The Casting of "The Odyssey" and Believing Rumors

 

Curmie has written numerous times about variations on the theme of casting decisions for plays, movies, and television series.  In June of 2017, he discussed the controversy surrounding the Public Theater’s production of Julius Caesar, in which the title character bore more than passing resemblance to Donald Trump.  In 2021, it was the brouhaha at the University of Michigan when a Distinguished Professor of Music showed the Laurence Olivier version of Othello in class.  The following spring, Curmie argued that no, you don’t have to be disabled to play Richard III.  In February of ’23, he suggested that obeying the terms of the rights contract shouldn’t lead to the cancelation of a production of Waiting for Godot.

In April or 2023, Curmie wrote about the casting of black-presenting actress Adele James as Cleopatra in what Netflix would have had us believe was a documentary.  And in January of 2025, the topic was the entirely white-presenting chorus (some of the leads were BIPOC) for a production of the musical Elf in Sacramento.  Oh, and there was a lengthy comment on a post on Ethics Alarms in 2021 about the casting of black actress Jodie Turner-Smith as Anne Boleyn; that one was designated a Comment of the Day.

Anyway, here we go again.  Curmie thought that if he wrote about Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film version of The Odyssey, he’d concentrate on Nolan’s fondness for the controversial (?) feminist (?) translation of Emily Wilson, which Curmie definitely wants to read.  But he’s going to write instead about the three (Count ‘em!  Three!) casting decisions that have raised the ire of conservative commentators.  Well, there are three that Curmie knows about; there may be others.  The first and third, chronologically in terms of the brouhaha, are pretty similar and frankly rather boring: OMG, Nolan cast a black woman (Lupita Nyong’o) as Helen of Troy (and her sister Clytemnestra) and a black man (rapper Travis Scott) as a bardic narrator figure!  They should look like the originals, you see.  <Sigh.>

Ahem.  

First off, there almost certainly were no real-life originals.  Were there Bronze Age places called Troy and Greece?  Yes.  Was there a war between the Greeks and Trojans, fought at least partially at Troy?  Perhaps.  Were there important (royal) people named Helen, Odysseus, Agamemnon, etc.?  Unlikely, but possible.  Are the events of The Odyssey (Circe, Scylla and Charybdis, sirens…) even plausible?  Uh, no.  Homer, whoever he, she, or they may have been, either made that stuff up or perhaps inherited some of it from other writers not lucky enough to have had their works preserved.  Oh, and that line the right-wing critics like to quote about Helen being “the face that launched a thousand ships”?  That wasn’t Homer; that was Christopher Marlowe, over two millennia later.  Curmie’s a theatre historian; he knows this stuff.

Secondly, even assuming that there were real-life historical figures who served as the basis for Homer’s epic… uh… wouldn’t they be and look… uh… Greek?  As far as Curmie can tell, there is not a single Greek cast member, or indeed with any Greek forebears.  Interesting, that.  It may be a bit strong to use the term “racist” to describe those who see no problem with casting Matt Damon or Anne Hathaway but get righteously indignant over Lupita Nyong’o or Zendaya, but not by much.  People of Greek heritage who claim cultural appropriation have more of a point than those who want white actors only.

Is it a bit too cute for Nolan to justify casting Scott by suggesting that rappers are the closest thing we have today to the reception of ancient texts via bardic oral tradition?  Sure.  But it’s not a totally crazy idea, and Curmie, being of the wrong generation and race to fully appreciate Scott’s work, isn’t going to criticize that casting without as much as seeing the film.

But all of this leaves the source of peak indignation from the usual suspects, namely the casting of Elliot (formerly Ellen) Page.  There were rumors that Page, at a slender 5’1”, was to play Achilles, the greatest of the Greek warriors.  The response of Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty was predictably assholic: “You might even remember Brad Pitt played Achilles in a movie 20 years ago, meaning we go from Brad Pitt to a girl who dresses as a guy who’s five-foot-one, 118 pounds. That’s the person who’s going to be playing the greatest warrior in history, because to the left, that is normal. That’s okay.”  A little later, he proclaims that Helen was white.  Nothing to see here; move along.

Others, like the insufferable Elon Musk, also piled on.  The problem, though, is that whereas there’s no legitimate reason to object to Nyong’o’s casting, Page as Achilles is indeed a bit of a stretch, to say the least.  True, Achilles appears as a ghost (you will recall, Gentle Reader that he was killed by Paris in The Iliad), and it might be possible to film only close-ups, or in full armor, or with distortions, or whatever.  But Elliot Page would do well to lift a Bronze Age sword, let alone wield one well enough to defeat Hector one-on-one.

But here, Gentle Reader, is where Curmie urges you to read his introduction to this topic carefully: “there were rumors” that Page would play Achilles.  As of this writing, the imdb page for the film lists Page as a cast member, but doesn’t specify a role.  There has been no official announcement, but it is now reported that that Page is expected to play Elpenor, the youngest member of Odysseus’s crew, who gets drunk and falls off a roof to his death.  He’s the first ghost Odysseus encounters in the Underworld (Achilles appears later), and causes some angst because Odysseus had left him unburied.  Elpenor, like Achilles, is a relatively minor character in The Odyssey; either or both could end up as little more than a cameo… or could be expanded into something more.  We shall see.

When Curmie first read about this controversy, the site he was reading proclaimed that Page would play Achilles.  Even Finnerty introduced his screed by noting that Page reportedly would be in that role.  But human nature being what it is, a rumor became a report, and the report became a “fact.” 

Were he of a cynical or snarky disposition (perish the thought!), Curmie might suggest that Christopher Nolan is not an idiot.  Announce that Elliot Page is in the cast.  Don’t announce who’s playing Achilles (if indeed the character will actually appear).  Maybe even get a minion to accidentally-on-purpose mention that Page was under consideration (leaving out the “for maybe five seconds” part).  Result: well, the right-wing critics look like folks who believe articles in The Onion.  More importantly, there is a mountain of free publicity: we’re still two months away from the release date, and “The Odyssey” is getting a lot more headlines than anything that’s actually in theaters now.  Perhaps, just perhaps, Team Nolan dangled a particularly juicy fake story out there… and Finneran, Musk, et al., rose to the bait.

Curmie suppresses a smirk.  Oh, OK, no, he doesn’t.

The Head of a University System Should Not Be a Knuckle-Dragging Bigot

Chancellor Brandon Creighton

Curmie started a piece a couple of weeks ago about the North Carolina community college whose administration demanded changes to the set for a production of Euripides’ Bacchae only hours before the show was to open.   He thought about perhaps appending some commentary on Utah Valley University’s withdrawal of the offer to best-selling author Sharon McMahon to deliver the commencement address because, although she described herself as “gutted” by the assassination of Charlie Kirk on that campus, she said she understood why some people weren’t grieving as loudly as the some other folks wanted.  She had the audacity to quote directly Kirk’s reprehensible statements about gays, Muslims, and blacks.  That, in the world of fawning obeisance to Dear Leader and his minions, is apparently inexcusable.

Anyway, Curmie didn’t get very far with that essay that night, but he did get a start: “Sometimes Curmie thinks there are tests of intelligence, integrity, and courage for people who want to be college presidents.  You have to fail at least two to get the gig.”  Curmie expresses all due disrespect for the stupidity, over-reaching, and cowardice of Jim Morton at Cape Fear Community College and Astrid Tuminez at Utah Valley (to be fair to the latter, the rabid responses of those who regarded a smug asshole like Kirk as akin to the Second Coming might indeed have suggested the possibility of legitimate security concerns).  But the easy winner of the Censorial Asshat Tournament (post-A&M edition) goes to Texas Tech (TTU) Chancellor Brandon Creighton, whose antics Curmie read about when a friend posted a story from the Erin in the Morning page to her Facebook page, describing a litany of restrictions on, well, teaching and learning at all TTU affiliated campuses.

A little background:

There are, in fact, three different state university systems in Texas (Curmie has no idea why): the University of Texas (UT), Texas A&M (TAMU), and Texas Tech.  Curmie’s former school was independent of control from Austin, College Station, or Lubbock until a couple of years ago (when Curmie was already retired from full-time teaching), but has now been absorbed into the UT network.  UT is not without its censorial impulses (see here and here, for instance), but so far, at least, it’s the least problematic of the three systems in terms of restricting curriculum.  That’s relatively speaking good news for Curmie’s former colleagues (it could be worse!), but Curmie waits with some trepidation for the other shoe to drop.

Even apart from enacting laws any reasonable person would call 1st Amendment violations, the governor and state legislature pull all the strings.  The governor, the despicable Greg Abbott, appoints the Regents, who appoint the Chancellor and university Presidents.  Back in the Dark Ages when Curmie was a lad, such appointments were based on who could best serve the interests of the school, its people (faculty, staff, students, and alumni), and the state. 

Curmie has mentioned a few times that his father was a President in the State University of New York system.  The chair of the College Council (the equivalent of the Regents) for several of his years in office, was appointed by a Republican governor; he was the chair of the Democratic Party in an adjoining county.  Back then, both the governor and the council chair cared more about education than about pushing a political agenda (or stifling someone else’s) in the state colleges.  Curmie can’t speak for other states, but in the two he’s most familiar with, Kansas and Texas, such an attitude would now be regarded by every politician in sight as hopelessly naïve, even quaint.

Even a decade or so ago, although prospective Regents in Texas had to be active Republicans, at least some attention was paid to the ways they might benefit the institution.  Now, the only requirement is stolid sycophancy.  And it probably goes without saying that Creighton, like his compatriots at Texas A&M, has no damned business heading any educational institution, let alone a system of colleges and universities.  He has no relevant experience: he’s a lawyer and former hard-right state legislator.  He neither knows nor cares anything about education, except as a tool for propaganda. 

One more point that sort of makes this personal.  As you probably know, Gentle Reader, Curmie came out of retirement to teach two sections of Theatre History as a sabbatical replacement in the fall of 2024.  It was an intriguing return to the classroom.  Far too many students were unwilling or unable to do the level of work expected in an upper-division course, but, as Curmie noted at the end of that semester: 

...it’s extremely important to note that my best students were not only more numerous than average, but they were really outstanding.  They’d not only done the reading; they’d thought about it.  They asked pertinent questions and made intriguing comments, often analogizing (appropriately!) to other plays, novels, films, or historical events.  Most of all, and this was especially true of a couple of them, they were intellectually curious.  They’d read things that hadn’t been assigned, and then they’d ask me questions.

After a couple of decades in this business, one learns to identify students who not only excel at the undergraduate level, but show considerable potential for success in graduate school, as well.  One young woman in particular was everything you could want in a budding scholar.  I was happy to help her navigate the process, and although Texas Tech wouldn’t have been my choice for her, she was enthusiastic about her interactions with the department, and I wrote a very positive letter of recommendation for her.  I warned her about the prospect of censorship, and she took it seriously, but she was thrilled to have been offered an assistantship there.  That was all, of course, before this latest round of anti-intellectual shenanigans.  I heard from her a week or so ago; she plans to go ahead with her studies at TTU.  Curmie may wish she’d chosen a different school, but he sincerely hopes never to have the words “I told you so” form in his mind in this regard.

The white robe was at
the cleaners.

I will say this: if Creighton and his evil minions mess with her—whether by censoring professors’ ability to present the full range of information required of a course or by limiting what she could choose as a thesis topic—he’d do well to be careful out there.  Curmie makes no threats, but there just might be an angry old man (like the one at the left) with long grey hair, a beard, and a Gandalf staff, parked in Creighton’s outer office.

So… is the memo sent out by Creighton really as bad as Erin in the Morning would have us believe?  Probably not quite.  It does, for example, differentiate between course content which is “centered on,” “includes,” or contains “incidental reference” to SOGI (that’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, for those of you not au courant with the latest alphabet soup).  But there’s always one sentence too many.  It’s expressly permitted, for example, to discuss “chromosomal variations” or “intersex biological conditions,” but not to make the obvious inference, that there might be more than two genders, or that “gender identity is a fluid spectrum.”

Curmie also wants to tease out the implications of some of Creighton’s definitions.  An example of an “incidental reference,” for example, is “a single sentence in a larger text.”  That hardly qualifies as a reference at all, and is most likely a side comment rather than part of a prepared lecture.  Curmie never taught a course that would qualify as “centered on” SOGI topics, but he has a number of good friends who have done so, and most if not all of Curmie’s classes are in the “includes” range.  This is especially true if we look at the “SO” part of “SOGI.”  Most of the hoopla of late has centered on trans or gender-fluid people, but if sexual orientation is also part of the equation, then anything related to homosexuality also figures into the mix.

But notice that the course need not be “centered on” one of those impermissible subjects.  It’s enough if some “course materials” do so, and Curmie can’t remember ever teaching a course that didn’t cross over that threshold.  Moreover, “in courses where course materials (inclusive of all assigned works, readings, case studies, peer-reviewed research, videos, etc.) are centered on or include sexual orientation or gender identity, alternate materials must be utilized.”  (emphasis added)  Must, mind you. 

It’s important to point out, of course, the implicit assumptions here.  Cishet relationships, because they are in the majority (and because that’s the world inhabited by the censors), are de facto not considered to be about sexual orientation, thus conflating the statistically probable with the normative.  There’s a pretty wide range of statistics concerning what percentage of the population self-identifies as LGBTQ+.  Let’s go with the Williams Institute report that puts that figure at 5.5%.  (The rate in Texas is slightly lower, at 5.1%, but that still means that well over a million Texas thus identify.)  Two things are significant here.  First, nationwide, university-age (18-24) respondents self-reported at nearly three times that figure, 15.2%.  Second, we’re going to pretend for a moment that everyone who didn’t say they were LGBT self-identified as straight, whereas a significant number of people didn’t give a yes/no answer to the question (e.g., they listed themselves as asexual, refused to answer, etc.).

Even using this probably artificially low percentage of LGBT people in the population, the chances are better than even that a class of a mere 14 Texas students includes at least one LGBT individual.  If we use the national figure for 18-24-year-olds, a class of 25 students is almost 98.5% likely to have an LGBT student, and the likelihood would be three or four.  Curmie has taught core classes of 73 (the capacity of the room) several times at a Texas public university.  Using the estimate for university-aged individuals, the chances that all 73 of those students are straight is about .0006%.  Not very damned likely, in other words.  And those LGBTQ+ students might like to see themselves treated with at least respect if not representation.

Of course, Creighton wants to leave himself some wiggle room.  This manifests in two forms: selective enforcement and prior restraint.  No matter how precise the language tries to be, it can never allow everything it wants to allow and disallow everything it wants to disallow.  There will be judgment calls every semester, and the criteria will seldom be limited to course content.  You will perhaps recall, Gentle Reader, that the two Texas A&M professors who most ran afoul of that university’s censorial dictates were the Chair of the Academic Freedom Council and the President of the A&M chapter of the American Association of University Professors, an organization that’s very close to being a faculty union if indeed it isn’t one: people most likely to think that faculty ought to have a say in university governance, in other words.  Coincidence, huh?

But Curmie is most concerned about prior restraint.  Most faculty would like to… you know… keep their jobs, and not everyone has a sufficiently high profile that they can just pack up and leave for a private university the way Martin Peterson (he of the infamous reading from Plato in a philosophy course) did.  That means looking over your shoulder a lot. 

Will I get into trouble if I talk about the piquancy of a boy playing a girl playing a boy playing a girl in As You Like It?  What about the theory that Peace in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata may have been played by a (nude) female slave, thereby not following the tradition of women being played by men?  Can I talk about John Lyly’s Gallathea at all?  (Or do I get a partial exemption because I wrote my Master’s thesis about Lyly?)  Should I not show that video about the onnagata when discussing Kabuki?  Or mention the only Chinese Opera actor most Americans have ever heard of, Mei Lanfang, who played exclusively women’s roles?

Can I, as an acting teacher, assign roles to student actors which may not conform to their sexual orientation or gender identity?  Must a production of Jean Genet’s The Maids cast all three roles as women (the play is written that way), or could a director cast the play with men, as Genet suggested he might like to do?  Is the farcical element of, say, The Breasts of Tiresias, in which the female lead grows a full beard in a matter of seconds and the male lead gives birth to 40,000 babies overnight, enough to exempt it?  Is The Children’s Hour verboten?  Is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof?  Is Rent?  Or Some Like It Hot?  Is it trans actors or trans roles I can’t use?

It’s easier to avoid that confrontation, to submit, to water everything down to accommodate the stolid and the bigoted.  But that’s not education; that’s capitulation.  Far better to suggest to Chancellor Creighton that he perform an exercise best suited to particularly limber hermaphrodites.  (Easy for Curmie to say…)

Further Musings on the Kent State Shootings... and Today

The Facebook Memories tab becomes especially relevant on some days more than others.  Today is one of them, because today, May 4, there’s a BK and an AK (explanation of terms forthcoming in a moment).  Curmie has written more than once (in 2015, 2022, 2024, and 2025) about how the murder (yes, murder) of four Kent State University students by National Guardsmen on May 4, 1970, was a life-changing event for him. 

It wasn’t so much what had happened.  That was terrible enough, and the now-famous photograph of Mary Vecchio screaming over the body of Jeffrey Miller brought everything home in dramatic fashion.  No, it was the aftermath: the explanations and excuses by government officials and even the allegedly left-leaning media.  They’d have had us believe that the dead and injured students were somehow to blame for their own victimhood.  Even at age 14, Curmie smelled bullshit, and came to understand something profoundly important: those in power will employ whatever means necessary to maintain their privileged position.

The lies, deceptions, and evasions came fast and furious.  Curmie quotes himself from last year: 

Of course, the political leaders at the time didn’t wait for the facts to emerge before blaming the victims.  President Nixon called them “bums”; Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes described them as “the worst type of people that we harbor in America”; Ronald Reagan, Governor of California at the time, said that “if it takes bloodbath” to deal with campus demonstrators “let's get it over with.”

These characterizations, intended to excuse or even to extol the actions of the Guardsmen, had precisely the opposite effect on Curmie.

There was just something not right about all of the claims that the Guardsmen were fearful of their own lives and just trying to defuse a tense situation.  These guys with military-grade weapons were afraid of a bunch of post-adolescents armed with… um… flowers?  As Curmie wrote four years ago, he knew very quickly that “[what] happened in that early afternoon in eastern Ohio wasn’t self-defense; it wasn’t inevitable; it wasn’t triggered by the actions of radical peaceniks.  And it sure as hell wasn’t a small sacrifice worth making to restore law and order.” 

Curmie learned to distrust—or, rather, not to trust uncritically—any pronouncement from government officials, the news media, or any variation on the theme of someone in a uniform carrying a gun.  It was life-changing.  What happened wasn’t a huge shift in perspective; it was a change in the grounding for that perspective.  What had been an unfocused adolescent rebelliousness morphed into a more mature skepticism.  Curmie may or may not have become a 14-year-old curmudgeon, but he was well on the way.

You will note, however, Gentle Reader, that Curmie had this blog for over five years before ever mentioning Kent State,  His personal Facebook page has one brief mention on this date in 2010, outnumbered prior to 2015 by variations on “May the 4th be with you.”  There was a Star Wars reference in 2011 on Curmie’s FB page, too.  But things changed in 2015.  Curmie was lucky enough to have been selected as one of 36 scholars from a host of academic disciplines to attend an NEH-sponsored Summer Institute on translation theory.  The organizers were both faculty members at Kent State, so that’s where the sessions were held in June.  (Hence: BK, Before Kent; AK, After Kent.) 

My first experience of the campus was driving into a parking lot near the dorm where I’d be staying for the three weeks of the Institute.  There were four columns, perhaps four feet high or so, in that lot.  They were memorials to the students killed about 100 or 150 yards away a little over 45 years earlier.  They had flat tops, and each was topped with several pebbles; I learned later that these were placed there by visitors as tokens of solemn remembrance and respect.  Yes, Gentle Reader, Curmie added a pebble to each column before leaving campus.

As noted in the 2015 post linked above, “the university appears to have been quite adept at walking a very fine line, simultaneously commemorating the chilling events of [then] 45 years ago and moving on with the academic mission of the institution.”  There are a few memorials, and the university has since added markers to honor the wounded as well as the dead.

Curmie does not adhere to the MAGA perspective that it’s not a problem unless it affects him directly.  But anyone with even a modicum of empathy will inevitably be affected more when there’s a personal connection, even an indirect one caused by physical proximity to the site where something significant occurred.  Still, it wasn’t just being on the Kent State campus that changed Curmie’s life again.  It wasn’t even the visit to the May 4 Museum that precipitated that 2015 essay, written in a dorm room only 150 yards or so from where those students were gunned down.  Yes, that visit was significant in and of itself, but it catalyzed something more important: it inspired not merely sorrow and anger, but curiosity, that essential element for any search for the truth.  

Prior to that visit, Curmie was aware only of the generalities: that the students were not a threat, that the government was more interested in protecting the reputation of the killers than of the victims, that sort of thing.  But the museum also provided some specifics.  Curmie spent a couple more hours of research before writing this:

It turns out, of course, that my suspicions were correct. The Guardsmen, seemingly retreating to avoid further confrontation, turned in unison to fire into the crowd.  The nearest of the four students fatally shot by the Guard was about 85 yards away and simply observing the activities, not even taking part in the protest. And this is according to Nixon’s own appointed commission, headed by former Pennsylvania governor William Scranton. The nearest of the nine students wounded in the 13-second fusillade (a total of 60+ shots fired from 28 military-grade rifles) was 20 yards from the Guardsman; the furthest was nearly 250 yards away. Think about that. 250 yards away, and he was shot in the neck… by the alleged good guys? Only two of the 13 casualties were shot from the front. They were the aggressors? I don’t think so, criminal acquittals of the killers notwithstanding.

No. The Kent State killings (and the disingenuous aftermath) were indeed the ultimate declaration of war by the authorities on my generation, and I knew then, with my 15th birthday still nearly five months away, not only that I’d have to take sides, but which side I’d have to take.

Today, the average person is unaware of just how egregious the events and the cover-up were.  Over half of today’s population wasn’t born yet, and a good many others were too young to understand.  Kent State resonated with Curmie because it was the first major event in which his reaction was truly his own rather than a version of his parents’ thinking.  Someone even a couple of years younger probably wouldn’t have been ready to take that step.  But there are plenty of folks old enough to remember, but who bought the spin instead of the facts.

And we are once again in a period in which heavily armed and under-trained federal forces are given virtual carte blanche to attack protesters.  Nixon may have intentionally mis-characterized what happened at Kent State, but even he appointed a commission to find out the truth.  Their findings were under-reported, but at least they existed.  The Trump administration has not only lied about the actions of ICE and similar goon squads; they have repeatedly refused to cooperate with Minnesota authorities regarding the shootings on Renee Good and Alex Pretti.  Need Curmie remind you that murders are state rather than federal offenses?

Back in 2015, Curmie expressed the fear that there couldn’t be another Kent State because of the political apathy of the college-aged population.  That’s still true: the median age of No Kings participants is probably in the 40s.  But the spirit of resistance lives on, and the violence and mendacity of the administration have not gone unnoticed.  When the likes of Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have jumped ship, things aren’t looking good for the long-term prospects of the regime.  Curmie is not unhappy about that.

Unprovoked violence by those in power suggests their inability to make a reasoned argument.  Their obvious lies undermine their presumed authority.  And, as the banner above suggests, they can’t kill us all.  What happened at Kent State 56 years ago today was horrible.  But if there was a silver lining to that dark cloud, it was the clarity it brought to the fore about the Vietnam War and its proponents.  Whether Nixon knew it or not, it was the beginning of the end… or at least the end of the beginning.  Clarity about the advocates of the Iran War (and so many other remarkably stupid policies) is also emerging.  To quote a line attributed to Mark Twain, “History doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes.”

For some of us, May 4, 1970, was a turning point.  Curmie is wearing his Kent State t-shirt today.  It seems like the least he could do.

On the 21st-Century Relevance of King Croesus

 

Curmie had an essay started, linking the bellicosity of Dear Leader and the Secretary of Drunkenness Dominionism War to Mark Twain’s brilliant short story, “The War Prayer.”  But he got bogged down in questions of whether to include a note of personal history, and didn’t get it written before a Facebook friend posted this piece by Renée Loth that appeared in the Boston Globe last week. 

Loth says pretty much what Curmie would have said.  There is one omission, however, namely the last line of Twain’s story: “It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.”  That’s what really makes the point: not that “war is hell,” but that those who point out the inevitable effects of warfare are, well, “deranged” seems to be the favored adjective of the right, but “lunatic” will do.  

The foregoing is not to suggest that there is no such thing as a “just war,” but merely to argue that what is happening in Iran doesn’t come close to that standard.  Yet, although even as MAGAs are turning away from supporting the (probably) illegal campaign against Iran, especially since the ludicrous attacks on the Pope, there remain some once-sentient conservatives who seem quite satisfied with a few more tens of billions of dollars spent on creating more dead civilians.  This point is worth a paragraph but not a full post, however, so…

On to a different blast from the past.  It’s about that charming rascal you see portrayed above.  The image is from an amphora painting dating from the early 5th century BCE.  The subject is the Lydian king Croesus, who ruled, according to Herodotus, for 14 years in the middle of the previous century.  Today, Croesus is known primarily for two things: his fabulous wealth and his misinterpretation of a message from the Oracle at Delphi.  There’s more, of course—there’s a good summary here—but these are the two things that have found their way into what’s been called “cultural literacy.”  And it doesn’t matter, in those terms, whether the events described by Herodotus (known as both the “father of history” and the “father of lies”) actually happened: knowing nothing about Zeus or Sherlock Holmes is as problematic as ignorance of Confucius or Eliot Ness.

Curmie hasn’t heard the phrase “as rich as Croesus” in years, but it apparently is still in use.  Croesus’s wealth was indeed legendary throughout the ancient world.  Lydia conquered Phrygia, whose rivers had substantial deposits of gold.  (Is it a coincidence that Midas was a Phrygian king?)  And, in a variation on what happens today, the ultra-rich are in a position to easily increase their prosperity.  Two and a half millennia ago, that meant the ability to enlist the most skilled and well-equipped army.  Today, it’s more the ability to hire the best lawyers and accountants, and perhaps to bribe the occasional cop or judge.  Controlling the largest media outlets is also useful, of course.

But, like his modern-day equivalents, Croesus had two significant failings with respect to his wealth.  First, he was inordinately proud of it, to the point of angering the gods.  Stated otherwise, he was hubristic.  Secondly, he utterly failed to understand that happiness is not solely, or even primarily, a function of one’s financial resources and the lifestyle they afford.  He demonstrates this in conversation with the great Athenian law-giver, Solon, who declares, essentially, that a life well lived gives greater happiness than material possessions ever could, and that such things can only be measured at the end of a life.  Croesus was furious and said Solon was stupid.

(Note to Curmie’s former theatre history students: yes, this is the same Solon who famously told Thespis that “if we allow ourselves to praise and honor make-believe like this, the next thing will be to find it creeping into our serious business.”  Curmie always gave him a Good Ol’ Boy accent, including pronouncing “business” as “bidniz.”)

So… we have leader of a country who used his position to acquire even more personal wealth.  He’s obsessed with gold, and seems to equate prosperity with both happiness and virtue.  He got angry when people didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear.  Does that sound like anyone who might have been in the news more recently, Gentle Reader?

But wait!  That’s not all!

Most people don’t know how Croesus became rich, only that he was rich.  His colossal misreading of the Delphic Oracle is better known.  Croesus was contemplating attacking Persia, but sent to Delphi to assess in advance his chances for success.  The response: if Croesus should send an army against the Persians he would destroy a great empire.  Croesus took this as prophesying victory and moved forward with the military expedition.  The Persians under the legendary King Cyrus, were ready.  The kicked the Lydians asses, in part by employing a weapon Croesus and his troops didn’t anticipate: camels.  Yes, camels.  They scared the Lydian horses; if your army relies on its cavalry and your horses don’t cooperate, things aren’t likely to go your way. 

The Oracle got it right, of course.  A great empire was indeed destroyed: Croesus’s.  Supposedly, he sent the ancient equivalent of a sternly worded letter to the Oracle.  Her response, loosely translated, was “Dude.  Did a great empire fall?  Yes.  Do I have a reputation for being cryptic?  Yes.  Don’t blame me if you can’t keep up.”

Curmie was reminded of Croesus when today’s version of a rich, arrogant head of state (certainly a king-wannabe if not an actual monarch) decided to attack Persia (it’s called Iran, now).  He even provided his own prophecy, that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”  Yes, that was no doubt posturing, and perhaps was intended as some sort of bargaining chip.  But that’s not what the world heard.  Dear Leader had already destroyed much of what made the US great (if you’ll pardon the expression, Dear Reader): he ignored promises, subverted due process, threatened allies, openly manipulated the stock market, turned the military against innocent citizens… well, the full list would take too long to enumerate.

But prior to that unhinged Truth Social post on April 7, there was the possibility of turning back.  America had already lost its status as the world leader, as a trustworthy ally, as a dominant positive force in world affairs.  But we remained a player, even if no longer the player.  That post, though, in its malevolent braggadocio, became something of a tipping point.  It would be a stretch to say that American civilization was destroyed on that day, but it became more imperiled than at any point since World War II (at least).  Can we find our way back?  Yes, but it will take time—probably decades—to undo the disastrous results of allowing a demented, mean-spirited, narcissist to speak for us all.

There are differences between Dear Leader and Croesus, of course.  The latter, though arrogant and infatuated by riches, was sane and even intelligent.  Not anticipating Persian camels in warfare pales in comparison to not preparing for the literal inevitability of Iranian drone attacks.  And in what seemed to be the last moments of his life, as he was about to be burned alive, Croesus realized the errors of his ways.  He was not only forgiven by Cyrus; he became a trusted advisor.  The chances that Dear Leader will ever admit to his own fallibility are about the same as Venezuela’s dominating the next Winter Olympics. 

Hey, it could happen…

Conservatives, Conservation, and Curmie's Dad

Today, April 22, is Earth Day.  You wouldn’t know it from the media coverage, or rather the lack thereof, but here we are on the 56th anniversary of the first Earth Day.  Here’s a memory Curmie put on his Facebook page in 2017, describing a personal experience from 1970:

Curmie's father was a rock-ribbed Republican, an environmentalist, a scientist (PhD in Botany, taught everything from microbiology to genetics), and—on the first Earth Day—a college president. Curmie was in 9th grade, and somehow ended up talking to a group of college students who couldn't understand how anyone could be all those things at once. Today, Curmie couldn't, either. Today's GOP has become the party of anti-intellectualism not merely with respect to the arts and humanities but especially (especially!) towards science. That's what decades of pandering to the lunatic branch of pseudo-Christianity has wrought.

That was certainly true nine years ago, and even more so today.  Dad might have been more amenable than Curmie to some of the priorities of the current administration, but not only would he have railed against the outright corruption of the Exalted Poobahs of Trumpistan, he’d have had a lot to say about the areas he knew far better than the average American.

He graduated with honors with a biology major from Dartmouth, and then earned a Master’s degree from the University of New Hampshire.  Early on in World War II, he enlisted in the Army.  He was a volunteer, although of course he would have been drafted, anyway.  His unit was scheduled to head to the South Pacific.  Then, some idiot Lieutenant decided that loading that massive anti-aircraft gun onto a truck didn’t really need six men; it could be done with four.  Dad screwed up his back badly enough that he received a medical discharge.

That meant he was free to pursue his doctorate at Washington State.  One of the ways he supported himself and his young bride (Curmie’s Mom) was by teaching a course called Aviation Medicine to pilots and other flight personnel heading off to service with the Army Air Force or the Navy.  The course dealt with the effects of altitude, weather, g-forces, and the like.  Years later, he taught upper-level college courses in human anatomy and physiology.  He also worked closely with a local doctor, testing the effectiveness of specific drugs against individual patients’ cough plates.  So whereas he wasn’t an MD, he was pretty close.  Curmie was going to say he was light years more qualified to discuss matters of health than Baby Bobby is, but even suggesting a comparison would be demeaning to Dad.  A fly-swatter is more qualified than that idiot.

Dad was also very much an outdoorsman and an environmentalist.  He became an expert at grafting, an important skill in areas with a lot of fruit trees.  He led trips to the college camps (one in the Catskills, the other in the Adirondacks) of two different colleges.  He raised evergreens as part of a program initiated by the Interior Department.  He could handle an axe better than anyone else I’ve ever known, even after smashing up his shoulder in a skiing accident.  When he was still teaching and therefore had summers free, he’d cut much of the hay in the field with a hand scythe instead of a tractor just so he could be outside in the fresh air getting exercise.  Curmie got pretty good at identifying trees by their leaves; his Dad could do so by their bark.

Curmie could go on, but he suspects you get the point, Dear Reader.  The man was a scientist, and he had great regard for those who were researchers in any of those areas.  He certainly supported me in my career choices, but I think the fact that I always did well in the math and science courses I did take gave him a certain amount of pride.  It wasn’t that I couldn’t do science, or even that I didn’t like it.  I was just better at something else, and happier doing that other thing.  If my Dad was disappointed that I didn’t follow in his footsteps, he never showed it.  I’m forever grateful for that.

So, would Curmie’s Dad have approved of cuts to the CDC or NOAA or cancer research?  Of course not.  But what would really make his blood boil would be the evisceration of the National Park Service, and above all the recent overturning of the mining ban near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, all to benefit a Chilean (!) mining operation.  Only two GOP Senators voted against that bill, and one of them was Susan Collins, who occasionally pretends not be just another partisan hack, provided, of course, that her vote against the party line doesn’t actually affect the outcome.  Her feigned independence is almost worse than the garden-variety sycophants that make up the majority of the Republican Congresscritter alliance.

Once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages of the 1970s, the etymological link between conservative and conservationist wasn’t ironic.  Now, of course, it is.  Curmie’s Dad was both of those things.  He died in 1999.  Any pretense that the GOP cared about anyone but their campaign donors died about then, too.

Small-Town Cop vs. 1st Amendment. (Sigh.)

Last October 18, at a No Kings protest in Fairhope, Alabama, sexagenarian grandmother Renae Gamble was arrested for wearing the outfit you see here.  In case you can’t see the image (Blogspot has been a little weird lately), she’s wearing an inflatable penis costume she bought at the local Hallowe’en supply store (it was late October, remember) and carrying a sign reading “No Dick Tator.”  That’s only mildly clever and a little vulgar even for Curmie’s taste, but it is unquestionably protected by the 1st Amendment, the same way those “Fuck Joe Biden” chants and signs were a couple years ago. 

Not according to police corporal Andrew Babb, who declared the costume “abusive” (!) and an affront to a “family town.”  The video from Babb’s body cam makes a couple of things clear.  One is that yes, there is an illegal act shown, but it isn’t anything Gamble does.  She clearly asks “Am I being detained?  If not…”  It’s a little difficult to make out the last part, as she’s turned around and is walking away, but the transcript on the YouTube page says “I’m going to go ahead and leave,” and that seems pretty accurate.  Importantly, she wouldn’t be asking if she’s being detained if he’s made it clear that she is.  And it’s not like she’s going to outrun him.  All he has to do is either say “yes” (instead of continuing to yell at her) or simply step around in front of her.  Instead, he tackles her.  That’s assault.

Shortly thereafter, Babb says that “I told her to take it off.”  That demand never appears on the video.  Perhaps he did so before starting the recording, but the simplest and indeed most probable explanation is that he’s lying about that part.  Then, of course, she has to be taken into custody.  And all of a sudden that unconscionably objectionable costume—the one Babb said he insisted Gamble take off—needs to remain on… resulting in a scene that would have fit readily into a bit starring Buster Keaton, Benny Hill, or perhaps Lucille Ball, as the cops try to maneuver Gamble into the squad car while she’s roughly seven feet tall with a waistline of 70 inches or so. 

It was hilarious… except for the whole “this actually happened” part.  Finally, they manage to remove the costume.  Noteworthy here is that she couldn’t take it off by herself, and no one else is under any obligation to help.  (Her fellow protesters would have, of course, at the end of the events, but not at the behest of some self-important cop.)

Somewhere along the line, Babb asks for her name; she replies, “Aunt Tifa.”  He then proceeds to call her that.  Is he really so stupid that he doesn’t know she was being a wise-ass, or did he just pretend so she could later be charged with giving a false name to law enforcement?  Curmie doubts that Babb is smart enough to have adopted the latter strategy, but it’s a possibility.  Gamble was later charged with that particular offense, by the way.

Anyway, after a couple of delays, one of them because a Christian College Fair was booked into the building on the original trial date (Curmie fancies himself reasonably creative, but he couldn’t make this shit up), Gamble will be headed to trial next week, charged also with disorderly conduct (what?) and resisting arrest, which the video shows never happened. 

There is literally no evidence that Gamble committed any crime, but the reactionary and pearl-clutching mayor, city attorney, and city council president seem stuck in the Victorian age, so Curmie isn’t going to try to predict what judge Haymes Snedeker is going to do with this case.  Of course, Mayor Sherry Sullivan went all-in on the straw man arguments, proclaiming that “Protests should remain peaceful and free of profanity and obscene displays.”  There can, of course, be no suggestion that anything Gamble did was anything but peaceful.  Profanity and obscenity, of course, are more in the eye of the beholder, or in the squishier realm of “community standards,” but Curmie notes the perceptive comment of Heidi Veyance on the Fairhope Police Department’s Facebook post about the incident: “Can we assume that all reports of sightings of ‘truck nutz’ will be treated with an equal amount of seriousness & dealt the same punishment?”  Touché.

The video linked about, from the Intercept YouTube page, is the one that has the more complete transcript.  But Curmie let his inner 12-year-old out for a stroll, and from that perspective, the better comments are on the PoliceActivity page: she was “Only charged with a misdewiener”; “They couldn't get it to stand up in court”; “Her lawyer is gonna take her case pro bone-o”; “This definitely falls under some type of penal code” which “carries a stiff sentence”; that she’s likely to be acquitted by a “hung jury”…  Oh, and a direct quotation from Babb: “It’s illegal to come in the street.”  Another site suggests that “the three policemen must have been scared stiff.”  You get the idea, Gentle Reader.

So, summing up: The chances that a cop is a self-righteous idiot are already pretty high.  Make him a small-town cop, and the odds increase.  A small-town cop in the south?  We’re perilously close to ontological certitude, and Corporal Babb is pretty clearly not an exception.  Unfortunately, his apparent unfamiliarity with the Constitution isn’t the only criticism that can be lodged against him.  He’s also… well… let’s just say that Curmie agrees with the commenter who suggested that Gamble’s real crime was impersonating a police officer.

Trump Actually Has Some Interesting Ideas... Except...

Curmie was scrolling through the “Memories” function on Facebook earlier this week and came across a post from last year, discussing (OK, bragging about) having a very accurate bracket for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.  What’s relevant, however, is the end of that post: “Interestingly, I watched far fewer games than usual. Mercenaries don't interest me as much as students do.”

It’s certainly true that the game is fundamentally different now than it was even a few years ago.  All five starters on this year’s champion Michigan Wolverines were transfers.  Two starters for Curmie’s beloved Kansas Jayhawks were playing for their fourth different college team.  As of this writing, still early in the transfer window, only three players from the dozen Jayhawks players who logged the most minutes this season have not either lost eligibility or entered the transfer portal.  One of them is a certain lottery pick in the NBA draft, so he won’t be back.  The other two totaled a little under 400 minutes in the 2025-26 season between them; seven individual players had over 600.  [EDIT: now one of those two has also entered the portal.]  At least three of the five players in the portal are almost certainly gone.  It’s certainly time to stop pretending that there’s anything “amateur” about any of this.

The first and most obvious of the things that have changed of late is that now it’s all (as opposed to just “mostly”) about money.  Fans can complain all they want how players now care more about the name on the back of the jersey than the name on the front, but if you’re a 20-year-old kid, especially one from a poor family, who gets offered hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars more to play for Spider Breath Ag & Tech than you were getting at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople… aren’t you going to take the money and run?  After all, you know you’re one serious ACL injury away from never making any money as a player, and chances are you weren’t in college to get an education in the first place.

The system certainly privileges teams with lots of money, generally in the form of boosters.  This was already true to some degree—there aren’t a lot of universities that can offer luxury accommodations for athletes or spend several million dollars a year for a head coach—but the brave new world is far worse.  You could hire a half dozen full professors for what some universities are paying for a single good but not even Honorable Mention All-League basketball player.  (This is where you, Gentle Reader, say “and football is even worse,” and Curmie glances skyward and nods ruefully.)

Finally, the development of players is no longer a priority.  Back in the dark ages (the 2010s), teams would recruit a player, help him get better, and reap the rewards in his junior and senior years.  That doesn’t happen anymore.  There are exceptions—Purdue’s Braden Smith became the NCAA’s all-time assist leader this season in large part by also setting the record for most games played in a Boilermaker uniform—but most of the top players will transfer elsewhere or enter the NBA draft.  Getting a player up to the level where he can really help a good team be better is now simply allowing other teams to offer a little more money, or immediate playing time, or whatever.

NIL and the portal may be a considerable short-term benefit to players, but they’re not good for the game, and they’re awful for fans.  At least in the sports leagues that admit to being professional—the NBA, NFL, etc.—players sign long-term contracts, so they’ll stay with the team for a few years; some even insist on no-trade contracts.  The NCAA allows unlimited free agency every year.  It’s insane.

Curmie, of course, is not the only one to notice all this.  Many, if not most, fans agree that the status quo is absurd.  One such person is a guy named Donald J. Trump, and he’s in a position to do something about it.  Or he thinks he, at least.  Curmie acknowledges that Trump’s Executive Order on championship weekend was a). timed to get maximum exposure and b). an opportunity to distract from any story that includes the words “Epstein,” “Iran,” or “inflation.”  Curmie further stipulates that the EO will certainly be challenged in court; even Jack Marshall, who has defended some pretty outrageous activity by Dear Leader, says this one is “flat-out unconstitutional.”

Still, to quote The Athletic’s Ralph D. Russo and Justin Williams, “multiple sources who have contributed to the document told The Athletic before the order was released that its goal was to spur legislative action,” presumably rather than going into effect per se. There is at least one bill, the so-called SCORE Act (that’s the cutesy acronym for the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act… somebody spent weeks coming up with that title, no doubt) which does some of the things the administration wants, but it’s not assured of passing the House and apparently stands no chance in the Senate.

The major problem, of course, is that the NCAA can’t really function without some level of antitrust exemption, but, to be frank, the NCAA can’t be trusted to operate in the best interests of anyone but, well, the NCAA: not the athletes, not the universities, not the sports, and certainly not the fans. 

OK, but let’s look at what the EO says.  The introduction includes the following argument, about which there is little dispute:

The convergence of enormous pressure to win in football and basketball and the loosening, both by litigation and by State legislation, of consistent rules or limits concerning eligibility, transfers, and pay-for-play schemes has created an out-of-control financial arms race in these sports that is driving universities into debt, threatening to siphon resources from other sports, and damaging student-athletes’ educational and graduation opportunities.  The athletics-related financial threats these crucial universities face are substantial: Already, one major athletic program closed fiscal year 2025 with $535 million in athletics-related debt, and another has $437 million in such debt, while others face enormous annual athletics-related deficits.  These financial perils will inevitably siphon funds from universities’ educational and research purposes, which could impact their capabilities and responsibilities as Federal contractors and grantees.  

It’s worth noting in this regard that only a handful of universities were actually making money from their athletics programs even prior to the surge in NIL spending.  Yes, they make pots of money from TV contracts and the like, but the costs are enormous: salaries for coaches, trainers, and other staff; facilities, including absurdly lavish living facilities for athletes; travel—not just to games, but to bring prospects to campus and to send coaches to scout high school players; training meals; the list goes on and on.  And whereas it’s true that athletics programs often generate donations, more often than not such largesse is bestowed only on athletics: the wealthy alum who might otherwise have funded much-needed renovations to the library or the chemistry lab decides to buy a fancy new scoreboard for the basketball court instead.

Revenons à nos moutons…  The highlights of the Executive Order are as follows:

    Outlawing payments to athletes above “fair market value” for “goods and services” provided by the athlete.  If Curmie is reading this correctly, it means that a fat-cat booster can’t pay a star player $5 million for doing a radio ad.  The intention is great, but this is almost impossible to enforce without putting a dollar limit on NIL, and that’s problematic both ethically and, one suspects, constitutionally.

    Age-based eligibility limits.  It’s difficult to determine the rationale here.  Preventing young girls from entering college early to help the gymnastics team?  Preventing more physically mature players in their mid-20s from playing sports where bulk matters?  (There were a half dozen college football players aged 25 or older last year; Kansas hoopster Gee Ngala was 26, and was, if Curmie remembers correctly, the second-oldest player this season.)

    “Participation in college athletics is permitted for no more than a five-year period, with limited exceptions for military service, missionary service, and other periods of absence from participation that are in the public interest.”  What’s noteworthy here is that whereas voluntary missionary service qualifies for an exemption, injury doesn’t.  This is especially significant in light of the ruling by a state court judge that Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss should be granted an extra year of eligibility because the NCAA improperly denied his petition for a medical redshirt.  (Guess where that judge’s law degree is from… oh, and he got his law degree before septuagenarian Curmie graduated from high school.)

    “Professional athletes cannot return to college athletics.”  A couple of questions here.  First, what’s meant by “professional”?  There are a number of foreign-born basketball players who played professionally in their homelands.  Baylor’s James Nnagi not only played professionally in Europe, he was drafted by the NBA’s Detroit Pistons and played for their summer league team.  The second question is whether the key word here is “return.”  (Curmie’s mind wanders to the ancient Greek word ἀποδίδωμι, which sometimes but not always means “return.”  He won’t bore you with the relevance to theatre history, Gentle Reader.)  Nnagi didn’t return to college because he’d never been there, and he never signed a NBA contract per se.  Oh, and guess what… he’s now in the transfer portal. 

    Allowing only one transfer within that five-year window per athlete with immediate eligibility, with a second available if the athlete earns a four-year degree.  This is a reasonable restriction if it applies only to future transfers, and players who have already transferred more than once retain their eligibility.  Ex post facto, and all that…

    “A national student-athlete agent registry and reasonable protections for student-athletes from excessive  agent commissions.”  A little creepily Big Brother-ish, but perhaps sufficiently warranted so as not as to be bad as Curmie fears.

    And a bunch of logistical stuff.

On the whole, not a bad set of proposals.  A place to start, at least.  If only it were… you know… legal, and stuff.

Thoughts on Polling Data

The latest figures from RealClear Polling suggest, unsurprisingly, that President Trump is underwater on literally every issue.  Obviously, these numbers are continuously in flux, so you’ll have to trust Curmie that these were the figures when he was writing this piece.  (Statistics are accurate as of the early evening of April 4, he promises.)  Overall, he’s at -16.  On the issues: -23 on the economy; -17.1 on foreign policy; -8.7 on immigration; -31 on inflation; -4.2 on crime; -15.7 on Iran; -18.6 on Russia/Ukraine; and -5.9 on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

RealClear Polling draws its numbers from a host of different polls, then averages them.  Curmie is skeptical of polls in general, so these numbers may or may not mean literally anything.  Moreover, some of the poll results are now months old.  This can, of course, lead to a wide divergence in results.  There’s a difference of 59 points (!) between the Marquette (+34) and Gallup (-25) polls on Israel/Palestine, for example (that Marquette number is literally 30 points higher than any other poll on the same topic).  Also, both those surveys were taken over four months ago, so they don’t necessarily reflect anyone’s current thinking.  Among polls taken in the last two months, Trump fares best (+4) in Morning Consult on immigration and worst (-45) in Reuters/Ipsos on inflation; both those polls were taken in late March.

Another factor in all this is that it’s difficult to come to a consensus on the taxonomies themselves.  Take tariffs, for instance.  Are they foreign policy, or the economy, or more specifically inflation, since that’s the way most of us experience their effects?   What Curmie wants to concentrate on today, Gentle Reader, is not the overall numbers (Trump is a terrible President.  Duh.), but the responses to specific issues relative to each other.

It will come as no surprise that Curmie would be in the “disapprove” category both overall and on most issues.  He’d have to choose between negativity and neutrality on crime, perhaps.  Otherwise, it’s disapproval straight down the line.  More to the point here, the other issue that concerns him the least is inflation, which certainly is a cause for concern, but, except in terms of the contrast between campaign promises and reality, isn’t awful.  Yes, it will get worse unless someone considerably smarter than Trump—the average platypus, for example—finds a way out of the diversion war excursion in Iran, but we’re not there yet, at least officially. 

Curmie does understand why other people prioritize inflation as a negative, however: they see it first-hand.  We all do.  One of Curmie’s more GOP-leaning friends recently described food prices as “skyrocketing,” which is an accurate description for some but not all groceries.  By contrast, the fact that all the major stock market indices are down for the calendar year and we’re currently in a “correction” (down 10% from the previous high) doesn’t hit home unless you’re directly affected. 

Curmie’s retirement nest egg dropped almost 5% (not even counting the loss of buying power caused by inflation) just in March, but if you don’t have investments or you’re young enough that retirement funds aren’t an immediate concern, then it’s the fact that gasoline is a dollar or more a gallon more expensive than it was even a month ago, or that Netflix just raised their rates (again) that catches your attention. 

Plus, those price hikes are happening now, not a few months ago.  So we’re all attuned to those increases: they affect us all, and they’re on our minds right now.  The relationship between reduced buying power and the conflict with Iran is clear, but it’s more complex, and unless we have someone we care about who’s going to be shipped out, we’re (relatively speaking) unaffected in the short term, or at least we think we are.  So what’s happening in Iran isn’t as important to the average American now as, Curmie fears, it will be.

Those Israel/Palestine numbers are intriguing, too.  Perhaps it’s worth noting that whereas the page and the URL both reference “Palestine,” the link to the page says “Hamas,” instead.  That’s kind of a tell, don’t you think, Gentle Reader?  The survey results are going to depend a lot on how the questions are asked.  Ask Curmie whether he supports Israel against Hamas, and the answer will be unequivocally affirmative.  But if the “other side” becomes the Palestinian people, then Curmie’s response will change—maybe not 180˚, but certainly more than 90, enough to not be on Israel’s side, in other words. 

So Trump’s unconditional support for all things Israeli (or simply anti-Muslim) becomes more problematic.  Still, at least until relatively recently, that assistance was manifested primarily in financial and rhetorical terms; how many respondents will have changed their minds (in either direction) when military action started happening (not in Palestine, but you know what I mean, Gentle Reader) is difficult to determine.

Trump’s strongest area in the polls is crime, and the fact is that there’s little either positive or negative that comes to mind immediately.  Folks generally don’t have a lot of time to think about their responses to survey questions.  Given time to consider the boatload of pardons to drug lords, sex offenders, and those who actually attacked cops on January 6, Curmie has got to go with a negative rating, although still not as vehemently so as in other areas.

The topic Curmie finds most intriguing is the war between Russia and Ukraine.  Once again, the data is a little old, with only the Big Data Poll (-20) conducted in the last month, but the results have stayed pretty consistent over time: approval rates range between 34 and 41, disapprovals between 51 and 59.  What’s interesting here is that this is an “oh, yeah” topic.  That is, it’s no longer at or even near the top of many people’s lists of the most important issues.  When reminded, though, the majority of people responded with a version of “yeah, he fucked that up, too.”  Note, too, that the disapprovals are always not merely a plurality, but a majority.

Somewhat surprising but hardly shocking is another simple fact: while the American people don’t like Trump’s performance by a margin of 56.9-40.9, and the generic congressional vote favors the Democrats by 47.6-41.6, opinions on the Democratic Party are unfavorable by 20 points (55.6-35.6): worse than the GOP’s -15.4, and worse still than Trump’s favorable/unfavorable rating (not the same as his job approval, listed above) of -13.4.  Democratic smugness is explicitly contra-indicated.

Curmie dislikes the Democrats, too, although he’ll still probably vote for them for the same reason he’s voted for them more often than not in recent years: they’re not Republicans, and they’re especially Not Trump.  There comes a point when being Not Trump will no longer be sufficient.  Unfortunately, Dear Leader is so aggressively narcissistic, belligerent, and downright stupid (or treasonous; that might be an option, too), that virtually anything the likes of Newsom, Pritzker, AOC, et al. do will inevitably be seen as reactive. 

Curmie has read all the doomsday scenaria about stock market crashes, runaway inflation, international food shortages, etc., which are projected to happen before the end of the calendar year.  He’s not buying that rhetoric—not yet, at least.  But the only hope we have to avoid a collapse of epic proportions is that enough Republican Congresscritters will exercise a little concern for the nation and indeed the world instead of for their own standing with Dear Leader.  Replacing Mike Johnson with someone with both a brain and a backbone would be an excellent place to start.

That could happen.  So could the Rapture.  (Hey, it’s Easter.  Gotta be thinking about all the possibilities.)