Monday, November 4, 2019
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
The Census Is Not Just About Numbers, It’s About Empowerment | The Nation
The Census Is Not Just About Numbers, It’s About Empowerment | The Nation: It is one of the deepest commitments of our Constitution and a radical tool for democratizing America.
John Nichols writes in The Nation:
"When President Trump and his minions attack the Census, they are messing with the US Constitution and the better angels of the American experiment. This is no small matter. And this is no small fight. Progressives should understand it as such and respond accordingly—not merely with a strong defense but with an even stronger offense.
"It is not enough to leave this one to the courts or the Census Bureau. ...
"The advocates for a full and fair count must be prepared to defend the ground that has been gained. Congressman Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, offers wise counsel when he says that 'right-wing attacks on democracy never sleep, so we must all remain vigilant.' ...
"From the start of what has now become his permanent campaign, Trump has imagined presidential powers that do not exist. And he has invited Americans to do the same, exploiting the fact that a lot of what people think is in the Constitution is not there.
"The founding document did not mention democracy, and it certainly did not outline universal voting rights. It did not propose political parties, primary elections or—and this may surprise Mr. Trump—the monarchical flight of fantasy that is 'executive privilege.' But it did mention the Census. Right up at the top, in Article 1, Section 2, the document requires that an 'enumeration shall be made' within successive terms of 10 years. Practically, what that means is that since 1790 the federal government has organized a decennial counting of the people.
"The point of this enumeration is a radical and democratizing one. The founders of the American experiment, who had experienced colonial abuses that included taxation without representation, developed strategy for counting every American and using the results to establish representative democracy. ..."
John Nichols writes in The Nation:
"When President Trump and his minions attack the Census, they are messing with the US Constitution and the better angels of the American experiment. This is no small matter. And this is no small fight. Progressives should understand it as such and respond accordingly—not merely with a strong defense but with an even stronger offense.
"It is not enough to leave this one to the courts or the Census Bureau. ...
"The advocates for a full and fair count must be prepared to defend the ground that has been gained. Congressman Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, offers wise counsel when he says that 'right-wing attacks on democracy never sleep, so we must all remain vigilant.' ...
"From the start of what has now become his permanent campaign, Trump has imagined presidential powers that do not exist. And he has invited Americans to do the same, exploiting the fact that a lot of what people think is in the Constitution is not there.
"The founding document did not mention democracy, and it certainly did not outline universal voting rights. It did not propose political parties, primary elections or—and this may surprise Mr. Trump—the monarchical flight of fantasy that is 'executive privilege.' But it did mention the Census. Right up at the top, in Article 1, Section 2, the document requires that an 'enumeration shall be made' within successive terms of 10 years. Practically, what that means is that since 1790 the federal government has organized a decennial counting of the people.
"The point of this enumeration is a radical and democratizing one. The founders of the American experiment, who had experienced colonial abuses that included taxation without representation, developed strategy for counting every American and using the results to establish representative democracy. ..."
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Trump Administration Incoherence Could Lead to War | The Nation
As America careens toward war with Iran, the governing theories about Trump’s foreign policy stand exposed as utterly inadequate critiques of this dangerous presidency.
Jeet Heer writes in The Nation Magazine:
"The real key to Trump’s foreign policy is neither neo-isolationism nor subservience to Vladimir Putin but rather belligerent incoherence. As befits the man who styles himself the master of 'the art of the deal,' Trump has an excessive faith in his own ability to glad-hand his way through thorny disputes with other power players.
"But [Secretary of State Mike Pompeo andNational Security Advisor John Bolton] have their own agenda, which boils down to shoring up American global hegemony by maximum aggression. The combination of Trump’s desire to be a wheeler-dealer on the world stage and the Pompeo/Bolton penchant for throwing America’s weight around has produced a foreign policy that is singularly confused, with a constant sending of mixed signals that could easily provoke conflict.
"If Trump headed a normal administration, one could imagine a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic. Certainly, that is the game Dwight Eisenhower played, letting his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles scare the world with talk of massive retaliation while Ike pursued arms control. Eisenhower’s vice president took the hint: Richard Nixon developed his own good-cop/bad-cop routine, spreading rumors that he was a bomb-happy madman so that foreign adversaries were eager to talk to the seemingly more reasonable Henry Kissinger.
"But if Trump hoped to use Bolton and Pompeo as pit bulls to scare other nations to the negotiation table, he quickly discovered that he doesn’t seem to have any way of controlling these wild animals. With his own tendency towards reckless rhetoric and painfully evident lack of policy knowledge, Trump lacks the skill to convincingly present himself as the reasonable alternative to anything. ...
"It’s difficult to overstate the dangers of the current moment. Bolton and Pompeo are antagonizing all of America’s rivals—and even some of its allies. Trump is so ignorant about how diplomacy works that he thinks he can tamp down these provocations through personal diplomacy. But the hawks have repeatedly displayed cunning in undermining Trump’s back channels and diplomatic initiatives.
"The proper constitutional solution, of course, is congressional oversight. But both major parties are reluctant to challenge the Trump administration on foreign policy.
"The Republicans are too complicit and the Democrats too feckless. The obsessive focus among Trump critics on either his alleged isolationism or his supposed subservience to Putin has prevented the development of a more realistic oppositional analysis, one that focuses on the dangers of mixed messages. Perhaps members of both parties prefer Bolton and Pompeo to run wild rather than risk being labeled Trump-style neo-isolationists.
"It’s entirely possible that the United States could stumble into one or more wars through a reckless administration and a weak-kneed political elite."
Jeet Heer writes in The Nation Magazine:
"The real key to Trump’s foreign policy is neither neo-isolationism nor subservience to Vladimir Putin but rather belligerent incoherence. As befits the man who styles himself the master of 'the art of the deal,' Trump has an excessive faith in his own ability to glad-hand his way through thorny disputes with other power players.
"But [Secretary of State Mike Pompeo andNational Security Advisor John Bolton] have their own agenda, which boils down to shoring up American global hegemony by maximum aggression. The combination of Trump’s desire to be a wheeler-dealer on the world stage and the Pompeo/Bolton penchant for throwing America’s weight around has produced a foreign policy that is singularly confused, with a constant sending of mixed signals that could easily provoke conflict.
"If Trump headed a normal administration, one could imagine a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic. Certainly, that is the game Dwight Eisenhower played, letting his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles scare the world with talk of massive retaliation while Ike pursued arms control. Eisenhower’s vice president took the hint: Richard Nixon developed his own good-cop/bad-cop routine, spreading rumors that he was a bomb-happy madman so that foreign adversaries were eager to talk to the seemingly more reasonable Henry Kissinger.
"But if Trump hoped to use Bolton and Pompeo as pit bulls to scare other nations to the negotiation table, he quickly discovered that he doesn’t seem to have any way of controlling these wild animals. With his own tendency towards reckless rhetoric and painfully evident lack of policy knowledge, Trump lacks the skill to convincingly present himself as the reasonable alternative to anything. ...
"It’s difficult to overstate the dangers of the current moment. Bolton and Pompeo are antagonizing all of America’s rivals—and even some of its allies. Trump is so ignorant about how diplomacy works that he thinks he can tamp down these provocations through personal diplomacy. But the hawks have repeatedly displayed cunning in undermining Trump’s back channels and diplomatic initiatives.
"The proper constitutional solution, of course, is congressional oversight. But both major parties are reluctant to challenge the Trump administration on foreign policy.
"The Republicans are too complicit and the Democrats too feckless. The obsessive focus among Trump critics on either his alleged isolationism or his supposed subservience to Putin has prevented the development of a more realistic oppositional analysis, one that focuses on the dangers of mixed messages. Perhaps members of both parties prefer Bolton and Pompeo to run wild rather than risk being labeled Trump-style neo-isolationists.
"It’s entirely possible that the United States could stumble into one or more wars through a reckless administration and a weak-kneed political elite."
Friday, May 31, 2019
Home - Plain Language Association International (PLAIN)
Who are we?
Plain Language Association International (PLAIN) is the international association for plain language supporters and practitioners around the world. Our growing network includes members from over 30 countries working in clear communication in at least 15 languages.What is plain language?
A communication is in plain language if its wording, structure, and design are so clear that the intended audience can easily find what they need, understand what they find, and use that information.
Friday, May 24, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019
Demand your member of Congress support Rep. Tlaib's Impeachment Resolution | Indivisible Guide
Indivisible Guide:
With control of the House, Democrats should use their investigatory power to begin investigations into whether Donald Trump has committed crimes that would justify his impeachment. Rep. Rashida Tlaib's resolution is a good step forward.
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment | Environment | The Guardian
Damian Carrington writes in The Guardian:
"Instead of 'climate change' the preferred terms are 'climate emergency, crisis or breakdown' and 'global heating' is favoured over 'global warming', although the original terms are not banned.
"'We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,' said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. 'The phrase "climate change", for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.'
"'Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,' she said. ..."
"Instead of 'climate change' the preferred terms are 'climate emergency, crisis or breakdown' and 'global heating' is favoured over 'global warming', although the original terms are not banned.
"'We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,' said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. 'The phrase "climate change", for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.'
"'Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,' she said. ..."
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Leaning ...
I'm leaning toward Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Recall when Republicans said THEY were the party...
Recall when Republicans said THEY were the party of patriots?
It was a joke then; it's even more hilarious now -- and sad.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
AP Stylebook update: It’s OK to call something racist when it’s racist – Poynter
AP Stylebook update: It’s OK to call something racist when it’s racist – Poynter: Friday’s updated entries on race-related issues are an acknowledgment of the topic’s growing prominence in American journalism. This new guidance offers journalists clarity and precision as they frame the news for their audiences.
Two things jumped out at me: AP finally agrees that “hyphenated Americans” are a relic. And, when an incident is racist, journalists should say so.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
New Report Spells Out Saner Nuclear Spending Options
A report from the Arms Control Association
Despite characterizing during the Helsinki summit U.S. plans to replace the aging nuclear arsenal as "very, very bad policy," the Trump administration is pursuing an excessive and unsustainable expansion of the role and capability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the tune of nearly $500 billion, after inflation, over the next decade. Over the next 30 years, the price tag is likely to top $1.5 trillion and could even approach $2 trillion.
As our newly published report documents, it doesn’t have to be this way. U.S. Nuclear Excess: Understanding the Costs, Risks and Alternativesdescribes three realistic options to reduce spending on nuclear weapons and recommends steps Congress can take to adjust the programs to deal with the long-term budget challenges.
A companion website will be launched this summer, will provide regular updates on cost estimates and key decisions. The report and website were made possible with support from a project grant from the Charles Koch Foundation.
Report_NuclearExcess2019_update0410.pdf
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Photography by Gary B. Larson (Garbl), Port Townsend, Washington
Photography by Gary B. Larson (Garbl), Port Townsend, Washington
During the past month and a half months trying to locate, organize, store, and display my collection of digital photographs from the past 15 years. And I've done that, though I'll be refining it as time goes by.
If you're curious about my photography, please check out my site at Smugmug. It's an excellent online tool that even includes the capability to sell photos, though I haven't pursued that possibility.
During the past month and a half months trying to locate, organize, store, and display my collection of digital photographs from the past 15 years. And I've done that, though I'll be refining it as time goes by.
If you're curious about my photography, please check out my site at Smugmug. It's an excellent online tool that even includes the capability to sell photos, though I haven't pursued that possibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
