. . .And One More Thing

As I said yesterday, I assume the "managers" of Donald Drumpf's "presidential" "campaign"--

--I should really just put airquotes around everything associated with this moron.  But onward!

I assume these people had no criminal intent when they sent fundraising letters to Scottish MPs.  Despite technically breaking election law, these emails were (I assume) just part of a mass spamming: The Drumpf campaign probably purchased email lists and then sent messages to everybody on these lists--including foreign parliamentarians.  Frankly, I think the campaign has so far been fortunate that only emails to Scots have come to light.  I'm waiting (OK, fervently hoping) to hear about similar appeals to members of the Duma or the House of Saud.

But here's the thing: Let's give Drumpf and his cronies the benefit of all doubt as mentioned above.  That still means that his campaign paid money for email lists that contain the addresses of Scottish members of Parliament.  In other words, the lists that he spent money on contain email addresses that are already public!  This would be like me spending cash to get the email addresses of American congressmen and -women.  Sure, I guess you could "justify" this expense by claiming that it saves time, but since the "time" we are discussing is essentially a 30-second Google search, that justification is thin to say the least.

In other words, ignore the fact that Drumpf is a racist, misogynist, and completely unqualified candidate.  The one claim that his whole campaign rested on is that he is a smart businessman--but a smart businessman who apparently wastes money on worthless (and possibly illegal) campaign expenses.  And these expenses include things that any semi-intelligent person could get for free!

Teflon Don 2.0

Back in the 1980's, John Gotti, a notorious New York gangster, was frequently referred to in the tabloids as the Teflon Don, owing to the authorities' inability to successfully prosecute him.  Today, apparently, Donald Drumpf is the political Teflon Don: a repugnant candidate whose campaign somehow survives repeated egregious mistakes (if they even are mistakes), any one of which would have not only ended any other political campaign, but would have consigned the offending candidate to political oblivion.

Call the population of an entire country--a neighboring country, with which the United States has basically friendly relations--murderers and rapists?  No biggie.

Spend extensive time on a debate stage discussing the fact that there is "no problem" with the size of your penis?  Ha!  Funny stuff!  (Not that anyone believes him--have you seen his teeny, tiny hands?)

Defraud thousands of vulnerable people of what little money they have by offering a "university" degree worth less than the stock of one of your several bankrupt businesses?  Hey, that's the American way!

Now we find out that Drumpf's campaign has been spamming Scottish parliamentarians with fund-raising appeals.  In addition to being distasteful, tacky, and--considering the fact that Drumpf keeps claiming he's worth about ten billion dollars--suspicious, this act is likely illegal:

The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits “any foreign national from contributing, donating, or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.”

A couple of campaign watchdog groups are planning to file a complaint against the Trump campaign.

Now, to be "fair," I'm reasonably sure that no one on Drumpf's team actually said, "Hey, here's a thought: Why don't we try to raise money from Scottish politicians!" More likely, the campaign simply purchased a bunch of email lists--one of which contained the MP's addresses--and spammed the hell out of them. Even if this is technically illegal, it smacks more of incompetence or sloppiness than criminal intent--much like Drumpf's hair. 

But imagine if Hillary Clinton's campaign were caught in a similar scandal?  Fox News would interrupt programming with a flashing graphic of "TREASON!" before the first person could "Like" the story on Facebook!

I'm seriously asking: What will it take to bring this jackass down?

Well, Guess That's Settled. . .

Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a highly restrictive Texas abortion law, emphatically reaffirming the constitutional right to abortion.  Now that the abortion question has been settled once and for all, I guess we need discuss it no further.

Well, it would be nice to think so....

Disingenuously promoted as protecting women's health, Texas' law mandated among other things that abortion clinics meet onerous physical-plant requirements that had nothing to do with making abortions safer.  The actual purpose of these laws, of course, was simply to ensure that very few clinics could meet the enhanced standards and would consequently be forced to close,  And the law was very effective in this regard, as the number of abortion clinics in Texas has been roughly halved since the law's enactment. 

The Supreme Court's decision yesterday reversed an appeals court ruling upholding the law, a ruling, by the way, that summarizes the fundamental flaw behind much anti-abortion legislation.  The appeals court judges upheld the law, claiming that they "had to accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions."  Because, after all, who is more knowledgeable about women's health needs than right-wing politicians?

Hillary Clinton seized on the ruling to emphasize the importance of electing a candidate who will choose well-qualified Supreme Court justices--justices who will uphold abortion rights and other liberal concerns.  Donald Trump "made no direct public comments on Monday’s decision."  So in addition to reaffirming women's right to abortion, SCOTUS actually managed to make Drumpf shut the hell up for five minutes.  On the whole, then, a positive--if not miraculous--ruling.

Time to Accept Reality

I understand why people like Bernie Sanders.  I understand why people voted for Bernie Sanders.  And I understand why these people are feeling depressed right now, as it appears that Hillary Clinton has emerged victorious from the Democratic nominating process.  Many of these people are now suggesting that there is no way they will vote for Hillary in November.  Personally, I think this attitude is counterproductive to say the least, unless these people truly see no major threat from the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency.  But, still, I acknowledge that these people certainly have the right to vote for whomever they prefer, or for no one at all.  All of this I can accept.

What I can no longer stand is the caterwauling from this group that the system is "rigged" and that Hillary Clinton somehow "stole" the election.  I read posts like this on Facebook and, frankly, just want to scream. Enough already!

I note that these people are making two separate arguments, one of which is absolutely true: The system IS rigged.  The current primary system, particularly it seems on the Democratic side, is set up in such a way that it favors the candidate preferred by the party elite and, correspondingly, throws up obstacles in the path of any less-favored candidate.  This does not mean that an insurgent candidate CAN'T get the nomination--a little-known politician by the name of Barack something-or-other managed to beat out the establishment favorite in 2008. You might have heard of the person he beat, too: Her name was Hillary Clinton.  Still, however, the party favorites will always have an edge in any nominating contest.  It's debatable, though, whether this is truly a bad thing: After all, some would say that the people in charge of the Democratic Party have every right to select the person they want to represent them in a general election.  And one could, therefore, understand why these people might be reluctant to support Bernie Sanders who, as I was reminded recently, was not even a Democrat until five minutes before he decided to run for the nomination.

(At this point, I feel I must insert the obligatory statement of basic support for what Bernie is trying to accomplish.  Yes, he's a good guy.  Yes, he has some great policy positions.  Yes, it would be great to have someone in the White House with Berne's obvious concern for the downtrodden.  I'm not bashing Bernie, OK?  But he lost.  Onward.)

I'm beginning to feel that maybe we should do away with primaries altogether: Let the parties choose their standard-bearers however they want.  True, that would mean no Bernie Sanders (at least, no Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat), but it would also mean we wouldn't right now face the real possibility of a Trump presidency.  That's a tradeoff I'd accept.

The second argument, though, that Hillary stole the election, is flat-out wrong--unless you are defining "theft" as getting more votes than your opponent.  Hillary won millions more votes than Bernie (and I suspect her winning margin among registered Democrats was even larger than her overall margin).  She won more states than Bernie--particularly among states that hold primaries, which are inherently more small-d democratic than caucuses.  She won more convention delegates--both of the "super" and "mere mortal" category.  Die-hard Bernie fans would have you believe that none of this is true--that it is merely evidence of massive fraud and vote-suppression of North Korean magnitude. 

And this is where I get pissed off.  Because the implication of these charges is not only that the system is rigged, but also that it is fundamentally inconceivable that people could possibly prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders.  That, in fact, there is something fundamentally "wrong" with people who prefer Clinton.  And maybe I'm wrong to take this personally, but I do.

There is nothing "wrong" with supporting Hillary.  Look, folks, if you think Bernie is qualified to be president, than you simply have to acknowledge that Hillary is too.  Again, I'm not saying preferable--I mean, I think she is, others will disagree, and that's why we have discussions and elections.  But a former first lady (serving as both formal and informal policy advisor), twice-elected senator, and secretary of state is as qualified to be president as anyone you're likely ever to see.  And if you think it absolutely impossible that a large group of your fellow Americans could look at that resume and see a qualified candidate, then you have a curious view of your fellow Americans.

So to Bernie fans, I say: By all means, keep supporting Bernie.  I would suggest the best way to do that, though. is to support the candidate most likely to help him achieve his policy goals (which ain't Trump, by the way).  That decision, ultimately, is up to you.  But you really need to accept the fact that more people simply preferred the other guy (or, in this case, gal).  And unless you want to find yourself and your movement permanently marginalized, you better start building--rather than burning--bridges.

In Which We're Obviously Too Dumb to Understand Good Movies

I have experienced a disheartening revelation: I don't "get" horror movies.

Earlier this year, I went to see "The Witch."

[I should mention here that the rest of this post contains spoilers galore, so if you haven't seen "The Witch" or "It Follows"--and you intend to see them--you might want to stop reading here.]

Here was a highly praised, critically approved horror movie.  And I'll admit that, from a technical standpoint, it was fairly well done: Interestingly gloomy cinematography, well-acted, and featuring a few legitimately spooky moments.  But basically, the movie can be summarized as, "Adolescent girl is accused of being a witch, denies being a witch, but in the end turns out to be a witch."  And I, for one, walked out of the theater thinking, "OK, so. . .  well. . . That happened. . . .," but without any clear idea of what the hell I had just spent the last 90 minutes or so watching.

Last night, I watched "It Follows," an even more lavishly praised movie: 97% positive rating on "Rotten Tomatoes"! An instant classic!  Yada yada yada!  And again, I acknowledge a certain skill on the part of the filmmaker, who displays an impressive ability to make ambulation look threatening.  On the whole, however, this movie left me thinking nothing so much as, "Wha?"  I write this post, then, in the hopes that someone can explain to me what the movie was about, and thereby help me gain an appreciation for what seems to be a highly popular genre.

The movie opens on a quiet, suburban street at dawn (or maybe dusk).  The street appears empty.  Suddenly, a young scantily clad woman bursts out of a house, apparently running from something.  She runs into the middle of the street, stops, and looks around.  The camera pans around the scene, revealing. . . . NOTHING.  (Not a sausage, as Monty Python might say.)  A helpful neighbor asks if the girl needs help, and she says no.  She runs BACK to the house--from which she had just escaped--where her father has now come out to see if she's OK.  She runs past him, into the house, and then bursts out again a few seconds later, runs to her (father's?) car in the driveway, and takes off.

Cut to: The girl is driving, it is now night time, her cellphone is ringing.  She does not answer.

Cut to: A beach--

And I should mention here, we later learn that the movie is set in the suburbs of Detroit (I gather this from the references made to "Eight Mile Road" being a boundary between suburbs and city).  I was unaware that Detroit had a beach, so. . . y'know, live and learn.

--It is still nighttime.  The girl sits on the sand.  Her cellphone rings again.  She answers.  It is her father.  She is apologizing for her occasional bouts of nastiness, and assuring Dad that she loves him.  She looks up, looks scared.  And then it is morning. The girl is lying on the beach, dead, her right leg bent up and snapped horrifically, so that her toes are pointing directly down at her face.  End of "prologue."

We next see our heroine Jay Height, floating in an above ground swimming pool in her backyard.  She is your typical, pretty girl-next-door.  Her sister appears, and we find out that Jay is goin on a date that night.  We also meet Jay's "posse," who are hanging out at her house, notable among whom is Paul, a boy who is obviously crushing hard on Jay.  These all seem like perfectly nice kids.

We follow Jay to her date at the movies with Hugh (who is actually named Jeff, but never mind).  While on line, they play a game called "Trade": One person secretly identifies another person with whom he or she would like to trade places, and then the other person is supposed to guess who the first person chose.  Hugh chooses first, and Jay is unable to correctly identify Hugh's choice.  Then it's Jay's turn to pick someone.  Hugh looks around the theater and asks if Jay picked "the girl in the yellow dress."  Jay doesn't know who Hugh is talking about.  Hugh says something to the effect of, "The girl in the yellow dress.  Right there."  He points at what appears to be an empty space.  Jay is confused.  Hugh freaks out and asks if they can just leave. He wants some fresh air.  Jay agrees and they continue their date at a diner.

Now, why Jay doesn't have the sense at this point to realize the guy's a freak and ask to be taken home is beyond me, but let that go.  In fact, Jay agrees to another date and this time, she and Hugh/Jeff go all the way in the backseat of Hugh's car.  Post-coitally, Heff gets out of the car and begins rummaging around in the trunk.  Is Jay confused by this?  Suspicious?  No.  She engages in a serene monologue about her youthful visions of romance--all the while her somewhat-odd-to-say-the-least lover is rummaging around in the trunk of his car like some serial killer looking for a roll of duct tape!  And, indeed, when Heff returns to the backseat, he promptly smothers Jay with a rag (I guess soaked in ether--because everybody has that!).

When Jay awakes, she is in what looks like a large abandoned parking structure, in her bra and panties, handcuffed to a rolling office chair.  Heff is there, too, frantically looking around, and explaining that he's not going to hurt her.  Well. . . to be exact, he's not going to hurt her, but, by having sex with her, he has passed along to her some sort of curse.  "It'll follow you," he says.  What "It" is is some kind of ghost or phantom or. . . or. . . entity that can assume the shape of anybody and that wants to kill the person who has been "cursed."  To get rid of the curse, Jay simply has to have sex, at which point the entity will change its focus to whomever Jay has sex with. 

At this point, I'm thinking, this doesn't sound like such a big deal curse.  I mean, all Jay needs to do to break it is to have sex.  How hard is that?  I mean, sure, for some people--ahem--this would be death sentence, but Jay's an attractive woman: Surely she could find someone willing to help her free herself from this curse.  Heff explains, though, that if the entity manages to kill Jay before she has sex with someone else, then the entity will renew its focus on Heff. . . and after killing Heff, it will resume its search for the person who passed the curse to Heff in the first place and so on down the line.  In other words, if I'm reading this correctly, there is no way to break this curse, as, even if Jay does pass it on, it will at some point simply come back to her.  At this point, I'm thinking that the movie is satirizing that common trope in Hollywood horror films, whereby sex equals death.  And maybe it is, but, if so, it certainly seems to be taking itself seriously while it does so.

Anyway, Jay soon finds herself being stalked by walking phantoms that no one else can see or hear.  Fortunately, these apparitions can only walk--and fairly slowly at that.  Why, therefore, Jay doesn't just hop a flight to Australia as soon as she realizes the nature of her plight--again, that's beyond me (and possibly beyond the filmmaker's budget, which I guess would explain it).  At any rate, she and her friends can outrun the ghost fairly easily.  Jay does eventually have sex with one of her friends, but he comes to the predictable end, which, as mentioned above, means the entity is once again stalking Jay.

Here, friendzoned Paul comes to the rescue: Jay won't have sex with him (because, y'know, friendzone), but Paul has an idea!  He and the rest of the Scooby gang gear up and take Jay to what appears to be an abandoned  (yet still full and clean) public swimming pool, which is housed in a gothic building that looks straight out of some 1930's Dracula movie and appears to be located twenty miles from. . .well, absolutely anything else.  The plan is for Jay to wait in the pool while the Scooby gang places all manner of electrical appliances around the pool's periphery.  When the entity inevitably follows Jay into the pool, they will (presumably after waiting for Jay to climb out of the water) toss the appliances into the pool and electrocute the ghost.  Why would Paul assume that a ghost (or whatever) can be electrocuted?  Again, no idea, and, sure enough, the plan does not work.  The entity does show up and, instead of getting into the pool, proceeds to chuck the electrical appliances at Jay, which does not electrocute her, either.  Paul is reduced to shooting the entity in the head, which is surprisingly (although not permanently) effective--effective enough, at least, to allow everyone to escape Frankenstein's natatorium.

OK, so, now, having exhausted all other options, Jay agrees to let Paul "help" her in the only proven way he can.  (So, guys, if you're wondering how to get out of the friendzone, the answer is: It requires supernatural intervention.  But you probably already knew that.)  The final scene of the movie shows Paul and Jay walking hand in hand up another quiet suburban street, while in the distance behind them, something is FOLLOWING!

Oh, and if you're wondering who the girl at the beginning of the movie was, join the club.  Presumably some previous victim of the entity, but then why the ghost didn't just work its way back along HER line of sexual partners, your guess is as good as mine.

Not from "The Onion"

"The Labor Department, after years of battling Wall Street and the insurance industry, issued new regulations on Wednesday that will require financial advisers and brokers handling individual retirement and 401(k) accounts to act in the best interests of their clients."
                                              --"U.S. Reins In Advice-Givers on Retirement"

What a concept!  Financial advisers legally required to provide advice that serves the people to whom the advice is given!

This could start a societal revolution!  Imagine if professionals everywhere were required to do the jobs for which they have been hired!  No more firefighters committing rampant acts of arson, nor librarians ferociously guarding stacks of books from the depredations of hordes of eager borrowers!  Dare we dream of a world in which doctors no longer walk around decapitating their patients? Or where bus drivers don't deposit passengers at the base of impassable mountain trails?  (Well, except for the Greyhound Impassable Trail Limited, for which such behavior would be thoroughly acceptable.)

Reading this news, I even find myself optimistic that the Senate will do its job when it comes to, say, confirming judicial nominees.  Although that's probably too fantastical a concept to be seriously considered.

Abortion Logic

The degree of difficulty involved in getting an abortion in Texas has reached Olympic diving levels, thanks to a number of laws placing onerous requirements on abortion providers.  Lawmakers disingenuously claim that these laws actually protect women, requiring, for example, that doctors who perform abortions at small clinics have admitting privileges at hospitals and that the clinics themselves conform to rigorous hospital-like standards that actually have nothing to do with providing safe abortions.  These laws don't seem to have any practical effect, other than putting abortion clinics out of business--which is of course what they we're designed to do. If state lawmakers really wanted to improve the safety of women seeking abortions, they could simply, for example, provide additional funds to abortion clinics, but that obviously will never happen.

What I find particularly galling about these laws is that they force women determined to get an abortion to undertake arduous journeys--sometimes of hundreds of miles--to find one of the few clinics that remain open in Texas. An article in today's paper tells of a woman who actually flew to California to have an abortion because she couldn't get an appointment at an overbooked Texas clinic.  She considered herself "lucky" that she was able to take out a high-interest loan to get the procedure done. And she's kind of right, as any number of women don't have the same resources. So in other words, these "protective" laws force women who lack the financial resources to get an abortion to, perhaps, carry a pregnancy to full term--because raising a child obviously poses a much smaller financial burden, right?