So.  Um.

To many Christians, the backlash against Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill was a frightening sign of the secular left’s triumphalism. Liberals were no longer working toward tolerance, it seemed—they were out for conquest. “Many evangelicals were experiencing the sense of an almost existential threat,” Russell Moore, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me. It was only a matter of time, he said, before cultural elites’ scornful attitudes would help drive Christians into the arms of a strongman like Trump. “I think there needs to be a deep reflection on the left about how they helped make this happen.”

To be sure, I’d rather have bakers not have to service cakes commemorating gay marriages.  (Hey!  There’s a whole article in Harpers on what gays lost by making this hetero-normative accommodation the foundation of what he considers his movement.  I don’t know where he stands on that issue.)  And I’m musing in a lot of threadings of needles — yep!  They’re arguing about creation and definitions of of “art” and “vision” before Supreme Court, when the issue comes down to whether they are forced to stick two plastic Tom Deweys on the top of the damned cake.

And to be sure, the man who made the comment here isn’t a Trump fan.  (Though, I suppose, he’d skip and stick to loyal servant — biblical servant as we see in the article — Pence in a heartbeat.)  But, “scorn” from a set of the political constituency — who themselves receive their fair share of scorn from Coulter Limbaugh and on — leads them to leap over to a Mussolini — Trump?

Like the broad-shoulder rememberances!

In the other revolt of “deep reflection” on the “left” (whatever those are supposed to signify) — Bill Clinton (and by extension his wife) versus hashtag Metoo.  Strange tidings.  So, have veteran  Clinton campaigners in a big banquet somewhere, scaring off people protesting this with an interesting buggaloboo.  “The American people decided.  They voted for him!”  Without coming on any side here, that’s a piss poor argument on moral turpitude.

Though, I see in one of the liberal rags — either The Nation or In These Times — on the considerations here… now that we don’t have, say, an Orrin Hatch to annoy us and come over to Clinton… one statement… questioning if Lewinsky in her power imbalance even has a grounds of consent.  The answer is… without exonerating Clinton here, or against the other matters that would have lead feminists to find their way to a “well, he supports abortion rights” exoneration … er, yes.  You’ve redefined things into meaningless

Upon this ballot lies the question of who is seated into the House of Delegates in Virginia — Democrat Shelly A Simonds for sure or David E Yancey with a 50-50 chance.  And with it, who controls the Virginia State House.

The challenged ballot shows bubbles for both Ms. Simonds and Mr. Yancey filled in, with a slash through the Simonds vote. Mr. Yancey’s lawyers argued in court last week that the voter intended to cross out the Simonds vote. The state handbook reads, “If there are identical marks for two or more candidates, clarified by an additional mark or marks that appear to indicate support, the ballot shall be counted as a vote for the candidate with the additional, clarifying marks.”

As further evidence of intent, Mr. Yancey’s lawyers pointed out the voter selected all the named Republicans on the ballot.

But in a motion this week, Ms. Simonds’s lawyers noted the bubble for the Republican candidate for governor, Ed Gillespie, was both blacked in and also marked with an X. Could an extraneous mark be both a sign of opposition to Ms. Simonds and of support for Mr. Gillespie?

Looking at this ballot, the Republicans do have a case.  The voter probably was voting for Yancey over Simonds.  The Democrats case on the meaning of the mark becomes convoluted, and disqualifies the Democratic candidate’s.

Basically if the ballot came out with the Democrats as so marked, and the Republicans as so marked, the Democrats would be insisting the ballot counted, and the Republicans insisting it be thrown out.  It is as we see the integrity of the ballot, as too — say, the integrity of the Abortion issue — such a deeply held heart-felt issue that politicians flip on the dime when the politics demand it.  (Mitt Romney and Donald Trump and Zell Miller on one end, Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich on the other.)

Simonds cries foul.  I suppose the Republicans might have fabricated nine ballots between the first recount and the next one, with a chin-scratching tenth one.  But if so, why not fabricate eleven?

So we wait.  January 4.  Sure to be broadcast on CSPAN.  Excitement abounds as we watch…

Under Virginia law, if a race is tied, the election board draws lots to determine the winner. There’s no set procedure for drawing lots, but the State Board of Elections has suggested it will place both names in a small canister, put the canisters in a glass bowl, shake it up, and pull one name out. That candidate will be declared the winner. (In the past, the board has also broken ties by asking a blindfolded person to draw a name from a large cup.)

Exciting stuff, eh?

Noted an On this day in history,

For December 25, 1991.

In 1991, Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev went on television to announce his resignation as the eighth and final leader of a communist superpower that had already gone out of existence.

Yes.  It was such the case where his job had become irrelevant, and then he quit.  But I’m stuck on the number : he was number 8.

Okay.  Go down the list.

#1:  Vladimir Lenin.
#2: Josef Stalin
#3:  Nikita Khruschev
#4: Leonid Brezhnev
#5: Um?
#6: Er?
#7: Uh?
#8: Mikhail Gorbachev

Sure.  The temporal and instantly unsure nature of # 5 through #8 tells you the nature of the Soviet Union, to those with eyes to see.  Leadership style most associated with that of President William Henry Harrison.  Maybe they were reformers.  Maybe they were stalwarts.  Maybe they lead from behind, maybe they made their presence known.  Maybe they were big picture, maybe they were detail oriented.  But mostly they were just dead pretty quickly.

Andro something and a P some dude.

The local alt weekly is worth one or two “sheesh”es or “ugh”s a week.  Last week, I was stuck pondering whether Weezer’s “Pink Triangle” is a blatant heaping pile of sexism (or homophobia — if that’s the right word), what the “I’m dumb, she’s a Lesbian”.  (Gets a little complicated because she’s actually not a lesbian, which I guess would prove the detractors’ point.)

This week, I have to wonder about this movie review…

Life life, it drags a bit in the last third and it isn’t nearly as fun as the end as it is at the beginning…

Projection of a mid life crisis, anyone?

Wait.  What’s that?

The budget deficit, which registered $666 billion in the 2017 budget year, is set to soar even higher, fueled by the tax cuts, a disaster relief total set to breach $130 billion, and long-promised, record budget increases for the military.

666 billion?  Really?

Does that number … 666… give anyone in the Christian Conservative trope of the Republican Party pause?  Maybe.

Pitt County’s Republican and Democratic congressmen voted against a sweeping tax overhaul on Tuesday, but for very different reasons.
Republican Rep. Walter Jones of Farmville said he cannot support legislation that adds to the national deficit, while Democratic Rep. G.K. Butterfield of Wilson said it’s a first step in an effort to cut programs that benefit many Americans.

No.  He didn’t give that as the “666” as the reason, so I guess the Walter Jones skips this angle.  Pursue the other 11 nay voters at your leisure (or whatever Democrats qualify.)  Besides which, maybe my logic is flawed — the tax cut shifts the number for the next year to something beyond 666, so if this were Walter Jones’s concern, he’d have voted aye.

As it were, a google search shows we’ve been here before under Reagan, or that Obama is still the anti-Christ.

The public library had a Garrison Keillor novel plucked out for show.  A statement, politically, or acknowledgement of increased interest of noteworthiness.
Curiously, a few years back at the time of lawsuits filed, a cd of old Bill Cosby comedy routines was placed out for show.  It had the one routine in the otherwise safest of safe comics which everyone could point to … which is a little odd, since if you’re all that curious to see/hear it, you can look it up on youtube.
More curious still, but I suppose all in the attempt at leveling against tipping a hand, in the display of books on sexism, the writing that accompanies it features “hashtags” to look into — “me too”, surely, but there’s no way in hell the person who put it up can think much of “not all men” — generally viewed in a too defensive posture which circumvents the point ala your “all lives matter” or probably even “blue lives matter”.

And then, just browsing, I happen upon a copy of The Turner Diaries.  I can’t say I have a problem one way or another with it popping up in a library selection, though I can assure you it will never appear displayed or popped up.  Not even for a “Banned Book Week”, which surely it would have to match the stated qualifications.  (Except for the unstated one where they want to match it to a literary value.)