Knock Knock. Who's There? Aggressive Progressives

Aggressive progressives who?

Aggressive progressives who are so full of themselves they're apparently willing to sacrifice everything, even as they admit it will likely hurt them in the future.

Huh, you say? What's this all about?

Well, according to this report from NPR's Scott Detrow, the outer-lefties are suggesting getting rid of the filibuster in the US Senate, and moving to a simple 51-vote majority to pass legislation.  Here's how Detrow sets the stage:

Most of the Democrats running for president want to create a national single-payer health care system. They want to begin a massive transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. They want to legalize marijuana pass broad family leave policies, and do a whole lot of other things that previous generations of presidential candidates have balked from fully endorsing.

Those are all good things, if you're a fan of that agenda - so why might there be a problem? Well, the aggressive progressives want to see an end to the filibuster, so that the agenda can be pushed through - assuming that the Dems take control of the Senate in the 2020 election.  Here's Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Indivisible Project.

In order to actually pass a big, bold pro-democracy package, or a big, bold climate package, or a health care package, we're going to need to be able to do that with 51 votes. 

Noodling Around: The Failed Amazon Deal

I've been thinking about the Amazon deal that just went poof in NYC, coming to terms with why I supported this project even though I long have questioned the value of most economic development projects, and thinking about my utter frustration with politicians in New York State.

The deal would have provided performance-based incentives over the course of a decade, in addition to other incentives under local programs designed to encourage development in 'opportunity zones' as well as a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement on property developed for community use on the Amazon campus.

There was to have been a new school, job training, infrastructure improvements, and more. And yes, there would have been issues to deal with along the way - there's no question about that on a project of this size. But these incentives are not new - the state regularly offers these deals, and others, to companies large and small, for a variety of promises. Counties and cities across New York also offer their own incentive programs, with similar mixed results.

A deal of this significance falling apart? That's new for us, so I'm trying to understand what happened.

Right from the get-go, why did Amazon walk away so quickly? Lots of speculation there, including the possibility that they weren't really committed to Long Island City in the first place. I admit to some surprise that any location in New York was chosen; for better or worse, we're a blue state, after all. And our Sonofa Gov's protestations notwithstanding, we're not really a business-friendly state.

So, while questioning the company's haste in leaving is certainly valid, it seemed clear the local (and national) killer attack progressives didn't want to play with Amazon. I say that because, at least from their public comments, they were happy to see the deal fall apart and happy to criticize Amazon, Bezos, de Blasio and Cuomo, and not all that interested in running towards salvaging the deal. If I were Amazon, and wanted to expand into an area that said they wanted me to be there, only to find out that I'm going to be fought at every single turn by folks who seem uninterested in negotiating with me, and that apparently even doing the things that the opponents wish were going to be done wasn't going to be enough, I'd think hard and fast about putting down roots, too. And my answer would likely have been the same as Amazon's.

Meanwhile, Virginia, a more business-friendly state, has moved forward quickly to approve their (much smaller) incentive package, clearly showing a welcoming attitude and a willingness to participate fully to bring  HQ2's 25,000 $150K jobs to their neck of the woods. Similarly, things look pretty upbeat in Nashville, which will be getting another 5000 high-paying Amazon jobs.  And yes, the incentives are smaller, but they can be, because of the differences in the business climate, as well as the political climate.

Let's untangle a few more noodles.

The Update Desk: Aggressive Progressives

A week or so ago, I wrote a Knock Knock post about the aggressive progressives that are making a whole lot of noise in the House and Senate.

The post was about this wing of the Democratic Party suggesting that the only way their agenda will move forward in the Senate is if they retake the majority and then get rid of the filibuster, the tool that requires 60 votes for most legislation to pass.

Here's an excerpt the crux of the issue, we're told by Ezra Levin,  co-founder of the Indivisible Project.

In order to actually pass a big, bold pro-democracy package, or a big, bold climate package, or a health care package, we're going to need to be able to do that with 51 votes. 

 And here's my opinion on this whole mess:

And unless there's some miracle that ends up with a blue tsunami or a red tide in the Senate, we're going to continue to see a small majority for one party or the other -- and all voters deserve to get what they want, including the people in the minority.

The fact that the minority might continue to be blue, or will inevitably turn blue, is reason enough not to make this silly move...

The filibuster is just one issue; the Green New Deal, and calls for socialism (Democratic or otherwise), and the extreme language they use, are others that seem to be getting a lot of attention for the particular representatives, but the attention has not all been positive for them, or for the party as a whole.

Recently, I stumbled on a NY Times article from last month that helps illustrate how the aggressive progressives (let's call them the APs) are having an influence on the party as a whole that is also not necessarily positive.

Sunday School 10/3/21

I'm taking one for the team today, and spending time with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-on't Need to Worry about a Number-WA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-'ve Named a Lot of Post Offices-VT). We'll take them in that order.

Jayapal stopped by the CNN State of the Union classroom, where Dana Bash was serving up the questions, the first of which was "What do you think this week says about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party?"

Jayapal suggested that "progressives have helped push back onto the table, back onto the agenda President Biden's agenda." Biden laid out this big plan months ago, she said, that included infrastructure, sure, but also 85% of it

was around these other important programs, child care, universal child care, paid family leave for 12 weeks for everybody, making sure we're taking on the climate crisis, expanding health care, and, of course, taking on the challenge of giving a path to citizenship for immigrants. All of that ended up in something called the Build Back Better Act.

And now, even though "we thought we made clear three-and-a-half months ago that the two had to move together, because we don't want to pit roads and bridges against child care," but

suddenly, a small group of people, 4% of the entire House Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus, said, 'we only want the bipartisan infrastructure bill to go'... And that's after five months of negotiating. We had to stand up and get the whole thing back together. And that's what I think has happened now. We have put the bills back together, as was the original agreement, and we are going to deliver both bills, the infrastructure bill, which is important. And the Build Back Better Act.

Bash asked about the "scathing statements" released by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-on't Know Why I'm a Democrat), the former accusing the progressives of using "Freedom Caucus tactics," and the latter accusing the progressives of further eroding trust. Jayapal said that was unfortunate, and pointed out that it wasn't "just a few people. We had over 60 votes" and that's growing, she said, because of "people who were desperately committed to the idea that we're not leaving anybody behind."

The conversation turned to dollars, and that's where Jayapal wasn't playing; she refused to give a number, much to Bash's dismay.

Well, what we have said from the beginning is, it's never been about the price tag. It's about what we want to deliver. The price tag comes out of that... And so, we are now going back to make sure, what is the way that we can get all of the critical programs that we had identified, those things I talked to you about, child care, paid leave plan... how do we get all of those things in, but -- and -- but perhaps for a shorter period of time, and be able to get then to the number from that? The critical thing is, let's get our priorities in, and then we will figure out what it actually costs.

She said even President Biden said "don't start with the number. Start with what you're for." And no matter how hard Bash pushed, that's where the stood.

I don't feel the need to give a number, because I gave my number. It was 3.5. So, if you're in a negotiation, you need to have a counteroffer before you bid against yourself... 

She said now they have to figure out how to get all of their priorities funded, maybe for "a little bit of a shorter time," and to look at some of the smaller items and decide if they're mandatory. Those should "cut out a decent amount," she said. And on means testing, while I am a strong supporter of means testing for government programs) Jayapal feels differently.

Well, all of the research shows means testing actually doesn't target it more, but it does create a lot of administrative burden and a lot more cost...So, it's not - it's not what I want to do. 

All I can say is, what a mess. And that's before we hear from That Guy from Vermont, who was in the Meet the Press classroom, with Chuck Todd asking, first, whether TGFV has "accepted the fact" that the Build Back Better plan won't be $3.5T. That's not what he heard, he said, and besides, even if he did,

what the president also said, and what all of us are saying, is that maybe the time is now for us to stand up to powerful special interests who are currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prevent us from doing what the American people want. We want to lower, substantially, prescription drug costs in this country so we're not paying ten times more for certain drugs than Canada and other countries. And the pharmaceutical industry has 1,400 lobbyists on Capitol Hill right now trying to stop us. We want to deal with the existential threat of climate change. We want to deal with child care. We want to expand Medicare so elderly people can chew their food, can have hearing aids, can have eyeglasses. And we can pay for this by demanding that the wealthiest people and largest corporations finally start paying their fair share of taxes. That's what this struggle is about. Do we do what the American people want? Do we fulfill what democracy is supposed to be about? Or do we bow down to powerful special interests?

Was that the answer to a question, or a campaign speech? I couldn't tell.

Todd made the mistake of talking about there being a "large wish list" and wondering if there's a sense that they should get as much done as possible, and tackle some of the smaller stuff later. TGFV's response? Another campaign speech. 

Climate change and cutting carbon emissions has everything to do with whether or not we leave this planet to future generations that is healthy and is habitable. Scientists tell us we got a few years. You want more workers out in the workforce, we need to reform child care so that a million women can come back to work and not have to pay, as a family, 20% or 30% of their income for child care. You have to have a skilled workforce. We can't have a skilled workforce and do the good jobs that are out there unless we train young people. That's why we want to make community colleges' tuition free. So, this is not a wish list. This is what the working families of this country want and what the economy needs. The real question is -- will Congress -- the Republicans, of course, are owned by the pharmaceutical industry and the fossil fuel industry. We don't expect them to do anything. But the question now is whether the Democrats can come together, and I think that we can, to finally do what working families in this country desperately want us to do.

Todd also wondered if TGFV was just learning about his colleague Joe Manchin's $1.5T figure, suggesting that Chuck Schumer had known about it for months. Sanders pointed out that Manchin has been public about what he wants - a smaller number and a paid-for bill. Sanders wants those things, too. 

As you well know, Chuck, there's a given year when Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, the wealthiest people in this country, don't pay a nickel in federal income taxes. Large corporations don't pay a nickel. We address that, you could pay for $3.5 trillion. You could pay for a $6 trillion bill and pay for it completely.

They've been negotiating, "literally, for months now," TGFV said, but now, the progressives (I'd say the Dems, but he's not one) have a new job, to "rally the American people to continue the negotiations," and he thinks they'll get both bills done. He also disagrees that it's a "dysfunctional message" they're sending by having both bills go together. They have to, he said, 

because there is a strong feeling on the part of many of us that if you just pass the infrastructure bill, which is a good bill, I voted for it, then we will not get to the bill that working families really want, that finally demands that the wealthiest people of this country start paying their fair share of taxes. So, what we said is, "Look, we all want the infrastructure bill. Great. But we also have got to do the reconciliation bill which addresses the long-neglected needs of working families and the elderly." Expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing aids, and eyeglasses, doing child care, doing community colleges, enormously important for working families.

He said lots of people are working with Sen. Sinema (she of the 'dysfunctional message' comment), and he thinks her constituents are starting to pressure her to get on board.

This is a long and complicated process which is dealing with the most consequential piece of legislation probably since the New Deal in the Great Depression. It's a big deal. And it's not going to happen overnight. And the president is absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether it's next week or three weeks from now. What matters is that we finally address the problems facing working families. That's what matters.

And in the end?

What matters is that we do it and we do it well. And when we do both of these pieces of legislation, I think the American people are going to say, "Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Democrats in the Congress. And by the way, where the hell were the Republicans in not having the guts to stand up to powerful special interests?"

He's running in 2024. I swear he is.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/2/26

With all of the focus on the Democratic Socialists competing in Democratic primaries across the country, I thought I'd spend time with the OG DS, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who chatted with Kristen Welker in NBC's Meet the Press classroom yesterday. While some of Welker's questions were long, almost all of Sanders' answers were, so be prepared.  

Welker started by referencing a new poll showing that "one third of Democratic-leaning voters now identify as Democratic Socialists (DS)," and noted that, "quite frankly," DS candidates have been winning their primaries. And she asked Sanders if he was confident they could win in purple states. I'm going to try and break up his 470-odd word response into sections so you can catch your breath reading it.

Well, I am, but I’m mostly confident that the American people know that our country today is moving in a very, very bad direction at a time when we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had in the history of America. What’s going on now makes the Gilded Age of Rockefeller look like an egalitarian utopia. What’s going on now is that millions of our people, right now, in the richest country on Earth, they’re struggling to put food on the table, pay for health care, pay for their rent, pay for their mortgage.

You got half of all the workers who have nothing in savings as they face retirement. Or you’re facing seeing kids unable to afford to go to college in the richest country in the history of the world. So people all over America are looking around, they’re saying, “Hey, wait a minute. The very richest people are becoming richer. Elon Musk himself, one man, owns more wealth by far than the bottom half of American households. What in God’s name is going on?”

And people look at the Republican leadership and Donald Trump, and they say, “You know, this guy’s worried about a Reflecting Pool. I can’t afford my retirement. He’s starting a war in Iran, costing us huge amounts of money, killing innocent people. 18 American servicemen are dead. What are they doing?”

And then you look at the Democratic Party leadership, which also gets their money, like the Republicans, from very wealthy people, and people are saying, “Is the Democratic leadership representing ordinary Americans?” And I think people look at the Republicans, they say, “No, they’re out of touch,” look at the Democratic leadership, say, “No, they’re out of touch.

We need a government, a radical idea, that works for all people and not just for wealthy campaign contributors.” And that’s why, from New York City with (Zoran) Mamdani, and in Colorado, and in California, and in Montana, and I think you’re going to see it in Michigan, people are saying, “Enough is enough. You know, let’s get a government that represents all of us.”

And I’ve got to tell you something, Kristen, that part of the exasperation that the American people are feeling, it’s not just an economy which is rigged. They’re looking at a corrupt — underlying corrupt campaign finance system. And what you’re seeing in Michigan right now is AIPAC, other billionaire-funded super PACs, putting tens and tens of millions of dollars against Abdul El-Sayed. In Minnesota against Peggy Flanagan, same thing.

So we’ve got billionaires buying elections, government working for the billionaires, and ordinary people saying, “We want change.” And that is why progressives, democratic socialists, are doing so well all over this country. They’ve got an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families. They’re prepared to stand up to the oligarchs.

Since Sanders mentioned Michigan, she wondered how confident he was that his endorsed candidate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, could "pull out a victory" in Tuesday's primary against the establishment candidate, Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Look, he has taken on –I’ve never - you know, I’m not a political scientist. I cannot recall where a major candidate was outspent so much by super PACs. I mean, they’re spending tens and tens of millions of dollars against him. The polling recently looks good, but polls don’t win elections, people do. So I would hope that, in Michigan and later next week in Minnesota, people understand the importance of this election. What’s it about?

It’s not just whether Abdul can win or not, beat Haley Stevens. The question is whether or not we live in a democratic society where a candidate fighting for working people can take on tens and tens of millions of dollars of AIPAC money, special interest money. And I hope very much that Abdul is - and I’ll tell you why, and a kind of selfish reason. Everybody in America understands that our current health care system is totally broken. We’re spending unbelievable amounts of money, twice as much per capita as the people of any other country. 85 million uninsured, underinsured. Prices way high.

Dr. El-Sayed is somebody I need in the Senate as he fights for Medicare for All. He’s a doctor. He has seen the broken health care system. We need him to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country has health care as a human right, as is the case in every other major country on Earth.

Welker noted that Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat is up for grabs, has backed Stevens to replace him, saying

You have to have a candidate who understands that winning a general election doesn’t mean just turning out Democrats. You also have to appeal to a broader cross-section of your state, and Michigan is a true purple state.

To Sanders, she posted this question: "What do you think Dr. El-Sayed will have to do in order to turn out moderates and independents to win a general election if he does win on Tuesday?" In a nutshell, Sanders explained El-Sayed can win because working-class Republicans are in the same boat as all working-class people, and they know the system is broken.

You are struggling to figure out how you’re going to retire with dignity. You understand that the current campaign finance system is broken. You understand that workers need decent wages, and El-Sayed is fighting for a livable minimum wage. And by the way, if you’re a Republican, you know maybe we should be investing our money into Michigan, into Vermont, into America rather than giving the extremist government of Netanyahu and Israel tens of billions of dollars to continue their atrocities against the Palestinian people - I think if you’re a working-class - ok - if you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says. You’re gonna - and I think many of them will end up voting for him. Independents as well, of course.

Welker asked if El-Sayed should "speak with the same clarity" as Sanders has on the issue of Israel as a Jewish State. El-Sayed has said he "often struggles with the question of whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.”  Here's the non-answer:

Look, I think right now the immediate issue of the moment is whether or not we continue to put tens of billions of dollars into the extremist Netanyahu government, which has killed 75,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, wounded 150,000, destroyed their infrastructure. And what the American people are saying overwhelmingly, Democrats, many independents - the majority of independents, and many Republicans, especially younger Republicans, “We’ve got better things to do with our money than to continue to fund the military of Israel.”

They talked a bit about the Maine primary, where Troy Jackson was chosen to replace Graham Platner after widely-reported scandals. Sanders knows Jackson; he'd endorse him if he was asked, and said "I look forward to working with him in the US Senate." And, on comments from Sen. John Fetterman (Kinda D- PA) about Sanders supporting Platner, Sanders suggested that Fetterman "was reflecting the views of about 19% of the Democrats" in PA and is "way out of touch with the people of America."  And, when she asked if he had any regrets about endorsing Platner, he turned to his standard lines:

I’ll tell you, you know, I think right now we’re looking at a campaign in Michigan, we’re looking at a campaign in Minnesota. The people of this country right now are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment policies. They want change and I and other progressives are going to do everything that we can to bring about those changes.

Finally, they talked about who could carry the progressive banner into the next presidential race, which will be the first without him since 2016.

Kristen there are — one of the untold secrets in Washington is in the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, you have many, many really strong progressives. Many of them are young. Many of them are women. Many of them are people of color. And we have elected many of them. And I think as a result of this election cycle, you’re going to see a lot more coming to Washington. I think as a nation, and by the way, with all due respect, the media spends too much time worrying about who’s going to be a president in two and a half years.

Right now, we have enormous problems facing this country. We’re looking at heat waves all over the world. You’ve got climate change. We’re looking at the big tech oligarchs pushing AI and robotics down our throat. Congress is doing very little to protect working people in that. We’re looking at massive levels of income and wealth inequality, a corrupt campaign finance system. My suggestion is, as a country, as a Congress, as media, let’s focus on the important issues facing working people. Two and a half years from now is a long time to a presidential election. I’m sure it will unfold itself.

I had hoped there'd be more questions about the Democratic Socialists of America platform, and to what extent the DS candidates support the platform. We'll have to wait to see if any of them win in November before anyone starts asking about that. 

For his part, Sanders was Sanders - his answers, in my opinion, were entirely predictable. What do you think?

Sunday School 7/26/26

For your Sunday School lesson this week, I spent time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, which was in a New York State of mind.

First up for host Dana Bash was House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Bash noted the Dems are launching something called '100 Days Out Weekend of Action,' a sprint to the midterms, by hosting over 400 events across the country. At the same time, they have to figure out how to regain the majority either through the center or through the "activist left." Noting the latter group wants to "defund the police, abolish ICE, aid to Israel, open borders," she asked Jeffries if he was planning on moving on any of those issues if they win in November. 

Rather than answer her question, he said the Ds would focus on what unites them, and that's "a focus on fighting for an affordable America" because "life in this country is far too expensive," and that's something the whole party agrees on.

Too many people are working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they can't thrive and they can barely survive, not enough food on the table, not enough gas in the tank, unable to actually regularly and consistently afford to pay the rent or pay the mortgage. We want to drive down the cost of groceries, drive down and lower the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of housing, and also make sure that health care is affordable for every single American. 

Bash tried again, asking whether the party's policy proposals will "be in line with" what some recent progressive winners want, or if they'll move towards "the moderate area" if they win the swing states.  Again, rather than answering the question, he chose bumper stickers: push back against the "one big ugly bill" and its Medicaid cuts, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, stop the "reckless and costly war of choice," and stop Trump's tariffs.

After two non-answers, Bash took a more direct approach, noting Jeffries has reportedly "clashed" with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who's campaigning for progressives, even those challenging incumbents, "including members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)." She asked if Sanders and others are making it harder for the Ds to win, and if that's what led to the clash. 

Jeffries said it wasn't a clash so much as a "candid conversation" with Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), chair of the CBC PAC, and it was about a single North Carolina primary. He added that he thinks Sanders and House and Senate Dems "understand the stakes" - taking control of Congress,

so we can end this MAGA extremism that has been unleashed on the American people that is actively hurting hardworking American taxpayers, and actually commit to making life more affordable for the American people.

She gave him one last chance to explain how he'll handle the progressives; according to him, "not a single person" among the incoming members has raised any of the issues Bash mentioned, other than how Dems are pushing back against the administration's immigration policies, including ICE.

The last question was about New Jersey's non-citizen voting disclosure; Bash, noting that Dems say this "doesn't happen," wondered if the discovery causes a problem for the Dems.

I think that I continue to have confidence in state and local authorities in making sure that there's going to be a free and fair election in November, and, if modest or minor challenges emerge, such as the one that was disclosed voluntarily by the authorities in New Jersey, that it is immediately corrected. And that's what I expect will continue to happen. 

And then? Back to the bumper stickers: Trump and the Rs and voter suppression, their failure to lower prices, the war, skyrocketing gas prices, and Medicaid cuts, before saying this:

They have nothing to run on. We're going to run on fighting for an affordable America.

The next New Yorker in the classroom was Border Czar Tom Homan; he's a North Country native who maintains a home in Sackets Harbor, where protestors have made their views on ICE known.

Bash led with asking if he knows "specifically" what's going on with the ICE officers who were involved in the shootings in Texas and Maine, and whether they'd been reassigned or placed on leave. Homan said he hadn't been involved in the investigations and didn't know the officers' status, but said that the policy is that they'd be put on leave during the investigation. Bash seemed surprised that, "as border czar involved in this," he didn't know for sure what had happened to the agents. He made it clear that ICE reports to Markwayne Mullin, and said

I've said from day one I won't comment on an investigation, but I can tell you I haven't specifically tracked these cases, but I can tell you, per policy, they're usually put on administrative leave pending the investigation, pending sworn statements, internal affairs interviews and the entire investigation. They usually will not be put back on duty until the investigation is over and either have been cleared or, if they've got problems, then they may not go back at all.

That last comment opened the door for Bash to bring up the domestic violence allegations against the officer in Maine (which the officer has denied). According to court documents, one of his ex-wives said that "she experienced severe domestic violence in her marriage and that he always displayed violent behavior, and even that, if anything ever happened to her, he'd be the one to look at." She wondered whether someone "with those issues" should be an ICE agent. 

No, if those of those are facts, he -- I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. When they hire somebody, they put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information -- that's part of the ongoing investigation... -- did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know? So, there's a separate administrative investigation on what happened here.... But the vetting process, I -- if that was factual, he would have an almost impossible time to pass vetting.

Homan said all ICE employees (some 30,000 of them) go through vetting and "this is a kind of a rare instance." And this is just one aspect of the ongoing review.

So, the training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section. So we will see where it lies. But, certainly, if this person had that type of history, it would have been a vetting issue, and it should have been brought to the attention of those who makes those decisions.

That led to Bash questioning the training, as she did the vetting, pointing to the race to "find as many undocumented immigrants as possible to deport." Homan disagreed with that premise, noting that every law enforcement agency reassesses training protocols and makes changes as needed; he even did that when he was the ICE director. And, he pointed to what Todd Lyons, ICE director last year, told Congress - that while training has changed, the amount of training did not.

They just stopped the duplication. Now it's being reviewed and... look, can we add additional training?  I think Markwayne Mullin made the decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure we -- the officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests possible. And that review was done pretty quickly.  

Yeah, that 'pause' is a thing, right? Here's Bash:

...during what ended up being a very brief pause, like a day, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said that vehicle stops would be paused, and then the president very quickly overturned that directive. But while the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done... my question for you is, how is it possible that all of that got accomplished in just the one day that the pause existed?

Homan pointed to some immediate changes, including at least one officer with a body camera to record all stops, and a journeyman agent assigned to them, as well. 

... (Acting ICE director) David Venturella sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video. So, whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it's on video. And I'm a big supporter of video cameras. I'm a big supporter, because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.

Frankly, everyone wants that - the public has wanted that for months. 

Moving on to the panel discussion, we've got three more New Yorkers in the game: Congressmen Tom Suozzi (D), who represents part of the North Shore of Long Island and Mike Lawler (R), who represents folks in Rockland and Putnam Counties, and Syracuse native Maya Willey, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. GOP analyst Alyssa Farah Griffin, a native Californian, was also in the mix.

Bash, herself a native New Yorker, opened with a clip from Trump's hour-long rally/WHCA dinner speech.

What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? I hate some people. I shouldn't say this. I'm president. I'm not supposed to hate. I'm supposed to love everybody. Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you will ever meet.

Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites. She ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country. You can't call J.B. Pritzker a fat pig, please.

Briefly, here's what the panel thought:

• Fara Griffin: Listen, he bombed, but the most offensive thing about it was that it wasn't funny...   and President Trump, by the way, can be funny... That did not show up...  I asked myself at the end of what felt like 90 minutes we will never get back of our lives, what was the point of that? It didn't unify him with the press, it didn't ingratiate him more, and he didn't really seem to have any goal. We're talking about Czech crystal, and then we're insulting, kind of going through the greatest hits... I'm not sure why he was there, to be honest. 

• Suozzi: It was just mean. I thought it was just mean-spirited. It wasn't funny. It's supposed to be an entertaining, fun night, and it was just, I thought, mean-spirited.

• Lawler: ... I think it was important for the president to go... from that standpoint, it was a positive... I think he could have been a lot funnier... Frankly, some of the stuff that is said on CNN about the president in real time is a lot harsher than anything he threw on Friday night... I definitely think the president could have brought a little more levity to it than he did

• Willey: Unfunny, mean, all of the above...  one of the points of (the dinner) is to celebrate the First Amendment and free speech... we saw not only a refusal to allow any political satire, in the form of having a comedian there. We also saw a president attacking journalists because they won awards on topics that he didn't like...

Shifting gears to the midterms and a CBS/YouGov poll showing that 78% said the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices, Lawler was up first; he touted his own record of focusing "almost exclusively" on affordability, including pushing the SALT limit increase and the bipartisan housing bill (enacted by 'executive indifference'), and noted

...it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House that worked together to get it done. It was bipartisan. There were a number of Democrat initiatives in there as well. But this will actually increase supply, lower prices, create greater access to capital. These are the things the American people want us to focus on, and that's what I have been focused on.

Suozzi, on the other hand, reminded Lawler that they were both at the Inauguration last January, when we were all promised prices would come down fast. And he pointed to "five specific points directly related to this administration that are raising prices."  (I count four, but who's counting?)

Everybody knows the tariffs increase people's prices, make your food more expensive every day, make your business more expensive. Everybody knows that the war is causing an increase of gas prices at the gas pump. Everybody knows this is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, which causes upward pressure on interest rates, make it impossible to buy a house, to lease a car, to pay for your credit card. Everybody knows that they have cut health care premium tax credits. You and I worked together to try and save the premium tax credits...

Farah Griffin said the Rs are looking to the White House to "please get this president on message" about bringing down prices, but there's "not a great story to tell right now."

With the Iran war going -- continuing to go on, gas prices are not coming down the way that we hoped they would. The ongoing tariff regime, which we seem to announce more tariffs day in and day out, Mexico, Canada, what is next? And this is -- this is where you have got to have sound advisers around him. I imagine Susie Wiles is in his ear saying, 'you have got to get on message ahead of these midterms,' because to -- if you're the president, investigations come, accountability comes if you lose the House and potentially the Senate.

She also said they missed the boat and he should have held a big event for the housing bill, saying

... he completely missed the opportunity there. It's remarkable the inability to see what the American people voted for him to do and then deliver on it.

Willey gets the last word, noting that the messaging is not enough, and furthermore, 

... the truth is, these are self-inflicted wounds. These are not natural occurrences in high prices. These are the creation of decisions this administration has made, the Iran war being a really big and obvious one lost on no one.

And that's a wrap. Did you learn anything? Did the New Yorkers represent the state well? Drop a comment!

Sunday School 7/22/18

Three classrooms today - ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Fox News Sunday with Brett Baier sitting in for Chris Wallace and Face The Nation with Margaret Brennan on CBS, which is where we'll start.

Brennan aired a recent interview with former Secretary of State John Kerry; he was not so impressed with the current president's performance, which should come as no surprise.

I found it shocking. I found it to be one of the most disgraceful, remarkable moments of kowtowing to a foreign leader by an American president that anyone has ever witnessed... The president stood there and did not defend our country. He stood there and did not defend the truth, he did not defend the facts... and the danger, it's dangerous -- because it sends a message to President Putin and to the rest of the world that the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, really doesn't have a handle on what he's doing, and that he doesn't, you know, know either what the facts are or he won't accept the facts. 

He was equally not impressed with the walkback, wondering how anyone can buy into the walkback when there are so many of them and the positions change all the time, causing a need for more walking back.

Brennan noted that Trump tells us the meddling all happened under President Obama's watch, and that Obama also didn't confront Putin publicly. Kerry pointed out  that Obama sent the unbiased experts out - DNI, CIA - to talk about it what we knew and stayed out of the fray himself. But there was that time in China when Obama pulled Putin aside.

Finally, in choosing not to comment on Trump's recent comments about Joe Biden (from his CBS News interview) Kerry noted something that we all should remember:

What he does is, he's always looking for the diversion, always moving away from the real business of our country because he doesn't know how to do the real business of our country.

Moving to Fox and Brett Baier's conversation with the ethically challenged Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) about Trump/Putin, about Brett Kavanaugh, and about the progressives in the Democratic Party. We'll take a look at his comments in that order.

On Russia:

You can speak to adversaries, but at the end of the day you have to do it in a way in which you challenge them. The president seems to want to be chummy with Putin instead of challenging him...

Trump should be challenging Putin on international law violations, on Syria, on Crimea... And, while he may have done that behind closed doors, he should have done it after their meeting - as in

...when you had an opportunity to show the world, all of our allies, show NATO, show the free world that you would in fact were not supplicant to Vladimir Putin, but a challenge to him, you failed to do so. 

On Kavanaugh, and specifically the simple majority requirement for Supremes initiated by Mitch McConnell

There will come a moment in which they'll regret that and, you know, if this continues, we are going to have a Senate not as the Founders of the Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution imagined, it will just be a majority vote institution like the House of Representatives and that will dramatically change the country.

And on the progressives within the Dem's gang, specifically Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's been hanging with fake Democrat Bernie Sanders, selling an agenda that apparently includes the end of capitalism and references an Israeli occupation of Palestine. I'm with Menendez on this.

Look, that's their agenda. And, you know, under our democracy, everybody has their agenda. I've seen extreme right wing agendas that I disagree with equally as well. 

Finally, to This Week and and Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor to President Obama. She too reminded us that Trump's initial sanctions against Russia came after a 98-2 vote in the Senate pretty much shaming him into them. And that Trump's policies are service Putin's interests, not so much the interests of the US and our allies. And, in reference to the private meeting, she was pretty clear.

It was a historic mistake to allow the president of the United States -- not just Donald Trump, but any president, frankly -- to sit for two hours without any note-takers, without any aides present, with one of the most adversarial leaders of the world relative to the United States. 

And on how Trump blames Obama and other Presidents for the current state of relations with Russia, she pulled no punches.

So, you know, president Trump can throw all kinds of epithets around. It seems that's how he likes to govern, but the facts are the facts and the reality is, the United States, on a bipartisan basis, needs to be unified in its opposition to Russia's policies, to its efforts to undermine our democracy and our domestic political discourse, and we shouldn't be casting aspersions on one's predecessors, we should be looking Putin squarely in the eye and delivering the message that supports United States interests, not Russian interests.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v52)

Only five posts for you last week - took a couple of days off (one on purpose, one due to technology issues).  Here's your week in review.

Sunday School brought us a conversation with Trump's Wisconsin Senator, Ron Johnson, who apparently can't bring himself to say anything even remotely honest about his boss. And Dana Bash, on CNN's SOTU, pushed him pretty hard to do so, particularly on his tweets about Kenosha, which she said were "agitating and actively encouraging his supporters." She wondered if that's what Johnson wanted to see from the president.

But, Dana, there are people -- there are people agitating all over the place. And what we need to do is get control of the situation.

He kept talking about Wisconsin officials; she kept asking about the president, finally asking him ..."would you prefer that the president not tweet agitating comments and agitating ideas on his Twitter feed?"

Well, that's how you -- that's how you are typifying it. What we need to do is, we need to encourage an end to the violence and the rioting.

It's a cult - I swear it's a cult. And the penalty for speaking ill of the Grand Poo-bah or whatever they call him must be of the utmost severity. Also in a classroom? Kate Bedingfield, who's a key person on the Biden/Harris campaign. She, too, had a hard time answering a direct question. 

For your Extra Credit this week, we sat in on conversations with athlete/activists Etan Thomas and Sue Bird (with Chuck on MTP) and Nneka Ogwumike (with Dana Bash). Those conversations centered on how current and former professional athletes are getting involved with social justice issues. 

Both Bird and Ogwumike, who are WNBA players and leaders in the player's association, talked about how much support they have from the league, and that the players have been leaders in speaking out on issues. Here's how Ogwumike sees how they're able to leverage their fame for good.

And the platforms that we have, just as the politicians do, need to be used to effect change in our communities. And, as athletes, we would be discrediting our essence if we didn't use that platform for good and for change. Quite frankly, too, a lot of what we speak about, it shouldn't be political, but, unfortunately, the way that our country has kind of evolved, certain issues, certain human issues have become political.

Thomas gave a great illustration of the difference being supportive and enabling, something that the Poo-bah could benefit from hearing.

So, for instance, I love my baby Sierra. You know, that's my girl. But if baby Sierra came to me and said, "Daddy, I want to have chocolate chips for dinner," I wouldn't be supporting her by telling her that she can go have chocolate chips for dinner, you know what I mean? That's not supporting her.

And Trump and the right believe that you have to allow the police to do anything that they want to do and then that equals supporting them... Applauding someone and saying, "Everything that you do is wonderful" is not supporting them. It's actually enabling them. And, you know, so I would say Trump is actually acting more anti-police than what he's claiming to be.

Too bad this will have fallen on deaf ears, right?

I tossed a Knock Knock post out there this week, wondering about Dems and their purity tests (never a perceived sexual predator or sexually indiscreet person shall you be) and their whole 'are we progressives or are we traditionalists' conflict.  On the latter, the answer is yes, we are progressives AND we are traditionalists, as least this cycle, at least in Massachusetts.

A Kennedy lost a statewide race for the first time ever, even though Joe Kennedy III is young, and progressive. Those two things, and his family name, were not enough to allow him to unseat 70-something progressive Ed Markey, who had the support of AOC.  In the other race, the one with the perceived sexually indiscreet young progressive, the battle went to the 70-something traditional Rep. Richard Neal, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.  Fickle Dems? Principled Dems? Not sure.

Thursday's Email of the Week was from a politician, former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who through his massive charity is going to be donating millions - 100 of them, actually - to historically black medical schools over the next four years.

This funding will allow the schools to provide scholarships up to $100,000 to nearly every medical student currently enrolled and receiving financial aid.

These four schools tend to have higher graduation rates of Black students than medical schools overall -- in part because increasing diversity in medicine and offering medical services for communities most in need are ingrained in their mission, so they provide more support to help students overcome obstacles and graduate.

Good stuff - the kind of thing real billionaires do with their money - and what real billionaires do with their charities (you get the drift, I'm sure.)

And, back to normal for our TGIF post after spending the last two weeks publishing the acceptance speeches of Biden-Harris and Trump-Pence, I shared coverage of the very different visits to Kenosha made by Trump the Agitator and Biden the Listener, and the president's bizarre tale about a plane full of looters and rioters and vandals, dressed in black, and six people who were generally like a seventh who told the story... confused yet?  There's more confusion to that one I can assure you. 

And I couldn't resist talking about Trump's bizarre claim about Joe Biden "abandoning" Scranton PA... it's a big deal for the president, it is -- he mentions it frequently, as shown in the example below of the president getting all of this straightened out for Pennsylvanians.

He keeps talking about, ‘I was born in Scranton. I lived in Scranton.’ Yeah, for a few years, and then he left for another state. You know the state. But this Scranton stuff. That’s why I figured I’d come here and explain to you one thing. But I think you people know it better than I do. He left! He abandoned Pennsylvania. He abandoned Scranton.

Yep -- he sure as heck did. When he was 10. And his family moved to Delaware. Because all 10-year-0lds have the power to keep their families from moving, right? And didn't the president just abandon his home town, his state, too? Hypocrisy much, Donny?

After the conventions, it was kind of nice to slow down for a bit, but I'm expecting this week to take off again. Hope you stick around for the ride.

I'll be back later with today's Sunday School.

Wondering on Wednesday (v166)

I'm wondering, tonight, for sure, about the new gang in the House and the old gang in the Senate, too.

For example, I'm wondering (and worrying) how many more open judge seats president Trump is going to be able to fill in the next two years, or (dare I say it) in the next six? I read today that Trump has now filled one in six judges on the US circuit courts - one in six!

One, just approved by the Senate, has only been a lawyer for nine years, is only 37 years old, and has only tried four cases to verdict, none as the lead attorney.  Like others Trump has nominated, she fits the mold designed by the Federalist Society, which looks for anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, lawyers who can get on the bench early. Voting rights are also in the cross-hairs of these folks, who get lifetime seats, remember.

I'm also wondering, on the chance that the Dems take the White House in 2020 , if they'll have any openings to fill, given the rate that Trump is getting judges seated. And, pretending that they will take the Senate in 2020 (also not assured by any stretch of the imagination) but not the White House, I wonder how much influence they'll be able exert to get moderates appointed - you know, people who think gays deserve exactly the same rights as the rest of us, for example.

And the last thing on this - is Chuck Schumer the guy who can do for the Dems what Mitch McConnell did for the Republicans on judges, if he gets the chance?  I really wonder about that.

And the Winners Are...

Here in Central New York, we're familiar with massive piles of snow, which go through cycles of looking pretty, and looking pretty disgusting, like the one shown here.

It's been a while since I've handed out any Dirty Snowpile Awards, given for particularly bad acts on the part of local, state, and federal politicians.

It wasn't for a lack of trying, I assure you. During the Obama years, I attempted to hand some out, but I never managed to get them done during awards season. And, of course, the Trump years were one giant dirty snowpile, from so many perspectives; it seemed silly to single anyone out. 

Tonight, folks are gathering for the Oscars, and I can't think of a better time to get some other well-deserved recognition out there. 

> The We May Never Find the Poop Under this Snowpile award goes to US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland moves at a very deliberate pace, it seems, and he's hardly an emphatic speaker. We know things are moving forward on the insurrection, and hate crimes, and such, but sometimes all we know is that things are moving s-l-o-w-l-y. There have been accomplishments, of course, and we know that his goal is to leave no snowpile unturned, at this pace by the time he finds the poop under all that snow, we'll forget which dog left it there. 

> Speaking of poop, former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo has earned the Just When You Thought Winter Was Over award. Cuomo, as you know, resigned in the face of multiple sexual harassment allegations, for which he offered the Italian defense, and blamed his alleged victims and his political opponents. But now, like snow in April and May, he's back. That's right- the Sonofa Gov is campaigning to get his reputation back, and, if that weren't enough, he's been teasing a return to politics. 

Cuomo meandered back and forth across the ethical aisle for a long time. He was one of the three amigos back in the day; the other two were convicted of crimes. There were the economic development issues, with several people very close to Cuomo charged (and convicted). There were previous allegations of sexual harassment in his  administration; and of course, there was the Moreland Commission mess. 

The bottom line? Cuomo's just one more in a long line of NY pols who've behaved badly and tried to make us think they didn't. And, like late season snow, we don't like it, we don't need it, and we're sick of it. 

> The Does this Snowpile Make My Uterus Look Big award, given collectively to Republicans for their attacks on women and our bodies. Remember their, um, erudite conversations on rape? A few of those are captured here. And, of course, there are the new anti-abortion laws, some of which defy both logic and science. And in their zeal to see Roe v. Wade overturned, they're salivating at the possible end of Griswold v. Connecticut, which afforded privacy protections to married women and their birth control decisions. Considering the Rs are the party of small government and individual freedom, they're sure spending a lot of time trying to control my lady parts.

> The My Snowpile's So Small It Fits on this T-shirt award goes to the thousands of politicians, their advisors, or whoever it is that decided we should have a government of the t-shirt, by the t-shirt and for the t-shirt. You know what I'm talking about, right? Policies and positions that fit on a t-shirt are great; anything else, we don't give a hoot about. And don't forget how those slogans get twisted and turned into opposition missiles, either.

Need some examples? Well, off the top of my head, and in keeping with what we just talked about, My Body My Choice. And these: Make America Great Again; Build Back Better; Back the Blue; Defund the Police; Race to the Top; Read My Lips - No New Taxes; Drill, Baby, Drill; the Green New Deal... There must be a political slogan factory somewhere, I swear - and there are days I want to work there.

Sadly, one of the most important things with all this 'governing by slogan' stuff is that you buy the t-shirt, literally or figuratively.

> My frustration with progressives in the Democratic Party is no secret, so it should come as no surprise that they win the With Friends Like These Who Needs Enemies award. They think nothing of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; it's never good enough to get something you've been fighting for, if you can't get everything you've been fighting for, and - of course - nothing is more important than what they want. This year, the progressives had a response to their own president's State of the Union address, for Pete's sake. 

> This year's The Couple That Shovels Together Stays Together award goes to the Thomases, Clarence and Ginni. Her work is hers, and his is his, and never the twain shall meet, except when the twain is all twisted up in an ugly ethical hairball, even without those text messages. And don't forget, Clarence has some issues separate from his wife's texts; here's one example; here's another one. 

That's all for this year's awards; I'd love to give out more, but I've got to go out and shovel one last time.

Knock Knock. Who's There? Fickle Democrats

Fickle Democrats who?

Fickle Democrats who sometimes forget what they stand for, when it's convenient for them to do so. And no, this has nothing to do with Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, I'm talking about the race for Congressional seats.

It's hard to be in the majority in the House when your newest, youngest, most progressive members don't appear to appreciate the benefits of being the majority, and are hell-bent on pushing their agenda, which as we know was NOT the winning agenda in the party's presidential primary. But that's not stopping them, it sure isn't.

And, after the success of AOC and Ayanna Presley and Rashida Tlaib and others, there are now all sorts of young whippersnappers who are primarying the old-timers among the Ds, and are trying to knock them off one by one, and they don't seem to care how that might impact the House majority, or the ability to get the majority in the Senate, or to win the White House, all of which are hugely consequential for anything progressive getting accomplished in the next two to four years.

Yeah, it's hard to be a Dem alright; between the different wings of the party, each impatient with the other, and the purity tests, it's not an easy needle to thread. There's a race in the 1st District for Massachusetts that has caught some attention, from a whole host of perspectives, that illustrates this pretty well, I think.

• The seat is currently held by Rep. Richard Neal, who's chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Neal has the endorsement of the big national unions, some state unions, the late Rep. John Lewis, the Human Rights Campaign, and more. 
• He's been in office since the year his challenger, Holyoke Mayor Alex B. Morse, was born. (Not that there's anything wrong with being in office for 31 years...ahem). Morse is backed by progressive Dems and progressive organizations, including Move On and Our Revolution, which is the Sanders movement, among others.
• In addition to being the mayor, Morse also served as a guest lecturer at UMass-Amherst.

Outside groups have been involved in this campaign, (no surprise there - we're bombarded with them here in my neck of the woods every election), including American Working Families, which has thrown its support behind Neal. The group ran an ad which attacked Morse's record as Holyoke's mayor, said he was being bankrolled by outside groups (that always makes me chuckle, when the accusation comes from an outside group), and "hit him over 'sexual relationships with college students,'" closing the ad with an onerous voice-over saying

Alex Morse. Terrible judgement and a terrible record. 

After the ad appeared, American Working Families issued an apology and asked that the ad not be aired again, stating that it never intended the ad to see the light of day, that it was "accidentally sent to stations instead of a corrected version," and that they regretted the error. I'm not sure what was in the corrected version, but I can guess. Meanwhile, it was aired, it was seen, and it probably hasn't been forgotten.

Here's the thing, though, about the ad: Morse "ultimately acknowledged having had consensual relationships with some students" and at least for a short period of time, considered ending his race. But, there's a twist:

...the allegations against Morse were muddled after The Intercept published messages from some of the students who had made the accusations in which they discussed potential ways to hurt Morse's primary campaign. One student described himself as a "Neal stan" and expressed a desire to get an internship with the Congressman.

The whole thing is ugly, full of intrigue and party politics, and alleged anti-gay harassment, and yes, some of the students who made the accusations had their personal information shared on Twitter, so they'd feel the pain they deserved for their actions. All-in-all, a classic David and Goliath battle, played out on Twitter and elsewhere.

Now, those purity tests I mentioned, that the Dems are famous for? Among them are the ones about all victims of sexual abuse or harassment are to be believed, and that any hint of sexual transgression is enough to get you booted, right?

And let's not forget the longstanding concept that a person cannot have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who has power over them, whether it's a director and an actress, a supervisor and an employee, a police officer and people he's arrested, or a famous comedian making shadow hands over - not actually touching -  a sleeping woman's breasts. That 'imbalance of power' standard exists in the criminal justice system, in pretty much every HR manual, in most company policies, and in the Democratic Party rules.

Most people - even progressives, I'd guess - certainly wouldn't think that a 30-something female college professor who had consensual relations with her male students would be House of Representatives material, would they? Or that a 30-something male college professor who had consensual relations with his female students would be?

Did I mention that Morse is gay? And does that, or should that, give him a pass on the professor/student relationships? He knows his behavior was wrong; he admitted it was, and he apologized, using the classic "if I made anyone uncomfortable" language we've grown accustomed to hearing.

Now, maybe Morse was set up by bad actors trying to encourage a relationship, but he admitted having them, which puts the ball back in his court.

And now, we'll see which fickle Dem purity test matters: the one that says that sexual indiscretions are bad, the one that says progressives are good, or the one that says depending on who you are, an apology is fine and we'll welcome you with open arms.

The primary is today.  FYI, another one to watch? 39-year old  Congressman Joe Kennedy III is challenging 74-year old Ed Markey for Senate. AOC is supporting Markey....

Fortune Favors the Bold (Pt 3)

On October 30, 1990, Robert 'Bam Bam' Lawrence shot and killed Syracuse police investigator Wallie Howard Jr, when an undercover drug deal went bad. Lawrence was 16 years old; Howard was 31.

Earlier this week, in federal court in Utica, a judge reduced Lawrence's sentence from life in prison to 31 years, on the basis of a 2012 Supreme Court ruling determining that a mandatory sentence of life in prison for anyone under the age of 18 was unconstitutional, as it met the criteria of cruel and unusual punishment.  In re-sentencing Lawrence, now 40, the judge noted that he had to take into consideration "the traits of youth" including "immaturity, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the likelihood that his character was not as well-formed' as an adult's would be. Four others, all over the age of 18 at the time, are serving life sentences.

Lawrence is also serving a concurrent state sentence of 30 years to life.

So what's the connection to Governor Cuomo's State of the State address, which is what this Fortune Favors the Bold series is all about? Well, the governor wants to do something about how young criminals are treated.  Here's what he said:

Our juvenile justice laws are outdated. Under New York State law 16- and 17-year-olds can be tried and charged as adults. Only one other state in the nation does that; it's the state of North Carolina.  It's not right, it's not fair - we must raise the age. Let's form a commission on youth public safety and justice and let's get it done this year. 

Liberals and progressives would say that we should not throw away a 16- or 17-year-old child, even one who commits bad acts, by putting them into the adult justice system. The child's decisions-making capacity is not fully formed at that age, according to scientific reports.  And, in 37 states and Washington DC, only offenders 18 years of age and older are treated as adults. Another 11 states would consider a 17 year old an adult, and as our Sonofa Governor mentioned in the SOTS, only North Carolina joins us at the 16 year old level.

The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice is leading the charge on changing how juveniles are treated in the American justice system. They and others have made the case that adolescent brains are not fully developed and capable of valid decision-making; that young offenders too prone to peer pressure and act badly as a result; that mental and behavioral influences help contribute to youth crime; that kids incarcerated with adults don't stand much of a chance in turning their lives around; and that recidivism rates are much higher for adult-incarcerated youth than they are for kids in the juvenile justice program, where significantly more attention is paid to reform, rehabilitation and re-entry into productive society.

One of the MacArthur studies compared statistics in New York and New Jersey (focusing on the New York City area) back in the early 1990s, and found that kids prosecuted in NY's adult courts were 85% more likely to be re-arrested for violent crimes and 44% more likely to be re-arrested for property crimes; in fact, for every category of crimes other than drug offenses juveniles in the adult system were more likely to be re-arrested than their juvenile system counterparts in New Jersey.   A subsequent study in 2001 found more developmental issues with adult-incarcerated youth.

These studies are among the ones being shared by the proponents of raising the age; RaisetheAgeNY has some even more compelling statistics, including:

• 75.3% of the 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds arrested each year, and potentially facing the adult court system, were charged with misdemeanors;
• 70% of the 16- and 17-year-olds arrested are black or Latino; and
• 80% of the ones who end up being sentenced are black or Latino

These are sobering statistics, to be sure.  But so (as just one example) was the behavior of Robert Lawrence;  he committed an adult crime (murder of a police officer) while participating in an adult crime (a deal to sell a lot of cocaine) with the intention of committing yet another adult crime (stealing $42,000, the cash intended to purchase the coke).

This type of behavior -- these or any other serious crimes -- should continue to be treated as adult crimes. And whatever we do let's not become Texas, where blaming wealthy parents is now fair game, just as blaming a poor upbringing is fair game just about everywhere.

Now, the other question here is why we need to "form a commission on youth public safety" to tackle this.

Why not let the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children handle it? They're celebrating 25 years of service, according to their web page. Funny - I see that and I'm reminded of Syracuse's old Frank's Pizza, where they used to say in their late-night ads that they "know what they've been doing, they've been doing it for over 25 years" -- that's experience, folks!

Yes -- let's ask this permanent commission to tackle the Raise the Age issue. Or, heaven forbid, why not ask the New York State Legislature? No one's better at holding meetings than that group.

If we're going to do this, let's look at misdemeanors vs. more serious crimes; let's look at harm to the victims (property vs person, for example) and let's look at sentencing options (including any cases of mandatory minimums).  Let's not lose sight of three-strikes type laws, and make sure that they're reasonable. But let's not mess around pulling together another group, let's use the one that's in place and figure out what has to be done.

And in the process, let's make absolutely sure that families like Wallie Howard's are heard from -- for as much as liberals and progressives are in favor of protecting and promoting and supporting the lives and welfare of the young and the less fortunate, when it comes to crime and punishment, the voice of the victims cannot be forgotten.