Acquit, Censure or Remove

WAPO Alexander Criticizes Trump... But No Witnesses...

FOX Murkowski Comes Out against Witnesses

NYT Trump told Bolton to Help

So I am pretty sure everybody understands fully that:

"Trump manipulated / harassed State department personnel and Withheld Tax Payer money from an approved purpose in order to get the Ukranian government to investigate the Cloudstrike conspiracy and the possible Biden situation.  With some of his intent being to smear the DNC and his leading 2020 Presidential rival."

So having more witnesses is somewhat pointless, which is what the Senate will vote to do very soon.

Now the question will be, what should the Senators do next?
1. Acquit Trump. (ie state his behavior was fine)
2. Censure Trump (ie state that we expect better from our President)
3. Remove Trump from office

I assume 3 is off the table and my favorite #2 is unlikely given how scared the GOP is of Trump and his True Believers. :-(  It is a sad day if he walks without even an official reprimand. :-(

For you Trump True Believers, please remember that if you let Trump do it without adverse consequences.  More politicians will think they can use your tax dollars and civil servants to stay in office. "For the good of the country." :-(

 

How to Help Poor Kids Learn?

NPR Supreme Court Could be Headed to a Major Unraveling of Public School Funding

A FB Friend posted the above link with the comment. "The attempt to theocratize America continues." And the first commenter wrote. "So sick of religious zealots stealing from the public to fund their indoctrination centers. People want to segregate their children from poor people let them pay to do that."

Then I added the following and we were off to the races... "As for segregating their children, millions of very Liberal people do that daily by "moving to better neighborhood", enrolling in a magnet / charter school, open enrolling to a different district, etc. Why should Christians who pay a LOT of these taxes be forced to pay even more to attend a school that is aligned with their beliefs? Especially since many of the public schools have been forced to become so sterile / no religion / fewer parties / events? Why again should all of our tax payer dollars only go to support a near monopolistic system that refuses to measure, change and improve?

Well I never did get very much for answers, but the original poster did take the time to write a lot regarding his perspective... And I am curious what you think?

In 1991 I was a college graduate. Stung by the poor job outlook in 1991, I looked into going to work for the Federal Government. They had a program called the Outstanding Scholar program for college grads who met certain criteria, and it put you on a fast track to move up the first few paygrades in federal employment. Shortly after graduation, I was offered a position supporting the CFO for the US Department of Education (ED) In Washington, DC. At the time, I was a young moderate to conservative Republican who thought I knew everything (as is typical for the age) and I was excited to work in and around all the action in DC.  

About that same time, Governor Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, was appointed Education Secretary by then president George H.W. Bush. After a history of conservatives bashing ED and wanting to shut it down (think William Bennett), Bush and Alexander believed that education is a priority and that the Federal Government did have a role in influencing education to make it competitive with the rest of the world.  

Around that same time, ED adopted "America 2000", a set of education goals developed in a joint, bipartisan effort including the President and all of the nation's governors. It included six education goals. I do recall a couple of them: All students start school ready to learn, and a graduation rate of 90%. These were goals that the Government wanted to help the nation accomplish by the year 2000. We were all very excited about these goals, and the bipartisan way in which they came to be. And state and local schools would get funding from the Federal Government tied to adopting America 2000 and putting together plans to meet the goals. It seemed like a win-win proposition for everyone.  

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency and appointed Richard Riley as the Education secretary. I didn't know what to expect because I had really only known Republican administrations in my lifetime at that point, and I did not vote for Bill Clint on in 1992, nor did I vote for Mike Dukakis in 1988. As it turned out, it was a lot of the same. Bill Clinton had been one of the governors who had developed the national education goals, so they repackaged America 2000 and called it Goals 2000. They were largely the same with some changes.  

Over the next several years I got the opportunity to interact with some of the education gurus who came in to help promote the national education agenda, including Diane Ravitch (who was so well respected she was appointed under both administrations), who was appointed by Secretary Riley to serve as a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which supervises the National Assessment of Educational Progress. She was also an early proponent of "No Child Left Behind", which was the repackaging of America 2000 and Goals 2000 by the new George W. Bush Administration in 2002.  

What happened from there, however, is really where problems began to develop. School districts became so focused on achieving the benchmarks dictated by the goals, in order to get the Federal money, that it changed teaching. I had left the Federal Government by then and had moved into working for Federal contractors in various roles. But I knew A LOT of teachers and I was married to one. They made up the vast majority of our social circle and many, many family members and extended family members as well. The joy and passion of teaching became harder for them to find. What they had been educated and trained to do, to inspire students to learn, became less important than meeting test score targets. There was pressure to not fail students who were poor performers because of graduation targets. Teachers, talented and passionate about education and learning and seeing their students succeed (not about pay), began to leave teaching.  

Charter schools started to become a big thing, utilizing public education money to, in essence, create private schools where they could admit only the top performers and keep out poor performers. Then they started showing better test results (shocking). So they gained more traction.  

Now what do we have? Schools still failing, still too may children being left behind. National standards that have bastardized and corrupted real education, the politicizing of education funds by far right interests who believe in this farce of "liberal indoctrination" (I can assure you that if it's not tied to the national education standards, it's not being taught).  

And, if you take the time to read any of Diane Ravitch's retrospective (she has written and blogged a lot on this subject) on the national goals and standardized testing she helped create and promote, you will see that she now regrets it. She regrets what it has become, and regrets school choice, too. All things she promoted and was considered instrumental in starting at the federal level. She recognizes now that the best predictor of poor school performance is poverty. She now focuses her efforts on addressing poverty and racial segregation.  

The attacks on teachers, teacher unions, etc. that you have bought into John, are all done for political gain. The real "fix" is all about having schools where all children have the same opportunity to learn, regardless of their socioeconomic status or their race. The national standards have failed to address those fundamental causes of poor achievement. Attacking teacher unions doesn't address those either.  

Addressing the causes of poverty and racial inequality are likely going to gain the best traction toward improving educational achievement. If you want to really "Give to attain", John, then work toward influencing people to take up the cause of poverty and racial disparity in our country. Vote for the candidates who have plans to do this. Look for constructive solutions instead of looking to blame those who are in the trenches fighting the good fight every day. Vote for politicians and support organizations who are most committed to addressing poverty and racial inequality.

 

Here were my initial thoughts in response:

As for brief immediate answers... You now have stepped into the chicken vs egg problem because correlation does not mean causation... Poverty in and of itself does not cause failure in school, therefore giving people more money will not necessarily yield better results... It is the things that cause poverty that often drive poor academic results. Un / undereducated parent(s), irresponsible / neglectful parent(s), single parent, high crime neighborhoods, cultures that do not value education, addicted parent(s), racism, etc.  

I know many low income folk who's kids did great in school, but that was because they had 2 parents who were serious about their child learning. (much like my friends in China and South Korea)  

The US Education system was created to lift people out of poverty. To say that we must eliminate poverty to make it work is very counter-intuitive and counter-productive.  

As for "the teachers are stressed" because their kids must learn... Halleulia !!! I am stressed because I must deliver everyday or my bosses will give me the boot. That does not mean that I hold it against my bosses that performance is why I am paid each month. It is nice to enjoy one's job, but it is also healthy to be pushed to learn and perform even better!!! Don't the kids deserve to learn each day and to be ready at 18 to be independent capable citizens?

In summary, the folks commenting in opposition to me believed the answer to closing the achievement gap was to go back to 1990, stop the testing, give the Publics Schools ever more money, get rid of the public charters and stay out their education system. In fact, I was in essence berated for even weighing in on the topic since I am not a teacher.  Here was the list from one of them.

 

If you want to build a better education system in this country. 

• pay teachers better and support them 100% 
• hire people that actually have experience in education that make policy for education. 
• treat every school equal, and give every student the same opportunities.
• poor people vote to. Stop making policy that rewards the rich families.

To that my response and questions were.  In MN we do not treat every school equally. The schools that get the most money by far are the schools with the most challenging student demographics. It may still not be enough but it exceeds $20,000 per student. And they still have the worst academic results.

1. So how much should we raise that amount to?
2. How much will the achievement increase?
3. What should happen if the money is spent and things do not change substantially?
4. Do we just keep increasing the funding or do we promote competition?

Thoughts on this chaotic long piece?


Here are some of the many links from these and other parts of the exchange.

Politico History of NCLB
NEA's Response to Race to the Top
G2A Blame vs Contributions
G2A Why are Poor People Poor?
MW Definition of Teach
BTA Economists Ate My School
G2A How to Win the War on Poverty
G2A AYP, NCLB, PDCA
MinnPost MPLS Data Teacher Equity by School
Wiki Public Employee Union History
VOX SCOTUS on School Funding
CSM SCOTUS on School Funding
Diana Ravitch Blog
Forbes Texas vs California

Thank Heavens for Witnesses?

WSJ GOP Doesn't Now Have Votes to Block Witnesses

Politico Trump team warns vulnerable senators: Stand strong or prepare for an endless trial

AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong on Bolton; more claims from trial

FactCheck False Claim Ukraine Got Aid ‘Before Schedule’

PBS Dershowitz Argument against Impeachment

Politico Trump finds nearly unwavering loyalty from Republicans after Dem case

It seems to me that censuring Trump's behavior would be common sense off ramp, however that seems unlikely since he has no interest in apologizing.

“It’s a very serious matter and I’m listening in a respectful way,” said Collins, who has already signaled that she may vote for additional witnesses to be called. “I’ve filled up 25 pages of notes on my legal pad and I pay very close attention.”
But for the rest of the party there’s almost no interest in even inching toward a rebuke of Trump. There’s definitely no attempt to censure the president or propose some other formal condemnation short of impeachment. To Republicans, there’s no point trying to concede Trump did anything wrong — a far cry from Democrats’ denunciation of President Bill Clinton’s behavior during his 1999 impeachment trial.
“Our job is not to evaluate in great detail what happened. Our job at this point is to evaluate whether it’s impeachable or not,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “And I don’t see minds changing on that, including mine.”

MinnPost How would you feel if Trump had apologized for his behavior toward Ukraine?

The Soap Opera Continues

NYT 5 Takeaways from Bolton's Book

NYT Recording Shows that Swamp has NOT been drained

And of course the untrustable Trump claims that the very stalwart Bolton can not be trusted... :-)

The good news is that rationale professionals like Romney are starting to think that witnesses will be necessary.  It will be interesting to see how the Trump Defense shifts with the ever growing evidence that he did with hold tax dollars for a personal investigation announcement...

I could not decide which comic I liked best, so I gave you 2.

Defense Makes Case for More Witness Testimony

It is good that Trump's defense team has made a point that more first hand testimony is needed to learn what really happened. :-)

Let the Pollution Flow

NYT Trump to Strip Away Clean Water Rules

Well my farmer friends may be happy with this, but I do not approve.

I have a simple belief that a business should contain and process all chemicals used on their property to ensure they are safe before they leave their property.  Or they should pay for proper disposal.  The idea that businesses can let their wastes flow down stream to become someone else's problem seems so wrong to me.

Now please remember that urban areas and homeowners need to be held to the same standard.  All you folks over fertilizing your lawn, all our cities over salting the roads, etc.  Thoughts?

I Would Testify But...

HP Cipollone's Big Lie and Twitter's Funny Responses

Fact Check 1
Fact Check 2

And doesn't Trump's "I want to testify...  But..." schtick ever get old... Even for his True Believers.  I mean he used it excessively during the Mueller investigation to avoid answering questions under oath like a normal witness.

Thankfully Chief Justice Roberts is trying to keep some decorum in this cat fight.

And there were a few rule improvements.

And Barr seemingly agreed that Impeachment may be the correct tool.  Which the Trump defense team disagrees with.

And as time passes... More information becomes available.

Just Like Clinton Impeachment, Except...

NYT Senate Impeachment Process Comparison

The politics and cover up seem to be continuing...  Please note that the GOP does not seem concerned with the factual timeline, they seem to be pointing everywhere else but the facts.

As I keep asking, I wonder if they would be doing the same things if it was Obama?  Or are they truly hypocrites who do not care about institutions, law and order?

Of course, the opposite question applies...  Would the DEMs be out for blood if it was Obama? :-)

The polls are still tight:
Impeachment
Remove from Office

Please remember that I do not care if they remove him from office or not. 
What I care about is that know the facts before they determine a verdict.

If this Summer was such a harmless wonderful non-secretive transaction, then Trump etal as Public Servants should testify under oath. Wouldn't you expect that from someone who works for you?

Trump Defense Fact Check

AP Fact Check  For those who are interested...

Who Broke the Trust?

NYT How Did Americans Lose Faith in Everything by Yuval Levin

"Americans are living through a social crisis. We can see that in everything from vicious partisan polarization to rampant culture-war resentments to the isolation, alienation and despair that have sent suicide rates climbing and driven an epidemic of opioid abuse. These dysfunctions appear to have common roots, but one symptom of the crisis is that we can’t quite seem to get a handle on just where those roots lie. 

When we think about our problems, we tend to imagine our society as a vast open space filled with individuals who are having trouble linking hands. And so we talk about breaking down walls, building bridges, leveling playing fields or casting unifying narratives. 

But what we are missing is not simply greater connectedness but a structure of social life: a way to give shape, purpose, concrete meaning and identity to the things we do together. If American life is a big open space, it is not a space filled with individuals. It is a space filled with these structures of social life — with institutions. And if we are too often failing to foster belonging, legitimacy and trust, what we are confronting is a failure of institutions. 

This social crisis has followed upon a collapse of our confidence in institutions — public, private, civic and political. But we have not given enough thought to just what that loss of confidence entails and why it’s happening. 

Each core institution performs an important task — educating children, enforcing the law, serving the poor, providing some service, meeting some need. And it does that by establishing a structure and process, a form, for combining people’s efforts toward accomplishing that task. 

But as it does so, each institution also forms the people within it to carry out that task responsibly and reliably. It shapes behavior and character, fostering an ethic built around some idea of integrity. That’s why we trust the institution and the people who compose it. 

We trust political institutions when they undertake a solemn obligation to the public interest and shape the people who populate them to do the same. We trust a business because it promises quality and reliability and rewards its workers when they deliver those. 

We trust a profession because it imposes standards and rules on its members intended to make them worthy of confidence. We trust the military because it values courage, honor and duty in carrying out the defense of the nation and forms human beings who do, too. 

We lose faith in an institution when we no longer believe that it plays this ethical or formative role of teaching the people within it to be trustworthy. This can happen through simple corruption, when an institution’s attempts to be formative fail to overcome the vices of the people within it, and it instead masks their treachery — as when a bank cheats its customers, or a member of the clergy abuses a child.

That kind of gross abuse of power obviously undermines public trust in institutions. It is common in our time as in every time. But for that very reason, it doesn’t really explain the exceptional collapse of trust in American institutions in recent decades. 

What stands out about our era in particular is a distinct kind of institutional dereliction — a failure even to attempt to form trustworthy people, and a tendency to think of institutions not as molds of character and behavior but as platforms for performance and prominence. 

In one arena after another, we find people who should be insiders formed by institutions acting like outsiders performing on institutions. Many members of Congress now use their positions not to advance legislation but to express and act out the frustrations of their core constituencies. Rather than work through the institution, they use it as a stage to elevate themselves, raise their profiles and perform for the cameras in the reality show of our unceasing culture war. 

President Trump clearly does the same thing. Rather than embodying the presidency and acting from within it, he sees it as the latest, highest stage for his lifelong one-man show. And he frequently uses it as he used some of the stages he commanded before he was elected: to complain about the government, as if he were not its chief executive. 

The pattern is rampant in the professional world. Check in on Twitter right now, and you’ll find countless journalists, for instance, leveraging the hard-earned reputations of the institutions they work for to build their personal brands outside of those institutions’ structures of editing and verification — leaving the public unsure of just why professional reporters should be trusted. The same too often happens in the sciences, in law and in other professions meant to offer expertise. 

Or consider the academy, which is valued for its emphasis on the pursuit of truth through learning and teaching but which now too often serves as a stage for political morality plays enacted precisely by abjuring both. Look at many prominent establishments of American religion and you’ll find institutions intended to change hearts and save souls frequently used instead as yet more stages for livid political theater — not so much forming those within as giving them an outlet. 

Artists and athletes often behave this way too, using reputations earned within institutional frameworks as platforms for building a profile outside them. When he was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, the former Chicago Cubs second baseman Ryne Sandberg implored fellow players to remember “that learning how to bunt and hit-and-run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.” When vital institutions across American life fail to produce people who remember that, they become much harder to trust. 

The few exceptions to the pattern of declining confidence in institutions tend to prove this rule. The military is the most conspicuous exception and also the most unabashedly formative of our national institutions — molding men and women who clearly take a standard of behavior and responsibility seriously. And that can help us see what we might do to help alleviate the social crisis we confront. 

All of us have roles to play in some institutions we care about, be they familial or communal, educational or professional, civic, political, cultural or economic. Rebuilding trust in those institutions will require the people within them — that is, each of us — to be more trustworthy. And that must mean in part letting the distinct integrities and purposes of these institutions shape us, rather than just using them as stages from which to be seen and heard. 

As a practical matter, this can mean forcing ourselves, in little moments of decision, to ask the great unasked question of our time: “Given my role here, how should I behave?” That’s what people who take an institution they’re involved with seriously would ask. 

“As a president or a member of Congress, a teacher or a scientist, a lawyer or a doctor, a pastor or a member, a parent or a neighbor, what should I do here?” 

The people you most respect these days probably seem to ask that kind of question before they make important judgments. And the people who drive you crazy, who you think are part of the problem, are likely those who clearly fail to ask it when they should. 

Asking such questions of ourselves would be a first step toward grasping our responsibilities, recovering the great diversity of interlocking purposes that our institutions ought to serve, and constraining elites and people in power so that the larger society can better trust them. It would not be a substitute for institutional reforms but a prerequisite for them. 

And asking such questions is one thing we all can do to take on the complicated social crisis we are living through and begin to rebuild the bonds of trust essential for a free society."

Oaths Do Not Matter to Some People

Senate Impeachment Oath:"I solemnly swear  that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of  Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."

Senate Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

POTUS Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now it is pretty clearly understood that it is illegal to ask foreign powers for help in an American election, or to accept help from foreign powers...  And Trump has clearly asked for help from Russia (2016), Ukraine (2018 /2019) and China (2019).

This all seems pretty obvious, so I am more curious as to how the Senators who are against getting to the bottom of what really happen are able to sleep at night...  Now I can understand the politics of all this and that they like their jobs.

However if "I swear before God" that I will do "impartial justice", you had better believe that I will want "the whole truth and nothing but the truth".  Only then could I do impartial justice...

Can you imagine McConnel and Graham standing at the pearly gates trying to rationalize their behaviors and comments?  St Peter says "you made this oath here in 2020 and then tried to prevent witnesses from divulging facts", how do you rationalize this?

• Well Trump would have made fun of me on twitter if I had done otherwise.
• Well my voters would have not have voted for me in the future.
• Well Trump was doing some good things, so it was okay that he was breaking the law. 

Of course, then St Peter is going to send them directly to hell to think of their breaking of their oath...  So the story has a happy ending.... :-)

And the Wait is Over !!!

VOX 9 questions about Trump’s impeachment trial you were too embarrassed to ask

FOX House transmits Trump impeachment articles to Senate, paving way for historic trial

FOX GOP Fights to Call Irrelevant Witnesses (those who have no information regarding what Trump and his personnel did with regard to Ukraine or why they did it)

NYT Documents Provide New Details of Trump’s Pressure Campaign on Ukraine

Well let's hope our Senators all start looking for the truth and start to leave politics out of it...

I can not think of any reason why any citizen would not want to hear from all relevant public servants?  I mean they work for us...  Right?

How Many Lies is Too Many?

Laurie said...

Kevin Drum has some questions for people such as John who are on the fence about Trump. (These questions were part of his post on the Trump health care lies.

"what about people who are on the fence over Trump? Do they think Trump’s lies are unfortunate, but not a dealbreaker? Do they think Trump’s lies aren’t much different from the lies every president sometimes tells? Do they not realize that Trump lies constantly? Or is Trump losing potential support because ambivalent voters do know he lies constantly and it turns them off?"

So, John, what do you think about all of Trump's lies? Are they a deal-breaker for you?

Hi Laurie,

I was going to post yesterday about Trump's latest lies, but it seems almost pointless.  The True Believers seem immune to fact checking...

As for me, it will depend on who the DEMs nominate...  I could probably vote for Joe, Amy or Pete, but I don't think I could ever vote for Bernie or Elizabeth....

For people who are still interested in truth, here are some links.

Fact Check 1

Fact Check 2

Fact Check 3

Fact Check 4

You Like Gov't Control. Admit It.

Stop trying to rationalize yourself as a Moderate Freedom Lover?

• Why are you so scared to own your Beliefs?
• Why do you feel the need to paint "the other" as the extremist?

I mean if you want to use our government to FORCE others to live by YOUR BELIEFS, just admit that you have AUTHORITARIAN tendencies.

• If you want the government mandating who gets to pull the plug, inject the suicide cocktail or approve the abortion.
• If you want to government raising the taxes on certain citizens so the money can be given to others, or you want to force other "religious" citizens to associate with LGBTQ practicing individuals
• You support intrusive government, Own it.

A FB friend told me about the Horseshoe Theory, it kind of fits in the Nolan diagram...  And it definitely explains why the modern GOPers and DEMs fall under the "freedom axis".

Everyone Thinks They Are Moderate?

"I’m Not The Radical Left, I’m The Humane Middle

The above link was posted by a FB friend, and below is the text from that piece.  I am going to copy our discussion into the comments here since this already a long post... :-)

"Apparently, I’ve been radicalized and I wasn’t aware.

Certain people call me the “radical Left” all the time.

I never considered myself radical before.
I just thought I was normal, ordinary, usual.
I thought equity was important to everyone.
I imagined America was filled with people who took that Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness stuff seriously—for all people.
I thought the Golden Rule was actually mainstream.

Recently I took an inventory of my positions, screening for the extremism:

I believe in full LGBTQ rights.
I believe we should protect the planet.
I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
I believe all religions are equally valid.
I believe the world is bigger than America.
I believe to be “pro-life,” means to treasure all of it.
I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not the baseline of humanity.
I believe we are all one interdependent community.
I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.

I believe there is enough in this world for everyone: enough food, enough money, enough room, enough care—if we unleash our creativity and unclench our fists.

I’m not sure how these ideas became radical, though it seems to have happened in the last few years.
I grew up being taught they were just part of being a decent human being.
I grew up believing that loving my neighbor as myself, meant that I actually worked for their welfare as much as my own.
I was taught that caring for the least in the world, was the measure of my devotion to God.
I thought that inalienable rights of other people were supposed to be a priority as a decent participant in the world.

I don’t think I’m alone.

In fact, I’m pretty sure that most people reside here in this place alongside me: the desire for compassion and diversity and equality and justice; that these things aren’t fringe ideologies or extremist positions—but simply the best way to be human.

I think most people want more humanity, not less.

I think the vast middle is exhausted by the cruelty of these days.

That these aspirations seem radical to some people, is probably an alarm that they’ve moved so far into the extremes of their fortified ideological bunkers and been so poisoned by the propaganda, that normal now seems excessive, that equality now seems oppressive, that goodness feels reckless.

Maybe the problem is, these people are so filled with fear for those who are different, so conditioned to be at war with the world, so indoctrinated into a white nationalistic religion of malice—that they’ve lost sight of what being a human being looks like anymore.

I am pretty sure that I don’t represent the “radical Left,” but the vast, disparate, compassionate, humane Middle; people who are not threatened by someone else’s presence, who do not see another person’s gain as their loss, who don’t worship a Caucasian, American god.

I suppose humanity feels radical to inhumane people.

In that case, I’ll gladly be here in my extremism."

Fact Checking Trump Iran Statements

I know this is pointless, since Trump advocates only trust him...  But here is some data for those who really want it.

Fact Checking Trump's Iran Address
WAPO Trump's Iran Address

And even better...
BI Tensions between the US and Iran may help drive an ISIS resurgence in Iraq

And Pence's we can not trust you people in Congress.

Defense News: Briefing Divides GOP

And Trump Spills the beans

And even worse...
BBC Likely Trigger Happy Iran Shot Plane Down

The Hill Congress working on pointless war powers act

Trump Starts War to Distract?

I wonder if Trump planned on Iraq kicking the USA out of their country...  Or he planned at all...

And he accused Obama many times of planning to attack Iran pre-election to boost his poll numbers, is this why he chose to attack assassinate a foreign country's General now?

More regarding Trump's past tweets and comments.

Days before that tweet, Trump posted a video in which he claimed that “Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get reelected — and as sure as you’re sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”

So we know that Trump put's his wants ahead of everyone else's. But do you think he would go so far as to start a war to win an election?  Unfortunately I think it may be possible... :-(

Sad but Funny Cartoons

for us spenders and tax cutters to consider.

Wolves, Sheep Dogs and Sheep

A FB friend posted this interesting romantic silly comparison from Ohio Cops FB

You may not like this, and I get it if you don’t. But I think it needs to be said.
I’ve watched the recent church shooting video and it’s sad...very very sad. It hurts my heart. But it also reinforces the reality that there are three types of people in the world.
There are the wolves. The wolf is the person who opened fire during the communion service, killing two people and intending to kill many more.

Wolves are evil.  All of them.Wolves have no conscious. Wolves are violent.
Wolves are predators who prey on the second type of person....the sheep. 

The sheep are the people stalked by the wolves. They obliviously go about their day unaware that there are wolves eyeing them, waiting for a chance to pounce. Some sheep pretend that they can “coexist” with the wolves. That wolves just need a little love....a hug. Maybe it’s even their fault that the wolf is a wolf. Other sheep know that wolves are around. They know that wolves are dangerous. But they hope the wolf will leave them alone. You see the sheep diving under the pews in the video when the wolf suddenly bares his fangs. 

The third type of person are the sheep dogs. The sheep dogs protect the peaceful but helpless sheep from the wolves. Sheep dogs are acutely aware of the danger wolves pose. They see the wolves eying the sheep, and they keep a watch out for them. Sometimes they get into trouble for being suspicious that a wolf might be hiding in sheep’s clothing. But, when the wolf suddenly appears, the sheep dog jumps and stands between the wolf and the sheep. You see the sheep dogs in the video as well. One of them stepped between the sheep and the wolf and was tragically killed by the angry wolf. Another sheep dog stepped in and eliminated the wolf within seconds. Then you see a whole pack of sheep dogs approach the dead wolf as the sheep scatter and hide. 

Amazingly, once it was all over, sheep from other pastures started criticizing the laws which allowed the sheep dogs to even be there to protect the sheep. They blamed the sheep dogs, for the wolf. 

Let me be clear! Not everyone is a sheep dog! Not everyone has it in them. I AM NOT criticizing the people who dove for cover! What else could they do in the situation they found themselves in? They did exactly what they should have done, exactly what the sheep dogs needed them to do which was to get out of the way and allow the sheep dogs to do what sheep dogs do....kill the wolf.

I of course had some comments and questions.

That was a very romanticized peace... And I am fine with conceal and carry. However the idea that armed Sheep Dogs are the solution is just silly as we learned in Las Vegas. 

In this case we had a screwed up mangy coyote with a shotgun... 

A serious logical prepared Wolf will have no problem killing the Sheep and Sheep Dogs. Those Sheep and Sheep Dogs could be you at a High School football game, People leaving the Church after service, etc. 

All the Wolf needs are AR15 style rifles, large clips, and something to hide behind.... Thankfully a lot of wolves are mentally unhealthy. 

Now for the big question, when we are handing out all the fangs and claws. (ie semi-automatic large clip weapons), how do we determine if the recipient is a Wolf or a Sheep Dog? See the link for my thoughts. 

Even the words are simplistic:
"Wolves are evil, have no conscious, are violent, are predators"...
"Sheep dogs protect, are acutely aware of the danger, dog jumps and stands between... " 

I personally have never thought about wolves as evil. They actually are excellent and useful predators. 

Now let's think about 2 men, both well armed and just living their lives...

• How do we know which will be the Wolf and which will be the Sheep Dog? 
• How do we know which will suffer a severe loss, maybe become psychotic, depressed, etc, and go postal?
• What happens when a supposed Sheep Dog turns on the Sheep?
• Does that mean he is now a Wolf?

The challenge is that everyone I know sees themselves as the "Good Guy" and can therefore justify their questionable actions... Strangely even these Wolves probably know their actions are justified.

Iraq, Iran, Oh My...

CBS Lawmakers divided over airstrike killing Iranian military leader

FOX Pompeo on Qassem Soleimani strike: Iran now understands Trump will take 'decisive' action

VOX Killing Iran’s Qassem Suleimani changes the game in the Middle East. But has Trump really thought out what comes next?


I have no good answers for the mess that is the  Middle East, though I think retaliating after a year of showing restraint was probably necessary.


I am a bit unsure about how to tell the difference between a "pre-emptive defensive strike" and "an assassination".  Thoughts?