Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Obama Was Correct: FOX Watchers Are On "Another Planet"

In an atmosphere wherein leaders toss out lies like party favors it is essential citizens know  to which truthful and objective sources they can turn with confidence. It is critical they know their leaders are lying to them whenever it occurs, and also which pseudo -news sources seek to support the liars. Such has been the case in the past few days where a trifecta of liars - including Trump himself, Sen. David Perdue and Sen. Tom Cotton - tried to claim Donnie Dotard never made the "shithole countries" comment. Not at all, and one major network keeps providing cover for these liars, as surely as Pravda did for the commies in Cold War years, and Nazi radio for Hitler before that. The culprit?   FOX News. Otherwise known as "Trump TV".

In this context it was amusing watch (at a BK restaurant) the three Fox and Friends trained monkeys  Saturday morning - with heads exploding in indignation -  reporting that Obama had referred to their fans as "living on another planet".   This was on a Friday night interview with David Letterman where Barack  had come right out and called FOX News the propaganda machine it is. Hence, the nickname "Trump TV"  - because their hacks and cronies defend the maggot in the White House relentlessly  They've also declared the Mueller probe an attempted "coup" on their little idiot master while insisting the Steele Dossier is  "dirty" and is being illegally used by Mueller and the FBI to persecute Trump.

Obama, for his part, didn't hold back saying that those who watch FOX news are "living on a different planet from those who get their information from other sources." Of course, any sane and educated person who watches FOX News- even for five minutes - would see whay that remark is spot on.   The complete remark made was:

"One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts.  If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.'"

I  have posted on this bifurcation of news- information sources for some time, warning it creates two distinct national perspectives  and no nation can last for long if it contains two populations accepting widely divergent realities. I have also singled out FOX News as the biggest culprit in gutting the febrile and already gullible brains of a segment of the populace and keeping a running war going -  dividing our nation more each passing month.

The FOX News role in deforming perceptions was first brought to attention some 12 1/2  years ago by surveys of voter perceptions (in conjunction with the Iraq war) on how many believed al Qaeda was part of Saddam's force. Nearly all those who believed this to be true (nearly 67%) were Fox News viewers, compared to barely 22% who obtained their news from other sources (e.g. CNN, ABC, NBC etc.)

How could there have been such a huge disparity on an issue that really ought to have been a no-brainer, since - whatever Saddam was- he emphatically was NOT a religious Islamic fundie of the type that allied with al Qaeda! One needed only to survey and learn recent Iraqi history to know that, and to understand Saddam was a secularist who consolidated power by ensuring the two Islamic religious factions (Shiites and Sunnis) remained divided. He understood the first rule of control: divide and conquer!

Yet a preponderance of Fox News zombies actually believed he was in league with the Saudi Wahabbi  sect fundies who blew up the Towers on 9-11! What this discloses is that it may only partly be true to say that Fox succeeds in brainwashing educated people. The truer fact may well be that the less well educated are attracted to Fox News. Which elicits the question: Why?

What we know from studying the art of propaganda and the ease with which it is spread, as my late German friend Kurt (formerly a Hitler Youth) pointed out, is that one must appeal to the pre-conceived beliefs of the audience. Thus, to reach his putative audience Hitler appealed to numerous lies about the Jews (already present in the culture via the Völkisch tradition)including that they were less than human, and were usually also communists or at least socialists. He also tied them to bankers, and exploiting people via high interest loans, etc., although how he got so many to buy into this is beyond me! I mean, accepting at once the Jews are in league with bankers, and also commies and socialists? Seems rather disjunctive!

A  2011 example tied into the rancor over the then budget cuts, and Foxites had falsely inflated he role of Planned Parenthood in terms of providing abortions. What you heard from  FOX Newa and the Republican House floor over and over was the lie that more than 90% of Planned Parenthood's services were allocated to abortions. A total, bare-faced lie! The actual data showed that barely 3% were abortion services, the remaining 97% were for health screenings such as mammograms, pap smears, and even prostate exams for males. None of this was disseminated by the Rs, but when one traced the source, he located the lie most often being repeated at Fox

Another endlessly recited FOX News  lie in 2011 had been applied  to  Obama's birth certificate and attacking the legitimacy of his citizenship and hence right to be President.  This slander was fueled by Donald Trump putting in his two cents, including referring to Obama's step-grandmother and  repeatedly claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Not mentioned, and doubtless inciting too much fact for Fox zombies, was that this was debunked in 2008. Evidently, a repuke congress critter had made a long distance phone call to the step-grandmother in Kenya, two years before, and the connection was so bad that her reply was mistranslated. "Lost in translation" anyone? So the Foxite Birthers didn't want to hear it!

The current propaganda push from FOX News has focused on the  alleged "Uranium One" conspiracy, the Steele Dossier as a means to unfairly investigate Trump, and the Mueller Probe as a Democratic concocted effort to oust a duly elected President.  

In the first, the Right's fruitcakes at FOX  claimed   that Hillary Clinton and Obama were behind a plan to allow a Russian nuclear energy agency to  purchase controlling interest in Uranium One - a  Canadian based mining company - with the proceeds to go to the Clinton Foundation.  The warp and woof of this cockeyed conspiracy has been thoroughly exposed by FactCheck.org, e.g.

In the case of the Steele dossier  the loony tunes at FOX News  have repeatedly claimed following Trump and his cabal, that it's all a fictional creation of a former British MI-6 spy working on behalf of the Democrat. The object being to blow enough smoke Bob Mueller's way to instigate a full tilt investigation.  At the core of this nonsense is the claim that Fusion GPS worked on behalf of the Dems to conspire against Trump and his campaign doing oppo research via the Steele Dossier.

This claim was first made by Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump's outside legal counsel. Corallo - as per Michael Wolff's new book,  has since abandoned the Trumpies as if they were the Black Death (or at least the killer H5 N1 Bird flu).  But what the FOX News cohort ignore is the fact that Fusion GPS was initially hired in October 2015 by unnamed Republican clients (associated with the Washington Free Beacon) in order to develop opposition research on Trump to be used during the GOP primary.  These Republicans were part of the old (e.g. pro-Jeb Bush) order who respected norms and traditions. They detested the fact that a two bit Queens real estate weasel and lowlife like Trump could possibly become President.

That is the hard fact.  Once Trump won the nomination, the research was dropped by the "Never Trump" conservos and continued by Democrats on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. That proves nothing more than Fusion GPS is a firm that is happy to be employed by either side.  If you want, call them a bipartisan oppo research outfit. But don't call them conspirators. Indeed, Hillary would have been guilty of utter moral negligence to have not used Fusion GPS' oppo on Trump given what we've since learned of his networking with Russian Mafia figures to bankroll his assorted projects.  As noted in The New Republic (Aug./Sept. p. 29):

"A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, or even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money .....Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics....It's entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters."

Of course, this very background helps explain why Trump is hyper paranoid now about Bob Mueller digging into his money trail, including leading right through his family finances.

On the issue of Christopher Steele himself, while the FOX News hacks sought to impugn his character - and two Republican Senators (Grassley, Graham) have even sent a "letter of referral" to the FBI about him- the fact is he has more moral fiber in his pinky finger than the entire Republican Party. This is given the GOP continues to run interference for Trump, even confabulating fake probes to throw attention off and undermine the Mueller investigation.

Truth be told, it was Steele who alerted the FBI to a possible crime in progress, based on his sources and the potential for a hostile foreign power blackmailing an American presidential candidate. Loopy? Lies" Baloney? Not on your life! Steele himself has impeccable character and would be exactly the person you'd want testifying on your behalf in a high profile criminal case - or tstifying against the bad guys. As per a Financial  Times account (Feb. 16):

Steele was the "UK intelligence expert on Russia".   James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, informed the AP that sections of the dossier document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services".

In other words 100 percent legit.  Thus, the efforts of the Foxites and the two Repuke Senators to tar and incriminate him are pure propaganda ploys.  But to be expected from a "news" outfit that peddles lies and unsupported conspiracy bunkum 99 percent of the time.

So no surprise either the FOX News bunch is assiduously working overtime to  derail the Mueller Probe. This has been by using a number of tactics - most of which have since been adopted by certain columnists in The Wall Street Journal as well.  In either case the constant mantra blurted out endlessly is “There is NO COLLUSION!”.  Also, the people indicted so far by Mueller are little "nobodies" who don't matter

The classic format of hit job used at FOX News is based on a template offered by the WSJ's William McGurn ('Bob Mueller's sideshow, Oct. 31, p. A15)..  To wit, concerning the Steele Dossier, "the same people who pushed it have now lost all interest in it".    McGurn - like the FOX News hacks - also tries to pump up Devin Nunes' bogus investigation, e.g. writing such codswallop as:

"What has Mr. Nunes' committee  found?  Turns out that in the Obama years, especially in 2016, officials made many requests to unmaks the identities of Americans, including Trump campaign officials who were caught up in foreigsurveillance."

Then there is the tack used by Holman Jenkins ('Trump and the Russia Racket', WSJ)  who tried to dismiss the import of George Papadopoulos by asserting "his name appeared on a  throwaway list of campaign advisers" .  But the kicker was this demonstrable lack of insight:

"Notice the particulars of his case actually belie the theory of meaningful Trump-Russia collusion"

Like their compatriots at FOX News (also owned by Rupert Murdoch)  the WSJ's liar's stable of Jenkins, McGurn, Kim Strassel and Dan Henninger have worked overtime to try to diminish or mock the Mueller investigations as convincingly as their forerunners tried to besmirch and delegitimize Obama based on an imagined lack of American bona fides. 

All of the above in the context of FOX News and its allies, cries out for education in media literacy of the American public.  At the forefront now, lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed bills calling for public school education  to impart media literacy skills they say are critical to democracy. (Denver Post,  'States Push For Media Literacy Classes', Dec. 31, p. 10A).  The effort has been bipartisan but so far has received little attention. One wonders why this is so, but perhaps there are reasons many refuse to accept. Including that most "news" on FOX is absolutely counter to any media literacy or critical thinking.

Noted in the above referenced article was a study by researchers at Stanford which warned that "students from middle school to college were easily duped and ill -equipped to use reason and online information".   Even today in The Denver Post, an article appeared describing how nearly 60 percent of Americans were "confused" about the information and news received and didn't know who or what source to trust. Most also claimed they paid attention to Trump's tweets but this is the worst thing they cold do.  As I pointed out previously these are crude cartoon media that are meant for ten year olds with limited vocabularies than adults. Most importantly, they are the ideal vehicles for the spread of disinformation.

In line with this the Stanford researchers have warned that "democracy is threatened at which disinformation about civic issues is allowed to spread and flourish."

Again, this is precisely because people - too many citizens - don't know enough, whether of history, civics, basic science or electoral politics. Too many citizens are unable to even name their two state Senators or their congressional (House) reps.  Many others can't even name 5 of the Bill of Rights. If they can't do the latter then it's little wonder so many fall into Trump's authoritarian trap of wanting to repeal them. Look at Trump's recent bombast about changing the libel laws because he didn't like the Michael Wolff book and its distasteful portrayal of him.

Of course, for those who know our history, Thomas Jefferson conveyed warnings about the erosion of democracy more than two centuries ago if people didn't read and think critically. In his 'Notes on Virginia' he warned:

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. AND TO RENDER THEM SAFE, THEIR MINDS MUST BE IMPROVED."

What Jefferson meant by "their minds must be improved" was continued learning even after one's formal education, and most importantly continued attention to the events of the day and application of critical thinking.  This included the proper questioning of one's leaders and their actions not just accepting them blindly. But, in order to do that, one had to be familiar with the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the key amendments and certainly our own history. One must not allow fake facts or history to intervene in any of these as occurs regularly now.

See also:


Monday, January 15, 2018

Math Revisited: Algebraic Homology

No automatic alt text available.

Algebraic homology is a branch of topology that is used to analyze higher-dimensional structures. This is accomplished by first converting them into flat, two-dimensional configurations, then assigning algebraic symbols to each 'dimension' (chain). Let's consider a relatively simple example: the basic torus pattern shown above:

If one were now to fold over the left and right sides so they join, ABA-left to ABA-right, s/he would be well on the way to re-forming the torus. Taping the two sides together, for example, would form a cylinder or straight tube. To complete the process, one simply joins the oppositely situated circles, ADA-top to ADA-bottom.

Arrows are used to define consistent directions, and either numbers or Greek letters can be assigned to the box sides. This is for ease of identification of the particular equivalence classes.  For example, arrows assigned to segments AB and BA on both sides of the shape shown above are made to point in the same direction, say top to bottom. The same direction implies two sides have to blend together when connected. A similar consideration applies to the bottom ends (AD + DA) when joined. So that the arrow from A to D on top would match an arrow direction from A to D on the bottom.

Thus, for the ‘top’ side of the torus:

A ---->-----D ----->------ A

and, for the ‘bottom’ side:

A ---->-----D -----> ------ A

One could go one step further, as I indicated, and assign Greek letters to the different segments. For example:

a  : A ---->-----D -----> ------ A

b : A ---->-----D -----> ------ A

We now have a one-dimensional homology space (H1) denoted by:

H1 = ( a +   b )

The same applies to the complementary homology space (H1') that runs vertically so as to join the left and right sides, which we might denote by:

H1' = ( +   g)

These are not just homological spaces but cycles - that are themselves not boundaries. For example, one large cycle would be made by going around the outermost ‘space’ in a clockwise sense, as starting from the ‘A’ in the upper left corner. We would have:

(A-D-A) -> (A-B-A) ->[-(A-D-A)] ->[-(A-B-A)]

where the -(minus) signs precede the last two terms and help to distinguish their direction from opposite the ‘positive’ space- defined above. This could also be written in a shorthand form:

H1 + (H1') - H1 - (H1')

It can clearly be see that the ‘boundary’ vanishes, since both pairs of sides (H1, H1') cancel out (having opposite signs for opposite directions). This can, of course, be written to include the ‘space’ elements:

[( a +   b)] + [( +   g)] - [( a +   b)] - [( +   g)]

whence we clearly see mutually cancelling space elements

Note  that 1-cycles in a triangulated space can be generated by closed curves of the space formed by the edges of the triangulation. One can thereby form the factor group:

H1 = Z1/ B1

which amounts (roughly) to counting the closed curves that appear in the space (which are not there simply by virtue of being the boundary of a 2-dimensional segment)

Re-posing the factor group: dim H1 = dim Z1 - dim B1

where dim Z1 = [b + 1 - n] for any connected complex

And: b = branches, n = nodes

For the torus shown:

b = 4 and n = 4

so: dim Z1 = 4 + 1 - 4 = 1 = dim H1

and dim B1 = dim Z1 - dim H1 = 1 - 1 = 0

Or, the boundary of a boundary is zero.

Well, what does all this gain us? Where might we be going? The beauty of this branch of math is that higher dimensionality can be represented with simpler, lower dimensional configurations.   Consider now the ordered tetrahedron (vertices ordered by number) shown below:

. Call the ordering '1234'. In terms of signage (sign rules - e.g. for (+) or (-) being followed, it's important to note that a segment (1 2) induces orientation (+1) in the associated complex, but a segment (2 1) induces (-1). This is how differing segments acquire negative signage in the complex.    Note the segments here play the same role as the a,    b,  d,    g
etc. in the previous example of the 2D torus.

The boundary of the tetrahedron, in terms of its four faces can than be written:

- (1 2 3) - (1 3 4) + (1 2 4) + (1 3 4)

Leading to the result that the boundary of a boundary is zero, or  D D = 0

By definition, the factor group: H_r = Z_r/ B_r

Then, in our case, B_r = B_2 (for the boundary) while:

H_2 = Z_2


Z_2 = a(1 2 3) + b(1 2 4) + c (1 3 4) + d( 2 3 4)


For the 2D torus we found:  dim B1 = dim Z1 - dim H1 = 1 - 1 = 0

Or the boundary of a boundary is 0.  This was based on knowing the
number of branches b and nodes n, where:

dim Z1 = [b + 1 - n] for any connected complex

Show that the same rule applies to the tetrahedron.

Can A Pathological Liar "President" Meet The Lowest Standard For MLK Day?

The radical MLK we need todayRelated image

"I am the least racist person you will ever interview!"

So barked Donnie Dotard in a lying pushback (from his "shithole" comments) from Palm Beach yesterday.  Of course this was merely one of his many thousands of lies. This slime ball lies as naturally as he breathes, so no,  we can't trust anything he says. The new political axiom for those with IQs over room temperature digits is that whatever Trump belches out of his pie hole, just assume it's a lie. You will be correct 99.999 % of the time.  Ditto with his tweets in the wake of his "shithole" comment, i.e. that he never uttered such a word. He used "strong language" but not that reported by the press or Sen. Dick Durbin.  Yeah, whatever. Save it for you deplorables.

Who are we to believe here, the most pathological liar ever to hold public office, or Sen. Dick Durbin, a respected Dem Senator present in the room?   Would Sen. Durbin have any reason to make this up? Of course not! Especially when Sen. Lindsey Graham admitted he had to call out Trump on his outburst. (Though he refused to make a public statement afterward.)   We certainly can't believe the two lying slime Repukes in the same room (Tom Cotton and David Perdue) , now trying to cover for Trump.  These congenital asswipes have since insisted Durbin's take was a "gross misrepresentation" of Dotard's comment.

And I suppose these two protectors of the chief racist would also claim - like Trump already has - that the infamous Hollywood Reporter tape where he is caught saying "You can grab 'em by the pussy!" featured merely edited words put into his mouth. How stupid do these cracker yahoos think we are... or the American people?

Anyway, those of us with eyes to see and possessing some semblance of a moral compass, know damned well that Donald Trump is a racist - and not a closet variety either.  This was the character - a two bit chiseling Queens' real estate con man - who was sued by the Nixon administration for refusing to rent to African - Americans. He was also the turd who peddled the racist narrative that the first black President wasn't really an American, i.e. he lacked a valid birth certificate. In addition, only this past summer he praised "some very fine people" amongst the Nazi swine marching in Charlottesville.

So again, it doesn't take a Mensa level IQ of 135 to grasp that if a guy acts like a racist, talks like one and especially praises racists - who in turn praise him- he IS a racist. So Rep. John Lewis was absolutely spot on when he didn't mince words in calling out Trump as a racist in a Sunday morning talk show - for his "shithole country" remark and his other remarks, actions.

That brings us to MLK Day, today, as we learned the Reverend King's daughter - Rev. Bernice King - will be the commemorative speaker at the service honoring her father at Ebenezer Baptist Church.  We also learned that she proposed a new minimum standard for our resident Racist in chief, saying ('King Holiday Arrives Amid Trump Firestorm', Denver Post, Jan. 14, p. 13A):

"This is what I would like President Trump to do: Don't let the King Holiday find you using your Twitter account in an inappropriate way. If he can dare to do that, I would be proud on the day that our president honored Dr. King by not doing things that are offensive."

Process that incredibly low, baseline standard of decency and respect for just a minute. Then seriously ask yourself whether the racist filth occupying the highest office in the land could meet it.  The answer to the question arrived barely a couple hours earlier when Ed Krassenstein tweeted:

"On a day when the rest of the world is quoting Martin Luther King Jr., President Trump uses his first tweet of the day to quote himself, emphasize "AMERICA FIRST", which is actually a slogan derived from the KKK."

As a further note, I plan to devote an entire post to the Nazi-racist "America First" movement that emerged in the 1930s, especially for those whose 20th century American history may be deficient.

As for the Rev. King's son, Martin Luther King III, who told the AP over the weekend:

"I would like to believe that the president's intentions are not to be divisive, but much of what he says seems or feels to be divisive".

I would say go with your own eyes and ears. You will then see this character is exactly the maggot he appears to the rest of us, the sane segment of the populace.

King III went on to say:

"It would be wonderful to have a president who talked about bringing America together, and exhibited that."

Yes, it would be wonderful to have a president committed to unity instead of division. But alas, it is not the despicable POS we have in the White House currently.  Maybe that wonderful day will arrive when we finally sweep the present detritus out, lock, stock and barrel with his whole cabal.

See also:







"Let’s be honest and forthright. Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices.

The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged others. ....Understanding this, it is not a stretch to understand that Donald Trump’s words and deeds over the course of his life have demonstrated a pattern of expressing racial prejudices that demean people who are black and brown and that play to the racial hostilities of other white people.

It is not a stretch to say that Trump is racist. It’s not a stretch to say that he is a white supremacist. It’s not a stretch to say that Trump is a bigot. Those are just facts, supported by the proof of the words that keep coming directly from him. And, when he is called out for his racism, his response is never to ameliorate his rhetoric, but to double down on it."

Friday, January 12, 2018

Selected Questions- Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (Yellow stars and heated 'yellow' bars)

Question -

I think a yellowish star would have a different temperature from a yellowish heated bar. Could you explain in detail the  difference?


The problem in the question, is that you have not referenced WHICH part of
the star you're comparing to the heated bar.

A star, like an onion, has different layers at different temperatures. The
inner core (e.g. for a yellow star like the Sun) is at temperatures of millions

of degrees.

Such high temperatures are attained by virtue of nuclear reactions in the
star's core. The radiation, energy produced then flows outward to the

The surface (or photosphere) of the star is therefore much cooler, at
temperatures around 11,000 F (for the Sun, a typical yellow dwarf star).

Assuming that you are talking about the surface of the yellow star, the
difference is clearly that the yellow bar could not attain the same
temperature, before melting. The melting point of steel, for example, is
at 2500F.

A star's surface- at the SAME temperature- would result in a red star, not

How can this be explained?

Basically, it's a result of the fact that star and metal (bar) are
composed of two different types of materials.

The metal bar is a solid. (E.g. made of steel, or iron) As it is heated,
its electrons become agitated and move around, vibrate - however, they are
limited in where they can go. (Up until the metal melts).

The star, by contrast, is in a state called plasma. This is a gas that has
lost one or more electrons. Once this state emerges, the star can continue
gaining temperature way past the maximum allowed for the solid, metal bar.
(Helped by the fact its ions (atoms that've lost electrons) are not
constrained in their motions).

At the same time, the loss of electrons by a plasma means its electrical
conductivity increases. It can also form magnetic fields, because of its
ability to conduct electric currents.  These currents - as well as the
associated magnetic energy - can also convert into more heat energy- and
also power flares.

All these aspects help explain why a yellow star is fundamentally
different from a heated yellow bar. (For example, no matter how much you
heat the bar- short of its melting point- it won't produce magnetic fields
like moving fluid in a heated plasma will!)

Bottom line is that the plasma nature of the star allows more heat to be
absorbed by it, and brought to its surface, than the atoms of a heated bar

Lastly, one needs to bear in mind that the yellow bar radiates at that
particular energy range alone. The yellow star radiates at all wavelengths
of the EM (electromagnetic) spectrum, including x-rays, UV rays, radio
waves  and so on.

But it radiates its peak (of what is called the 'black body curve' or
Planck curve) in the yellow region of the visible light spectrum. In
effect, stars of whatever color actually radiate at all wavelengths but
at different intensities for each. It is the peak of the radiated energy
that defines the color of the star we see.

Oprah Winfrey Will Not Rescue Us From Trump - Forget #Oprah2020!

Oprah Winfrey in her Golden Globes speech received kudos. But that doesn't translate into being a viable Dem candidate for the presidency - especially vs. Drumpf.

In the wake of Oprah Winfrey's stirring Golden Globe speech, I had to howl with laughter at all the peanut- brained libs and Democrats who suddenly think this celebrity is the presidential answer for 2020. Please give me a freaking break. I refuse to believe that Americans - even on the Left- can be this stupid.  The saving grace is that at least Oprah herself appears to realize this political brain fart is simply that - and no more. A nice entertaining fantasy but not one to take seriously or use as a basis to mount a presidential primary campaign. Or to use the words of one Politico reporter three nights ago (appearing on Brian Williams MSNBC show):

"Why when you have $2.8 billion would you do that? Why put yourself in for all the hate, the bigotry and ugliness when you don't have to?"

He has a point. Why indeed? Because, believe me, giving an eloquent and positively resonant 15- minute speech to fellow celebs is not like slogging through dozens of states in primaries (what 2004 candidate Howard Dean called a "meat grinder"), or squaring off in debates against a lying, hateful maggot like Trump. (Which experience Jess McIntosh compared-  in the fall of 2016 - to "facing a wild monkey with a gun")

Or, getting into twitter wars with this this degenerate who - according to one recent WaPo report - has delivered more than 2,000 lies since his inauguration.  Will Oprah really be ready to tangle with this pig via tweets?  Will she be ready for the lies, slander and slurs of Right wing TV and radio? Or will she take the "high road" and ignore the haters, as they pile slander on slander, lie on lie?

One gets a taste of what sort of attacks Winfrey may face just by checking out some Right blogs, such as one wherein the blogger writes:

"We then have…a 2013 interview with the BBC, when Winfrey said that entire (older) generations “just have to die” to cure the problem of racism....Uhhh…okay, bitch…Sieg Heil!…of course, you ain’t no spring chicken either…so perhaps ya wanna include yourself in that ‘mass genocide’!...That said, OW would have a tough time explaining a lot of things in her past – especially during the debates."

So will Oprah truly be ready to get down in the mud to face off against the Right's attack machine? I doubt it. She's too refined and uplifting, positive in her mental outlook to take on the psyche of a political mud wrestler - even for presidential aspirations or putatively saving the country. While some Winfrey backers have tried to argue she could do it because "she started HARPO productions on her own", that is not the same thing as being ambushed every day from the Repuke slime machine.

And what about the racism that will be certain to come down on her like it did on Obama, even more because she's a black woman aspiring to the White House?  I still have the letter that appeared in US Today on Tuesday, written by a Mark West:

"Yeah, I'm sure it was so hard for Oprah Winfrey to give a speech in front of a few hundred supporters, all of whom are desperate for their next President Obama.  The left loses its mind over anyone who can deliver a good speech. Why not just pick the next TED X speaker as their leader?"

Well, not all of us do. I also want to see what political heft, experience and savvy the person has, also whether that candidate has the capacity to engage in the political equivalent of hand to hand combat. Bernie Sanders absolutely has it, so did Hillary Clinton, as does Elizabeth Warren. Oprah? I don't buy it.  What this whole response shows me is that the Oprah backers for 2020 have the political sense and intelligence of infants, and ultimately can't be trusted in their choices.  As smirkingchimp blogger  Sonali Kohatkar put it ('What  #Oprah2020 Says About The State Of  U.S. Politics''):

"It says a great deal about the depths to which American politics has fallen that we are now seriously considering the presidential candidacy of Oprah Winfrey. The internationally famous television talk show star turned media mogul could easily win a global popularity contest, and in a world where Donald Trump is the president of the U.S., such accomplishment appears to be qualification enough to lead the world’s economic superpower. But should it be? Winfrey herself is not to be blamed for this absurd status quo—her brief speech at the Golden Globes was powerful, moving and necessary. The blame lies with us, with our political leaders, with our media and with the pop-culture-obsessed society we’ve created."

As Ms. Kohatkar goes on to ask:

"The fact that #Oprah2020 is so popular says much more about us than it does about her. Have we really given up on the idea of a political candidate who is both politically experienced and can articulate a progressive vision for the nation? Is that really so much to ask in a nation of more than 300 million people?"

Evidently it is because too many don't take politics seriously in this country. The Millennials - who've turned out the least to vote (especially in midterms) - think they can get all their news from late night comedy shows.  The older lot have few insights other than whatever they garner from talk shows, and they do not read in depth. Too many have zero experience in deep politics research.  I daresay most can't even distinguish liberalism from neoliberalism. If that's the case most of these Oprah backers wouldn't even know that  "Winfrey possesses many of the qualities that Hillary Clinton did—her allegiance to Wall Street and her concept of neoliberal capitalism is certainly as strong as Hillary’s".  Ouch! 

The main benefits of a Winfrey run? She has an especially strong connection to women and non-whites and with her personal fortune she could likely finance her own campaign. The downside? She'd lose white men by an estimated 2 to 1 ratio and perhaps even more if they latch on to Trump as a pseudo-male defensive mechanism like they did against Hillary last year.  As for the poor whites that went by 61 percent for Dotard, I can't see them bailing on the Dotard and now going for a black female Obama.  Other worrisome aspects as Sonali Kohatkar notes:

"Winfrey’s political positions are largely indiscernible, probably by design. In fact, the idea to draft her to run for president originated from a lifelong Republican from Kansas who says he did not vote for Trump. Bizarrely, in 1999 Trump himself  touted Winfrey as his first choice for vice president if he were to ever run."

I believe these facts need to be known before too many lose whatever common sense they have left and push for a Winfrey run. I believe such an effort would be self-defeating and leave us little better than we were left on Nov. 8th last year.  Hell, when you even have arch Neocon Bill Kristol backing her in a tweet you ought to know you've jumped through the looking glass. According to Kristol:

"Sounder on economics than Bernie Sanders, understands Middle America better than Elizabeth Warren, less touchy-feely than Joe Biden, more pleasant than Andrew Cuomo, more charismatic than John Hickenlooper."

Except she isn't "sounder on economics" than Sanders. She's just cloaked her positions in indiscernible mush which she'd be forced to explicate in any primary debates. Bernie, for one,  would rip her to shreds once her actual, detailed positions became known. As for "less touchy feely than Joe Biden", I doubt it. Has Kristol ever actually watched an Oprah Winfrey show?

Finally, I agree 100 percent with Kohatkar's take:

"We deserve better. And, we can get better than Winfrey if we demand it in the wake of Trump’s failure. The administration is on the defensive, thanks in large part to Wolff’s claims but also because of relentless activism by ordinary Americans and, simply, because of Trump and his team’s sheer ineptness."

The best contribution Oprah Winfrey can make for the 2020 campaign? Plow her money into supporting actual Democratic candidates who have experience and stand a chance against Trump. Meanwhile, let her keep her feet on the ground and refuse to let addle- brained nincompoops push her into something she might later regret.  As the Politico reporter put it, "Why put yourself in for all that ugliness when you don't have to?"  Stay instead in the background and contribute support!

To read Sonali's full piece go to: