Thursday, October 03, 2024

💰 🎤 🥤

Curious reasoning. Especially since he announced two years ago, and has been calling the criminal cases him “election interference” ever since. If he doesn’t mention Hannibal Lecter, whales, and sharks, I’m gonna be disappointed. AI doesn’t have any agency. Only people do. Not that I could expect you to understand that. DRINK! WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT?!? 🤬 (I guess Ivana’s death made him happy.) Trifecta: giving FEMA money to the wrong people. Combined with immigrants getting freebies and illegally voting (all 20 of them in, what, the last decade?). This is why FEMA was not on the ground before Helene made landfall, and isn’t helping anyone now. Trump said so, it must be true. (Well, he insisted immigration and inflation were the chief concern of voters, and despite polls showing consistently they weren’t, pundits dutifully reported the GOP talking points.) Projection is such a cruel mistress. Since he wasn’t personally affected by one. The rest of know it can take years to recover, despite throwed towels.
Blood is DEFINITELY in the water. (And another “economic speech”? DRINK!)
Posted by at No comments:

Trump Is Striking At The Heart Of Harris’ Support In Michigan

I don’t care about crowd size, but the guy is flat delusional.
Posted by at No comments:

Name Two

I don't think “normie Dem voters” give a wet snap about this issue, because I don’t believe it’s really an issue. Maybe in Michigan, where I keep hearing Palestinian Americans are mad at Biden/Harris, but that’s their beef and none of my own. Who are the rest of these Susan Sarandons? Even Jane Fonda is supporting Harris because Trump is so dangerous. Bernie Sandertwas in San Antonio this week to rally for Harris. AOC supports Harris. Rep. Tlaib may not support the VP for POTUS, but how many states does she sway?

Which is kind of acknowledged in the last sentence, there. But who is this thread talking to? More importantly, who is it talking about? Because I think there’s more MAGA in the GOP, than there are “never Harris” voters among the Democrats.

I’ll really be glad when this election is over. 😅
Posted by at No comments:

Ironically…

She is nuts, to begin with. A “magnetic” mattress. (Which is a thing, but then again, late in the last century, so was sleeping under a pyramid.)
Now that’s an interesting point:
At one point the judge got a little upset after Peters challenged him to read the "reports" that she submitted about fraud. He told Peters than he did read them. Peters seemed surprised and then remarked that she was glad he read them because that meant that he must agree with her. The judge scolded her not to claim that he agreed with her theories when he never said that.
The old "If they [those who disagree with you] would just read the right material, they would agree with me!"

See why that “reasoning” doesn’t work? (Her “reports about fraud,” btw, were that the Serbians did it.
You can’t make this stuff up. Well, she can, but I didn’t.)

Also BTW: a hand recount in the county showed the same tally as the machine count. Peter’s insisted, at the sentencing hearing, that the election was stolen and votes were flipped.

Bug fuck crazy.
Posted by at No comments:

Not So Fast

The fact that no jury may pass on the deadly serious allegations in Smith’s complaint will do more than simply let Trump and others off the hooks for their potential crimes. It will make future criminal activity related to American elections much more likely. And it all could have been avoided if McConnell, Garland, and especially the Supreme Court had done the right thing.
The last sentence is Hasen’s thesis: that a three-legged stool of mal(or mis-)feasance led to our current situation. On the “failure” of Garland, I call bullshit. And further: Hasen should know better. April of 2021 is, what, 3 months after Biden’s inauguration? Somewhere in that time frame Garland was approved as AG.  In July 1, 2021, the Select Committee to investigate the J6 attack was formed. That committee produced a report in 2022, a report Jack Smith has clearly relied on.  That’s not quite the breathless speed of a TV show or a courtroom movie drama, but considering the amount of information gathered, a fairly rapid response.

That first warrant in April, 2021, touched off 9 months of fights over executive privilege. The simple fact is, you can’t just assign a special prosecutor, a la Ken Starr, and give him a remit to “find something.” (That never should have happened to Clinton, or to Hunter Biden.) Remember all those election challenges Trump lost? They were uniformly asking courts for discovery power to find information they didn’t have in order to establish a case for fraud they could then prove. 60 times the court told Trump: it doesn’t work that way. In criminal cases the prosecution has to first have reasonable suspicion, and then grounds to establish probable cause in order to further an investigation so they can prosecute. That kind of evidence seldom falls in your lap, especially in a case as complicated as the one against Trump (as Smith’s latest brief shows). (Starr was a prosecutor who had to find something, and dug around until he did. Smith had reasonable suspicion, and then developed that case into a grand jury indictment.)

Hasen knows this; or he should.

So 9 months of delay to even be able to gather preliminary information; and another privilege fight started in June 2022. These kinds of things tend to delay bringing charges, because it delays investigations. Until the privilege issues were resolved, the investigations were stalled. And Smith wasn’t appointed in April, 2021, probably because Garland didn’t want to appoint another Ken Starr and say: “Find something.” Besides, Smith wouldn’t have cut through two years of privilege fights any faster than Lisa Monaco could. Special prosecutors don’t have magical swords for cutting such Gordon knots.

A lot of the delay is on Trump. Ironic because now Trump is complaining the calendar, three years later, is working out against him;
But he was never in control of it, any more than Smith was.

And I still contend if the felony conviction in New York is not enough to make people not vote for a felon, a conviction in D.C. wouldn’t sway the voters, either.

Though maybe the first conviction already has. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Posted by at No comments:

Dear Leader Presents The City Of Tomorrow!

A key feature will be: no immigrants allowed!

And does “federal land” include the wilderness of Alaska? Deserts of the West?

Does it come with flying cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot? And is it guaranteed to be “whites only”?  Because somehow I imagine it is.
Posted by at No comments:

As Much As I Like Tortilla Chips…

... I question their nutritional value when people have lost access to food.

And I’d point out the CEO of Goya is a rabid Trump supporter.
Posted by at No comments:

Lost In The Stars

What’s being lost in the discussion of the DOJ brief is that the presentation of the evidence is an argument about the admissibility of the evidence. This is why I’m not too impressed with the comments of Laurence Tribe or Jim Trusty. This evidence is not being submitted now as proof of the allegations; it’s being submitted for admissibility at trial.

The Supreme Court opinion on Presidential immunity turns entirely on that issue: what evidence can be presented in a criminal prosecution of a former president?

I should explain that evidence in court is not evidence in public discourse. When a reporter asks an interview subject what “evidence” they have to support a claim, the response can be as facile as “some people say.” Donald Trump has recently asserted that even the federal government doesn’t know how many people live in America. It’s an obviously stupid statement, resting on mindless distrust of government provided information. But if you needed to rebut him in court on this claim, you’d need to satisfy the rules of evidence to bring in government census data. You couldn’t just pull up the Census Bureau website on your phone, wave it around, and say “Everybody knows!”

I’m not going to bore you with the details of the rules of evidence for proving up government documents. The point is, until you can meet those requirements, your evidence is not admissible in court, and so is not “evidence.”

So the former Trump defense lawyers telling cable news that Smith’s brief is not proof, are right. But it’s not meant to be. The question is: can this evidence be admitted in court against Trump as proof he committed crimes while in office? That’s the sole purpose of the brief, because if the evidence is inadmissible, the prosecution is impossible.

Which is how we get here:
John Roberts not only rewrote the Constitution to protect Donald Trump. He forced prosecutors to spend 14 pages arguing that it is not among the job duties of the President of the United States to attack Republicans who’ve crossed him on Twitter. This is what the Chief Justice wants to protect. 
This is the all-powerful President John Roberts wants to have. Someone who can sit in his dining room siccing mobs on fellow Republicans. 
Who knows whether it will work? Who knows whether these right wing Justices will go that far — to argue that even the President’s mean Tweets targeting members of his own party must be protected from any accountability? 
But prosecutors personalized it. 
As noted above, the 14 pages analyzing mean Tweets follows the analysis of two rally speeches, in which prosecutors first show the January 4 Georgia speech was a campaign event, and then (among other things) lay out the similarity between that speech and Trump’s January 6 one. 
Among the things Trump included in both speeches was an attack on the Supreme Court: 
The defendant, who in his capacity as a candidate had suffered personal legal defeats in his private, election-related litigation at the Supreme Court, attacked it (Dalton at GA 1095; “I’m not happy with the Supreme Court. They are not stepping up to the plate. They’re not stepping up.” Ellipse at GA 1125: “I’m not happy with the Supreme Court. They love to rule against me.”). 
Of course, the Justices can’t view that as an official act. It would be anathema to the very principles of separation of powers the Justices claim to be guarding. Plus (as noted here and elsewhere), Trump had specifically labeled his intervention in Ken Paxton’s lawsuit as done in his official capacity. But building off how obviously unofficial this attack on John Roberts and his buddies is, it makes it all the more obvious that Donald Trump’s mean Tweets aren’t official acts either. 
Though the inclusion of Trump’s attacks on them also might get these partisan hacks to think more seriously about the nearly identical exhortations Trump made on Truth Social before they decided to rewrite the Constitution in his favor.
This is supposed to be a government of laws, not of persons, so we shouldn’t even be here at all. And while  the Supreme Court is supposed to concern itself with questions of law, and particulars of fact only as they determine those questions (“change the facts, change the outcome “), ew is right. Some of this DOJ brief is aimed squarely at the six justices of Trump v U.S., because those justices put themselves in the crosshairs. Supreme Court opinions should be about principles of law. But Trump v US is about admissibility of evidence in a particular case. They made it particular and individual when they remanded it to the trial court with the instructions: “You sort out this mess we’ve made, and we’ll decide whether you got it right or not, on these particular facts and these particular parties.” The Court didn’t declare a general principle; it declared that it would review the evidence against Trump and decide if he could be prosecuted. It declared that the POTUS stands alone of all persons in the U.S., and only the SCOTUS can determine his criminal culpability, or lack thereof. And they can do it by determining what proof is allowed, against that President, on a case by case basis.

The decision invents not only rewrites the Constitution in Trump’s favor, but in favor of sux justices on the current Court. They give themselves extra-constitutional powers to determine a President, alone among all individuals in the United States, can be prosecuted. And they do this not under a principle of immunity as established in Nixon v Fitzgerald, but under a new rule that they must review the evidence in any Presidential prosecution before trial, in order to determine if a trial will be allowed.

That’s why the prosecutor have made it personal. The six justices have set themselves up as the President’s firewall. Not the Presidential firewall, but the President’s firewall. They are not protecting the office, they are protecting the person. Because the office doesn’t commit crimes; the person does. And determining whether the evidence shows “official” (and immune) acts, or unofficial (not immune) acts, is ultimately a decision about the person; what did he do, and why did he do it? And why Donald Trump tweeted, and why Joe Biden didn’t, shouldn’t determine the admissibility of evidence, nor the validity of a prosecution. Whether or not evidence is admissible should be a question for the rules of evidence and 4th and 5th amendment jurisprudence; not for who holds the office, why they did what they did. The latter question is a question of fact, and that’s solely the province of a jury.

It’s certainly not a question to be answered by six unelected justices on the Supreme Court.
Posted by at No comments:
Location: CQCR96XH+8X

Wednesday, October 02, 2024

Too Much Pulp Fiction

I have family members who served in Vietnam, others who served in Afghanistan. They don’t “rip out their own guts and eat them.” If they did, they wouldn’t be soldiers: they’d be psychopaths.

My family members aren’t psychopaths. But this guy’s a sociopath. We have enough of them in office.
Posted by at No comments:

Trump Is Broken…Again

Posted by at No comments:

If Ever You Doubt Trump Is Fit Only For A Jail Cell

Posted by at No comments:

Just Sayin’…

WaPo is currently very interested.

How long they’re interested? Well…

Interestingly, so is Neil Cavuto:
Posted by at No comments:

Not The Flex You Think It Is



"WHO SHOULD I PICK FOR VP?”
Posted by at No comments:

Straight Into My Veins

Posted by at No comments:

This Is Going To Be Fun

On Twitter, anyway. Whether it seeps into the public consciousness, or survives contact with the Roberts Court, is another matter.

One thing is for sure: this is not going away soon.
Posted by at No comments:

Everything New Is Old Again

Posted by at No comments:

Shorter Jack Smith

"These are not the official actions you are looking for.”

IOW: ETTD, even the Roberts Court, who believed Trump’s lies (because they couldn’t have reviewed all of Smith’s evidence) and thought everything he’d done was “official.”
Will Roberts double-down and decide “When the President does it, it’s legal?” I think the Amendment to overrule that would be tied with Congressional action to remind the Court it’s still an Art 3 institution (i.e., subject to Congress) for passage.
Posted by at No comments:

🤦🏻‍♂️

What brings it down this time? A looney ranting in Florida as he gives Jack Smith even more evidence for a conviction? The last time this guy tried to challenge democracy, he was the sitting POTUS. 3 years later 1400 of his followers dumb enough to believe him have been prosecuted, 900 of those convicted.

And we’re still here.

TFG has two active criminal prosecutions to defend, one criminal appeal, and three civil appeals. He’s already running his campaign on a shoestring because he needs the money for lawyers. Where’s the money to hire lawyers for 60 failing lawsuits like Giuliani keeps filing?
The underlying claim that formulates the request is based upon pure speculation and abject conjecture," Cohen wrote. "He alleges not one scintilla of information that would support this claim."
Words that could have come from any of the 60 cases TFG & Friends brought 4 years ago.

And we’re still here.

You weren’t around for the’60’s, were you, Peter? Don’t know much about the Civil War, or the Great Depression? Not even the War of 1812? Brits burned the White House during that one. What’s Trump gonna burn if he doesn’t get his way in November? A Tesla? Classified documents he never gave back?
Trump stained the Presidency, but in terms of threats to the Republic, he’s not even on the radar. George Wallace and Curtis LeMay were a bigger danger in 1968.

Get a clue.
Posted by at No comments:

Ban People! Not Guns!

And support your right to arm bears!🐻 
Posted by at No comments:

The Vibes Debate

But during ninety remarkably fast-talking minutes in New York—verbally, both candidates are speed demons—the Ohio senator J. D. Vance moved the narrative of the race in a small but perceptible way toward the Republican side. Vance was first to every touchstone that mattered—the first to introduce himself personally to the American people and to bring up the meagre and pressured working-class circumstances in which he was raised, the first to insist that his was the ticket to favor “clean air” and “clean water,” the first to credit his running mate, Donald Trump, with an “economic boom unlike we’ve seen in a generation in this country.” His intent seemed simple—to persuade voters, who are broadly dissatisfied with the direction of the country, that the Democrats are largely responsible for it. But Vance also had an advantage in cunningness. The young senator even managed to turn around a question on family separation, one of the more reprehensible episodes of the Trump years. “Right now in this country . . . we have three hundred and twenty thousand children that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively lost,” he said. “The real family-separation crisis is unfortunately Kamala Harris’s wide-open southern border.” (In August, a D.H.S. inspector general’s report found that the agency was unable to keep track of all unaccompanied minors who have been released or transferred from U.S. custody after entering the country.)
The "but" at the beginning is to mark a shift from the opening sentences that, conclusively, VP debates don’t matter. Anyone remember the Harris-Pence debate, for example?

But yeah, Vance pushed the race toward the GOP, regardless. Sure he did:
Granted I’m just cherry picking, but The New Yorker view is from a skyscraper in Manhattan. A view of a TV screen.
Posted by at 1 comment:

GOP Talking Points?

Since January, 2021? I literally remember when inflation was at double digits over months in the year, not years in the calendar. I remember stores changing the prices on the shelves as new stock came in at a higher price (raising the price on what was in the shelves, because prices were going up that fast. Nobody blinked.) And interest rates over 20% as Volcker tried to wring inflation out of the economy.

Besides, grocery prices up 21% in three years, and wages up 3.8% in 12 months? This is meant to be comparative?
Posted by at No comments:

“The Rules Were You Guys Weren’t Going To Fact Check!”

Fact check: true.
Posted by at No comments:

The Tell Is…

...no pundit has brought this up. Yet. Period.
Posted by at No comments:

Leaving It To The States

Maybe we should leave mixed-race marriages (Loving v Virginia) and access to contraceptives (Griswold v Connecticut) to the states, too.

Or are we not going back?
Posted by at No comments:

WaPo Just Blew Their Chance To Interview Donald Trump

News article, not an op ed.

Blood in the water.
Posted by at No comments:

“My God did the insta-commentary blow this one.“

Yeah...apparently not:
Posted by at No comments:

Vance Was No Jack Kennedy

So I went to bed last night with pundits saying Vance “won” the debate because Walz was “too nice” and didn’t defend Harris enough.

Yeah, that’s what happened.
“You had J.D. Vance, you had the elitist, the guy who went to an Ivy League school and smoothly, knew to answer the questions smoothly, and knew how to work the format," Scarborough said. "I think most people would say he did much better last night stylistically. You never know how things will come across. When I saw the CNN poll that came out last night, it showed that 'Midwestern nice' really worked for Walz. Tim Walz's favorability jumped up 15 points, has a 59 percent favorability rating after the debate, a 22 percent favorability before the debate. I don't care where are you, you have to look at the numbers."
Which doesn’t mean Vance didn’t help himself:
He showed a side he has not shown before and that is he tried to be more likable, he tried to be more agreeable," Scarborough said. "The people who knew him before he decided to be a Trumper said he was a nice guy, a charming guy, and he tried to show more of that last night because it's almost as if he got a sense that this election may end and he doesn't want to completely tie himself to Donald Trump. He's 40 years old, he has a future. While Trump likes going to war nonstop against everybody, you got to say J.D. Vance decided, 'You know what? I'm going to try to salvage my political career, even if Donald Trump goes up in flames.'"
But he was no Lloyd Bentsen.

Sen. Bentsen skewered Dan Quayle in the VP debate. “I knew Jack Kennedy,” he solemnly and augustly told Quayle. “And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.” It was a line that haunted Quayle the rest of his public life. No one ever let him forget it.

But Lloyd Bentsen was never the Vice President of the United States.

(And reiterating what I said last night, pundits are clearly repeating Trump’s talking points, that voters are worried about immigration and inflation (which Vance hammered last night). But actual voters watching the debate were focused on abortion rights and threats to democracy. Pundits want a horse race. Voters want their republic back.  Vance could be JFK redux, complete with Camelot and Barbie Jackie on his arm.  He’s still not the top of the ticket.)

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, October 01, 2024

💩

The lesson from the night is that Vance is more stable than Trump, and far less easily drawn.

The VP has four Constitutional duties, none of which the President can interfere with. Other than that, he does what the President lets him do. Which is why the office isn’t worth a pitcher of warm shit (John Garner’s original phrase).  So that’s not terribly reassuring.
Posted by at No comments:

The Narrative Speaks For Itself

Posted by at No comments:

Listening…

Vance seems to have a really inflated view of the office he aspires to. He blames Harris for Biden’s policies and the (in)action of the Congress. Does Vance think he’ll be running the government as VP?

Is this what a Yale law degree leads to?

(I will give Vance credit: he’s a very slick liar.
🤥. He’s also said several times Harris was POTUS. Walz only after the mud-point break pushed back on that. Should be easy: remind Vance we only have 1 President at a time, and it ain’t the VP.)
Although what seems to be Vance’s closing rant (I’ve quit playing close attention) is Vance really letting his freak flag fly. And worse, giving Walz a chance to revisit Jan 6th. Major blunder. Everyone knows the audience remembers the last words they hear. Walz is reminding us why Trump is unfit for office. I tapped out earlier. Walz is making this a “discussion,” and he wins on Midwestern decency.* Vance is closing on a non-censorship issue which, again, voters won’t be voting on. And Walz, again, is pounding on J6. Good ending.

Before the second break, it turns out. Told you I wasn’t paying attention….
Pretty much. Vance let the mask slip at the end. He ends with a lie:”We didn’t talk about energy.” And glue just lies. 

What else is new?


*Which I think was a good idea. Ranting on that stage would have left Vance playing Kamala to Trump in the last debate. Walz could have slightly defended Harris better, but that’s all. As Amy Walter is pointing out on PBS, Vance’s disapproval numbers are actually worse than Trump’s. I don’t think this lowered Walz’ approval (he has the highest of the 4), but I doubt it moved Vance’s needle, either. PBS is also noting voters being followed like Walz on abortion, disliked (most strongly) Vance on Pence certifying the 2020 election. Which are no longer sexy topics for pundits….
What Josh said.
Posted by at No comments:

Debate Preview As The Debate Goes On

Okay, I lied. But it’s the best debate coverage on Twitter (I know, low bar). And it’s more interesting than the debate.
Posted by at No comments:

I’ll Watch The VP Debate

I can’t guarantee you’ll notice. I’m just gonna leave it there for now.
Posted by at No comments:

So…

 Power is out at Chez Adventus (work in the area, shouldn’t be long, small 🍺), and I’m randomly reading the news/tweets. It seems Grandpa Shouty is loose again:

🤷🏻‍♂️  Pretty sure the education caused the student loans. And between “what they want” and “what we want” and “what [he] get[s],” even with my education, I’m just full blown gonzo confused. 🫤  Is this why he thinks tariffs are good? Because he’s unstuck in time? Nobody did; never happened. Grandpa needs his meds. Says the convicted felon facing two more criminal trials he can only escape by becoming POTUS and directing his AG to dismiss all charges. 🎶 “Cherish is a word I use to describe…🎶…well, not Trump. (I’m glad Midwestern towns where I have family and not become urban hellscapes. That’s reassuring.) Trump reportedly never exercised because he believed he was born with a certain store of energy, and using it in exercise would shorten his life. He seems to be running out anyway. He’s also repeating himself: (Not being “woke” means they’re gonna be openly racist. Just so we’re clear on what he’s saying.)  That line must be in his teleprompter, because he’s been repeating it since last week. He’s certainly not sounding any zippier when he’s supposedly free to speak his mind. And speaking of repeating himself: Yes it was large; and devastating. But this is mid-season, predictable for the massive heat build up early in the year that had to dissipate (essentially what hurricanes do). There are two months of “hurricane season” to go. November hurricanes are not unknown, and frankly are likely this year. That ocean is still very hot.🥵  Except the predictions of global warming are proving true. Does he mean where he is? Not in Florida? Because it is late summer; although where I am, September was hotter and drier than August. "The hat”? Does he think he’s at Hogwarts? "Call the app”? I guess we still don’t know what apps are? "Everything You Know Is Wrong!” was funnier when the Firesign Theater did it. You just know he wants to say “deepest, darkest Africa,” but it’s too many syllables. The way he cut Twitter’s value by almost 80%? His co-investors are certainly feeling that. (This is a press conference?!? 🫨) He goes for the “I” states because…well, it’s his favorite word. How would you do either one? And considering the success the campaign has had outsourcing GOTV to the PACs ( hint: none)… Ummmm… 🤨 They are “public schools” for a reason. And parents don’t run them because few have the time, or ability, to home school. And why is he so obsessed with his monolingualism? Is it because he has a vocabulary of about 800 words? Neither statement is believable. Not makes any sense. Which is the only believable thing about them (consider the source). He was responsible for the Abraham Accords. Is he already denying that? Or has he already forgotten?

“Trump Critiques Biden/Harris Middle East Policy.” The headline somewhere tomorrow. We can’t believe you got elected, either. Or that you’re the candidate of a major political party for the third time. You’ll be a private citizen who needs all his money to pay the lawyers for your criminal trials and your 5 pending appeals. Who cares what you think? DO NOT TOUCH THE BUBBLE! 😝 (And yes, it was Iran…) Suckers and losers. “GIVE THIS MAN THE NUCLEAR FOOTBALL NOW!,” said no one, ever. Okay. We’re done here. Because that’s all I can cope with, and more than I meant to post. I’ve done my duty as I see fit. According to Albert Alligator, that’s all a citizen can do.
Posted by at No comments:

A: John Denver

"Casey’s Last Ride,” on the “Aerie” album.

Before he got Rocky Mountain high and thanked God he was a country boy, Denver wrote some good songs and made some great music. His cover of Kristofferson’s song is equal to Joplin’s “Bobby McGee.” It’s heartbreakingly good, well suited to the song.

I don’t know if he ever performed it again, but it’s my favorite performance of his recordings.
Posted by at No comments:

“I And The Schoolchildren Know”

So what was it in April? This is Twitter, the “fog of war,” and I don’t really trust numbers in war anyway. My memory stretches back to daily “body counts” from Vietnam on the evening news. And it never occurred to us to ask who was doing all that grim census, and why we should accept it to be true*. But until we know this attack is multitudes larger than the one in April, stand down. The situation is bad enough. Natural disasters and war: “And all the news is full of death.” One we have to prepare for; one we have to work harder to prevent. "I and the schoolchildren know/What everyone must learn/Those to whom violence is done/Do violence in return.”


*Yes, suspicion of government began with the anti-war movement. What starts left always ends up on the right in America.
Posted by at No comments:

The VP Debate Tonight

Posted by at No comments:

🪟

I want to be clear with you and tour viewers," she told co-hosts Willie Geist and Jonathan Lemire. "This is almost a radical decision in its recognition of the right of women to control their body." 
"More importantly, to prevent against a sort of involuntary servitude or forced labor," she added. "There is a recognition that women are not as he says collectively owned community property. That they cannot be forced to carry a fetus before viability any more than you or I could be forced to give up a kidney." 
"That's a fairly radical conception of the right to abortion, and made a lot of women I know think, 'My god, this is the end of judicial gaslighting. There is somebody here who sees us,'" she concluded.
She’s not wrong; not at all.

But that is so close to the reasoning of the trimester division of Roe, upheld by Planned Parenthood, it almost deserves a law review article. And now that reasoning, fully 50 years old, it is now “radical.”

Fucking Overton Window.🪟 
Posted by at No comments:

The View From Nowhere

I have no expertise on Israeli politics or policy. But it’s a truism that bread and circuses (by which the Romans meant blood sports in the circle (circus) of the Coliseum keep the polis happy, and a little blood and guts is a good booster of office holders. Again, this may have come to pass regardless of Israel’s recent actions. It it’s provoked by Iran needing to support its terrorists (no winners here). Or a cynical man might think Netanyahu was aiming for precisely this outcome. For his sake, not necessarily Israel’s.

Easy to see more than one side, if you look.👀 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)