Cromwell

So-called “judge” is a typical liberal Bush appointee who is obviously biased against me.  Should not be allowed to hear any cases involving POTUS.  Sad!

For the last eight years, GOP politicians and media have been broadcasting the “alternative fact” that Obama was running around the world apologizing for America.  This was demonstrably false, but the GOP doesn’t believe in letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

In light of this, you can see the irony in the ongoing attempts by members of the Cabinet and Congress to reassure our allies every time Trump drops a rhetorical bomb on them.  In lieu of nonexistent apologies for our country’s past, we now have real and repeated apologies for our President.

The hardest thing about religious events is that I have to pretend I’m not praying to myself.

Who needs Australia, anyway?  All they ever gave us was Foster’s and kangaroos.

President Obama, who understood the need for diplomatic behavior, created an “anger translator” named Luther as a comic device to tell people how intensely he really felt.  Trump, obviously, has no need of such a device; he can handle the job quite nicely himself.  The question for the day is how did Trump’s use of language impact the campaign?

There is nothing about Trump’s background which suggests that he is in any way a suitable mouthpiece for white working people.  He grew up rich, has a flamboyant lifestyle, screwed over his contractors, investors, and customers on a regular basis, and proposed an economic plan that was overwhelmingly favorable to the wealthy.  The only thing connecting him to working people, other than his status as an old white guy, was his, shall we say, frank way of expressing himself.  And so, I have to conclude that Trump largely succeeded because he was the anger translator for millions of discontented Americans.

Of course, that persona becomes a bit of a problem when he deals with the outside world.  If you don’t believe me, just ask the Australians.

In spite of (perhaps more accurately, because of) China’s status as an allegedly Communist state, the country is essentially an oligarchy.  That, in and of itself, does not answer the question as to whether China has effective government. What are the pros and cons of oligarchy?

The chief benefit to oligarchy is obvious; it is a guarantee of stable and at least minimally competent government.  The world will gain a greater appreciation of these qualities as it observes the absurd machinations of the Trump Administration.  The downsides are more subtle;  a poorly-run oligarchy tends to be corrupt, self-serving, unimaginative, and uninspiring.  With few roots in the general public, a limited understanding of public opinion, and little likelihood of reviving itself with new blood, an oligarchy tends to wither away over time (think Venice and the Netherlands).

How does this apply to the Chinese leadership?  Whatever you may think of its views on universal rights or its foreign policy, there is no denying that the rise of China from an economic basket case to the world’s second leading economy over the last 30 years is a truly amazing success story.  Never in human history have so many people been lifted from poverty in such a short period of time, and the government deserves a lot of the credit.  The leadership is perfectly aware of the dangers of insularity and corruption and does battle with them on a daily basis. Whether they can succeed in the long run without creating a more open political system is, in my eyes, very doubtful.

He predicts four years of winter.

Frederick Douglass is OK, but the Patriots will find a way to stop him.  They’re winners, like me!

Steve Bannon compares himself to Thomas Cromwell.  As you can imagine, the analogy nauseates me, being an admirer of the latter, and not the former.

That said, parts of the analogy actually make sense.  Henry VIII had a pitifully short attention span and a terrible temper, craved popularity,  and loved to manipulate people, particularly in his latter years.  The resemblance to the man on golf cart can hardly be missed.

Mattis as the Duke of Norfolk and Priebus as Stephen Gardiner?  It’s a bit of a stretch, but maybe.

Yes, Bannon and Cromwell both had revolutionary agendas.  The difference is that only one of them is a vulgar, racist, conspiracy-loving crazoid.   Cromwell gave us the English Bible, not Breitbart News.

Here’s hoping that Bannon suffers Cromwell’s fate, metaphorically speaking, of course.

Xi has become fond of talking about the “Chinese dream,” which obviously sounds a lot like the “American dream,” over the last few years.  Are they similar?

Not really.  The “American dream” revolves around individual aspirations and limited government; the gist of it is that if you work hard and keep your nose clean, the government will do nothing to stop you from becoming prosperous.  If the nation as a whole benefits from your success, so much the better, but that isn’t the focus of the idea. By contrast, the essence of the “Chinese dream,” as far as I can tell, is that China will become wealthier and regain its proper position among nations as a result of wise public policy, and that each individual Chinese citizen will share in the benefits of that.

Think of it as a battle between the invisible and a very visible hand.

Nuclear option for Gorsuch nomination!  Then for North Korea, Iran, and China.

Hey, at least he didn’t nominate Gary Busey!  Although, if he had, I’m sure Mitch McConnell would have found a way to confirm him.

In all seriousness, the guy is obviously well-qualified, and his views on jurisprudence are within the conservative mainstream, so under normal circumstances, I would have no problem supporting confirmation.  These are not, however, normal circumstances.  He will be occupying a seat that should have belonged to Merrick Garland, and the GOP should pay a price for that.

My advice to the Democrats is to avoid making it personal.  State clearly on the record that the issue isn’t the nominee’s qualifications, but the GOP’s abuse of process, and go from there.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Donald Trump blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

The man is busy making threats, and so I’ve got to choose.

For peace or our prosperity?  Somebody’s got to lose.

 

I really shouldn’t have the blues; my favorite color’s red.

It goes back to the days of Mao, who left so many dead.

You had to parrot all he did and everything he said.

I can’t give up a righteous cause for which so many bled.

 

I’ve got the blues.

The fill island blues.

We’ve been down for a long time

But now we’ve paid our dues.

If you think we won’t fight for our rights

I’ve got some news for you.

Trump claims to be a winner

But we won’t be number two.

Someone will be taking his talents to D.C., but I refuse to watch.  Life is not a reality show, regardless of what Trump thinks.

The best way to hurt him his to drive his ratings down.

Springsteen claims to speak for white workers, but he’s just another rootless elitist.  I alone understand working people!