The Safe Choice

Look at this poll:

A few things stick out.  First, Biden's greatest strength is with women and African Americans.  My guess is that these constituencies feel the most vulnerable to Trumpism, and they want to make the safest bet possible. For women, Biden seems like a tactical choice: If Hillary could lose to Trump, why not nominate a man? For African Americans, Biden represents a return to Obama.

Sanders strongest support comes from men.  It was always hard not to see Sanders' campaign in 2016 as a "not Hillary" vote as much as a pro-Socialism vote. As Biden vaults ahead of him, how much of that is because of simple hidden (and not so hidden) sexism? If there is one candidate that was hurt by Biden's entry, it was Bernie.  Given how far away they are on the issues, that suggests that the real support for Bernie was because he was a dude, rather than because of a strong preference for Denmark style social democracy.

I'm struck, also, but the weakness for Harris.  I think she might be the best "politician" of any of them.

The great fallacy of campaigns is that voters make a rational decision based on policy preferences, intellect and character. But what happens as African Americans get reminded of some of Biden's long ago votes for things like the bankruptcy bill or the crime bill?  Will women be repelled by Biden's handsiness?  And if Biden fades, who benefits?

Mueller Was Never Gonna Be Your Jesus

Robert Mueller's press remarks yesterday have left people nonplussed or desperately confused. It seems me that he - in his very careful way - said what non-Fox analysts have been saying.  Trump obstructed justice on levels we may never have seen before, but I can't charge him with a crime.  Left implied by unstated was that this must now be Congress's job.  He also resigned.  My question is whether that exempts him from Barr's oversight.  Could he now testify before the House as a private citizen?

I despair of the wailing on Twitter about Nancy Pelosi.  Pelosi is the most capable, fearless legislative leader of the 21st century.  She knows what she's doing, and I will bet the farm that she's slow rolling impeachment to bring it closer to the election. She wants the evidence of his crimes fresh in voters' minds.

Pretty Please

Is Netanyahu doomed?

"What If Obama Had...." Part The Millionith

Trump's recent embrace of Kim Jong Un is just...how is this happening? Trump took Kim's side over Joe Biden.  How is that not leading to howls from every alleged patriot in the Republican Party? I'm old enough to remember John McCain speaking up for Obama's citizenship and patriotism in 2008.  Romney was a bit softer in that support, but clearly some Republicans have decided that Romney and McCain's signature political faults were in not being racist and mendacious enough. Trump's victory* in 2016 taught them that the only way to win is be a gutter-dwelling trash monster. So they are content to sit back and let the final Foxification of their party take place. It is now completely fine to prefer the world's worst dictator over a former American Vice President.

Jesus....

The Truth

This is an interesting take on why fiction is often more powerful than truth. Without having spent too much time delving into the argument, my surface qualification is that narrative is more important than truth. The story need not be true or false, but it must be a good story.  We've all been around people who can't tell a story without qualifying it and hedging and insisting on getting the facts right.  "Sally said...no, wait, it was Sarah...Sally came later to the conversation." Facts aren't important to a story, but that doesn't mean that "truth" in the broadest sense doesn't play a role in good narratives. If a story "feels" false, it won't land.  Take the end of Game of Thrones as a fiery example.

We tell ourselves stories to make sense of a chaotic world.

The Big Short

Every year, it seems, I end my AP US History course by watching The Big Short. It's a lively, intelligent take on the 2006-8 housing bubble, complete with some brief nudity and adult language to keep the kids on their toes. #TeacherOfTheYear

What is striking every time I see it, is how obvious the markers were.  I can remember being worried about a housing bubble when we bought our house in 2004. And then there was the debt levels that mortgages represented for the average American. Debt - in and of itself - isn't a bad a thing.  Too much debt relative to income clearly is.

Which brings me to student loans. These loans could very well be a ticking time bomb in the current economy.  Unlike mortgages, they aren't adjustable rate loans, so maybe we don't have a Come to Jesus moment, like mortgages. But the debt levels many Americans are taking on is unsustainable.  This is the handmaiden of wealth inequality and stagnant wages, but it's real.

I'm not on board with making four year college free. But the way we are structuring student debt has to change.  It's a massive choke collar on the economy and could be a noose.

You Can't Build A Submarine Out Of Cheese

Theresa May will step down, having failed to build a submarine out of cheese. Sadly, it looks like Gary Busey cosplay enthusiast Boris Johnson will likely succeed her.  This dramatically increases the likelihood of a "hard Brexit." Among the possible repercussions of a hard Brexit is a global recession and regional depression, increased violence in Northern Ireland and renewed secessionist sentiment in Scotland.  Yay, Brexiteers!  It is difficult to root for economic calamity and impossible to root for violence.  But it almost feels like Hard Brexit needs to happen and force real pain on the people who voted for this shitshow.  Of course, as we are seeing with Trumpist farmers and Chinese tariffs, the refusal to believe that your political decision was wrong is a pretty strong force in all politics.

Paralysis

Yesterday, Nancy Smash once again got under Trump's skin. He staged a tantrum in front of Democratic leaders and then reiterated that tantrum in the Rose Garden. Trump's refusal to engage in an infrastructure bill negotiation until Congress stops investigating him is typical Trump stupidity.  As Jon Chait points out, an infrastructure bill would be the only thing that might get Trump's job approval rating over 41%, He ran as a master dealmaker, but he has been unable to close any deals - with Iran, with the EU, with North Korea or with Democrats in Congress.  His negotiation style as a businessman was to withhold payment, sue and declare bankruptcy.  That won't wash at the presidential level.

Trump's inability to govern doesn't hurt Democrats.  It hurts Trump. As court ruling after court ruling goes against him, he will lash out more.  Meanwhile, Pelosi's decision to slow roll impeachment will drag this process out into the summer and fall.  I'll peg impeachment hearings as beginning after the August recess and before the Christmas recess.

Meanwhile, Trump will continue is Twitter ragegasms and we will all cringe.

Paying For It

I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren's policy chops.  I'm not sure how good a TV politician she is - she routinely ran below other Democrats in Massachusetts - but she is an excellent policy generator.

This piece in the WaPo lays out why perhaps her numbers don't add up. That's fair.  It should be noted that Republican's numbers have NEVER added up - or even come close.  Also, when you run on generalities and platitudes like Sanders and Biden, it allows you not to have to deal with the messy math of the whole thing.

The primary issue with Warren's taxation plans is that the wealthy are very adept at avoiding paying their taxes.  Even if Warren's plan could put in place enough enforcement measures, you would have two problems.  First, as we've seen in the Panama Papers, it's far too easy for wealthy people to hide their money overseas.  Any new taxation scheme devised to address the real global problem of the top .001% will have to address global tax evasion. If Billionaire Bob can simply move from France to Luxembourg, then France has no sovereignty. If he can hide his wealth in the Caymans, then you can't tax it.  This is a global problem and requires a global solution.

The second issue, which is secondary, is that once the Republicans gain control of the government again, they will kill enforcement efforts. Any law would have to include criminal penalties (not civil ones) against those who evade taxes and government officials who allow that to happen. 

In the end, I'd like to see Warren's taxation passed and about half of her spending agenda passed.  Universal kindergarten, but not child care.  Universal two year college, not four year college. More on infrastructure.  But unless you can actually raise the revenue that you want, you will leave yourself open to the deficit scolds.

Patience

First court ruling went against Trump.  Many more will follow. 

It's when Trump fails to abide by Court decisions that impeachment will gear up.

How Do You End A Story That Isn't Designed To End?

And so Game of Thrones ends with a million angry tweets and sighing Facebook posts. Trying to answer every criticism isn't really worth anyone's time, but I feel compelled to make some observations.

First, I want to compare it to the end of Seinfeld.  People hated that ending, but Seinfeld's original concept was "horrible people doing horrible things, but funny."  The ending laid that bare by cataloguing all the horrible things that the Seinfeld cast had done.  That's what the show was "about."  The ending was true to that.

What was GoT about? I think far too many people became invested in who "won" the game of thrones. As Drogon so eloquently expressed last night, the throne itself is toxic.  No one "wins," because competing is ultimately self-destructive.  Robert Baratheon was a drunken boor, Joffrey a sadistic monster, Tommen a fool, Cersei a cynical murderer and Daenerys a messianic megalomaniac. All of them used the idea of hereditary rule to justify their reign.  At the end, the idea of hereditary rule is ended. The game will be won politically rather than with DNA or swords. Bran's (shocking) elevation to the throne was not because he's especially well-suited to be king, but because he's a compromise that allows for peace.  Everyone stanning for another character has to be disappointed.

Some people were actually upset that Sam's idea for a democracy was laughed off stage, but that's entirely in keeping with that world, or ours for that matter.  By electing a king, though, that's the beginning of representative government, though the franchise is limited to the Great Houses. Eventually, the Lesser Houses will get a vote and so on.

What we see in the final scene at King's Landing is a debate on the Small Council over sewage, brothels and trade.  It's small and petty and played as a punchline.  Also a punchline is the fact that the official history of the war fails to even mention Tyrion, who was arguably as important a figure as anyone.  History isn't even the propaganda of the winners, it's whatever the writer says it is. Tyrion had made a speech about how powerful stories are and then finds himself written out of the Song of Ice and Fire.  The leadership of Westeros - a semi-human database and a dwarf who can't garner any respect - is rendered as a grim punchline, because it's always been grim punchline.

The other thing the show was "about" was scope and scale.  If anything, that's what set it apart from any other TV show.  From the opening credits, we know that this episode will travel around the world. So many of the best storylines revolved around characters' journeys. Daenerys and Jorah through Essos, Jamie and Brienne, Arya and the Hound, Sam and Gilly, Jon and Ygritte, Jon and Tormund, Jamie and Bronn, Grey Worm and Missandei.  The show took a huge scope and shrunk it into small journeys.  The much maligned "Catch a Wight" episode was simply a larger version of this dynamic.  The story itself starts with the almost forced exit from Winterfell of Nedd, Arya and Sansa Stark and Jon Snow for the Wall.

And it ends with Jon heading north of the Wall to be in the one place where he seemed happy and Sansa returning home to be the rightful Queen in the North.  Both Jon and Sansa are home, whereas Arya... well, a girl has no home.  The endings for the Stark children seemed right.  OK, Bran was weird, but Bran IS weird. (There is the interesting thing with the direwolves. The names are supposed to mean something.  Sansa's direwolf is Lady, and she winds up a Queen.  Jon's wolf is Ghost and he winds up in the lands formerly ruled by the dead. Arya's is Nymeria a warrior queen.  And Bran? Summer.  Maybe the Three Eyed Raven's victory over the Night King means the weird weather will stop.)

Did it all make sense?  Of course not.  I'm still trying to figure out what the Wildlings eat, because even in summer, there is no agriculture up there.  Where did all those Unsullied and Dothraki come from?  Where did Drogon go?  Which IS more important: ships or brothels?

But an epic story isn't one meant to end.  The Lord of the Rings had a shitty ending, too.  In fact, it had so many endings, it's become it's own joke. Game of Thrones was about wheel and about the road. The wheel turned and at the end it's a little bit different but overwhelmingly the same, because that's what wheels do.  And the most of the main characters are back on the road. The ending of Game of Thrones was no ending at all.

A true ending was always impossible, so instead they wrapped things up because they ran out of money.  That's frustrating.  But they told their story - Martin, Benioff and Weiss did - and now our watching has ended.

The First Stone Turns

Justin Amash is a standard Tea Party retrograde, but he's right about impeachment hearings for Trump.  Pelosi is catching ungodly shit on Twitter for not starting impeachment hearings, but this strikes me as one of the things Pelosi was waiting for.  First, you get a few Republicans to support the process. Second, you have Trump's minions disregarding lawful subpoenas.  I don't know if Pelosi really doesn't want to impeach or is waiting for the "more in sadness than in anger" moment, but the latter is rapidly approaching.

Par For The Course

Chris Cillizza continues to cement his status as the world's biggest hack by reporting - credulously - Trump's claim to have shot a 68 on a PGA course. 

Paul Campos does a good job of breaking down why Trump lying about his golf score is a bigger deal than just the latest manifestation of his narcissism. But it's also worth noting that Cillizza's uncritical stenography is fundamentally at odds with the mission of journalism.  In a sane world, this would be cause for demotion, if not outright firing. 

Hahvahd

This is a very good summary of the uproar at Harvard's Winthrop House.

TL;DR: There are a lot of political agendas and personal feelings coming together among very opinionated people.  It's very messy.

The Sovereignty Of Law

Jon Chait notes how the GOP has built a shieldwall of lawlessness around Trump. Yeah, yeah, they are being hypocrites.  Honestly, if hypocrisy was a crime there wouldn't be a GOP politician walking the streets free. Democracies absolutely need the law to be sovereign, which is to say the final power of the land.  Trump's brazen lawlessness and disregard for both the spirit and letter of the laws has required that the GOP circle around him.

Which brings me - as Chait references obliquely - to Joe Biden.  Biden has recently called Trump an outlier and states that once he wins the election, Republicans will have an "epiphany" and work across the aisle to solve problems.

If he believes that, it's a disqualifying statement.  First off, Trump is not an outlier.  He is the personification of the Party of Fox News. When he ran in 2016, he took some heterodox positions, but he has abandoned all of them, except stupid trade wars (which is more Fox than GOP). As president, he has governed as a routine Republican would, with a more blasphemous Twitter feed.  Trump is absolutely the Republican party at this moment.

Of course, it's just as likely that Biden doesn't believe this.  He was Vice President during Obama's fruitless quest to try and work across the aisle.  If he was able to do it in 2010 and didn't, he shouldn't be the nominee of the coalition that Obama built. It sure feels like Biden is trying to kumbaya his way to the White House.  The problem is that people really do govern as they campaign.  Republican intransigence and the likelihood of a GOP Senate (or very close to it, certainly no 60 seat Dem majority) means that important issues are unlikely to be addressed unless you scorch the earth.

Joe Biden: Clueless Or Cynical...that isn't a great campaign slogan.

The End Of Roe

Georgia and now Alabama have passed some of the most draconian anti-choice laws in the country. There is zero way these new laws would survive legal challenge based on any concept of stare decisis.  These laws are so far away from the Casey framework as to be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that 2016 gave the Republicans the right to place two justices on the bench who are undoubtedly hostile to Roe.  Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, Thomas and Alito are probable locks to uphold these laws.  Roberts will probably vote to uphold parts of the law. 

Alabama...well, what can you say about a state that nearly elected a serial child predator to the US Senate. Georgia, however, is home to Atlanta, which is home to several Fortune 500 companies and a generally "pro-choice with caveats" population. Georgia was another state where electoral shenanigans put a Republican in the executive. The idea that the GOP won't continue to play fast and loose with electoral laws is absurd.  It's working.  Why stop?

Generally speaking, these laws are unlikely to be popular nationwide.  While Roe isn't the most popular decision, there are consistent large majorities supporting things like rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions, and regular majorities for the sort of Casey framework: choice with limitations.  Politically, I would wager this would hurt Republicans, except, the Republicans have already ceded the support of the majority of Americans. They have control of enough rural areas so that the political positions of the Big Cities will be nullified.

In the meantime, if these laws are allowed to stand, states like Alabama, Georgia and soon Ohio and others will be jeopardizing the health and safety of women.  The intent of these laws are clear, especially Alabama's.  The Alabama law does not apply to embryos created for in vitro fertilization.  It only applies to conception that occurs in the womb.  This is EXACTLY the interpretation of these laws that women's groups have been pointing to.  This isn't about the sanctity of life when sperm meets egg.  This is about controlling women's reproductive choices.  This is about barefoot and pregnant.

The Courts might save us...but I doubt it.  We are simply too far gone.

This Stinks To High Heaven

I'll outsource the military analysis to Adam Silverman, but it doesn't take a QAnon level of conspiracy thinking to connect the dots here.  America - mainly John Bolton - has wanted regime change in Iran since Trump took office.  The withdrawal from the nuclear deal was designed to provoke more conflict with Teheran - not prevent nuclear weapons. Now, we've sent a carrier task force to the coast of Iran.

These attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf are - as Malcolm Nance explains in the post above - woefully inadequate as military actions, but perfect for provoking war with Iran. The fact that Saudi Arabia would LOVE for us to expend a few trillion dollars and a tens of thousands of dead Americans to weaken their primary regional rival certainly gives them motive and opportunity.

Biden

Interesting piece by Jon Chait that analyzes the difference between what the "extremely online" progressive left wants and what the rank and file members of the Democratic electorate wants.  I do think we need to account for the fact that Biden has near-universal name recognition, doesn't have Bernie's baggage and has a positive association with Obama, rather than any intrinsic strength as a candidate.  Still, maybe it's time to temper our idea of the great People's Revolution of 2020.

About Last Night

The Internets were aflame with Game of Thrones arguments. If you care about spoilers, piss off.

There was one camp that was extraordinarily pissed that Daenerys turned out to be the villain after all.  They pointed to her many good deeds in Essos, like ending slavery in Slavers' Bay. How could she just snap like that and roast most of a city.

The problem is that the "Mad Queen" has been a story arc that goes back to Season One. There has always been a sort of pyromaniacal bloodlust in Daenerys. A strong steak of tyranny has been a hallmark of her rule.  Executing innocent people has also been a part of her storyline - whether the Lords of Mereen she crucified at random, the person she burned alive in the dragon crypt, even burning the Tarleys was unnecessary. Once her blood is up, she wants to burn things.  Even at the Battle of Winterfell she abandoned the plan to burn stuff.  It was absolutely the right call, but still - given an opportunity, Daenerys will reach for Fire and Blood, just like her house words suggest.

Emilia Clarke is a charismatic actor and there have been parts of Daenerys' storyline that have been inspirational.  It's totally believable why people - from the Unsullied to Dario Naheris to Jorah to Tyrion - have been captivated by her.  But she has always seen herself as a benevolent dictator (in the sense of absolute power that cannot be questioned).

What's more, the idea that one character that we have been rooting for for years turns out to have a fatal flaw, making her a villain, is entirely the point of Game of Thrones. Ambition has always been the fatal flaw. It led Nedd Stark to King's Landing, then Robb Stark, then Joffrey, Maegery, Littlefinger...How many people have tried to scramble up the ladder of power only to destroy themselves in the process?

If you're rooting for a character to sit on the Iron Throne, you're not watching the right show.

Most likely, Jon or Arya will have to kill Daenerys. Maybe Jon winds up on the throne.  Maybe a hapless Gendry (newly legitimized by Daenerys) winds up there under the influence of Arya.  Who knows? Maybe the Seven Kingdoms fall apart, because they simply can't be ruled. 

But the Mad Queen has always been a part of the coming story.  They probably rushed it a bit and sacrificed character development for spectacle. There could have been a few more scenes setting this up, but frankly, I've been rewatching the series and this has always felt like where we were headed.

Getting My Wine Game On

For either Cersei's triumph or fall.

Works either way.

Spoiler Culture

Decent piece about how our obsessions with "spoilers" have ruined films and TV. We know that Hamlet dies, and yet we still watch the play.  For that matter, we all knew that the Avengers would undo the Snap, but we didn't know how.

I would add that the other thing spoiling our enjoyment of dramatic narratives is "fan theories."  If you have a theory as to what is going to happen in the final two episodes of Game of Thrones, you are almost certain to be disappointed when it doesn't happen. You've invested in an outcome and that outcome is almost certain not to happen.  Even if what happens is "entertaining," you will be letdown that your favorite pet theory didn't come to pass.  There were plenty of people who expected the Night King to win the Battle of Winterfell.  When he didn't (SPOILER!) that left them upset, regardless of how entertaining Arya's last second saving of the day was.

I love the internet in a lot of ways.  I love arguing sports with people around the country. I love that the world's store of information is a Google search away.  But in fundamental ways, the Internet is breaking us as a community.

UPDATE: As if on cue...

We Will See Trump's Taxes

One way or another.

Most likely, Trump or one of his lackeys will fold.  Bullies always do.

How Bad Are Things, Really?

We might be veering into war with Iran.

Or is it North Korea?

Or is it Venezuela?

We have a trade war with China.

There was another mass shooting.

We are veering towards a constitutional crisis over claims of executive privilege that have no basis in history or precedent.

But if you're not a political junkie or follow the news primarily through your local newscast and newspaper...how bad are things for you?  America's crumbling reputation in the world doesn't impact someone going about their day to day life. There is broad consensus that things aren't going the way we want them, but no consensus on why that is.

I worry that Democrat's outrage over Trump - while entirely justified - isn't going to be enough to win the sort of resounding election that will be required to keep Trump from claiming electoral fraud and prompting another, different constitutional crisis.

There are so many weird things about this era, but the fundamental unhappiness, despite material progress is one of them.  The very real possibility that disengaged Americans might re-elect Trump, however, is very real and very frightening.

The Looming Battle Is Everything

We are entering an extremely fraught moment in our country's history.  That's not hyperbole. Trump has basically decided that he will no longer cooperate in any meaningful way with Congressional oversight. He has denied lawful subpoenas for his tax returns, William Barr's testimony before the House and is considering stopping Robert Mueller from testifying.  He knows he has the complete, unwavering support of the GOP in this.  The economy is booming (though the Dow took a bit of a tumble yesterday) and Trump clearly sees the largest threat to his re-election being his personal failures.  So he is going to stonewall the House at every opportunity.

As Jon Chait notes, there are legitimate security questions surrounding Trump's tax returns and business practices leading up to his election (if not after). The Times has already demonstrated what astute observers have known: that Trump is a terrible business man. His tax returns will further demonstrate this, plus potentially demonstrate Trump's exposure to financial coercion.

Sadly, we are now reliant on Courts that the GOP has been assiduously packing for the last two years to force the President of the United States to comply with the law.  And honestly, what happens if the Supreme Court tells Trump to turn over his tax returns and he says, "no"?  What happens then? 

I'm not sure I want to find out.

In Defense of Jon Snow

Game of Thrones is running into problems with its fans as it tries to stick the landing.  After an average opener and a stellar second episode, the show found itself stuck with trying to extricate itself from the White Walker storyline. Since the first episode, the Night King and the White Walkers have been this existential threat hovering north of the Wall.  But ultimately, that was a narrative dead-end, because the literal game of thrones is over who wins the right to rule Westeros.  For several seasons now, we've been trending towards a showdown between Cersei, Danerys and Jon. The White Walker storyline was increasingly grafted on to this story.

It wasn't irrelevant, by any means.  Defeating the Army of the Dead legitimizes both Jon and Daenerys.  They risked everything to protect humanity, and it cost them dearly. It also had the plot impact of reducing the relative strength of Daenerys' army, which had to happen so the final confrontation with Cersei would have higher dramatic stakes. If she had three dragons, the Unsullied and the Dothraki, the conflict would be over in the blink of an eye. The conflict with the Dead also united Jon and Daenerys in ways beyond the (feeble) chemistry of the fact they are both good looking.

But as we hurtle towards the final two episodes, we are meant to pick a side between the three claimants.  There is Cersei, cruelly adept at the "game," but no one's idea of a just or good ruler.  She blew up a cathedral full of people. So, we have been increasingly led to wonder about the coming split between Jon and Daenerys, nephew and aunt, lovers, Targaryens.  The plot has made us question Daenerys' sanity.  Is she becoming fire-mad, like he father?  All the qualities that made her the "Princess that was Promised" were demonstrated in Slaver's Bay, not Westeros.  She seems out of touch with the country she is meant to lead.  So, the Mad Queen versus the Bad Queen...

Which brings us to Jon Snow/Aemon Targaryen.

Jon has three defining qualities: he's mopey, he's dopey and he's hopey. The mopey thing is understandable, given his status as the bastard of Winterfell.  As someone who didn't read the books, people pointing at his character in Season One as being critical left me perplexed. Sad Jon Snow is literally a meme. But melancholy beats crazy or evil, so being mopey doesn't disqualify him.

The dopey and hopey are two sides of the same coin.  Jon is honorable. That's his defining character trait. He sticks up for the weaker members of the Night's Watch; he ingratiates himself with the Free Folk but stays true to his oath; he saves the Night's Watch and then the Wildlings; he lets them through the Wall at the cost of his own life; he risks everything to recruit Daenerys and Cersei in the War against the Dead. Jon IS a good man.  He shares that fatal male Stark flaw of believing honor will shield him.

Part of the problem is that we keep getting told that he's a good man.  That's...bad writing. But some of it has to be the fundamental disconnect between what we need to know about Jon Snow and Kit Harrington's limitations as an actor. Harrington did a great job with Sad Jon Snow, but there isn't much inspirational to his character.  Mopey Jon Snow has outweighed Hopey Jon Snow.  Dopey Jon Snow, I can excuse, because some of that was plot service (Daenerys needed to lose a dragon to the Night King, because the plot required it, for instance). His failure at the Battle of the Bastards seemed as much about setting up Sansa as the smarter of the two as it did about his impulsive decision to charge out and save Rickon.

Because he's Mopey and Hopey, Jon would probably be a good king.  But the show has needed to make him Dopey, so that he can rise about the stupidity of his own poor decisions (like Operation: Steal a Wight).  That was a bad idea, but it was a bad idea that needed to happen to cement the bond between Daenerys and Jon and to lose a dragon. 

Benioff and Weiss have simply written themselves into corners that are tough to write themselves out of.  Jon Snow has borne much of the brunt of this. There is a theme within the show that contrasts the ability to conquer with the ability to rule.  Martin, himself, has stated that this is a theme.  Snow has made bad decisions.  So have Daenerys (crucifying people, for instance) and certainly Cersei (did I mention she blew up a church). What sets Snow apart, as Tyrion and Varys discussed, is his lack of ambition for the throne, despite his superior claim to it.

These roles were cast years ago, with mostly unknown actors. They got so very, very lucky with Maisie Williams and Sophie Turner.  But it's difficult to buy into Jon Snow as an inspirational leader.  Mopey Jon Snow gets in the way of Hopey Jon Snow.  I don't think the character has been served especially well by either the writers or the actor playing him.

However, at this point, Jon Snow/Aemon Targaryen sitting on the Iron Throne with Sansa advising him strikes me as a better outcome than most.

Peace

This is an interesting study flagged by Josh Marshall. It studies Islamophobia among various groups.  One group that is consistently does not hate Muslims is Jews.  As Marshall notes, this would seem surprising if we filter everything through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We all know, from observing things from 6,000 miles away that Jews and Muslims hate each other.

What's striking about this is how much of our discussion of what Israel is and stands for is increasingly being filtered through a Christian Zionist perspective.  Evangelicals want the Temple rebuilt so that Jesus can return and...cast the Jews into the Lake of Fire.  Cool. Support for Israel is therefore less about supporting Jews and more about taking a side in a nationalist contest that has Biblical overtones.  Muslims are the "bad guys" if all you know about Islam is Al Qaeda and Hamas.

One thing Marshall doesn't touch on, is something I've noticed in studying both Judaism and Islam.  Doctrinally, they are much more similar to each other than they are to their cousin, Christianity.  Only Christianity splits God into parts.  Only Christianity asserts that Jesus is divine. Islam and Judaism seem much more focused on ethical living, whereas Christianity focuses on divinity.

Shalom means peace in Hebrew; salaam means peace in Arabic.  Muhammad lived among the Jews of Medina. None of this is an accident. Hell, the Iranian Majles reserves a seat for a Jew; even we don't do that. Once again, a blinkered understanding of history dooms our understanding before it can even start.

Endgame

Finally saw Endgame.  Basically, it was a super-hero movie about grief and loss.  That's why the Marvel movies are so good.  They are unexpected.

This Is Significant

Trump basically cold called Putin and told him he thought Mueller's crystal clear conclusions about Russian interference in our elections wasn't true. He sided with Putin over the FBI.  Again. 

And the GOP has his back.

Are There Fissures?

Odious and aggressively wrong Stephen Moore has withdrawn from his nomination as governor on board of the Federal Reserve.  Trump put forth two laughably bad nominees because he saw them on the TeeVee.  Apparently enough Republican Senators said, "Yeah, no."

Also, the Barr hearings showed only Sasse push back a bit against Barr, but also few GOP Senators doing more than offering vocal support for Trump and Barr, rather than countering Democratic questions.  Compare this to Chairman Nadler cutting Devin Nunes' mic over in the House.

We've been waiting for Republican politicians to put their oaths of office before their political opportunism, but I wonder just how sick of defending Trump they really are.  They won't defect in public, because they are a cohort of cowards and collaborators.  But just how much are they willing to carry water for this guy?

UPDATE: Jesus, these people.  The Senate GOP and the White House are now on opposite sides of a Hail Mary lawsuit to end the ACA.  Are these jamokes aware of the invention of the telephone?

Trump Wraiths

Josh Marshall has called individuals who get sucked into Trump's orbit and then watch as their backbone and reputations slowly dissolve Trump Wraiths.  They become ghosts of their former selves. Rex Tillerson, Reince Preibus and Sean Spicer were the first victims, but their cautionary tale has meant that fewer and fewer competent Republicans want anything to do with this dumpster fire of an administration.

Enter William Barr. His performance yesterday was an abysmal abdication of his constitutional responsibilities. The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer (despite Trump's oft stated desire to have his "own Roy Cohn"). The AG is the country's top law enforcement officer. Barr has rarely been truthful in his statements surrounding the Mueller probe and has left himself open to perjury charges.  His decision not to appear before the House is contempt.

There are whispers that people are considering impeachment.  Of course, the performance of the GOP Senators yesterday demonstrates that there are unlikely to hold any Republican accountable.  Would an acquittal in the Senate strengthen or weaken Barr and therefore Trump? Or would the impeachment force open a discovery process into the West Wing that would hasten a Trump impeachment?

Barr testified before Mueller.  Once again, there is hope that Mueller will somehow save us all.  He won't. That's up to us.

Where Do They Think This Is Going?

Obama's signature talent as president was to see beyond the 24 hour news cycle. He thought in terms if years and decades. His reforms weren't designed to feed the maw of cable news, but change the trajectory of American history.

The GOP is about to beclown themselves  in defense of a man who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.  They are going to put themselves down in the historical record as believing that the real crime was that the FBI investigated Trump in the first place.  That Barr's summary was accurate, when Mueller says it was not. Barr is testifying first, and Mueller will testify later, which makes you wonder, again, if they are looking at the long term implications of saddling themselves to a serial liar and his pack of cronies.

The GOP doesn't have a Trump problem.  Trump IS the GOP.