Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Samantha Bee: The Proud Tradition of Fear Mongering

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Keith Olbermann Runs Donald Trump's Personality Through Psychopath Test

This is tremendous. I miss Keith Olbermann a helluva lot. We could use him right now.

[Excerpt]

COULD DONALD TRUMP PASS A SANITY TEST?

Short answer: probably not.

First, several important caveats. There is little worse and nothing cheesier than questioning the psychological stability of a public figure, especially a candidate for president, even in this case.

Except that in his year of campaigning, Donald Trump has called Lindsey Graham “a nut job,” Glenn Beck “a real nut job,” and Bernie Sanders “a wacko.” Trump has insisted Ben Carson’s got a “pathological disease,” and asked of Barack Obama: “Is our president insane?” He called Ted Cruz “unstable,” “unhinged,” “a little bit of a maniac,” and “crazy or very dishonest.” He also called the entire CNBC network “crazy.” He called Megyn Kelly “crazy”—at least six times. . .

Read more (or better yet, watch the video) at: Vanity Fair

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Bombshell: Trump Would Delegate Presidency to Vice-President if Elected, According to Kasich

Future "Vice President" Mike Pence?
This should disqualify Donald J. Trump for the presidency, should in fact effectively end his candidacy. If Ohio Governor John Kasich is to be believed--and why shouldn't he be--Trump's plan is to become a figurehead president, essentially in charge of American morale, while his Vice President does the work.

This is hardly a complete surprise as an eventuality. But it is a shocking thing to find out in advance. Nobody ought to really believe that Trump wants the day-to-day grind of the job of the Presidency. He wants the title, the prestige, the ego-stroking, the political "happy ending" (double-entendre intended and encouraged). But this means this cult of personality frothing at the mouth for Donald J. Trump, celebrity? Would be getting TRUMP stamped on the front of the White House, while President Pence runs things.

That ought to freak out anyone who isn't a far right-wing social conservative. That ought to become the biggest news story going. It should be drowning out Mike Pence's speech (which is happening as I type this). Hillary Clinton should hit this, and hit it hard: Donald Trump has no intention of doing the job of president.

[Excerpt]

Trump's offer to Kasich to be running mate: Be in charge of both domestic, foreign policy 

CLEVELAND — John Kasich could've become America's chief operating officer, the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, if only he'd said yes to becoming Donald Trump's running mate, several Kasich sources told The Dispatch.. .

Read more at: The Columbus Dispatch

Stephen Colbert Resurrects Character, "The Word," Jon Stewart and Coins "Trumpiness"

Perfect. I've been saying for months (seems like years) that the whole Donald J. Trump phenomenon seemed to hinge upon "truthiness," and "gut-feel," a form of fact-free-but-feels-right politics, practiced by arch Republicans. But it never felt like enough to explain it. After all, truthiness has been a Republican thing going back to the beginning of the Dubya era, at least. The Trump thing, this unbelievably unqualified, unexplainable famous-for-being-famous, reality star turned politician as an actual candidate for president? It's so strange, so out of explainable historical context, it just seems like bad writing. Who would have believed it, if it was foretold twenty years ago? Ten?

But, having been prescient before, Stephen Colbert has resurrected his arch conservative character (also called Stephen Colbert), brought along retired Jon Stewart, and his character-defining comedy segment, The Word, the bit that brought truthiness into being, in his very first show. And the new Word is:

TRUMPINESS.





[Excerpt]

Stephen Colbert Brought Back “Stephen Colbert”—and Jon Stewart—to Explain the Rise of Trump
 
The 2016 Republican National Convention is a scary time for many Americans—including many Republicans—and so on the Late Show on Monday night, Stephen Colbert brought back two figures from the in-retrospect quite comforting era of the mid-to-late 2000s: Stephen Colbert (the character) and Jon Stewart. . .

Read more at: Slate

Garry Marshall, ‘Pretty Woman’ Director and Creator of ‘Happy Days,’ Dies at 81

Marshall with Julia Roberts, from source, Variety

Awwww. Damn you, 2016! I've been a fan of Garry Marshall since before I knew who he was. Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley and Mork & Mindy were pop culture touchstones of my childhood. I loved his acting appearances (he could seemingly turn up anywhere), particulrly in Soapdish, and his sister Penny's Jumpin' Jack Flash. Garry Marshall just knew FUNNY. RIP, Mr. Marshall. Maybe Chachi jumping the shark at the RNC is what did it?

[Excerpt]

Garry Marshall, ‘Pretty Woman’ Director and Creator of ‘Happy Days,’ Dies at 81

Garry Marshall, who created some of the 1970s’ most iconic sitcoms including “Happy Days,” “The Odd Couple,” “Laverne and Shirley” and “Mork and Mindy” and went on to direct hit movies including “Pretty Woman” and “The Princess Diaries,” died Tuesday of complications from pneumonia. He was 81. The news was first reported by Access Hollywood. . .

Read more at: Variety

Roger Ailes Out at FOX "News"

Grab-ass Murdoch, from source, Reuters
I'll bet Jabba Roger Ailes never thought that positively ancient Rupert Murdoch would live long enough to outlast him at FOX "News," and probably was more worried about doing battle with Murdoch's kids, should they inherit the place. But it looks like the loathsome toad (Ailes, not Murdoch) is going to be out on his ass, and very soon!

[Excerpt]

Murdochs decide to oust Fox News chief Ailes: report

Rupert Murdoch, executive co-chairman of 21st Century Fox Inc (FOXA.O), and his sons James and Lachlan agree that Fox News Channel boss Roger Ailes should leave the company but they have not settled on the timing, New York magazine reported on Monday, citing anonymous sources. . .

Read more at: Reuters

Monday, July 18, 2016

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Does Anybody Really Know What Crime it is? (Another Rocky Mountain Mike Song Parody)

Rocky Mountain Mike's inspiration, maybe?
(See what I did there?)


Now that Hillary Clinton's email "scandal" is behind her, along with Bernie's overdue endorsement and the sputtering out of the most recent Benghazi report, she can finally, finally focus on the national election. But it won't stop the die-hards from sputtering and fuming that the email thing didn't pan out. So, just like Benghazi, they'll probably keep at it, trying to turn it into something. And maybe--as when Ken Starr turned an unrelated investigation of real estate dealings into one about cigars and blowjobs--something will eventually stick.

But don't tell me anyone is actually outraged about emails or servers. Liberals are outraged at a) conservatives who can't drop a bone, and b) Hillary for making such a rookie mistake. Conservatives are only outraged that they couldn't dredge anything up to hang her with. And they've hung Comey up to dry, right next to where the #BernieOrBusters put Bernie himself after his "sellout" to Hillary. But, does anyone really know what the crime is Mrs. Clinton is alleged to have committed? Glad you asked.

Just George W. Bush, Acting Goofy, at a FUNERAL

Michelle Obama trying gamely to play along with the goofball.
Politics is weird, and getting weirder. There are double-standards, and then there are stark, bold-letter, hypocritical double-standards, you know? I mean, think about what it must feel like to be these presidential contenders, listed with the thing that pretty much ended their chance to be president:

- Michael Dukakis: filmed driving a tank, wearing a helmet
- John Kerry: wore a hazmat suit at a science facility, went windsurfing that one time
- Howard Dean: screamed enthusiastically at a rally, magnified by a unidirectional microphone
- Al Gore: sighed audibly at a debate

Why is one of these things not like the other?
Yup. Almost universally, people would agree, those men's hopes of election were stopped by those little events. Matched up against the lengthy list of foibles, flubs, and downright outrageous things said and done by Donald Trump, they don't amount to anything. But that was it for them. For all the whining about there being a double-standard for Bill and Hillary Clinton, Trump seems to have a permanent "SKIP" UNO card when it comes to disqualifying events. Nothing shakes his base, and virtually nothing goes beyond a couple days in the news cycle, before they reset to default.

But here is another double-standard, and it goes to the double-standard for Clintons that is much more rarely addressed. For all of the certainty so many claim to have that the media and the system are "in the tank" for the Clintons, the fact is, they're held to a tougher standard than most. Making it more remarkable when they do manage to bounce back, or shrug off the brutal treatment they get. Case in point.

Bill Clinton was at a funeral for Sec. Ron Brown, and was seen on camera smiling and walking with someone. When he noticed a camera trained in his direction, he did what your grandmother would scold you to do: he wiped that smile off his face right quick, and tried to look somber. This was and remains fodder for right-wingers to this day, as an example of Clinton disingenuousness. When in fact, it's something probably anyone might do. Contrast that with yesterday's memorial for the police officers slain in Dallas this past week.



Presidents Bush and Barack Obama both gave stirring speeches. Dubya's was much shorter, obviously prepared for him, and rehearsed. And he couldn't help but keep his colloquial Texas twang. But it was fine. But check him out later, while holding hands with his much more mannered wife, and our current first lady (who, poor lady, is fairly trapped there with this goon) dancing around and acting goofy. At a funeral.

Think this will be brought up endlessly--or ever--by conservatives? Or even make more than a light ripple on the news before going down the memory hole?

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Picking the VPs: The Name Game

You've got to wonder if something as simple as a person's name can be an immediate disqualifier from political office, regardless of personal accomplishments and aptitude. You'd think it could, but who could have predicted "Barack Hussein Obama?" Or even "Newt Gingrich?" That last one is waddling up to the trough again, unbelievably, as a potential Donald Trump ticket-mate. Which would be particularly funny: Family Values Party ticket with six wives between them?

But I mean something more obvious like double-entendres, unwanted associations, things like that. For instance, you take a bonafide political star, a practically super-powered megawatt hit like Cory Booker? Everyone loves him, he's demographically perfect, but,

CLINTON - BOOKER?

How quickly would a mind as juvenile as Trump's seize on the "Book her, Danno!" sound of that?

CLINTON? BOOK HER!

Another potential pitfall would be name association, say if Mrs. Clinton picked another up-and-comer like Julian Castro?

CLINTON - CASTRO!

Tell me there wouldn't be posters with an unflattering picture of HRC alongside Fidel Castro.

She's going to have trouble with bad conservative humor no matter who she picks though, no getting around that, so maybe for Hillary, it's a secondary concern. I mean, you could conjure the bad memes and jokes just by thinking about them for a minute. Al Franken? Frankenstein's monster and his Bride. Elizabeth Warren? An American Indian theme of some sort (they've got little else there), or something sexist/homophobic about two women.

But, Trump has another problem: "Trump" is a verb. And a noun. His name could inadvertently comprise a full sentence just on his pick alone. A good one (were the man himself a potential pick) Andrew Card would yield

TRUMP - CARD.

Not bad! But it could get bad. It could get weird and confusing, say if he picked Utah Rep. Mia Love:

TRUMP - LOVE!

With an effective campaign and some sweet graphics, you might pull it off, but we're talking about Trump here. You're treading into the three-wives, alleged rape, "my daughter is hot" territory that late night comics could have a FIELD day with.

TRUMP - CORKER?

Hilarious, jokes write themselves.

TRUMP - PENCE

Runs together awfully easily: Trumpence. Sounds a bit lit Tuppence.  Do they consider things like that?

There is Joni Ernst, whose last name sounds like an accidental body noise (and who, let's face it, is Palinesque). And those whose names are also parts of speech, and could just form a confusing sentence. Say he picked Keebler Elf Jeff Sessions:

TRUMP - SESSIONS! Whaaa???

Or Steve King of Iowa?

TRUMP - KING!

You've got to be Trumpking kidding me.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Bulletproof: Hillary Clinton Clear of Email "Scandal"; Benghazi


The way my posts (when I actually get around to writing them) go is, a bit of editorializing on my part, followed by a story in today's news that backs up my point. And if I get another story about this up today, I'll probably do that. But for now, on this subject, I'm just going to say something loudly and clearly that I believe to be true:

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, BENGHAZI AND THE EMAIL "SCANDAL" ARE OVER.

That's it. They're wrung out, they're exhausted. Right Wing World is furious, but when are they not? The thing is, they're not furious about four dead Americans, or the political consequences of what happened in Libya. They're not furious about a former Secretary of State potentially endangering state secrets, or leaving the country open to a attack, or any other potential pitfalls or consequences. They're furious that it didn't stick. They're furious that their Fitzmas didn't come, and that it didn't send Hillary Rodham Clinton to jail, or to obscurity.

Remember, there was no fury over any other prior email scandal, attached to George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Rick Perry or Jeb! Bush. Remember also, that Benghazi was a) originally used as an albatross around President Obama's neck, not Clinton's. It was tried to prevent a second term. It didn't work. Then, someone got the bright idea to attach it to Hillary Clinton instead. They've been trying ever since. Along the way, they picked up the email "scandal," which--let's face it--had to be known to anyone who cared for literally years.

Hillary Clinton sent thousands upon thousands of emails. Each time she did, there was a recipient, whether it was an underling, a family member or the President. And whenever she did, it would say who it was from. It could not have gone unnoticed if she didn't have an official ".gov" or whatever designation the officially correct one was. That's been the great mystery to me. If this was such an obvious, grievous breech of protocol, why didn't anyone she sent mail to ever question it and/or her? Why did it take muck raking to decide this was a terrible, terrible thing?

Anyway, this thing; these things are now dead. Right Wing World will continue to bellow and bleat. We'll continue to hear things about decision making and trustworthiness and the lot of stuff they already throw at her. But nothing is looming anymore. The subjects as headwinds are gone. This was a great week for Hillary Clinton, I don't care what pundit says otherwise.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

49 Celebrities Pay Tribute To 49 Pulse Shooting Victims (Produced By Ryan Murphy)



Producer Ryan Murphy put together this tribute to the people killed at the Pulse Nightclub earlier this month, using many of his series' stars, and a host of other celebrities, some LGBT, some not. Each person killed at the club gets their own tribute by an individual celebrity.

Their stories are told by (in order of appearance): Lady Gaga, Chris Pine, Cuba Gooding Jr., Connie Britton, Matt Bomer, Sarah Paulson, Angela Bassett, Lea Michele, Colton Haynes, Sophia Bush, Jane Fonda, Harry Shum Jr., Denis O’Hare, Rob Reiner, Melissa Benoist, Caitlyn Jenner, Edgar Ramirez, Max Greenfield, Chaz Bono, Cheyenne Jackson, Emma Roberts, Kerry Washington, George Lopez, Evan Rachel Wood, Sofía Vergara, Diego Boneta, Nina Jacobson, Demi Lovato, Tyler Oakley, Yeardley Smith, Kid Cudi, Kaitlin Olson, Kevin McHale, Jamie Lee Curtis, Lee Daniels, Chace Crawford, Evan Peters, Gerard Butler, Katey Sagal, John Stamos, Laverne Cox, Jordana Brewster, Wes Bentley, Finn Wittrock, Darren Criss, Kathy Bates, Anna Paquin, Guillermo Díaz and Joe Mantello.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Behind the Blogger: The Land of Confusion; or These are the Contents of My Head

I'm sitting in the calm at the center of a storm I can't see, and I'm confused. I'm not even sure there's a storm. And it's as metaphorical as it is literal. It's a weird day, and the full moon is over. So, what's going on?

Weather-wise, I'm finding Ohio to be very a deeply weird place to be. Nevada? Pretty much it's hot and sunny, warm and sunny, cold and sunny, or there are very obvious and clear storms. Here? There can be hourly predictions of 0% precipitation while it is pouring down rain. You can have predictions of certain rain, 100%, with thunder, lightning and the wrath of God, and. . .nothing happens. Right now, from north of Columbus to east of it, where I live, we have simultaneous storm and flood warnings, with the threat of hurricane-force winds, coupled with hourly forecasts of 0% rain and 4mph winds.  Which is it? damned if I know.

The forecasts are actually starting to finally line up, but to the bad
side, not the good.
Couple that with a spouse who is unforthcoming about work strife--but clearly unhappy. Family members with further inter-member strife that seems to only whirl around me when I'm not present (for the most part), and then this deeply weird stuff going on in the news. Sit-ins at the House of Representatives over gun control? A buffoon with the most bizarre hairdo and makeup job as a major party presidential contender (who could win!), versus another that people openly treat as if she's the devil, but only have the vaguest reasons for treating that way (I just don't trust her. . .where there's smoke there's fire!). And an uncertain current lifespace, personally.

I wonder if it's just me, or if the whole country is having a no good, very weird day. Personally, I'm anticipating both a medical and dental visit on the very-near horizon that could either yield easy and quick answers to immediate problems, or lead to protracted, painful, more serious efforts to correct. I am sort of between careers, thinking that at this time, that's the best thing--kind of the perfect thing, as a bridge between life events. But not so much when the spouse isn't feeling the same way. And much of this all came in the space of an hour or two, this odd assemblage of sometimes contradictory, sometimes confusing input.

The U.S. House of Representatives Sit In; Reuters
Reading this, it may not even make sense to you. Part of it is the still not-quite-settled new life chapter The Other Half and I are dealing with after our uprooting from both careers and location, having spent nearly two decades with Very. Little. Change. It may be almost a year and a half later, but much of it is still shaking out, and frankly, still feels surreal. We're doing that while I'm transitioning into my 50s, finding myself with new medical issues (not serious, at least I don't think so), new feelings of mortality and finality (eeeeek!). We're doing that after voluntarily jumping into the abyss from both our careers without the benefit of a safety net (or insurance!). We've gone from living 2,000 miles from family, living in the outer orbits of family events, missing most of the bad and the good of having family nearby; to being much closer to the vortex. We're doing this during the passing of the baton in perhaps the strangest, longest presidential campaigns we've ever lived through.

And I'm typing this on a blog I've nearly abandoned, not really for any reason, other than it just kind of petered out. And here I am, typing what may be the purest kind of old-school web log post of all, the pointless emptying of my head into my online diary! Probably no one will read it. Or if they do, it'll make them angry at me! Such is life, I suppose.

[Excerpt]

House Democrats broadcast 'sit-in' on social media after cameras shut down


Democrats demanding action on gun control turned to Twitter's Periscope and Facebook's live video platform to broadcast their "sit-in" on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday after the chamber's cameras shut down. Representative Scott Peters of California told Reuters he downloaded the online video platform Periscope from the House floor after it became clear that chamber cameras were not operating. . .

Read more at: Reuters

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Over Time with Bill Maher, June 17, 2016

Bill Maher and his guests – Rebecca Traister, Lawrence Wilkerson, Josh Barro, Emily Miller, and Ravi Patel – answer viewer questions after the show.


Monday, June 13, 2016

Breaking: Donald Trump's Response Speech on the Orlando Mass Shooting

Donald Trump's response to the mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando was truly bizarre. It swayed wildly from compassionate, to almost profoundly rational, to unhinged and nonsensical. Looking particularly badly color-tuned, with day-glo yellow fiberglass looking hair, Trump started out blasting Islamic terrorism, intimating it was the sole consuming issue. Then--surprisingly--he swung into a passionate-though-scripted-sounding defense of gay people and their freedom, and then incoherent sentences with absolutely self-contradictory verbiage.


At one point, he's attempting to thrash Hillary Clinton, using the attack as a foundation, and then goes from there to flat-out lying about her positions on gun control. No, Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton has never advocated either "gun grabbing," nor abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

The speech is very difficult to follow, with points to like, points to vehemently disagree with, and parts to just scratch your head at. It will be very interesting to see how it ultimately lands with the people, and with the punditry. As I type this, he still is talking (giving this write-up its own likely somewhat muddled syntax), and is using some facts, some hypebole, some subjective opinions, some objective truth, and far too many parenthetical half-thoughts.

That's a photo from my TV. Do not adjust your set. . .
In short, he's all over the place. But more so than usual. Anti Muslim (except some good Muslims, but they're all bad, except when they're not, and on and on). Pro-Constitution, except when convenient, particularly when finding out about Muslims.

In addition to looking even more garishly colored than usual--bigly or big league, your choice--he also has a curiously audible inhalation every few lines.

Keep your eyes and ears open on this one. Because in the as-it-happens, this is impossible to figure out. He's pro-gun control, anti-gun control, anti-Obama and anti-Hillary to the point of utter dishonesty. He seems to have gone full-throatedly pro-gay, while refusing to be "politically correct." He seems to advocate some implicitly political correct ideas, but misconstrues the concept of PC as inherently bad.

He wrongly states that the shooter was born Syria (he was born in New York), implies that his policy could "Keep them out" (again, he was born in New York), and can't seem to stay on subject beyond one or two sentences. He seems to think that it's been years since the San Bernardino shooting. He jumps from Obama to Hillary, from specific to vague. He's forceful, I'll give him that. That kind of "wrong but strong" that works with dumb people. But if you parse this thing, it's an utter mishmash. It's like someone shoved a microphone in my Step Dad's hand, after he's had a couple of rum and Cokes, and just let him riff.

Who Were the Victims of Orlando Pulse Mass Shooting


We have had numerous shootings in this country since the last "BAD" one, a statement you could make most days. Because no matter what you consider a really BAD one, there has almost always been a series of them that barely register as news. We're so used to them, something has to stand out for it even rise to the level of newsworthy, all-caps BAD. And to push the presidential nomination practically out of the news, it has to really be something.
This most recent one wasn't merely "BAD," it rates as the single-largest mass shooting in American history, and one of the worst terror attacks on American soil in history. It also contains so many hot-button political story elements, as to confuse anybody as to how to approach it, particularly when writing about it. Namely:

- The target was a popular gay bar, the victims obviously gay or gay-friendly,
- The event was "Latin night," providing a second minority in the mix, and
- It's gay pride month in the United States.
- The shooter was of Muslim/Middle-Eastern descent, but
- The shooter was born in the United States, and was a full-fledged citizen, and
- The shooter is alleged to have had Al Qaeda and ISIS allegiances, but
- The shooter very well may have been a lone wolf, glomming on to either or both of the above as inspiration, and not necessarily directed by anyone to carry out this action, and
- It's Ramadan.
- The shooter had violent tendencies, a police record, and was on the FBI's radar, but
- The weapons were legally obtained.

Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34, from source, Los Angeles Times

In this day of extreme political polarity in our country, and instantaneous social media interaction, there is immediate public and political response. But, because of the mixed nature of the elements of this story, it's been interesting (to say the least) to see how conservatives vs. liberals respond, how the presidential candidates respond and see where the media goes with the story.

Personally, I'm torn on the whole "hate crime vs. terrorism" angles on the story. I find this obsession by the political right that President Obama call any attack by a Muslim "Radical Islamic Terrorism" or some variation (their variation) bizarre. As if something magical would happen. I find the focus being taken away from the gay hate crime angle somewhat refreshing and somewhat irritating. As always, I find the ammosexuals' instantaneously rabid response to even the notion of talking about guns and gun laws ridiculous and revolting. Most of all, I'm sorry that all of this distracts from the actual victims of--again--the worst mass murder in American history. So, let's take a moment to focus on that.


Amanda Alvear, 25, from source, LA Times

[Excerpt]

Victims of the Orlando nightclub massacre: Who they were

A gunman opened fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., early Sunday, killing at least 49 people and wounding more than 50 others in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

The shooter, identified by authorities as Omar Mateen, 29, of the Fort Pierce, Fla., area, was killed at the scene. Mateen, born in New York to parents who immigrated from Afghanistan, had worked as a security guard in Florida. Authorities said he had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and reportedly had told family members he was disgusted by gay people. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times


Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Why Bernie Sanders is Actually Winning

Hillary Clinton: Presumptive 2016 Democratic Party Nominee for President

And um, yeah. We kinda knew that. Hillary Clinton didn't want it announced yet. Bernie Sanders certainly didn't want it announced yet. And Sanders' supporters have frankly lost their fricking minds by this point (I'm voting Jill Stein! I'm writing Bernie in!, I'm not voting! I'm voting Trump! All the same thing, by the way). But the time has finally come, bad timing or not, we have our first major party presidential nominee who is a woman. And that woman, Hillary Clinton, is--for reasons I've yet to comprehend, despite living in America for 50 years--despised by roughly half of Americans.

I really, seriously will never understand the Hillary Hatred that has existed in this country for more than half my life. I didn't get it then, don't get it now. I've seen her in person. She commands a room. She's smart. She is, near as I can figure, a heck of a lady, maybe even a broad. So, what's the problem? Damned if I know.

Fortunately, Hillary is running against another despised famous human, Donald Trump. The reasons for despising The Donald are many, and obvious. But this blog--as left to lie fallow as I've allowed it--has long had a feature called Captain Obvious (yes, before that hotel chain stole it) for the express reason that what should be obvious to sentient humans isn't always obvious. Trump's default mode is: this is so wrong on so many levels, you'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind, stupid and half-past insane not to see it, but still some people somehow don't see.

Hillary was fortunate though, that on the very same day that she hit the magic number, Trump seems to be self-destructing. I won't declare it outright, as nothing about his campaign has been "normal." But even some diehards have been awakening from a Trump high to a Drumpf hangover. And this bit about not understand how judicial conflicts of interest works (or how racism is bad, or much of anything about how anything really happens in government) is showing as glaringly as Trump's fiberglass hair weave/combover, and bad orange fake tan. So, assuming a Bernie mutiny doesn't happen, and that something even weirder doesn't happen, Hillary should win this by default. It's certainly hers to lose.

[Excerpt]

BREAKING: Hillary Declared Presumptive Nominee

NBC News reports: Striding into history, Hillary Clinton will become the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party, capturing commitments Monday from the number of delegates needed to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee. The victory arrived nearly eight years to the day after she conceded her first White House campaign to Barack Obama. . .

Read more at: Joe.My.God.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Rachel Maddow Explains What Hillary Clinton's Official Email Policy Should Have Been

When people ponder Hillary Clinton's very tedious email "scandal" (and isn't the very word tedious, when attached to Clintons particularly?), if they're not being knee-jerk defensive, or knee-jerk offensive, they might ponder "why?" Why would the official way be undesirable (assuming there wasn't anything particularly nefarious intended, which I realize, many people would never, ever assume)? For the first time that I'm aware of, we have an explanation, courtesy of Rachel Maddow.

And don't get all, "well of course Rachel's shilling for Hillary," since she's just as likely to get criticized for being on Bernie's side, or even for allowing a Trump speech during her show, and just listen.

[Excerpt]


Clinton e-mail report illustrates antiquated IT system

Rachel Maddow looks at how a new inspector general's report on Hillary Clinton's violation of State Department e-mail rules describes the archaic archiving system Clinton was supposed to have followed.



Kinda nuts, right? But apparently, the rest of the MSNBC crew doesn't watch Rachel's show, because the Morning Joe crew seemed absolutely baffled at why Clinton wouldn't done this "for convenience." Maybe for the same reason her predecessors did? Nah, had to be nefarious, right?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...