TGIF 7/15/22

I'm sure there'll be more weeks like this one, when members of the Red Team make total fools of themselves on the issue of abortion. 

I mentioned a few in my Wondering on Wednesday post, including Rep. Jim Jordan, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, and Ohio AG David Yost. 

And let's take James Bopp Jr. According to this Alternet article, Mr. Bopp is "the top attorney" for the National Right to Life Committee," and he's on the bad week list for his grossly inconsiderate and tone-deaf comments about the 10-year old Ohio child who had a legal abortion in Indiana. Under legislation Bopp's promoting, a child rape victim would be banned from having an abortion.

She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child. 

Seriously? What "reason and ultimately the benefit" is there for a ten-year-old, traumatized, raped child to bear a child of her own? 

And there's Indiana's AG Todd Rokita, who stuck his landing on the bad week list, for going public with efforts to find out of the doctor who performed the child's medical abortion had timely filed the appropriate paperwork. From a Politico article,

...Rokita is threatening criminal charges against the doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape survivor from Ohio — a major escalation in the ongoing saga that has put the midwestern state on the frontlines of the post-Roe war.

In a letter dated July 13th, Rokita asked Gov. Eric Holcomb for help in getting info on the case. Here's what he's looking for, and the inflated urgency associated with his request:

In this case, the paperwork was filed - on time - and now the doctor's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, is speaking her mind, planted firmly on the good week side of the ledger. Her client

took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case... She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client.

Good for her, and for the doctor for stepping up.

Another good week representative? Attorney and podcast host Ken White was quoted in the Alternet article above about the danger of relying on "the exception to protect the life of the mother." He thinks it's "a grave risk for anyone involved in the abortion," as doctors will be dealing with frequently politically-motivated District Attorneys in these cases.

Speaking of the risk of prosecutorial bad judgment, it seems some hospitals in Texas are also not willing to take a chance they'll run up against one of those prosecutors. According to this AP article,

Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state’s abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week. 

The association did not name the hospitals but said it’s received complaints that hospitals, administrators and their attorneys may be prohibiting doctors from providing medically appropriate care in some situations, The Dallas Morning News reported. 

In one case, a doctor was reportedly told not to treat a woman with an ectopic pregnancy "until it ruptured." This type of action "...creates a substantial risk for the patient’s future reproductive ability and poses serious risk to the patient’s immediate physical wellbeing." Immediate, as in, she could die. 

Why the fear to act, you ask? Here it is, in two parts: first the good week part, and then the bad week part. 

The Biden administration issued guidance this week that said hospitals must provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. Texas sued Thursday over that guidance, arguing that the federal government isn’t authorized to require emergency healthcare providers to perform abortions. 

Also having a bad week? Efforts to positively impact climate change, as WV Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Yeah? Make Me!) announced another delay in his willingness to consider a big ugly bill covering climate change, among other things.

Democrats have struggled for months to pass a slimmed-down climate and energy package as part of a budget reconciliation bill that would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats, including Manchin. He had previously said he could reach agreement on climate if legislation included elements helping both renewables and fossil fuels. 

But Manchin informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday that he wouldn’t support the investments in climate and energy ahead of the August recess, and his office pointed to his concerns about stoking inflation in a statement. 

Manchin said he hadn't walked away, he just wanted to wait for July's inflation numbers. 

Let's give Manchin a bad week mention, while we're at it, and a good week mention to Sam Ricketts of Evergreen Action, who said, after Manchin's decision broke, who said he struggled to think of a "single elected official in American history" who'll cause "more massive suffering."

...if you want to look decades out from now, this decision by this one senator from West Virginia is going to have repercussions that affect millions, if not billions. 

Speaking of millions and billions  - dollars, not people - there's this bad week list entry, brought to us by the Defense Department and its first mandatory report on Congressional defense appropriations: Congress "funded more than $58 billion worth of military projects that the administration did not request..."   

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-MI, wrote the bill which requires the report, and gets a good week mention for that. And her fellow lawmakers in the House and Senate who added all this junk to the bill get the bad week mention. Some of it was 'reasonable' in some eyes - disaster aid, funding for Ukraine, and what not, but a lot of it was pork - pure pork, such as

more than $4 billion worth of unrequested warships, many of them built by the constituents of senior appropriators. 

And, the article notes, "a substantial portion of the money goes for programs of arguable utility to the US military, critics say."  There are examples included in the article, if you want to check them out. 

The upcoming fiscal year's NDAA is being debated now; it "would add $37 billion to the amount the president requested for all national defense programs..." And there's this.

On Wednesday, the House rejected an amendment by California Democrat Barbara Lee to subtract that $37 billion. And the House soundly defeated another Lee proposal to take away $100 billion from the authorized level... The House also rejected an amendment by Washington Democrat Pramila Jayapal to make the unfunded priorities lists optional, not mandatory. 

Yay, us, or something.  

Finally, a resounding bad week to those Secret Service employees and others in the Department of Homeland Security who are actively thwarting investigations by the Inspectors General of DHS departments. 

You're likely aware of the deleted Secret Service texts from around the insurrection. Some have said this was intentional (to protect pro-Trump folks, for example). Others say the deletions were part of a transition to different equipment. Yeah, right.

The Intercept is reporting some stonewalling on other investigations, not just on the insurrection. From the article, we learn that it's "not uncommon" for IGs, to face resistance. "Tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, inspectors general are not always welcomed."  And, on that last part, there's a scoop. A Customs and Border Protection official shared some info with the reporters.

A briefing memo produced by the agency for a leadership meeting with the DHS Office of Inspector General on July 7 instructs participants on how to push back against what it calls the inspector general’s “persistent” request for “direct, unfettered access to CBP systems,” as part of its “high number of OIG audits covering a variety of CBP program areas.” 

Again, yay us, or something...

Why do I feel like we're all having a bad week, courtesy of the folks who are supposed to be working in our best interests? 

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 7/13/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, we had another January 6th Committee hearing this week. I'd love to know if folks are still watching, or if everyone's over it by now? 

I'm not over it yet - not by a long shot, although I was multi-tasking a bit yesterday and missed the part about the "unhinged" meeting with Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike "The Traitor" Flynn, and Patrick Byrne, the Overstock.com guy -who, according to something I read today, 'overstocked' on meatballs at the meeting. 

After watching replays today, I can't help wondering how much worse things would have been on January 6th if there hadn't have been any adults in the room on December 18th. 

Another thing I can't stop wondering about is if the Committee's going to do anything about the comments from Rep. Debbie Lasko (R- I Didn't Mean to Say I'd Kill My Grandkids). I don't think it was fully explained how the Committee got hold of the tape, but here's what Lasko said "on the eve of January 6th." 

I also asked leadership to come up with a safety plan for members. I'm actually very concerned about this because we have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here. We have Antifa. We also have, quite honestly, Trump supporters who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election. And when that doesn't happen, most likely will not happen, they are going to go nuts.

First, I'm wondering who Lasko spoke to. If I had to guess, I'd think it was Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Steve Scalise, and/or  Rep. Elise Stefanik - they're the top three Republican 'leaders' in the House; but what if it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or anyone on her leadership team? 

Second, I'm wondering what response she got from whomever she spoke with, and whether the Committee's spoken with anyone involved in those conversations. 

And finally, I'm definitely wondering about her saying "most likely will not happen." Did she actually think there was a chance all of this nonsense would work??

Much of my wondering is centered on the horrific story about the ten-year-old Ohio girl who had to travel to Indiana to have an abortion because she was a few days too pregnant to get one at home; this was a hot topic  in last week's Sunday School. 

Since the story first hit the headlines, many have suggested it was a fake, something someone made up to get people all riled up for the primaries and the mid-term elections, or just riled up in general. Among the folks saying it was a made-up story? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

Here's a tweet with more information from the editorial. 

Reporters at the National Review questioned it. The Washington Post tried to fact-check it, and failed. 

And none other than Ohio's own Rep. Jim Jordan, who also controls the House Judiciary GOP Twitter account, determined it to be fake. Jordan's comment is below. 

I wonder how shocking it must have been for them to find out that, this morning, a man was charged for raping the little girl? And I wonder, too, what would have happened if the media had identified the girl or found our where she lived? Would they have staked out her home? Attacked any males in the house as potential rapists?  Would they have followed her to Indiana? 

I also find myself wondering if we've become so jaded by things like the Jussie Smollett case, and fake Go Fund Me accounts and all the rest, that the first thought when something horrible is reported is that it's not true? 

And if that's the case, I wonder how we recover from that level of distrust?

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 7/10/22: Extra Credit

For Sunday School, we heard from Vice President Kamala Harris. Her videotaped interview with Robert Costa was featured on Face the Nation, the Spotlight Classroom this week.

Now, let's hear from Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA), and see if he did a better job answering questions than Madam Veep.

Costa asked Youngkin if he agreed with Harris, who said you don't need to abandon your faith to believe in a woman's right to choose. To me, a reasonable answer would start with, or at least include, either 'yes' or 'no.'

Youngkin said he's pro-life and life begins at conception; he agrees with the Supreme Court decision that it should be up to the states; he asked the legislature to craft a bipartisan "15-week pain threshold bill;" and said

I think this is what it's all about is, this is a moment for our country to have a discussion around this. And each state will decide something different. And I think that's the -- that's the real value of the Supreme Court's decision.

Um, the "real value" of the SCOTUS decision is separate but unequal classes of pregnant women? And that's somehow "our country" having a discussion?

Costa asked, twice, if he'd change his 15-week proposal to a full ban; given Youngkin's "reality" of having a split legislature, I don't see a full ban without a unified legislature. That said, he believes his job" is to get something done," and he thinks the 15-week bill is what's going to fly. 

Costa brought up Youngkin's ban on teaching "inherently divisive concepts," and asked for an example. Youngkin alluded to Critical Race Theory, without using those words. It's not about forgetting history, he said.

But we shouldn't... play 'privilege bingo' with children. We shouldn't teach children that they should judge one another, and one group is privileged and another group is going to find it hard in life necessarily. And we shouldn't blame someone and have them form a view that they're inherently racist... 

Costa asked what Youngkin would do if the Board of Education came to him and said the term 'Civil War' is too divisive and they want to use 'war between the states' instead. First Youngkin said he didn't think that would happen, then he said he didn't believe they will do something like that. And then, he said

...I think what we all recognize is that slavery was an absolute -- was an absolute black spot in our history. I mean, it is so, so abhorrent. We have to teach it.

Not the question he was asked, but if he can't answer a simple example like this, what's he going to do with a hard one? 

Because it was a long interview, here are Youngkin's answers from the second half.

• Judges in Virginia are "adequately" protected; he's got state resources on it, and he's called on AG Merrick Garland to do more, apparently assuming that protests are intended to "influence" judges, rather than to express anger. At the same time, he said, "Broadly speaking, this is about democracy."

• Asked if he'd codify same-sex marriage in Virginia, he said the Dobbs decision protecting the rights of lawmakers to legislate is "consistent with what we know the Constitution stands for." When pressed, he said "we actually do protect same-sex marriage... that's the law in Virginia." However, it's only protected if Obergefell stands; the state struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in 2020, but did not codify a right to have one. 

• He had "really great fun" visiting Nebraska, which had literally nothing to do with what he was asked: whether Donald Trump should stop saying the 2020 election was stolen. Nor did his "this is not a 'or' moment but an 'and' moment..." ramble. Nor did his "this is the Republicans who - that can win." Nor did his talk about 5,000 volunteers at elections. I'm sighing bigly, here, I am.

• Virginians don't want to talk about January 6th, they want to talk about "run-away inflation, gas prices... crime in their communities...education and the rights of parents to be engaged in their kids' schools." He also said," while I think it's important to the media, is really not what voters are focused on." He also said Trump's going to do whatever he's going to do.

• As to how he'll spend his 'political capital' as a "rising star," he wants to focus on electing GOP representatives; he thinks "the road to the majority in the House... comes through Virginia." After that, there are gubernatorial races where he thinks he "can make a difference." He refused to answer whether he'll support election deniers like Doug Mastriano in PA, even though Costa asked him twice.

Finally, on whether he and his family are open to a run for president in 2024, he's "hugely humbled" and

the reality, of course, is, I think it's based on the fact that I won in a state that was blue and we turned it red. I ran on a platform that we're delivering. And I often find it shocking that people are surprised that a person runs for office and then goes to work to deliver on what they promised they were going to do. And so, I think my job is to be a great governor in Virginia.

Cost asked again if he's open to the idea,

That's not a decision that we have even begun to undertake. The reality, of course, is I've been in - I've been governor of Virginia for six months. We've got an extraordinary amount done. $4 billion tax cuts. A record budget for education. $400 million in to law enforcement to raise salaries and keep our communities safe. This is where I'm focused.

Am I the only one seeing those comments as foundational to his '24 campaign bio? And does everyone agree he answered fewer questions than Harris?

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/10/22

The luck of the draw for your Sunday School lesson went to the Face the Nation classroom on CBS. 

Vice President Kamala Harris was in the classroom via videotaped segments from her interview with Robert Costa. The first part was about mass shootings, and how conversations with first responders and families of victims always turn to assault weapons. 

Harris said those weapons "were specifically and intentionally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly," and said  

the fact that we can't get Congress to renew...  the assault weapons ban is outrageous. 

It's OK to support the 2nd Amendment, as she does, and be against assault weapons, too. Costa wondered why so many legally get these weapons and "slip past red flag laws like those in Illinois." Harris pointed to the availability of the weapons, but didn't touch on the red flag laws.

Costa didn't follow up, unfortunately. Instead, he moved to abortion. While he mentioned President Biden's recent Executive Order, he also said that many Dems "remain very angry" with the decision in the Dobbs case, and he played a clip of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) asking

Where is the Democratic Party? Where's the party? Why aren't we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort. And, yes, they're winning.

He asked Harris if Newsom is right, and again we got half an answer. She said "all of us share a deep sense of outrage" about the Supreme Court taking a recognized right away from women. And, she said,

You don't have to agree that you want to or would advocate that you or a loved one would have an abortion to agree that the government should not be making that decision for any individual woman.

Costa followed up, asking "Did Democrats fail, past Democratic presidents, congressional leaders, to not codify Roe v. Wade over the past five decades?"

I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believed that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled... And that's why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in real unsettled times.

Harris used voting rights as an example. This was settled, back in the 60s, but now states are "intentionally making it more difficult for people to vote." It's the same with choice, she said. And while the administration is doing what it can, such as the Executive Order, they can't do it alone.

...we also need Congress to act, because that branch of government is where we actually codify, which means put into law the rights that, again, we took for granted, but clearly have now been taken from the women of America. 

Referring to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights act as examples of Congressional action, Harris said, "That's what we need to do with Roe and the principles behind Roe."

Another question she didn't answer? Whether Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be impeached for statements made during their confirmation hearings. 

I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate. I never believed them. I didn't believe them. It's why I voted against (them).

She said it's all about the elections this November, and that "we need a pro-choice Congress." She also noted, correctly in my opinion, that it's not just Congress people need to worry about.

It means state offices, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general. It means local races. Who's going to be your DA, who's going to be your sheriff enforcing laws that are being passed to criminalize medical health providers, and maybe even the women who seek the service?

Costa gave her a fill-in-the-blank question: "Americans need to vote for Democrats in November because____________?" 

Our democracy is on the ballot, truly, truly. If you look at an issue like choice, it's on the ballot, a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and potentially what can happen in the not-too-distant future around issues like access to and making decisions about contraception or same-sex marriage. Elections matter. 

Costa wondered how they were going to counter polls showing that "support for this administration among Black Americans has softened," and that people are frustrated about police reform being stalled. Harris said that Americans in general, not just Black Americans, should demand legislation addressing key issues is passed, whether it's police reform or anything else. 

I mean, but, again, there is a connection between what we are -- what we want to have happen and the power of Congress to actually make it happen, when it comes to changing the laws, when it comes to writing and then putting in effect, laws that create accountability and greater fairness in our system, be it our criminal justice system, be it our health care delivery system, all of that.

And, she added

What we have also seen is that Black Americans and all Americans said -- look at the United States Supreme Court. There has never in the history of that court been a Black woman to serve. There now is, because people stood in line in 2020 for hours demanding that, of the things that they would stand in line to see happen...  Ketanji Brown Jackson on the United States Supreme Court. So, there are demands that were made by voters, saying these are the things we want out of this administration. And a lot of those demands have been met in the first year-and-a-half. There's still more work to do, without any question.

Finally, when it came to the big question, she said that Joe Biden plans on running in '24, and if he does, she'll run with him. 

See you around campus.

A Future Tale (Part Two)

Part One of this Future Tale began with a woman wandering around her small city, observing and describing the places and people she saw. Here's how that chapter ended.

The old iron gate at the head of the alley looked as if it hadn't been opened in years. Weeds, garbage, broken glass, and more encased the bottom. It was heavy with generations of handprints, rust and dust, soot and exhaust, bird droppings, coffee and alcohol, and who knows what other human or animal excretions. Layered upon layer upon layer, a challenge to the forensic experts, the anthropologists, the historians who might one day try and make sense of it all. 

I stopped by the gate, which stood chest-high and strong. It, too, offered a dare, like the building nearby. "Try me - go ahead, give me a push."  

I looked left and right; nobody was paying any attention. I gave the gate a shove; it didn't move. 

I pushed, harder, then as hard as I could, struggling against time, and weeds, and trash, and crud, and slowly, creakily, it opened. 

I snuck into the alley.

And now, we rejoin our storyteller for Part Two.

I tugged the gate closed behind me; I don't know why, really, but it seemed the right thing to do. Given the difficulty I had getting it open, I was surprised by how easy it was to push it closed. I saw my handprints and fingerprints, which formed the newest layer in the gate's long history; my footsteps would soon be added to those that had already smoothed the grimy cobblestones that made up the alley floor.

Narrow, and long - confusingly long, to be honest - the alley had a curtain of vines hanging over it several feet away from the gate, reminiscent of the beaded ‘curtains’ we used to hang back when I was in college. Or, more in keeping with the mood of the day, reminiscent of the giant spiderwebs we used to accidentally run into playing in the woods as kids; we'd struggle, half screaming half giggling, trying to get the spider's handiwork out of our hair and off our faces. Taking a deep breath, I walked toward, then under the vines.

I slowly picked my way forward, letting my eyes adjust to the uncharacteristic mid-day darkness, trying not to slide on the slippery cobbles under my feet. I walked for what felt like several minutes, dodging the spindly sumacs and scrub maples that popped up randomly, as if testing my mettle. “Does she have what it takes? Can she handle the truth?” I felt the questions, and I resolved to stick it out.

Eventually, I could see faint spots of light up ahead, not way high on the buildings, but at a more human level. I stopped, and after my eyes adjusted, I recognized that I was seeing deeply shaded lights above doorways or recesses in the alley, and I understood that I was nearing what I had been called here, by someone, somehow, to see. 

Tentatively, I walked up to the first light. In the recess, there was a chair, with a dingy hand-lettered sign resting on it: safe abortions performed inside. I paused, startled by the seeming contradiction between the sign's messiness and its promise, and by recollections of the horrible history of back-alley abortions. I was confused; where was I? Had the alley taken me into the past, or was it giving me a glimpse of the future? Was that sign old, or new? I had no idea.

I turned slowly away from the source of my confusion, and looked down the alley. A few feet away, on the other side, was a dim light, bugs flying around it. I was tempted to turn and head back towards that darn iron gate, the thing that drew me here in the first place, but I felt compelled to keep going. 

As I moved across the alley, I saw another sign, this one professionally painted but still dirty, hanging from a nail on the door: Books you can’t read anywhere else. There were several names original to the sign: Angelou, Orwell, Vonnegut, Morrison, Lee, and more, names I recognized. There were others, too, that I had never heard of: Evison, Thomas, Alexie, Spiegelman, Craft, scrawled on the sign with different colored markers. A mix of old and new, another yesterday-today-tomorrow quandary. 

Every recess in the wall, every dirty lightbulb, every door I encountered, brought more of the same.

Our real history

Medical care - no patients refused

Judgment-free zone 

All words welcomed here

Free hot meals

A bed for a night

There were a few more doors, offering only more confusion, until there was only a giant screen hanging in front of me, above my head, filled with images, wonderful and horrible, a cacophony of voices and music and noise, piercing the quiet that had surrounded me in the alley. It was my history, my lifetime, and histories and lifetimes before mine, all jumbled together. Good and evil, love and war, despots and dictators, politicians and orators, their words almost physically assaulting me, surrounding me, deafening me. 

I wanted to get away, to escape, to avoid what was playing out in front of me, but the cobblestones were damp and slimy as I tried to run, the trees were hitting me in the face and arms, and the din moved with me with me as I slipped and slid down the alley, tears and grime streaming down my face. 

In Case You Missed It (v97)

Here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything. 

Sunday brought two posts. First up was A Future Tale (Part One), which spilled out of my head back in May, and sat waiting until I figured out what was going on. In it, the narrator tells of a walk around a city, somewhere out there. Here's how things kicked off.

I walked slowly down the main drag, as I've done a million times, looking through the slightly dingy windows of the shops, observing the customers inside. 

Many of them appeared disengaged, as if they were only going through the motions. They sported the worn-out look that comes from reading and hearing the same thing over and over, from the same people in the same echo chamber over and over, watching the same news for hoursdaysweeksmonths on end. They looked beaten down by it all. 

Later in the post, the people were pretty much the same, but the area had changed a bit.

My pace slowed as I neared the alley halfway down the block, tucked in between a 1970s-era office building and an 1870s-era beauty. Empty but still defiant, figuratively lifting its chin in the air, brandishing the chip on its shoulder, as if daring someone to smash the windows, destroy the inside, or tear it down. 

"Try me," it said. "Just try me."

Part Two, which'll be out later today, picks up as the narrator begins an interesting journey down the alley.

For your Sunday School, I took a new approach: throwing the classroom names in a pot and focusing on just one for your lesson. Last week, CNN's State of the Union had the luck of the draw and we got to spend some time with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. A lot of her chat with Dana Bash was about a woman's right to choose. 

Bash tried to get answers to several questions on reports of a 10-year-old Indiana girl who was three days too pregnant to get an abortion at home, and was said to be traveling to Ohio to get one. Noem dodged repeatedly, but finally answered when Bash asked if the danger physically, mentally, and emotionally for the child wouldn't be putting her life at risk. 

And I think that's something that -- yes, that situation, the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decisions there for that family. That's what's interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books. The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That's appropriate. It's the way our Constitution intended.

It's important to note that, right before they talked about the 10-year-old, Noem said this about the trigger law in her state.

Now that that's the law, then we have to look at what we need to do to address who in those situations, if they do break the law, is punished. And that's the doctors, not the women. I want to make sure that that's appropriate and that the women are not punished in this situation, and that we do support them as we go forward.

That, folks, is a profile in hypocrisy. (Hmm... did we just uncover a new theme for veritable pastiche?)

Sticking with the classroom of the day for your Extra Credit, we heard from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). He had some interesting thoughts about Noem's interview, particularly the part where she and Bash talked about the recent January 6th Committee hearing. 

When Bash asked for his reaction to the governor's comments on January 6th, he didn't mince words. She was in the House with him, and he said he was 'blown away' by her interview, in which she questioned the truthfulness of Cassidy Hutchinson.

...it's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." This is not the Kristi Noem I served with. The Kristi Noem I served with was conservative, dedicated to truth, and I, at the time, would have thought (she) would have put her country above her political career at any moment.

They also talked about primaries, and voters, and Liz Cheney, and the Committee. Be sure to check out his name for Cheney's primary opponents - it's ridiculously appropriate, if ridiculously juvenile. 

When it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, I had the opportunity to reference another classroom - ABC's This Week. Martha Raddatz hosted, and for some reason that defies logic, she asked Mary Bruce this final question.

And, Mary, we really just have about 20 seconds, but I want to go back to Uvalde. What is President Biden doing about that?

Now, there are any number of people who may have responsibility and accountability to act on what happened in Uvalde, but none of them are named President Biden, for what should be obvious reasons. 

I'm not sure why (Bruce) dignified the question with an answer, but she did. And when she finally got around to talking about the feds and Biden, it was to note that "it's pretty unclear" how much the feds can do, adding 

But this White House continues to point to that gun legislation they’re passing. Would that have solved this? We just don’t know.

Remembering that this was Wednesday's post, I got back to the business at hand. 

Anyway, here's what I'm wondering: why didn't she say, "look, Martha, President Biden is much too busy causing global inflation, global supply chain issues, global food shortages, global immigration issues, and doing too much and not enough to help Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and others, to be able to focus his attention on a single mass shooting that happened months ago. Haven't you been to a gas station lately and seen his sticker?"

Thursday's breaking news shifted from the failures of the Biden administration to the crumbling of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government. Just weeks after surviving a no-confidence vote, he stepped down as leader of his party and assumed the role of 'caretaker' PM until a new party leader is chosen. 

And that reminded me of a post in which I suggested Trump should step down, which I shared for Throwback Thursday. I was surprised the post was from June 2016, barely a year after the famous escalator ride.

For a whole host of reasons I included in the post, I said 

Trump has proven himself unable to support the party’s sacraments and unable to garner full and active support of its leaders and faithful. He is doing perhaps irreparable damage to the party, damage that may take multiple election cycles to heal.

Donald Trump should step aside.

Republicans should demand it, so they can begin to recover from this horribly ill-advised, self-centered, pompous, short-on-content long-on-self-promotions candidacy before it’s too late.

As usual, nobody listened to me. And here we are.

I'll be back later; enjoy your Sunday.  

Wondering on Wednesday 7/6/22

Ready... Set... Wonder! 

• I wonder why I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but folks can legally purchase so-called 'weapons of war', so-called 'assault rifles' and happily go people-hunting, mowing down children, teenagers, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents - pretty much anyone they feel like aiming at... 

• A little bit ago, I opined that it would be discriminatory if 'life begins at fertilization' only applied to the pre-born conceived in a womb, and not to those conceived in fertility clinics. There's an article in the Boston Globe that explores this issue that I found very interesting.

First, I'm surprised at how little interest there is in regulating all embryos the same. According to a spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee, "IVF is not even really on our radar." And second, I have to wonder why red-state legislators "in at least 10 states" have put bills out there that would treat frozen embryos the same as, you know, warm ones - and not a single one of the bills have passed. 

• Here's another one that's got me doing some bigtime wondering. A guy who, I'd surmise, was trying to prove how manly he is, wandered around Broken Arrow, OK wearing a tactical vest and openly sporting both a pistol (in a holster) and a semi-automatic rifle. From the article, it seems pretty much everyone was nervous or scared. For example,

Employees at the Broken Arrow Justice Center ― a government building that houses the local court and police offices ― locked their doors, and someone called 911. 

Oklahoma's constitutional carry law  "allows people ages 21 and over to carry firearms in public without a permit or training." Police didn't have a lot of options to do anything, but as luck would have it, the guy was also carrying brass knuckles, which are illegal under both state and city law. 

I have a hard time with open carry laws, I really do - especially ones that allow rifles to be slung casually over someone's shoulder like a purse. And I don't wonder at all why the sheriff said, "nobody needs to be walking down the street with a rifle. But I don’t make the laws; we just try to live by them and do a very difficult job in a world that’s got those people in it."

Hear, hear - even to his use of "those people" which normally I don't approve. In this case, I'll make an exception.

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-we ever screwed for electing Trump, or what?) was one of the Trump minions issued a subpoena by a prosecutor in Georgia. His attorneys say they'll fight it, even though they said Graham's "neither a subject nor target of the investigation, simply a witness." I wonder, though, about their grounds for fighting it. Ok, honestly? I laughed at their grounds for fighting it.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham was well within his rights to discuss with state officials the processes and procedures around administering elections. Should it stand, the subpoena issued today would erode the constitutional balance of power and the ability of a member of Congress to do their job.

Now, does anyone else wonder whether Graham was acting in his official capacity as ranking member - not chairman - of the Judiciary Committee when he stuck his genteel nose into the Georgia process, or do you think he was acting as a rank member of Trump's cadre of snoops and liars?

• And the final bit of wondering tonight comes courtesy of Martha Raddatz, who hosted This Week on Sunday. Here's the silly question she asked Mary Bruce, ABC's Senior White House correspondent, to close the show.

And, Mary, we really just have about 20 seconds, but I want to go back to Uvalde. What is President Biden doing about that?

I'm not sure why she dignified the question with an answer, but she did. And when she finally got around to talking about the feds and Biden, it was to note that "it's pretty unclear" how much the feds can do, adding 

But this White House continues to point to that gun legislation they’re passing. Would that have solved this? We just don’t know.

Except we do know quite a bit, Mary.  

Anyway, here's what I'm wondering: why didn't she say, "look, Martha, President Biden is much too busy causing global inflation, global supply chain issues, global food shortages, global immigration issues, and doing too much and not enough to help Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and others, to be able to focus his attention on a single mass shooting that happened months ago. Haven't you been to a gas station lately and seen his sticker?"

What's on your wondering mind tonight? 

Sunday School 7/3/22: Extra Credit

CNN won the draw for your Sunday School lesson this week, so let's continue with Dana Bash and her guests in the State of the Union classroom.

 Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R- You Kidding Me? You People *Still* Support Him? -IL), the other Republican on the January 6th Committee, had the (ahem) privilege of following Gov. Kristi Noem in the classroom. Here's a recap.

When Bash asked for his reaction to the governor's comments on January 6th, he didn't mince words. She was in the House with him, and he said he was 'blown away' by her interview, in which she questioned the truthfulness of Cassidy Hutchinson.

...it's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." This is not the Kristi Noem I served with. The Kristi Noem I served with was conservative, dedicated to truth, and I, at the time, would have thought (she) would have put her country above her political career at any moment.

He said "it is clear she is running for president or vice president. She's scared to death of the base." He referred to Hutchinson as a "26-year-old patriot" and said that Noem calling her into question, but then avoiding

...saying that Donald Trump bore even an ounce of responsibility for January 6th, I get amazed still every day by what some of my colleagues do. This is one of the biggest ones. She used to be something very different.

After playing a clip from Rep. Liz Cheney's primary debate, and noting that Kinzinger called her opponents "a bunch of armpit farters," she suggested that one of them could "very well win."

So, Liz Cheney, you can disagree with her position on whatever, but she stood in front of her constituents and she said, 'look, here's where I'm at on these issues, these core democracy issues. Now you can make a decision whether or not to vote for me.' Frankly, that's what politics should be. That's what every election should be.

And, he said, "(h)er main opponent was a big supporter of Liz Cheney until she found out that maybe she could run against Liz Cheney." He said they're lying to voters, spreading conspiracies, and playing games, and "Americans have got to wake up and demand far better" because

...we have a primary system where somebody like Liz Cheney, a very professional, focused person, regardless of what you think of her politics... can be up against just lies and conspiracy, and 5 to 10 percent of... Wyoming, will actually show up and vote in a primary and make a decision...Look, Liz, God bless her. She is making a stand. I think she can win. But I hope this serves as a lesson to every American. Like, let's fix this system, because the primary system is failing.

He also talked about "typical for Trump world" behavior - the process of distracting people from what's important. He's talking about all the attacks against Hutchinson (like Noem's, really) for testifying to what Tony Ornato told her about Trump's actions in the SUV on January 6th. What no one's refuting, Kinzinger said, is that Trump knew his supporters were armed, and that he really wanted to be at the Capitol with them. 

He said Ornato's welcome to testify under oath, and that the Committee hears from people regularly.

Every day, we get new people that come forward and say, hey, I didn't think maybe this piece of the story that I knew was important, but now that you guys are talking -- like, I do see this plays in here.

And, he said, although it's not what she wants, Hutchinson will be remembered long after the names of Committee members have been forgotten.

She doesn't want to be out in the public spotlight. But she has a commitment to truth that somebody like Kristi Noem, for instance, and most people in our party, would actually benefit to take just a 10 percent ounce of.

Finally, we heard this from Kinzinger: the Committee's not done yet.

There will be way more information. And stay tuned.

 One last note, from Bash:

I want to show our viewers what 'The Washington Examiner' said in an editorial. 'The Washington Examiner' editorial board is conservative:

Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him ever again.

And yet he is, according to our sources, likely to announce he is going to run in 2024 as soon as this month.

If you want some extra Extra Credit points, see how many "if he runs, I'll support him" comments you can find from prominent members of the GOP.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/3/22

To pick the lucky classroom for your Sunday School lesson, I drew numbers, and CNN's State of the Union was the winner. 

So, let's dive in with Dana Bash and her chat with Gov. Kristi Noem (R-Yeah, I Gave Trump a Mini-Rushmore with His Face on it - So What?). Noem's been making the rounds quite a bit lately - I think this is her third classroom appearance in the past couple of weeks. 

The governor is known for saying that she's going to "walk alongside mothers and their children" now that Roe's been tossed. Bash wondered if that specifically included providing benefits for these folks, specifically paid family leave and child care. It took a few tries, but when Bash pressed her on using her bully pulpit to get paid leave done, Noem finally said, "...I think, in South Dakota, that the time is right." No word on state-sponsored child care.

They also discussed the horrific situation of the ten-year-old Ohio girl who, at six weeks and three days pregnant, can't get an abortion in her state, and must travel to Indiana to get one. Bash wondered if South Dakota would force a child similarly situated to have the baby, given there's no rape or incest exception under their anti-abortion law. 

Noem initially deflected by trying to focus on the man who raped the 10-year-old, and "what are we doing about that?" Well, as everyone knows, there are all kinds of laws on the books about that, and it has nothing to do with the topic. Bash tried again, eventually asking if Noem would work to change the law.

It breaks my heart. I'm a mother. I'm a grandmother. Got a 1-year-old little granddaughter named Ms. Addie. I can't even imagine. What I would say is, I don't believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. And so, there's more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious, especially innocent lives that have been shattered, like that 10-year-old girl.

She didn't provide any specifics on what more than can do for her in South Dakota, other than declare that her life is in danger and allow her to have an abortion. Bash tried that approach, asking if Noem would "consider that the life of a mother at risk?" 

And I think that's something that -- yes, that situation, the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decisions there for that family. That's what's interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books. The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That's appropriate. It's the way our Constitution intended.

It's important to note that, right before they talked about the 10-year-old, Noem said this about the trigger law in her state.

Now that that's the law, then we have to look at what we need to do to address who in those situations, if they do break the law, is punished. And that's the doctors, not the women. I want to make sure that that's appropriate and that the women are not punished in this situation, and that we do support them as we go forward.

Is it me, or is she suggesting that if a situation like this occurred in her state, after leaving it up to "the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decision there for the family," and abortion was the best option, she'd arrest the doctor? 

Moving to Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the January 6th Committee, Bash asked if the part about Trump knowing his supporters were armed was alarming. Noem's 'alarm' came from how the hearings are being done.

This is not at all like the hearings that were conducted when I was a member of Congress. This was a one-sided conversation with one set of witnesses that are reporting hearsay in many situations, not facts. So, it's difficult to really believe everything that she has said. She says that she's telling the truth, but much of it was hearsay, and much of it other people have refuted now. So, there's an agenda behind this hearing.

When Bash explained the clip she played was firsthand, not hearsay, Noem doubled down. 

But her credibility was -- her credibility was damaged when she talked about hearsay, and then other people, that that -- that she referenced said that it absolutely wasn't true. And that's what's difficult about these hearings. It feels to be more of a show and more of an agenda than an actual true, objective hearing that's uncovering facts.

Bash pointed out that no one's gone under oath to dispute Hutchinson's testimony, and then she asked if Noem if the believed that Trump bears any responsibility for what happened.

I think January 6 was a horrific day in our history. I never want to see that happen again. I think, moving forward, that we have got to have a time in our country where we all start talking to each other again, where we start having conversations, we get much better policy. I talk about this in my book, Dana, where I talked about the fact that we have become a country so offended by each other that we quit talking to each other. And it's hurting public debate that we have to have different perspectives around the table to have an open conversation. And we will end up with much better policy, better laws if we can take the emotion and the anger and the bitterness out of our conversation, and really talk about what is best for our country and where we can agree and move forward.

So, again, a non-answer, which Bash pointed out; here's Noem's follow-up.

I think we all need to examine this country and where we're going. And I'm hopeful that people will look to our state. Our state has done incredible things. I think the country is desperate for some hope right now. The best weekend to focus on that is this weekend, where we celebrate our freedoms, our independence, and really look forward with an optimistic attitude. I think we have got a bright future ahead of us as long, as we continue to represent our people.

Good lord, she's almost as good as Mike Pence was at not answering questions; she just needs to up the word count.

But if you want an answer to the question whether Trump bears any responsibility for what happened on January 6th, here it is: Noem said she'd vote for Trump if he runs again.

Happy July "Buy A Mattress" Weekend, to all who celebrate. 

See you around campus. 

A Future Tale (Part One)

It was late afternoon. 

I walked slowly down the main drag, as I've done a million times, looking through the slightly dingy windows of the shops, observing the customers inside. 

Many of them appeared disengaged, as if they were only going through the motions. They sported the worn-out look that comes from reading and hearing the same thing over and over, from the same people in the same echo chamber over and over, watching the same news for hoursdaysweeksmonths on end. They looked beaten down by it all. 

I didn't want to linger there; I wondered if ennui by association was a thing? I meandered, turning randomly, until I ended up in the old warehouse district, a jumble of multi-story brick buildings. 

The ends of giant old timbers were visible in spots, copper accents and granite keystones and old leaded windows that gentrifiers adore, and put to pricey use. Many buildings had been redone; fabulous restaurants now, condos and studios and extravagant apartments; bakeries and fancy shmancy coffee shops; places to get faux-leather wing-tips and hemp pocket squares; places to see and be seen, to be vibrant, and young, and successful, or vibrant, and old, and successful, all the while sporting the tired, worn-out look that comes from reading and hearing the same thing over and over, from the same people in the same echo chamber over and over.

Moving to a less crowded part of town, I walked past smaller mixed-use buildings housing attorneys, CPAs, ad agencies, cell phone stores, payday loan joints, cigar shops, gyms, and whatnot on the lower floors, and more apartments on the upper floors. Everyone I passed in this part of town had the same look, and looked the same as everyone else I had already passed.

My pace slowed as I neared the alley halfway down the block, tucked in between a 1970s-era office building and an 1870s-era beauty. Empty but still defiant, figuratively lifting its chin in the air, brandishing the chip on its shoulder, as if daring someone to smash the windows, destroy the inside, or tear it down. 

"Try me," it said. "Just try me."

The old iron gate at the head of the alley looked as if it hadn't been opened in years. Weeds, garbage, broken glass, and more encased the bottom. It was heavy with generations of handprints, rust and dust, soot and exhaust, bird droppings, coffee and alcohol, and who knows what other human or animal excretions. Layered upon layer upon layer, a challenge to the forensic experts, the anthropologists, the historians who might one day try and make sense of it all. 

I stopped by the gate, which stood chest-high and strong. It, too, offered a dare, like the building nearby. "Try me - go ahead, give me a push."  

I looked left and right; nobody was paying any attention. I gave the gate a shove; it didn't move. 

I pushed, harder, then as hard as I could, struggling against time, and weeds, and trash, and crud, and slowly, creakily, it opened. 

I snuck into the alley.

In Case You Missed It (v96)

It was another slow week for writing here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of the three posts that made it out the door.

Nothing really caught my eye in the classroom, so I didn't make you work for Sunday School or Extra Credit. I did, however, tempt you with another chapter in the Journal of Unpopular Opinions about the SCOTUS decision to give the decision on the legality of abortion to the states. And where many people have been posting RBG memes, I posted an article quoting her saying that Roe was the right decision for the wrong reason. It's not a privacy issue, it's an equality issue. 

There's also a lot about it that's discriminatory; I gave some examples, including these:

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

The unpopular ones? You can read those in the post. 

I didn't publish again until it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, which was after both Cassidy Hutchinson's in-person testimony before the January 6th Committee, and my home state's gubernatorial primary. 

Here's a bit of wondering on the former, in response to the seeming millions of Trumpworld denizens who've added expertise in all matters judicial to their already-impressive resumes, which include expertise in infectious diseases, immigration, foreign policy, economics, hamberders, golf, taxes, health insurance and more.

Hearsay - or 'Hear-Say' or 'Hear Say' or 'stuff she made up that people didn't say' - you pick - was a big topic in the Interwebs, and it got me wondering.

Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 

So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th Committee. And I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

On the latter, the candidates leading in the polls won, pretty easily, in both the D and R primaries. Which means that Andrew Giuliani, did not win. He did win most of the NYC vote, which is fine - he can go back there and not interrupt me here in that vast expanse called Upstate New York. He did prompt some wondering, though.

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

And, before you know it, I turned 64, it turned July, and it was time to make the TGIF lists. In addition to SCOTUS shenanigans, and insurrection insights, there was some Biden bluster that needed to be added to a list.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement  on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

See you later - I've got a couple of drafts I hope to get out of purgatory, and I'll give Sunday School a shot as well. 

TGIF 7/1/22

It's list-making time again; here are a few of the likely suspects for good week or bad ween mention.

Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Mark 'That's Me in My Rusty Trailer, Yes Siree Bob!' Meadows, former president Trump's fourth Chief of Staff, has been attacked practically since she began her testimony under oath before the January 6th Committee. Which, if you've paid any attention over the last several years, usually is a sign a person's doing some damage in Trumpworld.

The attacking, of course, is coming from anonymous sources, or from right-wing commentators, and from the former president himself. I think he actually paid her a compliment: he said he hardly knew her, which means that what she said she observed or heard while working just steps from the door of the Oval Office, or while she was in the tent at the Steal the Damn Election rally, is probably true. 

She cannot be held to account for what she said she was told by others, but surely if they think she lied or misrepresented them, their lawyers can probably figure out how to get hold of Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Liz Cheney, or any other member of the Committee. 

And no, for the folks in denial, the committee hearings are not a trial, the House is not a courtroom, and if you wanted to have the chance to cross-examine someone, maybe your guy Kevin 'I Might Not Be Your Speaker Much Longer' McCarthy hadn't played his cards so badly, you might not be in this situation now. 

• Good week: Hutchinson, until someone contradicts her under oath.
• Bad week: Meadows, Trump.
• Mixed week: Cheney, for her unforced error of hugging Hutchinson after her testimony.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

Finally, the 2021-2022 term of the Supreme Court has come to an end, with many late decisions that, while not unexpected, sent shockwaves throughout the country. There was joy in Mudville, and there was mud in Joyville. There were some strange crossover decisions, with conservatives joining the liberals, and vice versa which confused a lot of people. Justice Stephen Breyer officially retired, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in, ready to start on the first Monday in October.

• Good week: the Religious Right, the NRA, and Mitch McConnell, who is probably most responsible for two of Trump's justices being on the Court.
• Bad week: women, government as we know it, well-regulated militias, and people who don't think religious coercion is a good thing.
• Mixed week: immigration and climate policies.

On the above, we may not yet know the real impact of this term, what the new "conservative" majority means, and how much further backward, or sideways, we'll go in the 2022-2023 term.

TGIF, everyone.