I'm not sure of the legality in Virigina of discriminating against someone on the grounds of political views or affiliations. I believe in at least one Canadian province, politics is a protected ground, along with race, religion etc.
Human Rights Statutes Do Not Include Political Opinion or Belief as a Prohibited Ground of discrimination:
Federal (Canada), Ontario, Nunavet, Alberta, Saskatchewan
Human Rights Statutes Do Prohibit Discrimination on the Basis of Political Opinion or Belief:
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Newfoundland & Labrador, NWT, Yukon, B.C., Manitoba
Though I wonder both about protecting and not protecting. What if KKK, Nazis or even Hell's Angels show up and claim the protection? what defines politics, what defines a rowdy group, unacceptable risks etc.
My guess would be that if you're just a known member of some extremist group showing up as a customer, but not using your visit to promote the ideology, you could claim discrimination if they don't serve you. But if you're going around spouting the ideology itself, they could ask you to leave.
Sort of like how congregants of the Burn In Hell Baptist Church would be allowed to eat in a restaurant, but if they start telling other customers "You're gonna burn in hell!!", it's a different story.
Isn't it strange that the Republicans are lambasting a restaurant for turning away their ilk because of the resturant owners believe in a fair and compassionate world which is different from theirs, but they support a baker who turns away a gay couple who just want a cake. I find that says an awful lot about their basic philosophy. It seems to saw that you have to agree with them or else,.................. but when the shoe is on the other foot, they don;t like it.
Well I suppose the Trumps aren't consistent either re Melania's cheap coat with a message on the back, when she is used to ordering her clothes from top designers. So the coat must be a message or she wouldn't have worm a piece of cheap clothing. But as to whether it is ironic - can she do ironic? Or what she really thinks????????????
The restaurant should have just turned a blind eye to staff serving Huckerbee Spit Soup, or potataoes au e-coli. Much more satisfying for staff and no public blow back.
On a serious note this whole episode and the responses are an indictment on the democracy of the United States. This should not be how things work. These are things one jokes about doing. I know the conservatives are being truly awful right now, but there has to be a circuit breaker. Not everything has to be made a show about. There are ways and means of showing disapproval (and this applies to bakers too). You don't have to wave your principles about in people's faces in civil society. It is not right.
The restaurant should have just turned a blind eye to staff serving Huckerbee Spit Soup, or potataoes au e-coli.
That would have backfired big time if someone discovered spit in the soup or became ill from food poisoning that was then traced back to the restaurant.
Though I wonder both about protecting and not protecting. What if KKK, Nazis or even Hell's Angels show up and claim the protection? what defines politics, what defines a rowdy group, unacceptable risks etc.
In general, a "rowdy group" would be a group behaving in a rowdy fashion. Any group of friends out for dinner could become rowdy, but one expects rowdiness from things like end-of-year rugby club dinners, stag/hen parties and so on.
And various places already have policies about that - some restaurants choose not to take group bookings, some choose not to take single-sex group bookings, some refuse to admit patrons displaying sporting team colours, gang colours and the like. Some insist on a certain formality of dress.
Whereas other places quite deliberately court the rowdy party dinner market.
If the KKK show up in their silly costumes, it seems obvious that you refuse them service because they're going to cause disruption. If, on the other hand, a couple of KKK members show up in mufti, then I suppose you would serve them. Unless they said something offensive, of course...
Isn't it strange that the Republicans are lambasting a restaurant for turning away their ilk because of the resturant owners believe in a fair and compassionate world which is different from theirs, but they support a baker who turns away a gay couple who just want a cake.
AFAIK, the Republicans aren't suggesting that the restaurant should be forced to serve Mrs. Huckabee Sanders - they're just suggesting that if a restaurant doesn't want her custom, then other Republicans shouldn't eat there either.
Which is consistent. I expect that the supporters of anti-gay bakers and florists wouldn't mind if the couples who were refused service publicized the fact, and as a consequence members of the public who were concerned about social justice chose to patronize different bakers.
The restaurant should have just turned a blind eye to staff serving Huckerbee Spit Soup, or potataoes au e-coli.
That would have backfired big time if someone discovered spit in the soup or became ill from food poisoning that was then traced back to the restaurant.
I've never heard of anyone getting sick from swapping spit (in case that doesn't translate, what a teenager in the 70's and 80's might call people french kissing).
In situations like this, I remind myself that professional Russian trolls are still out there, seeking to keep us divided. If the restaurant seemed to be getting public support, the trolls would scream that it should be burnt down. The lead Russian troll, one D. Trump, is happy to do this. If the attacks on the restaurant got too one-sided against, then the trolls would start screaming about their right to exclude such people from their premises. If need be, the lead Russian troll (one D. Trump) will sign on for this, too. It wouldn't be the first time he spoke on both sides of the issue. The trolls' mission is to keep us divided, at each other's throats.
To combat this, we need to affirmatively develop tolerance for those who feel differently or think differently from us. What the restaurant did wrong was not exercising tolerance for the Not-We. I understand the temptation (it was a common human failing) but it should have been resisted. What the restaurant did wasn't kind. You do not defeat hate with hate. You do not beat evil by being evil. You defeat hate with understanding and compassion. You defeat evil by affirmatively being kind.
Trumpy is selling something, and a lot of people are buying. It occurs to me that this isn't about democracy, it's about selling. It's on his twitter, on the back of his wife's coat, anywhere. All that matters is product placement, trumpy as the product. Just keep it in the public mind. It's all sound bite theatre.
I've never heard of anyone getting sick from swapping spit (in case that doesn't translate, what a teenager in the 70's and 80's might call people french kissing).
What? You've never heard of the common cold, the flu, mononucleosis*, cold sores, strep throat, hepatitis, tuberculosis, syphilis, etc. etc.? You do lead a sheltered life, my friend.
* They don't call "mono" the kissing disease for nothing.
On a serious note this whole episode and the responses are an indictment on the democracy of the United States. This should not be how things work. These are things one jokes about doing. I know the conservatives are being truly awful right now, but there has to be a circuit breaker. Not everything has to be made a show about. There are ways and means of showing disapproval (and this applies to bakers too). You don't have to wave your principles about in people's faces in civil society. It is not right.
I think I want to walk this one back. I think I fell for the old 'what's happening right now is the worst thing that has ever happened ever' error. I think its fair to say that US politics has always been pretty intense and polarised. It's part of the fascination for me. It's only ever fallen completely apart once, and that was pretty bloody spectacular.
I think its fair to say that US politics has . . . only ever fallen completely apart once, and that was pretty bloody spectacular.
You're referring to the Civil War? Agreed.
As for shaming members of the current administration . . . nothing else seems to have worked. One has to assume that not all of them, if any at all, can be in total agreement with the views and actions of the current occupant of the White House. If that is the case, then either they are getting no results when they try to persuade the COWH to act otherwise, or they aren't even bothering to try anymore.
In either case, the honorable thing to do would be to resign. And don't tell me their livelihoods would be at stake. Many are independently wealthy. Others are members of professions in which opportunities to earn a living are plentiful.
Otherwise, one has to assume that they are in agreement with everything the COWH does and in fact are deriving some degree of enjoyment and satisfaction in watching him in action.
If that is true, or if the former premise is true and yet they do not submit their resignations, then shaming seems to be the only recourse left for decent Americans.
With the Martian. The beginning of the "Final Solution" to the illegal immigrant problem? There is certainly a drift over the line. Let's suspend due process in favour of more "efficient and speedy" approaches?
On a serious note this whole episode and the responses are an indictment on the democracy of the United States. This should not be how things work.
I disagree. People in positions of power dealing with disagreement or backchat from the commoners is an indictment of aristocracy. It's more or less how democracy is supposed to work. The fact that so many of the political elites in the U.S. (and their fans) find a bunch of peasants telling off someone with a position of authority abhorrent (and more abhorrent than being an apologist for kidnapping and child abuse) says a lot about the current state of the American polity.
One thing that people who wield great power often fail to viscerally understand is what it feels like to have power wielded against you. This imbalance is the source of many of the most monstrous decisions that get made by powerful people and institutions. The people who start the wars do not have bombs dropped on their houses. The people who pass the laws that incarcerate others never have to face the full force of the prison system themselves. The people who design the economic system that inflicts poverty on millions are themselves rich. This sort of insulation from the real world consequences of political and economic decisions makes it very easy for powerful people to approve of things happening to the rest of us that they would never, ever tolerate themselves.
<snip>
It is telling that many of those who make their living in the political industrial complex, whether Democrat or Republican or Washington Posteditorial page, find the idea of socially shunning people because of their politics to be abhorrent. Their shudders are a symptom of the fact that DC is indeed a swamp—a friendly swamp, where all the gators and slugs and mudfish meet up at the end of the day for cocktails, because to them, politics is a job. To the rest of us, politics is the use of power in a way that has very real effects on our lives. Poverty is an affliction of history and the failure to remedy history’s crimes, of greed and self-dealing and the tax code. Sickness is often an affliction of the political decision not to build a fair and equitable health care system, so that a small number of people can get rich instead. Tens of millions of people around the world suffer under dictatorships that are supported by America to serve our own economic ends. People die because of political decisions every day. Politics is real. This is what is on one side of our current disagreement: death, and human rights, and freedom, and equality. And this is what is on the other side: wanting to eat at a nice restaurant without having anyone remind you that you are ruining people’s lives.
I believe the technical term for what @Simon Toad is objecting to is "lèse-majesté", something that should not be part of a democratic system.
To combat this, we need to affirmatively develop tolerance for those who feel differently or think differently from us. What the restaurant did wrong was not exercising tolerance for the Not-We. I understand the temptation (it was a common human failing) but it should have been resisted. What the restaurant did wasn't kind.
By all accounts, the most civil action taken in L’affaire Poule Rouge was the way Stephanie Wilkinson handled her refusal to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. She first consulted with her staff, several members of which were gay and were angry at the administration*’s policies in that regard, and everyone was outraged by what was going on at the border. Wilkinson then took a vote on whether or not to serve Sanders. When the staff voted not to do so, she politely informed Sanders and her party that they would not be eating at the Red Hen that night. She even comped them the cheese plates they’d already ordered.
She did not use an official government Twitter account to discuss the episode, as Sanders did later. She did not use the power of the Oval Office to try and destroy someone’s business, as the president* found time to do later. She asked the staff what they wanted to do. She took a vote. She abided by their wishes. If there’s a more civil way of saying “no” to someone, I don’t know what it would be.
If a quiet word in private and a complimentary cheese plate doesn't count as a "kind" way of telling someone they're a moral monster I think the real objection is to telling Sarah Huck that she's a moral monster, not that it wasn't done in a "kind" way.
Now that Trump proposes to tax Harley-Davidson, how many laws would he be violating? I thought that a specifically aimed confiscatory tax was illegal in the US, as a result of SCOTUS decisions. Thoughts?
Second question: How long before a horse gets a Senate seat? The usual tenner....
Well, I haven't swapped spit with anyone but my wife for, well, before I met my wife . Before that, though, it was spit city
Miss Amanda admits to having tasted the nectar herself on several occasions, the details of which she won't go into on a Christian website.
It was usually without consequence, but was once followed by a very bad cold, and another time by laryngitis that took at least a month to clear up, and from which she never fully got back her falsetto.
But would she do it again? In the twinkle of an eye!
Now that Trump proposes to tax Harley-Davidson, how many laws would he be violating? I thought that a specifically aimed confiscatory tax was illegal in the US, as a result of SCOTUS decisions. Thoughts?
I'm not familiar with the Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area, but such actions would seem to fall afoul of the Constitution's ban on bills of attainder.
It should be remembered that during the campaign Trump claimed that not paying his taxes made him "smart". Now he's upset that a famous American corporation is being similarly "smart".
I’ve read an interpretation that suggests Trump just means they’ll face high tariffs importing products into the US like everyone else. This assumes he doesn’t realize/understand they’re doing this for bikes intended for import into the EU, not the US.
I’ve read an interpretation that suggests Trump just means they’ll face high tariffs importing products into the US like everyone else. This assumes he doesn’t realize/understand they’re doing this for bikes intended for import into the EU, not the US.
An argument premised on the idea that Donald Trump doesn't realize or understand something is usually on pretty firm footing. Nonetheless, an argument that Trump is simply lashing out in an unconsidered way at someone who annoyed him is also usually pretty sound, so I'm not sure it can be determined one way or the other.
I remember Reagan being incensed that you couldn't buy a made-in-USA American flag during his presidency. This of course created a demand where there wasn't one, and a US-based business or two stepped up to provide the supply.
Paul Keating, our most aggressive PM responsible for implementing the liberal economic agenda, when asked about the disappearance of manufacturing jobs said, 'who wants to work in a factory? They are dirty, dangerous, boring jobs. Get a job in the services sector.' I am communicating the sense of his utterance. I dislike Keating, even though he was a funny bastard, but he's got to be right about this, hasn't he?
I mean, 30 years down the track after a major recession due in part to his restructuring, we have had small and steady growth for something like 25 years, even through the GFC. Now we dodged a bullet there because we were in surplus, and the Government of the day had to foresight to spend that on supporting jobs, especially in construction. Unemployment has remained in the 5-6% bracket despite the collapse of our manufacturing sector, including the recent closure of our automotive industry. In micro-terms, the individuals who face disruption to their livelihoods must be protected, and I like to think we have an adequate system there. It is still a huge thing to go through, and when my brother was facing the chop I was pretty scared for him (he was redeployed thank God).
I realise the USA and Australia are completely and utterly different economies, in scale as much as anything else, but are manufacturing jobs really where its at?
I remember Reagan being incensed that you couldn't buy a made-in-USA American flag during his presidency. This of course created a demand where there wasn't one, and a US-based business or two stepped up to provide the supply.
I wonder if Reagan saw the contradiction between supporting a free-market ideology, and the sentimental belief that American flags should be made in the USA, even if it's financially unfeasible because, dammit, this is Old Glory we're talking about!
(Rhetorical question. I'm pretty sure he didn't see the contradiction. In fairness, the solution that eventually emerged did not involve government intervention, unless you count Reagan's lament, in and of itself, as such.)
I realise the USA and Australia are completely and utterly different economies, in scale as much as anything else, but are manufacturing jobs really where its at?
We're about to find out I guess; the production which went to China is now being followed by the design and R&D which stayed behind for a while. (A postgrad of mine who didn't want to go to China...ended up in Korea, at Samsung ). The tie-up between universities and producers which can be quite fruitful is lost when this happens, and the knowledge-economy becomes orphaned. Perhaps we really can make a go of it selling coffee and beard-moisturiser to each other all day long.
The problem as I see it is that the Big Lie is very much upfront, backed up as it is by Fox News, and alt-right media, and frequent rallies. And I'm not sure that the Democrats, or the mainstream media, have yet discovered any answers which will disturb either the faithful or the GOP self-interested fellow travellers.
From this side of the pond, I still find it very difficult to understand the 40+ % support for this mountebank. Yet there it is. I hate the thought of the US sleepwalking into a kind of totalitarianism, supported by an emetic leadership cult. The latest decision by the Supreme Court was very disheartening, even more so by its revelation of the political polarisation and deep divisions amongst the judges.
The issue is not just that Trump lies. He lies to attack minority vulnerable groups, to inflame the prejudices of his supporters, to play on and increase the polarisation in US political and social life. His lies are purposeful. The mid term elections are assuming huge importance for the future of the US.
And now that Justice Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of June, the Midterm elections are even more important for the Senate which will be weighing bin in Trump's pick to replace Kennedy.
Although the Senate as it stands now may get the deed done before Midterms. Mitch McConnell loves a long delay when a Dem President is nominating, but is probably already rubbing his hands together thinking about another Trump nomination.
Second question: How long before a horse gets a Senate seat? The usual tenner....
We've been there: well, most of the way there. I seem to remember that the Prez in power at the time of Hurricane Katrina had appointed one of his golf club pals who happened to be chairman of a horse society to lead the FEMA, just when that body needed leadership most. It wasn't pretty.
Bill Shine, a former Fox News executive who was close to Roger E. Ailes, the network’s ousted chairman, is expected to be offered the job of White House communications director, according to four people familiar with the decision.
Mr. Shine, who was forced out as co-president at Fox News last May for his handling of sexual harassment scandals at the network, has met with President Trump in recent weeks about taking the West Wing communications job, which has been vacant since Hope Hicks left the job in March.
Seems like a good fit. If he'd been in place last February Rob Porter might still have a White House job.
But Melania as a former model and current trophy wife is renowned for very much caring about what she wears and how she looks in public. So my reaction is that the coat tells her real opinion and negates her previous statements that she thinks separating children at the US border is inhumane.
In other words, "my husband, i.e. my main income source for my fashion spending, must have been right all along".
Except it was a $39 jacket. Husband's income not needed.
I don't know why she wore it, though I mentioned a couple of possibilities. But she left the coat on the plane when she got to Texas, so it was never anywhere near the kids nor detention center.
Right. But she DID wear it to board the plane AND for a press conference after-- times when she knew she would be photographed. So whatever she was trying to convey (and to whom) it was very deliberate.
Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say her husband for once was being truthful when he said it was a middle finger to the press (as opposed to himself or the kids). We still have a privileged immigrant deciding that venting her perceived persecution by the media was a more important message than drawing attention to the plight of refugee children caught in the most horrible of situations.
Just watched last night's (Thurs., 6/29/18) Stephen Colbert show. Really, really good.
--During the bit just after the monologue, at the desk, a special guest popped in and really ripped into T in their own monologue--with a fair amount of bleeping. It was beautiful!
--Filmmaker Michael Moore was another guest. Predictably, he's not happy about the current state of things--especially the immigrant children. He's got a film about T and how we got here coming out this fall. It's called "Fahrenheit 11/9", that being the date of the 2016 election. (FYI: His film about 9/11 was "Fahrenheit 9/11", so the title of the new film is a play on that.)
MM is just now finishing the film, and is being pretty close-mouthed about it. However, he did show a very brief clip. I'll put a couple of details in the spoiler box. Afterward, Stephen asked MM if he'd stayed civil. MM paused, then said "As civil as an Eagle Scout and Catholic altar boy can be when confronting the devil".
(big grin)
MM went to Mar-a-Lago and asked to see T. The clip ended there.
He also had Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 20-something Latina Democratic-Socialist who ran for one of New York's House seats in Congress, and beat the incumbent (Democrat?) who's been there for decades. And she WON. Once she's seated, she'll be the youngest Congresswoman ever! I like her a lot.
He also had Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 20-something Latina Democratic-Socialist who ran for one of New York's House seats in Congress, and beat the incumbent (Democrat?) who's been there for decades. And she WON. Once she's seated, she'll be the youngest Congresswoman ever! I like her a lot.
Just a technicality, but she won a primary against the incumbent Democrat. Now, the district in question skews heavily Democratic (I think it went 75% for Hillary), so it is highly probable that she will win the general election for Congress, but she has not won it yet. The Republicans had not been planning on seriously contesting for that seat (assuming the incumbent would win), but they might devote a few more resources to the race now.
Something similar happened in Delaware a few years back. A Republican incumbent was pretty secure in his seat and the Democrats just appointed some cannon fodder to run against him. Then the incumbent was surprisingly defeated in a primary by a Tea Partier. Result: the Republicans lost the seat because, while the incumbent would have won reelection easily, the voters were not keen on the Tea Partier. As a result, the cannon fodder got elected. Now the difference to the NY situation is that Delaware skews Democratic normally--but we tend to love our incumbents, so the incumbent R would have won reelection, but with no incumbent in the race, the probability shifted to a Dem victory. In NY, it is a Dem district likely to go with the Dem candidate even if she is not the incumbent.
Still, best not to count chickens until they hatch.
He also had Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 20-something Latina Democratic-Socialist who ran for one of New York's House seats in Congress, and beat the incumbent (Democrat?) who's been there for decades. And she WON. Once she's seated, she'll be the youngest Congresswoman ever! I like her a lot.
Just a technicality, but she won a primary against the incumbent Democrat. Now, the district in question skews heavily Democratic (I think it went 75% for Hillary), so it is highly probable that she will win the general election for Congress, but she has not won it yet. The Republicans had not been planning on seriously contesting for that seat (assuming the incumbent would win), but they might devote a few more resources to the race now.
I came across an analysis stating that the Joe Crowley, the Democratic incumbent, had never had to face a competitive election for the seat. The previous incumbent announced his retirement after the primary deadline in 1998, allowing the local Democratic party to select Crowley as their standard-bearer without a primary. As noted, the district skews strongly Democratic so, absent a primary in any of the subsequent elections, Crowley never had to work that hard for his seat. This kind of showed since he sent a surrogate to the only debate of the primary instead of showing up himself. He also outspent Ocasio-Cortez by a ratio of about 15:1, which shows that while money is useful in politics it can't substitute for the personal involvement of the candidate.
Still, he made what I think is one of the most remarkable concession speeches I've seen in politics. If he doesn't want to go the typical post-politics career path of lobbyist/consultant he could make a decent living in a cover band.
To combat this, we need to affirmatively develop tolerance for those who feel differently or think differently from us. What the restaurant did wrong was not exercising tolerance for the Not-We. I understand the temptation (it was a common human failing) but it should have been resisted. What the restaurant did wasn't kind. You do not defeat hate with hate. You do not beat evil by being evil. You defeat hate with understanding and compassion. You defeat evil by affirmatively being kind.
An historian has found an interesting historical example of calls for greater civility. Probably the ultimate misdirected call for fixing bad situations with civility. A call for Jews to be nicer to Nazis in 1934. There's even a claim (by a different person but in the same edition of the New York Times that ran a rabbi's response that fighting Nazis with hugs was a losing strategy) that the appeal of Nazism isn't bigotry, but due to economic anxiety. I guess there's a reason these are the classics.
So, James Melville resigned on Friday as American ambassador to Estonia. That might sound like small beer except for Estonia's key geographic position on the Baltic, the stationing of NATO troops there, and the Russian cyberattack of 2007. His FB posting, in full, here, displays a level of professionalism that cannot be tolerated by Trump et al. And Melville, rightly, cannot tolerate them. Whatever one thinks of American diplomacy and foreign policy post-1945, there is nothing equivalent to the hollowing out of the American civil service since Trump's inauguration.
Oh I thought NK did promise to stop, but Trump forgot to screw them down on a date, or more likely couldn't, and he took an announceable instead of walking away, like he said being the pretend tough-guy. He's had his chance to make peace. Now is the time to hang him for his temerity.
On the State Department, I'm sure nobody is surprised that there is no Ambassador to Australia. The good guy who was announced went to South Korea. In truth it doesn't matter very much. We have well-established and multi-faceted methods of communication between our countries. Other places, like Estonia for one, are important places to have a full embassy compliment. Naturally, when talking to known Republicans, I will try to look like on the verge of tears and tell them that it feels like we are being told off and that we don't know what we have done wrong. Don't you love us any more? "Hey, that's not a knife... ," I'll say, pretending to try to please them like the capering fool in my profile pic.
Comments
My guess would be that if you're just a known member of some extremist group showing up as a customer, but not using your visit to promote the ideology, you could claim discrimination if they don't serve you. But if you're going around spouting the ideology itself, they could ask you to leave.
Sort of like how congregants of the Burn In Hell Baptist Church would be allowed to eat in a restaurant, but if they start telling other customers "You're gonna burn in hell!!", it's a different story.
Well I suppose the Trumps aren't consistent either re Melania's cheap coat with a message on the back, when she is used to ordering her clothes from top designers. So the coat must be a message or she wouldn't have worm a piece of cheap clothing. But as to whether it is ironic - can she do ironic? Or what she really thinks????????????
Maybe I'm just too British.
On a serious note this whole episode and the responses are an indictment on the democracy of the United States. This should not be how things work. These are things one jokes about doing. I know the conservatives are being truly awful right now, but there has to be a circuit breaker. Not everything has to be made a show about. There are ways and means of showing disapproval (and this applies to bakers too). You don't have to wave your principles about in people's faces in civil society. It is not right.
In general, a "rowdy group" would be a group behaving in a rowdy fashion. Any group of friends out for dinner could become rowdy, but one expects rowdiness from things like end-of-year rugby club dinners, stag/hen parties and so on.
And various places already have policies about that - some restaurants choose not to take group bookings, some choose not to take single-sex group bookings, some refuse to admit patrons displaying sporting team colours, gang colours and the like. Some insist on a certain formality of dress.
Whereas other places quite deliberately court the rowdy party dinner market.
If the KKK show up in their silly costumes, it seems obvious that you refuse them service because they're going to cause disruption. If, on the other hand, a couple of KKK members show up in mufti, then I suppose you would serve them. Unless they said something offensive, of course...
AFAIK, the Republicans aren't suggesting that the restaurant should be forced to serve Mrs. Huckabee Sanders - they're just suggesting that if a restaurant doesn't want her custom, then other Republicans shouldn't eat there either.
Which is consistent. I expect that the supporters of anti-gay bakers and florists wouldn't mind if the couples who were refused service publicized the fact, and as a consequence members of the public who were concerned about social justice chose to patronize different bakers.
I've never heard of anyone getting sick from swapping spit (in case that doesn't translate, what a teenager in the 70's and 80's might call people french kissing).
To combat this, we need to affirmatively develop tolerance for those who feel differently or think differently from us. What the restaurant did wrong was not exercising tolerance for the Not-We. I understand the temptation (it was a common human failing) but it should have been resisted. What the restaurant did wasn't kind. You do not defeat hate with hate. You do not beat evil by being evil. You defeat hate with understanding and compassion. You defeat evil by affirmatively being kind.
* They don't call "mono" the kissing disease for nothing.
I think I want to walk this one back. I think I fell for the old 'what's happening right now is the worst thing that has ever happened ever' error. I think its fair to say that US politics has always been pretty intense and polarised. It's part of the fascination for me. It's only ever fallen completely apart once, and that was pretty bloody spectacular.
As for shaming members of the current administration . . . nothing else seems to have worked. One has to assume that not all of them, if any at all, can be in total agreement with the views and actions of the current occupant of the White House. If that is the case, then either they are getting no results when they try to persuade the COWH to act otherwise, or they aren't even bothering to try anymore.
In either case, the honorable thing to do would be to resign. And don't tell me their livelihoods would be at stake. Many are independently wealthy. Others are members of professions in which opportunities to earn a living are plentiful.
Otherwise, one has to assume that they are in agreement with everything the COWH does and in fact are deriving some degree of enjoyment and satisfaction in watching him in action.
If that is true, or if the former premise is true and yet they do not submit their resignations, then shaming seems to be the only recourse left for decent Americans.
Republicans, 2016: "It's not like Trump is going to round people up into Concentration Camps."
Republicans, 2018: "Frankly, I find it offensive that you call them Concentration Camps."
I disagree. People in positions of power dealing with disagreement or backchat from the commoners is an indictment of aristocracy. It's more or less how democracy is supposed to work. The fact that so many of the political elites in the U.S. (and their fans) find a bunch of peasants telling off someone with a position of authority abhorrent (and more abhorrent than being an apologist for kidnapping and child abuse) says a lot about the current state of the American polity.
I believe the technical term for what @Simon Toad is objecting to is "lèse-majesté", something that should not be part of a democratic system.
So let's look at the actual actions involved, as relayed by the inimitable Charlie Pierce:
If a quiet word in private and a complimentary cheese plate doesn't count as a "kind" way of telling someone they're a moral monster I think the real objection is to telling Sarah Huck that she's a moral monster, not that it wasn't done in a "kind" way.
Second question: How long before a horse gets a Senate seat? The usual tenner....
Miss Amanda admits to having tasted the nectar herself on several occasions, the details of which she won't go into on a Christian website.
It was usually without consequence, but was once followed by a very bad cold, and another time by laryngitis that took at least a month to clear up, and from which she never fully got back her falsetto.
But would she do it again? In the twinkle of an eye!
I'm not familiar with the Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area, but such actions would seem to fall afoul of the Constitution's ban on bills of attainder.
It should be remembered that during the campaign Trump claimed that not paying his taxes made him "smart". Now he's upset that a famous American corporation is being similarly "smart".
An argument premised on the idea that Donald Trump doesn't realize or understand something is usually on pretty firm footing. Nonetheless, an argument that Trump is simply lashing out in an unconsidered way at someone who annoyed him is also usually pretty sound, so I'm not sure it can be determined one way or the other.
Wonder where US apple pies get made these days
Paul Keating, our most aggressive PM responsible for implementing the liberal economic agenda, when asked about the disappearance of manufacturing jobs said, 'who wants to work in a factory? They are dirty, dangerous, boring jobs. Get a job in the services sector.' I am communicating the sense of his utterance. I dislike Keating, even though he was a funny bastard, but he's got to be right about this, hasn't he?
I mean, 30 years down the track after a major recession due in part to his restructuring, we have had small and steady growth for something like 25 years, even through the GFC. Now we dodged a bullet there because we were in surplus, and the Government of the day had to foresight to spend that on supporting jobs, especially in construction. Unemployment has remained in the 5-6% bracket despite the collapse of our manufacturing sector, including the recent closure of our automotive industry. In micro-terms, the individuals who face disruption to their livelihoods must be protected, and I like to think we have an adequate system there. It is still a huge thing to go through, and when my brother was facing the chop I was pretty scared for him (he was redeployed thank God).
I realise the USA and Australia are completely and utterly different economies, in scale as much as anything else, but are manufacturing jobs really where its at?
I wonder if Reagan saw the contradiction between supporting a free-market ideology, and the sentimental belief that American flags should be made in the USA, even if it's financially unfeasible because, dammit, this is Old Glory we're talking about!
(Rhetorical question. I'm pretty sure he didn't see the contradiction. In fairness, the solution that eventually emerged did not involve government intervention, unless you count Reagan's lament, in and of itself, as such.)
Where Don McClean parked his Chevy by the dry levee?
We're about to find out I guess; the production which went to China is now being followed by the design and R&D which stayed behind for a while. (A postgrad of mine who didn't want to go to China...ended up in Korea, at Samsung
From this side of the pond, I still find it very difficult to understand the 40+ % support for this mountebank. Yet there it is. I hate the thought of the US sleepwalking into a kind of totalitarianism, supported by an emetic leadership cult. The latest decision by the Supreme Court was very disheartening, even more so by its revelation of the political polarisation and deep divisions amongst the judges.
The issue is not just that Trump lies. He lies to attack minority vulnerable groups, to inflame the prejudices of his supporters, to play on and increase the polarisation in US political and social life. His lies are purposeful. The mid term elections are assuming huge importance for the future of the US.
Although the Senate as it stands now may get the deed done before Midterms. Mitch McConnell loves a long delay when a Dem President is nominating, but is probably already rubbing his hands together thinking about another Trump nomination.
We've been there: well, most of the way there. I seem to remember that the Prez in power at the time of Hurricane Katrina had appointed one of his golf club pals who happened to be chairman of a horse society to lead the FEMA, just when that body needed leadership most. It wasn't pretty.
Or "The Help"
Seems like a good fit. If he'd been in place last February Rob Porter might still have a White House job.
Right. But she DID wear it to board the plane AND for a press conference after-- times when she knew she would be photographed. So whatever she was trying to convey (and to whom) it was very deliberate.
Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say her husband for once was being truthful when he said it was a middle finger to the press (as opposed to himself or the kids). We still have a privileged immigrant deciding that venting her perceived persecution by the media was a more important message than drawing attention to the plight of refugee children caught in the most horrible of situations.
--During the bit just after the monologue, at the desk, a special guest popped in and really ripped into T in their own monologue--with a fair amount of bleeping. It was beautiful!
--Filmmaker Michael Moore was another guest. Predictably, he's not happy about the current state of things--especially the immigrant children. He's got a film about T and how we got here coming out this fall. It's called "Fahrenheit 11/9", that being the date of the 2016 election. (FYI: His film about 9/11 was "Fahrenheit 9/11", so the title of the new film is a play on that.)
MM is just now finishing the film, and is being pretty close-mouthed about it. However, he did show a very brief clip. I'll put a couple of details in the spoiler box. Afterward, Stephen asked MM if he'd stayed civil. MM paused, then said "As civil as an Eagle Scout and Catholic altar boy can be when confronting the devil".
(big grin)
He also had Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 20-something Latina Democratic-Socialist who ran for one of New York's House seats in Congress, and beat the incumbent (Democrat?) who's been there for decades. And she WON. Once she's seated, she'll be the youngest Congresswoman ever! I like her a lot.
Worth seeing online, IMHO.
Something similar happened in Delaware a few years back. A Republican incumbent was pretty secure in his seat and the Democrats just appointed some cannon fodder to run against him. Then the incumbent was surprisingly defeated in a primary by a Tea Partier. Result: the Republicans lost the seat because, while the incumbent would have won reelection easily, the voters were not keen on the Tea Partier. As a result, the cannon fodder got elected. Now the difference to the NY situation is that Delaware skews Democratic normally--but we tend to love our incumbents, so the incumbent R would have won reelection, but with no incumbent in the race, the probability shifted to a Dem victory. In NY, it is a Dem district likely to go with the Dem candidate even if she is not the incumbent.
Still, best not to count chickens until they hatch.
I came across an analysis stating that the Joe Crowley, the Democratic incumbent, had never had to face a competitive election for the seat. The previous incumbent announced his retirement after the primary deadline in 1998, allowing the local Democratic party to select Crowley as their standard-bearer without a primary. As noted, the district skews strongly Democratic so, absent a primary in any of the subsequent elections, Crowley never had to work that hard for his seat. This kind of showed since he sent a surrogate to the only debate of the primary instead of showing up himself. He also outspent Ocasio-Cortez by a ratio of about 15:1, which shows that while money is useful in politics it can't substitute for the personal involvement of the candidate.
Still, he made what I think is one of the most remarkable concession speeches I've seen in politics. If he doesn't want to go the typical post-politics career path of lobbyist/consultant he could make a decent living in a cover band.
Whoops! I got so caught up in the excitement that I forgot it was only the primary. Thanks for the correct info.
Here's Alexandria's interview on Stephen Colbert's show last night (YouTube).
https://www.amny.com/news/elections/joseph-crowley-1.19452082
(chuckle)
Of course, it could also be called Trump's...
An historian has found an interesting historical example of calls for greater civility. Probably the ultimate misdirected call for fixing bad situations with civility. A call for Jews to be nicer to Nazis in 1934. There's even a claim (by a different person but in the same edition of the New York Times that ran a rabbi's response that fighting Nazis with hugs was a losing strategy) that the appeal of Nazism isn't bigotry, but due to economic anxiety. I guess there's a reason these are the classics.
Bullies need to be called out for their actions and stopped, as they will always move on to another target if they are ignored.
You don’t need to be evil to stop evil, but you absolutely do need to call it what it is and stand up to it in any way you can.
I will never tolerate bigotry and hatred.
So, James Melville resigned on Friday as American ambassador to Estonia. That might sound like small beer except for Estonia's key geographic position on the Baltic, the stationing of NATO troops there, and the Russian cyberattack of 2007. His FB posting, in full, here, displays a level of professionalism that cannot be tolerated by Trump et al. And Melville, rightly, cannot tolerate them. Whatever one thinks of American diplomacy and foreign policy post-1945, there is nothing equivalent to the hollowing out of the American civil service since Trump's inauguration.
On the State Department, I'm sure nobody is surprised that there is no Ambassador to Australia. The good guy who was announced went to South Korea. In truth it doesn't matter very much. We have well-established and multi-faceted methods of communication between our countries. Other places, like Estonia for one, are important places to have a full embassy compliment. Naturally, when talking to known Republicans, I will try to look like on the verge of tears and tell them that it feels like we are being told off and that we don't know what we have done wrong. Don't you love us any more? "Hey, that's not a knife... ," I'll say, pretending to try to please them like the capering fool in my profile pic.