A Bear's Scorigami (and more firsts)

What a Weekend!! (13 September 2026 - 3:35pm CT)

The Chicago Bears kicked off their season in Charlotte today looking sloppy, but dominant in a Scorigami 59-37 win.  Nottingham Forest got their first win of the season yesterday in a game where their new head coach felt like he out-coached Unai Emery (widely thought of as great Premier League manager).  The Brewers clinched a playoff spot on Friday with a 20-0 win over the Reds.

Most points ever in an opening week game in the NFL (and the Bears most points ever in their opener).  552 Total Yards (just 261 of those passing!).

Since the Bears game kicked off at noon today, I've had an odd (heightened) feeling in and amongst my head - almost a buzzing or a sort of background hum.  I know what you're thinking (or at least what Brooke would say), and I say in response... "It's NOT A TUMOR!"

I think it is an underlying panic of "all is okay..."* (when, of course, all is categorically not okay, but it kinda sorta feels like it maybe could be sometime soon).  And I don't mean just sports...
Nate Silver's FLIPR model gives democrats a 58.6% chance of taking the senate in November, and while AI CEOs and staffers are screaming to be heard by the same journalists eager to publish anything they say about their p(doom) takes.

 

What Happened?!? (23 September 2026 - 6:50pm CT)

soooo... The Bears scored 3 points, and Caleb Williams walked off hurt in the 4th Quarter (at least they're averaging 31 points per game.)  The Brewers are back within 1 game of losing out on Top Seed in The National League.  And Forest lost to bottom of the league Coventry at home!

I know what you're thinking (or at least what Brooke would say), and I say in response, "poppycock!"

At least Forest have come to a pause for 3 weeks, so that can't get any worse...

I guess it's a Wash?!!? (4 October 2026 - 5:59 pm CT) 

The Bears took their second in-a-row from the NFL's east coast green elite, beating the NY Jets comfortably today, and Eagles last week on Monday Night Football.  Neither victory looked seamless, but it's two wins in a row with a backup quarterback starting, so that's got to mean something, right?

Currently, the Brewers are a run down with one out left in the Top of the 9th against the Padres.  They held on to the best record in baseball fairly comfortably as it turns out, and won Game 1 yesterday.

Just got the 3rd out so let's see if we can get one back, eh!?

 guess it's a Wash?!!? (11 October 2026 - 7:15 pm ET) 

Well, now we’re in to it!

I had the wonderful chance to watch Nottingham Forest play their comeback Premier League match from the International Break versus Crystal Palace (whom they have NEVER before lost a Premier League match to), and later, a Chicago Bears matchup coming in to Lambeau Field where they were favored to win for the first time in 20 years (granted just by a couple of points since they’re still sporting a 2nd {or 3rd?} string quarter back). 

Oof, I watched at Smithfield Hall and The Waylon (a decidedly home bar and the decidedly away bar) for the two games. Both went very badly. 

Brewers first pitch is 40 minutes away. I expect all will be well by then. 

:(

Three in a Row!!!

 The World Cup Final has just kicked off, and while I am mostly a neutral and mostly just hoping for a good game, I guess if I have to choose - I will prefer [2:55] Messi to win a 2nd with Argentina rather than Spain getting their 2nd.

Almost at every stage of this tournament (as per usual), I have been disappointed in the actual results.  Unlike "real" fans (or perhaps better tradFans) of the Beautiful Game, I tend to cheer for underdogs - and for that reason, I am unabashedly a USA Men's National Team fan.  But even outside of their sad and unworthy crashing out of the tourney [8:57] most rounds I have rooted for those routed.  I would much have loved a France - England final today (and while their wild 3rd place game yesterday was fun, it was, after all, a 3rd place match).  Despite mostly supporting England in most of their great run, the one time I decided to embrace the underdog storyline was their matchup versus Norway, and cheered for Braut Haaland and the Norse as they came up just a little bit short.

All that being said, this has (once again), been an AMAZING tournament and a delightfully good time.  At every stage, from the early days of tournament debutants getting their first ever WC goal (Curaçao equalizing against Germany [25:38 - Hydration Break!!] before giving up an additional 6), point (Haiti's amazing draw against Scotland, albeit in their 2nd WC), and advancing to the knockout round (Cape Verde and their exciting run), plus the joy that fans from all over the world were finding in the various host cities (Scotland fans drinking Boston dry, and fans from everywhere embracing the American greatness that is Ranch Dressing) as well as the phenomenon of non-Spanish speaking American fans watching the Telemundo broadcast rather than the English-language broadcast on Fox because there is so much more joy and less desperate "love our sport, please" energy in the Andrés Cantor broadcasts (and yes, this is still the same sentence [39:29]).

And yes, that is not to say that the tournament has been without some significant blemishes.  In fact, this is the 3rd World Cup in a row where it is difficult to say whether corruption in soccer's governing body (FIFA) or that of the host nation (Russia, Quatar, and now US*) is more extreme.  The treatment of Iran's national team this tournament is truly shameful.  Balogun-gate and The Orange One getting involved at all beyond, ok, attending the final, fine, but pretending like he cares at all is only slightly less embarrassing than the fact that FIFA invented a peace prize just for him.

[73:01]

But come on, a Half Time Show!!?? [currently on now] - that's so American, and this tournament has been awesomely and narratively and unabashedly American and cool not just in spite of it, but kinda sorta because of it.
The Biggest World Cup Ever! with the Most Matches and Most Host Countries and Extra Commercial Breaks (ok, that sucked, but, naja, capitalism, what are you gonna do, am i right?).
Plus Muppets and Madonna and little kids singing, come on... Pair that with more goals than ever, and some amazing underdog stories, plus the concurrence with the American Semi-quincentennial it all really adds up to an amazing, complicated, fraught but fun World Cup for the Ages... [57:00].

I am not holding my breath for a final to live up to 2022's absolute classic, but that one really didn't get off the ground either until about 20 minutes remaining, so we'll see, eh? [74:52]

Note: Thanks again, and as always (hopefully, from now on) to Brendan Hunt and Rebecca Lowe for their wonderful Watch-aLong podcast again this tournament: After The Whistle!

*Yes yes yes, I know the tournament was officially hosted by the USA, Mexico, and Canada, but as the host of the final match and majority of the matches, I think we can still take the brunt of the corruption criticism.

"hork!-heimer"

I just learned that Jürgen Habermas has died - even though it was over a month ago, and I guess I was pretty sure that he had been dead lo these many years - it has come as quite a shock to me.   

Not the sort of shock that has all that much real work effect on me, more the sort that makes you briefly pause, and go, “...huh!” before returning to your previous thoughtfulless meanderings.

But as i was reading through his obituary, I was being reminded of his ideas about the vitality of public discourse and his centrality (whether acknowledged or not) in the need for ‘third space’.  In the description of his thought (to be clear, I have not read Habermas in a long time - and not really even that deeply, but…) I was struck how Habermas had failed to take into consideration the concept of performance (a la Erving Goffman) in relation to his desire for enlightened conversation.

Given my own nascent political ruminations (stay tuned…), and its particular connection to Conversation, I thought I should outline some basic thoughts in these directions - but thankfully, someone has already taken care of that part for me.  Thank you Italo!

a smattering

 

soooooo..... this is is short list of some ideas I had been working on from the last post (in March 2025) until around late May 2025.

It is now just the end of June 2025, and I KNOW that I will not be coming back to this post and "gettin' UR done" as it were, so i think i'll just let it fly as is.  (as a bonus, for regular readers, if you'd like me to actually expand on any of the ideas here, I'll accept as poll voting any comments to this post and let me know what you want to hear about, and I'll do a full post about it in July 2025!)
also - keep an eye out for ANOTHER BIGGER POLL!!! coming to Roman Numeral J in July, upon which may hang the fate of the very universe itself...

abundance - the need for government to seed progress in areas that are inherently non-capitalist / anti-capitalist at a certain moment in time (Moon Shot / Operation Warp Speed / penicillin)

grit v. 80/20 - smart & hardworking vs. smart & lazy... 

Bill Maher's White House visit - radical grace (plus acknowledgement of performative politics)

the Radical Grace of Dolly Parton

 As you may have noticed, I've been on a bit of a Dolly kick lately.  We re-orchestrated a road trip to Georgia to include an evening and a night in Pigeon Forge, TN in order to experience the Dinner Theater Insanity that is Dolly Parton's Stampede!  

En route to Pigeon Forge, we listened to Dolly Parton's America, a WNYC podcast that asks the question "Just what is the deal with Dolly Parton?" (or, "why is it that everyone {and by everyone we mean every constituency of the American populace} is pro-Dolly?")

At one point in the podcast ("Dollitics") they are talking about Dolly's refusal to talk about politics, but digs in to the political bent of her music, and they come to a moment during an awards show (CMAs, I think) in recent years when there was the first reunion of the 9 to 5 trio of stars, Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly.  The host talks about a moment when first Fonda and then Tomlin lay in to a newly elected Donald Trump, and when Dolly's moment to speak comes she makes what could be read as a painfully banal statement about "why don't we just pray for President Trump [and all of our political leaders] rather than defaming them?"

It makes me think a little about those yard signs you see around that espouse a hate-free space (a space with grace, in other words).  I like those signs (we've talked about getting one, but haven't as of yet), but they make me think about the real level of commitment to such an ideology.  Not hating is easy when it's object is something you're aligned with (refusing to hate based on race or religion or because of who someone loves, etc.), but I would be curious to have genuine conversations with the raisers of those signs about being anti-hate when it comes to Donald Trump or white nationalists or other people who are committing acts of hate in our world.  That is where Dolly's brand of radical grace comes in: it's meeting and accepting people where they are.  It doesn't mean accepting the bigotry and violence perpetrated in its name, because grace isn't about thoughts and feelings (or even actions), grace is about the humans that do all of those things (and also do all the good bits, too).

Radical Grace, in the form that Dolly seems to embody it, is about being willing to meet people where they are, and engaging with them, and understanding with them that just being in the world is a fairly hard damn thing to do.  Hate isn't created in a vacuum - it is fed by flames of inequality and resentment, but also by avarice and isolation and spite.

I think that the reason that we feel so on the brink (of a hate-pocalypse, of a neo-fascist era, of a cold civil war) is largely due to the fact that we have forgotten how to talk about politics (or economics or history or anything really).  Saying Dolly Parton is a-political is a complete misunderstanding of politics.  We have come to think of the word "political" as meaning only 'practical politics' (or electoral politics, featuring party politics), when in fact the political is just about anything that has to do with people.  Dolly Parton is one of the greatest political songwriters of all time (having inspired not just humans, but oppressed, down-trodden civilizations across the galaxy!) In the same way that politics is not just the biennial tradition of casting a ballot for (and usually against) someone or another - in fact that's the worst part of it, so too we have come to think of the economy in an equally toxic way - as if it is only the financial sector that is "the economy" and not all of the activities of our daily lives. 

It hurts us to think only in terms of practical politics or practical economics, because then, when our efforts don't show up on the scoreboards (our bank accounts or the outcomes of specific elections rather than the outcomes enacted for us in the world by our elected leaders) we are each of us diminished.  I found it interesting, when I was looking for links for some of my various Dolly Parton, and first exploring the term 'radical grace' I found a lot more out there about radical self acceptance than I did about radical acceptance of others, and I think that's also telling given the era of mental health crisis that we also find ourselves in.

So let's all be hyper-political like Dolly in our daily work and lives.  Like Dolly would have said, "Be Excellent to Each Other..."

Vengeance, Naked

Tonight we had the rare opportunity for An Uncorrupted Double Feature (viewing two new {to me} movies, one after the other, thereby linking them forever in my mind and creating thematic linkage).  

As an unchilded human, this might seem on offer more often than to others, but it is, truly, a real rarity...  The first offering was Vengeance - a 2022 dark comedy by B.J. Novak, who quite possibly might turn out to be the most talented person to have been on The Office.  Vengeance is Novak's directorial debut, and in addition to being highly entertaining, it's possible that it may also turn out to be a defining film of the era.  It's the best kind of lowkey potentially great movie where it is surface level charmingly clever, spreading some sort of message that feels sort of important and profound (in the case of Vengeance there are 3 or 4 of these differing, but related messages), but nothing too scathing or cynical; and then on further reflection and examination it starts to dawn on you that this movie may in fact be not only deeply meaningful and great, but, in fact, important.

"Important" works of art are ones that are not just elegant or profound or even sublime, but I think most importantly they are the ones that are exceptionally timely.  What the world needs now, is aptness, sweet aptness.  Very often the messages that are needed at any given time are political (which is why so many "important" movies or "important" art generally is often political), but I think just now the messages we might most need are cultural and critical (in the academic sense) in nature.  

At one point in Vengeance, Ashton Kutcher's character (Quentin Sellers) says by way of critique of our current moment we find ourselves in: "Everything means everything, so nothing means anything."  The quote diagnoses the extent to which we have entered, just in the past few years, a postmodern cultural era.  Postmodernity is a complicated thing to define (just ask Fred Jameson who spent 500 pages or so in an attempt to do just that).  Possibly my favorite attempt at a definition is in Jameson's introduction to his book (and in postmodern studies, you only ever have to read introductions to books... or even just the marketing blurbs!).  He offers it somewhat glibly, but I think we can retrospectively now take it somewhat seriously...  He says something like:

"the Postmodern is thinking about the present historically in a world that has forgotten its history"

We are living in an era of supreme subjectivity where everyone's thoughts and identity have become significant and actual meaning and complexity and depth have become tertiary.  We have fully blown past Colbert's Era of Truthiness, briefly paused at the moment of "alternative facts", and now exist in a time when claims of "I feel that ____" and "I know the __{insert expert here}___ says ________, but I believe that ___________" have equal epistemological standing to previously 'absolute' truths like 3 + 3 = 6 and "water is made up of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen".  And this, I think, is closer to a postmodern sensibility:

"Nothing means anything, so everything means anything"

That mentality is perhaps more akin to a less thought about branch of postmodernity called supermodernity (which itself is thought of as a branch of hypermodernity) which I think of as the notion that the meaning of the whole of anything can be ascertained by closely examining and understanding any part of it.  It's what Walter Benjamin was on about in his unfinished master work The Arcades Project, but I think it's also what's going on, in a satirical way, in Vengeance. In the movie, one of the Shaw daughters primary aspiration in life is to be famous - when this gets interrogated, and she is asked what she wants to be famous for - does she want to be a famous singer, or a famous actor, she decides she wants "to be a famous celebrity" - and this pretty well encapsulates the thesis of the movie, but is a throwaway joke line, soon forgotten.

And so (i haven't forgotten) we come on to Juliet, Naked, a bizarrely un-timely movie that came out in 2018, but is about email - in a moment after "email is over". It's based on a book by Nick Hornby from 2009, a time when email ruled - and the adaptation took the material straight (which is generally the best choice when adapting Hornby - who has kinda always already gotten it...), but that makes for a weird unmoored feel to the movie.

Given its excessive untimeliness, Juliet, Naked is anything but important, but as is so often the case with Nick Hornby, it captures aspects of the modern human experience, and interrogates them from a myriad of angles.  Here we find an investigation of highly curated fandom - questions of who owns a work of art, the artist or the appreciator of the art.  The movie is about the fraught-ness of an artist putting themselves out there, but also the fraught-ness of putting yourself out there - committing yourself to someone despite all their foibles and obsessions and insecurities.

As with Horby's best works - really all of his work that I've encountered, whether in writing, film, or song - the central question being asked is, "what is a life?" or maybe, "what should I do in my life?"  What to do with your life feels all-encompassing, and final, but what to do in your life feels like a good question to ask - where to spend your energies, what (and who) to give your attention to.

Life is like a weird dry run where only at the end of it we realize it was practice for a performance that's never going to happen

i get it now!

I have been re-watching the Star Wars saga chronologically in preparation for Episode IX.  I've reached, at long last, The Last Jedi (Die Letzten Jedi, as i like to refer to it, to show that it's plural!) and have been watching all of the Forces of Destiny shorts in order as well as a few of the other ephemera.

So far, i have read several of the comics and working my way through a few novels that are now considered "canon".  Of course, i have throughout my days read some of the Star Wars universe literature (Timothy Zahn's trilogy, Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina, and Splinter of the Mind's Eye), now all disavowed.  But now i plan to make a slow crawl through this new canon.

Source: funko.com

I promise not to drag it out here and bore you all with an epic play-by-play (as i have been guilty of for some other sci fi universes...), but the pop-cultural mass-production machine has put a mythology together which is vast and rich.  They will spend the next decade exploring it in upcoming tv shows and a new trilogy and more Star Wars Stories (i expect)...

With this third trilogy about to finish its arc (as well as put a closing argument on the entire nonology), I think it's worth noticing both how each trilogy was a set of its time, but the themes of the entire story are timeless and timely.

Much attention has been paid to Kylo Ren's line about "killing your past to become who you were meant to be".  I think this has been read largely as a millennial claim of the future (from the hands of the likes of, say, Boomers like Kylo's annoying dad and his former teacher).  While this trilogy does serve to pass the torch to a new generation, it's also a reminder to us all to leave behind the vestiges of the prior generations that would hold us back in our whole new world.

Kylo's request of Rey (implicitly at this moment and explicitly later) to join him and join the existing corporate power structure {aka "The Dark Side"} and help him overtake it) is one of multiple poles in the power nexus in this galaxy far far away (and so too ours as well).  We will call this particular position the Zuckerberg Lane, a young upstart acquiring a vast amount of power while the primary great powers of government (The Empire & The Rebellion) are focused on consolidating their own power against each other.  

Another "power pole" (i don't love this term...) that explicitly states its case in The Last Jedi is when force ghost Yoda says to Luke that "we are what they grow beyond.  That is the true burden of all masters."  This is an acknowledgement of the idea that our next generation not only will be our betters, but must be.  It's a radical acknowledgement - and one that used to be inherent, unspoken.  When we look back, we (the "now people") look better, smarter, more intellectually sophisticated compared to our ancestors.  This doesn't mean we don't honor them and appreciate them, it's just a different stance from blind fealty.

It's easy to think of the Jedi (current and former) as a bloc of good - all light side, all the time - but I think they more closely resemble something like, say, "Democrats".  Sure, they mostly do good things most of the time and are generally on the right side of history, but in order for them to truly have power we also have to accept the Joe Manchins and John Bel Edwards who may think some things we don't want them to sometimes, but also mostly agree that governments (Galactic Senates or domestic ones) can do some good.  As a bloc, they have also accepted some evils (whether those be Southern Segregationists or an Imperial Clone Army), but those are products of historic naiveté, and must be accepted within its historical context in order to build the movement, n'est-ce pas?

Yoda's line about passing history on to your progenitors is fundamental to a progressive perspective of history.  Each generation must both believe itself to be the best, most enlightened, best suited to move history forward, and also willing to let the next generation be better than they were once their time has passed.  

This is the era we now inhabit, where our "resistance establishment' (pro-Biden Democrats - also perhaps Deval Patrick's constituency) is struggling to make arguments against The First Order (the Tea Party ==> the Trump Party), but hand wringing and hemming and hawing at the radical approach Democrats who want to let the system crumble and build it up new (here Yoda and Luke are played by, I guess Bernie and Warren?? - I think this all ultimately will come to mean that Rey is AOC & Stacy Abrams wrapped in to one, and we will pass the keys on to them soon enough...).

This closing trilogy of the Skywalker Epic is unfolding in tumultuous political times not just here in the US, but globally.  Trumpian politics are dripping even in the first installment in 2015 with the First Order taking out a vast portion of the inner planetary systems and the existing establishment politics.  "Draining the Swamp" as it were.  

The Prequels began in a pre-9-11 moment, and the world they introduce us to in the first installment, it's a dreamy vision of the always better erstwhile.  The Phantom Menace's Coruscant (and even moreso Naboo) are an idyllic past to the familiar worlds we knew from the original trilogy.  While there is a nod to Clinton-Era political squabbles and self-dealing, the world is an "OK, Boomer" dream status that will never be revived. 

It's the middle trilogy, the original set, that comes from an era of our world when they didn't know yet what they were really all about.  It's a big part of why the themes of the movies are so general and mythological.  The trilogy knows it's about struggle, but what that struggle is wasn't clear until much later.  1977 - 1985 was just at the start of the Era of Inequity that we live in now.

This is the struggle of our era - it's the fight of our lives.  We will see what the Rise of Skywalker has to say about it in a month's time.  And then, let's see what we do next in 2020 in our own response.

*      *       *

17 December 2019

Watching Star Wars: Behind Closed Doors from REELZ (is that a thing?), and the clarity of misunderstanding of the prequels is made clear.  A lot of the critique of the prequels is couched in storytelling - i.e. the original trilogy made the battle versus good and evil the main point, but the prequels are so bureaucratic, administrative and political.   The new trilogy has been exciting and modern and definitely better than those pesky prequels.  It's a fair argument, but i think is the argument for what i said above.

The simple way to say this is (unfortunately) that people were simpler.  But it's not just that.  The more important function of (American) history is that the era of the prequels (1999 - 2005) was an empty era (i know, i know - 9/11 happened then, but 9/11 is a logical conclusion of the 1970s/80s Islamic Terrorism that we ignored for most of the 80s and 90s).

Politically, and culturally, it's a kind of boring time.  1999 was a kick-ass year for movies, and the era of prestige tv was about to begin (or maybe did, i don't have exact dates), but it was sort of easy politically.  [NOT HISTORICALLY by the way!!!  Bush v. Gore, then 9/11, then re-electing the (up to then) dumbest person we had elected president.  And culturally, the technological superfuture was still sorta basic. 

My argument basically is that folks watching the original trilogy needy clarity (good vs. evil, dark v. light) because they'd just come out of Vietnam, Watergate, hippie reclamation, etc.  The prequels came out when it was only just becoming clear that all of the powers that be (Republicans and Democrats and large corporations and big tech {whatever that might be!} and all of it were aligning against actual regular people who weren't already rich and had maybe just trusted the hangover of the New Deal to carry them through to retirement could just start to grasp that everything was conspiring against us, the regular people.

I think in this context the prequels read amazingly well.  They are prescient, not just of Anakin's turn to the dark side, but of a vast chunk of America - first in the re-election of a war criminal president, and then later in the historic and wonderful and also par-for-the-course election of Barack Obama who governed as a Compassionate Centrist (and i love him dearly and what he accomplished, but by the time The Force Awakens comes out it is clear we are off the rails and are going to elect someone for our times like either Donald J. Trump {or Bernie!}.

Tyler Ledger Joker Fi

I went and saw Joker last night - dutifully.  It was violent, very well made, well acted (and heavily acted), wonderfully shot, all like you've heard.

I would also like to submit that it may just be the most thought-provoking piece of cinematic commentary on our current socio-economic condition in decades.

It is a radical film full of radical ideas and radical violence.  Although it saddens me that it is radical to say that the current economic status quo is wildly immoral and that an existential cognitive dissonance is necessary to participate in the system honestly.

The central question of Joker is whether any of the events of the movie actually happened or not within the confines of the fictional Batman universe.  This question is revealed in the final moments of the movie when Arthur is locked up for treatment of his mental illness.  It becomes clear that this moment is chronologically prior to all of the violence that has previously occurred in the film.  Arthur describes all (or possibly just some) of that violence as a "joke" that as occurred to him as we was speaking with his case worker.  When she asks him what it was, he says that she "wouldn't get it".

Source: tvOvermind.com

This 'final reveal' parallels the 20-year-old final reveal of what I consider the last really radical movie focused on these same themes, Fight Club.  In that movie we learn that our previously reliable narrator was actually Tyler Durden the whole time.  (Also, in a partial re-viewing the scene where Lou drops in on a fight club evening, Tyler's hysterical laughter after having his ass kicked by Lou is preminiscent of Arthur's own manifestations of his mental illness).

Earlier in the film, it is revealed that Arthur's mother was diagnosed with delusional psychosis and narcissistic personality disorder (a diagnosis that may be pretty close to part of Arthur's own plus a dash of schizophrenia - which is reified in the moment when Arthur is actually standing in the room as an adult when his mother is being booked into Arkham after abusing him as a child).  While many reviewers have made much of the portrayal of mental illness in the film, I think the underlying argument of both of these movies is that some forms of thought and action (including some violence) that we casually refer to as mental illness are in fact radical responses to the immoral status quo.

To be clear, I am not condoning any real world violence here, but I do think that artistic depiction of radical political violence can pose important questions that perhaps can't be voiced within the current socio-political climate.  Questions like - what might happen if we take the modern-era royalty (i.e. the super-rich) out of power.  In Joker the one piece of violence that we know "really happens" (although perhaps not exactly as we see it occur in the movie) is the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne.  This event is formative to the future Batman, so it has to occur within the larger mythology of the film.

We also tend to forget in our modern and enlightened era how rare it is to have massive social change without violence.  Although the "clowns" in Joker are easily read as violent criminal thugs engaged in looting and riots, they are also the lumpenproletariat activated by their clown prince.  They are engaged in a modern iteration of the French Revolution and their King Louis XVI (i.e. Thomas Wayne) needs to topple.  One wonders what, exactly, this makes Batman in this historical parallel?

We Got a Party like it's 1999

So, i was away from home last night and duly started watching the debate on DVR when i got home... and promptly fell asleep.

I did get through most of the first hour +/- and what I saw felt like an argument between 1990s / early Aughts-era Democrats.  Except people were taking the Kuciniches and Browns in the debate seriously.

I'd like to offer the following argument and any of the rhetoric to Mr. Yang or Senators Warren or Sanders (or anyone else who wants to lead us truly forward - like progressives) with no strings attached:

The fundamental economic arguments of our era are founded on a false preconception.  Our politicians argue about how to deploy resources and whether some services to citizens (for example the ability to offer health care to all of them regardless of their level of wealth) are "too expensive".  The central question of cost, though is the falsehood that we are living under.

Since The New Deal, the rich and powerful have been clawing back control of the money.  All of the money.  This is most visibly and simply illustrated in tax rates over time.  Prior to The Great Depression, the top income tax rate bracket was 25% for income over $1.3M dollars (in adjusted dollars). 

After the great crash, and the fundamental understanding that things had to change for most people (but prior to FDR or any New Deal action), that top rate jumped to 63%.  This top rate was only for income of over $16.75M dollars - but $1M was now at 35%.  It's important to note, this change happened in 1932, before FDR and our current "modern" progressive state came into effect.

Thereafter, top rates jumped to 79% (for any income over around $81M per year) to 81% (in 1941) to 88% to a high of 94% (again, only for the most egregious amounts of annual income).  This top rate (closer to 91%) stays in effect for 18 years or so (1945 - 1963).  Thereafter it only falls to about 70% for the next 19 years until 1982 (a year after the "Reagan Revolution") when it falls, first to 50% in 1982 and then to 38% in 1987 (approximately our current levels - though that doesn't tell near the whole story).

The entire premise of the "Great" America (which Republicans imply is something that needs to be found... "again") came out of the New Deal, and a promise by our country that workers ('the working class') can have a Middle Class lifestyle.  Of course our racist, sexist process of unfolding this promise wasn't the real fulfillment it was meant to be, but these tax rates were at the foundation of our first attempt.

Whenever someone asks in a political conversation whether or "how we can afford" some of the largest ideas of universal healthcare, universal basic income, or the Green New Deal there are two clear answers:

1. We truly cannot afford not to do these things.
2.  Also, we could simply raise the income tax rates on top earnings* back to the historical levels we had in the 1950s, under Republican leadership, which lead to the opportunity for anyone working a job to take part in the Middle Class^

* Note: it's important to point out that the 90% top tax rates doesn't tax all of the income from high earners, only that income that is above the approved amount.  This means that the first $100K or so that those people earn is taxed at the exact same rate as people who only earn that much - the higher rates only apply to the excessive income.

^ Note: We are now able to work more toward making this distribution fairer, and must work to overcome the mistakes of the past (e.g. reparations, equal pay for women, LGBTQ equity, student loan forgiveness {perhaps high-interest predatory lending debt forgiveness entirely}.

The Debate

It's clear to me now - that the reason that Bernie and Elizabeth can't fully get their message across is because the two of them know just how much money the top 1% of wealth-holders in our country have siphoned away from all of the rest of us.  Most people can't fathom these amounts.

** 7:48 **

I can't believe Delaney has come back with his "my dad..." line.  That's kind of awesome.

** 7:49 **

Talking 'bout my generation.  Mayor Pete has called out his generation several times.  He's a few years younger than me, but he's in the Cusper mini-generation.  I was born in 1978 so technically I had a few years before the "Reagan Revolution" kicked in.  Pete did not.

He has literally lived his entire life in an era when money has floated upward (it's more like steam than "trickle down" water) and decimated the middle class.

** 7:54 **

Just realized that i had paused to fix a drink and chase the puppy around the back yard and stop him from eating all the freshly cut grass, so I'm a few minutes behind...  Which will make this post hard to track.

I'll try to remember when i'm caught up after a commercial.

** 7:56 **

Ugh... The CNN format is really unfortunate.  Bash and Tapper (Lemon hasn't spoken yet, it seems) are being prosecutorial, but getting stuck on dumb points of argument.  "But are you going to raise taxes!!!..."  "But should we decriminalize crossing the border!!!..."

They seem to think they are on a Sunday show trying to stick one guest to a specific answer.  It's like they think they all are the guy from The Newsroom.

** 8:03 **

Mayor Pete made himself seem young again!  He was in high school during Columbine!

But Amy is seeming tough.  She's cool  A bit conservative for my taste, but yeah - she would win.

** 8:05 **

But yeah, Governor  Bullock - he will likely lose.

** 8:06 **

I wonder how you say "drain the swamp" en espanol?
(that's a Beto joke)

** 8:12 **

Almost caught up now... And, yeah - Hickenlooper is still on the lose list.
He is a look-back candidate.  He's grown up and gonna make things nice, but not shake things up too much.

Governor Hickenlooper, please listen - nobody likes their health insurance company.  They may want to have health insurance (rather than not!), but everyone hates the company that bureaucratically manages their insurance.  They don't even care about insurance.  They care about health care.  That's what they want without going broke.

** 8:15 **

Ugh, now CNN has the question written "is Senator Sanders too extreme to beat President Trump?".  Fuck you, CNN.  That's so CNN of you.

** 8:19 **

Delaney is getting a lot of screen time...
It's mostly grinning waiting to talk time.
When he talks, he really hurts his chances.

(the Delaney haiku

{and NO!, haikus don't need to be a specific number of syllables - it's about being able to say within a single breath [though, i'm not sure if that's each line or the whole thing, in which case mine may not apply]})

** 8:26 **

Starting with Delaney on the climate crisis.  He seems to be getting a lot of time...  Maybe that means Yang will tomorrow?

I hope he tells about what his dad used to say about the sky.

** 8:32 **

Oh God!!!  Tim Ryan, i like you and the funny way you say some of your vowels.  But NO!!!  Let's not base our future plan on "making things in 'Merica again".

Robots should be making things.  And yes, we will have a lot of people - a whole generation of people who work and worked with their hands.  And you want them to elect you, but don't lie to them.

Those people need to be given health care and food and a UBI (a "freedom dividend!"), and then they can work in other industries.

** 8:45 **

Sorry, paused for several minutes and am behind again.

** 8:46 **

"Look, Bernie..."  Bullock doesn't seem sure that climate change is real yet.
Ugh.
And Beto, stop talking about jobs.  Work, democrats should talk about work and not jobs.
But Mayor Pete scores!  Pete v. Don and how Pete wins...

** 8:47 **

Where have all the 60 second questions gone?

** 8:50 **

I expect that my groups will change in terms of who will win and may lose to The Donald.

** 8:53 **

"Domestic Terrorism" and "I Have a Plan" - It's hard to not see Warren as the natural choice to take the nomination in 2020 for Bernie voters of 2016.

I love Bernie - I actually love a lot of these folks tonight... and will vote for any one of them who wins.  But, Warren is a serious political plan person and also a movement candidate (not a revolution candidate - though she's that too, but a movement candidate).

Warren reminds me a lot of my mom - she's an earnest broker.  She's honest, she is tough and she is kind.

** 9:01 **

Oh my gawd - Tim Ryan STILL wants to give me another boss - a Chief Manufacturing Officer.  I have caught up somewhat, but still behind.  And starting to realize that this is a fucking 3 HOUR debate!!!

wtf CNN?

Like, I'm a political nerd, but 3 hours?  6 hours of debates?

** 9:04 **

Delaney loves TPP... Who's down with TPP (oh, just John Delaney).  Also Hilary Clinton (until she wasn't) and Obama, and probably Biden (i wish we could find a way to ask him)...

** 9:06 **

Love a re-direct to Beto... Yeah, i'm sure he'll know.
Nope, he doesn't, but bueno efforto, mi amigo.

** 9:10 **

Buttigieg is still young.  Younger than you (statistically).
And he knows scripture!

** 9:12 **

a softball "my dad" question for Delaney.  He has mentioned his family.  But turned it around to capital gains move.
Yes, he's exactly right (and also totally wrong) - capital gains should be taxed at (or higher) than a working rate of tax.

** 9:32 **

Can we use nuclear bombs?
                   - CNN 7/30/2019

Argle Barlge!!!!  Stop it.  Why are you so bad at this!?
If you don't understand global nuclear politics, don't talk about it, please!

I use the same policy for our fool president.  He shouldn't talk about nukes publicly, because he doesn't understand (can't understand - hasn't the empathy).

** 9:38 **

Just starting back up - and we're to closing statements!

So, it's only 2 and a half hours!

Bullock - "Bootstraps!"
Williamson - "down with Corporate Overlords!"
Delaney - "Can't we all just get along?"
Ryan - "there is some difference between the center lane and the moderate lane, right?"
Hickenlooper - "it's possible you may die tomorrow"
Klobuchar - "It's not your fault" (repeated ad goodwill hunting-ium)
O'Rourke - "Texas could be in play?"
Buttigeig - "Rut Roh - but i can fix it"
Warren - "I understand your life, and I can help"
Sanders - "I'm Bernie Sanders... wtf, why not vote for me at this point - seriously?"

Night Two!

** 7:17 **

Why was Michael Bennett talking so slowly?  Is that all he came up with for his minute, and wanted to make sure he finished too soon?
But De Blasio was on point... "Tax the hell out of 'em" makes for a good bumper sticker.

** 7:20 **

We're going back, to the Future!

** 7:24 **

Not sure what the protesters were yelling...
But Yang was very likable and articulate in a way he wasn't in June.

** 7:27 **

I like how Biden's campaign is a "they" for Harris's health care answer, but her planning is done by an "I"

** 7:34 **

Is anyone else kinda bored?  It's like all the back and forth, but none of the knowledge.

** 7:37 **

Tulsi quoted Marianne Williamson...

** 7:42 **

It seems that these candidates watched last night's debate, and are trying to do it again - but don't know as much.
Are they intentionally ignoring Andrew Yang?

** 7:45 **

Yang nailed his first question!

** 7:50 **

Biden says "Anyway..." and basically said, "my time is up..." again.

** 7:55 **

Oh, going back to Biden?
Neat.
Also he can't seem to remember anyone's names.  And Castro had to tell him that he could go on, and that "that things on" and we can hear him.

** 8:03 **

Had to make a vodka tonic, so i'm a bit behind now.
But Yang!, man.  I wonder if he is going to be the one to finally stop the Marianne Williamson bubble nonsense from last night.  He is saying totally different things than anyone else, but it's not malarky (ha!, see what i did there?)

** 8:08 **

I kind of wish FiveThirtyEight was tracking mentions of Obama, too... because Biden seems to say Obama most times he talks tonight...

** 8:11 **

He said "Shit!"

** 8:12 **

Fuck, seriously, you're going back to Biden!!!

** 8:13 **

Biden's teeth are super white.
And wants to teach prisoners how to read and write...
Fuck, and now he cut himself off again and volunteered to stop talking.

** 8:15 **

And now he seems to have mistaken Cory Booker for Barack Obama...

** 8:19 **

"I want to bring in Mr. Yang.  I want to bring Mr. Yang!!"
            - not any of the CNN moderators, that's for sure

** 8:23 **

Oh, right - Kamala Harris is here, too...
I totally forgot that you go here!

** 8:26 **

Shit, Biden looked up some facts about how racist Harris and Booker are.
That looks not great, n'est ce pas?

** 8:28 **

Yeah, Harris being a former prosecutor is not going to wear well as a democrat.  It's a better job for republican candidates, methinks.
I'm not sure what a fancy position on a stage is...

** 8:31 **

Yang is the 4th highest polling candidate on the stage.  I don't think he has received the 4th highest number of re-directs or direct questions to him.
I'm not even in the #yangGang yet, but see this as mass media prejudice against radical thought.

** 8:35 **

Huh, so MLK DID support UBI... #freedomDividend

** 8:41 **

Why won't anyone look at the fucking camera!!!???

Well, now they switched cameras, so at least Biden is in the general direction.

** 8:51 **

I read on Five Thirty Eight that Elizabeth Warren showed up in tonight's debate too... hearing a lot of blah blah blah so reading a bit further afield while they catch up on screen.

** 9:11 **

Fuck - just got woken up when Biden tried to jujitsu the lady question by bringing up his dead wife...

** 9:31 **

ok, i'm back for closing statements:

De Blasio: "tax the hell out of 'em & taxTheHell.com"
Bennett: "___" (forgot i was listening)
Inslee: "but this time, it really matters..."
Gillebrand: "I'm a rich, Christian, white person who cares about economic divides, religious divides, and racial divides, for serious."
Gabbard: "World War 2 is over... we're gonna go home now..."
Castro: "adios to Donald Trump"
Yang: "I hate ties...  and i should win"
Booker: "back to the reality tv show!"
Harris: "you've got to prey just to make it today..."
Biden: "3-0-3-0... what was that?"


A summary image, again, from 5-38:

Yang's (of course last, because of alphabetical, but nobody is talking about the alphabetical-disparity in the two night's debates!  The second latest letter in the alphabet is I!  Fracking I!  Two Americas indeed.) is kind of a sentence or a thought...

Bennet's might be better, actually, but the rest of these candidates make absolutely no sense!

Oh no, Joe...

Updated Democratic Primary Contenders List:
(7/30/19 - after night one of Debate II)
Candidates Who Would Defeat Trump Handily

1. Cory Booker
2. Pete Buttigieg
3. Julián Castro
4. Tulsi Gabbard
5. Kamala Harris
6. Amy Klobuchar
7. Bernie Sanders 
8. Elizabeth Warren
9. Andrew Yang

Candidates Who Very Likely Would Win Vs. Trump

1. Bill de Blasio
2. Beto O'Rourke
3. Tim Ryan
4. Marianne Williamson

I Don't Quite Know

1. Mike Gravel
2. Wayne Messam
3. Seth Moulton
4. Joe Sestak

May Well Lose to Trump

1. Michael Bennett
2. Joe Biden
3. Steve Bullock
4. John Delaney
5. Kristen Gillibrand
6. Jay John Hickenlooper
7. Jay Inslee
8. Eric Swalwell

Updated Democratic Primary Contenders List:
(circa early June 2019)
Candidates Who Would Defeat Trump Handily

1. Cory Booker
2. Pete Buttigieg
3. Julián Castro
4. Tulsi Gabbard
5. Kamala Harris
6. Amy Klobuchar
7. Tim Ryan
8. Bernie Sanders 
9. Elizabeth Warren
10. Andrew Yang

Candidates Who Very Likely Would Win Vs. Trump

1. Michael Bennett
2. Bill de Blasio
3. Steve Bullock
4. Mike Gravel
5. Wayne Messam
6. Seth Moulton
7. Beto O'Rourke

I Don't Quite Know

1. Joe Sestak

May Well Lose to Trump

1. Joe Biden
2. John Delaney
3. Kristen Gillibrand
4. Jay John Hickenlooper
5. Jay Inslee
6. Eric Swalwell
7. Marianne Williamson

So, i like Joe Biden.  I'm not going to vote for him in the Democratic Primary, but i would vote for him of course in a general election in 2020 as i did Hillary Clinton.

But please understand this, blue-leaning, honest-broker, patriotic Americans... Joe Biden will lose a general election run against Donald Trump.  Well, not for sure, but he is is on my list of candidates who I'm not quite sure about, but will likely lose.

Mainstream media outlets all (from CNN to MSNBC to Fox News to Real Time to everywhere) continue to misunderstand presidential elections.  The prevailing wisdom is that American voters care about where someone stands on the right/left political spectrum and the danger of nominating a candidate who is TOO LIBERAL.

The reality is that the big middle of the electorate is suffering, miserable and angry.  Americans have elected disruptive change at every opportunity since the 1980s (at least as much disruptive change as they were permitted with the two major parties).  "The middle" is not interested in the right/left spectrum.  While the parties are, the middle is largely a-political.  The middle just wants to raise their middle finger to the powers that be and wind up electing as much change as we are permitted.

For this reason, the biggest primary electoral blunder that Democrats can make is to nominate someone like Joe Biden - not because Joe is a bad guy, but because it's exactly the kind of "Stability Candidate" that the major parties have nominated since losing a first term since 1996.

Joe Biden is the latest in the line of Bob Dole, John Kerry, Mitt Romney future likely losers.  A candidate whose primary characteristic for electoral consideration is their seriousness and appropriateness for office.  These candidates scream stability (which is a strange thing to scream).

Since 1988, each American presidential election chose the change candidate.  The reason every president has been re-elected since that time is not because we as Americans dislike firing people, it's because the major parties chose someone even more establishment than a sitting president with 4 years of experience under his belt:

• 1992 - Bill Clinton, a governor of a small southern state defeats the sitting president who was vice president for the 8 years before that.
• 1996 - Bill Clinton defeats Bob Dole, a senator from an older generation and a throwback gesture to 'bringing the grown-ups' back to power.
• 2000 - W "wins" an election over Al Gore, a sitting vice president of 8 years.  Interesting to note, is that if McCain had won this primary, i think Gore wins in November.
• 2004 - W still seems new to this job 4 years in, and he defeats John Kerry, who looks and acts as if his chiseled jaw was formed from the stone of Mt. Rushmore.
• 2008 - Obama's hope and change defeats John McCain's trust us... except for Sarah Palin.  She's just for fun.
• 2012 - Obama beats everyone's boss, Mitt Romney.
• 2016 - You didn't want another Bush?, how about another Clinton!

The mistake always made by both parties has been that America wants re-assuring in their candidates.  The "trust us, we are experienced" hasn't won in more than 30 years...

One caveat is needed here, because we are living in such strange times.  It may be that anyone who the democrats nominate will win.  Despite the fact it was before "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was released that we last elected the more stable, normal, institutional choice for president, I do have some modicum of trust in the American electorate to not do this to us again.  I was vocal amongst my peers that I thought Trump would win in 2016.  I am not as concerned that he will win again in 2020.  Thus, in my classification below of current 2020 Democratic Candidates for President the most dangerous category is "May Well Lose to Trump".  The worst possible choice for the Dems in 2020 would be to once again nominate Hillary Clinton to run against Trump, and I would put her in that category, which means a fair chance to win, but "May Well Lose to Trump".

Original List (e.g. keeping myself honest)

Candidates Who Would Defeat Trump Handily

1. Bernie Sanders 
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Cory Booker
4. Pete Buttigieg
5. Julián Castro
6. Andrew Yang

Candidates Who Very Likely Would Win Vs. Trump

1. Amy Klobuchar
2. Beto O'Rourke
3. Tim Ryan
4. Tulsi Gabbard
5. Wayne Messam
6. Steve Bullock
7. Mike Gravel
8. Seth Moulton

I Don't Quite Know

1. Jay Inslee
2. Marianne Williamson

May Well Lose to Trump

1. Joe Biden
2. Kamala Harris
3. Kristen Gillibrand
4. Eric Swalwell
5. Michael Bennett
6. Bill de Blasio
7. Jay John Hickenlooper
8. John Delaney

*  *  *

May 2019

I've had to update the list given the additional passage of time, so I think it makes sense to explain a bit of my thinking.  I'll keep the list current (mostly moving people out of "I Don't Quite Know" to another category as I get a better sense of who they are).

My troublesome "May Well Lose to Trump" category are there for two reasons, the first is the one I outline above, namely that they seem to primarily be running as a "stability candidate" - and stability always loses the presidency in American (at least since 1988 and arguably since 1972).  

Biden and Bennett fall into this category.

The other folks who may lose to Trump are 'coastal elites', candidates who are in large part defined by where they are from (these will mainly be New Yorkers and Californians).  Even though de Blasio has true progressive cred, he may lose to Trump because he is TOO New York.  The others on that list have 'not Trump' as their main selling point rather than an over-riding message to their campaign.

And then there's Hickenlooper, who I thought I had heard described as a "radical centrist", which I liked... just saw him on The Rachel Maddow Show this evening, and he is just a centrist centrist...  and may well lose because of it.


*  *  *

June 2019
And John Delaney's performance at the California Democratic Convention solidifies him in the "May Well Lose" camp.

We should be able to finalize this list, and remove the "I Don't Know" category in a few weeks with the first debates (unless Jay Inslee doesn't make it and I still have never heard him talk...).  Marianne Williamson seems confirmed to make the first debates, which will make things more interesting.

Let's Hear it For The... Government Bureaucrats!!

Government isn't the problem, folks.

Governance is.

Our current administration entered office "unqualified" - of course, my standard for qualified to be president is fairly radical in its minimalism.  Like, 35, American born, hasn't done it before for 6+ years.

Over time, and in recent decades, we have come to believe and profess a specific pre-qualification for being president.  For a long time this has unfortunately meant male-ness and whiteness.  This has also, always meant privileged and wealthy (i know i know, you'll point out Bill Clinton's birth or Barack & Michelle Obama's humble beginnings, but they all came by way of privilege - and the honest ones will acknowledge that).  Most recently, before 2016 at least, EXPERIENCE was king, as if previously winning (m)an(y) election(s) - and possibly trying to do some governing - prepares them to lead our silly monster of a nation.

Dan Carlin makes the point in his erstwhile podcast Common Sense that the way we elect our leaders has almost nothing to do with what we ask our leaders to do once they're in the job.  It's part of the reason that my Conversation Party idea (or the random appointment of citizens to every elected office) is so compelling a path forward.

In the 19th Century, we had several pretty bad presidents.  Of course, we were a minor nation - not the SuperPower that we are today.  Today we have a 19th-Century President in our 21st Century age.  And as little as we good liberals would like to admit it, we're doing okay.  Sure, it's embarrassing.  And we are something of a laughingstock amongst the nations.  And the tweets are really bad.  And he's not so smart.  And he's not a good person.

But in truth, the proverbial trains are running on time.  The Department of Defense is defending, the IRS is collecting taxes, State is stately.  The bureaucracy (what Fox News/State TV calls "the Deep State") is working.  Bureaucracy sounds inherently bad, but only because we've been programmed since Reagan at least, to think so.  In reality, the career public servants work a job - a job they likely could be paid more to do in the private sector.  Their mission is not abstract profit for a nameless corporation, rather to do the work of the people.  This work continues, regardless of whose at the head.  (If you think a moment about your experience, you'll see that this makes sense.  If your boss {or boss's boss, etc. ...} weren't there for 6 months or a year or more, but you all kept working tell me how things would go...  The answer, generally, is, i expect, as they are.  Status quo.  Keep on keeping on.

And so, as we look toward 2020,

This Space Reserved

A planned post on tribalism, narrative and politics is coming here...

(feel free to comment in advance and provide fodder!)

whosiwhatsnow?

Seven years ago today, i was hoping to make a bit of a difference.

The election and the political climate was a mess.

source: www.meteoweb.eu

It's odd today on the eve of the upcoming election that there is not much to say - vote for Rebecca Dallet - but in 2011, we were in a different and scary moment in Wisconsin... and in America.

Rounders is playing in the background right now - and that movie is a conglomeration of poker cliche's.  But it's also a movie about bottoming out.

It's a bit like the moment of your life when you realize it all hasn't been set up for you (apologies for those of you who haven't realized this yet).

Edward Norton is the finest actor of his age...  He's so good - and it's lovely to see him do most everything.  Win and sometimes lose at cards... Get hit by tanks because he's the secret Hulk...  realize he's not friends with the coolest guy in the room,,, but instead he IS that guy!

It's a Rob Roy situation, and a maddening life swatch kinda situation... 

Trumpt

I'd say the unthinkable has happened - except as D-Force reminded me, I had actually thought a Trump win had been likely since the summer.  I wanted to take a few days to let the election results sink in and be able to reflect with some distance.

Now that we find ourselves here, I think it's useful to look forward, rather than back (you know, like back to when I and many others were rationally trying to explain why Bernie had a much better chance of beating Donald Trump in a general election because it was such an overwhelmingly Change Election...).  Looking forward, I see the three most likely paths that a Trump presidency holds in store for us, and I rank these in the order that I think them likeliest to less likely (note not least likely - I won't even present that here...):

1.
Trump assumes power in January, and by the time we get to Inauguration Day, we find that he has oddly stopped talking about "The Wall" and "Muslim Bans" and he is instead focused on "Border Security" and "Safe Zones for Refugees" (safely located in their own countries or regions, naturally).  Trump works closely with the Republicans to gut our national safety net and build a non-progressive tax system that waits for financial relief to "trickle down" to unprotected workers who have lost the right to unionize or earn a fair, living wage.  In other words, he behaves as any normal Republican would have in office - he's Mitt Romney, only richer and more orange.

The Result: The Establishment (K-Street, Republican & Democratic Parties, most Major Media outlets, Wall Street, Middle Management, Delaware and Connecticut) thinks they've won, and scary 2016 is behind us; Righteous Anger Comedy (John Oliver, Samantha Bee, The Daily Show, etc.) have a field day - it's like the heady days of mocking the George W Bush years on steroids on PCP; Flyover Country Working Class Rage (this has been mis-diagnosed pre- and post-election as "the last stand of the old white guy" or racism, misogyny, xenophobia - all of that was certainly a part of the Trump Coalition, but there are two major groups who overwhelmingly elected Trump: Working Class Labor and White Middle Management. 

This is not a natural partnership and can't stand.  If Trump proceeds on the most likely course (#1), as I see it, The Tea Party and Working Class Crossover vote (progressives bemoaning the outcome of the election as depressed voter turnout and voter suppression - both valid, but not the whole story - have to get comfortable with the fact that the Democratic Party also lost voters this cycle) will remain furious.  Trump's more extreme policies (both the racist and xenophobic ones and the more tenable radical positions on trade and mass military interventionism) would be tempered and mostly forgotten in this scenario.  In 2020, the Outrage for Radical Change electorate will still be out there.  It's key to remember this voting bloc is neither inherently conservative or liberal - if they calcify around a specific candidate, it need not be a Republican or Democrat (or left or right Third Party). 

2.
The other likely (tho slightly less so, methinks) outcome of Trump's assumption of power in January is that he actually tries to do what he has said he would do.  The uncertain part here would be the order of things.  If Trump starts, as he seems to have hinted, with a Public Works program (Massive Infrastructure Investment), he would likely get cooperation from the Democrats.  That would be wise, as I'm not sure whether Democrats would go along with any proposed measures of Trump's after he starts down any racist or xenophobic policy paths.  Mass protests would follow.  It's difficult to say how long these first several evenings of protests will progress.  They are important, and need to be a part of the conversation, but if Trump actually starts enacting is catastrophic policies, the Foolhardy Wall, the Unconstitutional Muslim Ban, Alarmist Foreign Policy (possibly including either Russia-loving or going to proxy war with Russia in Syria), Protectionist Economics, and Extreme Blue Collar Job Creation (this is accomplished either through the Massive Infrastructure Investment mentioned above or via Soviet-Style Factory Takeover by the State {or better by local Municipalities}). 

The Result: What's strange is that the complete package of Trump's proposals are all over the map.  The question is whether we can parse the policy from the president.  Can the protests turn toward specific policies (Don't take away our Obama-Care! Enact Progressive Tax Reform!), and not just be against the figurehead.  I've already heard anecdotal stories of people helping strangers out against bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic attacks on an individual basis.  The question is whether protest can be used surgically to disagree with the deplorable policies, while welcoming the Public Works and creating trade policies that don't solely support the Financial Class.

3.
Less likely (though not least likely - I won't even present my unlikely scenarios - some of which are quite hopeful and absurdly optimistic), but still a distinct possibility (maybe for example as likely as a Donald Trump presidency!) is that Something Happens.  Of course unforeseen things will occur in the course of the next four years.  Most of the way that I select a presidential candidate is based on how I think they will deal with the unforeseen.  That said, what I mean with #3 is that instead of Trump getting into a room with professional advisors, he acts out.  If North Korea launches an attack or China stretches further into the South China Sea - perhaps the Russia/Syria/Iran/ISIS hotbed becomes hotter - a question of a very sudden militaristic response that isn't thought out and can't be taken back. 

The Result: Goddess knows, but if anything outrageous were to occur, it may well spark mass protest, from people across the political spectrum.  If we have a person with control of the most powerful military in the history of the world who decides to wield it, and in particular who wields it toward un-humanistic outcomes, it will be scary - and a frightening opportunity to unify a seemingly un-unifiable populace.