Monday, November 28, 2016
Hmmmm, just a bit thin-skinned, isn't he?
.......................................................................................................................................
"'I don’t condone what Donald Trump believes in,' Gunplay said. "I don’t condone his ideology. But what I do respect is his business."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Gunplay Says Trump is Both 'About That Business' and 'Blatantly Racist'
By Omar Burgess, November 27, 2016
Miami MC Gunplay recently joined Tim Westwood for an interview, and the topic quickly turned to the state of politics in America. When asked about president-elect Donald Trump, Gunplay was cautious about making any headlines.
“I don’t condone what Donald Trump believes in,” Gunplay said. “I don’t condone his ideology. But what I do respect is his business. You won’t see the click bait saying, ‘Gunplay voted for Donald Trump.’ But he’s alright with me, man…as long as he stays in the borders and the parameters of not being a total racist, which it is right now.”
Gunplay was quick to point out Trump had zero political experience before winning the 2016 Presidential election. Trump has gained a reputation for hia business acumen dating back to the 1962 revitalization of the Swifton Village apartment complex in Cincinnati, Ohio (a venture that was itself marred by a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination). Newsweek’s recent in-depth look at Trump’s business ventures makes a statistical counter-argument.
“In 1978, the year his father set up that sweet credit line at Chase, Donald’s tax returns showed personal losses of $406,386—$1.5 million in present-day dollars,” the article stated. “Things grew worse in 1979, when he reported an income of negative $3.4 million, $11.2 million in constant dollars.”
Similar business ventures such as Trump Steaks, GoTrump.com, a Monopoly-based Trump board game, Trump Ice drinking water, Trump on the Ocean restaurant and the Trump New Media video on demand service all lasted one year or less.
Gunplay and Westwood ultimately laughed off Trump’s successful White House run and called Trump “a hustler.”
“He bought that bitch,” Gunplay added. “That’s like [Rick] Ross going to be the President. He hustled. He did his thing. You gotta respect it. But I don’t believe what he believes in. His ideology and all his cockiness—that ain’t cool.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Gunplay Says Trump is Both 'About That Business' and 'Blatantly Racist'
By Omar Burgess, November 27, 2016
Miami MC Gunplay recently joined Tim Westwood for an interview, and the topic quickly turned to the state of politics in America. When asked about president-elect Donald Trump, Gunplay was cautious about making any headlines.
“I don’t condone what Donald Trump believes in,” Gunplay said. “I don’t condone his ideology. But what I do respect is his business. You won’t see the click bait saying, ‘Gunplay voted for Donald Trump.’ But he’s alright with me, man…as long as he stays in the borders and the parameters of not being a total racist, which it is right now.”
Gunplay was quick to point out Trump had zero political experience before winning the 2016 Presidential election. Trump has gained a reputation for hia business acumen dating back to the 1962 revitalization of the Swifton Village apartment complex in Cincinnati, Ohio (a venture that was itself marred by a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination). Newsweek’s recent in-depth look at Trump’s business ventures makes a statistical counter-argument.
“In 1978, the year his father set up that sweet credit line at Chase, Donald’s tax returns showed personal losses of $406,386—$1.5 million in present-day dollars,” the article stated. “Things grew worse in 1979, when he reported an income of negative $3.4 million, $11.2 million in constant dollars.”
Similar business ventures such as Trump Steaks, GoTrump.com, a Monopoly-based Trump board game, Trump Ice drinking water, Trump on the Ocean restaurant and the Trump New Media video on demand service all lasted one year or less.
Gunplay and Westwood ultimately laughed off Trump’s successful White House run and called Trump “a hustler.”
“He bought that bitch,” Gunplay added. “That’s like [Rick] Ross going to be the President. He hustled. He did his thing. You gotta respect it. But I don’t believe what he believes in. His ideology and all his cockiness—that ain’t cool.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Very likely it is.
.................................................................................................................................
"He won. An admitted establishment guy until he started running, he seems to have returned to his more familiar self."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump's Lovely Lies
By Kathleen Parker, November 26, 2016
In this season of Thanksgiving, a quirky source of gratitude has emerged -- Donald Trump’s many campaign lies.
What else can one call the promises that he now treats as alien concepts? Almost daily, he reverses himself on a campaign promise, confirming what this column predicted: He would never keep his vows.
As a matter of practicality, Trump couldn’t do much of what he bragged about, such as build the wall and make Mexico pay for it. Now he’s talking fences.
Likewise, it isn’t the prerogative of the executive office to investigate, prosecute or jail Hillary Clinton, whom he now says he doesn’t plan to investigate because he doesn’t want to hurt the Clintons.
Similarly, Trump apparently no longer thinks that climate change is a Chinese hoax and is “open-minded” toward future discussions. When Marine Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s apparent choice for defense secretary, told the president-elect that he could get more information from a prisoner with a couple of beers and a cigarette than by waterboarding, Trump said, fine, he will rethink waterboarding.
If Trump has never been burdened by the truth, he at least has been true to his core value, which is say or do whatever it takes to win. And for him, what worked were lies. Or at least untruths.
What does seem true is that he never had any interest in governing, as evidenced by his reportedly being surprised to learn he had to replace so many White House staffers. Who knew?
Early on, Trump told us as much when he couldn’t really put a finger on why he wanted to be president. In a wide-ranging interview last April with The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, he wandered around the barn for several minutes looking for an answer, checking the sky for the Trump chopper to swoop down in a reverse deus ex machina to rescue him from this daunting question: “Can you isolate a moment when it kicked to yes?”
Not right off, no, he couldn’t.
First, it was the escalator ride, looking down on all those cameras, comparing the moment to the Academy Awards. Had the cameras not arrived, would Trump have returned to his office and forgotten all about it? Next, he talked about his TV show, his money, his children, hitting any topic that came to mind, circling, circling, searching for that dadgum moment. Woodward pressed on.
The polls, yes, it was the polls! Oh, also, watching Mitt Romney, “a very, very, failed and flawed candidate,” lose to Obama. After a mind-boggling discussion about breaking eggs to get elected, Trump landed on anger. Yes, he was angry. Plus, he always wins.
In Trump’s exhausting, attention-deficit world, winning is the end point, making this particular victory problematical. After the “Grand Opening” on Inauguration Day, the bands, confetti and the Inaugural Parade, what follows is much less fun -- governing a fiercely divided nation that Trump helped create and making good on all those campaign slogans.
“How do you unbreak those eggs?” Woodward asked.
“That’s the question,” Trump replied.
Here’s another: How do you un-nut the nutcase? How does Trump explain to his base that he wasn’t really a crazed xenophobic bigot who will ban Muslims and thinks most Mexicans are criminals? How does he explain that he never intended to follow through on many of his crowd pleasers?
Hate to break another egg, but the answer is he won’t. Just as Trump never provided any substantive evidence for people’s faith in him, there’s no reason to believe that Trump cares what they think of him now. He won. An admitted establishment guy until he started running, he seems to have returned to his more familiar self.
Going forward, everything is anyone’s guess. As his base begins to show cracks, wondering what to do with their “Lock her up” T-shirts, his foes are wrestling a fresh angst -- caught between detesting the man who spoke so foully of others and stupidly of issues, and the one who didn’t really mean it. A rational, decent Trump is not the man America elected and both sides, for better or worse, feel jinxed. How does one revile the man who now says what you believe? How does one trust the man who obviously lied?
Finally: Who is the real Donald Trump and what does he stand for?
That remains the question.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump's Lovely Lies
By Kathleen Parker, November 26, 2016
In this season of Thanksgiving, a quirky source of gratitude has emerged -- Donald Trump’s many campaign lies.
What else can one call the promises that he now treats as alien concepts? Almost daily, he reverses himself on a campaign promise, confirming what this column predicted: He would never keep his vows.
As a matter of practicality, Trump couldn’t do much of what he bragged about, such as build the wall and make Mexico pay for it. Now he’s talking fences.
Likewise, it isn’t the prerogative of the executive office to investigate, prosecute or jail Hillary Clinton, whom he now says he doesn’t plan to investigate because he doesn’t want to hurt the Clintons.
Similarly, Trump apparently no longer thinks that climate change is a Chinese hoax and is “open-minded” toward future discussions. When Marine Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s apparent choice for defense secretary, told the president-elect that he could get more information from a prisoner with a couple of beers and a cigarette than by waterboarding, Trump said, fine, he will rethink waterboarding.
If Trump has never been burdened by the truth, he at least has been true to his core value, which is say or do whatever it takes to win. And for him, what worked were lies. Or at least untruths.
What does seem true is that he never had any interest in governing, as evidenced by his reportedly being surprised to learn he had to replace so many White House staffers. Who knew?
Early on, Trump told us as much when he couldn’t really put a finger on why he wanted to be president. In a wide-ranging interview last April with The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, he wandered around the barn for several minutes looking for an answer, checking the sky for the Trump chopper to swoop down in a reverse deus ex machina to rescue him from this daunting question: “Can you isolate a moment when it kicked to yes?”
Not right off, no, he couldn’t.
First, it was the escalator ride, looking down on all those cameras, comparing the moment to the Academy Awards. Had the cameras not arrived, would Trump have returned to his office and forgotten all about it? Next, he talked about his TV show, his money, his children, hitting any topic that came to mind, circling, circling, searching for that dadgum moment. Woodward pressed on.
The polls, yes, it was the polls! Oh, also, watching Mitt Romney, “a very, very, failed and flawed candidate,” lose to Obama. After a mind-boggling discussion about breaking eggs to get elected, Trump landed on anger. Yes, he was angry. Plus, he always wins.
In Trump’s exhausting, attention-deficit world, winning is the end point, making this particular victory problematical. After the “Grand Opening” on Inauguration Day, the bands, confetti and the Inaugural Parade, what follows is much less fun -- governing a fiercely divided nation that Trump helped create and making good on all those campaign slogans.
“How do you unbreak those eggs?” Woodward asked.
“That’s the question,” Trump replied.
Here’s another: How do you un-nut the nutcase? How does Trump explain to his base that he wasn’t really a crazed xenophobic bigot who will ban Muslims and thinks most Mexicans are criminals? How does he explain that he never intended to follow through on many of his crowd pleasers?
Hate to break another egg, but the answer is he won’t. Just as Trump never provided any substantive evidence for people’s faith in him, there’s no reason to believe that Trump cares what they think of him now. He won. An admitted establishment guy until he started running, he seems to have returned to his more familiar self.
Going forward, everything is anyone’s guess. As his base begins to show cracks, wondering what to do with their “Lock her up” T-shirts, his foes are wrestling a fresh angst -- caught between detesting the man who spoke so foully of others and stupidly of issues, and the one who didn’t really mean it. A rational, decent Trump is not the man America elected and both sides, for better or worse, feel jinxed. How does one revile the man who now says what you believe? How does one trust the man who obviously lied?
Finally: Who is the real Donald Trump and what does he stand for?
That remains the question.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How about saying "eeny, meeney, miney, mo"?
....................................................................................................................................
Saturday, November 26, 2016
"Only in America can you be Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-War, Pro-Unmanned Drones, Pro-Torture, & still call yourself 'Pro-Life.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans, you’re not Pro-Life, you’re a hypocrite.
By Brandon Cloud, November 26, 2016
One of the most divisive issues in our country is over abortion and a woman’s right to choose. There is a large portion of the United States that call themselves “Pro-Life.” For those in the “personhood” movement in the United States, there is no doubt about when life happens—it is at conception, when the sperm meets the egg. The personhood movement has gained a foothold among antiabortion activists who are looking to pass laws that define embryos as people with full rights. Personhood advocates aim to outlaw all abortions, along with in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem-cell research, and emergency contraception. Granting embryos personhood would also mean that someone who killed a pregnant woman at any stage in her pregnancy would be at risk of prosecution for a double homicide. And in those states that restrict a woman’s right to utilize a living will if she is pregnant, no living will could apply from the moment of conception. An accidental car accident could put you at risk for vehicular homicide if you caused a miscarriage.
The biggest empirical problem with the view that personhood begins at conception is the scientific fact that a large percentage of embryos lack the capacity, under any circumstances, to become human beings. During the period of embryonic development that begins with fertilization and ends a few days later with successful implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall—the period known as “preimplantation development”—up to 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive, most likely due to genetic errors in the embryo.
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Studies show that anywhere from 10 to 25 percent of all clinically recognized pregnancies (meaning that an embryo has implanted) end in miscarriage, depending in part on the age of the woman.
The biological facts don’t tell us where to draw the line as to when personhood begins. But they do show that many embryos that result from conception—indeed, the majority of them—lack the capacity to become living human beings. They do not produce disabled humans. They cannot produce any sort of human life. Science and medicine know this. They are simply too intimidated to say so.
In its moral zeal, the personhood movement makes a huge mistake when it tries to legislate a starting point for human life that is inconsistent with biology. And scientists are making an inexcusable blunder not to point out factual errors by those engaged in the argument about when life begins. Human life is very difficult to start. More often than not, it fails post conception. To argue that personhood begins at conception is to reach for a moral stance that the facts simply do not support.
Beyond the fact that the Personhood stance makes absolutely no sense, the entire thought process of being “Pro-Life” within the GOP base is flawed by the very name they choose to be referred by. There is mounds of evidence that shows that the party itself is anything but Pro-Life or even Pro-Quality of Life. People who call themselves “pro-life” oppose abortion. Since that’s the only argument the “pro-life’ moniker is applied to we should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman’s right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity. I, personally, think the Anti-Choice is more appropriate. It works because the people who proclaim that they are “pro-life” are using that term to describe their position in regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and absolutely nothing else. There is no aspect of life they are promoting the refusal to allow a woman to make a choice regarding her own body. Pro-Fetus works because a large swathe of the “pro-life” movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers and children. If they were really concerned with “life,” and not just the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they are clearly pro-fetus. It’s irrefutable that the people who would deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If someone thinks they’re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide what she does with her body, without her input, that’s control, pure and simple.
Attempting to dominate or control another person in a relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to control women whom you’ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarriage. How are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.
A lot of the arguments that fuel the anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not all of the “pro-life” movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion. Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion, he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What’s more controlling than that?
And fucked they remain: Budget proposals adopted earlier this year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate budget committees call for $3 trillion in federal spending cuts from 2016 through 2025. The progressive Center for Budgetary and Policy Priorities estimated that the each plan gets “more than two-thirds of its non-defense budget cuts from programs for people with low or modest incomes even though these programs constitute less than one-quarter of federal program costs.” Meanwhile, child poverty rates in the U.S. are already some of the highest in the developed world, and have been increasing since the mid-2000s, the Washington Post has reported.
“Conservatives don’t give a shit about you until you reach military age,” Carlin said. “Then they think you are just fine. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.” A 2002 Gallup poll showed members of the religious right were far more likely to support strikes on Saddam Hussein’s regime than those with relaxed religious views. As of 2008, polls of evangelical Christian leaders demonstrated many supported continuing the war in Iraq. So at least as far as the U.S.’ most recent major war is concerned, Carlin’s contention that social conservatives are fairly aggressive on foreign policy stands up to scrutiny.
Carlin also hit anti-abortion activists for extremist violence and intimidation against providers that was common then and is increasingly common now. “These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors!” Carlin says in the special. “What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they might just have to kill it?” People who harass or attack women’s health care clinics or their staffers and patients aren’t representative of the entire anti-abortion movement. But the wing of a movement that feels comfortable using force and threats to achieve their ends is inseparable from it. As Mother Jones reports, the heated rhetoric among presidential candidates that grew out of July’s Center of Medical Progress video controversy coincided with a surge in violence, threats and arson directed at Planned Parenthood clinics, culminating in a Nov. 27 massacre at a Colorado Springs, Colorado, location, resulting in three deaths.
Carlin makes one final assertion in his 1996 set: “They’re not pro-life. You know what they are, they’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets. Anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women.” He’s painting with a broad brush. But even today, statistics back Carlin’s claims. A 2013 ABC News poll found just 23% of Republicans want more women elected to office, despite the U.S.’ already scant female representation in elected positions. More recently, a 2015 survey concluded participants who agreed with sexist statements about women were much more likely to hold anti-abortion views — including both people with paternalistic views toward women and outright misogynists. Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what’s more hateful to women than treating them like they’re too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the responsible choice to make? I can’t think of many things more hateful than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist’s baby to term, because you think you’re more qualified to make their medical decisions than they are.
I’m not necessarily an apologist for Obamacare, as I much prefer Medicare for All, but one cannot say they are legitimately pro-life while opposing equal access to healthcare– especially by the poor. To say “you are required to carry your baby to term” in one breath and then say “but want vaccines so that your baby doesn’t get sick and die? Sorry, you’re out of luck there” is the opposite of being pro-life. Arguments like this reduce the movement to simply being pro-birth, and nothing more. I recall an occasion during one of the many, many, many republican debates during the last primary season. Ron Paul was asked if someone who was ill, but didn’t purchase healthcare, should simply be allowed to die. Members of the crowd quickly shouted out “yeah!”, and Paul’s response, left me unconvinced that he fundamentally disagreed with the statement. Ensuring people have the medical care they need to live, is part of being in favor of life.
After adjustments for inflation, the minimum wage today is $2 less an hour than it was in 1968. However, a study by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United revealed that by simply raising the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $10.00 an hour, it would lift 58% of the working poor out of poverty. There are millions of Americans stuck in an inescapable life of poverty- not because of laziness, but because their hard work at lagging minimum wages are insufficient for basic needs, such as housing. According to the Low Income Housing Coalition, the best case scenario for minimum wage workers can be found in Arkansas and West Virginia where one would only need to work 63 hours a week at minimum wage in order to rent a two bedroom apartment at fair market value. Live in New York? You’re looking at working 136 hours a week in order to pay just for housing. My home state of Maine? That’s 81 hours a week. It’s impossible to say that we are legitimately in favor of “life” when millions among us are unable to afford basic housing regardless of how hard they work.
If you’re Pro-Life then you can’t support unrestricted gun rights. This one should be the most obvious, but it’s not. Individuals with a pro-life worldview need to take a more reasonable approach to this issue than those who typically control the narrative. If one holds a foundational belief that we need to radically side on the side of life, then we ought be willing to sacrifice some of our rights in order to be true to that guiding principle. The “Christian” life bids you to set aside your own personal rights and interest in the name of others, and we can start here on the issue of gun control. It’s an impossible argument to call oneself pro-life, but to also argue that any citizen ought have access to military grade assault weapons, which are objects designed to take life away. There is no other purpose for guns, beyond killing things. To resist reasonable, middle-ground measures such as background checks, registrations, and mandatory safety training does not indicate that one is holistically on the side of life. In society, we recognize that cars are great tools, but can also harm people. As such, we require a license to operate one, registration of all cars, insurance on cars in case someone is injured, and accountability measures for people who don’t play by the rules. To completely abandon that logic with guns, is beyond fathomable- especially if one claims to be in favor of life. People who are legitimately in favor of life, need to be far more reasonable with compromise on the whole gun discussion.
Being pro, or in favor of life, means that we are in favor of all life. That includes those who are on death row. If you are “Jesus centered” in your approach and development of worldview, you should see that Jesus himself in John chapter 8, stood in the way of an imminent execution. And, while perhaps the law had the right to demand death for certain criminals, as far as Jesus was concerned there isn’t anyone alive who is worthy of acting as the hangman. Culturally, we know that capital punishment is expensive, ineffective, and inconsistently practiced across racial lines– which alone make it an unjust practice even without solid theological reasons for opposing it. Worldwide, 93% of all executions are carried out by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States. Hardly the international pro-life community, no? Our culture in the US has become so captivated by retributive justice, we have completely lost sight of the task of restorative justice. If we value life, we must strive to see lives restored instead of lives destroyed.
History, and extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications. According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a hypocrite.
I consider myself pro-life because I support programs and policies which help people to thrive, including abortion. There’s nothing “pro-life,” or noble, about forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term, especially when that fetus could put her life in danger, was conceived through rape or incest, or would be subjected to a life of difficulty and poverty because the mother is unable to provide for a child. We can’t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, “No, that’s not what you are, and I’m not going to let you lie about your position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life. If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of protesting at abortion clinics.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans, you’re not Pro-Life, you’re a hypocrite.
By Brandon Cloud, November 26, 2016
One of the most divisive issues in our country is over abortion and a woman’s right to choose. There is a large portion of the United States that call themselves “Pro-Life.” For those in the “personhood” movement in the United States, there is no doubt about when life happens—it is at conception, when the sperm meets the egg. The personhood movement has gained a foothold among antiabortion activists who are looking to pass laws that define embryos as people with full rights. Personhood advocates aim to outlaw all abortions, along with in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem-cell research, and emergency contraception. Granting embryos personhood would also mean that someone who killed a pregnant woman at any stage in her pregnancy would be at risk of prosecution for a double homicide. And in those states that restrict a woman’s right to utilize a living will if she is pregnant, no living will could apply from the moment of conception. An accidental car accident could put you at risk for vehicular homicide if you caused a miscarriage.
The biggest empirical problem with the view that personhood begins at conception is the scientific fact that a large percentage of embryos lack the capacity, under any circumstances, to become human beings. During the period of embryonic development that begins with fertilization and ends a few days later with successful implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall—the period known as “preimplantation development”—up to 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive, most likely due to genetic errors in the embryo.
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Studies show that anywhere from 10 to 25 percent of all clinically recognized pregnancies (meaning that an embryo has implanted) end in miscarriage, depending in part on the age of the woman.
The biological facts don’t tell us where to draw the line as to when personhood begins. But they do show that many embryos that result from conception—indeed, the majority of them—lack the capacity to become living human beings. They do not produce disabled humans. They cannot produce any sort of human life. Science and medicine know this. They are simply too intimidated to say so.
In its moral zeal, the personhood movement makes a huge mistake when it tries to legislate a starting point for human life that is inconsistent with biology. And scientists are making an inexcusable blunder not to point out factual errors by those engaged in the argument about when life begins. Human life is very difficult to start. More often than not, it fails post conception. To argue that personhood begins at conception is to reach for a moral stance that the facts simply do not support.
Beyond the fact that the Personhood stance makes absolutely no sense, the entire thought process of being “Pro-Life” within the GOP base is flawed by the very name they choose to be referred by. There is mounds of evidence that shows that the party itself is anything but Pro-Life or even Pro-Quality of Life. People who call themselves “pro-life” oppose abortion. Since that’s the only argument the “pro-life’ moniker is applied to we should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman’s right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity. I, personally, think the Anti-Choice is more appropriate. It works because the people who proclaim that they are “pro-life” are using that term to describe their position in regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and absolutely nothing else. There is no aspect of life they are promoting the refusal to allow a woman to make a choice regarding her own body. Pro-Fetus works because a large swathe of the “pro-life” movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers and children. If they were really concerned with “life,” and not just the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they are clearly pro-fetus. It’s irrefutable that the people who would deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If someone thinks they’re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide what she does with her body, without her input, that’s control, pure and simple.
Attempting to dominate or control another person in a relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to control women whom you’ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarriage. How are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.
A lot of the arguments that fuel the anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not all of the “pro-life” movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion. Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion, he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What’s more controlling than that?
John Fugelsang ✔ @JohnFugelsangIn his 1996 HBO special Back in Town, the late comic legend and social critic George Carlin nailed the hypocrisy of social conservatives who rail against abortion and birth control with “pro-life” rhetoric while simultaneously attacking social programs designed to support struggling families, supporting war and inciting violence against women. “They’re all in favor of the unborn,” Carlin says in the clip. “They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you!” Carlin paced the stage, hyping the audience with assertion that the same conservatives who use pro-family rhetoric object to programs like food aid, free school lunches and cash payments to the nation’s many deeply impoverished families. “No nothing! No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re fucked!”
Only in America can you be Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-War, Pro-Unmanned Drones, Pro-Torture, & still call yourself 'Pro-Life.'
12:32 PM - 25 Jan 2011
And fucked they remain: Budget proposals adopted earlier this year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate budget committees call for $3 trillion in federal spending cuts from 2016 through 2025. The progressive Center for Budgetary and Policy Priorities estimated that the each plan gets “more than two-thirds of its non-defense budget cuts from programs for people with low or modest incomes even though these programs constitute less than one-quarter of federal program costs.” Meanwhile, child poverty rates in the U.S. are already some of the highest in the developed world, and have been increasing since the mid-2000s, the Washington Post has reported.
“Conservatives don’t give a shit about you until you reach military age,” Carlin said. “Then they think you are just fine. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.” A 2002 Gallup poll showed members of the religious right were far more likely to support strikes on Saddam Hussein’s regime than those with relaxed religious views. As of 2008, polls of evangelical Christian leaders demonstrated many supported continuing the war in Iraq. So at least as far as the U.S.’ most recent major war is concerned, Carlin’s contention that social conservatives are fairly aggressive on foreign policy stands up to scrutiny.
Carlin also hit anti-abortion activists for extremist violence and intimidation against providers that was common then and is increasingly common now. “These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors!” Carlin says in the special. “What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they might just have to kill it?” People who harass or attack women’s health care clinics or their staffers and patients aren’t representative of the entire anti-abortion movement. But the wing of a movement that feels comfortable using force and threats to achieve their ends is inseparable from it. As Mother Jones reports, the heated rhetoric among presidential candidates that grew out of July’s Center of Medical Progress video controversy coincided with a surge in violence, threats and arson directed at Planned Parenthood clinics, culminating in a Nov. 27 massacre at a Colorado Springs, Colorado, location, resulting in three deaths.
Carlin makes one final assertion in his 1996 set: “They’re not pro-life. You know what they are, they’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets. Anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women.” He’s painting with a broad brush. But even today, statistics back Carlin’s claims. A 2013 ABC News poll found just 23% of Republicans want more women elected to office, despite the U.S.’ already scant female representation in elected positions. More recently, a 2015 survey concluded participants who agreed with sexist statements about women were much more likely to hold anti-abortion views — including both people with paternalistic views toward women and outright misogynists. Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what’s more hateful to women than treating them like they’re too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the responsible choice to make? I can’t think of many things more hateful than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist’s baby to term, because you think you’re more qualified to make their medical decisions than they are.
I’m not necessarily an apologist for Obamacare, as I much prefer Medicare for All, but one cannot say they are legitimately pro-life while opposing equal access to healthcare– especially by the poor. To say “you are required to carry your baby to term” in one breath and then say “but want vaccines so that your baby doesn’t get sick and die? Sorry, you’re out of luck there” is the opposite of being pro-life. Arguments like this reduce the movement to simply being pro-birth, and nothing more. I recall an occasion during one of the many, many, many republican debates during the last primary season. Ron Paul was asked if someone who was ill, but didn’t purchase healthcare, should simply be allowed to die. Members of the crowd quickly shouted out “yeah!”, and Paul’s response, left me unconvinced that he fundamentally disagreed with the statement. Ensuring people have the medical care they need to live, is part of being in favor of life.
After adjustments for inflation, the minimum wage today is $2 less an hour than it was in 1968. However, a study by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United revealed that by simply raising the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $10.00 an hour, it would lift 58% of the working poor out of poverty. There are millions of Americans stuck in an inescapable life of poverty- not because of laziness, but because their hard work at lagging minimum wages are insufficient for basic needs, such as housing. According to the Low Income Housing Coalition, the best case scenario for minimum wage workers can be found in Arkansas and West Virginia where one would only need to work 63 hours a week at minimum wage in order to rent a two bedroom apartment at fair market value. Live in New York? You’re looking at working 136 hours a week in order to pay just for housing. My home state of Maine? That’s 81 hours a week. It’s impossible to say that we are legitimately in favor of “life” when millions among us are unable to afford basic housing regardless of how hard they work.
If you’re Pro-Life then you can’t support unrestricted gun rights. This one should be the most obvious, but it’s not. Individuals with a pro-life worldview need to take a more reasonable approach to this issue than those who typically control the narrative. If one holds a foundational belief that we need to radically side on the side of life, then we ought be willing to sacrifice some of our rights in order to be true to that guiding principle. The “Christian” life bids you to set aside your own personal rights and interest in the name of others, and we can start here on the issue of gun control. It’s an impossible argument to call oneself pro-life, but to also argue that any citizen ought have access to military grade assault weapons, which are objects designed to take life away. There is no other purpose for guns, beyond killing things. To resist reasonable, middle-ground measures such as background checks, registrations, and mandatory safety training does not indicate that one is holistically on the side of life. In society, we recognize that cars are great tools, but can also harm people. As such, we require a license to operate one, registration of all cars, insurance on cars in case someone is injured, and accountability measures for people who don’t play by the rules. To completely abandon that logic with guns, is beyond fathomable- especially if one claims to be in favor of life. People who are legitimately in favor of life, need to be far more reasonable with compromise on the whole gun discussion.
Being pro, or in favor of life, means that we are in favor of all life. That includes those who are on death row. If you are “Jesus centered” in your approach and development of worldview, you should see that Jesus himself in John chapter 8, stood in the way of an imminent execution. And, while perhaps the law had the right to demand death for certain criminals, as far as Jesus was concerned there isn’t anyone alive who is worthy of acting as the hangman. Culturally, we know that capital punishment is expensive, ineffective, and inconsistently practiced across racial lines– which alone make it an unjust practice even without solid theological reasons for opposing it. Worldwide, 93% of all executions are carried out by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States. Hardly the international pro-life community, no? Our culture in the US has become so captivated by retributive justice, we have completely lost sight of the task of restorative justice. If we value life, we must strive to see lives restored instead of lives destroyed.
History, and extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications. According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a hypocrite.
I consider myself pro-life because I support programs and policies which help people to thrive, including abortion. There’s nothing “pro-life,” or noble, about forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term, especially when that fetus could put her life in danger, was conceived through rape or incest, or would be subjected to a life of difficulty and poverty because the mother is unable to provide for a child. We can’t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, “No, that’s not what you are, and I’m not going to let you lie about your position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life. If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of protesting at abortion clinics.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, November 25, 2016
"'I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of,' Chomsky said."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Noam Chomsky: People Who Didn’t Vote For Clinton To Block Trump Made A ‘Bad Mistake’
“I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”
By Paige Lavender, November 25, 2916
Noam Chomsky, the renowned scholar and MIT professor emeritus, said people who didn’t vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to block a Donald Trump presidency made a “bad mistake.”
“I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of,” Chomsky said.
Chomsky said in January he’d vote for Clinton if he lived in a swing state, despite his support for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran against Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary.
“Every Republican candidate is either a climate change denier or a skeptic who says we can’t do it,” Chomsky said. “What they are saying is, ‘Let’s destroy the world.’ Is that worth voting against? Yeah.”
Chomsky criticized Trump in May, calling his refusal to accept the science behind climate change “a death knell for the [human] species.” Chomsky has also been critical of the Republican Party, saying the GOP’s policies pose “serious danger to human survival.”
Chomsky told The Huffington Post in February, Trump’s success could be attributed to his ability to appeal to “deep feelings of anger, fear, frustration, hopelessness, probably among sectors like those that are seeing an increase in mortality, something unheard of apart from war and catastrophe.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Noam Chomsky: People Who Didn’t Vote For Clinton To Block Trump Made A ‘Bad Mistake’
“I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”
By Paige Lavender, November 25, 2916
Noam Chomsky, the renowned scholar and MIT professor emeritus, said people who didn’t vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to block a Donald Trump presidency made a “bad mistake.”
Mehdi Hasan ✔ @mehdirhasanChomsky told Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan there’s a “moral issue” in voting “against the greater evil” ― Trump, in this case ― even if you don’t like the other candidate. But he also said there was a factual question regarding this year’s candidates, pointing out Trump and Clinton’s “very different” records.
Noam Chomsky tells me on @ajupfront that leftists who didn't vote for Clinton to block Trump made a "bad mistake":
10:10 AM - 24 Nov 2016
“I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of,” Chomsky said.
Chomsky said in January he’d vote for Clinton if he lived in a swing state, despite his support for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran against Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary.
“Every Republican candidate is either a climate change denier or a skeptic who says we can’t do it,” Chomsky said. “What they are saying is, ‘Let’s destroy the world.’ Is that worth voting against? Yeah.”
Chomsky criticized Trump in May, calling his refusal to accept the science behind climate change “a death knell for the [human] species.” Chomsky has also been critical of the Republican Party, saying the GOP’s policies pose “serious danger to human survival.”
Chomsky told The Huffington Post in February, Trump’s success could be attributed to his ability to appeal to “deep feelings of anger, fear, frustration, hopelessness, probably among sectors like those that are seeing an increase in mortality, something unheard of apart from war and catastrophe.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'There is little that looks worse on a man than a tie that is either too long or too short.'" The long tie, combined with his silly hair style, leaves Trump open to ridicule. But do we care? NO!
...................................................................................................................................................................
What it says about Trump that his neckties are too long
By Eric Zorn, November 25, 2016
I once picked on Democratic Vice President Al Gore in a column because he claps like a child, so be assured there's nothing partisan in my attack today on Republican President-elect Donald Trump for wearing his neckties like a little boy.
When we're young and small and compelled by social circumstance to dress up, standard-issue ties are too long for us and so hang like leashes from our collars. We can't help it.
But as we get older and larger, we learn to knot our ties so the point extends right to the belt buckle — "no more, no less," as sartorial expert John T. Molloy put it in his seminal 1975 guidebook "Dress for Success."
"There is little that looks worse on a man than a tie that is either too long or too short."
Trump, however, still knots his ties so that they hang well below his belt buckle — often several inches, a fashion-don't so egregious that GQ recently used it as the subject of a photo spread titled, "The one style lesson you can actually learn from Donald Trump."
The now-defunct men's fashion magazine Details once asked about Trump, "What in the name of Macy's clearance aisle is the deal with his tie?"
Earlier this year, Business Insider's senior finance correspondent Linette Lopez referred to Trump's dangling neckwear as a "tragic mistake" and noted that "too-long ties are often used for comic effect, and unless your name is Krusty and you work at the Big Top, they are generally frowned upon in the workplace."
Surely more than one adviser has told Trump this, perhaps while gently reproving him for his '70s-game-show-host coiffure. And, just as surely, the conclusion that he is prone to ignoring sound advice is more disquieting than how he wears his ties.
...................................................................................................................................................................
What it says about Trump that his neckties are too long
By Eric Zorn, November 25, 2016
I once picked on Democratic Vice President Al Gore in a column because he claps like a child, so be assured there's nothing partisan in my attack today on Republican President-elect Donald Trump for wearing his neckties like a little boy.
When we're young and small and compelled by social circumstance to dress up, standard-issue ties are too long for us and so hang like leashes from our collars. We can't help it.
But as we get older and larger, we learn to knot our ties so the point extends right to the belt buckle — "no more, no less," as sartorial expert John T. Molloy put it in his seminal 1975 guidebook "Dress for Success."
"There is little that looks worse on a man than a tie that is either too long or too short."
Trump, however, still knots his ties so that they hang well below his belt buckle — often several inches, a fashion-don't so egregious that GQ recently used it as the subject of a photo spread titled, "The one style lesson you can actually learn from Donald Trump."
The now-defunct men's fashion magazine Details once asked about Trump, "What in the name of Macy's clearance aisle is the deal with his tie?"
Earlier this year, Business Insider's senior finance correspondent Linette Lopez referred to Trump's dangling neckwear as a "tragic mistake" and noted that "too-long ties are often used for comic effect, and unless your name is Krusty and you work at the Big Top, they are generally frowned upon in the workplace."
Surely more than one adviser has told Trump this, perhaps while gently reproving him for his '70s-game-show-host coiffure. And, just as surely, the conclusion that he is prone to ignoring sound advice is more disquieting than how he wears his ties.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"In a separate suit filed against the state by Detroit schoolchildren, they claim lack of state funding in city schools has denied them literacy. ... Gov. Rick Snyder and state education officials said there is no fundamental right to literacy for Detroit students."
...................................................................................................................................................................
How much could Trump’s education secretary damage public schools? Just look at Detroit.
Detroit schools help explain Betsy DeVos’ mission.
By Casey Quinlan, November 25, 2016
President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Betsy DeVos, a philanthropist and a strong supporter of school choice, as his education secretary. And although DeVos isn’t a household name, she could end up having a big impact on public school students across the country.
For evidence, just take a look at Detroit — a city where DeVos’ influence shows how an expansion of charter schools without the proper oversight can hurt the quality of education for low-income students.
Throughout DeVos’ career as a school choice advocate, she has aggressively pushed for the expansion of charter schools. Although many charter schools across the country benefit low-income families seeking an alternative to public schools, educational equity advocates often raise concerns that a lack of accountability allows less effective charter schools to thrive. And DeVos has been at the forefront of efforts to push against this accountability.
DeVos sits on the board of the Great Lakes Education Project, which advocates for its education reform priorities in the Michigan state legislature. This group is responsible for pushing the legislature to end its plans for a Detroit commission to regulate charter schools.
Sixteen years ago, DeVos, and her husband, Dick DeVos, also pushed for a statewide ballot initiative to amend the state constitution so that tax money could go toward private school tuition. Although this effort didn’t succeed, charter schools in the area expanded anyway. The state lifted its cap on the number of charter schools. Twenty-three percent of Michigan students did not enroll in their home public school district in the fall of last year, which allows students to attend charter schools or public schools outside their community, with 10 percent of students attending charter schools.
Now, Detroit has the second largest share of students in charter schools, at 44 percent, behind New Orleans. Each year, nearly $1 billion of taxpayer money goes to charter schools, but oversight is very weak, according to a yearlong investigation by the Detroit Free Press released in August.
The investigation, which looked at 20 years of charter school records, found evidence of wasteful spending, schools with poor academic records that continue to enroll students for years, and school staff using their positions to profit off of deals for themselves or others. It also found that many charter schools run by for-profit companies did not disclose how they spend taxpayer money.
Some states make it clear that charter authorizers are supposed to provide oversight and accountability to schools in exchange for revenue, but that is not the case in Michigan, The Atlantic reported. An Education Trust-Midwest report released in February found that Michigan charter authorizers “face almost no accountability” for their performance.
Another issue in Michigan is the involvement of for-profit companies in charter schools. The state allows a wide range of education institutions to create charters — such as school districts, community colleges, and universities — and receive 3 percent of the money that goes to those schools. They also get the huge benefit of being the only entities with the power to close schools that are underperforming. Now, for-profit companies operate 80 percent of charters in Michigan, according to The New York Times.
Although the average charter school student in Detroit is making greater gains than public school students in Detroit, data on proficiency in math and reading show that both charter school and public schools have a long road to improving students’ academic performance.
Only 17 percent of Detroit charter school students were rated proficient in math, compared to 13 percent of students in traditional public schools, according to Michigan Association of Public School Academies data released in 2015. Forty-three percent of Detroit charter students were rated proficient in reading compared with 39 percent of students in traditional public schools. Compared to the state average, these scores are still low. Eight in 10 Michigan charters had academic achievement below the state average in both reading and math, according to a Center for Research on Educational Outcomes at Stanford University report.
The steady growth of charter schools in Detroit comes at a time when the Detroit Public School system is struggling financially. Last spring, DPS filed a lawsuit against the state claiming it violated the civil rights of students through its emergency manager law. The district has been run by emergency managers since 2009, weakening the authority of the board of education and allowing an unelected emergency manager to make decisions about school finances. In a separate suit filed against the state by Detroit schoolchildren, they claim lack of state funding in city schools has denied them literacy. Attorneys for Gov. Rick Snyder and state education officials said there is no fundamental right to literacy for Detroit students.
Teachers have been bringing awareness to the issue of poor funding of Detroit schools in the form of protests. Last January, teachers protested the conditions of public schools and took photos of inedible food, damaged school buildings, and dead rodents and posted them on social media. Since then, there have inspections of schools, which confirmed that many schools were unsafe places for kids.
In the midst of all of these issues, DeVos has pushed for less regulation and oversight of charter schools and stated that public schools are failing children — all without advocating for better state funding of public schools.
David Hecker, president of the American Federation of Teachers in Michigan, told The Detroit News that the choice of DeVos would be “devastating for public education.”
Hecker added, “She wants her million and billionaire friends to profit off of childhood education.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
How much could Trump’s education secretary damage public schools? Just look at Detroit.
Detroit schools help explain Betsy DeVos’ mission.
By Casey Quinlan, November 25, 2016
President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Betsy DeVos, a philanthropist and a strong supporter of school choice, as his education secretary. And although DeVos isn’t a household name, she could end up having a big impact on public school students across the country.
For evidence, just take a look at Detroit — a city where DeVos’ influence shows how an expansion of charter schools without the proper oversight can hurt the quality of education for low-income students.
Throughout DeVos’ career as a school choice advocate, she has aggressively pushed for the expansion of charter schools. Although many charter schools across the country benefit low-income families seeking an alternative to public schools, educational equity advocates often raise concerns that a lack of accountability allows less effective charter schools to thrive. And DeVos has been at the forefront of efforts to push against this accountability.
DeVos sits on the board of the Great Lakes Education Project, which advocates for its education reform priorities in the Michigan state legislature. This group is responsible for pushing the legislature to end its plans for a Detroit commission to regulate charter schools.
Sixteen years ago, DeVos, and her husband, Dick DeVos, also pushed for a statewide ballot initiative to amend the state constitution so that tax money could go toward private school tuition. Although this effort didn’t succeed, charter schools in the area expanded anyway. The state lifted its cap on the number of charter schools. Twenty-three percent of Michigan students did not enroll in their home public school district in the fall of last year, which allows students to attend charter schools or public schools outside their community, with 10 percent of students attending charter schools.
Now, Detroit has the second largest share of students in charter schools, at 44 percent, behind New Orleans. Each year, nearly $1 billion of taxpayer money goes to charter schools, but oversight is very weak, according to a yearlong investigation by the Detroit Free Press released in August.
The investigation, which looked at 20 years of charter school records, found evidence of wasteful spending, schools with poor academic records that continue to enroll students for years, and school staff using their positions to profit off of deals for themselves or others. It also found that many charter schools run by for-profit companies did not disclose how they spend taxpayer money.
Some states make it clear that charter authorizers are supposed to provide oversight and accountability to schools in exchange for revenue, but that is not the case in Michigan, The Atlantic reported. An Education Trust-Midwest report released in February found that Michigan charter authorizers “face almost no accountability” for their performance.
Another issue in Michigan is the involvement of for-profit companies in charter schools. The state allows a wide range of education institutions to create charters — such as school districts, community colleges, and universities — and receive 3 percent of the money that goes to those schools. They also get the huge benefit of being the only entities with the power to close schools that are underperforming. Now, for-profit companies operate 80 percent of charters in Michigan, according to The New York Times.
Although the average charter school student in Detroit is making greater gains than public school students in Detroit, data on proficiency in math and reading show that both charter school and public schools have a long road to improving students’ academic performance.
Only 17 percent of Detroit charter school students were rated proficient in math, compared to 13 percent of students in traditional public schools, according to Michigan Association of Public School Academies data released in 2015. Forty-three percent of Detroit charter students were rated proficient in reading compared with 39 percent of students in traditional public schools. Compared to the state average, these scores are still low. Eight in 10 Michigan charters had academic achievement below the state average in both reading and math, according to a Center for Research on Educational Outcomes at Stanford University report.
The steady growth of charter schools in Detroit comes at a time when the Detroit Public School system is struggling financially. Last spring, DPS filed a lawsuit against the state claiming it violated the civil rights of students through its emergency manager law. The district has been run by emergency managers since 2009, weakening the authority of the board of education and allowing an unelected emergency manager to make decisions about school finances. In a separate suit filed against the state by Detroit schoolchildren, they claim lack of state funding in city schools has denied them literacy. Attorneys for Gov. Rick Snyder and state education officials said there is no fundamental right to literacy for Detroit students.
Teachers have been bringing awareness to the issue of poor funding of Detroit schools in the form of protests. Last January, teachers protested the conditions of public schools and took photos of inedible food, damaged school buildings, and dead rodents and posted them on social media. Since then, there have inspections of schools, which confirmed that many schools were unsafe places for kids.
In the midst of all of these issues, DeVos has pushed for less regulation and oversight of charter schools and stated that public schools are failing children — all without advocating for better state funding of public schools.
David Hecker, president of the American Federation of Teachers in Michigan, told The Detroit News that the choice of DeVos would be “devastating for public education.”
Hecker added, “She wants her million and billionaire friends to profit off of childhood education.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Oh, sure, of course. Say, didn't they come from the U.S.?
.......................................................................................................................................
"The Electoral College is an anti-democratic anachronism in a democratic age."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The dangerous scheme to deny Trump the presidency
By Damon Linker, November 23, 2016
It began with an online petition launched in the hours immediately following Donald Trump’s shocking victory in the general election. Yes, Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College, the argument ran, but she won the popular vote (by a large and still swelling margin). That justifies asking electors to abandon Trump and switch their support to Clinton when they vote on Dec. 19 to make the outcome official.
This is a terrible idea guaranteed to spark a constitutional crisis.
By all means, work to abolish the Electoral College once the 2016 election is behind us — there are strong arguments for and against making such a change — but asking electors to disregard the electoral vote outcome in favor of siding with the popular vote winner this year smacks of an attempted coup. Trump and his supporters would undoubtedly charge that the system is rigged. And they would be right.
A thoughtful liberal pundit and a trio of respected scholars have floated a similar but more sophisticated argument in favor of hijacking the Electoral College vote: Elevating Donald Trump to the presidency constitutes an emergency situation, a moment of existential threat to the republic. The Electoral College was designed to prevent precisely this kind of threat — by allowing electors to overrule the popular will when it appeared ready to empower a potential dictator. Republican electors would never break from Trump in large numbers if they thought it would lead Clinton to prevail. The key is therefore to get a bloc of electors from states Clinton won to choose a Republican alternative to Trump. That could embolden electors from states Trump carried to switch to someone else. As the scholars sum up their proposal, "If only 37 electors from states Trump won join this bipartisan effort, the election will be thrown into the House of Representatives, where the Republican majority can then make a final choice."
This proposal may be somewhat less fanciful and egregiously irresponsible than one attached to the online petition, but not by much. It's crucially important that those of us who are deeply alarmed by the prospect of a President Trump take a stand against the proposal and explain why it needs to be forcefully rejected.
Let's begin by acknowledging what is the most likely outcome of this anti-Trump gambit: that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives newly empowered to pick the president ultimately chooses … Donald Trump. There are two interrelated reasons why this is by far the likeliest result: Trump himself is extremely popular with a plurality of Republican voters, and there is no consensus among those who dislike Trump regarding who to support as an alternative. This is the same dynamic that led Trump to survive every effort to sink him during and after the Republican primaries. Very few politicians were willing to risk antagonizing the Republican electorate by turning against him, and that would almost certainly continue to be the case through deliberation in the House over who should become president on Jan. 20.
And that points to why the worst possible outcome of the electors throwing the decision to the House would be for Trump to be denied the presidency. Yes, Trump poses a very serious threat to the country and its liberal democratic norms, but he is not the root of the problem. His millions of passionate supporters are. Among other things, these voters rallied to Trump because they responded to his message that the country's political and economic system is rigged against them. Denying the presidency to their preferred candidate after they'd been told for weeks that he prevailed in the election would confirm every conspiracy they ever entertained.
That would be civic dynamite.
Think it's bad that 200 or so neo-Nazis gathered this past weekend for a celebratory conference in the nation's capital? Just wait until that number surges into the thousands or more, which is exactly what would happen if Trump's most committed supporters felt permanently frozen out by the country's political establishment. Democracies don't succumb to dictatorship when a handful of bad individuals ruthlessly seize power from out of the blue. They succumb to dictatorship when a large, angry faction of the population throws its support behind a handful of bad individuals and supports them in ruthlessly seizing power. For those who think we've already reached that point with Trump, I assure you that it could (and may yet) get much, much worse. Trump's opponents need to be extremely careful that they do nothing to hasten that eventuality or make it more likely — by, for example, denying Trump the presidency and thereby driving him and his supporters out of the democratic political system altogether.
The only way the Electoral College maneuver could succeed is if the institution had its own base of legitimacy — if it were widely respected as an august body of Wise Men and Women whose deliberations issued in a dispassionate, extra-partisan expression of the common good. This whole scheme only works if our collective response to such a radical intervention would be, "Thank you for saving us from ourselves."
But of course, no one views the Electoral College this way. In any given election, each state awards a set number of electoral votes. It takes 270 to win. We presume that the outcome is automatic: Whoever gets to 270 is the victor, period. We rarely even think about these electors as people, let alone the wisest among us.
In the scheme proposed by the professors, this body of unelected and unaccountable electors would take it upon themselves to overrule the outcome of both the electoral vote contest and the popular vote contest. Assuming Trump didn't end up prevailing in the House, the end result would be one president-elect deposed by a body lacking in democratic legitimacy and replaced by another also lacking in democratic legitimacy. There are probably actions that would do more to delegitimize America's political institutions, but I'm hard pressed to think of what they might be.
The Electoral College is an anti-democratic anachronism in a democratic age. Americans are free to consider doing away with it once the 2016 election is behind us. In the meantime, responsible Americans should refrain from encouraging electors to think of themselves as the conscience of the nation. They have no standing to serve in that role, and in acting otherwise they could easily end up making our very serious problems even worse.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The dangerous scheme to deny Trump the presidency
By Damon Linker, November 23, 2016
It began with an online petition launched in the hours immediately following Donald Trump’s shocking victory in the general election. Yes, Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College, the argument ran, but she won the popular vote (by a large and still swelling margin). That justifies asking electors to abandon Trump and switch their support to Clinton when they vote on Dec. 19 to make the outcome official.
This is a terrible idea guaranteed to spark a constitutional crisis.
By all means, work to abolish the Electoral College once the 2016 election is behind us — there are strong arguments for and against making such a change — but asking electors to disregard the electoral vote outcome in favor of siding with the popular vote winner this year smacks of an attempted coup. Trump and his supporters would undoubtedly charge that the system is rigged. And they would be right.
A thoughtful liberal pundit and a trio of respected scholars have floated a similar but more sophisticated argument in favor of hijacking the Electoral College vote: Elevating Donald Trump to the presidency constitutes an emergency situation, a moment of existential threat to the republic. The Electoral College was designed to prevent precisely this kind of threat — by allowing electors to overrule the popular will when it appeared ready to empower a potential dictator. Republican electors would never break from Trump in large numbers if they thought it would lead Clinton to prevail. The key is therefore to get a bloc of electors from states Clinton won to choose a Republican alternative to Trump. That could embolden electors from states Trump carried to switch to someone else. As the scholars sum up their proposal, "If only 37 electors from states Trump won join this bipartisan effort, the election will be thrown into the House of Representatives, where the Republican majority can then make a final choice."
This proposal may be somewhat less fanciful and egregiously irresponsible than one attached to the online petition, but not by much. It's crucially important that those of us who are deeply alarmed by the prospect of a President Trump take a stand against the proposal and explain why it needs to be forcefully rejected.
Let's begin by acknowledging what is the most likely outcome of this anti-Trump gambit: that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives newly empowered to pick the president ultimately chooses … Donald Trump. There are two interrelated reasons why this is by far the likeliest result: Trump himself is extremely popular with a plurality of Republican voters, and there is no consensus among those who dislike Trump regarding who to support as an alternative. This is the same dynamic that led Trump to survive every effort to sink him during and after the Republican primaries. Very few politicians were willing to risk antagonizing the Republican electorate by turning against him, and that would almost certainly continue to be the case through deliberation in the House over who should become president on Jan. 20.
And that points to why the worst possible outcome of the electors throwing the decision to the House would be for Trump to be denied the presidency. Yes, Trump poses a very serious threat to the country and its liberal democratic norms, but he is not the root of the problem. His millions of passionate supporters are. Among other things, these voters rallied to Trump because they responded to his message that the country's political and economic system is rigged against them. Denying the presidency to their preferred candidate after they'd been told for weeks that he prevailed in the election would confirm every conspiracy they ever entertained.
That would be civic dynamite.
Think it's bad that 200 or so neo-Nazis gathered this past weekend for a celebratory conference in the nation's capital? Just wait until that number surges into the thousands or more, which is exactly what would happen if Trump's most committed supporters felt permanently frozen out by the country's political establishment. Democracies don't succumb to dictatorship when a handful of bad individuals ruthlessly seize power from out of the blue. They succumb to dictatorship when a large, angry faction of the population throws its support behind a handful of bad individuals and supports them in ruthlessly seizing power. For those who think we've already reached that point with Trump, I assure you that it could (and may yet) get much, much worse. Trump's opponents need to be extremely careful that they do nothing to hasten that eventuality or make it more likely — by, for example, denying Trump the presidency and thereby driving him and his supporters out of the democratic political system altogether.
The only way the Electoral College maneuver could succeed is if the institution had its own base of legitimacy — if it were widely respected as an august body of Wise Men and Women whose deliberations issued in a dispassionate, extra-partisan expression of the common good. This whole scheme only works if our collective response to such a radical intervention would be, "Thank you for saving us from ourselves."
But of course, no one views the Electoral College this way. In any given election, each state awards a set number of electoral votes. It takes 270 to win. We presume that the outcome is automatic: Whoever gets to 270 is the victor, period. We rarely even think about these electors as people, let alone the wisest among us.
In the scheme proposed by the professors, this body of unelected and unaccountable electors would take it upon themselves to overrule the outcome of both the electoral vote contest and the popular vote contest. Assuming Trump didn't end up prevailing in the House, the end result would be one president-elect deposed by a body lacking in democratic legitimacy and replaced by another also lacking in democratic legitimacy. There are probably actions that would do more to delegitimize America's political institutions, but I'm hard pressed to think of what they might be.
The Electoral College is an anti-democratic anachronism in a democratic age. Americans are free to consider doing away with it once the 2016 election is behind us. In the meantime, responsible Americans should refrain from encouraging electors to think of themselves as the conscience of the nation. They have no standing to serve in that role, and in acting otherwise they could easily end up making our very serious problems even worse.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
By Lawrence Lessig, November 24, 2016
Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of “Republic, Lost: Version 2.0.” In 2015, he was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.
The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.
So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?
Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.
In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.
Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.
Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.
There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.
They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.
But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote?
The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
By Lawrence Lessig, November 24, 2016
Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of “Republic, Lost: Version 2.0.” In 2015, he was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.
The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.
So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?
Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.
In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.
Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.
Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.
There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.
They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.
But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote?
The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Krugman has taken to Twitter frequently since Trump was elected to express concerns over various parts of a Trump presidency." The same concerns we have.
...................................................................................................................................................................
KRUGMAN: Trump is going to bring about 'an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in US history'
By Bob Bryan, November 21, 2016
Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist, once again took to Twitter on Monday to express his discontent with the future Donald Trump administration.
In a series of tweets, Krugman decried the possibility of corruption within the Trump administration, particularly in regard to Trump's massive proposed infrastructure plan and foreign policy.
"We're about to enter, or may already have entered, an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in US history," Krugman tweeted on Monday.
Krugman suggested he believes that the public-private co-investment strategy of Trump's proposed $550 billion infrastructure package would allow the president-elect to give favorable contracts to associates or even his own companies. Krugman wrote that Trump's family could take $10 billion "skimmed off the top" without anyone noticing.
"Expect to see lots of privatization and a general shift from transparent to murky so that favors can be traded," Krugman wrote.
Trump has already prompted questions about his business dealings and family as he transitions into the presidency. Presidents typically put their private business interests in a blind trust during their terms. Trump has said that his business interests would be shifted to his children.
Yet Ivanka Trump sat in on a meeting last week with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which critics have said is a conflict of interest.
Additionally, Krugman said the president-elect's foreign policy would be tilted toward authoritarian governments that could trade favors with Trump.
"And think about the pro-tyrant bias of foreign policy," Krugman wrote.
"Democratic regimes — say, in Europe — are by their own rules unable to offer de-facto personal bribes to the US president," he continued. "Putin's Russia or, for that matter, Xi's China, will be fine with sending huge business to the profiteer-in-chief. And that will cause a tilt of US policy toward authoritarian regimes."
Krugman has taken to Twitter frequently since Trump was elected to express concerns over various parts of a Trump presidency.
Krugman concluded Monday's tirade by telling people to "stay alert."
Here's the entire tweetstorm:
KRUGMAN: Trump is going to bring about 'an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in US history'
By Bob Bryan, November 21, 2016
Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist, once again took to Twitter on Monday to express his discontent with the future Donald Trump administration.
In a series of tweets, Krugman decried the possibility of corruption within the Trump administration, particularly in regard to Trump's massive proposed infrastructure plan and foreign policy.
"We're about to enter, or may already have entered, an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in US history," Krugman tweeted on Monday.
Krugman suggested he believes that the public-private co-investment strategy of Trump's proposed $550 billion infrastructure package would allow the president-elect to give favorable contracts to associates or even his own companies. Krugman wrote that Trump's family could take $10 billion "skimmed off the top" without anyone noticing.
"Expect to see lots of privatization and a general shift from transparent to murky so that favors can be traded," Krugman wrote.
Trump has already prompted questions about his business dealings and family as he transitions into the presidency. Presidents typically put their private business interests in a blind trust during their terms. Trump has said that his business interests would be shifted to his children.
Yet Ivanka Trump sat in on a meeting last week with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which critics have said is a conflict of interest.
Additionally, Krugman said the president-elect's foreign policy would be tilted toward authoritarian governments that could trade favors with Trump.
"And think about the pro-tyrant bias of foreign policy," Krugman wrote.
"Democratic regimes — say, in Europe — are by their own rules unable to offer de-facto personal bribes to the US president," he continued. "Putin's Russia or, for that matter, Xi's China, will be fine with sending huge business to the profiteer-in-chief. And that will cause a tilt of US policy toward authoritarian regimes."
Krugman has taken to Twitter frequently since Trump was elected to express concerns over various parts of a Trump presidency.
Krugman concluded Monday's tirade by telling people to "stay alert."
Here's the entire tweetstorm:
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
We're about to enter, or may already have entered, an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in U.S. history. What does it mean? 1/
7:04 AM - 21 Nov 2016
21 Nov
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
We're about to enter, or may already have entered, an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in U.S. history. What does it mean? 1/
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
Important to realize that the money stolen by the first family is a minor issue; $10 billion, say, skimmed off the top is rounding error 2/
7:06 AM - 21 Nov 2016
21 Nov
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
Important to realize that the money stolen by the first family is a minor issue; $10 billion, say, skimmed off the top is rounding error 2/
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
What matters much more is the distortion of policy in directions that can be monetized. Gratuitous private investors in infrastructure 3/
7:07 AM - 21 Nov 2016
21 Nov
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
What matters much more is the distortion of policy in directions that can be monetized. Gratuitous private investors in infrastructure 3/
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
is just the start. Expect to see lots of privatization and a general shift from transparent to murky so that favors can be traded 4/
7:08 AM - 21 Nov 2016
21 Nov
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
is just the start. Expect to see lots of privatization and a general shift from transparent to murky so that favors can be traded 4/
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
And think about the pro-tyrant bias of foreign policy. Democratic regimes -- say, in Europe -- are by their own rules unable to offer 5/
7:10 AM - 21 Nov 2016
21 Nov
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
And think about the pro-tyrant bias of foreign policy. Democratic regimes -- say, in Europe -- are by their own rules unable to offer 5/
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
de facto personal bribes to the U.S. president. Putin's Russia or, for that matter, Xi's China, will be fine with sending huge business 6/
7:11 AM - 21 Nov 2016
21 Nov
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman
de facto personal bribes to the U.S. president. Putin's Russia or, for that matter, Xi's China, will be fine with sending huge business 6/
Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman...................................................................................................................................................................
to the profiteer-in-chief. And that will cause a tilt of U.S. policy toward authoritarian regimes. Stay alert 7/
7:12 AM - 21 Nov 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
But, but, but.... he doesn't HAVE any character!
....................................................................................................................................
"The billionaire real estate developer also dismissed any need to disentangle himself from his financial holdings, despite rising questions about how his global business dealings might affect his decision-making as the nation’s chief executive."
...................................................................................................................................................................
How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them?
By Paul Waldman, November 23, 2016
While we’re still analyzing the election results and debating the importance of different factors to the final outcome, everyone agrees that white working class voters played a key part in Donald Trump’s victory, in some cases by switching their votes and in some cases by turning out when they had been nonvoters before.
And now that he’s about to take office, he’s ready to deliver on what he promised them, right? Well, maybe not so much:
And it’s not just that; at the same time, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are getting ready to move on their highest priorities, cutting taxes for the wealthy, scrapping oversight on Wall Street, and lightening regulations on big corporations.
Imagine you’re one of those folks who went to Trump rallies and thrilled to his promises to take America back from the establishment, who felt your heart stir as he promised to torture prisoners, who got your “Trump That Bitch” T-shirt, who was overjoyed to finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. What are you thinking as you watch this?
If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told you is already being revealed as a lie.
During the campaign, Trump made two kinds of promises to those white working class voters. One was very practical, focused on economics. In coal country, he said he’d bring back all the coal jobs that have been lost to cheap natural gas (even as he promotes more fracking of natural gas; figure that one out). In the industrial Midwest, he said he’d bring back all the labor-intensive factory jobs that were mostly lost to automation, not trade deals. These promises were utterly ludicrous, but most of the target voters seemed not to care.
The second kind of promise was emotional and expressive. It was about turning back the clock to a time when immigrants hadn’t come to your town, when women weren’t so uppity, when you could say whatever you wanted and you didn’t feel like the culture and the economy were leaving you behind. So Trump said he’d toss Hillary Clinton in jail, force everyone to say “Merry Christmas” again, and sue those dastardly liberal news organizations into submission.
And of course, there were promises — like building a wall on the southern border and making Mexico pay for it just so they know who’s boss — that claimed to serve a practical purpose but also had an important expressive purpose. And now one by one Trump is casting them all off.
So what are we left with? What remains is Trump’s erratic whims, his boundless greed, and the core of Republican policies Congress will pursue, which are most definitely not geared toward the interests of working class whites. He can gut environmental regulations, but that doesn’t mean millions of people are going to head back to the coal mines — it was market forces more than anything else that led to coal’s decline. He can renegotiate trade deals, but that doesn’t mean that the labor-intensive factory jobs are coming back. And by the way, the high wages, good benefits, and job security those jobs used to offer? That was thanks to labor unions, which Republicans are now going to try to destroy once and for all.
Had Hillary Clinton won the election, the white working class might have gotten some tangible benefits — a higher minimum wage, overtime pay, paid family and medical leave, more secure health insurance, and so on. Trump and the Republicans oppose all that. So what did the white working class actually get? They got the election itself. They got to give a big middle finger to the establishment, to the coastal elites, to immigrants, to feminists, to college students, to popular culture, to political correctness, to every person and impersonal force they see arrayed against them. And that was it.
So what happens in two years when there’s a congressional election and two years after that when Trump runs for a second term? Those voters may look around and say, Hey wait a minute. That paradise of infinite winning Trump promised? It didn’t happen. My community still faces the same problems it did before. There’s no new factory in town with thousands of jobs paying great salaries. Everybody doesn’t have great health insurance with no cost-sharing for incredibly low premiums. I still hear people speaking Spanish from time to time. Women and minorities are still demanding that I treat them with respect. Music and movies and TV still make me feel like I’m being left behind. When Trump told me he’d wipe all that away, he was conning me. In fact, in many ways he was the fullest expression of the caricature of politicians (everything they say is a lie, they’re only out for themselves) I thought I was striking back against when I supported him.
Those voters may decide to vote for a Democrat next time. Or they may be demobilized, deciding that there isn’t much point to voting at all. The nearly all-white areas where turnout shot up in 2016 might settle right back down to where they used to be.
Or maybe Trump will find a way to actually improve the lives of working class voters. That’s theoretically possible, but absolutely nothing he has done or said so far suggests that he has any idea how to do it, or even the inclination. So he may try to keep the fires of hatred, resentment, and fear burning, in the hopes that people forget that he hasn’t given them the practical things he said he would.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them?
By Paul Waldman, November 23, 2016
While we’re still analyzing the election results and debating the importance of different factors to the final outcome, everyone agrees that white working class voters played a key part in Donald Trump’s victory, in some cases by switching their votes and in some cases by turning out when they had been nonvoters before.
And now that he’s about to take office, he’s ready to deliver on what he promised them, right? Well, maybe not so much:
President-elect Donald Trump abruptly abandoned some of his most tendentious campaign promises Tuesday, saying he does not plan to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system or the dealings of her family foundation, has an “open mind” about a climate-change accord from which he vowed to withdraw the United States and is no longer certain that torturing terrorism suspects is a good idea.The billionaire real estate developer also dismissed any need to disentangle himself from his financial holdings, despite rising questions about how his global business dealings might affect his decision-making as the nation’s chief executive.
And it’s not just that; at the same time, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are getting ready to move on their highest priorities, cutting taxes for the wealthy, scrapping oversight on Wall Street, and lightening regulations on big corporations.
Imagine you’re one of those folks who went to Trump rallies and thrilled to his promises to take America back from the establishment, who felt your heart stir as he promised to torture prisoners, who got your “Trump That Bitch” T-shirt, who was overjoyed to finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. What are you thinking as you watch this?
If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told you is already being revealed as a lie.
During the campaign, Trump made two kinds of promises to those white working class voters. One was very practical, focused on economics. In coal country, he said he’d bring back all the coal jobs that have been lost to cheap natural gas (even as he promotes more fracking of natural gas; figure that one out). In the industrial Midwest, he said he’d bring back all the labor-intensive factory jobs that were mostly lost to automation, not trade deals. These promises were utterly ludicrous, but most of the target voters seemed not to care.
The second kind of promise was emotional and expressive. It was about turning back the clock to a time when immigrants hadn’t come to your town, when women weren’t so uppity, when you could say whatever you wanted and you didn’t feel like the culture and the economy were leaving you behind. So Trump said he’d toss Hillary Clinton in jail, force everyone to say “Merry Christmas” again, and sue those dastardly liberal news organizations into submission.
And of course, there were promises — like building a wall on the southern border and making Mexico pay for it just so they know who’s boss — that claimed to serve a practical purpose but also had an important expressive purpose. And now one by one Trump is casting them all off.
So what are we left with? What remains is Trump’s erratic whims, his boundless greed, and the core of Republican policies Congress will pursue, which are most definitely not geared toward the interests of working class whites. He can gut environmental regulations, but that doesn’t mean millions of people are going to head back to the coal mines — it was market forces more than anything else that led to coal’s decline. He can renegotiate trade deals, but that doesn’t mean that the labor-intensive factory jobs are coming back. And by the way, the high wages, good benefits, and job security those jobs used to offer? That was thanks to labor unions, which Republicans are now going to try to destroy once and for all.
Had Hillary Clinton won the election, the white working class might have gotten some tangible benefits — a higher minimum wage, overtime pay, paid family and medical leave, more secure health insurance, and so on. Trump and the Republicans oppose all that. So what did the white working class actually get? They got the election itself. They got to give a big middle finger to the establishment, to the coastal elites, to immigrants, to feminists, to college students, to popular culture, to political correctness, to every person and impersonal force they see arrayed against them. And that was it.
So what happens in two years when there’s a congressional election and two years after that when Trump runs for a second term? Those voters may look around and say, Hey wait a minute. That paradise of infinite winning Trump promised? It didn’t happen. My community still faces the same problems it did before. There’s no new factory in town with thousands of jobs paying great salaries. Everybody doesn’t have great health insurance with no cost-sharing for incredibly low premiums. I still hear people speaking Spanish from time to time. Women and minorities are still demanding that I treat them with respect. Music and movies and TV still make me feel like I’m being left behind. When Trump told me he’d wipe all that away, he was conning me. In fact, in many ways he was the fullest expression of the caricature of politicians (everything they say is a lie, they’re only out for themselves) I thought I was striking back against when I supported him.
Those voters may decide to vote for a Democrat next time. Or they may be demobilized, deciding that there isn’t much point to voting at all. The nearly all-white areas where turnout shot up in 2016 might settle right back down to where they used to be.
Or maybe Trump will find a way to actually improve the lives of working class voters. That’s theoretically possible, but absolutely nothing he has done or said so far suggests that he has any idea how to do it, or even the inclination. So he may try to keep the fires of hatred, resentment, and fear burning, in the hopes that people forget that he hasn’t given them the practical things he said he would.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"It’s clear Trump’s rhetoric has given new reign [sic] to the racist and xenophobic prejudices held among some Americans."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Donald Trump presidency so far, in one tweet
By Tara Golshan, November 22, 2016
Update: This article has been updated to reflect Trump’s recent comments in an interview with the New York Times.
Since winning the presidential election, Donald Trump has returned to his typical tweeting habits: He’s feuded with the cast of Broadway musical Hamilton, called Saturday Night Live “one-sided,” censured the “failing” and “nasty” New York Times, lambasted the “crooked media” for reporting corruption claims against him, and lamented not having “the time to go through a long but winning trial” on the Trump University lawsuit.
But as Politico’s Dan Diamond pointed out, what president-elect Trump has not tweeted about is more telling of what’s to come. He has not tweeted about the spate of hate crimes being carried out in his name:
"Since the election, we've seen a big uptick in incidents of vandalism, threats, intimidation spurred by the rhetoric surrounding Mr. Trump's election," Richard Cohen, SPLC president, told USA Today. "The white supremacists out there are celebrating his victory and many are feeling their oats."
It’s clear Trump’s rhetoric has given new reign [sic] to the racist and xenophobic prejudices held among some Americans. In an interview with the New York Times Tuesday, asked directly about the Nazi salutes made in honor of his victory, Trump condemned the action. But Trump, who has had to denounce the support of Ku Klux Klansmen in the past, hasn’t used his preferred 140-character platform to comment on the recent outpouring of white nationalist crime.
And his reason for largely ignoring the hate might be buried in yet another tweet attacking the New York Times:
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Donald Trump presidency so far, in one tweet
By Tara Golshan, November 22, 2016
Update: This article has been updated to reflect Trump’s recent comments in an interview with the New York Times.
Since winning the presidential election, Donald Trump has returned to his typical tweeting habits: He’s feuded with the cast of Broadway musical Hamilton, called Saturday Night Live “one-sided,” censured the “failing” and “nasty” New York Times, lambasted the “crooked media” for reporting corruption claims against him, and lamented not having “the time to go through a long but winning trial” on the Trump University lawsuit.
But as Politico’s Dan Diamond pointed out, what president-elect Trump has not tweeted about is more telling of what’s to come. He has not tweeted about the spate of hate crimes being carried out in his name:
Dan Diamond ✔ @ddiamondAt a conference over the weekend, alt-right think tank National Policy Institute President Richard Spencer’s opening remarks — “Hail Trump, hail our people” — were met with Nazi salutes. Southern Poverty Law Center has recorded 200 alleged hate crimes so far.
Trump tweets since election
- Blasting media: 12
- Blasting 'Hamilton': 4
- Blasting people committing hate crimes in his name: 0
6:46 AM - 22 Nov 2016 · Washington, DC
"Since the election, we've seen a big uptick in incidents of vandalism, threats, intimidation spurred by the rhetoric surrounding Mr. Trump's election," Richard Cohen, SPLC president, told USA Today. "The white supremacists out there are celebrating his victory and many are feeling their oats."
It’s clear Trump’s rhetoric has given new reign [sic] to the racist and xenophobic prejudices held among some Americans. In an interview with the New York Times Tuesday, asked directly about the Nazi salutes made in honor of his victory, Trump condemned the action. But Trump, who has had to denounce the support of Ku Klux Klansmen in the past, hasn’t used his preferred 140-character platform to comment on the recent outpouring of white nationalist crime.
And his reason for largely ignoring the hate might be buried in yet another tweet attacking the New York Times:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpIn other words, Trump doesn’t seem to understand why you would “announce” negative or unpleasant truths about yourself. It’s a mantra he has followed throughout his campaign, spinning violence at his rallies into the “passion” of the American people, or ignoring it all together.
The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high. I can fully understand that - but why announce?
3:36 AM - 22 Nov 2016
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
That's what we've been afraid of.
....................................................................................................................................
"... watchdog groups are not persuaded that there is a viable way to insulate a President Trump from pervasive conflicts of interest."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conflicts of Interest With Trump’s Businesses Are Already Occurring
By Rob Garver, November 20, 2016
Over the weekend, senior figures in the incoming Donald Trump administration began publicly grappling with an issue that is almost certain to create major distractions for the president-elect when he takes office: the myriad potential conflicts of interest presented by his ownership of the business empire that bears his name.
During the presidential campaign, Trump said that he would hand over control of his companies to his adult children during his time in office. This falls far short of the steps past presidents have taken to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The gold standard of conflict avoidance is a “blind trust” in which an officeholder’s assets are liquidated and reinvested by a trustee with no input from the elected official.
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page called on Trump to do just that in an editorial, warning that if he does not, “The political damage to a new Administration could be extensive. If Mr. Trump doesn’t liquidate, he will be accused of a pecuniary motive any time he takes a policy position.”
A coalition of government accountability groups, former White House ethics attorneys, and others wrote an open letter to Trump on Thursday, saying, there is “no acceptable alternative” to his completely severing his ties with the Trump Organization.
“There is no way to square your campaign commitments to the American people –and your even higher, ethical duties as their president – with the rampant, inescapable conflicts that will engulf your presidency if you maintain connections with the Trump Organization, including by maintaining ownership with control transferred to your children.”
However, Trump has shown no interest in liquidating his business, and he would probably take a major financial hit if he did. The value of the Trump brand is derived, in large part, from its close association with Trump’s own outsized public persona. Savvy buyers would understand that and adjust the amount they would be willing to pay downward for a Trump-less Trump brand.
It’s a sticky problem, at this early stage in the transition, the message from team Trump appears to be: “Trust us.”
“I’m very confident that we will operate an administration that is above reproach,” Vice President-elect Mike Pence said in an appearance on Face the Nation.
“I can assure the American people that there wouldn’t be any wrongdoing or any sort of undue influence over any decision making,” said incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
However, evidence of problematic ties between the Trump business empire and the presidency have already begun to appear. Last week, during a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump’s first as president-elect, he was accompanied by his daughter Ivanka, a move that could easily be translated as giving the Trump companies special access to world leaders.
On Tuesday, initially unknown to the media, Trump and his children met with three Indian businessmen who have partnered with the family to build a luxury apartment building in their country. The men posted photos of themselves with Trump and, separately, with two of his children, on social media.
On Saturday, the Trump hotel that recently opened its doors in Washington, DC, just a few blocks from the White House, sponsored a reception for diplomats in the city. The entire point of the reception was to encourage them to have their delegations and visitors patronize the property owned by the President-elect.
In a story about the reception published by the Washington Post, attendees said that they feared it would appear “rude” to the president if diplomats from their countries visited Washington and stayed in hotels owned by business rivals of the President.
Priebus, in an appearance on Meet the Press, oddly denied that the events reported by the Post were true, despite on-the-record accounts of the event by attendees. In a separate appearance on CNN, he said it was “ridiculous” to be focusing on the issue of conflicts of interest so early in the presidential transition period.
While Trump’s situation is “unique,” he said, “It’s certainly compliant with the law and obviously we will comply with all those laws and we will have our White House counsel review all of these things, and we will have every ‘i’ dotted and ‘t’ crossed.”
However, watchdog groups are not persuaded that there is a viable way to insulate a President Trump from pervasive conflicts of interest.
“The nature and diversity of the Trump Organization businesses mean that a wide range of government policy has a direct impact on those businesses,” they wrote in their open letter to the future president. Anything short of complete separation, they said, “will create conflicts of interest of unprecedented magnitude.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conflicts of Interest With Trump’s Businesses Are Already Occurring
By Rob Garver, November 20, 2016
Over the weekend, senior figures in the incoming Donald Trump administration began publicly grappling with an issue that is almost certain to create major distractions for the president-elect when he takes office: the myriad potential conflicts of interest presented by his ownership of the business empire that bears his name.
During the presidential campaign, Trump said that he would hand over control of his companies to his adult children during his time in office. This falls far short of the steps past presidents have taken to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The gold standard of conflict avoidance is a “blind trust” in which an officeholder’s assets are liquidated and reinvested by a trustee with no input from the elected official.
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page called on Trump to do just that in an editorial, warning that if he does not, “The political damage to a new Administration could be extensive. If Mr. Trump doesn’t liquidate, he will be accused of a pecuniary motive any time he takes a policy position.”
A coalition of government accountability groups, former White House ethics attorneys, and others wrote an open letter to Trump on Thursday, saying, there is “no acceptable alternative” to his completely severing his ties with the Trump Organization.
“There is no way to square your campaign commitments to the American people –and your even higher, ethical duties as their president – with the rampant, inescapable conflicts that will engulf your presidency if you maintain connections with the Trump Organization, including by maintaining ownership with control transferred to your children.”
However, Trump has shown no interest in liquidating his business, and he would probably take a major financial hit if he did. The value of the Trump brand is derived, in large part, from its close association with Trump’s own outsized public persona. Savvy buyers would understand that and adjust the amount they would be willing to pay downward for a Trump-less Trump brand.
It’s a sticky problem, at this early stage in the transition, the message from team Trump appears to be: “Trust us.”
“I’m very confident that we will operate an administration that is above reproach,” Vice President-elect Mike Pence said in an appearance on Face the Nation.
“I can assure the American people that there wouldn’t be any wrongdoing or any sort of undue influence over any decision making,” said incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
However, evidence of problematic ties between the Trump business empire and the presidency have already begun to appear. Last week, during a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump’s first as president-elect, he was accompanied by his daughter Ivanka, a move that could easily be translated as giving the Trump companies special access to world leaders.
On Tuesday, initially unknown to the media, Trump and his children met with three Indian businessmen who have partnered with the family to build a luxury apartment building in their country. The men posted photos of themselves with Trump and, separately, with two of his children, on social media.
On Saturday, the Trump hotel that recently opened its doors in Washington, DC, just a few blocks from the White House, sponsored a reception for diplomats in the city. The entire point of the reception was to encourage them to have their delegations and visitors patronize the property owned by the President-elect.
In a story about the reception published by the Washington Post, attendees said that they feared it would appear “rude” to the president if diplomats from their countries visited Washington and stayed in hotels owned by business rivals of the President.
Priebus, in an appearance on Meet the Press, oddly denied that the events reported by the Post were true, despite on-the-record accounts of the event by attendees. In a separate appearance on CNN, he said it was “ridiculous” to be focusing on the issue of conflicts of interest so early in the presidential transition period.
While Trump’s situation is “unique,” he said, “It’s certainly compliant with the law and obviously we will comply with all those laws and we will have our White House counsel review all of these things, and we will have every ‘i’ dotted and ‘t’ crossed.”
However, watchdog groups are not persuaded that there is a viable way to insulate a President Trump from pervasive conflicts of interest.
“The nature and diversity of the Trump Organization businesses mean that a wide range of government policy has a direct impact on those businesses,” they wrote in their open letter to the future president. Anything short of complete separation, they said, “will create conflicts of interest of unprecedented magnitude.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'Voters,' he said, 'should be able to choose their representatives, not the other way around.'" Right!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Judges say Wisconsin legislative boundaries unconstitutional
By Todd Richmond, November 21, 2016
Federal judges struck down Wisconsin's Republican-drawn legislative districts as unconstitutional on Monday, marking a victory for minority Democrats that could force the Legislature to redraw the maps.
The three-judge panel didn't order any immediate changes to district boundaries, instead saying they would give state attorneys and the voters who challenged the old maps 45 days to offer suggestions.
State lawyers plan to appeal the 2-1 ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but for now the decision offers hope for Democrats who have been in the minority for six years and lost more ground in this month's elections. The lawsuit focuses on Assembly districts, but since Senate districts are based on the Assembly maps the ruling invalidates both chambers' maps.
"The court has clearly indicated the map is unconstitutional and that Wisconsin citizens deserve a fair map," said Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, which organized the lawsuit. "We're confident this is the first step in democracy being restored to the people of Wisconsin."
Republican state Attorney General Brad Schimel, whose state Justice Department defended the boundaries, issued a statement saying the agency plans to appeal and the decision doesn't affect the results of this month's elections.
A spokeswoman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald referred questions to justice department. Republican Gov. Scott Walker's spokesman, Tom Evenson, had no immediate comment, saying only that Walker's office was reviewing the decision.
Assembly Republican Speaker Robin Vos said Republican victories in Wisconsin are not because of redistricting.(backslash)
"Republicans win elections because we have better candidates and a better message that continues to resonate with voters," he said.
Republicans drew the maps in 2011 after they took full control of state government in the 2010 elections. They haven't relinquished control of either house since. Assembly Republicans didn't lose a seat and defeated a Democratic incumbent in this month's elections to gain their largest majority in the chamber since 1957. Senate Republicans also didn't lose a single seat and defeated a Democratic incumbent to gain their largest majority since 1971.
A dozen voters sued in July 2015, arguing the maps unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats by diluting their voting power. They called it the worst example of gerrymandering — a term for dividing districts to gain an unfair advantage — in modern history.
One effect, plaintiff attorney Gerald Hebert argued during a trial in May, was to reduce the number of swing districts from 19 to 10. The plaintiffs also noted that under the new maps in 2012 Republicans won 60 of 99 Assembly seats even though Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote.
Attorneys for the state countered Wisconsin is trending Republican and argued there's no legal way to measure gerrymandering. They added that partisanship should be expected when one party draws legislative boundaries.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to come up with a legal standard for deciding when redistricting becomes unconstitutional gerrymandering. Plaintiff attorneys offered the judges an equation that included measuring and comparing each party's wasted votes in an election. State lawyers argued the equation lacked any constitutional basis and there was no way a court could measure gerrymandering.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Ripple and U.S. District Judge William Griesbach heard the case. Crabb was appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, Griesbach by Republican President George W. Bush and Ripple by Republican President Ronald Reagan. Crabb and Ripple accepted the equation.
"We find that (the maps were) intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats," Ripple wrote for the majority. "We find that the discriminatory effect is not explained by the political geography of Wisconsin nor is it justified by a legitimate state interest."
Griesbach wrote in dissent the Republicans' maps were politically motivated but comply with traditional redistricting principles. Republicans likely would have retained legislative control in the 2012 and 2014 elections without the new maps, he said.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca called Monday's ruling "a historic victory."
"Voters," he said, "should be able to choose their representatives, not the other way around."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Judges say Wisconsin legislative boundaries unconstitutional
By Todd Richmond, November 21, 2016
Federal judges struck down Wisconsin's Republican-drawn legislative districts as unconstitutional on Monday, marking a victory for minority Democrats that could force the Legislature to redraw the maps.
The three-judge panel didn't order any immediate changes to district boundaries, instead saying they would give state attorneys and the voters who challenged the old maps 45 days to offer suggestions.
State lawyers plan to appeal the 2-1 ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but for now the decision offers hope for Democrats who have been in the minority for six years and lost more ground in this month's elections. The lawsuit focuses on Assembly districts, but since Senate districts are based on the Assembly maps the ruling invalidates both chambers' maps.
"The court has clearly indicated the map is unconstitutional and that Wisconsin citizens deserve a fair map," said Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, which organized the lawsuit. "We're confident this is the first step in democracy being restored to the people of Wisconsin."
Republican state Attorney General Brad Schimel, whose state Justice Department defended the boundaries, issued a statement saying the agency plans to appeal and the decision doesn't affect the results of this month's elections.
A spokeswoman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald referred questions to justice department. Republican Gov. Scott Walker's spokesman, Tom Evenson, had no immediate comment, saying only that Walker's office was reviewing the decision.
Assembly Republican Speaker Robin Vos said Republican victories in Wisconsin are not because of redistricting.(backslash)
"Republicans win elections because we have better candidates and a better message that continues to resonate with voters," he said.
Republicans drew the maps in 2011 after they took full control of state government in the 2010 elections. They haven't relinquished control of either house since. Assembly Republicans didn't lose a seat and defeated a Democratic incumbent in this month's elections to gain their largest majority in the chamber since 1957. Senate Republicans also didn't lose a single seat and defeated a Democratic incumbent to gain their largest majority since 1971.
A dozen voters sued in July 2015, arguing the maps unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats by diluting their voting power. They called it the worst example of gerrymandering — a term for dividing districts to gain an unfair advantage — in modern history.
One effect, plaintiff attorney Gerald Hebert argued during a trial in May, was to reduce the number of swing districts from 19 to 10. The plaintiffs also noted that under the new maps in 2012 Republicans won 60 of 99 Assembly seats even though Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote.
Attorneys for the state countered Wisconsin is trending Republican and argued there's no legal way to measure gerrymandering. They added that partisanship should be expected when one party draws legislative boundaries.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to come up with a legal standard for deciding when redistricting becomes unconstitutional gerrymandering. Plaintiff attorneys offered the judges an equation that included measuring and comparing each party's wasted votes in an election. State lawyers argued the equation lacked any constitutional basis and there was no way a court could measure gerrymandering.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Ripple and U.S. District Judge William Griesbach heard the case. Crabb was appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, Griesbach by Republican President George W. Bush and Ripple by Republican President Ronald Reagan. Crabb and Ripple accepted the equation.
"We find that (the maps were) intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats," Ripple wrote for the majority. "We find that the discriminatory effect is not explained by the political geography of Wisconsin nor is it justified by a legitimate state interest."
Griesbach wrote in dissent the Republicans' maps were politically motivated but comply with traditional redistricting principles. Republicans likely would have retained legislative control in the 2012 and 2014 elections without the new maps, he said.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca called Monday's ruling "a historic victory."
"Voters," he said, "should be able to choose their representatives, not the other way around."
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'Joe [could] do it for two years and have people like Keith Ellison at the next rung who can generate some real activity in the states, who can take the case to voters we've ignored.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Joe Biden is the only one who can put the Democratic Party back together: Ex-DNC chairman says
By Matthew J. Belvedere, November 22, 2016
Outgoing Vice President Joe Biden is the "right guy, right now" to unite the Democratic Party, now in shambles after Donald Trump and Republicans dominated on Election Day, Democrat Ed Rendell told CNBC on Tuesday.
The former Pennsylvania governor, who ran the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 presidential cycle, said he'd like to see Biden lead the DNC in the wake of Hillary Clinton 's defeat and the GOP keeping the majority in the House and Senate.
"I don't know if he has an interest in doing it," Rendell said on "Squawk Box" of the 74-year-old vice president. "But I think Joe Biden is the one person who I think could bring the party together — the progressive wing of the party, the left and center ... and start giving a cogent message to those working-class Democrats who abandoned us."
A number of DNC chairman candidates have emerged, with Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota seen as a top contender, ahead of the group's gathering in February to select a new leader.
Rendell would like to see someone like Ellison backing up Biden. "Joe [could] do it for two years and have people like Keith Ellison at the next rung who can generate some real activity in the states, who can take the case to voters we've ignored."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Joe Biden is the only one who can put the Democratic Party back together: Ex-DNC chairman says
By Matthew J. Belvedere, November 22, 2016
Outgoing Vice President Joe Biden is the "right guy, right now" to unite the Democratic Party, now in shambles after Donald Trump and Republicans dominated on Election Day, Democrat Ed Rendell told CNBC on Tuesday.
The former Pennsylvania governor, who ran the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 presidential cycle, said he'd like to see Biden lead the DNC in the wake of Hillary Clinton 's defeat and the GOP keeping the majority in the House and Senate.
"I don't know if he has an interest in doing it," Rendell said on "Squawk Box" of the 74-year-old vice president. "But I think Joe Biden is the one person who I think could bring the party together — the progressive wing of the party, the left and center ... and start giving a cogent message to those working-class Democrats who abandoned us."
A number of DNC chairman candidates have emerged, with Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota seen as a top contender, ahead of the group's gathering in February to select a new leader.
Rendell would like to see someone like Ellison backing up Biden. "Joe [could] do it for two years and have people like Keith Ellison at the next rung who can generate some real activity in the states, who can take the case to voters we've ignored."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, November 21, 2016
Hmmm, Aaron Burr forgot Trump's orange skin color.
........................................................................................................................................
"... we know the answer to that already by the other consistent feature of his life story: the power, prestige and prosperity of Donald Trump and his family."
...................................................................................................................................................................
America just came to a fork in the road, and wow, did we take it
By Tom Toles, November 21, 2016
The 2016 election was like a raindrop landing nearly exactly on the North American watershed line. A quarter-inch to the left, it ends up in the Pacific Ocean; a quarter-inch to the right, it ends up in the Atlantic.
The difference was between the solidification and extension of the Obama presidency, or alternatively its eradication. To say the least, these are two very different futures for the United States. On top of that, the eradication of the Obama presidency may also include the eradication of a lot of long-standing American democratic norms. The orange-flavoring of the Trump campaign was distinctly authoritarian, from its threatening talk about lists and deportations and torture and strongman politics to its unprecedented and blatant mixing of the American presidency with a private business empire.
The voters spoke, and voted to extend the Obama presidency, but due to a quirk in the vote tabulating system, the result went to the Republican candidate, for the second time in 16 years. That’s quite a quirk, and it fits nicely with the quirk that gives Republicans a built-in advantage in the Senate, and the quirk that allows gerrymandering that has given Republicans a built-in advantage in the House of Representatives, plus the brand new quirk that allows the Republicans to never vote on Democratic nominations to the Supreme Court. Talk about a quirky system!
In any case, the difference in our future now from what the voters actually selected is about as profound as it gets.
A reader accused me of whining about the electoral college, but I feel it more as genuine dismay. Whining is unfortunately all too accurate. The Democrats accepted the results so fast and supinely in both 2000 and 2016 that barely a ripple of discontent registered in body politic.
Contrast this with the body-blow that President-elect Donald Trump was threatening to deliver if he lost. Lawsuits, accusations of rigging, and marshaling his voters toward the invalidation of American democratic mechanisms. Does this tell us anything?
It tells us that in addition to the two often-cited explanations for Trump voters — economic anxiety and racial animus — there is a third, hidden one. There is an apparent widespread voter desire for ruthlessness.
This was the real Trump campaign platform. The policy contradictions added up to nothing particular, and his on-again, off-again stigmatization of groups may or may not have been actual beliefs. But the one constant throughout was ruthlessness, and voters liked it. They assumed, of course, that the ruthlessness was aimed away from them.
And this will be the defining trait of the Trump presidency. Hope you’re ready. And who will it be aimed at? Who knows? Who have you got? The only determinant will be for whose benefit it will be aimed. And we know the answer to that already by the other consistent feature of his life story: the power, prestige and prosperity of Donald Trump and his family.
...................................................................................................................................................................
America just came to a fork in the road, and wow, did we take it
By Tom Toles, November 21, 2016
The 2016 election was like a raindrop landing nearly exactly on the North American watershed line. A quarter-inch to the left, it ends up in the Pacific Ocean; a quarter-inch to the right, it ends up in the Atlantic.
The difference was between the solidification and extension of the Obama presidency, or alternatively its eradication. To say the least, these are two very different futures for the United States. On top of that, the eradication of the Obama presidency may also include the eradication of a lot of long-standing American democratic norms. The orange-flavoring of the Trump campaign was distinctly authoritarian, from its threatening talk about lists and deportations and torture and strongman politics to its unprecedented and blatant mixing of the American presidency with a private business empire.
The voters spoke, and voted to extend the Obama presidency, but due to a quirk in the vote tabulating system, the result went to the Republican candidate, for the second time in 16 years. That’s quite a quirk, and it fits nicely with the quirk that gives Republicans a built-in advantage in the Senate, and the quirk that allows gerrymandering that has given Republicans a built-in advantage in the House of Representatives, plus the brand new quirk that allows the Republicans to never vote on Democratic nominations to the Supreme Court. Talk about a quirky system!
In any case, the difference in our future now from what the voters actually selected is about as profound as it gets.
A reader accused me of whining about the electoral college, but I feel it more as genuine dismay. Whining is unfortunately all too accurate. The Democrats accepted the results so fast and supinely in both 2000 and 2016 that barely a ripple of discontent registered in body politic.
Contrast this with the body-blow that President-elect Donald Trump was threatening to deliver if he lost. Lawsuits, accusations of rigging, and marshaling his voters toward the invalidation of American democratic mechanisms. Does this tell us anything?
It tells us that in addition to the two often-cited explanations for Trump voters — economic anxiety and racial animus — there is a third, hidden one. There is an apparent widespread voter desire for ruthlessness.
This was the real Trump campaign platform. The policy contradictions added up to nothing particular, and his on-again, off-again stigmatization of groups may or may not have been actual beliefs. But the one constant throughout was ruthlessness, and voters liked it. They assumed, of course, that the ruthlessness was aimed away from them.
And this will be the defining trait of the Trump presidency. Hope you’re ready. And who will it be aimed at? Who knows? Who have you got? The only determinant will be for whose benefit it will be aimed. And we know the answer to that already by the other consistent feature of his life story: the power, prestige and prosperity of Donald Trump and his family.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Judge Primomo, your attitude is not acceptable!
...................................................................................................................................................................
‘Go to another country’ if you don’t like Trump, judge tells new U.S. citizens
By Cleve R. Wootson Jr., November 21, 2016
The photographs and hugs and congratulations from family members would have to wait.
First, several dozen of the nation’s newest citizens who gathered at the Institute of Texan Cultures in San Antonio would have to endure some harsh words about the state of the country they had just become a part of. The topic: President-elect Donald Trump.
Federal Magistrate Judge John Primomo presided over the induction ceremony on Friday. In his speech to the émigrés, he touched on the protests that have cropped up across the nation since Trump’s election.
And he told those gathered what they could do if they didn’t like the person who won on Nov. 8.
“I can assure you that whether you voted for [Trump] or you did not vote for him, if you are a citizen of the United States, he is your president and he will be your president,” the judge said, according to CBS affiliate KHOU. “And if you do not like that, you need to go to another country.”
Primomo, who did not return messages from The Washington Post on Sunday, also criticized American protesters who carried signs saying, ‘He’s not my president,’ including some in San Antonio, according to the news station.
Primomo lashed out against NFL players such as Colin Kaepernick who choose to take a knee instead of standing during the national anthem.
“I detest that, because you can protest things that happen in this country; you have every right to,” Primomo said. “You don’t do that by offending national symbols like the national anthem and the flag of the United States.”
Primomo told San Antonio CBS affiliate KENS that he wanted his words to be unifying and respectful of the office of the president, not political or divisive. He said he didn’t vote for Trump.
Still, his words set off a controversy, with people calling for him to be removed from office. Critics started a petition on MoveOn.org to censure the judge, who was appointed in 1988.
Among them were eight people who were arrested Saturday near Austin as White Lives Matter protesters clashed with counter-protesters, according to the Associated Press. The conflict happened after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) dedicated a monument honoring African Americans’ contributions to the state.
Protesters interviewed by The Post have cited myriad reasons for taking to the streets — fears about climate change, even concerns about the electoral system and capitalism itself.
But mostly, they don’t like Trump.
The protesters have faced their own criticism from people who said they should be working to unite the country, not divide it.
According to The Post’s Abigail Hauslohner and Mark Berman, “Trump and his surrogates have insulted the protesters on television and social media, calling them paid professionals ‘incited by the media,’ jobless ‘crybabies,’ people with mental disorders and ‘goons.’ ”
...................................................................................................................................................................
‘Go to another country’ if you don’t like Trump, judge tells new U.S. citizens
By Cleve R. Wootson Jr., November 21, 2016
The photographs and hugs and congratulations from family members would have to wait.
First, several dozen of the nation’s newest citizens who gathered at the Institute of Texan Cultures in San Antonio would have to endure some harsh words about the state of the country they had just become a part of. The topic: President-elect Donald Trump.
Federal Magistrate Judge John Primomo presided over the induction ceremony on Friday. In his speech to the émigrés, he touched on the protests that have cropped up across the nation since Trump’s election.
And he told those gathered what they could do if they didn’t like the person who won on Nov. 8.
“I can assure you that whether you voted for [Trump] or you did not vote for him, if you are a citizen of the United States, he is your president and he will be your president,” the judge said, according to CBS affiliate KHOU. “And if you do not like that, you need to go to another country.”
Primomo, who did not return messages from The Washington Post on Sunday, also criticized American protesters who carried signs saying, ‘He’s not my president,’ including some in San Antonio, according to the news station.
Primomo lashed out against NFL players such as Colin Kaepernick who choose to take a knee instead of standing during the national anthem.
“I detest that, because you can protest things that happen in this country; you have every right to,” Primomo said. “You don’t do that by offending national symbols like the national anthem and the flag of the United States.”
Primomo told San Antonio CBS affiliate KENS that he wanted his words to be unifying and respectful of the office of the president, not political or divisive. He said he didn’t vote for Trump.
Still, his words set off a controversy, with people calling for him to be removed from office. Critics started a petition on MoveOn.org to censure the judge, who was appointed in 1988.
19 Nov
The Hill ✔ @thehill
Federal judge at citizenship ceremony: If you don't like Trump, then leave http://hill.cm/lAqVweW pic.twitter.com/6dTxty9g3z
BrighterDays @StevenBogarat
@thehill Primomo needs to be muzzled/pulled off the bench/stripped of his law license/big mouth judges=STFU
8:08 AM - 20 Nov 2016
Eric Bost @EricOnTheTrail
#Primomo is incompetent and should be impeached. #notapatriot.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-immigration_us_5830bac4e4b099512f833cf8?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004 …
8:16 AM - 20 Nov 2016
Judge Tells New Citizens They Can Leave The U.S. If They Don't Like TrumpSince Trump won, thousands of people have protested in dozens of American cities.
“He will be your president and if you do not like that, you need to go to another country.”
huffingtonpost.com
Among them were eight people who were arrested Saturday near Austin as White Lives Matter protesters clashed with counter-protesters, according to the Associated Press. The conflict happened after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) dedicated a monument honoring African Americans’ contributions to the state.
Protesters interviewed by The Post have cited myriad reasons for taking to the streets — fears about climate change, even concerns about the electoral system and capitalism itself.
But mostly, they don’t like Trump.
The protesters have faced their own criticism from people who said they should be working to unite the country, not divide it.
According to The Post’s Abigail Hauslohner and Mark Berman, “Trump and his surrogates have insulted the protesters on television and social media, calling them paid professionals ‘incited by the media,’ jobless ‘crybabies,’ people with mental disorders and ‘goons.’ ”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"And since Trump isn’t actually relinquishing control of his businesses, all of this means that rather than sacrifice, Trump is poised to use the presidency for his personal profit. ... The only solution? Actual divestment from his business ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump spokeswoman says Americans should ignore conflicts-of-interest, focus on Trump’s ‘sacrifice’
In his first week as president-elect, Trump used his new position to bolster his business interests
By Laurel Raymond, November 21, 2016
Kellyanne Conway, a Senior Advisor to President-elect Trump, said people should focus less on Trump’s conflict-of-interest and more on the “sacrifice” he’s making to his business career by becoming president.
Trump, however, doesn’t seem to be ready to sacrifice anything.
At the tail-end of her interview on Fox & Friends Monday morning, host Brian Kilmeade asked Conway whether she agreed that the Trumps “have to work out where the business starts and the presidency starts.” Trump’s web of business investments, hotel properties and dealings with foreign investors “will create conflicts of interest of unprecedented magnitude,” according to an open letter from a group of open-government watchdogs.
Conway waived off the concerns on Monday.
“Oh well sure. But they are doing that…they have experts behind the scenes doing that, the adult children who already help him run that business and who obviously will be the stewards in their father’s absence are on top of that” Conway said.
“It’s a unique situation to have such a successful a businessman that has so many holdings ascend to the oval office. But I also want people to see what a sacrifice it is. He has invested tens of millions of dollars and other deals have had to wait, because he’s doing this. But his adult children are right there, they’re already his colleagues, he’s already been their mentor and they’re already chief executives there.”
Unlike previous presidents, who have placed their assets in index funds or a blind trust, Trump has done nothing to separate himself from his business interests as he assumes control of the government. He’s previously said he would turn his businesses over to his children.
Trump has referred to this arrangement as a “blind trust” but it’s actually the opposite. In a real blind trust, in a neutral party takes control of marketable assets. Because the administrator can trade these assets away at anytime, the contents of the trust are soon unknown.
Trump, however, knows what his assets are, and says he’s giving them to his children — hardly a neutral party. As Conway say, he has been their mentor — and not only are they his business colleagues, he’s made them part of his transition as well.
Trump gave his children — supposedly the new stewards of his personal empire — high-profile positions on his transition team. The same people shaping his administration are also the ones leading his business empire. And he’s not hiding this web of conflicts — instead the Trump team is flaunting it.
On November 17th, the Trump team handed out a photograph of Ivanka Trump, likely the new CEO of the Trump empire, sitting in on a diplomatic meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan. The photograph sends a message to Trump’s business cohort: Dealing with Ivanka is dealing with someone who has the power of the American presidency behind her.
And foreign diplomats — and the Trump businesses — have taken note. On Friday, The Washington Post reported that over 100 foreign diplomats gathered at Trump’s new downtown DC hotel to listen to sales pitches and admire the new accommodations. Some of them told the Post that it was an explicit attempt to curry favor with the President-Elect.
Nor has Trump himself stopped his business dealings. Last week, Trump met with three Indian businessmen who are building a Trump-branded luxury apartment complex. The men told Indian media that they discussed expanding their partnership with the Trump organization now that Trump will be the next American president.
Like many of Trump’s business ventures, his involvement in the deal in India is one of branding: For a fee, he lets other developers use his name. Now that he’s President, that name is likely even more valuable.
And since Trump isn’t actually relinquishing control of his businesses, all of this means that rather than sacrifice, Trump is poised to use the presidency for his personal profit.
That’s a huge problem — both for free Democracy, and for the constitution. According to an exclusive ThinkProgress interview with Richard Painter, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer, Trump is headed for a major violation of the constitution on his first day in office.
The only solution? Actual divestment from his business, said Painter.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump spokeswoman says Americans should ignore conflicts-of-interest, focus on Trump’s ‘sacrifice’
In his first week as president-elect, Trump used his new position to bolster his business interests
By Laurel Raymond, November 21, 2016
Kellyanne Conway, a Senior Advisor to President-elect Trump, said people should focus less on Trump’s conflict-of-interest and more on the “sacrifice” he’s making to his business career by becoming president.
Trump, however, doesn’t seem to be ready to sacrifice anything.
At the tail-end of her interview on Fox & Friends Monday morning, host Brian Kilmeade asked Conway whether she agreed that the Trumps “have to work out where the business starts and the presidency starts.” Trump’s web of business investments, hotel properties and dealings with foreign investors “will create conflicts of interest of unprecedented magnitude,” according to an open letter from a group of open-government watchdogs.
Conway waived off the concerns on Monday.
“Oh well sure. But they are doing that…they have experts behind the scenes doing that, the adult children who already help him run that business and who obviously will be the stewards in their father’s absence are on top of that” Conway said.
“It’s a unique situation to have such a successful a businessman that has so many holdings ascend to the oval office. But I also want people to see what a sacrifice it is. He has invested tens of millions of dollars and other deals have had to wait, because he’s doing this. But his adult children are right there, they’re already his colleagues, he’s already been their mentor and they’re already chief executives there.”
Unlike previous presidents, who have placed their assets in index funds or a blind trust, Trump has done nothing to separate himself from his business interests as he assumes control of the government. He’s previously said he would turn his businesses over to his children.
Trump has referred to this arrangement as a “blind trust” but it’s actually the opposite. In a real blind trust, in a neutral party takes control of marketable assets. Because the administrator can trade these assets away at anytime, the contents of the trust are soon unknown.
Trump, however, knows what his assets are, and says he’s giving them to his children — hardly a neutral party. As Conway say, he has been their mentor — and not only are they his business colleagues, he’s made them part of his transition as well.
Trump gave his children — supposedly the new stewards of his personal empire — high-profile positions on his transition team. The same people shaping his administration are also the ones leading his business empire. And he’s not hiding this web of conflicts — instead the Trump team is flaunting it.
On November 17th, the Trump team handed out a photograph of Ivanka Trump, likely the new CEO of the Trump empire, sitting in on a diplomatic meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan. The photograph sends a message to Trump’s business cohort: Dealing with Ivanka is dealing with someone who has the power of the American presidency behind her.
And foreign diplomats — and the Trump businesses — have taken note. On Friday, The Washington Post reported that over 100 foreign diplomats gathered at Trump’s new downtown DC hotel to listen to sales pitches and admire the new accommodations. Some of them told the Post that it was an explicit attempt to curry favor with the President-Elect.
Nor has Trump himself stopped his business dealings. Last week, Trump met with three Indian businessmen who are building a Trump-branded luxury apartment complex. The men told Indian media that they discussed expanding their partnership with the Trump organization now that Trump will be the next American president.
Like many of Trump’s business ventures, his involvement in the deal in India is one of branding: For a fee, he lets other developers use his name. Now that he’s President, that name is likely even more valuable.
And since Trump isn’t actually relinquishing control of his businesses, all of this means that rather than sacrifice, Trump is poised to use the presidency for his personal profit.
That’s a huge problem — both for free Democracy, and for the constitution. According to an exclusive ThinkProgress interview with Richard Painter, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer, Trump is headed for a major violation of the constitution on his first day in office.
The only solution? Actual divestment from his business, said Painter.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)