Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 1001
August 28, 2015
Evangelicals love Donald Trump: How a thrice-married New York braggart won them over — and why it’s so scary
I noted the other day that Sen. Ted Cruz is very effectively working the Religious Right, making sure they know he is one them. (And he is.) But it appears that he's got some serious competition -- and it's not from Scott Walker or Mike Huckabee, the two candidates previously assumed to have the inside track with the conservative evangelical crowd. (As with most every constituency that was presumed to naturally be in his corner, Walker has stumbled badly with this group, but he's plugging away. Huckabee just seems like old news.) Instead, Cruz -- whose Iowa state chairman introduces him by saying that “God has prepared” him to "go to Washington and throw the money-changers out” -- is being challenged for evangelical affections by none other than the billionaire braggart Donald Trump. In South Carolina this week, Trump explained that evangelicals love him, and he loves them. And he loves the Bible more than anything, even his own book, "The Art of the Deal," which he loves very, very much.
Don’t get butthurt over the OED’s awesomesauce — ephemeral slang in the dictionary has a rich and delightful history
“Women chat of fucus this, and fucus that,” sighed Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1755. No, fucus isn’t a charming olde English way of spelling ficus, as in tree, or a variant of mucus, as in the intestinal coating soothed by eating immense quantities of yogurt. It means, “paint for the face.” What we now refer to as makeup. In 1884, the Oxford English Dictionary supplanted Johnson’s dictionary as the Official Arbiter of Real Words. To mixed reactions of delight and horror (awesomesauce, really?), the OED just announced that its latest inductees include rly, sideboob, brain fart, cat café, SJW, and mkay. As with all words, these new entries carry information regarding the culture that created them, but one fact is inescapable: as Seventeen Magazine posted on its Facebook page, “teen slang runs the world now.” British English and American English are closely related yet distinct languages now being fused together at the level of a social-media vernacular. (In British English, for example, a “jumper” is a pullover sweater, a “boot” is the trunk of your car, and “Labour” is a political party.) In terms of usage, approximately half of the new OED entries are described as “informal,” with the added stipulation of being “chiefly U.S.” So, yep: “teen slang” captures the trend accurately. That bruh (as in “male friend”) is now enshrined in the OED is enough to prompt more than a few butthurt (“overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful”) randos (“a person one does not know, especially one regarded as odd, suspicious, or engaging in socially inappropriate behavior”) to threaten to rage-quit (“angrily abandon an activity or pursuit that has become frustrating”) a language that admits words such as Mx (“a title used before a person's surname or full name by those who wish to avoid specifying their gender or by those who prefer not to identify themselves as male or female”) and manspreading ("the practice whereby a man, especially one travelling on public transport, adopts a sitting position with his legs wide apart, in such a way as to encroach on an adjacent seat or seats"). Teeth are gnashed in the comments of NPR's story, of course — see cries of anguish like "modern culture is a vapid wasteland" and "some of these make me want to cry." It's also a cause for mock-alarm from language-loving writers everywhere: https://twitter.com/bspeed8/status/63... Word snobbery notwithstanding, some of the objections to these latest entries are being driven to despair by the swift morphology of textspeak. By the time that everyone knows what "404" means (“not a clue”), actual teenagers will have moved on to some new acronym their parental units won’t be able to translate. Textspeak ought to have its own dictionary and, in fact, there are several. By the same token, I also think we’ve forgotten more than a few excellent words -- the kind with vestigial letters and old-fashioned vowels -- that ought to make a comeback, because they fit today’s world perfectly. Thankfully, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary is not only online, it’s on Twitter. The best of 18th-century snark, delivered to you on your iPhone. ADDLE: Originally applied to eggs… as… grow rotten under the hen; thence transferred to brains that produce nothing. ADVICE-BOAT: A vessel employed to bring intelligence. BARRATOR. A “stirrer up of quarrels" and an "encourager of law suits." BACKFRIEND. A friend backwards; that is, an enemy in secret. CACKEREL. A fish, said to make those who eat it laxative. CYNICK. A philosopher of the snarling or currish sort... a rude man; a snarler; a misanthrope. EYESERVANT. A servant that works only while watched. FEUTERER. A dogkeeper: perhaps the cleaner of the kennel. FICO. An act of contempt done with the fingers, expressing ‘a fig for you.’ FLOOK. The broad part of the anchor which takes hold of the ground. GRY. Anything of little value: as, the paring of the nails. HELL-BLACK. Black as hell. KIBE. An ulcerated chilblain; a chap in the heel caused by the cold. MORTRESS. A dish of meat of various kinds beaten together. OYSTERWENCH. A woman whose business is to sell oysters. PHENICOPTER. A kind of bird, which is thus described by Martial: “Dat mihi penna rubens nomen sed lingua gulosis/ Nostra sapit; quid si garrula lingua foret?” QUIDDIT. A subtilty; an equivocation. A low word. RHABARBARATE. Impregnated or tinctured with rhubarb. STENTOROPHONICK (from Stentor, the Homerical herald, whose voice was as loud as that of fifty men): "loudly speaking." YOKEMATE. Companion in labour.“Women chat of fucus this, and fucus that,” sighed Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1755. No, fucus isn’t a charming olde English way of spelling ficus, as in tree, or a variant of mucus, as in the intestinal coating soothed by eating immense quantities of yogurt. It means, “paint for the face.” What we now refer to as makeup. In 1884, the Oxford English Dictionary supplanted Johnson’s dictionary as the Official Arbiter of Real Words. To mixed reactions of delight and horror (awesomesauce, really?), the OED just announced that its latest inductees include rly, sideboob, brain fart, cat café, SJW, and mkay. As with all words, these new entries carry information regarding the culture that created them, but one fact is inescapable: as Seventeen Magazine posted on its Facebook page, “teen slang runs the world now.” British English and American English are closely related yet distinct languages now being fused together at the level of a social-media vernacular. (In British English, for example, a “jumper” is a pullover sweater, a “boot” is the trunk of your car, and “Labour” is a political party.) In terms of usage, approximately half of the new OED entries are described as “informal,” with the added stipulation of being “chiefly U.S.” So, yep: “teen slang” captures the trend accurately. That bruh (as in “male friend”) is now enshrined in the OED is enough to prompt more than a few butthurt (“overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful”) randos (“a person one does not know, especially one regarded as odd, suspicious, or engaging in socially inappropriate behavior”) to threaten to rage-quit (“angrily abandon an activity or pursuit that has become frustrating”) a language that admits words such as Mx (“a title used before a person's surname or full name by those who wish to avoid specifying their gender or by those who prefer not to identify themselves as male or female”) and manspreading ("the practice whereby a man, especially one travelling on public transport, adopts a sitting position with his legs wide apart, in such a way as to encroach on an adjacent seat or seats"). Teeth are gnashed in the comments of NPR's story, of course — see cries of anguish like "modern culture is a vapid wasteland" and "some of these make me want to cry." It's also a cause for mock-alarm from language-loving writers everywhere: https://twitter.com/bspeed8/status/63... Word snobbery notwithstanding, some of the objections to these latest entries are being driven to despair by the swift morphology of textspeak. By the time that everyone knows what "404" means (“not a clue”), actual teenagers will have moved on to some new acronym their parental units won’t be able to translate. Textspeak ought to have its own dictionary and, in fact, there are several. By the same token, I also think we’ve forgotten more than a few excellent words -- the kind with vestigial letters and old-fashioned vowels -- that ought to make a comeback, because they fit today’s world perfectly. Thankfully, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary is not only online, it’s on Twitter. The best of 18th-century snark, delivered to you on your iPhone. ADDLE: Originally applied to eggs… as… grow rotten under the hen; thence transferred to brains that produce nothing. ADVICE-BOAT: A vessel employed to bring intelligence. BARRATOR. A “stirrer up of quarrels" and an "encourager of law suits." BACKFRIEND. A friend backwards; that is, an enemy in secret. CACKEREL. A fish, said to make those who eat it laxative. CYNICK. A philosopher of the snarling or currish sort... a rude man; a snarler; a misanthrope. EYESERVANT. A servant that works only while watched. FEUTERER. A dogkeeper: perhaps the cleaner of the kennel. FICO. An act of contempt done with the fingers, expressing ‘a fig for you.’ FLOOK. The broad part of the anchor which takes hold of the ground. GRY. Anything of little value: as, the paring of the nails. HELL-BLACK. Black as hell. KIBE. An ulcerated chilblain; a chap in the heel caused by the cold. MORTRESS. A dish of meat of various kinds beaten together. OYSTERWENCH. A woman whose business is to sell oysters. PHENICOPTER. A kind of bird, which is thus described by Martial: “Dat mihi penna rubens nomen sed lingua gulosis/ Nostra sapit; quid si garrula lingua foret?” QUIDDIT. A subtilty; an equivocation. A low word. RHABARBARATE. Impregnated or tinctured with rhubarb. STENTOROPHONICK (from Stentor, the Homerical herald, whose voice was as loud as that of fifty men): "loudly speaking." YOKEMATE. Companion in labour.
Senator powerfully indicts colleagues for gun control cowardice: “We are essentially sending a message of quiet endorsement of these murders”
Sen. Chris Murphy is completely fed up with his congressional colleagues' failure to act on gun safety reforms, and after yet another high-profile mass shooting this week, he's blasting his fellow elected leaders for "sending a message of quiet endorsement of these murders." On CNN's "Newsroom with Carol Costello," the Connecticut Democrat said he thinks "it's an absolute stain on this nation that there are have been more mass shootings this year than there have been days in the year. We shouldn't accept that in Congress." The Washington Post reported this week that America is averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015. Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Connecticut, Murphy has become a fierce advocate for expanded gun control and in the wake of this week's execution of two journalists live on-air, the senator is making his disgust with his colleagues' inaction perfectly clear, telling CNN he believes Congress' failure to act after Sandy Hook inspires further violence:
This whole culture of mass violence in which Congress does nothing, I think sends a message to a lot of these individuals who are becoming unhinged in their mind that it's OK to go out and commit these murders because no one seems to be doing anything to stop it, and so why should I think any differently than everybody else that I see on the news carrying out this kind of violence.And in an interview with the Huffington Post's "So, That Happened" podcast this morning, Murphy said "Congress' silence in the face of this rash of mass shootings has become complicity." "We are essentially sending a message of quiet endorsement of these murders," Murphy said. After citing the level of urban gun violence, Murphy blasted Congress for throwing its hands up in the face of an epidemic: "I've never been more offended by anything in my life than the absolute inability for Congress to even have a debate about how we might be able to do things differently." But Murphy remains hopeful, saying he believes that "change is going to happen":
I just don't think that democracy could work when you have 90 percent of the American public that want changes in our gun laws like universal background checks and Congress not responding. It may take a series of elections before we get there but I think there is clear momentum for a comprehensive look at how we reduce violence.Murphy conceded that the NRA is much more powerful than he initially believed in the aftermath of Sandy Hook but argued that "we have to remind Democrats ... when you vote with the NRA, they don't care":
Mark Begich voted with the NRA. He voted against the background checks bill. And they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat him in Alaska. So we also have to remind Democrats that it's not like you're gonna buy yourself any political favors by voting with the NRA. They want Republicans. Period. Stop. They don't want Democrats who are with them. They just want Republicans in charge of every seat."Just the action of Congress, in any way shape or form, will have a chilling effect on this trend," he predicted. Listen to Murphy's full interview with Huffington Post's "So, That Happened" podcast. He's comments begin at the 8:25 mark. Sen. Chris Murphy is completely fed up with his congressional colleagues' failure to act on gun safety reforms, and after yet another high-profile mass shooting this week, he's blasting his fellow elected leaders for "sending a message of quiet endorsement of these murders." On CNN's "Newsroom with Carol Costello," the Connecticut Democrat said he thinks "it's an absolute stain on this nation that there are have been more mass shootings this year than there have been days in the year. We shouldn't accept that in Congress." The Washington Post reported this week that America is averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015. Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Connecticut, Murphy has become a fierce advocate for expanded gun control and in the wake of this week's execution of two journalists live on-air, the senator is making his disgust with his colleagues' inaction perfectly clear, telling CNN he believes Congress' failure to act after Sandy Hook inspires further violence:
This whole culture of mass violence in which Congress does nothing, I think sends a message to a lot of these individuals who are becoming unhinged in their mind that it's OK to go out and commit these murders because no one seems to be doing anything to stop it, and so why should I think any differently than everybody else that I see on the news carrying out this kind of violence.And in an interview with the Huffington Post's "So, That Happened" podcast this morning, Murphy said "Congress' silence in the face of this rash of mass shootings has become complicity." "We are essentially sending a message of quiet endorsement of these murders," Murphy said. After citing the level of urban gun violence, Murphy blasted Congress for throwing its hands up in the face of an epidemic: "I've never been more offended by anything in my life than the absolute inability for Congress to even have a debate about how we might be able to do things differently." But Murphy remains hopeful, saying he believes that "change is going to happen":
I just don't think that democracy could work when you have 90 percent of the American public that want changes in our gun laws like universal background checks and Congress not responding. It may take a series of elections before we get there but I think there is clear momentum for a comprehensive look at how we reduce violence.Murphy conceded that the NRA is much more powerful than he initially believed in the aftermath of Sandy Hook but argued that "we have to remind Democrats ... when you vote with the NRA, they don't care":
Mark Begich voted with the NRA. He voted against the background checks bill. And they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat him in Alaska. So we also have to remind Democrats that it's not like you're gonna buy yourself any political favors by voting with the NRA. They want Republicans. Period. Stop. They don't want Democrats who are with them. They just want Republicans in charge of every seat."Just the action of Congress, in any way shape or form, will have a chilling effect on this trend," he predicted. Listen to Murphy's full interview with Huffington Post's "So, That Happened" podcast. He's comments begin at the 8:25 mark.
The latest “Game of Thrones” fan-theory about Jon Snow is just about insane enough to be right
Warning: The following contains spoilers for show-only watchers and people who read very slowly, as well as lot of speculation that will no doubt be rendered baseless sooner rather than later, but which is interesting to think about anyway. Jon Snow is dead, "absolutely dead," which obviously means nothing given that he's dead in the North -- where the dead don't stay dead -- and in very close proximity to someone whose god is known for raising the dead -- Melissandre's not back at Castle Black for no reason, after all. So HBO executives can plead special knowledge of the finality of Snow's death all they'd like, because odds are he's both dead and still a very significant character on the show, doing the sorts of things very significant characters do like eating, breathing, and being significant. Why does this matter? Because many devoted fans -- a group in which I include myself, given that I've devoted 60 some-odd hours of my life to my "Game of Thrones" podcast with the inestimable Steven Attewell -- believe that Snow is destined to be Azor Ahai, a legendary figure whose importance can be quickly gleaned in this extremely helpful video. Why is Snow considered to be in contention for this illustrious position? Because of who his parents might be. For those unfamiliar with the essentially verified fan-theory R+L=J, here's a full account, but the short version is this: Jon Snow's not actually Ned Stark's bastard, but the child of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. We know that Lyanna made Ned promise her something, possibly at the Tower of Joy, where she died. R+L=J posits that she made him promise to take care of her son -- whose blood, by virtue of being both Targaryen and Stark, would run thick with both fire and ice, which raises many possibilities about the nature and duration of his death, but I digress. The point is that R+L=J was all but confirmed in last season's "Sons of the Harpy," and if you take HBO executives at the most literal interpretation of their word and belief Jon Snow is dead dead, not merely dead-for-the-moment, the pressing question becomes "Who is Azor Ahai?" If you watched the video above -- and you really should, Alt Shift X is a Westerosi treasure with a soft, English lilt -- you'll know that Daenerys Targaryen's another contender for Azor Ahai, but the argument for her is more strained, so a Redditor who goes by "ghostchief" proposed an alternate explanation that leaves the R+L=J logic intact -- Jon Snow has a twin sister, and Ned's promise to his dying sister was to protect both Jon and his twin. Who's his twin? Ned Stark was accompanied by six men when he stormed the Tower of Joy, and the only one who survived -- the only one who would been present shortly after the alleged births of Jon Snow and his twin sister -- was Howland Reed, the father of the Meera and Jojen Reed, the pair who spirited Bran Stark away in Season 4. It bears mentioning that in life, the fair-skinned, fair-haired Jojen in no way resembled his dark-locked, rugged-looking sister. But those dark locks and rugged looks are a characteristic of Starks, be they bastards or sister-born, and as you can tell from the image accompanying this story, when the producers cast Ellie Kendrick, she might as well as been answering a call for "a woman who'd look like Jon Snow if we slapped a sketchy beard on her." So if Lyanna had twins in the Tower of Joy, and if they were the children of Rhaegar Targaryen, it's possible that Ned took Jon Snow back to Winterfell and left the girl in the care of Howland Reed, who claimed her as his own and raised her as "Meera." Reed is noted, in "A Clash of Kings," of being "a great friend to" Ned Stark -- could their shared military glory be only part of the reason for the greatness of their friendship? It's probably worth noting here that Meera and Jon are exactly the same age, because as George R.R. Martin noted in the appendix of "A Clash of Kings," both were born in 283 AC. If their year of birth is more than a coincidence and Jon is dead dead, that would make Meera the most probably candidate for Azor Ahai, and she'd be remarkably well-positioned to be the person responsible for saving Westeros and Essos from the white-walking terrors of the winter to come, given that she's already well north of the Wall. Or it could all be bunk. Outside of Martin, nobody knows -- but I'd rather spend the next nine months down this rabbit-hole than speculating about Jon Snow's fate based on the current status of Kit Harrington's hair.Warning: The following contains spoilers for show-only watchers and people who read very slowly, as well as lot of speculation that will no doubt be rendered baseless sooner rather than later, but which is interesting to think about anyway. Jon Snow is dead, "absolutely dead," which obviously means nothing given that he's dead in the North -- where the dead don't stay dead -- and in very close proximity to someone whose god is known for raising the dead -- Melissandre's not back at Castle Black for no reason, after all. So HBO executives can plead special knowledge of the finality of Snow's death all they'd like, because odds are he's both dead and still a very significant character on the show, doing the sorts of things very significant characters do like eating, breathing, and being significant. Why does this matter? Because many devoted fans -- a group in which I include myself, given that I've devoted 60 some-odd hours of my life to my "Game of Thrones" podcast with the inestimable Steven Attewell -- believe that Snow is destined to be Azor Ahai, a legendary figure whose importance can be quickly gleaned in this extremely helpful video. Why is Snow considered to be in contention for this illustrious position? Because of who his parents might be. For those unfamiliar with the essentially verified fan-theory R+L=J, here's a full account, but the short version is this: Jon Snow's not actually Ned Stark's bastard, but the child of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. We know that Lyanna made Ned promise her something, possibly at the Tower of Joy, where she died. R+L=J posits that she made him promise to take care of her son -- whose blood, by virtue of being both Targaryen and Stark, would run thick with both fire and ice, which raises many possibilities about the nature and duration of his death, but I digress. The point is that R+L=J was all but confirmed in last season's "Sons of the Harpy," and if you take HBO executives at the most literal interpretation of their word and belief Jon Snow is dead dead, not merely dead-for-the-moment, the pressing question becomes "Who is Azor Ahai?" If you watched the video above -- and you really should, Alt Shift X is a Westerosi treasure with a soft, English lilt -- you'll know that Daenerys Targaryen's another contender for Azor Ahai, but the argument for her is more strained, so a Redditor who goes by "ghostchief" proposed an alternate explanation that leaves the R+L=J logic intact -- Jon Snow has a twin sister, and Ned's promise to his dying sister was to protect both Jon and his twin. Who's his twin? Ned Stark was accompanied by six men when he stormed the Tower of Joy, and the only one who survived -- the only one who would been present shortly after the alleged births of Jon Snow and his twin sister -- was Howland Reed, the father of the Meera and Jojen Reed, the pair who spirited Bran Stark away in Season 4. It bears mentioning that in life, the fair-skinned, fair-haired Jojen in no way resembled his dark-locked, rugged-looking sister. But those dark locks and rugged looks are a characteristic of Starks, be they bastards or sister-born, and as you can tell from the image accompanying this story, when the producers cast Ellie Kendrick, she might as well as been answering a call for "a woman who'd look like Jon Snow if we slapped a sketchy beard on her." So if Lyanna had twins in the Tower of Joy, and if they were the children of Rhaegar Targaryen, it's possible that Ned took Jon Snow back to Winterfell and left the girl in the care of Howland Reed, who claimed her as his own and raised her as "Meera." Reed is noted, in "A Clash of Kings," of being "a great friend to" Ned Stark -- could their shared military glory be only part of the reason for the greatness of their friendship? It's probably worth noting here that Meera and Jon are exactly the same age, because as George R.R. Martin noted in the appendix of "A Clash of Kings," both were born in 283 AC. If their year of birth is more than a coincidence and Jon is dead dead, that would make Meera the most probably candidate for Azor Ahai, and she'd be remarkably well-positioned to be the person responsible for saving Westeros and Essos from the white-walking terrors of the winter to come, given that she's already well north of the Wall. Or it could all be bunk. Outside of Martin, nobody knows -- but I'd rather spend the next nine months down this rabbit-hole than speculating about Jon Snow's fate based on the current status of Kit Harrington's hair.
“Key & Peele” brilliantly reimagines the genesis of “Gremlins 2″
Ever wonder how the 1990 follow-up to "The Gremlins" came to be? Key & Peele have, and on last night's episode the comedy duo set out to recreate the very writer's room conversation that might have given life to the dizzying, acidly funny horror-comedy film. Jordan Peele stars in the sketch as a Hollywood sequel doctor, dominating the brainstorm session with an "anything-goes" approach to writing. He acts as a stand-in for real-life director Joe Dante who, given complete creative control over the second installment, built an unapologetically excessive film, then-described as an "anti-corporate satire." Watch the clip courtesy of Comedy Central below:
Key and Peele
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows
Key and Peele
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows
Cruz’s cynical Trump detente: They’re good buddies now, but wait until The Donald’s support drops
The most interesting subplot of the 2016 Republican presidential primary’s Summer Of Trump is the enduring détente between the billionaire frontrunner and mid-single-digit lurker Ted Cruz. While Donald Trump has been enthusiastically attacking other candidates in the GOP field, he and Cruz have been getting downright chummy. When Trump was under fire for calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” in his announcement speech, Cruz pointedly refused to criticize Trump and instead praised him for focusing the country’s attention on undocumented immigration. Last month, Cruz called up Trump to ask for a private meeting and he happily accepted, explaining that he respected Cruz for his willingness to say nice things about Donald Trump. Given that these two are ostensibly competing for the same job, they’re spending an inordinate amount of time building each other up. The latest bit of Trump-Cruz synergy was announced just yesterday when Cruz’s campaign announced that he and Trump would be appearing together at a rally in Washington, DC to “stop” the Iran deal. [embedtweet id=636979911299760130] Obviously, this is all theater. The rally will have zero bearing on the fate of the Iran deal, though it will provide Cruz with some media exposure, especially now that Trump is on the guest list. One thing that’s definitely worth noting, however, is that the event is being sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, a disreputable “think tank” operated by birther nutjob and Islamophobic conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney. If you’ve ever stumbled across reports that one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides is a secret agent for the Muslim Brotherhood, then you’ve sampled some of the Center for Security Policy’s fine work. Anyway, the reason behind Cruz’s overtures to Trump has long been glaringly obvious: he’s looking ahead to the collapse of Trump’s candidacy and wants to be in a position to scoop up Trump’s supporters. It’s a nakedly political calculation, and Cruz’s team isn’t particularly shy about saying as much. National Journal’s Tim Alberta talked to Cruz and his advisers and they laid out the strategy for him:
The Cruz camp is confident that Trump's candidacy will have a natural arc, that eventually political gravity will pull his numbers down, and that when it happens, Cruz will be ideally positioned to absorb his current supporters. In the meantime, Trump will sustain plenty of attacks from other opponents. And as an added bonus for Cruz's hands-off approach, Trump is doing his dirty work. The real-estate mogul has been especially harsh lately on Scott Walker, long considered by Cruz's camp to be their most direct competition in Iowa because of his appeal to both evangelicals and tea-partiers.Cruz will pal around with Trump and promote the issues on which they largely agree (immigration, Iran) and studiously ignore the issues on which they differ (taxes, healthcare) right up to the moment that Trump’s campaign starts dying, then he’ll wait patiently like a buzzard to strip the flesh from its carcass. It’s a smart play for Cruz – he and Trump inhabit the same “populist,” anti-establishment space, so Trump supporters would probably find Cruz to be a palatable Plan B. And if he maintains his current level of support and absorbs just some of the Trump coalition, Cruz will be lifted into the top tier of candidates. Of course, if you’re at all familiar with Cruz and his peculiar approach to politics, this alliance of convenience comes off as grossly hypocritical and precisely the sort of politically motivated posturing that Cruz so often rails against. Ted Cruz does not tolerate compromise – he campaigned for the Senate on the explicit promise that he would never, ever compromise because “what Washington needs is more common sense and more principle.” On the stump, Cruz declares that America is in desperate need of a “consistent conservative” and not a “campaign conservative.” By making common cause with Trump, he’s helping to promote precisely the sort of “campaign conservative” he rails against. Cruz won’t hesitate to blast his Republican Senate colleagues for betraying conservative principles, but he lays off Trump because the Donald can help slingshot him to the Republican nomination. Politicians of all stripes do stuff like this all the time, but Cruz rose to prominence by swearing up and down that he’d be different from the “Washington cartel” that he so often lambastes. So when Cruz appears alongside Trump to praise his opposition to the Iran deal or his hardline stance on immigration, just remember that Cruz doesn’t actually like or respect Trump as a politician, and he doesn’t view Trump as a true conservative. It’s just an act that he’ll keep up until he can profit from Trump’s decline.
Thousands of walruses again forced ashore by melting Arctic sea ice are still all the proof we need that the planet is in crisis
They're back. In what just might become one of our loudest, annual reminders that climate change is still happening, and at a frightening pace, thousands of walruses have once again gathered ashore in Alaska because they have nowhere else to go. The haul out, a result of extreme loss of ice in the Chukchi sea, on which the animals would typically rest and feed, made headlines last year when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released photos of a record 35,000 animals gathered ashore. This year, they were spotted by photographer Gary Braasch on August 23, making this, the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed, the earliest haul-out on record. (While haul-outs may have occurred in the past, the agency only began tracking them in 2007; they didn't occur in 2008 or 2012.) It's a bad situation for the walruses, which are used to having a bit more space. Experts warn that the crowded conditions create a risk of stampedes; last year, about 60 young walruses were fatally trampled. And in the near future, the loss of their summer habitat is likely to become even more pronounced. "The ice-free period in the Chukchi Sea is currently about a month long," the USGS explained. "However, global climate models suggest the ice-free period could become as long as 4 or 5 months by century's end if rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. It's also, of course, a bad situation for humans, in that the melting Arctic sea ice is an amplified indication of climate change; the stranded walruses, an early symbol of the dramatic circumstances we will all increasingly face. “The sharp decline of Arctic sea ice over the last decade is leading to major changes for wildlife and communities alike," noted Margaret Williams, the managing director of U.S. Arctic programs for the World Wildlife Fund, in a statement. "The Arctic is experiencing the brunt of climate change like no other region, warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet." But if the early date at which the walruses are gathering ashore is ominous, their timing is also fortuitous. On Monday, President Obama will arrive in Alaska, "the frontlines of our fight against climate change," for a three-day tour. “In Alaska, glaciers are melting,” Obama said in a video previewing the trip. “The hunting and fishing upon which generations have depended for their way of life and for their jobs are being threatened. Storm surges once held at bay now endanger entire villages. As Alaskan permafrost melts, some homes are even sinking into the ground. The state’s God-given natural treasures are all at risk.” He can add the imperiled walruses as yet another wake-up call.They're back. In what just might become one of our loudest, annual reminders that climate change is still happening, and at a frightening pace, thousands of walruses have once again gathered ashore in Alaska because they have nowhere else to go. The haul out, a result of extreme loss of ice in the Chukchi sea, on which the animals would typically rest and feed, made headlines last year when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released photos of a record 35,000 animals gathered ashore. This year, they were spotted by photographer Gary Braasch on August 23, making this, the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed, the earliest haul-out on record. (While haul-outs may have occurred in the past, the agency only began tracking them in 2007; they didn't occur in 2008 or 2012.) It's a bad situation for the walruses, which are used to having a bit more space. Experts warn that the crowded conditions create a risk of stampedes; last year, about 60 young walruses were fatally trampled. And in the near future, the loss of their summer habitat is likely to become even more pronounced. "The ice-free period in the Chukchi Sea is currently about a month long," the USGS explained. "However, global climate models suggest the ice-free period could become as long as 4 or 5 months by century's end if rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. It's also, of course, a bad situation for humans, in that the melting Arctic sea ice is an amplified indication of climate change; the stranded walruses, an early symbol of the dramatic circumstances we will all increasingly face. “The sharp decline of Arctic sea ice over the last decade is leading to major changes for wildlife and communities alike," noted Margaret Williams, the managing director of U.S. Arctic programs for the World Wildlife Fund, in a statement. "The Arctic is experiencing the brunt of climate change like no other region, warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet." But if the early date at which the walruses are gathering ashore is ominous, their timing is also fortuitous. On Monday, President Obama will arrive in Alaska, "the frontlines of our fight against climate change," for a three-day tour. “In Alaska, glaciers are melting,” Obama said in a video previewing the trip. “The hunting and fishing upon which generations have depended for their way of life and for their jobs are being threatened. Storm surges once held at bay now endanger entire villages. As Alaskan permafrost melts, some homes are even sinking into the ground. The state’s God-given natural treasures are all at risk.” He can add the imperiled walruses as yet another wake-up call.
The modern news conference is a scripted farce: Why Jorge Ramos’ badgering of Donald Trump was a necessary corrective
When I heard that Donald Trump had booted Univision’s Jorge Ramos from a press conference on Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, I couldn’t wait to watch the indignant response of the other journalists in the room. That’s because I was ejected from a press conference many years ago in Louisiana, where I was political writer for the Shreveport Journal. A quirky, minor candidate for the U.S. Senate – Larry “Boogaloo” Cooper – took offense at my questions. He angrily ordered me to leave the room. I got up and left. When I reached the lobby, however, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the other journalists had followed me. In solidarity with a fellow reporter, they had all walked out on the petulant candidate. The press conference was over. As I started the Trump video, I wondered, how would Ramos’ colleagues in the press respond? Having once been on the other side of the podium as a press secretary for several prominent elected officials, I should not have been surprised by what I saw – but I was. As one of Trump’s security guards hustled Ramos from the room, nary a reporter followed him in protest. In fact, no one immediately objected or questioned Trump about the incident. After an awkward pause, the reporters went back to the business of politely raising their hands, waiting like trained seals for Trump to call upon them. They continued asking him questions, dutifully recording his answers and tweeting them to their readers. CNN continued to broadcast the event, no doubt gleeful about the drama and the extra viewers the incident would attract. Sure, the assembled later mentioned that Ramos had been ejected and that Trump had told him to “go back to Univision.” But they stayed in the room. They didn’t protest as Trump tossed one of their colleagues from a press conference. (Finally, one journalist did speak up. MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt valiantly asked Trump to readmit Ramos. He did.) The next day, however, Ramos had few defenders among the news media. MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski observed that Ramos made the room “awkward and uncomfortable with other reporters.” On CNN, Chris Cuomo arrogantly lectured Ramos: “It’s his press conference. He runs the rules. You jumped the queue.” On Fox News, Jesse Watters of “The Five” observed, “Ramos acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one. He cut the line, was disruptive and then was deported and then Trump let him back in.” In a column, Fox’s Howard Kurtz complained, “Ramos broke in without being called on—and I’m sorry, that’s not some polite society rule, that’s basic civility when a presidential candidate is taking questions.” “Sorry” is the right word, but only to describe the collective media behavior during and after the episode. It confirmed what many of us already know: American political journalism is a pitiful, cowardly shell of its former self. Every week, political blowhards appear on the network news shows to spout their very predictable talking points. The hosts rarely subject them to uncomfortable questions. “Ye gads,” I imagine them thinking, “ what if I pissed off John McCain and he refused to come on my show again?” Sometimes I wonder if we are just two steps away from these “news” shows finally morphing into a Barbara Walters interview. (“Senator, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?”) The political press conference was once a high-stakes affair. The president or some other political figure would enter the room, girded for pitched battle with the assembled journalists. There was sometimes true drama as the reporters jumped up, shouted, threw sharp elbows and muscled themselves into position to fire tough questions at the president or a candidate. In most cases, no one knew who would be called upon. As a young journalist, I was always intrigued by the skillful ways some older reporters made sure their questions were answered. In the cacophony of voices, one blustery questioner always prevailed. He or she was the loudest, asked the most concise question or, most often, was the person still shouting when the other journalists had finished their questions. Sam Donaldson, the famously aggressive White House correspondent for ABC News (1977-89, 1998-99) was never awed or cowed by the presidents he covered. “In our business,” he said in a 2002 interview, “it seems to me, when you’re dealing with public officials, your job is to try to make them explain their programs and defend their policies. And, to get them to defend their policies and programs and their future course of action with an answer which is owed to the general public, you have to require them either to answer or to make it clear that they’re not going to do so. I don’t know that such questions are tough, but they should be direct and they should have a point.” Donaldson wasn’t the only tough questioner of his era. Anyone under the age of 40 might be shocked to see how CBS’s Dan Rather questioned Richard Nixon at a 1974 press conference in Houston. In those days, being a White House correspondent or covering a presidential campaign was a plum assignment and an exciting adventure. Working the White House beat was the pinnacle of a political journalist’s career. Gradually, however, the spinmeisters took over. During the Reagan years, press conferences and other official presidential appearances became elaborate staged-managed events. Instead of leaping to their feet and shouting to catch the president’s attention, the Reagan press office began to impose order to the encounters between president and the journalists. Reagan would call upon them, granting them permission to pose their questions. The journalists grumbled but largely acquiesced. Now, 35 years later, the political press conference is a complete farce, little more than a theater production starring the politician. The journalists are often just bit players, sometimes asking tough questions, but mostly just playing along. Even the name of the event has gradually changed. Once, everyone called them “press conferences.” Now, they are often known as “news conferences.” In other words, they are no longer meaningful clashes of the reporters and the politician, during which the politician is expected to answer tough questions. They are, instead, opportunities for the politician to make news with his or her tightly scripted, well-rehearsed statements. They are vehicles for a message, pseudo-events manufactured by the politicians. For this, we can partly blame the candidates who skillfully tamed the journalists who cover them. The campaigns restrict their access, corral them like cattle, feed and water them like horses, provide comfortable rooms where they write their stories and arrange their travel and hotel rooms. In other words, the candidates accommodate and govern almost every movement and moment of their days. If the reporters cause trouble – if they annoy the candidate or her staff with unreasonable demands or overly hostile questions – campaign staffers can make life much less comfortable for them. Their phone calls go unreturned. Their requests for interviews are denied. They receive no invitations to ride along for an hour in the bus or RV with the candidate. So, they do what many of us might do in that situation. They submit. To get ahead, they go along. Like everyone but Ramos, they politely raise their hands like first graders. The candidate decides who may ask questions. The candidate decides who stays and who must leave. And when one of their own is booted from the room for not playing by these well-established rules of political journalism? Well, they just keep their heads down and continue taking dictation.When I heard that Donald Trump had booted Univision’s Jorge Ramos from a press conference on Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, I couldn’t wait to watch the indignant response of the other journalists in the room. That’s because I was ejected from a press conference many years ago in Louisiana, where I was political writer for the Shreveport Journal. A quirky, minor candidate for the U.S. Senate – Larry “Boogaloo” Cooper – took offense at my questions. He angrily ordered me to leave the room. I got up and left. When I reached the lobby, however, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the other journalists had followed me. In solidarity with a fellow reporter, they had all walked out on the petulant candidate. The press conference was over. As I started the Trump video, I wondered, how would Ramos’ colleagues in the press respond? Having once been on the other side of the podium as a press secretary for several prominent elected officials, I should not have been surprised by what I saw – but I was. As one of Trump’s security guards hustled Ramos from the room, nary a reporter followed him in protest. In fact, no one immediately objected or questioned Trump about the incident. After an awkward pause, the reporters went back to the business of politely raising their hands, waiting like trained seals for Trump to call upon them. They continued asking him questions, dutifully recording his answers and tweeting them to their readers. CNN continued to broadcast the event, no doubt gleeful about the drama and the extra viewers the incident would attract. Sure, the assembled later mentioned that Ramos had been ejected and that Trump had told him to “go back to Univision.” But they stayed in the room. They didn’t protest as Trump tossed one of their colleagues from a press conference. (Finally, one journalist did speak up. MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt valiantly asked Trump to readmit Ramos. He did.) The next day, however, Ramos had few defenders among the news media. MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski observed that Ramos made the room “awkward and uncomfortable with other reporters.” On CNN, Chris Cuomo arrogantly lectured Ramos: “It’s his press conference. He runs the rules. You jumped the queue.” On Fox News, Jesse Watters of “The Five” observed, “Ramos acted like an illegal alien and got treated like one. He cut the line, was disruptive and then was deported and then Trump let him back in.” In a column, Fox’s Howard Kurtz complained, “Ramos broke in without being called on—and I’m sorry, that’s not some polite society rule, that’s basic civility when a presidential candidate is taking questions.” “Sorry” is the right word, but only to describe the collective media behavior during and after the episode. It confirmed what many of us already know: American political journalism is a pitiful, cowardly shell of its former self. Every week, political blowhards appear on the network news shows to spout their very predictable talking points. The hosts rarely subject them to uncomfortable questions. “Ye gads,” I imagine them thinking, “ what if I pissed off John McCain and he refused to come on my show again?” Sometimes I wonder if we are just two steps away from these “news” shows finally morphing into a Barbara Walters interview. (“Senator, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?”) The political press conference was once a high-stakes affair. The president or some other political figure would enter the room, girded for pitched battle with the assembled journalists. There was sometimes true drama as the reporters jumped up, shouted, threw sharp elbows and muscled themselves into position to fire tough questions at the president or a candidate. In most cases, no one knew who would be called upon. As a young journalist, I was always intrigued by the skillful ways some older reporters made sure their questions were answered. In the cacophony of voices, one blustery questioner always prevailed. He or she was the loudest, asked the most concise question or, most often, was the person still shouting when the other journalists had finished their questions. Sam Donaldson, the famously aggressive White House correspondent for ABC News (1977-89, 1998-99) was never awed or cowed by the presidents he covered. “In our business,” he said in a 2002 interview, “it seems to me, when you’re dealing with public officials, your job is to try to make them explain their programs and defend their policies. And, to get them to defend their policies and programs and their future course of action with an answer which is owed to the general public, you have to require them either to answer or to make it clear that they’re not going to do so. I don’t know that such questions are tough, but they should be direct and they should have a point.” Donaldson wasn’t the only tough questioner of his era. Anyone under the age of 40 might be shocked to see how CBS’s Dan Rather questioned Richard Nixon at a 1974 press conference in Houston. In those days, being a White House correspondent or covering a presidential campaign was a plum assignment and an exciting adventure. Working the White House beat was the pinnacle of a political journalist’s career. Gradually, however, the spinmeisters took over. During the Reagan years, press conferences and other official presidential appearances became elaborate staged-managed events. Instead of leaping to their feet and shouting to catch the president’s attention, the Reagan press office began to impose order to the encounters between president and the journalists. Reagan would call upon them, granting them permission to pose their questions. The journalists grumbled but largely acquiesced. Now, 35 years later, the political press conference is a complete farce, little more than a theater production starring the politician. The journalists are often just bit players, sometimes asking tough questions, but mostly just playing along. Even the name of the event has gradually changed. Once, everyone called them “press conferences.” Now, they are often known as “news conferences.” In other words, they are no longer meaningful clashes of the reporters and the politician, during which the politician is expected to answer tough questions. They are, instead, opportunities for the politician to make news with his or her tightly scripted, well-rehearsed statements. They are vehicles for a message, pseudo-events manufactured by the politicians. For this, we can partly blame the candidates who skillfully tamed the journalists who cover them. The campaigns restrict their access, corral them like cattle, feed and water them like horses, provide comfortable rooms where they write their stories and arrange their travel and hotel rooms. In other words, the candidates accommodate and govern almost every movement and moment of their days. If the reporters cause trouble – if they annoy the candidate or her staff with unreasonable demands or overly hostile questions – campaign staffers can make life much less comfortable for them. Their phone calls go unreturned. Their requests for interviews are denied. They receive no invitations to ride along for an hour in the bus or RV with the candidate. So, they do what many of us might do in that situation. They submit. To get ahead, they go along. Like everyone but Ramos, they politely raise their hands like first graders. The candidate decides who may ask questions. The candidate decides who stays and who must leave. And when one of their own is booted from the room for not playing by these well-established rules of political journalism? Well, they just keep their heads down and continue taking dictation.
Jimmy Kimmel lampoons Donald Trump’s plan to make America great again in pitch-perfect campaign ad
Apart from building a wall to "keep the Mexicans out," Donald Trump's plan for running the country (and making it great again) has been entirely shrouded in mystery. That's concerning. On Thursday night's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," the writing staff had some fun crafting an "honest" Trump campaign ad -- one that doesn't bother hiding the fact that Trump has zero vision for the country. Trump's plan for running America is a great plan. The best plan. A plan that will work because it is the best. Any questions? Watch the clip courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel Live below: Apart from building a wall to "keep the Mexicans out," Donald Trump's plan for running the country (and making it great again) has been entirely shrouded in mystery. That's concerning. On Thursday night's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," the writing staff had some fun crafting an "honest" Trump campaign ad -- one that doesn't bother hiding the fact that Trump has zero vision for the country. Trump's plan for running America is a great plan. The best plan. A plan that will work because it is the best. Any questions? Watch the clip courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel Live below:
