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.
Thursday, 15 November 2018
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
Tuesday, 13 November 2018
“Make France Great Again!”
This afternoon, President Trump finally laid into France's President Macron. Macron could have gone through the weekend and just hyped the end of World War I.....but no....he decided that via his intellectualism and brilliant gift for talking....he'd go and dump on President Trump.
So the Twitter comments came. I suspect they were written out weeks ago in anticipation of this moment.
“There is no country more Nationalist than France.”
Then came “Make France Great Again!”
Here's the thing....if you go back to the France of the 1700s and through the Napoleonic era....France was this iconic society that thrived upon some great character of nationalism. To be French....was some great achievement in life (at least French people used to believe that).
Since the 1940s? There's been this odd 'loser' mentality bleeding over on society and an intellectual battle taking place to chip away at this great character of Europe.
As for making "Make France Great Again"? I suspect that MFGA will start to appear as bumper stickers and some younger French folks will pick up on this chatter. Macron? All he had to do was give some decent weekend speeches and he could have avoided this whole public spectacle. Now he's gone and invited some Trump-like game to be played out on his front porch.
So the Twitter comments came. I suspect they were written out weeks ago in anticipation of this moment.
“There is no country more Nationalist than France.”
Then came “Make France Great Again!”
Here's the thing....if you go back to the France of the 1700s and through the Napoleonic era....France was this iconic society that thrived upon some great character of nationalism. To be French....was some great achievement in life (at least French people used to believe that).
Since the 1940s? There's been this odd 'loser' mentality bleeding over on society and an intellectual battle taking place to chip away at this great character of Europe.
As for making "Make France Great Again"? I suspect that MFGA will start to appear as bumper stickers and some younger French folks will pick up on this chatter. Macron? All he had to do was give some decent weekend speeches and he could have avoided this whole public spectacle. Now he's gone and invited some Trump-like game to be played out on his front porch.
The Fire Story
On the far northwest end of Los Angles, there's a massive suburb called Santa Monica. It's maybe two miles by three miles in size. Heading west....you got the ocean. South and east....Venice Beach and Beverly Hills. North....the hills and 'forests' (state parks and protected land).
The folks who live there....have money. You can't really afford to live there unless you got some income level of $500,000 or more per year.
On the far north 'edge' of the suburb....this is where the real wealthy folks live....inches away from the state park, limited houses around you....everyone having some status of some type and semi-important in the entertainment industry.
This week, most of their houses caught on fire. Blame will shift around....global warming will end up being the most utilized blame for the fire and massive destruction.
Here's the thing about this discussion, the fire, and the urbanization that has taken place.
The wealthy want a piece of property that is large....way out away from public viewing....with a magnificent view. They will pay for that property. You can list some three-acre lot for two-million-plus dollars and no one bats an eye.....they shell out the money and start building their mega-structure house.
Most folks with common sense would view this in a different way. A kinda dry landscape with a few trees and a fair number of shrubs which have adapted to this weather landscape. Various political positions taken to avoid cutting back on vegetation or clearing away the extreme dry or dead vegetation. Everyone patting each other on the back for their pro-environment positions but no one sizing up the threat to their housing via fires.
All of these folks wanted risk. They may not have recognized risk....but they signed up for massive risk. Rebuilding? More than likely but you have to figure....within thirty years, the possibility of your house burning down again will be better than 50-percent. Insurance? My guess is that as the companies pay out the hundreds of millions....they will review factors and decide that a 50-percent increase in yearly premiums will be necessary, and the risk-crowd will go ahead and pay the increased cost.
They wanted maximum risk....it's part of this game for the view and status-symbol lifestyle.
The folks who live there....have money. You can't really afford to live there unless you got some income level of $500,000 or more per year.
On the far north 'edge' of the suburb....this is where the real wealthy folks live....inches away from the state park, limited houses around you....everyone having some status of some type and semi-important in the entertainment industry.
This week, most of their houses caught on fire. Blame will shift around....global warming will end up being the most utilized blame for the fire and massive destruction.
Here's the thing about this discussion, the fire, and the urbanization that has taken place.
The wealthy want a piece of property that is large....way out away from public viewing....with a magnificent view. They will pay for that property. You can list some three-acre lot for two-million-plus dollars and no one bats an eye.....they shell out the money and start building their mega-structure house.
Most folks with common sense would view this in a different way. A kinda dry landscape with a few trees and a fair number of shrubs which have adapted to this weather landscape. Various political positions taken to avoid cutting back on vegetation or clearing away the extreme dry or dead vegetation. Everyone patting each other on the back for their pro-environment positions but no one sizing up the threat to their housing via fires.
All of these folks wanted risk. They may not have recognized risk....but they signed up for massive risk. Rebuilding? More than likely but you have to figure....within thirty years, the possibility of your house burning down again will be better than 50-percent. Insurance? My guess is that as the companies pay out the hundreds of millions....they will review factors and decide that a 50-percent increase in yearly premiums will be necessary, and the risk-crowd will go ahead and pay the increased cost.
They wanted maximum risk....it's part of this game for the view and status-symbol lifestyle.
Monday, 12 November 2018
Ocasio-Cortez and DC Rent
I noticed a short story over the weekend where the NY City soon-to-be House Representative.....Ocasio-Cortez....did a chat and admitted that she's shocked at rental prices in DC, and won't be moving until she gets her first 'pay-check'.
So the basic truth is that if you wanted a decent two-bedroom apartment, in a guarded or secure building, with some privacy....it's going to be in the range of $2,400 (minimum). This is the base cost for someone in her position, living within five miles of the capital building. Going outside of the 'zone'? If you made it around ten miles out, you might be able to get your rent situation down to the $1,500 range.
My guess is that she's going to 'accidentally' find someone who has a condo in the region and will be out-of-town most of the time, and they will sub-lease it to her for 'super-nice' price (maybe $1,000 a month). Rigged-up? More than likely, but no one conducts audits on Congress folks, and there's probably well over fifty of the House members who live in this type of arrangement.
This is one of the serious problems in procuring a seat in the House or Senate. No one has ever conducted a survey of living arrangements of the Senate or House members, and they'd balk if you attempted one. For a number of years....one particular US Senator lived out of a basement apartment of his chief-of-staff's home. There's also the story of the one House member who slept in his office Monday through Thursday night, and flew back home each weekend (his wife balked at moving to DC).
If you go back historically, in the 1800s, a lot of the political folks stayed at boarding houses, and even shared beds with each other.
But this brings out a weird question to ask Ocasio-Cortez....how did you survive in the NY City rent situation? No one seems to ask that question.
So the basic truth is that if you wanted a decent two-bedroom apartment, in a guarded or secure building, with some privacy....it's going to be in the range of $2,400 (minimum). This is the base cost for someone in her position, living within five miles of the capital building. Going outside of the 'zone'? If you made it around ten miles out, you might be able to get your rent situation down to the $1,500 range.
My guess is that she's going to 'accidentally' find someone who has a condo in the region and will be out-of-town most of the time, and they will sub-lease it to her for 'super-nice' price (maybe $1,000 a month). Rigged-up? More than likely, but no one conducts audits on Congress folks, and there's probably well over fifty of the House members who live in this type of arrangement.
This is one of the serious problems in procuring a seat in the House or Senate. No one has ever conducted a survey of living arrangements of the Senate or House members, and they'd balk if you attempted one. For a number of years....one particular US Senator lived out of a basement apartment of his chief-of-staff's home. There's also the story of the one House member who slept in his office Monday through Thursday night, and flew back home each weekend (his wife balked at moving to DC).
If you go back historically, in the 1800s, a lot of the political folks stayed at boarding houses, and even shared beds with each other.
But this brings out a weird question to ask Ocasio-Cortez....how did you survive in the NY City rent situation? No one seems to ask that question.
Sunday, 11 November 2018
The Last Time That The US Came Uninvited to France
I sat and read over various comments by French President Macron today. A day or two ago, he was suggesting that the EU needed to build up an Army to handle the potential threat one day from Russia, China or the US (hinting that we might invade).
Twice, the US has come over to France.
The first time, we were invited. It was one of those grave and serious moments when a worn out British and French Army could not mount some major attack and end World War I. You can go over the list of battles and the change of the war from the moment of arrival....it doesn't matter. It ended in roughly eighteen months, and we quietly packed up and left. We didn't stay.....we had no need to stay.
The second time, we were not invited. To be honest, the French government in 1944 was dominated by the Germans, and there just wasn't going to be an invitation.
So we came on landing craft....upon a beach or two, and left young dead American GI's there upon the beach. To be kinda honest, we ensured that there were a lot more dead German GI's than American ones.
We didn't stick around the beach much or have a chance to really mingle with local Normandy folks (things were pressing for time and movement).
In six to eight weeks, we'd kinda crossed the French countryside....met a number of French people who seemed to want to hug us, offer up plenty of wine, and shed some tears over what had to be done. For this type of business....you need rough men who are capable of going out into the night, and stormy weather....with a preoccupation to settle wrongs. It's hard to find men like this, but we seem to have found enough to do the job.
When 1945 ended, the beaches of Normandy were silent....graves were dug....and memorials were being prepared.
To be honest, I've traveled around a fair bit of Europe, and found that around regular working-class French folks....we Americans tend to be more like them....than our Brit cousins. Course, with the French intellectual class.....it's not the same story.
I look upon Macron's commentary as one delivered by someone with a political agenda and hyped to send a message. The general public trend for Macron? It's spiraled down since the election and he able has a 25-percent approval rating in the country.
I think we can mostly all assure Macron....we have no real intentions of invading France. Yeah, if some Nazi folks were to show up and things were going badly for the French....we'd probably find more landing craft, and stage another landing at Normandy, if required.
Twice, the US has come over to France.
The first time, we were invited. It was one of those grave and serious moments when a worn out British and French Army could not mount some major attack and end World War I. You can go over the list of battles and the change of the war from the moment of arrival....it doesn't matter. It ended in roughly eighteen months, and we quietly packed up and left. We didn't stay.....we had no need to stay.
The second time, we were not invited. To be honest, the French government in 1944 was dominated by the Germans, and there just wasn't going to be an invitation.
So we came on landing craft....upon a beach or two, and left young dead American GI's there upon the beach. To be kinda honest, we ensured that there were a lot more dead German GI's than American ones.
We didn't stick around the beach much or have a chance to really mingle with local Normandy folks (things were pressing for time and movement).
In six to eight weeks, we'd kinda crossed the French countryside....met a number of French people who seemed to want to hug us, offer up plenty of wine, and shed some tears over what had to be done. For this type of business....you need rough men who are capable of going out into the night, and stormy weather....with a preoccupation to settle wrongs. It's hard to find men like this, but we seem to have found enough to do the job.
When 1945 ended, the beaches of Normandy were silent....graves were dug....and memorials were being prepared.
To be honest, I've traveled around a fair bit of Europe, and found that around regular working-class French folks....we Americans tend to be more like them....than our Brit cousins. Course, with the French intellectual class.....it's not the same story.
I look upon Macron's commentary as one delivered by someone with a political agenda and hyped to send a message. The general public trend for Macron? It's spiraled down since the election and he able has a 25-percent approval rating in the country.
I think we can mostly all assure Macron....we have no real intentions of invading France. Yeah, if some Nazi folks were to show up and things were going badly for the French....we'd probably find more landing craft, and stage another landing at Normandy, if required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)