The 'Fantastic Five'? Shifty, Pelosi, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the whistle-blower.
Well....I think all will subject the subpoena to the court system, and draw this out for six to eight weeks....meaning that the Impeachment is stalled in the Senate.
If the Supreme Court says they must appear? They will simply say nothing and use their lack of speech to motivate the situation.
McConnell will then say the Impeachment can't move on, and settle it with a end-vote.....no impeachment.
A one-star ending to all the drama? Well....yeah. McConnell will go and say that they could have brought the house down (like the fat lady singing)....if they'd just spoke up.
The public perception of this type of ending? I would suggest that people will sit there for days....admiring how this subpoena was the 'golden goose', and this really turned into a Sugar Bowl game between a number 88-ranked NCAA team and a 104-ranked team.
A drama without drama? More or less.
But here's the one odd thing. Trump can pick up the phone, call the Ukraine on the day after the impeachment is tossed out in the Senate, and do the exact same thing all over again.....this time with forty 'weasels' in the room (maybe even that US Army Lt Col). He might even call Nancy Pelosi over to the White House, and let her listen into the call.
Thursday, 5 December 2019
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
The Thing About Too Much Knowledge
Every three years, the PISA education assessment comes out over test results and the ratings given to countries. Asian countries tend to do well.....western countries tend to do less well.
I sat and picked up the standard test from 2015, and looked over the language and math tests (used for Brit kids, 15 year old). The language test was a breeze. The math test? It was a fairly indepth test with a worded scenario.
So they show up an oddly shaped apartment (four rooms and a terrace), and then they ask you to select from the nine possible images below (showing different ways to reach a formula with the measurements)....to reach the square footage for the apartment.
Yes, it is a trick question because the terrace isn't part of the interior. Because of the nature of this and the nine potential layouts of the measurement-game....you will sit and waste a good five minutes over the drawings to find the appropriate one (or plural).
This brings me around to this two-year period of high-school where I took algebra and geometry. It's a vast amount of knowledge that this teacher puts on the table, and you (around age 16 and 17) are assembling this, and trying to grasp where exactly you will need this in the future.
Then you go and wonder about the 500 students that he handled in a decade period, and if any of them went onto engineering classes, did explosives work, built dams, had to calculate cubic feet of a man-made lake, or needed to figure the amount of concrete needed for a 1,388 feet driveway from the main road to their house. Out of the 500 kids who were 'blessed' with the knowledge....probably less than 40 ever used this algebraic formula situation or geometric formula ever again in life.
It is part of this problem about value of knowledge, and if you are handing over to people who will readily admit for the next forty years of their life....they just won't ever again touch it again.
I sat and picked up the standard test from 2015, and looked over the language and math tests (used for Brit kids, 15 year old). The language test was a breeze. The math test? It was a fairly indepth test with a worded scenario.
So they show up an oddly shaped apartment (four rooms and a terrace), and then they ask you to select from the nine possible images below (showing different ways to reach a formula with the measurements)....to reach the square footage for the apartment.
Yes, it is a trick question because the terrace isn't part of the interior. Because of the nature of this and the nine potential layouts of the measurement-game....you will sit and waste a good five minutes over the drawings to find the appropriate one (or plural).
This brings me around to this two-year period of high-school where I took algebra and geometry. It's a vast amount of knowledge that this teacher puts on the table, and you (around age 16 and 17) are assembling this, and trying to grasp where exactly you will need this in the future.
Then you go and wonder about the 500 students that he handled in a decade period, and if any of them went onto engineering classes, did explosives work, built dams, had to calculate cubic feet of a man-made lake, or needed to figure the amount of concrete needed for a 1,388 feet driveway from the main road to their house. Out of the 500 kids who were 'blessed' with the knowledge....probably less than 40 ever used this algebraic formula situation or geometric formula ever again in life.
It is part of this problem about value of knowledge, and if you are handing over to people who will readily admit for the next forty years of their life....they just won't ever again touch it again.
The Weak Choices
Someone stood up and made a pronounced judgement statement this morning....saying that the general problem in this upcoming election year....is that the Democrats have sent up a rather weak and marginal group as candidate possibilities.
I sat and thought about this for a while.
The last time that the primary system had a strong delivery of three potential candidates (roughly divided evenly around the 50 states)....was 1972 (Humphrey, Wallace, and McGovern). If you remember the outcome....while Humphrey arrived at the convention with slightly more votes, the convention ended up drifting over to McGovern. Most will say it was a terrible choice, and that Humphrey might have taken a minimum of twenty states in the national election....McGovern took one single state, and it was a dismal defeat for the party.
The 1976 primary season was mostly about Jimmy Carter, a marginal Jerry Brown from California, George Wallace, Henry Jackson and Mo Udall. Carter had no trouble in winning that primary period.
The 1980 primary? Carter found himself in deep competition against Ted Kennedy. Had Ted done better on Super Tuesday, this would have been a curtain-call for Carter, and the convention would have been a more interesting situation.
The 1984 primary? It was for Gary Hart to lose (which he did). The competition was Jessie Jackson and Walter Mondale (who won in the end).
The 1988 primary? A list of nobodies: Jackson again, Simon (who no one really knew), a young Al Gore, and a governor out of Massachusetts (Dukakis) who couldn't connect to southern voters.
The 1992 primary? Paul Tsongas (who no one really remembers), Bill Clinton, and Jerry Brown once again.
The 2000 primary? It was a fairly weak primary season....Bill Bradley and Al Gore.
Since 2000, you can skip that talk. Even in 2016, people do remember Hillary and Bernie, but beyond that....the other two guys names are mostly forgotten.
The chief purpose of a primary period is to stir people up and get them dedicated to voting in November. If they aren't stirred up.....then a low-turnout will occur. Presently? I would suggest that at least one Democratic voter out of each three....isn't that thrilled and probably laughs over the bitter marginalized fighting among the dozen-odd candidates left at this point. The debates? They didn't really help.
As for the convention? It really needs to have some type of crazy action coming out of it....if they hope to get 65-million people to show up in November. Course, maybe they are hoping that three-million dead folks show up and make up for the lack of enthusiasm.
I sat and thought about this for a while.
The last time that the primary system had a strong delivery of three potential candidates (roughly divided evenly around the 50 states)....was 1972 (Humphrey, Wallace, and McGovern). If you remember the outcome....while Humphrey arrived at the convention with slightly more votes, the convention ended up drifting over to McGovern. Most will say it was a terrible choice, and that Humphrey might have taken a minimum of twenty states in the national election....McGovern took one single state, and it was a dismal defeat for the party.
The 1976 primary season was mostly about Jimmy Carter, a marginal Jerry Brown from California, George Wallace, Henry Jackson and Mo Udall. Carter had no trouble in winning that primary period.
The 1980 primary? Carter found himself in deep competition against Ted Kennedy. Had Ted done better on Super Tuesday, this would have been a curtain-call for Carter, and the convention would have been a more interesting situation.
The 1984 primary? It was for Gary Hart to lose (which he did). The competition was Jessie Jackson and Walter Mondale (who won in the end).
The 1988 primary? A list of nobodies: Jackson again, Simon (who no one really knew), a young Al Gore, and a governor out of Massachusetts (Dukakis) who couldn't connect to southern voters.
The 1992 primary? Paul Tsongas (who no one really remembers), Bill Clinton, and Jerry Brown once again.
The 2000 primary? It was a fairly weak primary season....Bill Bradley and Al Gore.
Since 2000, you can skip that talk. Even in 2016, people do remember Hillary and Bernie, but beyond that....the other two guys names are mostly forgotten.
The chief purpose of a primary period is to stir people up and get them dedicated to voting in November. If they aren't stirred up.....then a low-turnout will occur. Presently? I would suggest that at least one Democratic voter out of each three....isn't that thrilled and probably laughs over the bitter marginalized fighting among the dozen-odd candidates left at this point. The debates? They didn't really help.
As for the convention? It really needs to have some type of crazy action coming out of it....if they hope to get 65-million people to show up in November. Course, maybe they are hoping that three-million dead folks show up and make up for the lack of enthusiasm.
Saturday, 30 November 2019
Climate 'Something'
I was reading a lengthy piece this week over climate change (aka global warming, global cooling)....then they came to note that there is another wording change underway.
The new phrases? Climate collapse, and global meltdown.
Why? Well, this gets into branding and the folks in the middle of this type of business believe that they've over-used climate change.
I'm one of those people who were standing there in the 1970s....reading Newsweek's introduction to global cooling and remember the article.
But I also read a piece over at Electroverse this week, which did a long article on Chinese research. The Chinese have put a lot of research into sun cycles. They point that there is a 500 year cycle, which involves the sun, and that we are nearing the tail end of the sun's warm spell, and that in a few decades....it'll all flip with extremely cold and bitter winters.
So all this brand name changing....mostly to just get you into the right frame of mind, for their agenda? When you say the words meltdown or collapse.....it's generally not good news. It's like dam collapse, or nuclear meltdown. In your mind, you have these awful bad images.
How long before these two phrases disappear, and new ones come to replace them? I'd give it five to seven years.
The new phrases? Climate collapse, and global meltdown.
Why? Well, this gets into branding and the folks in the middle of this type of business believe that they've over-used climate change.
I'm one of those people who were standing there in the 1970s....reading Newsweek's introduction to global cooling and remember the article.
But I also read a piece over at Electroverse this week, which did a long article on Chinese research. The Chinese have put a lot of research into sun cycles. They point that there is a 500 year cycle, which involves the sun, and that we are nearing the tail end of the sun's warm spell, and that in a few decades....it'll all flip with extremely cold and bitter winters.
So all this brand name changing....mostly to just get you into the right frame of mind, for their agenda? When you say the words meltdown or collapse.....it's generally not good news. It's like dam collapse, or nuclear meltdown. In your mind, you have these awful bad images.
How long before these two phrases disappear, and new ones come to replace them? I'd give it five to seven years.
Wednesday, 27 November 2019
If Impeachment Fails?
Around two months ago, most folks presumed that the hearings in the House would result in a packaged situation (3-plus charges) going to the House floor, and passing by 218-plus votes to move to the Senate.
This week, there's hints that some House members (those running in difficult elections in 2020) are shaking their heads. No one says the present number, but one might assume it's around five members in this shaky situation presently. With 235 seats won in 2018, there's a slim 17-seat margin here.
So the likely scenario?
Most House members will return to their home-state today, and spend Thanksgiving in the district. They will talk to various people, and return with a fresh prospective. Most folks will tell them that there just isn't much coming out of this hearing business, and they are wondering what exactly has been accomplished so far in 2019 (little to nothing).
I will go and suggest that around fifteen members will appear by the end of next week, and suggest that a condemnation vote would be better, and just derail the whole impeachment hearing business.
Nancy Pelosi (House Speaker) will chat with various groups and count the votes. I might suggest that she's only sure of about 210 votes, and that ten votes are real shaky, with the rest all saying they will abstain from the impeachment vote. She might have the numbers, but it's real shaky and if they fail on the vote, it's massive fallout coming.
A week will pass, and the decision will be made to shut down the hearings, avoid the impeachment vote, and just condemn the President (getting all 235 votes).
Then the news media is stuck with a 'dead' story. How does CNN go for a full week straight....telling the dead story with twenty-five 'experts'? The general public will be laughing over the situation, and the journalists.
In terms of political value? The Democrats will have wasted most of 2019 to reach this point, with nothing to show for the days of effort. In simple terms, they got used by Trump yet again.
This week, there's hints that some House members (those running in difficult elections in 2020) are shaking their heads. No one says the present number, but one might assume it's around five members in this shaky situation presently. With 235 seats won in 2018, there's a slim 17-seat margin here.
So the likely scenario?
Most House members will return to their home-state today, and spend Thanksgiving in the district. They will talk to various people, and return with a fresh prospective. Most folks will tell them that there just isn't much coming out of this hearing business, and they are wondering what exactly has been accomplished so far in 2019 (little to nothing).
I will go and suggest that around fifteen members will appear by the end of next week, and suggest that a condemnation vote would be better, and just derail the whole impeachment hearing business.
Nancy Pelosi (House Speaker) will chat with various groups and count the votes. I might suggest that she's only sure of about 210 votes, and that ten votes are real shaky, with the rest all saying they will abstain from the impeachment vote. She might have the numbers, but it's real shaky and if they fail on the vote, it's massive fallout coming.
A week will pass, and the decision will be made to shut down the hearings, avoid the impeachment vote, and just condemn the President (getting all 235 votes).
Then the news media is stuck with a 'dead' story. How does CNN go for a full week straight....telling the dead story with twenty-five 'experts'? The general public will be laughing over the situation, and the journalists.
In terms of political value? The Democrats will have wasted most of 2019 to reach this point, with nothing to show for the days of effort. In simple terms, they got used by Trump yet again.
Monday, 25 November 2019
The Problems with Bloomberg
With the notice now that Bloomberg will run on the Democratic Primary....I would offer ten observations on the issues:
1. The guy will be 78 years old in February. Most people will look at this, and even if they were hyped up....the VP choice matters greatly.
2. In NY City, virtually everyone knows the guy. In rural regions of Missouri or Arizona? Much less so.
3. Appeal to blacks? Most NY City blacks have a split opinion of Bloomberg. Beyond that.....no one says much.
4. What's he done since 2013 and leaving the mayor job? Mostly nothing.
5. Go watch some of the speeches that he gave in the period of 2005 to 2013. He comes across 'wooden'.....no real animation.....no Bill Clinton theatrics...no hyped up speeches.
6. He has to take up topics that Warren, Sanders, and Biden have pumped up over the past twelve months. Those are the type of topics that don't win independent voters.
7. He's rich....so the question is....how did he get rich?
8. Politically, he's been a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, and back to being a Democrat. Can he explain this to satisfy most voters?
9. Great speeches to center on from the past twenty years? No.
10. It's been reported that he's built ad's for use in March/April....which oddly target on Trump, but fail to say anything about himself or his record. Changing the minds of Biden-voters or Warren-voters? No.
He might be able to win a couple of states (NY is likely, and NJ). Beyond that....this is likely to be a flat campaign with no true gains.
1. The guy will be 78 years old in February. Most people will look at this, and even if they were hyped up....the VP choice matters greatly.
2. In NY City, virtually everyone knows the guy. In rural regions of Missouri or Arizona? Much less so.
3. Appeal to blacks? Most NY City blacks have a split opinion of Bloomberg. Beyond that.....no one says much.
4. What's he done since 2013 and leaving the mayor job? Mostly nothing.
5. Go watch some of the speeches that he gave in the period of 2005 to 2013. He comes across 'wooden'.....no real animation.....no Bill Clinton theatrics...no hyped up speeches.
6. He has to take up topics that Warren, Sanders, and Biden have pumped up over the past twelve months. Those are the type of topics that don't win independent voters.
7. He's rich....so the question is....how did he get rich?
8. Politically, he's been a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, and back to being a Democrat. Can he explain this to satisfy most voters?
9. Great speeches to center on from the past twenty years? No.
10. It's been reported that he's built ad's for use in March/April....which oddly target on Trump, but fail to say anything about himself or his record. Changing the minds of Biden-voters or Warren-voters? No.
He might be able to win a couple of states (NY is likely, and NJ). Beyond that....this is likely to be a flat campaign with no true gains.
Sunday, 24 November 2019
Famous Alabama House of Representatives Member
Rarely does the name of Felix Grundy McConnell get brought up.
Felix was elected by the folks in the 7th district back in November 1842, and arrived in 1843 to assume his highly valued position of a Alabama House member in DC.
Felix had come a long way. Born in 1809 in Nashville....in the true sense of the word, he was marginally educated. His profession? He made saddles.
At some point in the mid-1830s....he moved to Talladega, Alabama. There, he decided that he had the talent to be a lawyer. He briefly attended a legal school, and in two years, had himself approved through the state bar association to be a lawyer.
It's best not to bring up the fact that he was marginally educated, and that these 'school' paths really didn't amount to much. As long as you paid up the state bar folks, and they gave you the slip of paper....that was it.
Within two years of that day.....Felix had him situated into the Alabama State Legislature. A year later, he was a state senator (serving for four years).
In November of 1842, Felix ran for the House seat, and won. So in 1843....he shows up in Washington DC. At the age of 33, he had remarkably blazed a path to success, and even in today's world....he would have been on the cover of magazines and newspapers.
So here's the remarkable thing about the next 3.5 years in Washington with Felix. If you were looking for the baddest of the bad boys....Felix was it.
While little factual evidence exists....it's safe to say that Felix was drunk 365 days a year, around the clock....during this period. We aren't talking about mildly drunk.....we mean absolutely drunk.
His behavior in this period? It didn't take much for him to throw out insults at just about anyone....even while in the House chambers. During this period, it's an open fact that while in DC....as a House or Senate member, you can do just about anything, and the police can't hold you or charge you with a crime. So Felix went from bad to worse over this period.
At some point in the final year (1846)....Felix had gotten himself into what you'd call today Delirium Tremens (the DTs). This is basically when your alcoholism has reached a level that you realize it's a serious problem, and you want to stop drinking....but then you start to imagine things (disillusions).
In today's world, you'd go off to rehab. Felix had no such avenue.
On 10 September 1846......Felix reached a peak with the Delirium Tremens. With a knife, he apparently stabbed himself and bled to death.
Dead by age 37.
It's an amazing story....young guy who was apparently a decent saddle maker....making the move into Alabama. Walking around marginally educated, but didn't let that stop him from attending law school, and getting all certified as a lawyer. Quickly moving up the political ladder.....in five short years, making a path to Washington.
Felix must have been a fairly likable Irish guy, with a talent to talk and say blunt things. If he'd avoided the alcoholism route? Well.....you just have to wonder.
There's no statues for this guy, just a burial site in Washington DC.
Felix was elected by the folks in the 7th district back in November 1842, and arrived in 1843 to assume his highly valued position of a Alabama House member in DC.
Felix had come a long way. Born in 1809 in Nashville....in the true sense of the word, he was marginally educated. His profession? He made saddles.
At some point in the mid-1830s....he moved to Talladega, Alabama. There, he decided that he had the talent to be a lawyer. He briefly attended a legal school, and in two years, had himself approved through the state bar association to be a lawyer.
It's best not to bring up the fact that he was marginally educated, and that these 'school' paths really didn't amount to much. As long as you paid up the state bar folks, and they gave you the slip of paper....that was it.
Within two years of that day.....Felix had him situated into the Alabama State Legislature. A year later, he was a state senator (serving for four years).
In November of 1842, Felix ran for the House seat, and won. So in 1843....he shows up in Washington DC. At the age of 33, he had remarkably blazed a path to success, and even in today's world....he would have been on the cover of magazines and newspapers.
So here's the remarkable thing about the next 3.5 years in Washington with Felix. If you were looking for the baddest of the bad boys....Felix was it.
While little factual evidence exists....it's safe to say that Felix was drunk 365 days a year, around the clock....during this period. We aren't talking about mildly drunk.....we mean absolutely drunk.
His behavior in this period? It didn't take much for him to throw out insults at just about anyone....even while in the House chambers. During this period, it's an open fact that while in DC....as a House or Senate member, you can do just about anything, and the police can't hold you or charge you with a crime. So Felix went from bad to worse over this period.
At some point in the final year (1846)....Felix had gotten himself into what you'd call today Delirium Tremens (the DTs). This is basically when your alcoholism has reached a level that you realize it's a serious problem, and you want to stop drinking....but then you start to imagine things (disillusions).
In today's world, you'd go off to rehab. Felix had no such avenue.
On 10 September 1846......Felix reached a peak with the Delirium Tremens. With a knife, he apparently stabbed himself and bled to death.
Dead by age 37.
It's an amazing story....young guy who was apparently a decent saddle maker....making the move into Alabama. Walking around marginally educated, but didn't let that stop him from attending law school, and getting all certified as a lawyer. Quickly moving up the political ladder.....in five short years, making a path to Washington.
Felix must have been a fairly likable Irish guy, with a talent to talk and say blunt things. If he'd avoided the alcoholism route? Well.....you just have to wonder.
There's no statues for this guy, just a burial site in Washington DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)