Torture Is Immoral. Covering It Up, Also Immoral

From the Washington Post:

President Trump on Tuesday chose CIA veteran Gina Haspel to be the spy agency’s next director, picking a woman who spent multiple tours overseas and is respected by the workforce but is deeply tied to the agency’s use of brutal interrogation measures on terrorism suspects.

Torture.

Back to the WaPost:

Haspel was in charge of one of the CIA’s “black site” prisons where detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harrowing interrogation measures widely condemned as torture.

When those methods were exposed and their legality came under scrutiny, Haspel was among a group of CIA officials involved in the decision to destroy videotapes of interrogation sessions that left some detainees on the brink of physical collapse.

Torture and then covering up the torture.

Before we proceed, there's a necessary correction of the word "detainees" in that first paragraph. Propublica has it:

On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002.

The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.

However:

The New York Times, which also reported last year that Haspel oversaw the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and another detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, published a second story this week making the same point. It quoted an unnamed former senior CIA official who said Haspel did not become base chief until late October of 2002. According to the Times, she was in charge when al-Nashiri was waterboarded three times. [Emphasis added.]

The use of the plural "detainees" is inaccurate as she was only in charge during the waterboarding of one person, not more than one. This, however, does not change the fact that Haspell was in charge when al-Nashiri was waterboarded.

So that's still torture, just less of it.

We've written extensively about how torture is a war crime. Gina Haspel oversaw a prison where one human being was tortured. Even if she was just following orders, the Geneva Convention states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. (Part 1, Article 2, Sections 2-3)

She's a war criminal. Everyone in the chain of command above her is a war criminal.

Then there's the cover-up.

From Frontline:

When news of the ["enhanced interrogation"]program was first published in the Washington Post in 2005, Jose Rodriguez, who at the time ran the agency’s Counterterrorism Center, grew concerned that the videotapes might be made public.

“I was told if those videotapes had ever been seen, the reaction around the world would not have been survivable,” Jane Mayer, a New Yorker reporter, told FRONTLINE. “So the CIA is in a panic. They’ve got these red-hot videotapes on their hands.”

As Rodriguez later wrote in his memoir, in 2005, Haspel, then his chief of staff, “drafted a cable” at his direction ordering that the tapes be destroyed. Then, he said, he “took a deep breath of weary satisfaction and hit Send.”

Covering up the torture.

I don't think this will make much of a difference to Trump or his true-believers. He thinks he can just bring back torture by executive fiat as well as order the deaths of suspected terrorists' families.

Torture is immoral. Torture is illegal. Prosecute the torture.

My FIFTY-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 - a constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I'd like to ask you about this weekend's rally in Moon Township. During Donald Trump's speech he referred to an old appearance he'd made on NBC's "Meet The Press" by saying, "It's 1999, I'm on Meet the Press, a show now headed by 'sleepy eyes Chuck Todd.' He's a sleeping son of a bitch, I'll tell you." The crowd, as you probably already know, roared in approval.

This is not the first time he's attacked the Constitutionally protected news media. During the same speech he referred to "a certain anchor on CNN" as "fake as hell." He tweeted about the New York Times reporter who broke the story about Trump in discussions with a Clinton impeachment attorney as "a Hillary flunky."

And at this time I'd like to remind you of a letter I sent you almost exactly a year ago. Then, Donald Trump referred to the media with the Stalinist "enemy of the people."

So here's my question: Is any of this appropriate behavior for a sitting President of the United States? Yes or no?

I await your response.

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

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Forty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Forty-ninth letter - no response so far 
• Fiftieth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-first letter - no response so far

More On Rick Saccone (The Trump And "P-G" Endorsements)

Tomorrow is the day voters in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional district choose which candidate:

• Conor Lamb, the Democrat - a retired Marine Corps officer and former federal prosecutor
• Rick Saccone, The Republican - a torture supporter and religious zealot

will fill out disgraced Republican Tim Murphy's term in the House of Representatives.

In the past few hours, there's been some fallout from the events of this weekend:

• The endorsement by the Toledo Block Bugler (formerly known as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• The endorsement by pussy-grabber in chief, Donald J Trump

First there's this from the Washington Post about the Bugler's endorsement:

The largest newspaper in southwest Pennsylvania endorsed the Republican candidate ahead of Tuesday’s special congressional election with a rationale unlike any cited in other races: Democratic control of the House would hurt the country by setting the stage for a presidential impeachment.

I didn't write about that angle in my own analysis of the endorsement yesterday but it certainly fits with a publisher who's doing what he can to make nice with the orange vulgarity now sitting in the Oval Office.

The ridiculousness of the Bugler's endorsement is shown by these two snippets from The WaPost:

Neither Rick Saccone nor Conor Lamb, the Republican and Democratic nominees in the 18th Congressional District, has talked about impeachment during the campaign.

And:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who would chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party won a majority, told The Washington Post this year that impeachment would not be pursued unless both parties agreed to it, as removal of the president would require a supermajority vote in the Senate.

And yet the Bugler's endorser says it's a reason to back Saccone.

Driving the point home, the endorsement goes on:

The prospect of a Democratic House may please partisans, but it might be bad for the country. The Democrats in the House have only one agenda item at the moment, and it isn’t health care or jobs. It is impeachment. Regardless of whether one likes this president or his policies, one must ask what the consequence for the country will be if we dive into so great a distraction.

Yes, so if Trump colluded with the Russians for a win and/or if he then covered up whatever happened and/or if he's obstructing the subsequent investigation in any way and/or if he violated FEC laws by paying off the pornstar he schtupped (repeatedly) to keep her quiet, that should all be ignored because it will be a distraction for the country.  Rule of law be damned.

Then there's this from inside the White House itself:

There's a reason Trump said hardly anything about Republican candidate Rick Saccone during a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday night that was supposed to promote his candidacy.

And this is it:

Trump thinks Saccone is a terrible, "weak" candidate, according to four sources who've spoken to the president about him.

So if Saccone wins, Trump takes the credit. If Saccone loses, he's already prepared the narrative that it's not Trump's fault.

The Post-Gazette Endorses...RICK SACCONE

Think back to when we were a world-class republic (it was only a little more than one year ago) and then remember that there was this raging election going on for the future of the country. One candidate (the Democrat - a woman) had a great deal of governmental experience (with a resume that included Secretary of State) and the other (the Republican - a man) was an admitted harasser of women who lied/misspoke/got things factually wrong more often than he pumped his orange hair solid with hairspray.

Hundreds of newspapers endorsed the former. Six endorsed the latter. One-two-three-four-five-six.

Showing the first signs of being infected with teh crazie, once left-of-center Post-Gazette published an editorial that went a different route. They went all-neutral and refused to endorse either candidate.

To paraphrase Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

If you are neutral in situations of sexual harassment, you have chosen the side of the harasser. If the elephant has admitted to some non-consensual pussy-grabbing and you say that you are neutral, no one should appreciate your neutrality.

Then there was this lil bit o'racism that was so nasty the Pittsburgh Foundation and Heinz Endowments felt compelled to respond with this:

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.

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum. In Pittsburgh, with the passing of one ultra-rich right-wing nutjob (Richard Mellon Scaife) and the shrinkage of his media outlet - the Tribune-Review - from national to regional importance, I suppose that left open room for another ultra rich right-wing nutjob (John Block) to expand his media outlet - the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - into the political vacuum of thus created.

 And so, we can see today's endorsement of Rick Saccone.

Let's see what the Toledo Block Bugler has to say about Tim Murphy, the guy they want Saccone to replace. If you don't get the reference, that's ok google it. The right wing Tribune-Review editorial board used to taunt the P-G by calling it the "Block Bugler" because John Block owned both the Toledo Blade AND the Post-Gazette. Now back to our story:

It was pragmatic, moderate conservatism — not extremism — that sustained Mr. Murphy for almost 15 years in office. The issues he pursued, such as an overhaul of mental health law and saving the national veterans cemetery in Cecil, had practical benefits for his constituents.

Hmm...they think Murphy was a moderate conservative. I wonder how they'd explain these ratings:

• 100% rating from the National Right To Life Committee (exceptionally ironic considering how and why Murphy was forced to resign) 
• 60% rating from the John Birch Society (60%! - from The BIRCHERS!)
• 100% rating from the Family Resource Council (again, ironic considering the affair and the talk of abortion)
• 93% rating from the NRA

This is a moderate conservative to the Toledo Block Bugler?  Evidence that the frame itself has already silently skewed rightward.

When describing Saccone, they go with:

A former Air Force counterintelligence officer who later worked in North Korea and studied the Middle East in Egypt, Mr. Saccone would bring a valuable resume to Congress. He is also a college professor and a four-term state legislator. Given his time of life, he is 60, and varied background, he is equipped to be a strong and independent voice for the 18th.

Independent voice? Look at what they leave out of Saccone's experience.  A decade ago he wrote:

Our politicians should support coerced interrogations and stop demagoguing the issue. Respectable newspapers should refuse to print stories, such as the one about the three young men and only continue to blur the debate.

And by "coerced interrogations" he meant waterboarding, but only when done by trained professionals and fall "short of those that leave long-lasting or permanent physical harm."

Seven years ago he said:

Basically, torture is an act intentionally intended to inflict severe and long-lasting physical and mental pain, including amputation, scarring, burning, maiming, mutilation. Coercion means a much lower threshold of pain or discomfort such as stress positions, pushing, temperature change, meal manipulation, loud music, exploiting phobias, trickery, yelling, etc. If done skillfully and in the right circumstances, water-boarding or WB is very effective and causes no long-lasting damage. It is used to train our special forces so I don't consider it torture.

Too bad that Rick Saccone doesn't get to define "torture" as it's defined by UN Convention and US Law and it's always a war crime:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Then there's this lil bit o'crazie - legislating 2012 as the year of The Bible while at roughly the same time co-sponsoring Anti-Sharia legislation .  So I guess the "good" religion can be lauded while the "bad" religion can be banned.

How is any of that constitutional?

And this is the guy the Toledo Block Bugler thinks would be a better representative than Conor Lamb.

This is not the Post-Gazette we knew.

This is the new right wing Toledo Block Bugler.

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter (And Deflects Off The Real Question To BS Me)

Yesterday, I received via the Post Office, another Toomey response letter.

Dated February 21 of this year, it begins thusly:

Thank you for contacting me about the recently-enacted budget agreement, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-123). I appreciate hearing from you.

Still good to know he appreciates hearing from me. I guess I'll have to keep writing to him. And let me take a moment to encourage anyone reading this to contact Senator Toomey - or any/all of their own elected representatives - with any concerns they might have. Snail mail offers the best chance of a response or so I've heard.

Anyway, let's go see if we can find out what letter of mine triggered this response from Toomey and/or his office.  Toomey writes in his fourth paragraph:

Specific to your concerns, the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA18) funded the government through March 23, 2018, while suspending the debt limit until March of next year.

Bipartisan Budget Act? When did I ask about the Bipartisan Budget Act? What is the BBA18 anyway?

Since Toomey's letter is dated the February 21st, we can safely assume it's not a response to any of my letters written after that date, time being a strict progression of cause to effect (on the other hand, some think that time, seen from a non-linear and or a non-subjective viewpoint, is more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey "stuff". We report you decide.) 

There may be a clue here. It's a pamphlet put out by the American Academy of Family Physicians.  This is from the first paragraph:

After a brief government shutdown, on February 9, 2018, the Senate and House passed the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA18, Public Law 115-123), funding the government through March 23, 2018. The spending package was strongly bipartisan, passing in the Senate 71-28 and in the House 245-182. The bill includes many important health provisions, and the AAFP released a statement from Dr. Michael Munger, AAFP President, praising many aspects of the bill prior to its passage. The AAFP also joined five other frontline physician organizations in releasing a joint statement urging the bill’s passage.

Wait, so the BBA18 was passed in response to the brief gov'ment shut down in February. That's what Toomey's talking about? When did any of this come up in any of my letters?

You simply won't believe where. It's here, hidden in Letter 45 - where I open with this:

I was going to ask you about the government shutdown but since it's more or less resolved at this point, I'll move on (but I mean really, the GOP controls the White House AND The Senate AND The House of Representatives. How is it that you couldn't pass a budget on time? YOU OWN THE STORE.)

And that's all I had to say about that. I then quickly moved to the actual reason for writing that particular letter:

No, Senator. I am going to have to ask you about Stephanie Clifford (who, as you know, works in adult film industry under the name "Stormy Daniels").

And then here's the question:

Senator, let me ask you this week's question. Given your solid standing among the nation's social conservatives (100% rating from the Christian Coalition, for example) would you still have voted for Donald Trump in 2016 had you known that 1) he'd had unprotected sex with a woman who wasn't his wife and 2) paid her off in order for the public not to know about it, especially since that pay off might have violated FEC rules regarding an "unreported in-kind contribution" to the Trump Campaign?

As politically cynical as I am, it's completely shocking to me that Senator Pat Toomey and/or his office would deflect from that set of questions with what amounts to a full page ad regarding his disapproval of a bipartisan budget deal (and here's an interesting bit: the no votes were also bipartisan as ten Democrats and one Independent - Bernie Sanders of Vermont - all voted against).

Let me ask you, Senator. Did you really just try to avoid answering a question about your support of Donald Trump - a man who paid for the silence of the adult film actress he slept with - in order to distract a constituent with some BS about your objection to too much gov'ment spending??

Say it ain't so, Senator. Say it ain't so.

If I'm wrong, Senator, drop me a line with what I got wrong. You know the address.

Text of the letter:

Thank you for contacting me about the recently-enacted budget agreement, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-123). I appreciate hearing from you.

Since coming to the U.S. Senate, of of my highest priorities has been reining in our nation's unsustainable deficits and spending. The United States has run persistent budget deficits since 2001 due to rising levels of federal spending, with this year's spending expected to exceed $4 trillion. As a result, our national debt is now more than $20 trillion. The consequences of since fiscal mismanagement will be devastating to future generations who will be saddled with debt and a government they can no longer afford.

The federal treasury does not suffer from a lack of tax revenue. Excessive federal spending that continues to grow at a faster pace than our economy is the primary cause of persistent federal budget deficits. Federal revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has equaled 17.4% over the last fifty years, nearly three points below the average level of federal spending. Both prior to and after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, spending growth is projected to significantly outpace revenue into the future. It is long past time for the federal government to live within its means by curbing runaway spending.

Specific to your concerns, the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA18) funded the government through March 23, 2018, while suspending the debt limit until March of next year. The bill also removed statutory caps on discretionary spending that were imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 - the fourth time in the past six years that Congress has done so. While this budget agreement propose a badly needed spending increase to strengthen national security, rebuild our neglected military, and honor our commitment to veterans, it unfortunately adds $131 billion in non-security spending, without any real, meaningful offsetting spending reductions.

On February 9, 2018, the House and Senate both agreed to BBA18. Although I voted against this budget deal, the legislation passed by a 71 to 28 vote in the Senate and was signed into law later that day. This budget agreement failed to address our overspending problem - in fact, it makes the problem worse by increasing spending.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Rick Saccone Was Quoted In The Trib And In ONE SENTENCE Showed His Disrespect

Take a look at this from The Trib:

He (Conor Lamb) has really no life experience at all. He has one political appointee job. He never worked in the private sector. I've had 40 years of life experience in education, diplomacy, the military, government and international business. There is no match for that. If this were any other race than a special election, there would be no contest. [Emphasis added.]

Let's look at Conor Lamb's "life experience" shall we?

Since Saccone's quoted in The Trib, let's start with what the Trib has to say about Lamb's bio, shall we?  Here it is:

Lamb graduated from Central Catholic High School in 2002 and the University of Pennsylvania in 2006. He earned his law degree from Penn in 2009.

Lamb served in the U.S. Marine Corps prior to being appointed as an assistant U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh in 2014. He worked in that office for three years.

That's five years in the Marine Corps.

Mt Lebanon Democrats have more:

Prior to his appointment as a federal prosecutor, Lamb was a Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. He completed active duty service in 2013 and joined the Marine Corps Reserves.

A Marine Corps Officer - now in the Marine Corps Reserves.

And this is how Rick Saccone described that time: "REALLY NO LIFE EXPERIENCE AT ALL."

My FIFTY-FIRST 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, the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I'd like to ask you, yet again, about something Donald Trump said recently.

Recently to a crowd of Republican donors at his private club in Florida, Trump reportedly praised China's President Xi Jinping for being able to consolidate his power over that communist country, adding that "He's now president for life." Trump then added, to the laughing approval of that crowd, "Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."

There's some question as to whether he was joking.

Here's this week's set of questions: Do you think he was joking? If so, do you think that's an acceptable thing for a leader, who's term-limited by the same Constitution he swore to uphold, to be joking about? What do you think your response (or indeed, the responses of your fellow members of the GOP) would have been had the previous (Democratic) President joked about exactly the same thing?

I await your response.

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

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Forty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Forty-ninth letter - no response so far 
• Fiftieth letter - no response so far

Why Is This NOT Surprising? (EPA Chief Pruitt DOUBTS Science - Evolution, This Time)

Granted, this was 2005 and that was a dozen years ago (more than enough time to become educated) but this is hardly surprising coming from someone already on record doubting Climate Science:

“There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint,” Pruitt said on an Oklahoma radio program in 2005. https://t.co/20oZv5lOG8 pic.twitter.com/i8QpcYvfkQ

— POLITICO (@politico) March 2, 2018

Transcript:

I think the basis of humanism is evolution and there aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint so I believe that there is great establishment concerns in that situation.

There's more from Politico:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005.

Pruitt, who at the time was a state senator, also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today." And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”

Of course the defense of the science denier is obvious and obviously strawman:

Asked whether the administrator’s skepticism about a major foundation of modern science such as evolution could conflict with the agency's mandate to make science-based decisions, spokesman Jahan Wilcox told POLITICO that “if you're insinuating that a Christian should not serve in capacity as EPA administrator, that is offensive and a question that does not warrant any further attention."

Wave the bloody shirt, why doncha.

For the record, it's not about a Christian serving as EPA administrator (as the EPA Administrator during the Obama Administration is a Christian - a Catholic, specifically). It's about someone holding that office who denies the validity of one of the foundations of modern science - evolution.

On the one hand there's Scott Pruitt, climate science denier, who thinks "there aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution" and on the other hand there's this statement:

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. 
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so. 
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends. 
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

The "We" in the first sentence refers to all these scientific academies:

Albanian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
Australian Academy of Science
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Académie des Sciences, France
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
The Academy of Athens, Greece
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Royal Irish Academy
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Mongolian Academy of Sciences
Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
Polish Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Singapore National Academy of Sciences
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society, UK
US National Academy of Sciences
Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
African Academy of Sciences
The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

Evolution is a fact. Scott Pruitt, EPA Administrator is wrong on the science. Again.

NEWSFLASH! The Republicans Are Lying About Conor Lamb

Yea, I know. WHAT. A. SURPRISE.

Let's remember that the GOP is the party of:

• Benghazi!!
• Obama's fake Kenyan heritage
• John Kerry's "fake" war heroism

So it's hardly surprising that the GOP's gone all truther on Marine Corp Reserve Major Conor Lamb.

Case in point - the "drug kingpin" TV ad. I'm sure you've seen it. It's on my TV every 25 seconds or so.

The (Conservative) Free Beacon has the GOP frame:

The campaign arm of House Republicans on Wednesday released an advertisement blasting Pennsylvania Democrat Conor Lamb for negotiating a plea bargain with a drug kingpin while the nationwide opioid epidemic devastated American families

The P-G has the facts:

He was one of nearly 50 people indicted in Fayette and Washington counties following an FBI wiretap investigation and announced at a news conference in January in which U.S. Attorney David Hickton said interconnected drug rings were “menacing neighborhoods” in Fayette County.

Saunders was charged in September with 270 counts of laundering drug money as well as conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine. This winter he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and took responsibility for the money-laundering.

And then there's the official press release:

In addition to the sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, Saunders will forfeit the following property to the United States: a 2008 BMW sedan; five luxury watches and a necklace; $325,120.00 in cash; his home in Uniontown; the proceeds of the sale of a property in Uniontown; a 9mm pistol; and a money judgment of $100,000.00.

A drug dealer off the streets for 10 years and the forfeiture of hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and stuff - that's the "weaker sentence" the GOP wants you to fret over.

FactCheck called this a "weak case" and WTAE's Bob Mayo interviewed Pitt Law Professor David Harris who says (at 0:57):

He succeeded. He got a severe penalty to the central charge in the case. That is what every prosecutor is after.

And yet the GOP truthers are trying to convince you that something else entirely happened.

Check the facts and remember who's been lying to you.

My FIFTIETH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey (UPDATED)

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'd like to take a step back from the many Trump scandals now plaguing this nation and ask you about the direction of your political party, the G.O.P.

Recently at a CPAC conference, conservative columnist Mona Charen asked "How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump?"  And for that she was booed by members of the audience and security had to escort her from the hall.

In her follow-up in the NY-Times, she paints for her fellow conservatives a rather bleak picture of the current "heavily Trumpified" Republican Party and calls for her fellow conservatives to speak out against what she calls "this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism."

So here's my question: Is she right about your party? And if you believe she is, when will you start to speak out against the brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism?

I await your response.

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

The Senator responded (kinda sorta) to this letter here.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Forty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Forty-ninth letter - no response so far

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter (But Don't Think For A Minute He ANSWERED It)

Yesterday, I received a letter in the post (as it was called in the moving pictures) from one of my Senators, Senator Pat Toomey.

He begins:

Thank you for contacting me in regards to the recent false missile alert in Hawaii. I appreciate hearing from you.

A slight shift in the opening. I am used to seeing "Thank you for contacting me about" rather than "in regards to" but whatever.

Let's go see to what letter he's referring. It's dated February 12, 2018. So we can safely assume it's not anything after that date.

As far as I can tell, I've only once asked Senator Toomey about anything Hawaiian - here.

Here's how I set up my question:

A few days ago, Hawaii was rocked with a false ballistic missile alarm. For nearly 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.

Which is good because here's how Toomey set up his response:

On January 13, 2018, an employee of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency initiated a false alarm about an incoming ballistic missile on the state's own emergency management alert system. It took almost 40 minutes for officials to correct the error. This incident is a clear reminder that the United States must continually improve its readiness against threats to our homeland.

So glad we settled that.

Here's my question:

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?

To which Senator Toomey responded with:

On December 21, 2017, I voted in favor of legislation (H.R. 1370) that funded the government through January 19, 2018 in order to avoid a disruptive government shutdown. This continuing resolution also provided an additional $4.7 billion for improving our missile defense system. Among the funds appropriated was $1.24 billion for the Department of Defense "to detect, defeat, and defend against the use of ballistic missiles.

Our country must remain vigilant in the face of growing threats to our national security, especially from rouge states that are developing advanced ballistic missile technology such as Iran and North Korea. Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Nothing, absolutely nothing about Donald Trump and his horrid non response the false alarm - which was the actual point of my question.

Verdict: a response but not an answer. Another swing and a miss, Pat.

BTW, I didn't typo in my Toomey transcript. He really does call Iran and North Korea "rouge" states.

Here's a detail to prove it:

Here's the entire letter:

I wonder how many more of Toomey's constituents have written him about the Hawaii false alarm only to learn that North Korea is a rouge state?

Meanwhile, Outside

Even with all the other very important news happening, it's still getting warmer outside.

From the scientists at NOAA:

The January 2018 temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). January 2018 marks the 42nd consecutive January (since 1977) and the 397th consecutive month (since January 1985) with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. This was the fifth highest temperature for January in the 1880–2018 record. The last four years (2015–2018) rank among the five highest Januarys on record. The global land and ocean temperature during January has increased at an average rate of +0.07°C (+0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase is twice as great since 1975.

Then there's this from the scientists at NASA:

Earth's global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

And yet a month or so ago, Donald Trump said this about the climate:

The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so okay, they’re at a record level.

Which turns out to be exactly incorrect (unless Trump meant "a record low level."). From some other scientists at NASA:

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.

Take a look at what the science is saying:

Ha. Record levels.

Market Square, In A Gentle Rain

In quiet dignity, they stand.


They stand against the violence.

The GOP Is Lying About Conor Lamb

Yea, how is that a surprise?

You've seen the ad on your TEEVEE. It's the one from the Congressional Leadership Fund that contains this bit of fake news about how Lamb worked in the Obama Administration:

...that negotiated the Iranian deal that gave billions to the leading funder of terrorism.

Um, they do know that when that money was returned to Iran in 2016, Conor Lamb was working as an Assistant District Attorney for Western Pennsylvania and had nothing to do with the deal, right?

Lie #1

And about that word "gave" that they use, they do know it's only half of the more factually correct term "gave back" right? (And that's not counting the interest) - take a look, this is from Reuters:

The United States and Iran on Sunday settled a longstanding claim at the Hague, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest, the State Department said.

The funds were part of a trust fund once used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States but which was tied up for decades in litigation at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

Lie #2
 
Wow two big lies in one little sentence! How much more dishonest can the Trump-defending republicans be?

Sadly, whenever we think Trump's GOP has hit rock bottom in terms of decency/honesty/whatever, they jackhammer their way to even deeper depths of crap.

My FORTY-NINTH 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."

In light of the recent indictments handed down by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller detailing the plans by Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, I'd like to ask you about H.R. 3364 - the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

The bill (now law) provides for sanctions against Russia in response, in part, to that country's interference in the 2016 presidential election. If you had any question about the interference, I'd refer you to Mueller's indictments.

Here's the thing, Senator. Congress voted for this legislation with numbers so big it's veto proof. And then Donald Trump signed it. It is the law of the land.

And yet Trump has so far refused to implement that law.

The Constitution clearly states that the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

So here's my question: Russia meddled with the election that brought Trump to power. Congress passed legislation sanctioning them for that meddling and now Trump won't execute that legislation faithfully. What are you going to do about it? Doing nothing lets him get away with flaunting the Constitution. So what are you doing about it? Which side are you on? Trump's or the Constitution's?

I await your response.

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

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Forty-eighth letter - no response so far

And Now, Ms Emma Gonzalez

You can read and watch her entire speech here.

Some highlights:

I read something very powerful to me today. It was from the point of view of a teacher. And I quote: When adults tell me I have the right to own a gun, all I can hear is my right to own a gun outweighs your student's right to live. All I hear is mine, mine, mine, mine.

Only yesterday we looked at Joe The Plumber, one time Tea Party Darling of the GOP who actually said:

[Y]our dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.

That was four years ago. The right wing meme is still out there, infecting the brains of lots and lots of our conservative friends. How many innocents have had to die so that Joe (and many others in the "pro-life" GOP) can keep and maintain their gun-boners? Viagra ain't got nothing compared a well-stocked gun cabinet.

Back to Ms Gonzalez:

If the President wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should never have happened and maintain telling us how nothing is going to be done about it, I'm going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association.

And:

To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you.

Shame on you.

And Now A Word From The Conscience Of The GOP (A.K.A. Joe The Plumber)

In the event you're wondering how, on God's green Earth and by all that's holy and good, our Republican friends can continue to obstruct sensible gun control legislation, I believe I have an answer for you.

And it comes from Joe The Plumber - remember him?

In an open letter to some previous (mass) shooting victims, JTP wrote:

I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.

Yea, remember that?

In that letter he went on:

[A]nyone calling for more restrictions on American’s rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.

They don’t care about your family or your dead children at all. They sound like they do, whereas I sound uncaring and like I say, harsh. Don’t be fooled – I care about your family and mine. The future of our very liberty lies in the balance of this fight.

So there it is: hidden behind all of the ersatz sincerity of the many "thoughts and prayers" tweets we've read recently from the GOP, is this one thought - your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights.

That's the root of the root and the bud of the bud of their resistance and that's why you Un-American libtards can't unnerstand! It's their constitutional patriotic duty, dammit! They're protecting us all!

It's just that in this setting, the price of "our very liberty" is simply this: In order to make sure that everyone has easy access to firearms, every now and then (and no one knows where or when), in order to protect our safety and liberty, a few schools/theatres/offices will have to be shot up by someone with easy access to lots and lots of guns and ammo. A few people here and there will have to die a bloody and gruesome death in order to guarantee America's Second Amendment rights.

Thanks be to Joe for pointing this out. They should be celebrating the blood on their hands as the price someone else paid for their freedom.

Your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights.

It's Happened. Again. (Florida, Senator Toomey, and NRA Cash)

Another school shooting (this time in Florida) and another round of "thoughts and prayers" from our elected representatives in Congress - both in the Senate and in the House.

However:

Lawmakers sending “thoughts and prayers” in the wake of Wednesday’s deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, are getting slammed for their financial ties to the gun lobby.

Bess Kalb, a writer for “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” is responding to each lawmaker tweeting condolences over the murders by listing how much they’ve taken from the National Rifle Association, which has consistently fought any move to tighten gun control laws.

As they say, all politics is local so let's blatantly copy Ms Kalb's idea and see how this is playing out locally.

Senator Toomey:

My heart breaks for the students and loved ones of those affected by today's terrible school shooting in Florida. Thank you to the first responders for their swift response. Join me in praying for the victims. #stonemanshooting

— Senator Pat Toomey (@SenToomey) February 14, 2018

According to the Penn Live, Senator Toomey is the recipient of $93,000 of the NRA's money.

In response to a "thoughts and prayers" tweet from the head of the Republican National Committee, Ms Kalb tweeted:

In the 2015-2016 election cycle alone, GOP candidates took $17,385,437 from the NRA. https://t.co/mhyQZ9vtli

— Bess Kalb (@bessbell) February 14, 2018

And then:

This is NOT counting the $21 million given to President Trump.

— Bess Kalb (@bessbell) February 15, 2018

So next time you see a "thoughts and prayers" message from a pro-2nd Amendment politician, check to see how much NRA money he or she has received.

Then you can add the line "Brought to you by the NRA" underneath their picture.

And because of the political cover the NRA has purchased, you can also do that with the next picture of the next (because you know there's gonna be another one) mass shooting.

My FORTY-EIGHTH 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'd like to ask you this week about White House security clearances.

CNN is reporting that "Thirty to 40 White House officials and administration political appointees are still operating without full security clearances" - including Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and Rob Porter, who recently resigned under serious allegations of spousal abuse. Reportedly that abuse was one of the obstacles keeping Porter from gaining full security access. It's also been reported that the White House knew about the allegations for some time.

So far Senator you've yet to comment on any security concerns you might have about this situation. You're part of the legislative oversight of the Executive branch (the "checks and balances" written into the Constitution), so let me ask you: Is it acceptable? If so, why? If not, why haven't you said anything about it?

One last question, Senator. If this were a Democratic administration in the White House, do you think you and your Republican colleagues would be similarly silent about the high level lack of security clearances?

I await your response.

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

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4

Toomey Time Round-Up! (Part The Fourth)

So far, I've written 47 letters to Pennsylvania's junior senator, Pat Toomey.  The first round up of letters can be found here. The second, here. The third, here.
Today, it's time for a fourth.

Of letters 33 through 47, Senator Toomey has responded to 5:

• 40th
• 39th (same letter as the 36th)
• 38th  
• 36th (same letter as the 39th
• 33rd

Good for him. He really should do a better job, however, of  meeting with his constituents.  All of them.

So here are the questions between 33 and 47 that Senator Toomey has yet to answer:

• 34th letter - In this letter I ask Toomey if his position that the investigation into possible Russian collusion in the 2016 election were "overblown" has changed, given the then-recent charges filed against Paul Manafort and the guilty plea of George Papadapolous.
• 35th letter - This letter was sent almost exactly a year after election day, 2016. I ask Toomey if he still would have voted for Donald Trump had he known the scandals which followed Trump's election. I ask him if he still would have voted for Trump, to explain why.
• 37th letter - This is the Thanksgiving letter where I point out the things I'm thankful for (a healthy respect for the rule of law, equal protection under the law, etc) and I ask Toomey what he's thankful for.
• 41st letter -  In this letter I ask Toomey what he'd do if Trump were to fire special prosecutor Robert Mueller.
• 42nd letter - In this letter I ask Toomey if he still supports the presidency of Donald Trump given Trump's many many misstatements and other distortions of the truth.
• 43rd letter - In this letter I ask Toomey (in essence) if he agreed with Donald Trump's assault on the First Amendment, given Trump's attempts to stop the publication of the book "Fire and Fury".
• 44th letter - In this letter I ask Toomey if he thought it acceptable behavior for Trump to "casually go about his day" while millions of Hawaiians thought they only had a few hours to live.
• 45th letter - This letter's about the pornstar. I ask Toomey how, given his solid standing among the nation's social conservatives, would he still have voted for Trump had he known that Trump had unprotected sex with a woman who wasn't his wife (and then had her paid off to secure her secrecy).
• 46th letter - This letter is follow up, of sorts, to the 41st letter. I ask Toomey, since we already know that Trump did attempt to fire Robert Mueller, if would support legislation to protect the Special Prosecutor.
• 47th letter - In this letter I ask Toomey, given how Trump has defined "not applauding during a State of the Union Address" as both Un-American and treasonous, if he, Toomey, still supports the presidency of Donald Trump.

These are the unanswered questions in this Volume of Toomey Open Letters.

Senator Toomey RESPONDS to Another Letter

And so quickly!

It was only yesterday when I posted another non-answer response from Senator Pat Toomey.

This one is interesting - not necessarily for what it says but what it represents. I'll explain.

First the letter. It begins with this:

Thank you for contacting me about impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate hearing from you.

IMPEACHMENT? When did I ever ask Senator Toomey about impeachment?

The letter is dated January 31, 2018 so we can safely assume he's not responding to any letter written after that date.

This is a mystery as I've never, as far as I can tell with a google advanced search, specifically asked Senator Toomey about "impeachment." The Senator writes:

As you may know, the U.S. Constitution provides that the President is removable from office "on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

In my 47th open letter to the Senator I do specifically as about treason

In that letter, I ask about Donald Trump's commentary on his State of the Union address, specifically when he (Trump) called out those Democrats who decided not to applaud him as "un-American" and "traitorous." I asked Senator Toomey if he ever felt like he was committing treason whenever he decided not to applaud any part of any Democratic President's State of the Union address. Then there's the question:

If not, then how can you continue to support, as president, a man who just accused some of your Senatorial and Congressional colleagues of committing treason for simply not applauding him enough? The Constitution is very clear on a definition of treason. Political dissent is not a part of it. So which side are you on? Trump's or the Constitution's?

But that's not necessary about Trump's treason but his charge that disloyalty in the Democratic Party equals treason. And in any case it's in a letter written after January 31 so unless there's a Senatorial TARDIS that no one knows about, this can't be about that.

So let's go backwards from there. What are my recent Toomey + Trump letters and can any of them be said to address "impeachment"?

• 46th letter - Where I ask if Toomey is willing to support legislation protecting Robert Mueller's investigation into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
• 45th letter - Where I ask if Toomey, a social conservative, still supports Donald Trump, who had unprotected sex with an adult film star even though he was married to another woman.
• 44th letter - Where I ask for Toomey's reaction to Trump's inaction regarding the false missile alarm in Hawaii.
• 43rd letter - Where I ask whether Toomey thinks Trump's assault on the First Amendment regarding the publication of the book "Fire and Fury" is acceptable.
• 42nd letter - Where I ask for Toomey's reaction to some then-recent false statements of Trump's as well as his assertion that he has the "absolute right" to do what he pleases with the DOJ.
• 41st letter - Where I ask Toomey what he'd do if Trump were to fire Robert Mueller.
• 39th letter - This one is about Roy Moore and Toomey responded to it.
• 38th letter - Where I ask Toomey about Trump's relationship with the First Amendment and which side he (Toomey) is on: Trump's or the Constitution's. Toomey responded here, too.

Do we need to go any further back?  We've hit two letters that Toomey (or his office) has already responded to and there's still nothing about impeachment.

Can anyone find a letter of mine where I ask about impeachment? I really wanna know.

But this leads me to a rather larger broader question. As I've been able to find a couple of letters he sent to me posted elsewhere online, it should be obvious that the letters I receive from Senator Toomey are, in one way or another, form letters. The basic idea must be this: You write about Afghanistan, he sends you "the Afghanistan letter." You write about tax policy, he sends you "the tax policy letter." And so on.

But think of what that means in regards to this letter.

It means that Senator Pat Toomey has a constituent letter already prepared for whenever a someone writes to him about impeaching Donald J Trump. It's "the impeachment letter."

How interesting/scary/funny - take your pick (I'll take the shovel) is that?

Text of the letter

Thank you for contacting me about impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the U.S. Constitution provides that the President is removable from office "on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." As a Senator, I am unable to begin impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceeding s must originate in the House of Representatives, with a majority voting to impeach the President. If this occurs the U.S. Senate holds a trial, and can only convict with a vote of two-thirds of members present.

Currently, the Senate has not received an impeachment resolution from the House of Representatives. Please be assured that I value your input and will keep your thoughts in mind.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Senator Toomey RESPONDS to Another Letter

Yesterday, in the (snail) mail I received another response from my Senator, Pat Toomey (R-PA). Well, as you'll see he "responds" but he doesn't actually "answer" my letter.

He begins with this:

Thank you for contacting me about reforming our nation's tax code. I appreciate hearing from you.

I'm so glad he still appreciates hearing from me.

Now let's go find out which letter he's answering.

What he sent was dated January 24 so we can safely assume he's not answering any of my letters sent after that date (the 45th and the 46th). And we know from his opening it's about taxes.

So when did I ask him about taxes?

• 40th - Where I ask him about how a fiscal conservative can support a budget that adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
• 33rd - Where I ask him to explain his support of the budget that, according to the NYTimes, provides a windfall for the wealthiest Americans and little or no support for everyone else. This letter was kinda sorta responded to here.

So it must be the 40th.  Specifically, after mentioning the trillion dollar addition to the deficit this budget represents I asked:

As a fiscal conservative, how can you possibly approve of such a plan? Or do you no longer consider yourself a fiscal conservative?

You can read his response at the bottom of this blog post.

Pat Toomey simply avoids any mention of trillion. He refused to answer my question at all.

The interesting thing about his answer, in fact, is found in his previous response to the 33rd letter.

Take a look. This is the second paragraph of the 33-response:

Tax reform can help to create sustained economic growth for all Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected the nation's gross domestic product to increase by a meager 1.9 percent each year over the next decade. I refuse to accept sub-two percent growth as the new normal knowing that, in the sixty years before the Obama administration, economic growth averaged 3.4 percent per year.

And this is the second paragraph of the 42-response:

Tax reform will help to create sustained economic growth for all Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected the nation's gross domestic product to increase by a meager 1.9 percent each year over the next decade. I refuse to accept sub-two percent growth as the new normal knowing that, in the sixty years before the Obama administration, economic growth averaged 3.4 percent per year.

Uh-oh. He's reusing material. It's never a good sign. In fact, a reddit user from Philadelphia (and let's remember the Philadelphia Eagles beat the New England Patriots this past Super Bowl) posted this exact same letter back in December.

While ignoring my question, Toomey also ignores the fact that, in his bill, the tax cuts for people that he praises so lavishly are temporary. And they are skewed to the already wealthy.

Politifact summarizes the research done by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation:

By 2027, every income group below $75,000 sees a tax increase. Only those income ranges above $75,000 still see a cut by 2027. That’s a significantly different pattern than in 2019, when every group saves, on average.

Meanwhile, if you look at the income groups who gain in 2027, there’s an even stronger skew toward the wealthiest taxpayers. The top 1 percent of taxpayers -- those earning at least $500,000 -- take 48 percent of the gains.

But Toomey doesn't mention any of this in his non-answer to my letter.

Another swing and a miss, Pat. Sorry.

The text of the letter:

Thank you for contacting me about reforming our nation's tax code. I appreciate hearing from you.

Tax reform will help to create sustained economic growth for all Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected the nation's gross domestic product to increase by a meager 1.9 percent each year over the next decade. I refuse to accept sub-two percent growth as the new normal knowing that, in the sixty years before the Obama administration, economic growth averaged 3.4 percent per year.

On December 20, 2017, the Senate passed the final version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) by a vote of 51 - 48. After passage of H.R. 1 in the House of Representatives, President Trump signed the bill into law on December 22, 2017. Passage of this bill brings the most historic reform to our tax code in over three decades.

This pro-growth bill achieves two major accomplishments. First, it provides a direct pay raise by lowering the tax burden on hardworking individuals and families across Pennsylvania. The bill cuts individual tax rates across the board as well as doubles both the standard deduction and the child tax credit. The vast majority of lower and middle-income taxpayers will pay less in federal taxes beginning in 2018.

Second, the bill significantly reforms our outdated and uncompetitive business tax code, thus enabling American workers and businesses to compete globally, encouraging a surge in economic growth, and creating better paying jobs. By reducing our business rates below the average of our foreign competitors, we are encouraging companies to invest and create new jobs in the United States. Moreover, the bill allows businesses to fully write-off the cost of capital expenditures, such as the buying of equipment, vehicles, and machinery, in the year of purchase. Promoting invested capital grows the productive capacity of the economy and requires workers to build and operate these tools. This places upward pressure on wages and brings people back into the workforce. The result is that workers will have an increasing share of the wealth this country produces.

I am glad that the House, Senate, and Administration came together to finish our work on this bill to deliver on our promise of a better and brighter economic future for all Americans.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

Jimmy Fallon Joins Up.

It was only a few short months ago when we read this:

Donald Trump's presidency has undoubtedly inspired a sense of urgency in entertainers across the country. Awards shows of all kinds are filled with explicit shots at the president. Eminem just dropped a four-minute rap takedown of Trump. The list of celebrities who've publicly condemned the president must be longer than his unfulfilled campaign promises at this point.

As critical issues like healthcare, immigration and climate change are being debated and attacked in Washington, most people can't help but react be they famous or not.

That is, except for Jimmy Fallon.

"It's just not what I do," Fallon told Willie Geist during a preview of his interview on "Sunday Today." "I think it would be weird for me to start doing it now," he said of engaging in jokes or critiques of the president like some of his late-night counterparts.

And yet, the evening that the Patriots lost the Super Bowl (Editors note: YAY!), Jimmy Fallon did this:


The words:

Come gather round people wherever you roam
And admit that our country don't feel like our home
And that silence speaks louder than those who condone
If a tweet to you is worth favin'
Then lift up your voices and put down your phones
For the times they are a-changin'

Come women and men who hashtag Me Too
And believe me when I say that we believe you
For weak is the man who calls truth "fake news"
Time’s up, our silence we’re breaking
And even though Mel Gibson was in Daddy's Home 2
Well the times they are a-changin'

Come athletes with platforms throughout the land
Who by taking a knee are taking a stand
And before you shout out that they should be banned
Listen to what they are saying
Perhaps they'd stand up if you reached out your hand
Well the times they are a-changin'

Come journalists, writers who report the facts
And brandish your pen to fend off his attacks
Look past what he says and look at how he acts
The fire and fury is raging
For his words can hurt, but your words can fight back
New York Times, they aren't a-failin'

Come leaders who bully like Internet trolls
We'll curse you with four-letter words 'love' and 'hope'
For we will go high even when you go low
The order is re-arranging
For you have the power, but we have the vote
The times they are a-changin'

Hmm. Who do you think he's singing about when he sings about "leaders who bully like Internet Trolls" or the weak man who calls "truth 'fake news'" or "his attacks" on journalists?

Yea, I think Jimmy Fallon's doing political humor. 

The Rubes and the Con

Washington Post: "Trump’s ‘marching orders’ to the Pentagon: Plan a grand military parade"

My FORTY-SEVENTH 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."

This week, I'd like to ask you about treason.

In Ohio yesterday, Donald Trump delivered a speech about tax reform when he briefly mentioned his State of the Union Address. He first mentioned the "half of the room" who cheered for him and then he mentioned the other half who didn't.

Then he accused that other non-cheering half of being "un-American" and "treasonous" for simply not applauding him. .Adding they were traitors because they showed "they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much" by not applauding him.

Senator, you've been to a few State of the Union Addresses, right? There were times when you didn't applaud President Obama at one if his addresses, right? Were you committing treason when you sat silently in a room half-filled with cheering Democrats?

If not, then how can you continue to support, as president, a man who just accused some of your Senatorial and Congressional colleagues of committing treason for simply not applauding him enough? The Constitution is very clear on a definition of treason. Political dissent is not a part of it. So which side are you on? Trump's or the Constitution's?

I await your response.

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

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Thirty-third letter - No response so far  
• Thirty-fourth letter - No response so far 
• Thirty-fifth letter - No response so far 
• Thirty-sixth letter - No response so far
• Thirty-seventh letter - No response so far 
• Thirty-eighth letter - No response so far 
• Thirty-ninth letter - No response so far 
• Fortieth letter - No response so far 
• Forty-first letter - No response so far 
• Forty-second letter - No response so far
• Forty-third letter - No response so far
• Forty-forth letter - No response so far 
• Forty-fifth letter - No response so far 
• Forty-sixth letter - No response so far

No, No, No. Not For A Dodge Truck. No.

Like a lot of other people, I watched the Patriots lose last night (oh God, how I loved typing out those seven words!) and there was one thing that really bothered me: The Dodge Truck commercial.

I won't link to it, I won't attach it to this blog post. (It's in the news. You want to see it? Go find it yourself.)

This was the voice over narration (made truly complete with orchestral swells worthy of any well made movie trailer):

If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's a new definition of greatness.

And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, (Everybody) because everybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. (All right) You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love.

It's from this sermon, delivered February 4, 1968.

And Dodge decided to use that text in a commercial airing at the beginning of Black History Month to sell trucks. Big, shiny, powerful pick-up trucks.

Especially ironic, (doncha think?) given how a few paragraphs later in that sermon, Dr King says this:

Now the presence of this instinct explains why we are so often taken by advertisers. You know, those gentlemen of massive verbal persuasion. And they have a way of saying things to you that kind of gets you into buying. In order to be a man of distinction, you must drink this whiskey. In order to make your neighbors envious, you must drive this type of car. In order to be lovely to love you must wear this kind of lipstick or this kind of perfume. And you know, before you know it, you're just buying that stuff. That's the way the advertisers do it. [Emphasis added.]

In a political age where this protest against racial injustice:

Has been deemed offensive to the troops by a man who got to sit out the Vietnam war with five draft deferments (four for college, one for bad feet), a sermon about how, in order to serve "[y]ou only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love" was used to try to sell you some trucks.

This is Trump's America.

Um, Actually THIS Is How The "Division Becomes Toxic" (The Tribune-Review Defends Trump's SOTU By Lying About It A Little)

The Tribune-Review Editorial Board delivered unto us an expected defense of Donald Trump's State of the Union Address.

Mostly favorable, a few jabs and so on.

But I'd like to take a mini-slice out of it to show you, yet again, how they mislead you, their reading public.

Take a look at this paragraph:

But when changes that directly benefit Americans — for example, an economy that has boosted 401(k)s, college funds and retirement accounts — are met with such demonstrable contempt, when some Democrat caucus members hesitate to rise for a 12-year-old's initiative to place more than 40,000 American flags on veterans' graves, such division becomes toxic. [Emphasis added.]

Huh? Those lousy Democrat thugs hesitating to stand for a patriotic 12 year old?

It happened at this part of the speech:


You note however that everyone stands when Trump gets to this part of the speech:

Here tonight is Preston Sharp, a 12-year-old boy from Redding, California, who noticed that veterans’ graves were not marked with flags on Veterans Day. He decided to change that, and started a movement that has now placed 40,000 flags at the graves of our great heroes. Preston: a job well done.

Where is the hesitation? Can someone show me? And how do you define "hesitation" anyway?

If anything it's after Trump reads this next paragraph from his Teleprompter:

Young patriots like Preston teach all of us about our civic duty as Americans. Preston’s reverence for those who have served our Nation reminds us why we salute our flag, why we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.

Look at the video. Some on the "Not-fans-of-the-pussy grabber" side do remain seated when he talks about the "our civic duty" to "stand for the national anthem."

Let me think of why that might be. It's simple. It's about Colin Kaepernick and all those other NFL players taking a knee to protest police violence against African-Americans. Somehow the man who's under investigation for so many things having to do with selling out the country for Russian help during the election thinks protesting police brutality is not patriotic.

And now look back at how the Trib braintrust spun it at you. They said, "Look! The Dems are disrespecting a patriotic kid!!"

That's a lie. That's how they lie. That's how the "division becomes toxic."