Sunday School 10/24/21

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I decided to spend my Sunday School time yesterday with Andrea Mitchell in the Meet the Press classroom. What a frustrating adventure that was. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-etiring at the End of This Term and Never Looking Back) of Missouri. 

Mitchell mentioned comments made by the Former Guy, which I won't repeat, and she asked if Election Day was an insurrection. Blunt's taken a bit of heat for the first sentence of his answer: "You know, I think the election was what it was." Here's the rest of his response.

There's a process you go through that determines whether or not the early reports were the right reports. And we went through that process. And I'm of the view that the best thing that president Trump could do to help us win majorities in 2022 is talk about the future. And he can be an important part of that, this '22 effort. But I think, better off to talk about the future than to focus on the past in every election. Every election should be about the future, and I think that's what this next one's going to be about.

Mitchell gave #TFG more free airtime, mentioning additional comments he made about Arizona and President Biden. And here's how the conversation evolved.

AM:  So he's still talking about the past. And a lot of Republicans, a lot of Republican leaders in the House, other members of the Senate are standing with him on this. Doesn't the party have to disavow the challenge to the election in order to, you know, go forward?

RB: You know, I think President Biden and the Democrats are giving us plenty of things to talk about. We don't need to keep focusing on the past --

AM: But Republicans are. Republicans keep talking about that --

RB: Well, I'm not. And I don't think --

AM: -- and incorrectly.

RB: I don't think many Republicans in the Senate are. I think we're talking about bad tax policies, bad environmental policies, bad national takeover of the election process. There are plenty of things for us to talk about, and I think we're talking about them. I'm there every day, and I hear Republicans concerned, as they should be, about this -- the process that the Democrats are going through right now --

AM: But they're also denying the reality of January 6th. Republicans refusing the commission, not joining the House Select Committee. Steve Bannon, only nine Republican House votes to punish him for violating a House subpoena.

RB: Well, you know, I think a lot of this discussion is obviously driven by the media, just like this is here today. We could be talking about Senate rules. We could be talking about tax policy.

AM: Well, if Republicans were --

RB: We could be talking about --

AM: -- accepting the reality --

RB: -- these new entitlement policies.

AM: It's not the media that's, you know, going against the reality of what happened on January 6th. It was the worst attack on our government, on our democracy since the Civil War.

RB: Oh, I agree with that. In fact, on January the 20th, I was at the podium at the Capitol chairing the inauguration. And that peaceful transition of power that we saw that day is one of the most important things we do. And I was able to chair the inauguration four years earlier. And four years later, it was the same important message we sent to the world. And I think we effectively did that.

AM: Well, to that point, if the former president keeps denying the reality of the election and of Joe Biden being the president, should that disqualify him from being a candidate, as he suggests he wants to be, in 2024?

RB: Well, you know, there are constitutional provisions about being a candidate. And having opinions that other people may not agree with is not one of those provisions. He can be a candidate if he wants to be. But, again, I think what President Trump could do that would be most helpful right now would be focus on the policies that aren't working. You know, his policies at the border were working. His regulatory policies were --

AM: But if he --

RB: -- were working. His tax policies were working. But we see that those policies for Democrats with these narrow majorities they have aren't working. I hope that's where he focuses. But, you know, I don't manage his time --

AM: I know. But if he doesn't --

RB:  -- or his comments.

AM: -- concede the election, would you support him in 2024?

RB: Well, the election for 2020 is over. I'm focused on 2022, and it's a long time between now and 2024.

There was more - focused on #TFG and Liz Cheney and voting rights - finally, a policy question! - and Joe Manchin (who wasn't in the classroom, but he was clearly in Mitchell's head) but really, it was pretty clear she didn't give a hoot about Blunt's answers, or if she did, it was a much smaller hoot than she gave to her own questions and endless interruptions. 

It's seriously time for Meet the Press to have a total reboot - and to boot both Chuck Todd and Mitchell and try something else. This - whatever it's supposed to be - is not working.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/17/21

I spent all my Sunday School time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, where Jake Tapper was in the host chair. 

First up? Mayor Pete, er, I mean, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who was asked, re: the current supply chain issues, if "Americans need to prepare ourselves for it to get worse before it gets better?"  He said that "a lot of" the challenges from this year "will continue into next year," but said that it's not just supply issues, it's demand issues, too.

Demand is off the charts. Retail sales are through the roof. And if you think about those images of ships, for example, waiting at anchor on the West Coast, you know, every one of those ships is full of record amounts of goods that Americans are buying, because demand is up, because income is up, because the president has successfully guided this economy out of the teeth of a terrifying recession.

The ports are handling record volume, he added, but the supply chain - mostly private business interests - can't keep up. He said the administration's role now is "to be an honest broker," and bring everyone together, get commitments and "get solutions that are going to make it easier."

Tapper asked if President Biden would consider lifting the Trump-era tariffs on China, saying it's not a panacea but it would help alleviate some of the supply-side pressures. Secretary Pete said that "every idea is being taken seriously," but the focus now is on the operations side of things, including getting commitments to keep the ports of L.A. and Long Beach open 24/7. 

But, he acknowledged, that's only a part of what's needed. We also have to get the containers out of the port, onto trucks, and off to where we need them. He said the Transportation Department is working with states on getting CDL licenses issued faster, "so we can get more qualified, safe truckers on the road." Passing the infrastructure bill would help, too.

Tapper pointed to the delay on that, and wondered if Buttigieg was "frustrated" by the delay, and if the progressives erred demanding the human infrastructure bill needed to be passed first. He said "the reality is" we need both bills, 

not only to make sure that we have the right kind of infrastructure, but to make sure that life gets better in this country for people trying to raise children and for people trying to participate in the work force. 

And on whether it would make sense for Americans to do their holiday shopping early, or if that would make things worse, Buttigieg was rah-rah about things - including that the holidays will be better this year than last.

... a year ago, millions of Americans were sliding into poverty who now have jobs. And a year ago, a lot of us were gathering with loved ones over a screen. It's going to be different this year because of the president's leadership, because of being able to get more and more Americans vaccinated and make that available free to every American. 

Finally, on the exceedingly rude comments made by Tucker Carlson about Buttigieg taking paternity leave, he said he wasn't apologizing to Carlson (or anyone else), and that all Americans deserve the same opportunity. He also said it was unnecessary to name an acting secretary while he was on leave, in part because he was available to them the whole time.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger was next. As one of the two Rs on the House January 6th committee, he's a guy everyone loves to hate, right?  

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Ch. 1)

No one in the leadership of the Democratic Party has what it takes to fight the battles the party is facing, much less win those battles. 

No one else in the Democratic Party is standing up to fight those battles.

No one in the Democratic Party will stand up to fight those battles. They're afraid of something, or of someone, or of the several someones in the part leadership. 

Face it: while Nancy Pelosi is considered by many to be a strong Speaker in terms of how she manages her caucus (although, that seems to be open to question these days), she is a horrible advocate for the Democratic Party and its priorities. 

I've shared my, shall we say, 'lack of enthusiasm' for Pelosi in the past, such as here, when she was re-elected Minority Leader in 2016. She lost 63 votes to Ohio's Rep. Tim Ryan, who expressed then the same frustrations as I have today. I suspect Ryan still has them, too.

...my level of frustration came from the idea that we're going to have, for two more years, the same conversation as we've been having since 2010 (when the Dems lost 63 seats and the House majority in the mid-term election).

And I think the level of frustration in our caucus is as great as I've ever seen it. And it's time to do something about it, not just talk about it. Because now we're not even the national party. We're a coastal party. And we've got to move forward. If we're not going to get voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, go back down south. When I first got in Congress, we had members from Tennessee. We've got to go back there and campaign and get those folks back in the fold.

Ryan also talked about how the Dems don't unify the demographics, but "talk about them and treat them as individual groups" and emphasized that they've

... got to get the message right. We've got to have the right messenger. And we've got to have someone who can not just go on MSNBC, but go on Fox and Fox Business and CNBC, and go into union halls and fish frys and churches all over the country and start a brush fire about what a new Democratic Party looks like.

Ryan is now running for the US Senate; he faces a progressive challenger in the primary. Of course, he does - because one thing Dems are good at is fighting each other.

And don't get me started on Chuck Schumer. I've long not been a fan. Here's a just one illustration of why" having the Judiciary Committee Dems pull a stupid stunt instead of voting against advancing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett out of committee. Schumer thought that not showing up was the best way to "not lend a single ounce of legitimacy' to the process. My take? 

Rather than skipping out on the meeting, the adult thing to do would have been to show up, explain one more time for the record why it was the wrong thing for the Judiciary Committee to do, respond to whatever statements the Rs made (instead just reading their remarkably similar prepared remarks), and then voting against moving the nomination forward. 

Instead, they put pictures of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their chairs, and hoped that their colleagues on the other side of the aisle would look at those, feel bad, and delay the vote.

This is the leader of the Dems in the Senate? Good grief.

The issues facing the country today - and facing the majority Democrats - have not changed over the past many years. The solutions to those problems are still out there, and they're still not being talked about in a way that will bring us to the solutions we desperately need. 

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "before we start taxing the super-rich, why don't we make sure that the tax code doesn't contain 50,000 ways to avoid paying taxes? If they don't have to pay the taxes on the books now, what good is adding more going to do?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "with literally hundreds of bills that may limit voting rights under consideration around the country, some already passed into law, why on earth are seven of ten articles in our voting rights bill not related to voting?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Do we really want to require banks to report $600 transactions to the IRS? Is that really the best way to find tax avoidance by the wealthy?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Why aren't we doing everything we possibly can to ensure that existing programs for student loan relief and repayment are accessible and working as intended, instead of pushing to eliminate all student debt?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "What the hell are we doing, holding up nearly $2 trillion in infrastructure spending? Why aren't we pushing the bipartisan Senate bill through, getting it signed, and putting that to good use right now?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "I don't care how we get it done, but we will have a plan - well before December - on the debt ceiling. Period."

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Where are the problem solvers? They don't have to be Problem Solvers, but we need to solve some problems, and fast."

I desperately want That Democrat to exist. The one who knows that getting something is better than getting nothing, the one who knows that trying to get Santa to give you everything you've ever wanted since you were three years old, all at once, is insane. I don't know if he or she even exists, but if That Democrat is out there, now is the time to stand up and be heard. Now is the time to read your caucus the riot act. Now is the time to get something done.

What they're doing now is not sustainable, and if they think the shellacking they took in 2010 was bad, wait until they see what happens next year.

Sunday School 10/10/21: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School this week included interviews with Steve Scalise and Janet Yellen. For your Extra Credit, I've got the mess that was Chuck Todd on Meet the Press talking with former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who I hear has written a book.  

Here's Chuck's intro to Grisham.

The White House press secretary is one of the most high-profile jobs in Washington, but you'd be forgiven if you had no idea what Stephanie Grisham looks like. That's because she's the former Trump press secretary who never actually held a press conference.

That's true. Here's a bit of what the WaPo had to say about her tenure.

Unlike her overexposed predecessors, Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders, Grisham was infamous for being invisible. In her nine months on the job (her tenure lasted from July until her firing on April 7), Grisham never held a White House press briefing. This makes her unique among the roughly 35 people who have held her position. She rarely conducted the smaller informal briefings known as “gaggles” and almost never appeared on TV, unless it was Fox News.

To me, Todd started in the right place: before her book, she had a high-profile job, and for all intents and purposes, didn't do it.  

She has, however, written a book, I'll Take Your Questions Now. - Get it? - What I Saw at the Trump White House. It is a rather chatty account of her time with Team Trump, where she also was chief of staff to Melania Trump, who has responded to Grisham's book this way, quote, "Ms. Grisham is a deceitful and troubled individual who doesn't deserve anyone's trust." So, with that, Stephanie Grisham joins me now. Ms. Grisham, welcome to Meet the Press.

So, maybe we should delve into that first part, the 'not doing her job' part, at least a little? I mean, she's there to answer questions, right? Wouldn't the first question be, "before we get to the book, I've got to ask. Why didn't you ever engage with the press? Wasn't that your primary job, as press secretary?"

Oh, heck no - it's Chuck Todd, after all - so that didn't happen. Here, in order, are the questions he did ask,  and excerpts from her answers.

So, I want to start with you explaining why viewers tonight, today, should trust what you say in response to my questions. Because you lay out in the book, you admit you were, many times in Trump world you're asked to misinform or perhaps lie on behalf of the boss. So, you're doing a tell-all now. Why should we believe you? In short, I don't have anybody to answer for anymore... And I thought to myself, if I'm going to write a book, I want to write something that is just honest and brutal. And, you know, I don't spare myself in there either. 

I would have asked: "You say you don't spare yourself in the book; can you give us an example? And, following up, how does that make us want to trust you now?"

So, I'll just start with some of the things. Do you regret not resigning sooner? You waited until January 6th. After seeing everything you saw for four years, you wait until January 6th, some might argue the day everybody was wanting to run for the hills from Team Trump. Why did you wait so long? ...for about the last six months, I actually tried to resign a couple of times and Mrs. Trump talked me out of it... But absolutely, to answer your question, I do regret it...

I would have asked: "She talked you out of it? Can you give us some insight to those conversations? And, can you share anything you said in your resignation letter?"

When do you believe -- do you believe President Trump thinks he actually lost the election or not? I do think he believes it. That's been part of what has been scaring me as I've been watching from afar... I honestly thought this was a lot of his bluster, which you know, he's good at doing. He was doubling down. He'll never admit to losing, et cetera, et cetera. I thought he was going to just kind of raise some money so he could pay off legal bills, et cetera. But I think now, because his base is reacting to him the way that it is... and very, very few Republicans are refusing to speak up about, you know, his role in January 6th, but also this current attack on democracy with regard to election integrity, I think he is going to run again.

I would have asked: "Is there anyone you think would be able to talk him out of running again? Mrs. Trump, maybe? Is this something that would fall to Jared and Ivanka to do? Or is there no one in his circle who has that kind of influence with him?"

(Referencing his interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse just before he talked with Grisham) ...do you have an idea of who was helping sort of fund and back these crazy claims of the president and his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows? Well, certainly, I know, you know, as does the public, that there was Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and some of those characters. I do know that there were a lot of private meetings in the residence taking place that were perhaps not taking place in the White House where there would be public documents about that... I don't have a specific name. I don't think it was one person. I think there were probably a few.

I would have asked: "Were you involved in or informed about any of those meetings? Can you give us any hint as to who the attendees were - was Mrs. Trump involved, was it administration officials or outsiders, or both? Did Meadows talk to you about keeping the meetings quiet, or give you information for Fox News or any other outlets?"

So, walk me through election night and the day after. There seems to be some evidence that he was accepting what was happening with the results and then something changed. Can you pinpoint it? I can't. I was with Mrs. Trump most of the night, to be honest with you...So, I think he just refused to give up. I mean, it's Donald Trump, right? And he will never admit to being wrong or to losing anything...I think one thing he's gotten really good at or he did get really good at as president is taking advantage of the base and this group of people who are, you know, so desperate for a voice, which I understand and support. But I think they're being taken advantage of now. And I think he knows they'll do whatever he says.

I would have asked: "You say you "understand and support" the people who are so desperate for a voice, but at the same time, you don't think Trump is the right person to help them. What message would you give his supporters? If Trump's not the right guy, who is? Where do they go instead?" 

Did you get taken advantage of by him? You know, it was interesting to me that you sort of admit that you got into that White House and perhaps you wouldn't have gotten there with another campaign. Did he take advantage of you? I think, I don't want to pin that on him. I definitely got very excited to be around this glamorous world of the Trumps. And certainly, when I got into the White House, you do get heady with power. I don't know that he took advantage of me in that regard. I think that that was my own weakness there.

I would have asked: "I can't help wondering, would there even be a book if you had only worked for Melania Trump? In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently? Do you regret working for the administration?"

You know, I've heard from several former Trump staffers, some of whom share your concerns about him, but say that every decision you made was always in the best interest of yourself. Whether it was to stick in order to get a good job in the White House or, now, to do a tell-all when you need to make money. What do you say to that criticism? Well, two things. If there are people who are sharing my same concerns, I wish they would speak up, because looking back, I don't think is what's as important in terms of personalities and who did what and why. But I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. When I was in the White House, I lost a lot of friends and a lot of family. And I think I lost a little bit of my own moral compass.... And now, leaving, you know, yes, I got paid to write a book, but you cannot put a price tag on what is happening to me now. The right is mad at me, the left is mad at me. My family is getting threats. I'm being smeared. I'm being sued.

I would have asked: "Your family is being threatened? I know it might be difficult, but can you talk about that a little?" 

You said one of the reasons you're speaking out is you hope he doesn't run in 2024. If he does, do you plan to actively work against him? If I'm asked to. If there is anybody who wants me to speak out or talk, yes, I will. I think that, you know, I had a very unique perspective in that I worked for the former president, I worked for Mrs. Trump, and I worked for both of them at the same time. I know the way they think. I know the way they try to distract. And if there's any way I can be helpful, to help decipher some of those movements and what's really going on, I would do that, yes.

I would have asked: "You say 'if you're asked' you'll do it. Can you tell us if you've heard from anyone yet? And are you actively volunteering your assistance to anyone?" 

Do you think, if he's elected again, he'll destroy the democracy? I think he's on a revenge tour right now, right, with the people who voted to impeachment -- impeach him. I think it will be nothing but revenge, retribution, and how he can benefit himself. There will be pardons happening. I think there will be very draconian policies that go way too far. So, I believe, if he is re-elected again, it will be a really, really scary time.

Kind of like a Chuck Todd interview... See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/10/21

Right up front, I apologize for not getting your Sunday School posted timely. There was a baseball game, you know, and it took 13 innings for the Good Guys to put away the bad guys, after all. 

That said, let's head right and visit the Fox News Sunday classroom where Chris Wallace attempted to get House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-n't You Glad I'm Still Here -LA) to answer questions. 

For example, Wallace asked him if blocking President Biden's agenda was more important than helping the people of his state - there's $6B for infrastructure in it for them.  

Look, we put together over $450 billion in infrastructure, with roads, ports, waterways, all the things you're talking about. That's not where they want to go. And, oh, by the way, in this package, they have language that tells the Corps of Engineers they can't do projects if it benefits the oil and gas industry. 

That seems to be the opposite of what the bill does, according to Reuters, but I digress. Whatever language Scalise says is in the bill, yes, blocking the Biden agenda is more important than $6B in aid for his constituents. 

The last question? "Do you think the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump?" It came with a follow-up concerning states that are continuing to make that claim: "Do you think that hurts, undermines American democracy?" The answer to those questions was not forthcoming. Oh, sure, he talked about states that "didn't follow their state-passed laws that govern" presidential elections, and "that is what the United States Constitution says," but there was no answer to the simple question at hand. And Wallace tried a couple more times, to no avail.

And after all of that, Wallace closed the interview with a pile of fluff (with some emphasis on top).

Always good to talk with you, and I appreciate the way you step up and answer questions and the way you choose to. Thank you, sir. 

Good grief. 

Moving down the hall to the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin. He started the conversation on the debt ceiling, and quoted part of the Grim Reaper's message to Biden:

I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of Democratic mismanagement. Your lieutenants on Capitol Hill now have the time they claimed they lacked to address the debt ceiling through stand-alone reconciliation and all the tools to do it." What are the consequences if he keeps his word?

Yellen stated the obvious: it's necessary that we pay the debts we have run up; it would be disastrous - at home and abroad - if we defaulted; our credit rating would tank; US treasuries are "the world's safest possible asset" and that'd be at risk; there'd likely be a recession and/or a financial crisis.  

That said, George wondered if she'd convinced Biden yet that we should eliminate the debt ceiling, something she personally supports, but "it's really up to Congress and the administration" t0 pay the bills that come from their spending and tax plans. 

And that means we have had deficits for most of the post-war period. And that means raising the debt ceiling. It is a housekeeping chore. There is really -- we should be debating the government's fiscal policy when we decide on those expenditures and taxes...  not when the credit card bill from -- comes due.

They also talked about the 'trillion-dollar coin' which Yellen thinks is a gimmick that "jeopardizes the independence of the Federal Reserve." 

You would be asking to essentially print money to cover the deficit. This is a responsibility. It’s a shared bipartisan responsibility. It’s been raised almost 70 times since 1965, almost always on a bipartisan basis. And no one party is responsible for the need to do this. I believe it should be a shared responsibility, not the responsibility of any one party.

George asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which states "the validity of the public debt of the United States should not be questioned." Again, Yellen pointed to the Congressional responsibility to pay the bills.

We shouldn't be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That's a disastrous situation that the country shouldn't be in. I wouldn't want to see the president or myself faced with the decision about what to do if Congress refuses to let us pay the government's bills. You know what should you pay first? That's not a -- we have to reassure the world that the United States is fiscally responsible, and that they can count on us to pay our bills. And that's Congress' job to do that on a bipartisan basis.

George pushed, suggesting we'll be in the same place in December, and wonders if the 14th should be on the table. Yellen said she can't imagine we'll be at that point, and that she's got confidence in Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, that they'll "be able to manage this so that we don't face this situation."

It would be completely irresponsible and a self-inflicted wound that would affect businesses and households and the global economy and the status of the U.S. in the world. We shouldn't ever be in that position.

Damn straight, Skippy. 

Good for her for pinning the tail on the donkey - and the elephant. If only the talking heads would focus on that, and the failure of both parties, rather than on their sound-bite generating grandstanding...

See you around campus, if you're vaccinated.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/6/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight, I'm wondering on the Facebook thing: the whistleblower, corporate profits, marketing, artificial intelligence, actual intelligence, ethics, and more. 

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with every other social media outlet?

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with Fox News, MSNBC, and every other television network?

How do you regulate Facebook's  algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do that with the NY Times, the NY Post, and every other print and digital newspaper? 

How does Wikipedia survive this new regulatory framework? Anyone can enter anything they want - who's going to be the boss of that? Are we going to create a regulatory framework for that, too?

Who gets to decide what content is abusive or divisive? Artificial intelligence can't do it, and humans can't do it either. What or who is left? And, even more fun, who gets to pick the arbiters?

What about the 1st Amendment? Doesn't that protect divisive speech?

How is it not insanely ridiculous and hypocritical for members of the House and Senate - professionals all, at spreading misinformation and division - to complain about Facebook's failure to stop the spread of misinformation and division? Seriously - how is that not the most insane aspect of this?

If the said misinformation- and division-spreading legislators decide to change the rules and let Facebook be held liable for 'harm' on its pages, which one of them will be the first to file a suit, and how long will it take - more than 30 minutes, or less than 30 minutes - after the rules are passed? I'm guessing Devin Nunes and less than 10...

If Facebook can be held liable for harm done to someone who's under age and on the platform, will Facebook be able to sue the parents for allowing the child to use the service?

And why do six-year-olds have smart phones, anyway? Who is responsible for that?

Before they go all out and regulate potentially harmful content - something that, by nature of the 'potentially' label, cannot be regulated - will the legislators do something to increase access to and the affordability of mental health services, particularly for children, and particularly for rural areas?

Isn't it ironic, and more than a bit ridiculous, that the same people who would to deny treatment options that would help transgender kids are all up in arms about body image issues on Facebook?

Why would the people who complain about their own voices being stifled on Facebook be willing to stifle other voices on Facebook? Is the algorithm unfair, or do they just not like what it does? Do they really care about any of this, or does it just look good to care, in which case they can make a profit, i.e., get re-elected because they 'showed they care?

How is Facebook to control the viewing habits of its users? For example, how are the people who ignore multiple notices that what they are reading is not real and then argue vigorously, and share widely, their outrage about the outrageously fake posts, supposed to be  protected from themselves?  Who's job is that, anyway?

Or the folks who wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them on the butt cheek in the checkout line at Wegmans? (That's sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm doesn't have actual teeth.) How is Facebook to be held accountable for them? 

Are we going to regulate comedians? Celebrity magazines, with pictures of stars or wanna-be stars and their "boldly topless" photos? The Kardashians and their puffy lips, 'trained' waists, and abundant behinds? People try to emulate them, and cause themselves real physical harm in the process; clearly, that can't be allowed to continue? 

How ironic is it, that the people who don't think the government should be able to require masks or vaccines during a pandemic are now contemplating having the government dictate what we're allowed to see on Facebook? What about "my mind, my choice?"

If we're going to ban detrimental content on Facebook, can we please ban Love Island, Big Brother, Hoarders, My 600-lb-Life, Married at First Sight, Real Housewives, Love After Lockup, Cellmate Secrets, 90-day Diaries, You, Me and My Ex, Ex-Rated, Naked and Afraid, Addicted to Marriage, 90-Day Fiancé, RuPaul’s Drag Race, My Big Fat Fabulous Life, and the rest of the unreal reality TV shows? Without much difficulty, I could make an argument that each of those shows is detrimental in one way or another...and I've never watched any of them.

Who gets to determine how 'good' a company must be in order to be allowed to make a profit? And how will those decisions be made? 

Are we going to require every company to provide us with their internal research on everything they internally research? Or is that just going to be shared with regulators? Just legislators (they're not the same thing as regulators, I can assure you.) And what if someone who gets the information as part of their job decides to leak it, for fun say, to the Wall Street Journal? What's the accountability there?

Based on the number of times the quote was shared, the big soundbite from Frances Haugen's testimony was, "Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook."  

I'm wondering if anyone reading this post can tell me everything that happens inside their current employer, or any of their former employers? I maintain that it's probably true for every company, even those in highly regulated industries, that outsiders don't know what happens inside, and neither do employees. I also maintain that that lack of knowledge can be positive (allowing a company to launch a new product, charitable plan, marketing campaign, etc. without leaks) as much as it can be negative (e.g., Enron, Wells Fargo, and perhaps Facebook, too). 

Especially in a country where we're supposedly working on improving the privacy rights of people. And, of course, where we consider corporations to be people, too. Unless, of course, corporations aren't really people after all. And isn't that a whole nother world of wonderment we can attack... 

What are you wondering about tonight? 

Sunday School 10/3/21: Extra Credit

In yesterday's Sunday School, we heard from a couple of progressives. Today, for your Extra Credit, we've got Sen. John Barrasso (R-Why), who chatted with Chris Wallace in the Fox News Sunday classroom.

Barrasso said that "what we're seeing is like watching an episode of the twilight zone," and he said that President Biden "surrendered to the radical wing of his party" instead of getting bipartisan agreement on his Build Back Better plan. 

And now you have this big government-socialism-reckless spending bill being basically used to hold hostage the thing that the American people want... 

He noted that the 'traditional infrastructure' bill passed the Senate with 19 Republican votes, and that "in any kind of a normal world, that would've been signed into law by the president" months ago when it passed. Biden is "weak" and the folks like the two who were highlighted in yesterday's post "are driving the bus and Joe Biden is just along for the ride."

Wallace noted that Barrasso wasn't one of the 19 Rs who voted for the stuff that Americans want, and not only that, he and "all of the Republicans are refusing the normal course, bipartisan passage of raising the debt limit." Considering that, Wallace asked whether Barrasso and the rest of them were "viewing these issues on the merits or are you just playing partisan politics?" 

In his defense, the senator said he "had some concerns with some of the gimmicks that were used to fund it" and that it spent too much money, among other things. But on the current $3.5T human infrastructure bill, the Rs are united.

We're a party at that wants to grow the economy. The Democrats are a party that wants to grow the government. And you heard it right there, they're continuing to try to mislead the public by saying it is free. It is not free. They said, oh, inflation -- Cedric said, oh, inflation will go down. Inflation -- people are feeling the bite of inflation right now when they buy groceries, when they buy gas, all of those things. And they think if this stuff passes, this massive spending and tax bill, that inflation is going to get much worse. 

Wallace pressed him on things like the child tax credit, noting that Barrasso voted to double the child tax credit, which was part of the Trump tax plan. Dems want to expand that further, and noted that "Wyoming is one of the states that benefits most from the increase in the child tax credit." Why would he oppose the change? 

Barrasso muttered and sputtered about "a $3.5T massive bill," and Wallace pointed out he's talking about something specific that would benefit Barrasso's constituents. Well, because "it's part of the bigger bill" and all. Plus, the Dems are trying to talk with the Rs about these things.

I mean Bernie Sanders, the other day, said 48 people ought to be able to overrule two, but there are actually 100 members of the Senate. It's 52 against a number of things that the Democrats are proposing here. And the content of this bill matters almost as much if not more than the cost. I've gotten more letters in the last two weeks on one component of this, which is the issue of giving a whole new army of IRS agents to rifle through your checking account, to look at any check that you either deposit or write for over $600. This is an invasion of privacy. Every senator's is hearing about this. That's included as well. So, when you take a look at the entire bill, which is why, you know, Joe Manchin said, it's time for a strategic pause. Well, it looks like there may be a long pause on both the real infrastructure bill and this big spending blowout bill.

OK - Wallace gave him the chance to talk about what he doesn't like, but then he asked Barrasso about universal pre-K, and noted that "less than a quarter" of the kids who'd be covered in the Dem plan are enrolled in pre-school. Again, the question was, wouldn't this help a lot of his constituents?

Again, Barrasso ignored the point. 

There are a number of things that will help the people of Wyoming. Overall, Joe Biden's policies have been hurting the people of Wyoming. And I believe that there should be (means) tested. You just don't give things universally to everybody. I think there should be work requirements involved. The Democrats are trying to separate work requirements from just free government checks and programs. You heard the congressman from the Progressive Caucus say, everybody ought to get free community college, everybody ought to get free daycare, Pre-K, all of those things, and that's not the way that our country has been founded and how we work together. 

Notably, he didn't say that he's reached out to any of the Dems to say, "hey, let's work on getting some means testing in here, so we don't give handouts to people who don't deserve them." And that leads me to believe that it's more important for the Rs to be united against stuff they'd actually support, stuff that would help their constituents, than it is to try and do things "the way that our country has bene founded and how we work together." But maybe that's just me. 

Last question? Are the Rs "thoroughly enjoying" the Dems and their infighting? Such a disappointing question, after all the work Wallace did to try and get Barrasso to act like an adult.

Well, I'll tell you, you know, the thing is, Joe Biden ran as a centrist and as competent. And what we're seeing is that he is neither. And people across the country are feeling less safe with Joe Biden as president. Their paychecks are less safe because of the inflation. When you look at hundreds of thousands of people illegally coming to the country every month, they feel less safe. When the generals testify, as they did, that we are less safe to terrorism, Joe Biden has now walked the plank for the socialist Bernie Sanders budget. He's man overboard and he cannot swim. He is sinking and he's sunk. 

You'll earn your extra credit if you can convince me there's a single R who will break ranks and try to get something accomplished on behalf of their constituents.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 10/3/21

I'm taking one for the team today, and spending time with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-on't Need to Worry about a Number-WA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-'ve Named a Lot of Post Offices-VT). We'll take them in that order.

Jayapal stopped by the CNN State of the Union classroom, where Dana Bash was serving up the questions, the first of which was "What do you think this week says about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party?"

Jayapal suggested that "progressives have helped push back onto the table, back onto the agenda President Biden's agenda." Biden laid out this big plan months ago, she said, that included infrastructure, sure, but also 85% of it

was around these other important programs, child care, universal child care, paid family leave for 12 weeks for everybody, making sure we're taking on the climate crisis, expanding health care, and, of course, taking on the challenge of giving a path to citizenship for immigrants. All of that ended up in something called the Build Back Better Act.

And now, even though "we thought we made clear three-and-a-half months ago that the two had to move together, because we don't want to pit roads and bridges against child care," but

suddenly, a small group of people, 4% of the entire House Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus, said, 'we only want the bipartisan infrastructure bill to go'... And that's after five months of negotiating. We had to stand up and get the whole thing back together. And that's what I think has happened now. We have put the bills back together, as was the original agreement, and we are going to deliver both bills, the infrastructure bill, which is important. And the Build Back Better Act.

Bash asked about the "scathing statements" released by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-on't Know Why I'm a Democrat), the former accusing the progressives of using "Freedom Caucus tactics," and the latter accusing the progressives of further eroding trust. Jayapal said that was unfortunate, and pointed out that it wasn't "just a few people. We had over 60 votes" and that's growing, she said, because of "people who were desperately committed to the idea that we're not leaving anybody behind."

The conversation turned to dollars, and that's where Jayapal wasn't playing; she refused to give a number, much to Bash's dismay.

Well, what we have said from the beginning is, it's never been about the price tag. It's about what we want to deliver. The price tag comes out of that... And so, we are now going back to make sure, what is the way that we can get all of the critical programs that we had identified, those things I talked to you about, child care, paid leave plan... how do we get all of those things in, but -- and -- but perhaps for a shorter period of time, and be able to get then to the number from that? The critical thing is, let's get our priorities in, and then we will figure out what it actually costs.

She said even President Biden said "don't start with the number. Start with what you're for." And no matter how hard Bash pushed, that's where the stood.

I don't feel the need to give a number, because I gave my number. It was 3.5. So, if you're in a negotiation, you need to have a counteroffer before you bid against yourself... 

She said now they have to figure out how to get all of their priorities funded, maybe for "a little bit of a shorter time," and to look at some of the smaller items and decide if they're mandatory. Those should "cut out a decent amount," she said. And on means testing, while I am a strong supporter of means testing for government programs) Jayapal feels differently.

Well, all of the research shows means testing actually doesn't target it more, but it does create a lot of administrative burden and a lot more cost...So, it's not - it's not what I want to do. 

All I can say is, what a mess. And that's before we hear from That Guy from Vermont, who was in the Meet the Press classroom, with Chuck Todd asking, first, whether TGFV has "accepted the fact" that the Build Back Better plan won't be $3.5T. That's not what he heard, he said, and besides, even if he did,

what the president also said, and what all of us are saying, is that maybe the time is now for us to stand up to powerful special interests who are currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prevent us from doing what the American people want. We want to lower, substantially, prescription drug costs in this country so we're not paying ten times more for certain drugs than Canada and other countries. And the pharmaceutical industry has 1,400 lobbyists on Capitol Hill right now trying to stop us. We want to deal with the existential threat of climate change. We want to deal with child care. We want to expand Medicare so elderly people can chew their food, can have hearing aids, can have eyeglasses. And we can pay for this by demanding that the wealthiest people and largest corporations finally start paying their fair share of taxes. That's what this struggle is about. Do we do what the American people want? Do we fulfill what democracy is supposed to be about? Or do we bow down to powerful special interests?

Was that the answer to a question, or a campaign speech? I couldn't tell.

Todd made the mistake of talking about there being a "large wish list" and wondering if there's a sense that they should get as much done as possible, and tackle some of the smaller stuff later. TGFV's response? Another campaign speech. 

Climate change and cutting carbon emissions has everything to do with whether or not we leave this planet to future generations that is healthy and is habitable. Scientists tell us we got a few years. You want more workers out in the workforce, we need to reform child care so that a million women can come back to work and not have to pay, as a family, 20% or 30% of their income for child care. You have to have a skilled workforce. We can't have a skilled workforce and do the good jobs that are out there unless we train young people. That's why we want to make community colleges' tuition free. So, this is not a wish list. This is what the working families of this country want and what the economy needs. The real question is -- will Congress -- the Republicans, of course, are owned by the pharmaceutical industry and the fossil fuel industry. We don't expect them to do anything. But the question now is whether the Democrats can come together, and I think that we can, to finally do what working families in this country desperately want us to do.

Todd also wondered if TGFV was just learning about his colleague Joe Manchin's $1.5T figure, suggesting that Chuck Schumer had known about it for months. Sanders pointed out that Manchin has been public about what he wants - a smaller number and a paid-for bill. Sanders wants those things, too. 

As you well know, Chuck, there's a given year when Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, the wealthiest people in this country, don't pay a nickel in federal income taxes. Large corporations don't pay a nickel. We address that, you could pay for $3.5 trillion. You could pay for a $6 trillion bill and pay for it completely.

They've been negotiating, "literally, for months now," TGFV said, but now, the progressives (I'd say the Dems, but he's not one) have a new job, to "rally the American people to continue the negotiations," and he thinks they'll get both bills done. He also disagrees that it's a "dysfunctional message" they're sending by having both bills go together. They have to, he said, 

because there is a strong feeling on the part of many of us that if you just pass the infrastructure bill, which is a good bill, I voted for it, then we will not get to the bill that working families really want, that finally demands that the wealthiest people of this country start paying their fair share of taxes. So, what we said is, "Look, we all want the infrastructure bill. Great. But we also have got to do the reconciliation bill which addresses the long-neglected needs of working families and the elderly." Expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing aids, and eyeglasses, doing child care, doing community colleges, enormously important for working families.

He said lots of people are working with Sen. Sinema (she of the 'dysfunctional message' comment), and he thinks her constituents are starting to pressure her to get on board.

This is a long and complicated process which is dealing with the most consequential piece of legislation probably since the New Deal in the Great Depression. It's a big deal. And it's not going to happen overnight. And the president is absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether it's next week or three weeks from now. What matters is that we finally address the problems facing working families. That's what matters.

And in the end?

What matters is that we do it and we do it well. And when we do both of these pieces of legislation, I think the American people are going to say, "Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Democrats in the Congress. And by the way, where the hell were the Republicans in not having the guts to stand up to powerful special interests?"

He's running in 2024. I swear he is.

See you around campus.