Thursday, April 08, 2021

I Assume They Are All At Least 18

Posted by at 1 comment:

What's Next, A New "War On Christmas"?

First they proclaimed "communist corporations," and I said nothing because I was laughing too hard. Then they declared "progressive fascism," and I fell out of my chair, laughing even harder.

“The Democrats have successfully captivated the institutions; pop culture, Hollywood, our education institutions and now our corporations into their own woke agenda,” the Republican told Fox News. “This is fascism. And they use cancel culture as a tool to impose their fascism on us.”

Crenshaw also told FoxNews that fascism is: "the regimentation of the economy, of society, and it's the forced suppression of of your opposition." So, what is Dan Patrick advocating when he pushes a bill through the Texas Senate to make it harder to vote?  Or Gov. Absent decrying conditions in a facility housing migrant minors that he hasn't so much as visited?  A facility described this way by a county commissioner who has visited that site several times:

“What I saw when I went in there on several occasions, it was well-staffed, the children are very happy and very excited to be here,” she told reporters after Abbott left. “This is not a political issue. This is about children who deserve protection from adults.”

What is fascism when it's at home:

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. 

Guilty dog barks loudest, Crenshaw.  

And while we're on the topic of Texas' national representatives:

Ted Cruz just really needs to stay off of Twitter. Because I just want to know what Cruz is doing about the covid crisis in Texas. So far as I know, he's done nothing.  Kinda wonder what Crenshaw's done about it, too.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Old Man Shouts At Building

If Trump leaves any benefit to the county, may it be a break that is absolute in the chain of "Presidential libraries." They are a blight. We don't need them.

The only one I have any regard for is LBJ's, in Austin.  It's a center of scholarship and historical records.  Mostly, though, I don't have much use for them.  Bush I has one, but I don't know anything about it.  Bush II has one, whose notable feature seems to be the giant sized statue of him and Poppy, mini-collosi not quite bestriding the world.  Clinton's library is equally a cipher.  When I think of it, all I think of is Shrub at the library's opening:

Bush appeared distracted, and glanced repeatedly at his watch. When he stopped to gaze at the river, where secret service agents were stationed in boats, the guide said: "Usually, you might see some bass fishermen out there." Bush replied: "A submarine could take this place out."

Was the president warning of an al-Qaida submarine, sneaking undetected up the Mississippi, through the locks and dams of the Arkansas river, surfacing under the bridge to the 21st century to dispatch the Clinton library? Is that where Osama bin Laden is hiding?

Or was this a wishful paranoid fantasy of ubiquitous terrorism destroying Clinton's legacy with one blow? Or a projection of menace and messianism, with only Bush grasping the true danger, standing between submerged threat and civilisation? Perhaps it was simply his way of saying he wouldn't build his library near water.

And this:  I always remember this (especially in the restoration of Shrub as "Presidential" after 4 years of Trump):


That's when Shrub was President; and he didn't want Clinton upstaging him at the opening of Clinton's library.  Classic Shrub; and prelude, not antidote, to Trump

Reagan's library is notable largely (pun intend) for it's life size replica of Air Force One, under a roof.  I wonder if Trump would want one with the new paint job he said Melania came up with (and everyone who believes that she even had a hand in the proposal deserves to buy the first tickets to Trump's library).  Last I heard, Obama's library is looking for a place to land, and pissing people off in Chicago that will be displaced by it.  Ultimate irony for a man who spent a short time as a community organizer there (more trainee than not, per his memoir).  It raises the question, again:  who needs these things?

It's not even clear Trump will get a library.  I sincerely hope not.  Not only would it be empty of records (or full of records painstakingly taped back together.  Accounts agree Trump reflexively destroyed papers handed to him, the better to ensure no paper trail stuck to his shoes.  Accounts disagree on whether or not a flunky was employed full-time taping those papers back together; or was fired once news of the work was public; or was kept on, actually; or what happened.  Somebody knows by now, but obviously it's not (yet) headline news.), it would likely include the statue of Trump from the last CPAC.


Yeah, that one.  I mean, unless we could get Congress to require this be floated above the building, as a permanent installation:


The whole thing's not worth it.

Even with the blimp, it's not worth it.  Well...maybe....no!  Be strong!  Resist! It's not worth it!  Period.

And if we break the chain, maybe it can stay broken.  Although a Biden library already has the attractiveness of the LBJ library, to me.  Same mood, as the kids say.

Posted by at 1 comment:

What I Learned About Hemingway from Ken Burns



Hemingway was an ass. 

Hemingway was a journalist. He remained a journalist his entire life. He wrote fiction, you say. Yes, and he gave rise to the cliche once popular in film and stories, that every journalist imagined they had the Great American Novel in them. But Hemingway always wrote from his experiences, just as a journalist writes about what has happened, what the news is. Hemingway couldn’t write news as fiction.  He wrote his life.  He was his subject.  All of Hemingway’s work is just thinly-veiled autobiography.  That, or it’s Hemingway writing about his ideas, almost a philosophy, through the words and sometimes actions of characters.

Hemingway was a real ass.  Whatever else he was as a writer.

Hemingway’s subject was Hemingway, for all of his life.  His writing style was just the newspaper style he’d learned first.  Nothing more.  

All the writers in the documentary who praise Hemingway as a protean genius, a Picasso of print who made us see everything as he did, who changed everything about writing, are all old men and women from the generation influenced by Hemingway.  Give me Fitzgerald.  Give me Bradbury, who is the anti-Hemingway, although Bradbury’s characters are about as well-developed and observed as any of Hemingway’s.

I don’t really care what Bradbury was like, because his subject is never himself.  Hemingway is always concerned with writing about Hemingway.  “What he knows,” that famous dictum about what writers must write about, was just a dictum of journalism.  It wasn’t a brilliant insight into the nature and act of writing.  It was just all Hemingway knew about writing.  It’s really not that much.  Stop treating it like it’s a profound insight.

And all those writers in the film bleating about how hard writing is, how much of a toll it takes on the writer.  Please. You aren’t Hemingway, and you don’t want to be.  Hemingway was an alcoholic, and an ass.  He wasn’t an ass because he wrote books worth reading (some are, some aren’t, and kudos to Burn for showing Maria Vargas Llosa praising The Old Man and the Sea as a masterpiece, and Edna O’Brien pointing out that it’s school-boy writing.  It is.). That book, Burns tells us, is a fictionalized version of an article he’d written for publication decades earlier.  Hemingway was a journalist, and the subject was always Hemingway.  Besides, as Fitzgerald said, he needed a new wife for every new book.  Who thinks that’s what’s needed to be a writer?

Prove me wrong.

We read Hemingway because we are interested in Hemingway.  Or we aren’t.  It’s one or the other.  We don’t read him for the characters, like Dickens, or the insight into humanity, like the Russian novelists, or the humor of Sterne or the meditations on existence of the French novelists (yes, all the real novelists wrote in the 19th century.  Prove me wrong.). At his best, as in “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place,” his art and his intent perfectly align, and he is so subtle and careful and close to the “truth” he professed to always being trying to write (what else does a journalist do?) in that story that most people overlook it in favor of “Kilimanjaro” or “Macomber”, because those better align with the persona, the myth, that he himself created.

Burns shows this, if you pay attention.  The invention of the myth by Hemingway himself, I mean.

He did like cats.  That is a mark in his favor.  A very strong one.  But cats can be asses, too.  It’s forgivable in them.

Nobody tries to write like Hemingway anymore.  The writers in the film all pretend the only thing to do after Hemingway is to write like Hemingway.  Bradbury lists his influences in his stories, and Hemingway is never among them.  I grew up reading Bradbury, so it took me a long time to get anything out of Hemingway.  It’s not clean and lucid and revealing. It’s rocky and hard; like eating pebbles when you thought the dish was soup, or oatmeal.  It’s dry when you want moist; boney and stripped of meat, making you feel like a vulture denied any benefits of the carrion put before you.

And in the end, it’s always about Hemingway.
 
Edna O’Brien says the test of a book is how many times you want to re-read it.  Then again, she also complains about how hard it is to write one good sentence; in the same paragraph.  Pfft! (True, Yeats agonized over every line of his poetry, sometimes at a risk to his health.  Still, none of us are Yeats, and sweating over lines word by word won't make us Yeats.)  But her test of a book is a sound one.  I re-read Bradbury (your favorite writer sucks, too.). Aside from a few short stories, one pass through Hemingway is enough.  I get tired of his navel-gazing dressed up as a struggle of manhood.  I get tired of every story being so clearly fictionalized, or barely fictionalized, biography.

Hemingway is a journalist, more than a writer.

Hemingway is an ass.
Posted by at 2 comments:

This Isn't Really A Defense, Either

If I recall my torts law classes correctly (and Crim Law, but I never practiced the latter, and law school was many decades ago), there is a settled concept in law that you take the victim as you find them.

So if your negligence is the cause of an injury, and it turns out the person you injured had a weak heart (a Hollywood scenario, granted) and dies subsequent to the injury and because it exacerbated an underlying condition, you are responsible for the wrongful death.  You don't get out of it by arguing "I didn't kill her, her heart did!"

Everything in a trial depends on the jury charge.  So the defense may be hoping to get questions to the jury that include some exculpation for pre-existing conditions in George Floyd.  Odds are that won't happen (never say never, but I think the rule about what you did and what they suffered not being an escape hatch, holds), but they hope to get the jury to decide to answer the questions put to them in a way that lets Chauvin off the hook because, after all:  drugs.

It's an appeal to ignorance and probably racism (black people use drugs, which make them superhuman, or more than they already are, and people who use drugs deserve the wages of their sin, which is death).  It's also a Hail Mary (as in a pass you throw and pray is caught by your guy).  

The law, in other words, doesn't allow for such an absurdity; not as a matter of law, anyway.  Whether the jury finds it to be a fact (as in finding Floyd didn't die because Chauvin knelt on his neck for 9 minutes) is another matter.

That's why the prosecution is putting on evidence like this, though:
Gotta give the jury a reason not to buy the bullshit.  And they probably aren't:

Posted by at 2 comments:

Takes One To Know One

Somewhere, to someone, on the subject of corporations like Dell (headquartered still, I presume just north of Austin), Lite Guv Patrick said they (corporations) should stop talking about something they know nothing about. This from the man who said the elderly should die willingly to allow the young to return to restaurants and stores about this time last year. This from the man who ran a one-man campaign to shame school children who might consider themselves trans, to embarass and berate them and anyone who disagreed with him. This from a man whose idea of governance is to get what he wants passed into law, especially if it oppresses anyone he considers unworthy of consideration. 

In other words, he knows nothing about governance. And yet he blathers on.
Posted by at No comments:

This Is Not A Defense

It is the truth, as too many white people perceive it, but it is not a defense. And maybe, as a result of this case, that "truth" will start to ebb as a touchstone experience of scared (or belligerent; the same thing, really) white men.

Because, really, it's not true.  Which, again, is why it's not a defense.  What the lawyer is arguing here is that the facts of this case include the fact that George Floyd was a black man, ergo superhuman (remember all the stories about black men "jacked up" on "angel dust" and having "superhuman powers."  That one made its way into popular culture via TeeVee shows and movies.  I still think it was bullshit.  Time was the "insane" (a very loosely applied term) acquired "superhuman powers" in the throes of an episode.  That one fueled pulp fiction stories for decades before "pulps" were even being published.  There's always an excuse to be scared and therefore to be violent; very, very violent.  And excuse is not the same thing as the truth.).  Since Mr. Floyd was "superhuman," his kryptonite, his weakness, was to cut off his air supply.  Really, there's no other way to stop a "superman."  Especially if he's black, handcuffed, on the ground, with three (or was it four?  Honestly can't remember.) cops restraining him.  You can't be too careful with these superhuman types.

That's the argument Chauvin's lawyer is making.  He's asserting facts not in evidence because they can't be in evidence, but he wants the jury to decide the case based on that "evidence" anyway.  But it's not a defense; it's a lie.  A pernicious, racist lie.

Yet I'm sure this lawyer would insist there isn't a racist bone in his body, and he's only representing his client to the best of his abilities.

Doesn't mean his defense of his client isn't a pernicious racist lie, though.
Posted by at No comments:

☕️

SO SAY WE ALL!!!!
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

Old Man Shouts At Clouds

Which...look like baseballs?

So...too many baseball teams?  Too many games on TeeVee?  Too many TeeVee channels? So, boycott baseball because old man is tired?

Sure, why not?
Posted by at 1 comment:

"Shut Up And Pay!"

During a talk in his home state of Kentucky, McConnell once again chastised corporations such as Delta and Coca-Cola for publicly condemning Georgia's recently passed voting rights bill that reduces the number of statewide ballot drop-off boxes and makes it illegal for non-poll workers to hand out water to people waiting in long lines.

McConnell hastened to add, however, that it was perfectly fine for corporate America to shovel money to politicians.

"I'm not talking about political contributions," McConnell said. "Most of them contribute to both sides, they have political action committees, that's fine, it's legal, it's appropriate, I support that."

McConnell then described why he objected to corporations protesting the Georgia voting law.
 
"I'm talking about taking a position on a highly incendiary issue like this and punishing a community or a state because you don't like a particular law they passed," he said.

Punishing states because they don't do what you want (hem-hem, re-elect a Republican POTUS) is for politicians to do!  Not corporations!  Their role in public life is to shovel money to politicians and shut up!

Yeah, McConnell tried to walk it back:

 I didn't say that very artfully yesterday day," McConnell admitted.

Does anybody believe McConnell doesn’t know exactly what he’s saying when he speaks in public?  Not that it matters now; the damage has been done:

Not least because the story about Colorado voting law being "just like" Georgia's: Is such utter bullshit even NPR called it "disinformation" (NPR speak for "lie").

There’s a reason the GOP is coming up short.  This is FDR’s first term after 4 years of Hoover.  Biden may actually be too old to run for a second term, but there’s a possibility of establishing a Democratic paradigm in the Presidency that could mirror the one that went unbroken until Eisenhower; and even Nixon was more liberal than any Republican still in that party.

Tectonic plates are always moving.
Posted by at No comments:

It's Only A General Impression

But it seems that most of the states in the Northwest have mail-in voting at 100% availability. I may not be completely right about that, but that's as it seems.  And aside from the GOP in Arizona clamoring for a recount or audit or review or whatever of Maricopa County, I haven't heard of any states west of Oklahoma demanding new voter laws, restrictive or otherwise.*

I do hear a lot of call for it in the states of the Confederacy, though.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

*(No, those states aren't less racist; but because of history, they do have fewer blacks and other minorities in their population.  And some of that history is racist in the extreme.  Much easier not to be upset by the problem when you don't think you face it (southern states don't either, but they do face, still, the consequences of their racism.  Those states feel they have to deal with it.  I mean, there's a reason Biden called it the new Jim Crow.)
Anybody remember any stories about the wide-spread fraud in all the states with all mail ballots? Me, neither. Again, I don't know of any southern states like that (not too many northern or mid-western states, either).
Posted by at No comments:

The Road To Emmaus--Wednesday after Easter Sunday 2021


Who is the third who walks always beside you?

When I count, there are only you and I together

But when I look ahead up the white road

There is always another one walking beside you

Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded

I do not know whether a man or a woman

—But who is that on the other side of you?

T.S Eliot, "The Waste Land"

So....Emmaus.

Stop me if you heard this one:  two guys are walking down the street, talking about a third guy whose not there.  And a stranger asks them what they're talking about, and they fill him in while thinking "Is this guy from out of town or something?"  And they get to a diner, and they invite him in to have dinner with 'em (seemed like the thing to do, ya know?) and in the middle of the meal suddenly they realize this guy is the guy they were talking about!  Who's supposed to be dead, but maybe not!  And then, as sure as he was there, this guy they were talking about, he's gone!

Waddya make o' that?

Now that same day two of them were traveling to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem.  They were engaged in conversation about all that had taken place.  And it so happened during the course of their discussion, that Jesus himself approached and began to walk along with them. But they wouldn't recognize him.

He said to them, "What were you discussing as you walked along?"

Then they paused, looking depressed.  One of them, names Cleopas, said to him in reply, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn't know what happened there these last few days?"

And he said to them, "What are you talking about?"

And they said to him, "About Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet powerful in word and deed in the eyes of God and all the people, and about how our ranking priests and rulers turned him in to be sentenced to death, and crucified him. We were hoping that he would be the one who was going to ransom Israel. And as if this weren't enough, it's been three days now since all this happened. Meanwhile, some women from our group gave us quite a shock. They were at the tomb early this morning and didn't find his body. They came back claiming even to have seen a vision of heavenly messengers, who said that he was alive. Some of those with us went to the tomb and found it exactly as the women had described; but nobody saw him."

And he said to them, "You people are so slow-witted, so reluctant to trust everything the prophets have said! Wasn't the Anointed One destined to undergo these things and enter into his glory?" Then, starting with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted for them every passage of scripture that referred to himself.

They had gotten close to the village to which they were going, and he acted as if he were going on. But they entreated him, saying, "Stay with us; it's almost evening, the day is practically over." So he went in to stay with them.

And so, as soon as he took his place at table with them, he took a loaf, and gave a blessing, broke it, and started passing it out to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

--Luke 24:13-31, SV 

"That same day" is the day we now call Easter Sunday.  It's the day of the resurrection.  "Two figues in dazzling clothing" (Luke 24:4b, SV) appeared at the tomb and announced the resurrection, but in Luke's version nobody has seen anything of Jesus yet.  And when they do, they don't know who he is.  Not until he eats with them at table.

It still surprises me this story isn't read at every eucharist.  Among the gospels, it is the only story where Jesus is revealed in taking a meal.  Yes, John has Jesus cooking fish on the beach, and eating it, but the disciples know it's Jesus when they walk up to him.  They're surprised to see him, but they know it's him.  Here two strangers to the audience of Luke's gospel share a meal with the man they've been mourning for three days; and they don't realize it until the bread is broken. If that's not a reference to the eucharist, I don't know what is.

But is the bread now his body?  Is that what Luke is saying? Does Jesus still have a body?  He seems to, but they don't recognize it; and as soon as they do, he leaves.  He vanishes; he disappears. Need I say, bodies don’t do that?

Don't overlook the gesture of hospitality, either.  I think that's more important here than ever we credit.  Abraham was visited by God in the three strangers who came to his tents at Mamre.  They stopped because Abraham invited them to.  They ate because he offered the meal.  Jesus stops at Emmaus because Cleopas and his unnamed friend invite him to, little knowing who he was.  But Abraham didn't know who was at his tent, either.  They were strangers, and he offered them the comforts of his home.  Cleopas and his companion offered a meal, probably at the home of one of them (there really weren't any restaurants as we imagine them, certainly not in a village like Emmaus.  I've lived in villages that small.  The one restaurant that was there while I was was run out of an old home; and it didn't last long.  To offer someone a meal was to invite them into your home.  How many of us do that for strangers?).  Hospitality is a key aspect of Christ's teachings, but we overlook it.  We don't spend much time thinking about even his teachings on humility:  "The first of all will be last and servant of all."  We elevate "servant" to a position of public authority and honor, and while we more highly esteem the office holders who say they are the "servant of the people," that's not the meaning Jesus had in mind.  Servants served in households.  They served who ever came into that house, sat at that table.  Maybe today we should say "waitress of all."  And without even tips.

The Emmaus story is unique in the gospels.  There's no echo of it in John's post-resurrection stories, or in Matthew's.  Mark has one in the longer ending; it echoes Luke, almost:

A little later he appeared to two of them in a different guise as they were walking along on their way to the country.  And these two returned and told the others.  They did not believe them either.

Jesus' post-resurrection appearance in Mark is to Mary of Magdala, "from whom he had driven out seven demons."  But no one believes her; and they don't believe the unnamed two, either.

In Matthew, he appears to Mary of Magdala and "the other Mary," and the 11 go to the place in Galilee where the two women have told them to, and there they see Jesus, "though some were dubious."

In Luke, the Emmaus story leads directly into an appearance by Jesus among the 11, where he eats some fish (did he even taste the bread the first time?) to prove he's not a ghost.  Matthew has mentioned that the priests and elders bribed the guards to say the disciples stole the body, so stories were already about challenging the gospel narratives.  John tells several stories to prove Jesus is no ghost; but no one says quite what he is now.  In Luke he teaches the disciples a bit more, and then leads them out to Bethany (!), where he ascends into heaven, proving he is no longer of this earth, even if he isn't a ghost.  (Bethany finally earns a mention in Luke here; it is the site of the anointings in the other three gospels).  It's the most interesting of the resurrection stories because it involves hiddenness (or disguise), revelation, appearance/disappearance, confusion, and strangers.  The two men in the story are strangers to us, the audience, which makes Jesus as stranger even easier to grasp.  They should know him, but we don't know that clearly, because we don't know them.  We know Jesus, and think we'd have recognized him when these two (strangers to us, and therefore dismissible), don't.  But then, we are not among the 11; why would we do better? And why does Jesus appear to them, and not the 11; or Mary Magdalene, or "the other Mary"?  Where does Luke get this story, and, like his version of the anointing, what is he trying to tell us with this version of events?  A version unlike any other in the gospels, and yet as similar to them as his anointing is to the other three.

The story of Emmaus is no small thing.

Posted by at No comments:

About that “Anti-Corporation” Bias of the Democrats

So taxing corporations at all is "anti-corporation"? How is the individual income tax, then, not anti-human?
Posted by at No comments:

I Have A “Vaccine Passport”

My “passport” isn’t “government issued,” except tangentially. Or maybe it is. It’s a CDC form, filled out by the nurses who gave me my vaccine injections. I don’t carry it with me, no business has asked me to produce it. But they could, just as they could require me to wear a mask lest I commit criminal trespass. The same law would apply, the same reasoning. It’s a simple matter of public health, the same rule of law that stores can use to require I wear shoes.

The college where I teach will escort any person off the campus if they refuse to wear a mask. They could as easily require proof of vaccinations. Texas public schools require 7 vaccinations of each student enrolled. This is not a HIPPA violation, or a breach of privacy. It’s a matter of public health.

And there’s not a damned thing Gov. Absent can do about it. This is just another stupid and futile gesture on his part.
See?  And what about those "Voter ID" arguments?  You know, I need a photo ID to board a plane, and all that, so why shouldn’t I need a document to prove I am who I claim to be...

Posted by at No comments:

Can We Boycott These Guys?

You mean like this guy? As Philip Bump pointed out:

As any organizer can tell you, boycotts don’t work simply by calling for them to happen. They work only when there’s repeated pressure for the boycotts to be upheld, a slow, tedious process that depends on the public seeing a real motive for the boycott and that depends on a willingness to do without the product....Put simply, successful boycotts demand a concerted, vocal effort with dedicated resources. They require the demonstration of a viable threat.

I don't foresee a lot of good ol' boys in the South (especially in Georgia) giving up their "CokeCola" (the phonetics there are tough) because Trump or, even less noteworthy, Paul tells them to. Where's the viable threat?  Wikipedia surprises me:  the Nestle Boycott that started in 1977 is still, in one form or another, going on.  (It's a kind of Thesesus' ship level of metaphysical identity at this point.)  Has there been a viable threat against Nestle there?  Mostly it's a PR battle.  But I still support the ends for that protest, if not necessarily the means.

So, again, Paul and Trump are the dogs chasing cars they have no intention of catching.

But it gets them on TeeVee, where they can also complain about being "silenced" and "canceled."  If only....
Posted by at No comments:

R.I.P.

 "It was zero threat, right from the start, it was zero threat," Trump told Fox. "Look, they went in, they shouldn't have done it. Some of them went in, and they are hugging and kissing the police and the guards, you know, they had great relationships, and a lot of the people were waived in, and then they walked in and they walked out." 

Miss him yet?  Neither do I.
Posted by at No comments:

None Dare Call It...

a "vaccine passport."
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 06, 2021

Lost In Translation

I'll allow it. If only because it’s about Derrida and gives me the excuse to post this.
Posted by at No comments:

A Star Is Born

I'm old enough to remember when we all wanted "them" to ask "that" question of Kayleigh McEnany. But she was incompetent and sadly comic in her inability to answer even the most acceptable question that didn't require a comment on "the Deep State" or just Democrats in general.

Not to say it isn't fun to watch Ms. Psaki at work.  I could watch just a supercut of her best moments and enjoy more than most of the stuff on Netflix.
Posted by at No comments:

Apart From A Handful Of Texans...

...in the GOP, who gives a shit? It’s not like Gov. Absent took a bold stand on the UT “Eyes Of Texas” controversy. He’s not even threatening to boycott football. See, e.g., chasing the car v. catching the car.

Abbott doesn’t want to get anywhere near the car.

Or maybe this is why he doesn’t want to be there:
One; or the other. Or both. Our lines are open. Operators are standing by. This is a free call.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)