... you can keep up the conversation while Meade and I zoom across America.
(And consider shopping through The Althouse Amazon Portal... and help keep us on the road.)
March 8, 2017
At the Zabriskie Point Café...
... you can keep up the conversation while Meade and I zoom across America.
(And consider shopping through The Althouse Amazon Portal... and help keep us on the road.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
108 comments:
The light at sunrise is pretty amazing, no?
Slow down. We need you.
Peter Thiel says the tide is going out on Globalism. Germany's rule over Europe has hit the rocks of Trump's America First Red Line and sunk.
The night they again drove the old German Empire down. And the Russians and the Brits are celebrating along with The Scotsman from NYC.
Since Ann Althouse has become the newest fan of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, I thought that the professor and her blog audience would be interested in the radio interview that Andy did with Guy Gordon of WJR radio in Detroit a few hours ago. (Gordon is a good guy, and a good reporter; he was subbing today for Frank Beckmann in the 9am-Noon slot directly in front of the Rush Limbaugh Show that airs on WJR every weekday at noon.)
The link to the audio takes some effort; go to Podcasts, and then go to the Andrew McCarthy link.
http://www.wjr.com/frankbeckmann/
In this interview, McCarthy agrees that the Trump Tweet(s) about his being wiretapped is likely false, and "way overboard."
Andy McCarthy has never been much of a fan of Trump; most of you know that. After cataloguing Trump's ignorance about the details of the American conflict with terrorism, he wrote in the NR "Never Trump" issue that:
"Donald Trump does not have a clue about any of this, careening wildly from vows to stay out of the fray (leaving it in Vladimir Putin’s nefarious hands) to promises that the earth will be indiscriminately scorched. The threat against us has metastasized in our eighth year under a president who quite consciously appeases the enemy. But the remedy is not a president oblivious of the enemy."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
Gorgeous. My favorite pic from this series so far.
Not to zoom. slow down. See the country.
Even Nebraska has some great sights and sites. Sand Hills are nice too
get off the interstate. You are retired. You may only have 15 years of
good traveling left. We managed a lot between 58 and 75, but it gets harder now.
This one's kind of fun. Always liked tavern puzzles....Impossible Puzzle Solved after 10 Years.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Gunmen dressed as doctors stormed a military hospital near the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan's capital on Wednesday, killing at least 30 people and wounding more than 50.
The attack set off clashes with security forces that continued for hours, with some patients climbing out of the building and sheltering on window ledges.
From the Fauxhaus Blog:
Samuel L Jackson criticises casting of black British actors in American films
In the article, Jackson states that black British actors are “..cheaper than us, for one thing. They don’t cost as much. And they [casting agents and directors] think they’re better trained, because they’re classically trained.”
To begin, Ben Carson has made no statement on the issue of British Black actors and whether they are actually immigrants to Hollywood, so this is pretty much a 'left attacks the left' scene. It is easy to simply say "Who cares?" and move on, but there is something here, under the surface, that is worthy of exposure: is Jackson essentially saying that black British actors playing black American roles is really a kind of cultural Blackface?
Hollywood has long been enamored of the elite British actor, to mixed results: sometimes you get Laurence Olivier, sometimes you get Jude Law. But Jackson injects money into the matter: the black British actors work cheaper. Another reading of this is that black American actors are overpaid (what's in YOUR wallet?). And -- from here -- it is not a far stretch to deduce that being overpaid means you are not doing all the work expected of you: is Jackson accusing black American actors of being lazy? Even shiftless?
Jackson also brings up the issue of the black British actors being "classically trained." Indeed, it seems that many black American actors come from another school entirely: The School of Rap. Will Smith, Ice Cube, Ice-T, LL Cool J, Queen Latifah, Method Man: all begun as Rappers. Does this particular education help black American actors 'keep it real' in a way that their British counterparts cannot do? Is the British versus American black actor divide akin to the East Coast / West Coast Rap Wars of the Nineties? Would "Do The Right Thing" work if remade in London?
There is also another subtext at work here, if you look carefully: the people hiring these black British actors are typically Hollywood Moguls: WHITE Hollywood Moguls. Or --a step further -- JEWISH White Hollywood Moguls. Is Jackson saying that Jews prefer British Blacks over American Blacks, because they are less Authentic, thus less dangerous? Are Jackson's comments just a thin pretext to show that -- Capital One ads aside -- the money-grubbing Jewish businessmen don't muthafukkin' own him?
Time for a poll:
What do you think Samuel L. Jackson is REALLY saying?
1. That British Black Actors cannot portray the American Black Experience as well as American Black Actors: it IS that simple.
2. British Black Actors are a Tool of the Man, keeping Black Americans down.
3. British Black Actors are a Tool of the Jews, keeping Black Americans down.
4. I don't see why Matthew McConaughey can't play a Black American. That'd be cool. And he's American.
5. I usually don't watch movies with black actors, unless it is Denzel Washington.
6. Do American Black Actors always seem to be angry, or is that just me?
I am Laslo.
I didn't post when the SCOTUS jury case came down. It was shocking, but I can believe anything of Kennedy, including senility.
Blackmun destroyed the sanctity of life. Kennedy destroyed the sanctity of marriage. Kennedy destroyed the sanctity of juries. What's next?
It is disturbing to contemplate the results of Kennedy's latest self-indulgence. Will jury deliberations have to be transcribed or will defense attorneys just hound jurors trying to get what they want? Charming.
It would be just for the Congress to give the SCOTUS original and exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals based on Kennedy's decision. Oh yeah!
I saw "Snakes on a Plane." Jackso can sue chew some scenery, can't he?
hombre;
I share all of your concerns. The legacy of Kennedy, on the judicial takeover of the law, will be forever tainted. From Lawrence to Obergefell. Whenever I think of Kennedy, I wonder how many conservative lawyers get to meet him at professional and bar functions and have the chance to say to him calmly and conversationally that his jurisprudence on that issue has been an offense to good law and lawmaking.
On the "jury" case, we need to remember that those racial questions began pre-Kennedy, with Batson v Kentucky. I don't disagree with you; I cannot imagine siding with Kennedy in the 5-3 result. But unlike same-sex marriage -- every one of them a pure decision of Kennedy's authorship in a 5-4 result -- there are many authors, beside Kennedy, of the "racial justice" excuse to invade the space of juries.
What do you think?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/gop-plan-orders-insurers-charge-people-30-more-if-uninsured-63-days
Insurance is not something that people want - like a new car or a steak dinner - but something the prudent ones reluctantly get just in case disaster strikes. Threatening with penalties does not make acquiring insurance of whatever kind more enticing.
I think the people involved in writing the Trumpcare bills have an attitude problem that is not going to help sell these shit sandwiches.
I think what we hear so far reminds me of when my company went through a CMI and we were left with 1 2½ ton truck and 2 jeeps, the rest being redlined with some stringent remarks about being moving road hazards and endangering life and limbs of the civilian population, etc.
So we sanded them all down and repainted them, and back on the roads they went.
"Blogger ngtrains said...
Not to zoom. slow down. See the country.
Even Nebraska has some great sights and sites. Sand Hills are nice too."
Highway 2 through Nebraska is a wonder.
All those beautiful places, I wish I was in DV right now!
Black actors don't get the girl, so they clean up the action plot.
Unless it's a black girl, but then it shifts the audience model.
Looking at the photos, and I can relate to being there and thinking it's nice, but I'm happier at home thanks. If I were there I would be planning the trip home.
The desert was interesting once in 1963. Mountains were never interesting. They block the view.
Here's a place that teaches you to copy Morse code in your head.
4. I want to be able to copy in my head
I've never done it any other way. Who can write fast enough.
Threatening with penalties does not make acquiring insurance of whatever kind more enticing.
My clients sure don't want any part of the ACA. Especially since they can get their kids on the state CHIPS program.
It's a pity - ACA was supposed to be perfect for early retirees wanting to preserve assets, and artistes wanting to follow that dream! Why oh why didn't it get more support?
At the Zabriskie Point Café love is a gypsy child.
Pop quiz: how old do you think the man in the photo linked below is?
Link
Is that a groom in the lower right-hand corner?
Watching CNBC today. Caught the Spicer presser. The same Spicer that wasn't supposed to last a week in the job. Brilliant! Now watching Rep. Cummings and Welch discuss their meeting with Trump. Cummings and Welch sounding the least combative they have been in their careers. Trump was 'responsive to our concerns' on drugs, open to our ideas, etc, etc. Should be a warning to the rest of you lefties. The train is leaving the station and you can get on board or be left behind.
"Not to zoom. slow down. See the country.
Even Nebraska has some great sights and sites."
The only people who actually believe this are those who have never been to Nebraska.... or they actually live there.
Anybody besides me notice that the US economy added almost 300,000 jobs last month? Was there ever a month during Obama's tenure in office when we even added half that many? Moreover these appear to be real jobs, not the part time service sector jobs that accounted for so much of the monthly jobs totals in Obama's economy.
I also see that that the jobs numbers for January have been revised in an upwards direction. We're used to the initial jobs numbers being revised, it happened often during Obama's tenure, but this is the first time since Bush was president that I can recall them being revised upwards.
ACA was supposed to be perfect for early retirees wanting to preserve assets, and artistes wanting to follow that dream! Why oh why didn't it get more support?
Perhaps because for most of us it meant paying more -- sometimes much more -- for worse coverage than we had pre-ACA.
@Meade, @Althouse, safe trip!
First of all, this cover story that you're somewhere out in the desert when you're actually on the moon isn't fooling any of us.
Anybody besides me notice that the US economy added almost 300,000 jobs last month?
Big Mike, you will run afoul of ARM being loose with numbers that way! It was really only 298,000.
Big Mike said...
Anybody besides me notice that the US economy added almost 300,000 jobs last month? Was there ever a month during Obama's tenure in office when we even added half that many? Moreover these appear to be real jobs, not the part time service sector jobs that accounted for so much of the monthly jobs totals in Obama's economy.
I also see that that the jobs numbers for January have been revised in an upwards direction. We're used to the initial jobs numbers being revised, it happened often during Obama's tenure, but this is the first time since Bush was president that I can recall them being revised upwards.
Well, yeah; I took about 30 seconds to look up the job-growth number for Obama's last full month (December, 2016) and it was around 292,000 jobs. I did that one, because I recalled it from the news of just a few weeks ago.
Is it really sensible, to make any dramatic claims about which president (predecessor or successor) in the 90 or so days surrounding a transition, gets credit for job creation numbers? Aren't those numbers actually lagging indicators of economic conditions months earlier?
I'm just asking for reasons of good sense and clarity, not partisanship.
The CNN line today is that the Senate Investigation into campaign hacking and wire tapping, including Obama being behind tapping Trump, is all a waste of time since there is no evidence anything happened with Russians and no Media has accused Trump's campaign of having any contacts with Russian KGB/GRU agents.
I guess you cannot investigate Obama's crimes in the USA.
One possible explanation for a preference for "British" black actors -
Black people in Britain tend to be much smarter than black people in the US - unless the US blacks are actual Africans from Africa, in which case they are often very smart too.
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
A fascinating article, and it seems to pull a great deal of information I have seen independently over the years. A large number of British-Africans are really very smart, very accomplished -
=======================================================================
"This might explain why the two most elite universities, Oxford and Cambridge do not feel too pressured to take up as many black students as would be predicted by their impressive performance on the GCSEs. When pressed about this issue, the spokeswoman for Oxford admitted that there were many more blacks that academically qualify to enter their university each year than are accepted (the minimum qualification is three A’s or better on A-levels). She explained that one of the main reasons they do not accept as many blacks as would be expected is simply that they tend to apply to oversubscribed subjects (specifically, economics and management, medicine, and maths). Although this is a plausible explanation, it also highlights the difference between black American student performance (in the US) and black African performance (in the UK): can anyone imagine a similar situation happening in the US? What is the likelihood of the top universities in America turning down many black Americans who have scored among the very top high school students in the US, and then having, say, the Harvard University spokesman coming out to explain why they could only take a small portion of blacks with top SAT scores? (The reason itself is unimaginable in the US: too many blacks want to do maths!)"
=======================================================================================
It stands to reason that the African population is very diverse, like that of India, and that there are tribes and castes that are extremely different from their neighbors, such as the Nigerian Ibo or Igbo. US blacks may very well have passed through a filter in the capture-enslavement-slavery process, or who knows, and seem to have missed picking up many of the smart fraction of Africans.
Upshot - you want Ibos, Ghanaians, and DONT want Congolese or Somalis. Or Irish travellers or Gypsies.
Personally, I only knew one black family in my youth, that of the Nigerian consul to the Philippines. We knew the sons well, they were in my year at university, were in the school newspaper with us, played soccer with us, and played D&D (the very early sort), and wargames with us. Fine chaps, and no slouches in the brain department.
the daily beast said...
"So it seems clear that Paul Ryan has introduced a bill that he doesn’t want to pass.
Ryan and the House Republicans have put forward a bill that everyone has attacked from all sides, and astonishingly, they did so without laying the very basic groundwork you lay before putting something like this out there. The tip-off to me came Tuesday around noon, when Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, issued a tweet condemning the bill. If Ryan didn’t even bother to grease this with Heritage, he’s just not being serious.
maybe it’s in Ryan’s interest to introduce a bill that he knows will fail provided he can blame the right people. He knew his hard-right flank would hate this bill. So, the thinking may be, make some changes to accommodate them, knowing that those changes will make Senate passage a virtual impossibility, because Democrats will be united in opposition, and three or four Republicans may join them (Susan Collins, Dean Heller, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski). This will enable Ryan to say hey, I tried, I moved to assuage concerns on the right, but the Democrats and the soft Republicans in the Senate, and the evil “liberal” special interests like the American Medical Association, killed it.
That’s legislative logic. Losing but being able to blame somebody else? There are worse places to be.
another tip-off to me that this bill was a totally unserious play. Why does it call for ending the Medicaid subsidies in 2020—a presidential election year? Does Ryan really think that Congress is going to yank subsidies away from millions of people in a presidential election year?"
Any change results in RyanCare/TrumpCare/GOPCare, best thing to do is avoid that at all cost.
Good article by Ross Douthat, Why Republicans Can’t Do Health Care.
Do you mean to tell me, that a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress, working with leaders from interested stakeholding groups, need to negotiate seriously over many months and make lots of difficult choices, to reform the U.S. health care system?
Who knew?
I thought Donald Trump was the one, the only, man who could do it. Because he's a great negotiator. And during the campaign, he had a plan, that would be wonderful. And terrific. And we'd get a better, more simple, less costly system. And everybody would be covered, because Mr. Trump wanted everybody to be covered.
buwaya said... [hush][hide comment]
One possible explanation for a preference for "British" black actors -
Black people in Britain tend to be much smarter than black people in the US - unless the US blacks are actual Africans from Africa, in which case they are often very smart too.
Doesn't really make sense because such a small percentage of the population, black, white, asian, or other, are actors.
Also, does not require extraordinary intelligence to be an actor, as is constantly demonstrated by their comments.
Zabriskie Point was where they filmed exterior scenes for Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Now I have to see if it's available on Netflix.
Email from American Express just now: Offer- May 3, 'An Intimate Evening with Lea Michelle'. $98.
Roy Jacobsen said...
Zabriskie Point was where they filmed exterior scenes for Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Now I have to see if it's available on Netflix.
OMG what a great film. For a long time, it was my favorite sci-fi film of all time. I am so happy to learn this. Thank you so much. Have an oxygen pill on me.
Geeze, what a fabulous clusterfuck this healthcare bill is right now.
Sean Hannity's favorite person of all time next to Jesus Christ is President Donald J. Trump. Trump says that it's a good bill and has his support.
Sean Hannity's favorite hate object is Paul Ryan; Ryan says that it's a good bill and has his support.
Sean Hannity's favorite Congressman is Texas nutjob Louis Gohmert. Gohmert is now devoted to defeating the bill.
For all of his town halls and arguments and shouting matches, I don't think Hannity has ever devoted one of his programs to a serious discussion of all of the choices facing Congress with health care reform. Now, like the dog that caught the car, Hannity and Trump and Limbaugh all have to decide what sort of health care reform they want. And deliver the bad news to the regular folks who get screwed by what they decide.
@Yancy, worse yet! I've run afoul of the loathsome moby Chuck.
@Chuck, first of all neither I nor anyone else believes that you looked up anything; you were given the talking points by someone on whose behalf you are polluting this blog. Back before my career took off I was very active in local Republican politics, active enough to be a county vice-chairman of a presidential campaign, and you, Mr. "Lifelong Republican" are like no Republican I've ever met.
Secondly, no one with any training in economics -- or practical real-world experience -- thinks that the job numbers since the election are a lagging indicator. They are a forward indicator, reflecting the belief that Donald Trump is going to do what he says he's going to do, and maybe even more.
You make me proud to have voted for the man, no matter that I truly voted against Hillary Clinton more than I voted for him.
Secondly, no one with any training in economics -- or practical real-world experience -- thinks that the job numbers since the election are a lagging indicator. They are a forward indicator, reflecting the belief that Donald Trump is going to do what he says he's going to do, and maybe even more.
Okay, so the December number is of a piece with the January number; and neither one is a reflection of anything that Trump did, but rather is a reflection about general optimism in relation to the economy more generally.
Got it. I'm not going to argue with you; you may be right. But we both seem to understand that it was nothing that Trump actually did, other than win the election. And like the stock market, people tend to "buy on the rumor and sell on the news."
For what its worth the job numbers are very nice but its premature to say "Trump effect".
The expectation on every side that some great change is to be expected in mere moments is very weird. Give it six months at least.
"but rather is a reflection about general optimism in relation to the economy more generally."
True, but I think the optimism is more specific. There are particularly beaten-down areas of the economy that are feeling more optimistic.
Big Mike said...
first of all neither I nor anyone else believes that you looked up anything; you were given the talking points by someone on whose behalf you are polluting this blog.
Wouldn't it be nice if the first argument someone uses wasn't to question the motives of his fellow commenters. Address the arguments, why always attack the person?
buwaya said...
The expectation on every side that some great change is to be expected in mere moments is very weird. Give it six months at least.
This is essentially what Chuck said. Employment has traditionally been considered a lagging indicator.
"Employment has traditionally been considered a lagging indicator."
Yes. It depends though when the business climate actually shifted.
You have a pop-up in February data, but the election was almost three months earlier. That seems like a decent-ish lead time.
Still, TBD. The theory here is that the business climate change is mainly about expectations re the regulatory burden. Some work has just barely started on that, but its not exactly hit the streets yet.
Chuck: Do you mean to tell me, that a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress, working with leaders from interested stakeholding groups, need to negotiate seriously over many months and make lots of difficult choices, to reform the U.S. health care system?
Who knew?
Apparently not your heroes, the GOPe shits in Congress, who after all this time and all their blather, when the opportunity finally came for them to actually start doing something about reforming the mess, couldn't produce anything but a dog-eared copy of their donors' and lobbyists' "fix" for Obamacare.
A fix that's every bit as meaningless and useless as the Trump campaign rhetoric you're chronically incensed about.
I don't mind in the least if you criticize Trump for going along with this pile of crap. Everybody here agrees with you on that. But what's your heroes' excuse for not being ready to roll, Chuck? Dog ate their homework? These are the people you claim are the adults in the room, the indispensable professionals, remember, so why are the performing at the same level as that narcissist moron, Trump?
Because they're corrupt pieces of shit and have no interest in doing anything for the benefit of anybody but their donors (oh, excuse me, "stakeholders"). Nah, couldn't be. Because they've really been working hard on a plan for real reform, but the "base" has just been so mean and disrespectful to them that they're going to pout until they get their butts kissed some more? In the meantime they're just going to put out insulting excuses for legislation, because hey, they can hardly be expected to do their jobs under such conditions?
I thought Donald Trump was the one, the only, man who could do it. Because he's a great negotiator. And during the campaign, he had a plan, that would be wonderful. And terrific. And we'd get a better, more simple, less costly system. And everybody would be covered, because Mr. Trump wanted everybody to be covered.
I'm still waiting for Mr. "how dast you accuse me of being a true-believer and never being critical of anything 'my' side does" to name names, backed up with evidence, of all the Trump supporters here who insisted that Trump was going to magically fix our health care mess. All I remember is your boasting about how GOPe butts had to be kissed for Trump to be able to accomplish anything. Real public servants there, your heroes.
buwaya: For what its worth the job numbers are very nice but its premature to say "Trump effect".
The expectation on every side that some great change is to be expected in mere moments is very weird. Give it six months at least.
No kidding. Same with the stock market optimism. Gives me the willies.
One (of many) problems with the politicians is that the systems they oversee are too complex for they, themselves, to even direct the drafting of legislation.
Its not the people you elect that come up with these massive plans, but their staffs and especially those of their donors, which have the funds to maintain such a large collection of professionals. Which staffs no doubt overlap, or drift across the line regularly. So you will get legislation that will pass muster with that collection of grey eminences.
Complication creates corruption.
"Complication creates corruption."
Which is yet another reason why I doubt Trump will succeed. The problems he has to solve are complex beyond human understanding. And the humans that he needs to get working on solutions are themselves parts of the complex problem.
And none of that has anything to do with the abilities of Trump. He, at least, knows there is a problem, and much of its nature, which is miles ahead of most of your other leadership options. But whether ANY human being can pull it off within the constraints of the system, I doubt very much.
The system demands that the Gordian knot be teased apart string by string.
A new Genghis could just take his horde into Washington and burn it out, which would solve that set of problems anyway, but that fantasy is really the only feasible sort of approach. And its a fantasy.
Right now Chuck the bill in question is from "your people," the establishment GOP or GOPe. Yes?
So, what do you think of it?
@ARM, you first.
"The desert was interesting once in 1963. Mountains were never interesting. They block the view."
Some people like Desert, others don't. Frankly, I like Zion National park because it has trees and water. But I've never found just plain desert to be interesting.
I always found the drive from LA to Las Vegas incredibly boring. Only time I liked it was when I could drive on back road, on a warm night with the radio blasting and convertible top down. But the Freeway was always death. Crowded no matter what time of the night as the slugs in autos wound their way from LA to LV.
Bad Lieutenant said...
Right now Chuck the bill in question is from "your people," the establishment GOP or GOPe. Yes?
So, what do you think of it?
I am not entirely sure what to think of it yet. What I know for sure is that it bears no resemblance to what Trump told his supporters on the campaign trail. It doesn't cover everybody and doesn't try to. There is no more likelihood that everybody will be able to "keep their plan" and "keep their doctor" under this plan, than with Obamacare. There doesn't seem to me to be any great new bending of the age-old "cost curve."
The bill obviously goes to great pains, to minimize any losses of what effectively became quasi-entitlements under Obamacare. Congress knows how monumentally hard it is, to take away government benefits from people who depend on them.
I knew all along that this would all be excruciatingly hard. I was always laughing at Trump, because I knew that he was making simplistic nonsense out of it all. And because I knew he had no plan whatsoever.
It may be a good thing that Trump is staying out of it for now. He'd only screw it up, is my impression.
I'd pay respectful attention to the ideas of somebody like Rand Paul. There are serious people, even with disagreements and disparate viewpoints, who bear a hearing. But they would have known all along, that Trump's promise(s) to "repeal Obamacare on Day One" and to replace it with something terrific would be nothing but humbling to the candidate.
Instapundit mentions a blog post on a book, and I want to second the book recommendation.
Blog review -
https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
Book is "Days of Rage" Bryan Burrough
Available on Althouse Amazon portal, and available on Kindle
As the reviewer takes pains to point out, the violent leftist uprising of the later 20th century is, apparently deliberately, forgotten these days. It shouldn't be, there is no reason this cant happen again, and the modern patterns are even better oriented to support such a movement. The survivors of that period are heroes now, like that recently released Puero Rican terrorist who is now getting streets named after him.
As in the "Lord of the Rings" where much of the problem was that things were forgotten, that shouldn't have been. Recall that the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is Episcopalian.
Who are these Episcopalians? From that review, but its in there, deadpan, in detail, in "Days of Rage".
"That said, FALN had an amazing set-up in the hard left. Not only were they trained in bomb-making by Weather Underground, they had possibly the best Institution any radical group has ever had: the Episcopal Church.
I’m still not kidding.
...
The FALN safehouse also yielded a copy of a business letter to one Maria Cueto, of the National Commission on Hispanic Affairs. The NCHA was a charitable organization affiliated with the Episcopal Church. When the FBI started looking into it, their hair stood on end. Basically, every. single. person of interest in the FBI’s FALN investigation was, or had been, on NCHA’s board of directors.
Maria Cueto was FALN. She had used her position to put a half-dozen FALN members, including chief bombmaker Guillermo Morales, on the NCHA board. Let me emphasize how amazing this was: these were *paid positions.* Puerto Rican terrorists were being paid thousands of dollars by the Episcopal Church. Like cannibalizing and repurposing a nonprofit. It may be the greatest Institution in American radical history. FALN was literally using a charity run by the Episcopal Church as a front.
Yeah. It gets crazier.
You would think the Episcopal Church would be outraged. Horrified to be dragged into the legal proceedings. You’d be wrong. Liberal Episcopal bishops were enraged — with the FBI! Claimed govt was out to stop the church from funding progressive Hispanic groups! The institution the FALN had compromised went full-force to defend them and mobilized mainstream institutions on FALN’s behalf!
Cueto and a colleague were hauled before a grand jury. The National Council of Churches (!!!) rallied behind them even as FALN went on a new bombing campaign specifically demanding the grand juries be halted."
It may be a good thing that Trump is staying out of it for now. He'd only screw it up, is my impression.
Since I wrote those words, it is incumbent on me to add; an initiative of this magnitude requires everybody's best effort. Republicans, Democrats, insurers, providers, pharma, Congress, the White House; all of it.
Trump will obviously need to sign it, and it will effectively need him to be a leader and cheerleader and an active supporter.
But I don't think Trump knows jack shit about the details. One good thing he did was to put Dr. Tom Price in at HHS. That's a start. A start, for a two-year project.
"But I don't think Trump knows jack shit about the details"
No one person knows jack shit about the details. They can't know, it is beyond human ken.
Which is why this is so hard to fix, why this, and the cumulative everything else, is so disastrous.
Trump is a desperate gamble, the only one who will try.
" an initiative of this magnitude requires everybody's best effort. Republicans, Democrats, insurers, providers, pharma, Congress, the White House; all of it."
But they, collectively, will never ever do it. This is not a collection of well meaning, reasonable or competent people, the best analogy for the lot is a howling horde of monsters out of the "Lord of the Rings".
A rope.
Your dick.
Some pissing required.
whups, that was addressed to chuckles.
Blogger Chuck said...
I am not entirely sure what to think of it yet. What I know for sure is that it bears no resemblance to what Trump told his supporters on the campaign trail. It doesn't cover everybody and doesn't try to. There is no more likelihood that everybody will be able to "keep their plan" and "keep their doctor" under this plan, than with Obamacare. There doesn't seem to me to be any great new bending of the age-old "cost curve."
The bill obviously goes to great pains, to minimize any losses of what effectively became quasi-entitlements under Obamacare. Congress knows how monumentally hard it is, to take away government benefits from people who depend on them.
I knew all along that this would all be excruciatingly hard. I was always laughing at Trump, because I knew that he was making simplistic nonsense out of it all.
You are ducking the question. Angel-Dyne gave you Trump. The question is why after eight years do we have a plan that looks like it is designed to fail.
So, when does Pedro get back from Rio?
Ramirez gets it right.
Their numbers are legion, but I would pick Laurence Harvey over Jude Law as the most charmless English actor to ever have a substantial career in Hollywood. His lack of charm and somewhat creepy demeanor worked for him in The Manchurian Candidate. Ben Affleck had a similar dynamic in Gone Girl.
They are going to take a hit one way or the other. Either they fail to repeal Obamacare and much of the base hates them or they actually repeal it and they lose a lot of the supporters Trump recently brought to the party. Since the house members depend largely on the base to get reelected I would bet that something does ultimately get through the house. Less clear that happens in the senate where some republicans rely heavily on moderates to win state-wide elections.
The left want to destroy 90% of Americans and their health care to save 10%. Why they lie about the dire circumstances of health care. Scare mongering is their tactic.
A year ago, the R's stood in unison for repeal.
"What do you think?"
I'm an old trial lawyer. If I understand the implications (I haven't read it), I think the five have no idea what they have done. If you do, or have done trial work, I'm sure you can think of some scenarios that are simply absurd. For example, what does voir dire look like? "Are any of you now, or have you ever been, a bigot?" Of course the defense attorney needn't ask.
I expect this kind of lunacy from the four, but I really suspect Kennedy of losing it.
rhhardin:
The desert was interesting once in 1963. Mountains were never interesting. They block the view.
Sometimes I read something and it immediately strikes me, "I'm so glad I don't know this person."
buwaya:
Instapundit mentions a blog post on a book, and I want to second the book recommendation.
Blog review -
I just read the blog post and put the book on my Amazon list. I was born in '75 so I wasn't aware of much of this history (apart from disjointed fragments about the SLA, SDS, Black Panthers, etc.), especially that of the FALN.
I'm curious what Ann and some older contributors remember about that era.
https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
Privacy isn’t about something to hide, it’s about something to protect. Privacy is the right to the self. Privacy is the foundation of all other rights. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean very much if you can’t try out in a safe space among friends without the judgment of this external society what it is you actually think. Freedom of religion is the same thing.
Privacy is not intended for the majority; that’s not where it derives its value. Politicians don’t need privacy - they’re already powerful, they can already defend themselves. The majority can reshape society to their will; they don’t need it that much. But minorities, vulnerable populations, people who are a little bit different, people who are a little bit unusual, people who don’t fit in even in a small way if you disagree with the majority opinion, you are the one that privacy is for. If you argue, ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,’ that’s no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say; it’s an anti-social argument. “It doesn’t matter what happens to the rest of society, it doesn’t matter what happens to my rights because I’m ok right now: I’m not different, I’m not interesting, and I don’t need to be. I’ll adapt to whatever the rest of the world wants." What you’re saying is “I don’t want freedom; I don’t want liberty. I just want to be.” And while you might agree with that, I think we can be better. I think we can do more, and I think we should….I think the rights we inherited are a blessing, something we should protect and defend and ensure that not just this generation but every other generation enjoys, that and more.
The Answer, Buckley-style winning, is so easy.
Why to those make it hard?
I guess I am gonna make money off of it...
I'm sorry to say it will, necesarilly, habve to be your cashy.
This one time though, only, you see.
One time.
they actually repeal it and they lose a lot of the supporters Trump recently brought to the party.
Your ignorance of economics and, especially, health care economics is no surprise.
I suppose you think an "insurance" plan that costs 1$1500 a month and has a $7,000 deductible is of value.
The only people who are interested in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients and illegals, neither of which votes R.
Michael K said...
The only people who are interested in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients and illegals, neither of which votes R.
Well then, Mr Economic Genius, why didn't they just dump them all?
Derp derp derp Reagan/Buckley victories don't count for nuttin' cause they wasn't forever and junk.
Forever and junk is the goal with these Vanderluens and ZX gueys and Fucking Protiem Wisdom too.
For fucking eve or your dumb cunted and Buckley ruined it all, everything was fucking Utopia till Buckley and those of use who respected his words.
Buckley is the fucking problem, is the answer to a question never asked within reason's bounds.
Plaster head,
You are dumb beyond belief.
"Some people like Desert, others don't."
There are deserts and deserts. I didn't like deserts until I got some time in Tucson and the Sonoran Desert.
I love the Sonoran Desert with the saguaro cactus and think it is beautiful.
Our street is even pretty. If you like that sort of thing.
Are you black?
If known we that Jew Salk didn't prevent that one disease and junk, then those people that lived from the vaccine that killed or made a mistake at some point, ANY POINT WILL DO, well then, fuck that vaccine and that person that thought our God had given them any leeway to create such a thing.
RESULTS HAVE OR WILL CONFORM TO WHAT I DIGNIFY AS JEW WORTHY.
Red hair has its benefits.
FYI my murder would be the most glorious confirmation of my Catholic Confirmation imaginable, and us, we, Catholics can imagine one Hell of a lot.
America is up against the late-night Air America Colbert propaganda contingent, the whole (hole) of lair-wood, and the hack press-- scare-mongering, and lying.
The GOP want to kill everyone and throw grandma over a cliff! Same tired crap.
Unraveling the lies and corruption... Listen to Rand.
Repeal it. Let the free market in.
Another Soros bitch.
Tim in Vermont 7:34 - LOL!
Think of all the pro-semitism that was forgone in order to (engage in; to commit; focus to the exclusion of all else) Jon Ericson on this blog.
Jon, you had best make much mega amends moreso than you've considered...
Oh and, also, 10" with Viagra.
Lil' Joh.
Yancey, I didn't see anyone answer your age question. It appears to me that this gentleman is a refugee who is either being identified or is trying to claim he is 17, right?
I read the Days of Rage review that buwaya mentions above. It's linked to at Instapundit. It's quite long but a good read........The author does a good job of recapitulating the events of the 70's, some of which I remember but others of which had gone down the memory hole. He makes a good point about how the white radicals ended up with cushy jobs, and the black radicals ended up dead......Towards the end the author makes some dire predictions which I don't buy. The radicals, it should be remembered, lost in the seventies. They'll do even worse this time around. I think ISIS and Al Qaeda have given terror tactics a bad name. Back in the seventies, there was a kind of Robin Hood vibe to their misdeeds. The propaganda of the deed, as anarchists used to say. Nowadays, bomb makers are not looked upon as outlaws but as scumbags......There's a revolutionary class in America. There always is. They have their enablers. They always do. But the waves they make are mostly restricted to the kiddie pool.
Jews did a lot of good yesterday, but anti-semites like Jon focus on things I haven't done instead, therefore perpetuating, for now and all time, Jew hate.
I FOR ONE STAND AGAINST JON AND HIS HATE AND JEW HATE AND ALL HATE!!!!
Well yeah, like, with hindsight it's super easy to see.
Ya know, like that guy that only worked 72 hours a week to put 5 kids through school cause he was like a loser and junk, he said Joel Stein wasn't anti-Jew just cause of that L.A. Times' article detailing all the power in Hollywood and Media and Big Banks Jews have, but like that just shows Jews don't have any power, of course.
Fact is, I can understand how any poverty-stricken cattle, such as I identify myself as given DMT, can submit 100% to Jewish wit and wisdom as reasons to self-extinct anything I might be able to possibly identify as.
That doesn't make me anything but sanely reasonable, and OMG OMG OMG acceptable by Jews with money and power and nothing to do with any religion, especially Judaism.
I wanted to talk about hockey tonight, the sound of the skates on perfected ice at the Pepsi Center.
Yet this snake-pit of hatred has dealt me hands of ignominy, hatred, and extreme animosity my looking away from has failed at.
Fair enough.
I accept everything I have coming, which is one Hell of a little.
"I love the Sonoran Desert with the saguaro cactus and think it is beautiful."
That does look nice, although you have trees and it looks like grass too.
I suppose you think an "insurance" plan that costs 1$1500 a month and has a $7,000 deductible is of value.
A friend and I were trying to explain to someone that if you were going to make a poor person have a deductible of $10,000, you might as well make it $1,000,000 because there was no way the person could ever pay it. "What are you talking about? Anyone can come up with $10,000 if they have to." Ha ha ha ha ha.
HT said...
Privacy isn’t about something to hide, it’s about something to protect. Privacy is the right to the self.
...more mush from some wimp...
HT, your longposting/overquoting of better men's screeds would go over better if you attributed, let alone linked to, the work.
In other words, as Obama said, you didn't write that.
ARM,
Well then, Mr Economic Genius, why didn't they just dump them all?
3/8/17, 7:50 PM
Next time in English? Or, as Bugs Bunny said, Pronoun trouble.
These are the actual numbers for deductibles. 34% pay no deductible, 53% have a deductible of less than $500. People with higher deductibles have higher incomes and can, in principle, afford the higher deductibles. Under the AHCA all of these numbers will rise.
JIM GERAGHTY said ...
"A lot of conservatives want to get rid of the Medicaid expansion enacted under Obamacare. If you’re in a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid, then to be covered you have to be at or under the poverty level. For a family of four, that’s $24,300 or less. If you’re in a state that did expand Medicaid, you qualify if your family of four gets by on $33,534 or less. Right now, 10 million to 11 million people are covered under Medicaid who wouldn’t be covered under the old rules. I’d bet a healthy chunk of those folks voted for Trump.
Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have stated that any replacement legislation must meet a “test of stability for individuals currently enrolled in the program” – in other words, you can’t just yank Medicaid away from these people without some sort of comparable replacement."
These are the actual numbers for deductibles.
No, those are averages.
People with higher deductibles have higher incomes and can, in principle, afford the higher deductibles.
The problem lies in the phrase, "in principle." People with small businesses get killed by this scheme. There are also a number of people who qualify for cost assistance but see that as going on the dole and will not use it.
Freeman Hunt said...
No, those are averages.
Averages are still numbers.
The problem lies in the phrase, "in principle."
As was recently pointed out by Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) they may have to give up their iphones or, when the AHCA becomes law, food and housing. No one is arguing that the ACA provided cost free coverage.
Trump's fired national security adviser Michael Flynn admits Turkish-linked firm paid him $530,000 to lobby before the election.
Averages are still numbers.
????
Here are some more: 76.2, 847436, 1/2
No one is arguing that the ACA provided cost free coverage.
No, they're arguing that it made their premiums skyrocket, and they can no longer afford insurance. Your flippant attitude about people who do not have several hundred extra dollars every month to buy the same product they used to buy at a lower price is duly noted.
This doesn't even get into the declining quality of much of the insurance being offered. I have friends who get insurance through their employers who complain that their insurance gets more restrictive every year. Fewer doctors, fewer pharmacies. One now has insurance that requires the use of a pharmacy that has no locations here, so every prescription requires a phone call to the insurance company to get the pharmacy requirement waived.
Freeman Hunt said...
Your flippant attitude about people who do not have several hundred extra dollars every month to buy the same product they used to buy at a lower price is duly noted.
I found Chaffetz statement disgraceful. Maybe you should denounce that, since he has some actual power to improve things. I don't have a flippant attitude, I favor better health insurance coverage.
I have friends who get insurance through their employers who complain that their insurance gets more restrictive every year. Fewer doctors, fewer pharmacies.
This has nothing to do with Obamacare. This trend will continue under GOPcare. Health care costs outpace inflation, everyone knows this is the problem but the GOP weasels tried to blame the ACA. Now they are stuck with exactly the same problem and have exactly no clue what to do.
Now they are stuck with exactly the same problem ...
That is because they are going at it with the same mindset and in the same way.
AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
The only people who are interested in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients and illegals, neither of which votes R.
"Well then, Mr Economic Genius, why didn't they just dump them all?"
I got a better question.
Why did you promote this foray into fascism? It is, at it's core, unsustainable so there is no economic reason.
Hagar said...
That is because they are going at it with the same mindset and in the same way.
It is GOPcare now. All complaints should be directed to the appropriate authorities.
“We know Obamacare's a mess, fewer choices, higher premiums and higher deductibles, it’s a complete disaster,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, before MSNBC’s Ali Velshi interrupted him
"I hear this talking point all the time," Velshi said. "There have always been higher premiums. Higher premiums every year, and under Obamacare the premium increase has been lower.”
“No one is arguing that health care was wonderful before," Jordan responded. "But what we’ve forgotten in America is what a health care market looks like. So think about what Obamacare did: More mandates, more taxes, more regulations, drive up the cost of insurance, mandate people buy it and if they don't, they get penalized. What kind of deal is that? Let’s bring back affordable insurance for working class families."
“There was never affordable insurance,” Velshi said, stopping Jordan again. “Nowhere on the face of the Earth is there a free health insurance market that works. If you could point me to one and say that a free market works – it’s just one of those areas that a free market doesn't work."
If you don't believe this then you should hold the GOP's feet to the fire, repeal only.
You want a National Health Service, then prepare a National Health Service bill and pass it.
Ann's photos look like how the Earth would be without life. Lots of erosion.
"If you don't believe this then you should hold the GOP's feet to the fire, repeal only."
Yes. Thank you.
A friend and I climbed Manley Beacon (the near high point in photo) on Thanksgiving night in the early 80s. It was a bright moon and there were warning signs about cougars who had come down to find water in a drought year. We could hear a cat cry at certain times but never saw it.
A magical night.
Post a Comment