May 23, 2023

Today's Stochastic Thing


Cue the crazies in 3 ... 2 ...1
False flag!!
It was antifa!!
Libruls!!
Communists!!!


Man who crashed U-Haul near White House charged with threatening harm

U.S. Park Police arrested a man after a U-Haul truck crashed near the White House on Monday night, prompting the evacuation of the nearby Hay-Adams hotel.

The man, whom police did not publicly identify, was charged with threatening to kill, kidnap or inflict harm on the president, vice president or a family member, along with other counts including assault with a dangerous weapon and trespassing.

Police declined to provide further details early Tuesday about the nature of the alleged threat to the president, vice president or their families.

Officials opened an investigation after the box truck hit security barriers on the north side of Lafayette Square, the Secret Service said. “There were no injuries to any Secret Service or White House personnel,” agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said earlier Tuesday. He said a preliminary investigation indicated that the driver “may have intentionally struck” the barriers.

Earlier Tuesday, a Secret Service spokesman said the truck involved in the crash was “deemed safe” by D.C. police and that a driver was detained. Roads and walkways were closed during the investigation, according to the Secret Service.

My Noogies

Funny how I can go 46 years not really paying all that much attention to them, but then, when they sweep the Lakers to win the Western Conference, heading for the championship series - suddenly it's "my Noogies".

Sportsball is pretty weird in general (as am I), but the phenomenon of selective superficial fandom is worthy of a study or two.




Nuggets sweep Lakers, will make first NBA Finals appearance

LOS ANGELES -- LeBron James tried everything he could, including scoring the most points in a playoff half in his storied career, yet it wasn't enough to stop Nikola Jokic and the Denver Nuggets from reaching their first-ever NBA Finals.

In a scintillating playoff duel with James, Jokic turned in yet another triple-double Monday night to help the Nuggets complete their first playoff sweep in franchise history with a 113-111 win over the Los Angeles Lakers in Game 4 at Crypto.com Arena.

Jokic -- who was named the Magic Johnson Western Conference finals MVP -- fended off an incredible throwback performance from James, who scored 31 points in the first half before finishing with 40 points, 10 rebounds and 9 assists.

James, 38, became the oldest player in NBA history to score 40 points in a playoff game, but his final drive to the basket to force overtime was denied when Jamal Murray got a hand on the basketball before James was able to get a shot off that was blocked by Aaron Gordon with 1.4 seconds left.

Murray celebrated with a scream and was mobbed by the Denver bench when time expired as James could only watch. For the Nuggets, the NBA Finals has been a long time coming. It has taken Denver 46 seasons to reach this point, the most seasons before a Finals appearance in NBA history. Denver had 93 playoff wins entering Monday night, the most all time without a Finals berth.

The Nuggets, though, are focused on getting four more wins. Considering how Murray and Jokic are playing as perhaps the most formidable duo in the league, an NBA championship feels closer than ever.

"We want to go all the way and stay locked in," Murray said of himself and Jokic. "I think our chemistry is at an all-time high, the way we play, the way we read the game without even speaking. We talk that language on the court.

"It's just beautiful basketball, honestly. It's so fun to play with this team and with him and with the coaching staff that has groomed us into the team that we are. We've got four more wins to go."

Jokic collected his NBA playoff-record eighth triple-double of the postseason with 30 points, 14 rebounds and 13 assists in 45 minutes. Five of his points came in the final 2:50 on perhaps the two biggest baskets of the game.

Jokic averaged a triple-double in the second round to eliminate Kevin Durant, Devin Booker and the Phoenix Suns. And he averaged a triple-double to sweep James, Anthony Davis and the Lakers.

"I think he's showing other people nationally that he's real," Denver coach Michael Malone said. "Like what he's doing is real. The [two] MVPs are real. The triple-doubles are real. The silly narratives [against him for MVP] this year are just silly and somewhat ignorant. I think Nikola has gone through three rounds now where he's averaging a triple-double in the playoffs.

"Have you seen any stat padding out there? I'm serious, enough of the silliness. The guy is a great player; give him his damn respect. Stop chopping him down at the knees. He's a great player, and give him the respect he deserves."

After taking a 3-0 lead in the series Saturday night, Jokic said he wasn't scared but was "worried" about trying to close the Lakers out with James on the other side. Jokic said the Lakers superstar is capable of doing "everything." It was as if Jokic was foretelling what was to come.

James, who played all but four seconds at the end of the first half, was determined to avoid being swept for the first time in a playoff series before the NBA Finals. He has been swept twice in his career, both times in the Finals by the Golden State Warriors and San Antonio Spurs, respectively.

As if that wasn't enough motivation, James' pregame warm-up took place early -- when the Western Conference finals trophy presentation rehearsal was being conducted.

Once the game started, James made 7 of his first 9 shots, including one that was supposed to be a pass that dropped in from behind the 3-point arc. He had 21 points at the end of the first quarter, tied for the most in a first quarter when facing elimination by any player over the past 25 years, according to ESPN Stats & Information research.

He sank all four of his 3-point attempts and had 31 points by halftime, the most in a playoff half in his career.

"That first half was vintage LeBron James," Malone said. "Having coached him for five years in Cleveland, he understood what time it was with their team, firmly back against the wall. In that first half he showed why he's one of the all-time great players, literally put his team on his back and just went at us."

"Have you seen any stat padding out there? I'm serious, enough of the silliness. The guy is a great player; give him his damn respect. Stop chopping him down at the knees. He's a great player, and give him the respect he deserves."

The Lakers certainly treated this game like there was no tomorrow. They elected to bring D'Angelo Russell off the bench for the first time in the playoffs. The rest of the starting lineup each had eight or more points by halftime to help the Lakers take a 73-58 lead into the intermission.

But the Lakers' lead would be gone by the 4:39 mark of the third, when Jokic hit Kentavious Caldwell-Pope for a layup with a foul, giving Jokic his 10th assist of the game and his sixth triple-double in his past eight games.

The Nuggets went on a 34-14 run to take a five-point lead into the fourth quarter.

With both teams playing a tightly contested fourth quarter, Jokic picked up his fourth and fifth personal on the offensive end with 5:19 remaining. But the Nuggets kept him in the game.

After James scored to reach 40 points, Jokic answered with a fadeaway 3-pointer at the shot clock buzzer with 2:50 to play.

With the game tied at 111, Jokic snapped the tie with a driving layup with 51 seconds remaining. On the ensuing possession, James missed a fadeaway 3, but Murray could not seal the game as he missed a shot inside the paint.

With 4.0 seconds left, the Lakers called timeout, but the Nuggets' defense denied James' drive, setting off their Western Conference championship celebration.

Jokic was asked afterward how winning the Western Conference finals MVP compares to his two regular-season MVP trophies. He brought up this year's MVP and said Philadelphia's Joel Embiid is deserving no matter what people might think now with how Jokic has dominated this postseason.

"To be honest, I don't think about MVPs anymore," Jokic said. "I think people are just mean and saying that Embiid shouldn't have won it. I think he should have won it. I think he was playing, if you watch it, extremely, extremely tough basketball through the whole season. ... He was really amazing in 82 games or however many games he played."

But Jokic is the MVP big man who is now heading to his first NBA Finals.

"You're just happy that you won a game," Jokic said of his emotions. "You beat a really, really good team. Every game, but the first game was so close. Anyone could have won it, and we just find a way to win the game.

"Especially we were down 15, and to come back and win the game, it was just probably happiness."

May 22, 2023

Today's Pix

click
⬇️























Shenanigans

"Conservatives" start out bitching about how left-loonie-liberal something is (which it almost never is), then use the ensuing shift in public opinion to cover their shittiness as they take over something that's a good tool to push for, establish, and defend democracy, and turn it into a different kind of propaganda tool that serves their drive towards a global corporate plutocracy.



Federal inquiry details abuses of power by Trump's CEO over Voice of America

On the day after his confirmation as chief executive of the U.S. Agency for Global Media in June 2020, Michael Pack met with a career employee to discuss which senior leaders at the agency and the Voice of America should be forced out due to their perceived political beliefs.

"Hates Republicans," the employee had written about one in a memo. "Openly despises Trump and Republicans," they said of another. A third, the employee wrote, "is not on the Trump team." The list went on. (Firing someone over political affiliation is typically a violation of federal civil service law.)

Within two days, Pack was examining ways to remove suspect staffers, a new federal investigation found. The executives he sidelined were later reinstated and exonerated by the inspector general's office of the U.S. State Department. Pack ultimately turned his attention to agency executives, network chiefs, and journalists themselves.

The report, sent to the White House and Congressional leaders earlier this month, found that the Trump appointee repeatedly abused the powers of his office, broke laws and regulations, and engaged in gross mismanagement.

USAGM oversees the Voice of America and other international broadcasters funded by the federal government, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Radio Television Martí. The networks are charged with providing straight news for societies where independent news coverage is either repressed or financially unfeasible and with modeling the value of pluralistic political debate within that coverage.

"It just takes one's breath away."


"This report is remarkable in its breadth and depth and detail of the wrongdoing that was underway at these agencies in the last six months of the Trump administration," says David Seide, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit public interest law firm which has represented more than 30 whistleblowers at USAGM, VOA and its sister networks since Pack took office. "It just takes one's breath away."

Taken together, they depict Pack's brief tenure as an ideologically driven rampage through a government agency to try to force its newsrooms and workforce to show fealty to the White House.

Pack punished executives who objected to the legality of his plans, interfered in the journalistic independence of the newsrooms under his agency, and personally signed a no-bid contract with a private law firm to investigate those employees he saw as opposed to former President Donald Trump. The law firm's fees reached the seven figures for work typically done by attorneys who are federal employees.

In Trumpian flourish, Pack promised "to drain the swamp"

In a conversation with the conservative news outlet The Federalist, Pack characterized his moves with a Trumpian flourish: "to drain the swamp, to root out corruption and to deal with these issues of bias." Pack did not respond to NPR's requests for comment.

Pack is a conservative documentarian and former official at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. His appointment was held up for two years in the U.S. Senate over concerns about his highly ideological approach and whether he had been candid over the finances of his business. (His production company ultimately agreed to transfer $210,000 back to a nonprofit that he also controls, which was itself subsequently compelled to dissolve under a legal settlement he reached last year with the D.C. Attorney General's office.)

Pack, a slight man with an unassuming manner, had tight ties to major conservative figures. He briefly led the Claremont Institute in California, which is influential in Republican circles; he previously developed two documentaries for public television that Steve Bannon helped to produce. Bannon later became Trump's campaign manager and chief White House political strategist.

In early 2020, his nomination still languishing, Pack released his documentary about U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas, based on extensive interviews with the jurist and his wife, the conservative activist Ginni Thomas. He reportedly became friends with the Thomases, writing a book with the former White House attorney who helped smooth Thomas' path to confirmation in 1991.

Pack's own prospects for confirmation revived in spring 2020 when Trump's White House attacked the Voice of America, in almost unprecedented fashion. The White House publicly alleged the news service uncritically relayed Chinese propaganda about the nation's efforts to combat the outbreak of the Covid-19 coronavirus.

A litany of abuses substantiated by federal investigation

The inquiry was conducted by three outside consultants hired by USAGM and endorsed by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the agency that investigates federal whistleblower complaints. The report concludes that Pack:
  • Violated the independence of journalists working for newsrooms at the Voice of America and other international broadcasting networks funded by the government and "exercised oversight in a manner suggestive of political bias."
  • Wrongly retaliated against career executives by suspending their security clearances after they filed whistleblower complaints. Their allegations were later substantiated by the State Department's inspector general's office.
  • Engaged in "gross mismanagement and gross waste" when he paid a politically-connected Virginia law firm $1.6 million in agency money to investigate his executives in a confidential, no-bid contract. A former Supreme Court clerk for Thomas, John D. Adams, was the senior partner who oversaw the McGuireWoods contract with Pack at USAGM.
  • Imperiled the independence of several of the international networks, politicizing them by stacking their boards with a full slate of ideological appointees all at once. He also abused his powers in trying to make their tenures irrevocable except in the case of a felony conviction.
  • Broke privacy laws by releasing dossiers compiled by the law firm, McGuireWoods, on those executives he suspended to five right-wing journalists whom he had appointed to various networks funded by the boards. McGuireWoods strongly advised against releasing the dossiers publicly. They were ultimately made public by a sympathetic member of Congress.
  • Sought to prevent the Open Technology Fund from receiving federal funds for three years because of his animus toward the outfit, "rather than a desire to protect the public interest." The fund helped to subsidize the development of Tor and Signal, technologies that let people access the Web and communicate securely and privately, even in repressive countries. Bannon was among those with ties to figures promoting rival technologies that sought greater subsidies from the fund.
  • "[P]ut numerous internet freedom projects at risk, including in countries that are State Department priorities" by seeking to block federal dollars from flowing to the tech fund.
Violations found of journalistic independence and the civil workforce's professionalism

Not all of the actions under investigation amounted to an abuse of power, a gross waste of federal funds, or a violation of the law. For example, the inquiry found that it was within Pack's authority to remove the heads of the networks, despite objections and protests.

Even in some of those instances, however, Pack was found to have acted improperly, as when he fired the head of Radio Free Asia and directed her replacement to force her out of her subsequent, contractually protected position of executive editor at the network. "CEO Pack's actions were inconsistent with the statutory mandate that he respect the networks' journalistic integrity and independence," the report states.

U.S. Agency Targets Its Own Journalists' Independence

Nearly every outfit overseen by the USAGM was affected by his actions — or, at times, his inactions. Pack remained mute when his newly installed VOA leaders demoted a reporter who covered the White House for pressing then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for answers about the January 6th, 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol; he took no action when the acting chief of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting provided a Trump political aide with a link to its content to distribute to a U.S. audience shortly before the 2020 elections, despite laws preventing such dissemination; and he failed to assign a standards editor for Voice of America after reassigning the longtime news executive for four months.

That last maneuver, the report found, constituted gross mismanagement.

NPR has previously reported on many of the matters under investigation, and some others that did not receive official scrutiny.

Based on exchanges among USAGM staffers, NPR previously reported that McGuireWoods intended to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the $1.6 million billed but stopped invoicing the agency late that fall. Pack was about to lose his perch and his patron, as Joe Biden won election in November. Biden would order Pack to resign as one of his first formal acts in office. A spokesperson for McGuireWoods did not return a detailed message seeking comment.

Trump Appointee Unconstitutionally Interfered With VOA, Judge Rules

The inquiry itself was instigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. It received the whistleblower complaints and directed USAGM to conduct the investigation.

In one of his final actions in office, Pack wrote that he did not accept the agency's authority to instruct him to initiate the investigation. He called the agency's structure "unconstitutional" and said of those who lodged complaints against him, "They have an axe to grind." That refusal, too, was seen as a breach of Pack's duties.

The Office of Special Counsel appointed a panel of three outside experts, including the former acting chief of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a former senior executive of the Export-Import Bank, and a former investigative reporter who has worked for the special counsel's office.

NPR spoke to seven current and former staffers at USAGM and outlets and outfits it funds. Each said the report reflected a climate of crisis, fear and reprisal.

In sum, Pack's seven-and-a-half month stint running the agency exemplified Trump's contempt for the press and for the professional federal workforce that prides itself on nonpartisanship. (Pack echoed Trump's designation of that workforce as the "Deep State.")

Defined By Scandal At Voice of America, CEO Resigns At Biden's Request
Yet the people with whom NPR spoke also, independently, noted this account of Pack's tenure may not represent only a past era.

On May 10, Congressman Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, introduced legislation to prohibit any federal funding for the Open Technology Fund, as Pack had sought to do. Trump announced his support for Ogles' 2024 re-election bid on the next day.

And the conservative Heritage Foundation has drawn up proposals for whom should be hired at federal agencies, should Trump or another Republican win the White House in 2024.

Among the project's leaders is John McEntee, the former personnel chief in the Trump White House who helped set up the cadre of partisans that formed Pack's inner circle at USAGM.





And More Guns

 

The second amendment assured the people, through the agency of a well-regulated militia, a role in the preservation of both the external and internal security of the republic. It did not guarantee the right of individuals like Daniel Shays, and his followers, to closet armaments.

Today's Lyric

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away


Today's Gun Stuff

MythBusters notwithstanding, a falling bullet is a very dangerous thing.





Guns don't kill people.
Gun-Crazed idiots kill people -
with guns.
Because they're Gun-Crazed idiots.

Fuckin' idiots.

May 21, 2023

Today's AI

From subreddit's r/midjourney, some selfies.








It's The Karma, Stupid

It's really fun to watch asshole Republicans when they start to realize that their asshole-ish-ness on one issue can keep them from being assholes on another issue down the road.



Thanks, Obama! The hilarious reason why a judge just blocked Wyoming’s abortion ban
Republicans just got a painful reminder that political stunts can backfire.


On Wednesday, a judge in the deep-red state of Wyoming temporarily blocked a state law that would make performing nearly any abortion in that state a felony. She relied on a 2012 amendment to the state constitution that was intended to spite then-President Barack Obama.

Obama’s early years in office were marred by a scorched-earth political campaign Republicans wielded to try to thwart what became the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare’s opponents warned of a “government takeover of health care” that would strip many Americans of their ability to make their own health decisions.

Many of these allegations were downright ludicrous, such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R) false claim that Obama’s health bill would require “my baby with Down Syndrome ... to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

These attacks did not succeed. The bill became law, and Obamacare is popular now that it has been in full effect for nearly a decade without anyone being forced to stand before a death panel. But there is at least one lasting legacy of these attempts to characterize the Affordable Care Act as an attack on patients’ right to decide whether and when to seek health treatments.

In many states, opponents of Obamacare effectively took the GOP’s talking points and turned them into state constitutional amendments protecting patients’ ability to obtain health care that the government might not want them to have.
Wyoming’s amendment, for example, provides that “each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”

According to Quinn Yeargain, a law professor at Widener University, similar amendments are on the books in several other states.

It remains to be seen whether the highest courts in these states, some of which are extremely conservative, will ultimately agree that these anti-Obamacare amendments prohibit abortion bans. And, in at least some cases, the amendments contain language that could mitigate their impact. Wyoming’s amendment, for example, also provides that, under certain circumstances, the state legislature may “determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted” by the health care amendment.

But abortion advocates have had two early successes: the Wyoming judge’s order temporarily blocking that state’s abortion ban, and a similar decision by a trial judge in Ohio.

The Wyoming abortion rights litigation, briefly explained
Wyoming district court Judge Melissa Owens’s Wednesday decision temporarily halting her state’s abortion ban is the second time she intervened to prevent this ban from going into effect. Wyoming’s abortion ban is quite strict, although it does provide exceptions for rape, incest, or when either a pregnant patient or the fetus has certain medical conditions.

Last summer, shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe v. Wade, an array of patients, doctors, and nonprofit groups brought a suit arguing that Wyoming’s abortion ban violated the state’s constitutional provision protecting each adult’s right to individual health care decisions. That case is known as Johnson v. Wyoming.

Judge Owens handed down a decision in August halting the law. Among other things, she rejected the state’s argument that the health care amendment was “only adopted to push back against the Affordable Care Act,” and should not be construed to protect abortion rights.

Regardless of the political circumstances that led to this amendment being written into the state constitution, Owens reasoned that the amendment “unambiguously provides competent Wyoming citizens with the right to make their own health care decisions,” and she was bound by that unambiguous text. “A court,” she wrote, “is not at liberty to assume that the Wyoming voters who adopted” the amendment “did not understand the force of language in the provision.”

Just as significantly, Owens construed the amendment to give people in Wyoming a “fundamental right” to make their own health care decisions, including the decision to seek an abortion. This designation matters because fundamental rights can only be abridged when the state seeks to advance a “compelling state interest” and when it uses the “least intrusive” means to do so.

Thus, even though the amendment permits the state legislature to impose “reasonable and necessary restrictions” on individual’s health choices, Owens concluded that Wyoming’s broad ban on abortion access sweeps too far because it intrudes into pregnant patients’ health care decisions even when a “fetus has a genetic abnormality that is incompatible with life.” (The state has since amended its law to permit abortions when “there is a substantial likelihood that the unborn baby has a lethal fetal anomaly,” a change that could undermine Owens’s legal reasoning.)

There is precedent for Owens’s conclusion that this Wyoming health care amendment establishes a fundamental right that the legislature may only abridge under very limited circumstances, even though that same amendment gives the legislature some authority to enact laws. The US Constitution’s 14th Amendment has long been construed to protect many fundamental rights, such as the right to marry or the right to choose your own sexual partners. But the 14th Amendment also contains language permitting Congress to enforce its provisions “by appropriate legislation.”

Nevertheless, the fact that the 14th Amendment permits Congress to enact laws it deems “appropriate” typically does not permit Congress to abridge the fundamental rights it guarantees.

In response to Owens’s August decision blocking the state’s abortion ban, the state legislature enacted a new law decreeing that abortion “is not health care” and thus is not protected by the state constitution. Owens’s Wednesday order blocked that law as well, declaring that “the legislature cannot make an end run around” around a constitutional amendment, and that it is up to the courts to decide whether abortion meets the state constitution’s definition of “health care.”

Yet, while the state legislature appears eager to restore the state’s abortion ban, the Wyoming Supreme Court has thus far resisted the urge to rush in and overrule Owens. Last December, after a case reached the state Supreme Court that it could have used to reject Judge Owens’s reading of the state constitution, Wyoming’s justices chose instead not to decide that case. That left Owens’s August order in effect.

So, while there are plausible legal arguments on either side of this dispute, there appears to be a real chance that the state’s highest court will agree with Owens if and when they weigh in on whether the state constitution protects abortion. If the state Supreme Court shared the legislature’s view that abortion must be banned in Wyoming, it could have intervened last winter.

Could anti-Obamacare amendments protect abortion rights in other states?
At least one other state court, in Ohio, relied on that state’s anti-Obamacare amendment in an opinion temporarily blocking a law that bans nearly all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. That 2022 decision, in a case known as Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, argued that a few provisions of the state constitution, including the state’s health care amendment, work together to protect abortion rights.

Last December, a state appeals court decided that the trial court’s order in Preterm-Cleveland may remain in effect, at least for now.

Ohio’s amendment provides that no state law “shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.” Nor may it “impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.” Thus, as long as a patient seeking an abortion pays for that treatment, the Ohio amendment appears to provide very robust protection to abortion rights.

Like the Wyoming amendment, Ohio’s permits the legislature to enact some restrictions on the right to purchase health care but the Ohio amendment uses less expansive language to describe when such restrictions are allowed — though one provision of the Ohio amendment does permit state laws that are “calculated to deter fraud or punish wrongdoing in the health care industry.” An abortion opponent would no doubt argue that abortions are themselves a form of “wrongdoing.”

In any event, the Ohio Supreme Court has a 4-3 Republican majority. So there’s no guarantee that the state’s justices will agree with the trial court’s ruling and allow abortion to remain legal in Ohio.

(Until recently, the swing vote on the Ohio Supreme Court was held by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a relatively moderate Republican. But O’Connor recently retired and the Court’s new majority hasn’t developed much of a record. So it is difficult for a lawyer to assess with certainty how it is likely to rule on a case like Preterm-Cleveland.)

But what about other states that enacted health care amendments as a statement of defiance against Obamacare? The short answer is that a lawsuit seeking to protect abortion rights in these states would turn on the same questions that are in play in Wyoming and Ohio: What does the state’s health care amendment actually say? And who controls the state Supreme Court?

Alabama’s amendment, for example, is unlikely to help abortion advocates very much, even setting aside the fact that Alabama’s Supreme Court is dominated by Republicans. That’s because Alabama’s amendment primarily prohibits the state from requiring “any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.” That language cannot reasonably be construed to protect abortion rights.

Other states, including Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma, enacted similar amendments preventing the state government from compelling individuals to “participate in any health care system.” These amendments are also unlikely to help proponents of abortion rights.

So this largely forgotten legacy of a failed Republican effort to spite Obamacare is only likely to matter in a very small number of states. And it may not even have a lasting impact in Wyoming and Ohio, depending on how their state Supreme Courts rule on whether the state constitution protects abortion.

For the moment, however, the Obama-era amendments writing anti-Obamacare talking points into two state constitutions have proved to be a thorn in the side of Republicans who hope to ban abortions. Let that be a lesson that a state constitution is a foolish thing to change for the sake of a political stunt.

Today's Press Poodle


No, CNN, you have to stop reporting on this in a passive neutral way.

At the very least, the headline editor should be fired yesterday. Because you cannot find defensible middle ground between democracy and dictatorship, which is exactly the inference that headline invites - as well as the first four paragraphs.

Four fucking paragraphs before you mention Russia's brutality, and Xi's belligerence towards practically everybody in Asia.

These assholes are assholes, with asshole ambitions and asshole intent. Say that or STFU.



Russia and China hit back at a G7 that saw them as a threat

Moscow and Beijing lashed out against the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Hiroshima, where leaders of major democracies pledged new measures targeting Russia and spoke in one voice on their growing concerns over China.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday slammed the G7 for indulging in their “own greatness” with an agenda that aimed to “deter” Russia and China.

Meanwhile China’s Foreign Ministry accused G7 leaders of “hindering international peace” and said the group needed to “reflect on its behavior and change course.”

Beijing had made “serious démarches” to host country Japan and “other parties” over their decision to “smear and attack” China, it said.

Both Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine and how to handle an increasingly assertive Beijing have loomed over the three-day gathering of the world’s leading industrialized democracies taking place in Japan – just across regional seas from both countries – where Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky made a surprise, in-person appearance.

G7 member countries made the group’s most detailed articulation of a shared position on China to date – stressing the need to cooperate with the world’s second-largest economy, but also to counter its “malign practices” and “coercion” in a landmark joint communique Saturday.

Leaders also pledged new steps to choke off Russia’s ability to finance and fuel its war, and vowed in a dedicated statement to ramp up coordination on their economic security – a thinly veiled warning from members against what they see as the weaponization of trade from China, and also Russia.

The G7 agreements follow a hardening of attitudes on China in some European capitals, despite differing views on how to handle relations with the key economic partner, deemed by the US as “the most serious long-term challenge to the international order.”

Countering China’s ‘coercion’

Beijing’s retort later Saturday urged the G7 “not to become an accomplice” in American “economic coercion.”

“The massive unilateral sanctions and acts of ‘decoupling’ and disrupting industrial and supply chains make the US the real coercer that politicizes and weaponizes economic and trade relations,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“The international community does not and will not accept the G7-dominated Western rules that seek to divide the world based on ideologies and values,” it continued.

G7 member countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union also joins as non-country member.

A number of non-G7 leaders also attended the summit, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indonesian President Joko Widodo, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Albanese on Sunday said he has been concerned “for some time” over China’s activity, including its military activities in the South China Sea, and called for “transparency” by Beijing over the detention of Australian journalist Cheng Lei.

China’s image in Europe has taken a severe hit over the past 15 months as leaders there have watched China’s Xi Jinping tighten ties with fellow authoritarian Russian President Vladimir Putin, even as Moscow’s invasion sparked a massive humanitarian crisis and Moscow’s leader was accused of war crimes by an international court.

Beijing’s increased military aggression toward Taiwan – the self-ruling democracy the Chinese Communist Party claims as its territory but has never ruled – and economic penalties against Lithuania following a disagreement over Taiwan have also played a role in shifting sentiment.

Concern about such incidents was reflected in the G7 statement on ensuring economic security and countering economic coercion, which did not explicitly mention China.

The G7 leaders’ ability to sign on a statement “so specifically directed at Beijing” would have been “hard to believe” two years ago, according to Josh Lipsky, senior director of the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center.

“The bottom line is that the G7 has shown it will increasingly focus on China and will try to maintain a coordinated policy approach. That’s a major development,” he said.

War in Ukraine

The G7 agreements land as China has been marshaling its diplomats in a concerted attempt to repair ties with Europe, largely by recasting itself as a potential agent of peace in the war in Ukraine, even if that claim has been met with widespread skepticism among Western nations.

Last week as European leaders headed to Asia, Chinese special envoy Li Hui began his own European tour billed by Beijing as a means to promote peace talks.

Li, who was dispatched after Xi late last month made his first call to Zelensky since the Russian invasion, visited Ukraine on Tuesday and Wednesday, where he fronted China’s vision of a “political settlement.”

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak meets Ukraine President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the G7 Summit at the Grand Prince Hotel on May 20, 2023 in Hiroshima, Japan.
G7 talks culminate Sunday with in-person appeal from Zelensky
That calls for a ceasefire but not for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory first – a scenario which critics say could serve to cement Russia’s illegal land grab in the country and runs counter to Ukraine’s own peace plan.

Zelensky’s travel to the G7 in Asia is also “a way of putting pressure on China,” according to Jean-Pierre Cabestan, an emeritus professor of political science at Hong Kong Baptist University.

The message to China is for it “to be more more outgoing in its support for a solution” that aligns with Kyiv’s interests in terms of its territorial integrity and Russian troops pulling out from Ukraine, he said.

When asked about the possibility of China playing a role in ending Russia’s war, a senior White House official on Saturday said the US hopes that Xi views this week’s summit as a signal of “resolve.”

“We would hope that what President Xi and the (People’s Republic of China) extract from what they’ve been seeing here … is that there’s an awful lot of resolve to continue to support Ukraine … and that China could have a meaningful role in helping end this war,” the official said.