Month: November 2015

(The one that won’t be heard in Sarah Palin’s War on Christmas speech on Friday, December 4, 2015.  The GOP prefers fake history.)

Historically, Christmas only became prominent as a religious and social festivity in the High Middle Ages.  The centerpiece being “Christ’s Mass.”  That took a hit with the reformation, but mostly among the Puritans, Quakers,  Anabaptists, and was discouraged by Congregationalists and Presbyterians.  (Banned in Boston 1659-81).  

Christmas fell out of favor in the United States after the American Revolution, when it was considered an English custom.  George Washington attacked Hessian (German) mercenaries on the day after Christmas during the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776, Christmas being much more popular in Germany than in America at this time.

In the United States, the wars on Christ-mass and Christmas was effectively over by 1776 and both lost, but people were free to celebrate both in the privacy of their churches and homes.  Separation of church and state was a smashingly good idea.  

Then came the stealth invasion by the UK German Royal family and Charles Dickens.  Envy and saccharin sentiment.  Two human impulses that US profit seekers have long known how to exploit.  They called it Christmas and relegated Christ to a peripheral and unnecessary role.  Appropriating any and all pagan, religious, and secular symbols for the day.

And it grew and grew and grew.  As did St. Nicholas from a skinny figure into a rotund, jolly old guy with a Mrs. Claus (also fat and jolly), a toy sweatshop of worker elves, and flying reindeer with the red-nosed Rudolph in the lead.

From a single White House Christmas tree sometime and intermittently in the 19th century to the first official WH Christmas tree in 1929 (interesting date).  That grew.

The record for the number of trees in the White House was held for many years by the Eisenhower administration when 26 trees filled every floor of the house. That mark has been eclipsed on several occasions in recent times, including the Clinton administration’s 36 trees in the 1997 theme of “Santa’s Workshop,” and the 2008 White House Christmas decorations of the Bush administration that included 27 trees as part of a theme of “A Red, White and Blue Christmas.”

(Only 26 Christmas trees in the WH in 2014.  Did the rightwingers view that as a sign that the Obama’s were leading a War on Christmas?)

It was an exceedingly clever ruse for US businesses and corporations to enlist Christians as the guardians of the business and profit of Christmas and make it grow and grow.  That “war” was mostly complete over fifty years ago and Christmas won.  But not by enough that business can stop fretting every year over Christmas sales volume (it’s the season that puts retail businesses in the black).  Children “deserve” more.  Parents, grandparents, spouses, relatives, friends, co-workers all “deserve” more.  More leads to happiness.  Priceless, even if the more is crap made in China, etc. and assault weapons and purchased on credit.  

The “Christian” guardians of excessive consumerism and consumption that is called Christmas are everywhere and on the lookout for subversives.  Beware.  Like Starbucks, you could break one of the rules that has yet to be written.  (Helpful hint: anything that hints at ecology or environmentally less destructive is automatically an attack on Christmas.)

When a real war on this monstrosity called Christmas begins, sign me up.  Until then, I’ll do my best to ignore the defenders (and sore winners) of our annual homage to Capitalismas.  

Update: 2015 White House Christmas decor

NPR – well hung snowflakes

The White House is decked out with 62 Christmas trees and more than 70,000 ornaments — ready for what will be tens of thousands of visitors in the coming weeks.

That’s 26 more WH C. trees than the prior record of 36 in 1997.

It still amazes me what the allure of money and fame came make people do.

Let’s take a look at this Associated Press piece that is being prominently featured at the Fox News website. The headline writers certainly tried to make it appealing to those who are opposed to another Clinton presidency: Clinton opened State Department office to dozens of corporate donors, Dem fundraisers.

But, once you open the article and start reading, you encounter the following disclaimer (emphasis mine):

The woman who would become a 2016 presidential candidate met or spoke by phone with nearly 100 corporate executives and long-time Clinton political and charity donors during her four years at the State Department between 2009 and 2013, records show.

Those formally scheduled meetings involved heads of companies and organizations that pursued business or private interests with the Obama administration, including with the State Department while Clinton was in charge.

The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton’s meetings in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes summoned corporate executives to aid in international affairs, documents show.

Based on the fact that the AP found nothing unusual or unique about her meetings and that they aren’t even willing to allege any ethical conflict, let alone any legal issues, there appears to be no reason to read the rest of this article at all.

Right?

Well, of course not.

There’s always a “but.”

But the difference with Clinton’s meetings was that she was a 2008 presidential contender who was widely expected to run again in 2016. Her availability to luminaries from politics, business and charity shows the extent to which her office became a sounding board for their interests. And her ties with so many familiar faces from those intersecting worlds were complicated by their lucrative financial largess and political support over the years — even during her State Department tenure — to her campaigns, her husband’s and to her family’s foundation.

So, wait a minute!

Are there any ethical issues or not?

You just said that there is “no evidence” of ethical issues. None.

And then you said that the totally routine and not-unique meetings you analyzed were “complicated” by “lucrative financial largesse” and “political support.”

Can I be a nudge here and simply ask that these reporters say what the mean and mean what they say?

How about this?

You think that a cabinet member who has political ambitions should be held to a higher and different standard from one who does not. So, for example, Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice can meet with the CEO of Pepsi Co. without it meriting a snarling headline but Hillary Clinton cannot.

But, if that’s the argument you want to make then you have uncovered an ethical conflict. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say so?

Or, maybe, you want to carve an even more exclusive exception to your normal standards and argue that what really distinguishes Hillary Clinton from other cabinet members and former secretaries of State is that her husband is a former president who runs a big foundation.

In this case, you’re creating a standard that only applies, and really only could apply, to Hillary Clinton. Even if she does something that doesn’t meet the ordinary criteria for creating an ethical conflict, she can still be hammered for doing something wrong because of unique circumstances that only pertain to her.

Let’s consider the competition. Even the National Review is appalled by Ben Carson’s connection to Mannatech, a medical-supplement maker that then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott charged “with orchestrating an unlawful marketing scheme that exaggerated their products’ health benefits.”

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee became a spokesman for a “Diabetes Solution Kit” that “the Amer­ic­an Dia­betes Association and the Ca­na­dian Dia­betes As­so­ci­ation cau­tion con­sumers against” using. He also used his mailing list to promote cancer cures based on biblical passages.

And let’s not forget that Donald Trump created a fake university that was such a scam that he was sued by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

These are some pretty low-level examples of simple hucksterism, almost too mundane to compare to the cross-pollinating between the Clintons’ political ambitions and their operation of the Global Initiative. To see something similarly complex and ambiguous enough to bear a resemblance to the latter, you probably need to look into Jeb Bush’s long history with the charter school and school standards and testing movements.

To be clear, just because one candidate is nakedly promoting fraud doesn’t mean that the press should avoid looking at another candidate’s complex financial connections. But it’s basically a smear to publish a piece like this one from the Associated Press, especially when you are unwilling to spell out your double standard and really justify the rationale behind it. And the headline writers take advantage, too, to get the clicks they’re after.

This story says that Hillary Clinton did nothing unusual, illegal, or even unethical, but that’s not the impression the story and the headline leaves, is it?

Haven’t we seen enough of this kind of media treatment for the Clintons over the years?

When the Bush family is your friend:

On the night of the 2010 midterm elections, a portly, silver-haired Jeb Bush stood on a stage in the courtyard of Miami’s luxe Biltmore Hotel, appearing to choke back tears. The beloved former governor of Florida was there to introduce the young conservative insurgent who had just pulled off a remarkable underdog victory in the U.S. Senate race.

“Bushes get emotional, so I’m gonna try my hardest,” Jeb told the ecstatic crowd of Republicans. “My wife told me, ‘Don’t cry, don’t cry.’ But Marco Rubio makes me cry for joy!”

At the time, it looked like the culmination of a sturdy alliance and deep friendship — the proud mentor presenting his protege.

When the Bush family is not your friend:

Meanwhile, in a series of off-the-record conversations, Jeb’s messengers tried to convince a number of influential figures in political media that they had the goods on Rubio. Among these was MSNBC host Joe Scarborough. A former Republican congressman from Florida who remained tapped into the state’s politics, Scarborough was skeptical whenever somebody tried to convince him that Rubio had an explosive career-ending secret lurking in his past.

“Everybody who runs against him says he has girlfriends, or financial problems. They throw a lot of shit at the wall,” Scarborough told me. “It’s the same thing from the Jeb Bush camp. They keep telling me, ‘Oh, we’ve got the thing that’s going to take him down.’ But nobody’s ever produced anything that we all haven’t read in the Tallahassee Democrat.”

Back in October 2004, Richard Gooding did a deep-dive for Vanity Fair on how the Bush machine had trashed John McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primary. It’s the kind of piece that merits an occasional re-reading, especially whenever there’s a Bush running for president, which seems to be most of the time.

There appears to be no doubt that Team Jeb is prepared for a repeat performance and that Marco Rubio is their target. Round One was during the early fundraising/endorsement phase of the campaign. Round Two is coming up shortly.

Yet, it may be too little, too late. Politico reports that Republican senators are so concerned about Ted Cruz that they’re beginning to coalesce behind Rubio. This is basically an acknowledgment that Jeb simply has no juice and is never going to rise out of his doldrums. In fact, Jeb may find that there’s no appetite for the Phase Two attack on Rubio from the Republican Establishment because they now see Rubio as their last opportunity to avoid a catastrophic situation where their nominee comes from the Trump/Carson/Cruz camp.

Trump and Carson are seen as unfit for the office of the presidency, and Cruz is simply loathed. All three of them are considered poor general election candidates who have to potential to put the GOP’s congressional majorities (especially the Senate) at risk.

If Jeb’s minions go out there floating rumors that Marco Rubio has a secret family and a bushel of mistresses, that’s not going to fly. It would be one thing if this were going to work for Bush, but the latest Quinnipiac poll out of Iowa has him at four percent. I mean, even the moribund Rand Paul campaign is at five percent.

If the Bushes tear down Rubio without rising themselves, there’s no one left to stop the barbarians at the gates of the Republican National Convention.

It may simply be too late for Team Bush to do anything at all about their situation. Assuming, that is, that they want to retain any good will with the Republican Establishment at all.

Occasionally people ask me why I don’t support Alan Grayson. Maybe I should start asking people why they do.

I recently posted speculation about who might run with Trump. But in this diary, I would like to discuss the Democratic race and it would be hijacking to do it in the other thread.

Who might be Sanders’ VP? Is this why O’Malley is still in? Is he willing to be either’s VP? If he doesn’t get the top or #2 is his political career over?

Who might run with HRC?  My money’s on Rahm Emanuel. OK, if you are through barfing, what do you think?

I could put a poll in, but I want you to supply possible answers first.

Despite his protestations that “anybody is better than Hillary Clinton,” I don’t believe for a second that Jeb Bush really thinks that Donald Trump can be entrusted with the nuclear codes. Appearing this morning on Face the Nation, Jeb was unsparing in his criticism of Trump.

“Look, I just think he’s uninformed…in these really serious times, he’s not a serious leader.”

“…I have great doubts about Donald Trump’s ability to be commander in chief. I really do. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how the campaign unfolded. But if you listen to him talk, it’s kind of scary, to be honest with you, because he’s not a serious candidate. He doesn’t talk about the issues at hand that are of national security importance for our country. To keep us safe is the first priority of the president. And he’s all over the map, misinformed at best and preying on people’s fears at worst.”

Yet, he says he’ll support Trump if he is the nominee.

I know he probably feels that he has to say that, but I wonder if it will turn out to be true.

Everyone seems to be playing their assigned role in reaction to the shootings at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic. Dude was clearly nuts. He beat his ex-wife and got arrested for being a peeping tom, so obviously he shouldn’t have been allowed to have a gun.

Oh, he wasn’t convicted of doing any of those things? Never mind.

He somehow managed to kill a police officer and then surrender peacefully? That’s a long way from what happens to black kid who slashes tires in Chicago. Maybe the police should have killed this guy just to remain consistent. Oh, and if anyone notices the discrepancy in treatment, they’re race-baiting morons and delusional fools, according the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police.

Of course, long before it was clear what had happened, my Twitter feed lit up like a Christmas tree with people blaming Republicans for inciting the attack. Maybe his alleged reference to “no more baby parts” supports that presumption. I just thought we were supposed to have some evidence before we started accusing people other than the shooter of being responsible for a spree killing.

And, finally, you have the really wretched folks who think murdering cops or Planned Parenthood employees is a great idea.

I guess now is the time to grind your ax.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of the Grand Canyon.  I am using the photo seen directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on an 10×10 inch canvas.

When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

For this week’s cycle I’ve begun to add some of the details seen in the original photo.  Note the shadows now seen on the upper portions of the two main buttes.  These shadows define the broken structure of the rocks.  I’ve also begun the shadowed lower reaches.  (The blue area.)  These lower areas will need a good deal of further work.  There is still much to do.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more to show you next week. See you then.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

 

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker is appropriately appalled by Donald Trump, who she refers to as a “a mean, narcissistic, bloviating SOB.” She accurately describes him as “the ultimate personification of a variety of vices (greed, intemperance, gluttony, wrath, pride).”

But, you know, someone must be blamed for his popularity, and it can’t just be the people who support him. It must be all of us.

So, for example, it’s not just that Trump personifies vice, it’s that “our culture” has embraced vice.

We’re all consumerists who are six seconds away from stampeding our neighbors in the local Wal Mart as we seek the latest “deal” on a holiday gift. And we’ve all embraced relativism, so we’re incapable of making basic moral judgments.

These past several days marking the season of gratitude have been emblematic of the moment when someone like Trump could become king of the heap. Consumerism run amok is what we tamely name Black Friday, the super-sale day when you’re as likely to be trampled (occasionally to death) in a stampede for The Deal, the art of which is in the eye of the beholder.

Consumer-itis seems to become more acute with each passing year, infecting even our relationships. We quantify other people as we would any commodity, making them into things, not quite human. She’s not this enough; he’s not all that. Indulging and gratifying ourselves, instantly and without reserve, we’re no longer subject to the traditional inoculations of conscience — shame, embarrassment and fear. We never judge because this would be to suggest objective standards in a subjective world of relativity.

As Tonto said, “Whatcha mean ‘we’, paleface?”

Almost everything I write makes some appeal to shame or embarrassment, and unlike in France, I don’t think lack of fear describes anything about our political system.

Parker’s complaints that people engage in gluttony on Thanksgiving and gifting on Christmas are as old as the modern versions of these holidays. Have these things gotten worse?

It sounds like the perennial bitching about “kids, these days” and their devil’s music.

Anyone who isn’t paid to say differently already knows what’s changed that makes it possible for Donald Trump to lead the pack in a Republican presidential nominating contest.

And it’s not how much turkey we eat or how hard we try to save a few bucks on Christmas gifts.

If you want an explanation for Trump’s popularity, start at the beginning with the simple stuff.

Who is the candidate who ought to be in the lead?

When Parker can answer that simple question, maybe she can explain all that candidate’s vices away and convince us that we’d all be on board if only we weren’t so busy being judgmental about our friends and gorging ourselves on turkey and pie.

No.

What’s different this time–what’s broken–is the American right and the Republican Party.

You want more shame and embarrassment?

Consider for a few moments how this happened to the Grand Old Party and examine your own small role in it.

And examine why, even now, when you fear the natural repercussions of your career as a GOP fangirl, you are blame-shifting and attempting to make this our fault.

“Our culture” didn’t just get this way on its own. And “our culture” is made up of tens of millions of people who aren’t going to vote for Donald Trump or any of his shitty competitors.

“We” aren’t the problem.