Laura Loomer, MAGA megaphone and friend of Donald Trump, called Angie Nixon, the Democratic candidate for the US Senate in Florida, a ghetto bitch. This is, of course, wrong and way out of bounds. It is also an irritating diversion from what the media and the rest of world should be focused.

Loomer, an attention seeking asshole, knows that if she says something outrageous, the press will print her bull shit in big bold letters for the whole world to see. So she says something horrible about Nixon. The press, then, asks Nixon for a response to Loomer’s put down which puts her in an awkward position. She can return fire or keep her mouth shut.

What self respecting person wouldn’t respond what Loomer said. So now Loomer gets to respond to what Nixon said and the whole news cycle gets consumed by this attention seeking idiot. This continues until another nut job, perhaps even Loomer herself or the ever talkative Donald Trump beats her to it, says something outrageous for journalists to stir their every growing pot of irrelevance.

So, it gets better. Trump renames Lake Ontario Lake America, right. Now we have the Lake America controversy and the press is lapping it up. What important subjects are not being talked about while Doug Ford, the Ontario premier, grabs headline with his giant sign saying Lake Ontario. Take that Donald Trump. You aren’t the boss of us.

The problem here is that Trump and Loomer don’t care if they look like idiots as long as they are getting headlines and, more seriously, they are driving the media to cover their drivel instead of, for example, say the war in the Ukraine or Gaza or Iran or inflation or the elections or, how should I put this, oh I know, real problems.

Don’t get me wrong, I get why Nixon and Ford responded to these idiots. They are infuriating people. But it is depressing to see so much attention given to these narcissistic assholes and their faux controversies. This is exactly what they want and we are giving it to them every single time their craving for attention strikes them.

Bernie Sanders and James Carville are having a disagreement about the rising power of the Democratic Socialists. Sanders even suggested that Carville should think about starting a different party which is, with all due respect to Bernie here, the worst possible suggestion he could make.

It is important to remember that the Democratic Socialists may be winning some of these close primary races but they are close races. El-Sayed beat Stevens by less than 16,000 votes out of 1,500,000 votes cast. He needs the Stevens’ votes to win the seat in November. When your win is narrow, and you need the votes of the person you just defeated to win the next contest, a moment of humility and grace might be the better approach than gloating and rubbing the defeated’s nose in their loss.

Carville, who, after all, worked on the Bill Clinton’s winning team, has a lot to offer in the way of political advice. He is not a part of the Republican disinformation machine. He is a loyal Democrat. That he is concerned about how the Democratic Socialist’s are behaving should give one pause.

Perhaps what appeals to left wing Democrats isn’t particularly appealing to more moderate Democrats, so say nothing of Independents and unhappy Republicans. Millions of Americans choose Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils in three very close elections. This should disturb every Democrat. People knowingly picked an incompetent asshole because they were more afraid of the Democratic Party than they were of Donald Trump. This is a big problem.

American political parties are umbrellas that cover large groups of various interests. These groups don’t always agree. That is OK. In order to win elections, you do, however, have to keep everyone under the same umbrella. This is a difficult task. Telling someone to leave is political suicide if you can’t replace them with someone who can bring in the same number of votes. This makes moderate Democrats essential if we are going to win in November.

I would be more impressed with the Democratic Socialists if they were now spending some time trying to win over people like Carville instead of alienating them. I am hoping this is the temporary flush of victory and they will come to their senses soon, but so far they look like a bunch of assholes who think they are unbeatable. I am afraid they are beatable.

The goal here is to get remove as many Republicans from office as possible. Keep your eyes on the ball.

I avoid talking about Donald Trump because, him being a narcissist, it doesn’t matter if it is good or bad — as long as you are talking about him. So anytime anyone talks about him — it is a win in his eyes.

Sometimes, however, I must comment on the antics of our president. This is one of them.

Let’s stop for a moment and review what is going on in the world — there are wars in the Ukraine, Iran and Gaza. These wars have affected gas prices which creates a cascading effect on all prices which use transportation — which is everything — so inflation on the horizon for the whole damn world. The President’s party will be standing for election in November which, if the present polls are correct, they are running significantly behind. Not to mention the wading pool and the chaos on the White House lawn.

This would seem like a fairly full plate for the President to be dealing with it. He must be working tirelessly to address all of this. Surprisingly, he doesn’t seem much bothered by any of this because he spent the weekend creating silly memes attacking his “enemies” and making himself heroic.

Now, in a way, as someone who worries about how Trump acts as president, I actually prefer him spending his time on silly memes as this way he will have less time to start an unnecessary war or spouting off about something he knows nothing about which, in turn, unintentionally irritates our allies. Let him cut and paste like a kindergartner at playtime. Very interesting Donald, a good use of the cut and paste feature, lets see if you can make one about Kaitlin Collins’ looks.

But really. I mean really, the most powerful man in the world spending his precious time figuring out how to put George Washington into a meme seems like a waste of his precious time. Doesn’t he have better things to do with his time? I mean like lead the Western World or something that, at least, falls into his job description.

Palm Beach recently renamed their airport after Donald Trump. In response, some travelers are opting to reroute their trips so they don’t have to use the airport with the president’s name so brazenly displayed.

The thing is Palm Beach seems like a niche airport. I never even heard of it before this and, I am guessing, will hear about the same amount now that it has been renamed. I doubt very many travelers have to suffer the journey to it. So me joining the boycott will have absolutely no effect on anything.

This is kind of a silly protest that will have absolutely no effect on Trump and will only inconvenience the people who need to use the airport. For what? It is virtue signalling at it’s worst. I hate Trump so much that I won’t even allow myself to use an airport with his name on it. That is how important my hatred is.

Well, bully for you. I am so proud of you making this very important, and surely difficult, decision.

But, I for one, am not making my life more difficult for this bull shit. If I ever have the misfortune to have to travel through Palm Beach Airport I will do a quick sign of the cross and hope for the best.

Since I rarely go to Florida and, for the life of me, can’t ever recall go through this airport, I can safely join in solidarity with those who are boycotting. That will teach him.

I am annoyed at the mean spirited memes going around about Lindsey Graham. This is my question. A man is dead. There are people who loved him. Give them a moment to mourn. What good does it do to dance on his grave?

He deserves every sarcastic comment made about him because he was a terrible man and the world needs to see that. There are people who disagree with this assessment. His legacy can be debated and should be. He was a public figure. I am fine with that but now is the time to put these disagreements on hold. A moment of silence doesn’t say you liked the man. It is an acknowledgement of the sadness of all of our impending deaths.

Trump talks ill of the dead why can’t I. This is an argument of a child who’s hand is caught in the cookie jar. So what? It deserves the perfect parental response to such a lame defense of personal behavior — if Donald Trump jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump? Trump is hardly a role model for good behavior. Just because he is awful when people he dislikes dies, doesn’t make it right for anyone else to do the same.

It is one of the very worst things that Donald Trump has done to our politics. He has destroyed the little level of civility that existed in public discourse. Anything goes. Talk about a woman’s looks or her weight. Fair game. Talk about your opponent’s dick size. No problem. So why should any one’s death stop the fun back and forth of malicious commentary that permeates modern political life?

Because it is sad. Any time anyone dies, this is a moment to reflect on the fragility of life itself. It can be taken from us all in a moment. Life is sacred and it is terrible when someone loses this precious gift. It doesn’t matter if I like the guy or not. It is still sad no matter who it happens to.

But Hitler, what about Hitler? What about him? Lindsey Graham is not Hitler and there is nothing you can say to make me believe that he is. There is only one Hitler and just maybe Hitler is the one of the few people who have died when it was OK to dance on his grave. But Lindsey Graham Hitler? This is a disservice to true monsters everywhere. Hitler is rolling in his grave.

Which leads me back to my original question. What good comes to the world from dancing on Lindsey Graham’s grave? I can’t really see any. It only worsens the political divide that threatens to rip this country apart. And if we keep tearing and ripping, the country eventually will come apart. Is that what we want? I certainly don’t.

And doing the right thing is so incredibly easy in this case — all you have to do is keep your trap shut.

Try it.

I have been laid off three times. During the process, each time I was reminded, as if this was all that mattered, that it was just a business decision. There is nothing personal about it. Jobs needed to be cut, my job was just one of the many that needed to be eliminated. Every time this happened, it was easy for me to see that it wasn’t personal. The company was moving operations or eliminating my department completely. My personal circumstances neither harmed nor helped me — it was irrelevant to the business decision that was made.

What is bothering me here is the phrase “just a business decision.” This absolves the laying off party of any culpability in the decision. People were looking at a spreadsheet of costs and then decided to make cuts. We had nothing personally against John Smith, we just had to cut payroll and poor John was one of the many positions on the spreadsheet we thought we could eliminate. Purely a rational decision based on facts.

Since this was, and as we are constantly reminded, purely a business decision then any emotional reaction towards the person using the spreadsheet is unwarranted. Yes, you were laid off, and yes, it has sent your life into a bit of chaos, but, it wasn’t personal. We have nothing against you personally. I looked at the data and this was what the data told me. Don’t get mad at me, get mad at the spreadsheet.

It is a facile way to avoid responsibility. If I could have made another decision, I would have. But the spreadsheet right? I have to follow the direction that the spreadsheet takes me.

It is annoying because it is a lie. Most companies gather the data on the spreadsheet for one reason and one reason only — eliminating jobs. This just isn’t some neutral gathering of data where after looking at the data it was obvious that jobs needed to be eliminated. Eliminating jobs is the whole reason for the spreadsheet.

The just business excuse removes any moral or human dimension from the decision process. Its all numbers. Data determines the action. It allows businessmen to do about anything as long as the balance shows a profit.

It is the reason why Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg find themselves watching wrestling on the White House lawn — something I can’t imagine either of them doing on a free week day night otherwise. They added up the figures and decided it was just better for their business to show up than risking pissing off some mad man who might use his governmental power to harass them.

Smart businessmen know the best way to keep clear of the growing irrationality of Trump is to go along with him. It is just good business. Nothing personal there.

The most depressing thing about Mark Zuckerberg and David Ellison attending Trump’s birthday bash is that these two billionaires felt compelled to attend. I doubt seriously that either man wanted to be there but then Trump. No further explanation is necessary. Two of most powerful men in the world felt the need to show up at all demonstrates the disorienting and disproportionate power that Trump holds. Better to show up at Trump’s birthday party than to be investigated by his Department of Justice. This is where we are.

The most powerful men in the country bowing down and kissing Trump’s ass.

You don’t press unpopular issues if there is little chance of winning. For example, Barack Obama did not support gay marriage when he first ran for president. Now, in my mind, a gay man, I realized that Obama could give a rats’ ass about gay marriage and was opposing it in order to win an election where a significant portion of the American public opposed gay marriage. It doesn’t make sense to lose an election for an issue, gay marriage, that would surely go down to defeat in most state legislatures. Gay marriage had to wait for another time because Obama could do other things that help me and, more importantly, every other non-gay citizen who, by the way, make up 90 percent of the population.

One of the great lessons of age is you realize that you don’t get everything you want. It is better to get some of what you want than to get nothing. You have to win elections in order to govern, this means compromise. This is how democracies work. Some changes have to wait. You have to deal with the reality you are in.

Which brings me to the New York legislature’s recent passage of a law that replaces mother and father with gestating parent and non-gestating parent in the law books. This change was necessary to make sure that the very few women who are transitioning into men (and vice versa) know that New York law is aware of their non-binary status and included in New York law.

I have numerous problems with this fishing expedition in an empty lake.

  1. 1.The binary division of man and woman has dominated Western Culture. It is still to be determined how this view might change but Trans activists are under the impression that they have won the battle. The vast majority of people, even in the liberal circles, still fall back on the terms like man, father,woman and mother. More to the point, nobody I know uses the terms gestating parent and non-gestating parent. None. So, why is this piece of legislation even necessary when no one uses the terms or even knows what these terms mean. But OK, I guess, gestating parent.
  2. Because no one uses gestating parent and non-gestating parent, it seems like a bad idea to incorporate such words into the law books when the more popular terms — mother and father are working without complaint. Why change them? Who requires this change? Oh, trans activists want this.
  3. Well, if Trans activists could deliver votes, I might be inclined to give them this change without complaint but they can’t. In fact, Republicans are using this issue as a cudgel to defeat Democrats. So, then, it might be bad idea to be pressing the issue. If they are demanding it, they don’t seem to have a grasp on reality. I would never have expected any Democratic body to push for gay marriage during the 1990’s. It would be political suicide. Are Trans activists so short sighted to see this an unhelpful in the struggle to defeat Trump and the Republicans.
  4. The Democrats control New York. How did this pointless and damaging piece of legislation get through these bodies when someone with power should have killed it long before it ever reached the governor’s desk? It is both shocking and depressing that Democratic power brokers were more interested in distributing symbolic prizes to loyal constituencies instead of winning elections. It is almost as if there is some Trump mole working at a high level in the New York Democratic Party.

I don’t want to lose this election but if it were to happen, I want the defeat to be about something big — something like Medical Care or the War in Iran and not whether to rename Mother’s Day to Gestating Parent’s Day.

I am a party man when voting. If a Republican and a Democrat are running against each other, I will vote for the Democrat. Always. Not because I like the particular Democrat. This, unfortunately, doesn’t always happens. I do so because this gives the Democrats a chance at governing and this is more important to me than having a perfect candidate for every office.

This said, I found River Page’s defense, in the Free Press, of Graham Platner a little depressing. Platner’s skeletons keep slipping out of the closet and at a prodigious rate at that. It makes me think he might be a weak candidate. This is concerning because the seat he is running for is a very winnable Senate seat. His opponent, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, appears to be behind in the polls although this has been the case in all of her races — she runs behind or very close and then manages to handily win her elections. She is a tough candidate to beat.

Platner, her apparent opponent, is having a bad week or two. Page describes the problem. He has no filter which means he bluntly speaks his mind and that occasionally causes his foot to fall firmly into his mouth. When he was young, he got drunk and wound up with a Nazi tattoo. Years later, he got drunk and danced shirtless at a friend’s wedding thus displaying the Nazi tattoo in it’s full glory. He has made derogatory comments about Blacks, Jews, Gays and Women — all, by the way, the most dependable Democratic voters for the past 50 years.

Page, however, thinks all this worry is for nothing because Platner has working class appeal. He lived among them, even if only temporarily, speaks their language and they like his blunt talk. He is just the right kind of candidate to counter Donald Trump.

Because Page thinks Platner is such a great candidate he tries to address the concerns about his unfiltered tongue. Page writes about Platner’s use of the gay and fag, “he (Platner) also used the terms gay and fag as general insults. Similarly to the r-word, the consensus among the working- and lower-middle-class people I’ve spent most of my life around is that calling someone a fag may be mean, but it isn’t bigoted unless they are actually gay.” What? Calling someone gay isn’t an insult unless they are actually gay. Well, this certainly news to me. What kind of bull shit is Page, a gay man as a matter of fact, trying to spread?

When a straight guy calls another straight guy gay, he is just being mean but not homophobic. I fail to see the distinction. Why would a straight man calling another straight man gay be an insult if there weren’t negative connotations to those terms for a straight man. If you are trying to be mean to someone, you use terms that will insult the man. He used those terms to get a rise out of his male friends. Now it might be only friendly banter between the guys but telling me this isn’t also homophobic is unbelievable. These men think there is something seriously wrong with being called gay which pretty much defines homophobic. It, then, does mean something after all and it isn’t as innocent as Page makes out.

It is also insulting to Working Class people. Indeed Page’s whole working class appeal is a slam against working class people. That is just the way they talk. They love hard drinking, free-talking tough guys who don’t filter their words. It is part of their appeal. So what if a few of them use the N word or anti-Semetic terms or fag, these are real people in the real world. Grow up.

It doesn’t help Plant’s case when he makes a disturbing comparison with Trump, “A decade of Trump should have taught the political and media establishment that voters, especially those in the working class, couldn’t care less about personal scandal so long as their genuine-seeming proposal for real political change is on the table.” So what the Democrats need is a foul mouth bigoted egotistical lout who makes rash decisions (lets not forget the Nazi tattoo) and is offensive on so many levels but, at least, he wants Universal Healthcare and he has just the type of muscle to make it happen.

What worries me is that it is only June and the Republicans have yet to dig for all the dirt on Platner. Given Platner’s character, I fear there are more juicy stories to come. If this is where Platner is starting, what fresh shit will be thrown at him in October.

Plant will say that the working class don’t care about that. Maybe. But then other parts of the Democratic coalition might – say like Women, Blacks, Jews and Gays. Platner is still at the starting blocks and the race has a long way to go, many other politicians who aren’t named Trump were done in by lesser hurdles. The question I have is why would we want to start with such a damaged candidate, when we could choose otherwise?

Not key Democratic demographics.

Sometimes I read these posts where someone will make the point — all you have to do is read the Bible and you will have your answer. This would be great but if it is so clear why do so many people disagree with what is being said in the Bible.

A recent example of these different views regarding the Bible can be found with the recent dispute between Donald Trump and Pope Leo. These two Bible reading gentlemen, using the same Bible, are coming up with different understanding of what God really wants.

If two people can use the same text and come up with diametrically opposed positions, what does this say about the actual text. Now, if it happens once or twice, maybe I could still buy that the Bible is clear and any answers you want are found there but this isn’t the case with the Bible. The Bible has been around for a couple of thousand years, give or take a year or two, and for about as long people have been disagreeing about what the Bible actually says.

Thousands of years and thousands of disagreements would suggest that reading the Bible isn’t going to give me all the answers I need. This means that I have to evaluate the Bible based on my reading with some additional input from such Biblical scholars like Donald Trump and Pope Leo.

And Donald Trump and Pope Leo aren’t the only two people talking about the Bible. I googled it and the answer was somewhere in the millions. Millions of people talking about the same document and coming up with different answers from a document that supposedly needs no interpretation.

This leaves you in the unenviable position of having to decide who understands the Bible better — Donald Trump or Pope Leo?

I am thinking.