Discussion:
Will Trump Fire Special Counsel Mueller?
(too old to reply)
Alfalfa Bill
2017-05-18 02:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rachel Maddow interviewed an expert on the special counsel law who said that the president has the power to fire the special counsel. Will Trump do so?
Les Albert
2017-05-18 03:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Alfalfa Bill
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Rachel Maddow interviewed an expert on the special counsel law who said that the president has the power to fire the special counsel. Will Trump do so?
To be more specific:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump could not fire Robert Mueller on his own, but his attorney
general does have this authority. If Trump wanted Mueller gone, then,
he could simply instruct his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to fire
him.

At that point, Sessions would have to decide whether this duty should
rest on his shoulders or whether it should be up to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. Sessions, after all, has theoretically recused
himself from the Russia investigation, and so the decision of whether
to fire Mueller should go to Rosenstein.

It would then be up to Rod Rosenstein, the man who hired Mueller in
the first place, whether he should comply with the president’s orders
and fire the special counsel. While the president could not bypass
Rosenstein and fire Mueller himself, he could fire Rosenstein and
replace him with a deputy attorney general who will agree to fire
Mueller. - http://tinyurl.com/ky99kt7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It get curiouser and curiouser.

Les
bill van
2017-05-18 06:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Les Albert
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Alfalfa Bill
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Rachel Maddow interviewed an expert on the special counsel law who said that
the president has the power to fire the special counsel. Will Trump do
so?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Trump could not fire Robert Mueller on his own, but his attorney
general does have this authority. If Trump wanted Mueller gone, then,
he could simply instruct his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to fire
him.
At that point, Sessions would have to decide whether this duty should
rest on his shoulders or whether it should be up to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. Sessions, after all, has theoretically recused
himself from the Russia investigation, and so the decision of whether
to fire Mueller should go to Rosenstein.
It would then be up to Rod Rosenstein, the man who hired Mueller in
the first place, whether he should comply with the president’s orders
and fire the special counsel. While the president could not bypass
Rosenstein and fire Mueller himself, he could fire Rosenstein and
replace him with a deputy attorney general who will agree to fire
Mueller. - http://tinyurl.com/ky99kt7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It get curiouser and curiouser.
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump is
nearly there after five months.

I don't think firing anybody else will help. It's a sign of desperation,
and I think some of his fair-weather Republican friends are bailing
already.
--
bill
Peter Boulding
2017-05-18 06:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 23:04:26 -0700, bill van <***@delete.shaw.ca> wrote
in <billvan-***@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:

<snip>
Post by bill van
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump is
nearly there after five months.
I don't think firing anybody else will help. It's a sign of desperation,
and I think some of his fair-weather Republican friends are bailing
already.
Looking forward, I searched on the (unquoted) string [how damaged is pence?]
Mr Google offered me the following article, of which I'm sure Dom would have
approved (as do I):

<http://inthesetimes.com/article/20141/the-trump-pence-impeachment-trap-be-careful-what-you-wish-for>
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
bill van
2017-05-18 08:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Boulding
<snip>
Post by bill van
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump is
nearly there after five months.
I don't think firing anybody else will help. It's a sign of desperation,
and I think some of his fair-weather Republican friends are bailing
already.
Looking forward, I searched on the (unquoted) string [how damaged is pence?]
Mr Google offered me the following article, of which I'm sure Dom would have
<http://inthesetimes.com/article/20141/the-trump-pence-impeachment-trap-be-car
eful-what-you-wish-for>
Trump as the lesser of two evils? Unacceptable. Let's stomp the devil we
know, and we'll deal with the next guy in turn.
--
bill
Richard Hershberger
2017-05-18 12:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Boulding
<snip>
Post by bill van
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump is
nearly there after five months.
I don't think firing anybody else will help. It's a sign of desperation,
and I think some of his fair-weather Republican friends are bailing
already.
Looking forward, I searched on the (unquoted) string [how damaged is pence?]
Mr Google offered me the following article, of which I'm sure Dom would have
<http://inthesetimes.com/article/20141/the-trump-pence-impeachment-trap-be-car
eful-what-you-wish-for>
Trump as the lesser of two evils? Unacceptable. Let's stomp the devil we
know, and we'll deal with the next guy in turn.
--
bill
Trump has the virtue of being affirmatively incompetent. Pence doesn't strike me as any sort of genius, but he is your typical Republican politician, theocratic authoritarian version. Given Republican control of Congress, he would manage more evil than Trump can muster. This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the world in a fit of pique. I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures in place should he attempt this.

Richard R. Hershberger
Peter Boulding
2017-05-18 13:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
Post by Richard Hershberger
Trump has the virtue of being affirmatively incompetent.
Pence doesn't strike me as any sort of genius, but he is your
typical Republican politician, theocratic authoritarian version.
Given Republican control of Congress, he would manage more
evil than Trump can muster.
Prezackly.
Post by Richard Hershberger
This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the
world in a fit of pique.
Aye, there's the rub.
Post by Richard Hershberger
I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures
in place should he attempt this.
I *hope* it has.
Post by Richard Hershberger
In a somewhat unnerving aside, Wikipedia comments,
] Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the operational plan for
] nuclear strike orders is entirely concerned with the identity of the
] commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no
] safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually
] sane. Notably, Major Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force in
] late 1973 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive
] to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
According to the Washington Post, America's launch protocols were put
together in the days when everyone worried more about insane generals than
about insane presidents.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-05-18 19:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 14:37:24 +0100, Peter Boulding
Post by Peter Boulding
On Thu, 18 May 2017 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
Post by Richard Hershberger
Trump has the virtue of being affirmatively incompetent.
Pence doesn't strike me as any sort of genius, but he is your
typical Republican politician, theocratic authoritarian version.
Given Republican control of Congress, he would manage more
evil than Trump can muster.
Prezackly.
Post by Richard Hershberger
This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the
world in a fit of pique.
Aye, there's the rub.
Post by Richard Hershberger
I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures
in place should he attempt this.
I *hope* it has.
Post by Richard Hershberger
In a somewhat unnerving aside, Wikipedia comments,
] Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the operational plan for
] nuclear strike orders is entirely concerned with the identity of the
] commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no
] safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually
] sane. Notably, Major Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force in
] late 1973 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive
] to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
According to the Washington Post, America's launch protocols were put
together in the days when everyone worried more about insane generals than
about insane presidents.
Aye, there's the rub.
Lee Ayrton
2017-05-19 16:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Boulding
On Thu, 18 May 2017 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
Post by Richard Hershberger
This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the
world in a fit of pique.
Aye, there's the rub.
Post by Richard Hershberger
I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures
in place should he attempt this.
I *hope* it has.
Post by Richard Hershberger
In a somewhat unnerving aside, Wikipedia comments,
] Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the operational plan for
] nuclear strike orders is entirely concerned with the identity of the
] commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no
] safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually
] sane. Notably, Major Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force in
] late 1973 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive
] to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
According to the Washington Post, America's launch protocols were put
together in the days when everyone worried more about insane generals than
about insane presidents.
"Wing Attack, Plan R"
Alfalfa Bill
2017-05-19 17:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lee Ayrton
Post by Peter Boulding
On Thu, 18 May 2017 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
Post by Richard Hershberger
This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the
world in a fit of pique.
Aye, there's the rub.
Post by Richard Hershberger
I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures
in place should he attempt this.
I *hope* it has.
Post by Richard Hershberger
In a somewhat unnerving aside, Wikipedia comments,
] Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the operational plan for
] nuclear strike orders is entirely concerned with the identity of the
] commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no
] safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually
] sane. Notably, Major Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force in
] late 1973 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive
] to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
According to the Washington Post, America's launch protocols were put
together in the days when everyone worried more about insane generals than
about insane presidents.
"Wing Attack, Plan R"
Whenever I hear "Ambassador Kyslyak" I think of Premier Kissoff.
Peter Boulding
2017-06-29 23:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 14:37:24 +0100, I wrote in
Post by Richard Hershberger
In a somewhat unnerving aside, Wikipedia comments,
] Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the operational plan for
] nuclear strike orders is entirely concerned with the identity of the
] commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no
] safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually
] sane. Notably, Major Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force in
] late 1973 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive
] to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
According to the Washington Post, America's launch protocols were put
together in the days when everyone worried more about insane generals than
about insane presidents.
In related news today:

The House Appropriations Committee has just voted to sunset the notorious
"AUMF"---that is, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that gave
Dubya, and his successors, authority to pursue militarily "those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons."

The motion to sunset the AUMF was, unsurprisingly, put forward by Rep.
Barbara Lee (D-CA), who was the only member of either house to vote against
the AUMF back in 2001, and has been arguing against it ever since: she felt
that its wording was so vague and broad that the AUMF was "a blank check to
the President to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events---anywhere,
in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy,
economic and national security interests, and without time limit."

And indeed it's been used to justify military action more than 37 times in
14 countries since 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service.
"This issue is more urgent given the erratic behaviour and inexperience of
our current Commander-in-Chief," says Rep Lee. "No president should have a
blank check for endless war, least of all President Donald Trump."

Now here's the really surprising bit: the House Appropriations Committee
has, of course, a Republican majority, but Lee's amendment has just been
passed with only one dissenting vote: that of Texas Republican and House
Appropriations Defence Subcommittee chairwoman Kay Granger.

Of course it won't end there, but it's one hell of a slap in the face for
The Uberjerk.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-30 16:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Boulding
Now here's the really surprising bit: the House Appropriations
Committee has, of course, a Republican majority, but Lee's amendment
has just been passed with only one dissenting vote: that of Texas
Republican and House Appropriations Defence Subcommittee chairwoman
Kay Granger.
Of course it won't end there, but it's one hell of a slap in the face
for The Uberjerk.
Of course, even if the man were competent and sane, this would still be
a good idea. But I agree that the Republicans would be less likely to
see it that way.

What's additionally troubling is that the Democrats had 8 years of Obama
to do this and they failed. (I would call Obama both competent and sane,
but also a great abuser of power.) Two of those years involved a
Democratic majority in both houses. Still they failed. It's only after
the end of Bush's fourth term that they're getting around to it. Great
work guys.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Howard
2017-06-30 17:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
What's additionally troubling is that the Democrats had 8 years of Obama
to do this and they failed. (I would call Obama both competent and sane,
but also a great abuser of power.) Two of those years involved a
Democratic majority in both houses. Still they failed. It's only after
the end of Bush's fourth term that they're getting around to it. Great
work guys.
I think it's more reasonable to focus the blame on Obama and the
majority of the GOP in Congress instead of on Congressional Democrats.

The AUMF passed in 2001 has no expiration date, which is what the Lee
Amendment would establish. The Lee Amendment isn't the first attempt to
set up an end date. House Democrat Adam Schiff has introduced them in
the past. This is an article about one attempt:

https://thinkprogress.org/the-house-will-vote-to-repeal-2001-
authorization-to-use-military-force-61932469273b

http://tinyurl.com/y7czze4m

The article notes that the 2014 attempt failed with 185 votes in favor
(it generally takes 218ish to pass). The breakdown was 155 Democrats
(roughly 75% of the Democrats) in favor and only 30 from the GOP
(roughly 14%) which gives you a sense of how the parties in Congress
broke down in the past on this issue.

It's certainly possible to point to 2009-10 when the Democrats had a
majority in Congress, which is fair enough, but there's no way the
Democrats would be able to pass it over a filibuster.

The point isn't to make this sound like the Democrats are saints -- you
only have to look at Obama's record to see this isn't true. But it's
also worth noting that even when a large majority of Democrats tried to
put an end to the 2001 AUMF -- against the urging of Obama -- it was a
large majority of the GOP which voted for the status quo.
Opus the Penguin
2017-06-30 22:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard
Post by Opus the Penguin
What's additionally troubling is that the Democrats had 8 years of
Obama to do this and they failed. (I would call Obama both competent
and sane, but also a great abuser of power.) Two of those years
involved a Democratic majority in both houses. Still they failed.
It's only after the end of Bush's fourth term that they're getting
around to it. Great work guys.
I think it's more reasonable to focus the blame on Obama and the
majority of the GOP in Congress instead of on Congressional Democrats.
Yeah, you're probably right. I guess getting angry at the Republicans on
this one feels a little like getting angry at the weather. I didn't vote
for them. I didn't really expect anything different from them. And there
doesn't appear to be any way to reason with people who did vote for them
on this subject. So I end up angry at Obama who promised better and at
the Democrats who didn't really hold his feet to the fire over it. And I
end up angry at the voting Democrats who let them get away with it
because it was easier to claim the moral high ground simply by virtue of
the depths to which those around them had sunk.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Peter Boulding
2017-06-30 23:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:30:13 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Howard
Post by Opus the Penguin
What's additionally troubling is that the Democrats had 8 years of
Obama to do this and they failed. (I would call Obama both competent
and sane, but also a great abuser of power.) Two of those years
involved a Democratic majority in both houses. Still they failed.
It's only after the end of Bush's fourth term that they're getting
around to it. Great work guys.
I think it's more reasonable to focus the blame on Obama and the
majority of the GOP in Congress instead of on Congressional Democrats.
Yeah, you're probably right. I guess getting angry at the Republicans on
this one feels a little like getting angry at the weather. I didn't vote
for them. I didn't really expect anything different from them. And there
doesn't appear to be any way to reason with people who did vote for them
on this subject. So I end up angry at Obama who promised better and at
the Democrats who didn't really hold his feet to the fire over it. And I
end up angry at the voting Democrats who let them get away with it
because it was easier to claim the moral high ground simply by virtue of
the depths to which those around them had sunk.
<sigh> You're both right.


"We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in our last election, and
we didn't... we didn't scare so easy."
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Howard
2017-07-01 17:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Howard
Post by Opus the Penguin
What's additionally troubling is that the Democrats had 8 years of
Obama to do this and they failed. (I would call Obama both competent
and sane, but also a great abuser of power.) Two of those years
involved a Democratic majority in both houses. Still they failed.
It's only after the end of Bush's fourth term that they're getting
around to it. Great work guys.
I think it's more reasonable to focus the blame on Obama and the
majority of the GOP in Congress instead of on Congressional
Democrats.
Yeah, you're probably right. I guess getting angry at the Republicans
on this one feels a little like getting angry at the weather. I didn't
vote for them. I didn't really expect anything different from them.
And there doesn't appear to be any way to reason with people who did
vote for them on this subject. So I end up angry at Obama who promised
better and at the Democrats who didn't really hold his feet to the
fire over it. And I end up angry at the voting Democrats who let them
get away with it because it was easier to claim the moral high ground
simply by virtue of the depths to which those around them had sunk.
That's no fun, argue harder!

No, I agree there's a lot broken. One area where I wish Congress would
assert itself is the national security budget. Presidents come and go
but the defense/security infrastructure is around for the long run, and
they know that it's unlikely that even a two term president will be able
to make a serious change in programs or get spending under control.

In theory Congress -- both parties -- could do something, but the will
just hasn't been there for at least 16 years to rethink what we're
doing. The current expansion plans aren't sustainable, the commitments
to hardware don't make sense, and we're not only shortchanging vital
needs at home and abroad, but we're not making the country safer.

There's no question Clinton wouldn't have seriously changed the status
quo if she had been elected. But I have little doubt that Trump will
make things worse, and possibly much worse, with his fascination with
explosions and his absolute willingness in to let the military
leadership run free. Even his clashes with the intelligence world are
only going to make it stronger in the end.
Opus the Penguin
2017-07-01 19:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard
The current expansion plans aren't sustainable, the commitments
to hardware don't make sense, and we're not only shortchanging vital
needs at home and abroad, but we're not making the country safer.
Isn't this how the Soviet Union collapsed? I wonder what a collapse would
look like for the US. I wonder if I'll get to find out.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-07-02 01:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
rOn Sat, 1 Jul 2017 19:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
Post by Opus the Penguin
Isn't this how the Soviet Union collapsed? I wonder what a collapse would
look like for the US. I wonder if I'll get to find out.
I thought it was the Beatles
--
"The answer my friend is blowing in the wind". Tried that—didn't
work.
Questor
2017-07-09 06:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
rOn Sat, 1 Jul 2017 19:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
Post by Opus the Penguin
Isn't this how the Soviet Union collapsed? I wonder what a collapse would
look like for the US. I wonder if I'll get to find out.
I thought it was the Beatles
Some people are still fighting the culture wars of the '60s -- they believe that
"sex, drugs, and rock & roll" are to blame for many of our current societal
woes.
bill van
2017-07-09 10:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
rOn Sat, 1 Jul 2017 19:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
Post by Opus the Penguin
Isn't this how the Soviet Union collapsed?
It didn't really collapse. Mikhail Gorbachev voluntarily ended it.
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder what a collapse would
look like for the US.
Not the same, for sure. Trump is no Gorbachev, and what he is
implementing is not glasnost. [And what he hoped to achieve was not
Putin's Russia.]

However, it's possible that Trump is inadvertently destroying U.S.
credibility around the world, and that this will result in a collapse
of U.S. influence internationally. But its military might remains. All
in all, I'd say the collapse of the U.S. as a world power is not at
hand yet, but things are a bit shaky for now.
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder if I'll get to find out.
Possibly. My current thinking is that climate change [and its impact
on agriculture] is an important factor in the migrations north from
northeast Africa and the Middle East into Europe, and from Latin
America into the U.S. Trump's message about building a wall found an
audience. The next decade will tell us a lot about how that's going.
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
I thought it was the Beatles
Some people are still fighting the culture wars of the '60s -- they
believe that "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" are to blame for many of
our current societal woes.
I doubt that's much of a factor. The people who took a reactionary
position toward the so-called counterculture in the late 1960s and
early '70s are either dead or very old -- mostly 80 and up.
--
bill
Greg Goss
2017-07-09 20:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Questor
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
I thought it was the Beatles
Some people are still fighting the culture wars of the '60s -- they
believe that "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" are to blame for many of
our current societal woes.
I doubt that's much of a factor. The people who took a reactionary
position toward the so-called counterculture in the late 1960s and
early '70s are either dead or very old -- mostly 80 and up.
It's hard to see who won that battle. The current big-media drug
problem is older white people falling dead from drugs related to
smack. Sex is still around. Rock and Roll is a few aging stars plus
corporate empires.

I was at karaoke last night, and I noticed that the posted lyrics for
a Meatloaf song were "sex and drums and rock and roll." Does that
declare a tie for the cuture wars? Sex is still around. Rock and
roll is neutered. And drugs?

Six Days on the Road sang about "little white lines" on the road
instead of little white pills keeping a trucker awake - the revised
line made no sense. Wanna-be Meatloaves are expected to sing about
sex drums and rock'n'roll (he sang the RIGHT lyrics).
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
a***@yahoo.com
2017-07-09 21:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
I was at karaoke last night, and I noticed that the posted lyrics for
a Meatloaf song were "sex and drums and rock and roll." Does that
declare a tie for the cuture wars? Sex is still around. Rock and
roll is neutered. And drugs?
Six Days on the Road sang about "little white lines" on the road
instead of little white pills keeping a trucker awake - the revised
line made no sense. Wanna-be Meatloaves are expected to sing about
sex drums and rock'n'roll (he sang the RIGHT lyrics).
That's what they sing if they don't want to sound like Blockheads.
Peter Boulding
2017-07-10 01:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Six Days on the Road sang about "little white lines" on the road
instead of little white pills keeping a trucker awake - the revised
line made no sense.
Really? The phrase "*little* white lines" surely evokes cocaine.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Greg Goss
2017-07-10 03:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Boulding
Post by Greg Goss
Six Days on the Road sang about "little white lines" on the road
instead of little white pills keeping a trucker awake - the revised
line made no sense.
Really? The phrase "*little* white lines" surely evokes cocaine.
But does cocaine have any relevance to long distance trucking? I think
they accidentally bowdlerized themselves from one drug reference to
another. You don't PASS white lines of cocaine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_on_the_Road#Sawyer_Brown_version

Of course the version of any song that came out when you were in your
early teens is the REAL version of that song. Thus the real version
is EIGHT days on the road. Which google never seems to have heard of.
(Not the Foghat/Aretha song. Just a longer-trip version of six days.)

Perhaps it was something local-only. My "real" version of Summer in
the City was the one by Ball and Chain. The days were heavier and
slower than the frenetic Spoonful version - nobody moves that fast in
the heat. But the Web has never heard of a Ball and Chain version of
Summer. A song called Sanctuary never seems to have existed.

Perhaps my local pop station had access to 45s from an alternate
dimension?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Questor
2017-07-10 17:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Questor
Post by B***@BillTurlock.com
I thought it was the Beatles
Some people are still fighting the culture wars of the '60s -- they
believe that "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" are to blame for many of
our current societal woes.
I doubt that's much of a factor. The people who took a reactionary
position toward the so-called counterculture in the late 1960s and
early '70s are either dead or very old -- mostly 80 and up.
Many of them have inspired a younger generation of scolds to take up arms
against all forms of 'social permissiveness.' It started slowly with rock &
roll, then you get long hair and drugs, then gays started coming out of the
closet, and the next thing you know you've got PIss Christ, Me So Horny, and
Robert Maplethorpe; kids with green hair and bones in their noses. I guess they
expected that the dominance of some kind of 1960s genteel (white) suburban
patio/barbeque culture was never going to end, and certainly not like it did.

"Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights: it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry
to disrupt this procession of freedom gone wild. God damn it, first one wants
freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom."
-- Gil Scott-Heron, "B Movie"

Howard
2017-07-02 18:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Howard
The current expansion plans aren't sustainable, the commitments
to hardware don't make sense, and we're not only shortchanging vital
needs at home and abroad, but we're not making the country safer.
Isn't this how the Soviet Union collapsed?
There's a certain mirror image thing going on, to be sure. But the US is
still vastly less screwed up than the Soviets were, so that's good news.
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder what a collapse would look like for the US.
I sometimes think of what Lenin supposedly (but probably not) said that
when the time comes to hang capitalism, it will be a capitalist who sells
the rope.
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder if I'll get to find out.
Nah, keep fighting the good fight and the good guys will muddle through.
bill van
2017-07-03 00:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard
Post by Opus the Penguin
Post by Howard
The current expansion plans aren't sustainable, the commitments
to hardware don't make sense, and we're not only shortchanging vital
needs at home and abroad, but we're not making the country safer.
Isn't this how the Soviet Union collapsed?
There's a certain mirror image thing going on, to be sure. But the US is
still vastly less screwed up than the Soviets were, so that's good news.
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder what a collapse would look like for the US.
I sometimes think of what Lenin supposedly (but probably not) said that
when the time comes to hang capitalism, it will be a capitalist who sells
the rope.
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder if I'll get to find out.
Nah, keep fighting the good fight and the good guys will muddle through.
If you view what's happening in NA and in Europe through the filter of
climate change, it doesn't look that good. Agriculture is failing in
the hot parts of North Africa, the Middle East and Central America.
Millions of climate change refugees are on the move, soon to be
hundreds of millions. It helped get Trump elected -- "We're gonna
build a wall".
--
bill
Howard
2017-07-03 17:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Howard
Post by Opus the Penguin
I wonder if I'll get to find out.
Nah, keep fighting the good fight and the good guys will muddle through.
If you view what's happening in NA and in Europe through the filter of
climate change, it doesn't look that good. Agriculture is failing in
the hot parts of North Africa, the Middle East and Central America.
Millions of climate change refugees are on the move, soon to be
hundreds of millions. It helped get Trump elected -- "We're gonna
build a wall".
Don't forget the threat of some nearsighted doofus somewhere starting a
nuclear exchange.

Still, I think one of the keys to staving off a conflagration is pushing
back on the belief that there's no way to prevent them. Even though
it's going to take a long time for CO2 levels to drop no matter what we
do, I can't agree with people who say there's no point in trying.
Greg Goss
2017-07-05 02:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
If you view what's happening in NA and in Europe through the filter of
climate change, it doesn't look that good. Agriculture is failing in
the hot parts of North Africa, the Middle East and Central America.
Millions of climate change refugees are on the move, soon to be
hundreds of millions. It helped get Trump elected -- "We're gonna
build a wall".
Did you ever listen to the Gwyn Dyer three parter on CBC Ideas?
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1475819433

The refugees was a major element of the story-line half of the
half-story, half-documentary presentation.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
bill van
2017-07-05 06:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by bill van
If you view what's happening in NA and in Europe through the filter of
climate change, it doesn't look that good. Agriculture is failing in
the hot parts of North Africa, the Middle East and Central America.
Millions of climate change refugees are on the move, soon to be
hundreds of millions. It helped get Trump elected -- "We're gonna
build a wall".
Did you ever listen to the Gwyn Dyer three parter on CBC Ideas?
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1475819433
The refugees was a major element of the story-line half of the
half-story, half-documentary presentation.
I'll have a look, er, a listen at that. Gwyn Dyer always makes sense
to me, and I'll make time for him.
--
bill
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-07-05 17:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 23:25:08 -0700, bill van
Post by bill van
Post by Greg Goss
Did you ever listen to the Gwyn Dyer three parter on CBC Ideas?
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1475819433
The refugees was a major element of the story-line half of the
half-story, half-documentary presentation.
I'll have a look, er, a listen at that. Gwyn Dyer always makes sense
to me, and I'll make time for him.
I listened to Ep 1 last night. Quite interesting & powerful, but
dated.
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-05-18 19:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
Post by Richard Hershberger
Trump has the virtue of being affirmatively incompetent. Pence doesn't strike me as any sort of genius, but he is your typical Republican politician, theocratic authoritarian version. Given Republican control of Congress, he would manage more evil than Trump can muster. This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the world in a fit of pique. I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures in place should he attempt this.
We've never exactly had a C-word here, but one hopes Los
Henerales have some kind of plan in place.
Alfalfa Bill
2017-05-18 20:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Hershberger
Post by bill van
Post by Peter Boulding
<snip>
Post by bill van
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump is
nearly there after five months.
I don't think firing anybody else will help. It's a sign of desperation,
and I think some of his fair-weather Republican friends are bailing
already.
Looking forward, I searched on the (unquoted) string [how damaged is pence?]
Mr Google offered me the following article, of which I'm sure Dom would have
<http://inthesetimes.com/article/20141/the-trump-pence-impeachment-trap-be-car
eful-what-you-wish-for>
Trump as the lesser of two evils? Unacceptable. Let's stomp the devil we
know, and we'll deal with the next guy in turn.
--
bill
Trump has the virtue of being affirmatively incompetent. Pence doesn't strike me as any sort of genius, but he is your typical Republican politician, theocratic authoritarian version. Given Republican control of Congress, he would manage more evil than Trump can muster. This is stipulating, of course, that Trump doesn't blow up the world in a fit of pique. I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures in place should he attempt this.
Richard R. Hershberger
The Constitution is the bedrock. It must be preserved, even if the cost of preserving the Constitution is bailing out the opposing party.
Howard
2017-05-18 20:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alfalfa Bill
The Constitution is the bedrock. It must be preserved, even if the
cost of preserving the Constitution is bailing out the opposing party.
Which Constitution?

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2017/03/13229/koch-brothers-bankroll-
constitutional-convention

http://tinyurl.com/lqa5dxk
Kerr Mudd-John
2017-05-18 21:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Alfalfa Bill
.. I suspect that the Pentagon has unofficial internal procedures in
place should he attempt this.
[]
Post by Alfalfa Bill
The Constitution is the bedrock. It must be preserved, even if the
cost of preserving the Constitution is bailing out the opposing party.
I don't think we're in Kansas, any more.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
B***@BillTurlock.com
2017-05-18 19:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 07:56:16 +0100, Peter Boulding
Post by Peter Boulding
Looking forward, I searched on the (unquoted) string [how damaged is pence?]
Mr Google offered me the following article, of which I'm sure Dom would have
<http://inthesetimes.com/article/20141/the-trump-pence-impeachment-trap-be-careful-what-you-wish-for>
I always thought he was a-word proof.
Howard
2017-05-18 14:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump
is nearly there after five months.
I don't think firing anybody else will help. It's a sign of
desperation, and I think some of his fair-weather Republican friends
are bailing already.
They could easily climb back onboard, though. They did after the
grabbing tape emerged and then a little time passed and it became clear
the base didn't care.

I think there's a lot of clinging to the hope that there will be a
breathing spell now that Mueller is involved. He is likely to run a
professional investigation, unlike Ken Starr who remains to this day a
deeply unethical person (Google Ken Starr Baylor Rape if you want some
ugly details of what he's been up to).

Mueller has a lot of ground to cover and is unlikely to rush to
conclusions or leak much. In theory, that could give Trump a year or
more of relative quiet, and allow his people and GOP Congressmen to play
dumb claiming they don't want to prejudice an ongoing investigation.

The problem for the GOP is that Trump's people are so divided that even
if Mueller doesn't leak, people within the Administration will leak on
every enemy who is being questioned. Also, there is so much information
out there that reporters will continue to turn up new dirt, such as the
new reports on Manafort and Flynn.

But the biggest problem is that Trump just can't shut up, and the GOP
still hasn't learned that lesson.
a***@yahoo.com
2017-05-18 16:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
It took Nixon five years in office to disintegrate politically. Trump is
nearly there after five months.
That's progress!
Charles Bishop
2017-05-20 02:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Les Albert
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Alfalfa Bill
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Rachel Maddow interviewed an expert on the special counsel law who said that
the president has the power to fire the special counsel. Will Trump do
so?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Trump could not fire Robert Mueller on his own, but his attorney
general does have this authority. If Trump wanted Mueller gone, then,
he could simply instruct his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to fire
him.
At that point, Sessions would have to decide whether this duty should
rest on his shoulders or whether it should be up to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. Sessions, after all, has theoretically recused
himself from the Russia investigation, and so the decision of whether
to fire Mueller should go to Rosenstein.
It would then be up to Rod Rosenstein, the man who hired Mueller in
the first place, whether he should comply with the president’s orders
and fire the special counsel. While the president could not bypass
Rosenstein and fire Mueller himself, he could fire Rosenstein and
replace him with a deputy attorney general who will agree to fire
Mueller. - http://tinyurl.com/ky99kt7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
It get curiouser and curiouser.
How similar is this to what Nixon did?
--
charles
Les Albert
2017-05-20 03:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 May 2017 19:42:58 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Les Albert
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Alfalfa Bill
Post by Alfalfa Bill
Rachel Maddow interviewed an expert on the special counsel law who said that
the president has the power to fire the special counsel. Will Trump do
so?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump could not fire Robert Mueller on his own, but his attorney
general does have this authority. If Trump wanted Mueller gone, then,
he could simply instruct his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to fire
him.
At that point, Sessions would have to decide whether this duty should
rest on his shoulders or whether it should be up to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. Sessions, after all, has theoretically recused
himself from the Russia investigation, and so the decision of whether
to fire Mueller should go to Rosenstein.
It would then be up to Rod Rosenstein, the man who hired Mueller in
the first place, whether he should comply with the president’s orders
and fire the special counsel. While the president could not bypass
Rosenstein and fire Mueller himself, he could fire Rosenstein and
replace him with a deputy attorney general who will agree to fire
Mueller. - http://tinyurl.com/ky99kt7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It get curiouser and curiouser.
How similar is this to what Nixon did?
It is the similar protocol that Nixon followed:

"Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson
refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney
General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and
resigned. Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General of the United
States, Robert Bork, as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire
Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to
Congressional oversight committees that they would not interfere, but
Bork had not. Although Bork later claimed he believed Nixon's order to
be valid and appropriate, he still considered resigning to avoid being
'perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job'.
Nevertheless, having been brought to the White House by limousine and
sworn in as acting attorney general, Bork wrote the letter firing
Cox."

Les
Loading...