It’s not about the ketchup on the wall

Donald Trump is almost certainly not the first President to hurl his dinner at the wall in anger and frustration. And he’s not the first to tell the Secret Service, “I’m the effing President,” when he didn’t get what he wanted.

Those actions, recounted secondhand by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, got the majority of the press after her testimony earlier this week in front of the January 6 Commission.

They aren’t the story. The story is that the President knew the people at his rally were armed, some of them heavily, and he wanted to lead them to the Capitol when the election was being certified in an attempt to prevent that from happening.

According to Hutchinson’s testimony, after finding out that armed protesters weren’t allowed into the protest area, Trump said, “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags away.” No one seems to be disputing that testimony.

He knew the protestors were armed, some of them with AR-15s. He also knew they weren’t there to hurt him. Who were they there to hurt?

Then, after the speech, Trump demanded to be taken to the Capitol, a demand the Secret Service denied. Whether Trump tried to take control of the limo, as Hutchinson testified she heard, is up for debate. That he wanted to go to the Capitol isn’t.

The heavily armed protesters were, at the very least, intending to marshal a show of force they hoped would influence the certification of the election. It’s reasonable to assume they were ready to spill blood, if possible, to prevent it. They didn’t break into the Capitol in search of rest rooms.

This is the same President whose then aide Roger Stone threatened to dox Republican delegates to the 2016 National Convention if they didn’t vote the right way. It’s the same President who wanted protesters shot (just in the legs) for protesting outside the White House.

He’s the same guy who has acolytes issuing RINO-hunting permits (no bagging limit, no tagging limit). Violence is marbled through his approach to governing, and some of his followers seem happy to oblige.

Throwing dinner isn’t the point. Directing people he knew to be armed to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election is the point. And that point is not currently disputed.

The scarier part of the equation is the people who won’t dispute it because they think the violence was necessary–that maybe it wouldn’t have been a bad thing if they’d hanged Mike Pence. And Pelosi. And a few others.

Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. He tried to pressure the secretary of state of Georgia to find the votes to change things. His lawsuits almost uniformly failed. His supposed audit of the Arizona ballots found that his margin of defeat may have been undercounted.

And when he couldn’t find another way to get the outcome he wanted, he wound up a crowd in which many were armed, aimed them at the Capitol, then got angry when he couldn’t join them.

It’s not about the ketchup on the wall. It’s about everything but the ketchup on the wall.

Emma Thompson bares it all at 63…then gets criticized over body-image issues (sigh)

It’s ironic, really, that the same week Emma Thompson got a lot of positive press for being a fully nude 63-year-old woman in a movie (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande), she’s getting crap for wearing a fat suit in Matilda.

Good Luck to You, Leo Grande is a story about an older empty-nester widow who’s never had an orgasm in her life, and hires a sex worker to take a walk on the wild side. The nude scene wasn’t in the original script, Thompson and the rest of the folks making the movie added it as a natural extension of the story.

Thompson called the scene the hardest she’s ever done. Director Sophie Hyde said Thompson is “still like the rest of us, just soaked in a culture that teaches us we should hate our bodies.” And the movie, which has a 95% rating and 85% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, is being praised for its look at aging and sexuality, which includes the way older people, especially women, look at their bodies.

On the other hand, Thompson’s also being criticized for wearing a fat suit as Agatha Trunchbull in Matilda. Emmie Harrison-West, a columnist for Metro wrote, “As a bigger woman, I find this caricaturization of my body type utterly dehumanising, and degrading. It’s not ethical, authentic or representative of any lived experiences whatsoever.”

She also criticized the casting choice for proving “yet again, that plus-sized women have to work harder to be recognised for jobs that should, by right, be theirs.”

Among others, she also criticizes Courteney Cox, a slim woman, for wearing a fat suit in Friends, ignoring the fact that plus-size Monica Geller is exactly the same character as slim Monica Geller. (Funny that she didn’t also criticize Matt LeBlanc, then slim, for playing plus-size Joey Tribbiani. It’s okay if heavy-set male actors don’t get roles, apparently.)

By the same logic, Thompson actually stole a role that a 55-year-old should’ve gotten in Leo Grande–and acting roles aren’t easy to come by for 55-year-old women. Christian Bale took a role away from an emaciated actor in The Machinist. And it was wrong for Al Pacino to pack on weight to play Al Capone in The Untouchables. There had to be a plus-sized Italian actor out there. (Danny DeVito?)

Louie: I want him dead. I want his family dead. I want his house burned to the ground.
Jim: Uhhh, okie doke.

Emma Thompson plays characters that aren’t her. That’s the literal definition of her job. She does it quite well, considering she’s won a couple of Oscars. They probably could’ve gotten Melissa McCarthy or Conchata Ferrell or Meghan Trainor, whose All About that Bass railed against skinny bitches. (I guess not all bodies are beautiful.)

They chose Thompson, probably in no small measure because she’s really good and recognizable and will help them make money.

As part of her column, Harrison-West also complained about where plus-sized women get picked for sports and school and how they don’t get chatted up in clubs–as if somehow that needs to be changed to be fair.

As someone who was often picked last in gym class, I can tell you that it’s not about the weight–it’s about picking people who can help you win. If they were picking people for clumsyball, I’d have been first.

And to be honest, if I’m looking to chat someone up in a club, I’m won’t be drawn to the person who’s pissed off that no one’s chatting her up.

Overall, the move toward equity in society is a good thing. But no one owes you being picked first for sports or having dudes hit on you in bars. Life sucks sometimes for everyone and it’s typically not fair.

But to call out someone who just bared her entire body as a 63-year-old woman as being unethical for body-image reasons is a chip shot short of insanity.

A lot of people benefit when we’re at each other’s throats; we’re making it easy for them

A lot of people are angry and upset over the Dobbs ruling. And a lot of people are celebrating–and looking to let everyone know they’re standing up for American values. Metaphorically, we’re living in a powder keg and givin’ off sparks.

It’s evident in the reactions to the ruling and to yesterday’s ruling about school prayer.

With regard to the school prayer ruling, the 6-3 finding was all it took to turn it into a blatant violation of the establishment clause. As I’ve covered before, it’s not quite that simple. A coach started praying after games on the 50-yard-line and some of the players wanted to join him. Soon others wanted to join him. The school board and administrators told him to knock it off (they don’t want to get sued). Some people raised concerns that he might favor players who prayed over those who didn’t–he made two players who complained captains.

It seemed to be more about what he might do than what he actually did do. But the reaction yesterday seemed to be more about what the Court announced Friday than the actual ruling.

That’s understandable. When your nerves are frayed, your tolerance is less plentiful. It happens to everyone.

As for the pro-Dobbs reaction, Gary Hoffman (yeah, him again) said it best Friday, don’t dunk on the people who are upset about this. So, of course, victory laps ensued.

We’ve moved past the time when we could disagree about policy but agree that you can be a good American in spite of that disagreement. In my reactions to Dobbs, I was told I didn’t support traditional American values on one instance, followed by an implication that I was lording my Christianity over everyone in another. I post opinions online. If I get roasted, people are paying attention. I have to accept the roasting.

Abortion has become a dichotomy at a time when a more nuanced approach is required to make any sense of things. We may disagree on the extent to which abortion should be legal, but we should all agree that reducing demand is good–and work together to make that happen.

That’s impossible when we’re screaming at each other.

There are people on both sides of this divide who benefit greatly from the screaming and the distrust–and the increasing threats of violence. Some of them are in it for the stimulation. Some are in it for the fortune and glory.

And some want to see us undermine the country from within–even to the point where we start killing each other.

We’re making their efforts entirely too easy.

Why the Dobbs decision is harmful and ridiculous, part 3

“There are…a number of states who are not satisfied with just knowing there’s no abortion happening in their own state. They’re going to want to do more than that,” said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University, quoted in a recent Bloomberg Law article. Cohen said that if a person travels to another state to get an abortion, the state they’re resident in could decided the criminal intent took place in their home state, which could be enough to prosecute.

And though there is a legal doctrine called the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents states from unduly burdening interstate commerce, this court has show it won’t let precedence stand in the way of a desired outcome. The Dormant Commerce Clause is inferred from Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution doesn’t define what commerce means, so the Supreme Court can rule that abortion isn’t included.

That means the state could use your cell phone data, which is already available through aggregators who can use that data to out people based on their location. They can use that data to determine who went where and either sue (under Texas law) or hand over the data to authorities in any state that decides to criminalize traveling out of state.

Right now, tracking you by your phone data requires a court order. In states that pass travel bans, such an order would probably be easy to obtain. It wouldn’t be hard to find a judge who supports the law.

Once the precedence is set, it could easily be expanded to include other activities, such as going to a marijuana dispensary or a gay bar.

A country where a state government can track you and charge you based on where you go is Orwellian. It should be terrifying. None of what I just wrote is necessarily likely. It’s not assured that the court would side with states that want to track their citizens beyond their borders, but it’s not assured they won’t, either.

If a resident of California goes to Texas and doesn’t follow California gun laws, that person could theoretically be charged with violating those laws in another state. It might not be all about abortion.

In the meantime, someone’s going to be the test case and have to wade through the agony of not knowing if they’re going to be charged.

A lot of what’s been pointed out in the last three days has been hypothetical. Some of it was invited by one Justice in an opinion that other Justices didn’t sign onto. Thomas may be an outlier.

But the decision and the opinions that supported it open the door to a United States in which freedom is a fond memory.

Not all Christians are proclaiming judgement and waving Jesus flags today

A Facebook friend–a lovely and dear woman I’ve met exactly once–posted a long statement by a former pastor on her page that dripped with sadness and angst over what’s happened around the Dobbs decision. It said, in part:

I believe history will show that this decision was a tipping point for the downfall of church attendance and effectiveness. No one on the opposite side of the decision felt the love, compassion, and ministry of Jesus yesterday. No one.

Important people in my life have left religion behind. Their actions might be partially because of my own small hypocrisies and failures. It’s more likely because of larger, much more visible hypocrisies from people who wrap themselves in the blood of the Lamb as if it conferred status as God’s exclusive spokespeople.

As a flawed, imperfect Christian who screws up more before 9 am than the Army screws up all day, I realize that my only hope for not needing AC in my casket is God’s mercy. I have no magical inroad to Jesus and when He and I agree on something, it’s because I came into line with him and not the opposite.

I. Don’t. Deserve. God’s. Love. But he showers it on me anyway.

As a result, I need to do my best to extend to others the gift extended to me. That means I have to trust the Lord and not my own understanding. (I read that in a book somewhere.)

It means I’m more suited to be the guy at whom Jesus wields the whip than the one who wields it in his name.

It means that if someone decides to get an abortion–something I think is wrong–my first impulse should be to make sure she’s okay. It means that I need to do my best to look at her the way God looks at her. It means I need to at least try to understand what’s happening in her life. It means that any condemnation for her actions should come from God, should he choose to do so, and not from me. It means that if God has forgiven me for sins against him, that I don’t get to condemn others for sins against him.

It means she should get my open hands and arms, not the back of my hand.

Christianity should be the easiest message to sell in the history of the world. It’s the message of the father who watches for his wayward son, the one one who wished him dead, and runs to him to welcome him back.

It’s the message of a father who keeps your tears in his bottle and knows every bad thing that happens to you. It’s the message of the Father who just wants you to do your best and let him take care of the best.

God’s house is the original big tent. It includes anyone who wants to enter. It means we don’t have to agree on abortion or gun control or any other issue. It means that whatever your opinions on those and other issues, I am to love you. I am to reasonably (and sometimes unreasonably) go out of my way for you.

It means that I need to do my best in my interactions with you, to show you what I see.

I means I do my best to treat you with respect, even when I disagree with you.

I don’t have the tools to say whether you’re okay with God. That’s not my job. I just have to do my best to articulate and model His love in your life.

If you’re put off by those waving Jesus flags and proclaiming God’s judgement on those who mourn what’s happening, then I’m sorry.

On his behalf, I apologize to you for some of my more zealous fellow believers. Not all of us are like that. He is not like that. He just wants relationship, even if you’re wearing a pussy hat and giving a tithe to Planned Parenthood.

Why the Dobbs decision is harmful and ridiculous, part 2

Mr. Justice Thomas’s invitation couldn’t have been clearer: please send us cases to overturn precedent on contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas), and gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). Separately, Senator Mike Braun (R-Pre-Civil War Indiana) said the Loving v. Virginia (mixed-race marriage) should be reviewed.

Friday’s decision does not impact those current rights, but Thomas’s invitation and Braun’s statement put them in future danger. It’s as if they’re begging for someone to file the lawsuit.

Imagine a country where the government has the right to deny a marriage license because your betrothed’s grandfather was from Mexico or because the difference in the shade of your skin in too great.

Imagine a country where the authorities have free reign to burst into your home after the kids are asleep on Saturday night and make sure you aren’t doing it wrong. Imagine a country where that thing that you both like that’s a little kinky could maybe land you in jail.

Imagine a country where you can go to jail for being gay or bisexual–regardless of anything else you do.

That’s the country we’re moving toward with Clarence Thomas’s opinion. In his kind of activist court, no freedom is safe.

Imagine a future in which somehow Donald Trump is re-elected as President. A red state passes a law that says it’s illegal to be mean to the President, to criticize him or his policies. Or maybe to take the Lord’s name in vain?

If the court can rule against any past precedent it doesn’t like, why stop with those? Why not help establish a more orderly and united society by re-interpreting the First Amendment to suit your needs? Or maybe the Fifth Amendment? Or the Fourteenth?

This isn’t the first the time Supreme Court has reversed itself, but with Thomas’s invitation, the Court is embracing a much more activist role in which precedent is irrelevant and freedoms can be removed at the whims of state legislatures and the stamp of approval from the Supreme Court.

If we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Court’s actions seem to add an asterisk to that statement that replaces God-given rights with court-approved rights.

Thirty years ago, when I listed to G. Gordon Liddy’s show, he railed against activist judges–and rightfully so.

Now Liddy is dead and the activists are on the his side. They pose a much larger danger than the liberal activists then or now.

It’s not just about Roe. It’s not just about legislating from the bench. It’s about a court seemingly determined to act as final arbiter of all freedoms and to signal pliant allies about which freedoms they want to strip next.

If America stands for freedom, as most conservatives seem to believe, then this court should terrify you.

Why the Dobbs decision is harmful and ridiculous, part 1

Even if we disagree vehemently on whether abortion should be legal, we would all agree that the world is a better place when fewer abortions are wanted. In that regard, the United States has been pretty good at reducing the demand for abortion since the huge uptick after Roe v. Wade.

According to the CDC, as recently as 2017, the rate of abortion per 1000 women hit an all-time low (13.5), less than have its peak of 29.3 in 1980 and 1981. The demand in 1973, the first year Roe made abortion legal, was 16.3 per thousand. If we’re looking to reduce demand, that’s happening, presumably because of sex education and availability of contraceptives.

In yesterday’s decision, the Supreme Court not only removed the ability to get an abortion, but Mr. Justice Thomas signaled an openness to eliminate access to contraception, if the states want to do so. Taken together with the vague language in Florida’s Don’t Say Gay bill, the approach seems to be eliminating abortion while simultaneously doing everything possible to increase demand.

There’s very little the Republican Party can do to more effectively earn it’s moniker as the stupid party.

Yesterday’s decision was a calamity on multiple fronts. Today, we’ll address the most obvious angle.

With one notable exception, baby-making requires two people. When she, as the holy people say, spreads her legs, nothing happens. I watch a yoga routine where a woman spreads her legs every time–it’s good for the hips. Not once has she gotten pregnant.

Without a dude to put a baby in her, there’s no baby. Under the laws triggered by this decision, dudes can go around planting seeds everywhere and they have no responsibility for the babies that happen.

And then we’re going to give the same states the ability to eliminate anything that would prevent the baby from being made. And the dudes get to walk away.

War on women, anyone?

And to be clear, these laws don’t actually eliminate abortions. There will never be zero abortions. They’re outlawing abortions for poor women in red states–the only women who can’t afford an abortion vacation to Gavin Newsom’s California paradise.

Should the Republicans get their ultimate wish, outlawing abortion through the entire country, it’ll be outlawed for poor and middle-class women who can’t afford a vacation to Europe, Canada, or Mexico.

Taken together with the promised elimination of contraceptives on the state level, it puts women in a no-win situation.

And it does nothing to actually reduce the number of abortions. These actions will increase demand while making the service illegal.

Full sarcasm applies

It used to be that Republicans were the stupid party. Now they’re the cruel party.

Congratulations, pinheads!

More tomorrow.

It’s too bad Martin Sheen felt pressure to change his name

In the grand scheme of things, the fact that Martin Sheen didn’t use his real name (Ramon Estevez) is one of the lesser injustices. The guy who played President Bartlet and (according to IMDB) 260 other things is still working at age 82–because he wants to.

He’s got enough award nominations and wins that they merit their own Wikipedia page, separate from his biography page. And he’s spawned two very successful sons who’ve followed his steps in acting (one of them’s even sane).

But he feels regret now that he didn’t go by his real name when he got started.

In reality, a guy named Ramon Estevez will probably have a different career than a guy named Martin Sheen. After all, if you have to pick a fake name, you can do a lot worse than Martin Sheen. It sounds pretty bad ass. Just the thought of Don Lafontaine (the late deep-voiced movie trailer guy) saying the words Martin Sheen makes me feel a burst of manliness.

This man could make Mary Had a Little Lamb sound bad ass.

But would Ramon Estevez bring as much substance to the character of Josiah Bartlett as Martin Sheen? Whether you like his politics or not, he seemed presidential in The West Wing, enough so that it’s hard to see him as anything other than a gay version of the President in Grace and Frankie.

What must Stockard Channing think?

When I married my wife, I told her that she didn’t have to take my name if she didn’t want to (duh). You are your name. I’m Chris Hamilton. That’s what I am. It’s my identity. If I had to change it to meet cultural expectations, that’s not a good thing for society or for me.

Before you dismiss his regret at changing his name, ask yourself if you’d change yours, especially if you felt pressure to change it.

It’s not a big issue, but it’s there.

Mental health for rich people is great, but the people who can’t step away are the heroes

Apparently, there’s a group called BTS from South Korea that the young people really dig these days. They aren’t Van Halen or the Eagles, but what can you do? Their recent decision to take a break is apparently the biggest thing since the Beatles broke up. The South Korean music industry is concerned that they’ll never recapture the magic they have right now and it’s making them nervou$.

And this stance is making BTS’s fans, collectively called ARMY, angry to the point where #BTSItsokaytorest is trending on Twitter.

This isn’t a new thing. Naomi Osaka and Simone Biles recently stepped away from their performance-based jobs because they needed to rest and recharge. After some initial push-back, they both got overwhelming support.

It’s great that wealthy people doing world class things can use their wealth to get their minds rights. Self care is important, and drawing boundaries is crucial to mental health. When you’re the meal ticket for dozens–maybe hundreds of people–there’s a lot of stress there.

It’s considered courageous for these people to step away, especially in sports where there’s no real season and you’re competing all the time.

What about when you’re the meal ticket for just a few people? And you don’t have an army of rabid fans?

What about that guy who works at the 7-Eleven and then fills in with Uber or Door Dash work to keep the bills paid and the kids fed? What about the woman who’s waitressing two jobs–and just getting back on her feet again after the Covid, only to find her tips reduced because inflation is making it hard for people to eat out and tip as much as they used to?

What about that guy who lugs along the laptop to his kids’ practices because there’s a project-from-hell going on and he needs to squeeze the work in somehow, even if it means taking a call in the fifth inning?

What about the woman who’s trying to fit her work in around her mother’s doctor’s appointments because she’s the caregiver and her mom has health problems but can’t drive anymore?

That’s a bit of stress, too. And those people can’t step away to get their minds right. They have to stitch things together in a life that’s really not much more the moving from one demand to the next in the hope that some day, maybe, it might get a little better. Meanwhile, this weekend, they’ll need to do the work they couldn’t get done during the week, catch up on the bills and the laundry and buy that expensive new competition swimsuit or pair of cleats for the kids. That’s before the games and practices and the birthday party.

There’s not enough Calgon in the world. And if there was it’s not in the budget.

If you’re measuring courage, I’d put those people at the top of the list.

This isn’t to take anything away from BTS, Naomi Osaka, or Simone Biles. It’s great that they can take care of themselves. But the real courage is exemplified every day by people whose heroism we will never see. They don’t have the option to rest. And no one comes to their defense on the Twitter.

Today could be the day you run and don’t grow weary. You never know.

Earlier this week, I wrote about the tough Fibro day I had on Sunday, and about faith even though stuff isn’t what you want it to be.

Monday morning, I woke up and immediately frowned. I felt tired and lethargic and wouldn’t have gotten out of bed if not for this run streak thing I’m doing. But I didn’t want to regret not keeping the streak alive, so I figured I’d try running. I’d do three miles.

As I started, my body wasn’t too happy. Periodic glances at my watch showed the unhappiness. I should’ve brought a calendar to time my pace. About a mile in, I mentally chastised myself for farting around like that and picked things up.

Though I was starting to tired toward the end of mile five, my pace was nearly a minute and a half faster than when I started. And all this happened after I spent a good deal of the day before on the couch, ’cause that’s the best I could do.

I don’t understand Fibromyalgia. I know a lot of people have it a lot worse than I do–that I should rejoice even on the hard days for the relatively light load. I also know that I’m always a day away from a crash that would put me back where I was in 2015, when I had to stop and rest just to get across the room.

Most nights, I’m toast once work’s over. I retreat to the couch and watch whatever my wife puts on TV before and after dinner. There’s probably a nap in there. And some crabbiness.

But I’m able to do my job (quite well, at that) and run in the morning. All of that is blessing.

Monday morning, I not only ran, I flew–for me.

Back in 2015, when things were bad, my pastor’s wife gave a message one Sunday centered around Isaiah 40:31, which says:

But those who trust in the Lord will find new strength.
They will soar high on wings like eagles.
They will run and not grow weary.
They will walk and not faint.

That message, at that time, kept me believing. It helped me know that no matter what shit happened and no matter what garbage there was ahead–and there was a lot–I had something to hope for.

Back then, it took a long time before I ran again. This time it took a day.

I have no clue what tomorrow brings. None of us does, really. I’m just a little more aware of it sometimes. But for today, at least, I got to run and not grow weary.

It was wonderful.