Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia

Here's some discussion about the use of white phosphorous in this crazy
war:  

https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/jl1snc/turkey_azerbaijan_in_a_war_against_armenian/

If anyone blames America for these things they're just propagandists.
America isn't involved. It's doubtful Pres. Trump would care about this
war because there's no way for him to personally benefit and because his
attention is probably focused on the election (which is ongoing).

If anyone wants to know what the world is like when the United States of
America watches from the sidelines, watch how Russia, China, and other
"leaders" handle this.

Judge Barrett

First, I apologize for spelling her name incorrectly in prior writing. I
simply didn't know the proper way.

Second, from what I've seen yesterday and today it appears she is an
"ivory tower" intellectual from her life experience teaching and that as
a judge she is far too inexperienced to know the ways of the political
world and the dangers that poses to our Democracy. Questioning by
several Democratic senators clearly caused her great pause. She didn't
know that Supreme Court justices are NOT bound by the same rules of
conduct as lower judges or members of Congress. She didn't understand
that cases are not only brought by an individual who has a grievance,
but they are often brought (these days) by political and financial
interests who pay for the creation of law firms which find individuals
who have a grievance they can use or even Justices who have an agenda.
Sen. Whitehouse showed that clearly with an explanation of how Justice
Alito created an opening to overturn a precedent.

Third, it's really odd that with judge Barrett there would be three (3)
Justices appointed by Republicans who had worked on the famous/infamous
Bush v. Gore case. Yes, judge Amy worked on that famous case too. Did
she think it was a coincidence? She wouldn't answer. She acted as though
it were new information she had never considered. How could that be? Is
she a cynical liar or so naive that she's just a "useful idiot" to the
Right-Wingers, fascists, and moneyed interests?

I don't know whether to believe she will be alright as a Justice because
she's more of an idealist (even if a badly founded one) or more of a
danger because she's being used and maybe willingly to institute
dramatic changes which the public at large doesn't want.


--
Mark Hathaway

Judge Barret and the Conservative Agenda

There are several issues where the Conservatives have already shown
their interests and their approach to getting what they want. They are,
abortions, voting, guns, government regulation of commerce.


On abortions and voting rights they have attempted to whittle them away
to nothing. In both cases they have begun in only a few states (Texas,
Georgia, Kansas, and perhaps a few others) to simply take away the usual
availability of abortions and voting by closing clinics and polling
places. They cut back on early voting in many states and they've erased
names from the polls in many. This approach doesn't directly challenge
the RIGHTS, but eases people into a 1950s mind-set where they accept Jim
Crow without realizing what they've lost. Judge Barret should be asked
how many and what kind of practical limitations, obstacles, or other
problems the Conservatives will put in place while continuing to say the
RIGHTs haven't been eliminated. Their hypocrisy is plain on these issues
to anyone who has looked at them. Don't ask if she believes that's the
plan or if she believes in this approach. She'll just hedge, dodge, and
try to avoid it or just say it isn't so. But, directly ask what limits
and obstacles they WILL put in place, so the public will know what the
Republican senators are foisting on everyone.


On gun rights the Conservatives have been very touchy for a very long
time. Ask Judge Barret which limitations on gun possession for personal
protection is specified in the Constitution. It isn't there. The idea of
a "militia" isn't just private citizens getting together and calling
themselves a "militia" or claiming they have some legal rights. So, ask
about the recent attempt by a rag-tag "militia" to kidnap the governor
of Michigan. Did they have the right to own guns for that purpose? What
limits should be placed on gun possession to avoid that kind of event in
the future. Watch her say "NO LIMITATIONs" would be allowed, in order to
protect the 2nd Amendment. Then ask, why does the 2nd Amendment and this
strange interpretation of it to imply personal rights to possess guns
for "personal protection" should be protected so strongly while a
woman's right to privacy of healthcare or the right to vote should be so
easily whittled away to nothing.


On reducing government regulation of commerce, ask Judge Barret where
"free markets" devolve to chaos and simple criminal behavior and where
government regulation is necessary to maintain order. Where would "free
markets" be if there was no commercial law and where would worker,
community or public safety be without government regulation. She will
claim they aren't removing those, but she will say they want to limit
those only to what is necessary. Where exactly is the dividing line
between necessity and chaos? Ask her who should decide that issue? Is it
for the Court or the elected politicians who legislate? Ask her how much
of our current regulation the Conservatives intend to whittle to nothing
to please the rich and corporations. Where is that magical dividing line
the Conservatives consider necessary and why should the Court enshrine
that into law rather than letting Congress decide?

--
Mark Hathaway