Finding the right investment advisor

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Finding the right investment advisor

There’s “something” for everyone in this bill

Thanks to John R.

Posted in Government | 2 Comments

Looking for work?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Looking for work?

The Garden Song

Thanks to Bob P.

Ed note: Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, and John Denver (and of course Peter, Paul & Mary) all recorded the “Garden Song”, though they were not the first. Seeger was known for performing it live and helped popularize the song within folk circles after David Mallett wrote it in 1975 (Click here for his classic recording). Seeger’s version kept the folk spirit alive and resonated with audiences who appreciated simple, nature-based, and socially-conscious music. Below Arlo Guthrie gives his own take and adds his usual wandering commentary plus a verse for anti-gardeners!

Inch by inch, row by row
Gonna make this garden grow
All it takes is a rake and a hoe
And a piece of fertile ground

Inch by inch, row by row
Someone bless these seeds I sow
Someone warm them from below
Till the rain comes tumblin’ down

Pullin’ weeds and pickin’ stones
Man is made of dreams and bones
Feel the need to grow my own
‘Cause the time is close at hand

Rainful rain, sun and rain
Find my way in nature’s chain
Tune my body and my brain
To the music from the land

Plant your rows straight and long
Temper them with prayer and song
Mother Earth will make you strong
If you give her love and care

Old crow watchin’ hungrily
From his perch in yonder tree
In my garden I’m as free
As that feathered thief up there

Inch by inch, row by row
Gonna make this garden grow
All it takes is a rake and a hoe
And a piece of fertile ground

An inch by inch, row by row
Someone bless these seeds I sow
Someone warm them from below
Till the rain comes tumblin’ down

Posted in Gardening, Music | Comments Off on The Garden Song

The Declaration did not create a nation

Louis Menand July 4, 2019 in the New Yorker (thanks to Ann M.)

On September 2, 1945, in a grassy field in Hanoi known as Ba Dinh Square, a fifty-five-year-old man wearing a worn khaki tunic and white rubber sandals gave the speech that launched the Vietnam War. The man, who would be long dead when that war finally ended, was Ho Chi Minh, and the speech that he gave was, essentially, the American Declaration of Independence in Vietnamese.

He did not just begin by quoting its most famous words—“All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”—his whole speech was copied from the Declaration. Ho enumerated the ways that a colonial power (France) had abused the rights of the Vietnamese, and he ended with another echo of Thomas Jefferson: “The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.”

It was part of Ho’s intention, when he gave the speech, to solicit the support of the United States in driving the French out of his country. (That plan did not work out so well.) But Ho was also a student of political history, and he knew that he was not the first leader of a national liberation movement to appropriate the Declaration of Independence. In fact, according to the historian David Armitage, Vietnam was something like the fifty-fifth country to do so. The Declaration created, as Armitage puts it, “a new genre.” It provided a template for claims of national sovereignty that, in the years since 1776, has been used by more than a hundred countries, from Flanders (1790) and Haiti (1804) to Bulgaria (1908), Finland (1917), and Ireland (1919) to Abkhazia (1992) and Eritrea (1993).

The Declaration is both an appeal to reason and a justification of force. The appeal to reason rests on the “all men are created equal” part. Today, we read that as a statement about race and gender equality, but that is not what Jefferson meant. He meant that no man is above the law: governors must govern by the consent of the governed. But Jefferson’s language was broader than his intention, and it allowed Frederick Douglass to point out, in his famous Fourth of July oration, in 1852, that, though Americans had declared before the world that all men are created equal, “yet you hold securely in a bondage . . . a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.” In the long run, and thanks in great measure to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates “equal protection of the laws,” and the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the vote, the equality ideal of the Declaration was incorporated into our Constitutional structure. But what most attracted the the countries that produced their own declarations of independence was the Declaration’s justification of force. When you have diagnosed that a boot is on your neck, Jefferson says, you have the right to throw it off by any means necessary. And that right is God-given.

And so, on December 24, 1860, the state of South Carolina passed a Declaration of Secession, which included ample reference to the Declaration of Independence, and, a little less than four months later, Rebel forces attacked Fort Sumter, a federal installation in Charleston Harbor. The legislators of South Carolina did not believe that all men are created equal. They did believe that their rights were being suppressed (including their right to suppress others) and that they therefore had the right to overthrow their oppressors.

And so, on the principle that what goes around comes around, on May 15, 1967, the Black Panthers published their manifesto, the Ten-Point Program. The tenth and final demand, bearing the title “We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice, and Peace,” consists entirely of a quotation from the Declaration of Independence, ending with the words “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” The Panthers did believe that all men are created equal. But they also believed that, if push were to come to shove, they, too, had the right to overthrow their oppressors.

Still, it is a valuable feature of our country that we do not mark its birth by a celebrating a triumph of force. On what day did the Revolutionary War begin? When did the British surrender at Yorktown? What date was the Treaty of Paris signed? Unless you make your living teaching American history or playing “Jeopardy,” you probably don’t know the answers to these questions. But you do know when the Declaration of Independence was written.

The Declaration did not create a nation. It created only the idea of a nation, and that idea, as its scope and meaning have evolved over time, is what we annually pay our respects to. All who live here are equal. All who live here have the same rights. None who lives here is above the law. In some years, loyalty to those principles seems like something we can take for granted. This year, on the two hundred and forty-third birthday of our founding document, not so much.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Declaration did not create a nation

Two Minutes of Torah | Chukat | Numbers 19:1−22:1

Thanks to Mary Jane F.

Two Minutes of Torah

How the Mighty Hath Fallen

This week’s Torah portion, Chukat, brings to a close a narrative arc that defines the distinct and significant differences between a broader understanding of the qualities of successful leadership and the Jewish way.

In the last few weeks, we’ve encountered a primer on the essential virtues of leadership embodied by Moses: humility, courageous vision and faith in oneself, and an intention to serve others rather than serving one’s own narcissism and aggrandizement. After establishing Moses’ bona fides as a Jewish leader, the Torah reflects the risks and costs of such an exalted status.

The people clamor and complain for water. God devises a plan for Moses to speak to a desert rock that would miraculously spew water, thus affirming God’s power and presence for the people. Moses approaches the rock with his staff as bidden by God (why the staff?!?), and as the people mock him, he responds with anger and bitterness, striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Water cascades, but Moses is chided for both giving in to anger and for undermining God as the source of the miracle. He is punished harshly with a decree that he will not be permitted to enter the Promised Land, the ultimate objective of his life’s work.

We learn that leaders are held (or should be held—especially in our current moment) to a higher standard of attitude and behavior. Thus, their fall descends from greater heights to lower depths.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Two Minutes of Torah | Chukat | Numbers 19:1−22:1

A revisited Declaration of Independence

Thanks to Mike C.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to break from a leader who governs with cruelty, contempt, and corruption, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all people are created equal, endowed with inherent dignity and unalienable rights—among these are life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of justice.

That to secure these rights, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When a leader becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right and duty of the people to refuse allegiance and to stand united in the defense of their freedoms.

The current holder of high office has shown himself to be unfit to lead a free and just society.

* He disrespects women, mocking survivors of violence and stripping away their rights.

* He fuels racism and white supremacy, scapegoating communities of color and denying their equality.

* He assaults free speech, attacking the press, punishing dissent, and spreading disinformation.

* He exploits public office for private gain, enriching himself and the billionaire class while abandoning the poor and working people.

* He undermines justice, ignores the rule of law, and places himself above accountability.

* He disregards science, endangering lives in times of crisis and sacrificing the planet for profit.

* He fans division and incites violence to maintain power, wielding fear as a weapon against the people.

Time and again, we have protested peacefully, spoken truthfully, and appealed to our shared humanity. We have been met with indifference, hostility, and violence. A leader who governs through hatred and greed is unfit to govern at all.

Therefore, we, the people of conscience and conviction, do solemnly declare our independence from this tyrant and all he represents.

We withdraw our consent.

We refuse to be complicit in cruelty.

We reject the abuse of power for personal gain.

We stand for dignity, truth, equality, and justice for all people.

With firm reliance on each other and unwavering hope in our collective strength,

We pledge to resist oppression in all its forms,

To uphold the rights of the vulnerable,

And to build a future grounded in compassion, courage, and shared humanity.

Let this declaration be both a breaking and a beginning.

Posted in Advocacy, Government, Law | Comments Off on A revisited Declaration of Independence

Check out the Declaration’s list of grievances

It’s time to recapture our freedoms.

from The Contrarian – thanks to Mary M.

Desperate for some inspiration, I decided to reread the entire Declaration of Independence. We know it as an aspirational document (“We hold these truths…”). We understand it as a repudiation of tyranny (“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”). It is both those things, but it is also a compendium of complaints, a description of an autocrat’s offenses against a free people. And that was the part I found strangely relevant to our times.

The signers railed about exclusionary immigration policies that hurt the colonies (“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”). They inveighed against barriers to trade (“cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”). And they condemned imposing “Taxes on us without our Consent,” which, if we remember that unilaterally imposed tariffs are a consumer tax, also sounds familiar. Tyrants, then and now, seek to dominate and micromanage commerce to the detriment of ordinary people seeking a better life.

And notice the common problem, then and now, when a tyrant attempts to corrupt the rule of law by seeking to intimidate and threaten members of the judiciary (“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices”); seeks to impair due process (“depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”); and even ships people out of the country for punishment (“Transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”). The tyrant playbook has not changed much in nearly 250 years.

Using the military improperly has always been a go-to move for tyrants. “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” (or in our case, the governor of California) and tried to make “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” (by, among other things, threatening to deploy them to silence protests). “Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” is still going on in Los Angeles. And “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us …”—or in Donald Trump’s case, incited violence, called it an insurrection and then used it as a pretext to send in the military.

Though our bill of particulars against Trump bears some resemblance to the Declaration’s list of grievances, it might be useful to include a few of Trump’s more recent offenses:

I could go on.

In a functional democracy with a vibrant, independent and conscientious Article I branch, the compendium of Trump’s offenses would serve as an outline for articles of impeachment. In the era of a pliant, quivering Republican House and Senate majorities, the litany of horrors should at least highlight the degree to which Trump has tried to assume the powers of a king. (It’s no coincidence he flocks the Oval Office in gold—décor long favored by monarchs, tyrants, and real estate developers with bad taste.)

Nearly 250 years ago, after listing the offenses against the colonies, the signers of the Declaration felt compelled to declare their break from Britain as the only means to unshackle themselves. We must not (as Trump has) resort to insurrection and/or violence. Thanks to the handiwork of the Constitution ratified 12 years after the Declaration, we have all the tools (e.g., elections, free speech) necessary to maintain our status as a “Free and Independent” people.

We all can use this Independence Day to rouse our fellow Americans from their stupor, recall for them the offenses of our modern tyrant, and summon them to embrace the spirit of the Declaration (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”).

We can remind them that generations of Americans have pledged their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor for the right to live as free citizens, not helpless subjects of a mad king. And we might then enlist them in the immense task of peacefully recapturing our democracy and reforming all branches of government. Then we might be worthy of the greatest inheritance one might receive: the privilege of being a free people in a country capable of transcending its faults.

I hope you have a meaningful, inspiring, and joyful Fourth of July!

Posted in Advocacy, Government, History, Justice, Law | Comments Off on Check out the Declaration’s list of grievances

3 PM today July 4th – Performance Hall

Reading the Declaration of Independence

In honor of Independence Day a group of us will gather to read the Declaration of Independence.  Please join us if you are interested.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on 3 PM today July 4th – Performance Hall

Neighborly game

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Neighborly game

For ‘60 Minutes,’ a Humbling Moment at an Uneasy Time for Press Freedom

After an astonishing concession to a sitting president, the country’s most popular television news program faces the prospect of new ownership and a chilled environment for the First Amendment.


By Michael M. Grynbaum and David Enrich in the NYT

The DealBook Newsletter  Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them. Get it sent to your inbox.

For many veteran correspondents at “60 Minutes,” paying even $1 to settle a left-field lawsuit from an aggrieved president seemed too high a price.

At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account.

Late Tuesday, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, concluded differently. It agreed to pay $16 million so President Trump would drop a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that “60 Minutes” had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like.

Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable, running counter to long-established First Amendment protections for the American press. On Wednesday, many journalists and First Amendment groups expressed dismay at the outcome.

“Today is a dark day for press freedom,” said Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation. He called Paramount’s decision “spineless” and “an invitation” for the president to target other news outlets. Two Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, referred to the settlement as a bribe and called for an investigation and possible criminal charges.

But Paramount’s leader, Shari Redstone, viewed the situation differently and encouraged her board to explore a settlement. She was in the midst of a multibillion-dollar deal to sell Paramount to a Hollywood studio, Skydance, and the Trump administration needed to sign off. (continued on page 2 here)

Posted in Ethics, Government, Media | Comments Off on For ‘60 Minutes,’ a Humbling Moment at an Uneasy Time for Press Freedom

Is There a Least Bad Alcohol?

By Caroline Hopkins Legaspi in the NYT

If you’ve heard that red wine is better for you than beer or liquor, or that clear liquor like vodka or gin is less harmful than dark liquor like rum or whiskey, we have bad news.

“Alcohol is alcohol,” said Jürgen Rehm, a senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. Drinking any type of alcohol, in any amount, is bad for health.

Still, experts say, it’s sometimes not reasonable or even practical for people to avoid alcohol entirely. So if you’re going to drink, there are some strategies you can take to reduce your risk, and to avoid some of the other unpleasant effects of drinking, like hangovers.

When you have a drink, your body turns the ethanol that’s present in the alcoholic beverage into a “really nasty substance” called acetaldehyde, which can damage your DNA, said Timothy Stockwell, an alcohol researcher at the University of Victoria in Canada.

Many tissues in the body, including those in the mouth, throat, liver, colon and breasts, are susceptible to this harm. And when that DNA gets repaired, cancerous mutations may arise.

This is why drinking increases the risk for developing at least seven types of cancer, said Katherine Keyes, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University. Excessive alcohol use — which includes having eight or more drinks per week for women or 15 or more per week for men; or four or more drinks per occasion for women or five or more for men — is also linked with many other health conditions. These include heart and liver disease, depression, anxiety and memory problems, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The more ethanol in your drink, the more harmful it is, Dr. Keyes said. One way to assess this is to look at a drink’s alcohol by volume, or A.B.V., which manufacturers must list on product labels. If you’re choosing between two beers of the same size, for instance, and one is 4 percent A.B.V. and the other is 8 percent, the 4 percent beer will expose you to half as much ethanol.

In general, beer has less ethanol than wine per ounce, and wine has less than liquors like vodka and tequila, Dr. Keyes said. But there can be large variations within these categories, Dr. Stockwell said. Some strong beers, for instance, have A.B.V.s that are higher than those of some wines (or even some liquors, on the extreme end).

A good rule for reducing your exposure to ethanol is to generally choose drinks with lower A.B.V.s, the experts said. But it’s important to pay attention to how much you’re drinking as well.

A standard 12-ounce pour of a 5 percent A.B.V. beer typically has the same amount of ethanol as five ounces of a 12 percent wine or 1.5 ounces (or a shot) of a 40 percent liquor.

It can be tricky to calculate the A.B.V. of cocktails, said Dr. Peng-Sheng (Brian) Ting, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Tulane University School of Medicine, since they are often made with sodas, juices and sometimes multiple types of alcohol. For this reason, he recommends sticking with wine or beer in situations where you want to know exactly how much ethanol you’re consuming.

Some types of alcohol are also quite high in calories, which when consumed in excess can increase the risk of weight gain and obesity. And some cocktail mixers, like juices and sodas, can contain added sugars, also raising the risk for obesity and other health conditions like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Dr. Keyes also recommended against consuming alcoholic drinks that are mixed with caffeine (like espresso martinis or vodka Red Bulls). The energy boost you get from them may make you feel less inebriated than you really are, potentially prompting you to drink more and to become more drunk, Dr. Keyes said.

And while there’s no evidence that darker liquors are more harmful to health than clear ones, there is limited research suggesting that some darker liquors can cause more severe hangovers, said Damaris Rohsenow, a professor at the Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University. Darker alcohols (like bourbon, rum and brandy) tend to have higher levels of congeners, substances that are created during the fermentation process and contribute to a drink’s flavor, aroma and color. More congeners typically translates to worse hangovers, Dr. Rohsenow said.

There can be exceptions to the “clear is better” rule, however, Dr. Rohsenow added. Some tequilas, which can be clear or light-colored, for instance, can be high in congeners and may lead to worse hangovers.

Posted in drugs, Health | Comments Off on Is There a Least Bad Alcohol?

Breaking glass

Thanks to John R.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Breaking glass

Beware

Thanks to John R.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Beware

A deeply immoral piece of legislation

Commentary by Heather Cox Richardson

“This is the most deeply immoral piece of legislation I have ever voted on in my entire time in Congress,” said Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“[W]e’re debating a bill that’s going to cut healthcare for 16 million people. It’s going to give a tax break to…massively wealthy people who don’t need any more money. There are going to be kids who go hungry because of this bill. This is the biggest reduction in…nutrition benefits for kids in the history of the country.” Murphy continued: “We’re obviously gonna continue to offer these amendments to try to make it better. So far not a single one of our amendments…has passed, but we’ll be here all day, probably all night, giving Republicans the chance over and over and over again to slim down the tax cuts for the corporations or to make life a little bit…less miserable for hungry kids or maybe don’t throw as many people off of healthcare. Maybe don’t close so many rural hospitals. It’s gonna be a long day and a long night.”

“This bill is a farce,” said Senator Angus King (I-ME). “Imagine a bunch of guys sitting around a table, saying, ‘I’ve got a great idea. Let’s give $32,000 worth of tax breaks to a millionaire and we’ll pay for it by taking health insurance away from lower-income and middle-income people. And to top it off, how about we cut food stamps, we cut SNAP, we cut food aid to people?’… I’ve been in this business of public policy now for 20 years, eight years as governor, 12 years in the United States Senate. I have never seen a bill this bad. I have never seen a bill that is this irresponsible, regressive, and downright cruel.”

“When I worked here in the 70’s,” King said, “I had insurance as a…junior staff member in this body 50 years ago. Because I had that insurance that covered a free checkup, I went in and had my first physical in eight years…and the doctors found a little mole on my back. And they took it out. And I didn’t think much of it. And I went in a week later and the doctor said, ‘You better sit down, Angus. That was malignant melanoma. You’re going to have to have serious surgery.’… And I had the surgery and here I am. If I hadn’t had insurance, I wouldn’t be here. And it’s always haunted me that some young man in America that same year had malignant melanoma, he didn’t have insurance, he didn’t get that checkup, and he died. That’s wrong. It’s immoral.”

Senator King continued: “I don’t understand the obsession and I never have…with taking health insurance away from people. I don’t get it. Trying to take away the Affordable Care Act in 2017 or 2018 and now this. What’s driving this? What’s the cruelty to do this, to take health insurance away from people knowing that it’s going to cost them…up to and including…their lives.”

In fact, the drive to slash health insurance is part of the Republicans’ determination to destroy the modern government.

Grover Norquist, a lawyer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and one of the key architects of the Republican argument that the solution to societal ills is tax cuts, in 2010 described to Rebecca Elliott of the Harvard Crimson how he sees the role of government. “Government should enforce [the] rule of law,” he said. “It should enforce contracts, it should protect people bodily from being attacked by criminals. And when the government does those things, it is facilitating liberty. When it goes beyond those things, it becomes destructive to both human happiness and human liberty.”

Norquist vehemently opposed taxation, saying that “it’s not any of the government’s business who earns what, as long as they earn it legitimately,” and proposed cutting government spending down to 8% of gross domestic product, or GDP, the value of the final goods and services produced in the United States.

The last time the level of government spending was at that 8% of GDP was 1933, before the New Deal. In that year, after years of extraordinary corporate profits, the banking system had collapsed, the unemployment rate was nearly 25%, prices and productivity were plummeting, wages were cratering, factories had shut down, farmers were losing their land to foreclosure. Children worked in the fields and factories, elderly and disabled people ate from garbage cans, unregulated banks gambled away people’s money, and business owners treated their workers as they wished. Within a year the Great Plains would be blowing away as extensive deep plowing had damaged the land, making it vulnerable to drought. Republican leaders insisted the primary solution to the crisis was individual enterprise and private charity.

When he accepted the Democratic nomination for president in July 1932, New York governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt vowed to steer between the radical extremes of fascism and communism to deliver a “New Deal” to the American people.

The so-called alphabet soup of the New Deal gave us the regulation of banks and businesses, protections for workers, an end to child labor in factories, repair of the damage to the Great Plains, new municipal buildings and roads and airports, rural electrification, investment in artists and writers, and Social Security for workers who were injured or unemployed. Government outlays as a percentage of GDP began to rise. World War II shot them off the charts, to more than 40% of GDP, as the United States helped the world fight fascism.

That number dropped again after the war, and in 1975, federal expenditures settled in at about 20% of GDP. Except for short-term spikes after financial crises (spending shot up to 24% after the 2008 crash, for example, and to 31% during the 2020 pandemic), the spending-to-GDP ratio has remained at about that set point.

The national debt is growing because tax revenues have plummeted. Tax cuts under the George W. Bush and Trump administrations are responsible for 57% of the increase in the ratio of the debt to the economy, 90% if you exclude the emergency expenditures of the pandemic, and have left the United States with a tax burden nowhere close to the average of the 38 other nations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), all of which are market-oriented democracies. And those cuts have gone primarily to the wealthy and corporations.

Republicans who backed those tax cuts now want more. They are trying to force through a measure that will dramatically cut the nation’s social safety net while at the same time increasing the national debt by $3.3 trillion over the next ten years.

“There are two ways of viewing the government’s duty in matters affecting economic and social life,” FDR said in his speech accepting the 1932 Democratic nomination for president. “The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small business man.” The other “is based upon the simple moral principle: the welfare and the soundness of a Nation depend first upon what the great mass of the people wish and need; and second, whether or not they are getting it.”

The Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill takes wealth from the American people to give it to the very wealthy and corporations, and Democrats are calling their colleagues out.

“This place feels to me, today, like a crime scene,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said on the floor of the Senate. “Get some of that yellow tape and put it around this chamber. This piece of legislation is corrupt. This piece of legislation is crooked. This piece of legislation is a rotten racket. This bill cooked up in back rooms, dropped at midnight, cloaked in fake numbers with huge handouts to big Republican donors. It loots our country for some of the least deserving people you could imagine. When I first got here, this chamber filled me with awe and wonderment. Today, I feel disgust.”

Posted in Economics, Government, Taxes | Comments Off on A deeply immoral piece of legislation

UW Medicine Memory & Brain Updates

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab
Posted in Dementia | Comments Off on UW Medicine Memory & Brain Updates

How a Tiny Community Got Caught Up in Trump’s Attacks on Canada

The enclave of Point Roberts, Wash., once thrived with a mix of Americans and Canadians. Now the border checks are a hassle, the community is isolated and businesses are withering.

By Ken Belson Photographs by Ruth Fremson

Ken Belson crossed two borders to get to Point Roberts.

The five-square-mile nub of land at the end of the peninsula in Washington State is easy to miss. It’s attached to Canada, about an hour south of Vancouver, but sits just below the 49th parallel, which means it’s part of the United States.

Point Roberts is a one-of-a-kind community, surrounded by water on three sides and sharing a land border with Canada to the north. Canadians own about 70 percent of the homes, while for years Canadian day-trippers flocked to Point Roberts to buy cheap gas, groceries and beer, and to board their boats docked at the 950-slip marina.

But President Trump’s attacks on Canada, claiming it should be the 51st state and calling the prime minister “governor,” have introduced new hassles and unusual tensions to this community of 1,200 full-time residents. The number of cars crossing the border at the entry at Point Roberts fell 29.3 percent in April compared to the same month in 2024, as some Canadians are no longer making the trip to frequent Point Roberts stores and restaurants.

A man with a shopping cart a grocery store; a sign above says International Marketplace Deli.
The community’s only supermarket, the International Marketplace, used to receive four truckloads of deliveries each week; it now needs one or two truckloads a week.

Sales at the International Marketplace, the only supermarket in Point Roberts, have fallen 20 percent since the end of January.

“I totally understand where the Canadians are coming from, but we need their support when times are tough,” said the owner, Ali Hayton. “That’s not going to happen this time. Nobody saw this coming. This is next level.”

The backlash to the president’s expansionist broadsides has reverberated all along the 5,500-mile U.S.-Canadian border. Trade has been disrupted in sister cities like Windsor and Detroit. Canadians have canceled vacations to the United States and some have sold their vacation homes in Sun Belt states. Canadians are shopping less in border cities like Bellingham, Wash., and Buffalo. (continued on page 2 here)

Posted in Economics, Government, Taxes | 1 Comment

FBI agent, Geek Squad or scammer? Don’t get tricked, prosecutors warn

By Sara Jean Green Seattle Times staff reporter

Scammers have managed to bilk more than $7 million from 46 victims across the state, nearly half of them in King County, by convincing them their bank accounts or computers have been compromised and the only way to safeguard their money is to hand over large amounts of cash to couriers who will deliver it to a trusted government agency.

“The one thing we know about those numbers is we’re undercounting because those are only the ones where people recognize they’ve been scammed and are willing and able to call law enforcement,” said Patrick Hinds, the chief deputy prosecutor of the economic crimes and wage theft division within the King County prosecuting attorney’s office.

It’s one of several recent attempts to steal money from Washingtonians. Drivers have been receiving phishing scam text messages purportedly from the “Department of Motor Vehicles” — an agency that doesn’t exist in the state — directing them to pay a fine or face dire consequences. And Bellevue police warned of scammers posing as Chinese law enforcement who have managed to trick people into giving up millions of dollars.

Hinds initiated something of a media blitz last week in hopes of warning people to look out for red flags so they don’t become scam victims in the first place, or, if they do, provide ways to protect themselves against future financial fraud. (continued on page 2 here)

Posted in Scams | Comments Off on FBI agent, Geek Squad or scammer? Don’t get tricked, prosecutors warn

Why Does This House Have a Skybridge?

Developments with a skybridge or hallway connecting two homes have been popping up all over Seattle in recent years.

A skybridge connecting two homes in Seattle — one single-family home and one smaller attached accessory dwelling unit, or A.D.U.

By Jane C. Hu in the NYT – Photographs by Ruth Fremso – (Thanks to Tim B.)

A peculiar architectural feature has spread throughout Seattle. On a single lot, you’ll see three houses, one somewhat bigger than the others, and between the big one and a smaller one is a walkway. Sometimes it’s on the ground floor, and sometimes it’s through the air — in other words, a skybridge.

On paper, what you’re looking at is a single-family home and two accessory dwelling units, an arrangement locally known as a 3-pack. These compounds popped up after Seattle eased building restrictions on A.D.U.s in 2019, as part of the city’s efforts to increase housing density and drive down prices. A.D.U.s are built on land that would not otherwise be developed — often, what would be a house’s backyard — and tend to cost less than conventional single-family homes.

A street view of the same development where the skybridge connects two monochrome paneled houses. The house on the right is smaller, with an upstairs terrace.
Seattle developers build A.D.U. compounds, or “3-packs,” to maximize living space on a lot, but per city regulations, one unit must be connected to the main house. Enter the skybridge.

Before 2019, Seattle allowed only one A.D.U. per lot, and the owner of the main house had to live on site and provide an off-street parking spot for any new unit. Under those restrictions, most A.D.U.s were built by homeowners on their existing lots, for use as guesthouses, studios or offices. (continued on page 2 at website www.skyline725.com)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why Does This House Have a Skybridge?

Recommended by RFK, Jr.

Thanks to John R.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Recommended by RFK, Jr.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

“The thing speaks for itself.” (Thanks to Mike C.)

Posted in Government, Law | Comments Off on Res Ipsa Loquitur

The 14th amendment and the history of birthright discrimination

Commentary by Heather Cox Richardson

After the Supreme Court today decided the case of Trump v. CASA, limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, President Donald Trump claimed the decision was a huge victory that would permit him to end birthright citizenship, that is, the principle that anyone born in the United States, with very limited exceptions, is a U.S. citizen. To reporters, he claimed: “If you look at the end of the Civil War—the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day—was it 1869? Or whatever. But you take that exact day, that’s when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter. This had to do with the babies of slaves, very obviously.”

This is a great example of a politician rooting a current policy in a made-up history. There is nothing in Trump’s statement that is true, except perhaps that the 1800s were a turbulent time. Every era is.

The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To try to remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States.”

But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws. (continue on Page 2 at www.skyline725.com)

Posted in Government, History, Law, Race | Comments Off on The 14th amendment and the history of birthright discrimination

The pace of life

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The pace of life

Harborview – towers and more are planned in 1.7 billion expansion and renovation project

Thanks to Mary M.

“A man stopped by from Harborview yesterday with some handouts for the neighborhood that describe about the first step of their upcoming major construction. Apparently he is part of a group that will be keeping the neighborhood informed.

The new construction will be quite close, could be quite noisy at times (e.g., pile driving).”

Ed Note: There is a lot of detail on-line about this multi-year bond approved expansion at Harborview. Of interest will be one or two new towers behind (west of) the hospital. There is a lot in information on-line at https://www.djc.com/news/re/12169507.html and www.HarborviewBondProgram.com.

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab
Posted in Health, In the Neighborhood | Comments Off on Harborview – towers and more are planned in 1.7 billion expansion and renovation project

Want a good “feel good” movie to watch on Netflix?

I think you might enjoy Robert De Niro as the intern and Ann Hathaway as the boss. Lots of positive reviews from young and old.

Posted in Movies | Comments Off on Want a good “feel good” movie to watch on Netflix?