Closing Thought–16Jun20

The big news out of the Middle East was that Khasoggi’s sons pardoned his alleged murderers (wonder what that cost the Kingdom’s MbS?)…then his, Khasoggi, fiancee did not do the same…she is still pissed.

That was the BIG news from the region for the MSM….but I think this should have been the focus of reports…..

Saudi Arabia is pushing ahead to complete its first nuclear reactor, according to satellite images that have raised concern among arms-control experts because the kingdom has yet to implement international monitoring rules.

Satellite photos show the kingdom has built a roof over the facility before putting in place International Atomic Energy Agency regulations that allow inspectors early verification of the reactor’s design. Foregoing on-the-ground monitoring until after the research reactor is completed would be an unusual move normally discouraged under regulations to ensure civilian atomic programs aren’t used to make weapons.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-21/saudi-atomic-reactor-progresses-with-inspectors-still-frozen-out

This is not a good idea people.

We are talking about the homeland of the ideology and theology of terror groups like AQ and ISIS and Boko Haram……how long before these groups get their hands on material for a dirty bomb?

It is silly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear power but allow a barbarous nation like KSA to acquire.

Plus they are not allowing the IAEA in to inspect….at least Iran was allowing them in (most times)…..

This is not going to end well for someone.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Would You Or Not?

With the protests waging around the nation there is one simple question …Would you join it or not? chuq

Gulf South Free Press

Inkwell Institute

Civil Disobedience Series #1

The question was asked…..would you stand up to an oppressive regime or would you conform?

A great question for anyone who thinks to try and answer….and answer honestly.

Let me give my answer up front…..I have been rebelling since 1970….so my answer is I would step up and do what I feel is in the best interests of the American people.

To answer the question a piece that was written recently…..

To answer this question, let’s start by considering a now classic analysis by American organisational theorist James March and Norwegian political scientist Johan Olsen from 2004.

They argued that human behaviour is governed by two complementary, and very different, “logics”. According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is…

View original post 414 more words

Protests That Changed History

The nation and indeed the world is in flux….it is in the midst of protests…..how about a short history lesson?

Stop fretting!

It is never too late to learn.

What were the protests that actually change the course of history?

Political protests have a rich past, with varied degrees of success in accomplishing what they originally set out to do.

The following historically significant political protests include a decisive event in the Civil Rights movement, two history-changing moments that occurred within one year and the medieval defiance of one man. We added to the list some recent protests that could change history, including the George Floyd protests against police brutality and systemic racism, and the Women’s March on Washington.

https://www.livescience.com/16153-10-significant-political-protests.html

But here in the US there is more than 1968 to use for a comparison….

When protests kicked off throughout the nation a week and a half ago, commentators turned to history to make sense of events. One year dominated the conversation: 1968. Racial tensions, clashes between police and protesters, a general sense of chaos — 1968 and 2020 seemed to have a lot in common. Observers wrote about how Trump’s use of “law and order” rhetoric echoed Richard Nixon and George Wallace in 1968. The comparison makes broader sense, too: 1968 was a destabilizing year in American politics, marked by Civil Rights protests, uprisings born out of racist oppression, assassinations, violence at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (classified later as a “police riot”) and protests against the Vietnam War. Racial tensions and inequality were at the center of the instability that year, with the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. sparking uprisings in cities across the country.

But 1968 isn’t the only chapter in American history that’s relevant to the current crisis. America has a long history of racial injustice, which makes it difficult to isolate any one precedent for the current environment. History has a way of building on itself; the injustices of one generation are passed on to the next, even as incremental progress is made. This is why I want to share with you three other episodes that also help contextualize the moment we’re in now. They, like 1968 and the broader Civil Rights movement, highlight the depths of violence and injustice that black Americans have faced, and explain why everyday political processes have failed to bring about lasting systemic change.

1968 Isn’t The Only Parallel For This Political Moment

Anything you would like to add?

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The “Zone”

This would make a good name for some expensive SciFi movie…..but in this case I am referring to the area of Seattle that has the social media jumping and blogs being crammed full of opinions and accusation…..

Most of which was fired by the reports on FOX News…..like these reports…..

On Fox News, host Tucker Carlson called it “chaos and craziness.” Laura Ingraham said it was “a Marxist cultural revolution” intended to “destroy everything that came before it.” In a tweet, President Donald Trump said it was being run by “Domestic Terrorists.”

These people are not describing a foreign war zone or a fallen city. They are describing the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, a roughly six-block area of Seattle taken over by protesters this week and declared a sovereign territory. Since the zone was established Monday, the internet has been filled with rumors about what it looks like and how it works. Fox News posted a photo of an armed guard at the entrance to the zone and said residents were being forced to show their IDs to get inside. Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best claimed that protesters were shaking down businesses for protection money. Something something Antifa something, cried various online pundits.

All of these rumors are false, and all of these people are lying to you. I live less than a mile from the autonomous zone. I have been there every day this week, in daylight and in darkness, speaking with protesters, meeting with friends, seeing movies and eating pizza.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-news-is-lying-about-seattles-autonomous-zone_n_5ee411bfc5b6426173ae6a3d

I know that those that believe every word from FOX News will not accept that it is a lie unless they hear if from FOX……and now they have!

Fox News has removed doctored images of Seattle’s protest zone that made it look more like a war zone, the New York Times reports. One image, of a man armed with a rifle in front of a shattered storefront, was really two spliced together—of broken windows in downtown Seattle on May 30 and a gunman at the so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone on June 10. The Seattle Times, which broke the story, spotted another pic showing the gunman spliced with an image of a sign reading “You are now entering Free Cap Hill.” A third photo, of fiery protests in St. Paul, Minn., accompanied the Fox News headline “Crazy Town: Seattle helpless as armed guards patrol anarchists’ ‘autonomous zone,’ shake down businesses: cops.”

A Fox News rep responded by saying that “we have replaced our photo illustration with the clearly delineated images of a gunman and a shattered storefront, both of which were taken this week in Seattle’s autonomous zone”—which the Seattle Times calls “inaccurate” because the photos were taken over 10 days apart. On Saturday Fox News posted a statement saying its “collage did not clearly delineate between these images, and has since been replaced.” President Trump has railed against the protest zone, tweeting that “Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle” and urging people to “take back your city NOW.” The Seattle Times describes the area as a “mostly peaceful” place where people gather for music, food, and documentary films.

Even with the admission of a lie and I bet there will be those that will ignore this and continue to regurgitate the lies.

We will see…..we will see…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS News

From time to time SCOTUS does make the news….the nightly news that is and this session has made the news on two fronts…..the news is both good and bad…..

The Good…….

There is no guarantee that conserv judges will vote conservatively…..

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a major victory to supporters of gay rights, reports the AP. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices decided that Title VII, a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects LGBTQ workers from being fired because of their sexual orientation. Coverage:

  • The law: Title VII bars discrimination at work based on “sex” and other factors, and for the last 50 years or so, “sex” has gotten a narrow definition—basically that women and men can’t be treated differently at work, per the Washington Post. Monday’s ruling expands that definition to the LGBT community.
  • The ruling: “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
  • The surprise: Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, who usually side with the court’s conservative majority, instead joined the court’s four more liberal members, notes Politico.
  • The legal question: “The decisions in this case highlight a tension with textualism,” writes Jonathan Adler at Reason. That is, in regard to the 1964 law, “do we focus on the discrete meaning of the words, or do we focus on the words as they would have been understood and applied at the time they were adopted.” He adds that law schools will be poring over the opinions in the coming year.
  • Gorsuch’s view: His ruling acknowledges that Congress surely didn’t intend to protect LGBT workers when it passed the legislation, but he said that’s irrelevant. “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” he wrote. “Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.”
  • Dissent: Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas, says the court went too far. “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” the dissent begins. “The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”
  • The cases: The ruling centers on multiple cases, and the New York Times has the details. They included a pair of lawsuits by gay men who say they were fired because of their sexual orientation, and another from a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, who says she got fired when she announced she would start embracing her female identity at work. Stephens died last month.

And now the Bad….and it is taken from the headlines of today……

The Supreme Court is for now declining to get involved in an ongoing debate by citizens and in Congress over policing, rejecting cases Monday that would have allowed the justices to revisit when police can be held financially responsible for wrongdoing, per the AP. With protests over racism and police brutality continuing nationwide, the justices turned away more than half a dozen cases involving the legal doctrine known as qualified immunity, which the high court created more than 50 years ago. It shields officials, including police, from lawsuits for money as a result of things they do in the course of their job. As is usual, the court didn’t comment in turning away the cases, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-page dissent saying he would have agreed to hear one of the cases.

“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” he wrote, explaining he believes the court’s “qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text.” As a result of qualified immunity, even when a court finds that an official or officer has violated someone’s constitutional rights, they can still be protected from civil lawsuits seeking money. The Supreme Court has said that qualified immunity protects officials as long as their actions don’t violate clearly established law or constitutional rights which they should have known about. The push for the court to reexamine qualified immunity has come both from the left and right, including Thomas, a conservative, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal.

Here was a chance to make a difference…..but I am sure that the issue is not dead.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”