What Fresh Hell Is This?

January 22, 2018

Meanwhile, Outside (Global Edition)

Each month around this time the climate scientists at NOAA issue a "State of the Climate" report for the previous month.

In January, however, they do an annual "State of the Climate" for the previous year.

Last year it got warmer outside.  From the report:
The monthly global land and ocean temperatures at the start of 2017 were extremely warm, with the first four months each ranking as the second warmest for their respective months, behind the record year 2016. Of particular note, the global land and ocean temperature for the month of March 2017 was 1.03°C (1.9°F) above the 20th century average—this marked the first time the monthly temperature departure from average surpasses 1.0°C (1.8°F) in the absence of an El Niño episode in the tropical Pacific Ocean. After reaching its peak monthly temperature departure from average in March, temperatures began to slowly decrease in magnitude, ranging between +0.73°C to +0.88°C (+1.31°F to +1.58°F). The remainder months ranked among the four warmest on record, giving way to 2017 becoming the third warmest year in NOAA's 138-year record. The 2017 average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), behind the record year 2016 (+0.94°C / +1.69°F) and 2015 (+0.90°C / +1.62°F; second warmest year on record) both influenced by a strong El Niño episode. The year 2017 is also the warmest year without an El Niño present in the tropical Pacific Ocean. [Emphasis added.]
With the El Niño, 2017 was only the third warmest on record.


The AP is reporting:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Kingdom’s meteorological office on Thursday announced that 2017 was the third hottest year on record. At the same time, NASA and researchers from a nonprofit in Berkeley, California, called it the second.

The agencies slightly differ because of how much they count an overheating Arctic, where there are gaps in the data.
Speaking of NASA, and the climate science they do - and the damage to that science by the Trump Administration - Space.com reported:
Four NASA Earth science missions will get axed if the Trump administration's 2018 federal budget request makes its way into law.

On the chopping block are the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) satellite; the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) experiment; the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) Pathfinder; and the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR).

Shortly after the November 2016 election, a Trump advisor said the president intends to eliminate NASA's climate-change research.
Meanwhile it's still getting warmer out there.

January 20, 2018

The Donald Trump/Jennifer Clifford/Ben Roethlisberger Story And How Far It's Gotten (so far)

Let's first look locally.

The P-G:
Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is mentioned in a former adult film actress’s account of an alleged affair she had with Donald Trump in 2006, according to an interview transcript published Friday by “In Touch” magazine.

In recalling her affair with Mr. Trump, Stephanie Clifford — who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels — said she remembers meeting Mr. Roethlisberger at a hotel in Lake Tahoe, Nev., the night after she first had sex with Mr. Trump. She said Mr. Roethlisberger was “hanging out with” Mr. Trump, then a real estate businessman in town for a charity golf tournament.
You should probably read the interview. Ms Clifford comes off as a steady and reliable narrator for her time with Trump.  Julian Routh of the P-G quotes this paragraph from the transcript:
We hung out for a little while and he just kept saying, “I’m gonna call you, I’m gonna call you. I have to see you again. You’re amazing. We have to get you on [The Apprentice].” I ended up leaving and the next night I saw him again at a party. It was in the downstairs of the hotel I was in and he was hanging out with Ben Roethlisberger. When I got there, he was already with him. He had Keith, his bodyguard, call me and ask me if I was coming. When I got there, I called Keith and he told me where he was sitting and he brought me over. And he was hanging out with Ben for a long time. A couple other people around, nobody famous. Mostly people trying to hang on to them. Ben had just won the Super Bowl that year. Donald excused himself. He had to leave, I don’t remember why, and he made Ben promise to take care of me. I stayed another 15-20 minutes and Ben Roethlisberger actually walked me up to my room that night because Donald told him to. Yeah, he walked me all the way to my hotel room.
And for the record, that's the extent of Ben Roethlisberger's interaction with the happy temp-couple in that interview.

And the "Keith" in Ms Clifford's narrative? That would probably be Keith Schiller, Trump's then head of security.

Now that we have the basics out of the way, who's printed this story?
And so on.  These were all posted on January 19.

Do I really need to point out that I wrote about this on January 15?

There's one bit of dissonance between my blog post of the 15th and Clifford's interview. Clifford said that the dinner was just the two of them and in Trump's hotel room. I quoted the Smoking Gun with this:
At the time Clifford met Trump, she was between marriages and living with Michael Mosny, who later became her second husband. In a series of interviews, Mosny recalled that after Clifford met Trump at the Nevada golf tournament--where she had dinner one night with the mogul and Roethlisberger--she maintained contact with the businessman.
While in the interview says that she met Roethlisberger the next night, after the sex, when he walked her home.

So which is it?

My guess is that her response is closer to the truth than Mosny's - if only because Mosny's only relating what he remembers of what Clifford told him.  There's lotsa room in there for years-old memories to get skewed.

All that aside, NONE of the above news sources caught the fact that Ben played at least one round of golf with Trump at that tournament. Was it before or after the sex? Did they partake in any "locker room talk" on the links? Has Trump at any point then or since said to Roethlisberger, "Hey, you know that blonde porn star I got you to walk home that night? Yea, I banged her. Me, 60 years old and I'm banging a porn star."

Because you can totally see him bragging that.

Can someone please put a camera in Ben Roethlisberger's face and ask him what he knows about this?

January 19, 2018

Please Ask Your Trump-Loving Friends/Acquaintances About This.

This will be a follow-up to the "Donald And The Porn star" narrative.

From USAToday, we learn:
In Touch magazine has published a 7-year-old interview with a former porn star in which she goes into salacious details about an alleged extramarital affair with Donald Trump that only last week she claimed never took place.

Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, told the magazine in 2011 that the alleged sexual trysts with Trump began in July 2006 after she met him at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nev. The meeting and alleged affair came a year after the future president had married Melania Trump, his third wife.

“I actually don’t even remember why I did it but I do remember while we were having sex, I was like, ‘Please don’t try to pay me,’” Daniels said in the 2011 interview that the magazine only recently resurrected. “And then I remember thinking, ‘But I bet if he did, it would be a lot.'”

In the In Touch article, Daniels purportedly told the magazine that she and Trump had several more encounters over the next few years.
A few take-aways:
  • I think we can abandon the idea that the affair didn't happen. To assume Ms Clifford's recent denials are anything other than an effect of the non-disclosure agreement would be silly.
  • We've already discussed that golf tournament and the Pittsburgh connection to this story. Will someone please ask Ben Roethlisberger what he remembers about having dinner with Donald and the Porn Star?
  • This was not a one time thing.
Then there's this from Slate (channeling the Wall Street Journal):
Ever since former porn star Stormy Daniels’ alleged 2006 affair with Donald Trump became public last week, we, the public, have learned a great deal about the president’s sexual proclivities. It’s too much information to know about anyone, let alone the president, let alone when the president is Donald Trump. And to think, we almost made it without ever having to know about any of this at all! We were almost blissfully unaware because Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen went to great lengths not only to pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about the affair just weeks before the 2016 election, but to cover his own tracks while doing so by setting up a private company in Delaware to funnel the payment through. That comes from the Wall Street Journal, which broke the original story of Trump’s affair with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. 
And this is what they took from the WSJ:
[Cohen] established Essential Consultants LLC, on Oct. 17, 2016, just before the 2016 presidential election, corporate documents show. Mr. Cohen, who is based in New York, then used a bank account linked to the entity to send the payment to the client-trust account of a lawyer representing the woman, Stephanie Clifford, one of the people said.
Delaware doesn’t require companies to publicly disclose the names of their managers… [O]n its formation documents, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Cohen listed himself as the “authorized person” for the company, rather than hiring a lawyer or an agent to serve in that role, which some company owners do to further obscure their identities. To further mask the identities of the people involved in the agreement, the parties used pseudonyms, with Ms. Clifford identified as “Peggy Peterson,” according to a person familiar with the matter.
Yea, tell me again about how Trump is a good man.

January 18, 2018

More Outrage Over John Block's Editorial

Here's one letter that the P-G published in the wake of Block's MLK/Racism - "So What?" editorial:
Since 1927, our family has been involved with the Post-Gazette, shaped primarily by the nearly six decades of William Block Sr.’s socially conscious leadership. Some of us knew him as “Dad,” some “Grandpa,” and some “Bill,” but we all knew him as a man whose dedication to excellence and generosity infused the newsroom culture at the paper. He was an advocate for civil rights and freedom of the press. He was both a publisher who listened to his editors and a constant — and accessible — presence. The editorial “Reason as Racism,” published on Martin Luther King Day, printed without the Post-Gazette editorial board’s consensus, and attempting to justify blatant racism, is a violation of that legacy.

We are so grateful that Bill never had to read it. It goes against everything he worked for and valued. Our family strives to continue embodying his values of social justice, respect and equality in our communities.

As shareholders and family members of the family that operates this newspaper, we are very mindful that Dr. King himself said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” We do not condone the sentiments expressed in the piece. We do not condone the whitewashing of racism, nor the normalization of it. We cannot remain silent and by implication approve of the use of the Post-Gazette to provide cover for racism.
The letter's signed by more than a dozen people - more than a few with the last name of Block.

And now a letter that the P-G has refused to publish:
The Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh, the union representing 150 reporters, photographers, copy editors, artists and other editorial employees at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is collectively appalled and crestfallen by the repugnant editorial “Reason as Racism.” As a matter of course, the Guild does not weigh in on editorial positions, but this piece is so extraordinary in its mindless, sycophantic embrace of racist values and outright bigotry espoused by this country’s President that we would be morally, journalistically, and humanly remiss not to speak out against it.

This editorial is a blight on the 231 years of service the Post-Gazette has provided its readers. Over its long life, it has railed against racism and supported civil rights and justice for all. Given this history, the shameful and unconscionable editorial that ran on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, of all days, is an abomination that cannot go without condemnation from journalists committed to fairness, accuracy and decency. To be clear, no member of the Newspaper Guild had anything to do with that editorial and we stand together in solidarity against the bigotry, hatred and divisiveness it engenders.

Our hope is that, like us, readers of the Post-Gazette will decry this lapse in promoting common decency, equal opportunity and justice across our great land and the world. This editorial and its sentiments solely represent the opinions of the Block family, owners of the Post-Gazette, and not their loyal employees who use our talents to fight against what this editorial stands for.
That's signed by the executive committee of the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh.

As the editorial was first force-fed into the otherwise unsuspecting eyes of the Toledo-based news reading public, the president of the Newspaper Guild of Toledo has also made his thoughts public:
Let me add my own thought, (if not already obvious): the Block editorial was reprehensible on so many levels it's difficult to keep them straight.

So Donald's porn star romp will have to wait.

January 17, 2018

There's Trouble (The "P-G" Editorial That Wasn't)

Yes, there's trouble!
Right here in (Three) River City!
Trouble with a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "B" and that stands for...

Brainless? Block? Bigotry?

A few days ago, on Martin Luther King day, the Post-Gazette published this editorial. You know when (and I'm certainly not the first person to say this) someone opens a discussion by saying, "I don't want to sound racist, but..." you know they're going to say something racist.

(By the way you can substitute "sexist" or "homophobic" with above with roughly the same result.)

Well, the editorial opens with:
Calling someone a racist is the new McCarthyism. The charge is pernicious. The accuser doesn’t need to prove it. It simply hangs over the accused like a great human stain.
This is someone hoping to be able to say unchallenged something they presume will be seen as racist but while at the same time not wanting to defend themselves from being called a racist. Because they know they're not. It's the people who point out racism and intolerance that are the real racist intolerant ones, amirite? MAGA!

Word quickly got around that the Post-Gazette's editorial board did not write that editorial published by the Post-Gazette. It was written in Toledo for the Toledo Blade (who published it a day earlier) at the behest of the two papers' owner, John Block.

This John Block:

I wonder how Block feels about his "interesting" and "memorable" friend (that's how Block referred to Trump in the caption of this tweet) paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the silence some adult film actors.

The backlash was loud and proud.  The CityPaper snagged the story.

The Pittsburgh Foundation and the Heinz Endowments were not happy:
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has done our community and the cause of justice a grave disservice with its lead editorial, “Reason as Racism,” published of all days on Martin Luther King Day, when we as a nation commemorate the ongoing fight to end racism in our country.

Repeated verbatim from an opinion piece printed Saturday in its sister publication the Toledo Blade, the editorial is a silly mix of deflection and distortion that provides cover for racist rhetoric while masquerading as a defense of decency. It is unworthy of a proud paper and an embarrassment to Pittsburgh.
And some former P-G staffers were even unhappier:
As former Post-Gazette staff members, we are writing to express our anger at the content, tone and timing of Monday’s editorial.

The piece seeks to excuse President Trump’s disparaging remarks about nations of color, while also limiting the term “racist” to the narrowest and most violent forms of the practice, as if it no longer exists.

This is not the Post-Gazette we knew.

As a group, our personal politics and worldviews were often at odds. Newspapers are not a place for a single brand of personality or intellect. But we all shared the core values of journalism: fairness, accuracy, careful thought, and common decency.

An editorial saying, “so what” to a president referring to African countries as “shitholes,” and suggesting that the definition of racism be confined to the likes of racist mass-murderer Dylann Roof or segregationist sheriff Bull Connor, who set police dogs on civil rights demonstrators, basically surrenders the cause of civil rights.

Racism is more than overt violence. It is the systematic degradation of people through practices and institutions that are so pervasive we cease to recognize them in our own lives. It is dismissing a politician’s horrible remarks as “coarse” but meaningless, when words are the very tools of governance. It is suggesting that racist is an invalid term unless someone has met a standard so narrow that it excuses discrimination that is little more than apartheid without the violence.

Notably, racism is also saying these things in print, in a major newspaper, on Martin Luther King Day.
Ya got trouble...

January 16, 2018

My FORTY-FORTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:
Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again. Your constituent who also writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

Seeing that you've already addressed Donald Trump's racist "shithole countries" comment (though rather tepidly and incompletely, I should add), I'd like to ask you about recent events in Hawaii.

A few days ago, Hawaii was rocked with a false ballistic missile alarm. For early 40 minutes the residents of Hawaii thought they were going to die a nuclear death. Hawaii, by the way, has a population of about 1.4 million. If only 10% were panicked, that's still 140,000 panicked US citizens.

And according to CNN, Donald Trump was on one of his many golf courses, playing golf and having lunch. There was no public comment from him for about 18 hours. In the meantime, however, he tweeted yet another complaint about "fake news."

So here's my question to you, sir: How this is acceptable behavior? That the President of the United States of America could so casually go about his day while so many of his constituents were panicked that they only had a few more minutes to live and yet say nothing about it for nearly a day?

I await your response.
And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.


January 15, 2018


On Weekend Update this weekend, Colin Jost said of the current Trump/pornstar story:
Let me just say what a thrill it is to be alive a time when ‘Porn star blackmails president’ is, like, the fourth biggest story of the week.
Like it or not, we live in interesting times, don't we?

Anyway, the Wall Street Journal broke the story a few days ago:
A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. (subscription required)
The film star's name is Stephanie Clifford and she's known professionally as Stormy Daniels.

For the record, both Trump and Daniels deny this story.

And as the WSJ is behind a pay wall, we have to look elsewhere for details. From this article in USAToday, we learn:
According to The Journal, Clifford has privately alleged the encounter took place after the two met at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. That's a year after Trump married his third wife, Melania. The Journal previously reported that Clifford had been in talks with Good Morning America in the fall of 2016 about an appearance to discuss Trump, also citing people familiar with the matter.
Donald and Melania were married in January, 2005 and  Donald and Melania Trump's son, Barron, was born in March, 2006. Just to put this into a clearer context.

But can we find a more specific date for this tournament?

Yes, we can - it's the American Century Celebrity Championship tornament and it's held in the second full week of July every year at the Edgewood Tahoe Golf Course in Nevada.

Look who else was there:

Yep, that's Ben Roethlisberger, just 5 months after his first Super Bowl win. He came in 47th, by the way, 50 strokes behind the winner, actor Jack Wagner. But that's not a big deal in itself as far as a Pittsburgh connection goes.  Looking at the results we see that both Kordell Stewart (who came in 44th) and Tommy Maddox (who came in 7th) were also there. Lotsa people were.

Donald Trump, by the way, came in 62nd.

Here's the thing: See that sign over there on the right hand side of the picture?  This blog post will explain it:
Today is the final round of the American Century Championship (televised on NBC). Ben Roethlisberger will be paired with Paul O'Neill and Donald Trump, while former Steelers QB Tommy Maddox will be playing with Marshall Faulk and Vince Coleman. As of Sunday morning, Maddox is on the leaderboard and has a legitimate chance of winning the event.
So that was the last of three rounds. Were they paired in any of the other two?

Well, there's this from The Smoking Gun:
During one round, Trump’s threesome included NFL quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and skier Bode Miller.
So that would mean that for two out of the three rounds, Trump and Roethlisberger golfed together, right? But here's the money shot, also from the Smoking Gun:
At the time Clifford met Trump, she was between marriages and living with Michael Mosny, who later became her second husband. In a series of interviews, Mosny recalled that after Clifford met Trump at the Nevada golf tournament--where she had dinner one night with the mogul and Roethlisberger--she maintained contact with the businessman. [Emphasis added.]
Ok, so where are we? All legal denials aside, this story is about a six-figure payoff in exchange for silence regarding an extra-marital affair Donald Trump had with a porn star in 2006. The payoff was made weeks before the 2016 Presidential election. Pittsburgh Steeler Ben Roethlisberger both golfed with Donald Trump (twice, it seems) and had dinner with Trump and Stephanie Clifford during the week of that golf tournament.

Given the seriousness of this story (blackmail? payoffs for silence weeks before a presidential election?),


January 13, 2018

Our Shithole President - And How Pennyslvania's Senators Have Reacted

Yesterday, I said I'd follow up on how Pennsylvania's politicians are either defending Trump's racism or condemning it.

We'll start with The Senate and perhaps follow-up with the House tomorrow.

Senator Bob Casey has tweeted three times on Trump's "shithole countries" remark.  First there was this:
Which, while I completely agree it, seems a bit incomplete.  The next morning, he tweeted:
And continuing:

Good, as it fills out Casey's previous, and rather short, tweet. It also presents the case that this is not an outlier for Trump. He's been this vile for a long long while. Casey is unambiguous in his condemnation of Trump's racist rhetoric.

Senator Pat Toomey, on the other hand treats Trump's words a bit more, shall we say, gingerly.  His tweets:
And then continuing:

Attributed? Suggestion? Let's take a look, again, at what he's quoted as saying. From the Washington Post:
President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.
It's sad to see Pat Toomey avoiding much of the bigotry of Trump's "suggestion" and it's also sad to see him hide behind the word "attributed" rather than the stronger "quoted" regarding the phrase "shithole countries."  It shades towards Pat accepting (or at least floating) the possibility that Trump didn't say it. It let's the shithole president off the hook just a bit.

And while it's true that Trump has denied saying it but can we really believe a guy who's made two thousand false or misleading claims in only the first year of his presidency?

Additionally Pat avoided the other side of Trump's bigotry - while he criticizes Trump's "suggestion" that the US shouldn't want people from certain countries, Pat fails to mention who Trump does want instead: Norwegians (and later, those good-for-the-economy Asians).

People from Africa, Central America and a certain all-black Caribbean nation = They're bad! Keep em out!
People from Northern Europe (who are mostly white) and those useful Asians = They're good! Let 'em in! 

Ya missed half of Trump's racism, Pat.

It's clear which side Case is on. Pat Toomey, not so much.

January 12, 2018

Executive Time

Dear America

Dear America,

Stop acting so shocked that some 70 year-old, white guy from Queens is racist.

(Especially as he's said and done a zillion racist things to date.)

Shithole Countries - Our Racist President

First, the news:
President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt they help the United States economically.
Some reactions.

Locally, the P-G ran with the AP story - which included this opening paragraph:
President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the U.S. should permit more immigrants from “shithole countries” after senators discussed revamping rules affecting entrants from Africa and Haiti, according to three people briefed on the conversation.
Though they later tweeted:
The Philadelphia Inquirer also ran with the AP story but kept Trump's commentary in the headline:
Trump: Why allow immigrants from 'shithole countries'?
Samson X Horne at the Trib had a reaction piece posted last night. (Note: This is an update. I hadn't found Horne's article until after I posted this morning.)

We'll keep you posted as to which Pennsylvania politicians and news sources defend Trump's racism and who denounces it.

Basically, the question here is: Which side are you (and they) on?

January 11, 2018

We Report - You Decide (Trump, Treason, And Arpaio's Birth Certificate)

Donald Trump, only this morning:
Now read this (many thanks to the OPJ for posting this on her Facebook page).

While popping back and forth into that twitter thread, take a look at Snopes:
The research was actually initiated in 2015 by “a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump,” according to the New York Times, but when that source of funding dried up the San Francisco law firm Perkins Coie brokered a deal to keep it going on behalf of the Democrats.
Then this from CNN:
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the author of the opposition research dossier on then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia was acting on his own volition when he went to the FBI because he was concerned that a presidential candidate was being blackmailed, according to the 312-page transcript of his testimony.
But you know...Crooked Hillary Emails and all that.

I'm surprised Trump didn't mention his pardoned-pal Arpaio:
Controversial former Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Wednesday called former President Barack Obama's birth certificate a "phony document" in an interview on CNN.

"No doubt about it, we have the evidence, I'm not going to go into all the details, yeah, it's a phony document," Arpaio said on "Cuomo Primetime."
That was yesterday.

This is the political reality for our friends in Trump-ville: Trump is great, the Democrat Party and it's espionage branch (the FBI) sought to skew the election, and Obama's birth certificate is a fake.

January 9, 2018

My FORTY-THIRD Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:
Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again. Your constituent who also writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

Senator, I need to ask you about Fire and Fury, the book by Michael Wolff. (If you don't already have a copy, you should soon as CNN reported that Tom Steyer bought one for every member of Congress.)

Here's the thing. Prior to its publication, Donald Trump's attorneys sent a letter to both the author and the publisher of the book demanding that the publisher immediately cease and desist publishing, disseminating or releasing any portion of the book.

Only this week I received a letter from you outlining your support of the First Amendment, an amendment to our Constitution that, among other things, guarantees free speech - especially political speech.

Seeing that he's president and that this book is about the goings on inside the White House, how is it not protected by the First Amendment? Furthermore, how are any of Trump's demands that the book not be published or distributed not Unconstitutional?

All else aside, this is a chilling moment for the defense of the First Amendment, don't you think?  So I'll ask you again, which side are you on?

I await your response.
And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.


January 8, 2018

In Case You Missed It - Oprah, Last Night

And Harper's Bazaar has a transcript:
In 1964, I was a little girl sitting on the linoleum floor of my mother's house in Milwaukee watching Anne Bancroft present the Oscar for best actor at the 36th Academy Awards. She opened the envelope and said five words that literally made history:" The winner is Sidney Poitier." Up to the stage came the most elegant man I ever remembered. His tie was white, his skin was black—and he was being celebrated. I'd never seen a black man being celebrated like that. I tried many, many times to explain what a moment like that means to a little girl, a kid watching from the cheap seats as my mom came through the door bone tired from cleaning other people's houses. But all I can do is quote and say that the explanation in Sidney's performance in Lilies of the Field: "Amen, amen, amen, amen."

In 1982, Sidney received the Cecil B. DeMille award right here at the Golden Globes and it is not lost on me that at this moment, there are some little girls watching as I become the first black woman to be given this same award. It is an honor—it is an honor and it is a privilege to share the evening with all of them and also with the incredible men and women who have inspired me, who challenged me, who sustained me and made my journey to this stage possible. Dennis Swanson who took a chance on me for A.M. Chicago. Saw me on the show and said to Steven Spielberg, she's Sophia in 'The Color Purple.' Gayle who's been a friend and Stedman who's been my rock.

I want to thank the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. We know the press is under siege these days. We also know it's the insatiable dedication to uncovering the absolute truth that keeps us from turning a blind eye to corruption and to injustice. To—to tyrants and victims, and secrets and lies. I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this: what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have. And I'm especially proud and inspired by all the women who have felt strong enough and empowered enough to speak up and share their personal stories. Each of us in this room are celebrated because of the stories that we tell, and this year we became the story.

But it's not just a story affecting the entertainment industry. It's one that transcends any culture, geography, race, religion, politics, or workplace. So I want tonight to express gratitude to all the women who have endured years of abuse and assault because they, like my mother, had children to feed and bills to pay and dreams to pursue. They're the women whose names we'll never know. They are domestic workers and farm workers. They are working in factories and they work in restaurants and they're in academia, engineering, medicine, and science. They're part of the world of tech and politics and business. They're our athletes in the Olympics and they're our soldiers in the military.

And there's someone else, Recy Taylor, a name I know and I think you should know, too. In 1944, Recy Taylor was a young wife and mother walking home from a church service she'd attended in Abbeville, Alabama, when she was abducted by six armed white men, raped, and left blindfolded by the side of the road coming home from church. They threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone, but her story was reported to the NAACP where a young worker by the name of Rosa Parks became the lead investigator on her case and together they sought justice. But justice wasn't an option in the era of Jim Crow. The men who tried to destroy her were never persecuted. Recy Taylor died ten days ago, just shy of her 98th birthday. She lived as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men. But their time is up. Their time is up.

Their time is up. And I just hope—I just hope that Recy Taylor died knowing that her truth, like the truth of so many other women who were tormented in those years, and even now tormented, goes marching on. It was somewhere in Rosa Parks' heart almost 11 years later, when she made the decision to stay seated on that bus in Montgomery, and it's here with every woman who chooses to say, "Me too." And every man—every man who chooses to listen.

In my career, what I've always tried my best to do, whether on television or through film, is to say something about how men and women really behave. To say how we experience shame, how we love and how we rage, how we fail, how we retreat, persevere, and how we overcome. I've interviewed and portrayed people who've withstood some of the ugliest things life can throw at you, but the one quality all of them seem to share is an ability to maintain hope for a brighter morning, even during our darkest nights. So I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say 'Me too' again.
In case you missed it.

January 7, 2018

The Trib Braintrust, You're Still Alive, My Old Friends!

Yep, they're still around and they're still not doing their homework.

Take a look at this from today's Op-Ed page at the Tribune-Review:
PennLive reports one Mummers group in Philly's New Year's Day parade staged a skit protesting that city's soda tax, while another Mummers group's skit advocating free, universal health care targeted U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey as “Senator Toomer.” No word yet on whether Eagles fans who swore off NFL games over protesting players “taking a knee” have sworn off Mummers for politicizing the parade.
Just from reading the text, you could safely assume that the politicization of the Mummers Parade is both 1) new and 2) limited to that one group.

If you assumed that you'd be wrong.

For a hint at how wrong the braintrust is on this you'd only have to go to the very PennLive article they reference (but don't link to) above. Here are the first four sentences of that article:
The Philadelphia Mummers Parade isn't afraid to get political.

Commentary on government has been a common feature during the skits put on by the Mummers' Comics Brigades.

This year was no different.

The Vaudevillains New Years Brigade, part of the Murray Comics, criticized Senator Pat Toomey and called for universal healthcare in its skit "Party Artery."
The Braintrust seems offended that the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania is the target of some social satire (aw snowflakes, are your feelings hurt when they made fun of Senator Toomey?).

Funny how the Trib editorial board didn't seem offended when this different group politicized the parade  a few years ago:

Even when The Trib published an AP story on the event.

Then there's this photo:

According to Philly Curbed, it's from 1938. Can you see the float?  No? Here, I'll zoom in for yinz:

See what it is? It's a float protesting in 1938 the possible US involvement in an upcoming European War. Can't get any more political than that. And that was 80 years ago.

But somehow, to my good friends on the Trib Braintrust, the politicization of the Mummers Parade started this year with a protest against Senator Pat Toomey.

It didn't and the braintrust STILL needs to do its homework better.

January 6, 2018

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter (But Doesn't Get Around To ANSWERING It)

Yesterday, I received an email from Senator Pat Toomey.

It begins like this:
Thank you for contacting me regarding First Amendment protections for free speech. I appreciate hearing from you.
So like all the other responses from the Senator, we now have to figure out WHICH letter he's answering.

Turns out closest letter (and you'll see why it's not a match in a bit) is this one, my thirty-eighth dated November 28, 2017.

Hey, that's a thirty-eight day turn-around, interesting coincidence!

Anyway, what was I asking in that letter?

What triggered it was this tweet from the early-bedded cheeseburger-eater:
I contrasted that tweet with responses from conservative columnist David Frum and former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden who each in his own way protested Trump's disrespect of the First Amendment press protections.

And from there, I asked Senator Pat Toomey a simple question: Whose side are you on?

And this is how Pat Toomey, Junior Senator from Pennsylvania responded:
As you know, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Specifically, the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Free speech is a fundamental right that is expressly protected in the First Amendment. Attempts to punish or repress speech undermine the basic purpose of the First Amendment and erode the foundational importance of the "marketplace of ideas" in contributing to a free, open, and prosperous society.

I share your concerns regarding preserving free speech, and I value your input. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind on this issue should related legislation come before the Senate for consideration.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Take a close look. I was specifically asking about Donald Trump's assault on the First Amendment as it applies to a free press and Toomey responded with a defense of the First Amendment as it applies to free speech.


There is really only one right answer to this, Senator, and you failed to provide it.

January 5, 2018

I May Have To As My Senator (Senator Toomey) About This Again

Remember my 22nd open letter to Senator Pat Toomey?

I'm sure you do.

It was about the report in the Washington Post that said that Donald Trump "personally dictated" the  letter describing Donald Jr's meeting with some Russians in Trump Tower. A letter later shown to be false.

I asked if Toomey was OK with the President of the United States misleading the American people like that.

So what's changed?

Mr. Mueller has also been examining a false statement that the president reportedly dictated on Air Force One in July in response to an article in The Times about a meeting that Trump campaign officials had with Russians in 2016. A new book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” by Michael Wolff, says that the president’s lawyers believed that the statement was “an explicit attempt to throw sand into the investigation’s gears,” and that it led one of Mr. Trump’s spokesmen to quit because he believed it was obstruction of justice.
It's from the latest reporting about Mueller's investigation into Trump's possible obstruction of justice.

Yea, I might have to ask Senator Toomey again about that letter.

January 4, 2018

Our Nation's Evangelicals STILL Support Trump

It simply boggles the mind.

NBC's Katy Tur tweeted this:
The Text:
Trump liked to say that one of the things that made life worth living was getting your friends' wives into bed. In pursuing a friend's wife, he would try to persuade the wive that her husband was perhaps not what she thought. Then he'd have his secretary ask the friend into his office; once the friend arrived, Trump would engage in what was, for him, more or less constant sexual banter. Do you still like having sex with your wife? How often? You must have had a better fuck than your wife? Tell me about it. I have girls coming in from Los Angeles at three o'clock. We can go upstairs and have a great time. I promise...And all the while Trump would have his friend's wife on teh speakerphone, listening in. [Italics in original]
Take a look at some recent poll data. In a piece at The Christian Post titled:
Trump's Job Approval Among White Evangelicals Drops 17 Points, Pew Poll Finds
We find this curious pair of paragraphs:
Although the Trump administration has given some conservative evangelicals much to cheer about through judicial nominations, pro-life policy initiatives and orders to protect religious freedom, only 61 percent of white evangelicals surveyed by Pew for the December survey said that they approved of Trump's handling of the presidency.

According to Pew, the 61 percent approval among white evangelicals represents a 17-percentage-point decline from the 78 percent of white evangelicals who said they approved of Trump's handling of the office when surveyed in the February.
Ok, so while a 17 percentage point drop is significant, it still shows that 6 out of 10 evangelicals - those God-fearing biblical literalists who, presumably, have read and understood these two commandments:
  • Thou shalt not commit adultery
  • Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Or this from the book of Proverbs:
There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-19)
STILL support Donald Trump.

I'm no expert, but I'm thinking Trump's wife seduction plan hits on a few of these (The heart that devises wicked plans, the false witness, sowing discord).

How can they still like this guy?

NOTE: The first version of this blog post omitted a few sentences from the quotation of Wolff's book. I have corrected this. Apologies all around.

January 2, 2018

My FORTY-SECOND Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:
Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again. Your constituent who also writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I want to ask you, again, about Donald Trump. As I am sure you already know he recently gave an interview with the New York Times in which he made a number of false statements. The Times itself has written about ten of them. For example he said that:
  • "[The Democrats] made the Russian story up as a hoax, as a ruse, as an excuse for losing an election..." - when in fact as the Times reported, "The United States government sounded the alarms long before Mr. Trump was elected."
  • Senator Feinstein said "there was no collusion" when in fact she said that she hadn't yet seen any evidence, not that there wasn't any. NPR, in their fact check reported that a month later Senator Feinstein "believed an obstruction of justice case was coming together against the president."
He also said that he believes he has the "absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department."

Here's my question: Do you still support this man as president? He lies to the public (he even lied about "saving coal" even though the facts don't support him) and then asserts that he has total authority over what should be, in a free society, an independent law enforcement agency. Is this wise? Is this good for the country I know we both love?

I await your response.
And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.