Washington Eyes a Cold War Strategy Against North Korea
This summer, the Trump administration declared outright that if Mr. Kim succeeded in reaching that goal, conventional deterrence would not be enough.
In a series of public statements, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, said that the methods that worked so effectively in the Cold War would not apply in the case of North Korea.
“The North Koreans have shown, through their words and actions, their intention to blackmail the United States into abandoning our South Korean ally, potentially clearing the path for a second Korean War,” General McMaster said, suggesting that the assumption that North Korea wanted a nuclear weapon only to assure survival may be wrong.
He talked, on several occasions, about how a “preventive war” might be necessary if diplomacy failed.
“The president’s been very clear about it,” he said at another point.
“He said he’s not going to tolerate North Korea being able to threaten the United States.”
. . . .
But one thing is clear: Whatever threats that Washington and Beijing issued in the past few months — sanctions, and the threat of oil cutoffs — have clearly not deterred Mr. Kim.
Now he is betting that he can complete his project — solving the last technical details — before the United States, its allies and China can agree upon a unified response.
So far, that bet has proved correct.
. . . .
Of course, no American official is prepared to admit that the United States is willing, however unhappily, to rely on conventional deterrence and live with a North Korean nuclear missile capability that can reach American shores as well.
After all, a succession of American presidents, from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Barack Obama, have all said that would be intolerable.
But clearly that appears to be where the United States is headed.
Unless, of course, we really are headed for war.
Preventive and non-nuclear, if we start it before Kim is really ready to nuke us.
Or much, much worse, whoever starts it, us or Kim, if it starts after Kim has made himself ready.
Once it is too late for a preventive war the best that can happen, for the US, would be for Kim to successfully bully us out of the peninsula and, over time, force us to accept a "one Korea" policy, as China forced us to evacuate and abandon Taiwan and accept one China.
Or I suppose we could end up fighting a conventional war against NK to defend SK, entirely in the South, as we did to defend South Vietnam, so as to risk neither Chinese intervention on the side of NK nor NK nuking San Francisco.
And then lose, in the end, anyway.
South Korea might have a better chance of winning without us because it would have every incentive to take the risk of invading and trying to crush the North, and far less to lose.
Thursday, November 30, 2017
A feature, not a bug
The huge deficits.
Republicans May Use Cuts in Entitlement Programs to Reduce Deficit
Democrats said the tax bill was opening the door to the kind of entitlement cuts that Republicans had long wanted to pursue.
“This is a nasty, two-step strategy that has long been the holy grail for hard-right Republicans,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader.
“If this bill passes, you can bet the Republicans will immediately sharpen the knives for middle-class benefits.”
The Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday that a law passed in 2010 would necessitate cuts to Medicare of as much as $25 billion next year.
The pay-as-you-go law requires that legislation that adds to the federal deficit be paid for with spending cuts or other offsets.
If that does not happen, automatic cuts to programs like Medicare kick in.
The Medicare cuts, which are capped at 4 percent of the program’s annual spending, could reach almost a half trillion dollars over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Stupid old white people voted for The Duce, who promised to protect them and their Medicare and their Social Security.
The wanted to believe.
His lies have made him a wonderful shield behind whom the standard issue GOPster class warriors of the Congress are doing more to advance their war on progressive government than they have been able to do since Reagan.
Republicans May Use Cuts in Entitlement Programs to Reduce Deficit
Democrats said the tax bill was opening the door to the kind of entitlement cuts that Republicans had long wanted to pursue.
“This is a nasty, two-step strategy that has long been the holy grail for hard-right Republicans,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader.
“If this bill passes, you can bet the Republicans will immediately sharpen the knives for middle-class benefits.”
The Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday that a law passed in 2010 would necessitate cuts to Medicare of as much as $25 billion next year.
The pay-as-you-go law requires that legislation that adds to the federal deficit be paid for with spending cuts or other offsets.
If that does not happen, automatic cuts to programs like Medicare kick in.
The Medicare cuts, which are capped at 4 percent of the program’s annual spending, could reach almost a half trillion dollars over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Stupid old white people voted for The Duce, who promised to protect them and their Medicare and their Social Security.
The wanted to believe.
His lies have made him a wonderful shield behind whom the standard issue GOPster class warriors of the Congress are doing more to advance their war on progressive government than they have been able to do since Reagan.
He's going to head the CIA? This asshole?
You bet.
A guy after The Duce's own heart.
Interrogators Blast Trump’s ‘Clueless’ CIA Pick Tom Cotton
The Central Intelligence Agency is set to receive an advocate of waterboarding, sweeping surveillance powers, jailing journalists, and conflict with Iran as its next director.
A combat veteran and first-term Arkansas GOP senator, Tom Cotton has wasted little time building his twin reputations as one of the Senate’s hardest hardliners and friendliest Donald Trump allies.
Tillerson is wrecking the State Department according to Trump's will, but he called the Boss a moron, and that can't stand.
So what if we're about an inch from war on the Korean Peninsula and Tillerson is one of the few in the administration who would rather not do that, if it can be helped.
White House Plans Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo
The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who has been a key ally of the president on national security matters, according to the White House plan.
Mr. Cotton has signaled that he would accept the job if offered, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations before decisions are announced.
It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump has given final approval to the plan, but he has been said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and in general is ready to make a change at the State Department.
A guy after The Duce's own heart.
Interrogators Blast Trump’s ‘Clueless’ CIA Pick Tom Cotton
The Central Intelligence Agency is set to receive an advocate of waterboarding, sweeping surveillance powers, jailing journalists, and conflict with Iran as its next director.
A combat veteran and first-term Arkansas GOP senator, Tom Cotton has wasted little time building his twin reputations as one of the Senate’s hardest hardliners and friendliest Donald Trump allies.
Tillerson is wrecking the State Department according to Trump's will, but he called the Boss a moron, and that can't stand.
So what if we're about an inch from war on the Korean Peninsula and Tillerson is one of the few in the administration who would rather not do that, if it can be helped.
White House Plans Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo
The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who has been a key ally of the president on national security matters, according to the White House plan.
Mr. Cotton has signaled that he would accept the job if offered, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations before decisions are announced.
It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump has given final approval to the plan, but he has been said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and in general is ready to make a change at the State Department.
Is the wolf really here, this time?
Throughout my long lifetime, Democrats have warned of disaster every time war threatened, most notably and most absurdly at the time of Bush the Elder's war with Saddam.
But this time, maybe the warnings are accurate.
Maybe.
Nicholas Kristof
If there was a message in North Korea’s launch of a new missile capable of reaching anywhere in the United States, it was that America’s strategy toward that country is failing — and that war may be looming.
The American public is far too complacent about the possibility of a war with North Korea, one that could be incomparably bloodier than any U.S. war in my lifetime.
One assessment suggests that one million people could die on the first day.
“If we have to go to war to stop this, we will,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told CNN after the latest missile test.
“We’re headed toward a war if things don’t change.”
President Trump himself has said he stands ready to “totally destroy” North Korea.
His national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, says Trump “is willing to do anything necessary” to prevent North Korea from threatening the U.S. with nuclear weapons — which is precisely what Kim Jong-un did.
One lesson from history: When a president and his advisers say they’re considering a war, take them seriously.
And this is noteworthy.
The problem is twofold. First, the U.S. goal for North Korea — complete denuclearization — is implausible.
Second, our strategy of economic sanctions is ineffective against an isolated regime that earlier accepted the death by famine of perhaps 10 percent of its population.
. . . .
This problem is not Trump’s fault, and he’s right that previous administrations (back to the first President George Bush’s in the late 1980s) have mostly kicked the can down the road.
He’s also right that we’re running out of road, now that North Korea has shown the ability to send a missile some 8,000 miles, putting all of the U.S. within its theoretical range.
(We may not be vulnerable yet.
North Korea may not be able to attach a nuclear warhead to the missile so that it could survive the heat and friction of re-entering the atmosphere.
But if it doesn’t have that capacity yet, it’s making swift progress toward that goal.
It’s important to stop North Korea from the final testing needed to be confident of its ability to strike the U.S.)
. . . .
Hawks say that the continued American restraint has fostered a perception in North Korea that the U.S. is a paper tiger, and frankly there’s something to that. I worry that the U.S. and North Korea are both overconfident.
On my recent visit to North Korea, officials repeatedly said that with their bunkers and tunnels, and ability to strike back, they could not only survive a nuclear war with the U.S., but would even prevail.
In Washington, there’s sometimes a similar delusion that a war would be over in a day after the first barrage of American missiles.
Remember that tiny Serbia withstood more than two months of NATO bombing in 1999 before agreeing to withdraw from Kosovo; North Korea is incomparably more prepared for enduring and waging war.
But this time, maybe the warnings are accurate.
Maybe.
Nicholas Kristof
If there was a message in North Korea’s launch of a new missile capable of reaching anywhere in the United States, it was that America’s strategy toward that country is failing — and that war may be looming.
The American public is far too complacent about the possibility of a war with North Korea, one that could be incomparably bloodier than any U.S. war in my lifetime.
One assessment suggests that one million people could die on the first day.
“If we have to go to war to stop this, we will,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told CNN after the latest missile test.
“We’re headed toward a war if things don’t change.”
President Trump himself has said he stands ready to “totally destroy” North Korea.
His national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, says Trump “is willing to do anything necessary” to prevent North Korea from threatening the U.S. with nuclear weapons — which is precisely what Kim Jong-un did.
One lesson from history: When a president and his advisers say they’re considering a war, take them seriously.
And this is noteworthy.
The problem is twofold. First, the U.S. goal for North Korea — complete denuclearization — is implausible.
Second, our strategy of economic sanctions is ineffective against an isolated regime that earlier accepted the death by famine of perhaps 10 percent of its population.
. . . .
This problem is not Trump’s fault, and he’s right that previous administrations (back to the first President George Bush’s in the late 1980s) have mostly kicked the can down the road.
He’s also right that we’re running out of road, now that North Korea has shown the ability to send a missile some 8,000 miles, putting all of the U.S. within its theoretical range.
(We may not be vulnerable yet.
North Korea may not be able to attach a nuclear warhead to the missile so that it could survive the heat and friction of re-entering the atmosphere.
But if it doesn’t have that capacity yet, it’s making swift progress toward that goal.
It’s important to stop North Korea from the final testing needed to be confident of its ability to strike the U.S.)
. . . .
Hawks say that the continued American restraint has fostered a perception in North Korea that the U.S. is a paper tiger, and frankly there’s something to that. I worry that the U.S. and North Korea are both overconfident.
On my recent visit to North Korea, officials repeatedly said that with their bunkers and tunnels, and ability to strike back, they could not only survive a nuclear war with the U.S., but would even prevail.
In Washington, there’s sometimes a similar delusion that a war would be over in a day after the first barrage of American missiles.
Remember that tiny Serbia withstood more than two months of NATO bombing in 1999 before agreeing to withdraw from Kosovo; North Korea is incomparably more prepared for enduring and waging war.
Matt Lauer confesses
Matt Lauer apologizes
There are now several different women making accusations, by no means all of them on the show.
Matt Lauer expressed “sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused” in a statement on Thursday morning, his first public comments after NBC News fired the star “Today” show anchor amid allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior with colleagues.
“Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed,” Mr. Lauer wrote in a message issued by his public relations team.
“I regret that my shame is now shared by the people I cherish dearly.”
“There are no words to express my sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused others by words and actions,” Mr. Lauer wrote.
“To the people I have hurt, I am truly sorry. As I am writing this I realize the depth of the damage and disappointment I have left behind at home and at NBC.”
So many men, so many accusers.
Seems like a fast spreading epidemic.
Nine Women Accuse Israel Horovitz, Playwright and Mentor, of Sexual Misconduct
There are now several different women making accusations, by no means all of them on the show.
Matt Lauer expressed “sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused” in a statement on Thursday morning, his first public comments after NBC News fired the star “Today” show anchor amid allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior with colleagues.
“Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed,” Mr. Lauer wrote in a message issued by his public relations team.
“I regret that my shame is now shared by the people I cherish dearly.”
“There are no words to express my sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused others by words and actions,” Mr. Lauer wrote.
“To the people I have hurt, I am truly sorry. As I am writing this I realize the depth of the damage and disappointment I have left behind at home and at NBC.”
So many men, so many accusers.
Seems like a fast spreading epidemic.
Nine Women Accuse Israel Horovitz, Playwright and Mentor, of Sexual Misconduct
So why not Trump?
Trump has a list of accusers, too.
Nancy Pelosi calls on John Conyers to resign over sexual harassment allegations
Odd that all this has pushed Moore off the front page.
Nancy Pelosi calls on John Conyers to resign over sexual harassment allegations
Odd that all this has pushed Moore off the front page.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Equality of protection vs. protection of equality
The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Is Not About Religious Freedom
But Masterpiece has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s about enshrining a freedom to discriminate.
She's right.
But liberal dogmas about a duty of the federal government to compel provision of service remain contentious, as well as liberal dogmas about its constitutional authority and right to do so.
The status quo ante, before liberals created this normal, still new as of the 1960s, was one in which the states did not compel anyone to provide service to anyone, but rather in some cases in some states actually forbade provision to persons belonging to some groups, or heavily intruded on just what services could be provided.
Those laws, generally but not only state laws (think of legally mandated segregation in the District of Columbia), interfered with the liberty of service providers by requiring them to deny service, or deny service on equal terms, notably but not only to black people.
These laws did not protect any class of either service providers or people seeking services; hence they did not conflict with any requirement that persons or classes of persons be equally protected.
All the liberals' favored identity groups enjoyed the same protection as anybody else, whether they provided or sought services, which is to say, none.
And yet, the now normal was created by judges and politicians claiming that laws mandating service for the increasingly numerous identity groups listed by liberals, and for no one else, were required in order to guarantee them, exactly, the equal protection of the law.
But it is one thing to say the law must protect individuals equally, if at all.
The 14th Amendment clearly requires exactly that.
It is another to say it must impose or create equality among individuals, or among those belonging to specified groups, in some or any regard or sense.
And that is exactly what liberals want the law do, to require that service providers treat individuals belonging to specified groups equally, if they seek services, as regards provision of those services.
That is what they have demanded since the 1960s, taking up an altogether mendacious reading of the 14th Amendment to which some blacks but also others subscribed as early as the Reconstruction Era, based on what the partisans of so-called "Radical Reconstruction" actually ultimately wanted and sought to bring about, against the relentless and violent opposition of Southern whites and their leaders, so far as they could, that everyone be equally accepted, equally treated, in political, social, and economic life.
Enter, the notion of the Living Constitution.
But Masterpiece has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s about enshrining a freedom to discriminate.
She's right.
But liberal dogmas about a duty of the federal government to compel provision of service remain contentious, as well as liberal dogmas about its constitutional authority and right to do so.
The status quo ante, before liberals created this normal, still new as of the 1960s, was one in which the states did not compel anyone to provide service to anyone, but rather in some cases in some states actually forbade provision to persons belonging to some groups, or heavily intruded on just what services could be provided.
Those laws, generally but not only state laws (think of legally mandated segregation in the District of Columbia), interfered with the liberty of service providers by requiring them to deny service, or deny service on equal terms, notably but not only to black people.
These laws did not protect any class of either service providers or people seeking services; hence they did not conflict with any requirement that persons or classes of persons be equally protected.
All the liberals' favored identity groups enjoyed the same protection as anybody else, whether they provided or sought services, which is to say, none.
But it is one thing to say the law must protect individuals equally, if at all.
The 14th Amendment clearly requires exactly that.
It is another to say it must impose or create equality among individuals, or among those belonging to specified groups, in some or any regard or sense.
And that is exactly what liberals want the law do, to require that service providers treat individuals belonging to specified groups equally, if they seek services, as regards provision of those services.
That is what they have demanded since the 1960s, taking up an altogether mendacious reading of the 14th Amendment to which some blacks but also others subscribed as early as the Reconstruction Era, based on what the partisans of so-called "Radical Reconstruction" actually ultimately wanted and sought to bring about, against the relentless and violent opposition of Southern whites and their leaders, so far as they could, that everyone be equally accepted, equally treated, in political, social, and economic life.
Enter, the notion of the Living Constitution.
Let's get the media off the tax plan
And off Korea!
Is Donald Trump losing control?
Nah.
He knows when to push the buttons all around him.
Trump Retweets Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Videos, and Britain’s Leader Condemns Them
Trump retweets anti-Muslim videos
President Donald Trump retweeted Wednesday morning three inflammatory videos from a British far-right account rife with anti-Muslim content.
The videos, posted by Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, a far-right and ultra-nationalist political group, depict purported Muslims assaulting people and, in one video, smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary.
. . . .
Fransen reacted jubilantly online, touting that the videos had been shared with Trump's nearly 44 million followers. "GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP!" she wrote in all caps.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders defended Trump's retweets, telling reporters that he shared them to start a conversation about border security and immigration.
"I think his goal is to promote strong borders and strong national security," Sanders told a small group of reporters after appearing on Fox News.
Sanders also downplayed questions about whether the videos were authentic, because "the threat is real."
What questions?
It's not like the media themselves haven't provided an ocean of video of Muslims doing such things and far worse.
And does she not make a valid point?
"That is what the President is talking about, that is what the President is focused on, is dealing with those real threats, and those are real no matter how you look at it," she said.
Well, no, actually he's just pushing buttons at a time when distractions from real news are needed.
Sanders said she didn't know how Trump came across the videos, but conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who is one of the 45 accounts Trump follows, had retweeted Tuesday one of the clips shared by Fransen.
Not a surprise.
She wants the wall, she wants mass deportations, and she liked the Muslim travel ban.
She has been filled with uncontrolled rage against the entire world of Islam since a personal friend was killed on 9/11, to which her reaction was that we should invade all of the Muslim lands and give them the choice to convert or die - the choice Muslims historically gave conquered peoples who were neither Christian nor Jewish.
She was fired for that from National Review.
Fransen was found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment in November 2016 after abusing a Muslim woman wearing a hijab while she was with her four children.
Fransen was fined by the court and ordered to pay costs.
In a separate development, Fransen was also charged over using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior" during a speech she made in Belfast in Northern Ireland.
She is set to appear at Belfast Magistrates Court on December 14.
New missile test shows North Korea capable of hitting all of US mainland
Is Donald Trump losing control?
Nah.
He knows when to push the buttons all around him.
Trump Retweets Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Videos, and Britain’s Leader Condemns Them
Trump retweets anti-Muslim videos
President Donald Trump retweeted Wednesday morning three inflammatory videos from a British far-right account rife with anti-Muslim content.
The videos, posted by Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, a far-right and ultra-nationalist political group, depict purported Muslims assaulting people and, in one video, smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary.
. . . .
Fransen reacted jubilantly online, touting that the videos had been shared with Trump's nearly 44 million followers. "GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP!" she wrote in all caps.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders defended Trump's retweets, telling reporters that he shared them to start a conversation about border security and immigration.
"I think his goal is to promote strong borders and strong national security," Sanders told a small group of reporters after appearing on Fox News.
Sanders also downplayed questions about whether the videos were authentic, because "the threat is real."
What questions?
It's not like the media themselves haven't provided an ocean of video of Muslims doing such things and far worse.
And does she not make a valid point?
"That is what the President is talking about, that is what the President is focused on, is dealing with those real threats, and those are real no matter how you look at it," she said.
Well, no, actually he's just pushing buttons at a time when distractions from real news are needed.
Sanders said she didn't know how Trump came across the videos, but conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who is one of the 45 accounts Trump follows, had retweeted Tuesday one of the clips shared by Fransen.
Not a surprise.
She wants the wall, she wants mass deportations, and she liked the Muslim travel ban.
She has been filled with uncontrolled rage against the entire world of Islam since a personal friend was killed on 9/11, to which her reaction was that we should invade all of the Muslim lands and give them the choice to convert or die - the choice Muslims historically gave conquered peoples who were neither Christian nor Jewish.
She was fired for that from National Review.
Fransen was found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment in November 2016 after abusing a Muslim woman wearing a hijab while she was with her four children.
Fransen was fined by the court and ordered to pay costs.
In a separate development, Fransen was also charged over using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior" during a speech she made in Belfast in Northern Ireland.
She is set to appear at Belfast Magistrates Court on December 14.
New missile test shows North Korea capable of hitting all of US mainland
Soon, they will be able to deliver a functioning nuke to any city in the US.
So, what's the plan?
The time to decide is before they can do that.
If we are going to suck it up, to accept as a new normal that North Korea can nuke us, then we are on the right path, given the evident futility of diplomacy and sanctions.
The alternative is a pre-emptive war that needs to be started before they can nuke us.
Starting a war with North Korea after they can nuke us is obviously out of the question.
And our guarantee to SK that we will fight to defend them against the North will lack credibility, since as soon as it looked like we were doing well enough in such a war to put the NK regime in danger they would nuke us, given they just don't give a shit what actually happens to the people of the peninsula, north or south.
So, do we think Bozo has a plan?
Really?
Who is the man most likely to do the stupidest thing possible in a crisis, if we put him in the White House?
Oh, wait.
One unverified and uninvestigated complaint of unspecified inappropriate behavior and you are gone, now?
That is what the media are saying about how these two guys got fired, overnight.
Matt Lauer.
Garrison Keillor.
On MSNBC, this is being spun as a long overdue cultural change in which "women are being believed".
Update.
NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation
Leave it to The Times to get a better look.
The fast-moving national reckoning over sexual harassment in the workplace reached the highest level of television news on Wednesday when NBC fired Matt Lauer, the co-host of its most profitable franchise, “Today,” following an allegation that he made inappropriate sexual contact with a subordinate.
NBC News told its staff it was firing Mr. Lauer some 34 hours after the woman and her lawyer visited the network headquarters in Midtown Manhattan to share details of her interactions with Mr. Lauer with company executives.
Earlier that day, she had also met with reporters from The New York Times but said she was not ready to discuss it publicly.
“On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer,” Andrew Lack, the NBC News chairman, said in a memo to the staff.
“While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.”
In a division-wide meeting with his staff later in the morning, Mr. Lack said Mr. Lauer’s involvement with the woman began while they were in Sochi, Russia, for the Winter Olympics in 2014, according to two people briefed on the meeting, and that their involvement continued after they returned to New York.
So he got fired for "involvement," though the other party did not?
We are still left with a lot of questions.
Matt Lauer.
Garrison Keillor.
On MSNBC, this is being spun as a long overdue cultural change in which "women are being believed".
Update.
NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation
Leave it to The Times to get a better look.
The fast-moving national reckoning over sexual harassment in the workplace reached the highest level of television news on Wednesday when NBC fired Matt Lauer, the co-host of its most profitable franchise, “Today,” following an allegation that he made inappropriate sexual contact with a subordinate.
NBC News told its staff it was firing Mr. Lauer some 34 hours after the woman and her lawyer visited the network headquarters in Midtown Manhattan to share details of her interactions with Mr. Lauer with company executives.
Earlier that day, she had also met with reporters from The New York Times but said she was not ready to discuss it publicly.
“On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer,” Andrew Lack, the NBC News chairman, said in a memo to the staff.
“While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.”
In a division-wide meeting with his staff later in the morning, Mr. Lack said Mr. Lauer’s involvement with the woman began while they were in Sochi, Russia, for the Winter Olympics in 2014, according to two people briefed on the meeting, and that their involvement continued after they returned to New York.
So he got fired for "involvement," though the other party did not?
We are still left with a lot of questions.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Who was this faker and what was her aim?
To make things worse for Moore by adding fuel to the fire?
To discredit Moore's accusers by being blown as a fake, casting doubt sideways on them?
To discredit WAPO and the accusatorial narrative by being accepted as genuine, then outing herself as a faker, casting discredit on them for insufficient vetting?
Looks like the paper found that out.
Woman Tried to Dupe Washington Post With False Claim About Roy Moore, Paper Says
A woman with ties to a right-wing activist group falsely claimed to The Washington Post that she had conceived a child with Roy S. Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, when she was 15, the newspaper reported on Monday afternoon.
The woman, identified by the paper as Jaime T. Phillips, claimed in recent interviews with reporters that she had an abortion after having sex with Mr. Moore in 1992.
But The Post said that it had discovered inconsistencies in her account and evidence that the woman concocted the sensational claim to try to dupe reporters and coax them into discussing the political impact her story could have on Mr. Moore.
A reporter with The Post confronted the woman about the holes in her story on Wednesday and then Post journalists saw her on Monday morning entering the offices of Project Veritas, a conservative group that films undercover videos.
The organization, led by the activist James O’Keefe, has recently targeted journalists, trying to goad them into revealing biases or unethical schemes to discredit the news media.
“The intent by Project Veritas clearly was to publicize the conversation if we fell for the trap,” Martin Baron, the executive editor at The Post, was quoted as saying. “Because of our customary journalistic rigor, we weren’t fooled.”
To discredit Moore's accusers by being blown as a fake, casting doubt sideways on them?
To discredit WAPO and the accusatorial narrative by being accepted as genuine, then outing herself as a faker, casting discredit on them for insufficient vetting?
Looks like the paper found that out.
Woman Tried to Dupe Washington Post With False Claim About Roy Moore, Paper Says
A woman with ties to a right-wing activist group falsely claimed to The Washington Post that she had conceived a child with Roy S. Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, when she was 15, the newspaper reported on Monday afternoon.
The woman, identified by the paper as Jaime T. Phillips, claimed in recent interviews with reporters that she had an abortion after having sex with Mr. Moore in 1992.
But The Post said that it had discovered inconsistencies in her account and evidence that the woman concocted the sensational claim to try to dupe reporters and coax them into discussing the political impact her story could have on Mr. Moore.
A reporter with The Post confronted the woman about the holes in her story on Wednesday and then Post journalists saw her on Monday morning entering the offices of Project Veritas, a conservative group that films undercover videos.
The organization, led by the activist James O’Keefe, has recently targeted journalists, trying to goad them into revealing biases or unethical schemes to discredit the news media.
“The intent by Project Veritas clearly was to publicize the conversation if we fell for the trap,” Martin Baron, the executive editor at The Post, was quoted as saying. “Because of our customary journalistic rigor, we weren’t fooled.”
Bozo, forgetting he confessed, now lies and denies
His lying is so well known, so constant, and so absurd that no one is the least surprised at the disgusting behavior of this completely shameless and contemptible clown.
If he said it was raining you could not believe him.
He might as well never open his mouth, for all his word is worth.
‘Access Hollywood’ Reminds Trump: ‘The Tape Is Very Real’
Nothing he says would ever get the slightest, faintest coverage for even a nanosecond in actual news media, were he not the fantastic, sickening jackass in The White House.
If he said it was raining you could not believe him.
He might as well never open his mouth, for all his word is worth.
‘Access Hollywood’ Reminds Trump: ‘The Tape Is Very Real’
Nothing he says would ever get the slightest, faintest coverage for even a nanosecond in actual news media, were he not the fantastic, sickening jackass in The White House.
Hm. Will she have to change her race, too?
This was supposed to be a dazzling proof of the new open-mindedness, the new inclusiveness of the Brit monarchy.
Maybe not so much.
Especially bearing in mind that neither she nor Harry nor any of their children will ever have the least shot at the throne.
Meghan Markle, Engaged to Prince Harry, Will Become Anglican, and British
Though I suppose it's just as likely she doesn't take denomination that seriously.
London, like Paris, is worth a mass.
OK, so if the government won't take its own laws seriously . . .
. . . why the hell should anyone else?
Air Force Failed to Report Dozens of Convicted Service Members to Gun Database
A review by the United States Air Force has found several dozen cases where the military failed to report service members convicted of serious crimes to the federal gun background-check databases, Air Force officials said on Tuesday.
The review came after it was discovered that the Air Force failed to report the domestic violence conviction of Devin Kelley, the gunman who killed 26 people at a church in Texas earlier this month.
Under federal law, Mr. Kelley’s court-martial conviction for domestic assault could have prevented him from purchasing the rifle he used in the attack, as well as other guns he acquired over the past four years.
After the Air Force admitted on Nov. 6 that officials at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico had failed to report the results of Mr. Kelley’s court-martial to the federal background database, it launched an investigation into how many other serious convictions had not been reported.
While officials have only examined a portion of the convictions across the Air Force that should have been reported, several dozen cases have already surfaced that were not reported as required.
Air Force Failed to Report Dozens of Convicted Service Members to Gun Database
A review by the United States Air Force has found several dozen cases where the military failed to report service members convicted of serious crimes to the federal gun background-check databases, Air Force officials said on Tuesday.
The review came after it was discovered that the Air Force failed to report the domestic violence conviction of Devin Kelley, the gunman who killed 26 people at a church in Texas earlier this month.
Under federal law, Mr. Kelley’s court-martial conviction for domestic assault could have prevented him from purchasing the rifle he used in the attack, as well as other guns he acquired over the past four years.
After the Air Force admitted on Nov. 6 that officials at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico had failed to report the results of Mr. Kelley’s court-martial to the federal background database, it launched an investigation into how many other serious convictions had not been reported.
While officials have only examined a portion of the convictions across the Air Force that should have been reported, several dozen cases have already surfaced that were not reported as required.
Do these confessions make her a racist?
Can Meghan Markle Save the Monarchy?
Irenosen Okojie shows not the slightest awareness that she might be displaying a sort of minority racism, what racism looks like in a person not of the majority race.
The royals are white and she's not; oh, how alienating.
But now it seems there will be one who is not, anyway not entirely, white.
Oh, how exciting.
How angry she and the editors of this paper would be at some white person who wrote this way about the ruling strata in South Africa.
Admittedly, for the most part, until recently I’d been indifferent to the monarchy.
It felt old-fashioned, an archaic and exclusive institution people of color couldn’t really connect with nor would feel particularly invested in, given its long historical association with colonial projects.
Prince Harry openly and defiantly dating Ms. Markle made me, a black British woman, see the royals slightly differently.
Suddenly they — or Harry, at least — seemed more open-minded. And it wasn’t just me: Other women of color, too, I found, had begun taking notice and talking about the monarchy.
Friends discussed the possibility of an engagement, whether the royals would be forward-thinking enough to give Harry permission.
When the announcement finally came, the reaction from people of color on both sides of the pond was explosive; memes were deployed immediately.
Something was happening; not since Diana, Princess of Wales, has there been this kind of interest from young people in a member of the royal family.
Are we being ushered into a new era where the boundaries of race and class will be blown open in Britain, when people will grow more open-minded about who they can consider as a mate?
This is probably optimistic, though in some ways not: Interracial marriages are on the rise in Britain. In this sense, the prince and Ms. Markle are following, not leading.
What is more intriguing is the question of whether, as a result of this unlikely pairing, more people of color will come to feel they have a stake in the country’s most old-fashioned institution.
. . . .
Harry feels millennial, current, like a prince for our times.
His impact on modernizing the royal family’s image cannot be underestimated.
He’s made the royals seem more in touch with the public.
His union with Ms. Markle has shaken to the core the country’s ideas about who is entitled to a seat at the royal table.
We live in strange times, with an American president who panders to right-wing hate, in a world that seems to have taken several steps backward.
And so in these times, when a British prince goes against both royal and societal norms to propose to his biracial girlfriend, it’s worth taking a moment to smile.
Irenosen Okojie shows not the slightest awareness that she might be displaying a sort of minority racism, what racism looks like in a person not of the majority race.
The royals are white and she's not; oh, how alienating.
But now it seems there will be one who is not, anyway not entirely, white.
Oh, how exciting.
How angry she and the editors of this paper would be at some white person who wrote this way about the ruling strata in South Africa.
Admittedly, for the most part, until recently I’d been indifferent to the monarchy.
It felt old-fashioned, an archaic and exclusive institution people of color couldn’t really connect with nor would feel particularly invested in, given its long historical association with colonial projects.
Prince Harry openly and defiantly dating Ms. Markle made me, a black British woman, see the royals slightly differently.
Suddenly they — or Harry, at least — seemed more open-minded. And it wasn’t just me: Other women of color, too, I found, had begun taking notice and talking about the monarchy.
Friends discussed the possibility of an engagement, whether the royals would be forward-thinking enough to give Harry permission.
When the announcement finally came, the reaction from people of color on both sides of the pond was explosive; memes were deployed immediately.
Something was happening; not since Diana, Princess of Wales, has there been this kind of interest from young people in a member of the royal family.
Are we being ushered into a new era where the boundaries of race and class will be blown open in Britain, when people will grow more open-minded about who they can consider as a mate?
This is probably optimistic, though in some ways not: Interracial marriages are on the rise in Britain. In this sense, the prince and Ms. Markle are following, not leading.
What is more intriguing is the question of whether, as a result of this unlikely pairing, more people of color will come to feel they have a stake in the country’s most old-fashioned institution.
. . . .
Harry feels millennial, current, like a prince for our times.
His impact on modernizing the royal family’s image cannot be underestimated.
He’s made the royals seem more in touch with the public.
His union with Ms. Markle has shaken to the core the country’s ideas about who is entitled to a seat at the royal table.
We live in strange times, with an American president who panders to right-wing hate, in a world that seems to have taken several steps backward.
And so in these times, when a British prince goes against both royal and societal norms to propose to his biracial girlfriend, it’s worth taking a moment to smile.
Pig pile on Trump, again
Trump called Senator Warren "Pocahontas," again, in connection with a ceremony honoring Navajo participation in The Second World War.
The whining will go on about how offended the Navajos, and indeed all Native Americans everywhere, and all other right-thinking and decent people were, until something else comes along with which to bash him.
Navajo Nation president calls Trump's 'Pocahontas' quip an ethnic slur
MSNBC took the occasion to remind us that Trump's sins against the sensibilities of Native Americans include honoring Columbus this past October, as well as mocking the Massachusetts senator who famously claimed minority status to participate in some academic benefit by asserting she had one great grandparent who was an Indian.
That is not remotely enough to qualify for membership in any tribe in America.
And there is not a Canuck on the planet who cannot do that well or better.
When it suits their party interests, the Democrats will start telling us how insensitive and even racist it is to remind the Germans of Hitler, and of how we and the Russians crushed them in The Second World War.
The whining will go on about how offended the Navajos, and indeed all Native Americans everywhere, and all other right-thinking and decent people were, until something else comes along with which to bash him.
Navajo Nation president calls Trump's 'Pocahontas' quip an ethnic slur
MSNBC took the occasion to remind us that Trump's sins against the sensibilities of Native Americans include honoring Columbus this past October, as well as mocking the Massachusetts senator who famously claimed minority status to participate in some academic benefit by asserting she had one great grandparent who was an Indian.
That is not remotely enough to qualify for membership in any tribe in America.
And there is not a Canuck on the planet who cannot do that well or better.
When it suits their party interests, the Democrats will start telling us how insensitive and even racist it is to remind the Germans of Hitler, and of how we and the Russians crushed them in The Second World War.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Who expects consistency from courts, any more?
The hobgoblin of small minds, said Emerson, a vain and rather fatuous New England Protestant cleric (a cleric! of course!) who earned a fan in Nietzsche, of all people.
Supremes refuse to hear NRA suit
The challengers, who had sued Maryland's governor and other officials in 2013, appealed a February ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia that upheld the state's law.
The 4th Circuit said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to "weapons of war," and it found little evidence such guns were well-suited for self-defense.
Oddly, it is well known the Second Amendment, when adopted, was intended to guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear weapons of war, weapons available and suitable for use when on active duty in the militia, though the guaranteed right is not contingent on their doing so or even on the militia continuing to exist.
And that was in fact the rationale behind the votes of conservatives who in recent years made it orthodox, the reigning court view.
Then Scalia died.
And, anyway, the judges of the Fourth are not the Supremes.
Supremes refuse to hear NRA suit
The challengers, who had sued Maryland's governor and other officials in 2013, appealed a February ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia that upheld the state's law.
The 4th Circuit said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to "weapons of war," and it found little evidence such guns were well-suited for self-defense.
Oddly, it is well known the Second Amendment, when adopted, was intended to guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear weapons of war, weapons available and suitable for use when on active duty in the militia, though the guaranteed right is not contingent on their doing so or even on the militia continuing to exist.
And that was in fact the rationale behind the votes of conservatives who in recent years made it orthodox, the reigning court view.
Then Scalia died.
And, anyway, the judges of the Fourth are not the Supremes.
The new kleptocratic tyrant bought out the old one
Le chiffre du jour. Robert Mugabe touchera un pactole de 10 millions de dollars
How they got him out last week.
Le nouveau pouvoir du Zimbabwe a accordé la somme de 10 millions de dollars (8,4 millions d’euros) à Robert Mugabe, avec une immunité judiciaire totale, après qu’il a accepté de démissionner le 21 novembre, selon le journal zimbabwéen Zimbabwe Independent.
Cette somme inclut le versement immédiat de 5 millions de dollars, un salaire mensuel, et le remboursement de ses frais médicaux et de déplacements à l’étranger.
“D’après notre enquête, les négociateurs de Mugabe sont parvenus à un accord avec les généraux : l’ancien président, qui est âgé de 93 ans, ne sera pas envoyé en exil mais pourra profiter pleinement de sa retraite au Zimbabwe”, raconte le journal d’Harare.
I told you real tyrants die old, rich, and full of honors.
Of course, his future is not without risk, especially if he stays in Zimbabwe.
As Aristotle warned, call no man happy until he is dead.
Puigdemont and his Europhobe Catalan independence movement
L’ex-président catalan Puigdemont attaque l’UE
The summary at the opening of the story:
Carles Puigdemont, réfugié à Bruxelles, qualifie l’Union européenne de “club de pays décadents” et n’hésite pas à évoquer un “Catexit”.
Il rompt ainsi avec la tradition européiste du nationalisme catalan et se rapproche des europhobes comme Marine Le Pen, note la presse espagnole.
Snips.
Carles Puigdemont, le président catalan destitué et réfugié à Bruxelles, a lancé une charge en règle contre l’Union Européenne, “un club de pays décadents, obsolètes, gouverné par une petite poignée de personnes et, qui plus est, très liés à des intérêts économiques de plus en plus contestables”.
Des déclarations faites à la télévision israélienne Canal 1 Kan, qui en a émis des extraits – l’intégralité doit être diffusée ce lundi 27 novembre – repris par le quotidien catalan La Vanguardia.
Ambigu, Carles Puigdemont se déclare partisan de l’UE, tout en assurant qu’il va “travailler à la changer”.
Mais il n’écarte pas un “Catexit” : “Ceux qui doivent prendre cette décision sont les Catalans, comme devraient le faire les autres peuples européens. Voulez-vous appartenir à cette Union européenne ? Et dans quelles conditions ? Nous verrons ce que dit le peuple de Catalogne.”
Entre les lignes, l’ex-président catalan reproche à l’UE l’absence de soutien au processus séparatiste de la région.
Les pays membres ont toujours considéré que le référendum du 1er octobre, et son annulation par le Tribunal constitutionnel, était une affaire intérieure espagnole.
. . . .
Puigdemont s’est réfugié à Bruxelles après la déclaration unilatérale d’indépendance et la mise sous tutelle de la région le 27 octobre.
. . . .
“La fuite en avant antieuropéenne de Puigdemont”, titre pour sa part le quotidien madrilène El PaÃs, qui compare ses déclarations “à celle des europhobes comme [le leader de l’Ukip britannique] Nigel Farage et [la présidente du Front national] Marine Le Pen”.
Le parti de l’ex-président est donné comme le grand perdant des élections anticipées prévues le 21 décembre.
The summary at the opening of the story:
Carles Puigdemont, réfugié à Bruxelles, qualifie l’Union européenne de “club de pays décadents” et n’hésite pas à évoquer un “Catexit”.
Il rompt ainsi avec la tradition européiste du nationalisme catalan et se rapproche des europhobes comme Marine Le Pen, note la presse espagnole.
Snips.
Carles Puigdemont, le président catalan destitué et réfugié à Bruxelles, a lancé une charge en règle contre l’Union Européenne, “un club de pays décadents, obsolètes, gouverné par une petite poignée de personnes et, qui plus est, très liés à des intérêts économiques de plus en plus contestables”.
Des déclarations faites à la télévision israélienne Canal 1 Kan, qui en a émis des extraits – l’intégralité doit être diffusée ce lundi 27 novembre – repris par le quotidien catalan La Vanguardia.
Ambigu, Carles Puigdemont se déclare partisan de l’UE, tout en assurant qu’il va “travailler à la changer”.
Mais il n’écarte pas un “Catexit” : “Ceux qui doivent prendre cette décision sont les Catalans, comme devraient le faire les autres peuples européens. Voulez-vous appartenir à cette Union européenne ? Et dans quelles conditions ? Nous verrons ce que dit le peuple de Catalogne.”
Entre les lignes, l’ex-président catalan reproche à l’UE l’absence de soutien au processus séparatiste de la région.
Les pays membres ont toujours considéré que le référendum du 1er octobre, et son annulation par le Tribunal constitutionnel, était une affaire intérieure espagnole.
. . . .
Puigdemont s’est réfugié à Bruxelles après la déclaration unilatérale d’indépendance et la mise sous tutelle de la région le 27 octobre.
. . . .
“La fuite en avant antieuropéenne de Puigdemont”, titre pour sa part le quotidien madrilène El PaÃs, qui compare ses déclarations “à celle des europhobes comme [le leader de l’Ukip britannique] Nigel Farage et [la présidente du Front national] Marine Le Pen”.
Le parti de l’ex-président est donné comme le grand perdant des élections anticipées prévues le 21 décembre.
The faith of our fathers in Sweden
Religion in Sweden
[R]eligion in Sweden plays a limited role compared to the European average, and even many church members participate in religious activities for only cultural reasons, and do not believe in Christianity.
Atheism and agnosticism are widespread in Swedish society.
In a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, just 18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god", although a further 45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
In a 2009 Gallup poll, 17% answered yes to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?".
A survey found that only 15% of Church of Sweden members actually believe in Jesus, while another 15% identified as atheists, and a quarter as agnostic.
Less than 4% of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2% are regular attendees.
Some scholars consider the nation to be a place where religion is regarded with “benign indifference”.
In a land where virtually nobody goes to church or believes actual Christianity, any more, anyway, the unbelievers in charge of the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Church have done this.
En Suède, Dieu n’est plus un homme
Voilà des années que l’église suédoise – évangélique luthérienne – se demande si Dieu est un homme ou une femme.
Or, jeudi 23 novembre, l’église a tranché. Dorénavant, elle utilisera le pronom personnel neutre, hen, pour parler de Dieu, explique le quotidien suédois Svenska Dagbladet.
Le pronom hen a été adopté en Suède en 2015, au nom de l’égalité des genres. Le pronom est appliqué dans les cas où l’on ne sait pas s’il s’agit d’un homme ou d’une femme.
Par ailleurs, on n’entendra plus, dans les églises suédoises, la formule “Au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit”. Elle sera remplacée par “Au nom de Dieu, le Trinitaire”.
L’idée, derrière ce changement voté avec une large majorité par la direction de l’Église est de rendre le langage de l’église plus “inclusif”.
. . . .
L’archevêque de la Suède, Antje Jackelén, rétorque que l’idée de rendre le langage plus inclusif n’est pas nouvelle.
Elle ajoute : "Théologiquement, nous savons que Dieu est au-delà de nos déterminations du genre. Dieu n’est pas un être humain.”
She didn't find that anywhere in either Testament, Old or New.
All the same, the Christian churches from the time of the Fathers (smile) have held God to be bodiless and so have been far from intelligible in talk of God the Father, God the Son, and the eternal generation, not creation, of the latter by the former, alone, though the two are merely distinct persons within the same one and indivisible individual substance.
And don't get me started on the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son.
Or just one of them, according to the Greeks.
Si cette décision a été prise maintenant, c’est parce qu’il fallait mettre à jour le manuel de l’Église – Kyrkohandboken –, qui décide du langage, de la musique, de la liturgie et de la théologie des messes en Suède.
Le nouveau manuel sera mis en application à compter de mai 2018.
[R]eligion in Sweden plays a limited role compared to the European average, and even many church members participate in religious activities for only cultural reasons, and do not believe in Christianity.
Atheism and agnosticism are widespread in Swedish society.
In a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, just 18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god", although a further 45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
In a 2009 Gallup poll, 17% answered yes to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?".
A survey found that only 15% of Church of Sweden members actually believe in Jesus, while another 15% identified as atheists, and a quarter as agnostic.
Less than 4% of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2% are regular attendees.
Some scholars consider the nation to be a place where religion is regarded with “benign indifference”.
In a land where virtually nobody goes to church or believes actual Christianity, any more, anyway, the unbelievers in charge of the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Church have done this.
En Suède, Dieu n’est plus un homme
Voilà des années que l’église suédoise – évangélique luthérienne – se demande si Dieu est un homme ou une femme.
Or, jeudi 23 novembre, l’église a tranché. Dorénavant, elle utilisera le pronom personnel neutre, hen, pour parler de Dieu, explique le quotidien suédois Svenska Dagbladet.
Le pronom hen a été adopté en Suède en 2015, au nom de l’égalité des genres. Le pronom est appliqué dans les cas où l’on ne sait pas s’il s’agit d’un homme ou d’une femme.
Par ailleurs, on n’entendra plus, dans les églises suédoises, la formule “Au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit”. Elle sera remplacée par “Au nom de Dieu, le Trinitaire”.
L’idée, derrière ce changement voté avec une large majorité par la direction de l’Église est de rendre le langage de l’église plus “inclusif”.
. . . .
L’archevêque de la Suède, Antje Jackelén, rétorque que l’idée de rendre le langage plus inclusif n’est pas nouvelle.
Elle ajoute : "Théologiquement, nous savons que Dieu est au-delà de nos déterminations du genre. Dieu n’est pas un être humain.”
She didn't find that anywhere in either Testament, Old or New.
All the same, the Christian churches from the time of the Fathers (smile) have held God to be bodiless and so have been far from intelligible in talk of God the Father, God the Son, and the eternal generation, not creation, of the latter by the former, alone, though the two are merely distinct persons within the same one and indivisible individual substance.
And don't get me started on the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son.
Or just one of them, according to the Greeks.
Si cette décision a été prise maintenant, c’est parce qu’il fallait mettre à jour le manuel de l’Église – Kyrkohandboken –, qui décide du langage, de la musique, de la liturgie et de la théologie des messes en Suède.
Le nouveau manuel sera mis en application à compter de mai 2018.
Third party doctrine is a gaping hole in privacy in the age of cell phones and the web
Cops, Cellphones and Privacy at the Supreme Court
The Times' Editorial Board.
[The third party doctrine] was developed in the 1970s and holds that people have no expectation of privacy when information has been voluntarily shared with a third party, like a cellphone service provider.
. . . .
What should the Supreme Court do when a decades-old doctrine from the age of rotary-dial phones and Yellow Pages stops making sense in the face of rapid, unforeseen technological advances?
The answer is to revise it, if not throw it out altogether.
This would not involve reliance on the idea of a Living Constitution, since the amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and changing technology changes what is or is not unreasonable.
As, precisely, in this case.
The Times' Editorial Board.
[The third party doctrine] was developed in the 1970s and holds that people have no expectation of privacy when information has been voluntarily shared with a third party, like a cellphone service provider.
. . . .
What should the Supreme Court do when a decades-old doctrine from the age of rotary-dial phones and Yellow Pages stops making sense in the face of rapid, unforeseen technological advances?
The answer is to revise it, if not throw it out altogether.
This would not involve reliance on the idea of a Living Constitution, since the amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and changing technology changes what is or is not unreasonable.
As, precisely, in this case.
Who might not vote for the current senate tax bill this week?
The Republicans in the senate want to bring their bill to a vote this week.
Will These Senators Live Up to Their Own Principles?
For McCain, the principle is the Senate itself.
His current term is probably his last, given his cancer diagnosis, and he has been making a righteous stand on the behalf of the Senate — that it should aspire to greatness rather than operating as a banana-republic legislature that rams through bills.
The tax bill violates that stand.
. . . .
For Collins and Murkowski, the principle is health care. More specifically, it’s decent health care for the working-class families who dominate their home states of Maine and Alaska.
The two of them were the most consistent Senate opponents of the bills this year that would have taken insurance away from millions.
Now the tax bill threatens to undo some of their good work.
The repeal of the mandate would create turmoil in insurance markets, because fewer healthy people would sign up for coverage, raising prices for everyone else.
Collins opposes the measure for that reason, while Murkowski supports it if it’s paired with other measures to stabilize health markets.
But those measures would need to be sweeping to make up for the damage.
Then there are Corker, Flake, Lankford and Moran.
Their principle is the deficit.
“We don’t want to increase the debt and deficit as a result of tax cuts,” Moran said.
If the bill adds “one penny to the deficit,” Corker said, he wouldn’t support it.
The current Senate plan adds more than 100 trillion pennies to the deficit in the first decade, according to the official estimate.
And that estimate is probably low, because the plan depends on a budgetary gimmick.
Will These Senators Live Up to Their Own Principles?
For McCain, the principle is the Senate itself.
His current term is probably his last, given his cancer diagnosis, and he has been making a righteous stand on the behalf of the Senate — that it should aspire to greatness rather than operating as a banana-republic legislature that rams through bills.
The tax bill violates that stand.
. . . .
For Collins and Murkowski, the principle is health care. More specifically, it’s decent health care for the working-class families who dominate their home states of Maine and Alaska.
The two of them were the most consistent Senate opponents of the bills this year that would have taken insurance away from millions.
Now the tax bill threatens to undo some of their good work.
The repeal of the mandate would create turmoil in insurance markets, because fewer healthy people would sign up for coverage, raising prices for everyone else.
Collins opposes the measure for that reason, while Murkowski supports it if it’s paired with other measures to stabilize health markets.
But those measures would need to be sweeping to make up for the damage.
Then there are Corker, Flake, Lankford and Moran.
Their principle is the deficit.
“We don’t want to increase the debt and deficit as a result of tax cuts,” Moran said.
If the bill adds “one penny to the deficit,” Corker said, he wouldn’t support it.
The current Senate plan adds more than 100 trillion pennies to the deficit in the first decade, according to the official estimate.
And that estimate is probably low, because the plan depends on a budgetary gimmick.
MSNBC says it's a race to pack the judiciary
Trump has already appointed 3 times as many federal judges - so many that three or four were called unqualified by the ABA - as Obama did by this point in his presidency.
The Federalist Society, which said in Obama's day when the GOP senate would not appoint his nominees that there were far too many federal judges, now urges the GOP to create over four hundred new federal judgeships, all to be filled by this president and this congress, right now, while they can.
This is the kind of thing they will have a harder time delivering if they lose Roy Moore's seat to a Democrat.
And since it's about abortion and otherwise protecting or increasing the impact on the law of Christian sexual morality this is the sort of thing that endears the slimy Trump and the even worse Moore to Christian Evangelicals, Catholic sociocons, and the Christian Right in general.
The Federalist Society, which said in Obama's day when the GOP senate would not appoint his nominees that there were far too many federal judges, now urges the GOP to create over four hundred new federal judgeships, all to be filled by this president and this congress, right now, while they can.
This is the kind of thing they will have a harder time delivering if they lose Roy Moore's seat to a Democrat.
And since it's about abortion and otherwise protecting or increasing the impact on the law of Christian sexual morality this is the sort of thing that endears the slimy Trump and the even worse Moore to Christian Evangelicals, Catholic sociocons, and the Christian Right in general.
"Judeofundamentalism" is the true name of Jewish Orthodoxy
The Ultra-Orthodox are just more militant.
Sabbath Railway Work in Israel Shakes Netanyahu’s Coalition
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, already embroiled in corruption scandals, scrambled on Sunday to stabilize his governing coalition after an ultra-Orthodox minister in his cabinet, citing Jewish values, resigned on his rabbi’s orders.
Yaakov Litzman, the health minister, quit in protest over railroad repair work that was carried out on Saturday, the Jewish day of rest.
Though the government did not appear to be in imminent danger of collapse, the resurgence of the Sabbath wars, a perennial issue in Israeli politics, was just the kind of trouble that some analysts said could eventually unravel the coalition and lead to early elections.
Sabbath Railway Work in Israel Shakes Netanyahu’s Coalition
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, already embroiled in corruption scandals, scrambled on Sunday to stabilize his governing coalition after an ultra-Orthodox minister in his cabinet, citing Jewish values, resigned on his rabbi’s orders.
Yaakov Litzman, the health minister, quit in protest over railroad repair work that was carried out on Saturday, the Jewish day of rest.
Though the government did not appear to be in imminent danger of collapse, the resurgence of the Sabbath wars, a perennial issue in Israeli politics, was just the kind of trouble that some analysts said could eventually unravel the coalition and lead to early elections.
Islamofundamentalists win the soft Jihad in Pakistan, again.
Pakistan Strikes Deal With Islamist Protesters in Islamabad
Pakistan’s government struck a deal on Monday with leaders of a fundamentalist Islamist protest movement, saying that the country’s law minister would step down in return for an end to demonstrations that had brought violent clashes and paralyzed the Pakistani capital for weeks.
The embattled law minister, Zahid Hamid, whom protesters had accused of blasphemy, was set to resign as part of negotiations overseen by Pakistan’s military, officials said.
That is, of course, the one and only thing the demonstrators have demanded from the start.
So, for "strikes a deal" read "surrenders".
And no one is fooled.
Public anger over the protest’s disruption of Islamabad had been growing by the day, and the agreement was widely seen as another in a string of capitulations by the government to religious extremists who command growing popularity in Pakistan.
Was this secretly part of the deal?
A late add-on demand on which the government was willing to surrender if it was kept dark?
Just a few days before, a judicial panel ordered the release of the Islamist militant leader Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.
Though Mr. Saeed stands accused in the deadly Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 and is wanted internationally as a terrorist leader and financier, he also enjoys huge popularity in Pakistan, and was seen as very likely to publicly take up leadership of a political party started by his inner circle.
Pakistan’s government struck a deal on Monday with leaders of a fundamentalist Islamist protest movement, saying that the country’s law minister would step down in return for an end to demonstrations that had brought violent clashes and paralyzed the Pakistani capital for weeks.
The embattled law minister, Zahid Hamid, whom protesters had accused of blasphemy, was set to resign as part of negotiations overseen by Pakistan’s military, officials said.
That is, of course, the one and only thing the demonstrators have demanded from the start.
So, for "strikes a deal" read "surrenders".
And no one is fooled.
Public anger over the protest’s disruption of Islamabad had been growing by the day, and the agreement was widely seen as another in a string of capitulations by the government to religious extremists who command growing popularity in Pakistan.
Was this secretly part of the deal?
A late add-on demand on which the government was willing to surrender if it was kept dark?
Just a few days before, a judicial panel ordered the release of the Islamist militant leader Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.
Though Mr. Saeed stands accused in the deadly Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 and is wanted internationally as a terrorist leader and financier, he also enjoys huge popularity in Pakistan, and was seen as very likely to publicly take up leadership of a political party started by his inner circle.
Will this shake up as many Brit whites as Barack Obama's presidency did America's?
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle make first appearance after engagement
Britain's Prince Harry and the American actor Meghan Markle have made their first public appearance since their engagement was announced earlier Monday.
The couple appeared at a photocall in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace in London on Monday afternoon, where Harry told reporters he knew Markle was "the one" from "the very first time we met."
The Prince declined to elaborate on his proposal to Markle, but when asked whether it was romantic, he smiled and said, "of course it was."
What happened to "actress"?
Does it survive only during awards ceremonies?
Will it be replaced by "female actor," which is what it means, or just "woman" and "female"?
Meghan Markle
In an article for Elle UK in 2015, Markle wrote about the difficulty of forging a career as a biracial actor.
(Her mother is African-American and her father is Caucasian.)
"Being 'ethnically ambiguous,' as I was pegged in the industry, meant I could audition for virtually any role," she wrote.
"Sadly, it didn't matter: I wasn't black enough for the black roles and I wasn't white enough for the white ones, leaving me somewhere in the middle as the ethnic chameleon who couldn't book a job."
She spoke highly of the producers of "Suits" who "weren't looking for someone mixed, nor someone white or black for that matter. They were simply looking for Rachel."
MSNBC says she is a divorcee, too.
Somebody hire a barber for the palace, please.
Britain's Prince Harry and the American actor Meghan Markle have made their first public appearance since their engagement was announced earlier Monday.
The couple appeared at a photocall in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace in London on Monday afternoon, where Harry told reporters he knew Markle was "the one" from "the very first time we met."
The Prince declined to elaborate on his proposal to Markle, but when asked whether it was romantic, he smiled and said, "of course it was."
What happened to "actress"?
Does it survive only during awards ceremonies?
Will it be replaced by "female actor," which is what it means, or just "woman" and "female"?
Meghan Markle
In an article for Elle UK in 2015, Markle wrote about the difficulty of forging a career as a biracial actor.
(Her mother is African-American and her father is Caucasian.)
"Being 'ethnically ambiguous,' as I was pegged in the industry, meant I could audition for virtually any role," she wrote.
"Sadly, it didn't matter: I wasn't black enough for the black roles and I wasn't white enough for the white ones, leaving me somewhere in the middle as the ethnic chameleon who couldn't book a job."
She spoke highly of the producers of "Suits" who "weren't looking for someone mixed, nor someone white or black for that matter. They were simply looking for Rachel."
MSNBC says she is a divorcee, too.
Somebody hire a barber for the palace, please.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Are brilliant musicians sometimes just nerds?
See the photo of Stan Getz on the cover of his album, Stan Getz - the essential recordings.
It hurts to look.
Still, a lot of the music is really nice.
It hurts to look.
Still, a lot of the music is really nice.
A little too quick
L’échec de l’Égypte face au terrorisme dans le Sinaï
Le terrible attentat qui a visé la mosquée d’Al-Rawda signe la faillite de la stratégie répressive du président Al-Sissi dans le Sinaï, une région de plus en plus sous l’emprise de terroristes affiliés à l’État islamique.
C’est l’analyse de la presse internationale au lendemain du carnage.
Considering Egypt is in the heart of the Middle East and there is no actual alternative when dealing with terrorists and their allies, maybe we need to give it another few decades.
Le terrible attentat qui a visé la mosquée d’Al-Rawda signe la faillite de la stratégie répressive du président Al-Sissi dans le Sinaï, une région de plus en plus sous l’emprise de terroristes affiliés à l’État islamique.
C’est l’analyse de la presse internationale au lendemain du carnage.
Considering Egypt is in the heart of the Middle East and there is no actual alternative when dealing with terrorists and their allies, maybe we need to give it another few decades.
Well, you could have asked
People are saying that, in today's atmosphere, somebody like Clinton would have had to resign.
Had to?
Bosh.
The only way to force out a president is to impeach, and if you can't threaten that you can't squeeze a resignation out of him.
And Nancy Pelosi still insists he was guilty of nothing impeachable, apparently willing to claim that his confessed perjury, though it got him disbarred, was not impeachable.
More about party loyalty, that, or maybe personal loyalty to him or to his wife, than the agenda.
The agenda would have been much better served if he had resigned and let Al Gore, Democrat, serve out the term with a lot more chance of doing some good than he, Bill Clinton, had while the GOP ran out the clock with its impeachment show.
Had to?
Bosh.
The only way to force out a president is to impeach, and if you can't threaten that you can't squeeze a resignation out of him.
And Nancy Pelosi still insists he was guilty of nothing impeachable, apparently willing to claim that his confessed perjury, though it got him disbarred, was not impeachable.
More about party loyalty, that, or maybe personal loyalty to him or to his wife, than the agenda.
The agenda would have been much better served if he had resigned and let Al Gore, Democrat, serve out the term with a lot more chance of doing some good than he, Bill Clinton, had while the GOP ran out the clock with its impeachment show.
Imagine a story about the serial killer next door.
Actually, there have been stories like that.
In The Times.
A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland
In Ohio, amid the row crops and rolling hills, the Olive Gardens and Steak ’n Shakes, Mr. Hovater’s presence can make hardly a ripple.
He is the Nazi sympathizer next door, polite and low-key at a time the old boundaries of accepted political activity can seem alarmingly in flux.
Most Americans would be disgusted and baffled by his casually approving remarks about Hitler, disdain for democracy and belief that the races are better off separate.
But his tattoos are innocuous pop-culture references: a slice of cherry pie adorns one arm, a homage to the TV show “Twin Peaks.”
He says he prefers to spread the gospel of white nationalism with satire.
He is a big “Seinfeld” fan.
. . . .
In 2015, he helped start the Traditionalist Worker Party, one of the extreme right-wing groups that marched in Charlottesville, Va., in August, and again at a “White Lives Matter” rally last month in Tennessee.
The group’s stated mission is to “fight for the interests of White Americans.’’
. . . .
He is adamant that the races are probably better off separated, but he insists he is not racist. He is a white nationalist, he says, not a white supremacist. There were mixed-race couples at the wedding. Mr. Hovater said he was fine with it.
“That’s their thing, man,” he said.
Online it is uglier. On Facebook, Mr. Hovater posted a picture purporting to show what life would have looked like if Germany had won World War II: a streetscape full of happy white people, a bustling American-style diner and swastikas everywhere.
“What part is supposed to look unappealing?” he wrote.
. . . .
After he attended the Charlottesville rally, in which a white nationalist plowed his car into a group of left-wing protesters, killing one of them, Mr. Hovater wrote that he was proud of the comrades who joined him there: “We made history. Hail victory.”
In German, “Hail victory” is “Sieg heil.”
. . . .
It was midday at a Panera Bread, and Mr. Hovater was describing his political awakening over a turkey sandwich.
He mentioned books by Charles Murray and Pat Buchanan.
He talked about his presence on 4chan, the online message board and alt-right breeding ground (“That’s where the scary memes come from,” he deadpanned).
He spoke dispassionately about the injustice of affirmative action, about the “malice directed toward white people” in popular media, about how the cartoon comedy “King of the Hill” was the last TV show to portray “a straight white male patriarch” in a positive light.
. . . .
He declared the widely accepted estimate that six million Jews died in the Holocaust “overblown.” He said that while the Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler wanted to exterminate groups like Slavs and homosexuals, Hitler “was a lot more kind of chill on those subjects.”
“I think he was a guy who really believed in his cause,” he said of Hitler. “He really believed he was fighting for his people and doing what he thought was right.”
He said he wanted to see the United States become “an actually fair, meritocratic society.” Absent that, he would settle for a white ethno-state “where things are fair, because there’s no competing demographics for government power or for resources.”
His fascist ideal, he said, would resemble the early days in the United States, when power was reserved for landowners “and, you know, normies didn’t really have a whole hell of a lot to say.”
And that, of course, was not remotely fascist.
But it was white supremacist to the point of accepting slavery as the proper place for black people in society.
Or anyway in its constitution.
In The Times.
A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland
In Ohio, amid the row crops and rolling hills, the Olive Gardens and Steak ’n Shakes, Mr. Hovater’s presence can make hardly a ripple.
He is the Nazi sympathizer next door, polite and low-key at a time the old boundaries of accepted political activity can seem alarmingly in flux.
Most Americans would be disgusted and baffled by his casually approving remarks about Hitler, disdain for democracy and belief that the races are better off separate.
But his tattoos are innocuous pop-culture references: a slice of cherry pie adorns one arm, a homage to the TV show “Twin Peaks.”
He says he prefers to spread the gospel of white nationalism with satire.
He is a big “Seinfeld” fan.
. . . .
In 2015, he helped start the Traditionalist Worker Party, one of the extreme right-wing groups that marched in Charlottesville, Va., in August, and again at a “White Lives Matter” rally last month in Tennessee.
The group’s stated mission is to “fight for the interests of White Americans.’’
. . . .
He is adamant that the races are probably better off separated, but he insists he is not racist. He is a white nationalist, he says, not a white supremacist. There were mixed-race couples at the wedding. Mr. Hovater said he was fine with it.
“That’s their thing, man,” he said.
Online it is uglier. On Facebook, Mr. Hovater posted a picture purporting to show what life would have looked like if Germany had won World War II: a streetscape full of happy white people, a bustling American-style diner and swastikas everywhere.
“What part is supposed to look unappealing?” he wrote.
. . . .
After he attended the Charlottesville rally, in which a white nationalist plowed his car into a group of left-wing protesters, killing one of them, Mr. Hovater wrote that he was proud of the comrades who joined him there: “We made history. Hail victory.”
In German, “Hail victory” is “Sieg heil.”
. . . .
It was midday at a Panera Bread, and Mr. Hovater was describing his political awakening over a turkey sandwich.
He mentioned books by Charles Murray and Pat Buchanan.
He talked about his presence on 4chan, the online message board and alt-right breeding ground (“That’s where the scary memes come from,” he deadpanned).
He spoke dispassionately about the injustice of affirmative action, about the “malice directed toward white people” in popular media, about how the cartoon comedy “King of the Hill” was the last TV show to portray “a straight white male patriarch” in a positive light.
. . . .
He declared the widely accepted estimate that six million Jews died in the Holocaust “overblown.” He said that while the Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler wanted to exterminate groups like Slavs and homosexuals, Hitler “was a lot more kind of chill on those subjects.”
“I think he was a guy who really believed in his cause,” he said of Hitler. “He really believed he was fighting for his people and doing what he thought was right.”
He said he wanted to see the United States become “an actually fair, meritocratic society.” Absent that, he would settle for a white ethno-state “where things are fair, because there’s no competing demographics for government power or for resources.”
His fascist ideal, he said, would resemble the early days in the United States, when power was reserved for landowners “and, you know, normies didn’t really have a whole hell of a lot to say.”
And that, of course, was not remotely fascist.
But it was white supremacist to the point of accepting slavery as the proper place for black people in society.
Or anyway in its constitution.
The modern culture wars are more global than you might imagine
If your intake of news is all from an American cable network, or even online consultation of the major American sites like CNN or ABC News.
In Her Film About Afghan Life, the Woman Slaps Back
A fascinating story about an interesting feature film.
In Her Film About Afghan Life, the Woman Slaps Back
A fascinating story about an interesting feature film.
The disaster for republicanism and human rights in Burma
Purge of Rohingya Lifts Popular Support for Myanmar’s Top General
This is one of those long and information rich stories the Times is famous for.
It's some three or four times longer than this quoted piece, and all of it worth reading.
The most powerful person in Myanmar now, Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, was little known outside the country’s military circles until the villages started burning.
Within just a few weeks in 2009, his forces drove tens of thousands of people out of two ethnic enclaves in eastern Myanmar — first the Shan, near the Thai border, then the Kokang, closer to China. Locals accused his soldiers of murder, rape and systematic arson.
Two years later, the general, who is scheduled to meet with Pope Francis this week, was promoted to commander-in-chief of the armed forces, in a country where the Constitution keeps the military in power despite the veneer of democratic elections.
The techniques that his forces used in 2009 have all been on display this year as the military has driven more than 620,000 Rohingya Muslims out of Myanmar in a campaign the United States has declared to be ethnic cleansing.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate who is the country’s de facto leader, has been harshly criticized for allowing the Rohingya’s expulsion.
But under the Constitution, which was written by the military, she has no authority over the armed forces.
That is solely the province of General Min Aung Hlaing, 61.
His campaign against the Rohingya has further cemented his status, creating an air of crisis that has galvanized support both within the ranks and the country’s Buddhist majority.
“They are pinching themselves,” David Scott Mathieson, an analyst in Yangon, said about the military leadership.
“They hit the jackpot. They are six years into the democracy era, and they are more popular than in decades.”
General Min Aung Hlaing has effectively sidelined Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose electoral landslide in 2015 blocked a potential path for him to become president of Myanmar, also known as Burma.
She is barred in the Constitution from becoming president and heads the government under the title she created, “state counselor.”
She and the general rarely meet or speak to each other.
And as his military offensive continues, it is deeply undermining Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s international standing.
“Aung San Suu Kyi and her government are a human shield for the military against international and domestic criticism,” said Mark Farmaner, director of the London-based Burma Campaign U.K.
General Min Aung Hlaing’s power includes appointing three key cabinet members, overseeing the police and border guards, and presiding over two large business conglomerates.
He fills a quarter of Parliament’s seats, enough to block any constitutional amendment that would limit his authority.
This is one of those long and information rich stories the Times is famous for.
It's some three or four times longer than this quoted piece, and all of it worth reading.
The most powerful person in Myanmar now, Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, was little known outside the country’s military circles until the villages started burning.
Within just a few weeks in 2009, his forces drove tens of thousands of people out of two ethnic enclaves in eastern Myanmar — first the Shan, near the Thai border, then the Kokang, closer to China. Locals accused his soldiers of murder, rape and systematic arson.
Two years later, the general, who is scheduled to meet with Pope Francis this week, was promoted to commander-in-chief of the armed forces, in a country where the Constitution keeps the military in power despite the veneer of democratic elections.
The techniques that his forces used in 2009 have all been on display this year as the military has driven more than 620,000 Rohingya Muslims out of Myanmar in a campaign the United States has declared to be ethnic cleansing.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate who is the country’s de facto leader, has been harshly criticized for allowing the Rohingya’s expulsion.
But under the Constitution, which was written by the military, she has no authority over the armed forces.
That is solely the province of General Min Aung Hlaing, 61.
His campaign against the Rohingya has further cemented his status, creating an air of crisis that has galvanized support both within the ranks and the country’s Buddhist majority.
“They are pinching themselves,” David Scott Mathieson, an analyst in Yangon, said about the military leadership.
“They hit the jackpot. They are six years into the democracy era, and they are more popular than in decades.”
General Min Aung Hlaing has effectively sidelined Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose electoral landslide in 2015 blocked a potential path for him to become president of Myanmar, also known as Burma.
She is barred in the Constitution from becoming president and heads the government under the title she created, “state counselor.”
She and the general rarely meet or speak to each other.
And as his military offensive continues, it is deeply undermining Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s international standing.
“Aung San Suu Kyi and her government are a human shield for the military against international and domestic criticism,” said Mark Farmaner, director of the London-based Burma Campaign U.K.
General Min Aung Hlaing’s power includes appointing three key cabinet members, overseeing the police and border guards, and presiding over two large business conglomerates.
He fills a quarter of Parliament’s seats, enough to block any constitutional amendment that would limit his authority.
The way of a judge with a constitution
Apparently, the Indian constitution is also alive and thrashing about in a socially liberal direction.
India’s Gay Rights Activists Seize Momentum After Landmark Ruling
If the parade atmosphere seemed even more buoyant than usual, it may have been because a major victory was in sight for gay rights in this country.
In a landmark decision in August, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the country’s citizens had a constitutional right to privacy.
In its judgment, the court made special note of the gay community, writing that “sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy.”
For lawyers building a case against a colonial-era law, known as Section 377, that criminalizes sex between men in India, the ruling was welcome news.
And it has renewed some hope for the repeal of other repressive laws, including one requiring the “registration and control of eunuchs” and marital rape exceptions in the Indian Penal Code.
India’s Gay Rights Activists Seize Momentum After Landmark Ruling
If the parade atmosphere seemed even more buoyant than usual, it may have been because a major victory was in sight for gay rights in this country.
In a landmark decision in August, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the country’s citizens had a constitutional right to privacy.
In its judgment, the court made special note of the gay community, writing that “sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy.”
For lawyers building a case against a colonial-era law, known as Section 377, that criminalizes sex between men in India, the ruling was welcome news.
And it has renewed some hope for the repeal of other repressive laws, including one requiring the “registration and control of eunuchs” and marital rape exceptions in the Indian Penal Code.
All about the agenda
Trump Urges Voters to Pick Roy Moore Instead of ‘Liberal Jones’
And, anyway, sex criminals need to stick together.
With a little more than two weeks until a special election for the Senate in Alabama, President Trump on Sunday [today - PV] doubled down on his criticism of the Democratic nominee, Doug Jones, and reiterated his support for Roy S. Moore, the Republican candidate, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women.
“The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer/Pelosi puppet who is WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, Bad for our Military and our great Vets, Bad for our 2nd Amendment, AND WANTS TO RAISES TAXES TO THE SKY,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Sunday morning.
“Liberal Jones would be BAD!” he tweeted less than an hour later.
Why Trump Stands by Roy Moore, Even as It Fractures His Party
Mr. Trump’s decision to reject every long-shot plan to save the Senate seat reflects the imperative that an unpopular president faces to retain his political base, a determination that he should follow his own instincts after having felt steered into a disastrous earlier endorsement in the Alabama race, and even his insistence that he himself has been the victim of false accusations of sexual misconduct.
. . . .
But in tying himself to Mr. Moore even as congressional leaders have abandoned the candidate en masse, the president has reignited hostilities with his own party just as Senate Republicans are rushing to pass a politically crucial tax overhaul.
Mr. McConnell and his allies have been particularly infuriated as Mr. Trump has reacted with indifference to a series of ideas they have floated to try to block Mr. Moore.
. . . .
[Trump] sees the calls for Mr. Moore to step aside as a version of the response to the now-famous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he boasted about grabbing women’s genitalia, and the flood of groping accusations against him that followed soon after.
. . . .
Absent action from Mr. Trump, party leaders have explored — and abandoned — a number of ways to derail Mr. Moore.
They considered recruiting another Republican to run a write-in campaign against Mr. Moore and Mr. Jones, but two private polls showed that such a candidacy would have no chance of success.
. . . .
Mr. McConnell and his allies have believed for weeks that disaster awaits, win or lose, if Mr. Moore remains in the race: Either the Democrats will claim the seat on Dec. 12, or Mr. Moore will win and thrust the party into an agonizing monthslong debate over whether to expel him.
. . . .
The Senate leader has told fellow Republicans in private that Mr. Moore’s nomination has endangered the party’s hold on the Senate, according to people who have spoken with him — his starkest acknowledgment so far that the political environment has turned sharply against his party since Mr. Trump’s election.
Mr. McConnell has also reiterated his intention to move against Mr. Moore if he is elected, though Mr. McConnell has made clear that he thinks that the candidate is unlikely to win.
Clearly, if the GOP ejects Moore from the senate the Democrats plan to attack their action as undemocratic, both seeking votes and seeking to widen the chasm between Moore's Trumpist supporters and the DC Republicans.
. . . .
Should Mr. Jones win, Democrats would need to take only two more seats in 2018 to regain a majority in the Senate — still a difficult task, but one nearly unimaginable just a month ago.
A victory for Mr. Moore could be just as punishing for Republicans, because it could taint their candidates across the country by association with a man accused of child molestation.
That last, of course, is a lie by a New York Times writers.
Moore is not accused of child molestation, but of sexual misconduct with a number of young women of legal age and exactly one fourteen year old.
And, anyway, sex criminals need to stick together.
With a little more than two weeks until a special election for the Senate in Alabama, President Trump on Sunday [today - PV] doubled down on his criticism of the Democratic nominee, Doug Jones, and reiterated his support for Roy S. Moore, the Republican candidate, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women.
“The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer/Pelosi puppet who is WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, Bad for our Military and our great Vets, Bad for our 2nd Amendment, AND WANTS TO RAISES TAXES TO THE SKY,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Sunday morning.
“Liberal Jones would be BAD!” he tweeted less than an hour later.
Why Trump Stands by Roy Moore, Even as It Fractures His Party
Mr. Trump’s decision to reject every long-shot plan to save the Senate seat reflects the imperative that an unpopular president faces to retain his political base, a determination that he should follow his own instincts after having felt steered into a disastrous earlier endorsement in the Alabama race, and even his insistence that he himself has been the victim of false accusations of sexual misconduct.
. . . .
But in tying himself to Mr. Moore even as congressional leaders have abandoned the candidate en masse, the president has reignited hostilities with his own party just as Senate Republicans are rushing to pass a politically crucial tax overhaul.
Mr. McConnell and his allies have been particularly infuriated as Mr. Trump has reacted with indifference to a series of ideas they have floated to try to block Mr. Moore.
. . . .
[Trump] sees the calls for Mr. Moore to step aside as a version of the response to the now-famous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he boasted about grabbing women’s genitalia, and the flood of groping accusations against him that followed soon after.
. . . .
Absent action from Mr. Trump, party leaders have explored — and abandoned — a number of ways to derail Mr. Moore.
They considered recruiting another Republican to run a write-in campaign against Mr. Moore and Mr. Jones, but two private polls showed that such a candidacy would have no chance of success.
. . . .
Mr. McConnell and his allies have believed for weeks that disaster awaits, win or lose, if Mr. Moore remains in the race: Either the Democrats will claim the seat on Dec. 12, or Mr. Moore will win and thrust the party into an agonizing monthslong debate over whether to expel him.
. . . .
The Senate leader has told fellow Republicans in private that Mr. Moore’s nomination has endangered the party’s hold on the Senate, according to people who have spoken with him — his starkest acknowledgment so far that the political environment has turned sharply against his party since Mr. Trump’s election.
Mr. McConnell has also reiterated his intention to move against Mr. Moore if he is elected, though Mr. McConnell has made clear that he thinks that the candidate is unlikely to win.
Clearly, if the GOP ejects Moore from the senate the Democrats plan to attack their action as undemocratic, both seeking votes and seeking to widen the chasm between Moore's Trumpist supporters and the DC Republicans.
. . . .
Should Mr. Jones win, Democrats would need to take only two more seats in 2018 to regain a majority in the Senate — still a difficult task, but one nearly unimaginable just a month ago.
A victory for Mr. Moore could be just as punishing for Republicans, because it could taint their candidates across the country by association with a man accused of child molestation.
That last, of course, is a lie by a New York Times writers.
Moore is not accused of child molestation, but of sexual misconduct with a number of young women of legal age and exactly one fourteen year old.
And he called Trump a moron
Diplomats Sound the Alarm as They Are Pushed Out in Droves
In a letter to Mr. Tillerson last week, Democratic members of the House Foreign Relations Committee, citing what they said was “the exodus of more than 100 senior Foreign Service officers from the State Department since January,” expressed concern about “what appears to be the intentional hollowing-out of our senior diplomatic ranks.”
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, sent a similar letter, telling Mr. Tillerson that “America’s diplomatic power is being weakened internally as complex global crises are growing externally.”
Mr. Tillerson, a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has made no secret of his belief that the State Department is a bloated bureaucracy and that he regards much of the day-to-day diplomacy that lower-level officials conduct as unproductive.
Even before Mr. Tillerson was confirmed, his staff fired six of the State Department’s top career diplomats, including Patrick Kennedy, who had been appointed to his position by President George W. Bush.
Kristie Kenney, the department’s counselor and one of just five career ambassadors, was summarily fired a few weeks later.
. . . .
Mr. Tillerson has frozen most hiring and recently offered a $25,000 buyout in hopes of pushing nearly 2,000 career diplomats and civil servants to leave by October 2018.
In a letter to Mr. Tillerson last week, Democratic members of the House Foreign Relations Committee, citing what they said was “the exodus of more than 100 senior Foreign Service officers from the State Department since January,” expressed concern about “what appears to be the intentional hollowing-out of our senior diplomatic ranks.”
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, sent a similar letter, telling Mr. Tillerson that “America’s diplomatic power is being weakened internally as complex global crises are growing externally.”
Mr. Tillerson, a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has made no secret of his belief that the State Department is a bloated bureaucracy and that he regards much of the day-to-day diplomacy that lower-level officials conduct as unproductive.
Even before Mr. Tillerson was confirmed, his staff fired six of the State Department’s top career diplomats, including Patrick Kennedy, who had been appointed to his position by President George W. Bush.
Kristie Kenney, the department’s counselor and one of just five career ambassadors, was summarily fired a few weeks later.
. . . .
Mr. Tillerson has frozen most hiring and recently offered a $25,000 buyout in hopes of pushing nearly 2,000 career diplomats and civil servants to leave by October 2018.
This looks interesting
I'll wait for the paperback, of course. And buy it used.
Three Deadly Days: One Town’s Experience of the Holocaust
Time would reveal who acted badly and who acted well; but Seiffert’s purpose is not to pass judgment.
Her abiding concern, ever since she learned as a child that her German maternal grandparents had supported Hitler’s Reich (her grandfather as a doctor in the Waffen SS, her grandmother as a Nazi Party member), has been to explore the motivations, contradictions and weaknesses of the bystanders, victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust.
“How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?” she asked in the Guardian article, adding, “The times being what they are — I have found myself turning again and again to the question.”
Her new novel’s inclusive, impartial vision awakens a contemporary reader’s conscience by highlighting the individual’s role in collective error: “How we respond when a principle is at stake.”
Three Deadly Days: One Town’s Experience of the Holocaust
Time would reveal who acted badly and who acted well; but Seiffert’s purpose is not to pass judgment.
Her abiding concern, ever since she learned as a child that her German maternal grandparents had supported Hitler’s Reich (her grandfather as a doctor in the Waffen SS, her grandmother as a Nazi Party member), has been to explore the motivations, contradictions and weaknesses of the bystanders, victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust.
“How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?” she asked in the Guardian article, adding, “The times being what they are — I have found myself turning again and again to the question.”
Her new novel’s inclusive, impartial vision awakens a contemporary reader’s conscience by highlighting the individual’s role in collective error: “How we respond when a principle is at stake.”
Ah, what really matters.
Charles Barkley: Roy Moore should have been disqualified 'way before this women stuff came up'
Former NBA star Charles Barkley weighed in on the Alabama Senate race Saturday, saying embattled Republican candidate Roy Moore should be disqualified from the race because of his association with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
"I mean Roy Moore is running with Steve Bannon as his right-hand man, who is a white separatist," Barkley said, referring to Bannon's support among the so-called alt-right movement.
"I'm not even get into the women stuff, but how can you be a white separatist and represent all the constituents in your state? I mean everybody is going crazy over the sexual allegations. Roy Moore to me, when he brought in Steve Bannon, should have been disqualified."
Barkley, who made the remarks to reporters before the Alabama-Auburn football game, added that the backing from Bannon should have "disqualified Roy Moore way before this women stuff came up."
What do you suppose he imagines to be the process of disqualification?
Anyway, Bannon is a white separatist as Moore is a pederast.
Which is to say, not at all.
Bannon seems to be a white nationalist to the point of wanting to keep a significant white majority in the US population, in the foreseeable future, so far as immigration policy alone can manage that.
He and Breitbart have repeatedly denounced racism and racists, specifically alluding to various white racist organization in doing so.
And immigration policy alone can't do that, anyway, in the face of nonwhite Americans' superior fertility rates to whites.
But it could delay the sorpasso, to re-purpose an Italian word that will be familiar to geezers from the immediate post-Cold War period to refer to the point in time when nonwhites become the majority among Americans.
As for Moore, so far as we now know he has never displayed a sexual penchant for pre-pubescents, which is what pedophilia actually is.
The youngest of his accusers was already too old even for Humbert Humbert, too old to count as a nymphette, all of fourteen and well past the beginning of puberty when he did what he did.
And she seems to have been uncharacteristically young for him, given the other accusations and rumors about him that report a preference for older high-school girls above the age of consent, sixteen in Alabama when he was in his cruising years.
Former NBA star Charles Barkley weighed in on the Alabama Senate race Saturday, saying embattled Republican candidate Roy Moore should be disqualified from the race because of his association with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
"I mean Roy Moore is running with Steve Bannon as his right-hand man, who is a white separatist," Barkley said, referring to Bannon's support among the so-called alt-right movement.
"I'm not even get into the women stuff, but how can you be a white separatist and represent all the constituents in your state? I mean everybody is going crazy over the sexual allegations. Roy Moore to me, when he brought in Steve Bannon, should have been disqualified."
Barkley, who made the remarks to reporters before the Alabama-Auburn football game, added that the backing from Bannon should have "disqualified Roy Moore way before this women stuff came up."
What do you suppose he imagines to be the process of disqualification?
Anyway, Bannon is a white separatist as Moore is a pederast.
Which is to say, not at all.
Bannon seems to be a white nationalist to the point of wanting to keep a significant white majority in the US population, in the foreseeable future, so far as immigration policy alone can manage that.
He and Breitbart have repeatedly denounced racism and racists, specifically alluding to various white racist organization in doing so.
And immigration policy alone can't do that, anyway, in the face of nonwhite Americans' superior fertility rates to whites.
But it could delay the sorpasso, to re-purpose an Italian word that will be familiar to geezers from the immediate post-Cold War period to refer to the point in time when nonwhites become the majority among Americans.
As for Moore, so far as we now know he has never displayed a sexual penchant for pre-pubescents, which is what pedophilia actually is.
The youngest of his accusers was already too old even for Humbert Humbert, too old to count as a nymphette, all of fourteen and well past the beginning of puberty when he did what he did.
And she seems to have been uncharacteristically young for him, given the other accusations and rumors about him that report a preference for older high-school girls above the age of consent, sixteen in Alabama when he was in his cruising years.
The Trumpist voters want what they want.
They don't care it the wrong kind of Republicans lose seats to Democrats.
And that is the same attitude that enable the conservative movement of the sixties and seventies to drive moderates and liberals out of the GOP.
Graham rues Trump's support for Roy Moore
Sen. Lindsey Graham bemoaned President Donald Trump's support for Alabama Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore on Sunday, calling the move a lose-lose situation.
"If he wins, we get the baggage of him winning, and it becomes a story every day about whether or not you believe the women or Roy Moore, should he stay in the Senate, should he be expelled?"
Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union." "If you lose, you give the Senate seat to a Democrat at a time where we need all the votes we can get.
"The moral of the story is don't nominate someone like Roy Moore who can actually lose the seat any other Republican could win," the South Carolina Republican told anchor Dana Bash.
"And what I would tell President Trump: if you think winning with Roy Moore is going to be easy for the Republican Party, you're mistaken."
Graham on passing tax reform: 'I think we'll get there'
I so hope he's wrong.
And that is the same attitude that enable the conservative movement of the sixties and seventies to drive moderates and liberals out of the GOP.
Graham rues Trump's support for Roy Moore
Sen. Lindsey Graham bemoaned President Donald Trump's support for Alabama Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore on Sunday, calling the move a lose-lose situation.
"If he wins, we get the baggage of him winning, and it becomes a story every day about whether or not you believe the women or Roy Moore, should he stay in the Senate, should he be expelled?"
Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union." "If you lose, you give the Senate seat to a Democrat at a time where we need all the votes we can get.
"The moral of the story is don't nominate someone like Roy Moore who can actually lose the seat any other Republican could win," the South Carolina Republican told anchor Dana Bash.
"And what I would tell President Trump: if you think winning with Roy Moore is going to be easy for the Republican Party, you're mistaken."
Graham on passing tax reform: 'I think we'll get there'
I so hope he's wrong.
Double standard? Is that good enough, for a Democrat?
Rep. John Conyers Stepping Aside as Ranking Member of House Judiciary Committee
He's stepping down but claims innocence.
Rep. John Conyers steps down from committee leadership position amid harassment accusations
Earlier in the day, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi urged “due process” before making conclusions about Rep. Conyers, saying the congressman is “an icon” who has worked to protect women.
"We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused — and was it one accusation? Is it two?” Pelosi asked on “Meet The Press.”
“John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women - Violence Against Women Act, which the left — right-wing — is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that, and he did great work on that,” she added.
“But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don’t, I believe he will do the right thing.”
Conyers’ office recently confirmed issuing a settlement of $27,000 to a former staffer who says she was fired for resisting the congressman’s sexual advances.
Conyers has acknowledged the payout, which he said amounted to a severance package, but he denied the allegations about what it was for.
He's stepping down but claims innocence.
Rep. John Conyers steps down from committee leadership position amid harassment accusations
Earlier in the day, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi urged “due process” before making conclusions about Rep. Conyers, saying the congressman is “an icon” who has worked to protect women.
"We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused — and was it one accusation? Is it two?” Pelosi asked on “Meet The Press.”
“John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women - Violence Against Women Act, which the left — right-wing — is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that, and he did great work on that,” she added.
“But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don’t, I believe he will do the right thing.”
Conyers’ office recently confirmed issuing a settlement of $27,000 to a former staffer who says she was fired for resisting the congressman’s sexual advances.
Conyers has acknowledged the payout, which he said amounted to a severance package, but he denied the allegations about what it was for.
A Bill of Rights? Why, whatever for?
While the ink was still wet, people were objecting the new government was not to be trusted without a Bill of Rights.
To which defenders replied it would be a government with no powers not expressly granted, and the powers expressly granted did not include the power, for example, to establish religion or restrict freedom of speech or the press.
If they were right, anything struck down for conflict with the Bill of Rights since their adoption could have been struck down as exceeding the powers of the federal government.
Do we believe that?
Under which enumerated power did the Congress suppress porn or seek to suppress abortion or gay marriage?
Or crossing state lines for immoral purposes?
Or sending porn through the mails?
Or mere possession of child porn?
If they can stop porn through the mails can they stop the New York Times?
Ratification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)