September 9, 2017

The Sins of their Parents

While some of the conversation around the ending of the DACA program has centered on the constitutionality of President Obama's executive action (or the lack thereof), a lot of the discussion has focused on the fact that these folks are here illegally and therefore they need to be sent home, or that they're taking jobs away from Americans and for that reason they must be sent home; or even that they're criminals and for that reason, they need to be sent home.

Here's a snippet from the statement by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on the "orderly transition and wind-down" of the DACA program making those points:
The decades-long failure of Washington, DC to enforce federal immigration laws has had both predictable and tragic consequences: lower wages and higher unemployment for American workers, substantial burdens on local schools and hospitals, the illicit entry of dangerous drugs and criminal cartels, and many billions of dollars a year in costs paid by US taxpayers. Yet few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system. Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers and job seekers.
No one really thinks that any significant portion of the Dreamer population is made up by gang-banging drug dealers who are stealing jobs from Americans.  And, if Congress is again unable to craft and pass immigration reform legislation,  I see no reason to punish this particular segment of immigrants for the sins of their parents.

Seriously -- under what other circumstances do you think it's appropriate to punish children for the crimes of their parents?
  • What would be the correct punishment for children of people who operate meth labs, partake of child pornography, or rob banks?
  • What would be the appropriate punishment for college-graduate, gainfully employed, tax-paying children of gang members?
  • How, exactly, would you punish Henry and Nancy, whose father murdered their mother, my friend and former coworker, eleven years ago next month? 
I know, I know -- there's nothing to worry about. The administration has promised that deporting the DACA people will not be a priority, but who can believe that? 

Why should any of these people trust the government now, when it was the government that promised them they would be safe if they came out of the shadows, gave their information, paid the price to obtain and renew their temporary green cards, got jobs or started companies, paid their taxes, and maybe enlisted and served honorably defending our country in the military?

Speaking of the military and trusting Trump, maybe someone should ask the LGBT community about that?

September 8, 2017

TGIF 9/8/17

Here are this week's random thoughts; deep thinking is coming tomorrow.

We ran into a friend at a festival here in town this evening, who told us the story of getting a ticket for running a red light on his commute to work. He said he immediately, without prompting, started explaining to the officer that he was listening to news radio and it was at the time that they were talking about Trump's decision on DACA that he got so angry and frustrated that he stopped paying attention land that's how he ran the red light.

Sadly, the officer wasn't having any of it, and our friend got no relief for the infraction. But, this is New York, and we historically have a hard time not acting on stuff that doesn't need action. How long before we codify 'listening to the radio' becomes a specific category of distracted driving, like texting or talking on the phone or taking a selfie? Or better yet, how long before we see 'It Can Wait - News Radio Stop" signs on the Thruway?

Speaking of New York, we're one of the states that has sued president Trump for his decision to end the DACA program. There are now 15 Blue states and the District of Columbia involved in the suit. Am I the only one who sees comedy in this? After all, one of the alleged reasons for the administration's decision to wind the program down was the threat of a lawsuit by Red states.

What's interesting is that neither the Red nor the Blue states are suing the right people: that would be the 535 member of Congress who can't, or won't, come to term on legislation that 'fixes' integration. Can the Attorneys General get together and take on Congress in court?

We learned in an earlier TGIF post that Wisconsin is 'investing' three billion dollars in incentives to bring Foxconn to Paul Ryan's district er - I mean - to a depressed area of the Badger state. Which is fine, I guess; I mean, if you're willing to take 250 million bucks out of the education budget and put it into keeping a professional sports team in Milwaukee, why wouldn't you be willing to bet the farm for a foreign company promising to bring jobs to your state?

Why is what's happening in Wisconsin relevant tonight? Well, because we're about to see a battle royale across North America for rights to bet a totally new farm on the new second headquarters for Amazon. Per the company's website:
We expect to invest over $5 billion in construction and grow this second headquarters to include as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs. In addition to Amazon's direct hiring and investment, construction and ongoing operation of Amazon HQ2 is expected to create tens of thousands of additional jobs and tens of billions of dollars in additional investment in the surrounding community.
Now we all know how much time the president has spent talking about the Foxconn project - #jobsjobsjobs and #MAGA and all that -- but how much time has he spent talking about an American company looking to make an investing in an American city and hiring American workers?

That would be zero. Zip. Nada.

Why?  Because Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, owns the Washington Post. 'Nuff said.

TGIF.

September 6, 2017

Wondering on Wednesday (v102)

It's Wednesday, again? OK, here comes the wondering.

As thing slowly, oh so very slowly start returning to some semblance of pre-Harvey normal in Texas, the costs to rebuild are simply staggering: $150 to $180 billion, Governor Gregg Abbott has estimated - and that dwarfs the $110B Hurricane Katrina cost. Where does one get $180B in a time of need? That's a great question on which to do some wondering. 

I mean, today a deal was reached in Washington to quickly pass FEMA some $8B - literally chicken feed -- and we had to raise the debt ceiling to do get that done. The agency is spending millions of dollars an hour on Harvey relief; Irma is heading towards Florida, and wild fires are burning in nine states out west. Look at this in the framework of the Trump budget, which has suggested significant cuts to FEMA, as well as to other agencies involved in disasters in some way, shape or form, and we've got a real disaster on our hands if Congress can't figure something out. Are you feeling confident, I wonder?

And speaking of Congress, I wonder how long House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader will be licking their wounds, after president Trump agreed with #ChuckandNancy on that FEMA bankroll and a three month bump for the debt ceiling, instead of the 18 month deal the Rs were looking for, or even the six months they would have settled on.

Here's Jim Newell, writing on Slate.com about the 'deal' Trump made (which included zero negotiation by the dealmaker in chief):
It is, to the letter, the request the Democrats had made and that Ryan and the leadership team had decried as an affront to God immediately after. Trump's move forces congressional Republicans to have to make multiple, painful debt ceiling votes ahead of the midterms and it preserves the Democrats' leverage in the December spending negotiations.
Was it because Trump can't stand a meeting that lasts more than a New York minute? Is it that he finally figured out he's going to need Dems to get anything accomplished, because the Republican leaders have shown they have no control over their own ranks? We may never know, but Trump thinks he made a deal and that's all that matters, I guess.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson, who has come to terms with the arm-twisting that got him to take a government job after he told us all he didn't want one, was also talking about Harvey, in his usual childlike manner.. In an interview with Rachel Martin on NPR's Morning Edition, Carson told us HUD had people on the ground in Texas, breaking through red tape and trying to help the tens of thousands of families who need help, and figuring out what properties are OK and which need rehab.

Martin asked about the red tape comment and wondered what was different this time compared to Katrina and Sandy and Rita. She asked him for specifics.
Specifically, we sent many agents out into the field with the specific charge of determining how things can be done as opposed to why they can't be done. If you're familiar with bureaucracies, you know that as soon as you come up with a good idea and you're ready to do something, someone says oh, you can't do that because of this. And, you know, I hate that. 
Wonder with me, if you will, what look Rachel Martin had on her face when she heard that answer?
I'm sure she has a fantastic poker face; anyone who does interviews must have one, unless they're a late show host, in which case all bets are off. But that's why they have follow up questions, right?
And so you believe that by putting your agents in the field to just come up with solutions - and then you can just green light them? I mean, there are some real obstacles. there are real reasons that...
Obviously (said Carson), you look at those things. But anybody who's familiar with government bureaucracy knows exactly what I'm talking about.  
Um, OK. Sure, the government moves as fast as molasses in winter, and we all know there are lots of barriers to getting good things done, but those barriers also serve to keep awful things from being done, too.  Especially in the midst of a disaster, where fraud is rampant and every Tom, Dick and Harry with a scam is only a flooded basement or fake charity away.

So where does all of this leave us, this Wednesday?

Let's recap: part of Texas and Louisiana are still under water, and another massive hurricane is threatening Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. Parts of the northwest, usually rainy, are bone dry and on fire. Republicans control all three branches of the government and have literally no control over anything.

And the president? Is it any wonder he's left Washington, after the great day he had? Nah. He's off selling his tax plan, his own full basement, if you will, to the folks in North Dakota.

September 5, 2017

Talking About DACA

You've heard the news - DACA is rescinded unless Congress comes up with a plan that will save it by March 2018. The program was enacted by President Obama in 2012, and it allowed those who were brought to America illegally as children and who have been here continuously since 2007 to pay $495 each to apply for DACA benefits, and pay $495 every two years to renew their application, undergo the background check, and receive permission to work, to go to school, to serve in the military, to pay taxes, and so on. Criminals and gang members need not apply. 

There are some 800,000 people in the program whose long-term fate is now unknown. Will their employers keep them, knowing that they can be eligible for deportation if Congress doesn't act? Should they pay for their next semester of school? Should they re-up for the military, or get out now?

And, what happens if they get deported? They have no home - many came here at the age of two, three, maybe six years old. The have siblings who are American citizens, parents who are illegal, and they are here because we invited them to come forward, out of the shadows, go through the application process, and get our stamp of approval. 

We happily took their application fees, to the tune of around $400,000,000 not counting renewals - but now, they're job stealers. Oh, sorry - now they're pawns in a game of It's All About that Base. Oh, wrong again, sorry. Now, they're victims of an unconstitutional act by the former president, and so, their time is up.

Here's what a variety of people are saying about the decision, announced not by president Trump, the coward, but by his immigration hardliner Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak? - Barack Obama
At this point the question is, 'Okay, you no longer have that legal, that status that President Obama gave you and he had no authority to give you. So, you're back into your illegal status, I would suggest go home and get in line, come into the United States legally, then get a green card, then become a citizen. "Do it the right way like so many hundreds of thousands of your countrymen are trying to do. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with following the law?" - Kris Kobach
I think that it's a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients; that over 950,000 of those are African Americans in the same age group; over 870,000 unemployed Hispanics in the same age group.  Those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs. - Sarah Huckabee Sanders
The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it. This is a sad day for our country. - Mark Zuckerberg
First, let’s not think Trump — who invites cops to abuse suspects, who thinks ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio was “doing his job” when denying others their constitutional rights and who issued the Muslim ban — cares about the Constitution (any of the “twelve” articles). Trump says, “We love the dreamers. … We think the dreamers are terrific.” But in fact he loves the applause he derives from his cultist followers more than anything. Otherwise he’d go to the mat to defend the dreamers and secure their legal status. - Jennifer Rubin 
250 of my Apple coworkers are . I stand with them. They deserve our respect as equals and a solution rooted in American values. #Dreamers contribute to our companies and our communities just as much as you and I. Apple will fight for them to be treated as equals.. - Tim Cook 
Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue! - Donald Trump
That last one? Yeah, who knows what he's talking about.

September 4, 2017

The Update Desk: It's Bad Out There

When I did the Poll Watch post the other day, there were some questions that were 'embargoed' until further notice.

Fox News has now released the additional details from the poll, including several questions asking how well particular words describe president Trump.  Let's take a look at the questions and some of the more interesting demographics.
  • Presidential: 13% extremely well; 56% not at all. Only 29% of Republicans, 24% of conservatives, 29% of white evangelicals, and 30% of Trump voters think this is an apt description.
On specific leadership qualities, the results weren't really all that much better.
  • Strong leader: 21% extremely well; 48% not at all. For Republicans (R), conservatives (C), white evangelicals (WE), and Trump voters (TV), the 'extremely well' percentages are 43%, 36%, 43%, and 30%, respectively.
  • Moral leader:  14% extremely well, 55% not at all;  30% (R),  24% (C), 30% (WE,) and 31% (TV) think this describes him extremely well.
  • Steady leader: 16% extremely well; 53% not at all. 34% (R),  28% (C), 34% (WE), and 35% (TV) put themselves in the 'extremely well' bucket.
Wow. Strong, moral, and steady, and never more than 35% of his voters think those are fitting descriptions? I thought his fans would rate him higher on these.
  • Competent: 21% extremely well, 45% not at all. Here he does better: for his R, C, WE, and TV, the 'extremely well' percentages are 42%, 38%, 40%, and 44%, respectively.
  • Knowledgeable: 16% extremely well, 43% not at all. 31% (R), 27% (C), 34% (WE) and 35% (TV).
  • Problem solver: 19% extremely well, 47% not at all. 40% of (R), (WE), and (TV) said 'extremely well' while (C) came in at 35%.
  • Everyone thinks 'outsider' is an extremely good description; similarly, everyone agrees 'he says what he thinks.
Not a lot of surprises in that second grouping. He did well with his natural constituencies on both competence and problem-solving, even though he's yet to solve any significant problems legislatively.

The last couple of questions is where things got interesting. The first question asked how well the word 'unstable' described Trump. Surprisingly, 60% of survey takers think the president is unstable to some degree.  
  • Fully a third of respondents, 33%, thought it described him extremely well; 11% thought it fit him very well, and another 16% thought it described him somewhat. 
  • This crosses all demographics: men (57%), women (65%), whites (57%), nonwhites (72%), under 45 years old (56%), 45 and older (56%), incomes less than $50K (62%) and $50K and over (61%). Those are pretty astonishing numbers, don't you think?
  • Even Republicans (30%), Conservatives (39%), and White Evangelicals (41%) fell in line when all categories - extremely well, very well, and somewhat well - were combined; only Trump voters thought this was less true, with a 23% combined score. 
And the last question? How well does the word 'bully' describe Trump?
  •  39% thought this fit him extremely well; 14% thought it fit him very well, and 20% thought it fit him somewhat well. That's right -- 73% of those surveyed in a Fox News poll think the president is a bully. 
  • That includes a majority of Republicans (51%), conservatives (56%), and white evangelicals (59%) who believe this is true. 
  • Even 44% of Trump voters find this to be true. 
So, let's recap: the president is an unstable, mildly competent, somewhat knowledgeable iffy problem-solving bully, whose leadership style is not strong, steady, moral, or presidential.

Yay, us, or something. #MAGA #Winning #WhatTheSniff

September 3, 2017

Sunday School 9/3/2017

I decided to stroll over to the CNN classroom today, and see about the State of the Union.  Dana Bash was hosting today.

Guests were the governor of Texas, Gregg Abbott, and California Congressman Adam Schiff, the Democrat's number one on the House Intelligence Committee. And, the other Arizona Republican senator who is not named by president Trump - not the one who cost us the Obamacare repeal and replace; the other guy:
And nobody wants me to talk about your other senator, who's weak on borders, weak on crime, so I won't talk about him. Nobody wants me to talk about him. Nobody knows who the hell he is. And now -- see, I haven't mentioned any names.
Yeah, that guy was on the show, and that's where today's lesson will focus.

Bash talked with that guy, Senator Jeff Flake (a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), about what's going on in the Koreas, starting with Trump's critical tweet about South Korea, in which he noted "appeasement won't work." Flake refused to characterize the president's tweet, but noted that South Korea "certainly will be with us in whatever we decide." Bash wondered whether Trump's rhetoric was backing us into a corner.
Well, what we have been doing over the years has certainly not slowed the advance of their nuclear program, but I don't think that harsh rhetoric does either.... Certainly, sanctions are - are not, you now, arresting that development either. So just about nothing we have done so far has helped slow it down. They seem intent on moving forward.
Bash shared this statement from the president's personal white nationalist, Steve Bannon.
There's no military solution to North Korea's nuclear threats. Forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military solution here. They got us." 
Flake responded:
But obviously, that's something that they have to consider and everyone dealing with this situation has to consider. This -- there -- there - you know, it becomes cliche to say there are no good options here, but there really aren't. 
Bash threw another grenade at Flake, this time quoting former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and wondered if Flake shared Clapper's concern:
I worry about,frankly, you know, the access to nuclear codes. If in a fit of pique, he decides to do something about Kim Jong-un, there's actually very little to stop him.
Here's his answer (there was a follow up nudge from Bash in here):
Well, I -- I do have good confidence in our national security team and those who are advising the president. And the president doesn't have experience in this -- in this kind of situation, but few presidents do when they come into office. And I'm confident that the people around the president are giving him good advice, and I believe that he will follow it. I sure hope he does. Obviously, you like a leader that's measured and sober and consistent. Our allies want to hear that. I think our adversaries need to hear that. But we have got a good team around the president... I have had my concerns, I think everyone has, at some of the statements that have been made by the president with regard to NATO and other areas in foreign policy. Like I said, I think we -- we want somebody who is -- who is measured and sober and consistent and conservative in this regard. But he has a good team around him, and I have confidence in them. 
She closed this part of the interview asking Flake for his opinion on Trump's threat to pull out of our trade deals with South Korea -- an ally of ours, by the way:
I -- I don't think that that would be good in any circumstances. Now, it's particularly troubling, given what South Korea is faced with. I think that we need to do more trade, not less. And withdrawing from trade agreements is a very troubling sign. 
Moving on to the potential that Trump will cancel DACA, the program that protects from deportation those children brought here illegally by their parents. Flake believes we need to "take immediate action to protect DACA kids." (As I was working on this post, word came that Trump will indeed cancel DACA, but with a 6-month delay, assuming he sticks with the decision.)

Bash asked if this Trump should go back on his promise, "very popular among Republicans in places like your state" to repeal DACA? 

Flake's answer is spot on.
Because it would be the right think to do to go back on a promise. Obviously you hope that presidents keep some of their campaign promises and you hope that they ignore others. This is one that he ought to ignore.
There are 800,00 DACA kids, kids who were brought across the border. The median age, I think, is six years old when they came across the border.  They should not be punished for the sins of their parents. That's just the basic principle that we ought to follow here. They are in -- either in school or have graduated and are working. Almost all of them, I think 90-some percent of them, are in the work force. To remove them from the country, to split up families like this, is just not the way we ought to go. 
Bash's follow up question? "If the president says that he will extend the protections for dreamers, but do it in exchange for funding from Congress, from you for his border wall, would you go along with that compromise?"
Obviously, all of us believe in border security. It depends on what he means by the wall. And we still really haven't seen what he means by the wall. If that's a metaphor for border security, we can certainly support that. But if he's talking about a solitary brick and mortar 2,000 mile edifice on the border, then no, nobody ought to support that. So, we really  haven't seen what the president is really talking about when he talks about the wall. 
Other than it must be aesthetically pleasing, maybe solar, and perhaps see through so we can be safe from the sacks of drugs being tossed over it.

Or, maybe, so we can duck from the agricultural workers and laborers jumping over it to steal jobs from Americans.

See you around campus.

September 1, 2017

Poll Watch: It's Bad Out There

If you're the president and you hate the mainstream media except for Fox News, which you pretend is not the mainstream media, you're apt to look to Fox News for your good news, right?

Well, the latest poll from Fox, released on Wednesday, is not the kind of good news president Trump would be looking for.

Sure, his approval rating is holding steady at 41%, and the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of him is down a percentage point, even though the overall disapproval rate is up 2 points to 55% from the July numbers. The shift there was in that small category who 'don't know' whether they approve or disapprove. Assuming that's the conflicted group ("yes, he says and does horrible things, but Hillary..." or "he's going to save me money so I can look past all the rest of it..."), I'm surprised it's not a larger percentage of registered voters. I guess it shows how easy it is to justify things (and yes, this kind of justification is a bipartisan trait, don't start yelling at me).

Here are some of the topical disapproval numbers:
  • Economy: 43%
  • Terrorism: 45%
  • Afghanistan: 43%
  • North Korea: 50%
  • Immigration: 54%
  • Taxes: 45%
  • Environment: 56%
  • Russia: 56%
  • Health care: 60%
  • Race relations: 61%
There will almost certainly be a shift in those numbers on the next poll; for example, 18% of those surveyed don't know whether they approve or disapprove of his performance on taxes - one of his signature legislative ideas -  so we'll have to watch what the reaction is if he's unable to get tax reform through "the swamp." Other categories with high 'don't know' numbers are Russia (10%) and Afghanistan (15%).

Speaking of the swamp, Congress still has an abysmal 15% approval rate, but the number of people with mixed opinion on that bumped up by 2%. Are those the people who are happy that Loser John McCain gave his thumbs down vote on health care, maybe?

On the positive side, 28% say they're sleeping better with Trump in the White House; 40% indicate no change. And, just about everyone who voted for Trump - 96% of them - are satisfied with their vote. That's way more better than Clinton; only 93% of her voters are still satisfied with their choice. #winning

Other interesting outcomes?
  • Trump constantly talks about the economy and how well he's doing there. However, only 4% are very satisfied with how things are going, compared to 32% saying not very satisfied and an equal number not at all satisfied. Only 6% give an 'excellent' rating to economic conditions; 45% give an 'only fair' rating here. 
  • 56% of survey responders believe Trump is tearing the country apart; 11% are unsure, leaving only 33% who think he's pulling us together. Note that he's been calling for unity since his speech on election night, and most recently, following the violence and murder in Charlottesville. 
  • On that subject, only 41% of those surveyed believe Trump respects racial minorities; 43% believe whites are favored over racial minorities, and more than half (52%) believe that the white supremacists were more to blame for the violence. 56% disapprove of how Trump responded to everything that happened. One more question on this subject: 47% think that white supremacists are a bigger threat to America than the media, even though 70% think that Trump dislikes the media more than he dislikes white supremacists. Clearly, he is not at all convincing on this stuff. Not. At. All. 
  • Trump's other big initiative, the border wall, is not faring well in the survey, either. Only 39% favor building one; of those, only 45% think shutting down the government if the wall is not funded is a good idea.
The silver lining for Trump in the poll? A slight majority of participants - 42% - were Democrats, so he can point to that, if he wants to, as a reason the outcomes are not as bigly fabulous as he would like. And, I think on every single question, white evangelicals were by far the most supportive demographic in the survey. 

That will almost certainly make him feel better -- and will almost certainly mean we'll see a whole lot more of him talking directly to his base and a whole lot less of him unifying the country. 

August 30, 2017

Wondering on Wednesday (v101)

What are we wondering about tonight? Let's see...

We've got a shot fired literally over the bow of Japan by North Korea, and we have, as usual, a couple of different responses from the Trump administration. The president himself reminded us, in a tweet, that
The US has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer.
Did he mean that we were done talking to Kim Jong Un now, in those back-channel conversations we've heard about, I wonder? Or, maybe he meant we're done talking at the UN and we're not going to push for additional sanctions, since they don't seem to be working anyway? Could he have meant we're done trying to talk China into doing something?  Or, dare we even wonder, did he mean we were now looking only at military options, all others having been removed from the proverbial table?

Well, maybe we don't have to wonder about that after all, not if the cooler head of Defense Secretary James Mattis prevails. In yet another seeming contradiction (Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has had a few of his own recently), Mattis allowed as how
We're never out of diplomatic solutions. We always look for more. We're never complacent. 
In a speech in Springfield (Missouri, not any of those other Springfields we know and love), Trump talked taxes, and the need for tax reform, and #MAGA stuff.  Here's an excerpt:
We cannot restore our wealth if we continue to put our businesses at such a tremendous disadvantage. We must reduce the tax rate on American businesses, so they keep jobs in America, create jobs in America and compete for workers right here in America -- the America we love.  Thank you. Thank you very much.
I understand that he was speaking at a private company, behind closed doors, and so he's guaranteed a pro-Trump audience - but I can't help wonder what he would have said if someone had asked what it would take for him to bring production of his branded products, and Ivanka ("My beautiful daughter, she's working very hard, I'm very proud of her") branded products, to America from China and all of the other countries where they're made? I know the question has been asked by the media, and ignored, but I really wonder what would happen in one of these closed-door sessions. Does he have any intention of bringing those jobs to America once we lower his taxes, or no?

We all know that the president has been tweeting! about how prepared he was! and his administration was for the epic! and historic! events taking place down there in the Gulf region. He even managed to get in a crowd size comment, in case you were wondering.
Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you. I just wanted to say, we love you, you are special. We're here to take care of you. It's going well. And I want to thank you for coming out. We're going to get you back and operating immediately. Thank you, everybody. What a crowd. What a turnout. 
I wonder, sometimes, if he will actually take credit for the magnitude of the storm, adding it to his list of superlative accomplishments?

And finally, as I write this, news is breaking that US District Judge Orlando Garcia issued a decision that will keep the Texas law barring sanctuary cities from taking effect while a suit against it proceeds.  The law is one of the strongest of its kind; major cities in Texas sued to block it. I wonder, how long before we see the first tweet from the president? Do you think he'll be able to wait until tomorrow morning?

August 28, 2017

OrangeVerse XV: Pardon Me

President Trump defended his decision to pardon former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio in the middle of a time when, many believe, he should have been focused on Hurricane Harvey which had just made landfall in Texas.

Here's the question he was asked:
In the middle of Hurricane Harvey hitting on Friday night, you chose to pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I wonder if you could tell us what was behind your thinking for issuing the pardon for the Sheriff. And, as well, what do you say to your critics, even some in your own party, who say it was the wrong thing to do?
Trump laid out his defenses, in verse. Note that, in the middle of his statement (right after the 'Crazy' verse below), he recited a number of pardons made by other presidents: Clinton (Marc Rich, Susan Rosenberg, Carlos Vignali) and Obama (Chelsea Manning, Oscar Lopez Rivera), as if by comparison (always by comparison) he stands alone and above all others who have come before.

 Rating and Raving
Well, 
a lot of people
think it was
the right thing
to do John.
And actually
in the middle of a
hurricane, 
even though it was a
Friday evening, 
I assumed the ratings
would be far higher
than they would normally be.

You know
the hurricane was just starting
and I put it out there
that I had pardoned,
as we say,
Sheriff Joe.

Why, You Ask?
He's
done a great job
for the people of
Arizona.
He's
very strong
on borders
very strong
on illegal immigration.
He
is loved
in Arizona.

Fairly Unfairly
I thought
he was treated
unbelievable unfairly
when they came down
with their big decision
to go get him
right before the election
voting started, 
as you know.

And he lost
in a fairly close
election.
He would have won
the election,
but they just 
hammered him just
before the election.

I thought
that was a
very
very unfair thing
to do.

Crazy
When I
mentioned him
the other night - 
(you saw the
massive crowd we had.)
The people went
crazy 
when I said
What do you think
of Sheriff Joe?
or something
to that effect.
The place went
absolutely
crazy
when I 
was in Arizona
last week.

Sheriff Joe
Sheriff Joe
is a patriot.
Sheriff Joe
loves our country
Sheriff Joe
protected our borders and
Sheriff Joe
was very
unfairly treated
by the Obama administration
especially
right before 
an election
an election
that he would
have won.
And he
was elected
many times.

So I stand by my pardon of
Sheriff Joe
and I think
the people of Arizona
who really know him best
would agree
with me.
Thank you
very much.

August 27, 2017

Sunday School 8/27/17

Not surprisingly, much of the talk this morning on the news shows centered on the devastation across Texas from Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall as a Category 4 storm on Friday.

Things are continuing to deteriorate even as Harvey was downgraded to a tropical storm, because of the constant barrage of rain that's hitting the state. Some areas had 24-hour totals over 16 inches, 18 inches, with several more days of rain anticipated.

If you would like to make a donation, texting Harvey to 90999 will send $10 to the American Red Cross specifically for those in the storm's path. (Messaging and/or data charges may apply.)

Over on NBC's Meet the Press,  Chuck Todd interviewed Ohio Governor John Kasich about president Trump's comments on Charlottesville and his pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for disobeying n order to stop racial profiling Hispanics; according to reports, Trump did not discuss the pardon with officials in the Justice Department. Here's part of Kasich's answer:
Look, I think at the end, Chuck, we keep talking about the president. You know, maybe starting with the flood business, it is time for us to figure out what institutions we're a part of from the bottom up that can bring some unity in this country. We don't have to keep looking to Washington. Everybody focuses on Washington. What about everything else happening in this country? Where it's, it's gauging profits by businesses or whether it's the clergy that does things that are out of bounds. I mean, nobody's looking for sainthood. But the whole country needs to come together and stop looking at Washington. Figure out what you can do as part of your (community) to raise the country and bring some unity. 
Todd then wondered if Paul Ryan should have the House scrutinize the Arpaio pardon, referencing Ford's pardon of Nixon and Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich - both of which happened when the other party was in charge of Congress. Kasich wasn't falling for it:
Chuck, we've got enough problems. We have enough problems to start, you know, figuring out why he did this, OK? I don't know. I just think that we just keep grinding this down. And to me what Paul Ryan ought to figure out is how he can get his people together to pass a health care law that isn't going to cut 20 million people off the rolls. He out to figure out how we can being to deal with entitlement reform at the same time we pass the debt limit.  He's gotta, he's gotta figure out how we're going to, to do the things that we need to do to make sure that we begin to move the country forward. Can't keep looking backward, we've got to look forward.  I'm absolutely convinced that you cannot deal with those who are way out there playing politics all the time. You've got to build your coalitions from the middle out. And that includes involving Democrats. I mean, that is not a dirty word. The Republicans get to call the tune, but you can't just do it alone. How do you think you're going to get tax reform if you don't have both parties involved. It will not happen. Period. 
Hear, hear.

Chris Wallace had Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Fox News Sunday. Their discussion included the oil and gas implications of Hurricane Harvey; North Korea; and Afghanistan. He expressed confidence that the energy companies in the Gulf would be OK; he denied having any difference with Trump on North Korea, and also disavowed any disagreement on Afghanistan either.

The point of our mission in Afghanistan, whether it's described in Trump's language on obliterating ISIS or Tillerson's language on letting the Taliban know they can't win, Tillerson says, is simply this:
...all terrorist organizations have somewhat different objectives. So, whether it's ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban or others, our objective is to deny any terrorist organization any territory with which they can organize, raise financing, recruit new fighters, develop techniques for carrying out terrorist attacks and then deploying those. We know that if we deny them to space to do that, we protect the homeland. We also protect Americans and our allies as well... we have to secure Afghanistan in a way that that can never occur again because there's no territory available to organizations to do so.
And finally, Tillerson talked about values - those the State Department puts forward, and the ones that we hear from the president; the context for this part of the discussion was criticism from a UN committee on the administration's "failure at the highest political level to unequivocally reject and condemn the racist violent events and demonstrations" that occurred in Charlottesville. Wallace wondered if Trump made it harder to put our values out there.
Chris, we express America's values from the State Department. We represent the American people. We represent America's values, our commitment to freedom, our commitment to equal treatment to people the world over. And that message has never changed. 
Here's how the conversation wrapped up.
Wallace: And when the president gets into the kind of controversy he does and the UN Committee responds the way it does, it seems to say they begin to doubt...whether we're living those values
Tillerson: I don't believe anyone doubts the American people's values or the commitment of the American government or the government's agencies to advancing those values and defending those values. 
 Wallace: And the president's values?
Tillerson: The president speaks for himself, Chris.
Wallace: Are you separating yourself from that, sir?
Tillerson:  I've spoken - I've made my own comments as to our values as well in a speech I gave to the State Department this past week.
That's all the time we have for this week -- and it's a good discussion on which to end today's classroom work. How about a homework assignment? Does the president speak to your values? To our shared values as Americans? Or does he only speak for himself? Think about it, talk about it. comment if you like.

See you around campus.

August 24, 2017

We Have to Respect Each Other

We have to respect each other, and ideally we have to love each other, the president has said recently, in the aftermath of the hatred and racism displayed in Charlottesville.

I've been trying to take his words to heart, as I'm sure he would want me to. He also said we have to rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

So today, for no real reason other than to test my ability to show respect, and affection, and love, and loyalty to each other, I decided to read the comments on this article about Malia Obama entering Harvard this week. (You'll may recall she took a 'gap year' after graduation from the Sidwell Friends school last June.)

Here's an unedited sampling of what I read:
Affirmative action at work.  I wish I could go to Harvard but I'm a white conservative.
Do you think she was really brilliant enough to get into Harvard, or was it just that she was Black and the daughter of an ex-President?
I doubt she's smart enough to do well at Harvard - she'll get an honorary degree in something like Tribal Basket Weaving simply because she's the spawn of the worst President in American history. Such a brave, entitled failure she will become.
When a rich white kid gets into Harvard it's called a family connection. When a rich black kid gets in it's called Affirmative Action.
She's kinda dumb. Not Harvard material, but she is black. 
No, what I see is a black daughter of a black ex president being granted admission to one of the most prestigious colleges in the world SUPPOSEDLY on her academic records and abilities. To eliminate any question of impropriety by the admissions office by making public her academic transcripts and the transcripts of say the top 10 applicants to the college that were denied admission. You want to eliminate the questions of racial bias then put up those transcripts and make it totally transparent process that dispels any favoritism due to race or family ties. 
Anyone have her SAT scores? Yeah that's what I thought.
Harvard's standards have dropped so low they really don't count as anything anymore.
She will be just another pregnant crackhead by her junior year.
Wow. Wish I could afford to send my daughters to Harvard but we are white and only make a six figure income. :(
 Was she breakdancing all the way there?
I can remember when going to Harvard meant something, but today anybody can get in with a little political influence.
Hopefully she shaved her mustache first. Most Americans can barely keep their homes, but at least the Obamas can vacation and go to Harvard. They're more deserving I'm sure.
She already has straight A's and a PHD. Ain't being black great?
Has Malia picked her gender out yet for college?
Oh Wow??? AND THIS IS NEW HOW??? AMERICA NOTICE THAT EX-Prez BARRACK HUSSEIN obozo IS SENDING THESE GIRLS TO A VERY EXPENSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE UNIVERSITY???!!! WHILE YOURS AND MINE HAVE TO ATTEND A STATE UNIVERSITY AND GET OVERLOADED WITH CLASSES THAT THEY CAN'T GET AND LOANS THAT THEY CAN'T PAY OFF???!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!! YOU AND I ARE PAYING FOR THAT???!!! 
No chance for a white conservative with the best grades, talents and work ethic. Only elite trash.
Now she gets to be depressed for 4 years, after she finds out just how unqualified she really is. It happens at all the Ivies to the AA charity cases. Its really kind of mean. But heck, it makes the liberals "feel good" about themselves. And after all - that is all that really matters to them.
 Another happy Affirmative Action black person at a Historically White School! I wonder what will happen to the White or Asian kid who got passed over by Affirmative Action? If her Mother & Father hate Whitey so Bad, what is their daughter going to this school ?
they go to school to be able to take provision from their high paid positions Never enough they dont raise salary because if its for all how will they satisfy their sick ego to be superior
 bullwinkle junior by another name.
and what were her qualifications to get into Harvard? Did she write black lives matter a 100X? 
This girl will be so screwed up and confused after she played the role of daughter to a homosexual man and and a tranny mom.
Ah yes. Respect, and ideally love, and affection and loyalty and baseball and apple pie, all tied up with a pretty little bow, don't you think?

The president also said that jobs will solve the problem we have with not being able to respect and love each other.
We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that's going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It is jobs. What people what now, they want jobs. they want great jobs with good pay. And when they have that, you watch how race relations will be.
Please, president Trump -- I beg you -- put these people to work, so you and I can start respecting them and demonstrating our loyalty to them.

Please.

August 23, 2017

Wondering on Wednesday (v100)

It seems somehow fitting that I would be doing my 100th Wondering on Wednesday post quoting president Trump.

Let us remember, for point of reference, that many in the punditry just got done telling us how 'presidential' Trump was on Monday night when he announced with almost startling clarity that it's different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. And then,  he clarified that statement by telling us he meant "when you're President of the United States."  I wondered, a long time ago, if he would ever realize he won and it's his job. And now I wonder, has he finally turned the corner on that?

And then it was Tuesday and it was Phoenix. Wonder on these things, or others; you can read the entire transcript here, if you like.

  • Trump went off the teleprompter for a diatribe against the sick, dishonest, America-hating media.
  • He threatened to shut down the government over the (see-through) border walls
  • He threatened (again) to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio; 
  • He slammed both Arizona senators - John McCain, and the one who won't be named 
  • He promised economic growth, jobs, lower taxes, good immigration, and more. 
  • He talked about coal you wash after taking it out of the ground, showing his lack of understanding about energy (again) or his sense of humor; we'll be told it's the latter even if it's the former. 
  • He wants to change Senate rules to have everything be a simple majority vote, showing (again) his lack of understanding of our government, or his sense of humor (ditto the comment above).
  • He claimed Republicans resist, Democrats obstruct. Both do both; always have, always will.
  • He claims a better legislative record than Harry Truman - as if it matters to anyone.
  • He promised victory in Afghanistan (again).
  • He respects Kim Jong Un for respecting him. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
  • He mistakenly stated that leftists "now" want to remove a statue of Teddy Roosevelt; this was a protest act unrelated to Charlottesville that occurred in 2016, proving (again) that he repeats fake news.
Can he really not just stick to the script, folks? How hard can it really be, I wonder? Or, was some of this actually IN the script? I wonder about that part, too.

We also learned yesterday, which was confirmed today, that the part of ESPN that live-streams college sports will not have a guy named Robert Lee narrate the live feed for an upcoming University of Virginia vs. William & Mary football game. UVA, you know, is the university in Charlottesville... The story goes that ESPN fired Lee (not true) or decided to pull him from the game so as not to offend anyone, given the similarity of his name to that of one deceased Confederate general.

Wondering immediately ensued -- what were they thinking? Are they insane? Is this the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

ESPN released a statement in which the noted the following: concerns were raised by the Charlottesville production staff that Lee would be subject to "social hectoring and trolling" as well as that it could become a "distraction" - and that Lee himself had "expressed some personal trepidation" about the game. Instead, we're told, he'll do a different game close to his Albany home.

Amnesty International photo
The last one that fits in tonight's wonder-full post (from a thematic perspective anyway), is the report that what helped drive Trump's Afghanistan decision included being shown a picture of hot Afghan women.

Seriously. There they are - this is believed to be the deal-clinching photo.
One of the ways McMaster tried to persuade Trump to recommit to the effort was by convincing him that Afghanistan was not a hopeless place. He presented Trump with a black and white snapshot from 1972 of Afghan women in miniskirts walking through Kabul, to show him that Western norms had existed there before and could return.
I can't help wondering what Trump wondered when HR McMaster handed him this picture. Or whether McMaster wondered if handing Trump a picture of young hotties was a good idea given his, well you know, given his self-confessed proclivities and all.

But mostly, I wonder how great it would be if it turned out this was just fake news, made up by someone at the White House? You know, to catch those dishonest, America-hating, failing, lying, crooked media elites who live in a much smaller apartment than Trump does, and who went to worse schools than Trump did in a lie?

Yeah, although it's not likely to happen, how much fun would it be?  


August 20, 2017

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: It's Not the Statues

I've seen this meme on Twitter, on Instagram and on Facebook in the past few days - you may have seen it too, if you spend any time on social media.

It's just one of several making the rounds these days, post Charlottesville, when self-proclaimed neo-Nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists from Union states and Confederate states gathered, with first with torches, and then with helmets and shields and clubs and a well-armed 'militia' of supporters to protest against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

I can't help thinking that the people who thought the original meme was funny would not think the same of the one to the left; would you agree?  Would we see a lot of high fives and "damn straight" and "exactly"and similar comments on this?

From my middle-aged white lady perspective, people (on both sides) don't care about the statues per se - certainly not because "the beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!"

People do care, deeply, about what the monuments symbolize. And what they symbolize, if we are to believe the ones who protest in their favor, is a white heritage, where blacks are not taking over our country, where Jews are not replacing them, and where, it seems, whites would not be failing in procreative department, and would be popping out babies left and right to ensure that the white race does not get trampled by blacks, browns, and yellows.

And, they symbolize a country where whites are in control "culturally, politically, socially - everything. We define what America is."

The statues, particularly those that rise on government property, symbolize our history of racism, of institutionalized racism, not just the personal kind that people of color experience every day.  And it is our history, yours and mine, even though we were not alive at the birth of America, or during the civil war, or Reconstruction

Because in our lifetimes - for  Pete's sake, I'm only 59, my husband 10 years older - in our lifetimes, America struggled with racism, continues to struggle with racism, a century and a half after the Civil War.

Would it surprise you that there have been over 4,000 lynchings in America, from the 1870s to the 1950s?

In 1951, the family of 8 year old Linda Brown sued because the child was bused to a segregated school when she lived within walking distance of an all white school; this was the Brown vs. Board of Education case, which was sort of resolved in 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that  'separate but equal' schools for blacks violated the 14th Amendment - which was adopted in 1868. The Court in 1955 ordered states to integrate their schools (Brown II). And finally, in 1958, the Court ordered desegregation of schools (Cooper vs Aaron case) was required, and that the threat of violence was not a reason for continued segregation.

Also in 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat on a Montgomery bus to a white man. Several months earlier, Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old schoolgirl, was arrested for a similar offense. Parks' arrest led to the lengthy Montgomery bus boycott; in 1956 that the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation ordinance violated the 14th Amendment.

How about voting rights? Blacks were given the right to vote under the 15th Amendment, which was ratified in 1870. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 allowed the federal government to investigate and prosecute cases of voting rights infringement. Later, we had to enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to try and eliminate requirements such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and other inhibitors to voting, and also established the practice of federal approval of changes to voting laws in states where discrimination had historically occurred.

The VRA has been updated many times over the years, in part because of efforts to restrict voting rights continue to occur to this day.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice,
Overall, at least 99 bills to restrict access to registration and voting have been introduced in 31 states. Thirty-Five such bills saw significant legislative action (meaning they have at least been approved at the committee level or beyond) in 17 states.
Federal courts have called out in gory detail the extent to which several of these laws are driven not by any sense of urgency for protecting the sanctity of the ballot, but rather to limit the ability of blacks to vote.

In the 1950s and 1960s, African-American churches were regular targets of violence, including one incident in September 1963 that killed four schoolgirls. It didn't stop in the 1960s. In fact, Congress passed the Church Arson Prevention Act in 1996.  Not 1966, folks - 1996.  And it didn't stop then, either.

Yes -- in my lifetime, and yours, America has had issues with racism; we have issues with racism today, and we will continue to have issues with racism in the future, if we pretend that it's just the symbols that people are upset about.

It won't go away if we pretend it doesn't matter or doesn't impact us. It won't go away if we pretend the problem is violence, not racism. It won't go away if we pretend that speaking out against racism is the flavor of a day, rather than the flavor of several generations.

It won't go away unless we want it to.

August 18, 2017

TGIF 8/18/17

I've been tinkering with a post all day long, without getting past my own objections to my writing, so I'm throwing in the towel for now on that, and instead will just noodle about some random things tonight.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's main accomplishment,will be speaking to a conservative group at the end of September.

At Trump's Washington DC hotel.

Now, I've always been squeamish with SCOTUS justices giving speeches to ideological organizations - regardless of the ideology in question; something about that just doesn't smell right. Gorsuch's address to the Fund for American Studies at Trump's hotel comes just days before the first Monday in October, when the Court's term kicks off; their docket includes Trump's travel ban. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to go along with the smell.

In contrast, some organizations are coming to the decision that holding big charity functions at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Winter White House and home of the 'Have Your Photo Taken with the Football' event. David Farenthold, a reporter for the Washington Post who has been focusing on Trump businesses and charitable acts (or the lack thereof), is reporting that seven organizations have moved from the 'yes we'll be back' column to the 'no, we won't' column. Groups include the Susan G Komen Foundation, the Cleveland Clinic, the American Cancer Society, the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross, which has cancelled its event all together.

So here's a question for you: how long before the president starts attacking these organizations on Twitter? We all know how he hates when people do mean things to him, and taking high profile events away from his beloved Mar-a Lago sure counts as mean.  This has to be way up there on his list of acts requiring retribution. And not only that, but will his base stop donating to these organizations?

On another topic, it seems historians and others have noticed a striking resemblance between monuments to Union soldiers and to Confederate soldiers.  The Washington Post has a story today that includes these two pictures. I know people have long said that the Civil War had brother fighting brother - can you tell who's Blue and who's Grey?

from the Washington Post
That's Union on the left as you look at the pic, and Confederate on the right. The difference? The belt buckles - US for the North, CS for the South. As the article notes,
To the Monumental Bronze Co. in Bridgeport, Conn., it was all just business. Union or Confederate, a customer was a customer, another $450 for a zinc statue that could mean whatever you needed it to mean. It was a business model that could appeal to president Trump - a highly profitable product that could dress up a drab little town and make many Americans feel great again.
One American who's not feeling great again is Susan Bro. The mom of Charlottesville terrorism victim Heather Heyer, Bro has said in an interview that she has received death threats sand that she's not interested in talking to the president.

It seems the White House has reached out a few times, including the first time which might have actually been during Heather's memorial service; there were others after that as well. Bro was too tired to watch the news, and when she did, her opinion changed dramatically - after all, she had thanked Trump earlier in the week for his kind words. But now?
I hadn't really watched the news until last night and I'm not talking to the president now. I'm sorry, after what he said about my child. It's not that I saw somebody else's tweets about him, I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters...with the KKK and the white supremacists. You can't wash this one away by shaking my hand and saying "I'm sorry." I'm not forgiving for that. 
She also offered some advice for Trump:
Think before you speak. 
And finally, one more touch on the #MAGA theme. Trump has been telling us that Foxconn, the foreign company that makes electronics (including Apple products) in Taiwan, was going to be opening a factory in Wisconsin. Jobs, jobs jobs, he told us - that'll keep us from treating each other like crap, quell the racism and white supremacy and whatnot.

For some reason, when I heard the president going on and on about these great Foxconn jobs, I wasn't thinking we were buying those jobs through a massive corporate welfare program, did you?
Well, that's exactly what happened.

The Wisconsin state Assembly reached a deal on the economic development package for Foxconn, which will be putting its new factory in House Speaker Paul Ryan's district. I kid you not. Anyway, the deal is worth $3B -- billion with a B - in mostly cash incentives. The plant will eventually employ 13,000 people (less than the 50K the company said they wanted to create here) and average wages will be around $54K for the first 3,000 hired.

Oh - those incentives? The break-even point on that investment is not expected to hit for at least 25 years.

TGIF.

August 16, 2017

Wondering on Wednesday (v99)

As I write this post, on lunch break from my day job, things seem pretty quiet out there.

Oh, sure - people are calling for Trump's impeachment or resignation; defenders are defending and detractors are detracting, and there's still a ton of head-shaking going on about the press conference yesterday. That all matters, somehow, but something else that happened today matters more.

A memorial service was held today to honor and remember Heather Heyer, the Charlottesville "road rage" victim. Honestly, that's how some on the alt-right are describing her murder. I won't go into details on other comments, nor will I provide the link to the article, but it's out there.

Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, spoke eloquently about how her daughter should be remembered.
My child’s famous Facebook post was: "If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention." She paid attention. She made a lot of us pay attention. Oh, my gosh, dinner with her, we knew, was going to be an ordeal of listening. And conversation. And perhaps disagreement, but it was going to happen. And so, my husband would say, "OK, I’m going to go out in the car and play on my video game for a while." And we would sit and would grill. And she and I would talk, and I would listen. And we would negotiate, and I would listen.
And we talked about all this stuff. We talked about politics. We talked about anything that caught her eye that she felt was fair, unfair. She’d talk about her feelings about the office and how things were going. I mean, she just talked. The girl loved to talk. And she was single, so there was nobody to listen at home, so mama got a lot of it. And that was wonderful.
You never think you’re going to bury your child. You never think to take those pictures. They asked me for pictures for this, and I struggled. I had pictures from her childhood. But I had to go to Facebook to find pictures of my child, because we were always together. I saw her a couple times a month, at least, and we would text each other fairly often, and we would Facebook message at bedtime, "I love you," "I love you. You doing OK?" "Yeah, I love you." So I have no regrets on that part. Take pictures of the ones that you love, because you don’t know when they’re not going to be there. 
But here’s what I want to say to you today. This could be a storm in a teacup, and it could all be for nothing. This could have—I could have said, "Let’s don’t do this publicly. Let’s have a small private funeral." But, you know, that’s not who Heather was. Anybody who knew Heather said, "Yeah, this is the way she had to go, big and large." Had to have the world involved, because that’s my child. She’s just that way. Always has been, and she will continue to be.
Because here’s the message. Although Heather was a caring and compassionate person, so are a lot of you. A lot of you go that extra mile. And I think the reason that what happened to Heather has struck a chord is because we know that what she did is achievable. We don’t all have to die. We don’t all have to sacrifice our lives. They tried to kill my child to shut her up. Well, guess what. You just magnified her.  
So, here’s what I want to happen. You ask me, "What can I do?" So many caring people, pages of pages of pages of stuff I’m going through. I’m reading pages of pages of pages how she’s touching the world. I want this to spread. I don’t want this to die. This is just the beginning of Heather’s legacy. This is not the end of Heather’s legacy. 
You need to find in your heart that small spark of accountability. What is there that I can do to make the world a better place? What injustice do I see—and want to turn away: "I don’t really want to get involved in that. I don’t want to speak up. They’ll be annoyed with me. My boss might think less of me." I don’t care. You poke that finger at yourself, like Heather would have done, and you make it happen. You take that extra step. You find a way to make a difference in the world. 
My child had a high school education. My child was no saint. She was hard to raise, because everything was a negotiation. Not kidding. But you know what? She was a firm believer in whatever she believed. And let’s do that. Let’s find that spark of conviction. Let’s find in ourselves that action. Let’s spread this. Let’s have the uncomfortable dialogue.
It ain’t easy sitting down and saying, "Well, why are you upset?" It ain’t easy sitting down and going, "Yeah, well, I think this way. And I don’t agree with you, but I’m going to respectfully listen to what you have to say. We’re not going to sit around and shake hands and go 'Kumbaya.' And I’m sorry, it’s not all about forgiveness. I know that that’s not a popular trend. But the truth is, we are going to have our differences. We are going to be angry with each other. But let’s channel that anger, not into hate, not into violence, not into fear, but let’s channel that difference, that anger, into righteous action." 
Right now, down the road, there is a blood drive going on in Heather’s name. Right now, there are people who are here willing to listen to one another and talk to one another. Last night in New England, they had a peaceful rally in Heather’s name to have some difficult dialogues. If you ever want to see what one of those dialogues looks like, look at her Facebook post. I’m telling you, they were rough sometimes. But they were dialogues. And the conversations have to happen. That’s the only way we’re going to carry Heather’s spark through.
So, remember in your heart: If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. And I want you to pay attention, find what’s wrong. Don’t ignore it. Don’t look the other way. You make it a point to look at it, and say to yourself, "What can I do to make a difference?" And that’s how you’re going to make my child’s death worthwhile. I’d rather have my child, but, by golly, if I got to give her up, we’re going to make it count.
You know what I'm wondering today, right? The questions are right in front of us.

Will we poke that finger at ourselves, and make something happen, 
make a difference?

Will we find the spark of conviction, and be true to our values,
even if it's hard?

What about those difficult dialogues? Can we have those? Will we?

Will we pay attention, or just turn on the TV 
and watch football, as a friend of mine suggested (probably correctly)?

Will we really make Heather Heyer's death count for something? 

The alternative, as the president seems to have suggested, is that we go back to our selfish worlds, focusing on those great jobs, our great deregulated economy, our own individual universes, Made Great Again? 

I wonder: Are we Heather, or are we Trump?