The Problem with Hoax Crimes

First there were the MAGA-hat-wearing Covington Kids who were accused of surrounding a native American elder and mocking him. Then Jussie Smollett claimed that two Trump supporters beat him, put a noose around his neck and poured bleach on him. Both turned out to be hoaxes but not until they had gotten sustained national attention. There have been numerous other, similar hoax crimes - hate crimes that turned out to be hoaxes. The purpose of the majority of these hoxes is to discredit Trump voters.

These always play out the same way, First someone announces that a hate crime was committed and that it was inspired by President Trump. People who hate Trump spread the word and point to this as an example of how the President empowers hate crimes. Then, when it comes out as a hoax, Trump-haters complain that it distracts from actual hate crimes which are increasing.

What never, ever happens is Trump-haters reevaluating why they were so ready to believe so many false claims. Instead, each false claim seems to reinforce their belief in violent, hateful Trump supporters. A few, such as an editor for the Washington Post, have come out and said that they need such crime to be true and that they would prefer that then to know that Trump supporters are not roaming wealthy sections of Chicago in sub-freezing temperatures looking for black gays to attack.

They need incidents like this as a way of bludgeoning Trump supporters. "You see?" they say, "You are associated with terrible people. If you don't repent then you are complicit in everything done in Trump's name." Even hoaxes are somehow evidence of Trump's malign influence.

All of this has a cumulative effect. After the two widely-publicized MAGA incidents this year people have proclaimed that the red MAGA cap is the new Klan hood. And no one announced that MAGA caps are OK after all when the crimes turned out to be hoaxes. There's also danger in this. At least a few real hate crimes have been perpetrated against people in MAGA caps and conservatives in general. A clerk in a store shouted at a 14-year old because of his MAGA cap, someone else actually pointed a gun at someone because of his MAGA cap and someone at a Turning Points USA table at a college was punched in the face for spreading hate. These incidents are barely publicized, even though all of them are worse than what the college kids were accused of doing. And all have been confirmed by police reports or unedited video.

It also has the effect of dividing the country further politically. We are currently at the point where the Democrats are basing their positions on opposing President Trump rather than on what's best for the nation.

I should mention that real hate crimes do exist and the number of reported incidents is up. This does not mean that hate crimes are up. The number of bodies reporting has increased and it's entirely possible that people are quicker to take offense and report an incident as a hate crime. Also, and this is really important, the largest increase by capita is hate crimes against Jews. It's likely that a large portion of this is coming from the left instead of from the right. The New York Times has reported that in the last 22 months, none of the antisemitic acts in NYC have been traced to anyone associated with right-wing politics.

Hate Crimes and Hoaxes

The Mainstream Media love to report on hate crimes. This is nothing new although its gone into high gear since the election of President Trump and the certainty that he is using dog signals to his supporters encouraging hate crimes. But a lot of events reported as hate crimes often turn out to be nothing of the sort.

One example is from the 1990s when the media reported on a string of black churches being burned. The FBI did extensive investigation and discovered that there was nothing to this. It turned out that since there are tens of thousands of churches in the country, several have fires every year. Many churches have electrical problems and their steeples make them susceptible to lightening strikes. These accounted for most of the church fires. The few remaining ones were set by disgruntled members of the parish or by someone to disguise a robbery. None of the fires could be attributed to hate crimes.

So, how to tell if a reported story is a hate crime or not? There are some red flags to make people skeptical.

First, how deeply was the story investigated? Hoaxes and false reports are normally rushed to print before any formal investigation. A recent example is the Covington Catholic High School kids taunting a Native American elder. No one bothered contacting the school to hear the kids' side of it nor did anyone ask for a copy of the full video. They went with a short, edited clip with narration rather than sound. Independent investigators watched dozens of hours of video and interviewed hundreds of people before deciding that it was a hoax.

Listen to the details the presumed victim gives. If they can't describe their attacker beyond race or if major details change then these are red flags that we are getting an incomplete or inaccurate story. Nathan Phillips, the so-called Native American elder, changed his story constantly. First he claimed that he was leading a protest and the kids walked up to him and surrounded him, blocking his way. Then he claimed that he was breaking up a potential fight between the kids and a separate group. Jussie Smollett claimed that he couldn't even tell the race of his attackers and his story changed several times.

Right now the biggest red flag that a story is a hoax is if the attacker proclaims that he is motivated by President Trump or is wearing a MAGA cap. There have been dozens of reported incidents Since Trump was elected and most of the ones that have been solved turned out to be hoaxes. The "victims" have admitted that they want to be part of the resistance by polarizing opinion against the president. The hoax attacks always get much more publicity than the follow-up. One local incident made the front page of the local section of the paper shortly after the 2016 election when a college student said that she was attacked by MAGA-cap wearing men who said that Trump's election meant that it was OK to assault women. The eventual follow-up was at the bottom of page 6 and only said that a student admitted to filing a false report. You had to look up her name to see what that false report had been.

There is also a tendency to leap to conclusions when an actual hate crime occurs. Reported incidents of antisemitism are way up and the mainstream media usually cites Trump's election as the cause. But antisemitism is climbing among the left and incidents of antisemitism are highest on college campuses that have strong support for the anti-Israel BDS movement. Unless perpetrators are caught, it's just as likely that antisemitism hate crimes are coming from the left as from the right. But, because most members of the media support the left and think of themselves as decent people, the leap to the conclusion that all antisemitism comes from the right.

This rush to judgement is a general problem. The left-leaning media wants reasons to discredit the president so, when a too-good-to-check story comes along, they report first and either issues retractions or ignore things when the true story gets out.

AOC and Amazon

After a nationwide search for a new headquarters, Amazon finally announced that it would build two, one in New York City and one in the DC area. This meant 25,000 jobs for each city along will billions in new tax revenue. To get their headquarters, New York agreed to several conditions including waving 10% of the taxes. $3 billion out of a expected $30 billion. Alexandria Acasio-Cortez had a fix over this and fought to kill the deal and eventually succeeded. She then suggested that NYC spent the $3 billion on teachers' salaries.

Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall for a few minutes...

Ok. Now, I'm going to make an amazing admission, AOC was right about the tax incentives that cities give large employers. They are unfair. Smaller companies can't get similar concessions so this means that government policy favors large companies over smaller ones. Government should provide an even playing field instead of one that gives advantages to large companies. Also, in many cases the companies would move there anyway, they just want the most advantageous deal they can get.

That's the theory. The practice is that companies can and do give tax breaks and other incentives to attract large employers. The rewards are great - more tax revenues to pay for expanded city services and more people employed. So the practice is not going to stop unless the federal government steps in and forbids it nationwide. That's the reality.

Given that reality, NYC got a good deal. In addition to bringing new jobs and tax revenue, Amazon was going to invest in the area. I can understand people objecting because of the disruption it would cause to their neighborhood to have a giant headquarters move in. And some of the objections came from people with those concerns. But AOC seemed to be morally offended by the tax breaks. To her it's better to forego 25,000 jobs than to give a large, powerful corporation any incentives.

Of course, Amazon still needs those workers so they will just enlarge their other headquarters included the one being built in DC. Other areas will benefit at NYC's expense. Way to go AOC.

But there is still the matte of the $3 billion that she claims NYC was going to pay Amazon. She has that backwards and sideways. Imagine buying a car. You tell the salesman (yes, salesman. I've never had a woman try to sell me a car) that you will buy the top of the line car but only if they will knock 10% off of the price. The salesman goes to his manager who agrees but then the salesman thinks better of it and says full-price or nothing. The customer proceeds to buy the car from a different dealer who will give the 10% off. Now imagine what the manager will say when the salesman says "I just saved you 10% on that car, can I have the money?" That's what AOC did.

And she celebrated that she did it.

AOC and the GND

I've seen pundits question if conservatives are obsessing over Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez (AOC) (with implications that it's somehow because she's a brown woman). No, we're not obsessing over her but we are taking her very seriously. Certainly we like to share when she makes dumb remarks (nearly every time she opens her mouth) but it's not because of her gender or ethnicity. It's because the left takes her so seriously. She's been anointed the "Socialist It GIrl". Micheal Moore says she's the head of the Democratic Party. She's got more people paying attention to her on social media than any other member of Congress. And, in only her second month, she introduced a resolution that most of the Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed. So, we'd be fools not to take her seriously. She's a major force. She's also scary.

The rollout for the Green New Deal is an excellent example of why she's scary. It calls for a massive change in the relationship of the government and the governed. It does away with entire sectors of government and calls on the government to be the employer of last resort (or possibly first resort). It commits the government to spending many times the entire national income (GDP) with no funding source except loans and printing money. It would profoundly affect the life of nearly every citizen in the country. And when asked about the scope of this, she says that she's fine with it.

Then there's the rollout itself. The Green New Deal (GND) was rolled out in two parts. The official resolution had several co-sponsors. It's a general document. That's what the candidates have endorsed. There was also a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file that her office released at the same time. This went into a lot more detail about how the general resolution would be implemented. It also had some snarky sections which where immediately seized on. When asked about these parts, her staff originally claimed that they were fakes from conservative sites. After it was shown that the metadata listed AOC's chief of staff as the author they backtracked and said it was a draft document that was released by mistake.

It's far more likely that the FAQ is exactly what it was originally described as: details about how the GND would be implemented. Things like eliminating internal combustion vehicles are consistent with other public statements that AOC has made. One phrase, " economic security to all those who are unable or unwilling to work" got a lot of criticism. The actual text of the GND calls for economic security for all Americans". There is no exception for those unwilling to work so the two statements say the same thing.

So the FAQ represents AOC's vision for the GND. But she didn't bother to run it past any of her cosponsors or any of the candidates who endorsed it. So she left them hanging in the wind.

I can see two futures for AOC. Either the party will quickly tire of her and quash her or she will be President within a decade and the US as we know it will be gone by the end of her administration.

And that's why I take her seriously and find her scary.

Kavanaugh and Fairfax

During the Kavanaugh Hearings, a parade of women came forth accusing the Judge of sexual assault. None of the accounts were credible and most were proven to be outright lies. Regardless, the Democrats on the Senate Judicial Committee used this as an excuse to vote against the judge and there's talk of impeaching him. Considering that Judge Kavanaugh's sterling reputation was one reason he was nominated, it was a sorry spectacle. All semblance of due process was thrown out the window and we were told to believe all women, no matter how tenuous the accusation.

Now Virginia Lt. Governor Fairfax has been accused of sexual assault and/or rape by two women. The first accusation was known for a year but was uncorroborated, a nicety that was ignored with Kavanaugh. But now that the first accuser has gone public, a second one has come forward and she has contemporary documentation that the assault happened. Based on the Kavanaugh standards, Democrats are already demanding that he resign and impeachment is being discussed.

While there is some satisfaction in seeing a Democrat run afoul of the new standards, this is a terrible precedent. It's also terrible on college campuses where a man can be expelled without being able to confront his accuser. We must respect due process if we are to have a civil society.

The Democrats need to temper their demands for Fairfax to resign until the claims have been investigated. It's way too soon to talk of impeachment. That should come after a conviction or at least after Fairfax has actually been charged.

Why Trump Will Win in 2020

I've predicted Donald Trump's reelection victory before but not that the election is soaping up I'm even more sure of it. Here's why.

First, President Trump has history on his side. Incumbents seldom lose. Since World War Two, an incumbent has only lost twice (I'm not count Gerald Ford's 1976 loss since he wasn't even on the ballot in 1972). Also, polarizing presidents have done better when running for reelection than non-polarizing ones. Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush were all hated by the Democrats with a passion that rivals their hatred for Trump and all won handily. Nixon and Reagan each won 49 states. Nixon and Bush also had close elections on their initial run and increased their margin of victory in their reelection. The two presidents who lost reelection, Carter and G. W. H. Bush, didn't inspire strong feelings from either side. I could also make a case that Reagan's influence distorted both elections. He beat Carter and Bush won as Reagan's 3rd term but lost when he was running as his own man for reelection.

Second there's the candidates. None of them has any name recognition or presence. Joe Biden leads the pack, mainly because people know who he is. But he'll never get the nomination. He's too old and moderate. Bernie lost his charm half-way through the 2016 primary and is now nothing more than an aging scold. Warren isn't much better. She's at her best when a quote of hers goes viral. When she opens her mouth she sounds like the law professor that she was. And, unlike Obama, she doesn't manage to give the impression of deep insight. Plus she's already crippled herself with her attempts at damage-control over her claims to be an Indian. Others like Harris and Booker have no presence. Contrast all of these with Trump's State of the Union Address. Trump inspires, the rest scold.

Finally, there are the issues. Currently it looks like any candidate who wants to win the primary will need to be a socialist and will have to support a laundry list of issues. These include:

Medicare for all. For the last decade 60%-0% of voters say they are happy with their insurance. Obama's "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" lie of the year will be a millstone around their necks. Plus there's all the people who will be thrown out of work if we outlaw private insurance as Kamala Harris proposed. 2.5 million people work in the insurance industry. That means at least a million will lose their jobs. Plus the stock market will crater as insurance companies are put out of business which will destroy retirement funds. All of this alone is enough to sink a candidate.

Open borders. The more Trump cracks down on illegal immigrants, the more the Democrats want open borders. Eliminating ICE has become a battle cry. Arguably, Trump's call for a wall and his promise to crack down on illegal immigration is what won him blue-collar swing states where pressure from illegal immigrants depressed wages. Running on open borders will only appeal to people who were already going to vote against Trump.

Guns. For years common wisdom held that Al Gore lost in 2000 because he was anti-gun so Democrats stayed neutral on them. No more. These days Democrats are in a bidding war to see who's the most anti-gun. That will run up votes in New York and California, states that Trump will never win anyway, but there are a lot of single-issue voters in swing states that Democrats need and the are scaring those voters away.

Abortion. This is a case where the Democrats have taken a winning issue and turned it into a losing one through overreach. The last couple of weeks Democrats have pushed to expand abortions well past the point of viability. The Governor of Virginia is in favor of allowing abortion when a woman is in labor, or even after the baby is born. This will mobilize the Right-to-Life voters and convince a lot of people who are generally in favor of abortion that the Democrats have gone too far.

The Green New Deal. This is being pushed by AOC as a way of saving the Earth. It is also such an authoritarian proposal that it would mean the end of democracy as we know it in the US. It calls for replacing all carbon-based power with renewables, outlawing gas-powered cars (no grandfathering, either) and limiting private ownership of vehicles in general. And that's just the start. It also calls for outright socialism and wealth redistribution. Calling this radical is an understatement and outside think tanks have pointed out that such a huge societal upheaval is not compatible with a representational democracy.

So summarize, Democrats are fighting historic trends with lack-luster candidates and a slate of unpopular issues. Barring a 2008-style financial melt-down, they don't have a chance.

The 2019 SotU

Pundits have been predicting that President Trump would use his State of the Union speech to bash Democrats and declare a state of emergency. Neither happened, Instead he gave a true state of the union, ticking off his accomplishments and setting some reasonable goals. It was a far cry from the standard shopping list of things the president wants but will never happen that we've heard for the last several decades. Trump's speech was both uplifting and fun.

Best parts

• His guests. Most of them were special people. The list included two ex-convicts, some survivors of D-Day, one of whom also was par of the liberation of Holocaust victims and, beside him, a survivor of the Holocaust and of the Tree of Life shooting. He also had Buzz Aldrin, a young cancer survivor, and others. All of them deserved the applause they got.
• The spontaneous rendition of Happy Birthday for the Holocaust survivor with Trump conducting a few seconds. That was an amazing moment and shows American exceptionalism.
• Trump getting the women in white to stand and applaud. There were supposed to be there in white to protest him but he got them to applaud then joked that they weren't supposed to do that.
• Trump denouncing Socialism.
  

The worst parts

• The Democrats, particularly the women in white refusing to applaud things like record low minority unemployment.
• Speaker Pelosi constantly looking through a stack of papers. As far as I can tell, she had marked where in the speech she was supposed to send pre-written tweets and was having trouble keeping her place. This was an amazingly disrespectful performance.

Other observations

• The hard core women in white were all in the front. They refused to applaud for much of anything. The women behind them were much looser and more likely to applaud.
• The Democratic response was largely wasted. Stacy Abrams spent too much time on her own biography and attributing her election loss to voter suppression.
• The Democrats had to use the loser of an election for give the response because nearly everyone else is running or expected to run and the party would erupt in civil war if one of the candidates got the national exposure that the response gives.
• Bernie Saunders spent almost a half hour, three times as long as Abrams, on his own response. I watched most of it. I think that this marks the end of his chances at the presidency. He sounded like a humorless old scold.
• Saunders argued that wages aren't as high as they were in 1972. This is irrelevant to nearly everyone since you have to be in your late 60s to have worked then. Earning power dropped precipitously in 1979 and has been growing ever since. There was a drop in 2008 but it has been more that regained and current earning power is about as high as it has been in 40 years. Bernie went back to 1972 because that was a historic high point. The rest of his speech was similarly weighted.

When Everyone's a White Nationalist

According to the Daily Beast, the New England Patriots are the team of white nationalists. Why? Because their owner, their coach and their quarterback all supported Trump. Plus they're from Boston and, apparently, Boston is a hotbed of racism.

And, by the way, if you root for the Patriots then you must be a white nationalist, too. Presumably, even if you're black. It doesn't matter if you actually believe in white nationalism or not. Just by rooting for a team with a tenuous connection to the president you are a white nationalist.

Some days it sucks to be a sport fan. Or a resident of Boston.