Petition Edition

In the wake of last Tuesday's debacle, a couple of petitions are making their way around the internet.  One calls on President Obama to immediately appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  Assuming he has the power to do this, he absolutely should.  The Senate had ample time to perform its constitutional duties, and, out of pure partisan spite, chose not to.  Garland is an eminently qualified, slightly left-of-center judge, and there is no reason for him not to have received due consideration--and presumably approval--by the Senate.  President Obama should use whatever authority he has to get that man seated immediately.

The second petition, however, is far more dangerous: It calls on voters in the Electoral College who have pledged to vote for Trump to go rogue and cast their votes for Clinton.  The petition itself is purely symbolic: Electors can already vote for whomever they want.  If they are currently "bound" to Trump, they can vote for him--or Clinton or Gary Johnson or whomever.  The same holds true for those pledged to Clinton.  And this is true regardless of a state's popular vote totals--and regardless of any petition.  But here's the thing: Even if enough "faithless electors" could "do the right thing" and hand the presidency to Clinton, doing so would be an absolute disaster--a bigger disaster even than a Trump presidency, and that's saying a lot.  Bear with me.

First, the disclaimers: I am terrified about the prospect of Trump in the White House.  The man has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant, race-baiting bully with absolutely no qualifications for the office he is about to enter.  Even more frightening are the people he inspires--racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, and assorted other members of the alt-right.  In a sane world, Trump would not be elected dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.

I also agree that the Electoral College should be abolished.  It is an arcane remnant of the early days of this country, which no longer serves any purpose--assuming it ever did.  It gives vastly disproportionate power to small states and can override the will of the majority of US citizens.  Indeed, a major reason this petition has gained steam is the fact that Hillary Clinton actually "won" (yes, in quotes--I'll get to that) the popular vote, and people feel that the will of the majority must be honored.  They're not wrong, but this is not the way to do it.

Throughout much of the endgame of his campaign, Trump--no doubt seeing polls that suggested he was heading to a massive defeat--would rally his troops with cries that the election was rigged--that the powers that be were simply going to thwart the will of the people and hand the White House to Hillary Clinton.  He was wrong about that (and of course I would say that even if Hillary had prevailed).  But what happens if 40 or so faithless electors switch their votes to Hillary next month?  Of course, as mentioned above, this is their right.  And if, say, in the next month or so, some new scandal erupts that proves Trump even more unfit to be President (the man does have a couple of court dates coming up), then maybe they should switch their votes.  But imagine what will happen in the country immediately afterwards?  Every Trump supporter would cry that Trump was right, that the system WAS rigged, that there was no way they--his voters--were ever going to have their voices heard.

And. They. Would. Be. Right.

Many of us were terrified at the prospect of armed militias taking to the streets in the face of a Trump loss, spurred on by his delusional (or tactical) claims of election rigging.  Those fears were probably overblown, but NOT if the election results are "overturned" by a small handful of unelected elites (electors are chosen by state political parties).  Even if the country doesn't descend into violent revolution, how much legitimacy would President Clinton have?  You think people resisted Obama?  We would see a level of obstructionism that would make the last eight years look like the Summer of Love.

But, you say, Hillary won the popular vote!  More Americans want her than want Trump!  The will of the people SHOULD be honored!  It should--and going forward, if we get rid of the Electoral College, it will be.  But the fact remains: You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game simply because you hate the outcome--and, again, I cannot stress this enough, I HATE the outcome. 

Furthermore, this is not--I sincerely hope--the last US presidential election.  Once we validate the idea of mass defections by electors, we have effectively eliminated any kind of certainty in the political process.  Best case scenario, this adds momentum to the calls for election by national popular vote; worst case scenario, this leads to anarchy.

And about that national popular vote: Yes, Hillary received more votes than Trump nationwide.  However, the last time I checked, her lead was about 200,000 votes. . .out of well over 100 million cast.  In other words, her margin is less than 0.2%.  A win is a win, you will say--and, again, you're not wrong.  But a margin of 200,000 out of a pool of 100 million-plus is not exactly a "win"--it's a statistical tie.

If the popular vote did decide the winner, we would right now have a massive recount going on: People across the country looking for the 2016 equivalent of dangling chads--Florida 2000 writ large.  This is, of course, not a reason NOT to choose the president by popular vote--but it is a caution: A relative handful of votes recounted differently could very easily hand Trump the presidency that way, too.

Those of us who loathe the thought of a Trump presidency should do everything we can to temper its worst effects.  We should also advocate for changes to our voting systems before the next election.  But like it or not, under the system we have now, Trump won the election.  We don't have to like it--but we do have to accept its reality.

Furthermore....

If the FBI is so interested in irrelevant emails, perhaps they'd like to look at my inbox? It's eminently  possible that my emails contain information as incriminating to Hillary Clinton--moreso!--as whatever they're likely to find on Anthony Weiner's (ick) hard drive.  

Look, ever since I made a small donation to the Clinton campaign, the woman will. Not. Leave. Me. Alone! Every day I get at least one email from her, promising all manner of swag in exchange for just another small contribution: a Hillary Clinton "Woman Card"! The chance to win tickets to "Hamilton"! (OK, that one was tempting, but if I'd won, I think I would have had to go see it with Hillary Clinton, so, y'know, hashtag #mixed blessing.) I'm pretty sure she offered me the ambassadorship to Malawi if I'd pony up $25!

What I'm saying is, have at it, Director Comey! If it takes an FBI probe to get her to stop, I'm with you!

Or Maybe We Find Out She's a Fan of Nickelback

As far as I can tell, the gist of FBI director James Comey's letter to Congress--the letter that has reignited the ever-smoldering controversy around Hillary Clinton's email practices--is that the FBI has found a bunch of emails in the course of an investigation into an unrelated case, and that these emails may or may not contain additional evidence against Hillary.  But no one has actually read all these emails, so, in fact, they may also contain nothing more than copies of emails previously released--or nothing at all.  Of course, they may also contain receipts to Kim Jong-Il for nuclear weapons diagrams, but I kind of doubt it--and at any rate, we're apparently not going to find out until well after the election is over.

People of various political persuasions are outraged that Comey would send such a letter less than two weeks before the election.  I'm frustrated myself, but I am also slightly sympathetic.  After all, the man is truly in a no-win situation: If he doesn't report the existence of the emails to Congress, and then after the election he finds damning information in the emails (even though he won't), he would be "exposed" as a Hillary hack.  Still, I think Comey could have more strongly emphasized in his letter that the existence of this investigation indicates absolutely nothing about Hillary's guilt or innocence.

Ultimately, though, I'm not even sure this matters: While Trump supporters are gleeful about the revelations, these are people who already considered Hillary Clinton a criminal--guilty of illegal self-enrichment at the very least and being a murderous incarnation of Satan at the worst.  At the same time, those who have already decided to support Clinton have probably taken her email "crimes" into account already and decided that they amount to nothing--or at any rate not enough to convince them to vote for Trump.  Considering that Hillary herself called for the FBI to make the contents of the emails public immediately, one can assume that she herself is unconcerned about any new revelations.  And in the meantime, assuming he doesn't release the emails (which he probably won't), the Democrats can spend the next week and a half blasting Comey as a partisan hack for the Republican Party (of which he is a member).  Bottom line: I don't see this harming Clinton in any appreciable way.

And seriously, assuming the new "evidence" shows anything at all about Clinton, what new revelations are people expecting to find?  Unless you show me an email from Hillary claiming that "Breaking Bad" is overrated, I can literally think of nothing--nothing--that would dissuade me from voting for her.  And, yes, that includes a receipt made out to Kim Jong-Il for nuclear weapons diagrams: Heck, if she were guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors (she isn't), then go ahead and impeach her.  I can think of worse fates than a President Tim Kaine, and two of them are named Trump and Pence.

The Unbearable Weight of Stubbornness

So Bernie has endorsed Hillary, and now Democrats can happily shake hands, mend fences, and turn our attention completely to defeating the Great Orange Dumpster Fire that is Donald Drumpf.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

Immediately after Bernie Sanders announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the internet was predictably aflame with diehard Sandernistas, proclaiming Bernie a sellout--apparently even Bernie has it in for Bernie!  Apparently, passionate leftists are just as allergic to compromise as Tea Partiers, and would rather just watch the world burn than embrace a candidate who could, if her track record is any indication, actually get something done.  Sure, she won't address all of Bernie's priorities, but she could actually get Sanders' followers a decent portion of the things they claim to want.  Which is more than they'll get with a Drumpf presidency.  (It's probably more than they would have gotten from a Bernie presidency, too, considering that Hillary has demonstrated a greater ability to work with her political antagonists than Bernie ever has--but don't expect the Bernie Bros to admit to that any time soon.)

Many of Bernie's most vocal supporters have loudly proclaimed that they will never vote for Hillary.  When you point out that not voting for Hillary is at least passively supporting Drumpf, they wipe their hands of any responsibility, excusing their (in)action by saying it won't be their fault if Trump wins--it will be the fault of everybody who hurt their feelings by voting for Hillary over Bernie.

As a sports fan, I kind of understand: It's like people who hate Lebron James being upset about Cleveland winning the championship. "See, Oklahoma City was a better team than Golden State," they say.  "If the Thunder had gone up against Cleveland, no WAY the Cavaliers would have won."  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But the point is, Golden State went head to head against Oklahoma City, and Golden State won.  And where the sports analogy breaks down is this: Bernie Sanders supporters can actually do something to ensure that Donald Trump doesn't win: They could swallow their pride and vote for Hillary--the man their own hero has asked them to vote for!

It has been pointed out that many of the It'll-serve-'em-right-if-Trump-wins crowd are actually relatively affluent white people.  That these people, while not welcoming a Drumpf presidency, will likely not suffer overly much under such a regime--at least not directly.  They don't rely on the social services that will likely be gutted under a Republican regime, and their rights will not be directly threatened by an extreme rightward tilt of the Supreme Court.  And worst case, they have the means to follow through on their probably idle threats to pack up and move to Canada.

While I agree with this analysis, it loses some of its persuasive force when one considers that a huge proportion (perhaps a majority) of Trump's most passionate supporters actually are the people--low-income, poorly educated--whose lives will be decimated by a Drumpf presidency.  You look at the people attending Trump rallies, cheering his racist bullshit, and you can sympathize with the attitude of those who say, "You idiots want Trump so much.  Fine! You can have him, and you deserve whatever you get."

But then you have to remember that the vast majority of the country--the people who most need America to be the country that the likes of Trump will destroy--is not at these rallies, and that in many ways their very lives depend upon this country making the right choice.  Call it "the lesser of two evils" if it makes you feel better, but remember that the "worser" of two evils is really, really worse.

Open Carry Query

Texas is an "open-carry" state, meaning people can walk around freely with their beloved rifles and machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction without fear of being persecuted for their fetishistic attachment to firearms.  At last week's protest march in Dallas--the one that ended in mayhem as a sniper opened fire on police and marchers, killing five police officers and wounding several others--"20 to 30" of the marchers showed up at the protests carrying assault rifles, and several of them were further wearing fatigues and gas masks and bulletproof vests.  Because 'MURRICA!  When the shooting started, these people--correctly--ran for cover, but their presence predictably caused confusion for the police, who were trying to determine who was shooting and from where.

Now, these "patriots" exercising their constitutional rights, were presumably examples of the semi-mythical beast that the NRA and its enablers keep telling us about: "good guys with guns."  You know, the ones who are supposed to prevent mass casualties by coolly and calmly using deadly force against the enemies of law and order.  Now, as I say, these people undoubtedly did the right thing in running away--the last thing anybody needed at that time and place was even more bullets flying in random directions.  But my question is: If these passionate devotees of gun-culture had absolutely no intention of using their weapons for self-defense or defense of others--the very thing gun fetishists insist they need their weapons for--then why were they carrying them?  And why in God's name should any of us listen when the NRA insists that that is that the guns are for?

. . .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?

Take Donald Trump... Please!

Trump enthusiasts and apologists--as well as people who can't stand the man and are just trying to comprehend his rise--often explain his appeal by saying that he is "funny."  I suppose he is, in the same way that fart jokes are funny--they're amusing once in a while, but they do get tiresome and repetitive.  And an appreciation for fart jokes is not the kind of thing most people take pride in.  A recent instance of Trumpian "humor" features The Donald splashing his adoring audience with a water bottle and yelling, "It's Rubio!"--a reference to his rival's well-documented thirstiness during a response to a State of the Union Address.

I doubt Trump's acolytes realize the irony in celebrating their idol's "sense of humor," while demonizing President Obama--arguably the funniest man ever to occupy the Oval Office.  Love him or hate him, few would dispute that the guy has great comic timing.  But more importantly, we are selecting a president, right, not a comedian-in-chief.  And if we are electing a comedian, we can certainly do better than Trump, right?  Jon Stewart must be itching for a new gig by now, no?

Trumped

Today, in honor of Black History Month, a staff member at my college gave a presentation on Liberia.  The presentation was well-attended and thorough and interesting.  At one point, the presenter showed a slide explaining that, in the heyday of colonialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Liberia and Ethiopia were the only two African nations not annexed, colonized, or otherwise exploited by Western powers.  Instead of finding this inspiring, however, all I could hear was Donald Trump's voice in my head, saying, "That's disgraceful! Disgraceful! Now if I had been president back then, we woulda had one-hundred percent colonization of Africa!  Am I right?  It woulda been unbelievable!"

This campaign is really getting to me.

Apple Nitpicking

Apple CEO Tim Cook this week published an open letter in which he condemned a court order requiring Apple to "unlock" an iPhone that belonged to one of the perpetrators of last December's San Bernardino massacre.  Apple claims that requiring the company to create a "back door" to hack into the device represents some unconscionable violation of privacy rights.  And while in general I find it heartening that the tech colossus has such a passionate regard for customer privacy, I'm frankly bewildered by Cook's response.  Am I missing something?

People have a right to privacy.  But privacy, like any other right, has limits.  Police or other government agents may not come into my home and search it--unless they have a warrant expressly allowing them to do so.  Law enforcement agents may tap phones and read text messages, as long as, again, they convince a judge that such intrusions are necessary.  How is this case any different?  A judge has signed an order allowing law enforcement to overrule an individual's right to privacy--and frankly, since the owner of this particular iPhone was killed after his attack, I doubt he's particularly concerned with his right to privacy anymore.  (And on a visceral level, I feel he forfeited that right when he and his wife decided to gun down a dozen innocent people at a Christmas party, but that's kind of beside the point.)

Apple, I think, claims that the request is unreasonable because it is forcing the company to create a mechanism--which doesn't currently exist?--to compromise its own security systems.  They claim that this mechanism could then allow others to hack other iPhones.  Which I guess is a legitimate concern, but does anyone believe that hackers aren't already trying to figure out ways to hack iPhones?  If Apple engineers do create this workaround, will we all really be so much less safe than we are now.

Another objection I've heard is that, if the US government can compel Apple to unlock its technology, then what's to stop other governments from requiring such accommodations.  Well, nothing, I guess.  But, what's your point?  Governments enforce laws.  If Apple operates in a country, it is subject to the laws of that country.  Like any "citizen" (corporations are people, right?), Apple can dislike the laws and can use its considerable financial and political muscle to advocate for changes to those laws--but it can't simply disregard the laws.  And this is true whether we're talking about US law or the laws of other countries.

Finally, some have suggested that Apple simply cannot bypass the encryption standards it has programmed into its devices--that is, that they don't have the technological capacity to do so.  I believe the technical term for this response is "bullshit."  I don't believe for one second that Apple engineers could not figure out a way to unlock an iPhone.  Put it this way: If some evil genius creates a virus designed to target and destroy Apple's internal networks, and if the only way to prevent the release of this virus was to crack open the evil genius's iPhone, I suspect the good men and women at Apple would figure out a way to do so.

I have the same basic concerns as anyone else over the tendency of government agencies to intrude into the lives of private citizens.  But as long as the government is playing by the well-established rules of law, then corporations have no excuse not to play by the same rules.

Don't People Even Know How to Obstruct Anymore?

What is wrong with Mitch McConnell?  OK, let me be more specific.  What was Mitch McConnell thinking when he declared that the Republican-controlled Senate would not so much as consider confirming anyone President Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court?  I understand partisan politics, and I get that McConnell wants to fire up the conservative base, particularly in an election year.  But still, the man has been a politician for years: Does he not understand the basics of politics?  Has he become so unhinged by eight years of Obama-hatred that he cannot remember them?

Look, all McConnell had to do was provide a simple disingenuous sound bite: "We are all shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Justice Scalia.  Now is not the time to discuss the politics of selecting his replacement.  In due time, after the President selects a nominee, the Senate will hold thorough hearings to determine this candidate's qualifications for this vital position."  Anyone with a basic grasp of American politics circa 2016 would translate this as, "No way in hell will we confirm whatever Commie Pinko Muslim-sympathizer Comrade Obama has the nerve to send our way."  And we could all get on with our lives, avoiding at least one political kabuki dance.

But no.  McConnell decides that the way to handle the situation is effectively to say, "Mr. President, we advise you not to do your job."  The paleoconservatives rejoice McConnell's sticking it to the man while everybody else erupts in outrage or, at best, shakes their heads and wonders what the heck is happening.  I mean, does McConnell--or any Republican senator--think that telling Obama not to nominate someone will convince Obama to, y'know, not nominate someone?  Sure, that person may face an uphill--or impossible--battle; sure, the Senate may reject even the most qualified nominee--as is, technically, their right; but to declare yourself opposed to acting in accordance with the most basic reading of the Constitution you claim to revere seems to be displaying hypocrisy for no good reason.

I suppose Obama could totally call their bluff by nominating, say, Jeb Bush!.  Not like he's going to be president or anything.  And since the Senators promised not to hold hearings, what harm would be done.  I kinda think he should go ahead and nominate Trump.  He's ultimately not much worse than Scalia, and arguably better on the social issues.  I kid, of course.  He should really just nominate himself.  Let Biden take care of the country for the last few months until Hillary gets into office.

In Which We Are Disturbed by Our Reputation

Today at a meeting, I was sitting next to the president of my college, i.e, my boss. The main topic of the meeting was upcoming construction projects on campus. As the district's facilities manager began his presentation, he explained that what he was going to show us were preliminary plans, that we shouldn't consider these set in stone, and that we could assume changes would occur as the project progressed.  In conclusion, he said, "Nobody here has crystal balls." Without so much as a pause, the president turned to me and said, "Whatever you're about to say, DON'T SAY IT!"

I didn't realize she knew me so well!

In Which Debt Stalks the Oilfields Like Some Kind of Stalking Thing

Sometimes journalists try too hard.  Here is the lede from an article in today's Times about the debt load being carried by many oil companies:

MIDLAND, Tex. — On the 15th floor of an office tower in Midland looms a five-foot-long trophy black bear, shot by the son of an executive at Caza Oil & Gas.

But it is Caza that has recently fallen prey to a different kind of predator stalking the Texas oil patch: too much debt.

First of all, if the bear is "looming," shouldn't it be five feet tall?  Not that a five-foot tall creature can loom over much of anything. . . unless the reporter is a primordial dwarf. . . . (NOTE TO SELF: Check whether the New York Times employs a primordial dwarf reporter.)

But still, doesn't this opening seem like a bit much?  What did the rejected versions look like. . .

The morning sun gleamed on Caza Oil & Gas' oil derricks standing idle in the Texas scrubland.

Bur it is a different celestial body that will crash like a meteor into Caza, wiping out the company's profits as if they were so many ill-fated dinosaurs: too much debt.

Or maybe,

On the desk of Caza Oil & Gas's CFO, a Nolan Ryan bobblehead doll welcomes visitors with a Parkinsonian wobble.

But it is Caza that will be struck out by a different kind of fireballer tossing a no-hitter at the firm's balance sheet: too much debt. 

In Which We Mourn the Internet

I think the internet must be broken.  President Obama visited a Baltimore mosque yesterday and spoke about the need for Americans to resist the Trumpian siren song of suspicion and hatred, and yet I have not noticed any examples of head-exploding xenophobia, no rabid triumphal shouts of "I durn well knew he were one o' them Ay-rabs all along!"  So. . . Not sure why I'm writing this, as it will obviously not reach anyone. . . .

Listen, it goes against my own personal religion to turn on Fox News, so could someone please at least reassure me that the crew at "Fox and Friends" has dissolved into a frothing hatepuddle?  I'll wait.  But if I don't hear from anyone, I'll assume that the internet is no more and that I can just use this space as I've really wanted to all along: as a place to post my Doctor Who fan poetry:

Thro' time and space the whirling Tardis spins
Spin, Gallifreyan phonebox, spin!. . . .

In Which Trump Could Really Use the Services of Kander and Ebb

By now, you've probably seen this horrifying video of the Donald Trump "youth rally."  Whoops.  Sorry, wrong clip.  I meant this horrifying video, which lacks even the lovely countertenor to redeem it. It's almost admirable: Every time you think the Trump campaign has reached a point below which it would be impossible to go, he reveals yet another sub-basement.

I'm seriously (wishfully?) starting to believe the whole thing might be meant as satire.  I mean, Donald Trump is a vile, hateful, misogynistic, racist, vulgar. . . .

Sorry, where was I?  Right.  Donald Trump is a jackass.  But he's not actually stupid.  He must know that everything he's doing is straight out of the Hitler playbook: His encouragement of violence from his followers, his assertions that anyone who dares to disagree with him "should be roughed up," his demonization of Jews--sorry, Muslims.  Mexicans?  Blacks?  Who are we hating this week?

So is it possible we're all being punked?  Did Trump maybe watch "Bob Roberts" and think, "Great movie!  Classy movie!  Not enough people saw it!  I'm gonna make a big, beautiful political campaign just like this.  It'll be great. You won't believe how great it'll be."  And when he accepts the nomination at the Republican convention, he'll introduce Tim Robbins as his running mate, and we'll all have a good laugh about the whole thing.

Maybe?

*************
Buried in an article about Bernie Sanders' attempts to reach out to Black voters was this tidbit: "Mr. Sanders also has a growing stable of hip-hop artists singing his praises, including Antwan Andre Patton, better known as Big Boi and formerly of the duo Outkast."  This is ridiculous!  "Formerly" of the duo Outkast?!? Did they break up?!?

In Which the Stars Look Very Different Today

Nearly 30 years ago, I was over at a friend's place, and she had "Ziggy Stardust" playing on the stereo.  I was kind of humming/singing along, and I sang what I always understood to be the lyrics: "Making love with his eagle. . ."  My friend collapsed in a fit of laughter that for all I know is still going on today.  At some point she managed to gasp out, "EGO!  EGO!"  Like that makes so much more sense.  And frankly, considering the source, I maintain that my interpretation was far from unreasonable.  RIP, Starman.

In Which We Wait to Hear a Reasonable Reply

So President Obama made an emotional speech about guns yesterday, and Republicans predictably lost their minds.  From what I can see, the president's proposals essentially amounted to making sure that current laws are properly enforced--which, by the way, is exactly what gun enthusiasts say should be done any time there is a suggestion that the country needs stronger gun regulation: "We don't need no more laws!  We just need to enforce the ones we've already got!"  I guess that sounds good until Obama says it, at which point it becomes an unconscionable power grab.  Of course, enforcing the laws also requires resources that Republicans in Congress are unwilling to provide, but let's not quibble.  Still, in response to yesterday's speech, the Republican presidential candidates are screaming about a "gun grab" and that Obama's a-comin' for your guns!

I live in hope of one day hearing a cogent, reasonable argument against ANY of the standard suggestions put forward by gun-control advocates,  For example, one of the most popular proposals put forward is to close the gun-show loophole, which allows people to purchase firearms at gun shows without going through the same background checks they would need to go through if they bought guns at a store.  The NRA and others would have you believe that this is some sort of insane left-wing proposal that must be resisted at all costs.  And I would truly like to understand why--why should anyone have a problem with this?

Before you reply, let me say that the following are not valid arguments:

"This is the first step down the road to tyranny!"  No, it's really not.  This is an example of a "slippery-slope" argument, a well-known logical fallacy: "If A happens, then it's only a matter of time before B happens."  This argument seems to rest on the premise that a crypto-fascist government will become so giddy at its success in passing modest gun legislation that it will quickly move to seize all weapons and throw us all into concentration camps.  Anyone who truly believes this (as opposed to just saying it to score political points with the likes of the Birdbath Liberation Army) is suffering from acute paranoia and/or delusions and should probably not be armed.  And at any rate, this response fails to address the merits of the proposal.

"Forcing people to go through background checks at gun shows wouldn't do anything to stop crime."  Again, not a valid argument, for the simple reason that there is no way to know this unless and until we try it.  I can acknowledge that those who make this argument may be right: It is possible that we could impose these new regulations and see no decline whatsoever in the numbers of people killed by guns.  But we won't know unless we try, right?

I'm seriously looking for a reasonable argument--I would really like to understand.  I suppose some would say that requiring background checks at gun shows places unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens, but I truly don't see that.  I mean, if I want to buy a gun, I could presumably do so with no trouble: I am a law-abiding citizen, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, etc.  If I went to a gun store, I am certain I would pass any background check, so the only inconvenience would be that I would need to wait a little while to complete my purchase and take home my shiny new gun.  I honestly have no idea how long a background check takes.  Let's say it takes a week, though--and I suspect it takes less time than that (and could, theoretically, be completed instantaneously with the proper technology)--well, so what?  If I buy a suit, I need to wait to take it home until alterations are done.  I can wait.  And minimal safeguards designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them are, frankly, worth a little inconvenience.  The only people who would truly be inconvenienced by requiring background checks at gun shows would be the people who would fail a background check outside of a gun show.  And guess what?  I don't care if those people are inconvenienced.  They should be!

So, to conclude: No one is coming to take away your guns.  And based on what President Obama suggested yesterday, largely nothing will change.  Now, can someone offer me a reasonable, logical answer as to why things shouldn't?

In Which We Apostrophize about Apostrophes

I've noticed a curious, not to say disturbing, trend in the recent online behavior of several correspondents.  When discussing activities conducted on a regular, weekly basis, many people now include apostrophes where, as far as I can tell, none are required.  For example, someone writes, "On Monday's I take my sloths to the sloth-washing facility for their weekly sloth-wash."  There's no reason for that apostrophe 's': The writer is not saying "On Monday is I take. . .," nor is she describing something in the possession of Monday.  The right word is "Mondays."

(I note, by the way, that when I typed "Mondays" above, I was not even chastised by Microsoft's famous red squiggle, further proof that the pluralization is perfectly acceptable.  Although, "pluralization" is apparently not, but that's another story.)

I hasten to point out that the people engaging in this random apostrophizing are generally well-educated and, indeed, skillful writers.  Whence, therefore, this unnecessary punctuation?  Answers are welcome.  Write me any time.  I can be reached on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays. . . .

In Which We Ponder What Is and Isn't Tyranny

In Oregon, a group of armed militiamen have occupied some federal buildings at what is essentially a birdwatching venue.  They are doing this in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, local ranchers who have been ordered to report to federal prison to complete sentences they received for setting fires on federal land.  Interestingly, from what I've read about the Hammond case, the protesters have a point: It sounds like the fires were set by accident, and the Hammonds have, in fact, already served jail time--they are being ordered back to prison because "a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served were not long enough under federal law"--which I must admit sounds a little sketchy.  That being said, the Hammonds have apparently agreed to surrender as ordered, which makes the actions of the Birdbath Liberation Army seem somewhat disproportionate.

People like this often claim to be resisting the overreaching authority of a tyrannical federal government.  To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word [tyranny].  I do not think it means what you think it means."  Because despite what may well be a miscarriage of justice in the Hammonds' case, there is ample evidence that the federal government is not, in fact, a tyrannical dictatorship. For one thing, under a dictatorship, I suspect the BLA would find themselves bombed out of their enclave long before they could speak to the news media about how they are being repressed.

I'm reminded of a little throwaway gag George Carlin did on one of his concert albums.  Carlin, in the voice of an earnest reporter, informed us that someone had barricaded himself inside his home.  He went on to say that the person "is unarmed and nobody is paying any attention to him."  Of course, the BLA is armed, which makes this situation significantly less funny.

In Which We Fix Homeland Security

Whatever their politics--whether left-wing liberal, right-wing conservative, or Trump idiot--most people, including your not-so-humble correspondent, would agree that keeping track of visa holders in the United States would be a good idea--sort of a basic element of the whole visa system.  After all, if a country can't keep track of who has overstayed a visa, it kind of defeats the purpose of issuing the documents in the first place.  I was surprised, therefore, to read this morning that the Department of Homeland Security has no idea how many people with expired visas remain in the US.  And this despite the fact that Congress mandated such a tracking system over twenty years ago.

This is by no means to suggest that people who overstay visas do so for nefarious reasons.  I'm sure the vast majority of such visitors are gainfully employed or pursuing higher education or just happily backpacking across the Appalachians.  What I don't understand is why this is apparently such a difficult mechanism to create.  When someone enters the country on a visa, I assume this information is entered into some kind of database.  It seems to me that a tracking system could basically consist of a large Excel file: Visitor's name, date of entry, date of visa expiration, and--I don't know--ideal first date.  Don't tell me that this technology doesn't exist.  If Amazon can keep track of the fact that I once clicked on a Hello Kitty foot massager (by accident, I swear!), then the Department of Homeland Security can keep track of who legally comes into and goes out of the country!

In fact, the technology does exist.  The main sticking point--or one of them, anyway--is that building the necessary infrastructure would cost about $3 billion, and the airline industry has balked at picking up the cost.  Of course, considering the fact that $3 billion is a rounding error in the federal budget--and that politicians never miss an opportunity to pontificate on the threat of terrorism--one would humbly suggest that the Feds could just build the system themselves.  But that would require an embrace of common sense seldom seen at the national governmental level.