Sorry - Official business

Well the Supreme Court has ruled.  The President is immune from prosecution for any acts done in his official capacity.  This makes sense.  If he ordered a plane shot down because a terrorist had a bomb on board and was going to blow up the Super Bowl, the families of the passengers on the plane could not sue the President.  Or if he ordered a financial plan to save the dollar or punish a rouge nation and some people lost money, they would not be able to sue for incidental damages.

But when the President says "You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."  This was a direct appeal to benefit him, not the American people.  This was done as candidate Trump, not President Trump.  It was not to root out corruption (that was not found) but rather a specific number personally requested.  

Or when he said "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. (1) He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. [Italics mine]   For this he was impeached.

When the President asks for or requests something that will benefit him personally, he is not acting in the interest of the country and should be subject to prosecution.   Now the Supreme Court could have defined the line, instead kicked the can down the road.......

(1) who has just been disbarred - Rudy Giuliani disbarred over false 2020 election claims

It is all in a name

 I was thinking the other day about names and titles.  We feel required to give people titles and in some cases it is helpful in organization - mostly to assign responsibilities.  Then there are honorary titles such as Mayor of the Day,  Woman of the year, Student of the Month.  In sports there are winners - Champions, but with the adder of a year to differentiate that this is not a permanent position.  Then there are elected positions from the President right down to dog catcher.  Positions chosen by the people to serve the people.  But some do not understand that.  They wear and use the title as that of privilege.  That it makes them special and people need to bow down before them.  They feel they have earned it in perpetuity.

But titles are fleeting, and it is not the title that gives you respect, it is your actions while you carry that title that is important.  Now if we only can convince people to use some humility when they are given a title.  Nah - never happen... 

So where do we go from here?

So former President Trump has been found guilty of falsifying records.  This is not the end as there will be appeals and future court cases.  Based on the type of charges, jail time is probably out of the question, although a possibility.

So were do we go from here?  Before the election of 2016, I said there was no direct collusion with the Russians.  But it was obvious that the Trump team used every dirty trick to affect the election.  He claimed the other side fixed the election while he was doing it.  While he wanted the other candidate locked up, he was guilty of many of the crimes he accused the other of, or was due to commit those during his term.

Trump the business man was guilty of many things.  Using bankruptcies to cover bad business decisions, shorting contractors and other suppliers, and cheating on taxes by using manipulated paperwork.  Almost all of his associates, Cohen, Manafort, Weisselberg, and others have spent time in jail.  His three marriages and philandering were well known before the election.  Yet he was elected.

So where do we go from here?  In a perfect world the Republicans would look for a new candidate and nominate them at their convention.  This person would have a better chance of beating Biden.  Ironically, this might just force the Democrats to do the same. But I am not holding my breath.

I am reminded of the song by The Who, "won't get fooled again", however.......

So where do we go from here?

Say that again?

 Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional map

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/court-rules-for-south-carolina-republicans-in-dispute-over-congressional-map/

"The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a ruling by a federal district court holding that a congressional district on the South Carolina coast was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices cleared the way for the state to use the map going forward. The 6-3 decision, with the justices divided on ideological lines, means that the disputed district will remain a safe seat for Republicans, who hold a 6-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. More broadly, Thursday’s decision creates a high bar for plaintiffs in future racial gerrymandering cases to meet."

"Defending the plan, the state argued that the legislature’s goal in enacting the map was to ensure that the district remained a safe seat for Republicans: Although the district had historically elected Republicans since 1980, in 2018 a Democrat, Joe Cunningham, won in an upset. Mace defeated him in 2020 by less than 1%. "

What!  If it is done along racial lines it is not acceptable, but if it is done to ensure a perpetual office to one or the other party it is acceptable?

"I am sorry your Honor - I was charged with robbing a bank, but that was just a coincidence, I really just wanted to shoot a guard...."

"Thus, Alito continued, plaintiffs in racial gerrymandering cases must first “disentangle race and politics” – that is, to show that race was the primary factor behind the legislature’s decision to move voters into or out of a district. They can do so using direct evidence, Alito wrote, or circumstantial evidence, although relying solely on circumstantial evidence makes their task “much more difficult.” This is particularly true, Alito added, when the state counters that the moves were made for partisan reasons, rather than on the basis of race."

People on the conservative side are clamoring for term limits.  South Carolina has admitted int he Supreme Court that they do it to ensure votes for the Republicans.  Is everyone up there deaf?

Be careful what you wish for

 One comment in a news story struck me as pertinent.

It said, "If Donald Trump succeeds in getting total immunity, then Joe Biden can do whatever he wants before the election."

One of the arguments that Trump's lawyers have made is that any action taken during the presidential term could be considered part of their executive responsibilities, and if they felt that a campaign opponent was corrupt, then he could deal with that:

"Presidents could be immune from prosecution even if they stage a coup or assassinate a political rival, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers argued at the US Supreme Court."  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/25/president-immune-assassination-donald-trump-supreme-court/

So if Trump wins, he loses; since Joe Biden would have the right to go after Trump, even though there is no current evidence that he has.  There goes Trump's argument that the court cases are a political vendetta - in this case - so what?  Just Biden exercising his presidential duties.

Now if he loses, then Joe Biden will be subject to the same prosecution -  if the Republicans can find anything - they have not up to now.  BTW - How can he be sleepy, incompetent Joe, while at the same time be an international mastermind? Hmm?

So be careful what you wish for - you may get a surprise.  I really do not think Trump wants to win, just kick the can down the road till after the election.

My prediction - the Supreme court will come up with something fuzzy, that will allow most of the cases to continue.

The current NY case happened before Trump was elected, the case of the confidential documents mostly happened AFTER he left office.  The two biggest are the Georgia election case and the January 6 incitement case.

In these cases, the argument to be made, is the President is the enforcer of the laws, but not above the laws.  Congress is the branch that makes the laws.  The argument that the presidency is a shield for previous or future crimes, not related to his job responsibilities; is a stretch that I am not sure the Supreme Court is willing to make.  They cannot try corruption, but neither can they condone it.

David Strom is at it again

 David Strom is very good at quoting statistics and drawing bad conclusions.

I have already covered his "conclusion" on temperatures in Arizona.

But this is a good opportunity to look at what facts really are.  Webster's definition is: "something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality."  Now you can play with semantics and say is reality only in our heads or we are living in a matrix.  But reality is a shared experience and usually something that can be scientifically or historically proven.  How gravity acts on us on Earth is a fact - until someone jumps off a house and floats to the sky.  We treat George Washington as our first President as a fact since we have a continuous paper trail historically and have not found any document that proves the story was made up.

Then why do people dispute or try to make up facts?  True, not everyone can experience space flight and I would not believe my neighbor if he said he had been to the moon.  There is no pattern around him; training, education, talent, third party documentation etc., for me to believe him.  On the other hand - if he said he had spoken at a school board meeting, then there would have been other people there and minutes if not video of the meeting, and logically it is withing the realm of possibility.  

However, conspiracy theories are not based on facts.  They may use facts to weave a conclusion that is not logical.  There was a space mission.  My neighbor was away from home during the mission.  Therefore it is possible he was on the mission.  Sorry - no dice. The conclusion is wrong.

In Science or History, facts are independent agents.  Abe Lincoln was President, He was the Commander of the Army of the North, and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Those are the accepted facts.  You could not draw from those facts whether in his heart he was pro or anti-slavery.  That would take more research and investigation.  Superficial facts, as true as they might be, may not support a conclusion.

David cites a study by Harvard University that proports that says that fact checkers tend to be center or left of center.  He then draws a conclusion that because of this that all these fact checkers are biased.  He gives no proof of this.  In fact, I can come to a different conclusion.  The statistics and reality of virtually no right wing fact checkers, leads me to the hypothesis that facts don't mean much to people on the right.  Those pesky facts, like Trump has contributed more to the National Debt than he claims, and the policies he put in place (the tax cuts) may be still contributing to the deficient, in spite of Joe Biden being President.   Now this will not be a conclusion until after many years of study and evaluation.

Or maybe it is that people left of center value truth over convenience.  Maybe the phrase "The first casualty of War is Truth" is true, no matter who said it, since it seems to be a constant through many generations.  Maybe, like basketball players who are tall tend to score more that players who are short (on average);  maybe things that are false, offended people who are more liberal.  So you take the study (and of course it itself may be be 100% correct.) and now have to dig deeper to look for more facts to support your conclusion.  To be a fact you must not have information that contradicts the fact.  

*BTW  the chart shown in the X tweet does not seem to exist in the study itself.  So now we have to look where that information comes from.

So the statistic - if true - that most fact checkers are center to left, does not prove that their fact checking is wrong.  It might prove just the opposite.  But that does not occur to David Strom.

So take the time to read the actual study- it is much deeper that the casual glance.

Minimum Wage - How Much???

You might think this is a joke, but while the minimum wage in many states is around 4725 which is the Federal Minimum wage - and some states are still at $5.15 for certain jobs, a legislator in California is proposing a $50. per hour minimum wage.  

This is treating the symptom rather than treating the problem.  The argument is that the cost of living is very high in California, so we need to increase salaries.  The problem is to increase salaries will only fuel more increases in prices - a vicious circle.

The proper way is to encourage less expensive, starter homes, for people to buy less expensive automobiles, teach people how to manage they money better.  

Now the minimum wage had just been raised recently to the $15 level.  If the minimum wage had been keeping pace with inflation AND productivity - it would probably be closer to $20.00 today.

One of the real problems today is that people expect a minimum wage to be a living wage.  The minimum wage was intended to be a bottom line floor.  The issue is real wages have not kept up with productivity and money is pouring into the hands of corporations, rather than the people who are providing the value.  

As jobs become more automated and workers eliminated, this problem will just become worse.  Are we going to be able to back to the days where a one income earner can support of family of 4?  Probably not.  We need to look at the economy from top to bottom in order to figure out the road ahead.

Some ideas would be universal basic income supplements and tax breaks, redesigned cities to lower the cost of transportation, company supplied housing for their workers,  and food co-ops to feed families.  None of these ideas are without their own problems.  The question is how do you manage a capitalistic system when classical capitalism does not work?

It Ain't Bank Robbery - or is it?

One of the complaints about the recent Trump trial in NY, was that there was no victim.  I wish to disagree.  There were over 200 million victims, people who could not get away with over valuing their worth.

First, an absurd comparison.  Suppose you robbed a bank, say for 1 million dollars.  You laundered that money to invest in the stock market, bought a Ferrari,  and a nice house.  Five years later you cashed out the stock, sold the Ferrari and the house with a cool 60% profit.  You then retuned (anonymously) the million dollars to the back along with $150K worth of "interest" (3% for 5 years).  You walk away with $450,000 in cash. Was there a crime committed?

Second, a more realistic example.  You have a house worth $100K.  You go to the bank and say it is worth $200K so you can do some repairs and buy a nice car.  First - do you think the bank would let you get away with it?  No, which is why I wish the banks would be held as co-conspirators in this scheme.  They enabled people like Trump to get away with this.  Remember, these were the banks that were never punished for the home loan scandal where millions lost their homes.  And we keep letting them do this?

Third.  There is a stanza in Credence Clearwater's song "Fortunate One" :

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand 
Lord, don't they help themselves, Lord?
But when the taxman come to the door
Lord, the house lookin' like a rummage sale, yeah

So you say a home is worth $300 million, but talk the town into appraising it at $20 million.  Hmmm.

Do you think you can convince the town your house is worth only 7% of market value so you can pay less taxes?  What does that do to all the other people in the town who do not have the ability to sway local politicians?

So you see - the definition of a victimless crime, doesn't really fit here.

I recently found this quote from Johanne Goethe

“It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to every one.”

― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Maxims and Reflections