Wondering on Wednesday 6/22/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Separate from the foolishness of a Congressional Oversight Committee holding hearings on the NFL's Washington Commandos, which in and of itself deserves wondering, I can't help wondering why people continue to think that there's a quote-unquote First Amendment issue when an employer fines, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee for comments made, or for bad behavior, or other such infractions. 

For the folks in the back, here's what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything there about the NFL? The Washington Commandos, or Redskins, as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ick) called the team? 

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 

I also find myself wondering about this part, too, and whether Jordan knew how ironically funny it sounded, given the former president's well-documented proclivities....

Jordan then mentioned that Portnoy, whom multiple women have accused of sexual assault, is an established journalist who interviewed former President Trump, saying, “Seems to me, [if you] can get into the White House, you should be able to get into a football game.”

Moving from the First Amendment to the Second, there appears to be enough bipartisan agreement to pass some gun reforms this time; the initial vote to advance the legislation passed 64-34. Folks are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle, with some Dems suggesting they might not vote for it because it doesn't go far enough, and some Rs saying outright they won't vote for it because it goes too far. 

Here's one who suggests exactly that: the #3 Republican in the House, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Embarrassing NY as Best I Can). Stefanik, who's got a better-than-fair chance of becoming the House Majority Leader if the Rs win in November, given Trump's public souring on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, released this statement today.

I will continue to stand up for Second Amendment rights against this legislation that shreds the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans with no effect on deterring criminals who do not follow the law when obtaining firearms. This bill contains unconstitutional gun control provisions and allows the implementation of red flag laws that take away due process rights. It would restrict men and women who are able to serve in our military from purchasing a firearm and would strip the Constitutional rights of gunowners by broadening the scope of punishment for even nonviolent misdemeanors. As this blatant government overreach seeks to make gun owners second-class citizens, I will continue to stand up for the Constitution and push for solutions, including advocating for increased mental health resources across the country.

I feel kind of bad for her, that she feels compelled to say stuff like this, particularly that last part, about her intention to advocate for increased mental health resources. And I wonder if she's even read the bill, or any news reports about it?

According to this article, the bill "provides $15 billion in federal funding to bolster mental health services..." from training programs to pediatric mental health care to community health services to intervention and prevention services t0 school-based mental health services, and more.

I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. The second is below. 

Resolution against the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill:

Whereas those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.

Whereas “red flag laws” violate one’s right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty.

Whereas waiting periods on gun purchases harm those who need to acquire the means of self-defense in emergencies such as riots.

Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights.

We reject the so called “bipartisan gun agreement”, and we rebuke Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). 

One more thing on Stefanik? Taking a page out of her Dear Leader's playbook, she's endorsing sketchy characters for office. For example, she proudly endorsed Carl Paladino for Congress in the new #NY23 district.

Carl is a job creator and conservative outsider who will be a tireless fighter for the people of New York in our fight to put America First to save the country.

I guess it makes sense that she'd endorse a guy who said Hitler is the kind of leader we need today. After all, someone very much in Stefanik's corner seems to meet the "get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just, they were hypnotized" definition Paladino used to describe Hitler... 

But, I wonder if she remembers Paladino going public with plans to threaten NY members of Congress if they didn't support Trump in 2016? Or, later that same year, when he said stuff so bizarre about the Obamas that even the Trump campaign objected? 

And that's where the real wondering comes in: is it possible that Trump's peeps have out-Trumped him? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

TGIF 6/17/22

It's Friday again, and time for our good week/bad week lists. As I was gathering notes for today's post, I wasn't sure which list some of these would end up on. 

We learned this week that John Hinckley, the guy who shot President Ronald Reagan, his press secretary James Brady, Secret Service Agent Timothy McCarthy, and DC Police Officer Thomas Delahanty back in 1980 to impress actress Jodie Foster, had been released from all supervision. 

I was unaware that Hinckley had been working on art and music during his decades of confinement, but it seems he's been trying to sell art on eBay, and he cut a record and scheduled a concert tour, once he knew the date he'd be free of all supervision. (I am not encouraging anyone to look at his art or listen to his music; I include the links so you know I'm not making stuff up.)

Sadly, or thankfully, his concerts are being cancelled, mostly because of strong feelings on the part of people who think it's sick to pay money to a guy who tried to kill the president, or who think it's wrong to make money off a guy who tried to kill the president, or for any number of other strongly held opinions on this. Here's a statement from one venue that decided to cancel Hinckley's performance. In part, it says

So, Hinckley had a good week, based on his release after "41 years 2 months and 15 days," but a bad week because some of us are not willing to accept that he deserves a chance at a normal life? Is that how it works out for him? And the rest of us? Do we make the good week list for keeping him from performing? Or does that put us on the bad week list?

Here's another mixed week mention. The EU "gave its blessing" for Ukraine to become a candidate to join it. That's just the first step - becoming a member can take years, as the article pointed out - and there's no guarantee.

...there are 35 "chapters of the acquis" setting out standards to meet in areas from judicial policy and financial services to food safety...talks have been stalled for years with Turkey, a candidate since 1999.

That said, as Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president said,

Ukrainians are ready to die for the European perspective. We want them to live with us the European dream."

If nothing else, it's a symbolic step for the Ukrainians, still caught in the very ugly war with Russia, but it's hard not wondering how much of a Ukraine will be left to try and meet the onerous requirements. Does that make this news, like the Hinckley story, a candidate for both lists? 

Axios is reporting a number of police crime reporting failures, saying that "nearly 40% of law enforcement agencies nationwide...failed to report their 2021 crime data to the FBI. Agencies that failed to send some or all their data included the LAPD and the NYPD, as well as several significantly smaller law enforcement organizations across the country.  

The report, from a partnership between The Marshall Project and Axios Local, noted

The FBI's annual data set is the country's foremost way to understand how crime across the U.S. is changing, measuring things like how many murders or rapes took place last year or how many people were arrested. It's going to be really hard for policymakers to look at what crime looks like in their own community and compare it to similar communities," Jacob Kaplan, a criminologist at Princeton University, told The Marshall Project.

The FBI switched to a new system last year, but it shouldn't have been a surprise; the transition was "announced years ago, and the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars" to help departments switch over to the new system. Many agencies that didn't submit data blamed "staffing shortages and technical issues. You can see an interactive map of who didn't report in the Axios article.

I don't know about you, but to me this seems like a bad week for LEO agencies, and for the FBI, and for policy makers. And, I'd have to add, for the hundreds of political candidates who are running on a platform of fighting crime in their communities. We know they make stuff up, and talk out of their hats half the time, but without accurate data, it's hard to fact-check their nonsense, and that's bad for all of us.

Here's what I think is, hands down, a good week list story: we'll have COVID vaccines for the youngest among us.

U.S. regulators have authorized the first COVID-19 shots for infants and preschoolers. That paves the way for vaccinations for children under 5 to begin next week. The Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization Friday follows a unanimous recommendation by its advisory panel. The kid-sized shots are made by Moderna and Pfizer.

I've read and listened to enough interviews with medical professionals - researchers and doctors and nurses alike - who believe that this is a very good thing, and who have said they'll vaccinate their kids as soon as the vaccine is available, to convince me this is a good thing.

And it's also a good week list thing that states have pre-ordered doses of the vaccine, so that they'll be widely available where they're needed. Except Florida, of course. The alleged Sunshine State is the only state that didn't pre-order by the deadline. Why, you ask? 

Because Gov. Ron Bad Week DeSantis.

I would say we are affirmatively against the Covid vaccine for young kids. These are the people who have zero risk of getting anything

Residents will be able to get the shots from a pharmacy, or from their pediatrician, assuming there's enough quantity to go around. 

And, finally, today is the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. I offered some thoughts on that earlier today - and I'd have to say, Richard Nixon would have ended up on the good week list, which is hard to imagine under normal, scandalous circumstances.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 6/5/22

Ready for your Sunday School lesson?

Let's start with Jake Tapper, host of CNN's State of the Union. He described our state being "angry at the lack of leadership." 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the folks involved in the Senate negotiations in response to the school shooting in Uvalde), talked with Tapper. 

He says he's "never been part of negotiations as serious as these," noting there are more Rs "at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook." And, he admitted, he's seen a lot of failed negotiations, so he's "...sober-minded" that they can get something done.

He said red flag laws, background check changes, and "a handful of other items that will make a difference" are on the table. And while he's not sure they'll be able to meet the 'end of the week' deadline from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), they're "trying to put a package together,

because I think Republicans realize how scared parents and kids are across this country. I think they realize that the answer this time cannot be nothing, that it's frankly a test of democracy, it's a test of the federal government as to whether we can deliver at a moment of just fierce anxiety amongst the American public. So we're closer than ever before. Let's see if we land it.

Tapper wondered about raising the age for purchasing semi-automatic guns, something supported by a couple hundred or so Texas conservatives in a full-page ad in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, but not mentioned as "being on the table."

What we're talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don't have their hands on weapons. Sen. Cornyn has also talked about his interest in taking a look at how we access juvenile records for these young men who tend to be 18 to 21, committing these mass murders, to make sure that they can't get their hands on a weapon if they have had problems with the law in the past...

He also said what Cornyn's saying is "consistent" with their negotiations. 

Listen, we're not going to do everything I want. We're not going to put a piece of legislation the table that's going to ban assault weapons, or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But, right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.

Murphy said they're trying to get to something that will pass, and said "that's why the red flag law is probably the most important" piece. 

It's actually about helping states implement red flag laws... not just providing incentives for states to pass new laws, but helping fund existing red flag laws, so that more individuals who are contemplating suicides can have their weapons temporarily taken from them to save their lives.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

He said when he was home last week, 

I have never seen the look on parents' faces that I did. There's just a deep, deep fear for our children right now, and also a fear that government is so fundamentally broken that it can't put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults in this country, the physical safety of their children. And so, I think the possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/6/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight, I'm wondering on the Facebook thing: the whistleblower, corporate profits, marketing, artificial intelligence, actual intelligence, ethics, and more. 

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with every other social media outlet?

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with Fox News, MSNBC, and every other television network?

How do you regulate Facebook's  algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do that with the NY Times, the NY Post, and every other print and digital newspaper? 

How does Wikipedia survive this new regulatory framework? Anyone can enter anything they want - who's going to be the boss of that? Are we going to create a regulatory framework for that, too?

Who gets to decide what content is abusive or divisive? Artificial intelligence can't do it, and humans can't do it either. What or who is left? And, even more fun, who gets to pick the arbiters?

What about the 1st Amendment? Doesn't that protect divisive speech?

How is it not insanely ridiculous and hypocritical for members of the House and Senate - professionals all, at spreading misinformation and division - to complain about Facebook's failure to stop the spread of misinformation and division? Seriously - how is that not the most insane aspect of this?

If the said misinformation- and division-spreading legislators decide to change the rules and let Facebook be held liable for 'harm' on its pages, which one of them will be the first to file a suit, and how long will it take - more than 30 minutes, or less than 30 minutes - after the rules are passed? I'm guessing Devin Nunes and less than 10...

If Facebook can be held liable for harm done to someone who's under age and on the platform, will Facebook be able to sue the parents for allowing the child to use the service?

And why do six-year-olds have smart phones, anyway? Who is responsible for that?

Before they go all out and regulate potentially harmful content - something that, by nature of the 'potentially' label, cannot be regulated - will the legislators do something to increase access to and the affordability of mental health services, particularly for children, and particularly for rural areas?

Isn't it ironic, and more than a bit ridiculous, that the same people who would to deny treatment options that would help transgender kids are all up in arms about body image issues on Facebook?

Why would the people who complain about their own voices being stifled on Facebook be willing to stifle other voices on Facebook? Is the algorithm unfair, or do they just not like what it does? Do they really care about any of this, or does it just look good to care, in which case they can make a profit, i.e., get re-elected because they 'showed they care?

How is Facebook to control the viewing habits of its users? For example, how are the people who ignore multiple notices that what they are reading is not real and then argue vigorously, and share widely, their outrage about the outrageously fake posts, supposed to be  protected from themselves?  Who's job is that, anyway?

Or the folks who wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them on the butt cheek in the checkout line at Wegmans? (That's sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm doesn't have actual teeth.) How is Facebook to be held accountable for them? 

Are we going to regulate comedians? Celebrity magazines, with pictures of stars or wanna-be stars and their "boldly topless" photos? The Kardashians and their puffy lips, 'trained' waists, and abundant behinds? People try to emulate them, and cause themselves real physical harm in the process; clearly, that can't be allowed to continue? 

How ironic is it, that the people who don't think the government should be able to require masks or vaccines during a pandemic are now contemplating having the government dictate what we're allowed to see on Facebook? What about "my mind, my choice?"

If we're going to ban detrimental content on Facebook, can we please ban Love Island, Big Brother, Hoarders, My 600-lb-Life, Married at First Sight, Real Housewives, Love After Lockup, Cellmate Secrets, 90-day Diaries, You, Me and My Ex, Ex-Rated, Naked and Afraid, Addicted to Marriage, 90-Day Fiancé, RuPaul’s Drag Race, My Big Fat Fabulous Life, and the rest of the unreal reality TV shows? Without much difficulty, I could make an argument that each of those shows is detrimental in one way or another...and I've never watched any of them.

Who gets to determine how 'good' a company must be in order to be allowed to make a profit? And how will those decisions be made? 

Are we going to require every company to provide us with their internal research on everything they internally research? Or is that just going to be shared with regulators? Just legislators (they're not the same thing as regulators, I can assure you.) And what if someone who gets the information as part of their job decides to leak it, for fun say, to the Wall Street Journal? What's the accountability there?

Based on the number of times the quote was shared, the big soundbite from Frances Haugen's testimony was, "Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook."  

I'm wondering if anyone reading this post can tell me everything that happens inside their current employer, or any of their former employers? I maintain that it's probably true for every company, even those in highly regulated industries, that outsiders don't know what happens inside, and neither do employees. I also maintain that that lack of knowledge can be positive (allowing a company to launch a new product, charitable plan, marketing campaign, etc. without leaks) as much as it can be negative (e.g., Enron, Wells Fargo, and perhaps Facebook, too). 

Especially in a country where we're supposedly working on improving the privacy rights of people. And, of course, where we consider corporations to be people, too. Unless, of course, corporations aren't really people after all. And isn't that a whole nother world of wonderment we can attack... 

What are you wondering about tonight? 

Wondering on Wednesday (v219)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's get right to the wondering, shall we?

Am I the only one wondering what's up with Mike Pompeo?  On the one hand, he's all over folks in Hong Kong for postponing the Legislative Council elections, saying in a statement that "there's no valid reason" for the one-year delay, and that Beijing "has no intention of upholding the commitments it made" both to the people of Hong Kong and the UK under the treaty between the countries.

For decades, the Hong Kong people have repeatedly demonstrated their desire and ability to hold free and fair elections. We urge Hong Kong authorities to reconsider their decision. The elections should be held as close to the September 6 date as possible and in a manner that reflects the will and aspirations of the Hong Kong people. If they aren’t, then regrettably Hong Kong will continue its march toward becoming just another Communist-run city in China.

Meanwhile, when asked about his boss's comments about potentially delaying the US elections, here's what he had to say in response to questions from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) during his visit to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a few days back. As you read this, remember he's a Harvard Law grad, in addition to being a Trump enabler.

I'm not going to enter a legal judgement on the fly this morning. In the end, the DOJ, others, will make that legal determination... 

I can't imagine any other Secretary of State not just simply saying "we will have our elections on time, as we do every year, as required under our Constitution." And equally, I wonder why it is that he couldn't bring himself to say that.

Speaking of Trump enablers, there's a great Dana Milbank piece in the WaPo about Mark Meadows, Trump's 4th Chief of Staff.  Among the highlights? Well, there's this:

During his seven years in Congress, he developed an unsurpassed reputation for blowing things up and making sure bills didn’t pass. But he has virtually no experience at getting things done.

And there was the part about Meadows perhaps being "bored" with the negotiations and saying "he’d be happy to have Trump take executive actions instead," which is a fabulous idea, don't you think? I won't spend any time wondering if anyone thinks I'm being serious, but I do wonder why I have such a hard time remembering who it was who said he only hires the best people?  

Republican operatives in several states are working to get Kanye West on the ballot... anyone else wondering why they're wasting their time? And do they really think that any significant number of people are going to throw their vote away and color in the little circle by his name?  And aren't the Rs the people trying to convince us they're concerned about the dreadful state of mental health care in the US? 

I'll leave you with a fabulous good news story - this one's a keeper. A little girl, named Meena, abandoned in a basket as a baby, later adopted, now a teenager, learns about all the senior dogs that don't get adopted - and decides to do something about it.  I only wonder here what else she's going to accomplish in life? 

That's enough for this week. What are you wondering about?

OrangeVerse XLV: Cities and Their State

The president chatted with his Number Two, Tucker Carlson, the other night - Sean Hannity must have been off working on policy papers with Jared, or something.

Carlson got things going,talking about cities they'd seen on the trip to the G-20, with no graffiti, no one going to the bathroom on the street, no junkies. And how that was "very different" from our cities. The president corrected him, saying "some of our cities." Carlson and Trump agreed it was "sad" about cities like New York, San Francisco,  and Los Angeles.

And it is - there's no question about that. We do have issues with homelessness, and drugs, in many cities large and small, in the suburbs, and perhaps even more critically, in rural areas where there are even fewer services available than in our cities.

Where it got poetic, though, was when the president ruminated on why it is that American cities have this kind of issue.

It's On Me

It's a phenomena 

that started two yeas ago.

It's disgraceful.

Seriously Maybe Important

I'm gonna maybe

and I'm looking at it

very seriously,

we're doing some

other things

as you've probably noticed

like some of the

Very Important Things

we're doing now.

Can't Have That

But we're looking at it

Very Seriously

because you can't do that. 

You can't have what's happening

where Police Officers are

getting sick by

just walking the beat.

I mean

they're actually

Getting. Very. Sick.

In Sickness and Mental Health

Where people are getting sick

where the people are

living in hell, too.

Although some of them

have mental problems

where they don't even know

they're living that way.

In fact, perhaps,

they like living that way.

Oh Wait - Maybe It's Not On Me?

They can't do that.

We cannot ruin our cities.

And you have people

that work in those cities.

They work in office buildings

and to get into the building

they have to walk through a scene

that nobody would have believed

possible three years ago.

And this is the liberal establishment.

Fight. Fight. Fight

This is what I'm fighting.

They - I don't know

if they're afraid of votes? 

I don't know 

if they really believe

this should be taking place.

But it's a terrible thing

that's taking place. 

The Situation Room

And we maybe

you know - I had a situation

when I first became president.

We had certain areas of

Washington DC where

that was starting to happen

and I ended it

Very Quickly. 

I said "you can't do that"

when we have leaders of the world

coming in to see the president

and they're riding down a highway

they can't be looking at that. 

I really believe

it hurts our country.

The West Coast Has The Sunshine

San Francisco, I own

property in San Francisco

so I don't care except

that it was

so beautiful.

And now areas

that you used to think of being,

so, you know, being really

Something Very Special,

you take a look

at what's going on

with San Francisco it's terrible. 

Checking Our Equipment

So we're looking at it

Very Seriously

We may intercede.

We may do something

to get that whole thing

cleared up. 

It's inappropriate.

We have to take the people

and do something.

We have to do something.

And you know

we're not really very equipped

as a government

to be doing that kind of work.

That's not really

the kind of work

the government should be doing.

We've never had this

in our lives before

in our country. 

Nope, Definitely Not On Me!

At the same time

most of our cities

are doing great.

But if you look at

some of these,

they are usually sanctuary cities

run by Very Liberal People

and the states are

run by Very Liberal People.

Wondering on Wednesday (v176)

Well, well, well. It's Wednesday again already? I'm so not ready.

But the president's ready, yes he is - ready to Keep America Great, now that he's made it grate.  Oops - made it great, sorry. Great, not grate. I heard someone who was at his rally say his most enthusiastic comments came when he was complaining about everything, rather than when he was talking about his accomplishments.  Hence the whole 'grate' thing (well, that's part of the whole 'grate' thing, anyway.) I guess I don't have to wonder whether he can make it through a rally without mentioning the Fake News - he hit that within seconds of beginning his speech, and so I stopped. I'll watch later, with a jug of wine or something.

Who else is running for president, and complaining about it?  That would be none other than Bernie Sanders, who of course, is still not a Democrat. I replied to a tweet of his that maybe if he joined the party he's trying to represent, he might have something to complain about. And of course, I have no reason to wonder whether the complaining and whining will continue - -that's a given, It could be his new campaign slogan: I'll stop whining when I win!  Think that's gonna have legs?

What else is going on? Well, it seems New York State will not legalize pot this legislative session. Our newly officially declared to be full-time Assembly members and State Senators are winding up their session, and there's really no reason to think they'll come back for a special session just to make weed legal for recreational use. Staten Island's Sen. Diane Savino said

Everyone who was opposed to it had a different reason. The two sponsors did everything possible to appease the concerns of members, and I'm sure they are going to continue to try but with each passing moment it gets harder and harder.

Now, I'm one of those who thinks that acting with such ridiculous urgency on this issue is crazy, so I'm not crying any tears here. But I wonder why we didn't act with as much urgency to, I don't know, add mental health and substance abuse beds across the state, which will address a real need, or adding regional treatment centers for autism, so that New York parents don't have to send their kids out of state for intensive treatment, or here's a fun one - why didn't they cut some spending plan with extreme urgency, one that might benefit a significant number of New Yorkers?

Oh wait, I know the answer to that last one, sorry. There's no progressive merit badge for spending cuts, silly me.

I again call on Republicans across the state to get out of the gate and get some candidates, get a plan, get a platform that includes meaningful reforms (not taking their toys and running) that moderates can get behind. I wonder if they're listening?

And finally, I'm wondering (because I haven't checked lately) if there are any moderate Democrats left in New York?  If yes, I'd love to hear from them, too.

TGIF 5/24/19

So, right off the bat, I'm thinking that mental health professionals have had a good week - because there's no one else who can help us understand what the heck we're seeing with the president and the Speaker of the House.

She - Madam Speaker - has announced her intention to pray for the president and has called for someone, whether it's his family or his people in his administration, to have an intervention with him, "for the good of the country."

The president, who tweeted portions of an edited video that made Pelosi seem like she was drunk while talking with the press, said Pelosi was "a mess" while declaring himself to be an extremely stable genius - even more stabler and geniuser than before when he was just a plain old stable genius, or even a very stable genius. And, to support his stability or genius or extremism (you pick) he asked others to comment on his temperament.

So the mental health folks? They're the ones who can provide us some information on whether there are mental health concerns with either of these two folks, and whether we can sleep easy at night or if we need to be afraid, very afraid, of what's happening at the highest levels of our government.

Who else had a note-worthy week?

Some, All, or None of the Above

Pretend, for the sake of argument that this was the school shooting that is the one that changes everything. Columbine didn't, and Sandy Hook didn't. So pretend this is the one.

Pretend, for the sake of argument,  that we actually are inspired and want to make changes, across a wide spectrum, to try and make a difference.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that your elected representatives at the school, local, state and national level are motivated to listen to you and do whatever it is you suggest to keep your children safe.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are in control. I know, I know - that's a huge bit of pretending, I get it -- but just pretend.

Here's your list of options, based on what I've seen on various news and social media platforms. Know that none of these will work, because if a person really wants to commit mayhem, they'll find a way - that's what we're told, anyway, when some suggests changing gun laws. 

Know that  individually,  these might have no impact, but that collectively, they might make a difference --and choose as many as you think we should try.

1. Ban large-capacity magazines, clips, etc. so that a person would have to load their gun more often, making it take longer for them to commit mass mayhem and giving people more time to, hopefully, escape.

2. Ban new sales of the 'mass-shooting' rifle -- the AR-15 and similar weapons, and implement a buy-back program to get as many of them off the street as possible.

3. Ban sales of bump-stocks and similar items that make it easier to kill more people in a short period of time.

4. Ban sales of guns to anyone who is not old enough to purchase alcohol.

5. Ensure that the military is reporting all less-than-honorable discharges to the national background check system, and do not allow them to purchase any kind of gun, and that this reporting is timely - as in, immediately upon discharge. And fire anyone in the military hierarchy who failed to ensure this reporting occurred as required.

6. Close the 'boyfriend' loophole, which allows a person who commits violence against a partner to whom they are not married to purchase a gun, and treat these people the same as those who abuse their spouse.

7. Establish a ten-day waiting period on the purchase of all guns - handguns, medium guns, long guns, whatever - to bring consistency to the process, and to allow sufficient time for the background check process to occur.

8. Pay gun manufacturers not to make guns, just like we pay farmers not to grow crops.

9. Tax packages of ammunition the same way we tax packages of cigarettes. Add a user fee on the sale of every gun. Use this money as startup cash to pay for whatever needs to be paid for (see #11 and #12, for starters).

10. Close all background check loopholes. Private sales, gun shows - whatever the gaps, close them.

11. Secure our school buildings: locks on external doors, cameras, badge readers, metal detectors, security offices and security officers - real ones, not the kind you see at many offices - at entry doors, double door entries, limited number of doors with external handles, etc.

12. Secure the classrooms: bullet-proof glass in the windows and doors; panic buttons for teachers to warn the office and local police of a threat; doors that truly lock from inside and cannot be forced open.

13. Arm teachers, if they are willing, provided that the weapons they're assigned can be secured in their classrooms so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, and that they're carefully screen and can prove proficiency with their weapons (something that is not required for purchasing one, by the way).

14. Go back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools every day.

15. Re-institute school prayer.

16. Ban violent video games, television shows, lyrics, movies, poetry, fiction and non-fiction writing, and any other art forms which can project violence.

17. Enter mental health records into the background check system, regardless of the patient age, and never allow anyone who has had any mental health issues to legally purchase guns or ammunition.

18. Stop prescribing medications that can have mental health related side effects (depressions, thoughts of suicide, hyperactivity, manic behaviors and so on).

19. Ban contributions to politicians from any gun rights groups.

20. Wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and as Paul Ryan said, count our blessings, whatever that means.

Have at it -- some, all, or none of the above?

If Only...Except That

If only we let God in schools, this would never happen. God is everywhere you want Him to be, just like Visa used to be, whenever you want Him to be there. He will never leave you alone, I'm told. Besides, God doesn't prevent things from happening, He makes it more bearable when things do happen, I'm told. So you can't blame God not being in schools.

If only we didn't have violent video games, this would never happen. Except that everyone who plays video games doesn't go out and shoot up schools.  It's just fantasy, millions of people are just fine who play these games, they don't have mental health problems, they just like sitting in the dark shooting things. So clearly you can't blame God not being in schools, or the video games.

If only parents acted like parents instead of like friends, this would never happen. Except that many parents do act like parents, and do make their children behave and do have rules and curfews and make their kids do their homework and go to school and go to church and not hang out at the mall playing video games, so you can't blame God not being in schools, and you can't blame video games, and you surely can't blame the parents.

If only someone would say something if they saw something, this would never happen. Except that people do say something, and in the Florida case, they did say something and the ball was dropped, they say, because this kid still did what he did.And so you can't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or the parents, or the community. 

If only this particular kind of gun was harder to get, this would never happen.  Except that there's millions of them out there, and so you can't keep them out of the hands of people who want to get one. If they can't get one legally, they'll get one illegally the way MS-13 gang members do. So you can't blame God not being in schools, or the video games, or the parents, or the community, or the easy access to a very particular gun that is used in so many mass shootings.

If only we had had better background checks, this would never happen. Except that the background check process works just fine, look at all the people who are not able to buy guns, and besides, look how hard it is to get a pistol! So clearly, we can't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or parents, or communities, or the particular gun of choice for shooting up schools and such, and you can't blame the background check process.

If only people who had mental health issues got treatment, this would never happen. Except that this does happen when people are getting help for mental health issues. And at what point did we decide that everyone with dark thoughts has mental health issues? So no, you can't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or parents, or communities, or the gun of choice, or background checks, or mental health. 

If only kids couldn't buy guns before they were old enough to buy a beer, this wouldn't happen. 

Because drinking, you know, that's a serious thing, and society needs to make sure you're protected from a can of Bud Light until you're mature enough to understand the consequences of yelling dilly dilly like an idiot. So you can't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or parents, or communities, or the gun of choice, or the background check process, or mental health, or being able to buy guns before you can buy a beer. 

If only we didn't have half the country wandering around on medication for their mental health issues, this wouldn't happen.  Except that people need these medications to function, to be contributing members of society... pastors and parents and doctors and lawyers and teachers and the rest, and the vast majority of these medicated folks are just fine and never commit mayhem, so no -- you can't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or parents, or communities, or the gun of choice, or the background check process, or mental health, or the age of majority, or prescription drugs either. 

If only people had more respect for each other, this wouldn't happen. Except that there is no law that says you have to be respectful, there's no legal definition of respect, there's open season on anyone and anything you don't like from the top all the way down (and you know what I'm talking about here, right?)  Besides, millions and millions of people who don't respect other people go about their daily lives and never commit a crime, never murder school children. So, don't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or parents, or communities, or the gun of choice, or the process, or mental health, or the age of majority, or prescription drugs, or the lack of respect.

If only teachers were armed, this wouldn't happen.  Except that if teachers wanted to be cops they wouldn't be teachers. Nope - don't blame God not being in schools, or video games, or parents, or communities, or the massacre gun, or the process to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or mental health, or the age of majority, or prescription drugs, or a lack of respect, or unarmed teachers.

If only the NRA wasn't able to buy all those politicians, this wouldn't happen. Except that if  George Soros can buy politicians and unions can buy politicians and everyone else can buy politicians, the NRA has to be able to buy politicians too. So, not you can't blame God for not being in schools and you can't blame video games, or parents, or communities, or the killing gun, or the process, or mental health, or the age of majority, or prescription drugs, or the lack of respect, or unarmed teachers, or the NRA buying politicians.

If only people cared as much about their children as they did about their own rights, this wouldn't happen. Except that rights are rights, and children aren't. Or are simply, sadly, collateral damage for us having rights. Don't blame God for not being in schools. Don't blame video games. Don't blame parents. Don't blame communities. Don't blame the gun. Don't blame the process. Don't blame mental health. Don't blame the age of majority. Don't blame prescription drugs. Don't blame the lack of respect. Don't blame unarmed teachers. Don't blame the NRA.Don't blame people not caring about kids, and don't blame my rights.

If only thoughts and prayers kept us safe, this wouldn't happen.  Except that they don't and this does. 

The Speed of Safety

Beginning in late September 1982, the Chicago area, and in fact the entire country, was on edge as seven people died after taking Tylenol laced with cyanide.  Tens of millions of packages were recalled; people were afraid to take any medicine for a while, fearing they could suffer the same fate.

Less than a full year later, the NY Times published an article about industry-wide efforts to develop truly tamper-proof packaging.

Companies that make over-the-counter drugs and other consumer products are still struggling to cope with the packaging worries that began with the contamination of Tylenol capsules last year, resulting in the death of seven people.

Since then, over-the-counter drug makers have spent $173 million to meet the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for tamper-resistant packaging, according to the Proprietary Association, a trade group of non-prescription drug makers. 

The article noted some of the challenges in coming up with something that was truly tamper resistant, and also the challenges faced by consumers trying to get into the new packages to use the products. This is still an issue today, I can attest, as I'm currently battling the flu with both prescription and non-prescription medicine, and it takes several minutes of meditation, a pair of scissors, and often a knife to get the meds out of their protective covers. I surely would have a drink to help steady my nerves before attempting to get the pills, if alcohol weren't contraindicated.

We also learned from the Times article that the original deadline for the entire non-prescription drug industry to be 100% compliant with  the tamper-resistant packaging rules was February 6, 1984 - a mere 495 days from the first Tylenol death.

On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid tried - and failed - to light a fuse in his sneaker, hoping to take down a plane flying from Paris to Miami.  On July 10, 2003 - only 565 days later - the TSA issued a press release attempting to clarify what they had been doing with shoe screening for months.

TSA's increased focus on screening shoes in recent months reflects a necessary reaction to information gathered by federal intelligence agencies. But just as TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, achieved consistency last fall by clarifying procedures for the screening of drinks carried through security checkpoints, the agency is moving now to make sure its shoe policy is implemented consistently from coast to coast. 

"Our screeners have always worked hard to make sure a 'shoe bomb' does not get on an aircraft," Admiral Loy said. "Now we must make sure our security process is consistent so air travelers know what to expect at every airport in the country." 

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School occurred on December 14, 2012. The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School occurred 1,888 days later.

Still too soon?

Sidebar: After the Bullets...

There has been no let up in the comments and discussions following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and three others at the ballpark in Alexandria, VA.

Calls for unity, and cooperation, and tamped down rhetoric, and bipartisanship across the spectrum, from regular people to public servants in Washington continue, even as a couple of handsfull of Republican men meet in secret to reform healthcare, one sixth of the American economy. (They must not have gotten the memo?) And while many are hopeful, most are not holding out hope that this will last any longer than these types of "calls for (fill in the blank)" typically last - five or six news cycles? Ten, maybe?

Lots of people have mentioned that Donald Trump, both as a candidate and since the election, has been a key factor in emboldening people on the fringes, through his 'textbook' racist comments and his denigration of, well, pretty much everyone, whether overt (women, Mexicans, POWs, Gold star families, the disabled) or covert (blacks, uneducated people, and more), via his hideously insulting professions of "love" for them.

Others have blamed Barack Obama (no specific examples, just in general), Bill Clinton (same), Hillary Clinton (her basket of deplorables), Congressional Democrats, liberals in Hollywood, free speech protesters at Berkeley, Congressional Republicans, Rush Limbaugh... even, again, regular people like me who express opinions around the vast water cooler that is "social media."

(Ironically, I've yet to see someone blame lifelong Independent Bernie Sanders, the candidate of choice for the gunman, according to his social media record. Sanders, by the way, is still widely and erroneously described in the media as the Democratic Senator of Vermont, which is mind-boggling to me, but that's a whole nother post.)

The bully pulpit, it seems, whether the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or the one at The Little Garden in The Valley, where I sit, is actually filled with bullies.

This hand-wringing about the words we use and how we use them, would not be occurring to this degree had the gunman not targeted members of Congress. It does not occur, as I noted in my post, when extreme words about abortion lead to murder.

It did not happen, to this elevated level, when racist words and beliefs led to the murder of churchgoers at Mother Emmanuel.

It did not happen, even, when the Sandy Hook murders were claimed to be fake; parents are still hounded by people who believed the words, and acted on them.

It did not happen when the citizenship of President Obama was challenged.

It did not happen, did it, when Hillary Clinton's lesbian-child-sex-ring from the-back-of-a-pizza parlor led to a man going there to take matters into his own hands?

When we challenge each other on the power of words, we're told they don't matter. Violent movies, video games, song lyrics? They have no impact, we're told, and besides, that's artistic freedom. Same with references to drugs, smoking, drinking and sex - mainstream movie sex, I'm talking about, not porn. Those don't matter, they don't influence anyone, that's just art. (Maybe someone should tell the ad agencies that their work doesn't matter?)

All of this, we're told, people know it's not real. They know it's fake. And yet, "fake news" influenced our presidential election, and continues to influence people's thoughts, opinions, conversations, and memes.

Words don't matter, we're told. Until something like this happens, and the political becomes personal. Then, everything matters.

But, as you all know, tonight's game has taken on a much deeper level of meaning. Beyond anything that we would have thought. By playing tonight, your are showing the world that we will not be intimidated by threats, acts of violence, or assaults on our Democracy. The game will go on.

Here are some words I think matter.

If people, politicians and pundits really believe that words matter, they need to believe that all of them do. If people, politicians and pundits really believe that inflammatory rhetoric matters, they need to believe that all of it matters. If people, politicians and pundits really believe that extremism matters, they need to believe that all of it matters. If people, politicians and pundits really believe that gunmen shoot innocent people because they have mental health issues, they need to believe that all of them have mental health issues.

If people, politicians and pundits want to show the world that we will not be intimidated by threats, acts of violence or assaults on our democracy, we all need to play the game as if that really matters. 

Ladies and gentlemen, let's play ball.

After the Bullets, the Words Fly

Here's a smattering of comments I've read in the aftermath of the shooting at the ball field in Alexandria VA which left House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, of Louisiana, critically injured.

Speaker Paul Ryan delivered a speech on the House floor that CNN's Chris Cillizza called 'spot on.' In it, Ryan (who seems to me an uncomfortable speaker) noted

We are all giving our thoughts to those currently being treated for their injuries at this moment. And we are united. We are united in our shock and anguish. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us...

You know, every day, we come here to test and challenge each other. We feel so deeply about the things we fight for and believe in At times, our emotions can get the best of us. We are all imperfect. But we do not shed our humanity when we enter this chamber.

For all the noise and fury, we are a family. These were our brothers and sisters in the line of fire... 

So before this House returns to its business, I want us to slow down and reflect, to think about how we are being tested right now. Because we are. I ask each of you to join me in resolving to come together, to lift each other up and to show the country - show the world - that we are one House. The people's House - united in our humanity.

It is that humanity which will win the day. It always will. 

Ted Nugent apparently had a "listen to your wife" moment, regarding his inflammatory language, which he blamed on his Detroit upbringing and adrenaline.

At the tender age of 69, my wife has convinced me I just can't use those harsh terms. I cannot and will not and I encourage even my friends/enemies on the left, in the Democrat and liberal world, that we have got to be civil to each other.

In case you had missed his comments, here's a recap from a post on ThinkProgress.org.

Nugent's 2012 comments about Obama - who he has called a "piece of shit" and a "subhuman mongrel" - are far from the only threat he's made against prominent Democrats. As the Daily Beast chronicled, Nugent discussed shooting Harry Reid during the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in 2015. In January 2016, he called for both Obama and Clinton to "be tried for treason & hung." Nugent once called Clinton a "worthless bitch" and called for her to "ride one of these (guns) into the sunset." He told Obama to "suck on my machine gun."

FYI, this past April, Nuge enjoyed a quiet evening with his wife, Kid Rock and his fiance, and Sarah Palin and president Trump at the White House.

Former Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords, herself a victim of gun violence, offered words of condolence and hope.

And, from the peanut gallery, this anonymous guy, TOTAL, commenting on a Nancy Pelosi video.

I am a true blue Democrat and even I will admit it is the LEFT and our disappointment about losing a "can't lose" election that caused this tragedy. Our leaders and attached at the hip MEDIA (CNN, MSNBC) are the ones stirring the pot BLACK with their LIES and blatant exaggerations about our President to TAKE HIM DOWN. The Congressional Investigations are a WITCH HUNT to bring down a president the left (and some on the right) deem unacceptable so they NEED to control the narrative (which they have). This is their fault (OUR) and our fault as Democrats and liberals to believe the distortions and outright lies (Trump is not anti gay or a racist) and start living in the real world and get over a poorly run DNC election. An election that the DNC and Clinton tried to RIG from the beginning.

What happened, I wonder, in the past couple of years?  Remember when people turned guns on others because of mental health problems, like the shooting at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs a couple of years ago?

Here's what Paul Ryan said then.

Clearly, we can do more... one common denominator in these tragedies is mental illness. that's why we need to look at fixing our nation's mental health system. 

Why, now,  wouldn't we make the same assumption when someone shoots at Republican Congressmen? 

Why, now, is it the rhetoric? 

Who Knew This Could Be So Confusing?

Darn it all, just when I think I have this health care stuff figured out, those pesky Republicans go and confuse the HDHP out of me.

Take access to care, for example. Some people believe that TrumpCare, or RyanCare, or the American Health Care Act-- actually, I think I will refer to it as WeDontCare - will take away access for people who are covered under plans paid for with Medicaid.  And according to the bill summary  published on GovTrack, if you are on Medicaid

• The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility in 32 states that opted into it. (WeDontCare) would reverse the eligibility expansion beginning in 2020 (anyone enrolled by then would remain enrolled) and it would reduce federal support for Medicaid with caps on coverage. And, if you have a gap in coverage for more than one month after the end of December 2019, you won't be able to re-enroll unless you live in a state that wants to pick up the cost. 
• The ACA expanded required benefits under Medicaid, such as mental health and addiction services, which would not longer be required. 

You should recall the president promised - he PROMISED! - he would not cut Medicaid, so it's a little confusing why WeDontCare was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (well, the early versions of the bill - we don't have an estimate on the one that passed) - to drop some $880B from Medicaid. 

And, to the second bullet above, the president promised - he PROMISED! - to end the opioid epidemic. 

Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down, and ultimately stop.

Not only that, but he announced this plan when he was a candidate which, in addition to building The Big, Beautiful, Busty, Bodacious Border Wall and closing shipping loopholes, would

• Fix the misguided rules and regulations that have made this problem worse: Speed up the approval and availability of abuse-deterring drugs; lift the cap on the number of patients that doctors can treat with recovery medications, provided they follow safe prescribing practices and proper treatment supervision; and reduce the amount of Schedule II opioids (drugs like oxycodone, methadone and fentanyl) that can be made and sold in the US, and 

• Get people struggling with addiction the help they need: Support the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act; expand incentives to use drug courts and mandated treatment; expand access to treatment slots and end Medicaid policies that obstruct inpatient treatment; and distribute widely naloxone/narcan (opioid antidote to treat OD) to first responders and caregivers.

So it seems a bit surprising that he would so strongly support (and celebrate the passage of) a bill that chops a limb or three off Medicaid, and allows coverage for substance abuse treatment under Medicaid to be eliminated, doesn't it? Or is it just me?

And we learned, a long time ago, that people were appalled with conditions at the Veterans Administration, when people were dying waiting for care. You remember that, right?

• Trump says 300,000 veterans died waiting VA care
• Hundreds of veterans died waiting for care at Phoenix VA hospital, watchdog report finds
• Paul Ryan Slams VA Secretary, But Stops Short of Calling for Resignation
• Veterans Are Dying While They're Waiting Months to Get Healthcare From the Government

Those are just a few of the headlines letting us know that people do die waiting for healthcare, and it's a horrible situation, whether it's a veteran or anyone else. It's a situation we all should be concerned about - folks like you and me, and politicians too. Really concerned, not fake concerned or politically expediently concerned. 

So then, what's wrong with this guy, Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador, that he doesn't understand this? When an attendee at Labrador's town hall mentioned her concern that the cuts in Medicare benefits might result in people dying, Labrador disagreed.

That line is do indefensible. Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care.

Well, I guess someone should tell that to all those veterans the Republicans told us about?

No wonder I'm so confused. Am I supposed to believe the Republicans, or the Republicans? Do I believe the promises of the president, and his indignation or do I just throw that all aside?

Of course, for clarity, there's always this interpretation of things.

It is hardly indefensible to say that people don't die from lack of access to healthcare. It is, rather, a basic fact of life. So perhaps Raul should just be honest and say "Sure, some people are going to die, but look at all the money we'd save rich people who don't like paying taxes? Isn't that worth it? They should be proud of their sacrifice! This country would hardly exist were it not for the poor nobly sacrificing their lives to that rich people can be slightly more rich than they would be otherwise!"

Yeah, that seems to help.