Was it five years ago? Three years?
Sadly, I don't recall now. But whenever it was it was the first time
I really came across homelessness. Sure, there was always a problem
in the Cities. But never had we seen it to the extent we do now in
the suburbs. In my neighborhood there used to be a wooded area which
I drove by every day. What I didn't realize, until I was speaking to
a neighbor, was that in that area was a different world. A world of
struggle, a tent camp for those who had nowhere else to go. Well,
that area is gone now, stripped of its concealing trees and bushes to
make room for a townhouse development. But the issue has not gone
away. It has only moved. In my city we have more shelters for those
who need help. But those are only a band aid to a wound that goes
deeper.
Those who are living on the streets
aren't just addicts or the mentally ill. They are also those who
have become unemployed through downsizing or are trying to improve
their circumstances by going to school. They are struggling with
medical health issues or struggling to find affordable housing on a
minimum wage salary.
In Anaheim CA low wages and little
affordable housing:
In Minneapolis MN addiction:
Trying to find a better road in CA:
So far, other than a few local efforts,
I have seen little on a federal level that would address this growing
issue. In fact, most of Washington's policies seem set to exacerbate
the problem. A truly great nation takes care of its own.
112 comments:
As your second clip made clear, we haven't solved the problem of homelessness among the drunks and druggies and crazies, but we have added a potentially larger population of people who's full-time employment simply won't support even minimal housing. Income inequality continues to grow in this country. The rich get richer and the poor get demagogues.
Should be "whose", not ‛who's’.
Income inequality continues to grow in this country. The rich get richer and the poor get demagogues.
Yes, and that is the most dangerous aspect of this whole situation. The woman who was living in her car with her daughter was working and going to school to try to improve her lot. There are people who are trying. But the jobs being created are not paying enough to keep up with their bills.
On the news tonight there was a piece about various stores, including Walmart, warning of higher prices because of the tariffs. This is not going to help those who are living paycheck to paycheck.
We seem to have acquired a rather large flock of turkeys in my neighborhood. They appeared last spring and have stayed. Periodically I will hear a loud fluttering and a *kerthump* as they fly up onto my roof. Very disconcerting.
Must be domestic turkeys gone back to nature. The American Wild Turkey is a very shy creature. Not inclined to take up residence among human developments.
Brett Kavanaugh may have just seen his glide path to the Supreme Court become obstructed. NewYorkDailyNews
Must be domestic turkeys gone back to nature.
They seem to be everywhere. At least I've talked to a number of people who have them in their neighborhoods as well. I don't know that a domestic turkey would survive long in the wild. I'm betting they are wild turkeys taking up residence in areas where there is no hunting and some people, I say some people, feed them. But they do seem to do quite well foraging in my garden and yard.
It looks like Rosenstein is expecting to be fired. I can't imagine why...
It would seem to me that they summoned him to the White House to demand a resignation (figuring to move while the Brett Kavanaugh escapades were distracting people), but he appears to have refused to offer the sought resignation. Trump is in New York City for United Nations meetings, and now it seems Rosenstein is on the job at least until Trump returns on Thursday and can fire him in person (seemingly they don't trust Jeff Sessions to do the deed).
Our friends over at TheFederalist have decided to give away the game. They're willing to put up with damn near anything Trump does over the short haul, give up anything the ‛Establishment’ Republicans want in the way of tax cuts for the rich, in order to pack the Supreme Court for the long haul. This is all about packing the Supreme Court.
The idea that the Supreme Court should be non-political is dead on the right wing.
That's the sad thing. Those who created our country's founding documents tried hard to build a balance into the system that would prevent the extreme views, either left or right, to hold sway.
If we allow that balance to slip we might as well be Russia.
"Those who created our country's founding documents
tried hard to build a balance into the system…."
Indeed, but, it has fallen out of balance before. During a time of even greater polarization than the present (although maybe not by much), the Supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision, which held that no black man possessed any legal rights that the white man's law was bound to respect. And, they upheld the (I believe) clearly unconstitutional Fugative Slave Laws. Less than a hundred years later the "Lockner Court" was routinely striking down liberalizing legislation for what all reasonable legal scholars now agree were specious reasons. (They only quit after FDR tried, unsucessfully, to ‛pack’ the Supreme Court--which spooked one of the Justices and made him start following the law again. Suddenly the 5-4 decisions began going the other way.)
So, we've been in these straights before. We'll figure out how to survive it this time too, I'm confident. (Personally, I'm thinking that it'd be a good idea to consider demanding the resignations of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh after we get rid of President Trump. If they won't resign, I think it's clear enough that Kavanaugh has lied and covered (mostly covered) during his hearings, and we should at least consider impeaching him--maybe Gosuch too, but it's less clear to me that he's covered up his tracks during the the confirmation process than has Kavanaugh.)
On another front, today is the day of reckoning for Rod Rosenstein. Trump gets back from New York City today and expects a meeting with Rosenstein. I'm guessing Rosenstein is unemployed by the end of the day. Mueller may well be unemployed within a day or two, although there may be resignations before Trump goes down the list far enough to find somebody who'll pull the trigger on Mueller.
Trump is unpredictable, but I'm makin' those predictions anyway.
Isn't it all a trap tho? Isn't it a trap to try and get Trump to fire Rosenstein and then make the claim Trump himself is trying to shut down the Russia inquiry? So as to impeach him on the grounds of "meddling", instead of on the russia kookspiracy itself, which is going nowhere?
I call trap on this one. And I bet Trump sees it for what it is. He needs Jeff Session to do any firings all on his own, without impact from Trump, or just let this ride itself out.
Probably though Kavanaugh is the main issue on everyones minds right now, except for fake-journos muddying waters. You, Lee, accused the Reps of going all in for the benefit of a long serving conservative in SCOTUS. But isn't the Dems also doing everything to halt this, going along with any attempt to slow the vote til after the midterms, in the hope they'll be in a stronger position when the vote comes? I think you know they are. Of course they are.
BTW, that Weekly Standard article you posted at the end of the last thread was informative and interesting and for the most part correct. There were sone things I could have objected to but not many and not very important ones.
"Isn't it a trap to try and get Trump to fire Rosenstein…"
I don't think so. If it is a trap, I'm guessing Trump jumps into it quick as he can, by the end of the day is my guess.
"Of course they are."
So you say. However, I don't think we're gonna find too many Democratic leaders openly campaigning for a politicized Supreme Court. As is usual, the Republicans are way out in front in the race to bottom.
Looks like there's gonna be third woman come out of the shadows to accuse Brett Kavanaugh. Julie Swetnick will be much googled pair of words today. If Shorthands is gonna dump on Rosenstein, then today's Kavanaugh frenzy could look like one hell of a convenient distraction.
Did I miss it? I scrolled back to see, but maybe I missed it. No mention of the reaction of diplomats to Trump's speech at the UN? I know Trump seemed sanguine about it at the time, but I have to wonder if he isn't thinking about that round of laughter when he said that his administration had done more in its term so far than most any other in US history.
Looks like there's gonna be third woman come out of the shadows to accuse Brett Kavanaugh.
So at what point did Al Franken resign after his accusers stepped forward? I forget.
Unfortunately, there will always be those who only see this in political terms. But it did take a lot for these women to come forward. They should be heard. If Franken had stayed there would have been an investigation. There are those who said he resigned too soon. In Kavanaugh's case there are those who say they are taking a vote too soon. There should be a complete investigation first.
But isn't the Dems also doing everything to halt this, going along with any attempt to slow the vote til after the midterms, in the hope they'll be in a stronger position when the vote comes?
If they aren't they should be. This pick is a poor choice if Kavanaugh actually did any of what he is accused of.
Trump gets back from New York City today and expects a meeting with Rosenstein.
Actually, I think they are meeting on Thursday, so Trump has a little longer to think about that laughter at the UN.
"So at what point did Al Franken resign…"
It snowballed on him after three. At about three he quit issuing statements; it started to snowball, and he waited a day or so and then said he would be resigning when it was about six or so…, but he was mostly doin’ the juvenile grab-ass thing when they'd come up him to snap a selfie (figure Bush Sr. type stuff). I don't think any of them ever tried to claim he was serious--but definitely clueless and handsie, and juvenile obnoxious.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I think they are meeting on Thursday…"
Yes. It seems I'm a little over-ready for this week to be over.
"This pick is a poor choice if Kavanaugh actually did any
of what he is accused of."
This pick was a poor choice before Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assaults. Kavanaugh has no business sitting on the Supreme Court. (Not that he isn't smart enough, but he views the Supreme Court as a political institution. We fare much better when we insist on getting Justices who view the Supreme Court as a legal, non-political institution. Too many Justices don't measure up to the lip service they give to the promise to serve the law over their own politics--but Kavanaugh doesn't even keep up the pretense. Worse yet, that's why they picked him, 'cause he doesn't even keep up the pretense, and that's why they're so damned committed to getting him up there.)
Kavanaugh, snowballing. It seems it's just gonna keep on coming. NBCNews
... and that's why they're so damned committed to getting him up there.)
Even if it costs them(those who are up for reelection) their job?
...but he views the Supreme Court as a political institution.
No, this isn't a good thing. I didn't know much about Bret Kavanaugh. What I have heard, his views on abortion and his views on not indicting a sitting president, would be deal breakers for me, in any case.
(No, Marcus, not just because I believe Donald Trump should be impeached, but because I believe that no one is above the law.)
"Even if it costs them…their job?"
Well, ya. So far crossing Trump has cost Republican politicians their jobs, fainting away before him has cost Republican politicians nothing (yet).
If the Democrats make a killing in the mid-terms, especially if they take the Senate as well as the House, that calculation will have to change.
That'll be the end of any coherence in what's left of the Republican Party. (It'll be a free-for-all in 2020 Republican primaries if the Democrats retake the Senate--that'll kill what's left of any coherence among the Republican remnants)
Post Script:
Odds on the Republicans hold the Senate. Still getting odds of 70-30 in the Republicans' favor at Nate Silver's website. But, if they don't hold on….
Don't have to impeach the President just to indict him (or, even to convict if the evidence suffices). Put him under house arrest for the remainder of his term, ‛White House Arrest’ if you will--can't leave the grounds. Get him an orange jump suit to match his hair and complexion and send the White House chef away and bring the Federal Bureau of Prisons to run the kitchen and bring in the Federal Marshals' Office to escort his Orangeness to the West Wing in the morning and back to the East Wing at night.
Nothin' to it.
Lee: "Odds on the Republicans hold the Senate. Still getting odds of 70-30 in the Republicans' favor at Nate Silver's website. But, if they don't hold on…."
What's the odds with regards to the Congress?
Lee: "Don't have to impeach the President just to indict him (or, even to convict if the evidence suffices). Put him under house arrest for the remainder of his term, ‛White House Arrest’ if you will--can't leave the grounds. Get him an orange jump suit to match his hair and complexion and send the White House chef away and bring the Federal Bureau of Prisons to run the kitchen and bring in the Federal Marshals' Office to escort his Orangeness to the West Wing in the morning and back to the East Wing at night."
OK, but only as long as you let him keep his phone and Twitter account. ;-)
If you mean Democrats take the House of Representatives, Nate Silver has it at 79.6% as of this morning. (Technically, the ‛Congress’ of the United States encompasses both the House and the Senate.)
And as long as we're making derogatory jokes about POTUS maybe they should've put Obama in a similar "white house arrest" but in a black jumpsuit to match his complexion and let his Sunntannedness suffice on a daily diet of fried chicken and watermelon plus a couple of 40oz every friday?
Maybe it's a little late to make suggestions about how to deal with President Obama.
Lee: "Technically, the ‛Congress’ of the United States encompasses both the House and the Senate"
Huh? I had no idea. Always thought it was the congress and the senate and that "the house" was just kind of a nickname for congress. You learn something new every day I guess. At least I do - Lee knows errythang already of course.
Lee: "Maybe it's a little late to make suggestions about how to deal with President Obama."
Hence the past tense in my comment.
Lee: "Nate Silver has it at 79.6% as of this morning."
I'd place my bet, If I were to bet, which I am not, on the 20.4% that the Reps hold on to the House too. The Red wall will break the Blue wave.
On the other hand I was proven utterly wrong in my prediction about my own country's recent election so I am no gonna be too cocky about this. Just saying that'd be the way I'd place my bet, were I to bet.
"OK, but only as long as you let him keep his phone and
Twitter account."
Have to let him keep his cable tv hookup to FoxNews, or he wouldn't know what to tweet about.
And the phone he's calling Putin from to get his orders in exchange for that piss-fetish hooker film Putin sits on remaining hidden, don't forget that.
Lynnette: "We seem to have acquired a rather large flock of turkeys in my neighborhood. They appeared last spring and have stayed. Periodically I will hear a loud fluttering and a *kerthump* as they fly up onto my roof. Very disconcerting."
Thanksgiving is only two months away.
And you have your 2'nd amendment.
And presumably an oven.
Just sayin'.
Lynnette: "Actually, I think they are meeting on Thursday, so Trump has a little longer to think about that laughter at the UN."
You keep thinking, for some reason, that Trump is thin skinned. As if he would actually be bothered by getting laughed at at a UN assembly. I can't see why you would think this. He went there, knowing he went in to speak before a hostile crowd, made his speach knowing how they would react and then just shrugged off their reaction. Typical Trump. I don't believe he was phased at all. Not one bit.
Have ya'll seen the Trump speach in front of the UN or just read 'bout it?
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ELDJYCndG0
Little bit harsh on Iran, otherwise I thought it was great. And clearly not a speach by some sort of dumb puppy, but by an intelligent man with a vision. A vision I myself share.
"…made his speach knowing how they would react…"
He has already admitted in public that he did not know how they would react. He was surprised by their reaction and has admitted as much; wasn't expecting to get laughed at, and has admitted that in public already. Perhaps your insistence on intelligence is a mistake on your part (or perhaps know better and you're just saying that to get a rise out of Lynnette).
Well, ya. So far crossing Trump has cost Republican politicians their jobs, fainting away before him has cost Republican politicians nothing (yet).
I haven't been listening to Ms. Ford's testimony or Mr. Kavanaugh's, I will tonight, but if her testimony is credible it won't be a matter of crossing Trump it will be a matter of crossing the women of America. Trump supporters aren't the only ones who can lie about who they support. That is a two way street, where the only one who knows for sure is the ballot box.
OK, but only as long as you let him keep his phone and Twitter account. ;-)
The world needs a little entertainment sometimes.
Apparently Trump has gotten spooked. The meeting with Rosenstein has been canceled; Rosenstein will survive another day. Trump's explanation is that he doesn't want to upset the Kavanaugh confirmation, which makes sense to me. Getting his own Justice up there, one who's already said it's ‛improper’ to investigate a sitting President, is the rather bigger deal.
Thanksgiving is only two months away.
I suspect that thought had crossed some of my neighbor's minds. ;) Yes, there are those who do have guns.
Getting his own Justice up there, one who's already said it's ‛improper’ to investigate a sitting President, is the rather bigger deal.
The thought had crossed my mind when I heard that.
One has to wonder, could stacking the Supreme Court in your favor in such an investigation be construed as obstruction?
"…could stacking the Supreme Court in your favor in such
an investigation be construed as obstruction?"
Only for the purposes of impeachment. Any indictment would ultimately have to pass muster with the Justices of the Supremely Stacked Court, and would almost certainly fail that testing procedure.
You keep thinking, for some reason, that Trump is thin skinned.
His volcanic eruptions when he is crossed or the nasty grudge he seems to hold for Obama after that roast from way back when seem to imply that. I have never said, though, that I didn't think he was a good actor.
I have listened to half of Dr. Ford's testimony and will finish the rest later. I will also listen to Judge Kavanaugh's testimony when I get the chance. But so far I am believing that Dr. Ford is telling the truth. From the bits and pieces I have heard so far of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, including where he confronts Senator Klobuchar, I suspect he also believes he is telling the truth.
I have also heard that the only other person allegedly in that room, Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, has written a letter begging off testifying before any committee due to an illness, cancer, and because he is a recovering alcoholic.
This article I am thinking comes close to the truth. I suspect that, like so many teenagers and young adults, Kavanaugh drank to excess, along with his friend Mark Judge. His lack of control, then, and his lack of control, now, as evinced by his attack on Amy Klobuchar during his testimony, does not show someone who is deserving of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
In short, I believe that no woman would put herself through what Dr. Ford has unless she is telling the truth.
Also, considering that Senator Flake has made a statement saying he will vote "yes" to conform Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. I am hugely disappointed, as were the two women who confronted him in the elevator over his decision.
I suspect that, as you said Lee, that he will be confirmed. A sad day for our country.
"I suspect that…he will be confirmed. A sad day for
our country."
He revealed himself as a believer in that used to be called ‛the white man's burden’. Basically, it is a law of nature that rich white men should rule the world. (And, unlike the normal English language presumption--the use of the masculine case does not here include the feminine members of the class covered by the group noun. This meant, specifically, white men.) Kavanaugh believes in the divine right of men of his class and culture to rule the world, and he was seriously pissed that his political enemies (as he sees them) were gettin' in the way of his grasp of his own divine rights.
And he told them what that would mean if he gets on the Supreme Court.
‛What goes around comes around’, he said--out loud, and on the record.
We have been warned.
Lynnette: "...if her testimony is credible it won't be a matter of crossing Trump it will be a matter of crossing the women of America."
Well, it used to be a person is innocent until proven guilty. Is that no longer the case? And it isn't very uncommon for a liar to give a "credible" false statement btw.
I'm not saying she's a liar. I'm saying I have no idea wether she tells the truth or not. She might be telling the truth, she might be lying for political reasons.
I believe that for her tale to impact a serious decision there has to be proof, not just a "feeling she's thruthful" which happens to coincide with a "feeling I do not like Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS judge".
Where's the proof?
Or do we enter into a new realm where anytime someone is up for something we dig up some other one who'se prepared to cry RAPE and then we shut that person down?
What if, Lynnette, what if there had been some previously unknown woman claming rape on part of Obama in 2008 without any proof? Would you be so quick to believe her and demand Obama branded as not fit for office?
BC that's what's coming if these tactics prove to work. The other side will start using them as well. Be careful what precedents you want set here.
"Well, it used to be a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Is that no longer the case?"
That rule applies specifically to the bringing of criminal charges. And, properly stated it was the the person was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This in the case of criminal charges there is an investigation and then there's a formal charge filed against the accused by the state after said investigation but prior to the state punishing the accused.
In Kavanaugh's case there has been no investigation--the requests of the Democrats for an investigation have, so far, been refused by the Republican majority. Nor is the government attempting to take away any of Judge Kavanaugh's ‛unalienable rights’ to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government isn't even trying to take away any of his property (which they can do under civil proceedings without any of that ‛beyond reasonable doubt’ crap). They're not even suggesting he be fired from his current job as a judge on the Federal Court of Appeals.
But, it's the after investigation part that is the most important part of that process here. The Republicans are blocking any investigation--therefore he is not entitled to the presumption you mention.
Lynnette: "In short, I believe that no woman would put herself through what Dr. Ford has unless she is telling the truth."
Bullshit. We've had several rape-hoaxes where scorned women double and triple down on the initial allegation made out of envy or spite. Read up on Mattress Girl for one such story. An irate and scorned girl who destroyed the life of a young man and just kept at it cause once the accusation had been made she just couldn't back off. There are many more.
I even had one such episode in my own schoolclass in High School where a girl accused two guys in my class of rape because she got drunk and willingly slept with both of them and I am a fucking first hand withness to how that went down. There was NO rape involved, just a slut regretting her own actions and not taking personal responsibility. She got shamed afterwards and cried rape but luckily a 3-way parental meeting got the whole thing shut down before the police got involved.
"…just a slut regretting her own actions…"
There are some risks ya just assume when ya turn into a slut-chaser. No point in getting bent 'bout it.
BTW, have you heard the originator of the #metoo movement was a kiddy-fiddling rapist?
It's true. Alyssa Milano the original #metoo gal, herself plied a male child actor with alcohol and statuatory raped him.
Then she went on twitter to accuse Hollywood sleazeballs she put herself out to in order to get movie jobs. The whore accusing her johns, meanwhile she's herself a kiddyfiddling rapist.
And THAT'S the skank who started a worldwide movement. Oh the irony of it all.
"BTW, have you heard the originator of the #metoo movement
was a kiddy-fiddling rapist?"
I'm sure I recall you writing something about ‛innocent until proven guilty’. Must have been simple fascist hypocrisy you were indulging in, not really worth arguing.
Lee:
"There are some risks ya just assume when ya turn into a slut-chaser. No point in getting bent 'bout it."
Not bent at all. I didn't get with her. I might've could have, I might've not could had but I had no interest. Just sayin' rape-hoaxing is not new and not that uncommon.
More uncommon than actual rape of course but still, you can't just believe any girl who cries rape on the grounds that "oh, it's so tough to report on rape she HAS TO be telling the truth!!!111 NO WOMAN would EVER report a hoax of a rape because it's SOOOOOO hard on her anywayz."
Okay Lynnette, that one's all yours.
BTW, don't let this lead you to think I somehow is OK with rape. I find it one of the most dispicable crimes there are and I truly HATE rapists.
Which is also a reason the possibility of a man being wrongfully accused and convicted of rape really scares me.
For one I think a woman proven to have hoaxed a rape should be condemned to the same sentense as the rapist would have been had the rape been real.
I would actually rather be wrongfully convicted of murder than wrongfully convicted of rape even if the sentense for murder is a longer one.
Marcus,
Dr. Ford is not accusing Kavanaugh of rape, it never got that far. In that she was lucky. What she is accusing him of is forcing himself on a young girl while shitfaced drunk, laughing about it with his friend, and terrifying her so that she suffers from claustrophobia and nightmares of this event.
She has stood up before a government committee that she knew would politicize this horrible experience. She testified knowing that she was standing up and telling the whole country something she had suppressed for so long. She has exposed her family to scrutiny by all of their friends, neighbors, co-workers, as well as the national news media.
As so many people have pointed out this is an experience that occurred many years ago. She is not doing this out of some jealous snit. It was only when the man responsible became the nominee for one of the most important legal positions in our country that she felt it necessary to come forward with what she knew about this man's character.
Most women who have been sexually assaulted do not report it. It is because of the reaction of people like you that they do not. It is because of the reactions of many of those people on Capitol hill that they do not.
If her accusations are just brushed off as lies or some kind of political vendetta women all over this country will just be marginalized even more.
I am pleased to say that Senator Flake stood up and pushed for an FBI investigation. It is limited, so I am not sure what it may accomplish, but at least he listened to those voices who rose in protest.
"It is limited, so I am not sure what it may accomplish…"
It got Jeff Flake off the hook for a few more days.
I would actually rather be wrongfully convicted of murder than wrongfully convicted of rape even if the sentense for murder is a longer one.
I would be willing to hazard a guess that most men are not wrongly accused of rape. As long as you are not prone to blacking out while drinking and are careful of the women you associate with I think you will be safe.
It got Jeff Flake off the hook for a few more days.
The women won't go away.
Re: Kavanaugh
And FBI investigations thereof…
It's been almost a day now, and I'd expected somebody would have mentioned by now that the Trump administration has consistently claimed that the FBI is in cahoots with the Democrats and the Russians to "bring him down".
So far nobody seems to wanna go there, not even Trump himself.
Among the various items getting chased off the news by the Kavanaugh circus, tomorrow is the deadline (Trump's deadline--negotiation by ultimatum) for the NAFTA renegotiations between Canada and the United States. Ain't lookin’ good for making the deadline.
On top of that, Mexico and the United States were supposed to release the text (final agreed upon Spanish and English versions) of the ‛deal’ between Trump and Mexico. And that didn't happen.
Things are lookin’ rather ‛iffy’ on the NAFTA front, in spite of Trump's habit of announcing his wonderful new deal before there actually is a deal.
That one may run into reality tomorrow.
Back to the circus…. The Trump administration has quietly imposed significant restraints on the pending FBI investigation into sex charges against Brett Kavanaugh. But, word's leaking out already. NBCNews
Oh, it gets even better than that.
Trump administration foresees climate disaster by 2100
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
Now I realize that anything out of the Trump administration is questionable, in my view anyway. But if they believe their numbers and are still doing nothing to try to change this course, what does that say about them? In fact, many of their policies will make things worse. The year 2100 is only 82 years away. Are they simply deciding to make hay while the sun shines and to hell with all of the world's children?
I finished watching Dr. Ford's testimony and have started Judge Kavanaugh's. During parts of Kavanaugh's opening statement I will admit to feeling sorry for the man. He seemed genuinely concerned about the effects of all of this on his family and friends. So far, though, he has not made me doubt Dr. Ford's account of the events. I will continue watching...
I think it's increasingly going to be the Republican position that climate change is unavoidable. The idea that it's a liberal fantasy is running into the climate change happening now and suffering in the collision. So, the next argument is gonna be to treat it as inevitable and unavoidable.
I got the impression that Kavanaugh would have been just as outraged if he'd been called to account 36 years ago. ‛How dare they!’ would seem to be his default position; he went to Georgetown Prep (and then Yale). ‛How dare they sully him over the whining of some party girl!
I think you may be right about Kavanaugh. As a nominee for the Supreme Court the committee members had every right to question his character after these allegations were brought. His outrage seemed a little out of place at times, when they did so. I suspect he has always felt a sense of privilege, even when he was younger. If that is true it could speak to his doing exactly what Dr. Ford said he did.
I also think that unless this guy Mark Judge flips and admits to being in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted Ms Ford then Kavanaugh's going to get confirmed.
I'm reading rumors that the Mexicans are willing to release a draft text of their agreement with Trump, re: NAFTA revisions, before the midnight deadline Trump set for Canadian buy-in, with or without Canadian buy-in. This may simply be more brinkmanship negotiation by the Trump administration, a last-ditch effort to get Canada to cave by midnight, or it could be real.
Post Script:
A release of the draft American-Mexican text was due Friday, but they missed that deadline. So now there's rumors they'll make the release by the Canadian deadline, which Trump had arbitrarily set for today. (I remain suspicious that the Trump administration is simply trying to BS their way past missing their self-imposed deadlines, but that's me.)
A few minutes to the midnight deadline and the story being released (by the Canadians it seems, which makes it more credible) is that they've cut a deal at the last minute.
I also think that unless this guy Mark Judge flips and admits to being in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted Ms Ford then Kavanaugh's going to get confirmed.
I am afraid you may be right. Again, the women won't be listened to. They will rely on the memory of a man(Mark Judge) who is an admitted recovering alcoholic, whose memory really is questionable.
I saw that about the Canadian deal. I haven't read anything about what these deals actually accomplished, or not. I still don't like Trump's tactics one way or the other.
Near as I can tell the changes were minor. The biggest thing is that Trump took the opportunity to unilaterally declare NAFTA renamed as USMCA. I do know the Canadians have supposedly dropped their high tariffs on dairy products; assuming that'll clear their Parliament--not a sure bet. (Also, it's not yet clear what Trump gave up for that; there are some signs of resistance developing on the part of our manufacturing concerns; the revisions may not clear Congress either.)
Suggestions arise that Brett Kavanaugh may have had prior knowledge of, and may have actively tried to suppress, accusations by Deborah Ramirez that he stuck his dick in her face at a college party and demanded that she "kiss it". NBCNews
The women won't go away
As Greenberg argues, the impact of shifting loyalties among well-educated white women will be magnified if the changes evident in some areas among well-educated men also persist through 2020 and beyond. But for 2018, there's no question that the recoil from Trump among white-collar white women has emerged as the single most powerful force propelling Democratic opportunities. And coming after all those hostile judgments about Trump have already collected among well-educated white women, the Senate's impending decision on Kavanaugh may operate like a match dropped into a pool of gasoline.
There is a Frontline special on TPT channel 2 tonight at 8:00 about Trump's war against those who are investigating him.
Local PBS station took a lightning strike on their tower several weeks ago, and they ain't back up to covering my neighborhood with their broadcasts yet. They're back on cable, but that don't help me. However, it'll be available on a streaming feed later tonight (after it's played on the local channel first) So, I'll have to catch it later, but it looks like something I'm gonna need to look in on.
Frontline's ‛Trump at War’ is already available. I'm on it now.
There's also a NYT Special Investigation article entitled Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father. It's fairly long, but worth the slog.
This Tuesday's been hard on Trump.
Lynnette: "I am afraid you may be right. Again, the women won't be listened to. They will rely on the memory of a man(Mark Judge) who is an admitted recovering alcoholic, whose memory really is questionable."
She is being listened to for crying out loud. The whole world is listening, there are hearings where she gets to speak and even the FBI is checking if they can verify her story. What not being listened to?
First you take it for granted that this Ford woman is telling the truth. Because you FEEL this, not because you KNOW it. Sorry Lynnette, decisions like this can't be made based on feelz alone.
Even if she is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying this Judge guy is either lying or has boozed away his long term memory, what are "they" gonna do? Are they gonna say well since Kavanaugh has a self interest to deny raping Ford and this other dude might be a boozehound who's memory is not that reliable we can't trust them, ergo the Ford woman is not proven to be a liar or wrong, ergo Kavanaugh is guilty.
Is that about the standard of "guilty until proven innocent" you're looking for here?
And, BTW, if next time around it's a Liberal SCOTUS-candidate and the Dems have all the votes it takes to put put him on the court and then, then days before the final vote the Reps trots out some random woman with a history of having a pro-life stance who accuses that candidate of a 35 YO rape, would you be as quick to believe that story?
I venture that you would not. You believe this woman because you WANT to believe her and you are pissed with the result because it conflicts with your political interests.
"…what are 'they' gonna do?"
Likely ‛they’ are going to reward him for lying during his confirmation hearings with a lifetime seat on the United States' Supreme Court.
Frontline's ‛Trump at War’ is already available. I'm on it now.
I watched most of it. All except the last 30 minutes or so. I kind of fell asleep. Not that it wasn't interesting, but I knew most of it, having watched it happen in real time. What I found most interesting is that it really does portray systemic behavior on the part of Trump to undermine any integrity that the office of the president has held in the past and what appears to be a very cozy relationship with Russia. Also, I had the passing thought that this type of documentary in the past would be aired after a presidency had ended, given the rather derogatory content toward a president. I would have thought after that president had been voted out of office or perhaps impeached, such as what was in the cards for Nixon if he hadn't resigned, would have been a likely time frame. However, it is just another sign of our dysfunctional government that this was done now. As another warning? Maybe if people say it often enough more American voters will understand the danger of the Trump presidency and the sycophants who support him and do the right thing for our country and ultimately themselves?
There's also a NYT Special Investigation article entitled Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father. It's fairly long, but worth the slog.
I'll have to read it later when I have more time, but I had heard something about that on the news. It really doesn't surprise me, as I had gotten the impression from something I read in the past that Trump's father had bankrolled him to a nice sum and that Trump had done a good job of losing the money. As the saying goes it is easy to make a small fortune from a large one. Doesn't make you a good businessman. As for dodging taxes I am guessing that Trump has been good at that. So far, anyway. Someday perhaps he will be sharing a room with Bernie Madoff.
Even if she is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying this Judge guy is either lying or has boozed away his long term memory, what are "they" gonna do? Are they gonna say well since Kavanaugh has a self interest to deny raping Ford and this other dude might be a boozehound who's memory is not that reliable we can't trust them, ergo the Ford woman is not proven to be a liar or wrong, ergo Kavanaugh is guilty.
Is that about the standard of "guilty until proven innocent" you're looking for here?
As we have said before, this hearing isn't about proving guilt or innocence, it isn't a court of law. It is purely a job interview. But, and this is a strong but, it is for an extremely important job that has bearing on the laws and mores of this country. It requires someone of great integrity, honesty and dedication to a cause higher than himself/herself. Character references are a must, good and bad.
That there are those who will not believe Blasey Ford because she is a she are a given. If this country is to move forward and get beyond gender bias there must be a very high standard for behavior by our highest officials.
Yes, she is being listened to, but it is also about time that she and others like her are believed as well. Because until they are there will continue to be sexual predators who think they can get away with anything.
And this morning, given Trump's mockery of Blasey Ford at a campaign rally and the horrible behavior of those in the crowed who cheered and laughed I doubt I will be visiting Mississippi anytime soon.
Well, Marcus, you read that Wall Street Journal friendly piece on the Sweden Democrats. You ought to read TheAtlantic on why Kavanaugh's performance in his own defense disqualifies him from serving on the Supreme Court.
It's not a long as most of the pieces I bring from The Atlantic, well within you attention span, given that this is Wednesday and not Friday. And it's written by a man who professes to admire Kavanaugh.
(Personally I thought Kavanaugh unfit for the post well prior to any accusations of sexual misconduct, so I'm not hangin’ my hat on the sex stuff even now.)
"All except the last 30 minutes or so. I kind of fell asleep."
That happened to me too, about the last 30 minutes--I caught up with them when I woke up later.
It would appear that the FBI is going to try to wind up their Kavanaugh investigation without talking to either Christine Ford or Brett Kavanaugh. It remains to be seen whether or not this will satisfy Jeff Flake and Senators Collins and Murkowski.
I s'pect they'll go along in the end, but ya never know 'til the time comes.
Esquire has a fairly long article on how the family farm Devin Nunes so often invokes relies heavily on illegal immigrant labor, and how the Nunes family is quite touchy on the subject.
May hear more about this before the elections.
(For those who've forgotten--Devin Nunes is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and has made himself semi-infamous since 2016 with his heavy-handed attempts to assist the Trump White House resist the Mueller investigation as well as resisting congressional oversight.)
Looks like the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh's collegiate sexcapades have hit a snag. Rumors of White House constraints on whom the FBI can interview are leaking out--good chance by the design of pissed-off FBI agents who think they're being ‛used’ and are unhappy 'bout it. Bloomberg The Trump administration has publicly claimed that they're taking a ‛hands-off’ approach to the investigation, but that's lookin' to be false.
I read most of the NYT's article last night. I will have to finish the rest tonight. It seems to be a classic portrayal of privilege in America. I'm still amazed that Trump was able to hoodwink so many people into thinking he was an average man on their side. In reality he is only on his side.
So I've had two people knock on my door so far regarding the upcoming election. The first was for city council, but last night the fellow was canvassing for the DFL, Minnesota's Democratic branch. He was asking more about the governor's race. I was happy to tell him that I was voting Democratic. He said it was important to vote, and I replied, with emphasis, that it was!
Lee: "Well, Marcus, you read that Wall Street Journal friendly piece on the Sweden Democrats. You ought to read TheAtlantic on why Kavanaugh's performance in his own defense disqualifies him from serving on the Supreme Court."
I'm not really well reaad up on the matter, I didn't watch the hearings. This article does mention some stuff that might make me too question Kavanaughs suitability.
Not his "rage" at his inquisitors, if he indeed is innocent that's understandable.
I take note more of how he (according to this article) downplays his youthful drinking habits, that sounds like outright lies to me. "I never drank so that my memory was impaired". Really? I don't buy that at all from someone who was obviously in a party circle (according to this article). And if someone lies in small things they can't be trusted in big things either, is my thinking. And thinking someone is most likely a liar in little things, well then a place at SCOTUS is not really the place for him.
That article did raise doubts for me.
"Not his 'rage' at his inquisitors, if he indeed is
innocent that's understandable."
Being ‛understandable’ doesn't make it something ya wanna see in a Justice of the Supreme Court. We'd kinda like to have folks of a more judicious temperament than Kavanaugh displayed.
That was not an emotional outburst. He had an entirely different opening statement prepared, and then he got criticized by Trump (duly reported on FoxNews) for being ‛weak’ in his interview (also on FoxNews). So, he tossed his opening statement aside and wrote himself a different one--all fire and fury and appealing to Trump.
The guy has always been second-rate legal talent, but has also always been, and still remains, a firt-rate political animal. He's gonna be a political animal, not an dispassionate judge, on the Supreme Court as well.
We don't need that.
Jennifer Rubin has been a ‛house conservative’ for the Washington Post for several years now. (One of them anyway; they have more than just the one.) However, she's never been a Trump fan, and now she's way unhappy about the seating of Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Remember when you're reading this, this is a conservative Republican's take on what's in store for us in the future. WaPo
... this is a conservative Republican's take on what's in store for us in the future.
She's right. The Republicans are letting Trump use them for his own survival. Kavanaugh's appointment will only hurt them in the end.
"She's right."
Maybe she's right; maybe not. There's a reason the Republicans have long been out front of the Democrats in the race to the bottom. Part of that reason is their habit of dreaming up new ways to ‛cheat’ and then convincing themselves that they must cheat, because now that they've thought up a new way to cheat they simply must do it. because the Democrats will surely do it soon as they get the chance. (And yet, often the Democrats do not.)
As I saw it, Obama wasted almost four years between his 2010 and 2014 mid-terms trying to reach out to the Republicans who'd have none of it. Eventually he figured out they just weren't gonna allow any bipartisanship, but he wasted a hell of lot time trying after it was clear to me that they had no interestf and he was just wastin’ time.
Eventually the Democrats will surely go whole-hog partisan as the Republicans have already done; surely that'll happen eventually. But, they haven't done it yet--they're always way behind in the race to the bottom. Eventually they'll catch up, but I'm not sure it'll be Kavanaugh that trips the trigger.
The Democrats believe government can be a power for good. Therefore they're inclined to try to make it work.
The Republican ideology is that government is bad to the bone, therefore they don't give a shit about making it work; they're just in there to get theirs while the gettin’s good.
It looks like Kavanaugh has the votes to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Absent Senator Collins having a sudden attack of sanity, yeah, looks like they're gonna get him up there.
I am extremely disappointed in her.
I have to wonder how McCain would have voted if he were alive.
Post a Comment