In Case You Missed It (v76)

Grab your cuppa and settle down to a review of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

Sunday School brought conversations with a handful of Senators, including Ohio Republican Rob Portman, who talked about the American Rescue Plan (ARP) - the Biden COVID package - and about bipartisanship.

 Sen. Portman, who voted to pass the Trump tax cuts and repeal Obamacare via reconciliation, but says trying to do COVID relief that way "would poison the well of bipartisanship." 

He thinks what Biden should do is "...to start off with more bipartisan measures, so that we don’t poison the well, so that we can continue to work together. And in this case, it would be very easy to get Republican support for a COVID relief package."

He poo-pooed the idea that Republican voters are in favor of the bill -"if, you know, checks are coming out to people's homes, that's going to be popular, but that doesn't mean that this is the right bill." He gave a list of things in the bill he says are not related to COVID.

The bill passed yesterday, without a single Republican vote. 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was featured in the Extra Credit post; he talked with Chuck Todd on MTP. Among other things, 

he sees there being an active engagement between our two countries - and he's happy to see us re-engaging.

I think certainly there were things that were more challenging under the previous administration in terms of moving the dial in the right direction on the international stage. But, at the same time, you know, we all have democracies that go in different directions from time to time. And the, the sweep of the work that we need to do together as, as allied nations in the G7 and elsewhere, continues to be really important.

I added a Sidebar to the previous week's Poll Watch and TGIF entries, which talked about our collective dissatisfaction with the two political parties and about the potential for a major Trump announcement at CPAC a week ago. And, there was the CPAC straw poll. Trump did well, naturally - it's his cult after all - and so did Ron DeSantis, Florida's governor. So, good news for them, right? Well, maybe not so fast.

One thing to keep in mind? The CPAC straw poll isn't very reliable. This Vox article includes a tweet from Jake Sherman at Punchbowl News. Take a look.

I was Wondering on Wednesday about a few things, including the fact that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dropped an inadvertent truth bomb on her argument for a federal $15 minimum wage. Complaining about the ARP giving only $1400 direct payments to everyone, where Trump gave $2000, here's what she said (emphasis added today)

I don't understand the political or economic wisdom in allowing Trump to give more people relief checks than a Democratic administration. People went far too long without relief last year - if anything, we should be more generous, not more stingy. It's also an insensitive compromise for the roughly 80% of Americans that live in urban areas, which are known for higher costs of living.

Here's the thing I do wonder about, now that AOC is on record with concerns about being sensitive to people in high cost of living areas. How can she be such a proponent of a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour? If you want to talk about being "insensitive," imagine convincing yourself and countless millions of others that it's acceptable to have the same minimum wage in Mississippi, where the 2021 cost of living is 86.1; Arizona, where it's 97; and in New York, where it's 139.1?

She proved the point I've been making about that for a few years now. And, as you probably know, the minimum wage hike was removed from the bill before it was voted on, and an amendment to put it back in was defeated, with eight Dems voting with all of the Rs to keep it out. 

I dropped a Quick Take on the fine art of negotiation that's practiced by some. And by some, I mean by macaques, when the tourists they steal from want to get their stuff back. 

I would never compare our elected officials to monkeys - someone got in trouble for doing that recently, I think. And I certainly wouldn't compare macaques to people - I'm sure someone would yell at me for that.

I'm just saying, if monkeys can learn to negotiate with people, can't we get our elected representatives to negotiate with each other? Is that too much to ask?

Funny, on the ARP, the hardest negotiation was the Dems talking to one of their own, WV Sen. Joe Manchin, who wanted to drop extended unemployment in the middle of the summer, when the House and Senate would be adjourned, and, for all we know, some of them (QanonRon Johnson, for example) might be in Moscow or something, and unavailable to fix it.

Lots of the progressives have been calling for the Senate Dems to ditch the filibuster. That's not new, I noted, by sharing a 2019 Knock Knock post on that very subject. I was surprising to me that I was on the same side of an issue as my other senator, Kirsten Gillibrand.

I don't always agree with my senator, but on this issue, I surely do. And if they don't want to listen to her any more than I normally do, maybe they'll listen to Delaware's Senator Chris Coons.

It's a terrible idea. Democrats would reap the whirlwind almost immediately. It is the last bulwark of the rights of the minority in the Senate. If a simple majority could carry the day, we'd have a right-to-work law signed into law by president Trump  - I could give you a list of 20 things that president Trump would have signed into law in his first few weeks that would either repeal anything positive thing that President Obama did or anything that a progressive Democrat would hope to do in the future.

The progressives may need to be reminded that they are not the majority of Dems,  that they've got to work extra hard to get things accomplished - and that they'll have to give a little. It will be interesting to see what they do with the ARP this week, when they have to vote on the Senate version before the bill can make it to Biden's desk. 

For your TGIF, I put my foot down and assigned the good week/bad week lists. The good were fun, the bad were to be expected - and I added a mixed week list just for all of us who vote. 

Voters had a decidedly mixed week, depending on what you read and, heaven forbid, on your own opinions, should you have them - please say you have opinions on this! Take a look:

Former lynching target Mike Pence had an op-ed about election integrity, which attacks HR1, the House voting rights act. Mostly, he says, it's full of changes making it harder for all kinds of people - the living, breathing kind I'm fond of, and the other kind, too - to engage in political speech. Not only that, but

Every single proposed change in HR 1 serves one goal, and one goal only: to give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system.

And that's only part of it - it actually gets both better, and worse. 

Finally, I ended the week with an Irony Board entry, after I stopped laughing.  It seems that some old guy named Trump has ordered his most fervent fundraisers to stand by and stand back, or something like that. According to an unnamed advisor to the former president, cease-and-desist orders have been sent to the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC.

...Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn't give anyone - friend or foe - permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.

That's so rich, coming from Trump - complaining about someone using him without permission. After all, Trump and his campaign have not been at all shy in using other people's intellectual property without permission, suggesting that they are folks who support him and his message. 

There's a list for you, if you want to know all of the people he's co-opted without permission. 

There you have it -- last week, in a nutshell. See you later for Sunday School.

In Case You Missed It (v52)

Only five posts for you last week - took a couple of days off (one on purpose, one due to technology issues).  Here's your week in review.

Sunday School brought us a conversation with Trump's Wisconsin Senator, Ron Johnson, who apparently can't bring himself to say anything even remotely honest about his boss. And Dana Bash, on CNN's SOTU, pushed him pretty hard to do so, particularly on his tweets about Kenosha, which she said were "agitating and actively encouraging his supporters." She wondered if that's what Johnson wanted to see from the president.

But, Dana, there are people -- there are people agitating all over the place. And what we need to do is get control of the situation.

He kept talking about Wisconsin officials; she kept asking about the president, finally asking him ..."would you prefer that the president not tweet agitating comments and agitating ideas on his Twitter feed?"

Well, that's how you -- that's how you are typifying it. What we need to do is, we need to encourage an end to the violence and the rioting.

It's a cult - I swear it's a cult. And the penalty for speaking ill of the Grand Poo-bah or whatever they call him must be of the utmost severity. Also in a classroom? Kate Bedingfield, who's a key person on the Biden/Harris campaign. She, too, had a hard time answering a direct question. 

For your Extra Credit this week, we sat in on conversations with athlete/activists Etan Thomas and Sue Bird (with Chuck on MTP) and Nneka Ogwumike (with Dana Bash). Those conversations centered on how current and former professional athletes are getting involved with social justice issues. 

Both Bird and Ogwumike, who are WNBA players and leaders in the player's association, talked about how much support they have from the league, and that the players have been leaders in speaking out on issues. Here's how Ogwumike sees how they're able to leverage their fame for good.

And the platforms that we have, just as the politicians do, need to be used to effect change in our communities. And, as athletes, we would be discrediting our essence if we didn't use that platform for good and for change. Quite frankly, too, a lot of what we speak about, it shouldn't be political, but, unfortunately, the way that our country has kind of evolved, certain issues, certain human issues have become political.

Thomas gave a great illustration of the difference being supportive and enabling, something that the Poo-bah could benefit from hearing.

So, for instance, I love my baby Sierra. You know, that's my girl. But if baby Sierra came to me and said, "Daddy, I want to have chocolate chips for dinner," I wouldn't be supporting her by telling her that she can go have chocolate chips for dinner, you know what I mean? That's not supporting her.

And Trump and the right believe that you have to allow the police to do anything that they want to do and then that equals supporting them... Applauding someone and saying, "Everything that you do is wonderful" is not supporting them. It's actually enabling them. And, you know, so I would say Trump is actually acting more anti-police than what he's claiming to be.

Too bad this will have fallen on deaf ears, right?

I tossed a Knock Knock post out there this week, wondering about Dems and their purity tests (never a perceived sexual predator or sexually indiscreet person shall you be) and their whole 'are we progressives or are we traditionalists' conflict.  On the latter, the answer is yes, we are progressives AND we are traditionalists, as least this cycle, at least in Massachusetts.

A Kennedy lost a statewide race for the first time ever, even though Joe Kennedy III is young, and progressive. Those two things, and his family name, were not enough to allow him to unseat 70-something progressive Ed Markey, who had the support of AOC.  In the other race, the one with the perceived sexually indiscreet young progressive, the battle went to the 70-something traditional Rep. Richard Neal, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.  Fickle Dems? Principled Dems? Not sure.

Thursday's Email of the Week was from a politician, former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who through his massive charity is going to be donating millions - 100 of them, actually - to historically black medical schools over the next four years.

This funding will allow the schools to provide scholarships up to $100,000 to nearly every medical student currently enrolled and receiving financial aid.

These four schools tend to have higher graduation rates of Black students than medical schools overall -- in part because increasing diversity in medicine and offering medical services for communities most in need are ingrained in their mission, so they provide more support to help students overcome obstacles and graduate.

Good stuff - the kind of thing real billionaires do with their money - and what real billionaires do with their charities (you get the drift, I'm sure.)

And, back to normal for our TGIF post after spending the last two weeks publishing the acceptance speeches of Biden-Harris and Trump-Pence, I shared coverage of the very different visits to Kenosha made by Trump the Agitator and Biden the Listener, and the president's bizarre tale about a plane full of looters and rioters and vandals, dressed in black, and six people who were generally like a seventh who told the story... confused yet?  There's more confusion to that one I can assure you. 

And I couldn't resist talking about Trump's bizarre claim about Joe Biden "abandoning" Scranton PA... it's a big deal for the president, it is -- he mentions it frequently, as shown in the example below of the president getting all of this straightened out for Pennsylvanians.

He keeps talking about, ‘I was born in Scranton. I lived in Scranton.’ Yeah, for a few years, and then he left for another state. You know the state. But this Scranton stuff. That’s why I figured I’d come here and explain to you one thing. But I think you people know it better than I do. He left! He abandoned Pennsylvania. He abandoned Scranton.

Yep -- he sure as heck did. When he was 10. And his family moved to Delaware. Because all 10-year-0lds have the power to keep their families from moving, right? And didn't the president just abandon his home town, his state, too? Hypocrisy much, Donny?

After the conventions, it was kind of nice to slow down for a bit, but I'm expecting this week to take off again. Hope you stick around for the ride.

I'll be back later with today's Sunday School.

Knock Knock. Who's There? Fickle Democrats

Fickle Democrats who?

Fickle Democrats who sometimes forget what they stand for, when it's convenient for them to do so. And no, this has nothing to do with Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, I'm talking about the race for Congressional seats.

It's hard to be in the majority in the House when your newest, youngest, most progressive members don't appear to appreciate the benefits of being the majority, and are hell-bent on pushing their agenda, which as we know was NOT the winning agenda in the party's presidential primary. But that's not stopping them, it sure isn't.

And, after the success of AOC and Ayanna Presley and Rashida Tlaib and others, there are now all sorts of young whippersnappers who are primarying the old-timers among the Ds, and are trying to knock them off one by one, and they don't seem to care how that might impact the House majority, or the ability to get the majority in the Senate, or to win the White House, all of which are hugely consequential for anything progressive getting accomplished in the next two to four years.

Yeah, it's hard to be a Dem alright; between the different wings of the party, each impatient with the other, and the purity tests, it's not an easy needle to thread. There's a race in the 1st District for Massachusetts that has caught some attention, from a whole host of perspectives, that illustrates this pretty well, I think.

• The seat is currently held by Rep. Richard Neal, who's chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Neal has the endorsement of the big national unions, some state unions, the late Rep. John Lewis, the Human Rights Campaign, and more. 
• He's been in office since the year his challenger, Holyoke Mayor Alex B. Morse, was born. (Not that there's anything wrong with being in office for 31 years...ahem). Morse is backed by progressive Dems and progressive organizations, including Move On and Our Revolution, which is the Sanders movement, among others.
• In addition to being the mayor, Morse also served as a guest lecturer at UMass-Amherst.

Outside groups have been involved in this campaign, (no surprise there - we're bombarded with them here in my neck of the woods every election), including American Working Families, which has thrown its support behind Neal. The group ran an ad which attacked Morse's record as Holyoke's mayor, said he was being bankrolled by outside groups (that always makes me chuckle, when the accusation comes from an outside group), and "hit him over 'sexual relationships with college students,'" closing the ad with an onerous voice-over saying

Alex Morse. Terrible judgement and a terrible record. 

After the ad appeared, American Working Families issued an apology and asked that the ad not be aired again, stating that it never intended the ad to see the light of day, that it was "accidentally sent to stations instead of a corrected version," and that they regretted the error. I'm not sure what was in the corrected version, but I can guess. Meanwhile, it was aired, it was seen, and it probably hasn't been forgotten.

Here's the thing, though, about the ad: Morse "ultimately acknowledged having had consensual relationships with some students" and at least for a short period of time, considered ending his race. But, there's a twist:

...the allegations against Morse were muddled after The Intercept published messages from some of the students who had made the accusations in which they discussed potential ways to hurt Morse's primary campaign. One student described himself as a "Neal stan" and expressed a desire to get an internship with the Congressman.

The whole thing is ugly, full of intrigue and party politics, and alleged anti-gay harassment, and yes, some of the students who made the accusations had their personal information shared on Twitter, so they'd feel the pain they deserved for their actions. All-in-all, a classic David and Goliath battle, played out on Twitter and elsewhere.

Now, those purity tests I mentioned, that the Dems are famous for? Among them are the ones about all victims of sexual abuse or harassment are to be believed, and that any hint of sexual transgression is enough to get you booted, right?

And let's not forget the longstanding concept that a person cannot have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who has power over them, whether it's a director and an actress, a supervisor and an employee, a police officer and people he's arrested, or a famous comedian making shadow hands over - not actually touching -  a sleeping woman's breasts. That 'imbalance of power' standard exists in the criminal justice system, in pretty much every HR manual, in most company policies, and in the Democratic Party rules.

Most people - even progressives, I'd guess - certainly wouldn't think that a 30-something female college professor who had consensual relations with her male students would be House of Representatives material, would they? Or that a 30-something male college professor who had consensual relations with his female students would be?

Did I mention that Morse is gay? And does that, or should that, give him a pass on the professor/student relationships? He knows his behavior was wrong; he admitted it was, and he apologized, using the classic "if I made anyone uncomfortable" language we've grown accustomed to hearing.

Now, maybe Morse was set up by bad actors trying to encourage a relationship, but he admitted having them, which puts the ball back in his court.

And now, we'll see which fickle Dem purity test matters: the one that says that sexual indiscretions are bad, the one that says progressives are good, or the one that says depending on who you are, an apology is fine and we'll welcome you with open arms.

The primary is today.  FYI, another one to watch? 39-year old  Congressman Joe Kennedy III is challenging 74-year old Ed Markey for Senate. AOC is supporting Markey....

In Case You Missed It (v10)

In case you missed any of this week's posts, here's a recap for you.

In Sunday School,  I sat in on two classrooms with 2020 Dem presidential candidates, catching Andrew Yang and Mayor Pete, who was asked about policies, and polls, and, well, take a look.

About how his being gay impacts black voters and others, "What can you do about that, if anything?"  he said the biggest thing voters think about when trying to decide who to vote for is

How will my life be different if you're president vs. one of your competitors? That's the question we have got to answer. And when we have the best answer to that question, I think a lot of prejudices and a lot of those other considerations fall away, and it comes down to vision and results.

It was an interesting question, for sure, and I'm not sure there's a better answer. I'd like to think that there are fewer people who wouldn't consider voting for a gay man than there used to be. I mean, we've had a black president, for Pete's sake; now we've got The Apprentice. And as he once said, "what have you got to lose?"

I frequently encourage folks to listen to both sides of an argument, and in that spirit I dropped a Sunday School Extra Credit post, in which the pundits hosted some of the Republicans who were willing to chat. Here's House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy complaining to Margaret Brennan about secret depositions, transcripts and that vote the House took to formalize their impeachment inquiry:

You have members of Congress who just voted to justify what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on.

My thoughts on that?

Brennan did not remind him that we have members of Congress who just voted against what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on, and that the vote that was passed allows all of them to see what's gone on. And, of course, that Republican members of Congress are in the room listening to or participating in the depositions and it defies credulity that the Rs don't know exactly what's been said in those traditionally secret depositions.

Tuesday was Election Day, and that meant it was time to update my annual Election Eve post, which is full of rebuttals for not voting, and encouragement for doing so. This year, I was also thinking about New York's entry into early voting, and what the impact of that would be.

Hopefully, now that New York has added early voting, we'll see new voters participating, not just the same folks who vote every year. Overall, we're told, less than 2% of all registered voters cast their ballots early, but in my area, 20% of the early voters did not vote in 2018. Maybe there's hope after all?

There was some chatter in the Twitterverse about there not being a proclamation for Native American History Month this year; that turned out not to be true, but it did get me looking at Trump proclamations, and as with some of the ones he's issued in the past, it inspired me to drag out my Irony Board. 

This year, in addition to celebrating our Native American heritage, we are celebrating several other things, including National Veterans and Military Families Month, with a proclamation noting that

Each warrior who fights for our Nation, along with their families, has earned our eternal gratitude, and I ask that all Americans thank and support them.  Together, we remain committed to fostering a national community of support for these brave heroes and their families.

If you think about all the "fostering a national community of support" this particular president has done, you'll wonder, as I did, how he can put his signature on this with a straight face.

On Wednesday, I wondered about impeachment, mostly, but also about the election results from around the country, and from Trump country, and what they might mean in the larger picture.

Moving on to yesterday's election results: Virginia turned blue last night, for the first time in a generation. and the lady who flipped Trump off won a seat. Not because she flipped him off, mind you, but because her message resonated with voters and because she worked her fanny off. In Pennsylvania, Republicans lost in Delaware County where they've held seats since the Civil War; Democrats flipped several seats in Central Ohio, and may have narrowly won the Kentucky gubernatorial contest, although a re-canvass has been requested by the Republican incumbent Matt Bevin.

I was at the Update Desk again on Thursday, reviewing emails from the Dems. It's still about money, for the most part - no surprise there - and about both the November and December debates. They're all in for November, but December's going to be much harder for some.  Here's a taste of what one of them is talking about in campaign emails.

Andrew Yang: he's got his first ad on TV, he's worried about qualifying for the December debate; he offered a split donation to Virginia Dems and his campaign,  he's got new merch, including a new hat that will give $1 to the USO for every purchase, and we heard from his wife Evelyn for the first time.

And on Friday, instead of our usual 'good week/bad week' TGIF entry, I tossed out a Knock Knock post on all of the different ways the president's defenders are making fools of themselves on the impeachment stuff. It's really getting embarrassing. I have a suggestion for them, his defenders and, frankly, his accusers, too.

It's time to stop talking and start listening. Hear the evidence, read the evidence (and, can I ask, have you read the Mueller Report yet?), and listen to the official arguments when they are presented. 

And then, stop embarrassing yourselves, all of you.

I have no idea what next week will bring, but I know I'll be here trying to make sense of it. Join me?

Knock Knock. Who's There? Presidential Defenders

Presidential defenders who?

Presidential defenders who are making complete fools of themselves, that's who.

Take Senator Lindsey Graham (R-White House).  The senator, who also serves as acting Secretary of Defense for Impeachment, has suggested that the Trump Administration is so incompetent and hopeless that they couldn't possibly have pulled off a quid pro quo.

Seriously, the Administration's Ukraine policy, if you could even call it that, was incoherent and nobody was in charge, or everyone was in charge and what a mess and these people couldn't 'policy' their way out of a paper bag if their ability to avoid a Congressional subpoena depended on it, or something.

Yep - in this case, the whole is actually less than the sum of its parts, and because of that, no impeachable offense has occurred. So he's writing the whole thing off, Graham is; he's not interested in looking at actual transcripts of actual depositions or anything, he's just going to play golf with the president and let it go at that.

This is a new and interesting twist on the administration, which is the one we deserve (also according to Graham) and is also the political equivalent of the Keystone Cops. Or maybe of Wile E. Coyote, not sure.

As I said, this is only the latest in a string of 'defenses' the president, his advisers, family members, and scaredycat politicians who do what he says under fear of losing their jobs, have shared with us.

Other lines of defense may or may not include:

• It didn't happen, but if it did happen, it's OK because it's not a crime (a consistent theme with Trump and his minions). 
• And even if it IS a crime, he can't be investigated or charged with anything. But impeachment isn't about crimes, it's a political remedy. (Keep reading...) 
• And even if Congress has oversight responsibility expressly defined in the Constitution, it doesn't matter, because the economy. You know, the black unemployment rate, something that not a SINGLE Republican (and not more than probably a handful of Democrats) ever cared to mention before? Yeah, that's why none of this impeachment stuff matters.
• Impeachment is a sham, just like those phony emoluments.
• The president is not being allowed to face his accuser like he's entitled to in a court of law. I love this one, coming from folks who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but aren't embarrassed to pretend they don't know the difference between impeachment and a criminal proceeding. 
• They had depositions in secret (a common procedure, as these folks know) to hide what was going on from us (no, not really) and we had to STORM THE GATES to get in the room (because most of us aren't on the Committee handing the depositions) and the Democrats are acting like a bunch of Soviets.
• Well, now that this is PUBLIC we're going to refuse to participate because this is a PARTISAN WITCH HUNT and a HOAX!
• Read the transcript (which is what they call the document clearly noted THIS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT) it was a beautiful call and nothing that's pretty can be evil, right?
• The president is the Commander in Chief of the country, (which, of course, he is absolutely NOT) and he can do what he wants, and he didn't do anything wrong.
• And even if something did happen, it wasn't Trump.  It was Giuliani. 
• No, wait it was Mulvaney.
• No wait, it was Sondland.
• No, wait, it was Vindman. He's a never-Trumper. He speaks UKRAINIAN!
• It was (fill in the blank).
• But Joe Biden... 
• But Hunter Biden... 
• But Biden the golden!
• But the whistleblower once worked for a Democrat. No wait he worked with Joe Biden. That  completely negates the fact that multiple have corroborated what the whistleblower said (and more).
• But the whistleblower's attorney's tweets!
• But even if the House comes up with articles of impeachment, Senate Republicans won't go along with it.

Just stop. 

Everyone says they want the facts, except when it comes to actually getting the facts. In the face of that, the Republicans are literally - not just Joe Biden literally, but literally throwing everything at this that they can get their hands on.  

It's time to stop talking and start listening. Hear the evidence, read the evidence (and, can I ask, have you read the Mueller Report yet?), and listen to the official arguments when they are presented. 

And then, stop embarrassing yourselves, all of you.

This is not about why someone's nickname is Masha, for Pete's sake.  This is not about political parties. It's not about who is the biggest loser, or the sorest loser.

It's about whether the president of the United States used his office to attack a US citizen who happens to be a political rival, or in any way abused his office for personal gain. That's what this is about.

No one should be afraid of the facts. 

Knock Knock. Who's There? Aggressive Progressives

Aggressive progressives who?

Aggressive progressives who are so full of themselves they're apparently willing to sacrifice everything, even as they admit it will likely hurt them in the future.

Huh, you say? What's this all about?

Well, according to this report from NPR's Scott Detrow, the outer-lefties are suggesting getting rid of the filibuster in the US Senate, and moving to a simple 51-vote majority to pass legislation.  Here's how Detrow sets the stage:

Most of the Democrats running for president want to create a national single-payer health care system. They want to begin a massive transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. They want to legalize marijuana pass broad family leave policies, and do a whole lot of other things that previous generations of presidential candidates have balked from fully endorsing.

Those are all good things, if you're a fan of that agenda - so why might there be a problem? Well, the aggressive progressives want to see an end to the filibuster, so that the agenda can be pushed through - assuming that the Dems take control of the Senate in the 2020 election.  Here's Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Indivisible Project.

In order to actually pass a big, bold pro-democracy package, or a big, bold climate package, or a health care package, we're going to need to be able to do that with 51 votes. 

Knock Knock. Who's There? Tone-deaf Politicians

Tone-deaf politicians who?

Tone-deaf politicians who are so out of touch with reality that they actually think what they say they're going to do, or threaten to do, or promise to do, or promise to NOT do, makes sense.

There's practically a cast of thousands to choose from, so I can only provide a sampling. And, given that I'm an equal opportunity kind of gal, I promise we'll have representation from both political parties.

Ready?

I have to start with Dems in Washington, who are not allowing one of their members to vote by proxy for the upcoming House leadership positions.  Tammy Duckworth, who represents folks in Illinois, is eight months or so pregnant, and her doctor has restricted her travel.  Duckworth asked to be allowed to vote by proxy; this is simply not done, apparently. Seems the thinking is that once you do it for one person, it'll open the floodgates of proxy-vote-wishers and heck, Congress will be a mess. Or something.  The congresswoman is being the better person in this one, I think. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Dems the party of women? The ones who are all about workplace equality?  The party that brought us the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ? Not for nothing, but it seems if you want women to be treated fairly in the workplace, perhaps you should set an example by treating them fairly in your own workplace.

Staying in Washington, let's talk about our tone-deaf President and Congressional leaders, Barack Obama, Crying John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell.  For someone who was such a strong communicator and messenger in the beginning, POTUS is demonstrating a clear lack vision, and a lack of understanding of what people want, or don't want, in the shadow of the mid-term elections.  Remember, Mr. President, turnout was only 37% - so no, you don't have a mandate to do something on immigration at this point, and the the Republicans don't have a mandate to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The three of them need to share more than a glass of bourbon - they need a leadership seminar instead. I can't imagine they'd come out worse than they went in.

And lest you think that tone-deafness is a Washington-only affliction, let's turn our attention to New York Republicans. You recall that the Rs gained a slim majority in the State Senate, holding 32 seats now.  Naturally they re-elected Dean Skelos as their leader, and also continued with Southern Tier area senator Tom Libous, who is under indictment for lying to the FBI, as second-in-command. Apparently having ethically-challenged leaders is OK with the Republicans. But the real winner for the Rs is that Skelos believes it's time for a pay raise for the politicians in Albany. That's right -- their part-time base pay of over $79,000 (and average pay of around $100K) is not enough, and they haven't had a raise in 14 years, and well, it's about time, don't you think?

Um, no. It's not time to keep pregnant women from fully participating in elected office, and it's not time for crazy action by leaders in Congress, and it's not time for a pay raise for New York legislators.

It is time for these folks to start treating women fairly, time to listen and collaborate instead of bloviating all over our nation's capital, and time o pay attention to the people who can only imagine in their wildest dreams what they'd do with an income close to that of an Albany politician.

Sidebar: Equal Opportunity Angry Voter

Democrats.org image

 Listen, Democrats - if you think my Angry Voter  Knock Knock post   yesterday means you're off the  hook, you are sorely mistaken.

 Because you're spending too much time on the wrong  things, too, just  like the Republicans are. At the  federal level and at the state level, just  like the  Republicans are.

 Need some examples?

• limiting bullets in ammo clips does not create jobs
• universal pre-k does not create jobs
• extending unemployment benefits does not create jobs
• raising the minimum wage does not create jobs
• regulating the size of a soda is not going to create jobs

There's more, but I'll stop with these.

Now, don't get me wrong: I believe that we can have reasonable limits on guns -- I've talked quite a bit about that (here, here and here, for example). And I believe we have a problem with gun violence that is not going to be solved simply by changing gun laws. And while bullet limits might make us feel better, we're not going to see more than a handful of jobs created (to make ammo clips smaller) in the overall scheme of things.

And yes, I understand that having a good start at the pre-k level is important, but not if we stop there.  I believe that we need to do something about education in America, something that neither demonizes nor blindly rewards teachers, something that doesn't just take another pile of money and throw it at the problem, and we should ensure that what we teach in schools matters.  Meaning, we should not be teaching to the test if the testing is not going to accomplish anything.

I also think we should not be giving incentives to people to take their children out of public elementary and secondary schools in favor of private schools; in fact, the opposite would make more sense. Give tax breaks to people who keep their kids in public schools.

While universal pre-k is believed by many to help get kids and families on the right track, help them move down the path to eventual gainful employment, it's not going to create a whole lot of jobs, and all of that preparation could end up being wasted if we don't have jobs when these kids get out of school.

And yes, unemployment benefits are always an important and necessary evil in our economy, even when it was booming back in the day. In today's economy, the need is higher, but making sure the safety net is larger or longer-lasting doesn't address the foundational issue, which is that we are not putting people back to work fast enough.

Raising the minimum wage is something we can debate forever; there are significant areas of disagreement on the benefits of doing this, and there are examples on both sides of how beneficial or horrible it will be if we paid everyone at least $8 or $9 or $10 or $15 an hour for typically unskilled jobs, and the implications on jobs that already pay that amount to people who have skills and qualifications.

I'm conflicted on what the minimum wage should be, and whether there should even be a federal minimum wage. But I'm not conflicted on this: raising the minimum wage is not apt to create a ton of jobs, and the jobs that would be created at this wage level are not the kind that will help grow and sustain our economy over the long term.

One place I think we don't need to be conflicted at all is on how many jobs regulating the size of a cup of soda will create. I mean, talk about a drop in the bucket. I think everyone can at least understand where this type of thing comes from -- as a whole we drink (and eat) far too many empty calories and in the short- and long-term that's not good for us and leaves us open to significant health issues and potentially disability and that will tax the safety net and cost us more money and so on.  I get that - but I don't for a moment believe this is something that we need to have politicians spending time on.

We need jobs. Good paying jobs. We need a solid education system that will prepare the next generation for what's to come in the workplace, whether it's renewable energy or high-tech manufacturing or low-tech manufacturing or pharmaceuticals or old fashioned energy jobs or long-haul truckers or infrastructure repair experts or teachers or physicians assistants and nurse practitioners or diabetes educators or registered dietitians or personal trainers or ammo clip makers or yoga instructors or wolves of Wall Street.

We need jobs that allow people to work full time, to earn enough to take control of their own lives, to get unentwangled from the safety net.

And we need them yesterday.

So, Dems, figure out a way to talk to the Republicans and find some common ground. Because I'm not really any happier with you than I am with them.

Knock Knock. Who's There? Angry Voter

Angry voter who?

An angry voter who is already sick and tired, and getting even more sick and tired, of politicians wasting precious time (and oodles of taxpayer dollars) on things that simply do not matter, instead of focusing on the clearly obvious things that do matter.

I've spoken many times on these pages about being a middle-of-the-roader, one who believes, like these folks do, that we can be a bit more fiscally conservative and a bit more socially moderate - and be successful. My sense continues to be if we can't figure out how to do that, if we insist on living life on the fringes, we're in for a very rocky road ahead.

I've also asked Republicans in particular to stand for something, rather than standing against everything that is suggested by the other side, whether the ideas come from President Obama (someone they've committed to obstructing for the past few years) or someone they've known for far too long on the other side of the aisle.

Sadly, I'm no happier with them now than I was in January, when I scolded them for comments on rape, and begged them to get out of our bedrooms and clinics and doctor's offices, to get the church out of their legislation, and to stop treating women and gays so poorly.

We don't need a bigger safety net they've told us; we don't need to make the 47% even larger, they said. We need jobs. We need to fix the economy. And they're just the ones to do it. They're right -- we do need jobs, lots of jobs.

And now I'm back, imploring them to do what they swore they would do. Republicans, the party of jobs, I can assure you that

• denying people their right to vote, or infringing on it, does not create jobs
• insisting that women undergo unnecessary medical procedures does not create jobs
• establishing state-sponsored discrimination (or attempting to), does not create jobs
• refusing to vote on presidential appointees does not create jobs
• investigating Benghazi and the IRS does not create jobs
• shutting down the government does not create jobs
• reducing SNAP benefits, or carping about how the money is spent, does not create jobs
• insisting that climate change is fake because it's cold out does not create jobs
• denying marriage equality does not create jobs
• voting over four dozen times to repeal the Affordable Care Act does not create jobs
• closing health centers that provide services to women does not create jobs
• reducing taxes on the wealthy does not create jobs
• inserting religion into schools does not create jobs
• laughing along with Sarah Palin does not create jobs
• sucking up to Donald Trump does not create jobs

In fact, most of what you're spending your time on does not create jobs. It may perpetuate your own, but it doesn't help the rest of the country.

If you are a politician in Washington DC, remember that almost no one thinks you're doing your job well. A significant majority of Americans believes that we would be better off if all of you were no longer in office. We don't like you, even when you are our own representative. Think about that the next time you walk into your office.

Please -- I beg you -- start devoting your energy to creating jobs. Real jobs.

Because when people have jobs, they are substantially better equipped to buy their own groceries, pay for their own health insurance, pay their own rent, help pay for their own education, buy their own school lunches, pay for their own day care, and so on.

They are able to spend money on travel, tourism, arts and culture, sporting events, clothes, cars, toys, computers, houses.

They are able to save money for a rainy day, invest in their future, participate in their communities, support their favorite charity, send their kids to charter schools, tithe to their church, and pay taxes.

You know, all of the things that a smaller government aims to achieve. All of those things the 47% are not able to do today, much to your disdain.

Do these things, and maybe, just maybe, you'll give me a reason to vote for you. 

Knock Knock? Who's there? The Republican Party

fanpop.com

The Republican Party who?

The Republican Party who have a whole lot of work to do if they want to obtain any sense of respectability and attract fiscally conservative, socially moderate voters, which in my opinion is what we need in this country. Frankly, I'm not overly concerned which party people come from.

I am concerned, however that in this day and age, people who espouse ideas like these can be elected; and yes, these are all from the same guy, Virginia State Senator Richard Black, who wants to take his Neanderthal mind-set to the US Senate:

• On sexual assault in the military: Think of yourself at 25; wouldn't you love to have a group of 19 year old girls under your control, day in and day out?
• On school decorum, when proposing a bill to require students in his state to refer to teachers with their titles (Mr., Mrs., Ms.) or Sir and Ma'am: The counterculture revolution of the '70s took the war into the classroom. Before that time, public schools were a model of decorum and then we began this thing we've seen play out at Columbine.
• On spousal rape: I don't know how on earth you could validly get a conviction in a husband-wife rape when they're living together, sleeping in the same bed, she's in a nightie and so forth. There's no injury, there's no separation, or anything.
• On low interest home loans: the current policy promotes adultery and sodomy (because same sex couples are allowed to apply)

Or these, from a variety of cave-dwelling Republican men and women, who apparently don't understand anything about rape. I won't repeat all of the quotes, because -- well, because it's so disheartening. But here's a list of some 'types' of rape gleaned from comments Republican politicians have made, as outlined in the charts you can find here, which were published back in 2012.  Note that some of the titles came from the actual quotes, and some were created to highlight the message in the quote.  You'll have to read them to determine which are which.

• the 'gift from God' rape
• 'legitimate' rape
• 'honest' rape
• 'emergency' rape
• 'easy' rape
• 'doctors note' rape
• 'buyer's remorse' rape
• 'enjoyable' rape
• 'lemonade' rape
• 'wonderful' rape
• 'the pre-teen slut was asking for it' rape

I beg you, Republicans: Stop it.

 

Heterosexuals can and do commit sodomy and adultery, and have sex for non-procreative reasons, do get HIV, but you don't seem to be in a hurry to investigate them to see if they're low-interest-loan worthy, or if they're worthy of adopting children or if they're worthy of being in a hospital room holding the hand of their dying partner or if they're entitled to a break on estate taxes, something I know you hold near and dear.

Men can and do sexually abuse women, but you seem more intently focused on protecting the men and blaming the women who are victims of the abuse, not participants.  It is absolutely not appropriate for anyone in a chain of command, whether in the military or in the business world or the academic world or the political world any other world for that matter, to relish having even a single woman 'in their control'.

Women DO get raped. They do NOT enjoy it. We are NOT our sexual fantasies.  Keep your hands off the laws that protect us, unless your intention is to make them stronger. After all, we are your beloved wives, daughters, sisters, mothers.  

Stop legislating against the gay friends you all profess to have.  (I suspect they're imaginary, given how frequently you invoke their existence at exactly the same time as you marginalize them through your actions.)

Get out of the bedroom. Get out of the emergency room. Get out of the doctor's office and the abortion clinic, step away from the ultrasounds and permission slip templates. 

Get the church out of our legislation, because your church and mine are not the same. I don't have one at all, but that does NOT make me less of an American. 

And while you're at it, castigate those of the Republican ilk and the wealthy ilk who act contrary to your morals, the same as you do Democrats and poor people who commit the same sins. 

If you truly believe in smaller government, DO something about it. Do something about waste and fraud. Do something about leveling the playing field for ALL taxpayers. Seek to end corporate welfare with all the fervor you apply to ending personal welfare. Act with, rather than acting against.

Every action you take, or don't take, including whether you continue to support these idiots who are dragging you down, can jeopardize the America you profess to love so dearly.

Think about that the next time you get together to talk about your plans for the future.

Knock Knock. Who's There? The Joker

No, not that Joker, these three jokers. (Hey - I think I just made a Trifecta post here).

First, there's this joker, the birther Rev. James David Manning, who thinks that Barack Obama had his love child's baby mama killed.

That's right: POTUS has a love child, apparently conceived when he made an emergency visit to a dental clinic in Connecticut in 2011 when a pistachio had lodged in his tooth. Clearly that was a ruse; the real purpose was to have sex with dental assistant Miriam Carey, the woman who was tragically killed in October after a chase through the streets of DC. At least some of  that information is according to the Russians.  

Importantly, Carey's family is not engaged with Reverend Birther on this. According to attorney Eric Sanders,

There is no suggestion, nor has there ever been any suggestion by the Carey family that President Obama is the child's father.

Now there's probably not much we can do about the Russians and their intelligence, and there's probably not much we can do about Rev. Manning's intelligence or commitment to his cause, which is ostensibly to have the people of Harlem turn to Jesus and change their lives. And there's nothing wrong with that.

We can wonder, (and I certainly do) if his ATLAH World Ministries is receiving tax breaks as a church for their highly political evangelical missions, such as these:

• The Obama Hate Club page on Facebook
• Stopping Birther Abuse
• Boycott the Dunghead Media Demagogues
• Obama's record at Columbia College

You can preach the gospel, and you can preach it with passion and confusion and righteousness, but you can't preach politics and get a tax break for doing it. And that's true for both sides of the pulpit. 

Then there's this joker, a former governor of Florida who stepped up to his computer and tossed out a tweet about the US embassy to The Vatican. Here's what he said:

Now, we all know when politicians tweet, sometimes things can get messy.  As with this tweet of Jeb's, when there are facts out there that contradict what you're saying. 

See, the Obama administration is not closing our embassy to the Vatican; it's being moved to our embassy compound, into a building purchased by the State Department under Jeb's brother's administration, where it will not only be more secure, but in a 'very distinguished' building instead of a nondescript house, and where the government will save $1.4M a year.  No staff are being cut. No prestige is being cut -- there will be complete separation between the embassies, including separate entrances. It's all good, right? 

Well, no. Of course not.

Jeb was not the only one complaining about this, there were others -- in fact there was so much noise about it that the State Department had an open conference call with the press to discuss it. Here's the intro to the call (emphasis added):

Hi. Good evening, everyone and thanks for joining us on such relatively short notice. As many of you have seen or participated in, there's been a number of stories, blog postings over the last few days about the State Department relocating the US Embassy to the Holy See.  So we thought it would be worthwhile to invite all of you to talk to a senior State Department Official...a little bit about the move and then answer some of your questions.

I don't know how many news outlets attended the call; only the Catholic News Service and the Religious News Service are on record as having asked questions.  Everyone else either was satisfied with the information provided, or else they were only concerned with stirring the pot and didn't attend or chose not to report the facts. Jeb Bush has not yet tweeted a correction. 

And speaking of corrections, I wonder if we'll hear from Dubya on this?  Friday morning his daughter Jenna Bush Hager was co-hosting part of the Today Show; in a segment about her dad's Christmas ornament, Jenna misspoke when she noted Dubya's inspiration for painting. She got a text from her father with the correction - it was Winston Churchill, not Woodrow Wilson, as Jenna had said. 

Maybe he'll step in and set his brother straight.

And last, this joker on Fox, Jenna Lee, who continued to put forth the message about the non-existent death panels in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Lee took a filibuster story and turned it into an ACA 'death panel' story -- even as another Fox reporter correctly explained what the alleged death panel, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. is charged with: slowing the growth in Medicare spending.

Here's some info:

Beginning with fiscal 2015, if Medicare is projected to grow too quickly, IPAB will make binding recommendations to reduce spending.  Those recommendations will be sent to Capitol Hill at the beginning of the year, and if Congress doesn't like them, it must pass alternative cuts -- of the same size - by August. A super majority of the Senate (at least two-thirds of those present) can also vote to amend the IPAB recommendations. If Congress fails to act, the secretary of health and human services is required to implement the cuts.

Wow.  A group of folks are to make recommendations to reduce spending and send them to Congress; if Congress does nothing, the recommendations will go into effect?  Seems like the only bad thing here is the 'if Congress fails to act' part, right? Kinda puts the burden on the do-nothings to do something, and we know how well that's working for us, right? Seems like the death knell rings for them, not us.

We want government spending to be reduced. We want to slow the growth in health care spending. We want to reduce entitlements.  I mean, that's what the Republicans tell us all the time. So why the heck are they so up in arms about the IPAB?  And why does Fox insist on making this a bad thing?

I do get confused on this stuff sometimes, but one thing I'm sure of -- there's no shortage of jokers in the deck.

Knock Knock? Who's There? Artemis

Artemis who?  Artemis who challenges neighbors to determine who is "truly disabled" in Portland, Oregon.

Apparently this Artemis creature is distributing flyers in Portland neighborhoods that name disabled voters who live in the area, so that their neighbors can take a hard look at them and determine who is 'truly' disabled and worthy of receiving disability benefits. I gotta tell you, this is even more extreme than the usual ideas that float around on the Internet.

Here's the flyer, with the names removed, courtesy of the Portland Office of Equity and Human Rights (OEHR):

Artemis, twin sister of Apollo, was a huntress, protector of animals, and a protector of children, but maybe not so nice to their moms.

Being a goddess of contradictions, she was the protectress of women in labor, but it was said that the arrows of Artemis brought them sudden death while giving birth. As was her brother, Apollo, Artemis was a divinity of healing, but also brought and spread diseases such as leprosy, rabies and even gout.

Wow -- there's a contradiction for you.  The present-day Artemis wants you to be able to hunt down and identify disabled benefit suckers, but her namesake kills moms in childbirth, which would seemingly leave babies on the public teat, as it were.  Although, to her credit, she was an eternal virgin, so I guess she wasn't out there popping out kids and collecting benefits herself, right? 

There's more. From the same article as above:

Artemis was very possessive. She would show her wrath on anyone who disobeyed her wishes...Artemis with her twin brother, Apollo, put to death the children of Niobe. The reason being that Niobe, a mere mortal, had boasted to Leto, the mother of the divine twins, that she had bore more children, which must make her superior to Leto. Apollo being outraged at such an insult on his mother, informed Artemis. The twin gods hunted them down and shot them with their bows and arrows; Apollo killed the male children and Artemis the girls.

I'm guessing in this case, Portland's Artemis is very possessive of her hard-earned income (and that of course assumes that it's earned, not some other kind) and, according to the flyer, is willing to "stand in the way" of those who would destroy our democracy - which as we all know is the democracy of the perfectly-abled and them alone, right?

It's not perfectly clear whether Artemis will knock arrow and go hunting in the neighborhoods a la the mythological Artemis, but one can only assume there's at least some level of ground-standing (grand-standing?) going on here.

I have to wonder: Artemis, do you take advantage of any public benefits?  I don't mean welfare or SNAP or Medicaid or anything like that -- Goddess forbid! -- but things like any property or income tax breaks that, while legal, are ways for our modern huntress to save at the expense of others.

Donate to charity and take a tax deduction? Own a house and take a mortgage interest deduction? Get any other benefits that are built into our federal, state and local tax codes? Maybe you've been in Portland for a while, and voted in favor of the property tax limitations back in the 1990's and now you're taking advantage of those?

If yes, Artemis my dear, you're just as bad as those you're branding with a giant 'D'.

Sure, we all know there's disability fraud. Just like we all know there's income tax fraud and every other kind of tax fraud and scads of ways to try and dodge codified obligations.  All of which should be investigated and identified and appropriate actions taken. But to suggest that everyone who's on disability needs to be examined by a neighborhood of their peers so that their disability can be discerned, well, how will you do that?

• Knock on their doors and time how long it takes them to answer?
• Steal their medical records and see what ails them, what kind of doctors they see?
• Follow them around and see if they use handicapped parking spots?
• Challenge them to a stag hunt?

Further, I suggest that if you vote (and one can only assume that as an upstanding resident of the City of Roses you are a registered and regular voter), you too are 'voting yourself money' every time you make a choice. Or is there a special way Goddesses can identify and vote only for candidates who express no opinion on fiscal issues such as taxes and spending? Candidates who, if elected, will refuse to vote on anything that comes before them that might in anyway have an impact on how your money is spent?

The bottom line is, every time we vote, we're "voting ourselves money" - either we're willing to continue spending what we spend today on our various governmental jurisdictions and programs and vote for people who promise to hold the line; we're willing to increase that spending, and so vote for people who are in favor of collecting and/or spending more money;  or we want to decrease our burden and so vote for people who promise to reduce taxes, spending, or both. 

Oh -- one more thing -- once you finish off identifying the truly 'disabled', do you then move on to the 'truly' unemployed, the 'truly' hungry, the 'truly' homeless, the 'truly' legal immigrants, the 'truly' everything else, until you're left with no one else to 'truly' identify? I wonder if then you will have 'truly' lived up to the slogan Keep Portland Weird, (albeit in a completely wrong way).

Here's another quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, my dear Goddess Artemis and others who drink from the same chalice:

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.  

Knock Knock. Who's There? A Racist Democrat

A racist Democrat who? A racist Democrat who called a fellow politician an "arrogant N-word" and tried to apologize her way out of it.

I'm a little late with this post, as it all came to light back in the last few days of April. I don't want anyone to think that I was protecting Dems, or acting like the 'lamestream media' and failing to call out bad behavior on the left with as much joy as when calling out bad behavior on the right.

This one's a doozy, for sure.  Meet Gloria Platko, the white, 69 year old Buena Vista Township (Michigan) Clerk.  Platko was recorded by Dexter Mitchell, a fellow Dem, who happens to be black, talking about Dwayne Parker, a third Dem, who also happens to be black.  On the recording, she advises Mitchell that he's not going to like what she's about to say about Parker, and then she goes ahead and says it anyway.  Here's an audio of the phone call, with the comments coming at about the 6-minute mark.

Naturally, Ms. Platko decided that an apology was necessary.

Because that's what politicians and athletes and sportscasters and Hollywood superstars do -- they try and apologize their way out of a mess, and typically that makes it worse.  Here's Gloria's first stab at it, in comments that came out shortly after the tape was made public: 

Gloria Platko news photo

I’m sorry to my five other board members, and I’m entirely sorry to this entire community. I’ve eaten Thanksgiving dinner with black friends at their house. So I’m far from prejudiced. You need to go interview some of the black people who have supported me for the last four or five years. 

After the recording, which was made in January, was played at a meeting in April, Platko continued to defend herself. Here's more from her comments after the meeting:

Every race of people have (N-words), every culture has (N-words). Look up the definition. I learned that way back in grade school. I learned that at St. Joe’s and Holy Rosary. They're blowing this up and trying to make it a racial thing and it’s not. I will defend any black person in this township except Dwayne Parker — he’s a lowlife.

Platko wrote a letter of apology (on township stationery, natch), in which she noted

To all of you, please know that I am sorry for using a derogatory word during my telephone conversation with Dexter Mitchell in January (2013) of this year. I am a public official and should have used better judgment. I have nothing but respect for the Buena Vista Charter Township Community and I offer everyone my sincerest apology.

To those of you who know me, you know that I don’t have a discriminatory bone in my body. I spoke out of frustration following a long history of difficulties with the Supervisor. That is not an excuse for my language but I hope it relieves any hurt feelings my remark may have caused anyone.

Although I had a lapse in judgment, I want to reassure the residents of Buena Vista that I am still capable and committed to serving everyone in this community.

This is better than her initial comment when the story was picked up back in April, in which she noted that her remark was a "slip of the tongue." 

Sorry. One's tongue can slip and spit out 'shit' instead of 'shoot', or 'damn' instead of 'darn', or things like that.  But one's tongue does not slip and spit out the N-word.