lakatz

[lakatz]

Prepared remarks by Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, on his vote to convict President Donald J. Trump:

The constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise “impartial justice.” I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case; the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President’s team presented three defenses: first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, that the Bidens’ conduct justified the President’s actions; and third that the judgment of the President’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address each of those defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason.

The President’s counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.

 With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the President’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president. Hamilton explained that the Founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize—to the extent possible—the partisan sentiments of the public. 

This verdict is ours to render. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.” 

Yes, he did. 

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. 

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. 

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. 

The President’s purpose was personal and political. 

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust. 

What he did was not “perfect”— No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine. 

In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. Many demand that, in their words, “I stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind. I support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience. 

I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me? 

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he said might raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment. 

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience. 

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office. The results of this Senate Court will, in fact, be appealed to a higher court: the judgment of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the President’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong. 

We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.

[lakatz]

Cute, Beautiful, Fluffy and Funny Cats .. Show your Love to Cats… #catoftheday #catsoftwitter #catsluver #petsluver #pets #cats #ilovemycat

[lakatz]

Research finds that just seeing reminders of coffee can stimulate the brain

Just looking at something that reminds us of coffee can cause our minds to become more alert and attentive, according to a new University of Toronto study.

“Coffee is one of the most popular beverages and a lot is known about its physical effects,” said Sam Maglio, an associate professor in the department of management at U of T Scarborough and the Rotman School of Management.

“Much less is known about its psychological meaning – in other words, how even seeing reminders of it can influence how we think.”

The study, co-authored by Maglio and published in the journal Consciousness and Cognition, looks at an effect called priming, through which exposure to even subtle cues can influence our thoughts and behaviour.

“People often encounter coffee-related cues, or think about coffee, without actually ingesting it,” says Maglio, an expert on consumer behaviour.

“We wanted to see if there was an association between coffee and arousal such that if we simply exposed people to coffee-related cues, their physiological arousal would increase, as it would if they had actually drank coffee.”

Arousal in psychology refers to how specific areas of the brain get activated into a state of being alert, awake and attentive. It can be triggered by a number of things, including our emotions, neurotransmitters in the brain, or the caffeinated beverages we consume.  

In this case the researchers, including Maglio and Eugene Chan, a former PhD student at Rotman, wanted to explore how simply being exposed to things that remind us of coffee may have an effect on arousal.

Across four separate studies and using a mix of participants from western and eastern cultures, they compared coffee- and tea-related cues. They found that participants exposed to coffee-related cues perceived time as shorter and thought in more concrete, precise terms.

“People who experience physiological arousal – again, in this case as the result of priming and not drinking coffee itself – see the world in more specific, detailed terms,” says Maglio, whose past research has looked at how uncertainty can affect our perception of time.  

“This has a number of implications for how people process information and make judgments and decisions.”

However, the effect was not as strong among participants who grew up in eastern cultures. Maglio speculates that the association between coffee and arousal is not as strong in less coffee-dominated cultures.

“In North America we have this image of a prototypical executive rushing off to an important meeting with a triple espresso in their hand. There’s this connection between drinking caffeine and arousal that may not exist in other cultures.”

Past U of T research has looked at the effect of other primed associations, notes Maglio. One study found that merely looking at the McDonald’s logo may lessen our ability to slow down and savour pleasurable experiences in life.

Maglio says next steps for the research will look at associations people have for different foods and beverages. Just thinking about energy drinks or red wine, for example, could have very different effects on arousal.

[lakatz]

Your credit score can determine whether you can buy a car, get certain jobs, or rent an apartment. It’s a big deal. And so is this: Credit scores for many Americans are about to change — even if they don’t do anything.

The changes will be extensive. About 40 million Americans are likely to see their credit scores drop by 20 points or more, and an equal number should go up by as much, according to Joanne Gaskin, vice president of scores and analytics at FICO, the company at the heart of the credit scoring system.

Every five years or so, FICO updates the way it determines credit scores. This time the biggest change is in how it treats personal loans, Gaskin says.

Read the rest of the story at NPR.org

[lakatz]

01.26.20 RIP You are missed.

[lakatz]

In an interview on Friday with All Things Considered co-host Mary Louise Kelly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took questions about U.S. policy in Iran and about the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

All Things Considered reported that after the interview, Pompeo screamed and swore at Kelly, and claimed she couldn’t find Ukraine on a map. Pompeo ordered staffers to bring a blank map, and after Kelly pointed to Ukraine, she thanked him for his time.

[lakatz]

impeachment trial needs documents and witnesses

If you live in a red state, please contact your senators, crazy far-right or centrist, and ask them to vote for DOCUMENTS and WITNESSES in the Impeachment Trial. You can also fill out the contact form on their gov web pages as well. All their contact information is here and is searchable (easy peasy): https://senate.gov/senators/contact

[lakatz]

A qualitatively accurate axioma, we have to live with that. Anyway:

Happy new year everyone!!!

💙🍾🍹🥂🙋‍♂️💚

Via Philosophy Matters TL

[lakatz]

This is the solstice, the still point of the sun, its cusp and midnight, the year’s threshold and unlocking, where the past lets go of and becomes the future;

Margaret Atwood, from Shapechangers In Winter in “Morning In The Burned House” (via adrasteiax)

[lakatz]

When Godzilla farts

[x]

[lakatz]

December 21, 2019

[lakatz]

If you are outside India, I am practically begging you to reblog this

Last week India passed a blatantly anti-Muslim law that seeks to naturalise millions of immigrants, except if they are Muslims.

In August of this year, India revoked the autonomous status of the Kashmir region, putting a communication blackout on the state. Kashmir has entered the fifth month of no internet and heaviest militarisation of any region in the world.

India is a secular, socialist republic. This bill is anti-constitutional and against the principles on which the country was founded

Naturally, there have been protests across the country. At the forefront of the protests are students from India's public universities.

Police opened fire on peaceful protestors in Jamia Milia Islamia University in Delhi, and Aligarh Muslim University in Uttar Pradesh.

Ever since then, the ruling fascist Hindu nationalist political party, the BJP, has been doctoring videos and sending fake news all over the internet, discrediting protestors and labelling them as terrorists

India has already seen too much religious violence, please please signal boost this, call your representatives, make them aware, get them to make statements. The only thing India and itd dictator Modi care about is its image abroad

[lakatz]

December 18, 2019

[lakatz]

#Impeachment Day

The Debate

I'd love to hear what everyone has to say in the #ImpeachmentDay Debate, but I have to mute whenever I hear:

Doug Collins yell. His yelling voice hurts my ears

Dems hate Trump (rather than abuse of power and obstruction of Congress)

Dems are mad because Hillary lost in 2016 (there may still be a few, but not many in 2019)

No evidence (who do they think they’re kidding? Trump presented the best evidence, his summary of the call w/ Zelenski, and there is so much more)

No pressure/bribery/conditions

No crime

No collusion

But Joe/Hunter Biden

This is a sham/witch hunt/abuse of power

Pontius Pilate gave Jesus more rights than Dems are giving Trump (WTF???)

Steve King (why is he still in the House?)

And we're still only in the first hour.

And in the second hour, I heard and had to mute:  

Trump has done nothing wrong

And, for the first time... drumroll, please... No quid pro quo. But then Adam Schiff reminded us of Sondland’s revised testimony - Quid Pro Quo Yes. And then Doug Collins said Sondland later said he wasn’t sure.

[lakatz]

Dember 16, 2019 - Biodegradable straws

[lakatz]

8:48 AM · Dec 12, 2019