TGIF 7/31/20

I bet you're ready for the weekend, aren't you?  And ready to make your good week/bad week lists?

Some people, and by that I mean Trump advisor Stephen Miller, the guy who apparently learned how to carry an umbrella from his boss, is upset that President Obama gave some pretty fiery and yes, pretty political remarks, in his eulogy of Rep. John Lewis yesterday.

Now, I'm just guessing here, but I think the Lewis family would have told him not to do something like that, if they didn't want it to happen, what do you think? And do you think maybe attacking Obama is a way to deflect people's attention away from the pariah that is his boss, the only living president who did not participate in the civil rights icon's funeral?  Maybe it's just me who thinks that, I don't know.

Speaking of the pariah, he and his Attorney General, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, have been touting the possibility that foreign governments are going to print up millions of ballots and submit them, thereby poisoning the presidential election. The ballots, you see, presumably would be votes for Joe Biden - a man with actual foreign policy experience - as if that would be more helpful than having a fickle, childish hotelier-turned-TV-celebrity in the Oval Office. I tell you, I shake my head at some of this. But not Snitty Snitty - he has "common sense" that makes him think this is going to happen.

I'm trying to picture that level of interference, not only because there will be thousands of different ballots in use in November, gathering votes for everything from dog catcher to president, that would have to be perfectly replicated, and be assigned to actual registered voters who have signatures on file, in the correct jurisdiction... So, is it common sense, or an attempt to sow seeds of doubt in our election processes?

Miller, and Obama, and Trump, and Barr -- you can figure out whether they're on the good week list or the bad week list.  The folks below? Yeah, they're all on the good week list.

• The California artist who painted flowers, using a syringe, for 1800 people who work at a Brooklyn hospital.
•  The Wisconsin bus driver who gave a brand new bicycle to a ten-year-old who kept her company when her bus broke down.
• The 12-year-old who read his hero's favorite poem during yesterday's funeral service for John Lewis. 

And I'll leave you today with some of the words of John Lewis, which were published yesterday, the day of his funeral, as he requested. 

Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it.

You must also study and learn the lessons of history because humanity has been involved in this soul-wrenching, existential struggle for a very long time. People on every continent have stood in your shoes, through decades and centuries before you. The truth does not change, and that is why the answers worked out long ago can help you find solutions to the challenges of our time. Continue to build union between movements stretching across the globe because we must put away our willingness to profit from the exploitation of others. 

Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.

When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide. 

There is no doubt about which list to put Lewis on, is there? Nope - he'll be on the good list for the ages.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday (v218)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive into wonder-land, shall we?

First off, I have to admit to a certain bit of confusion on the whole back-to-school thing.  I mean, on the one hand we've got the president and the Secretary of Private Education telling us that we need to have kids in school, five days a week. And, we also have the president telling us that if we can't have the kids in school five days a week, we should give "the money" to the parents. Which they can spend on the "public private charter religious or home school of their choice." So, I wonder: does the president thing that there's a 'home school' out there that kids go to, take a bus to, like a public private charter religious school?  Or, is having kids in school five days a week not really important after all?

How, I wonder, is putting up a new FBI headquarters, across the street from the president's emoluments hotel, a component of the HEALS Act, the latest stimulus package from the White House and Senate Republicans? I know that many of the senators are against that $1.75B provision, and that the president insisted it get added to the bill, but really? How does that help with testing, or PPE, or contact tracing, or people making their rent, or getting schools open, or anything else?  And don't start with me -- I know the HEROES Act, passed months ago by the House, has more than enough porky stuff too, but this is just one more example of the president attempting to feather his own nest, or at least make his nest attractive for feathering.  I'm getting tired of it - really tired. 

I'm not even going to mention the president's latest obsession or said obsession's obsessions. I'll let you wonder about that yourself.

Joe Biden's talking points for Sen. Kamala Harris have made big news, but for totally the wrong reason. Everyone's all gaga wondering if it means that he's going to pick her as his veep - but what they should be paying attention to are the comments made by Biden ally  Sen. Chris Dodd, who is grumbling about the "lack of remorse" Harris has shown for taking on Papa Joe over his positions on busing back in an early debate. The only thing to wonder here is, when will we no longer have to deal with men like Dodd?

One thing I'm not wondering about tonight? The announcement that President Barack Obama will deliver the eulogy at the funeral of John Lewis; that was my guess and I'm sure it will be a moving, honorable and fitting tribute. I'm also not wondering at all whether Presidents Bush and Clinton will attend - of course they will. And I'm glad the current president will not be there. I wonder not at all about that, too.

And, from the good news pages, we learn that folks have been able to train dogs to sniff out the coronavirus.  A study in Germany found that, with only a week of training, eight dogs were able to smell the coronavirus in saliva samples with a 94% success rate. That's pretty cool, and very exciting given the issues that people are experiencing getting test results back. This could be a game-changer, assuming that additional testing goes well. And while I don't wonder that dogs can do this - we know they're able to sniff out other diseases, including cancer - I do wonder when someone will have success doing something like this with cats.  You know - a new kind of cat scan...

What are you wondering about tonight?

They Said It 12/19/17

Some random quotes from people who matter. Or, maybe not.

First, in international diplomacy, we've got this:

At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names. ~UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

 And on the GOP Christmas present, we've got a few:

I oppose this conference report with every bone in my body. This tax bill is a $2.3 trillion holiday gift for Wall Street, the rich, and the wealthy, Conceived in darkness and birthed with the help of donor and funders. This bill is not for the people. It is not tax reform. ~Georgia Democrat Rep. John Lewis

If people are out there on TV telling mistruths, disguising the facts of this thing, that's going to make it unpopular. When you have a slingfest - a mudfest - on TV when pundits are slamming each other about this tax bill before it passes, that's what's going to happen. But when we get this done, when people see their withholding improving, when they see the jobs occurring, when they see a simpler tax code, that's what's going to produce the results. And results are going to be what makes this popular. ~House Speaker Paul Ryan 

While the bill agreed to in conference today makes some improvements, unfortunately, the changes do not go far enough to guarantee tax relief for constituents in my district. Californians need tax relief now more than ever, especially as the tax factory in our State Capitol continues looking for ever increasing ways to take more of our hard-earned paychecks.  Yet I still fear that, even in the revised proposal, many in my area could face higher taxes under this plan. Californians have entrusted me to fight for them. I will not vote to make the incredible tax burden they already endure even worse. California Republican Rep Darrell Issa

We think a lot of good provisions got left on the cutting room floor after the Senate Byrd bath there, so we're going to assess each of them to decide what the path forward is. ~House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, talking about the provisions that got dropped from the Conference tax bill when it went to the Senate. 

CEOs aren't waiting on a tax cut to "jump-start the economy" -- a favorite phrase of politicians who have never run a company - or to hand out raises. It's pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to significantly higher wages and growth, as Republicans have promised. Had Congress actually listened to executives, or economists who study these issues carefully, it might have realized that. ~Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg

And finally, as if the news wasn't odd enough, I'll close with this.

Saying the animals would not pause for a second if given the chance, a new study published by the University of Wisconsin on Tuesday found that chickens would have absolutely no qualms about caging and eating humans. "All the evidence  clearly suggests that chickens would absolutely stuff human beings into poorly ventilated cages and then eat them without any hesitation whatsoever," said lead author Aliyah Carter, adding that the domestic fowls would not waver at all if the opportunity arose to cram people into windowless, disease-ridden coops and overfed them to the point that their legs literally could not support their bodies. ~The Onion

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/15/17

In yesterday's Sunday School post, I noted that Reince Priebus made some comments on both Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos about Congressman John Lewis. Lewis, you'll recall, announced his personal belief that Donald Trump is not a 'legitimate' president because of the Russian interference and its impact on Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Here's what Priebus said

..John Lewis stood up and said in an interview that Donald Trump was not a legitimate president. It's insanity. And it's wrong. And DNI director Clapper said as much many, many times, that there is no evidence any outcome of the election was changed. 

A couple of things came to mind as I read that comment.  Clapper has been clear that there was Russian interference, but equally clear that there was no foreign tampering with ballots or vote counts, and that it would be very difficult to measure the impact of the interference and the publication of leaked information from Clinton campaign officials on people's votes.

Earlier this month, for example, in response to a question from Arizona Senator John "Loser" McCain, Clapper noted

We had no way of gauging the impact that - certainly the intelligence community cannot gauge the impact - it (Russian cyber activities) had on the choices the electorate made. 

Equally true, though, is that the intelligence report that was delivered first to President Obama and then to Trump, noted the following:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency (emphasis added). We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

And while Priebus and Kellyanne Conway and others on the Trump Train try and distract from the actual intelligence report, and focus on their mantra that there is no evidence the outcome was changed, Donald Trump the candidate thought the information that resulted from the hacking was very important - dare I say, bigly important.

According to an analysis published by ThinkProgress, in the last month of the campaign,

Trump spoke about the Wikileaks  emails at least 164 times from October 10 to election day, saying the word Wikileaks 124 times. That means, on average, Trump discussed Wikileaks more than five times per day. 

More than five times a day. At least one hundred and sixty four mentions in less than a month. But it had no impact on the election, don't be silly. No influence on anyone's decision, didn't change a thing, nope, not at all. Nothing to see here, folks, step away from the illegitimacy.

Here are excerpts from some of his comments, all made between October 10th and October 15th of last year.

• Wikileaks is amazing. The stuff that's coming out, it shows she's a real liar.
• Wikileaks, some new stuff, some brutal stuff. I mean I'd read it to you but to hell with it, trust me it's real bad stuff.
• No one who supports open borders should be able to run for president because we won’t have a country.... Because in the Wikileaks it was all about open borders.
• Wikileaks, I love Wikileaks... Let’s see. During a speech crooked Hillary Clinton, oh she’s crooked folks. She’s crooked as a three-dollar bill. Okay here’s one. Just came out. ‘Lock her up’ is right. 
• It’s just the latest evidence of the hatred that the Clinton campaign really has for everyday Americans and you see, and you see so much from these Wikileaks. 
• I’ll tell you this Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it...
• And one of the big advantages of me having a rather large microphone, and meaning a lot of people are listening, is that I can talk about Wikileaks...
• She would be the most dishonest and the most corrupt person ever elected to high office. The Wikileaks emails show the Department of Justice fed information to Clinton...
• The sad part is we don’t talk about Wikileaks because it’s incredible. But Wikileaks just came out with a lot of new ones...
•  It also comes at a time as Wikileaks unveils horrible, horrible things about Hillary Clinton...
• And by the way, Wikileaks came out with lots of really unbelievable things. Just minutes ago. In fact, I almost delayed this speech by about two hours, it’s so interesting. But I decided you’re more important than anybody, okay? It’s all a big, beautiful fraud...

I suppose it's possible that none of this mattered, this leaked information that is believed to have been fed to Wikileaks by the Russians or people associated with them. Julian Assange has denied Russian involvement; naturally, Trump has quoted Assange and Vladimir Putin as reliable deniers, so we have that out there, in contrast to what our own intelligence officials have staid.

Regardless of who fed Wikileaks the info, Trump's repeated references to it indicate he was pretty sure it was helpful, and pretty sure it could help influence how people voted. I believe that's a reasonable outcome, even if not a measurable one.

It doesn't mean that Clinton would have won - but it sure doesn't help Trump's case that the leaks were meaningless and without influence.

Sunday School 1/15/17

Just a quick look at a couple of hot topics on the Sunday morning news shows, with visits to only two classrooms this morning.

Reince Priebus was on NBC's Meet the Press and again on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, talking about John Lewis and about Russia.

On MTP, he noted that Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement, was wrong to have said that Donald Trump is not a legitimate president "five days before he puts his hand on the Bible" at his inauguration. Priebus reiterated the latest mantra from the Trump camp.

I also think that the Clinton folks wasted a billion dollars of their donors' money and they've got a lot to answer for.

Yeah, I crack up every time I hear this - Kellyanne Conway has used this line a couple of times. Great line, means nothing, but it's a great line.

Anyway, he agreed that the Russians hacked the DNC but that

...none of this would be happening if Hillary Clinton would have simply not used a personal server in violation of federal law.

Todd completely ignored that comment - Clinton's email server had nothing to do with the Russian hack - and instead asked if that 'excused' a foreign government from trying to interfere in our election. Priebus answered

We've never - of course not. All of it's wrong. China's wrong. Russia's wrong. Iran's wrong. All of these entities are wrong for doing what they've done. But back to John Lewis. For him then to say, which no intelligence official is saying, that Donald Trump was elected illegitimately is irresponsible...

Priebus made similar comments on TWwGS when Stephanopoulos asked if it was harder for Dems to come together even though they lost, after Trump's tweets about Lewis.

..John Lewis stood up and said in an interview that Donald Trump was not a legitimate president. It's insanity. And it's wrong. And DNI director Clapper said as much many, many times, that there is no evidence any outcome of the election was changed. 

Some might disagree with Reince's comments; I'll take a look at that in a sidebar later.

I'll add in one more comment about the Russia stuff and John Lewis, from Helene Cooper who was on the panel on MTP. Cooper, a Pentagon correspondent for the NY Times (a media outlet currently on Trump's 'good list' - emphasis on currently), put things in perspective on a couple of fronts.

There's a way to say, "I disagree with John Lewis," without calling Atlanta a crime-infested hell hole. There's a way to disagree with someone, as you saw Reince Priebus just do, as other people have disagreed with John Lewis,without going on a Twitter tantrum. And that's the sort of thing that you do not expect from a commander-in-chief.

 And I think this goes back to what Jeff  (Goldberg, of The Atlantic) was saying. We're now five days out from Donald Trump taking control of the greatest country on Earth. The idea that the president of the United States is going to be having tantrums on Twitter whenever somebody gets under his skin I think is frightening to a lot of people.

 Hear, hear.

Also on TWwGS, there was a conversation about ethics, or what passes as ethics, and who is or should be looking at ethics, particularly Presidential ethics.

We all know, having been told countless times by the Trump team and by the media, that the 'ethics rules don't apply' to the President, and that any efforts Trump makes to separate himself from his business interests here and abroad are voluntary and from the good of his heart. Because, as he told us at his press rally,

So I could actually run my business, I could actually run my business and run government at the same time.

I don't like the way that looks, but I would be able to do that if I wanted to. I would be the only one to be able to do that. You can't do that in any other capacity. But as president I could run the Trump Organization, great, great company, and I could run the company - the country. I'd do a very good job, but I don't want to do that. 

Anyway. The Office of Government Ethics is not thrilled with Trump's only stepping aside and telling his boys not to talk to him about the business as a conflict-clearing solution.

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz is less concerned with Trump's actions. Trump filed his financial disclosures, as the law requires, and sure, that emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but what the heck, no big deal there, even though several of Chaffetz's peers are concerned and have asked House Speaker Paul Ryan to get some info so they know whether the emoluments clause is being violated, on day one, as they say.

Stephanopoulos: Another possibility, you have oversight of the general services administration, which holds the lease for the Trump Hotel, which of course the president will still own even though it goes into the Trust. And then page 103 of the lease agreement says that no elected official of the government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia shall be admitted to any share of part of this lease or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. So, the agreement seems to preclude ownership by any government official, like the president, doesn't it?

Chaffetz: I did sign a letter with Elijah Cummings a number of weeks ago and asked for a copy of that contract. I don't know that we have received the final copy of that contract.

Stephanopoulos: But is that something you're going to be looking at?

Chaffetz: I started that a few weeks ago. 

So it would seem - and it would seem as well that Chaffetz has no interest in seeing that investigation through to its logical conclusion.

Today's lesson, however, has come to its logical conclusion.