I sat and read through a piece which quoted DC journalist Carl Bernstein a good bit. The commentary? Carl says that the cable news networks ought to stop broadcasting White House press conferences and briefings in their entirety. Reason? Carl says they are merely "propagandist exercises."
I sat and pondered over Carl's commentary.
With the exception of ESP*N.....I can't think of any network that has carried the entire WH press conferences in their 45 to 60 minute version. The ABC/CBS/NBC folks will splice a 2-minute piece for their nightly newscast with three minutes of commentary or attached 'extra' political chat.
The CNN folks might have three or four clips that they run....but they rarely if ever will carry an entire press conference.
So what is Carl talking about? I think he's imagining that various networks carry the full WH press conference. Yes....a rather fake comment about an imaginary event that simply doesn't happen.
This is another reason why I think journalism is worthless today.
Monday, 19 November 2018
Saturday, 17 November 2018
After the Santa Monica Fires
If you owned a 10-million dollar home, and it burnt to the ground with just about every single one of your 500 neighbor's houses.....then the insurance guy came around and basically played his game of 'delay' and your insurance didn't amount to more than four-million....would you rebuild?
This is one of those debate questions. Most normal folks would look at the possible repeat statistics and the marginal forest management that helped make this a mega-fire, and then gaze at their California tax situation.....then finally make this decision to pack up and leave.
I doubt if it will be discussed much in the news or public forums....but I would speculate that more than a hundred of these 'Hollywood' type folks will make a life decision to leave the Santa Monica region, and California itself.
Most will want a great landscape and some privacy....but this is stuff that you can find in Flagstaff, Arizona or some coastal town west of Portland, Oregon.
So the burnt sites end up being on the real estate market? Quietly, in roughly four weeks....I think a site or two each week will pop up, and some pop-rocker will swiftly move up....pay the $3-million for a burnt-out lot with four acres attached to it, and start construction.
This is one of those debate questions. Most normal folks would look at the possible repeat statistics and the marginal forest management that helped make this a mega-fire, and then gaze at their California tax situation.....then finally make this decision to pack up and leave.
I doubt if it will be discussed much in the news or public forums....but I would speculate that more than a hundred of these 'Hollywood' type folks will make a life decision to leave the Santa Monica region, and California itself.
Most will want a great landscape and some privacy....but this is stuff that you can find in Flagstaff, Arizona or some coastal town west of Portland, Oregon.
So the burnt sites end up being on the real estate market? Quietly, in roughly four weeks....I think a site or two each week will pop up, and some pop-rocker will swiftly move up....pay the $3-million for a burnt-out lot with four acres attached to it, and start construction.
My 2020 Election Scenario
This essay discusses the likely November 2020 Presidential election, and the scenario of President Trump running a second time.
Generally, after the election wraps up.....the fate of the election is then tied to electoral votes. The Electors would meet in their individual state capitals, on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The Constitution then states that they would cast their votes on separate ballots....for one occasion only....for president and vice president. If they fail to reach the 270 point, then the whole affair using the Electoral College is finished, and you move onto plan 'B'.
I would suggest that the ultimate strategy now developed by the Democratic Party....is to use the court system, the fragile voting system in a number of states, and simply stall by judge's decree the meeting on that Monday. If they can't deliver their vote.....the Electoral College doesn't matter and it won't bring us a President.
Plan 'B'?
There would be a joint session of the House/Senate on the 6th of January, with the new incoming House/Senate normally blessing off the electoral vote winner. In this case, there is no winner. So they would proceed with the game plan.
The House would then go into a meeting, with each state group, and take up the top three vote-getters of the election.
In the case of Alabama....the seven House members would meet (six GOP and one Democrat) and they'd hold a 'state-vote'.
The Senate would go into a meeting and vote with the top two vote-getters for Vice-President. Each individual would have one single vote.....it would not be a state by state thing.
The Senate would likely end their meeting in two hours, with a few speeches in the middle of this mess.
The House? Several states would be able to block any vote because it's split (same number of GOP and Democratic members). A key rule in this episode? Delegates from two-thirds of the states must be present to start the process. The winner? You need 26 states to vote for the winner.
I would suggest the strategy here is to reach 6 January 2021, and ensure that the 26-number cannot be reached.
Who stands as the sub-president in this case? The Senate picked-VP. He will take the oath to fill in the position. The intent of the Constitution is that some decision would be eventually reached (hopefully before 20 January). If the Senate fails? Well....the House Speaker takes the oath and serves as sub-president.
So, my humble belief is that this is the game-plan and we will reach 20 January without the House being able to conclude their job.
Disgruntled voters? It'll be a massive negative situation and likely shake the foundations of the republic. But it'll be the only way that the Democrats can prevent a second term (if Trump runs).
How the states stack up in 2019? Once seated, there would be a 26 state hold for Trump. So you have to wonder about the House election in November 2020, and if judges can step into the middle of results (like in Florida) and run out the Electoral College clock. If the judges could then stall the seating of twenty-odd GOP House members? Well....you'd get to 20 January and the VP becomes the temp-President.
Generally, after the election wraps up.....the fate of the election is then tied to electoral votes. The Electors would meet in their individual state capitals, on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The Constitution then states that they would cast their votes on separate ballots....for one occasion only....for president and vice president. If they fail to reach the 270 point, then the whole affair using the Electoral College is finished, and you move onto plan 'B'.
I would suggest that the ultimate strategy now developed by the Democratic Party....is to use the court system, the fragile voting system in a number of states, and simply stall by judge's decree the meeting on that Monday. If they can't deliver their vote.....the Electoral College doesn't matter and it won't bring us a President.
Plan 'B'?
There would be a joint session of the House/Senate on the 6th of January, with the new incoming House/Senate normally blessing off the electoral vote winner. In this case, there is no winner. So they would proceed with the game plan.
The House would then go into a meeting, with each state group, and take up the top three vote-getters of the election.
In the case of Alabama....the seven House members would meet (six GOP and one Democrat) and they'd hold a 'state-vote'.
The Senate would go into a meeting and vote with the top two vote-getters for Vice-President. Each individual would have one single vote.....it would not be a state by state thing.
The Senate would likely end their meeting in two hours, with a few speeches in the middle of this mess.
The House? Several states would be able to block any vote because it's split (same number of GOP and Democratic members). A key rule in this episode? Delegates from two-thirds of the states must be present to start the process. The winner? You need 26 states to vote for the winner.
I would suggest the strategy here is to reach 6 January 2021, and ensure that the 26-number cannot be reached.
Who stands as the sub-president in this case? The Senate picked-VP. He will take the oath to fill in the position. The intent of the Constitution is that some decision would be eventually reached (hopefully before 20 January). If the Senate fails? Well....the House Speaker takes the oath and serves as sub-president.
So, my humble belief is that this is the game-plan and we will reach 20 January without the House being able to conclude their job.
Disgruntled voters? It'll be a massive negative situation and likely shake the foundations of the republic. But it'll be the only way that the Democrats can prevent a second term (if Trump runs).
How the states stack up in 2019? Once seated, there would be a 26 state hold for Trump. So you have to wonder about the House election in November 2020, and if judges can step into the middle of results (like in Florida) and run out the Electoral College clock. If the judges could then stall the seating of twenty-odd GOP House members? Well....you'd get to 20 January and the VP becomes the temp-President.
Friday, 16 November 2018
Why Vote-Counting is Difficult?
It's pretty simple....everything flipped over when we went to common-core math, and the folks over age 35 can't count in this mathematical system. So we need to search Georgia and Florida....for nine-year-old kids....who can handle this, with a six-pack of Mountain Dew to start them off, and some Ms Watkins (the incompetent math teacher) to lead the group.
Course, at the end of the six-week period with all the common-core math counting.....it's possible that we started out with 455,000 people voting and the common-core counting results suggest that 555,000 votes are in the bucket. But with common-core....it's all fine.
Course, at the end of the six-week period with all the common-core math counting.....it's possible that we started out with 455,000 people voting and the common-core counting results suggest that 555,000 votes are in the bucket. But with common-core....it's all fine.
Thursday, 15 November 2018
The 'Right' to News?
When you dig down into this court episode brewing with the CNN reporter (Acosta) and the Trump White House....it really amounts to the question of a right existing....to news. Or that news reporters have the right to sit in some room.
So you start to think about it, and the longer you ponder.....the more amused you become.
There is no right to news. There is a right to a free and open press, but no one has ever spoke to this concept in that way. Usually, it meant you could type up a story and tell the story in your own fashion. It didn't really mean that you were 'owed' a seat in some house, hall, or facility.
How this will go? Some judge might issue an order that the President has to give the CNN guy (Acosta a pass to enter the room), but since it's an executive facility....it's doubtful that the President will comply. If it were a football stadium or banquet hall....then maybe the court might have some right.
So this is mostly for show, and it'll be dragged out for six to twelve months.....just as a show item. CNN? They will find another reporter and put him in the Acosta spot. What happens to Acosta? That's really the curious question left to answer.
So you start to think about it, and the longer you ponder.....the more amused you become.
There is no right to news. There is a right to a free and open press, but no one has ever spoke to this concept in that way. Usually, it meant you could type up a story and tell the story in your own fashion. It didn't really mean that you were 'owed' a seat in some house, hall, or facility.
How this will go? Some judge might issue an order that the President has to give the CNN guy (Acosta a pass to enter the room), but since it's an executive facility....it's doubtful that the President will comply. If it were a football stadium or banquet hall....then maybe the court might have some right.
So this is mostly for show, and it'll be dragged out for six to twelve months.....just as a show item. CNN? They will find another reporter and put him in the Acosta spot. What happens to Acosta? That's really the curious question left to answer.
This Wine/Whine Argument
In recent days, the topic of US wine (typically meaning California quality) being equal to French wine....has come up (again).
So I'll walk into this discussion. I'm not a wine connoisseur....but I have probably had over 1,500 glasses of wine in my life, from at least twelve countries.
First, you can go and find some really awful wine from France, Germany, and Italy.....which everyone will agree that you can't price the wine above 3 Euro (roughly 3.75 US dollars), and it's best to only use the wine for cooking purposes (like for a stew or chilli).
Second, I've had some really great Australian wine, but will admit that by the time you handle shipping costs to Europe....it's really overpriced.
Third, it's an odd thing to admit....but if you were looking for a decent red wine from Germany, and stacked against the same products from South Africa.....the South African red wine would win. It's something about the soil....sunlight....and temperatures. Germans don't like to admit it but quietly....most will say there is no way for them to compete.
Fourth, I suspect if you lined up forty 'regular' people (not the intellectual or connoisseur crowd) and laid out wines from across Europe, the US, and South Africa....I don't think anyone could really suggest a geographic location for what they were sipping. They could say X is better than Y, but this would amount to a quality standard.
Fifth, this thing about Italian Lambrusco wine. This is a red wine which typically ONLY comes from Mantua, Modena, Parma, and Reggio nell'Emilia (the central region of Italy). I'm particular about Lambrusco, and would probably sip three or four glasses a day if given a chance. It's generally cheap (rarely higher than four Euro (5 US dollars)....fairly sweet....and I might even suggest that it goes down like a alcoholic Ni-Hi grape soda. The connoisseur crowd looks down up this wine. But on a hot afternoon....you can't beat a chilled glass of Lambrusco unless you got some ice tea.
So this Trump-talk that occurred and challenged up the idea that French wine might not beat California wine? The California folks will point out various awards that they've won and that the vines themselves....are from Europe originally. Same for South Africa. Same for Australia and New Zealand. In twenty years, I suspect that the vines will be put into place there in China, and also get them on the wine market situation.
So I'll walk into this discussion. I'm not a wine connoisseur....but I have probably had over 1,500 glasses of wine in my life, from at least twelve countries.
First, you can go and find some really awful wine from France, Germany, and Italy.....which everyone will agree that you can't price the wine above 3 Euro (roughly 3.75 US dollars), and it's best to only use the wine for cooking purposes (like for a stew or chilli).
Second, I've had some really great Australian wine, but will admit that by the time you handle shipping costs to Europe....it's really overpriced.
Third, it's an odd thing to admit....but if you were looking for a decent red wine from Germany, and stacked against the same products from South Africa.....the South African red wine would win. It's something about the soil....sunlight....and temperatures. Germans don't like to admit it but quietly....most will say there is no way for them to compete.
Fourth, I suspect if you lined up forty 'regular' people (not the intellectual or connoisseur crowd) and laid out wines from across Europe, the US, and South Africa....I don't think anyone could really suggest a geographic location for what they were sipping. They could say X is better than Y, but this would amount to a quality standard.
Fifth, this thing about Italian Lambrusco wine. This is a red wine which typically ONLY comes from Mantua, Modena, Parma, and Reggio nell'Emilia (the central region of Italy). I'm particular about Lambrusco, and would probably sip three or four glasses a day if given a chance. It's generally cheap (rarely higher than four Euro (5 US dollars)....fairly sweet....and I might even suggest that it goes down like a alcoholic Ni-Hi grape soda. The connoisseur crowd looks down up this wine. But on a hot afternoon....you can't beat a chilled glass of Lambrusco unless you got some ice tea.
So this Trump-talk that occurred and challenged up the idea that French wine might not beat California wine? The California folks will point out various awards that they've won and that the vines themselves....are from Europe originally. Same for South Africa. Same for Australia and New Zealand. In twenty years, I suspect that the vines will be put into place there in China, and also get them on the wine market situation.
Wednesday, 14 November 2018
EU Army Chatter?
Chancellor Angela Merkel stood up and made a speech before the EU Parliament yesterday. The main topic?
A sort of wild idea of hers....suggesting a EU Army. The key phrase....NOT to be an alternate, but an ADDITION to NATO.
The news piece I pulled this from? ARD, public TV new in Germany.....Channel One.
The amusing part of this piece (I watched the video clip)....as she gave this suggestion....there was a brief interruption and 'boos' taking place (not a lot but it was obvious).
So I sat and pondered over this comment and suggestion. I have seven observations:
1. To achieve this....you'd have to go and spend something greater than this 2-percent of GDP issue that currently plagues about twenty of the EU members (Germany and France are both having this same problem). But let's be clear....you'd have to reach 2-percent and to really add any 'meat' to this EU Army existing....you probably are talking about a minimum of five-billion Euro a year from the 28 nations (oh, and lets remember that the UK won't be part of this deal after spring of 2019). Can they whip out another five-billion Euro for this united EU deal? Or would we go cheap....throw 500 million EU on the table and just run a 3,000 man tank and assault unit out of Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and France?
2. Could you sell the 27 remaining members (having taken the UK out) on this idea of spending on a EU Army? I suspect you can only find seven to ten nations that really think this is a wise idea.
3. The idea that NATO still continues to exist, and this EU Army is separate? Go explain how this would work, and who would give the orders.
4. Once you had this mechanism created....wouldn't the next step be to dislodge NATO and move the remaining European military units under the EU?
5. Wouldn't President Trump take notice of this game and just start moving US troops out of Germany....perhaps to Poland? Well....nothing really prevents him from doing so. Even a Democratic House would only have a budget in hand to prevent him from doing so, but since the Senate won't go hand-in-hand with them.....there's likely no budget for the next two years.
6. Who would be the director or general of such a EU Army? Could they pack up and leave the NATO line of command and step into the EU line of command? Could the EU declare some conflict but NATO refuse to get into it?
7. Finally.....once you explain the extra cost feature to EU citizens...won't they go a bit 'nuts' and ask what the heck are they paying for?
So I think this talk of Chancellor Merkels.....is mostly just chatter. It won't go anywhere. It sounds good on some university thesis project, but in real terms.....it's beyond their financial capability
A sort of wild idea of hers....suggesting a EU Army. The key phrase....NOT to be an alternate, but an ADDITION to NATO.
The news piece I pulled this from? ARD, public TV new in Germany.....Channel One.
The amusing part of this piece (I watched the video clip)....as she gave this suggestion....there was a brief interruption and 'boos' taking place (not a lot but it was obvious).
So I sat and pondered over this comment and suggestion. I have seven observations:
1. To achieve this....you'd have to go and spend something greater than this 2-percent of GDP issue that currently plagues about twenty of the EU members (Germany and France are both having this same problem). But let's be clear....you'd have to reach 2-percent and to really add any 'meat' to this EU Army existing....you probably are talking about a minimum of five-billion Euro a year from the 28 nations (oh, and lets remember that the UK won't be part of this deal after spring of 2019). Can they whip out another five-billion Euro for this united EU deal? Or would we go cheap....throw 500 million EU on the table and just run a 3,000 man tank and assault unit out of Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and France?
2. Could you sell the 27 remaining members (having taken the UK out) on this idea of spending on a EU Army? I suspect you can only find seven to ten nations that really think this is a wise idea.
3. The idea that NATO still continues to exist, and this EU Army is separate? Go explain how this would work, and who would give the orders.
4. Once you had this mechanism created....wouldn't the next step be to dislodge NATO and move the remaining European military units under the EU?
5. Wouldn't President Trump take notice of this game and just start moving US troops out of Germany....perhaps to Poland? Well....nothing really prevents him from doing so. Even a Democratic House would only have a budget in hand to prevent him from doing so, but since the Senate won't go hand-in-hand with them.....there's likely no budget for the next two years.
6. Who would be the director or general of such a EU Army? Could they pack up and leave the NATO line of command and step into the EU line of command? Could the EU declare some conflict but NATO refuse to get into it?
7. Finally.....once you explain the extra cost feature to EU citizens...won't they go a bit 'nuts' and ask what the heck are they paying for?
So I think this talk of Chancellor Merkels.....is mostly just chatter. It won't go anywhere. It sounds good on some university thesis project, but in real terms.....it's beyond their financial capability
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)