I don’t know why I’m celebrating a weekend: in a home business, there are no weekends…Maybe I’ll just celebrate the flowers that bloom in the Spring!
1. Poll: The firing of Mary Bubala. As you may know, the mayor of Baltimore got caught red-handed in a self-dealing scheme, tried to take a leave of absence instead of resigning (thus preserving her salary), and finally had to resign anyway. Discussing the events on the air on Baltimore TV channel WJZ, news anchor Bubala asked Loyola University Maryland Professor Karsonya Wise Whitehead,
“We’ve had three female, African-American mayors in a row.They were all passionate public servants. Two resigned, though. Is this a signal that a different kind of leadership is needed to move Baltimore City forward?”
Bubula is white. The station was bombarded with complaints that her question was racist, and the station quickly fired her, saying in a brief statement,
“Mary Bubala is no longer a WJZ-TV employee. The station apologizes to its viewers for her remarks.”
Well-respected conservative pundit Mark Tapscott called this “newsroom fascism,” writing, “I’ve never met now-former Baltimore TV local news anchor Mary Bubala, but I am outraged as an American and a journalist over her firing for a question that clearly wasn’t remotely related to the fact the city’s two most recent (corrupt) mayors were both Black and women.”
I would have fired her. There are two good reasons. First, the question sure sounds like “After three female black mayors who have either been corrupt or unsuccessful, do you think a white man might be worth a try?” to me. What else could it mean? Do you think it might be time to elect a GOOD mayor? Why mention their race and gender at all if it isn’t part of the question? Second, if the question wasn’t racist, she should be fired because she’s too inarticulate to have that job.
Tapscott concludes, “Either this …ends or liberty isn’t long for anybody in this country except those with approved opinions.”
Let me ask you, then…
2. This isn’t hard, Kellyanne… Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a complaint alleging that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act again. That’s the law that forbids any federal official or employee from using their position for partisan campaigning. (The news media keep calling CREW a “non-profit watchdog,” but somehow it manages to spend 90% of its time complaining about Republicans. That doesn’t necessarily make CREW’s complaints wrong, it just means that they are lying about being non-partisan.) Conway went on multiple TV news shows as President Trump’s advisor to attack Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and others.
That’s a Hatch Act breach, all right. CREW complained to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in a letter yesterday.
The Hatch Act is difficult to enforce, but it is still an important law. I heard some MSNBC commentators intoning about how this was a “serious crime”—they are ethically estopped from saying that since they all completely ignored Hatch Act violations by Obama officials, including at least two Cabinet officials, and we never heard about any discipline following those.
President Trump should be responsible and take this matter seriously (as Obama did not) and discipline Conway as well as announce what that discipline is. Lower level Federal employees get in serious trouble for Hatch Act violations; if she skates on this, it is the King’s Pass.
3. Good. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is alarmed that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has refused to guarantee that the President will consult with Congress before intervening militarily in Venezuela. Young wants Senate the Foreign Relations Committee, where he is a member, to schedule an immediate hearing to get answers from administration officials regarding the possible use of military force in South America.
“Look, I acknowledge that there is a brutal socialist regime that the Venezuelans have been suffering under,” Young said in an interview. “I commend them and want to be supportive of Venezuelans for standing up for their freedom and for their basic human rights. But I think that it is the responsibility of the administration to explain their thinking as it relates to any plans to deploy U.S. forces to Venezuela….I have read a couple of my colleagues’ statements as it relates to this issue in the press. They don’t seem to align perfectly with my own views related to the need for Congress to fully vet any potential military action, but I have not had conversations to get clarity with respect to their thinking. … Most importantly, I’ve read the Constitution.”
This is being presented in the news media as some kind of anti-Trump rebellion. No, it is called “being a responsible Senator.”
Young was one of seven Republican senators who voted for the resolution to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-backed war in Yemen, which was the first time Congress has ever invoked the War Powers Act to cease military action. Trump vetoed the resolution, and the Senate failed last week to override it. The real issue is pulling back on the constantly expanding Presidential power to use military force without Senate approval, as, for example, Obama did in Libya.
Bravo for Young.
4. Well, the divided Red Sox visited the White House yesterday and...the White House misspelled “Red Sox” on its website and YouTube channel:
Talk about cultural illiteracy.
5. Yes, I believe that this judge should be asked to begin pursuing a new professional path…A coalition of organizations has called for the censure of Shelby County (Tennessee) Criminal Court Judge Jim Lammey. On April 5, he posted an article by an infamous Holocaust denier and wrote on Twitter,
“In a perfect world, these rabbinical Rain Men would finally get the fuck over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the West. They’d see that whites are no longer the enemy, but indeed the opposite. They’d see that importing foreign mud to mold golem after golem in traditionally white regions of the U.S. is bad strategy.”
I’m not sure what that means exactly, except that I sure wouldn’t want my case presided over by the judge who wrote it.
Let’s see: the Tennessee judicial code says in part…
“Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”
CANON 1 — A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.…RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the JudiciaryA judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge….A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.