Todd's Mischief Blog

from  Twitter I’ve been very cautious around the word “populism” for a long time. I didn't really offer any opinions on it until it became the buzzword of 2016 due to the largely unexpected rise of Donald Trump. Even then, I can't stand by all of them, as many were ill-informed. «««««»»»»» What I feel comfortable saying about the subject now is this: People appear to variously call the same political phenomenon either “democracy” or “populism” depending on whether or not one likes the outcome. «««««»»»»» I remain dubious of unfettered populism just as I am dubious of unfettered democracy. (Two wolves and a sheep and all that.) That said, our political tradition is steeped in benign populism. «««««»»»»» The preamble of our Constitution opens, “We the People” while Lincoln’s most famous speech ends declaring “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” «««««»»»»» To the extent that Trump is a populist, it’s in the same vein as every ...

Despite this being a piece of agitprop in favor of CFPB from prior to it's creation — and thus not very funny — it's still a great showcase of comedic talent that I want to talk about. I'm sure there are a lot of ideas about what makes a good celebrity impression. Certainly there are a lot of techniques. But if you ask me, a good impression is equal parts mocking and complimentary. It's a hyper-accurate portrayal of the person. Put another way, a good impression is neither fawning nor spiteful. Let's consider how each stacks up. We start with Armisen's Obama, which is incredibly bland. One might argue that Obama himself was bland and so the material just wasn't there. No. Playing Obama as simply dull is being gentle. A good impersonation would portray him as dull to the point of somnambulism. I'm gonna skip over  Michelle b/c she's basically a prop in this scene and I'm not as familiar with Rudolph's other portrayals of her. Next, in order of...

from Twitter ...and, finally, The Works!

Here's the article in question: Scott Pruitt Is Using the Bible as His Guide for Reorganizing EPA’s Science Boards Climate Pruitt offers a smart, simple solution for limiting conflicts of interest: You can receive an EPA grant or you can serve as an independent EPA adviser, but you can't do both. Seems like a no-brainer. MJ rejects it due to anti-Bible bias. Pruitt refers to the Book of Joshua—"Choose this day whom you will serve."—so MJ and others cast him as a nutter. Not that the left would ever like the idea, anyway. They see no conflict in EPA advisers—who steer EPA rules—also receiving EPA grants. Rather, they see it, they just don't mind it. Which is why they don't even try to defend the obvious conflict of interest and instead cast aspersions. Remember this the next time leftist hypocrites whine about conflicts of interest or turn to the Bible to make an argument.

What's the name of this album? The Playa's Party of Korea presents: Rock It, Man!

Question: What be a pirate's favorite letter? Answer: Ya'd think 't'd be 'R,' but actually, 'tis the 'C.'