Nate Silver on why Trump is going to have a hard time coming back from his current vote deficit. And it helps to remember that in some states, ballots are already being cast.
Honest, folks. I'd love to write about other topics. More seriously, I'd love to think about other topics. I'll try to post something later that has nothing to do with the election.
Did you hear Michelle Obama's speech today? You need to hear Michelle Obama's speech. It's about the guy running against Hillary Clinton, the way he treats women and how his election would be an endorsement of that kind of disqualifying behavior. The First Lady is a wonderful orator and her speech is dead on target.
This is a video of a rally and there's a lot of stuff before she comes on that you don't need to see but of course you can if you want to. I have this bookmarked so that in most browsers, it will start when she begins the speech. If it doesn't start there, you'll need to manually advance to 25:20. This is well worth your time — and it's unfortunately what a lot of this election has come to be about…
There are a half-dozen new reports of Donald Trump not respecting the privacy or personal boundaries of women. His office says those claims are "pure fiction." I suspect that they're probably true, that there are probably hundreds of other women who have similar stories, and that anyone whose vote can be influenced by this kind of thing has already been influenced.
Last evening, I had a call from one of the major polling services asking me how I felt about the election, how I felt about Hillary's e-mails, how I felt about Donald's reported behavior with women, etc. One question was whether the tape had raised my opinion of Trump, lowered it or had no effect. I picked the middle option though a more accurate answer would probably have been that it had no effect but only because I already believed he was like that, and my opinion of the man was already as low as it could possibly get.
This is all so tawdry that you have to look for the silver lining in it all. The best I can do is that I hope some men learn from all this. I fear some won't.
In both the comic book industry and television, I have been privileged to work with or near a lot of veterans somewhat older than I. The list includes some folks I grew up admiring greatly and of course, most of them have been male. A few times, I have been extremely pained to see one of them acting like what we more politely call a "Dirty Old Man."
Some of these men thought their groping, grabbing or salacious talk was all kind of cute or roguish. Some clearly weren't thinking at all. Most could not tell the difference between the occasional woman who was okay with it — perhaps even encouraged it — and the ones who forced smiles and pretended to be okay with it or didn't object loudly enough. And all of those men were shocked when they did notice a lady registering discomfort. They all acted like she was just being a bad sport over some harmless fun that most of the women would appreciate.
A couple times due to circumstances, it has fallen to me to step in and scold an older gentleman about his behavior. Back when I was running a primitive computer bulletin board for the Writers Guild, there was one veteran writer who somehow thought it was a dandy idea to send e-mails to most of the women on the board — some of them, total strangers — asking if they'd be eager or even willing to perform oral sex on him. As if that approach ever in a million years might yield the desired result.
We had a guy in high school who did that, propositioning any female under about 150 pounds. He didn't ask them out. He didn't try to get to know them. He just asked, often in dialogue that would be tawdry in a Ron Jeremy movie if they'd…you know.
You'd think even the most insensitive, self-obsessed clod would stop doing this just because (a) it never worked and (b) it made him look like a dick, thereby eliminating the remote possibility that any of those ladies would find him desirable. Still, that was his take on how males should interact with females.
That, of course, was high school where you kinda expect other students to say and do things out of which they need to grow. You tend to forgive the social clumsiness of others in a kind of unspoken understanding that they'll forgive yours. I got out of high school in '69 and I'm still amazed when I see grown men and women thinking they can still behave like that.
I guess I was naive to be startled when this fully-grown — age-wise though not emotionally — prominent writer did this; when he began using the WGA BBS to hit on female WGA members in much the same manner as that clown at University High. And one reason I was annoyed was because I was the guy in charge, meaning that I had to deal with it.
Many of the women complained to me. Some said they were going to get lawyers and take action against the Guild if they did not see some sort of reprimand or punishment. Others asked that I not let him know they'd complained because he was a man of some power in the TV business and they were afraid he'd retaliate in some manner that would harm their careers.
The WGA lawyers were of no help whatsoever. The Internet was in its infancy, there was almost no caselaw in this area and the attorneys couldn't even say if the Guild had total or zero responsibility for what was posted in private e-mails on their server.
Finally, I just went to this older male writer and tried explaining that nowadays, one did not just touch women without their consent (he did a lot of that, too) and that what you wrote or said to them mattered, as well. At first, it was like trying to explain to a cocker spaniel why he shouldn't hump someone's leg. To him, it was a primal need…but it was also a goof, it was a friendly gag, it was just the way women expect men to treat them. They should be flattered, he said. "Come on," he grinned. "I'm sure you've done the same thing. Every guy does."
I see that last rationale offered up on behalf of Trump now. It's locker room talk. All guys do it. It's not to be taken seriously even if you haven't been in a locker room for ten years.
I had to tell the guy firmly: No. I've done lots of things about which I'm still embarrassed but I've managed to avoid that one. "I've never asked women I barely know that," I told him. "I don't think I ever even asked it of a girl friend on our tenth date." When I was younger, as much out of fear as decorum, I erred in the opposite direction by being too shy…and by the way, if you are going to err, that's the direction you want to err in.
It was a long discussion with this guy because he couldn't or wouldn't understand why what he did was wrong. Finally, I emphasized two points that caused him to agree to not do it ever again…
There are, of course, better reasons for not sexually mauling someone, verbally or physically, but #2 was the one that registered with him. So did an implied but unspoken #3…
That was when he stopped and even wrote barely-sufficient apologies to all the women he'd bothered. Oh — and I should mention yet another reason he stopped. Like many males who mistreat females, this writer had a noticeable streak of homophobia. It flared up a lot when I informed him that four of the women he'd propositioned were actually men with androgynous names.
This was but one of several times I had to verbally spank an older man for groping women or acting like that. Some folks reading this probably know of an incident involving an otherwise-beloved figure in the world of comics who thought that because a couple of women didn't mind him pawing them, it was okay to grab at any body part of any lady.
Over the years, I've learned that even a slimeball will usually do the right thing if he understands it's going to cost him. They don't always stop when they realize they're hurting the women but they usually stop when you make them realize they're hurting others around them — friends and loved ones and admirers who must react in some way to the shameful behavior. And at least in my experience, they all stop when you make them realize they're hurting themselves.
Like I said, I hope some men learn from the example of Trump…and that they don't learn you can get away with it when you're rich and famous.
Ideally, they would get that you shouldn't molest women, even verbally, because it's just plain wrong. I, however, would settle for dudes learning it because it does make you look creepy-bad to everyone, including women you might otherwise have impressed. The creepiest thing about the Trump modus operandi is that little of it seems to be based on the premise that he can charm women into desiring him. It's almost all of the "I'll take what I want because I'm Donald Trump" variety.
Nate Silver says that if Trump loses the election, it will be because women voted against him. I'm sure that will be a major reason, though I think/hope a lot of it will be because Americans don't like the idea of torture or persecuting religions or giving huge tax cuts to people like Donald Trump or electing an unstable man to such an important office and/or a lot of other reasons. His attitude towards women isn't the only thing wrong with this guy.
Unfortunately, none of those will figure into the excuses Trump and his supporters will give for his loss. It'll be because the voting machines were rigged, the counting was fixed, millions of people who should not have voted voted, etc. And it'll also be because those evil Democrats and their accomplices in the media conspired to not let the country know who the real Donald Trump was. I mean, it's not like the TV networks ever gave him air time.
But maybe — just maybe — some men who need to learn how not to be pigs will realize that acting as Trump has with women is a very bad idea. It not only doesn't get you into her pants. It doesn't even get you into the White House.
John Green explains the tax plans of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton's raises the debt a little. Trump's raises it a lot unless we slash military spending or do away with something like Medicare. And if this kind of thing interests you, read Kevin Drum's summary after you watch this…
Okay, you'll love this. A few years ago, two filmmakers — Saratoga Ballantine and Dea Lawrence — made a documentary called Troupers, profiling a group of actors over the age of 80. They were Carl Ballantine, Kaye Ballard, Ivy Bethune, Betty Garrett, Pat Carroll, Harold Gould, Marvin Kaplan, Justine Johnston, Jane Kean, Bruce Kirby, Allan Rich, and Connie Sawyer. A few of them have left us since then but some of them are still working.
I could embed this but the way they have the video configured, you'll get a better feed if you go to this page and watch it there. It runs about 85 minutes and if you start viewing, you may get hooked and have to watch the whole thing. So check the time before you go peek.
Here are some classic candies that were introduced in the sixties. And while we're at it, here are some classic candies that were introduced in the fifties.
I never heard of some of these and never found most of the ones I did hear of particularly appealing. As I wrote here, I did like Fizzies but I wouldn't consider that a candy. I liked Pez but more for the dispenser toys than the actual candy…and the only flavor of Pez I liked was orange.
I seem to recall that when I first tried Peanut M&Ms, the peanuts had the peanut skins on them and I didn't like them because of that. Later, they made Peanut M&Ms with skinless peanuts and I liked those more — though not as much as the non-Peanut M&Ms. And come to think of it, I didn't like them as much as chocolate without the candy shells. I seem to also recall that I didn't like Hershey's Mr. Goodbar bars, which were chocolate-covered peanuts, because they had the skin also.
There's a group called Safe Minds that believes that vaccinating your children can cause them to develop Autism. To further their cause, they commissioned a study that looked at behavioral changes in baby monkeys when they were vaccinated. Well, guess what.
Well, I can't say I didn't expect it. Just the other day, I tweeted "It's getting harder and harder to stay friends with people I like despite their belief that Donald Trump is a good man." In this case, I reached an ugly place with a now-former friend who thinks Trump is a great man and "just what America needs," whereas we all know Hillary spends her time waterboarding nuns and running over puppies in a Hummer. Or something.
I didn't know which friend I would lose over this election but I knew there's be at least one. Hope it's only just the one.
A problem I've occasionally encountered — and I try to not do this myself, really I do — is the grand, sweeping condemnation of everyone who thinks a certain way. You know, it's like "Everyone who's voting Libertarian in this election is an ax murderer who molests baby seals." I have to remember that if I ever think that way to qualify my damnation thusly: "Everyone who's voting Libertarian in this election is an ax murderer who molests baby seals.*" And then I would put in a little footnote that said "*Except for my good friend Brian."
At the very least, I ought to recognize that I may not only be talking about strangers. I may be describing Brian.
The friend I just lost (not Brian) doesn't make such exceptions. I was apparently included in a tirade but about the low morals and lower I.Q.s of anyone who doesn't recognize that America is on the verge of destruction and The Donald is the only guy who can prevent it.
Suddenly, it stopped being a discussion. He was just yelling when I decided I didn't need this person in my life. Either a few seconds before or after, he came to that realization about me. Either way, it was the closest we came during that phone call to agreeing on anything.
I still don't quite understand why he's so certain America is doomed or why he thinks Trump alone can undoom it. I suspect my former pal's position has something to do with an emotional problem with a strong woman — which is not true of everyone who opposes Hillary but it sure is of some.
But whatever it is he believes that I don't, there's clearly no point in me talking to this person anymore. I used to want to believe I could get along with anyone. At some point though, I came to realize that there are some people with whom it's not worth the effort; that talking to them is a drain on your life with no offsetting benefit. Every minute they claim of your time is a minute you aren't spending with someone you'd rather be around…or on your own projects and endeavors.
In the case of political arguments — or others which involve deeply-held primal positions like religion — you just aren't going to change some folks' minds. With some people, you can differ but still respect each others' views. You can perhaps both learn a little something by exchanging them in an actual discussion. Or you can take them completely off the table and agree not to go there; not to discuss those topics. I've made all those work.
What's never worked for me — and I wonder if it's ever worked for anyone — is to yell at each other as if the sheer force of the yelling is going to drum a concept in someone's mind. Those people, you're just plain better off without. Maybe I'll look back someday and be glad that this election helped me weed one out.
And like I said, I hope it's just the one. But we have 27 days until the election and there will probably be some ill feelings for weeks after. So it probably won't be just the one.
All right. Who's the unAmerican turncoat who's been shackling poor Donald Trump? Who's the traitor who hasn't let him be as rude and vulgar and unconcerned with facts as he's wanted to be throughout this campaign? Please…someone. I want this person's name.
You want proof this guy is losing badly? There you have it.
Stephen Colbert is in reruns this week so he recorded a new six-minute segment to be inserted into tonight's show. No word on whether he'll be doing this throughout the week but here's tonight's…
If I was only four inches taller, I could and would hand out cards like this.
Suddenly, our political discourse is all about "locker room talk." I don't profess to be an expert on this, or at least a current expert. I spent some time each schoolday in a locker room back in junior high and high school in the sixties. Later, I dressed and undressed in locker rooms at some commercial gyms.
In the latter, I was among strangers so there was very little talk. Mainly what I recall from those experiences is that there always seemed to be one very old man with a body worse than mine who thought the whole point of being there was to see how long you could be naked in front of other men.
At school though, I was among friends and acquaintances, and what we all heard last week on that Donald Trump tape was similar in that it was a guy trying to impress another guy with how great he had it with women, though I don't recall any of us using quite those words or being quite so insistent that we could have our way with the ladies. Mostly, I remember the opposite: Inane claims that girls couldn't get enough of us. No one suggested grabbing a girl by the pussy because no one wanted to admit that that was necessary; that any young lady on campus wasn't throwing herself at them.
It was, of course, mass lying and everyone pretty much understood that at least 90% of it was just that. In hindsight, I came to believe that it was more like 99%. There were all these articles popping up in magazines suggesting that every teenager was engaging in non-stop sex so it was a little embarrassing to have the other guys know you weren't.
There was a guy named Larry in one of my gym classes who had a lucrative business selling condoms out of his locker. We called them "prophylactics" back then or more often just "Trojans." As I understood it, an older brother bought boxes of them for Larry who'd then sell them individually for fifty cents each, which was quite a mark-up if you did the math as to what they actually cost by the box.
Still, we bought them and not because we'd be using them for their intended purpose. We bought them because we wanted the other guys to think we'd be using them. Aside maybe from someone practicing putting one on, I suspect they all went unopened. Mine did.
Monday morning in the locker room was a lot like that Monty Python sketch where the old guys sit around and lie about how bad they had it as children. We were young guys bragging about how much sex we'd had over the weekend. The master of this was a guy named Doug who would loudly tell how he'd had massive amounts of sex with a girl who, since she's written to tell me she reads this site, gets a name change for the purposes of this story. Cindy, as I'll call her, was quite beautiful and I suspect if Doug hadn't claimed her first for his purposes, everyone else would have used her in their lies.
I'll give Doug this: He told a great story. We all knew it was at least partial bullshit, especially the ending which invariably was something like, "She wanted to do it one more time but I had to tell her, 'Sorry, babe. Eight is my limit.'" Yeah, sure, right. But we all listened and most of us thought he was outrageously exaggerating. We didn't doubt that he'd at least experienced the part of the story where he takes her to Hamburger Hamlet and then to a movie, even if we suspected the X-rated denouement was probably more of a "R." Maybe some of us were gullible.
Or maybe some of us wanted to believe some of that was possible with our female classmates. I also recall once when Time or Newsweek ran one of those articles — this is around 1968 — that said sex was rampant among high school kids, especially in California. My friend Chuck ran around at lunchtime waving that article and yelling, "Where? Where? How do I transfer to that school?"
I also recall watching Doug and Cindy individually walking around the campus, going to or from classes. I'd see them occasionally pass and not even exchange words or smiles. Odd behavior, I'd think, for a couple that allegedly went at it like mating cocker spaniels the previous weekend.
So one day, I struck up a conversation with Cindy. I asked her if she'd seen The Hollywood Palace on TV the previous Saturday evening. She said, "No, my folks and I had to go see my sister's ballet recital that evening and we didn't get home 'til late." That was a far cry from what Doug had said she was doing around 10 PM the previous Saturday.
Next time in the boys' locker room when Doug was nowhere to be seen or heard, I disclosed my findings to some other guys and said, "I have this feeling that if a magic genie gave Doug the chance to actually screw Cindy but no one would ever know about it, or to not screw Cindy but have everyone convinced he had, he'd pick 'b.'" All the guys laughed, agreed and one of them — Carl — said he'd strangle his grandmother for 'a' because he was still a virgin. I then said something like, "I'd strangle Carl's grandmother too for the same reason."
Everyone laughed and we all agreed that, yeah, we still hadn't been intimate with a girl. Some of us hadn't even really tried. I didn't so much as ask one out until, literally, Graduation Day. It seems silly now but back then, I was worried, "What if she says no and then I have to sit next to her in Geometry all semester and be reminded of that?"
Owning up to it as we did that day was oddly liberating and therapeutic. I suspect all of us felt better to realize we weren't freakish exceptions to the norm, no matter what Doug or Newsweek said.
When I heard Trump's taped boasting referred to as "Locker Room Talk," I thought of the L.R.T. I'd experienced and how different it was. I did discuss sex with other guys, not only in the locker room but elsewhere but like I said above, it wasn't like what The Donald said. I don't think that was because it was a different time or we were of a different age. I think some males just plain don't get it about getting some.
I had a friend at University High who was genuinely worried that if and when some lady was interested in being (shall we say?) "intimate" with him, he'd embarrass himself one of about nine different ways. This, he feared, would cause her — whoever she would be — to never to go near him again and to of course alert all other women on the planet to do likewise. I assured him that only happened once in a while. Twenty-something years later, I saw him at our high school reunion. He was happily married with many kids. I guess no woman ever put out an alert on him.
A lot of folks are offended by Trump's use of vulgar terminology. I don't care much about the words. It's the attitude towards women that makes me think the guy's an irredeemable asshole, not that I only came to that conclusion last week.
I could probably rationalize and excuse it if he was seventeen but, Christ, Donald Trump is seventy years old, thrice-married and I suspect that with his fame and money, he's encountered a fair number of attractive women who genuinely want to be with him. Does he really not understand that the best part of a consensual sexual relationship is that it's consensual? And that if it's not consensual, it's rape?
Maybe if that tape causes some men to think, "Jeez, I never want to be like him," it'll do some good. Actually, I'll be satisfied if the only thing that comes of it is that we'll be rid, once and for all, of Billy Bush.
That debate was awful. If it was in some other country and you saw five minutes from it on the news, you'd say, "Thank God that kind of thing doesn't happen in America." I'm sure it gave erections to a lot of folks who've long hated Hillary Clinton and believed every bad accusation against her. Still, I couldn't help but wonder what viewers who aren't already solidly for Trump thought. I would imagine some said, "I don't want to see either of those two people in my government!"
Trump had some better moments than he did in Debate #1 but I think the moments when he looked maniacal probably canceled them out. And of course, the fact-checkers are already busily pointing out statements that are easily disproven, and both sides are claiming that their candidate mopped the floor with his/her opponent.
I may be wrong since I tuned out twice briefly but I think some of the "town hall" questioners actually got to ask questions. Not many but some.
I'm kinda sorry that when Donald promised to appoint a Special Prosecutor to put Hillary behind bars, she didn't say, "Well, Donald. I'll put your mind at ease. If I win, I won't sic any prosecutors on you. I'll let the ones that are already investigating you finish their jobs."
How those who are actually polled (as opposed to flooding bogus online polls) will score this thing, I can only guess. I'd guess Trump will rate higher than last time and might even win a few polls. But he's way behind and he needed more than a small victory tonight. I don't think he got it, especially since he looked childish with that "hate in her heart" line and whining about the moderators. Boy, will I be glad when this thing is over.
Just turned the debate off. I can't watch this kind of thing for very long.
And now for something, etc.: John Cleese will be touring the U.S. next year, hosting screenings of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Tickets are already on sale for events in Rhode Island, Maine and Chicago and you can find out about this over on Kim "Howard" Johnson's blog.
Now isn't that a lot more fun that watching two people — one of whom will be soon be the most powerful person in the world — having a slap fight on television?