Friday, June 07, 2019

Talk is cheap.


Something important to remember where Trump and tweets are concerned.
Posted by at No comments:

Donald Trump on 75th Anniversary of D-Day, at Normandy

Posted by at No comments:

The Father of Trump's Press Secretary

Acorns, trees? Probably, but who can say? Sure is a special kind o' ugly, though.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Worst. Dinner Guest. Ever.

come for the outrageous lie. Stay for the unintentional honesty.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, June 06, 2019

More than Historical Prayers



On a day like this, special prayers are always appropriate.

Peace between neighbors
Peace between kindred
Peace between lovers,
In love of the King of life.

Peace between person and person,
Peace between wife and husband,
Peace between woman and children,
The peace of Christ above all peace.

Bless, O Christ, my face,
Let my face bless every thing;
Bless, O Christ, my eye,
Let mine eye bless all it sees.

--from the Carmina Gadelica

O Christ, son of the living God, have mercy upon u.
Thou that sits at the right hand of the Father, have mercy upon us;
And deliver us for thy Name's sake.

AMEN.

O Christ, when thou didst open thine eyes on this fair earth, the angels greeted thee as the Prince of Peace and besought us to be of good will toward one another; but thy triumph is delayed and we are weary of war.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, the very earth groans with pain as the feet of armed men march across thy mangled form.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, may the Church, whom thou didst love into life; not fail thee in her witness for the things for which thou didst live and die.

TEACH US TO DO THY HOLY WILL, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, the people who are called by thy Name are separated from each other in thought and life; still our tumults, take away our vain imaginings, and grant to thy people at this time the courage to proclaim the gospel of forgiveness, and faithfully to maintain the ministry of reconciliation.

TEACH US TO DO THY HOLY WILL, O LORD AND MASTER

O Christ, come to us in our sore need and save us;
O God, plead thine own cause and give us help, for vain is the help of man.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ of God, by thy birth in the stable, save us and help us;
By thy toil at the carpenter's bench, save us and help us;
By thy sinless life, save us and help us;
By thy cross and passion, save us and help us.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.
Posted by at No comments:

June 6, 1944


My father was in Navy training, at the age of 18.  He never saw action, in part because of this day.  No one was sure this invasion would succeed.  And in 75 years, we have not celebrated this day; we have remembered those who died, and the bravery of all who landed on those beaches, and what they did to liberate Europe.  And this is what our President said to the nation that evening, as we waited to find out if we had succeeded, or failed, or would succeed, or fail:

My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944

(Allied troops entered Rome on December 5, 1944.)
Posted by at No comments:

Clouds over Normandy

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Once More with Feeling

I think this is exactly the right strategy to pursue.
Posted by at No comments:

A Modest Proposal


We've all been wrong about Trump. He's not a monster or even a clown. He's a Paddy Chayefsky character. Not Howard Beale, whom we all sympathize with, if not admire. But he's like Howard without the charm or sympathetic character.  As Faye Dunaway's character puts it (and watch it, in this scene she's describing reality TV a good 30 years before it became reality. In the '70's, it was still only satire.):  "the American people want somebody to articulate their rage for them." Enter, this time, and straight from reality TV (!), Donald Trump.

But we all know how long Howard lasted. At this point, the only difference is UBS only put "a manifestly irresponsible man on national television." Well, that and, while Howard thought he was chosen by God, only other people think Trump was. Close enough is good enough. Besides, Howard told the truth, and Trump is wholly incapable of that.

Reality always has to go fiction one better, at least in some respects.  Doesn't mean the end won't be (roughly) the same.
Posted by at No comments:

Proof the WWII Generation is Nearly Gone

Well, of course.
Posted by at 1 comment:

"OPM"

So long, suckers!

“It’s called OPM. I do that all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money. There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money,” Trump said.

No shit, Sherlock:

JP Ward & Sons, an Irish funeral services home, rents out its fleet of Mercedes E-Class limousines not just to mourners but to anyone who wants to travel in style.

A killer price tag has not deterred the latest customer: the White House. It is so keen to use the vehicles for Donald Trump’s two-day visit to Ireland that it is spending nearly $1m (£788,000) of US taxpayers’ money to rent them.

The Trump administration paid the family-owned firm based in Bray, County Wicklow, $935,033 in four tranches, according to USASpending.gov, an official portal that records federal government spending.

The state department did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation that the outlay was to rent four vehicles, which would work out at $233,748 per vehicle.

The presidential entourage’s hotel bills have also drawn scrutiny. State department documents show US taxpayers have spent $1,223,230 on VIP accommodation at the InterContinental hotel on Park Lane in Mayfair, London.

After wrapping up a state visit to Britain, Trump is to fly into Shannon airport in County Clare on Wednesday evening. He will meet the Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, and then fly by helicopter to his golf resort in Doonbeg, which overlooks the Atlantic.

He will fly to Normandy for D-day commemorations on Thursday, then return to Doonbeg for another night and a round of golf. He returns to Washington on Friday.

Exactly why the president needs the limousines is unclear. If Trump, his wife, Melania, and other senior members of the entourage travel by helicopter, they may have no need of cars.

If they visit the village of Doonbeg, as locals fervently hope, it will be an eight-mile round trip at a combined cost of $116,879 per mile, excluding the additional bill for the rest of the entourage, possibly in dozens of vehicles.

Just to put all that in context:

In June 2013 the company reportedly earned $114,000 ferrying Michelle Obama and her daughters Sasha and Malia around Dublin and Wicklow for three days while Barack Obama attended a G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

That's total for three days, not the per-mile cost.

Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin!
Posted by at No comments:

Word Association

Border/wall. Same difference, right?
Posted by at No comments:

While the POTUS is in Europe to remember June 6, 1944


How many people who died in that war were "fans" of it?  How many of them could buy deferments, the way Trump did?

The man is beneath contempt.
Posted by at No comments:

They all go down into the dark...


And if you think that isn't because of this:

While most Michigan voters don’t want Congress to impeach President Donald Trump, a majority said they would vote against him if the election were held today, according to a new statewide poll.

Both former Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont showed 12-point margins over the first-term Republican incumbent in a Glengariff Group public opinion survey of 600 likely voters released to The Detroit News and WDIV-TV (Local 4). Three other Democrats included in the poll were preferred over Trump by less substantial margins.

You haven't been paying attention.  Screws are gonna get tighter before anyone takes over to loosen them.  The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Posted by at No comments:

Not the breaking news you think it is

Greg Abbott was scared shitless by the November turnout and results. Yes, Beto lost, but Democrats won where they hadn't in 40 years, and the most populous county in Texas went deep blue (a clue to non-Texans who think Austin is the blueberry in the red cherry pie of the state: I'm not talking about Travis County). Abbott doesn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. And Donald Trump is not the only thing unprecedented in American politics.

And, as the Sixties showed, for every action, there is always a reaction.
Posted by at No comments:

Uh-huh

Posted by at No comments:

I agree with her

Posted by at No comments:

It's always something you don't yet know

Trump's ambassador and then Trump connected the NHS to Brexit. Now it makes sense why.

Except, of course, Trump says he wants to reduce the price if drugs in America. Then again, he wanted to get his USMCA approved, and then he announced tariffs in Mexico.

Trump doesn't know how to govern, he just knows how to destroy.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

Chuck Schumer knows....

...exactly what he's doing.
Posted by at No comments:

"Follow the Money"


Maybe.
 
"Trust, but verify."
Posted by at No comments:

What could it mean?

Posted by at No comments:

The Frankenstein monster is threatening to get loose

After all, who needs Congress when you're the POTUS?

I mean who could have predicted, right?
Posted by at No comments:

Meddling with Primal Forces Across the Pond


Woody Johnson (US Ambassador to St. James Court), who is a close friend of the US president, said every area of the UK economy would be up for discussion when the two sides brokered a trade deal.

Asked if the NHS was likely to form part of trade negotiations, Johnson told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “I think the entire economy, in a trade deal, all things that are traded would be on the table.” Asked if that specifically meant healthcare, he said: “I would think so.”
Which is sort of like saying Britain will do a trade deal with America if Medicare is on the table. 
Oops.

And why is this important?
Besides, there's that press conference:

A bull in a china shop would do less damage than our President.
Posted by at No comments:

About those "educated voters"



Congress has powers of "inherent contempt," powers it hasn't used since the 1930's.  Congress cannot enforce a subpoena by contempt without seeking a court order.  Enforcement then becomes a matter of defying the courts, and they have the power of enforcement.  Needless to say, this is not a rapid process.  For one, there are actions the courts wants to see Congress take before coming to court to seek enforcement of a subpoena.  There are steps, in other words.  I know it doesn't work that way on Tee-Vee, but this is real life.

I watch of a lot of "Perry Mason" reruns (what can I say?).  In every show, Perry is in court for trial or a preliminary hearing before he can finish his investigation (which is usually rushed and conducted within 48 hours).  His client is arrested, and within a day or so, he's in court crossing rhetorical swords with Hamilton Burger (D.A.'s never go to court, either; but that's another matter).  This is absurdly fast, and more absurd is how Mason uses preliminary hearings to prove his client innocent.  But TV has taught us that all legal conflicts are resolved within 60 minutes (with commercials!), so why can't Congress just clap Hicks and Donaldson in irons NOW!?

Well, you know, maybe the voters need to be educated, first.....

 
Deserves an honest answer (and yes, this is very much an outlier on the intertoobs).
Posted by at No comments:

If I could time travel


It would be to Paris in the '30's.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Fake Threats!


This news conference is proof Trump will never impose tariffs on Mexico.

He said Mexico was already coming to the table to discuss immigration and terms.  What is actually discussed is irrelevant.  What is actually decided is irrelevant.  Trump will declare victory and remove the tariffs before they are even written into imperatives or the first dime of them is collected.

He may announce the tariffs.  That doesn't mean they will be issued.  He may declare they have taken effect; that doesn't mean a penny of them has been collected.

His government is a government of lies.  He will declare victory and avoid the catastrophe of what tariffs on Mexico would do to the economy and to states like Texas (where they would not be taken lightly).  As for threatening senators:  Trump is always at his weakest when he makes threats.  He collapses faster than a plastic bag; every time.


If he's not "serious," how can he declare victory? (Seen this movie; in fact, this is where I came in*)

 
(I hate it when I agree with Mitt Romney)

*I know, I know, a reference only old people get.  Ask your Grandpa!  And get off mah lawn, ya punks!

Posted by at No comments:

The Conspiracy to Make Us Comfortable



Ummmm....

I don’t even care if you work on an oil rig. In some parts of the country, those are the only jobs that pay enough for you to feed your family. And I don’t blame workers for that. I blame their employers. I blame the industry that is choking us all, and the government that is letting them do it.

Okay, fine.  Industry forced us to buy cars, build roads, make everything out of plastic (check the guts of your computer you post to the internet on), and to accept all the comforts and benefits of the industrial world we live in.

Right?

It's not our fault we like cars, convenient transportation, big construction equipment that can do in one day what it would have taken manpower months to do, planes that can carry us to destinations in hours rather than days (have you tried to fly lately?  It's so popular every plane is a flying cattle car, no matter how early or late in the day you get on), air conditioning, stuff delivered to our door (or to the store nearby), and food flown in from South America so we don't have to wait for the season to eat fruits and vegetables.  But that's because the airline industry hoodwinked us, right?  And the government that builds airports so we can use them, highways so trucks can drive them, ports so ships can deliver things?

The bastards!

Don't get me started on plastics, or industrial farming that makes food cheap enough McDonald's is in business because of it.  Because all of this is forced on us, is done to us; we are just the hapless pawns whose only power is to resist the Corporation.   Seems we're powerful and weak at the same time; where have I heard this contradictory argument before?

If power plants are poisoning the planet, that still comes back to voters.  Will there be outrage at the ballot box because of the chemical plant fire on the Houston Ship Channel recently?  (I was just down there; they're still cleaning it up, and a lot of bad chemicals got into the waters there.)  And was that the fault of industry, or of the rest of us who want what industry produces, but don't want the side-effects and consequences of our desires.  Yes, better regulation would make for less pollution.  But better regulation still comes back to "We, the People."  We elect politicians who decide regulations are good (ah, yes, dem was de days!), but lately we've elected politicians who think regulation is bad.

I guess industry did that, too, huh?  Or was it Government, Agent Mulder?

There is no cabal.  There is no "Them."  There is only Us.  Except "us" is no more unitary than "industry" is, or "government," or "them."  Get over yourself and the simplicity of solutions.  Do the hard work, or shut up.  If Donald Trump provides any benefit to the nation, perhaps it will be to start us on root and branch ripping up our preference for conspiracy theories, all the better to make us less responsible for what we have done.

BTW, asking for a friend:  can I get my shampoo in a biodegradable paper bag?  Because evil industry is forcing me to buy it in a plastic squeeze bottle, the bastards!
Posted by at No comments:

God Bless The English


For having their priorities straight.
Posted by at No comments:

More Fake News from Across the Pond!



Posted by at No comments:

Everything Trump Touches Dies (credit to Rick Wilson)

And he doesn't look too happy about it....

A benighted President walks into a church....

First, why was Trump wearing his golf shoes off the course?  My father played golf for most of his adult life.  He never wore his golf shoes off the golf course unless he was in the club locker room, or in the grille that allowed such shoes.  To wear them home, as Trump did?  That kind of golfer drives his golf cart onto the green (for you non-golfers, you don't even take your golf bag onto the green.  Persons, balls, and putters,  only.)

But what's especially interesting is how much attention this scene has prompted, especially attention particularly due to the situation the pastor was in.  TPM reports it fairly straightforwardly:

“Sometimes we find ourselves in situations that we didn’t see coming, and we’re faced with a decision in a moment when we don’t have the liberty of deliberation, so we do our best to glorify God,” McLean Bible Church pastor David Platt said in a letter to church goers, explaining the circumstances of Trump’s arrival.

Platt said he was alerted at the end of his sermon on Sunday that President Trump was on his way to the church and would be there “in a matter of minutes.” The White House had apparently requested that the pastor pray for Trump, a request likely fueled by prominent evangelical and ardent Trump supporter Franklin Graham’s decision to proclaim Sunday as a special day of prayer to Trump. Graham claimed last week that Trump needed protection from his “enemies.”

But they focus on the pastor's letter to his congregation, not on his prayer.  Ruth Graham pays attention to his prayer at Slate:

In contrast with other pastors who have prayed for Trump, Platt was scrupulously nonpartisan. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, once thanked God at a campaign event for Trump’s willingness to “make America great again.” Platt prayed that God would give Trump wisdom, and that the president would trust God. He did not betray any hints as to whether he believes Trump currently possesses wisdom or currently trusts God. “We pray … that he would govern and make decisions in ways that are good for justice, and good for righteousness, and good for equity, every good path,” Platt said, lifting up his Bible and bowing his head. “We pray that you would give him all the grace he needs to govern in ways … that lead to peaceful and quiet lives, godly and dignified in every way.”

If Trump wanted to appear alongside a pastor who would lavish him with praise and edge up to endorsing him, Platt was an odd choice.

The White House told reporters that Trump made the appearance at the church to “pray for the victims and community of Virginia Beach.” But that topic did not come up during his brief time at the church, which is more than three hours north of the site of Friday’s mass shooting.
A fairly anodyne prayer, in other words, despite the Slate headline:  "Pastor David Platt Prayed for Trump While Trying Super Hard Not to Sound Like a Trump Supporter."  That headline grabs eyes, I'm sure, but it's not even supported by Graham's commentary.  I suppose Rev. Platt was supposed to do the Christian thing, and spit on the ground at the mention of Trump's name, maybe even try to exorcise his demons on-stage.  It just seems to me the pastor did the right thing under the circumstances.  Here's part of how he explained himself to his congregation:

“I wanted to share all of this with you in part because I know that some within our church, for a variety of valid reasons, are hurt that I made this decision. This weighs heavy on my heart,” he said. “I love every member of this church, and I only want to lead us with God’s Word in a way that transcends political party and position, heals the hurts of racial division and injustice, and honors every man and woman made in the image of God. So while I am thankful that we had an opportunity to obey 1 Timothy 2 in a unique way today, I don’t want to purposely ever do anything that undermines the unity we have in Christ.”
That's not too different from the tack I would have taken, had Trump called up and said he was coming to my church (of course, if he'd called during worship at my old church, nobody would have answered the phone.).  How do you refuse the POTUS?  Part of your congregation might say "Good on ye!", but most of your congregation would be aghast at your presumptuousness.  (Yes, this would vary from congregation to congregation, but few are going to be virulently anti-Trump, and it's doubtful Trump would try to go to such a church.  Note he picked a non-denominational church, to be safe.)  In my old church, in this situation, I'd be seen as the host on behalf of the entire congregation, and refusing a visit by a public official, especially the POTUS, would not be contemplated (some on any end of the political spectrum would grumble, but the majority would want me to be gracious).  And I would pray as this pastor did:  for the President (we did it from time to time in regular worship.  It was among the congregational prayers of the E&R Church hymnal, IIRC.  It's also not unknown in the UCC Book of Worship.  The prayers are not for the President's politics, but for the nation.)  And yet Rev. Platt is not supposed to think about his congregation and his pastoral duties to them, but about what the world thinks:

As critics pointed out, Platt may not have praised Trump this past weekend, but he did invite him onstage. “The prayer was very nonpartisan and very inclusive, but at the same time, there’s an image of this pastor with a positive expression on his face laying a hand on Donald Trump and the other hand holding up a Bible, and Trump has his head bowed,” Dan Nejfelt, who works for a national network of progressive faith leaders, told me. “That image conveys Trump is a Christian and a normal leader that Christians can get behind.” Photographs of Platt praying for Trump have already been used to illustrated approving coverage by Breitbart, the Christian Post, and the Christian Broadcasting Network, among others.

That's really a bit too much.  Rev. Platt was acting on behalf of his church and his ministry, not on behalf of political interests.  How do you acknowledge the presence of the POTUS in your church without bringing him forward?  ("On stage"?  Are we sure it wasn't the chancel?  See what I mean about clueless reporting.  Words matter.)  Yes, the President brings those political interests trailing in his wake, but when the POTUS attends services in D.C., is it incumbent upon the person in the pulpit to deliver a political message?  Or to avoid being near the President, lest she/he find themselves in the frame of a photo?   No, the President is not usually invited to the chancel for special recognition, but then he doesn't usually call ahead and ask for prayers for him upon his arrival.  The fault here is much more Trump's than Platt's.

By all appearances, Platt made an earnest, even sophisticated, attempt to avoid becoming Trump’s minion onstage on Sunday. (A representative of McLean Bible Church did not respond to multiple interview requests.) But declining to mention politics is itself a political act. And public prayer consists of much more than the text of its message. After Platt concluded his prayer for Trump on Sunday, video captured the congregation bursting into sustained applause and hoots of approval so enthusiastic that Trump seemed to linger onstage to enjoy it. It’s not clear that everyone at the church participated, or what exactly the applause meant; members of the musical ensemble looked unenthusiastic, for what it’s worth. Platt shook the president’s hand after the prayer but did not clap for him. He tried, impossibly, to have it both ways: to be on the stage with Trump, and also rise above it. 
Have it both ways?  According to whom?  He tried to be a pastor, with a church that should, properly, be open to all (even people walking on the floors in golf cleats.  There's a reason golf clubs don't allow cleats in their main buildings.).  He showed the proper hospitality, and offered a prayer for the nation and the office, and he didn't spit on Trump or turn his back on him or otherwise show the disrespect and disdain some of us (raises hand) think Trump deserves.

He did the right thing; and it is obvious his concern still is for his congregation, as it should be.

The rest of us are just kind of cluelessly haranguing him because of who the President is.

Posted by at No comments:

"Get On With It!"

Why can't they just impeach Trump and get him out of office then go on to do all the stuff we want?

Wait, what? There's a Senate? What's that got to do with anything?
Posted by at 2 comments:

Everything Old Is Known Again

Posted by at No comments:

This is getting ridiculous

Like this?
Or this?
Posted by at No comments:

Because Democrats are not letting Congress do anything...

And please don't tell me: "Well, educate them!"
(I never fly and I know better than this. Obviously I am not the yardstick by which to measure"common knowledge." You probably aren't, either.)
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, June 03, 2019

I knew that much....

...and that's only because of GOP House members who kept blocking the unanimous consent.
Posted by at No comments:

What's Opera, Doc?

Guess I'm not the only one.

Compare and contrast, as I tell my Freshman English students, can be powerful:
And the winner of the intertoobs:
Posted by at No comments:

Fun with Twitter

Houston started these. My personal experience with them was: they were useless. Without personnel to actually review what the cameras saw, or hardware to store it (never did understand which it was), they were expensive intersection decorations that did not work. Besides, you can't charge the car for a traffic violation, you have to charge the driver (again, personal experience). And are those cameras that good? No. (Neither is the system. A local toll road authority sent me a fine for running through a toll booth without paying. They had a picture! Except it wasn't my car. The computer said it was my license plate, but that's not what the picture showed. The same kind of system would send out notices on red light violations.) Good riddance, sez I.
Yup.
Never mind his face, where did he get those tails? The Jr. department of a bargain basement? I hate to criticize attire, but that's an embarrassment to the nation.

And again: yup.
Doesn't make him any less embarrassing, though.
Posted by at No comments:

At least my daily intake....

I could have saved them a lot of trouble....
Posted by at No comments:

Context Is All

Posted by at No comments:

Meanwhile, this is a distraction


From this:
Which is a distraction from this:
Which is a distraction from this:
Which is a distraction from this:

Which is just a distraction from this:
And so it is clear we are all being driven to distraction!

Posted by at No comments:

Things That Are Making Me Laugh

Meanwhile, in sweet home Alabama, the commies stole your votes!

During an interview with a conservative radio host, the “Jeff Poor Show,” Moore said he was “surprised” by the warnings from the “Washington establishment” against his election bid. He launched into a convoluted diatribe about how establishment Republicans are afraid he’ll win because he won’t join their “club” in the Senate.

“They’ve gotta come up with some reason to dissuade me so that their chosen candidate can get elected, who that may be, but it’s not me,” he said.

“Everybody has a right to run for the United States Senate,” he continued. “I will say this, the Washington establishment has more control over what happens in Alabama than people realize, just like the last election showed. That election was so fought by establishment Republicans and of course the Democrats which naturally would. …  I think people should know that there’s an attempt to steal their vote.”

And in England, where they "love Trump:"

I'll substantiate the rumor that my own sense of humor is drier than the Texas sand.
Posted by at No comments:

I sense the subtle hand


of a monarch who has been on the throne longer than Donald Trump has been out of short pants, and who has a legacy of diplomacy going back further than the founding of this country.

Trump retweeted this, which is how I know the Queen knew exactly what she was doing.
Posted by at No comments:

What the meaning of "is" is


First, he didn't say it.  Now, it wasn't "bad."

I don't know who this is reaching out to.  Must be somebody out there who thinks this kind of thing makes America great again.
Posted by at No comments:

Spiritual Disciplines


I wanted to keep this clean.  Alas, it was not to be.

If you live in a crowded city (and let's be honest, all big cities are crowded as a matter of definition.  Even the small town I grew up in has gotten bigger, enough to have serious traffic problems in one small part of town where, now, everybody seems to want to be at every hour of the day.), you face the problem of other people.  I freely admit my sins:  crowds have always been a problem for me, and as I get older I (relatedly) get more misanthropic.  I take responsibility for my misanthropy (it stems from my childhood, at least in my self-analysis of me), but it is who I am now.  Crowds bother me, other people annoy me.  And then, this morning, I had an epiphany.

Jesus told us that whoever we see, we see him.  He put it particularly in "the least of these," to underscore the point.  I don't think it undermines his point to say that applies to everyone; everyone else, that is.  I don't see Jesus in me; I see him in you.  It crossed my mind when I saw the woman in the store this morning who was clearly crippled in some way.  "That's Jesus," I thought to myself, not for the first time.  But then I realized that applied equally to everyone in the store:  the woman in the wheelchair a bit further on, the store workers, the customers, the drivers of cars in the parking lot, even the driver of the Google car with a camera tripod mounted to the roof and California plates.  (I assume it was Google; I also toyed with standing in my yard (the store is in my neighborhood) waiting for that car to come down the street, so I could raise my middle finger as it went by.  Told ya I was a misanthrope.  Jesus also said thinking is as bad as doing, right?).  I went on thinking about it as I drove away, and decided I could make this a spiritual discipline, and maybe it would remake me.  When I can apply it to other drivers, I'll have made a real breakthrough (you don't want to drive with me.  I go from Bruce Banner to The Hulk behind the wheel.  Ask any of my friends.  Or better yet, don't.  Trust me.).

And that applies to everyone:  trolls on the Internet, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, even Franklin Graham.  Yes, you will say those people do evil deeds and don't deserve to be seen as Jesus, who did only good.  Well, what makes you so Christ-like, I would ask?  And then I'd bring up this Daily Beast article:  "Did Jesus poop?"

I'll leave the reasons for that discussion to the article, which is actually quite good.  I'm interested in the import of asking the question, because it goes to the nature of Jesus, not in the theological sense alone, but in the sense of how we understand his words, his teachings.

When we decide Jesus didn't poop because poop is unclean and Jesus must be clean, first we're making a Hellenistic, not a Hebraic, distinction.  Yes, Hebrews had standards of clean and unclean (and how do you have this discussion without mentioning Matthew 15:10-11?), but they understood merely they had to be kept apart, not that one could not come from the other (anyone remember the story of Samson and the lion, the honey that came out of the corpse?).  It's a Hellenistic idea, from their ideas of gods, that gods were perfect and pure and could not be sullied by even dirty feet, which would mar their perfection (so Shakespeare, almost two millennia later, still remarks about his mistress whose eyes are nothing like the sun:  "I grant I never saw a goddess go; My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground."  Greek goddesses floated above the ground, to keep their pedicures perfect.).  Jesus, under Hellenistic influenced thinking, can't poop, because nothing unclean can come out of one who is perfect.

But was Jesus perfect?  By what standard?  The plainly materialist standard of Hellenism?  Or by the more spiritual wisdom of Hebraism?  I stake that out as my marker, and then invite you to return to the argument I started with.

If Jesus can't poop, then can Jesus be crippled?  Can Jesus be poor, or illiterate, or autistic?  Can Jesus be a bad driver, an annoying person who blocks the aisle in the grocery store ( you know who you are!)?  Can Jesus be foul-tempered, intemperate, rude, even a murderer?  I have vague memories of being taught Matthew 25, the passage about Jesus separating the sheep from the goats.  He asks there, "When did you come to prison to visit me?"  My very proper middle-class church taught me that Rome imprisoned people for unjust reasons, like Paul's imprisonments in the Acts of the Apostles.  So visiting people in prison in Jesus' day was not visiting real criminals; real criminals deserved to be in jail, and didn't deserve to be visited as if they were Jesus.  No one ever asked if murderers and rapists and child-molesters could be Jesus.  But clearly, for us, they can be.  Clearly, if no one is beyond the love and care of God ("the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike"), then we shouldn't put them there (pretty much the lesson of Acts 10:9-16).

So, did Jesus poop?  If not, Jesus is already elevated so far above us, so beyond our comprehension, that Jesus cannot be human, and humans cannot be Jesus.  It's hard enough to see the people fumbling with change in the express lane as they pay for 25 items (the LIMIT IS 15!!!!!!!) as Jesus; it's even harder if I can't recognize Jesus as human as me.  That's the Jesus of John's gospel, who gives up his life; not Matthew's Jesus, who cries out the first lines of Psalm 22, and writhes in agony as his life is taken from him; just as mine would be, on that cross (though Psalm 22 would not be the last thing to cross my mind in extremis).

It's a small distinction, in the end.  As even the article points out, nobody argues about this anymore.  But whenever we put any barrier to compassion between us and others, whenever we decide Jesus didn't really mean for us to think kindly of murderers or bad drivers (we're all more likely to encounter the former than the latter), we weaken ourselves and our understanding of what being human could be.

I'm going to work on the spiritual practice, and keep my mind on Matthew's gospel:  what is unclean is not what comes out of you, but what comes out of your mouth (your speech).  And nothing is unclean unless you mix matters, cross boundaries.  What comes out of the body belongs in the toilet; it's only unclean if you don't put it there, or try to take it out of there.  Boundaries.

But what boundaries should there be between me and thee?  Surely none that allow me to think less of thee.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Sunday, June 02, 2019

Why you never give a child...

...a loaded shotgun. Because it's a bit more than dealing with a tantrum; but only in degree.
Posted by at No comments:

POTUS as Impotent Fool (on the world stage)

Tariffs!That'll make 'em change!
Posted by at 1 comment:

Defending the Narrative

MTP notes this morning that 50 Democrats in the House now support impeachment hearings. It's worth noting that's still less than one-third of House Democrats. Which is not to say nothing can happen. It us to say what happens next faces the reality if bringing more Democrats on board while still facing this:
That article is a series of letters to the paper about what people perceive. Hugh Hewitt was on MTP, relentlessly ignoring that the Barr summary distorted the Mueller report, and the whole panel agreeing Mueller didn't disprove Barr's lies because he didn't think (like Comey also did on handling the investigation of Hillary) he could allege the President committed crimes, without being able to charge them. (I honestly think that's simple fairness, but apparently politics has nothing to do with fairness.) Of course, had Mueller bluntly declared Trump guilty on 10 counts of obstruction, without being able to take even one count to trial, the same critique would have been levelled.

The most annoying part of the panel discussion was the assumption Mueller waited to make a statement until Barr did. After the Starr fiasco, the law was changed to require the special counsel answer to the AG, not a partisan Congress. Be careful what you wish for, because the assumption was a sitting AG would act on behalf of the nation, not the President.

Robert Mueller did what the law required and what the law allowed. A complete indifference to that is as damaging to democracy as Donald Trump.
Posted by at No comments:

Me? Or your lyin' ears?


With friends like these... (If you listen, he actually calls her "nasty.')
Posted by at 2 comments:

Saturday, June 01, 2019

Why just wreck the American economy...

...when you can wreck the British economy (and the British Union in the bargain), too?
Posted by at No comments:

Okay, so I got into The Onion's Twitter Feed


Yeah, repetition is a tool of teaching, too:
So is sarcasm:
The shooter died after a "long-term gun battle" with police. Of course some in the Onion feed imagine one person in the building with a gun could have stopped the shooter, just the way it happens in the movies, usually in the third act.  In this case, it took several police officers firing almost continuously for some time to kill the shooter.  In the movies, the bullets always go where the script tells them to.

But that was a distinct numerical minority opinion.  Is Our Children Learning?
Posted by at No comments:

Dumber and Dumberer


I love it when he plays "fact-checker."  I also don't believe a word he says, including "and" and "the," so I'll stick with the Post's facts (especially since it doesn't matter to the argument that tariffs are taxes imposed on us by us to make us buy local, not international, sourced goods.  Of course, that new iPhone would cost about $3000 if we couldn't get FoxConn to make it in China (or is it now Vietnam?), and I don't think collapsing sales of electronics would help the U.S. economy much).
Would that be a reference to the FoxConn factory that isn't coming to Wisconsin after all?  Or is Apple moving assembly plants back to America to raise the cost of cellphones to prices beyond the reach of most consumers, even the Apple die-hards?  As for "Mexican companies" moving back to the U.S.:  huh?  Does this idiot even understand how internationalized the market is now?  And are we going to open more farms in America because we can't get foods from Mexico?  Why do I bother asking, the answer is obvious.
And of course he's trying to get his "USMCA" passed in America, but it hasn't been approved by Mexico, either.  So maybe returning to racist and xenophobic insults of Mexico is not the smartest play for the country right now?  Or are FoxNews hosts and Trump's imagined "base" the only people who matter anymore? (The answer is: "YES!"  As I was typing this, 12 new tweets appeared on Trump's feed; 11 of them were retweets about Franklin Graham's Special Day of Prayer for the President (and a really said re-tweet of a The Hill article, claiming the highest approval rating for Trump in two years:  48%, v. 52% disapproval in the same poll.  Pitiful when you think that's good news for you.).  So all of them are about stroking Trump's ego.  And how many people attend Franklin Graham's church?  Or rallies, for that matter.
Posted by at No comments:

When Lawyers Opine.....



The significance of this legal argument is where it is published as much as what it argues.  It reads almost like a law review article that spins a bit of dicta (or less; the arguments Dershowitz relies on about impeachment without a Senate trial have no context, and he doesn't cite the cases he is quoting) into an argument no court would take seriously. Law review articles are rather notorious for that. Dershowitz twists that argument into one that leaps a logic gap to be his argument. But despite his efforts, you can't get there from here.

Point of publication is important because no law review would take this argument seriously enough to publish it, and Dershowitz knows it. It may sound clever to the laity, and certainly superior to a mere law blog post, but to a lawyer it's utter crap.

The citations to dicta tell the tale. Dershowitz references two arguments for judicial intervention in a hypothetical impeachment made without a trial. The courts have intervened in impeachment proceedings against Art. III judges, but the impeachment of a judge is not the impeachment of a POTUS. This is why the cases Dershowitz quotes from are important. Are they about impeachment of non-Presidents? They have to be, if they are impeachment cases at all. No President has been removed from office by impeachment. Would Justice White's argument hold in such a case? That's the question a law review article would have to face. Dershowitz doesn't even mention it.

Art. III judges have a lifetime appointment and arguably a greater property interest in their judgeship, which could give rise to due process claims upon an improper impeachment (such as one without a trial). Presidents have no such sinecure. Judges need to be secure in their position and not removed by political whim in order to function as impartial arbiters. Presidents attain and keep their office purely by political decision. They also stand to lose it prematurely by the political decisions of representatives and Senators. Any argument about the impeachment of a federal judge would not necessarily apply to the impeachment of a President. Again, Dershowitz knows this; he just prefers not to mention it.

White's argument is not based on a hypothetical Senate trial, but on no trial at all.  The Senate sets its own rules, and the courts will not interfere with those rules. This is basic Constitutional law. It is fundamental to the separation of powers. What White argues is the Senate cannot refuse to hold an impeachment trial. That, after all, is what the Constitution requires. Neither White nor the Constitution says anything about how that trial is conducted. That is determined by the rules of the Senate, which gets to set its own rules. So short of the extraordinary hypothetical White's argument postulates, his argument has no application to an impeachment, or a trial for removal from office.

White's argument does equally apply if the House doesn't impeach, but the Senate holds a trial and removes from office any Constitutional officeholder who can only be removed by impeachment. The Constitution requires impeachment by the House, and trial by the Senate.  If the House finds a crime has been committed and the Senate holds a trial, the Courts cannot violate the separation of powers to rule how the House defines "high crimes and misdemeanors," or how the Senate conducts an impeachment trial. And White's argument doesn't contradict that conclusion, even in the version Dershowitz provides. Dershowitz' argument, however, contradicts White's argument, and tries to give Presidents a protection that neither the Constitution nor precedent provides.  And a President not enjoying the same office as a judge, there's a serious question if an impeached and removed President would have standing to appeal the outcome of a Senate trial, especially one overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Would the Court seriously accept the writ in such a case, when the Chief Justice would have to recuse him- or herself?

This is where Trump winds up by relying on free legal advice. It's worth what he pays for it. And honestly, if I can take it apart this easily, it's a very poor argument indeed. Nobody, after all, is going to confuse me with Lawrence Tribe.
Posted by at No comments:

Is it a Tourette's kind of thing?

Not to make light of the syndrome or mock those who have it, but has this become a compulsion? Maybe a reflexive tic triggered by any mention of lawyers?

At least it needs a disclaimer: "Not The Onion!"
Posted by at No comments:

Really all anybody had to say....

I guess I should have watched the interview, rather than just read about it. Funny no analysis if it made this simple, salient point.

Then again, it took over 2 years for journalists to point out Trump is not providing any factual basis for his claims.
Posted by at No comments:

It's not funny but it's true...

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)