Class struggles and what is often lost

(Random thots)

Growing up my Father and mother were working class (blue collar, if you will). During my various career(s) it was pointed out many times that I would have great difficulty getting to the top because of my background and choice of schools. I even had one immediate supervisor tell me I wouldn't get anywhere because I was Italian (I am 1/4 Ligurian).

I was watching TV presentation by the Impeachment Committee today when one of the fact witnesses, Dr. Fiona Hill gave her opening statement. During her statement she mentioned that she was born in Northeast England into a working class family. (Her Father was a coalminer.)

Another part of her opening statement was a bit more of her biography and while she excelled in her studies at St. Andrews (a distinguished Scottish university) she knew she would never achieve what her abilities would allow in the UK because of the English class system.

She chose to immigrate to the States because of this class barrier she didn't want to try to shatter. She made a very clear point that she was very glad to have chosen a country of immigrants over her birthplace. I am glad she did.

I am not easily impressed by individuals, but Dr. Hill is someone I wish I could have a four hour lunch with.

Welllllll, to my UK friends: you lost a jewel of a mind; a bright shiny with deep color jewel. The US gained a truly impressive individual.

Hi Miki,

Yes, there is a Southern bias here, no doubt. It is changing and there is a very old, not very nice cliché about Newcastle, (that would include Bishop Auckland), that would give you an idea of aforementioned bias. I heard it a few times in my youth and immediately decided I liked Geordies!

It went, "If you, (a Southerner), thought you were working class, go to Newcastle. You will realise that you are Middle Class."

Say no more. Best wishes to her and I don't blame her for embracing the American Dream.

Celia xx

Another sad happening -
The individuals below voluntarily came forward for the Impeachment hearings:

• Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch - born in Canada to parents who fled the Soviet and later the Nazis. She became a naturalized citizen when she turned 18. Yovanovitch is a 33 year veteran of the US Foreign Service
  
• Dr. Fiona Hill, born UK naturalized US citizen 2002. She left a senior post with the Brookings Institute to re-join the US government two years ago working on the National Security Council.
  
• Lt. Colonel Alex Vindman, born Ukraine immigrated to US at age 3 and was later naturalized. He has spent over twenty years in the US Army and is a wounded Afghanistan combat veteran now working on the National Security Council
  

All of these excellent US citizens are receiving deaths threats. All are being accused of espionage for Russia by our ultra-right wing media.

Marie Yovanovitch - was publicly embarrassed by Trump and fired from her post as Ambassador to the Ukraine after Rudy Giuliani spread unfounded rumors about her. She has been a constant source of intimating stories on the right-wing media.

Dr. Hill resigned her position with the National Security Council last month in anger over what Trump and his cronies were doing in Ukraine. Since she is no longer in a senior government position she will likely have to provide her own security.

Lt.Col Vindman lives with his family in the D.C. area but it reported the US Army has offered to put his wife and two children in Army base secure housing.

I would like to say that this type of intimidation is limited to the ultra-right wing nuts but there are just as many on the left willing to make someone's life miserable for simply saying something someone thinks 'not political correct'.

Hi Miki!

The thing is though, be careful. Ya can't throw impeachment round like a toy. It happened here with lots of new stuff, citizens paying for court hearings against government and the speaker choosing what bills he liked and which ones he did not, all regarding Brexit. It has actually f*****d up British democracy of the future, not entirely noticed yet over here, but in future anyone can take the government to court over any policy they try to pass, the precedent has been set since the court decided in some bizarre twist, to rule against the government and any speaker can block any amendment he chooses as to which he believes serves his own interests. And the previously 'neutral' role of  speaker can now designate parliamentary time as he so desires. Nothing ever occurred such before the last year.

What I am trying to say is, future Presidents could face such farce when evidence is not clear cut in future. Nixon deserved it, but if the tapes had been wiped or destroyed? Could Hillary, for example have been facing something if impeachment is going to be impeachment lite? Had she won? Careful, my American friends, vote him out, don't chuck impeachment around like a volleyball, it can hit you back in the face ya know!

Celia xx

YES! We should be very careful about using the constitutionally mandated use of impeachment to get rid of a POTUS.

There have only been two impeachment proceeding in the two plus centuries we have been a Nation. Johnson in 1868 was impeached for political reasons but was not convicted: by one vote. Nixon was not impeached, but would have been save his resignation and likely convicted. Clinton was impeached over a stupid non-admission of diddling an intern. He was not convicted.

Note: It was only after the evidence of Trump's wrong doing came to the light (the Whistleblower's report) did the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, allow the House to start an Impeachment Inquiry.

Trump, on the other hand is clearly a aggrandizing scoundrel who is using the office of POTUS for his own (including his family's) financial benefit. The ONLY reason he is not going to be convicted of the obvious crimes he has committed is that the GOP wants to use him to get VERY conservative justices on our Supreme Court and judges on the lower federal courts.

Unfortunately, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of the last four 'liberal' justices left on the SCOTUS, is 86 y/o and in ill health (she was hospitalized overnight last night). If she were to die or retired, then Trump will have put two conservative justices on the SCOTUS giving the conservatives a 6 - 3 Catholic pro-business majority. I can only imagine what this make-up of the court will do to social, economic, environmental, political progresses we will have made.

Since SCOTUS justices are appointed for life (actually, upon good behavior) it will be necessary for a Democratic majority in both house of the Congress and a Democratic POTUS to increase the number of SCOTUS justices to 13 or 15 to offset the votes of the current Catholic SCOTUS majority.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 36% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 44% who Strongly Disapprove.

The 36% will never vote against Trump and the 44% will never vote for Trump regardless of who the Dems run. So, what is up for grabs is the 20% of the voters who are waiting for someone good to show up on either side.

As I see, the risk the Dems run by going forward is the 20% doesn't get presented a very good case either when the Impeachment Articles go up for a vote or during the subsequent Senate trial. I think with the very anti-Trump testimony given last week to the House committee sinks in, the 20% may shrink.

Also, voter turnout is abysmally low in the US with a 50% turnout being considered high. The general election held last November showed a significant increase in voter turnout resulting in an increase of 40+ Dem House members giving the Dems a solid majority in the House. If the Dems can raise the turnout percentage by a couple of points this next November, Trump and likely the Senate will turn Democratic (Yay!),