Category Archives: Uncategorized

Once again, we’ve seen the fourth movie in a series, and once again I’m impressed with the quality. Toy Story 4 (2019) features the same amazing animation, acting, and imagination that has been present throughout this series. And it continues the tradition of telling a story which touches on the heart of the human condition, in this case the question of what to do when one’s purpose in life disappears.

Our continual hero, Sheriff Woody, and most of his companion toys have moved on to a new family and a new child to help raise, Bonnie. Unlike Andy, who considered Woody to be his best friend, Bonnie likes to create her toys, and when she creates Forky from a discarded plastic fork and some trash, it’s up to Woody to train Forky for toy-hood.

In fact, for the heavy responsibility of being Bonnie’s favorite.

During the training, they encounter the long missing Bo Peep, who had been a toy of Andy’s sister, and given away years earlier. Woody discovers his affection for Bo is undiminished, even as he learns that she is not only a Lost Toy, supposedly a horror for any toy, but she revels in it.

But lurking in the small town Bonnie’s family is visiting is the Antique Store, the home of the eerie Gabby Gabby, a doll full of dark purposes and manic drive, assisted by several Charlie McCarthy dolls. And she wants? Something of Woody’s, and she’ll do anything to get it – including holding Forky hostage.

In Woody, we see the relentless drive to do right, even in the face of the high cost of doing so, and how that can work out against all the odds. More importantly, we also watch as Woody realizes that in order to grow and mature, one must learn to accept that sometimes you are not the center of someone else’s existence, and that transitions, as painful as they may be, are a necessity of life.

Some new characters, and a new purpose in life, finish the lesson.

Strongly recommended.

So it looks like the United States military forces are being pushed towards becoming a mercenary outfit, if President Trump has anything to do with it. From a WhiteHouse.gov transcript of a traditional Trump helicopter press conference:

Q    Mr. President, why are you sending more troops to Saudi Arabia when you just said it’s a mistake to be in the Middle East?

THE PRESIDENT:  So we’re sending more troops to Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is a very good ally, from the standpoint that we get along with them very well — a very important player in the Middle East.  The relationship has been very good.  And they buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of merchandise from us, not only military equipment.  In military equipment, about $110 billion.  It’s millions of jobs.

Now, with that being said, we are sending troops and other things to the Middle East to help Saudi Arabia.  But are you ready?  Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing.  That’s a first.

But Saudi Arabia — and other countries, too, now — but Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them.  And we appreciate that.

It really makes me wonder what Trump would do if Iran began bidding for American military services. Would he abandon the Saudis if the price were right?

No doubt some readers wonder why we send military aid without financial compensation to other nations. The reason is that the system of international diplomacy doesn’t operate on a financial basis, nor can it; the goals of diplomacy are not facilitated by the transactional nature of the financial system. Why? A financial system is not about national existential questions, it’s about facilitating economic activity. It doesn’t foster analysis, or institutional memory.

And those two latter elements, among others, are critical elements of international diplomacy. Understanding what another nation’s ruling class intends to do – to you -requires institutional memory and analysis. Making wise decisions which increase your country’s prosperity by discouraging or, worse, defeating, an adversary’s armies and, thus, ambitions is the role of government.

On the other hand, sending your army off at the beckon of a pocketbook may increase accounts temporary, and they may not be used against you, but it may deprive you of needed troops elsewhere.

But that’s just the surface layer. A mercenary player in international diplomacy may think they’re taking advantage of international tensions to reap a windfall, but they’re assuming a static situation. Their clients soon become aware of the chaos caused by mercenaries who are allies in one conflict, enemies in the next, and always collecting intelligence on their own clients.

This is not a stable situation, and soon the mercenaries are dispatched. If they’re lucky, they’re boycotted; the unfortunate mercenary armies are massacred. Allegiance to national interests remains the gold standard, even today; the blue helmets of the United Nations are not considered to be an elite fighting force.

And the reputation of the mercenary army’s homeland? Besmirched. Funny word, isn’t it? It means a lower level of trust, less influence in the world.

President Trump has proven to be a very limited man. He’s a real estate developer of mediocre ability, who moved on to television stardom as the guy whose primary talent was his catchphrase: You’re fired! Not electrifying credentials for holding the top job in the United States, and he’s proving it. His emphasis on money puts his limits up in neon: I’ll do anything for a bit of cash.

United States parents, for all President Trump tells us he hates foreign wars, don’t believe him, it’s not true.

He hates not being paid like a mercenary for a foreign war.

It’s not nearly the same thing.

Relax, he’s just in town to get the groceries.

If you’re a fan of movie monsters, you should be seeing Earth Vs The Spider (1958), for, well, Mr. Eponymous. When a man fails to return from a shopping trip, his daughter and her boyfriend go searching for him. In a cave not far from his wrecked truck, they find clues: skeletons, a sucked-dry corpse, a spider web reminiscent of those climbing ropes often seen slung over the sides of ships, and one big ol’ spider that likes to scream and make dinners out of people.

Making it back to town in one piece, they tell the skeptical town sheriff, who, with a few townspeople, including the local exterminators and a scientist, visit the cave and soon have an encounter the spider. One dead sheriff’s deputy later, the spider’s dead and en route to the museum for examination by the scientist, and all’s well.

Until the spider wakes up and lays waste to the town.

While the plot is a little creaky and the characters are made strictly from cardboard, there are some good elements. For example, the early rock band earned a nod of approval from my Arts Editor, and when the spider is awakened by their music, they’re a bit of a hoot as they make their escape. But more importantly, the cave cinematography, actually performed at Carlsbad Caverns, is tremendous, although I’m not sure about this ‘luminescent algae‘ to which they refer.

But exceeding the cinematography is the spider itself. This is a real, live spider, creeping around in all its hairy splendor, the microphotography, if you will, spliced almost flawlessly into the rest of the film. The exception to the generally excellent monster depiction is the final scene, where it appears they couldn’t get the spider to creep down a wall properly, so they replaced it with a very disappointing spider-dummy. But, overall, the spider is a lot of fun and is not ridiculous, unlike some monsters we’ve seen munching on hapless victims.

Whether or not the monster and the caves make up for the mediocre plot is up to the viewer. Enjoy!

And the Israeli right, initially so happy to have President Trump elected, are now finding out what it’s like to singe their fingertips as President Trump impulsively follows his instincts, as Ben Caspit reports in AL Monitor:

It took Netanyahu three long days to release his feeble condemnation of the Turkish attack [on the Syrian Kurds]. They were three very difficult days, as befits the difficult process of waking up about President Donald Trump. The president’s surprising announcement that the United States would immediately withdraw from Syria, followed by the no less sudden Turkish invasion of the Kurdish region, dealt the death blow to Israel’s hopes and expectations regarding its northern front.

“We’ve been left all alone now,” a high-ranking defense official admitted to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “The strategic balance of power is shifting right before our eyes. The bad guys won, and the good guys are abandoning us. Now, Israel is left almost on its own to deal with the powerful Turkish-Russian-Iranian axis.” …

Israel is finally waking up, and it is a painful process. It took no time at all for Trump, once deemed a fervent lover of Zion if not the Messiah himself, to be recast as someone who is distancing himself from Israel. It is sadly amusing to listen to the Likud’s spokespersons cringe and talk in circles when asked about the sudden American withdrawal from Syria, the abandonment of the Kurds and the president’s desperate efforts to court Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Perhaps a trifle of schadenfreude on Caspit’s part, but quite understandable. It’s also not surprising to see his description of Likud apologists as speaking in circles, because the intersection between reality and ideologies inconsistent with reality often leads to nonsense, an intellectual stutter and collapse as the mind seeks to reconcile two fundamentally incompatible concepts. We’ve seen this from our own band of extremists of late with regards to President Trump’s solicitation for assistance from the Chinese in finding dirt on the Biden family:

Too tired to brush the snow from his shoulders. Found the chicks, yet?

Republican national strategist Rick Wilson wrote a classic description of President Trump in The Daily Beast a few days back that I missed. It starts off with a bang of a title:

Trump Is Going to Burn Down Everything and Everyone, and Republicans, That Means You

And continues onwards:

Donald Trump’s Oval Office performance-art masterpiece Wednesday was one for the ages, a pity-party, stompy-foot screech session by President Snowflake von Pissypants, the most put-upon man ever to hold the highest office in the land. If you watched his nationally televised press conference, Trump’s shrill, eye-popping hissy fit scanned like the end of a long, coke-fueled bender where the itchy, frenzied paranoia is dry-humping the last ragged gasps of the earlier party-powder fun.

Between calling Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) a panoply of Trumpish insults (and for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to be held for treason), engaging in his usual hatred of the press, talking about Mike Pompeo’s intimate undergarments, and quite obviously scaring the shit out of Finnish President Sauli Niinisto—who looked like he was the very unwilling star of an ISIS hostage video—Trump spent the day rapidly decompensating, and it was a hideous spectacle. All the Maximum Leader pronunciamentos won’t change the reality that Donald John Trump, 45th president of the United States, has lost his shit.

It’s really worth a full read, too, regardless of political persuasion, given Wilson’s status as a Republican insider:

In private, Republicans are in the deepest despair of the Trump era. They’ve got that hang-dog, dick-in-the-dirt fatalism of men destined to die in a meaningless battle in a pointless war. They’ve abandoned all pretense of recapturing the House, their political fortunes in the states are crashing and burning, and the stock-market bubble they kept up as a shield against the downsides of Trump—“but muh 401(k)!”—is popping.

You want to know why so few Republicans have held town-hall meetings since early 2017? Because Trump is the cancer they deny is consuming them from the inside out. They see the political grave markers of 42 of their GOP House colleagues—and several hundred down-ballot Republicans—booted from office since 2017 and know that outside of the deepest red enclaves, they’re salesmen for a brand no one is buying.

It’s a reminder of the essential bankruptcy of the Trump “ideology,” isn’t it? Faced with a probably hopeless situation brought on by Trump’s impulsiveness and amateurism, and the general Republican inadequate understanding of ethics and morals, they appear to be caving in frustration.

Oh, sure, they continue to deploy Trumpian tactics in defense: spreading lies about Representative Schiff and various Senators who may become the next Democratic nominee for a Presidential slot that’s looking increasingly like a lost cause for the Republicans, the classic projection attack for which Trump has become famous (“No, you’re the Russian puppet!” he viciously spat at Clinton at one debate).

But, much like a human being faced with a repeat infection, the electorate is becoming less and less vulnerable to the crazy assertions, no matter how authoritatively pressed by Trump and his proxies, and we’re learning to check the facts ourselves, or to wait for the professional fact-checkers to make a determination.

Oh, sure, not all of a us. Politics is a messy business, and some folks are swayed by preconceptions, emotions, and desperate wishes – but most of us are catching on. And that will be the death of the Trumpian ideology, because that’s all it really was: lie your way to the top. Deny, deny, deny.

American media has come to realize that facts and truth are more important than politeness and hurt feelings, and that’s a good thing for all of us, regardless of who’s doing the lying, or who’s doing the listening.

Oh, and read the rest of the Wilson article. I loved it.

In view of this

It’s worth looking at these brave pansies:

I see the aforementioned Ambassador Sondland is, in apparent violation of Administration directives, planning to answer the subpoena to appear before House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees to give a deposition, after having first declined same. While he cannot deliver documents without State Department permission, he will still testify.

Or so his lawyers say. Their statement is decidedly odd:

“Notwithstanding the State Department’s current direction to not testify, Ambassador Sondland will honor the Committees’ subpoena, and he looks forward to testifying on Thursday,” Sondland’s lawyers said in a statement. “Ambassador Sondland has at all times acted with integrity and in the interests of the United States. He has no agenda apart from answering the Committees’ questions fully and truthfully.” [WaPo]

We have to be assured he has no agenda? On the other hand, Lewandowski’s testimony was full of it, so maybe they have a point.

So what does this change of heart mean?

1. He’s there to say “I decline to answer…” a lot. But why? Everyone else is declining to appear, so why have Sondland appear but say nothing?
2. To say there was no threat, no quid pro quo, nothing of an impeachable nature in Trump’s actions with regard to Ukraine. Sondland is generally considered to be an ally of President Trump, as he received the Ambassadorship as a prize for making a big donation, which is not an unusual practice in any Administration, so he might make this sort of deposition falsely, out of loyalty. But then he’s running the risk of being caught lying to Congress, which could land him time in prison. Why take the chance?
3. That Sondland is considered an ally mostly refers to history; he may have lost his fondness as he became familiar with Trump and his methods. So maybe Sondland plans to spill the beans. Sondland probably doesn’t need the money, so if he’s fired, he won’t care.

My money, which is a very small wager, is on #2. Whether it’s true or not, if he testifies otherwise, he’ll enter the criminal part of the scandal.

And if he requests immunity? My oh my!

From a promotional mailing from the University of Minnesota to alumnae:

Regenerative Thinking Lecture
Tuesday, Oct. 22
Adopting a regenerative way of thinking can reestablish the indelible bonds that connect everyone and everything on the planet. We can and must create places and lifestyles that are better for people and the planet, and they will be better than what we settle for now.

So, if they’re indelible bonds, why do we need to reestablish them? Or did someone change definitions on me?

And this from a major University, no less. For shame.

Not all corporations come from the Big, Evil Corporation Factory:

On Wednesday, Axios published a list of the entities spending the most money on Facebook ads on both sides of the impeachment debate. …

“Folks, this is reporter Danforth Twiggler, and we’re here three months in the future, January 4th of 2020. As you all know, former President Trump was just convicted in his impeachment trial, and we’ve been fortunate to snag an interview with Republican Senator Clutching F. Power of >crackle-fade-out<!”

“Senator, thank you for speaking with us.  Senator Power, what factor, in the trial that ended yesterday in the conviction of President Trump, made you decide to vote against him?”

“Thank you for having me, Dan. Dan, for me, it began with the corruption evidenced in his ‘Ukraine call’, his crass use of the Oval Office to enrich himself, and ended with the evidence of his obeying the orders from the Russian state. He may have claimed that Russia was our friend, but we knew better!”

“So Representative Pelosi and her team were effective in their prosecutorial role?”

“>cough< I felt the evidence spoke for itself.”

“Thank you, sir. So the revelations of his payoffs to his paramours to keep them quiet during the campaign didn’t bother you?”

“Well, Dan, naturally, as a proud Evangelist, I was of course disgusted by his behavior, but he was doing God’s work with the judiciary -”

“You then agree with Pastor Jeffress, Ralph Reed, and others that Trump should have been given a free pass since he was touched by God?”

“Well, no, he was done with his work -”

“And God just throws away his tools when he’s done with him? Very interesting. I would not care to work for God. But going back to his attempts to buy the silence of his paramours, we knew about these virtually by the time he was taking office, and yet you didn’t comment on this criminal behavior -”

“I, I didn’t believe it was all that important -”

“Then there was the ten reports of obstruction in the Mueller Report -”

“What obstruction? I, I never read the damn, errrr, darn thing anyway!”

“And why not, Senator Power?”

“God would never permit his chosen tool to, to, and that report was therefore blasphemy!”

“And, yet, here we are. Senator, the President, excuse me, former President is widely seen as having displayed evidence of his miscreancy early in his tenure. I speak, of course, of such incidents as his unrecorded interviews with President Putin, his revelations of highly classified materials in public, and his infelicities in the selection of his Cabinet secretaries, and, oh, just his general incompetency. Given all this, if he had been impeached and convicted much earlier in his tenure, isn’t it true that the United States would have had a much more quiet and productive period?”

“Not at all, the judiciary -”

“Even with Vice President -”

“THE JUDGES! For they will wield the sword to redeem us -”

“So, Senator, you admit that you put your own self-interest ahead of the Nation’s -”

“They’re the same!”

“Thank you, Senator, for explaining your Party’s reluctance to to remove the worst President in modern memory. Tell me, sir, is it true that you were fired from your last three jobs for gross incompetency before you became a cleric and started a megachurch in – ah, he just stalked away, folks, I suppose discussing competency is just over the line. This is …”

With apologies to the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and I suspect the reporter was from the Center for Inquiry, a freethinker organization that spends a lot of time safeguarding the secular nature of our government, when it can.

My point, of course, is that most of the Republicans in Congress have wedded themselves to Trump, and to vote for impeachment or conviction would, in effect, be a vote to do the same to themselves and their badly broken ideology or religious convictions.

So, despite the happy words of some pundits, I don’t see it happening.

Having watched just a little bit of the news coverage of the events surrounding the Trump campaign rally tonight in Minneapolis, MN, I was struck by how the need to express disagreement with Trump and his policies seems to be fulfilled by anger and violence.

It’s minor violence, it’s true, but it’s worth remembering that analysis of the typical Trump supporter has included conclusions that there’s a fear of societal change, and that the political opposition will indulge in violence. The first, of course, is true, as people try to change society to be more in tune with justice, but the second need not be necessary – and I feel those who threw objects at departing attendees and the police really played into the hands of the right-wing extremist leaders. In their missives to their followers, they emphasize the violent dangers of the left, fallacious as they are, and the left did nothing to falsify those charges.

Yet, I do sympathize with the protesters. Trump is glaringly obviously incompetent, an amateur who is doing tremendous damage to the reputation and tangible quality of the country. He has no concept of how ethics in government employees, such as himself, should work; he has, instead, imported his own bankrupt moral system in which he constantly seeks personal advancement into the Oval Office. He may even be a Russian asset. He’s become the emblem of how bad a President should not be. That our fellow Americans can embrace a liar, cheat, bungling fool, who is so bad that he doesn’t even recognize it, is infuriating.

But I fear tonight’s violence will only reinforce the Trumpist base’s decision to support the man.

Here’s what I would have savored seeing: a good-natured, old-fashioned shaming through laughter. When Trump came in, and when he left, all the protesters should have pointed a finger and laughed. When the attendees came out, seeking only to get in their vehicles and drive away, rather than yelling and screaming and throwing rocks at their cars, a good old-fashioned laughing might have been more effective. Perhaps call them suckers, just to get their attention, but nothing worse. Assail them with gales of laughter. Violence hardens attitudes, it persuades only the timid, and frightened, and that’s not a big piece of the Trumpist base.

A psychologist could address this more effectively, but the driving emotional need for Trump is respect, or admiration, for himself. As I understand it, he’s always yearned for it, and never quite gotten it from the creamy elite of New York City.

But if a bunch of Minnesota yahoos had just pointed and laughed at him and his followers, not only would his followers feel less physically threatened, while wondering what they’ve missed, but perhaps Trump himself would have taken a real hit.

They’re not yelling and screaming, they’re just laughing at me. Just laughing and pointing, practically crying they’re laughing so hard. They have no respect.

And would he continue to go on? Hard to say. But it would have been more respectful of our shared bond as Americans, legal or not, than this night of hatred and, well, stupidity.

A missed opportunity.

If you haven’t read about the shift in public sentiment concerning the Impeachment Inquiry into the conduct of President, this might brighten or darken your day:

I don’t read much Facebook, but even that little bit yields up the classic What About The Democrats! argument, and I’ve had it.

Look, whatabout-ism doesn’t work with me. We’re not measuring Trump against the lies of the Democrats, the Socialists, or for that matter the Nazis.

We’re measuring him against the Constitution.

That’s the only measuring stick that matters anymore^[1].

And he’s coming up short.

¹ Sure, we could talk about Obama and the Constitution, but, guess what? The Republicans had 6 years of dominance of Congress and never tried to impeach him. The actions of the Republicans tell us a lot more about Obama and, for that matter, H. “turns out she’s clean as a whistle, thanks to Rep Trey Gowdy, et al” Clinton, than does their rhetoric or their brazen apologists.

Steve Webb of Yates Webb Engineers is really pissed off, and vents in The RIBA Journal:

If I drive a Range Rover to the supermarket I produce about 400g of CO₂. Should we measure environmental morality in Range Rover Shopping Trips – RSTs? An RST is an ugly spectacle: me a paunchy middle aged guy, my wrap-around shades, in a ‘commanding’ driving position, nonchalantly palming my giant car between trolley-pushing pedestrians in the Sainsbury’s car park. Meanwhile in a studio nearby, a designer, loving the precision of razor sharp edges, draws a gorgeous slender bookshelf out of steel. It weighs 500kg, making about 1.5t of CO₂, so jot him down for 3,750 RSTs: a daily Range Rover drive to Sainsbury’s and back every day for 10 years – and that’s just a morning’s work for him. An engineer churns out the same old steel picture frame instead of a timber one – that’s 2t of steel and 6t of CO₂: she’s on 15,000 RSTs. A planner that insists on a brick facade produces 253t of CO₂ – 632,500 RSTs. Bricks are bad. They’re baked, doh! If a contractor, balking at the unknown, persuades a client to make a block of flats concrete instead of cross laminated timber that’s 2,300t of CO₂. Now we’re on 5.76 million RSTs. No matter that we’re peddling around on our Bromptons. We are actually all driving the Range Rover to Sainsbury’s… a lot.

It’s hard to swallow that we [the construction industry] are personally at fault. How can we rightminded modern people be perpetrating such a thing? Another architect told me recently that many buildings are not designed by architects, implying that these ‘other’ buildings are the problem. Barratt Homes’ houses are normally wood-framed! I’m sorry to say the ‘new London vernacular’ architect-designed end of the housing spectrum is the brick and concrete, carbon-heavy, one. Go Barratt!

As a practice transitions from morally acceptable to morally unacceptable due to increasing world-wide population densities and improving, but energy-demanding, quality of life in a world where morals are thought to be unchanging absolutes, but are not, it’s actually not surprising. Our perceptual systems are not built for it, our mindsets are against it. Good for Yates Webb to recognize the problem in their own backyard.

And what is Yates Webb doing? A statement:

Too bad they’re UK, not Minnesota, based.

The boar menaces the bore. Now if only this had taken place in a bore-hole, and it was all about a ice sample.

We recently viewed the silent film The Cat And The Canary (1927), and while we longed to like it, I think it’s cultural attitudes leave it too dated to appreciate. In this movie about the disposition of the estate of a man, mixed with an escaped convict, and a hint of insanity, it seemed the only woman with any hint of a backbone ultimately didn’t really figure in the climax of the movie; she merely stalks through the story with a broody look on her face. The element of farce was off-putting, while the heroine, who’s little more than a canvas for the projection of public attitudes of the day, left me cold, and I even considered cheering on the big clawed hand which hovered over her shoulder.

Characters were not differentiated, themes were not strongly developed, and two days later we were confusing it with elements of some other recently viewed movies.

In a word, forgettable.

Remember the three 2019 gubernatorial elections? Louisiana’s is a “jungle primary to a runoff,” where the runoff is skipped if anyone wins the jungle primary with more than 50% of the vote. Emerson College Polling is reporting Governor Edwards (D-LA) is not only easily ahead of the two Republicans who appear to be splitting the conservative vote, but doing well enough he might win outright in the primary:

A final Emerson College pre-election primary poll in the Louisiana Governor race finds Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards leading with 48% of the vote. Republican Businessman Eddie Rispone and Republican Congressman Ralph Abraham follow in a statistical tie, with 25% and 19% respectively. Independent Gary Landrieu is at 4%, Republican Patrick Landry is at 3% and Democrat Oscar Dantzler at 1%. (Oct 4-7, MM, n=467, +/-4.5%)

If this holds true in the actual primary, then it would indicate a substantial loss of support for Trump, who won the state by 20 points in 2016, and that his endorsement of the two top Republicans is either ineffective, or possibly a strategic error in that it didn’t give clear direction to Trump voters as to who he prefers.

Conclusions are always tentative when proxies are being evaluated, and one must remember Edwards is the incumbent, so none of this is final, but it’s certainly interesting in what it says about Trump support.

When it comes to the battle between Congress and President Trump, sometimes even the pundits become a little foreboding. Consider Steve Benen’s recent remarks concerning a recent report issued by the Senate Intel Committee:

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report yesterday on how Russia used social media as part of the Kremlin-directed attack on the American elections. The document, released by Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.), made a series of recommendations about new laws to foreign interference, but it also served as an effective indictment against the perpetrators

Steve then notes the White House appears to still be attempting to discredit the notion that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in Trump’s favor, and the State and Justice Department Secretaries are going out of their way to dispute and discredit these findings.

Which leads to this:

Maybe one of these guys can read the bipartisan findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Or does Team Trump assume senators are part of a nefarious scheme?

It’s a little chilling, having read sometime in the last few years of the slaughter of the Roman Senators as the Roman Empire entered a disintegrative phase. While Roman Senators were distinguished by the requirement that their families be part of the elite class, it’s still enough to send a shiver down my spine.

Chiasmus:

Chiasmus is a rhetorical device in which two or more clauses are balanced against each other by the reversal of their structures in order to produce an artistic effect.

Let us try to understand chiasmus with the help of an example:

“Never let a Fool Kiss You or a Kiss Fool You.”

Notice that the second half of this sentence is an inverted form of the first half, both grammatically and logically. In the simplest sense, the term chiasmus applies to almost all “criss-cross” structures, and this is a concept that is common these days. In its strict classical sense, however, the function of chiasmus is to reverse grammatical structure or ideas of sentences, given that the same words and phrases are not repeated. [Literary Devices]

I’ll never remember this one. Noted in an emailed joke, courtesy my Arts Editor, which I will outtake:

Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.

Reinforcing my speculation of yesterday on the spirit of those text messages, and the role Ambassador Sondland may have played in them, the Ambassador traveled back to the United States in response to a request from several House Committees wishing to interview him for the impeachment inquiry, and at the very last moment …

….to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” That says it ALL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2019

If you really believe the House is conducting rigged proceedings, then perhaps this makes sense, if you squint just right.

But if you’re wondering if Ambassador Sondland might have some evidence useful to Congressional oversight responsibilities, this reaction by a State Department, or at least Secretary thereof, known to be slavishly devoted to Trump, does little to dispute that inclination, and suggests circumstancially that Ambassador Sondland was, indeed, covering Trump’s High Crime in that final text, covered previously.

And how will Republicans try to cover for this? Appear in kangaroo suits?

President Trump made an amazing claim during an otherwise routine signing of a trade agreements with Japan:

You can’t impeach a President for doing a great job. You can’t impeach a President for having the lowest and best unemployment numbers that we’ve had in 51 years. You can’t impeach a President for tax cuts and regulation cuts and creating — and even the Ambassador would say — the strongest economy in the world. We have the strongest economy in the world.

This is a scam. And the people are wise to it. And that’s why my polls went up, I think they said, 17 points in the last two or three days. I’ve never had that one. I’ve never had that one.

We’ll skip who did what, the caveats, and how much a President is responsible for an economy in any case.

From FiveThirtyEight’s dynamic aggregate of polls.

But his (approval) polls are up 17 points? No. No jump at FiveThirtyEight.

So why does he say that? Why the big lie?

Maybe he’s trying to reassure himself.

More likely, he’s trying to keep his base together by lying about how many people disapprove of the Impeachment Inquiry. Fox News will pick this right up and broadcast it, although as Fox News seems to be somewhat disaffected with the President, this may be a bit of a risk.

And, least likely, but worth thinking about, this and the panoply of lies, exaggerations, and hyperbole President Trump has been employing may be a deliberate foundation for an insanity defense in the future. He is, after all, under investigation for many incidents, and perhaps he’s crazy like a fox, willing to put the nation’s security at risk just so he can avoid prison.

The sordid soap opera continues.

They’re quite restful.

Or, fun with optical physics:

In case you’ve not had the time to peruse the text messages between Administration members concerning the Zelensky phone call – that would be the one that is being investigated via Impeachment Inquiry – that was recently released by Congress, here’s the most interesting part:

[page 9]

A little context is helpful. Gordon Sondland is the United States Ambassador to the European Union. According to Wikipedia,

He was a major donor to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

We may presume he is, like many Ambassadors over many Administrations, an appointee awarded an Ambassadorship as a reward for some service. This is not unusual, at least to those countries which are considered friendly.

William Taylor is currently the Charge d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. A Charge d’Affaires is a diplomat temporarily in charge of an embassy, presumably while the Ambassador is away or no Ambassador currently holds the appointment. My impression is that Foreign Service personnel are typically career professionals whose political preferences, if any, are not permitted to influence their conduct.

With that information, these messages become more interesting. A naive reading would simply suggest that Taylor was misreading the situation, and Sondland corrected him. However, a more careful reading, keeping the roles and origins of the correspondents in mind, suggests it’s not nearly out of the realm of possibility that Sondland, aware that President Trump might be committing an unethical act that could possibly rise to the level of a High crime or misdemeanor, is suggesting to Taylor that Trump is not thinking that at all, and then suggests the discussion be taken offline, i.e., where it is less likely to be recorded and revealed.

Neither reading is certain, but the fact that the latter is not only possible but probable, suggests the distance to which the rot has radiated.