TGIF 4/14/23

What a crazy bunch of stuff I read this week! 

Honestly, just when I think I've seen it all, or read it all, or heard it all, something else comes along and I'm left, again, shaking my head.  Here are just a few examples

A textbook publisher in Florida is scrubbing references to race from lessons. Rosa Parks? She was merely asked to move to another seat, with no reason given why. Jim Crow laws? It was illegal for "men of certain groups" to be unemployed, and "some men couldn't serve on juries," again with no reason given.  Is this really how we want to be educating kids?

Missouri state representative Mike Moon told quite a horrific tale in justifying why he voted against a bill that would raise the legal age for kids to marry other kids from 16 to 17. His 'no' vote was in part because the bill didn't include "allowances for... extreme circumstances" like a couple he met a while back: a couple of pre-teens who "took actions that resulted in the girl becoming pregnant. The parents decided to allow the children to marry. They weren't forced."

How is he holding up these parents as positive examples when they leave the decision of marriage up to their 12- and 13-year-old children? How many other bills has Moon (or anyone else in Missouri) fought to have "allowances for extreme circumstances" included in other laws, such as rights for trans children or abortion?

Clarence Thomas. Billionaire friends. Money changing hands. Ethics. Bullshit. Need I say more? 

NOW NYC is objecting to Judge Rowan Wilson, Gov. Kathy Hochul's latest pick to be Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.  The issue? Wilson wrote the opinion that tossed a rape conviction because the prosecutors were morons who inexplicably wasted not just months, but years, in getting their case nailed down. Among the issues? They couldn't figure out how to get a warrant for a DNA sample... which pretty much everyone who's watched even one episode of a crime drama on TV in the last 30 years knows how to do. 

I don't understand why a women's organization wouldn't be up in arms about prosecutorial malfeasance that denied a woman her day in court for years -and I can't for the life of me understand why NOW or any other group wants a Chief Justice who ignores the law, as long as it fits their agenda.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would pardon a convicted murderer - the day after the guy was convicted. Why? Because Tucker Carlson and Kyle Rittenhouse told him to, I guess.  A jury unanimously convicted Daniel Perry of murder in the death of Garrett Foster, who was participating in a Black Lives Matter rally in Austin. Perry ran a red light (on purpose) and drove into the protest (on purpose) and then, in self-defense (he said), shot Foster five times before driving away. 

All of this was after Perry had posted on social media things like how he might "kill a few people" on his way to work as an Uber driver. 

Comically, Abbott noted that the Texas stand-your-ground law" cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney." Because, you silly goose, jury nullification is the purview of governors, conservative commentators, and teenagers who shoot people at protests.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 8/18/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

We'll begin tonight's wondering in Missouri, the Show Me state, so named, it is said, "because of the devotion of its people to simple common sense." And let us wonder about the Second Amendment Preservation Act. As reported in this NY Times article, the law bars local law enforcement from working with the feds on gun cases, and "is already hampering joint drug and weapons investigations," according to the US Department of Justice.

The Second Amendment Preservation Act, which was passed by Missouri’s Republican-controlled legislature in May, is among the most extreme state gun rights bills enacted in recent years, imposing a $50,000 penalty on any local sheriff’s office or police department that “tries to enforce” federal firearms laws instead of abiding by less restrictive state statutes.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I were in Missouri, I'd want someone to show me why we wouldn't want our local LEOs to collaborate with the feds in keeping us safe. And I'd want someone to show me why the Republicans, who have fought against reforming police immunity laws, would pass a law that apparently strips immunity from police officers. Where's the simple common sense in that?

Moving on to the hottest hot topic out there - the US withdrawal from Afghanistan - there's this headline from Yahoo Finance:

'Real chance' Afghanistan withdrawal 'destroys' Biden presidency: Ian Bremmer

That's an eye-catcher, for sure, right? But here's what it means, according to that Ian Bremmer guy. He's the founder of the Eurasia Group, "the first firm devoted exclusively to helping investors and business decision-makers understand the impact of politics on the risk and opportunities in foreign markets."  From the Yahoo Finance article, we learn that

The crisis could severely undermine Biden's standing if Americans die or are taken hostage while the U.S. completes its withdrawal, Bremmer said.

"There are a lot of Americans that we want to get out of there," Bremmer says. "What if we have a hostage crisis? What if we have a firefight? What if Americans get killed? What if we end up not being able to get all these Americans out? That destroys Biden's presidency."

"There is a real chance of that happening," Bremmer adds. "It's not a 50% chance; maybe it's a 5% chance. But it is way higher than it should be."

A real chance? But it's not a 50% chance? And maybe it's a 5% chance? Come on. I wonder what the chances are anyone would have read that article if the headline had stated the actual risk of Biden's presidency being destroyed? 

And let's touch on what was once the hottest of hot topics - the origin of COVID-19. You remember: the wet market in Wuhan... or was it the government lab in Wuhan? And "everyone knows" the Chinese are covering up something, right?

Well, now someone is suggesting that maybe the answer has been right under our noses the whole time. It seems there's a study that conflicts with what the experts from the World Health Organization were told when they went to China and visited only one of two markets near Wuhan.

The research team was told only frozen foods, ingredients, and kitchenware were sold there. But a recently released study that had previously languished in publishing limbo showed, thanks to data meticulously collected over 30 months, that at least two vendors there regularly sold live wild animals... Bloomberg also notes that one of the earliest recorded COVID-19 clusters in Wuhan involved a Huanan stall employee who traded goods back and forth between the two markets.

Stephen Goldstein, of the University of Utah, thinks a link between the two would be "very intriguing," but he said it's not possible to determine whether the employee had contact with any infected animals, because they are "long gone." 

 Still, it seems likely to Goldstein that some authorities didn't want the presence of a thriving wildlife trade to become public knowledge. "It seems to me, at a minimum, that local or regional authorities kept that information quiet deliberately. It's incredible to me that people theorize about one type of cover-up," he said, likely referring to the hypothesis that the virus actually leaked from a nearby government-run lab, "but an obvious cover-up is staring them right in the face." 

I wonder how often that happens, that what we're looking for is right there, if only we didn't try so hard to make the story fit our agenda, and instead let it tell itself? It's long been true with COVID, and it's clearly true with Afghanistan, too.

What are you wondering about tonight?