We're going to head back to Phil Ochs again today.  That's because there unfortunately isn't much video of him performing, but happily I found a couple of wonderful ones.  The first of these may be his most-famous song, the terrific "There But for Fortune."

One of the funnier, albeit weird and annoying articles that I've read recently was one in RawStory about Republican senators and their staffers complaining about President Biden and Democrats passing bills without their participation.  The senators and staffers in question were the so-called "G-10," the more moderate Republicans, like Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA).  Of course, a "moderate Republican" reminds me of the joke about how a moderate Arab is one who only holds a grudge for 10 generations.

"If you get an invitation to the White House, you go to the White House," one of the staffers said. "But regardless, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. When you go to the White House meeting you risk being used in a feigned attempt at bipartisanship. If you don't go then it's, 'Oh, Republicans won't even meet with me.' It all pivots on whether it's a genuine offer from the White House or just part of their messaging strategy."

Well...yeah.  For starters, it is not a "feigned attempt at bipartisanship" just because you're not willing willing to compromise enough to support a proposal.  After all, something like 75% of all Americans supported Biden's Rescue Plan for America  That included a heavy majority of Republican voters.  And the Biden infrastructure bill has the support of around 65% of Americans -- which also includes a very strong majority of Republican voters.  That's not only bipartisan with at least some Republican support, it's deeply bipartisan with majority support.  The only Republican support it doesn't have is Republicans in Congress.  And by "doesn't have," I mean zero -- even when a majority of their own party across America support these bills.  And further, perhaps the main reason there is no Republican support -- zero -- is not because Joe Biden is supposedly "feigning" bipartisan support (he isn't, as GOP support across the country shows...), but rather because Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said publicly that no Republicans will support the bills!!

In the end, bills pass when there are enough votes to pass them.  Mitch McConnell has known that and has lived by that at the core of his being.  Indeed, it's the whole "Elections have consequences" mantra that all sides note when they win elections.  If you can mesh that in Congress with also having the strong majority support of both sides of the American public, all the better, and you win the lottery, 

Another wonderful quote from a G-10 aide was --
​
"Everything they support is defined as either COVID relief or infrastructure, and everything they oppose is like … Jim Crow voter suppression and evil, and you constantly just feel like you're in this gaslighting chamber of insanity. But it's working."

Well...yeah.  Everything thus far has been defined as either COVID relief or infrastructure.  That's because the two major pieces of legislation that the Biden Administration has pushed in its only first 84 days in office -- with haven't even hit the iconic "First 100 Days" mark yet -- have been for...COVID relief and infrastructure!  And the one piece of legislation that the Biden Administration and Democrats oppose across the country are all the Jim Crow voter suppression bills in red states.  Which begs the question -- why are these GOP aides whining about anyone being against "evil" voter suppression???  Are they for evil Jim Crow voter suppression?!!  That complaint is really not a good look.

​And of course, none of this even takes into account the actions that the Republican Party took over the past four years when they had control of the Senate, House and White House.  Cramming through Supreme Court nominations, federal judges, tax cuts for the wealthy and on and on, with no attempt to be bipartisan.  In fact, "compromise" became a dirty word to Republicans, especially under Trump.  Further, Republicans had a party leader who went out of his way to specifically avoid helping blue states during emergencies, including in the pandemic.  So, please, don't even start weeping about the Biden Administration not being bipartisan enough.  Most especially when a majority of your own freaking party supports these measures.

"They have the majority in the House.  They have the majority in the Senate.  They have the White House.  They have a majority of support by Democratic voters.  And they have a majority of support by Republican voters.  But they won't let us weaken their bills that the public wants and which we already said we wouldn't support" -- just doesn't ahve the ring they think it does.

And yes, this is why the old standby held true for the past four years and still does -- this isn't about Trump, we know who he was.  This is about the elected members of the Republican Party who enabled him, are complicit, and are just as fascist all on their own.

And I'm sorry that they are upset by people who are against evil Jim Crow voter suppression laws.  But then, that's just so GOP.

​

A few weeks ago, someone on social media posted a comment about something in the news at the time where people stood around doing nothing while a person was being hurt.  I noted the song "Outside of a Small Circle of Friends" by Phil Ochs that was released in 1967.

The song was inspired by the 1964 death of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed outside her apartment in New York City, while her neighbors ignored her calls for help.

What's always stood out with this song is the harsh words being sung in counterpoint to the incredibly chipper music and arrangement.

Phil Ochs was a wonderful folk singer who never quite hit the same heights of his better-known contemporaries, though had a solid career.  I remember thinking that it was a shame I never got to see him, but he had very sadly committed suicide several years earlier.  And then, one day in grad school at UCLA, I saw a poster for a concert on campus with...Phil Ochs!!  Needless to say, I went, and it was excellent.  But to make the story even more weird, a few years after that, he did commit suicide.

Anyway, this is that song.

Periodically, we read about the TrumpKids pondering whether or not to run for public office, which usually tends to translate as "the Senate," because...well, yeah, whatever.  Mostly, it's been Ivanka ruminating about Florida, Though daughter-in-law Lara Lea Trump gets mentioned a bit for North Carolina.  And even Junior gets his named bandied about -- though for where isn't certain, perhaps Mars.

I am not convinced that any of them will run. Mind you, I don't dismiss it as possible, but given their sense of self importance and what daddy did, I'd think anything less than president would be a step down and probably has less interest for them -- not only because of the lower prestige of "not president" and because any elected office other than president means they'd have to deal with many "equals" and be reliant on others, but also they couldn't hide from work like they saw their daddy (or daddy-in-law) do as president.  After all, a president has a massive staff and departments and agencies and even actual armed forces at his disposal doing the bulk of the work.. If a president is incredibly lazy and incompetent (see: "daddy"), he get can away with playing golf all the time, even if it means the country's economy crashes, its world standing gets pummeled and 500,000 Americans die.  The business of his office will continue, since everyone else there has a job to do.  And "there" means pretty much everyone.  And "a job to do" may mean screw things up.

On the other hand, if you're a U.S. Senator, you have an actual job to do, even if it's just answering the phone from constituents.  Yes, you have a staff, but the budget is small and so is the number of people on the staff.  You don't have departments, agencies, a military or national treasury to work with.  If you don't do your job, it doesn't get done.  Now, of course, you can be really bad at your job, it's still entirely up to you, 100%.  The good news is that you have a job for six years.  The bad news is that you would have to do the job for six years.  And it's not like you can do pretty much anything you want because, like in your current job, it's your own company, and all you have to do is run it by daddy.  No, you have to work with 99 other senators.  Compromise sometimes.  Let others with more seniority, power or ability set the agenda and lead the way.

Also, they all may have criminal records soon.  At the very least, daddy -- whose aura is the only thing that gives them standing in the party -- may have a criminal record soon.  And further, it's possible that the Trump legacy will be profoundly discredited during the next four years from government hearings and investigations, and evidence in other court cases. Not to mention society improving as the pandemic passes, and the economic meltdown improves. And the Republican Party takes on new leadership.

I do think it's more likely that any one of these three -- or who knows, any other TrumpKid -- will run for office than daddy will again.  But it's still unlikely.  Another thing is that if you do run, you don't get anointed -- you actually do have to run and win the party's nomination.  And while "Trump" in today's GOP still carries weight for some bizarre reasons, even after the $100 million scamming of donors and the whole, well, y'now, insurrection thing, you still have to run against other Republicans who want the same job and have to debate and campaign and all that. And the thing is, "senator" is really a highly-coveted job with a lot of caché and power.  Which means you don't get to sneak through the cracks unnoticed, but people with a lot of drive will go after the same job and do so extremely aggressively, because winning means you get the Golden Ticket.  And while in some states, like North Carolina, there would be a Democrat you'd be running against -- if you actually do win the GOP nomination -- in Florida, there are two Republicans already in office, so you'd be trying to defeat an incumbent of your own party.  And while that incumbent is Florida is Marco Rubio and deserves to lose his office, it's not something he'd give up lightly.

Of the three, Ivanka would seem the most likely to run, but that also would be in the state with two Republican senators already.  And it just seems as if she likes the idea of being a senator much more than doing the job of a senator -- which I say from watching her in action the past four years.  Lara Lea seems the second most likely, since there would be a Democratic seat at the end of the rainbow, though it's hard to quite see why she thinks she should be a senator, other than by semi-osmosis.  Perhaps it's because as a daughter-in-law -- and only of Eric -- she doesn't get the glory of being an actual child of daddy, and this would be a way to get some for herself.  The problem is that, as much as she is in the Trump crime family with the Trump name, as a "not actual child of daddy," she doesn't have the same GOP aura in a political race.  As for Junior, his daddy issues make it perfectly clear why he would want to be a senator (even if it's not as grand a job as the one daddy had, but maybe he could get there with this as a stepping stone), but he mainly seems to be flailing in the wind trying to figure out what he wants to do and is mostly ruminating about running because it seems like he thinks he's supposed to..  

So, yes, it's possible that one or all of the TrumpKids will run for the Senate.  But I think it's a long shot that they do.  And if they do, winning the GOP nomination is not the guarantee I suspect they think it is.  And then there's the general race.  And while some states might be winnable for any Republican, whoever they are, a TrumpKid might be running while carrying so much extra baggage that it exceeds the airlines' allowance.​

​​Hey, who knows?, maybe that's why they want to run.  Not enough allowance.

Yes, yes, I know, unfortunately no experience is necessary to run for the Senate.  The problem is that we saw what a disaster that is when it ends up in the White House.
​

Here's another of those "50 People Try to..." videos from Epicurious.  Today's is about tossing pizza dough.  I figured that this would be a good time to post it, since it's Pizza Night. 

One of my treats during the pandemic is that I make pizza every week from scratch, happily using my pizza stone and pizza paddle.  The one caveat is that the reason I used to rarely have pizza is I try to keep my fat intake down -- and pizza simply has only a rare place in that world.  But I make it close to non-fat.  No oil in the dough (though more spices) and Trader Joe's has a variety of very low-fat shredded cheeses.  They don't have much flavor or melt well, but they add a proper texture that you want.  Then I add a lot of toppings like onion, olives, chopped tomatoes, jalepenos, and bell pepper and whatever else hits my fancy.  Often anchovy paste, which I love but wouldn't put on for guests...  And all that is where the flavor comes from, not the cheese.

Is it good like a real pizza?  No, not even close.  But is it tasty?  Yes, very much so.  The dough has fresh, yeast flavor, there's a nice tomato sauce, and all the toppings are delicious.  It's just not a "real pizza."  But for someone who loves pizza but rarely eats it, this has been a treat -- and especially so during the pandemic, when one tends to need a treat.

Unlike the video here on tossing the dough, I mainly stretch it flat, and occasionally use the “droop” method.  Not only am I not good as spinning, but it sends flour all over the place.  I was intrigued by the expert at the end, but I won’t say more about that, other than I was glad to know that I come pretty close.  Also, I use a pizza peel (paddle) and put corn flour on it that acts as sort of like ball bearings, so the pizza dough slides off easily onto the pizza stone I use.

I was going to make this a "Tweet of the Day," since it comes from a tweet -- but it's to substantial for just that.  As the note describes, it concerns Sir Nicholas Winton who saved many hundreds of children from Germany.  The shame is that this is only a few minutes, because I'm sure the full TV program at the heart of this would have been especially moving and wonderful.  Happily, this is plenty good.

It also puts in deeper perspective the previous administration taking children away from their parents and putting them in cages.

Elsewhere on Mr. Simanowitz's timeline, he had a quote from Nicholas Winton, who passed away in 2015 at the well-earned age of 106.  "Don't be content in your life to just do no wrong.  Be prepared every day to try to do some good."

If you didn't see Last Week Tonight with John Oliver last night, his Main Story was on long-term care facilities.  It was an interesting, information and very good (and at times amusing) look at the problem with them and assisted living facilities.  At times it was a bit unfocused, dealing more with individual problems than systemic ones -- which are very real -- but overall very good.

One odd thing they missed is when they show a clip of a nurse at a nursing home making an impassioned case for the problems they have to deal with.  Her mask is off -- which is fine for someone talking to the camera -- but what caught my eye is that sitting right behind her is another nurse with her facemask on...except that it's lowered and doesn't cover her nose -- which isn't how they work, something you'd prefer a nurse to get right.  And I was a little surprised that Oliver and his writers didn't reference is.

By the way, as a sort of odd bonus, this story reminded me of a really terrific new movie for Netflix that was released a few weeks ago and is well-worth checking out.  The film is I Care A Lot with a wonderful performance by the excellent British actress Rosammund Pike.  It's about a woman who has come up with a brilliant, nasty scheme to make huge amounts of money by manipulating the rules for nursing homes.  It's a dark comedy that also stars Peter Dinklage (with an excellent supporting role by Dianne Wiest), and has a heavy emphasis on the "dark."  The trailer does a pretty good job with present the film, though it emphasizes the "action" a bit more than is in the film.

Yesterday, someone posted a comment on social media about Liz Cheney, (R-WY) saying that "As much as I can't stand her, at least she has a shred of integrity left. Unlike just about everyone else in the GOP."

The first thing that caught my eyes was the unintentional overlap that the concept of integrity in today's Republican Party has with shredding.

And second, I fully understand the person's point.  The past couple of months, Liz Cheney -- who has normally had pretty odious political positions throughout her career (keep in mind that she has a GOP leadership position in the House, something they don't hand out for just showing up on time) -- has taken a few outspoken positions about today's standard GOP orthodoxy.

It's an interesting discussion, though --  is the absence of not having a conscience the same as having a shred of integrity?

It may be.  Or it may be nothing more than physiological, that one is simply still capable of having an acid reflux reaction.

It's a dicey conundrum.  There are a number of very conservative, unpalatable Republicans these days who have been very outspoken against Trump since he took office.  And subsequently, critical of the GOP that has followed them.  People like Bill Kristol, David Frum, George Will, Joe Walsh, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich,. 

(I separate these people from more moderate Republicans who have have not been unpalatable and odious, but just have political views I haven't agreed with, such as Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt,, Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot.   That's a difference of opinion, not a coldness that's anathema to the human condition.)

When the Odious Gang becomes "the enemy of my enemy," have they done so because they've had a change of heart, and a newly-found sense of decency, laced with integrity, or is there something else that has pushed them in this unexpected direction?

In reality, it's probably not a yes-or-no issue, and I'm sure there an overlap with many of them.  And yes, there is a certain facetiousness in asking if they don't have even a shred of integrity.  Though it speaks volumes about a political party when you even have to point out that, yes, of course, most of some people have retained a shred of integrity.

The other factor at play, I think, for the Bill Kristol, David Frum, George Will, Joe Walsh, Carly Fiorina and John Kasichs of the world,. is that much of their reaction is not a matter of having a shred integrity -- which most of these people probably do (and yes, that "probably" is stuck in there...) -- but rather one of politics.  They are very much true conservatives.  And they see Trump as destroying their "brand."  And seeing this lace its way through the Republican Party as it so greatly has, they see the risk conservative ideology being lost.

Supporting "anyone but Trump," even to the point of supporting Joe Biden -- or even calling for the defeat of all Republicans in Congress today, as Steve Schmidt has -- may seem counter-productive when it comes to people who are horrified at conservatism being lost.  And while it is, to a degree, the sense I get is that if fascist "Trumpism" becomes today's Republican Party, then conservatism is totally lost.  But even if liberals win the next election, or next couple, they likely believe that conservative values can eventually win an argument against liberals.  And think that voting for a Biden or a liberal today is not so much voting in support of that political philosophy but rather just the only option on the ballot to vote against fascist Trumpism.  Sort of a, "We have to get rid of the disease before we can heal -- even if the medicine tastes terrible" syndrome.

The point being that, yes, I suspect that "a shred of integrity" is indeed party of the equation for some conservatives who have been viewed Before Trump as odious -- but I'm not willing to label their change of hearts as being based on integrity at their foundation, but more a case of political self-preservation.

Years ago, when I worked at Universal Pictures, a new head of the studio was brought in above my boss -- who was president of the studio.  This new person brought with him someone who had a reputation as being quite awful and incompetent, totally undeserving of the job for many reasons, none of which I will go into.  Most executives around me paid homage to this new Vice President, something I found myself unable to do.  Friends were pressing upon me to make my pilgrimage in order to keep my job (which I thought was lost regardless).  And when I explained to one friend why I simply couldn't go and prostrate myself before this person to hopefully save my job, no matter how unlikely that was, he thought a moment.  And that said, "Oh, okay, I see.  What you're saying is, 'If it makes you throw up, don't do it."

It was more than that, but, yes, that was one the foundational ideas. 

​I think the concept still holds.

Fortunately, there are enough Republicans to have joined other Americans in voting Joe Biden to be President of the United States -- and giving Democrats the majority in the Senate.  

​Sadly, there are still too many Republicans who don't mind that taste in their mouth.

On this week’s ‘Not My Job’ segment of the NPR quiz show Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, the guests are  Desus and Mero, who have a talk show on Showtime, which began life as a podcast.  The conversation with host Peter Sagal is as energetic as they are on the TV show.  There is much to be said for being natural, loquacious and ebullient with no posing, and they come across just like they do on their show, and it’s fun.  There is also something to be said for subtlety to add complexity and texture, which does not appear to be part of the package.