Vox on America’s dying malls as failed third spaces, a tale of the Retail Apocalypse

In the middle of the tale of revenge that is A snail story for Black Friday/Buy Nothing Day, I made the following bittersweet observation.

While many malls are in trouble or have closed, such as the Northland Mall next to where I teach, the Somerset Collection is still thriving.  One of these days, it will close, but not any time soon.

Vox noticed the wave of shopping mall failures in What America’s shopping mall decline means for social space.

The mall was America’s third place — for better or for worse.

Our lives are lived in 1 of 3 places, the home, the workplace and the “third place,” which is anywhere outside of those two.
Toward the end of the 20th century, the regional shopping mall had become that third place, the hang-out spot in suburban America. This was largely by design — an immigrant architect created the first mall in the vision that it would be a community gathering place.
The plan didn’t work out as he intended. While malls did take off, they more often than not couldn’t quite catch on as ideal “third places.” But with an estimated 25% of shopping malls expected to close in the next five years, there’s an opportunity to re-examine where Americans spend their time and what could be the next iteration of the third place.

Oh, shiny!  Vox used clips from at least one of the two documentaries themselves recycled in The End of Suburbia.  I’d ask at the video if that’s where they found those segments, but the comments section to the video has been overrun with trolls.  So much for chasing that shiny object.

More seriously, malls did not make ideal “third spaces” because they did not exhibit all eight characteristics.  The Steampunk fans ejected from San Diego area mall four years ago found that out the hard way.  They ran afoul of rules intended to keep gang members from frequenting the mall and scaring away shoppers.  As the KPBS article I quoted pointed out, “Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there.”  That means you!
Vox isn’t the only YouTube creator to notice the decline of malls.  This is Dan Bell has an ongoing Dead Mall Series on the subject.  Here is the installment posted nearly simultaneously with Vox’s video: DEAD MALL SERIES : Palm Trees and Broken Dreams : West Oaks Mall : Ocoee, Florida.

I admit I find a certain macabre fascination to the series, which is on-topic for this blog.  I might return to it, as Bell has a video of two declining malls in Flint, Michigan, and another of an abandoned K-Mart.  That reminds me; K-Mart is closing stores and Toys R Us has just gone out of business.  Those are definitely topics for another day.

Casual Observation

Here’s are some statistics to make you sit up and take notice:

Turnout among black voters soared in last month’s Georgia primary, a show of strength that could bode well for Democrats in this year’s contests for governor and other statewide offices.

The number of black voters rose 43 percent in the May 22 election when compared with 2010, the last time there was a competitive race for governor, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis of demographic data released this week by the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office.

The data show the broad majority of African-American voters pulled Democratic ballots, which could bolster the hope of Stacey Abrams, who is racing to be the nation’s first black female governor. Her Republican opponent will be decided in a July 24 runoff between Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

At the same time, the proportion of white voters continues to decline. White voter participation in last month’s primary was down 9 percent from 2010. And white voters are more likely to be conservative, making up 93 percent of the GOP primary vote — and just 30 percent of the Democratic support.

I assume some of this is purely related to the enthusiasm around Stacey Abrams and the prospect of electing the first black governor in the nation’s history, but it could indicate a higher degree of political engagement for the black community in this year’s elections in general. One thing the Republicans cannot rationalize is the decline in participation from their base.

Your (Neocentrist) DNC At Work, Pt. II

Not much commentary is needed about the following latest development….the Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi wing is tightening its grip on the DNC and also using so-called “identity politics” to prove its non-racism. (Identity politics…the use of people with darker skins and/or Asian/Spanish names in positions of public prominence while simultaneously fronting for the same-old same-old aforementioned neocentrist Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi wing.)

Don’t be fooled. They are simply beefing up the DNC control system in the face of challenges from people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Bernie Sanders-allied democratic socialists.

Read on.

DNC taps former Perez chief of staff for CEO

The Democratic National Committee tapped Seema Nanda to serve as its new CEO and handle day-to-day operations, the committee announced Friday.

As midterm elections continue and the 2020 election draws closer, hiring the management-oriented Nanda is a move away from more explicitly political executives who have led the troubled party in the past.

“I’m beyond excited that Seema is bringing her talent and brilliance to the DNC,” DNC Chair Tom Perez said in a statement. “She is a seasoned manager who has a proven track record of success.”

Nanda previously worked as Perez’s chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor. She replaces interim CEO Mary Beth Cahill, who took the helm of the DNC in February after replacing Jess O’Connell, a seasoned operative who left after less than a year on the job.

“People are hurting all across our country. I believe that Democrats are offering the positive solutions so desperately-needed right now — solutions forged by the strength of our diversity, the rigor of our ideas, and the decency of our values,” Nanda said in a statement.

—snip—

Poltics as usual in theDemocratic Party these days.

Sigh…

Stampede to the middle while claiming “inclusionary” status using identity politics.

Identity politics is racism/sexism, only turned on its head and given a brand new paint job. If you think that this appointment is based totally on merit, there’s always a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you. Now…I have no idea how competent Mr. Perez and Ms. Nanda may have been at their old jobs, nor how competent they will be at their new ones. Both appointments may have “merit.” But if you were picking candidates for these jobs purely on merit…if there was some way to conceal the various qualified candidates’ names and political affiliations within the Demographic…errr, ahhh, of course I mean Democratic…Party while still accurately grading their previous work output, what are the chances of coming up with these two as primary front people?

One of the ways that the Dems lost millions of white voters was by systematically emphasizing this “identity”politics. Yes, all races, religions and sexes should be equally represented, and yes people of color, immigrants from Third World cultures and females/LGBTs etc. have not been equally represented in this country for hundreds of years. But by emphasizing this sort of identity politics, suddenly people of primarily European descent…especially those who are on the relative downside of the economic spectrum…stop looking to the Democratic Party as a reliable ally.

What do you get then?

Non-voters and Trump voters.

This is what Ron Paulcompletely disregarded by centrists of both parties who were hell-bent on non-personing an ideological threat…was arguing in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

See below. (Emphasis mine)

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

This identity politics thing is not just a moral and intellectual mistake, it is quite plainly a political mistake. Why do i say that? Simply look at who and what is sitting in the catbird seat in DC today for all you need to know in that regard.

And to the kneejerkers on his blog who will undoubtedly go into a froth-at-the-mouth state at the mere mention of Mr. Paul?

I repeat:

Simply look at who and what is sitting in the catbird seat in DC today for all you need to know in that regard as well.

I deeply fear that the DNC is in the process of screwing everything up once again.

Let us pray not.

Thank you and goodnight.

AG

U.S. Intelligence: Lying Liars and Warmongers [Update]

[Cross-posted from European Tribune – where dissent is NOT troll rated!]

What a bullshit … the BIG liar during the Obama years. Just like Madeleine Albright, I find their reviews and judgements looking back just plain disgusting. They should have shown leadership and foresight … they did NOT!

Role played by James Clapper … backtracking on “dodgy” dossier: “Only heard of the Steele dossier with allegations in mid-December 2016. We had nothing to do with it, it was not our intelligence.” The “dodgy” dossier had already been leaked to the FBI by August 2016, to fellow MI6 spooks and the right-wing Republicans headed by John McCain and his “intelligence” goons. What a bloody farce. No, Clapper had not seen a smoking gun of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin by the time he left his role by the DNI.

More below the fold …

Role played by James Clapper … | France24 – The Interview |

James Clapper was the head of US intelligence under Barack Obama. He recently published his memoirs, entitled “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence”. In an interview with FRANCE 24, he reacted to recent developments in the United States, including the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court and the forthcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. He also shared his thoughts on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

Former US intelligence chief James Clapper reacted to the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the US Supreme Court, pointing that it could have “impacts for decades”, especially on the issue of abortion. He also warned that Donald Trump’s travel ban could be “counterproductive” from a national security standpoint by fuelling anti-American sentiment.

The former US Director of National Intelligence welcomed the announcement of a Trump-Putin meeting next month, but cautioned that it should be well prepared and not simply another example of the US president indulging authoritarian rulers. “What seems to be uppermost in Mr. Trump’s mind is having a positive relationship with autocrats”, he told FRANCE 24.  

Yep, putting a Pentagon military as head of the DNI … not a smart move by President Obama … since then we’ve got the Pentagon people running around State on foreign policy and a harsh approach to expansion of NATO into the former satellite states of the Soviet Union. Yet only some realize what that has meant in today’s global world.

James Clapper as DNI

I’ve had my falling out with Larry Johnson over the Clinton/Obama contest and the tactics he was willing to stoop to on Hillary’s behalf. But he did post an article here back in 2007 that was very critical of Obama’s new pick to be head of the National Intelligence Agency. Lt. Gen. James Clapper [NYT] is that man, and he’s already getting a cool reception on Capitol Hill. Larry called him the worst chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency in history, but the Hill seems more concerned about the (lack of) forcefulness of his personality and the mere fact that he’s from the Pentagon. In recent decades the head of the intelligence community has been a civilian, even if they had prior military experience. And Clapper has clashed in the past with the CIA over resources and authorities. I don’t really know enough about Clapper to give you a fair assessment but I do know two things. The universe of people qualified to be DNI is exceedingly small, and the universe of people who actually want the job is much smaller than that.

Defense Intelligence Agency’s Flynn Leaving After Rocky Tenure | Foreign Policy – April 2014 |

    Flynn made waves in military and intelligence circles in 2010 when he co-authored a paper at an influential Washington think tank that criticized intelligence agencies for spending too much time trying to understand insurgent groups in Afghanistan and largely ignoring the social and cultural currents among the Afghan people that were influencing the country’s future.

    Flynn said that U.S. intelligence agencies were consequently only “marginally relevant” to the strategy in Afghanistan. As a consequence, senior leaders in the Pentagon and the administration didn’t fully appreciate the facts on the ground, he wrote.

    Flynn’s critique was a rare public rebuke of the way the intelligence agencies worked, and it was given extra weight because it came from an active-duty Army general who had worked in special operations and seen the usefulness — or lack thereof — of U.S. intelligence on the battlefield.

Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan | CNAS – January 2010 |
Why they went after Flynn – Hersh’s source on U.S. arming ISIS
EU/NATO Propaganda It’s About Daesh and Russia
Khodorkovsky – The Interpreter – Henry Jackson Society (UK)

British MI-6 and Bloggers’ Conspiracies [Source and author known by me - Oui]

On December 13 2005 the British Secretary of State Jack Straw was questioned by the British Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs about illegal “renditions”. Straw responded:

    Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop, because we have not been, and so what on earth a judicial inquiry would start to do I have no idea.

Those who believed in that ‘conspiracy theory’ were right [NYT], finds the British Parliament:

    Britain’s intelligence services tolerated and abetted “inexcusable” abuse of terrorism suspects by their American counterparts, according to a report released by Parliament on Thursday that offers a wide-ranging official condemnation of British intelligence conduct in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    The committee documented dozens of cases in which Britain participated in sending suspects to other countries that were known to use torture or aided others in doing so — a practice known as rendition.

There has still not been a judicial inquiry into the issue. The parliament report notes that the British government blocked access to relevant documents and prohibited the questioning of many witnesses the parliament inquiry wanted to hear.

Ambassador Craig Murray, who blew the whistle on British complicity in torture in Uzbekistan, notes:

    Theresa May specifically and deliberately ruled out the Committee from questioning any official who might be placed at risk of criminal proceedings – see para 11 of the report. The determination of the government to protect those who were complicit in torture tells us much more about their future intentions than any fake apology.

    In fact it is impossible to read paras 9 to 14 without being astonished at the sheer audacity of Theresa May’s attempts to obstruct the inquiry. They were allowed to interview only 4 out of 23 requested witnesses, and those were not allowed “to talk about the specifics of the operations in which they were involved nor fill in any gaps in the timeline”.

There is also evidence that the British MI6 outsourced [NYT] illegal operations to other countries or agencies:

    Although British policy prohibited rendition, the committee found, British agents repeatedly aided other countries in sending suspects to places where there was a high probability they would be mistreated. In three cases, it reported, the British paid, or offered to pay, for renditions; in 28, they “suggested, planned or agreed to rendition operations” conducted by others; and in 22, they provided intelligence to enable a rendition to take place.

The United Nations considers such extraordinary renditions to be crimes against humanity. Neither the U.S. nor the United Kingdom has held anyone but a few grunts accountable for their involvement in these crimes.

Came across this interesting write-up by Lisa Pease … it’s about Hope:

My trip to Madison to see Barack Obama (2008)

Related reading …

Intelligence Trumps Politics, Always
Putin ‘Didn’t Do It’ – Early Analysis
South Africa and Amnesty Offer for Colonel Gaddafi by Oui @BooMan on Aug. 22, 2011

and with link to article –  Libya: How Gaddafi became a Western-backed dictator.

[Update-1]

UK Nerve Center Porton Down: ‘Putin Strikes Again!’

The British can’t seem to put the lid back on the vial …btw was this the same one used by US Secr of State Colin Powell in 2003 at the UN Security Council before the invasion and occupation of Iraq? The Ayatollahs of Persia be forewarned!

Excellent coverage by The Guardian in this early stage …. waiting for Boris and Theresa … sorry, we’re busy with a COBRA.

Police fear Wiltshire couple have been exposed to nerve agent

Counter-terrorism police have joined the investigation into what happened to two people in Wiltshire who are in a critical condition, amid fears that they may have been exposed to a nerve agent.

Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, who were at a property in Amesbury, were initially believed to have overdosed on drugs, but their symptoms raised alarm among medics and Wiltshire police, which led them to suspect a possible nerve agent.

The couple, both in their 40s, were in a critical condition at Salisbury district hospital, Wiltshire police said on Wednesday.

Tests were being carried out on a substance at the nearby Porton Down government defence laboratory. Whitehall sources said that it was too early to tell whether the incident was related to illegal drugs or “something more sinister”.

The couple are understood to be British citizens who are unlikely to have been the victims of a targeted attack.


Sam Hobson, 29, a friend of the couple, said he believed they had been struck down by a nerve agent.

He described how on Saturday morning Sturgess fell ill and was taken to hospital and how later that morning Rowley also became sick. He said both were in hospital in isolation and he was receiving regular calls from the authorities to check he was well. “They thought it was drugs at first. They now think it’s a nerve agent,” he claimed.

Must have forgotten to scrub the home front door knop of the Skripals … or was her luggage from Russia returned via FedEx? Sloppy work by the British Intelligence …

In the beginning was the lie …
UK Issued a DA-Notice On My Diary Result
How MI-7 Fake News in 1917 Impacted the Nazi Genocide

oaquabonita – the obsessive heckler here, here, here and here.

[Comments off-topic … want a flame war, do start your own diary]

UN Migration Agency Trump’s Pick Isaacs Eliminated

Trump’s nominee Ken Isaacs voted down due to Muslim bigotry …who is surprised???

Trump nominee to lead UN migration agency IOM Ken Isaacs eliminated from race | The Straits Times |  

Continued below the fold …

Comments from the 51st State of the Union, a holy alliance made in Hell …

UN migration agency rejects Trump nominee accused of anti-Muslim bigotry | Times of Israel |

GENEVA (AFP) — Member states of the United Nations migration agency on Friday rejected President Donald Trump’s nominee for director general, repudiating historic American control of the organization.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) had been led by an American throughout the agency’s 67-year history with one exception from 1961 to 1969.

But Trump’s pick Ken Isaacs, an executive with the Christian charity Samaritan’s Purse who faced serious charges of anti-Muslim bigotry, proved to be an untenable choice.

Ken Isaacs once proposed building a wall in the Alps to keep out migrants. Trump wants him to lead the world’s principal migration agency.

A Trump U.N. Pick Tries to Make Up for Anti-Muslim Tweets | Foreign Policy – April 2018 |

If there were ever a candidate for Twitter purgatory, it would have to be Ken Isaacs, who upended his White House-backed campaign to lead the U.N. migration agency with a series of tweets denigrating Islam.

For the past few weeks, Isaacs has been traveling to foreign capitals in Europe and Africa in the company of White House and State Department escorts, seeking forgiveness as he tries to rescue his bid by persuading foreign dignitaries, including Pope Francis, that he is not the sum of his tweets and that he can be trusted to lead the International Organization for Migration (IOM) without religious bias. In a sign of the importance of his candidacy, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will host a reception on May 3 to introduce U.N. ambassadors to Isaacs in New York.

The State Department declined to make Isaacs available for an interview. But Isaacs agreed to respond to written questions.

“I have apologized publicly for social media comments that have caused hurt,” he writes. “I ask people to judge me on my professional record and the decades of work I have done to help people in need around the world.”

Despite persistent misgivings about the U.S. candidate’s temperament, Isaacs maintains the edge as the front-runner because key powers, particularly in Europe, are unwilling to challenge the Americans’ traditional hold on the job out of concern that it might provoke the United States to pull IOM funding or cost them Washington’s support for other national priorities, several diplomatic sources say.

Samaritan’s Purse VP Nominated for UN Refugee Role Faces Backlash | Christianity Today – Feb. 5, 2018 |

The State Department faces backlash for nominating a longtime Samaritan’s Purse leader as the next director general of the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM) last week.

Nominee Ken Isaacs, vice president of programs and government relations at Franklin Graham’s evangelical relief ministry, previously posted on social media about Muslims’ propensity for violence and his desire to prioritize Christian refugees, according to a Washington Post report.

Isaacs–who has spent decades overseeing major relief and development projects all over the world, including Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East–has apologized for the controversial remarks.

Should America’s Refugee Policy Put Persecuted Christians First?

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse Dedicate Two MDA Ambulances in Israel | Magen David Adom |

Last week’s ceremony in Jerusalem officially ushered the new ambulances into MDA’s fleet, and they will immediately be deployed to the streets of Israel to save lives. The event in Jerusalem celebrated life and the unique partnership between the state of Israel and the Christian community in the United States. Among the guests were Ken Barun, chief of staff for the Billy Graham Evangelic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, and his wife, Sethea; Ken Isaacs, vice president of programs and government relations for Samaritan’s Purse, and his wife, Carolyn; William Koenig, commentator and White House correspondent, and his wife, Claudia; and David Frankel, CEO of American Friends of Magen David Adom, the EMS organization’s U.S-based affiliate.

The ambulance sponsorships by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse continue a trend of church communities and activists rallying around MDA. Pastor John Hagee, through his Hagee Ministries, donated funds for two MDA ambulances in late 2014. And high-profile ministries such as Bridges for Peace and Ralph Sexton Evangelistic Association have lent their support with their sponsorship of ambulances.

“Christians and Jews may often feel helpless in critical times yet it is comforting that the faithful of both religions are united in providing life — saving care and equipment for all, regardless of faith or creed,” Barun told the guests at the dedication in Jerusalem.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is being funded by the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd | Mondoweiss |

And there is always a twinker of hope …

Participants quit Birthright trip to go on Breaking the Silence tour | Ynet News |

Trump Pick Too Islamophobic for IOM

After he was nominated by President Trump to lead the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM), Ken Isaacs made his Twitter account private in a failed bid to tamp down criticism of his history of xenophobic and Islamophobic comments. It didn’t work. His nomination was just defeated.

The UN migration agency’s member states have rejected President Trump’s nominee for director-general, making it only the second time in the agency’s history that it will not be led by an American.

Ken Isaacs, an executive with a Christian charity, was eliminated after three voting rounds, AFP reported…

…The IOM has been led by an American throughout its 67-year history with one exception, from 1961 to 1969.

The IOM will be headed instead by former EU commissioner, Antonio Vitorino of Portugal. According to reporting from the BBC, European nations were instrumental in Isaacs’ defeat as they preferred someone who could “find a common response to the migrant crisis.”  It probably didn’t help America’s cause that Isaacs is a climate change denier.

I say “America’s cause,” but I don’t even know what that means anymore.  For most of us, Mr. Isaacs didn’t offer the kind of influence and representation that we want our country to have, so it’s probably preferable that someone from Portugal heads this organization.  If nothing else, what Mr. Vitorino does or doesn’t do will not add to our national humiliation.

Democrats, The Supreme Court & Winning Power

Josh Marshall is hosting a characteristically thoughtful and multi-faceted intra-party debate/discussion on “The Critical Question Facing Democrats & The Court”. Click over to TPM and read the varied opinions of Marshall, Theda Skocpol and TPM reader “MS” for how Senate Democrats should respond when Trump nominates Justice Anthony Kennedy’s successor; then come back for a broader historical and strategic perspective.

(Pause.)

Welcome back.

This debate exists because Democrats today are in the rare—but not unprecedented—position of enjoying majority popular support but minority governmental power:

       

  • They’ve won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.
  •    

  • They routinely win an overall majority of ballots cast for House seats.
  •    

  • Democratic senators represent a substantial majority of the nation’s population (Republicans represent a substantial majority of the nation’s acreage);
  •    

  • On a broad range of political issues—everything from taxation to immigration to health care to civil rights—Democrats have majority popular support; and,
  •    

  • Their support is growing as a demographic wave of millennials and the following generation slowly and inexorably replaces baby boomers and their parents;
  •    

  • And yet they hold no levers of power in the federal government.

Since this situation is both rare and runs counter to our national myths, Democrats are (understandably) scrambling to make sense of their situation and how to respond to it. Here’s where history can be of some help:

       

  1. This has happened before. It happened in the 1850s when the electoral college and the 3/5 rule kept slaveholders in power despite a growing anti-slavery majority (fueled in part by mass immigration from Ireland and Germany). And it happened in the 1920s when a rural, white, Protestant minority desperately clung to power in the face of mass migration from southern and eastern Europe, and the beginnings of the Great Migration by African-Americans out of the South.
  2.    

  3. If history is any guide, there’s no way this ends without massive and disruptive change. The conflicts of the1850s resulted in the Civil War and Reconstruction. The 1920s ended with the Great Depression, followed by World War II.
  4.    

  5. Again, if history is any guide, the changes wrought by the emerging majority when it takes power will be worth it. Or at least, they’ll be considered worth it by that new majority—e.g., the end of slavery, the New Deal, the defeat of fascism.

When it comes to the tactics of a SCOTUS nomination, Democrats ultimately have no power to control anything about the process. A Republican president will decide who to nominate and when. A Republican Senate will decide what hearings, debates and votes to hold and when. If Republicans unite behind a nominee, Democrats are powerless to stop that person from becoming a Supreme Court justice.

Democrats do have the power to decide on what terms and with which tactics they will engage the fight over this Supreme Court nomination; and by doing so, to make it as costly as possible for Republicans to seat a Trump nominee on the Court.

That’s what Pelosi did when W. Bush tried to end Social Security. She united her side, fought, and thereby made it clear that any weakening of Social Security would belong solely to the Republicans.

A Supreme Court confirmation battle differs from a legislative fight; and there’s every reason to think Trump will eventually fill Justice Kennedy’s seat. The strategic imperative for Democrats is to make that victory as costly as possible for Republicans.

Early in the Civil War, after the Battle of Shiloh and its unprecedented casualties, President Lincoln replied to those who called on him to fire Gen. Grant, “I can’t spare this man; he fights.

Better than any general of his era, Grant understood the fundamental power dynamics of the Civil War. The Union had at its command more people and more resources. Therefore, its strategy ought to be to unite its forces, and take the fight to the secessionists, fighting on terrain as favorable as possible, but fighting regardless.

Personally, I think fighting this nominee on the grounds that no president being investigated for obstruction of justice and conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to defraud the US of free and fair elections is the way to go. But what I think doesn’t matter. What matters for Democrats is that they unite and fight; and then, like Grant, that they do it again and again and again.

It’s the only way a powerless majority ever takes power.

Crossposted at: masscommons.wordpress.com

You Need to Participate in This Fight, Too

It’s always easier to mobilize people to change something than to motivate them to work to keep things the same, and that’s why the composition of the federal courts is a major issue for conservatives and pretty much a dud for the Democrats.  Motivated initially by school desegregation rulings, then by civil and voting rights, and then by rulings on school prayer and reproductive choice, conservatives have been on a mission for more than a half century to seize control of the Supreme Court and undo what could not be undone legislatively.  It remains to be seen how much will be protected simply by the legal precedents established in the long period it took them to win their battle. But they have won their battle now, and the Court is theirs unless something truly extraordinary happens.

Can President Trump be dissuaded from nominating the final piece that signals victory for the conservative movement?  If not, can his first nominee be defeated so that he is compelled to find someone more in the Justice Kennedy mold?

Even if the odds of these things is not good, it helps that Trump isn’t really a conservative but more of an adoptive father.  There are a lot of things he doesn’t understand, and he probably doesn’t understand this moment and what it means for conservatives. I’m sure that he gets it on some level, but he hasn’t been in the trenches fighting for this for the last sixty years. He may have even made some promises to Kennedy that could influence the kind of pick he makes.

He needs fifty votes for his nominee, and assuming that John McCain isn’t available, that’s exactly how many voters the Republicans have in their caucus. There are several Democrats who are from strong Trump states and who are facing the electorate in November. Three of them voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, but that was a less consequential appointment.

The goal cannot be to deny Trump any nominee at all. That’s not a sustainable position to take for two and a half years. The goal is to force a consensus nominee.

I’ve seen some arguing that holding up the confirmation would play into the Republicans’ hands and help them win Senate races in November. This is stupid analysis. The Democrats cannot stop any nominee by themselves. They need to be united and then they need one or perhaps two Republican senators to side with them to have any chance at all. The chances of that happening are not good, and they’ll get worse once Trump makes his pick. If a couple of Republicans can be convinced to tell Trump up front that they won’t commit to confirm unless they have a chance at pre-approval, the odds will improve.

That’s why ordinary citizens need to act and to act quickly to let Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski know that they expect them to keep their pro-choice commitments. They have the power to sink anyone Trump appoints, but they are presently much more susceptible to Republican pressure than pressure coming from any other source. That’s why I half-jokingly called yesterday for a Million Women March on Collins and Murkowski’s hometowns.

Part of the rationale for thinking the Democrats will inevitably lose this battle and that it would be better to lose quickly is that it is assumed that conservatives still enjoy a disproportionate advantage on the issue of reproductive rights. In other words, opposing a Justice who would overturn Griswold and Roe will rile up and mobilize midwestern conservatives who would have otherwise stayed home without mobilizing a corresponding number of voters who want to preserve reproductive freedom and choice. That’s based on history, but this is a new game. This is not theoretical anymore. The SCOTUS will begin gutting fifty years of precedent on women’s rights next year unless something changes. So, now, the people looking for change are in the middle and on the left.

This is a much more even fight.

Needless to say, the Democrats can’t very well ask voters to elect them to fight the Trump agenda if they won’t even wage a fight for one Republican vote over a lifetime Supreme Court vacancy that is as consequential as this one. A failure to fight would be demobilize their base and undermine their entire electoral pitch to moderates. But they can’t overpromise. They can’t pull a Merrick Garland on Trump and they should not say that they can. The goal is to replace a Kennedy with a Kennedy, not a Kennedy with a Ginsburg or with no one at all.

Of course, there’s an argument to be made that Trump shouldn’t be nominating anyone unless or until he is cleared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And that remains a wildcard here. If Mueller makes a report while this battle is unfolding, it could well change everyone’s assumptions. But you can’t base a strategy on something that might not happen or might happen in a way you didn’t expect.

Regardless of what the Senate Democrats decide to do, they can’t succeed in forcing a consensus judge without a mass mobilization of the people, meaning you. Don’t ask them to wage a fight you won’t wage yourself.

Intelligence Trumps Politics, Always

[Cross-posted from European Tribune – where dissent is NOT troll rated!]

PM Theresa May puts Europe’s security back on the Brexit talks … EU leaders tell Britain to get its house in order …

A loyal Britain supporter PM Rutte: “I don’t want to talk in apocalyptic terms, but what I want to say is I believe the first, second and third priority now is to solve this issue of the Irish border.”

Theresa May tells EU leaders: you are putting lives at risk over Brexit  

Brussels has insisted the UK will not be able to participate in information-sharing schemes such as Ecris (European Criminal Records Information System) and Prüm, through which EU authorities track criminals and terrorists, once it is a “third country”. The British government hopes EU capitals will put pressure on the European commission to take a more flexible approach.

A senior government official said the UK had received 163,000 requests from other EU countries for criminal records information in the ECRIS database in 2017 and provided 2,500 DNA profiles under the auspices of the Prüm treaty.
He said other EU countries had “put obstacles in the way of reaching an agreement on mapping the movement of terrorists and criminals, and sharing vital information”.

May told her fellow leaders that, without a shift in the EU’s stance, “we will no longer be able to share real-time alerts for wanted persons, including criminals.

Continued below the fold …

… We would be able to respond less swiftly to alerts for missing people, either side of the Channel, and reunite them with their loved ones. And our collective ability to map terrorist networks across Europe and bring those responsible to justice would be reduced. That is not what I want, and I do not believe that is what you want either”.

The GCHQ chief, Jeremy Fleming, revealed recently that Britain supplied key information to break up terrorist networks in four European countries last year and suggested such information-sharing would continue after Brexit.

The importance of British Intelligence can be witnessed in our daily lives, the result of foreign adventures, stream of refugees from wartorn countries, global famine and a turn to the right in EU politics with populist themes as party platforms. How ugly can it get in inhumane tricks by our government, “dodgy” dossiers et all.

And that was under a Labour government with Tony Blair and Jack Straw …

From The Guardian, topic: UK security and counter-terrorism

UK’s role in rendition and torture of terrorism suspects – key findings  

Two reports published by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee have found British intelligence agencies were involved in the torture and kidnap of terrorism suspects after 9/11.

Here are the key details from the reports:

  • On 232 occasions UK intelligence officers were found to have continued supplying questions to foreign agencies between 2001 and 2010, despite knowing or suspecting a prisoner was being tortured or mistreated.
  • On 198 occasions, UK intelligence officers received information from a prisoner they knew was being mistreated.
  • In a further 128 cases, foreign intelligence bodies told UK intelligence agencies prisoners were being mistreated.
  • MI5 or MI6 offered to help fund at least three rendition operations.
  • The agencies planned or agreed to a further 28 rendition operations.
  • They provided intelligence to assist with a further 22 rendition operations.
  • Two MI6 officers consented to mistreatment meted out by others. Only one of these incidents has been investigated by police.
  • In a further 13 cases, UK intelligence officers witnessed an individual being tortured or mistreated.
  • MI5, MI6 and the military conducted up to 3,000 interviews of prisoners held at Guantánamo.

Criticism mounts over UK’s post-9/11 role in torture and rendition

British ministers and spy chiefs in power after 9/11 are facing new calls to explain their “inexcusable” actions after two damning parliamentary reports set out the scale of UK involvement in the torture and kidnap of terrorist suspects.

Theresa May is also under fire for blocking key intelligence figures from giving evidence to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC), which produced the two reports.

The committee found the UK intelligence agencies to be complicit in hundreds of incidents of torture and rendition, mainly in partnership with the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

In spite of restrictions on its investigation, the ISC produced a mass of detail that amounts to a major indictment of the intelligence services, not least that the UK was in breach of the international prohibition on torture.

This topic has been detailed in dozens of diaries in the last 15 years by now!

British government apologises to Libyan dissident Belhaj over rendition
CIA Heinous Crimes – A Trail of Blood
Obama Now Calls Rendition ‘Transfer’ and Shrouds It In Secrecy
Georgia: oil, neocons, cold war and our credibility by Jerome a Paris @EuroTrib on Aug 10th, 2008

Due to the American values “In God We Trust” many Democrats believe their government’s version of events why Hillary lost the presidential election … the Russians. So sad. The Republicans in Red State America believe in God, their women and … Trump. Btw, don’t let foreigners touch their Harley Davidson, another symbol of pride. Emptyness on values what matters across the globe: ice caps melting – waterlevel rising – drought – ecology – marine pollution – habitability of our planet. American First! stays silent. Coal and the donations by corporate moguls/oligarchs in a nation of lobbyists, bribery and corruption. Pointing fingers elsewhere … a narcissistic problem.

Further reading …

Why Macron Is Not the New Left

oaquabonita – the obsessive heckler here, here, here and here.

[Comments off-topic … want a flame war, do start your own diary]

A Million Women March on Collins and Murkowski

When I first heard that Justice Anthony Kennedy was retiring I performed a heroic face palm that lasted probably three minutes or more. Then, the first optimistic thought I had was along the lines of the following:

Within hours of Wednesday’s surprising retirement announcement from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, two moderate Republican women in the Senate became an important focus of Democrats seeking to prevent President Donald Trump from appointing a new justice who could reshape the court for decades to come — or at least temper how far right it might bend.

With little power to defeat a nominee outright on their own, Democrats began to look at Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska as potential allies in their cause.

Both are moderates who support abortion rights and they are likely to face growing pressure should Trump put forward a conservative nominee who might threaten to severely curb those rights.

My optimism lasted maybe fifteen or twenty seconds until my senses got the better of me. Hoping for either of those two women to protect abortion rights when they’re finally put to the test is almost certainly a fool’s errand. They will both fold.

Then I thought, well, what if pressure was brought to bear like we’ve never seen before? What if a million women showed up in Maine or Alaska in these senators’ home towns and simply refused to leave? Of course, men would be welcome to join, too, just as they were in the Women’s March in Washington DC and other locations around the country. In addition to the organizers of the women’s marches, I thought about the kids of Stoneman Douglas High School who briefly mobilized a nation and convinced the Florida legislature to finally pass some modest gun violence legislation. Maybe my vision wasn’t just a fantasy. Maybe it could happen?

I can’t think of anything else that might work, and a person needs a reason to have some hope. Right?