In Case You Missed It (v122)

Time to settle into a comfy chair and catch up on last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

I listened to three Democrats for your Sunday School this week: South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

They all put in good words for President Biden, tried to dispel fears about his age, and reminded us why we need him to be re-elected in November.  Here's a bit of Shapiro, referencing Ezra Klein's NYT comments.

Shapiro agrees with Klein that "the stakes could not be higher," but said Biden'll be the guy, and he'll have Shapiro's support.

...we’ve got to go out and make that case. The president, the vice president and those of us who are privileged who support him and have a front-row seat to this, we've got to go out and do this important work now.  

He said we all are "going to have to stand up and be counted" on whether America will continue "to be a voice of freedom and democracy..." and he's confident voters,

 ...just as they did in 2020, they will rise up; they will demand more; they will seek justice; and they will look to defend freedom in this nation, and they will reject Donald Trump.

Switching gears for your Extra Credit, I focused solely on Jake Tapper's chat with former Rep. Liz Cheney who, of course, is persona non grata with the MAGA crowd. She was not impressed with recent comments from Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, who recently said he'd vote for Trump over Biden even though, he also said,

Voting for Trump is playing Russian roulette with the country. Voting for Biden is outright national suicide.

She said he's "absolutely wrong," and even though she hasn't endorsed anyone, she "certainly would never support Donald Trump." Why?

...we know what Donald Trump will do because he's telling us every day. And anybody who has spent any time overseas, who has spent any time studying the history of autocracies and of autocrats knows we have to listen to what Donald Trump's saying. So electing Donald Trump's not Russian roulette. Electing Donald Trump would mean putting in power a man who's committed to unraveling our constitutional framework. So Bill Barr is just wrong on that.

I was Wondering on Wednesday about Choco Tacos, and about a proposed 'trucker boycott' of NYC, among other things,. The boycott was proposed by a trucker named Chicago Ray who tweeted about the boycott as a response to the penalties in the NY financial fraud case.

I'm just one of the many millions of Truckers who believe in God and love this Country. I stand with Trump bc Trump stands with me. Truckers for Trump ain't just a slogan, it's real.

Trump was delighted, as you might imagine, to "have so many Great Patriots" on his side, and so on. But then, Chicago Ray deleted his original tweet, put up another one in which he stressed he was not encouraging anyone to do anything - and then deleted that one, too. And I can't help wondering, is he still a Great Patriot, or not?

I took a more serious turn on Thursday, where I highlighted one more Sunday School interview in a Quick Take. I was not familiar with Charlemagne tha God until I watched his taped conversation with Jon Karl. Here's how things kicked off.

Karl started with a quote from his guest, who said the 2024 campaign is "a race between the cowards, the crooks, and the couch." Here's how he defines those three Cs.

...the crooks are the Republicans. The cowards are the Democrats, because they don't fight hard enough on anything. And, you know, the couch is voter apathy. And, you know, that's -- that's who everybody is up against in 2024. 

He doesn't know if anyone benefits from the couch winning, but that's what it feels like will happen; even his audience isn't energetic. He said "nobody wants to see the rematch" between Biden and Trump, and that's why he feels the couch will win.

Charlamagne's very quotable, and he had a few in the interview that I think really hit the mark, even though a lot of Dems might be mad at him for saying the quiet part out loud. 

Friday was a two-fer: first, an OrangeVerse entry in which I turn former president Donald Trump's words into verse, and there was my usual Friday feature, TGIF, where I attempt to identify folks I think had a good week or a bad one. 

There were political references, of course, including Rep. Dean Phillips, who's running for president on the Dem line, who had a good week.  There also was a culture reference, one that didn't mention Taylor Swift. 

Beyonce has her first #1 single on the Billboard Country chart, the first Black woman with that achievement in the history of the chart. And some folks don't seem happy about it.

Sure, if a Black woman either native to country music or coming up through the country music ranks would have achieved a similar goal, it would speak to the opening up of the genre to women of color. But that’s not what’s happened here at all. Instead, Beyonce is leveraging her global superstar status earned in the pop and R&B/hip-hop world, the enthusiasm of her Stan army the Beyhive, and the coercion of country music’s institutions to ensconce herself atop the genre.

On the other hand, people are line dancing all over the place to the song - including the Savannah Bananas - does that mean this whole thing is a wash?

See a snippet you like? Click the link and check out the full post - and be sure to stop back this week for more of the pastiche.

Wondering on Wednesday 2/21/24

Ready... set... wonder!

I read an article about a move to teach financial literacy in high schools, which I think is a good idea. I mean. my dad set up something like that when I was a high school senior way back in the dark ages, so I'm all for it. In this case, though, banks are behind the curriculum, and I'm wondering how they'll possibly avoid trying to train customers, not just financially aware students.

***** *****

This one's such a no-brainer that I can't imagine it not moving forward, especially in an election year: there's at least one bill to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security beginning in 2025.  In addition to getting rid of taxes, it'll change the way Social Security is funded, which could add years to the program's life expectancy. You might be wondering what I'm wondering on this one, and it's simple: Will Donald Trump tell the MAGA Campers to block this one and save it for him? Or, if it does pass, will he take credit for not stopping them from voting? 

***** *****

This one's a head-spinner: a trucker has called for boycotting deliveries to New York City, in protest of the fines imposed on Trump in his financial shenanigans case. "Chicago Ray," the trucker, tweeted

I'm just one of the many millions of Truckers who believe in God and love this Country. I stand with Trump bc Trump stands with me. Truckers for Trump ain't just a slogan, it's real.

Trump was delighted, as you might imagine, to "have so many Great Patriots" on his side, and so on.  But then, Chicago Ray deleted his original tweet, put up another one in which he stressed he was not encouraging anyone to do anything - and then deleted that one, too. And I can't help wondering, is he still a Great Patriot, or not?

***** *****

I wonder if anyone actually bought a mattress for President's Day, and if yes, which president were they honoring? 

***** *****

Do you remember where you were when you heard the news that the Klondike Choco Taco was being discontinued? I don't - I would have thought it was last year, not back in 2022 - but I do remember seeing 'make them yourself' recipes popping up on social media at the time. I suspect fans of the ice cream favorite are pretty excited this week, as we learned that they're coming back, thanks to Taco Bell and the Salt & Straw ice cream company. They won't be exactly the same though.

The new treat will feature a waffle cone filled with cinnamon ancho chile ice cream dipped in chocolate and topped with toasted brown rice. 

And, because it's Taco Bell, there'll be dipping sauces - and I'm really wondering how I lived to the ripe old age of way older than a Choco Taco, and never felt the urge to dip my ice cream in a spicy sauce. 

***** *****

Things have been a little rocky in the House lately, with Speaker Mike Johnson trying to balance the so-called Freedom Caucus, Donald Trump's campaign wishes, the imploding impeachment investigation into President Biden, foreign aid to our allies, a border crisis, a looming government shutdown, losing the Santos seat, redistricting efforts which might erase his razor-thin majorities, and most recently, three GOP committee chairs announced they won't be seeking re-election.

But Johnson might get a lifeline from the Dems: a resolution being circulated by  NJ Rep. Josh Gottheimer that would change the 'McCarthy Ouster Rules' and require party leadership to approve any resolutions to vacate the Speaker's chair, rather than allowing any member to do it.  I like this idea, but I wonder if there are enough Rs upset with the nonsense to approve such a measure, and I also wonder if Johnson's got the courage to accept such an offer. 

***** *****

Finally, I've got some information on something a lot of people have been wondering about - that GoFundMe to raise money for Trump's fines.  Many people have questioned how it didn't violate the website's policies, and the GFM folks have answered the question. 

According to the rules, you cannot raise money to pay legal fees for someone charged with a violent crime, or financial crimes - but this one, which is to pay fines after crimes have been adjudicated, is not outside the rules. Yet, anyway. 

And in case anyone's wondering, over $905,000 has been donated by over 16,000 people. 

What's on your wondering minds tonight?

Poll Watch: Corporate Political Speech

Earlier this month, Robert Unanue, the head of Goya Foods, attended a Trump Rose Garden ceremony launching the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

I suspect more people know his name now than ever before, given what he said and the reaction to it. I've added emphasis on the sound bite that got him into hot water. 

Today, it gives me great honor — and, by the way, we’re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump who is a builder.  And that’s what my grandfather did: He came to this country to build, to grow, to prosper.  And so we have an incredible builder, and we pray — we pray for our leadership, our President, and we pray for our country that we will continue to prosper and to grow.

The reactions were as expected: multiple calls for boycotting from the left, with regular folks and political folks and celebrities all on board. Unanue and others called that 'cancel culture.'

Similarly, regular folks and political folks and celebrities on the right were equally on board with support for the company, Hatch Act be damned.

And prior calls for boycotts from the right be damned as well - I mean, that was then, and athletes, and this is now, and Trump.

I tossed a six-question survey up on Facebook looking for opinions on the influence of corporate political speech, if any, on people's buying choices: were they boycotters, joiners, or not swayed by this stuff? How long would they stay away from a company? And what contributes to their decision-making process?

I loosely defined 'corporate political speech', as comments and statements from executives, brand spokespeople, or from the company itself; advertising which supported or opposed a candidate, a political party, policy positions, and so on. Rather than pinning it down firmly, I followed the SCOTUS theory: some of this stuff, you simply know it when you see it.

There weren't a ton of responses, which didn't surprise me; I have a lot of vocal friends and we have some strongly opinionated conversations in person and online, but actually taking a survey? That's a 'meh' much of the time, and that's OK. Here's what I found out from the folks who did.

I asked whether people had stopped doing business with a company, started doing business with a company, or decided to never do business with a company because of corporate political speech.

• 63% of respondents said they have stopped being a customer,
• 26% said that they have become a customer, and
• 68% have chosen never to do business with a company because of political speech.

I also asked if there were any circumstances under which a person would go back to being a customer of a company they had boycotted. While 21% of respondents would not boycott in the first place, 

• 31.5% would not go back under any circumstances;
• another 31.5% would, but only if they were unable to find a comparable product elsewhere; and
• 16% would go back if the company issued an apology. 

I wanted to know what issues people found important in making the decision to begin patronizing, continue patronizing, or not patronize a company, and asked that respondents rank some hot-button issues in order of importance to them.

While LGBTQ issues are the most important based on overall ranking, the single most important thing playing into the decision-making process is the consumer's or the company's support of a politician or a political party.

The final question - a 'choose all that apply' - asked which factors might influence a respondent's decision to support - or boycott - a company that others are boycotting.

• 58% said news media articles or posts;
• 42% said their own political position/party affiliation;
• 42% said discussions, including on social media, with friends/family; 
• 21% said something else would be involved; and
• only 5% said social media posts.

I was pleased with the distinction between news articles and generic social media posts; I'm glad my friends are still paying attention to news, instead of just what will get clicks on social media. And, I'm also pleased that discussions, and sharing ideas, matter.

How would you answer the questions? And how do these results compare to what folks in your circle would say?