Poor Execution

For several reasons, other than one sentence yesterday, I haven't written anything about Pete Hegseth's statement that he will have an execution by firing squad streamed live. In part I haven't written about it because other news stories took precedence. In part, though, because the headline is go ghastly, there isn't much that's needed to be said.

But it can't go without any notice. But not much is needed.

Another reason I haven't written about it is because I don't think it will take place. I suspect there will be enough outraged pushback from within even the White House, as well as from MAGOPs in Congress -- all of whom easily get how gruesome and arguably permanently harmful to the United States this would be -- that Trump will overrule Hegseth, even though it's probable that Trump gave his approval.

It's barbaric, of course. And something you'd see from terrorist groups. And as much as Trump and Hegseth think this would be a really cool idea for their MAGA base, I'm sure they'll be reminded that streaming on the Internet actually goes around the world, where not only our allies will see it and be appalled, but our enemies and terrorists groups will see it and replay it and replay it and replay it and replay it and replay it -- for years and perhaps generations to come -- using it as a recruitment tool, showing how savage the United States is.

Further, it would erase any opportunity for the U.S. to condemn such videos and many acts of terrorism that are committed, since the video of Trump/Hegseth's own gruesome brutality on behalf of the United States will be shown to undercut any effort for the country to be outraged by others.

Is it possible that Trump and Hegseth will go forward with this, despite heavy efforts to ensure they don't? Absolutely. After all, this is Trump with dementia, which is degenerative, and also suffering from malignant narcissism, a disease where cruelty is some of the point and a willingness to burn down your own house when you don't get your way. And if Democrats do take control of both the House and Senate in November, then "not getting your own way" will be a driving force for Trump in December, when the execution is planned. And Hegseth is such a faux-macho zealot on a pseudo-religious crusade that, for all we know, he may think he's doing God's will. Or is drunk.

But then, if Democrats do take control of the House and Senate, and enough MAGOPs are infuriated by such a event, and know that Trump is a lame duck, and are angered at all the losses they were hit by in the Mid-Terms, Trump may grasp that he not only might likely be impeached, but might well even be convicted this time. Pete Hegseth, as well. Although that seems very possible regardless of this craven plan.

Or it might be even more basic. "TACO Trump" is not a nickname without reasons. He has backed down and chickened out often enough before. And being inundated by most of those around saying pointedly, "You cannot allow this to happen," suggests to me that they'll be heard and it won't happen. (How still real is "Trump Always Chickens Out"? A mere four days after he announced with huge pomp his amazing diesel fuel agreement with Russia for the United States and global markets, it got so much angry pushback, including from MAGOPs -- for not only being horrific to deal with our enemy, but also being illegal -- that just yesterday Trump said, oh, no, the deal wasn't for the U.S., but only for the rest of the world. Four days.)

But it shouldn't even be on the table for discussion. Where "Who knows?" is a possibility. But that's today's MAGOP, which has enabled Trump so much and for so long that he feels emboldened for just about anything.

But I think -- hopefully -- not this.

Digger

On Sunday, the Writers Guild held a screening of the movie “Digger.” The film has gotten such poor news, with Tom Cruise being ridiculed for his performance, taking a huge chance on an uncommon role under heavy makeup, that I was intrigued enough to go. Out of curiosity afterwards, when I had my opinion, I checked with Rotten Tomatoes, and saw that it had a 53% from critics, although a far-better 74% from the audience.  Having seen the movie now -- I agree with the audience.  In fact, I liked it more than that, for its audaciousness and craft.  And man, is it audacious.  I’d probably give it an 80%.  (Maybe a bit higher, but we’ll leave it at that.)

I won’t give away any plot points.  Just a general reaction. And I'll note that I went in having next to zero idea what the movie was about, since I'd only see the TV ad, and it really doesn't say much in 30 seconds, but just gives some offbeat images.

The movie is definitely flawed, goes over the top, and gets a little confusing -- and if someone didn’t like it, I’d understand. But for me (and that 74% of the audience), it not only was so extremely well-made, but Tom Cruise is also very good , as is John Goodman, and an actor named Riz Ahmed who plays a head scientist.

Moreover, I'll go so far as saying that if enough Motion Picture Academy members watch it, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cruise gets an Oscar nomination.  I wouldn’t count on that, since it's still early in the Awards Season and there might be five others that are better, and I also don’t know how many voters will ignore watching the movie, but that’s how good I thought his performance was. (And I say this as someone who does not rush out to see a Tom Cruise movie, but has only seen a few -- liking some, though not all.) Moreover, I greatly admire his taking very risky choices to play the character.  And he has a brilliant 5-minute monologue at one point (much of it – I think – in one take; I don't know for sure since I wasn’t paying attention to that until later in the speech, “Hey, wait, is this all…?”).  In fact, when his name came on the screen at the end of the film, he got applause from the Writers Guild audience.  I also think there’s even a better chance that John Goodman will get a Supporting Actor nomination.  He got applause during the movie for one particular long-rant speech he gives. It's a tour-de-force, over-the-top, chew the scenery performance.

I also liked it as a scathing satire of the egos and unchecked power of Elon Musk and Trump, and the dangers of dropping out of the Paris Accord.  And while the story does get confusing at one point (to the degree that you sort of sit up and think, wait, hunh, what is going on???), it soon enough becomes more clear, and by the end, I personally found everything very well-explained.  And while (without giving anything away) the things that cause this confusion might not be necessary to tell the story, I think that ultimately they are necessary to tell the story as fully as it does, and that the film is more impactful for them.

I have no idea how others feel.  Some may hate it, others might be enthralled by it.  I wouldn’t argue with anyone who has a different view than me.  But while I’d understand the criticisms, I don’t think I’d be convinced by any arguments about them – because I absolutely see the flaws and have thought about them, but find that the strengths (for me) significantly predominate.  I’d just accept a person’s criticism as being fair for how they personally looked at the film for their own taste.

I also love the song they play at the end.  (I won’t say anything about what the song is either.) In part because I’ve always loved the song (in fact, only a month or so ago, I saw an article about the singer-songwriter and read it – I never knew the person is British), but also in part because it’s a spot-on perfect song for the end of the movie.

Much of the critical news stories about the film have seemingly come from the reviews (which, to be fair, at 53%, weren't horrific -- that's right in the middle) and from a poor box office opening. But that's a result of audiences not going the first week, which has zero to do with their reaction once seeing the movie. It might be more a result of the trailer and TV ads not being convincing enough to get people to go until they heard from friends or -- even more -- either not liking the heavy makeup Tom Cruise had in the ads...or the makeup was so heavy that many people didn't even know what role he played, or that he was in it. Also, the word "disaster" is being thrown around in describing the film -- but that's a result of the cost of the film (estimated around $170 million) and its marketing (around $100 million) in relation to its opening box office. But -- three things: one, opening box office is critical, but word-of-mouth is deeply important, and with a 74% audience score, its ultimate revenue is far from set yet. Two, box office analysis tends to only look at domestic numbers, and while its international opening wasn't good either, it's higher than the domestic, and is currently at $35 million. Still very far below what it needs to break even, but -- see Point #1. And three, how much a movie cost or grosses has absolutely nothing to do with a film's quality, nor what I think of it.

It's also worth noting that the movie a pretty good reaction at the Guild screening. And that's meaningful -- along with that Rotten Tomatoes score -- for how word-of-mouth might spread once people actually see the movie, which (attendance or streaming viewing aside) might get more Academy members to see the film when it comes time to voting. And again, for all its high-energy flaws, it's a very well-crafted movie. And one which, critics aside, audiences seem to like.

I wish there were some standalone scenes from the movie that I could embed here, since I thought that would give a better sense of the film, rather than a lot of quick cuts in a trailer or ad that might get people to thing, "Hmm, what exactly is going on." But alas, there are none yet. However, the trailer (which I hadn't seen) is better than the TV ads, since it at least is able to deal with the story a bit more and show more of the performances (which still doesn't come close to doing them justice). And so, we'll go with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=job8V254NAE

And as a bonus, I'm going to include a two-minute feature with Tom Cruise talking about the film with the director Alejandro G. Iñárritu, two-time Oscar-winner for Birdman and The Revenant, along with a few clips from the movie and behind-the-scenes, which gives a slightly extended sense of the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKbBTXgUn28

Hitting the Trifecta

Normally, one would think that when early voting has started in a Mid-Term election, a president would tout his party's great successes to get the people enthused to vote. But when your top success was called the "Big Beautiful Bill" and it's turned out so unpopular that you've stopped calling it that -- and when your party's leader has a 30% approval -- and when that leader has dementia, which is degenerative, and is a malignant narcissist, what you tend to end up going with instead are stories so horrible that they can be explained how horrible they are just by the headline alone.

I thought I sort of might have been going out on a limb last week when I suggested this was happening almost every day with Trump. But to his credit, he keeps proving me right. And just yesterday, we added a triple play. That's when the three headlines read -- "Trump has 430 trees cut down defying judge's order," "Trump DHS investigators raid home of Trump Democratic rival in Congress," and "Trump DOJ sues TV news pool for refusing White House coverage after being banned from White House".

It's near impossible to read the headline of just one of the stories and not instantly see it as Trump abusing the legal system. Now triple that.

It's hard to decide which abuse story is more blatant and is worse for Trump. The defiance of a judge's order to cut down 430 trees (now, actually, raising the number to 519) is the easiest of the easy-to-grasp "Oh, my god! He what??" abuse stories. Though it doesn't rise to the same level of legal attack as the others. Still, though, it produced the most blunt, scathing, enraged comments by the federal judge.  She was brutal to the DOJ attorneys, and deservedly so. “I was hearing from everyone on plaintiffs’ side this was going to happen," she lectured them, "I said repeatedly, ‘No, I trust the government.’ I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done.” And then added, “What has happened has cost the government all of its credibility," and added that the government’s actions were “inexcusable.” But my favorite of reactions from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes came after she asked, viscerally livid, “In what universe did you think this was acceptable?,” and the DOJ lawyer replied, “We did our best.”  To which the judge came back with, “No, you did not do your best.  You did your absolute worst.”

The headline story on the DHS raid of Rep. Ilham Omar, though, is not only easy to grasp from the headline alone, but pathetic on many levels, . Among them -- MAGOPs in Congress have been ranting about Jack Smith's DOJ investigation of Trump when the Special Prosecutor had warrants for phone records of members of Congress who spoke with Trump during the Insurrection. He didn't get wiretaps, but only the phone numbers of calls. And the MAGOPs in Congress went ballistic over that, and want Jack Smith prosecuted for his completely legal, normal action. But they're all fine with a fellow member of Congress having her home raided. And secondly, the whole reason it was raided is because they're looking for documents they think her father might have signed that may have been illegal when she was seven years old. Additionally, Trump has been ranting regularly against Rep. Omar for 10 years, largely (as far as people can tell because she's a liberal black woman from Somalia. And just the other day, DHS Secretary Mullin also went off against her and how she should be investigated. If this case ever goes to court -- which seems unlikely -- it appears to be a blatantly easy case to have dismissed for illegal targeted prosecution. In fact, one top attorney said that if (in a theoretical case) someone was actually guilty of a crime, but it was shown they were targeted for prosecution, even that case would be illegal for violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and be dismissed. And further -- the DOJ has a long-standing policy of not involving itself in investigations that deal with political campaigns within 60 days of an election, and this is just 22 days before the Mid-Terms, which also helps support the "targeted" prosecution charge. So, on so many levels, this story is just monumentally stupid and just as easy to see how monumentally stupid it is merely by the "weaponizing the government to attack Trump's opponents" headline alone.

SIDE NOTE: And all this above is without noting, as a mere bonus, that when questions were raised about Melania Trump's immigration status, Trump announced she would have a press conference on it "in two weeks" (tm) -- which was during the 2016 campaign, ten years ago. Still waiting...

But I think the suing the news pool story is the the more insanely stupid and egregious, just by the headline. First of all, and most importantly, because it deals with the First Amendment and freedom of the press and is a clear, blistering attack on the news media. It's the kind of attack that you would expect to see, as one analyst said -- before pausing and then adding -- "in Russia." And second, this story leaps out for its almost comic lunacy. Consider:

Trump hates the press. He's called the press the "Enemy of the People." He regularly slams reporters (almost exclusively women reporters) as stupid and fake to their faces. He banned three major news sources -- two of them TV networks, all part of the joint White House press pool -- from White House access. And yet he now has his DOJ suing the White House press pool because they stood by their banned associates for whom they have a mutually agreed-upon commitment to work together with as part of the joint news pool and therefore didn't cover Trump when there were a couple of major news events.

Yes, really. People in the White House press pool who he hates and calls fake and says are the Enemy, who he literally banned from covering him at the White House, Trump is suing for the White House press pool not covering him. It is a suit that will go nowhere. But (like the Ilhan Omar raid) he likely hopes it will distract and please his base.

The problem with this "thinking" is that when you have a mountain of other massive problems, distractions only last a moment until they get inundated by reality, and a base is only pleased until your efforts go nowhere. And then they get upset that you failed to deliver on your promises.

What did Trump think would happen when he banned MS NOW, CNN and Politico??  It's Newton's Third Law of Motion. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When you ban people from covering you, they won't coverage you how you want. And that's a major problem when you're a malignant narcissist. When you live and breathe on coverage, cameras jammed in your face and microphones, and then take those away, it's like removing heroin from an addict.

And a crazy "weaponizing the government to go after your opponents" story and headline like this is also what you get when you have dementia., which is degenerative.

Having your DOJ sue the press you banned from covering you when they don't cover you is the same crazy story and headline you get when you have your Department of Homeland Security investigators raid the home of a longtime rival in Congress who's from Somalia and you want to believe that maybe her father might possibly have signed papers wrong when she was seven years old. And it's the same crazy story and headline you get when you have DOJ attorneys defy a judge's order and have 430 additional trees cut down from a public golf course.

And it's what you also get when you have no real successes to run on and have a 30% approval. And are desperate. And flailing.And these are three of the stories and easy headline for the past week. Those ones are old news by now. All three were just yesterday! That's quite a parlay. On top of all the others.

And none of this even includes the other easy-to-grasp lunatic headline from today already -- "Trump's ambassador to Greece asked to resign for soliciting a Trump donor to pay her $100,000 credit card bill." And it wasn't even 10 AM yet. Nor another recent headline on Pete Hegseth announcing a firing squad execution to be live-streamed. Nor Trump's War in Iran he can't end. And the skyrocketing gas prices. And high consumer prices. And the Epstein files. And shooting more people on city streets in your DHS deportation efforts. And...

And it will continue. Watch this space. Or any space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQrl4jC5TTg