Sunday School 2/25/24

Your Sunday School for this week starts with Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) who talked with Martha Raddatz in the This Week classroom. 

Their conversation started with the activist Alabama court ruling that frozen embryos are people, too. That ruling has caused some IVF facilities in the state to suspend services as they try to figure out what the risks are, and whether they can continue offering services. 

We've seen this before, of course, when abortion clinics closed in many states as providers simply aren't willing to take the chance of facing criminal charges for treating their patients.

Duckworth wasn't surprised by the ruling - it's more than that. She's been afraid of this - and talking about it - since 2018.

I said if Neil Gorsuch gets put on the Supreme Court, if Amy Coney Barrett gets put on the Supreme Court, we're going to have an erosion of Roe v. Wade, and even back in 2018, I said, IVF is next. They said they're coming for IVF. So, unfortunately, I wasn’t surprised. I’m devastated for those families that are trying to start families, but I was not at all surprised.

Raddatz noted the decision doesn't overtly ban IVF, but Duckworth, speaking from experience, said that by ruling a fertilized egg is a child, it puts the treatment in jeopardy. Both of her daughters were conceived via IVF; three of the five fertilized eggs were nonviable. With her consent, her doctor destroyed them, and under the Alabama ruling, 

that would be considered potentially manslaughter or murder. Basically, Republicans have put the rights of a fertilized egg over the rights of the woman, and that is not something that I think the American people agree with.

Duckworth has introduced a bill "multiple times and in multiple congresses", most recently last month, that would protect access to IVF nationwide. Raddatz noted that the Republican Senate campaign team "is instructing their candidates to, quote, clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government to restrict IVF," and wondered if there'd be enough support now to pass the bill.

It's been crickets since the Alabama ruling. And let's make it clear. Republicans will say whatever they need to say to try to cover themselves on this, but they have been clear and Donald Trump has been the guy leading this effort to eliminate women's reproductive rights and reproductive choice...not a single Republican has reached out to me on the bill... let's see if they vote for it when we bring it to the floor.

She said the Dems will run on this. And speaking of running, Raddatz brought up Trump's 20-point win in the South Carolina primary. Duckworth, who's a co-chair of the Biden/Harris campaign, said it doesn't really change things.

I think what we talk about, again, is that Donald Trump has been very clear about what he's doing. He's not running for president for the American people. He's not running for president to take care of working families. He's running for president for himself. That's all he cares about every single day. President Biden, in contrast, gets up every day and works hard to protect the American people and works hard to make sure he delivers for working families across this country. The choice is very clear and we just need to continue to hammer home that message.

She agreed with Raddatz that exit polls do give them pause (veterans voting for Trump, for example, after his ridiculously insulting "where's her husband?" stuff), but then, Duckworth said, that's not new. And she reiterated that Trump has

shown us over time who he is, and he's a guy who cares about no one but himself. You know, I have often thought when I go into work with my colleagues, and I assumed they loved America as much as I love America, that we just look at the problem from different perspectives, but we can come to a compromise. Donald Trump cares about one thing, Donald Trump. 

I think most of them think that - or, maybe they used to think that, pre-MAGA. 

Down the hall in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI); their first topic was this Tuesday's primary and how the state's large Arab/Muslim population might impact the voting.

Brennan said there's a "protest effort underway to vote uncommitted" to let President Biden know they're unhappy about what's happening in Gaza, and she asked if this could damage Biden. Dingell explained there are actually two protests.

One is an 'abandon Biden' campaign, but the other, the major campaign that has made over 100,000 calls – we'll see how many people vote on Tuesday – (is) trying to make sure the president hears them.

Their concerns? Family in Gaza; family members they have lost (20 or more, in some families); the lack of food, medicine, and water (the salt water they're drinking is almost gone); and more.

I don't sleep at night... The sanitary conditions on the ground, there's – I mean, one woman, the aunt of somebody, goes to the bathroom once a day. There – a month ago, there was one toilet for every 220 people, one shower for every 15,000 people. It's a nightmare. And they're scared for their families and they're worried.

A cease-fire is needed, and "when we get a cease-fire...then we sit down... and talk." Until then it's personal, not political. Brennan said she understood that, but at the same time, she noted that Benjamin Netanyahu said "that he is going into Southern Gaza whether President Biden likes it or not," and she wondered if Dingell thinks we're "doing enough to get Americans or families of Americans out of harm's way."

Dingell noted that we don't know what's happening in the various negotiations that are going on, with involvement from the CIA, the National Security Council, and others, including the president.

People need to understand that – what is going on in Rafah right now. The population of Gaza is approximately 2.2 million people; 1.5 million of them have been forced into Rafah... you know, we can argue about the numbers. Nobody denies that 12,000 children have already died... Doctors Without Borders have talked about 1,000 children who have lost limbs, the number of children that don't have families. It would be outrageous for further innocent civilians to be killed. I know that the White House is working very closely with a number of other countries to make it clear that we cannot continue this loss of life.

She's been assured by the White House that "the president is very engaged in delivering very direct messages," and that "in private conversations...he's working towards a temporary cease-fire."

Brennan asked if it was "a mistake" for Biden to not meet with anyone from the Arab/Muslim community. Dingell believes "he is going to need to do that" and that "this community is pretty angry right now." She said she gets protested, even though she's one of the folks who has been "the most empathetic and has been working this issue very hard." Biden did send people out, and

they developed relationships or connected with people that from both sides I've heard that they've got ongoing conversations. And that's got to continue.

And Dingell explained that Michigan's a purple state, and "It's been a purple state as long as I've been doing presidential elections." The Israel-Gaza war is a "very important issue here" but there'll be other ones too. Dingell fought to have Michigan be an early primary state for things like this.

I want to be talking about this issue now, in February -because it will matter in November - and not on October 15th, which has happened too many times in previously presidential elections, that issues that matter in November aren't talked about early.

Touching on the Alabama decision, Brennan asked "Is the concern about reproductive health care access enough to cancel out these negative headwinds?" Dingell noted the state's "unprecedented turnout two years ago" when abortion was on the ballot, and said they've got work to do again this year.

We've got to get young people, we've got to get women, and we've got to go into union halls. And it's great that we've got the union presidents and the union organizations endorsing, but we've got to go in those union halls and draw the comparison, remind people about what Donald Trump did and didn't do, he talked, didn't deliver, and about what Joe Biden has delivered on.

Dingell sees this issue as similarly motivating for voters. especially women who might have thought they were safe and their rights were protected

and now we've seen what the Alabama court has done in terms of IVF... I think a lot of women are going to be very emotional about their women's health decisions should be made between them, their doctor, their faith, and their family, and the federal government's got no business in it. Or state government.

I can't argue with her on that.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/17/19

Let's dive right in to this morning's lectures, starting with CNN's State of the Union, where Jake Tapper had as his guest today US Ambassador to New Zealand Scott Brown.

Brown noted that he hadn't spoken directly with the president since the terrorist attack, but was aware of contacts between the two countries on multiple levels, and we know of course already about president Trump's conversation with Prime Minister Ardern. Tapper noted that Trump so far hasn't offered "sympathy and love" to Muslims. He asked (twice) if Brown would like to see him do that; here's part of his response:

...there's been no time in my political or diplomatic life that I have ever questioned our government, whether it's this government or any other prior government's commitment to end racism, to stop bigotry, to really deal with the Islamophobic attitudes... What's happening around the world really seems a little bit irrelevant, to be honest with you, because we're dealing with taking care of those Muslim brothers and sisters and family members and community members and friends that are hurting right now. 

When pressed on a possible rise in white nationalist activity in the US or around the world,  Brown said he wasn't focused on that, but said he hadn't seen anything in New Zealand to indicate that. And he said he doesn't give "any credibility" to the terrorist's manifesto that specifically mentioned Trump.

Let's see what the other folks were talking about.

Sidebar: TGIF 3/15/19

Yesterday's post was about hate, particularly white supremacist hate, which we tend to ignore much more than any other kind.

I wanted to point out a couple of things that are directly related both to yesterday's post, and to why this particular type of hate tends to be ignored.

First: I saw a couple of accounts (and you can watch here for yourself) about a request made by New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to president Trump. Her recounting was that Trump asked what offer of support the US could provide, and she asked him for "sympathy and love for all Muslim communities."

Below are three tweets the president sent about the white supremacist terrorist attack in Christchurch:

In between the first and second tweets about the attack, he tweeted about the "Jexodus" - a new term for me. According to Trump that's what you call it when Jews leave the Democratic Party and join the Republican Party. I'm sure he learned that on Fox News.

Other tweets and retweets yesterday, if my count is correct, included one about Google helping China but not the US; one about the Paris Accord; one about the economy; one about the weather in the Midwest: eight about the Mueller probe; and ten about immigration and his veto of the bill opposing the national emergency declaration to re-appropriate money for the border wall.

At no point did he do what Prime Minister Ardern requested. 

But wait - there's more. Or, less, really.

TGIF 3/15/19

It's hard to even contemplate a TGIF post today, so I'm going to take a different approach entirely. 

There are so many things about this that turn my stomach, not the least of which is that, if you replaced occurrences of New Zealand with America, it could have been written by any number of people right here in the US.

Any number of national known politicians, their extremist supporters, their minions and surrogates who speak as if for them, if not actually for them, the ones who believe there are good people on both sides, or who lament that white nationalist has become a negative term and who espouse that no matter what, the Judeo-Christian society is the best society ever, all others pale in comparison and only ours is blessed by God, or that anyone who is not white must be biased against them, or that people of color or Muslims or Jews are filthy dogs... 

Others, maybe people known to us, including perhaps even family members, who share horridly offensive comments directed at Muslims, or Jews, or immigrants, who fear an invasion or a takeover by Muslims, by Jews, by Hispanics, by immigrants, by people who are not like us, don't look like us, don't dress like us, don't pray like us, don't 'American' like us... 

The police officer, the fireman, the head of your favorite local charity, who post racist information on social media and then complain that it was meant to be private, not public - while at the same time saying that what they posted doesn't represent what they think...

Because when a person shares something like this, it does represent what they think, unless it is expressly stated that it doesn't, at the time it's posted - not later, when it's discovered by someone outside the original intended audience. 

Unequivocally, the statement by the Australian politician does not represent what I think or believe, and I'm deeply offended by it. 

I'm sharing it because I want to remind people who think that this is all harmless, or all in good fun, or just a joke, or not really what they mean to understand that it is really harmful, is not at all meant in good fun, is not a joke, and, honestly, it is what people who say this really mean.

Don't let them fool you again, And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And don't elect them, whether it's to local or state or national office, or to any other position of leadership or authority. 

Just don't. 

The Truth is Out There

The title of this post, of course, comes from the X-Files. It's also been commonly referenced when describing White House press briefings with Sarah Sanders at the podium, as it was in this Forbes article.

"The truth is out there."  That's the tagline of the new TV show The X-Files, and it's a good thing the show is coming back in 2018, because its premise couldn't be more timely.

The latest example of this timely premise came about after the president retweeted the anti-Muslim videos which had been shared by a far-right group in Britain. Sanders maintained that anyone questioning the tweets was barking up the wrong tree. Here's an example:

She reiterated that again today, in her press briefing, as many times as she could, and with only limited success.

Q: ...I want to ask about the videos that the president tweeted yesterday. Firstly, does the president feel that he has an obligation to ensure that the information that he shares on his Twitter feed to millions of people is accurate?

A. I think the president feels that bringing up important issues of our time, like extreme violence and terrorism, are important to do. That was what he was doing in that process, and I think he's going to continue to do that in a number of venues whether it's through speeches, whether it's through Twitter or other social media platforms. 

That went well, don't you think? Here's part two.

Q: But does he understand, though, that sharing those videos might incite violence against Muslims? And does he understand that he's elevated a fringe political group that many people outside of Britain didn't even know about until he tweeted?

A:  Look, I think what he's done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue and a real threat, and that's extreme violence and extreme terrorism, something that we know to be very real and something the president feels strongly about talking about, and bringing up and making sure is an issue every single day, that we're looking at the best ways to protect Americans. 

Whoa. He's going to be spreading lies and hate every single day, officially?  Someone tell Twitter and Facebook, so his accounts can be suspended!

And not for nothing, but this particular conversation has not been 'elevated' because no one's talking about terrorism as result of the president's tweets. They're talking about how embarrassing it was, to America and to our allies; they're talking about the fact that one of the videos was a fake and the other two were unverified; they're talking about how none of them happened in Britain, and not in the US, for that matter.

And people are talking about the reaction from Prime Minister Theresa May and others, including this one.

And from someone else named Theresa May Scrivener who was tagged (instead of the Prime Minister) in that follow up tweet. And how that tweet, which said that "we're doing fine" is the total opposite what he's been telling us all along, ever since his 'total ban on Muslims' speech.

Sanders kept going, though, after giving us the 'elevate the conversation' line, with a straight face, no less. And she contradicted the "We're doing just fine!" remark in her response.

Q: On that point, Sarah, did the president, when he retweeted Jayda Fransen, know who she was?

A:  No, I don't believe so. But again, I think he knew that what the issues are, and that is that we have a real threat of extreme violence and terrorism, not just in this country, but across the globe, particularly in Europe. And that was the point he was making and I don't really have very much to add beyond that. 

He didn't even know who he was retweeting? And it didn't occur to him to look at the woman's profile?

Well, actually, tonight you can't do that - her account has been suspended, but several people have posted a tweet Fransen supposedly sent which claimed that WWE wrestlers were Islamic hate preachers.

I'm not posting it because I can't verify it was one she really sent - I guess that's just one more thing that differentiates me from the president.

Back to the Forbes article, which notes three things about the truth:

1. There is such a thing as truth.
2. Evidence is how we discover the truth.
3. Truth is the basis of both democracy and capitalism.

After explaining those three things, it goes on:

The president uses a misleading, mislabeled video as evidence that Islam poses a grave threat to the United State, and his press secretary backs him up. The real threat to our democracy isn't a religion and its millions of followers but the Trump administration's abuse of power and utter contempt for the truth. 

Now, that is something we should "be making sure is an issue, every single day."

Trump's Travel Ban

A whole lot of shaking going on, going on today,what with the SCOTUS decision on the president's Muslim ban, or Travel ban, or whatever you want to call it. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to go forward, with some exceptions. As we learned today,

The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.

 What constitutes a 'tie' between the traveler and the US?

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the Unites States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe's wife or Dr. Elshikh's mother-in-law clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid (the ban). For example, a nonprofit groups devoted to immigrant issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The intent of the 'close relationship' part was to help eliminate much of the churn that happened when the original ban was implemented, which included keeping people in America as well as keeping people out of America.

In a statement issued by the White House, we were advised that

Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. 

As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0. 

The Department of Homeland Security promised to think outside the box this time, and to consult with other agencies, including the Departments of  Justice and State, to come up with a plan.

The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professional, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry. 

Still, concerns abound. What constitutes a 'close familial relationship' for example; would a cousin count? A Joseph Greenwald and Laake civil rights attorney, Jay Holland, notes

There is absolutely a gray area. The issue of who has a bona fide relationship or familial relationship certainly appears to be an open and confusing question. 

The head of corporate communications for the International Air Transport Association,Perry Flint noted in the same article linked above,

It is absolutely imperative that airlines receive clear and concise information, as well as sufficient time, to enable them to comply with those portions of the executive order for which the injunction was stayed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined, largely on the point of trying to define rules that meet the Court's requirement of a relationship.

Moreover, I fear that the Court's remedy will prove unworkable. Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country... The compromise will also invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine exactly what constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid (section) 2C of Executive Order No. 13780...

It would be hard to imagine that the implementation could be worse this time around, but this is the government, after all (and no, that's not a comment on this particular administration). At least the people who have to make this work are talking to experts for assistance.

Now that a decision has been made, we should all hope for the best - and perhaps more importantly, hope that the efforts to "figure out what the hell is going on" which started earlier this month, are completed timely.

A Weekday Trifecta 5/26/17

A trifecta is generally described as a type of bet where, in order to win, the bettor must pick the top three finishers in the correct order. Here are my three picks for the day.

Donald Trump's big foreign adventure. We heard for years from Republicans and pundits that President Obama was an embarrassment as he travelled around the world on his 'apology tours.' For example, there's this list from the Heritage Foundation, the bastion of conservative thinking, back in 2009, in the early days of the Obama administration. Note the attention-grabbing headline: Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower. 

Fast forward to president Trump's first trip abroad. He may not be apologizing (and, frankly, one could argue that Obama didn't, either) but it sure looks like he's mastered the humiliation part - got that down pat, based on these clips. Heck, even the Trump News Network turned on him on; perhaps an apology or two might be in order?

(The Sun, a News UK Company)

(Uproxx.com)

(Financial Times)

Now, don't get me wrong -- I certainly understand how creative editing and catchy headlines don't always tell the full story -- but I would think that even a reasonable person of the Republican persuasion could see that perhaps a little better behavior, or perhaps a little more careful language, or perhaps a little more appreciation for traditions between allies, might be helpful here on the #MAGA tour.

Donald Trump and the travel ban. It was not a good day for the Trump Travel Ban:

In a stinging rebuke to president Donald Trump, a US appeals court refused on Thursday to reinstate his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations, calling it discriminatory and setting the state for a showdown in the Supreme Court. 

The decision, written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, described Trump's executive order in forceful terms, saying it uses "vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.

In its 10-3 ruling, the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said those challenging the ban, including refugee groups and individuals, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violates the US constitution's bar against favoring one religion over another. 

Those were similar findings to what the 9th Circuit said about the initial ban, which was rewritten to pass muster in the courts, or so we were told.  Importantly, we were told about how awful the 9th circuit judges are, with their horrible overturn rate of 80% or something. Here's what Trump said:

There are many people that want to break up the 9th circuit. It's outrageous... Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that's like, semi-automatic.

The 4th circuit on the other hand, has an overturn rate of 43%. So they must be way more better, right?  And way more trustworthy, and their decisions way more believable and easy to abide?

Yeah, not so much. Trump, when the first Executive Order was struck down sneered that he would see them at the Supreme Court. With this decision, it was Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III who noted, in a statement,

...that the government, which says the temporary travel ban is needed to guard against terrorist attacks, would seek a review of the case at the Supreme Court. 

"These clearly are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorist from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence," said Michael Short, a White House spokesman. 

I maintain that part of these dangerous times stems from the current administration's constant attacks on everyone and everything that doesn't agree with him, and on its refusal to look at things through a broad lens, rather than the very narrow one defined by bumper stickers and baseball hat slogans.

There's got to be a way to vet people - all people - coming into America from other countries, right? I mean, we ask our own sweet American old ladies and sweet little American children to bare their soles, and their bodies, to get on a plane to fly across the state or across the country to visit each other, don't we?

If we treat all Americans that way because of a few bad actors (including the ones from a country with whom we just made another several-hundred-billion-dollar arms deal), we should be able to come up with a plan that will protect us from everyone, and treat everyone the same, regardless of their religion.

That's the American way, whether or not our myopic president understands that.

Donald Trump and the FBI director. Poor Donald.  The whole mess with the FBI is just not getting better.

• First, he assails James Comey for not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton last July, 
• then he hails Comey as a hero when he reopened his investigation of her just days before the presidential election, 
• then he blows a kiss from across the room and awkwardly hugs Comey in January, 
• then he asks him to lay off the Russia investigation, to no avail 
• then he decides to fire him, 
• then he gets people to come up with deep and thoughtful reasons for firing him, 
• which he does, in a self-congratulatory and probably lie-filled memo delivered to Comey's office when Comey was across the country meeting with FBI staff who saw it on the news - as Comey was speaking to them. 
• Then he immediately tells us he had the entire White House and Justice Department apparatus tell lie after lie about why Comey was fired, because 
• Trump admitted he was going to fire him no matter what, and the memo? Yeah, that had nothing to do with it. 

You would think, at some point along that journey, he would listen to people, but no -- no reason to do that. He tries to pull politicians to be the new FBI director - Texas Senator Bob Cornyn, and South Carolina Trey Benghazi! Gowdy, who both said no, and maybe a couple of others, when everyone - everyone -- was telling him to get an experienced FBI person, not a politician.

On his short list, as a leading candidate until late this week? Former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who was a Dem when he was Al Gore's running mate, became an Independent after losing a primary, and who eventually supported John McCain's failed presidential bid. He's also a lawyer in the same firm as Trump's new attorney for the Russia investigations.

Even before Trump hired the guy from Lieberman's firm, Democrats were not excited about their former colleague being tapped to fill Comey's shoes, because they wanted the appointment to be non-political, and they wanted an experienced law enforcement person.  Lieberman, to his credit, noted in an interview after withdrawing from consideration

With everything swirling in Washington, you can't have a director of the FBI coming from the same law firm as the president's private lawyer.

He also noted, referring to the lack of support from Senate Dems

I was disappointed but you know, I guess when I step back from it I wasn't surprised because everything is so partisan in Washington. There's still a group, probably in the far left of the Democratic Party who still doesn't forgive me.

And that, to me, was a page out of the Trump handbook. Whenever you can deflect away from the right reason for doing something by turning it into a personal attack, I guess it's a good day. 

Immigrants vs. Imports

I've been a bit behind in my newspaper reading lately, and spent some time catching up yesterday.

I was moving pretty quickly through last Tuesday's Post Standard, until I came across the fascinating juxtaposition of two stories shown here.

The story on the left, about immigration, is from the Associated Press. In it, we have the president talking not about his great victory in the electoral college, or voter fraud, or the size of the crowd that had eyes on his inaugural, if you can believe that, but about NATO and homeland security and the 'travel ban' we've heard so much about lately.

Here's what Trump had to say about that:

We need strong programs (so that) people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in (and those who) want to destroy us and destroy our country (are kept out). 

Freedom, security and justice will prevail...

Now, there's no surprise there in Trump's comments -- no "step away from the Teleprompter" kind of thing, just the usual stuff.

What's not just the usual stuff is what we read in the article on the right, from the Washington Post. In it, we learn that the second-highest-ranking muckety muck at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives - ATF for short -- wrote a white paper apparently on his own, and not representative of the opinions of his department, saying that we need some changes in our gun laws.

Wha?? Say it ain't so!  Well, before you get all riled up thinking someone's thinking about something thoughtful about guns and stuff, let's review what Richard Turk, the associate deputy director and chief operating officer of the ATF is talking about:

• removing restrictions on silencers sales
• letting gun dealers accumulate more allegations of their guns being used in crimes before having to provide additional info to the feds
• studying whether we might want to lift bans on assault weapon imports.

Yeah, that last part about imports?Here's what Turk said in his document:

Restrictions on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States.

Interesting, isn't it?

Banning imported weapons serves "questionable public safety interests" but banning individuals who have shown no ill will towards us, and who have undergone a lengthy vetting process, or banning refugees who are Muslim just to let Christians in first, or banning people who we've already approved to be here, or banning people who have helped us fight terrorism in their countries, those are necessary "strong programs" allowing "freedom, security and justice" to prevail?

We need to make sure that "people who want to destroy us" or "destroy our country" are kept out, even though there are dozens? hundreds? thousands? of people who are willing to do exactly that, destroy us, already "generally legally available" in the US?

When people who are born in the US to immigrant parents, or who came here as children, or who come here as legal immigrant adults and who happen to be Muslim kill people at parties, or in nightclubs or anywhere else, we call them terrorists.

When Americans teenagers, or young adults, or middle-aged men do things like that, shoot up a school, or a theater, or an abortion clinic, or a shopping mall, do we call them terrorists? No - don't be silly. We call them mentally ill. We call them Americans.

Banning people. Relabeling our own who destroy us, so as not to confuse them with the immigrant kind of terrorist. Ignoring those who hate us who are already generally legally available.

Changing gun laws to keep the noise down.

Who loves you, America?

Holocaust Remembrance Day in America

Yesterday, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the "Greatest President for Jobs That God Ever Created" turned his attention away from #BAHA (Buying American Hiring American) and trying to figure out how to pay for The Wall, and trying to figure out who to pester to come up with bigger numbers on the size of the crowd that watched his inaugural, and set his sights on immigration and refugees.

Yesterday, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Trump issued an Executive Order called Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.

Here are a handful of terms of the order; I've not included the ones that are designed for identification purposes, such as biometric exit /entry, modernizing the records and documentation processes and similar sections that specifically address 'security.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the Unites States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practices religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Whenever did we start presuming that a foreigner would have even read the US Constitution? Did we forget about the Statue of Liberty as the beacon of hope and freedom, the iconic personification of the American Dream? Because I think that's what foreigners are going to point to as their understanding of what we as Americans stand for. They're considerably less likely to pull out a hidden copy of the Constitution. I mean, think about it:

• How many Americans have seen or read the Constitutions of any other countries, for any reason?
• How many Americans  have read our own Constitution outside the 27 words included in the only Amendment that matters? 
• How many Americans are out there pushing legislation for the codified right to oppress Americans of race, gender and sexual orientation? 
• How many American religious leaders are out there politicizing (oops, I meant preaching, I meant to say preaching) the fight against gays?  
• How many Americans are there out there, right now, supporting 'therapies' to un-gay people? 
• How many American politicians are out there, right now, oppressing Americans by stripping away their access to medical care or to the voting booth?

How long are we going to turn a blind eye to this kind of un-American behavior (often done under the guise of Christian beliefs) committed against our neighbors, friends, and family? Or is that all OK, because it's people who profess to be Christians doing it? Never mind, don't answer me. 

Yesterday, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order formalizing a process which will allow us to prioritize which refugees we allow into the country based on a person's faith, once we resume allowing refugees into the country - that program, USRAP, has been suspended for 120 days as part of this order.  

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist such prioritization. 

Two refugee children looking for a pathway to freedom, looking to live, and we'll leave the Muslim child behind, perhaps to die, but take the Christian child. I'm just going to leave that one right there.

But wait. There's more.

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 USC 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 USC 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4 visas).

In case it's unclear, this means that people who already hold visas or green cards allowing them to be in the United States - people who live here, work here, raise their children here, pay taxes here, participate in our society, maybe save lives as doctors or volunteer as first responders, participate in neighborhood watch groups, and act as damn fine citizens, better than many of our own, will not be allowed to return home - here - if they are from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. 

And let it be noted that, while the Executive Order began with a mention of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. People from those countries? They're welcomed here. 

Yesterday, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, America did this. And today, the man who signed this Executive Order, is bitching about his coverage in the New York Times. 

Immigrant Data, Bigly

Lots of news out there about the POTUS-elect maybe implementing a Muslim registry.

You may recall he talked about this almost a year ago, back in the day when he was stumping in Iowa, when even he probably thought there was about a Trumpzillion-to-one chance of being elected.

I would certainly implement that (a database Muslim tracking system), absolutely. There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems. 

He noted that even American Muslims would "have to be - they have to be" legally obligated to sign into the database; he also refused to explain how what he was suggesting differed from Germany's actions towards Jews under the Nazis, which is the most frequent comparison. And then, like so many of his pronouncements, he walked it back.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Fast forward to this week, and we have Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach talking about the registry again. Kobach, a key advisor to the Trump transition team, worked in the Dubya administration and helped create the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, after 9/11 which required fingerprinting and interrogation on arrival from a high-risk country, as well as a requirement for some men to check in periodically - sort of like being on parole.

The registry goes along with the 'extreme vetting' plan that Trump has been promoting ever since he softened his stance on a total and complete shutdown on Muslims. We don't yet know what form the extreme vetting will take, but we do know that it's going to be more extreme than today's process, which takes up to two years in some cases before entry.

My guess is that it will take between four and eight years to get in, but perhaps I'm being overly cynical.

In addition to Kobach, there's Carl Higbie, a former Navy SEAL and current talking head, who babbled Wednesday about the constitutionality of a registry.

It is legal. They say it'll hold constitutional muster. I know the ACLU is going to challenge it, but I think it'll pass. We it during World War II with the Japanese, which, you know, call it what you will.

So, ignoring the dark period where we rounded up American citizens and shipped them off to camps to protect us from, you know, Americans, would this be legal and constitutional?

Yes, it would, if done correctly. The NSEERS program, for example, was used for a decade after 9/11, applied to only certain people from only a couple dozen countries that coincidentally happened to be predominantly Muslim -- and North Korea - and was deemed OK. From the Vox article:

So when the government designates people from particular countries for special treatment, according to Kevin Johnson of University of California Davis, "those are the kinds of things the courts are likely to say have foreign policy implications and should be in the hands of the federal government and the executive branch. 

In other words, it might not be constitutional for the government to single out Muslim immigrants for particular treatment But it's another thing for the government to single them out on a country-by-country basis  - "to say, 'I'm going to ban migrants or Muslims, even, from Yemen,'" Johnson says. 

A court challenge was rejected, and the program stayed in place.  Although no longer used, the framework is apparently still there, as are some redundant data-gathering tools, which is why the Obama administration removed the 25 countries from the NSEERS program.

A new program, some kind of registry, may never materialize - as with so many things we've heard the POTUS-elect say, or threaten, or promise, we have no idea -  and frankly I'm not even sure he has any idea what he's going to do.

Those of us who did not support him and are waiting for a sign that he's going to coalesce his many statements, policy changes, Tweets and teams into something cohesive and defined and supportable or at least not horror-inducing, were told after he won the election that we needed to wait and see.

We needed to see who he surrounded himself with, those "good people" we heard so much about, and to give him a chance to get his act together.

I'm still waiting to see how that's going to work out - but while I wait, I think it's important to pay attention to this last word from the Vox article:

A lot of people didn't know about NSEERS when it was in effect. That's not a reason not to care now. It's a reminder that when policies are actually implemented, they're rarely as crude and legally dubious as a politician like (the POTUS-elect) makes them sound - and that makes it harder for them to be challenged either in court or in the public eye. 

Care.

Care deeply about whatever direction this administration takes us.

The Update Desk: Grains of Salt (V13)

You may remember a discussion in these pages about Wendy Long, the New York City lawyer who's running as a Trump Republican to unseat Chuck Schumer in the US Senate.

She might have made a few friends in her recent visit to Syracuse's North Side, where she pretty obviously tried to make a connection between a Muslim group purchasing an abandoned Catholic Church and a neighborhood filling with "crime prostitution money laundering," however I'm not one of them, as I made clear in my post.

Long doubled down in an opinion column a few days later, in which she noted, among other things,
that her tweets were sent "in no particular order" as if to excuse the obvious connection she implied between the mosque and the degradation of the neighborhood, and the extremely offensive "Welcome to Syracuse" tweet, shown here, of which I'm sure she's very proud.

She continues her Trumpian focus on 'political correctness' and says that's preventing positive change on the North Side, where refugees, including Muslims, are being settled; then pivots, as if she had seen the proverbial 'shiny thing' that often distracts me, an adult Attention Deficit Disorder sufferer, to job losses.

Companies that provided good jobs moved away, like General Electric to Massachusetts and Carrier to Mexico.  What can we do to help the community now? What is best for all human beings, whose God-given rights to life, liberty and property American was founded to protect?

Um, a couple of things.

Carrier Corporation's exodus from Syracuse started back in 1979, when United Technologies Corporation purchased the company and moved the corporate headquarters to Connecticut. Later, when Carrier closed two plants and laid off 1200 employees who worked on container refrigeration units and compressor parts, effectively ending their manufacturing presence here, the jobs didn't head to Mexico --  they went to Georgia and Asia, as noted in this New York Times article:

More than 80 percent of the container manufactures who buy Carrier's refrigeration units are in Asia, (Carrier spokesman Johnathan) Shaw said in a telephone interview. "It doesn't make any sense to ship a product 6,000 miles when you have a plant in the same hemisphere," he said. So Carrier plans to make the refrigeration units at a plant in Singapore. 

As for the compressor parts, sales have fallen by half over the last five years as technology has changed, so it made sense to consolidate manufacturing at plants in China and Stone Mountain, GA.  

It's true that Carrier is moving jobs from Indianapolis to Mexico, but that's happening this year, long past the time that those great Carrier jobs in Syracuse were impacted. It's also true that, in 2018, General Electric is moving  its headquarters to Boston, but that too has little to do with us. When GE pulled manufacturing out of Syracuse (impacting jobs that mattered), it was to go to Virginia and Asia, in keeping with the exodus from most of the Rust Belt states, and it happened many years ago.

I can give Long credit for at least knowing that Carrier and GE used to be big here, but tying unrelated moves in other states to what's happening on the North Side? Not so much. The changes that pulled good manufacturing jobs out of our area all happened 15, 20, even more than 30 years ago. We can lament the changes all we want, but they don't really have any correlation with what's happening in the neighborhood that includes the mosque in the 500 block of Park Street, or with refugees who have been settled here in the past five or six years.

On her other point, about those "God-given rights to life, liberty and property"(property being the new word for "the pursuit of happiness"?) for "all human beings,"one of her policy positions is to

Stop illegal immigration and reexamine whether we can even sustain one million legal immigrants per year.

Again, not seeing the relevance to the legal immigration that is behind the refugees coming into Syracuse, particularly the immigrant Muslims on the North Side who exercised their right to life, liberty and property by purchasing the empty Catholic church and against whom there have never been accusations of illegality.

Long is not unreasonable to suggest that there is much work to do in Syracuse and other places across New York to help get people out of poverty, or that 'crony capitalism' is an issue on every level. She's well within her rights to complain about Schumer, who's been in office since 1998; and she's entitled to her opinions of how to make the situation better. I'm fine with her blaming Democrats for the problems of inner cities; even though everyone knows there's no exclusive right of ownership to that problem, she can have her opinion and express it freely.

Where she's still lacking, in my opinion, is trying to make illegal immigration the flash point when she's talking about Syracuse generally, and Muslims in particular. Her initial comments were designed to be inflammatory, and they were. Her follow up explanation fell short.

Maybe before her next trip here, she might spend some time looking into the Syracuse University Program for Refugee Assistance (SUPRA) or Interfaith Works, a local organization that works to improve communication and relationships across races and faiths, and she might actually talk to the folks at the North Side Learning Center, located on the campus of the Mosque of Mary, Mother of Jesus, to get their opinion on the neighborhood where they've staked a claim.

You know, the place where there are "Crosses down, crescents up" in Syracuse.

Grains of Salt (v13): Wendy Long's "NY Values"

Who is this Wendy Long person, and why is she coming to Syracuse to sow the seeds of hate?

According to the slick video with it's appropriately doomy-gloomy soundtrack on her US Senate campaign website, here's her story.

I'm a wife, mother and an attorney. America has given me so much. I was blessed with great, hardworking parents, and I had a rare opportunity to learn from some of the best about what makes our country great. I clerked for one of them at the US Supreme Court (note - she's referring to Clarence Thomas).  

I believe in real New York values: individual freedom, hard work, personal responsibility, strong families, generosity to our fellow citizens, and love for our neighbors. I'm running for the United States Senate to bring those values back.

She goes on to quote the patron saint of GOP, Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure is spinning in his grave at what's become of the Republican Party.

Ronald Reagan said, "Government is supposed to be the people's servant, not its master." We have got to put government back in its place and let free people and free markets create opportunity and prosperity for all, not just the privileged few. And right now, in 2016, there's an energy I've never seen, to reclaim our freedoms and the limited self-government that our constitution gives us.

I won't hit her on the last part, but I do have to question the middle part, about hard work, personal responsibility, strong families, and particularly generosity to our fellow citizens and love for our neighbors.  Why? Because based on her tweets about Syracuse, she clearly has not watched her own video since it was filmed in her kitchen, and needs some reminding.

Here's what she posted about us.  The first tweet is a beauty, for sure:.

Welcome to Syracuse. Holy Trinity Church, beautiful church of German and Italian immigrants, is now a mosque.  

Pardon my language, but what the hell is that?

Ms. Long fails to tell her presumably avid followers that Holy Trinity had sat empty for a few years, leaving a gaping hole in the neighborhood, as the diocese of Syracuse started reconfiguring their real estate portfolio because of declining enrollment. 15 churches were closed.  It would likely still be empty today, had it not been rescued.

The North Side Learning Center is a non-profit group that teaches English to adults and children on the North Side, where immigrants - including the Germans and Italians Long mentioned -- have long found refuge and have long built a life for themselves and their families. Initially, they were interested in the school and not the church itself, but they got both for $150,000. It was then that talk turned to using the church as a mosque, and that Masjid Isa Ibn Maryam was born.

"Welcome to Syracuse" where we'll help you learn the language and allow you to practice your religion in an empty building built by people who came here and learned the language more than a century before practiced their religion. Horrible place we have here, I guess.

Here's another of the tweets from the woman who wants to replace Chuck Schumer in Washington.

Neighborhood where the mosque displaced the church. Crime prostitution money laundering. Nice Dem control of cities.

So, again, let's review the facts.  The church was empty -- so the only thing 'displaced' by the mosque was dust and cobwebs.

Next, the house with a street address of 2020 doesn't seem to put it in the neighborhood of the mosque, which is located at 501 Park Street. I'm not sure any of the streets in that neighborhood (I used to live not far from there) has numbers that go that high.

Furthermore, a search of the crime database shows a total of three reported crimes in the general area of the mosque, none of them prostitution or money-laundering. We do appreciate that you admit there's "probably not" a direct connection between the Muslims and crime, but did you share that with your Twitter followers? I doubt it.

"Welcome to Syracuse" where out-of-town politicians who know nothing about our community come to town, spew lies, and move on.  Yes, Wendy, I'm talking about you.

The last one of your tweets is the worst of all.

It's designed to inspire hatred and fear and, frankly, it says much more about you than it does about Syracuse. It says much more about you than your slick video ever could.

Crosses down, crescents up.  

That's so insightful, Wendy. Thanks for sharing.  But don't let the actual story get in the way of your hateful narrative.

Because the actual story is one of "individual freedom, hard work, personal responsibility, generosity to our fellow citizens and love for our neighbors," which you proclaim to be "real New York values" and which, I'm sure, you think you practice.

The story you missed on your visit here?  That the people running the mosque have reached out, over and over, to the neighbors and to former parishioners of Holy Trinity, and that they have invested time, money, hard work, well beyond what they ever thought they would do. That they have made the transformation from cross to crescent as respectfully as possible. That even the diocese is OK with the change.

The diocese acknowledges that changes to a former parish building may be difficult for some, however the building is once again being used to meet the needs of a growing population on the North Side, just as Holy Trinity Church did as it served the Catholic faithful.

And you know what? The whole Ronald Reagan thing? It was the free market that allowed the free people of the North Side Learning Center to create opportunity  and purchase the former church in the first place. So yeah, I'll hit you on that part too.

"Welcome to Syracuse," Wendy?  "Real New York values," Wendy? You say you talked to neighbors, but did you talk to any of the folks from the mosque? Maybe you were afraid one of those crescents was going to fall on your head?  Or maybe you were afraid that your hate and lack of knowledge would be exposed?

Thanks for stopping in Syracuse, Wendy.  Don't let our real New York values hit you in the butt on your way out of town.

The Update Desk: Newt's Sniff Test

Friday's post on the religious sniff test that Newt Gingrich believes is the way to solve the American problem of terrorist attacks in Europe needs a couple of updates.

First: Oops. Newt has apparently remembered that deporting American citizens is a no-no.

With an American citizen, deportation is impossible. It's not appropriate under the Constitution and there, historically we've always said, if you fought against the United States, that the correct answer were basically jail as opposed to deportation. I think we have to talk through what should be the right way of handling people who are here, but are not citizens. 

Second,  officials in France are holding several 'suspects' for questioning in the horrific Bastille Day attack. According to this article in the Washington Post, the ex-wife of the killer was held and then released, and there are a handful of others currently being questioned.  It seems the killer's cell phone has provided at least some insight, including a text right before the attack asking someone to 'bring more weapons' and it's believed the recipient of that text is one of the folks in custody.

The article also opens the door for Gingrich and others of similar beliefs to expand their attacks on Americans beyond merely religious grounds. Referencing public statements from ISIS that the killer was "a soldier of the Islamic State" but offering no proof of any kind,

The link underscores the difficulty of preventing the spread of extremist ideology in a world where even people like (the killer)  - whose family and neighbors portray him as a troubled loner - can be spurred to attack without training, resources or connections.

I can picture the SWAT teams now, cruising around town with Troubled Loner Cans (TLC),  like the ones they use to check license plates for parking tickets, slamming on the breaks whenever they spot someone with a pierced nose, or Goth tattoos.

That girl with the nerdy glasses with her face buried in a book. The millennial sitting on a park bench, face up turned to the sun.

Anyone walking around town without a fitness tracker. Men wearing black socks with sandals.

A person eating alone at a sidewalk cafe. A woman in the grocery store who has more cat food than people food in her grocery basket.

Someone who actually goes to the teller window instead of an ATM.

The guy in the kayak taking bird pictures.

And bonsai gardeners -- I mean, come on -- someone who spends their days torturing trees into crazy shapes, twisting them up with wires and then cutting them up with tiny scissors?

Clearly. Troubled Loners.

Newt Gingrich's Religious Sniff Test

Politico.com photo

Newt Gingrich, fresh off his stinging defeat in the VPPrentice, as CNN called it, fought for relevance by offering these comments on Fox News after the attack in Nice:

Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door. But we need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately. 

Our forces should be used to systematically destroy every internet-based source. And frankly if we can't destroy them through the internet, we should destroy them with kinetic power, using various weapons starting with Predators, and frankly just killing them.

The ever-helpful fair and balanced Sean Hannity, noting his "whole-hearted" agreement with Gingrich's "powerful statement" asked a followup:

How do we ascertain - how do you possibly ascertain whether or not that person really wants assimilation, really wants a new life, or whether or not they want to expand that caliphate, which is what we're at war against?

Here's the response:

Look, the first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the internet. The third step is - let me be very clear. You have to monitor the mosques. I mean if you're not prepared to monitor the mosque, this whole thing is a joke. Where do you think the primary source of recruitment is? Where do you think the primary course of indoctrination is? You've got to look at the madrasas. If you're a school which is teaching Sharia, you want to expel it from the country. We have to understand - we are behaving as though we are insane. We're like sheep wondering why the wolves keep killing us.

After you're done monitoring the mosques, Newt, and the internet, and doing your religious sniff tests and looking under the burqas and hijabs and niqabs, can we take a look at the people that I want to investigate and deport or send to jail?

No -- wait -- these folks are all over the place, they've been here forever, they're easy to find on the internet so people - even politicians - can emulate them-- let's start with these folks and when we're done purging the scum that incite honest-to-goodness homegrown terrorism, and talk about rape and sexual assault as if they're jokes, and approve or turn the other way when it comes to attacks on gays, or children, you can go ahead and take on the Muslims:

• Good Christians who think it is impossible for a man to rape his wife, and OK for him to sexually abuse her? Or good Republicans who justify rape in any number of ways?
• Good Christian pastors who believe that gays should face a firing squad or that the 9/11 attacks were punishment from God? And if they have schools, well, we surely need to shut them down so these ridiculous, hateful and dangerous beliefs cannot be spread.
• And of course, there's the Westboro Baptist Church - shouldn't they go to jail for terrorizing funerals of fallen heroes, spitting on our soldiers, mocking their sacrifice?
• Catholic priests? I mean, this one's easy, right? Thousands of victims, millions of dollars in payments, let's shut 'em down. 
• White supremacist groups such as the ones that radicalized the Charleston terrorist on the internet? And presidential candidates who can barely bring themselves to disavow these groups and their leaders, as well as everyone who supports such a candidate? We cannot possibly have room for this type of terrorist thinking in America, can we? 

Let me know if you need any more examples of groups or people who terrorize us right here at home, every single day, and likely don't have a Muslim belief among them. 

Oh - and let us not forget that if it's the rhetoric that causes the problem, we'll need to go after the irresponsible media who fan the flames of hatred every day, on television and the related websites, radicalizing impressionable Americans, young and old -- starting with the talking heads at Fox News and their guests.

Is Our Input on a Bias?

I've been thinking a lot lately about perceptions, and bias, particularly as those relate to how we are delivered, and then interpret, the news of the day.

I was reminded of a cat my parents had, years after I was out of the house, about whom their veterinarian proclaimed, "her input is on a bias." That peculiar diagnosis had to do with the cat walking a little lopsided, and if memory serves, occasionally running into things. Her issue may have been solved by a dietary change and an antibiotic, can't remember for sure.

Back to bias. Regular readers know, for example, that I struggle with how we collectively discuss mass shootings; there are some obvious differences depending on who the shooter is, or what the shooter represents. For example 

• In December, the shooting in San Bernardino was 'terrorism' because the American-born shooter professed at least some allegiance to what's referred to as radical Islamist beliefs.
• The shooting in Orlando was also described as 'terrorism' because of similar beliefs held by yet another American-born shooter. 

Compare that to these two other recent shootings:

• We just marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at 'Mother Emanuel' in Charleston, which was committed by an American-born shooter who professed racist beliefs. This was described as a 'hate crime' but not terrorism.
• In November 2015, after a shooting at a clinic in Colorado Springs left three dead and nine wounded, the American-born shooter was described as being anti-abortion and anti-Planned Parenthood, but this too was not described as terrorism. 

In all four of these shootings, the perpetrators acted out of a belief, first and foremost, that they were right in acting as they did. And, in all four cases, one could point to extremism of one kind or another as being at the heart of the murders, and to the intent to terrorize people, to install fear that no one is safe, anywhere.  Not at a historic church during an evening prayer session, or at a medical facility at what is typically a very difficult time. Not at an office party, and not at a nightclub where a people gather to truly be free from hatred, to be themselves. And yet, only two have been labelled terrorism - the ones where the beliefs were furthest away from what "we" believe.

Here's another pair of news stories, both of which enthralled the regular news media and social media as well:

• Remember the story about the little boy who fell into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati zoo, leaving zookeepers with no choice than to kill the gorilla to save the child? And the immediate cry from animal rights groups and many average Americans about how on earth the mom could have been so neglectful in her actions that they resulted in the death of a beautiful gorrilla? And the online petition to pressure the police into investigating the family? (That happened, and the mother was cleared of any wrongdoing.)
• More recently, there was the story about the little boy who was snatched and killed by an alligator at Disney World, and the immediate calls to have the parents investigated for neglect? And the cries from the animal rights activists that several alligators were killed in the search for the specific one that took the child?

No? I don't remember that last part, either.

I would love to be positive that there's no correlation between the race of the families (zoo was black, Disney was white), or any other type of bias that went into the reporting or the reactions.  Heck -- I admit that, until I saw an Internet meme, the thought didn't even occur to me that there could have been any bias here. 

But you know what they say: you can't unring the bell. 

One more example, and then I'll leave you to ponder. Again with the Orlando attacks.  Donald Trump, in one of his several reactions to the shooting, blasted the alleged protection of terrorists by American Muslims, noting that

They know what's going on. They know that (the shooter) was bad. They have to cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people they know are bad.. But you know what? They didn't turn them in. And you know what? We had death and destruction.

Except that, in this particular case, we have a witness coming forward to talk about how he did turn this shooter in (confirmed by the FBI), and we know how that ended, right?

Except that, as Trump wanted, the number of people who will walk away from this believing that Muslims are bad and are hiding terrorists is significantly, perhaps even exponentially higher than the number who will learn of this first-person account of a person who did exactly what his entire faith is accused of not doing.

Is your input on a bias? Do you see things as you expect them to be, instead of the way they really are? If yes, you're not alone; I publicly confessed to this about three years ago, right here in these pages.

The realization of my own biased thinking doesn't give me a pass. I hope it makes me more aware of bias when I express it myself, or when I see it.  And, too, when I miss it.

I think that's a whole lot better than the dietary change that was recommended for the cat.