Sunday School 8/8/21

Let's begin this week's Sunday School with Dana Bash in the CNN State of the Union classroom, where she talked with Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). Here are some highlights, starting with Cassidy, who's also a doctor. 

He was clear that there are ways to get out of the COVID mess his state, and others are in: get vaccinated or wear a mask.

If you have a large percentage of your population which is not vaccinated, and your infection rate is going up, you have got one or two choices. If you're inside, either you're vaccinated or you have to wear a mask. Otherwise, you're at too great a risk to further spread infection, to further pack those emergency rooms, to further prevent people who have terrible accidents from getting cared for because the hospital is full of COVID. And there is a choice. On the other hand, if we don't want mask mandates, get vaccinated, the infection rate goes down, and you don't have a mandate.

And, he says, it's a "conservative principle" to have local officials making decisions on thinks like mask mandates for schools - so he's not a fan of what Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida.

On the infrastructure bill, on which he's been a key negotiator for the Rs, he said 50% of it will be scored as 'paid for' by the Congressional Budget Office, and the other half will have a lot of paid for items, given they're taking already appropriated COVID package monies that haven't been used and applying them to the infrastructure bill. And, he said, the Rs have some 'splaining to do if they're complaining about the pay-for or deficit aspects now, when they didn't before.

I will point out that president Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion package, which most Republicans were all for, and only 5 percent of it was paid for. We have $550 billion of new spending, of which we can reasonably say is paid for, but certainly one-half by CBO score. And now folks are saying, oh, can't vote for that... OK, well, that's OK. But, on the other hand, we're creating jobs. We're creating bridges. We're protecting people from flooding. Hopefully, they change their mind.

 And he suggested that with the Problem Solvers Caucus on board, they should have a path for getting the traditional infrastructure bill done in the House without having it held hostage for the gigunda human infrastructure bill that the progressives want. Speaker Pelosi, he said,

doesn't need a radical left wing. She can pass the infrastructure package with just that committed group of American congressmen and women who want to see our country get better, to have the $110 billion for the roads and bridges and highways, etc., and the new jobs. They can pass the infrastructure package without having the radical left. And that, I think, opens a pathway. 

Let's hope that's what happens when the House gets back to work.

Next up was Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. He talked mostly about the DOJ and the attempt by Former Guy to have the DOJ interfere in the 2020 election. Durbin noted that

...what was going on in the Department of Justice was frightening, from a constitutional point of view, to think that Bill Barr left, resigned after he had announced he didn't see irregularities in the election, and then his replacement was under extraordinary pressure from the president the United States, even to the point where they were talking about replacing him. 

He didn't provide any juicy details, but he did say that president Trump asked Jeffrey Rosen, the acting Attorney General after Bill Barr resigned, "to do certain things related to states' election returns, which he refused to do," regarding the 2020 election. Rosen was being asked "by the White House, the leadership in the White House, to meet with certain people who had these wild, bizarre theories of why that election wasn't valid, and he refused to do it." History will be kind to Rosen, Durbin said - and that was not what he would have thought when Rosen was appointed. 

We'll close with his reflection on what they've learned so far in the investigation; emphasis on the last sentence is mine, for the people in the back of the room. 

I guess the thought that we have come to accept that this president and his bizarre conduct, we came to accept over four years as normal. It's outrageous. When you look back on the Richard Nixon episode and the Saturday Night Massacre, people out of principle were turning around and threatening to resign. The same thing happened here, incidentally, within the Department of Justice. There was a point where virtually everyone in the authority in the Department of Justice was going to walk if the president had his way. I mean, these are moments in history which you would never want to see repeated. And, with Donald Trump, they were.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was in the Fox News Sunday classroom with Brett Bair sitting in for Chris Wallace. He's not a fan of the infrastructure bill, because it's not paid for, and "we've got to start doing things responsibly." He likes road, bridges, airports, and seaports - stuff he did when he was Florida's governor, but "less than half this bill... had anything to do with roads, bridges, airports, and seaports."

Even though his state has a 'C' on its infrastructure scorecard, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, he's not interested in adding to the debt by borrowing money to pay for it. Even though, of course, that wasn't the case when that other guy was president, Bair pointed out. 

In fact, if you look at the numbers, the debt went up at the end of fiscal 2020, $26.9 trillion. The Trump administration and Republicans added $6.7trillion to the debt. That was since President Obama's last budget, a 33 percent increase. Understanding COVID had a big role in that, but there's not a great track record for Republicans recently to tout themselves as deficit debt hawks and now to be doing it here.

That's different now, Scott said. The Rs

had a caucus meeting where we said, we're not going to raise the debt ceiling without -- all Republican senators said, we will not raise the debt ceiling without structural change. That's what we all agreed to do.

On COVID, in a nutshell, everyone should be able to make up their own minds, to make good decisions, if the government would just tell them what they need to know. 

Here's what I believe we ought to do at every level of government. Let's be honest. If you feel comfortable, get the vaccine. If you don't, figure out how you're going to keep yourself safe. I mean that's what I believe we ought to be doing. And I'm going to -- I'm going to do everything I can to tell people, you know, that, you know, I've -- I've been comfortable with the vaccine. I had COVID. I don't want anybody to get COVID.

He also said

This is -- you know, this is not a country where we need people telling us what to do. I love my mom. I hate her telling me what to do. Give me good information. I'll make a good decision.

We'll make "good decisions," he said? Yeah, maybe, maybe not: around 400,000 people at Lollapalooza, with widespread reporting of vaccine and negative COVID test documentation being ignored by security, and requests from public health officials urging attendees to get tested... 400 at Barack Obama's birthday part... 700,000 expected at Sturgis... 

Finally, in response to Baier's last question on whether Former Guy is the leader of the GOP, Scott thinks not.

I was able to win because I went and I told people what I thought they -- I -- they wanted somebody to do. That's who's going to win. The -- in the next election, the '22 election, the '24 election is, who's got the right message and right background for that time. And that's who's going to be -- that's -- but the voters are the leader of the party. 

That's an interesting concept, isn't it?

See you around campus. Make good decisions. Get vaccinated if you're able, and wear a mask when it makes sense to do so.

Quick Takes (v62): Keep One, Toss the Rest

They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" and to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..."

Nothing in their oath says anything about bearing true faith and allegiance to their party.

Nothing in their oath says anything about supporting and defending the charlatan and grifter who used to be president, or about supporting and defending any other individual.

It's just not in the oath - I swear and affirm.

So much of the time, they disregard their oath and work for their own longevity and benefits of office, not for the benefit of the country, not for our vaunted American Ideals, not for you and me. Put many of them in the same room and all we'll see is a pile of insincere, self-centered, scaredy cat hypocrites.

Is this the only example, the move by Kevin McCarthy to delegitimize the House Select Committee on the insurrection, immediately after meeting with the former president, the many McCarthy previously said "bears responsibility" for what happened?

Hell no, there are tons of them. I wear glasses, but the lenses are not rose, I can assure you. We could fill the Boston Harbor a million times over with boxes of hypocrisy from the people we elect - the Boston Harbor, and the Great Lakes, and the entire Mississippi River and all her tributaries, and the Gulf of Mexico, and still have boxes and boxes of hypocrisy left over.

If Washington hypocrisy was water, we'd never have a drought. If it was actual currency, we'd be able to pay for every idea anyone ever thought of, and some ideas we haven't thought of yet.

But it's not actual currency - it's political currency. And so here we are.

If any of the Rs had any courage, they'd walk down the hall to Speaker Pelosi's office and volunteer to be on the Select Committee. All of those "Look at me, I'm bipartisan!" folks in the Problem Solvers Caucus? They'd be lining up to join the Committee. They'd do that, to uphold their oath, to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Even if that means they might be investigating members of their own caucus, their colleagues, their friends. And they'd even have the chance to investigate the House leadership as part of the process, which is as it should be. We should expect nothing less, and we should stand for nothing less.

I'm not holding my breath for even a single second, because I know better. We all know better. We must figure out how to get these people out of office.

Except Liz Cheney. She can stay. Not because I agree with her on policy issues, but because she has more courage than the rest of them combined.

Wondering on Wednesday 7/21/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

A whole lotta wondering going on, going on. Let's dive in.

Billionaires Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos separately launched themselves to the edge of space, or actually to space recently, depending on who you listen to. Not surprisingly there's a lot of chatter about how these guys waste their money on stuff like this, rather than on feeding the hungry, or raising wages, or paying taxes (Bezos), or a whole host of other things we'd spend our money on, if we had it to spare. 

But here's what I wonder: is it worse that billionaires spend a few of their own billions launching themselves dozens of miles high, or that cities and countries spend tens of billions of dollars hosting the Olympics, all the while ignoring the needs of their own residents who may be hungry, homeless, sick, unemployed, or otherwise being underserved by their government?

Take Los Angeles, which is set to host the 2028 Summer Games, at projected cost of $6.9B. Additional money will come from the federal government, and the state has committed to cover any cost overruns in case tickets, merch, sponsorships and the like don't cover all of the costs. 

Is there really nothing better that LA, CA, or the US of A could to with that money, I wonder? And, if that's not enough, Salt Lake City is going to be bidding on an upcoming Winter Games, maybe 2034, they say. How much will we spend there, against what more pressing needs?

Can't we just declare permanent spots for the Winter and Summer games, and stop the nonsense? 

Sticking with the Olympics, remember all the uproar over the American sprinter who broke the rules, and tested positive for pot? She would have missed her individual race, serving a suspension for the banned substance, but then she wasn't chosen by the US team to participate in the relay, either, which would have been held after her suspension was served. Instead, her spot went to a runner who didn't have a positive drug test. I wonder why so many people thought that was wrong?

And, one more for you: Becca Meyers, a deaf and legally blind American gold-medal-winning Paralympian swimmer, has withdrawn because she's not allowed to have her mother, who serves as her Personal Care Assistant (PCA), attend the games due to COVID. In a tweet, Meyers said, in part, 

So, in 2021, why as a disabled person am I still fighting for my rights? I'm speaking up for future generations of Paralympic athletes in hope that they never have to experience the pain I've been through. Enough is enough.

The USOC will have one PCA for all 34 members of our swim team, including nine who are blind. In a country where everyone's going to be masked, making lip-reading impossible. Where's the outrage about that, I wonder? Is that really the best we can do, in 2021?

Speaking of "the best we can do, in 2021," there's this:

Athletes on the Norwegian women's beach handball team are being punished for wearing shorts rather than bikini bottoms during a recent game, with the European Handball Federation leveling fines over "a case of improper clothing."

While the men's uniform includes "shorts that fall no longer than 10 centimeters above their knees" the women "must wear bikini bottoms... with a close fit and cut on an upward angle toward the top of the leg." And the width of the bikini at that upward angle toward the top of the leg? The same 10 centimeters, or about four inches, as the maximum distance of the men's shorts from their knees.

The fine amounts to about $175 (US) for each of the ten team members. And they don't care - they're hoping to change the stupid rule. Good for them. And how much longer is this absurd objectification going to continue? That's the wondering here. Enough, already! Respect the women as athletes - or, I guess, put the men in similarly-designed bikini bottoms. What's good for the goose, and all.

Finally, we've got Kevin McCarthy, the alleged leader of the GOP in the House of Representatives. McCarthy went to Bedminster to meet with the real leader of the GOP, Former Guy, to talk about the mid-terms he said. But Trump said they had "much to discuss," which undoubtedly included who should represent the GOP on the House Select Committee on Former Guy's insurrection. Five days later, McCarthy named Rep. Jim Jordan and four others to the Committee. 

In response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejecting Jordan's appointment, and that of Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, McCarthy pulled all his people, saying 

This panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility. Pelosi has broken this institution. 

Pretty sure it "lost all legitimacy and credibility" when you trotted off to kiss that ring in New Jersey, Kev. McCarthy, you'll remember, said this, on the House floor, just days after the insurrection.

Last week's attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. Violence is never a legitimate form of protest. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob riot. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts required immediate action of president Trump to accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term. And the president's immediate action also deserves Congressional action, which is why I think a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent.

And today, he stands in front of a microphone and says Pelosi has broken the House? I've gotta wonder, how does he say this stuff with a straight face? As someone I know likes to say, we are so screwed. 

Oh wait - that's me. I like to say that. 

What's on your wondering mind today?

Quick Takes (v61): When Soundbites and Facts Collide

On Wednesday, Andrew Cuomo, my Sonofa Gov, exerted his princely powers and declared a 'state emergency' and released a new seven-point-plan to address gun violence. He said that "we went from COVID to the epidemic of gun violence and the fear and death that goes along with it."  And, he said,

This is a national problem, I get it. But somebody has to step up and somebody has to address it.

Somebody does need to address it, there's no doubt about that. We can argue about whether Cuomo's the guy, or whether it's Congress, or whether it's local law enforcement... truth be told, it's all of them, I'd suggest, but it's not my place to try and steal Cuomo's thunder. After all, there are plenty of people around to do that. 

Like my Congressman, Rep. John Katko (R-Trump Wants Me to be Primaried). Katko's a former federal prosecutor; he helped take down some violent gangs back in the day here in Syracuse, so he has some experience in this area. He's also a Republican in a purple district, NY-24. He voted for the second impeachment, and led the charge to get a bill passed that would have established an independent, 9/11-style investigation into the insurrection. Neither of those have endeared him to his hard-core constituents. 

So, attacking Cuomo seems safe, and that's what Katko did, when he blamed state policies for the increase in violent crime.

Right now, in New York State the laws are terrible. Bail reform is a good example of that, and defunding the police. The fact that the governor is admitting that his policies have failed, the policies of the Democrats have failed, is a good step in the right direction.

Katko thinks we need a stronger stand against gang violence, and says that, while Cuomo's plan includes millions for jobs for at-risk youth, targeting high-crime areas and illegal gun sales, it might not be enough.

It’s better than nothing, but New York city defunded their police by one billion dollars with a 'b' and look what happened there, so he’s starting to understand that he’s got a mess on his hands that he helped make.

OK - those are the soundbites, here are the facts. 

According to Fox News, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo slammed the New York City Council’s move strip the New York Police Department of $1 billion in funding, questioning “what it means” and calling for concrete action.

"I don’t know what it means," Cuomo said during a press briefing Wednesday. “What does that mean? Does this mean I am less safe? Where did you take the billion dollars from? Does it mean I am more safe? Does it have any effect on police abuse? I don’t know what it means...”

The truth is, like many people, Cuomo thought calls to defund the police hurt Democrats in last year's elections.

I think 'defund the police' went too far. I think law and order makes a difference in people's lives... I think 'defund the police' was a really unfortunate expression. I don't think anyone meant it literally.

Yes, he wants police departments to reform. Yes, he doesn't think much of Bill de Blasio, and taking a swipe at him is good fun, but in the end, he's not a big gun behind the 'defund' movement - he favors rethinking policing, and required all departments in the state to submit community-supported plans to do just that, or lose state funding. Did Katko not know that?

And, let's look at bail reform, another Katko complaint, and some crime statistics. The truth is, bail reform - and COVID-related prisoner releases - are not significant contributors to the increase in gun violence. And that's coming from the NY Post, hardly a Cuomo-supporting media outlet.

While the surge in gunplay is undeniable, a Post analysis of department data found that most people released under the criminal justice reforms or amid the pandemic had no known ties to the bloodshed — with criminal justice experts saying the cops should focus on the flow of illegal guns into the city instead of playing the “blame game.”

Here are the details, from the NYPD's own data (emphasis added):

• There's been a 46% increase in shootings (528 this year through June 30th, compared to 362 in the same time period last year), but the NYPD has closed only 28% of them, about half the normal close rate.
• Of the roughly 11,000 released under the new bail laws, only 91 have any connection to a shooting, and only one person has been charged. Over half of them were either victims (25) or witnesses (24); the remaining 41 are documented as either suspects (31) or "perps" (10) in the NYPD data.

And for good measure, here are the numbers on COVID releases.

• 2500 or so inmates were released from Rikers to reduce overcrowding during the pandemic; some 275 have been rearrested (through mid-June), but only nine are linked to shootings. One was arrested, two are "persons of interest," and three are witnesses. The other three? They were victims of shootings.

If these are the facts, why do politicians (and law enforcement officials) insist on saying something else? Richard Aborn, who's president of the Citizens Crime Commission, thinks this is why.

There's a blame game going on, and I don't think it's helpful. I think it would be helpful if the NYPD [issued] a clear report explaining why they think the uptick in shootings is linked to bail reform.

Maybe Rep. Katko would consider doing the same?

Wondering on Wednesday 7/7/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What in the wondering world is going on tonight? Let's take a look.

The embattled president of Haiti, Jovenel Moise, was assassinated in his home early this morning, and his widow has been flown to Miami in critical condition. Meanwhile, on the interwebs, fingers immediately pointed to Bill and Hillary Clinton as the culprits. The wondering here? How on earth did Hunter Biden escape blame?

There's a lot of speculation on what GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Afraid of Trump) will do about the House Select Committee on the insurrection. Will he appoint RWNJs like Marjorie Greene (R-Jewish Space Lasers), Lauren Boebert (R-OK Corral) and Matt Gaetz (R-Where's Nestor?)? Or maybe #FormerGuy favorite Jim Jordan (R-Coatless in Ohio), one wonders? Or, will he try and appoint people who might actually acquit themselves as serious members of Congress? 

One thing I am wondering about is why Nancy Pelosi (D-I Swear I Won't Run for Speaker Again) decided that three of the eight Dems on the Committee needed to be former impeachment managers. Is there no one other than Adam Schiff (D-I Don't Know When to Stop Talking) who could participate? You remember him, the guy who told the fun stories before anything even got started in the first impeachment? Couldn't she have done better, I wonder, in making this look less partisan? Or doesn't she even care anymore?

Former Guy sued social media companies Facebook, Google, and Twitter today, claiming in part that they are 'state actors' and therefore subject to the First Amendment. Red meat for his base, a comedic goldmine for his critics, and a continuation of his propensity for lawsuits. Says Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman, Trump

is playing a standard media game. It fits into a broader pattern of the former president bringing lawsuits and then not vigorously pursuing them.

As always, we're left wondering what his 'news' is supposed to distract us from - maybe the tax-evasion case against the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, his CFO? Or the fact that even Fox News doesn't broadcast his rallies?

We collectively fell short of President Biden's goal of 70% of American adults having at least one dose of a COVID vaccine by July 4th., landing at around 67%. So, instead of having big vaccination sites that are being underused, the new plan is to meet people where they are - going door-to-door to learn about - and counter - vaccine hesitancy; making sure primary care physicians  and pediatricians have vaccines available; and using mobile vaccination clinics, among other things. 

Response to these ideas is mixed, with the usual suspects on both sides acting as we expected they would. So, what's the wondering? Is there anything that will convince more people to get vaccinated? What if we told them the virus really did originate in a Wuhan lab, not a wet market (whether that's true, or not) - would that work? Or, maybe instead of offering a college scholarship, or a million bucks, we gave everyone a gun and a year's supply of ammo - would that work?

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 7/4/21: Extra Credit

As promised in this week's Sunday School, here are highlights from Mike Emanuel's interview with Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX) on Fox News Sunday. McCaul is the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Emanuel was sitting for Chris Wallace.

• McCaul agrees with an op-ed in the Washington Post that "rivals such as Iran, China, and Russia" could view our withdrawal from Afghanistan that "President Biden lacks the stomach to stand up for US allies."  He noted that the Intelligence Community's assessment that the Taliban could take over all of Afghanistan in as little as six months, including Bagram Air Base, which we just turned over to the Afghans last week. 
• He criticizes "the lack of planning and preparation" for the withdrawal, and for what's likely to come. According to a meeting he had with Afghan President Ghani, this is going to be "the year of the jihad," with "all the young males in Pakistan at the madrassas are poised with the Taliban to pour over into Afghanistan and you're going to see a major civil war take place." It won't be pretty, he feels, and he's worried about our embassy and he staff there. 
• We need to work on getting visas for the around 9,000 Afghani interpreters, contractors and their families who helped us during the war, he said; "we made a promised to them... we told them we'd take care of them and we can't turn our backs and leave them to die. They will be slaughtered by the Taliban. They're targeted by the Taliban. We have to get them out of there." He said he thinks, finally, there's some attention to the issue and we may be able to move them to Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan while they wait for their visas. 
• Finally, on this subject: he thinks it's political that Biden's going to get everyone out and not leave a few troops behind. "If you talk to anybody in the national security realm or in the Defense Department, you know, they -- you mentioned Secretary Austin, the head of the DOD, nobody thought this was a good idea. A residual force of 2,500 troops is not a whole lot of a footprint compared to where we have troops elsewhere to provide stability in the region." 

I will give McCaul credit for consistency, something I can't say about most Republicans, or most politicians in general. Last November, when Former Guy put forth his plan to have all troops out of Afghanistan in the spring, McCaul joined many other Rs in pushing back against that plan. Here's part of what he said.

A premature U.S. withdrawal would not only jeopardize the Afghan government’s ability to negotiate but would endanger U.S. counterterrorism interests.

Other info from yesterday's chat? 

• The coverup of the origins of COVID-19 by the Chinese Communist Party he calls "the greatest human -- greatest cover-up in human history. And you don't cover-up something if you're not trying to hide something." He wishes "the Democrats would join with us on this very important investigations and what caused this problem," not mentioning that Biden has ordered  a full investigation and a determination of whether the virus came from an animal, or from the Wuhan lab.
• He calls Biden's canceling of Trump's 'remain in Mexico' border policy "a self-inflicted wound and a foreign policy blunder," and doesn't know how they're going to fix it without going back to the Trump-era policies.
• Infrastructure is both "popular" and "bipartisan," if you're talking about roads and bridges and rural broadband, and not any of that other stuff like the Green New Deal and health care and education. And he's not excited about That Guy from Vermont using reconciliation to "basically open up to a massive tax increase. And this is a Trojan horse syndrome that I think we're most worried about."

To be sure, there are things to worry about, just as there were in the previous administration, and the one before that, and the one before that. Endless wars, immigration, and infrastructure are just a few of the things that we've been kicking down the road. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 7/4/21

I did a drive-by of a couple of Sunday School classrooms yesterday: CNN's State of the Union, and Fox News Sunday.

Dana Bash talked with Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on SOTU; here are some highlights.

• With only 42% of eligible Arkansans vaccinated and "younger adults that's now getting hit with the Delta variant," the gov says they're focusing on making the vaccine accessible and that "everybody knows the need. He thinks the vaccination rate is good enough that "we can avoid the surge in hospitalizations that puts us in jeopardy" for a third wave, but said "in a rural state, in a conservative state, there is hesitancy" to get vaccinated. 
• He supports the bipartisan infrastructure bill, saying that it's paid for "the best news." He likes that it's "limited to the traditional infrastructure of roads and bridges," and funding for some water and broadband projects. He doesn't want it tied to the other bill, noting that "we have more money than we could spend right now in terms of some of the federal money that's flowed in our direction."
• He's sending National Guard troops to Texas, but denies it's political theater. He called what's happening at the border now "disaster. It's a human tragedy," with the Biden administration policy changes. He'd never use political donations for something like this, as Gov. Kristi Noem (R-Trump Dakota) is doing, saying that responding to other states "in terms of disaster" is a state function" and he'd consider it "a bad precedent to have that privately funded."
• He wouldn't rule out a run for president in 2024, but said after his term ends next year, he wants "to be engaged in the national debate. It's important, the direction of our party, our country."

Also in the SOTU classroom? Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC).

• He said the new Select Committee on the insurrection might be able to avoid having Former Guy testify; he "would not want to see a former president testifying in such a situation as this." If that's what it takes, though, he'd be OK with it, noting that "this is more than any one person. This is country... since 1776, this country has been in pursuit of perfection. And we need to keep that pursuit going... this is a great time for us to re-dedicate ourselves to what we have all been looking forward to for a long time, liberty and justice for all."
• Dems have always been for voter ID, just equitable ID requirements. When you tell me that you got to have a photo ID, and a photo for a student for an activity card is not good, but, for a hunting license, it is good, that's where the rub is." He doesn't know anyone who's against IDing themselves when they go to vote. "But we don't want you to tell me my ID is no good because I don't own a gun and I don't go hunting." And that voter registration card you receive? That should be a valid ID for voting. 
• He doesn't agree with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Filibuster), saying "we need to get rid of the filibuster for constitutional issues, just as we have done for budget issues." For arguments on political issues, like building a wall, or how high it should be, the filibuster is OK, if extended debate is allowed. But now, "we will allow a senator to sit downtown in a spa somewhere, pick up the telephone and call in the filibuster, and effectively stop voting rights and other constitutional rights... won't even come to the floor to argue his or her position. That's what is wrong with this filibuster..." 
• He still has hopes for police reform, saying " I think we're going to get there." He says there's still time, and that "it is teetering on some divisions between the sheriffs and, say, the police chiefs, but we can reconcile those. I'm holding out hope that we get this done, because it needs to be done."

Mike Emanuel sat in for Chris Wallace down the hall to the right. He had Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in the guest chair. They talked about infrastructure, COVID, the border, and about Afghanistan. To do that justice, I'll save it for this week's Extra Credit. 

See you around campus - assuming, that is, that you made it through yesterday's birthday unscathed. 

Sidebar: Quick Takes (v60)

In my Quick Takes post yesterday, I expressed concern over the new NCAA Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) program, which allows college athletes to be paid directly by corporations through sponsorships and whatnot. I proposed a different solution to paying athletes for the work they do for their schools - an equally imperfect solution, truth be told, but one that's more equitable, in my eyes. 

The announcement of these changes came at the same time as a legendary figure in high school lacrosse, locally and nationally, did an interview with a local media outlet here in my neck of the woods. The interview wasn't about the NIL changes, but it touched on some of the things that I can see being exacerbated by them. 

Retired West Genesee Coach Mike Messere talked with Lindsey Kramer of Syracuse.com/The Post Standard. Messere retired three years ago, after coaching the Wildcats to 15 state championships and 30 conference championships in his 40-odd-year career. By all accounts, he was a tough and demanding coach; his retirement was accompanied by scathing comments about his team's performance in their 2018 state championship loss, after all. 

The impetus for the interview was news that the coaches for both the West Genny boys and girls teams had stepped down. As Kramer notes in the interview, Messere "has clearly fought off the mellowing impacts of time and distance."

Among other things, he said "It's a tough time right now to be a coach or a teacher. Everything's changing and it's not for the best." In part, he points to discipline, and parents, and demands on the kids.

The parents want the kid to be more free to do their thing. Score, and be fancy, and shine, and make a show of themselves and stuff like that... They want their kid to get a scholarship so they’ve got to be in a certain spot, they’ve got to play a certain way. Before, years ago when they didn’t know much about the game of lacrosse it was a lot better. They couldn’t say too much. But now they learn the word “faceoff” and they think they know it all. They have their ideas, too.

Ours was tried and proven and true the way we were doing it. But it takes discipline, learning a lot of basic skills. Nothing fancy. They’re not jumping up and down and spinning around and making a show of yourself. And the parents don’t like that. They want their kid to do all that stuff to get attention.

And there's more - he's definitely not shy. In some respects, it sounds like he ran his program the way Steinbrenner ran the Yankees. 

The kind of quitting, how do I explain it? They gave up on the West Genny way. Kids weren’t keeping their socks up; they were kicking them down. All the stuff that made you that little bit, not that it made you a better player. It made you different than the other kids. A little more special. I don’t know if they got that or understood that. When they see you come, they know who you are, and you’re something special just by the looks of those socks. It’s a discipline thing. Everybody dresses the same, we play the same, everybody respects everybody else the same way.

And when you think of NIL, can you see what Messere's talking about coming into play? I sure can.

Look at me! I'm the funny socks guy, and I'm getting $1oK for that! Check out my on Insta and TikTok - I'm getting paid for clicks! My team? Losing record, but I'm getting paid! Woo hoo, look at me!

In a lot of ways, I agree with Messere on the importance of team, discipline, and uniformity, especially before the kids get into college. That is not the way of the world now, with competitive teams - travel teams - for kids as young as five or six in some sports. That's a lot of years to learn how to wear your socks just right to get noticed. I've seen myself how kids even that young are being encouraged by parents to star as individuals, rather than as team players.

In addition to being ripe for encouraging selfish behavior on the part of the kids (and their parents) the NIL program also seems ripe for a lot of other stuff, such as illegal payments to players before they get into college, payments to families or coaches to nudge their kids to choose this sponsorship deal over that one, and so on. You know: all the stuff the NCAA has been punishing for years, and which colleges are sometimes willing to turn a blind eye to, if it helps them get a high-powered coach who can recruit great players and bring in the bucks. 

With the new rules, will we eventually see a game where the players are all decked out like NASCAR drivers, proudly touting their sponsors, with maybe a little space saved for their team's name? 

I'm old - or, at least, old school. Shine through your play, not your 'style.' Be part of a unit, not an attention-grabber. Play for the team, not for individual glory. Pull up your socks. Tell your Mom and Dad to take a seat.

Oh - and get off my lawn.

Quick Takes (v60): The Times Are Surely Changing

Happy pay day, college athletes! Get your money while you're hot!

I'm torn on the whole Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) changes in college athletics. New NIL rules allowing student-athletes to profit off their 'brand' through sponsorships or corporate partnerships went into effect yesterday.

The NCAA adopted what they're calling an interim NIL policy, after several states passed legislation allowing this kind of benefit for athletes. According to NCAA president Mark Emmert,

This is an important day for college athletes since they all are now able to take advantage of name, image, and likeness opportunities. With the variety of state laws adopted across the country, we will continue to work with Congress to develop a solution that will provide clarity on a national level. The current environment — both legal and legislative — prevents us from providing a more permanent solution and the level of detail student-athletes deserve.

Some student-athletes jumped into NIL deals right away; for example, here's the story of Hanna and Haley Cavinder, twin basketball players for Fresno State. They'll be part of a national campaign for Boost Mobile - a company that's going whole-hog on deals with college stars. CEO Stephen Stokols explains that it's not just national deals, there's more.

... he's interested in the appeal that many college athletes have on a local level. He said deals could range from annual contracts worth large sums of money to in-kind deals where Boost provides athletes with free cellphones and service plans in exchange for promoting the company on social media.

A lot of these guys are local heroes... We think it's a big opportunity to get regional and local with relevant names in those markets. ...We want to be one of the biggest companies embracing [the college-athlete marketplace] early. We hope to play a role in helping to shape it. There is a lot of gray area that will hopefully be more defined a year from now.

In my neck of the woods, Syracuse University has rolled out a new program, called ACCELERATE, for kids. The program expands upon one started last year, which provided "every student-athlete with real-time multimedia content access from Syracuse Athletics' communications and creative services teams" which they could share on social media. Now, 

...Syracuse Athletics will offer an intensive bootcamp to all student-athletes beginning in September 2021. This bootcamp will allow for subject matter experts from Syracuse University and the corporate world to deliver practical knowledge to student-athletes on entrepreneurship, brand building, creating a business, finance, accounting, contracts, and agents. The bootcamp sessions will help student-athletes further develop their own personal brands and prepare them for the real-world implications of starting their own personal business.

Other schools will surely offer similar programs, which is great for the athletes. All of them - whether they're in school primarily to enhance their brand and create opportunities to go to the next level, or if they're in school to get a degree and move on to a career outside athletics, this is knowledge that will help.

And, good for the kids to have the chance to make money, instead of their schools making money off them. And let's not forget the coaches, too, some of whom are raking in millions in salary, shoe-and-apparel deals, and other sponsorships. That the student-athletes are the only ones not making money for their services is wrong, and has been for a long time. 

But the NCAA's insistence on prohibiting the kids to be paid for the work they put in - often a full work-week (or more) during the season - in order to preserve the 'amateur' status of the kids? That's nuts. 

I'd rather see all the athletes, in both revenue-earning and non-revenue earning sports, get a salary for the hours they put in, instead of giving them free reign to rake in outside money. And they'd get paid for all their time - games, at practice, in the weight room, traveling, watching film - the whole nine yards, as it were. A salary would ensure that all students on a team, whether they get a lot of playing time or not, will benefit. 

And how about some revenue sharing? Could a small percentage of conference money, TV revenue, ticket income, and the like could be divided up among all athletes, based on some formula that people smarter than me could develop? I bet it could.

An added benefit? With athletes being paid by the school, not by corporate interests, you won't see players competing against each other for the same NIL sponsorships, or worse, bad blood spilling over onto the field if one player gets a better deal than a teammate. 

I don't know what the perfect solution is, but there are good ways to do things, and bad ones. This NIL thing seems like a bad way to do a good thing.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/30/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive in to today's wondering, shall we?

A Republican strategist on NPR suggested that because the Dems have only a five-vote majority in the House of Representatives as a whole, it would be grossly unfair to have a Select Committee on the 1/6 Insurrection with eight Democrats and five Republicans. And I wonder, if that consequence of the election is so unpalatable, why on earth didn't the R's jump at the chance to have an independent, 9/11-style commission? I mean, did they all get their Melania jackets from the dry cleaners at the same time?

Sticking with the House and the Select Committee, I wonder if any of the Rs that don't want an investigation have considered what Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) reportedly said - here's the meme that's making the rounds. 

I wonder, what's the argument against what he says? Either you want to know, because you think it was something other than what it appears to be, or you believe The Big Lie, and you don't want any more proof that it was supporters of Former Guy, just like it's been shown all along. Or, I guess, you're chicken and afraid of losing your job. 

Kinzinger, in a recent appearance on CNN, told Anderson Cooper, 

If people are willing, at a young age, to put their life on the line for this country, and we can't put our career on the line for the same thing, what's it worth? Why are you doing it, right? But if everybody just comes out and tells the truth, has differences of opinion or perspective, of course, we can fix this country. Short of that, we've got some trouble.

I wonder how many of his colleagues are willing to admit publicly they agree with him on that?

Speaking of 'we've got some trouble," we learned that South Dakota Gov. Kristy Noem, who might want to be Nikki Haley when she grows up, has promised to deploy her state's National Guard troops in Texas to help with border security. And, according to her spokesman, she's going to use private funds to "help alleviate the cost to South Dakota taxpayers."  The private funds are coming from a Trump-supporting used care billionaire from Tennessee, if that makes any sense at all.

And now, I'm wondering what would happen if say, Michigan's Gov. Gretchen Whitmer decided to send her state's National Guard to Texas to support asylum seekers crossing the border, and say it was Michael Bloomberg who was footing the bill. How'd that sit with everyone?

And are we going to see National Guard deployments up for bid on eBay and other auction sites, I wonder? Or Go Fund Me campaigns to send them to other states on a governor's whim? Think of all the money that could be separated from billionaires and used for defense. Or for The Wall. Anyone still have Steve Bannon on speed dial?

Speaking of Former Guy, he held a rally in Ohio the other day. and Amanda Uhle, a WaPo reporter, attended the rally out of her self-proclaimed inability to "stop probing Trump supporters, trying to understand exactly how they see the world and why they're not seeing it the way" she does. Speaking of his Ohio appearance, she wrote

This time, he was to be accompanied by all you might expect from an 88-degree evening at the Lorain County Fairgrounds — a dusty parking area, livestock stalls and creaky grandstands under the rich, dank odor of manure and surrounded by verdant fields. Air Force One would not be deployed. His lectern wouldn’t be adorned by the presidential seal. He’s not officially running for anything, even if all signs point to a bid in 2024. So, who would want to attend a Trump rally in 2021?

I almost stopped at "the rich, dank odor of manure" line - what could be more evocative of a Trump rally than that, I wondered? But I kept reading, and learned that the people who are attending now are the same people who attended his rallies before - he doesn't seem to have a new crowd, any more than he has a new message. I guess that's a good thing.

Finally, like most people, I've been following the story of the condo collapse in Florida. My heart aches for the families that have been forever changed by the tragedy, and for the community similarly forever changed

One thing I can't shake? Whether this, like so many other infrastructure collapses, was preventable, if only we had been paying attention. And paying attention from the very beginning, not just two or three years ago, or forty years later, or five or six months from now. 

Our appetite for building in coastal areas, on cliffs, in fire-prone forests, on fault lines, seems boundless, as does our appetite for ignoring potential signs of danger along the way, and for kicking the can down the road. 

We cringe, and duck, when we get an estimate on repairs, whether it's a condo or a bridge or a highway, and we don't act until the very last argument is made, literally dozens of times, and even then, half the time we make a temporary fix, as if the arguments will change when it comes time to pay the pipe. And pay we will, after a horrendous collapse, after people die, after families are forever changed by the tragedy, or even after a change in who holds the purse strings. 

And that's always the driver, right? Money up front to make growth happen; money in the middle to buy the view or the solitude or the speed to get from point A to point B; money on the back end to keep things standing (hopefully in time); and of course, money to distribute when our worst nightmares come to fruition.

I wonder about all of that, I do.

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 6/20/21

 Today, two of my least favorite senators were in the classrooms: Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) who talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and That Guy from Vermont, Bernie Sanders (I-'m Never Gonna Be a D), who chatted with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union, which is where we'll start.

Bash set the stage this way: work continues trying to find a bipartisan agreement on infrastructure, while at the same time, TGFV, who's the Senate Budget Committee chair, is working towards a reconciliation bill that won't need any of the Rs. And, the $6T package (yep - that's trillion) has some of the big policy goals Dems favor, but the price tag is scaring some of them, too.

Bash asked TGFV if he had Biden's approval to go big - way big. He said that Biden's given them a "serious and comprehensive blueprint" of where they want to go, and while there's an admittedly important inclination to "get bogged down in numbers,"

we got to look at what the needs are of the American people, what's going on right now. And what is going on right now, obviously, as everybody knows, very rich are doing phenomenally well. Corporate profits are soaring. And yet we have -- in terms of real wages for working people, it's lower today than it was 48 years ago. Half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck.

And then he ticked off the issues: childcare; housing; climate; paid medical leave; corporations not paying taxes; rich people not paying taxes.

So, all that the president is doing, all I am doing is taking a look at reality for working families, understand their needs have been ignored for decades. Now it is time to create good-paying jobs, millions of good- paying jobs, addressing health care, housing, infrastructure.

And about those Ds who are feeling queasy, is he willing to cut the price tag or edit the laundry list? He said the process is just beginning, and he plans on talking to everyone and trying to hammer things out, but again,

... I think that there is general agreement that the time is long overdue that we address many of the long-neglected problems facing the middle class and working class of this country.

TGFV does not support the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Bash noted. He said the bill "provides spending in some important areas," but the money is not adequate. He does think that raising taxes on wealthy people is ok, but that "raising the gas tax, or a fee on electric cares, or maybe privatization of infrastructure," which have been mentioned, are "bad ideas." He said he'd have to see how the bill is paid for, and added, again, the laundry list of his priorities which he clearly considers are everyone else's priorities.

And I can't help thinking, as I do every time he's interviewed, that he seems to forget that he lost - twice - to a less progressive candidate. And yet, he always seems to think that he's in the driver's seat. And if he's the one to kill a bipartisan infrastructure bill, he'll have proven that he's not president for a reason.

Down the hall, Chris Wallace asked Sen. Graham, one of the Group of 21 (10 Ds and 11 Rs) who have a $1T infrastructure plan, "how close are you to a deal with the White House? And what's the effective deadline for reaching an agreement?" Graham said that the group is willing to add more new money to the plan, whereas the previous group was not willing to do that. He also said that it's up to Biden, really.

...I am hopeful if the White House and Joe Biden stay involved, we can get there. I would just say this: President Biden, if you want an infrastructure deal of a trillion dollars, it's there for the taking. You just need to get involved and lead. 

Graham's thoughts on compromising on infrastructure with the Dems, knowing that they're seemingly willing to go forward unilaterally with the $6T behemoth spending plan? 

That could be very problematic. I'm going to sit down and talk with my colleagues. But $6 trillion being spent through reconciliation is more money than we spent to win World War II. Infrastructure to me is roads and bridges and ports -- and electrical vehicles are fine. I don't want to raise taxes to pay for it. 

Well, except for things like the federal gas tax, which he said hasn't been adjusted for inflation since the 90s. He's also OK with using unspent COVID money to fund an 'infrastructure bank' but Wallace didn't ask for details on that, or even on what that money was originally intended for in any of the COVID relief packages. And, Graham threw in the talking points that are required every time an R gets in front of a microphone.

And what they're calling infrastructure, the liberal left, to me, is not remotely related to what's traditionally been called infrastructure. It's just -- it's just a power grab by the Democratic Party in every area of our lives. 

Because affordable broadband and eldercare and whatnot didn't exist back in the day? Because investing in medical infrastructure for our aging population, or broadband for our poor children are just ways for the Dems to grab power? And adjusting a tax for inflation is a good idea, but fixing the minimum wage which is even older is a bad one? Who are these people?

Moving on to voting rights, Wallace asked Graham whether he'd support the Manchin plan, which is a heavily stripped-down version of SR-1, the For the People Act. Manchin's proposing making election day a holiday, at least 15 days of early voting, banning partisan gerrymandering, and requiring a voter ID. 

Graham doesn't "like the idea of taking the power to redistrict away from state legislators," because 

You're having people move from red -- blue states to red states. Under this proposal, you would have some kind of commission, redraw the new districts, and I don't like that. I want states where people are moving to have control over how to allocate new congressional seats. 

So, he's a no on the plan, just as he's a no on SR-1 

In my view, SR-1 is the biggest power grab in the history of the country. It mandates ballot harvesting, no voter ID. It does away with the states being able to redistrict when you have population shifts. And it's just a bad idea and it's a problem that most Republicans are not going to sign -- they're trying to fix a problem most Republicans have a different view of. 

Wallace did do some fact-checking on Graham's statements, but it didn't matter. And then, he asked if the Rs run the risk of the moderate Dems throwing in the towel on bipartisanship and joining calls to change the filibuster.

Graham says he hopes not, noting that the two parties are close on police reform, and on infrastructure as they discussed, and that he's willing to work with Manchin. He also said when the Rs had Former Guy and majorities in both the House and Senate, there were "a bunch of Democrats" willing to sign a letter protecting the filibuster. They're hiding somewhere now, Graham thinks, but he's adamant on one thing.

Never once did I go to Joe Manchin or any other Democrat and say, if you don't do some of the things I want, I'm going to agree with Trump to change the rules. I'm not going to be extorted here. I'm asking no more of my Democratic colleagues then I ask of myself. It was very unpleasant to be beat on every day by the president of the United States, President Trump, and his allies, to try to change the rules in the Senate to have their way. I said no because it's bad for the Senate. I hope these Democrats understand it's bad for the Senate to change the rules, and I don't want to be extorted. I've got to give two or three things before they will not change the rules. I don't like that at all. I didn't do that to them and I wish they would not do this to me. 

Unasked? 

• Why aren't more Rs willing to compromise? 
• Where is the Grim Reaper on all of this, encouraging his party to work together so that the rules could be protected? 
• Why are the Republican so against these proposals which have broad support conceptually, even if not broad support on the money? 
• Why, specifically, are the policies being proposed the wrong ones? Not the spending part, the policy part? How are these needs going to be met otherwise?

Sigh. See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/9/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Lordy, there's a whole lot of stuff to wonder about this Wednesday, so let's dive in.

You've probably heard about the richest people in America - and by people, I mean the living, breathing kind, not the brick-and-mortar kind - who pay diddlysquat in federal income taxes, while the rest of us regular folks diligently pay our fair share.

The investigative journalists at Pro Publica have obtained IRS records for the richest Richie Richs in the country, and they're letting us in on a pretty poorly kept secret: the rich *are* different. Here's just a taste of what they've found about what they're calling the 'true tax rate' guys like Bezos, Bloomberg, Buffett and Musk pay, based on the taxes they paid each year compared to "how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period." 

According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows...(which) amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

I don't know about you, but I'm certain My Sweet Baboo and I are paying way more than 3.4% as our 'fair share' and it feels really wrong that the billionaires are paying only that much on theirs. 

So here's what I'm wondering: why is it acceptable for extremely rich brick-and-mortar people (aka corporations) and their living, breathing founders and CEOs and what not to all pay zero or nearly zero in federal taxes.  

I also wonder why the Rs are adamant that raising taxes on either type of people is a non-starter. And yes, in case you're wondering, I wonder how this information got leaked, and how long it's going to take to find the leaker.

Have you run out and purchased a gun cabinet's worth of Swiss Army knives yet? If not, I wonder what on earth you're waiting for? According to the judge who struck down California's assault weapons ban, 

Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle.

I'm wondering also about all the people who said you shouldn't take a knife to a gun fight, and if our border patrol agents and TSA screeners are all armed with those 'perfect' red-handled homeland defense items.  

I'm also wondering about Florida Man Matt Gaetz, who shot down all the stuff the NRA has been saying for years about guns and hunting and target shooting and stuff. Here's Gaetz:

The Second Amendment is not about, it’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports. The Second Amendment is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation and to make sure that they are fully understood.

It appears Gaetz and the judge are on the same side of the gun issue, but not the same page, but that's not where the wondering is. Rather, I'm wondering how Gaetz pretends he hopes it doesn't become necessary to have an armed rebellion against the government, when we just had one six months ago? And when he's on the road with nutjob Marjorie Taylor Greene trumpeting support for the guy who was - and still is - the object of the insurrectionists' affection?

The Grim Reaper has spoken on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, saying that it's unnecessary.

The Supreme Court concluded that conditions that existed in 1965 no longer existed. So there’s no threat to the voting rights law. It’s against the law to discriminate in voting on the basis of race already. And so I think it’s unnecessary.

I don't wonder so much about Senator McConnell's opposition to ensuring everyone has the right to vote; that's to be expected. I do wonder, though, what Sen. Joe Manchin thinks about this, since he said there are ten Rs who would go along with allowing debate on the bill. 

As always, there's more, but that's it for now. What are you wondering about?