Thursday, 21 November 2019

Democrats are not viable.

They say so themselves. All the time. And on literal world stages for all to see. It's fucking hilarious. It's Uncle Joe's primary argument, if you can qualify his barely being able to get to the end of a spoken sentence. We all know what he means.

Not viable, I tell you. Not one in the bunch. I'm glad I'm at a place where I can say that with amusement and without equivocation, though I suppose an apology'd be in order. Apologies all-around. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who deserve better somehow.

They can say whatever they want to whatever dorky applause, but real people have long had what is not being said firmly dissonant in the soul of what's left of their bullshit meters. If you have to ask how it is that a near eternal stuck-in-the-craw sensation could result in the realisation of the one thing they say unites them in opposition, you probably shouldn't be reading this right now.

Before I go on, a little salve for what ails the faithfully hopeless:
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

—JFK at Yale in June of '62

I won't make the ironic mistake of falling into this guy's cult of personality, but the words are quote-worthy. Brilliant really. Whether or not the Stone-view that he eventually had a Jesus moment and would have thrown CAutIon to the four winds, if you will, is debatable. Could be they off'd him because they had thought so. He did shit-can the guy they'd later name their holy city's airport for. Could be the overthrow was just sport. Status as tribe member spares no one when the boys are having a time. It doesn't matter.

I mean, it matters, sure, if the "everything changed that day" notion is worthy of reflection in the rear-view of yIke's complex exit. I'd sure like to believe that Jack-celot had that one affair, Mesc-tripping with the adorable peacenik, which'd led to more than reflection. Dunno, though.

Not viable. It's been the pastime of the party since before I came along. Yet another thing that's not new that they'd have you don't stop believing in, all the while jingo bellowing the arrival of Satan Claus, our as-of-yet worst case scenario sitting in the seat of power.

MSDNC and C-SPAN simultaneously vying for ayes is a sight. It's been a generation since I observed The Vying for Impeachment and had forgotten how much the subpoena'd are only there to passively moderate the commentary of congress-creatures. And the framing of the commentary thereof completely ignores what the great unregistered are thinking. C-SPAN, for its part, dutifully presents during the breaks the standard bearers of the red-and-blue worldview. The great unregistered I refer to involve themselves in no such dutiful doltery. To the extent they get involved, it is by default with what remains unsaid. Don't ask, don't tell.

Same rules apply to the staging of the great debate. In fairness to Bernie, he is the one who advised circumspection in their overzealous claim of unity of purpose. It falls nonetheless into the old sock drawer of vying for viability. Bernie woulda won? Nope. The party said he wasn't viable. His being an Independent gives them even the ostensible right to say so. And on their way to saying who's not viable they will nominate the one who'll keep the contrary from being proven.

What about Bubba and Bo Rama? Sure, if it's another huckster that's desired another huckster it'll be. "I'm tired of losing!" they snivel. Like entitled little brats who want a pony now and yet who project pony-purity upon anyone who doesn't share their goal-shifting admiration for the person they'll eventually canonize if they hadn't had it done for them already.

Who's the viable huckster in this bunch? I would love to see Uncle Joe face off against Dumps-in-His-Pants. And just like I said regarding the erstwhile first female nominee, I maintain we're better off with the dimwited gangster than we would have been with the cold-bloodedness behind the door not chosen. It's not just MAGA-heads who think she's crooked, it's just they got the guy who will benefit from saying it.

"What's not being said" is not about whataboutery, pulled out of every ass left & right to greater or lesser effect whenever an accusation flies in the face of one's own precious hero. Sure, whataboutery would be the counter-counter-accusation hurled at anybody who'd question the absurdity of calling everybody but your own a callous and corrupt war criminal. The charge of whataboutery is retroactively preemptive. It requires at the outset — if I may call back the quote — a prefabricated set of interpretations.

The nugget of what's not being said is that there is a mass of folk who couldn't care less if the lying and cheating is just adorable fudging or rises to the level of conveniently criminal. At the end of the day it is impossible to take the word of those who'll never come clean, even if it just means nobody required them to. If you cannot measure the gradation of malfeasance along the way, then every counter-claim is as considerable as it is unseemly and absurd. If nobody is being held to account, then nobody is being held to account.

And to the plethora of "bombshells" that would bring down the sitting poopypants: Shit like "That was my interpretation," and "There was an awareness of that," are not utterances, I don't think, that would sway the great unbiased gods of jurisprudence, let alone an elected bunch of upper-hosers who have made their bread on such weasle meat.

In case you're not paying attention, the "explosive" testimony is shaping up to be a choreography that'll at best snare the wannabe consigliere whose claim to fame was being mayor on truther Tuesday. Other heads will roll for sure, but the Capo will only go down in history. Not that he has that much authority. Not that his two predecessors along with their shifty houses didn't do their damnedestes to give it to him.

And lest you think I draw no distinctions between the unviable joke of an opposition and the alleged soul-distinguishing evil incarnate to be opposed,  I reserve terminology like poopypants and shit-stain for he who represents the final waste product that's the result of a pretty goddamn bad diet. So there's that.

Though, to be honest, I would equally enjoy seeing the shit-stain in the Oval Office get trounced by a Wall Street vetted war criminal who begins his term with white hair, rather than ending it having aged so much that he'd garner the respect worthy the sage that never really was. Nobody'll say Uncle Joe was a sage. Uncle Sam, all day long. That's the myth in the aforementioned quotation. Hence the idea that the White House is currently being defiled. No, Joe's no sage. He doesn't even play one on TV. Says he's viable though.

Tuesday, 5 November 2019

Indy Star: entworfene Daten

Hover to reveal the shapeshifters of the oval.
Click for the story.

Roger & Tony's  entworfene Daten / Data Drafted

Sunday, 20 October 2019

Coal's Law out of the Sunday Paper

Tis plausible to many laboring under Labour and some still pastorally Tory that the deal negotiated by Team Johnson will lead to terrifying Trump trades, with the erstwhile toothless Brits being force-fed a Yank-based diet of hormone infused hamburgers and chlorinated chicken. It is also plausible to true be-leavers that decisively detached from the yoke of European establishmentarianism and back into the lovingly coated arms of Pax Britannica, crashing out alone will enable the improvisation of every deal their lionhearts desire. But how about a construction to an anti-Stratfordian height of implausibility (if only because four out of five scholars say so)  that would shore up the Continent as believable bulwark against the very things it's been slowly allowing to erode? At the end of the day, Liberal Progressivism equals tolerance. Eventually of anything, including giving up the sovereignty of seeding your own soil.

It's plausible to many self-styled electors that the Congresswomen from Hawaii's 2nd is, as precedent-shall-candidate, the allusive Manchurian. Plausible, too*, to an alternate base of similarly self-styled voters is that Hills reps the rot that Tulsa Gabbi twat about. But how about a kayfabe of far-less plausible proportions (due solely to the claimed complexity of coordinates) that in spite of her marginal status, being an apparently preempted also-ran, that she along with the former precedent-shall-candidate are both puppets of things as they actually are, and not the things as their proxies would have you believe?

The former candidate sure knows a thing or two about grooming fanciful hairdos to be president, even if unintentionally at her own expense (be careful who you wish to run against). And speaking of sacrifice in the name of public service, the current candidate and Army vet, for all her criticism of regime change wars, did not when she had the opportunity diverge decisively from the twenty-first century, 24 version of reality, where torture is a must when lives are on the line. Her subsequent denials cannot wholly disappear the fact that a central emphasis on two words are what differentiate her anti-war take from those of every other candidate that's managed to take on the assumption of that mantle, including the former candidate, as laughable as that should seem. Like, there's bad war and then there is war, and next-to-nobody who'll vote against continued massive increases to that part of the budget, let alone slash it.

Full disclosure: I find the commonality of their communication cadences too creepy for comfort though I appreciate the counter-innuendo from the congresswoman that there are certain other Dem candidates being groomed by the likes of last election's loser.

It is plausible that the usual woke pro-athletes have turned a drowsy eye toward the People's Republic because of the massive trickling down of shoe supplies and salary cap demands. It is likewise plausible that many of them are born into the shit-can of inescapable whataboutery in respect to their millions barely if at all shielding them from the oppression of the American police state, and that, anyway, anyone from a land of technological trappings and tariff-free t-shirts should be the last to cast stones at the oppressors of those who manufacture democracy's toys (Well, touché away: Shut yo mouf!) But what about the apparently implausible presentation of that Communist Party as just a panda-branded partner in crime that makes it but one component of the united blood-red orgy of totalitarian capitalism?

You'd be hard pressed to provide a link to a perspective on this issue that doesn't cite Communist despotism as the crime against humanity, whereas selfishly succumbing to its global influence — an idea itself that's a manufactured fantasy — is a secondary, minor misdeed in comparison, done by those who are otherwise champions for freedom. Hong Kong Phooey!

* or plausible that it's equally plausible

Sunday, 13 October 2019


time, it goes so fast
oft I underestimate
just how much has passed

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Demnächst im DIENST

Und was war EXPO 3000 noch mal?

Hover &/or click pic for an Evil Map to Sofia.

Flyer von Markus Schwill

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Loko Polo: First, afford the harm.

Here's one for der Pinkler, should I get round to it; for a city's housing policy shouldn't be seen as independent of its homelessness. The following translation is mine:
The Berliner Tenants' Association (BMV) is outraged. "The idea that the rent cap would mean the loss of the basis of business [frustration of purpose] and that tenancies could simply be terminated upon its enactment is pure nonsense under tenancy law and is obviously only intended to frighten tenants and confuse political opinion," says BMV Managing Director Reiner Wild.

A mass termination of rental relationships could only be described as a "wrong-way ride down a one-way street in terms of housing policy", which would ultimately harm the owners and landlords themselves, Wild said.

"After all, a notice of termination initially only causes vacancy, because the landlords are also subject to the rent cap in the event of re-letting".
What Mr. Wild ain't saying, but should be obvious, is that there are plenty of property owners, i.e. investors, who'd make use of frustration of purpose out of pure spite. That's one of the costs of doing business. Tell me I'm wrong.