Horrific
Images From Indonesian Tsunami
Sunday, 30 September 2018
Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
It
is very unusual for any of my sources on geopolitics to reference
climate change, albeit not the full truth.
Trump Administration Acknowledges Climate Change - Predicts Large Rise In Global Temperatures
28
September, 2018
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees [Fahrenheit] by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.
That
increase though, says the Trump administration, is no reason to stop
emitting gases that, for a large part, cause such warming:
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
"The
child already fell into the well, there is no longer any need to
cover it."
The
administration uses such faulty reasoning to eliminate regulations
that are supposed to limit 'greenhouse' gas emissions. It is set to
allow higher emissions from cars and trucks.
For
millions of years plants on earth used the energy from the sun to
convert carbon dioxide and water into hydrocarbons. Where those
plants were later covert with volcanic ash or sunk into the sea,
geologic pressure and time converted them into coal, oil and gas.
Since the start of industrialization humans have used an enormous
amount of these dead plants to generate energy. Coal, oil and natural
gas - the hydrocarbons - oxidize in exothermic reaction. They burn
and give off heat which humans transform into various kinds of usable
energy. The emissions from such fires are basically the stuff from
which the plants were created - carbon dioxide and water.
A
large part of the energy from the sun that hits the earth is
reflected back into space. Carbon dioxide and other gases (Methane)
in the atmosphere lower
the reflection rate of
the earth, they trap the energy (heat) the sun shines onto earth
within the atmosphere just like the glass of a greenhouse traps the
heat inside. Spectroscopic measurements from space over several
decades show a decrease of reflections from earth at the spectral
range of carbon dioxide. Long term measurements on earth of carbon
dioxide concentrations correlate strongly with the general
temperature increase.
All
this is well known and not controversial. But, as John Maynard Keynes
said, in the long term we are all dead. Humans are not willing to
give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far
away future generations. The 2015 Paris agreement to limit carbon
dioxide emissions was largely a scam. Hardly any country stuck to the
endorsed targets. After the Fukushima disaster the Merkel government
in Germany decided to shut down nuclear power plants but increased
the use of brown coal for electricity production.
It
was a 'populist' decision, sold as a "green" policy even as
it was the opposite, and contradicted the commitment to decrease
emissions. The Obama administration allowed a huge increase in
fracking which, next to the hydrocarbons, releases a large amount of
other greenhouse gases.
The
decision by the Trump administration is wrong. Yes, we will likely
not be able to stop a global temperature increase in next few
decades. But future generations also deserve our compassion. We must
still do our best to limit the long term increase by ending the use
of hydrocarbons wherever possible.
It
will not be easy to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy. Large
amounts of electric energy are difficult and expensive to store. We
need a certain locally distributed base capacity in our electricity
networks to provide energy when the sun does not shine and the wind
does not blow. For now nuclear energy is still the most climate
friendly way to generate this base capacity. It also creates highly
toxic waste that is extremely difficult to get rid of.
The
effects of climate change, higher temperatures, rising sea levels and
generally more extreme weather, will hit the poorest people the most.
This within
the U.S. as
well as in a global frame. The consequences will be mass migration on
a never before seen scale, widespread lack of consumable water and
large violent conflicts arising from both.
Two
countries may hope to profit from the rise in global temperature as
it will increase their access to natural resources that are currently
covert by ice. The U.S. (with Canada) and Russia may be the winners
of the trend. Most other countries will be losers.
While
short term human greed will likely prevent a reduction in hydrocarbon
use, and a slowing down of climate change, there may be other effects
that could suddenly turn the trend. A large volcanic eruption or a
big asteroid impact could cloud the earth and bring back (much)
colder times. Some yet unknown effect in the atmosphere that is not
anticipated in current climate models could stop or reverse the
current trend.
The
human race is able to adopt to extreme climates. Humans can live in
deserts as well as in the arctic. But such extreme climate zones do
not allow for high density populations. The current number of people
on this planet may prove to be too high to sustain. Climate change
itself, through large scale conflicts and famines, may well provide
for its own natural regulation. Reduced to some 100 million
individuals humanity may well survive. Nature will not be
compassionate in effecting such.
Here
is the original item
Here
is the original item
Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
Beethoven in post-modern Germany
Post-Cultural
Germany Has Banned Beethoven by Stealth
Adam
Garrie
29
September, 2018
When
the two E♭ major tutti chords which introduce Beethoven’s 3rd
symphony first rung out over Vienna in 1805, European music was
forever changed. It was this piece of music which marked the
beginning of an era in which the symphony would be the axis around
which all public orchestral performances revolved, while the
monumental Eroica (Heroic) Symphony likewise re-shape perceptions of
music’s role in society and its scope as a modern art form.
In
terms of musicality, Beethoven’s 3rd expanded the symphonic form in
respect of harmonic dexterity, subtle narrative arch, melodic
development, overall size and scope, dynamic range and emotional
longevity. In terms of its cultural impact, Beethoven’s 3rd begun
the manifold transition wherein symphonic music was transported from
the stately homes of neo-feudal patrons to the public concert halls
in which orchestral music became modern entertainment for the masses.
The 3rd likewise helped transition the symphony form into one that
could be readily augmented, extended and re-imaged in terms of
musicality, thematic grandeur and cultural relevance.
Beethoven’s
subsequent symphonies continued to push the boundaries of symphonic
form as it existed in the early 19th century. His final symphony, the
9th was in many ways more revolutionary than the 3rd although without
the 3rd there could have been no 9th. The 9th symphony broke the
record of the 3rd in terms of being the most lengthy and heavily
orchestrated of the era. Moreover, while the 3rd represented
something of European musical classicism’s Indian summer, the 9th
was in many ways the singular moment in which the late classical
European music transitioned into the early romantic.
With
the 9th, Beethoven did not just allude to a new era in music and in
culture but he boldly declared it without reservation. The 9th
continues to stand as one of the most recognisable and unifying
forces in European art which has incidentally been largely embraced
by the wider world including in much of Asia and the Americas.
Beethoven’s Chorale symphony as it is also known is likewise famous
for incorporating Friedrich Schiller’s poem An die Freude (Ode to
Joy) in the final movement. Beethoven’s melody against which
Schiller’s words are set has become so beloved over the centuries
that it is often sung as a song, independent from the context of the
9th symphony’s final movement.
Beethoven
was remarkable not only for challenging preconceptions of the
symphonic form and the symphony’s place in culture, but he was also
remarkable for adding new layers of musical complexity to the
orchestral form. Prior to Beethoven, orchestral musicians of Europe
had never known music of such complexity and as a result, the modern
European orchestra of the 19th century is largely an outgrowth of
attempts to give Beethoven’s music the kind of presentation it
beckoned for and ultimately required at both a technical and
emotional level.
As
a result, performances of Beethoven’s music became far more
complete and substantial after his death than they were during his
lifetime. In this sense, there is some ironic justice in the fact
that in his later years Beethoven was virtually completely deaf as it
is thought that Beethoven may well have imagined the way his music
would have been performed by an orchestra of the 1880s rather than
that of the 1820s, as a means to compensate for his lack of hearing.
While
Wagner is in many ways the founder of the large romantic European
orchestra that has been known to the world ever since the mid 19th
century, without Beethoven, there would have been no Wagner to
re-arrange the physical expansion of the orchestra in order to
accommodate the weighty sounds that Beethoven first inspired among
the generation who would lead post-Wagnerian European romanticism
into the 20th century.
Accordingly,
as orchestras grew larger, more dynamically capable and more
musically proficient, Beethoven’s sound continued to grow into
itself as large modern string sections and augmented wind and brass
sections were by the turn of the 20th century, at long last able to
reveal the beauty of Beethoven that was only partly understood in his
own storied lifetime.
While
Frankfurt School Communist music theorist Theodore Adorno decried the
advent of recorded sound in the 20th century as he felt it would only
cheapen, commodify and ultimately vulgarise music, the realities
turned out quite differently to his expectations. Just as the growing
concert hall that Beethoven’s music required allowed for wider
audiences to hear orchestral music, the advent of radio and
gramophone recording democratised this experience one-thousand fold
as now the music of the great orchestras could be listened to in
homes and public spaces across the world.
The
fact that the dawn of recorded sound also corresponded in terms of
proximity in time with the era of some of the great romantic European
conductors has allowed subsequent generations to enjoy the majesty of
performances of Beethoven that are scarcely possible in 21st century
Europe in spite of advancing technologies.
Whether
the profound metaphysics and spiritual enlightenment of Wilhelm
Furtwängler, the poetic gusto of Willem Mengelberg, the sincere
Apollonian sheen of Hermann Abendroth, the broad elegant brush
strokes of Hans Knappertsbusch, the somewhat paradoxically austere
romanticism of Bruno Walter, the unflinching exactitude of Karl Böhm,
the masculine confidence of an ageing Otto Klemperer and later, the
aural completeness of Herbert von Karajan: the great European
interpreters of Beethoven in the early and middle 20th century were
all unique in terms of their approach, but all grand in their
elevation of Beethoven to a musical titan among men.
As
many of the aforementioned maestros had careers both before and after
the second world war, such a phenomenon is a testament to the fact
that Beethoven’s music was able to survive even the darkest period
in modern European history unscathed. Indeed, as Nietzsche called
Beethoven the last cosmopolitan/universal composer before European
music tended to divide itself into categories of romantic
nationalism, Beethoven was well placed to redeem his German homeland
in the decades after 1945.
Yet
while Beethoven and his greatest modern champions tended to survive
the second world war, it was only in the final thirty years of the
20th century that a generation of Europeans conspired to destroy
Beethoven’s legacy and in so doing, deprive Germany of its greatest
artistic treasure.
In
the latter half of the 20th century the so-called “historically
informed performance” (HIP) movement began to look at mainly
pre-Beethoven and even pre-Mozart composers and re-examine
performance methods associated with such luminaries as Bach and
Handle. The central premise of the HIP movement was that in
performing composers like Bach on modern organs, pianos and
ensembles, the lush sounds of modernity were obscuring the more
restrained and rugged tones of the instruments of Bach’s time.
While
Bach’s music was that of the church and grand manner house and
while Mozart’s symphonies never reached the epic scale of
Beethoven’s, by the end of the 20th century, the HIP movement set
their sights on Beethoven – the composer whose music required
modern orchestral treatments in order to realise its full musical
potential.
The
HIP movement first attacked the flexible tempo rubato that
characterised most modern performances of Beethoven before attacking
maestros who performed Beethoven’s symphonies with a full modern
orchestra. Not content with this, the HIP movement then began to
dictate that Beethoven’s symphonies be played at lighting fast and
inflexible tempi in a vainglorious attempt to revive Beethoven’s
old and long malfunctioning metronome and finally, the HIP movement
suggested that the modern instruments that audiences in the 20th
century had grown up with be replaced by archaic and coarse sounding
instruments of the early 19th century.
Even
forgetting the fact that according to the HIP movement, the beauty of
modern Beethoven performance should be replaced by a return to the
ugliest elements of cultural infancy, the fanaticism of the HIP
movement has gone far beyond a group of people making a free argument
in favour of bad taste. Instead, the HIP mentality has sunk into the
wider European zeitgeist and become incredibly brutal in its ability
to proscribe all those who oppose its crusade of hatred against
beautiful music. As a result, even mainstream conductors in the 21st
century tend to perform Beethoven with metronome like high speeds,
small orchestras and little legato, vibrato and portamento. The
bullying tactics of the HIP movement have become so pervasive that it
is difficult to find Beethoven in modern Europe, even in places where
his name still exists.
The
result has been that multiple generations of young Europeans and
those who love European orchestral music have been deprived of a
genuine all immersive, emotionally convincing Beethoven experience.
The grand Beethoven that existed between the era of Wagner and the
mid-20th century has become a boring, ugly and watered down shadow of
its actual self – a poor reflection through a cracked dust covered
mirror. The overriding effect has been one of brutally transgressing
the overwhelming beauty of Beethoven and transforming it into ghastly
alien sounds that are necessarily repugnant to anyone who maintains
the slightest contact with the range of human emotions conveyed by
Beethoven and his most masterful interpreters and performers.
The
idea that one of Germany and Europe’s great cultural icons can only
be enjoyed if largely obstructed from view is the sonic equivalent of
the backward Wahhabi practice of covering a woman’s face and body
for fear that men are somehow unable or unworthy of looking upon the
female form without becoming maddened. But just as Wahhabism rejects
the human form, modern Europe and Germany in particular is rejecting
its own cultural form – forcing young generations to view a heavily
censored version of their own culture for fear that it might inspire
some awakened sense of cultural identity that is incompatible with
the post-cultural agenda of political tyrants like Angela Merkel.
Furthermore, while it is true that the German civil war against
Beethoven began long before the political arrival of Angela Merkel,
Merkel’s overt loathing of German culture has helped to solidify
this vicious process, thus elevating it to the level of de-facto
state approval. This is the case because Merkel’s vindictive
crusade/jihad against German and pan-European culture has been a
major plank of her long time rule and as such, Beethoven is the
fitting cultural sacrifice to be made on the altar of
anti-German/anti-European, anti-cultural, anti-beauty ‘Merkelism’.
Indeed,
I personally have little doubt that if a young composer began writing
music today that hinted at Beethoven and the tradition he inspired,
such a young composer would be mercilessly condemned as a miscreant,
provocateur or even a racist or cultural criminal. Such is the extent
of self-loathing in the heart of Merkel’s post-cultural Germany of
the 21st century. While the aforementioned examples of proscription
directed at a neo-Beethoven may sound extreme, in many cases, merely
discussing cultural icons including Beethoven, Wagner, Wagner’s
rival Brahms, Bruckner, Strauss, Furtwängler, Mengelberg, Abendroth
and von Karajan have become sufficient to make one shunned throughout
the self-hating Europe of the 21st century.
It
appears that there is no room for the full, open, grand and
emotionally genuine Beethoven in post-cultural Germany/Europe and in
this sense Beethoven is already being censored without being formally
banned. This stealth ban on Beethoven was recently confirmed when the
Berliner Philharmoniker passed on the opportunity to appoint either
Daniel Barenboim or Christian Thielemann, two latter-day champions of
Beethoven as director of the orchestra in 2016 and instead selected a
man highly removed from the tradition of proper Beethoven
interpretation. This single episode in the heart of Merkel’s
post-cultural German perhaps has sealed Beethoven’s fate.
But
while Beethoven was much beloved in his lifetime and remains beloved
today, his censorship by stealth in his homeland ought to help to
awaken a love for the genuine, emotionally authentic Beethoven in
lands beyond Europe. While Europe rejects its own heritage, other
cultures that are at peace with their own heritage now have the
luxury of adopting the “foreign” Beethoven as after all,
Beethoven was the last true universal composer in spite of his
German/European heritage and in this sense such an adoption can be
done with some degree of harmoniousness.
While
Germany censors Beethoven, future years could likely see some of the
best modern Beethoven performances coming from China, a country which
unlike much of Europe, continues to cherish multicultural orchestral
traditions including that of Beethoven, even while Beethoven’s
homeland becomes consumed in a morass of total social decline which
is verging on the irreversible.
NZ prime minister in New York
In
vaguely normal times I would be proud of our Prime Minister.
NZ
PM Jacinda Adern at the United Nations General Assembly
"Me too" should become "we too" - her speech at the UNGA.
Cracking
jokes with Stephen Colbert
"Me too" should become "we too" - her speech at the UNGA.
Temperatures at North Pole are at leas 10 deg Celsius above average.
Conditions
at the North Pole – 29 September, 2018
These
are temperature anomalies at the North Pole today
Temperatures were barely below freezing at the North Pole.
The blue colour here represents temperatures (measured in degrees Kelvin) below freezing; the green and the yellow represents temperatures above freezing.
The US has nothing to teach the world about justice or politics after Kavanaugh farce
I was not going to talk about this, partially because taken in context the events of the last few days have been the greatest distraction from the things that matter and because my energy is insufficient to extend to matters of this sort.
However, it is Sunday today and seeing I woke up this morning thinking about this and I have a few hours before the next large headlines come
At the age of 62 I was brought up with different mores but I have always had what I would self-characterise as a healthy respect for women and have always supported the aspirations of the women's movement.
However, in the last couple of days I have been aghast at the ease with which people on social media, some of whom I would have expected might have known better have blindly followed the lead of CNN and the entirety of the media.
Not one of the people who talk about this has come out strongly against war being waged across multiple country. All men, according to some are inherently rapists but when the situation of mass rape of women in Europe by Muslim gangs that is okay and any criticism is labelled as 'islamophobia".
When one is talking about Justice Brett Kavanaugh none of the women who are coming forward to accuse him are "ordinary" people but are just as much part of the corrupt elite as their male counterparts.
Look at this. It seems that Ford has connections with the CIA which, these days perfectly fine with the Democrats
At the age of 62 I was brought up with different mores but I have always had what I would self-characterise as a healthy respect for women and have always supported the aspirations of the women's movement.
However, in the last couple of days I have been aghast at the ease with which people on social media, some of whom I would have expected might have known better have blindly followed the lead of CNN and the entirety of the media.
Not one of the people who talk about this has come out strongly against war being waged across multiple country. All men, according to some are inherently rapists but when the situation of mass rape of women in Europe by Muslim gangs that is okay and any criticism is labelled as 'islamophobia".
When one is talking about Justice Brett Kavanaugh none of the women who are coming forward to accuse him are "ordinary" people but are just as much part of the corrupt elite as their male counterparts.
Look at this. It seems that Ford has connections with the CIA which, these days perfectly fine with the Democrats
There are a thousand reasons to not confirm Justice Kavanaugh, up to an including his role as an author of the Patriot Act which eviscerated the US constitution but this is perfectly fine with the Democrats who have less than no objection to Trump waging wars of aggression in the Middle East.
Ralph Nader: Kavanaugh Is a Corporation Masquerading as a Judge
The following article, written by a Russian, reflects perfectly my response to the whole affair. In this I identify with the "rest of the world" rather than the dumbed-down American populace or the brainwashed sections of the population on the edges of empire.
Ralph Nader: Kavanaugh Is a Corporation Masquerading as a Judge
The following article, written by a Russian, reflects perfectly my response to the whole affair. In this I identify with the "rest of the world" rather than the dumbed-down American populace or the brainwashed sections of the population on the edges of empire.
American
shame: US has nothing to teach the world about justice or politics
after Kavanaugh farce
RT,
29
September, 2018
Many
outside the US watched Thursday’s hearing with open-mouthed
revulsion at the bad faith, lack of due process and inhumanity on
display. Dysfunction in the biggest Western democracy sets a poor
example to the rest of the globe.
The
present does not own the monopoly on ugly scenes in Congress - the
McCarthy interviews are on tape, after all. Nor do either of the
parties – from Kenneth Starr’s ultimately futile humiliation of
Bill Clinton, to their intransigence during Obama’s two terms,
Republicans largely set the tone for the partisanship that reigns
today.
But
make no mistake about it: in the age of a hysterical and
agenda-driven news media, and a social media that amplifies its worst
aspects, the Kavanaugh and Ford testimonies marked a new low. And it
is the Democrats that have guided the process into a high-stakes
wrestling match in a toxic swamp.
Disagreeing
with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination on ideological grounds, and
questioning his record and temperament are fine, even if it is to
whip up your base before the upcoming mid-terms. This what the
confirmation hearings were for (minus the choreographed interruptions
from the gallery).
But
to pull out a last-minute 36-year-old sexual abuse accusation that
you have sat on for weeks, as Dianne Feinstein did, is a dirty trick,
notwithstanding her protestations to senators on Thursday that she
didn’t time the release of Ford’s testimony, or leak her name
(who did then? This person acting against the wishes of a
self-described abuse victim must surely be found and punished). As
are the systematic stalling tactics in full evidence at the
questioning – the condition-setting for the hearings, the alleged
flying fears that fell apart after two questions, the “What
about Mark Judge, when can we speak to him?” and the
demands for an additional FBI inquiry, during which yet more
allegations are sure to come out, as Michael Avenatti tap-dances
around his office in anticipation. Could a single senator in the room
from either party disagree, hand-on-Bible, that the Democrats are
hoping to drag out the process to give themselves a better chance?
To
do this, the party was prepared to turn a political attack into a
personal one, and personal trauma into a political weapon. Whatever
traction #MeToo had as a non-partisan campaign that concerns all
women is now in question. “Believe
women” has
turned from an expression of sympathy to reticent victims to a
battering ram for short-term political gain, deployed while
faux-innocently asking “Why
would any woman lie?” in
the one case where the reasons to do so are glaringly obvious.
The
Republicans’ scurrying to confirm their candidate is similarly
blatant and unseemly. They called the accuser to speak, but how many
of them would have changed their mind whatever she said? Five? Three?
No one? Staging this hearing for them was as much of a charade about
the optics. So polite on Thursday, by Friday Lindsey Graham was
calling the accusations “garbage.”
A tragedy in the hubbubYet this is not what made Thursday’s proceedings tragic. Politicians in that room play their power games and have known each other for decades - but here, real people were involved. For all the disingenuous pretense that this was just a job interview (most employers don’t suddenly ask jobseekers to prove they are not a rapist to get to the next round), their entire lives were at stake over how they would come across in a single afternoon.
Christine
Blasey Ford’s account might be fiction or her own truth, but here
was a woman who was evidently genuinely traumatized, and having to
relive the moment. And if she is telling the facts as they did
happen, and she was assaulted by a drunk, violent Brett Kavanaugh,
this is hardly the format that best serves to bring her justice. She
said she was no pawn, but she was surrounded by politically-motivated
lawyers, participating in some improvised talk show format in which
smarmy praise from Democrats who regard her exactly as that chess
piece, alternated with fragmented lawyerly questioning from a female
prosecutor (once again all optics) looking for a “gotcha!” moment
in frustrating five-minute chunks. She had been used.
Some
observers said she “won” because
she looked credible. The entire modern law was invented and allowed
to flourish in America, that most legalistic of states, so that
people wouldn’t be judged on their “credibility.” It’s
fine that she turned out to be an educated, well-spoken woman, but
what if she had turned out a little twitchy, or stuttered? Would that
have meant that she wasn’t assaulted? After all, many viewers
questioned Ford’s patchy memory, the number of times she looked
down at her notes, or even her high-pitched voice.
Kavanaugh tears up at hearing while speaking about his family: 'We mean no ill will' toward accuser fxn.ws/2R6JEFN
Same
goes for Brett Kavanaugh: Some saw a man under extreme pressure in
indignant tears as he strove to save his name against allegations so
vague they couldn’t even be substantively refuted. Yet his
opponents online said his passion made it easy to imagine how angry
he would have got before raping Ford (“and this is him sober”),
while his tears – a quality supposedly demanded from modern men –
merely made him too unbalanced to be a judge. Many just posted photos
of unflattering facial expressions and the blotches on his face.
In
any case, even if Ford provided specific details of her ordeal, this
wouldn’t have changed anything. Kavanaugh would still have turned
around and denied it. Thursday's hearing was not just inadequate as a
court, with its burden of proof, witnesses, evidence, judges and jury
– it wasn’t even a tribunal attempting to establish the truth.
Instead, it was designed to have the opposite effect, with all sides
smearing each other for political gain entirely on the basis of he
said/she said accounts.
Lindsey
Graham / Reuters
“This
is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics,” said
Graham as the hearing wrapped up. But even if he was right, he was
not the man to say it. Both over the longer term and in the past few
weeks, it is him and the other senators who have allowed this human
baiting show to take place.
Human
baiting
And
a cruelty circus there was: the tarred human targets drew to
themselves millions of vitriolic opinions, self-righteous statements,
and outright lies. Thousands of women told stories of their own
sexual abuse (though there is a question if one man, not proven
guilty, should be punished for another man’s crime, or even for the
cause of equality before the law), abortion advocates reminded
viewers that Roe v. Wade was in danger, the Washington Post wrote
dissections of various slang terms in Kavanaugh’s yearbook.
On
the other side, Republicans spoke of vast left-wing conspiracies –
a subject the prospective Supreme Court justice himself raised –
and reposted talking points from the questioning and fake memes
casting doubts on Ford’s sexual morals, which somewhat misses the
point, as well as being slander.
If
there was nuance, it got drowned under the majority of the comments
that went along strict party lines. Perhaps in an existential battle
for the future of America’s legal system the ends justify the means
and no one cares about the collateral. More chilling than all this
was the tone of callous disregard for the people involved: even if
someone believes that a man or woman may only have a ten percent
chance of being innocent, shouldn’t they be treated with humanity,
particularly in a murky situation like this? Neither Kavanaugh nor
Ford are monsters, and even if they were, what of the compassion and
tolerance on which much of America prides itself?
What
the world sees
Instead,
there were two sacrificial lambs in a kangaroo court among lying,
plotting, openly amoral politicians, amid a cacophony of raw noise.
This
is how the world saw the US on Thursday.
Scores
of countries across the world live according to constitutions modeled
on the US Bill or Rights, political systems fashioned after that of
the US, legal practices that treat America as the gold standard.
American leaders are icons of world history, countries hang on to
their every word, and many attempt to emulate and follow them (yes,
even Trump).
The
US revels in this role, and just this week its leader spoke of its
“unique values” and how America made the world better and stood
up for it. These scenes are not going to persuade Saudi Arabia that
democracy is efficient. It excites not awe but laughter within the
walls of the Kremlin.
The
US has two choices: to fight as best it can to preserve the remaining
value of its institutions - Congress, the supreme court, security
agencies, and the presidency – or to continue its all-out battle
against itself, where everyone is a loser, even when someone is
declared the winner either on this nomination, the mid-terms, or
2020.
Igor
Ogorodnev
In case you think this is all restricted to the alt-Right here is an article from the far-Left WSWS.
The
day-long, nationally televised hearing before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, devoted to allegations of sexual assault against Supreme
Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, was an exercise in political
degradation.
The
Democratic Party has chosen to wage its campaign against the
nomination of Kavanaugh on the most right-wing basis possible. Rather
than focus public attention on Kavanaugh’s ultra-right political
views—his opposition to abortion rights, his rubber-stamping of
police violence, his consistent defense of corporate interests
against workers and consumers—or on his lengthy record as a
partisan legal thug going back to the Clinton impeachment, the
Democrats engineered a hearing in which all attention was focused on
Kavanaugh’s personal conduct as a teenager.