If Zelenskyy Zoomed with Trump

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been Zooming around the West; he's spoken with the Canadian parliament, our Congress, and the German Bundestag just in the past few days. In his messages, he's referenced iconic landmarks, historical events, and even the dark days of the nation he's addressing.  

He's a powerful, impassioned, evocative speaker; that's to be expected, given his background as an actor. And, he's getting the lengthy ovations and adulation that a certain former president of ours craved, and still craves. 

Watching the videos and reading the transcripts of his remarks, I can't help thinking what it would sound like if Zelenskyy were to have a "perfect" Zoom call with Donald Trump today. In my mind, I picture it going something like what you see below, put together with thoughts from his message to the Congress the other day, modified with these comments of mine.

Mr. Trump, I'm proud to greet you from Ukraine, from our capital city of Kyiv. A city that is under missile and airstrikes from Russian troops every day, but doesn't give up. And we have not even thought about it for a second, just like many other cities and communities in our beautiful country, which found themselves in the worst war since World War II. 

I have the honor to greet you on behalf of the Ukrainian people. Brave and freedom-loving people, who for eight years have been resisting the Russian aggression, like you say you have been resisting the RINOS in your party, and the fake news media. Right now, the destiny of our country is being decided. The destiny of our people, whether Ukrainians will be free, whether they will be able to preserve their democracy.

Russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, not just our cities, it went on a brutal offensive against our values, basic human values. It threw tanks and planes against our freedom, against our right to live freely in our own choosing our own future, against our desire for happiness, against our national dreams. Just like the same dreams you have, you Americans, just like anyone else in the United States.

I remember your national memorial in Rushmore, and how you want to see your face there, with the faces of your prominent presidents, those who laid the foundation of the United States of America as it is today. Democracy, independence, freedom, and care for every American, for everyone who works diligently, who lives honestly, who respects you and the law. We in Ukraine want the same for our people. All that is normal part of your own life.

Mr. Trump. In your country's great history, you have pages that would allow you to understand Ukrainians. Understand us now, when we need you right now. They say you don't Remember Pearl Harbor, but we all remember it. Terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you. Just remember it.

Remember September the 11th, a terrible day in 2001 when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories, in battlefields. When innocent people were attacked from air, yes, just like no one expected it, you could not stop it. When you suddenly had the tallest building in Manhattan. Our country experiences the same destruction every day. We have very few tall buildings left in our cities. Right now, in this moment, every night, for three weeks now, various Ukrainian cities of Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv, Sumy, Mariupol, Zaporzhzhia and Dnipro. Our tall buildings are being destroyed, and you, as a builder, I know how this must hurt you. I know you remember, Mr. Trump, when you said that the coronavirus pandemic was the worst attack on your country, even worse than Pearl Harbor. Well, I say to you, the Russian attack is even worse than the coronavirus, for my country.

Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people. Russian troops have already fired nearly 1,000 missiles at Ukraine. Countless bombs. They use drones to kill us with precision. This is a terror that Europe has not seen for 80 years, and we are asking for a reply, for an answer to this terror from the whole world. Is this a lot to ask for? To create a no-fly zone over Ukraine to save people. Is this too much to ask? A humanitarian no-fly zone, something that Russia would not be able to terrorize our free cities. If this is too much to ask, we offer an alternative.

You know, what kind of defense systems we need as 300 and other similar systems. I understand that you are not personally familiar, because of your bone spurs, with how much depends on the battlefield, on the ability to use aircraft, powerful, stronger aviation to protect our people, our freedom, our land. But I can assure you, it is vitally important to have aircrafts that can help Ukraine, help Europe. And you know that they exist, and you have them. But they are on earth not in the Ukrainian sky. They do not defend our people.

Do you recall our perfect conversation back in July of 2019? I do, Mr. Trump. I told you then I had learned a lot from you, and what I learned helped us win the election. You told me you do a lot for my country, more than the Europeans, especially more than Germany. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine." I asked you for more Javelins, more defensive weapons, and you asked me for a favor. Do you remember that, Mr. Trump?

You asked for my help, and I said yes. I remember that, my people, my country remembers that, the whole world remembers that. And they remember that you refused to give me the aid I so desperately needed, and I had to wait for your Congress to help my country. I cannot wait again, not now. 

'I have a dream.' These words are known to you today, I hope? They are like Pearl Harbor, unforgettable and known to all. I can say I have a need. I need to protect our sky. I need your decision, your help, which means exactly the same. The same you feel when you hear the words, 'I have a dream.'

Ukraine is grateful to the United States for its overwhelming support. For everything that your government and your people have done for us, for weapons and ammunition, for training, for finances, for leadership in the free world, which helps us to pressure the aggressor economically. I would be grateful to you, Mr. Trump, for your personal involvement, for your sincere commitment to the defense of Ukraine and democracy all over the world. 

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and your country knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what more can be done to help us. And I know you have wealthy friends in Russia, even your son said you have all the money you need from the Russians. We need your help, with the Russians and their money and the oligarchs. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

 ... now, it is true in the darkest time for our country, for the whole of Europe, I call on you to do more. Are there oligarchs living in your apartment towers? Are they members of your private clubs? Did they help build your business empire? New sanctions are needed constantly, every week until the Russian military machine stops. Restrictions are needed for everyone on whom this unjust regime is based. We propose that you personally sanction these Russians from whom you get money today and before. You need to cut ties with those who are responsible for their aggression against Ukraine. You must no longer take money from them, anywhere in the world, if we are to break this state terror. All American companies must leave Russia from their market, including your Trump company. Leave their market and their money behind immediately because it is flooded with our blood. That is the favor I ask from you, Mr. Trump.

Please take the lead. If you have Russians in your circle, in your business or personal circle, I'm asking to make sure that the Russians do not receive a single penny that they use to destroy people in Ukraine, and that you cut all ties with them. The destruction of our country the destruction of Europe, all American ports should be closed for Russian goods, all American apartments should be closed for Russian people, all American golf courses - closed for Russians. It all must be closed. Peace is more important than income, and we have to defend this principle in the whole world.

Some people might say you are not a man of principle. I know you are, of some principles. We already became part of the anti-war coalition, a big anti-war coalition that unites many countries, dozens of countries, those who reacted to in principle to your friend, your smart friend President Putin’s decision to invade our country, but we need to move on and do more. If he is your friend, and he wouldn't have done this if you were in charge, think how he would act if you got involved right now? 

We propose to create an association, U24. United for peace, a union of responsible countries that have the strength and consciousness to stop conflict immediately, provide all the necessary assistance in 24 hours, if necessary, even weapons if necessary, sanctions, humanitarian support, political support, finances, everything you need to keep the peace, and quickly save the world to save lives. In addition, such association, such a union could provide assistance to those who are experiencing natural disasters, man-made disasters fell victims to humanitarian crisis or epidemic.

 Remember how difficult it was for the world to do the simplest thing just to give vaccines against COVID to save lives to prevent new strains. The world spent months, years, doing things like that much faster, to make sure there are no human losses. No victims, ladies and gentlemen, Americans if such alliance would exist today, that is U24, we would be able to save thousands of lives in our country. In many countries of the world, those who need peace, those suffer inhumane destruction... We have to stop it. We must preventively destroy every single aggressor or who seeks to subjugate other nations. 

And in the end, to sum it up. Today, it's not enough to be the leader of the nation. It takes to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace. Even in your America first vision, Mr. Trump, peace in your country doesn't depend anymore only on you and your people. Depends on those next to you and those who are strong.

Strong doesn't mean big. Strong is brave and ready to fight for the life of his citizens and citizens of the world; for human rights; for freedom; for the right to live decently; and the right to die when your time comes and not when it's wanted by someone else. By your neighbor. You have called upon your supporters to lay down their very lives over what is taught to their children in school. Can that be more important than to call them to lay down their very lives for children of the world? If you asked them to, how many would? You know the answer to that, Mr. Trump.

Today, the Ukrainian people are not only defending Ukraine. We are fighting for the values of Europe and the world, sacrificing our lives in the name of the future. That's why today the American people are helping not just Ukraine, but Europe and the world to keep the planet alive. To keep justice in history. Now, I’m almost 45 years old. Today, my age stopped when the hearts of more than 100 children stopped beating. I see no sense in life if it cannot stop the deaths. And this is my main issue as the leader of my people, brave Ukrainians. And as the leader of my nation, I am addressing you, Mr. Trump. You are still somehow a respected leader of your great nation. I wish you to be a leader of the world. Being a leader of the world means to be the leader of peace. Help my country with the favor I ask from you. Thank you. 

Sunday School 3/13/22: Extra Credit

 As promised, I'm doing some paneling for your Extra Credit this week. The gang on This Week - Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD); WaPo columnist George Will, Jane Coaston, of the NY Times, and Mary Bruce of ABC News joined Jon Karl to chat about Ukraine and more.

George Will gave the best explanation I've heard for us not establishing a no-fly zone; his explanation is simple.

The second use of nuclear weapons was three days after the first in Nagasaki. There hasn't been one since. It's an amazing human achievement and we really don't want Putin to erase that line.

Jon Karl wondered if there was more we could be doing, and he suggested that taking something off the table without drawing a red line in the sand over something - Putin using chemical or biological weapons for example - doesn't make sense. 

Heitkamp pointed out that we did draw a red line: it's NATO territory - that's our obligation under NATO's Article 5 commitment, but she noted some people think we should be doing more.

So, this idea that there is no -- you know, we're not going to provoke World War III, they believe we're already there and that we're simply capitulating for no good reason when we could be stopping it right here.

Mary Bruce was upset that no one in the administration would tell her specifically what they'd do if Putin used chemical or biological weapons. We've already done layers of sanctions.

So, what is still left, if Putin does take this step? And I do think it is notable, while the president has said over and over again, "There will not be any direct engagement between American forces and the Russians," when asked what would happen if Putin did use chemical weapons, he didn't give a definitive answer...

Coaston echoed Will's thoughts on the no-fly zone: it sounds good, which is why over 70% of Americans support it, but at the same time, we're just out of a 20-year war. 

 ...I think that this is a really complicated issue because, on the one hand, you have the optics concerns here, but if you're this administration, you're thinking, if Russia hits a NATO country, if Russia engages in nuclear proliferation, that -- that's a calculus they have not yet begun to contemplate.

Moving to gas prices (anyone with a microphone must mention this at least once a day), Karl referenced some polling showing we think it's OK to "ban Russian oil even if it means higher prices, but we're going to blame Biden." 

Heitkamp said the party in power always gets blamed, but she also pointed out that Biden folks haven't been pushing back effectively on the red herrings, like 

"It's because you didn't build the Keystone XL Pipeline." And I remind them, one of the first things Donald Trump did was give the permit. And in four years the pipeline didn't get built. Why not? Because it wasn't -- it wasn't economical to build that pipeline in those price points.

She also deflated the inflation argument, pointing out that "it was the Trump administration that overspent and drove up inflation." When Karl pointed to the "shocking increase" since February, Heitkamp said it's because we started at "an artificially low price," and "we're shocked because we got used to $2 gas. And that's the problem." 

The best part was when Coaston chimed in.

I also think it's worth recognizing -- and there was a great Fox News piece from 2008 -- that noted that the president has markedly little control of what gas prices are. There is no big "cheap gas" button in the Oval Office. And if there were, somebody would have pushed it.

There was much laughter about her "great Fox News piece" intro, but it's true: there may have been a Diet Coke button, but there's no cheap gas button. 

Karl and Mary Bruce spent some air time patting Trump patsy Kevin McCarthy (R-Cali-largo) on the back for being critical of the people who support Putin. Here's Bruce, saying "that's a lot" for Kevin McCarthy,

who has gone to some lengths to maintain a relationship with Donald Trump. I think you are seeing not just Kevin McCarthy but also Mitch McConnell come out and make clear where they stand on Vladimir Putin. They haven't gone as far though as to directly call out Trump.

McCarthy won't, for sure. The last time he did that, he immediately tucked tail and crawled to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the club championship trophy or a fake Time Man of the Year cover or something. 

I can't decide whether to leave the last word to George Will, or to Sen. Heitkamp; you can decide which you'll carry with you longer.

First, here's Will:

...Putin, like some of the acolytes in this country, is a weak person's idea of a strong person. Strength, you hear all the time, it’s sort of chest beating, dime-store Mussolini kind of toughness and I don't think it goes much deeper than that.

And, here's Heitkamp:

... right now, brave people within Russia are risking their lives to tell the truth about what's happening in Ukraine, to tell the truth about Putin... trying to get rid of disinformation, and we have useful idiots here in this country and, you know, I’m not going to call the whole Republican Party but they own some of this, right? ...people are risking their lives in Russia today to get... the correct information. And ...the propaganda machine in Russia is using these useful idiots in Congress.

Will's right, and so is Heitkamp. The question is, will anyone listen to them? 

See you around campus.

Sidebar: Sunday School 3/13/22

Several Sunday School classrooms featured comments related to policies or decisions made by the Biden administration. With that in mind, I'm sharing highlights from three administration officials - National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Defense Department press secretary Adm. John Kirby (Ret.), and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman - who made the rounds yesterday.

I'll start with Sullivan's chat with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union; he also spoke with what's-his-name on Meet the Press and with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.

• Russia's attack on the NATO training base "does not come as a surprise;" it shows Putin's frustration on not taking control of Ukraine's major cities, so he's expanding his attacks. The US will "defend every inch of NATO territory."
• Our goal is to support Ukraine and their negotiations with Russia and our allies, but "ultimately, it is Ukraine that will have to make its own sovereign decisions about the shape of any diplomacy going forward."
• We're working on "other capabilities" that could help, instead of planes, and we're confident "we will continue to be able" to get military assistance through the supply lines that have been established.
• Any use of chemical or biological weapons by the Russians will result in a "severe price" (no detailed provided). With our NATO allies, we've made that clear to Russia. And, we're monitoring our nuclear posture, "day by day, hour by hour."
• He's not going to publicly get into what we may or may not do vis-à-vis China if they decide to support Russia more actively or help them evade sanctions.

And from Adm. Kirby's chat with Martha Raddatz on This Week.

• No Americans were at the NATO training base when it was attacked. It's unlikely that a no-fly zone would have prevented it, and while "no-fly zone has a nice air policing sound to it," there's "very little that you can see that would make sense for this war to be escalated between two nuclear powers." 
• Our commitment to NATO's Article 5 is steadfast, but we shouldn't need to fight Putin. We've made it clear to him that all of NATO will defend our territory, and we have an open line with the Russian Ministry of Defense. We've repositioned some resources from Germany to Poland to help with defense.
• We've seen nothing indicating "some sort of imminent chemical or biological attack right now, but we're watching this very, very closely." And no, he's not going into detail here.
• We're looking at Ukraine "with awe and inspiration and pride." They fight "bravely, skillfully and, quite frankly, very creatively. They're using tactics that I don't think anybody predicted they would be able to use or would want to use, but they're doing that and they're defending their cities and population centers and their citizens as best they can." 

Finally, Sherman's conversation about Iran and China with Brett Baier on Fox News Sunday.

• The US consulate in Iraq is secure and everyone's been accounted for after the missile attack launched from within Iran; we don't believe the consulate "was actually the target" of the attack.
• She thinks the new nuclear deal "is close" and we're looking for everyone, including Russia, to bring it to a close; "... imagine these Iranians with a nuclear weapon." Ensuring they don't have one means we have to talk with them, and the Russians. We don't know yet if this deal is "as good as" the 2015 deal.
• She wasn't forthcoming on why the Biden administration hasn't acted on "indictable evidence" against two Iranians who are allegedly behind a plot to assassinate former National Security Advisor John Bolton. 
• It's an "open question" on whether the China/Russia relationship has suffered or strengthened lately. China had been seen as "pretty uncomfortable with an invasion of a sovereign country," and we hope that's still the case.
• Biden, with Congress, will move to remove Russia from "most favored nation status" at the World Trade Organization, which will cause China to have to "make some tough decisions."
• We don't believe China "ought to take Taiwan by force, and will do everything we can to deter that effort."

Hopefully this provides some perspective to the other classroom conversations.

Sunday School 3/13/22

We've got three Senators in the classrooms this morning: Rob Portman (R-OH) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), members of the Ukraine Caucus, and Jim Risch (R-ID), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is where we'll start.

Risch talked with Brett Baier in the Fox News Sunday classroom. He expressed dismay at how things are going on the new Iran nuclear deal, noting that US representatives aren't even doing the negotiating. Since the Iranians refuse to talk with us, they're working with European, Russian, and Chinese teams, while we wait for updates. Risch seems to think this whole thing is a waste of time, saying unless they get an actual treaty, rather than an executive agreement, it

will not last past the next Republican president that's elected, just as the last deal didn't last the minute that the Republicans took over.

Shifting to Ukraine, he thinks we must "be wary" of getting into direct confrontation with Russia, although he suggests the "ineptness" they've shown so far might lead to a quick end if we did. He also said the Biden administration "has projected weakness throughout," and that they've only done stuff after our allies stepped up first.

Look, when you're dealing with these people, if you project weakness, you're going to have a real problem. And that's going on with both Iran and with Russia right now and it is a serious situation. We need them to project some strength.

Finally, Risch told Baier he voted against the omnibus spending bill, with its billions for Ukraine, because of a bunch of "other pork" in the bill. He mentioned "earmarks, for crying out loud," and "some gun legislation... that a couple of the gun lobbies were very much against... some provisions in there that a number of the pro-life groups were against." 

Whenever we have these doggone big bills, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, whether you vote yes or no. But I -- I have -- I hope that no one would take this as not being the support for -- for the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian war.

I've said that myself, many times before. 

In Case You Missed it (v80)

A busy week in the world, and to a much less consequential extent, at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of this week's posts, in case you missed them.

In the Sunday School classrooms, we heard from a few of the usual suspects, and from an unusual one: Nadya Tolokonnikova, the Russian activist and founding member of Pussy Riot. In her conversation with Jake Tapper on CNN she was asked what might have led to Putin's invasion on Ukraine. Was it declining mental health, maybe - or was he acting out because he's never been held to account for his prior bad acts? It was clear where she stood.  

...we have heard a lot of loud, big proclamations from the global community, but, unfortunately, it wasn't followed through. And Putin didn't really feel like he -- him and his closest -- closest oligarchs and cronies suffered from invasion of Ukraine. And I think, partly, what we're seeing right now in Ukraine is the result of complacency of the global community about a situation that happened in Ukraine in 2014.

For your Sunday School Extra Credit, there was more talk of Russia and Ukraine, but I also included some discussion on the current state of our union, as shared by the panel on Fox News Sunday. One topic? Recent polling showing that people would rather see Congress under Republican control, to keep Biden's agenda in check, than to have the Dems retain their majorities. Georgetown University's Mo Elleithee said polling like that is generally a bad sign, but that the Dems still had a chance.

Biden's SOTU was a big part of that; he suggested (Biden) was reminding voters why they voted for him - or, for the Biden that campaigned closer to the middle than many of his opponents. And, he added,

I think it was him sort of reorienting the public perception of the Democratic Party, which, for many months now has been defined by a fight between the left and Joe Manchin, you know, and Kyrsten Sinema over the Build Back Better, right? That was what was defining the Democrat Party in the eyes of many voters. And I think Biden said, let me remind you what you got when you voted for me.

Lest you think only the Dems are in a quandary in advance of the midterms, I included a hint of a mess brewing on the Republican side of the aisle in the post as well.

Also stemming from the Sunday School classrooms was a Sidebar on the foolishness of Florida's Sen. Marco Rubio sharing a "nondescript" picture of Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the equal foolishness of two network anchors not asking him why he did it. 

I mean, it's not like it was a side-by-side of Rubio's 'resting Intelligence Committee face' and Zelenskyy - it was a solo shot of the Z-man, one that's almost certainly hanging on the walls and ceilings of bedrooms around the world - probably next to one of Andrew Cuomo.

Mid-week, I was Wondering on Wednesday about things like Republicans still taking about trying to do something they tried - and failed - to do for a decade.

Wisconsin's Sen. Ron Johnson wants to obstruct the president's agenda until the Rs take control in the midterms, and then when they take back the White House in 2024,  he wants to see the GOP repeal the Affordable Care Act... I also wonder, how many people wish that Johnson had kept his promise not to run again? 

And, the week's posts came to an end with a TGIF entry all about the state of the state of Texas. There's the vigilante abortion bill, which the Texas Supreme Court pretty much guaranteed would stand (and would spread to other freedom-loving Red states), and there was the now temporarily on hold directive to investigate and, presumably, punish parents who allow certain medical procedures for their trans children. And, there was more.

I don't want you to think that Texas only discriminates against women and LGBTQ kids they're equal opportunity discriminators.

A Texas agency discriminated against communities of color when it denied more than $1 billion in federal relief funds sought by Houston and Harris County to help hard-hit areas recover from Hurricane Harvey, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found.

It's a helluva time we're living in, don't you think?

See you next week.

TGIF 3/11/22

The TGIF post has always been used to identify individuals or groups of people who've had a pretty good week, or a particularly bad week. 

This week however, I'm highlighting a state that, in my opinion, has had a particularly bad week. Which state gets this singular honor? Texas. 

Now, I've written about Texas several times over the years - after all, they've got Ted Cruz. Here's a sampling: 

• the state's efforts at making sure people don't have to worry about letting their deeply held beliefs get in the way of doing their jobs; 
• Gov. Greg Abbott saying he'll eliminate rape in Texas; and
• the state interjecting itself into medical decisions that should be made by a patient's family, not the government.

So, what's been going on recently that earned them this dubious feature tonight? Plenty.

Last month, Abbott directed the state to investigate parents for child abuse if they allowed their transgender children to receive certain types of medical care. The policy was put on hold; the court ruled it "had been improperly adopted and violated the Texas constitution." The state, of course, appealed. 

Testimony in the hearing brought some ugly details to light, including that  

abuse investigators had been told to prioritize cases involving the parents of transgender children and to investigate them without exception, after the state’s governor’s order. 

Department of Family and Protective (DFPS) staff were told not to put anything about these cases in texts or emails, something they've never been advised about any other investigations. And, it's important to note that the DFPS 

has been the subject of a decade-old federal lawsuit over its foster care system, in which children faced abuse as well as long waits to be adopted or placed in safer homes. Federal monitors have been overseeing the process of carrying out judicial orders since 2019, among them a directive to improve the handling and investigation of reported child abuse.

So yes, by all means, let's focus on trans kids and their loving parents, and not actual cases of child abuse. Makes perfect sense to me (yes, that's sarcasm). As does the state's Department of Health removing LGBTQ suicide prevention resources from its website. 

Instead of listing the phone number, website, and text line for the Trevor Project, as it did at the beginning of February, the website no longer includes any links for LGBTQ youth. Instead, information on the Trevor Project can only be found in a PDF for “Parent and Youth Suicide Prevention” but does not include information about the Trevor Project in the least bit. 

What else? 

We're all familiar with the Texas abortion law, which encourages Texans to turn on each other for bounties if they think a woman has gotten an abortion in violation of the law. Now that I think about it, why didn't they include that part on the trans child abuse directive? 

Anyway, the US Supreme Court (twice) refused to pause the law while the case moved through the Texas courts; the review's finished. 

The decision by the Texas Supreme Court turned on whether medical licensing officials had an enforcement role under the law... writing for the court, Justice Jeffrey Boyd said those state officials have no enforcement authority, “either directly or indirectly.”

So, states now have a free pass on legal responsibility for laws they enact no matter how irresponsible they might be. 

I don't want you to think that Texas only discriminates against women and LGBTQ kids they're equal opportunity discriminators.

A Texas agency discriminated against communities of color when it denied more than $1 billion in federal relief funds sought by Houston and Harris County to help hard-hit areas recover from Hurricane Harvey, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found.

Remarkably, Houston and Harris County didn't receive any money when the state initially handed out funds, even though the whole country saw the photos of the storm damage. You can see them here, if you're interested.

HUD officials said the state agency’s method of doling out the funds “discriminated on the basis of race and national origin” and “substantially and predictably disadvantaged minority residents, with particularly disparate outcomes for Black residents,” according to a Friday letter detailing the result of a HUD probe. The land office is in violation of the Civil Rights Act as well as federal housing law, federal housing officials said.

I have a hard time reconciling these headlines with this cheerful statement on the state's website:

There's something for everyone in Texas!

And I can't imagine any state having a worse week than the one that Texas just had - not even Florida.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 3/9/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

It's been a while since we've wondered together on a Wednesday; ready to give it a whirl?

Let's start with something silly - laughter is the best medicine, right? It seems that former Trump immigration guru Stephen Miller has had his phone records subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee. Miller has sued to block their release; among other things, he says private family conversations would be exposed. Now, if someone subpoenaed my phone records, they'd find that I cover my elderly mom and my husband on my family plan. But here's the thing with Miller - he's covered under his parents' plan. I guess that's better than it would be if, you know, he still lived in their basement. But here's what I'm wondering: does he even appreciate the irony of this? The king of family separation has his phone bill covered by Mom & Dad? 

You may have heard about discussions on how friendly European countries could get their Russian-made fighter jets into Ukrainian hands. There was some talk that the US would try and 'backfill' American-made jets to our allies who gave their jets to Ukraine. All of this is fraught with risk, including the risk of an all-out war across Europe. So, it was kind of surprising to learn today that Poland had offered to deliver MiG fighter jets to the US base in Ramstein, Germany, for deployment to Ukraine. Surprising, that is, because it's been reported that the Poles hadn't discussed this with us first. And I'm wondering, how on earth could that be true?

This one's from the "I wonder, will these people ever learn?" file: Wisconsin's Sen. Ron Johnson wants to obstruct the president's agenda until the Rs take control in the midterms, and then when they take back the White House in 2024,  he wants to see the GOP repeal the Affordable Care Act.  You know, the same thing they tried to stop from getting passed in the first place, threatened repeatedly to repeal and replace, and failed, repeatedly - even when they had the majority the Senate, the House, and the Oval Office? I also wonder, how many people wish that Johnson had kept his promise not to run again? 

Turning to wonder-full things in my neck of the woods, my state senator Rachel May somehow managed to have her picture taken with climate activists holding a banner that pretty much everyone thinks is highly offensive - see for yourself. 

She's apologized for the "unacceptable" image, and said she had her picture taking with lots of people and didn't see the what the banner said.

So, what's the wondering on this one? These people have staff - they have aides, and assistants, and interns, and who knows how many hangers-on who follow them throughout the day. Is there not a single person on her team who could have pulled her away from this? Do any of your elected officials get caught up in stuff like this? I can't imagine it's just a New York thing...

And finally, tonight, we turn to my county's District Attorney for life William Fitzpatrick. Fitz is in the middle of a high-profile murder trial - the second one for the defendant, a local physician who's accused of murdering his wife. The doc was found guilty in the first trial, but the verdict was tossed due to juror misconduct; a juror had received numerous texts from her father about the trial, during the trial. Keep that in mind... and follow along with today's events. 

Fitz is a big Syracuse University basketball fan; the team was playing in the ACC tournament today, with a noon start. Fitz talks with the judge and the doc's defense team just before 11:30AM, which leads the judge to pose a question to the jury: do you want to continue testimony, or watch the basketball game? The jurors decided to continue with the trial - so I'm not wondering about them. I am wondering about Fitz, though - he actually thought it was appropriate to ask the jury if they wanted to watch a basketball game in the middle of the day's testimony? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sidebar: Sunday School 3/6/22

I'm just going to say it: I've never been a big fan of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-The Other Florida Man). 

Like many people, I was introduced to him when he made "the sip" in 2013's Republican response to the State of the Union address. Using that as a launch pad, he had his failed run for the GOP nomination in 2016. Since then, I haven't seen a lot of leadership out of him; to the contrary, what I've seen appears to be more 'followship' and 'evasiveship' than anything else. 

Could I be doing him a disservice? Sure - he may be way more better, as we say, than I give him credit for, but I honestly don't pay enough attention to him to form a more nuanced opinion. If you want, drop a comment on why I should, and I'll consider it. 

The reason why I'm talking about him at all today is because he was in two Sunday School classrooms this week, ostensibly because he's vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but also because of something he tweeted - and no, I'm not talking about his daily Bible verse; I'm talking about the screen shot heard 'round the echo chamber. 

Rubio was one of 300-some-odd senators and House members participating on a Zoom call with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy - and one of two who shared a screen shot of Zelenskyy while they were on the call. 

Here's how that conversation went down, first on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper.

JT: You tweeted a photo of Zelenskyy during the virtual meeting. Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips said that the Ukrainian ambassador had explicitly asked lawmakers not to share anything on social media until after the meeting ended just for Zelensky's security. Is that true? Was it a mistake for you to tweet that picture?

MR: Well, first of all, she asked that like 30 minutes into the call, after I had already done it. The second is, I think she's under the impression that no one knew that call was happening. That call had been widely reported. Actually, the specific time had been reported. There were over 300 people on it. All the call details had been e-mailed. So, there was nothing secure about that call. And the picture is just a nondescript picture. It looks just like any of the other ones that you have seen out there publicly. So, I -- there's no risk posed. But you're always going to have a couple of people that want their name in an article somewhere and mentioned in the press. So...

And, here's how it went on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

GS: You were facing some criticism from fellow legislators for tweeting out a picture of President Zelenskyy during his Zoom with Congress yesterday. The ambassador asked members not to do that because it would endanger Zelenskyy. Why did you ignore that request?

MR: First of all, she said that well into the call. Second, there was no security risk in that at all. I'm -- perhaps she was under the impression that the Zoom call was a secret. It had been broadly reported like multiple outlets, maybe even ABC had tweeted it was at 9:30. There were over 300 people on this call. The details of the call were emailed to a bunch of people. And it was a nondescript picture unlike any of the other -- just like the other ones you've seen on the air. So, there was no security risk there.

GS: You don't believe you put him at risk?

MR: No.

So, a US senator felt compelled to screenshot and post a "nondescript" picture, one that "looks just like any of the other ones that you have seen out there publicly," and neither anchor asked him why he felt the need to do that?

I mean, it's not like it was a side-by-side of Rubio's 'resting Intelligence Committee face' and Zelenskyy - it was a solo shot of the Z-man, one that's almost certainly hanging on the walls and ceilings of bedrooms around the world - probably next to one of Andrew Cuomo.

I don't think anyone - Rubio's constituents or anyone else - benefitted in any way from seeing the picture. Like Rubio said, the call was widely publicized in advance, so people should have known he would be there. 

Oh wait - that's not necessarily true. He skipped President Biden's State of the Union address because he was too busy to get a Covid test first. Besides, he told CPAC attendees,

For the first time in American history, you now have people having to produce paper to go in somewhere, to sit somewhere, to go to the State of the Union.

You’ve got to show them I’m vaccinated, I took a test yesterday, they took my temperature, you know, all this stuff. This is, what’s happening now in America, is what happens after 20 years of infusing this Marxist thought process into every aspect of our lives and now we’ve come face-to-face with it.

And he does seem to miss an awful lot of votes - so, maybe his constituents did need evidence that he was working. 

And maybe I don't really need to reconsider my opinion of him.

Sunday School 3/6/22: Extra Credit

In your Sunday School, we heard from people who don't get a lot of air time. 

For your Extra Credit, let's dive in with Fiona Hill and Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.) who talked with what's-his-name on Meet the Press. Hill, of course, is a Russia expert - and, more importantly, one of the good people in the Trump administration. Stavridis is a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. 

Hill was asked to compare Trump's towards Russia with the Biden efforts. While she did say there "was an awful lot" done under Trump, she said

I think there's just the one point that sums everything up... that President Trump at a pretty critical period, withheld military assistance to Ukraine that was desperate for it at that particular junction, basically to get Volodymyr Zelenskyy to do him a personal favor.

That sent a message to Vladimir Putin that "Ukraine is a plaything for him" and for the US, too, and she said that was "ultimately a sign of weakness."

It’s our political divisions, our parties are infighting, which was on full display there, that Putin I think is quite shocked now that we've got some collective action together.

Stavridis talked about the possibility of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which President Zelenskyy wants and the West is resisting. The admiral knows more about this than most people; he implemented one over Libya. And it's not a good idea in this instance. 

It's quite obvious that if we put US (and) NATO jets in the air enforcing a no-fly zone, they'll be going nose to nose with Russian fighter aircraft. Down that path, the potential for miscalculation and a war between NATO and Russia and a war between Russia and the United States rises significantly.

The better alternative is to help Ukraine to "create a no-fly zone" by getting them the Russian-made jets they need, and "more stingers, more missiles that can go higher than stingers." He also said that our allies have enough Russian jets to give Zelenskyy "a chance at air superiority." NATO collectively outnumbers Russia five-to-one in combat aircraft, and four-to-one, so Putin is "not going to cross a NATO border in anger," he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Hoping Donald Trump Still Likes Him) recently suggested that the world doesn't need love, sweet love - it needs someone in Russia to assassinate Putin. Hill says  

We have to be extraordinarily cautious about how we talk about this conflict. We need to stop the war in Ukraine, but we have to be very careful about talking about war with Russia, regime change, about these other things because then he absolutely will double down further.

Seems that's the last thing we'd want, right? 

Switching gears, I dropped in on the group chat on Fox News Sunday, hosted by Shannon Bream. On the panel: Jonathan Swan of Axios; Catherine Lucey of The Wall Street Journal; Mo Elleithee from Georgetown University; and Katie Pavlich of "Town Hall." 

Bream asked who President Biden was talking to with his State of the Union address. Swan thought it was "independent voters who have abandoned him in numbers that no one could have believed at the start of his presidency," and said Biden's trying to find "opportunities to not just contrast himself with Republicans, but to contrast himself with the left flank of his own party."  Swan's assessment is spot on, I think.

Crime is one of the opportunities - Biden's got to counter the "defund the police" nonsense, which is the gift that keeps on giving for the Rs. Immigration was an unexpected topic, one that Bream said drew a "huge bipartisan response" but she wondered if anything was going to happen on it.

Pavlich acknowledged Biden's approval Bump after the SOTU, and that he's doing well on Ukraine, but said there's an issue of sustainability with the numbers. That requires policy change, which may or may not happen. She pointed to the midterms as a driver of his message.

The midterms pose another problem for the Dems, according to new ABC News/Washington Post poll which Bream referenced. The poll asked

would you rather see the next Congress controlled by the Republicans to act as a check on Biden, or controlled by the Democrats to support Biden's agenda. And Republicans lead that by ten points.

Elleithee said that kind of polling "usually foreshadows a 'big wave election' in a midterm," but he said the Dems still had a chance to "mitigate some of the expected losses." Biden's SOTU was a big part of that; he suggested he was reminding voters why they voted for him - or, for the Biden that campaigned closer to the middle than many of his opponents. And, he added,

I think it was him sort of reorienting the public perception of the Democratic Party, which, for many months now has been defined by a fight between the left and Joe Manchin, you know, and Kyrsten Sinema over the Build Back Better, right? That was what was defining the Democrat Party in the eyes of many voters. And I think Biden said, let me remind you what you got when you voted for me.

It's not just the Dems who are having issues ahead of the midterms. Sen. Rick Scott (R- Florida Man) is pushing his own 31-page agenda which includes naming the (completed) border wall after Donald Trump, sunsetting all legislation after five years, stopping "left-wing efforts to rig elections" (I assume right-wing efforts in that regard are still fine), requiring  income tax from all Americans, including those living miles below the ridiculous federal poverty level, and more. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Nobody Respects Me Anymore) isn't happy about that, saying

And let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda. We will not have, as part of our agenda, a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years. That will not be part of a Republican Senate majority agenda. 

Bream wondered if the Rs can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat; Lucey thinks they can.

 -- the real thing here is the context, right, which is, as we just talked about, the fact that Republicans are going into midterms that they feel pretty good about. There's a lot of strong indicators for them. Their candidates are feeling pretty optimistic. And Senator McConnell definitely does not want the distraction of a conversation about taxes and Rick Scott's plan.

We'll have to wait and see how that power struggle works out; it might be fun to watch.  For some real extra credit, read Scott's agenda, mull it over, and drop your thoughts in a comment. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/6/22

Most of this week's classroom conversations focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine; Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova, and Florida Man Marco Rubio all made multiple classroom appearances. 

I decided to highlight three other voices, starting with Nadya Tolokonnikova, an activist and founder of Russian punk rock group Pussy Riot. She talked with Jake Tapper on a special noon edition of CNN's State of the Union. 

Tolokonnikova said that there's an "actually much higher" number of Russians who oppose the war than we're seeing on TV, which is amazing given the potential 15-year prison sentence associated any opposition at all, whether it's a social media post or participating in a protest. 

In the face of the ban on social media and independent news organizations, some folks use apps, such as Telegram; in addition, "we learned how to use a VPN over the last couple of years" because they knew crackdowns were coming. Unfortunately, 

...the problem is most of the people, they cannot afford it, just because they -- they don't have knowledge, or they just have to work a couple of jobs to feed their families, because the economic situation is not good in the country.

People she knows are both mad at, and terrified by what's happening in Russia. A 14-year-old friend of her daughter attended a protest and was beaten by the police. The girl's father stepped in, asking the police what they were doing. Unsurprisingly, the police started beating him; he ended up spending a couple of days in jail, "pretty brutally beaten."

And situations like that, they're unfortunately happening quite often. That's why I know that a lot of Russians are trying to leave the country. But, also, there are a number of people who are convinced that they should not leave, because they don't want to give Russia as a gift to Putin. They want to stand their ground.

Asked what might be behind Putin's actions - deteriorating mental health, or him not being held to account over the years for bad acts - Tolokonnikova points to the latter. 

...we have heard a lot of loud, big proclamations from the global community, but, unfortunately, it wasn't followed through. And Putin didn't really feel like he -- him and his closest -- closest oligarchs and cronies suffered from invasion of Ukraine. And I think, partly, what we're seeing right now in Ukraine is the result of complacency of the global community about a situation that happened in Ukraine in 2014.

Lots of people would agree, I think.

On the morning edition of CNN SOTU, one of Tapper's guests was European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. He asked her about the potential that Ukraine would be joining the EU, referencing her own comments as well as thoughts from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

You have said that Ukraine is -- quote -- "one of us and we want them in the European Union." President Zelenskyy is asking for immediate admission to the EU. His foreign minister tweeted -- quote -- "Historic times require big and historic decisions" -- unquote. Are you going to take such a historic step? And, if so, how long will it take Ukraine to be admitted? Are we talking weeks, months, years?

Seems the timeframe is imprecise. von der Leyen spoke of the Ukrainians fighting "for our common values, that they belong to our European family" and that, by filing the application, Zelenskyy "set a process in motion" that "will take some time." 

But we should not forget that, before this was started, we had already worked intensively together, for example, integrating the two markets, trying to support as much as possible Ukraine, not only financially, but also, for example, in energy security. So, a lot has been done. There has to be done still quite some work for any point of being more closer, but that this process is now in motion, this is without any doubt.

She couldn't say how soon it could happen; "it depends, of course, what - the development on the ground," among other things. The path is clear, but

at the moment being for us the most important is to support Ukraine as much as possible in this existential fight against Russia. This is not only a fight of between Ukraine against Russia, Russia that chose the war against Ukraine, but it's a bigger topic. It's also the democracies fighting the autocracies. And, therefore, it is for us existential really to support in every way possible Ukraine and its brave leadership.

Tapper wondered if a full ban of Russian oil was on the table. The long answer? von der Leyen said there's lots going on that's hurting the Russian economy, and "there's a strong strategy now" saying the EU must end its dependency on Russian fossil fuels.

Therefore, we are just discussing in the European Union a strategic approach, a plan, how to accelerate the investment in the renewables, how to diversify our energy supply, for example, with you, our friends in the United States, where LNG (liquified natural gas) is concerned and other friends around the world, how to invest heavily in biogas, for example, in hydrogen that is homegrown. And this is not only a strategic investment in our energy security, but it's also good for the climate.

Seems the short answer is no - a total ban is not on the table. 

Finally, a quick stop in ABC's This Week classroom, where George Stephanopoulos chatted with Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv. Klitschko said it was "a little bit quiet" in his city, but there were some rocket attacks, and fighting is going on in several cities as the Russian moved closer. He also commented the patriotism of the people, saying they are "very, very motivated to defend our city."

What does he need from the West? It's not a long list, really: unity, pressure, sanctions, and weapons support. Russia's one of the strongest armies in the world, he acknowledges, but

Russians doesn't have so huge will and -- as we Ukrainians. We actually are very much ready. We defend our city, our houses, our families. We defend our lives and our future. And we need -- we very appreciate for the friends. We're very thankful for support, but we have to make much more pressure and help Ukraine. We need the help. We need the help. We're still fighting. We still fight for our country and more pressure, more pressure. And unity between all the democratic countries around Ukraine.

Overall, I think the West - NATO, the EU, and the US - are united in their support. Existing sanctions are crushing the Russian economy; heck, even some of the oligarchs are complaining. We're seeing protests against the Russian invasion around the world, including in Russia, as noted above. Collaboration is happening on how best to get more weapons to Ukraine. It's not perfect - some things just take too long, no matter how fast we start.

Klitschko expressed appreciation for all of that, for sure, but he wasn't shy about what's at stake, in case anyone needed a reminder. 

Ukraine was always friendly nation. We always was friendly country. We never was aggressive to anyone, but right now, we have huge motivation to defend our future, our country. Putin has huge ambition to rebuild Soviet empire. We wasn’t USSR and we don't want back to USSR. We see our future as democratic, modern European country. And we expect support from all world because we're fighting not just for Ukraine, we’re fighting for others. We're fighting for whole modern world. We have to stop Putin all together.

Anyone disagree?

 See you around campus. 

Sunday School 1/30/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School, I spent time in the classroom with George and the gang at ABC's This Week. For your Extra Credit, I hung out in CNN's State of the Union classroom, with Dana Bash in the host chair. 

I want to focus on the panel discussion, with former Trump advisor David Urban, former Pence and Trump aid Alyssa Farah Griffin, Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), and former Obama advisor Stephanie Cutter. One topic was the upcoming Biden nomination of a Black woman to the Supreme Court. (And, I'll confess, I didn't even know that CNN SOTU had a panel now. Shame on me for not paying attention.)

Rep. Blunt Rochester was "beyond thrilled" with Biden's plan. She was at the debate when Biden made the commitment to do that, and she anticipates he'll pick someone who's very qualified.

But, also, I really thought back to when I was ending high school and President Reagan announced that he was going to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, and how excited I was then. This moment, I think, is long overdue. And I feel like, for all the little girls out there, for all of the -- for everybody, this is a big deal. I'm not going to say another word in the middle there, but this is a big deal.

Farah Griffin was asked to compare Biden's promise to that of president Trump's promise to put a woman - but not a black woman - in RBG's seat. I hoped that she would admit Trump had exactly zero intention of nominating a Black woman, so there was no reason for him to say it, but she didn't go there. 

Rather, she said she didn't "really understand the strategy," noting the undoubtedly "highly qualified" nominee would be called "somebody who was there because of affirmative action." And we know, already, that the Rs plan on using that in their messaging, if not in their vetting. 

I think the bigger thing here is, Joe Biden's struggling with African-American voters. And it's surprising. Last year, in April, he had 83% support. Now he's got about 64%. I think he's hoping this is going to give him a bump. But I think he's misreading the tea leaves. I think it's much more it's economic policies that are resulting in this, not simply who he is nominating to the bench.

Talk about misreading the tea leaves! It's not that Biden thinks the SCOTUS pick is more important than the things Farah Griffin mentioned; rather, it's the promise he made, at the South Carolina debate, and how that promise got him the support he needed to win the primary. In fact, Biden placed first in every county in the state, and took nearly 49% of the vote, compared to That Guy from Vermont's just-shy-of-20%. Keeping that promise is hugely important, no matter what the polls show. 

Cutter tried to pretend it wasn't a political decision at all; Biden had another reason, she said.

I think he's making this decision to ensure that the Supreme Court represents the people that it is supposed to serve. And we have never had a black woman on the court. And that's a tragedy, you know? So, this is a historic moment. And it's a shame that people can't see the importance of the moment. He's not making this choice because of politics. He's making this choice to ensure that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, represents all Americans.

Urban was incredulous - as was I - and continually spoke over Cutter's attempts to explain herself.

Steph, did you say that without laughing? He didn't -- this is not a political pick? All Supreme Court picks are political picks... They're political. It's completely political. And it's his right. He can -- it's well within his right to do...But to say it's not political... Joe Biden wouldn't be president if it weren't for black women... Joe Biden wouldn't be president but for black women... He wouldn't be president. So, let's -- it's his pick. It's his pick...

You can watch this entire segment here.

After reaching bipartisan consensus that elections have consequences and Biden can pick whoever he wants, they moved on to talking about the women on the short list, only some of whom have been identified. Farah Griffin mentioned what she considers "kind of the open question" - what kind of person will he pick?

...if he's going to go with one of the more moderate ones who in the past has gotten Republican support at lower court levels, or if he's going to go with a very progressive left, and that -- left-leaning judge... Is this a justice for the entire country or for the leftmost flank?

And when has that ever been a question with Republicans nominees, I wonder? 

My favorite part, though? Cutter wrote an op-ed for the NY Times, in which she stated 

Thanks to President Donald Trump and the former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, there is a new set of rules in place for Supreme Court nominations that all but guarantees Democrats will succeed, unless, of course, we mess it up.

Oh, how many times I've said that myself over the years! The Democrats are their own worst enemy, always. And yes, they could easily mess this up - does anyone doubt that? 

Cutter said that with the Amy Coney Barrett appointment, which took a mere 8 days from the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to her Rose Garden, COVID super-spreader nomination party, and only a month more to her swearing-in, the Rs set the stage for speedy confirmations, while also being criticized for "not having a deliberative process."  They couldn't, really - they were too giddy, remember?

I don't expect President Biden and Senate Democrats to move that quickly. But we need to take some lessons from that. It is -- we should move quickly, so that this nominee doesn't get tarnished by somebody like Senator Wicker, or we know that a lot of this conversation in the Republican Party is going to be about affirmative action and undertones of racism. We need to be careful and not tarnish the nominee. Let's move quickly. They are incredibly accomplished women. We should do our jobs, vet, deliberate, but get it done. Do not drag it out.

She's right. Do NOT drag this out. 

Biden needs to get with Senators in his own party to talk about his options, and they need to have quiet conversations with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, too. And Biden is welcome to reach across the aisle himself, too. 

And I'll get flack for this, I'm sure, but members of the House need to sit this one out. The last thing - the absolute LAST THING we need, is for the fractured Dem caucus to start their usual infighting and filling the airways with their complaints about who Biden picks. If they do that, they'll provide all the ammunition the Rs need to stonewall the nomination, hold it up, and fill the airwaves with their own special version of claptrap. 

And, the Dems also need to get in front of what else is on their agenda, and how they can do more than one thing at a time, and then they need to do something, starting with the looming budget deadline. Separate from the benefits to Biden - putting his stamp on the budget and government agencies, or whatever - the Dems need to show they can prioritize, and lead.

Yep. Democrats will succeed, unless of course, they mess it up.

See you around campus.