File Under WTFingF

Our R congressfolk @ work:

Whereas magic is an art form with the unique power and potential to impact the lives of all people;

Whereas magic enables people to experience the impossible;

Whereas magic is used to inspire and bring wonder and happiness to others;

Whereas magic has had a significant impact on other art forms;

Whereas magic, like the great art forms of dance, literature, theater, film, and the visual arts, allows people to experience something that transcends the written word;

Whereas many technological advances can be directly traced to the influential work of magicians;

Whereas futurist Arthur C. Clarke claimed that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic;

Whereas one of the greatest artists of all time, Leonardo da Vinci, was inspired by magic and co-wrote one of the very first books on magic in the late 15th century;

Whereas modern cinema would not exist today without the innovative work of the accomplished magician Georges Méliès;

Whereas magicians are visual storytellers who seamlessly interweave elements of mystery, wonder, emotion, and expression;

Whereas magic is an outstanding artistic model of individual expression;

Whereas magic fulfills some of the highest ideals and aspirations of our country by encouraging people to question what they believe and see;

Whereas magic is a unifying force across cultural, religious, ethnic, and age differences in our diverse Nation;

Whereas magic is an art that transforms the ordinary into the extraordinary;

Whereas the American magicians Harry Houdini and David Copperfield have been the most successful magicians of the past two centuries;

Whereas David Copperfield, introduced to magic as a boy growing up in New Jersey, has been named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress;

Whereas David Copperfield, with 21 Emmy Awards, 11 Guinness World Records, and over four billion dollars in ticket sales, has impacted every aspect of the global entertainment industry;

Whereas David Copperfield, through his magic, inspires great positive change in the lives of Americans;

Whereas people consistently leave David Copperfield’s live magic show with a different perspective than when they entered;

Whereas Rebecca Brown of Portland, Oregon, left a David Copperfield magic show with a newfound inspiration to pursue her lifelong, unfulfilled passion for dance;

Whereas three months after Rebecca Brown attended the David Copperfield magic show, she performed her first choreographed recital in Portland, Oregon’s Pioneer Square;

Whereas programs such as Project Magic, created by David Copperfield, use magic as a form of therapy for children with physical, psychological, and social disabilities;

Whereas learning magic through programs such as Project Magic can help these children improve their physical and mental dexterity and increase their confidence;

Whereas learning magic through programs such as Project Magic helps these children realize that they are no longer less able than their peers;

Whereas programs such as Project Magic teach these children that they are more capable and have a newfound ability to do what others cannot;

Whereas cities such as Wylie, Texas, and its mayor, Eric Hogue, recognize and promote the art of magic with official proclamations, summer educational programs, and the first festival dedicated to the art of magic in the State of Texas;

Whereas Mayor Eric Hogue, who learned the art of magic as a child, continues to use those skills to teach elementary school students about the different roles and responsibilities of local government;

Whereas magic is timeless in appeal and requires only the capacity to dream;

Whereas magic transcends any barrier of race, religion, language, or culture;

Whereas magic has not been properly recognized as a great American art form, nor has it been accorded the institutional status on a national level commensurate with its value and importance;

Whereas there is not an effective national effort to support and preserve magic;

Whereas documentation and archival support required by such a great art form has yet to be systematically applied to the field of magic; and

Whereas it is in the best interest of the national welfare to preserve and celebrate the unique art form of magic: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure; and

(2) supports efforts to make certain that magic is preserved, understood, and promulgated.

So much to say, so little reason to do so. And yet.

I'd'a thought a "national treasure" was something or someone unique to the nation. Like Donald Trump, or those who support him. And what are "efforts to make certain magic is... understood"? Forcing magicians to reveal their trickery?

Well, okay then. If that's it, then I'm all for it. So, thanks, actual congressman and elected person Pete Sessions. Now you can be famous for something wonderful, instead of, well, this. Or this.

Face It

So Denmark is the happiest place on Earth. Turns out (who'd a' thunk it?) that, among other things, extreme wealth inequality makes people angry and unhappy:

... The report found that inequality was strongly associated with unhappiness — a stark finding for rich countries like the United States, where rising disparities in income, wealth, health and well-being have fueled political discontent...

Wise heads inform us Trump has tapped into the anger of the average American (where "average" means "white male, mostly.") Weird, isn't it: the candidate whose plans would most directly bern the source of their anger isn't the one those people are looking to. It's the one (either one of the Rs, matter of fact) whose proposals (such as they are) are guaranteed (because they've been tried, and they always do) to make it worse.

So not only are these people, these Trump voters, scary as hell in their overt racism, violence, and love for an autocratic demagogue, they're clueless. They've been carefully taught to be angry at the wrong things, so their "thought" leaders can keep doing what they've been doing. Trumpists will let everything get even worse for them, as long as they have a fuhrer leader who validates and encourages their desire to blame their problems on African-Americans and Jews and Mexicans. And liberals. Of course, liberals.

They don't want anything fixed. They just want to punch people in the face.

[Image source]

Innocent As Lambs

Gee.

R leaders are appalled that Trump is gonna be their nominee. How could this happen, they ask, licking the pie on their faces. After which they proceed to behave in the very way that has produced the sorts of voters going for Trump: refusing to consider an obviously highly qualified, moderate, experienced, bipartisan-approved Supreme Court nominee.

Watching Orrin Hatch try to justify the stonewalling while implying there's precedent for it (there isn't, not at this point in a presidency) and that Ds have done the same thing (they haven't, not refusing even to have hearings for anyone), is to understand everything you need to know about today's R party and the reason it's produced such candidates as Trump and Cruz.

His lips were moving. What Hatch was actually saying was, "Listen. We hate everything about Barack Obama. Period. We're not gonna let him have another Supreme Court nominee. Period. Sure, the guy he put forward is supremely qualified, completely without partisan baggage, someone we'd all support if it were anyone but Obama. But we've been doing everything we can to obstruct and embarrass and impugn Barack Hussein Obama for over seven years, and we're not gonna stop now. You say this level of nasty dereliction and mendacious politicization is part of why our party is self-destructing in its presidential nomination process? What ever are you talking about."

Nope. Blameless as newborn lambs are they.

[Image source]

Patriotism

My latest newspaper column:

Recent discussions with fellow Americans of right-wing persuasion have made me think the word “patriotism” ought to be banished like a Guatemalan child at our Southern border. Either that, or people who use it should be required simultaneously to define it. Even though it’s not in my regular lexicon, I thought I knew the meaning. Now, observing the party that claims exclusive ownership, I have to ask. 

If patriotism means love of country, what, beyond declaration, constitutes showing it? Do we discharge our patriotic duty by saluting the flag? Are extra points awarded for shedding tears? Can we slap “support our troops” stickers on bumpers and call it good, or does patriotism require willingness to pay enough in taxes actually to support them? 

Is patriotism defined solely by risking death for our country, as I did serving in Vietnam, where I was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds received? What about ordering someone else’s kids to do the dying? If it’s all about the troops, does patriotism include voting for wars but against jobs programs for veterans? Is criticism of our country unpatriotic by definition? Would that include not only political dissenters but candidates claiming the US isn’t great while suborning violence against protesters? What’s the patriotism score for denouncing Barack Obama versus George Bush, and where’s the meter? The president just ordered another military pay raise. He said he wanted to give more, but budget restraints don’t allow it. Which way does the needle point on that? Are the restraints patriotic? 

Ought we define as patriots teachers who spend their own money to provide adequate supplies for their students? If so, does the term stop applying if they join a union? What about just showing up for work every day? If that’s not patriotic, what is Marco Rubio, record-breaking senatorial absentee? 

Do patriots hide income overseas? Is voting against school bonds and levies patriotic? I don’t love paying taxes, but I’ve never voted against school funding: love of country and hope for its future demands it. Some who claim more patriotism than me write letters urging voting against that funding. Does either of us deserve patriot points? In whose ledger? And what about science? Does accepting the evidence for manmade climate change mean you hate oil companies and, therefore, America? Must patriots deny climate change? A lot of self-described ones do. 

Does arguing for sensible gun laws demonstrate lack of patriotism and disregard for the Second Amendment? Must one accept the Ten Commandments in courthouses to confirm support for the First? Is demanding separation a position that affirms the ideal of protecting all forms of belief, or is it treasonous apostasy? For that matter, can only Christians be considered patriots? 

“I believe in patriotism,” a reader of my column wrote to me, in a way that suggested, because I’m a liberal, I don’t. He listed several other things he thinks separate conservative and liberal ideals: low taxes, support for the First and Second Amendments, limited government, strong military. Who, I wonder, prefers government bigger than necessary, or taxes higher than required to finance our needs? Who wants our military to be weak? We may differ in amounts and direction of spending, maybe even in definitions of weak and strong; but in patriotism? Only if the concept is wholly about how many wars we should be fighting, with how many unwanted M1 Abrams tanks and unusable F-35 fighters, or how many of whose boots should be on which foreign ground. 

Great riches have been made through defense spending. Might that play a role in the extent to which we’ve been taught to see patriotism only in the military light? Might it also explain the red-hot wedge of anger that’s been driven between citizens based on whether they identify as conservative or liberal? Most liberals think spending more on defense than the next ten countries added together is enough; that domestic spending protects liberty and enables the American dream at least as much as carpet bombing and reinvading the Middle East. Is that where lies the line between patriotism and lack thereof? If that’s not it, who keeps flogging the idea, and how did they manage to convince so many people? 

[Image source]

Fiction?

February 1, 2016. Donald Trump tells a crowd:

There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell—  I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too.

Not much later comes the famous sucker punch, after which Trump says he's "looking into" paying the puncher's legal fees. Shortly thereafter, he tells George Stephanopolous he never said any such thing, and he doesn't condone violence.
.....

Scene: Someone, somewhere -- possibly V. Putin, or the mayor of some small town in California -- says Donald Trump is a liar, several of his wives have been ugly, and he carries Viagra and a tiny condom whenever he travels. 

Trump: I'm gonna bomb that fucker back to the stone age. Get him when he's home with his kids. Gimme the codes. Gimme the goddamn nuclear codes and bring me the fucking button. Seriously, Chris, bring 'em. And if he won't do it, Ben, you child molester, you go get 'em. Now. Goddamn it. NOW!! Where's little Marco? Call General Boykin, you pipsqueak, and get his ass up here...

Trump, next day: That's a nasty question, Cokie. I've never condoned nuclear violence. That button-pushing didn't come from me, if someone pushed a button, I don't know. I'm a peaceful person, and everyone likes me. I haven't seen the pictures, so I don't know, but if there's a crater and if someone says there's nuclear contamination, I'd have to look into it. My people are good people. The best.

[The above conversations were translated from the original "Ingish" after being found in code, under rubble in the general location of what is believed to have been known then as the Pale Home of Amreekah, on the third planet in solar 839, many thousand circuits in the past. Whereas the recordings might provide insight into the disappearance of life on that planet, further investigations are unlikely, since researchers are pursuing evidence of intelligence at or above the level of our own, widely distributed throughout the galaxy. That life on one planet among so many thousands took such a singularly regressive turn is curious, but will not be investigated at this time. Obviously an aberration, it's not felt that useful information will derive from further study since contact with our equals holds so much more promise, and when there's no suggestion it could happen or has happened anywhere else.]

(The above is from the introductory paragraph of a six-volume essay written for a pre-school project by x2yå∂.)

[Image source]

Get Outta The Damn Building

This is a much better commentary on disruptions at Trump rallies than my recent one:

... I have a modest suggestion for all the groups working in rough alliance to keep the Republic out of the hands of a vulgar talking yam.

Stay out of the buildings.

Stop being played for such suckers. Stop enlisting yourself in his bloody vaudeville. Stop giving him stuff to lie about at all the rallies that actually do end up happening. Stop making yourselves part of the show, because it's not working. It doesn't affect him at all. In fact, his campaign gains strength from it, like some science-fiction monster that absorbs the energy of whatever attacks it and then uses it to destroy...

... My suggestion? Create a wave of non-violent protest outside the arenas. Close the streets. Fill the jails, if you must. Force the media coverage, which shouldn't be all that hard at this point. But stay out of the buildings because you can do no good in there. It gives aid and comfort to the forces you are trying to defeat, ... and it gives the other candidates from a party that long ago descended into madness one more hallucination to justify why it's eating bugs in public...

[Image source]

I Miss Him Already

Here is a very long, very comprehensive article about Obama's foreign policy, based in large part on direct conversations with him. It considers and gives voice to both the positive and the negative; in particular, the infamous "red line" decision. I'd suggest that whatever you might think about his policies and their outcomes, after reading this I doubt you'd believe, if you ever did, that our president is anything but a deeply thoughtful, smart, and complex thinker; and that he has only the best interests of the country at heart. Right or wrong, agree or not with the decisions he's made, this article makes it pretty clear.

One can't help but wonder if George Bush ever had conversations like this, or was capable of it. And to think that Donald Trump could be the next occupant of the White House, in this context, is simply too awful to consider.

...“Having said that,” he continued, “I also believe that the world is a tough, complicated, messy, mean place, and full of hardship and tragedy. And in order to advance both our security interests and those ideals and values that we care about, we’ve got to be hardheaded at the same time as we’re bighearted, and pick and choose our spots, and recognize that there are going to be times where the best that we can do is to shine a spotlight on something that’s terrible, but not believe that we can automatically solve it. There are going to be times where our security interests conflict with our concerns about human rights. There are going to be times where we can do something about innocent people being killed, but there are going to be times where we can’t.” 

If Obama ever questioned whether America really is the world’s one indispensable nation, he no longer does so. But he is the rare president who seems at times to resent indispensability, rather than embrace it. “Free riders aggravate me,” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold... 

...The defense of the liberal international order against jihadist terror, Russian adventurism, and Chinese bullying depends in part, he believes, on the willingness of other nations to share the burden with the U.S. ... “We don’t have to always be the ones who are up front,” he told me. “Sometimes we’re going to get what we want precisely because we are sharing in the agenda. The irony is that it was precisely in order to prevent the Europeans and the Arab states from holding our coats while we did all the fighting that we, by design, insisted” that they lead during the mission to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power in Libya. “It was part of the anti–free rider campaign.” 

The president also seems to believe that sharing leadership with other countries is a way to check America’s more unruly impulses. “One of the reasons I am so focused on taking action multilaterally where our direct interests are not at stake is that multilateralism regulates hubris,” he explained. ... "...So we have to be mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other people’s suspicions.”...

 These are the words of exactly the sort of president I'm glad we have had for the past two terms. They stand in inexpressible contrast to those of the previous one; and to those we've heard from the pretenders on the right, the difference is like a redwood forest unto a patch of weeds.

Shouting "Fire"

I don't like protesters at gatherings who try to shout down the speaker, left or right. Signs, calls for boycotts, fine. Not letting someone be heard, not okay. But I gotta say there might be limits. When Donald Trump repeatedly goads and insults protesters, pledges to pay legal fees for anyone who roughs them up, regrets that protestors aren't hauled away on stretchers, announces he'd like to "punch them in the face," that's incitement to violence that has (or ought to have) no place in our political process. It's shockingly like the behavior preceding the rise of dictators throughout history.

So I'm gonna make an exception for those whose protests ended the rally for Trump in Chicago. His is the sort of speech, like the proverbial shouting of "fire" in a theater, that ought not be tolerated in a free society. It needs calling out, forcefully. If his fellow candidates are afraid to do it, (Rubio is sorta kinda maybe wavering) someone else has to.

[Image source]

Presidential

"I'd like to punch him in the face." And, by golly, just a few days later, someone did. In the above video, look at the guy behind him when Trump says that. Thinks it's fabulous.

As I've said, these people that Trump has drawn out from under their rocks will remain no matter what happens to Trump's candidate. I wish I had the words to express how deeply depressing it is that a man like Trump, on the votes of people like that old guy doing the laughing, is the leading candidate of a formerly respectable political party.

I just watched a couple of minutes of his rally today, after the debate in which they all tried to act "presidential." It was the same: a protester thrown out, Trump mocking him. Compare and contrast: ever seen Obama with a heckler? See how he tells the crowd to let him speak? Engages in respectful dialog?

How many people like that guy laughing behind Trump claim, as does a person with whom I've had a recent conversation, that Obama doesn't believe in American "exceptionalism?" Well, if we're a country that can lionize someone like Donald Trump, who can deny that we're exceptional?

Values? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Values

So kindly Doc Carson, man of God, humble, who speaks softly and says people should try to get along, who abhors political nastiness, is endorsing Donald Trump.

So much for all that. For Carson, it's always been about the grift. About selling Ben Carson and his books, getting speaking gigs. Maybe now it's about becoming Surgeon General.

[Image source]

Who, Us?

This is one of the best pieces on the Trump phenomenon that I've read lately; it's mainly about Republican attempts to shift blame, pure, they are, as the driven snow.

...The same people who have long scoffed, often with reason, at the “root causes” theory of terrorism or crime or whatever—emphasizing, instead, individual responsibility for whatever it is we choose to do— have now become full-fledged rootsers. It isn’t Trump or his followers who are really to blame for his rise; it’s the circumstances that produced them and the guys, chiefly liberals, who they think created those circumstances. Or else it’s said that there is a “systematic rot” in American politics, of which Trump is merely a symptom. But in this case there is not a systematic rot. There is a specific rot. The rot was in a party and movement that never actually took the trouble to seal itself off from its own extremists. Yes, of course, there are nuts on all sides, but 9/11 “truthers” play exactly zero role in liberal electoral politics; “birthers” played such a central role in the right that the biggest and most rancid birther of them all is now the leading Presidential candidate of the Republican Party...

That last emphasis is mine because it's a point I've made repeatedly, and also in reference to liberal love of "alternative" medicine in comparison to "conservative" climate change denial. They're all an embarrassment to humanity; but the liberal lacunae are at the periphery, whereas for today's Republican party, birtherism and climate change denial are right there at the center of it all.

[Image source]

Approval

So President Obama's approval rating is at a three-year high: 50%. One must wonder if part of it is the depressing spectacle of R candidates pissing on each other, having nothing useful to say, and, in the case of Trump, encouraging audiences to beat up protesters.

And maybe it could be the entire bunch of R elected officials. Did you hear the one about Chuck Grassley saying Democrats objecting to Republican blocking of any (and still unknown) SCOTUS nomination are just "trying to score political points." GMAFB!

Yep. It's a joke, alright. Except for the fact that the millions of people who think Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz) is just the kind of president we need will still be around, no matter what happens to his candidacy. So I guess it's kinda good news/bad news.

[Image source]

Hey There, Hobson

So I said, I said, "Well," I said, as they tightened the straps and shaved my head, I said, "Looks like my best bet to avoid the gas chamber is the electric chair."

... Republican elites are begrudgingly embracing Ted Cruz—and hanging Marco Rubio out to dry. 

Panicked at Donald Trump’s dominance and dismayed by Rubio’s continued inability to do anything about it, some top Republican power brokers are turning to Cruz, putting aside their policy and personal misgivings to back the candidate they now openly label as their best hope to stop Trump’s GOP takeover.

“He seems to be the only guy who’s got some momentum, and is probably the best situated if there is anybody out there to beat Trump,” said Austin Barbour, a prominent Mississippi-based GOP operative. “That’s why there are many people like me—Ted Cruz wouldn’t have been our first choice, but as we go through the process, we’re reevaluating our vote, and he seems to be the guy at the top of the list.” ...

Oh, they'll pour plenty of money into him if they figure out how to get him the nomination, and they'll hype him like the second coming (which shouldn't be hard, since that's exactly how Cruz sees himself.) My faith in today's Republican voters is pretty much shattered: their ability to wool their eyes is beyond reckoning. But I think -- I'd like to believe, anyway -- that there are enough of them who see Carpet-bombing Cruz as the dangerous, lying, egotistical, theocratic, messianic manipulator that he is, to keep him from being elected; that they'd find it impossible to vote for him even against Hillary (or, as now seems not entirely impossible, Bernie.)

If not, well, it's unthinkable. So I'll try not to.

[Image source]

One More Example

Okay, I'm not gonna keep posting clips of Sam Seder, but, following on my previous post, this makes an additional couple of points. First, there's no way you'll hear a discussion like this -- thoughtful, controlled, detailed, searching -- on any right-wing radio I know of. And, second: it, yet again, hovers around the edge of the central question regarding Tea Partiers, people who love Trump, or ones who'd vote for Cruz: why? WHY?? For gods' sakes, WHY????

I get their frustration and anger. It's well-explained in the above clip. But why, why, why vote for the people and the party least likely to do anything about it, much less even care? It's like hating child-killers and moving in with John Wayne Gacy.

Bag. Cat. Out.

This video is important in a couple of ways. First, from the outset, you see why there's no left-wing equivalent to right-wing radio: Sam Seder is a smart guy, and very well informed. But he completely lacks the fluency of a guy like Limbaugh or Beck. Left-wing talkers (and how many are there, anyway?) appeal to people willing to listen for the message, and think about it. Takes more work to stay with it.

More importantly, though, is what Joe Scarborough is actually saying: Republican economics in no way benefits people who aren't among the very wealthy. To get enough votes, they have to gin up anger and religious paranoia and blame; and they have to lie, and to get people to deny reality. In other words, for a minute there, Morning Joe let the cat out of the bag.

It still doesn't explain, however, the ease with which they've been able to do it.