Friday, May 31, 2019

Something to Know - 1 June

As you contemplate your breakfast and shopping plans, here is a WAPO story on what you might be interested in.


As Mexico becomes America's top source of imported goods, here are the products that could be most hit by Trump's tariffs


A beer display in Oklahoma in October contained several Mexican imports. (Sue Ogrocki/AP)
May 31 at 9:52 AM

Mexico is an integral part of the U.S. economy. It's the source of most of the United States' imported beer and tractors, to say nothing of the rest of the $346.5 billion in goods Mexico sent to the United States last year.

Those goods may soon be hit with a 5 percent tariff. President Trump said Thursday the tariffs will begin at 5 percent on June 10. They will rise an additional 5 percent each month until they hit 25 percent on Oct. 1. Those tariffs will remain elevated "until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory," the White House said.


President Trump on May 30 vowed to impose a 5 percent tariff on all goods coming from Mexico unless it stopped the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S. 

As tariffs ramp up, the price you pay for goods as varied as cars and cauliflower will probably rise. After all, companies tend to pass the costs of tariffs on to consumers, as National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow acknowledged in May.

Beyond the ubiquitous avocados, what do we import from Mexico? To answer, we looked at imports of more than 1,230 categories of goods for the year ending in March — the most recent 12-month period for which we have data from the Commerce Department.

The top of the list is ruled by components for the American auto industry. Deutsche Bank Securities economist Torsten Slok told The Washington Post that two-thirds of U.S. imports from Mexico are intermediate parts that U.S. companies use to produce goods. Chief among them? Cars.


It doesn't stop there, of course. American companies increasingly look to Mexico for raw materials, such as gold, to technical parts, such as electrical transformers.

As the trade war with China intensifies, Mexico is vying to become our single-largest trading partner. And an update to the transformative North American Free Trade Agreement, which made Mexico the keystone of many American companies' production processes, may soon go to Congress for approval.


But it's not just sheer size that leaves American companies exposed. After all, if a company can simply switch to a supplier in a different country for little additional cost, there won't be much to pass on to the consumer.

To find hints as to which products are least likely to have low-cost alternatives, we should consider those products that come primarily from Mexico. If companies have chosen Mexico as their main supplier, we can assume it's because the alternatives would be more expensive.

These Mexico-dependent categories include fresh produce, such as tomatoes, cauliflower and lettuce, as well as heavier equipment, such as tractors and trucks. There is also beer. Mexican brands such as Corona and Modelo Especial are among the best-selling beers in the country.


It's not just American tariffs that could send prices higher. There are two sides to this trade relationship, and many American industries, such as agriculture, rely on Mexican buyers. There are about 126 million of them — Mexicans outnumber Canadians 3.5 to 1.

Mexico's retaliation against Trump's earlier steel and aluminum tariffs had cost hog farmers about $12 per animal, Minnesota hog farmer Randy Spronk told The Post's Laura Reiley recently.

"We've been hit more than any other sector," Spronk told Reiley. "Our highest value markets are the ones that are impacted by these tariffs. We got side swiped. The additive effects of these tariffs come out of my back pocket."


****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

--

Something #10

So....this is the analysis of the exercise this morning.   The article in the LA Times about the option of censure went through, along with my brief introduction.  The political cartoon with no other material went through by itself with no problem.  The picture of Nancy Pelosi, by itself, went through OK.   However, the article, the intro, the cartoon, and Nancy in various combinations or in total did not make it through the Gmail Censor.   It seems that certain combinations of material are flagged and are prevented from being sent through Gmail.   Now.....who is making the the decision of what gets through?   Is it a laid-off programmer brought back for part-time work?   Is it an
 Artificial Intelligence program?  Or is it a Russian Bot?    We live in interesting times

--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Something #9

This is the CartoonÑ

Stuart Carlson Comic Strip for May 29, 2019


--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Something #8

This is the picture of Nancy PelosiÑ

Mueller is right: It's up to Congress to act, and impeachment isn't the only option
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Glen Stubbe / TNS)

--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Something to Know - 31 May (this is one of several email tests this morning

If you are getting this version, it is because the original version that was sent first has a picture of Nancy Pelosi and a political cartoon.   Three separate versions of the email were sent out, and all three were modified in gradual bits.  This one removed the cartoon and a real picture of Ms. Pelosi, and if you are getting it, it is because previous versions were censored by Google to prevent Nancy and the Cartoon from going through.   Big Brother is watching.



Right after Mueller delivered his sign off from his job, there was an immediate call to act by a great body of opinion makers.   Every angle from there is not enough to Impeach Individual One, to a demand that to defend our Constitution and Preserve our Democracy - Impeachment should start now.    What is getting a lot of attention is something in between the two big options, and it is Censure.  Political Reality, and entrance into the next General Election cycle presents a new avenue, and it may be the best option.  

Mueller is right: It's up to Congress to act, and impeachment isn't the only option

Robert S. Mueller III is right. A special prosecutor does not have the authority to indict a sitting president.
The Constitution specifies that the punishment for impeachment "shall not extend further than" removal from office and disqualification from further service. It goes on to say that a president convicted of impeachment "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." The text does not authorize an indictment before Congress removes a president from the White House.


That approach is common sense. Defending against an indictment would be a time-consuming business, diverting attention away from the countless matters pressing on a president's attention. It is tempting, given President Trump's erratic behavior, to ignore the text's express limitation and push for legal action against him. But the Constitution is designed for the long haul, and should not be bent out of shape by the pressures of the moment. If Trump were indicted, the action would serve as a precedent for decades to come.

So, if indictment is premature, what should be the next step?


In the wake of Mueller's statement, calls for impeachment are certain to increase. But it's crucial to recognize that is not the only option. The House could also introduce a motion to censure the president for his abuses of power.


Such formal condemnations by a single chamber of Congress have a long history, going back to the earliest years of the republic. The most compelling precedent was established in 1834 when the Senate censured President Andrew Jacksonfor actions remarkably similar to those we have witnessed recently.

Like Trump, Jackson was determined to undo the legislative legacy of his predecessors. In Jackson's view, the policies pursued by the Second Bank of the United States favored the rich and were destroying the hopes of farmers and workers for success in a free-market economy.

When Jackson entered the White House in 1829, he immediately set out to kill the "monster bank." But he confronted a big legal problem: The bank's charter guaranteed it policymaking independence until 1837. If he followed the law, Jackson would never have a chance to rein in the bank, even if he won reelection for a second term. The obvious answer was to convince Congress to abolish it immediately.

But like Trump, Jackson resolved his dilemma by defying the law. He ordered William Duane, his secretary of the Treasury, to cripple the Second Bank of the United States by withdrawing all the government's deposits. When Duane refused, Jackson fired him and appointed Roger Taney, who followed his boss' command and was rewarded by being named chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate responded to Taney's assault on the bank by endorsing a motion of censure: "Resolved, [t]hat the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both."

Precisely the same words fit Trump's recent decisions to fund a border wall and enforce his immigration policies with money explicitly appropriated by Congress for other purposes. The public record contains many other examples of lawless action — from Trump's early exclusions of migrants from "Muslim majority" nations to his ongoing support of the Saudi war against Yemen without gaining approval from Congress, as required by the War Powers Resolution.

There is no reason to delay. The president's contempt for Congress and the courts is demonstrated by his own words and deeds. They merit immediate censure by the House.

In contrast, impeachment would be a long, drawn-out affair with a highly uncertain outcome. It would take months for committee members to consider all the evidence, assuming that the Justice Department hands over the crucial documents. The House should press on with its investigations, of course, since it is always possible that the committee will uncover such compelling evidence that two-thirds of the Senate would agree that the president must go. Stranger things have happened.

In the meantime, however, the House debate on a censure motion would dramatize the high stakes raised by Trump's unilateral power grabs. The culminating vote on a resolution would serve as a moment of truth, especially for genuine constitutional conservatives who have proudly committed themselves to the principles of limited government throughout their careers. Are they really prepared to say that Trump's behavior is acceptable?

My crystal ball is no better than yours. But if a censure were to pass with significant bipartisan support, it would give hope to the many millions of Americans who have not yet given up on our system of checks and balances — and would help make its defense a central issue of the coming presidential campaign.

Censure or no, Trump is likely to be a formidable candidate in 2020. Andrew Jackson once again provides a sobering precedent. Despite the censure of his conduct, he won reelection in 1832, and even managed to convince the Senate to expunge its earlier motion from the record. Let's hope the historical parallels stop with a censure.

Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law at Yale University and an author, most recently of "Revolutionary Constitutions."



--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Something to Know - 31 May



Robert S. Mueller III is right. A special prosecutor does not have the authority to indict a sitting president.

The Constitution specifies that the punishment for impeachment "shall not extend further than" removal from office and disqualification from further service. It goes on to say that a president convicted of impeachment "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." The text does not authorize an indictment before Congress removes a president from the White House.


That approach is common sense. Defending against an indictment would be a time-consuming business, diverting attention away from the countless matters pressing on a president's attention. It is tempting, given President Trump's erratic behavior, to ignore the text's express limitation and push for legal action against him. But the Constitution is designed for the long haul, and should not be bent out of shape by the pressures of the moment. If Trump were indicted, the action would serve as a precedent for decades to come.

So, if indictment is premature, what should be the next step?


In the wake of Mueller's statement, calls for impeachment are certain to increase. But it's crucial to recognize that is not the only option. The House could also introduce a motion to censure the president for his abuses of power.


Such formal condemnations by a single chamber of Congress have a long history, going back to the earliest years of the republic. The most compelling precedent was established in 1834 when the Senate censured President Andrew Jacksonfor actions remarkably similar to those we have witnessed recently.

Like Trump, Jackson was determined to undo the legislative legacy of his predecessors. In Jackson's view, the policies pursued by the Second Bank of the United States favored the rich and were destroying the hopes of farmers and workers for success in a free-market economy.

When Jackson entered the White House in 1829, he immediately set out to kill the "monster bank." But he confronted a big legal problem: The bank's charter guaranteed it policymaking independence until 1837. If he followed the law, Jackson would never have a chance to rein in the bank, even if he won reelection for a second term. The obvious answer was to convince Congress to abolish it immediately.

But like Trump, Jackson resolved his dilemma by defying the law. He ordered William Duane, his secretary of the Treasury, to cripple the Second Bank of the United States by withdrawing all the government's deposits. When Duane refused, Jackson fired him and appointed Roger Taney, who followed his boss' command and was rewarded by being named chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate responded to Taney's assault on the bank by endorsing a motion of censure: "Resolved, [t]hat the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both."

Precisely the same words fit Trump's recent decisions to fund a border wall and enforce his immigration policies with money explicitly appropriated by Congress for other purposes. The public record contains many other examples of lawless action — from Trump's early exclusions of migrants from "Muslim majority" nations to his ongoing support of the Saudi war against Yemen without gaining approval from Congress, as required by the War Powers Resolution.

There is no reason to delay. The president's contempt for Congress and the courts is demonstrated by his own words and deeds. They merit immediate censure by the House.

In contrast, impeachment would be a long, drawn-out affair with a highly uncertain outcome. It would take months for committee members to consider all the evidence, assuming that the Justice Department hands over the crucial documents. The House should press on with its investigations, of course, since it is always possible that the committee will uncover such compelling evidence that two-thirds of the Senate would agree that the president must go. Stranger things have happened.

In the meantime, however, the House debate on a censure motion would dramatize the high stakes raised by Trump's unilateral power grabs. The culminating vote on a resolution would serve as a moment of truth, especially for genuine constitutional conservatives who have proudly committed themselves to the principles of limited government throughout their careers. Are they really prepared to say that Trump's behavior is acceptable?

My crystal ball is no better than yours. But if a censure were to pass with significant bipartisan support, it would give hope to the many millions of Americans who have not yet given up on our system of checks and balances — and would help make its defense a central issue of the coming presidential campaign.

Censure or no, Trump is likely to be a formidable candidate in 2020. Andrew Jackson once again provides a sobering precedent. Despite the censure of his conduct, he won reelection in 1832, and even managed to convince the Senate to expunge its earlier motion from the record. Let's hope the historical parallels stop with a censure.

Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law at Yale University and an author, most recently of "Revolutionary Constitutions."


--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Something #7 Trump Impeachment

Test

--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Andy Borowitz


Mueller Stirs Controversy by Urging Americans to Read


Photograph by Al Drago / Bloomberg / Getty

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The special counsel Robert Mueller ignited a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by recommending that millions of Americans read.

Mueller, seemingly oblivious to the uproar he was about to create, repeatedly commented that there was valuable information available to the American people only by reading a long book.

At the White House, sources said that Donald J. Trump was furious about Mueller's statement because he interpreted the special counsel's pro-reading message as a thinly veiled attack on him.

Speaking to reporters later, on the White House lawn, Trump made it clear that Mueller's exhortation to read had fallen on deaf ears.

"I've never read any of my books, and I certainly don't intend to read his," Trump said.

--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Something New

We just finished sheltering in place at our hotel near the Kansas City airport....on account of a tornado warning.   Our flight tomorrow morning has been delayed from 6am to 9am.....for starters.   1st leg is to Phoenix.    Once we get to PHX, then we probably will misconnect to Ontario.   Wild and heavy rain, thunder and lightning.   We are not used to this.   We are from the land of California Dreaming.

--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

The Weather and Getting. Back Home


Well, our trip to complete the bucket list to visit all 50 states is complete.   All we have to do is get back to Kansas City, return the rented car, and get on a series of planes to get back to CLAREMONT.   Last night here in Kearney, Nebraska, lots of rain, thunderstorms, and lightening kept us awake.   The drive back to Kansas City promises to be an other adventure, and we will see what surprises airport operations will have for us.    We saw some beautiful country and people in the Western Dakota's.   Mt. Rushmore, was a big surprise, and even Carhenge was a good stop.   See you all soon.
--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Memorial Day - Andrew Bacevich




A memorial for conflicts we want to forget


By Andrew J. Bacevich
E arlier this month, I spent a day in Marseilles, videotaping a documentary about recent American military history, specifically the ongoing wars that most of us prefer not to think about.
Lest there be any confusion, let me explain. I am not referring to Marseilles (mar-SAY), France, that nation's largest port and second largest city with a population approaching 900,000. No, my destination was Marseilles , (mar-SAYLZ), Ill., a small prairie town with a population hovering around 5,000.
The Midwestern Marseilles nestles in LaSalle County alongside the Illinois River, smack dab in the middle of flyover country between Chicago and Peoria. I have some personal familiarity with this part of America. More than half a century ago, the school I attended in nearby Peru used to play the Panthers of Marseilles High. Unfortunately, Marseilles can't support a high school anymore; its teenagers travel downriver to Ottawa.
Back in the day, Marseilles manufactured corrugated boxes for Nabisco. But that factory was shuttered in 2002, and only the empty, abandoned building remains, its eight-story hulk still looming above Main Street. Although the U.S. economy has bounced back from the Great Recession, the good times here look to have ended and never come back.
Not too surprisingly, this is Trump country. In 2016, LaSalle County voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by a hefty 14% margin . It's easy to imagine residents of Marseilles, which is more than 96% white, taking umbrage at Clinton's disparaging reference to "deplorables." They had reason to do so.
Now, Marseilles retains one modest claim to fame. It's the site of the Middle East Conflicts Wall Memorial , dedicated in June 2004 and situated on an open plot of ground between the river and the old Nabisco plant. The memorial, created and supported by civic-minded Illinois bikers, many of them Vietnam veterans, is the only one in the nation erected to commemorate those who have died in the campaigns, skirmishes, protracted wars and nasty mishaps that have involved U.S. forces in various quarters of the greater Middle East since the 1960s.
Think about it: Anyone wanting to pay personal tribute to those who fought and died for our country in World War II or Korea or Vietnam knows where to go — to the great American public space of the Mall in Washington, D.C. Any American wanting to honor the sacrifice of those who fought and died in the series of more recent conflicts that have lasted longer than World War II, Korea and Vietnam combined must travel to a town where the nearest public transportation is a Greyhound bus station in Ottawa and the top restaurant is Bobaluk's Beef and Pizza.
Critics might quibble with the aesthetics of the Marseilles Middle East memorial — a knock-off of the far more famous Vietnam Wall — but its effect is palpably honest and heartfelt: a series of polished granite panels listing the names of those killed in this country's "forever wars" going all the way back to the sailors gunned down in June 1967 in the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty .
The panels contain more than 8,000 names. Each June, in conjunction with the annual Illinois Motorcycle Freedom Run , which ends at the memorial, more are added. (The run takes place June 15 this year.) Along with flags and plaques, there is also text affirming that all those commemorated there are heroes who died for freedom and will never be forgotten.
On that point, allow me to register my own quibble. Although my son's name is halfway down near the left margin of Panel 5B, I find myself uneasy with any reference to American soldiers having died for freedom in the greater Middle East. Our penchant for using that term in connection with U.S. military actions strikes me as a dodge. It serves as an excuse for not thinking too deeply about the commitments, policies and decisions that led to all those names being etched in stone, with more to come next month and probably for many years thereafter.
Those whose names are engraved on the wall in Marseilles died in service to their country. Of that there is no doubt. Whether they died to advance the cause of freedom or even the well-being of the United States is another matter entirely. Terms that might more accurately convey why these wars began and why they have persisted include oil, dominion, hubris, the refusal among policymakers to own up to their own stupendous folly, and the collective negligence of oblivious citizens. Some might add to the list an inability to distinguish between our own interests and those of putative allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.
During the several hours I spent at the wall, virtually no one else visited the Middle East Conflicts Wall Memorial. A single elderly couple stopped by briefly and that was that. If this was understandable, it was also telling. After all, Marseilles is an out-of-the-way burg. Touristy it's not.
Which, when you think about it, makes it exactly the right place to commemorate conflicts that Americans would like to ignore or forget.
With the campaign for the 2020 presidential election now heating up, allow me to suggest that should change.
Just as there are all-but-mandatory venues in Iowa and New Hampshire where candidates are expected to appear, why not make Marseilles, Ill., one as well? Let the dozens of candidates competing to oust Trump from the White House schedule at least one campaign stop at the Middle East Conflicts Wall, press entourage in tow.
Let them take a page from presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall and use the site as a backdrop to reflect on the deeper meaning of such a place. They should explain in concrete terms what the conflicts memorialized there signify; describe their relationship to the post-Cold War narrative of America as the planet's "indispensable nation" or "sole superpower"; assess the disastrous costs and consequences of those never-ending wars; fix accountability; lay out to the American people how to avoid repeating the mistakes made by various administrations, including the present one that seems to be itching for yet another conflict in the Middle East. They should help us understand how, under the guise of promoting liberty and democracy, Washington has sown chaos through much of the region.
And, just to make it interesting, bonus points for anyone who can get through their remarks without referring to "freedom" or "supreme sacrifice" or citing the Gospel of John ("Greater love hath no man …"). On the other hand, apt comparisons to Vietnam are not just permitted but encouraged.
I'm betting that the good bikers of Illinois will happily provide a mic and a podium. If they won't, I will.
Andrew J. Bacevich 's most recent book is "Twilight of the American Century." His previous book was "America's War for the Greater Middle East." A longer version of this essay is posted at TomDisptach.com .
--
****
Juan

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.
 - Upton Sinclair 
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile