Guns, Trump, Cruz, open carry petitions, and a surefire (no pun intended)…a surefire way to insure peace among Republicans.

Imagine the Republican presidential convention if every

attendee carries one of these

I note, admittedly not without a slight frisson of sangfroid coursing through my veins, that there’s a move afoot to allow open carry weapons at the forthcoming Republican convention, and that people are petitioning for it.

Now it happens that there are also some rascally folks who have openly and unscrupulously theorized that the petitioners are trolls. Imagine that! They say the petition is there to embarrass the Republicans into opposing one of the sacred principles of their own platform — specifically, support of an unfettered, unregulated, unpoliced, unlicensed Second Amendment right to, uh, blast bad guys off the face of the earth for, uh, self-defense.

According to that theory of trolling, the Republicans will be such silly sissies that they will be terrified of all those guns in their midst and oppose open carry even as Republican legislators and judges try to force it on schools and other places where the hoi polloi and their young children mingle. 

Nonsense! Republicans are red-blooded Americans who were given their right to open carry firearms by God Himself. I know they will get behind this petition — which will fill their convention hall with good guys with guns, thus rendering themselves safe from terrorist, communist, gay activist, socialist and possibly even dadaist, surrealist, and impressionist attacks. With so many Republicans openly carrying, the convention can’t be anything but completely peaceable. 

Little wonder that as of this posting, over 41,000 red blooded Americans have already signed the petition.

And little wonder Donald Trump says he is seriously studying the proposal. In fact, before you read the next paragraph, you should sign the Republican Convention open carry petition, here.

You’ve done that? Good for you. But before you go away, let me make a modest proposal concerning history, Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr. That’s Burr on the left. You can find Hamilton on any of the $10 bills in your wallet. Or at right.

Aaron Burr. He knew how

solve a dispute between

high-ranking politicians

Alexander Hamilton.

During his duel with Burr

he missed. Burr didn't.

Both men had a dislike for each other that rivaled, or came close to

rivaling, anything festering between Trump and Cruz today.

In the end, Hamilton and Burr settled their differences the conservatively manly way — and remember, you Federalist Originalists, both dudes were founding fathers. In 1807, Hamilton and Burr fought a pistol duel. Burr won. Hamilton lost. And if two consenting founding fathers did it, it had to be constitutionally protected.

Given the dispute between Trump and Cruz over whose wife is uglier and who did or did not have a little tart — or a few little tarts — baking on the side, not to mention something about spilled beans, I think there’s only one way to settle their dispute so that the rest of us can get some sleep. Yes, I’m talking about the old-fashioned way. With a firearms duel.

Hamilton and Burr used front-loading pistols. But technology has advanced, and as the NRA will tell you, there’s no reason the average joe shouldn’t be walking, or driving around, or lazing on the couch with an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon equipped with a 30 bullet magazine.

So that’s what I propose for the Trump vs. Cruz duel to the death. And both guys are so brave and macho, I’m sure neither of them will wimp out of the contest. 

Afterwards, the winner can go to the Republican nominating convention, openly carrying a firearm. Because with so many good guys armed to the teeth, just as the Republican party has been advocating, nothing can possibly go wrong.

Tighten your wing nuts, folks! Here come five mega-Tuesday nightmares, pipe dreams, and paranoid fantasies for the nation’s wing-iest Americans.

Have you notice the resemblance

between wing nuts and Mickey

Mouse hats? Only asking.

Tonight, the Ides of March, could turn out to be the best night of Donald Trump’s life, if he wins the big primaries in Florida, Illinois and Ohio. 

On the other hand, maybe not. He could lose some or all of this day’s big three. Or any of the following five nightmare could happen:

1. Melania Trump turns out to be a Russian spy. Please understand, I’m not saying it’s so. I’m not even saying I think it might perhaps be ever-so-slightly possibly so. I’m just saying that given America’s paranoid style of thinking recently, any nutball could make an accusation like this:

Zealous investigators (perhaps newly-enlightened Breitbart reporters?) discover that Melania Trump, born in a formerly communist country, is actually a concoction of Russian intelligence. They set out looking for beautiful women in communist and former communist lands to comes to America and undermine American democracy. 

The mission of these women will be to marry American men, encourage their husbands to run for the presidency, and thus infiltrate the White House. Why do you think there are so many websites where you can meet and maybe marry Russian women, for example? (And look, I know that Slovenia, where Melania comes from, isn't Russia, sort of. But it's geographically close. Besides, any place with a name like Slovenia...well, you know.)

Using psychographic projections based on a careful study of The Trumpster’s behavior, the Russkies, or at least the commies, figured out exactly which feminine traits are likely to appeal to The Donald. There was the slight inconvenience of Marla Marples, but maybe the Russkies paid her off to walk out on Trump. The rest is history. The plot is working in more ways than one. I mean, why do you think so many people are saying that Trump and Putin love each other? 

2. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are actually Cuban espionage agents. I mean, I’m not even trying to suggest that they really are, but consider. They both come from Cuban  immigrant parents, right? And by some strange coincidence, both Cuban-Americans are running for President. Coincidence? Do you think so? 

Obviously, the only reason there could be two of them is so that if one gets knocked out of the race, the other can jump in. Which is exactly what may happen if Marco doesn’t get enough votes in Florida by tonight. 

But why would Cuba do this to us? Obviously, Castro has been really teed off, ever since Russia stopped supporting the Cuban economy. That’s probably why he’s ailing. So now, with a Russian agent dangerously close to putting her head inches from the President’s pillow, the Cubans feel that this Russian plot must be stopped, since their relations with the United States are warming up and they don’t want to see any Russian agent messing up the flow of money to Cuba. 

I know that all sounds complicated. But if you twist the wings on your wing nut two turns to the right, it all makes perfect sense.

3. Those people getting punched in the nose by Trump fans? They’re actually part of a plot to murder Trump voters. See, they’ve got really, really dangerous blood-borne diseases. They’ve been planted deliberately in Trump audiences for the sole purpose of getting punched.  When you punch them in the nose, they bleed on you and a few weeks later, you die mysteriously of something like AIDS or Zika. 

How do you think AIDS and Zika even got to our shores in the first place? We didn’t have those problems 50 years ago. If we had a wall, we could keep them out. By the way, have you heard a rumor that Donald Trump wants to put a mosquito net on top of the wall? That should do the trick, at least when it comes to Zika. And we can make the flying insects pay for it.

4. John Kasich is actually a secret agent for the Democrats. Think about it. He doesn’t shout. He doesn’t curse. He doesn’t sneer. He doesn’t make remarks about women, or ugly people, or the length of various appendages on Donald Trump. Just like the Democrats. This can't be a mere accident. 

So obviously, he’s there to take the election away from True Conservatives and turn the Presidency into a Hillary agenda. Or maybe even a Bernie agenda.Or maybe it’s not an “agenda.” Maybe it’s “a gender." Only thinking aloud here.

5. If Bernie Sanders becomes President, he’ll force sick people to get well, against their will. That’s what his whole so-called “Medicare for All” program is all about. People will be cured against their will. Poor people will get hip transplants and liver transplants and dental implants and eyeglasses, just like the one percent. After that comes vaccinations. And there goes freedom! What’s more, all those people living longer will bankrupt the Social Security system and you and I won’t get a nickel when we retire, which is what that crazy socialist is really up to.

Phew! Glad I got all that stuff off my chest.

“We haf ways to make you relent, heh heh heh!” No longer content to “think small” as it did in the 1960s, Volkswagen now thinks evil.

Forget that honest little car with an honest
message, Volkswagen is now making big
threats against workers' jobs if the U.S. levels
a punitive fine for cheating on pollution. Cute.

Volkswagen, the lying, conniving car company that put a cheater in its cars to help foil U.S. anti-pollution regulations, and that still hasn’t come up with a fix for the problem, isn’t merely content to have screwed thousands of its American customers.

Now it’s also threatening to screw not only workers in its American facilities, but also to enrage its German workers against the United States by threatening their jobs, too.

Reuters reports:

Volkswagen may have to cut jobs in the United States as well as Europe and other countries depending on how big a fine has to be paid for its manipulation of diesel emissions tests, the carmaker's top labor official told a meeting of 20,000 workers at its German headquarters on Tuesday. [snip] 

The extent to which VW may be forced to cut jobs to help meet the costs of 'Dieselgate' depends "decisively" on the level of fines, VW's works councils chairman Bernd Osterloh said on Tuesday at the meeting of workers in Wolfsburg which was also attended by the carmaker's top managers. [snip] 

"Should the future viability of Volkswagen be endangered by an unprecedented financial penalty, this will have dramatic social consequences," said Osterloh, who also sits on VW's 20-member supervisory board.

This is not very different from the old SS policy in Belgium, France, and elsewhere of putting ten innocent hostages up against the wall and shooting them every time one German soldier was killed by a sniper.

Napoleon Bonparte, Russia, and why a liberal Democrat like me is rooting for Trump to win the Republican nomination

Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated when his

Russian enemies followed his advice. My 

fellow Democrats should follow it, too.

It all boils down to something Napoleon Bonparte once said:

“Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a grave mistake."

Today, Super Tuesday, March 1, 2016, at 4:30 in the afternoon, it looks very much as if Donald Trump will emerge from today's voting with enough strength to win the Republican nomination.

Some of my fellow Democrats are tearing their hair out in despair. I say, let Trump win.  In fact, I sincerely hope he wins.

Trump seems to be hitting his head against the ceiling at roughly 49 percent of the Republican vote. The other half of Republicans support Cruz, Rubio, Carson, and Kasich.

No doubt, if  Trump wins the nomination, he’ll pull in even more Republicans. But most of these will be grudging Republicans. Let’s say he gets half of the balance. That brings him to 75 percent of people who call themselves Republicans.

Only 39 percent of Americans say they are either Republicans or lean toward  voting Republican. So if Trump wins 75 percent of those 39 percent, he gets the votes of less than 30 percent of the people. 

And that leaves slightly over 69 percent for the Democratic nominee. Which means it will be the most disastrous thing that happened to the Republican party in its history — a triumph of arithmetic over political insanity.

P.S. A little over  200 years ago, Napoleon’s enemies followed his advice, and destroyed him by failing to interrupt him. Early in the 19th Century, he marched bravely into Russia. The Russians had neither the army, nor the military skills, not the ordnance that Napoleon had. They couldn't interrupt him.

But they did have winters like Napoleon had never seen.

So when Napoleon marched into Russia, they let him come. Well, not literally. They initially fought fierce battles with him and lost every one of them, which turned out to be a good thing.  What the Russians couldn’t defeat, the weather and the vastness of Russia did.

And so Napoleon marched on while the Russians pulled back. Napoleon took Vilna. He took Vitebsk. He took Smolensk. After a bloody battle, the Russians abandoned Borodino, which Napoleon also took. Next he took Moscow, which the Russians set fired to before they fled, leaving him with a burned out shell of a city. Then it began to snow.

I skip over many subsequent details, but what it boils down to is this: Napoleon’s army, starved for supplies, freezing, sick, hampered by impossibly long supply lines, and harassed by Russian guerilla actions, was nearly wiped out.

From there on it was all downhill for him. Not long afterward he was an exile on Elba.

Go Trump, go!

The Republican Cage Match: next time could they at least do it with clubs and maces? Or could a referee cut their tongues out when they lie?

The Republican debate was kind of like
this. Only there were more people
brawling at once.

I know, I know — by the time you read this, the Thursday, February 25th Republican “debate” over who gets to be that party’s presidential nominee will be as old as George Washington’s false teeth.

All the same, now that I’ve had  time to digest the debate, I gotta say something.

The Republican Party is a national embarrassment. The so-called debate was like watching a bunch of street brawlers, stripped to the waist, locked in a cage, and trying to rip each others’ heads off.

All that was missing were strings of obscenities to go with the cross talking — no, come to think of it, that was cross-shouting — as the rude louts on stage tried their best to drown one-another out.

There was only one moment of levity amidst all the brutish brawling. That was when Ben Carson, noting that the only people getting questions, and therefore attention, were the ones who had been attacked, begged rather plaintively for someone to attack him.

But the most egregious actor was Wolf Blitzer, the CNN moderator, who could control neither the shouting, nor the cross-yelling, nor the spewing of falsehoods that flowed like projectile vomit from the dubious assortment of thugs and boors who would be president.

The most outrageous uncorrected statement came, of course, from Donald Trump, who claimed that taxes in this country were the highest in the world. Compared to what nation in what other world, Donald? If you were counting on Wolf Blitzer to ask a followup question to that statement, you were counting on the wrong so-called journalist. Nor was Trump challenged by his opponents, who also want you to believe that particular lie.

Some facts: When it comes to personal income tax, the maximum personal income tax rate on super rich individuals like Donald Trump (who won’t release his income tax forms to show whether he’s paying up) is 39.6 percent. That’s in the United States. In Great Britain, it’s 45 percent. In Spain it’s 41 percent. In Holland it’s 56 percent. In Luxembourg, it’s 52 percent. In Israel, it’s 50 percent. In France it’s 45 percent. In Canada it’s 50 percent. In Denmark it’s just under 52 percent. And in Sweden it’s a whopping 59.78 percent.

Yet people in those nations live better than Americans, get healthcare with better outcomes at lower prices, have more ready access to affordable university educations, retire more comfortably, and can afford better vacations.

Interestingly, a good many of the low-tax or no-tax nations are scary places where you probably wouldn’t want to live. In Egypt, if you’re not imprisoned and sentenced to death for your political opinions, it’s only 20 percent. In Brunei the Sultan allows it to be zero percent. In Russia it’s 13 percent. In Kazakhstan it’s 10 percent. In Saudi Arabia, where you can get whipped or your head cut off in the street by the authorities for heresy and other crimes against Sharia law, it’s zero percent.

Deep down in their hearts, the so-called conservative Republicans would like to de-conserve the values that made American great and turn this nation into another Kazakhstan. Or into Russia, where the 13 percent income tax is a flat tax.

But of course, the outrageous statements simply floated out of the candidates mouths and out into America as if they were the truth. And the CNN team of interviewers just sat there like the duds that I now must sadly assume they are.

I wish CNN had a Donald who would tell Wolf Blitzer he’s fired.

Nazis, political smears from The Oxford Club, and Bernie Sanders

Some years ago I began subscribing to a couple of publications from an organization called The Oxford Club. Their subscription mailings were terrific at massaging whatever organ it is that generates intensely overwhelming feelings of greed.

What their publications generally do is recommend stocks to invest in. I’m dredging up the numbers they touted from a faulty memory, but essentially their solicitation mailings were saying things like, “Earn profits of 200 percent, 300 percent, four hundred and eighty-seven percent!” 

Yes, yes, ye-e-e-essss! I thought, as my greed gland went orgasmic and my signature spurted across a check for my subscription.

“Promise, large promise, is the soul of an advertisement,” declared Dr. Samuel Johnson back in the 18th Century. And this was nearly two centuries before the Oxford Club began promising me, without regularly delivering, humongous multiples of my money.

Well, for a while, The Oxford Club did reasonably well by me. No, they never generated 200 percent, much less six hundred and eighty-seven percent in profits. At least not for me. But a couple of their recommendations have increased significantly in value since I bought them, and the stocks recommend in their retirement income letter did, as promised, generate some income.

Of course, that was when the market was going up. Recently, the Oxford Club has been closing out quite a few positions, sometimes at a loss. I have still more beefs with their stock picks and their methods, but that’s for another day. What I’m here to tell you about is the not-so-subliminal message lurking just below the surface — or sometimes right on the surface — of the onslaught of e-mails they send me every week, in addition to my monthly newsletter subscriptions.

Turns out The Oxford Club is a right wing organization with right wing “friends” who spread political opinions, and sometimes considerable misinformation and paranoia among its subscribers. (Sample from a recent mailing that led off with the presidential election, "Your Bank Accounts Will Soon Be Confiscated Whoever Wins!")

I have no way of knowing whether issuing a screed against anything that doesn’t favor the one percent, tax cuts and hatred of government is required writing if you want to keep your job at the Oxford Club. But it seems that, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, nearly all their writers who regularly send me messages have at one time or another bashed the notion that the one percent are anything but God-dispatched saviors of our national economy. And that  — if I may continue a rather racy metaphor that I began some paragraphs back — taxes are the ejaculate of the devil.

But  the Oxford Club went more than a few paces two far last week when Alexander Green, the Oxford Club’s “Chief Investment Strategist” painted Bernie Sanders as the world’s biggest Nazi since Adolph and Eva romped joyfully at Berchtesgaden while Buchenwald gassed Europe’s Jews.

“How a Vote for Sanders Is Like a Vote for Hitler,” declared the headline on an e-mail from The Oxford Club written by Green. And the Oxford Club’s Green Slime ran downhill from there. Here’s what appears to be the nub of this disgusting argument, complete with Green's stereotyping:

Hitler convinced his people that Germany's troubles were caused by just 1% of the population: the Jews. 

In reality, of course, German Jews were a tremendous asset. They were hardworking and successful, particularly in business and finance. They were more highly educated, more affluent and more law-abiding than most, committing few crimes in relation to their numbers. 

Yet Hitler projected every fear, anxiety and frustration onto them. He scapegoated them so successfully, in fact, that ordinary Germans began to detest them, even those who had never met a Jew….

Hitler was a monster. But his fundamental flaw was that he was a deluded and unrepentant bigot. 

So is Bernie Sanders. 

Sanders does not scapegoat an ethnic or religious minority, however. He scapegoats a financial one. He dislikes rich people. 

Listen to a Sanders stump speech, and you'll discover
that folks with money are the bane of our existence. They
have "fixed" the economy, corrupted politics, denied
healthcare to millions, cheated the working class, shirked taxes, created shocking inequality and hoarded the wealth for themselves. 

I must live in an alternate universe.

Yes, Alexander, you very much must live in an alternate universe.

Hitler picked on people because of their ethnicity, arrested them, sent them to filthy concentration camps, turned them into slave laborers, starved them, and gassed them to death when they were;t forced them to dig their own graves before being shot. Whereas Bernie Sanders is mostly proposing to somewhat increase the taxes on the topmost part of the income that very rich people earn. 

There is no comparison. There is no parallel. What there is, it seems to me, is The Oxford Club baiting a Jewish candidate for wanting to make sure that people who work for the one percent receive fair and proportionate compensation to their own contributions to the economy. Calling a Jew a Nazi because of his economic principles and belief in fairness is tantamount to what Dr. Goebbels did — inventing and broadcasting a big , slanderous lie.

In the same e-mail, Green accused Sanders of “preaching class hatred.” No, Mr, Green, it is you and The Oxford Club who are attempting to disseminate hatred. Bernie Sanders is preaching class fairness.

Shame on The Oxford Club for enabling you with a platform to broadcast your trash.

Note: If the Oxford Club hasn’t been embarrassed yet into taking down Green’s vile e-mail, you can find the full text posted here, along with some mostly furious replies by Oxford Club members, many of whom, I hope, will cancel or not renew their subscriptions.

Cross-Posted at No More Mister Nice Blog

Mitch McConnell, turtles, intransigent Republicans, and a Supreme Court "solution"

One of these head shots is of a turtle,the other is of Mitch  McConnell.

 I'm not sure which is which.

So Mitch McConnell, in addition to resembling a turtle, now says that he will act like one and slow-walk to death any Obama nomination to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.

And just about every Republican, including every Republican candidate for the presidency, agrees with him — the Constitution be damned.Well, I think I may have a solution, if President Obama has the chutzpah to try it.

Let the President make his nomination and wait a reasonable interval while McConnell keeps the nomination in the deep freeze. And then let the President announce that the Senate has abdicated its duty to advise and consent, but that the Constitution demands nine Supreme Court justices, a demand the Senate is contravening. Therefore, by executive order, the President is forced to declare that his nominee is now the next justice on the court.

This could either be a Bosch

painting of hell or a photograph

of a Republican Senate

 subcommittee meeting

The Republicans of course will howl. They'll scream. They'll bleat. They'll vomit up lizards and serpents like hellish characters in a Hieronymus Bosch painting. Let them. What are they going to do about Obama's appointment — complain to the Supreme Court?

What's that you say? They can get the Senate and House to impeach and remove him?

In that case, in the last days of this presidential term we'll have President Joe Biden. Which for Republicans will be the political equivalent of removing a stiletto from their left eye sockets and shoving it into their right eye sockets.

I am among the many who always feared the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times," and who have reason to believe we are living in such times now. But who would have believed that total political anarchy could be so entertaining? Not to mention Republican political debates.

Hillary, Bernie, JFK, and the advantage of big ambitions over small potatoes

John F. Kennedy knew how to think big. Bernie Sanders' thinking

is closer to JFK's than Hillary's

The Clinton camp's beef with Bernie Sanders seems to be that Sanders is thinking too big, whereas Hillary is "pragmatic." But look closely and what you will find is that by "pragmatism," the Clinton camp means the hope for a few incremental fixes, achieved without the consent of a hostile Congress. 

Hillary will, um, “improve” the clunky camel of a cobbled together, better-than-nothing Obamacare system, rather than replace it with Medicare For All, as Sanders wants to do. She’ll help make college loans somewhat less onerous, as opposed to Sanders, who seeks to make them superfluous, with free tuition at public colleges.  And so on.

But make no mistake. Congress, or at least the Congress controlled by Republicans, hates Hillary with a vengeance. It has been ginning up hatred of her at least since she was seeking the nomination in opposition to Barack Obama eight years ago. Think about the Hillary-hating catch phrases of the past, and possibly of the future if Hillary gets the nomination. They will rise like zombies from the grave: "Whitewater." "Troopergate." “Vince Foster.” "Liberal." Any move Hillary makes will have to be in spite of Congress, rather than in concert with it.

But won’t Congress oppose Sanders, too? Yes, if it’s the same Congress we have now, they most certainly will. But the wave of the future — as evidenced by the enthusiastic turnout of young people for Sanders — demonstrates that he speaks for where America of the future wants to go, and not for tinkering cautiously with the rattletrap mechanism that is American government today. Inevitably, if enough people make demands, lawmakers will go along in order to keep their jobs. That's why the difference between Sanders and Clinton is so important.

Sanders will fight for change. Hillary, if the publicity is to believed, will fight only for incremental fixes. And that reflects a shameful lack of ambition for the future of our nation.

Can Bernie Sanders deliver all, or even most of what he promises? Probably not, at least not in the short run. But then, it’s also not a sure thing can Hillary can deliver even modest fixes.

Significant change will only come when a mass of voters stand up and shake the walls and the rafters with their demands for change. Yes, change will come slowly even after Americans demonstrate their passion for change. But that was always the case. To quote John F. Kennedy when he spoke of his own huge ambitions for America….

“All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. “

And that’s why I’ll be voting for Sanders in my own state’s primary. If Hillary gets the nomination? Yes, I'll vote for her in the general election, because even her small potatoes ambitions for America are better than the unconscious Republican ambition to destroy America.

But make no mistake. If America is ever going to change for the better again, it will be Bernie leading the charge, and not Hillary fiddling with the lug nuts.

Lucrezia Borgia and Rick Snyder: separated at birth?

Lucrezia Borgia was likely involved in one, or perhaps

a handful of poisonings in her quest for power during

the 15th Century

Governor Rick Snyder was definitely involved in 

poisoning the entire city of Flint, Michigan in his 

own 21st Century quest for power — and then tried

to cover it up.

I don't know about you, but when I study the faces of Lucrezia Borgia and Rick Snyder, I seem to detect a clear family resemblance. I wonder if somewhere on the Italian boot there are preserved samples of Lucrerzia's DNA that can be compared to Rick's?

I say that because both seem to have (or to have had) a lust for power in their DNA. With Lucrezia, it manifested itself in the long and twisted history of the Borgia family's political machinations and her participation in the family's plotting. With Rick, allegiances seem to be to "conservatism" and moneyed interests. But the results seem to be the same whether we're talking Renaissance Italy or modern America:

The rich and powerful grow more rich and powerful, while fighting among themselves, about who is or will be the most rich and the most powerful. Meanwhile, the citizenry, no longer just robbed blind, gets to suffer in misery and agony, the latest victims of toxic ideas of government that directly caused the toxic drinking water supply of Flint.

The Great Trump University Ripoff

I hate to do anything that might help Ted Cruz, but I cn't resist:

In case you missed this.

Try on this theory for size: Donald Trump is getting ready to cut and run

Georgie Porgie 

Pudding and Pie

Kissed the Girls

And made them cry

When the Girls

Came out to play

Georgie Porgie

Ran away.

Donald Trump seems to be taking his cues these days from Georgie Porgie of nursery rhyme fame.

"I have great respect for women," Trump says, while from the other side of his mouth he regularly disses women in general and Fox News personality Megyn  Kelley in particular, not least of all by tweeting "I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo because that would be politically incorrect. Instead I only call her a lightweight reporter!" Sounds like he's trying to make her cry.

And yet, when he faces the challenge of possibly get asked tough question by her in the next Republican debate, he announces that he's not coming. Which is pretty much akin to running away.

That's cowardice in the face of of a woman, some say, an updated version of Georgie Porgie-ism. More than enough has been said of the question that if Trump is too wimpy to stand up to a single woman's questions in a debate, how will he stand up to entities ranging from Russia to ISIS?

Let me try a different thought on you. It's only a theory. But bear with me for a few paragraphs.

Donald Trump is desperately looking for the exit door. But without appearing to look for the exit door.

He started his run for president, my theory goes, on a lark — a nifty way to call attention to himself and build his Trump brand.

But the "brand" image is that of a tough businessman who never backs down. So he can't just pull a Sarah Palin, similar to Palin quitting the governorship of Alaska during her term. He'd look too wimpy to do that. Instead, he's been trying to insult his way out of his candidacy by losing to another Republican. Any Republican.

All his putdowns, from calling Mexican immigrants rapists, to insults to Kelly and Carly Fiorina, have actually been desperate cries for help. "Somebody please get me out of here," Trump has been obliquely whining and whimpering. 

"I know. Maybe if I called Jeb Bush 'low energy.' Maybe if I tell the truth and call Ted Cruz a liar. Maybe if I..."

Nothing seems to have worked. The more childishly petulant he becomes, and the more he pouts like a six year old who isn't allowed a second helping of dessert, the higher his poll numbers have gone. So now he's trying a new tack. He's going to bow out of a high profile opportunity, and hope that this will end his candidacy by enabling other candidates get more attention to pull ahead of him.

Somehow it all reminds me of a wisecrack that many years ago was attributed sotto voce to Marilyn Monroe during the making of an ill-fated film called The Misfits, and later scripted for a much lesser actress, Anna Nicole Smith, in an even worse film, ironically called Illegal Aliens.

"Who do I have to screw to get out of this movie?"

Bend over, Donald!

Is “Gun Culture” an oxymoron?

Gun “Culture?” Sure! With enough bullets in this baby, 

it can bang out the rhythm of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. 

That’s why you gotta have clips that hold lots of bullets.

Primary dictionary definition of “gun”:

A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

Primary dictionary definition of “culture”:

The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively: 20th century popular culture.

Mind you, I don’t go as far as this commentator, who I admit makes a strong case for banning guns, period. 

Simply repealing the Second Amendment would do the trick for me, followed by the licensing of hand guns to those with a demonstrable need for self-defense (such as doctors who've received death threats because they perform abortions), and of shotguns and single shot rifles to legitimate hunters.

Why Maryland senatorial candidate Donna Edwards should fire her campaign staff. Pronto!

Maryland Senatorial Candidate

Donna Edwards. Send her money.

but tell her to fire her staff.

Scroll way down and you’ll find the text of an e-mail I received from somebody named Donna Edwards. 

From her letter, I gathered that she

's running for something-or-other and she wants my money for her campaign.

But she didn’t tell me directly what party she belongs to (although I suppose I could figure out she’s not a Republican.)

She doesn’t tell me specifically in the body of the e-mail what state, or even what region, she’s running for office, or what office  she’s seeking — at least not until I found it in some mice type down below her contribute button. Yes, she does say that big banks and donors "think they can pick the next Senator from Maryland." But she expects me to interpret that statement and dope out that she's a Senatorial candidate from Maryland.

She did directly reveal a little bit of the information I craved — in mouse type footnotes — at the bottom of her letter. But over 60 percent of Americans read their e-mail on their cell phones these days. So it's doubtful that most of the non-Marylanders who get her e-mail will even notice it, much less strain their eyes to read it.

I had to dig up the following by myself: A tiny bit of Internet research revealed that Ms. Edwards is currently a member of Congress from Maryland’s fourth Congressional District. And that she’s a fellow Democrat. And that she’s running for the Senate. And that she’s seeking retiring Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski’s seat. But that she’s competing against another Democrat, Chris Van Hollen.

It’s clear Donna’s campaign is being run by nincompoops.

Listen up, ninconpoops. There might be a good reason for me to support Donna Edwards against Van Hollen. She’s a Democrat. I’m a Democrat. I’m pro-Sanders, and Donna has a position on campaign contributions very much like the one Bernie Sanders has. She hates the influence of big money on politics. So do I.

With the sophistication of data processing systems these days, it shouldn’t be an insurmountable task to separate local voters who know Donna, from out-of-state Democrats like me, who haven’t heard of her, but who favor Sanders-style candidates. And then to tailor a letter to out-of-staters.

So you might have begun your e-mail to me like this,

Dear fellow Democrat, 

If we’re going to get Wall Street’s greedy hands off our government, it’s going to take more than Bernie Sanders alone. It’s going to take a Senate devoted to supporting the kinds of programs Bernie supports. 

That’s because Bernie’s going to need lawmakers  who side with him and think like him to pass legislation supporting his programs. Without support in the Senate and Congress, Bernie will be just a lone voice in the wilderness, even if he wins his election. 

That’s why I’m reaching out to you to help me beat the Wall Street-backed opposition to my Senate campaign here in the State of Maryland. Yes, I know, you’ve got your own local candidates to support in your own state. But if you could find just $10, or even only $5 to send to my Senate campaign, you will be helping to assure that there will be one more person on the team that supports working families, not greedy hedge fund managers and investment bankers….

Unfortunately, Donna, one of your hack campaign staff, or one of the hack consultants your campaign hired to write your e-mails, are blowing an opportunity for you.

Get rid of them!

Here’s the text of the e-mail I received.

Dear [Crank]

I don't take money from Wall Street banks. You know why? Because I'm going to stand up to them. These big banks, and big donors think they can choose who gets elected.

I've always said forget big money, forget the establishment. They think they can pick and choose the next Senator from Maryland? Let them try.

We know the power of the people is the strongest force in politics, and if we all stand together, we will win.

Pitch in $5 before midnight towards our $15,000 goal and show everyone that the grassroots can defeat big donors and the establishment. What you give now will be the difference between victory -- and a progressive Senate -- and defeat.

There are too many families struggling to stay in the middle class, or even squeeze into the middle class. Those families, your family, needs someone who will fight for them. Someone who knows how hard you had to work just to put food on the table.

We must ensure the there is a voice for those families in the Senate. 

This fight is too important to let the establishment or big money donors decide its fate. Give all you can now and help us close the giant fundraising gap we face:

Pitch in $5 before midnight. Working families need a voice in the Senate, and we can't let anything stop us.

I know how hard you work, and the sacrifices you make to pitch in to my campaign. I can't thank you enough.