In Case You Missed it (v119)

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

As usual, we started the week in the Sunday School classrooms, where I focused on immigration. Here's a bit of Margaret Brennan's conversation with Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK), who helped negotiate the immigration bill we heard so much about last week. 

Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or Independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

It was interesting that Lankford mentioned some of the country's mayors; so did Bakari Sellers. Here's a highlight in this snip from your Extra Credit.

He chastised the Ds who "have refused to pay attention to immigration and crime in this country, saying it really didn't exist, it wasn't a problem." What's needed now is the folks who have complained,

we need our good mayors, like Frank Scott from Little Rock, like Chokwe from Jackson, Mississippi, we need Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama, and we even need mayors who don't know what they're doing, like Eric Adams in New York City, to now simply stand up for this piece of legislation and say, 'this is what we need done.'

This has to be the messaging and the messengers who can get this done for the country. This is not a problem that you kick down the road... This is something you fix right now. This is a problem. Fix it.

That sure beats merely complaining about the other side, doesn't it?

Lankford was mentioned again in a Sidebar post, in which we learned that he had been censured by Oklahoma's State Republican Party... at least, that's what it looked like in the beginning. Here's a snip.

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

After news of the censure broke, things started to unravel for what we all thought was the OKGOP.

Interestingly, there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Three immigration-related posts in three days - and by then, I was more than ready for some Wondering on Wednesday. I won't lie - the Lankford censure popped up there, too, as did the Florida legislature. That group seems a bit unsettled by what's happening on the book-banning front.

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

Check the post to see what had me scratching my head on these topics, and a few others.  

I wrapped the week with a Meanwhile, Back in Albany entry on one of my favorite subjects, NY politicians and their gambling revenue addiction. 

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years...

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Now that the Legislature is back in session, we can see what's up for discussion.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds?  

There's a lot in the proposed bill to get riled up about, and I can assure you, riled I was.  

And just like that, you're up to date. Stay tuned for this week's posts - regular features, and more.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v47)

Here we go again, New York. 

We're losing gambling money to neighboring states, dammit, and we're not going to take it anymore!

First, there was the casino money we were hemorrhaging to neighboring states.

Then, it was sports betting at our casinos, something we needed, you know, to fund things like education and gambling addiction treatment, and to stop bleeding money to neighboring states. And to help our underperforming casinos, which were not generating nearly the revenue we expected. 

Then it was mobile sports betting, because, you know, funding education, even more gambling addiction treatment, and buying tourniquets to stop the blood loss from all that hemorrhaging we've been doing are important governmental functions, as is helping casinos addict more gamblers.

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years.

Why? Well, we're addicted to the money gambling brings in, of course, and the success of mobile sports betting can't be ignored. It's

spurring discussion to permit online casino gaming — also known as iGaming — in the state, allowing games like blackjack, roulette and others to be played from a mobile device.

And, of course, because of those darn neighboring states that already allow it. After all, as Sen. Joseph Addabbo, chair of the Senate's Addiction Funding Committee (sorry - the Racing, Gaming, & Wagering Committee), says

Other states surrounding us are doing it. We can do this. I think it's the conversation we have to have dictated by the poor fiscal situation we're going to be in next year.

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Fast forward to January 2024, and the legislation is being worked on in earnest. According to Addabbo 

It's a good bill. We got a lot of input from a lot of individuals, but it's a starting point. It's a starting point where I'm hoping that we can have these kinds of discussions during the budget process.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds? 

As proposed, the licensing fees for the iStuff would be a cool $2M, and revenues would be taxed at 30.5%, which could generate a billion dollars annually. And, of course, we're hemorrhaging that money to PA and NJ now. Once we get that back, we'll be in good shape, Addabbo thinks.

We need to look at the outyears, 2025, 2026, where according to the state comptroller the fiscal situation only gets worse, then we do need to figure out a sustainable plan both short-term and long-term and that is iGaming and iLottery.

And what about those problem gamblers? There's $11M in annual funding for "addiction services and supports." I'm not sure if that money is dedicated solely to gambling addicts, or if it covers all other causes of addiction as well. But we do need to act with urgency, it seems.

If we're serious about helping people with a gaming problem, knowing that they're doing iGaming anyway in New York, they're just doing it illegally, then you try to do it this year because that will actually help the New Yorker who is already participating in iGaming.

But wait - there's more! Progressive more!

To ensure "existing union casino employees" aren't threatened by the new option, there's a "a fund of at least $25M annually" towards training and supporting employees of private business enterprises - because that's the New York Way. Addabbo also said we may see more union jobs created because people will be able to sit in their jammies and play poker on their phones - with live dealers. I'm sure they'll be even more addicting than CGI dealers.

Anyone who's already allowed to feed our gambling addiction won't be ignored, either. Existing license holders, including "current video lottery terminal licensees, mobile sports betting operators, state-licensed and Native American casinos" can participate in the iJunk if they like.

I'll be following this one as we go through the legislative session.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/31/24

 Ready... set... wonder!

It's rare for me to update my wondering a mere seven days later, but that's where I find myself today. Last week I wondered about the stock market, what Trump thought of it when he was president, and how his thinking has changed.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, why am I wondering about this again, you might be asking?  Well, he apparently has changed his mind - again.  Not only is a booming market great again, it's all because of him! Because of his polls! Because everyone loves him and can't wait for him to be president again!

And I have to wonder, was he lying to me while he was in office, or was he lying to me over the past several weeks, or is he lying to me now?

I learned today that a judge in Delaware's Court of Chancery has tossed Elon Musk's Tesla compensation package, saying that $56 billion was an "unfathomable sum."  Kathaleen McCormick wrote in her decision, which is appealable, of course,

Swept up by the rhetoric of 'all upside,' or perhaps starry-eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?

The article I linked above has some interesting information of the corporate intrigue kind, including board members beholden to the CEO and shirking their responsibilities, angry shareholders (that's how the suit came to be), and my favorite piece of information, to which I've added the emphasis:

Amit Batish at Equilar, an executive pay research firm, estimated in 2022 that Musk's package was around six times larger than the combined pay of the 200 highest-paid executives in 2021.

I'm wondering, as I re-read that last part for the umpteenth time today, whether incentive-only compensation packages - according to the article, Musk didn't draw a Tesla salary - should have limits? And I also can't help wondering what a less Musk-friendly board would have done in the compensation negotiations.

In a Sidebar yesterday, I talked about the Oklahoma Republican Party voting to censure Sen. James Lankford, and how the meeting was subsequently deemed illegitimate by the 'real' OKGOP.  And what I'm wondering about here is simply this: how many other GOP organizations are at risk for this same kind of thing, where a cabal is bold enough, willing, and able to take over the party, even temporarily, and create this kind of havoc? And how long before we figure out they exist?

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

I'm not surprised pols are upset about the consequences of their anti-woke, anti-LGBTQ, anti-everything approach to school libraries; here's what really got to me in Legum's article.

The majority of book challenges in the United States came from 11 people. Two of the most prolific, Bruce Friedman and Vicki Baggett, hail from Florida.

Eleven people are responsible for the majority of book challenges in the United States? How can you not wonder with me how that's even possible?  Eleven people, out of a country of over 334,000,000? How does this even happen?

And finally, Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ) pulled less than zero punches in comments directed towards GOP members of the House Homeland Security Committee as they considered impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas.

According to the article, Menendez noted there've been plenty of hearings on the border, but none on things like "emergency preparedness, cyber threats, infrastructure protection, and more," all of which would be in the Committee's portfolio.

We have not lived up to our oversight obligation here on this committee because you all are obsessed with the border. Because you bend the knee to the ‘Orange Jesus’ as you refer to him across the aisle. 

You can watch the video of his comments here, and maybe wonder, as I often do, how much longer the folks in the House will keep it together.

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/28/24

One more thing before I leave the immigration discussion and move to greener pastures: it's been reported that the Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) has voted to censure US Sen. Jim Lankford, one of their own, for his efforts on the bipartisan bill we've heard so much about recently. 

(I didn't have room for Lankford in the recaps you can read here and here.)

Lankford has represented Oklahoma in the Senate since 2015, but apparently collaborating with the Dems and trying to solve a problem that legislators have either failed or refused to solve in decades is too much for them to take.  

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Lankford noted

It is interesting, Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in law. And now, it's interesting a few months later, when we're finally getting to the end, they're like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don't want a change in law.'

Other comments about the resolution were reported by KOKH, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City. The station's report noted the resolution said

Lankford's 'open border deal' directly conflicts with the GOP's values... We oppose a 'path to citizenship' that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means.

And, it included a statement from the (We're Not) OKGOP, signed by Wayne Hill, the party's Vice Chairman, which had this to say about the censure.

The State Committee of the Oklahoma Republican party, the Supreme Authority of the OKGOP, has condemned the actions of Senator James Lankford. The resolution calls on Senator Lankford to "cease and desist jeopardizing the security and liberty of the people of Oklahoma and of these United States." Further, "until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions, the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.

Today's meeting was attended by 172 active Republicans from all across Oklahoma. the 124 voting members of the State Committee resoundingly approved this resolution and others as their first official act of the 2024 election year.

The OKGOP State Committee is committed to holding elected Republicans accountable to the standards set forth in the OKGOP Platform which supports limited legal immigration. It is our hope that Senator Lankford will acknowledge the direction of the State Committee and do all in his power to defend our border from the current invasion.

Interestingly. there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Sunday School 1/28/24: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson was all about immigration, and we're continuing that conversation for your Extra Credit. 

I want to note that the House Homeland Security Committee released two articles of impeachment against Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In its 20-page resolution, the Republican-led committee accuses Mayorkas of high crimes and misdemeanors, including "willfully" disregarding immigration law...

Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., said the committee had "exhausted all other options to hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable" and that "Congress must exercise its constitutional duty and impeach him."

Now, back to the classrooms, starting with Meet the Press. Kristen Welker talked about the bill with Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher and Matt Gorman, who worked on Sen. Tim Scott's campaign. 

Welker referenced what I characterize as the rock - Donald Trump - and the hard place - the "best possibility of getting a deal in decades" between which the Rs sit. Gorman, who believes President Biden can act unilaterally, said the whole thing reminds him of The Sixth Sense. 

It's been dead a month. No one noticed it yet... The White House and the Senate are acting like they're the only people involved in this. They're not. 

Belcher reflected on our sad history (my words, not his) of 'doing something' about immigration, only to have politics get in the way. We've seen it before, he said,

...(in) 2007 Bush wanted to do immigration. They – they attacked it as amnesty for illegals. Obama thought he had a deal with Boehner. He took it back to the House, and the Republicans killed it...

He said Sen. Tom Tillis (R-NC) who's "not exactly a liberal," says what the Rs are doing 

may be immoral, because they're killing it because president Trump thinks it's good for his politics.

Martha Raddatz (ABC's This Week) shared a taped interview in which Jon Karl asked Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-RA) about the six million people who have been apprehended at the border. 

What ultimately should happen to all those people, you know, the people who don't qualify for asylum, or totally came in illegally?

Newsom said  "You have to deal with the cards that are dealt. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground," but that the "fundamental issue" is, we need immigration reform, not just border security. 

Biden's strategy includes a pathway to citizenship "along the lines of (the GOP's) former hero, Ronald Reagan," Newsom said, adding there's a "$14B plan, right now," that gets us judges and border agents; Congress's refusal to act is just the Rs trying to

... find a crowbar to put in the spokes of the wheels of the Biden administration to disrupt any progress on this because they don't want progress, period.

Raddatz got an interesting response from National Review Editor Ramesh Ponnuru when Sen. Lindsey Graham's name came up. He noted Graham's support doesn't matter much to many Republicans; he's long advocated for "comprehensive immigration reform," but

there are a lot of people in the Republican Party who don't see things the same way Lindsey Graham does on immigration and don't trust him on this issue because they don't agree with him.

Ponnuru also shared where opposition to the bill comes from. Paraphrasing here, some Rs seem to think the 5,000 daily limit is like the rent in NYC - it's too damn high. But that's not all.

...you've got this more basic thing, which a lot of Republicans say, 'if the problem is Biden is not enforcing the laws that are already on the books, which is what they have been saying for months, then passing a new law isn't a solution to that problem.'

I want to swing back to the State of the Union classroom. Dana Bash asked former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) if she was OK with the bill not including "a pathway to citizenship, or even protections for Dreamers." 

Well, no; the fact is, is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. That's not likely with the Congress that we have right now, so we have to move forward. This arrangement that the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have negotiated is a step forward... But we were never going to get a path to citizenship in this bill. 

I'm giving the last word to Bakari Sellers, a CNN political commentator. He chastised the Ds who "have refused to pay attention to immigration and crime in this country, saying it really didn't exist, it wasn't a problem." What's needed now is the folks who have complained,

we need our good mayors, like Frank Scott from Little Rock, like Chokwe from Jackson, Mississippi, we need Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama, and we even need mayors who don't know what they're doing, like Eric Adams in New York City, to now simply stand up for this piece of legislation and say, 'this is what we need done.'

This has to be the messaging and the messengers who can get this done for the country. This is not a problem that you kick down the road... This is something you fix right now. This is a problem. Fix it.

That sure beats merely complaining about the other side, doesn't it?

See you around campus, where I'm sure this will continue to be a topic through the election and beyond, if we're smart. 

Sunday School 1/28/24

For your Sunday School this week, I'm focusing on the immigration conversations in the classrooms.

Donald Trump doesn't want Senate Republicans to help get a bill to the House, and he doesn't want the House to pass a bill if one makes it to them. We know that because Mitch McConnell said the first part, and Trump himself has made the second part clear. 

We'll start with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS) talked with Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), one of the negotiators of the Senate bill. Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

With this bill, we can "turn those folks back around to Mexico," he said, which "gives the authority to the United States and to law enforcement, rather than...the criminal cartels." He said 'humanitarian parole' remains an issue, because it's "attracting more people" here, and we end up turning them loose without knowing if they even qualify for asylum.

Brennan wondered if the bill would pass without Trump's support. Lankford said he's looking forward to Trump being able to read the bill before he makes a decision, adding

... there is no question, no matter what your political persuasion is, we would not have had the immigration crisis we're experiencing right now if President Trump would have been president the last three years...

But even Trump wanted more authority on immigration, and what "he was specifically asking Congress to change" on asylum, and deportation funding, are included in the bill. 

 So, if he were to be president, this would be new authorities that he had actually asked for when he was president before.

Eventually, the interview turned to the obligatory talk of endorsing Trump. I believe there's a rule - think I saw it on Walter Cronkite's Facebook page - that every Republican must be asked the question.  

Lankford said he hasn't endorsed anyone, but Trump would "be a much better president than what we're dealing with right now, definitely on national security." Brennan asked if the $83M verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case gives him "any pause about (Trump) returning to office?" Nope.

I don't want to jump in the middle of a legal case. It's been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and have been dropped or have been kicked out of the courts on it. This one has actually went through. He's already said he's going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions and let the American people make their decisions.

And then, of course, because he couldn't help himself, he added

We got states like Colorado that are trying to be able to block the people of Colorado from being able to choose who they vote for. Let the American people decide this in November.

Brennan didn't mention the 60-odd election fraud cases that Trump lost or that were tossed, but she did point out that the Supremes might be making the decision on the ballot case.

Next up? Dana Bash and her State of the Union classroom conversation with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), another senator crafting the bill She asked Murphy if they have a deal. He said the same as Lankford: there's a bipartisan deal, they're working on the text, and

the question is whether Republicans are going to listen to Donald Trump, who wants to preserve chaos at the border because he thinks that it's a winning political issue for him, or whether we are going to pass legislation which would be the biggest bipartisan reform of our border immigration laws in 40 years.

He said the bill gives whoever is president "new, important power to be able to better manage the flow" of people crossing the border. He's glad Biden came out "forcefully in favor" of the bill, and noted that "Republicans have said they will let - they will let Vladimir Putin march his army in and through Ukraine if we don't pass a bill that includes border provisions and Ukraine funding."

That would be "catastrophic" not just for the US but for the "whole world." The stakes are high, and

The consequences of failure are enormous. And I do have confidence that enough Republicans in the Senate are going to join us to pass this bipartisan legislation, potentially as early as the next week or two, and we can show that Washington can still stand up and work on these big problems, even if Donald Trump is rooting for chaos.

He confirmed some of the bill's provisions, including the ability to temporarily close the border when crossings "reach catastrophically high levels." It also shortens the timeframe for hearing asylum cases from "sometimes five to ten years" to "six months in some cases." It also speeds up the process for getting people work permits.

Murphy disagrees that Biden already has the necessary authority, calling that "a political talking point." The people who say that are the people who introduced those same tools in HR2, their "massive border reform bill." And now?

...they want to keep the border in a chaotic situation for political purposes. Remember, Donald Trump didn't do a much better job. Presentations reached a 10-year high ... The only reason that fewer people started to show up was because COVID hit... So, when Donald Trump says,' I didn't need any new powers,' that's just not true. 

Also in the classroom with Bash? Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD but I really want to be VP). Noem thinks Texas should defy the Supreme Court's ruling that the federal government can cut down Gov. Greg Abbott's razor wire, and enforce their state rights to control their border.

She told a story she heard when she was in Texas, about a mom from Nicaragua who "had been told that America is open, please come." 

She brought her daughter, her 6-year-old daughter, and was facilitated through by cartels and said where she was so mistreated was in Mexico, that she sat in Mexico for three months and was put through horrific work conditions and terrible conditions for her and her daughter for three months before they then brought her across the river and forced her across into a dangerous situation.

Later in the interview, though, here's what she said about keeping people in Mexico.

Why doesn't President Biden take action today? I mean, today can be 'day one'. He can immediately announce that he's reinstating the stay-in-Mexico policy...We have a president that has all the tools that he needs to protect our country today, and he's refusing to do that.

So, do we make them stay in Mexico, or no? I'm so confused. 

And what does Noem think of some of the comments in a video Bash played?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): The question is, do you want to get something that will help us stem the tide of humanity coming across the border and drugs, or do you want to get nothing? SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): I just reject the idea that we should reserve a crisis for a better time to solve it. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think the best thing for the Republican Party to do right now is try to work with Democrats. 

Noem thumped her chest and accused the senators of "casting aspersions that they do not have the knowledge and the facts to speak to." 

Because they weren't around when Trump was president? Because they didn't support his border policies? Because she wants to be Trump's VP so badly, she can taste it? 

She also this about the esteemed Republicans:

So you can say a lot of things and talk a lot of talk. And U.S. senators are really good at spinning a story to make themselves look good. 

Not that job-hunting governors would ever do that.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v118)

Four posts made it out last week - three were regular features, while the fourth was a revival of one of my favorite themes. Here's a recap of the week, which started with my Sunday School classroom visits. 

I took one for the team and paid attention to all of the GOP folks who stopped by for interviews, including Margaret Brennan's chat on Face the Nation with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, notable mostly for her time as Donald Trump's many press secretaries. 

She's currently governor of Arkansas, a job her dad also held. She and Brennan talked about abortion exceptions, maternal care, and things like that before the conversation inevitably turned to Sanders's former boss. 

When asked about Trump and Biden both being too old to be part of a new generation of leaders, Sanders talked about the candidates' records, not their ages, and to no one's surprise, thinks Trump is the better choice. As to whether Trump can unite us, she said

You know, one of the things that I think is so often left out of Donald Trump's story is the patriotism and the love of country that he brought back. We haven't seen that in this president... In fact, we've seen the total opposite. 

Brennan disagreed with several things Sanders touted as Trump's successes, including immigration, the Middle East, and Ukraine, to which Sanders responded,

Well, that's why we need him to come back for four years because he didn't get to finish, but he certainly made significant progress...

 I give her credit - at least she admitted that some of Trump's most highly-touted 'accomplishments' weren't accomplished. 

Here's an excerpt from Sen. Scott's conversation with Dana Bash (CNN's State of the Union), which was featured in your Extra Credit, which was the second post of the week. As I noted, this was considered a hugely important endorsement, ostensibly because Scott chose not to endorse Nikki Haley, the person who made him a Senator. 

Or, at least equally likely, even if no one's saying much about it, it's because he's the only Black GOP senator. Anyway, here's an excerpt for you. The colorful comment is mine.

Bash talked about Scott's "very positive, very hopeful campaign." She played a video clip of Scott asking a crowd, "Victimhood or victory? Grievance or greatness?" and said it sounded like he was talking about Trump.

No, listen, I -- we absolutely, positively, unequivocally need an America that's not filled with victims.

Trump is the victim-in-chief, for Pete's sake. So, if not Trump, who was Scott talking about? 

I'm actually talking about how Joe Biden has destroyed our economy and made victims out of people waiting for the government to show up. I'm talking about having a president who's weaponizing the DOJ against political adversaries. We need Lady Justice wearing a blindfold. I want America, every single American in every corridor of this nation to have confidence in their DOJ, not a Biden-led DOJ.

 I had quite a few colorful comments in response to his endorsement, as you might imagine. 

Next up? I was Wondering on Wednesday this week about what makes a stock market record high 'good' and what makes one 'bad," and about the damage from the Citizen's United  Supreme Court decision, which had its fourteenth anniversary last week. 

And, I wondered this about Floria Man Ron DeSantis, who suspended his very expensive presidential campaign.

I'm not surprised he dropped out of the race; many folks think he was really prepping for 2028 and a run against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). The two debated last November, which is when Newsom famously said, "Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024." 

After DeSantis gave his half-hearted endorsement to Trump, we were told that the 'Ron DeSanctimonious' nickname was officially retired. 

I'm half-heartedly wondering if no longer having to hear the name is why DeSantis suspended his campaign - and if his donors, and their wallets, wish he had done it sooner.

I closed the week with an OrangeVerse post. Started as a more general political poetry theme during the Obama years, it grew by leaps and bounds when Trump took office in 2016, because he's constantly talking, and because his patter lends itself to free verse quite nicely. You can find previous poems by searching the keyword 'OrangeVerse' in the 'At Your Fingertips' box at the right sidebar.

Here's an excerpt from the 62nd chapter, titled Brief but Derogatory, in which the Former Guy had choice words for Nikki Haley and her financial backers.  

I can't help noticing that, as is often the case when he accuses someone of something, it's usually done by exhibiting the same behavior he's complaining about. 

No Camp for YOU!
Nikki 'Birdbrain' Haley 
is very bad
for the Republican Party
and indeed,
our 
Country.
 
Her False Statements,
Derogatory Comments, 
and Humiliating Public Loss, 
is demeaning to
True 
American 
Patriots.

As is often the case, his poetry gets stronger the longer he talks. 

And now, you're up to date. On tap this week? Our usual three (Sunday School, Extra Credit, and WoW), a Quick Take or two, and if all goes well, a report on what's happening in Albany. 

I hope you stick around.

OrangeVerse LXII: Brief But Derogatory

The PBS Newshour has a recurring feature called Brief But Spectacular, where people from various walks of life spend two or three minutes talking about something important to them, or interesting about them. 

With a slight modification (and an apology to the wonderful folks at the Newshour), I offer you this bit of verse from the Former Guy. 

I can't help noticing that, as is often the case when he accuses someone of something, it's usually done by exhibiting the same behavior he's complaining about. 

No Camp for YOU!

Nikki 'Birdbrain' Haley 

is very bad

for the Republican Party

and indeed,

our 

Country.

Her False Statements,

Derogatory Comments, 

and Humiliating Public Loss, 

is demeaning to

True 

American 

Patriots.

Her anger should be aimed at 

her Third Rate Political Consultants

and, more importantly

Crooked Joe Biden and those

who are destroying our Country - 

NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SAVE IT.

I knew Nikki well, 

she was average

at best,

is not the one

 to take on

World Leaders,

and she never did.

That was up to me

and that is why

they respected 

the United States. 

When I ran for Office and won,

I noticed that the 

Losing Candidate's Donors

would immediately come to me

and want to 

'help out.'

This is standard in Politics,

but no longer with me.

Anybody that 

makes a

'Contribution'

to Birdbrain

from this moment forth

will be permanently banned

from the MAGA camp.

We don't want them, 

and will not accept them.

because we Put America First

and ALWAYS WILL.

I'm not sure if the MAGA camp has a gate at the end of the driveway, but if there was one,  I'd guess it would be both decidedly non-pearly, and garishly orange.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/24/24

 

Ready... set... wonder!

If you've been paying attention to financial news lately, you're likely aware that the stock market is booming. The Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P have all hit or neared record highs,  sometimes on consecutive days. 

Remember how big a deal that was during the Trump administration? He talked about it all the time in interviews and on social media. I found over 140 tweets or retweets from him raving about how high the market was, how many records it hit, and how fabulous it was when he was president. For example, here's one from December 31, 2020.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, I'm wondering, am I supposed to be happy with my 401(k) doing so well, or am I supposed to be mad about rich people? 

*** *** *** *** *** 

This week marked the fourteenth anniversary of Citizens United, the case in which the Supreme Court decided that there are no limits on how much money corporations, non-profits, unions, trade organizations, and the like can spend buying elections, because limiting their money limits their speech.

According to an article from The Hill, 

AdImpact, a political advertising tracking firm, anticipates $10.2 billion will be spent on political advertising across broadcast, cable, radio, satellite, digital and CTV during the 2024 cycle, which would make it the most expensive in history.

And, if the estimate proves true, that'd be over a billion dollars more than was spent during the 2020 cycle, the previous record (emphasis added). The article also notes that

Outside groups have dumped nearly $318 million into 2024 presidential and congressional elections as of Sunday, OpenSecrets reported.

And how does that compare to 2020? It's "more than six times" what was spent during the same time period in '20 (emphasis added).

I won't bother wondering what this does to the voices of regular folks like you and me; I mean, that's pretty obvious, right? We're not actually muzzled, but our voices are surely being drowned out. 

I do wonder, though, why the amount living, breathing people can spend is limited. After all, we're the ones who actually vote.

*** *** *** *** ***

An article from HuffPost informed us that Ron DeSantis ran a pretty expensive campaign.

The DeSantis campaign and Never Back Down combined had roughly $150 million to work with. Much of that came in the form of an $82.5 million transfer from the Florida political committee that DeSantis used to run for governor in 2019 and 2023. It’s highly likely that money dried up in the waning days of his presidential campaign, as many of the governor’s donors had already maxed out their contributions while his donor base did not show signs of expanding.

I'm not surprised he dropped out of the race; many folks think he was really prepping for 2028 and a run against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). The two debated last November, which is when Newsom famously said, "Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024." 

As DeSantis half-heartedly endorsed the front-runner, Trump told us he would officially retire the 'Ron DeSanctimonious' nickname. I'm half-heartedly wondering if no longer having to hear the name is why DeSantis suspended his campaign - and if his donors, and their wallets, wish he had done it sooner.

*** *** *** *** ***

One more about politics, and then we'll move on - I promise. I've been talking about endorsements quite a bit lately, I know, but did you see this one?

Nikki Haley receives major endorsement from Judith Sheindlin ahead of New Hampshire primary

You may be wondering, as am I, how many people knew who Judith Sheindlin was without watching the video or googling her. And I can't help wondering how much influence Sheindlin has? I guess she's still on TV in syndication, but her show ended in July 2021. And finally, I wonder how on earth this can in any way be considered "a major endorsement."

*** *** *** *** ***

It's FAFSA season - that time when families with high school seniors sit down and try to figure out how they're going to fund further education for their kids. While there are reports of issues with the form, the lateness of it, and most importantly with the calculations, that's not what I'm wondering about. 

Rather, I'm thinking about what happens long before FAFSA - when parents fight their way through the challenge of finding available and affordable childcare - and long after, when the kids have been out of college for 10, 15, or 20+ years and still owe on their student loans. 

Here's what I'm wondering: why don't we hear the same complaints about childcare tax credits as we do about student loan forgiveness? If the argument against the former is that we shouldn't have to bail out people who can't afford college, I'd expect the same people to argue that we shouldn't have to bail out people who can't afford to raise their own children.

*** *** *** *** ***

I'll close with a silly observation. I follow a couple of 'old house' pages on social media, which share photos of houses built as far back as the late 1600s, with most being around 100 years newer than that.

Followers of the page are very passionate; for people who complain, and for those who love what they see, everything is fair game:  windows, walls, floors, and ceilings; rugs, art, and collectibles, and where they are displayed;  and most especially, the kitchens and bathrooms. The most common complaints about those two rooms are that everything is too modern, the wrong material, in the wrong spot, or just plain ugly.

I haven't officially commented on this yet, but I wonder why no one ever complains about the houses having indoor plumbing and electricity in the first place?

*** *** *** *** ***

What's on your wondering mind today?