The Editorial Board is squeeing over ultra squishy Lisa Murkowski, calling her the conscience in the Senate….but, then they and other Democrats used to think that Ted Kennedy, who left a woman to slowly drown while he worked on his alibi, and Robert Byrd, a former high ranking KKK member, were consciences in the Senate
A Stirring of Conscience in the Senate
(many many paragraphs attempting to defend the way the House held it’s impeachment theater)
But Mr. McConnell’s pledge to place the Senate at the president’s service puts other Republicans in an awkward spot — at least those still interested in maintaining a modicum of independence or integrity. And this week, a thin crack in conference unity appeared.
In an interview that aired on Christmas Eve, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told an Anchorage TV station she was “disturbed†by Mr. McConnell’s pledge to coordinate with the president’s legal team. It would be wrong to “prejudge†this matter, she said. “To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense.†Mr. McConnell, she lamented, had “further confused the process.â€
Ms. Murkowski is known for her independence and has proved unafraid to buck her party and her president, including opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court last year. That said, her criticism should not be taken as a sign that she will vote to remove Mr. Trump. Ms. Murkowski has also criticized the House’s impeachment inquiry as flawed and rushed.
No one likes her.
But in a Republican Party so cowed by this president, with most lawmakers too timid to question even his most grotesque behavior, Ms. Murkowski’s expression of concern sets her apart. The senator is sending a message, to her constituents as well as to Mr. McConnell, that she does not want to be viewed as a rubber stamp for a preordained acquittal. She takes her public duty more seriously than party loyalty, and she can be pushed too far.
If only more of her colleagues felt the same.
Right, right. Where’s the NYT editorial about party loyalty in the House? I don’t remember any editorials praising Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey for voting against the silly articles of impeachment, and Tulsi Gabbard for voting present, bucking party loyalty in what was a foregone voting conclusion. What will the Times have to say about any Democrats who vote against impeachment in the Senate? You know the vast majority have already made up their minds to vote for impeachment.
Read: NY Times Super Excited About Senate Trial Not Being About GOP Party Loyalty Or Something »
(many many paragraphs attempting to defend the way the House held it’s impeachment theater)
A giant parasol that hovers high in orbit to block the sun. Refreezing the melting poles by making submarine-sized ice cubes. Pumping extra carbon dioxide deep underground for indefinite storage. Spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to form clouds to artificially cool the Earth.
Under the new law SB 104 California will offer government subsidized health benefits for undocumented immigrants under the age of 26.
But few are discussing one key aspect of California’s crisis: Yes, climate change intensifies the fires—but the ways in which we plan and develop our cities makes them even more destructive. The growth of urban regions in the second half of the 20th century has been dominated by economic development, aspirations of home ownership, and belief in the importance of private property. Cities and towns have expanded in increasingly disperse fashion, fueled by cheap energy. Infrastructure has been built, deregulated, and privatized, extending services in more and more tenuous and fragile ways. Our ideas about what success, comfort, home, and family should look like are so ingrained, it’s hard for us to see how they could be reinforcing the very conditions that put us at such grave risk.
With the help of Senate Republicans, Donald Trump spent the first three years of his presidency remaking the federal judiciary in his own image. The president has appointed 133 district court judges, 50 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—meaning about one-fifth of the nation’s federal trial judges, and one-fourth of its federal appellate judges, are Trump appointees. These jurists are leading a conservative revolution that will upend decades of precedent and enshrine reactionary policies into the law. The transformation has only just begun. But for a glimpse of where the judiciary is heading if Trump wins a second term, Americans can look to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A traditionally conservative bench, the court has been newly reshaped by Trump—and quickly got to work translating right-wing priorities into legal doctrine that will govern generations.
Obesity is complicating the climate-change fight, researchers say, especially as the Earth’s population adds roughly 83 million people of all shapes and sizes every year.

Schoolchildren skipping class to strike, protests bringing city centres to a standstill: armed with dire warnings from scientists, people around the world dragged the climate emergency into the mainstream in 2019.

