Let the record show that on February 12, 2018, the New York Times featured the word “shithole” on the front page.

In previous administrations, they tended to censor presidents’ behind closed doors vulgar words.

Then again…

A question.  The one I don’ understand.  Why does Trump want an influx of immigrants from notoriously socialist Norway?  Or is the idea that the people fleeing Norway are the good ones, getting the hell out of Bernie Sanders ville?

One query about the Republican from Utah Mia Love… who in her defense of immigrants also somehow has to apply her true rugged Republican values…

They never took a thing from our federal government.

Sure.  I heard this one.  Ron and Rand Paul insist the same thing.  Must deny all financial services from gummint.  But…for all those immigrants fleeing the holeness of their countries… what?

“He’s clinical.”

I think they were mumbling about the trio of Trump tweets over the weekend … notably…

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,”

I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star …. to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!

In his defense, when challenged on stability, to defend yourself you’d have to iterate that you are mentally stable, thus putting you in the “can’t win” dilemma of coming off as defensive when you shout out “Me?  SANE!! Perfectly sane!”

“My mom sent a text.  Oprah Winfrey 2020.  Fine, but it’s too soon to talk about 2020.”

Actually, theoretically it isn’t.  In as much as everyone running is talking about 2020.  Whoever the heck is running.

And, sure, this is coming off the heels of some comments at an awards show (one Trump never needed to win) … but Winfrey for President strikes to me an admission of cultural defeat.

A common, probably best to suggest universal, issue parents deal with in raising their daughter –  I haven’t any straight forward answer here, and I guess neither does anyone else parenting under whatever societal boundaries they derive their ideals from, but I do find something — perhaps beside the point– a little head scratching with this edition of the Nation’s “Agony Aunt” advice column…

How should a feminist mom deal with an 11-year-old daughter who wants to dress as if headed to an audition for an early scene in Pretty Woman?—Worried Mom

“Early scene in Pretty Woman”?  Is that a euphemism for “whore”?  Avoid that issue by layering?  Why is that movie on her mind, anyways?

Or… is this a to specify a particular style choice from one fictional prostitute?  That would explain why that movie is on her mind, if its specific to the specific dress demanded by the daughter.

More to the point, the 11 year old girl would likely not know the reference, so I’m guessing this part of the advice is worthless —

Tell her she can’t get her Julia Roberts on at school or on public transit, for example, but explain why.

At this point in time, Britney Spears (by then we’d stop calling out dressing like sex workers and move to “tramp”?) would be ancient history.

Maybe we can have a historical lecture on how, say, Victorian era Prostitute (sex worker, if I must) styles influenced styles moving forward into the twentieth century– the color red bursting forward to become Nancy Reagan’s favorite dress color, for instance.  Drone on long enough, and it might bore the daughter enough she’d dress sensibly on her own accord just to make it stop.

“Well, finally Trump did something good.  California likes its pot, but he doesn’t like the pot, and neither do I.”

So says random elderly woman somewhere or other, voicing her support for the policy advancements of Jeff Sessions– which, as I’ve suggested — is the priorities that allows him to ignore any humiliations from the part of Trump.

Also it seems she’s somewhat representative of with her demographics’ politics, but no one else’s.

A different perspective:

“It’s … anti-statism, I say.  What works in Oregon doesn’t necessarily work for another country.”

Odd phrasing, may or not give away sympathizer of the Free Cascadia secession Movement.

So.  Um.

To many Christians, the backlash against Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill was a frightening sign of the secular left’s triumphalism. Liberals were no longer working toward tolerance, it seemed—they were out for conquest. “Many evangelicals were experiencing the sense of an almost existential threat,” Russell Moore, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me. It was only a matter of time, he said, before cultural elites’ scornful attitudes would help drive Christians into the arms of a strongman like Trump. “I think there needs to be a deep reflection on the left about how they helped make this happen.”

To be sure, I’d rather have bakers not have to service cakes commemorating gay marriages.  (Hey!  There’s a whole article in Harpers on what gays lost by making this hetero-normative accommodation the foundation of what he considers his movement.  I don’t know where he stands on that issue.)  And I’m musing in a lot of threadings of needles — yep!  They’re arguing about creation and definitions of of “art” and “vision” before Supreme Court, when the issue comes down to whether they are forced to stick two plastic Tom Deweys on the top of the damned cake.

And to be sure, the man who made the comment here isn’t a Trump fan.  (Though, I suppose, he’d skip and stick to loyal servant — biblical servant as we see in the article — Pence in a heartbeat.)  But, “scorn” from a set of the political constituency — who themselves receive their fair share of scorn from Coulter Limbaugh and on — leads them to leap over to a Mussolini — Trump?

Like the broad-shoulder rememberances!

In the other revolt of “deep reflection” on the “left” (whatever those are supposed to signify) — Bill Clinton (and by extension his wife) versus hashtag Metoo.  Strange tidings.  So, have veteran  Clinton campaigners in a big banquet somewhere, scaring off people protesting this with an interesting buggaloboo.  “The American people decided.  They voted for him!”  Without coming on any side here, that’s a piss poor argument on moral turpitude.

Though, I see in one of the liberal rags — either The Nation or In These Times — on the considerations here… now that we don’t have, say, an Orrin Hatch to annoy us and come over to Clinton… one statement… questioning if Lewinsky in her power imbalance even has a grounds of consent.  The answer is… without exonerating Clinton here, or against the other matters that would have lead feminists to find their way to a “well, he supports abortion rights” exoneration … er, yes.  You’ve redefined things into meaningless