I've spent a fair amount reading this week over the Johnson Impeachment of 1868, and it may lay out of some the problems, and the path that might occur if Impeachment for Trump were attempted.
For those who weren't aware....Johnson was left an enormous task as Lincoln was buried. The Lincoln 'path' meant that forgiving was in order. The behavior of the Republican House and Senate? Less so....they wanted the President to punish the southern states as much as possible.
At some point, Johnson went on a national tour (using the rail network) to make speeches and ask the public to blast their representative/senators. That probably put Johnson on an enormous 'enemies' list.
Upon firing Secretary of War Stanton.....that was the last straw. So Johnson was brought up on 11 charges for the Impeachment.
The charges:
1. The Senate was not given a chance to concur with the firing of Stanton (a new act came prior to this which suggested that they had to approve of not only hiring Secretaries for the cabinet, but firing them as well).
2. By firing Stanton, the President turned around and appointed a new Secretary of War when the vacancy simply didn't exist. I know, it's a stupid charge but simply added to the burden.
3. Act of conspiring. Mostly with members of the House, and harming the jobs of the Senators.
4. Another act of conspiracy. Mostly by failing to carry out the law on the Tenure of Office Act.
5. Another act of conspiracy. Mostly to take or posses the property of the Department of War.
6. Another act of conspiracy Mostly the same thing as number 5 above except it was meant to violate the Tenure of Office act.
7. Giving the new Secretary of War the ability to control disbursement of government funding for the war.
8. Giving illegal orders to Major General Emory with the illegal intent to violate federal law.
9. Giving three speeches 'insulting' the Congress (mostly the Senate and mostly Republicans).
10. Acting in a disgraceful way to the Presidency.
11. Hiring the new Secretary of War without consulting the Senate.
So when you look over the list, it looks like a lot.
So on day one with the Impeachment accepted....the Johnson team asked for 40 days to present their case....the Senate (by vote) said 'no', and gave him a total of 10 days to present the case. They didn't really want to spend a heck of a lot of time talking about this or how the firing came about with Stanton.
Impeachment at that point required a two-thirds majority to vote on this and the magic number was 36 votes. The Impeachment acts were divided into three votes. As long as they reached 36 on any of the three, then Johnson was thrown out.
Well, this is the curious thing. From the nine Democratic Senators in the Senate...they all voted NO, to all three acts. For the Republicans, they were only able to muster 35 of the Senators to vote in favor of the Impeachment. Nine Republicans voted with the Democrats (on all three acts). Without that one single extra GOP vote....the measures were defeated.
The nine Republican Senators and their future? All left office after their term ended.
As much as the 35 Republicans felt they'd have the votes to toss Johnson out.....they guessed wrong.
So you gaze at the way this might fit into the Trump scenario. You'd have to write up charges. There would have to be some details involved, with accusations and evidence.
The Senate might say 'fine' with the charges, and then Trump's legal team would ask for not just 40 days (like Johnson's team), but Trump's team might say that well over four months are required. You can imagine the Senate in a lock-down situation....nothing to be accomplished for four entire months. No trips to golf resorts....no trips overseas....no campaign trips.
Trump's team bringing out subpoenas in massive quantity? I would imagine well over 150 subpoenas will be issued and some folks will be shocked at being dragged into this. The potential that former President Obama being dragged in and forced to swear on what he said or did? That threat exists. The potential threat that one or two US Senators might be accused of being part of some counter-conspiracy effort.....forcing them to remove themselves from the Impeachment vote? That might occur as well.
The threat of individuals have charges drawn up because of a false testimony? That issue exists as well.
And at the end? If the two-thirds vote doesn't occur? It's more than likely.
Destruction of trust for the Democratic Party? If this pee dossier is proven to be totally fictional, and paid by Democratic operatives, it opens up a big mess which Mitch McConnell would just stand there in glee....like a 8-year old kid in Disneyland.
Anyone saying or suggesting that this would only take ten days...hasn't read the Johnson history piece or tried to connect the dots on this whole entire anti-Trump effort.
Could the news media even survive four entire months of this process?
So, it's a curious thing to imagine.
Sunday, 28 July 2019
Saturday, 27 July 2019
How 2016 'Russian Meddling' May Work in the 2020 Election
You have two separate concepts. One group suggests that the Russians heavily meddled in the 2016 election....causing Trump to win (or Hillary to lose, depending on your state of mind). The other group suggests that whatever did occur, was really outflanked by meddling by the GOP and Democrats themselves.
Trump (and the Democratic House) may decide by spring of 2020 (eight months prior to the election) that SOMETHING has to be resolved or fixed, and this might turn into a cluster-F**K (a term we often used in the Air Force when marginal problems got resolutions that made bigger problems instead of fixing the original situation).
Trump could go and push for a national database to ensure voter conflicts are resolved, which would be bitterly fought by twenty-odd states.
The Congress folks (led by Pelosi) could go and suggest a national commission to monitor the situation (meaning nothing would basically occur).
Some big push might occur to ensure an ID is required to vote, while the Democratic-held House would fight against it.
Some folks from both groups might go and suggest a massive grip by the government on social media, which would harm both political parties.
I would suggest to sit back and be entertained by the 'fakeness' of the meddling and how people laugh over the Russian story.
Trump (and the Democratic House) may decide by spring of 2020 (eight months prior to the election) that SOMETHING has to be resolved or fixed, and this might turn into a cluster-F**K (a term we often used in the Air Force when marginal problems got resolutions that made bigger problems instead of fixing the original situation).
Trump could go and push for a national database to ensure voter conflicts are resolved, which would be bitterly fought by twenty-odd states.
The Congress folks (led by Pelosi) could go and suggest a national commission to monitor the situation (meaning nothing would basically occur).
Some big push might occur to ensure an ID is required to vote, while the Democratic-held House would fight against it.
Some folks from both groups might go and suggest a massive grip by the government on social media, which would harm both political parties.
I would suggest to sit back and be entertained by the 'fakeness' of the meddling and how people laugh over the Russian story.
Heat Wave Chatter
I noticed this today....some guy (probably a PhD'er)....came out and suggested that we needed to name 'heat waves' like we name hurricanes or storm fronts. Course, he wanted to start the naming process at 28 degrees C (82 degrees F).
I kinda like the idea although I'd start it at 35 degrees C (95 degrees F). And I'd go one step further.....I'd only use Greek names (Aesop, Andrei, etc).
Here's the thing....talking about the weather used to be normal and one of the ten ways that you could connect with the gas station 'chief' or the coffee shop waitress. Ever since climate change entered into the discussion.....if you bring up weather, then it's some science discussion or catastrophic worry. If these events had names, then you'd talk about the big Apollo-2022 heat wave compared against the Arsen-2020 heat wave. It'd be more personable in discussion then.
I kinda like the idea although I'd start it at 35 degrees C (95 degrees F). And I'd go one step further.....I'd only use Greek names (Aesop, Andrei, etc).
Here's the thing....talking about the weather used to be normal and one of the ten ways that you could connect with the gas station 'chief' or the coffee shop waitress. Ever since climate change entered into the discussion.....if you bring up weather, then it's some science discussion or catastrophic worry. If these events had names, then you'd talk about the big Apollo-2022 heat wave compared against the Arsen-2020 heat wave. It'd be more personable in discussion then.
Thursday, 25 July 2019
My Observations Over the Mueller Episode
Altogether, I probably watched about two hours of clips over the Mueller meeting yesterday. No, I didn't watch his opening statement segment....but I caught enough of Republicans and Democrats asking questions to reach four observations:
1. Maybe a decade ago, Mueller was a witty and clever guy, but the guy I saw yesterday was drained of energy, lacking any ability to drill down into the topic, and was a guy at the end of his career.
In some ways, I felt sorry for him. But as you look around....there are a number of folks who have stayed beyond their value in Washington and can't deliver any longer (Pelosi, former Senator from Mississippi.....Thad Cochran, Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Grassley from Kansas, etc).
2. The value of this 'show' yesterday for the Democrats? Maybe they had some view that they had 'gold' still left to mine, but I'd say if anything....this impeachment chatter is basically finished and any hope of using Mueller's work is a joke.
3. If they did go to impeachment....the President's lawyers have the right to bring various witnesses in, and they might drag Mueller back for a second round, or perhaps drag in dementia experts to talk over Mueller's health aspects. If you thought this round yesterday went marginally well, that impeachment project would be a total failure.
4. This brings me back to the beginning....did Sessions know that Mueller was losing it? Did one guy marginally capable of delivering anything....just select another guy marginally capable of delivering anything?
I'm kinda hoping this is the end now for this whole impeachment talk. If it continues on....people would start to treat it as a comedy, and it's value goes away.
1. Maybe a decade ago, Mueller was a witty and clever guy, but the guy I saw yesterday was drained of energy, lacking any ability to drill down into the topic, and was a guy at the end of his career.
In some ways, I felt sorry for him. But as you look around....there are a number of folks who have stayed beyond their value in Washington and can't deliver any longer (Pelosi, former Senator from Mississippi.....Thad Cochran, Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Grassley from Kansas, etc).
2. The value of this 'show' yesterday for the Democrats? Maybe they had some view that they had 'gold' still left to mine, but I'd say if anything....this impeachment chatter is basically finished and any hope of using Mueller's work is a joke.
3. If they did go to impeachment....the President's lawyers have the right to bring various witnesses in, and they might drag Mueller back for a second round, or perhaps drag in dementia experts to talk over Mueller's health aspects. If you thought this round yesterday went marginally well, that impeachment project would be a total failure.
4. This brings me back to the beginning....did Sessions know that Mueller was losing it? Did one guy marginally capable of delivering anything....just select another guy marginally capable of delivering anything?
I'm kinda hoping this is the end now for this whole impeachment talk. If it continues on....people would start to treat it as a comedy, and it's value goes away.
Wednesday, 24 July 2019
Reading
All total in my life, I would estimate that I've picked up 2,200-plus books and read them. At some point as a kid, I was probably reading one book week. Split between fiction and non-fiction? It's probably 10-percent fiction, and the rest of historic value. Somewhere in the middle might be five or six science fiction pieces (Planet of the Apes for example), a book or two by Stephen King, and maybe twenty-odd books over climate change, science topics, and economics.
I made an attempt to read Mein Kampf by Hitler....failing on the first attempt, and then picking it up around twenty years later. It's not a book that I'd recommend, but mostly because it's basically a manifesto-type document.
Some recommended reading list? It's marginally possible because I've touched so many books and I might have a list just based on Steinbeck alone, or just one World War I alone. But I'll list out ten books that I'd tell folks that it's worth a read:
1. In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692, Norton. A fact-filled book which covers the pre-events, the background, the chief characters, and the landscape on the crisis itself. For those who never understood this......in the midst of an Indian War....for some odd reason, religion got turned upside down, and over the course of a few months....an entire region was 'entertained' by accusations of witchcraft.
At the heart of this matter were a couple of teen girls, with great imagination. By the end, around fifty-odd folks had confessed to satanic stuff, and nineteen of them hanged. The authorities? They eventually reached some level where the excitement just couldn't be pumped up anymore, and the circle of accusations might have been close enough to include some of the authorities themselves.
2. My Man Jeeves, Wodehouse. Great fictional piece which came out at the conclusion of WW I. Great wit, and probably good enough for an entire comedy series today.
3. True Believer, Hoffer. First of about ten books by Hoffer, coming out in the mid-1950s, and discusses how large groups of people are herded by propaganda into mass movements. Hoffer was the last intellectual existing in America who never attended college.
It's a book that you can wrap up over a weekend, and it conveys a great deal of historical examples of how people fall for some fake political business.
4. Animal Farm, Orwell. You could probably assign this fictional book to some nine-year-old kids, but they would be asking some serious political questions by the end, and it'd be hard to lay out the reality of this world. It's another book that you can wrap up in a single weekend. After you read it, you will never be able to avoid skeptical nature with politics.
5. The Great Fire of London: 1666, Hanson. It is a fine history piece which lays out London, and how the fire developed.
6. The Forgotten Man, Schlaes. Roughly 500 pages of historical coverage over the end of WW I and the path up to the early 1930s. For those who felt that high school history never introduced them to the period, or explained the causes for Great Depression.....this book weaves a great story.
7. The Prairie Traveler: A Guidebook for Overland Expeditions, Marcy. It's a weekend book which lays out the hardships and general practices of a wagon-train. Written in 1859, and I'd highly recommend it.
8. Pastures of Heaven, Steinbeck. A book of fictional pieces (maybe ten stories) and entertaining. To be honest, there's over a dozen Steinbeck books that I'd recommend.
9. Democracy in America, Tocqueville. Roughly 400 pages and written after his tour of America in the 1830s. The big adventure of seeing early America by a French guy, who seemed to be thrilled over each week that passed.
10. The Full Catastrophe: Travels Among the New Greek Ruins (2015), Angelos. Around eight years ago, Greece kinda collapsed (financially). This writer went over and did a tour of the country....to explain how you get to this level of screwed-up nature. It's mostly a book about how people reach a point of distrust for the government and all of it's 'promises'.
The problem with this list, is that I'd probably like to make it around 400 books, and mandate kids between the ages of twelve and eighteen read all of these.
I made an attempt to read Mein Kampf by Hitler....failing on the first attempt, and then picking it up around twenty years later. It's not a book that I'd recommend, but mostly because it's basically a manifesto-type document.
Some recommended reading list? It's marginally possible because I've touched so many books and I might have a list just based on Steinbeck alone, or just one World War I alone. But I'll list out ten books that I'd tell folks that it's worth a read:
1. In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692, Norton. A fact-filled book which covers the pre-events, the background, the chief characters, and the landscape on the crisis itself. For those who never understood this......in the midst of an Indian War....for some odd reason, religion got turned upside down, and over the course of a few months....an entire region was 'entertained' by accusations of witchcraft.
At the heart of this matter were a couple of teen girls, with great imagination. By the end, around fifty-odd folks had confessed to satanic stuff, and nineteen of them hanged. The authorities? They eventually reached some level where the excitement just couldn't be pumped up anymore, and the circle of accusations might have been close enough to include some of the authorities themselves.
2. My Man Jeeves, Wodehouse. Great fictional piece which came out at the conclusion of WW I. Great wit, and probably good enough for an entire comedy series today.
3. True Believer, Hoffer. First of about ten books by Hoffer, coming out in the mid-1950s, and discusses how large groups of people are herded by propaganda into mass movements. Hoffer was the last intellectual existing in America who never attended college.
It's a book that you can wrap up over a weekend, and it conveys a great deal of historical examples of how people fall for some fake political business.
4. Animal Farm, Orwell. You could probably assign this fictional book to some nine-year-old kids, but they would be asking some serious political questions by the end, and it'd be hard to lay out the reality of this world. It's another book that you can wrap up in a single weekend. After you read it, you will never be able to avoid skeptical nature with politics.
5. The Great Fire of London: 1666, Hanson. It is a fine history piece which lays out London, and how the fire developed.
6. The Forgotten Man, Schlaes. Roughly 500 pages of historical coverage over the end of WW I and the path up to the early 1930s. For those who felt that high school history never introduced them to the period, or explained the causes for Great Depression.....this book weaves a great story.
7. The Prairie Traveler: A Guidebook for Overland Expeditions, Marcy. It's a weekend book which lays out the hardships and general practices of a wagon-train. Written in 1859, and I'd highly recommend it.
8. Pastures of Heaven, Steinbeck. A book of fictional pieces (maybe ten stories) and entertaining. To be honest, there's over a dozen Steinbeck books that I'd recommend.
9. Democracy in America, Tocqueville. Roughly 400 pages and written after his tour of America in the 1830s. The big adventure of seeing early America by a French guy, who seemed to be thrilled over each week that passed.
10. The Full Catastrophe: Travels Among the New Greek Ruins (2015), Angelos. Around eight years ago, Greece kinda collapsed (financially). This writer went over and did a tour of the country....to explain how you get to this level of screwed-up nature. It's mostly a book about how people reach a point of distrust for the government and all of it's 'promises'.
The problem with this list, is that I'd probably like to make it around 400 books, and mandate kids between the ages of twelve and eighteen read all of these.
Tuesday, 23 July 2019
How This Plague Scenario Would Play Out in California
Well, this is my scenario and just explains the landscape of how the plague would arrive, and how things would work.
At some point, a guy will show up with various symptoms, and the free-clinic doctor will spend three weeks working with the guy, and he is continuing to advance....no matter what the doctor prescribes. So he finally does the plague test, and is shocked....full-up plague, and advancing to the black skin stage.
So the doctor starts to look at the tent-camp that this is from. Over forty people are showing some symptoms....masked mostly by alcoholism and heavy drug use (meth, cocaine, and heroin).
The county health department is concerned and talking to the mayor, but no one wants to overreact.
The first guy is put into a light-quarantine facility, while the doctor is trying to convince the other forty to come in for tests. No of this is working well, with no saying anything to the news media.
Then you get some local kid (resident, not a tent dweller) who comes down with the plague. Parents ask questions and some nurse admits the plague discussion.
Within four nights, a group of concerned citizens burn down the tent community.
The doctor and the health department now have a problem because the forty infected folks have now run off. The mayor has a problem because the cops aren't reacting to the burn-down episode.
The Governor now steps into this and suggests a quarantine program but doesn't seem capable of mastering the requirement or having judges issue orders.
Trump steps in.....orders federal law enforcement and federal rules into the mess. A judge stands there with the cops and the health department....every single plague person is ordered to a 30-day quarantine program.
Problems now? Well.....these tent folks are all alcoholics and drug consumers. They can't cooperate with any of these rules or orders.
A 300-man National Guard team arrives and sets up a camp.
But now folks are worried about the plague over the whole state. More camps are burned. Suddenly, you have 10,000 folks heading north, toward San Francisco. Fear pops up, and more tent communities are burned to the ground.
Leadership shown by the state? Marginal and lousy. A year into this, more than 2,000 individuals have been identified as having the plague.
At some point, a guy will show up with various symptoms, and the free-clinic doctor will spend three weeks working with the guy, and he is continuing to advance....no matter what the doctor prescribes. So he finally does the plague test, and is shocked....full-up plague, and advancing to the black skin stage.
So the doctor starts to look at the tent-camp that this is from. Over forty people are showing some symptoms....masked mostly by alcoholism and heavy drug use (meth, cocaine, and heroin).
The county health department is concerned and talking to the mayor, but no one wants to overreact.
The first guy is put into a light-quarantine facility, while the doctor is trying to convince the other forty to come in for tests. No of this is working well, with no saying anything to the news media.
Then you get some local kid (resident, not a tent dweller) who comes down with the plague. Parents ask questions and some nurse admits the plague discussion.
Within four nights, a group of concerned citizens burn down the tent community.
The doctor and the health department now have a problem because the forty infected folks have now run off. The mayor has a problem because the cops aren't reacting to the burn-down episode.
The Governor now steps into this and suggests a quarantine program but doesn't seem capable of mastering the requirement or having judges issue orders.
Trump steps in.....orders federal law enforcement and federal rules into the mess. A judge stands there with the cops and the health department....every single plague person is ordered to a 30-day quarantine program.
Problems now? Well.....these tent folks are all alcoholics and drug consumers. They can't cooperate with any of these rules or orders.
A 300-man National Guard team arrives and sets up a camp.
But now folks are worried about the plague over the whole state. More camps are burned. Suddenly, you have 10,000 folks heading north, toward San Francisco. Fear pops up, and more tent communities are burned to the ground.
Leadership shown by the state? Marginal and lousy. A year into this, more than 2,000 individuals have been identified as having the plague.
The Debate Over the Minimum Wage
The idea of one single national minimum wage, and failing to account for fifty different state variations, and probably over 300 urbanized area variations? That's what makes the minimum wage discussion a wasted effort.
There's no doubt that a Burger King in Queens, NY and a Burger King in Demopolis, Alabama....simply aren't of the same variety. One probably should have a set minimum wage of $8 to $8.50 an hour (starting pay). The other probably should have a set minimum wage of $15 to $18 an hour (starting pay).
So this whole discussion is a wasted effort? More or less.
It's like talking over minimum wage for Miami, and then talking about a small rural community sixty miles north of Miami....the wages simply can't be the same. Yet no one will stand there and admit this in public.
There's no doubt that a Burger King in Queens, NY and a Burger King in Demopolis, Alabama....simply aren't of the same variety. One probably should have a set minimum wage of $8 to $8.50 an hour (starting pay). The other probably should have a set minimum wage of $15 to $18 an hour (starting pay).
So this whole discussion is a wasted effort? More or less.
It's like talking over minimum wage for Miami, and then talking about a small rural community sixty miles north of Miami....the wages simply can't be the same. Yet no one will stand there and admit this in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)