Opinion

Boeing recently fired CEO Dennis Muilenburg in order “to restore confidence in the Company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders.”

Roberts’ thoughtful rhetoric often bolsters his centrist reputation, but in assessing how he manages President Trump’s Senate trial, it will be important to keep in mind that despite appearances, Roberts is a reliable Republican flack who, without failure, pursues partisan advantage. Even if Roberts presides over the trial in an even-handed manner, his consistent record of advancing partisan interests at the expense of democracy should inform evaluations of his performance.

Eddie Gallagher is a soulless monster so violently sociopathic that he reduced his former colleagues — Navy SEALs who aren't known for being the most tender-hearted of people — to tears. In video interviews of witness testimony obtained by the New York Times, some of these hardened warriors, so shaken by the things Gallagher had done, choked up, called the Navy petty officer "freaking evil" and claimed he particularly delighted in trying to murder women and children.

A new year, a new decade: Is the clear societal message that we need to arm ourselves against hate crimes because as a society, we can’t stop hate or hating lunatics?

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi I, together with Constitutional Law scholars Louis Fisher and Bruce Fein, proposed that the Senate allow Chief Justice John Roberts to prescribe impeachment trial procedures—subject to veto by a Senate majority. In doing so, the Senate would avoid some degree of political infighting and blatant partisan bias. While this approach is not perfect, it would create a more impartial and legitimate impeachment process.

Over the past year I have been a strong and consistent critic of Nancy Pelosi’s very cautious approach to the impeachment of Donald Trump. I continue to believe that it was foolish for House Democrats to focus so narrowly on the Ukraine matter, and equally foolish to rush forward to impeachment on the basis of that alone. More could have, and should have, been done to strengthen the case against the President. It might also have helped to build a strong political case looking toward the 2020 elections.

The former and currently most missed president in American history, Barack Obama recently shared his picks for his favorite books of 2019 on social media.

Ding dong, the witch is dead. Or rather the House has impeached Donald Trump over allegations that he withheld aid to Ukraine in order to pressure its new president into opening an investigation into one of his potential political opponents, and it is likely that the Senate will exonerate him, leaving it up to the unreliable American electorate to decide the monster’s fate, which is currently divided almost down the middle on support for removal.

One of the many difficult lessons the Holocaust has taught us is that Jews need not be influential or numerous in a country to give rise to anti-Semitism. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Jews comprised only 1% of Germany’s population on the eve of the Nazi rise to power in 1933 (505,000 of 67 million people). Yet this small group of German citizens were singled out as an ideal scapegoat for all of the country’s woes following WWI: its defeat in the war, the staggering inflation and high unemployment rates, and the humiliations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.

Over the past year I have been a strong and consistent critic of Nancy Pelosi’s very cautious approach to the impeachment of Donald Trump. I continue to believe that it was foolish for House Democrats to focus so narrowly on the Ukraine matter, and equally foolish to rush forward to impeachment on the basis of that alone. More could have, and should have, been done to strengthen the case against the President. It might also have helped to build a strong political case looking toward the 2020 elections.

During the 1960s, some members of the Baby Boomer Generation were fond of saying, “Never trust anyone over 30.” And now, ironically, Boomers — or at least some Boomers — have become targets of the dismissive expression, “OK, Boomer,” which is used primarily by Millennials and members of Generation Z. The expression certainly isn’t aimed at everyone over 60; Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is 78, and the 70-year-old Sen. Elizabeth Warren aren’t the typical targets of “OK, Boomer” — in fact, Sanders enjoys more support among Millennials and members of Gen-Z than he among people his own age. But it is typically used out of frustration when a far-right Boomer says something that is clueless, reactionary and painfully out-of-touch; for example, a Millennial or Gen-Z member might offer a mountain of evidence on medical bankruptcies to show how broken the United States’ health care system is — and when the Boomer, indoctrinated by Fox News and AM talk radio, still insists that the U.S. has the best health insurance system in the world, the Millennial or Gen-Z member might respond, “OK, Boomer.”

I spent some time away from social media over the holidays, and came back with a couple of observations. Or maybe just one. First of all, everybody should do that — perhaps permanently — because social media in general is kind of nuts. But political Twitter, in particular, is insane. Second of all, and I know this comes under the heading of “no sh*t, Sherlock,” Democrats on Twitter are tormenting themselves (and each other) by endlessly rehashing the 2016 election. They have simply got to get over it.

If you invest in an internet-connected security camera system, one might expect that the  makers would take security extremely seriously. After all, what consumer would invest in such a system if they were worried about hackers spying on them in their home?