School Safety, Trump Tweets Style

Ah...  there it is.

It's so much fun when the Republicans slam gun-free zones, as if people who have their minds set on committing maximum mayhem actually wander around looking for a places that have the little "gun free zone" signs up, and pick those places to do the deed.

I'm not pulling an OJ hypothetical thing here or anything like that, and there's a chance I may be wrong. But for the most part, I think if you're bullied at school, or picked on at school, or thrown out of school, if you're mad and want to get back at the people who picked on you, and you've got mayhem on the brain, you're not going to go to go rob a bank - you're going to go not just to any school, but to your own school, the one in your neighborhood, the one where you know the lay of the land, and do what you think, for some sad, sad reason, you have to do.

Columbine. Sandy Hook. Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Red Lake Senior High. And more, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, community colleges, colleges, universities.

If "it's not the gun, it's the killer," why is the president no less blaming the sign? Is he honestly suggesting that "guns don't kill people, signs kill people?"

And if the president thinks it's the sign, how does he explain this? CPAC was a gun free zone, we're told. You know, CPAC where the president spoke? Where the NRA's Wayne LaPierre went into his dark place?

And let us not forget another dark, big-tent-Republican-and-Conservative gathering that was a gun-free zone?

RECOGNIZE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY

FIREARMS AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE

QUICKEN LOANS ARENA IN JULY 2016

That's right -- someone petitioned to have the Republican National Convention, the one that nominated Trump, be a gun-filled zone, for a whole host of reasons, including that Cleveland is a top ten most dangerous city, they said, and the RNC and the arena were "putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside the convention site." 

And ISIS. And evil-doers and criminals. And Barack HUSSEIN Obama... those were other reasons why guns were needed.

But here's the thing: the folks who petitioned weren't fighting the arena's gun-free policy as a matter of principle - it's not like they wanted it to be always and forever gun-free. They just wanted it to be gun-free when they were there. Because, well because I have no idea. Either a person at the Q is a sitting duck, or they're not. The pro-guns shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

And yes, I know the Administration did more today than just this idiotic tweet, but JeezPete (as a friend of my brother's used to say), why does he have to tweet this nonsense? 

Oh wait - never mind. It must be to provide cover for the fact that his school safety plan doesn't include all the things he promised?  Yeah, that's probably it.

Sunday School 3/11/18

The first - and, it turns out - only classroom I entered today was NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd doing his darnedest to look wide awake (more on that in a minute) on this first day of daylight savings time.

Todd opened the show with a little bit about North Korea, and tariffs, and then did a 'that was the week that was' kind of thing.'

Monday was former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg insisting he wouldn't comply with his Mueller subpoena, and then Friday he complied with it. Tuesday was the day Gary Cohn announced his resignation, over the tariffs. Not mentioned here was that Cohn allegedly was going to resign last year when Trump talked about "good people" in the white supremacists movement, but that wasn't enough to push him over the edge. Tariffs apparently were.

Wednesday was Stormy weather day - the restraining order against the porn star with the disclosure agreement, and also the day Mueller cast a shadow over the beautiful Seychelles by making a Russia connection. Thursday, the tariffs were signed, causing retaliation promises from allies. Friday it was North Korea, and "I alone can fix it" Trump, and then the campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

Bottom line, the head-snapping week of screaming headlines and seat-of-the-pants decisions is indeed the presidency Donald Trump promised and the presidency he seems most comfortable with.

So - the stage is set, right?  Lots of things going on this week, some of it important stuff like the tariffs, and North Korea. And the first guest was Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, waking up even earlier on the West Coast to participate.

The conversation started on North Korea, and us being tough now, and the sanctions we've put in place are doing the trick and forced Kim to the table. And they talked over suggestions that this meeting would legitimize the murderous thug and his regime, and about what might derail the meeting, and where it might take place, and so on. And then the conversation  turned to Trump picking on the press when he was in Pennsylvania.

And "sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd, that sleepy son-of-a-bitch" (told you I'd get to that part) was not having the picking on the press part of it.

So, the image of an American president encouraging boos of the American press corps - of the American press corps, and discouraging boos of a dictator from North Korea. Your reaction, sir?

Mnuchin mentioned some "misreporting" about trump, and talked about Trump's policies, and so Todd tried again.

Alright, I understand you wanted to get back on a economic message, but the president of the United States in the past has been a beacon of freedom of the press. Instead last night, he was praising authoritarian figures in China and North Korea and encouraging boos of the American press. Does this mean it is... this American president is no longer going to be preaching about the values of freedom of the press and democracy around the world?

Mnuchin advised that "of course" the president believes the freedom of the press and in democracy, and protecting democracy, and suggested again that the conversation should be focused on those policies.

You keep saying that's what we should be focused on, then why can't the president be...  Would you call last night's speech a focused speech on that?

Mnuchin suggested the press shouldn't focus so much on the campaign rallies. Getting progressively more snitful, Todd did not stop.

So should we stop covering the campaign rallies? Do you think it's a mistake then for us to cover them at all? That it doesn't matter what he say? If it doesn't matter what he says there. If we are to dismiss everything he says at a campaign rally as I think you're trying to imply, then are you saying we shouldn't cover these things?

Mnuchin: you're putting words in my mouth... talk about policies, I came here to talk about his policies...

I wanted to talk about those with you. Obviously, he chose not to do that. Look, final question for you. Many people including myself raise there kids to respect the office of the presidency and the President of the United States. When he uses vulgarity to talk about individuals, what are they supposed to tell their kids?

Mnuchin said he'd be focusing, with his kids, on what the president is doing to protect the country, us, and our economy. And, of course, even though that was supposed to be the final question, there were more.

CT: So he's not a moral - don't worry about his values, don't worry about him as a role model.

SM: I never said that whatsoever. So I don't know why you're putting these words in what I'm trying to say, OK? So again - I am very comfortable with what we're doing, OK? And again, I think you're trying to take this out of perspective, and imply something I'm not saying.

CT: Fair enough, what do you... what are you supposed to say when he's using these vulgarities, to kids?

SM: Again, I think you should be focused on what the policies are. He's using these vulgarities in the context of a campaign rally and obviously, there were a lot of funny moments on, on, in that rally. 

CT: Yeah, they were hilarious. Anyway, Secretary Mnuchin, I appreciate your coming on, again.  I know you had to wake up extra early. That I appreciate. Thank you very much sir.

And finally, FINALLY, it was over.

I gave Mnuchin a lot of credit, I did. The point would have come, I think, where I would have just said "listen, put your big boy panties on and get over it! This president has a love-hate relationship with the media -- that's not a secret, is it?  And he loves getting under people's skin, like he's clearly gotten under yours. You got me up early for THIS? And one more thing - if you need help with parenting, isn't Dr. Phil on your network? Why don't you give him a call?"

Also on the show? Elizabeth Warren, who said she wasn't running for president in 2020.

So look, I am not running for president of the United States. I am running for the United States Senate. 2018. Massachusetts. Whoohoo!

And again.

 I already told you, I have no intention of running for the United States - for president.

And again.

Look, what I'm telling you is that I am in these fights every day. For the people of Massachusetts, and for the people across this country. This government is working better and better and better for a thinner and thinner slice at the top. I am in these fights, and I am in this fight to retain my Senate seat in 2018. That's where I'm focused. That's where I'm going to stay focused. I'm not running for president.

And again.

I am not running for president.

Chuck Todd finally acquiesced.

I know. Duly noted.

And so, you see, I had no energy left for any other classrooms.

See you around campus (and again) I mean, I'll see you around campus (and again) I will (and again) I'll see you around campus.

I. Will. See. You. Around. Campus.

The Update Desk: Florida Gun Laws

I've done more than a few gun-related posts over the years, the most recent of which were this past Wednesday and Thursday.

Today, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the package of gun, mental health, and school safety provisions that the legislature approved earlier this week.  Here's part of the statement released by Scott's office.

Following a meeting with families of victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Governor Rick Scott today signed SB 7026, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. This legislation makes significant reforms to make Florida schools safer, while keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill and dangerous individuals.

Scott issued these remarks (as prepared for delivery) of his own. Here's a portion of them.

Good afternoon. I want to thank everyone for being here today. On Valentine's Day, we lost 14 of our kids and three of our teachers. On a day that is supposed to celebrate love, they were brutally murdered in cold blood. Families were shattered. And unfortunately, this wasn't the first time our state has been rocked like this. In 2016, 49 innocent victims were murdered at Pulse Nightclub and early last year another five people were killed by a gunman at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport...

I want to commend the legislature for getting a bill to my desk in such a short amount of  time. I want to point out that this is a far different way of operating than the typical inefficiency we see from the federal government in Washington. Politics in DC seems to always get in the way of actually enacting measures that will help American families...

After talking about the various provisions of the bill, and expressing his belief that the bill is not perfect, particularly the (optional) part about armed teachers, he continued

There has been vigorous debate on all of these issues. I believe every side has had their chance to share their views and that is what truly makes our democracy great. At the beginning of this process, I said that we would all have to give a little and make compromises, and that includes me...

So, after reviewing the entire bill, I had to ask myself: Will this bill make a huge investment and dramatically improve school safety, in the hopes of never seeing another tragedy like this again? Will this bill provide more funding to treat the mentally ill? Will this fill give us far more tools to keep guns away from people who should not have them? The answer to all three is yes. And, that is why I am signing the legislation today.

Meanwhile, the NRA had a statement, too.

This afternoon, Governor Rick Scott signed SB-7026 (touted in the media as Florida's "gun control" bill) into law, violating the Second Amendment rights of persons between the ages of 18 - 21.

This bill prohibits any person under 21 years of age from purchasing a firearm - any firearm - PERIOD. The bill took effect immediately.

 As a result, this afternoon the NRA filed a lawsuit in federal court against the State of Florida for violating the constitutional rights of young adults between the ages of 18 - 21. 

The gun control provisions in this bill do not enhance school safety. They merely punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of a mentally ill murderer as well as the failure of government officials who did not do their jobs.  

Let the games begin.

The Irony Board: Florida Gun Laws

In yesterday's Wondering on Wednesday post, one of the topics of discussion was the Florida legislature sending gun legislation to Republican Governor Rick Scott.

The wonderment came from the speed with which the bipartisan bills were passed after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and how it proved that, yes, something can be done if people are willing. The multi-pronged package included an option for people on school campuses to be armed, and today Representative Randy Fine appeared on NPR's Morning Edition and talked with host Rachel Martin about the changes.

Martin asked him about the provision raising the age to 21 for all gun purchases. Fine, a Republican, had just last week made it known he was not a fan.

Well, I still didn't like the idea, but the bill was a comprehensive $400 million solution And in life, sometimes we have to take the bad with the good, and that's what many of us did in passing this compromise legislation.

That's the right spirit for legislators to have - compromise, take the bad with the good, focus on the big picture. I mean, this could have been a single bill raising the age, or a single bill addressing bump stocks, and so on - but if that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about legislation awaiting the governor's signature, would we?

Now -- what makes this an Irony Board post?

Well, Florida has some training requirements on the books if a person wants to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. For example, completing a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission hunter education course, or an NRA training course, or a similar course offered by a law enforcement agency, a college, or similar institution. Absent the training, military service or participating in organized shooting competitions will count, as will already having a license to carry a firearm.

And now, with the new gun legislation package, they've defined some requirements for teachers to become 'guardians' and carry firearms on campus. Here's how Fine described it.

If sheriffs choose to participate and school districts choose to participate, teachers will have the option to become guardians if they go through 132 hours of training, psychology tests, weapons training. 

Clearly, we don't want anyone carrying weapons on campus if they're not sufficiently trained, and are not psychologically OK to do so. And it's probably not all that much to ask a teacher who wants this extra level of responsibility to give up over 16 days of their own time to get all of this training so they can protect themselves from a legal or illegal gun owner with a really bad idea in mind.

But by comparison, here's how long it takes to complete each of the courses listed on the NRA's training curriculum:

• First Steps Rifle or First Steps Shotgun Orientation -at least three hours long
• Basic Rifle Shooting Course - at least eight hours long
• Basic Shotgun Shooting Course - at least ten hours long
• Basic Pistol course - no timeframe given
• Basics of Pistol Shooting - which can be completed in one day
• Carry Guard Level 1 Training Course - a three-day 'intensive' course

Isn't it ironic,at least a little, how little training is required to carry a concealed firearm, versus what's going to be required for the guardians?

Wondering on Wednesday (v124)

Where should we start tonight, the wondering?  Well, let's see.

Instead of going to Jared, Jared Kushner went south of the border to meet with the Mexican president; seems his father-in-law is barely able to have a phone conversation with the Mexicans, so hopefully Jared will be able to work his magic and get things back on track.  It may not be as hard as, you know, Middle East peace or anything, but if they're talking about who's going to pay for the wall, things could get ugly.

Speaking of  the great, big, beautiful wall, I can't help wondering whether Kushner is supposed to stay in Mexico until all of the issues are resolved, or until the wall gets built, whichever comes first? Given his loss of clearance, and all the unpleasant news about the family business, he could be on the president's short list for clearing bad vibes out of the West Wing.

Sticking with the White House for another moment, did you hear about the lawsuit against the president for blocking people on Twitter?  A Seattle woman was blocked by the @realdonaldtrump verified Twitter account, which is the one the president uses several times a day to bully his opponents (and appointees), brag about how much size matters, and let the world know when he'll be making call-ins to various Fox News shows -- and, at times, to announce policy decisions.

The offending tweet that led to her being blocked was a video clip of Pope Francis dropping his smile when he looked at Trump. And it kind of makes sense that it would be something so trivial that caused the blockage; after all, he probably thinks this post is about him...

The case is being watched closely not only for its curiosity value, but also as a test of how courts will apply the first amendment in the context of public officials' use of social media accounts, at a time when the role of social networks in politics has generated intense controversy.

 Can elected officials block their constituents? Or are social media accounts essential avenues for citizens to petition leaders? Is it the constitutional right of all Americans to start an online flame war with the politician of their choice, as the founders surely intended?

Somehow, the Justice Department is trying to make the case that the @realdonaldtrump account is a personal one, not a political one - which is truly laughable. I wonder, have they even read any of the president's tweets?

On the wonderful front, legislators in Florida have passed new rules on guns - and more - less than a month after the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, which just happened on Valentine's Day.  Among the proposals:

• raising the age to purchase all firearms;
• banning the purchase and possession of bump stocks;
• setting a three-day waiting period to buy any gun - shotguns and rifles included

But that wasn't all - there are provisions to address mental health (mobile crisis teams included) and school safety too, by adding metal detectors, bulletproof glass, and resource officers. There's also a provision that allows for allowing some school personnel to carry firearms.

People who have been calling for a comprehensive approach might want to take a look at this one - it brings consistency to existing laws, actually provides funding for mental health issues (instead of just hand-wringing), and it addresses the 'hardening' of schools.

I wonder if folks, seeing something like this get from point A to the governor's desk in less than a month, will still maintain that thoughts and prayers are all we can do? Certainly there will be people who are not happy with some or all of the provisions -- on both sides of the aisle - but this shows what can be done when people listen, and learn and come together.

And finally tonight, circling back to government officials using Twitter, Betsy DeVos got a taste of people paying attention when the posted a couple of stock photos - one old, one really old - as representative of public school classrooms.

The reaction was swift, as teachers from across the country posted pictures of actual public school classrooms, which look nothing like the pictures DeVos posted.

Many commenters pointed out that what she posted looked more like charter schools than public schools, or that she might actually want to go in a public school classroom to see for herself what actually happens in one. What was nice was that, for the most part, the comments were polite, if firm, and there were not all that much snark.

I wonder whether she's read the comments? And whether she'll actually take up the offer from any number of teachers who invited her, politely, to visit them?  And then I wondered, what on earth am I thinking?

PPOD 3/6/18: The Nunberg Trials

It's been over a year since I did a Pet Peeve of the Day, or PPOD, post.  The last time I was so inspired, it was Mitch McConnell who made me do it. This time, it's Sam Nunberg and all who got caught up in the whirlwind that was yesterday.

Nunberg, a former Trump campaign staffer who, according to this opinion piece, was fired not just once but twice by Trump, received a subpoena from Robert Mueller's grand jury, asking for any and all documents of any kind related to Carter Page, Corey Lewandowski,  Donald Trump, Hope Hicks, Keith Schiller, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and Steve Bannon. Nunberg might once have been a nothingburger with the campaign, but someone seems to think he's a somethingburger with a plateful of sides.

So he gets a subpoena, and he starts feeling his oats, and before you know it, he's all over the cable networks, calling in a la Trump to show after show, expanding his resistance to the subpoena, expanding his thoughts on whether the president might have done something worthy of Mueller (yes to that one, or maybe not, or maybe maybe), #JoeBidenliterally expanding everything, before our very ears. He ended the night with one last phone call to a reporter for New York magazine.

To say it was a cluster is an understatement. To say it was a media sh*tstorm is not even coming close. In one interview, Nunberg was asked if he had been drinking. Not because the interview would have been stopped, had he been - oh no. It would have only been better if he had been under the influence!

Nunberg may be seeking treatment after he gets acquainted with the grand jury on Friday; he's cooperating, now that he's had some time to think about it, and to consider the advice he received from CNN's Jake Tapper and MSNBC's Maya Wiley.

Stephen Colbert had this take on things. Michael D'Antonio, author of the opinion piece linked above, had this take on things.

Let's get something straight. I am Sam Nunberg. You are Sam Nunberg. In a way, every American who feels disoriented by the bizarre reality of Trump World is Sam Nunberg... 

Comforted by his wealth and power and with apparently little empathy for those he hurt, Trump  has made an art out of denigrating others and promoting himself. Along the way he has collected effective enablers and jettisoned those, like Nunberg, who didn't quite fit the paradigm Trump established. The same dynamic rules the White House, which explains the turmoil there, and it impacts every American who recognized that Trump is at best incompetent and at worse, destructive...

Nunberg deserves our empathy. Yes, he brought some of the pain upon himself. However, he has also been abused and misused. He's a man who reached the end of his ability to cope with Trump. Most of us have an idea of how that feels.  

Dan Rather called had this take on things (a mixed message, to be sure).

As one saw all of this unfold, one didn't know whether to laugh or weep. It was a sad spectacle for journalism but, worse than that, it was a sad sight for the country (that the president would have had a political advisor who) gives every appearance of being one of those people who score in the high 90s on the Dumb Test.

That's where I'm going to leave it.  A journalist calling it a "sad spectacle for journalism" while making himself a sad spectacle by insulting a man who clearly - clearly - was out of his element, and who was taken advantage of by the media, who acted as if they simply couldn't help themselves.

And that's why this is my Pet Peeve of the Day.

Sunday School 3/4/18

Kinda of in a funk today, so my attention span was limited and I only visited one classroom, CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper at the helm.

The first guest was Peter Navarro, who is the White House Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. Navarro's goal today was to convince us that president Trump's surprise announcement of tariffs - 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum -- was a great idea, good for the president, good for our steel and aluminum workers, and #MAGA.

Navarro said the tariffs would go into effect next week, maybe the week after, once the White House lawyers get all their ducks in a row. Tapper played some video of the president blaming China for overproduction and saying that needed to be addressed, and then he reminded Navarro that China doesn't make the top ten steel importers into the US. Here's how Navarro responded:

So, the bigger picture is that China has tremendous overcapacity in both aluminum and steel. And so what they do is, they flood the world market with this product. And that ripples down to our shores and to other countries. So China is, in many ways, the root of the problem in both aluminum and steel for all countries of the world.

But let's be clear here about what the president's doing. Let's lay this on the table. This is an action, basically, to protect our national security and economic security. And the president was quite clear. We can't have a country that can defend itself and prosper without an aluminum and steel industry.

Silly me - I thought we couldn't be a country without a border wall, and without getting rid of chain migration and stuff. I was wrong, I guess.

Tapper reminded Navarro, speaking of national security, that the Pentagon was not in favor of what Trump did.

The Pentagon wrote a memo about the tariff, saying, indeed the unfair steel practices do create a national security problem. But the Pentagon also said that the US should use targeted tariffs and avoid angering allies who are needed for other diplomatic national security reasons, such as Canada, such as South Korea. If you are invoking the national security exemption, should you not also be listening to the Pentagon on how to apply these tariffs?

Navarro's answer was reminiscent of Trump's "I alone can fix it" comment.

What I love about this president is, he listens to all points of view, both within his government and outside, and then he makes the tough decisions. 

Which includes ignoring the Pentagon.

Also on the show was Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is considered a potential challenger to Trump in 2020. Tapper talked to him about the president's trade tariffs (Kasich is not a fan) and the president's 'gun control without due process' plan; Kasich is again not a fan. Rather, what he's trying in Ohio is a restraining order, which comes with due process.

In terms of our gun retraining order, it means, if you have somebody in the family who sees trouble in the family, they have an ability, either go to law enforcement or the court in order to get those guns out of that person who's having a very difficult time, get the guns away from them. If you're a neighbor or somebody outside, you can go to a police officer who can investigate and then go to the judge. There's got to be speed in this, because we don't want people who are emotionally - you know, emotionally in upheaval, who could pose a threat either to themselves or to somebody else, to be in a position where they can have a gun.

Kasich also noted that the agenda changes, quickly.

And by the way, have we forgotten the Dreamers, the DACA, the young people who came here? They're not even in the news anymore. And I don't - I can't believe Congress is -- Congress has got to do something on guns. 

And you know what? I think the president will sign something. If he doesn't, send it to him anyway. I mean, the deal is that you don't ask permission. You legislate; you get it to the president, you see what he does.

 I believe he will sign some really good, strong, common sense gun legislation. Send him the Dreamers. We can't be taking these kids that have been -- or young people who have been here, some of them for 20 years, and ship them out of the country for political reasons. 

Tapper also asked Kasich about 2020, and whether someone should challenge Trump, even if it's not Kasich who does it. .

Well, come on Jake. We don't know what's going to happen next week. That's not -- you know, all I'm doing is making sure that, both now and when I'm out, that I can have a voice that can help the country, that can bring it together. That's all I'm particularly interested in at this point. And if I go any further than that, Jake, I won't be able to get in my house tonight. My wife will have it barricaded. 

So, I'm not going there.... 

And, listening to the entire exchange  between Kasich and Tapper, I was reminded why I liked Kasich more than any of the rest of the Republicans. First, he's reasonable, and second, he has a great sense of humor and hes not afraid to use it - which is something we could use a whole lot more of in DC.

See you around campus.

TGIF 3/2/18

If you're in the danger zone for Winter Storm Riley, or the California storms, or any of the other major weather events happening tonight, please stay safe.

If you're Jared Kushner, you're probably wishing you were in the middle of the danger zone for the storm - somewhere on Cape Cod, for example - instead of in the middle of the media storm that's swirling around you.

There are the reports of the fruitful meetings Kushner had at the White House, which somehow ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars being loaned to his company, on top of the loss of his coveted interim security clearance which gave him access to our country's most secret secrets.  And now, there's news about an SEC inquiry into one of those "meet with us and we'll loan you hundreds of millions" companies; the inquiry was dropped just weeks after the loan was made.

Now, there is no proof (yet) of a quid pro quo (yet) and Kushner, the Kushner Companies (run by his family, which tried to sell visas for half-million investments in the company), Apollo Global Management, who loaned the $184M, and their founder Joshua Harris, have all vigorously denied there being anything nefarious here.

And there's likely nothing to be concerned about, either, that Apollo Global receives backing from the Qatar Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund of the Qatari government. Because in the world of high finance and skyscrapers and almost broke real estate companies, what's to be concerned about when a White House staffer and family member of the president has his company's fanny saved by a loan from a foreign government?

If you're the president, and your world is falling apart and you're fighting with your own appointees and your staff is leaving and people are unhappy with you for pretty much everything, including lying to school children about gun control (or else lying to the NRA about gun control), you go and launch a trade war (but it's not official, yet, so maybe you won't really do it).

And that's not all. If you're the president, you attack Alec Baldwin on Twitter, proving again how much you're going to miss Hope Hicks.

And if you're me, on the back side of the nor'easter and pretty much done with this nonsense, which included 7 hours of power outages (in two separate stints) and more than a foot of snow, today you're happy that this week is over.

TGIF.

Wondering on Wednesday (v123)

Well, well, well. It's Wednesday again - let the wondering begin.

I've been disconnected from news and stuff most of the day, so I have to wonder whether anyone else did a 'Hope and change' comment about poor Hope Hicks, the president's other daughter, resigning from her position as White House communications director?  That was one headline I saw as soon as I got back home. Hicks, who admitted to telling 'white (house) lies' in her role as Communications Director, was the one who wrote the press release praising alleged domestic abuser Rob Porter who, it seems, was her boyfriend at the time.  She's apparently been planning this for a while, and it's not related to her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee where the lying was admitted. 

While Hicks was fairly under the radar - didn't handle press briefings or do interviews or any of the traditional CommsDir roles -- she apparently made her mark on folks, like Trump's General Kelly.

I quickly realized what so many had learned about Hope: she is strategic, poised and wise beyond her years. She became a trusted adviser and counselor, and did a tremendous job overseeing the communications for the president's agenda including the passage of historic tax reform. She has served her country with great distinction. To say that she will be missed is an understatement.

Of course, this is the same General Kelly who spoke so highly of Porter in that lovingly crafted press release.

Rob Porter is a man of true integrity and honor, and I can't say enough good things about him. He is a friend, a confidante, and a trusted professional. I am proud to serve alongside him.

I wonder, is there some compromised judgment here on the part of the General? Or compromised sense of duty?

Speaking of compromised judgment, the president managed to blow yet another tweet gasket about his Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Why is AG Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn't the IG an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!

This time, instead of rolling over and playing dead, Sessions fought back.

We have initiated the appropriate process that will ensure complaints against this Department will be fully and fairly acted upon if necessary. As long as I am the Attorney General, I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this Department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution.

I have wondered, for a while, why it is that Sessions stays and puts up with Trump's bullying, public thrashing, and general abuse. I still wonder about that, but at least he took a step today and fought back, something that DOJ employees have long wanted, since Trump also attacks them with impunity and with regularity.

One more before we go: remember the "Hispanic, we believe" judge who was involved in the Trump University case? The one who would not be able to be fair to Trump because of his heritage, and because Trump was building a wall, and therefore it was impossible for the judge to rule on anything in Trump's favor?

Yeah, that Judge handed down a very beneficial ruling on the border wall.

US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has cleared on potential obstacle to president Donald Trump's long-promised border wall, ruling Tuesday that the administration has the authority to waive a host of environmental laws and other regulations to begin construction.

I wonder, how long will it take for Trump to apologize for his extremely racist comments about the judge?

Poll Watch: All About the Donald

The folks at Quinnipiac released a poll  on February 21st that looked at national opinions on the president.

Here's a look at how we think things are going -- and we know, don't we, that how we think things are going isn't necessarily the way folks in Washington or in the statehouses think things are going, or how they act.

Small print stuff: the poll was conducted by live interviewers over land and cell phones from February 16 - 19, and included 1249 voters.

First up? Presidential approval.

• 37% of respondents approve of how the president is handling his job; only Republicans (86%) and white men (51%) have a higher percentage of approvers; all other demographics disapprove more than they approve.
• The 37% approval has fallen 3% since the February 7th survey.
• 67% of Republicans strongly approve of Trump's handling of his job; all other demographics strongly disapprove more than any of the other options (strongly disapprove, disapprove somewhat, approve somewhat, and don't know/NA).

Approval rates for Congressional Republicans, who of course have a majority in both houses, are even worse. 72% of respondents disapprove of the GOP in DC; in every age group, over 70% disapprove. The greatest disparity is with the 18 - 34 year olds, with a 64 point gap, 79% to 15%. Democrats (94%) and blacks (97%) disapprove the most - no surprise there.

Similarly, approval rates for Congressional  Democrats are not good, but slightly better -- 'only' 66% disapprove. And  while Republicans support the Congressional GOP 55% - 38%, Dems support their party in Congress only 53% - 41%. And for both parties, the disapproval rate is going in the wrong direction.

People don't like Trump (59%) more than they like him (37%): the same is true for Mike Pence (46% to 36%), Paul Ryan (51% to 28%), Nancy Pelosi (52% to 29%), and Mitch McConnell (51% to 15%).  Chuck Schumer would be appalled to know that 34% of respondents don't know enough about him to form an opinion; his disapproval rate is 37%.

Trump's policies are disliked by all but Republicans (89%) and white men (53%); as a person. only Republicans like him more than they dislike him. Even white men dislike him (51% to 40%).

When it comes to Trump's fitness for office, 57% think he's not fit. Republicans (90%) and white men (55%) think he is, as do whites without a college degree (57%).  Men overall are torn -- 49% say yes, 49% say no. Women (65%) and white women (58%) think he's not. 

Only Republicans believe Trump respects women just as much as he respects men (72% to 21%); everyone else - including all men (58%), white men (54%) and whites without a college degree (56%) disagree. 

How about the bonds of marriage?  Everyone -- every single demographic, even Republicans -- believes that loyalty to one's spouse is important. And every demographic except one thinks that president Trump has not been loyal to his wife. On this question, Republicans say yes, he's loyal to Melania (42%), no he hasn't been (14%) and 44% don't know. That 'don't know' percentage is 14% higher than for any other demographic. 

There were some other questions, about Rob Porter, Jared Kushner, and Russia, and the trends - all demographics except the usual suspects being on the negative side - were generally consistent on those questions as well. 

The last question was interesting: "As you may know, the definition of an autocrat is a ruler with absolute power.  Do you think that president Trump behaves more like an autocrat or do you think president Trump behaves more like a typical US president?"

• 56% overall think he acts like an autocrat.
• As you would expect, Republicans (76%) and white men (49%) think he acts like a typical president.

If you're the president, how would you respond to this overwhelmingly negative survey?  Officially announce your 2020 campaign!

This should have been  a shock to literally no one, since he filed the paperwork on the day he was inaugurated, has been holding campaign rallies for months (some blatant, some under the guise of being presidential), and the Republican National Committee has been paying rent -- in Trump Tower, of course -- for months. 

But hey  - when you have 158 million followers on social media, the sky's the limit!

Opportunity's Knocking

Today is February 26th. March 5th is next Monday, and is the day that president Trump gave as his deadline for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, more commonly known as DACA, to end unless Congress acted to save it.

Today, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's call for an expedited appeal of the decision to kill DACA. Here's some info from the NY Times.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the administration's appeal was expected, as no appeals court has yet ruled on the issue. The court's order was brief, gave not reasons, and noted no dissents. It said it expected the appeals court to "proceed expeditiously to decide this case." 

...two federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program while challenges move forward, notably by requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew their protected status. The administration has not sought stays of those injunctions.

The Supreme Court's move will, as a practical matter, temporarily shield the young immigrants who already has signed up for the DACA program from immediate deportation, and allow them to keep working legally in the United States. Their status lasts for two years and is renewable.

What was the administration looking for? Well, it wanted the Supremes to step in and review Trump's ending of the program, before a lower court had heard and decided an appeal. Two federal judges - one in California and one in New York, issued rulings that effectively barred the shutdown of the DACA program. Here's a glimpse at what happened in the lower courts, from the ACLU,

Both courts ruled that the administration's rationale for suspending the DACA program - that it was unconstitutional and conflicted with the immigration laws - was incorrect and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a 1946 law that regulates federal agencies and provides judicial oversight over their behavior. The law prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" actions by federal agencies, and provides a safeguard against unchecked power.

So, what happens now? The cases will wind their way through the appeals process - when the Trump administration filed the appeal with the Supremes, they also filed it in the California case, and if they haven't already done so, they'll likely appeal the NY ruling too.

And in the meantime, it's likely that no one will be working on a legislative solution, because the pressure will be off the politicians - but it won't be off the DREAMers. As the Times notes,

The court's decision not to hear the appeal could also relieve the immediate political pressure on lawmakers to permanently address the status of those immigrants, or to deal with the additional one million DREAMers who had never signed up for the DACA program. They remain at risk of deportation if immigration agents find them.

That sentiment is echoed by the ACLU.

The Supreme Court's refusal provides a reprieve for DACA recipients, but it by no means takes away the urgent need for Congress to come up with a legislative solution. even with DACA reviews continuing, nearly 800,000 DACA recipients live in fear the the lives have built in the United States are in jeopardy.

So -- now is the time for a leader or several leaders in the Senate to rise to the occasion and come up with a plan that addresses DACA and other immigration issues, rather than waiting for the eventual court ruling that will make the decision for them.  It was only back on February 15th that the Senate failed to pass an immigration plan.

• The Coons-McCain bill failed, 52-47. This bill had a path for DACA bu didn't do anything about the border wall.
• The Toomey Amendment failed, 54-45. This would have penalized sanctuary cities, but didn't address DACA.
• The Common Sense plan failed, 54-45. This one addressed DACA, included billions for border security, and would have prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents.
• The Grassley bill, which was really the Trump bill,  addressed DACA, covered border security, and ended family reunification/chain migration and the visa lottery system. This failed, 39-60. 

That's right - the president's plan was the least successful of the four considered - so we know that's not what we need. But the others, particularly the Common Sense plan, may not be completely outside our reach, if only someone would grab the bull by the horns and make it their mission to get this accomplished.

Opportunity is knocking. It will be interesting to see if anyone answers the door.

Sunday School 2/25/18

I only wanted to see one classroom today - ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, where the NRA's Dana Loesch was going to be the guest.

Loesch, you'll recall, is the national spokesperson for the NRA, who sort of hit the big time after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, with her comment that

Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it. Now I'm not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are gold to you and many in the legacy media...

Stephanopoulos started right in on the first question, wondering whether the NRA would back the president's call for raising the age to purchase rifles to mirror the age for purchasing a handgun.

DL: Well, the NRA has made their position incredibly clear. The five million members of the NRA have made their position incredibly clear, and I do want to caution people...

 GS: And that's a no, then?

DL: Well, I do want to caution people, because I know that people are trying to find daylight between president Trump and five million law abiding gun owners all across the United States. These are just things that he's discussing right now. I think that it's great as president he had all of these individuals, all of these constituents come into the White House, he had this listening session. He's really looking for solutions. He wanted to hear what they had to say, and that's what he's doing. So, nothing's been proposed yet. The NRA's made their position clear...

GS: Well, let me just -  the position is you do now want to raise the age?

DL: That's what the NRA came out and said. That's correct. 

How hard is it to say "yes, we agree that the age should be raised?" The same difficulty happens on the bump stock question. Stephanopoulos asked if the NRA was backing that.

Well the NRA already called for -- they already made it clear, the ATF needs to do their job and they need to make sure their definitions are consistent. The NRA called for this before the president made a statement...

She went on to say that the  ATF is on the same page as the president and the Attorney General.

GS: No, they're not, they're actually not on the same page. The ATF says they don't have the authority right now to ban bump stocks. The president has now said he wants those to be banned. Will the NRA back that?

DL: The NRA doesn't back any ban. The NRA has asked the ATF to do its job and make sure that these classifications are consistent. 

If you're out of the loop like I am, you might be wondering what the NRA is referring to with "classifications.' Here's some information on that.

Following the Las Vegas shooting, a significant amount of public attention has been focused on bump stock-type devices. ATF has received correspondence from the general public and from members of both houses of Congress requesting that ATF reexamine is past classification decisions concerning bump stock devices to determine whether they should be classified as machine guns... (it is) the initial step in a regulatory process to interpret the definition of machine gun to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. If, in a subsequent rule making, the definition of machine gun under section 5845 (b) is interpreted to include certain bump stock devices, ATF would then  have a basis to re-examine its prior classifications and rulings.

So - do we know whether or not the NRA supports classifying bump stocks as machine guns, which would make them much harder to obtain? You'll have to be the judge of that. I just know that Loesch said they don't back a ban.

Also, note from the same article about the ATF, it was noted that when they reached out to manufacturers, they asked whether "new regulations would hurt sales or a company's bottom line."

What else did Loesch offer?

• Well, that the shooter at the Congressional baseball practice was a "former Bernie Sanders staff member" who, according to reports, was a one-time volunteer for Sanders, and a supporter of his candidacy - but not a staff member.
• When Stephanopoulos talked about no other country having the "wide access" to AR-15s or  the "frequency or intensity of these kind of shootings"  Loesch argued that France had in one year a higher casualty rate than the two Obama terms. Which I guess is true, if you compare a coordinated ISIS attack across multiple locations, including both bombs and guns, to be the equivalent of multiple school shootings resulting in the deaths of children. 
• Stephanopoulos noted a recent Quinnipiac poll reflected 97% of Americans supporting background checks for all gun purchases. Loesch said that "the question for that poll, by the way, was do you support background checks if it prevents, you know, those who are dangerous and -- terrorists, et cetera from getting firearms" when in fact, the question simply asked "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"

One point she raised that I thought was actually a valid one, was asking Stephanopoulos if he was going to start having politicians on the show to grill them about whether their states were submitting all of the required information to the NICS background check system, because we're told that many states are way behind in their reporting. Stephanopoulos said it was a good idea -- we'll see if he goes through with it.

Stephanopoulos did not push her on her comments at CPAC; I'm not sure whether it was because he knew he'd get nothing new, or else he thought he might not have been able to control the interview - which I suspect was true. 

I'm not sure there's a way to control any of these interviews on guns, gun control, and finding common ground. I think it probably starts with wanting to find the common ground...

See you around campus.  

Wayne's World

Did you catch Wayne LaPierre's talk at CPAC the other day?

He talked about 'hardening' schools and making them safer, of course. He also took credit, on behalf of the NRA, for the National Instant Check System, and for fighting to make sure that all the bad people who needed to be in the background system were there. Many people disagree with those characterizations of the NRA's positions, but that's a story for another post.

What I wanted to share with you is LaPierre's vision of America; if you like the 2016 Republican National Convention or Trump's inaugural address, you'll love this stuff.

As usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain. Saul Alinsky would have been proud. The breakneck speed of calls for more gun control laws, and the breathless national media eager to smear the NRA - think about that, in the midst of genuine grief, in an understandable passion, as millions of Americans searched for meaningful solutions, what do we find? Chris Murphy, Nancy Pelosi and more, cheered on by the national media, eager to blame the NRA and call for even more government control. They hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment, they hate individual freedom....

For them it is not a safety issue, it is a political issue. They care more about control and more of it, their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms. 

 They fantasize about more laws stopping what other laws fail to stop. The truth is, laws succeed only when people obey them, that is what the law-abiding majority in this country practices. But once again, so many existing laws were ignored. Their laws do not stop illegal criminals from crossing our borders every single day. Their laws do not stop this scourge of gang violence and drug crime that savages Baltimore, Chicago and every major American community. Their laws have not stopped the plague of opioids and Chinese fentanyl that floods the streets and kills victims every single day in this country. No wonder law-abiding Americans all over this country revere their Second Amendment that protects them more than ever. They do not care if their laws work or not, they just want to get more laws to get more control over people. 

Hold a moment please - the "breakneck speed" with which LaPierre moved from hardening schools to protect children to accusing Democrats and the media of being responsible for, or at the very least complicit in, all of society's ills and of trying to take over the universe was truly breathtaking.

And that's not all. There's a whole cabal of America-hating bastages at work here that need to be foiled, don't you know?  You don't know?  Well, follow along.

Obama promised a fundamental transformation of our country. And you know what? It began with his own national party, a party that is now infested with saboteurs who do not believe in capitalism, do not believe in the Constitution,  do not believe in our freedom, and do not believe in America as we know it. 

Obama may be gone but their Utopian dream, it marches on and president Trump's election, while crucial, cannot turn away the wave of these new European-style socialists bearing down upon us. I'm not just talking about Bernie Sanders, I mean, he's near the end of his career. What about Elizabeth Warren, Bill De Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, Christopher Murphy and Keith Ellison?  They are not Democrats in the mode of John F. Kennedy or Tip O'Neill.

They hide behind labels like 'progressive' to make their socialist agenda more palatable and that is terrifying. And that should terrify every citizen who values the American ideal in this country of individual liberty. They politicize the Department of Justice. They weaponize the Internal Revenue Service, the EPA, perhaps cripple the FBI and the Intelligence Community, and seized and embedded leadership in all of them to advance their agenda 

Set aside, for a moment, the idea that my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo and New York City's mayor Bill De Blasio have anything to do with the DOJ, the IRS, the EPA or the FBI and the Intelligence Community. Note also that that Keith Ellison, as a DNC executive - and a Democrat in the House - has even less influence than do Warren, Booker and Murphy in the Senate. But again, the truth and facts are not what we're looking for here.

This is a raw meat fest, CPAC is, and everyone knows it. I was naive, I guess, as to how raw the meat was - it's still on the hoof, for Pete's sake. It's blue and mooing, I tell you. Ready to get some of that?

Absolute control in every corner of our government is their ultimate dream. These intellectual elites, they think that they are smarter than we are. They think that they are smarter than the rest of us. And they think they are better than we are. They truly believe it. And you know it. 

The privileged and the powerful, they think they deserve to be in charge of every level of power but you know what? The United States Constitution makes it absolutely clear that they are not in charge. We, the people, are in charge of this country! But Washington - OH. MY. GOSH. The city likes to ignore that. Our intelligence community shrouds everything in secrecy, driving into darkness every dirty memo. And every dirty institutional secret and memory, in the name of national security. But when the leaks come, as so often occurs in the light of day, it reveals nothing about the security of our country and it reveals everything about the corruption of those in power. That is because in a captive society, the loss of transparency results in the loss of truth. 

And I'm thinking, "in the midst of genuine grief, in an understandable passion, as millions of Americans searched for meaningful solutions", the Executive Director of the NRA went off the deep end, way off the deep end, into the dark spiral of paranoia.

I can understand a bit of bad apples in organizations as large as the FBI. But what is hard to understand is why nobody at the FBI stood up and called BS on its rogue leadership. I mean, really, where was the systemic resistance that should protect every powerful institution that serves us? The lowest-ranking Marine knows to resist an unlawful order. The rank and file in every powerful institution must police its own leadership.

Do you think the membership of the NRA was hearing that call, to resist the urges of LaPierre and his bizarro world vision? And do you think LaPierre was right to co-opt the Parkland teens' rallying cry of "we call BS" for his own purpose?

But still, too much of today's Washington, nobody speaks out. Nobody challenges authority. Everyone keeps their mouths closed and their heads down. And that is exactly how socialistic societies function, when leaders do whatever they want, when resistance and repercussion disappears, and when the fundamental concept of moral behavior is expunged. 

The state rules the day and anyone who resists is smeared right into submission. Yep, you know it. - yes, the "art of the smear." 

The state rules the day, and the president, its leader, is a master of the art of the smear - it's one of the ways he vanquished his 16 opponents.

We live in a socialistic age of the art of the smear. It does not have to be true, it just has to stick somewhere, anywhere. It is designed to degrade, destroy, and it is all over the national media to serve their agenda.

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!  Oh, sorry - I digress. I was practicing the Art of the Smear, which I'm sure will be a new Trump book now that the title has been handed to someone on a sliver platter.

And socialism is a movement that loves the smear. Racists. Misogynist. Sexist. Xenophobia and more. These are the weapons. These character assassinations scream to permanently hang on their targets and create a growing segment of victims. Because socialism feeds off of manipulative victims. You name the group and they will find a way to turn them into victims, they keep their movement growing by finding somebody to be offended every minute of every day.

You know, those 20 manipulative first graders and the six manipulative adults at Sandy Hook, and the 14 manipulative teenagers and three adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and all of the other manipulative victims of other mass shootings, the bastages. 

They do not like free speech any more than they like the Second Amendment. They like only limited speech, controlled speech, controlled by them through safe zones where they can shame the outspoken or riot to shut them up. If you still think that we have full First Amendment freedom in this country, try going right now at Berkeley and speaking out in favor of conservative causes or even the Second Amendment.

Forgetting, he must be, the sad tale of Milo Yiannopoulos. You see,  CPAC's sponsor invited Milo, who was the victim of those riots-against-free-speech-at-Berkeley to speak at the 2017 gathering of this same voodoo-juice-drinking crowd -- and then disinvited him when his free speech was a little too freely offensive. How soon, how soon, the conservatives forget that CPAC is a safe zone itself!

He then talked about how the "socialist state dreams of manipulating schoolchildren" to get information from them, all kinds of information about their parents, what they watch on TV (ironic, since the NRA and LaPierre point out how violent video games cause mass shootings) and if they own guns and stuff.

And all that private information will be entered in to the ultimate list, that cloud of data storage that couldn't care less about due process and constitutional freedom and your privacy as an American citizen and then it is just a short hop to the systematic destruction of our most basic freedoms in this country and you all know what they are, but let me say them: family; faith; individual responsibility; and self destiny. A free market economy; patriotism; respect for our national flag and our national anthem. Personal liberty and justice for all... It will not take long if we stay on the path we are on to erase them completely. That is the consequence of this new socialist wave in America.  

You know, I hear a lot of quiet in this room and I sense your anxiety. And you should be anxious and you should be frightened. If they seize power, if the so-called new European socialists take over the House, and the Senate, and God forbid they get the White House again, our American freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever.

I wonder, was the anxiety coming from LaPierre's ranting and raving?  Mine sure was.

And the first to go will be the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. History proves it. Every time, in every nation, in which this political disease rises to power, its citizens are repressed, their freedoms are destroyed, and their firearms are banned and confiscated. It is all backed in this country by the social engineering and the billions (billions of dollars, he means) of people like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and more, and gleefully promoted by those who have risen to power in the so-called national news media and seized control of social media to spread their propaganda.

They do not tell us news, you all know it and people know it all over the United States. They say it to me every day, they do not tell us news, they tell us what we need to think... 

You know, some people out there think that the NRA should just stick to its Second Amendment agenda and not talk about all our freedoms, but real freedom requires protection of all of our rights, and the Second Amendment isn't worth its own words in a country where all of our other individual freedoms are destroyed...

Forewarned is forearmed -- the NRA TV channel is looking to be way more bigly involved, and way more bigly accessible, just like NBC and CNN. Which are fake news. And Fox, which is real news, except that it does exactly the same thing as LaPierre just described the media doing, which was bad, in case you didn't catch that.

And now, the big finish - and yes, he does talk about guns again. I forgot that he was the Executive Director of the NRA for a second there - as, I think, did he.

Let's be clear. We are never talking about an armed resistance against the socialist corruption of our government. We are always talking about a resistance armed with the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in our country. The genius of those documents, the brilliance of America, of our country itself, is all of our freedoms are for every single citizen and there is no greater personal individual freedom than the right to keep and bear arms, the right to protect yourself, and the right to survive. 

It is not bestowed by man, but granted by God to all Americans as our American birthright. So I call right now today on every citizen who loves this country and who treasures freedom to stand and unflinchingly defend the Second Amendment, the one freedom that protects us all in this country.

And yes, in case you were wondering, LaPierre did close with the "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

And yes, in case you were wondering, CPAC, according to several reports, including this one, and this one, is a gun-free zone.

TGIF 2/23/18

Yay! Another week in the books...

The week that saw Pennsylvania get handed redistricting maps, drawn by an expert from Stanford University, based on the 2016 presidential election vote.  Why were new maps needed?  Well, the old maps were determined to be a 'partisan gerrymander' and in violation of the law, and the governor (a Dem) and the state legislative leaders (Reps, natch) couldn't get it figured out on their own, so down came the new version.

The court's new map largely undid the Republican gerrymander, creating 10 Republican-leaning and eight Democratic-leaning House seats, as estimated using 2016 presidential election returns. Outside experts who were not involved with the case praised the new map, calling it "fairer" and "much more competitive" than the old one. 

The new map is a better reflection both of the composition of the state's electorate which tends to be divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and of the traditional redistricting criteria used to draw maps in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

So, naturally, the justices on the state Supreme Court that made the ruling need to be impeached, because, oh for Pete's sake, because the Republicans stand to lose as many as three seats because of the redistricting.

The week that saw the Florida House declare pornography a public health crisis, and require that "In God We Trust" be placed conspicuously in every school in the state. According to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Kimberly Daniels (a Democrat),

It is not a secret that we have some gun issues that need to be addressed. But the real thing that needs to be addressed are issues of the heart.

The week that saw the president chime in officially, and give full control of his son-in-law's security clearance to General Kelly, his personal general, who will do the right thing, we're sure.

That will be up to General Kelly. General Kelly respects Jared a lot, and General Kelly will make that call -- I won't make that call. I will let the general, who's right here, make that call... I will let General Kelly make that decision and he's going to do what's right for the country. And  have no doubt that he will make the right decision. 

Or, he'll be fired, of course.

And finally, the week that say every teacher in West Virginia go on strike. Even after the state's governor signed wage increases of 2% this year and 1% for next year two fiscal years.

Wages and benefits are the issues; the salary increases are not enough to cover the increases in their health insurance, according to the teachers. And, a promised freeze of health insurance premiums for sixteen months wasn't enough to keep the teachers on the job, where the average starting salary is less than $32,500 and the average salary is $44,700. 

Which isn't a lot of money, in the overall scheme of things - especially if we end up asking teachers to be law enforcement officers too.

TGIF.

Wondering on Wednesday (v122)

What are we wondering about today?  Well, let's see...

Billy Graham has passed, at the age of 99. I managed to catch bits and pieces of a few different news stories about Graham and his remarkable career, and there seemed to be a consistent theme: how different things are with Franklin Graham at the helm of the empire than when it was Billy Graham in charge. The difference between ministering to politicians and presidents and preaching politics. The shift between evangelizing the gospel, and evangelizing the political.

What was most interesting was that many of the people talking about these distinct differences were truly fans of Billy Graham, not detractors, people who respected who he was and what he built and what he brought to people as "America's pastor" who seem less enamored of his son's work and path and approach. Interesting stuff, and it made me wonder what Franklin thinks about all of that, and whether he's impacted by how people perceive he's handled his father's legacy. Any regrets there, I wonder?

Also wonder-worthy? The president had a listening session today with families of school shootings.  Folks from Florida, and from Connecticut too, were there, talking to him about wanting change, needing change, wanting this to be the last one, the last time this happened here. Trump promised action, promised good ideas, the strongest ideas that he has or that governors who are coming to the White House next week have and taking the best ones and doing something. Arming teachers is one suggestion; better background checks is another he mentioned

I wonder though, whether there's really any appetite for change in Congress? Will this just be more lip service from the White House, to be ignored by the House and Senate or will Trump be able to accomplish something where others have failed, or failed to try?

What else is going on?  There are reports, believable or not, that Trump's General Kelly has to go, because there needs to be a scapegoat after the whole Rob Porter - domestic violence - security clearance debacle.  And the fact that, again according to reports, Kelly wants to take Jared Kushner's security clearance away, even as he expresses confidence in Kushner and that he values Kushner's contributions.  It's just that, you know, he can't get his security clearance straightened out.  We also learned that Kushner is a yuge consumer of intelligence, reportedly asking for more of the good stuff than any other White House staffer.

I have to wonder, does Kelly think he can with this battle? Or, by picking this battle, if he really did, is he looking for his own kind of Brexit? 

And finally, I wonder about Fergie's rendition of the National Anthem at the NBA All-Star Game...

Some, All, or None of the Above

Pretend, for the sake of argument that this was the school shooting that is the one that changes everything. Columbine didn't, and Sandy Hook didn't. So pretend this is the one.

Pretend, for the sake of argument,  that we actually are inspired and want to make changes, across a wide spectrum, to try and make a difference.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that your elected representatives at the school, local, state and national level are motivated to listen to you and do whatever it is you suggest to keep your children safe.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are in control. I know, I know - that's a huge bit of pretending, I get it -- but just pretend.

Here's your list of options, based on what I've seen on various news and social media platforms. Know that none of these will work, because if a person really wants to commit mayhem, they'll find a way - that's what we're told, anyway, when some suggests changing gun laws. 

Know that  individually,  these might have no impact, but that collectively, they might make a difference --and choose as many as you think we should try.

1. Ban large-capacity magazines, clips, etc. so that a person would have to load their gun more often, making it take longer for them to commit mass mayhem and giving people more time to, hopefully, escape.

2. Ban new sales of the 'mass-shooting' rifle -- the AR-15 and similar weapons, and implement a buy-back program to get as many of them off the street as possible.

3. Ban sales of bump-stocks and similar items that make it easier to kill more people in a short period of time.

4. Ban sales of guns to anyone who is not old enough to purchase alcohol.

5. Ensure that the military is reporting all less-than-honorable discharges to the national background check system, and do not allow them to purchase any kind of gun, and that this reporting is timely - as in, immediately upon discharge. And fire anyone in the military hierarchy who failed to ensure this reporting occurred as required.

6. Close the 'boyfriend' loophole, which allows a person who commits violence against a partner to whom they are not married to purchase a gun, and treat these people the same as those who abuse their spouse.

7. Establish a ten-day waiting period on the purchase of all guns - handguns, medium guns, long guns, whatever - to bring consistency to the process, and to allow sufficient time for the background check process to occur.

8. Pay gun manufacturers not to make guns, just like we pay farmers not to grow crops.

9. Tax packages of ammunition the same way we tax packages of cigarettes. Add a user fee on the sale of every gun. Use this money as startup cash to pay for whatever needs to be paid for (see #11 and #12, for starters).

10. Close all background check loopholes. Private sales, gun shows - whatever the gaps, close them.

11. Secure our school buildings: locks on external doors, cameras, badge readers, metal detectors, security offices and security officers - real ones, not the kind you see at many offices - at entry doors, double door entries, limited number of doors with external handles, etc.

12. Secure the classrooms: bullet-proof glass in the windows and doors; panic buttons for teachers to warn the office and local police of a threat; doors that truly lock from inside and cannot be forced open.

13. Arm teachers, if they are willing, provided that the weapons they're assigned can be secured in their classrooms so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, and that they're carefully screen and can prove proficiency with their weapons (something that is not required for purchasing one, by the way).

14. Go back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools every day.

15. Re-institute school prayer.

16. Ban violent video games, television shows, lyrics, movies, poetry, fiction and non-fiction writing, and any other art forms which can project violence.

17. Enter mental health records into the background check system, regardless of the patient age, and never allow anyone who has had any mental health issues to legally purchase guns or ammunition.

18. Stop prescribing medications that can have mental health related side effects (depressions, thoughts of suicide, hyperactivity, manic behaviors and so on).

19. Ban contributions to politicians from any gun rights groups.

20. Wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and as Paul Ryan said, count our blessings, whatever that means.

Have at it -- some, all, or none of the above?

Sunday School 2/18/18

Only visiting Fox News Sunday today and only giving a handful of excerpts from the show.

First, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas school.

Cameron Kasky: Today, I'd like to announce that we have an event coming up to have everybody in the nation talking about what we're talking about. And one of the things we've been hearing is that it's not the time you have to talk about gun control and we respect that. We've lost 17 lives, our community took 17 bullets to the heart and it's difficult to come back from that. 

So here is the time that we are going to talk about gun control. March 24th, we have the March for Our Lives which you can find at MarchforOurLives.com... The March for Our Lives is going to be in every major city and we are organizing it so students everywhere can beg for our lives, because at the end of the day this isn't about the red and blue, GOP and Democrats. This is about adults and kids.And at this point you're either with us or against us. We are giving all our politicians a clean slate and in the next election, we are saying if you are accepting money from the NRA, there is a badge of shame on you because you are enabling things like this to happen.

David Hogg: This is a student-led grassroots movement and this is not a debate, this is a discussion between Americans because we've had too many debates before and they've gotten nowhere. From the Republicans, they can talk about mental health care and from the Democrats, they can talk about gun control. 

But what we need to do -- but what we need to do here is come together not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans and work together to solve this issue through love and compassion, because this event occurred on Valentine's Day sadly and sadly 17 people had to take a bullet to the heard and so did our community This is a time for change and we can't let this ever happen again...

Our elected officials need to get together, overcome their political differences and get some things done because they need to save the future of our country, in the future of our country are those children that are currently dying because politicians refuse to take action and continue to take money from the special interest groups. 

Emma Gonzalez: This is a case of, simply, please stop. Please stop allowing us to be gunned down in our hallways... Every generation is supporting us with countless, countless amounts of energy. So many people are coming up to us in the street saying "thank you" and we want to thank them by communicating what we're trying to communicate. We want to get  the support for March for Our Lives...

We want people to -- we want students to be at that march and to be with us. We want to be with those students who we didn't understand their pain before and it's all too tragic that we all have to understand the same pain now. 

Kasky: We're here for everybody's kids.  

Also on the show? Rush Limbaugh. 

What I found interesting about the students  and - they are very articulate and you have to feel for them. And  - I mean, this is -- it's with their lives. They are a combination  scared and angry. 

But Chris, I have to ask if anybody is really serious about solving this because none of this - by the way, I couldn't care less about the gun angle of this. None of this is going to solve - prayers and condolences don't solve it and marches aren't going to solve it...

We have security, armed security at virtually every public entity in this country except schools. For some reason, they are a gun free zone and everybody who wants to shoot up a school knows that they are going to be the only one armed. Until we're willing to get serious about where we are and how do we stop this from happening and marches aren't going to do it, saying no more guns isn't going to do it, bashing the NRA isn't going to do it...

You know, we're told, well, we can't do anything until the crime has been committed. That's what has to change and is going to take some really smart people to figure out how to do that without violating civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment and so forth. But it's clear that the way we deal with this no -- this, Chris, this is totally political.

The students think they are taking politics out of this. The minute they bash the NRA, it's politics. And the point for many of this is - this is an event that advances a political agenda for the American left and the Democrat Party to bash the NRA.

Mark Kelly was on the show, too. You know - Mark Kelly, husband of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. They're working on a number of issues, including laws that would allow family members to have guns taken away from their own, or to keep their own family members from getting guns.

He spoke about the kids differently than Limbaugh did.

Well, these kids are incredibly articulate and certain members of Congress are really good at not listening to their constituents. I mean, these - you know, these reforms are supported typically by 70 to 90 percent of Americans. And to have high school kids who went through this horrific shooting, calling for change, should matter. I would hope in our society that that would make a difference.

This is a very political issue, though.  We've got to get people to vote on this issue. I can guarantee you that those kids you had on today are going to vote on this issue probably for the rest of their lives. They're going to encourage others to do, to do that as well. 

See you around campus.