How is this for a 2022 campaign slogan. Law and Order needs enforcement against the rich, more than the poor because the rule has to change to money cannot buy anyone an "Out of Jail Free" card.

 Link. Perhap shorten the slogan: Justice must be blind to a dollar sign.

It boils down to the same message.

UPDATE:  Parallel link.

Dem. usage of such a slogan, however, would suffer from the Obama/Holder handling of Wall Street justice. Where no significant Wall Street banker or other figure was prosecuted or jailed and where Geithner with his tie to the New York Fed called signals at Treasury while in parallel the present Mpls. Fed's boss shepherded TARP money as he deemed best. Some home mortgages got foreclosed. All done smoothly. It was not a partisan war, Dems vs GOP. Arguably, it was DC as expected.

Still - justice blind to the dollar sign is a resonant idea, if only in the abstract.

These are the kinds of people, what they did, what it says of their character, who deserve to have a hard time doing time.

 Link. They are from Ramsey County, not Ramsey the town in Anoka County. 

Hopefully that means all the crap they did was not at town mailboxes.

Still -

They either learn while jugged, or come out worse. As with other things, gross assholeishness either increases, decreases or remains the same.

While in prison, the staff should, all things considered, impound all of their mail.

Grumping my way through morning coffee, yes, but still - petty criminals doing widespread mischief deserve special attention.

In an ideal world each of these two deserve having a Wall Street criminal as a cell mate, a big crime/petty crime mix. But Wall Street criminals never go to jail.

Good morning, world! 

________UPDATE________

Then there are the big time criminals who retire and do watercolors, or paintings while Assange is in a cage and Snowden in exile. This, some call "justice."

As already noted - Increases, decreases or remains the same.

Make of this post whatever you want.

 CIA, NSA and Pegasus users are not the eyes of the world. Assange comes closer, and he's being tortured. So, you are it. You look at Assange and Pegasus, and then what can you do about it. If nothing, hang it up and see what tomorrow brings. If interested, continue.

Start with the lyrics. Why go there, here?

Why not?

On YouTube this one if you can stand the rippling eye visual. If you want a later version but not - and Company, not that late, this one.

On the second version, in case you suppress comment streams - full screen - whatever, know that the first comment on the thread = "One of the worst dressed bands ever. I love it."

Leave the post there. Largely.

Jarad always seems to be a dapper dresser. He's either gone low key, no wave making, or media is collectively ignoring efforts he may take.

Propaganda can get you, even if trying to stand alert to it.

Tell yourself, whether you know, was the election stolen from Trump? One answer is the weight of repeated media mention, all the election officials counting separately and saying consistent things. Another answer is you don't know. You are being told things, but do you, personally, know? 

There is a lot of stuff I don't know. I know I voted unhappily against Trump and for the apparent lesser evil, hating the absence of a real choice, as I understood the "choice." But I have no knowledge whether my ballot was counted. Or whether Trump was the lesser evil.

How do you know the earth orbits the sun yearly, vs the sun orbiting the earth daily? How do you know bin Laden is dead and not living in a safe house in Dubai? After plastic surgery with multiple passports from different NATO nations in hand, each in the name Akeem Abdullah, each using his post-plastic photo? Not buried at sea as we've been told? Did you see a burial? Do you know someone who did?

I am still trying to understand who killed Kennedy. 

Either of the two.

You are the eyes of the world. Don't mess that up. But don't believe much without staying skeptical.

_______UPDATE_______

A skeptic's question. This AP feed is offered the public as news. Read the headline. Read the item. The headline is out of step. It is sheer opinion, and the story makes no such point of relative importance of issues. Is it the start of a set-up to where a progressive disaffiliation with an "infrastructure" bill with no recognition of climate change and renewables' importance can be waved about as "progressives killing Biden's Presidency, or trying to?" 

Perhaps such a speculative view as ended the last paragraph, speculation about motive, has no place in news commentary, then that is one correct observation. But if the headline is not baseless opinion equally having no place as news, what is it?

The item author quotes only one Obama former official, who never is quoted or noted to have said one worry "overshadows" another. 

Perhaps one can argue the meaning of "overshadow." Bill Clinton might.

Or am I wrong? Be skeptical of me.

Planners. Met Council in the news.

Link. Legislators want answers. Thinking of Met Council I think of Ted Mondale. And Fingerhut software from years back, Thinking of Ted Mondale, I think of the Zygi stadium. The one Mark Dayton called "the peoples' stadium." Then I make the effort to think of something else.

Thinking of Met Council also makes me think of Lake Elmo. Big Sumo.

Ben and Jerry go on record saying what many feel. Against them, a howl, "Antisemitism!" as if that is an equivalent thing to questioning actions of the State of Isreal's Apartheid.

 Ben and Jerry do not go as far as others in challenging Apartheid.

NY Times, op-ed, by the pair -

By Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield

Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield founded Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings in 1978.

We are the founders of Ben & Jerry’s. We are also proud Jews. It’s part of who we are and how we’ve identified ourselves for our whole lives. As our company began to expand internationally, Israel was one of our first overseas markets. We were then, and remain today, supporters of the State of Israel.

But it’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies, just as we’ve opposed policies of the U.S. government. As such, we unequivocally support the decision of the company to end business in the occupied territories, which a majority of the international community, including the United Nations, has deemed an illegal occupation.

While we no longer have any operational control of the company we founded in 1978, we’re proud of its action and believe it is on the right side of history. In our view, ending the sales of ice cream in the occupied territories is one of the most important decisions the company has made in its 43-year history. It was especially brave of the company. Even though it undoubtedly knew that the response would be swift and powerful, Ben & Jerry’s took the step to align its business and operations with its progressive values.

That we support the company’s decision is not a contradiction nor is it anti-Semitic. In fact, we believe this act can and should be seen as advancing the concepts of justice and human rights, core tenets of Judaism.

Ben & Jerry’s is a company that advocates peace. It has long called on Congress to reduce the U.S. military budget. Ben & Jerry’s opposed the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But it wasn’t just talk. One of our very first social-mission initiatives, in 1988, was to introduce the Peace Pop. It was part of an effort to promote the idea of redirecting 1 percent of national defense budgets around the world to fund peace-promoting activities. We see the company’s recent action as part of a similar trajectory — not as anti-Israel, but as part of a long history of being pro-peace.

In its statement, the company drew a contrast between the democratic territory of Israel and the territories Israel occupies. The decision to halt sales outside Israel’s democratic borders is not a boycott of Israel. The Ben & Jerry’s statement did not endorse the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

The company’s stated decision to more fully align its operations with its values is not a rejection of Israel. It is a rejection of Israeli policy, which perpetuates an illegal occupation that is a barrier to peace and violates the basic human rights of the Palestinian people who live under the occupation. As Jewish supporters of the State of Israel, we fundamentally reject the notion that it is anti-Semitic to question the policies of the State of Israel.

The kneejerk bandying of "Antisemite" against anyone who does not kiss up gets stale quickly and sounder conduct might prove more productive - IF the goal is justice and peace. Big IF.

Axios -

The Israeli government has formed a special task force to pressure Ben & Jerry's ice cream and its parent company Unilever to reverse their decision to boycott Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israeli officials tell me.

Why it matters: The Israeli government is concerned the move by Ben & Jerry's will encourage other international companies to take similar steps to differentiate between Israel and the West Bank settlements. A classified Foreign Ministry cable, seen by Axios, makes clear the government wants to send a message.

 [...]

• The Israeli government tried to press Unilever to stop Ben & Jerry's from making that decision, but Unilever said the company had the right to take such steps as part of its corporate responsibility and social justice policy.

Behind the scenes: On July 22, the Israeli Foreign Ministry sent a classified cable to all Israeli diplomatic missions in North America and Europe ordering them to start a pressure campaign against Ben & Jerry's and Unilever in order to convince them to negotiate.

• Israeli diplomats were instructed to encourage Jewish organizations, pro-Israel advocacy groups and evangelical communities to organize demonstrations in front of Ben & Jerry's and Unilever offices and put pressure on investors and distributors for both companies.
• The Foreign Ministry also asked the diplomats to push for public statements condemning the companies and to “encourage public protests in the media and directly with key executives in both companies." The diplomats were also instructed to echo those protests on social media for maximum visibility.
• The Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israeli Consulates around the U.S. were asked to push for the activation of anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) legislation in several states and to engage with governors, mayors, members of Congress and state officials like attorneys general.

What they're saying: “We need to make use of the 18 months that are left until the decision comes into force and try to change it. We want to create long-term pressure on Unilever and Ben & Jerry's by consumers, politicians, and in the press and social media in order to lead to a dialogue with the companies," the cable said.

• It added that Ben & Jerry's and Unilever “caved and cooperated with the BDS movement" which it claimed was partially "motivated by antisemitism." The cable also said the companies' decision was "hypocritical, goes against the values of corporate responsibility and smells like extreme cancel culture."

Worth noting: The statement from Ben & Jerry's didn't mention BDS, but said it was "inconsistent with our values" to sell ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory."

WTF are they up to? BDF incitement against Ben and Jerry's because they don't like BDF against themselves? That's what it amounts to. It is stupid, and it rankles.

Eliot Engel wet his pants when Ihlen Omar made her "Benjamins" comment. Eliot Engel got voted out of the House. Tone deafness and kneejerk name-calling reactionism have consequences; many being tired of that line of - stuff. The Palestinians deserve humane justice. Isreal is instead building settlements in land seized by war. The smell of ethnic cleansing attaches. In East Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Israel is being unjust. That our nation did the same to existing people in the course of expanding territory is not cause to endorse Israel doing it. It is cause for shame.

If Israel isolates Palestinian people into an archipelago of disconnected areas east of the Green line, "reservations" perhaps being a term for that, will they at least give the Palestinians exclusive casino promotion rights? 

Just wondering. Offering chopped liver is offering chopped liver, however the details of chopping here and there get done.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At the end of its report, Axios adds a footer -

Go deeper

Barak Ravid, author of from Tel Aviv

Jul 28, 2021 - World

White House raised NSO spyware concerns with Israel

Is that NSO a separate issue from Ben and Jerry, or is there a common thread?

Readers, work it out in your minds. Would it be ANTISEMITISM! to be pissed off about the Pegasus technology NSO sells to governments for spying on their respective citizenries? Because the firm is Israeli? Because it has a lame disclaimer about "don't misuse" while sucking in the Benjamins?

Or is hostility to NSO/Pegasus just plain, decent common sense and respect for norms of personal privacy as a right every citizen of the world should expect and receive? 

Read Griswold v. Connecticut. Wikipedia begins its presentation on Griswold -

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that "the clear effect of [the Connecticut law ...] is to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion".^[1]

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The issue remains - are the two questions; Ben and Jerry as one, NSO/Pegasus marketing/profiting as the other - are they interrelated as in, "We can do as we please and if you disapprove, you per se are an ANTISEMITE!"

It simply is past time to spread that "always bellow Antisemitism" pile on the kibbutz fields so the crops will prosper. It has no place in sensible dialog about practices and biases of a foreign theocracy-government that has declared itself in its law to be a "Jewish State," while practicing Apartheid where it holds control.

[note: ending link added as an update]

FURTHER: An earlier Crabgrass post mentioning Griswold.

Diversity in Anoka County's government - the Board of Commissioners debates and acts.

Local reporting link. A point worth thought:

“We hire who are the most capable and talented,” Look said.

From a viewpoint of bang for the buck spending, is that better than anything else?

Is the answer that simple, if such hiring results in employee demographics askew from community demographics? Is the Look statement an ideal, or an actuality?

Many a slip twixt cup and lip? The hiring of Rhonda amid residency questions while she effortlessly moved from Board Chair to top administrator - "most capable and talented"? How hard did her peers on the Board really look for more capability and sounder talent, given how good the pay rate is? The recollection at Crabgrass is it appeared to be a done deal with a fig leaf "search" attached.

________UPDATE_______

We can speculate forever, but would the Board have hired Rhonda with/without the only-an-after-thought fig leaf search, if it in turn looked like this? Doubtful. Very doubtful. 

Aside from Ms. Meisner and her predecessor, and with a gender mix, the county electorate sure "hired" abject uniformity, at the ballot box, whatever else you can observe or guess. A uniformity that makes me gag, but I only have one vote, in one board district, where incumbency shouts "term limits" to me, but not to a majority of others. We are blessed to have Meisner. Who does not go along to get along, instead stating her mind. Voting her conscience.

One detail about the Ramsey FRANCHISE FEE debate. Possibly Strib's reporter got snookered by a bit of embellishment .

 Earlier Crabgrass post.

Ramsey's FRANCHISE FEE situation makes statewide reported news, Strib online; in part -

Ramsey, with a population of about 27,500, is just starting to look at its 2022 budget and could choose to levy a tax in lieu of the franchise fees.

Resident Thomas Gamec said he was in favor of keeping the fees, which are costs utilities such as gas and electric companies pay a city for permission to use the right of way to deliver services. Those costs are added on to consumers' gas and electric bills, and the money goes to cities for specific purposes. In Ramsey, the fees were dedicated for roads.

"I have never seen the city of Ramsey with as bad of roads as there are now," Gamec said while addressing the council. "Tell us what you are going to do before you eliminate something. How can we say you are going to come up with something better? We don't know. I favor franchise fees because I know that money is going toward roads."

[italics added] Below, a screen capture of a part of a 1981 council Special Meeting's minutes, with the early 1980s being when Ramsey's dirt roads were being sequentially blacktopped for the first time. Before that, dust, washerboard bumping at turns and stops. Periodic grading needed, Ramsey's grader doing yeoman work but still all the dirt road misery as the town grew. All that, but then was when dirt roads clearly were being improved - from being much, much, much worse before the blacktopping.

click the image to enlarge and read

Harold Hamilton obit.

 Strib. He kept a business going for decades, meeting payroll. His politics differed from mine, but success in business is a fact properly attached to his memory.

Buzzfeed. Is it a report, or an op-ed? A little of each, but food for thought about OUR GOVERNMENT and fair or foul play.

 

Link -

The prosecution has already emerged as a critical test for how the Biden administration approaches the growing threat of homegrown anti-government groups. More than that, though, the case epitomizes the ideological divisions that have riven the country over the past several years. To some, the FBI’s infiltration of the innermost circle of armed anti-government groups is a model for how to successfully forestall dangerous acts of domestic terrorism. But for others, it’s an example of precisely the kind of outrageous government overreach that radicalizes people in the first place, and, increasingly, a flashpoint for deep state conspiracy theories.

The government has documented at least 12 confidential informants who assisted the sprawling investigation. The trove of evidence they helped gather provides an unprecedented view into American extremism, laying out in often stunning detail the ways that anti-government groups network with each other and, in some cases, discuss violent actions.

An examination of the case by BuzzFeed News also reveals that some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than has previously been reported. Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.

[...]  This account is based on an analysis of court filings, transcripts, exhibits, audio recordings, and other documents, as well as interviews with more than two dozen people with direct knowledge of the case, including several who were present at meetings and training sessions where prosecutors say the plot was hatched. All but one of the 14 original defendants have pleaded not guilty, and they vigorously deny that they were involved in a conspiracy to kidnap anyone.

Buzzfeed says more, in detail. Enough was quoted to frame an understanding.

The wheels of judicial attention - dare I say wheels of justice - turn slowly, but something ultimately gets decided, with/without attention directed where we, as outside observers, might want to see it directed, and until then, the game is called, "What is entrapment," or at least appears from Buzzfeed to be so. 

What is an abuse of every person's right of free association in terms of manipulation by officials seeping into the network spying and inciting?

Investigation? Is there no limit? Pegasus flies? Good horsie?

Whether Pegasus surveillance was a factor in this reported entangled conspiracy prosecution situation is not explored by Buzzfeed. Rather, the question is raised anew from general knowledge and from current online questioning of use of the Pegasus software by nations to spy on citizens, via breaching of iPhone security when there was an expectation of privacy; see Katz, Warren Court, (with the full case linked to from here).

What size is the gap between infiltration/exhortation/surveillance, and going a step further to cooking an alleged outright forgery? Where should the line be drawn; and what relief is proper if the government oversteps the line?

UPDATE: DWT expands on the Buzzfeed speculation/reporting and cites to other sources. "How Far Will Government Go to Defeat Climate Activists?"

Read there how the current prosecution could have severe blowback for activists of green, union, or other causes. If the pendulum swings one way it has a back swing.

If the process is flawed, the actual victim du jour becomes less material, than that the process must be untainted, even, without any arguable appearance of taint.

The process was highjacked by a gaggle of conservatives could never have happened without white House connivance and encouragement, largely under the auspices of Biden's most conservative and corrupt corporate whore, Steve Ricchetti. The Republicans wouldn't think twice about blowing up the bill at the drop of a hat-- it's probably already baked into the cake anyway-- but Democrats are... meow, meow, meow and may fume and stomp around, but don't have the guts to tell Biden NO!

 The headline here is the closing paragraph of DWT's Howie Klein's posting on how the "Great RESET - Build Back Better - Infrastructure Bill" is being managed grossly unGreen by Senate conservatives - with/without White House involvement.

Link.

Cleveland special election news. Re the open seat in a predominantly Dem House district. Where Dem primary leading candidates are Nina Turner and Shontrel Brown.

 News of a potential ethics probe  -  unrelated to Turner; unfavorable toward Shontel Brown. News of

---------------------------

The Intercept: "In the Race Against Nina Turner, GOP Donors Fund Shontel Brown -  With one week left in the Ohio primary, Republican donors have picked their Democrat — and the pro-Israel PAC supporting her.

+

 Newsweek: Hillary Clinton-endorsed Candidate Shontel Brown Faces Potential Ethics Probe -- By Walker Bragman and Andrew Perez, Daily Poster On 7/27/21 at 8:45 AM EDT

+

truthout:  Nina Turner Opponent Facing Potential Ethics Probe for $17 Million in Contracts

+  

https://www.dailyposter.com/house-candidate-shontel-brown-facing-potential-ethics-probe/ (behind a paywall - presumably as published by Newsweek)

----------------------------

From its title the Intercept Story appears independent of any ethics dimension. However, opening paragraphs state -

As the Democratic primary for Ohio’s 11th Congressional District draws to a close, establishment pick Shontel Brown, a current Cuyahoga County Council Member and county Democratic Party chair, is facing a potential ethics probe for her past work supporting millions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies run by her partner and campaign donors. According to a story published Tuesday by Newsweek and the Daily Poster, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office took interest in an earlier Intercept story and in June referred it to the state auditor’s office, where officials agreed the matter should go before the state ethics commission. Meanwhile, and unrelated to the potential probe, newly released campaign finance disclosures show that Brown and a major Democratic PAC supporting her campaign have been heavily funded by donors who usually support Republicans.

The revelations come with just one week left in the contest between Brown and Nina Turner, a progressive former state senator who stumped for Sen. Bernie Sanders during his 2016 and 2020 presidential runs and who, to many observers, remains representative of his campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Well, that link, of an "earlier Intercept story," drops the shoe - 

When Shontel Brown was running for her seat on Cuyahoga County Council in 2014, she responded to questions about her links to the family of a major contractor by promising to “recuse herself from county contracts with ties to Mark Perkins as necessary.” Perkins, Brown’s partner, has longstanding ties to the Cleveland-based general contractor Perk.

On February 28, 2017, Brown deemed recusal unnecessary and voted with her colleagues to give a nearly $7 million contract to Perk. Ten weeks later, one of the firm’s owners helped organize a fundraiser that bankrolled a significant portion of her reelection campaign, making an in-kind donation of $2,000 at a fundraiser for Brown that netted her over $7,000, a significant sum in the low-budget world of Cleveland-area council races. In total, she has approved more than $17 million to Perk and has received $13,000 in campaign donations from the Perkins family and Perk’s current owners, the Cifani family.

Brown is now running in a competitive House primary against Nina Turner to replace Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge in Ohio’s 11th District. Turner, a former Ohio state senator, was a leading surrogate for Bernie Sanders in his two presidential runs. While much of the establishment has lined up behind Brown, who is the head of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, Turner has a bevy of local establishment endorsements as well, including from influential moderate Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson. Turner has significantly outraised Brown, raising $1.6 million in the first quarter of 2021 to Brown’s $680,000, though both candidates’ numbers are high for this early in a congressional primary, which will be held August 3.

Shontel Brown.

Photo: Cuyahoga County Planning Commission

Besides the $7 million contract in 2017, Brown also voted on three other occasions to approve Cuyahoga city contracts for Perk, totaling an additional $10 million between 2015 and 2019. And in August 2020, she voted in favor of contracts of $1.875 million to two firms, one headed by Mark Perkins’s sister and a second whose former vice president is another family member of Perkins. Perk and McTech, a company owned by Mark Perkins, are frequent and longtime business associates.

Perk was co-founded by Charles Perkins, the uncle of Brown’s longtime partner Mark. Perk’s current owners, the Cifani family, have been generous supporters of her campaigns for office. Brown received campaign contributions from the Perkins and Cifani families in her low-budget campaigns for county council and, before that, for city council in the Cleveland suburb of Warrensville Heights, where both she and her mentor, Marcia Fudge, got their political starts.

In response to repeated requests for comment from The Intercept, a spokesperson for Brown’s campaign said that they have “no comment at this time.”

It is not clear if Mark Perkins and Brown are still engaged, as Brown told Cleveland.com in 2014, but people searches show that they have shared addresses, and political contribution records show that they live in the same ZIP code as of 2020. Sources in Cleveland with knowledge of their relationship said that they are still together but not married.

The last bit about cohabitation is gratuitous, and weakens the story.

However, that "no comment at this time" language immediately unpins the bullshit meter - something detected - so with more recent coverage there might be - some comment at this later time. 

Sophistry and hand-waving? Or a substantial clarification. We wait and see. (The dailyposter story is dated July 28.)

Time passes.  We wait. Voting will be soon.

The above-quoted July14 Intercept item was published two weeks prior to the dailyposter's publishing on July 28. Two intervening weeks - no intervening story from the Shontel campaign.

Residents of Minnesota North Metro burbs all rely on the same aquifer for well water. Water quality is an issue affecting everyone.

ABC Newspapers:

Column: Restoring the Anoka sand plain
By Wiley Buck, Great River Greening
Jul 26, 2021

Rain water reaches the aquifer by percolating through wetlands and soils. The cleaner the percolation path, the better the water.

Anoka County Fair disturbances made statewide news.

 Strib.

The fair is now over. Traffic past the grounds will return to normal.

Ramsey, Anoka County, Minnesota - Franchise Fee. Half a loaf is better than none. Besides an ordinance, amend the Charter.

Link. Good. That back-door tax is bad government and getting rid of it is good. It is as regressive a mode of taxation as there is. It has only one advantage, in shared-wall housing that has been TIF assisted, it gets some present payment out of those operations.

The Charter Commission, if deciding to be something besides moribund, should move to amend. The Council can pass a resolution instructing the Charter Commission to propose language finally and totally banning franchise fee assessment in Ramsey. 

That is one opinion, and the above-linked local news outlet's coverage goes into detail about pro-Franchise Fee advocacy arguments.

Years back, Harry Niska proposed terse Charter language which would have worked well. But the spirit of do nothing but kick the can down the road prevailed.

 Joe Fields might remember.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT SOMETHING OF A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION AS FUNDAMENTAL AS ROAD UPKEEP GOT NEGLECTED AND THE BUDGET GREW ANYWAY. 

HOW MANY PLANNERS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE RAMSEY PAYROLL? IS POLICE DOWNSIZING REASONABLE, GIVEN THE LOW COMMUNITY CRIME RATE? SPENDING GREW OUT OF HAND, TOO MUCH TIF STUFF GOT DONE, AND THE FUNDAMENTALS SUFFER. 

RAMSEY CFO LUND SHOULD BE TASKED WITH FINDING FAT IN THE BUDGET THAT COULD BE ELIMINATED. IT'S THERE.

The Reflections in Ramsey anonymous blog might be expected to be posting a new thought or two about the proposed Franchise fee kill ordinance, and about whether a Charter amendment killing the thing for good - a wood stake through the heart - is an idea finally timely in town. Previously, less than a year ago, that outlet argued against franchise fees, here and here. 

BOTTOM LINE: What's a Charter for except to say what is allowed and disallowed for a charter-based Minnesota local government to do, independent of State law, to the extent charter cities are authorized to act? 

If there is an amendment, it will stand as the rule unless and until a judge in litigation says otherwise; or until subsequent amendment. (If a franchise fee abolition amendment ends up blessed judicially in litigation, so much the better.) 

But farting around about what the Charter powers are - can we do this or not (in the abstract and without doing any action besides dithering and then kicking the can down the road) - will never get any progress implemented.

Do it and see.

_________UPDATE_________

The proposal Niska authored in the past while he was on the Charter Commission would have constrained franchise fee assessment to be against utilities for actual municipal costs arising from the franchisee's exercise of the franchise - not as a back-handed general revenue-raising tool where fees get imposed with a nudge and wink and are then routinely passed through pro rata against citizens using the franchised service; i.e., imposing monthly fixed charges within billings for utility services.

Fees limited to actual franchise-related town costs still would be passed through, but in a substantially lesser amount than when a levy shortfall is papered over by imposing a tax of a different color.  Hiding the truth a bit, that way.

The linked Reflections items are clear on this "limited franchise fee" point.

Why so high? That is my question.

The Hill -

The Supreme Court’s job approval dipped to 49 percent following the first term in which former President Trump’s nominees accounted for a third of the justices, a new poll shows.

The court's approval among Americans fell 9 points compared to the previous year, according to the polling firm Gallup, which noted it is the first time since 2017 that the court’s rating dipped below the 50-percent mark.

[...] 

“Bare majorities of both parties approve of the high court, perhaps because it has handed down rulings that have alternately pleased and frustrated both sides of the ideological spectrum,” Gallup wrote in an analysis of its new poll. “The mix of rulings may have helped keep Republicans from viewing the court as a conservative ally, or Democrats from perceiving it as too ideologically extreme.”

Among independents, 46 percent said they approved of the court’s job.

The term that ended earlier this month was the first in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s third nominee, filled the seat left vacant by the death last September of liberal stalwart Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Some court watchers say next term could reveal even more about the true extent of the court’s rightward trajectory given the politically explosive cases already on the docket, and be more politically influential given the 2022 midterms on the horizon.

In the term that begins in October, the court will review Mississippi’s ban on virtually all abortions after 15 weeks, which the state’s attorney general urged the justices to use as a vehicle to overrule Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

Worse Court in my lifetime keeps getting worse. The creeps should be made to wear clown suits, instead of somber black robes. Trump had a chance and took the low road on appointments. 

But Trump? What else to expect?

The Hill, online this morning, "Pelosi: McCarthy a 'moron' for opposing mask mandate."

Why add the prepositional phrase? Link.

Read the item. There was a context, masking being resumed in the House, but the headliner added the "for . . .".

Pelosi is quoted in the report.

Sometimes you're the Louisville Slugger, sometimes the ball. GOOGLE, NO LESS, EACH WAY.

 Slugger.

Ball.

Knopfler himself, per websearch, has had internet Ball and Slugger moments, while gratefully, the Ball part proved to be internet hoax, apparently catching some attention via the somewhat startling untruth.

"Anonymized" data that is NOT anonymous caught a Catholic prelate, sworn to abstinence, using Grindr, a gay dating app. He stepped down. But what about YOUR privacy expectations and assumptions when you carry that phone device around wherever you go?

 Where the prelate was placed in the Roman Church U.S. hierarchy, and the prior possible Catholics Bishops collectively voting for a denial of sacraments to Biden over reproductive choice, the short time gap, are existing facts. Causally related? You'd have to ask those who took the time and effort to snag the priest. There'd have to have been a motivational drive, else why do the sleuth work? It is a compelling question; online print media seem not to be asking. Aside from that, moving on to details -

Websearch likely would find multiple online postings, but the focus here is ArsTech, July 21, 2021, reporting, a published report beginning -

In what appears to be a first, a public figure has been ousted after de-anonymized mobile phone location data was publicly reported, revealing sensitive and previously private details about his life.

Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill was general secretary of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), effectively the highest-ranking priest in the US who is not a bishop, before records of Grindr usage obtained from data brokers was correlated with his apartment, place of work, vacation home, family members' addresses, and more. Grindr is a gay hookup app, and while apparently none of Burrill’s actions were illegal, any sort of sexual relationship is forbidden for clergy in the Catholic Church. The USCCB goes so far as to discourage Catholics from even attending gay weddings.

Burrill’s case is “hugely significant,” Alan Butler, executive director of the Electronic Information Privacy Center, told Ars. “It’s a clear and prominent example of the exact problem that folks in my world, privacy advocates and experts, have been screaming from the rooftops for years, which is that uniquely identifiable data is not anonymous.”

Well, gee. Imagine that. What more is there to the story about how your phone talks even when you're not talking through it. Much more - 

 The data that resulted in Burrill’s ouster was reportedly obtained through legal means. Mobile carriers sold—and still sell—location data to brokers who aggregate it and sell it to a range of buyers, including advertisers, law enforcement, roadside services, and even bounty hunters. Carriers were caught in 2018 selling real-time location data to brokers, drawing the ire of Congress. But after carriers issued public mea culpas and promises to reform the practice, investigations have revealed that phone location data is still popping up in places it shouldn’t. This year, T-Mobile even broadened its offerings, selling customers' web and app usage data to third parties unless people opt out.

The publication that revealed Burrill’s private app usage, The Pillar, a newsletter covering the Catholic Church, did not say exactly where or how it obtained Burrill’s data. But it did say how it de-anonymized aggregated data to correlate Grindr app usage with a device that appears to be Burrill’s phone.

The Pillar says it obtained 24 months' worth of “commercially available records of app signal data” covering portions of 2018, 2019, and 2020, which included records of Grindr usage and locations where the app was used. The publication zeroed in on addresses where Burrill was known to frequent and singled out a device identifier that appeared at those locations. Key locations included Burrill's office at the USCCB, his USCCB-owned residence, and USCCB meetings and events in other cities where he was in attendance. The analysis also looked at other locations farther afield, including his family lake house, his family members’ residences, and an apartment in his Wisconsin hometown where he reportedly has lived.

The de-anonymized data revealed that a mobile device that appeared at those locations—likely Burrill’s phone, The Pillar says—used Grindr almost daily. [...]

Not anonymous

While this might be the first case of a public figure’s online activities being revealed through aggregate data, “it unfortunately happens very often” to the general public, Andrés Arrieta, director of consumer privacy engineering at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars. “There are companies who capitalize on finding the real person behind the advertising identifiers.” Furthermore, de-anonymizing data in the way The Pillar did is trivially easy. All you need to do to buy the data, Arrieta said, is pretend to be a company. There are no special technical skills required to sift through the data, he added.

[...] The Pillar was able to de-anonymize the data because it wasn’t truly anonymous in the first place. Data that is not connected to a person’s name but still retains a unique identifier is what’s known as "pseudonymous data," Butler said. To truly anonymize data, there are several approaches. One common tactic is known as "differential privacy," where noise is injected into the data, which makes it useful for statistical purposes but frustrates efforts to connect discrete data points to individuals. Pseudonymous data, on the other hand, makes associating individual records with an individual relatively easy, depending on what is in the set.

“When you’re talking about location data, it’s fundamentally not possible to have workable pseudonymity, because location data fingerprints are so revealing,” Butler said. “Once location data is linked to a record, then it’s going to be easy to link that back to a person,” he said. “Most people have essentially a location fingerprint in their lives. [...]

 “There need to be practical, technical, and legal protections for this type of data, and protections for individuals, to prevent this type of abuse,” Butler said.

Bounty hunters? Yup, according to the linked item -

Carriers made “empty promises to consumers”

Of course, mobile carriers themselves could prevent such privacy problems by not selling their customers' location data in the first place.

Carriers were pressured into changing their policies last year after it was revealed that prison phone company Securus offers a service enabling law enforcement officers to locate most American cell phones within seconds. Securus' service relies on data from LocationSmart. It was also reported that a LocationSmart bug could have allowed anyone to surreptitiously track the real-time whereabouts of cell phone users.

At the time, US Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) urged all four major carriers to stop selling their customers' location data. They all said that they would, with limited exceptions: for example, AT&T said it would "be ending our work with aggregators" but continue to allow "important, potential lifesaving services like emergency roadside assistance."

Today, Wyden said he's disappointed that carriers are apparently still selling location data to data brokers.

Disappointment over such stuff is a mild characterization of how we should feel. Violated is a better word.

 

Ice Cream Wars. Sometimes a politician should have the good sense to step aside and let time and online attention spans run a few attentional half-lives. Without comment.

Some cannot resist. Bending to misguided counterproductive urges.

Click the image to read, lol, and move on. Or - this link.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/310415 says -

Florida follows in the footsteps of the state of Texas, whose comptroller announced on Thursday that the government is examining whether the Ben & Jerry's ice cream company violated the state's anti-BDS laws.

Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar said his office was investigating whether Ben & Jerry's had taken a "specific action" which would trigger Chapter 808 of the Texas Government Code.

Kan 11 News reported on Thursday that Illinois and New Jersey are also considering stopping their state investment in Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever.

Earlier this week, Israel’s Ambassador to the US and the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, penned a letter to the governors of all 35 US states which have passed so-called “anti-BDS laws” and called on them to activate their states’ respective anti-BDS laws against Ben & Jerry’s.

Republicans have been calling for a boycott of Ben & Jerry’s following its announcement that it will cease selling its ice cream in Judea and Samaria.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) urged Americans to "take a stand" against Ben & Jerry’s following the decision.

"I think it’s really important that Americans here send a message to Ben & Jerry’s by not buying their ice cream, quite frankly," Malliotakis said in an interview with former Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind. "To try to deprive people of their ice cream is really just outrageous and they shouldn’t be participating in what is the BDS movement."

On Tuesday, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio criticized Ben & Jerry’s decision to boycott Judea and Samaria.

“I can say I will not be eating anymore Cherry Garcia for a while,” said de Blasio in a video shared on social media.

He called the company’s decision “sad.”

“I don’t know them well but I’ve met them over the years and I think they’re good people, with good values,” de Blasio said. “But this is a mistake. They shouldn’t do this.”

Apartheid enablers! Republican Apartheid-huggers! (+ de Blasio)

Common fools intent to score AIPAC Benjamins with which to further incumbency opportunity? Campaign onward, never mind the absurdity? 

DeSantis acts. For a better and more enlightened and compassionate Florida? What?

Apartheid booster roosters - crowing. Let 'em eat frozen yogurt (or BaskinRobbins). Ben don't need 'em. Jerry don't need 'em. But Unilever should sue. Unilever has a deeper pocket than Florida.

Don't you love the rhetorical ring of boycott Ben and Jerry because Ben and Jerry boycott Israeli expansionism into territory seized by force of war. My boycott's better than yours? Tuned to a higher moral melody. Holier than thou.

Today is a day to post of things Howie Klein has published recently at DWT.

Skipping to the nub of this post -

 The median income in the U.S. is $43,585. The median incomes in socialist countries Norway, Sweden and Denmark are higher. The only other country with a higher median income than the U.S. is Australia. But our elected representative in Congress are doing much better than the rets of us. Most are millionaires. I wonder how much empathy they have for people with such different economic struggles. But forget the mere millionaires. There are 22 members of Congress whose net worth is over $30 million.

With one quasi-exception-- Senator Richard Blumenthal-- none of the richest members of Congress are progressive. All of them, regardless of party, are conservatives. There are no billionaires but there are 3 with over a quarter billion. And there are some who are basically owned by billionaire patrons. These are the 22 richest, give or take:

• Darrell Issa (R-CA)- $283.3 million

• Rick Scott (R-FL)- $259 million

• Mitt Romney (R-UT)- $250 million

• Mark Warner (D-VA)- $214.1 million

• Vern Buchanan (R-FL)- $157.2 million

• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)- $124.9 million

• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- $114.7 million

• Michael McCaul (R-TX)- $96.8 million

• Roger Williams (R-TX)- $89.4 million

• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)- $88 million

• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)- $82 million

• Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA)- $79.3 million

• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $79 million

• Kevin Hern (R-OK)- $61 million

• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- $60.4 million

• John Hoeven (R-ND)- $46.7 million

• Ralph Norman (R-SC)- $43.4 million

• Jim Risch (R-ID)- $41.8 million

• Ron Johnson (R-WI)- $39.2 million

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $34.1 million

• Buddy Carter (R-GA)- $33.2 million

• Steve Daines (R-MT)- $32.9 million

The feeling at Crabgrass is these Congress critters clearly know what's best for all of us to prosper, but because it is not what's best for their fortunes gaining, they follow their own best interests.

They serve in public. They do not serve the public. That distinction matters. 

And what can I do about it? I would likely have voted for Blumenthal if a resident of Connecticut. Some people voted for the rest. Sad.

Finally, the families of the two Minnesota Senators each have at least seven-figure wealth. That creates distance from regular people and regular peoples' needs.

Howie Klein has posted a screed against Joe Biden. Some may question it. I cannot, beyond nit-piciing a detail or two. It just rings true.

Klein at DWT - 

 Democrats Are Fighting To Hold Onto Democracy-- Where's Joe Biden?
Reminder: Biden Is Jim Clyburn's Fault

[...]

The pollsters added that "Although majorities of Republicans-- across age groups-- view voting as a privilege with responsibilities that can be limited, younger Republicans and GOP leaners are more likely than older Republicans to say that voting is a fundamental right for every U.S. adult citizen: 44% of Republicans and Republican leaners under 30 say it is a fundamental right, compared with 37% of those ages 30 to 49, 29% of those 50 to 64 and just 22% of those 65 and older."

In one part of my brain I would agree with these old Republicans. Fascists and other groups hostile to democracy shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anyone stupid enough to have voted for Trump in 2020 should never be allowed near a ballot box again. But in the other 99% of my brain, I know that that is a stupid idea that I shouldn't even be saying out loud-- just a kind of guilty pleasure to think about.

In this morning's NY Times, Katie Rogers and Nick Corasaniti noted that enthusiasm for democracy and voting rights is chipping away at Biden's support. His conservatism is more and more showing for those who have missed it since the early 1970s. Rogers and Corasaniti wrote that Biden "is increasingly at odds with leaders of the voting rights movement, who see a contrast between his soaring language and his willingness to push Congress to pass federal legislation." In other words, idealistic grassroots Democrats are starting to confront the fact that Biden is full of shit. On Thursday, in a polite but pointed letter from 150 grassroots organizations, Biden was urged to use that soapbox that comes with the presidency "to push for two expansive federal voting rights bills that would combat a Republican wave of balloting restrictions."

Bully Pulpit 4" by Nancy Ohanian

Biden and these groups are increasingly in disagreement about how to pass what Biden's speech-writer called the "most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War," a reference to the GOP dismantling voting rights for minorities on the state level. Biden seems to think keeping the Jim Crow filibuster in place is more important that passing that test. "Voting rights groups say that Biden is not expending sufficient political capital or using the full force of his bully pulpit to persuade Congress. They point to the contrast between his soaring language-- 'Jim Crow on steroids,' he has called the G.O.P. voting laws-- and his opposition to abolishing the Senate filibuster. [...]

[...] Writing for The Guardian this morning, Robert Reich, asked >Why isn’t Joe Biden doing all he can to protect American democracy? His answer to his own question involves how "both parties are beholden to an anti-democratic coalition [that] is stopping real change." After all, as Alan Grayson noted here on Friday, "We can have the filibuster, or we can have democracy, but we can’t have both. We can have the filibuster, or we can have progress, but we can’t have both."

Reich warned that "Some progressives have suggested a carve-out to the filibuster solely for voting rights. This might constrain the white supremacists but would do nothing to protect American democracy from the wealth supremacists. If democracy is to be preserved, both parts of the anti-democracy coalition must be stopped."

Dorothy Reik, a popular Democratic Party official in Los Angeles, told her followers today that she's "happy to answer Robert Reich's question. Biden doesn't support even a carve out of the filibuster for voting rights because he never ever intended to pass voting rights AND/OR the Green New Deal infrastructure bill. He lied to you. He lied to me too-- but I always knew he was lying. You can't teach an old pol new tricks! That is what he meant when he said ending the filibuster would cause "chaos"-- like everyone voting and the Green New Deal! And maybe the election of more Nina Turners!!! Don't listen to Clyburn either-- he wants HIS Black voters to vote-- not ours! "

All talk, no action. That's not much to say for the man. Not Trump can only reach so far and no further. Moreover, there is a lesser but still existent VP bully pulpit, so what are we learning from there? That there is gratitude from there for Clyburn? Perhaps that. But what else?

Detail - A brief attempt to search and find a Dorthy Reik online essay for the link Klein omitted failed. Perhaps it was a tweet? Possibly a personal communication between Reik and Klein? Arguably - The lady captured Clyburn in a nutshell.

_________UPDATE_________

The Robert Reich item to which Klein linked has this to say - 

Republicans are stoking white people’s fears that a growing non-white population is usurping their dominance.

Yet while Biden and Democratic leaders are openly negotiating with holdout senators for Biden’s stimulus and infrastructure proposals, they aren’t exerting similar pressure when it comes to voting rights and elections. In fact, Biden now says he won’t take on the filibuster, which stands firmly in the way.

What gives? Part of the explanation, I think, lies with an outside group that has almost as much influence on the Democratic party as on the Republican, and which isn’t particularly enthusiastic about election reform: the moneyed interests bankrolling both parties.

A more robust democracy would make it harder for the wealthy to keep their taxes low and profits high. So at the same time white supremacists have been whipping up white fears about non-whites usurping their dominance, America’s wealthy have been spending vast sums on campaign donations and lobbyists to prevent a majority from usurping their money.

They’re now whipping up resistance among congressional Democrats to Biden’s plan to tax capital gains at 39.6% – up from 20% – for those earning more than $1m, and they’re on the way to restoring the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes, of which they’re the biggest beneficiaries.

In recent years these wealth supremacists, as they might be called, have quietly joined white supremacists to become a powerful anti-democracy coalition. Some have backed white supremacist’s efforts to divide poor and working-class whites from poor and working-class Black and brown people, so they don’t look upward and see where most of the economic gains have been going and don’t join together to demand a fair share of those gains.

Similarly, white supremacists have quietly depended on wealth supremacists to donate to lawmakers who limit voting rights, so people of color continue to be second-class citizens. It’s no accident that six months after the insurrection, dozens of giant corporations that promised not to fund members of Congress who refused to certify Biden as president are now back funding them and their anti-voting rights agenda.

Donald Trump was put into office by this anti-democracy coalition. According to Forbes, 9% of America’s billionaires, together worth a combined $210bn, pitched in to cover the costs of Trump’s 2020 campaign. During his presidency Trump gave both parts of the coalition what they wanted most: tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks for the wealth supremacists; legitimacy for the white supremacists.

The coalition is now the core of the Republican party, which stands for little more than voter suppression based on Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, and tax cuts for the wealthy and their corporations.

Meanwhile, as wealth supremacists have accumulated a larger share of the nation’s income and wealth than at any time in more than a century, they’ve used a portion of that wealth to bribe lawmakers not to raise their taxes. It was recently reported that several American billionaires have paid only minimal or no federal income tax at all.

Tragically, the supreme court is supporting both the white supremacists and wealth supremacists. Since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined in 2005 and 2006, respectively, the court has been whittling away voting rights while enlarging the rights of the wealthy to shower money on lawmakers. The conservative majority has been literally making it easier to buy elections and harder to vote in them.

Do recall that Rep. Clyburn has endorsed Nina Turner's main Dem primary opponent in Cleveland, the one written of earlier on Crabgrass. The one featuring a photo-op prop. 

How do we tell who our real friends are? By words? By deeds?

That Dorothy Reik lady mentioned above as quoted by Klein, does have a deft touch in commenting about Clyburn. She pinned Biden down too.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________

Gentler in wording, but nearly identical criticism: July 25, 2021 - NYT op-ed - by Charles M. Blow - 

[...] it is still important to recognize that Biden has consciously chosen not to use the full force of the bully pulpit to explicitly and repeatedly call for the protection of voting rights — and therefore our democracy — by any and all means necessary, including the elimination of the filibuster.

Biden has a vision of what he wants his legacy to be: the builder, not necessarily the defender. He wants to be the one passing out checks, not the one sticking out his neck. This was on full, contemptible display at a town hall with the president hosted by CNN on Wednesday.

Don Lemon, the moderator, asked Biden, “Why is protecting the filibuster — is that more important than protecting voting rights, especially for people who fought and died for that?”

Biden said that it wasn’t and that he wanted to see voting rights legislation passed, but then said:

“What I don’t want to do is get wrapped up, right now, in the argument of whether or not this is all about the filibuster or — look, the American public, you can’t stop them from voting. You tried last time. More people voted last time than at any time in American history, in the middle of the worst pandemic in American history. More people did.”

This is patently false. You absolutely can stop people from voting. We have seen this over and over again throughout American history. And, these laws won’t harm all Americans. They’ll harm minorities in America. They are aimed at liberal cities where the populations are often heavily Black and Latino.

Biden is basically saying here what Black America has heard forever: No matter how high they make the hill, your only choice is to climb it. I applaud your ascension. My God, aren’t your legs strong.

Black people are eternally disgusted that they always get the hill and others don’t. There is nothing glorious in Black people waiting hours in line to vote, sometimes into the wee hours of the morning, while people in whiter precincts breeze in and out. This is wrong. This is outrageous. This is a time tax. Don’t pat us on the head; take us down the hill.

Lemon later asked Biden about the filibuster: “If it’s a relic of Jim Crow, it’s been used to fight against civil rights legislation historically, why protect it?”

Biden responded, “There’s no reason to protect it other than you’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done.” What?! Getting rid of it to protect Black people’s ballot access is getting something done. Something enormous.

But Biden is focused on the other elements of his agenda, the ones he tied himself to before the wave of voter suppression became clear.

“For example, wouldn’t my friends on the other side love to have a debate about the filibuster instead of passing the recovery act?” he continued at the town hall. “Or wouldn’t they love doing it instead of being in a position where we provide for — how many of you have children under the age of 17? Raise your hand. Guess what? You’re getting a lot of money in a monthly check now, aren’t you?”

Biden wants to be the Robin Hood of the working class, a swashbuckling blue-collar savior. He wants to go down in history as the president who rebuilt America. In that grand vision, risking it all to save voting access for Black people comes up short. It’s a nuisance, a horrible inconvenience.

[italics in original] If Biden cared, he'd be moving off the dime. Talk is cheap.

And it is not just Black people being squeezed. It is poor people who live in less affluent areas than their brothers and sisters in the burbs. It is progressives, who are demeaned by Biden's "You are getting a check, be happy." The man is intentionally tone deaf to the people and the issue. His talk is cheap. His talk is off point. His talk seems intended to be diversionary. Ineptly so. 

Saying, "Gee, look at last election's turnout," hones in on exactly what the Republicans are trying to sabotage. They looked. They fought it. They lost. They deny losing. And this clown basically says little beyond, "So what?"

While Dem inner party types like Tom Perez are barely a cut better than inner party Republicans, both are corrupt and money-centric self-first climbers. Nonetheless, voters deserve better than being lied to and jollyied along ineptly, "Election's over. Go away."

Had Jan. 6 been about intolerable DC-wide careerist politician and consultant corruption, it would have been deserved. The mob on that theme could have occupied the Supreme Court too. K-Street and the big law firms. Being about Trump, indeed, incited by Trump, it was off target. That is the major error. Not that it happened but that it was wrongly aimed. Capitol Police there to hold the people away from the process. 

"Election's over. Go away." And Pelosi is shocked. SHOCKED!

Cantwell co-sponsors federal tax break credits for local news outlets. While a short online post cannot touch all nuances of a bill, some obvious questions go MIA in an online report.

Seattle Times, "Cantwell sponsors tax break package to bolster local media."

It appears local newspaper subsidy is the theme, although "media" is used to fuzz things which could be made clearer.

FOX has a chain of local outlets, so would FOX qualify, or is the aim to help suffering local newspapers, which is not that hard a thought to articulate. The intent can be inferred circumstantially, when the report states -

The bill, called the Local Journalism Sustainability Act of 2021, would create new tax credits for subscribers to local news publications and small businesses that buy advertising in local newspapers, radio and television stations. Another tax credit would subsidize local media outlets’ hiring and retention of journalists.

[...] 

One tax credit, for news consumers, would cover up to $250 in subscription costs for five years. Another, for businesses employing up to 50 people, would defray up to $5,000 spent on advertising in local news outlets, including newspapers, television programs, digital-only news sources and radio shows, for five years.

The third credit would give local news outlets a big tax break for every journalist they employ, up to $25,000 per journalist the first year after the bill’s passage and up to $15,000 per year in the subsequent four years.

It’s not yet clear how much the tax break package could cost. But previously, Cantwell has said she planned to seek $2.3 billion in tax breaks to support the local news industry.

Cantwell has been a prominent advocate for local news organizations on Capitol Hill. Last fall, she released a report slamming big tech companies for decimating local news outlets. Earlier last year, she added a provision to the COVID-19 Economic Relief Bill that made local news outlets eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program.

The Seattle Times, which received $10 million in Paycheck Protection Program funds last year, has also been at the forefront of efforts to direct federal aid to newsrooms. The paper has spent $120,000 in the past nine months asking lawmakers to appropriate funds for local news outlets, according to federal lobbying disclosures.

 So, the host of FOX TV outlets, presumably each being an LLC or regular corporation for liability limitations, what might they get? Especially when the term "journalist" is used, where FOX talking heads are more propagandists than journalists, unless the term "journalist" is used elastically to include both.

Also, can you get out too big a crying towell for a firm dumping $120,000 on lobbyists? Yes, Google spends more to lobby, there is scale to expenses for such a practice, and Google clearly has more to spend (waste?) in such a fashion.

Still, local papers suffer. They carry nationwide feeds as a way to lessen expenses, and for local issues they generate coverage from local staff employees.

Finally, keeping local news outlets viable is a good idea, even if it means Bezos gets yet another tax break, since the Washington Post is likely included in the umbrella benefits aimed at suffering outlets. At least WaPo people don't have to pee into bottles as Jeff's Amazon non-union packaging-and-shipping employees do, to meet criteria set for job retention productivity. Presumably so, but Jeff is as Jeff does. (Did he take along a pee-in bottle during the Blue Origin thing?)

With the new Amazon CEO from AWS, the web services part of the business, what might change? Presumably AWS employees do not have severe robot-supervised productivity monitoring constraints as the grunts in shipping do, so will the new boss change practices or not? One thing is certain, a "bottle break" is just less a concession to physical needs than allowing time for a "bathroom break."

Being fair to Bezos, Amazon is paying at least fifteen bucks an hour, where others pay less. Also, WaPo has not deteriorated from penny-pinching while under Bezos' control. The man is not being a Rupert Murdoch, which is another giant positive.

Bezos seems both more enigmatic and brighter than Bill Gates. He built what he did without old Seattle money in the family backing him up; without largess from IBM at a time when IBM cared more about antitrust enforcement pressures than owning the future of the desktop.

 ____________UPDATE____________

However, Bezos at his best owns more than he can enjoy. Spending a fortune to launch himself into suborbital "Gee, look down there" bullshit stunts proves he owns too much.

DWT - 

The end result of this is that our constantly corrosive ever-mounting tax breaks for corporations and people like Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk is that the results of years and years of less money being available for child care and higher education for the rest of us is taking its toll on this country's position in the world while dumbing its citizens down which is "probably" the goal anyway. I've said for over 40 years, it's all about creating a world of lords and serfs. Well, here we are. We can just look out the window and see a feudal world over on the horizon. That's what the likes of Jeff Bezos want and see when they look down on us from space. That is their vision.

Let me put this another way: An increase in taxes of just 2 cents per tax dollar for Jeff Bezos and anyone else that has $50 Billion dollars or more would not be at all painful to them no matter how much they squeal like little piggies. In the case of Jeff Bezos, he would pay $5.4 Billion dollars on his total fortune of $181 Billion dollars. Within about one week, his remaining money would have earned that $5.4 Billion dollars back and he would again have his addictively self-aggrandizing security blanket of $181 Billion dollars. He could then watch that amount soar over $200 Billion dollars in a matter of just months. That kind of money makes money without effort. Don't shed a tear for Jeff Bezos. Tax him. The same tax on America's 100,000 richest families would raise about $3 Trillion dollars. Child care, nursing home money, infrastructure, and even tuition-free public college and/or a technical school education would all be within reach. Not doing this amounts to class warfare. Not doing this is continued economic suppression that goes hand in hand with voting suppression.

Lords and serfs? "Lord Jeff" is a few letters off from the Conrad novel we all read in high school.

Are they reading Conrad anymore? Or contemporary stuff? I remember the days when CRT meant cathode ray tube, and BLM was the Bureau of Land Management. How do YOU measure progress?