“I think he’s doing a good job.” (Marsha Durbin, in Trump t-shirt at Chicago Trump and anti-Trump get togethers).  “We would have globalism without him.  And thank god he’s here addressing the violence problem.”

Leave aside the second matter, where we run into the problem where they’ve been addressing the problems here in River City, “Chiraq” they nicknamed it after all, for a while now and an unwanted politician steps in to make political hay — makes some matters of candor sometimes hard. It’s the first matter I don’g quite understand.  “We would have globalism without him.”  Trade agreements re-nogotiated, troops moved about — somehow “globalism” remains.  What does that even mean?

Let’s just say.  The Democratic House impeaches Trump.  As they, I guess, are set to do.  Steve Scailaise’s re-enactment of the Big 2000 Florida vote delay and various leftist campus disruptions notwithstanding.  Let’s say.  The Republican Senate does its cursory dismissal — slight mixed signals from Senate Majority Leader McConnell on how thoroughly he’ll be going through the motions — is he going through the motions or going through the motions of going through the motions — spiking things up with some theater of another Scalise picket stomping?  Let’s say we then have that impeached not convicted President Trump.

Who is then re-elected.  Popular votes again going Democrat, but Minnesota and Pennsylvania come through for him.  Let’s say those Texas and California suburban districts prove a firewall from whatever midwest districts flipped to the Democrats in 2018 but go to Trump’s election win in 2020 — Democrats retain the House.  Let’s say the Senate still stays Republican, as the only scenario the Democrats are winning it is with a Democratic Presidential win.  Status quo remains.  Except for a re-elected Impeached President with the party that impeached him remaining in their position of Congressional majority.

Four more years.

Two years for some shiny new object to emerge for the Democrats, apparently what gets elected is that which gulps up all available media oxygen.
… unless there’s some template of political template that can be created or re-created.  I had though Hillary Clinton 2016 would be roughly George Bush 1988 — which is a tough one to figure.  As it were, The New York Times has a letters to the editor section full of wistful Democrats throwing their “white knight” saviors out — Al Gore, Al Franken, Oprah Winfrey… Judge Judy wants Michael Bloomberg.  We got that.

Mitt Romney’s secret twitter handle, exposed… just “hearing things out” incognito.

… next up: it’ll be uncovered that the voices in your head are actually, indeed, Mitt Romney.

Years back I saw a bit of a conflicting “viral video”s, posted oddly at the same source of “progressive” / clickbait haven (Rhymes with Puffington Host.).  One video was from some woman in Paris (or somewhere in France) who walked  pants-less, except for a spray painted fake pants.  And the video shows her walking with nary a person making note.  The other, more politically pointed video was a woman walking the streets of New York getting cat-called.  While the second one would receive more attention, I can’t help but ponder the mixed messages inherent in the airing of them.

(One other video I recall seeing was a woman walking, short shorts, and a number rolling of guys who took a gander.  I tend to refute a couple, and she didn’t seem to have any real point she was making, but now we have a trendline of a category of internet videos.)

I’m thinking of this in concern for some random happenstance where, out during rush hour, a woman was walking down the street — shirt open, exposed breasts.  I’m thinking — is there a camera shooting this?  (Her expression seemed to be carefully looking off at all times, which is something I note in those three other videos).  And if so, what — in the end — do they want my reaction to be to make the point they wish to be making — is this a woman’s study exercise on leering men or a “day in wacky nonchalant city”?  If I, or someone else, shouted out “Nice Rack”, would that be highlighted in the internet presentation, or clipped out?

So says Mother Jones magazine:  Tulsi Gabbard Just Released a Bonkers Response Video About Hillary Clinton.

We have a Hillary Clinton (does she have a halo somehow, and if so with who?) — Tulsi Gabbard feud.  I don’t know how else Tulsi Gabbard is supposed to respond — Clinton just called her a Russian agent, basically.  That itself a bonkers statement:

“They are going to do third party again”

Russia “went third party” in the United States in 1948 with Henry Wallace.  Beyond that… hrm.  Jill Stein’s two percent was the one thing that sank Hillary Clinton…

… who… hrm.  “War Party”, yes, no?

Bernie Sanders was probably holding his support from Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to pull out when needed.  Lagging now behind Elizabeth Warren, and needing “juice”, AOC I suppose able to toss aside some past history on immigration and guns…

Considering Elizabeth Warren, and sure absurd in the eon of the talk radio bunch and the , but I note this as Warren really slams SLAMS SLAMS the anti gay marriage contingent at the debate:

a cheap and evasive way of skirting the reality that nearly a third of Americans still oppose gay marriage and it might be in the interest of a political campaign not to write off every single one of them. 

Always worth pointing, Barack Obama won the election in 2008 with the “one man one woman” creed, though no one quite believed him really… and even as you stare at the polls showing everyone’s moved… everyone remembers when they were elsewhere, and …

no, no Democrat is winning Indiana.  So I guess you might win by slamming them all?

Saw the first t-shirt for Kamala Harris.  Harris-mania is making strides from zero to one.  Yang mania continues.  All I see on Bernie is people not having removed their 2016 bumper stickers, but then again maybe that’s just showing prudence.

Beto O’Rourke does the Trump — Hitler thing… or, more precisely “Gobells” — and, more to the point… the one good thing about a one time centrist / moderate Democrat turned shuffling to some formation of “liberal” for statewide election stratagem turned having nothing better to place himself to get attention in presidential bid… it gives the most engendered 2020 Senate Democrat something to pivot off of.

A group of about … eight?… people, with huge “Trump 2020” sign in tow, lead by the multi-colored Haley whatever her last name is, walks around in circles at Pioneer Courthouse Square.  Haley shouts in her bullhorn “We don’t want violence!” to the group of … eight?… other people, with bandanas on the head… who appear to be…

… um… walking very closely behind them?

At some point or other Haley says something about not letting weak girls do something or other, as befitting her politically incorrect edge.

“What’s this protest for?”
“Dunno.  (sarcastic) ‘Free Speech’.  So there they are… speaking.”

When last I could note Haley and her team* they were shouting into bull-horns in front of the empty house of the mayor.  The antifa contingent declined to join them, declaring that the mayor’s house was “not worth defending” — prompting a variation of the old tree falling and sounds being made debate.

All of which can and will be spliced into youtube videos.

* as opposed to whoever may have run over a member/”leader (?)” of antifa outside Cider Riot.  As these things go, the matter will always provoke some suspicions.

Round about 1995, the movie Babe was reviewed as “The Citizen Kain of Talking Pig Movies”.  Certainly a cut above all the other talking pig movies — and other than the sequel I don’t know of many.  (Maybe there was some adaptation of Animal Farm?)  Extending to talking animal movies, and maybe sitting in on live action — and sure — it sure does beat Marmaduke and the third Looks Who’s Talking.  People who know the field of talking pig movies can debate whether Babe sits where Citizen Kain does (and I have heard people who care about movies on some level offer the contrarian view on Citizen Kain, so it doesn’t necessarily need to mean ‘top of the heap’, though it would probably keep its reputation as part of the statement) or not.

Today I read an editorial in the New York Times from Aleksandar Heman regarding the Nobel Prize’s pick for literature — someone who has been a defender of Slobodan Milosevic.  And he says of Peter Hanke that “Mr. Handke is the Bob Dylan of genocide apologists.”  This raises a question.  The field of genocide apologists — it has its Bob Dylan.  Who is the Joan Baez of genocide apologists?

In other New York Times missive, I see an article on a fiery “far right” politician in Canada who… Dan Bilefsky has it….
“More recently, he was accused of cyberbullying a child”
Sharp charge that…
“after he called the 16 year old climate activist Greta Thurberg [mean thingy].”
Sigh.  Notwithstanding the right and wrong of political activist Greta Thursberg, or whether the mean thingy said is in the political pale or not…
You do have the “in partial defense of Donald Trump” here, whose cynical twitter comment on Thursberg was seen as condescending but in a straight forward manner would read as complimentary… because… like it or not, political actors and heat of kitchen and …

“Cyberbullying”?  Really?

I’ve long appreciated the existence of the anti-abortion activists in front of the abortion clinic.  Though, I tend to wish they could cut out the rap about Jesus, I understand that’s not their style.

Across the street I see something new.  Anti-anti-abortion activist with a sign on “Reproductive Justice”.  Tend to wish it was a different frame than the new catch-all of “justice”, but good to see them now too.

I’m not much interested in watching psychopathic (or is it sociopathic) clown movies right about now — and I do have a sense of dejavu (in some sense, didn’t the Joker role already kill Heath Leadger, or contribute in some “Method Acting” place)…

… If I understand right, this Joker practically wears a “MAGA” hat, practically comes up as an Internet troll complaining about women ruining video games, practically lost his steel job in the rust belt…

All very topical, this anti-hero.  They’re putting a mirror up and showing us the clown that we created.  Or something to that effect.

I note some book reviewed by The New Republic, and the question “Did Trump ruin autofiction”, where Ben Lerner apparently includes in a series of characters a high school bully who goes on to make comments identical to the Access Hollywood tape.  “Is this good writing?”, the reviewer asks.  (Or maybe “I can’t tell if this is good or bad writing”.)  It probably isn’t.  The writer is trapping the book.  (Apparently it’s the character that takes up the least amount of space in the novel, but it’s apparently the one that makes the most ham-handed current day political commentary.)

Meantime, The Willamette Week reviews The Joker, and posits about “antiquated views on political correctness”.  This is, once again, Declaration by Fiat, and in itself proves itself wrong.