SEPTEMBER 8 AND 9, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


"HOW HARD CAN THAT BE? SAYING NAZIS ARE BAD?"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45452954
Obama attacks 'crazy stuff' from Trump White House
September 7, 2018 30 minutes ago

VIDEO -- Obama: 'Trump a symptom not the cause' of US division

Former US President Barack Obama has launched a stinging attack on Donald Trump and the "crazy stuff that is coming out of this White House".

"This is not normal, these are extraordinary times and they are dangerous times," Mr Obama told students at the University of Illinois.

He called for "a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government".

The ex-president has kept a low profile since he left office in 2017 until now.

Top US officials deny 'gutless' editorial
US mid-term elections in eight charts

Mr Obama told Friday's awards ceremony in Urbana, Illinois, that he had been intending to follow the American tradition of former presidents exiting the political stage.

But in comments which are likely to enrage his successor, he launched into a searing attack on the current Republican administration.

Mr Obama warned that American democracy depended on his audience turning out to vote in the November's congressional mid-term elections.

"Now, some of you may think I am exaggerating when I say this election is more important than any I can remember in my lifetime," the Democrat said.

"But just a glance at recent headlines should tell you that this moment really is different."

Mr Obama made an apparent reference to a New York Times editorial that has infuriated Mr Trump.

Its anonymous author, described as a senior Trump administration official, claimed to be with working colleagues to protect the country from the current president's "worst inclinations".

Mr Obama said: "They are not doing us a service by actively promoting 90% of the crazy stuff that is coming out of this White House and then saying, 'Don't worry. We are preventing the other 10%.'"

But he also told his audience that Mr Trump was "a symptom, not the cause" of the divisions in the US.

RELATED: Can we tell now if Democrats will win??
RELATED: Why US mid-term elections matter

He lacerated Mr Trump's calls for the US Department of Justice to investigate his political enemies.

"It should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents."

The 44th president of the US was also scathing about Mr Trump's initial restraint when asked last year to condemn far-right protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"We are supposed to stand up to bullies, not follow them," Mr Obama said. "We are supposed to stand up to discrimination and we sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathisers."

"How hard can that be? Saying Nazis are bad?"


A LITTLE BIT OF LOVE GOES A LONG WAY. DO WATCH THIS VIDEO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-confederate-flag-tore-a-neighborhood-apart-before-it-came-together/
By STEVE HARTMAN CBS NEWS September 7, 2018, 6:55 PM
How a Confederate flag tore a neighborhood apart, before it came together

VIDEO – INTERVIEWS WITH CADDELL AND HER NEIGHBORS

SUMMERVILLE, S.C. — Even though one neighborhood in Summerville, South Carolina, is predominately black, no one really noticed when Annie Caddell moved in seven years ago. At least, as CBS News reported a few months ago, no one really noticed at first.

"When she came here she seemed to be very nice," said Juanita Edwards, Annie's neighbor. "A little while later she started putting up Confederate flags."

And so began a very public fight. When the neighbors protested in front of her house, Annie invited counter-protesters to stand in her yard. When the neighbors put up walls on both sides of her property to block the view, Annie put up a taller flag pole.

"Once you get my hackles raised I don't back down," Annie said.

hartman-conf-flag-0309en.jpg
Annie Caddell CBS NEWS
Eventually the war settled into a stalemate, of sorts. There were no more marches, no bigger walls, no taller flag poles -- just a quite bitterness on both sides, until just recently, when Annie had a change of heart, quite literally.

"When you have a heart attack and you're being told you're not going to live very long, you're facing your mortality. I needed to clean up the messes that I made by being so stubborn," Annie said.

She started with one of her fiercest critics: director of the local community resource center, Louis Smith.

"She said, 'I have decided to take down the flag.' And I was like, huh," Louis said.

Not long after, she presented him with the flag. Annie said that before her health scare, she only saw the Confederate flag through her eyes – as a way to honor relatives who fought for the South. But she said that after, that argument seemed so petty.

"Sometimes it takes a serious action to happen to you before you see your actions on others," Annie said.

Since this story first aired, things have only gotten better. Last month, Annie's neighbors returned the favor by taking down the walls. It was an intensely cathartic moment.

"I feel like they welcomed me with open arms today. I have never felt so much love and care," Annie said.

In America, some of us love to build walls. But if one block of this great country shows us anything, it's that we love tearing them down even more.

To contact On the Road, or to send us a story idea, email us: OnTheRoad@cbsnews.com.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


NOBODY WANTS TO FESS UP!! I WONDER WHY? WELL, WE DON’T HAVE TO KNOW. THE EFFECT HAS OCCURRED, FOR GOOD AND FOR ILL.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45436243
New York Times Trump op-ed denied by senior officials
6 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Several members of Donald Trump's cabinet have denied writing the editorial

A number of top US officials have denied that they are the author of a damning anonymous editorial that attacks President Donald Trump.

The New York Times article, said to be written by a senior White House official, says Mr Trump's appointees are trying to stifle his agenda.

There is fierce speculation over who is responsible - with the vice-president among those to deny any involvement.

Mr Trump has described the writer as "gutless" and the newspaper as "phony".

A spokesman for Vice-President Mike Pence has dismissed claims that he wrote the op-ed, describing it as "false, illogical and gutless".

The Whodunnit editorial puzzling Washington
Does 'lodestar' guide us to Trump author?

Several other cabinet members and top officials have also denied writing the piece.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attacked the writer as a "disgruntled deceptive bad actor", adding: "I come from a place where if you're not in a position to execute the commander's intent, you have a singular option - that is to leave."

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described the anonymous piece as "irresponsible", while a spokesman for the Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said: "These types of political attacks are beneath the secretary and the department's mission".

Anonymous Trump op-ed passes key tests
Linguistic clues to NYT insider?
What's in the editorial?

The article - entitled I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - is written by someone the New York Times describes as a senior official in the Trump administration. The paper says the author requested anonymity and that this was essential to deliver an "important perspective" to its readers.

"Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations," the article says.

"I would know. I am one of them."

Although the writer says they support the administration's objectives, they say that its successes have come in spite of the president, who is described as impulsive, erratic and amoral, someone whose "misguided impulses" need to be controlled for the good of the US.

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognise what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't," it says.

How has the White House responded?

Angrily. One of Mr Trump's tweets simply said "TREASON?". Another said the "Deep State and the Left, and their vehicle, the Fake News Media, are going Crazy - & they don't know what to do", pointing to the growing US economy as an achievement.

Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the author was "not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign".

Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump said: "If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words."

Why does it matter?
The White House is already on the defensive amid questions over Mr Trump's suitability for office raised in a book by revered political journalist Bob Woodward.

Fear: Trump in the White House also describes staff deliberately undermining the president, with some hiding sensitive documents from him to prevent him signing them, and other aides calling him an "idiot" and a "liar". Mr Trump has called the book a "con".

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Bob Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in the US

One of the most explosive passages in the New York Times article says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment", which would allow Mr Trump to be forced out of office.

That top officials are reportedly working against the elected US leader has raised some alarm and not just from the White House. In the Atlantic, David Frum, a Republican commentator who is a fierce critic of Mr Trump, called it a "constitutional crisis".

"What the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil," he wrote. "He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president's wilfulness."

Image Copyright @BBCJonSopel@BBCJONSOPEL
Report

A former CIA director, John Brennan, who has been strongly critical of Mr Trump, called the article "active insubordination" although he said it was "born out of loyalty to the country".

Others have wondered whether it was an attempt to distance the Republican administration from their president ahead of the important mid-term elections.

Image Copyright @awzurcher@AWZURCHER

Report

Who has denied any involvement?
So far, officials who have said they did not write the editorial include:

Defence Secretary James Mattis
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
Secretary for Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen
Secretary for Housing Ben Carson
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley
Office of Management and Budget Director Mike Mulvaney
Secretary for Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie
Labour Secretary Alex Acosta
CIA Director Gina Haspel
Energy Secretary Rick Perry
Counsellor Kellyanne Conway
Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue
Small Business Administration chief Linda McMahon
Health Secretary Alex Azar
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross


HAPPY FISHERMEN PHOTOGRAPHED WITH THEIR CATCH

DO GO TO THE ARTICLE BELOW AND LOOK AT THIS PICTURE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO JUST DON’T THINK IN METERS, A METER IS “3.28084 FEET,” ACCORDING TO RAPIDTABLES.COM. THAT MEANS THAT THE PREHISTORIC ELK’S ANTLERS WERE WELL OVER 9 FEET ACROSS. I WONDER HOW MANY ANCIENT IRISHMEN (10,000 BC) IT TOOK, PROBABLY WITH MORE OR LESS WOLFLIKE HUNTING DOGS, TO CONFRONT AND KILL AN ANIMAL LIKE THAT; AND IF YOU WATCH YOUR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEOS, YOU WILL KNOW THAT ALL OF THE DEER FAMILY WILL FIGHT FIERCELY. HUNTERS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY OUR ORDINARY AMERICAN DEER, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE IN RUT OR INJURED. LIFE WASN’T EASY IN THOSE DAYS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-45449128/antlers-of-extinct-irish-elk-found-in-lough-neagh
Antlers of extinct Irish Elk found in Lough Neagh

VIDEO – THE TWO FISHERMEN ARE INTERVIEWED

The antlers of an ancient Irish Elk have been found by two fisherman in Lough Neagh.

The antlers are thought to be more than 10,000 years old and have a span of more than 3 metres.

Due to being submerged in water, the antlers have been well preserved.

SEPTEMBER 7, 2018


IN DEFENSE OF CORY BOOKER AND OUR OTHER FINE DEMOCRATS

THIS IS WHY THE SPECIFIC BELIEFS OF A JUDGE ARE IMPORTANT. CAN WE JUST “TRUST THEM” TO BE FAIR AND INTELLIGENT? I’M AFRAID NOT. ARE “LEGAL PREPARATION, EXPERIENCE AND TEMPERAMENT” SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONFIRM A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? ABSOLUTELY NOT. THEY ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS ONLY, AND AN INSUFFICIENT GROUNDWORK FOR A RATIONAL DECISION ABOUT WHO TO SEAT ON SUCH A VITALLY IMPORTANT BODY AS THE SUPREME COURT.

IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER IF THE APPOINTMENT OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WERE ABSOLUTELY NOT THE PREROGATIVE OF ANY PRESIDENT, AS IN “TO THE VICTOR BELONGS THE SPOILS;” OR ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE ABSOLUTE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. IN FRANCE, I HEARD SOME 30 YEARS AGO, THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE CAN MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR A GIVEN CASE, WHICH CAN BE ADDED TO A MORE FLUID INTERPRETATION. THAT MEANS THAT EACH NEW CASE CAN BE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY. SEE BOTH REFERENCE ARTICLES, FROM STANFORD AND FROM WIKIPEDIA:
https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/17-laurent-cohen-tanugi/ AND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system.

A JUDGE’S PROVEN AND RECORDED STATEMENTS AND DECISIONS FROM THE PAST ARE ESSENTIAL, AS WELL, TO REACH A VALID AND WISE SENATE CONFIRMATION OF A JUSTICE. UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED SINCE A WEEK OR SO AGO, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS “WITHHELD” HIS PAPER TRAIL FROM THE SENATE. THAT’S BLATANTLY UNFAIR, AND SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED. CAN’T SOMETHING BE DONE HERE TO FORCE TRUMP INTO A CHANGE OF COURSE? OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES AREN’T WORKING IF THE PRESIDENT CAN INTERFERE IN SUCH A WAY WITH THE SENATE’S ACTION. IT’S JUST LIKE WHEN THE REPUBLICANS WITHHELD A VOTE FOR OBAMA’S SUPREME COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL JUDGESHIP SELECTIONS. THIS IS A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS WALK INTO THE DARK WOODS OF RACIST BEHAVIOR.

THE HILL’S PIQUANT COMMENT BELOW GUIDES MY THINKING AND MY HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, PENDING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. “LEGAL PRINCIPLES, OF COURSE, ARE SETTLED UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.” THIS, IN MY VIEW, IS A GREAT LEGAL ARTICLE, SHOWING WHY I BELIEVE IN ARGUING. ARGUING DOES NOT MEAN HURLING EPITHETS AT EACH OTHER, BUT USING OUR WITS TO APPROACH NEW UNDERSTANDINGS. NO WOMAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNWOMANLY BECAUSE OF ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR, SUCH AS LIKING TO ARGUE.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/405613-kavanaugh-and-the-politics-of-interpretation
Kavanaugh and the politics of interpretation
BY ANDRÉS L. CÓRDOVA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/07/18 03:30 PM EDT

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

PHOTOGRAPH – KAVANAUGH, SITTING IN A MEETING © Greg Nash

From the public record, it is evident that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has the legal preparation, experience and temperament to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Given the current composition of the Senate and the changes made to its filibuster rules made at the time of Associate Justice Gorsuch confirmation, it is most likely that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The early hopes of many that Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation appear misplaced. In fact, Collins declared last week that she felt assured that Kavanaugh was committed to the principles of STARE DECISIS*, and that Roe v. Wade was settled legal principle.

[“STARE DECISIS”* – “sta·re de·ci·sis
ˌsterē dəˈsīsəs/Submit
nounLAW
the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.” www.dictionary.com.]

Legal principles, of course, are settled until they are not. There are innumerable instances in the history of the Supreme Court where previous opinions have given way to new understandings and rulings according to the dominant legal philosophy of a given Supreme Court majority. The best well known example of this change was the overturning of the separate but equal doctrine Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). We are right because we are final, as then Associate Justice Robert Jackson pithily remarked, not final because we are right.

In the end, it is not necessarily a matter of argumentative persuasion between competing legal positions, but of the will of a momentary majority. A legal controversy does not take place in the setting of an academic seminar, where multiple points of view on a given issue can coexist and be celebrated as an instance of diversity and creativity. It requires finality and certainty.

Unsettled controversies if unchecked will eventually lead to confrontation and social and political instability, exacerbating divisions within the body politic. The contrary is also true. Controversies settled by institutional force, which are based on values and positions not shared by significant members of society corrode its legitimacy and threaten its long term vitality. Legal judgments need to navigate between these two extremes.

Stare decisis, or the rule of the precedent, as a criteria of legal continuity and certainty, is only one principle among others which impinge on a given case or controversy: constitutionality, changes in statutory law, general principles of justice and fairness, among others. The fact that the Supreme Court handed down an opinion decades ago, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds for it to be continually upheld. At some point in time that opinion must be evaluated against current realities and change in circumstances, as the Supreme Court did in this past term in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) when it revoked Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) on the issue of state taxation of online retail and commercial transaction.

Another example is the continuing validity of the so called insular cases in the early 20th century, Downes v. Bidwell (1901) and others, in which the Supreme Court created out of thin air, and contrary to the plain language of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution, the doctrine of unincorporated territories. These patently unfair and racist cases which justify the selective and discriminatory application of constitutional rights to its citizens in Puerto Rico, are stare decisis. I wonder if Collins believes these cases to be settled legal principles that should not be overturned.

The ongoing debate on legal interpretation, which conceptually pits a broad reading of certain constitutional texts as a means to temper their meaning to 21st century circumstances, against a strict or “original ” reading of the Constitution, which claims for itself a principled defense of democratic procedures, is at the heart of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. These two interpretative currents are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although for purposes of public consumption they are usually drawn as if they were.

All legal interpretation occurs within the context of political discourse, and no actor — be it a judge or a politician — has a private access to truth. Reasonable people can, and do, differ on given issues. This does not imply that all legal interpretations are equally persuasive. How we distinguish a valid difference of opinion from purely rhetorical flourishes requires discernment and a shared commitment to discourse based on facts, rationality and legal tradition. In the age of President Trump, where truth is not truth, political polarization has become a matter of policy. The rule of law cannot long survive in this habitat. The Senate would do well to return to its bipartisan practices.

Andrés L. Córdova is a law professor at Inter American University of Puerto Rico, where he teaches contracts and property courses. He is also an occasional columnist on legal and political issues at the Spanish daily El Vocero de Puerto Rico.


“MY HEAD IS BLOODIED, BUT UNBOWED.” I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT IT IS THE “PROGRESSIVES” WHO ARE ARGUING AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS’ BILL. I GUESS IT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (OR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS!) SEE https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-between-social-democracy-and-democratic-socialism.

WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THE WARREN BRANCH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE DECLARING WAR, BECAUSE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT ELIZABETH WARREN WANTS, IT IS TO BE PRESIDENT. MAYBE I’M WRONG, BUT I DON’T THINK SO.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-amazon-bill_us_5b91944ae4b0cf7b003e0858
POLITICS 09/06/2018 07:08 pm ET
Bernie Sanders Hit With Avalanche Of Criticism Over Amazon-Bashing Bill
Progressives are calling it a “ham-fisted” and counterproductive way to help low-wage workers.
By Emily Peck and Arthur Delaney

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) latest policy idea seems laudable at first glance: Penalize big corporations when their workers tap public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid, to get by.

Unveiled this week and unabashedly aimed at Amazon and its wildly wealthy CEO, Jeff Bezos, Sanders’ Stop BEZOS Act would slap a 100 percent tax on companies with 500 or more workers until the government recovers the monetary value of all the social welfare used by their workers: Medicaid, food stamps, even school lunch subsidies. For instance, for every dollar an employee receives in food stamp benefits, the company would pay an extra dollar in taxes.

The idea is to shame some of the country’s largest and most successful companies for paying workers so poorly that they have to rely on government aid.

But the bill doesn’t just shame companies, it spreads that shame to the very idea of social welfare by demonizing benefits, economists say. That’s a play usually reserved for Republicans and conservatives, who love to bang the drum against the nation’s “takers.”

The bill, which doesn’t stand much chance of going anywhere, could give big companies a reason not to hire those who get benefits, a majority of whom are parents.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the most influential left-leaning think tanks in Washington, criticized the Sanders plan in a blog post on Wednesday. Several progressive policy types ― such as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Mike Konzcal of the Roosevelt Institute ― sounded sour notes on Twitter.

“It’s ham-fisted,” Betsey Stevenson, a labor economist at the University of Michigan who served on the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, told HuffPost.

If the goal is to get companies to pay higher wages, this won’t do it, added Stevenson, who specializes in examining how public policy affects the labor market.

In an interview with HuffPost, Sanders dismissed the criticism.

“We have thousands of workers working for an extremely profitable corporation owned by the wealthiest person in this country who are making wages so low they are forced to go on public assistance,” he said. “All we are asking of Mr. Bezos is pay your workers a living wage.”

There’s already stigma in the United States surrounding food stamps and other social safety benefits. Some Americans won’t apply for food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to avoid the shame involved, Stevenson said.

Yet the public safety net offers a real benefit to American workers. Single parents, in particular, rely on Medicaid and monthly food benefits in order to raise children in a country that offers little other supports to families (such as subsidized day care or parental leave). Nearly 70 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with children.

PHOTOGRAPH -- Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is targeted in the proposed legislation.
JOSHUA ROBERTS / REUTERS

Though Sanders’ proposal includes a provision that blocks employers from asking applicants if they are on public benefits, that wouldn’t necessarily stop a company from profiling workers or not hiring those who seem likely to use benefits, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in its blog post.

“In addition, some employers might pressure employees not to sign up for Medicaid or other benefits, “CBPP’s Robert Greenstein, Sharon Parrott and Chye-Ching Huang wrote. “And elements of the business community would likely lobby policymakers to reduce their tax bills by restricting eligibility and benefits for core low-income programs, which would be equivalent to a corporate tax cut.”

Welfare recipients in the U.S. are often subject to work requirements, so if you get food stamps or Medicaid, in some states you also must work a certain amount per week. This bill, by disincentivizing hiring such workers, would make it even harder for them to land a job, thus causing more of them to lose benefits.

“It’s really unfair. Recipients would end up in a situation where there is a work requirement and employers are told that they’ll be penalized for hiring them,” Stevenson said.

Sanders rejected the idea that employers would discriminate against poor applicants, suggesting reasonable pay itself would solve the problem.

“If you pay people a living wage, they will have an adequate income,” he said.

Even though the bill stands little chance of becoming law, that doesn’t mean it’s OK that the policy idea is flawed, Baker told HuffPost last week. When you create an economic policy, you want to make sure it’s a good, effective idea, he said.

“Amazon has a history of treating workers badly, yes,” he said. “But this isn’t likely going to change that.”

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.

headshot
Emily Peck
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
headshot
Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost



THIS POEM HAS THRILLED, INFLUENCED AND INSPIRED ME SINCE I FIRST READ IT IN MY 8TH GRADE ENGLISH CLASS. I LOVE ALL GOOD WRITING, INCLUDING NONFICTION, BUT POETRY IS MY FIRST LOVE, AND THIS WAS A MODEL FOR ME. THIS IS THE KIND OF INDIVIDUALISM THAT I BELIEVE IN – NOT THE PHILOSOPHY THAT POOR PEOPLE SHOULD NOT RECEIVE GOVERNMENT HELP. I CAN’T ALWAYS LIVE IT, BUT IT GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF BACKBONE WHEN I NEED IT.

http://manoflabook.com/wp/fun-facts-friday-william-ernest-henley/ -- http://manoflabook.com/wp/fun-facts-friday-william-ernest-henley/
Posted by Zohar - Man of la Book on August 23, 2013. Fun Facts Friday, Latest Posts - No Comments

William Ernest Henley (23 August, 1849 – 11 July, 1903) was an English editor, critic and poet. Mr. Henley is best remembered for his poem Invictus from 1875.


https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus

Invictus
BY WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.



THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MAY APPEAL TO BUSINESSES. “HE ARGUES THAT IF EMPLOYERS PAID A LIVING WAGE, TAXPAYERS WOULD SAVE $150 BILLION A YEAR, INCLUDING FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAID AND PUBLIC HOUSING. THIS MAN BEZOS KEEPS TOUTING HIS HIGH WAGES -- THE HOURLY WAGE IS NOT STATED, BUT THE FACT THAT HE HAS INCLUDED THE COST OF ALL THEIR BENEFITS INTO THE "OVER $15.00 PER HOUR," TELLS ME THAT WHAT THEY HAVE TO BUY NECESSITIES WITH IS CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THAT.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/technology/business/bernie-sanders-amazon-walmart-worker-pay/index.html
Bernie Sanders' 'Stop BEZOS' bill targets worker pay at Amazon and Walmart
by Tami Luhby @Luhby
September 6, 2018: 9:40 AM ET

VIDEO -- Life inside an Amazon fulfillment center

As promised, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill Wednesday that would tax Amazon, Walmart (WMT) and other big companies whose workers collect public assistance.

Named the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies, or the Stop BEZOS Act after Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos, Sanders' bill would levy a tax on large companies equal to the value of the public benefits that their workers receive. He argues that if employers paid a living wage, taxpayers would save $150 billion a year on the government assistance programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and public housing.

"We do not believe that taxpayers should have to expend huge sums of money subsidizing profitable corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country. That's what a rigged economy is about," said Sanders, who introduced the bill with California Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat.

The independent senator from Vermont recently asked Amazon workers to tell him about their work conditions. He shared a few examples from workers who said that they make only $11 an hour or $13.25 an hour, which isn't enough to live on.

Sanders also lashed out Wednesday at Burger King, McDonald's (MCD) and American Airlines (AAL) for paying wages so low that their workers have to sign up for government benefits.

Related: Amazon defends itself from Bernie Sanders' attacks

Amazon, however, called Sanders' assertions "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post last week. The company says that Sanders' data for food stamp recipients includes people who only worked at Amazon for a short period of time or who chose to work part-time. The median US salary for full-time Amazon employees is $34,123, it says. Sanders' figure includes part-time employees and those who work globally.

It has invited the senator to tour one of its fulfillment centers, which is where many of Amazon's lower-paid employees work.

The company highlighted that its average hourly wage for a full-time fulfillment center employee is more than $15 an hour, including cash, stock and incentive bonuses, but before overtime. Amazon also noted that it offers health and disability insurance, as well as retirement savings plans, company stock, tuition payments and up to 20 weeks of paid leave. The company says it created more than 130,000 new jobs in the U.S. last year.

Amazon posted on Wednesday the positive responses that several employees sent to Sanders and shared with the company. They cited the fair pay, good benefits, supportive environment and opportunities for career advancement.

The other employers mentioned didn't immediately return requests for comment.

Related: Bernie Sanders is hosting a town hall for workers. Their CEOs are invited.

Sanders' legislation has also raised concerns with at least one prominent left-leaning organization.

The bill would create powerful incentives for employers to shy away from hiring low-income workers, who are more likely to qualify for Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance, said a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Also, it may lead some companies to pressure their employees not to sign up for benefits.

Plus, the legislation likely wouldn't do much to raise wages, the center said. Companies would have to raise wages for all workers in particular job categories, which would be more expensive than paying the new tax, the center said.

Sanders' campaign says they have added provisions to the bill to help prevent those things from happening, such as making it unlawful for a large employer to ask an employee whether or not they qualify for federal benefits.

CNNMoney (New York)
First published September 5, 2018: 7:42 PM ET

THE FOX INFLUENCE
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
SEPTEMBER 9, 2018


SOME VERY FUNNY FOX FRIEND PARROTS PUTRID TRUMPIAN PROSE, OR HOW A BRANCH OF THE ONCE SACRED FREE PRESS HAS BECOME TOTALLY COOPTED TO THE TOO OFTEN INHUMANE RIGHT. THIS IS WHAT DESTROYS DEMOCRACY, DON’T YOU THINK? NOBODY CARES ABOUT DOING GOOD THINGS. IT’S A FORM OF ROOT ROT. OUR SOCIETY GROWS MORE AND MORE CORRUPT UNTIL WE STAGNATE.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/08/failed-obama-attacks-successful-trump-in-bitter-swan-song.html
OPINION 22 hours ago
Failed Obama attacks successful Trump in bitter swan song
Christian Whiton By Christian Whiton | Fox News

Former President Obama subjected students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to an hour-long verbal tranquilizer Friday as he attacked President Trump and stuck to his usual specialty: mendacity and self-love.

Obama started by noting that former presidents usually keep quiet about politics as a courtesy to their successors, even if they disagree with them or if the successors come from the other party. He cited George Washington as a practitioner of this custom. He could have found examples as recent as former President George W. Bush, who afforded Obama his silence.

But President Obama figured that even after an eight-year presidency, which itself followed a year-long campaign filled with lofty if conceited language, the world still needed to hear more of his words.

I was surprised how far into the speech President Obama got before accusing President Trump and other Republicans of racism, which these days is usually the first accusation out of a progressive’s mouth.

Obama was several thousand words into the speech when we got to hear the old racial-grievance-hustler we came to know so well over his eight years in the Oval Office: “And even though your generation is the most diverse in history … those are the kinds of conditions that are ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and no shame about tapping into America's dark history of racial and ethnic and religious division.”

As if that mendacious smear wasn’t clear enough for his audience, Obama made his allegation clearer still when he said that “over the past few decades, the politics of resentment and division and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.”

What aren’t resentful, divisive, or paranoid are statistics. And those statistics tell us that Obama failed as a president and Trump has succeeded – both for minorities and all Americans collectively.

Economic growth during the Obama years should have been unusually high, since he took office the year after a financial collapse and stabilization. Growth is usually strongest after recessions.

But during the Obama years, economic growth averaged only around 2 percent and wages stagnated. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and other left-wing economists invented a new term – “SECULAR STAGNATION*” – to argue that we were permanently in a new era of slow growth and there was nothing that could change the situation.

But President Trump did change the situation. Annual economic growth is now averaging about 3 percent and the last quarter saw rapid growth at an annualized rate of 4.2 percent. Wages are finally growing – some 2.9 percent over the last year, which is far better than anything achieved under Obama.

Unemployment for women and minorities is near historic lows, as it is for all Americans, and manufacturing jobs are coming back. These are facts, not opinions.

All of this comes after eight years of identity politics, political correctness and the accentuation of racial grievances by our political class. That is the true tragedy of Obama: he could have finally buried the ghosts of racial inequality in our nation. Instead, he fanned the flames of racial grievance for partisan political gain. He still does so, as do effectively all progressives.

The rest of the speech was somewhat typical for a swan song.

President Obama took credit for rapidly pulling out of Iraq, but not for the creation of ISIS that resulted.

He said he “got Iran to halt its nuclear program,” even though the since-abandoned deal he purchased from the mullahs actually sanctified Iran’s nuclear program, and left the country with the means to make the bomb.

President Obama said the Trump administration, which has sanctioned Russia, expelled Russian diplomats, and provided arms to Ukraine was “cozying up to the former head of the KGB” in Russia. But he didn’t mention that that he whispered in the 2012 to the sidekick of Russia’s strongman that “it’s important for (Vladimir Putin) to give me space. … After my election, I have more flexibility.”

The other mendacious points in the Obama speech are too numerous and boring to enumerate. The net result was a starkly partisan speech wholly inappropriate for a student audience.

Throughout it all was the bedrock theme of Obama and the self-assured and self-loving progressives of his era: a conceit that “progress doesn’t just move in a straight line” but we will all arrive at their vision of a politically ordered society one way or another.

Obama had his eight years and we know the score: economic stagnation, our enemies abroad gaining strength, and racial acrimony at home. Trump has reversed much of this in stunningly little time, which explains the particularly bitter tone of this swan song from a failed former president.

Christian Whiton was a senior advisor in the Donald Trump and George W. Bush administrations. He is a senior fellow for strategy and public diplomacy at the Center for the National Interest and the author of “Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War.”


SEE THE BRIEF EXPLANATORY ARTICLE ON “SECULAR STAGNATION” WHICH I HAVE PLACED NEXT. CHRISTIAN WHITON, FROM OUR FIRST ARTICLE ABOVE, HAS THE HISTORY OF THE TERM WRONG, AT LEAST. I WON’T SAY HE’S INCOMPETENT. JUST A TAD TOO COCKY. IT CAUSED HIM TO MAKE A MISTAKE. I’M NOT WITHIN A MILE OF BEING AN ECONOMIST MYSELF, BUT IF THIS SELF-SATISFIED LITTLE OBAMA HATER IS GOING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT OBAMA, IF HE HAD BEEN A REAL MAN; WOULD HAVE JUMPSTARTED THE ECONOMY IMMEDIATELY FROM THE STATE OF NEAR COLLAPSE THAT IT WAS IN WHEN HE HAD TO TAKE IT OVER -- HE SHOULD AT LEAST MAKE HIS ARGUMENT RIGHT. PEOPLE HAD LOST BUSINESSES AND HOMES; AND THERE WAS VERY LITTLE FAT LEFT TO TRIM.

WHAT SHOULD MORE LIKELY BE COMPARED IS THE “COINCIDENCE” THAT AFTER A DOZEN YEARS OF REPUBLICAN TIGHTFISTEDNESS TOWARD THE NONWEALTHY 90% OF AMERICANS, THERE WAS SERIOUS INJURY DONE. 2008 WAS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS RECESSION, AND 1929 WAS THE CALAMITOUS BEGINNING OF “THE GREAT DEPRESSION.” YOU HAVE TO FULLY RESUSCITATE THE DYING CHILD BEFORE YOU CAN EXPECT IT TO GROW. COMPARE THE SIMILAR CASE OF THE HERBERT HOOVER YEARS THAT PRECEDED THE CRASH OF 1929 AND THE NEAR DEATH OF OUR COUNTRY.

“SECULAR STAGNATION*” – THIS EXPLANATORY WRITING IS AT LEAST AS INTERESTING AS WHITON’S SPIDERY ARTICLE AGAINST OBAMA’S RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT FOR AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. HEAVEN KNOWS, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO. BESIDES, “NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST PAUL KRUGMAN AND OTHER LEFT-WING ECONOMISTS,” ARE NOT THE INVENTORS OF THE “NEW” TERM “SECULAR STAGNATION.” IT WAS INVENTED IN 1938 BY DEPRESSION-ERA ECONOMIST ALVIN HANSEN TO EXPLORE THE CAUSES OF THE FAILURE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY TO PICK ITSELF UP BY IT’S BOOT STRAPS AND DUST ITS’ BEHIND OFF IN RECORD TIME. THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF 2008. THAT WAS NO MINOR ECONOMIC HICCUP! PEOPLE LOST MILLIONS ON THE STOCK MARKET, THEIR HOMES AND THEIR JOBS, AND BUSINESSES WENT UNDER. THE FACT IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE HAVE NO MONEY THEY CAN’T BUY ANY PRODUCTS, EVEN IF THEY DO REALLY NEED THEM. IF THEY DON’T NEED THEM, THEY WILL WISELY CHOOSE NOT TO BUY THEM. THOSE WHO WANT TO SELL, NEED TO PRODUCE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE MUST BUY TO SURVIVE, AND THEN AFTER THAT GO TO MORE AND MORE OUTLANDISH ELECTRONIC GADGETRY, ETC., WHICH THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT WILL THEN BUY.

THERE’S A GREAT DEAL OF INGENUITY IN THE MANY VARIED AMERICAN PEOPLES, BUT NOT ENOUGH SERIOUSNESS AND WISDOM, MUCH LESS HONESTY. “THE MARKET,” ESPECIALLY ON THE WORLD SCALE, IS SIMPLY NOT MANAGEABLE. IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT OBAMA DID WRONG, BUT BECAUSE BOOMS AND BUSTS HAVE BEEN A BUILT-IN FACTOR IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE THE BEGINNING. NO PRESIDENT CAN DO A PERFECT JOB IN CONTROLLING THE ECONOMY.

IN FACT, WE NEED TO STOP CONSIDERING ECONOMICS TO BE A “SCIENCE” AT ALL. IT’S A GAME OF CHANCE, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF A NATION AS LARGE AND MULTIFARIOUS AS OURS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE TWEAKED ON A FREQUENT BASIS TO REGULATE IT, FIRST HERE AND THEN THERE AS THE SITUATION CHANGES. THE WAY WE WANT TO THINK OF “THE MARKET” AS BEING SELF-REGULATING IS THE REPUBLICAN VERSION OF PIE IN THE SKY. IT’S A FANTASY. THAT’S HOW IT LOOKS TO ME, ANYWAY. TOO MUCH HORATIO ALGER PHILOSOPHY AND TOO LITTLE CARING ABOUT OUR NEIGHBOR. IN THE MIDST OF ALL THAT, THERE ARE BALANCES. WE NEED TO AIM FOR THOSE.

I HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO FIND MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION OF THE WORD SECULAR, ITSELF, THAT DOES NOT REFER PRIMARILY TO RELIGION, BUT THAT ONE IS INTERESTING. I FOUND THREE LOGICAL LINKS THERE. THEY ARE THE TERMS “GENERATION, SPAN OF TIME,” AND “WORLDLY” c. 1300. https://www.etymonline.com/word/secular. I BELIEVE THE IDEA OF A GENERATION OR SPAN OF TIME MAKES THE MOST SENSE, BECAUSE THOSE HIGHS AND LOWS IN ECONOMIC CYCLES GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF BEING NATURAL OR INEVITABLE. WHAT I SUSPECT MAY BE BEHIND IT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT POLICY SO MUCH AS THE INTERACTION OF BILLIONS OF FACTORS AROUND THE WORLD PRODUCING SOMETHING LIKE “THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT.” LOOK THAT UP IN WIKIPEDIA. IT’S VERY INTERESTING. IT’S A PATTERN LIKE BUTTERFLY WINGS THAT CAN APPEAR IN SOME RANDOM SETTINGS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect.

AFTER THIS NEXT ARTICLE ON “SECULAR STAGNATION,” GO TO THE LAST, A SHORT ONE THAT IS ALMOST A MIRROR IMAGE OF OUR AMERICAN EXPERIENCES OF THE ROLLER COASTER RIDE OF ECONOMIC MARKETS. THAT IS CALLED THE JAPANESE CRISIS. IT SEEMS A GOOD PLACE TO STOP TO ME, ON THE SUBJECT OF WHY AND HOW THE TROUGHS OCCUR, SINCE IT DOES TIE THE STRINGS TOGETHER PRETTY WELL.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/081116/has-age-secular-stagnation-arrived.asp
Has the Age of Secular Stagnation Arrived?
By Sean Ross | August 11, 2016 — 11:00 AM EDT

During a speech to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Forum in late 2013, noted economist Larry Summers resuscitated the theory of secular stagnation to explain why global economic conditions remained sluggish five years after the Great Recession. Summers believed a collection of factors were making classic macroeconomic policy ineffective and that policymakers might have to accept low growth as the new normal. It's an interesting hypothesis, but Summers now admits that it was incomplete.

What Is Secular Stagnation?

Depression-era economist Alvin Hansen introduced the secular stagnation concept during a presidential address in 1938. It had been nine years since the stock market crash in 1929, and Hansen argued the economy would keep on struggling because there was not sufficient investment demand to sustain future economic growth. After all, Hansen pointed out, the United States had run out of land to grab and the flow of immigrant labor had slowed. People didn't want enough products, so companies stopped investing to produce them.

Hansen's argument is similar to Summers's contention. In a 2015 address at Princeton University, Summers quoted Hansen about the “sick recoveries which die in their infancy and depressions which feed on themselves” during secular stagnation. Summers believes low population growth, technical automation and many other factors are preventing actual economic growth from reaching its long-term potential growth rate. These factors are sometimes called "structural headwinds" in the finance or economic community.

One critical aspect is that normal economic policy becomes ineffective. This is similar to the concept of a liquidity trap, when private businesses and investors stop responding to low interest rates. It is common for believers in secular stagnation theory to expect increased public investments and deficit spending to help close the potential output gap.

The Age of Secular Stagnation

Summers points to the collapse in private domestic capital expenditures in the United States since 2008, which left the American economy with little real growth in capital stock. He takes this to mean the economy has run short of attractive business investments, even when interest rates are historically low for years on end. He believes that automation has replaced many jobs without producing enough real income growth to create new demand. Similarly, major technology companies are able to produce enormous cash flow without requiring huge debt issuances or capital expenditures.

These factors, among several others, lead Summers to believe that "even zero policy interest rates are not enough to restore full employment." He points to similar episodes in Japan and continental Europe as proof that this phenomenon may become more pervasive over time.

One of the issues that Summers faces is that secular stagnation theory relies on two different unexplained deficiencies. First, the private economy appears to produce a tendency for underconsumption or underinvestment. Second, macroeconomic policies suddenly stop working when those private tendencies become powerful enough.

There Might Be Better Explanations

However, reduced private expenditures may not necessarily be blamed entirely on a lack of investment opportunities. A competing explanation, sometimes called "regime uncertainty," is that unprecedented and drastic economic policies make businesses and investors more conservative with their money. In other words, an investor's risk-adjusted discount rate increases along with regime uncertainty.

The regime uncertainty hypothesis appears to fit the historical evidence at least as well as the secular stagnation theory. Consider the years between 1929 and 1938, when the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations unleashed unprecedented wage and price controls, tariffs, immigration restrictions and enormous public works projects, all while fascism and communism rose in the East.

Fast forward to the years between 2008 and 2016. The U.S. government ran up four consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits between 2009 and 2012. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to zero for the first time and launched round after round of quantitative easing (QE). Massive new controls and regulations were implemented in health care and financial markets. It is easy to see why retail and institutional investors might be uncomfortable deploying capital in such an environment.

Lastly, Summers does not touch upon a common thread between the Great Depression, the Japanese crisis* of the 1990s and the present global stagnation. Each of these issues was preceded by a boom fueled by uncommonly low interest rates and money supply growth, and each was responded to by years and years of fiscal and monetary stimulus.

As a macroeconomic scientist, it might be tempting to look at unexpected results and list all the factors that might have caused your model not to work. The simpler, and maybe better, interpretation is that the model might not work.



JAPANESE CRISIS*--
https://www.thebalance.com/japan-s-lost-decade-brief-history-and-lessons-1979056
Japan's Lost Decade: Brief History and Lessons
What Japan's Lost Decade Could Teach Us About Financial Crises
Japan Scenics
•••
BY JUSTIN KUEPPER Updated August 17, 2018

Japan's economy was the envy of the world before succumbing to one of the longest running economic crises in history. In the 1970s, Japan produced the world's second-largest gross national product (GNP) after the United States and, by the late 1980s, ranked first in GNP per capita worldwide. But all of that ended in the early 1990s when its economy stalled, plunging the economy into what has been termed the lost decade.

What Caused Japan's Lost Decade?

Most economic crises immediately follow an economic boom where valuations disconnect from reality. For example, the dot-com bust and the Great Recession in the United States immediately followed record U.S. stock market valuations.

Similarly, Japan's lost decade was largely caused by speculation during a boom cycle. Record-low interest rates fueled stock market and real estate speculation that sent valuations soaring throughout the 1980s. Property and public company valuations more than tripled to the point where a three square meter area near the Imperial Palace was sold for $600,000.

Upon realizing that the bubble was unsustainable, Japan's Finance Ministry raised interest rates to try and stem the speculation. The move quickly led to a stock market crash and debt crisis, as borrowers failed to make payments on many debts that were backed by speculative assets. Finally, the issues manifested themselves in a banking crisis that led to consolidation and several government bailouts.

Japan's Lost Decade in Detail

After the initial economic shock, Japan's economy was sent into its now infamous lost decade, where economic expansion halted for more than 10 years. The country experienced low growth and deflation during this time, while its stock markets hovered near record lows and its property market never fully returned to its pre-boom levels.

Economist Paul Krugman blames the lost decade on consumers and companies that saved too much and caused the economy to slow. Other economists blame the country's aging population demographic or its monetary policy—or both—for the decline. In particular, the slow response of the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to intervene in the marketplace may have exacerbated the problem. The reality is that many of these factors may have contributed to the lost decade.

Following the crisis, many Japanese citizens responded by saving more and spending less, which had a negative impact on aggregate demand. This contributed to deflationary pressures that encouraged consumers to further hoard money, which resulted in a deflationary spiral.

Japan's Lost Decade vs. the 2008 U.S. Crisis

Many economists and financial experts have compared Japan's lost decade to the U.S. situation after the 2008 banking crisis. In both cases, speculation fueled real estate and stock market bubbles that eventually crashed and led to government bailouts. Both economies also responded by promising to increase fiscal spending to combat deflation.

Their period between 2000 and 2009 in the U.S. has also been called a lost decade on occasion since two deep recessions at the beginning and end of the period resulted in a net-zero gain for many households. Steep declines in real estate values and the stock market resulted in significant losses, including the S&P 500's worst ever 10-year performance with a -9.1% total return.

Despite the similarities, there are also some important differences between the two situations. Japan's aging population was a major contributor to its woes, while the U.S. maintains relatively positive demographics with plenty of young workers entering the workforce. The U.S. Federal Reserve has also been much quicker to act than the Bank of Japan.

Lessons Learned From Japan's Lost Decade

Japan's lost decade has provided many valuable economic lessons. Some economists argue against any interventions on the part of central banks, contending that they inevitably lead to moral hazard and longer-term problems. But others argue that interventions should take the market by surprise in terms of timing and scope.

Some key lessons are as follows:

Act quickly to stem the crisis. The Bank of Japan's reluctance to act quickly caused a crisis of confidence among investors and may have exacerbated its problems.

Spending isn't the answer. Japan's attempts to spend on public works projects wasn't particularly successful in helping it recover more quickly from its economic woes.

Counteract demographics. Japan's reluctance to substantially raise its retirement age or taxes only helped to further its demographic problems.

Don't rack up debt. Japan's massive levels of debt were ultimately responsible for its crisis and the lost decade, and the BOJ was behind the curve in raising interest rates.

Key Takeaway Points

Japan's lost decade was likely caused by rampant speculation during an economic boom that led to a debt crisis and long-term deflation after the bubble burst.
The lost decade resembles the 2008 U.S. financial crisis in many ways, but some differences are important to consider.

Many different lessons can be learned from Japan's lost decade, ranging from the underlying causes to potential solutions.

SEPTEMBER 7, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


VIEWS FROM THE BBC ON SEVERAL SUBJECTS

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45452954
Obama attacks 'crazy stuff' from Trump White House
September 7, 2018 30 minutes ago

VIDEO -- Obama: 'Trump a symptom not the cause' of US division

Former US President Barack Obama has launched a stinging attack on Donald Trump and the "crazy stuff that is coming out of this White House".

"This is not normal, these are extraordinary times and they are dangerous times," Mr Obama told students at the University of Illinois.

He called for "a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government".

The ex-president has kept a low profile since he left office in 2017 until now.

Top US officials deny 'gutless' editorial
US mid-term elections in eight charts

Mr Obama told Friday's awards ceremony in Urbana, Illinois, that he had been intending to follow the American tradition of former presidents exiting the political stage.

But in comments which are likely to enrage his successor, he launched into a searing attack on the current Republican administration.

Mr Obama warned that American democracy depended on his audience turning out to vote in the November's congressional mid-term elections.

"Now, some of you may think I am exaggerating when I say this election is more important than any I can remember in my lifetime," the Democrat said.

"But just a glance at recent headlines should tell you that this moment really is different."

Mr Obama made an apparent reference to a New York Times editorial that has infuriated Mr Trump.

Its anonymous author, described as a senior Trump administration official, claimed to be with working colleagues to protect the country from the current president's "worst inclinations".

Mr Obama said: "They are not doing us a service by actively promoting 90% of the crazy stuff that is coming out of this White House and then saying, 'Don't worry. We are preventing the other 10%.'"

But he also told his audience that Mr Trump was "a symptom, not the cause" of the divisions in the US.

Can we tell now if Democrats will win??
Why US mid-term elections matter

He lacerated Mr Trump's calls for the US Department of Justice to investigate his political enemies.

"It should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents."

The 44th president of the US was also scathing about Mr Trump's initial restraint when asked last year to condemn far-right protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"We are supposed to stand up to bullies, not follow them," Mr Obama said. "We are supposed to stand up to discrimination and we sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathisers."

"How hard can that be? Saying Nazis are bad?"


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45436243
New York Times Trump op-ed denied by senior officials
6 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Several members of Donald Trump's cabinet have denied writing the editorial

A number of top US officials have denied that they are the author of a damning anonymous editorial that attacks President Donald Trump.

The New York Times article, said to be written by a senior White House official, says Mr Trump's appointees are trying to stifle his agenda.

There is fierce speculation over who is responsible - with the vice-president among those to deny any involvement.

Mr Trump has described the writer as "gutless" and the newspaper as "phony".

A spokesman for Vice-President Mike Pence has dismissed claims that he wrote the op-ed, describing it as "false, illogical and gutless".

The Whodunnit editorial puzzling Washington
Does 'lodestar' guide us to Trump author?

Several other cabinet members and top officials have also denied writing the piece.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attacked the writer as a "disgruntled deceptive bad actor", adding: "I come from a place where if you're not in a position to execute the commander's intent, you have a singular option - that is to leave."

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described the anonymous piece as "irresponsible", while a spokesman for the Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said: "These types of political attacks are beneath the secretary and the department's mission".

Anonymous Trump op-ed passes key tests
Linguistic clues to NYT insider?
What's in the editorial?

The article - entitled I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - is written by someone the New York Times describes as a senior official in the Trump administration. The paper says the author requested anonymity and that this was essential to deliver an "important perspective" to its readers.

"Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations," the article says.

"I would know. I am one of them."

Although the writer says they support the administration's objectives, they say that its successes have come in spite of the president, who is described as impulsive, erratic and amoral, someone whose "misguided impulses" need to be controlled for the good of the US.

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognise what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't," it says.

How has the White House responded?

Angrily. One of Mr Trump's tweets simply said "TREASON?". Another said the "Deep State and the Left, and their vehicle, the Fake News Media, are going Crazy - & they don't know what to do", pointing to the growing US economy as an achievement.

Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the author was "not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign".

Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump said: "If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words."

Why does it matter?
The White House is already on the defensive amid questions over Mr Trump's suitability for office raised in a book by revered political journalist Bob Woodward.

Fear: Trump in the White House also describes staff deliberately undermining the president, with some hiding sensitive documents from him to prevent him signing them, and other aides calling him an "idiot" and a "liar". Mr Trump has called the book a "con".

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Bob Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in the US
One of the most explosive passages in the New York Times article says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment", which would allow Mr Trump to be forced out of office.

That top officials are reportedly working against the elected US leader has raised some alarm and not just from the White House. In the Atlantic, David Frum, a Republican commentator who is a fierce critic of Mr Trump, called it a "constitutional crisis".

"What the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil," he wrote. "He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president's wilfulness."

Image Copyright @BBCJonSopel@BBCJONSOPEL
Report
A former CIA director, John Brennan, who has been strongly critical of Mr Trump, called the article "active insubordination" although he said it was "born out of loyalty to the country".

Others have wondered whether it was an attempt to distance the Republican administration from their president ahead of the important mid-term elections.

Image Copyright @awzurcher@AWZURCHER
Report
Who has denied any involvement?
So far, officials who have said they did not write the editorial include:

Defence Secretary James Mattis
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
Secretary for Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen
Secretary for Housing Ben Carson
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley
Office of Management and Budget Director Mike Mulvaney
Secretary for Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie
Labour Secretary Alex Acosta
CIA Director Gina Haspel
Energy Secretary Rick Perry
Counsellor Kellyanne Conway
Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue
Small Business Administration chief Linda McMahon
Health Secretary Alex Azar
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross



HAPPY FISHERMEN PHOTOGRAPHED WITH THEIR CATCH

DO GO TO THE ARTICLE BELOW AND LOOK AT THIS PICTURE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO JUST DON’T THINK IN METERS, A METER IS “3.28084 FEET,” ACCORDING TO RAPIDTABLES.COM. THAT MEANS THAT THE PREHISTORIC ELK’S ANTLERS WERE WELL OVER 9 FEET ACROSS. I WONDER HOW MANY ANCIENT IRISHMEN (10,000 BC) IT TOOK, PROBABLY WITH MORE OR LESS WOLFLIKE HUNTING DOGS, TO CONFRONT AND KILL AN ANIMAL LIKE THAT; AND IF YOU WATCH YOUR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEOS, YOU WILL KNOW THAT ALL OF THE DEER FAMILY WILL FIGHT FIERCELY. HUNTERS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY OUR ORDINARY AMERICAN DEER, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE IN RUT OR INJURED. LIFE WASN’T EASY IN THOSE DAYS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-45449128/antlers-of-extinct-irish-elk-found-in-lough-neagh
Antlers of extinct Irish Elk found in Lough Neagh

VIDEO – THE TWO FISHERMEN ARE INTERVIEWED

The antlers of an ancient Irish Elk have been found by two fisherman in Lough Neagh.

The antlers are thought to be more than 10,000 years old and have a span of more than 3 metres.

Due to being submerged in water, the antlers have been well preserved.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2018


IN DEFENSE OF CORY BOOKER AND OUR OTHER FINE DEMOCRATS

THIS IS WHY THE SPECIFIC BELIEFS OF A JUDGE ARE IMPORTANT. CAN WE JUST “TRUST THEM” TO BE FAIR AND INTELLIGENT? I’M AFRAID NOT. ARE “LEGAL PREPARATION, EXPERIENCE AND TEMPERAMENT” SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONFIRM A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? ABSOLUTELY NOT. THEY ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS ONLY, AND AN INSUFFICIENT GROUNDWORK FOR A RATIONAL DECISION ABOUT WHO TO SEAT ON SUCH A VITALLY IMPORTANT BODY AS THE SUPREME COURT.

IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER IF THE APPOINTMENT OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WERE ABSOLUTELY NOT THE PREROGATIVE OF ANY PRESIDENT, AS IN “TO THE VICTOR BELONGS THE SPOILS;” OR ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE ABSOLUTE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. IN FRANCE, I HEARD SOME 30 YEARS AGO, THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE CAN MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR A GIVEN CASE, WHICH CAN BE ADDED TO A MORE FLUID INTERPRETATION. THAT MEANS THAT EACH NEW CASE CAN BE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY. SEE BOTH REFERENCE ARTICLES, FROM STANFORD AND FROM WIKIPEDIA:
https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/17-laurent-cohen-tanugi/ AND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system.

A JUDGE’S PROVEN AND RECORDED STATEMENTS AND DECISIONS FROM THE PAST ARE ESSENTIAL, AS WELL, TO REACH A VALID AND WISE SENATE CONFIRMATION OF A JUSTICE. UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED SINCE A WEEK OR SO AGO, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS “WITHHELD” HIS PAPER TRAIL FROM THE SENATE. THAT’S BLATANTLY UNFAIR, AND SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED. CAN’T SOMETHING BE DONE HERE TO FORCE TRUMP INTO A CHANGE OF COURSE? OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES AREN’T WORKING IF THE PRESIDENT CAN INTERFERE IN SUCH A WAY WITH THE SENATE’S ACTION.

THE HILL’S PIQUANT COMMENT BELOW GUIDES MY THINKING AND MY HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, PENDING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. “LEGAL PRINCIPLES, OF COURSE, ARE SETTLED UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.” THIS, IN MY VIEW, IS A GREAT LEGAL ARTICLE, SHOWING WHY I BELIEVE IN ARGUING. ARGUING DOES NOT MEAN HURLING EPITHETS AT EACH OTHER, BUT USING OUR WITS TO APPROACH NEW UNDERSTANDINGS.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/405613-kavanaugh-and-the-politics-of-interpretation
Kavanaugh and the politics of interpretation
BY ANDRÉS L. CÓRDOVA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/07/18 03:30 PM EDT

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

PHOTOGRAPH – KAVANAUGH, SITTING IN A MEETING © Greg Nash

From the public record, it is evident that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has the legal preparation, experience and temperament to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Given the current composition of the Senate and the changes made to its filibuster rules made at the time of Associate Justice Gorsuch confirmation, it is most likely that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The early hopes of many that Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation appear misplaced. In fact, Collins declared last week that she felt assured that Kavanaugh was committed to the principles of stare decisis, and that Roe v. Wade was settled legal principle.

[“STARE DECISIS” – “sta·re de·ci·sis
ˌsterē dəˈsīsəs/Submit
nounLAW
the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.” www.dictionary.com.]

Legal principles, of course, are settled until they are not. There are innumerable instances in the history of the Supreme Court where previous opinions have given way to new understandings and rulings according to the dominant legal philosophy of a given Supreme Court majority. The best well known example of this change was the overturning of the separate but equal doctrine Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). We are right because we are final, as then Associate Justice Robert Jackson pithily remarked, not final because we are right.

In the end, it is not necessarily a matter of argumentative persuasion between competing legal positions, but of the will of a momentary majority. A legal controversy does not take place in the setting of an academic seminar, where multiple points of view on a given issue can coexist and be celebrated as an instance of diversity and creativity. It requires finality and certainty.

Unsettled controversies if unchecked will eventually lead to confrontation and social and political instability, exacerbating divisions within the body politic. The contrary is also true. Controversies settled by institutional force, which are based on values and positions not shared by significant members of society corrode its legitimacy and threaten its long term vitality. Legal judgments need to navigate between these two extremes.

Stare decisis, or the rule of the precedent, as a criteria of legal continuity and certainty, is only one principle among others which impinge on a given case or controversy: constitutionality, changes in statutory law, general principles of justice and fairness, among others. The fact that the Supreme Court handed down an opinion decades ago, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds for it to be continually upheld. At some point in time that opinion must be evaluated against current realities and change in circumstances, as the Supreme Court did in this past term in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) when it revoked Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) on the issue of state taxation of online retail and commercial transaction.

Another example is the continuing validity of the so called insular cases in the early 20th century, Downes v. Bidwell (1901) and others, in which the Supreme Court created out of thin air, and contrary to the plain language of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution, the doctrine of unincorporated territories. These patently unfair and racist cases which justify the selective and discriminatory application of constitutional rights to its citizens in Puerto Rico, are stare decisis. I wonder if Collins believes these cases to be settled legal principles that should not be overturned.

The ongoing debate on legal interpretation, which conceptually pits a broad reading of certain constitutional texts as a means to temper their meaning to 21st century circumstances, against a strict or “original ” reading of the Constitution, which claims for itself a principled defense of democratic procedures, is at the heart of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. These two interpretative currents are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although for purposes of public consumption they are usually drawn as if they were.

All legal interpretation occurs within the context of political discourse, and no actor — be it a judge or a politician — has a private access to truth. Reasonable people can, and do, differ on given issues. This does not imply that all legal interpretations are equally persuasive. How we distinguish a valid difference of opinion from purely rhetorical flourishes requires discernment and a shared commitment to discourse based on facts, rationality and legal tradition. In the age of President Trump, where truth is not truth, political polarization has become a matter of policy. The rule of law cannot long survive in this habitat. The Senate would do well to return to its bipartisan practices.

Andrés L. Córdova is a law professor at Inter American University of Puerto Rico, where he teaches contracts and property courses. He is also an occasional columnist on legal and political issues at the Spanish daily El Vocero de Puerto Rico.


“MY HEAD IS BLOODIED, BUT UNBOWED.” I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT IT IS THE “PROGRESSIVES” WHO ARE ARGUING AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS’ BILL. I GUESS IT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (OR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS!) SEE https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-between-social-democracy-and-democratic-socialism.

WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THE WARREN BRANCH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE DECLARING WAR, BECAUSE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT ELIZABETH WARREN WANTS, IT IS TO BE PRESIDENT. MAYBE I’M WRONG, BUT I DON’T THINK SO.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-amazon-bill_us_5b91944ae4b0cf7b003e0858
POLITICS 09/06/2018 07:08 pm ET
Bernie Sanders Hit With Avalanche Of Criticism Over Amazon-Bashing Bill
Progressives are calling it a “ham-fisted” and counterproductive way to help low-wage workers.
By Emily Peck and Arthur Delaney

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) latest policy idea seems laudable at first glance: Penalize big corporations when their workers tap public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid, to get by.

Unveiled this week and unabashedly aimed at Amazon and its wildly wealthy CEO, Jeff Bezos, Sanders’ Stop BEZOS Act would slap a 100 percent tax on companies with 500 or more workers until the government recovers the monetary value of all the social welfare used by their workers: Medicaid, food stamps, even school lunch subsidies. For instance, for every dollar an employee receives in food stamp benefits, the company would pay an extra dollar in taxes.

The idea is to shame some of the country’s largest and most successful companies for paying workers so poorly that they have to rely on government aid.

But the bill doesn’t just shame companies, it spreads that shame to the very idea of social welfare by demonizing benefits, economists say. That’s a play usually reserved for Republicans and conservatives, who love to bang the drum against the nation’s “takers.”

The bill, which doesn’t stand much chance of going anywhere, could give big companies a reason not to hire those who get benefits, a majority of whom are parents.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the most influential left-leaning think tanks in Washington, criticized the Sanders plan in a blog post on Wednesday. Several progressive policy types ― such as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Mike Konzcal of the Roosevelt Institute ― sounded sour notes on Twitter.

“It’s ham-fisted,” Betsey Stevenson, a labor economist at the University of Michigan who served on the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, told HuffPost.

If the goal is to get companies to pay higher wages, this won’t do it, added Stevenson, who specializes in examining how public policy affects the labor market.

In an interview with HuffPost, Sanders dismissed the criticism.

“We have thousands of workers working for an extremely profitable corporation owned by the wealthiest person in this country who are making wages so low they are forced to go on public assistance,” he said. “All we are asking of Mr. Bezos is pay your workers a living wage.”

There’s already stigma in the United States surrounding food stamps and other social safety benefits. Some Americans won’t apply for food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to avoid the shame involved, Stevenson said.

Yet the public safety net offers a real benefit to American workers. Single parents, in particular, rely on Medicaid and monthly food benefits in order to raise children in a country that offers little other supports to families (such as subsidized day care or parental leave). Nearly 70 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with children.

PHOTOGRAPH -- Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is targeted in the proposed legislation.
JOSHUA ROBERTS / REUTERS

Though Sanders’ proposal includes a provision that blocks employers from asking applicants if they are on public benefits, that wouldn’t necessarily stop a company from profiling workers or not hiring those who seem likely to use benefits, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in its blog post.

“In addition, some employers might pressure employees not to sign up for Medicaid or other benefits, “CBPP’s Robert Greenstein, Sharon Parrott and Chye-Ching Huang wrote. “And elements of the business community would likely lobby policymakers to reduce their tax bills by restricting eligibility and benefits for core low-income programs, which would be equivalent to a corporate tax cut.”

Welfare recipients in the U.S. are often subject to work requirements, so if you get food stamps or Medicaid, in some states you also must work a certain amount per week. This bill, by disincentivizing hiring such workers, would make it even harder for them to land a job, thus causing more of them to lose benefits.

“It’s really unfair. Recipients would end up in a situation where there is a work requirement and employers are told that they’ll be penalized for hiring them,” Stevenson said.

Sanders rejected the idea that employers would discriminate against poor applicants, suggesting reasonable pay itself would solve the problem.

“If you pay people a living wage, they will have an adequate income,” he said.

Even though the bill stands little chance of becoming law, that doesn’t mean it’s OK that the policy idea is flawed, Baker told HuffPost last week. When you create an economic policy, you want to make sure it’s a good, effective idea, he said.

“Amazon has a history of treating workers badly, yes,” he said. “But this isn’t likely going to change that.”

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.

headshot
Emily Peck
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
headshot
Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost



THIS POEM HAS THRILLED, INFLUENCED AND INSPIRED ME SINCE I FIRST READ IT IN MY 8TH GRADE ENGLISH CLASS. I LOVE ALL GOOD WRITING, INCLUDING NONFICTION, BUT POETRY IS MY FIRST LOVE, AND THIS WAS A MODEL FOR ME. THIS IS THE KIND OF INDIVIDUALISM THAT I BELIEVE IN – NOT THE PHILOSOPHY THAT POOR PEOPLE SHOULD NOT RECEIVE GOVERNMENT HELP. I CAN’T ALWAYS LIVE IT, BUT IT GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF BACKBONE WHEN I NEED IT.

http://manoflabook.com/wp/fun-facts-friday-william-ernest-henley/ -- http://manoflabook.com/wp/fun-facts-friday-william-ernest-henley/
Posted by Zohar - Man of la Book on August 23, 2013. Fun Facts Friday, Latest Posts - No Comments

William Ernest Henley (23 August, 1849 – 11 July, 1903) was an English editor, critic and poet. Mr. Henley is best remembered for his poem Invictus from 1875.


https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus

Invictus
BY WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.



THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MAY APPEAL TO BUSINESSES. “HE ARGUES THAT IF EMPLOYERS PAID A LIVING WAGE, TAXPAYERS WOULD SAVE $150 BILLION A YEAR, INCLUDING FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAID AND PUBLIC HOUSING.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/technology/business/bernie-sanders-amazon-walmart-worker-pay/index.html
Bernie Sanders' 'Stop BEZOS' bill targets worker pay at Amazon and Walmart
by Tami Luhby @Luhby
September 6, 2018: 9:40 AM ET

VIDEO -- Life inside an Amazon fulfillment center

As promised, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill Wednesday that would tax Amazon, Walmart (WMT) and other big companies whose workers collect public assistance.

Named the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies, or the Stop BEZOS Act after Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos, Sanders' bill would levy a tax on large companies equal to the value of the public benefits that their workers receive. He argues that if employers paid a living wage, taxpayers would save $150 billion a year on the government assistance programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and public housing.

"We do not believe that taxpayers should have to expend huge sums of money subsidizing profitable corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country. That's what a rigged economy is about," said Sanders, who introduced the bill with California Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat.

The independent senator from Vermont recently asked Amazon workers to tell him about their work conditions. He shared a few examples from workers who said that they make only $11 an hour or $13.25 an hour, which isn't enough to live on.

Sanders also lashed out Wednesday at Burger King, McDonald's (MCD) and American Airlines (AAL) for paying wages so low that their workers have to sign up for government benefits.

Related: Amazon defends itself from Bernie Sanders' attacks

Amazon, however, called Sanders' assertions "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post last week. The company says that Sanders' data for food stamp recipients includes people who only worked at Amazon for a short period of time or who chose to work part-time. The median US salary for full-time Amazon employees is $34,123, it says. Sanders' figure includes part-time employees and those who work globally.

It has invited the senator to tour one of its fulfillment centers, which is where many of Amazon's lower-paid employees work.

The company highlighted that its average hourly wage for a full-time fulfillment center employee is more than $15 an hour, including cash, stock and incentive bonuses, but before overtime. Amazon also noted that it offers health and disability insurance, as well as retirement savings plans, company stock, tuition payments and up to 20 weeks of paid leave. The company says it created more than 130,000 new jobs in the U.S. last year.

Amazon posted on Wednesday the positive responses that several employees sent to Sanders and shared with the company. They cited the fair pay, good benefits, supportive environment and opportunities for career advancement.

The other employers mentioned didn't immediately return requests for comment.

Related: Bernie Sanders is hosting a town hall for workers. Their CEOs are invited.

Sanders' legislation has also raised concerns with at least one prominent left-leaning organization.

The bill would create powerful incentives for employers to shy away from hiring low-income workers, who are more likely to qualify for Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance, said a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Also, it may lead some companies to pressure their employees not to sign up for benefits.

Plus, the legislation likely wouldn't do much to raise wages, the center said. Companies would have to raise wages for all workers in particular job categories, which would be more expensive than paying the new tax, the center said.

Sanders' campaign says they have added provisions to the bill to help prevent those things from happening, such as making it unlawful for a large employer to ask an employee whether or not they qualify for federal benefits.

CNNMoney (New York)
First published September 5, 2018: 7:42 PM ET



ANOTHER SUBJECT BY A GREAT PRESIDENT

THIS SPEECH BY BARACK OBAMA IS LONG, SO IT ISN’T IN HERE, BUT I SUGGEST YOU GO TO THIS WEBSITE AND READ AT LEAST SOME OF IT. IT HITS AT MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES WHICH WE FACE TODAY, AND FACED YESTERDAY AS WELL, SUCH AS WHITE SUPREMACY AND AN AMBITIOUS DEMAGOGUE. GO TO THIS SITE: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/barack-obama-american-democracy-trump-speech/569605/.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

ANOTHER ONE OF “MY MEN” HAS DIED. HE WAS TALENTED, UPBEAT, BEAUTIFUL, AND SEEMED VERY KIND. HE WAS “ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS.” I MISS THESE HOLLYWOOD PEOPLE WHEN THEY DIE. I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO LOOK UNDER THE SURFACE, EVEN WITH PEOPLE I’LL NEVER REALLY KNOW IN THE FLESH. HE WAS A DEFINITE ADDITION TO OUR SOCIETY AND AMERICAN LIFE. IF YOU’RE FEELING BORED, GET “SMOKY AND THE BANDIT” AND WATCH IT. I’VE NEVER SEEN “BOOGIE NIGHTS.” HOPEFULLY I’LL REMEMBER TO FIND IT ON YOUTUBE AND WATCH IT SOON.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burt-reynolds-died-boogie-nights-actor-age-82-today-2018-09-06/
Burt Reynolds, star of "Boogie Nights" and "Smokey and the Bandit," dies at 82
By ANDREA PARK CBS NEWS September 6, 2018, 3:07 PM

Hollywood legend Burt Reynolds, star of films like "Smokey and the Bandit," "Boogie Nights" and "Deliverance," has died at 82. He reportedly died Thursday morning at Jupiter Medical Center in Florida.

The actor, director and producer was born in Lansing, Michigan, in 1936, and played football at Florida State University before an injury dashed his hopes of a football career.

He launched his acting career in Western TV shows like "Gunsmoke" and "Dan August," but his breakout film role was in the thriller "Deliverance" in 1972. He was Hollywood's top-grossing star each year from 1978 through 1982, during which time he starred in the 1997 hit film "Smokey and the Bandit" with Sally Field. The two had a highly-publicized romance. Reynolds was one of the leading sex symbols of the era, posing nude for Cosmopolitan magazine in 1972.

Reynolds made a comeback in 1997 with Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights," for which he was nominated an Oscar. Reynolds had mixed feelings about the film in spite of the acclaim. In 2015, he admitted to GQ that he did not get along with Anderson and said he most likely would not work with him again. According to The Hollywood Reporter, he was so unhappy when he first saw the film that he fired his agent over it. Though the actor lost the Oscar that year to Robin Williams, he did win a Golden Globe for the role.

Reynolds recently starred in "The Last Movie Star," which was released in March. The film tells the story of a forgotten Hollywood icon.

Reynolds suffered from several health issues in recent years. In 2013, he was admitted to the intensive care unit of a Florida hospital due to dehydration and severe flu symptoms. In 2010, Reynolds underwent a quintuple heart bypass one year after entering rehab to end a reliance on prescription drug habit acquired after back surgery.

Reynolds was married to actresses Judy Carne from 1963 to 1965 and Loni Anderson from 1988 to 1993. He had a son, Quinton Reynolds, with Anderson in 1988. In March, he said on the "Today" show that ex-girlfriend Sally Field, who was also his co-star in "Smokey and the Bandit," was the love of his life.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

99 PHOTOS – NOTABLE DEATHS IN 2018


FREEDOM OF ART

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mural-inspired-by-starry-night-becomes-a-first-amendment-issue/
By STEVE HARTMAN CBS NEWS August 24, 2018, 6:55 PM
Mural inspired by Starry Night becomes a First Amendment issue

MOUNT DORA, Fla. — Lubek Jastrzebski and Nancy Nemhauser of Mount Dora, Florida, say it was the strangest thing: They noticed their 25-year-old autistic son, Chip, kept opening the same art book, and kept turning to the same page to stare into the same Starry Night.

"It seemed to comfort him. And given that there is not a whole lot that helps, we have to capitalize on whatever we can use," said Nancy.

That's why they hired someone to paint a huge, Starry Night-inspired mural on the wall in front of their house.

Chip loved it. The city did not.

sm-hartman-otr-0824-frame-2408.jpg
A family in Mount Dora, Florida decided to paint the famous Starry Night painting on their house, after they saw their autistic son looking at the same painting. CBS NEWS
Last year, a citation showed up at the door, saying graffiti is prohibited, and until the Van Gogh was gone, the family could be fined as much as $250 a day, up to the value of the house.

"First I thought it was a prank. And then I thought it was a mistake," Nancy said.

So they asked the code enforcement officer: which is it?

"What do we have to do fix this? And she said, 'The wall has to match the house,'" Nancy said. "We followed the instructions."

They did follow the instructions, and today the wall definitely matches the house. But despite their cynical compliance -- or perhaps because of it -- the couple's legal problems only intensified. Next, the city said the mural needed to come down for a second reason.

"It violated a sign ordinance," said Mayor Nick Girone.

"A violation of the sign ordinance based on the fact that it had squigglies," Girone added.

This is what the family was up against.

hartman-van-gogh-house-exported-01-frame-4887.jpg
Lubek Jastrzebski and Nancy Nemhauser. CBS NEWS
All the while, the fines kept mounting, which is why even though their son would be disappointed, Nancy and Lubek almost painted over it – in a surrender white.

"The turning point, for you, I think, was when a young girl offered her allowance to help us to fight to keep the mural," Nancy said to Lubek.

For Lubek especially, the mural had become a First Amendment issue. Eventually the city saw it that way, too.

Last month, the mayor conceded and publicly apologized.

Today, those once-scorned squiggles are a now tourist attraction, with people visiting from around the world.

"It's very seldom when two crazy people are willing to lose the house," Lubek said. "For First Amendment."

To contact On the Road, or to send us a story idea, email us: OnTheRoad@cbsnews.com.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO MAKE FAKE GUNS THAT LOOK THIS REALISTIC. I HOPE, FOR THEIR SAKE, THAT THE OFFICERS HAD A THIRD-PARTY WITNESS OR TWO. THERE WAS A MENTAL HEALTH WORKER WITH THEM, BUT THIS HAPPENED ANYWAY. WHY, I WONDER, DIDN’T THEY LET THE PROFESSIONAL HANDLE THIS?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vanessa-marquez-former-er-star-shot-dead-by-police/
CBS NEWS August 31, 2018, 4:54 PM
Vanessa Marquez, former "ER" star, shot dead by police

PHOTOGRAPH -- Vanessa Marquez as nurse Wendy Goldman on "ER." NBC

Vanessa Marquez, who starred on "ER" as nurse Wendy Goldman, was shot and killed by South Pasadena, California, police in her home on Thursday, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said. The 49-year-old actress pointed what appeared to be a handgun at officers before they shot her, the sheriff's department said in a statement.

South Pasadena police officers conducting a welfare check in an apartment complex Thursday afternoon found Marquez having seizures, the sheriff's department said. In a press conference, Lt. Joe Mendoza of the sheriff's department's homicide bureau told reporters that Marquez was "gravely disabled," according to the South Pasadenan.

The sheriff's department said authorities attempted to offer Marquez medical care for over an hour and a half.

"At the time [of the shooting] there was an LA County mental health clinician here with the officers," Mendoza said, according to the newspaper. "They began to communicate with her, she became very uncooperative and during that contact she armed herself with a handgun, she pointed it at the officers and an officer-involved shooting occurred."

Marquez was taken to a nearby hospital and pronounced dead. Police determined that Marquez had been holding a BB gun that "resembled a semi-automatic handgun," according to Mendoza.

Marquez acted on "ER" from 1994 to 1997. In 2017, she accused George Clooney of hurting her career during their "ER" days, saying he helped "blacklist" her when she reportedly spoke up about alleged harassment on the show. Clooney denied the accusation.

Marquez also appeared on "Seinfeld," "Melrose Place" and others. She also appeared on a 2005 episode of A&E's "Intervention" to address her depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and shopping addiction.

Marquez's death is under investigation, which is common for police-involved shootings.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


AN OPEN MIND CAN CHANGE ALL THINGS. WATCH THIS VIDEO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayla-mckeon-lobbyist-national-down-syndrome-society/
By STEVE HARTMAN CBS NEWS August 10, 2018, 6:55 PM
Meet the high-powered Washington lobbyist with Down syndrome

WASHINGTON -- Kayla McKeon may be Washington's most unlikely powerbroker. As the first registered lobbyist with Down Syndrome, the 31-year-old roams the Capitol advocating for the National Down Syndrome Society.

"She's an incredible asset to this organization," said her boss, Sarah Hart Weir. "She's extremely articulate. And she's quick on her feet."

"And I'm not going to take no for an answer," Kayla said.

They hired her for her communication skills.

"That too," Kayla said.

0810-dsguardianpics5.jpg
Kayla McKeon CBS NEWS

And her charm.

"You're good at this," she said.

It takes a schmoozer to know a schmoozer.

But Kayla also has a certain sincerity that can turn almost any politician into putty.

PHOTOGRAPH -- 0810-dsguardianpics.jpg
Kayla McKeon CBS NEWS

She approaches New York Republican Rep. John Katko. "I need your help," Kayla said.

"Do you need a sponsor?"

"I definitely need you."

"Am I surprised that she's in Washington, D.C., calling on senators and congressmen? Yeah," said Kayla's father, Mark.

Her parents, Mark and Patti, say that although their daughter continues to surprise -- Kayla never really let Down syndrome slow her down. They say that even at 2, Kayla had already decided she would drive a car someday.

"To pass the permit test we said, 'You have to be able to read,'" Mark said. "So that gave her encouragement to knuckle down and start reading. And right now she still reads a book a week."

0810-dsguardianpics4.jpg
Kayla McKeon CBS NEWS

And she got her driver's license, too.

She's now one of just a handful of people with Down syndrome to have a license.

What about that parallel parking?

"You don't want to know," she said. "That's challenging."

Today she does more flying than driving. A couple of times a month she leaves her home in Syracuse for her office in D.C., where Kayla is focused on passing a law that would make it illegal to pay people with disabilities anything less than minimum wage.

PHOTOGRAPH -- 0810-dsguardianpics6.jpg, Kayla McKeon CBS NEWS
She says if it passes, it would be a monumental achievement – but a thrill, regardless, just to be part of the process.

"I just love the feeling of: Wow, I'm here, I'm making history," Kayla said.

Hard to believe?

"Oh yeah," Kayla said.

Kayla McKeon, lily in the swamp.

To contact On the Road, or to send us a story idea, email us: OnTheRoad@cbsnews.com

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


ENTER THE HERO -- https://president.psu.edu/biography.html
President Eric J. Barron

WHY IS HE A HERO? BECAUSE HE IS RISKING THE DISSATISFACTION OF PARENTS WHO WANT THEIR YOUNG MEN TO BE IN A POSITION OF ADMIRATION ON CAMPUS, PLEDGE THE FRATERNITY THAT THEY DID, AND PARTY, EVEN IF HORRIBLE THINGS HAPPEN AT THEIR PARTIES.

HIS WILLINGNESS TO BREAK WITH TRADITION WHEN THINGS NEED TO CHANGE SHOWS INTELLIGENCE AND A DEEPER THAN AVERAGE LEVEL OF HONESTY.

SEE THIS ARTICLE AND THE NEXT. DR. BARRON IS PUSHING FOR A LAW THAT MANDATES ARREST ON A FELONY CHARGE WHEN HAZING OCCURS. I HAVE NEVER KNOWN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REASON WHY YOUNG PEOPLE WILL PUT UP WITH THIS, AND EVEN APPROVE OF IT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PRACTICES THAT MAKE ME FEEL THAT MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED BEFORE IT IS EMBRACED. BEING “A PART OF THINGS” IS A MIXED BLESSING AT BEST.

TO ME, BEING AN INDIVIDUAL IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE AT OUR BEST AS HUMANS. IN THIS COUNTRY WE PRIZE SOCIABILITY AND COMPETITION. I PRIZE INDIVIDUALITY AND A SMALL NUMBER OF GOOD, RELIABLE FRIENDS IN A COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP. WOULD THEY EVER GET YOU DOG DRUNK AND WATCH YOU TOPPLE DOWN STAIRS WITHOUT EVEN GOING DOWN TO HELP? THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS YOUNG MAN AT THE HANDS OF HIS “FRIENDS?”

Eric J. Barron, former dean at Penn State and former president of Florida State University, began his presidency at Penn State on May 12, 2014. Succeeding former President Rodney Erickson, who had served since 2011, Dr. Barron was named the 18th President of Penn State by the University's Board of Trustees February 17, 2014.

The President has nearly 35 years of leadership experience in academic administration, education, research, and public service.

Dr. Barron returned to Penn State from the helm at Florida State, bringing with him nearly 35 years of leadership experience in academic administration, education, research, and public service, and a track record as a talented manager of fiscal policy within large and complex institutions. Dr. Barron led Florida State to two consecutive U.S. News and World Report rankings as the nation's "most efficiently operated" institution of higher education.

Dr. Barron served as dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences and founding director of the Earth System Science Center during his previous years at Penn State.

Dr. Barron earned a bachelor of science degree in geology at Florida State in 1973 before moving on to the University of Miami, where he earned master's and doctoral degrees in oceanography, in 1976 and 1980, respectively. Dr. Barron spent 20 years of his career at Penn State, serving as dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences from 2002 to 2006, and as founding director of the Earth System Science Center, one of the first major initiatives focused on the total study of Earth as a system, from 1986 to 2002. He also had a simultaneous appointment as director of the Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment Institute from 1998 to 2002. In 1999, he was named Distinguished Professor of Geosciences at Penn State, and during his tenure as director, Industry Week magazine ranked him among "50 R&D Stars to Watch."

An accomplished scientist with a long background in atmospheric research, Dr. Barron served as director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) from 2008 to 2010 and as dean of the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin from 2006 to 2008. Early in his career he was a postdoctoral research fellow and scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, a federal research center focusing on atmospheric and related science issues. Dr. Barron originally worked at NCAR as a postdoctoral fellow (1981–85), and served for one year on the faculty at the University of Miami before joining Penn State.

Dr. Barron has lent his scientific expertise to many national committees and federal organizations.

Over the decades, Dr. Barron has lent his significant expertise in the areas of atmospheric science and the geosciences to many national committees and federal organizations, including contributions as chair of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) science advisory board and nearly 20 years of service as the chair of multiple National Research Council committees and boards. Throughout his career he has earned numerous accolades and awards, including Penn State's Wilson Award for Excellence in Teaching (1999); the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's (NASA) Distinguished Public Service Medal (2003); and the Bridge Builders Leadership Award from the Martin Luther King Foundation of Florida (2012).

Dr. Barron is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has authored more than 125 peer-reviewed papers in geology, oceanography, and climate issues.


YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THIS CASE. IT WAS TOO HORRIFIC TO FORGET. FINALLY, SOMETHING IS BEING DONE, OR AT LEAST AN ATTEMPT IS BEING MADE TO STOP THE PROBLEM.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/timothy-piazza-hazing-death-penn-state-president-eric-barron-speaks-out/
CBS NEWS September 6, 2018, 7:39 AM
Penn State president opens up about Timothy Piazza's death, vows to end hazing for good

The North-American Interfraternity Conference this week announced tough new restrictions on hard liquor in all fraternities following a settlement between the family of Penn State student Timothy Piazza and his fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, where the 19-year-old died during a hazing ritual last year.

There's been at least one hazing-related death in the U.S. every year since the early 1960s. Penn State President Eric Barron tells CBS News' Jericka Duncan about his personal mission to prevent future tragedies.

"It needs to be very clear that if you engage in behavior that harms somebody physically or mentally to a level of near death or serious consequences, that can't be a misdemeanor," Barron said.

Barron says reforming laws to make hazing a felony is just one of the causes he's been fighting for over a year and a half, ever since Timothy Piazza died in a hazing incident on his watch.

"I never want it to happen again. That's really why, I never want it to happen again," Barron said.

As part of an initiation ritual with Beta Theta Pi, Piazza was allegedly forced to consume 18 drinks in 82 minutes. He died two days later in the hospital after sustaining brain injuries and massive internal bleeding from dangerous falls while intoxicated at the fraternity house.

Parents Jim and Evelyn Piazza have formed a unique relationship with Barron, working together to end hazing nationwide.

"We thought you know we can kind of go to battle with him and the university or we can try to work with him and try to effectuate change," Jim Piazza said. "Not that we don't have our differences, we do, and there are things that we don't agree on. We don't agree on everything but it's important for us to work closely with him, with the university to make changes here."

Some of those changes include a national database to monitor Greek life like fraternity GPAs, sexual assaults and any alcohol violations.

"When I'm choosing as a student or as a parent, I can look at it and say, 'Now wait a minute, that house, the freshmen have a 1.9 grade point average. Do I want to risk my academics to join that one?'" Barron said.

d17n-duncan-penn-state-piazza-frame-3454.jpg
Penn State president Eric Barron CBS NEWS

But Timothy's fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, had a stellar record with an average 3.8 GPA.

"It was a – it looked very good on the outside. And there are other things here that have a different type of effect on behavior. We're working with the Piazzas on an anti-hazing law," Barron said.

Last week, Barron invited the Piazzas to visit Penn State and speak to the heads of fraternities and sororities.

"We've gotten really good feedback. We've had young men look us in the eyes, burst into tears, give us hugs and just promise us that it wasn't going to happen on their watch," Evelyn said.

Despite the fact that at least one person has died in a hazing incident every year since 1960, the Piazzas are hopeful this year will be different. The university says it's already seeing progress.

"There is substantial change in awareness," Barron said. "I think that gives us a lot more strength to begin to move forward aggressively in fixing it but we're not done yet."

The Piazzas are also fighting for justice in court. The more serious charges of involuntary manslaughter were recently dropped but charges have been filed, dismissed, and re-filed against more than 25 former fraternity brothers. Three students pleaded guilty and one is now under house arrest.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


MSNBC MADDOW
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/episodes


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/5/18
W.H. official's NYT screed on Trump sets up crisis for Americans
Rachel Maddow outlines the issues facing Americans after a senior White House official wrote anonymously in the New York Times about the paucity of Donald Trump's incapability to serve safely in the office he holds. Duration: 26:04


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/5/18
Some Trump admin officials see role as protecting US from Trump
Nicolle Wallace talks with Rachel Maddow about officials within the Donald Trump administration who see it as their duty to thwart Donald Trump in order to, as they see it, protect the United States from Trump's whims and ill-considered policies. Duration: 7:15


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/5/18
Veracity of Kavanaugh testimony under oath challenged at hearing
Rachel Maddow reviews highlights of Brett Kavanaugh's Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearing, from his ducking questions about prosecuting presidents to questions about whether he was truthful in his past Senate testimony. Duration: 4:30


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/5/18
Kavanaugh ducks answering on points of personal controversy
Senator Cory Booker talks with Rachel Maddow about his frustrations getting straight answers from Brett Kavanaugh at today's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, compounded by Republicans withholding information about Kavanaugh's record. Duration: 8:33



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/thursdays-mini-report-9618
The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
Thursday’s Mini-Report, 9.6.18
09/06/18 05:30 PM
By Steve Benen

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Just another day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: “A number of Cabinet and Cabinet-level officials in President Donald Trump’s administration rushed to deny Thursday that they were behind the explosive anonymous opinion article published in The New York Times a day earlier.”

* Today’s mass shooting: “A gunman opened fire at a bank in downtown Cincinnati on Thursday morning, fatally wounding three people and injuring two others, law enforcement officials said. The suspect was also killed.”

* More on this tomorrow: “The Trump administration announced a new rule Thursday that would allow immigrant children with their parents to be held in detention indefinitely, upending a ban on indefinite detention that has been in place for 20 years.”

* Abortion ruling: “A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a Texas law that would have required abortion providers and other health care facilities to bury or cremate fetal remains, the latest in a series of legal setbacks for anti-abortion activists and state Republican leaders who pushed for the law.”

* Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is usually very careful about criticizing the White House, but he nevertheless said on a radio show yesterday that he’s dealing with an American president “who doesn’t always follow the rules as they’re laid out.”

* Farm bill: “Nearly two million low-income Americans, including 469,000 households with young children, would be stripped of benefits under the House version of the farm bill being considered this week by congressional negotiators, according to an analysis by a nonpartisan research firm.”

* A provocative new bill: “An unusual public spat between Amazon.com Inc. and Sen. Bernie Sanders over workers’ wages escalated Wednesday as the Vermont independent introduced a bill aimed at taxing big companies whose employees rely on federal benefits to make ends meet.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, raised some notable concerns about the bill.

* Roy Moore is seeking $95 million in punitive and compensatory damages: “Of all the absurd antics on Sacha Baron Cohen’s Showtime series ‘Who is America?’ … the most uncomfortable moment may have involved Roy Moore. Moore certainly wasn’t too happy about the July 29 episode that implied that he is a pedophile. Now, he is suing Cohen, CBS and Showtime for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud.”

* Stefan Passantino, “the former top ethics lawyer in the Trump White House, is joining Reince Priebus’ law firm in its government relations, public policy and compliance practice group.”

* Sign of the times: “Not one, not two, but three men (at least) who were affiliated with conservative organizations or the Trump administration have recently been found to have social, professional, or organizational links to explicit white supremacists and members of the alt-right.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog

I AM PART OF THE RESISTANCE

COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
SEPTEMBER 6, 2018

PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CALL THIS PIECE A HOAX BY “THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES,” WHILE OTHERS WILL CALL IT TREASON. I CALL IT THE INNATE STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EMERGING FOR A BREATH OF FRESH AIR AND TO WAVE THE FLAG. OF COURSE, IT COULD BE A HOAX, BUT I DON’T THINK IT IS. SEE ALSO RACHEL MADDOW’S COMMENTARY ON THIS.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
Opinion
I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed
to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Sept. 5, 2018

ART -- moving image of three men and one woman pulling the USA up by a rope as it teeters on the edge of a cliff -- Delcan & Company

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion).

A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 6, 2018, on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: The Quiet Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe