HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

merrily

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 8,477

Journal Archives

Encourage Bernie Sanders to run for President (link)

https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/encourage-senator-bernie-sanders-to-run-for-president-in-2016-as-a-democrat

It's a petition to encourage the Senator to run for President.

There is also a facebook link.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/US-Senator-Bernie-Sanders-for-President-2016/253576231398947

From Senator Sanders' wiki:

Possible 2016 presidential run

In a March 6, 2014 interview with The Nation, Sanders stated that he is "prepared to run for President of the United States" in 2016 but did not officially announce a campaign. When pressed on the issue, Sanders said, "If the question is am I actively right now organizing and raising money and so forth for a campaign for president, I am not doing that. On the other hand, am I talking to people around the country? Yes, I am. Will I be doing some traveling around the country? Yes, I will be. But I think its premature to be talking about a campaign when we still have a 2014 congressional race in front of us."


TheNutcracker started a thread today on Sanders' appearance on Meet the Press this morning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534033

On the thread, in addition to a lot of praise for Sen. Sanders, is a clip valerief was kind enough to post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534145


Regardless of how you intend to vote in a primary, if you can watch that clip and be indifferent to having Sen. Sanders in the race, even if he loses, this post is not for you.


For everyone else, please show your interest by clicking on both of the links at the beginning of this post and show Senator Sanders and everyone else that we do not appreciate oligarchy.

I believe that, today, at 11, Moulton will be on WCVB

On the Record, or OTR is the name of the show.

This may be a chance to assess him better.

Also, it will be time NOT to watch Chuck Toad, so it's a two-fer.

Does Obama really buy into John Yoo's view? (Or Bybee's?)

In 2009, two days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order 13491 repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

I googled for the full text and look where I found it first.

Gotta love DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2017065

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Hell, at the time, Biden claimed that it had not even authorized Dimson's invasion of Iraq because Dimson had not fulfilled all the conditions or some such. I even posted that on another board at the time; and a Republican lawyer, who hated Bush, but not as much as he hated Democrats, I guess, posted the full text of the resolution, without additional comment.

But, the AUMF against Iraq is not the only authorization to use military force of that fateful era.


Authorization for Use of Military Force may refer to:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 authorizing the Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm: H.R.J. Res. 77

Authorization for Use of Military Force I, also known as "Public Law No: 10740", authorizes the use of military force against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001

Authorization for Use of Military Force II, also known as "Iraq Resolution", "Iraq War Resolution" and "Public Law No: 107-243"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force

"What was the middle one, again?"

Full text of "the middle one" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

US schools are battlefield for the hearts and minds of USians.

Over the years, I've seen stories about prominent Republicans, mostly women--Mrs Bush 41, Mrs. Bush 43, Mrs. Cheney, et al. writing books for very young kids. I'm guessing that those books are not going to be spreading liberal ideas.

Over the years, I've seen stories about how Texas, being (collectively) the largest public school district in the country, in essence, decides what public school textbooks say. I'm guessing that those books are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, ideas, either.

Over the years, I've seen stories about religious groups and churches volunteering to teach classes, such as American history, in public schools in Texas, at no cost to the schools--and the schools allowing that. I'm guessing that those public school courses are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, either, or secularist ideas.

Over the years, I've seen bipartisan, but still partisan, stories of private charter schools being funded with public tax money and being allegedly superior to public schools. I'm guessing that people who think that private schools funded by public money are superior to public schools funded by public money are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, either.

And then of course, there are church youth groups and like, also probably not spreading liberal ideas.

Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Brownies and Girl Scouts? Dunno. Never joined.

Anyway, anyone have any thoughts on the so far highly predictable result of the above?



Members of the House sued Obama over Libya.

In that case, the court held that the several members who sued had no standing to sue, citing, among other things, the fact that the group had not shown in any way that they represented the House as a whole.

The suit was, of course, over the Constitutional issue, given that the Constitution requires Congress to declare war. (And for damned good reason, IMO). Originally, the suit had also cited war powers legislation, which allows the President to proceed on his own for a certain period of time. However, that claim was dropped. (In my opinion the constitutionality of war power legislation is itself questionable.)

When Obama drew his "line" about Syria, a Republican started a movement to require Obama to "at least" consult Congress before taking miitary action. He got over 100 signatures from both sides of the aisle. Then, Boehner sent Obama a letter with something like 14 legal questions for Obama to answer.

So, it looked as though the House, as a body, might well take bipartisan legal action against the Executive. That whole scenario was avoided when Obama refrained from taking action.

Then, the right wanted action, so the Constitutional objections flew out the window.

Of course, none of us has standing to sue for enforcement of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war. The standing doctrine sucks, IMO. So does the bipartisan AUMF.

Good question. Have you Asked the Administrators?

If not, perhaps cross post your OP in ATA.

For those who still think this was court mandated, no, it was not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

To the countrary, the Supreme Court had previously told the FCC that, if the FCC wanted to regulate internet service providers heavily, the FCC should re-classify the providers. Instead, the FCC went back into court without reclassifying, a "strategy" that seemed destined to lose the case to the providers, and lose was just what it did. I can't see how the FCC possibly could have expected anything else. I doubt it did.

Maybe that is because the FCC's legal department has lots of lawyers whose resume included, or consisted of, lobbying for the likes of Verizon and Comcast.

Of course, when confronted with the above, some say that re-classifying was not an option. That, is bs, just as the claim that the court mandated the end of net neutrality was s.

Executive agencies do reclassify. If reclassification were not an option for the FCC and telecommunication industry, why did the Supreme Court not say that from the jump? Just to have the black-robed fun of watching the FCC waste taxpayer dollars on reclassifying, holding reclassification hearings and then losing another case in the SCOTUS, while the Justices LOL and yell "Gotcha?" Come on, now. (Guess I slept through Justice Ashton Kutcher's confirmation hearings?)

As to Chair Wheeler himself.


Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

Wheeler succeeded Genachowski, whose pre-FCC resume included paving the way for FOX and who joined the Aspen Institute* and The Carlyle Group after leaving the FCC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_Institute

Genachowski, in turn, replaced Acting Chair Michael Copp, who served only until Genachowski could be confirm and was the only one of the three who actually is a "fierce advocate" of net neutrality.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php



BTW I have written Wheeler in the past, despite my view that my letter would do nothing. His form letter response was that he is for net neutrality. IOW, Orwellian Double Speak. (I know it is a form letter because others received the identical letter.)

So, the key in writing Wheeler may be to specify that you oppose tiers of service (which Wheeler has enabled) and leave out the apparently more ambiguous term "net neurality."

Chief Justice Earl Warren.

As AG of California, Warren had been responsible for "interning" the Japanese of California. That was who Eisenhower decided to nominate as Chief Justice of the United States of America. Think about that.

However, once on the bench, Warren turned out to be perhaps the most liberal CJ in US history. Perhaps the jewel in his crown was the school desegregation case, argued by then attorney Thurgood Marshal.

In his autobiography, Warren described talking with Eisenhower during a party attended by many Southerners. Ike said to Warren something like this: "See, Earl? These are not bad people. They just don't their little girl sitting next to some big black gorilla."

Though Joe Scarborough and others will say how Eisenhower desegregated schools, the reality is that he dragged his feet, despite pleas from many people, including Eleanor Roosevelt, who returned to the White House to plead with him.

When asked what the biggest mistake of his 8 years as President was, Eisenhower replied, "Nominating Earl Warren for Earl Warren as Chief Justice." Think about that, too.

When I posted that on another Dem board, I got replies telling me I had to understand that everyone was like that back then, yadda, yadda.

My gut told me otherwise. Besides, Truman had desegregated the military and the records of the Kennedys on race did not match Ike's words. And there was Eleanor Roosevelt, who we know was not like Ike on race.

So, I googled the Democrat who had lost to Ike twice. I found eloquent quotes from Adlai Stevenson arguing for equal rights and posted them. Nothing but silence from Ike's Democratic defenders on that board.

I have no idea if Stevenson practiced what he preached, even a little. I very much doubt, though, that he would have considered appointing Earl Warren the biggest mistake of Ike's 8 years as President.

Speaking of Scarborough, he also loves to credit Ike with building the national highway system. True, Ike loved him some General Motors and some oil companies and our national highway system, a mixed blessing for American families, served them very well. However, the President who conceived of that system was FDR. He did not get around to it because of the Depression and World War II. However, FDR put the wheels in motion.

I have no clue what original ideas Ike brought to the Presidency, but the national highway system was not one of them. And then, there is his choice of VP and putting in motion the Bay of Pigs, for which Kennedy always takes the hit.


Again, the love Democrats seem to have for Ike in the rear view mirror baffles me.

Never be confident about an election and never give up on one.

How we win?

GOTV. There are more of us than them. If we show up to the polls, we win.

Volunteer at the polls. If you are not already hooked in, ask your state and local Dems how you can help.

If you live in an ID state start yesterday. Go to the Secretary of State's website or call. Find out the requirements. Print them out and start passing them out anywhere you can. Supermarkets are good. (A poster with Texas in his or her screen name posted about supermarkets, but I cannot remember which one, so I cannot give credit. Sorry.)

Ask anyone elderly and/or infirm whom you know if they have the required ID or would like your help in getting it.

*Forgot: mail in ballots, esp. for those in nursing homes.

100 years ago today.

September 5-12, 1914 - On the Western Front, Paris is saved as French and British troops disrupt the Schlieffen Plan by launching a major counter-offensive against the invading German armies to the east of Paris. Six hundred taxi cabs from the city help to move French troops to the Front. Aided by French aerial reconnaissance which reveals a gap has developed in the center of the whole German advance, the French and British exploit this weakness and press their advantage. The Germans then begin a strategic withdrawal northward as the Allies pursue. Each side repeatedly tries to outmaneuver the other and gain a tactical advantage as they move northward in what becomes known as the Race to the Sea.

September 7, 1914 - In the Far East, a German naval squadron, commanded by Graf von Spee severs the British Pacific communications cable.

September 8, 1914 - The French government enacts nationwide State of War regulations which include total control over the economy and national security, strict censorship, and suspension of civil liberties.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index-1914.html

See also:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ww1-archive/11073408/Daily-Telegraph-September-7-1914.html


http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/timeline/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

World War I changed so many things changed and so many things followed from it.

Among many, many other things, after the war, Russian soldiers joined Russian peasants. Whereas prior revolution attempts by the peasants had failed, the military's joining the peasants probably accounts for the success of the next attempt.

Also, soldiers returning home from the War helped spread the influenza epidemic.

The total number of deaths from both the war and the influenza are unimaginable.

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 37 million.

There were over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.

The total number of deaths includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 6 million military personnel while the Central Powers lost about 4 million. At least 2 million died from diseases and 6 million went missing, presumed dead. This article lists the casualties of the belligerent powers based on official published sources. About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle, unlike the conflicts that took place in the 19th century when the majority of deaths were due to disease. Nevertheless, disease, including the Spanish flu and deaths while held as prisoners of war, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

Try to imagine what the population of the world would be today if those hundreds of thousands had lived and reproduced. (A ball park number can probably be calculated by someone who knows about population growth, if we assume the death counts on both the war and the flu were correct.)

Recommended viewing, if you can get your hands on it: Oh! What a Lovely War.

(No write up can do it justice. You have to see it.)

World War I Museum in Kansas City
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »