Dear Journalists and Protestors

While reading coverage of clashes on US college campuses that have gotten violent I am disturbed that both the protesters/witnesses and journalists seem to fall back saying things like it felt like a war zone. I have come across it in two different reading sessions. I can’t remember if it was about the same incident the one at UCLA. or if it included another one.

But I have to say the fact that you are there protesting a war while there are also two other wars going on in the world and you choose to describe your situation this way is frankly insulting to all the people living in those three intolerable situations. The fact that journalists can’t find words to describe a scene that is either a peaceful protest or is a war zone. No none of you were being tortured. In fact all of you can leave at any time. The Israeli hostages cannot . The Palestinian civilians cannot. The Sudan civilians are at the whims of two warring factions. And Ukraine is fighting to see itself from Russian taking over its country.

I hope whoever instigated and caused injury to others gets arrested. But I also hope that you stop the hyperbole.

PS Wanting freedom of speech for your protests then setting up your own zones on a public college campus in which you deny others access who do not agree with your beliefs because they might upset those inside is the height of hypocrisy. Colleges are supposed to teach how to think critically. Not to be critical thinkers. I think got that right. But not sure.

Taking Aim at the Babies

The most heinous talking point some Republicans try and push in the abortion fight is that Democrats support infanticide. Abortions so late in pregnancy that the baby is born alive then killed. At first what can one say.

If it was born alive does it even qualify as an abortion and belong in this debate at all. Shouldn’t it just be a murder.

But then of course me being me my mind got rolling. And I got researching to see if my thoughts were backed up with some facts.

And it turns out it is the republicans in congress and in state houses that have attempted and sometimes succeeded in infanticide and other murder by denial from afar. Because they have time after time voted and sometimes succeeded in ending coverage for low income individuals/families of medicaid, aca insurance and CHIP. All these programs have reduced mortality rates of mothers to be during pregnancy and childbirth and infants and children. When Republicans vote to end them or reduce access to them they are pretty much saying they don’t care that it will mean women and infants and children will die do to inability to afford access to health care. They also have tried to cut in half WIC. Nutrition for pregnant mothers.

Is it really more important to give e a tax break to a millionaire or a billionaire or multinational businesses who already barely pay any taxes. Who won’t die if they don’t get the tax cut.

They say every life matters. But they vote like they don’t give a damn.

Trumps Ideal Immigrants are Socialist Capitalist?

“Nice countries, you know like Denmark, Switzerland? Do we have any people coming in from Denmark? How about Switzerland? How about Norway?” Trump was his quote at a fundraiser. And my immediate thought was aren’t those countries Socialist capitalist countries. Then, doesn’t Trump and his MAGA followers hate the Democrats for their socialist ideals.

In fact they seem to love to call them socialist. But then I did some research on the 3 countries. And it turns out technically Norway and Denmark are classified as welfare states since they have capitalist economies. And Switzerland was a bit confusing they seemed to not be listed as a welfare state because the government doesn’t directly cover things but they do force citizens to buy health insurance and for companies to accept everyone. So not quite sure what that it is. Not purely capitalist, or socialist, or welfare.

So Maga it seems your leader wants more people to move here who like high taxes, lots of government programs, and all 3 are tops in Europe in the fight against global warming. And all three countries allow abortions. I’m gonna say they don’t sound very maga to me. But if he wants them I’m ok with it. But I would bet they rather stay where they are.

So Trump was asking for a bunch of “Welfare loving, global warming alarmist, baby killers to move to America”. Using Trumps hype.

Just a Quick Trump Legal Thought

This one is about his case coming up in NY for paying off the porn star to keep quiet before the 2016 election. AS usual he is claiming it is all a big nothing burger that Biden is behind to keep him from beating his in the election.

But the problem here is that when his ex Lawyer Michael Cohen was convicted of the same crime and was sent to jail during Trumps presidency he didn’t save his long time lawyer from this travesty of justice with a pardon did he. No he left him in jail. Aren’t pardons there to right the wrongs of criminal justice and if Trump now says this whole she bang is just a witch hunt it would have to have been one then too. Which means he left his ex long time lawyer in jail to rot because he was mad at him even though supposedly Trump says no crime was committed. Not very Jesus or Christian of him.

So don’t believe Trump when he says the legal system in America is broken. He just means he can’t bend it to his 3will as much as he is used to.

After all he is still suing people. Mostly losing those cases before they even get to court. But I think in the past that was part of his m.o. but now he is going against bigger richer opponents so it’s not working out in his favor like it used to.

Pro Choice Plan B… Spread the Field

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and thinking this week with the new case before the Supreme Court in which a group of conservative doctors want to stop the fad approval of mifepristone for abortions. Especially through the mail. It does seem that it might fail because they are to actually being harmed, so have no right to be suing. But Alito and Thomas threw them a bone in the form of a tip to try the Comstock act next time.

If this was done and actually was put back in use could it be used only for this one thing? Because it covers pretty much all of reproductive information and porn and sex toys. All three of which are huge money making industries.

Then I read an article suggesting using an earlier court precedent that says the government has no standing to make laws in regards to how a family choses to live. In theory it might work. But it has huge problems for me. Since I suspect we have since it was put in place passed many laws contradictory to it that benefit both children and wives. Like child abuse and spousal rape.

My idea plays on a quote I saw from Alito which is the basis on the pro life movement that life starts at conception but he added that everything must be done to bring about this life no matter how small a chance it has to make it. I think that was the quote. I couldn’t find it again this morning.

And it is under that theory of life should be fought for no matter how small the chance of survival is part of my new plan. The second is I have always found that pro life people focus too much on fetuses. Except for the catholics. So I think we should hold them to their word that all lives should be fought for even if the other person who has to fight along doesn’t want to and the government will have to make them. One Example a child gets cancer put the parents insurance refuses to pay for the treatment because they say it is experimental and has a very low chance of success but is the Childs only hope. Then sue them to make them pay for it under the threat of a murder charge if they don’t and the child dies. This should happen any time insurance turns someone down with a fatal diagnosis but an available treatment that could offer a possible cure no matter how low the chances. After all the Supreme Court has already said that businesses have the same standings as citizens under the constitution.

If they don’t have insurance. Then sue the doctors that offer the treatments if they wont treat them. Or the hospitals if they won’t take them into their facilities. They shouldn’t be able to claim any kind of financial way out of this if women can’t.

Show the Supreme Court and Pro lifers that if they want Fetuses to be considered little teeny tiny humans than the rights they want them to have they have to give to the rest of us. The right to impose our chance to stay alive onto other un willing people that we may both physically and financially ruin. Even cause the death of.

It might just be me…but the Justices ruling on the Trump ballot ruling seemed illogical.

I expected they would rule he could stay on the ballots. But that the majority would go with the “congress needs to make a law to handle any 14th amendment issues dealing with federal elected officials like the president because it would cause chaos if the states did it individually”.

That a law is needed to use the 14th amendment seems odd to me. Did all the amend meets need a law to work? Did congress make laws for freedom of speech and freedom carry guns. I can only think of laws that try and curtail these freedoms. Not enact them.

Secondly it seems they didn’t seem to think at all about this case specifically. It is about Trump trying to stay President for a second term illegally. And his supporters even storming the capital to try and stop the certification of the electoral votes. Which was helped along by members of his own party in congress who tried to delay the count that very day. Who also before that day supported Trumps fight to stay President and even if a few wavered after Jan 6 they were back to claiming a stolen election and supporting Trump full time soon enough. Now Trump has installed a member of his own family as co head of the RNC. So how can the Supreme Court believe that the republicans in congress would ever vote to make a law to in act the 14th amendment against Trump. It is illogical. And at this time they are the majority in the house. It’s like asking the co conspirators of the criminal to decide if the person is guilty. They know he will hold grudges and with his daughter in law at the RNC she holds the money they need too.

And I get tired of people who say let the voters decide. Read about the 14th amendment. It is there to stop the populace from being able to vote for people who have openly tried to undermine our government. That was what was feared would happen after the civil war when the south had a larger population. And the other thing I hear is a fear of what his supporters would do if he isn’t allowed to run. And all I think is what”like storm the capital while shouting hang the veep”. Been there. If he isn’t on the ballot the worst thing that could happen is that a republican wins the presidency.

But maybe I am all wrong about this. I have never studied law. But I think if it isn’t up to the Staes then it should be up to federal courts. maybe. But the last people deciding this should be republican politicians. And second to last, maybe, are some questionably morally compromised Supreme Court justices.

Let’s build Social housing or Give us 50 mil for free per year and we won’t solve the main problem..

Yes the people behind Seattles new social housing authority now want the voters to approve a tax on workers salaries that are above 1 million. And the main info they give is that it will help them aquire or build 2000 units in 10 years. Or on average 200 a year.

So being me I went to look for more info. And the first I found was that this money would help them get loans that combined with rent from tenants would keep them building new units. I thought it odd that they would include rent from low income tenants as an asset to move towards other buildings ands not just to maintain the current building and repay the loan that was used to build or acquire it. After all aren’t they keeping the rents low. Sounds a bit like a pyramid scheme.

But I kept digging. I knew they were going to have some mixing of incomes. They even seemed to think this was a novel approach in low income buildings. But sha already does this in some of their developments.

Then I found a more in depth article at crosscut. And it was enlightening. And not really in a good way. It made me think about how some people online refer to how good the program in Vienna is. But they don’t seem to realize that it is funded b the whole country not just the city of Vienna. And Austria only has the one large city to do this for. So looking to Seattle to pull this off for it self seems to not be an equal under taking to Vienna numbers wise. Then I read the article and once I got far into it it became clear that this group wants to house a certain group of people. People who fall in to the those who earn 60-120% of the median income. They do not want to house those who are homeless and need any services. The quote was people who earn in tis bracket only get offered studios and one bedrooms in the retail market. my mind boggled. 60-120% = 69 – 138 thousand dollars. Minimum wage is 40 thousand before taxes I believe. So if you’re single and earning minimum wage you may not qualify for one of their buildings.

And the whole reason I think people approved this group in the first place was to build more housing to get all the homeless off the streets and out of the encampments. Not to help someone like me who could actually move from my market rate apartment into one of these social housing places and pay less. Therefore opening up a market rate unit which would not help a homeless person at all. It could bring rents down. But it won’t bring it down enough to help those living on the street or in their cars.

And if you aren’t going to help those at the lower end then why don’t you actually put together a business plan and find some investors. Don’t hit us up for free money. Because that is what tax money is. You know you don’t have to give it back. And we all know the city is underwater financially already. So if they added that tax wouldn’t it be better spent getting the homeless mental health care or drug treatment. Or more mental health care in our schools.

Because you aren’t really here to help all of our citizens find housing you just want this sweet spot of citizens who have decent jobs but don’t earn too much or too little. who won’t be too much of a problem that they might need services. Which would make it more desirable for the higher income neighbors. But they aren’t the ones struggling to find places to live are they. So house your optimal citizens just don’t ask the government to pay for it. They have other more pressing matters right now.

if I have gotten this all wrong show me. Put out a plan showing how you are going to go about your business for the next 5 and 10 years. And I want details. Who you will be housing, where and how and how much it will cost? The devil is always n the details. Just ask the homeless authority which just keeps trying to write up plans. And spending millions doing it.

The 14th and the Supremes….

I just read an opinion piece on how someone thinks the Supreme Court will possibly rule on Trump being on Colorados ballot. I have been avoiding news coverage of it because I fear they will find a way to let him be on the ballots.

It seems they were leaning towards it’s too messy for each state to make up their own decision. Although as I type this isn’t that the way are whole election system works in essence. Each state running their own part. But back to why I started. It seemed they then suggested it could be they would rule it would need to be made as an argument to a federal court.

But I’m not sure how that would work. Do you sue the country? The Republican Party? Trump? Your State?

The next is that it would go to congress. Which has been an argument. It can be that only congress can invoke it. Which seems unlikely since no other amendment seems to work that way. Or something will happen when we get to that day when the electoral college votes get counted. What that is the column did not say. But I think the congress part is totally off as I wrote in an earlier post in the 14 amendment and insurrection and Jan 6. Trump is not the only politician we should be using it on. There are quite a few or more in congress who are subject to it. And the whole idea of the Trump issue being settled by congress shows why.

The 14th amendment comes from post civil war and wanting to keep the southerners who rebelled out of the us government partly because the south had a large population. So the 14th was a guard against a feared popular vote of rebels voting in a lot of rebels.

So the idea of the 14th amendment, that’s supposed to guard against popular votes gone amok, being executed only by politicians overseeing themselves is illogical. Especially in a two party system where sadly right now the Republican Party seems to only have an allegiance to Trump and not to the country or even the party.

So I think by being fearful and not wanting to get too involved and answer the one big question, which they really do not even have to do, which is, was Jan 6 an insurrection and was Trump part of it or did he give support to those who were. Because if the answer is yes then everything else should be clear. Especially to the originalist on the court.

You can’t try and leave the country so you can keep your slaves for cheap labor. And you can’t keep lying about having won an election you lost after seeking every legal way of challenging it and losing only to hold a large rally with armed supporters and then send them to the Capitol to fight for you and then sit on your butt for hours while they beat up the police and break into the Capitol chanting hang Pence. All to keep you as President. All while giving hundreds of millions of dollars.

And those in congress can’t keep supporting Trump and not be subject to the 14th too. Especially if at some point he gets convicted of an election crime. But I can be harsh and to the point. But maybe with those people gone congress might actually remember how to function again. How it was before newt and the tea party. When people knew you didn’t get everything you wanted. That it was about compromise.

It’s late for me. I’ve rambled. It’s all just so depressing a lot of the time. And not just on the right but on the left too.

Dear JD Vance….

I saw this quote from you this morning I believe it was from an interview with George Stephanopolous.

“I think it’s actually vey unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for President, when what he’s trying to do, I think, is restore prosperity.”

Well from here I think you are totally wrong. And it has a lot more than just the E jean Carrol cases that make him a problem for survivors of sexual assault. First off prosperity only matters now because Trump stacked the Supreme Court to repeal national access to abortions. So a victim of sexual assault who gets impregnated by her assailant may need to travel out of their home state to access an abortion. And that costs money that some low income people can’t afford. But Trumps prosperity has to reached these people. His has mostly just made the wealthy richer.

Which brings us back to losing access to abortions for victims of all kinds of sexual assault in many states. We have seen states say there can be exceptions until a woman asks for the abortions and are denied. Over and over. Unless their life is in immediate danger.

And I don’t think having a President who was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it, wether it was true or just him being a braggart makes any woman feel good but especially not ones who have been assaulted, groped or harassed.

And let’s remember Trump may feel he doesn’t have his first amendment rights any more but he has tried to sue multiple times for defamation.

And P.S Check the economy statistics things are on the rise.

What if the Colorado Judge is Correct on the 14th Ammd…

And Trump committed an insurrection but the clause doesn’t not include the President.

Then the remedy should have been an impeachment for Treason, High Crimes and Misdameanors. But his fellow republicans in both houses of the senate mostly voted against the impeachment and a conviction.

But they are subject to the clause. And we know some of these members had direct involvement in this endeavor before hand. And even tried to help the cause in the chamber procedurally. But by not impeaching the President for what a judge has declared and insurrection did they not support the insurrectionist. And even when they continue to support the election lie behind it are they not continuing support for it and the insurrectionist. So if Trump cant be barred from future ballots it would seem that all of those who did house members and senators who did not vote to impeach or convict are subject to it especially if they continued to support his lies afterward.

Hmm. Just a thought.