Wondering on Wednesday (v142)

Let's dive right in, shall we?

Kris Kobach, the Trump-loving election fraud conspiracy theorist and Kansas Secretary of State is in a primary with Republican incumbent governor Jeff Colyer for the right to face a challenger in November. Currently, Kobach has about a 190 vote lead over his opponent.  There are still absentee and provisional ballots to be counted but if it remains close and Colyer asks for a recount he'd have to make the request of, and pay a bond to, his opponent, because the Secretary of State is the chief election official. 

When the topic arose about Kobach recusing himself from the recount process, his answer should surprise no one. Check it out:

The recount thing is done on a county level, so the secretary of state does not actually participate in the recount. The secretary of  state's office merely serves as a coordinating entity overseeing it all but not actually counting the votes.

Now, a logical or ethical or reasonable person might wonder why on earth Kobach wouldn't recuse himself, but then one can simply remember that, as noted above, he's a Trump-loving election fraud conspiracy theorist and the best way to prevent any kind of election fraud and to ensure an accurate count is to serve as the coordinating entity overseeing a recount IN YOUR OWN RACE, right? And I wonder if anyone else sees a warning in the statement below?

If the margin it less than 10 votes or something extraordinarily close, I would expect any person to call for a recount. (it) would take a significant amount of time to do a recount statewide. 

As in, don't bother asking for a recount unless it's really close, because you'll make a mess of things for the whole state.  And 10 votes? Is that really what Kobach considers a reasonable recount threshold?

Another noteworthy outcome from yesterday's primaries was the strong showing by "conventional" Democrats in primaries. For example, in Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer (governor) and Elissa Slotkin (House) both defeated more progressive candidates. In the gubernatorial primary, for example, progressive New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders both campaigned for one of Whitmer's opponents, without success. There was a similar outcome in Missouri.

It makes me wonder whether we'll see another Ocasio-Cortez this election cycle, or if the progressives still have a lot of work to do to find common ground with others in the party.

And finally, a opportunity to comment on the media - who would have thunk that would happen?

Tonight I happened to capture the first few minutes of Access Hollywood (yes, that Access Hollywood) where one of the hot topics was the ugly and getting uglier legal battles between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Details of the ugliness were given, but I'm not going to repeat them here.

After talking about how people who are going through a breakup or divorce "must love their kids more than they hate their former partner" and focus on keeping things as civil as possible, the hosts lamented that this whole sorry death of a relationship was being played out in the media, on purpose it seems, by both camps, and how that was the completely wrong way to do it.

And then, they continued to discuss it, including the possibility that the Jolie camp was trying to slow things down, but that, according to one of the hosts who "had done some reporting on this" and talked to people close to Pitt, she learned that he was supposedly wanting to go straight to divorce without wasting any more time -- and then stated that he has to have a girlfriend and that was what was driving his haste.

I wonder, when they watch the tape of the show, if they'll see how silly their hand-wringing about media coverage sounds, and if they'll learn their own lesson and in the future commit to not mentioning this or similarly sensitive stories. Or whether they'll consider how it would feel if they were to find themselves on the wrong side of such a report. One can only hope.

Wondering on Wednesday (v138)

Wondering, wondering, wondering... about hypocrisy, tonight.

I wonder if the people who are outraged - outraged, I tell you! - about Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a Virginia restaurant were equally outraged when gays were refused services? It's funny, because some of the same people who think the latter is OK think the former is not. And suggesting that 'we' (meaning liberals, or Democrats) would be outraged if a gay person was denied services, when we all should be outraged when that happens, right? And not for nothing 'we' already did the outrage thing on this, resulting in marriage equality, among other things.

I also wonder about people who think protesting administration officials is 'discrimination' - what particular protected class might Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen represent?

And how about Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao rising to the occasion and defending her man, Kentucky's Republican obstructionist Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? If you haven't seen it, you can watch it here -- and the article raises some interesting points, too, about how conservatives in particular reacted the incident. I can't help wondering if they get how bad they look?

Speaking of how bad they look, I wonder if the folks who think it's wrong for a business owner to refuse service to someone think it's OK when the president calls upon his followers to boycott American businesses? You know, when he gets mad at Amazon, or Nordstrom, or anyone else? Is it OK for him to do that in his official capacity, I wonder?

Thinking about the Supreme Court decision today that people can't be forced to pay fees to support non-political activities of unions, even if they directly benefit from those activities, made me think about another Supreme Court decision: the one about companies having deeply held beliefs.

Consider the argument about people working for companies like Hobby Lobby, which doesn't believe in providing certain types of contraception that are required benefits under the Affordable Care Act.  It's been said many times on my social  media pages and possibly yours as well, that a person doesn't have to take a job if the benefits aren't to their liking, and if you go to work for Hobby Lobby you know what you're getting, blah blah blah and you don't have to work there if you don't like it yadda yadda yadda. 

I wonder why a person who thinks it's OK for someone to be denied a benefit based on a company's belief thinks it's OK for person to get (for free) a benefit their coworkers pay for? How can both of these be OK?

I wonder about civility in the age of Trump. You know: talking about penis size during a presidential debate, and about the physical appearance of his female opponents, and of course the Access Hollywood tape, and promising to pay anyone arrested for assaulting protesters at his rallies, and all of that stuff and of course,lying about President Obama's birth certificate.

When the president says stuff (and by stuff I mean outright lies, abusive comments, insulting comments, derogatory comments, denigrating comments, racist comments, sexist comments, abject falsehoods and the like) it's OK, it's all rah rah and #MAGA and #AmericaFirst and the like, with not the slightest concern for civility or honesty or humanity, but when an FBI guy does a little reassuring pillow-texting with his paramour, all bets are off and he's nefarious and everything is deadly serious and he has to be lying about it being innocent? Why is that, I wonder? Why does nothing the president says or does matter, but everything everyone else says and does matters as if it were life and death?

And I'll stop after this one: why must the Mueller investigation end, I wonder, when it's been going on for not even 14 months and is producing results -- indictments and guilt pleas -- when the Benghazi investigations - 7 or 8 of them, I think? -  lasted years, cost millions, and resulted in nothing?

I wonder about all of this, I do. I could keep going, but I think you get the gist.  The outrage! Oh, the outrage!

No -- make it faux, the outrage.

About that, I don't have to wonder.

The Irony Board:What Month Is This, Again?

president Donald J. Trump Proclaims April 2018 as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month

During National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, we remain steadfast in our efforts to stop crimes of sexual violence, provide care for victims, enforce the law, prosecute offenders, and raise awareness about the many forms of sexual assault. We must continue our work to eliminate sexual assault from our society and promote safe relationships, homes and communities.

I moved on her, and I failed. I admit it...  I did try and f--- her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.

Sexual assault crimes remain tragically common in our society, and offenders too often evade accountability. These heinous crimes are committed indiscriminately; in intimate relationships, in public spaces, and in the workplace.

I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab the by the p----. You can do anything.

We must respond to sexual assault by identifying and holding perpetrators accountable. Too often, however, the victims of assault remain silent. They may fear retribution from their offender, lack faith in the justice system, or have difficulty confronting the pain associated with the traumatic experience.  My administration is committed to raising awareness about sexual assault and to empowering victims to identify perpetrators so that they can be held accountable. We must make it as easy as possible for those who have suffered from sexual assault to alert the authorities and to speak about the experience with their family and friends.

Jessica Leeds

Kristin Anderson

Cathy Heller

Temple Taggart McDowell

Karena Virginia

Bridget Sullivan

Tasha Dixon

Mindy McGillivray

Rachel Crooks

Natasha Stoynoff

Jennifer Murphy

Jessica Drake

Ninni Laaksonen

Summer Zervos

Cassandra Searles

Karen McDougal

Stormy Daniels

When victims seek help, responses must be carefully tailored to the context in which the sexual assault occurred and the unique needs of each victim. To better assist victims, the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women has developed the Sexual Assault Victim Intervention Services Technical Assistance Center (SAVIS TAC). This new resource will help community officials and organizations appropriately respond to sexual assault by expanding the understanding of the type of support likely to be effective in each unique circumstance. Participants in the SAVIS TAC initiative will use available funds to provide intensive training and resources to service providers.  With these resources, service providers, including rape crisis centers and other sexual assault and domestic violence organizations can build organizational and staff capacity for providing comprehensive sexual assault victim intervention services.

Together, during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we recommit ourselves to doing our part to help stop sexual violence. We must not be afraid to talk about sexual assault and sexual assault prevention with our loved ones, in our communities, and with those who have experienced these tragedies. We must encourage victims to report sexual assault and law enforcement to hold offenders accountable, and we must support victims and survivors unremittingly. Through a concerted effort to better educate ourselves, empower victims, and punish criminals, our Nation will move closer to ending the grief, fear, and suffering caused by sexual assault. The prevention of sexual violence is everyone’s concern.

The people of this country, in a decisive election, supported president Trump, and we feel like these allegations have been answered through that process.  The American people knew this and voted for the president, and we feel like we're ready to move forward in that process.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 2018 as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. I urge all Americans, families, law enforcement, healthcare providers, community and faith-based organizations, and private organizations to support survivors of sexual assault and work together to prevent these crimes in their communities.

Well, the funniest is that before a show, I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure everything is good. You know, the dresses. 'Is everyone OK?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everyone OK?' And you see these incredible-looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP