I think the Cowboys' head coach and the Rams' head coach have exactly the same color hair. Usually when that happens, the color is gray.
Cruising around the Internet during lulls in the action, I came across an unusual sentence in the Wikipedia article on the art critic, Robert Hughes (pictured):
Hughes was married to his second wife, Victoria Whistler, a housewife from California, from 1981 until a divorce in 1996.
Apparently she was doing the housewifing thing when she met Robert? His whole name is very manly--Robert Studley Forrest Hughes. According to Wikipedia, the full name of his brother, Tom, a lawyer and "Liberal member of the Australian House of Representatives from 1963 to 1972," was Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes. So it seems "Forrest" was good for two middle names but never the top choice, kind of like being the running mate for different presidential candidates. If you are interested in art, search Robert Hughes at YouTube. Even if you aren't, do it: you might find that you're more interested than you thought.
Trump, oh my god. Working for the Russians out of the Oval Office would be worse than shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. To be fair, the New York Times's article takes pains to point out that, in the view of the FBI, he could be an unwitting asset of the Kremlin, which seems
1) not as bad as being a witting one; and
2) consistent with his generalized cluelessness.
If you are one of these people who thinks being rich is a sign of competence, get over it. More likely it's a sign that your dad was rich. Trump is obviously sensitive about what his tax returns would reveal. The benign explanation is that they'd show his financial position today would be stronger if he had simply invested the millions his dad gave him in a conservative index fund and then partied away the last fifty years. The dark end of the spectrum was being checked out by the FBI before the hand off to Mueller.
Our system places the fate of a corrupt president in the hands of his own party. Trump's survival plan therefore is to maintain his support among Republicans. So far, he's done that, and he's now done it for so long that it probably makes it easier to maintain that support into the future. It's one thing to admit you made a mistake yesterday. It's quite another to admit you made a mistake years ago and have enthusiastically repeated it every day since, including yesterday. Soon, though, this principle might be tested by really grave revelations. Every new thing the public learns nudges the very worst possibilities farther along the way toward probable. Trump himself presumably knows how bad the facts are, and for a long time now he's been acting as if they must be very bad indeed. Democrats should resist the temptation to be gleeful. They have to perform the oversight function of Congress--Republicans were supine for two years--but they should proceed methodically with their investigations, letting the facts speak for themselves. Make it as easy as possible for Republicans to do the right thing. It's too grave a matter for a pissing contest like is going on now over Trump's "wall," or whatever he's currently calling it. Maybe I'm pollyannish, but I think the Democrats have good people in key places who are up to the task--committee chairs like Nadler and Schiff in the House of Representatives and senators like Feinstein and Klobuchar. Trump's vocabulary is so small that of necessity he says the same things over and over again, and one of them is, "We'll see what happens." If he survives until 2020, the quadrennial proclamation concerning how this is the most important election ever will finally be credible.
Comments