Wondering on Wednesday 4/28/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

In no particular order, here's tonight's wondering.

The police bodycam videos in the shooting of Andrew Brown, Jr. in Elizabeth City, NC won't be shared with the public right now, although edited versions will be shared with Brown's family, supplementing the 20 seconds they've already seen. According to judge Jeffery Foster, the media organizations which had requested the video "did not have standing to petition for release, and that the public release could harm the reputation or safety of the deputies depicted in it and affect the state's investigation."  

I wonder then, if releasing the videos would "affect the state's investigation," why is the district attorney releasing details of the investigation himself, to counter comments made by the family's attorney?  

I wonder why they are not allowing all members of the House and Senate to attend the president's address tonight?  I would certainly allow anyone who's been fully vaccinated (meaning, two weeks past their final shot, whether it's a two-shot regimen or the one-shot version).  And, I wonder how they decided who gets to be among the 200 or so who attend? And finally, I wonder, will Fox have a camera glued to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's face, to see what she thinks of Biden's speech?

I wonder, who are the people who particpate in the surveys on Family Feud?

Andrew Giuliani, former Special Assistant Because of His Last Name to Former Guy, was getting all kinds of hot and bothered talking to the press about the search warrants executed at his father Rudy's home and office. Among his comments? "If this can happen to the president's lawyer, this can happen to any of us." I wonder if he realizes how silly he sounds? Honestly, if this can happen to any of us, it can happen to the president's lawyer, too. That's the way it's supposed to work in America. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom will face a recall, barring a miracle that results in the tossing of a whole boatload of signatures on the petition. Among the candidates hoping to replace him? A police officer-turned-insurance broker, a familiar sight on billboards, a former adult film star, a senior pastor, and former Olympian and reality TV star. 

There's a former mayor, too - but sadly, not a sonofa former mayor. I'm wondering if we could send them Andrew Giuliani, to keep him out of the race here in NY?

Beyond this, I'm wondering about the Biden speech, and Sen. Tim Scott's response, and the punditry jibberjabber, which we can talk about later.

Sunday School 4/25/21 Extra Credit

We heard from three intelligent women in this week's Sunday School. 

Now, for your Extra Credit, let's hear from two Republican men, both noted for their fealty to Former Guy: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Floundering for Relevance) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-I Need Trump more than he needs me). Both talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. 

Wallace asked McCarthy how he'd rate President Joe Biden's first 100 days, and whether any Rs would support the Biden plan for "trillions of dollars in new spending and new taxes for infrastructure and social programs."

McCarthy said the "hundred days, it's more like a bait and switch. The bait was, he was going to govern as bipartisan. But the switch is, he's governed as a socialist." He said that the Rs would work with him on infrastructure,

(b)ut I think the very first thing we would need to do, define what infrastructure is, roads, bridges, airports, Broadcom. We would get this done. And he's trying to pick a number instead of first saying, what do we need to make America competitive?

I love how McCarthy used the Republican definitions of infrastructure -- you know, traditional stuff that their corporate sponsors like. Sadly, they failed to do anything about that stuff, other than holding multiple silly infrastructure weeks during the previous administration.

And speaking of bipartisanship, Wallace noted this info from a Fox News poll:

• 49% favor the $2T infrastructure plan, with 41% opposed;
• 56% favor raising taxes on businesses to pay for it; and
• 63% favor taxing those earning more than $400,000 a year to fund it.

Then, he asked if Rs "risk looking like you are more concerned about protecting corporations and fat cats?" 

McCarthy babbled about the coronavirus bill and "when they learn more what's in it,"  and about waste and fraud and "corruption" and drugs for homeless people and pot and health care for illegal immigrants and stimulus for prisoners (just like the Trump stimulus bills did) - and Chris Wallace and I have no idea whether we're talking about the stimulus bill that the vast majority of Americans were in favor of, or if we're still talking about the infrastructure bill that most majority of Americans are in favor of.  

Wallace tried to direct McCarthy back to his question, about people being in favor of the bill and raising taxes to pay for it. Here's McCarthy's answer.

I think what people want is fairness of the tax code. And think about what they're really looking at. You just ask them, do they support infrastructure? America says yes. But I think what America found out, just 6% is going to the roads, that they're not going to be built for more than a decade, that we spend more on subsidizing electric car than we do on roads, bridges, and airports in this bill, I don't think that will be popular. But what we should read in that is that we should work together.

McCarthy also said that he has not met with Biden "one time nor had one conversation with him." But he surely did run off to Mar-a-Lago just eight days after the twice-impeached Former Guy slunk out of town, so there's that. 

When Wallace asked McCarthy about Former Guy's allegedly saying that the insurrectionists were "more upset about the election than" McCarthy himself was, the GOP leader fell back on the old "my conversations with the president are my conversations with the president" dodge.

And he made it clear he's not interested in having an investigation into the insurrection and what led up to it. Wallace made the comparison between former House Speaker John Boehner's Benghazi investigation, which "was completely confined to discussing what happened in the Benghazi murder. It wasn't about problems in the Middle East." And he asked why not do the same here, confine the investigation "to what happened on January 6th, when you had this insurrection at the Capitol?"  McCarthy's answer?

You had an insurrection at the Capitol. You -- you've had political violence for the last year in this building. You had a Good Friday, an officer killed for political belief right on that Capitol as well. If you're now going to put a commission together, why wouldn't you look at all the problems to solve?

One of the problems to solve is the fact that GOP leaders and wanna-be leaders continue scrambling to kiss Trump's ring, right? 

And I find it funny that the scope of COVID and infrastructure solutions need to be limited, he suggests, but we must investigate the hell out of every snide remark - er, excuse me, every act of political violence expressed by a Democrat, in order to obfuscate what everyone knows about January 6th. 

Here's McCarthy saying it himself.

The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump... Some say the riots were caused by antifa. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Conservatives should be the first to say so.

Maybe if we can get Republicans believing what they saw and heard with their own eyes and ears, we could start solving the problems the country is facing. 

And then, there's Graham. I already gave you his comments on why we don't have systemic racism in this country - those were in the Sunday School post. He did say there are bad actors, that "the Chauvin trial was a just result," but that in Ohio the deadly force was justified.

So, this attack on police and policing -- reform the police, yes, call them all racist, no. You know, America is a work in progress but best -- best place on the planet and Joe Biden spent a lot of time running the place down. I wish he would stop it.

Alrighty, then - whatever the hell that means.

On his belief that "Biden's campaign was a fraud on the country because of how differently he is governing," Wallace said he's doing lots of stuff he said he'd so, and wondered why it's a fraud.

Well, during the campaign, he made us all believe that Joe Biden would be the moderate choice, that he really -- that court packing was a bonehead idea. All of a sudden, we got a commission to change the structure of the Supreme Court, making DC a state. I think that's a very radical idea that will change the makeup of the United States Senate. AOC said his first 100 days exceeded her expectations. That's all you need to know... So, I'm not very impressed with the first 100 days. This is not what I thought I would get from Joe Biden.

He also said that "if you raise taxes now, you're going to destroy jobs," and that he's "not going to raise corporate taxes to 28%." But he supports Sen. Joe Manchin's plan to pay for infrastructure, which raises corporate taxes to 25%, "as long as it doesn't hurt the economy." Which makes perfect sense, in some floundering for relevance universe.

This might be a good time to remind these two that President Biden has repeatedly said he's going to be president for all Americans, not president for all Republicans in the House and Senate. The ball is in really in their court to participate, instead of sitting back whining about elections having consequences.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 4/25/21

Our trip through the Sunday classrooms begins with highlights from Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), who talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

On police reform, "the intent of this is we have to find a way to hold officers accountable so this type of behavior ends." In that regard, she's not yet convinced that Sen. Tim Scott's plan that immunity be lifted for individual officers and assigned to police departments is a good idea. 

And she doesn't agree with Wallace that "if there's a bad cop, the department will get rid of them anyway," pointing out that disgraced officer and convicted murdered Derek Chauvin "had multiple complaints against him." She said the immunity issue wasn't a deal breaker, but "if Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott can show us some other way to hold officers accountable" she's willing to talk. She also noted that, had Chauvin not been convicted, it's possible the department could have been forced to take him back. That's not accountability.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Floundering for Relevance) was on the show before Bass; here's his asinine and childish response to Wallace's question on whether there is systemic racism in policing and in other institutions. 

No, not in my opinion. We just elected a two-term African-American president. The vice president is of African-American-Indian descent. So, our systems are not racist. 

Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't mention having black friends - it's about as relevant as what he did say. In response, Bass said "we have got to figure out a way to talk about race where we can talk about it objectively and people don't feel individual guilt. 

You can look back at our history's laws and over time there were many laws that were put in place that were absolutely racist and over time those laws might have changed, but the conditions haven't changed. You can look at each of our institutions. Why is there such massive inequality when it comes to education, when it comes to health care? Why does that exist? And so, we have to figure out a way to talk about it. Right now, to say it doesn't exist does not help anyone.

And on policing, Wallace wondered if we needed to distinguish between police killing armed suspects moving to attack people and people who are killed by police in other circumstances.

We absolutely need to distinguish but we also need to look at policing overall. And one of the things that I hope we really address is, maybe the focus needs to be on de-escalation. I know police officers are taught to shoot to kill. A lot of people raise, well, why couldn't he have shot her in the leg, why couldn't he have done all these different things? The point is we have got to come up with a way to stop -- there are so many people being killed in this country. 

Because yes, Sen. Graham, there are problems, and they are systemic, and they do need to be addressed. And us white folks will be better off, too, when they are. 

Down the hall in the Face the Nation classroom, John Dickerson talked with Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. He wondered if what's changed since the murder of George Floyd when it comes to protests. She mentioned our history throughout the 20th century of cases where unrest led to change (the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act were three notable examples). Still, no police reform changes came out of all of that. People are fed up now, she thinks, and "that's a good thing," - it's been seven since Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, after all.

And there's been some tinkering around the edges. There's been some movement. The most powerful movement has been that the conversation has shifted away from talking about tinkering around the edges and modest reforms to radical changes and a radical envisioning of what public safety needs to become in this country.

In response to his ask for examples of change, not just 'tinkering,' among the examples she cited is one from my neck of the woods - the city of Ithaca, NY,

where the entire police department is being set down for a new community solution and public safety core. It will include some armed law enforcement officers, but it's focusing on the root causes of crime. It's shifting resources to mental health, to homelessness services, to youth services. And then it's focusing on what is it that you actually need armed police officers to do to deal with the most violent of circumstances.

She said that's a "re-envisioning" of public safety and what it needs to be; it addresses questions of whether "an armed constabulary" is needed to address things like a bad check, or a homeless person on your porch. We've been moving at a snail's pace, but that that's changing now, she added. 

On the sentiment of police officers saying that they're dealing with communities that have been failed "by education, by the jobs system. There are guns everywhere..." and how that requires "a broader lens" when it comes to change, she agreed, saying having good relations with police, "it's not about having a pancake breakfast or playing basketball. It's about some real, honest talk."

That means police talking honestly about things like gun laws that make them nervous and that "endanger" them - but we don't hear about that, that's 'behind closed doors" stuff. And, she said, we haven't solved the community problems - education, and poverty, homelessness, and the rest - "we have just shifted all of the resources to deal with those problems into our criminal justice system." That's what we need to be talking about now, and what we need to be addressing now.

We need to be putting our resources and attention to those problems and not shunting them off to the criminal justice system and asking police officers, armed officers, to address issues that we have been too cowardly to address as a democracy.

That's a mic drop, as they say. 

Quickly, Rep. Val Demings (D-FL), a former police chief, was also in the FTN classroom, talking police reform. Dickerson asked about progress on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House (Sen. Tim Scott is leading the Rs in the Senate). Demings said she thinks they're "closer than a lot of people realize" and said "I do believe we can meet this moment."

I am hoping that Senator Scott will lead his delegation, if you will, or the Republican members in the Senate to sit down at the table, finish the negotiations and let's get this done. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is not perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction.

She urges her colleagues not to make this a political issue, noting historically the two parties have risen to the occasion, have met "that significant moment."

This is such a time. And so, I'm hoping that we will put politics aside and come together because we need to get this done. Our communities around the nation need it. Our good police officers need it, and quite frankly, the American people need it. We in Congress in both chambers can meet this moment as well if we have the political will to do so.

Finally, on how she'd talk to her officers if she were still a police chief, she said she has talked to some officers. She reminds them they must have the mind for the job, but also the heart for the job. And the reminds them about their training.

Utilize the training that you have, but also remember that it's human beings that you're dealing with and always have compassion for the community in which you represent. And, you know, the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers in this nation are good people who go to work every day to protect those, protect and serve our communities. I remind them of that. Always stand on the right side, speak up, and be professional and do the job that you're paid to do.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, isn't it? 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 4/21/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

The wondering never really shuts off; it's always drip, drip, dripping, at the very least. Sometimes, it's more like an open floodgate; that's what it's felt like yesterday. Let the wondering begin, in no particular order.

• I wonder if the defense in the Derek Chauvin trial thought the jury would fall for the alternate causes of death that were offered? Or was all of that merely "mounting a defense" to ensure that Chauvin wouldn't be able to win an appeal based on poor representation?

• The prosecution's closing argument - in a nutshell, believe your own eyes and the eyes of the witnesses - made me wonder about the witnesses. How hard it must have been to relive the murder of George Floyd in open court, to be questioned about what you saw, to stay strong with the whole world watching. I wonder if they'll ever know how grateful we are?

• I wonder what Chauvin was thinking when he had his knee on George Floyd's neck, particularly what he was thinking as he held that look, the unflinching look we saw in the video. Was there ever an "oh, shit, what have I done?" moment, I wonder? 

• I wonder who's paying Chauvin's legal fees? Is it the same group of upstanding white folks, police officers and politicians who donated to Kyle Rittenhouse, I wonder?

• I wonder why the judge felt compelled to make the comment about Rep. Maxine Waters? I agree her comments were over the top, as usual, but grounds for an appeal?

• The law enforcement folks who testified for the prosecution did all of us a favor, lending credibility to the case that Chauvin's actions were not acceptable or sanctioned. I wonder, will their coming forward light a spark under others to do the same, voluntarily or otherwise? I wish it would happen voluntarily - and automatically, but that's likely too much to ask.

• On a related note, many of us have heard of private social media groups where LEOs have been known to share their racism and other sentiments freely among like-thinking members of their club. I wonder what the chatter is on those groups today? Are they having their own "oh shit" moment, or are they chalking up the guilty verdicts as an aberration, and still feeling safe? I hope it's the former, but I'm not holding my breath.

• I wonder if Project Veritas will ever try to infiltrate LEO social media groups or delve into the racism that we know is found there? Or is that not the kind of veritas they find interesting?

• Parts of Minneapolis, and other cities, too, became plywood jungles filled with National Guard troops as testimony ended last week, making them look more like hurricane-zone businesses than downtown urban centers. I don't wonder why they did - it made sense to me - but boy, I wonder if we'll ever be at a place where we don't have to be afraid of the verdict in a case like this? 

• Is justice something that can even be defined here, I wonder? Or should accountability be the expectation? What does justice even look like, for the Floyd family, for the witnesses, for the city of Minneapolis, for people of color generally? And what do these verdicts mean for police generally?

• I confess I couldn't convince myself that we'd hear guilty verdicts, and I know that does a disservice to the jurors, the witnesses, the prosecution... but I can't escape the thinking that this could have gone the other way, as happens so many times. And I wonder when - or if - I'll ever stop feeling that way. 

• The DOJ has announced a 'pattern or practice' investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department; it's going to run concurrently with the civil rights investigation into Chauvin's action that's already under way. The wondering here? This is a lot of federal firepower for one department and one former cop; how many more of these should be done? And how can they possibly do them all, in a timely manner?

• And how, I wonder, will there ever be enough cell phones to police the police? Because in the end, that's why Derek Chauvin was convicted. Just as, absent Chauvin's knee on his neck, George Floyd would not have died on the street next to a police vehicle last May, absent the witnesses, and their videos, this could easily have become just another case of the police deciding one of theirs did nothing wrong. 

Honestly, I haven't even scratched the surface. There's so much more to wonder about, mostly centered on the why and how of it all - why it happens, and how we fix it. I'll save that pile of wonderment for another time. Today, I'm thankful that the outcome was what it was, and that people across the country - black and white - could breathe easier for a moment.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 4/18/21

I'm going to cover two interviews with former Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, who's written a book - On the House: A Washington Memoir - that he wants us to read. 

First up? His chat with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union; she called his book  "definitely the funniest and probably the most candid" political memoir shes' ever read. Having said that, she dove right in, pointing out we've had 47 mass shootings already in this year, and reminded him of his failure to get any kind of gun control passed after the Sandy Hook shooting. First, did he have regrets about that, and second, does he want to see the Rs coming to the table "to at least pass something?"

He said back in the day, "we couldn't find common ground with the other side" but hopefully that'll be different now, because "this - it's - frankly, it's heartbreaking. I think it's embarrassing our country to the rest of the world. And we have got to find a way to deal with the problem." He agreed it would be a "top priority" if he were still Speaker, and he noted that it's "not about what everybody wants. It's a matter of what can be accomplished in a bipartisan way."

Pointing to the many names he used to refer to some of his former colleagues ("political terrorists, knuckleheads, the chaos caucus"), Bash said he was kind of "like a doctor who is identifying a disease, but not giving a prescription" for fixing it, and wondered why he didn't tell us how to fix it in the book.

Boehner said he thinks "governing in America today is far harder than it was when I was there. But what I have suggested here over the last several months is, Republicans have to go back to being Republicans," which means focusing on fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense. They'll need a plan they can all agree on if they're to get back into the majority in the House and Senate, or to win back the White House.

But still, Bash said, he talks in his book about misinformation and lies, both from right-wing media and from GOP lawmakers, including perpetuating the big lie, that the election was stolen. She asked if they were eroding democracy. After a bit of pressure, he said both parties have fringe members, and

remember, there are good members on both sides of the aisle. You know, 90% of Congress are good, decent, honest people trying to do the right thing for their constituents and for the country. But, in my case, on any given day, there were two or three dozen what I call knuckleheads who just wanted -- they wanted chaos. They wanted it all their way or no way.

And on bills related to how Americans exercise their right to vote, some 360 of them, according to the Brennan Center for Justice? Boehner noted that before he was in Congress, when he was a legislator in Ohio, election issues were bipartisan issues, "because people need to have confidence in those systems," but after "the challenges that the last election proved out," states are "trying to figure out a way to make it more fair, more secure." 

And, he said, those folks who want chaos? They have a bigger platform to "make their points and, frankly, create chaos."

It brings more attention to them. They're able to raise more money. And the idea of governing is something foreign to most of them.

Finally, on 2024, 

...what I want to happen is somebody that stands up and represents all the principles of the Republican Party, somebody that can bring the Republican Party together and win elections.

And, here are some highlights from his interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Their conversation started with a question on what if any responsibility Boehner has, or that he holds himself to, "for the change in the party" as it lurched rightward during his tenure as Speaker. He said that some of them just didn't want to join the party, they wanted it "100% their way or no way." He also said he didn't think he could have done more,

You know, hindsight's 20/20. It's easy to look back now, ten years, six years ago and wonder. But I can tell you that I did everything every day I could to bring them into the party, make them part of the party, but some of them just frankly didn't want to come.

On white supremacy, and the attempt to start what's effectively a white supremacist caucus, Chuck wondered how this worked its way into the Republican party.

I have no idea how this even showed up. I wouldn't call it mainstreamed in our party, but I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen. Listen, America is a land of immigration. We've been the world's giant melting pot for 250 years. And we ought to celebrate the fact that we are this giant melting pot. And to see some members of Congress go off and start this America First Caucus is -- it's the silliest thing I've ever seen. And Republicans need to denounce it.

Boehner has said he voted for Trump's re-election; Chuck wondered how he feels about that post-January 6th.

I was disappointed in what happened after the election, the president continuing to make claims about the election being stolen. And I kept looking for evidence, like most Americans did. Where's the evidence? How can you keep saying something that -- without providing any proof? And there wasn't any. And clearly on January 6th, it was one of the saddest days in my life, watching the place I have worked -- watching a place where I and my team did everything we could for that institution -- being trashed by a mob.

That said, Boehner refused to say if the actions of the former president were disqualifying from leading the country again. 

Listen, Chuck, I'm not in office any more. What he does or doesn't do really is of no interest to me. I'm trying to make sure that Republicans understand, as a Republican Party, we need to go back to the principles of what it means to be a Republican...things that hold Republicans and the Republican Party together and has for the last 150 years. Let's go back to being Republicans.

And, in case you're wondering, here's Boehner's answer on any potential future political campaign.

I'd rather set myself on fire than to run for office again.

No comment on that last part. See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 4/7/21

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Former Vice President Mike Pence has signed a multi-million-dollar deal to write not one but two books. I'm wondering when the second book begins; maybe it's after all 50 states certified the election, and the guy who occupies The Office of the45th President started trying to rally the troops for the insurrection? I'm also wondering if Trump will offer some kind words for the book jacket? You know, something along the lines of 

Mike? Where's Mike? I heard he wrote a book, probably not as good as my books, and it won't sell as many copies, but he was a nice guy, for the most part. But he could have solved all the problems if he had just done his job and overturned the election. I hope he writes about that part - the worst decision he ever made, and me too.

Rudy "Gee, Your Hair Dye Looks Terrific" Giuliani's son Andrew, has announced he's going to run for governor of New York. And after I stopped laughing - seriously, he has zero qualifications, other than a resemblance to a younger Eric Trump, and a "job" as a "special assistant" to Former Guy - I had to wonder what he's smoking, or what kind of mirror he looks into in the morning that gives him this level of confidence. 

Outside of anybody named Trump, I think I have the best chance to win and take the state back, and I think there's an opportunity in 2022 with a wounded Democratic candidate, whether it's going to be Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo, whether it's going to be a radical [Attorney General] Letitia James, whether it's going to be a no-name lieutenant governor, I think there's a very, very real chance to win. I believe I can win the race. I think I'm the right candidate, and this is the right time to help change New York State, and we've got a playbook that works.

I wonder, will the NYS GOP disavow Junior G-man's candidacy, right now? Do they have the cannolis to do it, I wonder?

Matt Gaetz? Yeah, I wonder about him. And I wonder about Women for America First, a pro-Former Guy group, who will have Gaetz as a speaker at an event held, of course, at a Trump-owned property. Gaetz, you'll recall, is under federal investigation for alleged child sex trafficking - an investigation started under Snitty Snitty Bill Barr's term as Attorney General. And not for nothing, the women know he's under investigation, but it doesn't matter. And you know what else? The woman behind the group hosting Gaetz this week was behind the rally at the Capitol on January 6th. 

I also wonder about Mitch McConnell, who on Monday told CEOs to stay out of politics, and accused companies of acting like a "woke alternative government" and yes, he threatened them, he did. 

Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order. 

The wondering part was, has he lost his mind? But it's OK - we subsequently learned that he didn't really mean that, he didn't. He thinks corporations should be involved and CEOs should continue donating millions of dollars to Republicans, but he doesn't want them getting involved in, you know, acting like good citizens and stuff. That's woke, and woke is bad. Because the more woke they are, they less money they'll donate to people like Mitch McConnell - and we surely can't have that, can we?

I also wonder about FEMA and its plan to provide up to $9,000 towards funeral expenses to folks who lost a loved one to COVID. I sort of understand wanting to help, but I just wonder if there is a limit to our collective generosity here. And, of course, there are already scammers trying to get in front of this - and that's before applications even get submitted. 

Finally, and I'll take the hit if you think this is premature, since the Derek Chauvin trial is still going on, but I wonder this: would George Floyd have died on that street, next to that patrol car, on that day last May, had Chauvin not had held him down? The answer is no. 

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 4/4/21

I dropped in on the State of the Union classroom yesterday, where Jake Tapper talked with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, That Guy from Vermont, Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). The state of our union, Tapper said, was "unironically engaged in infrastructure week."

Secretary Granholm was asked about the infrastructure bill, focusing the bill on "what everyone can support," and about there being more money for electric vehicles than for roads and bridges. She justified the spending allocations, pointing to both energy security and tackling climate change as necessary parts of the bill. 

And when Tapper asked if it was OK with her and with President Biden to "again have a bill pass with zero Republican votes," Granholm pointed out that over 80% of Americans favor infrastructure investment - Ds, Rs, and Is - and the president is inviting Rs to the table, telling them if they don't like something, come up with a better plan to make it happen. She also pointed out that Biden was sent to Washington to "do a job for America" and if we want infrastructure spending, jobs, and us to not lose the global race, then that's what he's going to do.

However, his sincere preference is -- his open hand is to Republicans to come to the table and say, if you don't like this, how would you pay for it? If you don't like this, what would you include? So much of this, though, includes priorities that Republicans have supported. So, I hope that Democrats and Republicans can be on a final vote yes on this bill, on this package.

And on the tax increases needed to pay for it? She pointed to a study showing that almost 20% of fortune 500 companies paid zero taxes after the Trump tax cuts, which points to the underlying unfairness of the tax code.

And so, what Joe Biden wants to do is to say, corporations should pay their fair share. In the same way that a plumber and a teacher would have to pay 22 percent of their income or 24 percent of their income, corporations should have to pay their fair share too, to invest in America.

 Next up? TGFV, who was asked whether the Biden plan goes far enough in terms of tax increases and the Green New Deal. He said he thinks it's a "serious proposal" and that "every American" understands our infrastructure's falling apart; "the vast majority" of Americans understand that climate change is an existential threat; and "most Americans" know we have a housing crisis. And the bill addresses all of that.

But does it go far enough?

I think that, for example, as you indicated, in terms of climate, we're probably going to want to put more money into that area. I think there's a lot of work that has to be done in terms of health care, the high cost of prescription drugs, making our colleges affordable for young people, and dealing with student debt. So, right now, I think, at an unprecedented moment, the president has given us a serious proposal. A lot more work has to be done in that regard.

As TGFV says, "it depends on what you call infrastructure." He thinks we have "a crisis in human infrastructure" and mentioned child care, expanding Medicare benefits to include dental, vision and hearing services and he also pointed out that we're behind the rest of the world when it comes to this stuff. And when Tapper suggested adding more to the bill would make it even harder to get Republican support, he didn't seem to care. There may be some differences of opinion among the Dems, he said, 

But I do believe, given the crises the country faces and the need to create millions of good-paying jobs, the need to expand health care, to guarantee health care to so many more people today who are uninsured or underinsured, the need to take on the pharmaceutical industry and lower the high cost of prescription drugs, I think you are going to see the Democratic Caucus coming together and pass very, very significant legislation.

We'll see. 

Gov. Reeves didn't really add a lot to the conversation on the infrastructure bill. While he said his state would love a share of the money, he said the bill was more like a giant tax increase, or like the Green New Deal, than it was an infrastructure bill. And when he was specifically asked how to pay for it? "... by seeing significant improved economic growth," for one thing.

We saw that throughout the Trump administration, because the policies were pro-business, they were pro-growth, and revenues improved. Now, unfortunately, during those four years, like the four years before that, they did not in Washington get control of spending. They feel as if the debt doesn't matter. You're looking at a debt burden today of nearly $30 trillion for Americans. And what's ultimately going to happen -- and it's already happening -- as interest rates rise, the share of our annual budget that goes to pay for interest expense is going to rise from what is already an enormous level of 15 to 20 percent of all federal revenues goes to pay interest expense. That is not sustainable over the long term.

Tapper said that didn't answer how to pay for it; rather, it "actually provides examples of how it's even more complicated than that." And he's right.

Finally, Rep. Omar was asked about the Derek Chauvin trial and "what it's been like" watching the trial and reliving the trauma that so many folks are feeling. She said it's really hard, both wanting to avoid watching, and wanting to watch and hear from the witnesses. She said the feeling of helplessness they've all expressed resonated with her.

That is a feeling that we know really well here in Minneapolis when it comes to police abuse. And I remember feeling helpless 20 years ago when I witnessed police officers unload three dozen rounds on mentally ill Somali men in the middle of the street. And so, it's been -- it has just unearthed so much trauma for many of us, but we have each other, and we're going to get through it.

And what about a hung jury or not guilty verdict, is Minneapolis prepared for that? 

So, the community is on edge about that. We have seen justice not delivered in our community for many years. And I think that there is a lot of confidence in Attorney General Keith Ellison and the prosecutors in this case. But we are all eagerly awaiting to see how this trial shakes out. It's been really horrendous to watch the defense put George Floyd on trial, instead of the police office -- the former police officer who's charged with his murder.

I have to agree with her on that.

See you around campus.