The Desolation of Daenerys: How Game of Thrones End Tonight

As we await the series finale of a program that concluded before the book series it's based on did, we need to talk about how we got here.

Game of Thrones was pretty much exactly what the label says: A show about a squabbling group of fantasy-world noble houses fighting Musical Chairs over an Iron Throne made up of melted swords and really uncomfortable to sit on (it was uncomfortable to look at).

You had the banished Targaryens, a power-mad (emphasis on mad) dynasty that rose to kinghood literally on the backs of dragons. You had the Lannisters, prideful lions who deemed themselves masters of all. You had schemers like the Tyrells, vengeance-seekers like the Martells. You had sea pirate Greyjoys, essentially the Internet Trolls of Westeros politics. You had the stubborn, unhappy Baratheons. You had the honorable Starks and the mindful Tullys, who didn't want to play the game but whose honor (or political value) made them players.

And among them you had schemers and plotters: Varys and Littlefinger, debating over order and chaos; and the slavers of Essos and the masters of the Braavos Iron Bank. Above all of that you had the massive elemental force of a White Walker zombie apocalypse, a storm of ice and death that our heroes had to defeat first before they could resolve the more minor matter of the Iron Throne itself.

That was all pretty much resolved in last week's episode when Daenerys Targaryen, the sole official Targaryen riding the last known dragon, decided to play the Game of Thrones far rougher than the fanbase wanted her to do:

There's been a ton of outrage about how this final Season Eight has played out, mostly due to the rushed nature of the storylines and the sudden, maddening shifts of character loyalties and behavior that the casual audiences didn't get. It's bad enough that an online petition grew to have all of Season Eight "redone by competent writers" as though that would likely improve things.

That wouldn't matter, people. The show is following the rough outlines of George RR Martin's master plot, which means this ending is what Martin is expecting from his work and how his fantasy world is destined to end whether YOU like it or not.

AND THAT'S THE POINT. As Ramsay Snow famously said early on "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention."

Martin's overall narrative on Game of Thrones is a grand play on leadership and power. To quote Varys' early riddle to Tyrion: Power resides where men believe it resides. The power of the Iron Throne is based mostly on how someone can back up their claim for it, based on either two sources of Love or Fear to do so.

For all of Jon Snow's foolishness - yes, he does know nothing, his leadership and actions all based on bravado and chronic desire to do Good instead of doing Right - Snow has ended up as the Machiavellian model of a beloved leader. He becomes a respected member of the Night's Watch at the Wall and even gets voted in as its Lord Commander (against the ire and envy of more veteran, but more brutal, figures like Alliser Thorne). Through betrayal and bad decisions, Snow still survives due to sheer luck and rescuing by other figures, and yet retains a charisma that makes the show's heroes and fighters gravitate towards him as a "natural" leader, eventually making him King of the North when all other viable figures - Robb and Bran and Rickon - are killed or removed from power (the sisters due to male primogeniture are reduced to minor players even though Sansa has grown into arguably the true Queen of the North behind Jon's back).

Along all this is how Jon doesn't *want* power - he is driven more by Duty and Honor to wield it - even though it's revealed especially in-show this eighth season that he's the direct true heir to the Iron Throne as a secret Targaryen love child between Rhaegar and Lyanna Stark. Once it's gone public, Jon claims he doesn't want the throne and willingly passes it to Daenerys... but that aversion to power just makes him more popular among the power-brokers of Westeros.

Which brings us to Daenerys.

When people registered shock at how she destroyed King's Landing in Episode Five, they seemed to have forgotten that Daenerys has been a stone-cold killer throughout the series. Driven both by a divine sense of righteousness - taught since her youth that the Iron Throne is hers by birthright - and a brutal sense of justice - to avenge even the slightest wrong committed on her - this daughter of the Mad King Aerys has left a swath of destruction in her wake.

Think back to all the acts of vengeance she takes: Against the witch that sterilized her and left her first beloved Dothraki Horse-Lord Drogo a mindless half-dead wretch, against the cruel masters of Qarth and the wizard who dared steal her dragons, against the Astapor slavers who tried to buy her dragons in exchange for the Unsullied army Daenerys would need to conquer Westeros Essos. When she approaches Meereen, the city masters crucify 163 children to mock her... and crucifies 163 masters in return (even the ones who had nothing to do with torturing/killing those children). She uses her dragons - either with fire or teeth - to enforce her position when stealthy terrorists known as the Sons of the Harpy undermine her rule. She gets captured by Dothraki lords who abandoned her after Drogo's death, and when they threaten to abuse and rape her she uses her family-based immunity from fire to trap them in a burning house to kill them all, leaving her in command of a suitably cowed Dothraki army.

Daenerys could be a vicious Mother (of Dragons) when she needed to be.

It was easy for fans to accept - and even forgive - Daenerys' actions because each time her opponents were evil and deserving of justice (even as the fairness or wisdom of her acts still made them horrifying). For all of Khaleesi's desire and belief that she was a beloved Breaker of Chains, her rule was no better than the despots she overthrew.

And all of this hits her hard when she finally arrives to her destiny in Westeros. Expecting a warm welcome in the face of Cersei Lannister's sadistic and violent claiming of the Iron Throne, instead she receives doubt and scorn by the remaining great Houses... and quickly loses allies like the surviving Tyrells and Martells. Forced to confront the Lannisters with her Dothraki army and her dragons, she regains control of the battlefield but is forced to publicly execute the head (and favored son) of a respected Tarly House, establishing her more of a tyrant than a chain-breaker. She tries to find love with fellow hero figure and survivor Jon Snow... but the revelation of Jon being her nephew by blood (falling back on the mad Targaryen habit of incest) and having a stronger claim to the Iron Throne disrupts any happiness she could find there. Dealing with Sansa - who reflected the hard reality of the North and of the Starks' view of power - turned uncomfortable and cold every time Daenerys tried to bond with her, isolating the Targaryen from her last strongest ally. Watching Jon get celebrated at the banquet following the Army of the Living's victory over the Night King while she sat there only isolated her even more. Even her Starbucks coffee could not comfort her, for the show editors whisked it away from future viewings. Losing her closest friend Missandei and losing her most devoted defender Jorah had to break her heart and spirit.

It's not that Daenerys went mad when the bells rang at King's Landing. It's that she'd always been like this: Ruthless, because it was the only way she could survive against a world that hated and betrayed her.

She openly decided to rule not by Love but by Fear.

Machiavelli opined that ruling by Fear is the optimal choice for a Prince... only so long as there was Respect for what the Prince did under his (or her) rule. In some ways, Daenerys had remained a favorite character - even a hero, the beloved Khaleesi - to the GoT fanbase because the audience respected how she got to where she was, why she had to do what she needed to do just to survive.

But her massacre of King's Landing becomes a troubling moment. Daenerys may have acted like this to impose a rule based on Fear, but she runs the great risk of becoming Hated, the thing Machiavelli warns against. By killing so many, by doing so in the most brutal way Westeros knows - in the fires spewed from a monstrous dragon - our Khaleesi becomes the Mad Queen, a bloody figure of her mad father's revenge against the Seven Kingdoms.

This final episode has a lot to resolve. The three major characters - Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion - have to face their destinies tonight. Tyrion - who wanted to play the game to defend his family (even as said family hated him) in order to gain a modicum of respect from a world that literally underestimated him - has to deal as a Hand (advisor) to a Queen who is no longer a forgiving sort (and now has no reason to keep him alive). Jon has to cope with his love (once sexual, now familial) for a Queen he can no longer bend his knee to. And Daenerys has to deal with the repercussions of all this death, sitting on an Iron Throne surrounded by damning ash instead of redemptive snow.

A lot could happen. Arya, who had fled the destruction of King's Landing scarred and broken, could return to her assassin's ways and kill the Queen, leaving the throne to Jon... who would abandon it as there was nothing in his mind or soul forcing him to stay. Jon could physically confront Daenerys, trying to gain control of Drogon the last dragon, break her rule and will somehow, possibly killing her or at least dying in her presence to shatter her resolve.

The ending I want to see tonight is Daenerys keeping her word to "Break the Wheel," to end a cycle of madness and powerlust for a throne no one (save Cersei) really wanted to sit in. To have Drogon blast that piece of metal into a thousand melted blades. For her to send the Unsullied home, freed from even her rule. The happiest ending would be Daenerys returning to her childhood home, described in the books as a comforting abode with a red door, and end her days there as the other characters end theirs in peace.

What am I doing?

This is Game of Thrones. No happy endings. Everybody you love fooking dies.

Valar Morghulis.

The Fugitive Women Acts of 2019

The more I look at these "heartbeat" anti-abortion bills - I already railed against Georgia's, Alabama just passed an anti-abortion bill that's worse, Ohio is close to getting there, Missouri's voting on their own, Kentucky's is messed up - the more I see a repeat of the harsh laws our states had passed back in the 1800s to punish Blacks not just the slaves but also the Freed Blacks who were born and raised free in northern states.

I'm thinking of the Fugitive Slave Acts that the Slave states passed to force the Free states to return "their property" of human beings.

When I saw the Georgia law applying penalties to any woman "leaving the state to receive an abortion" and noticed it gave room for the state to punish anyone who helped her, it reminded me of how the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act forced local police and even ordinary citizens - under penalty of high fines - to help bounty hunters capture anyone they deemed - without evidence - an escaped slave (even when entire communities could prove that Black person was born free).

These bills aren't designed to help or protect the fetus. These bills are designed to hurt and punish people.

The Alabama anti-abortion law got rid of the exemptions "in cases of rape/incest" meaning women will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies (and even be forced to share custody with the rapist!) and likely face severe health risks that could mean their death. Or else face life in prison. Any doctor helping to end that rape pregnancy can face longer jail time (life in prison) than the fucking rapist.

There's your slave chains tightening on women's necks.

There's your Far Right wingnuts imposing Sharia law.

There's the Republican Party ignoring every signpost warning them that banning all abortion will cause a backlash. They may argue that "everyone hates killing babies" but a vast majority of Americans accept and approve of the rape/incest/health of mother exemptions. Welcome to the paradox of abortion: Most Americans don't like the practice but they also realize there are situations where abortion is needed and should be available to the woman making that choice.

The anti-abortion fanatics may see those polls but they're still driven by their absolutist obsessions. They don't care what the majority think, only what they are willing to do to enslave the rest of us.

Just remember those Fugitive Slave Acts stirred a public outrage among Northern states that led to the rise of an abolitionist Republican Party - back when that party knew what it was doing, before the dark times of Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan and Newt - and to the Election of 1860 which found the Slave states outnumbered and outvoted... and we all know what that led to.

So Welcome to 2019, deep into the trumpian Darkest Timeline.

Welcome to the American Second Civil War. Whose side are you on?

The Nasty Public Secret of trump's Failures

It's been something I've harped on a long time: how trump's reputation as a savvy businessman was all a lie when you look at his long history of bankruptcies, failed projects, and the honest-to-god killing of an entire sports league.

And now his tax returns from the 1980s and 1990s re-affirmed all of that, pointing out how trump lost more money than any other American taxpayer - even actual billionaires  - on a scale that suggests either sheer incompetence on trump's part... or blatant acts of fraud.

Consider this little tidbit about what trump did to play the Stock Markets (from Matthew Yglesias at Vox.com):

...He would secretly buy shares of stock in a company, publicly suggest he was planning to make a bid to buy the whole company, watch the share price rise in response to the Trump takeover rumors, and then sell his shares at a profit without actually doing anything.

He did this successfully with United Airlines in 1987, which led him to try it again with Hilton Hotels, Gillette, and Federated Department Stores in 1988. This was apparently a “fool me five times, shame on you” situation, however; investors caught on to the fact that Trump was running a scam, and it didn’t work anymore...

And yet from the reports we're getting, people on Wall Street figured out trump was pulling these Pump And Dumps. WHICH ARE AGAINST THE LAW. And yet... nobody charged him with sh-t while the statue of limitations were in effect. Unless the SOB has been doing it recently based on the latest tax returns trump still refuses to release, he can't be touched on the matter. Which sucks.

This is from a specific blog rant I wrote back during the 2016 campaign, about how trump developed this not-so-secret track record of screwing over his own employees and contractors to where someone, ANYONE, should have gone public with his deal-breaking and get his ass thrown in jail for it or something:

It's good that the stories are getting out there now, during a period that our voters can realize that Trump isn't a successful businessman, he's a successful thief. But it bothers me that someone like Trump was allowed to operate like this for over 40 years and got away with it. Shouldn't some requirement of business ethics DEMAND that a crook of Trump's venality be hauled into the spotlight for his sins long ago? Before it got worse?

Which all leads to this sad open secret about the law in the United States:

The law is entirely geared to favor the wealthy.

I mean, that's the whole point of the law when you think about it. Read up on the Code of Hammurabi. One of the earliest forms of codified law in Western civilization, it may have set down punishments for criminal acts but it also spelled out who owned what, the fair rate of exchange for goods and services, and other things people tended to argue over.

Every legal system is a reflection of that, and ultimately focused on one thing: How to do business. Look at your city and county ordinances. A lot of local laws focus on zoning and property rights (who owns what). Your state laws and statutes, there's a lot in there about property rights, theft protections, wages, money, regulations for business (who owns what). The US Code covers that stuff at the federal level.

When the Founders created the federal system under the Constitution, they did so because their original model of government under the Articles of Confederation did a lousy job of spelling out who owned what... and they feared the rise of mobs who would take from the rich - the Revolutionary Founders themselves - if they didn't set up a stronger system to enforce who owns what.

As a result, you ever take a good long look our legal system, you'll see there are two different rules for the poor and the rich. A lot of laws are set up to punish the poor - high bails, prison time for most low-income crimes, legal fees that a public defense can never cover - and protect the rich - lawyers on retainer to argue probation, harder standards of proof for financial fraud, etc.

Click on the link to the US Code covering Securities Fraud: it spells out penalties covering "fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both." Yet in practice the fines tend to be maybe ten thousands or hundred thousands of dollars, but never the amount that the fraudsters committed, meaning a lot of them can pay off fines with their equivalent of pocket change. And jail time? Usually measured by months instead of years. If you compared a guy who stole $10 million from an investment firm who pays a $50,000 fine and spends three months in jail to a guy who stole a flatscreen TV from WalMart who has no money to pay and spends three years in jail, you see all the rewards go to the white-collar crook while the low-income crook suffers more.

You might retort "Well we're arrested fraudsters before," and yes we've seen the likes of Boesky and Madoff and Milken head to court and even some jail time, but those are the painful exceptions to the hundreds pulling lower-scale scams. They were so brazen and reckless that they were easy to catch... and in most of their cases they ripped off fellow rich folk, which is the big no-no within their circles. And even then, it took years before anyone listened to the one investigator warning the financial world about Madoff. Even then, it takes years for white collar crooks to see the inside of a courtroom.

trump should have been one of those fraudsters who crossed those lines. he lied and cheated to a lot of fellow millionaires to pretend to be one of them... and yet he was routinely let off the hook. All because we as a nation do not take financial fraud crimes serious enough.

Let's admit it. Compared to all the sins we already know trump committed. We jailed Martha Stewart for less.

No one had the balls or decency to go after trump. Until it was too late.

American Women: Time to Fight For Your Lives

I wrote awhile ago about abortion as a political issue. How on the one hand it was never the big issue the Far Right wanted it to be, on another hand how Republicans pretty much gave it lip service because they knew if they pursued pro-fetus bills to their logical conclusion they'd lose most women voters forever... and then on a third hand recognized the reality that Republicans knew they were running out of time to appease their base and were ratcheting up anti-abortion laws anyway to the detriment of the nation.

So when it came to pass that my birthstate of Georgia decided to go full wingnut, I had to pay notice (via Kathleen Krawczyk at The Week):

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed a "heartbeat bill" into law on Tuesday, effectively outlawing most abortions after a doctor is able to detect a fetal heartbeat, which typically occurs around six weeks. While it does include some exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's health, it also makes women liable for murder charges if they have an abortion — and could land them in prison for life...

Under the new law, different murder charges apply to women who terminate their pregnancies in different ways. A woman who self-terminates — something that wasn't punishable under a previous Georgia law — will have technically committed murder and could be imprisoned for life or face the death penalty. Those who get an abortion via a health care provider could be found guilty of being a party to murder, punishable by life in prison.

My immediate reaction to this news was "Girl, get your shit together in a bag and get the hell outta there."

After that, I calmed down a bit. Given how these anti-women laws tend to affect the poor the worst, many of them can't afford to flee the state for safer climes (like say Illinois or California or Oregon). The women of Georgia can't just head to Ohio (passing their own harsher bill) or neighboring Alabama (oh hell no) or even Florida (I do not trust the GOP in Tall Hassle).

So the women of Georgia are going to have to consider other options.

I know I joked before about Utopian-like compounds where the Far Right fantasized about fleeing a librul world, and that it would be hypocritical of me to suggest this to women. HOWEVER, desperate times desperate measures.

It's time to pull a Lysistrata Gambit, ladies. Before the men decide to round you up for breeder camps, you should flee and build your own defensive compounds. Every one of you from puberty to menopause. There's like 5 million women in Georgia. If you're stuck in the Peach State and you can organize that 5 million, find the smallest populated counties - there's a lot of 'em barely under 3,000 total - where 50,000 women per group can relocate to seize control of the biggest towns, throw up some barbed wire and chain-link fences, put sentries everywhere armed to the teeth (this is Georgia, you should be able to find gun stores every five miles and raid them accordingly), and claim your new homes with the determination to stay put until these damn anti-women laws are gone.

Why should crazy wingnuts have all the fun forming their own militia protests? Only this time, with women at the helm, they'll be better organized.

It's time to let the crazy-ass men obsessing over controlling women's bodies and choices to wake up one day and find out their slaves to the kitchens have all fled without cooking anything, or doing any laundry, or balancing the family checkbooks.

They're expecting women to keep playing by the rules of social hookups? Dating (with the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies) or getting married (with the likelihood of pregnancies suffering miscarriages)? Time to turn half of Georgia into one big stag party, where there's no women to even date or chat up.

Women can't afford to run the risk of pregnancy, then or now. Pregnancies aren't safe, they aren't cheap, they aren't healthy. The United States already has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the Western world. And these laws don't do anything to fund more prenatal and birthing care. These laws won't help women improve their ability to survive the difficulties of birthing. These pro-fetus bills will make all of that worse.

But the assholes passing these "heartbeat" bills don't give a flying fuck. They enjoy being judgmental holier-than-thou pricks. They don't even care if these Godly laws even reflect the faith these women have on their own terms. They just want women to know their place.

But women's place in society is more important than you assholes realize. What will happen if all the women flee for safety, leaving behind their clerical jobs... their nursing jobs... their college enrollments (just think of the state universities suddenly losing most of their students)... how many things in our economy and society will grind to a halt if the women of America realize they no longer have a say in The Game and decide "Fuck it, we're out of here"?

Maybe now's the time women should. If we can't value women as full and equal citizens of this nation, if we keep treating women as though they're cattle, if we take away their choices and their own values and chain them to someone else's, they should break from such a dark and unloving country.

Why should women pay anything into a United States where their health, their souls, their voices are denied?

They're Not Joking

This headline has it all wrong. trump and his cult are not joking:

Referring to border agents who deal with undocumented border crossers, Trump brought up the possibility of using deadly force, but quickly ruled out the idea, saying he “would never do that.”

“And don’t forget — we don’t let them and we can’t let them use weapons. We can’t,” Trump said. “Other countries do. We can’t. I would never do that. But how do you stop these people? You can’t. There’s—”

Before Trump could finish his thought, a woman in the audience yelled out. While it was unclear exactly what she said during television coverage of the event, numerous eyewitnesses reported she said, “Shoot them!”

This isn't that far-fetched. Federal agents have been dealing with self-deputized militia wingnuts seizing (pretty much kidnapping) Latinos at the border. It's only a matter of time - if it hasn't been happening already - before those gun nuts decide to make their lives easier and start leaving bodies behind.

trump keeps egging his audience on. he's been pandering to their hate towards Latinos (and all other ethnics) ever since he started campaigning, and he's personally been like that since his racist behavior as a landlord from the 1970s onward. he knows what he's doing: Get the audience to buy into the idea of using violence, and then trigger them into action when he'll need them armed and angry the most.

trump will never disavow such talk. trump wants this talk to keep his base primed for the worst.

And the rest of us are going to have to clean up his goddamn mess when all that's left are the blood and tears.

A Con Artist In the Red

I wrote this what feels like a lifetime ago:

Okay, I'm asking here: if you were truly worth $10 billion, wouldn't you use some of that money cashed out - in hand - to pay off said debts? I mean, $100 million is less than a percent of $10 billion: you could pay off that debt and still have $9.99 billion to your name. Done and done. One less thing to worry about.

One of Trump's selling points during the Primary campaign was that nobody could "own" him because he was so independently wealthy. But if he's in this much debt to banks - debt he hasn't paid off with a portion of billionaire wealth he's supposed to have - how can he claim that? Those banks surely own him: what would happen if they started calling in that credit he owes...?

...This needs to be an ongoing question at every press gathering, at every time Trump is at the podium: Is Donald Trump even really a billionaire?

And the answer to that, according to a New York Times report by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig coming out tonight, is NOPE.

Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome. He has attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that took hold in 1990. But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition...

The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.

In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners. His core business losses in 1990 and 1991 — more than $250 million each year — were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the I.R.S. information for those years...

trump lost so much money he actually qualified to not pay any federal taxes most of those years.

While this report doesn't cover trump's most current history - anything from 2006 onward, within the last ten years before the 2016 elections - the report demonstrates a clear and consistent pattern: donald trump was and likely still is a terrible businessman when it comes to actual management of property, casinos, sales, and other operations.

The ONLY thing trump ever seemed to be good at was selling himself - putting his name in BIG UNAVOIDABLE GOLD LETTERS everywhere - with the lie of being successful.

It was that lie - "I know what I am doing. I know how to run things." - that trump kept harping on during his presidential campaigns. For all the media disdain - and for all the warnings that kept coming from people like me, Christ I wrote this three years ago - a lot of the public had the wrongful image of trump as successful CEO. What a goddamn lie that proved to be.

The nation is still going to struggle with the horrors of this trump administration until enough Americans wake up to the reality that trump is a con artist, and that his protestations of being a success is false and grotesque.

It's just another lie from trump, America. For the LOVE OF GOD, stop believing his bullshit.

Cinco De Mayo in 2019 Baby Time to Honor General Zaragoza and the Mexican Forces of Beer uh Puebla

But hey, do you even know WHY we celebrate Cinco De Mayo? Ellen's audience doesn't even know.

But Ellen's kind of right. The United States really only celebrates it because beer.

SO DRINK AND DRIVE RESPONSIBLY, WHITE PEOPLE. Sheesh.

Update: And it IS Revenge of the Fifth...

CHEWIE! What a WOOKIE! RIP Peter Mayhew

Just as I was getting off work tonight, I heard breaking news that Peter Mayhew passed away.

You might remember him as this:

CHEWIE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Let us all now remember the Wookie With the Lookie.

Barr: Falsifying, Concealing, Covering Up, Also Being Snitty

After the rough day Attorney General Snitty Toady Barr had with the Senate committee - where he got caught dumping mistruths and denials for most of the day - it's pretty clear he doesn't want to go through Round Two against a bigger and meaner opponent.

Referring to Matt Stieb at the New Yorker:

The immediate logic is obvious. Barr, a ruthlessly competent partisan, testified before the Senate committee, where he would enjoy the aid of its chairman, Lindsey Graham. With Democrats running the show in the House, the line of questioning would be even less forgiving. Barr cited the House committee’s vote to allow staff lawyers to question him for an additional hour as the reason for his cancellation. The Justice Department defended Barr’s decision, claiming that it would be inappropriate for congressional staffers to grill a member of Trump’s Cabinet...

Which is, by the way, bullshit. Congressional staffers have questioned Cabinet members before as W. Neil Eggleston explains in Slate:

Of particular relevance to the current dispute between the attorney general and the House Judiciary Committee, witnesses who testified at the hearings were first questioned on television and in open hearings not just by the members of Congress but by lawyers on the committees’ staff. As I recall, the House and Senate committees divided the witnesses over which committees’ staff would be the first questioner. If the Senate lawyer was the first questioner, the House lawyer would take a turn at the conclusion of the Senate lawyer’s questioning. Only then did the senators and members of the House begin their questioning. There was no serious outside challenge of whether committee lawyers would conduct the questioning or members of Congress would perform that role: Both did.

Barr is essentially try to excuse his way out of getting grilled by House Democrats who will cut him no slack over every lie and sabotage he's committed while defending trump from the Mueller Report.

And Barr did lie. During his April 9th appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, he was asked about complaints from Mueller's investigation team about Barr's infamous 4-page letter that misstated Mueller's conclusions. Barr claimed he had no knowledge. Now it turns out Mueller himself sent a letter just after Barr's making those complaints known and before Barr's April 9th testimony.

I think it falls under the US Code: 18 USC 1001 - Fraud and False Statements:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

I'm not a legal expert so I might be wrong here... but his false statements fall under SOME rule that says lying to Congress is a BAD IDEA.

In the meantime, Barr is willing to confront a Contempt of Congress charge. That's under 2 USC 192:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

I hope the House Democrats take this seriously and pursue the jail time aspect of the law. Barr's being snitty here, and deserves to get that word shoved down his throat.

What Does Arya Say to the God of Death? Anything She Damn Well Wants To

In the aftermath of the Battle of Winterfell, how fared our heroes?

THEY ALL DIED NOOOOOOO.

Okay, I kid. Only 99 percent of the Dothraki and maybe half the Unsullied and about 20 percent of the Wildlings and about 85 percent of everybody's vision because if your flat-screen TV wasn't set to the highest Brightness setting you couldn't see a DAMN thing.

As I figured, Beric and Theon were toast. Lost Edd, likely the final Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (since the Wall is gone and the White Walkers are dead). I didn't want Lady Lyanna Mormont to die (NOOOOO) but at least she killed a giant wight before she passed on. Her cousin Jorah Mormont was marked for doom as the perpetual Friendzoned bodyguard of his Khaleesi, but I had hoped he'd survive... nope. But he went out defending his queen and Daenerys really really felt bad about it so there's that. Almost lost Sandor but Beric slapped some sense into him before he bit the ballista. Completely forgot about the Red Woman Melisandre but she showed up at the last minute and used her firebending to defend the castle before quitting this world like a boss.

Every other major and secondary character survived, which means they're now faced with the priorities of taking on a well-rested and fully-powered Cersei at King's Landing. But they can all thank one character for finishing up this part of the epic storyline by wiping out the zombie apocalypse.

Yay Arya.

Sheesh. You'd think she'd won a Super Bowl or something.

Well, okay, so a lot of people were really impressed that she...

Okay, so everyone's completely freaking out over Arya...

Look, to any of the assholes out there calling Arya a "Mary Sue," you have no fooking clue. She's a badass. End of story. Well, not really ended because GEORGE RR MARTIN NEEDS TO WRITE THE DAMN END. Ahem.

Valar Morghulis

A Lobby Choking On Its Own Con Game

One of the more bizarre elements of trump's Darkest Timeline is how one of trump's most powerful allies - the NRA aka National Body Count Association - is falling apart.

Having been one of the Republicans' deepest-pocket fundraisers, the NRA should have been reveling in winning the 2016 election cycle against hated gun-safety Democrats and expanding its power as more Red States pursue insane agendas like arming teachers. Instead, this is happening (via Adam Wren at the Daily Beast):

As allegations of financial mismanagement thrust the NRA leadership into turmoil this weekend, with its president Lt. Col. Oliver North ousted Saturday in the wake of critical stories by outlets such as The New Yorker and The Wall Street Journal, the Scotts are among a number of members here who told me they think the association has lost focus on its original mission and needs a leadership change ahead of a Monday board of directors meeting. “I think one of the reasons people aren’t going to join as much is they either need a leadership change or they need to switch how they’re doing business,” Allan said. Both Allan and Jim complained about the increasing number of expensive-looking fundraising mailings they receive seemingly each week in the mail requesting more money. On Friday, news broke that North tried to force Wayne LaPierre, the association’s chief executive, to resign.

On Saturday morning, LaPierre received a standing ovation at the beginning of the members meeting. He was seated next to Oliver North’s empty chair and placard. First Vice President Richard Childress, the former NASCAR driver, took the dais awkwardly, explaining that he found out at 7 p.m. Friday that he would be presiding over the morning’s meeting. As he read a letter from North explaining that he would not be renominated to serve in his role, the room fell silent.

“There is a clear crisis and it needs to be dealt with immediately and responsibly so the NRA can continue to focus on protecting our Second Amendment,” North wrote in the letter read by Childress. North warned the organization could lose its tax-exempt status. Indeed, on Saturday, The New York Times reported that the New York Attorney General had opened an investigation into the association’s tax-exempt status. Members rebuffed a no-confidence vote against Pierre, voting instead to leave that issue to the board, which meets Monday...

So what exactly the hell is going on?

Drunk on their own success, maybe?

To me, I'd argue it's a combination of things.

It's a leadership headed by LaPierre who'd been in power for decades, convinced they are an untouchable gang who could set themselves higher salaries and never get voted out for it. Their internal elections process is a tightly-controlled vetting process that's bound to screen out any moderate voices from getting nominated in the first place.

One result of the same a-holes being in charge is that the decision-making calcifies. Most of them will share similar ideology regarding guns (and other cultural and economic issues). In their minds, whatever worked in 1989 will work in 2019. They'll double-down on a "solution" - MOAR GUNS -  when it doesn't work, because that's the only solution they'll know. There probably hasn't been an original idea on that board since 2000. This also means they will go "on offense" to defend a policy, such as increasing calls for more guns in public places like schools because the alternative equates to losing.

In the process, they alienated more and more members - ones who are rational about not having guns in schools, or who agree to the argument for universal background checks - into quitting or ignoring the growing demands for fundraising. I can sympathize: I've gotten sick of the constant emailing for fundraising help from candidates I raised money for years ago... and I actually *want* them to succeed. Yes, I will send you $25 for now, but dammit stop emailing EVERY HOUR FOR IT. /headdesk

Ahem. Back to the point. The extremist positions the NRA have shifted towards have scared off more and more people who understand how dire the situation in the real world is. That leads to less money in their coffers. Even as their expenses - trying to start their own media outlet, indulging in higher pay for board members - go up. Not enough people are buying into their gun-worship narrative anymore.

It doesn't help that the NRA is under legal scrutiny for money laundering for the Russians. Some of the deep-pocket allies that could keep their finances afloat do not want to mix their money into a pot that might lead to criminal charges.

Granted, this isn't the first time the NRA has faced financial woes. When researching this article I came across reports from the 1990s about how they were facing their end times. But when it seemed the organization was gasping its last, they apparently changed their internal rules to agree to more questionable tactics.

But this time it's different. There's state attorneys looking at their finances now. Serious civil and criminal allegations are out there. A bill for the gun-nuts' bad behavior is coming due.

Couldn't happen to a meaner, bloodier sack of death-worshipers. I hope they arrest the crooks. I'd love to see LaPierre scream about his gun rights, only to have the judges remind him that the Second Amendment is not a license to commit fraud.

We're At War With Russia. Congress Needs To Act.

While the debate to impeach or not impeach rages, there's a part of the Mueller Report that requires direct and immediate attention:

Russia interfered, meddled, messed with our 2016 election cycle.

And they're threatening to do it again.

Referring to Amy MacKinnon at Foreign Policy:

Indeed, there was one conclusion in the 22-month investigation that no one in Washington was disputing on Friday—with the possible exception of Trump himself. It came on Page 1: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

Russia experts say the extensive detail about Russian activities in the Mueller probe reveals much about Moscow’s game plan—and what U.S. counterintelligence officials should watch for—in future elections, starting with 2020.

“Make no mistake: They are at war with us. Whether we want to recognize it or not,” said Daniel Hoffman, who served as CIA station chief in Moscow under the Obama administration...

What Russia - and their authoritarian boss Putin - wants is full Western destabilization. They want Europe in-fighting, torn asunder by Nationalist factions. They're meddling in election after election, trying to taunt republics and democracies with the belief that such governance is weak.

You think Russia will pull back, now that they've been exposed through Mueller's investigation into their tricks? No, no they won't:

...It was also an operation that Russia intended to be discovered, knowing the backlash it would cause, Hoffman said, suggesting that the political strife over the Mueller report is itself evidence that the Kremlin’s tactics are still succeeding.

“I think the fallout [from the discovery of Russia’s role] is far more damaging. It’s an amplification of their themes,” he said. “The strategy was to pit us against ourselves.” And having discovered how well that strategy has worked up to the present, Moscow will be encouraged to keep applying it.

“All the partisan fodder here is going to make it difficult for Democratic and Republican lawmakers to come together and form a real strategy to counter Russia,” Hoffman added...

Russia is counting on the Republicans to run interference, to block any attempt to impose tighter security on our electoral system. There's a lot Congress could do in spite of any trump intervention, such as imposing harsher sanctions on Putin and his cronies and passing reforms to improve our Internet and technology security to crimp Russia's cyberwar stunts.

But will a Senate run by Mitch McConnell - who already blocked for trump (and Putin) by denying Obama's request to reveal the early evidence of Russian meddling - agree to make moves that he would automatically assume hurts his chances of retaining control? McConnell remains the center force of partisanship in Congress - obstructionist and rule-breaking - who is in many respects causing more damage to our nation than anything trump wants to do.

The smartest move Pelosi and the Democratic House should do right now is issue stronger sanction laws against Russia, dare McConnell to ignore a move that most Americans would support. It's the most obvious, bipartisan move Congress could make.

We're at war, Mitch. You're going to have to choose a side: America or Putin. And it's not really a choice, you sonofabitch. Side with Putin and history condemns you forever.

Getting Published In 2019: Strangely Funny series

You may notice I have a side gig as a short story writer, having gotten published in a few anthologies, most of them in an ongoing humor-horror series called Strangely Funny.

Volume VI (of VII, yeah it gets complicated) just dropped on Kindle ebook. It's got my latest short "How a Vampire Gets A Tan."

Click here please and thank ye.

Hopefully it's funny enough to warrant interest from this blog's seven readers. Do me a favor if you purchase a copy, PLEASE leave a review on Amazon about it. Those reviews do help. Danke.

I'll get a novel finished someday, hopefully before George RR Martin does. I wanna prove I can write faster than you, George!!! /argh

Geek Time: Who Survives The Battle of Winterfell

So with the final season of Game of Thrones about to enter its biggest moment - the long-awaiting BIG BATTLE BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE DEAD - is there any thought towards who lives and who dies?

Ah yes, I've been here before. The riddle Varys offered to Tyrion about the game itself: who wields true power? Power of life and death? Power of forgiveness and endless vendetta? Power of fire and ice, the elements of the world?

Mostly the fans will care about this: Who's gonna live or die?

Well, actually they care about George RR Martin FINISHING THE LAST TWO DAMN BOOKS, WRITE LIKE THE WIND GEORGE.

Ahem. Back to "Who lives and who dies?"

This actually falls under how high fantasy literature works, via tropes/archetypes, which I actually commented on at my librarian/writing blog. To quote... well, myself:

I've seen the Twitter explode over a major television episode before, but not like this where the fandom was seemingly "OMG How could they do this?"  And one of the tweets caught my eye: someone arguing that Robb Stark - one of the key victims of the massacre - was meant to be the hero of the story, the avenger of his fallen father, etc.

But the thing is if you pay attention to any of the High Fantasy tropes, even when Deconstructed, you might notice that Robb Stark was never meant to be the hero of the story...

Mixed into all this is The Hero's Journey, the Jungian/Campbellian method of storytelling that lends itself best to High Fantasy (and pulp fantasy) literature.  In most respects, Robb doesn't fit the cycle at all: his call to adventure is more an act of vengeance against the family that betrayed his.  While it falls into the narrative of Seeking Justice (SEE the legend/myth of Horus), Robb is not out for any Enlightenment nor is he setting the natural balance of the world back in place (i.e., the return of the Rightful, Once-Promised King).  In some respects he doesn't fulfill the Prophecy...

The obvious choice of being the Hero is Daenerys Targaryen.  A bit of a gender flip but she qualifies: the prophecy of the Prince Who Was Promised fits her (birth under the right stars, her childhood, her travels, her proving her mystical dragon power).  As the last known member of her royal family, it's her throne by blood-right.  She's undergone various journeys of self-discovery (the Hero's Journey) that has unlocked more magick to her, has suffered setbacks but survived.

By sheer volume of POV chapters, Tyrion Lannister (also the most popular character yet) could by that designation be the most likely candidate of being the Hero.  The unliked and unloved member of a powerful, corrupt family, the one member with any recognizable decency as a human being, quick with words, adept at politics, victimized not by his actions but by a world that can't handle a dwarf as lord or hero...  It would again be a twist on the concept of Hero (you were perhaps expecting someone 6'4" with broad shoulders, a gleaming sword and amusing comedic sidekick?) to have him end up surviving the whole mess and uniting the kingdoms under a peaceful rule.

Another candidate is Jon Snow, bastard son (as generally believed) of the Fallen Good Father figure of Eddard Stark.  Treated coolly by his adoptive mother Catelyn, Jon is nonetheless on great terms with the Stark family.  Jon accepts a Call to Adventure by volunteering to do his service as Night Watch on the Wall (a key stronghold against wildlings and the zombie-like Others), and undergoes many unnerving quests and tests of character.  It was Jon who insisted on the children adopting a set of orphaned direwolves (mystic animal guardians associated to the Stark crest).  With Robb as the decoy hero now fallen, Jon now fits the bill as the heroic heir of House Stark.  Given no one really knows who his mother is, that Eddard refused to reveal the secret, that Eddard was present at his sister's mysterious death, said sister having been abducted/raped(?) by the Targaryen heir... there's a very reasonable fan theory that Jon may be the Prince Who Was Promised.  (Note: there is a slight problem with this as Jon is getting stabbed to death at the end of the latest novel.  He could, of course, survive the ordeal... something a Hero does in the Campbellian cycle)... (Follow-Up Note: In the TV show he *did* get better).

I've listed those as the three likeliest survivors to win the Iron Throne, and so far they haven't let me down. Given how they're likely to survive to the series finale, I'd give Dany, Jon and Tyrion a pass on the Dead Pool list.

However:

That leaves about eight to twenty fan favorites to worry about.

Let's focus Starks first:

• Sansa? Had turned from airhead princess into cold-hard Queen of the North. She's endured things, man. I doubt a Night King can put her down now. Either her, Arya or Dany will put an end to Cersei (who will survive because HER fate is the series finale).
• Arya? She's gone from tomboy to sellsword to faceless assassin able to kill any man up close (Needle!) or far away (throwing knives and arrows!). She got it on with her childhood crush Gendry. She's done everything but finish her list of enemies... and that means Cersei better hide...
• Bran? He's gone from crippled thing to warging seer to the Three-Eyed Raven. In some ways, he's already dead to the world, so dying in a final confrontation with the Night King (who seems to want Bran deader than dead) wouldn't be much of a shock. But he has achieved Gifts and powers beyond the known, and may be fated to live/die another way...
• Theon? Not really a Stark and indeed caused much of their earlier misery when he betrayed them to gain favor with a House (Greyjoy) that abandoned him. But he suffered immensely for his folly and found some redemption saving Sansa and then his own sister. He's offered to defend Bran personally as they wait in the trap being set for the Night King. Theon's probably toast.
• Samwise uh Samwell Tarly? The bookworm. Jon's bumbling sidekick who turns out to be the truest friend. A Secret Finder. The first one who actually killed a Walker and found out it's dragonglass that could work. He's still not really a good fighter, but he's brave enough to stand when it matters. He kind of needs to live because he has a destiny to confront a corrupt Maester citadel that refuses to save the world.
• Gilly? Samwell's wildling girlfriend. She's raising a sister-daughter (raped by her own father, that's how effed up this world is) but smarter and braver than most other characters. Stuff her into a fridge and they will riot in the bars. So I think she lives.
• Lyanna Mormont? She's ten. She's dead serious about defending the North and standing with the Starks through thick and thin. She may be a bigger ass-kicker than Arya. In the name of the Old Gods and the New, don't kill her.
• Ghost? Jon's Direwolf, one of the last to survive (Arya's Nymeria is the other). He's too cool to die. He's gonna put in a good kill before the series ends.

The other Heroes of Westeros:

• Gendry? He's not a true warrior - he's more the smithy - and he's done something - sex with his One True Pairing Arya - that usually condemns a minor hero to a tragic death. But he's a bastard son of Eddard Stark's oldest friend, the one honest character among the heroes, a figure of the Common Man who may yet achieve better things for a future world. Also, if he dies Arya might break the Fourth Wall and kill the show's producers. So he might survive...
• Tormund? Leader of the Wildlings, ardent and unwanted suitor of Brienne, fearless warrior of the cold. Armed with dragonglass, he could prove worthy and survive. But a strong hero has to fall in this battle to make it meaningful, and he's a likely target to do so.
• Edd? Last Commander of the Night's Watch. Sarcastic ally to Jon. He might die like Tormund to highlight how deadly this battle will get. But he's been a survivor of other major battles and may yet survive this one.
• Beric? Leader of the Brotherhood without Banners, a True Believer in the Lord of Light who's been dead and risen more times than I've had hot dinners. He possesses a wight-ready weapon of a flaming sword and may be difficult to put down in a fight... but if the Night King kills him and resurrects him as a White Walker that would be an ironic fate.
• Davos? He's no fighter, he'll tell you as much when you ask. He's arguably the sanest man in the Seven Kingdoms who gives counsel probably better than Tyrion could. He's completed several journeys following one banner (Stannis) and another (Jon). Lost a son to war and gained a spiritual one in Gendry. Lost an adopted daughter to madness (Shireen) and may yet rescue a child of the North when (not if) the Crypts they're hiding in turn into death traps. He deserves to survive to see a better world, but he could die to make the day more tragic.

The Lannisters and their allies at Winterfell:

I mentioned Tyrion earlier as a likely survivor - he has one final problem (his lying sister) to confront - so that's moot.

• Jaime? He started off as the Kingslayer, a betrayer, someone who tried to kill Bran (crippling him), fought against the Starks, had incestuous relations with his sister Cersei that doomed much of the kingdom to the Hell they're about to face... but has also gone through a Redemption Arc of trying to do the right thing that made him more heroic than other villains could be. Honestly brave, even with one hand gone a good fighter for the battle to come, he will play a key role this episode... but will he survive? He's completed much of his redemption - turning against Cersei at last, confessing his sins to Bran the one he hurt the most, knighted his redeemer Brienne - but has one last part to complete: confronting his love and betraying the one he should have betrayed long ago...
• The Hound (Sandor)? He has a terrible fear of fire that could make him useless in a fight - especially if Beric turns and wields his firesword against Sandor. Thing is, Sandor's got one fight left in him. CLEGANEBOWL.  “What they did to you doesn’t matter. It’s not how it ends for you, brother. You know who’s coming for you. You’ve always known.” Two men enter... 
• Podrick? Faithful squire, Sex God among men, worst fighter on the battlefield. But he's the sweetest, purest Lannister ally in the game. They can't kill him... They shouldn't...
• Brienne? A woman warrior in a world that frowned against her role, her arc has been to prove herself a Knight and Die (Live?) for a cause greater than herself. She loved the one man who showed any kindness (Renly, an early casualty of the Game) and may be in love with the only man who showed any respect (Jaime). The previous episode gave her what she desired most: actual knighthood, given by Jaime as the noblest act he's ever done (and she knows it). In every respects... she's doomed. Prime candidate of the Hero(ine) the fans love most whose death will break a million viewers' hearts. As long as it's a good death...
  Actually, I kid. She's gonna survive, marry Jaime, and have like seven daughters who grow up as the next Kingsguard.
• Bronn? He's not showing up yet, so he's good until he has to show up to either betray his best friend Tyrion, his best boss Jaime, or his financial backer Cersei...

Daeneyrs' army and followers:

Khaleesi and her dragon will survive, but the rest are in trouble...

• Jorah? A Mormont who betrayed his family name, who then betrayed a woman Khaleesi he came to worship (even love). Patron Saint of the Friendzone. He's come to terms with the fact she will never love him, and found out his own father Jeor (who served as Jon's Lord Commander on the Night's Watch) passed on his legacy to Jon. He's survived greyscale and more Suicide-By-Sellsword attempts than any man alive. He's got nothing to live for and every reason to die a martyr (likely saving Dany from a cold death). So of course he's gonna live.
• Missandei? A freed slave who's become Dany's closest confidant and friend. A witness to history and potential speaker for it. She kinda has to live but she's in a relationship that can doom characters like her...
• Greyworm? Leader of Khaleesi's Unsullied army, the best and most tight-knit unit on the battlefield (think US Marines). While much of that army can fall, he's the one with the name and face-time for fans to root for. He may be gelded but he's still a man, in love with Missandei. Um, yeah. That could kill them both.
• Dany's Dragons? Drogon is hers, named for her lost first husband (and genuine love). Rhaegar is Jon's... so he might die because Jon is more of a Wolf (Ghost!). Viserion (named for her evil older brother who died Season 1) is already an Ice Dragon under thrall to the Knight King. He'll die in a one-on-one version Drogon...

The White Walkers:

Um, they're already dead. That's the problem.

• But in particular the Knight King. He lives, his army grows. He dies, the entire army dies with him. Thing is, while Cersei is a major villain she's just a flea compared to the dire threat the Knight King presents. Killing *him* too early makes the remaining episodes seem anticlimactic. There's a possibility the Knight King loses the battle of Winterfell... but survives somehow to remain a final threat to our heroes when the final battle commences in King's Landing.

So that's what I got.

Valar Morghulis

A Slight Glitch In the Mueller Reading

Well I said I was going to read the Mueller Report, right?

I went and downloaded a free copy to my B&N Nook a couple nights ago, yep.

And... it's in a PDF format that doesn't zoom in very well. When I try to enlarge to read, the page freezes up. It's gotten quite vexing.


via GIPHY


So I am looking at two options. One: read it off a regular computer where the PDF enlarge function won't vex me. Two: pay actual money for an ebook copy that might have better enlarge function.

I'll report back shortly.

Blood in the Streets of Sri Lanka

This is not good:

At least 207 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in a series of bomb blasts that hit luxury hotels and churches across Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, leaving the entire country in a state of lock-down.

The first wave of attacks struck at the heart of the country's minority Christian community during busy Easter services at churches in the cities of Colombo, Negombo and Batticaloa on Sunday morning.

Additional blasts ripped through three high-end hotels, the Shangri La, Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury, all in capital city Colombo.

What I hate about ANY extremism - white supremacists, religious nutjobs, etc. - is how they intentionally go out of their way to make everyone else bloodied and miserable and wounded and dead.

The bombers intentionally went after places of worship, to speak against their hatred of God. They went after tourist locations, to make sure they got the world's attention.

And now, they're gonna revel in their violence and taunt the rest of humanity for "our" weakness in the face of their bullying.

Against such violent empty men we should stick to this response.

We Are Stronger Together. We And Our Loved Ones Are Still Better Than You.

Anniversary: Columbine

Sometimes you just say one word and everyone gets what you're saying.

Columbine.

We'd had shootings before. We'd had mass shootings before. We'd had school shootings before. But this was a turning point in our nation's sad long history of gun violence.

With Columbine, there came this awareness of the immediacy of the act. Our news coverage - in 1999 with 24/7 cable news, today with livestreaming social media - could make a school shooting in any part of the country a sudden kick to the collective gut. It's the kind of violence that can't be ignored, aimed at our families and our communities.

Columbine became a focal point for others on the edge, driven to seek their vengeance against anything and everything. The second a school shooting happens, the earliest question tends to be "was it someone inspired by the Columbine shooters?" and sadly it's common enough for the answer to be "Yes." The Parkland shooter researched Columbine before he went on his own rampage.

And Columbine became one of those turning points where America couldn't come to terms with our violent gun culture. Despite efforts in the 1990s to restrict firearms and limit access to military-level weaponry, we had by 1999 a gun show loophole that the shooters exploited - underage gun purchases were/are otherwise banned - and which is still in existence.

Confronted with a growing problem of easier access of firearms to the wrong people, we've had the NRA and their political allies refuse time and again to allow greater gun safety laws, to limit the kind of damage a mass shooting like Columbine can inflict. Thanks to their inaction/interference, we've had far too many mass shootings since April 1999. Sandy Hook. Virginia Tech. Parkland. And too many to count.

Parkland happened just last year. Close to the anniversary of Columbine. There's been a lot of media attention about the synchronicity between the two tragedies, and the survivors of one are reaching out and connecting with the others as a kind of bookend.

Except it's not the end of it. We're still dealing with a nation where the political leadership won't listen to or connect to the vast majority of people who are begging for an end to out-of-control gun violence.

Columbine wasn't a beginning, more of a warning alarm. Parkland isn't the end, more of a reminder that our schools are targets.

It's been twenty years of one tragedy. Right now, I dread the fate of whichever poor school in twenty years has to share its pain with Parkland survivors.

Goddamn us.

Summer Blockbuster Season 2019: I'm Not Ready

This summer is coming up faster than expected, and in some ways I'm not ready for some of the films that are due to break loose starting next week:

I mean, YES on Avengers: Endgame and YES on Godzilla: Gonna Slap Me a Ghidorah and YES on Spider-Man: I Got Better. I might actually go see MiB if only because Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson were fantastic as teammates in Thor: Immigrant Song. But the rest? For some reason, not really pumped about John Wick again even though I loved the first and liked the second (I worry about serial escalation making it more absurd than it should be). I don't agree with Disney live-action remakes of their animated movies, never understood the appeal. Lost interest in Fast & Furious when it turned into James Bond (and I like James Bond... but on its own merits). The X-Men movie is actually the hardest pitch for me: I'm not a huge fan of the rebooted timeline and Dark Phoenix looks like an attempt to remake the Last Stand fiasco but not in a good way.

Where's the Leonard Elmore adaptations? For awhile there in the late 90s, those were fun summer movies, crime thrillers with a dash of humor. Sigh, regrets...

Addressing Presidential Misconduct in 2019

Update: While I'm grateful that Tengrain has linked me up to Mike's Blog Round Up this Easter morning, please don't read me! Click on the link below and go read Yoni's work in full! ...just do me a favor and keep track of this blog, pleasekaithanx (P.S. been busy writing Camp NaNo and all, haven't gotten past the intro of the Mueller Report... busy busy busy)


I'm still reading the Mueller Report - and tracking the madness on social media - so there's little I need to say on the subject right now.

Yoni Appelbaum over at the Atlantic, however, has made a compelling argument for the Democratic House in Congress to take the step Mueller is urging them to take: File articles of Impeachment against Trump.

A basic principle lies at the heart of the American criminal-justice system: The accused is entitled to a fair defense and a chance to clear his name. Every American is entitled to this protection, from the humblest citizen all the way up to the chief executive. And that, Mueller explained in his report, is why criminal allegations against a sitting president should be considered by Congress and not the Justice Department. The Mueller report, in short, is an impeachment referral.

In his report, Mueller took pains to detail why he “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” as to whether the president had broken the law by obstructing justice. He began by noting that he accepted the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—which issues guidance for the executive branch on questions of law—that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

That, Mueller explained, posed an insurmountable problem. A normal investigation would end with a prosecutor deciding to bring charges, or to drop the case. It’s a binary choice. But “fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.” Ordinarily, a criminal charge would result in “a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case.” But if Mueller were to state plainly that, in his judgment, the president had broken the law and obstructed justice, it would afford “no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” In other words, because a sitting president cannot be indicted, making such a charge publicly would effectively deny Trump his day in court, and the chance to clear his name...

But there is another, simpler way to understand Mueller’s report. A footnote spells out that a criminal investigation could ultimately result in charges being brought either after a president has been removed from office by the process of impeachment or after he has left office. Mueller explicitly rejected the argument of Trump’s lawyers that a president could not be guilty of obstruction of justice for the conduct in question: “The protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person—including the President—accords with the fundamental principle of our government that ‘[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.’”

But if Mueller believes a president could be held to account after he leaves office, he also spelled out another concern with alleging a crime against a sitting president: the risk that it would preempt “constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”

The constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct is impeachment...

There is a lot of buzz in social and Beltway Media arguing that a Democratic House shouldn't try an impeachment that's doomed to fail in a Republican-controlled Senate. The fear is that trump would use the Senate vote as "vindication" - as he's shown so eager to crow every time he avoids accountability - and claim himself a victim to trick enough undecided voters to align with him again in 2020.

The thing is, the Mueller Report as we're reading it - even with redactions - is exposing an Executive administration running amok, eager to commit crimes at trump's whims and seeking out corrupt deals at the expense of the Public Trust. There are solid arguments to make that the House has to do its job as a balancing check on a corrupt administration.

Even if it doesn't mean impeachment proceedings starting this Monday... it ought to at least ramp up the oversight on every committee to hold trump and his staffers accountable for every lie and act of deceit they've done.

Back to Appelbaum about the appropriate use of Impeachment:

As I wrote for this magazine in January, impeachment is best regarded as a process, not an outcome. It’s the constitutional mechanism for investigating whether an executive-branch officer is fit to serve. It requires his accusers to lay out their evidence in public, provides the opportunity for witnesses to be cross-examined, and ultimately forces the House of Representatives to decide whether to impeach—that is, to approve charges that will force a trial in the Senate—or to drop the inquiry, thereby clearing the accused...

...Mueller has now delivered 10 credible allegations of obstructive behavior on the part of the president. For all of Trump’s bluster, those claims are now a matter of public record, and will hang over his presidency, despite the decision of his own appointee to clear him in the matter.

The constitutional mechanism for resolving this situation is impeachment. The president... deserves a chance to clear his name. The public deserves a chance to examine the evidence against him. And his supporters and opponents alike deserve the clarity that only convening impeachment hearings can now provide.

trump is corrupt. We've known that since Day One. All Mueller's done with his Report is document the atrocities. Congress has evidence now to act on that Report. They need to.

They Redacted the Table of Contents?

Okay, I took a few minutes last night to begin reading the Mueller Report, and as a librarian my first horror was finding the chapter titles in the Table of Contents itself redacted.

Harm To Ongoing Matter is already a twitter meme.

Seriously? This is how bad it's going to get?

And there's a chapter about "Possible 1030 Violation By Personal Privacy" listed. I'm sorry, but we're talking about someone violating computer fraud laws and we ought to know who that is. If it's not an "Ongoing Matter" which seems to be the main reason for a lot of these redactions, and it's not a liable matter, this is a person whose name NEEDS TO BE referred to either Congress or a DoJ prosecutor's office for charges.

Release the unredacted Mueller Report to Congress. Damn you, Barr.

The Redacted Mueller Report

Well, it's out. The Twitterverse has been afire since Barr dropped it, with a lot of comments here and there. For the sake of keeping it simple I'm just going to log to my main blog source Balloon Juice starting with Betty Cracker's early take and you can go down the rabbit hole from there.

Oh what the hell I'll add Emptywheel too, with a link to the excoriation of Barr's conduct covering up for trump.

For my part... I've been busy at work today so I'm going to make an effort to read the Searchable PDF version of the Report (follow that link yourself). I want to get my own understanding of what's in there and avoid relying too much on everyone else's interpretations of what happens from here.

...

"That's GUILTY! GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!" - unabashedly stealing from "Doonesbury"

Things You Need To Remember About Thursday April 18 2019

Tomorrow is supposed to be when trump's Attorney General Lackey General Barr releases the Mueller Report to the public.

Here's the first thing you should understand:

This is not the real Report.

This will be a redacted - probably heavily redacted - copy of a report that will hide absolutely everything embarrassing (if not documented illegality that Mueller couldn't make a solid court case for) related to trump's behavior during his 2016 campaign and into the early parts of 2017 when trump was trying to stop the FBI from exposing Michael Flynn's bad behavior as his National Security Advisor.

This is part of Barr's attempt to defang any possibility of Mueller's investigations providing a link between the Russian hacking into the 2016 elections that he proved to a grand jury and the trump campaign's eagerness to work with Russians from 2015 onward.

To refer to Michael Stern's observations at Slate:

Here are just some of the ways that Barr has failed the public and the Justice Department he heads.

First, there is a huge piece of the puzzle that is missing in the countless articles that take, at face value, Barr’s claim that he cannot release much of Mueller’s report to the public because it contains grand jury material.

Yes, it is true that federal rules governing grand jury secrecy stop the Department of Justice from releasing testimony that occurred “before the grand jury.” However, there is a practice that is common among federal prosecutors that would allow for the release of the substance of most grand jury testimony without violating the secrecy rule.

While much of the material from these interviews is the same as what is said before the grand jury, the grand jury secrecy rule only prevents grand jury testimony from being released. It does not act as a bar to the release of interview reports that hold the same information. And so, while grand jury testimony must not be publicly disclosed, the attorney general has the authority to disclose interviews of witnesses who appeared before the grand jury. This material could appear in the version of the Mueller report Barr is set to release on Thursday. But these reports will likely present damning evidence of campaign links to Russia and obstruction by Trump and members of his administration. If Barr’s past actions are any indicator, he will do all he can to prevent their release.

From all signs, much of Mueller’s full report, including the interviews, will be missing. As Congress tries to pry the full report loose from Barr, it must ensure that Barr’s public redactions do not include interviews of witnesses who appeared before the grand jury. Since any such redactions cannot be based on Barr’s claim of grand jury secrecy, their release is fair game...

Second: Lacking the details of the investigation will make Barr's presentation ripe for conspiracy-mongering (on both sides). The Far Right will argue there's things in the report hiding proof of HILLARY'S criminal misdeeds, while the rest of us will remain convinced that there had to have been some quid pro quo going on between trump and Putin. To quote Ben Mattis-Lilley at Slate:

Before James Comey got fired, before Robert Mueller was even a twinkle in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s bewitching hazel-green eyes. Before the obstruction question, before offshoots like the Michael Cohen campaign finance case and Trump Tower Moscow and the inaugural fund. At that point, the public knew two things: one, that Russia had likely orchestrated a hacking and propaganda campaign against Hillary Clinton, and two, that Donald Trump’s advisers had made squirrelly efforts, both during the Republican National Convention and the presidential transition period, to advance Russia-friendly positions regarding economic sanctions and the war in Ukraine.

And, to badly paraphrase David Mamet, if there’s a quid and there’s a quo, there is probably a pro. Had Trump been trying to do favors for Russia’s ruling oligarch-gangsters to reward them for sabotaging his opponent? And did they sabotage his opponent because they knew he’d in turn make it easier to launder money into the U.S. by eliminating sanctions against them?

That possibility became the central mystery of Mueller’s investigation into “collusion”: In Rosenstein’s words, the special counsel was tasked with investigating “links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” And when Attorney General William Barr released his March letter summarizing Mueller’s conclusions, he quoted the special counsel as having written that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” But Barr didn’t explain how that conclusion had been arrived at, and given that Mueller’s report is defined by a law as a summary of “prosecution and declination” decisions, the most long-gestating question it might be able to resolve when it’s (partially) released on Thursday is why the special counsel decided that a number of publicly known links between Russia and the Trump campaign did not constitute a chargeable conspiracy...

To me, that's the sticking point: Barr failed to explain Mueller's conclusions and substituted Barr's own... and Barr is NOT an unbiased actor in this matter. He's covering for his boss in ways an Attorney General should not behave.

Third: I cannot recall the earlier Special Counsel reports being redacted in any way. In particular, the Starr Report from 1997-98 contained a lot of details - much of it unrelated to Ken Starr's original investigations into Bill Clinton's Whitewater deals - that came from grand jury testimonies, something that Barr's covering up here.

We are facing the likelihood of Mueller's redacted report not even corresponding to news we've long known about trump and the Russians, which makes it even more likely the House Democrats will fight Barr to get the grand jury testimonies released and unredacted.

Fourth: This is not the end of the investigation. Mueller farmed out part of his findings to other Justice Department offices, especially the ongoing trials for the likes of Roger Stone. Unless - damn him - Barr tries to use HIS redacted copy of the Report to shut the whole thing down.

At which point I hope to God Mueller comes back as Special Counsel and hammer Barr with an Obstruction charge for that. Yeah, I'm hoping this happens.

Tomorrow is going to be a crazy day.

Gods help us.

P.S. As John Cole puts it over at Balloon-Juice:

REPUBLICANS IMPEACHED BILL CLINTON FOR LYING ABOUT A BLOW JOB.

That is all.