header 1
header 2
header 3

Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

09/01/24 07:05 AM #17438    

 

Jack Mallory

"Simply blaming folks for their homelessness is just plain simple-minded -- and less than useless."

If we can blame folks for their childlessness or choice of pets, why not for their homelessness? If we can blame folks for their military service, or getting captured, why not blame them for homelessness? Blame Arlington Cemetery workers for doing their jobs? Certainly folks deserve blame for being born outside the US in poor and violent settings, or being born Moslem, or DACA children . . . 
 

Here's an OLD list of blames that certainly make blaming the homeless a minor kerfuffle! BLAME--it's the Trump/MAGA creed! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/19/upshot/trump-complete-insult-list.html


09/01/24 09:20 AM #17439    

 

Jack Mallory

Kristoff today in the NYT. I and others too often forget/ignore this advice. 
 

"Some of the best advice Democrats have received recently came from Bill Clinton in his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

"First, he warned against hubris: “We’ve seen more than one election slip away from us when we thought it couldn’t happen, when people got distracted by phony issues or overconfident.” That’s something that any Clinton understands in his — or her — gut.

"Second, related and even more important, he cautioned against demeaning voters who don’t share liberal values.

“I urge you to meet people where they are,” said Clinton, who knows something about winning votes outside of solid blue states. “I urge you not to demean them, but not to pretend you don’t disagree with them if you do. Treat them with respect — just the way you’d like them to treat you.”

That’s critical counsel because too often since 2016, the liberal impulse has been to demonize anyone at all sympathetic to Donald Trump as a racist and bigot. This has been politically foolish, for it’s difficult to win votes from people you’re disparaging.

It has also seemed to me morally offensive, particularly when well-educated and successful elites are scorning disadvantaged, working-class Americans who have been left behind economically and socially and in many cases are dying young. They deserve empathy, not insults.

By all means denounce Trump, but don’t stereotype and belittle the nearly half of Americans who have sided with him.

Since I live in a rural area, many of my old friends are Trump supporters. One, a good and generous woman, backs Trump because she feels betrayed by the Democratic and Republican political establishments, and she has a point. When factories closed and good union jobs left the area, she ended up homeless and addicted; four members of her extended family killed themselves and she once put a gun to her own head. So when a demagogue like Trump speaks to her pain and promises to bring factories back, of course her heart leaps.

"Then her resolve strengthens when she hears liberals mock her faith — it was an evangelical church that helped her overcome homelessness — or deride her as “deplorable.”

"Then there’s the woman who cut my hair: She had a daughter who was overcome with addiction, so she quit the shop to care for a grandson. Her successor cutting my hair lost her husband to an overdose and is struggling to help a son who is addicted. She isn’t much interested in politics and didn’t watch any of the Democratic convention; she said she distrusts Trump and sees him as a bully, but she is mad at Democrats because food prices are too high.

“I’m not sure how I’ll vote,” she told me, “or if I’ll vote.” She’s a good, hardworking person who would benefit from a Democratic victory, and Democrats should fight for her — not savage her for political thought crimes.

"Working-class Americans have a right to feel betrayed. After almost 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11 attacks, we started two wars and allocated trillions of dollars to the response. But every three or four days we lose as many Americans to drugs, alcohol and suicide as died in the Sept. 11 attacks, yet the national response has been pathetically weak. The social fabric in many blue-collar communities has unraveled, and people are angry and frustrated.

"Since the Obama presidency, Democrats have increasingly become the party of the educated, and the upshot has often been a whiff of condescension toward working-class voters, especially toward voters of faith. And in a country where 74 percentof Americans report a belief in God, according to Gallup, and only 38 percent over the age of 25 have a four-year college degree, condescension is a losing strategy.

"Michael Sandel, the eminent Harvard philosopher, condemns the scorn for people with less education as “the last acceptable prejudice” in America. He’s right: Elites sometimes indulge in open disdain for working-class voters that they would never acknowledge about other groups.

"I worry about Democrats neglecting their proud heritage since at least the time of Franklin Roosevelt of standing up for working-class Americans. Maybe it’s time for more educated liberals to reread F.D.R.’s famous “Forgotten Man” speech of 1932, hailing “the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.”

"We liberals today are attuned to identity and thus to racial and gender disadvantages, while often seemingly oblivious to class disadvantage — even though recent research by the Harvard economist Raj Chetty underscores that race is playing a smaller role in opportunity gaps while class gaps are yawning wider.

"You can’t have a serious conversation about inequality today without discussing race. But you also can’t have a serious conversation about poverty or opportunity without considering class (and for many people of color, race and class disadvantages overlap).

"Kamala Harris seems to get this. She chose as her running mate a man who can reach working-class voters with his words as well as his policies. And she can present herself as the candidate who worked at McDonald’s while her opponent was exploiting his inheritance — and renters.

"I wasn’t planning to write this column, but then I approvingly tweeted Clinton’s comment about not demeaning those we disagree with. Plenty of readers replied hotly: But they deserve to be demeaned!

"Sure, it’s satisfying to hurl invective. But calling people “Nazis” probably won’t win over undecided voters any more than when Trump supporters deride “libtards” or the “Biden crime family.”

"Whatever our politics, Trump brings out the worst in all of us. He nurtures hate on his side that we mirror.

"So let’s take a deep breath, summon F.D.R.’s empathy for the forgotten man, follow Clinton’s advice — and, for the sake of winning elections as well as of civility, remember that the best way to get others to listen to us is to first listen to them. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/opinion/trump-voters-liberal-civil.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb&ngrp=mxp&pvid=8CE14F23-D3C8-4347-AB48-0DE435B66FB8

 

I agree with most of this. But I do believe that when well-defined, long-employed identifications of political and/or economic beliefs and practices exist, they should be used. When defining a movement or an individual as (small d) democratic, or democratic socialist, or communist, or fascist, these are acceptable descriptive terms when well defined and their ascription to movements or individuals is accompanied by evidence. Evidence-free accusations of "communist!"or "pinko!"or "nazi!" are as accurate and useful as "vermin!" But to describe someone or their beliefs as "fascist," for example, with a citation to Hannah Arendt or George Orwell and accompanying evidence may be just plain political science.  


09/01/24 02:33 PM #17440    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Hl  we n, I love Bodie in css as me form.  So adorable and sweet.  Love, Joanie


09/01/24 04:44 PM #17441    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Does that mean that the Clintons now DON'T think half of Americans are 'deplorables'?  Such flip-flopping! 

Okay, so I watched THE BIG INTERVIEW with Dana Bash and disappointingly, questions remain:

Re Harris: (1) Her values have not changed.. What does that mean? She has not changed her positions from 2019, 2020 or from Biden's policies?  Are we all okay with the vague answer that 'her values have not changed"'? If so, does that mean her administration will continue Biden's agenda across the board? Or does that mean her only changes will be that she will be giving $25,000 bucks to potential first time home buyers, a tax cut to the middle class, a border wall (which she now is okay with), a tax on tips and a tax hike on businesses and 'the wealthy', in order to pay for all those things? If so, won't that set off higher prices on homes, products and services? (2) She is not regretful of her decision making (as last person in the room) made jointly (I assume) with President Biden on the Afghan pull-out. No mention of the 13 American military members killed in the process or the abandonment of many US weapons left in the region (which, incidentally are now in the hands of terror organizations (ie The Taliban). Are we to accept her silence and just ignore the human loss and terror threat that her decision left?  

She couldn't even answer Dana's simple question about whether she had asked Biden to replace him or if it was his idea.  She went off, with a wink and a grin, on her love of Biden, her morning pancakes and her niece (just what everyone wanted to hear in the 17 precious minutes of opportunity we had for the entire interview! Not.)  Why? To try and be like a regular, likeable, sensitive human being? Ok.  Well, if the electorate cares deeply about that, fine.  But, hey, millions saw THAT side of her at the convention...that wonderful, likeable, (& oh so joyful!) presidential ticket was made nauseatingly clear. Most voters had to be looking for more depth and insight in this long-time-coming-sit-down interview. Until she can own her beliefs openly and honestly, she remains a far left radically liberal candidate.  What choice does she leave us? 

Re Walz:  Who the hell is putting down his children's love of him or his dog ? Maybe one person in a gazillion?  When asked to clarify his stolen valor question (due to remarks he had made alluding to having served in combat when he had not), he immediately projected that his service was being attacked and that he would never question anyone's service.  But that's not it.  Of course, it is his perceived stolen valor and everyone knows that.  But, who knew he would then flippingly tie-in his wife's reprimand of his poor grammer as an excuse for his 'misspeak'. Does he think we're complete idiots?  

Sadly, just like Harris labeled Trump's recent answer to her racial identity with "same old tired playbook", I'm afraid the two dem candidates have read the very same book, They are same old tired politicians who insult us by dodging and weaving around questions, gaslighting and projecting anything BUT who they really are. Disappointing.


09/01/24 06:26 PM #17442    

 

Stephen Hatchett

Nori, I think values and policies are two very different things.  You, I beieve, have a very strong value of human life, beginning at or near conception.  What your plans are to support that value are your policies -- say to pack the supreme court with pro-life judges, or to do what you can to make sure every child everywhere is vaccinated against deadly, preventable diseases, to do everything in your power to prevent or shorten wars, to support your local food banks, to woman a suicide prevention hotline, to support policies to get kids out of homeless situations.  I know you want human lives to be fully realized -- I think that is an important part of your core value.  I suspect we all share most of those values -- we mostly only differ in where along the timeline of human lives we think it is appropriate to pass protective laws or pour in resources.  

I believe a sense of community is an extremely important pre-requisite baseline for lives to be fully realized.  That value drives much of what I do  --- heck, it's driving me to write this note :)


09/01/24 08:03 PM #17443    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Nori you are right that there have been some changes in position.  Harris was against fracking and now said she wouldn't ban it but there are other environmental policies to keep the climate going. Politically she shifted but I believe strongly that she really cares about the less fortunate and wants to help them get ahead. She took a job as a public defender years ago rather then a lucrative one in a top law firm.  And yes she didn't want to discuss her private talk with Biden. Her very authentic love and deserved respect for him is what I remember.  If you care about values, how do you feel about Trump calling the fallen suckers and losers and how about his saying he doesn't like John McCain as he was captured.  How about him bringing in a camera crew when told they are not allowed in sacred space and then he turned it into a political ad about Afghanistan.  You bring up values.  Where are his.  He said six weeks is too short for an abortion ban so he would vote against the Florida referendum. All hell broke out and now he lied and said because democrats want to execute babies after 9 months he will vote against it. He lies and lies and lies.  If it values you care about where are his. Love, Joanie


09/01/24 08:55 PM #17444    

 

Jack Mallory

Your Bodie fix for tonight or tomorrow morning. 
 

His new large, furniture-esque kennel. In Santa Cruz we'd have rented this out to a grad student. 



 

He set a new personal best today, 2 3/4 miles. Then a hosing down. 
 




 


09/01/24 10:12 PM #17445    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack the Bodies picks are great.  Deb looks adorable in the pictures too. Love her smile, love, Joanie


09/02/24 09:17 AM #17446    

 

Jack Mallory

Everyone should have a giraffe. Yeah, I know, makes me sound Iike some kinda commie. "Only if they earn one!" "How come those immigrant Labradors get giraffes when real 'murican dogs don't?" "A giraffe? Some kinda DEI hire?" "Oughta put a tariff on those imported giraffes, protect the American giraffe industry!"
 


 


 

 


09/02/24 09:43 AM #17447    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

I feel heartbroken for the recently murdered six Israeli hostages.  The deal needs to be accepted now to get any others still alive out and to end the carnage in the area where so many have died. Love, Joanie


09/02/24 11:44 AM #17448    

 

Jack Mallory

So true, Joanie. Cease fire NOW.


09/02/24 02:15 PM #17449    

 

Jack Mallory

Me (to the left, of course), and Agent 36, Metro DC PD. Worked long and hard for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Peoples' Coalition for Peace and Justice, National Peace Action Coalition, Mayday, and undercover for the Metropolitan Police Department on the Spring 1971 antiwar actions. Printed god only knows how many antiwar leaflets, ferried Renny Davis god only knows how many miles around DC, sent god only knows how many reports to Chief Jerry Wilson, drank god only knows how much beer while the rest of us drank Boon's Farm and smoked dope at 2312 19th St.

No one was ever arrested as a result of 36's work. The intention was preparation to meet our antiwar actions, not surveillance of political opinions or make arrests. The whole story is well told in Larry Robert's May Day 1971, and will be told again in One More Mission - a film  about  Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

One of only three of the five DC VVAW house still left: 36, Tim Butz, and myself. Mike Phelan and Rod Kane have gone on to Fiddler's Green. 

One of the oddest and greatest things to come out of my anti-war experiences: this lifetime friendship. 36 visited over the last few days.


09/02/24 03:18 PM #17450    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Hi, Stephen! Thanks for the clarity.  I personally want to help make abortion a last resort, not an inconvenience and I do consider that goal when voting within my state and federal elections.   But, luckiiy for the US of A,  I am not running for the highest office in the land and merely represent a single vote. On the road to giving that vote forethought, I try to gather info along the way.  Joanie, I am well aware of the foibles of DJT (could I be reading the forum, otherwise?), but I seek to know the pros and cons of instating the other candidate.  With that in mind, Stephen,  what do you perceive to be the policies held by a future Harris/Walz administration, now that you know her values haven't changed? Policies for curbing illegal immigration, crime, fentanyl deaths, abortion, inflation, our country's role in two current wars (particularly our future role in trying to save Israel from Iran and what may follow), a border wall, AI, gun control, homeland security, the threat of terrorism, the national debt, future growth of the economy and ....now that fracking's okay, the climate crisis? If you know the current VP's stances, please share. If you want to add your ayes or nays, fine...if not, fine too.  Do you hope she continues Biden's policies, or what would you alter? Or, as far as you're concerned, 'anyone but Trump' will do just fine, regardless of policy positions. 

Bill Clinton spread his platform ideas all over the place, as did Obama and everyone listening had a clear picture for whom and what they were voting. Is it too much to ask for the same transparency, as we head to the polls this year?  


09/02/24 03:36 PM #17451    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

One more comment: tell me again why we aren't screaming in the streets that Hamas should end the war and immediately send the remaining hostages home? Does anyone really believe that those who could put bullets through the heads of those precious hostages, could want to negotiate? And, after an American life has been brutally snuffed, if Israel and the US negotiate wtth Hamas (aka Iran), isn't that putting a price on the head of every American? 


09/02/24 04:04 PM #17452    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Nori can you list Trumps policies?  By his own words, mass deportations, with his view that immigrants poison the well of America and are vermin.  Abortion bans are ok at six weeks he decided as voting no on the referendum leaves the Florida ones in place, (women are in grave danger to have to wait til they are sick enough to get reproductive care) and drill drill drill baby, get rid of the Dept of Education, make this a Christian country, and saying if NATO doesn't do their fair share Putin can do whatever the hell he wants in Ukraine. NATO has contributed greatly to the defense of Ukraine. You don't like Kamala Harris' values but which of these basics of Trump do you like? Just saying you are aware of Trumps ways doesn't tell us how you feel about these basics he espouses.  Love, Joanie 


09/02/24 09:06 PM #17453    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

We are negotiating through other countries like Quatar and Egypt because the only way the get any hostages out alive is to get a ceasefire deal.  Their lives are worth a deal. Thousands of Israelis marching in the streets think their lives are worth a deal. The Israeli military wants a deal.   These six beautiful souls would have been alive if a deal had been made. Some of them who had medical issues were slated to be released.  Love, Joanie  


09/03/24 05:26 AM #17454    

 

Jack Mallory

Nori, it's fairly simple. The reason many call for a cease fire is that they believe the slaughter of innocents on both sides should stop immediately, which an effective cease fire would accomplish. 

I especially support that call because as American tax payers we--you and I--provide the weapons that slaughter some of those precious innocents in Gaza. 

I can understand why those who want the killing to continue resist the call for a cease fire. I can understand why those who support the idea of paying to dismember, disintegrate, and destroy in Gaza ("kill" is such a weak and inconsequential word for what happens in war) resist the call for a cease fire. 
 

Why would you not call for a cease fire? Why do you want your tax dollars to continue funding death, dismemberment, and destruction? Why not participate, if only verbally, in the call for a cease fire? Not just a rhetorical question. 

 


09/03/24 02:22 PM #17455    

 

Stephen Hatchett

I guess the immediate policy that best supports my values on the Gaza (and west bank) issue is to call for an immediate cease fire.  Then work on a deal.  I think the deal will be super tough.  One side wants the destruction of Israel -- no particular cares about the cost in Israeli lives, or for that matter in Palestinian lives, just whatever it seems to take.  I dont completely understand the thinking behind the original raid, but any deal that side could accept would seem to leave open for them opportunities to do something similar.  What can Israel offer?  

But I guess that is why I am a values voter and not a policy voter.  I'm not a policy wonk. I'm not a poli-sci strategist.  I'm not a military strategist (or tactician).  I want to elect people who share my values who have, or will get, expert guidance in such areas. Or who will try thought-out experiments when the situation is too new for much useful historical precendence. 


09/03/24 05:33 PM #17456    

 

Jack Mallory

WARNING! No politics in post. 
 

Early September. Daytime temps in the 70s, dropping into the 40s at night. Skies clear, stars brilliant (at about 3am, my Bodie shift).
All as it should be, but . . .​


Credit to The New Yorker. 


09/05/24 09:35 AM #17457    

 

Jay Shackford

(Editor’s Note:  On the heels of Ginni Thomas’s love letters to a maga supporter who is spending millions opposing judicial reform, specifically calling for ethics rules governing the U.S. Supreme Court, I thought it would be worthwhile looking at the accumulated wealth of each Supreme Court justice.  And Forbes magazine — hardly a left-leaning publication — did just that earlier this year.  Below is the copy.  

 

While Ginni — who is looking more and more like the modern day Martha Mitchell of the Watergate days — is grabbing all the media attention, pay particular attention to Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a net worth of $25 million or 40% of all the wealth ($64 million) of the nine justices.  Under the radar, most of Roberts’s  wealth has come from his wife, Jane Roberts, who is an attorney placing young conservative lawyers from prestigious law schools in Maga-supporting law firms and/or top judicial appointments and positions in government and conservative think tanks.  There have, I might add, been some tax questions raised about this — whether Jane’s income should be viewed as commissions or salary.  Hey, how about conflict of interest?  Stay tuned.) 

 

 

Follow the Money When Looking

at the U.S. Supreme Court

 

Updated Mar 27, 2024, 12:59pm EDT

The justices of the Supreme Court are worth a collective $64 million, and some of their finances—and relationships with the ultrawealthy—have attracted ethical scrutiny.

By Kyle Mullins and Zach Everson, Forbes Staff

The nine justices on the Supreme Court are as close to sovereigns as one can get in America: they sit on high, don robes, serve until they die or abdicate, enjoy a government salary for life, abide by their own ethics code and proclaim definitive rulings that can upend our economy, our politics and our personal lives. To understand the high court and its role in society, we have to understand the people on it—and few things tell you more about someone than their finances.

Forbes dug deep into the checkbooks of the justices. There are some similarities: They’re all multimillionaires with nice homes and access to a generous pension plan that will keep them comfortable long after they retire. Most teach law school classes on the side, and side hustles as authors have helped some pad their accounts. But the ways each justice made the bulk of their money over the years range from private practice to lucky real estate investments to old-fashioned inheritance. And they keep their wealth invested in everything from run-of-the-mill mutual and index funds to vacation homes, Oklahoma mineral rights and shares in blue-chip stocks like Boeing and Raytheon, raising eyebrows about conflicts of interest. (For every justice, Forbes reached out to the Court for comment. A court spokesperson declined to comment.)

Added together, the Supreme Court is worth an estimated $64 million. Chief Justice John Roberts alone is responsible for nearly 40% of that sum: The wealthiest of all, he’s worth an estimated $25 million. He and the other five conservatives are on average over $5 million richer than the three liberal justices, who account for just 17% of its collective wealth.

Here’s a guide to every Supreme Court member’s money, spanning from way before they touched a torts textbook up to today.

Justices are listed in order of seniority.

John Roberts

Chief Justice of the United States | Appointed by George W. Bush (2005) | Age: 69 | Net Worth: $25 million

Roberts alternated between private practice and government for his early career, helping him build both political connections and a small fortune. A multimillionaire before he became a federal judge in 2003, he chose political power—but his wife, also a prominent lawyer, continued to earn big bucks. Roberts ascended to chief justice in 2005 and stayed in the stock market, allowing his nest egg to swell as the economy boomed. Today, John and Jane Roberts have an estimated $20 million in liquid assets, in addition to homes in Maryland, Maine and Ireland and a multimillion-dollar pension waiting for the chief justice when he retires. See more.

Clarence Thomas

Associate Justice | Appointed by George H.W. Bush (1991) | Age: 75 | Net Worth: $4 million

There is no question that Thomas’ life is a genuine American success story. Born in the Georgia low country, he started out in segregated public schools, then advanced to Catholic schools for blacks, the seminary, Holy Cross and finally to Yale Law School. Eventually he made a name for himself and climbed to the heights of the U.S. judicial system. But his life has also been replete with mistakes, including his tendency, going back decades, to reach for a lifestyle he could not afford. Like most people who achieve the American Dream, Thomas has had plenty of people helping him along the way. Today he is worth an estimated $4 million, largely thanks to his high-profile position. See more.

Samuel Alito

Associate Justice | Appointed by George W. Bush (2006) | Age: 73 | Net Worth: $10 million

Despite a career entirely backed by taxpayers, Alito is the second-wealthiest member of the high court. Worth a modest $2 million when he took his seat in 2006, his net worth ballooned in the 2010s when he benefited from the oldest money-making trick in the book: inheritance. Today, Alito owns homes in Virginia and New Jersey and sits on a generous pension and an investment portfolio worth an estimated $5 million. Unlike any other justice besides Roberts, he owns holdings in a multitude of publicly traded companies, which have sparked ethics questions and forced the conservative to recuse himself from plenty of cases over the years. See more.

Sonia Sotomayor

Associate Justice | Appointed by Barack Obama (2009) | Age: 69 | Net Worth: $5 million

Sotomayor was raised in poverty in the Bronx, but worked her way first to the Ivy League and eventually to the Supreme Court. Once there, she parlayed her pioneering story into lucrative book deals, which have provided $3.8 million in earnings since she joined the court, though her staff’s promotion of her work has drawn ethical scrutiny. The first Latina justice’s Manhattan apartment has exploded in value as real estate there has soared, and equity in her D.C. home has grown as well, helping boost the size of her nest egg. Finally, Sotomayor became eligible for a multimillion dollar pension when she turned 65. See more.

Elana Kagan

Associate Justice | Appointed by Barack Obama (2010) | Age: 63 | Net Worth: $4 million

Unlike many of her colleagues, Kagan hasn’t inked any million-dollar book deals, nor has she enjoyed high-paying stints in private practice, married rich or accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from wealthy friends. She does not appear to be a prolific spender. For Kagan, it’s just been the slow and steady accumulation of wealth while working at the heights of academia and government that have helped her amass her fortune. See more.

Neil Gorsuch

Associate Justice | Appointed by Donald Trump (2017) | Age: 56 | Net Worth: $8 million

The Colorado-born Gorsuch owes much of his education, his early career and fortune to the East Coast. New York and D.C. treated him well: After a lengthy tenure as a student at Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, he made millions in private practice before George Bush elevated him directly to a Tenth Circuit judgeship. He loved life on a Colorado farm, but a decade later, he headed back east as Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court pick, reestablishing a conservative majority on the nation’s highest bench. A sizable investment portfolio and a $2.5 million Maryland home make up his net worth today. See more.

Brett Kavanaugh

Associate Justice | Appointed by Donald Trump (2018) | Age: 59 | Net Worth: $2 million

Kavanaugh, the son of a lobbyist and a judge, has had a comfortable life, even if his net worth doesn’t quite stack up to that of his wealthier colleagues. The son of a lobbyist, he spent most of his pre-judicial career in the public sector, then secured a lifetime appointment as a judge in 2006. After a decade—and a bitterly contentious nomination process—he made it onto the Supreme Court. His largest asset is his Maryland home, and he has some pensions and savings from his time in government. Other than that, there’s nothing else—he has not reported owning any rental real estate, private business or stock portfolio. His financial future, thanks to a generous judicial pension, looks bright nonetheless. See more.

Amy Comey Barrett

Associate Justice | Appointed by Donald Trump (2020) | Age: 52 | Net Worth: $4 million

The New Orleans-born justice spent nearly her entire career in academia before becoming a judge. After graduating from Notre Dame Law School—the only member of the Court who did not get their J.D. from Harvard or Yale—she clerked and tried private practice, but found herself right back at Notre Dame as a professor within a couple years. She and her husband, also a lawyer, studiously saved and had seven children even as they advanced their careers; she became a judge in 2017 and a justice in 2020. Today, Barrett owns a multimillion-dollar Virginia home and a sizable investment portfolio, with more money from a book deal coming soon. See more.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Associate Justice | Appointed by Joe Biden (2022) | Age: 53 | Net Worth: $2 million

Raised middle class and still one of the youngest justices, Jackson is tied with Brett Kavanaugh as the least-wealthy member of the Court. After Harvard, she became a self-described “professional vagabond,” bouncing from job to job and between private and public legal practice while balancing work and family—but eventually secured a lifetime appointment to the judiciary after a few years on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Today, she and her surgeon husband are worth around $2 million, most of which is their D.C. home, but that’s expected to change soon when she cashes checks from a lucrative book deal. See more.

 

 

 

 

 


09/05/24 11:47 AM #17458    

 

Jack Mallory

Thanks, Jay. Similar data for U.S. Congressionals at: https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives


For U.S. Presidents at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

 

Democracy, spelled P.L.U.T.O.C.R.A.C.Y. ?


09/06/24 04:37 AM #17459    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

At a rally last Friday, Trump called the press the enemy of the people.

"because they truly are the enemy of the people. They are the enemy of the people. They tell false stories about me—that’s all they do is they write false stories.”

Ten minutes later a man jumped into the press area to attack reporters before he was tased and hauled off. Trump said 

“Is there anywhere that’s more fun to be than a Trump rally?”

Watch it yourself. 

https://x.com/taureansmall/status/1829636618233287111

The whole idea of a Trump rally sadly seems to be for the entertainment it provides. The people's reaction in the video looks like a wrestling match, not showing support for a future president. I just don't get it.


09/06/24 04:49 AM #17460    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

A.G. Sulzberger , publisher of the New York Times wrote this op-ed piece published in his competitor's paper the Washington Post. In it, he describes how authoritarians such as Trump's BFF Orban have proceeded to limit the freedom of the press. "How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America"

https://wapo.st/3ZfmRNg


09/06/24 05:25 AM #17461    

 

Jack Mallory

To be called an enemy of the people by Trump should be regarded as an accolade. Like having an FBI file in our day! 


 

Worth noting some of the political context of the phrase "enemy of the people."

"On 25 February 1956, Nikita Khrushchev delivered a speech to the Communist Party in which he identified Stalin as the author of the phrase and distanced himself from it, saying that it made debate impossible.[16] 'This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven,' Khrushchev said. 'It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of [...] legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations ... The formula ‘enemy of the people’ was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals.'17]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Trump using language ascribed to Stalin, criticized by Khrushchev: maybe calling Trump a fascist is a gross over-simplification. 


09/06/24 09:20 AM #17462    

 

Jack Mallory

Along with Orban-like repression of the free press, Trump and his cronies might provide outright popularization of right-wing regimes of the past. 
 

OPINION

MICHELLE GOLDBERG

Tucker Carlson and the Heterodoxy-to-Holocaust Denial Pipeline

Read the rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/tucker-carlson-holocaust-denial.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb&ngrp=mxp&pvid=B6C896E4-8585-4635-8F9E-E31E9850EF95 
 

Perhaps Tucker is thinking that every autocrat needs a Goebbels. This is the opinion his esteemed guest posted on "X."


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

agape