Sunday, July 30, 2017

American Airlines Pilots Take Fight Over Qatar Airways CEO's Grandmother Remark To Ireland

Ted Reed
July 22, 2017

Leaders of the big three U.S. airlines and the unions representing their pilots and flight attendants have spoken out against Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al-Baker’s remark identifying U.S. flight attendants to grandmothers.

Now Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots, has gone one step farther. The union has taken out an ad in Ireland, where Al-Baker made the remark.

“Who Hates Grandmothers?” proclaims the headline on ad that appeared in the Saturday edition of The Irish Times, Ireland’s largest daily newspaper.

Under a photo of Al-Baker, the ad contains four paragraphs of text and is signed by APA President Dan Carey, who is of Irish descent. He and his wife have homes in Rockville Centre, N.Y. and Ballyporeen, Ireland.

The text says that Al-Baker: “recently complained to guests at a Dublin gala that cabin crewmembers on US airlines are ‘grandmothers’ and characterized U.S. carriers as ‘crap’. The gala Qatar Airways’ new Dublin-Doha route.

“I have news for Mr. Al-Baker: We love grandmothers and we’re proud of our co-workers’ skill and experience. We rely on it every day on flights across the globe.

“If you’re like us and love grandmothers too, consider flying American Airlines,” the ad says. It then lists 11 U.S. destinations including New York, Charlotte, Philadelphia, California, Texas and Arizona. “Like Doha, some of the places we can take you even have sand,” it says.

Two of the four principal American Airlines labor unions are headed by New Yorkers with strong Irish roots. John Samuelsen, president of the Transport Workers Union, is Irish; has lived his entire life in Brooklyn, and is a strong admirer of Mike Quill, the co-founder of TWU who fought for the Irish Republican Army before immigrating to New York and going to work for the IRT subway line.

Speaking two weeks ago in Dublin at a celebration of the launch of Qatar Airways' Doha-Dublin service, Al-Baker referred to the "excellent service from our international cabin crew," adding, "By the way, the average age of my cabin crew is only 26 years."

By contrast, he said, "You know you are being served by grandmothers on American airlines."

Al-Baker also said, "There is no need to travel on those crap American carriers."

A video of Al-Baker speaking was posted on YouTube by Travel Extra, an Irish newspaper that covers travel. A few days later, Al-Baker apologized.

“The remarks were made informally at a private gala dinner, following comments about the Qatar Airways cabin service, and were in no way intended to cause offense," Al-Baker said in a prepared statement. "This is a time of strong rivalry between our airline and the U.S. carriers, and we are of course immensely proud of our own cabin crew.”

Al-Baker is locked in a conflict with American, Delta, and United because Qatar Airways, along with Emirates and Etihad Airways, all subsidized by their governments in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have expanded rapidly in the U.S. in violation of the Open Skies agreements that enable the expansion.

"Our competitors who violate trade agreements are doing it from offshore, so we’re going offshore to fight them,” said APA spokesman Dennis Tajer






====================================
Your dues thrown away!

A retired African American vice president - opined:
  • When Willie Randolph (former Mets Manager) was ridiculed for saying having ‘grew up in Brooklyn and went to  Samuel J. Tilden High School’ - wonders if it was a skin color issue. 
  • Whether John Samuelsen will defend other nationalities airlines - Jamaican Airways, Caribbean Airlines or South African Airways.
  • A right hand man of Samuelsen who is over 59 years of age, divorced his high school sweetheart (she was old in his view = grandmother), married a young female who is 20 years old (over 35 years age difference).

Republicans’ failure to ‘repeal and replace’ Obamacare may cost them at the ballot box

July 29, 2017

The Republican Party’s seven-year quest to undo the Affordable Care Act culminated Friday in a humiliating failure to pass an unpopular bill, sparking questions about how steep the costs will be for its congressional majorities.

While lawmakers have not completely abandoned the effort, they are now confronting the consequences of their flop. Not only has it left the GOP in a precarious position heading into next year’s midterm elections, but it also has placed enormous pressure on the party to pass an ambitious and complex overhaul of federal taxes.

Strategists argued for months that Republicans risked more by not acting and alienating their conservative base than by passing an unpopular repeal bill that could turn off swing voters. They now live in the worst of both worlds — with nothing to show for seven years of campaign promises, even though dozens of vulnerable lawmakers cast votes that could leave them exposed to attacks from Democrats.

“This is an epic failure by congressional Republicans,” said Tim Phillips, president of the conservative Koch network group Americans for Prosperity. “But it’s time to pivot to tax reform. There’s no time to pout.”

In the moments after the bare-bones repeal bill failed early Friday morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said it was “time to move on.” But there seemed to be little stomach afterward among Republicans on Capitol Hill for acknowledging outright failure on their top campaign promise.

Lawmakers did agree, however, that when they return to Washington after Labor Day, they must succeed in their rewrite of the tax code after seven months that have seen too many of their top agenda items untouched.

“We’ve asked the voters for a lot,” said Rep. James B. Renacci (R-Ohio), who is leaving Congress after his current term to run for governor. “They’ve given us the House. They’ve given us the Senate. They’ve given us the presidency. It’s time to give them something back and get something done.”

Off the Hill, the collapse of the repeal effort has left conservative activists fuming about how the GOP could have flinched and pondering payback for the party establishment — particularly several moderate senators who voted for ACA repeal legislation when it had no chance of becoming law only to balk when it did.

In campaign after campaign since the ACA was enacted in 2010, GOP candidates used pledges to “repeal and replace Obamacare” to gain majorities in the House and Senate, and President Trump promised to unravel the law as one of his first acts in office.

Instead, Republicans have continually failed to coalesce around an alternative — vividly demonstrated by the dramatic failure of the “skinny repeal” on the Senate floor early Friday morning. They appear trapped in the fallacy of sunk costs: Having invested so much political capital in the ACA’s repeal, they cannot possibly abandon it.

Numerous House lawmakers leaving a closed-door Republican conference meeting hours after the Senate bill collapsed said that efforts to undo the increasingly popular health law would have to continue.

“I am disappointed and frustrated, but we should not give up,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) declared.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the leader of an influential bloc of House conservatives, insisted a deal was still within reach and said he’d approached key senators. And while Trump said he would “let Obamacare implode,” he also urged senators on Twitter to jettison their filibuster rules to pass “really good things.”

But key figures warned Republicans to move on before the health morass sinks the rest of the party’s agenda — most importantly, the tax overhaul.

“Quarantine it,” said Josh Holmes, a GOP strategist and former chief of staff to McConnell who coined the “repeal and replace” mantra in 2010. “You can let it destroy your entire agenda and your entire party as a result of inaction by continuing to dwell on something that, frankly, they’ve proven unable to do.”

But conservative activists have been furious in the aftermath of the repeal vote and have cast about for ways to punish those they consider responsible.

The three Republican senators who cast the decisive votes on Friday — Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — are largely immune to immediate electoral consequences. Murkowski, who withstood public pressure from Trump, is less than a year into a six-year term; McCain, also reelected last year, is battling an aggressive form of brain cancer; and Collins, who has not faced a serious primary threat since 1996, next stands for reelection in 2020 and is considering a run for governor next year.

But activists are still angry that several other Republican senators — Dean Heller (Nev.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Rob Portman (Ohio), as well as McCain and Murkowski — voted for an ACA repeal measure in 2015, when President Obama was certain to veto it, but opposed an almost identical measure this week knowing Trump could sign it into law.

“That level of cynicism is breathtaking, even in the political world,” said Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, which helped drive the public backlash to the ACA ahead of the 2010 Republican congressional wave.

Only Heller faces reelection next year, however, and he has yet to attract a conservative primary challenger despite emerging as a key swing vote who pushed to reduce the scope of the Senate’s efforts.

Adam Brandon, president of the conservative activist group FreedomWorks, said Heller “opened himself wide open” to a primary challenge: “By bending over backwards to save Medicaid expansion, to preserve the fastest-growing entitlement program in the United States, what conservative, Republican, libertarian constituency were you serving?”

Brandon, whose group deemed the turncoats “Freedom Frauds,” said the events of the past months have revealed a party with a double standard in handling its right flank versus its more moderate faction.

Had the Senate’s leading conservatives tanked the health bill, he said, “they would be recruiting someone to primary Mike Lee and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, but that’s not happening” with Collins, McCain and Murkowski. He also suggested that the committee chairmanships held by the trio ought to be at risk.

In the House, the political challenge posed to Republicans is the opposite: Dozens of members targeted for defeat by national Democrats voted for the American Health Care Act, the GOP bill judged by the Congressional Budget Office to result in higher premiums for older and sick Americans.

Democrats made clear they intend to use that vote in their 2018 campaigns, even if the bill was never ultimately made law.

“House Republicans can’t turn back time and undo the morally bankrupt vote they took to kick 23 million Americans off their health insurance, impose an unfair age tax and cause skyrocketing premiums,” said Tyler Law, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Speaker Ryan and all House Republicans own their disastrous bill, and it will certainly haunt their imperiled Republican majority in 2018.”

On the flip side, House Republicans who cast votes for the bill cannot point to any finished product that might motivate more conservative voters. Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, insisted that the circumstances surrounding the health bill would actually work to the GOP’s benefit.

“Our base knows what we did,” Stivers said. “But it also isn’t going to become law, so . . . I think they have a hard time really punishing our members for some theoretical details.”

A handful of moderate Republican lawmakers said Friday they would be open to pursuing a bipartisan fix to the ACA. But for most rank-and-file Republicans, the approach is simple: Never say die.

“It’s only a defeat if we surrender,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.). “Look, the U.S. Navy was devastated at Pearl Harbor, but three years later the Japanese surrendered to us. . . . The history books of America are marked by us rebounding from defeat and turning it into victory. We’re going to keep pushing.”

Inside the closed-door conference meeting Friday, Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) showed his colleagues clips of early Atlanta Falcons touchdowns in this year’s Super Bowl — a game won by the New England Patriots after a furious 25-point comeback.

Plenty of House members showed a willingness to hang the health bill’s failure on the Senate, which due to its filibuster rules has yet to take up or pass dozens of significant House bills. In a final meeting before a five-week summer recess, Ryan told his colleagues that they represented the most functional branch of government.

But several House members said they were skeptical House Republicans would be able to separate themselves from the other chambers’s failure and feared that they, too, would suffer from a dejected GOP base.

Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), who represents a blue-collar downstate district Democrats are heavily targeting in 2018, said he rarely encounters a constituent who airs frustrations with a particular chamber.

“They never say, ‘Well, it’s the Senate or the House.’ What they say it is, ‘It’s Congress,’” he said. “I can’t change who the Senate is, okay? But I can keep doing my job, and that’s what I intend to talk about.”









====================================
A promise to gut our health care system as though the morality of not keeping a promise is the point - so republican voters are pissed because their legislators didn't ruin the lives of enough poor people.

They proved their ability to obstruct during the Obama years. Now they're boldly display an inability to govern.

Shame on you Rep. Loudermilk (R-Ga.). The comparison you make of the "repeal and replace" to the WWII bombing of Pearl Harbor is completely disrespectful.

China Bets Trump Won't Resort to Strike Against North Korea

Bloomberg News
July 30, 2017

China is betting that U.S. President Donald Trump won’t make good on his threats of a military strike against North Korea, with Beijing continuing to provide a lifeline to Kim Jong Un’s regime.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson singled out China and Russia as “economic enablers” of North Korea after Kim on Friday test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile for the second time in a matter of weeks. While Tillerson said the U.S. wants a peaceful resolution to the tensions, the top American general called his South Korean counterpart after the launch to discuss a potential military response.

China on Saturday condemned the latest test while calling for restraint from all parties, a muted reaction to Pyongyang’s progress on an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. Despite Kim’s provocations, analysts said Beijing still sees the collapse of his regime as a more immediate strategic threat, and doubts Trump would pull the trigger given the risk of a war with North Korea that could kill millions.

“The military option the Americans are threatening won’t likely happen because the stakes will be too high,” said Liu Ming, director of the Korean Peninsula Research Center at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. “It’s a pretext and an excuse to pile up pressure on China. It’s more like blackmail than a realistic option.”

Relations between the world’s biggest economies have soured after an initial honeymoon between Trump and President Xi Jinping. The U.S. last month sanctioned a regional Chinese bank, a shipping company and two Chinese citizens over dealings with North Korea, which could be a precursor to greater economic and financial pressure on Beijing to rein in its errant neighbor.


Trump has expressed periodic public frustration with Beijing over the pace of its efforts to curtail Kim. On Saturday he again linked China’s actions to the broader U.S.-China trade relationship.


“I am very disappointed in China,” he said in a series of Twitter posts. “Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!”

Hours later, Xi called on China to speed up its military modernization, telling troops at an army parade that “the world isn’t safe at this moment.”

“A strong army is needed now more than ever,” he said, without specifically addressing North Korea or Trump’s comments.

China’s biggest fears related to North Korea remain a collapse of Kim’s regime that sparks a protracted refugee crisis, and a beefed-up U.S. military presence on its border.

Losing Patience

It has repeatedly called for both sides to step back, proposing the U.S. halt military drills in the region and 

North Korea freeze weapons tests. The U.S. has dismissed that proposal, saying North Korea must first be willing to discuss rolling back its nuclear program. On Saturday, the U.S. announced that two Air Force B-1B bombers conducted bilateral exercises with South Korean and Japanese fighter jets in response to the ICBM test.

North Korea is “probably correct” in its view that it can survive sanctions long enough to build its arsenal to the point where the world has to accept it as a nuclear state, according to Andrew Gilholm, director of North Asia analysis at Control Risks Group. The U.S. is likely to make a “dramatic move” this year against China in a bid to stop that from happening, he said.

“If the U.S. really loses patience and moves against major Chinese banks or firms it will certainly impact North Korea’s financing, but I don’t see Beijing making a radical policy change under that kind of pressure,” Gilholm said from Seoul. “It’ll likely harden China’s insistence that Washington has to deal with Pyongyang, not coerce China into strangling it.”

China’s relations with its neighbor and ally have become more fraught, though China still accounts for about 90 percent of North Korea’s trade. North Korea warned China of “grave consequences” earlier this year after it banned coal imports, while Beijing’s Communist Party media stepped up criticism of Kim’s regime.

Missile Shield

The latest ICBM test also risks boosting tensions between China and South Korea over a missile shield. 

Seoul has partially installed the U.S.’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile shield despite Chinese protests. It had halted that roll out under the new administration of President Moon Jae-in, but after the ICBM test Moon called for talks with the U.S. on temporarily deploying more launchers. China warned on Saturday that Thaad would disrupt the region’s strategic balance.

The U.S. carried out a test of Thaad on Sunday, the Pentagon said in a statement. A medium-range target ballistic missile was launched from a plane over the Pacific Ocean, then tracked and intercepted by a system located in Alaska.

Despite the disagreement over Thaad, on the whole China probably prefers Moon to the conservative government he replaced in May. Since taking office, Moon has sought to engage North Korea, calling for peace talks and saying he’d meet Kim under the right conditions.

Mass Casualties

Moon’s dovish views on North Korea make it likely he’ll oppose a U.S. missile strike on North Korea. U.S. Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also warned in June that an armed conflict with North Korea would leave Seoul facing casualties “unlike anything we’ve seen in 60 or 70 years.”

As relations with the U.S. cool, China has boosted ties with Russia. The countries blocked U.S.-led efforts to expand penalties against North Korea in a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning its first ICBM test on July 4. Those ties are likely to strengthen after Trump said he’d tighten sanctions on Russia for meddling in the U.S. election and aggression in Ukraine.

To placate Trump, China will likely take some moderate measures against North Korea without doing anything that could collapse the regime, said Gilholm from Control Risks.

"China has a lot of room to step up pressure on Pyongyang while staying well short of a really destabilizing ‘cut-off,’” he said. “Personally I don’t think North Korea is going to roll over and give up its nuclear survival card even under a life-threatening level of economic pressure." 

Friday, July 28, 2017

Trump announces that he will ban transgender people from serving in the military

By Abby Phillip, Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Mike DeBonis
July 26, 2017

President Trump announced on Twitter on Wednesday that he will ban transgender people from serving in the military in any capacity, an abrupt reversal of an Obama administration decision to allow them to serve openly and a potential end to the careers of thousands of active-duty troops.
The decision halts a years-long process of advancing rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the U.S. military that began with the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2010. And the nature of the announcement left Republicans and Democrats in Congress concerned about the seeming broad scope of Trump’s order.
                                                                                                  Citing the need to focus on what he called “decisive and overwhelming victory,” Trump said that the military cannot accept the burden of higher medical costs and the “disruption” that transgender troops “would entail.”
“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who in 2010 opposed ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” criticized Trump’s decision in a statement, attacking both how it was delivered and its implications for active-duty transgender troops.

“The president’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter,” McCain said. “The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity,” McCain said.
Trump was lobbied for over a year by conservative Republicans to roll back the Obama administration policy change. Christian conservative leaders pressed him on the issue as a candidate in June 2016 during a meeting in New York just after Trump secured the Republican nomination for president. Many of them said the military is no place for “social experimentation” at the expense of military readiness.
                                                                                            Although they were pleased with Trump’s decision, Wednesday’s announcement came with no warning to those same conservative leaders. It also was a surprise to many on Capitol Hill.
Trump’s decision comes two weeks after the House rejected an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have blocked the Pentagon from offering gender transition therapies to active-duty service members. Twenty-four Republicans joined 190 Democrats voting to reject the measure.
But conservative lawmakers — many of them members of the House Freedom Caucus — had threatened to withhold support for a spending bill if Congress did not act to prohibit the Pentagon from paying for the procedures. The impasse broadly threatened government spending, but most importantly for Trump, it potentially held up money that had been appropriated for the border wall between the United States and Mexico, a key promise he had made during the campaign.
A White House official and a House GOP official confirmed that Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.), all Freedom Caucus members, were in talks with the White House and House leadership on the issue.

They were willing to accept a Defense Department or White House provision that addressed paying for procedures — well short of a ban on transgender people serving in the military, according to the House official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

Trump went well beyond what they had requested.
Earlier this year, Trump’s military leadership had signaled that they needed more time to fully assess the implementation of the last significant piece of the Obama administration’s approach, delaying the entry of transgender military recruits until the end of 2017. The policy in place would have allowed them to begin serving July 1, but Defense Secretary Jim Mattis delayed it just before the deadline, citing a need for more study.
The six-month delay was requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would have allowed a further review of how integrating transgender recruits would affect the military’s “readiness and lethality,” Mattis said in a memo last month. That review was due in early December.
Mattis noted that the delay “in no way presupposes the outcome.”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump’s decision, saying it was purely focused on military readiness. Yet when pressed by reporters on how the new policy would be implemented and how it would affect currently serving transgender troops, Sanders deferred the questions to the Pentagon. She said Trump had made the decision and informed Mattis of the policy change Tuesday.
“Look, I think sometimes you have to make decisions, and once he made a decision, he didn’t feel it was necessary to hold that decision, and they’re going to work together with the Department of Defense to lawfully implement it,” Sanders said.
Aside from a short statement, the Pentagon referred all questions regarding Trump’s tweets to the White House.
In a sign of how quickly political and social norms have shifted in Washington, many Republican lawmakers spoke out against Trump’s announcement.
As well as McCain, Republican Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah); Joni Ernst (Iowa), an Army veteran; and Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) issued statements calling the president’s decision into question.
Under former defense secretary Ashton B. Carter, the military lifted the ban on transgender troops and was given one year to determine how to implement a policy that would allow transgender service members to receive medical care and ban the services from involuntarily separating people in the military who came out as transgender.
Thousands of troops serving in the military are transgender, and some estimates place the number as high as 11,000 in the reserves and active-duty military, according to a Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Defense Department.
The Rand study estimated that gender-transition-related medical treatments would cost the military between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually. 
Brad Carson, a former congressman who worked on transgender policy deliberations under the Obama administration, said in an interview Wednesday that months of delays last year in implementing a change in transgender policy “left the door open” to Trump’s action and potentially invites litigation challenging the president’s decision.
“That being said, just from the tweets, it seems as if what he is doing is rolling back already implemented policies, which will force out several hundred openly transgender service members out of the military,” Carson said.
Also Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit arguing that LGBT people are not protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
As a political candidate, Trump largely avoided issues related to LGBT rights, even while many in his family — including daughter Ivanka Trump — have been vocal supporters of LBGT people.
But since taking office, the Trump administration has rolled back protections, including those for transgender children in public schools. And earlier this year, even before the decision on public schools, the Pentagon quietly rescinded a directive to Defense Department schools that students were free to use the bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.

The White House also did not recognize LGBT Pride Month in June, although other members of his administration did so, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
When asked whether Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, were involved in the discussions before Trump’s tweets Wednesday, the White House official said, “It actually may have caught them unaware.”
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank that has helped the Pentagon research transgender people serving in the military, released a statement condemning the move.
“This is a shocking and ignorant attack on our military and on transgender troops who have been serving honorably and effectively for the past year,” Belkin said.