Wondering on Wednesday 8/26/26

I've wondered, more than a few times, what it would be like if we treated American citizens the same as we treat undocumented immigrants (see note below). What if the luck of our birth, the fate that made us a citizen, did not protect us from the treatment we give others who aren't so lucky?

In the old days - back when we tended to see the best in others, rather than the worst - we didn't think or worry about it. I never wondered or cared whether the person cleaning the hotel I stayed at was a citizen; I just saw a hard-working person doing a job I wouldn't want. 

When out and about on a drive through the agriculturally rich areas of Central and Upstate New York, I'd see farm workers, and sometimes their living quarters, and maybe wondered if they could be working here illegally, but it didn't bother me; they're doing insanely hard work that I'm grateful for, and glad I don't have to do. 

The vast majority of people I know, and probably the vast majority of people they know, are equally grateful for the efforts of immigrant farm workers, hotel workers, and others, and wouldn't voluntarily take those jobs if they had the chance to.

But now?  After years of having it beaten into our heads that "those people" have invaded our country not just for those backbreaking, low-paying jobs we love having someone else do, but supposedly for snapping up all the houses we can't afford to buy and the benefits we're fortunate enough not to need (and, especially lately, hate providing to the least of our citizens), and even to eat the dogs and cats of Springfield, how do we feel? 

Well, like ICE agents and most members of the current administration, we're encouraged not only to wonder whether but to assume that folks doing the jobs we don't want, speaking a different language, having darker skin, wearing different clothing, and worshipping differently than we do are quite possibly, or even probably, not citizens. And we're encouraged to report them, even without any evidence.

In the government's efforts to rid our country of the "worst of the worst" of the so-called invaders, we've rounded up all kinds of people, including:

• people with tattoos, whether on their faces, arms, hands, or other body parts, including those we've granted asylum because they could be killed in their home countries;

• business owners, particularly those owners of ethnic restaurants;

• people who, years ago, were charged with misdemeanor traffic offenses, including DUI, served their sentences, and have been out of trouble ever since;

• people who, years ago, bounced a check to purchase groceries, were caught and charged with misdemeanors, paid their fine, repaid the shop owner, and have had a completely clean record for all the years since;

• military spouses, the wives and husbands of servicemembers who were promised  that their family members would be safe from immigration action as part of their recruitment; 

• former members of the military who served honorably even though they weren't citizens, who have a clean record since their discharge; and

• people who are reporting as required to immigration appointments.

Are we really better off with those folks in detention, or deported? 

And if we're better off without them here, it's hard not to wonder how much better off we'd be if we got rid of all the birth-lucky bad actors, right? 

Think of how much better America would be:

• Without folks trying to make their dreams come true by operating a little pizza-and-wings joint, or a corner bar, maybe a car detailing place? They're paying their taxes, they're giving jobs to kids who need them, they're providing services that we like and want, but they're gone.

• Without people who choose to decorate their bodies with art we don't like because it's scary, or unattractive, or weird. Gone.

• Without petty offenders - panhandlers, the loosie-sellers, the windshield cleaners, folks who don't license or clean up after their dogs, litterers, speeders, and especially folks driving rolling boomboxes or otherwise violating noise ordinances. Oh - and every single illegal fireworks user, too. Off they go.

• Without first offenders with a conviction for  DWI, a sex offense, a domestic violence charge, a gun law violation, or any kind of fraud? Gone, under cover of darkness, or maybe perp-walked out of their jobs.

• Without people who have served their time and are on parole. When they show up for their check-ins, schedule their trip to a detention center several states away. And those small business owners? Grabbing them as they walk or drive their children to school sends a strong message, for sure.

• Without the worst of the worst in our prisons - the drug dealers, the murderers, the gang members, the sex traffickers - they clearly belong in a bug- and disease-infected prison somewhere, not here in America with free meals, free education, free medical care, free gym memberships, and more. They're the easiest to round up; after all, we know where they are, as opposed to all the hardened criminals ICE *knows* are here but can't locate.

• Without me. That's right: 50 years ago, I accidentally bounced a check ($5, my weekly college allowance). Before that, in seventh grade, I succumbed to peer pressure ("go ahead, Goody-Two-Shoes, your daddy's not watching, just grab it, no one will know"!) on a school trip organized and chaperoned by my Dad, and stole a trinket from a gift shop. (Someone did know, of course, and yes, my punishment at the time seemed much worse than deportation).

Are you already prouder to be an American just reading this, I wonder? 

Are you wondering how hard it would be to make this happen, or how fast we could do it?  And if you're a person of faith, or one who otherwise believes in second chances and redemption, do you wonder where to draw the line? Or, maybe you're wondering what on earth kind of America we'd be if we did this? 

Maybe you're just wondering if I've lost my mind... but here's one more thing to think about. The  administration is now turning its attention to deporting perhaps as many as 200,000 people who came to the US on tourist visas but have since sought asylum here, which elevated my sense of wonder to new heights:

Can you even imagine how wonderful America could be if we could deport every politician who lied to us, the first time they did it?

Drop a comment, and let me know what's on your wondering mind, whether it's about this post or anything else. 

Note: By 'undocumented,' I mean folks who truly are without any immigrant documentation - no TPS, not visa, no asylum application, and no tax ID number -  as well as those who are visa overstayers, people gainfully employed by American companies who have taxes withheld from their paychecks, people who have scheduled immigration hearings, people who own businesses and are paying their taxes, and so on.

Wondering on Wednesday 7/29/26

Ready... Set... Wonder!

There are many days I wonder why I bother watching or reading the news - and today is certainly one of them. Here are a few examples of what's got me scratching my head.

• On the 'eyeball' network's national news tonight, we were treated to footage from the trial of a Massachusetts woman accused of murdering her three children - in January 2023. There was the tortured father, a part of his 911 call, the sobbing mother listening to the tape for the first time, and my favorite, a prosecutor holding up the pajamas of one of the victims. And this was just day two of the trial. Am I the only person wondering why this story, in all its gory detail, is getting precious time on the national news each day? And why the trial is only just getting underway three-and-a-half years later?

• An item from the 'peacock' network crossed my desk, letting me know the person who attacked and slashed author Salman Rushdie in August 2022 was convicted today in federal court on terrorism charges. He had previously been tried, convicted, and sentenced to 25 years in state prison for attempting to murder Rushdie. Are you wondering, too, why we're spending time and money trying the same folks in both state and federal court, even if the charges are different? And if you're OK with both trials, why did it take so long?

• And how can we forget Sen. Bernie Morena (Rude-OH), who quite proudly shouted an f-bomb at Dr. Anthony Fauci today; we got to see that, too - without the sound (but it was deafeningly obvious what he yelled) - on the national news and on the 'family Canidae' network. I can't help wondering what Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, or Gwen Ifill would have had to say about that.

Remember those assaults on so-called drug boats, in which the US government killed dozens of people and destroyed or took control of the drugs on the boats? And how those assaults, part of Operation Southern Spear, were supposed to cut off the flow of coke into the country, make us safer, and cripple the cartels? And how proud a certain Cabinet member was about all of it? 

I'm wondering if anyone's really surprised to see this news?

Despite killing at least 221 people in dozens of U.S. airstrikes targeting alleged drug-trafficking boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean, Donald Trump’s administration has reportedly admitted that the attacks haven’t slowed the flow of cocaine into the U.S.

Instead, traffickers are relying on planes hopping across the interior of Central and South America, or using larger boats and sailing close to coastlines where U.S. forces are less likely to strike, according to The Washington Post, citing a previously unreported assessment from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

There's more to wonder about - there always is - but that's enough for one night. What's on your mind?

Breaking Fake News Update (v12)

 Fake News Broke on August 20, 2025!

This fake news broke after a video of President Zelenskyy's reactions to the FOTUS, who babbled on and on about his federal occupation of our nation's capital, went viral.

Only an idiot would sit next to a commander-in-chief whose country is actively engaged in an over three-year battle with an aggressor nation and pretend that there's no place on earth more dangerous than Washington, DC. 

Sadly - and I sure wish this was fake news - that idiot is our idiot, much to our embarrassment.

We'll cover more fake news as it breaks - and you can be sure it will.

TGIF 3/22/24

I've got short good week/bad week lists for you, in this week that brought us the first day of spring and multiple cold, blustery, non-spring-like days.

It also brought us the start of the NCAA's March Madness madness, including anger over who got selected, and misery as brackets were busted by upsets. We also learned this week of a scandal in the circle of baseball's highest-paid player, and of a second cancer diagnosis in the highest echelon of the British royal family. 

We'll learn more about all of that in the coming days, I'm sure.  In the meantime, let's get to the lists.

The media - yet again - had a bad week.

The disappearance of a white male college student in Nashville garnered tons of breathless national news coverage, including the repeated airing of videos from the night he disappeared. You would have thought each of us - even me, sitting some 850 miles away - was part of his story, part of the search, part of his life. We were not. We are not. We shouldn't be.

Why was his story so important that it commanded so much of the limited national news time? Is it because it fits the narrative of out-of-control crime in our country? I guess it did, at least until this morning, when his body was found - and no foul play was suspected. 

But wait - there's more! News is breaking that NBC has hired Ronna 'I'm So MAGA I Changed My Name' McDaniel, the former head of the Trump National Committee, as a political commentator. 

McDaniel is expected to contribute to both NBC and MSNBC. Her first appearance will be on Sunday on “Meet the Press,” where she will give her first interview since stepping down from the RNC.

I hope you all laughed as hard as I did at "McDaniel is expected to contribute..." Honestly, I couldn't imagine how they could make Meet the Press worse, but a Kristin Welker/Ronna McDaniel interview is certainly a great way to start. Here's what network bigwig Carrie Budoff Brown had to say about the hire. 

It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team. 

And here's Ronna's voice, so you know what you have to look forward to. 

House Republicans - yet again - had a bad week.

Rep. James Comer (R-MAGA Camp), chair of the House Oversight Committee, is now saying that the best way to hold the Biden Crime Family accountable is through criminal referrals, and that he's got more than enough evidence to do that. This comes after Lev Parnas, former Rudy "Too Broke" Giuliani BFF, said he was sent to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine, and found none. 

Parnas also accused the GOP of doing Russia's bidding, and he named names, including Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Putin); you may remember he once famously spent our nation's birthday in Moscow. And after, of course, other witnesses have gone through some stuff.

But wait - there's more! Rep. Marjorie Taylor Flamethrower Greene (R-You Kidding Me?) has filed a motion to oust Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-ighteous Indignation). She did that as the House passed the remaining bills to avoid a government shutdown by a vote of 286 - 134; 101 Republicans voted for the package, while 112 of them voted against it. It's "more of a warning" to Johnson, she said. 

I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and throw the House in chaos, but this is basically a warning and it’s time for us to go through the process, take our time and find a new speaker of the house that will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with the Democrats.

Green doesn't recognize 47% of her own caucus, and apparently Johnson isn't supposed to recognize them either.

Voters in my neck of the woods had a good week. Now, I know that can be said pretty much any time people can vote, but I'm talking about an unusual situation here. Village officials made a decision that would make it much harder for a local business owner to sell his business and retire. Villagers were highly disappointed in the actions of the officials, enough so that another businessman started a write-in campaign against the mayor - and he won.

This is a big deal for the little village where it happened, but it's a big-picture story, too. It shows the power of engagement, the power of fighting for something you believe in, and yes, the power of voting. Hopefully, this will resonate with people who think no one listens, or who think that one or ten or 302 votes don't matter - because they do. 

TGIF, everyone. 

The Election Eve Post, 2022 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my absolute best to encourage you to vote.

If you’re not motivated this year, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to convince you how important it is, but I’ll try. 

We have people running for office - over 600 of them across the country – who are ‘election deniers’ in some way, shape or form. They’re running for local, state, and national office, including critical positions responsible for overseeing elections. Imagine that – people who deny the outcome of the last presidential election, in charge of the next one? 

It's possible we could have a Congressional majority that would have us back away from our leadership on the world stage, who would have us walk away from our support of Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. 

It's possible there could be changes not just in the House, but in the Senate as well, which means it is possible, no matter what they say, that women will not be able to receive vital medical care. It’s possible, that we’ll see more states move to subjecting women to bounties, or parents to bounties, depending on the level of risk they’re willing to take for their trans children. Is this what 'small government' means?

No matter what they say, it’s possible that contraception could be made illegal, and that marriage equality could fall by the wayside. It's possible we could see significant cuts in a variety of benefits including Medicare and Social Security, a variety of safety net programs, including health insurance, in our educational funding, and more. Change isn't inherently bad, but change without compassion and without thoughtful consideration isn't inherently good, either. 

If you're not of childbearing age, or you're not gay, or you're not trans, or you don't rely on government programs for your insurance or your income, or you don't have kids in school, does this stuff matter?

You might say no, but I'd ask this: when they’re done going after other people’s rights, do you think they won’t come for yours?

I understand inflation stinks; I also understand it’s a global problem. I understand we have significant issues with illegal immigration problems; I also understand that the problem is much bigger than border crossing, and that immigration, too, is a global problem.

I understand that crime is rising in some areas, in red states just as in blue states; I also understand simplistic solutions and soundbites are not the answer.

It’s going to take more than that to solve our problems, and it’s going to take more than voting, too. Voting is just the first step; after that, we have the power to hold elected officials accountable, and the responsibility to do just that. 

If you're an early voter, and have already done your civic duty, thank you. If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you. And if you're planning on voting the old-fashioned way - showing up at your polling place on Tuesday, like I do, thank you. 

Use your voice. I don't care if you and I don't agree on a single thing - I still want everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. The thing that's most frustrating to me is that the people who don't show up are often the ones making the decisions for the rest of us. We can't continue to allow that to happen. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you're still on the fence about voting.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." (1) Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance,  

contact your local Board of Elections. 

Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

In Case You Missed It (v112)

I'm chuckling this morning doing my 'week in review' post - it feels like I missed last week! Only two posts escaped my head, although I had the best of intentions.

 If I had to pin it down, I'd say my ADD and my Maine Coons and our other cats got the best of me after vacation. (As I write this, I've got a MC on my lap, and another on my desk, her head resting against my laptop and her feathery white fur covering the tab, caps lock and shift keys, so this could be fun.)

Anyway - two it was, and here they are. For your Sunday School I focused on a couple of US Senate races - Colorado, where Joe O'Dea (R) and incumbent Michael Bennet (D)  are battling it out, and Utah, where Evan McMullin is mounting an independent bid to oust incumbent Mike Lee (R).  And, it was purely coincidence that Utah and Colorado were the states were I spent my vacation...

First up? Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom with the candidates for the Colorado seat. O'Dea was pushing a 'tough on crime' message, although the specific message would have made more sense if he was running for a state office, not the US Senate. 

He said Dems in his state are ignoring the laws on the books, that we "need more cops on the street" and to "make sure we're enforcing the laws we have." And, specifically on red flag laws, like the one in Colorado that's focused on mental health? 

Sheriffs tell him it doesn't work, "it puts them at risk. They're not happy with that law," and it needs to be rewritten.

...We need to do more with mental health here to get these people off the street. But we have hundreds of laws on the books. We need to enforce them.  We need more cops on our street right now. If you talk to Chief Pazen here of the city and county of Denver -- he's the chief of police -- he will tell you he's short 250 officers. That's because Democrats across the state of Colorado have defunded, demoralized the police. And we need to do better.

Bash followed up, noting that Colorado's approved 146 applications to take guns away from dangerous people in two years, and asked if that didn't make his state safer.

He said no, citing stats saying it's the "the third worst state for violent crime in the United States," and "they just deemed Denver as one of the most unsafe cities in the nation." He said they have record crime everywhere, cashless bail issues, and again, the laws on the books need to be enforced.

I wish, as I do every Sunday, that the interviews were more about getting questions answered than about getting questions asked.  

Meanwhile, down the hall in the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with McMullin. His opponent has said that voting for the independent is "a vote for the Democrats to keep their majority," and W-H-N wondered if that was correct. McMullin said no.

... look, I'm building a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and members of third parties to better represent Utah and to help lead our country forward. And I'm not going to Washington to join a party or to caucus or to play the party power game. I'm going to represent our coalition. 

... He said he'll maintain his independence, and that would help Utah and give it "an added value of influence." After blasting Lee ("He sits on his hands until it's time to vote no and then he goes and complains about our country on cable news."), he said he thinks we've seen

... that the senators in the chamber who are willing to act with greater independence, serving their constituents, standing up to party bosses, standing up to extremist factions and special interest groups, they have the most influence in the chamber. They're more influential, I think, even than the party bosses. And I want that for Utah. 

I wonder what would happen if we had more unaffiliated members of Congress? 

For your Extra Credit, I spent time with the pundit panels in the MTP and This Week classrooms. Starting with MTP, Amy Walter said the Dems

have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time.

Maria Teresa Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." Pat McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

On abortion, 

Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

And in George's This Week classroom, the gang talked January 6th and election deniers running for office. 

Donna Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Julie Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Maggie Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Chris Christie and Brazile got into it a little bit on the Committee

Chris Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?"

 In the end, they didn't come to blows. Christie said his point was some people are remembering things now that they had no recollection of earlier - which is likely true, but also not uncommon. I mean, just look t the Republican Party. Half of them don't remember what they said, even when they see themselves saying it on television...

So - there you have it: last week's posts, in a nutshell. We'll see how I do this week...

Sunday School 10/16/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson covered a couple of key US Senate races; for your Extra Credit, I'm going to see how much punditry I can fit into a single post. We'll start with George and the gang in ABC's This Week classroom: Chris Christie, Donna Brazile (both of ABC News), Julie Pace (AP), and Maggie Haberman (NY Times).

The FPOTUS loomed over part of the conversation. There's the whistleblower report saying he pressured at least one person to give Melania shares in Trump Social. Haberman called that "staggering" and "very hard to explain away," and she cautioned us not to forget about this investigation. 

And what about the person close to Trump allegedly being told to move documents at Mar-a-Lago - after Trump was subpoenaed? George said "that's obstruction." Christie said when it comes to charging a former president, "you can't treat it any differently than any other case, but you have to know that it's going to be 'bang, right between the eyes.' If not, you don't bring a case.

Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?" Christie said no, but he also mentioned there are people with "convenient memories" about things now, who didn't have them before. The bigger issue is, Trump's not on the ballot, so it's hard to make the 2022 election about him, or about January 6th.

With three weeks to go, Brazile said "Democrats must understand in the closing weeks they have to put freedom on the ballot... and they have to challenge the assumption that they're afraid to run on their record." Christie said the Rs should be talking about high prices, crime, fentanyl overdoses due to the open border... "if they talk about anything else they're nuts." And while some races are close, he thinks the Rs will have a 15-seat margin in the House.

Pace says the Dems should be worried about Georgia, both the Warnock/Walker Race, and Brian Kemp's expanding lead against Stacey Abrams. And, she said, Kevin McCarthy "has a battle for the speakership on his hands," and while he's "trying to make this case" for his return as Speaker, "the margin, how far he can push it out, that's the crucial metric here."

In the MTP classroom, What's-His-Name and his panel - Amy Walter (Cook Political Report), Eugene Daniels (Politico), former NC Gov. Pat McCrory (NBC), and María Teresa Kumar (NBC) - talked about the midterms, and crime. Walter said the Dems "have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time."

Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

Moving on, Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

The panel also touched on the FPOTUS; Walter noted "he would like the 2022 election to continue to be about him," while Rs want it to not be about him. And she said the January 6th Committee hearing last week "didn't generate the kind of headlines and the kind of wall-to-wall coverage" people might have wanted. And saying he'd be subpoenaed was nothing like it would have been had they said "we believe he should be indicted." Daniels said it's just too much chaos for the Rs, but they can't say it out loud and risk offending his core supporters.

McCrory said "the Democrats are running away from Biden in this election, too... Democrats don't want Biden or Harris either, and Republicans frankly don't want Trump. And they're the ones trying to consume the TV time." 

Kumar thinks that "with Biden, his challenge is that he hasn't been able to communicate to the American people what he's done. I mean, we can say that the difference between Donald Trump and the difference with Biden is, Biden is a policy president. So, he has – he's going to make fundamental changes for a generation." 

She compared that with Trump, saying "his consequence is not policy. It's his legacy of undermining elections. And it's not just him, it’s not him, but he actually has a cadre of individuals right now seeking office that are election deniers. And that legacy is far more dangerous for a modern-day president than any other thing because it believes in undermining our democracy."

Ain't that the truth. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v102)

A short week in terms of posts, with just your four weekly features making it out of my head.

For Sunday School, I visited What's his name in the MTP classroom, where he interviewed Stacey Abrams, the Dem's choice for governor of Georgia. One of the topics? Abortion. Abrams described her well-reasoned position, including that 

you don't apply "arbitrary gestational limits."  It's a medical decision, she said.

And when we give it back to doctors, when we tell women and their doctors to make these choices, what we are saying is we respect the responsibility that women have and the obligation that doctors have...we should not be setting into law these moving targets that do not reflect the reality that women face when they're sitting in that doctor's office.

Later, what's his name asked if she was willing to compromise with a Republican legislature. Sadly, that insulting question is relevant, given so many progressives can  seem to be unwilling to take a win. 

As someone who served in the legislature for 11 years and was lauded by both parties for my ability to navigate, I will certainly get the best law we can. But we begin making decisions based on what it should be. And then yes, of course, you work towards what you can get. But we have to start with a governor who actually believes that a woman should have the right to control her body and to control her economic freedom.

Also in the classroom? Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-DE), talking foreign policy.

For your Extra Credit, I broke with my new tradition of sticking with one classroom, and strolled down to CNN's State of the Union to hear from Sens. Blumenthal and Graham, in a part sharply partisan/part bipartisan interview. The bipartisan part was on foreign policy, the partisan part was on the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Here's how it went on the new hiring at the IRS, which is being grossly distorted by the Rs, and poorly messaged by the Ds. Shocking, I know. Here's Graham:

 ...Hiring 86,000 more IRS agents, if that makes you feel better, you have missed a lot. They're coming after waitresses, Uber drivers and everybody else to collect more taxes. So, if you think growing the IRS is good for you, you're wrong.

Blumenthal thinks that's just silly. Uber drivers and "everybody else" is going to be OK, because the IRS will be targeting the "highest-income Americans." 

The idea that there's going to be this army of IRS agents defending -- descending on the average American is just preposterous. Tax fairness is what we need. And for the biggest corporations in this country to pay no taxes, for them to do stock buybacks that benefit the shareholders, but, for example, in the case of oil companies, they are making three to four times what they did just last year. What are they doing with those excess windfall profits? Lowering gasoline prices? No. They aren't doing stock buybacks. They ought to pay a tax on it. 

And I think there ought to be rebates to consumers from those excess profits.

What he said was fine; what he didn't say was a massive opportunity missed. I'll have more on that later.

What a week to be Wondering on Wednesday, right? I focused on the week's hot topic, the execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Here's a bit of that.

I also can't help wondering if the same person who wrote Trump's American Carnage Inaugural address also wrote his Third-World Country statement about the FBI search?

And I wonder, does Trump remember back in 2018, when signed a law strengthening the penalties for mishandling documents from one year to five years? We know he was hoping it would apply to Hillary Clinton, but now, it might apply to him. 

And, for your TGIF, I shared the unsealed documents related to the search, and the particular statutes under the US Code that were referenced in them.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code Chapter 101 - RECORDS AND REPORTS § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Was it a good week for anyone, really? 

See you back here later for Sunday School, and more.

Ranting and Raving (v9): Getting Away with Murder

I almost don't even know where to start with this one, it's so horrifying and so incredibly painful and so insanely stupid, it's hard to even talk about. 

Back in February, in Texas, of course, a nine-year-old girl was shot and killed by a guy who was robbed at an ATM. Here's the story from Houston's KWTX.

Police said the victim of a bank ATM robbery, Tony D. Earls, 41, is in custody charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after Earls fired his gun at the wrong vehicle, striking and killing an innocent 9-year-old girl.

Earls, the robbery victim, was at the bank’s ATM drive-through making a transaction when an armed robber appeared on foot and robbed Earl at gunpoint.

According to investigators, Earls took out a weapon and fired several rounds in the direction of the suspect, but it’s unknown if the suspect, who is still at large, fired back.

The robbery victim then fired several rounds “at a pickup truck he thought the robbery suspect had gotten into,” police said.

The vehicle’s occupants, a family of five, were not involved in the robbery, police said, adding a stray bullet struck a 9-year-old girl in the backseat of the pickup. She was taken to Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, where she later died.

 Earls did not know the stray bullet struck the girl when he called police to report the robbery.

It goes to show that anytime there are guns involved, the danger to innocent bystanders is extremely high,” said Houston Police Executive Chief Matt Slinkard.

And then, in July, this happened.

HOUSTON — The family of a 9-year-old Houston girl who died after she was shot by a man who had opened fire when he was robbed at an ATM said Wednesday they remain angered by a grand jury’s decision to not indict the man.

“That was not an accident. That was not self-defense,” April Aguirre, the aunt of Arlene Alvarez said during a news conference as a photograph of the girl as she lay in a hospital bed bloodied and bandaged shortly before her death was shown.

Tony Earls, 41, had been charged with aggravated assault, serious bodily injury, in Alvarez’s Feb. 14 death. A Harris County grand jury in Houston on Tuesday could have indicted him on this charge or several others, including manslaughter and murder, but declined to do so.

And this is not a surprise - at least, it's not a surprise in Texas, where everything is bigger, including the stupid stuff. 

Texas law “gives very, very broad self-defense rights for people carrying guns, even if the person makes a mistake,” said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

The murderer's attorney said the robber fired and the murderer "fired back in self-defense," and the murderer "continues to grieve for Alvarez but that the grand jury made the right decision and that the person responsible for her death is the robber." The murderer, they said, 

did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for (the murderer).

I'm sorry, but there is zero justice being served here, 

• Unless you think that an idiot who's so dumb he'd shoot at a random vehicle in the ATM line deserves justice. 
• Unless you think that an innocent nine-year-old little girl is acceptable collateral damage for a robbery. 
• Unless you think that a person who shoots at a stranger's vehicle in an ATM line is acting in self-defense, when he doesn't even know whether the person who robbed him is in that car, or any other car in the ATM line.
• Unless you think that someone's going to rob a guy at an ATM by driving up to it, getting in line behind other cars, parking his car, getting out, walking up to the car at the head of the line, robbing the drive, going back to his car, getting in, starting it up, and sitting in line until cars move and he can get out of line and drive away. Maybe ATM robbers are that dumb in Texas, but up here, they'd have come on foot, hidden in the bushes, approached your car, stolen your money, and run away. 

There's also especially zero justice being served here if you believe that the only person or entity responsible for a murder is the person who pulls the trigger, which of course is what you tell us all the time. It's never anyone other than the shooter himself, 

• unless it's bad parenting;
• unless it's video games and movies;
• unless it's not saying prayers in school;
• unless it's too much screen time;
• unless it's woke corporations;
• unless it's socialism and critical race theory;
• unless it's red flags that were missed;
• unless it's red flags that weren't missed.

Yeah, unless that last bullet. 

Rick Ramos, the attorney for the Alvarez family, said Wednesday that (the murderer's) actions were reckless and he questioned whether (the murderer) was capable of carrying a weapon as his lawyers had indicated in court records that he had suffered from mental illness before the shooting.

Chew on that for a second. The guy had known mental health issues? The things we're supposed to be worried about?

Aren't we always told that we need to make sure that there's plenty of money that "may" be used for mental programs, and that schools and teachers and coaches and friends and classmates and neighbors and scout leaders and pastors (oh wait, it's never the pastors' fault, what was I thinking?) and everyone else need to identify these issues and make sure they tell someone?

And don't we know, for certain, that mental health issues are why we have so many shootings here? 

Heck, even the NRA tells us that - here's some of what they were telling us back in 2013:

Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”

Of course, the NRA also said this, and yes, the emphasis is mine:

A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so would actually discourage troubled people from getting the help they need.

Chew on that for a second. Keeping a person from having a gun will keep them from getting the mental health care they need?

What the actual hell? Isn't the very decision to get a gun instead of getting treatment for a mental health problem enough of an indication that the person shouldn't have a gun? 

Nope - not in Texas. 

Because Texas doesn't have red flag laws. 

Because Republican legislators Texas, last year, made it possible for anyone, regardless of anything, to carry handguns without a background check and without any training. 

In a nutshell, a person in Texas needs to do exactly as much to get and carry a gun as a nine-year-old little girl needs to do to go with her parents to the ATM: absolutely nothing.

But have no fear: while justice was served here for the murderer, the 'real' killer is still out there... you know, like the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson is still out there.

... investigators planned to focus on finding the unidentified robber and holding him responsible for Alvarez’s death, with authorities now offering a $30,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.

Clearly, the person responsible for the murder of a child is not the person who murdered her. It's not the shooter, like we've always been told. It's not the guy who has known mental health issues, who "took out a weapon and fired several rounds in the direction of the suspect" and then fired several more “at a pickup truck he thought the robbery suspect had gotten into.” 

It's the guy who robbed the guy who did all of that. 

It Happened Again.

On February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo was shot and killed by four NYPD officers. 

I remember being horrified when I heard the news and as details kept coming out, including when the officers were found not guilty of murdering him.

They thought he was a rape suspect. They fired 41 shots, and hit him 19 times. He was 23 years old. He had a bullet hole in the bottom of his foot, lending credence to a witness who said "many of the shots were fired after he had already fallen to the ground." 

Bruce Springsteen wrote a song about the Diallo case, called American Skin (41 shots)*. The Boss writes songs that challenge us, that make us think, and sometimes, that get badly misinterpreted - Born in the USA, anyone? 

American Skin (41 Shots) is another one. 

Is it a gun, is it a knife

Is it a wallet, this is your life

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

No secret my friend

You can get killed just for living in your American skin.

 It's not anti-police, which is how many people interpreted it, and hoped it was, I'm sure. Springsteen said 

Though the song was critical, it was not 'anti-police' as some thought. The first voice you hear after the intro is from the policeman's point of view. I worked hard for a balanced voice. I knew a diatribe would do no good. I just wanted to help people see the other guy's point of view.

Whether he was successful is in the eye of the beholder. 

What's not in the eye of the beholder, of course, is what happened to Diallo, an innocent man; what happened to the people in his life - his family, and others; what happened to people's trust and faith in the people who are supposed to protect and serve them; and how people learned to fear the police, some as much or more as they feared the bad guys.

 

Is it a gun, is it a knife

Is it a wallet, this is your life

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

No secret my friend

You can get killed just for living in your American skin.

On June 27, 2022, Jayland Walker was shot and killed by eight Akron, OH police officers. 

I heard about this latest police shooting of a young black man, and I was in disbelief. I couldn't possibly have heard it correctly: 80 shots? 90 shots? 60 bullets hit him? 100 holes in his body? How could that possibly be true? 

I wept. 

Walker was pursued by the police for a traffic violation. He fled by car, then jumped out of the car and started to run away, for reasons we will never know. Because he can't tell us.

According to early reports, he was hit by 60 bullets, leaving 100 wounds on his body. The autopsy report has been released, and while the number of shots hitting him changed, the details of the carnage are, without a doubt, horrific. 

There were 46 entrance wounds on his 25-year-old body: 

• 17 on his pelvis and upper legs, injuring major arteries to his leg and bladder; his pelvis and both femurs were broken.
• 15 on his torso, injuring his heart, lungs, liver, spleen, left kidney, intestines, and multiple ribs.
• 8 on his arms and right hand.
• 5 on his knees, his leg, and his foot
• 1 on his face, breaking his jaw.

Adding insult to those injuries? He was handcuffed after he was murdered. 

Is it a gun, is it a knife

Is it a wallet, this is your life

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

No secret my friend

You can get killed just for living in your American skin.

It couldn't be true, but it was. It is. 

This happened. Again. 

23 years later, it happened again.

We all should be weeping. We all should be weeping, especially because we know the chances of this happening to any young white males in our lives is almost nil. 

We all should be weeping, because the bastard accused of murdering seven people at a July 4th parade was not murdered by police, but was unharmed when he was arrested while driving to another city to perhaps murder more. He was able to have his disgusting face memorialized in a mug shot.

Jayland Walker's face was memorialized at his funeral and in the hearts of those who knew and loved him, and by complete strangers who were, are, and ever will be appalled at his shocking and unnecessary death.

Is it a gun, is it a knife

Is it a wallet, this is your life

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

No secret my friend

You can get killed just for living in your American skin.

* (You can watch a live performance of American Skin (4 Shots)  here.)