It's always easy to criticize people for outrageous statements, if you're free to make them up. Not at all impressed with the genre.
 

Satire. It's a thing.

 

Yeah, it's a cheap thing for confirming biases. It can be funny for the people who already share those biases, I'd never deny that.

But I do think it important to realize that satire doesn't really tell you anything about the one satire, but instead the one generating it. Never mistake satire for truth.
 

Brett, as Joe says, it's poking fun at Trump's, shall we be charitable and say, unprofessional, less-than-statesmanlike comportment.

This is the thing that I think you and Bart miss a lot. Every partisan every time has some 'great big problem' with the other side's candidates. For conservatives, Obama was foreign born, a secret Muslim, a secret Marxist anti-colonialist, who lies and lies and cheats and cheats. And Kerry was an anti-American, anti-war radical who lied about his military service and impugned his nation and the military. And now Clinton is a felon and a liar. The left does this too of course, Romney was an animal abuser, a life long bully Social Darwinist vulture capitalist; McCain was a warmongering militarist, and now, Trump is a 'fascist.' This is all par for the course.

But what makes Trump different to many even on the Right is that Trump comports himself in an way that's the opposite of the professionalism and statesmanlike-ness that people used to expect in those in higher office. Whatever else they are, Presidents are the 'spokesperson in chief' of our country, the face of our nation representing us to the world. A man talking about how big his penis is or about a critical reporters period strikes some as beyond the pale outside of the usual partisan catastrophizing about the other side. Gerald has described himself as a Burkean conservative, so of course that's going to concern him.
 

I don't mind Gerald being concerned about him, but if you want reasons to not like Trump, (Or Obama, or Hillary.) you don't need to make them up.

And if you do make them up, it suggests that real reasons are more lacking than you like.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Again, it's a satire, taking things we know about Trump (the wacky things he says) and putting them in this satirical context (imagining Trump type comments being given in key historical events rather than the notably statesmanlike comments we actually got) to make the larger point (that Trump far short of an ideal of statesmanship in our leaders). I know some modern conservatives can be amazingly literal in their thinking sometimes, but come on.
 

Satire is one of many literary techniques with ancient origins to comment on reality.

It is not merely "making things up" and because people sometimes use such techniques doesn't mean they have to re-examine their understanding of "real reasons." The "real reasons" to find Trump a problem has been discussed in detail by liberals, conservatives, libertarians and others. As to bias, it's going to be present throughout. Satire is not unique here.

The usage of this specific technique is also seen in perfectly serious discussions. Thought experiments where you try to determine how such and such would work in another context. GM here uses a bit of satire but in some other context, perhaps even one of his exams, could use the technique in a more serious way.
 

Talking about modern conservatives, many honor the classics, including religious works. Satire is found in both. Brett isn't much for humanities and religion though.
 

Trump is rather difficult to satirize. I assume you are trying to make a point with the accurate Goldwater quote?

What kind of speech do you think Obama would have delivered after Pearl Harbor or 9/11?
 

What kind of speech do you think Obama would have delivered after Pearl Harbor or 9/11?

I feel safe in assuming that he would not have called for the invasion of Iraq in either case.
 

That would be silly. He would have called for the invasion of Germany.
 

That's because it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
 

The Harvard Crimson features "Trump and Sartre" CORRECTION! "Trump and Satire" at:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/3/23/trump-and-satire/

Trump might have attacked Pearl Schwartz.

And here's one reason The Donald has removed the pe WaPo press credentials:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/979213/how-the-donald-trumps-satire-and-were-all-laughi

"How 'The Donald' trumps satire, and we're all laughing.

 

Since the copyright lapsed:

Happy Birthday to You.
Happy Birthday to You.
Happy Birthday dear Mr. Trump.
Happy Birthday to You!
 

While our D.C. expert (Point of Order) opines that Trump is rather difficult to satirize, SNL easily parodies The Donald:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2016/05/15/donald-trump-vp-snl-sot-newday.cnn/video/playlists/snl-politics/

as well as other candidates.
 

And who remembers Spike Jones' Der Fueher's Face? Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlFBSRrSR0

Even "The Donald" Duck had a version.

The show will go on, via satire, parody or hand shadows.
 

I remember when they satirized Obama's executive orders. THat was funny, and about the only thing they had to make up was pieces of paper being able to talk.
 

Apparently Brett looked through the SNL pile of political parodies and came up with a pony to saddle up despite his initial comment on Gerard's post: "Not at all impressed with the genre." In his case as opposed to The Donald, his small hands reveal a small mind.
 

Yeah, I'm not impressed with the genre, "Inventing stupid statements somebody didn't actually make, and then sneering at them."

The SNL parody about Obama's executive order habits didn't really have to put words in his mouth, did it?
 

The SNL parody about Obama's executive order habits didn't really have to put words in his mouth, did it?
# posted by Blogger Brett : 8:52 AM

The parody posted here isn't really putting words into Trump's mouth, is it?

 

Brett was most likely impressed with The Donald's Lincolnesque speech yesterday:

"Three score and one decade ago my mother and humbly wealthy father brought forth on this continent, The Donald, conceived in Liberty and Privacy, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal."
 

To be fair, The Donald's speech yesterday also focused on his foreign affairs experience: First wife Ivana, third wife Melania and his international beauty pageant. OTOSH [for the unhip "on the other small hand"] The Donald demonstrated his current megalomelania.

Brett apparently has been inspired by The Donald's going international, which Brett shares in a limited way. I imagine that in four score and seven years from now school children will memorize and recite The Donald's inspirational speech.
 

Concern about Obama's executive actions ...

well, I guess Trump would not be a good choice there given his tendencies not even tempered by some degree of actual government experience to provide some knowledge to make calls, much clear knowledge (guess we can trust him to delegate -- that seems to be going well so far) of the facts and repeated rejection of third party checks including the press and the judiciary.

The basic answer to repeat criticisms, including satiric (an ancient approach), is some form of changing the subject. It might lead one to re-examine one's opposition.


 

Google "Difference between satire, parody, spoof" for refinement for the technicalities if one insists. But let's face it, The Donald has been the subject of each his entire life. Yes, even as a child The Donald is said by an older brother to have thrown portions of his birthday cake at children-guests. But let's focus on The Donald as an adult in the sense of age but not necessarily maturity. In July of this year, in time for the GOP Convention in Cleveland, there will be published Doonesbury on Donald Trump over the years by Gary Trudeau. Whether technically satire, parody or spoof, or combinations thereof, even Trump's political base of older undereducated white males can enjoy the drawings - and some of them may even understand their contexts. Brett may be an exception.
 

The idea that disapproval of something implies you don't understand it is somewhat dubious. As a principled matter, I disapprove of genres that involve the construction of untruths, as distinct from fiction. My problem with them is that people tend to treat them as telling you something about the subject, whereas they actually communicate something about the author.
 

Brett on Swift's A Modest Proposal: 'that's a stupid untruth, no one is proposing to actually eat Irishmen!'
 

"The idea that disapproval of something implies you don't understand it is somewhat dubious."

Who is saying otherwise?

"As a principled matter, I disapprove of genres that involve the construction of untruths, as distinct from fiction."

I'm don't quite understand the distinction between "construction of untruth" and "fiction" here. Fiction tends not to be purely fiction -- fiction, which is a major reason people read the stuff including in school, repeatedly is involved in commenting on reality in some fashion. Science fiction, e.g., repeatedly uses fiction as social commentary.

"My problem with them is that people tend to treat them as telling you something about the subject, whereas they actually communicate something about the author."

As compared to anything else? Hard to see, especially from the small sample size of non-satire (though at times, it's hard to tell) found on this blog.

 

Re: Mr. W's use of Swift in response to the not-so swift Brett: Especially when Irishmen - and women - were not considered as white in the 1850s here in America (and for some time beyond). Maybe Irishmen have an international gene - and for small hands.

But Brett presumably swallowed the fictional genre of The Donald's reality show "The Apprentice" that served to launch Trump's candidacy, an example of a parody of a parody (though perhaps unintended).
 

"As compared to anything else?"

Here's the thing: If I say, "Hillary just murdered someone on live TV!", you're going to evaluate that on a truth/falsehood basis, and the fact that it isn't true will cause you to discount it entirely as a basis on which to alter your opinion of Hillary. Even if you don't like her, as it is presented as factual, and wrong, that eliminates it's probative value entirely.

But if I construct a satire, it is accepted that it's not literally true, and yet you may accept it as somehow valid anyway, on a higher level, and it may alter your opinion, despite being no more true than in the first instance. It bypasses factual evaluation.

I don't think factual evaluation should be bypassed in formulating or modifying your opinions.
 

I assume then Bret believes that "fact checking" such as that conducted by WaPo that exposes The Donald's many lies and half-truths should not subject The Donald to satire, parody or spoof? The Donald is a product of sel-promotion, even by presenting himself as a surrogate. He's a richy-rich walking Creamsicle crying out like Chicken Little, attracting his base of older undereducated white males which also, judging by his shill Brett, lacks a sense of humor.
 

Brett referenced a "problem with [satire] is that people tend to treat [it] as telling you something about the subject, whereas they actually communicate something about the author."

But, this is going to be the issue for a range of things, as anyone who reads a lot of news reports, historical accounts and blog comments on a range of topics will see. Human subjectivity will enter into the process and discerning minds have to judge things.

Brett then notes satire may not be "literally true, and yet you may accept it as somehow valid anyway, on a higher level, and it may alter your opinion" but again such is the basic effect of fiction in general. Fiction in general overall -- from the beginning of human existence -- was not "literally true" but is used to teach certain lessons. If a basic aspect of human existence is a bad thing, fine, but not quite seeing it.

And, "factual evaluation" is not "bypassed." The very qualifier "somehow" shows just that. The person is EVALUATING the satire, keeping in mind it is satirical, and still is judging its truth and falsity. Satire is a thing of ancient origin to help express truth.
 

To follow up on Joe's comment, consider how the subject of satire, parody or spoof reacts. The reaction, if any is openly displayed, can be very telling. Self-deprecating reactions may lessen the impact of satire, parody or spoof. But reacting with hard challenges may accentuate the initial impact of the satire, parody of spoof. Attorneys with experience in defamation claims often caution the client claiming to be defamed that no matter how strong the claim, litigation gives the defamation new life in the litigation process. Some clients in such a situation have a thin skin and deep pockets and are prepared to pursue specious defamation claims. (Recall the defamation litigation brought by Trump against a writer who claimed that Trump had significantly less wealth than Trump had claimed. Google it for details.) Here at this Blog we have Brett, shilling for The Donald, reacting to efforts of alleged satire, parody or spoofs aimed at Trump. Some, perhaps many, may, based upon Brett's reactions, look into the satire, parody or spoof of Trump that they may not have previously been aware of and perhaps provide links to friends (or foes). So Brett is performing, I assume unintentionally, a service for the #NEVERTRUMP movement. Brett as a 2nd A absolutist often relies for support upon 1st A absolutism, although the 1st A is not absolute in the in its speech and press clauses, and ironically his candidate has threatened, if he becomes President, to diminish the 1st A speech and press clauses. So thank you Brett for your efforts to protect America from The Donald. May this thread extend beyond 200 comments.
 

Brett, you're not helping refute the contention that you just don't get this kind of satire...Once again, it starts with what the writer takes to be a factual truism-in this case that Trump comports in a less than statesmanlike way, and accentuates the point by simply imagining it in a more well accepted, heightened situation (famous moments of statesmanlike speech in our history). Imagine, for example, that you think the French are cheese eating surrender monkeys, and to satirize them you said 'in the UEFA Euro cup I'm betting the France's strategy against Germany is to quickly forfeit the game after kick off' you'd be doing the same thing. If I said 'but their soccer team has never just forfeited a game like that, no team ever has, that doesn't stand up to factual evaluation' I'd be suspected of missing your point (which is not about forfeiting soccer games, but rather about the French tendency to surrender). Please note the satire is not invulnerable, one could argue that the conception about the French being surrender monkeys is wrong (the thousands that fell at the Battles of Verdun or the Somme might have something to say about that), or in the present case one could argue that the conception that Trump is not very statesmanlike is wrong. But what you're saying against it suggests you're just not getting it...
 

No, I understand: You have prior beliefs concerning Trump. Somebody else who shares them generates fictitious scenarios. You enjoy reviewing them, because everybody enjoys having their beliefs confirmed.

But they don't convey information concerning Trump, they convey information concerning the author's views of Trump. And yet, they're liable to reinforce your views of Trump.

I think this is bad, perhaps in an enjoyable way, meaning that it's a vice. You'd be better off reviewing what he actually says, ideally not by way of a selective intermediary who shares your beliefs, and will pick only utterances that reinforce them.

You don't have to approve of something to understand it. I understand satire, I just think that indulging in it concerning current controversies is an intellectual vice.
 

Brett thinks there is a moral issue involved with his reference to certain indulging being "an intellectual vice," this from Brett who indulges in unintellectual vice. Consider the fact of the NY tabloid front page quoting Marla Maples as "best sex ever" regarding Trump's adulteress with her. Trump was proud of this. Maybe under similar circumstances Brett would also have been personally proud. Was The Donald indulging his vice, whether intellectually or not? Would a satire or parody or a spoof to this tabloid story and picture an intellectual vice?

Brett, keep up the good work in trying to halo The Donald over his bird nest. #NEVERTRUMP sends its regards.
 

"No, I understand: You have prior beliefs concerning Trump."

Don't think you do.

"they don't convey information concerning Trump"

They do.

"they convey information concerning the author's view"

as would if he simply stated his opinion on Trump or specific factual data points that might not show a complete picture, which like everything else we would need to take with a grain of salt, recognizing what exactly is being given.

Like when Mr. W. reads something you deem a fact. He, given experience, takes it with a grain of salt. It might not "convey information" or it might "somehow be valid."

"You don't have to approve of something to understand it."

True though you don't seem to understand it that well.
 

Here's a link to Doonesbury on The Donald:

http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2015/10/04

that Brett might apply his views on satire, parody and spoof to. Are any of the Trump quotes inaccurate? I imagine Brett will not bypass factual evaluation of this strip in his evaluation. Note the comments on the strip.
 

Brett might take solace with Garry Trudeau's The Atlantic article "The Abuse of Satire" at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Query: But for satire, parody or spoof of The Donald, would he so privileged in the eys of his bas: older undereducated white males who may not know satire, parody or spoof when they see it?
 

Brett

I'm not sure all useful speech has to convey new factual information. The classic syllogism "Socrates was a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates was mortal' doesn't. It just presents already known facts in a way that demonstrates their connection. Similarly, Swift's satire takes the cruelty in anti-Irish prejudice and social darwinism and exaggerates it to bring it into starker relief, kind of an argument ad absurdem. Likewise, GM takes the anti-statesmenlike comportment of Trump and brings it into starker relief by saying, 'hey, imagine replacing some of our hallowed historical Presidential quotes with the kinds of thing we see Trump often saying.'
 

Taking a cue from Mr. W's reference to Jonathan Swift, Brett's comments on this thread read like "Gullible's Travails."

Query: Would Garry Trudeau consider Brett in the category of the "non-privileged" who should not be ridiculed? Check Trudeau's article.
 

Read this commentary taken from the blog Lawyers, Guns and Money today. It's about how our system of 'checks and balances' stymies perceived necessary reforms by giving political minorities the power to veto the will of democratic majorities. The topic here is gun control, but it's fascinating how the argument and sentiment tracks Bart's arguments made here about how our system operates to keep us under 'progressive bureaucratic tyranny.'

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/tyranny-of-the-losers-and-the-politics-of-gun-control

 

Here's my attempt at satire, parody or spoof of The Donald related to his criticism of the "Mexican" trial judge in the Trump U. class action, such criticism including the trial judge's violation of the federal Judicial Code of Conduct (which does not apply to the Supreme Court). A reporter from the WaPo asks The Donald:

"If you become President, will you nominate for the Court candidates who support the applicability of the Judicial Code of Conduct to the Supreme Court?"

The Donald reacts:

"Washington Post! Get that guy outta here! He's an intruder. But don't hurt him."
 

I just saw a re-run of last night's The Daily Show. The first segment was on the role of White Power in the 2016 election (without the host until near the end). Brett might take a shot at applying his views on satire, parody or spoof to this segment, which included a Jonathan Klepper line substantially as follows: "Up to the 1960s we whites were forced to drink water at separate fountains and sit in the front of the bus." Was this an unfair attack on Trump's base of older undereducated white males as a "non-privileged" group that might not recognize satire, parody or spoof?
 

With Brett's persisting views as a 2nd A absolutist in full gear, it would seem his views on satire, parody or spoof would approve of satire, parody or spoof on Trump's recent shift from GOP dogma of its tail being wagged to the tune of the NRA, assuming Brett is consistent on his views on satire, parody or spoof. A cynic might suggest that if consistency were a virtue, then Brett would be virtueless.
 

At the liberal (some progressives) lunch today a fellow progressive commented on the June 2016 issue of The Atlantic that profiles The Donald.I decided to have dessert at home and Googled "The Atlantic profile of Donald Trump" and located several articles from the June issue: "A Psychologist Studies "The Mind of Donald Trump" (relatively short) that appears to be introductory and the rather long "The Mind of Donald Trump. I'll start reading these tonight and continue in the morning. The time involved will limit my time available to search for more satire, parody or spoof on The Donald. The value of satire, parody or spoof is that it is entertaining and requires less time than reading articles such as those in Atlantic. But The Atlantic articles may develop satire, parody or spoof of the Donald. The background of the articles may make the satire, parody or spoof more entertaining. Perhaps the absence of recent comments from Brett might suggest he's busy reading these articles. Perhaps the articles may be valuable in assessing Trump's base of older undereducated white males. So bear with me for a while. Meantime #NEVERTRUMP is somewhat annoyed that Brett's absence is due to negative effects of Brett's earlier comments.
 

The short article is an introduction to the June 2016 issue and only briefly gets into the much longer article. I'm about 1/4 of the way through the latter.
 

"It's about how our system of 'checks and balances' stymies perceived necessary reforms by giving political minorities the power to veto the will of democratic majorities."

"Checks and balances", "veto points", you call them one if you're the potentially oppressed group, the other if you're the aspiring oppressor. They're just terms for the same thing, they're not different things.

The problem today isn't that the C&B/VPs prevent change. They're meant to do that. They're meant to keep changes from happening unless they have major, sustained support.

The problem today is that they can be undemocratically bypassed to impose change, and then used to prevent the democratic system from undoing the change. The brake on change has been perverted to prevent unwanted changes from being challenged.

Like SSM. It not being legal was the status quo, had been for generations. A judge comes along and decides to change that, by reinterpreting the existing Constitution to require its legality. The majority moved to stop this, but in the end, despite laws and state level amendments being adopted all over the place, the effort to preserve the status quo failed, because a mechanism designed to make changing the status quo difficult had been bypassed to make the change, but restoring the status quo ante was not permitted to bypass it.

There are many examples of this, and they all come down to the same general phenomenon: Legislative power being taken up outside the legislature, rule making occurring non-democratically. The system was set up on the assumption that rule making would occur in the democratic part of the government, and only be implemented by the non-democratic part. Once you've got undemocratic rule making, the very mechanisms intended to block change, block preventing it!

Regarding that article, this is actually a very bad example of what they're complaining of. Gun control doesn't advance, not because our system is undemocratic, but because it IS democratic. It's failure is an example of the system working.

Gun controllers like to pretend the contrary, but, look at the states. Almost all the states have 2nd amendment analogs in their constitutions. State constitutions are typically much easier to amend than the federal Constitution.

Where is the state that has repealed it's 2nd amendment analog?

Gun controllers don't like to admit that we had that national conversation they claimed to want, and they lost the argument.
 

Checks and balances in our system is a complicated whole that has a lot of moving parts and means of breaking down. This includes skewering specific ones such as overuse of the filibuster or how party politics clouds how the various parts were intended to work. Those who support tradition also should frown on blocking Garland but this all tends to have a selective feel:

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/pinpointing-the-problem-with-the-garland-snub

The checks/balances have various functions -- such as giving individual senators and states special powers -- and not merely an assurance that "major, sustained support" is present. And, on some level, that is never going to happen. There is always going to be some minority against things and if a fraction of a fraction (representing a fraction since many voted against them) can block things, it will be a problem at some point. Consistent concerns here, not just of "the Left" help. And, "major, sustained" is not 80% forever either. Finally -- see below -- certain things are secured even without such support.

It's obviously a matter of degree -- PPACA, e.g., was a result of decades long concern for health care and immediately (after the people voted in a supermajority of Democrats along with POTUS) a year long process where Republicans were continously invited to take part & certain things that had strong support in the majority party coalition were taken off the table. The Democrats had a mixture with some former Republicans and Blue Dogs. Republicans even voted on certain amendments. Early on, a leading Republican even said there was 80% of so support on the issues. But, Republicans refused to take part in the final bill. Elections have consequences and with the checks/balances in place, there was a way to bring forth a compromise. See also, the Garland nomination.

====

Brett again is pining for a golden age vs. "today." Judicial review overturned minimum wage, child labor and racial equality laws in the past and inhibited "the democratic system" from changing things in the past too. Suddenly the checks and balances in place is a bad thing. Judicial review is a thing. It was "meant" to block simple democratic rule at times from popular paper money laws in the 1780s on. Is the ticket here good for only things Brett cares about?

More misinformation. A "single judge" alone didn't hold that same sex marriage was constitutionally protected. That would not have staying power. A series of judges, state and federal, over time did. And, not out of nowhere. It was a result of decades of changes in marriage (interracial marriage a constitutional right? many FRAMERS of the 14A said that was obviously not a thing), gender, homosexuality etc. both in society and law.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Plus, yes, a means was in place to slow down this process. State constitutional amendments and so forth. But, "a mechanism" is present -- the U.S. Constitution -- that holds that equal protection of the laws is a thing. Just what equality means develops over time. So, e.g., again, when Shag was just a newbie lawyer, interracial marriage was not constitutionally protected in practice & women in marriage did not have equal rights in a variety of ways. But, there is no right to "preserve" the status quo forever. It took a long time aided by various veto points -- just what Brett said should happen -- but change occurred.

Finally, Brett skips from "democracy" to the 2A ... when it suits, democracy isn't a thing, since there are checks on it. Sure. But, state and federal gun rights aren't absolute. We are allowed to "control" guns in various ways. At least I thought so but apparently when the "controls" don't work sometimes -- e.g., kids can too easily get guns now -- they are "foolish." At least, that is what Brett said until challenged. Then, he just shifted gears. Tap dancing is also a tradition in this country.

And, there was and is broad support for background checks. It is "democratic" to pass such legislation and certain states did pass gun regulations in recent years too. Brett might think them weak-willed, but as I noted, the NRA appears to support a form of the terror watch list measure. A compromise measure could be a result of our checks/balances. Might be a bad idea, but that's a separate point.
 

"So, e.g., again, when Shag was just a newbie lawyer, interracial marriage was not constitutionally protected in practice"

And that is an example of the same evil, because the 14th amendment had been adopted nearly a century earlier, and almost instantly, and quite properly, interpreted as requiring interracial marriage to be legal. Until the Supreme court set out to render the amendment moot. Legality of interracial marriage wasn't some unexpected application of the 14th amendment, it was discussed at the time.

Not like SSM being mandated, which was basically right out of the blue.

But, like I said, one person's C&B is somebody else's VP; The phenomenon is exactly the same, the just vary by your view of it. The point is that once positive decision making gets shifted out of the legislative branch, C&B/VP's, originally intended to slow change, function to make preventing or reversing change almost impossibly difficult.

The problem isn't checks and balances. It's letting rules be created outside the legislature.
 

Many things were "discussed" at the time, but the general understanding (exceptions noted) was that interracial marriage was not required. It didn't take the Supreme Court. And, it wasn't rendered moot. It was -- like the First Amendment etc. (there too, some took a wider view) -- understood to have a narrower reach. But, over time, as social and legal developments occurred, things changed there.

Also, general principles were also discussed, including general rules -- note the language of the amendment -- regarding equal protection and personal choices as to marriage. The exact understanding of such things would change over time, developments that would "foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly" (John Marshall) in many cases. But, one charm of the Constitution is that open-ended text and principles leave open such developments.

SSM did not come "basically right out of the blue." It developed -- as did marriage overall -- over a span of time, marriage a tipping point of a range of other developments. A few people were talking about same sex marriage as early as the 1950s; in fact, same sex couples relationships were labeled a form of "marriage" even back further. But, surely, it took developments in science, society, law etc. to build up to this point. What else is new?

Checks and balances/veto points have various functions (e.g., to protect each branch's powers) and not merely to slow down change. Slowing change also doesn't mean never changing. Regardless, that function continues. The PPACA came after decades, was a compromise & the courts limited it a bit more. And, part of checks/balances is judicial review. What you tend to do here is shift gears -- it's fine to override democracy there, but you argue the merits of the question. So, longstanding state regulations on guns can be struck down. Change is good there.

Anyway, again, there was no golden age there -- courts overruled popular legislation in the past & it was hard (not impossible as time showed) to override them. Protecting business changed things too and the legislatures had problems altering it. OTOH, as with current matters, focusing merely on the courts and thinking it all was coming "out of the blue" would provide a skewered view of what was happening.
 

I notice following the commercial comment of Yoko a shift away from satire, parody and spoof.. I did finally finish reading The Atlantic article "The Mind of Donald Trump" by Dan P. McAdams, a professor of psychology. My dowload ran 60 pages enlarged and had lots of white space so it is not really too long a read. Last night's NBA finals game 6 slowed down my efforts. The article is well done in a non salacious and professional manner. "Section III.His Motivations" was especially interesting. I don't intend to get into the details of the analysis, but as a tease, heres the last sentence of Section III.: There is still truth today in the ancient proverb: Pride goeth before the fall." It includes a comparison between Trump and Nixon as narcissists. And speaking of Nixon, the Decades network features Watergate today; it's not too late to catch recycles later today.

The article does not go into Trump's marriages and divorces in the analysis. As I earlier noted, it is not salacious and professionally don, with information that has long been public. References are made in the article of reviews of Presidents by psychologists in recent years.

If one takes the time to read the article, satire, parody or spoof of Trump may not be necessary. I think the article is revealing not only of Trump but also of his base of older undereducated white males.

I hope that some of the usual suspects will read the arrticle and pass on their reaction.
 

I am currently reading a WaPo investigative report "The man who showed Donald Trump how to exploit power and instill fear" by Robert O'Harrow Jr. and another. That man? Roy Cohn, who was counsel to Sen. Joe McCarthy in the televised Army/McCarthy hearings back when I was in law school. This report is dated June 17th and was not available when "The Mind of Donald Trump" was published in The Atlantic; as I recall McAdams made no mention of Roy Cohn in his analysis ofog The Donald. The report is fairly long, and interesting, as law school classmates and I were focused on the Army/McCarthy hearings. Unfortunately the download was not magnified, requiring me to do my Sherlock Holmes schtick.

I'm sure the report may be followed by satire, parody or spoof. In fact, I got a few ideas already.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (9-0, 1954) came down as I was finishing law school. Quite a few important constitutional law issues were addressed by the Court when I was a newbie lawyer. As I have noted on several occasions, both the Federalist Society and the originalism movement of the late 1970s in reaction to the judicial activism of the Warren Court (as well as, to a lesser extent, the Burger) Court was spawned by Brown and the civil rights movement that followed, although Federalist Society members and originalists won'/ openly admit theretNow I've got to reheat some leftover lasagna (from Trader Joe's) and get back to the report on the Trump/Cohn relationship; sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
 

I finished the WaPo article. It appears Trump and Cohn took a shine to each other.

Also, recall that in the course of the GOP Clown Limo debates Trump said he gave political contributions to many, in both parties, as part of the cost of getting his projects done; that when called the pols he had their attention; that's why he was self-funding his campaign, so he wouldn't be similarly obligated. Of course he was getting a lot of free media in the course of those debates, spending a lot less than the other Sweet 16. But now that he is the presumptuous Republican nominee, he wants to spend other people's money, not his own. This demonstrated that with Trump it's really a matter of principal.

With his battle against the WaPo, Creamsicle Trump is up against an Amazon with a printing press, supported by the 1st A.
 

Washington's Farewell Address was not delivered as a speech, but was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper, the AMERICAN DAILY ADVERTISER, on September 19, 1796.
 

Today' WaPo "Trump Watch" features an article aptly titled "Inside Trump's financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin" by Tom Hamburger et al. Some of these ties are of recent vintage. Here's a quote from the article:

***

But, Donald Jr. explained, Russia presented enormous challenges.

“As much as we want to take our business over there, Russia is just a different world,” the younger Trump said in his 2008 speech. “It is a question of who knows who, whose brother is paying off who. . . . It really is a scary place.”

***

Query: might there be a Russian Roy Cohn type to assist the Trump empire?

Foreign policy is an important role of a President, especially with the world the way it is today. What is Trump's experience in foreign affairs besides two out of his three wives, his Miss Universe beauty pageant and Trump towers in foreign lands? Of course a President should avoid conflicts of interests, including with respect to personal/business assets. After reading this article, there is more than a tad of concern a President Trump might have with regarding his financial ties with Russia laid out in this article. Might Trump be a potential Manchurian Candidate? Imagine satire, parody or spoof of the presumptuous Republican candidate as President answering the phone at 3:00 AM with a call from Vlad asking Trump to accommodate friends at the new Trump Tower hotel in Moscow. Might a President Trump refer Vlad to Donald, Jr.?

Granted, Trump has not had much financial success in Russia. Would a President Trump? And based upon campaign statements made by Trump, consider how revamping NATO might benefit Russia.

The late Walt Kelly's Pogo might have described Trump's affair with the barechested Vlad as a "conflake of interest."

Even if Trump is a "lose" in November, there might be concerns that his national security briefings as a candidate might be of value in pursuing his financial ties with Russia.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Passing comments.

Finished a good book on "Eve Arnold," the photographer, one of her subjects was McCarthy (and Cohn). She had a long and diverse career with celebrity (Marilyn Monroe, Malcolm X etc.) and ordinary (farm workers) subjects. The author of the book was a friend and recently wrote a boo on the conflict in Syria http://www.janinedigiovanni.com/

The recently murdered British politician was concerned about Syria and Syrian refugees among other international issues. https://youtu.be/u3OQRnJ1zrQ

My only comment about that is that I think we need to do what we can to promote sanity including in political discussion. As to Trader's Joes, other than the name being copacetic, recent events suggest other reasons to choose it over Whole Foods:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/whole-paycheck-2

Trader Joe's also sells wine, including a cheap store brand that per my plebeian tastes (someone else I know too) is pretty good. Anyway, hope all the dads out there of whatever ideology have a nice Father's Day.
 

Since I don't drive anymore, TJ's is not as convenient Whole Foods' pocket store in my neighborhood. (I refer the large WF over in Cambridge and rely on my son to go there - and elsewhere - for weekend shopping.) A frozen Wf (365) lasagna with meat sauce was a disappointment. My preference is Stouffer's lasagna with 5 cheeses or meat sauce. But WF doesn't carry Stouffer's so I rely upon my son and stock up. I'm still in the process of comparing TJ' and Stouffer's lasagna. I'm leaning Stouffer's but I'll give TJ's another try. I had on occasion tried TJ's Two Buck Chuck wine but drank much more of Trader Jose beer, regular and dark, only 11 ounces as compared to my customary 12 ounce Corona long necks that my son picks up for me once case at a time. But I get my limes from WF down the street. (When I get a Dark 'N Stormy at the liberal lunch, I have the bartender squeeze the lime wedge for me so I can avoid lime carpal tunnel syndrome.)

Happy father's day to all. One doesn't have to be a father to be fatherly.
 

BREAKING NEWS! The Huffington Post reports that "Apple won't aid GOP convention over Trump" taking big bite out of the GOP because of the Big Apple's Creamsicle. A New York tabloid might spoof The Donald on its front page with a photoshopped picture displaying the bite on his visage.
 

I read Maureen Dowd's Sunday NYTimes column yesterday at the website and reread it again today. She claims in earlier recent columns of talks with Trump, often with quotes. But based upon reading her columns for many years, I'm not convinced as she has fictionalized conversations from time to time with others. Before this Sunday's column, she has not been that negative about Trump, perhaps because of her Clintons antipathy. This Sunday's column is somewhat of a shift. It also reveals that over the many years she has know The Donald going back to the 1980s (or perhaps even earlier) in NYC in her columnist role, Dowd has been an enabler of the Donald, seemingly due to friendly relations, even though Dowd was aware of the Donald being The Donald with his antics. Trump seems to have had a lot of enablers as he developed his career, including his fictional pr guy. While there were satire, pander of spoof treatments over those years (but not by Dowd that I am aware of), he was not a political candidate. Now that The Donald is the presumptuous Republican presidential nominee, with the GOP Clown Limo debates over, reality is setting in with the general election, and the Republican Party leaders are aware of how this might impact GOP control of Congress. The satire, parody and spoof will continue more prominently between now and November. Can the Narcissist Trump change? If he tries, that can lead to further satire, parody or spoof of The Donald as a flip-flopper. Even some of the hard-core Trump base of older undereducated white males who fear the changing demographics may realize the dangers to America with a President Trump, whose next book might be titled "To Vladimir With Love."
 

OFF TOPIC, but those who have been following Gerard's posts on his proposed book on the bill of rights might check out this link:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-stronger-constitution-carol-berkins-the-bill-of-rights#!

for a review by Stephen Rohde of Carol Berkin's "The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure America's Liberties." The review includes a passing reference to the 2nd A; perhaps the book may make some reference to its meaning back then with contrasts to how the 2nd A has been interpreted/construed since.

Those who do not like to copy and paste, the review can be linked to directly at the Legal History Blog's Sunday Book Roundup feature.
 

Back to satire, parody or spoof, imagine a portrayal of the GOP Clown Limo debaters with the caption: "When attacked by a mob of clowns, go for the juggler."

Hmmm. Do we know anyone who might not wish to reveal his tax returns as it might disclose his skills at juggling books?
 

Today's NYTimes features Jonathan Mahler and Matt Fleigenheimer's "What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy's Right-Hand Man," that fills in some details that had not been included in the earlier WaPo report on the relationship of The Donald and Roy Cohn. The article closes with a quote from Mr. Fraser, Cohn's companion at the time of the latter's death:

***

“Having trained or mentored someone who became president,” he said, “that would have been quite exciting for Roy.”

***

So satire, parody or spoof might suggest a political cartoon picturing The Donald and Cohn with the caption:

"WHEN THE DONALD WAS THE APPRENTICE."

Or make up your own caption.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], while many of my generation knew of Cohn's role with Sen. Joe McCarthy, I did not know of Cohn's role in the 1980 Reagan campaign. The WaPo report had more details on this than this current article.

Also of note in the article is the discussion of Trump's pre-nup with first wife Ivana. Back in 1954 when I was admitted to the MA bar, pre-nups had not been recognized in MA. It seems clear to me that Cohn structured the pre-nup without a full disclosure of The Donald's wealth at the time. Ivana sued in connection with her divorce, challenging the pre-nup, which was eventually settled. The details of that settlement would be interesting. Back then The Donald was downplaying his wealth, presumably based upon legal advice. After the settlement, The Donald started bragging more about his wealth, the amount of which has been challenged in recent years.
 

BREAKING NEWS: The Donald, the presumptuous nominee off the Republican Party and former TV reality show host, has "FIRED" his top aide Corey Lewandowski. So much for loyalty that The Donald as apprentice to mentor Roy Cohn supposedly was taught. Now Paul Man-a-fort will be top dog. Man-a-fort may adopt a "Remember the Alamo" strategy. But remembering the Alamo brings back memories of how the Mexicans defeated the Texans. The satire, parody or spoof is that Trump is getting back ast the Mexicans with a wall that the Mexicans will pay for. Of course, Mexico might prefer such a wall if The Donald were to be elected President. But I think Mexico would follow Trump's methodology of stiffing contractors.