Category: Politics

By on

I love Bill Maher’s response to Karoline Leavitt’s defense of Trump calling a reporter piggy. Leavitt thinks it is good that Trump is so honest and frank with reporters. Maher took her up on her defense of being honest and frank and called her a bitch. Good for him.

Trump is nearly 80 year old man. He knows that he crossed a line when he called a woman he has a professional relationship piggy. Anyone, as Trump has been, involved in the business world of the last 50 years knows it. The woman deserves an apology but won’t get one because Trump, in that warped little mind of his, thinks that apologizing is some form of weakness and he is so worried about being perceived as weak that he will never deign to apologize to anyone.

This isn’t really the worst problem this little foot-in-mouth incident exposes. Getting an apology is between Trump and the reporter. What is troubling is that Leavitt and other Trump lackeys aren’t willing to call him out for it. No one is willing to remind him of the hard truths of living in the 21st century and how he should conduct himself in his professional relationships.

Yes, she wants to keep her job but this would seem like a good opportunity to help the boss out. An apology would end this relatively minor dust up. Now he looks like an asshole when he could look like less of asshole, sorry he will always be an asshole in my eyes, with a simple I’m sorry. Since Leavitt isn’t saying that an apology is order, it speaks volumes about Trump’s management style. You can’t speak honestly with him even when the stakes are low.

This is a terrible person to be in charge of a business and potentially disastrous person to be running a country. But hey ho at least those Commie Democrats aren’t in charge.

The good news is I think every reporter in the White House pool should feel free to address him as President Fatso. I mean just to be honest and frank with him. He clearly values that kind of honesty.

By on

Having been Wily Coyote to Roadrunner Donald Trump numerous times since Trump took office, I am a bit suspicious that the Epstein Files are going to change anything. Truly, if the Democrats had anything significant on him they would have released it before now and Trump has changed his mind about releasing them, I think, then, there can’t be anything more damaging to Trump than what we already know.

Consider:

  1. The Justice Department has had this information for years. If there was something worth pursing, it would have been pursued by now. It just beggars belief that Democrats would sit on something that was damaging to Trump for this long. If they did, then they should be sued for political malpractice.
  2. The new evidence would have to be undeniable and horrible. Barring videos depicting Trump struggling with an underage girl then I think he is going to be fine. Let’s face it, he was convicted of sexual abuse and still won the 2024 election. There would have to be something truly damning for this to matter and if they had this damning evidence why did the Justice department sit on it so Trump could win the 2024 election. It doesn’t make any sense.
  3. If all the new evidence shows is that Trump knew Epstein and Epstein thought Trump was an asshole, then I am afraid that is a lot of nothing. Lots of people knew Epstein and lots of people think Trump is an asshole. Tell me something new.
  4. Trump is willing to release the evidence. I don’t mean to give Trump a compliment here but he isn’t that dim. The thought that he would willingly release evidence that would prove he was involved in child sex trafficking and rape is under estimating the man who has bested his betters quite a lot.

My point here is that I lived through too many Trump is finally cornered situations only to see Trump beep beep right out of the corner. Maybe let’s wait on the celebration and champagne until Trump is really backed into a corner. I just don’t think this is it.

By on

I know I hold a minority opinion among Democrats about the shutdown but what is the point of keeping government shutdown any longer. I believe that government has a job to do and it best get back to doing it — even if it is less than perfect and it will always be less than perfect.

There is a segment of the Republican Party who hates government so much that they don’t particularly care if it is open and will use any opportunity to undermine its function and will look with glee at its destruction. This segment of the Republican party doesn’t care if people go hungry. The Rich were not being hurt by the shutdown. The Poor were.

The Democrats, being the minority party, had very little leverage to change minds. Trump holds sway with the Republicans. What he says goes. He wasn’t going to backdown and there is little evidence that there were Republicans getting ready to bolt this position.

The idea that holding out longer would create a Democratic victory was a pipe dream. The Democrats who voted to reopen government are not traitors. They looked at the facts and made a reasonable decision. Continuing the shutdown was pointless and it was hurting actual people.

The Democratic Senators that voted to reopen tended to come from Purple states where either party could win an election. You don’t get to govern unless you win elections. A lesson that Liberal Democrats need to be reminded of all the time. Yes Mamdani won New York but there is little evidence that the same holds true for say New Hampshire or Wisconsin.

Given our forefathers structure of government, this means winning in states with a more conservative electorate. These moderates are needed in order to win future elections. So I think all this talk of punishing them is incredibly unhelpful. Indeed this is how Trump is keeping his party in line — punishing the Republicans who don’t agree 100% with him.

Let’s keep everyone on board.

By on

Republicans are complaining about Virginians electing Jay Jones as Attorney General. Jones’ emails were released that showed him wishing violence on both his opponent and his opponent’s kids. Wow. What would be thought of as a disqualifying action with the voters wasn’t enough to defeat Jones.

I feel their pain. This is how I felt when Trump defeated Harris in 2024. How the voters could elect such a nakedly corrupt individual over a rather mundane political hack was beyond me. But the voters had a choice. A lot of voters felt they had a bad choice but a choice nonetheless. They choose the nakedly corrupt Trump which means that they feared Harris more than they did from Trump.

Now I disagree with the voters who opted for Trump over Harris as the lesser of two evils. But when Democrats got upset about it, I felt they were missing the point. When Trump is seen as the lesser of two evils, the problem isn’t with the voters. The problem is your candidate. Something was turning marginal voters against the Democrat’s candidate. Instead of complaining about the voters, it might be wiser to look at why people made this decision and alter your course.

The Republican brand might just be having a similar problem right now. Given a bad choice between a man who would like to see his opponent shot and a Republican incumbent then it might be time for a little self reflection on how voters see the Republican Party. I am fairly certain that they will resist this temptation. But, honestly, if you can’t beat a candidate with such negative press and a weak defense of his actions, you are in bigger trouble than you can comprehend.

By on

The above question is the problem. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

Compromise, or at least as I understand the word compromise, requires that both sides give a little and take a little. Both sides get something out of the deal. That’s why they call it compromise.

The nightly breathless reporting of who is winning and who is losing the shutdown makes compromising extremely difficult particularly in the present circumstances. Trump needs to look like a winner and the Democrats are trying to look like fighters. Neither wants to look like a loser so all pretense of looking for a compromise has been abandoned because there is a battle going on and somebody has to win.

American democracy, unlike most other democratic countries, depends greatly on compromise due to the cumbersome federal system our forefathers created. There has to be a general agreement across an executive, two legislature bodies (one of which requires a supra majority) and the Supreme Court. It is extremely difficult to get things done through this system even in the best of times. These are not the best of times.

It is clear that it isn’t in the best interest of the press for there to be a compromise between the two parties. Indeed compromise is decidedly boring and unlikely to engage the press who prefer mudslinging, name calling and they particularly like winners and losers. Because the press needs to have winners and losers, they are framing the present struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats in the most unhelpful way. The press wants one side to succumb to a more powerful winning side who will then stand on the loser’s lifeless body and gloat for even more good press. All anybody wants to know who is winning the shutdown

Well, sadly — no one.

By on

Texas wants to bring back religious training back to the public schools. The idea here is that the majority religion is Christianity and, given this fact, Texas’ children will learn a little bit about it and become model citizens.

I am probably more blase about religious education than the typical non-religious person. It doesn’t bother me in the least because I know after 12 years of Catholic education, religious training only increased my antagonism towards religion. Add forced Sunday church services like my parents did and Texas will probably get the same share of non-religious people as before Texas began religious education. Really if kids are already having problems with math, history, English and science what makes Texas think that educators will be any better with teaching religion?

But that is not that question before us — the question is can Texas government make children learn about Christianity. I would unequivocally say yes if it weren’t for one important factor. The assumption here is that Christians will sit down and agree on what is to be taught.

Given the past 2,000 years of Christians bitter and brutal quarreling about Christian doctrine, this assumption is a lot of wishful thinking (See Savonarola, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 1970’s Northern Ireland if you need some refresher on this). The primary reason the founding fathers separated the Church from the State is that European Christians had spent the last thousand years or so killing one another over religion. All of whom claimed, by the way, they were Christians.

The Founding Fathers thought that any preference to any religion would cause trouble with the other religions — especially within the various Christian groups. Better to leave religion to the individual who can practice as they wish without government interference or, and this is important, government giving a preference to any one belief.

The public schools are already a cultural battleground. Texas will only make it worse with the introduction of religion. Part of me, would love to see the various Christian groups attacking one another about the right Christian doctrine to teach. Particularly since they also claim that the Bible is clear cut about doctrine. Not. Only my sympathy for teachers and students who face an already difficult struggle with non-religious education and, of course, the fear of bloody sectarian warfare keeps me from fully supporting religious education in the public schools.

But Texas is going do what Texas is going to do, so we shall see. Have your bandages ready.

By on

One of the more telling aspects of both parties trying to gerrymander the electoral maps in states where they are the dominant party is that it sounds like both parties have given up on winning over enough members of the other party for a big win. Both parties prefer to rig the system where they can. Then they will rile their base and pick off enough undecideds to win a slim majority. Not a terribly confident strategy nor very promising strategy in getting things done.

It means that the nation is stuck in deadlock. The only way to make things happen is for people who don’t care about our political process and will ram their agenda through using extra-Constitutional methods — like Trump. Trump isn’t the problem. He is a symptom of a greater problem. The system is no longer working as it should. Changing the system, thanks to our clever forefathers, is nearly impossible without a supra majority.

To end this stalemate and hopefully save democratic institutions (or if you prefer republican ones), the country needs a modicum of co-operation between the two parties in order to make this happen. I just don’t see that happening in the present political circumstances.

It is all very depressing.

By on

This equivalence debate surrounding the Charlie Kirk murder bores the shit out of me. You guys said horrible things after Charlie Kirk was murdered. Well, Charlie Kirk said these horrible thing first and that was worse. And, by the way, your mother wears army boots. It is childish and meaningless. This back and forth of who said horrible things about who is impossibly long and never complete. So trying to pinpoint where this all started is a fool’s errand. No one will be happy with the other side’s starting point.

The takeaway from this back and forth is that you are responsible for what you say. This means you might think twice before opening your mouth to say something nasty about someone you don’t like. But, if, instead, you want to determine who started it, by all means, take all the time you want. I am sure some Biblical scholar could take this back to Cain and Able. That will be so very helpful in resolving the present crisis.

By on 1 Comment

Unless someone can provide evidence to support some criminal conspiracy was afoot, the only person who deserves blame for the murder of Charlie Kirk is Tyler Robinson who is accused of shooting him. It is important to emphasize accused because, at this point, we, and by we I mean the public, the press and the pundits, know very little to ascertain anything.

This, of course, doesn’t stop anyone from speculating. There is all this finger pointing. The shooter was Trans. The shooter was left wing. The shooter was a Mormon. The shooter came from a MAGA family. The shooter was a white man. All of these may be true but none of these groups bear any responsibility in the shooting.

Charlie Kirk fans want revenge. Against who exactly? Saying you don’t like someone or his politics and wishing them dead is not a crime. It is akin to someone in a fit of anger saying I could kill him. The important thing is they didn’t. It was a feeling that wasn’t put into action. There is nothing wrong with that and I don’t see the point of pursuing a vendetta against anyone who did. Poor taste isn’t a crime and, by all means, feel free to point out the bad taste but that is about all anyone should do about that.

Jimmy Kimmel eluded to some vague connection of the accused being a white man with a wink wink and nudge nudge, like this is supposed to mean something. I am a white man, Jimmy Kimmel is a white man, is he saying that white men are prone to murder? It is as ridiculous of a statement as the Texas congressman who wants to take Trans people off the street because a few of them have been involved in some highly visible crimes. We no more can take Trans people off the street than we can take White men off the street. These are meaningless bits of information that tell us absolutely nothing about what happened.

Here is a time when speculation is particularly dangerous. Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure. Some people are angry that he was murdered and others blame him for his contributions to a poisonous political environment. Pulling these meaningless facts out as if they mean something is pouring more fuel on an already burning fire. Now is a very good time to keep your mouth shut until you know more and then, and only then, punish the man who actually pulled the trigger instead of a group who might share some identification with the shooter.

By on

A few months back I read an advice columnist on Slate that shook me. I wanted to say something about but what exactly I wanted to say was still coalescing. The shooting of Charlie Kirk reminded of this column and what I wanted to say.

A bride had asked a friend to wear a piece of clothing that would piss off the bride’s MAGA loving in-laws. At the time, I thought why would anyone want to deliberately piss off their new in-laws and his family. On her wedding day no less. The bride said that the new in-laws were constantly disrespecting her and her fiance never supported her.

First, and most importantly, this marriage sounds doomed and not because of politics either. This woman expects support from her man and isn’t getting it. So pissing off his family is going to change this how? If he doesn’t support you now, while he is still in the wooing stage of the relationship, what makes her think he is going to get better at it after a brawl at her wedding. He has shown his character and she is on her own with his relatives.

Then, there is a big difference between people bringing up their politics independently of your prompting and you waving a red cape at them and expecting them to sit quietly while you taunt them. Maybe you would get along better with your MAGA loving in-laws if you didn’t try to piss them off. I know it is a stretch but maybe give it a try.

I have a strategy that works every time I am with people whose politics I disagree with. I avoid politics altogether. We can chat endlessly about the weather, sports, movies, children, and so forth as long as we tip toe around politics. Which is a surprisingly easy strategy and almost always successful. If politics does come up, I have found saying something like “I don’t think we agree on politics so maybe lets not talk about it” works well to defuse the situation. I have found people, on the whole, prefer civil conversations as opposed to knock out drag out quarrels over Donald Trump.

Which brings me to Charlie Kirk. So many people want to both acknowledge the wrongness of his assassination and still make a point about how horrible a person he was. You really don’t have to say he was horrible person. It is irrelevant to the present situation. All you need to say is nobody should be shot for what they say and I am sorry his family has to suffer through this. Then do the easiest thing of all keep your God Damn mouth shut.

There is a time for political quarrels. This isn’t the time. You may have a lot to say about Charlie Kirk’s politics. It will keep and you can raise it again when the time arises.