PMC Commentary

BLMer LeBron James is challenged by a police group

​​​​​Something of a retake, something to ponder, perhaps a devil's-advocate something to rethink:

A key law enforcement group, seeking to deescalate the widening gap between anti-police sports stars and police officers, asked Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James on Thursday to step into a violent crime simulator and walk "in a policeman’s shoes."

The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund offered to make a simulator available for the Black Lives Matter advocate the next time he comes to the District of Columbia....

"Police split-second force decisions are complicated. We would love to help you see the other perspective in our use-of-force simulator experience. Would be happy to bring it to you or host you in our D.C. metro office."

An anti-devil's advocate might note that LeBron must also make split-second decisions on the basketball court. That's a professional burden he is not unfamiliar with. Cops, though, must make split-second decisions while packing heat. Some of them just aren't very good at it. In fact, a few make exceptionally poor, 9.5-minute decisions, while not drawing their weapon at all; yet more simply stand around, watching, doing nothing to stop it. And then we have service-revolver packers who, in a split second, decide to shoot a "suspect" as he is running away; i.e., in the back. Or, mistake a handgun for a taser.

I sympathize with this law enforcement group's basic point. The work of a cop is too often tough, grim, even self-torturous. Then again, he or she is supposed to be properly trained to handle it — LeBron James has received no such police training in weapons handling, hence the group's unfair challenge — to make proper split-second decisions, and to be mentally fit to make the right ones.

Pence's groveling, so embarrassing

Former vice president Pence, whose recent bossman, Donald Trump, tried to kill, lavished praise last night on his could-have-been assassin. A touch too forgiving, I'd say. But hyper-inflated "political ambition" is just another name for "Mike Pence." Nothing is beneath him.

He spoke at an evangelical gathering in Columbia, South Carolina — naturally, on both counts. Pence and Mike Pompeo are in ferocious competition for the meshuga Christian vote. I suspect the first Mike actually believes some of his fundamentalist chants. But Pompeo? There, Pence has met his match on the battlefield of ambition.

Somewhere amid the former target's hosannas for his bumbling assassin — Trump brought us "prosperity and security" — Pence briefly referenced some of the latter: "a global pandemic, civil unrest, a divisive election, tragedy at our nation’s capital." Yes, the good times.

Otherwise, for S.C.'s assembled, high theologians he summarized the grave state of the union under President Biden: "open borders, runaway spending, plans for higher taxes, a bigger welfare state, more government, defunding the police, abandoning the right to life, canceling our most cherished liberties." Then, "I've had enough!"

I gotta agree with ya there, Mike. We all have — of you and your ilk.

What does "bipartisanship" really mean?

Teased on the NYT Opinion page as "Bipartisanship is overrated," Ezra Klein writes:

"Bipartisan governance isn’t innately better than partisan governance. In fact, it’s often worse…. Bipartisan governance does not result in legislation featuring the best ideas of Republicans and the best ideas of Democrats…. The set of ideas that both parties can agree on is far smaller and blander than the range of ideas that one party or the other likes…. Bipartisan governance [merely] deprives both sides of the ability to govern."

True enough. Where I disagree with Klein is, on the one hand, his traditional interpretation of bipartisanship and, on the other hand, the revised, updated, fundamental connotation of "bipartisanship" under President Biden, which I gleaned from Nicolle Wallace a couple days ago. I believe Nicolle is ahead of Ezra on what it even means these days.

What Wallace observed — which she herself gleaned from this WaPo story — is that Biden essentially has redefined bipartisanship. It means not simply gathering a few Republican politicians in support of a bill, at any rate a veritable impossibility on so many pressing, impatient issues. It means, rather, imagining, generating and achieving bipartisanship with a lot of Republican voters on a broad spectrum of policies. On many of those policies, this type of bipartisanship Biden has not only imagined or is in the process of generating. He has achieved it.

I found Wallace's remarks far more enlightening — an of course bubble swelled up in my brain — than Klein's titled, extended thoughts on "bipartisanship [being] overrated." Under President Biden, "bipartisanship" has taken on a new meaning.

Older Hollywood. Taking a few - liberties?

I'm watching a 1961 Western, Two Rode Together, starring Jimmy Stewart, Richard Widmark and Shirley Jones (with whom I fell in love when I was 12 or 13, upon my first viewing of Elmer Gantry). What I most admire about Two Rode Together is that Woody Strode (1914-1994) played a Comanche warrior.

Which is a bit peculiar, since Strode was an African American.

(Naturally, he got killed. Expendability.) 

I forgive Rudy all his Trumpian sins - because of his dreamy eyes

I'm thinking Rudy may not want to invest, just now, in some retirement villa in southern France. We have an extradition treaty with la République. I can't blame him if he does possess such a desire; I necessarily too briefly visited the Valance-to-Marseilles region a few years ago — and I loved it. I'd move there in a minute, if I had Rudy's boodle.

But back to the 76-year-old gangster's, uh, future? As you know: "Federal agents raided Rudy Giuliani’s Manhattan home and office Wednesday, seizing computers and cellphones in a major escalation of the Justice Department’s investigation into the business dealings of former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer."

A mere bauble of news, it seems to me, however devastating it may be to Rudy. Of much greater interest to this writer — and what I adore about the guy — is the way he grins as a cheshire cat, hefts his eyebrows and rolls his eyelids nearly to the back of his skull as he makes what he believes is an impressive point.

He should have gone into acting, although I guess he did, professionally speaking, in hooking up with Drama Bitch Trump.

Alas, I must leave Rudy's fate in the hands of the Justice Department, smitten, of late, by actual law enforcement. Attorney General Merrick Garland isn't returning my calls, begging for his benevolence — love will find a way, it is said, but so much for that — because of Rudy's dreamy eyes. 

Hilarious

And untoppable. The hilarity really kicks in with Cuomo, at 00.00.20, and then Kayleigh, at 00.00.25.   

Even by Trump standards, wow, just … wow.

Our modern-day, post-WWII economic boom

The Commerce Department reports today that "the economy expanded 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021…. On an annualized basis, the first-quarter growth rate was 6.4 percent."

Says one economist: "We’re running on all cylinders in terms of economic activity. People are anxious to get out and return to their normal lives, and there’s pent-up demand."

We find ourselves in something akin to the post–World War II economic boom — something akin, given that wealth inequality then was nowhere near what is in this era. Otherwise, yes, what he said: Americans are eager for normality and "there’s pent-up demand."

That pent-upness was extraordinarily intense in the postwar years. FDR had ordered the rationing of common goods during the war years so as to divert a tremendous amount of them into the U.S. effort — and supplying our allies with war materiel, without which Britain and the Soviet Union would have gone down, hard. From early 1942 to late 1945, for instance, no American automobiles were manufactured; the auto industry instead produced everything from planes to tanks to bombs. Between 1945 and 1955, new auto sales quadrupled. Similar growth was seen in household item sales.

After the war, there were personal savings to be spent, largely those of war bonds. The superb historian Lizabeth Cohen observed in a 2004 book that Americans, by 1945, were saving 21 percent, on average, of their disposable income. Roosevelt's 1944 G.I. Bill allowed millions of veterans to seek higher education, buy a home and secure a small-business loan, although in the wretched need for bowing to Southern Democrats and Jim Crow laws, the bill discriminated against Black veterans.

The White middle class exploded in size, as did the GDP. Another major contributing factor to the postwar boom was the growth and strength growth of labor unions (which President Biden is wisely trying to revive).

We are, indeed, happily "running on all cylinders" again. As a closing aside, one can only hope that one of those cylinders will be the protection and preservation of voting rights. And that progress lies not with Biden, but with Senate Republicans. God help us.

If we tax-soak universities, toss religions into the pot

​​​​​Washington Post conservative columnist Henry Olsen throws a fit:

"President Biden and congressional Democrats seem determined to raise taxes on the rich…. If they’re really serious about this, there’s one sector of American wealth that is undertaxed even by today’s standards: universities....

"The amount of wealth held by major colleges … is astounding."

Nearly all conservatives seem to loathe universities these days. There one will find all manner of wicked, humanist propaganda invading the minds of our impressionable young 'uns. The very least we should do is tax these institutions of iniquity at the current capital gains rate of 20 percent, says Mr. Olsen.

But Henry, what of their doctrinal antipodes? — organized religions. He scowls that "rich universities … pay a mere 1.4 percent in federal taxes on their net investment income." Well, Henry, religious institutions pay zero percent. On a bundle.

In its "most conservative estimate," a 2016 study published by the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion found that "faith-based organizations [took in] more than the global annual revenues of tech giants Apple and Microsoft combined." A year later, the World Economic Forum reported that, in the aggregate, religions' income was "also more than 50% larger than the global annual revenues of America’s six largest oil and gas companies."

There are rich veins of gold in John Winthrop's 1630 "city upon a hill." They'll never be extracted, of course — the shrill cris de coeur from the faithful would be deafening — even though taxing religion in no way infringes on the First Amendment's dictate that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In fact, Olsen's conclusion seems an endorsement of taxing religion: "Wealth is wealth, and massive accumulations of it should be taxed regardless of the source if the federal government needs the money." Especially after 40 years of conservatives' impoverishment of the federal government, it does need the money.

"Our Journey"

I believe this headline of Max Boot's latest column says it all. 

I didn't read beyond the lede. Why bother? The flip from presidential craziness to competence is so palpable, so salient, so bloody self-evident, I thought another 700 words could be only needless overkill.  

Biden's address to Congress … and everyone

​​​​​What an exhilarating, comprehensive address to Congress, the American people and the world. President Biden's speech was a primer on good, competent, responsible governance. Only Nixon could go to China, and only a moderate Democrat could go so progressive.

I was especially taken by his jobs plan as "a blue-collar blueprint for rebuilding America." If, after that, those workers cannot be attracted to the Democratic fold, then nothing could persuade them.

I was impressed by his strong endorsement of rebuilding unions as well. Again, many of his legislative proposals are centered on jobs, and the healthy future of American workers is unionization. Power comes with numbers — and with unionization, the benefits do trickle down.

The president articulated so many intelligent reforms — from child care to climate change — but personally I appreciated his call for, finally, Rx drug prices to be reined in. I've been walloped every month by them, to the point I have had to drop a few strongly recommended prescriptions, as have millions of Americans.

Though I'm an agnostic, I gotta say, God bless Joe Biden.

***

Update: David Axelrod, who I suspect is losing his mind, just blathered on CNN that Biden's address was too comprehensive. Good grief. Give a network-contributor contract to a former political operative and he or she instantly becomes enamored with "balance," pretty much unbalancedly.   

An HR exec on Matt Gaetz: "A middle schooler would know better."

From CNN:

"Gaetz allegedly showed off to other lawmakers photos and videos of nude women he said he had slept with [according to 'multiple sources'] … including while on the House floor. The sources, including two people directly shown the material, said Gaetz displayed the images of women on his phone and talked about having sex with them." Allegedly? 

"It was a point of pride," said one other source.

HuffPost: "If what Gaetz allegedly did happened in your own company, would you recommend termination?"

An HR executive: "I can only say that when I’ve been faced with similar situations in the past, that’s been my recommendation."

Said another exec.: "A middle schooler would know better."

Let's give Matt this much: He's not mature enough to behave like a middle schooler.

Other than that, a House ethics probe of Rep. Gaetz's wide-ranging abominable conduct is plodding along; the committee is evenly partisan, D & R, which explains that. If any Democratic House member were facing an inquiry into his same kind of conduct, Speaker Pelosi would have kicked his ass out of Congress by now.

For real, I believe: MTG won't be bullied by JRB

Liz Cheney and Kevin McCarthy, in a bit of a tussle

At a three-day Florida retreat, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy begged his House colleagues to close ranks and stay unified.

On Monday's day of retreating unity, in vintage McCarthyese he also gutted Rep. Liz Cheney, telling Politico that "when leaders try to go out, and not work as one team, it creates difficulties." Perhaps another difficulty is the House minority's #1 leader publicly berating the party's #3 leader.

In a further exhibit of McCarthy's self-contradictory gibberish, he first told a reporters' gaggle that Cheney's leadership tenure is properly a matter for the party's House caucus; then, getting personal, he said that "if you're sitting here at a retreat that's focused … on the future of making America in the next-century [a tautological doozy, that], and you're talking about something else, you're not being productive."

How was Liz being unproductive? By telling a couple truths, of course. On Monday she said to the New York Post, "I do think that some of our candidates who led the [Trump] charge … not to certify the election, you know, in my view, that’s disqualifying." She also told Politico, pace McCarthy, that any congressional examination of the events of Jan. 6 should focus on — the events of Jan. 6. "If we minimize what happened … and if we appease it, then we will be in a situation where every election cycle, you could potentially have another constitutional crisis."

But do keep in mind that Ms. Cheney remains a Republican through and through, thus her urge to sputter, at a retreat press conference, this whopper: "As we look at '22 and '24, we're very much going to be focused on substance and on the issues." She added that "we are the party of competence." Oh my. My, my.

In other news from the lighter side: The three-day Retreaters didn't invite Trump, compelling that Republican maiden of prodigious cogency, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, to tweet: "Remember when Republicans lost the House in 2018 because a bunch of them distanced themselves from President Trump? Not inviting President Trump to the GOP retreat is the same stupid behavior."

See: Cheney, Liz; "We are the party of competence."

Coming soon: Mike Pence's two volumes of lies, for millions of $

At a cost of somewhere between $3 to $4 million, Simon & Schuster has purchased the rights for a two-volume memoir by former vice president Mike Pence. It will be "the definitive book on one of the most consequential presidencies in American history," said one of the publishing house's executives, who must have been soused when she said it.

The only thing "definitive" about Pence's stirring prose will be his addiction to falsehoods. In those four recent years of America's dark times, not once did I hear Pence give honest, straightforward answers to any interviewer's questions. He's more than a spin master; he's a maestro of deceit and prevarication. And Simon and Schuster will be marketing both.

While unaware that S&S had already signed a multimillion-dollar contract with alternative realist Kellyanne Conway, the firm's employees have petitioned management to Stop the Deal with Mr. Pence. Management, however, has taken rather unkindly to its employees' demand.

One sensible publisher said "we have to be leery of public figures who have come to be associated with blatant falsehoods." Said a D.C. literary agent: "It would be hard to imagine [any Trumpian insider] offering us any wisdom, insight or even good storytelling that would educate, enrich or even entertain us at this point…. For me, tall tales by Trump acolytes don’t cut it." Said another publisher: "I think [we] try to draw a line between those who are operating in reality or got off the train before it crashed and those who are living in Trump-world."

But among all publishers, the absolute pièce de résistance of quotes comes from the president of Regnery, an exclusively conservative publisher which sells books by such judicious luminaries as Newt Gingrich and Michelle Malkin: "What I’m watching very closely is the succession of lines crossed" (by publishers refusing to print fictional historical literature anchored in Trumpian fantasy). "People start to wonder: Whom else might they shut down?"

Show of hands. How many believe that Regnery would publish a book by Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi?

A JFK presidential campaign ad, and what followed

I just rewatched this on another website — it has been some time — and wanted to share it.

The ad's simplicity, innocence, even near virginity are striking —  kinda touching, one might say, in our contemporary era of harsh, unrelenting negativity.

An aside: What has always puzzled me about most Democrats' lionization of Kennedy as a progressive president is that he was chiefly a conservative Democrat, of the New England species. I suppose their misreading of President Kennedy comes largely from his nationally televised civil rights speech of 1963, tragically belated. To retain the political support of Southern Democrats on other issues, he and brother Robert — U.S. attorney general in charge of civil rights enforcement — tried their best to stay on the down low when it came to racial conflict. But the pressure to do something finally came to a head, resulting in President Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act, followed in '65 by the now brutally molested Voting Rights Act.

But back to the Kennedy ad's innocence; its final days, that is. Although President Johnson's savage "Daisy Girl" countdown spot — which aired only once, on 7 September 1964 — established the seemingly unending future of negative political advertising, a 1968 Hubert Humphrey presidential campaign ad turned savagery on its head by producing a brilliant, one-minute piece of satire.

If only the 1968 presidential election had been held just one week later, Humphrey probably would have won — he was gaining electoral ground that fast — and "Trick E. Dick" would now be something of a historical footnote. If only.