Quick Takes (v72): The Three Cs

He's important, he's influential, and he'd never been in a Sunday School classroom until his taped interview with Jon Karl aired on This Week. 

'He' is Charlamagne tha God; it was in his interview in 2020 that brought us this comment from then-candidate Joe Biden: 

Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.

Karl started with a quote from his guest, who said the 2024 campaign is "a race between the cowards, the crooks, and the couch." Here's how he defines those three Cs.

...the crooks are the Republicans. The cowards are the Democrats, because they don't fight hard enough on anything. And, you know, the couch is voter apathy. And, you know, that's -- that's who everybody is up against in 2024. 

He doesn't know if anyone benefits from the couch winning, but that's what it feels like will happen; even his audience isn't energetic. He said "nobody wants to see the rematch" between Biden and Trump, and that's why he feels the couch will win.

He also said it's "mind-boggling" to him that people aren't even taking January 6th seriously. He said, "Everybody's acting like it was just a bunch of people, you know, wilding at spring break, you know, down in Florida." 

Karl pointed out that President Biden talks about that all the time, and wondered why it isn't resonating. Charlamagne was blunt: "... there's nothing about...Joe Biden that makes you want to listen to him." He said Biden needs to be leaning on others, like Vice President Kamala Harris ("way more charismatic than him"), California's Gavin Newsom, and Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro.

And he should just be, I guess, if you want to call it the brains of the operation behind the scenes... Like, that sounds crazy that we're saying that about a president of the United States of America, but he, he has no 'main character energy' at all. None.

And when he compares Biden to Trump, who's nearly as old, the latter seems "a lot more youthful...  like he has a lot more energy."

And I always say this about him: Donald Trump seems more sincere about his lies than Joe Biden does about his truth.

Ouch. If you're part of the Biden campaign, you've got a tough row to hoe with that, I think.

Charlamagne endorsed the Biden/Harris ticket in 2020, mostly because of Harris, and Karl asked if she had met expectations. Another blunt response: she hasn't - but he doesn't think "it's too late for her to pivot." Her problem is that the VP is supposed to speak on behalf of the president, that's it.

But I think, man, we're in a new, a new era, right? Like, like for new jack problems, we need new jack solutions. And she serves a unique purpose, right? Because she is the first woman of color in that position.

Thinking about then-Senator Harris 'prosecuting' witnesses in hearings, Charlamagne said

I want to see her prosecute the case against Donald Trump in this country. I feel like she could go out there and really let the American people, you know, know what's going on. I'd like to see her going on outlets like Fox News. I'd like to see her going in there and mixing it up.

Does he hear from the administration when he's critical of Biden? That's a yes, and he thinks "that's the stupidest (EXPLETIVE DELETED) ever," because he thinks we all should be able to criticize elected officials, especially given what we're up against.  

So what I'm saying to them is, where is the sense of urgency? You can't keep saying that there's a threat to democracy, and democracy as we know it is going to be, be gone, but not act like it.

He also has a problem with the Dems "demonizing" their opponent, saying "Since I've been alive, whoever the Republican presidential candidate has been, they've demonized." 

And now that there's an actual legitimate threat right there in our faces, they're like, they're like the party who cried wolf. Nobody believes them.

He says it's "scary" that he doesn't know who will win. With the insurrection, and Roe being overturned, when you look at it, "it really shouldn't be close, right?" But the polls say Biden would lose to Trump in the general election.

That's where these conversations are coming from, where they're like, you, you might need to step aside and put somebody else in there. Because you know, my fear is that the election is going to be close, right?

He's not going to endorse anyone, Charlamagne said, but he will tell his listeners what he's seeing including this:

For years, they've told us that, you know, these people are threats to democracy. This person is absolutely a threat to democracy.

He'll continue to "speak the truth" about Dems, too. If he lies about Biden, why should anyone believe him when he tells the truth about Trump? He added

... I hate to say this, but why do we keep having to say this: pick your poison. One poison might send you to the hospital for a couple of days. Other ones will absolutely kill you. 

I don't take issue with what Charlamagne said, just as I didn't with what Jon Stewart said. I'd love to hear what you think - drop a comment, if you like.

Wondering on Wednesday 2/21/24

Ready... set... wonder!

I read an article about a move to teach financial literacy in high schools, which I think is a good idea. I mean. my dad set up something like that when I was a high school senior way back in the dark ages, so I'm all for it. In this case, though, banks are behind the curriculum, and I'm wondering how they'll possibly avoid trying to train customers, not just financially aware students.

***** *****

This one's such a no-brainer that I can't imagine it not moving forward, especially in an election year: there's at least one bill to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security beginning in 2025.  In addition to getting rid of taxes, it'll change the way Social Security is funded, which could add years to the program's life expectancy. You might be wondering what I'm wondering on this one, and it's simple: Will Donald Trump tell the MAGA Campers to block this one and save it for him? Or, if it does pass, will he take credit for not stopping them from voting? 

***** *****

This one's a head-spinner: a trucker has called for boycotting deliveries to New York City, in protest of the fines imposed on Trump in his financial shenanigans case. "Chicago Ray," the trucker, tweeted

I'm just one of the many millions of Truckers who believe in God and love this Country. I stand with Trump bc Trump stands with me. Truckers for Trump ain't just a slogan, it's real.

Trump was delighted, as you might imagine, to "have so many Great Patriots" on his side, and so on.  But then, Chicago Ray deleted his original tweet, put up another one in which he stressed he was not encouraging anyone to do anything - and then deleted that one, too. And I can't help wondering, is he still a Great Patriot, or not?

***** *****

I wonder if anyone actually bought a mattress for President's Day, and if yes, which president were they honoring? 

***** *****

Do you remember where you were when you heard the news that the Klondike Choco Taco was being discontinued? I don't - I would have thought it was last year, not back in 2022 - but I do remember seeing 'make them yourself' recipes popping up on social media at the time. I suspect fans of the ice cream favorite are pretty excited this week, as we learned that they're coming back, thanks to Taco Bell and the Salt & Straw ice cream company. They won't be exactly the same though.

The new treat will feature a waffle cone filled with cinnamon ancho chile ice cream dipped in chocolate and topped with toasted brown rice. 

And, because it's Taco Bell, there'll be dipping sauces - and I'm really wondering how I lived to the ripe old age of way older than a Choco Taco, and never felt the urge to dip my ice cream in a spicy sauce. 

***** *****

Things have been a little rocky in the House lately, with Speaker Mike Johnson trying to balance the so-called Freedom Caucus, Donald Trump's campaign wishes, the imploding impeachment investigation into President Biden, foreign aid to our allies, a border crisis, a looming government shutdown, losing the Santos seat, redistricting efforts which might erase his razor-thin majorities, and most recently, three GOP committee chairs announced they won't be seeking re-election.

But Johnson might get a lifeline from the Dems: a resolution being circulated by  NJ Rep. Josh Gottheimer that would change the 'McCarthy Ouster Rules' and require party leadership to approve any resolutions to vacate the Speaker's chair, rather than allowing any member to do it.  I like this idea, but I wonder if there are enough Rs upset with the nonsense to approve such a measure, and I also wonder if Johnson's got the courage to accept such an offer. 

***** *****

Finally, I've got some information on something a lot of people have been wondering about - that GoFundMe to raise money for Trump's fines.  Many people have questioned how it didn't violate the website's policies, and the GFM folks have answered the question. 

According to the rules, you cannot raise money to pay legal fees for someone charged with a violent crime, or financial crimes - but this one, which is to pay fines after crimes have been adjudicated, is not outside the rules. Yet, anyway. 

And in case anyone's wondering, over $905,000 has been donated by over 16,000 people. 

What's on your wondering minds tonight?

Sunday School 2/18/24: Extra Credit

For this week's Sunday School, I focused on some of the Democrats who were wandering the halls. 

For your Extra Credit, I've got former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Too Sane for MAGA Camp), who talked with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom.

Like most folks, Cheney believes "there's no question" Vladimir Putin is responsible for the death of Alexei Navalny. And that makes it even more important that we "pass the aid bill that the Ukrainians need so urgently to help them continue what they're doing" to defeat the Russians.

And one thing that's really important, Jake, for the viewers to recognize and understand is, one man - one man has the power in his hands to get that done. And that's... Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. It's very unusual actually in American history to be in a situation where one man holds that kind of power who's not the president.

Officially, it's Johnson, but for all practical intents, haven't her former colleagues in the House (and the Senate, too) ceded that power to Donald Trump? 

She added Johnson's got some soul-searching to do on Ukraine; he needs to understand "exactly what's happening," and how the Ukrainians are the front line in the fight for freedom.

And history will look back at this moment and ask, what did Mike Johnson do? He has said, and I take him at his word, that he believes that God has told him that he's called to be Moses. And I think Mike Johnson ought to look at whether or not this is actually that moment, and he ought to help the Ukrainian people.

Tapper mentioned the pressure on Johnson, and the threat that hangs over his head: the ironically-named House 'Freedom' Caucus, which holds the Speakership hostage, could move to boot him from the role. Cheney agrees but says Johnson should understand it'd be worth it to lose the position to do the right thing. She should know, right?

And, again, he's going to have to explain to future generations, to his kids, to his grandkids whether or not he did what was right, whether or not he was a force for good and aided the cause of freedom, or whether he continued down this path of cowardice and doing what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin want him to do.

Again, like most folks, she's not impressed with Trump not having said anything about his friend Putin taking out a political rival. She also reminded us that Trump has promised retribution, and that retribution is what Putin did to Navalny. Trump needs to be taken seriously, and

We have to take seriously the extent to which you have now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party. I believe the issue this election cycle is making sure the Putin wing of the Republican Party does not take over the west wing of the White House.

She was harsh on Trump's NATO approach, calling it "dangerous," "disgraceful," and "completely uninformed and ignorant," and said what's "so misguided" about people thinking we should just walk away from Ukraine is

if Putin wins in Ukraine, he's telling us... the Baltics are next, Poland is next, NATO member countries will be next. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the security system -- and he knows this -- the security structures that have maintained peace and security and freedom since the end of World War II will begin to unravel.

She thinks "what the Republicans are doing" with our border issues "is really shameful." She strongly blames the Biden administration for its failures there, but "as soon as the agreement was reached" - the tripartisan Sinema/Langford/Murphy bill - she said Trump stepped in again, preferring an issue to run on, rather than movement to solve the problem. And the "contortions from many leading Republicans," aren't fooling anyone, on anything.

I think, again, the American people are too smart to fall for that, and I think that my former colleagues ought to stop the political contortions and realize how significant and serious this national security moment is.

They talked about Trump's legal issues; regarding the E. Jean Carroll case, she said the jury found that Trump actually did what he said he could get away with on the Access Hollywood tape. And she pointed to the common thread with all of the cases: Trump won't follow the law, he won't tell the truth, and he's got a "fundamental lack of character."

 And I think one of the things that is so troubling about this political season is the extent to which you have got people that used to be good and honorable members of Congress, for example, who have simply, apparently, abandoned the need to actually elect people of character and honor, and instead are embracing him.

Tapper was surprised that Sen. Mitt Romney would be "unique" among the Rs in the Senate and House to say, in effect, that he won't vote for someone who's guilty of sexual assault.  Cheney agreed. 

I mean, you would think that anyone with a daughter, sister, a mother would be where Senator Romney is on that issue. 

Tapper noted that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-You Kidding Me? Of Course I'll be His Veep), both said they would not have certified the election on January 6th, and he wondered whether anyone should be comfortable voting for a Republican ticket with either of them on it. That's a big fat no from Cheney - and, she said, Stefanik should be removed from the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Cheney also didn't think much of Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, who recently said he'd vote for Trump over Biden even though, he also said,

Voting for Trump is playing Russian roulette with the country. Voting for Biden is outright national suicide.

She said he's "absolutely wrong," and even though she hasn't endorsed anyone, she "certainly would never support Donald Trump." Why?

...we know what Donald Trump will do because he's telling us every day. And anybody who has spent any time overseas, who has spent any time studying the history of autocracies and of autocrats knows we have to listen to what Donald Trump's saying. So electing Donald Trump's not Russian roulette. Electing Donald Trump would mean putting in power a man who's committed to unraveling our constitutional framework. So Bill Barr is just wrong on that.

And what about her plans? Tapper tried to get her on the record, on a variety of options.

• Is she running for president? No decision yet, but she'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump. 
• If she didn't run, would she support Biden over Trump if they were the choices? She's "not making any announcements or endorsements," but she'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump.
• If she were a South Carolina voter, he assumed she'd support Nikki Haley in the primary? "Yes; I mean, again, I am not making any endorsements, but I don't think that's a hard call at all."

Cheney was - is - much more conservative than I am; heck, she voted with Trump nearly 93% of the time during her career. But she's one of the few politicians who answers the questions she's asked and is not afraid to speak her mind. I wish all of the folks who sat in the classrooms were as accessible. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/18/24

I visited three classrooms Sunday to hear what the Democrats were saying, starting with the This Week classroom, where Jon Karl talked with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

Karl asked, "What worries you about... a Biden-Trump rematch?" In part, the gov said

this election really is about all of us and whether or not we’re going to rise up and use our voices and ultimately our vote to protect our fundamental freedoms, to scream out for the kind of country that we want, to protect this 247-year experience that began right here... 

Regarding the tight polls in PA, Shapiro correctly noted that the campaign hasn't really started yet, and polls have frequently been wrong in his state. Echoing Jon Stewart, he added

And I would say to folks who are worried about the numbers, stop worrying and start working. 

He gave several examples of how Pennsylvanians "voted for freedom and against extremism," over the past few years, and promised that he'd "do everything in my political power" to make the case against Trump and for Biden.  

Karl mentioned Ezra Klein commenting in the NY Times that Biden should bow out of the race and let the delegates choose the nominee. 

I think Biden, as painful as this is, should find a way (of) stepping down as a hero, that the party should help him find his way to do that, to being the thing he said he would be in 2020, a bridge to the next generation of Democrats... Retirement can be, often is, a trauma. But losing to Donald Trump would be far worse."

Shapiro agrees with Klein that "the stakes could not be higher," but said Biden'll be the guy, and he'll have Shapiro's support.

...we’ve got to go out and make that case. The president, the vice president and those of us who are privileged who support him and have a front-row seat to this, we've got to go out and do this important work now.  

He said we all are "going to have to stand up and be counted" on whether America will continue "to be a voice of freedom and democracy..." and he's confident voters,

 ...just as they did in 2020, they will rise up; they will demand more; they will seek justice; and they will look to defend freedom in this nation, and they will reject Donald Trump.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was in the Meet the Press classroom with Kristen Welker, who asked if the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to call Robert Hur to testify. Klobuchar suggested in the upper chamber, they have "many other things" they need to do, legislating tech and dealing with fentanyl among them. 

She also said it would be "up to the president and his lawyers," to address Hur's comments about Biden, but said she's been with him, talking about both domestic and international issues, and she said "he was focused. His recall was good." Her colleagues have said had similar experiences, she said.

...I think that we've got to evaluate what's happening right now by, one, what he has done... and focus on what matters to the American people and compare what he is doing to what we've got as the alternative on the Republican side, which is Donald Trump who is nothing but standing up week by week for chaos.

Welker mentioned growing chatter from Dems about Biden's ability to win a second term, and like Karl, she picked something from Klein's column.

He is not up for this. He is not the campaigner he was even five years ago. The way he moves, the energy in his voice. The Democrats denying decline are only fooling themselves.

Klobuchar disagreed; she listed several Dem wins, none of which really rebutted Klein's point. And, she added,

Time and time again the American people have stood with the policies and the work of Joe Biden because they do not want to go back to the chaos and madness of Donald Trump.

Welker said that "the vast majority of Americans say they are not feeling it" on Biden's handling of the economy, and asked whether it was time for Biden to hang it up. 

Again, I'm a believer in President Biden because I believe he is a good moral person that has the backs of the people of this country... I am proud to be supporting Joe Biden for president.

Welker pushed back about voters not feeling it, and after listing more policy wins, Klobuchar said

He is not running, as the president has said, against the almighty. He is running against Donald Trump. And time and time again, the voters have made clear where they stand on Donald Trump.

Given the choice, moderates and independent voters will go for "someone who believes in democracy" and fights against the Putins of the world, 

as opposed to Donald Trump, who literally a week ago said that Vladimir Putin should be able to do whatever the hell he wants... 

My last stop? The Face the Nation classroom where Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) spoke with Robert Costa. Noting the Congressman was "optimistic" about Biden's re-election campaign, Costa asked, "What keeps you up at night, politically? "

Clyburn said "the misinformation efforts that are underway throughout this campaign" keep him "wide awake."

I've heard so much from people sharing with me things that just aren't true. So much from people who seem to feel that everything they see or hear via the internet has some substance to them. And so that's the thing that keeps me up, whether or not we're going to have a campaign for the presidency free of all of these interruptions and all of the misinformation.

When prompted, he mentioned the AI robocalls in New Hampshire and said similar shenanigans are happening in his state; for example, Dems are being invited to participate in the GOP primary, and folks "saying things over the air that just aren't true." 

Costa switched gears, asking if the administration's support of Israel's war with Hamas could dampen turnout "among young voters and others," Clyburn expressed concern about Israel/Hamas, and Russia/Ukraine, too. People are looking for someone

who can lead us through this stuff. And nobody is better equipped to do that than Joe Biden. He – has the experience. He has the wisdom. He has the demeanor. He has the relationships. He has what it takes to get this country to where it needs to be and to maintain the relationships we need to have with our allies around the world. That you're not going to find on the other side of the aisle.

He's shared his personal thoughts about Netanyahu with Biden, he said, and interestingly, I thought, Clyburn added that while Biden doesn't share all his thoughts publicly

...I know this, he feels about the way I feel when it comes to Netanyahu... his leadership has not been good for Israel. We stand firmly with the people of Israel. But I've always had a real problem with Netanyahu, and that continues to be today.

Costa, the former newspaper guy, did something remarkable - he asked a follow-up question! Two of them!

Costa: You say you have a problem with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and you say you've spoken to the president privately about this. Does he have a problem with Netanyahu?

Clyburn: I've shared with the president what my feelings are about Netanyahu. He is going to develop his own feelings about that. He hasn't told me exactly what –

Costa: But does he agree or disagree with your assessment, Congressman?

Clyburn: Well, he's accepted my assessment. I have not asked him whether or not he agreed with me. In fact, I just let him know, 'This is the way I feel. I'm not running the country. You do what you feel is in the best interest of the country.'

Last two questions. First, in 2020, Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court; he got Clyburn's endorsement in return. Is there a pledge this time around, too?

He should continue to manage the country the way he's managing it... I would say to him, keep doing what you're doing.

And finally, 83-year-old Clyburn is running for re-election in November. Costa wondered how 81-year-old Biden should handle the age question as the campaign progresses. The answer? talk about his experience and wisdom, and maintain connections with people.

Clyburn's going to be visiting New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, he said, 

carrying the president's message of experience, of a steady hand, of maintaining our trek toward a more perfect union, doing the things that are necessary to maintain our relationships around the world and move this country forward on behalf of all.

He closed by telling Costa he's "fond of saying, this is a great country, in no need of being made great. We've just got to figure out ways to make this country's greatness accessible and affordable for all of our citizens. And Joe Biden is doing that. And we have got to stay focused on that."

Out of the mouths of octogenarians, or something.  

See you around campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v121)

Ready for a recap of last week's posts? Let's dive in!

As usual, Sunday School was first up, and the Jon Karl/Benjamin Netanyahu interview on This Week was the only lesson of the post. One of the highlights for me was the exchange about how Israel was being mindful of Palestinian civilians and the various ways they tried to keep them safe. Here's a bit of that part of the discussion.

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

I was incredulous with Karl's apparent lack of curiosity about Netanyahu's response.

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

For your Extra Credit, I again only offered one lesson: Sen. Marco Rubio's discussion with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom, which focused on immigration and the so-called border crisis which is so important the Senate couldn't pass a tripartisan bill that folks had worked on for four months -  or wouldn't pass it because the House had declared it DOA. Here's a snippet of the conversation on changes to how we would have handled asylum claims under the failed bill.

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

That got me thinking... 

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

When it came time for Wednesday's Wondering, I was thinking a lot about President Biden and former president Trump, their ages, and their memories. And, about this.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving either of them a pass. I believe they are both the wrong people to be running for president. But if 'we' - the media, the punditry, the keyboard warriors - are going to make the age and mental failings of one of them an issue in the 2024 race, I can't help wondering what it's going to take to get 'us' talking about the other guy, too, with the same level of breathless panic.

I managed to hit another of my old weekly features - TGIF - in which I make somewhat random, definitely opinionated good week/bad week lists. Here's a sampling of what that looks like. The topic? Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the race to replace George Santos.

About that loss, many House Republicans are venting their frustrations about the decision to expel Santos back in December. Ethically challenged Matt Gaetz is one of course; and so is Texas Rep. Troy Nehls, who declared "...the only way you can win elections, is that you have to get into the slop with the pigs," or at least don't kick them out of the House.

Speaking of pigs, Colorado's Rep. Ken Buck referenced the same hoofed mammal as Nehls did when he explained his 'no' vote on the Mayorkas impeachment.

You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but it's still a pig...

 The rest of that comment is important, too. 

I closed the week with a Sidebar on the TGIF. I had Jon Stewart on my good week list, for his return to the host's desk on The Daily Show.  I appreciated what he said, and how he said it, even though I had seen several critical articles about it - including one from a certain someone's famous relative. I was surprised with her take on it, and on Stewart's power.

 Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

And just like that, you're all caught up on the latest pastiche. I hope to see you for this week's posts.

Sidebar: TGIF 2/16/24

In yesterday's TGIF, I put Jon Stewart on my good week list; here's what I said.

Jon Stewart returned to the host's chair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I thought he did fine. Of course, I'm not afraid of pointing out shortcomings on the Dem side of the aisle, just as I'm not afraid of pointing them out on the aisle's other side.

While I thought his monologue was entertaining, it didn't pull any punches. 

• He talked about Biden not being able to remember things in his deposition and he showed a clip of not one, but four people named Trump not being able to recall things in their depositions;
• he blasted Biden's handlers, who aren't keeping a good handle on him, allowing him to make bad decisions, and bad appearances, like going on TikTok instead of doing the traditional Super Bowl Sunday presidential interview;
• he mocked just one of Trump's absurd statements - that Pennsylvania would change its name if he didn't win the election;
• he said Trump and Biden are "similarly challenged" age-wise, and gaffe-wise and
• he lamented that the strong, focused, on-his-game Biden that all of his staffers, appointees, and friends see is never filmed.

Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

Mary Trump, and the many others who jumped all over Stewart for "both-side-ism," missed the real point of his monologue. I added emphasis for her, and them.

We are not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable - but they are both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world. What's crazy is thinking that we're the ones, as voters, who must silence concerns and criticisms. It is the candidates' job to assuage concerns, not the voters' job not to mention them.

Stewart goes out of his way to say Biden isn't Trump, and lists the many ways they are not the same, and then says

But the stakes of this election don't make Donald Trump's opponent less subject to scrutiny - it actually makes him more subject to scrutiny. And if the barbarians are at the gate, you want Conan standing on the ramparts, not "chocolate chip cookie man."

The 'chocolate cookie man' comment is not a slap at Biden per se; it's a slap at the people who kept him away from - or didn't get him into - the Super Bowl Sunday interview and instead posted a bad TikTok video. Those folks, he said, deserve to be fired. 

Stewart told us that "The next nine months or so, depending on the coup schedule - they're gonna suck." We're going to be bombarded with emails, phone calls, and more,

and it's all going to make you feel like Tuesday, November 5th is the only day that matters. And that day does matter, but man, November 6th ain't nothing to sneeze at, or November 7th. If your guy loses, bad things might happen but the country is not over, and if your guy wins, the country is in no way saved.

He continued, after admitting that the old Jon Stewart was "too glib" and "too dismissive" of the fact that

... the work of making this world resemble one that you would prefer to live in is a lunchpail fucking job day in and day out where thousands of committed anonymous smart and dedicated people bang on closed doors and pick up those that are fallen and grind away on issues until they get a positive result and even then, have to stay on to make sure that result holds. 

So, the good news is, I'm not saying you don't have to worry about who wins the election - I'm saying you have to worry about it every day before it and every day after it. For ever. Although on the plus side, I'm told that at some point, the sun will run out of hydrogen.

If Mary Trump and all the others who jumped all over Stewart had paid attention to his full monologue, they'd understand that he's not "a danger to democracy," he's promoting participation in our democracy, and he's promoting accountability on the part of people who put these candidates before us. 

Is he wrong? 

TGIF 2/16/24

What a busy few days we've had! Here are my good week and bad week lists. 

Jon Stewart returned to the host's chair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I thought he did fine. Of course, I'm not afraid of pointing out shortcomings on the Dem side of the aisle, just as I'm not afraid of pointing them out on the aisle's other side.

House Speaker Mike Johnson may think he had a good week, but I beg to differ. First, there was the declaration that the Senate's tripartisan border bill would be DOA in the House; then, the House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a purely partisan effort (even though he pretended that wasn't the case). And then? Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, won the special election for the NY-3 seat previously held by serial liar George Santos.

About that loss, many House Republicans are venting their frustrations about the decision to expel Santos back in December. Ethically challenged Matt Gaetz is one of course; and so is Texas Rep. Troy Nehls, who declared "...the only way you can win elections, is that you have to get into the slop with the pigs," or at least don't kick them out of the House.

Speaking of pigs, Colorado's Rep. Ken Buck referenced the same hoofed mammal as Nehls did when he explained his 'no' vote on the Mayorkas impeachment.

You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but it's still a pig. And this is a terrible impeachment. It sets a terrible precedent. The first impeachment of Donald Trump was a bad impeachment. And we've got to stop this in this body, or we are going to - further lose our credibility with the American public. 

And, sticking with the bad impeachment theme, Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, saw another of his key Biden investigation witnesses get in trouble. This time, it was Alexander Smirnov, who was charged with lying to the FBI about Joe and Hunter Biden each being paid $5M by Burisma executives in 2015 or 2016.  

Last time, it was Gal Luft, head of a think tank, who alleged that the Bidens received payments from the Chinese, and that Hunter had a mole in the FBI. Luft is a wanted fugitive, indicted for arms trafficking, being an unregistered foreign agent, and other charges.

Sir Paul McCartney's week ended on a high note: his missing bass has been found. It was stolen in 1972 from a roadie's van. According to the folks responsible for tracking it down, it'll need some work before it can be played again. You can read more about the instrument, the search, and how it was found at The Lost Bass Project. 

And finally, Donald Trump was handed another nine-figure penalty by a judge, and NY AG Letitia James attempted to be funny with a Valentine's Day poem that was neither particularly funny, nor particularly poetic. And yes, I know most folks will say James had a good week, but we'll see what happens on appeal.

Who made your lists this week?

Wondering on Wednesday 2/14/24

 

Ready... set... wonder!

I wonder more than a little if the candy in those ubiquitous red hearts - the ones that have been on store shelves in my neck of the woods since around Thanksgiving - is still safe to eat? And if it is, will it taste as good as if I paid full price to get it, I wonder?

With all the talk about memory, two old guys running for president, and all of the known instances where both of the OGs have demonstrated memory lapses, I wonder if there's really a significant difference between OG1 not remembering the exact dates he was vice president, and OG2 not remembering when he was married to one of his wives. 

And I wonder more if there isn't greater significance to OG2 saying, in a videotaped deposition about his sexual assault case, that a picture of him and the woman he was accused of sexually assaulting was actually a picture of him and his wife than there is that OG1 didn't remember the date his son died when asked that question in a deposition regarding classified documents. 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving either of them a pass. I believe they are both the wrong people to be running for president. But if 'we' - the media, the punditry, the keyboard warriors - are going to make the age and mental failings of one of them an issue in the 2024 race, I can't help wondering what it's going to take to get 'us' talking about the other guy, too, with the same level of breathless panic.

And, totally NOT related to breathless panic... My father, a high school history teacher, used to call me every Valentine's Day and leave a voicemail telling me he loved me and hoped I'd have a great day. Before he hung up, without fail, he'd close with a 'rat-tat-tat-tat-tat' which was his way of commemorating the St. Valentine's Day massacre. And I find myself randomly wondering what my mother must have thought the first time he did it, and, the tenth, and the 20th... I know I loved it, every time. 

What's on your wondering minds tonight?

Sunday School 2/11/24: Extra Credit

Little Marco Rubio (R-Florida Man) was in the State of the Union classroom on Sunday, and Jake Tapper was hosting, so I figured, why not drop in? 

Rubio, who sponsored legislation back in December requiring any American president to get the advice and consent of the Senate, or an Act of Congress, before pulling the US out of NATO or messing with our membership, was asked if he was "comfortable" with Trump's recent comments on Russia, NATO, and us potentially not supporting our allies. Here's his 264-word response.

Well, that's not what happened. And that's not how I view that statement. I mean, he was talking about something, a story that he talked about happened in the past. By the way, Donald Trump was president, and he didn't pull (us out of) NATO. In fact, American troops were stationed throughout Europe. As they are today, they were then as well. But he's telling a story. And, frankly, look, Donald Trump is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He doesn't talk like a traditional politician. And we have already been through this now. You would think people had figured it out by now. What he's basically saying is, if you see the comments, he said NATO was broke or busted until he took over because people weren't paying their dues. And then he told the story about how he used leverage to get people to step up to the plate and become more active in NATO. He's not the first American president. In fact, virtually every American president at some point in some way has complained about other countries in NATO not doing enough. Trump's just the first one to express it in these terms. But I have zero concern, because he's been president before. I know exactly what he has done and will do with the NATO alliance. But there has to be an alliance. It's not America's defense with a bunch of small junior partners. Some of these are big countries with big economies. Many of them are doing more. The Germans are doing a lot right now.

He didn't, but Tapper should have asked why that legislation was so important if Trump's only blowing smoke. He did ask how Rubio'd explain to Israel and Ukraine why he's going to deny them aid. Here's his 333-word explanation; I've broken it into themes for clarity. 

First: "I'd do anything for you, dear, Israel."

I don't oppose giving them the help that they need, especially in the case of Israel. And if you put the Israel thing up to a -- if you put Israel aid up to a vote right now, it would pass. I don't even know -- maybe a couple of people would vote against it. But, basically, it would pass very quickly. The problem is, Israel is being held hostage so they could get Ukraine.

Second: "I'm An American, and I might miss the Super Bowl." 

As far as how do I explain it to them, before I explain anything to them, I have to explain to my constituents, I have to explain to the people of Florida, I have to explain to the American people because I'm a US senator. And my number one obligation is America. If America is not strong, we can't help any of our allies. And I will have to explain to them why the Senate is going to work all through Super Bowl weekend, which is fine with me.

 Third: "We're being invaded!"

We're going to make a big priority, except on something that's critical to this country, which is the invasion that's going on, on our own border, on our own border. We're over -- according to a House committee and the documents and the statistics they put out -- I think these numbers are low, but let's just use them -- 3.3 million people have been released into the country who arrived here illegally. Over 600,000 of them either have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them.

And, fourth: "We don't need no stinking bill." 

I mean, this is a huge problem and it has to be addressed and they put out a bill. They can call it whatever they want. It wasn't a border security bill. It wasn't tough. And, frankly, it was negotiated by three people. I don't begrudge it, but I wasn't involved in that negotiation. I didn't even ask for a bill. I asked for the president to reverse the executive orders that created this crisis when he took over in January 2021.

Tapper asked directly if Rubio supported aid to Ukraine. 

I think, if we secure our own border here in the United States, I have said that we should do -- we should help Ukraine. Look, half the money that's going to Ukraine is not going to Ukraine. It's to buy back our own weapons that we gave them to restock our own shelves. And, obviously, Taiwan is included there as well. My problem is this: Before we do these things, we have to make America and Americans a priority again...

Besides, the current migrant crisis, he said, is causing "a crime wave," and

Why are we spending all of this taxpayer money to house migrants, feed migrants, accommodate migrants? We have a bunch of needs in our own country for Americans. How is that not our priority? Americans have to be our priority, and then we can help our allies.

Tapper played a clip of Brandon Judd, the head of the Border Patrol union, saying the bill Rubio helped defeat "absolutely is" better than the status quo, and

Nobody can argue that it's not better than what we currently have. Although it's not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. And I would rather have the step in the right direction than nothing. 

Rubio thinks the union's wrong, saying "It's not better than nothing."

Look, there are some things in that bill that we should do, change the asylum standard and the like. Here's what else the bill did. The bill basically creates an asylum corps, OK? It creates a bunch of -- thousands of bureaucrats, basically agents, asylum agents, that would be empowered right at the border to either allow people into the country with an immediate work permit. Today, they have to wait six months. You give them an immediate work permit, you're going to have more people coming. That's a huge magnet. Or they have the power to immediately release them and grant them asylum, which now puts them on a five-year path to citizenship, which is what a lot of Democrats want. They want to turn a bunch of illegal immigrants into voters, into citizens, into voters, in the hopes that those people will then turn around and vote for them in future elections, grateful because they will know who let them in. That's a huge problem. That doesn't solve the border. It makes it worse.

Tapper argued the bill didn't have a path to citizenship, but Rubio said it did - a green card in a year, and citizenship in four, he said, for people who are granted asylum. And, he added,

And these bureaucrats would have the power to grant you asylum, not even a judge, a bureaucrat.

Tapper pointed out that "immigration judges" aren't judges either, they're immigration attorneys. He also noted the bill is "by far the most conservative border security bill in four decades," according to Sen. Jim Lankford - even more conservative than the bill Rubio helped negotiate in 2013, and that it didn't include much of what the Ds wanted. He asked why this wasn't a win for the Rs.

Rubio's response? Let me count the ways: the president doesn't have to shut down the border; 1,400 migrants still need to be processed during a shutdown; it sunsets in three years; it doesn't touch the 'parole' system; and decisions made by immigration judges can be overruled by the Attorney General, but the decisions made by these new asylum officers can't be. 

Hmm... the AG is an unelected bureaucrat; couldn't he overturn every denied asylum request, to create those brown voters Rubio mentioned? It sure would have been fun if Jake asked that.  

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

Tapper moved on to Trump's bizarre comments about Nikki Haley's 'missing' husband Michael, who's on a year-long deployment with the SC National Guard. Everyone knows that, including Trump, and asked what Rubio thought about that. He thinks "they're part of the increasing nastiness of this campaign and every campaign in American politics."

I mean, they're calling him a grumpy old man. They're attacking Donald Trump.  

"A Grumpy old man?" The horror! He shared other 'nasty' comments and then said

But at the end of the day, I think one of the things I'm not going to do any longer is, like, respond to every comment Donald Trump makes and say, oh, you still support him? I do. And I support him because Joe Biden's a disaster, because Joe Biden is a disaster. He's done tremendous damage to this country. America is less prosperous and the world is less safe because Joe Biden became president.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/11/24

I only did a little bit of learning on Sunday, most of it in the This Week classroom where Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked with Jon Karl. 

Before I get into the highlights, I wanted to share this six-week-old information from the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre's website, 

As of 7 January 2024 (figures reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health), at least 22,835 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, around 70% of whom were women and children, while around 58,416 others have been injured. Thousands more are feared trapped underneath the rubble, and “entire families” have been wiped out – it is estimated that as of 5 January, 1,876 families have lost multiple family members.  

OK - now, the highlights. Netanyahu didn't know "exactly what" President Biden meant when he said the response to the October 7th Haas attack has been "over the top." In Netanyahu's opinion, after the "worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust," the Israeli response focuses on going after terrorists and minimizing harm to the civilians he says Hamas uses as human shields. And, he said, they give folks plenty of notice when major attacks are imminent.

We drop thousands of fliers. We phone Palestinians in their homes. We ask them to leave. We give them safe corridors and safe zones. So I think we're -- we're doing the right thing, and let me tell you one other thing. We're going to win this thing. Victory is within reach.

I wish Karl had asked about the people being killed or injured as they fled. He did mention over 28,000 people killed (a more current number than the one above), the "hundreds of thousands" forced from their homes, and the lack of basic necessities, and wondered if there wasn't a "moral obligation to do more... to stop what is seen as a catastrophe." 

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

Karl turned to Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, now home to about half the population. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is charged with drafting an evacuation plan along with an attack plan. Karl wondered where the 1.4 million refugees from other parts of Gaza are supposed to go. Netanyahu's response was, um, interesting, to say the least.

Well, Rafah is a -- is a very small percentage of Gaza, and I think it's about 10 percent, or 15 percent... the area north of Gaza, that has already been cleared...

Karl reiterated that there are around 1.4M people there, "and as the German foreign minister said... 'they can't just disappear'. Where are they supposed to go?" Netanyahu suggested there were "plenty of areas" north of Rafah, disregarding that almost everything to the north had been decimated since the war began.

... we're not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort, to get civilians out of harm's way. It's part of Hamas's effort to keep them in harm's way... Those who say that under no circumstances should we enter Rafah are basically saying, 'lose the war. Keep Hamas there.' 

With many countries against the idea of a full-scale attack on Rafah, Karl asked whether that gave him "a second thought" about moving ahead. Netanyahu was firm: it doesn't. He said they've been taking care of the civilian population of Gaza, "along with the provision of the necessary humanitarian aid." That statement, too, seems to fly in the face of multiple reports, including some stating the IDF sometimes prevents the aid from being distributed. 

Karl wondered how they'd know when Hamas has been eliminated. Netanyahu said they've already taken out "18 of their 24 terrorist battalions," suggesting taking out the rest was key; so is freeing the hostages, and ensuring Gaza's no longer a threat.

You don't have to kill every last terrorist. You don't have to kill every last ISIS terrorist, but you make sure that ISIS was finished as a military force... Hamas is a military force that controls territory. We're well within reach, and we shouldn't stop.

And, "After you've eliminated the military threat, doesn't there need to be a Palestinian state?"  Netanyahu wonders what people mean by a two-state solution.

Should the Palestinians have an army? Should they have -- can they sign a military pact with Iran? Can they import rockets from North Korea and other deadly weapons? Should they continue to educate their children for terrorism and annihilation? Of course, I say, of course not.

He thinks there should be the power of self-government for the Palestinians, but "none of the power should threaten Israel." Israel has to maintain overriding security control over everything west of the Jordan River, including Gaza. Failing to do that will allow terrorism to return.

Karl wondered which was the higher priority, bringing the hostages home, or "totally eliminating Hamas?" Netanyahu said those are not mutually exclusive goals; they've gotten around half the hostages out by applying military pressure, and he suggested that's how they'll get the rest of them. 

...I think the families of the hostages are in a terrible bind. I mean, it's -- it’s just -- it tears your heart out to listen to them and to think about what their relatives are going through. I'm committed to getting them out. We'll make every effort. It requires pressure, and pressure has worked, and pressure will work again.

He thinks enough of the remaining 123 hostages are still alive to "warrant the kind of efforts that we're doing." The goal is to bring the living hostages home, and the remains of those who have died. He also said 

I'm not sure that anybody can put themselves in the position of the families, but neither can the families put themselves in the position of the decision-makers. These are two separate things. 

He's moved by them, but explained he's "also responsible for the safety and the security of the people of Israel," and it's his job to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Finally, Karl wondered about Netanyahu's "assessment" of Biden, in light of the special counsel's mental health evaluation of him. The two have had "more than a dozen" calls - "extended" calls, he said - and they also met in person.

... I found him very clear and very focused. We managed to agree on the war aims and many things. Sometimes we have disagreements, but they weren't borne of a lack of understanding on his part or on my part.

A note: on Monday, Israel rescued two more hostages; the 

complex rescue operation was conducted after receiving “highly sensitive and valuable intelligence.” It involved Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, police special forces and an IDF tank brigade... The duo were found on the second floor “in the hands of Hamas terrorists.” Hamas militants were also stationed in adjacent buildings, Hagari said.

The death toll (so far) may be as high as 133 people, with several dozen more injured.

See you around campus.