Wondering on Wednesday 3/17/21

Today, we're playing a fill-in-the-blank version of our wondering game. You're free to complete the answers any way you want. 

1. Someone suggested Meghan Markle might run for president in 2024. I wonder, will this really make Former Guy more likely to _______?
2. I wonder how many people have learned a new skill, such as _________ ,since the pandemic was declared a year ago this week?
3. A crossword puzzle clue asked 'where politicians like to play.' The answer was Peoria;  I wonder, wouldn't they rather play in ________?
4. Just days after the American Rescue Plan passed, stimulus checks are arriving. I wonder if people will ______ the money, or will they _____?
5. The Washington Post issued a lengthy correction for an article about _______between a politician and a woman. Was the politician ______? And was the woman ________, I wonder?
6. There are all kinds of weather warnings - historic warnings, I've heard - for parts of  Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee beginning today. If a Sharpie was needed to update the weather maps, I wonder if ______ would be best suited to handle the task.
7. At a COVID briefing today, I had to wonder when I heard my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo say  _______.
8. The NY Assembly and Senate are working on the budget, and might make mobile sports betting, legal pot, and more casinos a reality. I wonder, will they legalize ______ next?
9. Every now and then, I wonder how much longer we'll __________.
10. _______ and ______ are worth a wonder or two - do you agree? 

I'd love to see your answers - chime in! And I'd love to know what you're wondering about.

Wondering on Wednesday (v207)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive in, shall we, to the wondering?

How long did you think it would take for the obligatory 'young black man interacting with authorities' videos to surface in the Ahmaud Arbery case? There was no wondering, at all, whether or not there would be one - there's always at least one right? And, of course, in the other cases, just as in this case, there is zero relevance - ZERO - between whatever happened in the video (in this case, more than two years ago) and what happened this past February when an alleged attempted citizen's arrest went so horribly wrong and Arbery ended up dead, with pictures of his lifeless body shared on social media by a family member of the men accused of Arbery's murder.  Do we even have to wonder if there are more pictures and videos that have been shared? 

The new video is interesting, in one aspect: how quickly the second police officer on the scene pulled, aimed and fired his Taser at Arbery; it didn't work, for some reason. And I have to wonder, if we had a young white man in exactly the same situation, would the Taser have been reached for so quickly? Would the police even gone to investigate, performed a 'I'm not searching, I'm just looking' check of the young man's body? I know how I'd answer that question, and probably the only way I'll be convinced otherwise is if the police release videos demonstrating their actions are consistent. 

Let's see, what else do we have tonight? 

I wonder if there's anyone who would be even remotely surprised to learn that Asian-American health care workers (and others) are facing rising hostility during in the age of coronavirus? According to a report in the Washington Post

Across the country, Asian American health-care workers have reported a rise in bigoted incidents. The racial hostility has left Asian Americans, who represent 6 percent of the U.S. population but 18 percent of the country’s physicians and 10 percent of its nurse practitioners, in a painful position on the front lines of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Some covid-19 patients refuse to be treated by them. And when doctors and nurses leave the hospital, they face increasing harassment in their daily lives, too.

Asian Americans have experienced a sharp increase in racist verbal abuse and physical attacks during the pandemic, with the FBI warning of a potential surge in hate crimes against Asians as the coronavirus death toll mounts and stay-at-home orders are lifted.

In case you're wondering where this might be coming from, here are some possibilities:

• the president's rhetoric, including his insistence on referring to the Chinese virus;
• a White House official referring to "the Kung Flu" when talking with a Chinese-American reporter;
• Peter Navarro saying that China 'seeded' the virus around the world, even as he pretended he wasn't saying they did anything deliberate, and
• Senator Ben Sasse, (R-KS) referring to thugs in China in a bizarre on-line commencement address.

Yep. That's us - Making America Great Again, right?

Actually, we are making America great - the generic but universal kind of making our country great, not the political capitalized letter way, and we show that in so many ways. Here are just a few.

• The PBS Newshour had a story a while back that I've been meaning to share. Tucker Nichols, an artist in San Rafael, CA, paints flowers for people who are sick, and sends the paintings to them. He also paints flowers for all kinds of people collectively, which you can find here. I was reminded of the wonder of art, how it moves the artist and the viewer, and helps both, even if they didn't realize they needed any help at all.
• And then there's this New Hampshire family, and I have to tell you this one brought me to tears, so consider yourself warned. Unable to visit their patriarch, who was hospitalized with COVID-19, members of the family showed up each day, and from outside, showed their love.  Nurses started taping notes on the window for the family, eventually having to leave the note that no one wanted to see: "He's at peace." What happened after that is the kind of thing that makes us great in the most wonderful way.

Finally, I'll end on a personal note, I broke my local social distancing rules this week. My husband and I have been following them religiously, since March: staying home for the most part, only going out on our designated days, and covering our faces when we're out in public once that became a rule. 

During March and April, we delivered groceries to my mom, we'd pick up her mail if needed, and the whole time, we kept our distance. In May, I released her from 'house arrest' once she had masks of her own, and now she can make quick trips to the grocery story herself. But even on Mother's Day, we stopped by, dropped off a plant, and left after less than a half hour of six-feet-apart conversation. 

This past Sunday, we went out to take care of her lawn. Masks on, social distancing in place, and then, I saw my moment. I told her to look the other way, and I leaned in and gave her a quick sideways hug - the first one she'd had in two months. 

Was it worth it, breaking the rules?  I didn't wonder for a minute - it surely was. 

Ranting and Raving (v4): It's not the Impeachment, Stupid

So, there's this WaPo column, "Let's be honest. Impeachment hurt Trump's response to coronavirus," making the rounds on social media.

 The column was written by Henry Olsen., who joined the paper last year, and, according to the announcement that he'd be a daily columnist, he's "a widely respected thought leader in American politics and conservatism... His work will offer a steady stream of new ideas, informing and challenging readers to explore issues from his unique perspective."

OK - challenge accepted. Here's Olsen's premise:

President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.

It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.

Olsen admits that "Trump's efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic ha(ve) been far from perfect," and I think that's a fair assessment. No one, not even a Never Trumper like me, expects any president to be perfect. I mean, that would be even sillier than expecting My Sweet Baboo to be perfect, or any of our cats.

Trump did ban travel from China, as Olsen indicates - and he did take flak for that from many quarters: unions, medical professionals, the ACLU, members of Congress, the international community, etc. GOP hardliners agreed with it; Dem hardliners did not, which should be to no one's surprise. But Olsen takes a huge leap at this point, saying

Given that impeachment managers were regularly calling Trump a king or incipient dictator, a more forceful response against the virus in January or early February likely wouldn't have gone well.

That one made me laugh out loud. We're talking about Donald Trump, who blurts out whatever he feels like blurting, whether it's a policy change, a threat against a Republican who dares disagree with him, any number of insults at any number of Democrats or just random crap directed at random citizens. He doesn't shrink away from anything - he tells us that all the time. If you need an example, ask the McCain family.

Olsen moves on to suggest that

In fact, the situation could be even worse today had the Democrats gotten their way. Imagine if Republicans had buckled under the pressure and backed the Democratic move to subpoena witnesses. The Senate would have spent most of February interviewing witnesses in depositions and probably fighting in court to force recalcitrant witnesses to testify.

Four witnesses. Four witnesses. That's what the Democrats wanted.

If the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees can't depose four people (some of whom publicly stated their willingness to testify, and for whom the questions basically wrote themselves) in a matter of days, not weeks, shame on them. And if the other 50-some-odd Senators not on those two committees can't find something to do during that time, shame on them, too.

Yes, I understand that after the depositions, there would be a continuation of the trial in the Senate, and that would have occupied all of the Senators, I get that. But to pretend that these men and women are incapable of, say, legislating in the morning and listening to testimony in the afternoon, or that they are incapable of doing anything at all while their colleagues are doing their work, is an insult to all of them.

And, do you remember the issue with the witnesses who testified before the House Committees?  None of them, we were told repeatedly by House lawyers and GOP Representatives, had any direct conversations with the president on any relevant subject. Not one of them was truly a 'fact witness' the GOP said, because they didn't talk to Trump. That being the case, there was no need for any of them to testify in the Senate trial.

And that's exactly why, if you're like Olsen and looking for a reason that it would be "extremely unlikely that the matter would have been over by the end of (February)" look no further than the Senate witness list, which included these people: Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden - for Pete's sake, they'd be as relevant as the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Easter Bunny, a unicorn or two, and Bigfoot (or Darryl). Hypocrisy much, GOP?

I do agree with Olsen on some things, though, including that "impeachment's lingering stain is damaging the country even today." We just disagree on why - and who - contributes to that stain.

Olsen suggests that Trump and Pelosi not speaking during the COVID-19 crisis is an indicator of the lingering stain, but it's a completely different stain, one painted with layers and layers of Trump's and Pelosi's actions starting before the impeachment ever happened.

Not only that, but Trump's failure to invite Pelosi - or a single Democrat - to any number of bill signings (including the recent one for the pandemic stimulus package) is indicative of a deeper stain on the country than impeachment: the president is a petulant belligerent child, a narcissist, and a jerk, He knows it, Olsen knows it, and so does everybody else.

Olsen laments that "any action (Trump takes) is subject to criticism." Seriously? Seriously??

Name a single politician, in the history of this or any other country, who has not been in the same boat? And don't forget that Trump, by his words and actions, rains criticism upon his own head - regularly, under normal circumstances. During the coronavirus crisis? Almost daily.

And then, Olsen continues,

Had he acted decisively in February when he had time, many surely would have accused him of manufacturing a crisis to distract the public from impeachment. Now that we are suffering from that month’s relative inaction, he is attacked for failing to act in advance. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. 

To drive home that point, he lists out the things that other world leaders - including "the sainted Canadian Prime Minister" - also didn't do in advance of the pandemic. I wouldn't say Trudeau is 'sainted' but I would accuse him of being an empathetic human being, an accusation that has never been made about Trump. Olsen continues, "the rational analyst sees these facts and notes that it is extremely difficult for politicians to foresee an event unprecedented in modern times and act accordingly."

Funny how it we haven't seen it presented as being "extremely difficult" for politicians not to act like bastards when it comes time for them to respond to such an unprecedented event. You know, like going to the CDC and saying that he prefers a couple thousand people stay on a cruise ship so that his numbers don't look bad. Or that we haven't seen it presented as being "extremely difficult" for politicians to not say these other things.

Why is it not presented as "extremely difficult?"  Because it's not difficult  at all for any politician, other than Trump.

Yes, "it must end," Olsen says, the "hyper-partisanship that views any act that (Trump) could possibly take as presumptively tainted and wrong. " And, I'll note, Olsen did not, the lockstep marching by the GOP, which started well before impeachment and continues through whatever day it is that you're reading this, also must end, as must the GOP view that any act Trump takes is presumptively correct, as if each and every one is individually the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, too, must Trump's insistence that he be showered with truckloads of flattering flatulence at every occasion. That is another lingering stain on our country.

It's not the failed impeachment that brought us here; impeachment is the icing on the cake, the dressing on a salad, the salt on the caramel, the... you get the drift. It's the whole of the Trump that has brought us here, and the whole of those Democrats who are their own worst enemies.

Yes, it's surely time to "put country over party." That applies to Democrats, whether they're Never Trumpers or not. It applies to Never Trumpers like me, who have left the Democratic Party in our rear -view mirrors. It also applies to Independents.

And it most assuredly also applies to Republicans. Asking only people on the left to make the "country over party" declaration is as absurd as expecting the president to suddenly start acting like some who was elected leader of the free world. Don't tell me that - tell him that. He acts as if he doesn't believe it to be true, and he still has a laser focus on all who suggest he was undeserving.

Nope. It's not impeachment that's making it harder for Trump, but I know what is: people like Olsen, who set the bar so much higher for people like me, than they do for the president they so adore.

Sunday School Extra Credit 12/29/19

In our final Sunday School Extra Credit of the year, I sat in on what could be the one of the most un-self-aware moments of 2019, Meet the Press and "National Menace" Chuck Todd (hear that reference at around 23:30 of this video) looking at "the assault on truth" and "our post-truth society, and how a changing media landscape has created chaos out of order."

The opening of the show include Kellyanne Conway ("alternative facts"), Rudy Giuliani ("truth isn't truth"), Donald Trump ("what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening") -- and Bill Clinton ("it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").

That's right: he brings in a two-decades old example, suggesting equivalency between what's happening today, every single day, and Bill Clinton answering a question on whether he is or is not still not having "sexual relations with that woman" while fighting for his presidency. I'm not pretending Clinton wasn't a liar - of course he was - but if the point of the show is to delve into our "post-truth society," is Todd really trying to sell us on this being a two-decades-old problem? And if yes, where the hell has he been for the past 20 years? 

Anyway. The first segment begins with fake news being pumped out by Russia, not, he said, to influence the Trump/Clinton race, but to make money on Facebook. And, he continued, the idea of "fake news" has become a growth industry, morphing into "a political weapon in our nationalized politics." 

After giving some pretty well known examples, including the lies about the inaugural crowd, the 15,413 false or misleading Trump statements; the administration's campaign against the press, and social media disinformation. Todd also quoted UK author/tech expert Ben Nimmo on the "four things that disinformation actors" do: Dismiss, Distort, Distract (this includes whataboutism, which is Todd's interview stock-in-trade) and Dismay.

So, let's hear from the print media experts - Martin Baron (exec editor of the WaPo) and Dean Baquet (exec editor of the NYT) on this. Baron noted our current environment is one where conspiracy theories and lies are spread regularly, and how people tend to pay attention to 'news' sources that "confirms their pre-existing points of view..." but that

...(journalists) still have the responsibility for determining what's true and what's false and, in particular, holding our government officials accountable for what they say and telling people they're telling the truth, or they're not telling the truth. That's fundamental to the responsibilities that we have as a journalistic institution.

Todd shared data from a CBS poll showing that 91% of Trump supporters said he, Trump, is where they go for accurate information, and wondered how that challenges the papers. Baron said that's how Trump likes it, saying

(Trump) wants to disqualify the mainstream media as an arbiter of facts and of truth... And he wants to disqualify the courts. He wants to disqualify historians. He wants to disqualify scientists, any independent source of information.

Todd wondered if they need to "market the truth" and "start campaigning, around the country" to explain how facts work. Here's Baquet on that.

What I think we're going to have to get very aggressive at is to be really transparent, to assume nothing, and to make sure people know where we are, how we do our work, to show our work more aggressively. That's a different muscle for us.... To my mind, that's a form of marketing our journalism... as well as what we're doing now...for Marty and I and others to be out in the world, talking about what we do and very aggressively defending our institutions, defending the truth and defending our important role in democracy. 

They also talked about whether voters want to be lied to, something that the MTP executive producer apparently says often, according to Todd, and there was some disagreement on that. Baquet noted

I'm not convinced that people want to be lied to. I think people want to be comforted. And I think politicians sometimes say comforting things to them, and our job is to jump into the breach and jump into those conversations, to do the deep reporting, to say "look, I'm sorry. What I have to say may be uncomfortable. But that think you just heard that made you feel good is a lie." And I think that's our job. 

Todd brought up an example, saying  "Coal jobs is what comes into my head. "Oh, we're going to bring coal jobs back." And you're like, "That's not going to happen," right, Marty?" Baron was more circumspect than Todd ever is.

I think we have to be careful. I don't want to be dismissive of people who support the president. I think they're owed our respect, and they certainly have mine. But you know, they've, they feel the so-called elites in Washington have not paid attention to them, that they don't understand their lives... their concerns... and that they're not being heard. And they feel that the president is actually listening to them and addressing their concerns and so they tend to believe him. And they're deeply suspicious of so-called elites, like us, at least people who are described as elites. 

Baquet said he struggles with being considered one of the elite, having grown up poor in New Orleans, but that "we have to do a much better job."

I agree with what Marty said, understanding some of the forces that drive people in parts of American that maybe are not as powerful in New York or Los Angeles. We have to do a better job covering religion. We have to do a better job understanding why some people support Donald Trump... we cannot dismiss everybody who supported Donald Trump... First off, that's not journalistically moral. It's journalistically moral to reach out, understand the world, and be read. That's our job.

They moved on to a discussion of how to describe journalism at mainstream news organizations, with "fair" or "objective" or "balanced" as possibly appropriate. Baron mentioned fairness, open-mindedness, being listeners more than talkers, and being fair to the public.

We can’t -- you know, we need to be direct and straightforward and tell people what we've actually learned. And so I believe in being fair in the sense of being open-minded, going into a story, but being fair with the public at the end, once we've done our jobs, telling them what we've found.

Todd offered his own thoughts, first saying

The phrase I like to use these days is simply -- Go ahead.

Baquet added a couple more descriptors.

I was going to add my two. I agree with all those, of course. But empathetic, I think great journalists are empathetic, which means they listen, and they try to understand. That's not pandering. And then, I think the most powerful word, for me, is independent -  independent, which means independent of everybody, by the way, except, except our principles and our readers.

And here's where they left this segment, with a second thought from Todd ('Go ahead' not being simply enough, apparently).

All, all good words, there. I use a phrase these days, around here -- “Don't round the edges. Simply, say what you see.” 

There were other segments in the show, as well as the roundtable discussion. I'll pull together a highlight reel of anything noteworthy, and I'll also share some thoughts on this, because while I think it's good to talk about this kind of thing, there were many things left unsaid.

See you around campus. 

Poll Watch: Impeachment Sentiment

As the full House of Representatives prepares to vote on impeaching president Trump, let's take a look at a couple of recent polls, which may or may not be more reliable than the snarky social media comments I've been seeing.

First, a Fox News poll, which was taken December 8-11. Here's the small print stuff: 1000 registered voters were surveyed via randomly selected landline (221 people) and cellphone (779) numbers which were proportionally distributed across states to align with the number of each state's voters. The margin of error is +/- 3%.

Here's the down and dirty: 89% are following the inquiry closely, and

• 50% believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office; 46% do not. Of those who do not, 82% think he shouldn't be impeached at all, while 9% think impeachment - but not removal from office - is the right thing to do. 

On the president's behavior?

• 53% believe he has abused the powers of his office; 50% believe he has obstructed justice;  48% believe he has obstructed Congress, and 45% believe he has committed bribery;
• 60% do not believe it's appropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival; and.
• 47% believe he held up military aid to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his political rival, and 58% believe that is not something that presidents typically do.

And, on Congress?

• 49% say the Democrats really believe that Trump did something impeachable, while 43% believe they are simply trying to hurt him politically, while
• 36% say the Republicans really believe Trump didn't do anything impeachable, while 52% believe they are simply trying to protect him politically. 

Next, we have a WaPo-ABC News poll, conducted December 10-15. Small print stuff: This one was also a phone survey, with 1,003 adults responding,  70% of whom were reached via cell and 30% via landline. The margin of error is +/- 3.5%.

In this poll, where 62% of respondents have been following the impeachment inquiry closely,

• 49% say the president should be impeached and removed from office, 46% say no; these are within the margin of error for the survey; and
• regardless of how respondents feel about impeachment, 51% say that Congress should censure him, while 42% say no. 

On the president's behaviors?

• 49% believe he improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son;
• 53% disapprove of how he's handled the impeachment inquiry;
• 49% believe he tried to interfere in the impeachment inquiry; and
• 71% say Trump should allow his top aides to testify in the Senate

And on Congress?

• 49% disapprove of the way the Democrats have handled the inquiry;
• 52% disapprove of the way the Republicans have handled it;
• 55% think the hearings have been fair to the president; and
• 62% believe he will get a fair trial in the Senate 

And, sometime later today, we'll have the answer on the two articles of impeachment from the House, and then if all goes as expected, we'll have a limited, very partisan trial in the Senate come January. 

Oh -- on those social media comments I referenced at the top of the post? From my feeds,a significant majority - I'd peg it at 85% or better -  of the people commenting on impeachment-related posts are more interested in denigrating their fellow Americans than they are in discussing impeachment.  

See you later for Wondering on Wednesday.