More San Francisco Shots

The beads and pipe cleaners were already set out in my granddaughter's pre-school class when we got there.










We walked a bit in the neighborhood before getting the bus the rest of the way.  We stumbled into
Boudin Bakery on 10th and Geary.

Wikipedia says:

"Boudin Bakery (Anglicized pronunciation: "boo-DEEN") is a bakery based in San Francisco, California, known for its sourdough bread (trademarked as "The Original San Francisco Sourdough").[1] It was established in 1849 by Isidore Boudin, son of a family of master bakers from Burgundy, France, by blending the sourdough prevalent among miners in the Gold Rush with French techniques.[2] The Boudin Bakery is San Francisco's oldest continuously operating business.[1]
Steven Giraudo, an artisan baker from Italy whose first job in America was at Boudin, bought the bakery in 1941 but later sold it in 1993 after Boudin became the cornerstone of the San Francisco Frenchbread Company.[3] After a series of ownership changes the bakery was reacquired by Steven Giraudo’s grandson, Daniel in 2002. Under Daniel’s leadership Boudin’s products are available globally through retailers such as Costco, Safeway and other grocery retailers.[3]
The bakery has locations on Fisherman's Wharf near San Francisco Bay, Disney California Adventure Park, and 30 other cafés scattered throughout California. The main bakery in San Francisco is in the Richmond District on the corner of 10th Avenue and Geary Boulevard."

But according to the sales lady this morning, the bakery moved to Fisherman's Wharf last year.
She mentioned that when I asked about the names in the sidewalk out in front.  They're the names of employees in the bakery.  (There is another list just like this one a few feet to the left.)

 Just across the street is the neighborhood library.





Thom, an old Peace Corps friend who lives in San Francisco, picked us up and took us to lunch near the Castro District - a great little dim sum place called Ma Ma Ji.  The food was excellent - good sized portions - and a wonderful server.

That's the best I can do today.  Getting up at 6 to take the kids to school by bus at 7 and getting them later in the afternoon and today providing dinner as well, has limited my interest time.  But I'm not complaining.

Some San Francisco Shots

Up early to get the grandkids to school.  We bus to meet one school bus in front of the second kid's school.  Then walk most of the way back.  I have lunch with a student from over 20 years ago who is working on his doctorate and the National Intelligence University in Monterey.

Then back to do kid pick ups.  Here are a couple of pictures from the day.

The shot below was on the kitchen counter.  I call it Still Live with Monster and Cheerios.

But there parks, large and small, tucked in here and there too.

This is Mountain Lake.  The sign began:

"Before you is one of San Francisco's last surviving natural lakes . . ."

It's part of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area where I also took the following picture.

Everyday Art

People argue over what is art.  Artists have mocked critics with absurd creations.  Context is important to some so called pieces of art.  But some things are just beautiful.

I was stopped at a long red light, when I saw these cacti brightly lit by afternoon sunshine against this salamander orange wall.  Did someone plan that these cacti to grow again this bright wall? Did they think about the afternoon sun hitting directly on it like this?  Is it still a work in progress and the artist is aiming for larger cactus?  Maybe no one even thought about this at all.  But I think there's some intention.  You don't just paint a wall a color like that without wanting to make some sort of statement.

In any case, it's spectacular and it's free for anyone there in the afternoon sun.

Uber Ends Guaranteed Prices In California (And Alaska Gov Recall Gets Another Judicial Approval)

I got this email Wednesday from Uber:

"Changes to Uber in California
Due to a new state law, we are making some changes to help ensure that Uber remains a dependable source of flexible work for California drivers.
These changes may take some getting used to, but our goal is to keep Uber available

to as many qualified drivers as possible, without restricting the number of drivers who can work at a given time.
We want your Uber experience to be excellent, and fewer drivers on the road would mean a more expensive and less reliable service for you.


What’s changing?
 
From upfront price to estimated price range
You will now see a price range rather than a set price before you request any non-Pool ride, which is our best estimate of what the trip will cost you. The final price will be calculated at the end of your trip, based on the actual time and distance traveled. You can see the final price on your receipt or in the app.

Schedule rides with your favorite drivers
After you give a driver a 5-star rating, you can now add them as a Favorite Driver. Next time you request a scheduled ride, your favorite drivers will have the opportunity to accept your reservation. If you give a driver a 1-star rating, you won’t be matched on future rides.

 
Changes to Uber Rewards benefits
We unfortunately have to discontinue some Uber Rewards benefits, like price protection on a route and flexible cancellations, for trips in California. To learn more, see the Rewards hub in your Uber app. We’re actively working on new benefits for California riders, so stay tuned for future announcements."

Uber's map system has given our drivers from LAX to my mom's house, much longer routes than necessary.  The driver tells us it's faster.  One time we let him go with it and it added 5-7 miles to the trip.  He drove fast while on the freeway, but much further.  This last time we insisted going our way and got there in the same time that Uber predicted for the long way.

When the price was guaranteed, that doesn't matter - except they use more fuel if they aren't all electric.  But now, the extra miles will add to the bill.  That was an advantage over taxis.  When I drove a cab out of LAX, one driver said he could add a mile going downtown, just by switching lanes regularly.

The new California law addresses contract workers, not just Uber.  But it affects them a lot. Uber and Lyft have a referendum that challenges that law.  I would guess this is part of the campaign to get their users to vote for their ballot measure.  A part that will probably evade campaign finance laws.

No such email from Lyft yet.

Meanwhile, it appears that  Judge Aarseth, the judge on the Graham v. MOA case, found the Governor Recall petition to be valid.  It will go to the Alaska Supreme Court now.  Libby Bakalar, one of the attorneys fired by Dunleavy, an attorney whose opinions on recall petitions were still on the AG's page last time I looked, and who helped write the recall petition tweeted that very recently.  I assume she know what's she's talking about here.  Didn't find it yet on Google.

Judge Aarseth is ruling from the bench that the recall of @GovDunleavy is legally sound & can go forward. The State & intervenors Stand Tall With Mike will now appeal to SCOAK. I’m proud of the small parts I played in this process over the years as an AAG & along the way here.

— One Hot Mess AK (@libbybakalar) January 10, 2020

Mystery Spots, Floating Bear, Changing Neighborhoods

The two year old mirror in the back bathroom at my mom's house had developed dark round spots here and there.  A mystery.  And a project.  I loosened the brackets that were holding it up, only to discover there was glue involved too.  Youtube showed me how to remove a mirror with glue.  Fortunately I followed the advice and taped it well because it did break into pieces.  Someone else gave me advice to wear long sleeves.

When I got the mirror off, I found out the source of the mystery spots.  All the spots were where the glue was on the back of the mirror.

Another youtube showed me how to glue a new mirror up.  I needed mirror adhesive.

On the way to the hardware store, I passed this new (to me) mural.  It's much easier to stop and take a picture when you're on your bike.

@TJN3FF did this great bear mural - though it looks more like an otter pose than a bear pose.  If you go to his instagram page you'll see at least one more that I've posted in the past.

While I was at the hardware store, some clouds came over and there were even scattered raindrops. We have drizzle (it wasn't), shower, rain, downpour (none of them), but we don't have a word I know of for 10-15 raindrops per square meter per minute.

I'd notice this boxy modern new house going up on the way.  I was particularly struck by the steps to the roof.  I thought they looked very cool, but I know they're going to get a railing before long, and that's probably a good idea.





But on the way back I was thinking about the way this neighborhood is changing.  Up on this small hill, the houses tend to be bigger than the bungalows in the flatter area, but this one is still bigger and a stark contrast in style.  Here are a couple of the neighboring houses:

This is within a mile of my mom's house, but a totally different neighborhood

Back in 2007 I posted some pictures of some of the original subdivision houses in my mom's neighborhood along with some of the newer, much larger ones that have replaced the originals.

In the 12 years or so since I did the 2007 post, Google and other high tech companies have moved in between these neighborhoods and the beach.  So there are lots of affluent young tech folks buying up old houses, demolishing them, and building much bigger ones.  And there are also developers doing the same and then putting them up for sale.  

I grew up in a three bedroom, one and a half bath house - a family of four.  It seemed plenty big at the time, but it's only about 1200 square feet.  And not cleverly designed to use the space to its fullest.  

And I'd note there was a tent encampment along the sidewalk by the post office near the hardware store.  That hadn't been there last time.  

What Happens To Jurors Who Work To Get Defendants Acquitted?

Senate President McConnell has said he's working with Trump in preparation for the impeachment trial in the Senate and that there will be a quick acquittal.  Given that, it seemed appropriate to consider what can happen when a juror does this in a court trial.  Here's an example:

From the American Bar Association Journal:

Jovanda Blackson, a prospective juror in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, answered no to each of those questions during voir dire last year, ensuring her place on the panel that would decide the fate of two men charged with murder.
Trouble is, Blackson did know one of the defendants. She did know his wife. And, while this mother of three had no criminal record, a couple of her relatives—including her brother—did.
Unfortunately, the judge and prosecutors didn’t know that until after Blackson succeeded in hanging the jury, prompting a mistrial for both defendants. Only later, thanks to a tip from a jailhouse informant, were suspicions from her fellow jurors confirmed and the truth emerged.
Blackson had known the defendant from grade school. When she appeared for jury duty, prosecutors say, Blackson recognized him, winked to let him know she would take care of him, and later conspired with his wife to either convince her fellow jurors to acquit or hold out for a mistrial.
Blackson is serving 61⁄2 years [published in 2006] behind bars after pleading guilty in May to conspiracy, contempt and obstruction of justice. The man she attempted to help, Lamiek K. Fortson, and his co defendant, Harry Ellis, are serving time too, having been retried and convicted, and an obstruction offense was added to Fortson’s record. Fortson’s wife, Erica Williams, was given a 74 month suspended sentence, five years of supervised release, 500 hours of community service and a $250 fine.

And in court trials, there's the process known as voir dire, where attorneys from both sides can dismiss jurors they feel are biased or likely to vote against their client.  They're estimating this process will take at least two weeks in the Weinstein trial that started this week.

Here are some notes from the Judicial Education Center at the University of New Mexico:

"Judicial Participation in Voir Dire
The judge overseeing voir dire, who is listening first hand to the attorneys' questions and the jury panel members' responses, is in the best position to determine whether voir dire has sufficiently exposed any biases that may preclude jurors from acting fairly and impartially. State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-036, ¶35. As previously noted, the judge has the right to control and limit voir dire with the limitation being the ultimate need for fairness in the process. To ensure fairness in the process to both the prosecution and defense, the judge should consider doing the following regarding voir dire:
Determine in advance how much time to allow for voir dire, advise the attorneys of that allotted time frame and work to ensure that it is divided as equally as possible between the two sides.
If the need arises to step in to resolve a dispute between the parties or deal with an objection, call the attorneys to the bench and take care of it outside the earshot of the jury panel. Alternatively, remove the jury panel from the courtroom and deal with the issue outside of its presence. The goal with either of these methods is to resolve the dispute and move on with voir dire while maintaining the critical neutrality of the judge and communicating that to the panel.
If asking the jury panel questions of his or her own, the judge should make efforts to do so sparingly and in a way that does not create the perception that the judge has "taken a side" in the case. In other words, in addition to working to ensure fairness between the prosecution and defense, the judge wants to present him or herself as being fair to both parties and neutral in the case. This is especially critical in stalking and harassment cases where the behavior can be seen as bizarre on its face and responses provided by jury panelists during voir dire can perhaps promote similar responses and reactions."

One might hope that Chief Justice John Roberts would be thinking about these issues.  Except that this is not a judicial trial.  Due Process - which gives the accused the right to a fair trail before their life, liberty, or property is taken away - is not the standard here.  President Trump doesn't risk jail, execution, or even a fine if he's found guilty.

This is more like firing someone for not performing his job duties satisfactorily.  Just cause - the idea that there must be a violation of the rules - is the standard when one is fired.

Perhaps a major news outlet could track down Jovanda Blackson today and interview her about the consequences of colluding with the defendant to hang a jury.  Right after having Sen. McConnell brag about working with the White House.

Can You Guess The Mission Of The Center For Consumer Freedom?

I'd seen the full page ad in the LA Times.  There were two lists of chemicals.

From Center for Consumer Freedom

 The tiny line on the bottom says, "Paid for by the Center for Consumer Freedom."  My guess was this was paid for by the beef industry.   But I had other things to do than pursue this.

Then today's LA Times had an editorial titled:

Beef sellers vs. faux meat  (In the print version)

The beef industry is freaking out over plant-based meat? Too bad (online version)

It starts out telling us the impossible burger is hard to tell from the real thing.  And that's scaring the meat industry which put out this ad through the Center for Consumer Freedom.  There used to be research institutes that did reasonably objective research.  Places like the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute.  They may have some built in bias, but they had really smart researchers and they aimed at giving their clients the most accurate information they could.  When wealthy conservatives saw the influences these 'think tanks' had, they began creating their own which would produce 'research' that supported their political pet projects.  

Here's what the website Consumer Deception found when they asked "Consumer Freedom or Deception?"

"The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington, D.C.-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris.
Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its way into nonprofit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars “donated” by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co."

Sourcewatch's introduction to its research on the Center for Consumer Freedom  says:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network (GCN)") is a front group run by Rick Berman's PR firm Berman & Co., originally primarily for the benefit of restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries. It runs media campaigns that oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.'"
More recently CMD revealed that the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation is funding CCF to attack environmental groups with pop-up websites, like the "BigGreenRadicals.com" website, as well as to assist and train other Bradley-funded organizations in crisis communications (more below).[1]
CCF changed its name to the Center for Organizational Research and Education in early 2014[2] but uses both names.
CCF is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization under the IRS code 501(c)(3). Its advisory board is comprised mainly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries. As of its most recent (2015) tax filing, Berman was its principal officer and held its books.[3]

The LA Times, to their credit,  did a pretty strong editorial exposing the ad. Some excerpts:

"While it’s true that a plant-based meat alternative is processed — meaning altered in the preparation process, like just about everything else at the grocery store — and it’s true that eating one is not as healthy as say, a pile of raw vegetables, it’s best to take the ads with a generous pinch of salt. (Or sodium, which the ads correctly note is higher in precooked plant patties than in the beef kind.). . . "

"And if methylcellulose, a food thickener, sounds unappetizing, it’s really nothing compared with the E. coli or salmonella poisoning you can get from regular meat. The truth is that beef and other industrial meats are often packaged with things a lot more dangerous to human health than food additives. You want to talk about a public health threat? The widespread prophylactic use of human grade antibiotics in cows and other livestock has contributed greatly to the rise of lethal antibiotic-resistant organisms. . . "

Then they take a totally different tack.  They talk about eating burgers guilt free, because fake burgers don't increase climate change by cutting down the Amazon forest for cattle grazing.  And then they talk about the brutal lives that beef and chicken lead before being slaughtered.

"So why do we still do it [eat meat]? Because meat tastes soooooo good and is such an efficient source of protein. Plus, did we mention it’s so tasty? A plant-based meat that satisfies meat cravings and delivers protein but with a smaller climate footprint is a potential environmental game changer and the reason Impossible Foods was one of the recipients of the U.N. Global Climate Action Award in 2019. No wonder the meat industry is on guard."

What I take from this is:

1. Check the who the groups that sponsor such ads are.  If their name seems suspiciously goody-goody, look them up online.  There are lots of legitimate sites that check out such organizations and tell us who pays for them.  
2. Give credit to the LA Times for putting up a prominent editorial exposing an advertiser in their paper.  
3. Remember how much beef impacts climate change.   

Bike, Beach, Benny As My Knee And Weather Improve

My knee has a little more range of motion every day.  Lots of ice and anti-inflammatories.  Today, with the temperature in the mid-70s*, I seemed I had enough recovery in my leg to ride the bike.  And the weather was so deliciously perfect.

But things aren't all good in Southern California.  On the way to the beach I passed this small homeless encampment which wasn't here as recently as last July, the last time we were here.

There's about the same amount of stuff on the other side of the camper.










And even at Venice Beach there are more places where homeless folks have settled.  There were people near here in the past.  This is in the richest country in the world whose economy is doing so well that we have lots of multibillionaires.

I didn't want to overdo it, so I didn't go too far along the beach, even though the Sirens were calling me.

On the way home I took a picture of THIS palm tree that's been here a while.  I just  never had a chance to get it posted.  Vox says it's a cell phone tower.  The article also talks about other attempts in other locations to disguise electrical equipment.

"Over the past few decades, as cellphone networks have grown, thousands of antenna towers designed to look vaguely like trees have been built across the United States. Although these towers are intended to camouflage a tower's aesthetic impact on the landscape, they typically do the opposite: most look like what an alien from a treeless planet might create if told to imagine a tree."

That was my take as well.  

I also wanted to go to the cemetery today because the caretaker who keeps the jade plants for our departed family members' alive during most of the year only works there Mondays and Fridays.  And I wanted to thank him.  On the way we stopped for lunch at a Vegan Thai place.

My mom's got some famous neighbors, some of whom I've posted about in the past.  Today while we were looking for R, I found this marker.  Not sure how many of the younger folks even know who he is.  I remember him as a very funny man. But when I looked for some video, it was a different time.  But here's one with Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  





A good day to be here.  It's supposed to be a little cooler tomorrow.

And for those who wondered about the friend I mentioned the other day, who was going on the cruise through the Strait of Hormuz, well I got an email back from him.  He said that cruise isn't until March.  They had arrived in Cabo yesterday.  Still wondering if the March cruise is going to be rerouted.


*Really, just reporting, not gloating.  I hear it's actually cold in Anchorage these last few days.  I miss that too.

The Geography Of The Assassination of General Soleimani

I was hoping to post pictures of flowers or something like that today.  Australia is burning because we can't give up our luxuries to fight climate change.  But we are in a huge crisis of our president's making. We are focused on possible war with Iran.  (No I don't think it will be anything like a conventional war.  It will be a 21st Century guerrilla war, with lots of cyber terrorism.)

So let's just look at something simple - geography.  

Distance from Tehran to Baghdad.

For those with vision issues, and whose computers can't read text in images, Tehran is 433 miles from Baghdad.

Here's a map from StatsAmerica of all of the US within 425 miles of Washington DC. to get a sense of how far 432 miles is.

Distance from Iranian border to Bagdad.

Baghdad is 209 Km = 129 miles from the Iranian border


Distance from Washington DC to Bagdad.

DC is 10,009* km (or 6,219 miles) from Baghdad.
*different sites show slightly different distances.

Imagine if an avowed enemy of our country had troops within 130 miles of our border.  How would the US react?  (I'd note that when Castro took over in Cuba  (90 miles from the US border) he came to the US and ultimately both had issues with each other. And the US imposed an embargo on Cuba.  But when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, we risked a nuclear war confronting Soviet ships coming to Cuba.)

If we only consider geography, it is clear that Iran has a much larger vested interest in what happens in Iraq than the US does.  Imagine if any country assassinated a top US official in while he was in Toronto or Acapulco. I was told the other night by an Iranian/American who had just returned that a special position had been created for Soleimani that made him, in essence, second in command.  Reuters says he reported only to the Supreme Commander.  CNBC quotes defense policy expert Roman Schweizer, 

"This is the equivalent of Iran killing the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and then taking credit for it."

The US came to be when a relatively small, rag-tag army, used some conventional and some essentially guerrilla warfare to defeat the greatest power in the world at that time.  Eventually the US took over that position.  In Vietnam we discovered that guerrilla soldiers, fighting for their own land, could defeat the world's most powerful conventional military.  And that's the way General Soleimani advanced what he saw as Iranian interests.  He killed a lot of Americans as well as civilians that way.  But the president has taken an action now that demonstrates his belief that  killing enemies is not wrong.

We couldn't win in Vietnam.  We haven't been able to win (whatever that might mean) in Afghanistan.  We can't win in Iraq.  What would it even mean to 'win' against Iran, 6,000 miles away?  Against people defending their homeland? Ask Iraq War vets in the United States how it felt to battle in a foreign land where they didn't speak the language or know the terrain.

The geography is telling.

Fact Checking Now This Devastating Collage Of Old Trump Clips On Soleimani and Iran

[UPDATE Jan 5, 2020:  Sorry, fixed the title from Here and Now to Now This.  It's an understandable, but unacceptable error.]

Here's the video.  But just as the Right is fed lie after lie by Fox and their collaborators, the Left needs to also be careful it's not taken in as well.  This video destroys Trump, but is it accurate.  First watch the video.

Trump didn't even know who Suleimani is/was 🤦‍♀️pic.twitter.com/8f1ChRLY2M

— Hear Me Roar (@Stop_Trump20) January 4, 2020

So let's check all the clips in this video:

1.  Trump interview with Hugh Hewitt Sept. 2015 on Soleimani

The first interview they excerpt comes from a Hugh Hewitt interview in September 2015.  Hewitt asks Trump what he thinks of Gen. Soleimani head of the Quds.  Trump hears Kurds and it takes awhile before that is cleared up.  Trump says he doesn't have to worry about Gotcha questions because all these guys will be gone before he becomes president.

The original Youtube of this conversation is here.  It's 6:11 minutes long.  It's really just audio with a cover picture that includes Hewitt and Trump..  Now Hear This has added new photos to make the video livelier, but the conversation is the same, though shortened considerably.

The Washington Examiner, a conservative paper, confirms this 2016 Trump interview with Hugh Hewitt about Soleimani


2.  Trump March 16, 2016 interview "I'm speaking with myself  . . ."

The second interview is a from a Morning Joe show on MSNBC on March 16, 2016.   They're talking about his primary victory in Florida the day before and he's asked who he consults with.

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things..."  

That's cut off rather abruptly.

I found the original MSNBC interview at Factbase.  The quote is from 3:51-4:03. They have transcript of the whole interview with the matching clips next to each section.  You can check it here.  Here's the excerpt which includes the rest of his response.

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things. In fact, in my book in 2000, I talked about Osama bin Laden and I do remember somebody putting the book in front of Joe and Joe saying no way he talked about it, no way he wrote about Osama bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down. And they said no, he really did. And I remember Joe looking at it and saying, I don't believe it"

[AP has a fact check on his claim that he warned about bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down.  bin Laden is mentioned briefly in the book, but more mocking Clinton for saying he's an important target, and not right before 9/11.]


3.  Rep. Max Rose Interview

Next comes a January 3, 2020 interview New York Democratic Rep. Max Rose.  He asks two questions about the decision to assassinate Soleimani:

1. What was the intelligence undergirding this decision?  How significant was it?  How imminent was it?  
2. What is the plan for tomorrow because an Iranian response is inevitable?

I can't find this interview.  I found a link to CNN transcripts for what seemed to be this interview,  but  my browser couldn't open the page.  Here's the link.  Maybe it will be up later.  Another link to the CNN transcripts says this:

"Note: This page is continually updated as new transcripts become available. If you cannot find a specific segment, check back later."

But here's what Rep. Max Rose posted on his Congressional page that's pretty close.

“No one should mourn the loss of Qasem Soleimani who was responsible for hundreds of Americans deaths and injuries to thousands more—some of whom I know and served with. We are now faced with incredibly serious questions regarding the intelligence that led to this strike and what the Administration’s plan is for what comes next. Let me be clear: no President, regardless of party, has the authority to go to war with Iran without Congressional authorization.”

There's also an MSNBC January 3, 2020 interview with Rose.  which doesn't include the quotes from the video.



4.  Sen. Chris Van Hollen's brief comment

Then there's a cut to Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Democrat from Maryland on January 2, 2020 on Wolf Blitzer

That interview (a day earlier than Rose's) is in the CNN transcripts.  Here are the words that were in the Now Hear This clip:

"Obviously, we need to do what's necessary to protect the lives of Americans. But, unfortunately, actions this administration has taken for weeks and months now have taken a very difficult situation, and made it much worse."

5.  Trump's prediction that Obama will start a war with Iran

 In this one, Trump predicts Obama will start a war with Iran before the 2012 election because Obama doesn't know how to negotiate.  I can't find the original Youtube, but there are lots and lots of people who have put up the interview in the last few days.   A report on MSNBC on the attack on Soleimani includes part of the 2011 video in which Trump predicts that Obama will start a war with Iran to win reelection.  It starts at about 2:10 in the video. It seems to include all the video, but the first part, where he talks about Obama's inability to negotiate, doesn't have the video included.

There's another weird version of the 2011 Trump prediction here.  It was put up Jan 3, 2020 and includes a computer generated audio description.

Another recently uploaded Youtube of Trump's Obama will start war on Iran prediction as part of a medley of Trump's videos on Iran.  The exact quote from the Now Hear This video is at about 1:25.

There are also other reports of the video at Global News (Canadian) and here's FOX5NY's coverage of it. 

Of course, the purpose of fact checking is to be sure that the media aren't all jumping on the same false claims.  I haven't found the original video, but there are so many outlets - including the Fox channel in New York - and I haven't seen any denials, so I'm going to say, I'm pretty sure this is real.  In fact I think I heard this a long time ago.  But keep a skeptical mind on this last one.

On the whole, I would say that the Now Hear This video is pretty accurate.  The words appear from many sources to have been said by Trump.  The clips don't include everything Trump said - for instance he also talks about the possibility of using the military - but I don't think they take things out of context.   They don't make  him appear to have said things he didn't really say or mean.  But I would also add that in the originals Trump does talk about going to war with Iran as a possibility.  I guess if I watched Fox News, those would be the clips they are showing.


I would also note that I've mentioned before that people often accuse others of what they do, or would do, themselves.  Accusing Obama of starting a war with Iran to win an election probably was something that Trump then would have considered if he were president.  And now, he may have actually done it.  We'll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile I have a friend who left January 2 for a cruise through the Strait of Hormuz.  When I asked him why, (I tend to be understated, I was thinking WTF?!! are you thinking) he said it was the only way he could cruise through the Suez canal.  I don't think he's got internet connections but I did send him an email this morning to let me know the name of the ship - if the cruise hadn't been cancelled - so I'd know he and his wife were ok.  [UPDATE January 6, 2020:  I got an email from him yesterday.  He said the Strait of Hormuz trip is March.  They only were in Cabo yesterday.  I'll let you know if he goes in March and if he does, if the route was altered.]


I'd note finally, that I thought that I could whip this out pretty quickly, but it took a lot more work than I expected.  And I'm really hungry now.