TGIF 3/25/22

After last week's all good news TGIF, we're back to the regular format, where both good and bad week stories are included. Let's dive in with a good week mention, to get us off on the right foot. 

Some great unemployment news came out Thursday, giving the Biden team a bit of a good week. It's possible you missed it; good news doesn't garner wall-to-wall coverage in the press like bad news does

Here's the scoop, from the White House:

This morning, we received news that the number of Americans on unemployment insurance fell to its lowest level since 1970 and the number of Americans filing new claims fell to its lowest one-week level since 1969. 

Now, it wasn't just the White House talking about the great numbers. Reuters concurred. 

The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits dropped to a 52-1/2-year low last week, while unemployment rolls continued to shrink, pointing to rapidly diminishing labor market slack that will keep boosting wage inflation.

Piggybacking on that good news, I'll give a shoutout to businesses that are paying higher wages to get and keep good employees. I'm especially proud of them for not waiting for the government to order them to do that.

Hearings were held this week on Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. As with other recent SCOTUS hearings, we saw a teeny bit of time spent on learning about the nominee, and an overwhelming amount of time spent on career advancement, harassment, and showing off by Judiciary Committee members. Here are some noteworthy takeaways from the hearings, both good and bad.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) had a good week, for calling out the bad behavior of his  colleagues - and not just the ones making fools of themselves in these hearings. While explaining why he doesn't want cameras in SCOTUS proceedings, he offered this bit of wisdom, with which I can't argue. 

I think we should recognize the jack-assery we often see around here is partly because of people mugging for short-term camera opportunities.

On the very bad week side of the ledger, there's Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Cancun). I've made no secret about my dislike of him over the years, and nothing he said this week changed my opinion of him.

Of all the folks on the Judiciary Committee, he was the most hypocritical, especially on the issue of critical race theory. Here's what he thinks about that, and about Judge Jackson being on the board of the school that he says

aggressively teaches critical race theory, and that is an extreme and divisive theory that pits children against other children, divides us based on race, and teaches a false and revisionist history of our nation.

The problem? He sends his daughters to a school that espouses a similar philosophy. For example, statements by school leaders after the murder of George Floyd said the school

must be antiracist and eliminate racism of any type - including institutional racism - within our school, community, and beyond.

And, from the school's website, we learn that "cultural proficiency, diversity, global awareness and inclusivity" will be incorporated "into all facets of the curriculum." One can't help thinking Cruz has never looked at his daughters' homework. Unless  he only gives a hoot about this stuff when the cameras aren't on.

In fairness, I must give the Rs on the committee a wee dollop of credit; it seems the idea of boycotting the vote to move Judge Jackson's nomination out of committee is DOA. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said

There's not going to be any boycott. There's zero, not one iota (of a chance) that we would boycott.

Other senators, including the despicable Lindsey Graham (R-Shriekerville) said he didn't think that was the right way to handle it. John Cornyn (R-TX) said they should

show up and try our best to be on our best behavior and treat the nominee respectfully. (Emphasis added)

Good luck with that, if what they showed this week is any indication. 

Speaking of being on best behavior, Judge Jackson was remarkable. Her grace, tolerance, and patience were on display throughout the hearings. There was a moment, though, when she took a very long pause before answering one of Sen. Cruz's questions. Elie Mystal of The Nation explained what that pause meant; in part, she said

It’s the calculation when black people try to decide: “Am I gonna risk it all for this?” 

Jackson took a moment to decide if it was worth it to throw everything away—her chance, her good name, maybe even her whole career—just to tell Ted Cruz, a man she’s known for over 25 years, what she really thought of him. 

She decided against it, of course.

And in that moment, she proved herself better than Cruz, Graham, Cornyn, Hawley, and all the rest of them. 

I'll close with one more reference to Cruz; as I said, he had a very bad week. USA Today columnist Rex Huppke addressed the same question as Elie Mystal - did Jackson think babies are racist? Here's his take.

Some viewers wondered why a man who looks like he rubbed honey on his face then rolled on the floor of a barbershop would pose such a question. In fact, the collective eye roll was so intense the Earth briefly tilted off its axis.

But I stood and cheered the bold senator from Texas/Cancun. He was speaking truth to power and addressing an issue few Americans have ever been willing to face: Babies are incredibly racist. 

We know this, he opines, because babies "are silent on the issue." 

If babies aren’t racist, and if a clearly intelligent and serious U.S. senator is out there floating a possible epidemic of infant racism, don’t you think babies themselves would stand up, immediately fall down, and then assure everyone they don’t have a racist bone in their soft and pliable bodies?

Of course, they would. 

TGIF, everyone. 

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?

Wondering on Wednesday (v191)

Ready... set... wonder! 

• I wonder if anyone at all honestly believes that Republicans are not being exactly as partisan in defending the president as the Democrats are in calling for his impeachment? I mean, if we are supposed to believe that the latter is driven by political ideology and dismay about losing the election, why would any sane person think that the former is anything other than blind allegiance to the winner?

• Was anyone else watching or listening to the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on Monday, wondering how cool it would have been if someone - anyone - had stood up and bellowed "OAR-DURRRRRRR" like the recently retired Speaker of the Commons John Bercow? I mean, seriously - the hearing (the couple of hours I listened to before losing patience) - was a cluster of whining and yelling and posturing and gibberish and predictable voice votes and annoying roll calls -- and worse, there was not a bit of charisma exhibited by any of them, least of all the chairman. I was begging for a Bercow, I really was. 

• I wonder, has Christopher Wray been fired yet? I haven't checked Twitter all that much today, but I can't imagine he's going to be the current Director of the FBI for a whole lot longer. Staying with the same presidential tweet, I have to wonder what the "greatest men and women working there" think of their new-found accolades, having been denigrated by the president throughout his time in office. Maybe that's Trump's way of saying I'm sorry?

• A bit of additional diversity was added to the December Democratic debate, as entrepreneur Andrew Yang has met the qualifications: 4% approval in four approved national polls or 6% in two early-state polls and at least 200,000 unique donors and at least 800 donors in at least 20 states. The qualifiers to date, in alphabetical order (to prevent the Bernie Sanders contingent from freaking out if he's not listed first): Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Sanders,  Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, and Yang. I'm wondering tonight how many of the remaining non-qualifying candidates will continue to stay in the race, especially if this is not the first debate they've missed.

• Folks in the UK go to the polls tomorrow; current polling suggests that the Conservatives, led by Boris Johnson, will prevail against Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, but we've learned on our side of the pond how wrong polls can be. I wonder what will happen if Johnson doesn't prevail, almost as much as I wonder what will happen if he does. Will other countries start making their own moves to leave the EU? And what will our response be, other than tariffs? I mean, there will be tariffs, right?  Trump's still president, after all...

• I know about Black Friday, and Cyber Monday, and Giving Tuesday, and Small Business Saturday, but I had to wonder what Green Monday was all about. I only learned about it when I got more than a dozen emails from retailers (they're still coming today, I might add). In case you're in the dark, as I was, the 2nd Monday of December is apparently the day that lots of retailers kick off their holiday sales

There's more - there's always more... but what are you wondering about today?