iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

> Misogynies (legal marital and other forms of rape, illegal abortion, denial of the vote, etc.), Jim Crow, Japanese Internment Camps, slaughter of Native Americans, and on and on. This is who we ARE, man! Loooong before Trump/-ism.

011

Bingo! But I did. ("We" have been trying to hold up that mirror to our darker natures--and shadow side--nearly throughout my lifetime ... though I didn't come-of-age politically, etc., until late-high school, but moreso in college. And/Or--apologies, but wtf, dude, where've ya been? ... Slavery,

> of a failure to show up for the rightwing come voting time(s). I'd say that we aren't showing up, but as above, we also did show up to the tune of ~75M votes. We are and have been "simply" a divided country. In any case, we need to show up where it ALSO counts, at the polls, not just the rah-rahs.

000

... YES! ... BUT!!--"they" still managed to yield some 77M votes (2024). So plenty are (or were, in 2016, 2020, and 2024) drinking the Kool-Aid. Tbd whether that plays out in the midterms and in 2028. But the fact/pic(s) MAGA doesn't show up to rallies/protests isn't--thus far--indicative >

100

> texts (errors of grammar, spelling, punctuation), but I couldn't/can't abide mine.

Yup. I don't judge others, but I do judge myself ... which means: Although I am a quick touch-typist (full keyboard, computer), I still text with my one-thumb, nothwithstanding friends' recommendation that I instead use voice-activation (aka Siri). Nope! As above, I'm not judging others' messy >

Smith in Atlanta (population: 20) ;-) where he thus of course would've met/colluded with the erstwhile-prosecution of Trump for his interference in the 2020 Election (i.e., "... find me 11,780 votes"). Again, prison, while expressing legitimate outrage, is wishful thinking. But disbarment, etc.?!!!

000

> Schmitt, case in point, disbarred for not merely ad hominem ("dirtbag") but outright slander/defamation ("perjury") in the face of his attack on Mr. Smith for Schmitt's own downright stupidity ("Hawks" vs. "Hawkeyes") to cosplay "Trump-y" with some ill-displayed "gotcha" McCarthyism to put >

100

> are mostly lawyers/attorneys (inactive/active)--including many(!) former prosecutors and even AGs (attorneys general, as is/was the case of Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), in his imbecilic rant [also, cf. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)]--they ought to be sanctioned, censured, disbarred(!), for slanders, etc.>

100

Yes, I've been making this argument-adjacent for decades. "Adjacent" because while, yes, wishful-thinking that Congresspeople ought go to trial/prison for their perjuries, they are themselves not under oath when questioning "witnesses" or others "testifying" under oath. HOWEVER, as they (Congress)>

100

boja3.bsky.social @boja3.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Just off the top of my head: "Hamlet" (Shakespeare) "Waiting for Godot" (Beckett) "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (Orwell)

020

What do you mean "true or false"?

000

boja3.bsky.social @boja3.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

If your mind IS ... then meditate!

> his positioning as a next Repub. VP candidate. But this clip of his imbecility, and mangy affect and behavior, one hopes will scuttle THAT. Meanwhile, suffice to conclude that he and "these people" are evil-minded bastards.

000

> not only/merely ridiculed for his stupidity, rabidity, etc., but one would hope disbarred for such "persecutorial" misconduct. Sad to say, probably the best that may be done is that he'll lose re-election down the road, and, meanwhile, lose what some folks were imagining or advocating would be >

100

> But moreover, to wit (... and twit!): He was a former Missouri attorney general, etc. Imagine that douche of a human engaging as such and in such malpractice in a courtroom, prosecuting you/any, without the benefit of cameras and other Sens. to aid your defense. In short, thus Schmitt should be >

100

> One among countless cases-in-point: recent U.S. Senate Judiciary Cmte. hearing featuring former Indep. Counsel Jack Smith facing (being pilloried by) various Republican senators who range from incompetence to mendacity to buffoonery--and in the instance of Sen. Eric Schmitt, all that and more. >

100

Was just yesterday--for the umpteenth time (with anyone)--having that very discussion with a dear old friend. Plenty with standing and status and money (politicians, moguls, "even" lawyers/judges, et al.) are not merely incapable or incompetent but volitionally corrupt ... also to mention: cruel. >

100

Sure. Fine. But we didn't/don't need anything close to "discernment"(s) in re DJT. His obvious buffoonery was, remains--and should've been-- ... pick your metaphor: low-hanging fruit, etc.

> beyond shameful under BOTH Rep. and Dem. admins.

000

else he achieved to the good or at least the not-evil, was candidly called the "Deporter in Chief." Now, did Obama (et al.) subject young children without representation to such proceedings? I cannot imagine! But the outcomes and mistreatments of migrants, families, and yes, children, has been >

100

Agreed. But who exactly are the monsters? Republicans such as we have now, and have had for decades, to be sure. But the Democrats, too: as the likes of Obama and Biden (... I don't recall under Clinton) deported countless, too. In fact, among the Hispanic community activists, Obama, for whatever >

> and not (re-)solving "our" actual day-to-day ... but they do talk a good talk. Sigh.

000

> to summarize her position (I don't recall verbatim): claimed that members of Congress should 'just like any citizen' be free to engage in the stock market (etc.). I mean, wow! So yes, especially the *monied* Democratic class(es) are not precisely the same as Republicans, but near enough >

101

> Nancy Pelosi, > when various Republicans (incumbents and candidates) were accused of insider-trading, etc., per their special knowledge AS lawmakers, Pelosi ... again, not some backbencher, but the then-Speaker, DEFENDED the practice (doubtless, her own practices) of Congresspeople who, >

100

> So, again, that of course speaks to the corrupt, criminal, frankly imbecilic Republicans, but also speaks to the keystone kops Democrats who, end of day, are not even--as we tend to think--marginally better ... just marginally "less worse." (Recall, too, no less than Dem. Speaker of the House, >

100

> "Just like now" (not "just like," but you take my point), via that "One Big 'Beautiful' Bill" (aka Trump's Congress' HR 1 become law), whereby millions (tens-of-!) will be deemed suddenly ineligible for their ACA health care and other benefits. Meanwhile, the billionaire(s) class(es).... >

100

> as not meeting various thresholds for being considered poor, and thus in sleights-of-hand Republicans would envy (per their One Big [B.S.] Bill, and others), suddenly we had fewer poor ... except, no, we didn't. We had even more poor, for then being deemed ineligible for various services. >

100

> haven't been the would-be solutions, either. Just for one minor example with major impacts, when the Dems were wholly in power--and empowered--via Clinton, they embodied neoliberal politics and policies such as his Welfare Reform Bill, which, among other things, recalculated many "poor" >

100

I more than appreciate the oh-so-obvious sentiment; and I am (and I'm sure you are likewise) infuriated. But whereas billionaire *Republicans* threaten democracy and, per se, humanity, nominal Democrats, as billionaires, don't fare much better. They aren't the MAGA evil empire, to be sure, but >

Ok. Why, why, and why? I love The Wasteland, but feel free to critique. And a final why: ... did the intellectual (English, Humanities?) turn it down?

000

... Also to mention: In comparison, too, to Foghorn Leghorn's (aka John Kennedy's) utterly puerile b.s. line of questions. These are just loyalists (or, when out of power, the loyal opposition); they are--and all the more dangerous for being--buffoons! (So infuriating! ... when not also criminal.)

You blaspheme, Madam!! In any case, "actually" is name was Stearns Thomas Eliot (i.e., S.T. Eliot), but he likewise didn't want to be teased as "toilets"; so he changed that to Thomas Stearns (aka T.S.). 🤣

100

> various benefits programs. Trump/-ism is everything we know him/it to be: authoritarian, protofascistic, anti-humanist, oligarchic, kleptocratic/corrupt, outright gangster, et al. But both Dems and Reps keep us "from having nice things"--just that the Repubs are more faux-candidly worse.

000

Yes, BUT: B*e*f*o*r*e Trumpism (... and in between Reagan-ism, and Bush-ism ... and Bush-ism), we had neoliberal b.s. Clinton ignoring the problem, exacerbated by his Welfare Reform(s) Bill, etc., that made MORE people poor for no longer counting them among the "poor" and thus tossing them off >

100

I appreciate and *mostly* agree with this, per living wages, health care, etc. YET: that dollar-eighty burger should cost so much more not only there but anywhere, given water, feed, transportation and other infrastructure, fossil fuels, etc., that (literally and figuratively) tax our environs.

cliché rebellious adolescence gets into whatever other books ... and THEN perhaps revisits "Charlotte's Web" with a new appreciation. Tbd. 😊

020