Just a few days ago we marked the
anniversary of D-Day. We fought for something then, something that
was bigger than any of us, the right of everyone to live free of
persecution because of who they were.
Then recently there was a mass protest
in Hong Kong against what people there perceive as China's erosion of
their political freedoms. They too were trying to fight for
something bigger than themselves.
Striving, struggling, and fighting to
make this world a better place was who we were. We didn't become a
great country just because our economy was large, it was because we
cared enough to fight for those less fortunate, even if it meant we fought
ourselves. We would have been on the side of those protesters in
Hong Kong, just like we would have helped the people who made their
way to our shores.
The young woman in this video clip said
she would have been a different person if she had stayed in Syria,
she would have been a different person if she had been born here. It was because of the hurdles she overcame to get here and the struggle to adjust to
life in America that she became the strong, confident young woman who now has dreams
she never envisioned before. We should be proud to call her one of us.
Donald Trump and his followers are not
who we are. They are an aberration that must and will pass. I
believe, as one of my favorite singers says, in us.
105 comments:
With the 2020 presidential race starting to heat up early, Trump is already soliciting assistance from any foreign governments interesting in helping his campaign. ABCNews
(After all, the dedicated Trumpkins are proving to be okay with that. So why hide it this time?.)
I saw that. He is testing that theory that he could shoot someone on a street in New York and people wouldn't care.
It's the natural result of our especially timid special prosecutor.
Mueller declined to identify Russian ‛opposition research’ as having any actual value to Trump's political campaign (the vast amounts often spent on ‛oppo’ by traditional campaigns notwithstanding). He was thereby able to decide that Trump's acceptance of campaign assistance from the Russians (and his acts to conceal that assistance) were not illegal foreign campaign contributions and therefore not something Mueller had to worry with.
Trump has simply moved into the vacuum that Mueller declared available to him.
I didn't realize, or hadn't heard about, the attacks that have been happening on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. There was just another this morning as well as an attack on KSA's airport.
It seems things are falling apart everywhere. *sigh*
Trump has simply moved into the vacuum that Mueller declared available to him.
So far Congress has been a bit of a no show too. There was an Op Ed piece in my Sunday paper written by an attorney that had a suggestion. I will see if I can find it, it was interesting.
I don't reckon Trump dropped that bomb about accepting foreign campaign assistance just to help Kellyanne Conway out of a difficult weekend, but I imagine she'll enjoy getting off the headlines these next few days.
7:48 pm Central daylight savings time. FoxNewsOnline main page still has nothing on it about Trump's assertion that he would still accept ‛opposition research’ on his political opponents from foreign governments.
There's a sidebar notation about Darell Issa (once a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma) explaining that the Democrats are all hypocrites. And there's a second sidebar notation about a ‛disagreement’ between Juan Williams and Jesse Watters regarding the meaning of Trump's ‛dirt’ comments. And that's it.
It's no real wonder that the dedicated Trumpkins think they live in a different reality from the rest of us.
I've been watching the tensions ratchet up in the Gulf of Hormuz and the increasingly belligerent rhetoric coming from both the Ayatollah's fractured and disorganized government and our own fractured and disorganized government (measured by our traditional standards--not by comparison to the Ayatollah's government). It's lookin' like it could get out of hand just any day now.
So far the Trump administration has had the benefit of not having to face a crisis not of Trump's own making.
It may be that he's about to run into a problem he didn't actually gin up all on his own, and that can't be solved by him reversing course and then lying about his great victory.
I'm not sure the Trump administration can handle an international crisis in the Gulf of Hormuz. I hope to not find out. But, hope's fadin' there…
It may be that he's about to run into a problem he didn't actually gin up all on his own,...
Oh, but he did gin this one up all on his own. He did so as soon as he scrapped the nuclear agreement with Iran and slapped sanctions back on that country. When you push people to the wall they will react. And not always pleasantly.
I'm not sure the Trump administration can handle an international crisis in the Gulf of Hormuz.
I have no faith in the Trump administration to handle anything correctly. All they have been doing is making things worse.
"When you push people to the wall they will react."
Precisely. This one's not all his own doin'. The Iranians reacted; they now have a hand in this one. Which means he can't solve it just by backing down and declaring his surrender to be a great victory. This one could get away from him real quick.
"…the dedicated Trumpkins think they live in a different reality…"
I notice that FoxNews is carrying articles about ‛an agreement’ on cutting immigration which Trump referred to last week (7 June 2019).
Apparently, only FoxNews, and Trump himself, believe that the letter he waved at reporters was an ‛agreement’ about immigration. Mexican officials have published the whole text, as of yesterday, and they describe it as no more than "an agreement to begin talks" Slate.
Other non-FoxNews outlets have also described it as an agreement to try to come to an agreement. WashingtonExaminer, Vox.
So, the dedicated Trumpkins now believe that Trump has struck a deal with Mexico. The problem for them is that Mexico doesn't believe it. (They will discover this problem only later if they keep going to FoxNews for their information.)
It occurred to me overnight…. The Trump administration has made the claim that they've ratcheted up trade pressure on China (and tariffs against Chinese made goods) because the Chinese supposedly ‛backed out’ of an agreement on trade. The Trump administration hasn't ever explained exactly what were the agreed terms the Chinese supposedly reneged on.
Could be there was no agreement with China in the first place. There's no agreement with Mexico, even though Trump himself is telling that lie, boldfaced, on camera. Could be the ‛agreement’ with China was equally fictitious.
Eventually reality will set in. Once Trump started messing with a company's bottom line he lost support. It will have an impact on his reelection chances.
Could be there was no agreement with China in the first place. There's no agreement with Mexico, even though Trump himself is telling that lie, boldfaced, on camera. Could be the ‛agreement’ with China was equally fictitious.
I can see that being so. Trump's strong arm tactics will not work with everyone, and I can see where China would be one of those.
Meanwhile, those Hong Kong protesters aren't going away. If anything they appear to be gathering in strength.
As long as there are people like them there is hope for this world.
I notice that Trump is taking a "see no evil" approach to the Chinese attempt to exert control over the courts and legal system in Hong Kong. If it were Obama who wasn't touching that issue the Republicans would be all up in arms (as they were when Obama declined to throw American support behind the Iranian "Green Movement" in 2009 and 2010).
The gerrymandering case before the Supreme Court has been settled with a vote, as expected of 5-4.
However, it appears to favor the Democrats.
In a victory for Democrats in Virginia, the Supreme Court held Monday that the Republican-led Virginia House of Delegates did not have the legal right to challenge a lower court opinion that struck several district maps they had drawn as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
This means court-ordered maps that favored Democrats will continue to be used.
The outlier in Trump's stacked Supreme Court was Neil Gorsuch, not John Roberts.
I notice that Trump is taking a "see no evil" approach to the Chinese attempt to exert control over the courts and legal system in Hong Kong.
No surprise there.
"However, it appears to favor the Democrats."
This was an unimportant case, and makes the news only because "it appears to favor the Democrats" (on a technical, procedural point). That was the only surprise--racial gerrymandering has been illegal for decades now. The important cases will come when they support blatantly partisan gerrymandering.
I read an article the other day on the resignation of Sarah Sanders-Huckabee from her position as Press Secretary. They were observing that she would now have to lie for free instead of getting paid for it, and wondering if that would affect the quality of her lies. Would there be any noticeable fall-off in chutzpah?
(It was kinda funny.)
Andrew Sullivan argues for impeachment, and does a fairly good job of it.
Sullivan, of course, has a column to fill, and righteous indignation will help fill that column on reliable basis.
I want the Republicans to lose control of the Senate in 2020. That is of crucial importance to making them rue the day they decided to make their devil's bargain with Trump. If making them come out and publicly save Trump will facilitate that turnover in the Senate, then I'm in favor of impeaching Trump. If the impeachment fight is going to save their Senate majority for them, then I'm against impeaching Trump. I just haven't quite figured out what will do them the most damage.
And another good argument in favor of impeachment.
The author may not be as flashy a writer as is Andrew Sullivan (above ↑↑), but he outlines a better argument (in my opinion).
I want the Republicans to lose control of the Senate in 2020.
It looks like it will be nothing less than that that will turn things around. Or perhaps lose at least one member...isn't the Grim Reaper up for re-election?
I just haven't quite figured out what will do them the most damage.
What it might take.
The Democrats really need to make it clear what, and who, has been obstructing legislation that Americans actually support. A good sign was a recent conversation with my neighbor the other day. She not only wants Trump out but she has made the connection between obstruction and Mitch McConnell, stating we need to get rid of him too. Remember, I live in Republican country. It was refreshing to hear her view.
This was an unimportant case,...
Maybe on a national level, but it does help Virginia, which is at least a plus.
I read an article the other day on the resignation of Sarah Sanders-Huckabee from her position as Press Secretary.
That totally blew me away. I would have guessed her to be the last one to go. She was a monolith supporter of Trump. I would love to know the backstory on that one.
Botox! That's it! That is the explanation for Jared Kushner's wax like countenance. I just couldn't put my finger on it. He has always reminded me of an escapee from Madame Tussauds.
You're right Sullivan does make a good case for impeaching Trump.
I am thinking it will be not one thing, but many things piling one on top of the other, that will end in his removal. At least I hope that is the end game to this travesty of governance.
Politico says Sarah Huckabee-Sanders is serious about running for governor of Arkansas next year. That'll probably have more future than Press Secretary to Trump.
Ahhh, I hadn't heard about her gubernatorial ambition. That would explain it.
Trump has been telling his people to lower the temperature on their talk about Iran. The Iranians have responded by shooting down an American surveillance drone. Not real coöperative.
We'll see if he can talk his way out of this. When you push people, eventually they push back.
Current plan appears to be something along the same lines as his plan for China, i.e. "see no evil". (This is the problem with electing a one-trick pony to the office of President; don't take long for the opposition to figure out his one trick.)
I wonder if "see no evil" applies as well to the return of Roy Moore in Alabama?
That guy just won't give up. I hope he doesn't manage to slither into office this time around.
Speaking of slither, it seems that someone is coming forward and accusing Trump of actual sexual assault from something that happened back in the 90's. He, of course, denies even knowing the woman. But he is also calling out for anyone with information about the Democrats being behind this to step forward.
*sigh* Trump will always try to spin things to his advantage.
"Speaking of slither, it seems that someone is coming forward
and accusing Trump…"
After all this time, I'd rather she'd just let it go. ('Course what I'd rather is of virtually NO importance here.) Hope it makes her happy (happier?) to have come forward (that's obviously the wrong adjective to apply to the situation, but I'm not going to consume any effort in looking for the right adjective here). 'Cause it ain't gonna effect the allegiances of the dedicated Trumpkins (even if it could be proven true after all these years).
Trump has announced the addition of new sanctions against Iraq. The sanctions are imaginary. There were no new sanctions implemented or even under discussion. It is possible that Trump does not know this.
In the meantime, Trumps twitterfeed is all full of his latest, greatest moves against Hispanic immigrants (some of those moves also imaginary). This suggests that Trump at least suspects that the announced new sanctions against Iraq are merely figments of his own imagination.
'Cause it ain't gonna effect the allegiances of the dedicated Trumpkins (even if it could be proven true after all these years).
You're right. Trump will deny everything and just spin it as some kind of Democratic conspiracy, just what was done with Kavanaugh.
She should have called the police and reported it right away, but I understand why she didn't. Even if it had happened exactly as she said, he would have walked and paid no price. She on the other hand would have been put under a microscope.
Trump is now saying that the United States will be imposing more (unspecified) sanctions against Iran. Apparently somebody told him the ones he said he'd already imposed weren't actually real; just tweeting it didn't make it so. (Fairly good chance the new ‛soon to be’ sanctions will prove to be imaginary as well.)
Trump has postponed implementation of his proposal to deport ‛millions’ of illegal immigrant starting Monday. He has offered no explanation for the postponement, and the talking heads are all speculating.
Trump's acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has recently admitted they had neither any plans nor the necessary capacity for deporting ‛millions’ of illegals may have been at the root of the postponement. I would suggest that the talking heads might need to look no further than that for their explanation.
Some bad editing just prior ↑↑, but I think you'll get my point.
Apparently there had been plans to target about 2,000 illegal immigrants for deportation. The millions were in Trump's head, kind of like that crowd at his inauguration.
Well they have gathered together the thundering herd of Democratic presidential candidates for a round of debates Wednesday & Thursday. Amy Klobuchar made the cut and will be in the debate Wednesday. In her round the "star" will be Elizabeth Warren. Biden and Sanders will debate on Thursday, along with other runner ups. They seemed to have made a nice diverse selection of the moderate and the firebrands in each round. Booker and O'Rourke are in Klobuchar's round.
A new addition to "the thundering herd" today; Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania. He won't be in the debates.
Booker hasn't managed to get his campaign off the ground yet, and O'Rourke is proving to be little more than a flash in the pan. Buttigieg is in the first round as well, and he's somebody to be watched.
Buttigieg is in the first round as well, and he's somebody to be watched.
I've listened to one interview with him and liked what I saw. I will probably try to watch both debates.
I just read an article speculating on the reason why Trump really flip flopped on the Iran strike and has also delayed that immigration crack down. The analyst thinks Trump may be a little concerned that he might actually lose in 2020 and has started to question some of his decisions.
Trump just wants to get a little time run on the clock before the roundup on the immigrants begins. If he'd let it begin this week then it'd become painfully obvious that he was bluffing on the ‛millions’ to be deported. This way there'll be a little gap to let some forgetfulness take hold.
So, now he rags on the Democrats for a couple of weeks and when the crackdown does eventually happen he's got the dedicated Trumpkins prepped to blame the Democrats for it being only a few thousand instead of the ‛millions’ he promised (if they even remember that part of it by then--having been prepped to rage at the Democrats in the meantime). Sleight-of-hand; con man's trick.
As for the Iranian retaliation; he just go cold feet is all. Our enemies have learned that the pony knows only that one trick, and they've figured out how to play him. They knew he was bluffing and they called his bluff. Bolton had him damn near ready to go for it for real; promising again that the Iranians would fold, but they didn't fold and he got cold feet at the last minute. The Iranians expected he'd fold if they didn't, and he did as they expected--just as Putin expects--just as Kim expects as well.
Now he's out in public all but begging them to call him and negotiate, and they might--now. Now they can tell their people that they drove him to the negotiating table as the desperate party, and, as we've seen from his dealings with Kim--they'll not be far wrong.
There are, by the way, two distinct ways to deal with Trump's one trick. (He blusters and threatens and creates a crisis, and then he lets it slide in the end, and claims credit for having resolved the crisis. The dedicated Trumpkins see him ‛being tough’ and then ‛getting results’--couple of wins in a row so far as they see it.)
The Mexicans have decided their best bet is to give Trump a fig leaf, something he can claim is a great victory. (Kim likes that one as well, as do the Canadians.) The Chinese and the Iranians can go either way on it--give him the fig leaf, or call his bluff, depending on how they want it to play back home. But the choice of which way they play him is theirs, not his.
Trump has issued a new foreign policy in regards to Iran. The nations of the world should no longer look to the United States to protect oil shipments through the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. Trumptweets
No doubt this new policy of unilaterally backing down causes the Iranians great fear and trepidation
I've noticed that our Republican spokesmen (Brietbart, FoxNews, etc.) are increasingly publishing warnings that the ‛social’ networks of the internet are setting up algorithms designed to purge blatantly false political stories from their web sites during the coming national elections.
This development appears to alarm the right-wingers.
The nations of the world should no longer look to the United States to protect oil shipments through the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. Trumptweets
That's right, let China protect the Strait, making all of those who use it beholden to them. Right, smart move that.
Meanwhile, our border detention facilities are little better than third world "shit holes". Right, this is Trump making America great again.
Funny you should mention Fox news.
I was looking for something and ran across this article.
A year ago, AP reported that Russian intelligence agencies were pursuing journalists around the world in the same way they typically target politicians and government employees from hostile states.
Much of this activity, according to the report, was aimed at dissident journalists and bloggers who are perceived as threats to the Russian regime.
But Aki Peritz, a former CIA analyst and current adjunct professor at American University, believes that certain foreign spy agencies are very likely targeting one specific private institution: Fox News.
Now why would I not be surprised?
I'm suddenly reminded that Michael Flynn, who was fired from the Trump administration for lying about his connections to the Russians, maintained a long and apparently very friendly and chatty e-mail correspondence relationship with Sean Hannity (ongoing to this very day so far as I know).
Democrats debate tonight. The first ten (10) anyway… I'm gonna havta make sure I've got recorder room on my tivo machine. This'll be disorganized enough that I'll be wanting to look it over again (assuming it's worth looking over again). One of the good things about this week's debates is that it's expected to winnow the field quite a bit. After first looks nationwide, some of the runners will be revealed as yet ready for prime time, or so it is expected. A smaller field will be easier to handle.
(Never seen them run a horse race in "heats", although I have seen it in human athletic competitions where it's deemed important that everybody gets a chance to run at least once on the track.)
Lost in the clutter that is the Trump Presidency… The Trump administration held a peace conference on their new Middle Eastern (Israeli/Palestinian) Peace Plan. The project was the overseen by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and Senior Advisor on Damn Near Everything.
The Israeli were not invited; the Palestinians did not attend.
A smaller field will be easier to handle.
And watch.
The Trump administration held a peace conference on their new Middle Eastern (Israeli/Palestinian) Peace Plan.
The Israeli were not invited; the Palestinians did not attend.
If you build it they will come...not. Also kind of hard to have a peace conference without one of the major parties.
"…kind of hard to have a peace conference without one
of the major parties."
Or, as in the case of the Bahrain peach conference neither of the parties.
Peach? When did this thing get a spell checker hooked into it?
Well, I didn't see any breakout moments for anybody. (Of course, I was puttering through the house during most of it.) And, this was only the first heat; they got another group coming up tomorrow night.
I watched most of it, but kind of drifted off after 9:00. So I missed the ending. No, I didn't see anything significant either. The only thing I got, was to meet and listen to some of those I hadn't heard before.
It looks like the Supreme Court has taken a pass on the gerrymandering cases, saying it's not a decision for the federal courts. The split was along the lines expected.
They have kind of slid around the 2020 Census question.
"It looks like the Supreme Court has taken a pass on
the gerrymandering case…"
Worse than that, they've struck down all lower court decisions rejecting blatant partisan gerrymandering. This, along with the Citizens United decision, are shots straight at the heart of democratic governance, efforts to legalize government by the minority so far as is currently possible.
These decisions will be looked at one day as is the Dred Scott decision of the late 1850s; perversions of the Constitution by a minority which wished nothing more than the chance to permanently entrench itself against the majority.
I'm afraid this Supreme Court is going to sully the reputation of the Supreme Court for generations now.
I think we can add the 2013 case of Shelby vs Holder to the list above. Shelby basically struck down the 1965 Civil Rights Act, (voting rights), on the supposed grounds that racial discrimination no longer existed in the Old South so, supposedly, the federal law against it could no longer be enforced.
Remember, if you will, the decennial census comes around in 2020, so the recent decision by the Supreme Trumpkins will allow the Republicans to legally throw a clear partisan fix into the system for the next ten years. The decision was of crucial importance just now, so they handed it down just now.
It looks like they blocked the citizenship question.
Worse than that, they've struck down all lower court decisions rejecting blatant partisan gerrymandering.
Then the only way out is to flip Republican voters.
There has been some success in recent years with citizen initiatives (constitutional amendments, referenda, etc. at the state level). It's possible to convince Republican voters that there are fairness considerations, easier than it is to convince Mitch McConnell and his cohort.
I forgot to mention… A Democratic majority in the Senate, along with a Democratic President and a Democratic House could legislate minimum standards prohibiting partisan gerrymandering after the legislative filibuster is killed off (which strikes me as something the Republicans have been begging for--and which they will do themselves as soon as it benefits them).
I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it's time to do unto the Republicans as they would do unto….
FiveThirtyEight says the folks who improved their relative position noticeably after the first debate were Warren, Booker, and Castro. (Methodology explained)
Hmmm...this debate is looking more interesting. I have to say Buttigeg looks good. As do a number of others.
... easier than it is to convince Mitch McConnell and his cohort.
Really need to get rid of them.
This round has some people who want some air-time. Buttigieg and Harris both having good nights so far.
Biden has avoided screw ups, which is his most necessary thing to do.
"Gridlock will not magically disappear as long as Mitch McConnell is there."
Good line.
"Greatest national security threat to the United States is Donald Trump" Harris
Another good line.
I've been saying for awhile now that it's important to take away the Republicans' Senate majority. Doing that would strip McConnell of his power.
Trump has announced that the trade negotiations with China are "back on track".
It's not clear whether or not China actually even offered him a fig leaf this time, as he's supposedly gonna give the Chinese "a list" of farm products they're gonna purchase. Of course, it's Trump that's made this announcement, not the Chinese.
Yeah, right.
I've been saying for awhile now that it's important to take away the Republicans' Senate majority. Doing that would strip McConnell of his power.
Yes. I am quite hoping for a Democratic sweep actually. It's really time to clean house.
Yeah, right.
Indeed. I'll believe it when I see it.
Trump seems to be going to bat for Joe Biden over Kamala Harris's attack during the debate. I can see that, after all Kamala Harris is a woman. But I don't know that Trump has helped Biden any. But then maybe that is really the point.
Newest word out of Japan: There's no deal with China (not even the soon to be forgotten promise that the Chinese were going to "buy more farm product", which promise will probably return to memory when and if Trump makes one of his rallies in farm country, but is, for now, no longer being remembered). The Trump administration will soon be telling us how it is that no deal is a great ‛win’ for Trump. I'm curious to see how that supposedly works, but, that'll be the story, soon as they figure out the details of how that works. (Any similarity to reality will be entirely coincidental.)
Ahhhh, but he shook hands with Kim Jong Un and walked into North Korea for 20 feet.
And his photo-op with Kim got the headlines away from the bad news about the China trade deal.
Man knows his stuff on playing the media.
Andrew Sullivan makes a reasoned argument for restricted immigration. (As much as I disapprove of Trump's open racism and cruelty to the refugees appearing on our southern border, I still don't think we need to be takin' in economic refugees under the guise of "asylum". What we need is more money to house the refugees, more immigration judges to hear their claims, and many more economic refugees being promptly sent back home after their (mostly bogus) asylum claims are denied.)
But are they economic refugees or climate refugees? I can see Venezuela's migrants being economic, but for some of the others what has hurt their livelihoods may be based on climate change. I don't know that I would want to send people back to starve. Besides with our falling birth rate we will have room. There are also all of those jobs which are going begging because native born Americans won't work them.
"But are they economic refugees or climate refugees?"
"Climate refugees" are economic refugees. The distinction proposed is irrelevant. It doesn't change things that the droughts which impoverished themselves and their countries is (probably) a result of the changing climate. Their fields are still barren, and they're still too poor to import food.
"Besides with our falling birth rate we will have room."
They have not come seeking "room".
"There are also all of those jobs which are going begging
because native born Americans won't work them."
This is a justification for raising the pay high enough to entice Americans, not for bringing in desperate competitors to keep the pay down to levels which will not entice Americans. (Economic inequality in this country will not be overcome by bringing in cheap labor to compete with the labor already here.)
"Climate refugees" are economic refugees. The distinction proposed is irrelevant.
But there is a difference in the cause of the economic crisis that leads people to flee their country. A crisis due to mismanagement can be fixed by removing the incompetent people from government. But a crisis caused by climate change isn't so easily fixed and will continue to lead to more and more migrants attempting to enter another country.
They have not come seeking "room".
No, they have come seeking a life for their families. The issue of whether or not there is room here for immigrants is something Trump has been beating us over the head with to fire up his base.
This is a justification for raising the pay high enough to entice Americans, not for bringing in desperate competitors to keep the pay down to levels which will not entice Americans.
This is an interesting point and certainly well worth considering. Do you think restricting immigration has had the effect of raising wages for lower paid jobs?
"But a crisis caused by climate change isn't so easily fixed…"
The dominance of incompetent or avaricious people in Latin American government hasn't proven "easily fixed" to date. But, we're getting off the central arguments here. Therefore: This is probably the time to point out that, if we are going to be spending money on efforts to make the lives of Latin Americans more comfortable, then it's much, much more efficient to spend those dollars on improving their lot where they are rather than spend the equivalent sums on trying to assimilate them into the higher-cost-of-living United States of America.
(And, perhaps it's a function of my rural and cultural background, but I think we got plenty 'nuff people here already. That's also another argument, for another place probably.)
"Do you think restricting immigration has had the effect
of raising wages for lower paid jobs?"
I think importing cheap, desperate labor will work counter to, and will negate, necessary efforts to alleviate income inequality in this country, which is the relevant point. (There are several other factors at play, but importing cheap, desperate labor will just make things worse. We need to start making things better on that front, not making things worse.)
This is probably the time to point out that, if we are going to be spending money on efforts to make the lives of Latin Americans more comfortable, then it's much, much more efficient to spend those dollars on improving their lot where they are rather than spend the equivalent sums on trying to assimilate them into the higher-cost-of-living United States of America.
Oh, I agree. But if their lot has been made worse by climate change then that would entail dealing with climate change. Something our dear leader is not really too enthusiastic about doing, given his propensity to enact policies that will likely make it worse.
So by ignoring or denying that climate change exists Donald Trump is in effect making the migrant problem worse. So if we are to blame anyone for the situation on the border it should be Trump.
I think importing cheap, desperate labor will work counter to, and will negate, necessary efforts to alleviate income inequality in this country, which is the relevant point.
That may very well be, but in the meantime people who really need help, such as the kind a PCA could provide, are getting the short end of the stick. Because, unless you are independently wealthy and can afford private pay PCA services, the government limits what they will reimburse a home health care company. A lot of those companies are getting out of the business. So then the people who would be able to stay in their homes with the aid of a PCA are forced to enter an assisted living or long term care facility, which cost more.
There again there are people in government who are intent on limiting medicare spending, thus making this worse.
It's all a circular mess.
"…our dear leader is not really too enthusiastic…"
Lotta problems aren't going to be meaningfully addressed so long as "our dear leader" in particular, and today's version of the Republican Party in general, are relegated to irrelevance, as bad memories. That's no reason to intentionally make the wrong moves in the meantime. (And importing low-wage workers who'll then get old and then be dependent on importing even more low-wage workers is a wrong move.)
The audience at FoxNews is being treated to a whole different ‛reality’ than exists for the rest of us.
In their world Trump scored a whole handful of massive ‛wins’ on the international stage during and just after his attendance at the G20 meeting in Japan.
He fought off a trade war with China (didn't, but he did a unilateral surrender on the embargo against the Chinese tech firm Huawei, managed to get that done). He impressed Putin all to hell (yeah, right), and he restarted the stalled talks with North Korea--which talks have produced zero in the way of nuclear disarmament by North Korea, whether started or stalled.
Also he spoke to the Indians (Hindu Indians, not American Indians). Not real clear why that's supposed to be a big deal.
So, in FoxNews airwaves--Trump just killed it on his latest trip abroad. Only thing is, nobody else was impressed. Not Putin, not the Chinese, not the North Koreans, nor the Hindu Indians.
But the FoxNews folks are living in a whole different reality.
Triple shootings in Stockholm the other day. Thwo dead, two in hospital and one of those with a leg shot off and severe damage to the spine. The day before a double homicide by auto weapons in Copenhagen done by "swedes" against "swedes" (somali on somali actually).
The gun killings this year in and around Stockholm is by half year as many as last full year.
In Malmö I have woken to explosions 4 times and slept through one other, just in the last month. The shootings are about the same as last year I think, which is WAY up on previous decades.
I remember bitching about the rape epidemic and Lee was all "well maybe more women report rape now, come back if the murder rate increase". Well it has.
The evening before last on SVT, our Public Service television, they had a bit about when kids are getting robbed in the street how should they behave? They should try to attract attention and if no other folks are there to help them they should give up all they've got and aim for a safe place to get help. Good advice, but I for sure don't remember any of that shit on TV during my childhood in the 80's.
Fuck this clown world. And this whole blog post too for that matter. Yay, a
syrian girl got to better her life by becoming a refugee. Well SÄPO, our secret police are deporting Imams left and right because they've been supporting ISIS and radicalising youths in the muslim diaspiora in Sweden. 3000 persons of interest they try to keep track of now, would be terrorists.
And terrorism is actually a very minor threat compared to the everyday rapes, shootings, muggings and beatings happening everywhere all the time.
Lynnette: "But are they economic refugees or climate refugees?"
Why ask? You want 'em in in any case right?
Lynnette: "I can see Venezuela's migrants being economic, but for some of the others what has hurt their livelihoods may be based on climate change."
Again, what's the difference? As soon as they show up at the border you feel sorry for them and want to let them in.
Lynnette: "I don't know that I would want to send people back to starve."
No, you wouldn't want ANYONE to have to "go back" because of sad feelz when folks show up at the border all thirsty and needy.
Lynnette: "Besides with our falling birth rate we will have room. There are also all of those jobs which are going begging because native born Americans won't work them."
Nope, there are all sorts of jobs that are going to be made obsolete via AI and robitization in the coming years. More people to work jobs, especially low skilled jobs are the exact opposite of what you, or we, need.
One modern harvester does what 100+ field workers could do a hundred years ago. One AI driven robot in an Amazon wearhouse will do, well actually already does, the work of 10+ humans scurrying around and picking boxes. Self checkout will render 50%+ of all convenience store and fast food personell useless in a matter of years.
Soon all taxi drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers etc. will be replaced too.
Then AI will reach into the blue collar workplace and replace secretaries, accountants, etc. Just as IT already replaced Travel Agents and such.
WE DO NOT NEED MORE PEOPLE, Lynnette. We need smarter people working with cutting edge technology and fewer of them (BC the more you enhance production via technownodgy the fewer workers you need).
"…the fewer workers you need."
Marcus almost has a point there. (As usual, he makes a near miss of it.) It comes down to needing fewer people in general. (The military is going gung-ho on robot warfare; soon the master class won't need hordes of soldiers either.)
During the last technological surge we found English lords on Irish estates exporting food to London all through the height of the Irish potato famine. (And exporting starving Irish on any boat that'd take 'em.)
Nowadays we're working our way back there again. Already we find that people who work full-time jobs (even in our military) are eligible for food stamps and other government benefits. The master class doesn't really need them and doesn't see any need to share, so the government has to subsidize their employment or they'd just starve out. And it's gonna get worse before it gets better.
Fundraising numbers are coming out for the Democrats in the second quarter. Bootigieg came in first at $25 million. Biden came in second at $21½ million (although he had only about ⅔ the time to raise money, due to his late entry into the race). Socialist Sanders came in at only $18 million.
Kamala Harris (widely seen as a "moderate" Democrat, having started her political career as a prosecuting attorney) pulled down $2 million dollars within 24 hours after doing well in the debate Thursday night. Elizabeth Warren showed no particular inclination to reveal her fundraising numbers after doing well in the Wednesday night debate. Presumably even though she played well on TV that night she nevertheless didn't get the numbers of donations that'd impress folks given those other numbers.
The "centerist" Democrats are raising the most money, allegations that the Democrats have lurched hard left notwithstanding, they don't seem to have actually done so. But, the media likes that story; wants to have a real donnybrook on the Democratic side on account of there's no story at all on the Republican nomination. Trump's got it; case closed, so the media is pushing real hard for a Democratic "hard surge to the left" to give them something interesting to write about. (Trump's recent outrages simply mirror earlier outrages, and aren't getting the viewership they once did. Need a new story.)
But, it ain't actually happenin'.
New statistical study by researchers at The University of Tennessee:
"…demonstrates that Trump's gains in popularity during the
2016 campaign correlated closely with high levels of social
media activity by the Russian trolls and bots of the Internet
Research Agency, a key weapon in the Russian attack.
"'Our results show that the weeks when Russian trolls were
accumulating likes and retweets on Twitter, that activity reliably
foreshadowed gains for Trump in the opinion polls,' wrote
Damian Ruck, the study's lead researcher."
NBCNews
Yay, a
syrian girl got to better her life by becoming a refugee.
I suspect that she didn't ask to be a refugee. The situation was thrust upon her. But having found herself in that unfortunate position she is trying to make something of her life. Just like all of the other people who are fleeing their home countries because of violence, economic stagnation or political upheaval.
(And importing low-wage workers who'll then get old and then be dependent on importing even more low-wage workers is a wrong move.)
I think you've skipped a step. The one where the low wage worker climbs up the ladder into better paying and productive skilled labor, giving back to the country he/she has fled to. Yes, I know that doesn't always happen right away, or even ever for some, but there are enough times where it does to give people a chance.
The audience at FoxNews is being treated to a whole different ‛reality’ than exists for the rest of us.
Some might call that fake news, others might call it propaganda.
"I think you've skipped a step."
The staggering growth of income inequality in this country means that most people are now getting skipped over at what used to be that step. Yeah, some immigrants make it to the big time. Most make it to downside of the 1% break line along with most of the rest of America.
Most make it to downside of the 1% break line along with most of the rest of America.
But that is not a function of the fact that they are immigrants, but a function of our own dysfunctional governance.
Perhaps those who dared to make the journey to our shores will also have the courage to carry the torch for the desire of equality that was dreamed of so long ago. Because right now I'm seeing an appalling apathy in native born Americans.
"But that is not a function of the fact that they
are immigrants…"
True, also irrelevant. Social mobility (economic class) in these United States has dropped below that of almost every other industrialized nation. (I say "almost because there may be a first world nation that comes in below us on that scale, but I'm not aware of whom it might be). This is gonna hit the immigrants as well as the natives on account of it's dysfunction of our current government.
"Perhaps those who dared to make the journey…"
Okay, now you're just reachin’. There's no evidence nor even solid economic theory to support that out-of-the-wild-blue speculation. You're reachin' 'cause you don't like the logical conclusion of knowing that this country lags all other industrialized nations in economic socio-mobility so far as it doesn't suggest we should be taking in lots more poor folks into a system that's already stagnant. But, you not likin' the obvious conclusion doesn't change the iron logic of the obvious conclusion.
This is gonna hit the immigrants as well as the natives on account of it's dysfunction of our current government.
Solution: Need to get rid of the current government.
There's no evidence nor even solid economic theory to support that out-of-the-wild-blue speculation.
Phooey. A whole bunch of immigrants did it over 200 years ago. How can we think that the current crop who have sacrificed everything to come here wouldn't have some of the same chutzpah?
Yeah, yeah, I know there will be those who are rooted in their homeland's cultural beliefs. But there are also others out there who are actually looking for something different, something they think they can find here because it is what was envisioned by our country's founding fathers.
"A whole bunch of immigrants did it over 200 years ago."
In order to replicate that performance we'd need to replicate the necessary pre-conditions. Maybe seize Canada and essentially wipe out the native Canadians, and we'll have a place and resources for the Latin Americans to replicate the early American "up by their bootstraps" experiences. (Canada should prove to be increasingly habitable in the coming decades.)
Don't think that's gonna happen though. The Canadians have equivalent weaponry.
Lynnette: "but there are enough times"
I take challenge to the word "enough". No it's not nearly "enough" times a so called refugee, which is in 95% of the cases an economic migrant makes a positive contribution. For sure not in a cradle to the grave wellfare state like Sweden and it's prolly quite unlikely even in ya'lls Merica.
Of course3 there are positive examples to point at, and of course you'r justb the one to point out tghose exemptions. But the bigger picture you miss all together, willingly or not.
...e'll have a place and resources for the Latin Americans to replicate the early American "up by their bootstraps" experiences.
I don't think we need to pick on Canada to replicate newcomers "up by their bootstraps" kind of mentality. You still see it in older neighborhoods that have been revitalized by a new influx of immigrants. Well, maybe I should say we used to see that. I suspect that this type of revitalization may not occur so much in the future. Not as long as Trump is in office.
(Canada should prove to be increasingly habitable in the coming decades.)
No it's not nearly "enough" times a so called refugee, which is in 95% of the cases an economic migrant makes a positive contribution. For sure not in a cradle to the grave wellfare state like Sweden and it's prolly quite unlikely even in ya'lls Merica.
I can see your point about Sweden. Your safety net is wide and deep and you apply it to anyone residing in your country. But that is your choice. It would take someone who is very motivated and hard working to overcome the lure of a welfare state. As for the US, unless a person is of native American ancestry he/she will have a family tree that started somewhere else. Many of those people worked very hard to survive in their new land and they managed to build a new nation.
(Canada should prove to be increasingly habitable in the coming decades.)
Canada and Russia.
Post a Comment