One observation about Donald Trump and that there accusation that Obama had been wire-tapping him…

… as per the revelations made by wikileaks release dump…

It does show a concern for civil liberties, on down to the lay person  or lay political protester level, doesn’t it?  Theoretically…

Though more probably he believes in the pitfalls of the problem it with regards to himself and his goals.

Boredom circulates wild ideas that will land on partisans picking out their partisan winners of supposed “duels“.   With Hamilton — Burr, there was always a clear winner… at least of the damned duel if not the ideology behind the two combatants.
And we are back in the realm of “This is why people are voting for Trump” — the reality tv shows bowlderized our culture and made acceptable the behavior — , and a shaky yes, but… premise sets in.

On the coming of the “Ryan Care”, or “Trump Care”, or whatever it is called.  And it is, from the vantage point of the Tea Party figures out in the House, “Obama Care 2.0” — or from Paul Krugman, “Obama Care 0.5”, take the central tenets of the Affordable Care Act and … half them?

Is it “Teh Socialism”.  After years of railing about the socialism, and getting the socialist threat up and running, anything and everything is.  But we’re back at a basic law of politics — this. is. the. testing. ground. for. the success. and failure. of the. president. who is. a member. of. your party.  What bogs him down bogs you down.  As such, the rule of getting the House on board slips away — sure, go away Thomas Massie.  And up to the Senate, Rand Paul already gave himself away in the Senate with earlier statements on “Republicans investigating Republicans”.

Why it takes 51 votes (or 50 votes plus Pence) to get this passed and took 60 states for the Democrats to get the ACA passed is a matter of whatforth “Reconciliation” wroughts.

Why is this popping up…

… when I skip through the “Washington Monthly” website?
Shouldn’t it appear when I skip through, oh, The National Review?

  I suppose the challenge comes in trying to make this message, the message of this sign, something of not a reality.  It’s a sign that, at the time it made news near the beginning of the Obama Administration begged the question “Is this… Pro Obama, or anti-Obama?”  It seemed to be readable in both ways.

I hate to say it, but Bush never slid to the realm of “Impeach HIM!”  I recall musing as his administration stumbled toward the end of the second term in a lame-duck manner of how we might reshape the government to allow a new president — one of the same party not connected to the current occupant — if his approval rating falls into the 30s for a sustained manner of time.

But he sustained himself and knew he was the most admired and least admired man in America… by dent of his position… and could persist accordingly.  It’s a low threshold of respectability the current figure in the White House isn’t able to rise to.

But that’s “Andrew Jackson” Democracy for you?

I ponder why I’ve never thought one way or the other about above ground pools.

On her first show after the election, Samantha Bee, the comedic equivalent of a Facebook “share if you agree” post, said, “America has done the diplomatic equivalent of installing an above-ground pool. Even in the best case scenario and it doesn’t seep into the foundation, our neighbors will never look at us in the same way again.”
Who has above-ground pools? Poor people of all races. Rural people with yards. The joke is simply “Poor people who try to act rich are tacky. People who don’t have the money to get a proper pool are an embarrassment, and they should be more concerned with the judgment of neighbors than their own happiness.”

Sure.  The show  Sometimes I get tossed a reference point that I just don’t know.  Apparently above ground pools are really something, to be slotted in the basic premise of a pre-scripted commentary metaphor — fill in the blank outrage reference.

And so it is the question.  Indicative of something.  Like, I can go one round better on the “above ground pool” line and throw you the old mud ditch out that away on a hot summers’ day.  So it is… From what grounds on classist elitism does Samantha Bee find this line?
The Meritocracy in action — can’t find someone of a diverse background different from her’s in the writers’ staff to snub that line.

But alas.  Today we see a snicker that Trump ate steak out at his Trump restaurant well done and with ketchup.  I realize that when we’re talking about Trump eating steak well done and with ketchup we’re not talking about steak, but an attitude — so tasteless, so smothering of taste and so just like his proposed budget and immigration policies and presidential demeanor — but I’m stuck feeling like people who have been outraged when I order a salad without dressing.

The cultural puzzlements acure.  In what is otherwise a “points well taken” editorial by Gloria Steinem, I become stuck on the just what is the definition of (derogatory term it be) “chick flick” / “chick lit”.  I trend toward placing it in the same escapist line as the dismissive “dude wants to see a bunch of car crashes” comment she has upon hearing the phrase in an airplane.  As we move through her definition of the new term of “prick flick” and various sexist tropes, I’m stuck right about here…

All the movies that portray female human beings as the only animals on earth that seek out and enjoy their own subordination and pain. From such whitewashed versions of prostitution as “Pretty Woman” (literally whitewashed, since poverty and racism mean that white women are much less likely to be prostituted) to …

Or.  Ask me to name some “chick flicks”, and — after quickly summising whether this is a set-up and wind-up, just about first movie I would name … Pretty Woman.  (A movie like, oh, The Color Purple — surely land on the problem Steinem is discussing — I wouldn’t mention.)  Surely doesn’t fit feminist garb, and lands in a retelling of fairy tale tropes.  Can a movie be both a “chick flick” and this category of “prick flick” — and if there’s a competition for a label shouldn’t the title be bestowed on which gender watches the movie more?

In other news.  Say.  What about the Oscars gaffe?

Like the recent presidential election, these Oscars were the worst ever. How could the staff give the presenters the wrong card? They had one task to do and they gave the presenters the wrong card for the most important announcement of the night!
After last year’s Oscars, and all the complaining by Will Smith, these felt like the “Affirmative Action Oscars.” Everyone will have their opinion on who is best but when you mix political causes to get the results you want then art is the true victim.
— Peter Klingchov

Think of the Awards shows and making judgements as generally a craps’ shoot of indifference whether a thing deserves it over another thing, and can think of some clunkers in the past that won the Big One that I think are clunkers — more so than Moonlight looks like.  Which draws me to the smirking thought that this letter writer will be viewing any win by a minority group as undeserving affirmative action.

And then the conspiracy theory.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole thing was staged so they would elevate media attention for this year’s Oscars.

I did not watch the Academy Awards, and I’m sure a number of people did not either, but now it’s everywhere. You can’t open a newspaper, website or change the TV channels without seeing the “oohs” and “ahhs” from the Oscar flub.

Along the lines of…