From the fine folks at the Dodo, it’s hard to explain why this is so enjoyable, because it’s so lowkey, fairly short (about three minutes), and not all that much happens. But it’s the pure sweetness and charm of a stray cat that decides it wants to move into a guy’s apartment that permeates. And so the guy figures that that’s the way it’s supposed to be, and they become buddies.
0 Comments
With the four major indictments against him, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen someone claiming innocence scream and thrash and whine and fight as hard as Trump has to delay his trials from starting. He comes across like someone who falls out of a boat but doesn’t want to give away to those on deck that he can’t swim, certain he's cleverly fooling them while pounding the water, kicking frantically, going under, popping back up sputtering, flailing his arms, gasping for air, gurgling and yelling in stress, “No, no, I’m fine, this is how I do it, I'm okay, really, I can swim. I can swim. I'm just fine!!!!!!!” Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle. As has been stated often by others who deal with defendants for a living, most innocent people want their day in court as soon as humanly possible to prove their innocence and get on with their lives. And by “most” I mean everyone except those who apparently like living under the stigma of people wondering if they're a criminal felon. Now, multiply this by four trials hanging over them. And then add to that you’re a political candidate who proving you’re not guilty in four indictments, overcoming a massive political vendetta, would likely sweep you to landslide victory. But Trump has had more delaying tactics, whining, tantrums and weeping than a petulant four-year-old who doesn’t want to go to bed. Actually, no, that's not quite right. A petulant four-year-old who doesn’t want to go to bed, thinks that screaming at his parents to their faces will get them to agree to letting him stay up, and when it doesn't then opening the front door to yell out so all the neighbors can hear how awful and mean and really very nasty his parents and their bedtime rules are, and being forced to go to bed against his wishes are putting him in danger. Because, honestly, he’s not tired at all. And many people say, sir, you are the least-tired baby in all the world. Ever since Jesus. Now, to be clear, I know that the way Trump is acting isn’t legal proof of his guilt. Legal proof of his guilt would be all the evidence piled against him. As well as having been actually found liable (twice) by a jury for the equivalence of rape. And being found guilty of fraud and fined $464 million. And I know, too, that his claim for delaying is because he insists all these trials are unfair, even the ones where he’s had his guilt literally adjudicated. And further, delaying means that if he isn’t found additionally guilty before the election, then those verdicts can’t be held against him before people vote, and if wins the election he can nominate an Attorney General who’ll promise stop the investigations. (Except the state trial in Georgia, which remains a pesky bugaboo for him…) But all his reasons for delaying are a separate matter. At issue here is the whining and screaming and crying and thrashing and attacking the judges and attacking the lawyers and trying to intimidate witnesses and melting down all before any of the trials have even begun. (Well, okay, except for the ones where his guilt has already been adjudicated, and the ones hoping to get to appeal.) It’s just a bad look. And yes, that’s the politest description I can think of to describe things. It just makes it really difficult for people to defend the innocence of someone flailing that much, non-stop. Though the good news for Trump is that his defenders don’t need reality to support them. The bad news for Trump is that his defenders don't carry any legal weight. A few years back, Disney celebrated "25 years of Disney on Broadway." In honor of the occasion, The View had six actresses, who originated on stage the roles that began as Disney movie characters, performing a medley of songs from their shows. These are Susan Egan (Belle in 'Beauty and the Beast'), Heather Headey (Nala in 'The Lion King,' and Aida in 'AIDA'), Ashley Brown (Mary in 'Mary Poppins'), Merle Dandridge (Kala in 'Tarzan'), Caissie Levy (Elsa in 'Frozen') and Patti Murin (Anna in 'Frozen'). It's very entertaining, and all are wonderful. One thing, though, stands out to me -- while all the other actress get up from their stools and walk downstage to sing their individual numbers, only Heather Headley (who I've posted many videos of and raved about) stays where she is, and calmly performs her song while sitting. And further, despite just sitting, blows everyone away. overflowing with texture, standing only to join everyone for the finale. While I'm admittedly biased, the user comments on the YouTube site overwhelmingly single out the same thing and agree with me. I spend more time on Twitter than I should, since it’s become so abusive, hate-filled, racist and fascist-enabling. But I do participate for several reasons, some for my own benefit (like promoting my articles), but also because I think it’s important to respond to disinformation.
I should note that the reason I respond is not to convince my correspondent of anything. I know full well that’s a fantasy lost cause. The sort of thing where, if the person does get convinced, it’s a surprise bonus, not a trend. No, the reason I reply is to inform others reading the disinformation so they can see reality presented and explained. But there are limits. And we’re reaching those limits. To be clear, by “reaching those limits” doesn’t mean I’ll stop responding, but rather how I respond. I began this new effort several months back. It’s a process, and has taken several paths to "reach the limit." The first path was putting aside my reticence to block people until they crossed the line of decency. Now, the line of demarcation is more like, “Who needs this??!” Anything abusive, any infantile name-calling that isn’t just directed at me (the previous standard) but at pretty much anyone, anything that shows they’re reveling in their ignorance of reality and more, things like that. I might say “Goodbye,” click, block, done – but sometimes “Who needs this??!” kicks in, and the block is immediate. I should add that among those I’ve blocked is Elon Musk. Because he has such a huge reader base, I’d often felt compelled to respond to his disinformation or egregious ignorance or racism. But because I was getting so many of his tweets in my timeline, I finally had enough and blocked him. It made my life oh-so much more comforting. And because others on my time line respond to him and so his comments occasionally show up for me to see, I can respond to those, if the spirit moves me, knowing he’s blocked. Though usually I let them pass since – because they’re appearing on my time line that way – it means others have responded to him, and responded very well. The next path was creating several default responses that I just copy and paste. They’re different, because they have to fit different situations, but there are two core saved-response that I use as a starting point. The first, that’s more explanatory, which I use if I feel that others reading it might be deserving of the explanation is – “I'm always happy to debate opinions. But I won't debate facts & reality, and your choice to ignore them is established. While it appears you get ‘talking points’ from sources that chose to misinform, it's on you for accepting that just because it fits what you wish was true. Bye.” But sometimes I just go for blunt, and respond – “I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.” These, and the adaptations, have served me well. But that brings us to now. And MAGOP World has begun to take on many of the attributes of Trump. Meaning that members of the MAGOP base now have gotten to where the lie is not just the starting point, but the point. And then feed on one another passing along the lie. And when confronted with reality and the lie and with links to established news stories confirming the lie just scream and send GIFs and memes that shout some version of “You lie!!!!!” It's become pernicious and egregious and -- perhaps worse than even that, which is saying a lot -- almost standard. Mind you, I don’t know if they even know they’re lying – and it doesn’t matter because they not only believe it to be true (or more to the point, gospel) and nothing will convince them otherwise, and pass the lie along. Some -- many, perhaps -- may also know they're lying, but don’t care since it supports what they wish to be true. Further, though, this has morphed with a long-standing MAGOP tactic: when presented with evidence of the lie, they shift into “But what about…??!” mode. Tangentially staying on the general topic, but moving to an issue not being discussed. I had such an exchange yesterday. The attack on President Biden brought up that concerned the Strategic Petroleum Reserved. Putting aside that the attack was based on a lie made by Trump in 2023, and all the subsequent “points” were built on that lie and untrue, the attempted aim was to show that this one untrue issue about something worth discussion but utterly meaningless to most Americans supposedly (even if it was true, which it wasn’t) offset everything fascist and criminal about Trump, starting with trying to overthrow the government of the United States. I explained the lie, and linked to a detailed article on the subject. This brought out several attempts by others to repeat the lie, to which I simply referred them to the same article, and the contorted into the obligatory “But what about…??!” new topic. I had enough. And my new response, which I expect now to use a similar version of in similar situations was – “The premise and points in the original tweet were from a Trump lie in 2023. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole chasing "what about" whack-a-mole issues from those defending an Insurrectionist who says he wants to be a dictator, undo the Constitution and who was found liable for rape.” And then blocked the person. Enough. Not “enough” that I won’t respond any further. I will. As I said, I’m responding for the “others” reading the exchange who can be convinced by hopefully well-explained reality. But enough so that once the explanation is made, that is the limit. No more heading down rabbit holes, no more playing whack-a-mole. Now, instead, pointing out the large, far more reality – that the person trying to make this meaningless point with a lie or disinformation is missing, not the forest for the trees, but the mountain range for the pebble. And explain to the others reading it that this person is making his or her case (whether an egregious lie or a valid, insignificant thought) in order to help enable an out-of-control fascist who tried to overthrow the government, said he wants to be a dictator, said he wants to throw out parts of the Constitution, and has been found liable twice by a jury of the equivalence of rape. As a starting point. Now, knowing me, I’m sure I’ll forget and occasionally respond as before. But I also know that, since we’ve passed the limit and reached “enough,” that muscle memory will kick in, and I’ll calmingly reach into my treasure chest and reply – “I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.” Well, either that or more pithy: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw The James Corden late-night show might be gone, but browsing around YouTube, I cane across one of his “Crosswalk” The Musical” productions that I hadn’t seen or posted before. This was the Crosswalk version of Frozen, and it features all the films stars who provided voices -- Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Josh Gad & Jonathan Groff. There are some goofy twists in it, and it’s pretty fun. So, it turns out that Trump once more plans to sue CNN for $475 million over what he’s calling "Hitlerian" terms he claims the news channel used that were unfair representations about him after the 2020 election. Putting aside that -- this being Trump and that he, in fact, truly does now regularly use actual “Hitlerian” expressions such as “poisoning the blood” and calling people “vermin,” “not human” and "animals" -- I'd have thought Trump would have appreciated the reference, rather than sue for supposedly being insulted. His initial lawsuit against CNN was dismissed last summer. Apparently, though, Trump wants another bite at the poison apple -- for reasons unknown to rational man. After all, in dismissing the suit at the time, the judge wrote, in part -- "Acknowledging that CNN acted with political enmity does not save this case; the Complaint alleges no false statements of fact. Trump complains that CNN described his election challenges as 'the Big Lie.' Trump argues that 'the Big Lie' is a phrase attributed to Joseph Goebbels and that CNN’s use of the phrase wrongly links Trump with the Hitler regime in the public eye. This is a stacking of inferences that cannot support a finding of falsehood." The judge added that the comments were allowable because they were stated as opinion. Okay, that’s pretty brutal. A judge putting in his ruling that a link to Joseph Goebbels and Hitler cannot be considered a falsehood. And that Trump’s complaint of comparisons between his language and Hitler's do not include any false statements of fact. I believe the correct response is, “Ouch!” And Trump actually wants to go back and try again! In the middle of a presidential campaign!! Because, yes, the very thing most people want to do when running for president is debate whether or not they’re similar to Adolf Hitler. By the way, side question: how needy does a lawyer have to be in order to take this case? As for lawyers, from the other end of the equation, I suspect there is an army of lawyers lining up to defend the case. Begging CNN to take them on, saying that they'll even do it pro bono. Not only for free, but they might be willing to pay CNN for the honor of just being able to do a deposition against Trump under oath his racist, anti-Semitic and fascist tendencies and get him on the stand, sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. And ultimately, that’s the concept that makes this “lawsuit” by Trump so insane. Especially when he knows he’s already had this same suit thrown out of court. (I have to assume that it was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Trump to bring it again.) But for Trump to carry his charge to fruition, he’ll have to testify to prove that the “Hitlerian” comparisons weren’t true, that he had never said anything as bad or worse in private, that when he said other things just as bad and violent and anti-Semitic and racist and white supremacist and cruel he didn’t really mean it, and that when he enabled neo-Nazis it had nothing to do with actual Nazis. And almost worse, he’ll have to show that he was harmed by “Hitlerian” comparisons, which might be the hardest thing of all for him. Harmed?? Trump's very success in politics has been based on a foundation of appealing to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, fascists and racists. But Trump, for some unknown reason, wants to try again, and have a court debate comparing him and Hitler in the middle of his presidential campaign. Well, I say, you go for it! Now, of course, this might be one of those things Trump does for attention, and he doesn’t really plan to take this suit all the way, and is just hoping for a settlement. But if so, that doesn't even qualify as a nutty pipe dream. Because thinking that CNN would settle on a Freedom of the Press rights issue for saying things that are true, which a court already sided with them and dismissed, having found “no false statements of fact” is something that just is not going to happen. Indeed, CNN probably relishes the lawsuit, and would love to take it to court and get Trump on the stand, under oath. Which leaves the only remaining option Trump dropping the suit – which in some ways would be disastrous, as well. After all, suing someone for making “Hitlerian” allusions to you – and then you saying, “Okay, never mind, I can’t prove you did anything wrong” is a really horrific look for,,,anyone. But oh-so-much more so for a presidential candidate. Unless it's to be president of the Proud Boys. Seriously, I can’t get over this insanity in filing a lawsuit during a presidential election about comparison to your language and Hitler that has already been dismissed for having “no false statements of fact.” Trump’s depths of depravity are one thing. But when he drills that far down into the eighth level of seven-level hell to commit wounds this self-inflicted, he has no one to blame but himself. Works for me. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|