The cbc’s removal of trump from home alone 2 for apolitical time constraints makes sense.  The problem with the argument against that — the brevity of his appearance — which is the argument of outrage on chef’s explanation you get on the internets to those who care and can be taken aback personally by such accounts — is … exactly — that’s what the networks do… Nip and tuck, 20 seconds here, 5 there.  Trump’s appearance is disposable.

Frankly, if the reason were political of a sort it’d make sense and be justifiable.  Don’t want to take the viewer out of the scene.  The dilemma of Trump as opposed to previous presidents … He had that hokey role in 80s 90s debris.  Reagan as “king of the b’s” got you one step there but his leading role status to roles you wouldn’t be interested in sand curiosity … Bedtime for Bonzo? …saves him.  You know when he’s popping up.  Trump just cameoed around.  Also to be sure, Reagan was never responding to any bono nests where Trump jumps in to tweet responses to such pseudo-stories.

Funny too various business dealings he had slight roles with he now gets retroactively pushed further center.  I see this ESPN show on the old 80s football league set up against the nfl… Shot to one owner, Trump… Would they have chosen that footage if not for future history?

Interesting trio of levels of partisanship  coming out of washington. Obviously impeachment is high partisanship with perhaps Manchin and Collins the slight shift in the senate.

Then there is the new trade deal.  As with Clinton and nafta it is one party’s president taking up the others ‘ issue for political gain … Republican opposition squelched because they can’t buck the president who has some 95 % party approval — oddly a partial jump from impeachment and instant opposition.

Then there’s the Afghanistan papers … Figures.  True bipartisanship.

Worth noting — Noah Chomsky favors a U.S. Troop presence in syria.  Subtle policy meanings… Or you know… I gueÅ›s gabbard’s not his pick.

I’m stumbling to explain the supposed origins of ‘ok’.  I state my awareness that it goes to Martin van buren, but lest i state his nickname that just makes no sense.

The teenagers move on about what the ok signal means at their high school.  Do it low, and when your pal looks down you get to punch him.  Made ya look…

Ok survives.

I wonder about that exercise bike, upscale as it were, and the ad that’s claimed as sexist, and… after watching it finally… hm… Sure, whatever… guy gives girlfriend bike, she apparently uses it daily, and at the end he sits by smugly as she beams about it.  Imagine that as she’s staying trim, he’s just eating all the junk food in the house, or something… I think that’s the narrative working everyone has on this one.
It’s interesting because  I had seen a different ad before that one… which is more dystopian than any “ismist”, and thought maybe that the ad in question was a slight working of that one — which would make it more defendable — one having a man before the crack of dawn listening to an dis-embodied face task mastering him to pedal harder, back out to see a city with lights on showing everyone listening to the dis-embodied face telling everyone to pedal, damnedit, and now it’s 1984 and all that… the other a woman, the problem of the patriarchy coming in that it’s a stern man whipping everyone into shape, with the added problem being that if they switched it to a woman — that’d just count as the shrill concept.
In the meantime, the question of consumer culture that always bugs me — if it’s the bike you want, and you find the ad offensive, shouldn’t you just buy the bike anyway — are you buying the bike or the advertisement with these things?

In other great news of advertising… Ad week had a big shindig with great symposiums of bring gender equity in the advertising industry — apparently beginning with a performance from TLC (though, one of the letters passed away, so now it’s just TC, isn’t it?) — and ending with Pitbull dancing about with women wearing not much clothing shoving their butts in the air.  Were the performers paid well, with good working conditions?  Maybe that’s all that matters.

Looking at an op-ed saying “GO ahead Democrats”, with the supposition that the Democrats in the House who are in districts Trump carried are one step further into it…

… starting with a point that even though he knew Bill Clinton did bad with Lewinsky, he opposed Impeachment…

… unlike the mean Democrats…

I’m staring at the configuration, thinking “Oh.  So you were the ONE!”

And maybe he was.  The one.  Like, twenty years from now some Republican can point out they were in favor of Impeachment when some Democrat pulls a half Trump…

Looking back, I see in a news article the straight forward but factually incorrect statement that Trump is the third President Impeached, and the first in his first term.  Andrew Johnson was in his first term.

Couldn’t Tulsi Gabbard have gone the “Arlen Specter” route, and cited Scottish Law — if not the precise Scottish Law that Specter found for the “not proven, therefor not guilty” canard — to come up with something other than “yah”, “nay”, or “present”?

Off of this vote hinges Hillary Clinton’s nightmare talk of her third party bid… even though the Green Party is out of the question.  (Interestingly, the local library had in the meeting room a “Green Party Presidential Candidate” that you could meet.  I didn’t pick up who it was.)

As a whole, the problem with the Impeachment comes down to its great political quandary — I wish there were somehow someway a manner opinions on the matter may deviate from the manner of opinions on — oh, for instance, what do you say about Abortion (and it’d be there and not, say, trade policy which ends up strangely malleable — see too at least a piece of military policy), and at this point would you prefer to watch Hamilton or Duck Dynasty?

Apparently you can’t be seen using the ok sign anymore.  Internet trolls that get aligned to the label “alt right” have taken it, much as gangs frequently do with sports team uniforms.

Absurdities abound, round about here:

Critics expressed outrage when a former White House aide, Zina Bash, appeared to be flashing the sign as she sat behind Brett M Kavanaugh during the televised Senate confirmation hearings for his appointment to the Supreme Court.  Defenders of Ms. Bash insisted that she had not intended any racist connotation and was merely signaling o.k. to someone.

This excerpt should not be in a news article, unless we specify “critics” as “twittering nitwits”.  But, with hub ub occuring, and everything becoming politically incorrect…

From wikipedia:

Zina is the daughter of Lawrence Gelman, a doctor and hospital executive.^[1] She was born in Monterrey, Mexico, and raised in McAllen, Texas.^[2]
She is Jewish, and the descendant of Holocaust survivors.^[3]

In September 2018, during Kavanaugh’s nomination hearing, she was falsely accused of making a white power hand sign. Her husband John Bash condemned the accusations, calling them “repulsive” and a “vicious conspiracy theory”.^{[20][21][22][23][24]}

Actually we see wikipedia making a value judgement.  Maybe she was signaling to the white power “jews will not replace us crowd” (the other prominent figure cited flashing the “ok” sign is someone at the Charlottesville organizer… which strikes me as I google…

After Richard Spencer’s anti-Semitic Tirade, Will the U.S. Media Now Stop Glamorizing Well-dressed White Nationalists?

A loaded question… I don’t think Richard Spencer is getting much good (positive) press in the media, is he?