Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

NBC, Olympics and Gays

NBC Sports Has A Gay Problem

What the what?

08/10/2016 02:09 pm ET

Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images

This article by Cyd Zeigler originally appeared on Outsports.

It’s been apparent for years.

When Australian diver Matthew Mitcham won gold in the 10-meter platform in Beijing, stopping a Chinese sweep of diving gold on the final dive of the sport’s final event, NBC Sports, the perennial broadcaster in the United States of the Olympic Games, failed to mention Mitcham’s partner in the stands despite highlighting the partners of other straight athletes. Even worse, the network failed to mention that Mitcham was the only publicly out gay-male athlete at the Games.

When called on it, NBC first argued that the network doesn’t discuss sexual orientation (despite the historic nature of Mitcham’s win) then offered a terse two-sentence “apology.

Eight years later, nothing has changed at NBC. The network failed to identify Dustin Lance Black in the audience of the men’s synchro diving finals as bronze-medalist Tom Daley’s fiancé. Not boyfriend, not long-time friend… fiancé. And an Oscar-winning fiancé at that (read: public interest). They are, arguably, the “it” couple of the gay community, yet NBC didn’t mention a word.

When NBC broadcast the match of Brazilian volleyball player Larissa França, they followed her to the stands where she embraced her wife. NBC commentator Chris Marlowe’s colorful commentary?

“That is her husband. She married Lili in 2013 and Larissa is celebrating with her pals.”

Her husband. You can’t write this shit. Yet NBC released no public apology, relying on a one-line statement from Marlowe.

At the U.S. Olympic diving trials, diver Jordan Windle was accompanied by his two dads.

“They wouldn’t say ‘Jordan’s dads’ during the finals of Olympic Trials,” Jerry Windle said. “They just said ‘parents.’ Then they wouldn’t show both Andre and I together like they showed other parents.”

Two years ago in Sochi, all of the NBC networks combined offered less than two hours of coverage of LGBT issues, including the new anti-gay law that had been implemented in Russia, during the 18 days of the Winter Olympics. There were mentions of the plight of Russian LGBT people during primetime coverage by NBC Sports, but according to HRC it diminished over time and was mostly pushed away from NBC Sports and onto MSNBC. According to HRC, during two of the Winter Olympic days ― 14 and 17 ― there was no coverage of the issue on any of NBC’s networks.

To be clear, this all goes well beyond the Olympics.

For the last few years NBC Sports has employed an avowed proud homophobe, Tony Dungy, as one of its lead NFL commentators. Dungy has raised money to oppose equality for gay people, has said he “disagrees” with Jason Collins being gay and, in a fit of hypocrisy, said he would not want openly gay NFL player Michael Sam on his team.

Of course the network also employs openly gay commentator Johnny Weir. It’s the one possible on-air feather in the network’s cap. Though Weir’s dress and manner leave some reducing him to the role of clown, it’s a role he welcomes and plays well while also offering some great figure skating commentary. His antics (while I appreciate them) leave many gay people wishing for less.

Still, it’s impossible to make the case that NBC Sports is sensitive to LGBT issues. While NBC has started NBC Out and has a robust NBC-Universal LGBT employee network, that is desperately lost on the coverage NBC provides sports.

While Dungy’s continued employment on NBC Sports’ cornerstone program is a slap in the face of the entire LGBT community, the subpar job the network has demonstrated covering LGBT athletes and issues at the Olympics over the years is downright inexcusable.

There are plenty of opportunities for NBC to recover. Ten days of LGBTI athletes competing and winning lie ahead. Will the network acknowledge their presence? Simply demonstrate the common courtesy to these athletes they show their straight counterparts?

Frankly, I doubt it. Their failure to properly address the Mitcham snub eight years ago, followed by transgression after transgression, shows very clearly that NBC Sports couldn’t care less about gay athletes or gay fans. Maybe ESPN can get in the running to broadcast future Olympics.

For more from OutSports, check out these stories:

Seattle Mariners tell lesbian couple to stop ‘being affectionate’

The first Olympic marriage proposal in Rio is between a rugby player and her girlfriend

Male Olympic gymnasts want to compete shirtless

Also on HuffPost

29 Truly Remarkable Olympic Photos

Best Part of the Debates

After the debate itself, the most intriguing thing is not to see what the pundits think about the Political Campaign Televised debate, but to read what commentators think about the pundits take on the debates. Most of the 26 commentators to the New York Times insisted that the pundits in their view of Hillary Clinton winning last night’s debate got it wrong.

The cynical and exhausted viewpoint is below but it was in the minority:

NYChap

Chappaqua 12 minutes ago

Does it matter? Hillary Clinton was slated to be the Democrats choice in 2016 ever since she screwed up in 2008 and lost to Obama. Hillary will be the Democrats presidency nominee come “Hell or High Water” regardless of what happens as a result of the FBI investigation. I think that is very obvious to all who have been paying attention over the years. The GOP is giving her the election and she is going to sit back and enjoy the ride. What a shame we can’t get our best people into politics. However, I understand why we can’t. Who would want to get into this circus as the main event and get ripped to shreds in public by a bunch of cut throat people who lie for a living.

Most people not only argued that Sanders performed better they expressed how acutely aware they are of the media’s pro-Clinton bias:

Gibson

new york 12 minutes ago

While it was not a runaway success for Bernie, anyone saying that Hillary had the edge must have been watching a different debate. In the first 10 minutes, she struggled to answer a question about holding government officials responsible for Flint, while Bernie was direct in his promise to trim away anyone responsible. Later, she resisted questions about her actions and opinions during Bill’s term, suggesting that words and actions from 20 years ago hold no bearing on the future, that it is foolish to look to the past when looking to the future. And she dodged the (admittedly difficult) question about race and refused to release Wall Street transcripts “unless everybody does,” which is a ridiculous argument. Given how on-point Mr. Cooper and Mr. Lemon were as moderators, I’m surprised they did not push her on this response.

Yes, Bernie was a little angrier than usual, and I agree he came off as disrespectful to Hillary by raising his voice when she tried cutting him off. More annoying still was his tendency to trail off from questions to his more regular stump speech lines about health care and tuition (though this only happened 2 or 3 times). All in all though, my takeaway was that Hillary’s answers were vague and full of platitudes, at worse deflective. I can’t think of an instance where she unequivocally promised any one thing to the audience, even when they asked her too (like the Flint mother demanding action in the first 100 days).

Stop spinning, NYT.

Leon

Earth 15 minutes ago

There seems to be a big disconnect between the pundits in the media and the general public. If you read the NYT or listen to CNN, Hillary “was given the edge” in the debate.
However in a TIME poll taken right after the debate that is still open of more that 58,000 viewers 87 % of them saw Sanders as the winner and only 13 % thought that Mrs. Clinton had performed better.
I find this very interesting.

Panthiest

Texas 15 minutes ago

When Hillary said she’d release her speech to Wall Street “when other people release theirs,” it made me sad to think that she might be the person I will end up voting for in November. While I trust her to support civil and equal rights, she has become entrenched with the 1%.

E. Rodriguez

New York, NY 15 minutes ago

So we’re going to leave out how Hillary was booed when she responded that she was going to keep her speech transcripts secret, that she was absolutely flustered on how to respond when it came to her support of TPP, NAFTA, and other disastrous trade bills. Her lack of enthusiasm for clean energy and acceptance of the woefully inadequate ACA.

These were all things that held her back in the debate, and it’s funny how the pundits conveniently leave out all of Hillary’s mistake but seem to think Sanders had a worse performance.

  • Dave is a trusted commenter Cleveland 17 minutes ago
    “Hillary Clinton Is Given the Edge”

    Passive voice, right in the headline, to dodge responsibility for what is clearly the newsroom’s opinion. Choose a different list of commentators and pundits that you decide matter, or look at the Twitter numbers and online polls, and you could have just as easily written the story “Bernie Sanders Is Given the Edge”.

    And, as some other commenters have pointed out, trying to announce who “won” a political debate is just plain silly when nobody actually knows what the voters thought, and that’s the only opinion that actually matters. But apparently this exercise matters more than what caucusgoers in Maine did, based on the placement and size of the stories.

     

    Carolyn Saint Augustine, Florida 17 minutes ago
    Well, obviously, if it’s the New York Times, it’s going to cherry pick in favor of Clinton, although this piece is milder in its favor. But then, if we had all listened to the media and the pundits instead of our hearts and minds, Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be such a serious contender for the presidency. So, we’ll just keep plugging along despite the lopsided reporting, and support Sanders with our small donations all from average Americans, and enjoy the enormous progress we have made – and continue to make – toward a true democracy and a better nation.

    Reply 16Recommend
    moviebuff Los Angeles 17 minutes ago
    Sanders was more compelling and convincing on the environment, foreign policy, taxes, banking regulation, infrastructure, education, health care, campaign finance reform, fracking, the Flint water crisis and destructive trade agreements. So yeah, of course the Times would say Hillary had the edge.

    Reply 20Recommend
    david root edgartown, ma 18 minutes ago
    Mr. Priebus, Did you watch the Republican debate? I would rather jump off a
    cliff than support one of those candidates. Regards.

    Reply 18Recommend
    Lilburne East Coast 44 minutes ago
    I love Bernie Sanders but he needs to stop waving his finger in the air the whole time Hillary Clinton is responding to a question.

    It seems rude and it is rude.

    Reply 45Recommend
    Rainflowers Nashville 15 minutes ago
    And Hillary, bless her heart, needs to stop shouting and smirking.

    Reply 5Recommend

    ArtUSA New York 15 minutes ago
    I agree 100%. He’s done this in every debate and it’s distracting and intrusive.

    Reply 2Recommend
    SEE ALL REPLIES
    Boonskis Grand Rapids, MI 44 minutes ago
    The stories on “who won the debate” are extremely disingenuous and treat readers as though all they are interested is in performance and not issues. I strongly support Sanders on the issues (climate change, race relationships) and to me the facts speak for themselves. How all the papers are getting that Clinton “did better”, when her answers on these issues are simply “status quo” instead of moving forward, is – to my mind – simply one more reflection of how the media are a little too tight with big business and the status quo. Be honest and give voters the credit they are due: the person who won is the one who is closest to your views on the issues.

    Reply 75Recommend

    serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 3 minutes ago
    Hillary represents the status quo just as much as Obama represents the status quo. Both are realists that understand that the US is not fertile ground for radical change, there are too many conflicting interests and it is not possible to impose a vision if large segments of the population are opposed to it. Incremental change is possible, radical change without breaking the threads that keep the country together is not. Cruz is the most dangerous candidate because his vision will tear the country apart. Trump is dangerous because he has no clue on how to govern, his only goal is to have his name flashed across the sky. Sanders vision is more appealing as it is at least one that promises a just society, however, it is one that cannot be fulfilled without a mass movement behind it. That movement simply does not exist at this time, enthusiastic young people and progressive democrats are not sufficient. No question that there are people in the US that are hurting and pessimistic about their future, but they are not flocking to him, rather they are going for Trump who is offering scapegoats to blame for their situation. Until those disaffected Americans are brought behind a candidate like Sanders his vision will remain a distant mirage.

    Reply Recommend
    Fred Jones Toronto, Canada 44 minutes ago
    Is it really surprising that folks, who are members of the corrupt elite against whom Bernie crusades, would prefer Hillary, who is one of them after all.

    As a non-member of the US kleptocracy I thought Bernie cleaned the floor with her.

    Reply 73Recommend
    gregory Dutchess County 44 minutes ago
    Hearing the Democratic candidates talk about programs and history and funding and race and so forth was a big change from hearing the Republican candidates call each other names and spout ideological slogans and never mention concrete examples of the problems people face of how they would address them. Building “the wall” and putting our tax returns on a 3×5 card don’t qualify as serious ideas in my book.

    Reply 41Recommend
    Susan Tillinghast Portland Or 45 minutes ago
    These debates have become meaningless. They are about as relevant as waiting to see which candidate wins at tactic toe. Hillary is a master at these things. She is not a master at cleaning up American politics.

    Reply 21Recommend
    linda5 New England 17 minutes ago
    Sanders supporters insisted that Sanders needed more debates so he could show he is , get his name out, etc.
    Now they want no more debates because Sanders comes across as your testy, out-of-touch uncle

    Reply 4Recommend

     

     

Red Speedo: Class Athletics

Studio Theater in Washington, DC is showing, Red Speedo, a play that sparked thoughts of David Mamet’s best works. Like Mamet, the play looks at people from the lower rungs of American society who are trying to reach the American Dream. They have limited talents and few assets and need to maximize their chances at success in the one shot that they have.

The title character has that shot in the swimming pool. He is attempting to qualify as an Olympic swimmer and he knows the limits of his talents. He has chosen to take a path of performance enhancing drugs that raises questions about his morals and his talents. What will his brother, who has been his sponsor, and representative think about his choices and what will he do? More significantly, he has a coach who is struggling to keep the swim club financially afloat. Will he discover this indiscretion? The lead’s love interest also has an intriguing back history and perspective to be taken into account as well.

We’ve had many of these athletes who has crossed this line, beginning with the Oakland A’s Bash Brothers to San Francisco Giants Barry Bonds. Most notably were cultural icons, like cyclist and philanthropist Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees. All deny the activity, worse they fight their accusers to the point of ruining them financially and their reputations, all while knowing that they did take the drugs.

What’s more compelling about the job that playwright Lucas Hnath and director Lila Neugebauer have done is that they have shown how the thinking of the athlete works to justify the taking of the drugs. They have shown how others surrounding the athlete come to terms with tacitly and knowingly accepting this behavior.

The set was sharp, you could smell chlorine when you walked up the staircase. The performances by Frank Boyd, Harry Winter, and Laura C. Harris were strong. Of particularly note was Thomas Jay Ryan, as the older brother.

What made this play powerful was the inclusion of today’s class system in the U.S. Though warped, the older brother’s disquisition on the need to be rich in the US was worth the price of admission.

Sex, Politics and Sports

Busboys and Poets in the District featured a discussion with Dave Zirin, sports editor of The Nation, magazine and the first open trans NCAA athlete last night.  Kye Allums played basketball at George Washington University.

alums

In November 2010, he announced his trans status. A very animated speaker, Allums said he took the step because other players on the team would not come out about their relationships. He had enough of that so he decided to make it easier on the other players by starting the coming out process.

Zirin and Allums discussed LGBTQ issues in sports and Zirin’s newest book, Game Over: How Politics Has Turned the Sports World Upside Down. Zirin has written about politics and sport team owners, noting the tax breaks and subsidies that they receive for new stadiums from the public treasuries. He has also documented the political stances many of team owners have taken, ranging from George Steinbrenner and his contribution excesses to the Christian conservative values of the owners of the Colorado Rockies of Major League Baseball and the Orlando Magic of the NBA.

Last night, Zirin offered a good summary of the connections between masculinity, heterosexuality and being proficient in sports. Starting with Muscular Christianity and eugenics in the late 19th century, through the arguments against lesbians coming out in college basketball, American culture has promoted the social good of the supposed connections between gender norms, sexual norms, and playing, or in women’s case, not playing sports.

Parade Magazine and ts What Do People Earn: What People Think?

Parade Magazine every once in awhile shows all the readers of its Sunday magazine how much a variety of Americans earn in the US. You can deduce from that information, which Americans have the best chance of having the wealth in the country: owning stocks and bonds, real estate, etc.

But, surprise, most people in the U.S. don’t know how much wealth others have.  This chart is from a paper called “Building a Better America One Wealth Quintile at a Time” by Dan Ariely and Michael I. Norton. The first line shows the actual distribution of wealth in the US. The tops 20% hold over 85% of the land, assets, etc. Yet, folks perceptions are way off. Find your estimated income and then look at the chart to see how close your income group comes to knowing how the money is spread in the US.

Best of all, look at how the various income groups and voters think that the income ought to be distributed in the US. It is so different from the way it is, that the disconnect is not funny but pathetic.

post_full_1285695177Realvs.ImaginedWealthDistributionintheU

What Recovery?

Have the last few years since the Recession in 2007-2009 gotten better for you? Hear all the television news reports crowing about the growth in jobs, and unemployment dropping below 8%?

Well, here’s news, 99% of Americans lost 0.4 percent of their income since the Recovery. The top 1% have gained over 11% in their income over the same period.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/economy/income-gains-after-recession-went-mostly-to-top-1.html?_r=0

Compassion for Others?

With all the talk in Washington and in Wall Street about the need to cut Medicare, Medicare and Social Security, one has to wonder where is the concern fora nyone other than theirselves? The economic gains made during the last few years have gone disproportionately to these same people who want to cut the government’s benefits to others. The wealthiest 1% of Americans gained 125% of the growth. Which means the rest of the 99% got only 75% of that growth.

This is bad policy in an American economy that gets 70% of its growth from consumer spending. How do you spend when you’re unemployed, underemployed, or getting less even if you have a significant job! But ultimately, the key question to ask the one percent is: Where is the concern for others in general?

As many people know, the old days, (the 1950s through 1970s) when the company provided a pension for an employee are long gone. That was a big portion of the retirement nest egg and it was taken away from employees by companies that wanted to maximize profits so that their stock prices would go up. The stockholders would get wealthier on the back of the companies retired employees.

Columnist Harold Meyerson illuminates this point in the editorial below:

To the let’s-cut-entitlements crowd, what’s wrong with America is that seniors are living too high off the hog. With the cost of medical care still rising (though not as fast as it used to), the government is shelling out many more dollars per geezer (DPG) than it is per youngster (DPY). The solution, we’re told, is to bring down DPG so we can boost DPY.

We do indeed need to boost DPY. And we need to rein in medical costs by shifting away from the fee-for-service model of billing and paying. But as for changing the way we calculate cost-of-living adjustments for seniors to keep us from overpaying them — an idea beloved of Bowles, Simpson, Republicans and, apparently, the White House — this may not be such a hot idea, for one simple reason: An increasing number of seniors can’t afford to retire.

Nearly one in five Americans age 65 and over — 18.5 percent — were working in 2012, and that percentage has been rising steadily for nearly 30 years. In 1985, only 10.8 percent of Americans 65 and older were still on the job, and in 1995, that figure was 12.1 percent.

Both good news and bad news have contributed to this increase. The good news is that more seniors both can and want to work than in years past, as health care and medical science have extended their capabilities, and as the share of Americans in desk jobs has increased while the number on the factory floor has shrunk. A 2011 survey by the Society of Actuaries reported that 55 percent of working seniors said they had stayed employed because they wanted to stay active and involved. But the same survey showed that 51 percent were working because they needed the money.

What advocates for reducing Social Security adjustments fail to consider is that corporate America’s shift away from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution 401(k) plans — or to no retirement plans at all — has diminished seniors’ non-Social Security income and made the very idea of retirement a far more risky prospect. Today, more than half of U.S. workers have no workplace retirement plan. Of those who do, just 35 percent still have defined-benefit pensions. In 1975, 88 percent of workers with workplace retirement plans had defined-benefit pensions.

The shift from traditional pensions to 401(k)s is one of the main reasons most seniors aren’t able to set aside enough income to guarantee a secure retirement. A 2010 survey by the Federal Reserve found that the median amount saved through 401(k)s by households approaching retirement was $100,000 — not nearly enough to support those households through retirement years, as seniors’ life expectancy increases. And as most Americans’ wages continue to stagnate or decline, their ability to direct more of their income to 401(k)s diminishes even more.

With the eclipse of the defined-benefit pension, Social Security assumes an even greater role in the well-being of American seniors. But advocates of entitlement cuts don’t even discuss the waning of other forms of retirement security: Listening to Alan Simpson, you’d never know that America’s elderly aren’t getting the monthly pension checks their parents got.

And it’s not as if those employers are suffering. Just as U.S. businesses have been able to raise the share of corporate profits to a half-century high by reducing the share of their workers’ wages to a half-century low, so, too, their ability to reduce pension payments has contributed not just to their profits but also to the $1.7 trillion in cash on which they are currently sitting.

So here’s a modest plan to enable seniors to retire when they wish, rather than having to work into their 70s and even beyond: Require employers to put a small percentage of their revenue, and a small percentage of their workers’ wages, into a private, portable, defined-benefit pension plan. To offset the increased costs, transfer the costs of paying for workers’ health care from employers and employees to the government, and pay for the increased costs to the government with the kind of value-added tax that most European nations levy. (The tax burden is higher in Europe, but because the level of benefits is higher as well, the tax has wide public support.)

The odds of such a plan being enacted today, of course, are nil. (Then again, the odds of any bill getting through Congress these days are close to nil.) But until we compensate for, or reverse, the abdication of corporate America from any major role in providing its workers with retirement security, we should lay off monkeying with Social Security to reduce the program’s future payments. As for all those cash-drenched chief executives who proclaim that we must cut entitlements, how about they make up the difference by restoring the pensions their companies slashed?

Progressive Politics

Rocky Anderson ran for President in 2012. Didn’t hear of him. Think he’s a loony or nut job? No, he’s one of the most progressive political figures out there in the US today.

Drones: creating more enemies for the US than they are killing.

Wall Street: How come no bankers have been brought to trial.

Raising the minimum wage: How about putting $30 billion more dollars in the hands of the country’s vast majority of working people. Do that and you’re consumer economy will grow and create some new jobs.

Here he is on one of my favorite tv shows, The Young Turks

 

Progressives Active In US Congress

Yes, the Congress and President Obama barely got a bill enacted that actually lowered all income tax rates. The famous 99% of the population will not pay anywhere near as much in taxes as they were slated to pay after the end of the Bush era tax cuts. Fine.

What about the infamous 1%. Well, let’s see. They get to pay slightly less than 40% on their income. Ok. Sounds good, except that most of these individuals get their income through capital gains. Unfortunately, that income will be taxed at significantly less than the tax rate for the money earned by the 99%. The rate will be a paltry 20%, or a grand increase of 5% over what they paid under the Bush era.

This will certainly hamper the amount of revenue that the federal government will bring in. That might make it harder to run the government in general which raises the next issue to fight over, how much and where will the federal government spend its money. For all the talk about cutting federal spending, when specifics are mentioned, different groups of people start yelling that the cuts will hurt them so go cut somebody else’s because they don’t deserve it like my group supposedly does.

Fortunately, Representative Keith Ellison came on The Young Turks and offered some important specifics of what should be offered up as cuts. How about saving billions from cutting the tax breaks to oil and gas corporations, like ExxonMobil. How about making Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan open to fair market competition and save billions there too.

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/rep-ellison-if-republicans-want-to-do-cuts-we-should-do-cuts-from-corporate-welfare

Tax The Wealthy

Let’s not forget that the “Fiscal Cliff” is around the corner. Obama has  toured the country and talked about the need to tax the wealthy. A former cabinet member, Larry Summers, completed an editorial that pointed out where the real tax gains can be made to increase the fairness of the US Tax Code and bring in more revenue for the federal government.

My one question after reading the piece: where were these ideas when he was part of the Obama Administration?

No, it is not the mortgage deduction. This helps homeowners in all classes of the country. It could be modified to limit the amount of money that one could write off so that the public is not financing some wealthy individuals McMansion. But, ultimately, we need to keep that deduction.

The changes need to come on capital gains tax rates. We’ve all heard that the wealthy don’t pay a fair percentage of their income but that is because so much of it is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income. So, first raise the tax rates on this income. Second, as Summers notes, get rid of the laws that have been added over the years that shield a lot of the income of the wealthy from being counted as money that they earn.

Summers writes: the numerous exclusions from the definition of adjusted gross income that enable the accumulation of great wealth with the payment of little or no taxes. The issue of the special capital gains treatment of carried interest — performance fee income for investment managers — is only the tip of a very large iceberg. Far too many provisions favor a small minority of very fortunate taxpayers. They effectively permit the accumulation of wealth to go substantially underreported on income and estate tax returns, which forces the federal government to consider excessive increases in tax rates if it is to reach any given revenue target.

There are many more inequitable items in the current tax laws that cry out for reform. Here is Summers again:

Current valuation practices built into the tax code make it possible for investment partners to end up with $50 million or more in tax-free individual retirement accounts when most Americans are constrained by a $5,000 annual contribution limit.

Our estate tax system is broken. Assets passed to relatives or other personal relations are often badly misvalued relative to what they cost on an open market. The total wealth of American households is estimated at more than $60 trillion. It is heavily concentrated in very few hands. An estimated $1.2 trillion, or 2 percent, is passed down each year, mostly from the very rich. Yet estate and gift taxes raise less than $12 billion, or 1 percent of this figure, annually.

But real estate investment operators, who sell properties whose value is measured in the hundreds of millions — if not billions — of dollars, are able to take tax deductions for “depreciation” on their properties. They are then able to sell these properties at an appreciated price while avoiding capital gains tax through what is known as a “like kind exchange.” This is in fact a sale.