Random Thoughts 6/27/26: Asylum No More

Yesterday I was doing some 'weeding thinking' and mulling over the Supreme Court decision allowing the administration to keep asylum seekers out of the country. Effectively, the decision eliminates asylum as an option for immigrants, because our law requires them to 'arrive' in the US to begin the process.

Here's where my mind wandered:

The person who might figure out how to cure Alzheimer’s is waiting on the other side of the border; so, too might be the person who can end our reliance on things that generate all the bad crap we get in our food, water, and the air we breathe.

The person who might come up with a way to allow us to identify who's sending all those UAP/UFOs, and help us interact with lifeforms from other planets, could be standing right next to her, staring up at the stars.

Someone who could figure out how to effectively provide reliable energy for new and existing homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, the dreaded data centers, and vehicles, without putting the environment and people’s health at risk, could be there, too.

The person who can calculate how to reliably fund a responsive government without spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have, and without unfairly taking from those who have less while favoring those who have more, might be waiting in their shadows.

The team of people who can figure out how to better and/or more cost-effectively prepare our children for their future (and for protecting ours) while we navigate AI, environmental calamity, global economic and military threats, and challenges that are not yet fully understood could be there, waiting, too.

The young adult who might eventually write the next Great American Novel could be standing at our border, eager to come in and go through our lengthy, underfunded, understaffed, misunderstood, neglected, outdated, and almost incomprehensible immigration process, all to have a chance to experience their own American Dream, the one they’ve heard about all their life.

Now, those things - the cures and the science and the ideas, might not happen.

Now, that book might never get written.

Instead, the book could tell a story of a great divide, far wider than any of our actual borders, between who Americans think we are and how we are presented to the world, or between who the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of the author understood Americans to be, compared to today's Americans who slammed the door shut.

It could tell of an America that will send thousands of people back to the "shithole countries" they fled (the president's term, not mine), countries our government has declared totally unsafe - for Americans, anyway.

It could tell of an America only welcoming to wealthy white people fleeing a black majority country, or to Christians being 'persecuted' by religious majorities, while feigning ignorance of the promises we made to refugees from other countries, including those whose lives are at risk solely because they helped America during our wars against their country.

It could tell of a president who has said that America, once the beacon of hope to the entire world, was a ‘dead country’ until he got back into office, that only he can save us, and who has worked to strip America of the things that make us ‘America’ as he labors to cement his legacy, the country's legacy be damned.

It could tell any of those stories, and more, seen through the eyes of someone stuck on the outside looking in, rather than the story we love to read about us: that of an outsider, threatened where they lived, who was welcomed into our country’s embrace and offered the experience of a lifetime: a fresh start, here, in America.

This morning, sitting on the porch with my coffee and sleepy kitties, I'm still mulling this over, and thinking about what we stand to lose compared to what we stand to gain with this decision.

On the losing side? The interwebs gave me a list of notable asylees, which, if correct, includes Albert Einstein, Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, Elie Wiesel, and Gloria Estefan. Four of the five are recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Einstein died before the honor was created, but he, Kissinger, and Wiesel were awarded Nobel Prizes. Two were Secretaries of State; one is a Kennedy Center honoree. Their collective other accomplishments would fill a page or two, I'm sure. Would we have been better off not letting these folks in?

Also on the losing side: any effort to address what I described above as our "lengthy, underfunded, understaffed, misunderstood, neglected, outdated, and almost incomprehensible immigration process." What would be the point of trying to fix it when the current administration's goal, and that of those on the successor shortlist, is simply to slam the door shut on anyone who doesn't meet a very narrow definition of an ideal American?

I can think of lots more that could fall on this side of the ledger, but what's on the other side, the 'winning' side?

It's been several minutes since I typed the sentence above, and I've not come up with much for the win column, other than financial benefits.

Oh, sure - we have better control of who's being let into the country through legal channels (because asylum-seeking *was* a legal channel) if we don't let anyone in.

More importantly, based on what I've read and heard? We may save money because we won't have to temporarily house and care for these folks until they get jobs and start paying taxes, including the critical contributions they make to Social Security. We won't have to pay to educate their children, and, at least in theory, there'll be more jobs for Americans, assuming Americans are willing to take the jobs these folks will be leaving behind.

And, we might be able to clear the backlog of pending asylum cases, assuming anyone wants to address the backlog in the first place, and assuming there are still folks here who've applied for asylum and haven't self-deported out of fear and frustration, or haven't been detained and deported as the administration rounded up "the worst of the worst," or whatever it was it claimed to be doing.

Do those 'wins' outweigh the losses? I'm not at all convinced they do, although I'm convinced I could name several people in my own circles who'd disagree with me.

That may be the most American thing about this whole mess.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/24/24

 

Ready... set... wonder!

If you've been paying attention to financial news lately, you're likely aware that the stock market is booming. The Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P have all hit or neared record highs,  sometimes on consecutive days. 

Remember how big a deal that was during the Trump administration? He talked about it all the time in interviews and on social media. I found over 140 tweets or retweets from him raving about how high the market was, how many records it hit, and how fabulous it was when he was president. For example, here's one from December 31, 2020.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, I'm wondering, am I supposed to be happy with my 401(k) doing so well, or am I supposed to be mad about rich people? 

*** *** *** *** *** 

This week marked the fourteenth anniversary of Citizens United, the case in which the Supreme Court decided that there are no limits on how much money corporations, non-profits, unions, trade organizations, and the like can spend buying elections, because limiting their money limits their speech.

According to an article from The Hill, 

AdImpact, a political advertising tracking firm, anticipates $10.2 billion will be spent on political advertising across broadcast, cable, radio, satellite, digital and CTV during the 2024 cycle, which would make it the most expensive in history.

And, if the estimate proves true, that'd be over a billion dollars more than was spent during the 2020 cycle, the previous record (emphasis added). The article also notes that

Outside groups have dumped nearly $318 million into 2024 presidential and congressional elections as of Sunday, OpenSecrets reported.

And how does that compare to 2020? It's "more than six times" what was spent during the same time period in '20 (emphasis added).

I won't bother wondering what this does to the voices of regular folks like you and me; I mean, that's pretty obvious, right? We're not actually muzzled, but our voices are surely being drowned out. 

I do wonder, though, why the amount living, breathing people can spend is limited. After all, we're the ones who actually vote.

*** *** *** *** ***

An article from HuffPost informed us that Ron DeSantis ran a pretty expensive campaign.

The DeSantis campaign and Never Back Down combined had roughly $150 million to work with. Much of that came in the form of an $82.5 million transfer from the Florida political committee that DeSantis used to run for governor in 2019 and 2023. It’s highly likely that money dried up in the waning days of his presidential campaign, as many of the governor’s donors had already maxed out their contributions while his donor base did not show signs of expanding.

I'm not surprised he dropped out of the race; many folks think he was really prepping for 2028 and a run against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). The two debated last November, which is when Newsom famously said, "Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024." 

As DeSantis half-heartedly endorsed the front-runner, Trump told us he would officially retire the 'Ron DeSanctimonious' nickname. I'm half-heartedly wondering if no longer having to hear the name is why DeSantis suspended his campaign - and if his donors, and their wallets, wish he had done it sooner.

*** *** *** *** ***

One more about politics, and then we'll move on - I promise. I've been talking about endorsements quite a bit lately, I know, but did you see this one?

Nikki Haley receives major endorsement from Judith Sheindlin ahead of New Hampshire primary

You may be wondering, as am I, how many people knew who Judith Sheindlin was without watching the video or googling her. And I can't help wondering how much influence Sheindlin has? I guess she's still on TV in syndication, but her show ended in July 2021. And finally, I wonder how on earth this can in any way be considered "a major endorsement."

*** *** *** *** ***

It's FAFSA season - that time when families with high school seniors sit down and try to figure out how they're going to fund further education for their kids. While there are reports of issues with the form, the lateness of it, and most importantly with the calculations, that's not what I'm wondering about. 

Rather, I'm thinking about what happens long before FAFSA - when parents fight their way through the challenge of finding available and affordable childcare - and long after, when the kids have been out of college for 10, 15, or 20+ years and still owe on their student loans. 

Here's what I'm wondering: why don't we hear the same complaints about childcare tax credits as we do about student loan forgiveness? If the argument against the former is that we shouldn't have to bail out people who can't afford college, I'd expect the same people to argue that we shouldn't have to bail out people who can't afford to raise their own children.

*** *** *** *** ***

I'll close with a silly observation. I follow a couple of 'old house' pages on social media, which share photos of houses built as far back as the late 1600s, with most being around 100 years newer than that.

Followers of the page are very passionate; for people who complain, and for those who love what they see, everything is fair game:  windows, walls, floors, and ceilings; rugs, art, and collectibles, and where they are displayed;  and most especially, the kitchens and bathrooms. The most common complaints about those two rooms are that everything is too modern, the wrong material, in the wrong spot, or just plain ugly.

I haven't officially commented on this yet, but I wonder why no one ever complains about the houses having indoor plumbing and electricity in the first place?

*** *** *** *** ***

What's on your wondering mind today?

Wondering on Wednesday 1/10/24

Ready... set... wonder!

Does anyone else admit to being shocked that Hunter Biden showed up at the House Oversight and Fake Accountability Committee hearing today? And did anyone else have as much fun watching Aaron Rupar's clips as I did?

The point of the hearing, of course, was to do what's called 'marking up' a bill that would hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to sit for a closed-door deposition as requested by the folks trying to ruin his father make sure no one ever takes advantage of being in office again. I have to say, it was great theater - there was no lack of excitement, that's for sure.  

For example, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said both that Biden "had no balls" and that he was "the epitome of white privilege," while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-You Freaking Kidding Me?) seemed to take offense when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Constitutional Lawyer) said Greene had previously displayed pornography in the hearing room when she held up Hunter's 'dick pics.' Greene said it was not porn, to which Raskin replied, "You're the expert." Forgive me for this bit of wondering, but did Rep. Mace miss that hearing?

Earlier this week, we were advised that The Former Guy planned on offering closing remarks in his New York civil fraud case on Thursday. Sadly - or fortunately, depending on your point of view - we'll miss the opportunity to see the courtroom campaign rally because the judge isn't going to allow it. 

In an email exchange, Judge Arthur Engoron initially said Trump could speak, as long as he limited his remarks to what's required of attorneys:

commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence and application of the relevant law to those facts.

He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, "comment on irrelevant matters, or "deliver a campaign speech" or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers, or the court system, the judge wrote. 

Needless to say, Christopher Kise, Trump's lawyer, balked at that.

"You are not allowing president Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about," the attorney wrote.

So, what's the wondering on this one, you're wondering? Not a whole lot, really, other than how amazing it is that Trump can always find attorneys to make fools of themselves, knowing (as they must) that there's a risk they won't be paid their full billable amount, and that they may face legal action themselves for the things they say and the acts they commit on his behalf. 

If you don't believe me, look no further than Alina Habba who offered bizarre, and potentially threatening remarks about Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump's SCOTUS nominees. The Supremes will hear arguments about the 14th Amendment decisions in Colorado and Maine. 

I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up.

And that makes me wonder what argument Kavanaugh will use, since his answer is pre-ordained.

Oh - one more thing, speaking of 'ordained' - if you haven't yet seen the "God gave us Trump" video, you can see it, and an edited script, in this morning's post. I can't help wondering what religious folks think of all of this. 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

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.

Sunday School 9/11/22: Extra Credit

Let's continue with What's-his-Name and Vice President Kamala Harris in the Meet the Press classroom. 

I recapped the first part of the interview in yesterday's Sunday School post; this segment begins with questions about the Supreme Court, and her confidence in it.

Harris said the thinks the SCOTUS is an "activist court," which means 

we had an established right for almost a half a century, which is the right of women to make decisions about their own body as an extension of what we have decided to be the privacy rights to which all people are entitled. And this court took that constitutional right away. And we are suffering as a nation because of it.

She also said she was inspired by Thurgood Marshall, and by the Warren Court, with decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education. Now, though, "it's a very different court" than the one that had justices like Marshall, Warren, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

With no follow-up on that, WHN moved to abortion, asking Harris about a bill being moved forward by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-OH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), which they say would basically codify the protections under Roe for abortion up to 24 weeks. and wondering if she'd "be OK with" that. She said she'd have to read the bill, noting "the details obviously matter."

He noted that this bill is not getting the same support from "some abortion rights groups" as other options, and he asked if it was "more important" to find Republican support for this. She said "Ideally, yes, it would be bipartisan."  

And, should the government "put any limit on abortion?" Harris believes government should not be

telling women what to do with their bodies... telling women how to plan their families... criminalizing health care providers... saying "no exception for rape or incest."

And moving on, "since we're here in Texas," WHN asked if Harris would call the border "secure."  

The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.

WHN asked again if she's "confident the border's secure," given we'll see two million crossing this year. 

We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems that we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the last four years. We also have to put into place a law and a plan for a pathway for citizenship for the millions of people who are here and are prepared to do what is legally required to gain citizenship. We don't have that in place because people are playing politics in a state like this and in Congress. By the way, you want to talk about bipartisanship on an issue that at one time was a bipartisan issue both in terms of Republican senators and even presidents.

Next question? Inflation is being made worse by us not having enough low-wage workers, so a "solution on immigration reform that increased particularly lower wage job labor – lower wage labor could actually have an impact on lowering inflation. How is that not the motivating force to get something done here?"

Um, because there is literally zero motivating factor to giving Biden another win? Why do anything before the midterm election, since the Rs have visions of taking over the House and Senate, ensuring nothing gets done for another two years...  But that's my answer. 

Here's what Harris said.

I do believe that, for all reasonable people, all reasonable people are motivated and desirous that we would get something done. I think a big part of the problem though is that there's been political gamesmanship with this issue suggesting that it's a zero-sum game. If you want to deal with the issue, there are practical solutions, which include creating a pathway to citizenship, fixing a broken immigration system, dealing with the root causes of why people are fleeing their home when most people don't want to leave home. And if they do, it's usually because they're fleeing some harm, or they simply can't take care of their basic needs if they stay. There are solutions. And sadly, this has become such a partisan issue, instead of something where we work on it together, agreeing that what we're doing is not working as a nation. It's not working.

That agreement alone will be hard to get, regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. 

WHN then delved into 2024, wondering if there'll be an announcement after the midterms about the Biden/Harris team's plans. Harris said

Listen, the president has been very clear that he intends to run again. And if he does, I will be running with him proudly.

He thought she said 'probably,' which prompted some chuckles. She reiterated that a couple of times, saying "I'm very proud to be his vice president." The talked about Harris now having broken John Adams' record of tie-breaking votes in the Senate, which made her proud.

Who would have thought that this kid born in Oakland, California just broke a record with John Adams... Kind of, you’ve got to appreciate that.

WHN asked her about preparing for "the worst-case scenario that your job may hand you."  She said that she prays it doesn't happen; the rest of her answer seemed designed to show that she's preparing for it by doing the work that a VP does, even if, as WHN noted, there's no job description.

And listen, I think that there is no question that the role and the responsibility of vice president is a very important one. And Joe Biden knows that more than anybody. He and I talk about it. And it is the job of working with the president, doing what I can to be a great partner, to take on and help take on some of the biggest issues that impact our country, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy. And so that's the work that I do. So that has been the work of meeting with over a hundred heads of state around various issues, be it Ukraine or what we need to do around our space program. So that is the work of vice president, and it is important and it is something that I take very seriously.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this interview: were you satisfied with her answers? Do you have a better sense of her now than before? If Biden decides not to run next year, is she the best Dem to replace her? Chime in!

See you around campus. 

TGIF 7/29/22

It's good week/bad week time again. Let's dive in; I'll tell you which list I put them on, and you're welcome to chime in with your opinions.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke earlier this month in Rome  at a conference sponsored by the University of Notre Dame. During his keynote address, Alito was heard "mocking foreign leaders who lamented his opinion doing away with a half-century of federal constitutional protection for abortion rights in the US." 

He also spent time talking about religious liberty, saying

It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection...  Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. 

His personal beliefs are fine, but they're none of my business - not to mention that millions of Americans disagree with him. The problem with him expressing them is the appearance that they influence his decisions, as could his appearance at a conference sponsored by the Religious Liberty Institute at Notre Dame. The article notes that "The institute or its faculty members have filed amicus briefs in at least five Supreme Court cases on religious freedom issues."

Alito the man had a good week, I guess, for finding a place where his beliefs are widely accepted. Alito the justice? Bad week. As with the other justices, the less time they spend before partisan groups espousing their beliefs, the better.

Andrew Yang, former presidential and NYC mayoral candidate, has officially formed a third party - the Forward Party - with two Republicans: David Jolly, a former Florida congressman, and Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey. 

The linked New York Magazine article notes the Forward Party relies on polls showing dissatisfaction with the current situation in the US, and "showing that “roughly half” of Americans would call themselves independents." Using That Guy from Vermont as an example, the author points out how labels mean different things to different people. 

And, while support for a third party is high, according to Gallup, "that doesn’t mean that many people will actually join one.

Yang, Jolly, and Whitman have their work cut out for them. I'll give them a mixed week - they're trying, and people are talking about them, even if what's being said is not all good. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having a bad week. There's her husband's stock activity, and there's her Asian trip, and a potential visit to Taiwan, which is causing agita on both sides of the Pacific.

But instead of treating the trip like a regular one-off congressional visit... which usually prompts a sternly worded letter from the Chinese Embassy, China has responded to the potential of Pelosi visiting the island by repeatedly upbraiding American counterparts, leaving the Biden administration wondering if Beijing is serious about provoking another crisis in the Taiwan Strait over the speaker’s arrival. 

Stateside, she's "left President Joe Biden's team in a no-win situation - even if it doesn't prompt a serious crisis." Even some Dems are questioning it, as are Republicans.

To the degree that it’s not exactly in America’s interest to drive a crisis right now, then that probably wasn’t particularly well chosen.

To me, it's a mess of her own making, and completely unnecessary for her, and for us.

Will Smith made a video. You can decide for yourself how this is helpful, and to whom.

Donald Trump had a bad week, for two reasons. 

First, he stuck his bone spurs in it with comments about 9/11. Trump's hosting the Saudi-backed LIV Golf Tour at his Bedminster, NJ course, which is not all that far from the site of the former World Trade Center. Families of 9/11 victims condemned his hosting the tourney in a letter which told of their "extreme pain, frustration, and anger," and quoted Trump's own words from 2016:

 … Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis – it was Saudi. Take a look at Saudi Arabia. Open the documents. We ought to get Bush or somebody to have the documents opened because frankly, if you open the documents, I think you are going to see it was Saudi Arabia … 

But what's he saying now, when he's got the world's attention (and plenty of Saudi money flowing to his business)?

Well, nobody’s gotten to the bottom of 9/11, unfortunately, and they should have, as to the maniacs that did that horrible thing to our city, to our country, to the world, so nobody’s really been there. But I can tell you there are a lot of really great people that are out here today and we’re going to have a lot of fun and we’re going to celebrate.

Staying with the tournament, it seems Bedminster is again using the Presidential Seal "on various items, including golf carts," despite previous complaints, and despite a law against using it this way.

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”   

Given the previous complaints, it seems "the Trump Bedminster golf course is aware of, or  should be, that using the seal is illegal, but is using it anyway."  What a surprise.

TGIF, everyone.

In Case You Missed It (v96)

It was another slow week for writing here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of the three posts that made it out the door.

Nothing really caught my eye in the classroom, so I didn't make you work for Sunday School or Extra Credit. I did, however, tempt you with another chapter in the Journal of Unpopular Opinions about the SCOTUS decision to give the decision on the legality of abortion to the states. And where many people have been posting RBG memes, I posted an article quoting her saying that Roe was the right decision for the wrong reason. It's not a privacy issue, it's an equality issue. 

There's also a lot about it that's discriminatory; I gave some examples, including these:

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

The unpopular ones? You can read those in the post. 

I didn't publish again until it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, which was after both Cassidy Hutchinson's in-person testimony before the January 6th Committee, and my home state's gubernatorial primary. 

Here's a bit of wondering on the former, in response to the seeming millions of Trumpworld denizens who've added expertise in all matters judicial to their already-impressive resumes, which include expertise in infectious diseases, immigration, foreign policy, economics, hamberders, golf, taxes, health insurance and more.

Hearsay - or 'Hear-Say' or 'Hear Say' or 'stuff she made up that people didn't say' - you pick - was a big topic in the Interwebs, and it got me wondering.

Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 

So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th Committee. And I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

On the latter, the candidates leading in the polls won, pretty easily, in both the D and R primaries. Which means that Andrew Giuliani, did not win. He did win most of the NYC vote, which is fine - he can go back there and not interrupt me here in that vast expanse called Upstate New York. He did prompt some wondering, though.

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

And, before you know it, I turned 64, it turned July, and it was time to make the TGIF lists. In addition to SCOTUS shenanigans, and insurrection insights, there was some Biden bluster that needed to be added to a list.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement  on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

See you later - I've got a couple of drafts I hope to get out of purgatory, and I'll give Sunday School a shot as well. 

TGIF 7/1/22

It's list-making time again; here are a few of the likely suspects for good week or bad ween mention.

Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Mark 'That's Me in My Rusty Trailer, Yes Siree Bob!' Meadows, former president Trump's fourth Chief of Staff, has been attacked practically since she began her testimony under oath before the January 6th Committee. Which, if you've paid any attention over the last several years, usually is a sign a person's doing some damage in Trumpworld.

The attacking, of course, is coming from anonymous sources, or from right-wing commentators, and from the former president himself. I think he actually paid her a compliment: he said he hardly knew her, which means that what she said she observed or heard while working just steps from the door of the Oval Office, or while she was in the tent at the Steal the Damn Election rally, is probably true. 

She cannot be held to account for what she said she was told by others, but surely if they think she lied or misrepresented them, their lawyers can probably figure out how to get hold of Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Liz Cheney, or any other member of the Committee. 

And no, for the folks in denial, the committee hearings are not a trial, the House is not a courtroom, and if you wanted to have the chance to cross-examine someone, maybe your guy Kevin 'I Might Not Be Your Speaker Much Longer' McCarthy hadn't played his cards so badly, you might not be in this situation now. 

• Good week: Hutchinson, until someone contradicts her under oath.
• Bad week: Meadows, Trump.
• Mixed week: Cheney, for her unforced error of hugging Hutchinson after her testimony.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

Finally, the 2021-2022 term of the Supreme Court has come to an end, with many late decisions that, while not unexpected, sent shockwaves throughout the country. There was joy in Mudville, and there was mud in Joyville. There were some strange crossover decisions, with conservatives joining the liberals, and vice versa which confused a lot of people. Justice Stephen Breyer officially retired, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in, ready to start on the first Monday in October.

• Good week: the Religious Right, the NRA, and Mitch McConnell, who is probably most responsible for two of Trump's justices being on the Court.
• Bad week: women, government as we know it, well-regulated militias, and people who don't think religious coercion is a good thing.
• Mixed week: immigration and climate policies.

On the above, we may not yet know the real impact of this term, what the new "conservative" majority means, and how much further backward, or sideways, we'll go in the 2022-2023 term.

TGIF, everyone.

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 3)

Shockwaves continue to move across the landscape after the not-unexpected Supreme Court decision that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so the states must decide individually what they'll allow. 

But all is not lost in this battle, and pro-choice politicians - primarily Democrats - have a variety of opportunities to make a difference, and, of course, to make a horrible mess of things.

I look to the Notorious RBG for motivation here, and what she teaches us about Roe: that it was the right decision, wrongly justified. She believed, and stated more than once, that Roe should have been decided as an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as Amy Frieder noted in a Salon article this past May.

She elaborated on this in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart:  "[L]egal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." (Emphasis added.)

Because of that, Frieder continued, "Advocates must argue that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting already-existing human lives subjected to oppression that stems from state action based on impermissible sex stereotyping in an unequal society. To put that in plain language, abortion is necessary so long as sex inequality in society persists." 

And, she included in the article,

"When abortion-restrictive regulation is analyzed as state action compelling motherhood, it presents equal protection concerns that Roe's physiological reasoning obscures," according to constitutional law scholar Reva Siegel. Equal protection should preclude state coercion of motherhood. 

The Dems and their pro-choice allies should use the discriminatory and unequal arguments as their primary tactic to challenge state laws, or at least legislate corrections to them.

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for the pregnancy being 'outside the woman's control' is discriminatory, as abortions aren't similarly available to women who get pregnant due to a contraceptive failure, equally outside her control. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for any other reasons is purely arbitrary, creates a separate class of pregnancy, and is therefore discriminatory. There can be no exceptions based on how the pregnancy occurred.

• Allowing destruction of embryos created outside the womb, but not allowing destruction of embryos created inside the womb, creates a separate class of 'pre-born children' and is discriminatory. 

• Allowing dependent tax deductions and other financial advantages for living children but not for 'pre-born' children is discriminatory. 

• Companies providing a benefit for women to travel to receive medical care, but not providing that same benefit to all employees, is discriminatory. 

• Period- and location-tracking apps, and similar technologies, are private and cannot be used against any woman seeking a legal abortion. Laws must be put in place, before the abortion law goes into effect, making use of these technologies for this or any similar purpose a crime.

• Any state banning abortion must provide health insurance coverage for all pre-natal, maternity, and post-partum care. Regulations providing the benefits, and confirmation that they're available, must be in place the abortion law goes into effect. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide paid time off from work for all necessary care and treatment, including maternal/child bonding if the woman is keeping the child. If the woman is enrolled in any level of school, special provisions, including tutoring if needed, must be made available. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide housing, nutritional, transportation and/or other assistance to any pregnant woman requesting it; the state must prove the capability to provide this assistance for the anticipated population before the abortion ban can go into effect.

• Using Medicaid or other generally accepted 'access-to-care' metrics, any state that bans abortion must prove there is sufficient access for the projected population to receive appropriate care throughout the pregnancy, and after. If the access is not available, the state must develop, fund, and implement programs to provide it before the abortion ban can go into effect.

Believe me, I realize some of those might be distasteful, particularly the ones challenging widely-supported abortion exceptions and IVF; hence the tag of 'unpopular' opinions. But not fighting discrimination that we agree with is wrong. 

TGIF 6/24/22

If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, it will surely fit in a period-tracking app.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, it will surely fit in an employer's benefit package. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, it will surely fit in a smart-phone location-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, it will surely fit in a toll-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, it will surely fit public surveillance data.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, it will surely fit in your electronic medical records.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, and in your electronic medical records, it will surely fit in other places, the likes of which we haven't yet even thought.

But it won't fit in a gun cabinet.

TGIF, everyone.

In Case You Missed It (v94)

Here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

I sat in on Bret Baier's Fox News Sunday interview with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) for Sunday School. Most of the time, the two circled around each other, with Coons wanting to talk about January 6ht and Baier doing everything he could to avoid it. 

Baier was  interested in talking about security for Supreme Court justices, particularly whether protestors outside justices' homes should be arrested, under a title in the federal code. Coons, who co-sponsored a bill to address the issue, didn't say yes or no, but he did say

we need to make sure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the safety of members of our federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices.

Here's what happened next. 

Baier: Okay, so don't arrest the protesters based on the title, I got it. That's what you're saying. The president this --

Coons: Bret, let's be clear. I didn't say don't arrest protesters. I'm simply saying that all appropriate action should be taken to ensure the safety of the Supreme Court justices. And I'm not going to say this protester or that protester ought to be arrested. I just think that that's a judgment call to be made by law enforcement, not by a senator on a Sunday show.

Boy, I miss Chris Wallace - how about you?

For your Extra Credit I sat in on two of Dana Bash's interviews on CNN. The first was with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the January 6th Committee. When asked if president Trump should be indicted, 

Raskin pointed out that "respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function" was one of the things that was "crushed" during the Trump years, and he wasn't going to participate in that. He also noted that Merrick Garland is a constituent, and

I don't browbeat my constituents. I think that he knows, his staff knows, the US attorneys know what's at stake here. They know the importance of it. But I think they're rightfully paying close attention to precedent and history, as well as the facts of this case. 

The other interview was with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz (D-NY). Bash noted AOC's support of State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi against Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Many folks think that's a bad idea, including President Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, who said "if we lost the House, it's because of dumb stuff like this."

AOC's response to that criticism?

when we are able to elect representatives that excite the Democratic base, that excite young people, that excite a multiclass, multiracial coalition, then that puts us in an even better position to win in November. I think, right now, there are a lot of voters at home that have quite a bit of anxiety about the enthusiasm right now in terms of turnout for the Democratic Party. And I think one of the best things that we can do is elect people with a proven record of being able to excite a base and turn it out.

If, as seems likely, the Ds lose the House in November, people might want to remember this interview. 

Baier's interview with Sen. Coons prompted an item in last week's Wondering on Wednesday. The folks at Fox are not only concerned about SCOTUS security, they're also focusing outrage on media coverage of the assassination plot against Justice Kavanaugh, and how different they insist it would have been if one of the liberal justices had been targeted.

That got me wondering how the network covered the 'workup' on Justice Sonia Sotomayor the FBI found when investigating Roy Den Hollander, the man who killed the son of a federal judge in New Jersey a while back in 2020. 

Would you be surprised that I found only one article about that threat, which is the same number of articles as there were about Justice Sotomayor's children's book, and about her mangled pronunciation of the vice president's name? You shouldn't be. 

I reposted a Sidebar from 2017 as a #tbt post. Coming after Rep. Steve Scalise was shot at the baseball practice, the post focused on how words matter - except, of course, when they don't.

This hand-wringing about the words we use and how we use them, would not be occurring to this degree had the gunman not targeted members of Congress. It does not occur, as I noted in my post, when extreme words about abortion lead to murder.

I gave several other examples of where hands were not wrung. It seems we care, deeply, about the words people use, when we care deeply about whatever it is we're talking about. Otherwise? Not so much.

Thursday was the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in; I took the opportunity to point out the many similarities between  that scandal and Trump's current scandal. For example,

• Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, destroyed White House documents; Donald Trump has allegedly destroyed White House documents. 

• Nixon had the 'plumbers'; Trump was full of crap with his ideas of a stolen election.

• Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected after the scandal; Trump continues to maintain that he overwhelmingly won an election he overwhelmingly lost. 

There were several more in the post. 

 I struggled a bit with some of the good week/bad week list-making in the TGIF entry. A story about John Hinckley and redemption was one; here's another.

The EU "gave its blessing" for Ukraine to become a candidate to join it. That's just the first step - becoming a member can take years, as the article pointed out - and there's no guarantee.

...there are 35 "chapters of the acquis" setting out standards to meet in areas from judicial policy and financial services to food safety...talks have been stalled for years with Turkey, a candidate since 1999.

If nothing else, it's a symbolic step for the Ukrainians, still caught in the very ugly war with Russia, but it's hard not wondering how much of a Ukraine will be left to try and meet the onerous requirements. Does that make this news, like the Hinckley story, a candidate for both lists? 

 What list did you end up on last week? Drop a comment or a message if you want. 

I'll be back later.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/8/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Today was the day that the House Oversight Committee welcomed testimony on guns and mass shootings and murdered children, and kinda sorta welcomed alternative voices, too. 

It was also the day that a California man was apprehended near Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. Allegedly the man wanted to kill Kavanaugh, was upset about the leak of the Alito draft overturning Roe, and concerned that the Court would loosen gun laws.

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

House Democrats have spent weeks blocking the measure that passed here unanimously related to security for Supreme Court justices. That needs to change, and it needs to change right now… No more fiddling around with this… They need to stop their multi-week blockade against the Supreme court security bill and pass it before the sun sets today.

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

And then, there are all those bills that have gone to die in the Senate under McConnell's "leadership." I wonder, how many Americans could have been helped by those, and why they collectively matter so much less than Kavanaugh?