a Guinness World Record for most UAVs airborne simultaneously.  It also set a Guinness Record for multiple drones controlled by one pilot.  Four pilots controlled 25 drones each as they lifted off from a soccer field in Hamburg.

But before the drones could launch from the field, engineers created software that allowed the drones to follow flight paths, turn on and off lights and move succinctly with one another to dramatic orchestra music.

And wait!  More from Hamburg!  (Thanks, Mikell!  Thanks, Bloomberg!)

Deploy the Anti-Goose Drones! And More From the Future of Flying

What will those crazy kids think of next? Airbus persistently asks just that, soliciting students from around the world to submit ideas that can help make commercial air travel more efficient and sustainable someday.

The contest, which is held every other year, attracts a mix of students from engineering, business, finance, and the arts. The 2013 winning idea, from a team at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, proposed a baggage system that would load and unload aircraft cargo holds more efficiently with an air cushion akin to the technology of an air hockey table.  . . .

The 2015 contest, Airbus’s fourth, involved 518 teams with 3,700 students from 104 countries before it was winnowed to the five finalists. They are:

Good Vibrations: Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

Airplane wings are dressed in a composite skin that harvests energy from natural vibrations or flex in the wings . . . to power auxiliary in-flight systems, such as lighting and entertainment. This reduces the plane’s energy footprint and might even be able to replace the entire power source for ground operations.

Drones Are for the Birds: University of Tokyo, Japan

A flock of unmanned aerial vehicles (psst: drones) guides birds away from airports . . . to a nearby area called Birdport . . .

After You: Northwestern Polytechnical University, China

This proposal applies motion-sensing technology from a gaming console to an aircraft guidance system for use when taxiing. The model uses infrared and visual information to warn the pilot and ground crew of high-risk obstacles. . . .

Trolley Trash: University of São Paulo, Brazil

The team’s trolley is designed to sort rubbish and recycling by compacting foils, paper, and plastic and draining off the residual fluid to reduce weight by up to 30 kilograms. That cuts fuel consumption and offers more galley space . . .

Brilliant Induction: City University London, UK

In-ground tarmac transmitters . . . transfer electrical power inductively to a receiver placed between the nose wheels . . . to power ground operations, reducing carbon emissions by half.

This much is for sure: it’s all about the nose wheels.