[barmar]

kenberg, on 2019-September-20, 06:34, said:

I have never understood why an adult would want to wear blackface (I didn't do it when I was 8 either), but when someone is found to have done so I think something like "I apologize, I just wasn't thinking" should suffice. Maria Callas dressed as a gypsy for Carmen. Of course her role was as a gypsy, but it was a stereotypical gypsy role. So do we have to stop performing Carmen? Maybe so, but really I hope not. Intent matters, at least some. Carmen was considered scandalous when it was first performed but not because of its insensitivity to Roma culture. I once took a date to a Halloween party who was dressed as a rather provocative cat. No disrespect to cats was intended. I realize that cats don't mind and people do mind, but a toga party (I have never been to one) is not meant as disrespect for Romans, either historically or modern.


So respect for other cultures is good, blackface seems, and to me always has seemed, really stupid but I think an apology, an acknowledgment of error, should suffice for us to then move on. And I don't know what should be done about Carmen, but I really like the music.

Context and history matters. While gypsies may have been discriminated against in parts of Europe, there hasn't been much of that in the US (most probably wouldn't even know what you meant by "Roma culture"), so dressing as a gypsy for Halloween doesn't suggest any kind of disrespect.

But blackface was historically used as a way to lampoon black people. It was part of minstrel shows, which were full of derogatory stereotypes about African-Americans (and the blackface they wore was cartoonish, another way of ridiculing the subjects). While someone wearing blackface in modern times would not actually be putting on such a show, the mere act of calling back to those practices is felt to be disrespectful, much like monuments to Confederate leaders in the Civil War.

It's also kind of like why there's almost no context in which a white person can use the N-word without getting into trouble.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2019-September-20, 09:08, said:

Context and history matters. While gypsies may have been discriminated against in parts of Europe, there hasn't been much of that in the US (most probably wouldn't even know what you meant by "Roma culture"), so dressing as a gypsy for Halloween doesn't suggest any kind of disrespect.

But blackface was historically used as a way to lampoon black people. It was part of minstrel shows, which were full of derogatory stereotypes about African-Americans (and the blackface they wore was cartoonish, another way of ridiculing the subjects). While someone wearing blackface in modern times would not actually be putting on such a show, the mere act of calling back to those practices is felt to be disrespectful, much like monuments to Confederate leaders in the Civil War.

It's also kind of like why there's almost no context in which a white person can use the N-word without getting into trouble.

I might be dragging this a little off track but I am at least a bit serious. My reference to gypsies was not for Halloween (that was the cat), it was for the opera Carmen. I'll let it go. Anyway, we can agree that blackface is not only out, anyone should easily see that it is out and why it is out. But then a person can apologize, admit error, acknowledge why it is an error, and move on. I really would have felt stupid ni blackface as a kid in the 50s, and I can't see why this is difficult for anyone. Some tings my mother told me, other things I could figure out on my own.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

Democrats have bungled the Russia investigation since taking control of the House this year. The investigation has persuaded virtually nobody who wasn’t already persuaded that President Trump is unfit for office — and also frustrated many people who are persuaded.

The “collective shrug” of Congress, as Lawfare’s Quinta Jurecic calls it, in the face of Trump’s outrageous attempts to interfere in the 2016 election had a predictable side effect: He quickly began trying to interfere in the 2020 election.

In May, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, announced that he would urge the Ukranian government to conduct a potentially politically damaging inquiry into Joe Biden, who obviously could end up being the Democratic nominee. “Encouraged by lawmakers’ passivity, the president is taking the same approach to 2020 that he took to 2016,” a subheadline on Jurecic’s May article for The Atlantic put it.

We still don’t know the details of a whistle-blower’s recent complaint about Trump’s conversation with a foreign leader, but the inspector general of the intelligence community considered the complaint credible enough to refer it to Congress. It seems to involve Ukraine, which raises the possibility that Trump is continuing to use foreign governments to meddle in American elections. Whatever it involves, I hope congressional Democrats are aware that their next attempt to hold the president accountable needs to be better than their last.

For more

Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg Opinion points out that Republicans could stop Trump’s lawlessness whenever they choose: “Republicans have been okay with all this, presumably because they’re getting what they want on policy. Or perhaps out of pure partisanship. Or maybe because they’re so deep in the conservative information-feedback loop that they’ve convinced themselves none of it is real. But they should be taking stock now of just how much lawlessness they’re willing to tolerate.”

The Times editorial board writes: “The No. 1 task of America’s intelligence and law-enforcement communities is to identify and deal with threats to national security. The problem, as explained by Jack Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, is that Mr. Trump’s behavior has repeatedly revealed ‘the extent to which our constitutional system assumes and relies on a president with a modicum of national fidelity, and decent judgment and reasonableness.’”

How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

[johnu]

y66, on 2019-September-20, 15:52, said:

From David Leonhardt at NYT:


How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

If you are talking about modern day Republican politicians, most will tolerate any level of lawlessness up to the point that they are about to be indicted with a chance of going to prison. When they talk about being law and order candidates it doesn't apply to themselves or their Republican colleagues. They love to cloak themselves in the flag, as the only true believers in God, and the only true Americans.

[johnu]

andrei, on 2019-September-20, 07:41, said:

Not for John though.
He has not doubts.
He knows everything.

Tell us John: what/when/with whom was discussed?

andrei - It is against my better instincts (and previous observations that show otherwise), but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can google search the Manchurian President and the whistleblower incident that has been erupting in the news the past couple of days. Maybe you could check with your President Putin and see what he has to say about his American puppet.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-September-20, 15:52, said:

From David Leonhardt at NYT:


How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

Giving you a chance to get even, I'm willing to bet another cold drink that the whistleblower story leakers to the WSJ are in Trump's circle. How else would they know what the whistleblower said and why would they emphasize no quid pro quo about arms?

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2019-September-20, 07:41, said:

Not for John though.
He has not doubts.
He knows everything.

Tell us John: what/when/with whom was discussed?

Simple question Andrei: If these accusations are true, should Trump be removed from office?

Your repeated use of bold face suggests that you are disputing the accuracy of these claims, not the magnitude of the supposed offense.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-September-20, 15:52, said:

From David Leonhardt at NYT:


How much more lawlessness will Republicans tolerate? About as much as voters.

Actually, the better question is how much lawlessness will Nancy Pelosi tolerate?

[y66]

From Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register:

Quote

Elizabeth Warren has surged in Iowa, narrowly overtaking Joe Biden and distancing herself from fellow progressive Bernie Sanders, the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.

Warren, the U.S. senator from Massachusetts, now holds a 2-percentage-point lead, with 22% of likely Democratic caucusgoers saying she is their first choice for president. It is the first time she has led in the Register’s poll.

Former Vice President Biden, who had led each of the Register’s three previous 2020 cycle polls, follows her at 20%. Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont, has fallen to third place with 11%.

No other candidate reaches double digits.

“This is the first major shakeup” in what had been a fairly steady race, said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “It’s the first time we’ve had someone other than Joe Biden at the top of the leader board.”

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg follows the three leaders as the favorite of 9% of poll respondents. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California is at 6%. U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey are at 3%.

Polling at 2% are U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, businessman Tom Steyer and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Eight others are polling at 1% or less.

But the race is far from settled: Just one in five likely Democratic caucusgoers say their minds are made up, while 63% say they could still be persuaded to support a different candidate.

“The data in this poll seem to suggest the field is narrowing, but my sense is there’s still opportunity aplenty,” Selzer said. “The leaders aren’t all that strong. The universe is not locked in.”

The poll of 602 likely Democratic caucusgoers was conducted Sept. 14-18, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Far from settled but encouraging.

[hrothgar]

The following is wll worth reading

https://www.lawfareb...r-some-thoughts

Quote

If it is true that the president used the threat of withholding congressionally authorized funds to—in the Post’s words—“extort” a foreign leader into investigating a domestic political opponent and his family, that would be a very big deal indeed. That allegation, if true, would unambiguously constitute an impeachable offense, indeed an offense that positively demands impeachment from any Congress that wishes to be taken seriously. It would be impeachable for at least three separate reasons: first, because it would involve the extortion of a foreign leader for personal and political gain; second, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s involvement in a U.S. election; and third, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s investigation of a political opponent in a fashion that grossly violates the civil liberties of a U.S. person, namely Biden’s son.

Please note: There are (or should be) transcripts and recordings available of this call.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2019-September-22, 05:39, said:

The following is wll worth reading

https://www.lawfareb...r-some-thoughts



Please note: There are (or should be) transcripts and recordings available of this call.

One of the difficulties Pelosi has caused is the reliance on the courts to do battle for the House. Each filing is being treated independently - just as if a next door neighbor sued over the new tree you planted - and those cases go onto the court calendar and proceed normally, with only the force of the House versus whomever as basis.

We have already seen Jerry Nadler try to get two cases fast-tracked as common source cases and was denied by the judge.

This is the problem with not starting impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings bring the power of constitutional authority to bear and there is no argument that it is not proper and within the purvey of the House. Impeachment would bring all these varied matters together under one umbrella and the courts could then fast track them all.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2019-September-22, 05:39, said:

The following is wll worth reading

https://www.lawfareb...r-some-thoughts



Please note: There are (or should be) transcripts and recordings available of this call.

An extremely interesting article. It addresses the complexity of wanting to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations weighed against the possibility that such conversations could be used for personal benefit instead of national benefit. The preferred solution is to not elect someone like Donald Trump. This obvious remark has consequences. If the people who elected DT see no problem with having such a person as president, then impeachment might well be only a very temporary solution, lasting until election day when DT II is elected.

The LF article pretty much concedes that extracting testimony about the conversation will be difficult and time consuming, it recommends going ahead with impeachment anyway on the basis that the lack of forthcoming information makes it clear DT is deserving of impeachment..Or at least that is how I understand the argument they present. That's a bit tricky but not crazy. Maybe my memory is off, but my thinking is that by the time Nixon left there was very broad public agreement that he had to go. Whether or not I am right about that, it is what I would like to see for Trump. There are now people who voted for trump who have had second thoughts. I would like this to broaden. If that is not possible, I think we are in deep stuff, impeachment or no impeachment.

Side note: I left the "elect" in smaller font. For the last few months some computer ghost seems to be randomly changing the font on various places in my posted notes. Perhaps it is some glitch in my computer, but it doesn't happen elsewhere, not in my emails for example. In this post I fixed a couple of examples of this, but then noticed "elect" was now (or still?) in a smaller font. Any suggestions are welcome. Yes, I try to correct them as I find them.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-22, 08:34, said:

An extremely interesting article. It addresses the complexity of wanting to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations weighed against the possibility that such conversations could be used for personal benefit instead of national benefit. The preferred solution is to not elect someone like Donald Trump. This obvious remark has consequences. If the people who elected DT see no problem with having such a person as president, then impeachment might well be only a very temporary solution, lasting until election day when DT II is elected.

The LF article pretty much concedes that extracting testimony about the conversation will be difficult and time consuming, it recommends going ahead with impeachment anyway on the basis that the lack of forthcoming information makes it clear DT is deserving of impeachment..Or at least that is how I understand the argument they present. That's a bit tricky but not crazy. Maybe my memory is off, but my thinking is that by the time Nixon left there was very broad public agreement that he had to go. Whether or not I am right about that, it is what I would like to see for Trump. There are now people who voted for trump who have had second thoughts. I would like this to broaden. If that is not possible, I think we are in deep stuff, impeachment or no impeachment.

Side note: I left the "elect" in smaller font. For the last few months some computer ghost seems to be randomly changing the font on various places in my posted notes. Perhaps it is some glitch in my computer, but it doesn't happen elsewhere, not in my emails for example. In this post I fixed a couple of examples of this, but then noticed "elect" was now (or still?) in a smaller font. Any suggestions are welcome. Yes, I try to correct them as I find them.

Your memory serves you well. There indeed was broad support to impeach Nixon. However, it wasn't until May of 1973 that his approval ratings in the polls turned slightly negative. By the time 1974 rolled around, Nixon's approval rating were in the 20's. That August 9th, he resigned.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-22, 11:11, said:

Your memory serves you well. There indeed was broad support to impeach Nixon. However, it wasn't until May of 1973 that his approval ratings in the polls turned slightly negative. By the time 1974 rolled around, Nixon's approval rating were in the 20's. That August 9th, he resigned.

And with Nixon, the downward spiral began with a break-in to DNC headquarters to gain political advantage for his re-election. Maybe history does repeat itself. But similar beginnings can have different endings. Something about butterflies flapping their wings.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-22, 11:49, said:

And with Nixon, the downward spiral began with a break-in to DNC headquarters to gain political advantage for his re-election. Maybe history does repeat itself. But similar beginnings can have different endings. Something about butterflies flapping their wings.

Actually, it wasn't until May 1973, well after the break-in but coinciding more with start of the Senate Watergate hearings and a string of guilty pleas from Watergate burlars earlier in the year that Nixon's approval rating first crossed over and more people disapproved of him than approved. He never recovered after that.

The issues we face today are, of course, different, especially in that with Nixon there was someone who actually cared about the country and respected the office of the president.

What we have done is elect the mafia boss version of Andrew Jackson and allowed him to place his "family" members throughout government, his personal consigliere as head of the Justice Department, and he has "won" over the other families who control the Senate, allowing his people onto the Supreme Court so now even the highest court would seem to be under his sway.

But here is the primary difference between having Nixon in office and having mafia boss Andrew Jackson in office: Nixon respected the rulings of the SCOTUS; mafia boss Andrew Jackson understands that the SCOTUS has no way of enforcing its rulings, so even if they go against him, he can ignore them and do as he pleases.

This is why he must be impeached, even if not removed. As a country we have to say, this we will not tolerate.

[Winstonm]

Addendum:

It is amazing when I consider that the U.S. Republic has lasted this long relying more on norms and the expectations of respect for different opinions than on any ideological strength. We now have a government where these norms are no longer holding; in fact, they are being laughed at and disregarded.

It may already be too late, but again I cannot overemphasize the importance of this book: How Democracies Die
It is in most libraries so you don't even have to buy it.

Quote

“This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy—packing and “weaponizing” the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them into silence), and rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents. The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it.”
― Steven Levitsky, How Democracies Die

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-22, 13:56, said:

Addendum:

It is amazing when I consider that the U.S. Republic has lasted this long relying more on norms and the expectations of respect for different opinions than on any ideological strength. We now have a government where these norms are no longer holding; in fact, they are being laughed at and disregarded.

And in the past I think most of us have laughed at countries like Venezuela -- disputes over the legitimate President only happen in Third World countries and "banana republics".

But now I can easily imagine Trump losing the election and refusing to leave the White House, the GOP not fighting it, and the rest of the free world laughing at us over this.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

President Trump’s latest attempt to put his own interests above those of the United States — by pressuring Ukraine’s government to help his 2020 presidential campaign — inspired me to put together a list.

It’s a list of ways that Trump has behaved like no other modern president, and it spans his corruption, disrespect for women, violation of the law and disdain for American democracy.

I deliberately avoided any traditional matter of policy — even those, such as climate change, on which I think his approach is downright dangerous. This is instead meant to be a just-the-facts catalog of how Trump has altered the presidency.

It’s only 40 sentences, and the sentences are not long. I recognize that I left out several examples — of his corruption or his racism, for example — that furthered a theme already on the list.

When you get to the end of the list, I wonder if you’ll have the same reaction that I had after putting it together: It sure seems like it’s time for Congress — both the Democratic leaders in the House and the Republican leaders in the Senate — to use its constitutional power to hold the president accountable for the harm he’s causing the United States.

The (partial) list:

Quote

He has pressured a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 American presidential election.

He urged a foreign country to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.

He divulged classified information to foreign officials.

He publicly undermined American intelligence agents while standing next to a hostile foreign autocrat.

He hired a national security adviser who he knew had secretly worked as a foreign lobbyist.

He encourages foreign leaders to enrich him and his family by staying at his hotels.

He genuflects to murderous dictators.

He has alienated America’s closest allies.

He lied to the American people about his company’s business dealings in Russia.

He tells new lies virtually every week — about the economy, voter fraud, even the weather.

He spends hours on end watching television and days on end staying at resorts.

He often declines to read briefing books or perform other basic functions of a president’s job.

He has aides, as well as members of his own party in Congress, who mock him behind his back as unfit for office.

He has repeatedly denigrated a deceased United States senator who was a war hero.

He insulted a Gold Star family — the survivors of American troops killed in action.

He described a former first lady, not long after she died, as “nasty.”

He described white supremacists as “some very fine people.”

He told four women of color, all citizens and members of Congress, to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

He made a joke about Pocahontas during a ceremony honoring Native American World War II veterans.

He launched his political career by falsely claiming that the first black president was not really American.

He launched his presidential campaign by describing Mexicans as “rapists.”

He has described women, variously, as “a dog,” “a pig” and “horseface,” as well as “bleeding badly from a facelift” and having “blood coming out of her wherever.”

He has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by multiple women.

He enthusiastically campaigned for a Senate candidate who was accused of molesting multiple teenage girls.

He waved around his arms, while giving a speech, to ridicule a physically disabled person.

He has encouraged his supporters to commit violence against his political opponents.

He has called for his opponents and critics to be investigated and jailed.

He uses a phrase popular with dictators — “the enemy of the people” — to describe journalists.

He attempts to undermine any independent source of information that he does not like, including judges, scientists, journalists, election officials, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Congressional Budget Office and the National Weather Service.

He has tried to harass the chairman of the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates.

He said that a judge could not be objective because of his Mexican heritage.

He obstructed justice by trying to influence an investigation into his presidential campaign.

He violated federal law by directing his lawyer to pay $280,000 in hush money to cover up two apparent extramarital affairs.

He made his fortune partly through wide-scale financial fraud.

He has refused to release his tax returns.

He falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him.

He claimed that federal law-enforcement agents and prosecutors regularly fabricated evidence, thereby damaging the credibility of criminal investigations across the country.

He has ordered children to be physically separated from their parents.

He has suggested that America is no different from or better than Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

He has called America a “hellhole.”

He is the president of the United States, and he is a threat to virtually everything that the United States should stand for.

[y66]

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

It’s time for people who think that President Donald Trump should be removed from office to get on the phone and tell their senators and representatives. Now is when it matters. And yes: That kind of direct contact really does make a difference.

Many details remain unknown about the whistle-blower complaint that is now roiling Washington. But Trump himself has confirmed the core of the story: He pressured the new president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, or perhaps to just invent some dirt on him.

By all objective standards, this is a monster story. It’s a clear-cut case of not just an impeachable offense, but one that demands impeachment and removal. For a president to invite foreign interference in a U.S. election is a flat-out abuse of power. And that’s not even to mention the widespread suspicion that Trump held up military aid to Ukraine as an added inducement. Just what we know is more than enough; add it to all the other ways in which Trump has violated his oath of office (and see David Leonhardt’s tour de force summation), and it’s not a close call.

By all objective standards, that is. Politics, like it or not, isn’t in most cases about objective standards. Which is why on Monday the big test will be very simple: Will Americans light up the phones of their representatives in Congress to demand action? Or is this just more background noise for them – just fodder for partisans to yell about, but nothing more?

It’s refreshingly simple. Although politicians care deeply about what their constituents think, on most matters they know that only those voters and organized groups that are directly affected will pay attention to what’s happening in Washington. But sometimes a significant policy question or major event can break through.

If Capitol Hill is flooded by calls demanding impeachment on Monday, it will have an effect. Not necessarily impeachment and removal! But a real effect. As a group, pro-impeachment Democrats will become far more insistent; neutral or anti-impeachment Democrats will move toward a moderate pro-impeachment position; uneasy Republicans will be more likely to condemn the president’s actions; even strongly pro-Trump Republicans will tone down their dismissals of the story if they hear outrage from their districts.

Again, this won’t necessarily lead to Trump’s impeachment, let alone conviction and removal. But there’s already some evidence that Democrats are shifting as they hear from their constituents. And there are many ways that Congress can constrain the president short of removing him. In fact, that’s already happening. For one quick example: Heavy criticism, including from Republicans, managed to get Trump to stop encouraging crowds to chant “send them back” at his rallies.

On the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have mostly run for cover. Senator Mitt Romney, pretty much alone among congressional Republicans, made a fairly strong statement about the seriousness of the situation. Constituency pressure will help determine whether others join him. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility of Trump getting ousted. It may seem impossible now to imagine enough Senate Republicans voting against the president. But congressional Republicans in 1973 and 1974 stuck with President Richard Nixon for a long time … until suddenly they didn’t. And then it was over very quickly.

I’m not predicting that. What I do predict, with quite a bit of confidence, is that a massive wave of voter outrage would have real consequences. And so would silence. I wrote on Friday that determining the consequences of Trump’s actions was mainly up to Republicans in Congress. What I should’ve said is that it’s up to the citizens of the United States.

[Winstonm]

Very fine people....on both sides...

Quote

The FBI has arrested a member of the U.S. Army for allegedly discussing in online forums how to build bombs and plotting to attack a major U.S. news network, the agency said Monday.

Jarrett William Smith, 24, who was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, was charged with one count of distributing information related to explosives and weapons of mass destruction. The suspect also allegedly discussed plans to travel to Ukraine to join a far-right extremist group.