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.

Throwback Thursday (v2)

Friends and family have been having a thoughtful if occasionally biting discussion on Facebook about New York's move to a $15 hourly wage for fast food workers ($15FF) by 2018 for New York City and by 2021 for folks here in "Upstate" NY.

Among the reasons (we've expressed several reasons, truth be told) some of us are opposed to this specific plan, which impacts only one industry and comes about solely because of manipulation by our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, is that it strips the incentive to work harder, or to produce a higher quality product, because the increase makes it almost impossible for someone to be rewarded with a higher wage.

The whole incentive thing - rewarding people who perform well -- has been something I've striven for throughout my career, dating back to my very first 'real job', which I started 37 years ago this month (maybe even this week), in August of 1978.

I've told this story before, about my return from college after only two years, tail between my legs, back living at home with my teacher parents, and hating every minute of everything, including my Dad's way of 'inspiring me' to look for a job.  That process, as annoying as it was for a short period of time, led me to actually find a job, working in the headquarters of a multi-state industrial laundry. As a microfilmer. You know: pulling staples, straightening corners, and running documents through a camera thingy to save them for posterity. I also volunteered to learn how to use the Pitney Bowes mailing equipment. Big doings, right?  My starting salary was $140/week, for I think a 37.5 hour schedule.

Clearly it was not my dream job, but it was a paycheck. I was able to pay rent to my parents (another part of the 'learning from your failures' lesson), and I could save money with a goal of getting together the security deposit and first month's rent for my own apartment someday.

I found out shortly after I started working there that August was the time that annual salary increases were handed out.  Shoot, I thought -- looks like it's going to take longer to get that apartment.  When I was called to the office of the Finance VP, it was with more than a little trepidation that I headed off to the executive suite.

The VP, Randy, was a nice guy, but someone I had very little interaction with.  When he told me that, while I had only been there a couple of weeks, he had heard good things about me and that I was going to get a raise, I was surprised. When he told me that he couldn't remember a similar situation of someone being there such a short period of time and getting a raise, I was stunned. I got bumped up to $145 per week, the thanks of the VP, and his encouragement to keep up the good work.  Within a few months, I was handling more responsibility, and had saved enough to move into my own apartment, which had been my goal all along. Mission accomplished, as they say.

A few days ago, I read that the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; although I only worked there for about three and a half years, I have fond memories of  many folks I worked with, some of the crazy things that happened there, and of everything I learned, much of which still serves me today. And, of course, one lesson I've never forgotten is that it's possible to work hard, learn more, do more, and get rewarded for it.

At least, it's possible to do that, if wages aren't artificially manipulated by elected officials.

Throwback Thursday (v1)

Let's go back, this Thursday, to a simpler time.

When men were blissfully unaware of how a woman's body worked, except for two things: "that time of the month" and that a man would put his thingy in her nether region, and he enjoyed it, but only for religious purposes, or of course if the man wanted to assert his husbandly rights.  Men and women slept in separate beds, on television at least, and babies came from storks.

That must be the time where Republican men feel most comfortable.

First we had the one who reminded us that when he grew up, birth control had something to do with holding an aspirin between your knees.  And the guy who wondered if it was possible for a woman to swallow a tiny camera to allow a doctor to see inside her vagina and uterus, similar to how that works to allow a doctor to see a person's colon.  And of course we have all of the different versions of rape, which have been so carefully described by Republicans.

And now, joining them in the simpler time, we have Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Walker never went to college, we've been told, and there are some who think that should disqualify him from being President.

Me? I think his lack of sense is more disqualifying than his lack of parchment.

Walker blamed the media's 'gotcha' attitude in response to a question about social issues which some declared or exploring Republican presidential candidates (he's one of the latter) seem afraid to address.

And he said this:

I'll give you an example. I'm pro-life, I've passed pro-life legislation. We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they're pro-life or not, I find people all the time who'll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids' ultrasound and how excited they are, so that's a lovely thing. I think about my sons, 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It's just a cool thing out there.

Seriously?

First of all, what the hell kind of conversations does Governor Walker have where "most people" he talks to, or "finds" will flash ultrasound pics at him? And does he really think that the one you get where they rub the gel and the wand on a woman's belly is the same as the one where they stick a condom-covered, gel-slathered probe into her vagina?

Ask any woman who has been forced, by a politician, to have a transvaginal ultrasound, and I'm guessing her description of the experience will not include the words "lovely" or "cool" -- no matter what the Rabid Badger believes. Because, when the test is done for medical purposes, as opposed to political purposes, it's usually to diagnose a problem with the fetus, not to add to a grandparent's brag book.

Can't we ask for better?  Please?