Last night, Fox News's Tucker Carlson rebuked a federal judge's decision to deny bail to a 1/6 Capitol invader and his mother.
"Neither Lisa Eisenhart or her son damaged any property in the Capitol or committed any violence — they just walked in to what we used to refer to as 'The People's House," Carlson said. And yet somehow Joe Biden's Justice Department convinced a federal judge that Lisa Eisenhart was quote 'a threat to our Republic' and her son was a 'would-be martyr.' Keep in mind, these are people whose crime was trespassing in the Capitol. We're not endorsing that, but some perspective please."
This is an interesting way to characterize a man who stormed the House floor wearing military-style garb, face masked, hands gloved, and carrying flex cuffs.
Here's a photo of Eric Munchel doing what Tucker Carlson characterized as just walking in and trespassing.
If the same man dressed the same way, carrying flex cuffs, just walked into Carlson's house while his terrified family hid in a closet, would Tucker say that he should be granted bail because he was just trespassing?
Of course, he wouldn't. This sort of disingenuous reporting is typical at Fox News. And this wasn't really about this particular defendant. This is about an ongoing push by some at Fox News to downplay the seriousness of what occurred at the Capitol on 1/6.
If Tucker had explained that the right to bail is a bedrock American principle, I'd have no problem with him arguing that Eric Munchel and his mother should have been granted bail. In fact, another judge overruled the judge who denied Munchel and his mother bail and released them to monitored home confinement. When possible, this is the arrangement I'd like to see, at a minimum.
If presumed innocent really means anything, it should mean that pre-trial detention is reserved for those who present a real and immediate danger to others or a substantial flight risk. It would have been more helpful if Carlson had educated his audience regarding the widespread abuse of pre-trial detention instead of arguing that this particular individual deserved bail because he was just trespassing. But discussing pre-trial detention in such terms would probably challenge many Fox viewers who are fine with the mass incarceration of those accused but presumed innocent, even though they have a constitutionally protected right to pre-trial bail under the Eighth Amendment. And all that is beside the point if the underlying intent of the bail discussion was to convince Fox News viewers that 1/6 was merely about some people trespassing.
Barack Obama: "Citizens United was a bad decision."
Republicans: "You lie, you illegitimate, radical foreign-born, communist, Mau Mau president standing at a podium lecturing us! Citizens United was correct because corporations are people and money is speech."
Democrats: "Okay. Hey businesses, you need to say something.
Corporations say something Republicans don't like.
Republicans: "Businesses need to stay out of politics!"
NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Does Greene have aides who write these bills? Wouldn't they reality check the content for her? Is this only about symbolic gesturing or is Greene one of those people who can't listen to reason when people try to explain reality to her?
We have an abundance of data favoring the latter explanation.
Andrew Desiderio is a congressional reporter for Politico. He covers the Senate, national security, and foreign policy.
Whether it's a good idea or not, Medicare for all is politically DOA. Such a program would mean a drastic reduction in the health insurance industry's size, so insurers won't let it happen. Moreover, voters would not accept a change that would be branded "socialist medicine." Even if Medicare for all is good public policy, current American political realities will not let it happen. For now.
But there may be a more politically palatable way to move toward Medicare for all. One of the most popular provisions of ACA allows adult children to continue their health insurance coverage under a parent's health policy until age 26. By introducing a Medicare option for Americans ages 26-30, those who have not yet or only recently entered the private insurance marketplace might find the option appealing. These Americans would comprise relatively low-risk, low-cost enrollees, so an affordable option could be offered. Such an option might even be popular enough to get it passed into law.
At age 31, these Medicare enrollees could be offered the option to continue on Medicare, but if they drop Medicare and return to it later, they would face an otherwise higher premium. This arrangement would incentivize continuing with Medicare rather than jumping on board after they become ill.
In 15 -20 years, a majority of Americans could be covered by Medicare. At that point, Medicare for all might be politically acceptable to a majority of Americans.
Getting to Medicare for all in this way would also reduce the role of private insurance more gradually rather than instantly dissolving the industry as a source of primary insurance. The private insurance industry would continue to exist just as it does under Medicare, as supplemental insurance, but reliance on private insurance would be significantly reduced. The more gradual expansion of Medicare would also allow for the government's Medicare apparatus to grow more manageably.
I'm not going to discuss the reasons I think Medicare for all would be a better system than the existing system, other than mentioning bargaining power and cost control, which is, perhaps, its greatest advantage.
Donald Trump wandered into a wedding at Mar-a-Lago and grabbed a mic, something he's been known to do as the owner of the venue. Since he's the main attraction at the club, I assume that guests have no objection. So he ranted about Biden and insisted again that he won the election. Of course, the whole thing was captured on video.
An intelligent person who makes a sincere effort can read SCOTUS rulings, opinions, & legal commentary to answer their questions about permissible gun regulations. If a grown-ass man demands answers to these questions in tweets, he's probably not prepared to hear the answers, and perhaps ill-equipped to understand them.
To all others, Google is your friend, but I warn you: an understanding is not available in 280 characters.
Responding to a Sorbo-like character who once claimed that Heller banned all gun regulation, I quoted Antonin Scalia from his majority opinion in DC v Heller. My interlocutor then called me "a sophist."
That's what I mean by "not prepared to hear the answers."
Prior to Ronald Reagan's presidency, presidents did not return salutes out of respect for the principle of civilian control of the military. Not even retired 5-star Dwight Eisenhower returned salutes when he was president. Be that as it may, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president is part of the chain of command. The vice president has absolutely no authority over the military and is not part of the chain of command. VPs should not return salutes. If any did so in the past, they were wrong to do it.
It's been reported that the 21-year-old Boulder gunman who killed ten people asked to see his mom last night. He has absolutely no idea how radically and irrevocably the course of his life changed yesterday.
Sidney Powell, the outspoken former attorney for Donald Trump's campaign legal team, moved to dismiss Dominion Voting System's defamation lawsuit against her. Powell relentlessly pushed Trump's Big Lie, contending that Dominion rigged the election for Biden. Now she wants the suit dismissed because her claims of election riggings were so outlandish "no reasonable person" would believe them, even though a large majority of Republican voters were convinced by Trump and his surrogates that the election was rigged.
Below, Ms. Powell sounded deadly serious when she sid:
"We will not be intimidated...We are going to clean this mess up now. President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it. And we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom."—Sidney Powell pic.twitter.com/8KCEOGuL7w
Graeme Wood, himself an Asian-American journalist, writes about the Alexi McCammond - Teen Vogue affair:
I suppose a magazine aimed at teens and preteens would strain to acknowledge what every adult knows, which is that the entire point of being a teenager is to make and correct the most mortifying errors of your life. “The sooner you make your first five thousand mistakes,” the artist Kimon Nicolaїdes once wrote, “the sooner you will be able to correct them.” Then, at some vague point when the first digit of your age is no longer a 1, you experience a cleansing bonfire of your sins, and your adult permanent record begins.
If Teen Vogue, even in its current woke incarnation, does not exist to celebrate this period of still-expungeable error, then it may as well be calling for the abolition of the teenage years altogether. Its staff, as well as many of its advertisers, evidently think its readers deserve no bonfire, no sin jubilee, and should be hounded eternally for their dumbest and most bigoted utterances. This suggests an intriguing editorial mix of beauty tips, celebrity news, and vengeance.
As a result, supplying an edited audiotape or a piece of false evidence to one of the bottom-feeders of the information ecosystem is incredibly easy; after that, others will ensure that it rises up the food chain. Russian disinformation doesn’t succeed thanks to the genius of Russians; it succeeds thanks to the sharp partisanship of Americans. Russian disinformation works because Americans allow it to work—and because those same Americans don’t care anymore about the harm they do to their country.
Large segments of the news ecosystem are eager if unwitting Russian assets because Russian disinformation sensationally comports with their partisan views. But I'd go further to say that large swathes of America have effectively become Russian assets, blinded by partisanship and no longer able to reject even the most thoroughly discredited disinformation seeded by Russian agents and aggressively promoted by fringe agitators in social media as well as the crackpot denizens of right-wing media.
Some people forget to take their masks off after they get back in their car. I do that sometimes. At other times, I put the mask on before arriving at my destination so I don't forget to put it on before exiting my car which is something I've done a few times.
But the chief reason I might wear a mask while driving alone is that I'm driving between two or three locations and, at each, I'm required to wear a mask. For example, going from the grocer to the pharmacy to the cleaners. Taking off and re-donning the mask between stops risks contamination of the clean side of the mask. If my tasks are relatively quick, rather than use a new mask, I leave it on between stops.
My reasoning might be incomprehensible to someone who would take off a condom after sex, and try to reuse it a second time.
Of course, the real reason Sorbo is posting this is that he's an anti-masker. Any opportunity to ridicule someone wearing a mask is an opportunity he won't pass up. I also suspect that people who are opposed to masking might not even try to figure out why someone is wearing a mask while driving alone in their car.
"Had some nice weather and it coincided with the herring spawn, so I took lots of photos over a couple of days of the commercial herring fishery. The turquoise tint in the water is caused by large schools of male herring releasing their milt (sperm). The females swim into the milt clouds and stick their eggs to the rocks and seaweed where they are fertilized... It is feeling like spring."