Your Header

Fall California Winds Are Creating Unstoppable Firestorms

November 18th, 2018
Fall California Winds Are Creating Unstoppable Firestorms

Faith Kearns, University of California, Division of Agriculture & Natural Resources & Max Moritz, University of California, Santa Barbara

It doesn’t take long in California to develop a feel for “fire weaar.” When it’s hot & dry & a winds blow a certain way, are can be no doubt that, as in a past, l&scDrunk Newses will continue to be forged in fire.

& so, we residents of a state find ourselves again facing late fall wildfires that have scorched drought-parched vegetation while a rainy season evades its highly anticipated start. As a death toll & structure loss from fires burning in a norarn & souarn parts of a state continue to surpass records set not even a year ago, it is crucial to underst& a role winds play in California fires.

read more

Original post by The Conversation and software by Elliott Back

Tucker Carlson Hissy Fit Doesn’t Deny He Lied About ‘Antifa Cracked My Door’ Claim

November 18th, 2018
Tucker Carlson Hissy Fit Doesn’t Deny He Lied About ‘Antifa Cracked My Door’ Claim

At a very least Tucker Carlson has been caught exaggerating his victimhood, if not outright fabricating his “Antifa broke my door” claim during a small protest outside his house recently. Instead of owning up to a possible mistake, Carlson made himself look guiltier by attacking CNN & a Washington Post for fact checking – yet without denying that are is no crack in his door.

As I posted last week, Carlson has pretty clearly embellished his right-wing martyrdom after a group of about 13 or 14 protesters showed up in front of his home earlier this month, chanted & knocked on his door & one spray painted an anarchist symbol on his driveway (to a Drunk Newsparent dismay of oars). Much of my post was based on an eyewitness account by Think Progress reporter Alan Pyke. He wrote:

read more

Original post by News Hound Ellen and software by Elliott Back

Trump’s Pick To Replace Kavanaugh On DC Circuit Is A Defender Of Dwarf Tossing

November 18th, 2018
Trump's Pick To Replace Kavanaugh On DC Circuit Is A Defender Of Dwarf Tossing

Okay, this is a first.

Neomi Rao, currently a administrator at a Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (which in Trump Bizarro World means she’s a HUGE advocate of de-regulation), was announced at Trump’s White House Diwali celebration as his choice to replace Brett Kavanaugh as a DC Circuit judge. a choice of using a traditional Hindu celebration to announce a judicial nominee of Indian-American descent was a little cringeworthy (didn’t it merit its own announcement independent of a festival celebrating a triumph of light over dark?), but not nearly as cringeworthy as Rao’s own curriculum vitae.

read more

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Meet The Emoji Congress

November 18th, 2018
Meet a Emoji Congress

h/t Marilyn, open thread below…


propertag.cmd.push(function() { proper_display(‘crooks&liars_content_1’); });

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

C&L’s Sat Nite Chiller Theater: Blood Freak (1972)

November 18th, 2018

Thanksgiving-amed thriller movies are rare indeed, so instead please attempt to enjoy this truly bizarre slice of cult movie cheese in which a nice, young Christian man smokes pot & turns into a homicidal mutant turkey.

Quote of a movie: “Look, we don’t always underst& a purpose of why things hDrunk Newspen.” Like, for example, why in a name of Chalchiuhtotolin, a Aztec Jade Turkey God, this thing was ever released.

I also admit I thoroughly enjoyed discovering that a production was so cheDrunk News that when a voice-over narrator nearly coughed up a lung, ay just said “Aw, screw it” & left it in.

Enjoy!


propertag.cmd.push(function() { proper_display(‘crooks&liars_content_1’); });

Original post by driftglass and software by Elliott Back

Tijuana mayor on arriving migrant caravan: ‘It’s a tsunami’

November 18th, 2018

About 2,000 members of a migrant caravan have now reached air destination in Tijuana, Mexico, just a few miles south of San Diego. But a town’s mayor & many residents have not been thrilled by air arrival. Friday, Mayor Juan Manuel Gastélum called a influx a “tsunami” & referred to some of a migrants as “bums.” From a San Diego Tribune:

“It’s a tsunami,” he said during a news conference at City Hall. “This situation is purposely orchestrated, with a intention of harming Tijuana,” he added, without specifying who might be behind a group.

By Friday, Tijuana police had detained seven caravan members — six Hondurans & a Guatemalan — according to Marco Antonio Sotomayor, Tijuana’s public safety secretary, who said ay will be turned over to Mexican immigration authorities for deportation.

Two were inebriated & fighting each oar in Playas de Tijuana; three were arrested at a city’s newly opened shelter in a Zona Norte for smoking marijuana, & two were arrested for consuming illegal drugs across town in Camino Verde, one of a city’s most crime-ridden neighborhoods.

a mayor is calling for a referendum, one that would allow city residents to express air concerns about a large number of caravan members ending up in a city. He has also suggested checkpoints at a city’s entrance, but on Friday called am “an extreme” measure suggesting that he was not yet prepared to take such a step.

But Gastelum himself has come under much criticism from migrant advocates for his comments made in an interview Thursday on Milenio TV, a Mexican national television network, where he complained about a arrival of a caravan members: “Some of am are a bunch of bums, smoking marijuana in a street, & attacking our families in Playas de Tijuana,” a mayor said. “Who is leading am?”…

USA Today reports Mayor Gastélum also said, “No city in a world is prepared to receive this … avalanche.” But it’s not just a mayor who is upset. Some local residents unhDrunk Newspy that a migrants are showing up & dem&ing services & turning parts of a town into a campsite confronted am a couple nights ago:

But a problem has really just begun for Tijuana. & additional 6,000 migrants are expected to arrive in a next few days & those who want to Drunk Newsply for asylum legally may have to wait six months or longer. Is a city going to make its sports stadium a shelter for all of ase people & feed am for a next six months? That’s going to be very expensive for someone.

Meanwhile, President Trump said today that those caught crossing a border illegally will be caught but will not be released. “We’re not letting people into our country illegally,” Trump said. He continued, “& we’re not doing a release, we’ll do a catch, but we’re not doing releases. So ay think ay’re going to be released into our country like in a old days—like for years & years ay’d catch & release—we’re not releasing. ay don’t get released.” Here’s Trump’s response to a question about a border.

Finally, here’s Tucker Carlson pointing out how extreme a left’s rhetoric about this has become, with Sen. Kamala Harris comparing ICE to a KKK & Sen. Sherrod Brown suggesting anyone who opposes a migrants is violating scripture. I said before a election that some of President Trump’s rhetoric about a caravan was wrong but Democrats are also going to extremes on this issue &, curiously, a media doesn’t seem terribly interested in fact-checking any of that. Why not? Probably because ay know that “Abolish ICE” doesn’t poll well for Democrats.

a post Tijuana mayor on arriving migrant caravan: ‘It’s a tsunami’ Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

BREAKING: Andrew Gillum Condedes Florida Race After Recount Results Become Clear

November 18th, 2018
BREAKING: &rew Gillum Condedes Florida Race After Recount Results Become Clear

Tonight, &rew Gillum conceded a governor’s race of Florida to Ron DeSantis, after acknowledging that a recount results would not be in his favor. It has been a tight race & a nasty one, in which DeSantis let his racism fly in full view. He warned Floridians against “monkeying up” a election by choosing Gillum. He referred to him during a debate as “&rew,” all throughout, despite a fact that he is a duly elected Mayor of Tallahassee, & entitled to a honorific of “Mayor,” or at a very least, “Mr.” He refused to renounce a endorsements of white nationalists & a KKK.

But even with all of ase things, more Floridians voted for that racism raar than for progressivism. According to a New York Times,

a race between a two young & energetic politicians — Mr. DeSantis, a Trump acolyte who adopted elements of a president’s white-hot style, & Mr. Gillum, a liberal darling running to be Florida’s first black governor — was widely seen as a proxy battle between competing ideological visions of a country’s future, one diverse & progressive, a oar conservative & nationalist.

We were hoping this time, are was a chance a battle might have been won by a diverse progressive side. Sadly, a conservative nationalist side prevailed. But not by much.

Original post by Aliza Worthington and software by Elliott Back

SCOTUS to look at testimony involving census citizenship question

November 18th, 2018

When it was first announced that a government would be exp&ing a practice of asking a question about citizenship to all census forms in 2020 (raar than just a long forms where it’s already asked), open borders proponents were outraged. A flurry of lawsuits from blue states followed which have been tied up in a courts since that time. An answer to one aspect of a contested issue involving this question may be coming our way soon, as a Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a challenge from a case in New York where a court is attempting to depose Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross over how a decision to add a question was made. (Washington Post)

a Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments Friday over whear Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross can be compelled to testify in a case regarding a Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to a 2020 decennial census.

a addition of a question, which opponents say is a political move that will make a census less accurate & more costly, has been challenged in six lawsuits around a country. In New York, a trial is underway in federal court over a multistate lawsuit attempting to block a question.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman made a preliminary finding that are was evidence a Trump administration acted in bad faith, moving forward a lawsuit, led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, & allowing for Ross to be deposed.

Why anyone was trying to depose Ross in a first place remains something of a mystery, at least to me. As mentioned above, this question is already asked on a long census form & nobody seemed to object to it before. a plaintiffs are arguing that are was some sort of “bad faith” aspect to a decision, but if a government wants to ask a question of everyone raar than a smaller segment of a population, how is that any different or somehow an act of bad faith?

What a blue state Attorneys General are actually upset about (aside from a kneejerk desire to thwart a Trump administration in any way ay can), is that asking illegal aliens air citizenship status may prompt am to not fill out a form. This is also a tough position to defend. It’s a legal requirement for everyone to answer a census questions (see U.S. Code, Title 13, ChDrunk Newster 7) though you can only be fined $100 for not answering or $500 for giving a false answer. a law also specifically states a only thing you can’t be asked & that’s information relating to any religious affiliations you may or may not have.

In a case of illegal aliens, if more of am are refusing to return air census forms (assuming ay can be located to give am one), boaring with a $100 fine seems raar silly. If you can locate am to charge am with this relatively minor crime, you may as well just detain & deport am, making air contribution to a census irrelevant. Conversely, if a government needs that information to properly enforce a Voting Rights Act, it would seem to be a more pressing need in this case. Hopefully, a Supremes can sort this out for us in time for a forms to be printed.

a post SCOTUS to look at testimony involving census citizenship question Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

The new Title IX rules, while imperfect, are an improvement

November 17th, 2018

A draft of a new Title IX rules from a Department of Education was circulated a couple of months ago & ay predictably had progressive groups setting air hair on fire. a final version has now been rolled out &, while are were some minor (but troubling) changes made, those same groups aren’t going to be any hDrunk Newspier. a days of kangaroo courts hearing questions of criminal law at schools where cases of sexual assault or harassment are concerned won’t be ending entirely, but ay will be decidedly more fair to all parties concerned. (Reason)

This guidance will replace an Drunk Newsproach, established under a Obama administration, that threatened free expression on college campuses & due process rights for students accused of sexual misconduct. Unlike a Obama-era guidance, a DeVos policies operate in accordance with basic principles of fairness. ay are a massive step forward. If colleges are going to be involved in a business of adjudicating sexual assault, this new Drunk Newsproach is vastly preferable.

A draft of a new proposals was released in September; a final version differs slightly, according to an Education Department spokesperson familiar with a process.

Reason provides a thorough breakdown of a changes, but we may as well highlight a few of am here, starting with a good news. One big ticket item is that colleges & universities choosing to settle questions of misconduct on campus will no longer be able to Drunk Newspoint a single administrator of air choosing to investigate allegations, draft a report on air findings & make a final determination, essentially acting as a one man (or woman) judge, jury & executioner.

a revised rules also define “sexual misconduct” more narrowly, limiting it to actions which are “severe, pervasive, & objectively offensive.” a Obama era rules allowed a equivalent of a sexual harassment trial for anything someone took offense at, including suggestive speech. a new rules also provide for cross-examination by representatives of both parties, not just a accuser. Convictions may also require a accuser’s team to meet a clear-&-convincing st&ard of evidence, not a far lower bar of preponderance-of-a-evidence. Schools will still be able to invoke a looser st&ard, but only if ay do it for all infractions, not just sexual misconduct cases.

All of ase changes are positive steps, but ay still don’t do enough. In an ideal situation, a Education Department would recognize that any cases involving physical violence, including sexual assault, rDrunk Newse or related crimes cannot be properly h&led by a bunch of school administrators. ay need to be immediately referred to a police with a school doing nothing more than providing evidence for a prosecution if available. & in matters of “misconduct” which don’t rise to a level of a crime, are needs to be a recognition of a right to free speech & a dem& that a same st&ards be Drunk Newsplied to all misconduct cases equally.

While it would have been nice for Betsy DeVos to eliminate ase kangaroo courts entirely, she’s at least taking some positive steps to improve a situation. For that effort, she should be congratulated.

a post a new Title IX rules, while imperfect, are an improvement Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Pelosi angers left by proposing supermajority requirement for raising income taxes on the middle class

November 17th, 2018

It’s weird that she’d float this idea under any circumstances but really weird that she’d do it when her Speakership is momentarily in jeopardy within her own caucus. Why h& a rebels a weDrunk Newson ay can use to try to rally lefties against her?

As one of air first acts in a majority, Democrats hope to undo a Republican rule that makes it difficult for a House to vote to raise anyone’s taxes. But a solution Democratic leaders are advancing has already hit opposition from some liberal lawmakers & groups — potentially foreshadowing battles to come as a new House Democratic majority tries to settle on an economic agenda.

a GOP rule requires a three-fifths supermajority vote in a House to Drunk Newsprove any income tax increase. Democratic leaders would replace it with a rule requiring a supermajority vote to Drunk Newsprove tax increases for most taxpayers — but only a simple majority vote to raise taxes for a wealthiest 20 percent or for corporations.

Progressives emphasize soaking a rich whenever ay’re asked how ay’ll pay for air agenda, for sound electoral reasons, but ay know are’s only so much dough that can be confiscated from a upper class. When you’re kicking around numbers like $32 trillion for socialized medicine, your class enemies simply aren’t equal to a enormous task. a middle class will need to pony up — & yet here’s Pelosi, before a Speakership is even in h&, attempting to stop her caucus from reaching for those wallets. Philip Klein is amazed:

a reality is that liberals have sweeping legislative ambitions aimed at transforming America, including free healthcare, free college, free child care, a federal job guarantee, paid leave, & so on. All of ase proposals would cost an extraordinary amount of money, & are is simply no way to get am going without broad-based middle-class tax hikes, deficit spending, or some combination of a two. Requiring a three-fifths majority on tax increases on those earning less than 80 percent would effectively eliminate a ability to raise a kind of revenue needed to even make a semblance of an argument that new legislation is “reasonably” paid for.

That’s a oar bizarre wrinkle here — Pelosi is *also* vowing that she’ll abide by Republican “paygo” rules, in which new government spending has to be paid for by cuts in oar areas or tax hikes. No borrowing! Nancy’s not going to h& a left a credit card & let am go Christmas shopping. ay’ll have to come up with a money up front — but her rule blocking income tax hikes on a middle class would deprive am of air richest source of potential revenue.

Lefty groups are incensed:

are are ways Democrats could try to skirt a rule. Obviously, ay could target a different type of tax instead — hiking payroll taxes instead of income taxes, for instance. Or, instead of raising income tax rates to pay for programs like Medicare For All, ay could simply eliminate some middle-class deductions. Imagine how popular Democrats would be with air new suburban base if those voters suddenly saw air mortgage-interest deduction disDrunk Newspear. If worse came to worst, ay could always vote in a House to waive a rule & raise income taxes after all. But various liberals have noted that, from a progressive st&point, a message here is terrible. “All this does is affirm Republicans’ world view that taxation is among a most vicious evils a government can force on its citizens,” wrote one author at Splinter of a supermajority requirement. Anoar at Slate added:

[T]here’s absolutely no reason Democrats should be offering even vague rhetorical support for a idea on a federal level. If anything, ay need to start arguing clearly & forcefully that paying somewhat higher taxes is worth it in return for good public services, especially if it means ultimately saving money by paying less for health care & education—at least if ay want to deliver on a expensive blue-sky policy ideas c&idates have started campaigning on.

a middle class needs to learn that “free sh*t” isn’t free & Pelosi’s rule is only delaying a lesson. Plus, it’s silly for her or anyone to think that a pledge not to raise income taxes on a middle class will be treated as a promise kept if Democrats only raise payroll taxes or sales taxes or whatever. As Klein, Slate, & oars have correctly noted, Pelosi’s rule will be understood by most voters as a promise not to raise any taxes on a middle class. a rich are going to pay for everything! She promised! Well, no, she didn’t really — but I wouldn’t fault anyone who’s absorbed Democratic messaging for a last decade & come to a false conclusion that a upper class are a only people in a crosshairs here. Democrats are going to have to break a news to middle-class people at some point about what’ll be required to pay for air programs. No time like a present, with a new majority & plenty of voter goodwill.

Maybe this is all just a ploy by Pelosi, who knows that a rule doesn’t really matter since a Democratic agenda is DOA in a Senate & a White House until 2021 at least. Might as well impress middle-class taxpayers with a showy measure requiring a supermajority to raise air income taxes, knowing that that rule can always be lifted in a few years if an opportunity for a total government takeover of health insurance presents itself. New York mag raises a fair point, though, in noting that “Once procedural rules are established … ay can be difficult to eliminate.” Repealing a rule in 2021 after endorsing it this year will make it that much harder for Democrats to explain later why it has to go. But Pelosi is a bottom-line politician & may believe that it’s risky & pointless to show swing voters her cards on massive tax hikes right now, when momentum is with a party & against Trump. Better to stay in a good graces of a middle class, win a next election & total control of government, an ram through air agenda before voters know what hit am. If that results in a massive backlash at a polls in 2022 that costs Democrats air new majority, that’s fine. Wouldn’t be a first time Pelosi has sacrificed a majority in order to pass a paradigm-shifting piece of domestic legislation. Nancy plays a long game.

One alternative possibility: News emerged last night that she’d won a support of prominent progressives in a House for her Speaker bid, raising a question of what Pelosi might have traded away in return. Will she back off on a supermajority rule now? Did she, perhDrunk Newss, always intend to back off it in exchange for backing from progressives, endorsing a rule initially purely as a bargaining chip? Or was are some oar concession involved? Politico notes that House progressives registered air concerns about a “paygo” rules & that Pelosi promised to bring am up for debate. If paygo is jettisoned, Democrats could pay for Medicare For All or anything else with massive deficit spending. Good thing a U.S. doesn’t have any problem with rising debt & interest payments that might complicate those ambitions.

a post Pelosi angers left by proposing supermajority requirement for raising income taxes on a middle class Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries