Pressurizing?

It's been a while since I called out any of the news readers and commentators on NPR on matters of language or use of a questionable word form   So here's my seasonal contribution.
Driving home today I had the BBC's OS program (Outside Sources, for the uninitiated). They were reporting on today's press announcement that the Democratic House intends to write and approve two articles of Impeachment. In describing the first article involving Trump's effort to get Ukraine's president to damage Biden's campaign with charges of corruption in Ukraine. In explaining this the BBC reporter said that Trump will be charged with "PRESSURIZING" the government of Ukraine to announce such an investigation.  Why would the Brits believe that word was interchangeable with "PRESSURING". I had always assumed PRESSURIZING more accurately applied to situations where pressure such as air or gas was injected into a finite space to be eventually used and/or released at a later time. A tire is pressurized  A driver might be pressured to apply pressurized brakes to slow a vehicle.  But how could Trump pressurize Zelenski to take a desired action?

Inadequately researched, distracting TV commercials

I'm nor sure why the culprits are always the writers and directors of commercials for pharmaceuticals. Probably a coincidence. Months ago a commercial for Myrbetric pulled this faux pas.This time it's Jardiance. The main character in their vignette is a female band director who looks like she's trying to fly rather than direct. She uses even, symmetrical arm flapping movements to "lead" her band. I have no idea if the medicine is causative or not. But I do know that virtually every instrumental musician has to wince every time the commercial is aired. No conductor or director would want to be portrayed this way. 

ITALIAN TOILETS

Thoughts and observations concerning public bathrooms in Italy:

(We were told some towns and tourist sites in Europe would charge for access to a public bathroom. In some cases it would be advisable to use the facilities of cafes and restaurants where we ate. These observations include both “pay toilets” and free ones in cafes.) My observations are offered for those like my wife and I who travel infrequently.

1. Our tour bus had an onboard john, but it was never made available to us. Guess none of our bus excursions were deemed long enough to meet any real needs. And later the facilities onboard the excursion boat were inoperable or closed.
2. Our first opportunity was a “pay” facility in Cinque Terre. Sitting at a card table outside the entryway was a lady collecting one Euro (about $1.30) per person. Facilities were not terrible, but forgettable.
3. The convenience store in Pisa which was our meetup point allowed use of facilities with proof of purchase from the store. A guard sat at the entryway punching store receipts to prevent unqualified use.
4. The only other “pay” facility I accessed was in Venice on St Mark’s square. It had two coin operated gates (1.5 Euros) and a live person to facilitate use of the automated equipment and/or prevent bypassing. Like many of the restaurant baths this one was up one flight of stairs.
5. Several of the restaurant baths were laid out strangely, at least unusual by American standards. They had a group sink/mirrors/towel (or air dryer) area serving both males and females. The private toilet stalls were marked for either Male or Female and had the expected door lock.
6. Some of the washup sinks had hot and cold faucets controlled by foot pedals rather than handles.
7. I don’t know about the ladies’ facilities, but several of the toilets in the men’s stalls possessed no toilet seat as we know and expect it. There was just the porcelain toilet bowl.
8. Bathrooms in hotels typically contained two odd features.
   * In addition to a standard toilet there is a free standing bidet.
   * Limited shower curtains. One end of shower stall often left open, uncovered.

"Some people say"

If President Trump were really as honestly pleased as he claims with the compliments "some people" pay him for things like the DDay speech that was written for him to deliver he would identify, name those "some people" plus the speech writer. Just sayin'.

Trump tax returns

Random thoughts on Donald Trump. The Congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media:

Who prior to 2017 could have imagined a scenario in which any politician, much less the President of the United States, would feel compelled or emboldened to declare on national that he was a “stable genius”?

Since some time in 2015 or 2016 Donald Trump has claimed that he couldn’t or wouldn’t release his federal income tax returns apparently for any year because he was in an ongoing status of being “under audit”. Never mind that there is apparently no law, no legal justification for this claim. Nowhere does anything assert that being under audit represents a valid justification for wrapping his data in a cloke of secrecy. A few tepid justifications have been offered by him and his lawyers and supporters claiming that the great unwashed public would simply not be equipped to understand his returns without jumping to erroneous conclusions. The questions raised by this situation are many. Is EVERY year involved in an unresolved audit? Has IRS not been able to wrap up any of the specific audits? If some specific years have had their audits concluded and closed out, why can’t the returns for those years and the audit findings be revealed? How does the fact that each year an audit is opened relate to prior years? Why doesn’t the media press the president on the public’s right to know what public officials’ finances looks like? How is concealing this in the best interests of the nation?

And this week Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has bought into the administration’s claim that Congress cannot compel release of this information absent a clear “legislative purpose” to Congress’s demand. I do predict this defense will eventually crumble before the third equal branch of the federal government, the Judiciary. But this three years+ of “running out the clock” is at a minimum frustrating. And the claim by Trump and his supporters that the entire question was rendered moot by the 2016 elections is insulting and one that the media and the Congressional Democrats should not let stand unchallenged.

Television Coverage of News Events

Recently on a Sunday morning a friend of a friend woke up, turned on the TV intending to get his daily fix of the “Kavanaugh saga”. But this friend was particular. He wanted to watch it through the lens of those who produce “Meet the Press” on NBC. Sadly he discovered that the morning's NBC shows had all been preempted by the Ryder Cup Finals. So he lamented to my friend or on social media his distress over being denied this week's “Meet the Depressed”.

I know how he felt. Three days earlier I had been denied my regular dose of “Price is Right” because CBS decided to preempt their entire day's programming with the Senate Judiciary Hearing concerning Justice Kavanaugh's suitability for confirmation. I had already decided to wait on the news bunnies' recap of the riviting testimony. So I tried to substitute “Price is Right” with a local news segment on ABC or FOX or even something on public television. No such luck. Every local channel, plus public TV, plus all the cable news channels, including BBC and C-Span had all decided that only they separately and individually could produce the true, “fair and unbalanced” peek into the Senate chambers I needed. So the same hearings were broadcast simultaneously on at least 5 local and 7 national cable channels.

Was this collusion to ensure that if I watched TV Thursday daytime that I would for sure watch Senators Grassley, et al at their “finest”? Did CBS not trust its “Price is Right” viewers to record the Senate proceedings on another channel and dutifully watch it after “Price” ended? I obviously don't understand the thought processes at work here. I understood all three channels covering the Kennedy funeral in 1963. I understood however many (7 or 8?) channels covering the events of 9/11/2001. But from my humble point of view things have gotten out of hand. We shouldn't have to settle for Home Shopping Network in order to find a TV show we want to watch that differs from the topic du jour.

But I triumphed. I clicked around until I landed on the Golf Channel's presentation of the opening round of the Ryder Cup competition.

It did make me chuckle on Sunday, however, to ponder how all the news junkies would have felt if the Ryder Cup Finals had been broadcast on ten or twelve channels simultaneously and deprived them of reactions from the White House.

Justice Kavanaugh

As had been broadly anticipated, President Trump last night nominated Appeals Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat on the Supreme Court of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. This nomination has been immediately opposed by most Democrats in the Senate and across the party while being lauded by most Senate Republicans who would speak out.  The primary arguments offered  initially revolve around what Kavanaugh  will do on reproductive rights/Choice issues and, perhaps, his approach to presidential powers and rights.
My initial thoughts were (and may still be) based on the belief that should whoever Trump pick be rejected by  the Senate that his subsequent selections would undoubtedly be worse or at least no better on substantive issues.  And with that thought I was prepared to watch the confirmation process roll out and shrug when Vice President Pence broke the tie and put Kavanaugh over the top.
I am still not convinced that the status quo position of Roe v Wade will automatically be dissolved by  Kavanaugh's win. I actually have more faith in Chief Justice Roberts that he might fill that "swing vote" role on this issue if push came to shove.
However, as of Tuesday evening, July 10, I now think I support the "never Kavanaugh" movement. There is just too much to this "Forrest Gump" of Republican jurisprudence for him to get the benefit of the doubt after he dances around and coyly avoids admitting his undemocratic (little "d") positions during Senate hearings. Kavanaugh is, indeed, dangerous. He would shield Trump from scrutiny into questionable activities with Russians and a wide range of "get richer quicker" schemes of the Trump administration and Trump companies.
Kavanaugh's positions on presidential immunity seems to have flipped from early in his career when he was a Starr investigation attack dog to recent months when he wishes to shield the president who is appointing him to the SCOTUS job.
So, maybe I'll mellow as the summer drags on. But today I'm thinking -

Sept, 2018 -  The unforeseen curve in the path to the vote on Kavanaugh has been the "sexual assault" allegations. The big committee hearing will occur in two days, but as currently planned it won't prove anything as the committee leaders have rigged it to limit all discovery to "He said, she said" and no other damning evidence allowed.  The bottom line is that it's unclear if Kavanaugh will receive 50 or 51 votes in the full Senate.

    But if he can't, Trump will only nominate an even more conservative choice. However, the delay could put off a vote until after the midterm elections. And the Democrats very well might repay the Republicans for the unconstitutional treatment of Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. In which case we'd limp along with an 8-person SCOTUS for two years. No big deal.