Sunday School 10/10/21: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School this week included interviews with Steve Scalise and Janet Yellen. For your Extra Credit, I've got the mess that was Chuck Todd on Meet the Press talking with former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who I hear has written a book.  

Here's Chuck's intro to Grisham.

The White House press secretary is one of the most high-profile jobs in Washington, but you'd be forgiven if you had no idea what Stephanie Grisham looks like. That's because she's the former Trump press secretary who never actually held a press conference.

That's true. Here's a bit of what the WaPo had to say about her tenure.

Unlike her overexposed predecessors, Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders, Grisham was infamous for being invisible. In her nine months on the job (her tenure lasted from July until her firing on April 7), Grisham never held a White House press briefing. This makes her unique among the roughly 35 people who have held her position. She rarely conducted the smaller informal briefings known as “gaggles” and almost never appeared on TV, unless it was Fox News.

To me, Todd started in the right place: before her book, she had a high-profile job, and for all intents and purposes, didn't do it.  

She has, however, written a book, I'll Take Your Questions Now. - Get it? - What I Saw at the Trump White House. It is a rather chatty account of her time with Team Trump, where she also was chief of staff to Melania Trump, who has responded to Grisham's book this way, quote, "Ms. Grisham is a deceitful and troubled individual who doesn't deserve anyone's trust." So, with that, Stephanie Grisham joins me now. Ms. Grisham, welcome to Meet the Press.

So, maybe we should delve into that first part, the 'not doing her job' part, at least a little? I mean, she's there to answer questions, right? Wouldn't the first question be, "before we get to the book, I've got to ask. Why didn't you ever engage with the press? Wasn't that your primary job, as press secretary?"

Oh, heck no - it's Chuck Todd, after all - so that didn't happen. Here, in order, are the questions he did ask,  and excerpts from her answers.

So, I want to start with you explaining why viewers tonight, today, should trust what you say in response to my questions. Because you lay out in the book, you admit you were, many times in Trump world you're asked to misinform or perhaps lie on behalf of the boss. So, you're doing a tell-all now. Why should we believe you? In short, I don't have anybody to answer for anymore... And I thought to myself, if I'm going to write a book, I want to write something that is just honest and brutal. And, you know, I don't spare myself in there either. 

I would have asked: "You say you don't spare yourself in the book; can you give us an example? And, following up, how does that make us want to trust you now?"

So, I'll just start with some of the things. Do you regret not resigning sooner? You waited until January 6th. After seeing everything you saw for four years, you wait until January 6th, some might argue the day everybody was wanting to run for the hills from Team Trump. Why did you wait so long? ...for about the last six months, I actually tried to resign a couple of times and Mrs. Trump talked me out of it... But absolutely, to answer your question, I do regret it...

I would have asked: "She talked you out of it? Can you give us some insight to those conversations? And, can you share anything you said in your resignation letter?"

When do you believe -- do you believe President Trump thinks he actually lost the election or not? I do think he believes it. That's been part of what has been scaring me as I've been watching from afar... I honestly thought this was a lot of his bluster, which you know, he's good at doing. He was doubling down. He'll never admit to losing, et cetera, et cetera. I thought he was going to just kind of raise some money so he could pay off legal bills, et cetera. But I think now, because his base is reacting to him the way that it is... and very, very few Republicans are refusing to speak up about, you know, his role in January 6th, but also this current attack on democracy with regard to election integrity, I think he is going to run again.

I would have asked: "Is there anyone you think would be able to talk him out of running again? Mrs. Trump, maybe? Is this something that would fall to Jared and Ivanka to do? Or is there no one in his circle who has that kind of influence with him?"

(Referencing his interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse just before he talked with Grisham) ...do you have an idea of who was helping sort of fund and back these crazy claims of the president and his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows? Well, certainly, I know, you know, as does the public, that there was Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and some of those characters. I do know that there were a lot of private meetings in the residence taking place that were perhaps not taking place in the White House where there would be public documents about that... I don't have a specific name. I don't think it was one person. I think there were probably a few.

I would have asked: "Were you involved in or informed about any of those meetings? Can you give us any hint as to who the attendees were - was Mrs. Trump involved, was it administration officials or outsiders, or both? Did Meadows talk to you about keeping the meetings quiet, or give you information for Fox News or any other outlets?"

So, walk me through election night and the day after. There seems to be some evidence that he was accepting what was happening with the results and then something changed. Can you pinpoint it? I can't. I was with Mrs. Trump most of the night, to be honest with you...So, I think he just refused to give up. I mean, it's Donald Trump, right? And he will never admit to being wrong or to losing anything...I think one thing he's gotten really good at or he did get really good at as president is taking advantage of the base and this group of people who are, you know, so desperate for a voice, which I understand and support. But I think they're being taken advantage of now. And I think he knows they'll do whatever he says.

I would have asked: "You say you "understand and support" the people who are so desperate for a voice, but at the same time, you don't think Trump is the right person to help them. What message would you give his supporters? If Trump's not the right guy, who is? Where do they go instead?" 

Did you get taken advantage of by him? You know, it was interesting to me that you sort of admit that you got into that White House and perhaps you wouldn't have gotten there with another campaign. Did he take advantage of you? I think, I don't want to pin that on him. I definitely got very excited to be around this glamorous world of the Trumps. And certainly, when I got into the White House, you do get heady with power. I don't know that he took advantage of me in that regard. I think that that was my own weakness there.

I would have asked: "I can't help wondering, would there even be a book if you had only worked for Melania Trump? In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently? Do you regret working for the administration?"

You know, I've heard from several former Trump staffers, some of whom share your concerns about him, but say that every decision you made was always in the best interest of yourself. Whether it was to stick in order to get a good job in the White House or, now, to do a tell-all when you need to make money. What do you say to that criticism? Well, two things. If there are people who are sharing my same concerns, I wish they would speak up, because looking back, I don't think is what's as important in terms of personalities and who did what and why. But I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. When I was in the White House, I lost a lot of friends and a lot of family. And I think I lost a little bit of my own moral compass.... And now, leaving, you know, yes, I got paid to write a book, but you cannot put a price tag on what is happening to me now. The right is mad at me, the left is mad at me. My family is getting threats. I'm being smeared. I'm being sued.

I would have asked: "Your family is being threatened? I know it might be difficult, but can you talk about that a little?" 

You said one of the reasons you're speaking out is you hope he doesn't run in 2024. If he does, do you plan to actively work against him? If I'm asked to. If there is anybody who wants me to speak out or talk, yes, I will. I think that, you know, I had a very unique perspective in that I worked for the former president, I worked for Mrs. Trump, and I worked for both of them at the same time. I know the way they think. I know the way they try to distract. And if there's any way I can be helpful, to help decipher some of those movements and what's really going on, I would do that, yes.

I would have asked: "You say 'if you're asked' you'll do it. Can you tell us if you've heard from anyone yet? And are you actively volunteering your assistance to anyone?" 

Do you think, if he's elected again, he'll destroy the democracy? I think he's on a revenge tour right now, right, with the people who voted to impeachment -- impeach him. I think it will be nothing but revenge, retribution, and how he can benefit himself. There will be pardons happening. I think there will be very draconian policies that go way too far. So, I believe, if he is re-elected again, it will be a really, really scary time.

Kind of like a Chuck Todd interview... See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/10/21

Right up front, I apologize for not getting your Sunday School posted timely. There was a baseball game, you know, and it took 13 innings for the Good Guys to put away the bad guys, after all. 

That said, let's head right and visit the Fox News Sunday classroom where Chris Wallace attempted to get House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-n't You Glad I'm Still Here -LA) to answer questions. 

For example, Wallace asked him if blocking President Biden's agenda was more important than helping the people of his state - there's $6B for infrastructure in it for them.  

Look, we put together over $450 billion in infrastructure, with roads, ports, waterways, all the things you're talking about. That's not where they want to go. And, oh, by the way, in this package, they have language that tells the Corps of Engineers they can't do projects if it benefits the oil and gas industry. 

That seems to be the opposite of what the bill does, according to Reuters, but I digress. Whatever language Scalise says is in the bill, yes, blocking the Biden agenda is more important than $6B in aid for his constituents. 

The last question? "Do you think the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump?" It came with a follow-up concerning states that are continuing to make that claim: "Do you think that hurts, undermines American democracy?" The answer to those questions was not forthcoming. Oh, sure, he talked about states that "didn't follow their state-passed laws that govern" presidential elections, and "that is what the United States Constitution says," but there was no answer to the simple question at hand. And Wallace tried a couple more times, to no avail.

And after all of that, Wallace closed the interview with a pile of fluff (with some emphasis on top).

Always good to talk with you, and I appreciate the way you step up and answer questions and the way you choose to. Thank you, sir. 

Good grief. 

Moving down the hall to the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin. He started the conversation on the debt ceiling, and quoted part of the Grim Reaper's message to Biden:

I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of Democratic mismanagement. Your lieutenants on Capitol Hill now have the time they claimed they lacked to address the debt ceiling through stand-alone reconciliation and all the tools to do it." What are the consequences if he keeps his word?

Yellen stated the obvious: it's necessary that we pay the debts we have run up; it would be disastrous - at home and abroad - if we defaulted; our credit rating would tank; US treasuries are "the world's safest possible asset" and that'd be at risk; there'd likely be a recession and/or a financial crisis.  

That said, George wondered if she'd convinced Biden yet that we should eliminate the debt ceiling, something she personally supports, but "it's really up to Congress and the administration" t0 pay the bills that come from their spending and tax plans. 

And that means we have had deficits for most of the post-war period. And that means raising the debt ceiling. It is a housekeeping chore. There is really -- we should be debating the government's fiscal policy when we decide on those expenditures and taxes...  not when the credit card bill from -- comes due.

They also talked about the 'trillion-dollar coin' which Yellen thinks is a gimmick that "jeopardizes the independence of the Federal Reserve." 

You would be asking to essentially print money to cover the deficit. This is a responsibility. It’s a shared bipartisan responsibility. It’s been raised almost 70 times since 1965, almost always on a bipartisan basis. And no one party is responsible for the need to do this. I believe it should be a shared responsibility, not the responsibility of any one party.

George asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which states "the validity of the public debt of the United States should not be questioned." Again, Yellen pointed to the Congressional responsibility to pay the bills.

We shouldn't be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That's a disastrous situation that the country shouldn't be in. I wouldn't want to see the president or myself faced with the decision about what to do if Congress refuses to let us pay the government's bills. You know what should you pay first? That's not a -- we have to reassure the world that the United States is fiscally responsible, and that they can count on us to pay our bills. And that's Congress' job to do that on a bipartisan basis.

George pushed, suggesting we'll be in the same place in December, and wonders if the 14th should be on the table. Yellen said she can't imagine we'll be at that point, and that she's got confidence in Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, that they'll "be able to manage this so that we don't face this situation."

It would be completely irresponsible and a self-inflicted wound that would affect businesses and households and the global economy and the status of the U.S. in the world. We shouldn't ever be in that position.

Damn straight, Skippy. 

Good for her for pinning the tail on the donkey - and the elephant. If only the talking heads would focus on that, and the failure of both parties, rather than on their sound-bite generating grandstanding...

See you around campus, if you're vaccinated.

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? 

Sunday School 10/3/21: Extra Credit

In yesterday's Sunday School, we heard from a couple of progressives. Today, for your Extra Credit, we've got Sen. John Barrasso (R-Why), who chatted with Chris Wallace in the Fox News Sunday classroom.

Barrasso said that "what we're seeing is like watching an episode of the twilight zone," and he said that President Biden "surrendered to the radical wing of his party" instead of getting bipartisan agreement on his Build Back Better plan. 

And now you have this big government-socialism-reckless spending bill being basically used to hold hostage the thing that the American people want... 

He noted that the 'traditional infrastructure' bill passed the Senate with 19 Republican votes, and that "in any kind of a normal world, that would've been signed into law by the president" months ago when it passed. Biden is "weak" and the folks like the two who were highlighted in yesterday's post "are driving the bus and Joe Biden is just along for the ride."

Wallace noted that Barrasso wasn't one of the 19 Rs who voted for the stuff that Americans want, and not only that, he and "all of the Republicans are refusing the normal course, bipartisan passage of raising the debt limit." Considering that, Wallace asked whether Barrasso and the rest of them were "viewing these issues on the merits or are you just playing partisan politics?" 

In his defense, the senator said he "had some concerns with some of the gimmicks that were used to fund it" and that it spent too much money, among other things. But on the current $3.5T human infrastructure bill, the Rs are united.

We're a party at that wants to grow the economy. The Democrats are a party that wants to grow the government. And you heard it right there, they're continuing to try to mislead the public by saying it is free. It is not free. They said, oh, inflation -- Cedric said, oh, inflation will go down. Inflation -- people are feeling the bite of inflation right now when they buy groceries, when they buy gas, all of those things. And they think if this stuff passes, this massive spending and tax bill, that inflation is going to get much worse. 

Wallace pressed him on things like the child tax credit, noting that Barrasso voted to double the child tax credit, which was part of the Trump tax plan. Dems want to expand that further, and noted that "Wyoming is one of the states that benefits most from the increase in the child tax credit." Why would he oppose the change? 

Barrasso muttered and sputtered about "a $3.5T massive bill," and Wallace pointed out he's talking about something specific that would benefit Barrasso's constituents. Well, because "it's part of the bigger bill" and all. Plus, the Dems are trying to talk with the Rs about these things.

I mean Bernie Sanders, the other day, said 48 people ought to be able to overrule two, but there are actually 100 members of the Senate. It's 52 against a number of things that the Democrats are proposing here. And the content of this bill matters almost as much if not more than the cost. I've gotten more letters in the last two weeks on one component of this, which is the issue of giving a whole new army of IRS agents to rifle through your checking account, to look at any check that you either deposit or write for over $600. This is an invasion of privacy. Every senator's is hearing about this. That's included as well. So, when you take a look at the entire bill, which is why, you know, Joe Manchin said, it's time for a strategic pause. Well, it looks like there may be a long pause on both the real infrastructure bill and this big spending blowout bill.

OK - Wallace gave him the chance to talk about what he doesn't like, but then he asked Barrasso about universal pre-K, and noted that "less than a quarter" of the kids who'd be covered in the Dem plan are enrolled in pre-school. Again, the question was, wouldn't this help a lot of his constituents?

Again, Barrasso ignored the point. 

There are a number of things that will help the people of Wyoming. Overall, Joe Biden's policies have been hurting the people of Wyoming. And I believe that there should be (means) tested. You just don't give things universally to everybody. I think there should be work requirements involved. The Democrats are trying to separate work requirements from just free government checks and programs. You heard the congressman from the Progressive Caucus say, everybody ought to get free community college, everybody ought to get free daycare, Pre-K, all of those things, and that's not the way that our country has been founded and how we work together. 

Notably, he didn't say that he's reached out to any of the Dems to say, "hey, let's work on getting some means testing in here, so we don't give handouts to people who don't deserve them." And that leads me to believe that it's more important for the Rs to be united against stuff they'd actually support, stuff that would help their constituents, than it is to try and do things "the way that our country has bene founded and how we work together." But maybe that's just me. 

Last question? Are the Rs "thoroughly enjoying" the Dems and their infighting? Such a disappointing question, after all the work Wallace did to try and get Barrasso to act like an adult.

Well, I'll tell you, you know, the thing is, Joe Biden ran as a centrist and as competent. And what we're seeing is that he is neither. And people across the country are feeling less safe with Joe Biden as president. Their paychecks are less safe because of the inflation. When you look at hundreds of thousands of people illegally coming to the country every month, they feel less safe. When the generals testify, as they did, that we are less safe to terrorism, Joe Biden has now walked the plank for the socialist Bernie Sanders budget. He's man overboard and he cannot swim. He is sinking and he's sunk. 

You'll earn your extra credit if you can convince me there's a single R who will break ranks and try to get something accomplished on behalf of their constituents.

See you around campus. 

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.

Wondering on Wednesday 9/29/21

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Is it just me, or is there a lot to wonder about today?

I'm wondering whether any of the Rs in the House and Senate who are demanding the resignation of President Biden and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Milley ever demanded the resignation of president Trump, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Milley, any of Trump's other generals, or any other members of his Cabinet?  I'm sure someone knows this off the top of their head, but I'm not that person today.

And I'm wondering how health care workers - like these women in my neck of the woods - justify not getting the vaccine  because they shouldn't have to put something in their body that God didn't put there, while at the same time they're putting who knows what in their patients that God didn't put there? 

What, exactly, was Gen. Milley thinking when he spoke with Bob Woodward and others on books about Former Guy and his administration, I wonder? Did he forget that he still had the same job today as he had then, even though he has a different boss?

I wonder what the people who think we should have maintained a few hundred or more troops in Afghanistan have to say about the deal the US made with the Taliban? If Former Guy agreed to get everyone out by May, what were our options to ignore that, and what would the Taliban have done if we had? Or was he just kidding about that?

Other Republican states - Florida is one - are looking to implement Texas-style abortion bills. But I have to wonder, if the states that are trying to prevent essentially all abortions are also against sex education and contraception, what are they for?

Is there a reason we're seeing so much news about the Britney Spears conservatorship, or a reason we should care? I don't say that meanly - I just don't worry so much about what's happening in the lives of celebrities. And am I the only one who feels this way?

If the House is unable to pass the multi-trillion-dollar 'human infrastructure' package, and that leads them to defeat the bipartisan $1.9T traditional infrastructure bill, I wonder how proud the progressives will be?

There was more, but this is enough. What are you wondering about?

Quick Takes (v63): Git Along, Little Dogies

I have to apologize for feeling so pessimistic about the Texas abortion law. I didn't give the Lone Star State a fair shake.

The law absolves the government from having to do their own dirty work, and instead encourages people to spy on, follow, snoop in the trash for sanitary products, and do who knows what else to identify women who might be trying to obtain an abortion more than six weeks after their last menstrual period, and to identify their 'abettors' - friends, family, doctors, clinics, people who give them a ride, and so on.

One of the many complaints about the law is that it has no exceptions for rape and incest. But today, we have reason to rejoice: Gregg Abbott, the governor of Texas, has promised to eliminate rape in the Lone Star State!

While saying that no woman will be forced to carry a rapist's child, because of course they have six weeks to figure out if they're pregnant, and can act at any point during that time (yes, he said that), he also was adamant about rape in general.

Rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets. So, goal no. 1 in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape so that no woman, no person, will be a victim of rape.

Well, alrighty then - the problem is solved!! Rejoice, women of Texas!

Oh, wait.... crappydoodlefart. In order to arrest someone for rape, and prosecute them, there must be a victim, otherwise how would we know a rape has occurred? So, won't women have to continue to be victimized?

Assuming we have a victim, we can maybe, if we're lucky and you know, rape kits don't get thrown out, or sit around for decades while the statute of limitation runs out, AND if police start believing women, particularly on date rape, spousal rape, clergy rape, father-daughter rape, uncle-niece rape, brother-sister rape, teacher-student rape, boss-employee rape, rape where alcohol is involved, sex-worker rape, all the other kinds of rape the Rs have defined, and my favorite, rape where "she was clearly asking for it because of her fashion choices" - we can get a prosecution.

Assuming they prosecute and find a rapist guilty, we can sentence him appropriately and keep that *one* rapist from committing any more rapes. Unless of course he's a politician, or maybe a good athlete and shouldn't have his life thrown away for, you know, 20 minutes of action behind a dumpster or anything... or he's an otherwise upstanding member of the community, church, school, company, family and made "just this one mistake..." or other such drivel.

Per the article, in 2019, 14,656 rapes were reported in Texas, according to the state's Department of Public Safety. About 2,200 people were arrested for rape that same year. And, earlier this year, there were over 6,100 rape kits sitting on the shelves in Texas, according to US Senate Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), talking about his home state back in February.

Abbott's emphatic declaration that the state's Number 1 goal is to eliminate rape is laughable; so is his cavalier toss-off line that rape victims can have an abortion at any time during the six weeks after they're raped. I'm guessing he thinks they'll just sit around every day, eating bonbons and taking pregnancy tests, and putting a bunch of Uber or Lyft drivers on speed dial? Not working, going to school, trying to find a safe place to sleep in their own home, trying to avoid the clawing hands of a respected elder, and so on. Just hanging out, taking pregnancy tests.

Nah, I was right to feel so pessimistic. I can almost hear him and the rest of the Republicans singing as they left their press conference, can't you?

Whoopee ti yi yo, git along little dogies. It's your misfortune and none of my own...

Sunday School 9/5/21: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, we're talking COVID. 

Why? As schools here in my neck of the woods prepare to open this week, schools in the early-opening states are already in the thick of the COVID quagmire, with at least 1,000 from 31 states reportedly having stopped in-person learning, and over 10,000 students and staff across 14 states exposed to the virus - and that was as of mid-August. School board meetings are becoming battlegrounds as parents fight mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and 'fascism' being perpetrated on them by their neighbors on the boards.

Here are some highlights from the Meet the Press classroom, where Mr. Both Sides Now, Chuck Todd, talked with governors Andy Beshear (D-KY) and Larry Hogan (R-MD). They've both got veto-proof legislatures - of the opposite party - in their states, which makes things interesting, to say the least.

Beshear said if he had the ability to do it, there'd be a mask mandate in his state, where they're setting case records and hospitalization records, but he's been limited by the legislature on that. What he has done, though, is send the National Guard to help hard-hit hospitals with logistics, and they've taken over testing in those hospitals, so staff can be freed up to do patient care. And, they've got FEMA teams, and are deploying nursing students to help with staffing.

We are hit very, very hard. But we are going to continue to fight. When you're at war, you don't get to cry about what you can or can't do. You've got to do your very best every day because this is a battle of life versus death.

Meanwhile, Maryland has one of the highest vaccine rates in the country, something Hogan is very proud of; 81% of all eligible folks, and 95% of seniors, are vaccinated. In response to Chuck playing the 'if yours was a red state, that wouldn't have happened' card, Hogan noted there have been "tremendous disinformation campaigns, and people are believing things that are simply not true,"

but it's not just in the red areas where we're having difficulties. We're one of the states with the highest percentage of minority populations. And in some of our urban areas, we have similar challenges. But we're doing really well. And I'm pleased with the results of where we are. It's convincing those last, you know, 19 percent of our people that they've got to take action. That's where we're focused on.

Chuck asked Beshear if there are just some people that won't listen to him, and if he's looking to get others involved in trying to convince folks to get the vaccine. Beshear pointed out that misinformation isn't a red or blue issue, it's a "fact versus fiction, or a sometimes sane versus insane issue."

We are well past, I think ... across America, the populations that are going to listen to a government official and take the vaccine because of it. We're probably past even the point where a local official, a pastor or others. Where I think we're at is where people are going to have to break that Thanksgiving dinner rule. They're going to have to call or go see that person they love and care about that is unvaccinated, and they're going to have to put their relationship with that person on the line because they've never been at greater risk. And I think it's that type of caring, and the person who is willing to do that and to make that sacrifice that will finally get through to those that are not vaccinated. That's what we're seeing here in Kentucky. And we need all Americans to do it. Yes, you might lose a friend because of that conversation.

Next, Chuck said that "it's clear the Biden administration can't speak to those folks that need to be spoken to," referring to supporters of Former Guy, and asked Hogan who should speak to them, and for his advice for the COVID task force on "how to talk to the Trump folks."  Hogan said he's been critical of both the Trump and Biden administrations when he "thought they were bad on messaging" and otherwise not being helpful. 

I mean, we're getting some mixed messaging out of the administration, out of the CDC, the FDA, and the White House. And, you know, we need clear guidance on these booster shots because it undermines, you know, the credibility of it. And so, they came out with -- I guess they slipped and pre-leaked an announcement about booster shots with all three vaccines and then had to backtrack it and say you can only use Pfizer. What about the people that took J&J? What about the people that took Moderna? They haven't messaged properly about how to take care of these breakthrough infections. Like, look, it does prevent hospitalizations and death, or greatly reduce it. But it's not stopping, you know, people from getting breakthrough infections. So, I think the messaging was not clear with either administration. And I think that's one of the ways we've been successful in our state is a clear, direct messaging that people can believe in and listen to. And that's been a problem all over the map.

No argument with Hogan from me on this - messaging has been an issue from the very beginning of the pandemic, both on the side of "let's minimize this so we don't crush the economy" side and on the "OH. EM. GEE. The sky is LITERALLY falling and it going to hit us in the head!" side. And on all the other sides of the pentacontagon. 

The final portion of the interview touched on the Texas abortion bill, which I covered in yesterday's Sunday School post, and on "the larger challenge of polarization," as Chuck described it. I should note that this was the part of the conversation Todd said he was "lifting up" and "going to play political analyst" for, both of which I thought were mildly amusing. 

Both of you have benefited when the other party went too far, right? I could argue that's why you're both governor today. Certainly why you may have a second term, Governor Hogan, and why, Governor Beshear, you're there. Is that the only way to cut through polarization, Governor Hogan? Is when the other party goes too far and then the voters create a check? Is that about it? Because it doesn't seem as if the middle ground gets represented unless one party goes too far.

Hogan said Todd had an "interesting idea, and that it was possible" that's what happened in Maryland. He referenced the 43 consecutive tax increases implemented by his Democratic predecessor), saying "even the Democrats go frustrated" about that.

...but I think right now in America, there are certainly people on both ends of the extremes, on the left and the right, who get all of the attention. The ones that are making the most noise. And that's what we hear about when we're watching television. But about 70% of the people actually just are somewhere in the middle. They're moderate or right of center, left of center. They really want their elected officials to try to figure out a way to do something about this toxic politics. And they want us to work together to come up with real bipartisan, common-sense solutions. Turns out that's the most popular thing in America with most voters.

Regular readers may recall that I've previously referred to Gov. Hogan as my favorite Republican. I don't always agree with him, but I never argue with his understanding of what us purple folks in the middle want: common sense, collaborative efforts from the people we elect. 

Is that where you are on this stuff? Or are you out there in the noisy wings? Let's talk.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 9/5/21

Today's Sunday School focuses solely on the Texas abortion law. We'll start in the State of the Union classroom, where host Dana Bash talked with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Hot Dish).

Bash wondered if the SCOTUS "is about to overturn" the decision. Klobuchar said she hoped not, but said the decision to let the law stand (for now, anyway) was "unbelievable." In the past, she said,

when they had cases that were so blatantly against Roe v Wade, they would stay those cases when such requests came up. They did it with another Texas law. They did it in 2015. They did it in 2019. And so here you have them, this year, this week, basically telling women in Texas that 85% of them seeking abortion services cannot exercise their constitutional rights... They did at midnight with just less than 72 hours of debate, in Justice Kagan's words, and basically green-lighted a law that is blatantly against Roe v Wade.

Klobuchar believes that a Congressional solution is an answer, and she's glad that the House is going to codify Roe. In the Senate, they can't get to 60 votes, though. So, the senator said,

I believe we should abolish the filibuster. I do not believe an archaic rule should be used to allow us... to use Justice Sotomayor's words, to put our heads in the sand, and not take action on the important issues, the challenges that are facing our country right now.... We just will get nowhere if we keep this filibuster in place.

Klobuchar s in favor of requiring a standing filibuster, so the Rs must at least work to fight things that are unpopular with most Americans. She's also in favor of carveouts for constitutional issues (e.g., abortion and voting). And, 

I think, "what is the best way to get to a result that's the right policy, that's consistent with where the American people are, that will not wreak havoc in this country?" And, to me, the best thing is to get rid of the filibuster. But (expanding the Court) is an option, and President Biden has a commission in place right now that is considering it.

Finally, on the potential retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, Bash wondered where Klobuchar stood.

I believe, if he is seriously considering retirement -- and he has said he would do it based on not only his own health, but also the future of the court -- if this decision doesn't cry out for that, I don't know what does. 

In the Face the Nation classroom, guest host Weijia Jiang spoke with Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX), about the shenanigans. Jiang wondered what the Congresswoman heard from constituents; "shocked, horrified, outraged" were three words she used. She pointed to the two "very awful" consequences of the law: incentivizing "bounty hunters," noting it was "incredible that we live in a state that is willing to incentivize that." The other "real-life" and "deadly consequences" are worse.

...what this law and other laws like it will do is simply make it deadlier, more dangerous. Women are going to take their health into their own hands. It will impact young women, poor women, and women of color. And I am really afraid of the lives that will be lost as a result.

Jiang asked about the outsourcing of enforcement to private citizens. Escobar said she doesn't think we really understand the consequences, and gave an example.

If, for example, I had a young daughter who was the victim of a sexual assault, and I was taking my young daughter to a clinic. Her assault-- the person who perpetrated the assault could take me to court incentivized by that $10,000. And let's say that my young daughter was not pregnant. There was no abortion involved. But I still had to defend myself in court. I can't even recover legal fees. There are layers upon layers upon layers of injustices written into this law, intended to really send the most severe chilling effect on women and women's reproductive rights in the state of Texas.

As to Jiang's question on how she can find common ground with the 41% of Texans who oppose abortion rights. She said it's "very hard to find common ground."  We need to "do more for young women and men" - sex education, access to contraceptives, legal protections for women and the like.

Instead, what we are seeing is an elimination of those things... It's a very backward way of addressing what is a concern. But that's why I say there's no law that you can create that will eliminate abortion. All that's happening is you're eliminating safe, legal abortion, causing women significant harm.

Down the hall, George Stephanopoulos talked with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Not a Fan of Planned Parenthood) in the This Week classroom. Cassidy said he's pro-life, and he made a point that the others did not about the SCOTUS ruling

It had nothing to do with the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. It was only on if the plaintiffs had standing. People are using it to gin up their base to distract from the disastrous policies in Afghanistan, and maybe for fundraising appeals. I wish we would focus on issues as opposed to -- as opposed to theater. It was about if they had standing, nothing to do with constitutionality. I think we should move on to other issues.

George wanted to stay on topic, particularly the part about how the law "actually tasks private citizens with enforcing this law,", which "conservatives should hate," according to the Wall Street Journal. He asked Cassidy what he thought about that.

I think the Supreme Court will swat it away once it comes to them in an appropriate manner. If it is as terrible as people say it is, it will be destroyed by the Supreme Court. But to act like this is an assault upon Roe v. Wade is, again, something the president is doing I think to distract from his other issues. And it is clearly not an assault upon the -- by the way, I'm pro-life. But just to say, the facts are this is about standing, about nothing else. And the Supreme Court will decide how to affect standing before all these other things play out.

And George then asked, "you don't think it signals the Court is prepared to undo Roe v. Wade now?" 

You know, so, we can always talk about eventualities. We can always talk theoreticals. It makes good fodder. But I’m kind of a guy who’s in the middle of a state in which 700,000 people don't have electricity, in which we’ve got a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the administration is pushing a $3.5 trillion bill which will be to inflation what the withdrawal was to Afghanistan. Now, if you -- you know, in my mind, I don’t think about theoreticals. I think about those things that are before me and that’s what I focused on.

I'm going to give the last word on this to former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) who was on the panel today.

But what this has done is ignited a political debate for the first time because for generations after generations, since Roe v. Wade, women have accepted that this is settled law. For the first time we've seen an earthquake among the activists, among people who were concerned about reproductive rights saying this could happen. Now all of a sudden we are at a spot where this could happen. And I think the reason why you saw Senator Cassidy duck this issue it's politically very dangerous for the Republican Party to have to explain to a suburban mother why her daughter who was raped, you know, three months ago no longer has a choice. And so I think that politically the reason why you don't see the Republicans talking about this as a major pro-life victory is because politically it's extraordinarily dangerous and it has dominated the discussion in a week that should have been pretty good for the Republicans.

I hope that's not too theoretical for Cassidy and the rest of the GOP.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 9/1/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to begin with this week's wondering? Well, how about with a time check?

It's been reported, primarily - but not solely - on the right, that President Biden checked his watch after each of the 11 fallen Americans were transferred from the plane to waiting vehicles at Dover AFB on Monday (two of the 13 transfers were private).  There is video, that has been widely shared, showing him do that once. And, it's been 'fact-checked' by the folks at Snopes that the scene in the video was at the end of the ceremony, after all of the victims of the ISIS-K suicide bomber had been transferred.  

Now, before you go all nutso on me about how Snopes is the Wikipedia of fact-checking and can't be trusted, know that they're not the only ones who have said this isn't true. And, regardless of how you feel about the fact-checkers, don't you wonder why, if this really happened 11t times, no one has video of it?  

And coming on the heels of the false reports that "no one from the Biden administration met the plane" for the dignified transfer on Saturday, when the plane hadn't even arrived yet, how much faith are we to put into a report like this one?

Are you also wondering about the fate of the American service dogs that were left behind in Kabul? I'm sure you've seen the reports from reliable sources such as Donald Trump, Jr., about our leaving crates of dogs at the airport. Other notables also chimed in, like Medicare fraudster Sen. Rick Scott (R-I Took A Huge Golden Parachute and Named it Responsibility).

"Infuriating. Biden stranded Americans. He stranded our allies. Now, he’s stranded our loyal K-9 warriors," Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., wrote on Twitter, posting American Humane's letter.

Sadly, for those who wanted to paint Biden as an animal hater, in addition to all the other stuff he's accused of being, we did not strand our service dogs. 

On Tuesday, the Pentagon denied that any dogs that had worked with the U.S. military were left behind in the country while acknowledging that a series of social media posts about nonmilitary evacuation of Kabul pets caused confusion.

"To correct erroneous reports, the US military did not leave any dogs in cages at Hamid Karzai International Airport, to include the reported 'military working dogs,'" said Eric Pahon, a spokesman for the Defense Department.

I wonder, if the real news out of Afghanistan is as bad as it is, why do people feel the need to make it worse? 

Speaking of making stuff up, there's the Big Lie, that the election was stolen from Former Guy. There was a fun little recording featuring Sen. Ron Johnson (R- Who Doesn't Love Moscow on July 4th?), who pretty much summed up the fallacy of Former Guy's theory that the election was stolen from him. Speaking about the results in his state, Johnson admitted that

There’s nothing obviously skewed about the results...If all the Republicans voted for Trump the way they voted for the Assembly candidates, he [Trump] would have won. He didn’t get 51,000 votes that other Republicans got, and that’s why he lost.

I added the emphasis for the folks in the back, and I wonder why that's so hard for the Rs to understand?

And speaking of rigged elections, the GOP's latest poster boy, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-Not the Naval Academy) has made it clear he's willing to fight over this. Speaking at a GOP event in his home state of North Carolina, he offered this.

If our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen then it's going to lead to one place and that's bloodshed.

Continue to be rigged? There's going to be bloodshed? Huh?

And I will tell you, as much as I am willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there's nothing I would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow American. 

In case you didn't know,  rising star Cawthorn lies about all kinds of things, including the accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down, and about being accepted into the US Naval Academy. Given that he'll lie about those things, I wonder why we should think that he's telling the truth about taking up arms against his fellow citizens? 

And while I don't condone gratuitous violence, I wouldn't wonder at all if the bloodshed Cawthorn spoke of eventually happens when someone who finally had enough of his BS hauled off and punched him in the nose.

And speaking of bullshittery and hyperbole, let us not forget about House GOP Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-You Better Watch Out if We Take Back The House, Dammit!), who seems to be in a bit of a snit about every action taken by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. 

The Committee issued a document preservation request to more than 30 telecom companies on Monday, a step taken in advance of a request for specific documents which is sure to follow. And McCarthy wasn't happy about that - at all. 

I'm not wondering about his response, or his threat - I mean, he's a ring-kissing #AlwaysTrumper after all - but I am wondering why he didn't include the traitorous RINOs Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney in his tweet? 

And I'm wondering if the GOP really is like an elephant. What if they don't retake the majority for a few cycles? Will they remember that they have to take out some of these great American companies that support all those great American jobs and help our great American stock market soar ever higher, making America even greater? 

What are you wondering about?