Well the NHC is forecasting it to broadside Florida as a Major (Category 3+) Monday afternoon.
I hope the people I know in Florida don't get hit too badly but Puerto Rico has been through more than enough in the last 5 years. They didn't need another instance of being knocked back to the mat.
The criminal case(s) against Jeffrey Epstein have officially been dropped--you cannot prosecute a dead person. The civil cases are going to drag out for years.
I am glad that Dorian decided to blow by Puerto Rico.
Well the NHC is forecasting it to broadside Florida as a Major (Category 3+) Monday afternoon.
Florida went for Trump in 2016 and he needs it for 2020. So unlike Puerto Rico, they're going to have federal aid coming out the wazoo. I assume Trump is cheering the storm on.
Meanwhile we've got idiots saying that there's less hurricanes because they're not hitting the U.S. I don't want to say it's UNFORTUNATE that they aren't hitting America, but it does irk that sometimes people need to have reality slapped into them. The "I don't care unless it personally affects me" crowd.
A partial copy-paste of my reply to the idiocy:
2005 was, by FAR, the busiest IN HISTORY, and second most destructive hurricane record, with costs exceeded only by 2017.
2010, 2011, 2012 are all in a 5-way tie for the third highest number of named storms.
2010 had 12 hurricanes, tied for second place. This is also, again for some reason, the only season in history to have 10 or more hurricanes where none made landfall in the United States.
2017, in a 2-way tie for 5th highest number of storms in history, had the most major (Cat 3+) hurricanes since 2005. It was 6. And it was 7 majors in 2005, and also 6 in 2004. 2017 is the costliest on record.
Our planet IS turning into a desert (ALL major desert regions are expanding), our oceans are DEFINITELY DYING, but only partly because of global warming, food sources are becoming unreliable because of unreliable growing conditions
The idiot was REAL SPECIFIC about his dates, between 2005 and 2016.
And the best argument mounted against that is "I don't believe you" (Sorry, it's "FAKE NEWS" in the Trump era), followed by "It's a conspiracy to tax us to death".
If a Democrat ever released sensitive national security photographs on social media they would (and this is no hyperbole) be run out of Washington on a rail, and then tarred and feathered wherever at whatever location the rail was destined to take them. Trump does it and it's page A24 of the newspaper. I can't decide what's a bigger joke, that Republicans care about the deficit, or that they are the only ones who can be trusted with "national defense".
Forget the "if a democrat did it". Trump did it. He can't be trusted with national security.
Yesterday he leaked classified pictures on twitter.
But
Also remember a couple years ago he leaked highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting. I believe this intel was later revealed to be from Israel.
"The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
I have long noticed that so many defenses of far-right figures involve accusing nameless liberals of somehow oppressing far-right figures by criticizing them too strongly. When an idea is so extreme or groundless that it's impossible to defend, the only way you can protect it from criticism is to simply claim that its opponents aren't nice enough. Instead of actually supporting your ideas, you criticize your opponent for using their freedom of speech to say you're wrong.
If your ideas are truly worth believing in, you can defend them directly.
There has been IMMENSE pushback among conservative media personalities of the NYT recent project 1619, which seeks to contextualize the history of slavery in a way that, frankly, our schools and general national zeitgeist have done a piss-poor job of (to the say the least). It's been universally derided among right-wing media as liberal propaganda. Simply ACCURATELY DESCRIBING slavery and it's lasting effects and believing it's worthy of discussion is now seen as objectionable. I'm not even remotely shocked by this development. Shattering the myth of what really took place is nothing less than Toto pulling back the curtain on the Wizard.
The other talking point I see becoming more and more prevalent is that the Civil War was the official apology for slavery. It was many things (one thing above all others) but an apology isn't anywhere near being on the list. This is the kind of bullshit that is being fed daily on Youtube.
I have long noticed that so many defenses of far-right figures involve accusing nameless liberals of somehow oppressing far-right figures by criticizing them too strongly. When an idea is so extreme or groundless that it's impossible to defend, the only way you can protect it from criticism is to simply claim that its opponents aren't nice enough. Instead of actually supporting your ideas, you criticize your opponent for using their freedom of speech to say you're wrong.
If your ideas are truly worth believing in, you can defend them directly.
You mean things like this? "Both sides need to be heard!"
I have long noticed that so many defenses of far-right figures involve accusing nameless liberals of somehow oppressing far-right figures by criticizing them too strongly. When an idea is so extreme or groundless that it's impossible to defend, the only way you can protect it from criticism is to simply claim that its opponents aren't nice enough. Instead of actually supporting your ideas, you criticize your opponent for using their freedom of speech to say you're wrong.
If your ideas are truly worth believing in, you can defend them directly.
Yeah, for as long as I've discussed politics I've noticed that criticism of right wing talking points often get a goalpost shift to "Shut up, it's freedom of speech." As if criticism violates their right to have an opinion.
The only government action to curtail free speech on a national level is the move to push for companies that are in support of the BDS movement to be ineligible for federal contracts. That's right. If you are not supportive enough of ANOTHER country, you will be punished for it. The only people who seem to be fighting this are a handful of the most liberal members of the House, two of which the President has bascially branded as traitors for insufficient support of Israel. The usual free speech crowd predictably has nothing to say about the issue, other than likely supporting it. But hey, we defended South Africa for most of the '80s. Those who advocated for that boycott were treated the same way.
"The poll was conducted in the Spring of 2019–well past the point when “alt-right” became synonymous with “white supremacist” in the corporate media, so it is surprising to see the figure even crack two percent."
Federal Election Commission is now out of commission thanks to Moscow Mitch not letting anyone on it since 2015.
It now lacks the ability to meaningfully function in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
A quorum of four is required for the FEC to act. A commissioner is resigning so the FEC is down to three commissioners, which means it’s effectively out of business.
President Trump has shown no interest in changing that dynamic. By refusing to put more watchdogs on the campaign finance beat, the presidency has managed to shred the laws themselves.
If we are going to salvage a legitimate democracy for America, November 2020 is becoming increasingly urgent by the day. For now, one thing’s for sure: The FEC won’t be saving the day.
I'm not surprised that someone pointed this story out and I agree that the willingness to put classified material onto Twitter is notable. I think though there's a more significant aspect to the story.
Israel also has a long-standing sabotage program, though this has been taken to greater extremes and has included assassinations of a number of Iranian scientists. It is believed that Obama pressurized Israel to end their assassination campaign, though it's not clear to me if their wider sabotage campaign was ever halted.
Given this context Trump's tweet on the matter seems to me a clear case of trolling. The tweet says the US was not involved, but that may not of course be the truth. In this case though I suspect it may well be true the US was not directly involved - but if that is so, it's virtually certain Israel was.
I don't want to go back over old ground about how crazy it is to be purportedly seeking a deal with Iran to end any activity related to ballistic missiles, after having scrapped a previous deal with them. However, while I can appreciate why the US might want to sabotage this type of activity, I can't see anything good coming out of taunting the Iranians about what's been done in this way. Whether it's a deliberate attempt to promote conflict or just idiocy I don't know though ...
University lowers entry score for female applicants in male-dominated courses
"University of Technology Sydney makes 10-point adjustment in hope to address gender imbalance in engineering, computing and construction
A 2017 Engineers Australia report found part of the problem was low levels of female high school students were studying the prerequisite subjects. Less than 6% of girls nationally studied physics in year 12, with advanced maths at 6.2%."
"I never even knew a Category 5 existed...People have never seen anything like that."
-- Trump, 2017
"Never heard about Category 5's before, a Category 5 is big stuff...A category 5 is something that, uh -- I don't know that I've even heard the term, other than I know it's there. That's the ultimate, and that's what we have, unfortunately."
-- Trump on Hurricane Dorian, apparently not remembering Irma, Maria, and Michael, which also occurred during his presidency
I don't know if there's anything more we need to add to this.
Again, at the risk of sounding ageist, both he and Biden are showing clear signs of cognitive decline. That alone is a reason not to vote for them.
While Bernie is in the same age range he's still sharp as a whip and not misremembering his history like Biden or slurring his words and lying constantly like Trump.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS to my American friends. You can't even wish people a happy Labor Day these days because you might trigger Conservatives who don't support the workers.
The Brexit process continues to draw inspiration from Machiavelli. Parliament is back in session today after the summer recess, so the next installment will see those opposed to no deal begin the effort to pass a new law requiring Johnson to either agree a deal or postpone Brexit once more. Given that there may be only 4 days before Parliament is prorogued that process would need to do something like the following to be successful:
Tuesday - MPs take control of the Parliamentary schedule.
Wednesday - the Commons votes to pass the proposed new law.
Thursday - the Lords votes to pass the proposed new law.
Friday - Parliament is not due to sit, but MPs could agree that it should to provide a bit more time if votes have not concluded yet.
Monday - Queen gives Royal Assent to give effect to the law just before Parliament is prorogued.
The limited time available means that it would not be particularly difficult to run the clock down by filibustering and prevent the law being passed. However, I don't think that's going to happen. There are a lot of different options in play, but I think Johnson's prime intention at the moment is to seek a general election before 31 October. He doesn't have the power to call an election directly and politically it would be much better for him to be seen as pushed into an election anyway - so he has a clear interest in being defeated today.
My guess is that today will see MPs vote to take control of the schedule as the first step. Johnson will interpret that as a vote of confidence against the government and say that he wants an election to get a fresh mandate from the people - setting the election up as the people vs Parliament. He requires a 2/3 majority of MPs to agree an election, which means he needs the support of lots of Labour MPs. With Labour currently low in the polls it's not at all obvious that an election would be in their best interests, but Corbyn has been calling for an election for many months now - so it would be difficult for him to turn down the chance of one. I think it is therefore likely the 2/3 majority will be reached (if not there is an alternative route for Johnson to call for a vote of no confidence in himself - that only needs a bare majority to trigger a process that can lead to an election).
A number of people have expressed concerns about Johnson pulling a fast one over the date of an election. He could use the above process to agree an election would be held - say on 14 October. Once Parliament has been dissolved he could then change the date of the election until after Brexit on 31 October (and with Parliament no longer sitting, they could not stop that). However, as I posted before, I don't think Johnson really has much interest in Brexit per se - but just wants to use it as a way to gain power. His prospects of electoral success seem better if he can argue that voting for him will deliver a future Brexit, than asking people to be grateful he has already delivered Brexit - so I don't think he would have any interest in pulling this particular type of fast one.
There is one other major issue in play today. Johnson has said that any Conservatives that vote against the government today will be expelled from the party - meaning they would not be able to stand as Conservative candidates in an election. Given that it was rebellions by a large proportion of the current government that prevented Brexit in the form of Theresa May's deal from going through previously, it might be seen as a bit rich to take such extreme action against rebels now. However, I suspect Johnson is hoping that doing so will give him the chance to lead a much more united party if the Conservatives are successful in the election. There has been a split over Europe in the Conservative party from at least the 1970s, which has made life very difficult for many of their leaders. If Johnson can expel the ringleaders of the more pro-Europe faction, he might hope to reduce or avoid the problems associated with differences of views over future relations with the EU (which will continue to be a huge issue in politics for years to come whether or not Brexit takes place on 31 October) and increase his chances of hanging on to power for years to come.
Isn't that going to effectively decrease the size of his party, making him more vulnerable to needing to grant concessions for other parties to get things done?
Isn't that going to effectively decrease the size of his party, making him more vulnerable to needing to grant concessions for other parties to get things done?
That would be relevant if he intended to try and continue with the current government. However, that was never realistic with a majority of only 1 (including the support of the DUP) and with significant opposition from within his own party. The point has just been underlined today with the defection of a Conservative MP to the Lib Dems - meaning Johnson now officially has a minority government. As someone who craves power, I don't think he has any interest in trying to cobble together policies with the support of opposition parties.
Irrespective of the outcome of Brexit at 31 October, pretty much the same issues are going to continue to be debated for some time to come. To have any chance of both addressing those and taking forward a coherent domestic agenda, Johnson needs to get a proper working majority. The maneuvering at the moment is just positioning to try and get an election on terms that gives him the best chance of getting that majority. If he can rid himself of some of his major opponents within the party through that election, that's just icing on the cake for him.
Edit: just as a clarification I'll make the point that while I think Johnson is far more interested in moving to an early election rather than trying to get a no deal Brexit, that's not the case for many of his key supporters. Johnson is thus having to tread a fine line at the moment - he needs to be seen to be trying to win tonight's vote to keep his supporters happy, even though my view is he would prefer to lose the vote. It still looks to me like he will lose and have to restrain a smile while he talks about how terrible and undemocratic the opposition MPs are and how they are forcing him to propose an election ...
Republicans have been staging a slow motion coup for decades. Definitely speeding up since Obama was elected, though.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
@smeagolheart Labor Day really isn't that important here. Most people do enjoy a three-day weekend but it really isn't a thing like it was in decades past. Most holidays in the United States are "fake" holidays, anyway, and were originally greeting card company fabrications (probably not entirely true...but not entirely false, either) or by breweries (looking at you, Cinco de Mayo, which is not a major holiday in Mexico). These days, though, every day is "National (insert something here) Day" like "dog", "donut", "pancake", etc. That crap drives me up the wall--for example, the 5th is not "National Cheese Pizza Day" (not making that up), it is just Thursday.
Looks like Parliament passed a vote to take control of the Brexit process again. 21 conservative MPs voted with the opposition to make it happen. Boris Johnson has made it clear he intends to seek a new election, which will be debated tomorrow.
Something I found interesting is that the 21 conservative MPs that voted with the opposition have been effectively kicked out the Conservative party - which seems kind of extreme to me (At least, it would be extreme if that happened in the USA). @Grond0 - is this something that has precedent (The removing of members of the party if they vote against the PM's wishes) in the UK?
Expelling this many MPs is not something that any sane party would usually do, it's pretty much suicidal if for a government with a legislative programme. This government does not have any such legislation in the works however because it has been paralysed by the threat that any legislation could be amended to control the Brexit process. The clash of a minority executive with the legislature is yet another disturbing consequence of the referendum, because it provided source of political legitimacy beyond general elections.
The opposition parties have agreed that Johnson will not be allowed to call an election until no-deal legislation has been passed, which it is now likely to unless it gets filibustered somehow. If it is passed then Johnson will look weak and will have to to try to represent his government as one representing the people vs parliament... but he will also have to embrace no-deal to avoid being squeezed by Farage on the right, which loses votes in the centre.
Comments
I hope the people I know in Florida don't get hit too badly but Puerto Rico has been through more than enough in the last 5 years. They didn't need another instance of being knocked back to the mat.
Meanwhile we've got idiots saying that there's less hurricanes because they're not hitting the U.S. I don't want to say it's UNFORTUNATE that they aren't hitting America, but it does irk that sometimes people need to have reality slapped into them. The "I don't care unless it personally affects me" crowd.
A partial copy-paste of my reply to the idiocy:
The idiot was REAL SPECIFIC about his dates, between 2005 and 2016.
And the best argument mounted against that is "I don't believe you" (Sorry, it's "FAKE NEWS" in the Trump era), followed by "It's a conspiracy to tax us to death".
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweeted-classified-intelligence-briefing-photo-2019-8
I think it was already determined that the president can declassify whatever the hell he wants.
Yes but he did not declassify it, he leaked it. Declassification is an official process. He did not 'hereby' declassify anything.
He leaked it - leaking Donald Trump.
Yesterday he leaked classified pictures on twitter.
But
Also remember a couple years ago he leaked highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting. I believe this intel was later revealed to be from Israel.
"The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
The 'reasonable' rebels.
If your ideas are truly worth believing in, you can defend them directly.
The other talking point I see becoming more and more prevalent is that the Civil War was the official apology for slavery. It was many things (one thing above all others) but an apology isn't anywhere near being on the list. This is the kind of bullshit that is being fed daily on Youtube.
You mean things like this? "Both sides need to be heard!"
Yeah, for as long as I've discussed politics I've noticed that criticism of right wing talking points often get a goalpost shift to "Shut up, it's freedom of speech." As if criticism violates their right to have an opinion.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Also interesting how Richard Spencer straight up said that at least some of them only use freedom of speech as an exploit. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/richard-spencer-the-alt-right-is-not-pro-free-speech/
Democratic Socialist — 8.1% (20.6 million)
Libertarian — 7.0% (17.8 million)
Alt-Right — 2.2% (5.6 million)
Antifa — 1.2% (3.0 million)
source > https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-fringe/
That site sure is one nasty hodgepodge of antisemitism, racism, holocaust denial, climate change denial and other fun stuff.
It now lacks the ability to meaningfully function in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
A quorum of four is required for the FEC to act. A commissioner is resigning so the FEC is down to three commissioners, which means it’s effectively out of business.
President Trump has shown no interest in changing that dynamic. By refusing to put more watchdogs on the campaign finance beat, the presidency has managed to shred the laws themselves.
If we are going to salvage a legitimate democracy for America, November 2020 is becoming increasingly urgent by the day. For now, one thing’s for sure: The FEC won’t be saving the day.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/459557-federal-election-commission-is-now-out-of-commission-thats-downright-scary
I'm not surprised that someone pointed this story out and I agree that the willingness to put classified material onto Twitter is notable. I think though there's a more significant aspect to the story.
Before Obama's presidency, the US had an active program of sabotaging Iranian research projects they did not support - for pretty obvious reasons Obama cancelled that when he decided to follow a negotiated route with Iran. Trump is reported to have revived and extended the US sabotage program though.
Israel also has a long-standing sabotage program, though this has been taken to greater extremes and has included assassinations of a number of Iranian scientists. It is believed that Obama pressurized Israel to end their assassination campaign, though it's not clear to me if their wider sabotage campaign was ever halted.
Given this context Trump's tweet on the matter seems to me a clear case of trolling. The tweet says the US was not involved, but that may not of course be the truth. In this case though I suspect it may well be true the US was not directly involved - but if that is so, it's virtually certain Israel was.
I don't want to go back over old ground about how crazy it is to be purportedly seeking a deal with Iran to end any activity related to ballistic missiles, after having scrapped a previous deal with them. However, while I can appreciate why the US might want to sabotage this type of activity, I can't see anything good coming out of taunting the Iranians about what's been done in this way. Whether it's a deliberate attempt to promote conflict or just idiocy I don't know though ...
"University of Technology Sydney makes 10-point adjustment in hope to address gender imbalance in engineering, computing and construction
A 2017 Engineers Australia report found part of the problem was low levels of female high school students were studying the prerequisite subjects. Less than 6% of girls nationally studied physics in year 12, with advanced maths at 6.2%."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/29/university-makes-10-point-entry-score-adjustment-for-female-applicants
I don't know if there's anything more we need to add to this.
While Bernie is in the same age range he's still sharp as a whip and not misremembering his history like Biden or slurring his words and lying constantly like Trump.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS to my American friends. You can't even wish people a happy Labor Day these days because you might trigger Conservatives who don't support the workers.
Tuesday - MPs take control of the Parliamentary schedule.
Wednesday - the Commons votes to pass the proposed new law.
Thursday - the Lords votes to pass the proposed new law.
Friday - Parliament is not due to sit, but MPs could agree that it should to provide a bit more time if votes have not concluded yet.
Monday - Queen gives Royal Assent to give effect to the law just before Parliament is prorogued.
The limited time available means that it would not be particularly difficult to run the clock down by filibustering and prevent the law being passed. However, I don't think that's going to happen. There are a lot of different options in play, but I think Johnson's prime intention at the moment is to seek a general election before 31 October. He doesn't have the power to call an election directly and politically it would be much better for him to be seen as pushed into an election anyway - so he has a clear interest in being defeated today.
My guess is that today will see MPs vote to take control of the schedule as the first step. Johnson will interpret that as a vote of confidence against the government and say that he wants an election to get a fresh mandate from the people - setting the election up as the people vs Parliament. He requires a 2/3 majority of MPs to agree an election, which means he needs the support of lots of Labour MPs. With Labour currently low in the polls it's not at all obvious that an election would be in their best interests, but Corbyn has been calling for an election for many months now - so it would be difficult for him to turn down the chance of one. I think it is therefore likely the 2/3 majority will be reached (if not there is an alternative route for Johnson to call for a vote of no confidence in himself - that only needs a bare majority to trigger a process that can lead to an election).
A number of people have expressed concerns about Johnson pulling a fast one over the date of an election. He could use the above process to agree an election would be held - say on 14 October. Once Parliament has been dissolved he could then change the date of the election until after Brexit on 31 October (and with Parliament no longer sitting, they could not stop that). However, as I posted before, I don't think Johnson really has much interest in Brexit per se - but just wants to use it as a way to gain power. His prospects of electoral success seem better if he can argue that voting for him will deliver a future Brexit, than asking people to be grateful he has already delivered Brexit - so I don't think he would have any interest in pulling this particular type of fast one.
There is one other major issue in play today. Johnson has said that any Conservatives that vote against the government today will be expelled from the party - meaning they would not be able to stand as Conservative candidates in an election. Given that it was rebellions by a large proportion of the current government that prevented Brexit in the form of Theresa May's deal from going through previously, it might be seen as a bit rich to take such extreme action against rebels now. However, I suspect Johnson is hoping that doing so will give him the chance to lead a much more united party if the Conservatives are successful in the election. There has been a split over Europe in the Conservative party from at least the 1970s, which has made life very difficult for many of their leaders. If Johnson can expel the ringleaders of the more pro-Europe faction, he might hope to reduce or avoid the problems associated with differences of views over future relations with the EU (which will continue to be a huge issue in politics for years to come whether or not Brexit takes place on 31 October) and increase his chances of hanging on to power for years to come.
That would be relevant if he intended to try and continue with the current government. However, that was never realistic with a majority of only 1 (including the support of the DUP) and with significant opposition from within his own party. The point has just been underlined today with the defection of a Conservative MP to the Lib Dems - meaning Johnson now officially has a minority government. As someone who craves power, I don't think he has any interest in trying to cobble together policies with the support of opposition parties.
Irrespective of the outcome of Brexit at 31 October, pretty much the same issues are going to continue to be debated for some time to come. To have any chance of both addressing those and taking forward a coherent domestic agenda, Johnson needs to get a proper working majority. The maneuvering at the moment is just positioning to try and get an election on terms that gives him the best chance of getting that majority. If he can rid himself of some of his major opponents within the party through that election, that's just icing on the cake for him.
Edit: just as a clarification I'll make the point that while I think Johnson is far more interested in moving to an early election rather than trying to get a no deal Brexit, that's not the case for many of his key supporters. Johnson is thus having to tread a fine line at the moment - he needs to be seen to be trying to win tonight's vote to keep his supporters happy, even though my view is he would prefer to lose the vote. It still looks to me like he will lose and have to restrain a smile while he talks about how terrible and undemocratic the opposition MPs are and how they are forcing him to propose an election ...
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
@smeagolheart Labor Day really isn't that important here. Most people do enjoy a three-day weekend but it really isn't a thing like it was in decades past. Most holidays in the United States are "fake" holidays, anyway, and were originally greeting card company fabrications (probably not entirely true...but not entirely false, either) or by breweries (looking at you, Cinco de Mayo, which is not a major holiday in Mexico). These days, though, every day is "National (insert something here) Day" like "dog", "donut", "pancake", etc. That crap drives me up the wall--for example, the 5th is not "National Cheese Pizza Day" (not making that up), it is just Thursday.
Something I found interesting is that the 21 conservative MPs that voted with the opposition have been effectively kicked out the Conservative party - which seems kind of extreme to me (At least, it would be extreme if that happened in the USA). @Grond0 - is this something that has precedent (The removing of members of the party if they vote against the PM's wishes) in the UK?
The opposition parties have agreed that Johnson will not be allowed to call an election until no-deal legislation has been passed, which it is now likely to unless it gets filibustered somehow. If it is passed then Johnson will look weak and will have to to try to represent his government as one representing the people vs parliament... but he will also have to embrace no-deal to avoid being squeezed by Farage on the right, which loses votes in the centre.