Comeygate

Dear Democrats,

You can NOT feign outrage over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.  He was your villain when, 11 days before the election, he announced that the agency was re-opening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails after thousands of them were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Der Weiner, as you may recall, is married to top Hillary aide Huma Abedin, who reportedly forwarded said emails to her husband (why would you forward sensitive State Department emails to your spouse?).  He also has an infamous inability to keep his namesake in his pants, and was under investigate for sexting with an underage girl.

The emails discovered on his laptop (computer, that is) included the 3,000 or so that Hillary had "inadvertently" deleted and thus was unable to turn over to the FBI, which closed its investigation of her last July.

Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened presumably, according to Democrats, tanked her chances at the White House.  As the fable - er, story - goes, that swayed enough people who were planning on voting for her to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor.

Never mind that, nine days later and two days before the election, Comey announced that the investigation of the emails found on Weiner's laptop found nothing to warrant prosecution, which presumably would have swayed those voters back in her favor before the polls opened.

Never mind that on election day, Democrats were swooning over what they believed was an easy win, thus it doesn't seem that many of her supporters were swayed.  In fact, her standing in key swing state polls improved in the ten days leading up to the election.

Comey was a pariah among Dems (and Republicans, who believed that back in July he copped out by not recommending prosecution).  So much so, that last week, when Comey testified before Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Democrats' poster children for Post-Election Denial Syndrome (PEDS), grilled him relentlessly, essentially re-prosecuting the election some six months after the votes had been tallied.

Others piled on, from both sides of the aisle, heaping criticism for his handling of the email scandal.  Let's just say that he didn't come out smelling like a rose.

So now, dear Democrats, you want to express outrage over the firing of a man you've wanted fired since November.  Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, no matter how entitled to that you may feel.

So what of this latest round of faux outrage?  Well, the prevailing (lack of) wisdom suggests that President Trump fired Comey just as the latter was closing in on some smoking gun linking the former to Russian hackers, whom the Democrats also blame for Hillary's loss.

Never mind that she was a hopelessly flawed candidate.  Never mind that everything about her that was uncovered by both the (alleged) Russian hackers and the FBI was undisputed, even by the Dems.  (They're just mad she got caught.)  Never mind that her campaign strategy sealed the deal for Trump, as she ignored key swing states that he won.

First, let's examine the timing of Comey's firing.  Then, we'll look at the justification.  After that, we'll consider the apparent reversal from candidate Trump praising Comey to President Trump firing him.  Finally, we'll consider Comey's successor.

There is nothing credible to suggest that Comey's FBI was anywhere close to finding some smoking gun linking the Trump campaign to the Russians.  Probably because that mythical link does not exist.

However, the firing does follow two things: first, the recent appointment of Comey's boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  Trump nominated Rosenstein to the role in January.

The Senate finally got around to confirming him on April 25.  By a vote of 94-6.  If he was going to be such a slam-dunk, why did the Dems put off his confirmation for more than three months?  Maybe they were self-medicating for PEDS.  More likely, they were smarting over their loss, and wanted to delay key appointments as long as possible.  If they'd confirmed Rosenstein back in January, James Comey would likely have been gone then.  There goes the timing issue.

So Rosenstein's first order of business was to review the FBI Director's track record.  And what he found was a bipolar pattern of "she did it," "no, she didn't," "yes, she did," "no, she didn't" ...  All of which took place during an election cycle and raised the specter of FBI meddling, however far-fetched the notion may be.  Perception becomes reality, especially in the minds of the delusional.

Rosenstein recommended that Trump fire Comey, and that's exactly what Trump did.

Another thing that immediately preceded Comey's firing was his poor performance in his Congressional testimony last week.  After that, I'd lose confidence in the guy, too.  When Dianne Feinstein scores points on you, you're not up to the game.  That's like Usain Bolt getting smoked by Michael Moore in the 100 meters.

So much for the timing, now for the justification.  There's the mis-handling of the email debacle, and the very public announcements of what should probably have been kept under wraps until a definitive conclusion could be reached.  There's the poor showing in front of Congress.  Again, the cause goes hand-in-hand with the timing.  The firing was clearly justified.

Sure, a conspiracy theorist could engage in sufficient conjecture to come up with a nefarious motive.  But you could also argue that this whole thing started when the Martians landed at Roswell.  No amount of tin-foil speculating can refute the justification for Comey's termination, nor the timing of it.

Next up, Trump's purported reversal of position regarding Comey.  Anderson Cooper did his level best to bait Kelly Anne Conway on that matter, at one point asking whether candidate Trump is some fictitious character who longer exists.  Stay real, Pony Boy.

So a presidential candidate took a different position after being elected?  Pardon me for being jaded by U.S. politics, but that's not exactly ground-breaking.  The revered Barack Obama did it.  So did every one of his predecessors, going back to George Washington.

Why?  Some of it is due to politics, and getting elected.  Some of it is due to getting in office and actually having access to real information that isn't available to those of us in the public - other than the savants who know all and see all, thanks to Facebook and Occupy Democrats memes.

And part of it is due to the fact that no executive shows his cards until it's time to play the hand.  I know this; I spent 15 years as a CEO.  There were people that I knew I was going to have to fire, for good and just cause.  But I never telegraphed that to them months in advance.  "Hey, Mike, just so you know, I'm going to can you in two months."  No, you express confidence in them, all the while documenting the reasons that will justify their termination, which you know is imminent.

Sure, you warn them as their performance deteriorates.  And Trump did criticize Comey.  No, you don't give them an "Exceeds Expectations" performance rating two months before you fire them for poor performance.  That's an invitation for litigation.  But Trump didn't do that with Comey.

So you wait until the appropriate time.  You may need to keep them around for some reason.  You may need to give them one more opportunity to hang themselves - as was the case when Comey testified before Congress last week - before you can say, "See, world?  This guy has got to go."  Then, every rational person (key word: rational) will understand that the move was necessary.  The bottom line is that people who get fired tend to fire themselves, one day at a time.

All of that can be perceived as cruel and dirty.  Okay.  Business - and politics - can get dirty.  But the fact of the matter is, some people need to be fired.  It happens.  Organizations that refuse to fire underperformers don't thrive.  If you don't like it, start your own business.  You're not likely to fire yourself.  Good luck.

Finally, let's consider Comey's successor.  He's a Democrat, and a FOH (Friend of Hillary).  Isn't it more likely that he will aggressively pursue any link between the Trump campaign and the nasty ol' Russians than was James Comey, who swung wildly from appearing to be against Hillary, to for her, to against her, to for her, to ...  You could hardly call Comey a FOH.  Who knows where that man's loyalties lay?

If Trump really removed Comey because Comey was close to finding a smoking gun, wouldn't he have appointed, say, his son-in-law as FBI Director?  Someone who would drop the whole Russian thing?  No, he appointed a FOH.  That speaks volumes - at least to any rational person not suffering from PEDS.

So, dear Democrats, rail if you must.  After all, this is just one more manifestation of your condition.  Be in denial, feign outrage, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing.

But know this:

Hillary lost.  Trump won.  And all the angst you can muster will not change that.

Random Musings from Palm Springs

It's 105 degrees in Palm Springs.  But it's a dry heat.

Apparently the heat wherever Hillary Clinton was when she was "interviewed" by Christiane Amanpour wasn't dry, because it seems Hillary might have been suffering from swamp fever.  She supposedly took some of the blame for her loss in November, but if you listened to what she actually said, it was hardly an acceptance of responsibility:

"It wasn't a perfect campaign - there is no such thing."

Oh, so your campaign wasn't any worse than any other Presidential candidate's imperfect campaigns have been.  So why did you get thumped?

Here are Hillary's top three reasons:

1.  FBI Director James Comey's announcement 11 days before the election that the Bureau was re-opening its investigation of her emails (because the FBI found thousands of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop just prior to Comey's revelation, including those from her first three months as Secretary of State that she had allegedly "lost").  No mention of the fact that two days before the election, Comey announced that those emails had been reviewed, and that they didn't reveal anything substantive that would change his conclusion reached in July that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her.

If Hillary hadn't "lost" those emails and had just turned everything over to the FBI and cooperated in the investigation to begin with, there would never have been an "October surprise."

2.  Russia hacking the DNC's server.  No mention of the fact that every email uncovered was true and genuine, including evidence that the Clinton campaign had conspired with the DNC to throw the Democrat primaries in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders, or that Hillary received advance debate questions from the then-DNC Chair.

If Hillary and her cronies hadn't tried to throw the primary, then throw the general election, there would have been nothing to the hacked emails.  Maybe they would have been about grandchildren and golf.

3.  Misogyny.

Let's look at those points in turn.  Hillary claimed in the interview that "a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off."

Okay, Hillary, so why didn't those people become un-scared off when Comey cleared you two days before the election?

You can't have it both ways.  Two days before the election, Comey exonerated you.  If people were inclined to vote for you before October 28, then changed their minds because of Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened, they would presumably have changed their minds back two days before the election when he closed that investigation, and they'd have voted for you.  But they didn't.  There must have been some other reason they didn't.

As for misogyny, America wasn't opposed to electing a woman president.  America had elected a black president - twice.  America would probably have elected Carly Fiorina over you.  Carly Fiorina is a woman.  Face it, America just didn't want you.

Hillary stated that if the election had been held on October 27, "I would be your President."

The polls show otherwise.

Her numbers in the key states that Obama won in 2012, but she lost, actually improved between October 28 and November 5, before Comey cleared her.  But she still lost.  Why?

Because the polls were flawed.  Trump supporters didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump for fear of the kind of backlash that we're still seeing to this day.  And Hillary failed to campaign in states she took for granted.  She lost those states.  She turned her back on them, and they turned their backs on her.

She also made a point in the interview of noting that she won the popular vote by three million votes.  Congratulations, Madame Secretary.  For that, you get a participation trophy and a footnote in history.

Hillary did actually state the reason she lost, though.  When asked by Amanpour about being Hillary Clinton, she said, "I can't be anything but who I am."

And that, Ms. Clinton, is precisely why you lost this election (and a previous POTUS bid).

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

Boy, I'm glad my daughter has graduated from college.  Because I'm not sure I'd send her now.

A wise friend once described the value of a college education as thus:  "College teaches you how to learn."

Not anymore.

Not if learning means learning about ideas and concepts that may disagree with your pre-conceived notions.  Not if learning means considering alternate viewpoints and ideals.

America's institutions of higher education used to be laboratories of opposing views, inviting exploration of alternate ways of looking at the world.

Now, they've become little test tubes of socialist thought, where students and professors carry signs in campus protests decrying "fascism," while engaging in the modern-day version of book-burning by protesting against speakers who might espouse opposing views to the point that the speaking engagements have to be cancelled.  And they don't even receive a sufficient education to see the irony.

If that's "higher education," no, thank you.  I'd rather home-school my kid through college than send him or her to, say, Berkeley.  (And I'm damn sure I'd do a better job than those profs could do.)

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

Speaking of James Comey, he testified before Congress today.  He comported himself very well.  But it's noteworthy that Sen. Dianne Feinstein insisted on spending her allotted time re-prosecuting the election.  Hey, Senator, the election is over.  Hillary lost.  Trump won.  Time to move on.  Denial is a river in Egypt.

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

"You have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist."

Sheesh.  If I had a buck for every time I've heard that statement, I could hire my own mercenary army that would eradicate terrorism within a year.

Statistically speaking, the statement is true.  And this, more than anything, speaks to what happens when people who have absolutely no understanding of statistics try to cite them.

Because the statement is also nonsensical.

What's the conclusion?  That, because we have a greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist, we should do nothing about terrorism?

I make a living assessing risk in financial institutions and helping them mitigate those risks.  So here's an equivalent statement within that realm:

"You have a greater chance of loss through a data breach than as a result of a branch robbery."

Okay.  So financial institutions devote considerable resources to preventing data breaches, including firewalls, threat assessments, penetration testing, and a whole host of other technological defenses about which I don't claim to be an expert.

However, they spend every bit as much - if not more - on branch security, including branch design, video surveillance, alarm systems, cash recyclers, bait money, security guards, training, and more.

In other words, when you're faced with risk, you work to mitigate all of your risks to the best of your ability, not just the risks that have the greatest likelihood.  The key is to minimize residual risk: the risk after mitigation efforts are considered.

And when it comes to dying at the hands of a terrorist or dying at the hands of a drunk driver, the residual risk is the same: loss of life.

Sanctuary Redux

Back to the topic of sanctuary cities.  A Federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked President Trump's executive order that would withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city.  Isn't this a conflict of interest?

Moreover, this is a judge in a sanctuary city (of which there are just under 500 in the U.S.) has made policy regarding the use of federal funds for the approximately 20,000 cities in the U.S.  Besides legislating from the bench, this represents the interests of a minority of 2.5% superseding those of the remaining 97.5%.

Ah, Democracy, how we miss you.

President Trump has vowed to take this battle to the Supreme Court.  No matter.  While I do agree with the judge's basis for his ruling, in the end it's little more than barking at the moon.

The basis for the ruling is that the President doesn't control the federal purse strings, Congress does, so it would take an act of Congress to withhold funding from sanctuary cities.  That is correct.

However, it's an exercise in futility, as a practical matter.  When it comes time to dole out federal grants to municipalities, Congress can easily add stipulations that the recipients must cooperate with ICE in order to qualify.

It should be noted that the judge issued his ruling just a short distance away from where Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times, only to return to San Francisco seeking sanctuary.

It should also be noted that this judge was not only an Obama appointee, but served as a bundler for that President's 2008 campaign.  What is a bundler, you ask?  A bundler is someone who gathers campaign contributions from a number of individuals and organizations within a community and presents them to the campaign, in order to get around campaign finance rules that limit contributions from a single individual.  Bundlers often receive special favors from the candidates for whom they raise funds (such as, say, federal bench appointments).

Hmm.  So a federal judge, sworn to uphold the law, having possibly attained his judgeship in return for collecting money for the appointing President's campaign, now issues a ruling against the new opposition party President?

Something is rotten in Denmark - or San Francisco, as it were.

Let's revisit a comment I made in my original post on this topic.  I said, "have you ever seen a headline about an illegal immigrant that since committed another crime turning in another illegal immigrant who has since also committed a crime, thereby preventing yet another crime?  No, you haven't."

The Curmudgeon prides himself on sorting the wheat of truth from the chaff of mere speculation, so allow me to back that statement up with a little research.

I did a simple google search of the phrase, "how many crimes are reported by illegal immigrants."  Below is a list of the hits that revealed statistics on that matter:

0.

Nada.  Zilch.  Not one.

However, I got numerous hits reporting statistics on the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.  (And please note that I don't necessarily subscribe to the fear-mongering notion that all illegal immigrants come here to commit crimes.  To me, the matter is moot: they committed a crime just by coming here.  That's what "illegal" means.)

I did unearth a report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that spoke to the reporting of crimes by illegal immigrants, however.  Before we review that, let's take a candid look at the CIS.

Its detractors claim that it has "extremist nativist views and ... ties to white supremacy groups."

Let's just note that the CIS' board chair is former U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez (a Hispanic) and the board includes Frank Morris, former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

This is what the report had to say:

"Supporters of keeping U.S. immigration at high levels argue, with apparently convincing evidence, that immigrants as a whole are no more crime-prone than the native-born. Yet such an appraisal invites an age-old question: What's wrong with this picture? How is that the foreign-born as a whole, according to several studies, represent no statistical anomaly, yet so much other evidence indicates they are responsible for a wave of individual and organized crime? The explanation, this report argues, is that much of the crime, a lot more than structured studies would suggest, isn't being reported. For one thing, immigrants are victims of crimes committed by fellow immigrants (all the more likely to be hidden from view if the assailant is a family member or close relative), and are often too scared, bound by custom, or fearful of deportation. This tendency may be heightened by the insularity of certain immigrant cultures, especially where concentrated in low-income neighborhoods. Many foreign-born criminals either hide within our nation's borders or operate outside of them. And the FBI's crime figures reflect state and local crime reports, which often omit any mention of an offender's national identity."

Note that this paragraph is intended to argue that illegal immigrants may actually commit more crimes than the statistics show.  Again, I'm not about fear-mongering on that point.  But note that the basis for that argument includes this nugget:

"Much of the crime ... isn't being reported."

By legal U.S. citizens or by illegal immigrants.  Why?

1. Illegal immigrants are often the target of crimes committed by other illegal immigrants, and thus they are scared to report them for fear of retaliation against the victim.
2. Some of the crimes are committed by family members or close relatives.
3. The insularity of certain immigrant cultures makes them less likely to report crimes committed by members of their own culture - in other words, they look out for their own, as a matter of cultural mores.

That last point is the kicker.  The study expands on these points:

"Many immigrant crimes are not reported, and possibly in greater proportion than the crimes that the U.S.-born commit. Many victims of immigrant criminals fear reporting crimes to the police because their victimizers are of the same nationality, and thus are more likely to retaliate in ways that would dissuade the victim from calling police."

It also cited a 1990 DoJ survey that found that Hispanics were less likely to report crimes than non-Hispanics, reporting crimes at less than half the rate of crimes that went unreported, even though the Hispanic victimization rate is higher than for the population as a whole.  (This includes legal as well as illegal Hispanic immigrants, but the point is that the cultural mores of the Hispanic population mean that, in general, they are less likely to report crimes, especially those committed by other Hispanics.)

This is not an indictment of Hispanics, nor does it reflect any bias against that ethnicity, for I harbor none.  It actually saddens me that, while they are more likely to be victims of crime than the general population, they are reluctant to report those crimes.

The point of all this is that the argument that we need to maintain sanctuary cities so that illegal immigrants feel comfortable reporting crimes by other illegal immigrants is a straw man.  That reporting isn't taking place today, and wasn't taking place more than 25 years ago.  Why should we expect it to suddenly begin taking place today?

The Not-So-Friendly Skies

Yes, believe it or not, United Airlines' ad campaign slogan used to be, "Fly the Friendly Skies of United."  Recent events suggest United isn't living up to that standard.

Or is it?  Most of the opinions I've seen on Facebook are from people whose knowledge of the incident and the facts (ooh, those pesky facts!) surrounding it seems to come from ... Facebook.  And their opinions also appear to be shaped by their preconceived notions (shocker!) about evil corporations.

So your trustworthy Curmudgeon set out to provide the real facts surrounding the United incident, to the best of my ability given that I have to trust various news sources to unearth them.  So I read several accounts, and here's what we know (and may know).

Note that I read accounts from multiple news sources, including Reuters, the Chicago Tribune, NPR and the Louisville Courier-Journal.  I did not resort to blogs for the information below - sage advice to anyone seeking the truth.

On April 9, United flight #3411 was scheduled to fly from Chicago's O'Hare Airport to Louisville, KY.  (The flight was actually operated by Republic Airlines flying on behalf of United Express, the larger airline's regional connector service.  The big airlines - except for Southwest - use regional carriers like this all the time.)

Some accounts state that the flight was overbooked, a common practice among airlines (we'll get into the criticisms of that later).  Those accounts state that United offered booked ticket-holders a $400 voucher and a night's hotel stay to take the next Louisville flight, scheduled for departure on April 10.  Fare on that flight was included in the deal, so that anyone who took it could use the voucher for a future trip.  (Note that other accounts make no mention of the overbooking or of the offers made to ticket-holders at the gate prior to boarding, so I can't confirm the veracity of the accounts that do mention it.)

In any event, presumably some of the ticket-holders took United up on the offer, and United was able to board a completely full flight.

Then, four United crew members came to the gate to board the flight.  Airlines use their own flights to shuttle crews to where they're needed, even if they're not working on that flight.  United needed that crew in Louisville to avoid a delay for the flight scheduled to depart out of Louisville that the crew was needed for.

So United made a calculated decision that I believe any reasonable person would make: it decided to inconvenience four passengers seated on flight #3411 (which had not yet left the gate) rather than inconvenience an entire plane-load of people booked on the flight out of Louisville, who would have missed that flight had the crew not been there to man (or woman) it.

United asked for four volunteers already seated on the flight to give up their seats, again offering the $400 voucher and the hotel stay.  Nobody took the offer, which makes sense; if they hadn't taken the offer before boarding the flight, they weren't likely to take the same offer once they were in their seats.

So United upped the ante to an $800 voucher.  Still no takers.

United then selected four passengers and asked them to exit the aircraft.  Three did so, agreeably.  One did not.

That man was Dr. David Dao, a 69-year-old physician of Vietnamese descent, according to the most reliable articles I could find.  (I only mention his ethnicity because so many have claimed that he was removed from the flight due to anti-Asian prejudice.)  Dr. Dao refused to leave the aircraft (although his wife, also a physician, reportedly had done so peacefully), claiming that he had patients to see at his clinic the following day.

A United manager informed Dao that airport security would be brought onto the plane to remove him if he did not comply willingly.  Dao reportedly replied that he would call his lawyer.

So, United officials asked airport security to board the plane to order Dao to exit the aircraft.  At first, one security officer boarded and told Dao to leave the plane.  He refused.  (Note that airport security at O'Hare is provided by the Chicago Department of Aviation.  Those officers have the same jurisdiction on airport property - including on the aircraft - as a city cop would have on the streets.)

Dao refused the officer's order.  So another officer boarded, and the two tried to persuade him.  He persisted in his refusal to comply with their order.  So a third officer boarded, and began to physically pull Dao from his seat.  That's when things turned ugly, and two passengers captured the ensuing events on camera, posting their videos on social media, where they went viral.

And that's when millions of people who get their "facts" from social media went apoplectic.

One account from one of the passengers who recorded the incident said that the officer "threw the passenger against the armrest."  The video does not show this.  What it clearly shows is that the officer forcibly pulled Dao from his seat while Dao resisted, and his face slammed into the armrest of the seat across the aisle.  There is no video evidence that the officer was intent on Dao's face hitting the armrest.  There is clear evidence that Dao did everything in his power to resist.

Either way, Dao's face was bloodied.  The officers dragged him from the plane, his face bloody and his glasses askew, because he would not leave of his own volition.  Several accounts claimed that he appeared unconscious.

Well, he sure woke up in a big hurry, because once he'd been removed from the aircraft and taken to the gate, he ran back down the jetway, reboarded the plane, and insisted that he had to get home.  So he had to be removed again, this time without injury.

Many social media comments have claimed that United had no right to remove passengers from a flight, some citing legal blogs in an effort to defend their claims, which are false.  Others criticize United for over-booking the flight to begin with, which again, we'll address later.  Still others criticize United for giving its employees a "free ride" when paying passengers have to give up their seats to accommodate that.  We'll address that as well.

Let me state for the record that I have never worked for an airline, but I fly a lot of miles every year.  I currently hold the highest frequent flyer status offered by Southwest Airlines, my carrier of choice. Last year I had enough Delta miles for my wife to fly first class with me round-trip on a business trip to Hawaii, and for both of us to fly first class back from Hawaii on a separate trip where we went there by cruise ship.  I spend a lot of time on planes, and dealing with the hassles that can come with flying.  I know the drill.

I am also not a lawyer, but I am very well-versed in contract law.  So much so that, on behalf of my employers, I have corrected contracts that were drawn up by lawyers.

With those disclaimers out of the way, these are the facts:

1. When you purchase an airplane ticket, you agree to the airline's Contract of Carriage.  Every airline has one.  This is a legally binding contract between the passenger and the airline.  You cannot complete a ticket purchase without agreeing to its terms.  Most passengers never bother to read it.  Well, I did read United's Contract of Carriage (CoC), and if you want the truth, get off Facebook, ignore the blogs, and read it for yourself.  It's public information, available on United's website.
2. With regard to United over-booking the flight (assuming it did) and offering compensation to volunteers at the gate, that is clearly provided for in its CoC.  Rule 25, "Denied Boarding Compensation," clearly lays out the procedures and compensation for denied boarding at the gate.  This has been erroneously cited as applying in Dao's case, but it does not, as he was not denied boarding.  He was in his seat, and was required to vacate it after boarding.
3. With regard to removing passengers from a flight, that right is vested in the airline by Rule 21, "Refusal of Transport," which states up front, "UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:"  The Rule then lists numerous reasons for which it can exercise that right, most of them having to do with misconduct.  Clearly, Dao and the other three passengers were not asked to leave the aircraft for reasons of misconduct.  However ...
4. One of the sections of Rule 21 is Section C: "Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions."  The standard legal definition of a force majeure (French for "superior force") is an event beyond a contracting party's control, such as a major storm, a natural disaster, an act of war ... in other words, what is commonly called an "act of God."
5. Airlines invoke the force majeure clause on a regular basis.  Ever been stranded due to a storm?  I have, numerous times.  And in those instances, the airline doesn't even have the obligation to put you up in a hotel room if you're stuck overnight, because it's due to circumstances beyond its control.  It sucks, but it is what it is.  (They will, however, put you on the next flight that can get out, without an upcharge.)  The clause was invoked for all airlines operating in the U.S. immediately after 9/11, for obvious reasons.
6. Some commenters - and legal bloggers - have asserted that United's removal of Dao and the other three passengers does not meet the test of a force majeure.  On the face of it, they would appear to be correct.  However - we don't know why they needed to get the crew in question to Louisville to begin with.  Airlines do a pretty good job of scheduling crews, all things considered.  But sometimes, a storm in, say, Atlanta prevents a flight from leaving there en route to, say, Louisville.  If the Atlanta-to-Louisville crew was scheduled to man the next flight departing from Louisville, the airline might have to deploy a crew from, say, Chicago to man that flight.  Since the Atlanta storm was what necessitated deploying the crew from Chicago, the airline can invoke the force majeure clause.  That may have been the case here; we just don't know from the accounts that are out there.
7. Also, note that the title of Rule 21, Section C includes the words "and Other Unforeseeable Conditions."  That's sufficiently broad, in terms of contract law, to cover pretty much anything.  Maybe the crew originally scheduled to work the flight out of Louisville got sick.  Maybe they quit.  Maybe they were needed to work another flight because that flight's crew was unavailable for whatever reason.  All of those things would fall under the umbrella of "Other Unforeseeable Circumstances."  So the bottom line is that, one way or the other, United was well within its rights to bump those four passengers to make room for the four crew members.  They weren't on holiday.
8. Imagine you were one of the passengers booked on the flight out of Louisville.  Upon arrival at the gate, you learn that the entire flight was canceled, because no crew was available.  (I've experienced this as well - it happens.)  How would you feel if you learned that the reason your flight was canceled was that four passengers on a flight from Chicago to Louisville refused to allow themselves to be inconvenienced?  Or, imagine you're an airline official, faced with the decision whether to piss off a couple hundred passengers vs. pissing off four.  If you're good at your job, you'll pick the smaller number every time.
9. As noted above, the airport security officers have the same authority in the airport as city cops have on the streets.  If a cop on the street tells you, "Come with me," what do you think will happen if you say, "Sorry, I have to get to work - I'm a doctor, and I have patients to see"?  I'll tell you what's going to happen: you're going with the cop.  And if you force him to, he'll forcibly drag your arse to the station.
10. What determines priority when an airline decides whom to remove from a flight under these circumstances?  The factors include the fare class (some passengers pay more than others for the same ticket, for a variety of reasons), frequent flyer status, whether you're a parent flying with a small child, whether you've checked a bag, etc.  Maybe that seems unfair, but let's think about it.  If you paid $800 for a ticket in coach, and I paid only $300 for the seat next to yours, wouldn't you feel that you had more of a right to stay on the plane than me?  And if you were at the top tier of that airline's frequent flyer program - meaning you bring the airline a lot of money every year, vs. a guy like me who might only fly that airline when nothing else fits my schedule - wouldn't you likewise feel more entitled to your seat than me?  If you were traveling with your child, would you want the airline to pull you off the flight, leaving me - a single traveler - on board?  And if you'd checked a bag, taking the time to pull your bag off the plane would cause further delays for everyone else, so you'd be more likely to stay on the plane than someone like me who rarely checks a bag.  In other words, the airlines' rules for determining the priority of whom to bump are not "mean," they're perfectly sound business decisions.

Anytime there's an incident in the media - especially if said incident winds up going viral on social media, where everyone has an opinion, informed or otherwise - the blame game immediately ensues.  Unfortunately, knowledge of the facts is not a prerequisite to play the game.  So naturally, many people were quick to judge United, and place the blame on its shoulders.  Let's unpack that.

United was clearly within its legal rights, and had sound reasons for its actions.  It offered compensation to those it removed from the flight, even though the CoC does not obligate it to once everyone has refused to volunteer to take a later flight.

Airport security had the authority to order Dao off the plane, and when he refused a direct order from the authorities, they had every right to remove him.

Thus the blame first and foremost rests with Dao.  Secondary blame might rest with airport security.  Maybe they could have taken more care in removing him from his seat to protect him from smacking his face on the armrest.  However, he was physically resisting, and that can result in unfortunate consequences.

But I can find no fault with United here.  And I say that as someone who hates flying United so much, I'd rather walk barefoot from Chicago to Boston in the dead of winter than fly United.  I've been known to book Southwest flights that take me from Kansas City to Atlanta to Charlotte to D.C. rather than take a direct KC to D.C. flight on United.

Why?  Because their fare rules are overly complicated.  Their fees are excessive (Southwest doesn't charge checked bag fees for up to two bags).  I can chat up a Southwest flight attendant and get free drinks.  United's flight attendants are universally surly.  It flies three-hour routes on flying cigars with two seats on each side of the aisle, leaving me with sciatic nerve pain.  And they're rarely on time.

But I don't refuse to fly United because it might over-book a flight, or it might be faced with a force majeure that leaves me stranded overnight, or it might have to ask me to vacate my seat if I don't volunteer.  That's just part of flying, and it can happen on any airline.

A final note about over-booking, and this is where the pre-conceived bias against corporations comes into play:

Airlines do not exist for their passengers.  They exist for their shareholders.

The anti-corporation crowd will cry, "That's just wrong!  Those evil corporations!"

Well, if you have a 401(k), you're a corporate shareholder, even if only indirectly through mutual funds.  And you're pretty unhappy when your account is losing money.  So you should be glad the airline is about the shareholder, because chances are, you are one.

Airlines make the most money when flights are full.  But sometimes people (especially business travelers) change flights at the last minute to get home earlier.  (You would too if you spent 100+ days a year on the road, like I do.)  Or they have to take a later flight to accommodate a client meeting that ran long.  That leaves empty seats.

So the airlines over-book, based on mathematical formulas that consider the frequency of cancellations.  Inevitably, that sometimes results in having to ask for volunteers to take a later flight, if the number of cancellations is less than expected based on experience.  It's just the way it works.

Decry it if you will.  Rage against the corporate machine.  Go all Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and call for the end of all corporations.

But know this:  if every corporation in the world ceased to exist tomorrow, we'd all be dead in a fortnight (the snowflakes would die first, as their survival skills are likely the weakest).  Think of it - without corporations, many of us wouldn't have jobs.  We'd have to live off the land, in a thatch hut we built with our own two hands, Wearing fig leaves and walking barefoot, because we wouldn't have cars or be able to buy gas.  Our lives, and our livelihoods, are dependent upon corporations.

The ultimate irony of the anti-corporation crowd is this: their preferred forum for venting their rage is ... Facebook.

Guess what?  Facebook is a corporation.  Its stock is publicly traded.  It makes business decisions for its own profit, and for the benefit of its shareholders.  Its market capitalization ranks it as the fifth-largest public company in the U.S.  Bonus points if you're perusing Facebook on an Apple device; its market cap is #1.

How do I know this?  Simple: I'm a Facebook shareholder.  (Apple, too.)  And my investment in Facebook is up nearly 75% over the last year and a half or so.

So keep on ranting about how terrible United is for removing Dao from flight #3411.  Just do it on Facebook, preferably using your iPhone, because you're helping me retire more comfortably.

*******

Update: we have now learned that Dr. Dao had his license to practice medicine revoked in 2005 after being convicted of trading prescription drugs for gay sex.  He was also placed on corrective action by a hospital he previously worked for.  The reason?  Disruptive behavior.  He was referred for anger management treatment as part of the corrective action.

A Taxing Proposition Redux

This post is not about supply-side economics.  It's Tax Day, so let's talk about that.

People have been protesting all weekend.  And why shouldn't they?  Our corporate tax rates are uncompetitive, costing us jobs and tax revenue.  (How does a 35% tax rate cost us revenue, vs. lowering the rate to, say, 20%?  Simple math: if companies shift operations and park profits overseas because other countries' corporate tax rates are lower than ours, we get no tax revenue.  If they were to move those operations and profits back to the U.S. because we lowered our corporate tax rates to be more competitive with those other countries, we'd get 20% of their income.  And 20% of something is greater than 35% of nothing.)

Our individual tax code is overly burdensome and complicated.  The IRS itself has estimated that it takes six billion man-hours for all Americans to complete their taxes (this is not a hard number, but most experts believe it to be reasonably accurate).

Six. Billion.

It took 22 million man-hours to build the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest building.  So more than 272 times as many man-hours are spent doing U.S. income taxes as it would take to build the world's tallest building.  That's an awful lot of wasted productivity filling out unnecessary paperwork.

And Americans will have to work until April 23 to pay all their federal, state and local taxes - in other words, every dime you've earned thus far this year is Uncle's.

So yes, there's lots to protest.  But wait -

That's not what these people were protesting.  The people protesting probably believe our corporate tax rates should be higher, not lower, because they don't understand the simple math presented above and they think corporations are evil, even though they're inanimate.  They apparently don't care that the tax code is a discombobulating hydra, nor that they still haven't earned a penny for themselves this year.

What has them so up in arms that they spent their weekend waving signs and yelling at the top of their lungs?

President Donald Trump (who, by the way, was elected 161 days ago) has not yet released his taxes.

O, the horror.

Not only was Trump elected President without releasing his taxes, he's also not the first President to not do so - far from it, in fact.  However, these ranting buffoons are ignorant of that latter fact (and in denial about the former one).  To set the record straight, let's provide a little history (not that those protesting will read this blog).

• There was no federal income tax prior to 1861.
• There have been 30 Presidents since that time (counting President Lincoln, who signed the Revenue Act of 1861 into law).
• Only ten of those Presidents' tax returns have ever been released, and only nine were released by the President himself, either in office or while a candidate.
• The first President whose tax returns were released was FDR, a Democrat.  But FDR didn't release his returns - they were released after his presidency by his presidential library.
• (In case you wondered, four Democrat presidents did not release their tax returns between 1861 and when FDR left office in 1945.)
• Harry Truman (D), who followed FDR in office, released his tax returns, the first to do so himself.
• Dwight Eisenhower (R), who followed Truman, did not.
• Nor did JFK (D), who followed Eisenhower.  (Most Dems to this day consider JFK or FDR the greatest President ever.)
• Next up was LBJ (D).  He didn't release his tax returns either.
• Then Richard Nixon (R) did.
• So did, in order, Gerald Ford (R), Jimmy Carter (D), Ronald Reagan (R), Bush I (R), Clinton (D), Bush II (R) and Obama (D).

Granted, every President since Nixon has released his tax returns.  But not doing so is far from unprecedented, and clearly unnecessary to get elected to the highest office in the land.

If Trump were to release his tax returns today, so what?  He'd still be President, unless he's committed outright tax fraud (and he's currently under audit, so if he had committed fraud, we'd know about it).  It's doubtful that any American, upon seeing Trump's returns, would spot something that made them say, "OMG!  I wish I hadn't voted for him!"  (Especially since none of the protesters voted for him.)

Mainly because most Americans wouldn't understand his tax returns.  In fact, they wouldn't even look at them.  Those protesters, instead of going to the source document to learn the truth, would let Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, or some other left-wing talking head tell them what to think.  And those folks are a tad less than impartial, so the likelihood of them finding a molehill to make a mountain out of is pretty darn high.

Trump's 2005 return has already been leaked to the media, and all it showed was that a) he made a lot of money and b) he paid a lot of taxes.  Shocking.

I'd much rather see these people devote their seemingly endless protesting energy to a worthwhile cause that might change something, like simplifying the tax code, instead of tilting at the windmill of demanding that an already-elected President release documents that won't change the fact of his presidency.

And even if they did that, I would not want to see them get violent, as happened in Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of liberalism in the United States.  (Who'd have guessed the snowflakes in Berkeley would be capable of violence?)

So protest away.  Meanwhile, the administration of the man you're all railing against will be working to simplify the tax code, to try and gain back some of the productivity you're wasting by waving your signs and shouting your slogans.  You're welcome.

Sanctuary!

The post title comes from the famous line from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but the subject relates to the ongoing controversy over sanctuary cities.

In case you've been hibernating (or otherwise taking sanctuary), I'll summarize briefly.  The Trump administration wants to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities - those cities that would defy federal immigration policy and not allow ICE officers to do their jobs.  The sanctuary cities are defiant, declaring that they'll continue to thwart ICE's efforts to deport illegal immigrants who have broken laws in addition to the law they broke when they entered the country illegally.

Feel like you need a Gantt chart to follow this line of pretzel logic?  You're not alone.

One such sanctuary city is Chicago, whose mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was the first to speak out in defiance of the Trump administration.  (You'll recall that Mayor Emanuel was formerly President Obama's pet pit bull, and I say that with apologies to all pit bulls.)  Even before President Trump was inaugurated, Emanuel declared that Chicago would forever remain a sanctuary city.  He went so far as to state that cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Boston were the economic, intellectual and cultural backbone of America.

Okay, Rahm, if Chicago is the economic backbone of America, why are you so worried about losing federal funding?  I mean, you don't need money from us uncultured flyover states, right?  (And while we're at it, Rahm, you're about as cultured as Billy Bob Thornton's character in "Sling Blade."  Mmmm-hm.)

Meanwhile, Chicago can't keep its own house in order - seeing as how it's the intellectual backbone of America, you'd think its mayor would be smart enough to figure out how to control crime there.  Chicago's burgeoning violent crime rate makes it less safe than Aleppo.  I love the Windy City, but I wouldn't visit there today on a bet.  Maybe, just maybe, Chicago could be made safer by ridding it of all criminal elements, not just those that were born in the U.S.

Police officials in some sanctuary cities have made the ludicrous assertion that they have to defy ICE, because they need the illegal immigrants in the community to inform on the even worse criminal elements among them.  Their argument goes that if they start cooperating with ICE in rounding up illegal immigrants who've committed crimes since coming to America illegally (pretzel logic, again), their base of informants will stop feeding them information on the even worse criminal elements among the illegal immigrant community.

Stop the madness!

First, I have a few cop friends, and I've never heard any of them voice this nonsense.  Second, have you ever seen a headline about an illegal immigrant that since committed another crime turning in another illegal immigrant who has since also committed a crime, thereby preventing yet another crime?  No, you haven't, and to assume this is commonplace defies logic.  (Apparently the sanctuary cities aren't the logical backbone of America.)

But - have you seen a headline about an illegal immigrant who has since committed a crime, committing yet another crime?  Yes, you have, unless you're impersonating an ostrich.

And third, if we follow that logic, can we have sanctuary cities for legal U.S. citizens who are criminals too?  I'd like to be able to rob a bank and receive sanctuary.  Hey, it's a good deal: I promise if you don't arrest me for bank robbery, I'll rat out all my friends who break the law.  I know a few habitual speeders, after all.  But if I face the threat of arrest, I'm not singing.

Okay, I don't seriously want to rob a bank.  But hopeful the analogy illustrates the sheer stupidity of the "we need them as informants" defense.

One other argument against cutting off funding to sanctuary cities is that among the funding cuts would be cuts to policing those cities.  The assertion is that this would make those cities less safe.

Well, again, Chicago is a shining example.  Federal funding for policing has not yet been withheld from Chicago, yet that city - under Rahm Emanuel - becomes less safe every day.  If the leaders of those cities aren't effective in making their citizens safe today, why are they crying about losing federal funding for policing their communities?  And should we continue to provide that funding if they clearly can't deploy it effectively?

Cut 'em off, I say.  I don't want my federal tax dollars going to subsidize a bunch of scoff-laws who want nothing more than to perpetuate the idea of a liberal majority by bringing more illegal immigrants into the U.S., making them beholden to the party that gave them sanctuary so that they can establish a permanent majority voting block.  That's what the whole pro-illegal immigration movement is really about.

Extreme partisan politics have been threatening our democracy for far too long.  There is no need to perpetuate it, especially through means that defy our laws.

One other alternative:  there's a direct connection via the Great Lakes between Ontario, Canada and Chicago.  Maybe the Canadians would want Chicago?  I'm sure a little poutine would expand Rahm Emanuel's cultural horizons, eh?

Random Musings

First up: the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch.  I'm glad he's on the court.  By all accounts, he's a brilliant jurist, he understands the Constitution and the context of original intent (even if the interpretation of that context must occur in the present - an important distinction from originalist thought), and he performed admirably in his confirmation hearings.  How could any reasonable person who understands the law and the Constitution not like the man given his thoughtful, intelligent answers to what were too often inane questions?

Dianne Feinstein tried - and failed - to pin him down on how he'd rule on specific cases.  No judge up for confirmation to the highest court in the land ever has been thus pinned down, and for good reason: how can one know how one would rule without having the specifics of that particular case before them?  If, for example, there is an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade (Feinstein's greatest fear), the challenge would come from some lower court ruling, the specifics of which could only be speculated upon at this juncture.

And once again Al Franken proved that he's nothing more than a washed-up comedian.  During Franken's questioning, he quipped, “I had a career in identifying absurdity, and I know it when I see it.”  Wrong, Al.  Your career was in performing absurdity.  We the audience were charged with identifying it, and we certainly do that every time you open your partisan mouth.

However, while I'm happy to see Gorsuch on the court, I don't like the nuclear option, for a simple procedural reason.  Presumably, any Senate decision that was set up to require a super-majority was set up that way intentionally.  So it seems illogical, and wrong, that a simple majority vote can remove the rule that required that decision be made by a super-majority.  In other words, it doesn't make sense to me that 51 Senators can decide that a rule requiring approval of 60 or 67 Senators now only requires 51.  It renders any super-majority requirement irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the option was exercised to put Gorsuch on the court.  Otherwise we'd never have gotten a ninth justice, and Lord knows the Dems would have done the same thing under the circumstances.  But I don't like the procedural mechanics of the option itself.  It is proof positive that the real problem is our partisan divide.

(Note that three Dems broke ranks to vote in favor of Gorsuch's confirmation.  All three are from red states and facing re-election in 2018.  The prosecution rests.)

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

The next item is Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whom I believe was a very good choice for the role.  Mnuchin hails from Goldman Sachs, so the tantrum-throwers naturally waved signs saying such intelligent things as, "Don't put Goldman Sachs in charge of the Treasury!"  As if Mnuchin remains beholden to a former employer.

A little history is in order:

• Jack Lew, President Obama's second Treasury Secretary, came to that role from Citigroup's Alternative Investments unit, which ran a hedge fund that profited from the housing collapse (the importance of this fact will be revealed later).  He also oversaw many of Citi's offshore operations - you know, tax havens.
• Neal Wolin, an interim Obama appointee, previously worked for The Hartford Financial Services Group, an insurance and investment firm.  He was responsible for government affairs and taxes, among other things.
• Hank Paulson, a Bush II appointee who oversaw the financial bailouts, was another Goldman alum.
• John Snow, a prior Bush II appointee, was previously Chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm.
• Don Regan, a Reagan appointee, had been CEO of Merrill Lynch.
• David Kennedy, a Nixon appointee who had served in other roles under the JFK (no relation) and LBJ administrations, had previously been CEO of Continental Illinois Bank, which in 1984 became the then-largest bank to become insolvent.  It was bailed out by the FDIC.
• C. Douglas Dillon, a Kennedy appointee who also served in the role under LBJ, was an executive with Dillon Read, another Wall Street firm.

That's far enough back for us to travel.  The point is obvious: numerous Treasury Secretaries have come from Wall Street and financial services firms, including appointees of both Democrat and Republican Presidents.

And why not?  Why not cherry-pick the brightest minds in the highly complex financial world to run the world's largest Treasury?  Timothy Geithner, President Obama's first Treasury Secretary, had been President of the New York Fed, and his early career was spent entirely in government service.  He was also an unmitigated disaster as Treasury Secretary during the financial crisis.  Oh, and he cheated on his taxes.  Give me a Goldman mind any day.

So why do I bring all this up?  Well, I was recently asked what I thought of President Trump's "financial people" (by someone who clearly is not enamored of Team Trump - a lifelong Democrat voter).  I replied that it was a great team, and noted that Mnuchin in particular was a brilliant choice.

The response was, "Yeah, well, he got rich off the housing bust."  (I won't go into the details - you can google them for yourself.)  However, when I replied that I also made money on the housing bust (details below), the response was, "Well, he made billions."

Actually, he only made - reportedly - about $200 million off the sale of a subprime mortgage lender that he and some fellow Goldman alums bought at the depths of the housing crisis.  Okay, that's still a lot of money, but it ain't billions, and it just goes to show how partisanship leads to playing fast and loose with the facts (and I'm guessing that this Mnuchin detractor couldn't cite the specifics of his dealings if pressed - I'm sure he was just reciting something that Rachel Maddow said).

However, I replied that if I'd started out with the stake Mnuchin started with, I might have made billions too.  Here's the Cliff's Notes version of how I personally profited from the crisis (I may tell the tale in more detail in a future, pure economics post, because the lessons learned could prove valuable, but the story's too long to go into here).

Around February of 2007, I saw the housing crisis coming, to make the story short (how I foresaw it is not important at this point).  So I began carefully watching the markets for signs of distress.

Between October of that year (when the market peaked) and March 2008 (by which time the S&P was down about 15%) I pulled all of my money - retirement accounts, discretionary funds and my daughter's college fund - out of the stock market.

Then, in March 2008, I invested 100% of my discretionary funds in a leveraged bet against the stock market, in which my return would be two times the percentage decline in the market.  By March 2009, my return was 55%.

I don't recount this to boast, but merely to illustrate that there were probably a lot of people savvy to the machinations of all things economic to profit from the housing decline and the resulting market meltdown.  Those of us who did so are not nefarious characters, we just saw things that pretty much nobody else saw.

That brings us back to Steve Mnuchin.  He was smart enough to invest in a troubled subprime lender at its lowest point, and build that investment up to the point that he was able to pocket a nine-figure payout.

And isn't that exactly the kind of mind you want running the Treasury, especially given our current debt load - a guy who can take a troubled investment and turn it into a success story?

'Nuff said.

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

Quick take on the Sean Spicer "Hitler Brouhaha."

Media, get over it.

The guy pointed out that he was thinking in terms of dropping gas from a plane, not porting it into a "shower" in a concentration camp.  Okay, granted, he misspoke, and it got a lot of folks' knickers in a right twist.  But it's not like he's a Holocaust denier.

Was it stupid?  Yes.  It's always stupid for a conservative to invoke Hitler comparisons, no matter how they're applied.  Why do I add the qualifier "for a conservative?"  Because Hitler comparisons are the favored tool of the left.  So let them compare away.  Conservatives should take the higher ground.

Nancy Pelosi asserted that Spicer should resign.  If people lost their jobs every time they said something stupid, Nancy would have been unemployed a long time ago.