No, on this anniversary of 9/11 I am
not going to do a traditional commemorative post. Instead I am going
to discuss how we can make a difference to our futures. Because I
can't think of a better way to honor those who fought so hard for
life on that fateful day 18 years ago then for us to fight for our
lives on this planet.
I know that the thought of extreme
climate change can be overwhelming, that it might be easy to give up
before we have even started to fight back. But this is the planet's
9/11 and we can do no less than those who lived and died on that day.
While we talk about alternative fuels
being of importance to this fight we seem to have forgotten other
possibilities. In this first video I would like to show you that
even just one person can make a huge difference to his environment.
Now this next video may seem to be
counter intuitive, but hear him through. There are so many things in
the natural world that are interconnected that removing or adding
something has an effect on the environment as whole. Trying to mimic
nature may help to return things to the original balance, which may
help with climate change.
Sometimes thinking outside the box
isn't such a bad thing.
80 comments:
The guy who did the "TED Talk", Allen Savory, made one serious mistake. It's called the "black swan fallacy", the mistake of assuming that all swans are white simply because all your swans are white. (Not the same thing as a "black swan event".).
His analysis may be valid for many/most/maybe even all short grass prairies (probably not valid for all short grass prairies, but I'll give 'im a maybe on that one), but it's not valid for forested areas, nor, I think, for tall grass prairies (nor for wetlands, obviously).
Ain't no such one-size-fits-all solution as he proposes.
However, the fact that he overstates his claims doesn't make his claims invalid across the board. Certainly there are many areas that could benefit from his proposed conservation methods.
If his methods would help with desertification as he claims, then those areas may be worth looking at, at least.
I have some familiarity with his methods. (They're actually fairly old ideas, or at least they're a piece of an older method.) The basic idea was that nature had already worked out the most efficient means of supporting the most life across a wide variety of habitats. Mimic the way nature did it, and you'd find it worked best for you.
My father was a disciple of what he called "the old ways", in what had been, before the coming of the white man, a forest environment. The Indians used to burn it off occasionally when it was theirs to manage. We did too. We were right; Savory would have been wrong in that particular environment.
If you'll notice the West Texas hill country that Bamberger restored, he did it without any great migrating herds of animals. But, the environment of that country, back in the pre-white-eyes days, supported deer and elk, and antelope, but didn't see too much of the great herds of buffalo that usually ranged further north.
Democratic debate tonight at 7:00 pm CDT on ABC.
Almost three hours into the debate. And they were all over the board.
Hard to pick a "winner". But, Elizabeth Warren almost disappeared during a large chunk of the middle of the debate. Nobody would call on her--wasn't exactly her fault, but neither did she try to break in. Biden managed to not step in it too badly, and he was animated--no "Sleepy Joe" in Texas tonight.
So if you want to see how to destroy a forest and a natural habitat then just watch our president at work.
In the hottest Alaskan summer on record, amid countless signs of a climate in crisis, a camera phone captured a Republican fundraiser on Kenai Peninsula.
Judging from the laughs and smiles, you'd never know that they are a few dozen miles from the Swan Lake Fire, now burning for over three months. But the mood is giddy because a surprise caller is on speaker -- President Trump.
I've been up there. To ruin that forest would be, not just misguided, but a sin.
If you'll notice the West Texas hill country that Bamberger restored, he did it without any great migrating herds of animals.
No, what he did was restore the ability of the earth to absorb rainwater by reintroducing plants that didn't use all of it for their survival. He reintroduced native grasses which caught the rain and channeled it underground where it refilled the aquifers enough so that there was excess, which bubbled to the surface in the form of natural springs.
It was a different environment, true, but it was similar to what reintroducing a carefully managed number of animals did for those desert areas showcased in Savory's TED talk. They helped to manage the native plants that captured the rainwater.
If you look at the link I put up in the earlier comment about the Tongass National Forest, which Trump wants to reopen to logging, you will notice the mention of the connection between the forest, the bears, the streams and the salmon. It's a carefully balanced ecosystem that if Trump and those laughing Republicans have their way will be destroyed.
Hard to pick a "winner"
I listened to a little bit of it. I suspect that Amy KLobuchar won't last long. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke. They seemed a little desperate. I still like Buttigieg. But I also suspect that it will come down to Biden and maybe Warren, despite her disappearing act.
"To ruin that forest would be, not just misguided, but a sin."
I should probably emphasize that burning off our forest had to be instigated under fairly restrictive conditions, in the winter for one thing, all the deciduous trees bare of leaves, AND when the land was damp, all to keep the fire low and relatively "cool" so's to take out the underbrush, but not kill the trees.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Tongass National Forest"
The salmon feed the trees, yes, I understand the cycle.
I should also probably emphasize that I think Allen Savory's definitely on to something, but the methods he's promoting are tuned to areas where there's a strong wet season to raise up quick-growing grasses. It's not well suited to places that're semi-arid year round. And, of course, it's not designed for forest environments.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Klobuchar came across as a bit stilted in her presentation, overpracticed. But I like her politics and her attitude better than some of them. I kinda like Buttigieg too. Neither of them have a chance is my best guess.
However, I don't think the Democrats have a candidate up there that I'd not think an improvement over Trump. I'm fairly solid; #NeverTrump.
Lynnette: "I listened to a little bit of it. I suspect that Amy KLobuchar won't last long. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke. They seemed a little desperate. I still like Buttigieg. But I also suspect that it will come down to Biden and maybe Warren, despite her disappearing act."
Lee: "Klobuchar came across as a bit stilted in her presentation, overpracticed. But I like her politics and her attitude better than some of them. I kinda like Buttigieg too. Neither of them have a chance is my best guess."
What would be your best bet right now then? Biden? I'm asking BC I haven't really followed the debates at all myself. My only takeaway so far is it looks like a weak lineup.
Follow up question: What about Bernie? Does he have a chance?
"What would be your best bet right now then? Biden?"
The conventional wisdom puts Biden at the top of the list. The professional prognosticators put his chances at 25%-30%, better odds than they give anybody else. I have no real reason to challenge those odds. Although, my gut tells me they're a little high, but he's probably got the best chances of any of them right now.
"What about Bernie? Does he have a chance?"
He does; this time he does have a shot at it.
...all to keep the fire low and relatively "cool" so's to take out the underbrush, but not kill the trees.
Yes, controlled burns are used to clear brush to prevent the raging forest fires that endanger so many. That's not what Trump and his followers are talking about in the Tongass. They are talking about logging the old growth timber to benefit logging interests. Something that even those in that Alaska region are opposed to. They well remember the clear cutting that was done in the past. Even if you plant trees, they don't replace hundreds of years old trees. Doing that also endangers the natural ecosystem that has supported other industry, such as fishing or tourism. That's what I believe to be so wrong.
It's not well suited to places that're semi-arid year round. And, of course, it's not designed for forest environments.
No, it probably isn't suitable to all environments. I think it important to take each environment and try to reclaim more of the natural cycle suitable for that region. That is the lesson of Savory's TED Talk.
Klobuchar came across as a bit stilted in her presentation, overpracticed. But I like her politics and her attitude better than some of them.
No she doesn't sparkle in debate. She is really too Minnesotan. Very buttoned down. lol!
But she does have some very good ideas. Unfortunately because she doesn't have the exciting presence like others do she will fade into the woodwork.
No I doubt the ones I actually like will make it too far either. But like you it won't prevent me from voting Democratic. I too am #NeverTrump.
"They well remember the clear cutting that was done in the past."
The timber industry out west fought long and hard to convince people (government people) that clear-clutting was an environmentally friendly and responsible method of harvesting lumber. They were, of course, selling bullshit, something along the lines of those tobacco CEOs who testified to Congress some years back that they ‛did not believe that nicotine was addictive’. Or, maybe the persistent Republican fraud about how tax cuts on the rich pay for themselves in the collection of more taxes.
Marcus,
I don't know if you saw the photo of the Democratic line up in the last debate. The people polling highest were at the center, Biden with Sanders and Warren on either side. On either side of them were Buttigieg and Harris.
Biden has a very good lead. But if this were a horse race I might still put money on Buttigieg or Harris. They would be my dark horses.
A lot can happen before November 2020 so I wouldn't rule out anything.
They were, of course, selling bullshit, something along the lines of those tobacco CEOs who testified to Congress some years back that they ‛did not believe that nicotine was addictive’. Or, maybe the persistent Republican fraud about how tax cuts on the rich pay for themselves in the collection of more taxes.
Yup, a self serving agenda designed to con the clueless.
A drone attack has taken out half of Saudi oil production. Yemeni rebels are claiming responsibility, however I tend to, for once, agree with something our administration is saying, that Iran was behind it. I doubt the rebels had the equipment or technical know how to carry out such a well planned attack.
So one step closer to a regional war between Iran and KSA? Or will they step back from the brink? And what will our erstwhile leader mess up with this latest crisis?
I saw the news about the attack on the Saudi oil infrastructure. It doesn't take much training to fly those drones. But the Houthi rebels almost certainly didn't build them.
Our great orange Leader nixed talks with the Taliban over them getting frisky. It'll be interesting to see if he even tries to be consistent, or if he keeps begging for talks with the Iranians. (Could be they were wondering the same thing and did this just to see if he kept asking for talks anyway; just how much is he prepared to give away to get a "deal" before the 2020 elections?)
How the Trump administration staged this past summer's 'border crisis' in order to create the national emergency Trump could then seize the money necessary and attempt to start construction on his Great Wall by executive fiat. TheNewRepublic
Post Script:
I probably should have warned ya'll; it's kinda long.
Long, but well worth the read. Another black mark for Donald Trump and his sympathizers.
For Ruben Garcia in El Paso, the federal government’s callous position on asylum is a moral crisis of historic proportions. At the Annunciation House in early June, while he was still regularly assisting upwards of 500 asylum seekers a day, he compared the responsibility of caring for and housing refugees with past tests of the nation’s character, including the Civil War. This is one of those moments, he said, when the country defines itself.
And that is the point of why disgust with Donald Trump and his callous policies should be felt by all Americans.
Bernie Sanders has effected a major ‛shakeup’ of his state campaign staff in New Hampshire, announced today. Politico I'd reckon this means that the Bernie campaign ain't happy with the way things are going.
This may be what he needs, and it's early enough for them to correct their course.
Or, it may be that the problem is Bernie, and the way Bernie comes out in a comparison to Elizabeth Warren. In that case, moving staff around probably ain't gonna fix it.
Forty-five years ago Hillary Clinton worked on the team of congressional lawyers which drew up the modern ‛instruction book’ for how to go about impeaching a president. (It hadn't been done in living memory.) They researched the common-law precedents clear back to the 14th century Magna Carta.
The Republicans were fairly gleeful when they were able to use it against her husband during his impeachment.
The Democrats are using it again as they gear up to decide what to do with Trump. Politico Hillary's behind it all. Somebody should tell Trump about this.
Or, it may be that the problem is Bernie,...
Two things, he's too old and he really isn't presidential enough to get beyond that image.
Forty-five years ago Hillary Clinton worked on the team of congressional lawyers which drew up the modern ‛instruction book’ for how to go about impeaching a president.
We just never know what fate has in store for us. This would be poetic justice if they actually did impeach Trump (which is probably highly unlikely given the Republican kowtowing going on).
Well, the US is coming out and saying it was Iran behind the drone strikes on KSA. Probably true, but not very tactful to state it out loud, unless you are going to do something.
I doubt that a new war that we are involved in is really going to help Trump's election chances.
Bloomberg headline: What If Donald Trump Just Happened by Accident?
It's fairly short, but the sort of thing that might require a little rethinking of settled notions.
Some time back I noted that the Trump administration had announced the pending creation of an international naval effort to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf. (It would be led by the United States, although we weren't actually going to participate in the protecting shipping part of this international effort--seems the general idea was that other nations were going to volunteer to have their navies commanded by the whims of the White House).
I recall that Marcus opined that this would be fine idea, much superior to having the United States sending its own navy to the Persian Gulf. (The reasons for Marcus' approval escaped me, then and now, unless maybe he was just for it because I expressed doubts about the scheme.)
This international coalition has since been given the quite impressive sounding name of ‛The International Maritime Security Construct’, and, to date, it consists of Saudi Arabia and the United States jointly in command of the coalition, with the Brits, the Australians, and the Arab Nation of Bahrain offering moral support, and nobody actually sending their navies to the disposal of the United States and Saudi Arabia. Politico
The Iranians seem to be so far unimpressed with this empty armada.
I think the Iranians have been showing their contempt for anything the United States, read Trump here, does. We have really left them nothing to work for, except, perhaps, a regional war.
Meanwhile the Trump administration is playing hardball with California, trying to force them to roll back their higher emissions standards.
One wonders if there will ever come a time when Trump's loyal followers start to get smart and become less loyal? When they realize this isn't a Democrat/Republican thing but a democratic/autocratic thing?
"When [will] they realize this isn't a Democrat/Republican
thing but a democratic/autocratic thing?"
They already know.
They've known for a long time.
They've been at this for years. Nixon unveiled his "Southern Strategy" in the late ‛60s. The Federalist Society, which grooms authoritarian lawyers for federal judgeships, has been at it since 1982. The "Fairness Doctrine" for federally licensed communications outlets (AM radio) was repealed in 1987 (Ronald Reagan's second term) giving rise to right-winger rant radio (Rush Limbaugh went national in 1988) and the eventual formation of the first explicitly political major cable television channel (i.e. FoxNews).
Republican ideologies, specifically the "trickle down" addendum to the "supply side" economic theory that was first worked out by the noted economist, Ronald Reagan, have proved to be failures over and over again. ‛Trickle down’ doesn't happen. ‛Supply Side’ economics doesn't work as promised, hasn't yet, doesn't now, never will, and the economists know why (which is probably why economists identify themselves as Democrats over Republicans at a ratio of about ten to one). Nevertheless, the Republican Party always steadfastly repeats the claim that it'll work ‛this time’. Climate scientists likewise self-identify as Democrats over Republicans at a ratio of about ten to one. In the end the Republicans have come to routinely denounce higher education in general and "eggheads" in particular.
In addition to being increasinly ‛anti-’ science and technology and generally hostile to higher education, they're losing the ‛culture wars’ they thought they'd win, and they're losing badly. (They were stunned by the rapidity with which they lost the ‛gay marriage’ fight once they fully engaged on it; they'll take it hard if Buttigieg wins the Presidency.) The once mighty NRA is in disarray, and they're obviously losing ground on the assault weapons war even aside from that (it's only a matter of when). Things just ain't lookin' good for 'em. So…
After the 2012 loss by Romney, the Republicans famously did an ‛autopsy’ on the campaign, a self-diagnosis might be a more accurate description, but they called it an autopsy. Senator Lindsey Graham had equally famously quipped during the convention that "We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.".
The 100+ page ‛autopsy’ report came back in agreement, along with the conclusion that they were already a shrinking party, too dependent on angry old white men. The report's recommendation was that the Republican Party should broaden its appeal. The Party's response was to instead go hard core on its earlier core message, and to inflame its followers against the majority which was slowly congealing against them. This was not an accident. This was a choice freely made. They knew wat they were doing.
They've been working since then to impose their minority rule on the American population who would prefer a democratic government if it were allowed. This is not an accident. They have chosen autocracy. This was a choice freely made. They know what they're doing. They just hope they didn't wait too long, and that we still will, wait too long that is.
And, just by the way…
The "social conservatives" weren't too much interested in denouncing abortion until Nixon unveiled his "Southern Strategy" during the 1968 campaign. Up 'til then conservative women were as eager to not be too pregnant as were liberal women. (It was a niche complaint mostly pressed by old white men who wore Catholic vestments and had already promised to forgo sex; the Evangelical Protestants weren't real interested in the question.)
However, the Civil Rights movement during the 60's and the passage of the '64 and '65 federal civil right laws got a lot of socially conservative people really upset across the Old South. But, they couldn't admit that they were upset about the civil rights movement. That wasn't a winner for their reputation. So, they found a surrogate issue to rally 'round. Those Southern religious academies and colleges needed an issue they could use against the hated liberals (read: Democrats). It wouldn't do admit that they didn't want to admit niggers to their institutions or even into their restaurants or public water fountains. They needed something that would appear to be a moral issue, but that they could use almost exclusively against the Democrats who'd passed the hated civil rights legislations. Abortion was the issue they chose, and it's been one of their big ones ever since.
I've been watching a "whistleblower" rumor/innuendo that's been getting just short squibs in the press for about a week/ten days now.
It's beginning to look like it's gonna turn into a story, big-ass story with looong legs.
They just hope they didn't wait too long, and that we still will, wait too long that is.
The 2020 election will be critical. I am hoping that those who would steer us in an autocratic path will find they sadly miscalculated on which issue will have the most impact.
I've been watching a "whistleblower" rumor/innuendo that's been getting just short squibs in the press for about a week/ten days now.
I noticed that. I haven't looked at it too in depth. Mostly because there have been a lot of people coming forward regarding Trump, but so far none have had much of an impact.
This has something to do with communication between Trump and a foreign leader? Or was it the Trump campaign? Possibly that back channel to Putin resurfacing?
"…something to do with…Or…Possibly…???"
Hard to say for sure. The NewYorkTimes is out with embellishments on the rumor: Supposedly it involves "multiple acts", so it may be that they did finally get that back channel to Putin established after all.
(I was wrong about Mueller--I didn't contemplate that the reason he wasn't pressing hard on investigating Trump was because he was a wuss. Missed that one entirely. So my record on this matter is blemished. But it does seem to me that a lot of folks in and around Washington D.C. are holding fire until Trump isn't the titular head of the government anymore. I suspect more than I expect, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump were to be indicted the day he leaves office, maybe multiple indictments.)
CNN is reporting that the Washington Post says the matter involved Ukraine.
Well, that would seem to be a matter within his purview (unless, of course, they discussed payment).
The morning headlines suggest that the question might be what Trump was willing to pay into the Ukraine, rather than what he might charge. If the question is so constructed then it's perhaps more likely that the subject of payment was discussed than if it were the other way 'round.
It is an unfortunate truth that the rise of the Federalist Society among the ranks of American judges has coincided with string of court decisions which have gutted our campaign financing laws to the point where it is just almost legal to bribe American politicians. I say almost because there's still one barrier to direct negotiation of the bribes. The participants cannot engage in a quid pro quo discussion.
It is perfectly legal for a cash-flush admirer who needs to influence some government action to admire his intended target to the point of giving him/her money and/or assets, to shower the politician with cash and prizes, as it were. It is also perfectly legal for the politician to show overt preferences for the ‛friend’ who so admires the politician.
What's not legal is for them to discuss the quid in the same conversation as discussing the quo. Or, to put it bluntly, they can't negotiate the price of the bribe at one sitting. It's okay if the admirer offers to shower the politician with cash and prizes. It's okay for the politician to promise to do favors for the admirer. It's not okay for them to discuss both the favor and the price in the same meeting. (If the admirer is a smoker they might step back outside for a cigarette after the discussion of the favor they might want from the object of their admiration, that'll take a few minutes, and then they come back in and mention the donations they might be willing to offer the politician in support of his vision for the country, etc. That's two separate meetings, so it's all okay, so long as they don't mention the pre-cigarette meeting during the post-cigarette meeting--or, at least so long as both of them are willing to testify to that fact in case it ever comes up in a trial. There's the quid, and the quo right there, but there's a break in the action, the necessary pro part doesn't connect up.) This makes the negotiations on price inefficient, but not insurmountable.
On the other hand, there's still a federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which the Federalist Society judges haven't yet overly scrutinized. So, it's pretty much still illegal to bribe foreign politicians.
If Trump was the one offering the bribe that might make it rather easier to get a conviction than it would be if he were the one offering the favor in exchange.
I guess we'll have to wait and see how it works out.
I noticed that Trump was tweeting about the news story of the day. Two tweets so far. Trumptweets
I'd gather from the contents of said tweets that he thinks he needs to get the official story out to his dedicated Trumpkins ASAP. (They don't waste any time or space on ranting against his enemies, just details that he wants his dedicated Trumpkins to all be onboard with; probably ‛alternative facts’, but he wants his version of the defense known to his people, and quickly.)
And… (I missed the first four minutes, but Sean Hannity's radio-right-wing afternoon rant has opened with Hannity on a rant designed to ‛establish’ some alternative facts in the minds of the dedicated Trumpkins. It also seems that Trump had personally called Hannity and they'd gone over the ‛facts’ per Trump/Hannity agreement.) Trump seems to be treating this one as serious. (Rants will come later, getting everybody together on the story seems to be the first priority.)
Rudy Giuliani was on CNN last night trying to divert attention to the old Biden's son's involvement in Ukraine story. He's a loyal Trump follower. An uncharitable person might use the term "lapdog".
Word now (out of the usually Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal) is that there was no promise to from Trump to the President of the Ukraine: Just bald-faced pressuring him to open the investigation that Trump wanted opened.
If that's so, then Trump will survive this latest outrage (and it would be an outrage for any other President, but the Republicans are desperate to hold on 'til their last gasp).
Truth is, he'd probably have survived it anyway, even if they'd caught him boldly going where no President has gone before--i.e. blatant violation of the Corrupt Practices Act.
It's obviously corrupt, and an abuse of power, but nobody believes these Republicans will impeach Trump for an abuse of power.
"…there was no promise to from Trump…"
"…to from…?"
Well, that's fairly poor editing, but reckon ya'll get the point.
No promise, just threats, either expressed or implied. Probably not explicitly illegal.
NewYorkTimes Op-Ed, entitled Why Republicans Play Dirty
They probably describe the Republicans' descent into autocracy more eloquently than I've been able to do. And, it's fairly short.
The Op-Ed piece does make sense. So how were the Southern Democrats rolled back? Perhaps the same thing can be used to stop the Republicans.
"So how were the Southern Democrats rolled back?"
Nixon, then Goldwater, and then especially Reagan solicited them to become Republicans, which they did, pretty much across the board. (It was long said that after Johnson signed the '64 Civil Rights Act he announced to the room that the Democrats had lost The South for a generation. The story may be apocryphal, but it definitely was an understatement; the Democrats lost the Old South for two generations already, with no sign the anger has abated.) However, they didn't all move at once and during the transition phase several important civil rights laws were passed. (For gender and religion as well as race.)
I see that Trump has decided his response to the Iranians would be to "send troops" to the area. As far as anybody knows, troops aren't really gonna be doing anything 'cept watchin'.
I seem to recall a similar dynamic unfolding earlier down at the Mexican border. Bunch of troops standing around, watchin'.
Nixon, then Goldwater, and then especially Reagan solicited them to become Republicans, which they did, pretty much across the board.
Perhaps it's time for Democrats to start soliciting all of the Republicans who have been jumping from the Republican ship. It's also time for them to hammer home the fact that Republicans are going to be instrumental in our losing the climate change war. Judging by the number of protests on Friday this is an issue that is very important to younger voters.
I see that Trump has decided his response to the Iranians would be to "send troops" to the area.
The Iranians have been consistently outplaying Trump in that game of chess for some time now. I have no confidence that Trump will prevail. The only way to fix that situation is to get someone in office who isn't obsessed with dismantling everything that Obama did.
"Perhaps it's time for Democrats to start soliciting all of the
Republicans who have been jumping from the Republican
ship."
I think you'll see that begin when the Democratic primary is over and they begin the general election. Even if it's Warren who's the nominee, I expect even she will try to tack back to the center. (Some question about how effective she'll be at that I would expect.)
In fact, IF the Democrats can win back the Senate as well as the Presidency, and also hold on to the House, I expect the fall-out on the Republican side will be intense. Almost certainly some of the remaining "moderate" Republicans will ditch their current tribal loyalties to the reactionary cause and switch back to being Democrats.
This will dilute the growing strength of the Democrats' left-wingers and then there'll be a real fight there too. I wouldn't be surprised to see three parties for an election cycle or two, with the moderates from the Democrats and their new ex-Republican recruits carrying on with the "Democrat" name, and a full-tilt Socialist Party arising on the left. That'll sort it self out quickly enough 'though, go back to two parties somehow, and the reactionary right-wingers will be go back to being just extremist wing on the more conservative of the two parties. But, that'll not happen just right away. I think the name "Republicans" will probably be associated with catastrophic loss politically, and with Trump and the dedicated Trumpkins and such as that. So, they'll come up with another name, won't wanna wear that one. It's happened before, and they always rise again. There was Jim Crow and sharecropping after slavery was driven from the land, and after that was beaten (mostly) they're now raising their heads again.
They always come back eventually.
I think you may be right on the whistle blower story having legs. Headlines are now speculating that the Democrats and Pelosi may not have a choice about impeachment proceedings if Trump did try to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden and his son. That would be an abuse of power that would be hard to ignore.
I've about come back around to the notion that they should hold impeachment investigations. However, what with the election coming up I think they should try to "minimize" the investigation' importance in the greater scheme of things.
Were it mine to decide, I'd start talking about impeachment as an unfortunate duty that must be addressed, even though we all know that no matter what illegalities and corruptions are exposed during the investigations there is virtually zero chance that the Republican controlled Senate will ever convict Trump--keep harping on how true it was that Trump could shoot someone down on the streets of New York City and they'd never allow him to be impeached. (Perhaps if he started killing people in a swing state like Florida, or a Republican bastion like Texas, maybe then. But New York City? Nah, hell no, they'd back him to the hilt.)
Tell the press that we have to do this; it's our duty, but it's not the duty of the press to cover it. They should be covering things that might make news, like the Democratic campaign. 'Cause we all know how the impeachment proceedings will turn out; the Republican controlled Senate will turn him loose, no matter what the charge, no matter how clear the proof. They got no choice; Trump has stolen the Republican Party from them; it's now the Party of Trump--the old Republican Party is gone and the Trump Republican Party will never convict Trump.
So, let's not make a big deal out of it; it's just doing our duty is all it is.
The Trump/Ukraine story has made the headlines on FoxNews. They usually try to keep any stories critical of Trump off on the sidebars, if they have to cover them at all.
This has made to top dead center on their website today. That's how much they're afraid of this one.
Were it mine to decide, I'd start talking about impeachment as an unfortunate duty that must be addressed, even though we all know that no matter what illegalities and corruptions are exposed during the investigations there is virtually zero chance that the Republican controlled Senate will ever convict Trump--keep harping on how true it was that Trump could shoot someone down on the streets of New York City and they'd never allow him to be impeached.
I agree. Congress has always had a duty to the American people to check the Executive branch if the occupant of the White House attempts to abuse the power of the office. This latest accusation against Trump fits a pattern. A pattern of overreach and abuse of power that should be checked. That the Republicans refuse to uphold their duty doesn't mean that the Democrats should not even try. It should be made clear to the people of the United States who has shirked their duty.
The question is, do the Democrats have the math?
Part of what we would hope they do with an impeachment investigation is create the numbers to support an impeachment once the investigative phase concludes.
The public wasn't onboard with the Nixon impeachment over the Watergate breakins when they began their investigations on that subject, but they began the investigation anyway. Polls seem to suggest the public is onboard with investigations at this point, but don't agree that impeachment has yet been proven necessary. So, they should be loud about what they're doing at this phase--flashing colored lights and blinking arrows that say JUST•AN•INVESTIGATION.
And, point out of course that Trump has the whole Justice Department lined up behind his whims of the moment, what with Attorney General William Barr playing personal lawyer for Trump in violation of his oath of office, so presumably Trump is already investigating the hell out of all the Democrats, the only difference is that he gets to do his work in secret.
Well, it looks like Pelosi is actually considering starting an impeachment inquiry.
I would dearly love to see our democracy taken back. I am totally sick of Trump and his continual abuse of power.
"I would dearly love to see our democracy taken back."
I think the better course would be to turn him and the Republican Senate out in the 2020 elections. I'm willing to wait for that to happen, then do the impeachment.
Not many surprises in the "transcript" of Trump's call to Zelensky (described previously as a ‛transcript’--it's more like a summary). Trump seems to be confused about what rules apply here. He's trying to say there was no expressed ‛quid pro quo’ contained within the phone call, so he thinks he's off the hook. He's mistaking the laws on bribery of a federal politician (which has been virtually legalized by Republican judges these last few decades, so long as one observes the rituals associated with the legalization of bribery of federal politicians) with the laws on bribery and corrupt practices with respect to foreign politicians and officials (which has not received the same blessings from the Federalist Society judges--see my outline from last Friday above). In short, he's applying the wrong laws.
On top of which, criminal liability isn't the standard here. Presidents are properly impeachable for ‛abuses of power’ even if their abusive actions haven't yet been made specifically illegal.
However, none of this will get Trump convicted by the Republican Senate.
Perhaps there's more in the actual whistleblower's report, but I'm not holding my breath that anything will get Trump convicted by the Republican Senate, no matter what the charge, nor how overwhelming the proof.
Trump seems to be backing down from his previous statement that his administration would release the whistleblower's complaint to Congress. Ain't holding my breath over that being released either.
Well, they went ahead with the release (limited to the investigating committees, but that seems appropriate).
Well now… Story's out now that there was a ‛word-for-word’ transcript of that phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that it's been hid. I don't think that's been confirmed yet, could be the whistleblower's got that part wrong, but….
I'm reminded of Nixon's missing eighteen minutes of audio tape that turned the Republican Senate against him, way back when. (Won't do it this time; they'll still rally 'round Trump, but it'll resonate with the public I reckon.)
It looks like Trump asked Zelensky to do him a "favor", after withholding the aid approved by Congress.
Trump is now making noises like the impeachment inquiry should be stopped via a legal challenge through courts. Sheesh that guy just won't give up on suing people.
There are actually some Republicans who appear, and I emphasize the word appear to be wary of this latest Trump debacle. They are saying that what Trump said on that phone call wasn't right. Probably hedging their bets while they see where this goes.
He's coming back. Trump to Minnesota I mean. We could really do without the attention.
Politico.com and the polling firm "Morning Consult" just came back with a poll showing a significant, sudden, and fairly dramatic jump in support for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. graph
Well, I have to say that what I've been reading has left a really bad taste in my mouth. If I hadn't already been anti-Trump this would have done it.
I can't see that his hijinks with the Ukrainians are any worse than his covering for the Russians when they were meddling in the 2016 elections, and he knew it, and yet he denied it was happening in spite of knowing about it and calling for more of it.
It does prove that he's never gonna quit, but I already knew that.
Been reading the headlines, and sometimes behind the headlines in the usual places, checking to see what seems to be the developing Republican defense. There's a group that seems to want to go whole hog in on trying to make the impeachment defense all about Biden. That seems to me to be a dead loser, and I think they'll mostly figure that out in short order. (But, they don't have much else, so they may cling to that one.)
Meantime, everybody's taking a deep breath, waiting for the games to begin in earnest.
I'm thinking the Democrats should use this little bit of shell-shocked space to get eyes back on their other legislative tasks, gun control, environmental policy, things like that.
It'll look better for them if they let the committees deal with the impeachment investigation and get the full House back to work on legislation.
Vox: "Impeach Him Anyway"
Mitch McConnell and his second-in-command, John Cornyn, have declared Trump safe from conviction and removal by the Senate, come hell or high water. Ezra Klein makes the case to impeach him anyway (as it says in the title).
Mitch McConnell and his second-in-command, John Cornyn, have declared Trump safe from conviction and removal by the Senate, come hell or high water.
Moscow Mitch was an appropriate nickname.
And the hits just keep on comin':
"President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017
Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the
United States did the same in other countries, an assertion
that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to
the remarks to an unusually small number of people,
according to three former officials with knowledge of the
matter."
WashingtonPost @ September 27 at 8:26 PM EDT
And this directly contradicts all of the BS he has been pushing that Russia did not interfere. With that statement he admits he knew, but didn't care.
So, a recent poll taken has 72% of those polled believing that Trump will be impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate, 23% has him impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, and 5% say he will not be impeached.
Those numbers suggest that there are quite a few people out there who would vote to impeach, considering that they think he will be impeached.
As you may have guessed I would vote to impeach and I would vote to convict.
"…a recent poll taken has 72% of those polled believing that
Trump will be impeached by the House but not convicted by
the Senate…"
A solid argument, I believe, for the Democrats making sure that their campaign message is about other things than impeachment. They need to be emphasizing financial reforms (income inequality), environmental concerns, rational gun control, campaign finance reforms (again, and again, until the Supreme Court tires of striking them down), etc. Impeachment should be presented as an obligation that will be met, but not the point of the election (after all, the Republicans won't convict no matter how clear the evidence--and this last point needs to be made as well).
It sounds like they are hoping to vote before Thanksgiving. That should be plenty of time to dump it onto the Senate and focus on other issues of concern for voters.
If a House vote to impeach is the result then a Senate vote not to convict may very well be a problem for Republicans next year.
Although I know there are those people who will never believe that Trump has screwed them over. There was a letter in my paper today to the editor where the writer focuses on Trump's not taking a paycheck or donating money to worthy causes. He doesn't make the connection at all that Trump has never divested himself from his businesses and still gets income through them. Nor that those businesses may be benefiting from Trump being President.
"There was a letter in my paper today to the editor where
the writer focuses on Trump's not taking a paycheck or
donating money to worthy causes."
The right-winger troll army was gathering on 4chan and other traditional internet meeting sites mid-week and discussing the need to ‛flood the zone’ with pro-Trump rumor and "carpet bomb the memes".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It has not escaped Trump's view that FoxNews' newscasters have been less than entirely supportive of him these past few days. (Steve Miller--the surviving Steve of the "Two Steves"--was given a rather dubious reception by Chris Wallace on FoxNewsSunday this morning.) Accordingly, Trump has been roundly denouncing FoxNews on Twitter this morning. TrumpTweets This is probably not a smart move on Trump's part.
Forgot the first link re: "carpet bomb the memes", etc. WashingtonPost
Post a Comment