In Case You Missed It (v101)

Here's your recap of last week's posts. It seems some of the posts in my head didn't make it to the interwebs; hopefully I can work on that this week, so I can get some sleep.

I started the week Ranting and Raving about our glorified Wild West culture, where in Texas - where else? - a man who was robbed at an ATM shot several rounds, and several more, in the general direction of where the person who robbed may or not have been, he didn't really know. 

It was also in the direction of a family's vehicle, and the nine-year-old little girl inside who died as a result of what people are laughably calling self-defense. The shooter was not charged with a crime, but he "continues to grieve for" the little girl and, according to his attorney, "the grand jury made the right decision and that the person responsible for her death is the robber." 

The murderer, they said, 

did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for (the murderer).

I'm sorry, but there is zero justice being served here, 

• Unless you think that an idiot who's so dumb, he'd shoot at a random vehicle in the ATM line deserves justice. 
• Unless you think that an innocent nine-year-old little girl is acceptable collateral damage for a robbery. 
• Unless you think that a person who shoots at a stranger's vehicle in an ATM line is acting in self-defense, when he doesn't even know whether the person who robbed him is in that car, or any other car in the ATM line.

This stuff is just nuts.

Also nuts? Sunday School, although I think it's better now that I focus on a single classroom instead of wandering up and down the halls. Last week's featured classroom was Face the Nation, where Sen. Joe Manchin made an appearance and explained that he hadn't changed his mind on things - he had just opened his eyes, or something. 

 ...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.

For your Extra Credit, I listened in as my favorite Fed banker, Neel Kashkari, talked economics with John Dickerson. On the question of whether implementing a minimum 15% corporate tax would hurt supplies and increase inflation, Kashkari said we need to focus on the short-term,  

the demand side effects totally swamp the supply side effects. And so, when I look at a bill that's being considered, that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years it's not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It's not going to affect how I analyze inflation over the next few years. I think long-term it may have some effect. But, over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it's really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down. 

For some reason, whatever I was Wondering on Wednesday didn't make it out of my head. I'm blaming the heat, the humidity, no A/C, and the fact that I don't have a light on my screened porch which means I can't write out there at night.

On Thursday, I threw it back to Sunday School from two years ago that day; Mick Mulvaney, former Trump budget guy, former Trump acting chief of staff, former Trump "dude sent to Ireland to get him out of the way," former Trump supporter, talked with Chuck Todd on MTP about mass shootings; the show was on right after the El Paso and Dayton murders.  

Let's just say they were both, well, they were both their 'best' selves. Here's some of their exchange, talking about Trump and his "dehumanizing rhetoric. Todd asked, "Is he not the president of all Americans here? It does seem as if he's always more worried about how his base is going to react to something than how the American, you know, moral fabric is protected?

He absolutely is the president of all Americans, alright...Listen, we're going to have policy discussions, but my guess is, you show me how you feel about the president, and I'll show you who you think was responsible for the shooting. 

Todd did not drop it there, adding "well, unfortunately, it does appear this was a political motive of this domestic terrorist." And here was Mulvaney's final thought.

This was a political motive by a crazy person with a gun. How do we stop crazy people from getting guns? That's a - -if we can't agree on that, if we can't figure out a way to prevent that from happening, there's very little hope for this nation. Let's try and fix what allows sick people to get these types of weapons.

Here we are, two years later, with the same arguments and the same lack of 'real' action, and, to a large degree, the same "very little hope for this nation." Mulvaney's words, remember - not mine. 

Finally, I attempted the good week/bad week stuff in TGIF. There was lots going on, but much of the post dealt with the Senate and their efforts - partisan and bipartisan - to get things accomplished. There was the Inflation Reduction Act, and the PACT Act, and more.

Speaking of the PACT Act, here's an excerpt from a WaPo editorial congratulating those who fought for the bill's passage, and blasting the Rs delaying the bill "at the last minute...and used to score political points..."

The objections hinged on a technicality: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) had raised concerns about reclassifying existing toxic-exposure benefits from discretionary spending to mandatory. He argued that this move could free up space in the discretionary budget for legislators to spend on other programs.

Officials, including Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, warned that keeping those benefits in the discretionary budget could force the agency to “ration” care, and pointed out that the measure had bipartisan support in June. That did not stop Republican lawmakers from characterizing the bill as an insidious attempt by Democrats to spend hundreds of billions on unrelated causes.

As I get ready to post this, they're still at it in the Senate; the Rs are still fighting, but the Dems are holding strong. We'll see how long it takes for the 'vote-a-rama' to end.

See you later for Sunday School, if not sooner. 

TGIF 8/5/22

Let's see if we can find some good week/bad week list makers, shall we?

Trump-endorsed, Big Lie supporting Kari Lake has won the Arizona GOP gubernatorial primary. As did Trump, Lake "on various occasions during the campaign... has hinted at supposed attempts to steal the primary election, but she has refused to provide any evidence to support her claims."  Sound familiar? 

We'll have to wait a bit, probably not long, to see if she'll declare the general election is rigged, too. Her Democratic opponent? Katie Hobbs, the woman who certified Arizona's 2020 vote, something Lake thinks is worthy of incarceration.

My verdict? Lake had a good week; Arizona had a bad week. 

How about Ted Cruz? First,  he got hammered over his 'no' vote on the PACT Act by Jon Stewart; and then, there was this nonsense for FBI Director Christopher Wray. Cruz, you see, "slammed his boot on the table in opposition to FBI guidelines on symbols that indicate extremist groups." Here's what he said to Wray.

Also included on this text that I was particularly struck(by) is the Gonzales Battle Flag – Come and take it – as indicative of being a violent extremist militia. Well, I will self-report right now that every day in the Senate, I wear my boots that have the Gonzales battle flag on the back of them. Director Wray, what are y'all doing? This makes no sense. Do you agree with this FBI guidance? That the Betsy Ross flag, and the Gadsden flag and the Gonzales Battle Flag, are signs of militia violent extremism.

What's this all about, you ask? A document was leaked to Project Veritas by an FBI 'whistleblower. Cruz's outrage is laughable; after all, the leaked document states, in bold font, 

The use or sharing of these symbols alone should not independently be considered evidence of Militia Violent Extremists presence or affiliation, or serve as an indicator of illegal activity, as many individuals use these symbols for their original, historic meaning, or other non-violent purposes.

I'm not sure why Cruz has the Gonzales Battle Flag on his boots; I'd guess it's probably 50/50 original meaning/militia violent extremist; or, maybe it's just because the boots slam better when they're embellished.

My verdict: Cruz is a self-serving jerk and it's against my religion to give him good week. 

Speaking of the PACT Act, here's an excerpt from a WaPo editorial congratulating those who fought for the bill's passage, and blasting the Rs delaying the bill "at the last minute...and used to score political points..."

The objections hinged on a technicality: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) had raised concerns about reclassifying existing toxic-exposure benefits from discretionary spending to mandatory. He argued that this move could free up space in the discretionary budget for legislators to spend on other programs.

Officials, including Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, warned that keeping those benefits in the discretionary budget could force the agency to “ration” care, and pointed out that the measure had bipartisan support in June. That did not stop Republican lawmakers from characterizing the bill as an insidious attempt by Democrats to spend hundreds of billions on unrelated causes.

In the end, only 11 Rs voted against it - fewer than the original nays - and Toomey's amendment failed. 

My verdict: supporters (including Stewart) who fought for the bill, online or while camped out on the Capitol steps, had a good week; the GOP senators who changed their votes in July and delayed the bill, only to pass it anyway? A bad week, all around. 

The jury deciding the fate of Nicholas Cruz, who killed 17 and 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, visited the high school and walked through the crime scene. I can't imagine what that must have been like, but the author of the linked article captured it well, I think, in these thoughtfully written passages.

In one classroom,

... students had written papers about Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by the Taliban for going to school and has since been a global advocate for educational access for women and girls. 

One of the students wrote: "A bullet went straight to her head but not her brain." Another read, "We go to school every day of the week and we take it all for granted. We cry and complain without knowing how lucky we are to be able to learn." 

In another? 

... Hanging on a wall inside was a sign reading, "No Bully Zone." The creative writing assignment for the day was written on the whiteboard: "How to write the perfect love letter." 

And, there was this. 

...still gracing the wall of a second-floor hallway was a quote from James Dean: "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."

My verdict: what a gut-wrenching experience that must have been for the jurors; I give all 22 of them a lot of credit, and my thanks for their service.

There was another trial going on this week, in Texas, where a jury awarded the family of Jesse Lewis, a six-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim, $4.11M in compensatory damages. The money is to be paid by right-wing media blowhard Alex Jones of Infowars fame, who spent years saying the shooting was a "false flag operation," the families were "crisis actors," and the children weren't dead. 

My verdict: without sharing all the gory details on why (you can find them here), Judge Maya Guerra Gamble had a good week. Jones had a bad week, obviously. His attorney, who (ahem) 'mistakenly' sent the plaintiff's attorney two years of Jones' texts had a bad week, (unless he did it on purpose). That the January 6th Committee has requested Jones' texts, and the plaintiff's attorney is cooperating, might just be icing on the cake. 

NOTE: the jury has just awarded $45.2M in punitive damages. 

And finally, I must mention Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, my two senators. Gillibrand was one of the senators who introduced a bill to get health care for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits; provisions from the original bill were incorporated into the PACT Act.

While she was busy doing that, Schumer was busy working with Sen. Joe Manchin; the two struck a deal on the Inflation Reduction Act, which should come up for vote tomorrow. That's only possible because, after he got Manchin on board, Schumer worked to get Sen. Kyrsten Sinema on board, too. The bill is different from the version before the wheeling and dealing, but if all goes well, it'll pass tomorrow. 

So, perhaps for the first time, both of my senators had themselves a good week. 

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 7/31/22: Extra Credit

Picking up where we left off with your Sunday School, we're back in the Face the Nation classroom with John Dickerson and Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. 

If I had to pick a favorite Fed banker, he'd be it; I've learned from and enjoyed his interviews. 

Kashkari's concerned about inflation, of course, saying that it's "higher than we expect. And it's not just a few categories. It's spreading out more broadly across the economy." And that, of course, explains why the Fed is "acting with such urgency" to rein it in.

He said that while wages are going up, they're not keeping up with inflation, so "real wages, real income" are going down. He also gave a simple definition of inflation. 

Just at its basic level, inflation is when demand is outstripping supply. We know supply is low because of supply chains, because of the war in Ukraine, because of COVID. We hoped that supply would come online more quickly. That hasn't happened. So, we have to get demand down into balance. Now, I hope we get some help on the supply side. But that doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its job to do, and we are committed to doing it.

And what does "help on the supply side" look like? Kashkari said he speaks with "global businesses" that are working on getting their supply chains "sorted out" so they can have products on shelves and meet demand. Some progress is being made, he said, but "it's taking a lot longer than they thought," and longer than he thought, too, which is why the Fed's efforts are needed.

Dickerson mentioned his conversations with Sens. Manchin and Toomey about taxing corporations that aren't paying a minimum tax now. He wondered if that would hurt supplies and increase inflation.

Kashkari said that's the same thing people say about raising interest rates, and he also talked about the difference between the long-term, where both higher taxes and higher interest rates could have an impact, and the short-term, which is where we have to focus now, because 

the demand side effects totally swamp the supply side effects. And so, when I look at a bill that's being considered, that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years it's not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It's not going to affect how I analyze inflation over the next few years. I think long-term it may have some effect. But, over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it's really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down. 

Recession was a topic, too: whether we're in one, and why it matters - or not. Kashkari said "it really matters when Americans feel it, especially in the job market, especially in the job market, that's the most important part of the economy, so to speak, for Americans is their job." 

Do they have a decent place to work and earning decent wages? And, typically, recessions are -- they demonstrate why job losses, high unemployment, those are terrible for American families. And we're not seeing anything like that. The labor market, so far, is very strong. We are seeing some sectors, like the tech sector, start to shed workers or start to cool down in hiring. But fundamentally, the labor market appears to be very strong.

This is the reason why President Biden said, to equal parts dismay and delight, "that doesn't sound like a recession to me." Kashkari did say that "GDP, the amount the economy is producing, appears to be shrinking." These are the "mixed signals" that everyone's trying to figure out - mostly by talking to Larry Summers, it seems. 

Kashkari isn't focused on that so much.

From my perspective, in terms of getting inflation in check, whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn't change my analysis. I'm focused on the inflation data. I'm focused on the wage data. And, so far, inflation continues to surprise us to the upside. Wages continue to grow. So far, the labor market is very, very strong. And that means whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its own work to do, and we are committed to doing it.

And, a final thought on GDP: Dickerson said when it goes down, "isn't that kind of what the Fed's trying to do, slow down growth...?" Kashkari said they "definitely want to see some slowing," and that they don't want the economy to overheat. And, he was honest about the situation; he admitted there's "not a great record" of transitioning to a "sustainable economy" without pushing it into recession.

Typically, when the economy slows down, it slows down by quite a bit, especially if it's the central bank that is inducing the slowdown. So, we're going to do everything we can to try to avoid a recession, but we are committed to bringing inflation down and we are going to do what we need to do. And we are a long way away from achieving an economy that is back at 2 percent inflation. And that's where we need to get to.

Are you feeling the recession, or are you just feeling inflation? Or, maybe you're lucky and aren't feeling the pinch at all? Chime in if you like.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/31/22

CBS won the billion-dollar classroom lottery today, so we'll have highlights from Face the Nation for Sunday School and your Extra Credit. John Dickerson sat in for Margaret Brennan. 

We'll start with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and then listen in as Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) chimes in. 

Manchin denied that he had "changed his mind" on anything; rather, the Inflation Reduction Act he agreed to with Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fights inflation, which is what he wanted. And, he said, the bill doesn't raise taxes.

...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.

Dickerson explained the "Republican criticism" that closing loopholes increases taxes which hurts supply, and during inflation you need a lot of supply. Manchin, sounding almost like a Democrat, said

In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And it's been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didn't drive it...

Dickerson said Manchin's GOP colleagues think he and Schumer "did something underhanded" by saying 'no deal' and then making a deal. He quoted Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said this was "a declaration of political warfare." Manchin's reaction?

It's such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. He's such a good man. And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other. 

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

-- you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust... Susan Collins said: "It's a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," in other words, whether it's on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.

Manchin said he considers Collins a "very dear friend," but said he "never told anybody" he wasn't going to do something. 

If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didn't do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me... we were able to provide these solutions. Let's not make them political, John." 

Next up? Sen. Toomey, and Dickerson stayed with the Inflation Reduction Act, asking for Toomey's "principal critique."

Well, it's going to make inflation worse, actually. So, they've got a big corporate tax increase that's going to probably make this recession that we're in worse... this spending is unnecessary. It's going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

He's a big fan of his friend Joe Manchin, but said Manchin "got taken to the cleaners." He agreed to a bunch of bad policy, and in return he was promised "there's going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future."

Dickerson noted that The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a "fan" of Toomey's, said that this new bill "would be the first time in many years" that reconciliation was used for deficit reduction. Others have said the same thing, but Toomey disagrees.

... they use the same gimmick that Sen. Manchin said he was opposed to in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year window from their big tax increase, and their price controls. And then the expenditure that they acknowledge, they pretend is only going to be for three years. That's the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. That's an obvious political payoff. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It's about to expire. And they can't - - they can't have it expire before an election. So, they're extending it, but only for three years. They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies. Over a 10- year window, that wipes out the purported deficit reduction.

Dickerson didn't question the comment about "wealthy Americans" getting the health insurance subsidies, or the fact that many very much not wealthy Americans would lose their insurance without the subsidies; I wish he had.

Toomey said the supporters of the bill aren't "taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this big corporate tax increase that will mostly hurt manufacturing and domestic investment..." And he explained how the GOP tax cut was supposed to work, how allowing businesses to make capital investments (new plants, new equipment, etc.) and deduct the cost in the same year caused a "huge surge in capital expenditure" and the Dems will "raise the cost of investing in a business."

Folks at the Brookings Institution who studied this would disagree with Cornyn, as would the IMF, but I'm sure he has experts that would say he's right.

They moved on to the PACT Act, which would provide health care to veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins from burn pits. The Senate shot the bill down, even though they voted for it in June. Cornyn said they want an amendment to "change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans' health care," because the Dems added a provision that's "designed to change government accounting rules, so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree."

Toomey said that the Rs are "fully accepting" the deficit will grow due to the PACT Act - "we accept that as a price we have to pay for people who serve the country." He objects to

a budgetary gimmick, a sleight of hand in accounting rules, that will allow totally unrelated spending of $400 billion over the next 10 years. 

There was more discussion, where Toomey accused Dickerson of being "totally incorrect" in his assessment of Toomey's amendment; Dickerson said "it actually caps annual expenditures for the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it goes away."  However, Toomey argued,

What it caps is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no cap on the amount of money that goes over. There is no cap on the total program. Look, if -- honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you, if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans' programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it.

Dickerson noted Cornyn may be consistent on the deficit, but many of his colleagues aren't, and asked "why is it important to be fastidious when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to, say, supporting chip manufacturers?"

Because, John, once again, you're completely mischaracterizing this... most Republicans think we shouldn't loosen up the budget rules so that Democrats can go on a spending spree on things that have nothing to do with veterans' health care.

To which Dickerson responded,

 Of course, Democrats have to be in charge in the future when that spending happens, and they may very well not be. 

See you around campus.

Ranting and Raving (v9): Getting Away with Murder

I almost don't even know where to start with this one, it's so horrifying and so incredibly painful and so insanely stupid, it's hard to even talk about. 

Back in February, in Texas, of course, a nine-year-old girl was shot and killed by a guy who was robbed at an ATM. Here's the story from Houston's KWTX.

Police said the victim of a bank ATM robbery, Tony D. Earls, 41, is in custody charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after Earls fired his gun at the wrong vehicle, striking and killing an innocent 9-year-old girl.

Earls, the robbery victim, was at the bank’s ATM drive-through making a transaction when an armed robber appeared on foot and robbed Earl at gunpoint.

According to investigators, Earls took out a weapon and fired several rounds in the direction of the suspect, but it’s unknown if the suspect, who is still at large, fired back.

The robbery victim then fired several rounds “at a pickup truck he thought the robbery suspect had gotten into,” police said.

The vehicle’s occupants, a family of five, were not involved in the robbery, police said, adding a stray bullet struck a 9-year-old girl in the backseat of the pickup. She was taken to Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, where she later died.

 Earls did not know the stray bullet struck the girl when he called police to report the robbery.

It goes to show that anytime there are guns involved, the danger to innocent bystanders is extremely high,” said Houston Police Executive Chief Matt Slinkard.

And then, in July, this happened.

HOUSTON — The family of a 9-year-old Houston girl who died after she was shot by a man who had opened fire when he was robbed at an ATM said Wednesday they remain angered by a grand jury’s decision to not indict the man.

“That was not an accident. That was not self-defense,” April Aguirre, the aunt of Arlene Alvarez said during a news conference as a photograph of the girl as she lay in a hospital bed bloodied and bandaged shortly before her death was shown.

Tony Earls, 41, had been charged with aggravated assault, serious bodily injury, in Alvarez’s Feb. 14 death. A Harris County grand jury in Houston on Tuesday could have indicted him on this charge or several others, including manslaughter and murder, but declined to do so.

And this is not a surprise - at least, it's not a surprise in Texas, where everything is bigger, including the stupid stuff. 

Texas law “gives very, very broad self-defense rights for people carrying guns, even if the person makes a mistake,” said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

The murderer's attorney said the robber fired and the murderer "fired back in self-defense," and the murderer "continues to grieve for Alvarez but that the grand jury made the right decision and that the person responsible for her death is the robber." The murderer, they said, 

did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for (the murderer).

I'm sorry, but there is zero justice being served here, 

• Unless you think that an idiot who's so dumb he'd shoot at a random vehicle in the ATM line deserves justice. 
• Unless you think that an innocent nine-year-old little girl is acceptable collateral damage for a robbery. 
• Unless you think that a person who shoots at a stranger's vehicle in an ATM line is acting in self-defense, when he doesn't even know whether the person who robbed him is in that car, or any other car in the ATM line.
• Unless you think that someone's going to rob a guy at an ATM by driving up to it, getting in line behind other cars, parking his car, getting out, walking up to the car at the head of the line, robbing the drive, going back to his car, getting in, starting it up, and sitting in line until cars move and he can get out of line and drive away. Maybe ATM robbers are that dumb in Texas, but up here, they'd have come on foot, hidden in the bushes, approached your car, stolen your money, and run away. 

There's also especially zero justice being served here if you believe that the only person or entity responsible for a murder is the person who pulls the trigger, which of course is what you tell us all the time. It's never anyone other than the shooter himself, 

• unless it's bad parenting;
• unless it's video games and movies;
• unless it's not saying prayers in school;
• unless it's too much screen time;
• unless it's woke corporations;
• unless it's socialism and critical race theory;
• unless it's red flags that were missed;
• unless it's red flags that weren't missed.

Yeah, unless that last bullet. 

Rick Ramos, the attorney for the Alvarez family, said Wednesday that (the murderer's) actions were reckless and he questioned whether (the murderer) was capable of carrying a weapon as his lawyers had indicated in court records that he had suffered from mental illness before the shooting.

Chew on that for a second. The guy had known mental health issues? The things we're supposed to be worried about?

Aren't we always told that we need to make sure that there's plenty of money that "may" be used for mental programs, and that schools and teachers and coaches and friends and classmates and neighbors and scout leaders and pastors (oh wait, it's never the pastors' fault, what was I thinking?) and everyone else need to identify these issues and make sure they tell someone?

And don't we know, for certain, that mental health issues are why we have so many shootings here? 

Heck, even the NRA tells us that - here's some of what they were telling us back in 2013:

Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”

Of course, the NRA also said this, and yes, the emphasis is mine:

A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so would actually discourage troubled people from getting the help they need.

Chew on that for a second. Keeping a person from having a gun will keep them from getting the mental health care they need?

What the actual hell? Isn't the very decision to get a gun instead of getting treatment for a mental health problem enough of an indication that the person shouldn't have a gun? 

Nope - not in Texas. 

Because Texas doesn't have red flag laws. 

Because Republican legislators Texas, last year, made it possible for anyone, regardless of anything, to carry handguns without a background check and without any training. 

In a nutshell, a person in Texas needs to do exactly as much to get and carry a gun as a nine-year-old little girl needs to do to go with her parents to the ATM: absolutely nothing.

But have no fear: while justice was served here for the murderer, the 'real' killer is still out there... you know, like the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson is still out there.

... investigators planned to focus on finding the unidentified robber and holding him responsible for Alvarez’s death, with authorities now offering a $30,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.

Clearly, the person responsible for the murder of a child is not the person who murdered her. It's not the shooter, like we've always been told. It's not the guy who has known mental health issues, who "took out a weapon and fired several rounds in the direction of the suspect" and then fired several more “at a pickup truck he thought the robbery suspect had gotten into.” 

It's the guy who robbed the guy who did all of that. 

In Case You Missed It (v100)

Gather 'round, friends - it's time for your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

The week started with your Sunday School lesson, from ABC's This Week, with Jon Karl sitting in for George Stephanopoulos. Rep. Adam Kinzinger was one of the guests. Karl talked about AG Merrick Garland's statement that no one is above the law, not even a former president. Kinzinger agreed that it seems "more likely now" that we'll see the prosecution of a former president, and that he "hopes they're moving forward on it." 

Here's what came next.

Karl's response? 

So, you -- you hope that there will be a prosecution of Trump himself. Even -- I mean, this is -- I mean, you just have to take a step back here. This is a guy who is sounding like he’s going to run again, so he would be being prosecuted by the president that he is potentially running against.

Kinzinger was clear when he answered.

Look, I worry about everything that has happened for the last few years. And really, I worry about everything that could happen in the future, and that includes things like, you know, what happens if a president’s running for office and he’s indicted, how does that feel? But, the converse of that is, what happens if we don’t do anything? What happens if we look and say, well, he’s running again, we’re concerned how it’s going to look, so that, like, whole coup attempt thing, let’s just up that behind us and hope it never happens again? Because it will happen again.

We all should be worried about this, including those in the House and Senate who were active participants. 

For your Extra Credit, we checked in on Karl's chat with term-limited Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD); I've often referred to him as my favorite Republican, mostly because he is a Republican, not a Trump-pandering RINO. Here's a bit of the conversation after Karl's comments about one of them, Dan Cox (Hogan's called him a "QAnon whackjob"). He won the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Cox had support from the moronic Democratic Governors Association, and after playing one of the DGA ads, Karl said that even though the ad was "a cynical effort" voters responded to it.

Hogan said that's not quite correct. 

So, first of all, only 20 percent of the people in Maryland are Republican, and 20 percent of them showed up to the polls. So about 2 percent of the people in Maryland voted for this guy. It's not going to be the same in November, I can tell you that. So, it's not a big win. It's really a loss. 

And, obviously, Hogan won't be supporting Cox.

I would not support the guy. I wouldn't let him in the governor's office, let alone vote for him for the governor's office.

Hogan's planning on staying involved after he's out of office, which I think is good. 

On Tuesday, I did a Quick Take on the failure of the Secret Service to secure texts (and frankly, who knows what else) from December 2020 and January 2021. It's inconceivable to me that, in response to a DHS OIG request, there was only a single relevant text during that time period.

The Secret Service submitted the responsive records it identified, namely, a text message conversation from former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to former Secret Service Uniformed Division Chief Thomas Sullivan requesting assistance on January 6, 2021, and advised the agency did not have any further records responsive to the DHS OIG's request for text messages.

For a full month, there was only one text? Seriously? And that text was from a former employee of the Capitol Police to a former Secret Service employee? How incredibly convenient that all seems.

I've done so much wondering lately - way more than makes it into the weekly Wondering on Wednesday posts. This week, I decided to give myself a break from the head-banging and from doing any heavy lifting about the House Oversight Committee's hearing with gun company execs. 

Instead, I shared a few memes from my files; here's one of them.

I also included some clips from the hearing, including a couple from Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA).

On Thursday, I shared a throwback Sunday School post from July 28, 2019. Why that post? Because it featured two people who are currently in the news. 

One's Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who appears to be lobbying to become the next Speaker of the House, assuming the Dems hold their majority and that Nancy Pelosi stays true to her word to not stay in the role. Back in 2019, though, he was talking about impeachment. 

The other? Andrew Yang, then a presidential candidate, and now one of the founders of the Forward Party. His conversation with Chris Wallace, former host of Fox News Sunday, was interesting, and it's in keeping with his vision for the new party.

Wallace wondered if Yang would attack the front-runners, as a way of getting more air time.

 I don't think that we benefit if I'm throwing rocks at other candidates when, frankly, I agree with them on many, many issues. And I think right now my focus really is on introducing myself to the American people. 

You can read more about his new idea in our TGIF entry, where I credited him with a mixed week. Another in the same boat? Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He spoke at a conference in Rome, hosted by Notre Dame, the university in Indiana, and talked about the global reaction to his decision in the Dobbs case.

He also spent time talking about religious liberty, saying

It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection...  Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. 

So, what list did he end up on? 

Alito the man had a good week, I guess, for finding a place where his beliefs are widely accepted. Alito the justice? Bad week. As with the other justices, the less time they spend before partisan groups espousing their beliefs, the better.

I'll see you back here later with a Quick Take or two, Sunday School, and maybe more.

TGIF 7/29/22

It's good week/bad week time again. Let's dive in; I'll tell you which list I put them on, and you're welcome to chime in with your opinions.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke earlier this month in Rome  at a conference sponsored by the University of Notre Dame. During his keynote address, Alito was heard "mocking foreign leaders who lamented his opinion doing away with a half-century of federal constitutional protection for abortion rights in the US." 

He also spent time talking about religious liberty, saying

It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection...  Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. 

His personal beliefs are fine, but they're none of my business - not to mention that millions of Americans disagree with him. The problem with him expressing them is the appearance that they influence his decisions, as could his appearance at a conference sponsored by the Religious Liberty Institute at Notre Dame. The article notes that "The institute or its faculty members have filed amicus briefs in at least five Supreme Court cases on religious freedom issues."

Alito the man had a good week, I guess, for finding a place where his beliefs are widely accepted. Alito the justice? Bad week. As with the other justices, the less time they spend before partisan groups espousing their beliefs, the better.

Andrew Yang, former presidential and NYC mayoral candidate, has officially formed a third party - the Forward Party - with two Republicans: David Jolly, a former Florida congressman, and Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey. 

The linked New York Magazine article notes the Forward Party relies on polls showing dissatisfaction with the current situation in the US, and "showing that “roughly half” of Americans would call themselves independents." Using That Guy from Vermont as an example, the author points out how labels mean different things to different people. 

And, while support for a third party is high, according to Gallup, "that doesn’t mean that many people will actually join one.

Yang, Jolly, and Whitman have their work cut out for them. I'll give them a mixed week - they're trying, and people are talking about them, even if what's being said is not all good. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having a bad week. There's her husband's stock activity, and there's her Asian trip, and a potential visit to Taiwan, which is causing agita on both sides of the Pacific.

But instead of treating the trip like a regular one-off congressional visit... which usually prompts a sternly worded letter from the Chinese Embassy, China has responded to the potential of Pelosi visiting the island by repeatedly upbraiding American counterparts, leaving the Biden administration wondering if Beijing is serious about provoking another crisis in the Taiwan Strait over the speaker’s arrival. 

Stateside, she's "left President Joe Biden's team in a no-win situation - even if it doesn't prompt a serious crisis." Even some Dems are questioning it, as are Republicans.

To the degree that it’s not exactly in America’s interest to drive a crisis right now, then that probably wasn’t particularly well chosen.

To me, it's a mess of her own making, and completely unnecessary for her, and for us.

Will Smith made a video. You can decide for yourself how this is helpful, and to whom.

Donald Trump had a bad week, for two reasons. 

First, he stuck his bone spurs in it with comments about 9/11. Trump's hosting the Saudi-backed LIV Golf Tour at his Bedminster, NJ course, which is not all that far from the site of the former World Trade Center. Families of 9/11 victims condemned his hosting the tourney in a letter which told of their "extreme pain, frustration, and anger," and quoted Trump's own words from 2016:

 … Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis – it was Saudi. Take a look at Saudi Arabia. Open the documents. We ought to get Bush or somebody to have the documents opened because frankly, if you open the documents, I think you are going to see it was Saudi Arabia … 

But what's he saying now, when he's got the world's attention (and plenty of Saudi money flowing to his business)?

Well, nobody’s gotten to the bottom of 9/11, unfortunately, and they should have, as to the maniacs that did that horrible thing to our city, to our country, to the world, so nobody’s really been there. But I can tell you there are a lot of really great people that are out here today and we’re going to have a lot of fun and we’re going to celebrate.

Staying with the tournament, it seems Bedminster is again using the Presidential Seal "on various items, including golf carts," despite previous complaints, and despite a law against using it this way.

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”   

Given the previous complaints, it seems "the Trump Bedminster golf course is aware of, or  should be, that using the seal is illegal, but is using it anyway."  What a surprise.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 7/27/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm not really feeling the wondering tonight. Truth be told, some of it is the same stuff I've wondered off an on for ages, it seems, and I won't bore you with that.  

Instead, let's ponder these memes together. 

I share these particular memes because today's the day the House Oversight Committee invited gun manufacturer CEOs to Capitol Hill for a chat. Two - Daniel Defense and Storm, Ruger participated. Smith and Wesson didn't. 

Here are a few clips that made it to Twitter by the time I nosed around a bit. You can watch the full hearing here.

• Rep. Katie Porter wondering if Daniel Defense would add safety features to their guns
• Rep. Katie Porter wondering why her phone has more safety features than guns
• Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi wondering about gun marketing
• Rep. Ro Khanna wondering if gun manufacturers would track crimes committed with their product
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wondering about white supremacist marketing by gun manufacturers
• Rep. Nancy Mace wondering about liability

Wonder, if you want, about the memes, or about these clips, or anything else on this issue. The comment line is always open.

Quick Takes (v66):Really? Only One?

Do you believe members of the Secret Service didn't send any texts on January 5-6, 2021?

Do you believe there was a "planned system migration" that began in January 2021 which required no advance data backup?

Do you believe all Secret Service agents and employees correctly identified and flagged anything that should be saved for posterity?

And do you believe the spy agency is unable to recover any data from the phones? I mean, they're spies, right? It's right in their name that they 'service secrets,' for Pete's sake. 

Maryland's Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the House January 6th Committee, appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and was asked if he's buying what the Secret Service is telling the Committee, and the American public about the text messages. Raskin said he "really doesn't buy that for one minute." 

More importantly, I think, was that he reminded us that everyone in the Capitol that night was reaching out to loved ones - children, spouses, parents - because they thought they might never see them again. And so, he said, it was not surprising to the Committee that the Secret Service would be doing the same thing. 

And, by extension, I think it's logical that they might also have been reaching out to others at the USSS, other departments where they had contacts, other protective details, and so on - not to say goodbye, but to find out what the heck was going on in other parts of the building or outside the building, or to beg for help, to ask when help was going to get there, to ask why help wasn't coming - you know, things like that. 

According to Anthony Guglielmi, Chief of Communications for the USSS who said in a statement to The Hill, there's really no reason for Raskin or anyone else to be concerned. 

There’s no reason for us to say the texts were lost. I mean, how do you know that those people texted? They were told to upload their official records, and they did. So, this is partly what we’re going to communicate to the committee, all of the data that we have. People say texts were lost. How do you know texts were sent? 

One might ask how he's so sure official records were uploaded, and how he knows no texts were sent - because he does seem certain about that. 

There's an ongoing spat between the USSS and the DHS Office of Inspector General, which announced an ongoing criminal investigation after asking for a full month's worth of communications - from December 8 2020 through January 7, 2021 - from a couple dozen employees. That request was where the single text we've heard about was found.

The Secret Service submitted the responsive records it identified, namely, a text message conversation from former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to former Secret Service Uniformed Division Chief Thomas Sullivan requesting assistance on January 6, 2021, and advised the agency did not have any further records responsive to the DHS OIG's request for text messages.

For a full month, there was only one text? Seriously? And that text was from a former employee of the Capitol Police to a former Secret Service employee? How incredibly convenient that all seems.

And, yes, somehow the Secret Service confirmed that no texts were lost in the data migration. Because, again, according to Guglielmi,

DHS OIG requested electronic communications for the first time on Feb. 26, 2021, after the migration was well under way. The Secret Service notified DHS OIG of the loss of certain phones’ data, but confirmed to OIG that none of the texts it was seeking had been lost in the migration. 

So, to recap:

We only found one,

 which means there only was one, 

because we confirmed nothing was lost, 

and besides, who said anything was sent. 

Seriously - that's what we're supposed to believe? 

I'm with Raskin on this one - and with every other American who's ever gone through a data migration at work, or purchased a new desktop, laptop, or tablet, or who has ever changed phones, or phone carriers: I'm not buying it.

Sunday School 7/24/22: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School, we heard from Rep. Adam Kinzinger and from Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator; they talked with Jon Karl in ABC's This Week classroom. 

Today, we listen in with Karl and outgoing Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD), who I've often referred to as my favorite Republican. Here's Karl's first question; I thought it was kind of odd.

We hear that Donald Trump is upset that he doesn't see Republicans out on television responding to the hearings, defending him. Why – why is that Republican leaders have been essentially silent as these hearings have unfolded?

Um, maybe it's because they're finally coming to realize that there is no defending him, Jon?

Hogan said it was disappointing - referring to the silence, not the lack of defending Trump - even though this is "how they really felt right after it happened." And, Hogan said, while Trump was watching TV and doing nothing, he "was actually taking action." 

We had security team meetings. We called everybody together. It was, you know, mass chaos. We had the leaders of Congress begging for help. We were sending in the State Police riot team, which were one of the first to arrive after the Metropolitan Police, Maryland National Guard, the first to arrive after DC. We couldn't get approval from the secretary of defense. It was crazy.

He said the outtakes from Trump's messages were really the only thing that surprised him.

...it showed the real thinking... with those outtakes you could see the anger. You could see exactly what he was thinking. And that was the most moving part of the hearing for me.

Karl turned to the Maryland primary, in which Dan Cox, the gubernatorial candidate Hogan called a "QAnon whack job" was the winner; he asked Hogan what happened.

Well, it was, kind of, unprecedented collusion between the Democratic Governors Association and Donald Trump. And both of them were promoting a conspiracy theory believing kind of nut job. And DGA, I think, spent about $3 million. The guy only spent $100,000 on his campaign. So, it was a win for the Democrats. It's a big loss for the Republican Party. And we have no chance of saving that governor's seat. We actually had a chance if they hadn't gotten together and done that.

Karl played one of the DGA ads 'promoting' Cox, which ended saying he wasn't conservative enough for Maryland. He called it a "cynical effort, no question," and said that even so, "Republican voters...responded to it."

Hogan said that's not quite correct. 

So, first of all, only 20 percent of the people in Maryland are Republican, and 20 percent of them showed up to the polls. So about 2 percent of the people in Maryland voted for this guy. It's not going to be the same in November, I can tell you that. So, it's not a big win. It's really a loss. 

And, obviously, Hogan won't be supporting Cox.

I would not support the guy. I wouldn't let him in the governor's office, let alone vote for him for the governor's office.

Karl reflected on an April conversation, when Hogan said the upcoming Republican primaries "are going to determine what the Republican Party looks like." Karl pointed out that "we're through a lot of them" and hinted it wasn't looking good. Hogan's answer was straightforward.

-- in November of '20, right after the election, I spoke at the Reagan Institute here in DC, and I was the first person to say that this is going to be a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and it was going to be a long, tough fight, but that it was -- "Time for Choosing" was the name of the speech that I gave. And we're not there yet. I mean, it's -- we're only a year into the battle.

We have two more -- more than, you know, two years until the next election. But it's not going to be easy. We're going to win some; we're going to lose some. But I think the final chapter, you know, on some of this, will be in November, when we lose some races. You know... Trump already cost us the White House, the Senate, the House. Now he's costing us governor seats and Senate seats.

And will Trump run in 2024, Karl asked? Hogan said he "can't really put himself into the mind of Donald Trump" but guessed it's 50/50 that Trump runs. 

His -- his ego probably, you know, can't take another loss. After all, he lost to Joe Biden, which is hard to do. But he likes to be the center of attention.

Hogan said the RGA has discussed the potential of an early Trump '24 announcement.

...I think most people are very concerned about the damage it does to the party if he announces now. And, you know, it may help in very red states or very red districts, but in competitive places and purple battlefields, it's going to cost us seats if he were to do that.

And, what about Hogan and his plans for '24, and how were they effected by Cox's victory?

Well, it makes me more determined than ever to continue the battle to win the -- you know, win over the Republican Party, and take us back to a bigger tent, more Reaganesque party. Our -- we've got our work cut out for us. But I'm certainly not giving up.

In my opinion, the more intelligent people there are fighting for the soul of the Republican Party, the better.

A final note: here's what Chris Christie had to say about the 187 minutes of inaction by Trump during the panel discussion.

 Look, and as I’ve been saying since January of '21, this is going to happen slowly and incrementally. And you’re not going to see it until after it’s already happened and it’s already over. And the reason for that is the same thing that happened in 2016, right? In 2016 it wasn't politically correct to say you were voting for Donald Trump. So, he performed much lower in the polls than he wound up doing.

Now, in Republican primary polling, it's not politically correct to say you’re against Donald Trump or you’re for someone else. I think his numbers are artificially high. And I think this is happening slowly but surely in the party. And, look, what happened this week and the replay of that 187 minutes of what he was doing, I think, will have long-term, not 2022 impact, but 2024 impact.

One can only hope.

See you around campus.