The most disappointed man in congress

Hoity-toity like The New Yorker, we're calling this a drawing. It is not a cartoon. And it is definitely not political. Mel tells me he is just being sympathetic.

No imagination, no third way!

 Late last night. Tomorrow we vote, those of us that haven’t. (Forty-nine percent of eligible North Carolina voters has, an astounding percentage.) And I remain undecided. Selfishly!

     I was going to vote for Mrs. Clinton. I said as much here. But then it seemed my vote my matter; now it doesn’t: as far as I can tell, she has an insurmountable lead in Virginia. And I am thinking I will want to say before too long that, “Well I didn’t vote for her.” So, for whom? Not – definitely not Mr. Trump; but who? We shall see.

Two roads diverged in a yellow mire . . . .

Election Day, early. I wake up wondering, "What if the vote is closer than I think?" I can always say, I suppose, “I knew that was a mistake [voting for Mrs. Clinton] but . . . .” But what?

     I am always and forever criticizing politicians for choosing the lesser of two evils instead of imagining another way forward. Now, I can’t.

Let’s face it, however: We don’t encourage imagination in our politicians. We don’t say to young men and women, “You have a wonderful imagination – you should go into politics.” We look instead for young “leaders” – kids (elementary school kids, adolescents, college-aged) that like to push other kids around, convince them: “This is the right way to do this; it’s the only way really.” Instead of imagination we value ideology – lack of imagination! – and love of influence. And we expect from these “public servants”? It’s completely illogical, to expect the self-serving to be truly interest in serving others.

     In the meantime, today’s choice – if you can’t imagine a third way, dear Tom: between incompetence and division.

The Disunited States of Reality TV

               Sunt aliquid Manes: letum non omnis finit
                     luridaque . . . effugit umbra rogos. - Sextus Propertius

Many of our friends – our allies – seem to believe it will all be over November 8. The victors will claim their rightful – righteous – spoils. The beaten will dig their holes and crawl into them; they will spend a considerable time licking their

Yes, that'll work.

wounds. Something like peace will reign – as if a season of Survivor had come to an end.

We confidently predict that will not be the case. And all the nasty, ad hominem attacks the righteous have visited and continue to visit upon the wicked will return to haunt them. The mockery will not be forgotten. It never is. Consult your own experience; righteous or wicked, being mocked the hardest thing to let go of.

We predict that our pleading with all to be kind, to love mercy and walk humbly, will not be heeded; more likely it will be hissed at from every side. We know we are crying, “Peace, peace!” where there is none.

So, we can most confidently predict that there will be none. It was bad enough when we were – who coined this phrase? – “the world’s largest banana republic.”* But it is much worse now we have become the Disunited States of Reality TV.

_______________

  * "The shadows remain. Death does not end all;
               a pale ghost slips out of the ashes."  
** No offense to banana republics intended.

Tonight's debate

Tonight’s debate. You don’t need to watch it. Here’s all you need to know in less than one minute. A multi-media presentation! (“Kaf-kaf,” Major Hoople might say.*)

_______________

*

Listening to Paul Ryan

That’s the Paul Ryan,

     who said the first of this week that he would no longer either campaign with or even defend Donald Trump;

     who averred that the election season taken “some dark — sometimes very dark — turns,” but enough about that;

     who wants instead to talk about conservative values: tax breaks for the rich, health insurance for the rich, more guns on the street, more coal in the hopper, fewer people at the polls - in short a brighter tomorrow, for the rich.

Bader Ginsburg, O'Reilly to take show on the road.

The Supreme Court justice and Fox commentator agree that San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's decision to protest the national anthem is “dumb.”

The Notorious RBG & Billo
on stage in Dubuque.*

Ginbsburg: “I think it's really dumb . . . . dumb and disrespectful. . . . I think it's a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn't lock a person up for doing it. . . . If they want to be stupid, there's no law that should be preventive. If they want to be arrogant, there's no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.”

     O’Reilly: “I’ve been giving . . . Kaepernick a hard time, because I really don’t think he knows what he’s talking about on politics.” The commentator has invited Kaepernick to appear on “The Factor,” but he doesn’t expect him to show up, because “then he’d be confronted by facts.” Of course, “Mr. Kaepernick is entitled to his opinion, but if you don’t know what you’re talking about, it might be wise to say nothing.”

     
 Unless your name is O’Reilly . . . or Bader Ginsburg.
 _______________
 * Photo by FutureFlickers

Trumpencestiltskin

Fake pastel, fake acrylic, real bullshit on fake canvas. 

Wading deeper into the quickshit

for logic's sake . . .

A week ago I wrote that I wasn’t writing any more about the national election because there were “only so many ways to describe what a disaster the election of Donald Trump would be”; and I couldn’t “think of any that [my readers hadn’t] read or seen ten times over.” 

Before you shout me down, listen (please). - Demosthenes*

     I went on to say that “his gaining the Republican nomination and the support . . . of 44% of the electorate” had already done more damage, especially to our image overseas, than could be mitigated by his losing the election. But I didn’t lay the blame for our marred image – among our friends, our enemies, I would add among ourselves – entirely at the Republican Party’s and Donald Trump’s doorsteps. “That we could nominate two people so unpopular for a position that requires bringing us together” was unfathomable to me.

I would vote for Hillary Clinton, I wrote, because I live in a battleground state: “The morning of November 8, I’ll drink a double Scotch for breakfast, hope I don’t get arrested driving to the polls; I’ll stuff my nose with cotton and mark the box next to her name.”

The column – you may read it in its entirety here – did not sit well with the many Mrs. Clinton supporters among my few readers. “There was no comparison between the two candidates,” most of their arguments ran: “Trump was . . . [imagine the adjectives you would insert here].”

In short, the arguments were almost all ad hominem. But that is not the only logical flaw of the pro-Hillary arguments I have been bombarded with this week. And – I’m only trying to help out here – it is the illogic of these arguments that dooms them to fail; they will convince no one’s common sense.

That no reasonable person could vote for Trump does not mean that said reasonable person doesn’t have reasons not to vote for Clinton.  That “you can’t vote for him, so she must be your choice” is illogical on its face. (That you love apple butter because you hate blueberry jam does not follow.) That “a vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is a vote for Trump” – also illogical on its face. (If I had one schilling and I gave it to Jill, I cannot have given it to Jack. A vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote for Johnson or Stein.)

     In sum, to argue – however loudly, indeed however cogently – that one of two choices is – or even three of four choices are – unreasonable, dangerous, or even insane is not to prove that the other choice is reasonable, safe, or sound.

Also, while I’m at it – that is while I’m stepping in shit, let me wander deeper into the morass: To argue there is bias does not mean that the one discriminated against is fit. The conclusion does not inevitably follow the premise.

So, I reek. Which is why I’m holding my nose. I m holding my nose, and I am still voting for the former Secretary of State.

     But you’re not making it easier.
 _______________
   * From my friend Ted Riich. For daily doses of wisdom from the Romans and the Greeks, like him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter.

Trump responds

Yesterday we published a dun from VAF on behalf of Secretary of State Clinton: We could show our support with $10 and all the world would know. And we promised (in interests of equal space) to publish Hotelier Trump's response. That came in the form of action rather than words - DBigJT's stellar performance in last night's debate. Here's how he sees it in a retweet from our friend Anonymous Anonymous, @réaldonaldtrump's retweet of congratulations from his great from Vladimir Vladimirovich P.

The debate looms . . .

And I get dunned:

Tomorrow: Trump's reply.

P.S. No one calls me Thomas.

Gag me with a spoon

It’s been four days since I have posted anything here. The reasons are simple. There are only so many ways to describe what a disaster the election of Donald Trump would be; and I can’t think of any that you haven’t read or seen ten times over.

I can only add that I’m not at all certain how much the damage of his gaining

Nashe family
gagging spoon
early 19th c.

the Republican nomination and the support, it seems, of 44% of the American electorate can be mitigated by his losing the election. I don’t believe the damage can be undone. The United States is the laughingstock of the civilized world, and the laughter is not good-humored but angry and tearful.

The laughter isn’t confined to the Trump phenomenon. That we could nominate two people so unpopular for a position that requires bringing us together is unfathomable to my friends in Italy, Norway, Great Britain, and elsewhere. It is to me.

I won’t be proud to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton, but I live in a battleground state: The morning of November 8, I’ll drink a double Scotch for breakfast, hope I don’t get arrested driving to the polls; I’ll stuff my nose with cotton and mark the box next to her name.

’Nuff said. Beginning this week, we’ll be looking at other races at every level. Nominations for the oddest or most interesting may be submitted via Facebook or email. (Revised by reality 09/29/16)

The Trump Foundation: Our Motto

“Money in, money in.”

Behind today's headlines - what you won't see tomorrow

You see today: 
  Fox apologizes, settles with Carlson for $20m.

You won't see tomorrow: 
  Fox apologizes to viewers, settlement in the billions.

  Carlson: "It was never about the money." Will give all to charity.

**Bonus coverage: mel ball's Roger Ailes, click here.**

American Gothic

Without comment:

Labor Day 2016 - photo by mel ball using a classic Samsung S Galaxy cellphone. The photographer writes, "Visiting relatives in Indiana. Swear I did NOT put the cashews on the ledge."

In which Mr Nashe answers a reader's question and Mr Ball illustrates the answer with a page from Tristram Shandy.

An inquisitive reader writes,“What do you plan write about the Huma Abedin - Anthony Weiner affair?”

      “Not one damn word.”

Prepperoni Pizza (alone in front of Night of the Living Dead)

Always three days late and a four-dollar bill short, I’m just getting to Kevin Sullivan’s insightful but mistitled “A fortress against fear” from the August 27 Washington Post (online here). And I wouldn’t have gotten to it at all, if one of my coffee buddies hadn’t recommended it.

Prepped

The article is all about “preppers,” those prepared for whichever man-made apocalypse is just around the corner. Preppers have the right extinguisher for every kind of fire, the shield for whatever shit hits the fan. Most live in what apparently has come to be known as the American Redoubt, which Sullivan describes as “a settlement of the God-fearing in a lightly populated territory that includes Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon.”

        Except they don’t live there; they survive. That’s one of the two fundamental mistakes preppers make. They confuse living and surviving. The other: they also equate security with a well-supplied fortress that may be fire and shit-storm proof but doesn’t keep out fear.

When I walk down to the corner for coffee – as I will later this morning – and meet with whoever happens to be there and when we talk about the weather first, then about whatever is on our fraying minds, in our decaying hearts, or gnawing at our bowels, I am living – we are.

        When I drive my 4x4 back home and carefully lock, deadbolt, and chain the door behind me, then go down to my bomb shelter to check the freezer and oil and reload my guns, I am not. I may be surviving, but I am not living. It is the difference between sex with another person when you don’t care who hears and sex with a magazine when your mother might come through the door at any minute.

But, let’s say, down in my basement shelter, oiling my guns, I slide into my crank-radio a CD of Christian music and, unaccountably! among the slick, sick songs of praise, there is a poorly recorded, home-made track of a half-empty church singing, “A Mighty Fortress.”

For still our ancient foe

Doth seek to work us woe;

His craft and power are great,

And armed with cru-él hate;

On earth is not his equal.

Rita Hayworth in a strapless gown

Then I have to realize, don’t I, that the gun I am dressing can not kill what really ails me any more than reinforced concrete walls sunk deep under a back woods of the Idaho panhandle will keep him/her/it out. (Not that I actually live in Idaho.) (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

        Even if secure meant only safe from harm, I am not secure even there. But secure means more than safe. Safe is to secure as wearing body armor to a riot is to wearing a ball gown to . . . well, a ball.

To sum up:

-       It is better to drink coffee with friends than to oil one’s gun alone.

-       Martin Luther wrote better hymns than Chris Tomlin does.

-       It is better to be secure in a strapless gown than safe behind the freezer, even if it contains a two-year supply of bottled water and venison jerky.

Eight reasons to like Mike Pence

 1. He doesn’t hate homosexuals only homosexuality.

 2. The globe will not warm if he becomes vice president.

 3. At the same time he’s almost invisible, and

 4. he's shiny like a penny. Related to that,

 5. he’s only 1% as bad as Donald Trump. (So in the currency of the Kingdom of Misogynexenophobia, it is indeed 100 pence to the trump.)

 6. His resignation as governor of Indiana elevated Count Chockula to the job.

 7. In Mississippi, his name rhymes with back fence.

 8. Good hair.

Closed for repairs

Back G K W (God knows when).

"No more Trump. No more Trump!"

On August 21 of last year, I suggested that I wasn’t going to write any

more about Donald Trump; and I didn’t (much more) until mid-March of this year, when I advanced several “non-propositions,” still hoping that he would disappear, though acknowledging that “the limits of God’s grace are sometimes too painfully apparent.”   

Among the non-propositions:

1. It is not Trump’s fault that he is a jackass; but it is his fault that he acts like one – and it is our fault when we permit him to.

and

c. Trump follows no one but himself, an ego without a heart and an id without a soul.

“An ego without a heart and an id without a soul” and according to the sign in front of a house on the other end of Main Street . . .

     Well, here is 2 Corinthians 7:13-14. The Lord is speaking to Solomon:

«

When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people . . . humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

»

I would like to say that the Hebrew for “pestilence” is תרמף – trump. But it’s not; nor do I think that was what the sign-maker thought. (Note: it’s not ובמה either.) Indeed, probably the only thing he or she and I agree on is that we’re in a mess . . . and talking to each other isn’t going to get us out of it.

So no more talking – about Trump – for a while, it’s not that you can’t get your fix on any other street corner in town. No more talking about Trump except for an occasional mel ball drawing on our Facebook page. You can follow us there. Just hit the link over to the right somewhere. And in the meantime . . .

     God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

H is for honest.

H

honest • 'wī-lē   

     adj. terminus politicus

     1. Lies less than the next guy.

Ex. “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.” – Jill Abramson. In fact, according to PoltiFact, what she says is true or mostly true 60% of the time!

Trump Motors introduces the Cruellus De Ville

I have been casting around, looking for a good definition of cruelty. It’s what I do when I don’t understand something; I try to define terms.  Cruel seems to have come into English from the Old French cru(d)el from the Latin crudelis, meaning “unfeeling, hard-hearted,” related to crudus, “raw, rough, bloody.” In modern English it can express either callous indifference to, or pleasure in causing, another’s pain or suffering.

I am trying to make out what is behind the Republican nominee’s attitude toward . . . any number of people, individuals and groups. Is he callously indifferent, or does he take pleasure in being mean? I suspect the former. (Or, maybe, I hope the former.)

     Granted he is willful; I don’t think he is willfully unkind. I see the man rather as so self-focused he can’t see outside himself. It’s not that he wants to hurt the Khans, for example. Rather he can’t understand them as people that can be hurt as he can be hurt. He doesn’t understand that about anyone else.

     Because for him no one else truly exists – not as he does.

He is road rage, which becomes possible for most of us because we are surrounded by our cars as are those that have enraged us. We have no comprehension of – and we desire no understanding of – those inside those other cars; we only know that they have gotten in the way of what we intended to do. They have no personality, no character, no being other than “that b*****d,” “that stupid b****,” or especially “this what-the-f***(?)-er.”

     Which is possible for almost all of us when we are surrounded by our cars as are those that have enraged us and we have no desire to understand them; we only know that they are in our way.

m ball watches the DNC - the Last Night

m ball watches the DNC - the Bill Clinton Speech and . . .

. . . more great, in-depth coverage from CNN:

      Bill and Gloria share a moment.

m ball watches the DNC - "First Night"

m ball watches the Democratic National Convention - assemblages and drawings

Budweiser's can for the Democratic National Convention.

Again: InBev didn’t ask, but lack of corporate sponsorship has never stopped us. We asked Go Around Back and The Ambiguities’ artist-in-residence melchior ball to design Budweiser cans for the Republican and Democratic conventions. Here is mel's tribute to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. 

mel’s tribute to the Republican nominee Donald Trump, Brownshirt Beer, may be found here.

"Point of personal privilege"

Many years ago, when Gaspar Stephens and I were teaching on the same faculty (of one of those Universities of Name of State at Name of Town), we had a colleague – in economics, if I’m remember correctly – that interrupted every faculty meeting at least once with a “point of order” to move the discussion from substance to procedure or a “point of personal privilege” to explain how things ought to, though they probably never could, be – I think. Because: He’d rise, “Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman!” and he’d launch off into a tangent that only the most tortured reasoning could relate to the business at hand. Experts, however, in tortured reasoning, Gaspar and I would discuss the point of privilege after the meeting, and we almost always made the connection; moreover, there was usually a principle involved, if only one that an economist would recognize.

I listened to as much of the-next-president-of-the-united-states Donald J. Trump’s speech last night as I could, then I scanned the transcript of the rest and went to bed. Donald J. Trump’s “dark speech,” as more than one pundit has characterized it. But I slept well.

     It’s not that I don’t also believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But I don’t expect – at least not immediately – a bloody apocalypse. I’m not sanguine enough to believe civilization will die so quickly and painlessly; we won’t get that kind of one-breath release. Instead, in the West at any rate, we’ll smother each other in cant. It won’t be rapid-fire guns in the hands of dark-skinned young aliens that will destroy our republic but hypocrisy and smuggery in the wheezing throats of old white men – like me!

I wish I could say that knowing that I am part of the problem would shut me up. It won’t. Like most old white men, I am – at the deepest level of my waning intellect* - convinced that I know best, for everyone.

On the other hand: Truth be known, I’d be surprised if any of us knows what is best for us, as a community, as a nation, as a Western alliance, as a planet – or individually. But that’s a truth we can’t believe; it makes sense, but it goes too much against our innards. Besides, as the truth, it might set us free. Even from cant.

     Nobody really wants that.

_______________

* I am 68 years old, and I know I am not as smart as I was when I was 38 years old. Then I also know that we will be making a mistake to elect a president that is as old or older than I am.

Bringing back the political-cultural lexicon - J is for junior senator.

J

junior senator • ^lmak-ē  ə-^lvĕl-lē

     noun

     1. government official elected by the people and for himself; must be thin-skinned, good at holding a grudge.

ex.

another man of the people
educated at two Ivies

The pundrity is aghast: It's plagiarism, but . . .

. . . can you steal a cliché?

Melania Trump, National Convention, 2016:

     “From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life.

     “That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow," she said. "Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

*Bartlett's Familiar Quotations

Michelle Obama, Democratic National Convention, 2004:

     “Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values, that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them.

     “Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

My mother when she dropped me off at prep school, 1961:

     “Here’s what you need to know, what the Nashes believe. Work hard. Your word is your bond, so when you make promises keep them. Treat your teachers and your fellow students with respect even when you disagree with them. Dream big. Work hard. You’ll get where you want to go, whether you know where that is yet or not.

     I know: I’m not the first to say this and I won’t be the last.”

You've seen the first of these. Have you seen the second?

Paul Ryan selfie with young Republicans.

Paul Ryan selfie with old Republicans

Budweiser's new can for the Republican Convention

InBev didn’t ask, but lack of corporate sponsorship has never stopped us before. We asked Go Around Back and The Ambiguities’ artso-fartso melchior ball to design Budweiser cans for the Republican and Democratic conventions. Here, in honor of Independence Day, or really because it’s exactly two weeks out, is mel’s tribute to the Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The quotation from Ovid, because Trump knows Ovid – he tweeted about the Roman poet recently: “Ovid. Yeah. Great guy. Raw deal by the king there.” – from The Metamorphoses’ description of Narcissus, might be translated:

he admires all that he finds admirable in himself

he longs for himself, and he approves what he approves in himself.

He seeks himself sought, he kindles and he burns.

Inquiring minds . . .

want to know:

"Tithing Table" for Budweiser executives

So, we were drawn to this Wonkblog story, Bud Light’s latest advertisement has a big problem by Drew Harwell, because mel ball is preparing “specially marked” Budweiser cans for the upcoming conventions. You’ll be able to see the first here July 4, two weeks before the Republican National Convention.The Democratic can will be revealed a week later.

Harwell's Budweiser story, though, is not so much about advertising; it’s about equal pay for equal work, which we’re all for, and that doesn’t mean that the women now playing Wimbledon should only get 60% of what the men do, because they’re playing best 2 out of 3 while the men are playing best 3 out of 5. We’d never suggest that. (And we reprehend the suggestion of one of our consultant-colleagues - made in jest, we are certain - that male and female Budweiser executives be paid according to the male and female share of the Budweiser market.)

With regard to what seems to be the lower end of the Budweiser executive pay scale according to the article: Neither of us have a lot of sympathy for anyone making $360,000 a year no matter how much her predecessor was making, though we wouldn’t suggest she shouldn’t make as much as he did. We do see the principle of the thing.

But, speaking of which – principles – we have, with the help of friends in various low places including (especially) non-profits, drawn up the following “tithing” table, suggesting percentages of “giving back” people in various income categories should consider. It works like a tip chart; in other words, for those that have trouble multiplying, actual numbers are given. (And, of course, these are only suggestions.)

Stamp of approval

                              

Dividing by 2

An admission of guilt – or wide-eyed, stupid innocence: I’ve never taken an economics course; so I know nothing of how economists do what they do. I have always assumed, however, that it involved numbers; and that suggested to me that they would be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide across more than one scenario.

However. And correct me if I’m wrong.

I came across this article this morning: “How Health Care Creates Wage Inequality” by Robert Samuelson. “You can add health care to the causes of growing wage inequality in America,” Samuelson begins. And, “it’s simple arithmetic” according to Mark Warshawsky of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. But here’s the way the “arithmetic” works – Samuelson’s “simple example.”

Assume an imaginary company with two employees: one makes $50,000 a year, the other $100,000. Suppose that the firm has purchased a family health plan, costing $12,000, for each. So the company’s total compensation costs — wages, salaries and fringe benefits, including health insurance — are $112,000 for the higher-paid worker and $62,000 for the lower-paid employee.

part of the twos table

Now look what happens when the company decides to raise its annual compensation costs by 5 percent, but health-care spending is increasing 10 percent. The insurance cost goes up $1,200 (that’s 10 percent of $12,000). This reduces what’s left for wages. The lower-paid worker receives an overall compensation gain of $3,100 (5 percent of $62,000), but after deducting the $1,200, only $1,900 is left for wages. Meanwhile, the higher-paid worker receives a $5,600 gain, which — after deducting $1,200 for insurance — leaves $4,400 for wages.

Presto, wage inequality has increased. Even though the company raised its compensation package by 5 percent for all workers, the wage and salary gap between the best- and worst- paid workers widened. Pursuing one type of equality (health coverage) inadvertently worsened another type of inequality (wages and incomes).

But – again, correct me if I’m wrong – what if the company doesn’t want to “worsen” one type of inequality for the sake of another type of equality? It’s simple arithmetic. In this instance, it takes the total left for wages, $6,300 ($1,900 + $4,400) and divides by 2, giving each worker a wage increase of $3,150.

     How hard is that?