Disney is considering a live-action remake of "Nightmare Before Christmas"?

WHY?!

Well, the obvious answer is "to make money," and, to be fair, as long as people continue to shell out for the mixed bag of Disney's current cycles of live-action remakes, they will continue to crank them out.

But NbC seems an extraordinarily odd choice for such consideration, if true. It's style is a huge part of its charm, and redoing it in heavily CGIed live action would seem to be pointless.

Or, rather, if Disney wants to successfully remake some stuff, it has far better-fitting films in its catalog to do it with than this one.

Donald Trump doesn't like being mocked

To be fair, nobody likes being mocked.

On the other hand, when you are a public figure, especially President of the United States, a certain amount of mockery and criticism is to be expected. As Harry Truman put it, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Not Donald. It's his kitchen. His. And anyone exerting heat is mean and corrupt and unfair and probably should be arrested.

'Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!'

Yes, that's the President of the United States [https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1097116612279316480].

"Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC" ... then why are you bothering to comment on it, Donald? People don't talk about what's not-funny-in-a-boring-way. I'm sure your True Followers aren't watching such things, just as I'm sure that those who find it amusing aren't being swayed by your assertion that it's not funny.

And, of course, if SNL is tired (which it has been accused of many times in its decades-long history), then it won't draw ratings and won't therefore get commercials and won't therefore be kept up.

It's the free market system, Donald. You may have heard of it.

"Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows?"

What sort of retribution are you suggesting, Donald? Legal? Civil? Popular? Are you suggesting the FBI should investigate Saturday Night Live and NBC? On what basis? What's the charge? What's the legal foundation for that, beyond your hurt fee-fees?

Are you suggesting that someone -- perhaps one of your legal teams -- should sue them? Again, on what basis? Given long-established Supreme Court precedent protecting satire and mocking public figures, especially political figures, what makes you think that your personal discomfiture warrents such action?

Are you suggesting that angry Trump supporters should march on NBC with torches and pitchforks? Should they break in? Trash the place? Burn the building down? What sort of retribution are you looking for?

" Very unfair and should be looked into." ... Looked into by whom, Donald? You're the President of the United States. You run the Justice Department (within certain legal bounds). Who should look into this? And why? What law is being broken? Or does that even matter in your mind in such a case of lèse majesté?

Also, "fair"? Fair? Since when did the GOP, the Right, care about "fair"? Isn't that the cry of the liberal, the precious snowflake, railing against a hard, cruel world that doesn't mold itself to their liking? What's not "fair" about this, and when did "fair" become a basis for some mysterious party "looking into" the matter? Are you suggesting this is a civil rights violation, Donald?

"This is the real Collusion!" ... Really, Donald? Who is SNL colluding with? Russia? China? North Korea? Do you even have any idea what the word "collusion" means? Is this "collusion" a legal problem, a national security issue, a law being broken, something the Justice Dept. should look into? On what basis? Do you have secret "data" about this from your intelligence sources or the Secret Service? Who, if not you and your Administration, should "look into" this matter and resolve it?

Bottom line, Donald's hurt feelings here -- the profound unhappiness of the Most Powerful Man in the United States and the effectively self-proclaimed Greatest President Ever -- and his lashing out on Twitter about them indicate at least one of three things:

1. He has the emotional control of a five-year-old.

2. He has no concept of freedom of speech, or of the press, or of slander and libel laws for major public and political figures, and thinks that because he's miffed by being mocked by SNL, Someone Should Do Something About It. ("Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome satire show?")

3. He's an authoritarian goon who things that criticism of the top dog should be handled the way it would be handled in China, Russia, North Korea (all states he admires) or his own private companies: with expulsion, punishment, destruction, and, maybe, actual prison or worse. Maybe by his own government forces. Maybe by the angry mob. But someone should do something about it.

The Ghost of Fried Chicken Past

We were a KFC family ourselves, great chicken with awful sides (cole slaw! potatoes with that weird spicy gravy!), but just glancing at that logo clobbers me over the head with 70s nostalgia.

Whatever happened to Pioneer Chicken? An interesting story, that, although lacking some investigative detail as to the actual why of its failure. Still, it's been so long since I heard of it, it's fascinating to hear about it again.

Trump makes the case himself for getting him out of office

The whole "national emergency" thing is a straightforward demonstration that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for office -- to the point where it begins to reach impeachable offense levels.

'Trump echoed this spirit in his ill-fated national address touting the border wall, when he concluded, “When I took the oath of office, I swore to protect our country and that is what I will always do so help me God.” In fact, the oath of office commits the president to protect the Constitution, not “the country.” The distinction between the two things is substantial. The actual oath binds Trump to a form of government and the rule of law. Trump’s version of it invests in his own office unlimited authority to define security and carry it out as he alone sees fit.'

The immigration "crisis" isn't an existential, suddenly arising threat that only swift, unilateral action can protect us from. It's a long-term policy disagreement that Trump has been unwilling, and then unable, to resolve the way he wants -- and, facing that, has decided to act unilaterally and unconstitutionally to do so, backed up by his own xenophobia, his sense of entitlement, his fear of being "disrespected," a party too truckling to stand up to him, and his unshakable belief that being President is just like being the CEO of a privately held family firm, the environment he knows best: one where can do whatever he wants, and anyone who disagrees can be fired or destroyed for getting in his way.

Even if you agree with his policy decisions, his methods of carrying them out should be deeply alarming. That so many of his own party, even those who have railed against executive authority in the past, seem so willing to back him up out fear of being turned on or hope that they can ride the Trump Crisis out and get at least some of their pet policies adopted, also remains deeply disturbing.

This man must be (legally) stopped.

The slow motion, long-observed, calmly awaited, vigorously debated ... emergency?

So it makes sense to give the President of the United States the legal authority to react to emergencies -- to do stuff when a problem strikes unexpectedly, and requires immediate action in order to avert or mitigate or recover from some sort of disastrous problem. Congress does take time to do things, with a certain amount of friction and deliberation baked into their processes, and some problems just can't wait. They're emergencies. Terror attacks, natural disasters, things that can't be anticipated but must be reacted to quickly.

Whatever is going on along our southern border, whatever the merits of different arguments about immigration policy, or what sort of barrier should be erected there, or whatever ... it's simply not an emergency. It's contentious, it's fiercely debated, it's the object of a number of passionate debates about what this nation is ... but it's not an emergency.

We've been debating border security for many decades, and certainly since Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015 and immediately started talking about his Big, Beautiful, Strong Wall. He's talked about it ever since -- how it would be paid by Mexico, how tariffs on Mexico would be diverted to it, how Congress would fund it initially but Mexico would eventually pony up ...

Meanwhile, nothing has dramatically changed on the ground. Illegal border crossings continue to trend downward. The series of "caravans" breathlessly pointed at by Fox News and hyped by the President, have all largely faded out as they approached the border -- which they did at established points of entry (as the people were seeking a formal asylum process), not across "unprotected" borders. The President has mobilized the US Army to go to the border, but they haven't had to do much of anything except to set up, then take down, concertina wire.

We aren't suddenly seeing zombie-like human wave assaults fording the Rio Grande. We're not seeing an epidemic of foreign terrorists sneaking over the border and striking at American citizens. Nothing new is going on that constitutes an "emergency." It's ... well, it's business as usual, as it's been for years, for decades.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has had over two years as US President -- two of them with majorities of his own party in both chambers of Congress -- to make a case before the Constitutional body responsible for allocating money for spending. To sway them that a Big, Beautiful, Manly Wall must be built.

He hasn't done it. His "Art of the Deal" hasn't done the trick. The people who write the checks haven't gone along with it.

Too bad, so sad. Other presidents have desperately wanted to do things about border security and immigration policy -- or about other things where they needed Congress to actually pass a law, or pass a budget allocation, for it. And, when they didn't succeed -- well, yes, they wailed and gnashed their teeth and blamed their obstructionist opponents, but that was that. They didn't say, "Well, you didn't do what I wanted, so I'm going to declare a national emergency and grab money from elsewhere in the budget to do this thing I want regardless of what you say."

That's not how the system works. It's not how the Constitution works. Deciding where money goes is an Article 1 Congress power. The Constitution doesn't allow the President to just willy-nilly take money Congress has allocated for X and spend it on Y instead.

Not that Donald has ever worried about breaking precedent when he wanted to get his way. A little thing like the Constitution getting in the way of his Big, Beautiful Wall doesn't seem like a complication he'd worry about.

(Or, if you'd rather consider him a master of public opinion manipulation, he doesn't even need to actually win with his emergency declaration, he just needs to show his chanting, xenophobic base that he's doing the right thing, even if (especially if!) he's being foiled by Congressional Traitors and Stupid Liberal Courts.)

Any attempt by Donald to declare a national emergency will be fought in the courts, both as an aggrandizement of Legislative branch's powers by the Executive branch, and because there is no foundation for considering this an "emergency." The best Donald can hope for is a further corrosion of the norms of politics -- something even the GOP might worry about if some future Democratic president decides that Trump's power play was actually a good idea, and declares a National Emergency regarding gun violence, or climate change, or economic injustice, or rising health spending.

That's not something I want to see, even if it would potentially allow for quick solutions to problems that the federal government has been unwilling to face. Because that's not how the Constitution works, and ultimately such actions can only spiral into tyranny.

The Dire Menace of the LGBTQ Religion

The article is somewhat lengthy, but it's simultaneously hilarious and appalling, detailing a bill in the Kansas state legislature that basically asserts that LGBTQ is a "religion" (a subset of secular humanism, which was deemed a religious faith by SCOTUS in the early 60s), and therefore state law cannot favor those darned gays because, well, that would be favoring a religion.

My immediate thought was, "The LGBTQ community can't be some sort of monolithic faith because they argue all the time amongst themselves." I then quickly realized that actually was an argument that they were just like most religious faiths.

Then I thought, "Well ... fine ... surely, then, that whole 'religious freedom' drumbeat that the conservative right have been beating for the past several years -- you know, the idea that one's religious faith trumps all other societal obligations or restrictions or laws, so it's okay to discriminate against anyone you want -- surely that then means that gay people get to do whatever they want because that would be their 'religious freedom,' right?"

Well, first off, you know that the conservative right would never let such religious freedom apply to anything other than their brand of Christianity. And, surely enough, the law goes on to define the secular humanism religion in general, and the LGBTQ religion in particular as being bad and harmful religions that are corrosive to community decency. And because the 1st Amendment clearly states that the government can pass whatever laws it wants against "bad" religions, it's all okay to strip any protections from LGBTQ individuals practicing their "religion."

The proposed law then goes on to talk about "parody marriages" which, of course, are any marriage forms that don't conform with their particular religious beliefs. And it goes on and on and on ...

"But surely," one might say, "given that the Supreme Court has established that same-sex marriage is legal under the US Constitution, then such a law couldn't possibly be passed." Worry not -- the law says that it nullifies and ignores the Supreme Court ruling and federal law on the matter. Just because.

Now it's not likely that such a law could actually pass -- and even if it did, the federal courts, even the more zany conservative ones, look poorly upon nullification of federal law. A greater threat is that an eventual appeal to the Supreme Court might then let some of its new conservative justices, along with its older conservative justices, revisit Obergefell and other rulings on sexuality.

And if not this bill, then similar bills in several other states, along these same lines, might just make it that far.

The bill itself is funny in some of its crazy assertions. But what it wants to do, and what it might ultimately end up leading to ... those aspects are funny at all.

A new Narcissus in Pompeii

Pompeii is an amazing place, not least of which because there remains so much more to excavate and discover.

Nike-protesting sports shop goes out of business

Okay, even though I think the guy is deeply misguided, I give him credit for having the courage of his convictions. So incensed that Nike supported Colin Kaepernick, he got rid of all the Nike product in his sporting goods store. Perhaps, being down in notoriously conservative Colorado Springs, he thought that wouldn't matter.

Apparently it did.

S. Carolina sheriffs say they will only go after drug dealers if they can get the MONEY

Yes, we're talking about civil forfeiture laws again, where basically the cops can say, "Hey, we think this car, this money, this house, were bought by proceeds of illegal actions like drug dealing, so we're going to take them, okay, so long, bye-bye."

While the idea of confiscating the proceeds of criminal activities and using them as a bonus to enhance actual law enforcement sounds like a cool idea, it actually translates into an incentive for the police to take your stuff, because it quickly evolves from an occasional one-off bonus source of funds to do something special, into a required and expected and even necessary piece of police revenue. It's sort of an inflation of the "We need to meet a quota of traffic tickets to fund our police department" principle.

The result is a perversion of law enforcement priorities and justice itself -- because goods taken in this fashion don't require a conviction. They don't even require an arrest. And if you, as a citizen, object, you have to go to court to prove that your assets were legitimately purchased. And if that's not practical or worth it for you to do ... well, the local law enforcement department appreciates your contribution.

But even though it distorts due process and justice, you still don't expect to see statements like this:

'Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn’t pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now.

If police don’t get to keep the money from forfeiture, “what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?” Bruder said. “What is the incentive for interdiction?”'

Yeah, I mean, why would the cops bother to go after drug dealers if they don't get to keep their cut?

Some other S. Carolina law enforcement officials are a bit more temperate in their comments -- noting that their drug enforcement budget has become dependent on civil forfeiture. Which sounds good, until you realize what they are saying is that unless they are allowed to steal money take money from people they arbitrarily decide are bad guys, they won't be able to protect us from "real" bad guys.

Because heaven forfend that the local taxpayers actually fund such a thing.