Blades from a massive wind turbine crumpled to the ground Monday, smashing a car flat and damaging another piece of infrastructure, authorities said.
“This shouldn’t have been put up so hastily. A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind,” state Sen. Jamaal Bailey said during a press conference discussing the incident, which happened in the Bronx.
Coming to a city near you
They're lucky no one was killed.
A car was smashed and a billboard was knocked down but nobody was injured, according to fire and police officials.
During the press conference, Bailey and Assemblyman Mike Benedetto called on the city Department of Buildings (DOB) to make “sure something like this doesn’t happen again.” Both men spoke at the site of the collapse and were struggling to project their voices over the sound of roaring wind.
DOB did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
New York has worked to transition the state away from fossil fuels and toward other forms of energy, namely solar power and wind turbines. The New York State Thruway Authority built five wind turbines in 2015 along the thruway in the western corner of the state to help in the transition.
Personally, I think all big cities need to be made to cover as much of their surface area as possible with wind turbines and solar cells, and be made to rely on them for their power, especially on windless nights.
The project was expensive, with the five windmills costing $4.8 million and another $500,000 for design expenditures. The authority believed the turbines would pay for themselves, saving as much as $420,000 annually on energy bills. Such forms of energy also have detractors.
President Donald Trump, for instance, often mocks turbines for not being as reliable as natural gas or crude oil.
“When the wind stops blowing, it doesn’t make any difference, does it? Unlike those big windmills that destroy everybody’s property values, kill all the birds,” Trump told a crowd who gathered to hear him speak at a chemical plant in August.
Trump added: “One day the environmentalists are going to tell us what’s going on with that. And then all of a sudden it stops.”
After Skye, Georgia and I completed our last beach walk of 2019 this afternoon, I came home, and sorted out the fossils collected for the year:
There you go. 2,785 sharks teeth, adding up to 2 lbs 5 oz (or 1.057 kg for you metric buffs). The big bone beside the jar is a whale (or very large dolphin) axis vertebra, which I posted about when I found it, on the other side a large bony fish vertebra I found a week or so ago, and didn't post. The pile of black dots on the left are 2 years worth of drum's teeth, and mixed in with the top shelf teeth are a number of more or less complete ray plate chevrons of various sizes.
All in all, a little down from last year, which posted a total of 2,964 teeth but a slightly lower weight, at 2 lb 3 oz. I would say that all in all the quality of the best teeth this year wasn't quite as good, and we had no Megalodons, except for some edge fragments.
The top two leaders of the FBI were closely involved in this fiasco. Other powerful people knew what was happening and lied to cover it up. That all was confirmed by the IG report. The report was a disaster for the credibility of top leaders in Barack Obama’s FBI, and it’s also a big problem for the American news media.
FISA policies are only as good as the people implementing them, and it looks as if for some time now the people in charge have acted irresponsibly if not with bias or even illegality. Perhaps the latter is why we are beginning to see announcements like this one from the American Center for Law and Justice: “Right now, we're engaged in a major lawsuit against the Deep State FBI. We've already forced the FBI to agree to turn over thousands of emails between Comey's circle of corruption about spies placed in the White House.”
Obviously Pete and Lisa are getting the same legal advice. Two things though no right to privacy on a Gov't issued phone. No First Amendment rights on Gov.t issued phones when on duty. And part of being in the FBI you can be fired for inappropriate conduct both on and off duty.
"After the House voted in favor of the articles of impeachment, do you realize there were people who thought that this meant that trump was no longer president?
"It's true. Where I live, they actually had a celebratory protest at the usual location where all of the other 'F* Trump' protests were held, and these idiots were jumping up and down, tooting little horns, and waving signs that proclaimed how great it was that the Bad Orange Man was finally gone.
"And this is a college town. Which should be full of smart people, or so they keep telling us, what with all of the perfessers and academic geniuses and gender studies majors boosting our collective IQ up into the stratosphere.
"So with all of our rocket scientists, you'd think that at least some of them would have taken a basic civics class in high school, so they would know at least something about the impeachment process.
"But no, apparently nobody around here has. And *we're* supposed to be the ones who are dumb.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. dismissed a lawsuit Monday that sought to determine whether a witness had to obey a subpoena from the impeachment inquiry after Democrats withdrew the subpoena and impeached Trump anyway.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon decided Monday that the suit filed by Charles Kupperman, a former aide to former National Security Advisor John Bolton, was moot because the subpoena had already been withdrawn. The House Intelligence Committee had sought to compel Kupperman’s testimony as part of its inquiry into President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, alleging he withheld U.S. aid in return for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, who at the time was leading polls to win the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination.
Bandy Lee says that Pelosi has not done enough, especially now that we are in the impeachment process. While Lee thinks it has been effective for Pelosi to withhold the articles of impeachment instead of delivering them to the Senate, she thinks Trump is becoming more dangerous. Trump’s six-page letter to Pelosi after the votes on the articles of impeachment seems to be the breaking point for Lee. She now advises Pelosi to do something drastic, like call 911 and report Trump as a danger to the country. Yes, really.
“As a coworker, she has the right to have him submit to an involuntary evaluation, but she has not,” Lee told Salon. “Anyone can call 911 to report someone who seems dangerous, and family members are the most typical ones to do so. But so can coworkers, and even passersby on the street. The law dictates who can determine right to treatment, or civil commitment, and in all 50 U.S. states this includes a psychiatrist. “The advantage of a coworker starting this process is that a court can mandate a mental capacity evaluation before the dangerous person returns to work,” Lee continued. “The committing physician is preferably the patient’s treater, but does not have to be.”
Just the visual of some unhinged Democrat picking up the phone and calling 911 to report President Trump as a danger to the community and the nation, in general, is comedy gold. It would make a perfect SNL skit, wouldn’t it? This kind of suggestion makes me wonder who is the person in mental distress? It sounds like it is her.
I don’t remember what specific combo of frustration and busyness led me to wear leggings to the office one day recently, but I do remember it felt magical. With nothing but a stretchy band and Nulu(™) fabric holding me in, I felt freer, like I was dancing through my duties, rather than trudging through them encased in polyester and wool. My computer seemed to run more quickly; my sources were more responsive; the PR people were less angry.
Normally, I only wear leggings in the culturally appropriate setting of Clarendon, the Washington, D.C., suburb where I live. Whenever I see adult humans out and about, they are wearing leggings. Their sweat has been wicked away. Their barre-weary haunches have been compressed by elite performance mesh. Leisurely, but athletic: This is how Clarendonians live.
Work is another story. Most everyone at my office is nicely dressed, from the occasional TV-ready suit-wearer to our fashion-conscious female editors. Occasionally, some mayor or other VIP stops by. Leggings are not part of this world. In fact, when I told my colleagues I was working on this article, several of them came to my desk, in their traditional slacks, and registered their complaints. “Tights are not pants,” people told me.
That’s not an uncommon view in America’s cubicle farms. But I would argue that tights are better than pants. Working in leggings is approximately 400 times more comfortable than working in literally any other garment. I sit for at least 10 hours every day. Sitting for that long is not comfortable in regular pants. The waist band digs in, the legs ride up, and, depending on how long in the pelvis you are, the crotch gets more intimate with you than is common on Tuesday afternoons.
All of this led me to wonder: Is it okay for me, or any woman, to wear these puppies to the office regularly, or what? I don’t mean the leggings that are made to look like dress pants—though that’s basically all women’s dress pants these days, and we’ll get to those later. I mean leggings, the kind you wear to yoga or to the couch when you’re hungover. I mean nothing but a thin layer of spandex between your butt and the conference-room chair, supporting you as you talk about synergies.
My office dress code says nothing on the subject, so I decided to ask around. It turns out you can—but it’s fraught.
Leggings sauntered into our lives in the second half of the 20th century. The concept came from the dance world (think ballerina outfits), and by the 1950s, cool girls at Barnard were hanging out downtown in black tights and oversized men’s sweaters, says Deirdre Clemente, a historian at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas who focuses on American fashion in the 20th century. Leggings made headway in the aerobics-crazed 1980s, when synthetic-fiber technology became more sophisticated. By the 2000s, they’d taken off in tandem with yoga.
Once they started showing up in offices, however, the outcry began. Work is one of the most sartorially conservative places for women. It’s long been thought that women shouldn’t look too sexy in the workplace, and leggings ... well … they show your butt. Before leggings, says Linda Przybyszewski, a history professor at the University of Notre Dame, there were controversies over cleavage and midriffs. The ’70s brought complaints about women wearing sheer blouses, and back in the ’30s there was consternation over sleeveless tops.
The other place where leggings are deemed unacceptable today: church. After a mother wrote a letter to the editor of the student newspaper at Notre Dame, pleading with leggings-wearers to “think of the mothers of sons the next time you go shopping and consider choosing jeans instead,” Slate’s Ruth Graham explained how leggings have long been controversial in several faith communities. Graham herself admitted that she rarely wears leggings out of the house. Again, because they show your butt. (One common leggings workaround is wearing a long sweater or shirt to mask the butt.)
In an informal internet poll performed by the Society for Human Resource Management this year, 90 percent of the 9,000 respondents said leggings violate their office dress code. I conducted my own small survey too, sending out a Google form through social media that asked for women’s experiences wearing leggings to work. The 50-some responses spoke to how much thought women put into how they’re perceived at work, and how even the elasticity of one’s pants can be seen as a career obstacle. Women feared that leggings would make them look unprofessional or too sexy. One 22-year-old, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her job, said her boss once said leggings made her look “young.” Another woman was told she looked “cozy.
Besides, you never know when yoga might break out.
An ambitious project to save the James and Barren islands, commonly referred to as Mid-Bay islands in Chesapeake Bay, United States, from erosion is scheduled to begin at Barren, the smaller of the two islands, in 2022, and James in 2024, with Barren possibly taking inflow of dredged material as early as 2028.
I've been around both James and Barren Islands recently, and I'm not sure about that. Erosion has taken a severe toll on James, which is now barely visible from our beach, while much of Barren has rip rap walls protecting it and seems larger to me. A quick look at Google Maps confirms my opinion.
Barren Island in the rear view
This is a region that includes Baltimore and its port, which has a history of beneficially using dredged material – cleared from navigation channels serving the port – to remediate parcels, restore ecosystems, and fortify bay islands.
A similar, ongoing project, Poplar Island, has been providing storage capacity and restored habitat for years. Poplar is being expanded and will eventually provide about 674 ha of wetland and upland.
This is the first time I've actually seen dates for the commencement of the work on Barren and James. The first work will, no doubt, be the construction of walls to hold the sediment in. Better fishing!
Remember, the real purpose of these activities is not to save the islands, it is to have somewhere to put the dredge spoils from Baltimore Harbor dredging.
A small, brown endangered bat would become the “official state mammal” of America’s capital city, under a proposed ordinance that will get a public hearing in January.
The idea was proposed earlier this year by several Girl Scout troops after they studied the little brown bats, according to a D.C. Council statement.
Rachel Jones built and installed a bat house on the Gravette AR Nature Observation Trail as part of her Girl Scout Gold Award Project.
“The Little Brown Bat has good friends in the Girl Scouts of the Capitol Hill Cluster School,” the legislation says.
The creatures, known to scientists as Myotis lucifugus, typically grow to about 3.5 inches (8 centimeters) tall with a wingspan of up to 11 inches (27 centimeters). They are found in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, according to the Chesapeake Bay Program . Though small, the bats can fly up 22 mph (35 kph) and can eat up to 1,200 bugs per night, accord to the legislation.
Brown Bat with White Nose disease
The little brown bat population has been hurt by a fungal disease called white-nose syndrome. The disease kills bats by increasing the amount of energy used during hibernation, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Not to mention wind mills...
The International Union for Conservation of Nature considered the bat endangered as of last year. There were likely more than 6 million of the little brown bats before the infectious fungal disease was discovered in the U.S. in 2006, according to the organization’s website. Since then, there’s been a 90% decrease in the known numbers of hibernating little brown bats in Canada and the U.S., it says. It predicts there’s a 99% chance the bat will be extinct in the northeastern U.S. by 2026.
Well, there are certainly worse things the D.C. City council could be doing. And probably are.
Seems like we're really just treading water, waiting for the New Year with new developments. Adam Mill at Am Great is Revisiting Rosenstein’s Cover-up of Crossfire Hurricane. It's worth reviewing, if only for the sense of all the crap that's gone down in the last 3 years, and Rosenstein's role in it, but I'm still willing to give Rosenstein the benefit of the doubt. I think he was the graphite moderator in the Crossfire Hurricane reactor, trying to damp it down, largely for institutional reasons, not so much to save Trump. An optimist, Adriana Cohen at the Register Mail thinks Comey’s cabal is going down.
Let’s not forget that Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Adam Schiff and others like to remind us when assailing the president that “no one is above the law.”
Does that exclude underlings at the DOJ?
Perhaps Loretta Lynch, Obama’s attorney general — and Comey’s boss while this corruption and election meddling was happening — can explain why Flynn and Roger Stone are going to jail but not all the FBI and DOJ officials who deceived the FISC.
It doesn’t go unnoticed that Lynch and Obama have been radio silent as all this unfolds.
Dexter Wright at AmThink reminds us that the FBI isn't eternal. Before there was an FBI there was the U.S. Marshals Service. He wants to decapitate the FBI, and roll the field agents into the Marshals Service. I like it, as a temporary fix, but in truth, law enforcement power will always be corruptible. It's our job to guard against that.
The woman Paul Pelosi has business dealings with involving a single room occupancy hotel known as “the pit” is now accusing him of forcing her to have an abortion and weaponizing child protective services.
"In making that statement, however, Biden has now taken the legs out from under the second article of impeachment voted on by the House against President Trump. That article accuses the president of 'obstruction of Congress' for doing essentially what Biden said he would do, namely demanding a court order before he would comply with what he believes to be partisan subpoenas issued by one chamber of Congress.... If Biden is not obstructing the Senate by his refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena, how could Trump be guilty of obstructing Congress by refusing to comply with the House subpoenas absent court orders? The shoe is now on the other foot and causing blisters for Democrats. It could also be uncomfortable for Republicans, who may have to acknowledge that Biden has a point."
"Rehnquist, for whom Roberts clerked in the 1980s, once mused that during Clinton’s proceeding he 'did nothing in particular, and did it very well,' lifting a line from Gilbert and Sullivan. Eric Claeys, a law professor at George Mason University and former Rehnquist clerk, said Rehnquist’s approach was framed by the 1986 rules. The rules say the presiding officer 'may rule' on all questions of evidence, like instances where the relevance and significance of a document or witness testimony is unclear. However, a single senator can appeal the ruling, triggering a Senate vote, where some say Roberts would break a 50-50 tie, though that is disputed. The presiding officer also has the option to stay mum on an evidentiary question and send it directly to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. Rehnquist generally avoided this option during Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial, Claeys said. Instead, Rehnquist applied the relevant precedents, then left it up to senators to decide whether to reverse his decision. 'I don’t think that Chief Justice Roberts will play a bigger role in President Trump’s impeachment trial than Chief Justice Rehnquist did in President Clinton’s,' Claeys said. 'I expect Roberts will follow the same strategy.' However, some legal experts believe today’s more intensely partisan atmosphere may force Roberts to depart from the course charted by his predecessor...."
Start talking about impeaching a president 19 minutes after he is inaugurated, go on talking about it at every opportunity, regardless of whether there are any grounds to deploy this most serious of political rebukes. Could a Standing Committee on Impeachment do any better?
African Americans are taking back jobs that were stolen from them by illegal immigrants. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers swept up 680 illegal immigrants during raids on seven food processing plants in Mississippi. Without the cheap labor, the companies were forced to hire Americans to do the work.
The best part of this is the monumental struggle to find something bad in increased employment for Black Americans. But rest assured, the NYT and the NAACP are on the job!
The president of the local NAACP compared the raids to slavery, proving once again the NAACP has become nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party that stopped advancing the interests of African Americans a long time ago.
The raids were believed to be the largest statewide immigration crackdown in recent history and a partial fulfillment of President Trump’s vow to remove millions of undocumented workers from the country. The impact on Mississippi’s immigrant community has been devastating. For nonimmigrant workers, the aftermath has forced them into a personal reckoning with questions of morality and economic self-interest: The raids brought suffering, but they also created job openings.
Amazing, isn't it! Their tortured manipulation of the vernacular carefully avoids the salient data; these people were in the country illegally, therefore they were employed illegally. This is not some ethical conundrum. This is the law. But "the law is a ass" when it conflicts with the NYT world view that the most important goal of the modern era is the subsuming of America in a sea of unwashed illegals, so finally..FINALLY...their progressive utopia can be achieved. And if that destroys their old and tired weapon of choice (Black America)? Then so be it.
You know, it wouldn't take an enormous shift in the NegroBlack African American vote to make a big difference in the next election . . .
Did you expect it to stop? At AmSpec, Jeb Babbins The FBI’s FISA Frauds, a good review of the FISA courts handling of the affairs so far. Worth burning a free view, or even opening a rarely used browser to beat the paywall. Jeff Dunetz, The Lid, is a little less polite in FISA Court Aware Of Bogus Info In Carter Page Warrants Years Before Horowitz. I get the need for a secret court to keep things on the down low, but it's past time they demonstrated that they really care about protecting American's right, or it's time to dismantle the FISA court structure. All processes can be corrupted; if they can't be fixed, they need to be stopped.
“In March of 2016 they called me in to come testify in the SDNY in one of the cases. There were so many falsehoods and misrepresentations in their indictment the prior year. I said, I am not going to lie in court. Similar to their false court filings which the DOJ and FBI had submitted in this case. It was a long back and forth with them. I told them I am a man of my word and I am not going to provide false testimony like they’ve done. Very similar to the false testimony which they did in that case against the Russians and the false testimony which they did a few months later in October of 2016 with the start of the FISA abuse.”
You might remember recently how Burr and Warner would not support Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National intelligence under the auspices of Ratcliffe not having enough “experience” within intelligence operations. However, those same “experience” concerns were absent when they approved dirty ICIG nominee Michael Atkinson.
What we can say is this. Durham is focusing on Brennan and some of his cronies. They are feeling the heat and perhaps beginning to run scared. Mike Rogers cooperating with Durham seems to have spooked them. Now they are trying to prepare the battlefield for the political/legal battle that lies on the horizon and Gina Haspel is key to how that plays out.
Every day, as the fallout from the false Russian collusion narrative intensifies, we see more and more evidence of senior officials in our intelligence and law enforcement communities playing politics and angling for greater power and influence. We have, apparently, an almost infinite supply of bureaucrats, lap dogs and yes men.
Where are the men and women at the top who are focused on doing their jobs? Where are the men and women dedicated to the mission? Where are the spies?
There’s no getting around the fact - no matter how much one wants to - that Rachel @Maddow’s performance on Russiagate was one of the most paranoid, unhinged and fact-free debacles of sustained media propaganda, fear-mongering, conspiracy-mongering and deceit in many years: https://t.co/wvXGpBOerS
Oral arguments in the DC Court of Appeals for the House Judiciary Committee to obtain Mueller’s grand jury information, are scheduled for January 3rd, 2020. The HJC is leveraging the Senate impeachment trial in their arguments to gain access to the Mueller material. This approach is by design.
With that in mind it seems likely any House impeachment articles will not be delivered to the Senate until after the DC court arguments, and likely not before the ruling . . .
It looks like the beginning of a united plan for the Senate impeachment trial is in the works. According to a New York Post article the House impeachment managers would present their prosecution case; then President Trump’s designated lawyers will present his defense case; then the Senate will vote.
At least, that’s the plan being reported:
WASHINGTON – After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal.
“I’m ready to vote now,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) told The Hill. “I think the articles are a joke.”
Scalise said, “The AOC wing of the party changed and really started controlling her caucus. And so, it’s no longer Nancy Pelosi calling the shots — and you think about anybody who follows in the things that she’s been forced into doing, it’s been mostly the far-left socialist wing of the party and it’s not just Pelosi.
It’s showtime. Let the fools’ carnival of unfeasible candidates elevate the designated Democratic piñata for this successful if edgy president to hammer through the election campaign. And let the Democrats finally cease their howls of moral outrage against Trump and prepare their explanations for the indictments that are likely to emerge from the special counsel investigation of the illicit spying conducted against the Trump campaign and transition team, and the assorted legal and ethical lapses of the Obama Justice Department and the Clinton campaign. They have had their full share of public attention for their defamatory nonsense; they laid this rotten egg of impeachment and they can take full responsibility for the stench of it.
Giuliani remained steadfast in denying any crimes levied against him, saying that “they’re out of their minds.” He suggested that the people looking into him have lost “their integrity in their insanity over hating Trump.”
“If they think I committed a crime, they’re out of their minds,” according to Giuliani. “I’ve been doing this for 50 years. I know how not to commit crimes. And if they think I’ve lost my integrity, maybe they’ve lost theirs in their insanity over hating Trump with some of the things they did that I never would’ve tolerated when I was U.S. Attorney.”
"Ms. Lyon accumulated more than two dozen film and television credits from 1959 to 1980, but she was known primarily for one: Mr. Kubrick’s 1962 film of the Nabokov novel ['Lolita'], which was adapted for the screen by Mr. Nabokov himself....
The novel was scandalous when it was first published in English in 1955; the film, made when the restrictive Motion Picture Production Code still governed Hollywood, was less so — in part, some critics thought, because Ms. Lyon, whose character was aged slightly for the movie, seemed too mature. 'She looks to be a good 17 years old, possessed of a striking figure and a devilishly haughty teenage air,' Bosley Crowther said in his review in The Times. 'The distinction is fine, we will grant you, but she is definitely not a "nymphet."'"
Suellyn "Sue" Lyon (July 10, 1946 – December 26, 2019) was an American actress. She joined the entertainment industry as a model at the age of 13, and later rose to prominence and won a Golden Globe for playing the title role in the film Lolita (1962). Her other notable film appearances included The Night of the Iguana (1964), 7 Women (1966), Tony Rome (1967), and Evel Knievel (1971).
Suellyn Lyon was born on July 10, 1946, in Davenport, Iowa. When she was 14 years old, she was cast in the role of Dolores "Lolita" Haze in Stanley Kubrick's film Lolita (1962). She was chosen for the role partly because the film makers had to alter the age of the character to an older adolescent rather than the 12-year-old child Lolita in Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita. Although Kubrick's film altered the story so as not to be in violation of the Hollywood Production Code, it was still one of the more controversial films of the day.
Lyon was 15 when the film premiered in June 1962. She became an instant celebrity and won a Golden Globe Award for Most Promising Newcomer—Female. She recorded two songs for the film, released on an MGM 45-rpm record. The song "Lolita Ya Ya" (Riddle–Harris) appeared on side A, and "Turn Off the Moon" (Stillman-Harris) appeared on side B.
In 1965, she played a mission worker in 7 Women, director John Ford's last feature film. Lyon played the female lead in the comedy The Flim-Flam Man (1967) and had a supporting role in Tony Rome (1967), which starred Frank Sinatra. She played the wife of daredevil Evel Knievel in the film Evel Knievel (1971).
By the 1970s, she was relegated to mainly secondary roles. In her final film, she played a news reporter in Alligator (1980).
A growing number of coffee houses in San Francisco are banishing paper to-go cups…
It began with a whisper:
What started as a small trend among neighborhood cafes to reduce waste is gaining support from some big names in the city’s food and coffee world.
Hey, San Fran: Turds have taken the place of Rice-A-Roni; people need those cups — to poop in.
Nevertheless, they’re being taken away. Famed chef Dominique Crenn — owner of the Michelin restaurant Atelier — loves the idea. In fact, he’s opening a new cafe that will provide no to-go bags or disposable to-go cups.
What a great selling point.
Wanna take one to-go at Boutique Crenn? Spokeswoman Kate Bittman says bring your own cup.
Going larger, the Blue Bottle chain will cease paper cup use at two City-by-the-Bay locations as part of its “Zero Waste” pledge.
So what alternatives are there?
At Blue Bottle, customers who don’t bring their own mug can pay a deposit — likely to be between $3 and $5 — for a cup they can keep or return for a refund.
[A number of places are] replacing [cups] with everything from glass jars to rental mugs and BYO cup policies.
Glass jars: Progress.
If you ask me, the cafes might snag a much bigger win if they continue offering cups but include a message: “When you’re done with this cup, please use it to cover one pile of crap you pass on the sidewalk.” #CupTheNewSanFranciscoTreat.
I don't much care. Let San Francisco try all the stupid SJW tricks, and let everyone who wants them move there to enjoy them.
Based on what we are told by the I.G., there are only two possible conclusions that can be reached regarding the official conduct of those responsible for infringing on Carter Pages Constitutional freedoms:
The first is that the hand selected team of investigators, attorneys, and Senior Executive Service officials with decades of law enforcement, administrative, and judicial experience were abject failures at a task that they were hired to perform. Speaking from personal experience, in FBI, DEA, and state and local wire tap investigations, the slightest omissions, misstatements, and clerical errors are routinely identified and corrected by the street agents and line prosecutors who do these investigations for a living. To believe that a "varsity level" team, with unlimited time, support, and resources, somehow inadvertently overlooked seventeen major omissions, misstatements, and/or outright falsehoods, is simply not believable.
The second possibility is that nearly everyone who significantly participated in obtaining FISA coverage on Page knowingly and deliberately operated outside the law to one degree or another. The reasons behind the decision to do so are irrelevant. The particulars regarding the seventeen I.G. findings are startling, taken individually. It's difficult to see how any of the individual omissions or misstatements could have happened accidentally. Viewed collectively, the apparent intentionality is nearly impossible to reconcile as anything but corruption.
In light of the I.G findings, the presiding FISA court judge seems to have come down on the side of intentional abuse. In a recent court order, Judge Rosemary Collyer gave the FBI until January 10 to explain to the court why the FBI should be allowed to continue to utilize FISA. The statement that the FBI "withheld material information" and that "FBI personnel misled NSD" suggests that the judge isn't buying the "series of unfortunate events" excuse peddled by prominent figures in defense of the indefensible.
. . .
The author is a 1983 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He served for over 22 years as an FBI special agent, supervisory special agent, and FBI SWAT team leader.
Natasha Bertrand is the stenographer for Fusion-GPS smear activities with a reputation for egregious lying and narrative engineering. As a result it doesn’t come as a surprise to see Bertrand writing a collaborative article in Politico taking swipes on behalf of a thoroughly corrupted intelligence community.
If there’s nothing to see here, what are Sipher and McLaughlin so worried about? Durham has a good reputation as a straight-shooter. Why not let him run his investigation and follow it wherever it leads? Maybe he won’t find anything but if he does, shouldn’t we know about it? After all, the Horowitz investigation found that Nunes’ memo was basically correct about the FISA application while the Schiff counter-memo was wrong.
The FBI had pursued an investigation of a presidential campaign on the basis of a dossier bought and paid for by the rival candidate with incalculable results: "This is the FBI’s darkest hour." The most disquieting aspect of the whole affair was pointed out by the NY Post editorial board. Could more abuses have been committed against the general public? If the FBI could fabricate pretexts against prominent individuals who could afford the best lawyers, how safe were ordinary individuals from the secret inquisitors?
What Maddow never expected, of course, was that there would be a detailed official investigation of the Steele dossier’s role in manufacturing the “Russian collusion” hoax, and now that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has done that investigation, Maddow’s dishonesty is fully exposed. She has nowhere to hide — her deceptions are a matter of record, preserved on video — so that even the Washington Post cannot pretend she still has any credibility.
. . . Professor William Jacobson remarks: “Alex Jones is deplatformed, while Maddow still remains atop the MSNBC heap. Some conspiracy fear-mongers are more equal than others.” So it seems.
The voters will exercise their right and duty to determine if they want to reelect Donald Trump. The Democrats started late, after years of huffing and puffing. They failed to impress anyone, came up empty, produced and passed a pack of lies as an argument for impeachment. Now they are trying to assert constitutional rights they do not possess and a moral authority they squandered years ago to deprive the Senate of the control over an impeachment trial which the Constitution clearly reserves to the upper chamber.
It’s over, Madam Speaker. Go back to San Francisco and ask Santa’s elves to help you clean up the public sanitation problem of the homeless people the California Democratic miracle has put on the city’s sidewalks.