I don't go to that many of them every year, but I would have to say that last night's Waterfest concert at the Leach Amphitheater in Oshkosh was the best one ever. I don't say that because Huey Lewis and the News is one of my favorite groups and that they played all of their hits in fine form. I don't say that because the rain stayed away--and it was the warm and muggy weather conditions that I love. I say it was the best Waterfest show ever because it was done at 9:15 pm. With the possibility of severe weather looming, organizers shortened up the sets for the opening acts and started Huey at 7:45pm.
Admittedly, I'm a bit different than your usual live music fan. I'm on the job at 3:00 AM on weekdays--and I usually have something going on very early on weekends--while most everyone else is still sound asleep. But is there really a good reason to hold so many events so late at night?
The average Waterfest show runs until 10:30 or so--with headliners not hitting the stage until around 9:00. You add on the half hour it takes to get out of the Leach and back to your car--and the time to drive home on the crowded, one-way downtown streets and there is little chance of getting to bed before 11:30. Last night, I was sleeping before ten.
One of the biggest complaints I hear from people that stopped going to Country USA is that the headliners don't get on until 11:00 every night. And with the traffic nightmare getting out of Ford Festival Park afterwards, it usually turns into an all-night affair. Who needs that hassle, even if you don't have to be to work until 9:00 the next morning?
Whenever you hear about a new study that finds Americans don't get enough sleep, remember that we do that to ourselves. Nights haven't become any shorter since the advent of time--we just insist on scheduling everything as late as possible.
And it's not just concerts. Sports is another late night offender. Playoff games in all leagues and the college ranks start at 8:00 Central Time--9:00 on the East Coast--and go until around midnight. There's no reason to start that late other than to make sure the entire game takes place during "prime time hours" in all time zones. I'm sure the players themselves would be just fine with a 6:00 kickoff or tipoff.
So if I could make a suggestion to Mike Dempsey and the rest of the crew at Waterfest: Consider more "Early Bird Specials" and let us enjoy our beer and our music--while still getting to bed at a reasonable hour.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Already Out of Touch
I sure hope newly-declared gubernatorial candidate Andy Gronik didn't clear his schedule this morning to talk with radio and TV stations across the state about his candidacy--because it won't be happening. Seconds after Gronik announced his intentions to seek the Democratic nomination in 2018 via an email press release, Governor Scott Walker sent out a fundraising email to his donor list claiming Gronik is "out of touch"--and that was literally the case on Tuesday.
That's because the contact person listed for Gronik's campaign was not answering her phone--all day. We tried calling the number from the Newsroom 12 times between noon and 6pm. Every time it rang ten times. Then a recorded message told us that the person with that number had not set up a voice mail account--so we couldn't even leave a message. Email was a dead end as well, as the announcement came from one of those "press@" addresses that doesn't actually go back to a real, live person--but just serves to send out scheduled emails.
Unfortunately, this is not that uncommon in our field nowadays. We receive plenty of press releases via email with contact people and numbers--only to find out that "they are on vacation this week and won't be back until next Monday--and they are really the ones you need to talk to". I usually picture these PR folks sitting on a beach somewhere or at an airport terminal typing out these press releases--and sending them to us before flipping their laptop closed and going back to sipping on a mai tai or boarding their plane. Obviously, they are using the programs that can schedule when you send an email--even if you are not on your computer at the time.
But it still begs the question: Why "alert the media" if there is no possible way for us to get ahold of you to talk about what you thought was so important in the first place?
It's actually a bit of "old school print mentality" mixed with "new school PR techniques". Back in the day when newspapers drove the media cycle, you could provide them with a printed "quote" and they would use it word for word like they actually talked to you. PR folks are still comfortable with that--as it doesn't open anyone up for follow up questioning that might require getting away from talking points. The modern touch is to send out a high definition video--or an "edgy" selfie--that we are supposed to use for "electronic media purposes".
It turns out that Andy Gronik did an "exclusive interview" with the Associated Press yesterday--that the rest of us are supposed to use for our stories. I'm just surprised they were able to get in touch with him.
That's because the contact person listed for Gronik's campaign was not answering her phone--all day. We tried calling the number from the Newsroom 12 times between noon and 6pm. Every time it rang ten times. Then a recorded message told us that the person with that number had not set up a voice mail account--so we couldn't even leave a message. Email was a dead end as well, as the announcement came from one of those "press@" addresses that doesn't actually go back to a real, live person--but just serves to send out scheduled emails.
Unfortunately, this is not that uncommon in our field nowadays. We receive plenty of press releases via email with contact people and numbers--only to find out that "they are on vacation this week and won't be back until next Monday--and they are really the ones you need to talk to". I usually picture these PR folks sitting on a beach somewhere or at an airport terminal typing out these press releases--and sending them to us before flipping their laptop closed and going back to sipping on a mai tai or boarding their plane. Obviously, they are using the programs that can schedule when you send an email--even if you are not on your computer at the time.
But it still begs the question: Why "alert the media" if there is no possible way for us to get ahold of you to talk about what you thought was so important in the first place?
It's actually a bit of "old school print mentality" mixed with "new school PR techniques". Back in the day when newspapers drove the media cycle, you could provide them with a printed "quote" and they would use it word for word like they actually talked to you. PR folks are still comfortable with that--as it doesn't open anyone up for follow up questioning that might require getting away from talking points. The modern touch is to send out a high definition video--or an "edgy" selfie--that we are supposed to use for "electronic media purposes".
It turns out that Andy Gronik did an "exclusive interview" with the Associated Press yesterday--that the rest of us are supposed to use for our stories. I'm just surprised they were able to get in touch with him.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Filling the Void
A recurring theme in the wake of the G-20 summit in Germany last week is that the US is "surrendering its leadership position in the world--and risking isolation". A number of foreign news services aired footage of President Trump wandering around the summit halls with no one wanting to come talk to him or stand with him for pictures. European leaders took veiled shots at us, inferring that somehow they were going to "step into the void and take the lead on important issues facing the planet".
There is a certain irony to all of this concern and consternation about the US breaking away from the direction that some of its allies want to go. For decades those same countries have complained about having to operate in the shadow of the United States. Liberals in those nations have long decried their leaders playing second fiddle to Presidents who set the "global agenda". Nobody every accused Helmut Kohl or Francois Mitterand of "putting the world on the brink of nuclear war"--it was always Ronald Reagan who was "blamed" for that.
While they may talk about taking the lead, European and Asian leaders really don't want that responsibility. Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Theresa May, Justin Trudeau and all of their Socialist predecessors built very comfortable lives standing underneath the American umbrella. And they know that if they actually did try to "set the direction for the world" that it will result in the giant disasters that preceded the "American Century".
Merkel and Macron know that they have no chance to contain Russia. Thanks the military commitment of the US, Germany and France have dedicated their resources to single-payer, national health care systems--which aren't going to intimidate Vladimir Putin in the slightest. The rest of Europe has no intention of taking on militant Islam or quelling the fighting in the countries that are leading to the mass exodus of refugees to the Continent--because they are too preoccupied with free daycare and "basic incomes" to commit anything more to humanitarian disasters elsewhere. Japan has no ability to keep North Korea in check. And we don't have time here to go into the medical and technological advancements that US companies develop in our free market system--unencumbered by the types of regulation and government involvement seen in the rest of the world.
So, to the "rest of the world" we should say if you don't want to continue to enjoy the protection and aid of the United States--because you don't agree with the politics or the guy running the show--go off on your own with neither the resources or the might to survive. Don't worry, because we will still be here--ready to bail you out for the fourth time in the last 100 years.
There is a certain irony to all of this concern and consternation about the US breaking away from the direction that some of its allies want to go. For decades those same countries have complained about having to operate in the shadow of the United States. Liberals in those nations have long decried their leaders playing second fiddle to Presidents who set the "global agenda". Nobody every accused Helmut Kohl or Francois Mitterand of "putting the world on the brink of nuclear war"--it was always Ronald Reagan who was "blamed" for that.
While they may talk about taking the lead, European and Asian leaders really don't want that responsibility. Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Theresa May, Justin Trudeau and all of their Socialist predecessors built very comfortable lives standing underneath the American umbrella. And they know that if they actually did try to "set the direction for the world" that it will result in the giant disasters that preceded the "American Century".
Merkel and Macron know that they have no chance to contain Russia. Thanks the military commitment of the US, Germany and France have dedicated their resources to single-payer, national health care systems--which aren't going to intimidate Vladimir Putin in the slightest. The rest of Europe has no intention of taking on militant Islam or quelling the fighting in the countries that are leading to the mass exodus of refugees to the Continent--because they are too preoccupied with free daycare and "basic incomes" to commit anything more to humanitarian disasters elsewhere. Japan has no ability to keep North Korea in check. And we don't have time here to go into the medical and technological advancements that US companies develop in our free market system--unencumbered by the types of regulation and government involvement seen in the rest of the world.
So, to the "rest of the world" we should say if you don't want to continue to enjoy the protection and aid of the United States--because you don't agree with the politics or the guy running the show--go off on your own with neither the resources or the might to survive. Don't worry, because we will still be here--ready to bail you out for the fourth time in the last 100 years.
Monday, July 10, 2017
Is It Time To Believe?
Having a five and a half game lead in the National League Central--and winning two of three from the New York Yankees in what has usually been a house of horrors for the team--is it time to believe the Milwaukee Brewers could actually make the playoffs this year?
The ragamuffin assemblage of twenty-somethings and castoffs from other teams is the most interest story in baseball this year. The slightly-better-than average April start didn't really get too many people excited. The bullpen meltdowns of May threatened to undermine morale--but the plucky Brewers kept finding ways to win the next game. The usual June Swoon failed to materialize--as the Brewers actually expanded their lead in the division during the month. And now they head into the All Star Break winning eight of their last ten.
Brewers fans have reason to not go jumping on the bandwagon just yet. In 2014 the Crew led the NL Central by more than ten games in the first half of the season--then completely fell apart, finishing third. missing the playoffs and barely finishing the year above .500. And that was a veteran team with a healthy Ryan Braun and starters that could go more than five innings without wearing down.
But the 2014 team didn't have a Cubs team that was sleepwalking through a post-World Series championship. And the Cardinals that year weren't as old and injury-plagued as they are now. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are weaker this year as well--so it's entirely possible that the 2017 Crew is the best of a bad lot--and could hold on to win this thing.
I'm not ready to order playoff tickets just yet. Friday night's game at Yankee Stadium where the Brewers committed five errors in just four innings shows that they are still weak in the fundamentals of the game. And the 9th inning bullpen implosion of Saturday afternoon reveals a weakness that gets compounded as the games really start to mean something in September and October.
Regardless of how the rest of the season plays out, Craig Counsell has definitely clinched the National League Manager of the Year award. And General Manager David Stearns deserves NL Executive of the Year for finding such free agent gems as Travis Shaw (who is a definite All-Star snub) and Stephen Vogt--both of whom couldn't hit a lick until they got to the Brewers.
Of course, an unexpected Brewers pennant chase will become secondary in importance to Wisconsin sports fans as of July 27th. That's the date the Packers open training camp. From that point on, video of Aaron Rodgers standing around with a red jersey on will replace Brewers highlights at the start of the sportscasts--and discussion of what "over-achieving" white guy might make the roster will dominate sports talk radio. Hopefully the first place Brewers enjoyed their brief time in the Wisconsin sports spotlight.
The ragamuffin assemblage of twenty-somethings and castoffs from other teams is the most interest story in baseball this year. The slightly-better-than average April start didn't really get too many people excited. The bullpen meltdowns of May threatened to undermine morale--but the plucky Brewers kept finding ways to win the next game. The usual June Swoon failed to materialize--as the Brewers actually expanded their lead in the division during the month. And now they head into the All Star Break winning eight of their last ten.
Brewers fans have reason to not go jumping on the bandwagon just yet. In 2014 the Crew led the NL Central by more than ten games in the first half of the season--then completely fell apart, finishing third. missing the playoffs and barely finishing the year above .500. And that was a veteran team with a healthy Ryan Braun and starters that could go more than five innings without wearing down.
But the 2014 team didn't have a Cubs team that was sleepwalking through a post-World Series championship. And the Cardinals that year weren't as old and injury-plagued as they are now. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are weaker this year as well--so it's entirely possible that the 2017 Crew is the best of a bad lot--and could hold on to win this thing.
I'm not ready to order playoff tickets just yet. Friday night's game at Yankee Stadium where the Brewers committed five errors in just four innings shows that they are still weak in the fundamentals of the game. And the 9th inning bullpen implosion of Saturday afternoon reveals a weakness that gets compounded as the games really start to mean something in September and October.
Regardless of how the rest of the season plays out, Craig Counsell has definitely clinched the National League Manager of the Year award. And General Manager David Stearns deserves NL Executive of the Year for finding such free agent gems as Travis Shaw (who is a definite All-Star snub) and Stephen Vogt--both of whom couldn't hit a lick until they got to the Brewers.
Of course, an unexpected Brewers pennant chase will become secondary in importance to Wisconsin sports fans as of July 27th. That's the date the Packers open training camp. From that point on, video of Aaron Rodgers standing around with a red jersey on will replace Brewers highlights at the start of the sportscasts--and discussion of what "over-achieving" white guy might make the roster will dominate sports talk radio. Hopefully the first place Brewers enjoyed their brief time in the Wisconsin sports spotlight.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
The Song Remains the Same
Last month I poked fun at Country USA for its "Bro Country" heavy lineup that featured song after song about drinkin', partyin' and drivin' pickup trucks. Now comes Lifest, where the range of musical topics is even more narrow--like just one subject over and over and over again. Perusing the catalogs of some of this week's headliners like Newsboys (which are actually from Australia--not really the first country you think of when it comes to devout Christianity--and who have a front man with the last name of Frankenstein) and Michael W Smith you find compositions only about God and Jesus.
I understand that these musicians believe their talents are gifts from on high and that they are obligated to use them to glorify their creator and testify to their own personal salvation. But don't they want to glorify a really cool car or testify to how their ex-girlfriend was evil incarnate just once or twice an album? I imagine them in the studio saying "OK guys, we just finished that song about how much we love Jesus--now lets cut one about how much Jesus loves us!!" How as an artist do you keep finding different ways to say the same thing time after time?
Take for example my favorite Beatles album, Revolver. It opens with a track about the oppressive income tax rates in Britain. That is followed by songs about the death of a lonely woman, taking a nap, love, love again, an animated underwater child's fantasy, what it's like to be dead, what's it's like to be falling in love, a diss on your ex, the process of breaking up, prescription drug abuse, doubts about love, desire for a new love and the unknown nature of the future. You listen to that album and you've have pretty much covered the entire gamut of human emotion and experience--in just 38-minutes.
Even some of the greatest musicians of all time have fallen into the trap of religious themes. Bob Dylan had his "born again phase" in the late 1970's and early '80's when people wondered if he was done writing great music. Van Morrison insisted that re-issues of his classic song "Brown Eyed Girl" replace the line "Making love in the green grass" with "Running and a-jumping, hey-hey" because it clashed with his renewed religious beliefs (which he has since moved away from again). Even the former Beatle George Harrison changed the lyrics to his Fab Four songs during concerts to express his love for God--instead of what was likely Patti Boyd back in the day--which didn't sit real well with the audiences.
So if your are heading to Lifest, enjoy the different kinds of music--but keep in mind the words of the decidedly non-religious Led Zeppelin: The song remains the same.
I understand that these musicians believe their talents are gifts from on high and that they are obligated to use them to glorify their creator and testify to their own personal salvation. But don't they want to glorify a really cool car or testify to how their ex-girlfriend was evil incarnate just once or twice an album? I imagine them in the studio saying "OK guys, we just finished that song about how much we love Jesus--now lets cut one about how much Jesus loves us!!" How as an artist do you keep finding different ways to say the same thing time after time?
Take for example my favorite Beatles album, Revolver. It opens with a track about the oppressive income tax rates in Britain. That is followed by songs about the death of a lonely woman, taking a nap, love, love again, an animated underwater child's fantasy, what it's like to be dead, what's it's like to be falling in love, a diss on your ex, the process of breaking up, prescription drug abuse, doubts about love, desire for a new love and the unknown nature of the future. You listen to that album and you've have pretty much covered the entire gamut of human emotion and experience--in just 38-minutes.
Even some of the greatest musicians of all time have fallen into the trap of religious themes. Bob Dylan had his "born again phase" in the late 1970's and early '80's when people wondered if he was done writing great music. Van Morrison insisted that re-issues of his classic song "Brown Eyed Girl" replace the line "Making love in the green grass" with "Running and a-jumping, hey-hey" because it clashed with his renewed religious beliefs (which he has since moved away from again). Even the former Beatle George Harrison changed the lyrics to his Fab Four songs during concerts to express his love for God--instead of what was likely Patti Boyd back in the day--which didn't sit real well with the audiences.
So if your are heading to Lifest, enjoy the different kinds of music--but keep in mind the words of the decidedly non-religious Led Zeppelin: The song remains the same.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
The New Americans
The host on one of our early morning shows asked yesterday "What does it mean to be an American?" It's a bit of a crutch to throw out a generalized question like that. A better one would have been what are the differences between an "Old American" and a "New American"?
I'm an Old American. I enjoy the right to say what I believe in--even if someone else may disagree or take offense. I enjoy the right to practice (or not practice) the religion of my choice--and am safe from having the government tell me what my beliefs should be. I enjoy the freedom to publish what I want as news content--even if it is highly critical of the government or opponents of the government. And if I want to, I can peacefully protest decisions of my government--so long as I don't disrupt its function or deny others their right to free expression.
The New Americans are quite different from us Old Americans. The New Americans believe that only speech that does not offend or challenge their way of thinking should be allowed in any format. They believe that the government should dictate the way to practice one's religion (unless it is a relatively new religion practiced by just a few). New Americans want the government to decide which media outlets present the proper facts and to shut down publication of all other forms of content so that people don't have to decide what they consider to be "the truth". And New Americans believe that government operations they do not agree with should be blocked--by pre-emptive legal action, by force or by destruction of public property.
New Americans also have a very different definition of "Independence". They believe people should be dependent on the government for their health care, for their transportation, for their child care, for their means of communication, for all aspects of their education and for their income in retirement.
But most importantly, New Americans really don't want to be Americans anyway. They see the entire history of the country as a constant "failure". That the governing document is so fundamentally flawed that it should be ignored in nearly all instances (save for the Equal Protection Clause--which often benefits their efforts) or that it should be interpreted through whatever social mores are popular this decade. New Americans want to be more European than anything else. They want to embrace the policies of the nations that the Old Americans fought to escape the control of--and then fought almost 200-years later to provide the opportunity to experience American-style freedom when totalitarian governments took over again.
So what does it mean to be American? A lot less freedom and indepdence than it used to.
I'm an Old American. I enjoy the right to say what I believe in--even if someone else may disagree or take offense. I enjoy the right to practice (or not practice) the religion of my choice--and am safe from having the government tell me what my beliefs should be. I enjoy the freedom to publish what I want as news content--even if it is highly critical of the government or opponents of the government. And if I want to, I can peacefully protest decisions of my government--so long as I don't disrupt its function or deny others their right to free expression.
The New Americans are quite different from us Old Americans. The New Americans believe that only speech that does not offend or challenge their way of thinking should be allowed in any format. They believe that the government should dictate the way to practice one's religion (unless it is a relatively new religion practiced by just a few). New Americans want the government to decide which media outlets present the proper facts and to shut down publication of all other forms of content so that people don't have to decide what they consider to be "the truth". And New Americans believe that government operations they do not agree with should be blocked--by pre-emptive legal action, by force or by destruction of public property.
New Americans also have a very different definition of "Independence". They believe people should be dependent on the government for their health care, for their transportation, for their child care, for their means of communication, for all aspects of their education and for their income in retirement.
But most importantly, New Americans really don't want to be Americans anyway. They see the entire history of the country as a constant "failure". That the governing document is so fundamentally flawed that it should be ignored in nearly all instances (save for the Equal Protection Clause--which often benefits their efforts) or that it should be interpreted through whatever social mores are popular this decade. New Americans want to be more European than anything else. They want to embrace the policies of the nations that the Old Americans fought to escape the control of--and then fought almost 200-years later to provide the opportunity to experience American-style freedom when totalitarian governments took over again.
So what does it mean to be American? A lot less freedom and indepdence than it used to.
Monday, July 3, 2017
The 25th Amendment
Getting nowhere in proving treason through campaign connections to Russia, the latest attempt to remove President Donald Trump from office is a movement to invoke the 25th Amendment. Because the Constitution as it is written really isn't taught in public schools anymore, you probably didn't know that the 25th codifies the procedure for replacing the President in case of incapacitation or death. Until 1967, there was no official procedure to pass on power from the President to the Vice President.
The provision that those on the left want to invoke in the case of President Trump is Section 4--which allows the Vice President or the Cabinet to inform the Congress that the President is unable to discharge his duties anymore--and that the Vice President should be granted his powers. However, if the President notifies Congress that he is in fact able to discharge his duties--he remains in power. But if the Veep or the Cabinet comes back within four days to say "no, this guy is not fit to hold the office", Congress must immediately convene and vote on who should be President within 21-days. If they vote the President out, the Vice President moves up. If they vote to keep the President--or take no action in three week--he stays.
Obviously, the 25th Amendment was drafted to deal with situations where Presidents become physically incapacitated due to assassination attempts or medical emergencies. There was real concern after Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke in his second term (and his wife effectively ran the White House) and with Franklin Roosevelt's deteriorating health during his fourth term. That was compounded by the chaos in the hours after John Kennedy was shot (and Lyndon Johnson could have been too) that precipitated drafting of the 25th to clean up the succession process.
I don't think that Congress at the time thought it would be used to claim that the President is a crazy man that needs to be removed from office. Imagine what it would be like if Mike Pence or the Cabinet did alert Congress that President Trump is unable to discharge his duties. Trump would certainly fire back notice that he is more than fit to lead--and then would unleash a barrage of Twitter posts attacking Pence and said Cabinet members as being the "real crazy people".
If Pence came back with a second notice, you would have Congress forced to hold hearings into the mental fitness of President Trump. Employers across the country would be best off to just close all businesses if that happens--because that will be must see TV all day, every day. Psychiatrists, psycholgists and sociologist would all be called to testify--nearly all of them just guessing as to the President's mental state--as he would allow just one doctor to conduct a test that will guaranteed find him to be sane. And then to have open debate on the mental state of the President on the House floor? You can bet we will be pre-empting all regular programming for that as well.
But in the end, unless Trump were to rise from his chair and imitate Doctor Strangelove at the end of Stanley Kubrick's classic movie and be unable to control his "Nazi arm", Congress will not vote to invoke the 25th Amendment--guaranteeing us at least another three years of the most bizarre period in US political history.
The provision that those on the left want to invoke in the case of President Trump is Section 4--which allows the Vice President or the Cabinet to inform the Congress that the President is unable to discharge his duties anymore--and that the Vice President should be granted his powers. However, if the President notifies Congress that he is in fact able to discharge his duties--he remains in power. But if the Veep or the Cabinet comes back within four days to say "no, this guy is not fit to hold the office", Congress must immediately convene and vote on who should be President within 21-days. If they vote the President out, the Vice President moves up. If they vote to keep the President--or take no action in three week--he stays.
Obviously, the 25th Amendment was drafted to deal with situations where Presidents become physically incapacitated due to assassination attempts or medical emergencies. There was real concern after Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke in his second term (and his wife effectively ran the White House) and with Franklin Roosevelt's deteriorating health during his fourth term. That was compounded by the chaos in the hours after John Kennedy was shot (and Lyndon Johnson could have been too) that precipitated drafting of the 25th to clean up the succession process.
I don't think that Congress at the time thought it would be used to claim that the President is a crazy man that needs to be removed from office. Imagine what it would be like if Mike Pence or the Cabinet did alert Congress that President Trump is unable to discharge his duties. Trump would certainly fire back notice that he is more than fit to lead--and then would unleash a barrage of Twitter posts attacking Pence and said Cabinet members as being the "real crazy people".
If Pence came back with a second notice, you would have Congress forced to hold hearings into the mental fitness of President Trump. Employers across the country would be best off to just close all businesses if that happens--because that will be must see TV all day, every day. Psychiatrists, psycholgists and sociologist would all be called to testify--nearly all of them just guessing as to the President's mental state--as he would allow just one doctor to conduct a test that will guaranteed find him to be sane. And then to have open debate on the mental state of the President on the House floor? You can bet we will be pre-empting all regular programming for that as well.
But in the end, unless Trump were to rise from his chair and imitate Doctor Strangelove at the end of Stanley Kubrick's classic movie and be unable to control his "Nazi arm", Congress will not vote to invoke the 25th Amendment--guaranteeing us at least another three years of the most bizarre period in US political history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)