Earlier this week Australian broadcaster SBS released an interactive map of migrant deaths around the world. The broadcaster has now created a map showing the countries where refugees come from and the countries where refugees end up. This new map uses data from UNHCR to visualize the number of refugees or asylum seekers living in each country and the number of refugees who have left each
Thursday 4 October 2018
Which Countries Take the Most Refugees
Earlier this week Australian broadcaster SBS released an interactive map of migrant deaths around the world. The broadcaster has now created a map showing the countries where refugees come from and the countries where refugees end up. This new map uses data from UNHCR to visualize the number of refugees or asylum seekers living in each country and the number of refugees who have left each
"There's so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and..."
"... reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I'm just an observer and a writer, why don't I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?"
I wrote in the comments to "The intemperance of the law professors' 'judicial temperament' letter."
David Begley answered my question: "Go watch the Badgers destroy the Cornhuskers on Saturday. A beautiful WI win. I’m serious."
I answered: "I plan to watch the Brewers dissolve the Rockies tonight. Plus, I am eating grits this morning."
There's been much talk of beer this past week. It's easy to redirect the beer stream to baseball and the team with the beer-based name: The Brewers. In the rock-paper-scissors visualization, beer pours over rock. Beer wins! Brewers and grits. That's something beautiful in this lying, cheating world.
And by "rock," I don't mean ice. Don't put ice in your beer, and don't throw ice at anybody, unless you've got the right fun-loving, ice-throwing relationship with them.
UPDATE: The Brewers won in the bottom of the 10th inning, which is all we saw on TV. The rest of the game we heard on the car radio, as we drove home from Indianapolis, which is where I ate those grits, at a restaurant I recommend, Milktooth.
I wrote in the comments to "The intemperance of the law professors' 'judicial temperament' letter."
David Begley answered my question: "Go watch the Badgers destroy the Cornhuskers on Saturday. A beautiful WI win. I’m serious."
I answered: "I plan to watch the Brewers dissolve the Rockies tonight. Plus, I am eating grits this morning."
There's been much talk of beer this past week. It's easy to redirect the beer stream to baseball and the team with the beer-based name: The Brewers. In the rock-paper-scissors visualization, beer pours over rock. Beer wins! Brewers and grits. That's something beautiful in this lying, cheating world.
And by "rock," I don't mean ice. Don't put ice in your beer, and don't throw ice at anybody, unless you've got the right fun-loving, ice-throwing relationship with them.
UPDATE: The Brewers won in the bottom of the 10th inning, which is all we saw on TV. The rest of the game we heard on the car radio, as we drove home from Indianapolis, which is where I ate those grits, at a restaurant I recommend, Milktooth.
Trust the FBI! The FBI is the expert authority! Bring in the FBI! FBI!! FBI!!... ... The FBI did it wrong!
So annoying.
They cried out over and over for the FBI. The FBI was called in because it was supposedly neutral and expert and the proper authority. Then, when they didn't like what they got, they immediately flipped to saying the FBI didn't do it right.
I've seen this kind of game play before, and I when I see it, I get out my old Russ Feingold video:
"The game's not over until we win!"
They cried out over and over for the FBI. The FBI was called in because it was supposedly neutral and expert and the proper authority. Then, when they didn't like what they got, they immediately flipped to saying the FBI didn't do it right.
I've seen this kind of game play before, and I when I see it, I get out my old Russ Feingold video:
"The game's not over until we win!"
The intemperance of the law professors' "judicial temperament" letter.
I see over 1,000 names on this anti-Kavanaugh letter, many of them names of people I know. I've been with a lot of law professors over the past 4 decades, and the best law professors I have known have routinely expressed disbelief that the judicial opinions they read state the real reasons why the judges decide the cases the way they do. And I don't believe the law professors when they say they oppose Brett Kavanaugh because they have concerns about his "judicial temperament."
From the letter, which I'm reading in the NYT:
He was under a vicious attack, and he knew it was unfair and cruel — unless he was lying. If he was lying, then that's why he shouldn't be on the Court. But this "judicial temperament" idea is designed to work even if he was telling the truth.
So we need to read this letter in light of the professors' intent. Imagine an innocent Kavanaugh, under an outrageous attack and subjected to a horrendous ordeal. He expresses indignation and challenges his accusers. But he was supposed to remain calm and be deferential to the Senators, and because he didn't — and for no other reason — he doesn't belong on the Court. Who believes that?!
From the letter, which I'm reading in the NYT:
We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.He was confronted with devastating allegations that were vague and uncorroborated. He knows his own life, yet he was supposed to be committed to "judicious inquiry" about it?! He was supposed to be "open"?! He was supposed to act as though he were absorbing the facts for the first time, like a judge deciding a case? Who wrote this letter? Why did so many law professors sign this text?
The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners.
Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired.But the hearing really was partisan! Yes, the Senators were in a tough spot, since they were trying to figure out what happened, but Kavanaugh knows what he himself has done. Kavanaugh was supposed to be supportive of the predicament the Senators got themselves into and not defend himself vigorously?
He was under a vicious attack, and he knew it was unfair and cruel — unless he was lying. If he was lying, then that's why he shouldn't be on the Court. But this "judicial temperament" idea is designed to work even if he was telling the truth.
So we need to read this letter in light of the professors' intent. Imagine an innocent Kavanaugh, under an outrageous attack and subjected to a horrendous ordeal. He expresses indignation and challenges his accusers. But he was supposed to remain calm and be deferential to the Senators, and because he didn't — and for no other reason — he doesn't belong on the Court. Who believes that?!
Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators....Why would Kavanaugh need to "to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised" — he knows what happened in his own life — and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!
"White House Finds No Support in FBI Report for Claims Against Kavanaugh/Senators are set to review the FBI’s findings Thursday."
Reports the Wall Street Journal, but I don't have a subscription, so let's move on to the NYT.
The NYT headline plays it so neutral — "White House Sends F.B.I. Interviews on Kavanaugh to Senate" — that I infer the FBI report supports Kavanaugh.
Let's check WaPo: "In 2:30 a.m. tweets, White House says FBI report supports Kavanaugh confirmation." That's neutral, but with colorful facets — tweeting, early morning hours — that might seem to minimize the seriousness with which the White House assessed the report. A reader of headlines might picture Trump — impetuous Trump — tweeting again, but it was Raj Shah (the spokesman cited in the NYT article).
Also in WaPo "Senate moves ahead on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination with a procedural vote expected Friday."
The NYT headline plays it so neutral — "White House Sends F.B.I. Interviews on Kavanaugh to Senate" — that I infer the FBI report supports Kavanaugh.
“The White House has received the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, and it is being transmitted to the Senate,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement, which was posted on Twitter. “This is the last addition to the most comprehensive review of a Supreme Court nominee in history, which includes extensive hearings, multiple committee interviews, over 1,200 questions for the record and over a half million pages of documents,” he added. “With this additional information, the White House is fully confident the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.”That last sentence meets my idea of journalism better than does the WSJ headline. We only know what the White House says, not what it really found. It could be lying. Maybe it found some support but chose to make an absolute statement.
The White House statement gave no further details about the material, but an official briefed on the F.B.I. review said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. It was not clear why the 10th person was not interviewed. The White House concluded that the interviews did not corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Let's check WaPo: "In 2:30 a.m. tweets, White House says FBI report supports Kavanaugh confirmation." That's neutral, but with colorful facets — tweeting, early morning hours — that might seem to minimize the seriousness with which the White House assessed the report. A reader of headlines might picture Trump — impetuous Trump — tweeting again, but it was Raj Shah (the spokesman cited in the NYT article).
Also in WaPo "Senate moves ahead on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination with a procedural vote expected Friday."
The Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that it has received the FBI’s completed report on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, as partisan rancor continued to grow over the scope of the investigation into sexual assault allegations that have endangered his confirmation.Good! The vote should indeed take place on Friday (unless there's something specific and substantial in the FBI report that justifies cautious delay). If there's no corroboration, I'm glad for Kavanaugh and his supporters. I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public. They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail? — and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal. It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.
In anticipation of the report’s arrival, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday night teed up a key vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination for Friday. Until that vote, senators will be rushing in and out of a secure facility at the Capitol to review the sensitive FBI report that the bureau has compiled, looking into allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.
“There will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on this supplemental material before a Friday cloture vote,” McConnell said Wednesday night.
Wednesday 3 October 2018
"Conservative Women Are Angry About Kavanaugh—And They Think Other Voters Are, Too."
"Local- and state-level leaders across the country say they’re ready to lash out against Democrats in the midterm elections" — Emma Green in The Atlantic.
By and large, these women were not swayed by Ford’s testimony. Tamara Scott, the Republican national committeewoman for Iowa and the state director of Concerned Women for America, says she was even more skeptical of Ford’s claims after Thursday’s hearing. “I found her testimony to be inconsistent, from a woman who seemed to be confused at best,” Scott says. To her, Ford “overplayed her hand as the scattered and scared fragile female”: The professor’s “glasses were filthy and oversized, she looked scared and frazzled, [and] she refused to fix her hair caught in her glasses,” says Scott. “It was a purposeful disheveled look.”...
Laurie Lee, a Navy veteran who runs a political-consulting firm in Arkansas, has... been hearing over the last couple of weeks... that Democrats have “overplayed” these accusations. “It’s a disservice to women that have had horrific stories,” she says. She was open to believing Ford: “It doesn’t matter to me if it’s Bill Clinton or Brett Kavanaugh. We want to make sure that sexual predators are dealt with.” But like other women I interviewed, Lee believes the professor’s account is faulty, and that Democrats are using her for their own political ends. “This whole process, to me, comes across as something that has been crassly weaponized for political purposes,” says Kathleen Hunt, a political donor in Florida who spent 20 years in the CIA....”
Near Real-Time Pedestrian Counting
The City of Melbourne has implemented a fully automated pedestrian counting system to measure foot traffic and to help inform future decision making and planning. The counting system uses sensors that are fixed on street lights and awnings and which are able to count pedestrians as they walk below. The sensors are able to count pedestrians in each direction and the data is then uploaded every 15
The Anti-Immigration Money Industry
Some companies are making a lot of money out of Donald Trump's repressive immigration policies. The amount of government money pouring into ICE contracts has almost doubled in the past year. Companies profiting from this expansion include some expected names in the prison and detention industry, such as the GeoGroup who have earned over $438 million from ICE contracts. However a number of
