In the New Yorker...

[Front-Ranger]

Wisconsin, Ryan's state, is interesting because it is gerrymandered so severely that this traditionally Democratic state now has 5 Republican congress persons and 3 Democratic. Last November, judges "ruled against the state's current legislative district layout, saying it was unconstitutional and 'was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters... by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats.'" The state has until the 2018 election to redraw the district borders. Attached is a map of District 1, Ryan's district. Note how it just skirts the metropolitan areas, rounding up just enough urban voters to meet the quota but assuring that they can't compete with the rural, landed gentry. And what's with the foray deep into Lake Michigan? Yacht owners, perhaps?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Appropriately enough, over lunch today I read Lizzie Widdicombe's April 24 article about marijuana edibles.

I have never been able to decide whether to be proud of or embarrassed by the fact that I've never tried weed (I don't even know how to smoke tobacco). I don't even know where to buy the stuff.

However, the article reminded of something that I have really thought about. The subject of Widdicombe's article once used Tegretol to treat a seizure disorder. She has replaced the drug with pot, and her condition is completely under control.

Now, Tegretol is one of the drugs I was formerly prescribed for my trigeminal neuralgia. I will admit I have wondered whether my neuralgia could be controlled permanently by cannabis. If medical marijuana were legal and available in Pennsylvania, I would consider discussing it with my doctor.

[Jeff Wrangler]

The May 8 issue arrived in my mail today. I'm looking forward to what Evan Osnos has to say about how Trump could be removed from office.

I jumped ahead to read that; I couldn't wait. It was interesting, but I feel it didn't offer much hope.

Some people are calling for the AHCA to be named Trumpcare, to saddle Trump with the label.

Too bad. It's already being called Trumpcare.

[serious crayons]

I jumped ahead to read that; I couldn't wait. It was interesting, but I feel it didn't offer much hope.

Too bad. It's already being called Trumpcare.

Yeah, I know. And far be it from me to absolve Trump of any wrongdoing, but the people who wind up in hell for this particular piece of legislation will be Paul Ryan and the so-called "Freedom" caucus.

I'm sure there will be plenty of other things to saddle Trump with by the time he's out of office. I joked on FB and Twitter that Richard Nixon is looking down from the sky (or up, as the case may be) and thinking, "Geez, it took me five and a half years to accomplish what he's done in just over 100 days." Of course, Trump hasn't yet further enmired us in a terrible ill-conceived war, but he has plenty of time.


Anyway, Jeff, I came immediately here because I Can Not. Wait. to get your reaction to Adam Gopnik's piece in the latest issue -- for the moment, I can't find it, so don't know the date, but it's the one with Roz Chast's colorful and kind of amazing illustration of what looks like a knit/needlepointed computer motherboard. The title is "We could all be Canada." I only got about halfway through before falling asleep and it was starting to get quite complicated in outlining the motivations of the various factions at the time. But the overall concept kind of shook my own long-unquestioned assumptions. If I can describe it properly considering how late at night I started reading it, it's that the Founders were not exactly the wise heroic freedom fighters we think of them but actually kind of self-interested not-so-nice slaveholders (well, we knew the slaveholders part but we've always sort of downplayed that as a minor flaw that's far overshadowed by their foresighted document that, decades on decades later, led to emancipation and equal rights), that we've all been fed 200+ years of American propaganda, and that had things gone differently we'd be a nice peaceful modest rational country with a good healthcare system like Canada and slavery would have ended sooner and without a bloody internecine war.

Canada is, of course, more culturally boring and less creatively innovative than the U.S., so there's that. I don't know if that's a consequence of any of this or just coincidence or if Gopnik, who is part Canadian, gets into that eventually.

I can think of other possible counterarguments, but I'll have to read the whole piece first.

[serious crayons]

Oh. Duh. It was sitting amid the papers right next to my computer, where I'd brought it so I could address this topic here. Anyway, May 15.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Yeah, I know. And far be it from me to absolve Trump of any wrongdoing, but the people who wind up in hell for this particular piece of legislation will be Paul Ryan and the so-called "Freedom" caucus.

We can only hope. ...

[Jeff Wrangler]

Oh. Duh. It was sitting amid the papers right next to my computer, where I'd brought it so I could address this topic here. Anyway, May 15.

You mean May 15 is the issue with the Gopnik piece? I don't think my copy has arrived yet. I have May 1 with me here at work, and I guess it must be May 8 lying on my dining room table. ...

Possibly Gopnik says nothing I don't already know about the Founding Fathers (rich white guys all), but I'll have to see.

Did you read Ariel Levy on the author who wrote Olive Kitteridge? I thought it was kind of dull for Ariel Levy.

[Jeff Wrangler]

You mean May 15 is the issue with the Gopnik piece?

Issue arrived in Thursday's mail. I will probably jump ahead and read the Gopnik.

[serious crayons]

We all know the Founders were rich white guys whose concepts in the Constitution didn't extend much beyond rich white guys. We're able to overlook that (and even their human-being possession) because of their ideas' long-term value in applying those concepts to a much broader demographic. If there's anything Americans of almost every political bent agree on it's that the Founders were wise and heroic (if flawed products of their time).

But this article is more complicated than that.

I'm still in the middle of it, but looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[Jeff Wrangler]

We all know the Founders were rich white guys whose concepts in the Constitution didn't extend much beyond rich white guys. We're able to overlook that (and even their human-being possession) because of their ideas' long-term value in applying those concepts to a much broader demographic. If there's anything Americans of almost every political bent agree on it's that the Founders were wise and heroic (if flawed products of their time).

But this article is more complicated than that.

I'm still in the middle of it, but looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Reading the Gopnick now, and may have to read it more than once. At this point I can only say that I was really annoyed by a rather flippant comment he makes about Loyalists, calling them Authoritarian Reformers who were on the losing side, or something close to that (I don't have the issue with me here at work).

Well, no. Most of the Loyalists in the Colonies were nothing like that. They were ordinary folk, farmers and tradesmen and such, who believed in their allegiance to Britain, and they suffered for it. In some places, such as the back country of the Carolinas, it got really nasty. The Revolution presented an opportunity for local conflicts to be played out, too (e.g., if you thought your neighbor was a Tory, and you owed him money, here was your chance to get him and get out of paying your just debt). These people lost their lands, their businesses, and their homes. Many of them had to flee to and settle in Nova Scotia and what is now part of Ontario.

So far I don't see Gopnick or his authors mentioning the benefit that Canada received from this influx of settlers from the new United States.