The Environmental Protection Agency has made it easier for cities to keep dumping raw sewage into rivers by letting them delay or otherwise change federally imposed fixes to their sewer systems, according to interviews with local officials, water utilities and their lobbyists.
Cities have long complained about the cost of meeting federal requirements to upgrade aging sewer systems, many of which release untreated waste directly into waterways during heavy rains — a problem that climate change worsens as rainstorms intensify. These complaints have gained new traction with the Trump administration, which has been more willing to renegotiate the agreements that dictate how, and how quickly, cities must overhaul their sewers.
The actions are the latest example of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back nearly 95 environmental rules that it has said are too costly for industry or taxpayers. That list grew on Thursday, when the administration stripped clean-water protections from wetlands, streams and other waterways.
Our air and water are still polluted but they are much better than they would have been if those environmental rules had not been put in place, sometimes as long ago as 50 years ago.
He’s clueless about all of this but he ha strong opinions anyway based upon the fact that he’s had to fill out a lot of forms for the environmental impact of some of his development deals. He didn’t like that. So he’s given the green light to his henchmen to destroy the environment.
I don’t know how long it will take to even find everything they’ve done much less reverse it. That will be a huge job for a new Democratic administration.
The first images of the Wuhan Pneumonia, 2019-nCoV, released by Chinese authorities
I don’t know if it’s going to turn out to be an epidemic anywhere but China but since they’re finding cases elsewhere now, even here in the all-important US, I thought I would pass along a link to this post which I have been told by people who know is an excellent primer on what’s happening with some links to various things you could do if you want to prepare.
It wouldn’t hurt. And it wouldn’t hurt to let other people know what they could do, just in case. It’s probably not going to be a major problem for us. But it’s good to be informed. At some point, we are going to have a major pandemic.
I watched this documentary about the 1918 pandemic in the US a while back. If you have time, do it. It didn’t unfold as you might have thought. Everything is different now, of course. But these bugs have a tremendous capacity to outsmart humans if everything breaks their way. No one should assume it can’t happen.
The Republicans roll out the Welcome Wagon for foreigners who want to help them win in 2020
Here’s one indiscreet GOP Victorian Spinster explaining why he’s going to acquit the president:
“Hopefully it will be instructive to where … I think he’ll put two and two together,” Braun told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “In this case, he was taken to the carpet.”
“I think he’ll be instructed by what has occurred here and certainly any individual would want to avoid whatever might need to be modified to go through this again because the threat is already been out there that ‘we might find something else to impeach you on,” Braun added, pointing to Democrats. “Which I think is a mistake because I think we need to get back to what most Americans are interested in, the agenda.”
Braun said the process “ought to be instructive to anyone here that if you’re pushing the envelope or doing things that may not feel right, let alone be right, you better be careful.”
That’s this Mike Braun:
REPORTER: So you're saying that it's okay for a President to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival and withhold foreign aid to coerce him into doing so?
BRAUN: No, I'm not saying that's okay. I'm not saying that's appropriate. I'm saying that it DIDN'T HAPPEN. pic.twitter.com/nARMXL1KEz
Let’s be clear about what he’s saying. Despite his earlier comment that “it didn’t happen” he clearly knows it did. He knows it’s wrong. But he is now fatuously insisting that Trump has learned his lesson.
He made the call to Zelensky on the day after Mueller testified that the Russians had hacked the 2016 election and were planning to do it again — and he said to him:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
Despite the fact that the report proved he had eagerly welcomed Russian interference in 2016 and obstructed justice at least 10 times to cover it up, he went out the next day and HE DID IT AGAIN!
Donald Trump is without a conscience and is, frankly, too arrogant and narcissistic to even understand much less care that he’s been “taken to the woodshed.” His response to anything like that is to double down.
Braun almost certainly knows this. As with all his Republican brethren, he’s lying and at this point I have to think that he’s signed on to the “Foreign Interference For Trump ” welcome wagon.
Hey, Trump is the Party and the Party is Trump. What helps him helps them. And they’re happy to have it.
The biggest issue for all Democrats is that their candidate can beat Trump. Uhm yeah. Of course. He is an existential threat.
They also care about “authenticity” which is a very vague concept and I have no idea what it means. If it means someone you’d want to have a beer with, or a latte with, or a joint with, then it’s ridiculous. They’re all politicians. None of them just let it all hang out because they are trying to appeal to as wide a swathe of the electorate as they can. It’s not easy. They think about how to do that because to not think about it would be political malpractice.
If it means they don’t appear to be pandering, then fine. But don’t kid yourself. They all pander. Some just have a personality that makes it seem as if they aren’t.
As for policy and experience. Of course. These are always metrics by which people make decisions about who to hire or who to vote for. It’s telling that those are so much less important than “beating Trump” and “authenticity.”
Anyway, if you’re worried about who can beat Trump. According to this poll — all of them can:
Here’s a little nugget:
“It seems impeachment has hurt Trump, as he’s given back ground he gained against the Democrats late last fall,” says Shaw. “But the race remains tight, especially in swing counties.”
The presidential race is a referendum on Trump. And he is not popular. You can’t take anything for granted. They cheat. But while we all have our own ideas about who can beat him (or, more specifically, who is most vulnerable to him) I don’t think we know for sure. The reason we are all so incredibly emotional and overwrought about all this is because the stakes are so high.
I think we’ve been fortunate that the worst hasn’t happened during the first three years. Every day it doesn’t happen is a lucky day. But I don’t know how many more lucky days we have left. We can’t afford to take a chance on another four years. He’s getting worse.
The Impeachment Hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before. In just two hours the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats have seen their phony case absolutely shredded. Shifty is now exposed for illegally making up my phone call, & more!
Is he saying “Schifty. Won’t see him no more” ? It sure sounds like it.
I haven’t seen the massive fainting spell among the delicate GOP Senate flowers yet. Surely they are outraged and offended by their president publicly threatening Adam Schiff.
Right?
CHUCK TODD:
What do you make of the criticism that some Republican senators, who you might want to see vote for witnesses, didn’t like your “head on a pike” comment? Murkowski, Collins, and Ernst. All three Republican senators who are — might be open to witnesses thought you got too personal.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, I don’t think it was personal to refer to the CBS story. What may be personal though, and I think I have to be very candid about this, is I made the argument that it’s going to require moral courage to stand up to this president. And this is a wrathful and vindictive president. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. And if you think there is, look at the president’s tweets about me today, saying that I should pay a price.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you take that as a threat?
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF:
I think it’s intended to be.
Todd asked Schiff”what he’s so afraid of ” that he won’t call Hunter Biden. (Can you believe it?)
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, it’s not a question of what I’m afraid of. I’m not afraid of anything. The question is: Should the trial be used as a vehicle to smear his opponent? Is that the purpose of a Senate trial? Or is it to get to the truth? Because if it’s to get to the truth, Hunter Biden can’t tell us anything about the withholding of the military funding. Hunter Biden can’t tell us why the president wouldn’t let the president of Ukraine into the Oval Office. Hunter Biden can’t tell us anything about that. And so, you know, it’s a false choice to say, “Well, if the House gets to call the witnesses, doesn’t the president?”
Yes, we both get to call witnesses. We both get to call relevant ones. And one other point on this, Chuck, which is important. We have a very capable justice sitting right behind me who can make decisions about the materiality of witnesses. We trust the Supreme Court justice, the chief justice, to make those decisions.
And one final thing, if you will … The president’s team is pushing out the argument, “We don’t have time to call witnesses. We’d really love to have these people testify. We just don’t have time to do it. It would be too inconvenient.” That’s a dodge. We have a justice who can make decisions if there’s any legitimate claim of privilege.
And for whom does the bell toll? American democracy:
Did Trump commit an impeachable offense? Yes. His attempt to get a foreign power to help him win the 2020 election is precisely the sort of thing the framers of the constitution worried about when they created the impeachment clause. If presidents could seek foreign help winning elections, there would be no end of foreign intrusions into American sovereignty and democracy.
Will the Senate convict and remove him from office? No. The impeachment clause requires that two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict. That means that even if every one of the 45 Democratic and two independent senators votes to oust Trump, 20 Republicans would need to join them for Trump to be removed. The odds that 20 Republican senators will do so are exactly zero.
Why won’t they? There are not 20 Republican senators with the courage and integrity to protect the constitution and the nation from the most dangerous and demagogic president in history.
With a vigor otherwise reserved for passing tax cuts for patrons, Republicans have spent decades attempting to suppress the vote of Democrat-leaning groups: blacks, Latinos, the old, the young, city dwellers, etc. They’ve deployed gerrymandering, disinformation (printed and digital), voter roll purges, photo ID laws, election-hours changes, voter-fraud propaganda, voter “caging,” and limiting voting machines and posting off-duty cops in armbands in minority neighborhoods. (That list is not comprehensive.) Jim Crow never really disappeared. He’s just had a series of makeovers.
If only eligible voters took voting as seriously as the opponents of democracy we might not be suffering the maladministration of Donald John Trump.
Election Law Blog‘s Rick Hasen warns that should the fall election not go Trump’s way, he’s already setting up a ready response: other people cheated. Yes, other people. He signaled in 2016 he might not accept the results if he lost. He’s laying the groundwork for that again. And he has a lot more to lose this round than marketing opportunities.
Hasen cites a familiar string of “high-tech and old-fashioned dirty tricks” that appear with “uncomfortable frequency,” including a couple by left-leaning groups. Even so, he also cautions that mistakes are sometimes just mistakes, the result of stupidity and not malice. (See Hanlon’s razor.) Not that anyone will believe that in this tense political climate rife with allegations of cheating both real and imagined.
Still, in the face of the brazenness now shown by foreign players, Hasen warns U.S. elections officials might not be prepared for Trump’s foreign allies to cheat on his behalf:
What if Russians hack into Detroit’s power grid and knock out electricity on Election Day, seriously depressing turnout — and Trump wins the electoral college because he carries Michigan? Most states do not have a Plan B to deal with a terrorist attack or natural disaster affecting part of a presidential election.
Hasen notes, “Republican voter suppression, pockets of incompetence, dirty tricks and increasingly outrageous language about stolen elections” are a volatile mix on top of the risk of needing a Plan B and not having one.
“External and internal forces that seek to foment discord are not resting. We can’t, either,” Hasen finishes.
Vigilance is in order. Sound preparation is good practice. But turnout is better.
We imagine dark conspiracies to hack voting machines or registration records or other efforts to prevent fellow citizens from having their voices heard and to pervert popular democracy. We rightly condemn those efforts and demand justice for malefactors. We should invest in making sure any such efforts fail. But the most potent defense against them all is not cyber-security. It is turnout.
Only in close elections can malicious efforts to hack our democracy carry the day. We are not the Soviet Union or Russia. Not yet. The most effective way to defend our democracy is for citizens to practice it.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide election mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.
Really? Another decade slipped by again when I wasn’t looking? This seems as good a time as any to reflect back on the 400+ first-run films I reviewed between 2010 and 2019, and share my picks for the top 10 of the past 10 years. Happy viewing! Alphabetically…
Black KkKlansman –So what
do you get if you cross Cyrano de
Bergerac with Blazing Saddles?
You might get Spike Lee’s Black
KkKlansman. That is not to say that Lee’s film is a knee-slapping comedy;
far from it. Lee takes the true story of Ron Stallworth (John David
Washington), an African-American undercover cop who managed to infiltrate the
KKK in Colorado in the early 70s and runs with it, in his inimitable fashion.
I think this is Lee’s most affecting and hard-hitting film since Do the Right Thing (1989). The screenplay (adapted by Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmott and Lee from Stallworth’s eponymous memoir) is equal parts biopic, docudrama, police procedural and social commentary, finding a nice balance of drama, humor and suspense. (Full review)
Blade Runner: 2049–
So many films passing themselves off as “sci-fi” these days are needlessly loud
and jarringly flash-cut. Not this one. Which is to say that Blade Runner 2049 is leisurely paced.
The story is not as deep or complex as the film makers want you to think. The
narrative is essentially a 90 minute script (by original Blade Runner co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher and Michael Green),
stretched to a 164-minute run time.
So why is it on my top 10 list? Well, for one thing, the “language” of film being two-fold (aural and visual), the visual language of Blade Runner 2049 is mesmerizing and immersive. I imagine the most burning question you have about Denis Villeneuve’s film is: “Are the ‘big’ questions that were left dangling at the end of Ridley Scott’s 1982 original answered?” Don’t ask me. I just do eyes. You may not find the answers you seek, but you may find yourself still thinking about this film long after the credit roll. (Full review)
Certified Copy – Just when you’re being lulled into thinking this is going to be one of those brainy, talky, yet pleasantly diverting romantic romps where you and your date can amuse yourselves by placing bets on “will they or won’t they-that is, if they can both shut up long enough to get down to business before the credits roll” propositions, Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami throws you a curve-ball. Then again, maybe this film isn’t so much about “thinking”, as it is about “perceiving”. Because if it’s true that a “film” is merely (if I may quote Orson Welles) “a ribbon of dreams”-then Certified Copy, like any true work of art, is simply what you perceive it to be-nothing more, nothing less. Even if it leaves you scratching your head, you get to revel in the luminosity of Juliette Binoche’s amazing performance; there’s pure poetry in every glance, every gesture. (Full review)
Computer Chess – The most original sci-fi film of 2013 proved you don’t need a $300 million budget and 3-D technology to blow people’s minds. For his retro 80s-style mockumentary, Andrew Bujalski finds verisimilitude via a vintage B&W video camera (which makes it seem as if you’re watching events unfold on a slightly fuzzy closed-circuit TV), and “documents” a tournament where nerdy computer chess programmers from all over North America assemble once a year to match algorithmic prowess. Not unlike a Christopher Guest satire, Bujalski throws idiosyncratic characters into a jar, and then steps back to watch. Just when you think you’ve got the film sussed as a gentle satirical jab at computer geek culture, things get weird…then weirder. Dig that final shot! (Full review)
The Grand Budapest Hotel– In the interest of upholding my credo to be
forthright with my readers (all three of you), I will confess that, with the
exception of his engaging 1996 directing debut, Bottle Rocket, and the fitfully amusing Rushmore, I have been somewhat immune to the charms of writer-director Wes Anderson. To me, “a Wes
Anderson film” is the cinematic equivalent to Wonder Bread…bland product,
whimsically wrapped.
At the risk of making your head explode, I now have a second confession. I kind of enjoyed The Grand Budapest Hotel. I can’t adequately explain what happened. The film is not dissimilar to Anderson’s previous work; in that it is akin to a live action cartoon, drenched in whimsy, expressed in bold primary colors, populated by quirky characters (who would never exist outside of the strange Andersonian universe they live in) caught up in a quirky narrative with quirky twists and turns (I believe the operative word here, is “quirky”). So why did I like it? I cannot really say. My conundrum (if I may paraphrase one of my favorite lines from The Producers) would be this: “Where did he go so right?” (Full review)
Love and Mercy – Paul Dano’s Oscar-worthy performance as the 1960s era Brian Wilson is a revelation, capturing the duality of a troubled genius/sweet man-child to a tee. If this were a conventional biopic, this would be “good enough” as is. But director Bill Pohlad (and screenwriters Oren Moverman and Michael A. Lerner) make this one go to “11”, by interpolating Brian’s peak period with his bleak period…the Dr. Eugene Landy years (early 80s through the early 90s). This “version” of Brian is played by John Cusack, who has rarely been better; this is a real comeback performance for him. Actually, there are no bad performances in this film, down to the smallest parts. I usually try to avoid hyperbole, but I’ll say it: This is one of the best rock’ n’ roll biopics I’ve seen in years. (Full review)
The Master – As Inspector Clouseau once ruminated, “Well you know, there are leaders…and there are followers.” At its most rudimentary level, Paul Thomas Anderson’s film is a two-character study about a leader and a follower (and metaphorically, all leaders and followers). It’s also a story about a complex surrogate father-son relationship (a recurring theme in the director’s oeuvre). And yes, there are some who feel the film is a thinly disguised take-down of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I found it to be a thought-provoking and startlingly original examination of why human beings in general are so prone to kowtow to a burning bush, or an emperor with no clothes; a film that begs repeated viewings. One thing’s for sure- the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix deliver a pair of knockout performances. Like all of Anderson’s films, it’s audacious, sometimes baffling, but never dull. (Full review)
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood – “Surely (you’re thinking), a film involving the Manson Family and directed by Quentin Tarantino must feature a cathartic orgy of blood and viscera…amirite?” Sir or madam, all I can tell you is that I am unaware of any such activity or operation… nor would I be disposed to discuss such an operation if it did in fact exist, sir or madam. What I am prepared to share is this: Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt have rarely been better, Margot Robbie is radiant and angelic as Sharon Tate, and 9-year-old moppet Julia Butters nearly steals the film. Los Angeles gives a fabulous and convincing performance as 1969 Los Angeles. Oh, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is now my favorite “grown-up” Quentin Tarantino film (after Jackie Brown). (Full review)
Samsara – Whether you see Ron Fricke’s film as a deep treatise on the cyclic nature of the Omniverse, or merely as an assemblage of pretty pictures, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. The man who gave us the similar cinematic tone poems Chronos and Baraka drops a clue early on in his latest film, as we observe a group of Buddhist monks painstakingly creating a sand mandala (it must take days). At the very end of the film, we revisit the artists, who now sit in silent contemplation of their lovely creation. This (literal) Moment of Zen turns out to be the preface to the monks’ next project-the ritualistic de-construction of the painting (which I assume must take an equal amount of time). Yes, it is a very simple metaphor for the transitory nature of beauty, life, the universe and everything. But, as they say, there’s beauty in simplicity. (Full review)
Your Name – I have sat through more than my fair share of “body swap” movies, but it’s been a while since I have experienced one as original and entertaining as Makoto Shinkai’s animated fantasy. The story concerns a teenage girl named Mitsuha, who lives in a bucolic mountain village, and a teenage boy named Taki, who resides in bustling Tokyo. They are separated by geography and blissfully unaware of each other’s existence, but they both share the heady roller coaster ride of hormone-fueled late adolescence, replete with all its attendant anxieties and insecurities. There’s something else that they share: a strange metaphysical anomaly. Or is it a dream? Sinkai’s film is a perfect blend of fantasy, sci-fi, mystery, comedy, coming-of-age tale, and old-fashioned tear-jerker (yes-I laughed, and cried). In short, it’s one of the best animes of recent years. (Full review)
President Trump and White House officials are looking for at least one Senate Democrat to vote against removing the president from office at the end of his impeachment trial and they see Joe Manchin as the most likely candidate.
Trump took particular pride that three House Democrats voted against his impeachment, White House officials said, and he would like to be able to get at least one Senate Democrat to vote for his acquittal so he can claim the decision was bipartisan.
Manchin has sided with Trump on tough votes before, such as the confirmation of Supreme Court Brett M. Kavanaugh, but voting to acquit the president would be an even more politically charged decision, one that could help him maintain his reputation as a moderate back home but that would likely make him a pariah within his own party.AD
The West Virginian struck a conciliatory note toward the president Saturday, becoming the only Democrat to publicly praise his defense team even as he called for more witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
They also name Kyrsten Sinema and Doug Jones as possibilities.
I don’t see this happening but as I said, you never know. Democrats often believe that reaching across the aisle to prove how reasonable they are is very compelling to swing voters. (It means nothing.) Sinema and Manchin aren’t up for re-election this year and Doug Jones wouldn’t have much to gain by doing it. (Sessions is already sucking up to Trump so hard he’s turned himself inside out. )
Let’s hope they hold the line. It makes no difference in the outcome but this is one where they really need to stick with the party.
Update:
By the way, Jones and Manchin have said they have an open mind and McConnell has been saying that he thinks they’re gettable. But both have said they want witnesses. They are leveraging this possible vote to acquit to get witnesses. I doubt it will make a difference but I give them credit for trying.
In typical right-wing “I know you are but what am I” strategy, the Trump Team is turning the election interference argument in 2016 and potentially in 2020 back on the Democrats.
Cipollone on Tuesday:
“It’s buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment. They want to remove President Trump from the ballot. They won’t tell you that. They don’t have the guts to say it directly, but that’s exactly what they’re here to do.”
“A partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. And that’s exactly what we have.”
On Saturday he said it again:
“They’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history. And we can’t allow that to happen. They’re asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but as I’ve said before, they’re asking you to remove President Trump from an election that’s occurring in approximately nine-month. They’re asking you to tear up all the ballots across this country on their own initiative.”
It’s rich enough that Republicans who have made a fetish out of suppressing the vote are crying crocodile tears tearing up ballots across he country. But it’s ridiculous that they are saying this when we know that Trump eagerly welcomed real election interference in 2016 and solicited it again for 2020. Talk about chutzpah.
But it’s a powerful argument in a way. It feeds off of the rhetoric of the past three years, the Mueller saga, this Ukraine scandal and uses it for their own purposes. Their voters are happy to use it as well, smirking and laughing all the way.
Even if informed citizens reject this absurdity there are millions of people who will just throw up their hands and say “I give up” trying to sort it all out. Sowing confusion isn’t a tactic only Russians use. The GOP has been doing it for years.
