[kenberg]

This column today by David Ignatius might be of interest to people like me who never heard of Stephen Bannon or Breitbart before last year's campaign. I'll pull out the biographical summary. It seems to be presented in factual way that, at least for the most part, Bannon would not contest.

Quote

As with many revolutionaries, Bannon’s story is that of a wealthy man who came to see himself as a vanguard for the masses. He rose from a middle-class life in Richmond through an uneventful stint with the Navy; but his life changed after he enrolled at Harvard Business School, joined Goldman Sachs, founded an investment bank and made a fortune. He began directing conservative agitprop documentaries in 2004, but the 2008 financial crisis was a turning point. Bannon saw it as a betrayal of working people, and he embraced the tea party’s conservative revolt against Republican and Democratic elites.

Bannon gained a powerful platform in 2012 when he became chairman of the hard-right Breitbart.com after the death of its founder, Andrew Breitbart. In an April 2010 speech to a tea party gathering in New York that was posted on YouTube, Bannon’s radical rhetoric evoked the 1960s and fused left and right: “It doesn’t take a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows, and the wind’s blowing off the high plains of the country through the prairie, and lighting a fire that’s going to burn all the way to Washington.”

By 2014, Bannon saw himself leading what he called a “global tea party movement” against a financial elite that he described as “the party of Davos.” In a summer 2014 speech broadcast to a conference inside the Vatican, he railed against Wall Street bailouts and “crony capitalists.” Racists and anti-Semites might get attracted to this movement, he said, “but there’s always elements who turn up at these things, whether it’s militia guys or whatever . . . it all gets kind of washed out, right?”

The rise of the Islamic State in 2014 gave Bannon a new rallying cry: “We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism,” he told the Vatican audience. “I believe you should take a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam,” he said.

Breitbart’s London branch became a leading advocate of Brexit, and on the day Britain voted to leave the European Union, Breitbart thundered: “There’s panic in the skyscrapers. A popular revolution against globalism is underway.” Bannon pressed that theme after Trump’s victory, telling Breitbart’s radio show on Dec. 30 it was only the “top of the first inning.”

Last Friday’s travel ban echoed themes Bannon has developed over a half-dozen years. It brought cheers from the right-wing parties in Europe that are Bannon’s allies. “Well done,” tweeted Dutch populist Geert Wilders. “What annoys the media and the politicians is that Trump honors his promises,” tweeted French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen .

The full article presents concerns that I agree with, but the portion above is a quick bio that I found useful. I can imagine Bannon saying "Yes, that describes me". David Ignatius is one of the Post's columnists that I find useful. Like any columnist, or news article for that matter, you sometimes need a grain of salt. But with some you need a whole shaker full.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-01, 06:58, said:

The issue is not that drews does not live in the US, it is why he doesn't live in the US.

And I don't buy for a minute that he did so for any other reason than minimizing his tax burdens...

I can assure that I did not leave the USA to go to Europe to minimize taxes.

Rik

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2017-February-01, 07:46, said:

barmar already remarked that there does not seem to be any malware, but I have an additional comment. From time to time I attempt to open something that produces the result you describe. And of course I have worried about what is going on. It seems to be that some sites have two issues: They take a long time to load, and while they are loading it is impossible to dismiss them. MyPC is reasonably new and of reasonable qulity, running on, I guess, Windows 10. I use Firefox.
When this happens I do one of two things. I unplug the computer (restart is inaccessable) or I go have some coffee while it does its thing. Ctrl-Alt-Del to bring up the "end task" option won't do it, nor, as far as I know, does anything else except just unplugging the computer or waiting it out. As you can tell ftom my vagueness, I am no expert but this may be what happened.

I take my earlier response back. I thought USV was just talking about the site that the post linked to, I didn't realize he was talking about the "Download the PDF" link that you have to click on at the site, to download the report itself.

I clicked on that, and it popped up something that looked like it wanted to install a DOCtoPDF conversion extension. I closed the window rather than allow it to install anything, thanks to USV's caution.

If anyone has gone past that, you should uninstall the extension that got installed.

[Vampyr]

Many of the people who voted for Trump did not like him at all, but still voted for him because he promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice who was against reproductive freedom. It s a huge problem in America that there are so many one-issue voters.

But anyway I thought that justices were supposed to leave their personal preferences at the door.

[olegru]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-01, 10:20, said:

Many of the people who voted for Trump did not like him at all, but still voted for him because he promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice who was against reproductive freedom. ...
But anyway I thought that justices were supposed to leave their personal preferences at the door.

I don't think it is true.
I mean nomination of a Supreme Court justice was one of the main reason why I was against Clinton, but it has nothing to do with reproductive freedom. During debates Clinton made it clear that she is planning to nominate a person who, as you said is not planning to "leave their personal preferences at the door" and will act as a Justice based on ideology, not a Law.
Unfortunately, replying on the same question Trump demonstrated that he does not even understand the question.

It was a sad election with very sad results. Zugzwang, as chess players say.

[Winstonm]

Nice article about the strategist who has Trump's ear.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-01, 10:20, said:

Many of the people who voted for Trump did not like him at all, but still voted for him because he promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice who was against reproductive freedom. It s a huge problem in America that there are so many one-issue voters.

But anyway I thought that justices were supposed to leave their personal preferences at the door.

V is correct, abortion all these years later is still a hot button for voters, many will never vote for a pro life candidate, many more will at the very least hesitate.


I would bet when it comes to voting for president by forum posters there is a very strong correlation just on this one issue on who they vote for over the years. pro life or pro choice even though they may claim to vote on other issues

[mikeh]

Breaking news that for some reason most media outlets have not covered, as far as I can see (based on limited checking) is that Russia has arrested several of its own security services personnel on charges of treason, in that they are alleged, it seems, to have cooperated with the Ukrainian security services and the US.

Now, I am probably seeing connections where none exist, but the Steele material (the dirt on Trump and his relationship with Putin/Russia) ascribed much of the information to contacts Steele claimed to still have within the Russian government/security apparatus.

He had presumably expected/hoped that his dossier would remain confidential when he put it together, but (if it was true) it seems obvious that his sources would have reason to fear retribution from Putin. There may well be no connection, but the timing is certainly suspicious.

Especially given that Steele documents that Rosneft (the Russian state oil company) offered trump the right to broker the sale of a 19% interest in the company in exchange for a promise, if elected, to lift sanctions against Russia. The deal recently closed, with the buyers being a series of shell companies in opaque countries of registration, such that details of who bought, and who got brokerage fees have not been disclosed or made public.

I know that we tend to see patterns where none exist. But when the dossier announces this before the deal is made, and the deal is made only after trump is elected, and trump reneges on a campaign promise to make his tax returns public after the audit is finished, there is one hell of a stink emanating from the WH now.

And while I doubt an actual connection, it may not be entirely coincidental that trump created so much media attention on his muslim ban and SCOTUS rollout at the same time as Putin had these security people arrested, which pretty much guaranteed that the US media would be too distracted to mention it.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When someone hides from the sunlight, they lose much of the benefit of the doubt.

[Winstonm]

From the website Quartz.

Quote

In the eerie world of international espionage, nothing of late has topped the official US accusation that Russian president Vladimir Putin plotted to put US president Donald Trump in power. Now, the tale has become even more salacious with the reported arrest of three Russian cyber experts, one of whom was perp-walked out of a meeting with a bag over his head, and the suspicious death of a former KGB general.

[Al_U_Card]

Trinidad, on 2017-February-01, 06:37, said:

Did you know that a US citizen officially petitioned to make the Netherlands second?



(from petitions.whitehouse.gov)

Rik

Gives new meaning to the term "going Dutch"

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-01, 10:20, said:

But anyway I thought that justices were supposed to leave their personal preferences at the door.

Ideally, yes.

But the general reason why a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the wording of the relevant law is not perfectly clear, and the justices have to render an opinion based on the spirit. Furthermore, there's the idea that the intent of the law must be understood in the light of contemporary society, which may be different from that when the law (or clause of the Constitution) was originally written. It's hard to render these kinds of decisions with any personal bias.

Decisions about civil rights almost always run into this. A few decades ago, the very idea of same-sex marriage was not even thinkable, since homosexuality was considered by the vast majority of society as deviant, just a step above bestiality. Now it's accepted by a majority of Americans, but not so overwhelmingly so that the SCOTUS decision was a slam-dunk. The justices had to make a subjective decision, and their personal notions had to play a part in this.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2017-February-01, 14:43, said:

Ideally, yes.

But the general reason why a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court is that the wording of the relevant law is not perfectly clear, and the justices have to render an opinion based on the spirit. Furthermore, there's the idea that the intent of the law must be understood in the light of contemporary society, which may be different from that when the law (or clause of the Constitution) was originally written. It's hard to render these kinds of decisions with any personal bias.

Decisions about civil rights almost always run into this. A few decades ago, the very idea of same-sex marriage was not even thinkable, since homosexuality was considered by the vast majority of society as deviant, just a step above bestiality. Now it's accepted by a majority of Americans, but not so overwhelmingly so that the SCOTUS decision was a slam-dunk. The justices had to make a subjective decision, and their personal notions had to play a part in this.

It does seem weird that the job of the supreme court is to figure out the "intent of the law in light of contemporary society" rather than the intent of the law when written and supporting evidence provided or simply wait for congress to pass a contemporary law.


For example will the supreme court find a constitutional right to assisted suicide or wait for congress or a state to pass a contemporary law?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-February-01, 15:01, said:

It does seem weird that the job of the supreme court is to figure out the "intent of the law in light of contemporary society" rather than the intent of the law when written and supporting evidence provided or simply wait for congress to pass a contemporary law.


For example will the supreme court find a constitutional right to assisted suicide or wait for congress or a state to pass a contemporary law?

How can it seem weird when technology by itself requires new definitions be made? For example, the right of free speech could not have been intended to cover twitter in 1776. Likewise, as medicine gained in precision and safety, who would have thought in 1776 that abortion would be safer than a colonoscopy, or that it would become an issue of debate.

It is all well and good to point to the 10th Amendment as some kind of catchall for things unspecified by the Constitution, but when the states have a history of violating larger rights with their ruling on these unspecified items, does it still make sense to point to an infallibility interpretation of the Constitution or is it wiser to broaden the general understandings of that document in order to protect the minority interests?

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2017-February-01, 13:29, said:

Breaking news that for some reason most media outlets have not covered, as far as I can see (based on limited checking) is that Russia has arrested several of its own security services personnel on charges of treason, in that they are alleged, it seems, to have cooperated with the Ukrainian security services and the US.

Now, I am probably seeing connections where none exist, but the Steele material (the dirt on Trump and his relationship with Putin/Russia) ascribed much of the information to contacts Steele claimed to still have within the Russian government/security apparatus.

Perhaps this has something to do with it? And here is an American version of the same story with plents of sensationalist conjecture to fill in the gaps.*


*: Seriously guys, when the Daily Mail looks like the voice of sanity you have some issues!

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-01, 15:47, said:

How can it seem weird when technology by itself requires new definitions be made? For example, the right of free speech could not have been intended to cover twitter in 1776. Likewise, as medicine gained in precision and safety, who would have thought in 1776 that abortion would be safer than a colonoscopy, or that it would become an issue of debate.

It is all well and good to point to the 10th Amendment as some kind of catchall for things unspecified by the Constitution, but when the states have a history of violating larger rights with their ruling on these unspecified items, does it still make sense to point to an infallibility interpretation of the Constitution or is it wiser to broaden the general understandings of that document in order to protect the minority interests?

thanks Winston for taking the time to reply. Of course free speech was intended to apply to some future tech. That solves that issue.4


Now do you need to write new laws by the congress and the states to resolve issues,,,,,sure we do that is their function. If they fail to keep up do we get a bit of a mess...we sure do ...life is messy. For example see Uber, see b2b...there are many messy issues regarding these companies that make life a mess that make life uncertain.


I strongly agree with you that the supreme court.s job is often very often to resolve competing rights.

In any case it is interesting that the meaning of the law changes year to year as a new modern society evolves. We figure out the "intent of the law in light of contemporary society
-------------------------------

Likewise, as medicine gained in precision and safety, who would have thought in 1776 that abortion would be safer than a colonoscopy, or that it would become an issue of debate


btw your logic here takes the discussion in a different direction...that the meaning or intent of the law should be based on outcomes. We start with wanting "good outcomes" and work our way backwards to the law. If the outcome of the law is "bad" we change the intent of the law so the result is a good outcome.

------------------

"Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate ..."


note how the court took the legal argument that the original intent of the 14 th admendment was violated, not the 1954 intent. they did not make the argument that the intent of the law has changed because modern society has changed. In fact one could argue that society had not changed that much....

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2017-February-01, 18:35, said:

However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate ..."

My understanding from reading the literature is that this was essentially a decision on Warren's part made to appease the Frankfurter faction and thus keep the process unanimous, not because the SC could not have pushed for the desegregation to be done more quickly.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-01, 10:20, said:

Many of the people who voted for Trump did not like him at all, but still voted for him because he promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice who was against reproductive freedom. It s a huge problem in America that there are so many one-issue voters.

But anyway I thought that justices were supposed to leave their personal preferences at the door.

And then there was the Planned Parenthood commissioned research that showed that of their patients who voted Trump, many did not know (or did not believe) that Trump was against abortion.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2017-February-01, 18:35, said:

Now do you need to write new laws by the congress and the states to resolve issues,,,,,sure we do that is their function. If they fail to keep up do we get a bit of a mess...we sure do ...life is messy. For example see Uber, see b2b...there are many messy issues regarding these companies that make life a mess that make life uncertain.

Again, that's what we would do in an ideal world.

But lawmaking is by design a relatively slow process, even more so when you have gridlock due to partisan politics, except for the simplest of things. Sometimes decisions have to be made about how to interpret the laws that we already have in light of changes in circumstances.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
5:13 AM - 2 Feb 2017

What Trump is too unlearned to know is that the invitation from U.C. Berkeley to Milo Yiannopoulos to speak does not constitute a 1st Amendment right but the demonstrations against him is a 1st Amendment right. Trump wants to punish those exercising their constitutional rights to protest.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-02, 10:09, said:

What Trump is too unlearned to know is that the invitation from U.C. Berkeley to Milo Yiannopoulos to speak does not constitute a 1st Amendment right but the demonstrations against him is a 1st Amendment right. Trump wants to punish those exercising their constitutional rights to protest.

I differ slightly

1. The students at Berkeley are protesting that their tuition dollars are being used to support and individual who doesn't share their values
2. Trump is upset that federal funds are being used to support an institution that doesn't support his side

Here's where I think the difference is:

The decision of the University to cancel the speech was made because there was clear danger that violence was going to break out.
There did not cancel the speech because the objected to the content

Given the fact that a Milo supporter shot a protestor up in Seattle a week previously (plus the fact that the crowd was burning things) I think that the fear of violence seems reasonable.

As such, I don't think that Trump should be directing his ire at the university which was placed in an untenable position...