6.20.21: We Have Our Own Version of Putin's 'No Happiness in Life'

What was evident from today's balanced discussion of international diplomacy and domestic issues is that as Mr. Todd noted, 'we're in for more politics than Putin' because of the lack of bi-partisanship hence Congress's inability to get anything  big done. However, when you have have Mitch McConnell, do you really need more Putin?

Fiona Hill noted that the United States inability speak with a unified voice on domestic issues spills over internationally as someone like Putin uses that. It's no secret to the world that the Republican party in the United States cannot be relied upon to negotiate in good faith. Allied and advisarial governments alike look at this intransience and know that stability within the United States and with regard to diplomacy predictability has gone out the window.

The United States, the champion of democracy, is rated a flawed one. The discussions today are the cases in point.

On infrastructure, according to Cornell Belcher and the consensus in Washington is that Democrats will not kill a bipartisan deal, they won't like a lot of the concessions to get there, but they'll swallow it. In essence they'll concede to an enhanced version of what Republicans call 'infrastructure' but by Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) own admission the Republican plan is to borrow the money. In other words, deficit spend with the justification of it being a long-term investment, which by the way, makes no sense. What also didn't make sense was putting a user fee on people who purchase hybrid and electric cars, as the senator suggested. Ah, no... one should get a tax break for purchasing such automobiles. 

And then there's our own version of Putin's 'no happiness in life' in the form of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

A bipartisan group of Senators is negotiating said infrastructure package, which Mr. McConnell will kill because someone that he thinks shouldn't be taxed gets taxed.

A bipartisan police reform bill being negotiated by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), which Mr. McConnell will kill because somewhere in it there will be a weakening of qualified immunity.

A moderate Democrat proposes some major concessions on a Voting Rights bill, but Mr. McConnell will kill it, having already deemed it unnecessary and of course because Stacey Abrams endorsed the compromise.

Speaking of which, to clearly illustrate the above, Republican strategist Brad Todd (no relation) said that Ms. Abrams purposely endorsed the compromise with the clear intent of defeating the notion. The degree of cynicism was unbelievable to the extent that no one on set, in fact, believed it. 

So to answer the question of whether President Biden's meeting with Vladimir Putin was a success of a mistake...

Putin looked small and at time squeamish in interviews, press conferences and photos during the summit. It was necessary for President Biden to set down a marker and tell Putin what's what when it comes to his country's interference of the U.S.'s internal infrastucture and discourse as well as its agression toward allies of the United States, particularly when it comes to cyberattacks. 

We liked how Ms. Hill framed the conversation when it comes to cyberattacks. She cited the example of what happened in Syria when Russian troops tried to decieve American forces by posing as separatists. Russian troops shot at American troops and got some. The Americans embarrassed the Russians because of their own foolishness. Think of that example, when it comes to cyber, she suggested. 

We'll have to wait and see how Mr. Putin reacts in the coming months, but for right now, we don't need more Putin, we have our own champion of 'there's no happiness in life.'

Thank you very little, Mr. McConnell.

Panel: Amna Nawaz, PBS; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist; Brad Todd, Republican Strategist

6.6.21: When Will The United States and the West Decide?

For this week's column, keep in mind what Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and her department's stake is in the Infrastructure package moving through Congress and that Republicans in their counter proposals have not included upgrading the energy transmission grid and improving our cybersecurity infrastructure. 

However, when Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) what the United States needed to do in the face of an increasing number and frequency of cyberattacks, he said that the U.S. needed the ability to be offensive and to have international norms. Blah blah blah... a weak response in our view.

The two most recent high-profile cyberattacks on Colonial Pipelines and JBS meat processing respectively, the perpetrators are based in Russia. So the 'ability' to be offensive should simply be 'go on the offensive.' The United States doesn't sanction rogue firms committing cyberattacks coming from this country and if Russia wants to be considered legitimate. 

Though Senator Roy Blunt's (R-MO) response on a January 6th commission was inadequate with shades of irresponsibility, his statement on Russia was unambiguous that they should be treated as 'virtually a criminal enterprise.' At this point, it is. These cyberattacks are sanctioned by the Putin regime in addition to their state-sponsored cyberattacks and assassinations. 

Senator Warner did mention something we found interesting. He explained that Colonial Pipelines had paid the ransom before notifying anyone that they did so, but that it took five days after that for everything to come back online. Five days of Putin time, in which he knows that for the effect to be felt by U.S. consumers, it needed more time. 

When Putin says that he knows nothing about these cyberattacks and that the protesters of January 6th at The Capitol was individuals with a political point or whatever he said, think about this: In 1989, when Putin was stationed in East Berlin and the West, specifically the United States, shoved Democracy so far up his ass that it was like 40 pounds of JBS beef lodged in his colon to the point he's still experiencing the bitter taste of. 

Our advice would be to keep shoving it up there. 

Ransomware should hit every one of his oligarch buddies' accounts and companies - the United States needs to respond. In each instance, the perpetrators whoever they are should demand $2. 

Yes, two dollars.

It's more difficult to pay two physical dollars than it is to pay 4 million in Bitcoin. It sends a message and to that end, cyber currencies like Bitcoin, Doge, and the rest - they're all bullshit. There is no underlying product or service or backing that sustains the value. It's all based on computer equations giving value to another computer equation that in turn gives value to a virtual piece of nothing so the sustainability on any one of these currencies is not justified. Not to mention that the energy (speaking of) that is required for virtual currency computing is larger than many countries and is a factor in climate change. Don't you feel better now? If some one starts hacking into that system, it would go a long way in cutting cybercrime.

The Washington Post's Anne Gearan reported that the White House considers larger than one nation, Russia, which is true that a slew of these attacks come from Eastern Bloc countries, aligned with Russia. Calls for transparency and international norms that Senator Warner had mentioned are needed, but a much more substantial response to Russia's nefarious activities is warranted and frankly overdue.

As for the United States, Chris Matthews explained that it's the government that is responsible for the offense and that the defense has to be a coordinated effort between the public and private sectors. Given that that has to happen, there have to be minimum standards and requirements for companies. Without it, there can be no coordination.

It's good to see Mr. Matthews back on television giving his perspective, which included that the once Cold War is transitioning into a Cold Cyberwar. It's all about energy. And if that is the case, when is the West going to decide to start sticking it to Mr. Putin again? Hopefully, in ten days when he meets with President Joe Biden.

Panel: Anne Gearan, The Washington Post; Kimberly Atkins Stohr, The Boston Globe; Chris Matthews, author and fmr. "Hardball" host; Lanhee Chen, Stanford University

5.30.21: A Rainy Memorial Day

From where we're writing today's column, it's raining and cold or in other words cold and sobering. As a nation, this is our most solemn of holidays, and perhaps our most important. One could argue more significant than July 4th because Memorial Day commemorates all the people who gave their lives defending that Declaration and the freedoms that came with it for the last 245 years. 

But the rain is falling today and rightly so. In the latest stark example of that heroism that we memorialize, Congress has decided to turn its back. They decided that they didn't want a independent commission to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. The DC Capitol police that defended the very congress people who deny them that recognition. Officer Brian Sicknick died from defending what everyone in the press like to call the 'Citadel of Democracy,' which was last breached during the War of 1812, approximately 15,000 Americans died which was essentially the rematch between the States and England. 

Since that declaration, some 1,350,000 individuals have given their lives for the principles outlined in that document, just and ill-fated alike. By not treating an insurrection of seat of the United States as a grave and serious matter to be investigated, Congress, on this Memorial Day, dishonors the memory of Officer Sicknick and his family, all the other Capitol officers on duty that day, and by extension all those who died in service to their country. It's cold...

And sobering... To know without a doubt that our Congressional 'leaders' are more concerned with party and power than for a United States. A decidedly big step back from the pursuit of a 'more perfect nation.' 

And speaking of the pursuit, part of that is acknowledging our difficult and tragic past as uncomfortable and difficult to hear that may be. To acknowledge our past failings as a nation, we gain understanding and respect for one another which translates to our military who reflect us as a country. 

Almost half of our history's military dead perished in one war, our Civil War, nothing civil about it as it was fought over the ownership of other people. Many Americans don't acknowledge it that way but that's denial of a truth. One can never be equal in the eyes of someone who denies stark truths about the other. 

Eighty-three percent of Oklahomans were never taught about the race massacre of 1921 in Tulsa, and it's safe to say that 97 percent of all Americans didn't know about it before last year. It wasn't just sanctioned by local government and police, but coordinated and executed by them where 35 died and the entire neighbored destroyed. This dark moment happened 60 years after the start of the Civil War. And 160 years later, a Confederate Flag was walked through the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

So today, from our cold and rainy corner, we honor all those who sacrificed their lives in defense of democracy and truth, while knowing soberly knowing that on this Memorial Day our Congress has no honor.

Panel: Sara Fagen, fmr. Bush W.H. Political Director; Stephanie Cutter, Democratic Strategist; Ayesha Rascoe, W.H. Correspondent PBS; Geoff Bennett, NBC News 

5.16.21: For The Palestinians, Hopelessness Is Ultimately More Lethal Than the Missiles

At the top here, we'll say that this may be a short column because frankly we're fed up with discussing the plights of the Republican party. Whitewashing what the party has said about the election and what happened on January 6, 2021 means that it can not be trust to negotiate in good faith on any issue facing the American people. Colloquially, they have no cred.

During the panel discussion, Chuck Todd ticked off a series of issues facing the Biden Administration to NBC's Kristen Welker and rightly, maybe to the chagrin of Mr. Todd, she reported that the top issue right now is the violence going on in between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which has taken a disturbing turn in this latest conflict. 

Not only are Hamas and the Israeli military exchanging missile fire, but Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis are clashing in city streets as well. This means the shared desire for peace is breaking on such levels that there will be damaging costs to civil society in the long term - the social fabric is torn. 

As with history, there is plenty of poor judgement to assess this time starting with the poor decision on the part of the Israeli police in Jerusalem to crack down on Palestinians gathering during a time of worship outside a mosque. Prime Minister Netanyahu embrace of the hard right in his country has emboldened such groups to push against the balance of the shared city. That's a lot to put out there... We know. 

There's no mistake that Hamas initiated the military conflict firing missiles indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza, over 2,000 at this point. No government in their right mind is going to let that go without counter-punching and they would be stupid no to because if they didn't it would only give license for more missiles. Israel definitely has the right to defend itself and give consideration to the civil population when retaliating unlike Hamas.

And what is the world supposed to think when a Hamas commander is quoted as saying that for Hamas bombing Israel is easier than drinking water.

The most dangerous aspect of this conflict, ultimately more lethal than the bombs, that NBC's Richard Engel touched on in his report citing its danger, which is the utter hopelessness as a collective state of mind in the Palestinians of Gaza. Mr. Engel explained that he spoke to one woman that asked 'why should I start a business or plan for the future when in 3 years it will all be blown up in conflict and its day one all over again.' 

The responsibility for this lethal dose to civil population of Gaza falls squarely on Hamas. It controls Gaza but it doesn't administer to it, which is easily evidenced by the state of its basic infrastructure such as water and electricity. It is not because of Israeli bombs that those basic needs are in short supply, but rather Hamas' bombs, which it funds over infrastructure. 

But Hamas capitalizes on this state of hopelessness giving it the license to keep pouring money into destroying people instead building up its own. Compounding this nihilistic approach, Hamas builds it's weapons depots and command centers under schools, hospitals and hotels. If you work in one of those places are you thinking about the future? Yes, if you define the future in two hour intervals. 

One can not expect for Israelis at this moment to have hope for societal civility and living peacefully among one another but it is there because the people have experienced it. There just have to be leaders on both sides willing step up with that approach. With that said, both sides have been looking for an exit ramp as Mr. Engel reported, but of course both sides need to look victorious whatever that means at this point. 

As for Hamas, there is no hope or future in nihilism and this is the plain from which we see Hamas operating. The tragic consequences of this manifest themselves in the horrific plight of the Gazan people. It's an approach that always ends in self-destruction and if that's the case then you have to question the motivations of one's cause. 

A population state of hopelessness is unsustainable and ultimately will come undone.

Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News, Donna Edwards, fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Brendan Buck, Republican Strategist; Peter Baker, The New York Times

5.9.21: What's Happening in the Republican Party is Dragging Us All Down [Caution: This Post May Contain Bamboo]

What's going on in the Republican is downright depressing. 

Don't take our word for it, if you watched today's "Meet The Press" you could see the look of utter disgust on the face of Danielle Pletka, from the conservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute, who looked like she threw up in her mouth a bit listening to the unhinged liars that are controlling the Republican Party. 

The unmoored group think and the complete abdication of the truth and the blind loyalty to a man who grifted the American people makes it nearly impossible for anyone to negotiate with them in good faith. A blind ideological platform devoid of any fact that spurns democracy itself is no way to govern. 

And there it is: it's has nothing to do with governing, only winning elections, and Republicans are determined to uncover every strand of bamboo they can find. (Not only ridiculous, but racist as well... Oh, well.) However, the first thing that Congressional Republicans need to do is remove the bamboo thorn from their political rib cage, and that thorn's name is Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-WY). Chuck Todd said that Ms. Cheney was a media hero for simply stating the truth that Joe Biden won a free and fair election; and that Donald Trump inciting an insurrection to subvert the United States democracy. (It's not a 'big lie,' it's an attempted coup and that's how it should be thought of.) She shouldn't be a media hero and she shouldn't be scorned by her party, but here we are.

On Wednesday morning the House Republican caucus plans to vote on whether Congresswoman Cheney should retain her leadership role. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is all in on voting her out because at this point he'll do whatever he has to to be the Speaker in two years. Putting party over principle isn't, as Mr. Todd described, isn't at issue as much as it's putting power over democracy.

The party is purposefully putting any moral authority and ideas aside as a means to an end, but this first move of removing Ms. Cheney can only come back in the form of a 'hard bite in the ass.' Freed from the prospect of being removed from her leadership role and seeing the writing on the wall as to the future of her seat, her voice will only become louder.

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said it's going to take time to have good Americans understand that what they've been told is not the truth about the election, a process he called it. He has a point in that it reminded us of the justification for the Iraq War that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which now everyone knows to have been false. The war started in 2003 and by 2008 the truth prevailed, but that was five years. We can not wait that long and the scary thing is that while history will be harsh on Republicans of this time, their immediate goals of winning elections may be realized. With the nutter-butters setting the United States' agenda for even two years could set us back ten in terms of competitive progress in the world. 

Senator Cassidy said in response to Senator Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) statement that his 100 percent focus was on stopping the Biden Administration (which he did walk back a bit) was more about the $7 trillion that the Biden Administration wants to spend, in a single year. The Louisiana senator does have a point and that's a seriously big number. Also knowing that Mr. Biden intends to pay for it by closing corporate tax loopholes causes Republican senators' shorts to ride up, which is OK too. 

But Mr. Cassidy and Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD) were speaking today for a Republican party that doesn't exist in the governing bodies of Congress right now. Trumpism, which isn't a governing philosophy; it is a whim exercised. And it is this that has caused so many former Republicans to become just that, former. If everyone agrees that we need a functioning two-party system to govern the United States more effectively and efficiently, those former-Republican, good American, voters need a new political home because the current landlords are burning this one down and their adding more bamboo to the flames on Wednesday.

Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Jake Sherman, co-founder of Punchbowl News;  Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist

The Bamboo Conspiracy as reported by 3TV in Arizona

5.2.21: Yes, The U.S. Can Pay Its Bills, But It Chooses Not To

Chuck Todd lead off today's "Meet The Press" with the famous Ronald Reagan quote in his 1981 inauguration speech, in which he said that government is not the solutions to your problems. Government is the problem. 

Never understood that. If you don't believe in government then why be in government other than to make it ineffective or bring it down? Basically what President Reagan was referring to was that the government taxed it citizens too much and by lowering taxes, less government services and a more pay-your-own-way living. 

Forty years later and the result is the great income disparity that we're seeing today. As families expenses go up and wages remain behind the basic standard of living something like having two jobs becomes the norm to make ends meet. What the pandemic has exposed is the staggering number of Americans who live check to check and the loss of just one can throw a family into turmoil, never mind a year of lost income. 

So it isn't surprising that 55 percent of Americans want government to do more because too many families are having to choose between food and healthcare or adequate housing and expenses - untenable at this point.

As for the Biden Administration proposing $6 trillion in spending, which would recalibrate the U.S. economy, a younger Joe Biden may have been more conservative in his proposals but with what he's seen with experience, the pandemic, the widening inequality of income he going big because this is the best chance to push these reforms through and he knows he has to utilize all his experience for this last opportunity to do so. 

And if you're in favor of government doing for the average American in the form of services and infrastructure, really the only person as president that would be able to get that done at this time is Joe Biden.

In his interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mr. Todd posed the notion that Mr. Sanders may have lost the battle for the presidency but won the war of ideas within the Democratic Party. Without question, many of his policy ideas be them amended to appeal to moderates have become more popular. For example, Senator Sanders proposed free four-year college, but the Biden Administration is pushing for two years of community college. So how much influence has he had, a lot but made palatable by Joe Biden - probably why the get on so well. What's clearer is that Senator Sanders was not the right messenger for these policies because practicality was not on the Senator's side. In the form he proposes, they wouldn't pass amongst Democrats, forget Republicans.

In the dueling interviews with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) respectively, one can not help but feel like a juror in a civil case when it comes to these plans and how to pay for them or to choose not paying for them at all. We're judging the credibility of both witnesses, e.g. their expertise. 

In terms of credibility on monetary policy, let's face it Senator Portman has none in the face of someone who chaired the Federal Reserve and is now the Treasury Secretary so we're more apt to listen to Secretary Yellen who outlined a number of different ways in which these spending proposals can be paid for.

However, as we all know, and Mr. Portman confirmed this, is that Republicans are a big no on anything that put these two words together - raise and taxes. And because everyone knows this, there are two choices: either the Democrats go it alone and pass these bills through reconciliation without Republicans or they scale it back and not pay for it, using deficit spending which even some Democrats support.

There was a quick clip of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) saying that if he heard Democrats described as moderate one more time, he was going to throw up. Fair enough... (We'd buy a ticket to that.) By the same token, hearing that Republicans are fiscally responsible is an ipecac causing projectiles. 

One aspect of note outlined by Secretary Yellen on how to pay for it is to better enforce the existing tax code, cracking down on tax cheats which totals $7 trillion over ten years. The I.R.S. has been cut to the point where there is virtually no enforcement. In other words, there's collection, only receiving. The last significant cut to the I.R.S's budget decimating the agency came during the... wait for it... Trump Administration. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt seemed optimistic that there may be some of these proposals passed in a more piecemeal approach, but the counter proposal has to be serious. Senator Portman said he was skeptical of a bipartisan bill because the Democrats decided to go it alone on the Covid package. But he didn't tell you why and that was because their counter laughably fell short of what was needed.

Perhaps the police reform legislation being negotiated could be the start of some bipartisan progress, but the problem remains with Republicans and until they scrape off the sludge of Trumpism and stop legislating according to alternate reality of grievance, it's going to be really difficult to obtain any progress. As mother's always say to their kids, "We'll see."

And poor Lanhee Chen who once advised Senator Mitt Romney said that Republicans should be talking about fiscal responsibility but he's speaking to or about a Republican party that simply doesn't exist anymore. They've ceded legislative credibility with their signature legislative achievement over the last four years was passing a tax cut, ultimately through reconciliation. And as PBS's Yamiche Alcindor noted, they're not going to go back on that.

So can we pay for it? Yes, we could but we choose not to.

Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; fmr. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute, Stanford University

4.25.21: However You Define 'Normal,' It Takes Time to Get Back to It

Paraphrasing one of the several reactions to the George Floyd murder trial displayed at the top of today's program, there's poetry in that it took the breath and life being taken from George Floyd so that the country could effectively breathe and exhale.

The cost for that collective breath has been far too high, for far too long.

The governor of Minnesota got it right this week when he said that this is not a culmination but a beginning, a base, in which to move forward toward justice. Mr. Todd put forward the question of whether or not this is our 'Selma' moment, as Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) was quoted saying about the verdict. As the always most logical voice in the room, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson said that it was too soon to tell, but rhetorically asked, that if this isn't then what is? Historian Keith Mayes from the University of Minnesota was a definitive 'no' citing the fact that we've had six people of color die at the hands of the police since the verdict and that Washington hasn't called for reform in a wide bi-partisan fashion.

The lingering questions:
Where would we be without the video? Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that she didn't know. None of us do.
If Republicans controlled Congress would we even be discussing police reform legislation? 
And are we as a society at this point even capable of having another 'Selma' moment?

The panel conversation circled around police reform and whether budgets for departments are too high, too low, whether the disparity is too great and how the money should be spent. However, Mr. Todd made the very point that we made in last week's column, to which Malcolm Gladwell expounded upon and left sitting; the point being that when half of the population is armed and you don't know who that is, how do you avoid police using excessive force? He explained, as you can easily imagine, that no other country has this unique problem to the extent that we do here. 

As a society, if we want to reform the police and have their behavior change, the rest of us could take some of the burden from them by having more gun safety. Police reform and gun safety are obviously politically charged issues that usually warrant too many opinions than we want to hear. 

That vaccinations are a politically charged subject is just 'effing' stupid at this point. How many millions have been vaccinated? And even in the case of the Johnson & Johnson single shot vaccine, there should be no issue because the cases of blood clotting have been so rare. Feel better that they are aware of it and making us aware of it. Republicans and states in which the former president won are either flat out refusing to get vaccinated because Trump (doesn't deserve any honorific) isn't the president and the election was stolen or you've been advised by your Evangelical pastor that the virus is a hoax and it's a sin to get it. Or you could be like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and say if you got vaccinated then why should I have to? There's a real leader for you. And it's Republicans that complain about things being shut down, yet refuse to do one thing, the vehicle through which we can fully reopen. When confronted with this kind of pretzel logic, it's difficult to have empathy for the other side's point of view. 

(Aside: Morgan Radford noted that 6 in 10 Republican voters still think there was fraud in the election that enable Mr. Biden to win.)

Despite the aforementioned obstacles, a right-wing echo chamber only in for the check, and Republican held state houses doing their best to limit democracy, President Biden has an overall approval rating amongst all Americans of 53 percent. Normalcy and competency go a long way, don't they? We'll have trouble adjusting back into normal life, however you want to define that, post-covid and some people may never stop wearing masks, being hesitant to be in large groups, et al. 

The same has been the case in the first 100 days of Mr. Biden's presidency. It will take time for the public to adjust to a normal functioning administration with no 'crazy dramas,' as The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan put it. And hopefully as time goes on, the 'crazy' will be seen for what it is and eventually fade. A bit optimistic, but either way it's going to take time to adjust. 

Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Morgan Radford, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Malcolm Gladwell

4.18.21: The Transition is Us in the Midst of Multiple Crises

Princeton University professor, Eddie Glaude, Jr. described the state of police reform as in an interregum, which is normally defined as when the usual state of government functioning is suspended in the face of a crisis. A transition period, if you will. Applied to policing, we may be in that state in terms of thinking about policing in this country, but in the practical sense, sadly, it's business as usual. Police using excessive force continues unabated.

Today's panel weighed in with a multitude of reasons, but there's one aspect that hasn't been clearly stated as to why we are continually seeing videos of police using excessive force and that is perhaps because they are afraid and uncertain, uncertain that the person they're encountering has a gun. 

And it's directly related to mass shootings - 147 since the beginning of the year - defined as 4 or more people shot. It's entirely too easy to get a gun in the United States and if an individual is determined to get one, ultimately it will not be difficult to attain so everyone and anyone can have a gun on them at any given time.  400 million guns in circulation for a population of 332 million... Someone's going to get shot.

Echoing our column from a few weeks ago, until we think about gun safety as a public health issue as Dr. Anthony Fauci described it, these crises of police shooting people and mass shootings will continue with more frequency. And one more thing about the Second Amendment in particular: There is the widely held belief in the United States that owning a gun is a fundamental right of Americans, like free speech, but that simply is not true. One could be in jail and still exercise free speech, but you can not own a gun in jail. That's a simplistic example, but suitable.

And speaking of Dr. Fauci and public health, how is wearing a mask controversial even when you have been vaccinated when it's explained so easily by Dr. Fauci. Paraphrasing, if you're vaccinated you still may contract Covid-19 but not have any symptoms because you're vaccinated. However, if you're not wearing a mask you may give the virus to someone who is not vaccinated and or still susceptible to contracting it. Basically, look out for your neighbor, something not in vogue at the moment it seems, especially on the part of 43% of Republicans who said they will not get vaccinated.  Easily explained in two sentences.

As for the pause of the Johnson & Johnson single shot vaccine, it is concerning that a few individuals have died and suffer from blood clots from getting the shot. This side effect is, frankly, a major concern make no mistake and yes, officials including Dr. Fauci are going to be very cautious in how they discuss this, as he was today because of the possibility of blood clots forming, then traveling quickly to the brain, which kills you. But before you go off the deep end with that notion, keep in mind that this is eight people among 7 million who have received the shot. Would this column take that shot? Yes, if as Dr. Fauci described that they can identify preexisting conditions that complicate the effect on the body and if doctors therefore know how to treat it.

Dr. Fauci said that you're at low risk of contracting the virus when flying if you have been vaccinated and said that it is the risk that you're comfortable with. We would suggest thinking in those same terms when considering getting the J&J vaccine.

As for the spike in cases and increased hospitalizations in Michigan, it's recommended by the CDC (scientists) that parts of the state should shut down. Enter Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), who Chuck Todd pressed her on previous statements of following science and now not so much. Governor Whitmer explained that she now has fewer tools at her disposal for shutdowns because her Republican-controlled state house sued her over this authority, which the Michigan Supreme Court upheld. Oh, and there also that little thing of a kidnapping and execution plot against the governor over such restrictions. Seems to this column that she is trying to do the right thing in the face of so much wrong. As former Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) said of Mr. Todd, he can be a 'shit.' 

And speaking of shit, this brings us to the newly-formed America First Caucus made up of House Republicans. Contained within their platform are the following:

Seriously?

"Common Respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions?" What the eff does that mean? Infrastructure that reflect European architecture, like buildings... Does that include statues as well? Not to mention that some of those European designs, though beautiful, probably aren't the most environmentally sound, but whatever. Lastly, in decreasing the capital to labor ratio for post-1965 immigrants, which would disproportionately effect the Asian-American community who has predominated in business since 1965 and this statement limits their ability to raise capital even though they are Americans so the effect of this would be putting a group of individuals at t a disadvantage simply based on race. These excerpts can be colloquially explained  inasmuch as in the U.S. White political traditions should dominate, the buildings throughout the country should reflect white America and White America should have an advantage when it comes to wealth. To quote Mr. Boehner once more, "this is the nuttiest thing I've ever seen."

Punchbowl News' Anna Palmer, who broke this story explained that the problem is that this isn't just one individual but a group and it will be difficult for Republican leadership to distance itself from such a caucus. The insight comes from David French who explained that these nativist ideas predominate in Republican-controlled state houses around the country and if national representative from such states denounce the craziness, they are censured, ostracized, and primaried. Maybe this isn't becoming the mainstream, like Mr. Todd suggested, but it's certainly a vocal presence that Republican leadership now has to deal with. We'll just say that the Republican party writ large is in an interregum. 

The question remains that with all these crises going on at once, is the country is a series of interregums or just one giant one? This transition is us in the midst of multiple crises.

Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eddie Glaude, Jr., Princeton University; Anna Palmer, Punchbowl News; David French, The Dispatch

4.11.21: The Pulse of U.S. Foreign Policy is Finally Responsive

It's been overdue that the focus of this column and the media in the U.S. started to turn its attention to foreign policy, especially since for the last four years, we've been focused an incompetent boob in the White House who had no foreign policy, to which to speak.

With a decimated internal bureaucracy and a demoralized State Department, not to mention navigating the Covid environment domestically and with no transition, the Administration leadership has been behind in proactively responding internationally. Leading the rebuilding of the State Department - enter the professionals finally - is Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. The foreign policy pulse of the U.S. is once again responsive.

As America's top diplomat you can imagine his answers in today's interview were firm but light on specifics and more like intention signaling, hence diplomatic. One area in particular where the U.S. is now in a diplomatic full-court press is in Afghanistan, otherwise known as America's longest war where without a diplomatic solution there's no getting out. 

In terms of vaccinations, the Administration's strategy has been sound in so much as it's been rolling out the vaccines in the United States and ensuring enough stock domestically. However, Secretary Blinken also explained that taking a lead in vaccinating the world and helping other countries, it will help us here at home. The ancillary benefit of helping other countries is that it will build good will while serving the United States' own interests. The restoring of trust in U.S. leadership is not to be downplayed.

This is especially true when it comes to Russia and China policy. Before we dive into that there was one subject there wasn't time for which was on the restart of nuclear talks with Iran. The outcome of these initial talks are of course in grave doubt because of distrust on both sides. And let's be frank, if you're the Iranian regime and you negotiate a halt to nuclear weapons production with one administration and the next one withdraws from the agreement, how can you be sure it's not going to happen again? With that question out there, it's better to be at the table talking than to stay standing behind blinding ideological curtains. 

The panel largely agreed that the Biden Administration's policy toward Russia is essentially the same as the prior two administrations, with Pentagon Reporter for The New York Times, Helene Cooper, explaining that the thinking really hasn't changed. Secretary Blinken could only say that the Administration is maintaining its stance on Crimea and that they're watching what's going at the Russian-Ukraine border and troop buildups. PBS's Amna Nawaz noted that since Ukraine is not a NATO member that the United States isn't obligated to defend the country, which is the case but if the Putin regime decides to move into Ukraine then the United States should respond. In a more colloquial way of explaining, the United States, being sick and tired of Russia hacks, influence campaigns, human plants and disinformation, needs to flex its cyber muscle in response. Undoubtedly, some strong Western allies would be on board with a coordinated strategy. 

Putin's iron grip on the Russia people is ever slipping and it's two-fold - the more repression of his own people because of poor domestic performance - personified by opposition leader Alexny Navalny - will erode his power. This is in addition to the flawed thinking that territorial expansion of influence militarily will boost prospects at home.

And speaking of repression, that brings us to China, which when it's diplomats sat down with Secretary Blinken and other top U.S. officials in Alaska earlier this year they were indignant when the U.S. called them out on their treatment of the Uighors population because of the United States own treatment of Native Americans, African Americans and immigrants at its border. Well, there's a tit for tat for you...

But here's the rub... in the United States there is recognition of its dark chapters and the open dialogue with the hope of one day of reconciling with that darkness. Conversely, Uighurs in China have no voice and are treated inhumanely in a governmental systematic way that U.S. Secretary of State Blinken described as genocide. 

Diplomatically, that's very strong language, tough talk if you will and that's how Ms. Cooper described the Pentagon and State Department's talk on China with regard to its increased military naval activity off the coast of Taiwan. But it's just that, only that.. tough talk.

However, in today's interview Secretary Blinken said (and reiterated) that China changing the status quo with regard to Taiwan militarily would be a "serious mistake." He wouldn't go so far as to say that the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily, but he response left little room for any other interpretation. 

Maybe right now, the United States is only talking tough with China and not really doing anything. However, Secretary Blinken certainly indicated a willingness to also take action to back up those words with regard to Taiwan because we can not help but remember the last administration and its despicably impotent (non-existent) response to China and its repression of Hong Kong. 

Progress is small steps and the U.S. is starting to affirm its footing.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Amna Nawaz, PBS News Hour; Peter Alexander, NBC News