What could or should she say but "I know you are, but what am I?"
Newt Gingrich: Ocasio-Cortez is vicious, cruel and dishonest – And determined to destroy the America we know
The entire article is nothing but lies from beginning to end, most of them being projections as well of the facts about him and his party upon her and hers.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Mill on Representative Government
Mill upholds the role of impartial principle and beliefs about justice, right, and general or common good, as well as religious beliefs, and seems to underrate those of empirical egoism and interest, in political action and evaluation.
And yet he and pretty much everyone else involved at least as an onlooker in politics expects voters to generally vote their interests, though the rule is far from exceptionless.
People often vote in support of their principles, of religious agendas, or of their greed, hatred, and will to vengeance.
What were the Nazis about, after all?
Or the Muslim Brotherhood?
Or the Iranian revolution of the Ayatollahs?
Anyway, in chapter 1 Mill advances 3 conditions on the suitability of a people to a form of government, or vice versa - though it is not entirely clear that these are really three different conditions.
The people must be willing to accept it, or not so unwilling as to make establishment possible.
They must been willing and able to do what is needed to keep it standing, and omit what would undermine it.
They must be capable of fulfilling conditions of action or restraint necessary for its existence and achievement of its ends, conduciveness to which forms its recommendation.
In chapter 1 he opposes the idea that given historical, social, or economic circumstances uniquely determine the form of government.
But his notion of conditions and what they are make it clear enough he sees such things as possibly limiting the range of suitability.
Chapter 2.
He begins by saying to decide what form of government is best for a society we need a way to decide what form best serves the interests of that society.
He goes on to undermine the idea that these interests can commodiously be characterized as Order and Progress (yes, with capital letters).
But all the same he spends the entire chapter considering what conduces to either, which he thinks boils down to traits of government that encourage personal qualities conducive to either (industry, prudence, etc.) or such features of government itself as efficiency and justice.
On the whole, focusing on just these factors, he in this entire chapter completely misses whatever might actually have led to the scientific and industrial revolutions while repeating several times such numbskull claims as that whatever conduces to order also conduces to progress, provided only that there is more of it.
And yet he and pretty much everyone else involved at least as an onlooker in politics expects voters to generally vote their interests, though the rule is far from exceptionless.
People often vote in support of their principles, of religious agendas, or of their greed, hatred, and will to vengeance.
What were the Nazis about, after all?
Or the Muslim Brotherhood?
Or the Iranian revolution of the Ayatollahs?
Anyway, in chapter 1 Mill advances 3 conditions on the suitability of a people to a form of government, or vice versa - though it is not entirely clear that these are really three different conditions.
The people must be willing to accept it, or not so unwilling as to make establishment possible.
They must been willing and able to do what is needed to keep it standing, and omit what would undermine it.
They must be capable of fulfilling conditions of action or restraint necessary for its existence and achievement of its ends, conduciveness to which forms its recommendation.
In chapter 1 he opposes the idea that given historical, social, or economic circumstances uniquely determine the form of government.
But his notion of conditions and what they are make it clear enough he sees such things as possibly limiting the range of suitability.
Chapter 2.
He begins by saying to decide what form of government is best for a society we need a way to decide what form best serves the interests of that society.
He goes on to undermine the idea that these interests can commodiously be characterized as Order and Progress (yes, with capital letters).
But all the same he spends the entire chapter considering what conduces to either, which he thinks boils down to traits of government that encourage personal qualities conducive to either (industry, prudence, etc.) or such features of government itself as efficiency and justice.
On the whole, focusing on just these factors, he in this entire chapter completely misses whatever might actually have led to the scientific and industrial revolutions while repeating several times such numbskull claims as that whatever conduces to order also conduces to progress, provided only that there is more of it.
Friday, July 5, 2019
Hopkins at 82
I didn't expect it, but his Amazon Lear was remarkable.
A while back he made a success of Titus Andronicus.
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Was this the worst nuclear accident ever?
Damaged Russian Submersible Has Nuclear Power Unit, but It’s Intact, Kremlin Says
Why does anyone think it's safe to use reactors to power any sort of vehicle?
Why does anyone think it's safe to use reactors to power any sort of vehicle?
Barnaby Rudge
By the end of Chapter 32 the romantic, marital prospects of the two young men, Joe Willet and Ned Chester, and of the objects of their respective loves, Dolly Varden and Emma Haredale, are in ruins, brought about by lies told to fools by one of their fathers, Sir John Chester.
With Chapter 33 the narrative leaps forward 5 years.
In the next few chapters, D introduces us to George Gordon, not Lord Byron, and the movement of Protestant reaction he led, whose disquiet eventually led to the Gordon Riots.
Readers of D always find new occasions to pause and consider whether he might agree with J. S. Mill's public declaration, "The poor, in the lump, are bad," though perhaps tempted to extend the observation beyond that class without a specified limit.
And how near a man can come to combining personal misanthropy and personal humanitarianism.
Contempt for the rabble and support for democratic reform.
And the like.
D's Gordon seems a gentleman more than half sincere, but partly a crank not entirely taken in by himself.
His El Segundo, Gashford, seems a better educated and even more fraudulent Gantry playing Rasputin to Gordon's Czar.
With Chapter 33 the narrative leaps forward 5 years.
In the next few chapters, D introduces us to George Gordon, not Lord Byron, and the movement of Protestant reaction he led, whose disquiet eventually led to the Gordon Riots.
Readers of D always find new occasions to pause and consider whether he might agree with J. S. Mill's public declaration, "The poor, in the lump, are bad," though perhaps tempted to extend the observation beyond that class without a specified limit.
And how near a man can come to combining personal misanthropy and personal humanitarianism.
Contempt for the rabble and support for democratic reform.
And the like.
D's Gordon seems a gentleman more than half sincere, but partly a crank not entirely taken in by himself.
His El Segundo, Gashford, seems a better educated and even more fraudulent Gantry playing Rasputin to Gordon's Czar.
The value of a loyal Attorney General
Justice Dept. Reverses Course on Citizenship Question on Census, Citing Trump’s Orders
His own Supremes told him he couldn't.
Why it's up to them is anybody's guess, I suppose.
But he wants to do it anyway, it seems.
A different AG would have told him he can't, would have refused, or would have quit.
Not this AG.
The Supreme Court last week rejected the administration’s stated reason for adding the citizenship question as contrived. wan
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, left open the chance that the administration could offer an adequate rationale.
Faced with tight printing deadlines, administration officials said on Tuesday that it was time to abandon the effort and begin printing forms this week that do not contain the citizenship question.
Justice Department lawyers told United States District Judge George J. Hazel in a telephone conference that a decision to eliminate the question from census forms had been made “for once and for all.”
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the Census Bureau, issued a separate statement accepting the outcome.
But a day later, an extraordinary scene played out on a conference phone call between Judge Hazel and Justice Department officials, who appeared to be blindsided by the president’s comments online.
[He tweeted:]
That was only reinforced by the disclosure last month of a 2015 study by a Republican strategist, Thomas B. Hofeller, that explained how data from a citizenship question could be used to exclude noncitizens from the population bases used in redistricting.
The newly drawn districts, he wrote, would tilt toward non-Hispanic whites and Republicans and hobble representation of Hispanics and Democrats.
Mr. Hofeller, who died last year, was the first person to urge Mr. Trump’s transition team in 2016 to add the question to the 2020 head count.
Three separate federal courts — in New York, Maryland and California — have ruled that the Commerce Department violated federal procedural law and the Constitution in tacking the question onto the census.
They called the department’s rationale — to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act — an obvious cover for some other motive.
On Wednesday, Judge Hazel ratcheted up the pressure on the administration to make up its mind, ordering the Trump administration either to confirm by Friday afternoon that it was not placing the citizenship question on the census questionnaire, or offer a schedule for continuing the Maryland lawsuit.
. . . .
The Justice Department ultimately acted under pressure from Mr. Trump, who had reacted angrily to the Supreme Court’s handling of the census case and insisted that his administration move forward despite the court’s ruling.
The Democrats are only seeing the short term partisan impact.
They are forgetting that the idea has already been floated that a proper interpretation of the constitution would see that representation, taxes, and federal money are all related to the citizen population, only, and not at all to the total number of persons.
As the constitution actually says outright.
It's all in the interpretation.
His own Supremes told him he couldn't.
Why it's up to them is anybody's guess, I suppose.
But he wants to do it anyway, it seems.
A different AG would have told him he can't, would have refused, or would have quit.
Not this AG.
The Supreme Court last week rejected the administration’s stated reason for adding the citizenship question as contrived. wan
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, left open the chance that the administration could offer an adequate rationale.
Faced with tight printing deadlines, administration officials said on Tuesday that it was time to abandon the effort and begin printing forms this week that do not contain the citizenship question.
Justice Department lawyers told United States District Judge George J. Hazel in a telephone conference that a decision to eliminate the question from census forms had been made “for once and for all.”
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the Census Bureau, issued a separate statement accepting the outcome.
But a day later, an extraordinary scene played out on a conference phone call between Judge Hazel and Justice Department officials, who appeared to be blindsided by the president’s comments online.
[He tweeted:]
The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.An army of critics, from cities and states to ethnic and civil-rights advocates, have argued that the question is an ill-disguised effort to skew the census’s results to the benefit of the Republican Party.
That was only reinforced by the disclosure last month of a 2015 study by a Republican strategist, Thomas B. Hofeller, that explained how data from a citizenship question could be used to exclude noncitizens from the population bases used in redistricting.
The newly drawn districts, he wrote, would tilt toward non-Hispanic whites and Republicans and hobble representation of Hispanics and Democrats.
Mr. Hofeller, who died last year, was the first person to urge Mr. Trump’s transition team in 2016 to add the question to the 2020 head count.
Three separate federal courts — in New York, Maryland and California — have ruled that the Commerce Department violated federal procedural law and the Constitution in tacking the question onto the census.
They called the department’s rationale — to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act — an obvious cover for some other motive.
On Wednesday, Judge Hazel ratcheted up the pressure on the administration to make up its mind, ordering the Trump administration either to confirm by Friday afternoon that it was not placing the citizenship question on the census questionnaire, or offer a schedule for continuing the Maryland lawsuit.
. . . .
The Justice Department ultimately acted under pressure from Mr. Trump, who had reacted angrily to the Supreme Court’s handling of the census case and insisted that his administration move forward despite the court’s ruling.
The Democrats are only seeing the short term partisan impact.
They are forgetting that the idea has already been floated that a proper interpretation of the constitution would see that representation, taxes, and federal money are all related to the citizen population, only, and not at all to the total number of persons.
As the constitution actually says outright.
It's all in the interpretation.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
A shameless henchman of the Duce gets slapped
Federal Judge Blocks Barr’s Attempt to Deny Asylum Seekers Bail
A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked an order by Attorney General William P. Barr that would have kept thousands of migrants detained indefinitely while waiting for their asylum cases to be decided.
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of United States District Court for the Western District of Washington described the order, which would have denied some migrants a bail hearing, as unconstitutional.
Under a preliminary injunction, Judge Pechman said migrants must be granted a bond hearing within seven days of a request or be released if they have not received a hearing in that time.
“The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue,” Judge Pechman wrote.
A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked an order by Attorney General William P. Barr that would have kept thousands of migrants detained indefinitely while waiting for their asylum cases to be decided.
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of United States District Court for the Western District of Washington described the order, which would have denied some migrants a bail hearing, as unconstitutional.
Under a preliminary injunction, Judge Pechman said migrants must be granted a bond hearing within seven days of a request or be released if they have not received a hearing in that time.
“The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue,” Judge Pechman wrote.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
This is how much Bozo and his Republican nazi emulators care about nonwhites or people not white enough
Ocasio-Cortez details 'horrifying' conditions at migrant detention facility
What Ocasio-Cortez saw inside the facility, which has been plagued by recent reports of abusive treatment of detained children, was “horrifying”, she tweeted.
She reported officers forcing women to drink out of toilets.
. . . .
With serial visits by Democratic presidential candidates and elected officials to migrant detention centers in recent days, the Trump administration has forcefully rejected claims of systemic abuse of detainees, calling them “unsubstantiated”.
. . . .
As Ocasio-Cortez visited the Texas facility, NBC News revealed an internal Department of Homeland Security report that said conditions inside an El Paso center were so dire that as early as May, border agents were arming themselves against possible riots.
Inspectors at the facility noted “only four showers were available for 756 immigrants, more than half of the immigrants were being held outside, and immigrants inside were being kept in cells maxed out at more than five times their capacity”, NBC reported.
“A cell meant for a maximum of 35 held 155 adult males with only one toilet and sink. The cell was so crowded the men could not lie down to sleep,” the report went on. “With limited access to showers and clean clothing, detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks.”
The Department of Homeland Security did not reply to a request for comment.
. . . .
However, the California congresswoman Judy Chu, also on the trip with Ocasio-Cortez, said she met a woman who had been told by a border agent: “If you want water, just drink from a toilet.”
“These are the same CBP personnel who threatened to throw burritos at members of Congress,” Chu tweeted. “Changes must be made.”
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that migrants were being treated “like animals”.
She wrote: “This has been horrifying so far. It is hard to understate the enormity of the problem. We’re talking systemic cruelty [with] a dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals.”
What Ocasio-Cortez saw inside the facility, which has been plagued by recent reports of abusive treatment of detained children, was “horrifying”, she tweeted.
She reported officers forcing women to drink out of toilets.
. . . .
With serial visits by Democratic presidential candidates and elected officials to migrant detention centers in recent days, the Trump administration has forcefully rejected claims of systemic abuse of detainees, calling them “unsubstantiated”.
. . . .
As Ocasio-Cortez visited the Texas facility, NBC News revealed an internal Department of Homeland Security report that said conditions inside an El Paso center were so dire that as early as May, border agents were arming themselves against possible riots.
Inspectors at the facility noted “only four showers were available for 756 immigrants, more than half of the immigrants were being held outside, and immigrants inside were being kept in cells maxed out at more than five times their capacity”, NBC reported.
“A cell meant for a maximum of 35 held 155 adult males with only one toilet and sink. The cell was so crowded the men could not lie down to sleep,” the report went on. “With limited access to showers and clean clothing, detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks.”
The Department of Homeland Security did not reply to a request for comment.
. . . .
However, the California congresswoman Judy Chu, also on the trip with Ocasio-Cortez, said she met a woman who had been told by a border agent: “If you want water, just drink from a toilet.”
“These are the same CBP personnel who threatened to throw burritos at members of Congress,” Chu tweeted. “Changes must be made.”
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that migrants were being treated “like animals”.
She wrote: “This has been horrifying so far. It is hard to understate the enormity of the problem. We’re talking systemic cruelty [with] a dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals.”
Opera can't be far behind
Can Baltimore Save Its World-Class Orchestra?
Or ballet?
Museums of art?
So much of the traditional high culture of the West has been increasingly dependent for decades on the patronage of the rich.
With the rise of ever more assertive philistinism backed by PC rejection of white, male, Christian, and Western civilization the market continues to dry up for actual education (liberal arts) as opposed to expensive vocational training and grievance training (Black Studies, Women's Studies, etc.), and so will the market for expensive arts.
When will the Elgin Marbles become so many, er, white elephants?
Everyone notices the eclipse of paper books but, like the replacement of paper with online news sources, this has also meant a significant decline in the quality of what is available, responding to a decline in the market for actual literature as well as actual news.
Anyway, vocational education is a mug's game, in a world in which AI means eventually all humans will be made redundant.
Or ballet?
Museums of art?
So much of the traditional high culture of the West has been increasingly dependent for decades on the patronage of the rich.
With the rise of ever more assertive philistinism backed by PC rejection of white, male, Christian, and Western civilization the market continues to dry up for actual education (liberal arts) as opposed to expensive vocational training and grievance training (Black Studies, Women's Studies, etc.), and so will the market for expensive arts.
When will the Elgin Marbles become so many, er, white elephants?
Everyone notices the eclipse of paper books but, like the replacement of paper with online news sources, this has also meant a significant decline in the quality of what is available, responding to a decline in the market for actual literature as well as actual news.
Anyway, vocational education is a mug's game, in a world in which AI means eventually all humans will be made redundant.
So far this year
I have seen no more than 4 honey bees, no more than three bumble bees, and no wasps or hornets.
I have done some yard work, I have taken my exercise walk outside whenever weather has permitted, and there are always the walks to and from the car at the house, the mall, the grocery store, the barber, and so on.
All the birds just disappeared.
I have done some yard work, I have taken my exercise walk outside whenever weather has permitted, and there are always the walks to and from the car at the house, the mall, the grocery store, the barber, and so on.
[And the hospitals and doctors' offices.Imagine a movie the reverse of The Birds.
My wife has not been well since early last October.
Sometimes I am frightened.
Sometimes she breaks down and despairs, just tired of it all.]
All the birds just disappeared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)