Gaza war protests go off the rails -- dumpster fire starts; Forced birth wars update

It looks like the protests against genocide in Gaza are turning into a deeply counterproductive dumpster fire. The students are now breaking laws and occupying campus buildings. The cops are gonna come in, crack some skulls and arrest people. The pro-Israel propaganda Leviathan is gonna smear the protesters as hard and viciously as it can. Attention will turn from Gaza genocide to Biden- and liberal-inspired antisemitism, domestic terrorism and tyranny. Trump will gleefully attack and smear Biden with everything that he, and his cadre of sleaze artists like Steve Bannon, can think of.

One exception to the self-immolation of the protest movement is at Brown University. The NYT reports: At Brown, a Rare Agreement Between Administrators and Protesters -- Brown students took down their tents on campus after the university in Rhode Island agreed to discuss their demands for divestment from support for the Israeli military. Demonstrators agreed to dismantle their encampment at Brown, which had been removed by Tuesday evening, and university leaders said they would discuss, and later vote on, divesting funds from companies connected to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

The WaPo reports about the impacts of the forced birth law that goes into effect today in Florida:

When she walked into the abortion clinic Tuesday morning, Kristen thought she’d made it just in time.

The 22-year-old mother of two had learned just a few hours earlier that a new six-week abortion ban would go into effect in Florida on Wednesday. So she canceled all her plans and found someone to drive her, in hopes of ending her pregnancy before the deadline.

She was one day too late.

“We did an ultrasound and you’re over the state limit,” said Eileen Diamond, the director of Benjamin Surgical Services International, gently explaining to Kristen that the test showed she was eight weeks pregnant.

While the clinic could still provide abortions for women more than six weeks into their pregnancies until midnight, Diamond said, another Florida law requires all abortion patients to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours before their procedure. That meant the earliest Kristen could get an abortion was Wednesday, when her abortion would no longer be legal.

“Oh no,” Kristen said, tears rolling down her cheeks as she sat across a desk from Diamond in a consultation room. “No. No.”

As of Wednesday morning, clinics across the country’s third-largest state can no longer offer abortions to most patients who walk through their doors — forced to turn away any woman who is further than six weeks along, a point when many still don’t know they’re pregnant. The enactment of Florida’s new ban on May 1 is widely expected to be the biggest jolt to abortion access across the country since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.  

For Kristen, the nearest abortion clinic that will be able to help her is now in Charlotte — an 11-hour drive away.

“I can help you find an appointment in another state, but you would have to get there,” Diamond told her Tuesday.

Kristen shook her head. Then she looked at Diamond and laughed: With her financial situation, Diamond might as well have been suggesting she fly to the moon.

“I can’t afford three kids,” said Kristen, who like other women in this story spoke on the condition that only their first names be disclosed to protect their privacy. “But I’m not going out of state. I can’t afford to go out of state.”  

A ban of this magnitude will immediately upend abortion access far beyond Florida’s borders, with Floridians traveling to North Carolina, Illinois and Virginia, where clinics are already struggling to absorb patients from antiabortion states across the Southeast. And while abortion rights advocates are hoping voters will approve a measure in November that would lift the ban in January — restoring abortion access in Florida until roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy — tens of thousands of women will be affected between now and the new year, regardless of what happens in the election.

This is a example of callous Christian Sharia theocracy intruding into people’s lives in a major way. Christian theocrats have no regard for majority public opinion that they disagree with. Only what God wants is what counts. That is authoritarian theocracy, pure and simple. It is here and now, not in the future or in another country. 

It is long past time for all tax breaks for all religion in the US to be repealed. Religion plays hardball politics, so it should play with the same rules that the rest of us have to play with. 

Best POTUS ever…

First, nobody is perfect. So, it isn’t wise/recommended to base your opinion of someone on one act (or non act) they’ve committed (granted, exceptions exist [see Hitler]). 

What I’m saying is, nobody can be all things to all people. It’s just impossible. And when someone tries to be that, that person is usually looked upon with suspicion; someone who can’t be trusted. 

Don’t get me wrong; getting along with as many people as you can is to be commended, especially if you don't want to be seen as a jerk. So yeah, finding some kind of middle ground is a tough row to hoe. 

So, considering the above, do you have a favorite (albeit likely flawed in some way) President of the United States? (Other countries can use your own presidents as examples.) Give your reasons why you picked that person.

(by PrimalSoup)

Another analysis of the New York state election fraud trial: It is boring and about business integrity

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) by a New York City attorney, former Manhattan assistant district attorney Rebecca Roiphe, discusses the election fraud/hush money trial from the point of view of a person who has actually enforced the laws Trump is being charged with violating:

Now that the lawyers are laying out their respective theories of the case in the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, it would be understandable if people’s heads are spinning. The defense lawyers claimed this is a case about hush money as a legitimate tool in democratic elections, while the prosecutors insisted it is about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

Yet this case is not really about election interference, nor is it a politically motivated attempt to criminalize a benign personal deal. Boring as it may sound, it is a case about business integrity.

It’s not surprising that the lawyers on both sides are trying to make this about something sexier. This is a narrative device used to make the jurors and the public side with them, but it has also created confusion. On the one hand, some legal experts claim that the conduct charged in New York was the original election interference. On the other hand, some critics think the criminal case is a witch hunt, and others claim it is trivial at best and at worst the product of selective prosecution.

As someone who worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and enforced the laws that Mr. Trump is accused of violating, I stand firmly in neither camp. It is an important and straightforward case, albeit workmanlike and unglamorous. In time, after the smoke created by lawyers has cleared, it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate.

It would hardly make for a dramatic opening statement or cable news sound bite, but the case is about preventing wealthy people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability. Manhattan prosecutors have long considered it their province to ensure the integrity of the financial markets. As Robert Morgenthau, a former Manhattan district attorney, liked to say, “You cannot prosecute crime in the streets without prosecuting crime in the suites.”

Lawmakers in New York, the financial capital of the world, consider access to markets and industry in New York a privilege for businesspeople. It is a felony to abuse that privilege by doctoring records to commit or conceal crimes, even if the businessman never accomplishes the goal and even if the false records never see the light of day. The idea is that an organization’s records should reflect an honest accounting. It is not a crime to make a mistake, but lying is a different story. It is easy to evade accountability by turning a business into a cover, providing a false trail for whichever regulator might care to look. The law (falsification of business records) deprives wealthy, powerful businessmen of the ability to do so with impunity, at least when they’re conducting business in the city.

Roiphe's opinion goes on to point out that prosecutors and New York courts have interpreted this law with its general purpose in mind. Because of that, the element of intent to defraud has a broad meaning. It is not limited to the intent of cheating someone out of money or property. And, as common with white collar crime cases, circumstantial evidence is often used to prove criminal intent. 

Prosecutors will ask jurors to use their common sense to infer what Trump’s intent might be for filing lots of false documents. Roiphe says that in similar trials, New York jurors often conclude that a defendant must have created a false paper trail for a reason. She asserts that jurors can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s lies were intended to seek to commit a crime(s) or to cover one(s) up because as she puts it, “documents don’t lie.” In this lawsuit, Trump is accused of filing 11 false invoices, 12 false ledger entries and 11 false checks and check stubs, allegedly with intent to violate federal election laws, state election laws and/or state tax laws (34 separate felonies).

From Roiphe’s experienced insider point of view description of the case, it seems that Trump probably will be found to have committed fraud by most neutral jurors. At present, Trump’s main defense is that he was merely trying to avoid embarrassing his family, not trying to violate any law. The wild card here is one or more MAGA jurors who will probably vote to acquit Trump regardless of the evidence or “common sense.”

Trump is not even trying to deny the 34 documents were false. He did that. Period. He is arguing that the false documents were filed to protect his family. Nearly all MAGA people would probably accept his lie as truth and vote to acquit him.

I am a happy liberal but am I one of the rare ones?

 Consider:

Multiple psychological studies have reported that conservatives, on average, have greater levels of subjective psychological well-being than liberals. The differences were small in size, but those studies consistently found conservatives to be more satisfied with their lives, happier, and in better self-reported health compared to liberals. One of the explanations for this finding was that conservatives tend to be more satisfied with the social system and this alleviates the negative psychological consequences of perceiving societal inequalities.

More detail:

https://www.psypost.org/are-conservatives-happier-than-liberals-new-comprehensive-research-offers-fresh-insights/

Liberals, especially liberal women, are significantly less likely to be happy with their lives and satisfied with their “mental health,” compared to their conservative peers aged from 18-55. This is the big takeaway from the 2022 American Family Survey, a striking new poll from YouGov and the Deseret News, which found that liberals are about 15 percentage points less likely to be “completely satisfied” with their lives.

Two family factors have a lot to do with this ideological gap: marital status and family satisfaction. Given that conservatives aged 18-55 are about 20 percentage points more likely to be married, as well as 18 percentage points more likely to be satisfied with their families, the lesson here is obvious. Marriage and family are strongly linked to happiness and to personal mental health in particular. 

More detail:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-are-liberals-less-happy-than-conservatives

Academic research consistently finds the same pattern. Conservatives do not just report higher levels of happiness, they also report higher levels of meaning in their lives. The effects of conservatism seem to be enhanced when conservatives are surrounded by others like themselves. However, in an analysis looking at ninety countries from 1981 through 2014, the social psychologists Olga Stavrova and Maike Luhmann found “the positive association between conservative ideology and happiness only rarely reversed. Liberals were happier than conservatives in only 5 out of 92 countries and never in the United States.”

Yet more detail:

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2023/03/how-to-understand-the-well-being-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives/

In the midst of an ongoing mental health crisis that is especially affecting children and youth, I found this headline interesting: “Conservative teenagers are generally happier than their liberal peers, study finds.” A group of Columbia University researchers studied the depressive attitudes of twelfth-graders from 2005 to 2018, comparing those aligned with conservatism and those with liberalism. They concluded that “conservatives reported lower average depressive effect, self-derogation, and loneliness scores and higher self-esteem scores than all other groups.”

In an extensive and deeply sourced article for American Affairs, Columbia University sociologist Musa al-Gharbi adds that “conservatives do not just report higher levels of happiness, they also report higher levels of meaning in their lives.” He writes that this pattern is “ubiquitous, not just in the contemporary United States but also historically (virtually as far back as the record goes) and in most other geographical contexts as well.”

https://www.denisonforum.org/daily-article/are-conservative-teenagers-happier-than-their-liberal-peers/

SNOWFLAKE'S PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS:

Regardless of the studies, both Liberals and Conservatives are so uptight about the other, I have a feeling neither side is any happier than the other side. Just a general observation.

I just know that I am fairly happy with my life. What about YOU?