(This was so detailed that for the first time ever I had an error message regarding using too many characters for labels!)
Some people badmouth Twitter, but it has value (various superior content) and you can have fun with it (celebrity accounts etc.). A problem it has, but the same can be said about the 24/7 media cycle and blogs, is that you can be overwhelmed with things happening all the time. Back in the c. 1990, I was a consistent reader of various publications (easy access via a convenient local library near my college) on a daily/weekly basis. But, such constant updates wasn't a thing (did not even have CNN for a while). The other issue are all those comments, many of them dubious, but it's amusing really that comments on a blog complains about something like that.
===
I admit to being addicted to this stuff -- again, I was a ready consumer of news when there was less of it. Spend too much time on Twitter. But, there is a lot of stuff happening. For instance, the Virginia legislature this week ratified the ERA. In theory, they are the final vote, but reality is a tad more complicated. One place this was hashed over was over here, this being just one of many comments on the matter. Simply put, the likely deciding factor here is going to be Congress. And, it very well might be something that ultimately will be decided there after the elections, so this might be a factor in them to some extent. What you say Biden et. al.?
The question mark is the U.S. Senate and it isn't quite as dark probably as some might think long term. There is also the question of what effect it will all have even if it is ratified. This sort of badmouthing of the effort is misguided. An amendment in bold type, so to speak, can help the efforts made in the trenches. It also is an interesting question of "originalism" -- what would the congressional debate tell us? Some think state ratification bodies matter as much or more. Do the last three votes change the equation here, in part given they are viewing things in a "modern day" light with long Supreme Court equal protection precedents and current day conflicts in mind? Or, maybe it is back to Congress, including the talk if they extend the deadline?
===
Of course, we have a more immediate constitutional moment: the impeachment trial began on Thursday. The early moments underlines the whole thing is rather ceremonial, including walking the impeachment articles to the Senate (an argument can be made that this was necessary to "finalize" impeachment -- that is done though some use "impeach" to mean removal), Rep. Schiff (lead manager; Rep. Amash was not asked -- understand playing it safe but think he might have been a good addition to show it isn't just partisan -- though he was open to the idea) reading the articles to the Senate and escorting Chief Justice Roberts over.
I respect such ceremony though at times think we overdo this sort of thing and personally am not a fan of drawn out affairs. It's a moot point, but if I was ever married, I would prefer a small ceremony if not simply eloping. Impeachment to me is very important, including long term, and seeing Schiff read out those impeachment articles was somewhat emotional to me. There is a lie that Democrats are not patriotic or religious, but the evidence is ever present that they are. As someone noted in this thread discussing VP Pence's Pence-like op-ed claiming being a profile in courage means Democrats voting to acquit (Sen. West Virginia nodding his head?), the true profiles in courage here were long term public servants (more than one leaning Republican) who testified and spoke out because of a sense of public duty. That's a thing. It isn't just smoke in this cynical world.
Pelosi handled this all rather well, including drawing out sending out the articles over to the Senate to play for time and put pressure on Republicans to show some credibility about making it an actual trial. Not only did we have Lev Parnas "testify" on two national talk shows -- take his remarks with all the salt you want, but we should hear from him and it puts pressure on Republicans for more, he has receipts and there are ways to judge the validity of his remarks -- but a GAO report came out just on time to show Trump broke the law (other than you know bribery et. al.) by withholding funds. I stick by my desire for a comprehensive impeachment inquiry that would have basically allowed the same thing to occur. But, Pelosi is going to be a hard act to follow. Women leaders, how about them?
Anyway, there is some hope that Roberts will somehow help justice along here, but that doesn't really seem his m.o. Plus, historically, a presiding officer (remember for other impeachments it would be the vice president or their replacement, not such a judicial officer) here had little power. Chase tried to push the envelope and was pushed back. Precedent only takes us so far, but the whole ball of wax regarding interpreting the function here suggests it was valid. The nature of the presiding officer here does suggest something extra. Roberts only presided over the swearing in ("impartial justice" separate oath) and the like on Thursday. It was a bit weird to see him being sworn in by the Republican pro tempore.
The trial will come back on Tuesday and meanwhile both sides have time for briefs and such. In that Pence thread, I summarized the Trump legal team, overstocked with troll bait. The Trump side submitted more b.s. (starting with the "Honorable" Donald J. Trump heading) including calling the articles "constitutionally invalid." Usual overheated ("absolutely nothing wrong") rhetoric included in rather abbreviated form. A certain level of disdain there. Republicans want him in office until January 2025. Meanwhile, the House brief is an impressive over 100 page affair.
[A much longer Trump legal memorandum came out on Monday and from the overheated executive summary on is much the same basically including partisan potshots -- "House Democrats" (not "the House") are just making shit up as part of a partisan witch hunt -- mixed with the usual b.s. like talk of due process, ridiculously limited view of what impeachment covers and the inability to admit anything - "absolutely" innocent -- was done incorrectly.]
===
There were various things that occurred the last week that pop up in our continuing crazy news cycle. A "fu" that underlines how horrible Trump being in power is and how it will poison us for years was a lower court opinion that was a gratuitous denial of a trans prisoner's request for female pronouns. Friday this term also has repeatedly been a time to wait until mid to late afternoon to see what the Supreme Court did. So, this time, before the holiday, it took three set of cases -- a personal jurisdiction matter, something involving "faithless" electors (and still no Third Amendment case?! how about a grand jury incorporation case?) and a third go-around on the contraceptive mandate (there was a 1B of sorts that included a strong Sotomayor dissent). And, among the other "ugh" Trump news, a special owning the libs move on Michelle Obama's birthday (what? that's just a coincidence!).
===
Let's not just talk about politics. The Oscars nominations came out (early February ceremony? seems a bit early) and the Best Picture nominations in particular seem more lacking than usual (plus other concerns like the Little Women director not being nominated). I have not been into films in the movies for a few years now at least so the Oscars weren't really my thing as it used to be in the past. But, 2019 seems to be something of an off year there to some degree looking at the options. The reviews of multiple "best" films had a lot of middling reactions at the very least. The only thing that really stands out for me is that I think there is a decent bet that the supporting actress in Little Women will win it.
And, even Mets radio broadcaster Howie Rose's (and major Mets cheerleader/social media person) daughter said letting him go was the right move. That video is impressive with a funny kicker that the person involved found amusing. We are left to determining who will be the manager with pitchers/catchers coming in weeks away. Probably will pick one of the back-up options with some connection to the team. I prefer a veteran manager myself and at least one might fill in the Astros/Red Sox manager vacancies arising from this mess.
2020 starting well ...
Some people badmouth Twitter, but it has value (various superior content) and you can have fun with it (celebrity accounts etc.). A problem it has, but the same can be said about the 24/7 media cycle and blogs, is that you can be overwhelmed with things happening all the time. Back in the c. 1990, I was a consistent reader of various publications (easy access via a convenient local library near my college) on a daily/weekly basis. But, such constant updates wasn't a thing (did not even have CNN for a while). The other issue are all those comments, many of them dubious, but it's amusing really that comments on a blog complains about something like that.
===
I admit to being addicted to this stuff -- again, I was a ready consumer of news when there was less of it. Spend too much time on Twitter. But, there is a lot of stuff happening. For instance, the Virginia legislature this week ratified the ERA. In theory, they are the final vote, but reality is a tad more complicated. One place this was hashed over was over here, this being just one of many comments on the matter. Simply put, the likely deciding factor here is going to be Congress. And, it very well might be something that ultimately will be decided there after the elections, so this might be a factor in them to some extent. What you say Biden et. al.?
The question mark is the U.S. Senate and it isn't quite as dark probably as some might think long term. There is also the question of what effect it will all have even if it is ratified. This sort of badmouthing of the effort is misguided. An amendment in bold type, so to speak, can help the efforts made in the trenches. It also is an interesting question of "originalism" -- what would the congressional debate tell us? Some think state ratification bodies matter as much or more. Do the last three votes change the equation here, in part given they are viewing things in a "modern day" light with long Supreme Court equal protection precedents and current day conflicts in mind? Or, maybe it is back to Congress, including the talk if they extend the deadline?
===
Of course, we have a more immediate constitutional moment: the impeachment trial began on Thursday. The early moments underlines the whole thing is rather ceremonial, including walking the impeachment articles to the Senate (an argument can be made that this was necessary to "finalize" impeachment -- that is done though some use "impeach" to mean removal), Rep. Schiff (lead manager; Rep. Amash was not asked -- understand playing it safe but think he might have been a good addition to show it isn't just partisan -- though he was open to the idea) reading the articles to the Senate and escorting Chief Justice Roberts over.
I respect such ceremony though at times think we overdo this sort of thing and personally am not a fan of drawn out affairs. It's a moot point, but if I was ever married, I would prefer a small ceremony if not simply eloping. Impeachment to me is very important, including long term, and seeing Schiff read out those impeachment articles was somewhat emotional to me. There is a lie that Democrats are not patriotic or religious, but the evidence is ever present that they are. As someone noted in this thread discussing VP Pence's Pence-like op-ed claiming being a profile in courage means Democrats voting to acquit (Sen. West Virginia nodding his head?), the true profiles in courage here were long term public servants (more than one leaning Republican) who testified and spoke out because of a sense of public duty. That's a thing. It isn't just smoke in this cynical world.
Pelosi handled this all rather well, including drawing out sending out the articles over to the Senate to play for time and put pressure on Republicans to show some credibility about making it an actual trial. Not only did we have Lev Parnas "testify" on two national talk shows -- take his remarks with all the salt you want, but we should hear from him and it puts pressure on Republicans for more, he has receipts and there are ways to judge the validity of his remarks -- but a GAO report came out just on time to show Trump broke the law (other than you know bribery et. al.) by withholding funds. I stick by my desire for a comprehensive impeachment inquiry that would have basically allowed the same thing to occur. But, Pelosi is going to be a hard act to follow. Women leaders, how about them?
Anyway, there is some hope that Roberts will somehow help justice along here, but that doesn't really seem his m.o. Plus, historically, a presiding officer (remember for other impeachments it would be the vice president or their replacement, not such a judicial officer) here had little power. Chase tried to push the envelope and was pushed back. Precedent only takes us so far, but the whole ball of wax regarding interpreting the function here suggests it was valid. The nature of the presiding officer here does suggest something extra. Roberts only presided over the swearing in ("impartial justice" separate oath) and the like on Thursday. It was a bit weird to see him being sworn in by the Republican pro tempore.
The trial will come back on Tuesday and meanwhile both sides have time for briefs and such. In that Pence thread, I summarized the Trump legal team, overstocked with troll bait. The Trump side submitted more b.s. (starting with the "Honorable" Donald J. Trump heading) including calling the articles "constitutionally invalid." Usual overheated ("absolutely nothing wrong") rhetoric included in rather abbreviated form. A certain level of disdain there. Republicans want him in office until January 2025. Meanwhile, the House brief is an impressive over 100 page affair.
[A much longer Trump legal memorandum came out on Monday and from the overheated executive summary on is much the same basically including partisan potshots -- "House Democrats" (not "the House") are just making shit up as part of a partisan witch hunt -- mixed with the usual b.s. like talk of due process, ridiculously limited view of what impeachment covers and the inability to admit anything - "absolutely" innocent -- was done incorrectly.]
===
There were various things that occurred the last week that pop up in our continuing crazy news cycle. A "fu" that underlines how horrible Trump being in power is and how it will poison us for years was a lower court opinion that was a gratuitous denial of a trans prisoner's request for female pronouns. Friday this term also has repeatedly been a time to wait until mid to late afternoon to see what the Supreme Court did. So, this time, before the holiday, it took three set of cases -- a personal jurisdiction matter, something involving "faithless" electors (and still no Third Amendment case?! how about a grand jury incorporation case?) and a third go-around on the contraceptive mandate (there was a 1B of sorts that included a strong Sotomayor dissent). And, among the other "ugh" Trump news, a special owning the libs move on Michelle Obama's birthday (what? that's just a coincidence!).
===
Let's not just talk about politics. The Oscars nominations came out (early February ceremony? seems a bit early) and the Best Picture nominations in particular seem more lacking than usual (plus other concerns like the Little Women director not being nominated). I have not been into films in the movies for a few years now at least so the Oscars weren't really my thing as it used to be in the past. But, 2019 seems to be something of an off year there to some degree looking at the options. The reviews of multiple "best" films had a lot of middling reactions at the very least. The only thing that really stands out for me is that I think there is a decent bet that the supporting actress in Little Women will win it.
Plus, there is the whole Mets (ugh their GM/owners) thing with Beltran being let go (after a drawn out secretive contemplation) given his role (still a tad hazy though I found an early report when it first came out that it was notable -- the report did single him out by name, which is either unfair or a red flag) in the Astros scandal. As I quickly noted earlier, some didn't care about the cheating, but personally appreciate some serious consequences occurred. Beltran's stand-out role here to me makes it problematic -- at least right away -- to retain him as manager.Everything You Need To Know About The Current State Of Major League Baseball As Told By Mean Girls pic.twitter.com/2HrKoY0yJc— Julia (@jquadddddd) January 17, 2020
And, even Mets radio broadcaster Howie Rose's (and major Mets cheerleader/social media person) daughter said letting him go was the right move. That video is impressive with a funny kicker that the person involved found amusing. We are left to determining who will be the manager with pitchers/catchers coming in weeks away. Probably will pick one of the back-up options with some connection to the team. I prefer a veteran manager myself and at least one might fill in the Astros/Red Sox manager vacancies arising from this mess.
2020 starting well ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!