I’m not putting this on here for the reasons you might already be thinking of. I did hear it on the radio yesterday, and that was definitely for those reasons, but I’m steering clear of all that stuff on here (at least for the moment).

It is a great song – one of my favourites by REM – and deserves to be highlighted, regardless of the current global political machinations.

And this is albeit that the band themselves volunteered it as an anti-Trump song last year in yet another move which didn’t destroy him.

This is a longer live version, complete with a really young Michael Stipe (hey, it was filmed in 1989!), plenty of stick and chair action and a cinematic video. It takes a while to get going.

Be patient. Trust me.


The infamous QI Elves shared this on Twitter over the weekend:

I think it was conveniently timed to coincide with the upcoming Trump inauguration, but to be fair, we had our own quockerwodger long before DT came onto the political scene.

It seems like it is a borrowed definition:

The term quockerwodger, although originally referring to a wooden toy figure which jerks its limbs about when pulled by a string, has been supplemented with a political meaning. A pseudo-politician, one whose strings of action are pulled by somebody else, is now often termed a quockerwodger.

But it’s a highly accurate one for our President. And – if the “fake news” are to be believed – theirs as well.

Zuma on Trump

All-round nice guy and democratically elected President of the Republic of South Africa says “well done” to all-round nice guy and democratically elected President of the United States of America.

I think that’s what’s happening, anyway…

A transcript of the video, including JZ’s words, may assist you in comprehending the depth of his feelings for Mr Trump.

[Microsoft Movie Maker titles and intro]

For now, it… it is a report that have come.
If he has won, the Americans have felt that this is a man.
I don’t think anyone could have anything.
We are saying congratulation to him.

[CGI SA flag]
[Fade to 15 seconds of silent darkness]


Don’t blame Donald

Some of the adjectives used to describe Donald Trump in the lead up (and now aftermath) of the US Election have been… “choice”, shall we say?

But what if there was a hidden side to President Elect Trump?
What if his seemingly angry, outward persona is merely as a result of deep, lasting trauma?

I’m certainly not saying that the manifestation of that persona is excusable, merely that it might be more understandable if we could pin it on some difficult experience he had suffered.

I’m talking about this photo, obviously.


This is the side of Donald Trump that no-one has ever seen. This is the moment that has scarred him for life. See how he tries to pose for the cameras, tries to appear cool, attempting to grasp a probably-wriggling beagle.
See how it refuses to look anything but profoundly disappointed.
See how it has (almost certainly) chewed something important of his.

This isn’t behaviour specific to its proximity to Donald Trump.
We’ve all been there.

And these things can affect a man. I don’t profess to wanting to build a big wall or have individuals of a certain religion removed from my presence. And I’m certainly not defending those views. Not at all.

I’m merely suggesting that being near a beagle can change a person.
And not in a good way.

Those commentators concerned over Trump’s new democratically-given access to the “Big Red Button” controlling America’s significant nuclear arsenal (and the implications thereof) would do well to glance to the bottom right of the image above and the wide selection of baseball bats. None of which he has used on the beagle. This sort of evidence of extreme restraint will obviously come as some comfort to you hysterical individuals.

Like it or not (and I suspect I could likely gauge the majority public response from my readers) Donald Trump is the new POTUS.

But don’t ever be fooled: the beagles are still in charge.

How utterly terrible is Hillary Clinton?

I’m no fan of the indestructible Donald Trump. But honestly, how utterly terrible is Hillary Clinton?

I say this because virtually everywhere I look, I’m repeatedly informed what a wicked, despicable, loathsome, misogynistic, untruthful, predatory, distasteful, repugnant, narcissistic, dreadful human being  Trump is.

And yet, with little more than 24 hours to go to the 2016 Presidential Election, in this Bloomberg poll, Hillary leads Donald by 3%:

pollNote that small print: “Margin of error +/- 3.5 percentage points.”
And note that bottom bar “Don’t want to tell 4%”, too.
That against a 3% lead. Astounding.

It’s been an eye-opening campaign for me to observe as an outsider, with no axe to grind and no significant interest in the outcome. I’ve never seen such a huge outpouring of insults and incessant dragging down of one candidate in the majority of the media.
It’s become cool to insult Trump. And talking of insults, the NYT took a two page spread to publish a list of all the people Trump has insulted over the last year or so. And yes, as we’ve been told, the fact that he’s insulted so many individuals is a demonstration of what an appalling person he is, but what an unprecedented step for a newspaper to take.
Equally, there seems to be something of a general unspoken agreement to overlook any shortcomings from anything or anyone to do with the Democratic campaign. The recent vandalism of Trump’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was near celebrated in the international media. And then there’s the media concentrating on the n lies Trump told in a TV debate while ignoring the n-10 (or whatever) untruths Clinton came out with. Yes, he’s awful, but how low do your standards have to be that you’re willing to completely overlook the deceit of someone who wants to be the President of your country simply because someone else was allegedly more deceitful on the same evening?

And yes, of course, there are news outlets working on completely the opposite agenda too, but they are hopelessly outnumbered. Still, this isn’t “rigging” the election, as Trump has contended. This is merely editors and media bosses exercising their right to freedom of opinion.
But it is overwhelming.

And so, let’s go back to the title of this post and ask again – with all that media support and with all those hugely-influential, loud-mouthed celebrities on her side – just how utterly terrible must Hillary Clinton be to only be “3% ahead” against “the most dangerous” and “the most orange” (sigh) man in the world?

I don’t know who’ll win – the corrupt autocrat or the corrupt socialist – but the fact that the latter might only just scrape past the former, despite the former being… well… being Donald Trump, should be ringing alarm bells – and not just in America.