Pope Francis Says Abortion, Even of a Sick Fetus, Is Like Hiring a ‘Hitman’
Pope Francis said Saturday that abortion was always unacceptable, regardless of whether a fetus is fatally ill or has pathological disorders.
He also urged doctors to help women bring to term even pregnancies likely to end in the death of a child at birth or soon after.
I think he is wrong on this.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
Waning clericalism in Ireland
Ireland Votes Overwhelmingly to Ease Divorce Restrictions
Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to ease restrictions on divorce, taking another step toward liberalizing a Constitution that was once dominated by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Official figures released this weekend showed that 82 percent of voters in referendum on Friday approved the change, with all areas of the country voting strongly in favor.
The results come on the heels of other major social shifts in the country: a 2015 vote to legalize same-sex marriage — the word’s first popular vote on marriage equality — and a referendum last year that repealed Ireland’s ban on abortion in almost all circumstances, including rape and incest.
In October, the nation voted overwhelmingly to remove a ban on blasphemy from the Constitution.
Divorce was banned in Ireland by a 1937 Constitution strongly influenced by the Catholic hierarchy, and an attempt to overturn the ban in a 1986 referendum was soundly defeated by a 3-to-2 margin.
The country made divorce legal in 1995, after a referendum deciding the issue with just over 9,000 votes of 1.63 million cast.
But the new law imposed strict conditions, including a provision that a couple must have lived apart for four of the previous five years before getting divorced.
The results of Friday’s referendum remove divorce regulations from the Constitution and place them in the hands of lawmakers.
The government of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, having consulted with other parties, said it would move to reduce the waiting period to two years.
Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to ease restrictions on divorce, taking another step toward liberalizing a Constitution that was once dominated by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Official figures released this weekend showed that 82 percent of voters in referendum on Friday approved the change, with all areas of the country voting strongly in favor.
The results come on the heels of other major social shifts in the country: a 2015 vote to legalize same-sex marriage — the word’s first popular vote on marriage equality — and a referendum last year that repealed Ireland’s ban on abortion in almost all circumstances, including rape and incest.
In October, the nation voted overwhelmingly to remove a ban on blasphemy from the Constitution.
Divorce was banned in Ireland by a 1937 Constitution strongly influenced by the Catholic hierarchy, and an attempt to overturn the ban in a 1986 referendum was soundly defeated by a 3-to-2 margin.
The country made divorce legal in 1995, after a referendum deciding the issue with just over 9,000 votes of 1.63 million cast.
But the new law imposed strict conditions, including a provision that a couple must have lived apart for four of the previous five years before getting divorced.
The results of Friday’s referendum remove divorce regulations from the Constitution and place them in the hands of lawmakers.
The government of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, having consulted with other parties, said it would move to reduce the waiting period to two years.
About "The Expanse"
Fine books, fine syfy TV.
But there is not a shred of a reason for sending humans to drive spaceships or mine asteroids, much less terraform (!) Mars.
Humans going into space is like humans climbing mountains.
It's a pointless thing some people want to do, sometimes only to become famous.
And that's fine, but why do taxpayers have to support such nonsense?
There is a national security argument for development of automated or drone space technology and eventually privately financed automated space activities might make economic sense.
But humans aren't going anywhere out there, unless for the hell of it.
But there is not a shred of a reason for sending humans to drive spaceships or mine asteroids, much less terraform (!) Mars.
Humans going into space is like humans climbing mountains.
It's a pointless thing some people want to do, sometimes only to become famous.
And that's fine, but why do taxpayers have to support such nonsense?
There is a national security argument for development of automated or drone space technology and eventually privately financed automated space activities might make economic sense.
But humans aren't going anywhere out there, unless for the hell of it.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
What there is and what there isn't
There is democratic capitalism (capitalism under representative government, actually), as urged and celebrated by Barack Obama.
There is despotic, tyrannical socialism as urged and celebrated by Lenin and his followers.
There is not and never has been or will be democratic socialism.
Socialism under representative government.
That is a political myth.
The Second Sex
Women are as smart as men, by and large.
They are less aggressive, assertive, and violent.
They are weaker, too, on average.
They are partly on that account, but also because they bear and nurse children while men do neither, the second sex, assigned by nature to that place.
Everything is what it is, and not another thing.
Why then should we wish to be deceived?
Oh, and all this rot about women not being paid for housekeeping, child rearing, and the like is just a ludicrous hoax.
Everything is what it is.
I am a Democrat and a liberal.
I am not a fool.
They are less aggressive, assertive, and violent.
They are weaker, too, on average.
They are partly on that account, but also because they bear and nurse children while men do neither, the second sex, assigned by nature to that place.
Everything is what it is, and not another thing.
Why then should we wish to be deceived?
Oh, and all this rot about women not being paid for housekeeping, child rearing, and the like is just a ludicrous hoax.
Everything is what it is.
I am a Democrat and a liberal.
I am not a fool.
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
An unrestricted right to abort vs blanket prohibitions
Like everything else in our politics, the conflict over abortion is increasingly a clash of the most extreme positions.
Vermont Moves to Protect Abortion Rights
[I]n Vermont, Democrats have approved a measure meant to protect abortion rights, and supporters have pleaded with the state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott, to sign it.
. . . .
In Vermont, the bill would prohibit the government from interfering in any way with the right to have an abortion.
It would not change the status quo in Vermont, where there currently are no legal limits on when or under what circumstances a woman can decide to end a pregnancy.
. . . .
Beyond Vermont, Democratic officials in other states are also fighting back against the wave of bills restricting abortion.
The newly elected Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has promised to veto legislation passed by the Republican-controlled State Senate that would ban the most common second-trimester abortion procedure.
In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers, another Democrat elected in 2018, said on Tuesday that he would veto four pieces of anti-abortion legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Assembly if the measures reach his desk.
. . . .
Still, the [Vermont] law itself could simply be changed by a future legislature.
Because of that, abortion rights advocates in Vermont are simultaneously pursuing another, more lasting strategy: amending the State Constitution to protect abortion rights.
In recent weeks, lawmakers approved an amendment that would declare “personal reproductive autonomy” to be a fundamental right.
Supporters say an amendment would provide greater protection than the bill, but the process to pass it would take several years, at least.
The Legislature would have to pass the proposed amendment a second time in a future legislative session, and it would also have to go before the voters.
“Because of the landscape that we’re dealing with in this country, when it comes to reproductive rights we needed to have a short- and a long-term plan in place to help and support Vermonters,” said Jill Krowinski, the House majority leader.
. . . .
Vermont would be the first state to amend its constitution to specifically protect abortion rights, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a policy organization that supports abortion rights.
Some other states’ constitutions have been interpreted as protecting abortion rights but none explicitly address abortions.
. . . .
Critics of the measure described it as extreme.
Bishop Christopher J. Coyne, the Roman Catholic leader of the Diocese of Burlington, described the law as going “far beyond Roe vs. Wade,” warning that it meant “that a baby in the womb can be terminated right up to the moment of natural birth.”
Mary Hahn Beerworth, the executive director of Vermont Right to Life Committee, said the bill also was unnecessary, since the state already placed no restrictions on abortion.
“This is going to be one of those things where you’re going to look back and say, ‘What were they thinking of, really?’” Ms. Beerworth said.
She added that her organization would now turn its attention to opposing the constitutional amendment.
Vermont Moves to Protect Abortion Rights
[I]n Vermont, Democrats have approved a measure meant to protect abortion rights, and supporters have pleaded with the state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott, to sign it.
. . . .
In Vermont, the bill would prohibit the government from interfering in any way with the right to have an abortion.
It would not change the status quo in Vermont, where there currently are no legal limits on when or under what circumstances a woman can decide to end a pregnancy.
. . . .
Beyond Vermont, Democratic officials in other states are also fighting back against the wave of bills restricting abortion.
The newly elected Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has promised to veto legislation passed by the Republican-controlled State Senate that would ban the most common second-trimester abortion procedure.
In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers, another Democrat elected in 2018, said on Tuesday that he would veto four pieces of anti-abortion legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Assembly if the measures reach his desk.
. . . .
Still, the [Vermont] law itself could simply be changed by a future legislature.
Because of that, abortion rights advocates in Vermont are simultaneously pursuing another, more lasting strategy: amending the State Constitution to protect abortion rights.
In recent weeks, lawmakers approved an amendment that would declare “personal reproductive autonomy” to be a fundamental right.
Supporters say an amendment would provide greater protection than the bill, but the process to pass it would take several years, at least.
The Legislature would have to pass the proposed amendment a second time in a future legislative session, and it would also have to go before the voters.
“Because of the landscape that we’re dealing with in this country, when it comes to reproductive rights we needed to have a short- and a long-term plan in place to help and support Vermonters,” said Jill Krowinski, the House majority leader.
. . . .
Vermont would be the first state to amend its constitution to specifically protect abortion rights, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a policy organization that supports abortion rights.
Some other states’ constitutions have been interpreted as protecting abortion rights but none explicitly address abortions.
. . . .
Critics of the measure described it as extreme.
Bishop Christopher J. Coyne, the Roman Catholic leader of the Diocese of Burlington, described the law as going “far beyond Roe vs. Wade,” warning that it meant “that a baby in the womb can be terminated right up to the moment of natural birth.”
Mary Hahn Beerworth, the executive director of Vermont Right to Life Committee, said the bill also was unnecessary, since the state already placed no restrictions on abortion.
“This is going to be one of those things where you’re going to look back and say, ‘What were they thinking of, really?’” Ms. Beerworth said.
She added that her organization would now turn its attention to opposing the constitutional amendment.
And who is surprised the Tories have done this?
And they want to do more harm, still.
Ever since the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, abolition of the Welfare State and the utter immiseration of the working masses has been the whole point of withdrawal from the EU.
U.K. Austerity Has Inflicted ‘Great Misery,’ U.N. Official Says
And who is surprised these same Tories have denounced the report as, essentially, fake news?
Ever since the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, abolition of the Welfare State and the utter immiseration of the working masses has been the whole point of withdrawal from the EU.
U.K. Austerity Has Inflicted ‘Great Misery,’ U.N. Official Says
And who is surprised these same Tories have denounced the report as, essentially, fake news?
The American Taliban up for release
At the time I regarded his punishment as absurdly draconian, and it very possibly has pushed him back into a Jihadism he seemed very much to regret and perhaps to be abandoning when tried.
John Walker Lindh, Known as the ‘American Taliban,’ Is Set to Leave Federal Prison This Week
When he ran off to join the Islamists he had no way of knowing the US would choose to fight a war against the Taliban, whom he had joined when the US was at peace with them and the Afghanistan they controlled.
As an American citizen, he was tried in federal court, unlike citizens of other countries who were also picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan but who ended up in the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
At his sentencing in October 2002, he condemned “terrorism on every level, unequivocally,” said he made a mistake by joining the Taliban and denounced Osama bin Laden’s terrorist attacks as “completely against Islam.”
But two leaked United States government intelligence counterterrorist assessments first published by Foreign Policy magazine in 2017 cast Mr. Lindh in a different light.
A 2017 report by the National Counterterrorism Center titled “U.S. Homegrown Violent Extremist Recidivism Likely” said without elaboration that as of May 2016 Mr. Lindh “continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent extremist texts.”
A 2017 Federal Bureau of Prisons intelligence assessment, which included a photograph of Mr. Lindh with a shaven head and a bushy brown beard, said he had earlier made supportive statements about the Islamic State.
. . . .
Johnny Spann, the father of the C.I.A. operative who was killed in Afghanistan, remains bitter about the Lindh case and said he is distrustful of the decision to let Mr. Lindh go.
His son is buried at Arlington National Cemetery, about eight miles from the Alexandria courthouse where Mr. Lindh was charged.
“We’ve got a traitor that was given 20 years and I can’t do anything about it,” said Mr. Spann, a real estate dealer in Winfield, Ala.
“He was given a 20-year sentence when it should’ve been life in prison.”
Mr. Spann’s son, who went by Mike, was killed at the start of an uprising by prisoners inside a mud-walled 19th-century fortress at Qala-i-Jangi in northern Afghanistan after he questioned Mr. Lindh, videotapes at the time showed.
But even before Mr. Lindh’s guilty plea to two charges — to providing support to the Taliban and to carrying a rifle and grenade — the government offered no evidence that he participated in the revolt.
. . . .
Karen J. Greenberg focused on the Lindh case in her 2016 book, “Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State.”
“He devoted his years in prison to becoming a student of Islamic texts,” said Ms. Greenberg, who is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law.
“I think the best you can hope for him is that he finds a way to live a quiet life, along those lines, doing whatever it is he wants to peacefully do.”
John Walker Lindh, Known as the ‘American Taliban,’ Is Set to Leave Federal Prison This Week
When he ran off to join the Islamists he had no way of knowing the US would choose to fight a war against the Taliban, whom he had joined when the US was at peace with them and the Afghanistan they controlled.
As an American citizen, he was tried in federal court, unlike citizens of other countries who were also picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan but who ended up in the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
At his sentencing in October 2002, he condemned “terrorism on every level, unequivocally,” said he made a mistake by joining the Taliban and denounced Osama bin Laden’s terrorist attacks as “completely against Islam.”
But two leaked United States government intelligence counterterrorist assessments first published by Foreign Policy magazine in 2017 cast Mr. Lindh in a different light.
A 2017 report by the National Counterterrorism Center titled “U.S. Homegrown Violent Extremist Recidivism Likely” said without elaboration that as of May 2016 Mr. Lindh “continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent extremist texts.”
A 2017 Federal Bureau of Prisons intelligence assessment, which included a photograph of Mr. Lindh with a shaven head and a bushy brown beard, said he had earlier made supportive statements about the Islamic State.
. . . .
Johnny Spann, the father of the C.I.A. operative who was killed in Afghanistan, remains bitter about the Lindh case and said he is distrustful of the decision to let Mr. Lindh go.
His son is buried at Arlington National Cemetery, about eight miles from the Alexandria courthouse where Mr. Lindh was charged.
“We’ve got a traitor that was given 20 years and I can’t do anything about it,” said Mr. Spann, a real estate dealer in Winfield, Ala.
“He was given a 20-year sentence when it should’ve been life in prison.”
Mr. Spann’s son, who went by Mike, was killed at the start of an uprising by prisoners inside a mud-walled 19th-century fortress at Qala-i-Jangi in northern Afghanistan after he questioned Mr. Lindh, videotapes at the time showed.
But even before Mr. Lindh’s guilty plea to two charges — to providing support to the Taliban and to carrying a rifle and grenade — the government offered no evidence that he participated in the revolt.
. . . .
Karen J. Greenberg focused on the Lindh case in her 2016 book, “Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State.”
“He devoted his years in prison to becoming a student of Islamic texts,” said Ms. Greenberg, who is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law.
“I think the best you can hope for him is that he finds a way to live a quiet life, along those lines, doing whatever it is he wants to peacefully do.”
Saturday, May 18, 2019
The state of public opinion
It appears I am to the right of most Americans on this matter.
Why it's difficult to gauge Americans' support for abortion rights
Every single recent poll indicates that Americans are more likely to be in favor of abortion rights than not.
A Pew Research Center poll from late last year found that 58% of Americans say abortion should be always or mostly legal, compared with 37% who say it should be always or mostly illegal.
This mostly lines up with 2018 Gallup polling that discovered that 60% of Americans think first trimester abortions should generally be legal and 64% don't want Roe, which guaranteed the right to an abortion in the first trimester, to be overturned.
Why it's difficult to gauge Americans' support for abortion rights
Every single recent poll indicates that Americans are more likely to be in favor of abortion rights than not.
A Pew Research Center poll from late last year found that 58% of Americans say abortion should be always or mostly legal, compared with 37% who say it should be always or mostly illegal.
This mostly lines up with 2018 Gallup polling that discovered that 60% of Americans think first trimester abortions should generally be legal and 64% don't want Roe, which guaranteed the right to an abortion in the first trimester, to be overturned.
Defeating politicians' lies
Remain voters are left with no choice but to ignore Labour next week
hall we take a nostalgic trip back to the distant past of two weeks ago?
You’ll remember there were local elections in England, in which the pro-Brexit parties took a pasting, while the anti-Brexit parties surged.
You might also recall how the main parties interpreted those results: they hailed them as a heartfelt plea from the voters to get on with Brexit.
Here, then, is a warning to remain-minded voters ahead of Thursday’s European elections.
If you want to send a message about Brexit, you’ll need to send it as clearly and as unambiguously as possible.
Up against a spin machine capable of hearing a repudiation as an endorsement, voters will need to be louder and clearer this time, closing down the scope for wilful misinterpretation.
hall we take a nostalgic trip back to the distant past of two weeks ago?
You’ll remember there were local elections in England, in which the pro-Brexit parties took a pasting, while the anti-Brexit parties surged.
You might also recall how the main parties interpreted those results: they hailed them as a heartfelt plea from the voters to get on with Brexit.
Here, then, is a warning to remain-minded voters ahead of Thursday’s European elections.
If you want to send a message about Brexit, you’ll need to send it as clearly and as unambiguously as possible.
Up against a spin machine capable of hearing a repudiation as an endorsement, voters will need to be louder and clearer this time, closing down the scope for wilful misinterpretation.
As stupid as anti-vaxxers
US pastor runs network giving 50,000 Ugandans bleach-based 'miracle cure'
"Miracle mineral solution".
Uh-huh.
"Miracle mineral solution".
Uh-huh.
Three Democrats promise constitutional nonsense
After Alabama Abortion Law, 3 Democrats Propose a New Strategy
And the constitutional basis for this stuff would be what, assuming the Supremes overturned Roe?
Responding to a series of highly restrictive abortion laws aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, several Democratic presidential candidates have called on Congress to codify abortion rights, signaling a newly aggressive approach in a debate whose terms have long been set by conservatives.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey was first out of the gate on Wednesday, telling BuzzFeed News that if elected president, he would pursue legislation to guarantee abortion rights nationwide, superseding state restrictions, even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York promised the same on Thursday, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts came forward Friday morning with a more detailed plan.
The three senators also called for repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions.
The vast Democratic field has been essentially unanimous in condemning the near-total abortion ban Alabama lawmakers passed on Tuesday, which is part of a string of state efforts to compel the Supreme Court to re-examine Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy.
But Mr. Booker, Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Warren went significantly further than other candidates, calling for expanding access to abortion instead of just preserving existing access, which has already been eroded in many places.
. . . .
In an essay published Friday, Ms. Warren proposed legislation that would forbid states to interfere with abortion providers or access.
She also called on Congress to prohibit state measures that do not technically restrict abortion services but make them harder to provide in practice, like laws that require providers to have hospital admitting privileges or regulate the width of clinics’ hallways.
. . . .
Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Booker argued that by passing a law affirming abortion rights, a future Democratic Congress could provide a backstop that would endure even if the justices overturned Roe.
But such a law would almost certainly face its own legal challenges, and barring further changes in the court’s composition, it would have to survive review by that same conservative majority.
Acts of Congress supersede state laws, but the Constitution limits the sorts of laws Congress can pass.
The main question for the courts would be whether Congress has the right to make laws about abortion.
Ms. Warren wrote that a law guaranteeing access to abortion would be legal under the Constitution’s commerce and equal protection clauses.
But David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who studies abortion issues, said the commerce clause argument was probably the only viable one.
Phooey.
And they complain the Republicans are constitutionally unscrupulous.
And the constitutional basis for this stuff would be what, assuming the Supremes overturned Roe?
Responding to a series of highly restrictive abortion laws aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, several Democratic presidential candidates have called on Congress to codify abortion rights, signaling a newly aggressive approach in a debate whose terms have long been set by conservatives.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey was first out of the gate on Wednesday, telling BuzzFeed News that if elected president, he would pursue legislation to guarantee abortion rights nationwide, superseding state restrictions, even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York promised the same on Thursday, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts came forward Friday morning with a more detailed plan.
The three senators also called for repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions.
The vast Democratic field has been essentially unanimous in condemning the near-total abortion ban Alabama lawmakers passed on Tuesday, which is part of a string of state efforts to compel the Supreme Court to re-examine Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy.
But Mr. Booker, Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Warren went significantly further than other candidates, calling for expanding access to abortion instead of just preserving existing access, which has already been eroded in many places.
. . . .
In an essay published Friday, Ms. Warren proposed legislation that would forbid states to interfere with abortion providers or access.
She also called on Congress to prohibit state measures that do not technically restrict abortion services but make them harder to provide in practice, like laws that require providers to have hospital admitting privileges or regulate the width of clinics’ hallways.
. . . .
Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Booker argued that by passing a law affirming abortion rights, a future Democratic Congress could provide a backstop that would endure even if the justices overturned Roe.
But such a law would almost certainly face its own legal challenges, and barring further changes in the court’s composition, it would have to survive review by that same conservative majority.
Acts of Congress supersede state laws, but the Constitution limits the sorts of laws Congress can pass.
The main question for the courts would be whether Congress has the right to make laws about abortion.
Ms. Warren wrote that a law guaranteeing access to abortion would be legal under the Constitution’s commerce and equal protection clauses.
But David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who studies abortion issues, said the commerce clause argument was probably the only viable one.
Phooey.
And they complain the Republicans are constitutionally unscrupulous.
Unrepentent to this day
‘I Did My Best to Stop American Foreign Policy’:
Bernie Sanders on US anti-Communism in Latin America.
In a nutshell, where stood many Democrats.
We had no real stake in Vietnam.
The dominoes were never going to fall all the way to California.
But Latin America is a lot closer, and I personally remember being taught as a student to shelter under the desk during the Cuban missile crisis.
I found it shocking and offensive that Democrats were so indulgent toward outright Communists in Chile, in Nicaragua, and elsewhere in the region.
Bernie Sanders on US anti-Communism in Latin America.
In a nutshell, where stood many Democrats.
We had no real stake in Vietnam.
The dominoes were never going to fall all the way to California.
But Latin America is a lot closer, and I personally remember being taught as a student to shelter under the desk during the Cuban missile crisis.
I found it shocking and offensive that Democrats were so indulgent toward outright Communists in Chile, in Nicaragua, and elsewhere in the region.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
This is probably a good idea on national security grounds
But is his Lone Ranger action lawful?
It looks like an abuse of the statute.
Donald Trump declares national emergency over telecoms threats
It looks like an abuse of the statute.
Donald Trump declares national emergency over telecoms threats
Whitewashing is a thing. A different thing, I mean.
First, this is history I did not know, and it seems entirely appropriate to call this sort of thing "whitewashing", however inadvertent or thoughtless.
Not the downplaying or covering up of the evils of persons or events (though just such covering up, intentional or not, is one and perhaps the most common meaning of "whitewashing"), but memorializing history in a way that makes it only white history, ignoring the leading and broader participation of persons of color.
If American history is our history, that "our" cannot refer only to whites and that history as narrative cannot relate history as though the only leaders, or only participants, were white.
Second, if statues to these women to commemorate the good they did despite their nearly nazi racism are OK at all then so much more must be statues of Jefferson, Washington, and others commemorated not for their crimes but for the good they did or stood for.
A Whitewashed Monument to Women’s Suffrage
The New York City commission that oversees public artworks embraced a lily-white version of history in March when it approved a monument to the women’s rights movement that is scheduled to be unveiled in Central Park next year.
The two white women depicted in sculpture — Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony — played influential roles in the 19th-century struggle for women’s suffrage.
But the duo also represented a classist and often racist faction of the movement that declined to accept African-Americans as equals.
Stanton invoked white supremacist slanders when she opposed the 15th Amendment — which ostensibly granted black men the right to vote — casting men of color as “Sambos,” tyrants and incipient rapists.
She and Anthony compounded that offense by rendering black suffragists nearly invisible in “History of Woman Suffrage,” the multivolume history that still dominates popular thinking on the early women’s rights struggle.
It would repeat that insult to feature these two women alone in Central Park’s first suffrage monument.
To do so would also make the city seem willfully blind to the work of black women who served at the vanguard of the fight for universal rights — and whose achievements have already shaped suffrage monuments in other cities.
Read the rest of this information rich and spot on piece.
This piece was published yesterday in the Times and the comments section is already closed.
That is absurd and annoying.
Not the downplaying or covering up of the evils of persons or events (though just such covering up, intentional or not, is one and perhaps the most common meaning of "whitewashing"), but memorializing history in a way that makes it only white history, ignoring the leading and broader participation of persons of color.
If American history is our history, that "our" cannot refer only to whites and that history as narrative cannot relate history as though the only leaders, or only participants, were white.
Second, if statues to these women to commemorate the good they did despite their nearly nazi racism are OK at all then so much more must be statues of Jefferson, Washington, and others commemorated not for their crimes but for the good they did or stood for.
A Whitewashed Monument to Women’s Suffrage
The New York City commission that oversees public artworks embraced a lily-white version of history in March when it approved a monument to the women’s rights movement that is scheduled to be unveiled in Central Park next year.
The two white women depicted in sculpture — Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony — played influential roles in the 19th-century struggle for women’s suffrage.
But the duo also represented a classist and often racist faction of the movement that declined to accept African-Americans as equals.
Stanton invoked white supremacist slanders when she opposed the 15th Amendment — which ostensibly granted black men the right to vote — casting men of color as “Sambos,” tyrants and incipient rapists.
She and Anthony compounded that offense by rendering black suffragists nearly invisible in “History of Woman Suffrage,” the multivolume history that still dominates popular thinking on the early women’s rights struggle.
It would repeat that insult to feature these two women alone in Central Park’s first suffrage monument.
To do so would also make the city seem willfully blind to the work of black women who served at the vanguard of the fight for universal rights — and whose achievements have already shaped suffrage monuments in other cities.
Read the rest of this information rich and spot on piece.
This piece was published yesterday in the Times and the comments section is already closed.
That is absurd and annoying.
"Congress shall make no law"?
It has made and will make laws restricting the freedom of speech and of the press, and that's a good thing.
Is this a good thing?
Sure.
So it's a bad thing that Bozo and his White House, knowing quite well this is mostly directed against his loony allies and supporters as well as his Russian sponsors, won't play ball.
And their publicly signalling they won't is, of course, a gesture toward those allies, those supporters, and the Russians.
White House Says It Won’t Sign Global Pact for Tougher Measures on Online Violence
The White House said on Wednesday that it would not sign an international accord intended to pressure the largest internet platforms to eradicate violent and extremist content, highlighting a broader divide between the United States and other countries about the role of government in determining what content is acceptable on the internet.
Citing free speech protections, the Trump administration said in a statement that “the United States is not currently in a position to join the endorsement.”
Is this a good thing?
Sure.
So it's a bad thing that Bozo and his White House, knowing quite well this is mostly directed against his loony allies and supporters as well as his Russian sponsors, won't play ball.
And their publicly signalling they won't is, of course, a gesture toward those allies, those supporters, and the Russians.
White House Says It Won’t Sign Global Pact for Tougher Measures on Online Violence
The White House said on Wednesday that it would not sign an international accord intended to pressure the largest internet platforms to eradicate violent and extremist content, highlighting a broader divide between the United States and other countries about the role of government in determining what content is acceptable on the internet.
Citing free speech protections, the Trump administration said in a statement that “the United States is not currently in a position to join the endorsement.”
It added that “the best tool to defeat terrorist speech is productive speech.”
The White House’s statement came on a day when President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand were gathered in Paris to sign what they call the “Christchurch Call.”
The White House’s statement came on a day when President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand were gathered in Paris to sign what they call the “Christchurch Call.”
The agreement was crafted in the wake of a terrorist attack that left 51 Muslim worshipers dead.
The attack on multiple mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand was live streamed on Facebook and spread virally across the internet.
The Christchurch Call is not binding and does not include any punishments for platforms that don’t comply.
The Christchurch Call is not binding and does not include any punishments for platforms that don’t comply.
But as governments around the world consider new laws and regulations, the companies are under pressure to demonstrate they can police their platforms.
On Tuesday night, ahead of the gathering in Paris, Facebook announced that it would place more restrictions on the use of its live video service.
Last week, France proposed new laws that would require companies to abolish harmful content. Britain last month put forward a similar proposal.
Last week, France proposed new laws that would require companies to abolish harmful content. Britain last month put forward a similar proposal.
And following the Christchurch massacre, Australia passed a law that makes company executives personally liable for the spread of violent material.
About the Alabama ban
Alabama Senator Bobby Singleton Blows Through Republican Hypocrisy On Abortion Law
State Senator Bobby Singleton argued valiantly for an exception in the case of rape and incest, but that was voted down.
The only exception will be if the mother's life is in danger.
How very "pro-life" of them.
Through tears on the floor of the state Senate, Singleton made the following pronouncement:
You just said to my daughter, "You don't matter. You don't matter in the state of Alabama."
That "the state of Alabama don't care nothin' about you, baby." I gotta go home and tell her, "The state of Alabama don't care nothin' about you, baby."
This morning, he told Alisyn Camerota he felt like the state of Alabama "raped women last night."
She asked him if he felt Republicans were doing this just for the purposes of overturning Roe v. Wade, or if they really believed women should never have an abortion unless and only unless they're about to die from the pregnancy.
Sen. Singleton said he wished he could say it was purely for the purpose of overturning Roe, but he knows there are members on the other side of the aisle who sincerely believe that women do not deserve access to safe and legal abortions under any circumstances.
Even if you're an 11-year-old girl impregnated by rape.
If it were medically possible to safely retrieve an embryo or fetus and bring it to babyhood in an artificial womb (always supposing there is no good case for euthanizing it ) with reliability comparable to or greater than natural gestation, I would favor laws totally forbidding abortion, but supporting such retrieval.
The baby "delivered" alive could be made available for adoption if neither natural parent wanted it.
While that is not possible I favor permitting abortion at will before the fetus is far enough along for it to be convincing that it is an unborn baby and forbidding it afterward, except in case of danger to the mother's life or when fetal euthanasia would be justified, always supposing it can be safely delivered.
But that position does not satisfy most of the pro-lifers though it utterly enrages the pro-baby-killers, so my second choice is a complete ban, except when either euthanasia of the fetus is apt or the mother's life is at significant risk.
No, absolutely no exceptions for rape or incest.
The rapist's child, or the abuser's child, did not commit the rape or the incest.
You don't get to kill it.
I strongly prefer this stand to the positions of the general run of baby-killers, among Democrats or not.
And I agree both the woman seeking an unlawful abortion and the provider should be prosecuted and punished, though the Alabama law errs in both directions, being too cowardly to punish abortion-seeking women at all and providing far too harsh punishment for providers.
But of course, here as pretty much always, what I would actually prefer is not even on the menu.
PS.
While we're in political fantasy land, my first choice regarding abortion would require fussing with but not rejecting Roe.
But if they overturn Roe my preference would be that the Supremes leave standing the rulings forbidding criminalization of homosexuality or use of contraception.
Not that my preferences matter.
PPS.
Yes, the law of fetal personhood, criminalizing the possibly risky behavior of pregnant women, and legally mandating suspicion of bad intent in case of miscarriage are all absurd.
State Senator Bobby Singleton argued valiantly for an exception in the case of rape and incest, but that was voted down.
The only exception will be if the mother's life is in danger.
How very "pro-life" of them.
Through tears on the floor of the state Senate, Singleton made the following pronouncement:
You just said to my daughter, "You don't matter. You don't matter in the state of Alabama."
That "the state of Alabama don't care nothin' about you, baby." I gotta go home and tell her, "The state of Alabama don't care nothin' about you, baby."
This morning, he told Alisyn Camerota he felt like the state of Alabama "raped women last night."
She asked him if he felt Republicans were doing this just for the purposes of overturning Roe v. Wade, or if they really believed women should never have an abortion unless and only unless they're about to die from the pregnancy.
Sen. Singleton said he wished he could say it was purely for the purpose of overturning Roe, but he knows there are members on the other side of the aisle who sincerely believe that women do not deserve access to safe and legal abortions under any circumstances.
Even if you're an 11-year-old girl impregnated by rape.
If it were medically possible to safely retrieve an embryo or fetus and bring it to babyhood in an artificial womb (always supposing there is no good case for euthanizing it ) with reliability comparable to or greater than natural gestation, I would favor laws totally forbidding abortion, but supporting such retrieval.
The baby "delivered" alive could be made available for adoption if neither natural parent wanted it.
While that is not possible I favor permitting abortion at will before the fetus is far enough along for it to be convincing that it is an unborn baby and forbidding it afterward, except in case of danger to the mother's life or when fetal euthanasia would be justified, always supposing it can be safely delivered.
But that position does not satisfy most of the pro-lifers though it utterly enrages the pro-baby-killers, so my second choice is a complete ban, except when either euthanasia of the fetus is apt or the mother's life is at significant risk.
No, absolutely no exceptions for rape or incest.
The rapist's child, or the abuser's child, did not commit the rape or the incest.
You don't get to kill it.
I strongly prefer this stand to the positions of the general run of baby-killers, among Democrats or not.
And I agree both the woman seeking an unlawful abortion and the provider should be prosecuted and punished, though the Alabama law errs in both directions, being too cowardly to punish abortion-seeking women at all and providing far too harsh punishment for providers.
But of course, here as pretty much always, what I would actually prefer is not even on the menu.
PS.
While we're in political fantasy land, my first choice regarding abortion would require fussing with but not rejecting Roe.
But if they overturn Roe my preference would be that the Supremes leave standing the rulings forbidding criminalization of homosexuality or use of contraception.
Not that my preferences matter.
PPS.
Yes, the law of fetal personhood, criminalizing the possibly risky behavior of pregnant women, and legally mandating suspicion of bad intent in case of miscarriage are all absurd.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
This is the Republican Party
It's all about enabling legal enforcement of Christian sexual morality, despite the First Amendment and despite the right to privacy and despite the intolerable affront to individual liberty.
They blather endlessly about liberty and they proudly champion subjection of the country to the tyranny of Christian clericalism.
Alabama abortion ban: Republican senate passes most restrictive law in US
Alabama’s Republican-controlled state senate passed a bill Tuesday to outlaw abortion, making it a crime to perform the procedure at any stage of pregnancy.
. . . .
The measure contains no exception for rape and incest, after lawmakers voted down an amendment Tuesday that would have added such an exception.
The legislation makes it a class A felony for a doctor to perform an abortion, punishable by ten to 99 years in prison.
Women would not face criminal penalties for getting an abortion.
. . . .
The bill has already passed the House. It must now be signed by Governor Kay Ivey.
Which states are seeking to make abortion illegal and who is behind it?
They blather endlessly about liberty and they proudly champion subjection of the country to the tyranny of Christian clericalism.
Alabama abortion ban: Republican senate passes most restrictive law in US
Alabama’s Republican-controlled state senate passed a bill Tuesday to outlaw abortion, making it a crime to perform the procedure at any stage of pregnancy.
. . . .
The measure contains no exception for rape and incest, after lawmakers voted down an amendment Tuesday that would have added such an exception.
The legislation makes it a class A felony for a doctor to perform an abortion, punishable by ten to 99 years in prison.
Women would not face criminal penalties for getting an abortion.
. . . .
The bill has already passed the House. It must now be signed by Governor Kay Ivey.
Which states are seeking to make abortion illegal and who is behind it?
Subtitle: Alabama will debate the most restrictive abortion ban in the US as more than a dozen states this year tried to outlaw the procedure
"If we do that, how are we any better than those we are fighting?"
The title question is asked by people too stupid to ask it, much less answer it, about World War Two, say.
Too stupid to understand that if we don't differ on means we still differ on ends, and our ends being so much different they remove all reasonable doubt that we are different, exactly in a way that matters hugely.
And that would be true even if the Machiavellian Principle were false that for any means, no matter how bad, there is a possible purpose so good as to justify it.
Even if the Pauline Principle were true that we must never do evil that good may come.
Though of course neither is true.
No moral principle is true.
Nor indeed, is any false.
Nor indeed, is any false.
And though one still might find it better to follow - or that others follow - the one than the other, there is nothing to say preference might not vary from case to case.
Chernobyl. Brilliant and terrifying.
As if we didn't already understand that nuclear power is far too dangerous for humans to use.
Nuclear accidents.
Nuclear accidents.
Did Bozo hand over control of portions of US foreign policy to Bolton, the Saudis, and Israel in return for Sheldon Adelson's millions?
So says Chris Matthews on Hardball, right now, with the agreement of his guests.
Bolton wants to send 120,000 troops to the Persian Gulf, and Trump seems to be ready to let him do it.
Bolton who fluffed a coup in Venezuela only recently.
Trump, the whore who sold his policy on NATO, Ukraine, and the EU and maybe even North Korea to Putin, is so fucking out of his depth.
His entire party are whores.
And we are so fucked.
Trump’s Choice Of Bolton Satisfies His Biggest Donor
Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East policy
He had thrown $150m into a futile effort to unseat the “socialist” and “anti-Israel” Barack Obama in the 2012 election.
His credibility as a political player was not enhanced by his backing of Newt Gingrich for president.
But three years on from the court case, Adelson’s influence has never been greater.
The imprint of the 84-year-old’s political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump’s more controversial decisions, including violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser.
“Adelson’s established himself as an influential figure in American politics with the amount of money that he has contributed,” said Logan Bayroff of the liberal pro-Israel group, J Street.
“There’s no doubt that he has very strong, very far-right dangerous positions and that – at very least – those positions are really being heard and thought about at the highest levels of government.”
Sheldon Adelson’s $82 million+ donation bought U.S. Israel policies
The 85-year-old and his wife Miriam gave $82 million+ to Republicans and candidate Trump in 2016, and within two years watched their man execute two major Adelson asks: moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
This was accomplished in consultation with Adelson comprador John Bolton, who in December 2016 promised members of the American Friends of Beit El that Trump would not only move the embassy—declaring Jerusalem the true capital of Israel—but that he would not oppose any Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank territories.
Adelson is also credited with opening the door for Bolton’s appointment to national security adviser in March
Follow the Money: Three Billionaires Paved Way for Trump’s Iran Withdrawal
Indeed, today’s unpopular announcement may have been exactly what two of Trump’s biggest donors, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, and what one of his biggest inaugural supporters, Paul Singer, paid for when they threw their financial weight behind Trump.
Marcus and Adelson, who are also board members of the Likudist Republican Jewish Coalition, have already received substantial returns on their investment: total alignment by the U.S. behind Israel, next week’s move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and the official dropping of “occupied territories” to describe the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Adelson, for his part, was Trump and the GOP’s biggest campaign supporter.
He and his wife Miriam contributed $35 million in outside spending to elect Trump, $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (a super PAC exclusively dedicated to securing a GOP majority in the House of Representatives), and $35 million to the Senate Leadership Fund (the Senate counterpart) in the 2016 election cycle.
Bolton wants to send 120,000 troops to the Persian Gulf, and Trump seems to be ready to let him do it.
Bolton who fluffed a coup in Venezuela only recently.
Trump, the whore who sold his policy on NATO, Ukraine, and the EU and maybe even North Korea to Putin, is so fucking out of his depth.
His entire party are whores.
And we are so fucked.
Trump’s Choice Of Bolton Satisfies His Biggest Donor
Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East policy
He had thrown $150m into a futile effort to unseat the “socialist” and “anti-Israel” Barack Obama in the 2012 election.
His credibility as a political player was not enhanced by his backing of Newt Gingrich for president.
But three years on from the court case, Adelson’s influence has never been greater.
The imprint of the 84-year-old’s political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump’s more controversial decisions, including violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser.
“Adelson’s established himself as an influential figure in American politics with the amount of money that he has contributed,” said Logan Bayroff of the liberal pro-Israel group, J Street.
“There’s no doubt that he has very strong, very far-right dangerous positions and that – at very least – those positions are really being heard and thought about at the highest levels of government.”
Sheldon Adelson’s $82 million+ donation bought U.S. Israel policies
The 85-year-old and his wife Miriam gave $82 million+ to Republicans and candidate Trump in 2016, and within two years watched their man execute two major Adelson asks: moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
This was accomplished in consultation with Adelson comprador John Bolton, who in December 2016 promised members of the American Friends of Beit El that Trump would not only move the embassy—declaring Jerusalem the true capital of Israel—but that he would not oppose any Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank territories.
Adelson is also credited with opening the door for Bolton’s appointment to national security adviser in March
Follow the Money: Three Billionaires Paved Way for Trump’s Iran Withdrawal
Indeed, today’s unpopular announcement may have been exactly what two of Trump’s biggest donors, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, and what one of his biggest inaugural supporters, Paul Singer, paid for when they threw their financial weight behind Trump.
Marcus and Adelson, who are also board members of the Likudist Republican Jewish Coalition, have already received substantial returns on their investment: total alignment by the U.S. behind Israel, next week’s move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and the official dropping of “occupied territories” to describe the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Adelson, for his part, was Trump and the GOP’s biggest campaign supporter.
He and his wife Miriam contributed $35 million in outside spending to elect Trump, $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (a super PAC exclusively dedicated to securing a GOP majority in the House of Representatives), and $35 million to the Senate Leadership Fund (the Senate counterpart) in the 2016 election cycle.
It's not just abortion in peril
The GOP wants to make it possible for states to criminalize contraception and, though they won't admit it, not only to abolish gay marriage but criminalize gay sex.
The right to privacy was first asserted to be a right against state interference with one's sex life in Griswold, and Republicans have all along opposed it and everything Democrats have done with it to abolish laws criminalizing disobedience to the strictures of Christian moral theology relating to sex.
There is still the establishment clause, but it's clear as a bell no GOP court will ever agree that clause forbids the legal imposition by the federal government or by the states of Christian sexual morality, either.
In this as in all else, the Republican Party represents a radical minority of the people of our country absolutely insistent on imposing its will on the rest of us by hook or by crook.
Hence the importance of what happened in a case having nothing directly to do with abortion.
Supreme Court Liberals Raise Alarm Bells About Roe v. Wade
It's about stare decisis.
Hyatt made clear that the five conservative justices are perfectly content to overrule a precedent merely because they disagree with it.
. . . .
The doctrine of stare decisis directs judges, including Supreme Court justices, to adhere to prior decisions even when they think those prior decisions are wrong.
Under the doctrine, justices shouldn’t overrule an earlier ruling unless several things are true:
The decision is unworkable and has generated inconsistent results; it rests on outdated facts; and it represents an outdated mode of legal thinking.
The court is also not supposed to overrule precedent where parties have relied on the decision to structure their lives.
Many legal scholars have identified stare decisis as a substantial obstacle to the overturning of Roe, since women have relied on Roe and it is not unworkable.
Roe is also not an aberration — it is part of a long line of cases protecting rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Nor does Roe rest on outdated facts; medical advances have made abortion safer, whereas maternal mortality rates in the United States have climbed.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who says she is pro-choice, invoked stare decisis to explain her votes to confirm the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court.
She pointed to the nominees’ promises to adhere to stare decisis in their confirmation hearings to ward off the suggestion that they would overturn Roe.
People sometimes likewise suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a reputation for being an institutionalist, will display a strong commitment to stare decisis.
In Hyatt, however, the five conservative justices based their decision to overrule the earlier decision almost exclusively on their belief that it was an “erroneous precedent” that “is contrary to our constitutional design.”
The justices’ lack of respect for precedent was evident in the amount of space the majority opinion devoted to stare decisis — a mere three paragraphs — and in what the court said about it.
The right to privacy was first asserted to be a right against state interference with one's sex life in Griswold, and Republicans have all along opposed it and everything Democrats have done with it to abolish laws criminalizing disobedience to the strictures of Christian moral theology relating to sex.
There is still the establishment clause, but it's clear as a bell no GOP court will ever agree that clause forbids the legal imposition by the federal government or by the states of Christian sexual morality, either.
In this as in all else, the Republican Party represents a radical minority of the people of our country absolutely insistent on imposing its will on the rest of us by hook or by crook.
Hence the importance of what happened in a case having nothing directly to do with abortion.
Supreme Court Liberals Raise Alarm Bells About Roe v. Wade
It's about stare decisis.
Hyatt made clear that the five conservative justices are perfectly content to overrule a precedent merely because they disagree with it.
. . . .
The doctrine of stare decisis directs judges, including Supreme Court justices, to adhere to prior decisions even when they think those prior decisions are wrong.
Under the doctrine, justices shouldn’t overrule an earlier ruling unless several things are true:
The decision is unworkable and has generated inconsistent results; it rests on outdated facts; and it represents an outdated mode of legal thinking.
The court is also not supposed to overrule precedent where parties have relied on the decision to structure their lives.
Many legal scholars have identified stare decisis as a substantial obstacle to the overturning of Roe, since women have relied on Roe and it is not unworkable.
Roe is also not an aberration — it is part of a long line of cases protecting rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Nor does Roe rest on outdated facts; medical advances have made abortion safer, whereas maternal mortality rates in the United States have climbed.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who says she is pro-choice, invoked stare decisis to explain her votes to confirm the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court.
She pointed to the nominees’ promises to adhere to stare decisis in their confirmation hearings to ward off the suggestion that they would overturn Roe.
People sometimes likewise suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a reputation for being an institutionalist, will display a strong commitment to stare decisis.
In Hyatt, however, the five conservative justices based their decision to overrule the earlier decision almost exclusively on their belief that it was an “erroneous precedent” that “is contrary to our constitutional design.”
The justices’ lack of respect for precedent was evident in the amount of space the majority opinion devoted to stare decisis — a mere three paragraphs — and in what the court said about it.
The Republican Party is full of human horribles and Christian blockheads.
From its top national leadership to its most insignificant local voter.
Georgia Governor Signs ‘Fetal Heartbeat’ Abortion Law
Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation on Tuesday, effectively banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, when doctors can usually start detecting a fetal heartbeat.
Georgia is the fourth state to enact a so-called fetal heartbeat law this year.
. . . .
Governors in Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio signed bills similar to Georgia’s this year.
They have not gone unchallenged: A federal judge is expected to hear a challenge to the Mississippi law later this month, and a judge in Kentucky blocked the law there.
Similar measures in Iowa and North Dakota have been found unconstitutional.
Lawmakers in South Carolina and Tennessee have pressed for fetal heartbeat bills of their own, and in Arkansas, the state government narrowed the time frame in which women can have abortions.
Alabama is considering a different tack. Under a bill approved by the State House of Representatives last month, doctors would face up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion in most instances.
Alabama Senate Set to Take Up Bill Effectively Banning Abortion
The Alabama Senate is scheduled to take up abortion legislation on Tuesday that would essentially ban the procedure outright.
. . . .
The proposal is among the most aggressive efforts in decades around the country to curb abortion. Doctors who perform the procedure could be charged with a felony and face up to 99 years in prison.
. . . .
Other state measures to restrict abortion rights have advanced in the South and the Midwest this year and invited legal fights.
Already, the governors of Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have signed fetal heartbeat bills.
And Arkansas moved up the cutoff point for legal abortions to 18 weeks of pregnancy, from 20 before.
The Alabama measure, though, goes farther.
In addition to the potential 99-year sentence for performing abortions, doctors face the threat of a 10-year term for attempting to perform one.
The possible problems of a new Georgia law
It's a fetal heartbeat law that forbids abortion as early as six weeks.
The new law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, gives a 6-week-old fetus the legal status of a human being.
One definition of second-degree murder in Georgia includes cruelty to children during which “he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.”
This raises the question of whether a woman who miscarries because of what is perceived to be her conduct could be held liable for that conduct.
“This suggests that women who ‘cause the death’ of a fetus, with or without malice, could be charged with second-degree murder,” said Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University, and a supporter of abortion rights.
. . . .
[T]he new law says doctors who perform abortions will be prosecuted, and that could still have an impact on women who miscarry.
. . . .
It would be helpful, of course, if legislators and judges and prosecutors understood the basics of miscarriage. Early pregnancy loss is not uncommon.
It occurs in about 10 percent of recognized pregnancies. Four out of five cases occur in the first trimester.
Many women miscarry before they know they’re pregnant.
About half of miscarriages are because of abnormalities in the fetal chromosomes.
These defects are usually incompatible with life, and spontaneous abortions occur.
The chance of an early pregnancy loss rises with age.
While it is less common in younger women, about 80 percent of pregnancies in 45-year-old women can end this way.
. . . .
A bigger concern is that a fear of becoming part of an investigation may cause women to avoid medical care.
John Becker, a state representative in Ohio, recently sponsored a bill that would also change how pregnant women with unsustainable pregnancies are treated.
Georgia Governor Signs ‘Fetal Heartbeat’ Abortion Law
Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation on Tuesday, effectively banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, when doctors can usually start detecting a fetal heartbeat.
Georgia is the fourth state to enact a so-called fetal heartbeat law this year.
. . . .
Governors in Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio signed bills similar to Georgia’s this year.
They have not gone unchallenged: A federal judge is expected to hear a challenge to the Mississippi law later this month, and a judge in Kentucky blocked the law there.
Similar measures in Iowa and North Dakota have been found unconstitutional.
Lawmakers in South Carolina and Tennessee have pressed for fetal heartbeat bills of their own, and in Arkansas, the state government narrowed the time frame in which women can have abortions.
Alabama is considering a different tack. Under a bill approved by the State House of Representatives last month, doctors would face up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion in most instances.
Alabama Senate Set to Take Up Bill Effectively Banning Abortion
The Alabama Senate is scheduled to take up abortion legislation on Tuesday that would essentially ban the procedure outright.
. . . .
The proposal is among the most aggressive efforts in decades around the country to curb abortion. Doctors who perform the procedure could be charged with a felony and face up to 99 years in prison.
. . . .
Other state measures to restrict abortion rights have advanced in the South and the Midwest this year and invited legal fights.
Already, the governors of Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have signed fetal heartbeat bills.
And Arkansas moved up the cutoff point for legal abortions to 18 weeks of pregnancy, from 20 before.
The Alabama measure, though, goes farther.
In addition to the potential 99-year sentence for performing abortions, doctors face the threat of a 10-year term for attempting to perform one.
The possible problems of a new Georgia law
It's a fetal heartbeat law that forbids abortion as early as six weeks.
The new law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, gives a 6-week-old fetus the legal status of a human being.
One definition of second-degree murder in Georgia includes cruelty to children during which “he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.”
This raises the question of whether a woman who miscarries because of what is perceived to be her conduct could be held liable for that conduct.
“This suggests that women who ‘cause the death’ of a fetus, with or without malice, could be charged with second-degree murder,” said Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University, and a supporter of abortion rights.
. . . .
[T]he new law says doctors who perform abortions will be prosecuted, and that could still have an impact on women who miscarry.
. . . .
It would be helpful, of course, if legislators and judges and prosecutors understood the basics of miscarriage. Early pregnancy loss is not uncommon.
It occurs in about 10 percent of recognized pregnancies. Four out of five cases occur in the first trimester.
Many women miscarry before they know they’re pregnant.
About half of miscarriages are because of abnormalities in the fetal chromosomes.
These defects are usually incompatible with life, and spontaneous abortions occur.
The chance of an early pregnancy loss rises with age.
While it is less common in younger women, about 80 percent of pregnancies in 45-year-old women can end this way.
. . . .
A bigger concern is that a fear of becoming part of an investigation may cause women to avoid medical care.
Women who are bleeding or are heading toward septic shock may not come to the emergency room or doctor’s office.
They could die.
This would only increase America’s maternal mortality rate, which is already much higher than that of most other advanced nations.
. . . .
John Becker, a state representative in Ohio, recently sponsored a bill that would also change how pregnant women with unsustainable pregnancies are treated.
He suggested that ectopic pregnancies, which are not viable, should in part be handled by “removing the embryo from the fallopian tube and then reinserting it in the uterus so that’s defined as not an abortion.”
This procedure is not possible.
This procedure is not possible.
It’s not clear that those who are writing many of these bills understand how pregnancy works.
Sunday, May 12, 2019
De haut en bas
"If you do it, it's a war crime; if I do it, it's strategic bombing."
Bomber Harris.
(Not a real quote)
Nukes, strategic and "tactical", are still in the arsenal.
And we hang people for shooting civilians, or for torture.
We outlaw use of various poison gasses.
The laughable hypocrisy is staggering.
Bomber Harris.
(Not a real quote)
Nukes, strategic and "tactical", are still in the arsenal.
And we hang people for shooting civilians, or for torture.
We outlaw use of various poison gasses.
The laughable hypocrisy is staggering.
Monday, May 6, 2019
Trump v Napolitano
Napolitano has been repeating his judgement on air that the Duce obstructed justice repeatedly and often in public, and that Barr is totally wrong and totally in the tank for Bozo.
The Duce is not happy.
Trump Sunday Tweet Storm Calls Fox News Judge Napolitano ‘Unacceptable’
Trump Retweets Rando Calling For Fox’s Napolitano To Be Fired
Napolitano: If Mueller Resigns From DOJ, Trump Can't Stop Him From Testifying About Obstruction Of Justice
Not clear how he could stop him, anyway.
The Duce is not happy.
Trump Sunday Tweet Storm Calls Fox News Judge Napolitano ‘Unacceptable’
Trump Retweets Rando Calling For Fox’s Napolitano To Be Fired
Napolitano: If Mueller Resigns From DOJ, Trump Can't Stop Him From Testifying About Obstruction Of Justice
Not clear how he could stop him, anyway.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Bullshit
Sarah Kendzior: Impeachment Isn't Optional For Democrats
I hate brats, scolds who shovel such self-righteous bullshit.
I hate brats, scolds who shovel such self-righteous bullshit.
Bernie is third?
Quinnipiac
Former Vice President Joe Biden still commanded a sizeable lead, earning 38% of support among respondents.
Second place went to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who enjoyed a light surge to earn 12% in the poll.
Sanders earned 11%, just enough to place third, according to the poll published by Quinnipiac University Tuesday.
Harvard, two days later.
Former Vice President Joe Biden still commanded a sizeable lead, earning 38% of support among respondents.
Second place went to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who enjoyed a light surge to earn 12% in the poll.
Sanders earned 11%, just enough to place third, according to the poll published by Quinnipiac University Tuesday.
Harvard, two days later.
Forty-four percent of Democratic voters surveyed said they are most likely to vote for Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Sanders comes in second place at 14 percent, while Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) places third with just 9 percent, the poll found.
Friday, May 3, 2019
She knows she's lying, right?
Both the Tories and Labor took a pasting in the local elections while the Lib Dems and Greens gained many seats.
The final English councils have declared their results and the results are worse for the Conservatives than even the most pessimistic predictions.
The party lost 1,351 seats; a net loss of 1,269.
But Labour did not profit hugely from their rivals’ disastrous day, losing 307 of their own seats; a net loss of 63.
The Lib Dems, the Greens and independent candidates were the big winners, seeing net gains of 676, 185 and 242 seats, respectively.
Polls continue to show majorities for staying in the EU.
Hell, May opposed it before the referendum.
All which May reportedly chose to spin thus.
"Yes, we had challenging results, but Labour were predicting that they were going to gain seats. In fact, they made net losses of seats.
"But I think a message has been given to both main parties from the public – I think people are saying to us: ‘We’re sending a strong message, just get on and sort Brexit out and do it’.
"I welcome the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has said today that he sees the time is now to get a deal and to deliver on Brexit – it’s what I’ve been saying for some time.
"It’s what we want to do, it’s what we’ve been working for, so now we must get on and do that."
Corbyn, the pro-Brexit leader of a mostly anti-Brexit party, echos her lie.
The parties of two leaders trying to do a Brexit both lose heavily to parties opposing Brexit, so the two leaders see this as a very clear message to do Brexit?
God, what ghastly liars.
Asked about the results, in which the Conservatives suffered much bigger losses, Corbyn told ITV: “I think it means there’s a huge impetus on every MP, and they’ve all got that message, whether they themselves are leave or remain – or the people across the country – that an arrangement has to be made, a deal has to be done, parliament has to resolve this issue. I think that is very, very clear.”
The final English councils have declared their results and the results are worse for the Conservatives than even the most pessimistic predictions.
The party lost 1,351 seats; a net loss of 1,269.
But Labour did not profit hugely from their rivals’ disastrous day, losing 307 of their own seats; a net loss of 63.
The Lib Dems, the Greens and independent candidates were the big winners, seeing net gains of 676, 185 and 242 seats, respectively.
Polls continue to show majorities for staying in the EU.
Hell, May opposed it before the referendum.
All which May reportedly chose to spin thus.
"Yes, we had challenging results, but Labour were predicting that they were going to gain seats. In fact, they made net losses of seats.
"But I think a message has been given to both main parties from the public – I think people are saying to us: ‘We’re sending a strong message, just get on and sort Brexit out and do it’.
"I welcome the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has said today that he sees the time is now to get a deal and to deliver on Brexit – it’s what I’ve been saying for some time.
"It’s what we want to do, it’s what we’ve been working for, so now we must get on and do that."
Corbyn, the pro-Brexit leader of a mostly anti-Brexit party, echos her lie.
The parties of two leaders trying to do a Brexit both lose heavily to parties opposing Brexit, so the two leaders see this as a very clear message to do Brexit?
God, what ghastly liars.
Asked about the results, in which the Conservatives suffered much bigger losses, Corbyn told ITV: “I think it means there’s a huge impetus on every MP, and they’ve all got that message, whether they themselves are leave or remain – or the people across the country – that an arrangement has to be made, a deal has to be done, parliament has to resolve this issue. I think that is very, very clear.”
Automation, AI, and the vanishing need to employ humans for anything at all
Kurzgesagt has a YouTube video on automation that considers these matters, and briefly the possibility that the capitalists who own the machines of the all-machine economy might abandon the rest of us, or put us on some subsistence dole, or something.
But, since the number of capitalists, relative to the total population, is slight, the machine economy could very well produce only for them without completely gobbling up the world's resources.
Assume that, since the AI led machine economy can do any job a human can cheaper and better, humans not among the (metaphorical) 1 % cannot lay hands on any currency with which to buy anything produced by that economy.
But this means both the need and the capacities exist for the 99 % to have their own well-functioning economy in which they are paid in human-economy currency good for buying the products of the human economy.
Products made with machines as advanced as you like, but not AI driven and not so advanced as to make anyone willing and able redundant.
Still, everything produced in the human economy costs more than it would if produced in the AI machine economy, so there is no currency exchange rate, since it is never worthwhile for the capitalists who own the machine economy to buy anything made in the human economy.
Two societies that never touch, economically, though they coexist.
Grist for a sci-fi movie?
But, since the number of capitalists, relative to the total population, is slight, the machine economy could very well produce only for them without completely gobbling up the world's resources.
Assume that, since the AI led machine economy can do any job a human can cheaper and better, humans not among the (metaphorical) 1 % cannot lay hands on any currency with which to buy anything produced by that economy.
But this means both the need and the capacities exist for the 99 % to have their own well-functioning economy in which they are paid in human-economy currency good for buying the products of the human economy.
Products made with machines as advanced as you like, but not AI driven and not so advanced as to make anyone willing and able redundant.
Still, everything produced in the human economy costs more than it would if produced in the AI machine economy, so there is no currency exchange rate, since it is never worthwhile for the capitalists who own the machine economy to buy anything made in the human economy.
Two societies that never touch, economically, though they coexist.
Grist for a sci-fi movie?
Giuliani, for Trump, solicits foreign oligarchs and leaders to do him favors. For favors.
This is An Insanely Big Deal
Just try to get the newly corrupted American Justice Department or the long corrupted Republican Party to do anything about this, or the even more repulsively corrupt Trump voter base to regard this with anything but delight.
Do we need to call this "Ukrainegate"?
Must we?
I need to return to the fact that the country’s biggest paper reported this week that the President’s personal lawyer is conducting unofficial diplomacy abroad, apparently mixed with his own private business and investments, in which he offers friendly treatment from the President of the United States in exchange for those governments targeting the President’s political enemies.
This was reported and it wasn’t the biggest story of the week.
This is a far, far bigger deal than any other fears about future tampering in a US presidential election using Facebook ads.
The stakes are much higher, the danger much greater, when the colluding candidate is also the President of the United States.
Just try to get the newly corrupted American Justice Department or the long corrupted Republican Party to do anything about this, or the even more repulsively corrupt Trump voter base to regard this with anything but delight.
Do we need to call this "Ukrainegate"?
Must we?
I need to return to the fact that the country’s biggest paper reported this week that the President’s personal lawyer is conducting unofficial diplomacy abroad, apparently mixed with his own private business and investments, in which he offers friendly treatment from the President of the United States in exchange for those governments targeting the President’s political enemies.
This was reported and it wasn’t the biggest story of the week.
This is a far, far bigger deal than any other fears about future tampering in a US presidential election using Facebook ads.
The stakes are much higher, the danger much greater, when the colluding candidate is also the President of the United States.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Steve Bannon's School for Populists in Italy
From WAPO, 3/29.
Subtitle: Dans la charteuse de Trisulsti, près de Rome, l’ancien conseiller de Donald Trump Steve Bannon et son acolyte Benjamin Harnwell sont en train de monter un projet unique. Transformer un monastère en une école pour politiques populistes.
. . . .
Dans l’enceinte du monastère de Trisulti [situé dans les montagnes à deux heures au sud-est de Rome], des moines ont vécu paisiblement à l’écart de la société.
Ils priaient, lisaient et concoctaient des remèdes à base de plantes, cueillies dans la forêt voisine. Aujourd’hui, après plus de huit siècles, il n’en reste plus qu’un, âgé de 83 ans.
Un cuisinier-jardinier vit toujours là, ainsi que plusieurs dizaines de chats sauvages.
L’autre habitant est un nouvel arrivant : c’est un Britannique âgé de 43 ans, l’un des plus proches alliés de Steve Bannon en Europe, et il espère transformer le monastère en une “école de gladiateurs pour guerriers culturels”.
. . . .
Sous peu, affirme-t-il, le monastère accueillera de nombreux étudiants souhaitant maîtriser les outils de la politique populiste.
Les grandes salles, où sont alignées de très anciennes peintures à l’huile, serviront de classe, où des étudiants pourront apprendre “les faits” ; c’est-à-dire : la vision du monde selon Bannon, qui, depuis son éviction de la Maison-Blanche, s’emploie à développer le populisme de droite en Europe et au-delà.
. . . .
Ce lieu où des moines faisaient autrefois vœu de silence donnera-t-il naissance à des responsables politiques de la trempe de Matteo Salvini et Viktor Orbán ?
Si tout va bien, affirme Harnwell, une nouvelle génération de dirigeants passera du temps ici, puis repartira sur la route de montagne vers Rome, d’autres capitales européennes ou Washington, pour faire en sorte que la révolte selon Bannon puisse continuer pendant des décennies
. . . .
“Nous ne faisons rien à court terme, affirme Bannon, qui finance personnellement l’école et conseille des partis nationalistes par le biais de son cabinet-conseil bruxellois, Le Mouvement [voir encadré]. Ça va plus loin, il s’agit de transmettre quelque chose.”
Le monastère a été mis à disposition, car les moines étaient de moins en moins nombreux et n’arrivaient plus à en assumer la maintenance.
Le gouvernement italien a publié un appel d’offres.
Harnwell y a répondu, proposant de verser un loyer annuel de 100 000 euros.
Il a déclaré que le monastère resterait un espace consacré à des “activités culturelles”.
Des cours seront organisés sur les idéologies de Bannon et du cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, connu pour son combat féroce contre l’euthanasie, la peine de mort et l’IVG.
. . . .
Harnwell reconnaît que, lorsque le gouvernement italien a annoncé qu’il avait remporté l’appel d’offres, les réactions ont été “négatives en majorité”.
Les critiques se sont apaisées depuis, précise-t-il, car l’Italie a formé un gouvernement populiste dont la composante d’extrême droite, la Ligue, entretient des liens étroits avec Bannon.
The failed coup in Venezuela. Trump vs. Putin.
From WAPO.
In this matter, anyway, Trump hardly appears Putin's puppet.
Au Venezuela, le plan de l’opposition a raté
“Depuis des semaines, raconte The Washington Post, l’opposition vénézuélienne travaillait à un plan d’ensemble pour chasser enfin du pouvoir le président Nicolás Maduro.
"Elle aurait convaincu plusieurs figures du régime, militaires et civiles, de changer de camp, tandis que d’autres responsables auraient été autorisés à quitter le pays.
"Maduro lui-même semblait prêt à partir de façon pacifique pour La Havane.”
Toutefois, ajoute le quotidien américain, ce plan n’a pas fonctionné.
Venezuela : Moscou met en garde Washington contre toute ingérence militaire
In this matter, anyway, Trump hardly appears Putin's puppet.
Au Venezuela, le plan de l’opposition a raté
“Depuis des semaines, raconte The Washington Post, l’opposition vénézuélienne travaillait à un plan d’ensemble pour chasser enfin du pouvoir le président Nicolás Maduro.
"Elle aurait convaincu plusieurs figures du régime, militaires et civiles, de changer de camp, tandis que d’autres responsables auraient été autorisés à quitter le pays.
"Maduro lui-même semblait prêt à partir de façon pacifique pour La Havane.”
Toutefois, ajoute le quotidien américain, ce plan n’a pas fonctionné.
Venezuela : Moscou met en garde Washington contre toute ingérence militaire
From its high horse in Ukraine, no doubt.
Pour le site Gazeta.ru, le Venezuela se trouve aujourd’hui à “un pas de la guerre civile”.
Le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, Sergueï Lavrov, a eu, le 1er mai, un entretien avec le secrétaire d’État américain Mike Pompeo au sujet de la tentative de prise de pouvoir menée à Caracas par le leader de l’opposition, Juan Guaidó.
Selon ce qu’en a rapporté le service de communication du siège de la diplomatie russe, après la “tentative de coup d’État réalisée par l’opposition vénézuélienne avec le soutien évident des États-Unis”, la Russie a rappelé avec insistance que “toute ingérence de Washington dans les affaires intérieures d’un État souverain, ou menace à l’adresse de ses dirigeants, constitue une grossière violation du droit international”.
Et que la “poursuite de telles menées agressives risque d’avoir des conséquences extrêmement lourdes”.
. . . .
Selon Moskovski Komsomolets, la porte-parole du ministère, Maria Zakharova, a quant à elle qualifié de “fake news” l’information divulguée par Mike Pompeo selon laquelle “dès le 30 avril au matin, Nicolás Maduro était prêt à lâcher le pouvoir et à fuir à La Havane, mais ses conseillers russes l’en auraient dissuadé”.
And Russian threats.
Fin mars, l’atterrissage à Caracas de deux avions des forces aéronautiques russes ainsi que le débarquement d’une centaine de spécialistes militaires et de 35 tonnes de matériel avaient suscité des interrogations et des protestations de la part de Washington.
Le Kremlin avait précisé qu’il s’agissait de la mise en œuvre de contrats techniques signés entre les deux pays, une présence par conséquent tout à fait légale.
Cependant, cette présence militaire russe prend une dimension inquiétante dans un contexte où le gouvernement Trump évoque la possibilité d’une intervention militaire américaine au Venezuela.
À ce titre, l’expert cité plus haut reconnaît avoir changé d’avis quant à la position russe : “Si au début de l’année je pouvais affirmer sans hésiter que la Russie ne se lancerait pas dans un conflit armé, je dirais aujourd’hui que Moscou ne peut pas rester en dehors.”
En effet, selon lui, si les Américains interviennent militairement, “une réponse russe n’est pas exclue. La situation en Syrie apparaîtra alors à toutes les parties comme une promenade de santé.”
. . . .
Selon Moskovski Komsomolets, la porte-parole du ministère, Maria Zakharova, a quant à elle qualifié de “fake news” l’information divulguée par Mike Pompeo selon laquelle “dès le 30 avril au matin, Nicolás Maduro était prêt à lâcher le pouvoir et à fuir à La Havane, mais ses conseillers russes l’en auraient dissuadé”.
And Russian threats.
Fin mars, l’atterrissage à Caracas de deux avions des forces aéronautiques russes ainsi que le débarquement d’une centaine de spécialistes militaires et de 35 tonnes de matériel avaient suscité des interrogations et des protestations de la part de Washington.
Le Kremlin avait précisé qu’il s’agissait de la mise en œuvre de contrats techniques signés entre les deux pays, une présence par conséquent tout à fait légale.
Cependant, cette présence militaire russe prend une dimension inquiétante dans un contexte où le gouvernement Trump évoque la possibilité d’une intervention militaire américaine au Venezuela.
À ce titre, l’expert cité plus haut reconnaît avoir changé d’avis quant à la position russe : “Si au début de l’année je pouvais affirmer sans hésiter que la Russie ne se lancerait pas dans un conflit armé, je dirais aujourd’hui que Moscou ne peut pas rester en dehors.”
En effet, selon lui, si les Américains interviennent militairement, “une réponse russe n’est pas exclue. La situation en Syrie apparaîtra alors à toutes les parties comme une promenade de santé.”
Somebody needs a union. Or an OSHA.
En Indonésie, au moins 296 employés chargés du dépouillement sont morts d’épuisement
296 : c’est le dernier nombre en date d’employés de bureaux de vote morts d’épuisement après avoir participé à l’organisation des élections indonésiennes qui se sont tenues le 17 avril 2019, indique le quotidien national indonésien Kompas.
Ce jour-là, près de 193 millions d’électeurs ont voté à la fois pour élire leur président, les membres de l’Assemblée nationale et ceux des Parlements régionaux.
Ce mardi 30 avril, le bilan grimpe à 296 morts et 2 151 personnes blessées ou malades, selon Kompas.
Avec 810 329 bureaux de vote répartis sur les dizaines de milliers d’îles du plus grand archipel du monde, à raison de 7 employés par bureau, c’est plus de 5,6 millions de citoyens qui ont travaillé des heures durant à surveiller le scrutin puis à dépouiller les bulletins.
La simultanéité de ces élections présidentielle et législatives, une première en Indonésie, aurait conduit “ces héros de la démocratie” à l’épuisement physique et mental, causant leur décès.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Joe is running against Bozo and the Republicans while Bernie is running against Joe and the Democrats
Sanders and Biden Circle Each Other, Using Different Rules of Engagement
With just as much populist outrage, he runs on Trump's protectionism and anti-globalism.
On his first trip to Iowa in his third bid for the presidency, Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Tuesday accused President Trump of coddling white supremacists, called former President Barack Obama “an extraordinary man” and vowed fidelity to longstanding Democratic priorities like Medicare and increasing the minimum wage.
He ignored his rivals for the Democratic nomination completely, not even hinting at any policy differences.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Mr. Biden’s closest competition in the polls, is taking a very different approach.
Mr. Sanders went on CNN on Monday night to attack Mr. Biden for his history of supporting free trade measures, a deeply divisive issue in the party.
“I helped lead the fight against Nafta, he voted for Nafta,” Mr. Sanders said, before ticking off other trade pacts that he opposed and Mr. Biden backed.
For good measure, Mr. Sanders added, “I voted against the war in Iraq, he voted for it.”
It was Mr. Sanders’s third broadside against Mr. Biden since he entered the race last week — and it marked a preview of the coming clash between the two septuagenarians that is likely to shape the early contours of the primary.
The competing strategies — Mr. Sanders targeting Mr. Biden while Mr. Biden wraps himself in the Obama legacy and excoriates Mr. Trump — illustrate the starkly different wagers the two candidates are making in the outset of the 2020 contest.
Mr. Biden’s bet is that his party’s rank-and-file consider the Obama years as a success and are animated chiefly by ejecting Mr. Trump.
With a substantial lead in early polls, Mr. Biden is trying to remain above the intraparty fray, promising a new era of good feeling after the Trump interregnum and invoking his White House experience at every turn.
“We got plenty of time to respond, I’m not going to get in a debate with my colleagues here,” Mr. Biden said Tuesday at an ice cream shop in eastern Iowa, gripping a chocolate-and-vanilla-swirl cone.
He declined to directly answer Mr. Sanders’s critique, but did call himself “a fair trader” and, notably, said he did not regret his vote for Nafta as a senator.
Later, at a rally in Dubuque, the former vice president joked that there were scant policy differences among the large field of Democratic candidates.
“We agree on basically everything, all of us running — all 400 of us.”
Oooooh, there's a big Pinnochio.
Mr. Sanders, the leader in early polls until Mr. Biden joined the race, feels less urgency to unify the country or even the Democratic Party and has taken a far more aggressive posture toward the front-runner than any other contender.
In targeting the former vice president, he is hoping to elevate himself as the leading progressive alternative in a 20-person field filled with candidates hungry for attention.
Mr. Sanders is running on the assumption that Democratic voters not only want to defeat Mr. Trump but also seek to shed the incremental, within-the-system politics of Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton.
He never wants to recall that Hillary got the suffrage of nearly 4 million more Democratic primary voters than he did.
He never wants to recall that just as he isn't really a Democrat and openly despises the party the feeling is entirely mutual and Democrats who actually are Democrats don't want him, his socialism, or his foolish protectionism.
Maybe he didn't see this poll.
It would have made the matter clear as a bell.
A new national poll of Democratic primary voters helps illustrate why Mr. Sanders is so eager to pick a fight with Mr. Biden:
The former vice president has gained ground since entering the race and enjoys the support of 39 percent of his party’s voters while Mr. Sanders is in second place with 15 percent.
CNN
Former Vice President Joe Biden's announcement of a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination earned him an 11-point polling bounce, leaving him head and shoulders above the rest of the Democratic candidates.
A new CNN poll conducted by SSRS after Biden's announcement on Thursday shows 39% of voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents saying he is their top choice for the nomination, up from 28% who said the same in March.
That puts Biden more than 20 points ahead of his nearest competitor, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- who holds 15% support in the poll -- and roughly 30 points ahead of the next strongest candidate, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (8%).
With just as much populist outrage, he runs on Trump's protectionism and anti-globalism.
On his first trip to Iowa in his third bid for the presidency, Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Tuesday accused President Trump of coddling white supremacists, called former President Barack Obama “an extraordinary man” and vowed fidelity to longstanding Democratic priorities like Medicare and increasing the minimum wage.
He ignored his rivals for the Democratic nomination completely, not even hinting at any policy differences.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Mr. Biden’s closest competition in the polls, is taking a very different approach.
Mr. Sanders went on CNN on Monday night to attack Mr. Biden for his history of supporting free trade measures, a deeply divisive issue in the party.
“I helped lead the fight against Nafta, he voted for Nafta,” Mr. Sanders said, before ticking off other trade pacts that he opposed and Mr. Biden backed.
For good measure, Mr. Sanders added, “I voted against the war in Iraq, he voted for it.”
It was Mr. Sanders’s third broadside against Mr. Biden since he entered the race last week — and it marked a preview of the coming clash between the two septuagenarians that is likely to shape the early contours of the primary.
The competing strategies — Mr. Sanders targeting Mr. Biden while Mr. Biden wraps himself in the Obama legacy and excoriates Mr. Trump — illustrate the starkly different wagers the two candidates are making in the outset of the 2020 contest.
Mr. Biden’s bet is that his party’s rank-and-file consider the Obama years as a success and are animated chiefly by ejecting Mr. Trump.
With a substantial lead in early polls, Mr. Biden is trying to remain above the intraparty fray, promising a new era of good feeling after the Trump interregnum and invoking his White House experience at every turn.
“We got plenty of time to respond, I’m not going to get in a debate with my colleagues here,” Mr. Biden said Tuesday at an ice cream shop in eastern Iowa, gripping a chocolate-and-vanilla-swirl cone.
He declined to directly answer Mr. Sanders’s critique, but did call himself “a fair trader” and, notably, said he did not regret his vote for Nafta as a senator.
Later, at a rally in Dubuque, the former vice president joked that there were scant policy differences among the large field of Democratic candidates.
“We agree on basically everything, all of us running — all 400 of us.”
Oooooh, there's a big Pinnochio.
Mr. Sanders, the leader in early polls until Mr. Biden joined the race, feels less urgency to unify the country or even the Democratic Party and has taken a far more aggressive posture toward the front-runner than any other contender.
In targeting the former vice president, he is hoping to elevate himself as the leading progressive alternative in a 20-person field filled with candidates hungry for attention.
Mr. Sanders is running on the assumption that Democratic voters not only want to defeat Mr. Trump but also seek to shed the incremental, within-the-system politics of Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton.
He never wants to recall that Hillary got the suffrage of nearly 4 million more Democratic primary voters than he did.
He never wants to recall that just as he isn't really a Democrat and openly despises the party the feeling is entirely mutual and Democrats who actually are Democrats don't want him, his socialism, or his foolish protectionism.
Maybe he didn't see this poll.
It would have made the matter clear as a bell.
A new national poll of Democratic primary voters helps illustrate why Mr. Sanders is so eager to pick a fight with Mr. Biden:
The former vice president has gained ground since entering the race and enjoys the support of 39 percent of his party’s voters while Mr. Sanders is in second place with 15 percent.
CNN
Former Vice President Joe Biden's announcement of a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination earned him an 11-point polling bounce, leaving him head and shoulders above the rest of the Democratic candidates.
A new CNN poll conducted by SSRS after Biden's announcement on Thursday shows 39% of voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents saying he is their top choice for the nomination, up from 28% who said the same in March.
That puts Biden more than 20 points ahead of his nearest competitor, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- who holds 15% support in the poll -- and roughly 30 points ahead of the next strongest candidate, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (8%).
Corbyn lets his undies show
Labor is not going to run for the EP with a visible commitment to remaining in the EU or a serious commitment to a plebiscite allowing the voters to choose between remaining in the EU or leaving with a definite deal in place, if and when parliament agrees on a deal the EU is willing to accept.
So, if you forget, Corbyn as an individual is further left than his party and wants out of the EU because that would allow the government of the UK to take the country further left than it could within the EU.
Just as the right wingers who started it all (remember Euro-skepticism?) back under Thatcher were convinced the government of the UK could take the country further to the right out of the EU than within.
So, a voter who really wants to remain in the EU needs to vote for a party committed to that: Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK.
So, if you forget, Corbyn as an individual is further left than his party and wants out of the EU because that would allow the government of the UK to take the country further left than it could within the EU.
Just as the right wingers who started it all (remember Euro-skepticism?) back under Thatcher were convinced the government of the UK could take the country further to the right out of the EU than within.
So, a voter who really wants to remain in the EU needs to vote for a party committed to that: Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK.
On the other hand, this really isn't a surprise, at all, is it?
Revealed: populists far more likely to believe in conspiracy theories
They live in the Fox News, Alex Jones universe, after all.
Even Trump was publicly pushing anti-vaxx bullshit before the news started covering the current measles outbreaks.
Wait. This is a global study.
Populists across the world are significantly more likely to believe in conspiracy theories about vaccinations, global warming and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a landmark global survey shared exclusively with the Guardian.
The YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project sheds new light on a section of the world population that appears to have limited faith in scientific experts and representative democracy.
. . . .
The World Health Organization and other public health bodies have embarked on major campaigns to remind the public of the importance of vaccination as anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories have flourished on social media.
Unicef recently revealed that measles cases had risen 300% in the first three months of this year compared with the same time last year. In 2017, approximately110,000 people died of the illness, most of them children.
About 169 million children under 10 worldwide are unvaccinated, the UN agency said.
In the YouGov survey, people with strongly held populist views were on average almost twice as likely to believe that supposed harmful effects of vaccines were being deliberately hidden from the public.
They were similarly more likely to believe that the US government knowingly helped the 9/11 terrorist attackers, and that manmade global warming was a hoax.
Two in five populists in the survey agreed that regardless of who was officially in charge of governments, “there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together”, compared with just under a quarter of the overall survey respondents.
They live in the Fox News, Alex Jones universe, after all.
Even Trump was publicly pushing anti-vaxx bullshit before the news started covering the current measles outbreaks.
Wait. This is a global study.
Populists across the world are significantly more likely to believe in conspiracy theories about vaccinations, global warming and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a landmark global survey shared exclusively with the Guardian.
The YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project sheds new light on a section of the world population that appears to have limited faith in scientific experts and representative democracy.
. . . .
The World Health Organization and other public health bodies have embarked on major campaigns to remind the public of the importance of vaccination as anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories have flourished on social media.
Unicef recently revealed that measles cases had risen 300% in the first three months of this year compared with the same time last year. In 2017, approximately110,000 people died of the illness, most of them children.
About 169 million children under 10 worldwide are unvaccinated, the UN agency said.
In the YouGov survey, people with strongly held populist views were on average almost twice as likely to believe that supposed harmful effects of vaccines were being deliberately hidden from the public.
They were similarly more likely to believe that the US government knowingly helped the 9/11 terrorist attackers, and that manmade global warming was a hoax.
Two in five populists in the survey agreed that regardless of who was officially in charge of governments, “there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together”, compared with just under a quarter of the overall survey respondents.
Wait.
So 25% of the general population think “there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together”?
The Illuminati?
The Elders of Zion?
Jeez.
Read the Guardian story.
Lots more in the Guardian on the new populism around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)