Semicolon: Story of a Subtle Punctuation Mark

SemicolonElizabeth posted a cartoon on my Facebook time line. It is by Loren Fishman, and it features a teacher at a chalkboard with “grammar/punctuation” written, and then the winking smiley emoticon — ;) — below it. The teacher says, “Yes, a winky face is correct… But in ancient times, the semicolon was actually used to separate archaic written devices known as ‘complete sentences.’” It got me thinking about the semicolon.

In standard usage, the semicolon does indeed link complete sentences. This raises the question of why one would use the semicolon at all. When used in this way, one could instead use a period. The point of using a semicolon is to connect the sentences more closely. So the following is perfectly correct, “He had a gun. It was pointed right at me.” But it works better to write, “He had a gun; it was pointed right at me.”

At the same time, this would be wrong: “He had a gun; pointed right at me.” That’s where our good friend the em-dash comes in, “He had a gun — pointed right at me.” What’s wonderful about the em-dash is that it is the Swiss Army Knife of punctuation; you can use it for almost anything. One of my favorites — This should come as no surprise! — is to stick an entire sentence in the middle of a sentence.

The Semicolon Meets the Modern Sentence

The idea of “complete sentences” has become vague in recent years. Is this a complete sentence: “Because he couldn’t help himself”? Strictly speaking, it isn’t; it is a dependent clause. Yet few people would have a problem with it in the right context, “He kissed her. Because he couldn’t help himself.” And if that’s okay, isn’t, “He kissed her; because he couldn’t help himself”?

Oh, it gets murky here! Why not just, “He kissed her, because he couldn’t help himself”? If you want to use the semicolon, why use “because”? This works a whole lot better: “He kissed her; he couldn’t help himself.”

Is the Semicolon Necessary?

I think it is best to stick with the standard definition of a complete sentence when it comes to the semicolon. The reason is that the semicolon implies a conjunction. But exactly what it implies depends upon the context. In the last example, I wouldn’t say that it implies “because”; it implies something more, and “because” gets in the way.

For those who just want to make their lives easier, avoid the semicolon. And if you do want to use it, stick to linking two complete sentences. But for most people, the semicolon is more subtle than necessary. Most people don’t write precisely enough for there to be a distinction between a semicolon and a period.

But Wait! There’s More!

There is another use of the semicolon that people don’t talk much about: as a list separator. In general, it should be avoided. But when you are listing complicated things — especially ones that include “and” in their titles — semicolons are very useful. For example, “There was a Johnny Depp triple-feature that night: Benny & Joon; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” Admittedly, the italics of the film titles make using a comma much easier. But you get the idea.

Here’s a great example of a place were a semicolon really helps. Consider the following sentence, “This articles deals with topics such as expanding your introduction, tightening your education, skills, and experience sections, and typesetting and printing.” Now that’s a perfectly good sentence. But it’s also complex and hard to grok in one read-through.

Semicolons for Clarity!

But the sentence can be made much clearer with the semicolon. Consider it now, “This articles deals with topics such as expanding your introduction; tightening your education, skills, and experience sections; and typesetting and printing.” Now it’s clear that we are talking about three items, even if the items themselves are somewhat complex.

So when you find yourself writing a list that might be confusing, remember that your friendly semicolon is there to help out. The standard use of semicolons to connect sentences could be eliminated from the language without much concern. But this less common use of the semicolon really is an important tool for writers. Because it can be used to improve clarity. And clarity is all.

Trump Will Not Keep Base Happy With Healthcare

Jennifer Rubin - Trump Would Keep Base Happy With Obamacare ReplacementUntil Tuesday, President Trump and Stephen K Bannon did a good job of keeping their base happy. They threw out red meat on immigration, ruthlessly attacked the press, cooked up an anti-Barack Obama conspiracy (to replace the birther conspiracy) and continued to talk tough on trade. If his actions and rhetoric horrified all Democrats, most independents, some thinking Republicans and the press, he did not care. Keep the base happy, stick to the nativist, protectionist Bannon hymnal.

Then on Tuesday, Trump embraced the GOP healthcare bill, which will keep or even expand the “administrative state” and which has been vilified by conservatives. He tweeted, “Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster — is imploding fast!” Trump also said after a meeting with members, “We’re going to do something that’s great. And I am proud to support the replacement plan released by the House of Representatives.”

Now, whatever you think of the merits, it won’t pass as currently designed. Moreover, it is especially harmful to Trump’s lower-income, older Rust Belt supporters.

The Kaiser Foundation has a user-friendly map and calculator which shows which states (most of them) and which counties specifically would pay more under the GOP American Health Care Act and which pay more under the Affordable Care Act. In almost every single county in Iowa, Michigan and Ohio, a 60-year-old with $30,000 in income would pay more for coverage… Congratulations, House Republicans and Trump, you’re on the side of rich New England millennials. Seriously, this would be a tragedy for the “forgotten” Americans and hence a political disaster for Trump.

From a political and policy standpoint, the smart move would have been to deplore the bill and tell the House to go back to work. Instead, Trump tied himself to the mast of a sinking ship…

Democrats considering a run in 2020 must be delighted. “Trump’s no friend of the working man,” they will claim. “He’s just as mean-spirited as every other Republican,” they will say. Democrats will hang the GOP healthcare bill around the necks of Republican incumbents. GOP voters who will be enraged [that] the party did not do what it promised may sit home, or vote for challengers…

I find it hard to believe that in the end Trump won’t hang the House Republicans out to dry. (That would please Bannon, who has had a temporary truce with [Paul] Ryan.) He will need to distance himself from the impending disaster. We’ll have to wait and see how he does it.

–Jennifer Rubin
How Trump Blew It on Healthcare

Afterword

Do check out the KFF interactive graph. It’s amazing. Compare how the the House bill will affect people making $20,000 per year with people making $75,000 per year. This will not make Trump’s base happy — assuming they notice.

What Obamacare Repeal Was Always About

Obamacare's Original Sin: Taxing the RichOver at The Hill, Naomi Jagoda wrote, House GOP Bill Repeals ObamaCare Taxes — With One Exception. The “one exception” is the “Cadillac tax.” This is the tax on employer provided healthcare that is considered too good. So if you are in a union that still has a bit of power and get a good healthcare benefit, you get taxed. It’s interesting, but hardly surprising, that this is the only tax that the Republicans thought was worth keeping; it was the only one that affected the middle class.

Now, I don’t have a problem with taxing employer-provided healthcare. I think all such benefits should be taxed. Maybe if they were, we would have a sane — non-job-based — health insurance system. But I see no reason why we should single out some plans and not others. Furthermore, I don’t see this as a big issue. If there was one tax in Obamacare that should have been eliminated, it was this “Cadillac tax.” But the Republicans think just the opposite. Their support for taxes is exactly in opposition to the wealth of the people paying the tax. So if it’s a tax on the poor, they are fine with it; if it’s a tax on the rich, it is the worst thing since slavery, and cannot be accepted.

Why Republicans Hate Obamacare

Ezra Klein wrote, The GOP Health Bill Doesn’t Know What Problem It’s Trying to Solve. But I think he’s being coy. He knows better — he even says as much. On its surface the American Health Care Act (AHCA) is just a way for the Republicans to say that they repealed and replaced Obamacare. But you have to look deeper and ask the question, “Why did they hate Obamacare?” It wasn’t just that a Democratic president passed it. That’s especially true after Obama won re-election in 2012.

As I’ve written about in the past, the Republicans really don’t care about anything in Obamacare except that it taxes the rich. All that stuff about destroying freedom and high premiums and anything else that Republicans ever say publicly is just propaganda for a prols. They hate Obamacare now and they always have simply because it raised taxes on the rich.

One of the taxes is particularly hilarious: medical devices. This is a tax that was created to offset the extra money that medical device manufacturers would make because of extra money that the government would spend on their products. The industry has been whining about it ever since. Given that the AHCA will end up covering far fewer people, this tax should probably be lowered. In fact, given how incompetent the Republicans are and the possibility that they will manage to effectively destroy our healthcare economy, maybe we should get rid of the tax entirely. Regardless, this isn’t the tax that most upsets the Republicans.

It’s Taxing the Rich, Stupid!

The big deal for the Republicans is the tax on incomes over $200,000. It isn’t much — 0.9 percentage points. But if you make $1.2 million a year, that’s $9,000 that you could use to, I don’t know, pay the year’s rent for a family of four living in a rural area. Or a month’s payment on the yacht. You know: a lot of money if you’re poor and almost nothing if you make a million dollars a year.

But as far as the Republicans are concerned, taxes on the rich were Obamacare’s original sin. And if you scoffed at me in the past when I’ve said that, all you have to do is look at this original draft of the AHCA. All the taxes that affect the rich are gone. The one tax that affects the middle class somehow hangs on.

Like any good Villager, Naomi Jagoda tries to justify it, of course, “By keeping that tax, albeit after a delay, Republicans are trying to ensure that their bill will not add to the deficit after 10 years.” But the Republicans are trying to jam this bill through Congress before the CBO gets its hands on it. They already know their bill will increase the deficit. And they don’t care. They just care that the rich pay less in taxes. That’s what’s all about. That’s what it’s always been all about.

Trump Is the Perpetrator of McCarthyism

Jonathan Chait - Trump and McCarthyismThat we do have evidence of Americans having actual contact with Russians — quite a lot of evidence about quite a lot of Americans in Trump’s orbit — ought to be a clue that “McCarthyism” is not the most apt analogy. Indeed, it is a much closer description for the methods used by Trump himself.

Since “McCarthyism” means different things to different people, a brief reminder of just what Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy did may be helpful. During and after World War II, conservative Republicans considered Franklin Roosevelt’s domestic and foreign policies socialistic and un-American. Conservative critics linked the two criticisms together: Roosevelt had enlarged the role of the federal government, and he and his successor, Harry Truman, had cooperated with the Soviets during and after the war. At times his coalition included some communist spies, a fact that gave enough surface plausibility for McCarthy to claim that the New Deal under Roosevelt and Truman was fundamentally a communist conspiracy.

McCarthyism was a series of specific lies in service of the larger conceptual lie. The specific lies insisted that the federal government was honeycombed with Soviet spies who were colluding openly with the Democratic Party. The larger lie was an attempt to erase the distinction between communists and New Deal Democrats, whose points of contact were short-lived and minimal, and by the postwar era had grown deeply estranged as Harry Truman confronted the USSR, McCarthy and his allies, of course, viewed it just the other way around. To them, the partnership between the New Deal and communism was a larger truth, which justified McCarthy’s smaller lies.

There are certainly some parallels between the charges made by McCarthy then and the charges made against Trump now. Both involve accusations of improper ties to Russia, and both rely on parsing evidence that is not wholly public. And it is also true that, if you search the internet, you can find some unfounded or even silly claims being made against Trump. This is a big country, after all.

That said, the differences overwhelm the similarities. The differences begin with the factual basis. If McCarthy had limited his accusations to cases where he had some solid basis for suspicion — like Alger Hiss, a State Department employee who really was a Soviet spy — then “McCarthyism” would not be a word. To apply the term “McCarthyism” to any suspicion of hidden or inappropriate relations with a hostile foreign power is to dilute the term beyond any useful meaning. The case for concern about Trump’s relationship with Russia does not rely on conspiracy thinking. There is an extensive public record.

It is the parallels between McCarthy and Trump, rather than McCarthy and Trump’s adversaries, that are most compelling. As some have noted, Trump was literally mentored by Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s right-hand man. Trump, like McCarthy, alleges the existence of a shadowy cabal of government bureaucrats to which he attributes near unlimited power. Representative Steve King’s plea for Trump to “purge leftists from executive branch before disloyal, illegal, and treasonist acts sink us” is indistinguishable from McCarthy’s plan…

Trump, like McCarthy, uses reckless accusations to whip his supporters into a frenzy and disorient his foes. A White House official, speaking to Mike Allen, inadvertently let slip Trump’s most McCarthyite quality: his indifference to truth. “The president just has a great nose for these things,” the official told Allen. “It’s the bureaucratic leaks — the deep state — that bother him most. Even if it turns out not to be true that they surveilled Trump Tower, he will have a very good point to make about the level of sabotage coming from Obama holdovers.” The giveaway is “even if it turns out not to be true.” Trump didn’t float this scenario as a possibility, he asserted it as fact. But like every conspiracy theory he has floated — from Obama’s allegedly forged birth certificate to Rafael Cruz’s alleged role in the Kennedy assassination — the facts of the case have no relevance to Trump.

–Jonathan Chait
Donald Trump Is the Perpetrator of McCarthyism, Not the Victim of It

The Economics of Immigration Enforcement

Immigration Sign

Economics is all about incentives. We understand that if you offer more money for a particular job, there will be more people willing to do that job. I could provide an endless list of similar examples, but everyone understands this. But when it comes to other areas of public policy, people are much less clear. We see this all the time in the illegal drug trade where increased penalties and enforcement have led to a larger supply of cheaper and purer drugs. But that’s very complicated. The way that incentives affect immigration policing is much simpler.

Incentives of Immigration Enforcement

Let’s think about what’s going on right now with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We’ve heard lots about how ICE agents were very unhappy with President Obama and how much they supported Donald Trump. And now that he’s president, they are even more happy. Trump hasn’t given ICE any more money, but he’s changed their priorities. Or rather, he’s more or less letting them do whatever they want. And what is the incentive there? Well, it isn’t complicated.

For the agents, he’s made their lives easy. Now they can just wait outside the court room for when an undocumented immigrant leaves having dealt with a traffic ticket or some other minor offense. It’s not just easy because they don’t have to go looking. It’s also easy because they don’t have to worry that the person they are arresting is violent. Just imagine if 90 percent of the work you have to do in your job was lifted. You’d be very happy.

For the managers at ICE, this is fantastic. Now they can catch more people and get credit for doing a great job. They’ll hear, “Wow! You doubled the number of people you deported!” And they’ll think to themselves, “It was easy! I used to have go after violent criminals, but now I capture housewives and grandfathers.” There will be nowhere on the reports they file to indicate what percentage of the people they captured were “bad hombres.” A 55 year-old father of four with no criminal history is as good as a gang leader captured after shooting the graveyard clerk at the local 7-11.

Unintended Immigration Consequences

And that’s the thing: Trump promised us that he would get rid of the “bad” people, but he’s set up a system that does just the opposite. Why should ICE go after people who might be violent, when they get just as much credit for getting people who have a long history of abiding by the law? And the answer is that there is no reason. So now undocumented immigrants who have a history of violence are actually safer than the kind of undocumented immigrants that Trump and his supporters claim to not be worried about.

Remember: when Trump first started his campaign, he talked about immigrants as being bad for the economy. But that didn’t play the way that “violent Mexicans” did. And so that was his main talking point. But now, when Trump supporters see people they know deported, they usually react the same way, “That’s not the kind of person I thought he would deport!” Yeah, Trump supporters all had their own secret decoder rings that told them what Trump meant when he said things they disagreed with. It turns out that the only thing you needed to decode was anything he said about helping the middle class.

Priorities

When Obama was president, he talked a lot about priorities when it came to immigration. This was treated by conservatives as a kind of dodge. But the truth is that ICE (and every other part of the government) has limited resources. So clearly, what it needs to do is prioritize. Obama’s priorities were what most people would think were reasonable. Trump’s “get them all” priorities is really just “let the agents do what they want” priorities. And that is the same as “let the agents do what is easiest.” And that means that we are going to deport the people that most Americans least want to see deported.

Of course, most people won’t care unless ICE’s new policies directly affect them. Fewer resources will go toward removing violent people. And that means that more people will be harmed, even as ICE’s deportations go up. But it will be impossible to show that this policy has actually harmed us. Indeed, if an undocumented immigrant kills someone, it will be used by President Trump as an excuse for deporting more undocumented grandmothers who have never so much as jaywalked in the 30 years they’ve lived here.

Obamacare Replacement Makes Medicaid a Block Grant

Sarah Kliff: Obamacare Repeal, Medicaid Block GrantOne of the main ways that Obamacare increased insurance coverage was by expanding the Medicaid program to cover millions more low-income Americans. Prior to the health law, the entitlement was restricted to specific groups of low-income Americans (pregnant women, for example, and the blind and disabled).

Obamacare opened the program up to anyone below 138 percent of the poverty line (about $15,000 for an individual) in the 31 states that opted to participate.

Initial GOP plans would have ended this coverage expansion outright — but in a big reversal, the replacement bill will allow Medicaid expansion to continue through January 1, 2020. States will be able to continue to enroll people in the program. States that haven’t expanded yet but are considering the option could join the Medicaid expansion, and enroll people over the same time period as well.

In 2020, enrollment in the Medicaid expansion will “freeze” and states will no longer be able to sign new enrollees up for the program. Legislators expect that enrollment would slowly decline, as enrollees’ incomes change and they shift off the program…

There are significant changes to Medicaid in the American Health Care Act outside of the expansion, too. This bill would convert Medicaid to a “per capita cap” system, where states would get a lump sum from the federal government for each enrollee.

This is different from current Medicaid funding. Right now, the federal government has an open-ended commitment to paying all of a Medicaid enrollee’s bills, regardless of how high they go.

Previous analyses of different version of this proposal suggest it could lead to very deep cuts to Medicaid. It’s unclear, at this point, how much this new version of the policy would reduce Medicaid spending.

–Sarah Kliff
The American Health Care Act: The Republicans’ Bill to Replace Obamacare

Obama Wire Tap Investigation Not Good for Trump

Brian Beutler - Trump Obama InvestigationPresident Donald Trump’s White House hunkered down unexpectedly Saturday to formulate a response to the president’s bizarre, unhinged tweets that morning accusing former President Barack Obama and members of the Obama administration of illegally “wire tapping” Trump Tower telephones in the weeks before the election. Suspicion quickly mounted that Trump lashed out after reading a Breitbart article, which amplified right-wing radio host Mark Levin’s call for Congress to investigate “Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’” against Trump.

Considering the explosiveness of Trump’s allegations, and the likelihood that they were created from whole cloth, his aides would have been well advised to begin the followup process by asking Trump, “Why did you tweet that? Was Breitbart your source?” Instead, Trump and his retinue have decided that the wisest course of action is to pretend the accusations may have merit, and ask Congress to get to the bottom of them.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans on Capitol Hill aren’t anywhere close to prepared to rebuff Trump, and have decided instead to pretend Trump’s allegations might be well-founded. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes promised in an official statement to “make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party’s campaign officials or surrogates.” …

It is alarming for Trump to seek an investigation of the Obama administration on the basis of right-wing agitprop and raw impulse. Under slightly different circumstances, it is easy to imagine Trump and his Republican supplicants ruining the lives of innocent people with this kind of behavior, corroding the rule of law in the process. But in this specific case, what he’s actually asking for is an expansion of the various investigations into Russian campaign meddling and the Trump campaign’s connections to it. Democrats should happily oblige.

As Nunes noted in his statement, his interest in Trump’s allegations stems from the fact that “one of the focus points of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation is the US government’s response to actions taken by Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign.” In other words, to the extent that House investigators are taking orders from Trump, they will be digging further into the question of whether the Trump campaign and the Russian government conspired against Clinton. In light of the strenuousness of Obama’s denial, and Comey’s extraordinary interest in clearing the FBI’s name publicly, it is likely that Nunes’ inquiry will either reveal serious probable cause for investigating Trump or that Trump’s accusations don’t have even tenuous connection to reality…

When that investigation is over, it will either clear Trump and his team or it won’t, but in either case it will almost certainly reveal that Trump is willing to abuse the megaphone of the presidency to smear his political enemies and seek recriminations against them. The question for all the Republicans humoring Trump right now will then be: What are you going to do about it?

–Brian Beutler
Trump Has Royally Screwed Congressional Republicans

Schitt’s Creek: Introduction, Analysis, Review

Schitt's Creek - Still From Third Episode: Don't Worry, It's His Sister

Andrea introduced me to a Canadian situation comedy, Schitt’s Creek. It features SCTV stars Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara as the parents of a once rich family, now reduced to living in a motel in Schitt’s Creek with their adult children, played by Daniel Levy and Annie Murphy. It’s a pretty standard fish-out-of-water story, where the fish are sophisticated and think themselves very much superior to those in their new environment. It very much has the feel of Northern Exposure.

When Northern Exposure was out in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was a big fan. But when I revisited it a few years ago, I was disappointed. It tries a bit too hard to be quirky, and as a result never really jells into anything believable. Schitt’s Creek does a far better of job of this. For one thing, other than the mayor (Chris Elliott), the local people aren’t odd so much as normal. But more important, the family, though pampered and annoying, are smart and quick enough to understand their situation.

The Heart of Schitt’s Creek

The heart of the show features the son David (Daniel Levy) and his relationship with the motel clerk, Stevie (Emily Hampshire).[1] David is an smart, urbane man in his early 30s who has never really had to grow up. He used to run an art gallery, but that was clearly underwritten by his father. He seems lost in his own world. Stevie is certainly David’s intellectual match, but in a very low-key way. And the best moments between them involve the same formula. David says something clueless; Stevie responds sarcastically, but without a hint that she is doing so; David goes with her sarcastic reply, but again, without a hint that he knows.

David greatly improves Stevie’s life, because his general weirdness amuses her. But the two develop the first honest bond in the series, and by half way through the first season, they sleep together. But the rest of the season and the entirety of the second deals with David’s decision that they not be lovers, because he realizes that Stevie is the only true friend he’s ever had. (In the third season, they end up in love triangle of the Cabaret style — David is pansexual. But I haven’t seen any of these episodes.)

The Essence of Friendship

This is the fundamental theme of the entire show: the essence of friendship. The family used to be rich, after all. And they all had lots of “friends.” It reminds me of a line from The People vs Larry Flynt. Larry’s mother is amazed at the number of friends he has at his party, and Larry says in a knowing way, “Lots of money, lots of friends.” When the Rose family, quite innocently, lose all their money, none of their friends step in to help. But in their often crude and clueless ways, the people of Schitt’s Creek do. This is very effectively brought together in the last episode of the second season.

But you don’t have to be too wrapped up in the characters. The truth is that it is a genuinely funny show. A good example of this is the third episode, “Don’t Worry, It’s His Sister.” In it, Johnny Rose (Eugene Levy) having decided to sell the town, is on a mission to fix it up. This is when he comes upon the sign in the image above. No one outside the family sees the pornographic nature of it. The mayor, Roland Schitt (Chris Elliott) protests that it is just a picture of his great grandfather, Horas Schitt. (Yes, the show has a lot of “Schitt” puns. Not just Horas and Roland, but Roland’s wife, Jocelyn.) The episode only gets worse (better), although the denouement was pretty obvious.

A Little Humiliation Comedy

There is one thing that bothers me in the show. It’s has more humiliation comedy than I would like. That’s especially true of Catherine O’Hara’s character. (O’Hara really does have no sense of shame as a actor; she will do anything.) But this is made up for by the intelligence of the characters. In fact, there is one really great scene where she is going to the town choir to take it over (she’s a professional actor, after all), only to find that it is quite good and there is at least one singer who is great. So it isn’t The Office, but there are times when I wince.

A Show for Everyone

Of course, it isn’t surprising that I would like this show. It has a very positive message about humanity. And while it makes fun of the foibles of all of the classes, its harshest criticisms are leveled at the rich. I’m surprised there isn’t more of that in entertainment. After all, the rich are a really small demographic. Regardless, I think that Schitt’s Creek a very appealing comedy, that is different enough for people like me to appreciate but not so different that it scares away people who just want a funny show. We’ll see if it ages better than Northern Exposure. I tend to think that it will.


[1] Emily Hampshire reminds me of someone, but I can’t think of whom. And no, it isn’t Ally Sheedy.

The President of the US in Four Tweets

President Donald TrumpThe following four tweets were sent out over the course of a half hour period yesterday. They are from the sitting President of the United States. Do you hear the sounds the clinical paranoia? They are based on no evidence whatsoever. We used to have to worry that the great masses of unsophisticated people would be fooled by things like Bat Child Found in Cave! But now we have a president who believes anything he sees.

These may be the tweets of a crazy man. But more than that, they sound very much like what a five-year-old would tweet. Trump believes the world is very unfair to him. He’ll believe anything that justifies his position. And he displays no impulse control. It doesn’t matter how many times he is shown to be a fool, he repeats the same behavior.

I wonder if Van Jones still thinks that Trump became President of the United States last Tuesday? If that speech really was “one of the most extraordinary moments you’ve ever seen in American politics”? It seems to me that all Tuesday showed was that Trump is a professional entertainer who can, in fact, read from a teleprompter. The following four tweets represent the real leader of the Free World.

Obama Tapped My Phones!

Is It Legal?!

If Only I Knew a Good Lawyer!

Obama Sunk Low During Sacred Election!

Our “sacred” Constitution allowed this man to become President. But more important, roughly half of the American voters thought that this man was not only qualified to be president, but was a better option than a garden-variety, lifelong civil servant. As screwed up as our President is, the people of our country are even more screwed up. “President Donald Trump.” Those worlds still give me chills.

Update

I recommend reading Jon Schwarz for more details. But if Trump actually wants to get to the bottom of this, he can:

Trump has the power to clarify it and everything else about the Russia story right now by declassifying whatever surveillance records exist of contacts between people in his orbit and Russia. If he and his associates did nothing wrong, he has every incentive to do so as soon as possible.

I suspect he will do no such thing, because no one is out to get Trump. But what is undoubtedly true is that Trump and his associates did much that is wrong and so won’t allow anything to be declassified.

No One Even Notices Your Clever Facebook Nickname

What's Your Facebook Nickname?One of the best things about Facebook is that it allows you to enter a nickname for yourself. So if your real name is “Lil,” but everyone knows you as “Nancy,” you could add “Nancy” as a nickname.

I don’t use the function that way, of course. Facebook allows you to have many nicknames, and it lists your top nickname right under your real name on your header. So I can’t resist adding nicknames of obscure people just to jazz things up. I use it as a kind of barometer of how I feel. But I figured it would work as a kind of conversation starter. But it’s Facebook, so of course no one cares.

Just the same, since I took the time to create them, I thought I would go through them here and explain them. I really should add a category on Frankly Curious called, “Since You’ll Never Ask…”

The Dixie Flatline

Science fiction fans should know this. In the novel Neuromancer, The Dixie Flatline is the moniker of McCoy Pauly. Pauly was a legendary “console cowboy” (hacker). Doing so could kill you, if you, for example, interacted with the wrong kind of encryption. Pauly had died a number of times as a result of this — mostly to be revived.

What’s interesting about him is that he is dead when Neuromancer takes place. But his consciousness was saved on disk. So Molly and Case steal the construct to help them as a hacker in the job that they are doing. Pauly is not happy to learn that he isn’t alive and asks Case to see that he is deleted once the job is over.

I’ve always found that to be really interesting. Why would you mind being a computer program? Well, in Pauly’s case, it’s a problem in that he is a ROM. That is to say that he can’t change — grow and evolve. And if you can’t do that, there really is no point to “life” — regardless of how “real” it might seem.

I generally use “The Dixie Flatline” as my nickname when I’m feeling particularly existential.

Red Grin Grumble

I’m not even sure if it’s spelled correctly. It comes from the first episode of the second season of Rick and Morty. In it, Rick tells Morty and Summer that their father is the “Red Grin Grumble of pretending he knows what’s going on.” Both Morty and Summer laugh, and Rick slams them because he just made up the word — indicating that the two kids were pretending they knew what’s going on. He says, “Think for yourself!”

It’s mostly on my list because it’s an obscure reference to a television show that is attractive to the sort of people who would love obscure references. I put it up when I hate humanity more than usual. You’d think it would be up all the time, but my misanthropy is pretty constant, so I don’t get the option to use it all that much.

Not Terry Pratchett

This is simply a statement of fact. And although I’ve never really wanted to be Terry Pratchett, I use it to express my general feelings of failure as an artist. It might also be something of a comment about my fear of Alzheimer’s disease and mental decline in general. If we don’t know who we are, who are we?

Nick Danger

Nick Danger comes from “The Further Adventures of Nick Danger Third Eye” from The Firesign Theatre album, How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You’re Not Anywhere at All. The skit is a parody of old radio dramas. I think I put it up just as an act of advocacy. Everyone should listen to it.

Johann Gambolputty

This is an annoying one. It’s from a Monty Python skit where the filmmakers are trying to figure out why a great Baroque composer is not better known. It might have something to do with the composer’s full name, “Johann Gambolputty-de-von-Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crass-cren-bon-fried-digger-dangle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelter-wasser-kurstlich-himble-eisen-bahnwagen-guten-abend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwürstel-gespurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut-gumberaber-schönendanker-kalbsfleisch-mittleraucher-von-Hautkopft of Ulm.” Unfortunately, Facebook has a very short maximum on the number of characters in a nickname. Apparently, 420 is too many.

Jude Fawley

You know I’m not feeling too good if I’m using this nickname Jude Fawley. That is the name of the title character in Jude the Obscure. To me, Jude is a modern hero. But being “modern,” he is destroyed by the system itself. As we all are. I feel it every day — more on days I use this nickname.

Giuseppe Bottazzi

Giuseppe Bottazzi — also known as Peppone — is the communist mayor in the Don Camillo films. They are a series of Italian comedic films starting in 1952 (based on novels) about a catholic priest in a small Italian town after Word War II. His conflict with Bottzaai is not political, but theological: communists are, by definition, atheists. At the same time, the two are a lot alike and kind of friends.

I don’t know why he’s on the list. I do like the films. But it is probably more about it being a very obscure reference. Like Don Camillo wouldn’t be obscure enough. (But seriously, if I saw “Don Camillo” on someone else’s list, I would think it kind of obvious. I spend a lot of time playing to an audience of me.)

Sancho Panza

Well, this one isn’t a surprise. Sancho is the most important character in Don Quixote. The title character himself isn’t that interesting. But it isn’t surprising I think that. I do have certain uncomfortably shared characteristics with the great knight. If I have Sancho up as my nickname, it means I’m feeling pretty good.

Professor and Mary Ann

The two undervalued members of the Gilligan’s Island, they were just “and the rest” in the original theme song. In my family, they used to all call me “Gilligan,” because they thought I looked like him. That was before I put on all this weight. I thought I should have something for the prols.

Queequeg

Just as Don Quixote had to show up on the list, so too did Mobby Dick. Queequeg is probably the most interesting character in the novel. And I’ve long found it a major problem that he disappears for so much of the novel.

I use Queequeg to indicate that I’m feeling like an outsider. But the truth is that Queequeg is so self-assured that he never feels like an outsider. Good for him! It’s one of the things that makes him such a great character. It’s not something I really understand.

My Nickname, My Mood

It’s fun to use nicknames in this way. But no one notices. Probably the reason for this is because people just look at their feeds, not other people’s accounts. But since when has screaming into a vacuum been a problem for me?

How Do We Help the Mentally Ill? How About Ourselves?

Homeless Woman - Mentally IllI had a very disturbing — and ultimately sad — experience yesterday with an young mentally ill woman.

A Family Walk

I was with my sister, and we were visiting my niece and great-nephew. We were taking a walk to the park where we were going to have lunch. Now, my niece lives in very poor area with a lot of recent immigrants. There’s also a lot of drug dealing and other illegal activities going on, if you want to look carefully enough to notice.

As we walked down the sidewalk, we passed by a young woman who was focused very intently on the street. I figured she was waiting for a connection or something. So I didn’t think much about her. But as we cross the street, I noticed that the woman was now following us.

The Mentally Ill Woman

This could have been just a coincidence, but the woman was following rather closer than made me comfortable. As we crossed the bridge that went over the nearby creek, my sister decided to stop and look at the water. As we all stopped — including me with the baby in the stroller — the young woman stopped and waited uncomfortably until we continued on.

Then she continued to follow us.

At that point, I stopped and motioned, in a friendly manner, for her to go around us. As our eyes met, I could see a combination of confusion and terror. She started to move past us, but then shook her head, turned around and left in the opposite direction. She never said a word, although as she left, she seemed to be asking for permission.

The reason I asked her to go around us was that I didn’t know what was going on. Having a baby, I figured it was best to confront the situation straight on. I was pretty sure I was dealing with a mentally ill person at that point. And it is generally better, if possible, to define the reality of the situation rather than to leave it to their minds.

Helping the Mentally Ill

But it was heartbreaking. The woman was lost in most senses of the word. And even though a mentally ill person can change on a dime from nonthreatening and needy to menacing and violent, I still felt that I wanted to do something to help her.

Most people are, understandably, afraid of the mentally ill. They are unpredictable. Just the same, they are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. She not only seemed like someone who was likely to become a victim, she seemed like she had already been a victims many times before.

My Own Confusion and Fear

When we returned, she was gone. I hope that she has a caretaker and that there was just a temporary mix-up that found her confused on the street. I wish I had done more at the time. My focus was on the protection of the baby. But looking back now, it’s hard to see that this young woman wasn’t badly in need of protection, and in as much as she was capable, asking for it.

It’s hard to know what to do to help the mentally ill. Going back at least to “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” we know that when you don’t share the same reality, it can be impossible.

But all last night, her face — the confusion, the terror — haunted me. I was in a position to help her, but I didn’t — because of my own confusion and fear. There has got to be a better way for a society to work. There must be some way to encourage the best things in my personality and discourage the worst.

I feel that yesterday, the worst aspects won out without the best aspects even showing up for the fight.

Time for a Special Prosecutor, Democrats!

Jon Schwarz - Special ProsecutorNow that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any involvement in investigations by the Justice Department involving potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the authority to make decisions on the issue — including whether the appointment of a special prosecutor is necessary — falls to the deputy attorney general.

This turn of events gives the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee the power to demand a special prosecutor, if they choose to wield it.

There is currently no permanent deputy attorney general, just Acting Attorney General Dana Boente, a former US Attorney who stepped in after Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, was fired. However, Donald Trump’s nominee, US Attorney for Maryland Rod Rosenstein, will undergo confirmation hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee this month.

And those Judiciary Committee members can now ask Rosenstein to commit to naming a special prosecutor before voting whether to send his nomination to the full Senate.

–Jon Schwarz
Sessions’s Recusal Gives Senators Powerful Leverage…