Remind Me Again

 Is Elmo 52?

Or 15?

🦃

 This is a very big deal on FixNews, mostly from Chaffetz.

Chaffetz: We went to go buy a turkey today. It was $90! It’s all a choice by Joe Biden.

Twitter, as is its wont, pushed back:

“Turkey costs per pound fell to $1.25 in September 2023, down 43 cents from a year earlier, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” 

Unless the turkey he bought was 70 pounds, this turkey overpaid for his turkey.

Chaffetz obviously pushed back, too. But the turkey he chose to bolster his statement is one of the most expensive available. It’s almost $5.00 a pound and an almost 23 lb. bird, which is over half again the size of any turkey I’ve ever cooked. I’m not even sure a turkey that large would fit in my oven. It would so crowd my oven, and take so long to cook, I wouldn’t want to try.

But aside from the sheer stupidity of this, I learned this today:

Which somehow seems relevant, even though Diestel hasn’t cornered the market on turkeys this year. 

Academia v Reality

 I can’t do this topic justice in a blog post, but reading part of this interview with Peter Singer I’m struck by how utterly disconnected from reality he is.

Singer’s argument is that there’s no ethical difference between aborting a malformed fetus and ending the life of a malformed infant. His reasoning is that, if the parents can end the pregnancy due to defects (“birth defects” doesn’t really apply to the unborn, does it?), why not after? I’m carefully not designating how long after because Singer doesn’t give a deadline to his idea, just that parents who have this absolute right before birth retain it after birth.

Let me say a couple of things in relation to that. First, parents do have that option, right now, in every country that allows abortion when a prenatal diagnosis has shown that there’s a disability. I don’t draw a big distinction between abortion and infanticide. Those who think that it’s O.K. for women to have an abortion need to show why there’s such an important difference between the fetus before birth and the newborn infant after birth. Second, parents, right now, have the option of withdrawing life support for an infant with a serious disability. I think that both of these cases convey exactly the same attitude to disability that I’m defending. You can say that is ableist. But some have said that I’m simply representative of the ableist society as a whole, which supports both of these things. And I think that’s true.

Of course, withdrawing life support can only be done under specific conditions, conditions applicable to any person on life support, whether or not they suffer any other serious disability. (My brother elected to withdraw his own life support because he was paralyzed and couldn’t digest food, as a result of a spinal tumor. No one would categorize cancer as a “disability.”) Abortion, by Singer’s argument, requires no such conditions (whether that is strictly true, as he claims it to be, is yet another problem with his argument). 

We can accept Singer’s premise to this degree: it is pre-Dobbs, and that has changed the circumstances.

Anachronism aside, the premise of his argument is that birth does not introduce a substantive difference in the situation. But even pre-Dobbs infants were treated differently than fetuses.

The distinction is birth. Singer wants to overlook that demarcation, but we never have before. Arguments about the fetus being a person are for individuals, not societies and governments. I’ll return to that, but let’s look at Singer’s argument first.

Immediately after birth, an infant can be cared for by others. Even premature infants, past a certain gestational age, can be kept alive, and eventually thrive. But prior to that age? Nothing can keep them alive but the mother’s womb. Please note that even premature birth is birth; that’s the legitimate dividing line here. A line Singer completely ignores.

After birth, the parents have an obligation to care for the child: to nurture it, protect it, feed it, educate it. If the parents fail in that duty, the state will find others to fulfill it. Granted, that’s seldom ideal, but we the people, the society, will take that responsibility. We don’t kill the child just because it is an inconvenience to the parents (I speak specifically in Singer’s terms, as I understand them). Or for any reason at all. As I said before, even removing life support requires conditions society (through government) condones. Inconvenience is not one of those reasons.

It’s worth noting that Singer’s argument is not recently made, which makes it a likely (if lost in translation) source for the idea of “post-birth abortion.” It really doesn’t sound any stupider when Sen. Tuberville says it. But if you ignore the line between fetus and infant, stupid is what you sound like.

I remember reading, decades ago now, an essay arguing for the legitimacy of abortion. This was in the wake of Roe, then a sea change in American culture. The argument was presented as a thought problem, not unlike the (entirely spurious, IMHO), “trolley problem,” though I think this one more valid. 

So the problem runs this way: imagine someone is dying, and the only cure is for you to cross the room and touch their forehead. That’s it. And the question is, does that create an obligation on you?

It’s an analogy, which already raises it above the trolley problem. But the fundamental issue is: what obligation do you have to cross the room? Can we force you to? Can the government act to make you do it? (And here consider that common law cannot make you fulfill an employment contract (or any contract, for that matter; but employment is the most analogous here). It cannot, in others words, make you cross that room even if you entered into an agreement to do so). So I’ll ask again: can we enforce your obligation?

Maybe morally, ethically, you should cross that room, because we should all help each other. But can we force you to? And how much less a burden is this than pregnancy?

Terminating a pregnancy is a medical decision, not unlike terminating life support. But life support involves the society. Many people are needed to keep one in such circumstances alive. But the mother alone nurtures the fetus for 9 months. And can we, society, through laws, force her to do that? Why?

That’s the difference between abortion and infanticide. It’s really a very simple one.

Doing The Same Thing Over And Over Again

 Does this sound familiar?

"A Rigged Trial going on against me by a corrupt N.Y. State Attorney General and an out of control Judge," wrote Trump. "They brought Values down to a FRACTION of what they are really worth, like Mar-a-Lago, and then called me a Fraud. They are the FRAUDSTERS, and the whole system is CORRUPT. I didn’t even include one of my most valuable assets, BRAND VALUE, in my Financial Statements."

And this?

"Also, this Psycho Judge refuses to acknowledge the fact that I have a 100% Disclaimer Clause on the First Page of my Statements - 'DUE YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE,'" Trump continued. "But it all doesn’t matter, because regardless of what we say to show our TOTAL INNOCENCE, and it has been proven in many ways, and many times over, this political, Trump Hating Judge, together with his horrendous, seething with ANGER Law Clerk, with her illegal campaign contributions, will find me guilty as hell."

Who’s going to tell him they already have found him “guilty as hell”? That all they’re discussing now is how much it will cost him?

It’s only marginally worse that he thinks his sons and his golf buddies have proven his innocence. You really can’t fix stupid.

NO JURY ALLOWED, A STATUTE NEVER USED FOR THIS BEFORE, A RIGGED TRIAL, A RACIST & CORRUPT ATTORNEY GENERAL, A TRUMP HATING JUDGE, ELECTION INTERFERENCE!"

I know I’m supposed to be upset that Trump is ranting like this, because it undermines the judicial system and destroys faith in government and blah blah blah.😑 

This is just stupid and ignorant and a little pitiful. This is a 77 year old man throwing a tantrum like a toddler, and I’m supposed to even give a fuck? 

This guy is not dangerous. He’s just pathetic.

N.B. I’m not ignoring this problem:

Trump is on Truth Social taking full advantage of the stay in his gag order, attacking Engoron’s clerk & posting lies. I will be writing an article tomorrow on the similar & unique issues posed by a criminal defendant candidate who won’t stop attacking witnesses & parties.

But that’s a threat to individuals (and shouldn’t be allowed). My subject is the state of the Republic; which, frankly, has endured worse.

Interactive Communication

 First, this is the Reader’s Digest (ask your grandpa!👴🏻) version of Trump’s lawyer’s argument with the Court of Appeals this morning:

Trump lawyer unable to give any answer for how and whether the court can balance 1st Amendment interests v. Interest in ensuring integrity of trial proceedings and protecting witness from intimidation.

And this is the essence of the argument Trump was trying to make that every word out of Trump’s mouth is “core political speech”* (i.e., the most protected speech under First Amendment jurisprudence).

The implicit argument (concession) Trump’s lawyer is making is that threats and inciting violence is the core of Trump’s political strategy (which is why he considers it “political speech”). Another consequence of a major political party embracing domestic terrorism

I don’t think that conclusion was lost on the panel. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t show up in the opinion.

*I still don’t think it comes anywhere close. Trump is calling for violence against government officials and employees in order to preserve his liberty and political aspirations. How close does he have to come to calling for the violent overthrow of the government before it stops being an “interactive communication concerning political change”? I know that’s not the immediate issue before the Court now, but it’s certainly an issue in any analysis for a balancing test on Trump’s “core political speech.”

Trump Is Running The New York Trial

 QED:

Miller was called in to testify that Zurich insurance company worked with the Trump Organization to protect a relationship with a broker, therefore suggesting inflated financial statements had little impact on the company’s dealings. 

Those inflated financial statements are at the heart of James’ $250 million civil complaint, in which she contends the Trumps defrauded lenders and investors by inflating the value of company holdings. The judge has already found Trump and his associates liable for fraud, meaning the trial is largely to decide damages.

His expertise, he testified, came from running an insurance agency. Even Engoron was unimpressed:

"I don't see why you're an expert in what was just said," Engoron said.

Yes, there are standards for establishing expertise. Trump isn’t even clearing that bar.

Worse, Trump is arguing the case that’s already been decided. It doesn’t matter know whether or not the financial statements affected the insurance underwriter. The question of fraud has been settled. The question now is damages, which this testimony doesn’t address at all.

This isn’t even going through the motions. This is just wasting the court’s time.

Be Afraid. 😱 Be VERY Afraid!😱 Or, Not.

Desperate Trump's 'final battle' is to destroy America — and that's not an exaggeration

Uh,  yeah, it is.

I remember a”Fantastic Four” comic book that ended with Dr. Doom defeated (of course) and returning to Latveria, the country he ruled. As he left, Ben Grimm lamented the escape, but father-figure Reed Richards said trying to take over the world was not a crime, and Doom had diplomatic immunity, so nothing could be done.

Of course, it’s a comic book; Doom must escape to reappear again and again, year after year. It’s also a child’s understanding of law and diplomatic immunity (Doom always claims that as protection against the mayhem he personally unleashes on New York City at least once a year). Doom is a super-villain. Unless he tries to take over the world, he’s not really trying.

Comic book villains are always trying to take over the world. In comic book movies they do this through magic (a/k/a technology, which just points up the fatuousness of Arthur Clarke’s famous statement on the subject), or pure fantasy. And they are stopped by heroes who are also creatures of fantasy (or magical technology).

But Trump has the power to destroy the United States? I’m pretty sure that was tried in the Civil War, and that wasn’t done single-handed by Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee. The destruction of America again might have been the result of the Great Depression, but for the FDR administrations. But Trump alone can do it?

Isn’t that what he says? Do I have to accept Trump’s argument, in order to defeat Trump? Is that how this works?

Trump is a rambling old fool with delusions of grandeur. I just heard his lawyer try to defend his impossible position on being a criminal defendant and a candidate for the nomination of the GOP. The appellate panel was having none of it. Away from the fever swamps of Twitter and the horse race punditry of cable news, two hothouses that raise strange blossoms that wither with the next poll or election, and which can’t exist outside the environment where they are created and tended, Trump is a ranting old man, not a clear and present danger. ⛔️ 

Trump wants absolute authority, and he wants it absolutely everywhere. But he’s not getting it. I don’t know if the judge who administratively stayed Chutkan’s order was on the panel today, but that panel was concerned with the law and how to apply it. Repeatedly Sauer was asked for the test he would have the court apply, one that would work for all persons similarly situated. And repeatedly, Sauer argued Trump was sui generis and must be given special treatment unavailable to mere mortals. No, he wasn’t that blatant, but he might as well have been. And the panel grew frustrated with his argument, which was clearly meant to establish special conditions for Trump because: Trump.

Yeah, it doesn’t work that way; and it’s not going to.

Polls show Trump tied or ahead (within MOE) of Biden. Well, the latest NBC poll does. Which means people are cursing the devil they know and wondering if the devil they don’t know is all that bad. Status quo for a year before a Presidential election, IOW. By next November voters will once again favor the devil they know, which is why incumbents almost always win re-election (and why the President was limited to two terms after four terms of FDR). It’s also why Trump won more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016.

So is he going to win again, this time destroy America? Not unless he has done magical or fantasy powers. And not unless he wins in November. Remembering that if he doesn’t, he can’t “cling to power” this time. And if that NYT/Siena poll is any guide, his support craters with just one felony conviction.

He’s facing 91. And given the quality of legal representation he’s been showing in New York and D.C., in trial and on appeal, Trump has much more reason to worry than the country does.

Oral Arguments In D.C.: An Incomplete Summary

 If you could listen to the appellate arguments, you’d notice that Trump’s lawyer was trying to defend the indefensible, while the DOJ lawyer is defending the government’s position. It is challenged, but he has answers.

Trump’s lawyer was just trying to keep his plates spinning. His argument centered on the legal term of art “core political speech.” By which he meant Trump’s speech, because he is a candidate for a party’s nomination for office, is absolutely protected in speech to say whatever he wants to.

Which is not what “core political speech” means.

Core political speech consists of conduct and words that are intended to directly rally public support for a particular issue, position, or candidate. In one prominent case, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that core political speech involves any “interactive communication concerning political change.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1988). Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, the Supreme Court concluded, are forms of political expression integral to the system of government established by the federal Constitution. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976). Thus, circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.

It’s a little hard to fit Trump’s rants against the prosecutor and the judge under that umbrella. And Trump’s lawyer singularly failed to do it.

As I listen, DOJ is responding to questions about “so how does this work?”. The kinds of questions judges (or academics in oral defense of a dissertation; been there, done that) ask, without revealing (or, more accurately, being revelatory of) the conclusions of the judge.

Trump’s lawyer was simply flailing and refusing to accept the premise of some questions, because he simply couldn’t afford to. This led to some serious frustration from the panel. Asha Rangappa described Sauer’s problem this way:

I have never seen a lawyer avoid answering a hypothetical for THIS long. It's a pretty simple question. He doesn't want to answer it because he can't do so truthfully in accordance with his position AND please his audience of one.

I would only amend that Sauer is stuck with the actions of that party of one, and the facts that party has created. Besides, I’m pretty sure the Audience of One isn’t listening to this. His name doesn’t get mentioned enough.

NOT New York Times Pitchbot

Trump has said, this week, that he wants to change the 14th amendment to end birthright citizenship, to deport legal immigrants who hold anti-American views, & to reinstitute the Muslim ban. Yet, if we search "ethnic cleansing," we only find results for Joe Biden.

Lost in the replies to that tweet (it is Twitter, after all, not even an Oxford debate) is this idea:

Skepticism is essential in journalism, particularly during armed conflicts and the information wars that come with them. But skepticism that only goes in one direction isn't skepticism, it's just bias masquerading as something else.

I’m sure the Israel/Hamas war is now the only issue in November, 2024:

Listen, there's one thing these polls are good for, and that is making sure that nobody in the Biden campaign takes any segment of our vote for granted," McCaskill said. "There is absolutely a need to do more and do better and cover the ground more thoroughly in Black and brown voters' houses all over this country. They know what's at stake. Even the young voters, they know what's at stake. They know about Dobbs, they know about our military-style weapons that are slaughtering children sitting in classrooms. They know that they're banning books and trying to look down their nose at Americans who are gay and married in this country. They're not going to stand for that, they know that the Republican Party thinks climate change is a hoax.

Or, you know, not.

Questions That DEMAND Answers!!!!!!! Issues That DEMAND Attention!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!

Ron Filipkowski:

 Did all the FBI agents on the ghost bus have vapes?

Maria Bartiromo interviews first Speaker to be voted out of office Kevin McCarthy:

Bartiromo: Questions regarding FBI informants that were in trump clothing around the capital that day throughout the crowd. Do you have any insights for us regarding their role in those events. The FBI’s role.

 [Spoiler: he has nothing to say.]

(Are Trump supporters gonna develop a secret handshake so they know who's not just "wearing" "Trump clothing"?  And does "Trump clothing" include his line of gawdawful ties (which are apparently still available and no, I am not proving that with a link.  I have standards.) 

MTG threatens us all with a good time:

Greene: I will bring my articles of impeachment back to the floor after we get back from the Thanksgiving break and this time the Republicans in Congress better deliver different results 

Especially as we wait to see what she does when they don't....

Donald Trump just continues to make Joe Biden look 50 years younger:

Trump today at the TX State patrol officers Thanksgiving luncheon: “The food looked very good. I wanted to have some but they didn’t have any for me. They had none left. That’s not good. That’s my kind of food too.” 

I don't have grandchildren, but I'll be the oldest at the table this year.  I'm only 9 years younger than Trump, and I don't ramble like that about what's on the table among the family.... 

Google Is Yer Friend

 The guy "dressed like a Trump supporter" is Kevin James Lyons.  You've seen him recently:

I'd argue that's not a badge in his hand, or a vape, but his cell phone.  Not that it matters.

And here he is showing off the bounty of his raid on the Capitol:

Yup.  This guy:

Lyons pulled a coat from a rack, asking other rioters, “Anyone need a coat?” Then he went through the pockets, swiping a wallet with $50, according to prosecutors. 

He also took a framed photo of Pelosi with former U.S. Rep. John Lewis, later taking a picture of himself with it in the backseat of his Uber ride away from the Capitol. Prosecutors said he then sent that photo in a text message, “stating he was now a felon and ‘I took this off Pelosi’s f—--- desk!”

Clearly an FBI/deep state plant:

According to the government’s stipulated evidence, on Jan. 5, 2021, Lyons posted on his Instagram account a map with directions from his hometown in Chicago to Washington, D.C., commenting, “I refuse to tell my children that I sat back did nothing. I’m heading to DC to STOP THE STEAL!” On Jan. 6, 2021, Lyons attended a rally on the Ellipse and, afterward, joined a crowd of others as they traveled to the Capitol building. Lyons recorded much of his actions that day with his cell phone and texted periodic updates to others not present at the Capitol. 

Once on the Capitol grounds, Lyons gathered with other rioters and encountered tear gas and flashbangs. Lyons did not leave the grounds; rather, he stated his intentions, saying, “We’re storming the Capitol building” and “I guess we’re all going to jail.” Lyons then yelled, “Let’s take it!” before heading up the Capitol stairs toward the Senate Wing doors. Lyons yelled comments at police officers while he walked toward the Senate Wing door, saying, “Oath breakers!” “Fucking Nazi bastards!” and “Traitors!”

Once inside the Capitol building, Lyons walked down a hallway towards the Crypt, shouting, “Nancy, where are you?” and repeatedly calling out the Speaker’s name in a menacing tone, joining others in searching for the former Speaker of the House. Lyons also called out to House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer. Lyons eventually made his way to the House Speaker’s office. Inside the office, Lyons filmed himself as he walked around a took a picture of himself reflected in a mirror. Lyons approached a coat hanging on a rack, removed a wallet from the jacket, and placed it inside his hooded zip-up pocket. Inside of the Speaker’s office suite, Lyons repeatedly encouraged other rioters to steal items from the office.

Lyons then entered the House Speaker’s personal office and removed a framed photograph from atop her mantle. The photograph, which depicted the Speaker with the late Representative John Lewis standing in front of the Gate of No Return in Ghana during their final trip abroad together, had been given to the Speaker two months after Congressman Lewis’ death. The photograph was a gift from a former member of her staff who had been on the trip and took the picture. Lyons later texted a picture of the photograph, stating, “I took this off Nancy Pelosi’s fucking desk!!” and” I’m pretty confident I am now a multiple Federal felon.”  After leaving the Capitol in a rideshare, Lyons posed for a photo holding the stolen framed photograph that he had taken from the House Speaker’s office. The framed photograph was never recovered.

He was sentenced to 51 months in prison.  I really want to see Sen. Mike Lee bring this one up in a televised committee hearing.

Oh, Alright, I'll Make It A Separate Post

I started this here with an addendum, but I'll carry on wit this:

The amount of revisionist nonsense over the release of a tiny amount of J6 footage  — all of which so far has been unremarkable, recycled or has been available to defendants for years — is breathtaking, especially from bad faith actors who know better. 

Further to the point: the amount of concern over a tiny number of people on a fringe website barely visible to most of the American electorate, and hardly a representative sampling of public opinion (scientific sampling or otherwise) is equally breathtaking.

When it's not all about the horse race in political news, it's the subset that's all about the re-tweets.  It reminds me of the early days of on-line commentary, when Salon hosted "Table Talk" and users could set up sub-topics under topics.  Obviously one of the hot topics was "Politics," which was the neighborhood others on Table Talk looking to swap recipes and pictures of bird feeders considered the neighborhood where you didn't stop at the red lights if you found yourself there.  The subset in "Politics" was "White House."  This was when Clinton was being impeached, and "White House" was so white hot you just abandoned your car and ran for the exits.  Not that we amounted to a speck of dust on the scales of national interest, but we were sure the regulars in "White House" were smarter than the average political junkie and were moving the scales of public opinion, if the public just wasn't composed of "sheeple."

Turns out nobody ever heard of us; and there are no memorials to our wisdom extant in the world.  Twitter is day care compared to that, and less important to the wide, wide world.

That "revisionist nonsense"? It's not even revisionist.  It's just nonsense.  Revisionism at least brings new information to the discussion.  They're just playing with their food and eating the checkers.

🙄

 I still don’t understand:

The hottest one making the rounds claims that someone in a MAGA hat is flashing a police badge inside the Capitol. This feeds the conspiracy that J6 was orchestrated by FBI agents dressed as Trump supporters, advanced by several Members of Congress. Just this past week, Rep. Clay Higgins claimed that busses of FBI agents disguised as Trump supporters came in "ghost busses."

...why an undercover cop would flash his badge for the camera; or for anyone in the hall to see; or just walk around with it in his hand.

He didn’t, of course, because the man in the picture is a convicted felon now serving time for what he’s doing in that picture: carrying items he stole from Nancy Pelosi’s office.  I’m guessing this video came from that case, not from the “secret stash” the Speaker is supposed to release. (He hasn’t released very much so far.)

So we know who this guy is; we know what he was carrying (a”vaping device,” not a badge), and we know what he did. Because, again, he’s in jail for, in part, what this tape shows him doing.

Unless it’s a really, really deep state fake and he’s in jail to give his undercover story credibility, a la DiCaprio in “The Departed”.  🙄

This conspiracy theory has been going on for two years without evidence to support it. They’re getting desperate for some.

ADDENDUM: This "incident" on la Webs proves that if you think Twitter in any form is the tail wagging the national dog, you are chasing the wrong animal's tail.  Akin to Joe Manchin announcing this a.m. (I'm reliably told) that he'll consider running for President on an "independent" ticket.  Sure, Joe; alongside Bobby, Jr. and...who is that other guy again?  Jr.'s got more name recognition than Joe, and while No Labels thinks they can make somebody, anybody, a spoiler, I remember the days of Perot.  Who bought his way onto the ballot in several (not all) states, got name recognition from being a "character," and still didn't do anything but screw things up for Bush.  Who'd screwed things up enough on his own.

Joe Manchin is no Ross Perot; and Biden is not Bill Clinton fresh outta Arkansas.  Manchin is just going to cap a sad ending to a long political career.

And MAGA Twitter getting upsete about a video that Johnson didn't even release, is a very small flea on the ass of a very big horse.

Seems Like Old Times

The Speaker releases more videos from J6, and just when we’d probably forgotten, Trump reminds us all of highlights from the Steele dossier:

Speaking at a small high school gymnasium in Fort Dodge, Iowa on Saturday, Trump told his supporters what he feels about being urinated on by prostitutes. To be precise, Trump told those who attended that he doesn’t like “golden showers” from “hookers” because he is a “germaphobe.” Trump went into this depraved and disgusting tirade unprompted as part of his scripted remarks. 

Not that he stopped there:

Other notable moments of the speech included when Trump said that he had a disease named after him, praised President Xi and Putin, and mocked Iowa’s two Republican Senators.

Now, I’m sure this all pwns the libs and puts Dems in disarray, but I’m damned if I see how.

Happy Holidays

“We say Merry Christmas not happy holidays… Kneeling for the anthem does not make you brave, it makes you a disrespectful little shit.. There are two genders. You get two choices”

Andy Williams is un-American.  Who knew?

Well, his wife was French.

And that was so long ago, who remembers now?

Biden Is Older Than Trump

 No shit:

"Adam 'Shifty' Schiff with a net like a pencil. I said, how does he hold up that fat ugly face with a neck -- a pencil neck? Pencil neck is what we call him. What a dishonest guy," Trump said Saturday.

I mean, what was your first clue?

Dear Santa…

 

I keep seeing this ad and I keep wondering: “Why?”

Aside from the not-subtle misogyny of stepping on a woman’s face with every stride, I know what my own boot soles look like after just a few hours wear.

My boots, when new, carry the name of the manufacturer on the soles. And I mean “fresh out of the box” new. I don’t walk through pasture or feedlots in my boots, or through cactus and over dry ground. I’m harder on them than that. I wear them strictly in urban settings. Concrete. Asphalt. That name on the sole? Usually obliterated within an hour.

I’m guessing these boots are much more expensive than mine. And clearly some of the allure is a Marilyn Monroe looking face blowing bubble gum on the bottom of your manly footwear. But why? You can’t see it. Others can only see it if you put your boots in their face. And unless you pay four people to carry you around, the picture is ruined with, offhand, twenty minutes wear. If it isn’t, you’re wearing ice skates. Trust me, you want leather soles to be scuffed.

Unless those aren’t leather soles. In which case, boy, did they see you coming.

Well, either way, if you bought these, it’s pretty clear they did.

The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year

Baptist pastor at Trump rally in IA today prays for God to elect Trump: “We need your intervention. Lord, restrain evil for your Holy Spirit and your people and Godly servants in office - especially Donald Trump.”

I knew a pastor who happily told the story of a church member who told him something so ridiculous about her opinion of God (sorry, this was at least 40 years ago), that he happily replied: “Thankfully, I don’t worship the God you do.”

If they’re being honest, many pastors could tell you versions of that story. Not sure why it occurs to me now…. 🤔 

Golf With Your Friends

For some reason I just want to pair this:

Worth noting about the leading Republican candidate: The Colorado judge found that Trump engaged in insurrection & intended the J6 violence, and his defense witness, Kash Patel, was not credible when he claimed Trump called up 10,000 National Guard. 

With this:

Without naming names, James went down the roster and explained why she found each witness’s testimony less than compelling.

“Their accounting expert has never once worked on the types of financial statements at the heart of Donald Trump’s fraud,” James said.

“Their expert on real estate finance admitted that he not only lacks experience in valuing real estate, but he also does not have any experience with the accounting standards and personal financial statements that this case revolves around.”

Earlier this week, Raw Story reported that accounting expert James Flemmons called one Trump Organization document “a red flag” and that Trump warned lenders certain records weren’t reliable. Another expert on insurance appeared to contradict himself on the stand.

James’ brief statement then details the credential they did share: proximity to Donald Trump.

“One has donated millions of dollars to Donald Trump’s campaign and his son even got married at Mar-a-Lago,” said James. “Another is a member of Mar-a-Lago and several other Trump golf clubs.

And point out once again Engoron let them testify because there is no jury to prejudice with irrelevant and baseless testimony, and it creates a record of just such testimony so Trump can't complain on appeal he wasn't allowed to put on a defense.

FORE!

NASA Can Do This

Elmo can't:

SpaceX's uncrewed spacecraft Starship, developed to carry astronauts to the moon and beyond, was presumed to have failed in space minutes after lifting off on Saturday during its second test, after its first attempt ended in an explosion.

...

But the rocket's Super Heavy first stage booster, though it appeared to achieve a crucial maneuver to separate with its core Starship stage, exploded over the Gulf of Mexico shortly after detaching, a SpaceX webcast showed.

Meanwhile, the core Starship booster carried further toward space, but a few minutes later a company broadcaster said that SpaceX mission control suddenly lost contact with the vehicle.

"We have lost the data from the second stage... we think we may have lost the second stage," SpaceX's livestream host John Insprucker said. 

Elmo remains a technological genius.