“Are you telling me Donald Trump just got elected president?”

*   *   *   *

Saturday, November 12 – In the news this morning: Trump tells ’60 Minutes’ he will try to keep the ‘strongest assets’ of Obamacare. Professor Allan Lichtman predicted last September that Trump would win.  But now he’s saying he’ll be impeached, but not by Democrats.*  The Republicans – he says – would rather have Mike Pence, as “far easier to control.”

They don’t want Trump as president, because they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have Pence – an absolutely down-the-line, conservative, controllable Republican…  “Having Mike Pence in the White House would put a more trusted establishment Republican in the job.”

But the good news could be that it will take 67 Senate votes to actually convict and remove “the Donald” through impeachment. Which may explain why he’s being so “nicey-nice” with Democrats now.  (That’s where the “irony” comes in.) That is, if Donald plays his cards right, the Democrats might be the ones to insure that he doesn’t get impeached and convicted.  (It’s a two-step process, you see…)

Which brings up what I said back in March.  (About Trump being impeached if he got elected…)

In That OTHER “Teflon Don,” I compared Donald Trump with that “other Great American Showman, P. T. Barnum.”  (Barnum was often referred to as the “Prince of Humbugs,” as shown at right.)

Also in that post I noted that Barnum (1810-1891) was known for supposedly saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Which may be something a lot of people would credit Donald Trump as saying.  But in writing that post I learned something surprising.

Barnum – who we might today call “The P.T.” – also went into politics later in life.  And – surprise of surprises – he turned out to be quite an effective public servant:

Barnum served two terms in the Connecticut legislature in 1865 as a Republican.  [On the issue of slavery] and African-American suffrage, Barnum spoke before the legislature and said, “A human soul, ‘that God has created and Christ died for,’ is not to be trifled with. It may tenant the body of a Chinaman, a Turk, an Arab or a Hottentot – it is still an immortal spirit.”

Which no doubt surprised a number of people.

From there he was elected Mayor of Bridgeport, CT in 1875.  He “worked to improve the water supply, bring gas lighting to streets, and enforce liquor and prostitution laws.  Barnum was instrumental in starting Bridgeport Hospital, founded in 1878, and was its first president.”

Which no doubt surprised even more people.  And that brings up What Tom Hanks meant when he said ‘Life is like a box of chocolates:’

When you open a box of chocolates, there is a variety of flavors available. Problem is, since they are covered in chocolate, you can’t really tell what any given piece of chocolate is going to taste like…  The real lesson: you take what life gives you and you learn to deal with it, because – as they say – that’s life.

Which means that whatever else happens, the outcome of this last election is not going make me grumpy.  (Like those right-wing wackos, whining and complaining these last eight years.)  I’ll continue on as a Contrarian.  (Which I define as a “moderate with a ‘tude.”)

But I’ll be a cheerful Contrarian.  And besides, we just might be in for some pleasant surprises…

As noted in “Teflon Don,” P.T Barnum surprised a lot of people when he evolved “from a man of common stereotypes of the 1840s to a leader for emancipation by the Civil War.”  And it may be that Donald Trump will “evolve” as well.  That is, he may well evolve into something neither his ardent supporters nor his rabid opponents expect.

On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me if Showman Donald Trump actually played “those far-right conservatives like a piano.”  (See That OTHER “Teflon Don.”)

Either way, it leads to a question:  In light of Donald Trump’s chameleon-like shifting political positions – especially since last Tuesday – will he eventually be seen as an “effective elected official,” or a funhouse showman?  Or as the Simon Legree his opponents believe he is?  (And which – by the way – his statements on the campaign trail led them to believe…  But again, that may have been part of his playing “those far-right conservatives like a fiddle.” )

*   *   *   *

Is Donald Trump the new Simon Legree? 

*   *   *   *

Notes:

The upper image is courtesy of Forrest Gump (1994) – IMDb.  See also Forrest Gump – Wikipedia, and Life is like a box of chocolates – Wiktionary.  The latter indicated that the book “Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami, first published in Japanese in 1987, and in English in 1989, has the following: ‘Just remember, life is like a box of chocolates.'”  (I.e., some seven years before the movie.)

“Note” also that an asterisk in the main text indicates a statement supported by a reference detailed further in this “notes” section.  Thus, as to the prediction of impeachment, see Trump will be impeached – washingtonpost.com.  The “Having Mike Pence in the White House” part of the indented quote is courtesy of Professor Predicts Congress Will Impeach Trump.  And BTW:  “Trump now says ‘Crooked Hillary’ is ‘very strong and very smart.'” See ‘Crooked Hillary’ no more: Trump, etc. 

For some related thoughts see On dissin’ the Prez in my companion blog, and An update on “dissin’ the Prez.”

The “Gump-in-uniform” image is courtesy of Forrest Gump – Wikipedia.

Re: To play someone like a piano.  The cited reference is actually to playing someone like a fiddle – Wiktionary, meaning to ” manipulate (a person) skillfully.” 

The lower image is courtesy of Uncle Tom’s Cabin – Wikipedia.  The full caption:  “Simon Legree on the cover of the comic book adaptation of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ (Classic Comics No. 15, November 1943 issue).”  The article added:  “It is unclear if Legree is based on any actual individuals.  Reports surfaced after the 1870s that Stowe had in mind a wealthy cotton and sugar plantation owner named Meredith Calhoun, who settled on the Red River north of Alexandria, Louisiana.  Generally, however, the personal characteristics of Calhoun (“highly educated and refined”) do not match the uncouthness and brutality of Legree.”  But that could change, I suppose…

Ralph Waldo Emerson – possibly the first real Contrarian* in American History…

*   *   *   *

(Editor’s note: Make that “Independent, like Moses and Jesus.” As discussed in my upcoming February 2021 post, which means changing – to the extent possible – all references to the word “Contrarian” in the text below into “Independent.” Then too, it seems that most Independents have to have a bit of a Contrarian streak to stay Independent…)

*   *   *   *

It’s the eve of Election Day, 2016, and thus a time for reflection.  (Not to mention prayer…)

Whatever the outcome tomorrow, we’re in for more turmoil.  The “war for the soul of America” will go on.  It will continue largely unabated.  (And by the way, Googling that “war for the soul” phrase got me 13,400,000 results.)  So whoever becomes the next president, he or she will face rabid hostility from close to half the American population.  Which means in turn that he or she will face the prospect of impeachment, or at least a realistic threat of impeachment.

But as Lincoln noted – some time before that other Civil War – a “house divided against itself cannot stand.”  He went on to add that “I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Unfortunately, it may take a good long time – not to mention a lot of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth – before that “all one thing or all the other” comes true.  In the meantime, Cheer up!

I’m about to tell you how Mi Dulce – and Donald Trump – turned me into a Contrarian:

A contrarian is a person who takes up a contrary position, especially a position that is opposed to that of the majority, regardless of how unpopular it may be.

(See Wikipedia.)  And a word of explanation:  The Internet says Mi Dulce is Spanish for “My Sweet.”  That’s what I call the lady I’ve been “dating” some time now.  (Since the start of the relationship, near the time I started saying she had me “wrapped around her little finger.”)

Also since then she’s broken up with me at least 10 times.  And I learned – over time – that she is an ardent conservative.  (What I now call an “RWW,” or “right wing wacko.”)

There’s more on that later, but it does raise the topic of Contrarians.  As Merriam-Webster defines it, a Contrarian is a “person who takes an opposite or different position or attitude from other people.”  There are good reasons why I prefer that term over “moderate” or “Independent.”  (One of them is based on Ralph Waldo Emerson:  “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.”  But basically I just like the sound of it.  It sounds more “manly.”  

That is, I used to call myself a “moderate,” but these days that sounds pretty wishy-washy.  (“Oh, I just can’t make up my mind!”)  Then back in July – close to Independence Day – I toyed with the idea of calling myself an “Independent.”  (See On the Independent Voter, which includes the image at left.)  

But in the end I’ve taken up the term Contrarian, and it’s all because of Mi Dulce – and Donald Trump.

Getting back to Mi Dulce:  When we first met, I was all “moderate and nicey-nicey.”  (Like Aristotle, below right.)  I used to say – or at least think – things like, “Let’s not rush to judgment!”  Or, “Let’s wait until we get all the facts before we say anything that might be taken the wrong way!”

The problem is that in my neck of the woods – especially with someone like Mi Dulce – that moderate, reasoned, common-sense approach will get you nothing but bowled over.  (In the sense of hearing something so “whacked” that you are rendered temporarily speechless with disbelief.)  

Now, to be fair – not to mention moderate and reasoned – I’m sure there are lots of left-wing wackos out there as well.  (Somewhere.)  But I haven’t met any.  None of them seem to live in my neck of the woods.

Instead, where I live there seem to nothing but right-wing wackos.

That means I’ve had to listen to nothing but moaning, groaning and complaining these last eight years.  (Since Obama got elected.)  So naturally I got a bit tired of it. (Hearing the same complaints over and over.)  But then – to top it off – it turned out that Mi Dulce was a right-wing wacko too.

(But not really.  She has a heart.  I’ve seen her buy a hamburger for a homeless guy, and there’s a stray cat that keeps coming by to mooch a free meal from her.  Plus she’s cute…)

And I’ve learned one thing about RWWs.  (Including but not limited to “Mi Dulce.”)  They all use the 8-track tape mode of political discourse.

If you’re under the age of 65, you probably don’t remember this “magnetic tape sound recording technology,” popular in the U.S. from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s.  That’s when “the Compact Cassette format took over.”  (And what’s a compact cassette?)

The thing about 8-tracks was that they never stopped.  You never got to the end.  They used a “continuous loop” system, which is why they didn’t have a rewind option.  As long as you played the tape, you got the same thing over and over again.  The same “data,” the same songs played in the same order over and over again.

Which is pretty much like trying to have a meaningful conversation with a right-wing wacko…

The upshot?  My definition of a Contrarian includes the fact that we have to take a position directly opposite the person we’re talking to just to get a &^%$ word in edge-wise!

You could also refer to it as having to “out-wacko the wackos.”  And that’s turning out to be a skill that we former “moderates” are definitely going to need in the years ahead.

Which is where Donald Trump comes in.

How “the Donald” could turn someone into a Contrarian should be self-evident.  But in another sense you could say he’s liberated us from all those hangups about having to be factually accurate in what we say.  (In other words, “moderate.”  Or for that matter feeling the need to say only things that actually makes sense.)

But that also means that from now on, those right-wing wackos are going to feel free to say anything outlandish that comes into their pointy little heads.  In fact, the more outlandish to better.

Which means in turn that if we former-moderates stick to “just the facts” – or only make sense in what we say – those RWWs are just going to bowl us over.  So, in self-defense both moderates and LWWs will need to learn how to “out-wacko the wackos.”

Which turns out to be actually kind of fun, once you get the hang of it.  And that’s something I would never had learned without Mi Dulce.  (And of course “the Donald.”)

I’ll be writing more on this topic in the days to come, but for now I’d like to watchfully wait until tomorrow night.  I want to see who I’ll be “contrarying” over the next four years.

But before closing, a few observations.  One is that being a Contrarian is a bit like being a public defender – which I was, for 24 years – or like a “Devil’s advocate.”  (One of the “see alsos” in the Wikipedia article on Contrarians.)  Another is that at times, the give-and-take between Don and Hillary these past few months have reminded me of Playing the Dozens.

But finally, note that being a Contrarian means learning how to make a snappy comeback.  And the nice thing about right-wing wackos is the fact that they make the same arguments over and over again.  Which means your “moderate” or “Contrarian” snappy comebacks don’t have to be all that snappy.  You can plan your snappy comebacks way ahead of time.

Which translates to:  “Bless those right-wing, 8-track political arguments…” 

*   *   *   *

Stay tuned…

“Factory optional 8-track stereo player … mounted between the center console and dash…”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Ralph Waldo Emerson – Wikipedia.

The 8-track image is courtesy of 8-track tape – Wikipedia.

Re:  “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.”  On the other hand I could just give up the fight and join the ranks of grumpy old white people who now surround me on every side.  But who wants to be a cliche?  Or to paraphrase Jackie DeShannon:  “What the World Doesn’t Need Now Is a Bunch More Grumpy Old White People.”  (See also “No city for Grouchy Old White People.”)

Re: Playing the Dozens.  This verbal game is known best – in the white world – through the phenomenon of Yo Mamma Jokes.   (“Yo’ mamma so fat,”  “Yo mamma so ugly,” etc.)

The Dozens is a game of spoken words between two contestants, common in Black communities of the United States, where participants insult each other until one gives up.  It is customary for the Dozens to be played in front of an audience of bystanders, who encourage the participants to reply with more egregious insults to heighten the tension and, consequently, to be more interesting to watch.

The problem – as Richard Pryor once noted – is that “white folks” do not know how to play.  White people – witnessing such exchanges – fail to realize that they offer an alternative to actual violence.  (“The status of a participant is greatly diminished if he answers a verbal insult by fighting.”)  And they fail to recognize that the goal is to show some linguistic creativity, rather than “weakening” the opponent or the community.  Which of course opens a a whole new topic of discussion:  Teaching white people like Hillary and Don the right way to play the game…

The lower image is courtesy of 8-track tape – Wikipedia.  The full caption:  “Factory optional 8-track stereo player in a 1967 American Motors (AMC) vehicle mounted between the center console and dash.”  The article added:  “The format is regarded as an obsolete technology, and was relatively unknown outside the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan.”

*   *   *   *

November 4, 2016 – I didn’t get to bed until late Wednesday.  (Another sleepless night.) I wanted to see if the Chicago Cubs could “break the curse.” They started Game 7 strong, and built a solid lead. Then things got close. The Indians tied it up in the eighth inning. The game went into extra innings, and in the top of the 10th the Cubs got another apparently-solid lead. Two runs, to go up 8-6.  But the Indians came back and got a run in the bottom of the 10th. Finally the Cubs hung on and ended up winning, “by the narrowest of margins.”  (8-7.)

I’m starting to wonder if the upcoming election will turn out the same way.

One reason is the recent 11th-hour hubbub about Hillary Clinton facing “FBI indictment.” (A report “later debunked.”) But the hubbub reminded me – after the initial shock – of a story I read some time ago in The Presidents Club. (By Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, Managing Editors at Time magazine.) Starting on page 236, they described Richard Nixon committing treason to get elected president in 1968.  But don’t take my word for it: See George Will Confirms Nixon’s Vietnam Treason. And by the way, the title of this post harks back to one I did last May:  Is this “deja vu all over again?”  (Which asked the musical question:  “Is there a new Maverick in town?) 

The “new Maverick” – of whom I asked – was Donald Trump.  (And the post included the image at right.)But back to Nixon’s treason: The story – said Gibbs and Duffy, sub-head, “October Surprise” was of Nixon “scuttling” the Paris Peace Talks. The kicker was that despite having a peace treaty ready to be signed – to end the war in Vietnam – the South Vietnamese suddenly pulled out.

The upshot – South Vietnam pulling out – was that Richard Nixon got elected instead of Hubert Humphrey. And as Nixon later confessed, if the peace treaty had been signed – some 72 hours before Election Day, 1968 – Humphrey “would have had the election in the bag.” So how did Nixon do it?  According to one official, “It is not stretching the truth … to say that the Nixon campaign had a secret source within the U.S. negotiating team.”

Which leads to my question:  “Does Donald Trump have a secret source within the FBI?”  (Or is the FBI simply an anti-Clinton “Trumpland,” as other sources say…)

But again, let’s get back to Nixon’s treason.  Before announcing the tentative accord – some three weeks before the election – then-President Johnson called the three candidates for president:  Nixon, Humphrey, and George Wallace.  (At left.)  To each candidate he said the same thing, “I know you don’t want to play politics with your country.”

He was wrong – very wrong – about Nixon.

Over the next two weeks the plot thickened.  Nixon figured that Johnson wanted to bring peace in Vietnam – to end the war – solely to “swing the election in the final days,” to Humphrey.  And he had sources inside LBJ’s camp, including Henry Kissinger, who was “working both sides of the game.”  (And despite Kissinger’s thinking that Nixon was “a disaster,” “unfit to be President,”and “the most dangerous of all men running.”)

The upshot was that Nixon made a deal with Nguyễn Văn Thiệu – at right – then-president of South Vietnam.  He pulled out of the talks, with the result that Johnson looked like “a sneak, a manipulator who put his own agenda ahead of the country’s.”  (Even as Nixon himself was doing just that.)  

Later – when Nixon spoke with Johnson in person, by phone – he “poured it on thick,” saying that he would “never do anything to encourage Saigon not to come to the table.”  But after the phone call ended:

“Nixon and his friends collapsed with laughter,” reported the Sunday “Times” of London in an account of the episode months later.  “It was partly in sheer relief that their victory had not been taken from them at the eleventh hour.”  Forty-eight hours later, Nixon won the presidency by the  narrowest of margins:  seven tenths of one percent.

Which brings up a key point:  Although Nixon won the popular vote by that mere “seven tenths of one percent,” he won by a wide margin in the Electoral College.  (301 Electoral College votes to 191 for Humphrey and 46 for Wallace.  See Presidential Election of 1968 – 270toWin.com.)

Which means – in a word – that quite often the popular vote doesn’t mean squat.

But getting back to the election in 1968.  The other upshot of Nixon’s treachery was that Hubert Humphrey found out about it soon after the fact.  However, in the best interests of the country he kept it a secret.  (As did all other members of the “President’s Club.”)  All those arguably-honorable men kept Nixon’s treason a secret, “until the tapes revealed all.”

Another result:  U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War continued until August of 1973, instead of ending closer to Election Day, 1968.  The “war would continue and widen [and] the death toll mount … until it finally ended on terms very much like the ones tentatively agreed to in October of 1968.”  And incidentally, Nixon made his “in the bag” comment while sitting in Air Force One, one version of which is shown at left.  (And which a gracious Lyndon Johnson let Nixon use – as president-elect – as a “club courtesy.”  Referring again to the so-called “President’s Club.”)  

As to his committing treason to get elected?  “‘It sure beats losing,’ he said with a smile.”

*   *   *   *

 *   *   *   *

The original post had an upper image courtesy of Richard Nixon – Wikipedia. I captioned it, “Richard Nixon – ‘traitor’ – goes on the air three months before resigning to avoid impeachment.”

For another take on Clinton’s “11th-hour woes,” see FiveThirtyEight’s extraordinary prediction model is failing.  (And also Matthew 20:9, and/or What’s the Origin of the Phrase “The Eleventh Hour.”)

Re: “Eleventh-hour hubbub.”  For one take, see the Fox News claim.  For another take, see ‘The FBI is Trumpland’: anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say.

Re:  “President’s Club.”  The full title: The Presidents Club:  Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity, by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy.  The quotes from the book are from the “October Surprise” section, from page 236 to 249. See also “Brother from another mother” and other ex-Prez tales.

Re: Nixon treason:  See also How Richard Nixon Sabotaged 1968 Vietnam Peace Talks; Yes, Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks – POLITICO; Yep, he sabotaged peace talks in Vietnam for political gain (Smithsonian); and/or Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks – Esquire.

The “Thieu” image is courtesy of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu.jpg … wikimedia.org.

The lower image is courtesy of Vietnam War – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Marine gets his wounds treated during operations in Huế City, 1968.”

This might be the “after” picture, from “that handsome Maverick” in the picture below…

*   *   *   *

It’s hard to know where to begin.  (Other than with the word “implode.”)

Not that long ago, Donald Trump was in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton.  And – just as an aside – I was perfectly willing to accept the judgment of the American people, should they choose him as president.  (Based on the Bible command of Exodus 22:28, as explored in Dissin’ the Prez.)

But since then there seems to have been a “collapse inwards in a violent manner as a result of external pressure.”  But you have to hand it to “the Donald:”  He’s not going down without a fight.  

Thus the title:  “No More Mr. Nice Guy.”  

See for example:  1)  Trump Threatens to Sue The New York Times Over Article,  2)  Donald Trump threatens to jail Hillary Clinton, and/or  3)  Trump Threatens To Sue His Female Accusers | Huffington Post.  Then too see Melania Trump [Donald’s wife] threatens to sue People Magazine.

Or you could just Google “trump threatens.”  I did that and got 4.310,00 results.

On the other hand, you may have to narrow the field.  (Under “trump threatens” you’ll see:  trump threatens violence, trump threatens Cruz, trump threatens Hillary, trump threatens Ford, trump threatens Obama, trump threatens Mexico, trump threatens riots, “etc.”)

In turn, as a metaphor for Donald Trump’s apparent fall from grace – otherwise known as his “implosion” – you might compare the picture above left and at the top of the page – of “Alice Cooper” – with the handsome, debonair Maverick shown at the bottom of this page.

Which is another way of saying that I’ve been writing about the fascinating Mr. Trump for months now.  For example, I first mentioned “The Donald” last March 10, in a post titled, That OTHER “Teflon Don.”  In that post I made this observation:

It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Donald Trump is really trying to help Hillary get elected.  In other words, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn that Master Showman Donald Trump is actually playing those far-right conservatives like a piano.

Then on April 4 came On Reagan, Kennedy – and “Dick the Butcher.”  Which included the photo at right.  (And which – I’m assuming – “the Donald” wanted taken that way…)

And BTW:  Any resemblance between Donald Trump and Alice Cooper – above left – is purely coincidental.  (To keep “Alice” from suing me for slander; comparing him to Trump.)  

Also in That OTHER “Teflon Don,” I compared Trump to P.T. Barnum, and noted that “Barnum turned out to be an effective elected official.”  But we seem to be past that possibility.  (That is, it seems apparent to everyone except Trump and his camp followers.)

Which brings us to the post I did last April 27, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

That post was about a candidate for president who showed “a malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:”

He knows that repetition – invoking the same foul claims over and over – can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings.  He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions.  Beneath the mask of conservative idealogue is an amoral pragmatist.

But as it turned out, that “angry” presidential candidate wasn’t Donald Trump!

As it turned out, the angry candidate in question was Newt Gingrich.

As in “The Real Scandal in Washington is Newt Gingrich,” an article in the November 1998 Rolling Stone magazine.  That’s what I noted in the May 9 follow-up post, Is this “deja vu all over again?”

Rolling Stone noted that Newt – in 1998 – “will  become anything and ruin anybody else in order to achieve his goals.”  Then came this:  “Sure it’s difficult to imagine the nation electing someone disliked by two-thirds of the electorate.  But it’s easy to imagine Gingrich scoring well in Republican primaries, where right-wingers can crowd out moderates.”

All of which sounded chillingly familiar.

And all of which led to the question:  “Can you say prescient?”  And that could be another way of saying the current political situation for Republicans has been a long time coming.

Then came my post on July 12, “The Coming Fury?”  The title came from first book of Bruce Catton‘s Civil War Trilogy.  Catton began that first book – on the “coming fury” – by describing the “first of two 1860 Democratic National Conventions.”  It seems that in the first Democratic convention there were certain “fire-eaters” who didn’t care if they caused a split convention.

As it turned out, there was a split convention, and one result was a revolt.  That revolt split the Democratic Party, and that split virtually guaranteed th election of the opposition candidate.

In 1860 the candidate opposing the Democrats was Abraham Lincoln.  In 2016, the candidate opposing the Republicans is Hillary Clinton.  And to be blunt, you could say Republican “fire-eaters” at the 2016 convention virtually guaranteed the election of their most hated enemy.

Which brings up today’s Bible readings from the Daily Office.  Those readings included this, from Ecclesiasticus 1:22:  “Unrighteous anger cannot be justified, for a man’s anger tips the scale to his ruin.”  The King James Version seems even more on the mark:  “A furious man cannot be justified;  for the sway of his fury shall be his destruction.”

*   *   *   *

 Back on April 27 I asked, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”   Apparently not…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of No More Mr. Nice Guy by Red-Szajn on DeviantArts-anita-rium.deviantart.com.  (With apologies to Alice Cooper.  But see also Alice Cooper feeds off Clinton-Trump election battle for an interesting take, and perhaps a bit of karma…)

See the full Daily Office for the week of  October 9-15, 2016, at NRSV.  The full readings for Friday, October 14 are:  “AM Psalm 20, 21:1-7(8-14); PM Psalm 110:1-5(6-7), 116, 117
Ecclus. [Ecclesiasticus] 3:17-31; Acts 28:17-31; Luke 9:37-50.”

Re:  Ecclesiasticus.  Also called Wisdom of Sirach, it is not to be confused with the Book of Ecclesiastes, generally attributed to the “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (i.e., Solomon).”

The lower image was borrowed from the post, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”  Which asked – in essence – if Donald Trump was that “new Maverick in town?” The post also compared the tactics of Newt Gingrich in 1998 to those of Donald Trump in 2016.  

In turn the lower image is courtesy of Maverick (TV series) – Wikipedia.