OrangeVerse LXII: Brief But Derogatory

The PBS Newshour has a recurring feature called Brief But Spectacular, where people from various walks of life spend two or three minutes talking about something important to them, or interesting about them. 

With a slight modification (and an apology to the wonderful folks at the Newshour), I offer you this bit of verse from the Former Guy. 

I can't help noticing that, as is often the case when he accuses someone of something, it's usually done by exhibiting the same behavior he's complaining about. 

No Camp for YOU!

Nikki 'Birdbrain' Haley 

is very bad

for the Republican Party

and indeed,

our 

Country.

Her False Statements,

Derogatory Comments, 

and Humiliating Public Loss, 

is demeaning to

True 

American 

Patriots.

Her anger should be aimed at 

her Third Rate Political Consultants

and, more importantly

Crooked Joe Biden and those

who are destroying our Country - 

NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SAVE IT.

I knew Nikki well, 

she was average

at best,

is not the one

 to take on

World Leaders,

and she never did.

That was up to me

and that is why

they respected 

the United States. 

When I ran for Office and won,

I noticed that the 

Losing Candidate's Donors

would immediately come to me

and want to 

'help out.'

This is standard in Politics,

but no longer with me.

Anybody that 

makes a

'Contribution'

to Birdbrain

from this moment forth

will be permanently banned

from the MAGA camp.

We don't want them, 

and will not accept them.

because we Put America First

and ALWAYS WILL.

I'm not sure if the MAGA camp has a gate at the end of the driveway, but if there was one,  I'd guess it would be both decidedly non-pearly, and garishly orange.

Wondering on Wednesday 5/11/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

We'll start with some random wondering today, and see where we end up.

For example, you know how when you're on an interstate or even some other highways, and there's a long, steep hill, and as you near the crest of the hill, there are signs advising truckers to check their brakes and use a different gear as they progress down the hill? Well, did you ever notice any signs as you near the bottom of the same long, steep hill, going in the opposite direction, advising trucks to check their accelerator or shift into a gear that'll help them get up the hill faster?

Me neither. And I wonder why that is?

And speaking of traveling on interstates and other highways, have you ever noticed how often the weigh stations are closed? I'd guess, in all our years of traveling, it's got to be at least 97%  of the time. In fact, they're closed so often we cheer when one's open. And what's got me wondering is, how are we supposed to be protected on the road if no one's inspecting or weighing the trucks? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

On a more serious note, the US Senate's GOP minority, plus one blocked an attempt by the Senate Dems (minus one) to codify the abortion protections in Roe. What's interesting here is that the plus and minus one, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-I'm in it to Win it for Coal!) would have supported a narrower bill. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R- I Can't Believe Kavanaugh Lied to Me, the Bastage!) also would have supported a narrower bill. But the Dems wouldn't have any of it, and so it failed, to advance, 49-51. 

The point of the vote, which was guaranteed to fail, was to get every senator on record for where they stand on abortion in advance of the midterm election this fall. And the wondering I have here is, will it make a bit of difference, in the overall scheme of things? Only time will tell, but I have my doubts - serious doubts. 

What else? Oh, Elon Musk. We must talk about Elon Musk, because it's in the code of conduct somewhere, I know I've read it. Musk says that Twitter's permanent ban on The Former Guy was wrong. Actually, what he said was 

I would reverse the perma-ban. ... Banning Trump from Twitter didn't end Trump's voice, it will amplify it among the right and this is why it's morally wrong and flat out stupid.

At the same time, Musk says he is  very much of the same mind with proposed new standards for content moderation for EU countries. And, at the same time, TFG says he won't go back to Twitter if his account's reinstated; he'd rather stay on his own platform, Whateveritscalled. So, what am I wondering on all of this? Well, will Musk really go along with local content moderation, causing his teams to do massive amounts of work to meet the standards, which, if we adopt anything like that here, will mean that Trump won't be able to tweet anyway, so what's the point of reinstating him? And does anyone believe him when he says he won't go back on Twitter as soon as he has the chance? I sure don't.

Another random thought... how much did it cost, I wonder, for folks to wash the chalk off the sidewalk in front of Sen. Collins' house in Maine? And, I further wonder, will they wash it off again, now that new messages have appeared? 

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like that women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

What are you wondering about tonight?

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 10/10/21: 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.

Wondering on Wednesday 9/29/21

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Is it just me, or is there a lot to wonder about today?

I'm wondering whether any of the Rs in the House and Senate who are demanding the resignation of President Biden and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Milley ever demanded the resignation of president Trump, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Milley, any of Trump's other generals, or any other members of his Cabinet?  I'm sure someone knows this off the top of their head, but I'm not that person today.

And I'm wondering how health care workers - like these women in my neck of the woods - justify not getting the vaccine  because they shouldn't have to put something in their body that God didn't put there, while at the same time they're putting who knows what in their patients that God didn't put there? 

What, exactly, was Gen. Milley thinking when he spoke with Bob Woodward and others on books about Former Guy and his administration, I wonder? Did he forget that he still had the same job today as he had then, even though he has a different boss?

I wonder what the people who think we should have maintained a few hundred or more troops in Afghanistan have to say about the deal the US made with the Taliban? If Former Guy agreed to get everyone out by May, what were our options to ignore that, and what would the Taliban have done if we had? Or was he just kidding about that?

Other Republican states - Florida is one - are looking to implement Texas-style abortion bills. But I have to wonder, if the states that are trying to prevent essentially all abortions are also against sex education and contraception, what are they for?

Is there a reason we're seeing so much news about the Britney Spears conservatorship, or a reason we should care? I don't say that meanly - I just don't worry so much about what's happening in the lives of celebrities. And am I the only one who feels this way?

If the House is unable to pass the multi-trillion-dollar 'human infrastructure' package, and that leads them to defeat the bipartisan $1.9T traditional infrastructure bill, I wonder how proud the progressives will be?

There was more, but this is enough. What are you wondering about?

Wondering on Wednesday 9/1/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to begin with this week's wondering? Well, how about with a time check?

It's been reported, primarily - but not solely - on the right, that President Biden checked his watch after each of the 11 fallen Americans were transferred from the plane to waiting vehicles at Dover AFB on Monday (two of the 13 transfers were private).  There is video, that has been widely shared, showing him do that once. And, it's been 'fact-checked' by the folks at Snopes that the scene in the video was at the end of the ceremony, after all of the victims of the ISIS-K suicide bomber had been transferred.  

Now, before you go all nutso on me about how Snopes is the Wikipedia of fact-checking and can't be trusted, know that they're not the only ones who have said this isn't true. And, regardless of how you feel about the fact-checkers, don't you wonder why, if this really happened 11t times, no one has video of it?  

And coming on the heels of the false reports that "no one from the Biden administration met the plane" for the dignified transfer on Saturday, when the plane hadn't even arrived yet, how much faith are we to put into a report like this one?

Are you also wondering about the fate of the American service dogs that were left behind in Kabul? I'm sure you've seen the reports from reliable sources such as Donald Trump, Jr., about our leaving crates of dogs at the airport. Other notables also chimed in, like Medicare fraudster Sen. Rick Scott (R-I Took A Huge Golden Parachute and Named it Responsibility).

"Infuriating. Biden stranded Americans. He stranded our allies. Now, he’s stranded our loyal K-9 warriors," Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., wrote on Twitter, posting American Humane's letter.

Sadly, for those who wanted to paint Biden as an animal hater, in addition to all the other stuff he's accused of being, we did not strand our service dogs. 

On Tuesday, the Pentagon denied that any dogs that had worked with the U.S. military were left behind in the country while acknowledging that a series of social media posts about nonmilitary evacuation of Kabul pets caused confusion.

"To correct erroneous reports, the US military did not leave any dogs in cages at Hamid Karzai International Airport, to include the reported 'military working dogs,'" said Eric Pahon, a spokesman for the Defense Department.

I wonder, if the real news out of Afghanistan is as bad as it is, why do people feel the need to make it worse? 

Speaking of making stuff up, there's the Big Lie, that the election was stolen from Former Guy. There was a fun little recording featuring Sen. Ron Johnson (R- Who Doesn't Love Moscow on July 4th?), who pretty much summed up the fallacy of Former Guy's theory that the election was stolen from him. Speaking about the results in his state, Johnson admitted that

There’s nothing obviously skewed about the results...If all the Republicans voted for Trump the way they voted for the Assembly candidates, he [Trump] would have won. He didn’t get 51,000 votes that other Republicans got, and that’s why he lost.

I added the emphasis for the folks in the back, and I wonder why that's so hard for the Rs to understand?

And speaking of rigged elections, the GOP's latest poster boy, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-Not the Naval Academy) has made it clear he's willing to fight over this. Speaking at a GOP event in his home state of North Carolina, he offered this.

If our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen then it's going to lead to one place and that's bloodshed.

Continue to be rigged? There's going to be bloodshed? Huh?

And I will tell you, as much as I am willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there's nothing I would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow American. 

In case you didn't know,  rising star Cawthorn lies about all kinds of things, including the accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down, and about being accepted into the US Naval Academy. Given that he'll lie about those things, I wonder why we should think that he's telling the truth about taking up arms against his fellow citizens? 

And while I don't condone gratuitous violence, I wouldn't wonder at all if the bloodshed Cawthorn spoke of eventually happens when someone who finally had enough of his BS hauled off and punched him in the nose.

And speaking of bullshittery and hyperbole, let us not forget about House GOP Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-You Better Watch Out if We Take Back The House, Dammit!), who seems to be in a bit of a snit about every action taken by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. 

The Committee issued a document preservation request to more than 30 telecom companies on Monday, a step taken in advance of a request for specific documents which is sure to follow. And McCarthy wasn't happy about that - at all. 

I'm not wondering about his response, or his threat - I mean, he's a ring-kissing #AlwaysTrumper after all - but I am wondering why he didn't include the traitorous RINOs Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney in his tweet? 

And I'm wondering if the GOP really is like an elephant. What if they don't retake the majority for a few cycles? Will they remember that they have to take out some of these great American companies that support all those great American jobs and help our great American stock market soar ever higher, making America even greater? 

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 8/29/21

For this week's Sunday School, I'm only visiting the classroom with the day of the week in its name: Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace chatted with the Grim Reaper, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Floundering for Relevance), and with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, which is where we'll start. 

Sullivan said that President Biden "will stop at nothing" to make the ISIS-K terrorists pay for killing 13 Americans (and killing and wounding hundreds more Afghans); he also pointed to our successful 'over-the-horizon' capability that the president mentioned the other day. 

Wallace wondered if our intelligence was so good after the fact, why we didn't prevent the attack from happening in the first place. Here's part of Sullivan's response.

With respect to the attack at Kabul airport, we, of course, had been warning for days that such an attack could take place. We took action to try to prevent and disrupt such attacks. But, of course, all we can do is mitigate risk. We cannot eliminate risk. And this is a fundamentally dangerous and high-risk condition. The president has said that from the beginning. Those of us working on it have reiterated that from the beginning. And it continues, Chris, to be very dangerous. 

They talked a bit about what the next couple of days, and our final hours in Kabul, will look like. Sullivan was careful, particularly when Wallace asked how many people would be left. He said there were 300 or fewer Americans still there, some of whom have chosen not to leave. And we have some commitments from the Taliban about getting our folks out, even after the end of the month. 

Finally, Wallace wondered why President Biden wasn't "taking full responsibility" on abandoning Bagram Airport, instead of "laying this off on the generals." Sullivan reminded Wallace that he's heard Biden "take ultimate responsibility for every decision" he's made And, he explained the difference between a tactical decision, which is the purview of the generals, and a strategic decision, which belongs to the president. 

Moving on to the Grim Reaper, here's his assessment of the war in Afghanistan.

I think what's been lost in all of this, Chris, is why we went there in the first place. We went there to prevent the Taliban from having a regime that would allow terrorists to reconstitute themselves and hit us again here at home. It's been a total success. If you -- this term "endless war," let's take a look at it. The last seven months, the Afghans have lost more people fighting than we have over 20 years. They've taken 65,000 casualties. We've taken roughly 2,000 in 20 years. The last year and a half we've lost no one. With our continued deployment of 2,500 people, we were, in effect, keeping the lid on, keeping terrorists from reconstituting, and having a light footprint in the country. The policy was working. Therefore, I think calling it and endless war or claiming that we're somehow trying to get involved in a civil war is - a domestic civil war is simply not accurate. We went over there to protect us here at home. We've not had a mass casualty attack from over there in these 20 years. I'd call that a successful policy.

Now we're looking at the exit and over the next two days our heroic military is doing the best they can with a horrible policy decision. This is one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Much worse than Saigon because after we left Saigon, there weren't Vietnamese terrorists who were planning on attacking us here at home. That we leave behind exactly what we went in to solve 20 years ago. And I fear for the future in continuing the war on terror. You know, just because we decide to quit fighting doesn't mean the terrorists go away. So they're still out there. They're invigorated. They're emboldened and excited about the success they see in bringing America to its knees in Afghanistan.

Next, Wallace turned to the decision to leave Afghanistan, something he said McConnell opposed when Trump started the process, and he opposed Biden continuing down the path to our full withdrawal.  He asked McConnell

Senator, does President Biden have a point there? If in April he had said, hey, the Trump deal is off, we're staying in and, in fact, we're going to beef up the number of troops, he contends we'd have been back in a full-scale war with the Taliban, and, unfortunately taking a lot of casualties.

McConnell said that's not correct. 

Once again, the president's off the mark. We hadn't lost as many as 13 people, which we lost Thursday, in any of the last four years. In fact, our casualties since 2014 have been quite modest, quite modest. We lost more - I repeat - more of our military personnel last Thursday then we lost in any one of the last four years. So the balance has been dramatically reduced for American personnel. Remember, in the whole war, Chris, we have regretfully lost a couple of thousand of our people. We -- that's very regretful. But the Afghans have lost 65,000. They have been fighting and we've been in the background helping them with counterterrorism and the ongoing training of the military. The policy was working if you remember why we went there, which was to keep the Taliban out and the terrorists from being able to operate with impunity so they could attack us again here at home.

Questions Wallace didn't ask? 

• You say we lost more military personnel in last Thursday's attack than we lost in any of the last four years. But this data from the Defense Casualty Analysis System shows we had 13 'hostile' deaths in 2018, and 17 in 2019. What's the basis for your numbers?

• We did have four hostile deaths in 2020, but they were outside your 18-month window. Isn't the treaty that President Trump signed with the Taliban, which required our full withdrawal, the reason for that?

• Wouldn't breaking the treaty that was negotiated with the Taliban have escalated the terrorism threat in and of itself? 

• How much longer should we have stayed in Afghanistan, training their military to do what they are apparently still unable to do, after all these years? At what point should they be able to defend themselves?

• How much responsibility do the Afghans bear themselves for what's happening in their country? 

• Many people are pointing to the extreme religious beliefs of the Taliban, and how those will impact Afghan women. There's been a lot of publicity about an Afghan folksinger who was killed by the Taliban. How much should these, or do these, play in any decision we make regarding involving our military in other countries? 

Keep an eye out for anyone asking that kind of question, and let me know if you find anyone. 

See you around campus, assuming you haven't been disenrolled for not getting a vaccine.

Sunday School 8/8/21

Let's begin this week's Sunday School with Dana Bash in the CNN State of the Union classroom, where she talked with Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). Here are some highlights, starting with Cassidy, who's also a doctor. 

He was clear that there are ways to get out of the COVID mess his state, and others are in: get vaccinated or wear a mask.

If you have a large percentage of your population which is not vaccinated, and your infection rate is going up, you have got one or two choices. If you're inside, either you're vaccinated or you have to wear a mask. Otherwise, you're at too great a risk to further spread infection, to further pack those emergency rooms, to further prevent people who have terrible accidents from getting cared for because the hospital is full of COVID. And there is a choice. On the other hand, if we don't want mask mandates, get vaccinated, the infection rate goes down, and you don't have a mandate.

And, he says, it's a "conservative principle" to have local officials making decisions on thinks like mask mandates for schools - so he's not a fan of what Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida.

On the infrastructure bill, on which he's been a key negotiator for the Rs, he said 50% of it will be scored as 'paid for' by the Congressional Budget Office, and the other half will have a lot of paid for items, given they're taking already appropriated COVID package monies that haven't been used and applying them to the infrastructure bill. And, he said, the Rs have some 'splaining to do if they're complaining about the pay-for or deficit aspects now, when they didn't before.

I will point out that president Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion package, which most Republicans were all for, and only 5 percent of it was paid for. We have $550 billion of new spending, of which we can reasonably say is paid for, but certainly one-half by CBO score. And now folks are saying, oh, can't vote for that... OK, well, that's OK. But, on the other hand, we're creating jobs. We're creating bridges. We're protecting people from flooding. Hopefully, they change their mind.

 And he suggested that with the Problem Solvers Caucus on board, they should have a path for getting the traditional infrastructure bill done in the House without having it held hostage for the gigunda human infrastructure bill that the progressives want. Speaker Pelosi, he said,

doesn't need a radical left wing. She can pass the infrastructure package with just that committed group of American congressmen and women who want to see our country get better, to have the $110 billion for the roads and bridges and highways, etc., and the new jobs. They can pass the infrastructure package without having the radical left. And that, I think, opens a pathway. 

Let's hope that's what happens when the House gets back to work.

Next up was Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. He talked mostly about the DOJ and the attempt by Former Guy to have the DOJ interfere in the 2020 election. Durbin noted that

...what was going on in the Department of Justice was frightening, from a constitutional point of view, to think that Bill Barr left, resigned after he had announced he didn't see irregularities in the election, and then his replacement was under extraordinary pressure from the president the United States, even to the point where they were talking about replacing him. 

He didn't provide any juicy details, but he did say that president Trump asked Jeffrey Rosen, the acting Attorney General after Bill Barr resigned, "to do certain things related to states' election returns, which he refused to do," regarding the 2020 election. Rosen was being asked "by the White House, the leadership in the White House, to meet with certain people who had these wild, bizarre theories of why that election wasn't valid, and he refused to do it." History will be kind to Rosen, Durbin said - and that was not what he would have thought when Rosen was appointed. 

We'll close with his reflection on what they've learned so far in the investigation; emphasis on the last sentence is mine, for the people in the back of the room. 

I guess the thought that we have come to accept that this president and his bizarre conduct, we came to accept over four years as normal. It's outrageous. When you look back on the Richard Nixon episode and the Saturday Night Massacre, people out of principle were turning around and threatening to resign. The same thing happened here, incidentally, within the Department of Justice. There was a point where virtually everyone in the authority in the Department of Justice was going to walk if the president had his way. I mean, these are moments in history which you would never want to see repeated. And, with Donald Trump, they were.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was in the Fox News Sunday classroom with Brett Bair sitting in for Chris Wallace. He's not a fan of the infrastructure bill, because it's not paid for, and "we've got to start doing things responsibly." He likes road, bridges, airports, and seaports - stuff he did when he was Florida's governor, but "less than half this bill... had anything to do with roads, bridges, airports, and seaports."

Even though his state has a 'C' on its infrastructure scorecard, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, he's not interested in adding to the debt by borrowing money to pay for it. Even though, of course, that wasn't the case when that other guy was president, Bair pointed out. 

In fact, if you look at the numbers, the debt went up at the end of fiscal 2020, $26.9 trillion. The Trump administration and Republicans added $6.7trillion to the debt. That was since President Obama's last budget, a 33 percent increase. Understanding COVID had a big role in that, but there's not a great track record for Republicans recently to tout themselves as deficit debt hawks and now to be doing it here.

That's different now, Scott said. The Rs

had a caucus meeting where we said, we're not going to raise the debt ceiling without -- all Republican senators said, we will not raise the debt ceiling without structural change. That's what we all agreed to do.

On COVID, in a nutshell, everyone should be able to make up their own minds, to make good decisions, if the government would just tell them what they need to know. 

Here's what I believe we ought to do at every level of government. Let's be honest. If you feel comfortable, get the vaccine. If you don't, figure out how you're going to keep yourself safe. I mean that's what I believe we ought to be doing. And I'm going to -- I'm going to do everything I can to tell people, you know, that, you know, I've -- I've been comfortable with the vaccine. I had COVID. I don't want anybody to get COVID.

He also said

This is -- you know, this is not a country where we need people telling us what to do. I love my mom. I hate her telling me what to do. Give me good information. I'll make a good decision.

We'll make "good decisions," he said? Yeah, maybe, maybe not: around 400,000 people at Lollapalooza, with widespread reporting of vaccine and negative COVID test documentation being ignored by security, and requests from public health officials urging attendees to get tested... 400 at Barack Obama's birthday part... 700,000 expected at Sturgis... 

Finally, in response to Baier's last question on whether Former Guy is the leader of the GOP, Scott thinks not.

I was able to win because I went and I told people what I thought they -- I -- they wanted somebody to do. That's who's going to win. The -- in the next election, the '22 election, the '24 election is, who's got the right message and right background for that time. And that's who's going to be -- that's -- but the voters are the leader of the party. 

That's an interesting concept, isn't it?

See you around campus. Make good decisions. Get vaccinated if you're able, and wear a mask when it makes sense to do so.

Quick Takes (v62): Keep One, Toss the Rest

They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" and to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..."

Nothing in their oath says anything about bearing true faith and allegiance to their party.

Nothing in their oath says anything about supporting and defending the charlatan and grifter who used to be president, or about supporting and defending any other individual.

It's just not in the oath - I swear and affirm.

So much of the time, they disregard their oath and work for their own longevity and benefits of office, not for the benefit of the country, not for our vaunted American Ideals, not for you and me. Put many of them in the same room and all we'll see is a pile of insincere, self-centered, scaredy cat hypocrites.

Is this the only example, the move by Kevin McCarthy to delegitimize the House Select Committee on the insurrection, immediately after meeting with the former president, the many McCarthy previously said "bears responsibility" for what happened?

Hell no, there are tons of them. I wear glasses, but the lenses are not rose, I can assure you. We could fill the Boston Harbor a million times over with boxes of hypocrisy from the people we elect - the Boston Harbor, and the Great Lakes, and the entire Mississippi River and all her tributaries, and the Gulf of Mexico, and still have boxes and boxes of hypocrisy left over.

If Washington hypocrisy was water, we'd never have a drought. If it was actual currency, we'd be able to pay for every idea anyone ever thought of, and some ideas we haven't thought of yet.

But it's not actual currency - it's political currency. And so here we are.

If any of the Rs had any courage, they'd walk down the hall to Speaker Pelosi's office and volunteer to be on the Select Committee. All of those "Look at me, I'm bipartisan!" folks in the Problem Solvers Caucus? They'd be lining up to join the Committee. They'd do that, to uphold their oath, to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Even if that means they might be investigating members of their own caucus, their colleagues, their friends. And they'd even have the chance to investigate the House leadership as part of the process, which is as it should be. We should expect nothing less, and we should stand for nothing less.

I'm not holding my breath for even a single second, because I know better. We all know better. We must figure out how to get these people out of office.

Except Liz Cheney. She can stay. Not because I agree with her on policy issues, but because she has more courage than the rest of them combined.

Wondering on Wednesday 7/21/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

A whole lotta wondering going on, going on. Let's dive in.

Billionaires Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos separately launched themselves to the edge of space, or actually to space recently, depending on who you listen to. Not surprisingly there's a lot of chatter about how these guys waste their money on stuff like this, rather than on feeding the hungry, or raising wages, or paying taxes (Bezos), or a whole host of other things we'd spend our money on, if we had it to spare. 

But here's what I wonder: is it worse that billionaires spend a few of their own billions launching themselves dozens of miles high, or that cities and countries spend tens of billions of dollars hosting the Olympics, all the while ignoring the needs of their own residents who may be hungry, homeless, sick, unemployed, or otherwise being underserved by their government?

Take Los Angeles, which is set to host the 2028 Summer Games, at projected cost of $6.9B. Additional money will come from the federal government, and the state has committed to cover any cost overruns in case tickets, merch, sponsorships and the like don't cover all of the costs. 

Is there really nothing better that LA, CA, or the US of A could to with that money, I wonder? And, if that's not enough, Salt Lake City is going to be bidding on an upcoming Winter Games, maybe 2034, they say. How much will we spend there, against what more pressing needs?

Can't we just declare permanent spots for the Winter and Summer games, and stop the nonsense? 

Sticking with the Olympics, remember all the uproar over the American sprinter who broke the rules, and tested positive for pot? She would have missed her individual race, serving a suspension for the banned substance, but then she wasn't chosen by the US team to participate in the relay, either, which would have been held after her suspension was served. Instead, her spot went to a runner who didn't have a positive drug test. I wonder why so many people thought that was wrong?

And, one more for you: Becca Meyers, a deaf and legally blind American gold-medal-winning Paralympian swimmer, has withdrawn because she's not allowed to have her mother, who serves as her Personal Care Assistant (PCA), attend the games due to COVID. In a tweet, Meyers said, in part, 

So, in 2021, why as a disabled person am I still fighting for my rights? I'm speaking up for future generations of Paralympic athletes in hope that they never have to experience the pain I've been through. Enough is enough.

The USOC will have one PCA for all 34 members of our swim team, including nine who are blind. In a country where everyone's going to be masked, making lip-reading impossible. Where's the outrage about that, I wonder? Is that really the best we can do, in 2021?

Speaking of "the best we can do, in 2021," there's this:

Athletes on the Norwegian women's beach handball team are being punished for wearing shorts rather than bikini bottoms during a recent game, with the European Handball Federation leveling fines over "a case of improper clothing."

While the men's uniform includes "shorts that fall no longer than 10 centimeters above their knees" the women "must wear bikini bottoms... with a close fit and cut on an upward angle toward the top of the leg." And the width of the bikini at that upward angle toward the top of the leg? The same 10 centimeters, or about four inches, as the maximum distance of the men's shorts from their knees.

The fine amounts to about $175 (US) for each of the ten team members. And they don't care - they're hoping to change the stupid rule. Good for them. And how much longer is this absurd objectification going to continue? That's the wondering here. Enough, already! Respect the women as athletes - or, I guess, put the men in similarly-designed bikini bottoms. What's good for the goose, and all.

Finally, we've got Kevin McCarthy, the alleged leader of the GOP in the House of Representatives. McCarthy went to Bedminster to meet with the real leader of the GOP, Former Guy, to talk about the mid-terms he said. But Trump said they had "much to discuss," which undoubtedly included who should represent the GOP on the House Select Committee on Former Guy's insurrection. Five days later, McCarthy named Rep. Jim Jordan and four others to the Committee. 

In response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejecting Jordan's appointment, and that of Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, McCarthy pulled all his people, saying 

This panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility. Pelosi has broken this institution. 

Pretty sure it "lost all legitimacy and credibility" when you trotted off to kiss that ring in New Jersey, Kev. McCarthy, you'll remember, said this, on the House floor, just days after the insurrection.

Last week's attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. Violence is never a legitimate form of protest. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob riot. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts required immediate action of president Trump to accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term. And the president's immediate action also deserves Congressional action, which is why I think a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent.

And today, he stands in front of a microphone and says Pelosi has broken the House? I've gotta wonder, how does he say this stuff with a straight face? As someone I know likes to say, we are so screwed. 

Oh wait - that's me. I like to say that. 

What's on your wondering mind today?

Wondering on Wednesday 7/7/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What in the wondering world is going on tonight? Let's take a look.

The embattled president of Haiti, Jovenel Moise, was assassinated in his home early this morning, and his widow has been flown to Miami in critical condition. Meanwhile, on the interwebs, fingers immediately pointed to Bill and Hillary Clinton as the culprits. The wondering here? How on earth did Hunter Biden escape blame?

There's a lot of speculation on what GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Afraid of Trump) will do about the House Select Committee on the insurrection. Will he appoint RWNJs like Marjorie Greene (R-Jewish Space Lasers), Lauren Boebert (R-OK Corral) and Matt Gaetz (R-Where's Nestor?)? Or maybe #FormerGuy favorite Jim Jordan (R-Coatless in Ohio), one wonders? Or, will he try and appoint people who might actually acquit themselves as serious members of Congress? 

One thing I am wondering about is why Nancy Pelosi (D-I Swear I Won't Run for Speaker Again) decided that three of the eight Dems on the Committee needed to be former impeachment managers. Is there no one other than Adam Schiff (D-I Don't Know When to Stop Talking) who could participate? You remember him, the guy who told the fun stories before anything even got started in the first impeachment? Couldn't she have done better, I wonder, in making this look less partisan? Or doesn't she even care anymore?

Former Guy sued social media companies Facebook, Google, and Twitter today, claiming in part that they are 'state actors' and therefore subject to the First Amendment. Red meat for his base, a comedic goldmine for his critics, and a continuation of his propensity for lawsuits. Says Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman, Trump

is playing a standard media game. It fits into a broader pattern of the former president bringing lawsuits and then not vigorously pursuing them.

As always, we're left wondering what his 'news' is supposed to distract us from - maybe the tax-evasion case against the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, his CFO? Or the fact that even Fox News doesn't broadcast his rallies?

We collectively fell short of President Biden's goal of 70% of American adults having at least one dose of a COVID vaccine by July 4th., landing at around 67%. So, instead of having big vaccination sites that are being underused, the new plan is to meet people where they are - going door-to-door to learn about - and counter - vaccine hesitancy; making sure primary care physicians  and pediatricians have vaccines available; and using mobile vaccination clinics, among other things. 

Response to these ideas is mixed, with the usual suspects on both sides acting as we expected they would. So, what's the wondering? Is there anything that will convince more people to get vaccinated? What if we told them the virus really did originate in a Wuhan lab, not a wet market (whether that's true, or not) - would that work? Or, maybe instead of offering a college scholarship, or a million bucks, we gave everyone a gun and a year's supply of ammo - would that work?

What are you wondering about?