TGIF 4/14/23

What a crazy bunch of stuff I read this week! 

Honestly, just when I think I've seen it all, or read it all, or heard it all, something else comes along and I'm left, again, shaking my head.  Here are just a few examples

A textbook publisher in Florida is scrubbing references to race from lessons. Rosa Parks? She was merely asked to move to another seat, with no reason given why. Jim Crow laws? It was illegal for "men of certain groups" to be unemployed, and "some men couldn't serve on juries," again with no reason given.  Is this really how we want to be educating kids?

Missouri state representative Mike Moon told quite a horrific tale in justifying why he voted against a bill that would raise the legal age for kids to marry other kids from 16 to 17. His 'no' vote was in part because the bill didn't include "allowances for... extreme circumstances" like a couple he met a while back: a couple of pre-teens who "took actions that resulted in the girl becoming pregnant. The parents decided to allow the children to marry. They weren't forced."

How is he holding up these parents as positive examples when they leave the decision of marriage up to their 12- and 13-year-old children? How many other bills has Moon (or anyone else in Missouri) fought to have "allowances for extreme circumstances" included in other laws, such as rights for trans children or abortion?

Clarence Thomas. Billionaire friends. Money changing hands. Ethics. Bullshit. Need I say more? 

NOW NYC is objecting to Judge Rowan Wilson, Gov. Kathy Hochul's latest pick to be Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.  The issue? Wilson wrote the opinion that tossed a rape conviction because the prosecutors were morons who inexplicably wasted not just months, but years, in getting their case nailed down. Among the issues? They couldn't figure out how to get a warrant for a DNA sample... which pretty much everyone who's watched even one episode of a crime drama on TV in the last 30 years knows how to do. 

I don't understand why a women's organization wouldn't be up in arms about prosecutorial malfeasance that denied a woman her day in court for years -and I can't for the life of me understand why NOW or any other group wants a Chief Justice who ignores the law, as long as it fits their agenda.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would pardon a convicted murderer - the day after the guy was convicted. Why? Because Tucker Carlson and Kyle Rittenhouse told him to, I guess.  A jury unanimously convicted Daniel Perry of murder in the death of Garrett Foster, who was participating in a Black Lives Matter rally in Austin. Perry ran a red light (on purpose) and drove into the protest (on purpose) and then, in self-defense (he said), shot Foster five times before driving away. 

All of this was after Perry had posted on social media things like how he might "kill a few people" on his way to work as an Uber driver. 

Comically, Abbott noted that the Texas stand-your-ground law" cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney." Because, you silly goose, jury nullification is the purview of governors, conservative commentators, and teenagers who shoot people at protests.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 3/27/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School we heard from a Right Winger and a Woke Lefty on issues unrelated to regime change and ethics. For your Extra Credit, we're going to look at the latter, starting with three guests John Dickerson had on Face the Nation. 

First up? Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Dammit, I'm a Republican; Trump is a Menace). The bulk of their conversation was about the Ginni Thomas texts, the January 6th Committee, and the Supreme Court. (Full disclosure: Thomas and her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently received one of my Dirty Snowpile awards.)

Kinzinger wouldn't officially confirm or deny the texts existed, since they were leaked, but he said the Committee's bottom line was to get the facts and share them with us.

We're going to get to the bottom of this. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, people are willing to die for democracy. We at least have to be willing to put careers on the line for the same cause.

He's got a point there...  Sadly, he didn't offer much of value, other than his lack of confidence that Mark Meadows, the recipient of the texts in question, has been fully forthcoming. There's a reason why he's been turned over to the DOJ for a potential contempt prosecution.

I mean, he was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then... to make Donald Trump happy, he stopped cooperating. We gave him plenty of space to come back to resume that. He has not. And, in fact, he's waived executive privilege a thousand times by presenting us what he already has. So, no, I'm not convinced he's handed over everything to us. 

Next up? Bob Woodward (WaPo) and Robert Costa (CBS), who broke the story the texts. Dickerson asked for an explanation on the importance of the messages. Woodward compared them to Watergate, which was tampering on the front end of the election process. This is different because "they come after the election is over." 

Costa noted this "campaign, spearheaded by then-president Trump," crossed all three branches of government "in at least tangential ways." It wasn't just pressuring Pence and Congress to overturn the results, and pressuring the states to invalidate the votes.

... you had the executive branch doing everything possible to have a legal challenge that would maybe go all the way, as Trump said, to the Supreme Court. This was Trump pulling every lever of power. And one of those levers, it appears to be...his own chief of staff at least communicating on legal strategy with the spouse of a justice.

Woodward said that Chief Justice John Roberts "really has grounds for being worried" about the Court being seen as political. He pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's "remarkable speech" a few months back, 

She said, I want to prove to you that we are not a bunch of partisan hacks in the Supreme Court. And she said justices - all justices - must be hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decision since justices and judges are people, too. So, she made it very clear that this hypervigilance should be the condition in which justices operate.

And yet, we have Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texting about 'war' and 'good vs. evil' and 'not giving up' in their efforts to overturn the election, and Justice Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th-related cases... 

Costa appreciated the Committee's frustration by Meadows and what else he might have, and that includes any texts with Ginni Thomas after the end of November. I agree; it seems weird they would suddenly end. After all, she attended the Stop the Steal rally, until her feet got cold, and allegedly has ties with some of the groups behind the event. 

That said, The Committee has "done hundreds of interviews. They have thousands of pages of documents" from cooperating witnesses,

but they still feel in many ways they do not have enough. Steven Bannon has refused to cooperate. Mark Meadows has now refused to cooperate. So, the question facing ...Kinzinger and others is, where is the John Dean who's going to put the hand in the air and start outlining all of these different facets?

 Woodward said "there are always surprises," so it possible there's a John Dean out there. And

remember, the January 6th committee, in a filing in California, has said they have a good-faith conclusion that Trump and people around him engaged in a full-fledged criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. They rule this as criminal. 

And just yesterday, that judge ruled it was "more likely that not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." 

Costa said the "real test" for the Committee is whether they give Thomas a chance to speak voluntarily, or if they subpoena her. And, he said, it's not just about her conversations with Meadows. 

We just don't have the full picture at this point about her relationship with Justice Thomas and his knowledge of her exchanges with the chief of staff.

Ain't that the truth. 

Finally, let's hear just a bit from Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press.  In addition to talking about the #KBJ hearings, the host brought up the text thing, using former AG Loretta Lynch and the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton as an example of someone recusing themselves, and asked if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

He said he's frustrated with the Court "as a whole, that they have not taken better measures to police themselves." That includes holding lower courts to ethics rules that they "don't put upon themselves." And, he gave one my favorite examples of shady ethics: justices giving paid speeches to partisan groups that may have direct matters, or amicus briefs, before the Court.

There are a lot of ethics rules that they do not, have not put upon themselves that are just common sense and ultimately lead to a delegitimized court. And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.

He didn't add "or we'll change the rules for them" - but that possibility is already on the table, as it should be.

See you around campus. Unless you need to recuse yourself for something. 

And the Winners Are...

Here in Central New York, we're familiar with massive piles of snow, which go through cycles of looking pretty, and looking pretty disgusting, like the one shown here.

It's been a while since I've handed out any Dirty Snowpile Awards, given for particularly bad acts on the part of local, state, and federal politicians.

It wasn't for a lack of trying, I assure you. During the Obama years, I attempted to hand some out, but I never managed to get them done during awards season. And, of course, the Trump years were one giant dirty snowpile, from so many perspectives; it seemed silly to single anyone out. 

Tonight, folks are gathering for the Oscars, and I can't think of a better time to get some other well-deserved recognition out there. 

> The We May Never Find the Poop Under this Snowpile award goes to US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland moves at a very deliberate pace, it seems, and he's hardly an emphatic speaker. We know things are moving forward on the insurrection, and hate crimes, and such, but sometimes all we know is that things are moving s-l-o-w-l-y. There have been accomplishments, of course, and we know that his goal is to leave no snowpile unturned, at this pace by the time he finds the poop under all that snow, we'll forget which dog left it there. 

> Speaking of poop, former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo has earned the Just When You Thought Winter Was Over award. Cuomo, as you know, resigned in the face of multiple sexual harassment allegations, for which he offered the Italian defense, and blamed his alleged victims and his political opponents. But now, like snow in April and May, he's back. That's right- the Sonofa Gov is campaigning to get his reputation back, and, if that weren't enough, he's been teasing a return to politics. 

Cuomo meandered back and forth across the ethical aisle for a long time. He was one of the three amigos back in the day; the other two were convicted of crimes. There were the economic development issues, with several people very close to Cuomo charged (and convicted). There were previous allegations of sexual harassment in his  administration; and of course, there was the Moreland Commission mess. 

The bottom line? Cuomo's just one more in a long line of NY pols who've behaved badly and tried to make us think they didn't. And, like late season snow, we don't like it, we don't need it, and we're sick of it. 

> The Does this Snowpile Make My Uterus Look Big award, given collectively to Republicans for their attacks on women and our bodies. Remember their, um, erudite conversations on rape? A few of those are captured here. And, of course, there are the new anti-abortion laws, some of which defy both logic and science. And in their zeal to see Roe v. Wade overturned, they're salivating at the possible end of Griswold v. Connecticut, which afforded privacy protections to married women and their birth control decisions. Considering the Rs are the party of small government and individual freedom, they're sure spending a lot of time trying to control my lady parts.

> The My Snowpile's So Small It Fits on this T-shirt award goes to the thousands of politicians, their advisors, or whoever it is that decided we should have a government of the t-shirt, by the t-shirt and for the t-shirt. You know what I'm talking about, right? Policies and positions that fit on a t-shirt are great; anything else, we don't give a hoot about. And don't forget how those slogans get twisted and turned into opposition missiles, either.

Need some examples? Well, off the top of my head, and in keeping with what we just talked about, My Body My Choice. And these: Make America Great Again; Build Back Better; Back the Blue; Defund the Police; Race to the Top; Read My Lips - No New Taxes; Drill, Baby, Drill; the Green New Deal... There must be a political slogan factory somewhere, I swear - and there are days I want to work there.

Sadly, one of the most important things with all this 'governing by slogan' stuff is that you buy the t-shirt, literally or figuratively.

> My frustration with progressives in the Democratic Party is no secret, so it should come as no surprise that they win the With Friends Like These Who Needs Enemies award. They think nothing of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; it's never good enough to get something you've been fighting for, if you can't get everything you've been fighting for, and - of course - nothing is more important than what they want. This year, the progressives had a response to their own president's State of the Union address, for Pete's sake. 

> This year's The Couple That Shovels Together Stays Together award goes to the Thomases, Clarence and Ginni. Her work is hers, and his is his, and never the twain shall meet, except when the twain is all twisted up in an ugly ethical hairball, even without those text messages. And don't forget, Clarence has some issues separate from his wife's texts; here's one example; here's another one. 

That's all for this year's awards; I'd love to give out more, but I've got to go out and shovel one last time.

Wondering on Wednesday 3/23/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's wonder-full today? 

My local newspaper ran an article letting us know that gas prices in my neck of the woods fell a dime a gallon in just ten days. Now, if you've been paying any attention, every time the price of gas goes up, or there's even a hint that it's going to go up, the angry folks on the right throw a mass conniption fit, which apparently causes them to run around putting Joe Biden "I Did That!" stickers on gas pumps, yell out their windows that they're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore, and run out and order overpriced gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs which they drive around potholes and stones in the road and stuff.

And I'm wondering, why the heck they aren't thanking Joe Biden for lowering the price? Is it because they really know that presidents don't have a whole lot to do with gas prices? 

You may have heard the news that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been hospitalized since last Friday. Keep that thought in mind as we reflect on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Some pissed-off place south of North Carolina) and his questioning of SCOTUS nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Graham was particularly interested in how other people, or outside groups lobbied hard to have Jackson be Biden's pick; or, maybe, they lobbied hard to have Judge J. Michelle Childs, from South Carolina, not be Biden's pick. Either way, Jackson herself had nothing to do with that, Graham knows that, and he doesn't give a dried-out palmetto leaf if we all know he knows.

I think it does matter that the groups that came to your aid at the expense of Judge Childs - how did that happen and why were they doing what they were doing? What is it about your nomination that the most liberal people... threw in their money, their time, their support, and threatened Joe Biden if he picked Judge Childs? 

So, here's what I'm wondering: if Justice Thomas is unable to return to the bench, for whatever reason, how hard would Senator Graham lobby to have Judge Childs replace him?

And, sticking with the Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Jackson's nomination, I wonder why so many Republicans want to spend so much time talking about child pornography? 

And I wonder why these Republicans are expending so much effort on how Judge Jackson sentenced offenders in these cases, when what she did was exactly what other judges were doing? 

Were those judges questioned on this issue? Not just soft-on-crime-liberal-Democrat appointees, but Republicans, too, the ones recommended by the Heritage Foundation (they're the folks who fan themselves with their pocket copies of the US Constitution if it gets too hot in the freedom-loving trenches)? Judges nominated by Donald "Only the Best People" Trump, their appointments strongly supported by these same porn-focused senators?

And I wonder why these child-porn-focused Republican senators are now asking to receive additional information on these cases, including pre-sentencing reports? And why is Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin withholding information from the Republicans, if in fact that's happening here?

Truth be told, there's a simple way to resolve that conflict, and I wonder why no one has suggested it yet: have the FBI urgently investigate, like it did with the sexual harassment allegations against Brett 'I Really Like Beer' Kavanaugh, and then the senators can all go into a SCIF or something and have the report read to them. Oh wait - we all remember how that went.

There was much more from the hearings that inspired wonder, like the war criminals issue involving George W. Bush (but curiously not Barack Obama) question and the definition of 'woman' but I'll leave it here, and you can wonder out loud or to yourself, as you prefer.

I'll close out tonight's wondering where we started - with gas prices. It seems that, in addition to the blame game, some folks in DC want to try and help. And we know there's a whole lot of wondering going on when that happens, right?

We've got three federal proposals - and it's only March 23rd. Who knows how many more there'll be, since the House isn't occupied with Daylight Savings Time. One would provide a

monthly energy rebate of $100 per person. That refund would kick in for the rest of 2022 (if) the national average gas price topped $4 a gallon during any given month... both joint and single tax filers would receive $100 each, while each dependent would also receive $100 each. In other words, a family with two kids could receive up to $300 a month in rebate checks. 

The second would offer less money, but would be paid for, I think. It'd offer

a quarterly rebate to consumers based on a tax levied on oil and gas companies. The Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax would charge a per barrel tax equal to 50% of the difference between the current price of a barrel of oil and its pre-pandemic average price between 2015 to 2019... if the per barrel price sits at $120, the tax would raise about $45 billion a year — providing single filers with $240 annually and joint filers with $360 each year. 

The last proposal would also be paid for, but differently, and we have no idea how much money's involved. It would

create a rebate based on oil company profits. It's unclear how much Americans would receive because the plan is based on taxing this year's profits from oil and gas companies. 

So, what's the wondering on this one? Well, for starters, how much more appetite is there for sending checks to Americans who may or may not need them? Didn't we learn anything from the previous stimuli? And, what are the chances that any of these will make it through the legislative process before the midterms? I'm guessing slim to none, but maybe that's just me.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Trump's Travel Ban

A whole lot of shaking going on, going on today,what with the SCOTUS decision on the president's Muslim ban, or Travel ban, or whatever you want to call it. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to go forward, with some exceptions. As we learned today,

The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.

 What constitutes a 'tie' between the traveler and the US?

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the Unites States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe's wife or Dr. Elshikh's mother-in-law clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid (the ban). For example, a nonprofit groups devoted to immigrant issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The intent of the 'close relationship' part was to help eliminate much of the churn that happened when the original ban was implemented, which included keeping people in America as well as keeping people out of America.

In a statement issued by the White House, we were advised that

Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. 

As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0. 

The Department of Homeland Security promised to think outside the box this time, and to consult with other agencies, including the Departments of  Justice and State, to come up with a plan.

The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professional, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry. 

Still, concerns abound. What constitutes a 'close familial relationship' for example; would a cousin count? A Joseph Greenwald and Laake civil rights attorney, Jay Holland, notes

There is absolutely a gray area. The issue of who has a bona fide relationship or familial relationship certainly appears to be an open and confusing question. 

The head of corporate communications for the International Air Transport Association,Perry Flint noted in the same article linked above,

It is absolutely imperative that airlines receive clear and concise information, as well as sufficient time, to enable them to comply with those portions of the executive order for which the injunction was stayed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined, largely on the point of trying to define rules that meet the Court's requirement of a relationship.

Moreover, I fear that the Court's remedy will prove unworkable. Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country... The compromise will also invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine exactly what constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid (section) 2C of Executive Order No. 13780...

It would be hard to imagine that the implementation could be worse this time around, but this is the government, after all (and no, that's not a comment on this particular administration). At least the people who have to make this work are talking to experts for assistance.

Now that a decision has been made, we should all hope for the best - and perhaps more importantly, hope that the efforts to "figure out what the hell is going on" which started earlier this month, are completed timely.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v21)

Almost exactly a week ago I was in the middle of writing this post.  

I was talking about Shelly Silver stepping down as Speaker of the Assembly here in New York, but vowing to fight to keep his seat as a member of that august body in the face of federal corruption charges.  And I had touched on SU throwing in the towel in the face of their NCAA investigation, and giving up the right to have Coach Boeheim's unranked guys play in any games after the end of the ACC's regular season.  And thinking gee, what a great year to give up post-season play, since the team has struggled in so many games already, with more losses than we are accustomed to in these parts.

And I was just starting to focus in on Andrew Cuomo, our Sonofa Gov, and his threats to forgo an on-time budget deal if he doesn't get ethics reform.  And then, well, then My Sweet Baboo decided to take a knee and propose, and I never did get around to finishing the post.  (I said yes, by the way).

So now, as I'm listening to the SU/Boston College basketball game, and casting a loving and appreciative eye towards the ring on my finger, here's what has me scratching my head tonight. 

Anthem Blue Cross was hacked by someone (perhaps the Chinese) and information including names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, employment information - all the stuff you'd ever need to set up some big time fake identities - may have been compromised for as many as 80 million people. And we were told on the news that, almost immediately after the breach was announced, all kinds of people who roam the netherworld were offering to buy the Anthem data. 

I'm not caught up in this one, at least so far. I was tagged in the Target breach (I shop there maybe once a year) and on a site where I shop for a necessity that is not available locally. For both of those, my card number was compromised, but nothing like what was taken in the Anthem case. I was offered free credit monitoring, which is what Anthem is offering folks. But  I'm wondering, is a few months of credit monitoring enough for the folks caught up in this massive breach? And if you're a crook, wouldn't you already plan on waiting more than a couple years, so as to get past the common free monitoring periods? I guess I'm thinking if you're smart enough to hack and steal this info, you'd be smart enough to know when to use it.  

And speaking of breach,  Brian Williams has been suspended by NBC without pay for six months, which amounts to about a $5 million hit in income and what is likely a lifetime ban as a newsman.  There's been a lot of analysis on why this might have happened (all the while the investigation is continuing, supposedly now expanded to include his expense accounts, as if an RPG hit might materialize there).  Lots of people are talking about what makes people embellish their records, inflate their value, exaggerate what happened to them, and why they would 'violate our trust' like this.  

But lots of people aren't talking about why, for example, NBC didn't appear to think much about trustworthiness when it hired the daughters of former Presidents Bush II and Clinton, as if they were real reporters? Chelsea Clinton did 'Making a Difference' stories and was reportedly paid some $650,000 for her troubles. Jenna Bush I think has become the official Bush Family Reporter, having done interviews with her dad, grandfather grandmother, mother, dog, childhood dolls... OK, maybe not the dog but you get the drift. 

What Williams did was wrong - but the network is not as trustworthy as they'd have us believe. 

Finally, the Supreme Court refused to stay an Alabama law allowing gay marriages.  This was an odd decision, in many people's eyes, because SCOTUS is going to decide on marriage equality before the end of the term. Clarence Thomas was up in arms about this one, as was Antonin Scalia.   

So: was a line crossed here by the Court? Was this a breach of protocol, or just a breach of Thomas's sensibilities? Can we no longer trust the Supreme Court? Has anyone really trusted them lately?

And now I'm left wondering, on this Wednesday, if that's really the crux of the issue: is the breach of trust really a big issue, if there's so little trust to start with?