All political careers end in failure. His will, too.

Effective immediately, I am hanging up my hat as a prognosticator. Back in August, I predicted that Trump would never be president again. Oh haha. 

I mean, we have a bit of time until January 20; he could still be sent to jail or choke on a hamberder or something, but I'm not counting on it.

Since my comeuppance on Tuesday, I've mostly been laying low on social media. I've been reading comments from my friends, though, and the occasional news story when I have the stomach for it. (When John Dickerson said on CBS Tuesday night, as the returns looked increasingly dismal for Vice President Harris, that he wanted to talk about what an amazing comeback Trump had made -- "amazing comeback", forsooth! -- I turned off the TV and went to bed.) 

I have seen a lot of anguish from our side, of course, and fear about what will happen now. I've also seen some comments along the lines of, "They'll be sorry they elected him!" I've read some uncorroborated stories about that happening already; there was a memorable one by some poster somewhere who said their cousin's sister's uncle (or something) was shocked when the boss said they'd have to forgo their Christmas bonuses this year because the company needed to buy a bunch of manufacturing supplies now, before Trump's Chinese tariffs go into effect. Then the boss explained to them that tariffs don't work the way Trump said they do. There's no way for me to prove any of that, but it sure makes a great story.

There has also been an avalanche of news stories covering the nuts and bolts of how we were all mistaken when we thought the Harris/Walz campaign had it in the bag. Mostly it's been lots of finger pointing. I have been ignoring that junk, mainly because I ran into some revisionist history a while back about the reason some other Democratic candidate for president failed to win (I said it was this; others said no, scholars dug into it years later and discovered it was actually that). I don't remember now which election it was about, but it doesn't matter; my point is that the cause will be found out in due time, and it's likely that whatever the pundits are feverishly saying right now won't be it.

***

In counterpoint to these dour postmortems, I ran across this dose of encouragement today.

Andy Borowitz, who wrote a humor column for The New Yorker before they fired him, now publishes his work on Substack. He made today's blog post there free, and in it, he uses history to puncture a bunch of the doom-and-gloom that's been so pervasive on social media this week. I recommend this post to everybody. Pay attention in particular to what he says about Nixon and Reagan, who both won second terms in honest-to-goodness landslides that didn't turn out so well for them. You've heard of Watergate and Iran-Contra, I trust.

Anyway, the title of my post comes from Borowitz's post. It's a paraphrase of a quote by Enoch Powell, a British Conservative politician who died in 1918. Here's the quote in full: 

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Here's hoping.

***

On Friday, Robert Reich, who was Labor Secretary under President Clinton and who seems to have repudiated Clinton's neoliberalism since then, posted an essay on his Substack that he called "The Lesson". It's a listicle of six of those "what happened" reasons I alluded to above, along with his critique of each one and his assessment of what really did happen (TL;DR: It's the economy, stupid. Biden made great strides in four years, but not enough to break through the right-wing punditry noise).

I want to touch on the third point in his listicle: Republicans won because of misinformation and right-wing propaganda... The answer is for Democrats to cultivate an equivalent media ecosystem that rivals what the right has built. He rates this as mostly true. I partly agree. But I disagree with the second sentence, and here I refer you, Gentle Reader, to my post on media bias from a couple of weeks ago. My point then, which I probably should have hammered harder, is that liberals and progressives have already built an equivalent media ecosystem to Fox News and the rest, and a whole lot of us are already siloing ourselves in it: MSNBC, CNN, and so on. Moreover, many are fleeing from sources of factual news like the major newspapers because they're not telling the story the way you want it to be told. 

Folks, that's pretty much the definition of "biased information". Just because you want a thing to be true doesn't make it so. Just because a liberal politician or a left-wing pundit or a political hanger-on tells you a thing, it's not necessarily the truth. We are all supposed to practice discernment -- not just the people on the other side.

Here's something to think about: Maybe you were shocked and surprised that Trump won because you'd siloed yourself from all information to the contrary. 

I am not saying everybody should stop watching Rachel Maddow and switch to Fox and Friends. I'm saying to take a step back. If something seems too good to be true, it's likely not. That's as true for statements from pundits and talk show hosts as it is for emails from Nigerian princes.

This goes for me, too. There were times over the past few months when I read something that pinged my ol' journalistic skepticism. I should have listened to it. But damn, it was comfortable in my silo, surrounded by like-minded friends, y'know?

***

One more thing -- this one from Jay Kuo. Not sure where he's getting his numbers (the AP's are different), but when Trump says he won in a landslide (as he inevitably will), at least we know it's not so: 

It won't stop Trump from lying about the election outcome, and it won't matter to his fans. There's only so much we can do.

***

Because the algorithm needs an illustration: I went to a wine-and-painting class last night, and this guy was the result. He seems wild-eyed in his spacy universe. Full of hope, maybe? 

Lynne Cantwell 2024

For now, I'm calling him Space Raven. Feel free to suggest a better name.

***

These moments of bloggy wishes for a happy juncture have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Resist!
 

This is it. Don't forget to be kind.

Sorry I'm a day late with this post. I would have written yesterday, but my brand-new clothes dryer and I had a major disagreement that is not yet resolved. It kept stopping after five minutes and insisting that its lint filter was full. Over and over and over again. Regardless of how many times I told it how wrong it was at the top of my voice. 

The repair guy is coming Friday. 

***

But it's almost better this way, right? Because now I can write a last-minute post about the election! 

chipus82 | Deposit Photos

As you might have heard, tomorrow is the last day to vote this year. A lot of folks have already voted -- me included -- but if you haven't yet, now is the time. 

I have been studiously avoiding any and all news stories about polling. They are too anxiety-provoking for me. And anyway we're probably, what, 24 to 48 hours out from knowing the results of the only poll that counts.

So what on earth can I talk about in this post? How about this: Regardless of which way it goes tomorrow, remember to be kind.

I can hear you laughing. But it's not the first time I've been laughed at for this stance. And derisive laughter hasn't changed my opinion one bit since the last time I wrote about kindness in connection with politics: yes, we are polarized as a nation, but compassion can go a long way in bringing our country back together.

In fact, my opinion has solidified. Especially after reading this column by Charles R. Pierce at Esquire a couple of weeks back. Pierce quoted at length from a CNN report about how elderly folks, some with dementia, have been scammed out of their life savings by political fundraising operations. Both parties are guilty, but the GOP's operation has been the most egregious. From the CNN story: "The Republican fundraising machine has been subject to more than 800 complaints to the Federal Trade Commission since 2022 -- nearly seven times more than the number of complaints lodged against the other side."

But wait, there's more: "Donors identified by CNN were often in their 80s and 90s. They included... people who donated more money than they paid for their homes, according to records and interviews.... Donors took out new credit cards and mortgages to pay for the contributions. In some cases, they gave away most of their life savings.... At least one person continued to be charged for contributions after his death.... [I]n all, the long list of Republican candidates and causes took in nearly $4 million."

Call me a softie. Call me a snowflake. But if your grandpa, who was kinda sorta losing it, called you to give him a ride to Walgreens because the IRS wanted him to pay them thousands in back taxes with Visa gift cards, who would you be mad at? Grandpa, who's losing his mind? Or the asshole pretending to be the IRS, who's waiting for those sweet, sweet, untraceable gift cards?

And if you're madder at the asshole than at Grandpa -- who, let's be honest here, can't help it -- then why would your answer be any different if the asshole hitting him up was a Republican politician?

Look. Grifters prey on the innocent and befuddled. Their marks are victims.

And it's not only the elderly who have been taken in by the MAGAts' vicious lies, as we all know by now.

I don't know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in: Drop the hatred, folks. Find it in your hearts to forgive the victims of this maddeningly insane ruse that's been perpetrated on our country.

Feel free to be angry. But be angry at the right people: the ones pushing the lies.

For gods' sake, I'm not even a Christian, and I'm saying we should forgive the MAGAts' victims.

You guys know how I feel about forgiveness: I only give it to those who deserve it. I put victims of crime in that category -- no matter who their abusers were.

You do you, I guess. But do you want to have a functioning democracy again or not? This is the only way I can see to do it. 

After, that is, we vote the abusers out. 

***

Gonna put in a link here to my post from last week about media bias, since Facebook decided not to let me promote it. They can't stop me from promoting it on my own blog, dammit, so there.

***

I made a prediction more than a year ago about how this presidential race would end. Here it is. Was I right or wrong? We'll know pretty soon! Check back here next week!

*** 

These moments of kindly blogginess in the face of derisive laughter have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. If you haven't voted yet, tomorrow's the day!

Post 2 of 2: Finally, the laundry closet, before and after.

Okay, now for the fun post. I don't know how many of you have been waiting to see the finished laundry closet, but I said I'd post the pictures, so here you go.

The before...

...and the after.

My previous posts on the project are here, here, and here. I'm going to try to avoid repeating myself, so check those out for the blow-by-blow.

This is not, as you can see, an Instagram-worthy wall o' cabinetry. I didn't have the money for that. What I do have now, though, is a functional laundry space. There is room on top of the machines for my laundry basket (when it's empty, which presently it, um, isn't). I have a shelf, two drawers, and a cubby for storing supplies; for a bit of extra storage, there's also a little plastic cart from Ikea on the right side of the machines, which Ikea was more than happy to ship to me for five bucks. The stacking kit between the washer and dryer also has the pull-out shelf I wanted.

The shelf on the wall came via Etsy from a guy in Ukraine. I ordered black, but he sent me walnut. No matter -- it looks great on the wall. And the packaging alone was worth it.

Lynne Cantwell 2024

The "countertop" is another Etsy purchase. It's a melamine-covered shelf in a custom size. I've bought shelving from this guy before, so I knew I was getting good quality.

The most troublesome improvement, apart from getting the machines delivered, was that cute little pendant light. I bought it from Amazon for $50, thinking I could turn it into a plug-in swag lamp, but it came with a copper grounding wire that made it unsuitable. So I called my very expensive electrician to put it up for me -- and that's when we discovered that the back wall of that closet is concrete-filled concrete block. Which explains why the old wire shelves were falling down: the wall anchors were just sitting in the layer of drywall over the concrete. It also explains why the new shelf is on the side wall, which is a regular stud wall. I wasn't about to try to install that thing in drywall-over-concrete. Anyway, several thousand dollars later, the light is up, the walls are all patched, and I can finally see what I'm doing in there.

That style of light is called a Moravian star. It shows up a lot in Mexican interiors, and since I'm going for a Southwestern boho vibe, it works on that level. But also Moravia is a province of Czechia, and since I'm half Czech, it works that way, too. The things I do to amuse myself...

***

A couple of people have asked about the countertop in the bottom left corner of the "before" photo. That's the edge of the 72-inch, two-sink vanity. I am eventually going to replace it with a shorter vanity with just one sink installed. That will allow me to get into the laundry closet without having to move Tigs's litter box. But first I need to get over the electrician's bill from the laundry closet.

***

These moments of home improvement blogginess have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Get out and vote!

Post 1 of 2: WaPo's non-endorsement and the state of media bias today.

Of course it's the week when I promised y'all a fun post that a Big News Thing blows up that I feel the need to comment on. Neither subject will wait, in my opinion. So for the first time in hearth/myth history, I'm releasing two blog posts on the same day. Here's the first one.

***

On Friday, the Washington Post editorial staff -- reportedly under pressure from the paper's owner, multibillionaire Jeff Bezos -- declined to endorse either party's political candidate for president. Reportedly, the editors had an endorsement of Democratic nominee and sitting Vice President Kamala Harris all ready to go, but Bezos stepped in and killed it. There has been a ton of speculation as to why; while the why matters in the real world, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this post. What matters to me is the reaction of staff and subscribers.

In short, there's been a lot of outrage. The union that represents staffers at the paper issued a statement criticizing the decision:

Stolen from the dead bird app

A number of the paper's op-ed columnists issued their own, more strongly worded, statement. Former WaPo columnists have also blasted the paper for the decision not to buck Bezos. At least one editorial staffer has resigned. I've also seen whole bunch of people -- whether subscribers or general troublemakers -- call on more staffers to resign. 

A personal anecdote: As most of you know, I was a broadcast journalist, mostly in radio, from the time I graduated from college in 1979 until my last layoff, from Mutual/NBC Radio News, in 1999. In that 20-year span, I saw the business change a lot. It went from stations being owned by local folks who believed that they had a responsibility to program their stations in the public interest, convenience and necessity to those same local stations being snapped up by corporations interested only in ginning up ratings to make more money for their shareholders. That was a big reason that I decided to get out of the news business in 1999.

But another big reason was this: I had nowhere to go. If you think my options for news jobs in the nation's capital would have been unlimited, you're wrong. By the fall of 1999, network radio news outfits had dwindled to a handful, mostly staffed by a skeleton crew: the Associated Press, ABC, Mutual/NBC, CBS, and NPR. ABC had maybe ten people in DC. CBS's newsroom in DC consisted of only two or three people, and anyway, our shop at Mutual/NBC was being folded into the CBS operation in New York. NPR wanted reporters with experience in long-form programming. In short, there were no jobs. And at the time, I was a single mom with two small children. So I went back to school for a paralegal certificate and started working for lawyers.

For the past ten or 15 years, I've been watching the same thing happening to newspapers that happened to radio news: People with money have been snapping up papers, big and small, in the interest of turning a big profit for their shareholders and themselves. News staffs have been cut in the name of saving money. The practical result for journalists is that there are fewer jobs. But when journalists lose their jobs, subscribers lose, too; they lose a source of news of both their community and the wider world.

WaPo's subscribers today are angry -- understandably so -- and tens of thousands have threatened to cancel their subscriptions. It's unclear how many have actually followed through on their threats, although confirmed reports indicate the Post received 1,600 cancellations in the first three hours after the decision not to endorse anybody appeared. (I've also seen rumors that a total of 60,000 subscribers canceled, but I can't find any evidence backing that up, and frankly I think somebody pulled the number out of their ass.) Here is my problem with that line of thinking: Bezos is, as I said above, a multibillionaire. A digital subscription to the Washington Post is about $16 a month. (I know this because that's what I'm paying for mine.) Does anyone in their right mind think that depriving a multibillionaire of his cut of $16 a month is going to make a dent? Even if 60,000 subscribers did quit, that's only $960,000 a month, and he only gets part of that. That's chump change for a guy who's worth more than $200 billion.

You know who will be hurt by the paper losing subscribers, though? The journalists who work there. And at that level, there are only a handful of places they can go -- all of which will be under the same financial constraints that WaPo has been under.

Why don't people in any industry who work for shitty bosses just up and quit? Generally, it's because they can't afford to.

I've made lots of politically based decisions on where to spend my money. I don't buy Papa John's pizza because their founder is an asshole; I refuse to enter a Hobby Lobby because of their anti-LGBTQ+ stance; I avoid Home Depot like the plague; I wouldn't have a MyPillow in my house on a bet; and on and on. But I will not make a spending decision that will deprive working journalists of an income. 

***

This is already pretty long, but I want to do the media bias thing, too. 

Last night, I asked friends on Facebook which news sources they rely on, given that several of them had said they were canceling their WaPo subscriptions. I didn't tell them that I was going to use their answers as fodder for this post (apologies for the subterfuge, guys).

Anyway, this afternoon, I made a little spreadsheet of the responses as of about noon my time. Then I went to the media bias chart that has made the rounds on social media from time to time and looked up as many of  the responses as I could find. (It appears the chart doesn't rate many Substack blogs, and some others weren't rated for whatever reason.)

I've boiled it down to this graphic: 

Everything above the orange "Bias" line is from my impromptu survey. Surprise! My friends all get their news from left-leaning outlets. What differentiates these news outfits is how reliable, and how biased, each one is. Tops for reliability is ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization. Least biased is the BBC; the AP is next. 

Least reliable and most biased on this list is the Meidas Touch.

The two outfits in blue got the most mentions. Heather Cox Richardson -- who I think is terrific, by the way -- is pretty reliable but not always, and her bias rating, while not terrible, definitely skews left.

I bring this up because liberals and progressives give conservatives a hard time for their news consuming habits: Fox News, Newsmax, Sinclair stations, and so on. But those of us on the left kinda live in a news silo, too -- me included. It might behoove all of us to broaden our reading and viewing habits. I'm not suggesting that we go to the dark side, but heading closer to the center line couldn't hurt.

The three outfits at the bottom of the graphic are the top rated in this iteration of the media bias chart, and all three are rated better than any of the news outlets mentioned by my Facebook friends. Two are podcasts, one from NPR and the other from (y'all are gonna hate this) the Wall Street Journal. The third is the "CBS Evening News".

***

For the record, I voted by mail -- straight Democratic, thanks -- and my county clerk already has my ballot.

***

These moments of media blogginess have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Get out and vote!