Time for a few more timely words on the goulash that is the Trump administration. I have to say frankly that I detest some of the ingredients, and the methods of the hash slinger in the back of this roadside greasy eating utensil are frequently open to question, and yet on the other hand I do like a lot of the ingredients, and taking one thing with another, such as this sentence not yet being long enough, I do not yet have indigestion, and there are times when the whole thing tastes pretty good.
So, for example of the detestable, the way Trump has been undercutting his attorney general through various tweets is one of the most graceless, classless things I have seen in a long time. Trump could simply fire him, and yet he is choosing rather to humiliate him in a petty and vindictive way. And he is doing it in a way as to ensure that Congress would never approve a replacement anywhere near as stalwart as Sessions. And what kind of shrewd customer would even take the job now? It is hard to see any end game that makes any kind of sense here, which makes it easy to attribute the whole thing to presidential spleen. The other option is that Trump is playing chess with the cherubim again, off in the 17th dimension somewhere. It will all make sense later. When? Later.
So why do I still approach watching the evening news with a song on my lips? Why is it so much fun to follow the circus maximus from town to town? I mean, in a way that would be entirely absent had the Queen of Corruption been elected?
I woke up this morning to discover that President Trump had banned all transsexuals from serving in any capacity in the U.S. military. Trump is not a real conservative—I grant that—but something really bizarre is actually happening here. Had a mainstream, standard-issue Republican “real” conservative been elected, anybody who proposed to hold their breath until such a directive issued forth from such a starched collar responsible guy is a breath-holder who is proposing to turn himself blue.
In other words, there is enough kielbasa sausage in this goulash to enable me to deal with some of the dubious elements.
My entire adult life, Republican presidents have been over-promising and under-delivering. With Trump, it has been erratic-promising and surprise-delivering. Okay, I’ll take it. I push some of the things on my plate to the side, giving them the stink eye, but on the whole, breakfast is fine.
To conclude with some words of wisdom gleaned from the letters of Cato the Elder, these are funky times.
The reactions from the left have been delightful, a sweet aroma.
If the goal is to light a fire under Sessions or to get Shumer to come out and praise Jeff Sessions…. goal met. I think he’s merely highly peeved and can’t confront him privately as all his conversations are recorded and leaked. On the policy and accomplishment front, there’s been none better. I would defy anyone to compare PDJT’s record with any other modern president, including Reagans’. NO WAY Rubio, Sasse, Pence or Bush would have had the fortitude to get us out of Paris or banning transgenders from military. Only Cruz might have done these things and, interestingly, PDJT… Read more »
The only problem, Doug. There is NO ACTUAL POLICY banning transexuals from the military. It’s all still Twitter bluster. The Pentagon hasn’t formulated a policy statement laying it out to implement it. So until that happens, it’s a complete distraction. And if it doesn’t happen, then we conservatives were just duped, while he provided cover for the news that a Democrat staffer with Debby Wasserman Shultz was arrested.
Trey, the policy statements come later. When the president says to do something the generals pass the word right along. That has been the case for decades.
It appears that the media provided the cover for Imran Awan’s arrest. Before Trump how many major stories were overlooked by the media while they promoted something of lesser importance? Look at the media for the coverups.
Agreed. It’s a weird casserole that has things in it I know I don’t like, but when you take a whole bite it’s rather tasty and nutritious.
“In other words, there is enough kielbasa sausage in this goulash to enable me to deal with some of the dubious elements.”
LOL! Indeed. And that is precisely why I always toss some kielbasa into the stir fry.
Trump is a total disaster. The media was right all along about him. Banning transgenders from the military is small potatoes that will be quickly undone when a D takes office in 2021.
It’s pretty amazing. You keep hoping to see a little glimmer of light but it is pathetic insecure narcissism all of the way down. The liberal media had his personality pegged, sadly.
I don’t get the people who say that objections to Trump are centered around distaste at a display of traditional masculinity. Trump whines, blame-shifts, and gossips like a preteen girl and exudes about as much masculine virtue as a wet sponge.
“Spiteful little girl” comes to mind.
The Sessions thing is easy. He’s angry that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation because he was counting on a lapdog attorney general to quash the investigation. Instead, an actual honorable man, Robert Mueller, was picked to lead it. He wants to be rid of Mueller because he knows Mueller’s loyalty is to the rule of law rather than to Trump. Personal loyalty to Trump is the only thing Trump cares about. A new attorney general, who doesn’t need to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, will give him cover to fire Mueller on the grounds that an independent… Read more »
Well, at least in Debbie Wasserman Shultz-gate, there has been an arrest!
That’s like bacon in the omelette ain’t it? ????
adad0, as I understand the facts, a former aide to Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who was fired months ago for unrelated reasons, was arrested for personal bank fraud that had nothing to do with his employment with Ms. Shultz. How exactly you think that is comparable to credible allegations (backed up by Donny Trump Jr.’s own emails) that high raking officials of the Trump campaign met with a hostile foreign power to influence an American election is beyond me.
“Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya attests she graduated with distinction from the Moscow State Legal Academy in 1998.[7] She attests that she was then employed by the prosecutor’s office in Moscow Oblast, where she worked on legislation.[7] She claims to have won over 300 legal cases.[8] She then moved into private practice, focusing on land deals in the expanding Moscow suburbs.” ‘Check, in nothing-gate, why do you think Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya, a private attorney, is a “hostile foreign power”? By comparison, in “Debbie Wasserman Shultz-gate”, it is reported that the suspect, Awan is being investigated for cyber security breaches, oh! and the… Read more »
adad0, if Russia gate is a nothing burger, then why is Trump doing everything in his power to keep it from being investigated? He’s sure acting guilty, whether he actually is or not.
‘Chek, for a guy who calls other people silly, this last comment of yours is pretty rich!????
The administration, and the president’s relatives testify when asked, and are thus cooperating. Proving one’s innocence of false “nothing-gate” accusations is of course, not proof of guilt, as your comments imply.
The administration’s cooperation with the nothing-gate investigation, proves that you lie (again) when you say it is “doing everything in its power” to keep from being investigated.
That is a knowing falsehood on your part.????
adad0, then why the talk — from the White House — of firing Mueller before he even has a chance to do his job? Why the talk — from the White House — of presidential pardons? Those are not the conversations of people who are innocent.
The investigation isn’t over yet, so you may turn out to be right. But the fact that GOP Congress thinks its serious enough to vote sanctions against Russia, and the acting attorney general thinks there’s enough there to appoint a special prosecutor, strongly suggests this is not a nothing burger.
Actually ‘chek, maintaining one’s innocence is the obvious and common conversation of people who are actually innocent. Conversely, maintaining one’s innocence is also the common position of people who are actually guilty of crimes, like your pal, Hillary Clinton for instance. After that, Hillary and her co-conspirators destroying subpoenaed data and devices is the more obvious action of a guilty party and her co-felons. Anyway, “Debbie Wasserman Shultz-gate” and now “Slither-gate” the Comey / Lynch investigation should give us a lot to talk about in the coming months, compared to nothing-gate. Finally ‘chek, I want you to know that I… Read more »
For our readers who are not familiar with Mueller, he was a Clinton lawyer and gives the majority of his political contributions to the Clintons and to the democrats. So, instead of being a neutral special prosecutor in fact Mueller is one with an ax to grind.
Wouldn’t it be interesting (and ironic) if Awan was the one who had secretly accumulated all of the internal DNC emails that were leaked to wikileaks. What if he leaked them as proof that he had even better goods to blackmail and extort the Democrats with? It would explain the entire Russia-gate distraction tactic obsession of the Left. Maybe Trump will call for a special investigation.
The DNC ending Seth Rich, is the more likely senario.
Perhaps Awan ratted on Rich to the DNC.
Which would explain why Deb kept Awan close until Awan was nabbed.
Iman Awran was arrested on charges of bank fraud. He was employed by Wasserman Schultz until Tuesday when he was nicked by the coppers at Dulles International Airport. Note to those who might get confused: He and his brothers were fired by some of the other staffers who used their services but Wasserman Schultz kept him around until he was arrested. The unrelated reasons you mentioned include breaches of national security, stealing physical property (computers, hard drives, data from those computers and so on) but they are unrelated to bank fraud. He and his brothers had access to the House… Read more »
I didn’t say there was nothing to see here; I said that I didn’t think the two cases were analogous, and even if your recitation of the facts is correct, they still aren’t. In the case of Awran, you’re still talking about a relatively low level aide who did what he did on his own, as opposed to high ranking GOP campaign officials who were acting on behalf of the campaign itself, if not Trump himself. Plus the Democrats made no attempt to protect Awran whereas the Trump White House has been doing everything in its power to undermine the… Read more »
A low level aide acting on his own. You really believe that. You are pretty sure of those facts are you — even if I accept them which I don’t because they are not true. Hahahaha! K2, you really are a laugh. Those low level aides had access to the complete House internet. They breached areas of national security and that is just the start. Wasserman Schultz did in fact protect the brothers and her actions were reported in the Florida newspapers when the story broke months ago. That is a democrat supporting and protecting those who were actively gathering… Read more »
Dave, nicely stated…It always surprises me how some people choose to ignore critical facts in order to have the narrative fit their skewed worldview. By all appearances Awran is an operative, yet those on the left will do everything they can to white-wash this because they’d have to [finally] admit to significant corruption on their team, which in turn would vaporize their specious attacks against our Constitutionally elected President.
Assume the worst about Awran. Assume the worst about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. Assuming all that, what do they have to do with Trump and the Russian investigation, which is what we were actually discussing? The interesting thing about this thread (and others like it) is that the immediate, knee-jerk reaction on the part of some is that whenever something bad about Trump is pointed out, the immediate reaction is “what about the Democrats”. I assume most of you are parents; if you are disciplining one of your children and he says, “But my brother did something bad,”… Read more »
K2, when I told you about the Clinton’s seizing my aunts tangible asset, you ignored it. When you were shown graphs showing the don’t do as I say do as I do seizures under Obama doubling, you ran and hid from them while saying there was nothing to see. Your pablum typing is amazing. These low level It aides were more than IT aides. Why would a low level House IT guy be invited to the White House on November 21, 2013? Why would he be invited to stay there for about 5 hours? Remember, he is just a low… Read more »
Facts are not knee-jerk…there is no Russian anything, the left has proven nothing after 8 months of attempts to generate something from nothing. They look as stupid as they sound. (I am not sorry for the uncharitable comment, just calling it as I see it.)
If Awan was the one who secretly accumulated (and then leaked) the DNC emails, the Democrats would have had a lot to fear from him, in terms of blackmail. They wouldn’t want him to feel threatened in any way. So a Russia cover story would have been just the ticket. It would explain why Wasserman-Schultz has kept Awan so close.
Maybe Trump will call for an investigation of Awan, and see what spills out.
You’re right, his personal bank fraud had nothing to do with his involvement with the DNC to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders.
The incredible thing about Russiagate is that there is so little there and all Trump has to do is just ignore it. Like literally, do absolutely nothing in response and it’ll eventually wither away. But he just can’t do that. What is wrong with this guy? His own actions have made him look far worse than any of the investigating.
We don’t often agree, but I do agree here. The answer is that he can’t keep quiet about anything relating to himself, because everything is all about him, personally.
A couple of days ago, “Trump told a crowd at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, that “with the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.” http://thenet24h.com/13102723/trump-i-can-be-most-presidential-president-except-lincoln.html. I don’t know whether half or even one-tenth of the stuff written about him is true, and I don’t have any way to find out. But, based on this kind of thing, Trump is reminding me more and more of Mr. Toad. Particularly Toad’s ode to himself which of course you know but which I can’t resist appending. The world has… Read more »
America wanted a reality TV host for president. That’s what we got.
But even reality TV hosts know that they have to keep “The Wonder of Me” speeches to a reasonable level or their audiences tend to grow restive.
Well Jill, that notion proves out the problems with HRC’s,
“So why am I not 50 points ahead?” speech! ; – )
Hope you are well Jill, summer is busy over here!
Hope that you and yours are well too, adadO. I’m good but, now that the divorce is final, I am paying my own expenses for the first time in thirty years! I always thought my DH was being a bit curmudgeonly when he wandered around the house saying “Too many lights!” So, last week I received my first electricity bill and discovered that my air conditioning gobbled up $775 worth of power. Guess what? I am wandering around the house turning off lights! My biggest excitement is that my ex-DH has finally, after nine years, agreed to remove his belongings… Read more »
Jill, thanks for weather reports on the snowflake, and yourself! Sounds like you are keeping a Canadian micro climate in your dwelling!???? If you don’t have them, get some ceiling fans. They will shorten you A/C season. Both of my sons are having a great summer. The residential school and my autistic son are good for each other. Our church has an interim pastor. I am thinking that now is a good time to remind them of how much damage they have done, as the case briefs and rulings, make that quite clear. Through all of this, the Mrs. is… Read more »
I hope your church will wake up and do the right thing. I’m glad your son likes his school; it must give you and your good lady comfort to see him happily settled. I sew for the Snowflake because she is seriously into vintage, and it is one expensive fashion trend. Living where we do, ordinary clothing is so cheap that it doesn’t make sense to make your own. And sometimes I can be talked into making costumes which is kind of fun. But I have given the Snowflake plenty of notice that I am not going to sew her… Read more »
Nice job sticking to your knitting Jilly!
I do the same myself, after a fashion!????
Obama won reelection pretty handily and if he could have run a third time would almost certainly have beaten Trump soundly as well. No, I don’t think people were tired of Obama personally.
I think he is a lot more than a reality TV host, a profession that was secondary to his development business.
Think of it this way. Which would Trump prefer:
A) An opposition focusing their energy on opposing his plans; or
B) An opposition focusing their energy running after a non-story?
They seem to be managing to do both pretty well.
Most folks don’t pay a lot of attention to politics and therefore will have only a couple of things that they associate with a political brand. It’s why companies repeat the same advertising slogans over and over. The Democrats spent six months deciding what they want people to hear when they listen to the party speak before the next election. The script was released this week: 1) “We really care about improving your family’s economic situation.” 2) “We have solid plans to get you a better job.” Instead, what most voters will hear them say is: 1) “Donald Trump is… Read more »
Due to the advent of social media and curated information streams, even relatively non-political people receive highly partisan messaging. I don’t think political parties have much hope of controlling messaging. Trump is making the Dems be reactive, true; however, Trump is a Russian spy/stooge plays a lot stronger with the average American than some may realize, Trump would be wise to let it lie… but he is constitutionally incapable of doing so. Trump is overwhelmingly driven by a desire for adulation. I use to think he may be putting it on, or that it was at least partially schtick, but… Read more »
I agree. And I think if all the LGBT groups fawned on him as if he were the most glorious member of the most glorious Kim dynasty, his opposition to T’s in the military would fold like a tent. I think I understand that. What I don’t understand is why he so frequently assumes his supporters are ignorant, and why this assumption isn’t offensive to them. In Ohio two nights ago he said, ” The great president from the state of Ohio, William McKinley and you know William McKinley, does anybody know who the hell he is? Do you know… Read more »
He’s an entertainer – it’s his shtick.
Think about his question: “Do you know who he is?”
Sadly, most people in the country do not know who McKinley was. They’ll hear that question and think:
“Yeah! This guy gets it. Who really cares about some old dead white dude? (He is dead … isn’t he?)”
Since his immediate audience probably does know who McKinley was, they think:
“Yeah! Most people don’t know who he was – but I do! (because I’m smarter)”
Win-win. Everyone’s happy.
This seems right. Trump is really good at feeling out his crowd and giving them what they want. He is establishing himself as a common guy identifying with the crowd and stoking the ego of some in the crowd.
It is more inexplicable when he says stuff to reporters like “nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated” and “after listening for 10 minutes I realized it’s not so easy. I felt pretty strong they had tremendous power over north korea, but it’s not what you would think.”
There is some method to the madness of “nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated”.
There is an emerging consensus among Democrats that their preferred solution is going to be single-payer health care.
As an idea, it has some powerfully attractive elements: no more insurance companies, complex hospital bills, co-pays, etc. I’m sure Jill could wax on about its benefits in Canada. Right now, Democrats are gearing up to promote it as the official party line.
We could boil the argument for single-payer down to a single phrase: “It’s simple”.
Trump here is conducting a preemptive strike on that phrase.
Actually I think single payer works well in many nations, but I don’t think it would work here. Americans expect to have more options. Americans would not tolerate wait times. Someone suggested that the Singapore model might work here, but I don’t know what it involves.
Yes it would be preferable. But Americans might not buy the idea. It means forcing money to go into a health fund. While it would be your fund, the idea of making Americans do this may be unpalatable.
What provision is there for poor people who need all their income for food and rent?
Jill, Asking the question about helping the minority instead of maintaining focus on the majority muddies the argument, it is not helpful. But that is the normal approach to everything these days. 1) I do not want government meddling with my healthcare insurance…everything they touch socially turns into a regulatory nightmare, is massively more costly, and less efficient. Healthcare is not a right therefore outside Constitutional purvey. 2) Insurance companies need to return to being patient-centered, not profit/ stockholder-centered which will simplify everything and drive costs down. 3) Medicare/aide and a host of other assistance programs already exist for the… Read more »
They have dropped their tax to 18%. I think ~5% goes to health fund. And some more for retirement funds. (Both over and above the 18%) You can’t not pay it, it is like tax but it remains yours.
Ask one of the resident Singaporeans here, my knowledge of specifics is sketchy but I think the principle is sound.
Bethyada, agreed the Singapore system is sound – for them. This idea America should adopt some other country’s program misses the point of being America. We are different and great for a reason. Our founding members left England specifically because they had a better idea, now some wish to return because the grass is seemingly greener…it’s not.
Have them buy food and shelter. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, nor should it be.
John, do you seriously believe that there are voters who couldn’t tell you that McKinley was shot by an anarchist and had a mountain named after him? Just to be fair, I tried it out on my daughter, the wait staff, and the valet parkers at lunch today. They all knew who he was, even though no one could pronounce Czolgosz and neither can I. My daughter added the important fact that McKinley is the name of the Ohio high school in which Glee was set.
This is super depressing.
Jill, I’m really sorry to do this to you: “Our findings from a recent survey suggest that about 71 percent of Americans are fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton is among our nation’s past presidents,” said Henry L. Roediger III, a human memory expert at Washington University.Roediger’s 2014 study in the journal Science suggests that we as a nation do fairly well at naming the first few and the last few presidents in the order they served. But our recall abilities then fall off quickly, with fewer than 20 percent able to remember more than the last eight or nine presidents… Read more »
This is pitiful. Are you going to tell me next that most people can’t list the fifty state capitals or the nine supreme court justices or the five great lakes? Do they not have Almanacs and idle moments in which to commit random facts to memory?
Whenever we took our daughter for long car rides when she was very young, we played the Animaniacs’ educational songs. She soaked them up like a little sponge and still remembers them. These are the ones for the presidents and states: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82YMQuUd70I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSvJ9SN8THE
Different John, but yes, I seriously believe that.
“…And it is certain that people who live an hour’s drive away from the McKinley Presidential Museum–the people to whom he was speaking–know who he was.”
First, let me commend your optimism. It is an endearing quality. :)
Hope springs eternal…
I don’t even consume much news, I and I’ve heard a lot of “healthcare repeal will kill you!” I frankly don’t know how you’ve missed that. ;-)
Most of Trump’s plans seem to revolve around getting revenge on those opposed to or insufficiently loyal to him. Just recently Wilson was complaining about Planned Parenthood still being funded. The Rs have both houses and the presidency–they could kill that today if they wanted to. Instead they can’t even pass their own legislation.
Matt, what’s going on in Washington, R’s & D’s alike, and the PPH debacle – presented for what it is with graphic ugliness and the callous operators for what they are (Satan’s minions), and could have been easily de-funded in a single heartbeat – is showing to the American voter in a full-on open kimono manner, that for the entitled elite, as these elected officials believe they are, Washington is nothing more than a cesspool of graft and backdoor dealings without an ounce of morality, yet presented to us in a smarmy arrogant manner with contempt to thinking people, that… Read more »
When modern novelists write a run-on like yours, the critics call it a powerful use of stream of consciousness, so there you go. I think you are probably right about the lack of morality. Is the lack of ethics intrinsic to the system? I mean, is it set up in such a way that no legislation could pass without unethical dealings?
Hehe…I’ll take it(!)… it was a stream “of something.” It’s not hard to view Washington as it’s own little bubble universe. But yes, it is inherently unethical where people lose their way very easily, compromising their standards and principles in order to “get something done.” There is a lot of arm-twisting going on, Lobbyists being the main culprits. This becomes apparent when someone like Pelosi or McCain or a host of others stay there until they are ancient. Or why middle class people return to their communities multi-millionaires (assuming any do). Money talks and you-know-what walks – except in Washington… Read more »
Yeah, Sessions is getting about what he deserves, don’t you think?
I could answer that better if I had ever been able to understand one single word he has to say. I honestly need captions on the screen.
I am convinced Trump knows exactly what he is doing, and likely Sessions is a willing team player participant. Quite possibly (as viewers from the outside looking in – conjecture being a large part of that view), this may be a strategic move to keep the media scrambling against stuff that does not matter in the grand scheme. Therefore, commenting on every nano-second of this President, as the media et al does, is a waste of time and brain energy. The media at large has nothing constructive to do or say, and in fact are obstructionists…why add to the pile… Read more »
“A double minded man…”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/21/trump-administration-vows-to-investigate-teachers-for-using-biologically-accurate-pronouns/
and
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/trump-teachers-transgender-students-pronouns
THE GOSPEL coalition just pretend to be against transgender ideology, they are double minded as well.
There is good reason to keep transexuals out of the military. Besides the psychological confusion the hormonal issues are significant. Boys who think they are girls have low testosterone and the significant weakness associated with that.
But I have a question about gays in the military. If we think that women should not be in the military on the main—especially on the front line (though there may be some roles for them) is it better for a nation to address women in the military before gay men in the military?
You’ve convoluted the whole issue. Transexuals are not necessarily gay and some of them are actually women taking T shots, so no low T issues there.
They are hormonally,emotionally, and psychologically unstable however,so that’s one reason why Trump is right.
Transdgendered, gays,and women in the military are really 3 separate issues
@MeMe
I have not convoluted the issue. “But I have a question about gays…” The military is the common theme here. I agree with Trump about transsexuals. The issue of gays and women has also come up previously. My question is one of priority: which is the greater concern.
I really don’t like the term transgender, which means “one who wishes to be considered as a member of the opposite sex.” Just call them transvestites. Calling them transgender or transgendered (even worse) plays right into their agenda.
I prefer “mentally-ill castration fetishists”
I understand disliking the attempt to normalize what I think is a form of mental illness, but I don’t think it is accurate to see transgender as synonymous with transvestism (if there is such a word). Transvestites, who are overwhelmingly men, see themselves as men and have no desire for surgical or other interventions in the hope of becoming female. They just like to dress in women’s clothes, usually for sexual gratification, and they don’t do it consistently. Transgenders, if they are male, do not see themselves as men at all.
They may not “see” themselves and may “identify” as something else, but it doesn’t change what they are. Maybe I “identify” as a female, Asian carp (whoa, transgender, transracial and trans-species!). Do I deserve a special label for that?
It has gotten annoying trying to keep up with new labels everyday…
Paul, I have a simplified system with the added advantage of irritating my daughter. I recognize straight, gay, and those poor confused souls.
CHer, I do understand your point that how they see themselves doesn’t change the biological reality of DNA. That wasn’t what I meant. My point was that this is not a question of how someone “identifies” but of a serious delusion in which the person becomes absolutely convinced that something false is true. Sometimes I think our disdain should be for the doctors who get rich off performing these surgeries rather than for those suffering from a delusional disorder. We don’t get mad at lunatics who want to poke their eyes out.
Who is “we” that thinks that women should not be in the military? I agree that they shouldn’t be on the front line, but why not the rest of the military, which has a lot of non-combat career-fields?
@My Portion Forever
Addressed in paragraph 2. Though I think the military should not be overly feminised because of how that alters the culture of martial psychology.
I don’t much like the idea of women in combat. But is the feminization of the armed forces inevitable when there is increased recruitment of women? Israel has had compulsory service for both men and women for decades, yet it has a kick-ass military.
Jill, moons ago Israel removed woman from combat roles because they “determined” it ruined field unit cohesiveness – as if that needed to be tested…it’s common sense. Then again, just the fact these types of idiotic discussions are now so prevalent in all of media merely proves society has lost its proverbial mind and has gotten massively more stupid, all the while distancing itself from God’s design and prescription. Engaging the micro-minority “weird opposition” is fruitless because the argument constantly gets nuanced far from the source to make it sound “okay” when for sure it is not. I can not… Read more »
Hi Paul, I am sure that, even as I write this, some lunatic somewhere not only believes he is a wombat (a very cute animal, as you note) but also thinks he has a right to be a Navy Seal. He is making placards “Combat for Wombats”, and somewhere in the Pentagon a harassed officer is trying to explain that rifles can’t be engineered for tiny paws. I have come to realize that the most absurd thing you and I can dream up is already happening somewhere. All of which makes my private belief that I was intended to be… Read more »
I like the “Combat for Wombats” as a window sticker…problem is in the next round of escalating goofiness it would morph into “transgender wombats for Combat.” (I’m waiting for the “non-gender transgender no-pronoun” label, which will prove the point things have gotten too far into Satan-ville than Christ-centeredness.)
I agree regarding “anything that can be dreamed up…”, whatever fits the fanciful or bizarre imagination these days is working hard to become mainstream, even if the vast majority disagree.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but my Special Snowflake traveled around Israel with half a dozen Izzie soldiers and visited with lots of others as part of her Birthright trip. She said that despite the uniforms and rifles the girls were very feminine and sweet. Just as the guys were masculine and tough. She said that when they visited the military cemetery, the IDF girls cried and hugged each other. The IDF guys looked like they wanted to go kill somebody. As the great Horace aptly said, “You can drive nature out with a… Read more »
Jill, the old testament has some rules on combat that countries have ignored for some time. Women really should not have combat roles. I am an old guy but could probably overpower a good number of the women who are in various armed forces around the world. A young guy would do so easily.
I agree with you about women in combat. I think there are enough practical reasons to prohibit it without even having to consider the ideological and spiritual.
Martial Combat is a masculine endeavor in my book. Yet the majority of the Air Force is made up of support roles since the pilots and aircraft are the weapons systems. Men and women are both suited for the type of work the Air Force does by and large. I am not familiar with the relative makeup of warrior-to-support ratios of the other services, but if women are not in combat, then the military can definitely benefit from women and women can benefit from a military career.
Rational people is this “we” — women do not belong in the military … OR in the police and firefighter services. Period.
I think there is a definite place for women police officers in dealing with abused children and victims of rape and domestic abuse. In the aftermath of rape, most women prefer to be interviewed by female officers.
I think it should be a specialized service, just as there used to be specialized women’s auxiliary armed forces. Women to deal with rape investigations, not patrol or apprehension, with cases involving children (not just abuse; child victims or witnesses will generally be more effectively comforted by and open up better to a woman whose job it is to provide such comfort than a man whose job it is to catch criminals, though of course there are exceptions), etc. Militarily, women far behind the lines in support roles, trained in weapons only for self-defense, etc. I believe such specialized roles… Read more »
Indeed, if was once common to take women suspects back to the police station to be searched by a police matron, and to leave women and children in the care of said matron. Note the separate title and position. There are still matrons in some departments, but the position has largely been a casualty of insane denial of basic biological and moral truths.
There are purely intellectual roles in law enforcement that I see no reason women shouldn’t perform. Women can be very effective interrogators, especially of other women, and I can see how they might excel as criminal profilers. I think the issue is not putting them into situations where physical strength and endurance are essential for everyone’s safety. But I think it is creepy having male guards in women’s prisons, and sometimes dangerous when it is the other way round. I have read that every prison guard is at constant risk of being sucked into prisoners’ sociopathic power schemes, and to… Read more »
I’m inclined to think that, however one may feel about it, women in the military is a done deal. I don’t think there is significant support even among Christians for legislation barring women from military service. Perhaps the most that can be hoped for is keeping women away from combat positions, and stopping any attempt to require women to register for the draft the way young men are required to do. I think I have said this before, but under our current system, I think a demand that women and men be treated equally when it comes to draft registration… Read more »
It may be a done deal.
What I was trying to get at is, we oppose gays and women in the military but for different reasons. How do we weigh those reasons. I wonder whether women in combat is the greater issue of the 2?
Women in the military (especially in combat) is the much bigger issue of the two. “Gays” in the military should be handled the same way as gays in any other workforce.
Except that in any other work force, people aren’t generally sharing close living quarters under life and death situations. I don’t know how much difference it makes, but it certainly isn’t a non-factor.
Jane,
I agree that the military environment is different/amplified from other workplaces. However, the male – female dynamic, as well as the importation of a female sensibility and ethos more broadly, is far more disruptive.
Also, on moral grounds the “gay”man is a sinner who needs repentance or punishment. He may well be an excellent natural soldier. The woman soldier, regardless of any failure or virtue of her own, is categorically a bad soldier destroying the capacity of the military.
I agree that having women is more disruptive, but that doesn’t make the marginal disruption of homosexual/transgender people a non-issue. And since I don’t accept women being there, either, I don’t think it’s relevant whether having women there is equally bad, or worse.
That someone is an excellent natural soldier is not the only relevant question, however. A soldier (sailor, marine, airman) is a unit of a fighting force. How he fits into the force is certainly important to whether he should be there, perhaps not quite as important as his natural abilities, but nearly so.
Jane, Sure. My original comment was in reference to bethyadas discussion question of which is more important/should be dealt with first. The “gay” soldier is committing despicable acts that should be ground for dismissal if not prosecution. Sexual relations between men shouldn’t be tolerated in the military or in society in general. However, the witness of history tells us that in the abstract these type of relations are not inimical to martial pursuits. many of the finest armies in history enaged in quite a lot of… enhanced male bonding. It is simply not the same as putting women in the… Read more »
Like Rambo might not be a reliable team player!
Come on, Jane, who could possibly have predicted the likely outcome of sending physically healthy 18 year-old-boys and girls to spend three months living together in the nether regions of an aircraft carrier?
But no matter how hard the left has tried, the military is not the same as every other workplace therefore can not be treated similarly.
I was arguing this with my ultra-liberal daughter, who would probably demonstrate for the right of deranged and blind midgets (excuse me, little people) to serve in the military if they felt like it. She is an aspiring actress (excuse me again, actor), and I finally got her by asking if conventional equal opportunity laws should apply to a casting director’s decisions. Well, of course not!
(Her endearing quality is that she always concedes when I make a good point.)
Homosexuality in the armed forces is a much different situation than homosexuals in other work places. Much different. Homosexuality in the military is not any way comparable to BBCs Are You Being Served or the stupid shows in the US promoting homosexuality. Homosexuals should not be in our armed forces as the difficulties caused are extreme.
Hi Bethyada, I agree with Demo now that I think about it. A gay in the military who misbehaves as a result of his gayness can be kicked out. Under military discipline, the good gay soldier should be indistinguishable from everyone else. But a woman serving with men in a combat unit unintentionally presents problems no matter how perfectly she performs.
Jill, even in the 80s homosexuals were promoted because they were homosexuals not because they could do their job better than anyone else. They were given choice assignments and special schools while those who actually did the work just kept at their jobs. The ones I worked with had a difficult time finding their rear end while sitting down.
Should be versus what reality is are two different thoughts and we have to remember that reality is what happens when we move away from God’s plan.
Huckabee nailed it:
https://youtu.be/bccTLyQOHO8?t=21s
For what it is worth, the issues of individual transsexuals are the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems raised with open military service…. given the close knit life we must live, the bigger problem is the complete disregard of everyone else’s comfort, decency, and privacy: women must be required to share changing, sleeping quarters, tight shower and hygiene spaces with men; women are required to stare at male genetalia to confirm proper urinalysis procedure (for our random drug testing). And vice versa for the men now sharing quarters with a woman and having to watch female genetalia during… Read more »
My guess is that the timing of this is related to the Democrats finally trying to do something smart politically: “A Better Deal” is the product of months of meetings and deliberation between party leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, other House and Senate Democrats, and policy experts representing the full spectrum of liberal ideology. … Democrats plan to unveil more proposals under the banner of “A Better Deal” in the weeks to come. The focus on an economic agenda suggests, however, that the party believes that prioritizing jobs, income, and wages will prove more unifying for the party, and… Read more »
All the Democrats need to properly communicate the message of the “Better Deal” is the right messenger!
I hope the messenger they pick is Anthony Weiner! ; – ) (Bernie Madoff would do in a pinchl!)
Never open any messages you might get from Anthony Weiner. :)
Well … the actual messengers are not much better:
The Democrats’ Anthropological Field Trip to Study Americans
The article was saved by a Fawlty Towers reference.
True. It deserves quoting:
It is somewhat amazing that Trump managed to derail their plans with just a couple of tweets.
The article was good, it was enhanced by a Fawlty Towers reference, but there is a points reduction for “a hotel full of Germans.” It was two people. Points deducted for lack of familiarity with material alluded to. ;)
It was a party of four wasn’t it? Two men and their wives/girlfriends.
The best part of the episode wasn’t the climax with the Germans. It was Manuel talking to himself behind the moose while the major looked on.
Basil Fawlty: Ah, wonderful! Vonderbar! Ahh! Please allow me to introduce myself, I am the owner of Fawlty Towers. And may I welcome your war… your war… you all… and hope that your stay will be a happy one. Now, would you like to eat first, or would you like a drink before the war… AHH! Er… trespassers will be tied up with piano wire… SORRY, SORRY!”
It is practically tragic that there are so few episodes. Do you have a favorite? I think mine is the one in which Basil tries to stamp out immorality in the hotel.
The Germans is definitely my favorite. Communication Problems is second. Manuel’s part in that one is pure good “I Know Nothing!”
I really get a kick out of the denouement of The Hotel Inspectors. And the scene where he gives his car a thrashing in Gourmet Night always makes me laugh to tears – also “duck’s off!”
I would vote for “Mrs. Richards,” the demanding, deaf old lady.
Ah, yes, you’re right, it was four. Still not quite “a hotel full of,” but close enough, I suppose.
I think I recall hearing that the show ended when John Cleese and Connie Booth’s marriage ended.
What was the name of Mrs. Fawlty’s troubled friend,, to whom she always replied, “Yes, dear, I knoooooow.” I think Basil did well not to disconnect the phone.
I think Fawlty Towers is the most consistently funny television series ever.
Yes! Do you know there are people who loathe it, one of the great inexplicables of life? My dear brother says, “It’s just the sort of thing you would like!”
My husband is one of those. He doesn’t like his humor over the top and chaotic, and he doesn’t find Basil’s obstinate arrogance at all funny. I get that. But I don’t share it. ;-)
Jill,
Some people don’t appreciate Bach or Dostoevsky either. But they are wrong…objectively.
Or Shakespeare. Did you know that Tolstoy wrote a long essay trashing Shakespeare including–wait for it–his use of language and his sense of poetry? It has made me look askance at Tolstoy ever since. I wasn’t going to mention this, but “War and Peace” bored me senseless. So take that, Leo.
What do you think of Peggy Noonan’s WSJ article on Trump’s “drama queen” problem? I don’t always agree with her, but her prose can make dogs howl. In a good way.
Haven’t read it. Noonan is one of a large number of who I sometimes enjoy but don’t regularly read. I’ll try to look it up.
Conor Friesendorf had a very good article in the Atlantic this week entitled Trump Eats First. Friesendorf has some of the least stylish prose of the author at the Atlantic, and I don’t agree with his outlook, but he is one of the few voices to tackle many of our divisive social issues without being overheated.
Demo, I read that and thought it was good. As you say, a calm and rational tone. I get enough hysteria on my facebook feed. I am mixing up topics here, but I think you reminded me a couple of weeks ago that twin studies have not shown a genetic basis for homosexuality. I )think I had also read that myself. I looked at an article the other day (can’t remember where) about a study analyzing brain scans of straight guys, gay guys, and straight women. The findings reportedly showed that the distribution of white matter in the brains of… Read more »
Jilly,
I don’t even know enough about brain morphology to be dangerous. The way the study was heralded makes me nauseated (“This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” etc.)
I’ll try to look into it sometime.
“There is too much butter – on – those – trays.”
“No, no, Señor:. uno – dos – tres.”
“Hwhich hwun iss man with beard?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i8IER7nTfc
After reading the news this morning, I’m not sure that Scaramucci is the right messenger for Trump. To begin with, I don’t want to have “Scaramouch, scaramouch will you do the fandango/ Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me” running through my head every time I hear his name for the next three and a half years. Secondly, I did find it a little shocking that he sounded like one of the Sopranos. My dear arch-conservative father supported Nixon right up until the tapes were released. Once he learned that Nixon used “a vulgar barnyard epithet,” as the NYT put… Read more »
Trump is playing NYC Queen’s style hardball and felt he needed a new front man to present that. I’m not agreeing with the coarse language use, but a lot of the world operates that way, and because America has gotten pansy soft it sounds worse than it is to sensitive ears. People need to gain a little fortitude for such things and let the fight in Washington play out, in effect, ignore the day-to-day baloney…might just end up with America on top again (where we belong).
It’s not so much the bad language, although I think a communications director should be careful what he says to a reporter. It’s the constant in-fighting among the staff which gives the impression of an undisciplined and unfocused White House. I don’t see how they can attract top quality people when they appear to be eating one another alive.
I’m not so sure there is that much infighting amongst the staff, but the media will present any little comment as such.
Yes, the media will. But “little comment” is a triumph of understatement. “That guy is a real jerk” is a little comment. The remark in which Scaramucci attributes a physically impossible (except in filthy limericks about which I know nothing) sexual proclivity to Steve Bannon is not.
“Little” in the grand scheme of things, not content.
Jill,
Recall that Trump came of age in New York City in a much rougher time than now.
He is, at heart, an entertainer and showman. As such, his role models are:
These guys who appear to be fighting. (Minus the alcohol and cigarettes … and maybe just slightly less un-PC).
Okay, but it annoys this decorous old lady. I like Tarantino, but it doesn’t mean I like blood in the streets.
Trump went to Fordham and the Wharton School in the mid-60s, hardly bastions of blue-collar knuckle-brawling, and as yet untouched by the unrest of the late 60s, so I’m not sure what you mean.
High School and the general tenor of one’s home town have a more formative effect on character than college.
True, however, The demands of fitting into and succeeding in an elite academic environment populated by rich kids can be expected to have an effect on someone’s ability to publicly conduct himself in a more sophisticated manner than a Queens street kid. At least if that person is intelligent and adaptable.
Education has the noble goal of producing a civilized, thoughtful, and compassionate human being.
It does not always succeed. Some people can be drenched in that Pierian Spring and emerge bone dry.
Jane, back up. Donald Trump went to Fordham? The crown jewel of Catholic (and Jesuit) education? And was so untouched by his time there that he calls the Communion host a little cookie? Tears are dropping onto my keyboard.
time to get women out of the military.
A woman in the military is no different to a transgender, just trying to be a man…
Bdash, don’t they need some ladies there to handle the dishes? :>
If they had ladies to do the dishes, what would they do for punishment?
Make them listen to the ladies complain about doing the dishes.
President Jehu strikes again….
So, any thoughts on the Senate defeat of Obamacare repeal?
Yeah, it shows the lameness of Washington to do anything meaningful with the electorate in mind. These clowns need to go, all of them – save for a few who have some level of humility in their position as an elected official.
Fiscal responsibility is always a tough sell, especially compared to fiscal fantasy.
Even so, 3 votes short does put repeal in the realm of possibility.
The only thing that could make John McCain a sympathetic character in DC was a brain tumor, and then he managed to completely reverse that in the matter of a couple of days. Even if one is for Obamacare, you can understand how repulsive McCain’s actions are. John McCain has sent how many thousands of Americans to die trying to kill how many hundreds of thousands of people in how many wars that have so little to do with the security and interests of the American people. He is tasked to do one thing that he and 99% of the… Read more »
Why can’t these guys retire? It must be something in the Washington water that keeps them coming back when any normal person would have had enough.
I’ve been told that the Senate is a very classy affair, not at all like the unelected Canadian Senate where antique politicians are put out to pasture. Isn’t the atmosphere sort of like a club where they’re all really good friends when the cameras aren’t rolling? I would rather like to be a Senator, but only if I could wear a lady-toga and nobody expected me to decide anything.
It could be a classy affair, should be a classy affair. Hopefully it is. But what does that mean to getting the serious work of the people done when it is mostly made up of lawyers who tend to define the world in certain terms, then argue forever about the meaning of those terms? I’m thinking it’s more along the lines of two lawyers in court who appear to hate each other, going straight for the jugular in a relentless battle, then later having dinner together as friends. It’s a weird thing. As for the club moniker, absolutely, which is… Read more »
And velvet breeches!
Jilly,
There was apparently a norm for most of the 20th century that the Senate was sophisticated and collegial. Unlike the unwashed plebians in the house. There has been a lot ink spilled since the W years about how the culture has changed and become more divisive.
There was once an elderly senator whose mind had mostly gone. One day several of his colleagues paid a visit to his wife to see if they could get her to convince him it was time to go. Her response was, “What, and have him home all day? Absolutely not.”
It was never going to pass; it would have been politically disastrous to the Republicans if it had.
Chris Hayes explains it well.
Congressional Republicans had to give it a serious try – and they had to fail.
As ugly as it was, there were some good side effects to the doomed effort. Megan McArdle’s interesting take on Chuck Shumer’s midnight speech is one.
I wonder if Frum ever got nervous. He staked a lot of reputation on healthcare being “Republican’s Waterloo.”
The term to think about isn’t “multi-dimensional chess”, it’s “kayfabe”. Trump is an expert at manipulating the media and manufactured drama is a fundamental part of pro wrestling and reality TV shows. If Trump wanted to get rid of Sessions, he would already be gone. He didn’t hesitate with Comey or Flynn. Graceless, classless? This isn’t shuffleboard, it’s war. If Sessions can’t be motivated politely to do his job, there’s no reason not to try other approaches. Sessions needs to be more aggressive than Trump. Public humiliation is a small thing when the stakes are this high. Meanwhile: House Judiciary… Read more »
Excellent! As you say, reality bites to those who can’t see this for what it is: War, with our country at stake. This isn’t Kindergarten (altho the weak-minded are acting as much.)
Peter, without intending to, you made a very important point, and that is this: Of your list of three accomplishments for the week, at least two of them, and arguably all three of them, will not, even if successful, actually make the lives of Americans better. If Loretta Lynch does or does not go to jail, that puts food on no one’s table, money in no one’s wallet, and a job in no one’s future. I don’t think the wall would either, but since that one’s debatable, I’ll go with two out of three. Trump supporters didn’t vote to make… Read more »
Yes, but these actions will [finally] hold the Congressional criminals accountable for their nefarious activity the rest of us schlubs would be in jail inside of two days…call it a shot across the bow to let everyone else know they won’t get away with the garbage tactics, many of which have caused direct harm to the American people (eg. IRS targeting conservative groups to name ONE.) Oh, and I am very glad our President doesn’t know how to shepherd (read that “play games”) legislation through Congress (which is their job, not his)…the rest of America got this unconstitutional house of… Read more »
You seriously think it’s a good thing that the President doesn’t know how to get stuff done in Washington? I don’t even know how to respond to that.
Don’t twist my words – a common leftist tactic used to build on a separate argument with the resulting feigned indignance. I said “through Congress” which is very different than “in Washington”. You just commented on Peter’s outlining a few items that have gotten done, let alone the pile of things the President and his administration have achieved since taking office (which the left ignores because they are rabid with Russia.) And yes, I think his approach is refreshing…he is a tough manager, something the Oval Office sorely needed. To recap: It wasn’t the President’s responsibility to get anything related… Read more »
I think that most of what Trump has done is displeasing to those on the left. (I have to honestly say that even as a centrist I don’t like some of what he has done.) I think that the obsession with Russia is probably a good thing from a conservative point of view as it has distracted the left from mounting much of an opposition.
Jill, this is a marathon, yet we’ve been getting second-by-second play by play that means nothing to the end game. It is why I take it all with a grain of salt, catching up on the highlights and discerning what’s real and what’s not at the end of the week. The rest is noise intended for ratings.
“The American people will hold both sides of the aisle accountable.” Given that only one side of the aisle holds political power at the moment I don’t think so. The GOP controls the White House and it controls both houses of Congress, so they own whatever happens — or doesn’t happen — for the next two years. The Democrats found out in Obama’s first time how hard it is to blame things on the other party when you’re the one with the political power.
I think people are getting tired of all of Washington being so disconnected from the reality of American life and constantly using the antics of a select few for entertainment value.
K2, how about responding to those burning questions that I asked. How did such a lowly IT staffer go from broke to millionaire? Why the White House invite for hours — after all, they were just low level House IT guys.
How about the asset seizure that the Clintons did in Arkansas?
Don’t run away K2. You are a bad troll and you keep typing the hole deeper.
Deeper
And Deeper
And Deeper.
Good luck. Occasionally I watch Tucker Carlson when traveling. He will present a straight answer type question with the facts, yet his opposing guests will tie themselves up in knots trying to not give a straight answer while denying known facts. They often fire back with something completely off topic. It is astounding to witness such a worldview from otherwise intelligent people.
Dave, how about we both wait to see what comes out about the House IT guy before jumping to conclusions. And as I already explained, what the Clintons did is not civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture is when the police officer says, This money may be drug related so I’m taking it. If you really can’t understand that, I’m not going to explain it a third time.
K2, Lynch used the full force of the government to smash conservative groups. That is against the law and she needs to be in jail. Perhaps you can send a brief to Justice to put her in the slammer. Now, I am still waiting to see your response on how a poor little House IT guy goes from bankrupt to millionaire in four years. Let’s get on that so we can all get rich. I am still waiting for your response as to how a minor House IT guy gets to go to the White House for hours of conference.… Read more »
Dave, how do politicians get rich while they are still in office? I understand book deals and speeches, but surely they can’t get paid for those while still in office? When I was a writer for a company, anything I wrote relating to my work was considered work product and was compensated through my salary. I couldn’t accept money from outsiders. Is the rule different? And isn’t donated money supposed not to end up in private bank accounts?
Lobbyists.
Slate explains how Lyndon Johnson amassed a $100 million dollar fortune:
The Honest Graft of Lady Bird Johnson:
Likely still in play today as well. Look at DIA here in Denver, was 2billion, then 5billion, the whiz-bang baggage system failed miserably, now just heard it needs a 2billion dollar overhaul shortly after they built that hideous looking United logo “wings” hotel on the end of “the tent” terminal, with decent parking still $20 a day half a mile away. The ground was owned by Gov Roy Romer and Federico Pena’ (the road leading to DIA has his name), and a host of others who were part of the “inner-circle”. Plus the contracts went to special friends. They made… Read more »
That’s awful. I once spent five hours in Stapleton Airport looking futilely for the Rocky Mountains and a place to smoke. If, despite being the only conservative in Denver you have any influence, could you get the people who run the airport to stop playing Rocky Mountain High on an apparently continuous loop? You’d have needed to be high to tolerate it, and I wasn’t.
It’s the state song with too much speculation as to what the “high around the campfire” part meant. Gov. Hickenlooper apparently likes the song, along with the devil-eyed blue horse statue that no one likes…might be an effort in futility to get it nixed.
John Denver must have meant high on life because Scientologists are totally opposed to consciousness-altering drugs. Although how anyone could believe that aliens were brought here in DC-8s and then nuked without being on the worst acid trip imaginable is something I will never understand.
I think I prefer the dishonest grafters. There’s an element of risk and they’re much less likely to kid themselves.
Jill, they skim from the taxpayer and as mentioned here get inside information and act on it. Unfortunately, Americans are more interested in football or silly TV shows than integrity in our government.
…with far too many worried more about maintaining their “free” goodies paid for by working taxpayers while watching said silly TV shows and sports.
Wait a minute. They get rich by doing what Martha Stewart went to prison for doing?
Actually she went to jail for lying to the Feds about why she sold stock before it took a dive..it was a small potatoes witch hunt and they used her to make an example, someone had it in for her. Decent people get the book thrown at them, civil servants get the “get out of jail” card.
Jill,
Essentially, yes.
Nancy Pelosi’s husband and Diane Feinstein’s husband are two contemporary examples.
Whatever happened to the idea of Caesar’s Wife? As in, even if this is not illegal, we must avoid not just the reality but also the appearance of impropriety?
There are days I wish I had stayed in the convent! One with a ten foot wall and no media.
There was basically zero restrictions on insider trading by members of congress until 2013. It still has loopholes. Many politicians treat office like proconsuls of the Republic treated the provinces.
Yes. There are some allowances for members of Congress and others. Crooked lawyers, crooked Attorney Generals, crooked FBI directors and agents along with crooked state and local officials who will not actually get after anyone in the payoff loop allow the corruption to continue and grow. Lazy voters don’t help. Lawyers want to use the finest knife to cut away the law so that the crooks can not be prosecuted. Just watch how K2 responds when he is cornered. He is actually lightweight compared to some of the lawyers I have seen in court rooms.
I am an avid court watcher, and I have several close friends who are, or were, lawyers in Canada. What I have found startling about American jurisprudence is that lawyers can put clients on the stand knowing (as opposed to suspecting) that they are going to give false testimony. If you tell a Canadian defense lawyer that you committed the crime and that your alibi is a tissue of lies, he has to keep you off the stand. He can’t knowingly solicit perjury, and he can’t help you think up a good story to tell the jury. If he gets… Read more »
Jill, it is both criminal, and grounds for disbarment, for an American lawyer to solicit perjury. In fact, it is both criminal and grounds for disbarment for an American lawyer to put a witness on the stand knowing that he is going to commit perjury. A criminal defendant has an absolute right to testify if he chooses to do so. If his lawyer thinks he’s going to commit perjury, then the client will testify in narrative form rather than by question and answer, meaning he takes the stand and says whatever he wants to say without any assistance from his… Read more »
That is good to know. I can’t remember off hand which cases I found troubling. I followed the Menendez trial, and I remember that Lesley Abramson later faced ethics charges for altering the therapist’s notes which were admitted as evidence. I thought at the time that her advocacy for her client was getting close to the line, but I don’t know that she disbelieved his story about the abuse. I was asked to attend court proceedings involving a Hispanic teenager who accidentally clipped the back of a van. Unfortunately, the van contained a cop on a stake out, and he… Read more »
Jill, K2 mentions the law. However, the judges and the lawyers are extremely reluctant to punish one of their own. Ask your friends if they have ever seen or heard of a lawyer disbarred for conduct in the court room or for false data used in court. You really have to search to find anything of that nature. I listened to a Federal attorney attempting to indict two men for violating various US waterway and EPA waterway rules. The problem was that the data used for the indictment was procured by a government individual by trespass and that the charge… Read more »
I have been told, and perhaps told untruly, that once the Feds have their hooks into you, they will always find a crime. If it is said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, then the Feds will indict the Archangel Gabriel. I wish people understood that an overreaching Justice Department doesn’t harm just people on the Left or on the Right. If illegally obtained evidence can be used to convict drug kingpins (which we more or less seem to be okay with), it can be used to convict you, me, and Krychek! Did Mapp v. Ohio apply… Read more »
Jill, federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Each state decides for itself how judges will be selected; in some states judges are elected and in some they are appointed. And having lived in both types of states, I am vehemently opposed to judges being elected.
In the first place, a judge standing for re-election will find it more difficult to make unpopular rulings. In the second place, judges aren’t supposed to be politicians.
The grand jury is a Constitutional threshold to protect the accused. Currently, the grand juries are filled with ignorant people because those with any knowledge do whatever they can to get out of jury duty. The result is that we have cases going to trial which should have never been approved. If the American citizens actually paid attention to judges and the decisions they made, the result would be vastly different. Elected judges can be removed through proper footwork. Those appointed are more difficult to remove and the results of their political decisions haunt us today. If you read Federal… Read more »
Nonetheless I really liked some of the responses from people who were disqualified from serving on the Shkreli trial. This was my favorite: Lawyer: Can you be impartial? Juror: Well, I’m impartial about what prison he ends up in. Your court story reminds me of when they tried to qualify Vinnie’s girlfriend as an expert witness as a car mechanic: “Judge: Can you answer the question? A: No, it is a trick question Judge: Why is it a trick question A: Cause Chevy didn’t make a 327 in ’55. The 327 didn’t come out till ’62, and it wasn’t offered… Read more »
“These two yutes.”
“Did you say….”Yutes?”
“Oh, excuuuse me, yootthh’zz.”
“Mr. Gambini, are you mocking me with that outfit?”
My best friend’s first case was defending a client on a charge of Keeping Swine at Large. When he said a bald “no” to the judge, my friend hissed at him “You have to say ‘No, my lord.'” He got up and yelled at the court, “I call no man lord.” They lost.
“Yeah, you blend.”
For us former East-coasters this is dead-on funny stuff.
Dead-on funny to me is a joke I heard recently. An HR person interviewing a job applicant said, “Can you account for this four-year gap in your work history?”
“Yale,” the applicant replied. “That’s great” said the HR person, “See you on Monday. Are you happy?”
“Of course,” said the applicant. “Now I have a yob.”
Where on the East Coast are you from?
If I said “youzguyz”, that’d give it away (altho, only sort of as I never said that but had friends who did.)
(Bucks County, PA, outside of Philly, where cheese steaks and hoagie’s (not “subs”) rule.)
A guy was suing a local hospital because in the dead of winter he slipped on their sidewalk. My friend, an avid runner, and highly intelligent and well read, was called to jury duty for the case. The judge asked my friend if he ever slipped on the ice in a public place. My friend said “Only when I run on it, do you think I have a case against the city?” He was dismissed.
Dave, you friends are not the ones to ask about disbarred lawyers unless they are avid court watchers because they’re not likely to know. However, if you spend some time on google, you’ll find attorney discipline is more common than you might think. Frankly, I think you suffer from confirmation bias — you expect results in accordance with your world view, so you seize onto any evidence that supports your world view and discount what doesn’t.
K2, only approximately 1% of US lawyers are disbarred annually and it is typically not for hiding evidence, false testimony, actions in court or the items you mentioned to Jill. Attorney discipline is not as common as you make it to be and complaints to the state bar associations rarely have any disciplinary action taken unless the lawyer has commingled funds or skimmed the client funds. If you are as good as your are, you know those facts as well as I do and probably better. There is no confirmation bias here at all. I drink my coffee as I… Read more »
Taking your word for it that it’s 1%, what would you consider an appropriate percentage to be? The raw percentage tells us very little, because you can’t know just from that number how many complaints were filed and how many were meritorious. I once sat on a state regulatory commission, and I can tell you that most of the complaints that we got fell into one of two categories: People who filed preemptive complaints as a litigation strategy, and people who didn’t understand the difference between an ethical violation and merely not getting the result that you hoped for. But… Read more »
When a lawyer tells a client to hide assets, that is a violation of ethics. I saw that tactic in the extended case I was following and only after the opposing side brought up the fact that over 100,000 clams weren’t reported did the lawyer who hid it admit that there was additional cash. The judge didn’t admonish that lawyer at all even though the trial was well on and it was obvious that the lawyer knew of the hidden cash and that his excuse was an excuse and not a reason. This was not a case of the opposition… Read more »
Dave, how many lawyers have you seen in how many courtrooms?
Not as many as you because it is not my job. But I have watched skunks work their spray often enough. I watched one adding up a series of payments while questioning a witness. As the lawyer added figures on a huge flip chart for everyone to see, the witness said quietly “You forgot the $5,000 payment.” The attorney said what payment and then when it was obvious he was in trouble, he said well, lets just continue without that payment. The judge allowed him to continue to build his case on false material evidence and the $5,000 payment was… Read more »
Dave, I’m not going to comment on a case I didn’t see, but the fact that the judge allowed it suggests to me that there’s more to the story than what you’ve provided. Unless you think the judge was a crook too?
There was more evidence presented in this case than at a murder trial and it went on for weeks and was quite interesting. One attorney presented mounds of evidence to hide his faults. The judge allowed the one attorney to limit testimony that would have swung the case in the opposite direction. So you tell me — Did the judge act correctly?
Dave, that depends on why the evidence was limited, and since I wasn’t there, I don’t know. What reason was given for limiting the evidence?
It was expert witness testimony. The lawyer requesting that the expert be muzzled had already had a computer expert testify on certain things but didn’t want his opponent to be able to out one and zero his expert witness so he made up an excuse and the judge bought it. A bad call by the judge because the muzzled expert witness was known in that state for being extremely accurate and able to unwind ones and zeros properly.
How exactly did Lynch use the power of her office to smash conservative groups? And I’m waiting to see what the investigation into the minor IT guy shows before I jump to conclusions.
K2, since you forgot, Lynch used the IRS to block conservative groups from tax free status; she took some to IRS court and caused those groups to use very large amounts of cash to provide for defense against her attacks. That’s all documented, you just have to be able to read and understand the English language. Oh, since you think that the Trump team is dancing, please consider that Lynch refused to testify unless her testimony was sealed from public view. Right! Nothing to see here K2, just keep on trolling. “. . . a former aide to Debbie Wasserman… Read more »
Dave, I think you’re confusing Loretta Lynch with Lois Lerner; while some of the letters in their names are the same, they are not the same person.
And I’m happy to wait to see where the Trump investigation leads, assuming Trump doesn’t shut it down by firing Mueller. I’m just not willing to assume that it’s already over, especially in light of Don Jr.’s email that explicitly says he was meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
K2, when the US AG Lynch does not call for investigation and prosecution of the individuals involved in using the government to attack conservative groups but instead covers it up and says that nothing is going on there is a huge problem. For Lois Lerner to do all that she did at the IRS required backing at the highest level of the AG’s office and the FBI. Both need to be prosecuted and sent to jail for their illegal actions. No, Loretta Lynch was in on the IRS scam. Let’s not forget Kennedy trying to get the Soviets to swing… Read more »
Dave, I hope you feel better for having gotten all that out of your system. I will only add that I haven’t flip flopped on Trump — I think he’s guilty as sin, but since you don’t, let’s wait to see where the investigation goes. Neither of us *knows* what Robert Mueller has or will find — assuming Trump doesn’t fire him first.
K2, you flip flopped on the investigation issue and you are trying to evade the flip flop issue by narrowing the view to just Trump. Your comments were that Trump is guilty as sin no investigation necessary; however, Awan is pure as the driven snow and we have to wait for the investigation to be finished before we can say he is guilty or assign blame. You scurried right away when it was obvious that your narrative was in flames. The brothers are in Pakistan along with Awan’s wife and kids. Awan tried to skip town . Wasserman Schultz impedes… Read more »
No, I said I *think* he’s guilty as sin. Neither of us actually knows whether he is or isn’t, and that’s why we have investigations. As to Awan, I gave the facts as they had been reported at the time; if there are different or other facts that have come out since, well, again, that’s why we have investigations.
What a tap dance K2. What a tap dance! Your extremely fine lines of definition show just how you slip away from a point and flip. This is similar to the prostitute who when caught wipes her mouth and says I have done nothing wrong. “Those are not the conversations of people who are innocent.” K2 There isn’t any “I think” in your post. As for Awan, I gave you facts as did others and you discounted them in the same manner that you discounted disbarred lawyer facts, Clintons Arkansas dealings, and other solid facts. When it was obvious you… Read more »
No, Dave, it’s called “nuance” and there’s far more of it in the world than you seem to realize. You see a world that is black-and-white, right-or-wrong, why use a scalpel on the patient when you can use a meat cleaver. And things are not that simple. As for your court case, I would have to read the transcript to know if I agreed with the judge or not, but my bet is that there is probably some finely-nuanced issue in it that you missed. Maybe not; sometimes judges do screw stuff up, and sometimes you get a judge who… Read more »
K2 claims nuance — a subtle difference in meaning — to cover his glaring hypocrisy and dodging the truth of the matter. K2 illustrates for all of us a problem in America and that is using double speak to cover your tracks and to redirect the discussion. This is not a nuance and you cannot say that it is. K2 used the negative “not innocent” inferring Trump and team are guilty but says that this nuance makes his statement different from calling them guilty. Under the UCMJ, military investigators could not say a commander was guilty, they were required to… Read more »
Last paragraph…right on.
Dave, who do you think ran the cleanest, most ethical WH in recent times? I don’t mean were they a good president in other areas such as foreign and domestic policy. Just who was the one who most insisted on ethical probity?
Jill, that is a really difficult question to field as everyone had significant problems inside their administrations.
Coolidge
Obama got the government to do a lot of new things in his first six months.
Trump is getting the government to undo a lot of old things in his first six months.
Here’s a good example: The POTUS and the WOTUS
Excellent link…I like the thinking, then again, that requires an open rational mind.
I like to think I keep an open mind, but I have often been told that if it were any more open, my brains would fall out.
Yes, but cats are very good at walling things off to keep everything secure. (I should explain, cats tend to build around injuries, etc. and are very stoic to the outside world.)
Paul, that is very true. I read recently that cats prove conclusively the roundness of the earth. If it were flat, cats would have knocked everything off it by now.
My vet (I’m going to campaign for socialized vet care) just told me that I must brush my Maine Coons’ teeth every day. My alpha Maine Coon is 38 inches long and weights 24 pounds. I have no doubt that he would wall me up alive if I even tried.
Too bad they didn’t know that in the Middle Ages, would have saved a lot of worry.
Petting good, teeth brushing, not so much.
Cats are proof that intelligent design is a fib since no intelligence would have designed them.
Now you did it, Jill will have to field this one…although, dogs think humans are god because we feed them, etc., cats think they are god because we feed them, etc.
Krychek, that is an observation that will live in infamy. This time you have Gone Too Far. Way, way too far. I have (occasionally) supported you against your adversaries, both foreign and domestic (I seem to have adopted an AP US History flavor), and I have even occasionally neutralized a downvote when my sense of fair play was offended. But no more. From here on in, you are on your own. Do you dispute the judgement of the pyramid-building Egyptians who practically deified these darling little people in fur coats? Do you question the aesthetic sense of the ancient Thais… Read more »
What with all these strange statements along with the twists and turns,
my suspicion that Krychek-2 and Bill the Cat, are in fact the same person,
only grows! ; – )
Jill, suffice to say that I didn’t used to hate cats until I married someone who has had up to eight of them at one time. I think the final straw was the pregnant stray who gave birth on a quilt my great-grandmother made. Or maybe it was the one who urinated on a new couch that hadn’t been in the house two hours. I’m glad you like cats; we currently have three, and if you’ll send me your address, I’ll be happy to stick postage on their butts and mail them to you. In fact, for you I’ll even… Read more »
Okay, I forgive you, your patience has been sorely tried. Did you not know your wife was prone to cat hoarding before you popped the question? If I were to take your three, I would be guilty of cat hoarding myself as I already have three fine specimens of cat flesh of my own. Unless you live in a mansion, three cats is enough. After that, the house begins to smell. You have my sympathy about the couch. My giant Maine Coon was palmed off on me by my ex’s cat-loving cousin who spun me a sad tale about… Read more »
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_maBfo7TdlMA/TEytvbTgZhI/AAAAAAAADFE/LtYCPcosCjs/s320/Cat+Clawing+Damage.bmp
These are small steps. As you say, the Republicans are the main obstacle because they are the Outer Party, intended to lose and to diffuse any attempt to mount a real challenge to the system.
The goal is the complete permanent exclusion of liberalism from political and social power. Trump won’t do it, but he’s laying the groundwork for people who can and will.
Also, very revealing for you to focus on material comfort at the expense of justice.
Peter, I’m in favor of material comfort and justice both, but my central point is that people voted their anger, and everyone except Trump’s hard core base (which is more and more looking like a cult) can see that it’s been a disaster. You like him because he hates the same people you do, but that’s not enough to run a government on.
I certainly *hope* you feel it’s been a disaster!
Another tidbit to keep in mind: Republicans control 33 state legislatures right now. It only takes 34 to initiate a constitutional convention.
Peter, let’s have this conversation again a year from now. My hunch is that most of the country will think it’s a disaster by then.
Trump supporters didn’t vote to make their own lives better Whether you meant to or not, you have revealed that so many who hate Trump are simply disconnected from the average Trump voter. First, you see yourself as knowing better than us, what is best for us. That is arrogant. We are not irrationally angry. Angry, yes, irrationally so, no. Secondly, most Trump voters voted to stop the undermining of our country through illegal immigration. I worked in the plumbing field for decades, and construction is the field hit hardest by illegal immigrants. Many people who did go tot college… Read more »
Spicer and Priebus out. Looking forward to Trump making war on the Republican congress now.
Pass the popcorn. When Trump got the nomination I thought he would destroy the Republican Party; I didn’t realize he’d have to be elected first in order to accomplish it.
Trump’s goal is much bigger than destroying the Republican party. Obama came into office with the high-minded ideal that, when directed by folks with pure hearts and pure minds, the federal government could be used to achieve a Grand Utopian Vision. There was a lot of intellectual debate about whether this was possible. Eight years later there was not much evidence that it was. Hillary argued for the affirmative case – but couldn’t convince enough people that she had the pure heart and mind to pull it off. Trump does not have a high opinion of the effectiveness of intellectual… Read more »
John, I partially agree with your analysis, though I don’t think Obama was silly enough to think any human government will usher in utopia. He merely thought it could make us better off than we are, a significantly more modest goal. And we don’t know if he’s right because he spent eight years fighting obstructionist Republicans determined to keep him from succeeding; who knows what he might have been able to accomplish if both parties had made a good faith effort to work together to make us better off. I’d like to at least try the experiment before deeming it… Read more »
The default assumption on the left is that new government programs generally makes us better off. The default Republican assumption is the opposite.
The case against new government programs being a net benefit has logic, history and mathematics on its side. Should the Republicans have ignored all that?
It’s like an addict saying to a friend, “C’mom, man. Why don’t we just pop a few more pills? They’ll make us feel so much better!”
The Republicans did what reason and experience dictated. They just said no.
John, one of the most personally enlightening things about my time here is having learned that there are a whole lot of people who don’t share my core assumptions. One has been discovering the existence of people who think that, even if every government program to eliminate poverty, crime, disease, and illiteracy had been overwhelmingly successful, the government is still not supposed to be providing them. Another is that many people to the right of me believe that if you offer too much to the masses, a whole bunch of them will cynically take advantage of the benefits while refusing… Read more »
Jill, I was recently conversing with a very liberal friend of mine. While debating health care, he said, “John, we have to make sure a twelve-year old girl with cancer gets cured!” I agreed. Of course, by “we” he meant the nation as a whole as represented by the federal government. I countered that “we” could mean “he and I” or maybe “everyone who lives in our town”. You are right that most liberals are motivated by passionate concern. One of the major problems in our public discourse is that we (all humans) too easily impute bad motives to those… Read more »
John, no the case against new government programs does not have logic, history and mathematics on its side. There are fewer elders living in poverty since social security. There are fewer hungry children since AFDC. People are living longer since medicare and medicaid. We can have a discussion about whether government should have a role in all of that, but the cold hard numbers show that we are better off for government involvement in the economy. I myself have two graduate degrees that I would not have been able to get without federal student aid, which turned out to be… Read more »
There is a very important and commonly held fallacy here. An example might help illustrate it. From 1949 to 1990, the East German government grew the economy of their country by directly controlling industrial development. The government set prices and wages based on socialist economic principles. GDP increased 33% over that period. The cold hard numbers show that East German citizens were economically better off after four decades of their government’s involvement in the economy. QED? Of course not. During that same period, the government of West Germany was much less intimately involved in their economy. GDP on the western… Read more »
John, and what do you think the rate of elder poverty would be in this country if not for social security?
Krychek_2 wrote:
Krychek_2 may have to wait to check the elder poverty rate of the generation that has to pay back the billions in socialist security debt that this pyramid scheme has been accumulating.
The elderly might very well be better off.
One clue to the answer is to look at social security alternatives such as this one in south-east Texas.
Remember that had SS not been inaugurated 80 years ago, other mechanisms – private, local and state – would have grown up in its place. America would not be just like it is now, except without SS checks in the mail. It could be a richer country where the principal retirement system would not be scheduled to run out of money in 17 years.
If AG Sessions can be rendered a lame duck AG, if you will, then it presents the opportunity for some highly disciplined and organized Civil Asset Forfeiture reformers to attack and overturn federal policy on that front – if that is in fact a fight worth picking. Perhaps it’s wisest just to invoke the 10th amendment and chip away at CAF policies at the state and local level.
At any rate, I have no sympathy for the likes of Sessions, owing to his position on the CAF issue. “Thou shalt not steal – especially if you’re a cop!”
George Will had a good line: If Sessions had any dignity, he would resign, but if he had any dignity he wouldn’t have accepted a position from Trump in the first place.
He also said Hannity is dangerous to America, which disqualifies Will from being listened to wth any level of seriousness.
I’ll add: some people should know when it’s time to retire, like most in Washington who are a million miles beyond their prime.
Hannity *is* dangerous to America because he encourages policy-making by mob-style rage, and I would say that even if I agreed with his politics.
Hardly, he’s a fairly normal Joe who calls it like he sees it, having started from nothing working construction to having a platform that allows him to show how out of touch with America the Washington elite truly are.
And Hillary is a Girl Scout.
Sessions appointed a special prosecutor with huge conflicts of interest concerning the investigation. That was an extremely poor move and caused the problems he is facing now. However, Sessions was quite clear that he serves at the discretion of the President and if the President asks him to resign he will. Sessions actually remembered his high school government and civics lessons unlike our former FBI Director, numerous elected or appointed officials and our ignorant TV news anchors. I wonder why not one of the major news agencies will run with the fact that Bill Clinton removed the FBI director the… Read more »