There were any number of current events
I could post about this week; Donald Trump and his latest obnoxious,
ill informed tweeting, Iran and it's snatching of oil tankers in a
bid for attention, the horrifying story of a man granted temporary
admittance to the United States only to say a final farewell to his
dying daughter.
But I thought it might be time to
remind people, again, of how fragile our life on this planet is.
Instead of the constant fighting and sowing of hatred we should be
taking each day as a blessing and working together, because we
really don't know what the future will hold for our civilization.
I ran across this Ted talk given by
Stephen Patranek. He did this one a number of years ago, but what's
rather interesting is how some of this may be more of a danger now.
I wonder if he would change the order of his list.
Anyway, here is his talk on “The 8
Ways the World Could End”. If you've got a rainy day, like I have,
settle in and maybe rethink what is really important in your life.
Oh, one more thing...
136 comments:
Really interesting vidya. Thanks Lynnette!
You're welcome, Marcus.
Meantime, before the Apocalypse, I notice that Trump's current Iran strategy has Iran shooting down planes and gathering up oil tankers while the Trump administration is calling repeatedly, and so far futilely, for talks. I don't recall this technique being popular among Republicans before Trump.
The NewYorker has a fairly long piece in defense of retired Senator Al Franken of Minnesota.
I don't recall this technique being popular among Republicans before Trump.
There is a lot about Trump that wasn't popular with Republicans before. One has to wonder where have all of the real Republicans have gone?
Meantime, before the Apocalypse,...
lol!
Maybe we'd be better off treating each other a little better.
Just a thought in passing..I wonder if anyone in Britain has looked into who leaked the diplomatic cables that revealed what the Ambassador really thought of Trump?
That incident has certain finger prints all over it.
I think, with the ascension of Boris Johnson to 10 Downing Street, and Boris eager to be rid of the current Ambassador in favor of a Brexit friendly personage, nobody was too inclined to out the perp. (Good chance Boris gave the order.)
Well… As of this morning, Central Standard Time, Alexander Boris Johnson is the new Prime Minister of Great Britain. He's now got the obligation to successfully shepherd Britain out of the European Union. He's been promising that this would go well. It probably won't.
However, we had learned of late that failure to deliver on ones promises is not necessarily fatal for populist leaders so long as they remember to keep up their campaign of hate.
We'll have to wait and see if this holds true as well for Johnson.
"A recent wave of roundups by immigration authorities
targeting undocumented families with final orders of removal
— an operation actively pushed by President Trump — yielded
few apprehensions.
"The operation, which targeted about 2,000 families, resulted
in 35 people being apprehended by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE)."
CBSNews
I'm not gonna take the day off and watch the Mueller show. It's unlikely to produce any movement among congressional Republicans.
However, I have set the DVR record 6½ hours of PBS (the only station in my area which appears to be following the hearings). I'm not sure I'll get a record though, PBS is still spotty, and often doesn't come in especially during the daytime.
Lee: "The NewYorker has a fairly long piece in defense of retired Senator Al Franken of Minnesota."
And what did you make of that? Is the guy A-OK or is he still a sleazeball?
Curious about what you thinng bout this. (and do try to take your objective eyeglasses on and not your partisan ones - meaning think of what you'd say if Franken was a conservative and apply the same set of standards to this liberal).
I mean:
https://media.tmz.com/2017/11/16/1116-al-franken-groping-photo-military-4.jpg
Kinda hard to explain away, no?
As far as I can tell Franken's most egregious offenses (and the photo in question) predate his political career.
A "conservative" (i.e. Republican) senator would not have resigned under thpse circumstances, nor would there have been a Republican led campaign to get a Republican senator to resign.
That does not make Franken's conduct less offensive; I'm not at all surprised that the woman found it offensive. But the Republicans would not have been in such an all-fired hurry to prove themselves politically correct. They wouldn't have given up a senator, popular back home, over that photo.
I'm only part way through the Franken article. My takeaway so far is that he should have waited and let them investigate the matter. I suspect that he, and others in the Democratic party, were a little fixated on the Roger Moore campaign that was running at the time and didn't want to appear to be biased in their criticism of anything to do with sexual harassment. So they piled on Franken. There are those who say they regret asking him to resign.
The picture is bad, but it is not in the same league as some other incidents that have come to light with regard to other people. It's juvenile and rather demeaning, but not violent. I also question the accuser in Franken's case who apparently said that she thought Franken had written the skit for her so that he could kiss her. That was patently untrue since he had performed the same skit before with others.
Alexander Boris Johnson is the new Prime Minister of Great Britain.
My condolences to Great Britain. They now have their own Donald Trump to deal with.
I'm not gonna take the day off and watch the Mueller show. It's unlikely to produce any movement among congressional Republicans.
No, it sounds like they have spent their time attacking Mueller and his staff. The questioning has split down partisan lines, as we would have expected.
One thing I thought interesting was Mueller's statement that a president can fire an FBI director, but if he/she does so to obstruct justice it would be considered a crime. That's fairly obvious, but it's interesting that he did make that clear.
Although he has declined to express an opinion on whether or not he thought Trump had obstructed justice. He seems to always try to steer toward the middle ground.
"It's juvenile and rather demeaning…"
I believe ‛juvenile’ is the word I picked to describe it as well, that's the way I saw it way back when. Franken is a goofy lookin' guy (kinda reminds me of a frog), and he probably never got socialized on dealin' with hot chicks back when the high-school jocks were making these kinda moves on the cheerleaders. Too bad for him he still had to learn as an adult.
Huh!
It looks like someone is watching out for those pesky asteroids.
Three asteroids flew by Earth Wednesday, although none of them were considered to pose a threat, according to NASA.
Franken is a goofy lookin' guy (kinda reminds me of a frog),...
Probably why he got into comedy.
...and he probably never got socialized on dealin' with hot chicks back when the high-school jocks were making these kinda moves on the cheerleaders.
Yeah. He just doesn't fit the picture of someone who would prey on women. Now, one of those high-school jocks, yes.
In what constitutes no surprise at all, Jerry Nadler, (Dem--NY), Chairman of this mornings' hearings, wants to open an impeachment inquiry. Also not a surprise,Pelosi still says, "too soon". Politico
I would note in passing that the 2009 "stimulus" budget signed by (and owned by) Barack Obama, proposed to increase the national debt by $787 billion over a span of ten years. (Didn't actually come out to that much in the end.)
The new Trump budget increases the national debt by $320 billion over the span of the next two years. And it will cost every bit of that, and maybe more.
'Nuff said.
The Iranians are attacking British shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The Brits ask for formation of a "European naval force" to protect oil imports to Europe.
The North Koreans are test firing missiles into the Sea of Japan again.
Trump is talking with the Pakistani about possibly nuking Afghanistan (which he says he doesn't want to do on account of it would kill so many people--not mentioned was that, technically, we're supposedly there to protect the Afghans, and nuking ones allies is usually considered bad form).
Makin' America Great Again; yeah right.
Lee: "However, I have set the DVR record 6½ hours of PBS (the only station in my area which appears to be following the hearings). I'm not sure I'll get a record though, PBS is still spotty, and often doesn't come in especially during the daytime."
Did it record and did you get to watch it yet? Seems a lot of dem-leaning folks are very unsatisfied and Trump is outright gloating. Mueller apparently was seen as a... I don't know how to put it politely... senile old fart who had no real insight into the investigation he supposedly headed.
I am SHOCKED right now, BC I truly thought that the investigation would show that Trump had had russian hookers pee on him in a Moscow hotel room where Obama had previously slept and so the Russkies gotten dirt on the Donald and therefore decided to get him elected by having some rando russkies post shitty memes on Facebook. That was the story, right? I'm BLOWN AWAY Mueller failed to prove that!
I litteraly can't even right now. SMDH.
Lee:
"The Iranians are attacking British shipping in the Persian Gulf."
The Iranians took a British-flagged Swedish ship capture after the Brits took an Iranian oil-ship capture at Gibraltar. They said beforehand they might do this, and then they did it.
Not taking sides here. I just wanted to point out this has ZERO to do with either America or Trump. It ain't yall's bidness unless you decide to make it yall's bidness, and I don't see why the fuck ya'll would need the hassle (even if yall have a tendency to make errythang yall's bidness, in this case I think ya'll would be well served to let the Brits handle the matter their ownselves).
"Did it record and did you get to watch it yet?"
In fact it did not record. (Won't record on timer if it doesn't find a reliable signal to lock on to.) So, nothing to watch.
"I just wanted to point out this has ZERO to do with either
America or Trump."
That's probably not true, but Trump seems inclined to pretend right along with you on this.
And I also might point out that a Trump delegation is going to China next week to ask (beg?) the Chinese to please start making some purchases of American farm products on account of Trump already announced they were going to be doing just that and they're still not doing just that. (I left that off the list first time.)
Makin' America Great Again; yeah right.
The Iranians took a British-flagged Swedish ship capture after the Brits took an Iranian oil-ship capture at Gibraltar. They said beforehand they might do this, and then they did it.
Mmmmm...tit for tat.
I just wanted to point out this has ZERO to do with either America or Trump.
Why did the Brits seize an Iranian tanker again?
"Mueller apparently was seen as a…senile old fart who had
no real insight into the investigation he supposedly headed."
That seems to be the Democrats' take on it. I've seen some of Mueller's testimony since. He seems remarkably consistent to me--and fixed on not allowing himself to be led away from the supposedly "carefully chosen language" used in his written report.
I'm thinking that, even if he may have lost a step or two over the years, the difference in his performance Wednesday and his historical performances before Congress are probably mostly attributable to the fact that this time he was trying to strictly follow the directives he'd been given by the Attorney General. Before he was always able to chart his own path as an independent head of the FBI. And he's much more used to the latter status than the former. I think trying to strictly comply with the restraints that had been pronounced on his testimony are likely the biggest reason he was "slow" to respond to questioning. Because he didn't actually get lost much--only had one "wrong" answer in the first hours of questioning and he remembered to get that corrected immediately upon the opening of the second round of questions. I think he may have been up to his game, just it's a different game than he used to play.
In a fairly curious development, Trump has accused the Swedes of being racists. Trumptweets
It's really funny. Tell me, if someone had told you 5 years ago that in 2019 President Donald Trump would be on the phone with Kanye West concocting a plan to use his office to free A$AP Rocky from a Swedish prison.... would you have found that even a slight possibility?
Five years ago I would have bet agin the prospect that America would ever elect Donald Trump, not even a slight possibility (although, I did note that Nate Silver at 538 blog was giving Trump a one out three chance on the eve of the election). After the fluke that put Trump in the White House the rest of the weirdness seems to just follow along.
"…and Trump is outright gloating…"
I have noticed that Trump has nevertheless abandoned his "NO OBSTRUCTION!; NO COLLUSION!" mantra in the wake of Mueller's public testimony; put that shit to rest. So, while it may not have been what the Democrats wanted it to be, it seems that it was what Mueller wanted it to be.
The NewYorkTimes has noted that while Trump refused to talk to Mueller, he did meet six times with Vladimir Putin.
In case anybody wondered… Andrew Sullivan still favors impeachment.
And he's getting a little strident about it. He did have some good lines though, for instance:
"[W]atching today’s Trump party on Wednesday further turn
Robert Mueller, an old-school law-and-order Republican, into a
stooge for the Democrats, revealed just how deep the cult has
gone. They mocked and scoffed at a war hero and honorable
public servant in order to defend a draft-dodging liar and
corporate fraud. For every through line of fact, they concocted
an equal and opposite farrago of fantasy. The truly chilling
thing about the hearings, however, is that the Republicans
were obviously not trying to persuade the wider public; they
were each vying to ingratiate themselves with one audience
alone: their dear leader. This is how parties behave in
authoritarian states, not liberal democratic ones."
By the way, I just remembered that I forgot to make one point clear earlier…
"The new Trump budget increases the national debt by $320
billion over the span of the next two years."
Lee C. ― Thu Jul 25, 09:19:00 am ↑↑
That's on top of the 2017 Trump tax cuts and their trillion dollar deficits.
I think trying to strictly comply with the restraints that had been pronounced on his testimony are likely the biggest reason he was "slow" to respond to questioning.
Having listened to bits and pieces of his testimony that the news media have played I think you may be right. It wasn't that he was not well informed about his facts it was that he was trying to be very careful in his responses to questions.
But what he did make clear was that the report did not exonerate Trump, despite what Trump has been claiming. He also made clear that Trump was "generally" less than honest in his responses to some questions.
He didn't want to testify in the first place. So, with only a few exceptions, I think he was trying very hard to be a very poor witness, not give 'em what they wanted.
In a fairly curious development, Trump has accused the Swedes of being racists.
Nothing Trump does surprises me.
Tell me, if someone had told you 5 years ago that in 2019 President Donald Trump...
I'm with Lee on this one. Never in a million years would I have thought that American voters would elect Donald Trump president. I gave them too much credit, apparently.
The voters didn't actually elect him. He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. It was the archaic, rural leaning system that gave him the office in spite of him losing the population (a vestige of the aristocracy led republic that was the framers' original intention--interesting how he likes to rail against "the elites", but that's what gave him his win).
"I think he was trying very hard to be a very poor witness."
I likewise think he tried very hard to read his mandate as Special Counsel in as limited a fashion as possible. He was intentionally timid when it came to exercising his investigative powers. (For no better reason than because that's the way his immediate superiors at the DoJ wanted him to be.)
"Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he was likely to impose a tariff on French wine but could also tax other French products.
“I’ve always like American wine better anyway,” Trump said. “I don’t drink wine but I like the way it looks.”"
Wut??? Orange Man doesn't make very much sense.
Does he ever?
Better to have a few rats than to be one.
The Baltimore Son
So, I guess one of those big Trump rallies in Baltimore is probably out of the question now.
I'm hearing news of a Chinese government statement put out overnight in support of the police crackdown against street protesters in Hong Kong. (The Chinese government appears to intend it as a warning/threat. The protesters are likely to view it as further provocation.)
So, I guess one of those big Trump rallies in Baltimore is probably out of the question now.
Trump would probably still expect one.
I'm hearing news of a Chinese government statement put out overnight in support of the police crackdown against street protesters in Hong Kong.
That might explain what they were showing on CNN the other night. There were protesters that were charged by the police even though they weren't really doing anything. The press was all over that.
Of course, the same thing happened with the protests in Russia. It's what authoritarian regimes do.
A shooting out in California at a street festival was done by someone waving a white supremacist agenda.
Prolly not really "white suprematists" Lynntte. Prolly just a random lunatic who happened to be white.
I don't see how this could have been a racist attack at all. Why then target a freakin' Garlic Festival where the overwhelming majority were white?
You might have some white lunatics bent on a killing spree here, but if their motive was racial I doubt that place wouldv'e been the target.
Prolly just more like a rando killer killingh folks in a crowd, and doin ity poorly at that.
This was my instruction: try to get into large-circulation, established conservative media; reach filthy-rich movie makers; intellectuals, so-called 'academic' circles; cynical, egocentric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie. These are the most recruitable people: people who lack moral principles, who are either too greedy or too [much] suffer from self-importance. They feel that they matter a lot. These are the people who KGB wanted very much to recruit." Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB officer.
In fact, the Russians did not prefer recruiting from left-wing, Communist, or socialist groups. Bezmenov said that idealistically minded leftists were useless to the KGB. "Never barter with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes...When they become disillusioned, they become your worst enemies."
However, Russian intelligence was also carefully trying to deflect core messaging in America away from the mainstream media. Social media was quickly overtaking CNN, the New York Times, and Yahoo! news as the principal method of gaining news in America. Rational discourse, applied common sense, and thoughtful consideration of the facts were overpowered by the mainstreaming conspiracy theory insanity of Alex Jones's Info Wars and the slightly more mainstream Breitbart News. Using this, they began honing a positive image of Donald Trump.
"The Plot to Destroy Democracy". Malcolm Nance
[Marcus]: Prolly not really "white suprematists" Lynntte. Prolly just a random lunatic who happened to be white.
“Read Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard,” Legan posted on his Instagram page. He then used a slurs against mixed-race people and misogynistic descriptions of white Silicon Valley workers, complaining about "hordes" of them "overcrowding" towns.
Redbeard, which was a pseudonym, argued that only strength and violence determined what is morally right. The work, which is filled with misogynistic and anti-Semitic rhetoric, is a staple among neo-Nazis and white supremacists on extremist sites.
[Marcus]: Prolly just more like a rando killer killingh folks in a crowd, and doin ity poorly at that.
There happened to be a large police presence at the festival, which is why he didn't do more damage.
The preliminary reviews of tonight's Democratic debate suggest that the "moderate" candidates struck back at the notion that the far left wingers were in charge of the party these days. I don't get cable, so all I got to go on are the reviews, but that seems to be the prevailing take-away from tonight's political show.
LOL! Might Is Right is not a white supremacist book Lynnette, you silly believer in fake news. First of all it's from the 1890's back when white supremacy wasn't a concept (because it was taken for granted by everyone anyway). Second it contains a whole bunch of stuff that'd be anathema to actual modern day white supremacists.
It's a Social Darwinist Atheist-Anarchist book that was an inspiration source for The Satanic Bible.
It's just fake news wanting you to believe this half Iranian garlic-shooter was some sort of Nazi, Lynnette. Don't you go falling for everything they tell you now.
It appears that the 1890s author thought that the supposedly innate superiority of the white race nevertheless wasn't so widely accepted as you appear to think it was, and that it instead needed to be pointed out to his readers.
Wiki say:
"There are also controversial parts of the book which deal with
the topics of race…and its proclamation that the Anglo-Saxon
race is innately superior to all other races. The book also
contains many extremely anti-Semitic statements.
***
"A 19-year-old man who opened fire with a semi-automatic
weapon at the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting in Gilroy,
California…mentioned Might is Right by name in an Instagram
post when making racist remarks about the festival congesting
the countryside with 'hordes' of mestizos…."
"remarks about the festival congesting
the countryside with 'hordes' of mestizos"
OK, I stand corrected. That's pretty racist.
The preliminary reviews of tonight's Democratic debate suggest that the "moderate" candidates struck back at the notion that the far left wingers were in charge of the party these days.
I think there are enough candidates running that you get a taste of every flavor of Democrat. I don't believe the far left is in charge at all. But like Trump and his ilk we have people playing to the more extreme side on the left as well. Whether they would actually go forward with some of the more far left ideas is debatable, except, of course, maybe Sanders and Warren.
I watched a little bit of the debate last night. I was picking raspberries so missed the start. I was rather disappointed in Amy Klobuchar. It seems that every time she speaks she hammers home the fact that she has won in the past. Implying, of course, that she could beat Trump. I think she would be better off sticking to her policy goals instead.
I'm still liking Mayor Pete, though. Which means that he probably won't last.
A new poll out has the majority of Americans believing that Trump is racist.
Whether that is true or not, what he has done by some of his policies and rhetoric is to encourage those who are to act out.
What Trump is, is:
These are the most recruitable people: people who lack moral principles, who are either too greedy or too [much] suffer from self-importance. They feel that they matter a lot.
For sure.
All of the rest of his behavior is choreographed to make sure he stays on top by appealing to those he feels can assist him in that endeavor, by whatever means.
I have no doubt that Trump is a racist. It comes too easily and reflexively to him for it to be a front. (He is further known to believe he is the chance product of superior genetics, a giant among white men, born the best of the best, as it were.)
He certainly has an affinity for them.
Hmmmm...I'm starting to wonder if you weren't right about Mueller wimping out.
I suspect Mueller as timorous will become increasingly clear as the grand jury evidence he had before him becomes increasingly public.
The question for tonight will be: "Does Biden blow the second debate?"
Near as I can figure the opening reviews, Biden did not blow the second debate. This was a big deal for him--two blown debates in a row and people would be talking seriously about maybe he was over-the-hill.
Also seems some of the second tier candidates made inroads into the first tier, mostly at the expense of Kamala Harris, who's still first tier, but didn't shine this time like when she surprised Biden last time.
Word's going around that Bill Barr's "investigation" of former FBI director James Comey is going to say all sorts of nasty things about Comey, which will make Trump happy, which is, after all, probably the reason for including all sorts of nasty things said about Comey (they may even repeat some of Trump's rhetorical flourishes--he always likes that, and Barr likes to keep him happy).
However, they will not charge Comey with any illegalities, or so the story's developing. And that'll not make Hannity happy, so that may not actually be the end of it.
Barr may yet find he has to keep Hannity happy as well as Trump.
House Democrats are claiming that they have a majority of House Democrats now in favor of launching a formal investigation into the the possible articles of impeachment against Trump. Politico This is the head count for a formal investigation; they still don't have a majority of House Democrats in favor of going ahead with an actual impeachment. But, looks like they're getting closer to that.
I suspect Mueller as timorous will become increasingly clear as the grand jury evidence he had before him becomes increasingly public.
I finished "The Plot to Destroy Democracy" (I really wished he had picked a different name for that book). I realize that he has connected the dots to Trump's detriment, but the dots, which can be verified, are pretty damning. His theory also makes for a plausible reason for why Trump has behaved as he has.
Near as I can figure the opening reviews, Biden did not blow the second debate.
I kind of fell asleep, so I missed a lot of it.
If Biden comes out on top I will vote for him, but I really would like someone a little younger with fresh ideas.
However, they will not charge Comey with any illegalities, or so the story's developing.
That's what I saw just now, they won't charge him. That whole thing was bogus, forced to be an issue by Trump.
This is the head count for a formal investigation; they still don't have a majority of House Democrats in favor of going ahead with an actual impeachment. But, looks like they're getting closer to that.
It took a while with Nixon too. Honestly, it is the right thing to do. I know they are worried about the fallout before the election, but at some point you have to stand up for our democracy. It is Congress' job to balance the other branches, and so far the Republicans haven't been stepping up to the plate because of their own agenda. Or, what they think is their own agenda.
I hear that Mitch McConnell doesn't like the nickname "Moscow Mitch". Well, if he continues on down the path they are traveling he's going to like it even less.
I mentioned before he even got in to the race that I thought his time had come and gone. I think he's gotten a little long in the tooth for that job. (Same can be said of Elizabeth Warren, who's also a bit too far to the left to suit me, but I'd even vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump.) Whomever they choose; I'm still solidly #NeverTrump.
"Honestly, it is the right thing to do."
I get your point. It's the same one that Andrew Sullivan was making last week.
However, I want to break the mechanism that made Trump possible. Since we can't do anything about FoxNews (little more than a right-winger conspiracy center in pursuit of advertising dollars, and currently the de facto propaganda center of the Republican Party), I want to break the Republican majority in the Senate.
You will recall how fast the Republican Party turned on George W. Bush when his term ended with handing the House, Senate and White House to the Democrats? (Briefly the Democrats even had a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate). They turned on Bush and his "legacy" with speed and a vengeance. If we can break their Senate majority while the Democrats hold the House the right-wingers will turn on Trump and his legacy just the same.
If we can make them pay for saving Trump from impeachment, then I'm all for impeaching Trump.
If it looks like the impeachment of Trump will make taking back the Senate any harder then I'm in favor on not impeaching Trump. Right now I'm reluctantly on the side of not impeaching Trump.
He deserves it, of course. But, it's more important to inflict political damage on his enablers.
Trump has announced new tariffs on Chinese goods, starting at 10% and covering everything coming from China that's not already taxed at 25%.
He says this is because the Chinese have not delivered on their promise to "buy more American farm products".
Here's the thing… The only person who ever claimed to have heard the Chinese make such a promise was Trump. The Chinese never confirmed that they'd made any such promise. Nobody else ever heard them make such a promise. It was all a figment of Trump's imagination (so far as I can tell).
I see that Trump managed to get into and back out of his stadium rally in Cincinnati without a repeat of his "Send her back" chanting, although, at the price of him having to dial back his rants against the four Congresswomen he'd been making frenzy upon.
No doubt this retrenchment has disappointed his more rabid fans.
I'm wondering how long he can go before he to go back to it. Discipline is not his long suit.
The Pentagon has announced that "some" countries have signed up to participate in Trump's planned ‛Operation Sentinel’ which is supposed to provide security for ships passing through the Persian Gulf in lieu of we in America having to provide security.
However, the Pentagon won't identify the countries which have signed up; apparently it's a secret. (And, it appears those countries won't actually be providing any actual security in the Persian Gulf anyway, lest their presence be noticed by the Iranians and thus give away the secret.)
Lee:
"I have no doubt that Trump is a racist."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-reagans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/
Maybe it just runs in the Republican family Lee?
The Democrats' involvement with the Civil Rights Movement, beginning with the Kennedys in the early 1960's, and especially including Johnson's subsequent championing of the 1964 and 1965 federal Civil Rights acts are widely credited with driving the bulk of American racists into the hands of the Republican Party.
And then, of course, Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in the late 60's fairly openly courted the more racist elements of American society.
There's been nothing occurring since then to move them back out of the grip of the Republican Party. This does not mean that all Republicans are racists, but perhaps "runs in the family" isn't such a bad description.
But, it's more important to inflict political damage on his enablers.
I would agree. It's always better to go straight to the source of the problem.
Trump has announced new tariffs on Chinese goods, starting at 10% and covering everything coming from China that's not already taxed at 25%.
Of course, tanking the economy might prove helpful in getting rid of Trump too.
This awful racism is just everywhere:
""Robots And Racism," a study conducted by the Human Interface Technology Laboratory in New Zealand (HIT Lab NZ) and published by the country's University of Canterbury, suggests people perceive physically human-like robots to have a race and therefore apply racial stereotypes to white and black robots.
These colors have been found to trigger social cues that determine how humans react to and behave toward other people and also, apparently, robots.
"The bias against black robots is a result of bias against African-Americans,""
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/01/tech/robot-racism-scn-trnd/index.html
"…Laboratory in New Zealand…"
"The bias against black robots is a result of bias against African-Americans…"
Odd that New Zealanders would be biased against African-Americans in particular.
It appears that the Trump administration recently requested a meeting, in the Oval Office, between Trump and the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif (who was in New York visiting the United Nations). Zarif declined the offer to meet with Trump. Trump then decreed economic sanctions against the person of Minister Zarif (who has no assets subject to American jurisdiction, so that's an empty gesture). TheNewYorker
OK, serious question here. Are the candidates that are now Dem-candidates the only possible opponents tio Trump in the generals?
Or, could there be anotgher candidate poopingh up at a late stage?
It's still possible that a third party candidate could mount a bid for the White House. William Weld (ex-Republican governor of Massachusetts) has indicated he's running for the Republican nomination against Trump.
"People consistently say they don't even want to hear about
impeachment. But the vast majority of the public didn't want to hear
about Hillary Clinton's emails either. They heard about them endlessly
anyway, and there's little doubt that issue was an albatross around
her neck throughout the campaign."
Digby
We have multiple shootings that are the work of right wing extremists, we have an economy that may be tanking as a result of Trump's new tariffs against China, and we have an Iranian regime that is doing everything but stand on it's head to get attention, which doesn't bode well for peace.
I would guess that impeachment will start to look more appealing as time goes on.
The North Koreans want attention as well.
And, during all this Trump is holding at his persistent average job approval rating. (43.3% as of right now at RCP.)
Presidents who're running under 50% job approval have a bad record for reëlection. (Conversely, presidents riding a strong economy have a good record on job approval ratings and for reëlection; Trump shatters the norm here as well as everywhere else.)
Let's suppose that Trump's job approval ratings do not improve when the Democrats select a nominee. This time next year and Trump's job approval is well under 45% and his reëlection prospects are lookin' pretty grim. Let's further suppose that FoxNews is actually reporting this weakness to the dedicated Trumpkins.
Do they take to the streets with assault rifles in even greater numbers? I've discussed this with some of them (they're ubiquitous around here). I'd say it's a definite possibility.
This last round of tariffs is going to hit a lot of people where it hurts. Christmas. All of those toys, electronics, smartphones etc. that go under the tree are going to cost more than last year. Consumer spending is 70% of the United States economy. Recession is a distinct possibility.
Will it sink in that this is what all those gun toting Trumpkins are supporting? Who puts food on their tables?
"Recession is a distinct possibility." ↑↑
Paul Krugman thinks a recession is possible but unlikely. NYT.
We need to thinking on how to beat Trump in an economy that keeps on plodding along like it's been doing since early in Obama's first term.
Dayton Ohio wasn't a rightwing shooter, he supported Warren and Sanders and self-described as socialist:
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/dayton-ohio-mass-shooter-democrat-socialist-loved-warren-sanders?fbclid=IwAR0mh0t-_8jdwBRgEOAkC-zaIWWnubylV-WV51hXGOaMBIyG1-PTOx-kygU
But TBH I don't really think that was political as his sister was among the dead. Strange to include family members in political killing sprees, it seems to me.
The El Paso shooting was very much the typical deranged rightwing terrorist.
The Gilroy, California shooting (garlic festival) was a racist right-winger as well. Most of them are. Not all, but most.
We got a lot bigger problem with right-winger terrorists than we do with Muslim terrorists, or Central Americans for that matter.
Arguably yes, when it comes to these terrorist shooters, many of them seems to have had a right-wing agenda lately. The garlic killer and the El-paso shooter for sure. The Dayton shooter seems to have been on the opposite side.
But really, however horrible these mass shootings are they are in numbers seriously overwhelmed by the every day single shootings in the US. The daily violence in cities such as Baltimore and Chicago that has no political aim but is just gangland warfare.
That's not to say that political terrorist shootings aren't a problem, or that right now right-wing terrorism is the sort of terrorism claiming the most victims (although you really need to cherry pick the time period to make that stick. Right now - yes). That's obviously a problem. But ya'll really need to look at ALL gun violence here.
"…many of them seems to have had a right-wing agenda lately."
Been that way for decades actually; right wingers being the American terrorists on the loose. But, you're right about them being an overall minor cause of death when measured against the background suicide/murder rate by firearms.
For the record: I would never think of trying to run cover for a racist and or right-wing terrorist. (I might sometimes seem to be because I question if the perp WAS really acting out of a right-wing philosophy, and that's because media is often over eager to go there)
First of all I deplore violence as a tactic when it comes down to political aims.
Second It's really counter-productive the shit these shitbirds get into. So even if I didn't deplore their crazy tactics I would be at odds with trheir strategy - if they even have one.
So yes, I hate them all, just as I would hate a Jihadi who kills civilians or a leftwing terrorist who did the same. They are just filth, the lot of them.
I think the American gun culture is a huge part of the problem. And more to that the easiness of just getting guns.
Here in Sweden, you'll be surprised to read, we actually have LOTS of guns, not as many as ya'll per capita but actually close to it. But you have to take either a course to get a sport shooting license or a course to get a hunters license to get to buy guns. And magazines are limited to 7 rounds ( I hear - I'm no expert - I ain't got no gun - but I think the limit is 7)
I think you would do well to KEEP your constitutionally mandated guns but maybe dial back a bit on how easy it is to obtain them. Regulation isn't always a bad thing.
Those 100 round drum magazines that are legal in some states are basically only ever usable for mass murder or maybe "fun shooting".
The worst that can happen on a hunt is a Grizzly or a large Boar charging you. In any case if you can't put that beast down with about 10 bullets you'r toast. So a 100 round mag isn't gonna help you and you're not going dear hunting spraying 100 bullets either. So the only targets viable for a 100 round magazine are other humans.
Actually I read that Switzerland has even more guns per capita than the US does, and I can't even remember a mass shooting in Switzerland. I can't even remember a violent article from that country, not saying there's no violence there, but it's so rare you never hear of it.
Now why is that you think? COULD it be because they strive to not mix with additional cultures and keep their own arguably multicultural mix of german-italian-french that makes the Swiss Swiss stay intact?
Wiki say: Switzerland comes in 19th on the number of guns per capita. Roughly 28 guns per hundred people, whereas we have more guns than people. (Certainly true at my house.)
Most day-to-day gun violence happens within the community. Blacks shoot blacks; Mexicans shoot Mexicans; whites shoot whites, etc.
Paul Krugman thinks a recession is possible but unlikely. NYT.
China just devalued its currency. This doesn't bode well for a stabilization of the global economy.
US government bonds rose and yields fell as traders looked for safe investments. The 10-year Treasury yield declined to 1.7413%. The yield curve — the difference between shorter and longer-term bond yields — grew the widest since April 2007. That inversion of the yield curve has predated every past recession. From CNN article
I don't have much faith that Trump will handle this well.
The Dayton shooter seems to have been on the opposite side.
In this case it might not have been politics motivating him. Former classmates have said he had a hit list of names of classmates he wanted to kill, or in the case of the girls, rape. It sounds like he may have been a delayed school shooter who was set off by something. Many of the girls on his school hit list had turned him down for dates.
[Lee]: We need to thinking on how to beat Trump in an economy that keeps on plodding along like it's been doing since early in Obama's first term.
[Marcus]: I think you would do well to KEEP your constitutionally mandated guns but maybe dial back a bit on how easy it is to obtain them. Regulation isn't always a bad thing.
I agree with both of these statements.
Except I'm not sure if the economy will keep plodding along.
I tend to fear an economic downturn within the next year as well. (Or, given Trump's run of luck, maybe just after the election.)
The Trump administration just formally accused (‛designated’) China for currency manipulation.
I reckon that'll calm the stock market come morning's opening bell. Yeah, right.
Ah well, the Chinese decided overnight to back up on that devaluation of the currency. They've made noises about supporting it against the dollar at the old value (pre-yesterday's devaluation).
Ya'll reckon Trump bluffed 'em out? (I'm bettin' agin that; more likely they figured to be sending him a warning, but we'll have to wait and see how that plays out.)
Lee: "I tend to fear an economic downturn within the next year as well. (Or, given Trump's run of luck, maybe just after the election.)"
Well we're in for one if you just look at the cyclical markets. We're just now at the end of an "over-heating" period and that's always in the past signalled a downturn.
It is interesting to speculate wether this happens late this year or if it can be postponed, because that will mean that Trump will either go with:
"Look what a great economy we have now that I'm President"
Or:
"Look how fearful the markets are given the eventuality that I will be replaced"
He, Trump, would likely use any of them two as a reason for his continued Precidency. And any one of them would sway the die hard Trumpists, but only the former has the ability to sway swing voters I would say.
If the economy stays sound Trump will win no matter who stands against him. If it doesn't it's a toss-up dependent on the Dem challenger.
Lee: "Wiki say: Switzerland comes in 19th on the number of guns per capita. Roughly 28 guns per hundred people, whereas we have more guns than people."
OK, you're probably right there and I was wrong in saying they had more gouns per Capita thgan the US does. Still they have a fair amount of guns, and no mass shootings. And maybe, looking at your list, Canada is an even better example. Lots of guns, hardly any mass shootings that spring to mind.
Point being: it's obviously not the number of guns, or the number of guns per capita, that decides if you have these mass shootings or not. So the gun-control crowd are barking up the wrong tree here.
That said, there's some regulation I think is obvious. First of all, like this Dayton shooter he had published rape- and death-lists of fellow students. But since that was done when he was a minor it didn't stop him fronm buying guns when he turned 18. That seems pretty reckless. Thge screening needs to get better.
Plus you could mandate a course in firearms practice. That folks need to take a course before they are allowed to pourchase a gun. Doesn't have to be huge affair but could weed out some freaks.
And the magazine sizes. As I said before anything above 10 is really only for combat. You might need multiple shots to bring down a bear or a boar if they charge you, but if you can't do it in 10 shots you're too late anyway. And if it is fun-shooting, then allow larger mags only at a supervised shooting ranges.
"So the gun-control crowd are barking up the wrong tree here."
That's not necessarily true. We'd only have to remove a small percentage of the guns out there to make a significant dent in the mass shootings--and shootings overall. It's mostly a matter of getting a few of the guns away from the right people (or keeping them away from the wrong people, or whichever direction one looks into that tube). Get the guns away from folks who tilt towards crazy, or have anger issues and that'd go a long way.
And I'm in favor of limiting magazine sizes and seriously in favor of doing some serious background checks on folks who want to purchase guns.
All that said, I personally, if I lived in a rural area of the USA, I would be stocking up on ammo and AR15s and AK's. In anticipation of maybe regulation to come. BC if erryone else is armed I would wanna be at least as armed.
Lee: "We'd only have to remove a small percentage of the guns out there to make a significant dent in the mass shootings--and shootings overall. It's mostly a matter of getting a few of the guns away from the right people (or keeping them away from the wrong people, or whichever direction one looks into that tube). Get the guns away from folks who tilt towards crazy, or have anger issues and that'd go a long way.
And I'm in favor of limiting magazine sizes and seriously in favor of doing some serious background checks on folks who want to purchase guns."
Well, Lee, let's fucking celebrate this moment!
Because it's not often you and I can completely agree on any issue, but here I find myself completely agreeing with you.
Don't spoil this now Lee. Don't come up with an argumemnt about an argument and an issue about an issue, let's just for ONCE try to agree to agree, Lee, OK?
I'm not sure how much or how far I trust the Chinese on this one…
"An international team of researchers has created embryos
containing both human and monkey cells, the Spanish
newspaper El PaÃs reported July 31. The controversial project
was conducted in China, rather than in the US where the
project leader is based, 'to avoid legal issues,' according to the
newspaper….
"…The team wants to develop chimeras—organisms
composed of cells from two or more species—capable of
growing human organs."
The-Scientist-Dot-Com
The controversial project
was conducted in China, rather than in the US where the
project leader is based, 'to avoid legal issues,' according to the
newspaper….
There seems to me to be other issues as well. If this story is true.
Quite a striking lack of public presence today for Trump in Dayton and El Paso. Seems the prospect of a public protest was enough to force him to keep his presence private for once (and Trump just isn't known for being the retiring type).
It was apparently hard enough on him that he felt compelled to seize the spotlight no matter what he had to do to get it. So, while still on the plane, he started attacking both the Mayor of Dayton and the senior Democratic Senator from Ohio (Sherrod Brown), both of who had said he was well and warmly received at the hospital, for 'totally misrepresenting' his reception at the hospital in Dayton. (Man just can't stand it when the spotlight's not on him.)
I kinda like that way NBCNews had it figured this morning…
Immediately after his visit to the surviving victims in the Dayton, Ohio hospitals, Trump discovered that the real victim in Dayton was his own, glorious self. The hospital patients had stolen his spotlight while he wasn't watching.
"Andrew Sullivan goes off on the fall of the Roman Republic.
(Not the fall of the Roman Empire, that came later)
He sees some precedents for our current situation.
This one is fairly long, even by the standards of The Atlantic,
and I haven't finished it yet, but think I probably shall."
"Andrew Sullivan goes off on the fall of the Roman Republic.
(Not the fall of the Roman Empire, that came later)
He sees some precedents for our current situation.
Reminds me of Bruno. He kind of compared the US to the Roman Empire. I will have to read that, it should be interesting.
I was totally wiped out yesterday. My company went to the Twins game and our seats were not in the shade. *sigh* Sitting out in the sun for a good portion of the day, when I wasn't hanging around under the eaves like a bat, can be wearying. And...they lost.
I think Pelosi just made another move on Trump, boxed him in when he's already short on outs. She's made a formal, written request that he call the Senate back into emergency session to consider the House passed gun control measures that McConnell had bottled up earlier this year. Politico
Trump's just had a really bad day in Dayton and El Paso. He pretty much botched his "consolation" appearances in both those cities (even FoxNews isn't praising him for his outing into the real world). Now Pelosi's dangling a tidbit in front of him, a way to get some positive press at the expense of pissing off his most rabid base. He won't take the bait I don't think, but the fact that she made the offer won't away either. She'll be reminding people of this one later (if she has to, which she probably won't).
Figure it as Pelosi rubbing a bit of salt into his self-inflicted wound.
680 illegals deported:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-arrests/u-s-immigration-agents-arrest-680-workers-at-mississippi-plants-idUSKCN1UX2LG
"(Reuters) - U.S. immigration authorities arrested nearly 700 people at seven agricultural processing plants across Mississippi on Wednesday in what federal officials said could be the largest worksite enforcement operation in a single state."
What I'm thinking is the focus should not be on deporting illigal aliens, although of course that should be done too, but to punish the employers who put illegals on their payroll. Severely. Like massive fines or forced foreclosure of their businesses and possibly criminal charges aimed at top level employers.
That'd have way more impact than rounding up a few hundred illegals and deporting them.
They've already released better than 300 of those folks they swept up in Mississippi.
But, I do agree that we should be locking up employers who intentionally employ illegal immigrants. (We have too many that seek illegals as employees because they're easier to exploit. They oughta be going to jail.)
Most of those employers vote Republican though, and the current President and Senate have absolutely zero interest in actually enforcing the laws against employing illegals--not against their own base voters.
Paul Krugman believes, as I had suggested above (@ Tue Aug 06, 09:38:00 am ↑↑), that China's brief flirtation with a devaluation of the yuan was an unsuccessful attempt to teach Trump how things work.
However, Krugman believes Trump cannot be taught (a point with which I generally agree).
Well, I finally finished Andrew Sullivan's fairly long piece on the fall of the Roman Republic (and the comparisons to our own travails under the reign of Trump).
I don't mean to downplay the danger that Trump poses for our Republic, but I do want to draw attention to one element I think Sullivan glosses over too easily.
"[Trump] almost instantly commanded the near-total loyalty of
an entire political party, and of 40 percent of the country, and
this loyalty has barely wavered."
This is unprecedented, even in the history of Rome. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a ‛one-off’. As Sullivan notes near the end:
"In America, the question of whether this history will repeat
itself hangs ominously in the air. But that sound you hear in the
distance is of future Caesars preparing to make their move."
There will be wanna-be Caesars to follow Trump. But, even Caesar didn't just pop up out of the theater one day marketed as a savior-of-the-plebs. That one is unique to our time. Nah, the precedent for Trump isn't Caesar, it's closer to Mussolini, but even that's not a clear precedent.
Our Republican Party was already on the road to ruin when Trump rode down his escalator. I've been predicting for a decade now that the Republican Party will cease to be a national party within my lifetime. Trump took over a husk. He has not reinvigorated that husk. When he's gone the various factions will fight over the scraps, thinking they'll be the heirs to that 40%. But they're barely holding the coalition together now, and it's only holding because the various factions think they might seize the whole at the end of Trump's reign. The only thing keeping them together is the grim hope that they can subjugate the others in their coalition. When it turns out that all of them hold this same hope, the coalition will self destruct as the populist elements turn on the corporate interests who'll finally figure they've had about enough of the Bible Thumpers. It won't be pretty.
And remember, they'll be fighting over 40%. Eventually that will occur to them.
I just finished the Andrew Sullivan article. It's scary reading. Sullivan points out that the path we have been headed down did not start with Trump, he has just taken authoritarian tendencies to a new level.
I have noticed too the Democratic candidates exhibiting some of the same type of behavior as Trump, particularly the idea of using an Executive Order to further their agenda.
"…Democratic candidates exhibiting some of the same type
of behavior as Trump, particularly the idea of using an
Executive Order…"
I expect we'll find that the Executive Order has a limited utility post Trump. Which will be soonest discovered when a Democratic President gets his (her?) decrees overseen by the Supreme Trumpkins.
I suppose so. In any case, the first step is to have a "post Trump" era.
Trump tells us (yesterday, Friday), that the September trade talks with China are probably not happening. He says he's ‛not ready’ to make a deal. He also says the recent move to liberalize trade restrictions on the Chinese telecommunications company, Huawei, is off for now, but might be revisited if the Chinese will make substantial purchases of American farm products. (How Chinese purchases of American farm products moderates the national security risk of Chinese electronics is not immediately clear to me, but that's what he's been sayin'.)
ABCNews Jeffrey Epstein, accused deviant and sex trafficker has successfully committed suicide while on suicide watch in a Manhattan prison.
Lee: "And remember, they'll be fighting over 40%. Eventually that will occur to them."
It does seem likely the Republicans will soon be without a chance to win the Precidency, just a fact of demography. And since you de facto have a two party system that would inevitably lead to a one party system, at least for the foreseeable future. How well do you think that'll turn out?
Lynnette:
"ABCNews Jeffrey Epstein, accused deviant and sex trafficker has successfully committed suicide while on suicide watch in a Manhattan prison."
Yeah, "suicide". For sure.
"How well do you think that'll turn out?"
I think things will be chaotic for a time. I think a residual Republican Party will persist, but probably as a "regional" party, unable to to win national office on any kind of a consistent basis.
I think eventually the Democratic Party will schism, thowing off their farther "left" members who'll join an enlarged Socialist Party. So, instead of a one-party political environment, we might have three (or more) parties for a few cycles, until things sort themselves out. Of course, the last time this happened, when the Whigs degenerated into the "No-Nothing Party" (yes, that was a real thing), it only took one cycle (year 1856) for the Republican Party to organize remnants of earlier political parties, and lose their first national election in the process, before they won with Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
I'm wondering what will happen to FoxNews. I don't know if there's precedent for having a profitable right-wing propaganda organization that doesn't have a national party to support. (That's why I think the Republican Party won't go away entirely as the Whigs did. FoxNews makes money--they'll want to keep on making money, so they'll manage to keep a remnant Republican Party alive, even if it's not able to win national elections.) This will make reorganizing an actual conservative party a dicey proposition for the foreseeable future.
Yeah, "suicide". For sure.
The suicide watch was discontinued 2 weeks before his death according to one news report. But speculation that his death was anything but suicide would be reaching. His death won't put an end to the investigation.
I'm wondering what will happen to FoxNews.
They'll find a way to survive. After all, the more extreme right have for all of these years.
"His death won't put an end to the investigation."
The investigation won't put an end to the speculation.
If someone had deliberately "encouraged" his suicide to quash the investigation they miscalculated.
Post a Comment