Sorry, Paul, but I have no idea what this message means. Care to elaborate, please? Ken (sitting in SW Michigan waiting for the 12-24" snow we're supposed to get over the next 48 hrs) ======

Hi, Tony, welcome aboard. we aren't very active here, maybe you're the "new blood" which will make it so. We will discuss almost anything. Ken -- "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle." -- Plato

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/ron-desantis/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7077 Florida's Republican governor will make majority-Black district wait 280 days for new representation Image via Gage Skidmore. David Nir and Daily Kos May 05, 2021 A month after Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings' death on April 6, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Tuesday that the special election for Florida's 20th Congressional District would not take place until Jan. 11 of next year, meaning the seat will remain without representation for 280 days. That's almost twice as long as the gap that proceeded the state's two most recent special elections: In 2014, specials were held in the 13th District just 144 days after Rep. Bill Young died and in the 19th District just 148 days after Rep. Trey Radel resigned. Both were Republicans. Local election officials in Broward and Palm Beach counties initially proposed the dates that DeSantis wound up choosing, including a primary on Nov. 2. Soon after, however, they suggested the primary take place on Sept. 14 and the general on Nov. 9, with one official saying, "People would like it to be earlier." DeSantis disregarded that advice in a move that Democrats are certain to attack as motivated by a partisan interest in depriving the party's narrow congressional majority of a key vote. (The governor's long delay in waiting to schedule the election was also hotly criticized, with one candidate, Democrat Elvin Dowling, filing a lawsuit late last week demanding a date be set.) The decision further means that the majority-Black 20th District will have no voice in the House for the better part of a year. It's not yet clear when the filing deadline will be, but in a press conference announcing the dates, DeSantis said, "I think that puts qualifying towards the end of the first week of September." -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://twitter.com/BSteinbekk/status/1387401486372646918?utm_campaign=wp_todays_worldview&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_todayworld -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://theweek.com/articles/979505/republican-plot-steal-2024-election?utm_campaign=daily_gossip_newsletter_20210427&utm_source=daily_gossip_newsletter&utm_medium=email The Republican plot to steal the 2024 election Ryan Cooper Illustrated | iStock April 27, 2021 The redistricting process kicked off this week in Washington. The Census Bureau released initial data from the 2020 census Monday afternoon, (much later than usual thanks to a combination of the pandemic, Donald Trump's efforts to stop unauthorized immigrants from being counted, and his administration's general flailing incompetence), which means that congressional district boundaries will soon be redrawn to account for changes in population. These changes will probably tend to benefit the Republican Party, as conservative states will get more seats — for instance, Texas will gain two seats, while New York, California, and Illinois will all lose one. Republicans are also certain to use the process to try to gerrymander themselves as many additional congressional seats as possible by leveraging their control of a majority of state legislatures. And that is just the opening tactic in a long-term strategy to abolish American democracy and set up one-party rule. Advertisement The basic strategy goes like this. First, win control of state legislatures, then gerrymander the state district boundaries such that it's virtually impossible to lose, and add further protection with vote suppression laws making it harder for liberals to cast their ballots. Then, leverage control of the state legislatures in a post-census year to gerrymander the congressional district boundaries and gain a large advantage in the national House vote. This was exactly what happened after the previous census in 2010, when a fortunately-timed Republican wave victory allowed them to cement a roughly 4-5 point handicap in House elections and control of the chamber for eight years, along with control of dozens of state legislatures. Today in Michigan, gerrymandering means Republicans enjoy a 3.4-point handicap in the state House and a 10.7-point handicap in the state Senate; in Pennsylvania, it's a 3.1-point handicap in the House and a 5.9-point handicap in the Senate; and in Wisconsin, a 7.1-point handicap in the House and a 10.1-point handicap in the Senate. Though some of those 2010-vintage gerrymanders have been eroded or taken down through the courts, new ones will be attempted in every state Republicans control this year that do not have nonpartisan redistricting commissions (which is most of them). As Ryan Grim estimates at The Intercept, a fresh hardcore House gerrymander would likely net the GOP 15-20 House seats — easily enough to let them take the majority, if the 2022 electorate looks anything like 2020. And thanks to the conservative hammerlock on the Supreme Court, the new gerrymanders and vote suppression measures are virtually guaranteed to be blessed as "legal" (in conservative jurisprudence, something is constitutional if it benefits Republicans). It's impossible to gerrymander the Senate, of course, but luckily for Republicans that chamber is inherently gerrymandered due to the large number of disproportionately white, low-population rural states that lean conservative. The swing seat in the Senate is biased something like 7 points to the right. Advertisement If the GOP can win the House and Senate in the 2022 midterms, and if they retain control of a handful of swing-state legislatures, then they will be in a perfect position to steal the presidency in 2024. As Jonathan V. Last explains at The Bulwark, it would be quite simple to steal a presidential election within the formal rules of America's electoral system, though of course it would be a blatant violation of the entire spirit of the Constitution. The anachronistic, nonsensical legal structure that governs presidential elections says that if Congress does not certify a majority winner in the Electoral College, then the next president will be chosen by a vote of the House — but each state delegation bizarrely gets only one vo

https://theweek.com/articles/979546/democrats-face-stark-choice-redistricting?utm_campaign=10_things_newsletter_20210428&utm_source=10_things_newsletter&utm_medium=email Democrats face a stark choice on redistricting David Faris April 27, 2021 Every 10 years, the U.S. counts its population and shifts seats in the House of Representatives according to how different states have grown. This process, known as reapportionment, has obvious political implications for the House, because each state with more than one seat also draws new district boundaries. The Census Bureau, after a lengthy delay to settle legal challenges, released those numbers Monday, and they were mostly bad news for Democrats hoping to cling to their narrow majority next year — unless they can muster the courage to make some much-needed and fundamental changes to our dated electoral system. The top line numbers were not unexpected by observers who keep a close eye on population shifts — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, West Virginia, Ohio, New York, and California will all lose a seat in the 435-member House, while Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Oregon will gain one. Fast-growing Texas will add two. If we want to reduce this solely to the 2020 election, that's a net gain of three seats for states won by Donald Trump and a net loss of three for states won by President Biden. The only big surprise is that Arizona was expected to gain a seat and it did not. Absurdities abound, of course, including the fact that had New York counted 89 more people, it would not have lost a district. Advertisement Overall, these figures tell the story of a long, slow-moving shift of the U.S. population away from the Northeast and Midwest and toward the South and West, a migration driven more by housing costs, job opportunities, and weather preferences than ideology. The widespread availability of low-cost air-conditioning has made many of these states more attractive to people who can now mostly hang around indoors in the most punishing summer months rather than slowly melt into sweat puddles. If the United States used a sensible, non-partisan system for drawing the boundaries of its House districts, that would be the end of it. But nearly half of those 435 House seats will be drawn in states where single-party control means the hounds of gerrymandering will immediately be released to squeeze as many seats for their party out of the maps as possible, all other considerations be damned. And that spells trouble for Democrats, because Republicans will be able to do this to many more districts than Democrats, and several states with single-party GOP control now have more seats in the House. There is basically no check on state Republicans in Texas, and the state supreme court that threw out Florida's post-2010 gerrymander is now firmly in the grip of conservatives. Democratic Governor Roy Cooper can't veto the maps produced by the Republican state legislature of North Carolina, and Republicans in Wisconsin are likely to use every tool at their disposal to do an end-run around their own Democratic governor. Meanwhile, the largest Democratic state, California, uses a non-partisan commission to draw its boundaries. The upshot of all of these factors is likely to be a modest shift in the House landscape away from Democrats and toward Republicans, meaning that — stop me if you've heard this one before — Team Blue will have to not just win but clobber the GOP next year if they want to keep the speaker's gavel in Nancy Pelosi's hands. Advertisement The Supreme Court could have ended this charade in 2019, but as usual, Chief Justice John Roberts and his friends set any conceivable principles aside to reinforce the GOP's structural advantage in the U.S. electoral system, declaring that it was up to Congress and the states to fix partisan gerrymandering. Should any cases stemming from this round of redistricting once again reach the Court, they will be heard before an even stronger conservative majority. The good news is that there are ways to end this anti-democratic madness

-------- Forwarded Message -------- http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/96204 Does Trickle-Down Economics Actually Work? Robert Reich by Robert Reich | April 15, 2021 - 6:09am — from Robert Reich's Blog To the extent the Republican Party has any economic platform at all, it’s trickle-down economics. Unfortunately for the GOP, it’s based on three giant myths. It’s time to debunk them once and for all. Myth #1: Tax cuts for corporations and the rich create more and better jobs. Wrong. Corporations used Trump’s giant tax cut to buy back shares of their own stock and boost share prices. From 2017 to 2018, stock buybacks increased by a staggering 50 percent. Lowe’s spent $10 billion on stock buybacks in 2018, and then fired thousands of workers with no notice or severance. Walmart and AT&T also laid off thousands of workers. And contrary to the claim that the tax cut would boost wages by $4,000 a year, a recent analysis found that in the year after the Trump tax cut, wages increased by about the same as they did before it, and then slowed. Tax cuts for rich individuals don’t trickle down, either. The rich simply get richer. Two years before Ronald Reagan’s first tax cut, the richest 1 percent of Americans owned less than 23 percent of the nation’s wealth. A decade later, after two rounds of tax cuts for the rich, they owned over 28 percent. By 2019, after more tax cuts for the rich by George W. Bush and Donald Trump, people at the top owned almost 35 percent of America’s wealth. Meanwhile, average wealth barely budged for the middle class, and went negative for the bottom 10 percent. It gets worse. During this pandemic alone, America’s 664 billionaires have added $1.3 trillion to their collective wealth and now own over $4 trillion. That’s almost double the wealth of the bottom half — 165 million Americans. But nothing has trickled down. Even before the pandemic, wages stagnated. Myth #2: Tax cuts for big corporations and the rich spur economic growth. Baloney. Not even Ronald Reagan’s surging economic growth rate was driven by tax cuts. It was driven by low interest rates and humongous government spending. George W. Bush promised his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would pay for themselves (sound familiar?) by spurring economic growth. That didn’t happen. A 2017 study led by one of Bush’s former chief economists found that the tax cuts had no significant effect on growth. In fact, growth declined, slowing to just 2.8 percent from over 3 percent during the Clinton years. The economic expansion under Bush was one of the weakest expansions since World War II. Donald Trump claimed his tax cut would be like “rocket fuel” for the economy, and would spur annual growth of 3 percent. After its first year, growth slowed to 1.9 percent. Finally, a recent study analyzing tax data spanning 50 years from 18 advanced economies found that tax cuts for the rich only benefited the rich and had no effect on job creation or economic growth. I, for one, am shocked. Myth #3: Deregulation spurs economic growth. More rubbish. The cost savings from deregulation go to corporate executives and major investors, while the costs and risks land on the rest of us. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency rolled back regulations on everything from clean air and water standards to dangerous chemicals in products — benefiting chemical and fossil fuel executives and investors while forcing everyone else to deal with polluted air and toxins. His Labor Department loosened child labor laws and scaled back the number of workers eligible for overtime pay. Companies raked in savings, while workers were exploited. And with the help of Congress, he rolled back banking regulations put in place after the 2008 financial crisis — to the benefit of rich Wall Streeters and the detriment of everyone else. Don’t forget Ronald Reagan’s deregulatory agenda allowed for-profit healthcare companies to flourish, contributing to the out-of-control health care costs we’re saddled with today. And that deregulation of the financial sector was a major cause of the 2008 crash, as it allowed banks to

I cannot send this and have people believe that I worship the ground Fred walks on or thinks his writing is the best that ever was. Hell, I can't even decide over time if I like him or not. Certainly our ideas on political issues are all over the place, with agreement 100% in places and worries in other places that he's gone insane and no one else has told him yet. That being said, it's a decent piece looking at one possibility. Obviously, there are others, too. Ken =========== https://www.unz.com/freed/war-with-china-what-fun/ War with China? What Fun! I’d Rather Be Ruled by Brain-Damaged Twelve-Year-Olds Fred Reed • April 3, 2021 There is no limit to misjudgement. If the psychic curiosities in the Federal bunker start a war with China, or push Beijing into starting one, it will be blamed on a proximate cause, such as a collision of warships after which some lieutenant who joined on waivers lost it and opened fire. After all, historians have to write about something. The causes will actually be deeper and more complex. To begin, people are cerebrally arranged to form groups–“packs” is a better word—and fight with other groups. This is dimwitted, but so are people. The urge manifests itself in wars, political parties, football, teenage gangs, and contract bridge. It is not rational. In football, armored mercenary felons having no relation to the cities they represent, battle other felons from another city, most of whose citizens would not let their daughters within a parsec of said felons—all this while the fans scream in adrenal murderousness. It is just what we do. At the national level, it is called “patriotism.” Territoriality is part of the disorder. Human minds—the phrase may be an overstatement—seem intended for small wild groups for whom protection of hunting grounds might be important. When a Secretary of State embodies this instinct, he may, for example, confuse Asia with a patch of woods rife with deer. An instinct well suited to one situation is applied to another to which it isn’t. But why do Americans regard China as an enemy? Partly because the vast military sector of the economy needs an enemy as a budgetary pretext. This is often said. It is also true. Since none of the anointed enemies—Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea—does anything to threaten Americans, a drumbeat of media about largely imaginary menaces is needed. And provided. At a somewhat deeper level, it is again the pack instinct. Conservatives in particular tend to see the world in terms of tribes, countries, or faiths presumed hostile. Even though the public has almost no knowledge of China, or because of this, it can quite easily be persuaded that China is very dangerous. People can then easily begin clamoring for war and, politicians being politicians, they will not risk votes by pointing out the stupidity. But let us go back to the collision of warships. Why would a diversity-admit junior officer open fire on China? Proximately, because he is frightened and panicky. A bit more remotely, because he has been told over and over and over that the Chinese are dangerous and aggressive and want to do terrible things, seldom specified. The military tells them this because you cannot prepare the troops for war by telling them that there is no reason for it. Why would a President allow a war, knowing (if in a lucid moment) that it would produce absolute unshirted havoc in the economy even if it didn’t go nuclear? He wouldn’t. That is, he wouldn’t all at once choose Armageddon. But he couldn’t afford to seem soft on China, not with the midterms looming, so he couldn’t back off. If in the ensuing shootout the Navy got trounced, he most assuredly couldn’t drop the matter, and would have to double down. So, of course, would the Chinese for the same sorts of reasons. Off to the races. Deeper in the forest of causation is that the pathologically aggressive, amoral, manipulative, and crafty tend to rise to power. We select as rulers those who are least fit to rule. In America this is often done a bit differently, with the unscrupulous and po

https://imgur.com/gallery/EigMT3B -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGGa9drcClI -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://www.bookbub.com/blog/bestselling-books-the-year-you-were-born?position=4&source=multicontent&target=title -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://www.palmerreport.com/community/lara-trump-gets-caught-up-in-dog-charity-scandal/37419/ Lara Trump gets caught up in dog charity scandal Bocha Blue | 7:09 pm EST March 13, 2021 Palmer Report » Community The term “what’s Trump done now” really should have its own listing in the dictionary as this phrase has become almost as standard as saying hello. But it isn’t just Donald who is making news. There has been widespread speculation that Eric Trump’s wife, Lara Trump, will run for the Senate in North Carolina. It may well be true, although I think Lara would have a tough time getting elected. North Carolina is a purple state, and Mrs. Eric Trump is as solid MAGA red as it gets. Plus, she has a bit of baggage. And one piece of that baggage is going to be hard to explain. Per the Huffington Post (and now reported by other outlets), Lara’s charity “Big Dog Ranch Rescue” may have some explaining to do. Big Dog is a dog rescue charity associated with Lara as she is one of its chair people. Yet, through documents, including some IRS forms, it has come out that the charity spent 1.9 Million in fundraising for Trump at various properties of his including Mar-A-Lago and his Florida golf course. This has caused some eyebrows to rise, to put it mildly. What is a dog charity doing with Trump’s fundraising expenses? It is pretty odd. Many on Twitter are deeply upset about this and have even compared Lara to Cruella de Vil. This is most likely not the way Mrs. Trump would like to kick off any campaign, and she is going to have to, at some point, explain herself. The charity President, Lauren Simmons, has defended the charity. And Friday evening, Mr. Insurrectionist himself, one Donald Trump, gave an impromptu speech at a fundraiser for the charity where he alluded to Lara possibly running. She will undoubtedly face many questions if she does. -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -- Albert Einstein, German-American physicist, Nobel laureate (14 Mar 1879-1955)

Will I be considered overly partisan if I share something based on facts and not politics? Ken ======== https://nowthis.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/d/F1F0D7C381EB5B602540EF23F30FEDED/59C1B7D6EC896AF33D3F7F9A22A6E02E Study finds that states with GOP governors have seen higher rate of COVID cases, deaths A new study has found that Republican-led states have had a higher rate of COVID-19 cases and deaths than those led by Democrats. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Medical University of South Carolina found that as the pandemic progressed, governors’ party affiliation correlated with coronavirus infection rates and deaths. States with Democratic governors took harder hits early in the pandemic, when scientists and public health officials were still learning about the virus. But the study found that “on June 3, the association reversed, and Republican-led states had higher incidence ... For death rates, Republican-led states had lower rates early in the pandemic, but higher rates from July 4 through mid-December.” The researchers wrote that a reason for this could be “policy differences” and the level of strictness when it came to enforcing guidelines. KnowThis Every state that currently does not have a mask mandate, or is lifting their mandates later this month, has a Republican governor. -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

Reading this doesn't give you the same effect as listening to him, but the video link won't copy. Click the link below, scroll down, and watch that video. Depending on your point of view, you will either say "AMEN!" or you will laugh. Ken ========= https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/robin-bullock-claims-prophets-have-the-power-to-call-trump-back-into-the-white-house/?utm_source=rww&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bestof Robin Bullock Claims ‘Prophets’ Have the Power to Call Trump Back Into the White House By Kyle Mantyla | March 10, 2021 11:16 am Right-wing pastor Robin Bullock used his church service Tuesday to urge his fellow “prophets” to come together and call former President Donald Trump back to the White House, declaring that if they will do so, “God will supernaturally move things out of the way” to allow Trump to return. Bullock is among the various self-proclaimed “prophets” who guaranteed that Trump would win the 2020 election. Like many of those other “prophets,” Bullock still refuses to accept that his prophecies were wrong even though President Joe Biden has been in the White House for over a month. “Prophetical authority has to start being used by God’s prophets,” Bullock declared. “We’ve got to come up now to another level and start speaking with authority. Not just declaring, speaking with authority. And the Lord is going to give you words to warn people and speak to people in high-ranking positions. Whether you think they’re listening or not, they’re listening.” “The stage is set,” he continued, “but you’re going to have to pray for the rightful president, whether he wants to walk back into this or not. You must pray that he wants to do it because God won’t make him do anything. Is it his will? Yes. Is he the president? Yes. That’s why he could just walk right back in, and God will supernaturally move things out of the way.” “Even now the rightful president, Donald J. Trump, will hold a rally, and you can tell he’s still the president,” Bullock said. “All you have to do is listen to him. He’s the president. … No matter what happens, he’s the president, and he’s supposed to walk back in that office. So call him back. Call him back. Call him back. Once he knows the prophets are calling, he’ll come.” “We’re gonna have to start publicly talking about that he’s the president. I know they will say, ‘Really? Why would you say that in public?’ Because he is!” Bullock bellowed. “Don’t mess with us, Satan. Don’t mess with us, corrupt political regimes. Don’t mess with God’s people like that because I’m going to tell you something: If you mess with us, we’ll call him back for three terms. Don’t mess with us. You’ve never seen the power of God in action before.” -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/trump-crimes/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6770 'The walls seem to be rapidly closing in': Trump 'may be in real trouble' with the law, experts say Sky Palma Trump was so upset with Melania's renovations at Mar-a-Lago that he demanded they be removed: report Brad Reed and Raw Story March 12, 2021 Investigators are ramping up criminal probes into former President Donald Trump, and two legal experts argue that Trump may not even be able to count on his few remaining lawyers to help him. Writing in the Washington Post, legal experts Donald Ayer and Norm Eisen argue that Trump's decades-long evasion of legal accountability may now finally be coming to an end thanks to the multiple investigations he's facing. Although Trump in the past has employed top-notch lawyers to get him out of trouble, they write that the president's remaining "legal enablers" may have difficulty staying with him given their own mounting troubles. "Judge James E. Boasberg of the D.C. District Court recently referred attorney Erick Kaardal to a court grievance committee for potential punishment because Kaardal filed an allegedly bogus case attacking the November election results," they write. "Giuliani is beset with even greater challenges: Late last week, news reports indicated that federal prosecutors in Manhattan had resumed their investigation into whether he broke federal law in his Ukraine dealings, which helped lead to Trump's first impeachment." They conclude by saying that Trump's indictment and conviction are far from assured, although at this point prosecutors seem to be barreling toward slapping him with criminal charges. "This is not to say that exacting justice will be easy — as a private businessman, Trump was notorious for using the law as a weapon," they write. "But the walls seem to be rapidly closing in. If they do, they may finally mark an end to the ex-president's involvement in our public life. It is not easy to be involved in politics if you are broke and in jail." -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

https://www.nationalmemo.com/red-and-blue-states While Republicans Vote No, Their States Win Big In Rescue Plan Donna Provencher @ProvencherDonna March 12 | 2021 Reprinted with permission from American Independent As President Joe Biden signed Democrats' $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill into law Thursday afternoon, Republicans falsely claimed the bill only serves to bail out "blue states" at the expense of "red states" — but the landmark legislation will deliver massive funding and relief to many deep-red states in need during the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan will send more than $195 billion in aid to all 50 states and Washington, D.C., as well as $130.2 billion in aid to local governments throughout the country, benefiting red and blue states alike. In fact, according to a recent Reuters analysis, traditionally Republican states will receive a slightly disproportionate amount of federal aid from the package as compared to traditionally Democratic states — $3,192 per state resident as opposed to $3,160. And the bill levies no extra taxes on red states. But on Thursday afternoon, Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) took to social media to criticize the legislation, tweeting, "It's red states like Georgia who will have to bail out the deep blue states who recklessly spent taxpayer $ on irresponsible decisions over the past year. They need to face the consequences of their actions rather than lean on the red states & the stimulus to bail them out!" This has been a frequent talking point of Republicans, with Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst claiming last week that Iowans shouldn't have to "foot the bill for other states' bad behavior and mismanagement," and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy complaining in mid-February about Democrats seeking "blue-state slush funds." Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) has opposed state and local funding to his own state, hard hit by the pandemic, despite criticism from Florida mayors. "Biden wants to spend more than $350 billion to bailout wasteful states," Scott said in January. "I've been clear — asking taxpayers to bailout failed politicians in liberal states like New York and Illinois and save them from their own bad decisions isn't fair to fiscally responsible states like Florida." The accusation of "blue state bailouts" may have originated with Donald Trump early in the pandemic, as he frequently made false claims that blue states merely wanted a government handout at the expense of other states. Trump tweeted in April, "Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?" Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, too, sought to block funds to state and local governments in the first COVID-19 relief bill passed last spring, the HEROES Act, claiming the legislation was a "blue state bailout" despite the $7 billion it directed toward his home state of Kentucky. He later touted himself as having providing relief to the citizens of Kentucky — despite his own efforts to fight the legislation. But despite Republican claims, a third-quarter report from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that many red states were harmed by the pandemic. Six states saw the steepest drops in tax revenue (Alaska, North Dakota, Nevada, Florida, Oregon, and Texas), and of these, two-thirds — Alaska, North Dakota, Florida, and Texas — are traditionally Republican strongholds. These four states in particular suffered economically during the pandemic due to their dependence on tourism and natural resources, both of which saw depletions during lockdown with the collapse of tourism and oil prices. The report also found that the 22 states that saw economic improvement during the third quarter of the pandemic were a fairly even mix of red and blue states. Meanwhile, although not a single congressional Republican voted for the historic $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, Biden is planning a trip to visit states al

To be a tad bit crude, I'm very happy to see a Baptist with some balls! I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church and much of my family still belongs and supports that denomination. I'm appalled at the 18th century beliefs shown by the leadership and the hypocrisy of what they do compared with what the Bible says they should be doing. Oops, sorry, saying "18th century" perhaps puts them too far back since they were founded in 1845 in the runup to the US Civil War in response to the "Northern Baptist" predilection toward abolition. Ken ====== https://theweek.com/speedreads/971218/beth-moore-popular-bible-writer-evangelist-no-longer-southern-baptist?utm_campaign=10_things_newsletter_20210310&utm_source=10_things_newsletter&utm_medium=email Beth Moore, popular Bible writer and evangelist, is 'no longer a Southern Baptist' 12:51 a.m. Beth Moore, a popular writer and speaker on the Bible, has quit the Southern Baptist Convention, and people in evangelical Christian circles are struggling to explain how big a deal that is for the largest U.S. Protestant denomination and the broader evangelical community, especially evangelical women. Beth Moore leaving the Southern Baptist Convention is the religion news equivalent to Prince Harry leaving the royal firm. A big and unthinkable deal. — Diana Butler Bass (@dianabutlerbass) March 9, 2021 Moore told Religion News Service on Friday that she is "no longer a Southern Baptist," RNS's Bob Smietana reported Tuesday. "I am still a Baptist, but I can no longer identify with Southern Baptists," she added. "I love so many Southern Baptist people, so many Southern Baptist churches, but I don't identify with some of the things in our heritage that haven't remained in the past." She also said she's ended her 25-year publishing and events partnership with Lifeway Christian Resources, the SBC's publishing arm. Moore, who has said her local Southern Baptist church "growing up saved my live" as a refuge from sexual abuse at home, began her ministry by mixing Bible study into her aerobics class at First Baptist Church in Houston. Lifeway published her first book in 1995, and she then founded Living Proof Ministries. Southern Baptists do not allow women to be pastors, but her teaching ministry earned millions of dollars from 2001 to 2016. Then, in October 2016, Moore was shocked at Donald Trump's comments on the Access Hollywood tape — and more shocked that SBC leaders rallied around him. "The disorientation of this was staggering," she told RNS. After Moore criticized Trump, she became something of a pariah. And when she became an advocate for victims of sexual abuse after the Houston Chronicle in February 2019 uncovered more than 700 cases of sexual abuse by Southern Baptist leaders over 20 years, she says she felt even more an outsider. From 2017 to 2019, RNS reports, Moore's Living Proof Ministries lost $1.8 million . "I do not believe these are days for mincing words," Moore tweeted in December. "I'm 63 1/2 years old & I have never seen anything in these United States of America I found more astonishingly seductive & dangerous to the saints of God than Trumpism. This Christian nationalism is not of God. Move back from it." Moore expects her audiences will be smaller now, she told RNS, but "I am going to serve whoever God puts in front of me." Peter Weber -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

Will the truth sway the court from its apparent move to the far right? It's "Equal justice under law" and not "every advantage to the Republican Party." The last line invites you to listen. That link won't copy, but I'll save you the trouble in that it is the audio of what appears in this story in print about politics being a zero-sum game. Ken ======== https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/supreme-court-voting-rights/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6713 A Republican lawyer made a stunning admission to the Supreme Court about a voting rights case President Donald J. Trump and Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listen as Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivers remarks during her swearing-in ceremony as Supreme Court Associate Justice Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks) David Badash and The New Civil Rights Movement March 02, 2021 At the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday an attorney for the Republican National Committee admitted GOP candidates need voter suppression laws, especially those that target minority voters, to win. The high court was hearing arguments related to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which under Chief Justice John Roberts was gutted to be almost useless in 2013 when he infamously announced, "Our country has changed." The Guardian and HuffPost have written he was suggesting that racism is pretty much over. It is not. Tuesday's arguments discussed the landmark Voting Rights Act and "an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct," as Mother Jones reports. The Brennan Center, as The Washington Post, reporting on today's Supreme Court hearing notes, is tracking over 250 bills Republicans are pushing in more than half the states across the country that are designed to take the "voter fraud" lies Donald Trump and his supporters have been pushing for nearly a year and turn them into "legal" voter suppression. The Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the nearly eight years since it suggested racism isn't a big deal anymore – and not for the better. But it was the court's newest member, and one of the most right-wing yet, who asked a revealing question. "What's the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" That law forces the state to throw out voter ballots if cast in the wrong precinct. The question was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The answer stunned many. "Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats," the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded, as Mother Jones reports. "Politics is a zero-sum game," he added. "It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and –" he continued, but Justice Barrett wouldn't even let him finish his sentence, perhaps for fear of what else he would say. "Republicans' intentions couldn't be any clearer," writes Mother Jones' Abigail Weinberg. "It's not about reducing fraud. It's about keeping minorities from voting for Democrats." Listen as Carvin, a Federalist Society lawyer, very matter-of-factly, and almost condescendingly, admit what Republicans need to do to win: -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher and mathematician

One concept in here requires a rabid denunciation: that of the "rising tide lifting all boats." I dispute that with one question: How far up has the Titanic risen? It's Newton's law of inertia: boats/ships at the bottom tend to remain at the bottom. It's the same with those on the bottom of the wealth scale in that tax advantages to the rich didn't in the past/don't in the present/won't in the future affect the poor in a positive way. Trickle down is a flawed hypothesis with supporters using flawed data in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the non-rich. Ken ======= https://theconversation.com/elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-would-reduce-inequality-the-problem-is-its-probably-unconstitutional-156349 Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would reduce inequality – the problem is it’s probably unconstitutional March 2, 2021 3.05pm EST Sen. Elizabeth Warren says it’s time to tax wealth. The Massachusetts senator on March 1 introduced a bill to tax households worth over US$50 million and up to $1 billion at a rate of 2%, and anything over that at 3%. She first proposed the idea of a wealth tax during the Democratic presidential primary in 2019. The legislation, which could raise an estimated $3 trillion over a decade, is meant to reduce inequality by using revenue from the wealthiest Americans to pay for new federal programs to lift up some of the poorest. There’s at least one problem: It may be unconstitutional. We believe good journalism is good for democracy and necessary for it. As an expert on tax policy, I know firsthand how America’s system has exacerbated inequality. Fortunately, there are other ways to tax the rich. Income and wealth inequality Concerns about inequality have increased in recent decades. Americans enjoyed substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity from the end of World War II into the 1970s. But in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan dramatically slashed taxes on the wealthy – twice – cutting the top rate on wages from 70% to 28%. Studies have shown that the drop in tax rates, combined with other “trickle-down” policies such as deregulation, led to steadily rising income and wealth inequality. The wealthiest 1% controlled 39% of all wealth in 2016, up from less than 30% in 1989. At the same time, the bottom 90% held less than a quarter of America’s wealth, compared with more than a third in 1989. Currently, the federal government taxes all income above $518,400 at 37% with an additional 3.8% investment tax on incomes over $250,000. Income inequality by country Inequality in the U.S. is highest among most high-income countries, according to the GINI index. Zero indicates perfect equality and one indicates total inequality. United States 0.41 Luxembourg 0.35 United Kingdom 0.35 Spain 0.35 Switzerland 0.33 Germany 0.32 France 0.32 Sweden 0.29 Denmark 0.29 Netherlands 0.29 Austria 0.27 Belgium 0.27 Finland 0.27 Norway 0.27 Data shows most recent figure available, either 2017 or 2016. Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: World Bank Get the data The problem with a wealth tax Warren’s wealth tax aims to change that. Her tax on estates worth over $50 million would affect an estimated 100,000 families, or fewer than 1 in 1,000, according to University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. The tax wouldn’t start until 2023. Unlike an income tax, a wealth tax reaches the root of both wealth and income inequality. There’s only one snag: There are strong arguments that a federal wealth tax is unconstitutional. Wealth taxes violate Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the federal government from laying “direct taxes” that aren’t apportioned equally among the states. A direct tax is a tax on a thing, like property or income. An indirect tax is a tax on a transaction: for example, a sale or a gift. The income tax is a direct tax and constitutional because of the 16th Amendment, which specifically allows income taxes without apportionment. As for property, you may notice that only states levy real estate taxes. In almost every case, th