Maine Writer

Its about people and issues I care about.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Topsham, MAINE, United States

My blogs are dedicated to the issues I care about. Thank you to all who take the time to read something I've written.

Friday, January 31, 2020

Donald Trump does not recognize any fact that is not favorable to him

"...fear for our form of government if our senators and representatives are willing to ignore Trump's continued misconduct."

Donald J. Trump is self-dealing. He is using the power and prestige of his office to promote himself and punish any who oppose him. I suspect the full depth of his corruption will take years to unravel.

Trump has made the world a more dangerous place. 

Our American allies are not sure they can depend on us.

He fawns over Putin. He does not recognize any fact that is not favorable to him. He continues to dismantle environmental protections in the face of a global environmental crisis.
His history of hitting back hard has cowed Republicans in both houses. Re-election appears to top their agenda.

I fear for our form of government if our senators and representatives are willing to ignore Trump's continued misconduct. We elected a bad one. The sooner we are rid of him the better.

Truth and justice used to be the American way. Where did they go? Are our legislators too fearful to seek them? I hope they will call a few witnesses.

Seek the truth. See if they are brave enough to vote for justice.

From David Sivadon, Mounds Oklahoma

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Donald Trump's no defense "defense" - makes stuff up as they go along


Maine Writer - So let me get this right?  Dumb tRumph's incompetent defense team is making up excuses about why Donald Trump can't be impeached for committing impeachable crimes.  Is that right?  Ohhhhh boy, the law professors at Harvard University have certainly received a stain on their  highfalutin reputation about this kind of stupid legal strategy.  


Surely I am not alone in recognizing how close the name "Bondi" is to the concept of "Blondie"
This is what Morning Joe MSNBC pundit Joe Scarborough wrote in his opinion published in The Washington Post:

Donald Trump’s confederacy of dunces

A confederacy of dunces stumbled onto the Senate floor this week to launch their bewildering defense of Donald Trump. This misfit band of lawyers brought with them arguments so stunningly stupefying, logic so fatally flawed and a cynicism so brazenly transparent that one suspects Baghdad Bob was viewing the entire spectacle with grudging respect.

On Day One of Trump’s impeachment defense, the president’s team dismissed his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani as a minor player in the Ukrainian affair. Trump lawyer Jane Raskin said he was little more than a “shiny object designed to distract you.” Never mind that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to contact Giuliani, assuring him that, “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you".


Before Trump made the not-so-perfect call that would eventually lead to his impeachment, Giuliani ran frequent strategy sessions from the second floor of the president’s Washington hotel that were focused on getting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Giuliani repeatedly pressured U.S. diplomats and State Department employees to push his “drug deal” (as former national security adviser John Bolton described it). At the same time, America’s Mayor kept feeding Trump a steady diet of conspiracy theories that played into the president’s preexisting prejudices against Ukraine. Far from being a bit player and “shiny object,” Giuliani helped build the Democrats’ case for Trump’s impeachment better than anyone else in the president’s inner circle.

If the claims about Giuliani were not preposterous enough, senators were also forced to endure Kenneth Starr’s self-righteous and hypocritical warnings regarding “the culture of impeachment.” Starr had, after all, once run a four-year investigation into obscure land deals, suicide conspiracy theories and intimate sexual details involving President Bill Clinton. Starr would later claim that Clinton’s abuse of power was the “capstone” of his impeachment case, but that did not stop the former independent counsel from mournfully warning senators Monday that “the commission of a crime is by no means sufficient to warrant the removal of our duly elected president.”

If it is true that Trump killed irony years ago, Starr’s opening statement single-handedly exhumed irony’s corpse from its tomb, dragged it across the Senate floor and demolished all obstacles in its path before finally scattering the bones back into the grave, one by one. As Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes said
Does Ken Starr know he’s Ken Starr?” That embarrassing performance seemed only to confirm Trump’s previous assessment of the former Clinton prosecutor as a “lunatic” and a “disaster.”

Such insults were never thrown in the direction of Pam Bondi, another member of the president’s legal team. Bondi had safely placed herself in Trump’s good favor by refusing to pursue claims of fraud against Trump University when she was Florida’s attorney general. In 2013, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Bondi’s office was deciding whether to join in the lawsuit against Trump. Four days after the article went to print, Bondi’s reelection efforts were boosted by a $25,000 check from Trump’s foundation. Soon after, Bondi announced she would be not suing the reality TV star.


Such shamelessness in the service of Trump carries with it certain benefits. For Bondi, it was the honor of trotting out the conspiracy theory that then-Vice President Joe Biden had a Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma, of whose board his son Hunter was a member. If it were possible to embarrass the former Florida attorney general, then she would certainly be distressed to learn that Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal dismissed her theory as “discredited” months ago, or that the European Union, the Obama administration and the United States’ closest allies demanded the ouster of the same investigator, in part because his investigation into Burisma had been shelved.

But neither Bondi nor Starr can be shamed. The same holds true of the other attorneys on the president’s incompetent defense team, who sullied their reputations this week defending a shameless huckster, and whom history will judge harshly as those whose dunce routines continued to enable this dangerously unbalanced man.

Labels: , , , ,

Recent illegal airstrikes into Iraq are high crimes

"...violated not only the United Nations Charter but also the principle announced by the U.S. and other world powers at the Nuremberg trials.."

The News-Gazette (Champaign–Urbana)- echo opinion letter:


The illegal U.S. assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani should be sufficient grounds for additional articles of impeachment.

Recent illegal airstrikes into Iraq would be, too. In committing these high crimes, Donald Trump violated not only the U.N. Charter but also the principle announced by the U.S. and other world powers at the Nuremberg trials that “waging aggressive war” or “violations of sovereignty” are capital offenses. The U.S. officially incorporated both into its own law.

The claimed exception of “imminent threat” is a transparent lie. 

For any threat to be imminent, it must be in progress, not “developing plans,” as the administration claims. Then it would be necessary to take out fighters, not planners. Officials now say there are no imminent threats, compounding the contradiction.

Was Soleimani himself going to plant explosives? Add to this the recent report that Soleimani may have been in Iraq negotiating peace with Saudi Arabia.

The Iraqi parliament has demanded all foreign troops leave, but Trump refuses, further violating sovereignty. This after the U.S. invaded and overthrew the previous Iraqi state based on ridiculous lies.

And before that, the U.S. and Britain had overthrown the elected Iranian government, installing the Shah’s brutal torture regime, which led to the Islamic Revolution. What success.

Democrats may fear impeachment on such grounds, however, due to the risk for future Democratic presidents — all the more reason Republicans should support Trump’s impeachment.

From Ricky Baldwin, Urbana Illinois

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Iowa echo calls for "impartial justice" from Senator Joni Ernst

In my opinion, the coercion used by Republicans, like Mitch McConnell,to defend the indefensible Donald Trump, is the political analogy to putting the Senators' heads on pikes.

  
Dear Editor:  Weeks ago I asked U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst whether she had decided how she would vote on President Trump's impeachment.

That simple question needed only a straight-forward, Midwestern answer: Yes or no. In addition, she might have explained, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, that as a prospective juror she was keeping an open mind. But she refused to do so.
Now Ernst has sworn an oath to "do impartial justice" in that trial. However, such impartiality requires an open mind. Her earlier refusal to pledge an open mind is evidence that she has sworn in bad faith. That action, chosen freely, speaks louder than the oath finally coerced from her lips by the impeachment proceeding.

She can rebut that evidence by voting for an open trial that includes both the documents and the sworn testimony of witnesses, both of which Trump has blocked. First-hand witness to Trump's abuse of office to coerce Ukraine into assisting his re-election could theoretically exonerate Trump.

Regardless, the truth would be known. Does Ernst fear that truth, or Majority Leader McConnell, who long ago seized her spine and conscience? Is it easier to mouth an oath and vote as instructed?
Iowans should demand that she vote for a real, open trial. I do dare her.  From Tom Walsh in Leclaire, Iowa

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Texas echo - Senate has an opportunity to hear from witnesses in the Donald Trump impeachment trial

The Dallas Morning News echo editorial published on January 28, 2020:

If there is to be closure on impeachment, the Senate needs to call witnesses:  American people need to have all knowable facts before the trial concludes.

"...facts need to be testified to under oath..."
In a perfect world, the impeachment of a president of the United States would be a solemn event where all the parties involved would be keen on discovering and revealing to the general public all knowable and relevant information about the issues at hand. In a perfect world, the spade work on such information would have been done long before votes were being cast in the Senate and with time enough for the voting public to judge the validity the serious issue of removing a president, fairly elected, from office.

But to say that we do not live in a perfect world is to far understate the politics unfolding in the U.S. Senate this week. Reasonable people can argue about whether the House followed the right process and whether the president should be able to call the witnesses he wants. But the truth is that there will be no real justice, and no closure for the American people, without additional documents and witnesses.

The truth, however, is also much larger than process. 

Donald J. Trump is now the third president in American history to face an impeachment trial in the Senate. And all indications are that this trial will end with the same result as the first two: with the impeached president surviving in office after all the votes in the Senate are counted, after all the shouting was done and after the overwrought invocation of history was over.

There is, however a key difference and an important principle still at stake in this impeachment fight. Everyone should understand that it is unlikely there will be 67 votes in the Senate in favor of removing the president. But reasonable people should also want as many facts on the record, spoken under oath, as possible. What’s at stake here is whether voters, regardless of their political desires, will be able to ascertain a full appreciation of all facts before they step inside the voting booth this fall.

Our own view is the removal of a president should be reserved for the violation of an identifiable law so as to guard against an abuse of the impeachment power in the hands of Congress. But, beyond how individual senators vote on the final outcome, our view is also that facts need to be testified to under oath, where the veracity of each assertion can be tested and attested to by others. Doing so allows reasonable minds to put into context all knowable information and make informed judgments over what happened, over whether punishment is warranted and whether a president should retain office.

There is a phrase in the preamble to our great Constitution that we think should more often be on the minds of our lawmakers. It says the document was drafted “to form a more perfect Union.” While we do not live in a perfect world, revealing all the facts there are to know about an episode that led a man to become only the third U.S. president to be impeached is a step that drives closer to such an ideal. The Senate has an opportunity to do that, it needs only to vote to hear from witnesses.

Labels: ,

Vaccines save lives - Maine "No On One": campaign signs

https://www.facebook.com/groups/mainefamilesforvaccinesPAC/

Antivaxxers have posted very misleading campaign ballot signs in Maine, accusing "big pharma" of causing a crises about vaccines.



This message was posted on the Families for Vaccines Facebook page by supporter Andy Schmidt:

"Apparently my daughter got sick of seeing yes signs on the way to her after school program, and made her own No Sign. Maybe I should lay off the propaganda a little." (IMO this was not propaganda but good mentoring!)

Labels:

Donald Trump - "children left in cages dying and nothing is done about this disaster"

Opinion letter echo published in the Montana Billings Gazette newspaper:

Dear Republicans in Congress:

"We have children left in cages dying and nothing is done about this disaster. Children with numbers on their arms just like the concentrations camps of Nazi Germany."
I just don't know how you (Senators like Senator Susan Collins) can support and lie for President Donald Trump. He is a traitor to America and now he is a war criminal to the world. He has put the United States in much harm and danger. He is sending young men and women to defend his ego. This draft dodger with bone spurs has no business sending the United States to war.
You Republicans try and tell us how great the economy is for America. That is true if you are rich, but for the middle class and the working poor, they have been left behind.

The national debt has ballooned. The trade wars helped the rich, but many businesses, farmers and ranchers have gone broke.

Many of our allies no longer trust United States because of Trump.

Hate crimes have exploded since Trump has been president.

What kind of leader would shut down his own country lay off more than 800,000 workers and have no regrets?

Donald Trump and his administration are out to destroy democracy in America and you, The Republicans in Washington have forgotten America! Why? What has happened to the Republicans?

We have children left in cages dying and nothing is done about this disaster. Children with numbers on their arms just like the concentrations camps of Nazi Germany.

What kind of leader would criticize the free press and tell the public it is just "fake news" and then call for closing of the free press?


What kind of leader would attack his own FBI and CIA? The agencies that protect him and all the citizens of the United States?

What kind of leader would shut down his own country lay off more than 800,000 workers and have no regrets?

President Trump and his administration are out to destroy democracy in America and you, The Republicans in Washington have forgotten America! Why? What has happened to the Republicans?

From LaVon D. Brillhart Dillon

Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 27, 2020

Donald Trump's evidence of cheating and he will continue until removed from office

The Rat That Has But One Hole is Soon Caught
Opinion echo letter published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper:

During the run-up to the Senate impeachment trial, legal commentator Chuck Rosenber discussed his struggle to boil down the case against President Donald Trump that the Democratic House trial managers presented. He came up with the following epigram: Trump tried to cheat. It was crass. He got caught. We have a choice.

Trump tried to cheat when he decided to get the president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, his chief rival in the upcoming 2020 election. If Trump were genuinely concerned about Biden’s corruption, he would have asked his Justice Department to investigate, not a foreign government.

It was crass of Trump to believe he could withhold much-needed military aid to a country in the middle of a hot war with Russia, in an attempt to extort the announcement of a Biden investigation from the president of Ukraine.

Trump got caught when a whistleblower came forward to report what happened during a call that Trump placed to the president of Ukraine during which he asked for a “favor, though.”

And we have a choice to dismiss this threat to our democracy as not rising to the level of a “high crime or misdemeanor,” or we can recognize that if Trump is not removed from office, he will be free to find another way to cheat.

From James Metz, Richmond, Virginia

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Historic structural drawings may provide clues about how to restore Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral, if doing so is even possible?

The battle for saving the Notre Dame Cathedral- when "old designs" may become new again:  On an island in the Seine River, in the heart of the ancient city of Paris, the land where Notre Dame would be built had been devoted to religious worship for centuries.


Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879) 

French architect and author who restored many prominent medieval landmarks in France, including those which had been damaged or abandoned during the French Revolution. His major restoration projects included Notre-Dame Cathedral, the Basilica of Saint Denis, Mont Saint-Michel, & Sainte-Chapelle.

As the cathedral rises from the ashes, a tug of war over its transformation
By Philip Kennicott

After the April 15, 2019, fire, debate began almost immediately about the cathedral’s restoration. Should it be returned to its exact pre-fire configuration? Should the 19th-century spire be rebuilt? Or should it be updated for the 21st century and beyond?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/entertainment/notre-dame-history/
The Washington Post reports:  
In 1160, Maurice de Sully, a brilliant administrator, was elected bishop of Paris and almost immediately began plans for a large cathedral, dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

With King Louis VII and Pope Alexander III in attendance, the first major phase of construction began with the laying of the cornerstone in 1163.

Over the next decades, work on the nave pushed the cathedral’s spine to the west.

By 1220, the basic form of the early cathedral was essentially finished.

By 1182, much of the cathedral’s choir — the liturgical core of the building, then reserved for the clergy — with its iconic flying buttresses supporting its tall walls and roof, had been completed.


Beginning in the mid-1220s, much of Notre Dame was remade to be more in line with contemporary architectural tastes. The two western towers were finished and a spire was added to the crossing of the nave and transept. The last major phase of the original construction ended in the mid-14th century, more than 150 years after it had begun. 

Notre Dame, which was partly destroyed when fire broke out beneath the roof on April 15, 2019, is pictured on Jan. 6. (Philippe Lopez/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

Elsewhere, in 13th-century France, new cathedrals were being built, and old ones disassembled and reconstructed, to make them taller, lighter and more vertical, and to introduce more light, as if they were made from taut curtains of glass, not heavy columns of stone. And so Notre Dame’s clerestory windows were enlarged, the roofs changed and the flying buttresses reconstructed, although the cathedral remained relatively dark despite its fashionable update.

By the late 18th century, the original spire was removed before it could collapse from decay.

The cathedral remained without a spire until 1859, when one designed by Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc was added as part of an extensive 20-year renovation. Over the next 160 years, alterations and repairs continued to be made.

“Le stryge,” or “The Vampire,” an 1853 etching by Charles Meryon, shows one of architect Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc’s grotesque Notre Dame figures. (Rosenwald Collection/National Gallery of Art)
The second radical transformation dates, in part, to 1831, when Victor Hugo published the novel known in English as “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.” The book, set in the 15th century, was a phenomenal success, and the church itself was a major character in its drama of love, lust and betrayal. Hugo intended the novel to ignite interest in France’s legacy of gothic and medieval architecture, and he succeeded. Notre Dame, then in a state of grave disrepair, was rediscovered, and various government committees and commissions were established to help the country address what we now call cultural heritage and historic preservation.

Repairing Notre Dame was one of the most urgent projects, and Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879), one of two architects put in charge of restoration, began to undertake extensive and controversial changes. Perhaps no one in the history of the cathedral understood it better — its quirks, structural oddities and weak spots — and no one was more passionately hostile to earlier renovations that had altered its gothic design. But Viollet-le-Duc’s definition of restoration was more like that of a contemporary theater director approaching an old script than a preservationist working with scientific and historical rigor: “To restore a building,” he wrote, “is not to maintain, repair, or redo it, but to reestablish it in a finished state that may never have existed at a given time.”

As Notre Dame has been rebuilt and repaired over the centuries, there have been many cries of sacrilege. Shortly before the French Revolution, it was whitewashed, leading one prominent critic to grumble that the edifice had “lost its venerable color and its imposing darkness that had commended fervent respect.” And beginning in the 1840s, after decades of little maintenance, sporadic use and sometimes misguided efforts at repair, it was “restored” so thoroughly that many historians came to think of it as a 19th-century church, not a medieval one.

One of the most significant transformations was probably precipitated by a fire in the 13th century, perhaps similar to the one in 2019, in the roof space above the vaults. Whether the damage forced the cathedral’s stewards to rebuild, or was simply a good pretext to update the building, isn’t clear. But the change was extensive.

French President Macron is likely to be the one who decides the new form of the cathedral, although it’s unclear how much he will defer to experts, traditionalist voices, the Catholic Church and preservationists. French presidents generally want to put their stamp on Paris, such as Georges Pompidou’s support for a modern cultural center, which eventually became the Centre Pompidou, a bristling postmodern architectural masterpiece, or Francois Mitterand’s championing of I.M. Pei’s Louvre pyramid project. Macron, young, arrogant and determined to chart a new middle course through the fault lines of French political life, has his perfect signature project: the restoration of an ancient building with a modern twist.

“As for the decision itself, I would say that only the president can answer this,” Barbat says. “He was really involved since the night of the fire when he was present at the cathedral. Most likely he will speak about it with the head of the [commission], General Georgelin, but also the minister of culture. Afterward, I cannot answer precisely what he will decide alone in the loneliness of the presidency.”

After the fire, the Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine, a Paris museum that includes Viollet-le-Duc’s invaluable collection of full-scale architectural casts of historic French facades and medieval sculptural elements, displayed models, sculpture and other objects related to Notre Dame. The museum embodies the complicated legacy of Viollet-le-Duc, who was for much of the 20th century considered a fantasist, a Walt Disney-like figure who invented his own version of historic architecture. But he also was a meticulous observer, and the documentation he left behind may be essential to restoring Notre Dame.

“We know we can construct it exactly like it was,” says Francis Rambert, director of the museum’s architectural design department. He is standing in front of Viollet-le-Duc’s model for the wooden spire, a small-scale sculptural marvel in itself. “But the question is, do we need to sacrifice all those trees?”

The spire and the wood have become intertwined flash points that seem to divide French opinion not into clearly opposed ideological camps, but into myriad fragmentary alignments of opinion, as complex as one of the cathedral’s rose windows. There are environmental issues, aesthetic issues, cultural issues, patrimony issues and financial issues.

Is wood necessary? Would lighter materials be better, or do the vaults need the heavy weight of wood to make them secure? Is satisfactory wood available? At one point last year, a Ghanaian company even offered to dredge up giant trees preserved and strengthened by submersion when land was flooded for a dam in Africa in 1965.

The current debates and controversies have uncovered a deeper admiration for Viollet-le-Duc and his architectural changes than might have been apparent a quarter century ago. “Was he some kind of genius or someone who was a megalomaniac?” asks Barbat, the government heritage director, who adds that opinion about Viollet-le-Duc has changed markedly since the 1990s, with growing acknowledgment that his changes have become part of the cathedral’s history. Indeed, when a damaged part of the church’s Porte Rouge was repaired recently, one of Viollet-le-Duc’s elements was meticulously reproduced, a sign that preservation now includes older, 19th-century restoration efforts.

Viollet-le-Duc changed the windows, added decorative elements to the base of the flying buttresses, remade statues, and created wholesale many of the grotesques, chimeras and gargoyles that visitors often assume are the essence of the cathedral’s gothic character. He also built a new spire, out of wood and lead, to replace the one that had been removed in the mid-18th century because it was no longer sound.

Those changes rapidly became embedded in the public memory of the building. I recall receiving a postcard from Paris that showed a classic image: the Eiffel Tower, with one of Viollet-le-Duc’s gargoyle figures in the foreground. But it didn’t contrast old and new, simply two visions of the 19th-century remake of the city.

One of the most famous images of 19th-century France was an 1853 etching by Charles Meryon called “Le Stryge,” or “The Vampire,” which shows another of Viollet-le-Duc’s grotesque Notre Dame figures, its tongue sticking out contemptuously as it watches over a fantasy of old Paris. It helped to define the curiously Parisian sense that the city’s essence is woven of both beauty and squalor, that it teems with contradictions and harsh contrasts, as in a famous poem by Charles Baudelaire: “Brothels and hospitals, prison, purgatory, hell/Monstrosities..."

Maine Writer Post Script- Cliches and proverbs often work to describe what lofty concepts fail to capture:  "...plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

Labels: , , ,

Friday, January 24, 2020

Pentagon Says 34 U.S. troops suffered brain injuries caused by the Iranian missle attack

More Trumpziism lies! There definitey were American brain injury casualties caused by the Iraq missle attack on the al Asad airbase, in Iraq.

Pentagon Says 34 U.S. 
Troops Suffered Brain Injuries From Iranian Missile Strike reported on National Publie Radio by David Welna.
Eight U.S. troops diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) arrived in the U.S. on Friday, according to Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman.

Hoffman said those troops are among a total of 34 American service members diagnosed with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) after the al Asad airbase, where they were stationed in Iraq was hit by missiles fired by Iran on Jan. 8. The attack was in reprisal for a U.S. drone strike Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian general Qassed Soleimani.

It was at least the third time U.S. officials have had to revise President Trump's Jan. 8 claim that no Americans were injured by the Iranian missile barrage.

"No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime," Trump declared at the White House hours after the Iranian attack. "We suffered no casualties."

The 8 wounded American soldiers who arrived in the U.S. are part of a larger contingent of 18 troops diagnosed with TBI who were initially medically evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Those now in the U.S. will be treated on at out-patient basis either at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. or at their home bases, according to Hoffman.

The 9 U.S. troops who remain in Landstuhl will continue to undergo evaluation and treatment there. One American soldier who was diagnosed with TBI after the Iranian attack and transported to Kuwait has now returned to duty in Iraq; 16 others who stayed in Iraq after being diagnosed with TBI have also returned to duty.

Asked whether those soldiers will be given Purple Hearts, since TBI now qualifies for this award bestowed on those wounded in enemy attacks, Hoffman was non-commital. "That is a decision the services will have to make in due time," he said. "I'm not going to get ahead of the service secretaries on that."

Donald Trump, for his part, (typically and obviously wrong mindedly) downplayed reports of the U.S. troops sustaining concussion-type injuries when asked about them last week in Davos, Switzerland.

"I heard that they had headaches, and a couple of other things," Trump said. "But I would say, and I can report it is not very serious. Not very serious." (One symptom those injured in the Asad attack did not have was pain related to bone spurs!)

Regulations for receiving a Purple Heart award require that an injury caused by an enemy action that is diagnosed and treated by a medical professional be of such gravity that it removes the victim from duty for at least 48 hours.

Hoffman acknowledged that the numbers of troops diagnosed with TBI released by the Pentagon over the past two weeks have shifted, which he attributed to some of the symptoms of TBI taking time to develop.

"What we saw was the number of people who were initially screened for concussion-like symptoms that showed up at one of the medical providers on the base saw their conditions improve rapidly," he said. "Others we saw their conditions didn't improve — some got worse and had severe enough symptoms that they were transported on for further treatment."

But the Pentagon spokesman also announced that on Friday Defense Sec. Mark Esper directed Matt Donovan, who is currently performing the duties of the Defense Department's under secretary for personnel and readiness, to work with the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review the Pentagon's processes for tracking and reporting injuries of all kinds.

"The secretary's direction is focused on the fact that if you look at the different types of reporting systems that we have, sometimes the administrative reporting of an injury is different than the medical reporting (HELLO? Frankly, this is bullshit!)

We need to get that clarified, we need to get a little better handle on it," Hoffman noted. "We need to be as transparent as possible on this."

Labels: , ,

Donald Trump never "hugged" a flag when he suffered from "bone spurs"- echo letter

Vietnam veteran doesn’t think highly of Trump
Trump doesn’t deserve any credit for the crumbs he may give to the military especialy after avoiding military service because of a bogus diagnosis of "bone spurs".

Donald Trump was a coward during Vietnam and his son followed in his painful footsteps.
I too am a Vietnam veteran.

I read the recent letter from Joe Kupniewski, that lit a fire in my soul. He said Donald Trump is great because he “praises our troops, military, police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 

HELLO? You do know how Trump got out of going to Vietnam? He purchased the so-called “heel spurs” from a doctor whom he rented from Trump’s dad? Now I want you to think about 911, and two Americans, one of whom was born to money and was 24 years old and the other a NFL football player who left a lucrative sports career to enlist in the U.S. Army while Trump’s son, Jr., did not. 

He could have, but chose to earn money. Google Don Jr.’s image with an AR-15. He is a wannabe, but not a doer.
What an amazing insight on immigration. What if Trump was around during Herod’s time, but was an Egyptian leader and closed the border so that a particular family and their newborn were denied entry? Think about that! 

(Good point! What would Jesus do?)

Just remember that immigrants, legal and illegal (hired by farmers and ranchers), made this country great, even when we sent the Chinese railroad laborers home and rounded up Japanese Americans in the 1940s to lose their businesses and homes.

So when you see Trump hug a flag, remember he had no stamina to enlist and serve, like you and me....(and Maine Writer's husband.)

– Louis Cioccio, Erie, Pennsylvania

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Donald Trump is crazy and must be removed from his office because he is dangerous

In Pennsylvania, two Republicans presidential candidates are in the primary and running against Donald Trump....the priamry election is scheduled on April 28...
 
Americans must remove and replace Donald Trump- an echo opinon published in TribLive.com a Pennsylvania electronic newspaper. 

IMpotus- The Senate must convict Donald Trump because he is guilty of abstrucion of Congress and abuse of power!

We must replace Donald Trump!

If you are an adult of voting age, the 2020, election could be the most important one of your life. If we don’t replace Donald Trump as president, I believe this country is headed toward becoming an authoritarian dictatorship.

This is not the time for moderation. Without a really big change in inequality in this country, we will be back to the same situation that got Trump elected in the first place. During the past 30 years, your government has been increasingly bought by big business, and we need to take it back.

The three candidates who are promising to pass laws to help us do that are Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer. These would include things like a wealth tax, election reform, raising the federal minimum wage, national referendums and universal health care.

If you’re a registered Republican, please be aware that there are two candidates who are running against Trump in the primaries, although some states are actually canceling their Republican primaries and keeping them off the ballots. 

The Pennsylvania primary is April 28, and the general election is Nov. 3. You must be registered 30 days prior to each in order to vote. So please, pay attention, and vote! Please vote to defeat Donald Trump because he is crazy and cannot be trusted to continue pretending to lead the United States. In fact, Trump is a dangerous man.  From 
Gail Scheftic, Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Donald Trump still owes Mississippi answers about ICE raids

Bennie Thompson, guest columnist published in the Hattiesburg American a Mississippi newspaper:
Mississippi- Massive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Mississippi, and the Trump administration has yet to answer key questions on its planning, timing, and scope.

By all accounts, the Aug. 7 raids were an excessive show of force that upended communities across Mississippi and took parents away from their children. ICE has only targeted workers — rather than employers — for prosecution.


Worse yet, these raids focused on the same community — Latinos — that were targeted just days before when a white supremacist domestic terrorist entered an El Paso Walmart and killed 22 people. Department of Homeland Security officials claimed the coincidence of these two events was ‘unfortunate,’ but the evidence shows much more went wrong that day. 

Trump administration failed children of ICE detainees

According to administration officials, the Aug. 7, ICE raids were planned for over a year with hundreds of officers and agents on the case. These raids were clearly expensive and resource-intensive. ICE should have been aware of obvious need for contingencies for such a large and complex operation. However, it was clear just hours after the raids that ICE did not follow its own guidelines to minimize the negative 
impact on children and the community.

In previous administrations, ICE followed guidelines to contact the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or state social service agencies before large immigration operations to minimize harmful repercussions and ensure affected children are taken care of. Missing this critical step, Mississippi schools and local communities were left scrambling to help children whose parents had been swept up. ICE never even contacted the necessary officials after the raids were completed either.

This community breakdown was entirely predictable — a similar raid took place in Tennessee in April 2018. Parents there were also arrested, and, in fear, hundreds of children did not return to school the next day.

To be clear, these parents were far from being hardened criminals or a public safety hazard. They were hardworking folks trying to feed their families. Taking parents away from their children has been an all too common thread in the immigration policies of this Administration.

This, unfortunately, is just child separation in a different form. 

ICE should have taken simple steps to communicate with school districts and local officials to avoid this debacle. 

Trump administration still has not p
rosecuted employers from Mississippi ICE raids

The administration clearly only targeted the workers in this raid rather than the employers. Evidence shows that company officials knew that the contractor that managed the plants repeatedly hired undocumented workers. Yet months later, no company officials have been charged.

Koch Foods, which runs some of the plants in Mississippi, is a known repeat offender. Instead of going after employers, as previous administrations have, the Trump administration went after the most vulnerable.

In fact, according to the Corporate Prosecution Registry, enforcement actions against companies has slowed under the Trump administration compared to the Obama administration. There have been only a handful of actions against employers or managers, and prosecution of employers is not only rare, it usually leads to token punishment or simple fines.

Trump administration officials say they will ensure cases are thoroughly prosecuted, but so far that has just been empty rhetoric.

This lack of prosecution of employers is even more glaring when confronted by numerous news reports over the past two years indicating that President Trump’s own companies have routinely hired undocumented workers for decades — and there is no evidence that Trump or his properties have faced any kind of prosecution or penalty.

Apparently, President Trump’s tough talk on immigration enforcement does not apply to him or his corporate friends.

The Aug. 7, raids will have an enormous, long-term negative impact on Mississippi, and we deserve answers on how the administration is — or is not — following the law.

Donald Trump must understand the very real consequences of his immigration policies, particularly on children.

How we treat the most vulnerable is a direct reflection of who we are as a country, and the ICE raid on Mississippi communities should be beneath us all.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. A Democrat, he represents Mississippi's 2nd Congressional District.

Labels: , ,

Donald Trump is a threat to U.S. elections -- the very backbone of our democracy

Letter echo to the Editor of the Northside Neighbor, an Atlanta Georgia newspaper:

#IMpotus- impeach Donald Trump and Vote Blue 2020

Senate must impeach Trump to ‘restore law and order’

I'm calling on my (U.S.) senators to support convicting and removing (President) Donald Trump. After a thorough investigation, the House of Representatives voted to charge Trump with both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, demonstrating that he has no business in the Oval Office. After all, no one is above the law -- not even the president of the United States.

During the Senate impeachment trial, lawmakers must confront the evidence at the heart of the inquiry: President Trump demanded Ukraine investigate his political rival before he would give them military aid. It’s abundantly clear that Trump is a threat to our elections -- the very backbone of our democracy -- and he’s acting as though he’s immune to the rule of law.


As the Senate continues its work on other important issues facing our country, they must use Trump’s trial as an opportunity to restore law and order to this corrupt White House by removing him from office.

John Wienert  Sandy Springs*


*Sandy Springs is a city in northern Fulton County, Georgia, United States, and part of the Atlanta metropolitan area.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 20, 2020

Florence Nightingale and the Year of the Nurse

Science and Technology

"At the same time, as diagnostic systems and surgical robots advance, nursing may be the only aspect of the health-care profession in which machines will not replace human beings.

Nursing Summit in Augusta Maine - Nightingale exhibit 

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION has designated 2020 as the “Year of the Nurse”, marking 200 years since the birth of Florence Nightingale, who established the principles of modern nursing and hospital sanitation. If she were to drop in on a hospital today, Nightingale would be pleased to see the progress in nursing since her day—and how it is poised to change in the years to come.

Nightingale founded the first nursing school, at a hospital in London in 1860, and wrote some 200 books and papers. She was the first woman admitted to the Royal Statistical Society, for her pioneering work in statistical infographics. While tending to British soldiers in the Crimean war, she made the case for hospital sanitation using a variation of the pie chart, entitled “Diagram of the Causes of Mortality in the Army in the East”, to show that more soldiers died from infections than from injuries. She drew up the chart to “affect through the Eyes what we may fail to convey to the brains of the public through their word-proof ears”. In what became known as a Coxcomb diagram, each slice of the pie has the same angular width and an area representing the amount in a given category (such as number of dead men).

Many, if not most, people today think of nursing as a narrow set of skills learned on the ward, much like it was back in Nightingale’s time. In fact, nurses have university degrees and there are doctorate-level studies in nursing. Like doctors, nurses specialise in myriad clinical disciplines, such as neonatology, cardiology and Accident & Emergency. There are even forensic nurses. Such is the pace of innovation in nursing that some issues of American Nurse Today, a monthly journal, run north of 70 pages.


In 2020 and beyond nurses will be doing a growing number of tasks conventionally reserved for doctors, both in acute and chronic care. Already, nearly two-thirds of anaesthetics given to patients in America are administered by certified nurse anaesthetists. In Britain specialised nurses now perform some types of abdominal, orthopaedic and cardiac surgery. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa nurses are being trained to do emergency caesarean sections, with results comparable to those achieved by doctors.

The changing face of nursing

Nurses will be increasingly tapped to replace general practitioners in treating patients with diabetes and other chronic conditions that require lifestyle changes. Nurses are particularly well placed to provide this kind of holistic care, which takes into account each person’s life circumstances, because they have long been patients’ confidants. In the words of Brian Dolan, an academic, “people look up to a doctor, but they look a nurse in the eye.” In surveys about trust in people from various professions, nurses invariably come top.

What would disappoint Nightingale in her time-travel to the present is that the transformation of nursing has been uneven. In countries as varied as India, Germany and Portugal nurses are still largely treated as doctors’ minions and may not even diagnose common ailments or prescribe medication. And although nurses make up nearly half of the world’s health-care workforce—and 90% of patients’ contacts with health workers—they are often not at the table when health-policy decisions are made. Even the World Health Organisation did not have a chief nursing officer until 2018.

The other trend that would make Nightingale furrow her brow is that nursing has lost its lustre, so most posts are hard to fill. In many countries no profession has a higher number of vacancies. In the next decade the shortage of nurses will remain the biggest problem that national health systems all over the world will face. By 2030 the world will be short of 7.6m nurses, which is a third of their number today.

To turn this tide, efforts to draw more people into nursing and keep trained nurses from leaving the profession will accelerate. Countries will focus more on recruiting nurses locally, rather than luring them from abroad—often from poor places where health care is already crippled by nurse shortages. National media campaigns will aim to raise the profile of nursing by dispelling outdated views about what the job entails. Some may borrow ideas from Singapore’s highly effective campaign, which has commissioned nursing dramas, documentaries and even a “nursing anthem” (in the form of a catchy pop-music video). The campaign’s Instagram account has something for everyone, including love stories of couples who met in nursing school.

Prodded by a global campaign which began in 2018, more hospitals and other employers will set up professional-development and leadership programmes for nurses. There will be more talk—and, it is hoped, action too—about how to enable nurses to work at the top of their licence and abilities. Technology will be roped in to make their work more manageable and reduce burnout. Algorithms, for example, will be used to map the optimal routes for ward shifts.

At the same time, as diagnostic systems and surgical robots advance, nursing may be the only aspect of the health-care profession in which machines will not replace human beings. 

Even though nursing is shaped by medical science and technology, as it has been since Nightingale’s time, its healing powers remain rooted in empathy and a human touch.

This article appeared in the Science and Technology section of the print edition under the headline "Florence and the machine".

Slavea Chankova: health-care correspondent, The Economist

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Election 2020 is not about the economy- echo opinion letters

Comment echos to the editor echo published in Barron's published by Dow Jones & Company news:

I don’t know what will happen in November, but I’ll be surprised if traditional methods of forecasting the election outcomes work this year. I can’t help questioning the election predictions of your (Barron's) Roundtable panelists, who seem oblivious to the preparedness of many Americans, appalled by Donald Trump’s character and behavior, to vote for a candidate they might disagree with (e.g., like a Warren or Sanders) to get rid of a president they can’t stand, which is so evident in the polls of likely voters and Trump’s low approval ratings. This election is more likely to be a referendum on Trump than on the economy. He is uniquely positioned to lose an election that any other president would handily win.

From Don Wittenberger, Shoreline, Wash.


And an addendum echo opinioin posted on Barron's.com:

The economy and circumstances that I witness and experience in south Florida are far less positive than the government reporting suggests. I have struggled with the employment figures since 2009 and have questioned the government’s tracking systems or methods. I believe that the term “underemployment” may a part of the problem.  
John Naccarelli, On Barrons.com

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Donald Trump's potential for World War 3

"no evidence of an imminent threat...."
Donald Trump's irresponsible assassination of General Soleimani brought the world to the brink of world war 3.




History News Network echo essay by Alon Ben-Meir*:
Stepping Back From the Brink of World War 3!

Donald Trump’s irresponsile military order to kill Iranian General Soleimani is one of the most reckless acts taken by a president, who once again has put his personal political interest above the nation’s security. Certainly, Soleimani deserved to meet his bitter fate. 

Indeed, the evil Soleimani was behind the killing of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq while threatening and acting against American allies. However, killing him without considering the potentially dire regional repercussions and without a strategy, under the guise of national security concerns, is hard to fathom.

Republican members of Congress who praised the assassination of General Soleimani seem to be utterly blinded by their desire to see him eliminated. What will happen next, they seem to have no clue. Trump, who is fighting for his political life, appeared to have cared less about the horrifying consequences as long as he distracts public attention from his political woes. He made the decision to assassinate Soleimani seven months ago, but he gave the order now to serve his own self-interest, especially in this election year where he desperately needs a victory while awaiting an impeachment trial in the Senate.

During the Senate briefing on Iran led by Secretaries of State and Defense Pompeo and Esper, and CIA Director Haspel, they produced no evidence that there was an imminent danger of an attack on four American embassies orchestrated by Soleimani, as Trump has claimed. In fact, Esper said openly in a January 12, interview that he saw no evidence.

Republican Senator Mike Lee labeled it as “probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue…What I found so distressing about the briefing is one of the messages we received from the briefers was, ‘Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran,’ and that if you do ‘You will be emboldening Iran.’” Now, having failed to produce evidence of imminent danger, the Trump administration claims that the killing of Soleimani was part of a long-term deterrence strategy.

The assassination itself has certainly emboldened Iran’s resolve to continue its nefarious activities throughout the region, but even then, the measure Trump has taken to presumably make the US more secure has in fact done the complete opposite.

It has created new mounting problems and multiple crises. Trump dangerously escalated the conflict with Iran; severely compromised the US’ geostrategic interest in the Middle East; intensified the Iranian threat against our allies, especially Israel; led Iran to double down in its support of terrorist and Jihadist groups; badly wounded the US’ relations with its European allies; deemed the US untrustworthy by friends and foes; and pushed Iran to annul much of the nuclear deal, all while impressively advancing its anti-ballistic missile technology.

And contrary to Trump’s claim that he made the right decision for the sake of American security, 55 percent of voters in a USA Today survey released on January 9th, said he made the US less safe. 

And now we are still at the brink of world war because Donald Trump has no idea what he is doing.

Although Iran has admitted to being behind the attack on the Asad air base in Iraq, it initiated the attack to save face in the eyes of its public and demonstrate its possession of precision missiles and willingness to stand up to the US. This retaliation was expected, but since Iran wants to avoid an all-out war, it was strategic and carefully calculated to inflict the fewest American casualties, if any, to prevent a vicious cycle of retaliatory attacks which could get out of control and lead to a war.

This, however, does not suggest that Iran will stop its clandestine proxy operations—employing its well-trained militia in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria to execute new attacks on American and allies’ targets in the region while maintaining deniability. Similarly, the clergy can also pressure hawks in and outside the government to avoid any provocative acts against the US. Iran is patient and will carefully weigh its gains and losses before it takes the next step.

Following Iran’s attack on the Asad base, Trump has also shown restraint because he too wants to prevent an all-out war, knowing that even though the US can win it handedly, it will be the costliest victory in blood and treasure and certainly in political capital.

The whole mess began when Trump withdrew from the Iran deal. What did Trump think he could accomplish? Withdrawing from the deal without having any substitute, without consultation with the European signatories, and with re-imposing sanctions, especially when Iran was in full compliance with all the deal’s provisions, is dangerously reckless—undermining our national security interests and jeopardizing the security of our allies in the region. The Iran deal was not perfect, but the idea was to build on it, gradually normalize relations with Iran, and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons altogether as it works to become a constructive member of the community of nations.

To resolve the crisis with Iran, the US must demonstrate a clear understanding of the Iranian mindset. Iran is a proud nation with a long and continuing rich history; it has huge natural and human resources, is the leader of the Shiite world, occupies one of the most geostrategic locations in the world, and wants to be respected. The Iranians are not compulsive; they think strategically and are patient, consistent, and determined.

The revocation of the Iran deal simply reaffirms Iran’s distrust of the US, from the time the CIA toppled the Mosaddeq government in 1953 to the continuing sanctions, adversarial attitude, and the open call for regime change.

Both Khamenei and Trump have their own domestic pressure to contend with and want to avoid war. The Iranian public is becoming increasingly restive. They are back in streets demanding immediate economic relief. Conversely, Trump calculated that further escalation of violent conflict with Iran will erode rather than enhance his political prospects, and would make defeat in November all but certain.

West European countries are extremely sensitive to any major escalation of violence, as it would lead to mounting casualties and destruction on all sides. Iran can resort to a wide range of hostile measures, including disrupting oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, by mining the Straits of Hormuz through which 21 million barrels per day (21% of global oil consumption) pass, resulting in a massive economic dislocation in the Middle East and Europe in particular.

The pause in hostilities offers a golden opportunity to begin a new process of mitigation. Germany, France, and Britain have already engaged the Iranians in an effort to ease the tension between Iran and the US and create conditions conducive to direct US-Iran negotiations. By now, Trump must realize that Iran cannot be bullied and the only way to prevent it from pursuing nuclear weapons is through dialogue.

Regardless of how flawed Trump views the Iran deal, it still provides the foundation for a new agreement, as many of its the original provisions remain valid and can be built on it. Other conflicting issues between the two sides, especially Iran’s subversive activities, should be negotiated on a separate track.

In some ways, both Iran and the US need to lick their wounds and begin a new chapter, however long and arduous it may be, because war is not and will never be an option.

*Alon Ben-Meir-  professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Labels: , ,