That really sucks. I thought his comedy special was really funny. I don't get the censorship. There's a bunch of computer programs passing judgment and they keep making mistakes. It's happening at Blogger/Blogspot, it's happening all over.
Graham deserves better.
Next up, fortunately, Jonathan Turley's stupidity does not appear to be spreading on to others. BUSINESS INSIDER notes:
Florida
Governor Ron DeSantis' ongoing feud against the Walt Disney Company has
begun to draw ire from conservatives who argue the GOP politician is
wrongfully interfering in business matters — and acting against the
Republican party platform.
"I'm
a conservative, and I believe as a conservative, the job of government
is... to stay out of the business of business," former New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie told digital news outlet Semafor in a Tuesday interview, adding: "I don't think Ron DeSantis is a conservative based on his actions towards Disney."
Christie isn't the only Republican politician critical of DeSantis' approach to Disney's criticism of his policies. DeSantis' political rival, former President Donald Trump posted Tuesday on Truth Social that DeSantis is being "absolutely destroyed by Disney."
"Disney's
next move will be the announcement that no more money will be invested
in Florida because of the Governor — In fact, they could even announce a
slow withdrawal or sale of certain properties, or the whole thing,"
Trump wrote. "Watch! That would be a killer. In the meantime, this is all so unnecessary, a political STUNT! Ron should work on the squatter MESS!"
New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, a critic and potential challenger of Trump's,
sided with the former president, agreeing that DeSantis has taken the
disagreement too far by targeting the company's tax status and the
potential value of its land.
"Look,
this has gone from kind of going after a headline to something that has
devolved into an issue, and it convolutes the entire Republican
message," Politico reported
Sununu said Monday night. "I just don't think — it's not good for
Governor DeSantis. I don't think it's good for the Republican party."
Jonathan
Turley's actions have been so suspect, by the way, for over a year now,
I'd be very interested in looking at his itinerary for the last month.
His positions, especially in retrospect, appear planned, as though he's
working from a playbook.
And
Turley also ignored the people -- of course, that's all he does now --
and what DeSantis' war on DISNEY has done to the Florida tax payer --
created a mountain of debt. Long after he's no longer governor, they're
going to be stuck with the bills for the stunts he's pulled.
I
also don't get how Turley comes off like anything but an ambulance
chaser. One of the most important lessons stressed in law school, for
me, was that a client may be dumb enough to pay you for anything but
that doesn't mean you encourage it. Meaning, some clients would benefit
from it being explained to them that they are just racking up bills and
there is a slim chance that a ruling will go in their favor. Instead
of addressing that reality, Turley was egging DeSantis on. He was lying
about anything and everything in the process.
C.I.
destroyed him when he tried to claim that DISNEY was on the ropes and
the proof was two films that did poorly at the box office last year.
C.I. responded with the top ten moneymakers for the year and how DISNEY
had four on the list, no other studio did. 2023 was not a bad year for
DISNEY and they didn't have a bomb so big that it stood out for leaving a
huge, gaping hole of debt.
Turley
knows nothing and needs to shut up. Instead, he's become the pep squad
for the right wing and cheers them on to one bad action after
another.
Wednesday, April 19, 2023. YOUTUBERS (those making YOUTUBE content for
the left) seem not to grasp that sugar rots the teeth and the brain.
What matters?
More
and more, it's apparent that most YOUTUBE political posing is just
posing. That's if they're left or just 'left.' That's whether they are
grifters or sincere. Spencer Ackerman would have been good to work in
here so let me back up to an e-mail. An e-mailer to the public account
wanted me to know that I ripped off Spencer and just mouthed what he has
said about the leaker -- mouthed it in yesterday's snapshot.
I
did not rip off Spencer, I don't know what he said. I wouldn't be
surprised if we held a similar point of view on the leaker. It wouldn't
be the first time. Our positions are often the same. Our tactics are
different.
His tactic for getting Barack
Obama the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination when Jeremiah
Wright was a clear problem for Barack (and would have been for any
candidate) was to advise others not to engage on Jeremiah just to bash
anyone who criticized Jeremiah -- bash them as a racist. Here's the
quote and shame on the MSM because they covered it and you go to find
out and you find out that they messed up -- most left the first
paragraph off. That's why this link is to the original DAILY CALLER report:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need
to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is
necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In
other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a
plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out
in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a
state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And
I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either
defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the
game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl
Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a
deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What
lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which
in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Smash through a plate-glass window.
So
back to the point we were starting with. Garbage. That's what most of
you are offering. You think your conspiracy talk is moving the
needle? You think your nonsense is? Some of you are already wasting
time pimping a candidate (Marianne Williamson, for some of you).
The
war on the LGBTQ+ community matters. That should go without saying.
But most of you can't even mention that or maybe you spent this week
going over a man yelling -- a joke in his mind -- that women need to do
this or that and you just had to talk about how funny this year old
thing was. Maybe you were one of those two men and you didn't grasp
that if a man is yelling something at a woman, when a woman says it's
not funny, LISTEN. You stupid idiots. You never get it. 'We yell at
each other all the time' -- well, good for you, go swing your dicks at
each other. And then when you're done with that, go watch episode 5 of
THE POWER where Toni Collette's character asks her daughter what it's
like to be able to shoot electricity out of your fingers and she talks
about how she can go home after dark by herself, how she does this or
that now as a result. And then you might actually grasp why a woman is
not entertained by a man yelling at her. And you might understand that
when you admit something is misogynist, you then adding that it was
done "ironically" does not change that it was sexism.
And,
shame on you for that because, while you were still marveling over your
newly sprouted hairs, young boys, so-called lefties were getting away
with racism by insisting it was done ironically.
Sometimes
I'm just appalled and I wasn't planning on even talking about this, but
here we are. I did post a video and thought it might have something of
value. I got a call from a friend almost an hour later. "You didn't
watch, did you?" No. How bad is it? "You're going to want to stream
it yourself."
Not only did the two young men
feel the need to school women on a statement a pig on the left made a
year ago -- what a waste of time -- they then wanted to talk
entertainment.
I don't think the
two even saw ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA. What's awful about the
film -- that damn title. It is hideous and never should have been the
title to begin with.
Otherwise?
I get why right wingers didn't like the film -- and I got it when I read the script, before a single scene was shot.
Yes,
they were going to have a problem with strong women and they were going
to have a problem with a multi-ethnic cast. But most of all, they were
going to have a problem with a film that questioned who is the
terrorist (it's not Janet) and who stands up and how do we stand up --
how do we work as a collective? I loved the final film. I also knew it
was going to be trashed. It'll live on and most MARVEL films won't.
But what surprised me was no one -- I thought at least WSWS would try to
offer some insight -- wanted to tackle some of the issues being raised
by the film.
Wrong.
So
the young men trash that film -- that they've clearly not seen -- and
isn't that really appalling. That's what they're using their time on.
And then one of them wanted to explain how dumb their sister was because the whole Red Scare was just about Hollywood unions.
Stop.
For the love of all that is holy: Stop.
Get an education before you speak.
McCarthyism
didn't start with McCarthy, it actually started on the Democratic Party
side of the aisle. The Hollywood Ten are endlessly covered in films
and other things which leads people to think that's all it was. No the
State Dept was targeted, to name just one other, and gays were targeted
and it's so much more than you know.
But, please, stop with the stupidity. 'Scripts are worse today because no one cares about writing'?
You
don't know what you are talking about. The studios have never cared
about writers. And writing by committee is not a recent fad. If you
want to see really bad writing, read through the drafts on MILDRED
PIERCE -- and really savor Faulkner's version -- yeah, him -- with all
its racist touches including Mildred serenaded with a spiritual.
Just stop.
So back to the main point.
There are two other stories that should really have gotten traction on YOUTUBE but didn't.
Clarence
Thomas. Some are whining that we have so much MSNBC content now. (So
much that I'm posting here.) You know what, find me the lefty YOUTUBER
talking about Clarence. We''ve pretty much posted all that I can find.
I'm sorry that his corruption doesn't interest the bulk of people
making YOUTUBE programs. But it's corruption and it matters. And it's a
story that people care about.
Then there's Duncan Hunter Jr. Junior got pardoned by Donald Trump.
Some of you YOUTUBERS insist that you don't want to see Donald back in the White House.
Where
is the Spencer Ackerman on this? (I don't mean Spencer himself. I'm
not aware of him having a YOUTUBE program.) Where's the person saying
smash Clarence over the head with the pardon and a get a bloody corpse
from it and put it on a pike in the town square?
Because Duncan Jr. has hurt Donald with the people who might have voted for him.
Duncan
Hunter Jr should have suffered a major media set back but YOUTUBERS
didn't want to amplify, they had too much more to cover, too much more
important things -- more important that Duncan is responsible for the
deaths of 2 US service members in Iraq and that he got off because he
had a powerful Daddy. Now Donald pardoned him for another crime. But
there are people recoiling to learn that Duncan is responsible for two
deaths and walked away without criticism or jail time. This is the type
of person that their stand-up guy Donald Trump would pardon? No, it
can't be so!!!!
Former
U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter Jr. is making national headlines again,
this time for a
deadly, friendly-fire incident in 2004 during the Iraq
war.
Hunter is the focus of a new, NPR podcast, Taking Cover, a seven-part series of investigative reports.
NPR investigative producer, Graham Smith, and NPR pentagon
correspondent, Tom Bowman, spent three years chasing down information in
the case.
Bowman said it all began as a tip he received from a reliable source,
who told him about a friendly-fire, mortar strike that killed two
marines and an Iraqi interpreter inside a schoolhouse in Fallujah.
“We’re sitting in a whiskey bar in Washington, DC and he said there
was this friendly-fire incident back in 2004, during the first battle of
Fallujah, and it was covered up because the son of a powerful
politician was involved. That politician was Duncan Hunter Sr., then
chairman of the Armed Services Committee,” recalled Bowman.
Duncan Hunter Sr. and Duncan Hunter Jr. are both former U.S. congressmen from the East County.
In 2004, Duncan Hunter Jr. was a Marine lieutenant in Fallujah, Iraq,
stationed in a control center, involved in making decisions on where to
fire mortars at enemy positions, the podcasters said.
“We have the investigative report that we got from the widow of one
of the men who was killed. It has a statement written by Duncan Hunter
[Jr.], where he says he plotted this target on the map, he pushed in a
yellow pin at the spot of the target near the schoolhouse,” said Smith.
For three years, the families of the men killed didn't know the incident was the result of friendly fire.
Tom
Bowman's the sassy senior who just discovered podcasts. And since his
feeble brain can only hold one thing at a time, he can't also remember
journalism.
In the above, and below the excerpt
as well, Tom makes the story about him. The way he and G-Dawg did in
their first report, nearly fifty minutes long and they never bothered to
identify Duncan.
If you think I'm being picky,
the reason I know about the CBS 8 story is two NPR friends. I don't
watch San Diego news. They're the ones who called me to complain that
he's still making it about himself, that's he refusing to be a
journalist and cover the story.
The story is
Duncan Jr. and how Daddy got Junior off. And it does impact on Donald
supporters because Donald is so true and so this and so that. Some of
the shine coming off right now is people grasping that Donald pardoned a
man who is responsible for the deaths of 2 US service members and what
does that say about Donald's fabled brain and judgment and his claim to
'drain the swamp'?
Now it's not as fun as all
the other crap you're covering, I'm sure. (The two young men called out
above at least have been covering serious issues at other times in the
last two weeks.)
You offer a lot of nonsense. While pretending you're doing serious work.
You're not.
Clarence
Thomas should be front and center on left coverage, showing just how
out of control the Supreme Court is right now, showing just how
illegitimate it is. Rallying calls for accountability, rallying calls
for resignation. Calling for mandatory retirement and term limits.
DOBBS was a gut punch but so many on the left are ignoring Clarence.
That's
a real issue. Jacqueline Luqman is dealing with a real issue. On THE
REMIX SHOW yesterday, talking about what she saw taking place in
Venezuela on her recent trip there, that's a real issue too.
Any segment from BREAKTHROUGH NEWS is addressing real issues.
This segment of DEMOCRACY NOW! is a real issue.
John
Stauber chose to mock that segment but it's a real issue. Too many of
you are not dealing with real issues. You're taking up a lot of time
and space and you're wasting it.
If you're
someone working to make the medicine go down, mixing in some sugar for
that reason, fine. But some of you are not doing anything but sugar.
Yet you're applauding yourselves over and over in each YOUTUBE
broadcast.
The Democrats have responded to the
exposure of boundless personal corruption and political reaction on the
high court with an effort to effect a cosmetic tightening of ethics
rules, so as to shore up collapsing public confidence in the court and
every other institution of the state. But the entire senior leadership
in both the Biden White House and Congress has steered clear of
demanding either the resignation of Thomas or his impeachment. It is
well known that Thomas is by no means alone in accepting “gifts” from
the ultimate paymasters of the robed defenders of capitalism on the high
court.
ProPublica’s initial article documented the fact that for
more than two decades, Thomas and his wife, Ginni, have been taking
luxurious vacations on Crow’s super yacht and private jet to far-flung
destinations, as well as Crow’s private resorts in the Adirondack
Mountains in upstate New York and in East Texas, often mingling with
corporate oligarchs, the heads of right-wing think tanks and
anti-democratic judicial groups. The total cost of these annual junkets,
absorbed entirely by Thomas’ benefactor, adds up to the millions.
Since his elevation to the Supreme Court in 1991, Thomas has been on
the extreme right wing of the court. He was among the five Republican
justices who voted in 2000 to halt vote-counting in Florida and steal
the election for George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote. He
signed onto a concurrent decision authored by Antonin Scalia asserting
that the American people did not have a constitutional right to vote for
the president. (Scalia died in 2016
at a luxury compound in Texas owned by John Poindexter, a wealthy
businessman and national security adviser under Ronald Reagan.
Poindexter was convicted in 1990 in connection with his role in the
Iran-Contra scandal, but the conviction was overturned on appeal the
following year.)
An arch-reactionary, Thomas was part of the Republican majority that overturned Roe v. Wade
last year. In his opinion he argued for extending the overturn of the
constitutional right to abortion to attack birth control and same-sex
marriage. He is presently conspiring with his fellow Republicans on the
court to restrict or eliminate access to the most widely used abortion
pill, a major step toward criminalizing abortion nationwide.
A
sadist, he has joined in rulings rejecting appeals by prisoners,
including death row inmates, who were deprived of basic due process
rights, leading to hundreds of state murders. He routinely votes against
all restrictions on corporate exploitation of workers and limitations
on corporate money to buy elections and politicians of both parties.
Thomas
has refused to recuse himself from cases related to Donald Trump’s
attempted overturn of the 2020 election, despite the prominent role of
Ginni Thomas in the conspiracy that culminated in the fascist storming
of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Crow, a Texas real estate
billionaire, has given millions to the Republican Party and supports
far-right think tanks and organizations, such as the Federalist Society,
that work to push the courts ever further to the right. In his mansion,
he boasts a copy of Mein Kampf signed by Hitler, paintings by
the author of the Holocaust and linens that carry the Swastika. He has
said that his greatest fear is Marxism.
Following the April 6
ProPublica article, Thomas dismissed the allegations of corruption and
violation of ethics laws, saying his forays with Crow were entirely
innocent personal gatherings with a “dear friend,” adding that he had
been advised by someone on the court that he was not obliged to disclose
such activities.
We'll wind down with this from South Central Michigan Greens:
Sen.
John Fetterman (D-Pa.) returned to the Senate on Monday after spending
six weeks in the hospital, receiving treatment for clinical depression.
But his return was overshadowed by his attire, which stirred outrage
among his political foes.
Shorts? With those chicken legs? Not the fashion choice I would've made but it's not really pertinent to my complaint: He should have been replaced.
Do I stand by that?
Yes,
he should have been. But they didn't do that. So now it's too late to
argue that point unless it comes up again because he again has multiple
absences.
As
it stands now, he's back in the Senate and nothing was done so it's a
clean erase board. And, honestly, he's a grown up and can wear whatever
he chooses to wear to work. If he's meeting some dignitary and showing
up in shorts it would be a different thing.
A different thing is also Dianne Feinstein who is holding up Joe Biden's federal judge nominees by not getting her ass to the Senate. She sickly is she? I don't give a damn. Old idiot should have retired long ago. Now we can't afford her. She's sick, she's not in DC -- let alone in the Senate. She needs to go.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023. Crooked Clarence continues to ruin the image
of The Court, Marjorie Taylor Greene has demonstrated she's not fit to
serve on a Homeland Security Committee, Iraq has artifact issues (along
with climate issues) and much more.
CNN reported
on Monday that Thomas plans to amend his financial disclosure forms to
accurately reflect the real estate deal, but four ethics law experts
told ProPublica last week that the justice likely violated a federal
disclosure law that was enacted in the wake of Watergate, sparking
public pressure for an official investigation into Thomas' financial
dealings, as well as growing calls for his resignation and impeachment.
Wow.
Juan's done more than 'legal expert' Jonathan Turley. Turley's
dismissed this. Turley's acted as though it's normal. And then he's
avoided it. He promotes himself as some sort of Constitutional expert
but he is just a scared little rabbit, afraid he might weigh in wrong
and be dropped from the FOX "NEWS" payroll. Claims to cover the courts
but can't really explore Crooked Clarence.
Thomas may not have deliberately changed his votes at Crow’s
behest, but a chummy relationship between a right-wing megadonor who
literally funds organizations that appear before the Supreme Court and a
justice on that court, involving the bestowing of many lavish
gifts—which said justice then hides from the public—is clearly crooked.
Crow’s relationship with Thomas is based entirely on the former’s wealth
and the latter’s influence. It obviously speaks to Thomas’s own
contempt for his critics and opponents: He is identifying as a member
and agent of a vast right-wing machine. He is, more importantly, using
his position in government to enrich himself—it is obvious that Thomas
would not be the beneficiary of Crow’s largesse if he were not on the
Supreme Court.
That all of this is amoral on its face should be clear to
anyone who values a functional democracy. Having a member of the Supreme
Court hobnobbing around and taking all kinds of presents from a
billionaire megadonor goes against bedrock principles of
self-government. A civic-minded judge or lawmaker labors diligently to
avoid even a hint of impropriety; Thomas has done no such thing and
instead has gleefully filled his pockets. The idea that Shapiro—or
anyone else—knows Thomas’s heart is silly. It’s also irrelevant: We
don’t need to connect the dots to determine which bronze gnome wrought
which Supreme Court decision. The appearance of a conflict of interest
is sin enough.
To accept what Thomas and Crow have cooked up between
themselves is to accept rampant corruption on the Supreme Court, full
stop. It shows that the court has no ability to police itself and no
interest in doing anything that might ameliorate the continued and
growing influence of right-wing megadonors on its justices—particularly
Thomas. Undoubtedly Crow and Thomas’s close relationship has influenced
the justice’s thinking. Surely Crow has expressed his opinions on
ideological matters during those many hours they’ve spent together,
sunning in the Riviera.
Crow derives a benefit from keeping Thomas steeped in lavish
gifts—all that boodle may not be necessary to push Thomas to rule a
certain way, but it sure helps influence other people in Crow’s orbit.
He can present himself as someone who has the ear of one of the most
powerful jurists in the country. He can also send the message that there
are rich rewards to be reaped by staying in the plutocrat’s good
graces. And so the failure to do anything about Thomas and Crow’s
relationship sends a message to right-wing justices everywhere. If you
hold the line—and rule in the manner Crow prefers—you too can one day
rake in gifts, vacations, playdates, and weird trips to an absurd “park”
containing dozens of statues of fallen dictators. Corruption is
welcome. Thomas may not have changed any of his votes at Crow’s
behest—but that doesn’t mean others won’t.
This
is a serious issue. Clarence should be resigning. Instead, he acts
like he's done nothing wrong while he further sullies the reputation of
The Court. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern (SLATE) note:
When news broke last week, by way of dogged reporting in ProPublica,
that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted decades’ worth of hospitality
from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow, that this same donor had funded his wife’s legal and political activities and in fact helped pay her salary, and that Thomas had disclosed none of this, our suggestion that the justice had clearly broken the law was dismissed as left-wing “smear.”ProPublica’s new reporting, dropped on Thursday,
showed that the same billionaire donor, Harlan Crow, spent $133,363
purchasing several properties co-owned by Thomas, and that these sales
were never disclosed. As our colleagues at Slate confirmed this week,
Thomas’ mother actually still lives in the property owned by Crow, to
which he has made valuable improvements (in addition to buying the house
next door and dispensing with previously troublesome neighbors). Unlike
the rules around the undisclosed luxury travel reported last week,
ProPublica could not find a single ethics expert willing to squint and
hop on one foot in a way that would make the failure to report the real
estate transaction seem arguably lawful. The court has not responded in
any way to the latest revelations. Defenders of Justice Thomas somehow
continue to urge that this is a smear campaign by liberals.
In a way, the fact that money went from Harlan Crow’s pocket to Thomas’ mom’s house seems less
horrifying than last week’s superyachts and half-million-dollar luxury
air travel. Who among us wouldn’t want a billionaire to evict the noisy
neighbors who were keeping our mothers up late? But it helps to parse
out what mattered about both Thomas stories and what is mostly a
distraction. That Thomas is a “hypocrite” for claiming to like parking
outside Walmarts to commune with real people while secretly indulging
his taste for luxe global travel? Doesn’t really matter. Harlan Crow’s
penchant for cunningly little embroidered Nazi table linens? Weird,
surely, but materially inconsequential. The Wall Street Journal
editorial board’s claim that Thomas is a good and great man being tarnished by “left-leaning” ProPublica (which, let’s recall, is actually founded by former Wall Street Journal folks)? Whatever.
What mattered last week and what still matters this week is whether the
Crow/Thomas dealings can be seen as classic quid pro quo (or perhaps
quid pro Crow)corruption. We too often think this can only
happen in a scene in which cartoon ducks with big sacks of cash pay
politicians to do their bidding, which is never how this actually
happens. And the longstanding defense to those claims is that Justice
Thomas is too independent a thinker and jurist to be influenced by gifts
of bibles and vacations and rent-free housing. But what this new
reporting shows—and what actually matters—is that Crow and those like
him, who have poured billions of dollars into funding cases before the court,
campaigns to seat certain justices on the court, and crusades to keep
other justices off the court, turn out to just own the whole building.
In tandem with the Leonard Leos and Mark Paolettas who have been rendered in art
for all eternity, the Harlan Crows are the actual landlords of the
houses where the six conservative justices seemingly get to live
rent-free.
If you’re defending Thomas’ unlawful refusal to disclose these
transactions by saying he’s too famous/powerful/important/busy/put-upon
to disclose these transactions, you are missing the point. Disclosure
laws aren’t tawdry “gotcha” traps that form the basis of smear
campaigns. Disclosure rules are the only means of transparency in a
world of increasingly broken democratic systems. Citizens United
and its dismantling of campaign finance reform? Justified on the
grounds that disclosure rules suffice to ferret out corruption. We don’t
demand that public figures deal honestly with the public because we are
mean; we do it because law and democracy rise and fall on knowing who paid who for what.
Someone should print that last paragraph and tape it to Turley's office door.
Speaking
of his office door, let's be honest. We raise our kids with the hope
that they'll have better lives. Why would we then send them to George
Washington University? We want the best for them and now that Turley's
transitioned into a hate monger, why would we send our kids there? We
got them to 18 and ready for college -- an accomplishment, yes. We
didn't do that to turn them into soulless hate merchants. We want them
to hope for the future. They won't get a hope at an institution that
allows a transphobe and homophobe like Turley to flourish. These are
our treasured loved ones. They're too important to have their minds put
in the hands of a monster so we need to avoid not just George
Washington University's law school, but the whole university. And that
probably means our donations need to drop when it comes to George
Washington University -- give less or, better yet, none at all.
I'm
workshopping it, I've got a series of lunches coming up about how we
best use our money to invest in colleges and which investments are
betraying our youth. Anyway, Khaleda Rahman (NEWSWEEK) notes:
Following The Washington Post's report, lawyer David R. Lurie tweeted:
"Thomas's disregard for legal disclosure mandates exemplifies the
attitude of the Supreme Court's extremist majority toward the citizens
to whom they issue increasingly imperious dictates: Contempt."
Newsweek reached out to Lurie via Twitter and a Supreme Court spokesperson via email for comment.
Lurie also warned that the nation's federal courts are "living on
borrowed legitimacy" in a post for journalist Aaron Rupar's Public
Notice newsletter last week.
He wrote that "the corrupt conduct of Justice Thomas demonstrates,
some members of the Trump Era judiciary appear to believe there is no
longer a need for them even to maintain an appearance of judicial
probity."
He noted that Thomas had not recused himself from
election cases following the 2020 election even though his wife,
Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist, had reached out to the Trump
White House and lawmakers to urge them to attempt to overturn election
results.
"We now know that — even as Ginni Thomas was raking in
hundreds of thousands of dollars from 'family friend' Harlan Crow —
Thomas himself was receiving lavish gifts of travel and other benefits
from the billionaire, a right-wing activist, with an intense interest in
the subject matters of many cases that come before the Court," Lurie
wrote.
The Supreme Court keeps tripping over its own robes. Last week,
ProPublica revealed that a conservative megadonor has been secretly
subsidizing the lifestyle of Justice Clarence Thomas. In a rare public
statement, the justice claims he asked others on the Court and in the
judiciary, who assured him he need not disclose such beneficence.
It’s not clear which is worse: if this is true, or if it isn’t.
Thomas said all this merely involved “personal hospitality” from a
friend (albeit a billionaire who befriended Thomas only after he was
appointed to the Court). That might evoke a dinner party or a weekend at
a friend’s lake house. Hardly: Thomas frolicked on Harlan Crow’s
superyacht, flew on his personal jet, vacationed at his private resort,
and traveled with him to Bohemian Grove, an all-male retreat in
California. According to ProPublica, the largesse was worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
Thomas claimed to want to avoid chichi vacations. “I prefer the RV
parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like
that. There’s something normal to me about it,” Thomas said. “I come
from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”
They say hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
This all shows the perils of DIY ethics. The Supreme Court is the
only court in the country with no enforceable code of ethics. Sen.
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has pointed out that the Court quickly
launched a formal investigation of the leak of the Dobbs decision
last year. It could do so again. If the Court will not craft a set of
ethics rules — and pronto — Congress can and should do so.
Congress should also investigate. There’s ample precedent: Justice
Abe Fortas, too, was found to be receiving support from a wealthy
benefactor, and the controversy proved so intense that he resigned.
But beyond stronger rules, the scandal shows how lifetime tenure can
engender justices with a startling sense of entitlement and a belief
that they are beyond accountability. Thomas almost certainly knows that
cavorting around the globe in a superyacht isn’t “personal hospitality”
in the spirit of current rules. After briefly disclosing the trips and
causing a minor stir in 2004, he decided it would be better to keep them
to himself. He was confident he could avoid consequences.
Where did that confidence come from? At least in part from the
assurance that comes with years of accumulated power and influence.
Few government jobs anywhere in the world are quite like that of U.S.
Supreme Court justices: nine unelected people who dictate wide swaths
of national policy. And if they’re put on the Court at a young age, they
get to do so for many decades with no real risk of removal. Only one
justice has ever been impeached (Samuel Chase in 1804). None has ever
been convicted. Supreme Court justices are, in this way, more akin to
royalty than public servants. Only a single U.S. state mirrors the
federal system — the rest have either fixed terms or mandatory
retirement.
We can make a change, as I recently argued in the Los Angeles Times.
There is a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of term limits for
Supreme Court justices. Justices would serve for up to 18 years, with
each president allowed two appointments per presidential term. I
describe all this in my upcoming book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America.
Term limits would ensure that the composition of the Court better
mirrors the preferences of American voters and stop presidents from
influencing national policy decades beyond their terms in office. Term
limits would also prevent any individual from accumulating unaccountable
power, as Thomas seems to believe he has.
Transphobe Ben Burgis has weighed in on a topic. No surprise, he Tweets like the uninformed blowhard that he is:
Apr 14
Issues I couldn’t care less about:
*Whether the leaker deserves the “whistleblower” label
*What his motives were
Issues I care a lot about:
*Whether the American public should know about our government’s foreign policy
*Whether media should help the Pentagon catch leakers
Written like the idiot he is.
The
leak didn't happen in a vacuum and its effects don't take place in a
vacuum. People are rushing in with no knowledge and making very
revealing statements.
I'm not talking about the press coverage of the information itself. That information is now public and must be covered.
But the label does matter. Ed Snowden is a whistle-blower and that should come with protection and support.
I
don't think we can say the same about someone who began revealing
classified information in online chats to impress others and needed more
and more gratification so he went on to reveal more and more. This
matters.
It
matters because someone who is too crazy to be in Congress -- and
whoever that would be possible -- has praised the current leaker as a
"hero." That's Marjorie Taylor Greene.
She praised the man the day his identity was known.
And
it matters, tubby Ben, because she sits on the House Homeland Security
Committee and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting someone on that
Committee if they're applauding the mishandling of classified
information.
Ed
Snowden and Chelsea Manning did what they did because they thought the
public had a right to know. I can get behind that and I can support
it. Someone like the leaker who just left it lying around and only
brought it up to impress others?
No.
That's
illegal with no real appeal process. He abused his clearance and he
revealed classified information. He broke the law and there was no
reason such as the public good for it.
It
matters. Marjorie Taylor Green makes it matter by her praise of him.
She is not to be trusted with classified material. She should be
immediately removed from the Homeland Security Committee. She has
demonstrated that she does not believe in the basic rules.
Will
she be removed? Probably not. Kevin needs her to much to hold onto
his leadership position at present. But that's what needs to happen
and, within the court of public opinion, that's what should happen. And
when the elections come up next year, whomever runs against her should
be hammering her for her public statements on this matter.
After a hard day's work, ancient people liked to unwind at the pub just
like modern folks. At least, that is what new findings on the important
archeological site of Lagash in Iraq indicate. As recently announced by
the University of Pennsylvania,
archeologists digging at the site uncovered a tavern dating to around
2700 B.C.E. The find is complete with an oven, benches, a clay
refrigerator known as a zeer, and bowls with food remnants. These
findings can tell historians and archeologists a lot about daily life in
a busy, ancient industrial center.
Lagash is one of the largest archeological sites in southern
Mesopotamia. The city dates to the Early Dynastic period from 2900 to
2300 B.C.E. The urban center was part of a trio of cities that formed a
powerful polity. Lagash was situated near fertile lands, but
archeologists also believe it was an important center of craftsmen and
industry. Excavations have uncovered ceramic kilns and trenches where
wet clay was stored. Tables and benches nearby suggested a workroom.
These workers may have lived in the domestic quarters also discovered on
the site, which contained a kitchen, bowls with food, a grinding stone,
and a toilet.
A surprising feature of the neighborhood was the tavern. Benches for
guests, a zeer, an oven, and remnants of storage vessels containing food
all suggest a thriving working-class watering hole. “It’s a public
eating space dating to somewhere around 2700 BCE,” says Professor Holly
Pittman, curator of the Penn Museum’s Near East Section and the Lagash
project director. “It’s partially open air, partially kitchen area.”
To uncover the tavern, the team employed modern technologies. Using
drone imagery and magnetometry analysis (testing the magnetism of
objects under the soil), they could determine where best to dig. They
then removed the dirt in microstratigraphic layers—very thin slices with
surgical precision. Pittman described it in a statement as “like doing very careful surgery…Just 50 centimeters down, we were able to capture all of this. We were happily astounded.”
AFP notes that, in the past. looting was the biggest threat to Iraqi artifacts; however:
Now
the changing weather and its impact on the land, especially creeping
desertification, spell an additional threat to ancient sites all across
southern Iraq, according to Mansrawi.
“In the next 10 years,” he said, “it is estimated that sand could have covered 80 to 90 per cent of the archaeological sites.”
[. . .]
Compounding
its woes, Iraq is also one of the five countries most affected by some
effects of climate change, including drought, according to the United
Nations.
Upstream
dams in Turkey and Iraq have reduced the flow of its big rivers, and
more water is wasted by Iraq’s ancient irrigation system and outdated
farming practices.
Iran. I believe AFP meant "Upstream dams in Turkey and Iran have reduced the flow of its big rivers."
Iraqi historian Omar Mohammed, known for his Mosul Eye blog, now an
NGO, is known for documenting life in his city under ISIS rule.
He has started a new project, “Reviving the Jewish history of Mosul.”
Under ISIS, the tombs of the Prophets Jonah and Daniel were both destroyed, as were the local mikveh ritual bath and a couple of synagogues.
In
a recent talk that Mohammed gave to Qesher, he emphasized that what
happened to the Tomb of Jonah was not only a tragedy for the Jewish
people but for all of the people of Mosul.
“I used to hear stories
about the Prophet Jonah. The people of Nineveh were the only people who
heeded his warning,” said Mohammed.
“After
three days of studying the offer from G-d, they decided to follow G-d’s
message and received divine protection. Unfortunately, this divine
protection left us in 2014, when Mosul was overrun by ISIS, who
systematically destroyed the cultural heritage of Iraq.”
The
ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh was located in what is now the city of
Mosul in northern Iraq. Today, Nineveh is a common name for the half of
Mosul that lies on the eastern bank of the Tigris River.
Mohammed said that the Tomb of
Jonah was not presented to him as a Jewish site. “I learned everything
about Jonah except for his Jewish heritage. Later on, I went to a school
and learned that it was once the Jewish school. In 2000, it was
demolished to the ground by Saddam Hussein and then they built a new
structure.”
Mohammed first learned about the Jewish heritage of
Mosul from Iraqi Jewish historian Sami Ibrahim. Mohammed was still
living under ISIS rule when Ibrahim managed to send him a book in
digital form that really inspired him.
In anticipation of worsening dust storms, EARTH.ORG notes Iraq is talking of a tree initiative which would see the planting of five million trees:
15% of Iraq’s total surface area is currently categorised as being in a state of desertification.
The country is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change
because of its extensive oil reserves – with the fifth largest reserve
in the world at over 140 billion barrels’ supply.
Iraq’s fragile social contract under an oil-led growth model
has reportedly been a source of economic volatility and, according to
the new World Bank Group’s Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR),
the country faces the challenge of moving away from total oil
dependence towards a more sustainable future. Without the capacity to
achieve sustainable development, leaders will have to come up with
costly, extensive projects.
For decades, Iraq has suffered from summer heatwaves, frequent droughts, and desertification
triggered by intense dust storms – the duration and intensity of which
are increasing due to global warming and increased vulnerability due to
arid conditions almost all year round.
According to government figures,
more than seven million citizens have been affected by climate change,
with extreme weather events and natural disasters displacing hundreds of
thousands of people who rely on agriculture and hunting for a living.
Climate change has also impacted the physical environment in Iraq, as declining surface water reserves, recurring drought and increasing water salinity continue to contribute to large-scale desertification.
Projections of water availability in
Iraq are highly uncertain under different climate change scenarios,
which has huge implications for both human health and the natural
environment.
