Climate Change Giant Paul Hawken In Anchorage Thursday Free At UAA

Feeling overwhelmed by Climate Change and other issues.  Learn how the top ways the world can slow down climate change.  Some are surprising - like educating girls.

The author of Drawdown - an incredible book that looks at 50 ways to slow down climate change is speaking at Wendy Williamson Auditorium at UAA tonight (Thursday) at 7pm - FREE!!!

I've posted about Hawken's book before.

Port Of Oakland and Chappell Roland Hayes

After dropping the kids off yesterday morning we took BART out to Oakland to visit long time friends.  And they took us to Middle Harbor Shoreline Park.

From The Port Of Oakland website:

"Middle Harbor Shoreline Park is built on the site of the former Oakland Naval Supply Depot, an important supply center for the Navy's Pacific Fleet from World War II until 1998, when the depot was closed and transferred to the Port of Oakland. This 541-acre facility was equipped with dozens of warehouses with a combined floor area of over 7 million square feet. The Naval Supply Depot that stood on this land played an important role in the World War II war effort--civilian and military workers processed and shipped a wide variety of cargo, including aviation material, electronics, weapons, clothing, food, fuel, lumber, and medicine and medical equipment."

The park looks out over San Francisco Bay and the Bay Bridge into downtown San Francisco.

This is a naked eye view from a tower in the park.

This is with a little zooming with the camera.

And this is with help from the telescope on the tower.

The cranes are part of the Oakland docks.  A dockworker was eating lunch on the tower.  He said he eats there every day and it's always as deserted as it was yesterday.  Except when there's a concert.  As an Alaskan I forget that deserted isn't normal.

He also said that ll shipping to and from China has been halted.  Shipowners here, he said, are afraid their ships will be quarantined.



I also learned about Chappell Roland Hayes.

I found more about him here (where you can read it all)

"Visionary Hayes Honored by PortSunday, January 25, 2004
by Paul T. Rosynsky, Staff Writer
Oakland ~ During his brief 45 years of life, Chappell Hayes inspired hundreds and changed the lives of thousands with his stoic leadership of West Oakland's never-ending fight for environmental justice.
As an outspoken critic of governmental policies that favored industrial development over community cohesiveness, Hayes stood as a beacon of hope for thousands of disenfranchised residents who neither had the means nor the knowledge to fight against the destruction of their neighborhood.
So it was fitting Saturday, exactly 10 years after Hayes' death, that his nemesis, the Port of Oakland, dedicated its prized environmental achievement to the man who made it happen.
In an emotionally stirring ceremony, more than 100 family members and friends, including his wife, City Council member Nancy Nadel, and daughter, Sele Nadel-Hayes, helped the port turn a new observation tower at Middle Harbor Shoreline Park into a monument celebrating Hayes' life and achievements.
"The naming of the observation tower is very fitting for Chappell," Nadel said, wrapping up a two-hour dedication ceremony. "With his feet on earth and head in the clouds, he served as an inspiration to me and Sele. Now, he has the ability to inspire us all to infinity."
Hayes, who died of cancer in 1994, is credited for helping West Oakland begin its long and continuing battle against polluting industries and the governments that support them. . ."

It was, as you can see, a beautiful day.  Got into the low 70s in Oakland.

Learning Numbers

 






While waiting for the pre-school to open we walked around the corner and I saw this tile address on a house.  My three year old looked and I pointed out the first number - Three - and she repeated Three.  I pointed out the second number and she repeated four.  I pointed out the third number and she said five.  We talked about it, but she insisted it had to be a five.

So I looked across the street and found 345.  And she agreed with all my numbers.  But when we went back to 346, she continued to insist on 345.  Of course, she knows "1-2-3-4-5" and my changing that five to six had no chance.


















So after dinner I wrote out the numbers one through eleven (with her editing below).  And we went through them.

Then I made white ones and had her find the matching number.  Most she did without hesitation.  Three and five were confusing.  Eight was a B to her.  All good too the point that she played games with me, saying she didn't know while taking the right white paper and turning it over.  Even gluing some to another piece of paper.

But the 346 picture is still 345 to her.



[Background of the pictures.  We first saw the 346 yesterday morning.  I decided to take pictures in the afternoon when we picked her up.  The 345 was made of beautiful metal numbers on the wall across the street.  But in the afternoon, there was a portapotty covering the 345.  It was still there this morning, so I had to make do with the little numbers on the mailbox.]

Scarcity On A Windy Day

wind strewn eucalyptus bark

The wind was howling during the night and flags were straining at their harnesses, today.  We went to an event in Golden Gate Park.  The almost three year old was allowed to take her scooter.  This irked the five year old no end.  Things that others have seem to become an overwhelming obsession and it lasted pretty much the whole day.  Well, there was a period when the scooter wasn't at the top of his mind.  When the little one was on the swing.  There were two swings and the second one was occupied too.  Suddenly he needed to swing.  She needed to give up her swing for him.

But grandpa was there to remind him how angry he got when she took the toys he was playing with.  His response:  "Grandpa, you're annoying."

The wind had toppled this dead tree in the park and there were lots and lots of branches all over the ground.  (I'm making an assumption here about how this tree landed on its side.  But it looked fairly newly down.)

The five year old appropriated one - about seven feet long - that was a hazard to anyone walking near him.  We pointed this out and sometimes he would drag it off the path on the ground.  When a young lady walked by and got scratched by the branch, I asked him what he had to say.  Nothing.  You need to apologize.  Glare.  "It was her fault.  She walked into it."  Glare.  When you chose to carry the stick where other people were, you took on a responsibility.  Luckily she wasn't hurt much. But you still have a responsibility to apologize.  Glare.

Fortunately at age five, grudges don't last long and he was giggling soon.

redwood bark in Golden Gate Park

We got back home for the three year old's nap and the older brother went with his dad to a friend's birthday party while the scooter owner napped.  

Later I enjoyed this San Francisco sunset.  

Leaving Seattle Arriving SF Photos

We had a cramping call for a few days in SF.  So here are some pictures of our departure from Seattle and of San Francisco.  First step was taking the ferry through the fog.

Eventually, we were above the Seattle clouds and flying past Mt. St. Helens.  It's been a forty years since she erupted.

And soon we were flying past San Francisco and looping back into the airport.  This view is from the west with the Golden Gate bridge barely visible at the bottom left.

We BARTED into town and had a great Mediterranean lunch

Today we bused with the kids to the Children's Creativity Museum, a great place for kids.  On the way we passed the cable car turning around.  

"One of the finest street clocks in America"














And here's the clock.  It didn't seem to be working.

The park near the museum is in a canyon surrounded by buildings, and has a waterfall

The kids had a great time at the museum and I couldn't get them from the first floor activities.  The little one had a crying meltdown on the way home.  But she held my hand and kept walking.  Getting really tired.  On the bus she continued until I started telling her the story about the little girl who cried so loud on the bus that it hurt other people's ears.  And that her tears flooded the bus.

LA Times Headlines Help Promote Partisan Divide

The media have been painting a picture of partisan divide.  There's no question there is one.  Fox News, Donald Trump, and others have been fanning the flames of racial, social, and political divide for years.

But millions of Republicans and Democrats meet regularly at family celebrations, at work, in the military, at garden clubs, and tens of thousands of other venues daily.

The metaphors of war have infected (a metaphor of disease) our discourse.  And the media play a large role by perpetuating this idea.  Here are two examples from the front page of the LA Times paper edition today.

I expect more of the Los Angeles Times, but here's a headline today:

Reeling Biden goes on attack

But in the actual article, here is what they said he did:

“I have great respect for Mayor Pete and his service to this nation, but I do believe it’s a risk — to be just straight up with you for this part — to nominate somebody who’s never held an office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana,” he said of Buttigieg.

As for Sanders, Biden said that if the Vermont senator were to win the nomination, Democrats “up and down the ballot … will have to carry the label that Sen. Sanders has chosen for himself. I don’t criticize him, he calls himself a democratic socialist.”

For the Democrats, going on attack means, I guess, making factual statements about one's opponents and raising your concerns in the most deferential way that his opponents have some issues that may cause problems in the election.  

Just think back to the kind of statements Trump made about his primary opponents.  

I would note that I read the headline above on the hard copy version online.

Really, LA Times, if Biden's statements are  an 'attack' what do you call how Trump engages his  rivals.  There were reports the Trump team told Republican Senators their heads would be up on a pike if they defected.  And Trump Jr. tweeted immediately after Romney defected, that Romney should be purged from the Republican Party.  That was followed by a nasty video from the Trump camp on Romney.  Now that's more like an attack.  

If Trump Jr. had 'attacked' like Biden, he would have said, "I respectfully disagree with Romney's vote on Article I."

Another headline - also on the front page of the LA Times - says: 

The big winner:  Partisanship

 A poll before the vote on witnesses said that 70% of voters wanted witnesses and more documents reviewed by the Senate.  That's just one sign that things are not as partisan as the media pundits suggest.   We all see what we are looking for and miss what we aren't looking for.  That's a common human trait.  The media are just lots of people, so it's natural for them too.  But professional members of the media, like professional attorneys and doctors and scientists, are supposed to be trained to overcome those natural biases.  To look beyond the obvious and to question their own biases.

I'd note that as I sought links to these articles I found that the web versions of the articles had very different, more accurate headlines:

Reeling Biden Goes On Attack 

became 

As some backers panic, Biden scrambles to save his campaign in New Hampshire

And

The big winner:  Partisanship

became

News Analysis: Trump’s impeachment and acquittal please partisans on both sides

US Senate: Guilty of Cowardice and Derelict of Duty

Article I

They wouldn't even let the camera show the faces of the Senators as they voted.

Article II

Romney voted for impeachment in Article I, but not in Article II.  So, for article I the vote was bi-partisan for impeachment and partisan for acquittal.

Lisa Murkowski Wants It Both Ways - But I Suspect She's Alienated Everyone

I believe that Sen. Murkowski has thought hard on the issue of how to vote on the president's impeachment.  In the end, she has fallen into the trap laid for all people who try to see both sides (actually one needs to see all sides, but she talks in her speech more about two sides).  She has tried to cut the baby in half.  She's chastised the Senate (and the House) for having a rotten foundation, so the fair process she worked for failed.  BUT, nevertheless, she's voting against impeachment.

So she's probably alienated both sides.  I don't know what sort of bargains she's made with fellow Republicans, but I suspect her showing any sympathy at all for the House arguments is going to to be seen as challenging the president.  This will alienate members of her own party in Alaska and  she'll have a serious challenge in the 2022 primary.  Although acting 'moderate' she's decided to  vote to acquit Trump, and thus she'll have no support from the Democrats as she did last time when she ran as a write-in candidate.  No matter how much you wring your hands before doing it, voting to acquit won't cut it for those who are appalled at the president's behavior and the Senate majority's part of the 'jury' collusion with the defendant on trial issues, their  obfuscation of the issues, and refusal to hear more evidence.

The Republican Party simply has no more room for 'moderate' Republicans.  And the Democrats are tired of being teased by all the professions of 'making up my mind.'

Here's the video of her speech.  Below is the transcript with my comments in red.  I'd note the transcript comes from Sen. Murkowski's website and while it deviates slightly from the video, I'm guessing it's what she read from.




Transcript:

“I rise to address the trial of Donald John Trump. The founders gave this body the sole power to try all impeachments, and exercising that power is a weighty responsibility.
“This was only the third time in the history of our country that the Senate convened to handle a presidential impeachment, and only the second in the past 150 years.  I was part of a small group that worked to secure a fair, honest, and transparent structure for the trial, based on how this chamber handled the trial of President Clinton.  Twenty-four hours of arguments for each side, sixteen hours of questions from members, with the full House record admitted as evidence, should have been more than enough to answer the questions: do we need to hear more?  Should there be additional process?
“The structure we built should have been sufficient, but the foundation upon which it rested was rotten.
“The House rushed through what should be one of the most serious, consequential undertakings of the legislative branch simply to meet an artificial, self-imposed deadline.  Prior presidential impeachments resulted from years of investigations, where subpoenas were issued and litigated.

[The White House lawyers made two conflicting arguments:  1) that the House rushed this through, and 2) that there was no need for more information because the House had gathered an exhaustive collection of witnesses and documents.  Murkowski is leaning on their 'rushed it through' argument.  Of course, the years of litigation she mentions would mean that impeachment would drag on for years, which would have been against one of the other WH arguments - that impeachment focus prevents any legislation from getting passed.  Though they failed to mention the hundreds of passed House bills being blocked by the Senate Majority Leader.]

Where there were massive amounts of documents produced and witnesses deposed.  Where resistance from the executive was overcome through court proceedings and accommodations.
“The House failed in its responsibilities.  And the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display.  We cannot be the greatest deliberative body when we kick things off by issuing letters to the media instead of coming together to set the parameters of the trial and negotiate in good faith how we should proceed.  For all the talk of impartiality, it is clear that few in this chamber approached this with a genuinely open mind.  Some have been calling for this President to be impeached for years.  Others saw little need to even consider the arguments before stating their intentions to acquit.

She's a little cagey here.  When she accuses the House, she's clearly accusing the Democrats.  But when she accuses the Senate of 'rank partisanship' it's not clear if that's directed at the Republicans alone (who openly worked with the WH on how to proceed, to exclude witnesses, and try to get this done before the State of the Union speech.  Or if she is including the Democrats too.  Clearly she's implicating them when she talks about some calling for impeachment for years.  But, really, it doesn't matter when people called for impeachment.  It matters whether the charges are grave and the facts are certain.  

“Over the course of the past few weeks, we have all seen videos from twenty years ago, where members who were present during the Clinton trial took the exact opposite stance than they take today.  That level of hypocrisy is astounding even for D.C.

A good point.  

“The President’s behavior was shameful and wrong.  His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation.  The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and honor of the office.  Not just for himself but for all future presidents.  Degrading the office, by actions or even name calling, weakens it for future presidents, and weakens our country.

More good points.  

“All of this rotted the foundation of the process, and this was why I reached the conclusion that there would be no fair trial.  While the trial was held in the Senate, it was litigated in the court of public opinion.

It's not based on the rules of a court of law.  The 'jury' worked with the defendant on the trial rules.  The foreman of the Senate/jury already declared the defendant would be acquitted from the beginning.  Public opinion IS important to impeachment.  Nixon resigned when public opinion changed and Republican senators told him they would vote for impeachment.  

“For half the country, there had already been far too much process.  They consider the entire impeachment inquiry to be baseless, and thought the Senate should have dismissed the case as soon as it reached us.  For the other half, no matter how many witnesses were summoned or deposed, no matter how many documents were produced, the only way the trial would have been considered “fair” was if it resulted in the President’s removal from office.

I think she's simplifying public opinion here.  She might have added that for at least 40% of the country, Trump could commit any crime and they would not have a problem.  But well more than half wanted to see witnesses called. I'm regularly astounded that Republicans keep chastising Democrats about fairness when the president violates all norms of fairness on a daily basis.  

“During the month that the House declined to transmit the articles to the Senate, the demon of faction extended his scepter, the outcome became clear, and a careless media cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline.  

Let's give Murkowski's staff credit. "The demon of faction extended his scepter" comes from Federalist Paper # 65 written by Publius (Hamilton) where he writes about impeachment and who should carry it out.  The demon might come because of procrastination and prolonged inaction he argues.  But the thirty days the But the House held back the  articles of impeachment because the Senate Majority leader wouldn't disclose anything about how the trial would be conducted, is nothing compared to the years of litigation Murkowski was calling for earlier.  Here's part of that section from Hamilton:

". . . the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men." 

We debated witnesses instead of the case before the Senate. Rather than the President’s conduct, the focus turned to how a lack of additional witnesses could be used to undermine any final conclusion.

It's true, the White House counsel focused on witnesses and all other manner of process and theoretical legal issues.  The House Managers were much more focused on the details of Trump's violations  

“What started with political initiatives that degraded the Office of the President and left the Congress wallowing in partisan mud, threatened to drag the last remaining branch down along with us.  I have taken tough votes before to uphold the integrity of our courts.  

I'm assuming this refers to her not wanting to force the Chief Justice to become involved if the vote for witnesses was 50-50 and he would be called on the break the tie.  

And when it became clear that a tie vote in the Senate would simply be used to burn down our third branch of government for partisan political purposes, I said—enough.
“The response to the President’s behavior is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot.

This is one of the specious arguments repeated over and over by the the White House defense team.  

1.  Impeachment is the remedy in the constitution for making the president accountable.  The idea that impeachment is illegitimate now because it "removes him from the ballot" is just plain wrong.  That is what an impeachment does.  Period.  The fact that this is the president's first term and he can run again is irrelevant.  There were no term limits in the Constitution, so when they wrote this they knew that impeachment would  remove someone who might run again.   Actually it appears that the Senate is given two options - they can vote to remove him from office, plus they can ban him from running for any future office.  But they don't have to do the latter.  So, if they only removed him from office, it's possible the Republicans could nominate him again.  So this wouldn't remove him from the ballot .
2.  "disenfranchise 63 million Americans" -  This argument neglects the fact that the 65,844,954 Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton were disenfranchised by the arcane rules of the electoral college.  Furthermore,  the 2018 election wiped out the large Republican majority in the House and gave the Democrats a large majority.  This more recent election gives us a better look at the will of the American people than 2016.  They empowered the House to proceed with impeachment.]

 The House could have pursued censure, not immediately jumped to the remedy of last resort.  I cannot vote to convict.  The Constitution provides for impeachment, but does not demand it in all instances.  An incremental first step, to remind the President that, as Montesquieu said, “Political virtue is a renunciation of oneself” and this requires “a continuous preference of the public interest over one’s own.” Removal from office, and being barred from ever holding another office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States is the political death penalty.  [Again, being barred from running for office again is not automatic.  Here's another opinion on that. Furthermore while 'political death penalty' might seem a horrible fate for a Senator, it's minor compared to actual death penalty.  Or even prison.  This is more like removing someone from a job for misdeeds.] The President’s name is on ballots that have already been cast. The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, and we must trust their judgment. [emphasis added]
“This process has been the apotheosis of the problem of Congressional abdication.  

"Apotheosis

Description  Apotheosis is the glorification of a subject to divine level and most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre. In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. Wikipedia "

Through the refusal to exercise war powers, or relinquishing the power of the purse, selective oversight, and an unwillingness to check emergency declarations designed to skirt Congress – we have failed time and time again.  We cannot continue to cede authority to the executive. [So, since we have failed over and over again to reign in presidential usurpation of Congressional power, and even though you cite the president's failures in your eight paragraph, now is not the time to re-exert our power.  "We cannot continue to cede authority to the executive."  How does that lead to a vote to acquit?]
“The question that must be answered, given the intense polarization in our country, is where do we go from here?  Sadly, I have no definitive answers.  But I do have hope – because I must have hope.  As I tried to build consensus over the past few weeks I had many private conversations with my colleagues.  Many share my sadness for the state of our institutions.  It is my hope that we have found the bottom.  That both sides can look inward and reflect on the apparent willingness each has to destroy not just each other, but all of the institutions of our government. And for what?  Because it may help win an election?
“At some point – for our country – winning has to be about more than just winning – or we will all lose.”

We Need Less Junk News And More Nutritious News That Helps Build Our Understanding Of The World

We've heard of Fake News.  That's disinformation and propaganda, and, for the most part, the so called mainstream media doesn't intentionally offer Fake News.

But the the mainstream media is guilty of feeding us a steady diet of what I'm calling JUNK NEWS - the news equivalent of Twinkies and Coke.  It titillates, not with sugar, but with violence, sex, gossip, and cute.  It feeds our hunger for news, but without us actually gaining any understanding.  We end up growing facter and facter, without gaining greater understanding or knowing what to do to improve the world.  We get irritable and depressed instead of taking on the system.  (And yes, that work is left to the relative few who have figured out how to consume news in a healthy and productive way.)

We get so much trivia about the presidential candidates, for instance, and who's up this week and interviews with people who may or may not be representative of what others are thinking.  Basically it's random facts (this lady, from this town, who works in this organization, is this age, and she says this) used to create the reporter's opinion as though it had meaningful factual basis.  NPR doesn't report the news, it serves news stories, news nuggets, that make it easier for its listeners to consume.  Like fast food.  (I'm not saying that reporters shouldn't make the news accessible, but that the news, not the story telling, should be the top priority.

Trump successfully manipulates the media with his Tweets to bring attention to himself and distract from what's really important.  Our collective outrage over his thinking the Chiefs are from Kansas is totally wasted energy.  A reporter might say that it's important to show you this isn't just a single incident, but that it's a pattern, and that that matters. But Trump has done this so often that no one can any longer claim that the collective weight of his nonsense matters.  All the time we spend watching, reading, surfing the news, should actually be spent learning about how things work. How banks, treaties, arms sales, military spending, and dead  soldiers and civilians all fit together.    Only when you know how it works, can you focus on how to dismantle or repair things.

So I'd like to call attention to an article that dives a little deeper than most into how the sanctions on Iran work (or don't work.)  Esfandyar Batmanghelidj at Bloomberg News looks at the details of US sanctions on Iran, specifically a section on humanitarian aid.  Here's a brief excerpt from the article:

"But hidden in the mechanics of SHTA’s [Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement] initial 2.3 million-euro transaction is an unprecedented provision that could help address growing concerns that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign will be impossible to lift even in the aftermath of new negotiations with Iran.
The relevant provision is hidden in the jargon of a statement issued last October describing Treasury’s framework for SHTA: 'Provided that foreign financial institutions commit to implement stringent, enhanced due-diligence steps, the framework will enable them to seek written confirmation from Treasury that the proposed financial channel will not be exposed to U.S. sanctions.'”

And there are plenty of others who do this sort of in depth and breadth understanding building reporting.  Chris Hedges is one who ties lots of loose ends together. Much of his writing is too scary for most people.  Citizens Climate Lobby does a good job of explaining Climate Change.  Dahr Jamail is another.  Hasan Minhaj is another who tells the news in the Daily Show fashion.  Here's a whole gallery of people who try to offer more serious news.  Though in many cases, it doesn't come in convenient, tempting fast news wrapping.  This may mean reading books and other radical activities.

 We need more of this kind of reporting and a lot less of the junk news.  Media offer the news that sells.  There are huge corporate pressures for profits in the food industry and in the media.  But just as health food advocates have changed what corporations serve, so can healthy news advocates can do the same with the media industry.  There will always be consumers of click bait, we just need to keep increasing the proportion of people who make most of their news consumption serious news.

Twitter Vented On Lisa Murkowski Today

After deciding not to vote for witnesses and additional documentation, Lisa Murkowski tweeted
yesterday:

Everyone should be treated equally under the law. I’ve been working hard with @SenatorCardin to make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) part of the Constitution.
➡ https://t.co/vMcv0BYtz2 pic.twitter.com/G8cxIn7jem

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 1, 2020

The Twitter responses were not friendly.  Here are a few of the one thousand plus responses:

• Shame on you forever.
• So glad to hear this. Looking forward to all the witnesses who don’t have to skip work to testify at trials.
• You don't believe tRUMP should be held accountable. He hasn't been treated equally under the law. You say he is above the law & can commit any crime & any treasonous thing he wants to. You support this dictator & GOP cheating for the 2020 election with help from other countries.
• and NO ONE should be above the law. you didn't allow witnesses and disparaged your oath to do fair & impartial justice. this stain on your legacy is everlasting
• Say What? Constitution, what is that. Law, what law? We are now a lawless Country thanks to the GOP. Shame, shame.
• You're now irrelevant! Go away.
• You've lost every ounce of credibility you ever had by voting no to witnesses. #Cowards
• You forgot to add that this excludes @potus. #impotus gets special treatment and is truly above the law even when our Senators were charged with protecting our country. Your words are meaningless now, Senator.
• Oh honey, from this point forward you own trump and his behavior and corruption. That’s your legacy.
• Oh, WOW!! How can you write that first sentence with a straight damned face.
• #MoscowMitch comes out against it. Then you’ll be “concerned” and “troubled” by his statements, then either vote how he tells you, or pretend to be independent by voting against him when the vote doesn’t matter.
• You betrayed our country
• The Constitution? Really? You always had my support until yesterday. #GOPComplicitTraitors #GOPCorruptionOverCountry
• 75% of us wanted witnesses and documents. What happened to representing the people? You're no better than trump.

First, as negative tweets, these are pretty mild. They are all fact based (Murkowski's vote against witnesses and more documents) and they tend to reflect the opinion/feelings of the writer based on that action. She's not called names or disparaged because of physical characteristics.

Second, I'm guessing most of the comments were not from Alaskans. I'm guessing most of these people don't really know much about Murkowski. Basically, most know that she was considering voting for witnesses, and then changed her mind.

Third, my response to this was that at least people should acknowledge if she gets this changed (is this what she got in exchange for voting no on witnesses?) it would be a good thing, but then raise there anger at her witness vote. (If this was her bargain, she has more faith in her party keeping its promise than I have.)

Fourth,I learned long ago that after a powerful emotional event, it's best to just lie low a bit while people vent their anger. People aren't ready for rational discussion when they are really mad. Just showing her face on Twitter was likely to unleash a flood of anger.

Fifth, people are shouting about how excluding witnesses proves it's a sham trial. But it was obviously a sham trial from the beginning when the head of the jury said he was consulting with the defendant on how to plan the case.

Sixth, allowing witnesses and documents definitely would have prolonged the trial. There's a possibility it would have revealed more blockbuster revelations than we already know about. But enough to win over 16 more Republicans to convict? I doubt it. Even if Senators don't have some hidden shame, they know that Trump can simply make crap up about them and it will blemish them for a long time. And that he would.

Seventh, but I do hope that liberals are really careful about what they see and hear. There are plenty of folks out there focusing on the competition aspects of the Democratic race, rather than on the substance. It's much easier to understand and conflict gets clicks. I'll just say, that if it's about one Democrat being nasty about another one, take it with a grain of salt. Assume it's a troll trying to divide progressives until you get evidence it's not.

Eighth, the same people who said Trump couldn't win four years ago, are giving their opinions about electability now. It's opinion based on selective or just limited data. What polls say now is pretty meaningless. Electability is less about policy and more about charisma. Reagan - a charismatic, well spoken conservative - was followed by Clinton, a charismatic, well spoken moderate. If you have both - ability to speak to the issues and to the voters - you can win. Besides, winning is going to be about getting voters to the polls, countering false reports, making sure voting machines are fixed or hacked. And these responses to Lisa Murkowski's Tweet show that people are fighting mad. If they all can be recruited to each get ten people who have never voted to vote, Trump doesn't have a chance.

Finally, for those of you who have never seen Twitter, you can go and look at it without paying and without becoming a member. Just go to Twitter.com and poke around a bit. I'm going to do several posts on Twitter in the next weeks. At the very least you should know what it looks and feels like. In the search box you can put in topics or names you'd like to see.