Althouse: At the Mendota Café...

May 13, 2018

At the Mendota Café...

... please feel free to talk about anything.

32 comments:

YoungHegelian said...: I'm visiting my 90 year old Mammy in 'Bammy. Let me tell ya what I'm seeing.

This area is even more in-yer-face Christian than it was when I was growing up here in the 60s & 70s. No longer the fire-and-brimstone, anti-booze preachers on my youth, but still very much a "I-ma witnessin' to the power of Jesus Christ in mah life".

It's primary season & ALL the Republican candidates are running ads saying they stand with President Trump. It's all about guns, Jesus, & Trump. It's clear that, at least in the central South, the Trump coalition is actually stronger than it was in November, 2016.; 5/13/18, 9:59 PM
Andrew said...: If the FBI truly planted a spy within the Trump campaign, there should be hell to pay. The Democrats and their allies in the various state agencies are guilty of sedition. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to be a viable organization, once all the truth comes out.; 5/13/18, 10:01 PM
FIDO said...: Ms. Althouse,

Did you ban Shouting Thomas or not?

If so, what is the criteria?; 5/13/18, 10:07 PM
FIDO said...: Of course the Trump coalition is stronger.

The MSM could, semi-credibly, portray the man as a fascist, a wacko, and a person who was going to intemperately blow up the world if given the reins of power. Even moderate people like Megan McArdle made Marge Simpson noises at the idea of Trump.

Well...he hasn't been a tyrant. Not with Mueller around. He has lead the economy to record growth. He has made his enemies look like fools...but they scarcely needed the help.

So Trump today is LESS scary than before...and the Left has portrayed itself as MORE scary for their lies, distortions, and violations of the rule of law.

One of the hugest overreaches by the Left was that Gay Cake fiasco.

There are a LOT of Christian Ladies in the Black Community who do not particularly like gay men. You think they are going to pull the lever for a party who HATES their faith?

Lots of Christians in the Democratic party still. Think THEY are going to take such nonsense lying down? Probably...as in lying down and not voting for Democrats who hate their faith.; 5/13/18, 10:19 PM
JackWayne said...: I can’t see that anyone would plant a “spy” in the Trump campaign. His enemies had all the intel they could gather. Someone close to him who had influence would be good. But a minor functionary? What use would that be? If I had to guess I’d say there’s a Judas that the FBI may have tolerated and used. The Steele dossier shows they didn’t really care about the quality of some of their intel. Or the consistency of their charges. To me the whole thing looks like a hastily put together plot. The longer Mueller drags out his investigation, the more time for the plot to fall apart. They would have done better to spring the trap a year ago. Now it’s clear that some in the FBI are giving up their bosses. To me, it’s politics as usual. Sometimes it’s vicious. Sometimes it’s just hardball.; 5/13/18, 10:20 PM
Ken B said...: FIDO
An important part of the cake was that the men shopped around until they got a rejection. This is bad faith. And people saw it as bad faith.; 5/13/18, 10:36 PM
Ralph L said...: The bugging of the DNC in 1972 was totally unnecessary, too.

I bought some stuff through The Portal this morning. You're welcome.; 5/13/18, 10:37 PM
traditionalguy said...: Planting a Deep State FBI mole/spy in the Trump campaign makes perfect sense, if you are sure that HRC has the election count rigged to be a sure thing . It is the same sense that sending the 6 attack Carriers of Kido Butai into waters 200 miles north of Oahu made to the Japs.They Planned to Win. But they still planted hundreds of spies in Hawaii and the West Coast.

But neither Japan nor HRC counted on patriotic US Navy Admirals, i.e.,Nimitz and Rogers.; 5/13/18, 10:42 PM
walter said...: Blogger FIDO said...
Ms. Althouse,
Did you ban Shouting Thomas or not?
==
Why do you ask?
Seems he comes and goes..long dormant periods.; 5/13/18, 10:43 PM
walter said...: So..along the lines of the scope clarification..kinda curious if Mueller and his team of Dem lawyers get to determine how long they get to feed at the public trough.; 5/13/18, 10:46 PM
rcocean said...: "The bugging of the DNC in 1972 was totally unnecessary, too."

Yep. The Whole "They'd never do that because it was stupid" - is belied by the history of mankind.; 5/13/18, 10:46 PM
wwww said...: Happy Mother's Day to all who celebrated today. We had a good day with the usual toddler chaos. Sunshine and cake and looking at birds and ducks. We are so blessed.

Found out yesterday on Facebook that a friend from high school had lost one of her young sons in February. Not clear on cause of death.

Are your kids healthy? If so, life is good. Puts everything else in perspective.; 5/13/18, 10:51 PM
OldManRick said...: Quick thought - The Iranians have claimed that they will expose the western politicians who took bribes to okay the Iran deal if they go along with Trump's pulling out of the deal.

See https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/05/13/irans-foreign-minister-threatens-expose-western-diplomats-took-bribes-create-iran-nuclear-deal/

Doesn't this make it so we can assume, or at least suspect, that any politician who opposes Trumps action was bribed and is now being blackmailed?

This has got to be the dumbest move ever by a foreign minister. Does he even know how to game this to see possible outcomes? Any continued support by anyone for the deal is now tainted - bribed or not - because the Iranians have admitted to bribes and are threatening blackmail; if someone comes out in support of Trump's move and the Iranians claim they were bribed, they can counter claim that the Iranians are lying and trying to discredit an honest politician; if someone comes out in support of Trump's move and the Iranians don't claim they were bribed, they get to claim they are honest and maybe pressured by Obama into a deal they didn't like.; 5/13/18, 11:32 PM
langford peel said...: Shouting Thomas has a life. A good life. Music to play. Women to bang. Beer to drink. Grandchildren.

He only comes here to tweak the Professor.

Luckily unlike Chuck he does not tweak her nipples.; 5/14/18, 12:57 AM
h said...: To JackWayne and Andrew re: FBI putting a spy in the Trump campaign.

I have tended to view this along the lines of Andrew, and harking back to the Watergate period. In my opinion, the worst thing that Nixon did was to try to persuade the FBI and CIA to cover up the facts of the break-in, on the grounds that it was a national security investigation. My initial reaction was that this Obama administration effort is very similar.

And to JackWayne: I remind him that Watergate took place in the lead up to the 1972 election, which Nixon won by an enormous landslide (all states but Minnesota and DC, is that right?) So people in power do not think, "We've got this in the bag, we don't need to do anything that might be considered sketchy." They think "We've got the power and we are going to use it to drive a stake through the heart of opponents."

Very recently, I've begun to have some second thoughts about FBI investigations of political opponents being absolutely and always wrong. What is the FBI supposed to do if they get evidence that a candidate has ties to organized crime, for example? Are they required to eschew any investigation into those ties?; 5/14/18, 8:00 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Jack Wayne said...

I can’t see that anyone would plant a “spy” in the Trump campaign. His enemies had all the intel they could gather. Someone close to him who had influence would be good. But a minor functionary? What use would that be?

The idea is not that the plant would supply useful intel. The idea is that the plant would have contact with Russians, which would then allow the FBI to get a FISA warrant to get direct access to Trump campaign communications.

I'm not saying I think this is what happened, just that this is the idea behind planting a low-level spy.; 5/14/18, 8:03 AM
Tommy Duncan said...: H said: "Very recently, I've begun to have some second thoughts about FBI investigations of political opponents being absolutely and always wrong. What is the FBI supposed to do if they get evidence that a candidate has ties to organized crime, for example? Are they required to eschew any investigation into those ties?"

If Hillary Clinton is the candidate and the crimes are compromising national security and money laundering, the answer is "yes".; 5/14/18, 8:09 AM
Hagar said...: Pompeo also said that if the summit leads to successful negotiations, the outcome will spur private investment in North Korea.

Only if North Korea's borders are opened sufficiently to let such "private" investors pass in and out of the country. That may include the borders with China and Russia as well as South Korea.; 5/14/18, 8:25 AM
Hagar said...: What is the FBI supposed to do if they get evidence that a candidate has ties to organized crime, for example?

That is way different from inventing "process crimes."; 5/14/18, 8:27 AM
Jersey Fled said...: Having a really fun time watching Mueller's indictment of the Russians fall apart. Seemed to be a PR stunt in that it was unlikely that anyone would actually stand trial. But he made a mistake by indicting a corporation, Concord Management. They could, and did respond in the form of U.S. counsel. No Russians needed to appear.

They have informed the court that they will defend against the charges and will enter a not guilty plea. They have also demanded that Mueller turn over a long list of names and evidence through the discovery process. In other words, Mueller needs to drop his drawers on what he has and how he got it.

Mueller is now trying to delay, delay, delay, probably until after the mid-term elections. But the judge isn't having it. He either has to present what he's got or drop the case.

Them Rooskies sure got themselves some good lawyers.

More popcorn please.; 5/14/18, 8:35 AM
FIDO said...: Well, I think if she is banning someone.

I don't like the idea of her 'disappearing' someone ala Peru.

Most blogs actually indicate who is and is not banned.

But the other thing is SHE made his banning the subject of a vote and a public spectacle.

Are we not allowed to know the election results?

Unlike Trump, but like the current FBI, she is not accountable to FOIA requests. But I can still ask.; 5/14/18, 8:36 AM
Hagar said...: To Republicans, a crook is someone who steals money and other valuables.
To Democrats, it is any political opponent.; 5/14/18, 8:51 AM
h said...: Today's SCOTUS opinion on whether the Federal Gov't can prohibit states from authorizing and regulating sports betting is based on something called the "anticommandeering rule" (don't you love a lot of this legal shorthand?) I wonder if this expression of state authority under the 10th amendment has more far reaching implications.; 5/14/18, 9:36 AM
Ralph L said...: What is the FBI supposed to do if they get evidence that a candidate has ties to organized crime, for example?

WDHD
What did Hoover do? About JFK and Sam Giancana.; 5/14/18, 9:37 AM
Michael K said...: So people in power do not think, "We've got this in the bag, we don't need to do anything that might be considered sketchy." They think "We've got the power and we are going to use it to drive a stake through the heart of opponents."

As far as I know, there has never been any evidence that Nixon knew about Watergate before it happened.

Buchanan's book, "Nixon's White House Wars" says that Buchanan was originally asked to head "The Plumbers" and he refused.

There were too many people in that White House who had more enthusiasm than brains.

For example, the "Pentagon Papers" were all about Kennedy and Johnson. Nixon could have ignored the leak as it did not affect him.; 5/14/18, 10:56 AM
readering said...: Also Truman and Eisenhower!; 5/14/18, 6:06 PM
Narayanan said...: Was Nixon his own agent .... Or John Dean was playing him?; 5/14/18, 6:30 PM
Saint Croix said...: I wish all those feminists who worry about coerced sex would spend a smidgen of their mental energy worrying about coerced abortions.

When you think of all the stress and ugliness that leads up to an abortion…

"I am not going to marry you."

or

"That's not my baby. I don't know whose baby it is. I am not paying a dime."

or

"You are a child and you are not ready to be a mother."

or

"You're going to have to drop out of school and get a job. Maybe you can wait tables."

Or

"Are you ready to be a single mom?"

…it's frankly bizarre that feminists don't worry about any of this. How many abortions are the result of secretive, ugly, relationship-ending conversations?; 5/15/18, 4:05 AM
Saint Croix said...: I put it to you that sex is rarely coercive. Sex, after all, is orgasmic and fun. What is far more likely is that men say "I love you," when they don't really mean it. And what that means, of course, is that all the coercion and ugliness happen on the back end, when the unplanned pregnancy happens. That's when you have these ugly and brutal divorces that nobody talks about. And a baby whose life, and humanity, is denied. And people who are so traumatized by what they have done that they repress it and pretend like it never happened.

So much of human psychology is rooted in human sexuality. For instance, your relationship with your mother. To deny that you're a mother, to terminate your motherhood, to make your baby disappear, would seem to at least implicate the possibility of psychological distress. And yet we continue to pretend that pregnancy is an illness and abortion is the cure!; 5/15/18, 4:08 AM
Saint Croix said...: Why do judges wear robes?

Courts originally were ecclesiastical, part of the church's rules for how we should behave.

That's why judges wear dark robes. They are dressed like a priest. That's what they used to be. That's what they represent. The robes mean that you have studied the book(s). You can read and write. And you have read, and you have written. And, also, you might be a good man, a holy man. The robes are supposed to represent that, too. You are spiritual, you are smart, you can read, and you are speaking for God.

The jury, made up of 12 ordinary people, represent the 12 disciples of Christ. The disciples are ordinary people. You could be illiterate. You could fish for a living, fish for your dinner. It didn't matter. The important thing was that you were trying to follow Christ. And the number 12 was deemed important for that reason. It was thought that if you could get 12 people to agree on what the truth was, that maybe it was true. At least, we could have faith that it was true.

So that was the court system. You had the jury, representing the 12 disciples of Christ, not as smart as the judge, who represents a priest, or rabbi. Jesus was always getting in fights with his rabbis. Or, as smart people like to say, they were having an intellectual discourse. You might not want to start thinking of the judge as a Pharisee. Anyway, even though the judge is smarter about the law then the disciples, there's recognition (at least in Christianity) that you have to be careful with people in positions of authority who act as if they are speaking for God. So that's why the jury has the final word as to guilt or innocence.; 5/16/18, 4:55 AM
Saint Croix said...: Hugo Black, who was a great man, tried to get the Supreme Court to give up the judicial robes. He wanted to break this tradition that the judges are like priests, and they are speaking for God. That's because he had read too many screwy opinions that, in his opinion, were awful and not holy at all. He wanted them to wear suits, just like the people in Congress and the people in the White House. But he didn't get anywhere with this argument. Got no traction whatsoever. The Supreme Court loves their judicial robes, the holy mystery, the idea that they are priests who will lead us. And we're the flock and we should follow what they say.

In the 1970's we started getting states attacking the jury. Specifically, they were attacking the number 12. They wanted to make it easier to convict people who were charged with crimes. Why do we have to have 12 people agree? We want this guy to go to prison. Let's have a jury of 6. So that's what they tried to do. You can read what the Supreme Court had to say about that in Williams v. Florida.

We had occasion in Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, to review briefly the oft-told history of the development of trial by jury in criminal cases. That history revealed a long tradition attaching great importance to the concept of relying on a body of one's peers to determine guilt or innocence as a safeguard against arbitrary law enforcement. That same history, however, affords little insight into the considerations that gradually led the size of that body to be generally fixed at 12. Some have suggested that the number 12 was fixed upon simply because that was the number of the presentment jury from the hundred, from which the petit jury developed. Other, less circular but more fanciful reasons for the number 12 have been given, "but they were all brought forward after the number was fixed," and rest on little more than mystical or superstitious insights into the significance of "12." Lord Coke's explanation that the "number of twelve is much respected in holy writ, as 12 apostles, 12 stones, 12 tribes, etc.," is typical. In short, while, sometime in the 14th century, the size of the jury at common law came to be fixed generally at 12, that particular feature of the jury system appears to have been a historical accident, unrelated to the great purposes which gave rise to the jury in the first place.

So go ahead and giggle as the man dressed like a priest is writing about the "historical accident" of 12 people on the jury. Anyway, the people dressed like priests did a lot of damage to the jury on that day, as a Constitutional matter. They said you could convict people of a crime if six people agreed. And then of course Caesar wanted to reduce it to 5, and then to 4, and then 3 and then why have a jury at all? So the guys dressed like priests found out how stupid they had been.

So the new rule is, "it doesn't have to be 12 but you got to have half a dozen at least." The people who wrote that should be forced to wear judicial mini-skirts and show us their legs.; 5/16/18, 5:09 AM
Saint Croix said...: I had another post. And another one and another one!; 5/16/18, 5:14 PM