HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Celerity » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 122 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: London
Home country: USA/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 13,643

Journal Archives

NYT : Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden

The report delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.


WASHINGTON — An election-year investigation by Senate Republicans into corruption allegations against Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter, involving Ukraine found no evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing by the former vice president, closing out an inquiry its leaders had hoped would tarnish the Democratic presidential nominee.

The investigation found that Hunter Biden had “cashed in” on his father’s name to close lucrative business deals around the world. It also concluded that his work for Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company then mired in a corruption scandal, while the former vice president was directing American policy toward Kyiv had given the appearance of a conflict of interest and alarmed some State Department officials.

But an 87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

Read the report on Hunter Biden and Burisma from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Finance Committee.

The homeland security panel’s Republican chairman, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had made little secret of his political ambitions for his report, boasting for weeks that his findings would demonstrate Mr. Biden’s “unfitness for office.” Instead, the result delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing six weeks before Election Day of unproven allegations that echo an active Russian disinformation campaign and have been pushed by Mr. Trump.


Trump just said he may override the FDA on vaccine approval


England And Wales Want to Make Misogyny A Hate Crime


The Law Commission, an independent body that recommends legal changes in England and Wales, is recommending that misogyny be made a hate crime. Currently, hate crime legislation in the countries cover “protected characteristics” including race, religion, transgender identity, sexual orientation, and disability—the new recommendation would extend that list of protected characteristics to also include sex or gender. After reviewing the current hate crime laws, the commission said that the majority of evidence it had seen about gender-based crimes was related to misogyny, but that they would consult further on whether “sex or gender” as a protected category would cover both men and women, or just women.

The Guardian reports that this recommendation is just one part of a broader push for misogyny to be classified as a hate crime, with an emphasis on recognizing street harassment experienced by women. And this push has already begun to influence policy and practices on a local level—a pilot program in Nottinghamshire which treated public harassment of women as a gender-based hate crime found that the majority of the people interviewed wanted the policy to continue.

Professor Penney Lewis, the criminal law commissioner, said this about the recommendation:


Justified killing, no charges against anyone for Taylor's murder, plus, they will not release the

racial and gender makeup of the grand jury, who apparently only took a few hours to reach their decisions. All the witnesses except one said no knock, no announce, but they went with the one who said they did, not the 15 or so who said they did not knock or announce.

Bad, bad, bad

Banning Abortion Is Just The Beginning For The Right

Trump and McConnell's plan to ram a far right Supreme Court Justice through weeks before the election will have unfathomably grave consequences for America.


With a 6-3 majority and 4 more years of Trump, America will look at the banning of abortion not as the culmination of a long-held right-wing fantasy but the beginning of the descent into a true police state. Far too many people, including older people who do not have the excuse of being born decades after Roe v. Wade was decided, do not seem to understand how deeply the right-wing hates the concept of individual freedom. They think their opposition to abortion is just about hurting women or as a useful culture war tool. It is so much worse than that.

Attacking Reproductive Rights Is Easy

The reason there is so much focus on abortion is because women are an easy target in America. It’s a given that we are a deeply racist country. We wallow in it like a pig in filth and refuse to confront our racist past lest we upset the millions of hardcore bigots who both venerate that racism and pretend it doesn’t exist in the same breath. But aside from the racism deep in our national DNA, we are also a seriously misogynistic country. We may no longer treat women like property the way they do in fundamentalist Islamic countries, but we’re not so many decades away from when we did. We did not allow women to own a credit card until the 1970s unless her husband signed off on it. We’re just 100 years out from women gaining the right to vote. Starting in 1907, we sterilized tens of thousands of women (but far less men) against their will; a practice we’ve started again in Trump’s concentration camps.

Today, dress codes in schools almost exclusively apply to girls. Women are regularly misdiagnosed by doctors because they are not taken seriously when they complain of symptoms. The overwhelming majority of rapists go unpunished, even after #MeToo. Thus, it should come as no surprise that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of laws regulating women’s bodies. And where there are no laws, there’s this: People who want their tubes tied (formally known as tubal ligation) can be denied the procedure for a multitude of reasons at various stages of their lives: because they’re too young, childless, only have one child, are not married, are married to someone with a risky job—the list goes on. Try getting a law passed in, say, Kansas to stop doctors from telling women they can’t get their tubes tied and they’ll laugh you out of the legislative chamber. Mind you, no babies are being harmed but the very idea of allowing women the freedom to make their own decisions is borderline insane to conservatives. But people are fooling themselves if they think the right will stop once they’ve turned women into broodmares. The real prize is the right to privacy.

Griswold v. Connecticut

If you don’t know Griswold, you had best familiarize yourself with it and fast. While Roe is the decision that allows women to have an abortion, Griswold is the decision from eight years prior that allows women, including married women, to have any kind of reproductive rights at all. Before Griswold, it was 100% legal and constitutional to ban contraceptives. Not just birth control pills but every kind of contraceptive. Without this one decision, there would be legal IUDs, no spermicidal jellies, no diaphragms, no condoms, no pills, nothing. About ten seconds after the Republican extremists on the Supreme Court do away with Roe, Republicans in deep red states will be going after Griswold. This is not conjecture. Rick Santorum was openly discussing this during his 2012 presidential run and no one on the right blinked an eye. They didn’t see anything wrong with calling for the overturning of Griswold which would lead to the banning of all contraceptives.


Germany begins trial for universal basic income

Germany will provide the citizens a monthly stipend of €1,200, or about $1,430, which is just above the country's poverty level.


With the social and financial damage COVID-19 has done to worldwide economies, Germany will experiment with universal basic income over a three year period with 120 volunteers. The experiment will be conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research and funded by 140,000 individuals’ private donations. Germany will provide the citizens a monthly stipend of €1,200, or about $1,430, which is just above the country’s poverty level. These citizens will be compared to 1,380 other German citizens not receiving universal basic income (UBI).

According to Business Insider, BUI is “the idea that a government should pay a lump sum of money to each of its citizens, usually once a month, regardless of their income or employment status, effectively replacing means-tested benefits.” Supporters of UBI said this experiment is needed for financial security especially among the marginally poor as it will help with unemployment, hunger and other financial and emotional distresses.

Andrew Yang, the former Democratic presidential candidate hopeful for 2020, said “universal basic income is needed in order to prevent a worsening of the humanitarian and financial crisis the country is facing right now,” True Activist reported. But critics of BUI call it a “neoliberal trojan horse” and said the idea is too expensive and will deter citizens from wanting to work. Jürgen Schupp, who is leading the study, told a German newspaper “that it would improve the debate about universal basic income by producing new scientific evidence,” Business Insider reported.

“It is — on both sides — shaped by clichés: Opponents claim that with a basic income people would stop working in order to dull on the couch with fast food and streaming services,” Schupp said. “Proponents argue that people will continue to do fulfilling work, become more creative and charitable, and save democracy. We can improve this if we replace these stereotypes with empirically proven knowledge and can therefore lead a more appropriate debate.”


Social democracy in one corner of the world

Branko Milanovic argues that ‘stop the world, we want to get off’ is no basis for a revival of progressive politics.


Caught between relentless Trumpian protectionism and xenophobia, on the one hand, and the neoliberal coalition of sexual liberators and money bagmen on the other, the left in rich countries seems bereft of new ideas. And worse than lacking new ideas is trying to restore a world gone by, which goes against the grain of modern life and the modern economy. Yet this is an exercise in which some parts of the left are engaged. I have in mind several essays in The Great Regression, a book I reviewed here, a recent piece by Chantal Mouffe and, perhaps most overtly, Paul Collier’s The Future of Capitalism (reviewed here and here). Dani Rodrik provided early ideological ammunition for this point of view with his celebrated ‘trilemma’. It is also the context within which my Capitalism, Alone was recently reviewed by Robert Kuttner in the New York Review of Books. This project aims to recreate the conditions of around 1950 to 1980, which was indeed the period of social-democratic flourishing. Although many people tend to present the period in excessively bright hues, there is no doubt it was in many respects an extraordinarily successful period for the west: economic growth was high, western nations’ incomes were converging, inequality was relatively low, inter-class mobility was higher than today, social mores were becoming more relaxed and egalitarian and the western working class was richer than three-quarters of humankind (and could feel, as Collier writes, proud and superior to the rest of the world). There is much to be nostalgic about.

Special conditions

But that success occurred under very special conditions, none of which can be recreated. What were they? First, a very large portion of the global workforce was not competing with workers of the first world. Socialist economies, China and India all followed autarkic policies, by design or historical accident. Secondly, capital did not move much. There were not only capital restrictions but foreign investments were often the target of nationalisation and even the technical means to move large amounts of money seamlessly did not exist. Thirdly, migration was limited and when it occurred happened among culturally similar peoples (such as southern-European migration to Germany) and thanks to rising demand for workers pulled by growing domestic economies. Fourthly, the strength of domestic socialist and communist parties, combined with trade unions and the Soviet threat (especially in Europe), kept capitalists on their toes: out of self-preservation they were careful not to push workers and unions too much. Fifthly, the social-democratic ethos of equality was in sync with the dominant mores of the times, reflected in sexual liberation, gender equality and reduced discrimination. Within such a benign internal environment, and not facing any pressure from poorly-paid foreign workers, social democrats could continue to be internationalists, as reflected most famously by figures such as Olof Palme in Sweden and Willy Brandt in West Germany.

Drastic changes

Under the entirely different social and economic conditions of today, any attempt to recreate such a benign domestic environment would involve drastic and indeed reactionary changes. Without saying it openly, its proponents call for social democracy in one country—or, more exactly, in one (rich) corner of the world. Collier advocates the walling-in of the rich world to stop migration that is seen as culturally disruptive and unfairly undercutting domestic labour. Such policies, most notably followed by social democrats in Denmark, are justified by Collier out of concern for less-developed countries, lest the outflow of their most skilled and ambitious workers push them further into poverty. It is clear however that the real motives for such policies are to be found elsewhere. Others would protect the west from the competition of China, arguing, again disingenuously, that western workers cannot compete with less well-paid workers subjected to harsh shopfloor discipline and lacking independent trade unions. As with policies that would stop migration, the justification for protectionism is camouflaged in the language of concern for others. Within this perspective, domestic capital should be made to stay mostly at home by promoting a much more ‘shallow’ globalisation than exists today. Ethical western companies should not hire people in (say) Myanmar who do not enjoy elementary workers’ rights.

Great Unwashed

In all cases, such policies aim to interrupt the free flow of trade, people and capital, and to fence off the rich world from the Great Unwashed. They have close to zero chance of success, simply because the technological advances of globalisation cannot be undone: China and India cannot be pushed back into economic isolation and people around the world, wherever they are, want to improve their economic position by migrating to richer countries. Such policies would moreover represent a structural break with the internationalism that was always one of the signal achievements of the left (even if often honoured in the breach). They would slow down the growth of poor countries and global convergence, would arrest the reduction in global inequality and poverty, and would ultimately prove counter-productive for the rich countries themselves. Dreams of a restored world are quite common, and we are often (especially at an older age) wont to indulge in them. But one should learn to distinguish between dreams and reality. To be successful in real time, under current conditions, the left needs to offer a programme that combines its erstwhile internationalism and cosmopolitanism with strong domestic redistribution. It has to support globalisation, try to limit its nefarious effects and harness its undoubted potential eventually to equalise incomes across the globe. As Adam Smith wrote more than two centuries ago, the equalisation of economic conditions and military power across the world is also a precondition for the establishment of universal peace.


Kingston's Good Ghost



Here are all the women on Trump's list for possible SCOTUS nominees

Bold are the ones I think most likely to be picked


United States courts of appeals

Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
Allison Jones Rushing (born 1982) (appointed by Trump) <<<< 3rd most likely

Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Joan Larsen (born 1968)

Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Amy Coney Barrett† (born 1972) (appointed by Trump) <<<<< my best guess who it will be
Diane Sykes (born 1957)

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Bridget Shelton Bade (born 1965) (appointed by Trump)

Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Allison Eid (born 1965) (appointed by Trump)

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
Britt Grant (born 1978) (appointed by Trump)
Barbara Lagoa (born 1967)(appointed by Trump) <<<< Cuban-American from Florida, my 2nd most likely, would be a pure political pick

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Meg Ryan (born 1964)

United States district courts

Martha M. Pacold (born 1979) – district judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (appointed by Trump)

Sarah Pitlyk (born 1977) – district judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (appointed by Trump)

Executive branch

Kate Comerford Todd – Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President

This Trump supporter in Florida just hit a 13-year-old girl in the face & chest with a flagpole.

He assaulted this young lady for yelling "Biden 2020" out her window. MAGA I suppose...


"A Clay County man, Norbert Logsdon, is facing a felony child abuse charge, accused of hitting a 13-year-old girl in the face with a flagpole during a political demonstration."


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 122 Next »