Wondering on Wednesday 1/3/24

It's been a minute since I last 'officially' wondered on a Wednesday, but there's no time like a new year to jump back into the fray. 

Perhaps today, maybe even before I finish this post, part or all of Jeffrey Epstein's 'list' will be released.  The list contains names that were included but redacted in court documents. Among the folks whose names are expected? Former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Britain's Prince Andrew, former president Donald Trump, and one-time Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz, if media reports are correct. 

To my knowledge, only one of those folks has suggested that he'd date his daughter, if only she weren't his daughter, and was accused of raping a thirteen-year-old child. But he's not the one who's getting the most attention here... I wonder why that is?

Also rumored to be on the list? Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, according to noted conspiracy theorist Aaron Rodgers. I'm not exactly sure where Rodgers got his information, and Kimmel has vigorously denied the accusation. When I think of Rogers and conspiracy theories, the one I've wondered about is how he managed to get hurt on the first play of his first game with the NY Jets, and still collect his full salary. 

Harvard president Claudine Gay has tendered her resignation, making her the shortest-tenured president in the school's history. She's had a tough go of it since Rep. Elise Stefanik (MAGA-NY) attacked Gay and two other female college presidents over allegations that they did not sufficiently protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas terrorist attack in Israel last October. Gay is the second to resign; Penn's Liz Magill did so in December. 

Stefanik, a Harvard alum, seems an odd choice to lead the attack on this issue, given her use of 'replacement theory' rhetoric in campaign ads, and her strong support of Trump, who recently spoke of immigrants poisoning the blood of our country. Both of those themes, of course, can be tied back to Nazi Germany. I have to wonder how she ignores that connection, and then attacks others for not doing enough to protect Jews.

Speaking of ignoring things, there was lots of chatter about Ambassagov Nikki Haley (Running in 5-inch heels -SC) and her 'gaffe' at a town hall in New Hampshire, where she said that the cause of the Civil War

was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. 

This was after she took a deep breath and suggested that it wasn't an easy question. But here's the thing many in the media missed, which is what I'm wondering about:  this is not the first time she's given this kind of answer. Back in 2010, when she was running for governor of the first state to secede from the Union, she said one side was fighting for tradition and the other side was fighting for change.  

Folks, that's not a gaffe - it's a mindset. And it's perfectly OK for the media to call a spade a spade, especially when a person's standing in a garden holding one by the handle.

Finally, wonder with me as I meander through some of the reasons states shouldn't be allowed to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. 

• There's the argument that, while an insurrectionist is not qualified to hold office, there's no reason why an insurrectionist can't run and win. Now, I don't know for sure why anyone would want to allow a candidate who's not eligible to serve to participate. I mean, Trump himself went to great lengths to convince Americans that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president due to him having a funny name not being a natural-born American... can you imagine Trump allowing an insurrectionist Obama to be on any ballot? 

• There's the argument that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 - the 'Disqualification Clause' - was put in because we needed to keep secessionists out of office, and it "hasn't been used since then," so why would it apply now since the Civil War has nothing to do with what's happening today?  I'm sure folks would be shocked - shocked, I say - to learn that in 2022, a New Mexico judge removed one of the state's county commissioners for participating in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. 

• There's the argument that Trump hasn't been charged, tried, or convicted of insurrection, so you can't disqualify him. Except that the disqualification clause doesn't require charges, a trial, or a conviction. We certainly shouldn't be putting words into the mouths of the folks who wrote the Amendment, should we? And, there's the little matter of a Colorado district court judge who determined that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th. That judge stopped short of banning Trump from the ballot, and the state's Supreme Court overturned that part of his decision. 

• Finally, there's the argument that Trump can't be held accountable because we need to prevent a civil war - what a bunch of hooey! We cannot use the threat of danger - especially when that threat has been suggested by you-know-who and his MAGA minions - to allow the Constitution to be tossed aside. And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself what Trump would be saying right now if any of his opponents had done what he did and were trying to stay on the ballot. There's no need to wonder about that, at all - he'd be suing to block them from every ballot in the country. 

I'd forgotten how good it felt to get this stuff out of my head... what are you wondering about?

TGIF 7/3/20

What kind of week was it? As usual, that all depends on who you are, or where you are, or when you are who you are where you are, or if you are who or what you say you are... Or something.

Let's take a look, shall we, starting in the world of sports...

Women took a knee during the national anthem at a few soccer games; several wore #BlackLivesMatter shirts, and even some coaches and officials took a knee, too.  And it seems, somehow, that the world did not stop spinning. Not only that, but players have a choice in whether, or how, to participate in patriotic celebrations, which seems to me to be a pretty patriotic, freedomy thing to do on the eve of Independence Day.

And speaking of choice, there was more than a little irony in seeing anti-maskers marching to a chant of "my body, my choice" given that the small government conservatives usually only show disdain for that kind of silliness, I recall. Clearly, masks are polarizing issue, and picking a marching slogan is fraught with danger, but heck - even Mitch McConnell (R-White House) has finally decided that wearing a mask is actually something he can talk about.

We must have no stigma, none, about wearing masks when we leave our homes and come near other people. Wearing simple face coverings is not about protecting ourselves, it is about protecting everyone we encounter.

And I would assume that includes his own encounters, for example, with the president, who stated that he himself looked like the Lone Ranger  in his black mask. I hope I get to see that, I really do!

Ghislaine Maxwell, confidant and alleged co-conspirator of the late Jeffrey Epstein, as well as apparent Friend of Trump and Friend of Bill Clinton, if we can believe the photos, was arrested yesterday morning in New Hampshire and is facing multiple charges involving the alleged Epstein sexual assault victims.  Needless to say, given Epstein's unfortunate demise, there are many calls for Maxwell to be placed under the closest of close surveillance while she's in prison, mostly (if the memes are correct), to protect her from the wrath and reach of Hillary Clinton.

And speaking of wrath, there's more than enough of that going around aimed at the NFL (back to sports we go).  First, the Washington Redskins are going to do a "thorough review" on the team's name, after ignoring the calls to change it that have echoed for years. What's different now? Well, FedEx  told them they had to;  and Nike has stopped selling the team's merch after it, PepsiCo, and FedEx were all sent notifications by shareholders asking them to bail on the team if it didn't make a change.

But wait - there's more.

The NFL announced that it would play 'Lift Every Voice and Sing,' a song known as the black national anthem, before the US national anthem at each of the first-week games. Not at every game all season long, mind you - just on opening weekend - but that's enough to drive people crazy on social media, some of whom (including some who may not even watch NFL games anyway) have declared they will never watch the sport again. No comment on whether they're ever going to drink Pepsi again, or ship by FedEx, or pay too much for Nike sneaks. We'll have to see how that all works out.

And one more, before we finish this, our first TGIF lap of the month of July. NASCAR will have a Trump 2020 car this year, to encourage voting, making America great again, and perhaps as a little gamesmanship given we've already seen the #BlackLivesMatter car. Again, when the latter car made an appearance, fans were beside themselves, decrying the intrusion of politics into the sport. Now, not so much.

But that's OK.  Me personally? "I'm never going to watch NASCAR anymore!" (and for the record, I'm not going to watch it any less, either - because I don't watch it at all now...)

TGIF everyone -- and whether you choose to celebrate Independence Day or not, whatever you do this weekend, please be safe.

And remember, hand sanitizer and sparklers are not compatible...

Wondering on Wednesday (V177)

Let's get some wondering underway, shall we?

Is anyone wondering how long Labor Secretary Alex Acosta will get to stick around, now that the Epstein stuff is hitting the fan, and taking attention away from the president? 

Acosta was the US Attorney involved in the plea deal that let Jeffrey Epstein spend 13 months in a  private wing of the country jail, and be picked up by his valet six days a week to go to work and earn money (and do who knows what in his office because no one, including the police, was paying attention). And yes, he had to register as a sex offender, but as someone pointed out, the 13-month sentence is what's recommended for someone possessing less than a teaspoon of crack cocaine, and that seems pretty light for someone who sexually abused over 100 young girls.

And how it is that Epstein, named co-conspirators and unnamed co-conspirators all got immunity from federal prosecution?  I can see maybe Epstein, if that's what it took to get him to take a plea deal on the state charges, but everyone else too?  This is part of why Acosta is in hot water.  And, of course, there's taking attention away from his boss, as noted above.

What else is going on? The president won a round in a court case, which doesn't seem to happen all that often these days. This time, it was the emoluments case that was filed by the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, who asserted that the president's hotel was getting business from foreign governments and taking business away from other hotels in their areas.

In addition to not having standing, and to having been spanked for wasting the court's time, there was also a question of what the remedy would have been, had the decision gone the other way.  Here, in part is what the three-judge panel said.

Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the president's favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel. The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family. 

So, we're left wondering whether there is a way to enforce any ethics rules against this president or members of his administration? The Hatch Act is ignored, emoluments cases can't go forward because there's no way to keep him from making money off being president...what's an ethical person to do? Grin and bear it, knowing that this president would be fired from most companies in this day and age?

Staying with the courts, the president did lose one this week, too: he cannot block people on Twitter simply because they disagree with him. In a nutshell, three judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that

The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees... In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public opinion concern is more speech, not less.

Of course, if you read the comments on social media articles, you won't need to wonder how many people actually read the articles before commenting (in my experience, less than 10%) and not only that, won't have to wonder how many of them follow the president. Again, based on the complete lack of understanding on how the president uses his personal Twitter account (hint - it's not just for insulting detractors, antagonizing our allies, and lying to the public).

And about the court's decision? Hear, hear. Chirp, chirp. Tweet, tweet. And if you disagree with the president or any other government official, let 'em know in the comments. It's the right thing to do, and it's your right to do it.  Nothing to wonder about there.