Who Got it Right?

In this post-election shock, I've been driven to see who got the predictions RIGHT (Not Politicio, Not the NYT, not...well, the list could go on)

Trafalgar Group

This polling group accurately predicted that Trump would get 306 electoral votes, which he did.  Nate Silver gave this group a C- rating, leaving a little bit of mud in his face.  (Silver was giving Clinton an over 70% chance of winning the presidency on election day.  Is his day in the sunshine over?)

  They were ridiculed on Twitter, and polled using an unconventional question of asking who the person being polled believed his/her neighbor would be voting for, which resulted in higher answers for Trump, and so the pollsters concluded evidence of a 'shy Trump voter'.

Michael Moore

In this very moving video, non-Trump supporter Moore depicts the mentality of the Rust-belt voters, and explains why they'll be voting for Trump, and how it's giving a finger to the establishment.

Trump is the human hand grenade they can legally throw at the system....on November 8th, Election Day, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclosed on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the cars been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with a shitty Obamacare Bronze Plan where you can't get a fucking percocet.  They've essentially lost everything that they had.  Except one thing.  The one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American Constitution: the right to vote...it's equalized on that day.  A millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: 1.  And there're more of the former middle class than there are in the millionare class.  On November 8th the dispossessed will...put a big fucking x in the box by the name of the man who's threatened to upend and upturn the very system that has ruined their lives  .....they see that the elites who ruined their lives hate Trump, corporate America hates Trump, Wall Street hates Trump, career politicians hate Trump, the media hates Trump.....Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck you every recorded in human history.  And it will feel good.  
As an aside, Moore has distinguished himself in this post-election world as someone from the mainstream who's still pretty in touch with reality!

Scott Adams

Recently discovered his blog.  Interesting guy.

He's predicted Trump's win, (or really more specifially Hillary's loss) several times on his blog.  After Hillary's 9/11 collapse/dehydration incident he predicted that she'd be unable to win as the American psyche couldn't elect a leader who collapsed on such an important day.

Also, in this post, How to Know an Election is Over.  I love this one.  He tells us to watch this video, and to "ignore the content of what she says, because no one cares about content.  Just feel it.  And see the future."

I see what he's saying, she seems downright self-rightous, nasty, and, well, a little bitchy in this video.   Not exactly someone who you'd want to vote into office and have to listen to for the next four years.  

Well this list is by no means comprehensive, but an interesting sampling.  I guess that in hindsight everyone has 20-20 vision, as so many of the idiotic political experts, post-election, are claiming that "they knew it all along that Hillary was the wrong candidate for this time", when just before the election they were popping champagne bottles to pre-celebrate her victory.

These people above, however had tapped into something the rest of us hadn't.    


Trump's phone call to Alex Jones

In this Video Alex Jones recounts that President Elect Donald Trump called to thank him and his listeners for their support in his winning candidacy.

The significance and implications of this phone call cannot be overstated.  Alex Jones, who to all things mainstream, embodies the fringe, the crazies, the alt-right, has just been publicly thanked by the new Leader of the Free World.  With this phone call, Trump has legitimized the alt-right, or at least Jones's pocket of it, indicating a seismic shift in what is considered acceptable journalism.  To note, Trump, in the same time frame, has also repeatedly railed against the New York Times on Twitter, accusing them of failing to report on the Trump phenomena and accusing them of lying about things he's said.

The MSM are laughing at this phone call to Alex (consider this Politico article, clearly bent on portraying Jones as a loon), but, wow, looking at the whole picture, if they're being honest, they also must be pissed and scared.  We can see signs of this anger in Obama's dismissing the electorate who voted for Trump as relying on "fake news", and in fact saying that this so-called fake news should be disallowed.  I don't even want to start in on that last point regarding the sitting power censoring the information we're able to consume.  Nor that he wrote off nearly half of the electorate (many of whom voted for him in '08 and '12) as being ill-informed, i.e., idiotic, in their voting decision.  Nor that he's censoring so-called fake news, and validating the MSM, just days after an election where every single source of mainstream media was preparing us for a Hillary win and Trump loss.  Not gonna go there.

I've had an epiphany and realize just how *awesome* Trump really is.  He's using his cachet as President Elect to call check mate on the MSM.  Let's hope they'll be forced to listen and clean things up.  Also awesome in that he actually values people like Alex Jones, who's hell bent on breaking down the facade of the mainstream media and telling it like it really is.  (Um, the actual fake-news are those organizations that have told us that fire can melt steel, and that men armed with boxcutters can penetrate and wreak havoc on the most powerful military the world has ever seen.)

My hope for his presidency only increases.  The bullshit that we're fed on a daily basis by the media is the most critical problem the country faces, as it totally impairs our ability to assess reality.  MSM is the real (sickeningly) fake news.  

On a side note, I was further impressed when, in his 60 minutes interview with Lesley Stahl, Trump said that he won't take a paycheck (turning down $400K/year) and doesn't plan to take vacations.  A real contrast to Mr. Vacation Obama he is!


Did we destroy the death star?

I loved these tweets from Roseanne Barr's Twitter account.  I had no idea that she was such an avid Trump supporter.  I guess that they reflect my own reaction to this election; it feels like the little guy is really kicking it to the elites, and that the elites are left with some mud in their faces due to their shoddy coverage of this campaign.

Additionally, omg, yes, the amount of brainwashing and mind control that's gone into making the anti-Trump people think that he's somehow the devil, and that everyone who voted for him is demonic and pro-nazi, hate filled, the worst of the worst.

Now is this a victory a scale on the level that Barr is claiming it to be?  Probably my biggest reservation towards Trump is how heavily entrenched he is in Jews; all of his grandchildren are Jews, Ivanka and Jared are Jews; and so he may be emphatically pro-Israel (and therefore anti-Palestine).

However, it's a complicated conundrum.  Is he really victim to the Jewish lobby?  It doesn't appear so, seeing as how they smeared him during the campaign (all media in the US is Jewish-run.).

So, I don't know.  My overall views towards his presidency are optimistic.  And becoming even more so the more I hear from him.

Maybe we really did destroy the death star with this election!


NYT Letter to Subscribers

Ha!  This letter is hilarious.  Caught red handed.

Honestly, a boycott of this newspaper needs to be organized to drive them out of business in an effort to clean up journalism.  As Sulzberger acknowledges in the letter, the NYT is dependent on subscribes for money, and they are totally out of touch with the electorate in their reporting.

Why then do they persist?  (I.e. who are the idiots who pay these guys?)
I wonder how journalism and the media, and this newspaper specifically, will play out and fare in this post-election environment.  My current mood, and I could see this playing out generally with other people, is a kind of 'meh' attitude towards them and what they have to say, a passive dismissal.

And a hunger for something else, a more eager willingness to embrace alternative news.  Maybe mainstream really does equate to banal and fallacy.  

The person who always, always lies and who is abusive (By abusive I mean that they've communicated the idea that Trump and his voters are uneducated, low-information, racist)  will ultimately get written off, right?  Dismissed.  That is, unless he or she has something else valuable to give.

And does the media?  Provide us with anything?


Letter to The Run Up

Here's a letter that I just sent to the New York Times's podcast, The Run Up.  I suppose that it speaks for itself.  Mainly, I'm a little blown that The Times is continuing to report with an overt anti-Trump bias, even after he won the election.  That is, they're stubbornly remaining inside their deluded leftist bubble.

Perhaps more clearly than any time other than 9/11, we can see with this election that the media is completely out of touch with reality--just days before the election this podcast gave Trump a 15% chance of winning, and were answering questions about what Hillary would be doing the first days in offce.

Leaving us to wonder, again, where to turn in order to find reliable and substantive news?  

Although I've enjoyed listening to The Run Up and it's charming host--especially your recent "Bonus" episode--I found it disconcerting that in neither of your other post election episodes ("How Did that Happen" and "Denial. Anger. Now Acceptance") did you offer even a glimmer of congratulations or fascination towards the president elect, when so much is due to him.
This absence is an unforgivable omission, making you come across as myopic liberals rather than journalists (and surely also explains how you missed reporting on the likelihood of a Trump win.)
Titling the 2nd podcast "Denial. Anger. Acceptance" so comically betrays your anti-Trump bias that it borders on satire.  Recall that this candidate you're writhing over accepting in fact just won the presidency, and so obviously the number of people elated about him and the victory are plenteous -- yet you bypassed reporting on any of them.  At.  All.  
And how about some analysis of (and fascination for) Trump and his unusual yet winning campaign—that Matthew Dowd described as a “Somali Pirate with a few guys on the boat”.  They hired a fraction of Hillary’s paid staff and spent a fraction of her campaign (as well as Obama’s and Romney’s).  Couldn't your podcast provide some research into how it is they won?
And if you're at all interested in honest reporting, at this point you need to be saying that a man who singlehandedly (I say singlehandedly since his veteran political advisors discouraged his unconventional campaign strategy) beat two political dynasties (Clintons, Bushes)--primarily with a Twitter account--is a political genius.  And you'd need to have some deference towards him. (If calling Trump a genius is beyond you, and I think that it is, you need to realize that your characterizing him instead as a misogynist and dangerous loon ired the "deplorables" (or, as Nate Cohn, in minutes 13:56 of "Denial. Anger. Now Acceptance" called them, "lower-information voters") so disillusioned by you, the establishment, and propelled them to come out and tip the scales in MI, WI, PA--and so you can also take some credit for his victory).
There's so, so much that you need to say in the interests of honest reporting regarding Trump.  If you're going to include a podcast entirely composed of liberal porn, giving your progressive listeners something to masturbate to (the anecdote, retold in Dowd's 64-year-old-woman's baby talk, about the privileged senator's daughter crying over Trump's victory is so priceless), then in the interest of balanced reporting also do an interview with Roger Stone or Steven Mnuchin, if you can get at them.  Or do a comprehensive and congratulatory analysis of Trump's campaign.  (And I probably also should point this out--interviewing David Duke or his ilk would be a cheap shot.  Not everyone who voted for Trump is a white, toothless, racist, uneducated Appalachian).    
You are, after all, representing the NYT.  Not a personal podcast recorded in your garage.  Your wailing and commiserating is totally out of line.  
Julie Anderton


Presidential Election

zOMG how could you not comment on this election?  

I like how Charlie Rose says (I'm paraphrasing) that he doesn't like to attribute election results to "a bunch of morons" (i.e., uneducated voters), as SOOOOO many people are, but rather as a measure of the population's psyche.  (This condescending mentality--that Trump voters are "a basket of deplorables"--is in part why he won.)

What I mean to say is that this election is more of a referendum on the population that it is on who we've elected.

I mean, listen to the pundits on the day of the election (e.g. John Dickerson on Charlie Rose, the NYT podcast "The Run Up") on the day of the election, some of them implicitly swearing Clinton into office, then hours later wondering "WTF???"

It's fascinating to see how off base "the experts" are!  (i.e. why are we calling them experts?)

And also fascinating to see that Trump has singlehandedly (singlehandedly since, as so many journalists have reported, he did not have the mammoth panel of advisors that Hillary did, but rather primarily listened to himself to guide his campaign) beat two machine-like political dynasties--primarily through the use of free social media!  As much as you might hate him, you've got to be fascinated by the guy.  Clearly, he's more politically astute than he comes across.  And what a relief that the Bushes and Clintons have come to an end (we may be hearing from Chelsea but).  

I love this episode of The Run Up Podcast, taped at 3:30 on election night, where these NYT journalists are swirling around the questions: "Did we over report on Clinton's e-mails?!  WHO ELSE might have successfully beaten this guy?"  I guess what I'm saying is that there's an implicit "Goddamnit, were did we go wrong" tone to these journalists and so we can't trust their assessment of the political barometer since they overwhelmingly represent the establishment which the population (or fly over country, and the south, really) has just rebelled against.  

And this second one is really great -- it's a montage of very memorable and quotable quotes from the past 15 or so months of this crazy campaign.  

Worth listening to, especially the second one.  

Somehow, for me, this feels like a real victory.  I guess that when I saw that Roger Stone was on board with Trump I realized that an actual  clear thinking human being was actually supporting the guy, and I put a little more faith in him.  It feels to me like the voters do actually have some clarity and I have more faith in our future.  

Maybe we're not completely screwed. 


Author : The JT Leroy Story

I actually watched this movie.  To the end.  I say that with awe in hindsight, as the trailer make it look very enticing.

This 110 minute film haphazardly documents the writing and musical career of Laura Albert, who channeled (so to speak) an alternate male persona, JT Leroy, in order to write several books, and who then enticed her sister in law into becoming the public face of LeRoy.

Needless to say, Albert's story and psychosis is a complicated one, and the documentary almost deliberately presented the information non-chronically, withholding crucial biographical details until the very last few minutes.

It also documents a TON of recorded conversations, with the likes of Courtney Love (who really has the best lines of the film), Debbie Harry, and other famous people JT Leroy mingled with.  How were these conversations retained, I wonder?  In the Courtney Love conversation, she pauses mid conversation to snort cocaine, which was hilarious.  But still I wondered--how many of us record all of our conversations, especially back in the 90s and early 2000s, when many of these conversations took place?

Eventually journalists are onto LeRoy and expose her as a fraud, which is one thing that I found reassuring about this film--it presented the idea that journalists are in fact interested in uncovering the truth and that at times they do exactly that.

Dunno what else to say.  In that it's an unusual story it's worth looking into, and if it were about 20-30 minutes shorter I'd recommend it.  But as it is,  I found it confusidng and tedious.


NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour

I just watched this podcast live and man is it ever produced.  At the end the producer had each of the panelists repeat several phrases or sentences from the show, sometimes asking them to repeat the phrase in "happy" and "neutral" tones.

This really confirmed my suspicions that NPR podcasts are overly produced and the idealist/purist in me isn't impressed.  This just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of podcasts, which are supposed to be people in their garages riffing about whatever.   Speaking of which, I just listened to a 2 hour episode from the Best Album in the World Podcast, in which I suspect very little was taken out, about the Nirvana Unplugged album (Episode #16).

This also is why I like the Comedy Film Nerds; they deliberately take very little out of their podcasts--it's the raw, real deal!  

However, given that I shelled out money to buy the ticket for the PCHH Live Show, and that I've been listening to it for (zOMG!) over six years now, it clearly has a grip on me.  I do think that the panel is well, a little different from the regular PCHH crowd.  Honestly I really wonder about that Glen Weldon guy being on the panel.  He's such a cynic--in this live show going so far as to say that street musicians shouldn't be allowed.  He just doesn't seem to be in that spirit of so many other NPR people who are kind of banal and sickeningly nice.  I don't know.  I wonder what he's going there.  Is he an institutional fit?  Steven Thompson I've really grown to like.  And Linda Holmes, is well, awesome.

Dunno.  For NPR, it's a good podcast and one that I consistently come back to week after week.