Sunday School 8/7/22

Here's your recap from the Meet the Press classroom this morning, starting with what's-his-name's conversation with Stacy Abrams, the Democrat running to unseat Gov. Brian Kemp in Georgia. 

He asked her to explain her stance on abortion (below) and how she'd legislate around it.

My intention is going to be to pass legislation that says a woman has the right to an abortion, and that right continues until a physician determines the fetus is viable outside of the body, except in the case of protecting the woman's life or health.

She said you don't apply "arbitrary gestational limits."  It's a medical decision, she said.

And when we give it back to doctors, when we tell women and their doctors to make these choices, what we are saying is we respect the responsibility that women have and the obligation that doctors have...we should not be setting into law these moving targets that do not reflect the reality that women face when they're sitting in that doctor's office.

What's-his-name said someone on the right would say her position would "essentially" allow abortion throughout the pregnancy; he asked if she'd want to "put guard rails on that." Abrams explained that late-term abortion decisions are incredibly difficult, and that "there is no woman who at eight months has not cherished the notion of this pregnancy."

... to put an arbitrary date in a law devalues the pain and the tragedy of that moment. A doctor is not going to take an action that is not medically required... I understand that there are those who would feel better if we plucked a date out of the air. But we know that that is not scientifically supportable. 

She also said you can't put every exception into a law, and pointed out that in Georgia,

where we have 82 counties without an OB/GYN, 64 counties without a surgeon, 18 counties without a family doctor, and nine without a doctor at all, setting arbitrary limits that are not grounded in the reality of what women face is deeply problematic and ultimately cruel.

He next asked if she was willing to compromise with a Republican legislature. Sadly, that insulting question is relevant, given so many progressives can seem to be unwilling to take a win. 

As someone who served in the legislature for 11 years and was lauded by both parties for my ability to navigate, I will certainly get the best law we can. But we begin making decisions based on what it should be. And then yes, of course, you work towards what you can get. But we have to start with a governor who actually believes that a woman should have the right to control her body and to control her economic freedom.

Turning from domestic politics to foreign policy, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-DE), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was up next. He was asked if Speaker Pelosi's stop in Taiwan "was worth it, given the fallout?" Van Hollen thinks so; he said "we need to be very clear that China doesn't get to dictate" which US officials go to Taiwan, and when. He added

...what President Xi decided to do was manufacture a crisis over Pelosi's visit. He's got, as you know, this fall, the Communist Party Congress is coming up. He's seeking an unprecedented third term as leader of China. And this is saber-rattling and, you know, chest-bumping by President Xi.

And what does he want to see the US do, "...to reassure the Vietnams, the Japans, the Philippines, who are nervous about what China's doing here, they're nervous about if we're going to have Taiwan's back, do we have to send a message again that we're going to have their back?"

The senator thinks the administration "has been clear" that we'll recognize the One China Policy, but that we've also made it clear we'll "oppose any effort to reunify Taiwan by force or violence," and we've told our allies that as well. He thinks China's "putting missiles into Japan's economic zone, exclusive economic zone, is going to backfire." Japan will probably increase defense spending, and seek "even closer military engagement and cooperation" with the US. 

He also said he doesn't think China making "a run at Taiwan in the next five years" is inevitable. He said we have to "help Taiwan make that as difficult as possible."

We need to continue... to make Taiwan into the porcupine so that when, you know, China looks at Taiwan, it realizes that this is going to be a hell of a fight and not a winnable fight.

He suggested that if China looks at Putin's efforts in Ukraine, they'll see "how a determined people can thwart someone" like Vladimir Putin.

What's-his-name noted that we've long tried to not talk about the US/China relationship in "adversarial terms" and asked, "how do we look at" Xi's response to Pelosi's visit and "not say we're in a cold war with China?"

Van Hollen said he doesn't think we're in a cold war with them; he said "a lot of that depended on what China does next." Xi's escalated actions against Taiwan pre-date Pelosi's visit, and he's "been more aggressive throughout the region." 

At the same time, we have been trying to cooperate with them on these other measures, as you say. I believe they'll be back at the table on those measures. It is important that we have that military-to-military dialogue. But it is important that we also confront and check China, where it's tried to export its model of authoritarianism around the world in Africa, and the Middle East and other places.

Finally, there was a discussion with the panel on Biden's "good news" of late. What's-his-name wondered who gets the credit - Biden? Schumer? Pelosi? 

Anna Palmer (Punchbowl News) says not Biden; he wasn't involved in everything that's been accomplished. Instead, she says Schumer

... kind of been an untested leader and he has gotten a lot of things done here. Everybody would have thought that this was going to be a much smaller package when it came to this reconciliation bill. They come together with this kind of sneak attack, outwits McConnell. And they get this much larger package through, giving Democrats something to run on.

Susan Page (USA Today), said traditionally approval ratings matter a lot, especially when they're bad. 

But you have this unprecedented situation where you've got two presidents who are big factors in this midterm...maybe Donald Trump is more of a negative for Republicans, more of a positive for Democrats, than Joe Biden is for either one.

Cornell Belcher (a Dem pollster) thought that was smart thinking, but Pat McCrory (former NC gov) says Jon Stewart deserves the credit. The lesson for both sides?

...don't pick a fight with a comedian like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or David Chappelle. They will win. They are quicker than us politicians. And I think right now the only guy on the offensive was the governor of Florida, DeSantis. And yet Trump will not let him share any spotlight.

Nope - he surely won't. 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 3/24/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I've got an eclectic set of wonderment today. Let's dive in, shall we?

According to this article, the Biden administration is putting accountability back into the government, because "(a)gencies were clear, and unanimous, in their desire to have the earlier framework reinstated," according to an OMB official. The guidelines, which were removed on Christmas Eve, relieved agencies from having to set performance goals and track progress against them. One reason for the removal was that folks weren't reading the reports on Performance.gov. Another reason? The Trump administration was focused on getting rid of work that "doesn't lead to impactful change or measurable efficiencies." I'm wondering, how you can determine if measurable efficiencies have been made if you're not measuring them?

Moving from DC to Tennessee, if everything goes as State Rep. Jerry Sexton planned, the Bible will be the official book of the Volunteer State. Sexton gave a couple reasons why the Bible should be the official book, including to "reflect family heritage and underscore the multi-million-dollar industry that is Bible printing in Tennessee." Now, obviously the Bible is not critical to many Americans, including "Buddhist, or Muhammad or any of those religions," as Sexton called them, trying to be respectful to everyone's concerns and "just put the Bible where I feel that it belongs." 

His feelings aside, I wonder about the choice. While Bible publishing may be a multi-million- dollar industry," the healthcare industry in Tennessee is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Maybe the state's official book should be the manual on how to read an insurance claim form?

A researcher asked groups of voters to imagine that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were each one person, and to identify the characteristics each of those people would have, or, as he put it, to “pretend that the attributes you associate with the Republican party were encapsulated in one person.”

• Five independents and one Democrat defined the Republican Party 'person' using these terms: Stubborn, Conservative, Unreliable, Selfish, Greedy, Ultra-capitalist, Closed-minded, Ultra-religious, Anti-immigrant, and Hypocritical.
• Three Republicans, two independents, and one libertarian used these terms: Fiercely loyal, Fiscally conservative, Responsible, Egotistical, More extreme, Rudderless, Narcissistic, Controlling, Elitist, Fearful, Passionate, Inconsistent, and Divided.

The same groups were asked to define the Democratic Party 'person.'

• The first group used these terms: Community-minded, Humanitarian, Open-minded, Fun, Caring, Globally aware, Accepting of other humans, Diverse in interests, Racially/gender diverse, Futuristic.
• And the second group? Stereotyping, Critical of ideas/of things they don’t like, Underdogs/Uncomfortable in the majority, Empathetic, Patronizing, Hypocritical, Messiah-complex, Utopian-driven, Spend a lot/not fiscally conservative,

I don't see any revelations there, but I do wonder about the Republican-Independent-Libertarian group being so harsh on their own party, and what that will mean going into the next election cycle.

Speaking of the next election cycle, C-SPAN is kicking off the "Road to the White House 2024" this Friday, with former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking up the Westside Conservative Club in Iowa. Whether Pompeo gets to run or not depends on whether The Former Guy decides to run again. With that decision seeming to be on hold until after next year's midterms, everyone else interested in running is forced to get out in front of voters - or at this point, are they just donors?  I also wonder who else will jump into the early fray.

And speaking of elections, how horrible must it be in Israel, I wonder? Yesterday's election apparently has resulted in another no-winner decision, for the fourth time in two years, if the exit polls are right. I can't even imagine having to go through that - it's hard enough having to put up with the mid-terms here. And if those polls are right, there'll be a fifth election later this year. 

Finally, news is breaking that New York's Senate, Assembly, and the Sonofa Gov have agreed to legalize adult recreational marijuana. I haven't seen the bill yet, but it was reported that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said getting this done is "essential" to the state's social and economic well-being - and by that, he means the 9% state sales tax is essential. Some local governments can tack on an additional 4% sales tax. There's more - a whole nother hunk of burning bureaucracy to manage the weed, and fights over what to do with the tax money, naturally. I'm not wondering about all of that - that's the New York way, adding taxes and layers of bureaucracy, and fighting about all of it. 

Well, what am I wondering about? How do I go about getting "Don't Bogart That Joint" installed as our new state song? I respect the folks who picked "I Love New York," our current state song, but I just want to put this song where I feel it belongs. 

What are you wondering about?

Highlights from the RNC: Day Two

Yep - I'm back, with a few brief  but carefully curated highlights (and commentary) from Day Two of the Republican Convention, starting with Kentucky's junior senator, Rand Paul.

Donald Trump and I met many years ago, before he was running for anything. When I first met him, I recall being struck by how down to earth he was. He seemed like just a normal guy. Okay, a normal guy with his own plane and helicopter, but who’s counting?  A few years later, we were opponents, both running for President. We all know how that turned out. ("The truth telling is bluster, the truth-telling is non-sequitur, self-aggrandizement, but is there really anything substantive coming out of saying that people are fat, people are stupid?"  "The question for conservatives is whether Donald Trump is a real conservative or not. I think he's a fake conservative." "While some people are excited by fat jokes and stupid jokes, there are a lot of people in the general election— independents as well as women voters — are not that entertained by this.What we'll end up with is a reality-TV star as a nominee if we're not careful." "If no one stands up to a bully, a bully will just keep doing what they're doing."  I do believe, Senator Paul, with your help, that's exactly what happened.)

Pam Bondi, Registered Foreign Lobbyist

As a career prosecutor and former Attorney General of Florida, I fought corruption, and I know what it looks like, whether it’s done by people wearing pinstripe suits or orange jumpsuits.  (But not orange hair? Remember when Bondi refused to investigate Trump University for fraud, when other state AGs were doing exactly that, after she received that $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump? Oh, wait - the contribution didn't come from Trump, it came from his charitable foundation - you know, making it illegal, leading to a fine? Yeah, that foundation, which he basically shut down after agreeing not to take any more contributions. And let's not forget the value of having a registered foreign lobbyist - a swamp-dwelling career, if there ever was one - speaking on behalf of the American president.)

Tiffany Trump.

As a recent graduate, I can relate to so many of you who might be looking for a job.(is she looking for a job, or is being a Trump enough of a career?)  People must recognize that our thoughts, our opinions, and even the choice of who we are voting for may, and are being manipulated and visibly coerced by the media and tech giants. If you tune into the media, you get one biased opinion or another, and what you share, if it does not fit into the narrative that they seek to promote, then it is either ignored or deemed a lie, regardless of the truth. This manipulation of what information we receive impedes our freedoms, rather than allowing Americans the right to form our own beliefs, this misinformation system keeps people mentally enslaved to the ideas they deem correct. (And yet, somehow, the freedom-impeded, manipulated-information recipient knew about #blackouttuesday and#justiceforgeorgefloyd, hashtags that were not likely to be used by any other Trump family members.) Oh - a few more things: my father my father my father my dad my father my father. 

Eric Trump. 

My father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father my father Dad I love you.

Mike Pompeo.

I’m speaking to you from beautiful Jerusalem, looking out over the old city. I have a big job. (“Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees may not even attend a political party convention or convention-related event.” “In my case, as a Senate confirmed Department official, I will be sitting on the sidelines of the political process this year, and will not be attending any political events, to include the national conventions.” “Presidential and political appointees ... are subject to significant restrictions on their political activity; they may not engage in any partisan political activity in concert with a partisan campaign, political party, or partisan political group, even on personal time and outside of the federal workplace.“ The secretary of State’s appearance at the Republican convention also comes as he faces an ongoing inspector general’s investigation into whether he and his wife, Susan, have improperly used State Department resources for personal purposes. Pompeo’s successful move to engineer the firing of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick amid this still-ongoing probe has led to more scrutiny about his role as secretary from Democratic lawmakers.)

Melania Trump. 

Like all of you, I have reflected on the racial unrest in our country. It is a harsh reality that we are not proud of parts of our history. I encourage people to focus on our future while still learning from our past. We must remember that today, we are all one community comprised of many races, religions and ethnicities. Our diverse and storied history is what makes our country strong, and yet we still have so much to learn from one another. (Now, if she can convince her husband about our diversity being a strength...)

Night three highlights coming your way tomorrow.

Wondering on Wednesday (v219)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's get right to the wondering, shall we?

Am I the only one wondering what's up with Mike Pompeo?  On the one hand, he's all over folks in Hong Kong for postponing the Legislative Council elections, saying in a statement that "there's no valid reason" for the one-year delay, and that Beijing "has no intention of upholding the commitments it made" both to the people of Hong Kong and the UK under the treaty between the countries.

For decades, the Hong Kong people have repeatedly demonstrated their desire and ability to hold free and fair elections. We urge Hong Kong authorities to reconsider their decision. The elections should be held as close to the September 6 date as possible and in a manner that reflects the will and aspirations of the Hong Kong people. If they aren’t, then regrettably Hong Kong will continue its march toward becoming just another Communist-run city in China.

Meanwhile, when asked about his boss's comments about potentially delaying the US elections, here's what he had to say in response to questions from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) during his visit to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a few days back. As you read this, remember he's a Harvard Law grad, in addition to being a Trump enabler.

I'm not going to enter a legal judgement on the fly this morning. In the end, the DOJ, others, will make that legal determination... 

I can't imagine any other Secretary of State not just simply saying "we will have our elections on time, as we do every year, as required under our Constitution." And equally, I wonder why it is that he couldn't bring himself to say that.

Speaking of Trump enablers, there's a great Dana Milbank piece in the WaPo about Mark Meadows, Trump's 4th Chief of Staff.  Among the highlights? Well, there's this:

During his seven years in Congress, he developed an unsurpassed reputation for blowing things up and making sure bills didn’t pass. But he has virtually no experience at getting things done.

And there was the part about Meadows perhaps being "bored" with the negotiations and saying "he’d be happy to have Trump take executive actions instead," which is a fabulous idea, don't you think? I won't spend any time wondering if anyone thinks I'm being serious, but I do wonder why I have such a hard time remembering who it was who said he only hires the best people?  

Republican operatives in several states are working to get Kanye West on the ballot... anyone else wondering why they're wasting their time? And do they really think that any significant number of people are going to throw their vote away and color in the little circle by his name?  And aren't the Rs the people trying to convince us they're concerned about the dreadful state of mental health care in the US? 

I'll leave you with a fabulous good news story - this one's a keeper. A little girl, named Meena, abandoned in a basket as a baby, later adopted, now a teenager, learns about all the senior dogs that don't get adopted - and decides to do something about it.  I only wonder here what else she's going to accomplish in life? 

That's enough for this week. What are you wondering about?

The Irony Board: Free Speech, McConnell Style

In this week's Wondering on Wednesday, we looked at a couple of news organizations - the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times - which have taken some heat recently for how they manage their Op-Ed pages, and how speech is being constrained. There were also some comments from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on our rights.

Shortly after completing that post, I stumbled on this opinion by Senator Mitch McConnell in the NY Post. Let's take a look at the piece, titled 'The lawless left's attack on America's bedrock beliefs.'

Since the spring, our nation has engaged in important conversations about racial justice in policing. Most people understand that continuing our nation’s tremendous progress toward justice does not mean battling against US principles or history. Progress means fulfilling our values, not attacking them.

And yet a group of radicals has latched onto this moment to say we should repudiate our country itself. Mobs have dragged statues of Washington, Jefferson and Grant through the dirt. And in parallel, inside many elite institutions, self-styled intellectuals say we should similarly discard the basic principles they fought for.

I followed the link above, which took me to another NY Post article; would you be surprised that it contains no mention of radicals, leftists, country, America, US, repudiate, values, founders, or principles? I was.

McConnell goes on to say

One of the key pillars of our nation is the rule of law. In a civilized society, the same laws need to apply to everyone. The times our nation has fallen short on this score, particularly for all the years when black Americans were completely denied the equal protections of law, it has been to our great shame.

This has been central to the cause of civil rights. There’s a reason the Fourteenth Amendment insists on “the equal protection of the laws.” And yet in recent months, local leaders have violated this basic tenet. As riots rocked major cities, we saw politicians decline to act. They seemed to fear far-left critique more than looting and chaos. And we saw the uneven application of other rules, like when mayors cheered on mass demonstrations but continued to prohibit religious gatherings.

Again, another link to another NY Post article, with no evidence that any politicians were 'fear(ing) far-left critique' in any way, shape or form. And, of course, mass demonstrations  - even armed ones - were fine when the goal was the 'right' one. You know, good speech.

That is the rule of law in jeopardy. Of course, that last example is also a First Amendment issue. And the freedom of expression itself is another principle that’s come under threat.

As I said a few weeks back, this goes deeper than just constitutional law. America has always prized the spirit of the First Amendment. We citizens must want to protect an open, civil discourse; a true marketplace of ideas. But lately, the political left has embraced something totally different.

Today’s far left is not interested in winning debates with better arguments. It prefers to shut down debate altogether. It doesn’t try to win the contest, it just harangues the referees to stop the game.

Oh, the irony.  Folks, this is Mitch McConnell talking!

The same Mitch McConnell who refused to allow anyone the opportunity to "win a debate with better arguments." The same Mitch McConnell who "prefers to shut down debate altogether." The same Mitch McConnell who "doesn't try to win the contest." He did that, of course, when he refused to allow consideration of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination.

He denied every person who voted for Barack Obama the opportunity to have their voices heard, in favor of allowing other people in the future an opportunity to have their voices heard. He denied people their representation.

Not only that, but McConnell also refused everyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama the right to have their voices heard, to have their elected officials go on record, to have them do their jobs.

And yes, this is the same Mitch McConnell, who proclaimed,

One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'

Yep - one of the proudest moments of the Senate Majority Leader was denying people their rights. But now, he's concerned about our rights?

Here's more.

If leftists don’t like an op-ed, they want it unpublished. If they don’t like a tweet, they want to track down the author and get him fired. If they don’t like a tenured professor, they throw around Orwellian accusations that his or her ideas make them feel unsafe.

This hostile culture is getting results. According to one brand-new survey, it is only far-left Americans who do not feel compelled to self-censor their views because of a hostile climate. Everyone but the far left feels the threat. And 50 percent of self-identified strong liberals say that simply contributing to the GOP presidential candidate ought to be a fireable offense for a business leader.

One "brand-new survey" without referencing the organization who led or commissioned the survey, no definitions (what is a "far-left American" and what is the "far-right American" equivalent?), nothing on how or when the survey was conducted - for all we know, the survey is completely fake.

McConnell continued, writing

We recently saw The New York Times apologize for publishing a straightforward policy argument from a US senator. Since, an editorial staffer resigned from the paper because even center-left opinions were not liberal enough and led to her constant harassment. You see, the safe spaces only ever go in one direction.

On elite campuses, such as Princeton, we see faculty turning against their tenured colleagues, and even administrators weighing in, to chastise people with unpopular views.

Citation? References? Facts? Who knows? I guess I should give him credit for actually naming one of the Ivies.  Pompeo only generically referred to "our institutes of higher education" in his comments. 

We see online platforms such as Facebook threatening to ban political advertising altogether, chilling our democracy.

Even at a time when there is significant appetite in Congress to take a second look at the legal protections afforded to these supposedly neutral platforms, they still contemplate giving an angry minority of agitators a veto over Americans’ speech.

Proof that people who hate political ads on Facebook are "an angry minority" and not a disgusted majority? Survey data? Bueller? Anyone?

McConnell, again.

The author Salman Rushdie, who was himself threatened with death for controversial speech, once said this: “Two things form the bedrock of any open society: freedom of expression and the rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a free country.”

Rushdie recently signed an open letter with other intellectuals, many liberals, sounding the alarm on this cultural poison.

“Editors are fired,” they wrote, “books are withdrawn...journalists are barred from writing on certain topics...professors are investigated... steadily narrow[ing] the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.”

You can guess what happened next. The grievance-industrial complex came after the letter ­itself. The authors were accused of advancing bigotry. And the cycle of nonsense started all over again.

The United States of America needs free speech. We need free expression. And all of us, from all perspectives, need the courage to speak up and defend it.

Mitch McConnell

I'll remind you of another thing about Mitch McConnell, so aggrieved by the suppression of free speech that he sees in the country right now.  In February, he admitted that there were 395 House bills sitting in the Senate that would not get passed, or even considered. I'm not sure how many there are now. Isn't that yet another stifling of speech being perpetrated upon our duly elected Representatives?  Or doesn't that count?

And I'll throw in another one - McConnell has repeatedly said that the Senate won't take up legislation unless he knows the president will sign it. So much for the co-equal branches of government, right? So much for "open, civil discourse."

What, or who, is he afraid of? His re-election chances? His wife's boss? The American people? Free speech itself?

Wondering on Wednesday (v217)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Seems the Wall Street Journal is the latest paper to face backlash from employees for printing objectionable opinion column; this comes on the heels of the New York Times facing a similar experience for publishing an opinion essay written by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton; the piece has been updated with comments from the paper about the editing process and the potential for the piece having been rejected.

Over at the WJS, according to this article from The Hill, employees at the paper wrote the publisher  that Opinion's "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers' trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources." One of the Op-Eds that was cited as an example? That would be one written by the vice president- go figure.

So, what's the wondering? Simply this: What would happen if employees at Fox and Friends, or Hannity's show, or Rachel Maddow's, or even at the White House, decided to do the same thing, and call out some of the fact-challenged silliness that gets pushed to us on a daily basis? Would those employees still be employed, and respected? I wonder.

Speaking of opinions, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had one published in the Washington Post last week.  Here's the third paragraph.

Never before have America's founding principles been under such relentless assault. For decades, our institutions of higher education have sought to debunk or disown them. Last summer, the NY Times launched the 1619 Project, which contends that the essence of America is entwined with slavery and racism. In recent weeks, justified outrage at the actions of a rogue Minneapolis policeman has given way to outrageous efforts to erase American history by tearing down statues of our nation’s founders.

I wonder if the Washington Post doesn't require facts in support of opinions from important people? For example, where are the facts supporting that the murderer of George Floyd was a 'rogue' policeman? Where are the facts about institutions of higher learning? And are we really to accept at face value that there has never been this kind of assault on our founding principles?

And I also wonder about this statement made by Pompeo in his speech the other day.

The founders changed the course of history when they established a nation built on the premise that government exists not to diminish or cancel the individual’s rights at the whims of those in power, but to secure them.

Coming from a member of the administration that is fully supporting the cancellation of rights of certain Americans, that statement is, well, problematic, I think. As are these which came later.

And so we are forced to grapple with the tough choices about which rights to promote and how to think about this. 

Americans have not only unalienable rights, but also positive rights, rights granted by governments, courts, multilateral bodies. Many are worth defending in light of our founding; others aren’t. 

Who gets to determine which rights are not worthy of defending? Who decides that certain people are not allowed to participate in our founding principles, of our being created equal, of our having the same unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  I have to wonder about that...

Opinions, and disagreements about them, are part and parcel of who we are as Americans.  The rights that Pompeo seems so concerned about both allow and encourage us to disagree, to debate, to challenge, and to protest. We are allowed to be angry, as Americans, and to fight to make our country better.

Rather than considering that a "relentless assault" on our founding principles, I wonder why we can't just call it patriotism?

America: Love it, and fight for it. To do anything less is to fail our founders, and to abdicate our rights.  I don't wonder about that in the least.

TGIF 7/10/20

Ready for the week's good list/bad list fun and games? Let's dive in. 

First up? Snitty Snitty Bill Barr and his extortion/quid pro quo Human Resources debacle, surrounding the removal of US Attorney Geoffrey Berman from the Southern District of New York office. Berman testified before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, and his opening statement was a fun read, for sure. 

There was Barr's meeting invite, no purpose given; food was provided, but no one ate - a bad sign, for sure. Berman was pressed to take a different role within DOJ as a 'resume builder' - but he wouldn't have to do anything, "just sit there" until after the election to see what would come next. (That would look good on anyone's resume, don't you think?)  If Berman wouldn't take a different position, or resign, Barr told him he'd be fired - "and getting fired from my job would not be good for my resume or future job prospects," even though there were no issues with his performance.  

And then, of course, Berman found out via press release that he was "stepping down" and being replaced by someone from the New Jersey US Attorney's office, which "would have been unprecedented, unnecessary and unexplained." Berman then issued his own statement, basically stating rumors of his career demise were unfounded. And then, of course, there was the public release of a letter telling him he had been fired by Trump. I don't know about you, but the DOJ sounds like a place unlikely to make any 'best workplace' list - at least not for the next few months, unless you're sitting around doing nothing.

Staying in the 'Names Beginning with B' category, let's look at this story from Town Hall, the self-described "#1 conservative website." Here's the headline: Joe Biden Says Police Have 'Become the Enemy,' 'Absolutely' Should Defund Them - holy basement bunker, Batman - makes you wonder what's going on, doesn't it?

Have the mad lefties yanked him completely over to the dark side of progressive radical Marxist anarchy, just these few short months before the election, and just a few short weeks after he said this in a USA Today op-ed?

While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police. The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms.

And then, he itemized several of those reforms. So, again, have the rioting, violent anarchists stolen Papa Joe? Hell no, they haven't - Papa Joe is still Papa Joe. Here's what he actually said:

Surplus military equipment for law enforcement, they don't need that. The last thing you need is an up-armored Humvee coming into a neighborhood - it's like the military invading; they don't know anybody, they become the enemy. They're supposed to be protecting these people.

And the 'defunding' part of the headline?

The specific question he was asked was this: "But do you agree we can redirect some of the funding?" And his answer was "Yes. Absolutely..." and he went on to describe some of his ideas on prison reform, having already given a number of ideas on how to change policing.

Clearly the #1 conservative website took a few words out of context and assumed that no one would actually watch the interview containing the alleged offensive comments. But wait -- they'd never do that, right? I thought just the #fakenews #MSM did that whole sound-bite BS, silly me.

And speaking of silly, remember that kerfuffle between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and NPR's Mary Louise Kelly? He called her a liar in a statement, he berated her in person, made her point out Ukraine on an unlabeled map, dropped a boatload of f-bombs, and more. Which made his comments about the Chinese Communist Party the other day pretty ironic - take a look. I added some emphasis for you.

What we found in China is the Chinese Communist Party was simply incapable...they're incapable of being transparent, of accepting criticism, of allowing reporters to ask them questions that they find uncomfortable that elicit the truth and the facts... They're afraid that the truth will be something that will not shine a happy light on what took place, and so instead they chose to hide and obfuscate and deny basic truth... this is the - this is a fundamental and fatal flaw for authoritarian regimes...

And speaking of fundamental flaws... sorry. And speaking of transparency, we've learned that the president has "aced" a cognitive test. We don't know when he took it, but we do know how he did - because he told his buddy Sean Hannity all about it

Hannity asked Trump whether, in his opinion, Biden had the 'alertness, trying to be charitable here, the strength and stamina...you're in the job, I'd argue the toughest job in the world..." After saying that Biden has been brainwashed by the radical left, and telling gloom and doom stories of a stock market crash, abolishing of the police, and the US ending up like Venezuela, he finally answered the question.

He hasn't taken any cognitive tests because he couldn't pass one.  I actually took one when I -- very recently, when I - when I was - the radical left were saying, 'is he all there? is he all there?' And I proved I was all there, because I got - I aced it. I aced the test. And he (Biden) should take the exact test, a very standard test. I took it at Walter Reed Medical Center in front of doctors. And they were very surprised. They said, 'that's an unbelievable thing. Rarely does anybody do what you just did." But he should take that same test. 

For more on the nature of the test, here's Sarah Cooper to tell you about it.

TGIF, everyone.  Have a safe weekend.

Wondering on Wednesday (v215)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start with today's wondering, I wonder? 

How about with the retirement of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman? He was one of the people who responded to a Congressional subpoena and testified before representatives in the House impeachment hearings, compared to the lesser men who responded, well, lesser-ly. 

Here's an excerpt from a statement released by his attorney.

You'll recall that Senator Tammy Duckworth, a veteran, was holding up promotions to top positions, pending a response from Defense Secretary Mark Esper on whether it was going to go ahead or suffer at the hand of the president's interference.  We've learned that Vindman's promotion had been approved by the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, and by Esper, and it was set to go to the president by the end of the week. 

So, here's the wondering: Who has confidence that Trump wouldn't try again to interfere, I wonder? Not me.  And who thinks that Esper or McCarthy would leave their positions, as Vindman did, in the face of the president's interference, if it came, I wonder?  Again, not me.  

What else am I wondering about today?  How long before a business owner declares a deeply held moral belief for not requiring their employees and customers to wear a mask? Or, conversely, one declaring a deeply held moral belief that masks must be worn, no matter what, by everyone on their property?  And what happens when an anti-masker demanding their constitutional rights to spend money runs into a business with a constitutional right to have convictions?  What's that court case going to look like, I wonder? And let's have one of the aggrieved parties be LGBTQ - that'll really put a mess in the gears, don't you think? 

Attorney General Snitty Snitty Bill Barr has said he doesn't think that law enforcement is systemically racist, but he does "think it is a widespread phenomenon that African American males, in particular, are treated with extra suspicion and maybe not given the benefit of the doubt.  I have to wonder what, in practice, the difference is between the two?  Any takers? 

What else?  Mary Trump's book is coming out early - goody for us, or something like that. The race is on to get snippets of it out in the public domain, so we've "learned" that Trump had someone else take the SATs for him, unless of course he didn't; we learned that lying was the rule of thumb, and apologies and showing emotion were not.  That, I don't think we'd argue with. And why did Mary write the book?

Donald, following the lead of my grandfather and with the complicity, silence and inaction of his siblings, destroyed my father. I can’t let him destroy my country.

So. What's the wondering here?  Simply this: if anyone reads the book, I wonder if they'll believe what they've read? I'm guessing that's another no, but I could be wrong. My guess is this book will be about as exciting as learning about Trump's $130K payouts to the porn stars - 'wow' followed by 'eww' followed by 'ick, or something.  The other wondering on this? of all the folks who have written about Trump, which one will win the book sales race? 

And finally, it seems that the administration may be contemplating banning TikTok from America, even if we don't know for sure why. On the one hand, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it's to protect American data and national security.  The president said it's being considered because of the coronavirus. The real reason might be something entirely different: Kellyanne Conway's daughter is apparently a #neverTrumper and a pro #BLM TikTok activist (unless she's just being a normal teenager).  So, which is it, I wonder - national security, coronavirus, or Claudia Conway?

What are you wondering about tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday (v205)

Ready... Set... Wonder! 

So, what are we wondering about this Wednesday? Well, there's this very confusing exchange between the untruthful SecState Mike Pompeo and ABC's Martha Raddatz, who was trying to get to the bottom of conflicting statements from the Trump administration about the origins of the coronavirus.  I've added emphasis below.

First, Raddatz mentioned the statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence saying the virus did originate in China, but concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified, and that they will continue to investigate if the outbreak started with animals at the wet market, or if it was a lab accident. (Emphasis added,)

And she showed a clip of the president saying he had seen information giveing him "a high degree of confidence that the Wuhan Institute of virology was the origin of the virus" but he was "not allowed to tell" the reporters what he had seen that gave him the confidence. 

And she asked Pompeo if he had seen anything that gives him high confidence that it started in the Wuhan lab.

Martha, there's enormous evidence that that's where this began. We've said from the beginning that this was a virus that originated in Wuhan, China. We took a lot of grief for that from the outset. But I think the whole world can see now. Remember, China has a history of infecting the world, and they have a history of running substandard laboratories. These are not the first times that we've had a world exposed to viruses as a result of failures in a Chinese lab. And so, while the intelligence community continues to do its work, they should continue to do that, and verify so that we are certain, I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan.

And she asked if he believed it was man-made or genetically modified. Pompeo said "Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point."

She pushed back on that, and it's a sight to behold, for sure.

MR: Your - your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus was not man-made or genetically modified.

MP: That's right. I agree with that. Yeah. I've seen their analysis. I've seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt that that is accurate...

MR:OK, so just to be clear, you do not think it was man-made or genetically modified?

MP: I've seen what the intelligence community has said. I have no reason to believe that they've got it wrong.

Now, what the heck does he agree with, you wonder?

I believe he finds the sound of his own voice agreeable, no matter how ridiculous those words are. I mean, he agrees that it's not man-made and he has high confidence that it started in the lab, but he agrees that they don't know and should continue trying to find out, but that experts think it was man-made, except the statement he agrees with says it wasn't and he has no reason. Sorry, he has no reason to believe that what he agrees with is either incorrect or not right. Or that it's wrong.

Good lord, I miss the days when he just blew a condescending gasket at reporters, don't you? And speaking of condescending and untruthful, there's the VP, who didn't wear a mask when he visited the Mayo Clinic.

First there was the look them in the eye explanation, and then there was Mother Pence saying that he didn't know he was supposed to wear one, and then there was the I've been tested and I know I'm not sick and finally, we have the I should have worn a mask response.

I didn't think it was necessary, but I should have worn a mask at the Mayo Clinic and I wore it when I visited the ventilator plant in Indiana. 

And, apparently referring to others, not himself, Pence said, 

It really is a statement about the American people, the way people have been willing to step forward, practice social distancing, wear masks in settings where they can’t do that...As we continue to practice those principles, all of us together, I know we’ll get through this.

Yes, but I wonder, again, whether he will being regularly following his own guidelines? I mean, now that we have confirmation that the White House Coronavirus Task is going to be continuing, just when we thought it wasn't going to be, I assume we'll still hear from him and those guidelines. And, I wonder, will we see more Jared now?

And finally, a fantastic good news story - I'll let the folks at Time tell you all about it; they're one of many that are covering this one.

In 1847, the Native American Choctaw nation sent $170 ($5000 today) of relief aid to the Irish people impacted by the great potato famine. Now, the Irish are reciprocating the act of goodwill by donating funds to the Navajo nation, which has been severely impacted by COVID-19, with at least 2373 cases and 73 death as of May 3...

 A GoFundMe campaign raising funds for bulk food and medical supplies has already reached $1,769,300, thanks in large part to Irish donors.

All I really wonder here is, how cool is that?

The Update Desk: Chinese Things

The other day I did a Quick Take on Chinese Things, noting the reason why it's unnecessary and inflammatory to continue referring to COVID-19 as the Chinese virus or the China virus, as the president and many in the GOP have been doing. After all,

I know the virus originated in China - everyone in the world knows it, protestations on China's social media or within the Chinese government notwithstanding...

And I wondered why we never referred to anything else by the Chinese point of origin.

So, why treat the virus so differently from every other product or object that originate there that are never referred to as 'Chinese' things or 'China' things.  I mean, when was the last time you heard anyone refer to their iPhone as their Chinese Phone? 

Of course you haven't. We don't do that, because it doesn't fit the narrative. But, we learned yesterday, when the G-7 foreign ministers were unable to come to terms on language for a joint statement about the global pandemic, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo couldn't bring himself to not push the damn narrative.

That's right. According to the linked Politico article,

European officials said Pompeo had insisted in identifying the COVID-19 virus as the "Wuhan virus" even though the World Health Organization (WHO) and others have cautioned against giving it a geographic name because of its global nature.

Nor only has he not backed down from it, the article noted that Pompeo has actually been "stepping up" his use of the language. And It appears that Pompeo might not have gotten the message from his boss that it was no longer necessary to associate the virus with China.

On the other hand, maybe the message from the president as that he would no longer call it that, but for everyone else, the name-calling was still fair game.

After the meeting, Pompeo noted that everyone there was aware of what the Chinese had done in their messaging and, I would assume, in their downplaying of the virus in the beginning

Every one of the nations that was at that meeting (yesterday) was deeply aware of the disinformation campaign that the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in to try and deflect from what has really taken place here. 

And I'd suggest that every one of the nations that was at the meeting was "deeply aware" of other deflection going on, coming from a place other than China, would you agree?  In fact, according to the article,

Other foreign ministers were not nearly as emphatic in their own comments about the meeting, with at least one leaving open the suggestion that China is not the only country trying to use the outbreak to advance political points.

France's foreign minister, in fact, said that he had

underscored the need to combat any attempt to exploit the crisis for political purposes and expressed the view that the unity of all in order to effectively combat the pandemic must now take precedence over any other considerations.

Wouldn't that be something, if it happened?

TGIF 3/13/20

Boy, I'm glad it's Friday.

And boy, am I glad we don't have to go grocery shopping. And I saved $7.99 with a store coupon on toilet paper - when there was toilet paper available to buy.

I just saw an update that the best grocery chain in the world, Wegmans, of course - is going to be closing all NY stores at midnight so they can clean and restock. To me, that makes a lot of sense, because things have been getting pretty crazy lately. Good for them for trying to get things they can control under control.

And no matter how crazy it's been at Wegmans, it's been 'way more worser' at Shoprite. Check out #shoprite on Twitter and you'll see what I mean. And then there was my brother's experience in New Hampshire, where there's a BJs right across the street from Walmart. He went to BJs to get something he needed for work, and the lines were a mile long. So he went across the street to Walmart, to find only two shoppers waiting to check out.

So, the president finally broke down and declared a national emergency - two very big words - because of the coronavirus. This, after being hounded for not doing it sooner, as states were begging for relief so that, for example, they could get Medicaid waivers to get their poor tested, and enrolled so they'd have coverage for ane necessary services.  There were reports that Trump did not want to make the declaration because he considered it a sign of failure, but in the end cooler heads prevailed, or something.

He also continued to blame the Obama Administration, in some tweets this morning, and reminding us that whether we think so or not, this whole thing is all about him. And we shouldn't forget it.

He also let us know that, while Mike Pence is in charge of the coronavirus task force, and Jared Kushner is in charge of writing speeches and whatnot, Fed Chair Jerome Powell is in charge of, um, well, take a look.

The Fed Chair is responsible for not only the economy, but the way our body parts function?  Holy crap, as it were.

What else is going on?  Well, since the president's address the other night, we've got a host of Rs now referring to the Chinese coronavirus or the Wuhan virus.

Scientists are using the internationally accepted name COVID-19 to describe the disease caused by the novel coronavirus that was discovered late last year. But a number of prominent conservatives—including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas— are going with Wuhan virus, as if the deadly new pathogen were one more scourge to be blamed on the Chinese. As many of the responses to Gosar on Twitter pointed out, this kind of rhetoric invites the public to see a global epidemic in racial or (at best) geopolitical terms.

Glad to see the "full power of the federal government" it at work, and that Pompeo is contributing.

House Democrats may have a deal with the administration on additional funding to fight the virus, or maybe they don't have a deal.

Negotiations between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over the coronavirus relief package have devolved into a state of confusion, with key officials on both sides directly contradicting each other on whether a deal exists.

Mnuchin said on Fox Business’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that he has reached an agreement with Pelosi, while GOP lawmakers — and even the No. 2 House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer — say talks are still ongoing and a deal has not yet been reached.

But, the president is all on board and says he'll sign the bill if everyone will come together and do the right thing, so maybe there's a deal after all.

Trump said on Twitter that he looked forward to signing the legislation. 

"I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that will provide flexibility so that in no way will Small Businesses be hurt. I encourage all Republicans and Democrats to come together and VOTE YES!" Trump wrote in a series of tweets.

On the plus side? All of Italy was singing today, it seems, or playing instruments and generally coming alive after being under lockdown for the past several days. From Sicily to Siena to Naples to Turin (all videos you can see in the link above), it was like a country-wide flashmob, and an act of beautiful fist-shaking at the virus which has infected over 15,000 and killed over 1,000 of their countrymen.

Also on the plus side? Americans will have lots of time to spend together, now that there aren't any sporting activities to attend or watch on TV. Maybe we'll develop a new-found appreciation for public displays of music...

TGIF, everyone.

In Case You Missed It (v18)

Too busy this week trying not to break your New Year's resolutions to read blog posts?  Not a problem - here's your week in review, starting with this week's Sunday School classroom visits.

I sat in with Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg as they made the rounds. Among the topics discussed? The killing of Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani, and how the military should be used; impeachment; Warren's 'backtracking' on some key policies; and Buttigieg's alleged coziness with fatcat donors. Take a look, at Warren on Meet the Press and Mayor Pete on State of the Union.

On her support for the USMCA, what's called NAFTA 2.0, which she previously opposed, she said the "Democrats got in and negotiated a very different deal than we had a year ago" even as she said it wasn't a "great arrangement," noting that workers and farmers have been hurt by the Trump administration and need support.

 Again, staying with Warren's attacks, Tapper asked if Buttigieg would match her commitment to not appoint any high-dollar donors as ambassadors. Anyone he appoints "will be there on their merits, and will be neither qualified or disqualified based on the idea that they supported and believed in my campaign."

I gave Sunday School Extra Credit to anyone who put up with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who hit every classroom, and got almost the exact same questions in each. And, he made a distinct point to make reference to the previous administration on every show, too. Here's just one example.

Remember where we came in. In 2015, the Obama-Biden administration essentially handed power to the Iranian leadership and acted as a quasi-ally of theirs, by underwriting them -- underwriting the very malicious - that killed Americans.

He got better at making sure to mention Joe Biden, not just Barack Obama. Helluva guy, Pompeo is - in case the Ukraine nonsense doesn't stick, let's make sure the faithful think that Biden is comfy with terrorists... Gotta cover all the bases for the boss, right?  

In a Quick Takes entry, I looked at the influence of billionaire money in the Dem race, and learned that, on the one hand, the Bloomberg (and Steyer) bucks are having a significant impact on advertising rates, as reported by the NY Post.  

That's right - Bloomberg's spending has resulted in a 22% increase in a "typical TV market," the article says, pointing to an analysis by Advertising Analytics. As a for instance, 

Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added. This is partially attributable to Bloomberg’s $1 [million] buy increasing the political spending in the market tenfold. This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of any market. 

The flip side of the coin? How much influence in the primaries themselves is the money having? I look at that, too. 

The coveted Democratic Presidential candidate Email of the Week had a first-time winner - and one of the best opening lines of any email I've gotten in recent memory.  Can you guess who sent it?

Quite frankly, our criminalization of cannabis is stupid and racist. 

When it came to TGIF, among the list-makers was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has finally decided to move the impeachment along. Here are a few of the contributors to my assessment of her bad week.

• Some of her own flock were suggesting publicly it was time to get this moving;
• having no say, really, in what happens in the Senate, she was merely sitting on the sidelines as Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer fought about what the trial would look like; 
• Several senators threatened to change the Senate rules to declare this all a nothingburger if the Articles weren't sent over timely; and
• McConnell voted his support for just such a proposal.

There were some folks who had a good week, too.

And finally, I pulled out the Irony Board today, in which I looked a progressive star not having a whole lot of interest in paying her union dues... that just seems odd to me.

And speaking of a 'blanket rule', I always thought that everyone in the union was supposed to pay the dues - even people who disagreed with what the union was doing, right? That doesn't get you a pass - not according to politicians, anyway. Some courts have ruled in favor of the 'don't want to pay' crowd, but you won't find a lot of Democrat pols taking that position.

 Not only that, but

I wonder what would happen if all the folks who are in unions today, or who get all the union jobs proposed under the Green New Deal all the sudden decided that paying dues was for the birds? I'm pretty sure a certain congresswoman would have something to say about that...

So, there you have it -- the veritable pastiche for the week, in a nutshell.  Drop your email in the 'Instant Gratification' box at the top of the right sidebar to be sure you don't miss a post. 

See you next week!