TGIF 3/11/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's something for everyone in Texas!

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

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 3/9/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sidebar: Sunday School 3/6/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday School 3/6/22: Extra Credit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/6/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of people would agree, I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone disagree?

 See you around campus. 

Sunday School 1/30/22: Extra Credit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can watch this entire segment here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She's right. Do NOT drag this out. 

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/30/22

I wandered into ABC's This Week classroom yesterday. Here are some highlights. The segment that got the most press, from what I could see, was the George Stephanopoulos interview with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Very Concerned) and what she didn't say. But let's start with what she did say. 

Collins appreciates adding diversity to the Supreme Court, but says the "clumsy at best" process around Biden's promised nomination of a Black woman "adds to the further perception that the court is a political institution like Congress when it is not supposed to be." And, she disagreed with George that this was the same thing President Reagan did during the 1980 campaign.

Actually, this isn't exactly the same. I've looked at what was done in both cases. And what President Biden did was as a candidate, make this pledge. And that helped politicize the entire nomination process. What President Reagan said is, as one of his Supreme Court justices, he would like to appoint a woman.

I'm very concerned with the senator's research skills - because Reagan did not say he "would like to appoint a woman." He went much further than that.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court vacancies. 

Not only that, but thanks to some great research and documentation, we now know Reagan did it for exactly the same reason Biden did: to secure votes from a specific demographic in order to garner his party's nomination. 

Now, to the attention-grabbing part. George asked Collins about president Trump's hint that he'd pardon January 6th insurrectionists if he gets elected in '24, and whether she could  "imagine any circumstances where (she) could support his election." Collins said Trump shouldn't have said that; she thinks we "should let the judicial process proceed." And when George pushed her on not ruling out supporting Trump, here's what she said.

Well, certainly it's not likely given the many other qualified candidates that we have that have expressed interest in running. So, it's very unlikely.

It's also very unlikely she'll commit to anything, if she can't even commit to this. 

The panel this week included political animals Donna Brazile, Donna Shalala, and Chris Christie, and Reihan Salam, president of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Here's Brazile on SCOTUS, after noting that 108 of the 115 Supremes have been white males, some of whom "were extraordinary..."

But the fact is, 55 years after Thurgood Marshall was put on the court, 31 years after Clarence Thomas, 13 years after Sonia Sotomayor, this is a moment when the country can finally say equal justice under the law applies to everybody. It's an extraordinary move by the president. I welcome this appointment. And I'm going to fight with everything I have, to make sure that this extraordinary woman gets confirmed.

Here's Christie after noting that "elections have consequences."

...it wouldn't have been the way I would have approached it, by pre-announcing something like that, but Joe Biden won the election. He gets to make the choice. And every one of the 100 senators has a right then to scrutinize this person's background, experience, and decide whether or not they deserve lifetime tenure.

And Shalala, on both the prospect of a Black woman joining the Court and on polling showing most American just want the most qualified person. (I don't believe that for a NY minute, I've gotta tell you, but I digress). 

Well, it brings someone with a different experience, a black woman's experience. It makes the court look like America. It makes it look fairer. And I'm not surprised the majority of Americans think he ought to just pick the -- the qualified candidate. That's, in fact, an advancement, that we ought to pick the qualified candidate. But a black woman on the court, it will make a difference.

And, here's Salam, after noting he thought Biden's promise "was a mistake," because it limited his options 

... I think that one thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic coalition is awfully diverse along many different dimensions. Donna Shalala mentioned that there's such a thing as a black women's experience. When you look at the four leading contenders, as far as news reports go, these are people with dramatically different experiences and actually some subtle differences in ideological sensibilities as well... So I think that recognizing the distinctions among black women and recognizing that there are many other kinds of diversity one could bring to the bench is a good and valuable thing. And Democrats ought to keep it in mind.

Perhaps the most remarkable comment of this discussion was about the politics of the whole thing, and it came not from a panelist, but from the host. Christie set it up.

...But on the politics of this, George, for the midterms, when you have inflation where it is, when you have crime where it is, the things that affect people's everyday lives, they don't see the Supreme Court affecting their everyday lives in the same way that inflation, crime, and foreign policy crises do. So, I think it may have some small effect, but nowhere near a determinative one.

Here's the comment from Stephanopoulos.

It has rarely been a big - a big voting issue in either presidential or midterm elections...

Um, really, George? I'm Susan Collins-level very concerned with your failed memory of the 2016 and 2020 elections. The Supreme Court was one of the keys to Trump's victory in the former, and he also used it in the latter. Sheesh - everyone knows that.

I was going to end the post there, but instead I'll close with thoughts about Rs not wanting to stick a fork in a Trump 2024 run. Here's Salam's take on it.

Well, I think that it makes sense for people to want to preserve freedom of action. You do not know how the environment might change. There are a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives who said at the very beginning of the 2015-2016 campaign cycle that they wouldn't support Donald Trump. But then things changed. And we could condemn them. We could praise them for that. But the reality is that, you know, politics, the environment moves very, very quickly.

And, here's Brazile.

I can't imagine President Trump saying he will pardon the very same people who injured 140 policemen. I can't imagine President Trump saying at a rally that he would pardon people who said, kill Mike Pence, assassinate Nancy Pelosi. There's -- there's -- there's no place in our politics for that type of rhetoric and that type of action and leadership. So I hope the Republicans reject Donald Trump so that they can move past this movement and we can try to figure out how to bring the country together. 

From where I sit, 'bringing the country together' remains a Herculean, or even Sisyphean task, but one can always hope. I encourage you to join me in not holding your breath on this one.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/5/22

Ready... Set.. Wonder!

Welcome to the first Wondering Wednesday of the New Year! Let's dive right in.

Does former Trump assistant Peter Navarro believe what he's saying, I wonder? All his talk about the Green Bay Sweep and the 100 Congressmen and Sen. Rafael Cruz (R-Cancun) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R- Even My Family Thinks I'm a Traitor) and the rest of the activities on 1/6/2021? And does he have any idea how damaging this stuff is to his former boss?

Speaking of the former president, it seems he's cancelled a planned press conference at Mar-a-Lago tomorrow, the anniversary of the insurrection at the Capitol. Apparently, he's going to wait and let the news of Sean Hannity's texts die down a bit, and instead speak at a rally in Arizona in ten days. I can't help wondering if that rally will happen as planned.

After all, the Supreme Court is gathering documents in advance of their fast-tracked review of Trump's claim of executive privilege over information requested by the House January 6th committee. Lower courts have held that the privilege no longer applies to him; here are some thoughts on what the Supremes, three of whom are Trump appointees, might do. If they refuse to get involved, or if they decide that privilege is no longer Trump's, might that Arizona rally  go poof like the one in Tulsa?

Also going poof? A candlelight program which Cobb County, GA Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) had planned for tomorrow, which was to include streaming of Trump's remarks and "a prayer vigil for the jailed rioters still awaiting trial."  Yee hah, or something. I wonder what pushed them to cancel - complaints from real Republicans (the people Trumpers refer to as RINOs), or the fact that their fearless leader really isn't fearless? 

Others in the 'not fearless' bucket? The corporations and trade groups that have donated over $18M to members of the 'Sedition Caucus,' senators and representatives who supported the Big Lie, and to the national Republican re-election committees. I wonder if they remember the statements issued in the days after the insurrection, and how they justify the donations they've made in the year since?

What else is on the wondering docket? Well, there's a judge who just decided that members of the military can ignore a direct order, at least if they claim the order violates their religious freedom or free speech rights. I can only wonder what the hell the judge was thinking; does he really want Navy SEALs to do whatever they heck they feel like whenever they feel like it? And does he really think the Supremes are going to allow this ruling to stand? Never mind that last question; the judge clearly doesn't give a hoot about that.

There's more, of course - there's always more. But I'll leave you wondering with me about this: Melania Trump is selling a hat, a watercolor, and a "digital artwork NFT with motion" in her latest online auction. 

The starting bid? $250,000. Or, some 1415 rays of SOL digital currency.

What are you wondering about these days?

Sunday School 1/2/22: Extra Credit

The pandemic was one hot topic in the Sunday School classrooms this week; last year's insurrection was the other.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MI) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the chair and vice-chair of the House January 6th Committee, were in the classrooms, as was Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is on the committee and is chair of the House Intelligence Committee. 

We'll start with Thompson and his chat with Chuck Todd, which aired on Meet the Press. Asked if what happened was a protest that got out of hand, or an insurrection, Thompson said it was a bit of both.

... you had citizens who have the right to protest, who thought that was the end of what would happen, and you had others who obviously came with bear spray, camouflage, Kevlar, hockey sticks, everything, prepared to do something else. 

They've heard from many who volunteered details on their experiences on January 6th, Thompson said; the goal now is to get to people the Committee "basically identified that they’ve participated," including Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), to cooperate. And if they have the authority to issue subpoenas (that's being looked at), "there'll be no reluctance on our part" to do so.

There's no timeline yet for issuing a report, but they're "in a good place" to start drafting one. Thompson said the Committee "won't be deterred by the attempts to slow things down by (people) suing the committee." He suggested it would be substantive, adding

there is some legislation that we hope to recommend with this report that Congress needs to adopt so that what occurred on January 6th will never happen again... we came critically close to losing this democracy as we've come to know it. And so, it's our duty as patriots, as Americans, as members of Congress, to make sure that we get it right.

Last thoughts? 

... I think if Democrats and Republicans who are ideologically apart like Liz (Cheney) and Bennie Thompson can come together for the good of this country, we'd be in a better place if others could do the same thing.

Speaking of Cheney, here are highlights of her visit with George Stephanopoulos on This Week. She said they have "firsthand testimony" that Trump watched the attack on TV in the dining room next to the Oval Office, and that it's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than" Trump's lack of action on January 6th. 

The president could have at any moment, walked those very few steps into the briefing room, gone on live television, and told his supporters who were assaulting the Capitol to stop. He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home -- and he failed to do so. 

Whether it was criminally negligent has yet to be determined, but she did say one possible legislative change to be considered is whether "enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty" are needed. And she said, as he sat there, "members of his staff were pleading with him to go on television...Leader McCarthy was pleading with him to do that... Ivanka went in at least twice" to get him to stop the violence.

Any man who would not do so, any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, any man who would watch television as police officers were being beaten, as his supporters were invading the Capitol of the United States, is clearly unfit for future office...

She agreed with Hillary Clinton who said if Trump ran for president and won, "that could be the end of our democracy;" Trump "crossed lines no American president has ever crossed before," he "cannot be trusted," and he "went to war with the rule of law..."

Cheney didn't really have an answer to why a majority of Rs would elect Trump again. Rather, she said the GOP had to choose loyalty to Constitution, or to Trump - they cannot be both. And, she said,

the nation needs a Republican Party that is based on substance and values and principles, and we've got to get back to that if we want to get this nation back on track... at the end of the day, we can't be a party that's based on lies. We've got to be based on a foundation of truth and fidelity to the rule of law. And, in my view, the most conservative of conservative principles is fidelity to the Constitution.

Final thoughts on what gives her hope? The committee does; she believes it's truly non-partisan, made up of folks with "very different policy views" who come together when it comes to defending the Constitution. She suggested that's the kind of "serious leadership" Americans need.

They're looking for people certainly on both sides of the aisle who are going to dedicate themselves to policy and substance and engage in the debates that we need for the health of the nation and get away from the kind of vitriol that we are seeing too frequently, too often, frankly on both sides...

Republicans, she said, "have a particular duty to reject insurrection, to reject what happened on January 6th, and to make sure that Donald Trump is not our nominee and that he's never anywhere close to the reins of power ever again."

And, from Schiff's conversation with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation, we learn he hopes they'll have hearings soon, and that

...we hope to be able to tell the story to the country so that they understand it isn't just about that one day, January 6th, but all that led up to it, what happened on that day, and the continuing danger going forward.

Schiff said that Trump and his aides "were indicatively involved" in various efforts. He said many things related to the actual attack are still "under deep investigation," but the issue of the White House's role "is at the core of our investigation."

Switching to his Intelligence Committee role, and whether "there was just a failure of imagination in terms of too much focus on militias and organized groups versus sort of a defused threat of political violence," Schiff agreed in part, mentioning. 

the failure to see all the evidence that was out there to be seen for the propensity of violence that day. A lot of it on social media. Now, there are answers for why the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security failed to see it as (clearly) as they should have, and we're looking into that.

As is always the case, Schiff kept talking when he should have stopped. 

But we shouldn't be distracted from the fact that, yes, while there were things that could and should have been done to protect the Capitol that day, the primary lever, instrument, the cause of that violence was the promulgation of a big lie by the former president... it's important that we don't lose sight of the real motivating cause here and -- and not just focus on the security of the building. It's also vital we understand that this was an attack inspired by the commander- in-chief.

He said he doesn't think Trump and "his acolytes" will be successful in delaying documents and "denying justice," adding that the "the courts have been moving with great alacrity" in deciding that the documents should be turned over. 

But when it does go before the Supreme Court, we well get a sense of whether that court is a conservative court or whether it has become just a partisan court. If it's a conservative court, it will not disturb the decisions below, which I think have clearly held that Congress has a right to this information....

We may find out soon just what kind of Court this is. Trump's application for a hold on the Circuit Court's decision that the records should be turned over was filed back on December 23rd. Not long after, the committee asked for a fast-tracked decision by Supremes on Trump's request, and the former president agreed.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/2/22

Yesterday's classroom discussions focused mostly on the pandemic and the insurrection; I'll focus on the former here, and save the latter for your Extra Credit.

Dr. Anthony Fauci and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona made multiple appearances, while former FDA head Scott Gottlieb and Republican governors Larry Hogan (MD) and Asa Hutchinson (AR) were also roaming the halls. Here are some highlights.

Fauci, speaking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, gave this as his "key message on where things stand right now." 

Well, we are definitely in the middle of a very severe surge and uptick in cases...it is actually almost a vertical increase. We're now at an average of about 400,000 cases per day. Hospitalizations are up. One of the things that we hope for, George, is that this thing will peak after a period of a few weeks and turn around. 

And, in the State of the Union classroom, here's Fauci's response to a question from Dana Bash about the driver of the CDC's new relaxed guidelines on quarantining - science or social and business pressures.

There is no doubt that you do want to get people out into the workplace if they are without symptoms. And in the second half of a 10-day period, which would normally be a 10-day isolation period, the likelihood of transmissibility is considerably lower... the CDC made the judgment that it would be relatively low-risk to get people out. You're right. People are getting concerned about, why not test people at that time? I myself feel that that's a reasonable thing to do. I believe that the CDC soon will be coming out with more clarification of that, since it obviously has generated a number of questions...

Gottlieb appears regularly on Face the Nation, and touched on a few key issues in his discussion with Margaret Brennan. For example, he said that over 600 children have died from COVID since the beginning of the pandemic, compared to three pediatric deaths from the flu in the same time period. That said, 

In terms of going back to school, I think the prerogative clearly is to try to get schools reopened. We shouldn't be doing preemptive school closures, in my opinion, but there will be situations where we have reactive school closures, when there are large outbreaks.

Antigen tests work fairly well at detecting the omicron variant, but that "serial testing over a period of time" is the best way to protect a high-risk setting like a school. 

While any individual test could miss the infection, if you're doing serial testing, you're likely to pick it up. And we need to get tests into schools. We still don't have tests widely available to the schools, so that they can use these tests for tests-to- stay policies to prevent large quarantines when are cases diagnosed in the classroom.

He said we should be focused on getting schools open, and keeping them open, pointing out "with the tools we have, with prudence, with the knowledge we have," we can do "a pretty good job" of controlling large outbreaks in schools. However, he's not a fan of mandating boosters for school-age kids. He pointed to studies showing that there was "100% protection" in the 12-16 age group, and said in that group, the vaccinated "are getting a more robust response" from vaccines than others.

For his part, Secretary Cardona did his best to explain that the Biden administration wants kids in schools, they want everyone learning the best possible way they can, they want tests to be available, they want ventilation to be effective, and so on - but that's not enough, according to both Brennan and Gallagher. 

The hosts were skeptical of the efforts that have been undertaken, and how they are being perceived, particularly by teachers. Brennan wondered about teachers in Chicago, Massachusetts and Connecticut saying "they don't feel safe" in schools. Cardona said that the administration's messaging hasn't changed since he's been in position.

We need to make sure we're following mitigation strategies, that we're supporting our educators by providing a safe learning environment, we're providing vaccination for our students as young as 5, so that the whole school community is safe, and we're providing surveillance testing to make sure that, if someone is sick, that they stay home. 

Similarly, Gallagher referenced comments from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, expressing concern that school districts "don't have the infrastructure for testing and tests to stay. It's going to be really, really bumpy and there's going to need a lot of grace," something she said was "in short supply." 

Cardona noted "there's a level of urgency that we shouldn't lose around making sure that our children learn in person", saying "the impact of hybrid learning, the impact of remote learning, is very real" for parents as well as for the kids. He said the American Rescue Plan funding, coupled with efforts from other groups, is all geared towards keeping kids in school.

And when Gallagher asked if the road wasn't going to be as bumpy as Weingarten predicted, Cardona said

...it's really important that we continue to work together. I do think there will be bumps on the road, especially tomorrow. I mean, superintendents today are receiving calls of staff members that they were expecting to be in the classroom tomorrow who have come down with COVID. So, we're going to roll up our sleeves, all hands on deck. Let's keep our children in the classroom. That should be our default thinking, and as problems come up, we need to work together to solve them.

In both classrooms, I think his arguments fell short.

I'll close with an interesting discussion down the hall in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where Trace Gallagher talked with Gov. Hutchinson. To me, it felt like Gallagher was trying to get Hutchinson to downplay the efforts of the Biden administration on the pandemic, but the gov was surprisingly complimentary. 

For example, Hutchinson thought it "was an important step" that the CDC revised the guidelines, saying it was "a recognition that we have to be able to manage our way through" the pandemic. He applauded that "they used science, they overlaid it with practicality" but admitted there could be more consistency and simplicity for people.

While he agreed that 'pandemic politics' has played a role, and caused frustration and division, he also said "it really is refreshing that, I believe, there's a uniformity of opinion by our leaders that vaccinations are critical to get us through this. And so that unified message is absolutely essential, and we've got to -- so I complemented the president on that." 

Vaccinations have been a sore point in Arkansas; the state ranks 45th in percentage of people vaccinated, but he's not moving towards a mandate any time soon. If they ever did get to that point,

there always has to be the right exceptions for religious convictions if -- you know, if vaccines are not acceptable, and that is the current law in Arkansas, and that should continue to be the case.

Feeling better after all of that? 

See you around campus.