Murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi's last column published by the Washington Post

By now, readers must certainly know that mounting evidence, believable because of its sources and because of its explanatory logic, strongly suggests that journalist Jamal Khashoggi's brutal murder and dismemberment took place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul -- and that the facts as known point directly at this having been done under orders from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (often referred to simply as MBS).

Let me emphasize one important point:    This young de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, who has become buddies with Jared Kushner, is no innocent.   He is waging a brutal war in Yemen that targets civilians;   he kidnapped the prime minister of Lebanon;   and he initiated a blockade of the nation of Qatar.

The fact that he is also trying to modernize his nation by allowing women to drive cars and by reopening the cinemas should not make us overlook his cruelty.  And now he has ordered the unspeakably horrible torture and murder of a respected journalist who dared to criticize the lack of freedom -- sending a message to journalist worldwide and to the autocratic despots who might want to get rid of them.

Of course they will concoct a different story, perhaps with the help of Donald Trump, who apparently came up with the phrase "rogue killers."   But that won't fly, because it's not believable that this could have been carried out without the knowledge of the crown prince, MBS.

Donald Trump, president of the United States, is not -- in my view -- totally without some blame in this larger issue of attacks on journalists.   His hostility to the media in our country, calling them the "enemy of the people," also sent a message to despots around the world that they could attack journalists with impunity.   His weak and delayed response to this outrage in Istanbul only adds to that message.

Here is the last opinion piece that Jamal Khashoggi wrote for the Washington Post.   The editor's note will explain the circumstances of its publication.

_____________________________

A note from Karen Attiah, Washington Post Global Opinions editor

I received this column from Jamal Khashoggi’s translator and assistant the day after Jamal was reported missing in Istanbul. The Post held off publishing it because we hoped Jamal would come back to us so that he and I could edit it together. Now I have to accept: That is not going to happen. This is the last piece of his I will edit for The Post. This column perfectly captures his commitment and passion for freedom in the Arab world. A freedom he apparently gave his life for. I will be forever grateful he chose The Post as his final journalistic home one year ago and gave us the chance to work together.

*     *     *

"I was recently online looking at the 2018 "Freedom in the World 'report' published by Freedom House and came to a grave realization. There is only one country in the Arab world that has been classified as 'free.'  That nation is Tunisia.   Jordan, Morocco and Kuwit come second, with a classification of 'partly free.' The rest of the countries in the Arab world are classified as 'not free.'

"As a result, Arabs living in these countries are either uninformed or misinformed. They are unable to adequately address, much less publicly discuss, matters that affect the region and their day-to-day lives. A state-run narrative dominates the public psyche, and while many do not believe it, a large majority of the population falls victim to this false narrative. Sadly, this situation is unlikely to change.

"The Arab world was ripe with hope during the spring of 2011. Journalists, academics and the general population were brimming with expectations of a bright and free Arab society within their respective countries. They expected to be emancipated from the hegemony of their governments and the consistent interventions and censorship of information. These expectations were quickly shattered; these societies either fell back to the old status quo or faced even harsher conditions than before.

"My dear friend, the prominent Saudi writer Saleh al-Shehi, wrote one of the most famous columns ever published in the Saudi press. He unfortunately is now serving an unwarranted five-year prison sentence for supposed comments contrary to the Saudi establishment. The Egyptian government’s seizure of the entire print run of a newspaper, al-Masry al Youm, did not enrage or provoke a reaction from colleagues. These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.

"As a result, Arab governments have been given free rein to continue silencing the media at an increasing rate. There was a time when journalists believed the Internet would liberate information from the censorship and control associated with print media. But these governments, whose very existence relies on the control of information, have aggressively blocked the Internet. They have also arrested local reporters and pressured advertisers to harm the revenue of specific publications.

There are a few oases that continue to embody the spirit of the Arab Spring. Qatar’s government continues to support international news coverage, in contrast to its neighbors’ efforts to uphold the control of information to support the “old Arab order.” Even in Tunisia and Kuwait, where the press is considered at least “partly free,” the media focuses on domestic issues but not issues faced by the greater Arab world. They are hesitant to provide a platform for journalists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. Even Lebanon, the Arab world’s crown jewel when it comes to press freedom, has fallen victim to the polarization and influence of pro-Iran Hezbollah.

The Arab world is facing its own version of an Iron Curtain, imposed not by external actors but through domestic forces vying for power. During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe, which grew over the years into a critical institution, played an important role in fostering and sustaining the hope of freedom. Arabs need something similar. In 1967, the New York Times and The Post took joint ownership of the International Herald Tribune newspaper, which went on to become a platform for voices from around the world.

My publication, The Post, has taken the initiative to translate many of my pieces and publish then in Arabic.  For that, I am grateful. Arabs need to read in their own language so they can understand and discuss the various aspects and complications of democracy in the United States and the West. If an Egyptian reads an article exposing the actual cost of a construction project in Washington, then he or she would be able to better understand the implications of similar projects in his or her community.

The Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum, isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the structural problems their societies face."

*   *   *

This reasoned voice of dissent, this restrained call for freedom -- this is what was so threatening to the young crown prince that he ordered the most heinous crime of murder and dismemberment.

And the president of the United States can barely bring himself to criticize the obvious perpetrator -- but wants to give him three more days to "conduct a complete investigation" . . . of himself?     And all Trump can think about is "I don't want to lose the $100 million weapons contract" they have promised.

For too long, we've said that Donald Trump has no moral sense.   That does not go far enough.   He has no soul.

Ralph

Republicans' "willful stupidity" on budget deficits

It really should not be that hard to understand:   when you spend money you do not have, you incur debt.   And that is what happens when the U.S. budget spends more than it takes in in revenue.

When you have debt, you have to pay interest.   This fiscal year 2018, we will pay $523 billion in interest on the national debt.

Now we know that government budgets are not quite as simple as a family budget -- because financial markets are involved, monetary policy, the Federal Reserve interest rates that can be manipulated -- plus our vast borrowing power and ability to just print more money.   It is indeed complex.

Deficit spending is often a good idea to bolster a faltering economy.   But we're doing it now in a booming economy.   Why? 

Republicans aren't generally considering all those complexities in their public explanations.   They just tell the bald -face lie that tax cuts pay for themselves.   That may be true when you give them to people who will spend the money on purchases, which in turn stimulate the economy.

The same could be true with tax cuts to manufacturing companies that will create new jobs, build new plants, modernize old ones, invest in infrastructure that makes them more efficient. 

But that's not what happened with the recent Republican tax cut, which mostly benefited very wealthy people and corporations (corporate taxes went from 35% to 21%) -- with a little bit for the working class so they could claim that it covered them too.

So what happened?   The deficit in the latest budget jumped by 17%.  Corporations invested little in the above mentioned things.   They mostly used it for stock buy-backs -- and gave it out as dividends to share holders.   And the wealthy?   They just put it into their investment portfolios.   And all of it charged to our creditors, like China which holds more than a trillion dollars in U.S. debt.

Remember the old fairy-dust about "trickle down economics"?  It didn't work then either.

So now Republicans don't really have "tax cuts" as a popular issue to run on, because most voters didn't get anything much from them.   What are they saying instead?    Mitch McConnell came up with the tired, tired meme that it's the entitlements (Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare) that's the problem.   We spend too much money on the social safety net.

Why are we not surprised?   Because Paul Ryan had said this years ago -- that his main objective as House Speaker was to reform those entitlements.  By "reform," he means cut the funding.  And, since they are popular, you can't just go in and cut them.   You have to have a reason.

Ergo:   you cut taxes, create a huge deficit, a ballooning interest payment on the debt, and then complain about the deficit and interest on the national debt ($523 billion for 2018) -- and "explain" that's why we have to cut spending, beginning with the entitlements.

They've tried it before;   they tried it again this year.   And we cannot let them get away with it.

Go vote.   Vote early.   Vote for sanity and compassion in government.

Ralph

CNN and NBC say Saudis admit journalist was killed -- but say it was an interrogation gone wrong.

Two sources have told CNN that journalist Jamal Khashoggi's death "was the result of an interrogation that went wrong, one that was intended to lead to his abduction from Turkey."   In other words, the story they're concocting is that the murderers were "rogue killers," and it was not part of the plan.   NBC has now been able to confirm the story that this is the cover-up they're constructing -- and President Trump seems to be helping them, having himself referred to "rogue killers" shortly after his call to King Salman.

Wow!!   If they're admitting that they were going to kidnap him, then the truth must be as bad as what we've been hearing.     'Oh, dear.   We didn't really mean to kill him, just abduct him and take him back to Saudi soil" . . .  and then do what, please?

Khashoggi is a Saudi himself, who was once close to the royal family.   But in recent years, he had become increasingly a critic.   As a journalist, he had gotten residency status in the U.S., and he wrote for the Washington Post.

He had gone to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2nd to pick up some documents concerning a previous divorce that would allow him to marry again.   His fiancee was waiting outside the consulate while he went in, expecting to be back out in a few minutes.   He never came out and has not been seen since. Now, some are suggesting that this was a lure concocted by the Saudis to get him and abduct him.  He had been told to go to the consulate on that particular day to pick up the documents.

Reports have also said that two private planes carrying fifteen Saudi men had arrived in Istanbul just prior to this.   The implication was that this was a hit squad, carrying among other things a bone saw -- implying that his body was dismembered so that it could be whisked out of the embassy without arousing suspicion.  Turkish officials claim that they have audio and video recordings of him being interrogated and then murdered.   They have not yet made them public. 

This new report from CNN follows days of denial from the Saudi government that it had any connection with the incident.  Experts who know the Saudis well say that nothing happens in that country without it coming from the very top -- i.e., the rulers themselves:   King Salman and the young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman -- and increasingly it's the young prince who calls the shots.  

President Trump did acknowledge what a terrible thing this was, if true.   But yesterday he placed a call to the Saudi King and reported back that the king absolutely denied that his government had anything to do with this.     As with Putin's denial of having anything to do with the email hacking, and with Kavanaugh's denial of assaulting Christine Blasey Ford, Trump so easily seems to accept a denial from an accused man -- if he is vehement enough in the denial.   He always emphasizes how "firm" or how "strong" was the denial.

But there are wiser heads than Trump's in this.   His motivation seems to center on not wanting to lose the huge sums of money the Saudis spend buying military weapons and planes from us.   He "would hate to lose that."   There's also the fact that both Trump and Jared Kushner have huge, personal financial ties to the Saudis -- loans and investments from the Saudis that might be jeopardized, or that give the Saudis some control over them.

Many business leaders are pulling out of a Davos-like conference upcoming in Riyadh, part of the young crown prince Mohammed bin Salman's efforts to wean his country off oil and diversify into a more balanced economy -- as well as to claim a spot on the world's stage of important investors.

There are multiple geopolitical implications here.   Trump's first overseas trip as president was not to the traditional Mexico or Canada or European allies but to Saudi Arabia, where he was royally feted and his ego pumped up by his image projected onto tall buildings.

Jared Kushner also seemed to have made a close friend in the young crown prince, the 33 year old MBS, as he is referred to.   He has made several trips back to the area, including one in which reportedly the two of them sat up half the night talking and cementing their friendship -- and possibly conferring about the MBS's planned extortion of money from wealthy family members and other businessmen that occurred shortly after Jared's visit.

What we are seeing here is the ruthlessness of not only King Salman but the Crown Prince as well.    Khashoggi had apparently written articles very critical of MBS, who reportedly has a very thin skin when criticized.

Looks like Trump may have gotten us into another geopolitical mess.  Just  how much is he in on the planning, as well as apparently participating in the cover-up in order to maintain his and our country financial ties to these people?   He did just talk with King Salman shortly before he himself began using the phrase "rogue killers" and spouting the same story line.

Trump is once again showing that he has no concern for the moral or human rights aspects of agreement -- it's all transactional:   what am I going to get out of this deal?   He would literally swap the truth and any morality for  keeping the arms deal and for whatever he personally owes the wealthy Saudis.

Ralph

Voter suppression in Georgia

As has been widely reported now, both locally and nationally, the state of Georgia's voter registration office has put on hold 53,000 registrations as not being valid because of some (often insignificant) error.    Or, often, not even an error but just a minor inconsistency with other state records, like drivers licenses, in which one uses a middle initial and the other record spells out the middle name.

What makes this even more outrageous is that the Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, whose office is in charge of registration and elections, is also the Republican candidate for Governor of Georgia.   Thus he is in charge of oversight of the election in which he is running for the highest profile office.

A while back Kemp announced that he would turn over day to day operations concerning the registration and the election to his second in command, a man who shares Kemp's zeal for rooting out the dubious claim of "voter fraud."   So the fox may officially step aside, but he puts his protege in his place.

The outrage is further compounded by the fact that, of these 53,000 on-hold registrations, 70% of them are African-Americans, compared to Georgia's population, which is about 35% black.   Why?  For one thing, it's in the black community that the most vigorous voter-registration drives have been conducted.

The main factor, however, seems to be the "perfect match" program that Kemp insists on using.    For example:   If someone moves from one street to another and lists the new address as, say, "N. Spring St." instead of "North Spring Street," that would be put on hold.     Or if a married woman, combining hers and her husband's last names, has a drivers license that lists her as "Julia Louis Dreyfus," but she filled out the voter registration application as "Julia Louis-Dreyfus," that would be thrown out too -- because that little hyphen makes it not a perfect match for other state records.

Now this does not automatically mean she cannot vote.    When they get around to it, they will send her a text asking her to clarify.    But suppose this particular person does not use text communications?    Not everyone does.    Or she can vote by provisional ballot on election day, and later (within a time limit) she has to go to the courthouse and clear up any discrepancy so her vote can be counted.

Another bit of mischief carried out in purging voter roles of no longer active voters is to send a postcard to the registrant's last recorded mailing address and ask for a reply to indicate that they still live at that address.    Simply not getting a response from that post card mailing leads to the assumption that the person no longer lives at that address;   hence the voting information is invalid, and he can no longer vote unless he clears it up.

The problem I see with this:    With all the junk mail flooding out daily delivery, who scrutinizes a post card enough to know it is something legitimate that must be responded to?     I'm pretty quick to sort my mail into junk (into the garbage can or recycling) and personal mail that needs attending to.

My point here is that this is a system that obviously is designed to cut as many people from the voting rolls as possible -- and it is used in such a way to target those groups whom the people in power would rather not have vote -- minorities who tend to vote for Democrats.

Add into this the photo-ID laws, the gerrymandering, closings of voting precincts, reduction of voting hours, along with these looking for ways to manipulate the electorate.    Our laws should encourage voting, not suppress it.

And PLEASE NOTE:   Everything I've been discussing above is done by official, tax-payer-paid government employees.    The whole area of political dirty tricks is another whole problem area (such as sending out notices urging people to vote, but listing the wrong voting places, or the hours polls are open, etc.

Ralph

Reality vs fantasy in fiction and in politics

Several times in recent years I have tried to explain to a literary friend my lack of interest in fantasy fiction, dystopian novels, science fiction films, etc -- and haven't found quite the right words for it.   I could only say that I prefer looking at character development or human conflict within the world as we know it.

Then last Sunday's New York Times Book Review published an interview with author Andre Dubus III, in its ongoing series which asks authors about their reading choices, favorite books, best book they've ever read, etc.

In response to a question about the genres of fiction that he likes or dislikes, Dubus replied that he prefers character-driven stories that try "to illuminate truth . . . no matter how ugly."   He also said that he avoids nearly all forms of fantasy, not because there are no great works in that genre, but that "I tend to lose interest just as soon as magic of any kind enters a story, for this strikes me as escapist, as a denial of the mortal hand we've all been dealt, and I prefer to read those works that confront our reality and limitations and thwarted longings head on."

Yes!   That's exactly what I had been wanting to say but hadn't quite found the words.   And then it struck me -- as a bonus -- that this also explains my utter disdain and disgust with the Republicans' and especially with Donald Trump's tactics of lying and distorting the truth to the ordinary working Americans, who make up Trump's base.   They do it because they can't deal with the reality of the political truth:   that they are on the wrong side of progress in America in 2018.

The original version of this in modern politics is Donald Trump's stoking the false story that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and thus was an illegitimate president.    For those people who couldn't stand that a black man of such intelligence, charm, and rational maturity should become our leader, Donald Trump read their minds and spoke to their anxiety over their own perceived, concomitant loss of status.

You see, these people weren't wealthy;   they didn't have well-paying jobs;   but at least they were part of the "white men tribe" that had privileged status.    But even that was slipping away, if a black man could take over the Oval Office in the White House.   So, he must be illegitimate -- ergo, a conspiracy theory that refused to give way to facts and reason.

To sharpen the point:   Trump offered no real solution for them, only a focus of rage and resentment, at what had been "taken away" from them, along with a fantasy of jobs and overcoming those "others" who were taking their place and status.  But it was enough to give him a following.   Now, having done nothing much that helps this faction of his base, he has to continue manufacturing reasons for them to be enraged and resentful enough to come to his rallies and, maybe, vote for him.

That's not to excuse the Democrats, who seem to have trouble deciding on a message to unite around and effectively counter the negativity coming from the Republicans.  Democrats got badly outmaneuvered, both in managing the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings -- and the message that is flooding the air and tv waves since then.

Donald Trump screams to his rally crowds:   "Judge Kavanaugh has been proved innocent" of the allegations against him.   That is false;  lack of "proof" is not the same as being found innocent, especially when there was no real investigation of the allegations.  This is not a court of law;  it was a job interview.

In the staged ceremonial (second) swearing in of the now Associate Justice Kavanaugh, Trump issued an apology on behalf of the American people for what he and his family had been put through in the process, calling the allegations "totally untrue" and "brought about by people that are evil."

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote that the all-male, mostly older, white men that comprise the Republican majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee betray "a positively medieval attitude toward all women as sex objects who cannot be believed or taken seriously."

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, who sometimes leads the rational minority in Republican circles, but lately has resorted to rabble-rousing rhetoric, snorted out this, referring to accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford:   "I'll listen to what the lady has to say . . . and then I'll vote for Judge Kavanaugh."   Is he really so clueless that he doesn't realize that, used in this context, calling Dr. Blasey Ford "lady" is an insult, as in the condescending "little lady"?  Or maybe he did realize it -- and, in fact, meant it as an insult?

Sen. Orrin Hatch said about Blasey Ford that she was a "pleasing" witness, but he still did not believe her.  Sen. Mitch McConnell, speaking as the Senate Majority Leader about getting the confirmation passed by the senate, said that he would "plow right through" the resistance.   Can you think of a better metaphor for rape?

But it was the committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, who barked out perhaps the biggest insult to women in general when he responded to a question about the lack of any women in the eleven-member Republican majority on the committee:   "It's a lot of work.  Maybe they don't want to do it."    Immediately, to his credit, he seemed to realize that this was an insult to the four women Democrats on the committee's minority:   Senators Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobucher, Maizi Hirono, and Kamala Harris.  So he tried to backtrack and talk about how hard they work.   Too little, too late, Senator Grassley.

It was obviously the Republicans' talking point of the day to shift the narrative to the protests over the Kavanaugh process and decision, calling the Democratic protesters "an angry mob," referring to "mob rule through violence," stoking the angry white men in Trump's base to fear the peaceful -- admittedly loud, but non-violent -- protests.   Because they have no better answers to give.   Their "solutions" to problems mostly do not benefit ordinary Americans -- like the tax cut for the wealthy and corporations.   Tariffs are a big failure and hurt farmers and steel workers.

Besides that distraction, this meme attempts to turn the Republican men into the victims.    Now they claim that mothers are worried about their sons, their brothers, their husbands being falsely accused.   "It's the men and boys we should be concerned about," some said.

Republicans use lies and distortions of truth because they don't have anything else to offer the people who oppose them.  Their supporters are of two types:  wealthy donors who do benefit from Republican policies and the working class people who do not benefit but who tend to be gullible and to believe a leader who boasts of his prowess in being their savior -- even if it is all lies.

In other words, they use lies and distortions to obfuscate the fact that they have no solutions that really help the average American.  [I will concede that unemployment is about as low as it gets;  but that decline began under Obama and continued.]   So they sell them snake oil.   No wonder they get energized by Donald Trump -- the champion con man purveyor of snake oil.  What if someone really got through to them that these same snake oil salesmen plan to take away their health care, reduce Social Security,  Medicaid  and other safety net protections?

Now it pains me to realize that even Pope Francis and the Vatican are not above using this same strategy -- invoking fantasy to avoid dealing with reality -- in connection with the sexual abuse scandals that have been rocking the Catholic Church for a decade.

In his sermon in St. Peter's Square on Sunday, Sept. 29th, Pope Francis asked the people to pray daily through the month of October to Archangel Michael "to counter the attacks from the devil who wants to divide the Church . . . [It] must be saved from the malign one."  In the Bible, Michael is the angel that casts the devil out of heaven.

So it's the devil that makes priests sexually abuse children?  Francis does go on to say that the Church must "at the same time be made more aware of its guilt, its mistakes, and abuses committed in the present and in the past."   But let's hope its more than lip service.  The author of the article quoted is Mary Papenfuss of HuffPost.   She writes that Pope Francis has previously spoken of the devil as "a real entity, not as simply a representation of evil."

To my Catholic friends, I apologize if I seem irreverent in linking Pope Francis and Donald Trump in this tactic.   But I have to go one step further to end on a lighter note, reminding us older folks of the old tv comedian Flip Wilson who gave us the phrase:   "the devil made me do it" as a way of trying to get out of being blamed for the mischief he had caused.

So, I've linked an old comedian, an old political party (as in GOP = Grand Old Party), the prime television con man, and a sometimes revered pope, as well as a genre of fiction, all in their use of fantasy (and lies) as defense against taking real responsibility for real problems in the real world.

So be it.   If only Trump's rally-goers could see him for the con man he really is.   And, no, I am not calling the pope a con man;  because I assume that he truly believes that the devil is a real entity and an opposing force in the world.   What he needs to see as the head of the earthly Roman Catholic Church, however, is that, whether that's true or not, it's up to the humans in the Church to grapple, as humans, with the problem of adult, trusted priests, as humans, molesting minors -- who are also young, vulnerable humans.

Pray about it all you want.   But perhaps God put you there to take action -- and you should.

Ralph

If Trump stays in power, will it be too late for the environment?

An alarming new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just been released.   It's title, "Special Report on Global Warming," says that even the agreements of the Paris Accord are insufficient and that we are already seeing the impact and changes resulting from a 1 degree Celsius increase:   the extreme weather events of this summer, the rising sea levels, and the shrinking of arctic ice.

That's with 1 degree.   The Paris Accord was aimed at holding the increase to 2 degrees;  and yet this latest IPCC report predicts that, without drastic action, the increase will be a 3 degree Celsius rise by the end of this century.

Even limiting the rise to 1.5 degrees C "would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society;"  but it is definitely worth the effort, according to the IPCC report which had 91 authors and review editors from 40 countries.

Yet, the Trump administration essentially throws up its hands and says -- we can't afford it, so we'll do nothing.   In fact, they're doing worse than nothing.  They're busy reversing the positive changes that were initiated by the Obama administration.  The President has called climate change a hoax invented by China, and has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement.

According to an article by Mike Scott in Forbes magazine, "a recent U.S. government report suggests that global temperatures will rise by 4 degrees C -- and that there is nothing we can do about it, so we might as well carry on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

This report, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "aimed to justify Trump's plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards after 2020.   The document accepted that such large temperature rises would cause extreme heat waves, more floods and droughts and increasingly acidic oceans . . . and leave many cities around the world underwater thanks to rising sea levels. . . ."

But the NHTSA report says that to avoid these outcomes, "would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today's levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible."

That's the report Trump wanted, so that's what they gave him -- such a discouraging prospect that it would make no difference if he abandons fuel efficiency on cars.

The Forbes author says, "It's hard to know where to start addressing such idiocy. which flies in the face of ample evidence of the development of renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles that are becoming ever-more competitive with their fossil fuel equivalents."

He further adds that even limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C "will have huge benefits -- 10 cm less of sea level rises, fewer heatwaves and less flooding and fewer impacts on human health."   In contrast, doing nothing -- as the Trump administration's NHTSA report advises -- will be disastrous for planet earth.  "'Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5 degrees C or higher increases the risk . . . of  irreversible changes,'" said one of the report's coordinators. 

Al Gore adds that "'the Trump administration has become a rogue outlier in its short-sighted attempt to prop up the dirty fossil fuel industries of the past.  The administration is in direct conflict with American businesses, states, cities, and citizens leading the transformation.'"

Nicolette Bartlett, director of Climate Change at CDP, added that:  "'We are already seeing leading companies, cities, governments and investors making strides towards the low-carbon transition;  not just because they identify increased risks from climate change, but because they also see the opportunities of the emerging green economy. . . .  [C]limate action is fast mainstreaming throughout the global economy. . . .  However, this latest scientific update [the IPCC report] sends a clear signal that this momentum must ramp up and accelerate sharply.  We have the technical and financial tools necessary to tackle climate change . . . but it will require urgent action at all levels.'"

President Trump, will you continue to be part of the problem?   If nothing else, can you selfishly consider the effect of rising sea levels on your beloved Mar-a-Lago ?   You'd better move those portraits of yourself to upper floors . . . or the sea crabs could be nibbling at your toes.

Or you could do something about climate change.

Ralph

It's a done deal -- Kavanaugh on SCOTUS

By a vote of 50 to 48 -- the closest vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice in over a century -- the controversy over Brett Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on our highest court was settled;  he has already been sworn in at the Court, although there will be a staged, formal swearing in later.

However, the controversy and the ill-will have not been put to rest.  The controversy continues in the angry protests and in some Democrats who say they will hold hearings on the process and on Kavanaugh's fitness if they gain control of the House.

So why do the votes total only 98 instead of 100?    A simple act of courtesy in this age of divisiveness.   The vote was to take place on late Saturday afternoon, and Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) -- a Yes vote -- needed to be walking down the aisle at his daughter's wedding back home.

There was a possibility that the Senate could leave the vote "open," until Sen. Daines could fly back to Washington immediately after the wedding on a private plane offered by a friend.    But then Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska who planned to vote No, stepped forward with an offer.

Since it wouldn't affect the outcome of the vote, she would ask that her No vote be simply recorded as "Present," leaving Sen. Daines free not to have to come back to cast his Yes vote in person.    Thus 50 to 48, rather than 51 to 49.   It changed nothing but which numbers marked the 2 vote margin.

As to Sen. Murkowski's reasons for bucking her party and voting No on the confirmation, it's clear that she and Sen. Susan Collins focused on different aspects of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony.    Their split on this vote is noteworthy, in light of their usual harmony in being the only two Republican women senators who are pro-choice on abortion.

In contrast to Sen. Susan Collins' paean to the stellar qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh and completely ignoring, in her speech, any mention of Judge Kavanaugh's temperament, tendency to lie and mislead -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski made her decision based on need to protect the credibility and the integrity of the institution.   She said in a simple statement to the media:   "I believe that Brett Kavanaugh is a good man.   It just may be that, in my view, he's not the right man for the Court at this time."

I respect that a lot more than Susan Collins' white wash job.

But it is as sad day for democracy and for the future of our country.   To rush through its advise and consent process without proper investigation of serious, credible charges against Judge Kavanaugh, plus his obvious problems of temperament, truthfulness, and ability to remain non-partisan -- is a further stain on the Republican Party of Trump;  but the stain affects our institutions.   Trumpism now has tainted not only the presidency, but the congress, and now the judiciary as well.

Ralph