Wondering on Wednesday 1/17/24

 

Ready... set... wonder!

I'd guess that no one was surprised with the outcome of the Iowa Republican caucuses; Donald Trump won, garnering more than 50% of the vote. Ron DeSantis (2nd) and Nikki Haley (3rd) got fewer votes - combined - than Trump. I have to wonder, though, why media outlets were calling the vote for Trump barely half an hour after the caucuses started? Sure, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he would win, but come on - at least let people go through the process.

Another thing I'm wondering? How many people stayed home, and why did they? As of last November, Iowa had 718,000 registered Republicans, but only about 110,300 people voted. 

Was it the weather? Was it an enthusiasm gap for DeSantis and Haley voters? Did the media's constant Trump-gushing have an impact? We may never know, for sure, but I think we can agree that an early declaration of victory like what happened this week is not helpful.

One last thing before we leave presidential politics,  I find myself wondering if Trump's abuse of Nimarata Nikki Haley's full name, following his promotion of the lie that she's ineligible to be president, is indicative of his concerns that she has a chance against him? Remember, he took this same approach to the candidacies of former President Barack Hussein Obama and Sen. Rafael 'Ted' Cruz. Of course, there's always a chance that he's just a jerk and can't help himself, so maybe we shouldn't read anything into it.

Meanwhile, back in Florida, the state legislature continues to attack people and things they don't like. Among the latest proposed bills is one that would effectively end legal recognition of trans people.

The bill starts by defining "sex" in a way that excludes transgender people and incorporating this definition at the beginning of Florida's legal code - Section 1.01.  It demands that every law in Florida adhere to this definition, effectively eliminating all transgender legal representation in a single move. It then goes through many areas of code and creates additional policies that allow for the tracking of transgender people's assigned sex at birth and the enforcement of laws that exclude or criminalize them.

When I first heard about this last week, it was in the context of driver's licenses and a required gender affidavit - and I couldn't help wondering if trans people were really worse drivers than anyone else. Come to find out, one of the authors of the bill says it's to protect law enforcement. According to Rep. Dean Black of Jacksonville, 

We need law enforcement to know what they are dealing with. If you can go change your gender on your driver's license on a whim, that can actually endanger law enforcement.

Not sure why officers will be 'protected' by knowing the birth gender of a driver, especially in a state that now offers permitless concealed firearms carry, but maybe that's just me.

We'll close with an interesting bit of tourism promotion from the city of Lexington, KY, where the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) is going where no CVB has gone before: outer space.

The agency said it worked with scientists and scholars to beam the message toward potentially habitable planets in the TRAPPIST-1 solar system 40 lightyears away.

The effort was led by Lexington native Robert Lodder, who is an expert in computer engineering, astrology, and Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

If you're wondering, the message, which was sent with FAA approval, opens with

The first thing you'll notice as you descend through Earth's atmosphere above Central Kentucky is the lush green countryside that surrounds Lexington's vibrant city center. That's our famous bluegrass.

It includes recommendations where ET and friends can "stay and eat and shop." 

Now, I think this is kind of cool - I mean, why not have some fun, right?  But I can't stop wondering what's going to happen the first time one of the visitors stops at a horse farm, for example, and thinks it's a restaurant? 

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Sunday School 1/14/18

Today, I listened in on the conversation on NBC's Meet The Press, where Kentucky's Senator Rand Paul was one of Chuck Todd's guests; from the other side of the aisle, Colorado's Senator Michael Bennett joined. Immigration and racism and salty language were on tap for the conversations - no surprise there. Similar conversations were held on the other shows as well.

Rand Paul was up first, and he told a story of when he went to Haiti and Central America to perform eye surgeries, using that to frame Trump's most recent incredible comments in a different context for us.

You know, I don't think the comments were constructive at all. But I also think that to be fair, we shouldn't draw conclusions that he didn't intend. I know personally about his feelings towards Haiti and towards Central America... I did about 200 cataract surgeries with a group of surgeons in Haiti and the same in Central America. And when we asked Donald J. Trump as a private citizen to support those trips, he was a large financial backer of both medical mission trips. So I think it's a unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn't constructive, is the least we can say. 

And I think it's unfair then to sort of all the sudden paint him, "Oh well, he's a racist," when I know for a fact that he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped finance a trip where we were able to get vision back for 200 people in Haiti. 

Um -- "sort of all the sudden" talk about Trump being a racist? Where has Rand Paul been hiding? There have been more than ample opportunities, some of which were mentioned on the show.

For some reason, the comments that get skipped are the ones about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the American judge with the funny sounding name and who, according to Trump

happens to be, we believe, Mexican... I have a Mexican judge. He is of Mexican heritage and should have recused himself...

So, no, Senator Paul -- there's NOTHING sudden about calling Trump a racist.

And, if you change the word 'shithole' to 'economically-deprived' and actually used the term in a nuanced sentence such as the two you suggest, we would be having a completely different conversation than the one Trump decided to have.

Let's take the whole scenario and put different words in there and let's say, "We'd rather have people from economically-prosperous countries than economically-deprived countries." Or, "We realize there are more problems in economically-deprived countries, therefore there's a bigger impetus for them to want to come." Then it wouldn't have been so controversial. 

We do need a "valid, legitimate debate over immigration" and we need it to be bipartisan and we need it to address a number of issues, not the least of which is the DACA issue, and also not the least of it is the crush of illegal immigration.

And you can't have an immigration compromise if everybody's out there calling the president a racist. They're actually destroying the setting. And he's a little bit of it, but both sides now are destroying the setting in which anything meaningful can happen on immigration.

Sounds sort of like the president talking about Charlottesville, doesn't it? "Good people on both sides"? I also think I'd say that the president is more than "a little bit of it."

Senator Bennett, when Todd asked him about whether concluding that Trump is a racist was fair, did his best to provide context as well.

I was raised not to call people racist on the theory that it was hard for them to be rehabilitated once you said that. But there's no question what he said was racist. There's no question  what he said was un-American and completely unmoored from the facts.

He seems to have this impression that immigrants to the United States, like my mom and her parents who were Polish Jews who came here after the Holocaust, somehow, you know, come to the United States and are just lazy and, and the truth is exactly the opposite. You spend any time in neighborhoods across Colorado, what you find is immigrants here striving to make this country better and provide for their families and for the next generation. So I think he has no idea what he's talking about.

And - and on the question of what's in his heart, do you have any idea - thought, Chuck, that he would've called into question Barack Obama's birth certificate if Barack Obama were white?

That's a pretty basic question that no one -- Trump nor any of his minions, have answered. And, as far as I'm concerned, don't need to actually speak to - we know the answer is no.

See you around campus.

This Just In...

From the Breaking News desk at veritable pastiche:

Congressional Republicans have asked the Department of Justice to investigate former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Other investigations recently requested, getting geared up, or already underway may include some of the following.

• The Clinton Foundation and 'pay to play' when losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State
• The Clinton emails, the swiffer used to wipe the email server, and the server at the State Department cafeteria
• The Whitewater Land Deal
• What exactly was or is in William Jefferson Clinton's cigar humidor
• Exhumation of the 50 some odd people alleged to have been killed by the Clintons or their associates
• Criminal and forensic reviews of all investigations into those 50 some odd deaths that did not lead into an indictment of anyone named Clinton
• All of the Senators, living or dead, who did not offer a 'guilty' vote on either of the two articles of impeachment against Clinton in 1999. Exhumation may be required here as well
• Hillary Clinton's sexual preferences, specifically related to the pizzagate child lesbian sex ring, as well as to any underlying attraction she had, or has, for her husband, which has never been sufficiently explored or explained
• Those striped pants
• George Stephanopoulos and his exorbitant salary at ABC, which is way too high not because he's a lousy journalist but because he's a friend of the Clintons and since she lost, he's not worth the money any more 
• Huma Abedin, for specific stuff or just on principle - I mean, she was married to Anthony Weiner
• Barack Obama's birth certificate
• Allegations that Michelle Obama is a man
• Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass and presidential intimacy

Or, maybe not. Yet.  

I Am Not Ready to Move On, Thank You

To all the people who have told me, repeatedly, that I need to get over it or move on or accept it or unite or join together to help Make America Great Again, I ask you to bear with me as I paint over you with the same broad brush you have used to paint over me.  I’m not trying to offend you, I’m really not.

Let me throw you a bone: I acknowledge that Donald Trump is the president-elect and will become President at noon on Friday, January 20, 2017.

I have previously admitted that I was in the #NeverTrump camp, and provided my reasons for that, based on my opinions of his policies. You can read those if you’re interested, they’ve been publicly posted. I was also firmly in the #NeverTrump camp based on his actions, and his words, during the course of his campaign, because I found so many of both – actions and words – to be personally offensive.

As a woman with a big nose, a fat ass and small boobs, I know I am not a 10 in your candidate’s book – and I could not be prouder.  

I cringe each and every time I see the commercial of your candidate mocking a disabled person. If you think it was funny, tha’s your choice. I found it -- and find it – disgusting. I found your candidate’s questioning an American-born judge’s heritage, and therefore his integrity, honesty and fairness on the basis of his last name, insulting.

I did not consider your candidate’s comments about his actions towards women and our vaginas humorous. As someone with personal experience on this subject, I can assure you, without question, it is not.

It is frightening, horrible, gut-wrenching, and unforgettable.  So yes - laugh, if you like, while I fight the urge to vomit.

As you tell me, repeatedly, to accept and unify, I remind you that as it stands now, your candidate received 47.5% of the vote, and his opponent received 47.7%, or some 280,646 more votes. And while your candidate will be President, and his opponent will not, it’s more than slightly presumptuous on your part to assume that everyone who did not vote for your guy will shut up and toe the line on YOUR schedule.

I find myself compelled to remind you that it was not until September 16, 2016 that your candidate accepted the legitimacy of our current president.  Let me say that again: it was less than two months ago that your candidate finally acknowledged that our current President was in fact born in this country. 

Our current president has 70 days or so left in his second term; I hope the irony that you’re asking me to accept our President-elect less than 48 hours after he lost the popular vote is not lost on you. It’s certainly not lost on me.

One more thing about our current President: if you refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, and pretend that when you do so “you’re only using his real name”, let me know when you’re ready to accept him as your president.  Similarly, I’ll look forward to you always referring to our President-elect by his full real name, too – or won’t that be necessary?

Come inauguration day next January, I will be mourning my father on the 10^th anniversary of his passing. Hopefully, I’ll be able to tell him that your candidate did something – ANYTHING – to convince me he’s not the person that he presented himself to be, over and over and over, during his campaign.

The ball is his court, not mine. And not yours.

Knock Knock. Who's There? The Joker

No, not that Joker, these three jokers. (Hey - I think I just made a Trifecta post here).

First, there's this joker, the birther Rev. James David Manning, who thinks that Barack Obama had his love child's baby mama killed.

That's right: POTUS has a love child, apparently conceived when he made an emergency visit to a dental clinic in Connecticut in 2011 when a pistachio had lodged in his tooth. Clearly that was a ruse; the real purpose was to have sex with dental assistant Miriam Carey, the woman who was tragically killed in October after a chase through the streets of DC. At least some of  that information is according to the Russians.  

Importantly, Carey's family is not engaged with Reverend Birther on this. According to attorney Eric Sanders,

There is no suggestion, nor has there ever been any suggestion by the Carey family that President Obama is the child's father.

Now there's probably not much we can do about the Russians and their intelligence, and there's probably not much we can do about Rev. Manning's intelligence or commitment to his cause, which is ostensibly to have the people of Harlem turn to Jesus and change their lives. And there's nothing wrong with that.

We can wonder, (and I certainly do) if his ATLAH World Ministries is receiving tax breaks as a church for their highly political evangelical missions, such as these:

• The Obama Hate Club page on Facebook
• Stopping Birther Abuse
• Boycott the Dunghead Media Demagogues
• Obama's record at Columbia College

You can preach the gospel, and you can preach it with passion and confusion and righteousness, but you can't preach politics and get a tax break for doing it. And that's true for both sides of the pulpit. 

Then there's this joker, a former governor of Florida who stepped up to his computer and tossed out a tweet about the US embassy to The Vatican. Here's what he said:

Now, we all know when politicians tweet, sometimes things can get messy.  As with this tweet of Jeb's, when there are facts out there that contradict what you're saying. 

See, the Obama administration is not closing our embassy to the Vatican; it's being moved to our embassy compound, into a building purchased by the State Department under Jeb's brother's administration, where it will not only be more secure, but in a 'very distinguished' building instead of a nondescript house, and where the government will save $1.4M a year.  No staff are being cut. No prestige is being cut -- there will be complete separation between the embassies, including separate entrances. It's all good, right? 

Well, no. Of course not.

Jeb was not the only one complaining about this, there were others -- in fact there was so much noise about it that the State Department had an open conference call with the press to discuss it. Here's the intro to the call (emphasis added):

Hi. Good evening, everyone and thanks for joining us on such relatively short notice. As many of you have seen or participated in, there's been a number of stories, blog postings over the last few days about the State Department relocating the US Embassy to the Holy See.  So we thought it would be worthwhile to invite all of you to talk to a senior State Department Official...a little bit about the move and then answer some of your questions.

I don't know how many news outlets attended the call; only the Catholic News Service and the Religious News Service are on record as having asked questions.  Everyone else either was satisfied with the information provided, or else they were only concerned with stirring the pot and didn't attend or chose not to report the facts. Jeb Bush has not yet tweeted a correction. 

And speaking of corrections, I wonder if we'll hear from Dubya on this?  Friday morning his daughter Jenna Bush Hager was co-hosting part of the Today Show; in a segment about her dad's Christmas ornament, Jenna misspoke when she noted Dubya's inspiration for painting. She got a text from her father with the correction - it was Winston Churchill, not Woodrow Wilson, as Jenna had said. 

Maybe he'll step in and set his brother straight.

And last, this joker on Fox, Jenna Lee, who continued to put forth the message about the non-existent death panels in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Lee took a filibuster story and turned it into an ACA 'death panel' story -- even as another Fox reporter correctly explained what the alleged death panel, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. is charged with: slowing the growth in Medicare spending.

Here's some info:

Beginning with fiscal 2015, if Medicare is projected to grow too quickly, IPAB will make binding recommendations to reduce spending.  Those recommendations will be sent to Capitol Hill at the beginning of the year, and if Congress doesn't like them, it must pass alternative cuts -- of the same size - by August. A super majority of the Senate (at least two-thirds of those present) can also vote to amend the IPAB recommendations. If Congress fails to act, the secretary of health and human services is required to implement the cuts.

Wow.  A group of folks are to make recommendations to reduce spending and send them to Congress; if Congress does nothing, the recommendations will go into effect?  Seems like the only bad thing here is the 'if Congress fails to act' part, right? Kinda puts the burden on the do-nothings to do something, and we know how well that's working for us, right? Seems like the death knell rings for them, not us.

We want government spending to be reduced. We want to slow the growth in health care spending. We want to reduce entitlements.  I mean, that's what the Republicans tell us all the time. So why the heck are they so up in arms about the IPAB?  And why does Fox insist on making this a bad thing?

I do get confused on this stuff sometimes, but one thing I'm sure of -- there's no shortage of jokers in the deck.