In Other Words

I have strong feelings regarding the rights women have, or should have, over their own bodies. I have, not, however, had the exposure to the issues involved that my wife and several long-time acquaintances have. For this post, my only contribution is formatting and compiling. The initial paragraphs are Emily’s which I repost with her permission. The last two commentaries are from two female friends of both of us, whose anonymity I have protected for simplicity's sake. I feel sure both would have been fine with attribution, since these are Facebook posts, but I was on a roll, so…  

(Emily) “I can sit and stew about this, or I can try to put my feelings, observations and beliefs into words. I choose the latter.

I was a newborn nursery, NICU (Neonatal ICU) Nurse for 22 years. I have rejoiced with parents and cried with parents. I never, in all that time encountered a pregnant family that willingly made the decision to end a pregnancy in the last trimester. I encountered many premature babies, some as early as 24 weeks, and with each one who had the slightest chance of survival, we did our very best to ensure that they survived. With some it was a 24 hour one on one battle. Some we were able to save. Others we were not.

Technically, with some near the age of viability... the maturity at which they had a chance of survival... the onset of unstoppable early labor could have been considered abortion. “Aborted “is the term given when a fetus is born before the possibility of survival. On very rare occasions, labor was induced when a late second or third trimester exam showed a baby with defects incompatible with life, or if the mother’s life was threatened with the continued pregnancy. Never, ever did I experience a situation where a viable infant was “aborted “on a whim. I have sat and held the hands of grieving parents when their “less than perfect” much loved baby died in their arms. I have comforted families when they have just been told that their unborn child has died. I have worked for months with children born way too early, with multiple problems... I have kissed a baby as I left my shift, thinking that they could not survive another day.

The unfounded, ill-advised raving on this subject from our so- called president in an attempt to rouse his “base” is revolting. He speaks about a subject he has never experienced, and, as usual, lies. Abortion, for most families is not an undertaking done without considerable heartache and pain, and most times continuing grief. That this creature has access to a “bully pulpit,” but has no understanding, is loathsome.”

(XXXXX)  “And as you probably have heard me rant, there is another side of the story. As a student RN, many of my classmates and I cared for a woman who had had a back-street abortion. This was back before abortions were legal. This woman was dying a very slow, painful death. As we took care of her medical and physical needs, we learned many things about what an abortion by unqualified persons could do. If she had been wealthy, she could have lived, because she could have flown to a country where abortions were legal and performed in medical facilities. Since she was not wealthy, she took her chance and had it performed by someone unqualified under conditions and instruments that were full of germs. No antibiotic could save her. That was in 1961, and I can remember it like it happened yesterday. If we go back to those days, abortions would still be done.”

(XXXXXX) “Parents, nurses, doctors and the medical staff know the heartache. Before it was legal many girls & women lost their lives to backstreet abortions. Those with money or insurance, on the other hand, were frequently gifted with a (pregnancy terminating)  D & C by a gynecologist for “period irregularities.”

Any questions?

A Bad Idea

        Bernie Sanders would be a disaster as POTUS. He is not a consensus builder at the personal level, as numerous current and former staffers will (and have) attest in private. He has been rather disparaging of the first Black president and continues to show his apparent inability to credit any Democrat who makes compromises in the name of getting something done. Sanders never cheered Obama’s Affordable Care Act — the closest America has come to universal coverage — as the political miracle it was. That’s because it was not the perfect single-payer plan residing in Sanders’ head.  Progress under Obama also refutes one of Sanders’ corollary points, that meaningful change is impossible without a revolutionary transformation that eliminates corporate power. Trump’s assault on Obama environmental issues, Dodd-Frank, and other reforms shows their value, largely ignored by Bernie.

      Sanders has also minimized much of what Obama did in dragging the US out of the second worst economic collapse in its history, choosing the anniversary of MLK’s death to do it in Jackson, MS.  "The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure. People sometimes don't see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama. He was obviously an extraordinary candidate, brilliant guy. But beyond that reality..." For a candidate trying for broad appeal, this is almost terminally stupid! Responses included:  

 “Bernie Sanders dislike of Barack Obama's administration/policies is what connects him to Trump voters. That is what they can build a bridge on and it's deplorable and disgusting.”

“The hills are alive with the sound of white people explaining why it was OK for Bernie Sanders to travel to Jackson, MS and shit on Obama's legacy on the 50th anniversary of King's assassination.”

“Dr. Martin Luther King Jr warned us about white progressives like Bernie Sanders in his letter from Birmingham jail. On the 50th anniversary he decides it was appropriate to attack President Obama and belittle the work Democrats have done for America in 15 years. Shame on you.”

          He also has the burden of being a non-Democrat for most of his life and unlike his small state, the US Congress will not fawn over him to any degree. He would face the same issues as a Ralph Nader - the angry outsider who cannot build consensus. If you want four more years of Trump, nominate Sanders. A sidebar comment – this 76-year-old writer (me) has real concerns about a President who would be 79 the day he’s elected.

       As for those wild-eyed, enthusiastic, idealistic and, to a large extent, naive young Turks (and Turkettes) who chant "economic equality" as if Bernie could snap his fingers and create it, this is a display of political ignorance on the grand scale. The system, especially the financial sector, needs regulation, that is certain, and the 2008 bubble collapse proved it, but, the real needs of the nation - equal employment opportunities, health care, civil liberty levelling, environmental protection,  cannot be advanced, or even maintained, by destroying the processes which produce income for the vast majority of the nation. That dog simply won't hunt, as the UK proved decades ago. A simple explanation, which both AOC and Sanders apparently just don’t get, is at if you destroy the means of wealth production, there is no money to do the good things one wishes to accomplish.

        What seems to have been lost in the rhetoric is that concept that the first step towards economic inclusion for the individual is to learn to do something that someone will pay you to do. When we bemoan the condition of unemployable high school dropouts who have chosen ignorance and ergo possess no (legal) occupational skills, rather than address the individual failings from which they derive, we miss the point, don’t we? I saw this as a high school teacher.  Almost all motivated students who make an effort succeed in high percentages. Those who don’t, generally fail - school, and life in general.  One simply cannot legislate success or motivation.

       That said, and acknowledging that we all can’t be in the top 10%, (a statistical impossibility), it is reasonable to posit that anyone who works hard and competently at a legitimate job should be able to make a living wage. This isn’t a “Sanders” concept, but is endorsed by essentially all Democratic candidates, and even some Republicans with brains.

       Bernie is right on health care.... but making the changes we need simply will not occur by electing an angry old man who 535 elected officials, many of whom even on his own side of the aisle, don't like well enough to support. Sander’s home state of Vermont had to abandon hopes of creating its own single-payer plan. If Vermont, one of the most liberal states in America, can’t summon the political willpower for single-payer, it is almost impossible, or at most, incredibly difficult, to imagine the country as a whole doing it.

       The shift to a national health care system in the US, unless measured and enacted with a strong consensus, would be spasmodic and could, at least for some time, actually result in less effective health care delivery as insurers are legislatively forced out of the industry. In a nation where a huge driver of health care expense is grossly exorbitant drug pricing, the same issues exist. Would the Bernie supporters have the drug industry "nationalized?" (There actually is a partial fix, available to Congress - modify Part D to allow Medicare  to negotiate drug prices) True national health care can also mean, among other things, having doctors be national employees with fixed salaries as employees of the National Health Service. (see UK)

         So first, raise a generation of altruistic and motivated students who strive for medical school. Pay their tuition to Med School in exchange for a contract to perform public sector health care for (at least) a time certain. We have great difficulty getting Americans to do it now (what nationality are your doctors?), so think about how a governmentally mandated salary scale would further (de)motivate them. Top doctors would likely, as they have in the UK to some extent, gravitate to private hospitals and private practice, requiring either cash or private health insurance. Guess who would be left out of that mix?

        Single payer is demonstrably more efficient with respect to administrative costs,  yet harder to sell to medical providers, unless guarantees of reasonable compensations are in place. At present, the portions paid by Medicare as it exists,  are lower than medical providers would like, but Medicare supplements and secondary insurances can add to the total. In the absence of such second party payments, Medicare will have to come to some sort of concordance with providers across the spectrum of treatments and specialties regarding costs and compensations. This, by its very nature would be a long and contentious process.

        Donning the ruby slippers, clicking one’s heels and chanting “there’s no ‘ism’ like Socialism” isn’t a plan, it’s a fantasy. In a Constitutional system which places the power of the purse in the Congress, it is probably a fool’s errand, especially for an 80-year-old.

Those Damned Hollywood Types

        You know how sometimes you hear the same really stupid assertion by someone and finally it just grates so badly you have to do or say something? I thought so; me too! Today’s is the all too frequent whining by Trump supporters as their idol says and does even more stupid things just when you thought he’d reached the bottom of his intellectual barrel, and others call him out. It goes along these lines “Them damn Hollywood types. What makes them think they know anything?”

        This is generally accompanied by the allegation that since they’re famous and have media exposure, that somehow, they should "keep shtum" re: politics. Oddly enough this same stricture is never applied to Far-Right media presences or personalities like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, or the inbred cast of Duck Dynasty. 

        Reflecting on this, I decided to do a bit of research, my friend Google and I,  to see if perhaps one group (Trump supporters) was better educated/more literate or more morally justified in having their positions heard and that those “Hollywood show business types” were simply undereducated dunderheads who just don’t know when to shut up. Oddly enough, there is no shortage of listings of both Trump “bashers” and Trump supporters. I took the names as they came, with a few exceptions at the end of the list which will be the media pundits in both camps. I then simply looked at their backgrounds and levels of education. You might notice a general pattern. Draw your own conclusions about which Hollywood/media  types should probably remain mute.

Trump Critics

Matt Damon – Harvard (Harvard Arts Medalist 2013)

George Clooney – 2 years college, dropped out, economic hardship.

J.K. Rowling – BA (French and Classics) U. of Exeter (also CH, OBE, FRSL, FRCPE, FRSE)

Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta – NYU Tisch school of the Arts, dropped out to pursue moderately successful music career.

Peter Weller – MA/PhD (Renaissance Art) UCLA

Arnold Schwarzenegger – BA (International Marketing) U. of Wisconsin

Susan Sarandon – BA (Drama) Catholic University of America

Will Smith - turned down MIT scholarship for acting

John Oliver – BA (English) Christ’s College, Cambridge

Samuel L. Jackson – BA (Drama) Morehouse

Meryl Streep – MFA Yale

Mayim Bialik – PhD (Neuroscience) UCLA

James Franco, MFA Columbia , PhD (English) Yale

Sigourny Weaver – MFA Yale

David Duchovny – MA English Lit

Natalie Portman – BA (Psychology)Harvard 

Conan O’Brien - BA (History/Literature , magna cum laude) Harvard

Lupita Nyong’o – MFA Yale

Ashley Judd – BA (French) U of KY, MA (public admin) Harvard

Jodie Foster – BA (Lit) Yale

Eva Longoria, MS Cal State Northridge

Edward Norton – BA (History) Yale

Lisa Kudrow – BA biology, Vassar, member board of trustees

Mindy Kaling – BA Dartmouth

John Legend – BA (English) Penn

Emma Watson, BA (English Lit) Oxford/Brown

Angela Bassett – BA, MFA Yale

All the above have made public statements specific to actual issues on which they have problems with Trump

****************************************

Vocal trump supporters

Ted Nugent – Oakland Community college did not graduate. Draft status 4-F, indicating ineligibility for military service under established physical, mental, or moral standards.

Kid Rock – high school

Roseann Barr – did not graduate high school

Jon Voight – BA (Art) Catholic U of America

Scott Baio – high school.  Accused sex offender

John Ratzenberger – attended Sacred Heart U. no degree

Stacy Dash – high school

Robert Davi – BA (drama), Hofstra

Johnny Damon (baseball player) – high school

Loretta Lynn – 8^th grade

Mike Tyson – 11^th grade dropout

Gary Busey – Oklahoma State, quit, no degree

Dennis Rodman – Southeastern Oklahoma State, dropped out for NBA

Teresa Giudice – dropped out of Berkeley College, convicted 41 counts of mail, bank fraud and tax evasion.

Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea) – U of South Florida – dropped out to wrestle

Mike Ditka – I got nuthin here.

Wayne Newton – high school, (Las Vegas institute of desperate cosmetic surgery)

Willie Robertson – BA (business) Northeastern La U.  

Antonio Sabato Jr. – high school

Wide exposure pundits

Critical:

Stephen Colbert – BA (communications) Northwestern

Seth Myers – BFA, Northwestern

Jon Stewart – BA (psych) William and Mary

Jimmy Fallon – BA (computer Science/ Communications) College of St Rose (Albany, NY)

Jimmy Kimmell – UNLV, ASU (Honorary DHL) ASU

David Letterman – BA (communications) Ball State U.

Trump cheerleaders:

Alex Jones – community college drop out

Rush Limbaugh – Left College after 2 semesters and one summer. According to his mother, "he flunked everything," and "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."

I have purposely not listed all the broadcast network talking heads, as many are simply reporters (the three major news outlets), Fox News are simply whores, and other cable outlets (CNN, MSNBC) are op/ed based (as is Fox, but they don’t admit it) 

More Lies re: Immigration

       Arsenio Hall used to do a segment on his relatively short-lived talk show called “Things That Make You Say Hmmm?” Many of the things we see presented as fact, usually by the Far Right are of that nature. I say “usually” because too much of the “green new deal’ package of celestial pastry is also of that nature, but that’s not the topic du jour.  

        The piece that got my attention was a post by a well- meaning, but not fully informed, friend which relayed as fact the information that the US spends $82,000 on each “illegal” immigrant. As it turns out, the study comes from a conservative think tank (speaking of contradictions in terms!) and uses data from a study done by a federal agency. The problem is several fold.

        First, the wording of the piece is skewed so as to give the impression to those all too willing, even eager, to buy the bullshit, that the $82k figure represents money actually given in some fashion to each “illegal” person. More in a moment on that fallacy.  

        Second, if an individual is actually an “illegal immigrant” which most generally interpret as a person who is already inside the US illegally and without government knowledge or permission. These individuals cost the government nothing. Zip, nada, zilch, unless they have children born here (ergo citizens) who qualify for food stamps. Non-documented non-citizens are ineligible for welfare in any case, but do, however, as does every person in the country, qualify for emergency medical care, thanks to a Reagan administration law. Their children will probably also be able to go to public schools, but this cost falls light years short of the $82,000 figure. Now the flip side: regardless of which of numerous ways these persons find work, they will, unless their American citizen employer ignores the law as Donald Trump is known to have done in a number of instances, have social security and income tax withheld from their pay. This money will never be recovered by them unless they naturalize and get a Social Security number, and then any money earned and withheld before that time doesn’t count either.

        Bottom line, unlike citizens, who generally will get some tax back and can draw Social Security, these folks well may not, so they are an actual plus factor to the federal government’s income. If two undocumented persons work full time in a family, (by far the norm, as far more US citizens by percentage, are content not to work, being welfare eligible, or Social Security disability eligible) and earn, just for example,  $35,000 annually, doing all those jobs many citizens consider themselves too good to do, they will give the federal government $2275 in Social Security withholding and another $500 or so in Medicare, none of which they will ever see again unless they become citizens.

        The other people the ignorant lump in this group are asylum grantees and/or children citizens, born here and citizens by birth. Like it or not, and some don’t, unless the Constitution is amended, birthright citizenship will endure. Both groups aren’t either by definition or by law, “illegal”. Th children citizens, regardless of parental status are entitled to pubic schooling, and, if qualified, food stamps. As noted above, most of these parents, “legal” or not work, pay sales taxes and have tax withheld from income. The difference is that they get less for it. Studies, such as the one referred to, ignore this contribution, which renders them completely invalid.

       So where does the magic $82k figure come from, and where does that money go? The figure as far as that goes is probably close, but the end of the money trail is quite different than the inference, which remember, to most uninformed readers is that somehow this money goes to the immigrant. This erroneous interpretation is, (coincidentally - not!)  pretty much what the spin doctors wish to be the case.

        The study used to generate most of the think tank report actually documents how much money flows from one government agency (be it state, county or federal) to another as a cost of dealing with catching and sending back or processing these persons. This cost is so high because the process has been ramped up in complexity. The Obama administration actually ran a pilot program where asylum seekers were granted their own recognizance to report for a court hearing at a date certain. The Family Case Management Program, launched as a pilot in early 2016, aimed to keep asylum seeking kin together, out of detention, and complying with immigration laws. It was praised by immigration advocates for both its high rate of compliance and its ability to help migrants thrive in a new country — right up until the Trump administration shuttered it almost exactly a year ago.

        According to The Associated Press, it cost the government $36 per day per family. Trump said this, “And we say, 'Please show up to court in a couple of months.' You know what the chances of getting him to court are? Like zero. Ok? It’s crazy,” Trump told Fox News in June. But wait, was that true? Not by any metric. In fact, According to the Inspector General report, overall compliance in the cities where the pilot was launched was 99 percent for ICE check-ins and appointments, and 100 percent for attendance in court hearings. Just 2 percent of participants absconded during the process.

        The $82k figure primarily represents salaries of judges, court costs,  ICE, law enforcement and border patrol officials and unfortunately, the cost of housing and separating families in confinement rather that allowing them to remain together and pay their own way by working and then showing up for their hearings (as mentioned above, with a very high compliance rate).  It costs about $775 per person per night to keep the newly separated children of families who cross the U.S. border illegally in “tent cities.”  The per-person cost at certain detention centers that would keep families together is $298 per night, according to an agency estimate. That's $13,000 per month!This is the new normal, 3300% higher than the $36 per-day family of four figure of the last Obama years. Isn’t that strange in a year with a record deficit while the president brags about “his” booming economy?

The Common "Touch"

        I am briefly revisiting a topic on which a great deal of conversation has taken place recently. A friend has discussed this topic in public media and eloquently, I think. I’m referring to the recent invented hoo-hah re: Joe Biden. I will begin by posting a quote, source to be named later.

       “The matter of physical touch is, well, touchy. One person's affectionate hug is another's creepy, unwelcome invasion of personal space. Biden does seem to have stepped over the line at times. Free advice: Inhaling the aroma of a woman's hair and kissing her head when you've just met is not recommended. But most of the time, it seems that Biden's hugs, shoulder rubs and Eskimo kisses were well-received. He is physically demonstrative with women, but also with other men and particularly with children.” (I italicize that last part because I feel it is illustrative of several points.)

         The first: Joe Biden is either a pansexual predator on the grand scale or he is none. An illustration for contrast might show the avoidance behavior of Trump with regard to men and children, including his own at times, while having a well-documented (and self-admitted) history of inappropriate contact with women.  

       The second: This allegation comes at a time when Biden may be considering his political future.

  

      Third: The incidents alleged were completely public and overt actions, which a true predator would hesitate to make (see Weinstein, Harvey), for fear of being “outed.”

       Finally, these allegations, as much as some may wish to analogize them to previous bad behaviors by their own camp, are nowhere in the same universe as a Brett Kavanaugh involvement in either condoning or committing rape, or the Clarence Thomas pubic hair/soda can incident, yet they are, in a few fringe circles, being conflated with such.

       The idea of actual sexual assault or predation to any degree is, or certainly should be, repugnant to any rational individual, male or female. The definition of it, however, has been, in the #MeToo era, blurred to an extent such that there is little discernable boundary left between acceptable and unacceptable and now is extended, in some cases to general “personal space” issues. Furthermore, that boundary is a very wide sliding scale. In essence, the problem which has arisen as more, and more open, discussion of the topic has become main-stream is this: There is, at the border of acceptable and unacceptable, no universally acknowledged stop sign, yield sign or (forgive me) “wall.” As a male, I have known colleagues whose definitions of that concept (personal space) were far afield from my own, but generally it wasn’t friendly in nature, rather an attempt to dominate. No one has even hinted that Joe Biden’s behavior is of that nature.

        While we all do, or certainly should, agree that “No means no,” That leaves a whole lot of social behavior which is, or can be, subjective and evaluated through that lens. Unfortunately, that subjectivity is generally in the eye and personal history/psyche of the recipient of an incursion into that personal space which said recipient finds intrusive, but which the other finds simply affectionate and appropriate. Reasons for this are so widely varied as to almost escape a comprehensive listing. Examples might include family history, (to hug/kiss or not?), personal space perceptual differences (“no touch?”), etc.

      Unfortunately, we don’t wear the signs of our own personal receptivity on our persons like nametags. Now, here is where I will make it clear that I am now venturing into the realm of personal opinion:

        If initial contact with a person is deemed inappropriate, be it in a social setting or whatever, I feel it is incumbent upon an individual, whose sensitivities are such that personal touch is unwelcome, to make that clear. Simply putting one’s hands up or a quiet “please don’t” should suffice. I find it interesting that this simple, and private, act is absent, yet at a later time a public accusation is seen somehow as a remedy.  In the case of Joe Biden, his frequently publicly and physically demonstrated love of his wife and children and sometimes tactile displays of affection in general to persons of both sexes, make it clear that this is who he is. Even the current complaint makes no concrete allegation or even the vaguest inference of a sexual component to the unwanted contact.

        Maybe it’s a whole lot simpler than it is being made to seem. Perhaps, Biden innately realizes that appropriate human contact bonds us and is simply a silent form of communication. As a political figure, he most assuredly lacks the one advantage component most of us in the public arena have – time to figure out who is openly receptive to public, casual collegial/friendly human interaction, and who isn’t. Mr. Biden has, however,  done what Messers Trump or Kavanaugh haven’t the character or personality to do. He has acknowledged that he understands now what, generally, no one even spoke of before the #MeToo “revelation.” 

       What I find interesting is the broad spectrum of persons who have risen to make the same points I have endeavored to make.

        Jeannie Etchart, is a Montana Republican, and a former worker for Bush 43, Palin and Cheney, who describes her experience with Democrat Biden at a meeting where she conveyed to him that her dad had been diagnosed with the same cancer which killed Beau, Joe’s son.  “I never for a minute felt uncomfortable, or that he was creepy,” said Etchart. “I think he would have hugged a young man in the same situation. My point in telling this story is that, while Vice President Biden has a very personal and affectionate way about him, it is only because he loves people. He loves people’s stories. Man, woman, child. Father, mother, son, daughter, spouse. He knows people are hurting and can relate and offer genuine support. And human touch is the most basic form of relaying that. There is no ulterior motive — he just wants to get close to everyone. Because he cares about their stories. And is human. And THAT is what matters most and crosses all party lines.”

        As one final example: There is little or no interface and certainly even less political affinity between Whoopi Goldberg and conservative op-ed columnist Mona Charen - except on this issue.   

       Here’s Whoopi’s take: “In the old days…some folks of a certain age would say he’s a little overly familiar,” Goldberg said. “But most politicians when they’re, you know, doing this with you, they are, and Joe is a hands-on kind of guy. But I’ve never heard anyone — and she said she felt violated and I have to take her at her word — but it would have been nice if she had turned to him and said, you know what, J? I don’t really like this.”     

       At the other end of the political spectrum, but generally above the fray where name calling and character assassination are concerned, is Ms. Charen: “Our need to touch and be touched never subsides. Chronic loneliness has been found to be as harmful to health as smoking. Studies have found that hugs don't just relieve stress and release oxytocin (the bonding hormone); they can also reduce susceptibility to the common cold, lower blood pressure and diminish pain. And when humans pet animals, both experience physiological benefits. Even just holding hands with a loved one while enduring a painful medical procedure has been found to make the experience more bearable.

        Most of us just aren't designed to live the kind of solitary lives that excessive entanglement with technology is encouraging. We are social and also tactile creatures....  Let's not lose sight of our affective natures even as we police the excessively “handsy” amongst us.” She is also the author of the initial quote.

        In a knee jerk world of "all media,all the time," let us not allow the extremes of the pendulum swing that comprises the scope of human interaction to denigrate the means. And I do believe that’s all I have to say about that.

No, Mr Pompeo, It's You and Your Boss.

        I have watched an interesting dynamic unfold in the press over the past several days. The initial item was the much earlier (November) announcement that SecState Mike Pompeo was to receive an award for Trump administration efforts in repatriating US hostages. Based on numbers alone, this was absolutely justified.

        For those who may have forgotten, Jim Foley was an American journalist who was detained and eventually beheaded in Syria in 2014. The Foley family has created an award, The James W. Foley Freedom Award, one of which was to be given to Secretary Pompeo next week.  Now here’s where it gets all “Trumpish.”  The Award presentation was cancelled.

        The immediate Pompeo/administration response on Fox (where else) was to blame, as this administration always does, someone else. “…..and yet, it sounds like some in the media, who were underwriting this event – sponsors for the event, said ‘if Pompeo is there, we won't be.”  This is laughable at face value, but when one considers that CNNs Christiane Amanpour, hardly a Trump booster was scheduled to be the presenter, it becomes even more ludicrous. 

       

       What is at play here, per usual in this administration, is the immediate death of truth at the hands of the Trump spin machine. Even a Washington Post op-ed writer bought into it, in an article headlined “This is How Bad Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Gotten in Washington.” In the body of the article we find “At the last minute, the award was ‘mysteriously’ (italics are mine) rescinded and Pompeo disinvited from the gala that he had agreed to attend.” Further on, we read: “As Pompeo explained in a gracious letter to Diane Foley, mother of James Foley, “I understand that the Foundation decided to rescind the Freedom Award and my invitation … due to pressure from its media partners and your fear, stated in your recent letter, that some guests at the dinner would not show my office proper respect if I attended.” The (Right biased) Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported, “Knowledgeable sources said the group’s 'media partners’ promised to boycott the event if Pompeo got the award."

       Wow, all that because of dislike for the Donald? So, what really happened? That is best discerned from the presenter of the award, Diane Foley, who, upon being told how the rescission of the award was being portrayed, wrote this to the Mr. Pompeo, (and the Post as a letter to the editor):  “The decision with respect to the James W. Foley Hostage Advocate award was mischaracterized in Marc A. Thiessen’s April 4 column, “This is how bad Trump derangement syndrome has gotten in Washington.

        While it is accurate that our foundation intended to present our hostage freedom award to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and we extended the invitation to him on Nov. 19, 2018, we ultimately decided we could not present the award as planned because of the dramatic change in circumstances when the Trump administration did not press for genuine accountability from the Saudi government for the brutal murder of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi. We communicated the reason for this decision to the secretary’s team on Jan. 11.

Our decision had nothing to do with whether we received media pressure.”

        Recapping, briefly, Pompeo knew full well why the award was rescinded, but attempted to make this another bitch slap at the non-Trump-sycophant media. Sadly, another newspaper was also complicit in the misinformation flow, the Washington Examiner. Finally, the Post’s op-ed guy didn’t do due diligence either in accepting the Examiner’s phony “sourced” allegation. God forbid Pompeo should simply admit, “I serve a man who is devoid of character and has remained relatively mute regarding the brutal abduction and murder of a journalist. As such, the awarding Foley foundation, established to commemorate such an abducted and beheaded journalist, refused to turn a blind eye.”

        As Mrs. Foley said, it wasn’t about media at all, but about character or the lack thereof.