–by Sebastian
Leaders who fan the flames of xenophobia so that their followers lash out are evil. Leaders who structure their systems such that a large portion of the population are on the edge of lashing out are fools. Trump and his ilk are bad people. But we are fools for letting it come to the point where there are enough people who feel pushed to lash out that the xenophobes can take advantage of the situation.
There is quite a bit of commentary that tries to either dismiss or attack the Leave vote on Brexit as largely deriving from xenophobia and racism. The problem isn't that such commentary is strictly wrong, but that it is misguided. Every country in the world has xenophobia. Every county in the world has racism. It is well established that older people voted for Leave much more than younger people. But this causes an analytical problem for those who want to protect their worldview with a dismissive 'racism' analysis. Those same people 10 and 20 years ago got along much better with the idea of the EU. So either a huge percentage of the population mysteriously got more racist, a huge percentage of the population let their racism become more important than other concerns, or racism isn't the key factor we outght to be analyzing.
I believe that some people are hard core racists in the sense of never wanting to give outsiders a break. That isn't 40-50% of the UK population. Something else is going on.
Politics has a large tribal component. You give people on 'your side' a lot more leeway, and are suspicious of people not on 'your side'. This is a well known psychological component of human beings. So much so that when studying it, you often don't have to prep people any more than randomly assigning them to a team and then telling about their assignment to the team. So the diagnosis of "people are xenophobic" or the stronger "those people are racist" isn't useful in this context because they aren't the incorrigible racists who won't ever give an outsider a break. Until very recently they were going along with the European project of the EU. A bit reluctantly from time to time, but going along. Something changed in the last few years.
The numbers of immigrants went up significantly, but to levels that would seem like a blip to a place like California. The problem is that a significant number of people went from thinking that the EU represented their tribe to believing that it didn't. I would trace that to the EU reaction to the global financial crisis. In broad terms, the EU reacted by saving the banks and abandoning the general population. That was followed by Merckel's reaction to the later Greek crisis. Again the banks were bailed out, and the populace forced to accept a heavily deflationary economic environment. The general voter received the message that the rich would be watched out for, and if they were poor they would not only have to fend for themselves but might have the EU side with the rich against them. This meant that if you felt you were at risk of being poor, you were no longer just fighting for economic success, but were at risk of losing the protective status of being in your tribe. That mindset is ripe for xenophobia to come to the fore.
So noticing that there was a strong xenophobic component to the Leave campaign is true, but not helpful unless you analyze why all these people who were doing relatively fine with the EU before, suddenly 'became' racist.
The next type of analysis which is likely to lead us astray is getting too bogged down in policy details. Policy details are for in-tribe discussions. When you start to believe that a powerful group is against you, you either despair or lash out. I would suggest that there was despair for the last few years, and lashing out now. Lashing out isn't conducive to policy analysis. Lashing out means attacking people who aren't of your tribe, and clinging to those you perceive to be of your tribe even if they are unsavory. This is a situation that political opportunists love, because if they signal that they are part of the tribe they are trying to appeal to, they can get away with almost anything else. They stoke the lashing out because they know that it means they won't ever have to be accountable. It is a very effective political technique when a large portion of the population is open to it, which is why it a large part of the work of a civilized society to make sure that most people feel enough a part of the big tribe that they won't react in that way.
We have failed to avoid that situation. The Donald Trumps of the world are evil for manipulating those who feel abandoned by the tribe, but our leaders need to realize their fault for abandoning too many people. The consensus Western approach is failing too many people, and that is why we are here.
I think this is correct. I just read a blog post on precisely this question which said the same thing and citing polls but since it was by someone who tends to set people off, I won’t cite it. But that’s part of the problem– as best I can tell every part of the political spectrum is getting more and more tribal in its attitudes.
I think this is correct. I just read a blog post on precisely this question which said the same thing and citing polls but since it was by someone who tends to set people off, I won’t cite it. But that’s part of the problem– as best I can tell every part of the political spectrum is getting more and more tribal in its attitudes.
I think this is correct. I just read a blog post on precisely this question which said the same thing and citing polls but since it was by someone who tends to set people off, I won’t cite it. But that’s part of the problem– as best I can tell every part of the political spectrum is getting more and more tribal in its attitudes.
I read the same post you speak of, and yes, I bit back the urge to cite it as well. This is a crisis of confidence as much as anything, and easy tribally comfortable explanations really aren’t going to do anything to reassure anyone outside of the speakers’ particular tribe. Although frankly, it’s not a misplaced crisis of confidence; the lose of faith was, as Sebastion states, the blithe handiwork our esteemed leaders, and not of insidious outsiders twisting and distorting facts.
I read the same post you speak of, and yes, I bit back the urge to cite it as well. This is a crisis of confidence as much as anything, and easy tribally comfortable explanations really aren’t going to do anything to reassure anyone outside of the speakers’ particular tribe. Although frankly, it’s not a misplaced crisis of confidence; the lose of faith was, as Sebastion states, the blithe handiwork our esteemed leaders, and not of insidious outsiders twisting and distorting facts.
I read the same post you speak of, and yes, I bit back the urge to cite it as well. This is a crisis of confidence as much as anything, and easy tribally comfortable explanations really aren’t going to do anything to reassure anyone outside of the speakers’ particular tribe. Although frankly, it’s not a misplaced crisis of confidence; the lose of faith was, as Sebastion states, the blithe handiwork our esteemed leaders, and not of insidious outsiders twisting and distorting facts.
A fine post, Sebastian. There were, of course, racists among those who voted out, but I think a considerably larger component of the xenophobic reaction was about cultural identity rather than race.
Perhaps more importantly for the future, a significant proportion of the leave vote did not depend upon tribalism, which would suggest that there might be a decent majority of the electorate amenable to a settlement along these lines:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/26/parliament-must-decide-what-brexit-means-in-the-interests-of-the/
Pandora’s box has been opened; there remains some hope for a way beyond the bitterness of the campaign.
A fine post, Sebastian. There were, of course, racists among those who voted out, but I think a considerably larger component of the xenophobic reaction was about cultural identity rather than race.
Perhaps more importantly for the future, a significant proportion of the leave vote did not depend upon tribalism, which would suggest that there might be a decent majority of the electorate amenable to a settlement along these lines:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/26/parliament-must-decide-what-brexit-means-in-the-interests-of-the/
Pandora’s box has been opened; there remains some hope for a way beyond the bitterness of the campaign.
A fine post, Sebastian. There were, of course, racists among those who voted out, but I think a considerably larger component of the xenophobic reaction was about cultural identity rather than race.
Perhaps more importantly for the future, a significant proportion of the leave vote did not depend upon tribalism, which would suggest that there might be a decent majority of the electorate amenable to a settlement along these lines:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/26/parliament-must-decide-what-brexit-means-in-the-interests-of-the/
Pandora’s box has been opened; there remains some hope for a way beyond the bitterness of the campaign.
I’m not sure which post you all read, but immediately after writing this post I saw a post on crooked timber here that fleshes out some of points.
I’m not sure which post you all read, but immediately after writing this post I saw a post on crooked timber here that fleshes out some of points.
I’m not sure which post you all read, but immediately after writing this post I saw a post on crooked timber here that fleshes out some of points.
I disagree with him on one major point. The Remain/EU side has a huge dash of tribalism which can be seen in a number of the peculiar ways in which those normally on the left defend the EU for things that they normally wouldn’t (especially London’s financial sector woes under Brexit). More indirectly there is a cosmopolitan/rube dichotomy which plays into tribalist impulses just fine for the Remain side. (It lets us write them off as less worthy of paying attention to and in at least two threads I read it turned into an overt suggestion that they might be too stupid to be allowed to vote, echoes of Republicanism on the left).
I disagree with him on one major point. The Remain/EU side has a huge dash of tribalism which can be seen in a number of the peculiar ways in which those normally on the left defend the EU for things that they normally wouldn’t (especially London’s financial sector woes under Brexit). More indirectly there is a cosmopolitan/rube dichotomy which plays into tribalist impulses just fine for the Remain side. (It lets us write them off as less worthy of paying attention to and in at least two threads I read it turned into an overt suggestion that they might be too stupid to be allowed to vote, echoes of Republicanism on the left).
I disagree with him on one major point. The Remain/EU side has a huge dash of tribalism which can be seen in a number of the peculiar ways in which those normally on the left defend the EU for things that they normally wouldn’t (especially London’s financial sector woes under Brexit). More indirectly there is a cosmopolitan/rube dichotomy which plays into tribalist impulses just fine for the Remain side. (It lets us write them off as less worthy of paying attention to and in at least two threads I read it turned into an overt suggestion that they might be too stupid to be allowed to vote, echoes of Republicanism on the left).
I agree with much of what you say, Sebastian, but you neglect one aspect. For years the tabloid press in the UK has harped endlessly on about the terrible immigrants, and blamed immigration for any and every problem “normal” people have (lack of school places, pressure on the NHS etc), part of the implication being of course (correctly) that the rich, liberal elite are protected from these problems. Simultaneously, and also for years, they have printed a never ending stream of invented stories (Brussels mandates straight bananas! Brussels bans barmaids’ cleavages!) We may not have Fox News, but our tabloid press is famously poisonous, and remember it is an older, more newspaper reading demographic we are talking about. So of course an enormous pool of hurting, working-class voters have been heavily encouraged to blame the EU, and specifically immigration, for their ills, and to regard the EU as a meddling source of nothing good. This, coupled with a growing anti-fact, anti-expert, anti science climate (the MMR causes autism, climate change is a myth, antibiotics cure colds) means that listening to anyone who actually knows anything fact-based is now considered totally unnecessary, in fact foolish (the tabloids again: “so-called experts”, Michael Gove “I think people have had enough of experts”). This is not only tribalism, it is a perfect storm of poverty, ignorance and malign manipulation.
I agree with much of what you say, Sebastian, but you neglect one aspect. For years the tabloid press in the UK has harped endlessly on about the terrible immigrants, and blamed immigration for any and every problem “normal” people have (lack of school places, pressure on the NHS etc), part of the implication being of course (correctly) that the rich, liberal elite are protected from these problems. Simultaneously, and also for years, they have printed a never ending stream of invented stories (Brussels mandates straight bananas! Brussels bans barmaids’ cleavages!) We may not have Fox News, but our tabloid press is famously poisonous, and remember it is an older, more newspaper reading demographic we are talking about. So of course an enormous pool of hurting, working-class voters have been heavily encouraged to blame the EU, and specifically immigration, for their ills, and to regard the EU as a meddling source of nothing good. This, coupled with a growing anti-fact, anti-expert, anti science climate (the MMR causes autism, climate change is a myth, antibiotics cure colds) means that listening to anyone who actually knows anything fact-based is now considered totally unnecessary, in fact foolish (the tabloids again: “so-called experts”, Michael Gove “I think people have had enough of experts”). This is not only tribalism, it is a perfect storm of poverty, ignorance and malign manipulation.
I agree with much of what you say, Sebastian, but you neglect one aspect. For years the tabloid press in the UK has harped endlessly on about the terrible immigrants, and blamed immigration for any and every problem “normal” people have (lack of school places, pressure on the NHS etc), part of the implication being of course (correctly) that the rich, liberal elite are protected from these problems. Simultaneously, and also for years, they have printed a never ending stream of invented stories (Brussels mandates straight bananas! Brussels bans barmaids’ cleavages!) We may not have Fox News, but our tabloid press is famously poisonous, and remember it is an older, more newspaper reading demographic we are talking about. So of course an enormous pool of hurting, working-class voters have been heavily encouraged to blame the EU, and specifically immigration, for their ills, and to regard the EU as a meddling source of nothing good. This, coupled with a growing anti-fact, anti-expert, anti science climate (the MMR causes autism, climate change is a myth, antibiotics cure colds) means that listening to anyone who actually knows anything fact-based is now considered totally unnecessary, in fact foolish (the tabloids again: “so-called experts”, Michael Gove “I think people have had enough of experts”). This is not only tribalism, it is a perfect storm of poverty, ignorance and malign manipulation.
I know that tribalism is your touchstone (a not particularly satisfactory choice of wording, but other choices made it sound even more dismissive and I don’t want to be), but I feel tribalism arises when resources are scarce (or are made to seem scarce) and groups feel they are compelled to share what they felt was already theirs or feel compelled to demand a fair portion. In that sense is a symptom rather than a cause, but it is a symptom that can be fanned into a fire that makes it look that everything is burning because of it.
I know that tribalism is your touchstone (a not particularly satisfactory choice of wording, but other choices made it sound even more dismissive and I don’t want to be), but I feel tribalism arises when resources are scarce (or are made to seem scarce) and groups feel they are compelled to share what they felt was already theirs or feel compelled to demand a fair portion. In that sense is a symptom rather than a cause, but it is a symptom that can be fanned into a fire that makes it look that everything is burning because of it.
I know that tribalism is your touchstone (a not particularly satisfactory choice of wording, but other choices made it sound even more dismissive and I don’t want to be), but I feel tribalism arises when resources are scarce (or are made to seem scarce) and groups feel they are compelled to share what they felt was already theirs or feel compelled to demand a fair portion. In that sense is a symptom rather than a cause, but it is a symptom that can be fanned into a fire that makes it look that everything is burning because of it.
I think it has not been that long ago that High Finance (i.e. Wall Street outside the US context) was in favor of a Brexit because Brussels threatened higher regulation or even, horror of horros, a transaction tax. The big money guys believed that in that case money and business would flow to London where those would not apply. London would become Europe’s exclsuive offshore casino.
Doesn’t look that way now.
The Murdoch is (correct me, if I am wrong) still strong in the (paper) news business in Britain and his standard recipe everywhere he goes has been “play the hyperpatriot and spread hatred against people abroad”. In Britain that meant constantly comparing current Germany to the 3rd Reich (no Kohl or Merkel without the moustache and no accompanying headline without garbled Nazi German). When he tried to get a foothold in Germany (he failed miserably btw*) it was the same against Britain (and other neighbours). Where would the Murdoch be without the page 3 girls and xenophobia?
*the niche was already taken. No one beats BILD.
I think it has not been that long ago that High Finance (i.e. Wall Street outside the US context) was in favor of a Brexit because Brussels threatened higher regulation or even, horror of horros, a transaction tax. The big money guys believed that in that case money and business would flow to London where those would not apply. London would become Europe’s exclsuive offshore casino.
Doesn’t look that way now.
The Murdoch is (correct me, if I am wrong) still strong in the (paper) news business in Britain and his standard recipe everywhere he goes has been “play the hyperpatriot and spread hatred against people abroad”. In Britain that meant constantly comparing current Germany to the 3rd Reich (no Kohl or Merkel without the moustache and no accompanying headline without garbled Nazi German). When he tried to get a foothold in Germany (he failed miserably btw*) it was the same against Britain (and other neighbours). Where would the Murdoch be without the page 3 girls and xenophobia?
*the niche was already taken. No one beats BILD.
I think it has not been that long ago that High Finance (i.e. Wall Street outside the US context) was in favor of a Brexit because Brussels threatened higher regulation or even, horror of horros, a transaction tax. The big money guys believed that in that case money and business would flow to London where those would not apply. London would become Europe’s exclsuive offshore casino.
Doesn’t look that way now.
The Murdoch is (correct me, if I am wrong) still strong in the (paper) news business in Britain and his standard recipe everywhere he goes has been “play the hyperpatriot and spread hatred against people abroad”. In Britain that meant constantly comparing current Germany to the 3rd Reich (no Kohl or Merkel without the moustache and no accompanying headline without garbled Nazi German). When he tried to get a foothold in Germany (he failed miserably btw*) it was the same against Britain (and other neighbours). Where would the Murdoch be without the page 3 girls and xenophobia?
*the niche was already taken. No one beats BILD.
You’re not wrong, Hartmut, but he’s not the only one. The three top-circulation newspapers in the UK are all tabloids, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, of which only the Sun is Murdoch-owned, and all backed the Leave campaign.
You’re not wrong, Hartmut, but he’s not the only one. The three top-circulation newspapers in the UK are all tabloids, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, of which only the Sun is Murdoch-owned, and all backed the Leave campaign.
You’re not wrong, Hartmut, but he’s not the only one. The three top-circulation newspapers in the UK are all tabloids, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, of which only the Sun is Murdoch-owned, and all backed the Leave campaign.
The general voter received the message that the rich would be watched out for, and if they were poor they would not only have to fend for themselves but might have the EU side with the rich against them. This meant that if you felt you were at risk of being poor, you were no longer just fighting for economic success, but were at risk of losing the protective status of being in your tribe. That mindset is ripe for xenophobia to come to the fore.
Well said. In the US context, the tension between Republican’s safety net demagoguery and their base’s increasing financial insecurity and reliance on it is only resolveable through appeals to tribalism and racism. The Democrats have merely failed to offer any positive program at all and are rewarded with an apathetic base and discredited establishment.
The general voter received the message that the rich would be watched out for, and if they were poor they would not only have to fend for themselves but might have the EU side with the rich against them. This meant that if you felt you were at risk of being poor, you were no longer just fighting for economic success, but were at risk of losing the protective status of being in your tribe. That mindset is ripe for xenophobia to come to the fore.
Well said. In the US context, the tension between Republican’s safety net demagoguery and their base’s increasing financial insecurity and reliance on it is only resolveable through appeals to tribalism and racism. The Democrats have merely failed to offer any positive program at all and are rewarded with an apathetic base and discredited establishment.
The general voter received the message that the rich would be watched out for, and if they were poor they would not only have to fend for themselves but might have the EU side with the rich against them. This meant that if you felt you were at risk of being poor, you were no longer just fighting for economic success, but were at risk of losing the protective status of being in your tribe. That mindset is ripe for xenophobia to come to the fore.
Well said. In the US context, the tension between Republican’s safety net demagoguery and their base’s increasing financial insecurity and reliance on it is only resolveable through appeals to tribalism and racism. The Democrats have merely failed to offer any positive program at all and are rewarded with an apathetic base and discredited establishment.
Excellent post and commentary, and it’s great having thoughtful Sebastian back in the OBWI tribe …. I mean, fold.
I think we have a toxic brew of all of the above … legitimate grievance, xenophobia, racism, abandonment (more on this in a second) and the evil (yes, thank you Seb for using that word) of the Murdoch/Trump/Gingrich/European neofascist resurgence who stir the cauldron.
I’d like to see the term “the abandoned” unpacked a bit. This implies a group, a tribe, of people previous ascendant giving up ground to another tribe.
My sense is that instead we have had, especially here in America, but I imagine in England/Europe as well, an attempt socially and economically — think health insurance — to be inclusive of all those who were abandoned from the get-go. Those who were assumed to be top shelf haven’t liked it; they haven’t really lost anything except society’s exclusive preference — THOSE people over there are now getting what we’ve always had and who do they think they are (roll the footage from the past eight years)?
Hitler’s brownshirts felt abandoned too. ISIS recruits the abandoned. Rush Limbaugh manages to feel abandoned and live the high life in Palm Beach next to rising ocean levels at the same time.
Excellent point regarding the lack of censure of the finance leviathan, but austerity for everyone else.
I find it remarkable too that those who have rushed to swamp the lifeboats on the starboard side …
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=starboard+side&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FCougar_Ace_on_side_%28starboard_side%29.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FCougar_Ace_on_side_%28starboard_side%29.jpg&action=click
… may in fact be embracing the very evil ones who plan to abandon them further by gutting the social safety net, see West Virginia’s Gubernatorial politics last time around.
Regarding Sebastian’s reference to previous threads here where it was suggested that the other tribe shouldn’t be permitted to vote, for my part, they may continue to vote, but in that case I want cats to have the franchise too.
Dead cats too, at least in Chicago.
Were that to happen, the same Murdoch/Trump/Gingrich Republican Party tribe would be handing out gunny sacks to drown kittens.
If we look back to Weyrich and company’s planning stages for tribal warfare 40 years ago, I think it damnably apparent who donned the warpaint first.
You act Comanche, at some point the Texas Rangers are going to figure out a way to be Comanche in return.
This:
“The Democrats have merely failed to offer any positive program at all and are rewarded with an apathetic base and discredited establishment.”
Yup. Cowards.
I think if they applied some warpaint, it would stiffen their resolve.
Excellent post and commentary, and it’s great having thoughtful Sebastian back in the OBWI tribe …. I mean, fold.
I think we have a toxic brew of all of the above … legitimate grievance, xenophobia, racism, abandonment (more on this in a second) and the evil (yes, thank you Seb for using that word) of the Murdoch/Trump/Gingrich/European neofascist resurgence who stir the cauldron.
I’d like to see the term “the abandoned” unpacked a bit. This implies a group, a tribe, of people previous ascendant giving up ground to another tribe.
My sense is that instead we have had, especially here in America, but I imagine in England/Europe as well, an attempt socially and economically — think health insurance — to be inclusive of all those who were abandoned from the get-go. Those who were assumed to be top shelf haven’t liked it; they haven’t really lost anything except society’s exclusive preference — THOSE people over there are now getting what we’ve always had and who do they think they are (roll the footage from the past eight years)?
Hitler’s brownshirts felt abandoned too. ISIS recruits the abandoned. Rush Limbaugh manages to feel abandoned and live the high life in Palm Beach next to rising ocean levels at the same time.
Excellent point regarding the lack of censure of the finance leviathan, but austerity for everyone else.
I find it remarkable too that those who have rushed to swamp the lifeboats on the starboard side …
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=starboard+side&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FCougar_Ace_on_side_%28starboard_side%29.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FCougar_Ace_on_side_%28starboard_side%29.jpg&action=click
… may in fact be embracing the very evil ones who plan to abandon them further by gutting the social safety net, see West Virginia’s Gubernatorial politics last time around.
Regarding Sebastian’s reference to previous threads here where it was suggested that the other tribe shouldn’t be permitted to vote, for my part, they may continue to vote, but in that case I want cats to have the franchise too.
Dead cats too, at least in Chicago.
Were that to happen, the same Murdoch/Trump/Gingrich Republican Party tribe would be handing out gunny sacks to drown kittens.
If we look back to Weyrich and company’s planning stages for tribal warfare 40 years ago, I think it damnably apparent who donned the warpaint first.
You act Comanche, at some point the Texas Rangers are going to figure out a way to be Comanche in return.
This:
“The Democrats have merely failed to offer any positive program at all and are rewarded with an apathetic base and discredited establishment.”
Yup. Cowards.
I think if they applied some warpaint, it would stiffen their resolve.
Excellent post and commentary, and it’s great having thoughtful Sebastian back in the OBWI tribe …. I mean, fold.
I think we have a toxic brew of all of the above … legitimate grievance, xenophobia, racism, abandonment (more on this in a second) and the evil (yes, thank you Seb for using that word) of the Murdoch/Trump/Gingrich/European neofascist resurgence who stir the cauldron.
I’d like to see the term “the abandoned” unpacked a bit. This implies a group, a tribe, of people previous ascendant giving up ground to another tribe.
My sense is that instead we have had, especially here in America, but I imagine in England/Europe as well, an attempt socially and economically — think health insurance — to be inclusive of all those who were abandoned from the get-go. Those who were assumed to be top shelf haven’t liked it; they haven’t really lost anything except society’s exclusive preference — THOSE people over there are now getting what we’ve always had and who do they think they are (roll the footage from the past eight years)?
Hitler’s brownshirts felt abandoned too. ISIS recruits the abandoned. Rush Limbaugh manages to feel abandoned and live the high life in Palm Beach next to rising ocean levels at the same time.
Excellent point regarding the lack of censure of the finance leviathan, but austerity for everyone else.
I find it remarkable too that those who have rushed to swamp the lifeboats on the starboard side …
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=starboard+side&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FCougar_Ace_on_side_%28starboard_side%29.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FCougar_Ace_on_side_%28starboard_side%29.jpg&action=click
… may in fact be embracing the very evil ones who plan to abandon them further by gutting the social safety net, see West Virginia’s Gubernatorial politics last time around.
Regarding Sebastian’s reference to previous threads here where it was suggested that the other tribe shouldn’t be permitted to vote, for my part, they may continue to vote, but in that case I want cats to have the franchise too.
Dead cats too, at least in Chicago.
Were that to happen, the same Murdoch/Trump/Gingrich Republican Party tribe would be handing out gunny sacks to drown kittens.
If we look back to Weyrich and company’s planning stages for tribal warfare 40 years ago, I think it damnably apparent who donned the warpaint first.
You act Comanche, at some point the Texas Rangers are going to figure out a way to be Comanche in return.
This:
“The Democrats have merely failed to offer any positive program at all and are rewarded with an apathetic base and discredited establishment.”
Yup. Cowards.
I think if they applied some warpaint, it would stiffen their resolve.
“but I feel tribalism arises when resources are scarce (or are made to seem scarce) and groups feel they are compelled to share what they felt was already theirs or feel compelled to demand a fair portion.”
You’re absolutely right. Part of the reason why ‘xenophobia’ is such a useless dismissal at this point is because xenophobia is always present in large communities, the question isn’t whether or not it is present, but rather when and why does it come to the fore.
The frame the past 30 or so years around global trade has been that ‘we’ have to be willing to deal with some adjustment in order to have things go more smoothly in the long run. Sharing the sacrifices is an appeal to tribalism. We don’t expect most human beings to sacrifice very much for people they see as well outside their tribe.
But the problem is that an increasing large portion of people suspects that much of the financial sector really divides it into ‘you all’ need to accept the pain of the transition while ‘we’ reap the profits of it and ‘we’ will use those profits to bid up the housing so ‘you all’ need to find other neighborhoods.
Another theme I return to often is the spending of social capital. The financial world has been drawing on deep reserves of tribal capital in their constant invocation of the idea that their countries should engage in short term sacrifice for long term reward. The problem is that if you ask the community to sacrifice you have to understand that the community expects to share in the reward.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries. But they aren’t very happy when any large portion of those masses finally agree with them and suggest that they can’t draw on the mutual social capital without paying back into it from time to time.
“but I feel tribalism arises when resources are scarce (or are made to seem scarce) and groups feel they are compelled to share what they felt was already theirs or feel compelled to demand a fair portion.”
You’re absolutely right. Part of the reason why ‘xenophobia’ is such a useless dismissal at this point is because xenophobia is always present in large communities, the question isn’t whether or not it is present, but rather when and why does it come to the fore.
The frame the past 30 or so years around global trade has been that ‘we’ have to be willing to deal with some adjustment in order to have things go more smoothly in the long run. Sharing the sacrifices is an appeal to tribalism. We don’t expect most human beings to sacrifice very much for people they see as well outside their tribe.
But the problem is that an increasing large portion of people suspects that much of the financial sector really divides it into ‘you all’ need to accept the pain of the transition while ‘we’ reap the profits of it and ‘we’ will use those profits to bid up the housing so ‘you all’ need to find other neighborhoods.
Another theme I return to often is the spending of social capital. The financial world has been drawing on deep reserves of tribal capital in their constant invocation of the idea that their countries should engage in short term sacrifice for long term reward. The problem is that if you ask the community to sacrifice you have to understand that the community expects to share in the reward.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries. But they aren’t very happy when any large portion of those masses finally agree with them and suggest that they can’t draw on the mutual social capital without paying back into it from time to time.
“but I feel tribalism arises when resources are scarce (or are made to seem scarce) and groups feel they are compelled to share what they felt was already theirs or feel compelled to demand a fair portion.”
You’re absolutely right. Part of the reason why ‘xenophobia’ is such a useless dismissal at this point is because xenophobia is always present in large communities, the question isn’t whether or not it is present, but rather when and why does it come to the fore.
The frame the past 30 or so years around global trade has been that ‘we’ have to be willing to deal with some adjustment in order to have things go more smoothly in the long run. Sharing the sacrifices is an appeal to tribalism. We don’t expect most human beings to sacrifice very much for people they see as well outside their tribe.
But the problem is that an increasing large portion of people suspects that much of the financial sector really divides it into ‘you all’ need to accept the pain of the transition while ‘we’ reap the profits of it and ‘we’ will use those profits to bid up the housing so ‘you all’ need to find other neighborhoods.
Another theme I return to often is the spending of social capital. The financial world has been drawing on deep reserves of tribal capital in their constant invocation of the idea that their countries should engage in short term sacrifice for long term reward. The problem is that if you ask the community to sacrifice you have to understand that the community expects to share in the reward.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries. But they aren’t very happy when any large portion of those masses finally agree with them and suggest that they can’t draw on the mutual social capital without paying back into it from time to time.
Precisely, Sebastian.
Speaking of markets, here’s some commentary by a guy I read, who was exactly wrong about which way the Brexit vote would go and the plunge in the markets:
http://www.raymondjames.com/inv_strat.htm
He suffers too from the financial elite’s incentivized choice (in that if he wrote negative commentary for any length of time, he’s be fired) to be positive and optimistic at all times, which is a pet peeve.
Precisely, Sebastian.
Speaking of markets, here’s some commentary by a guy I read, who was exactly wrong about which way the Brexit vote would go and the plunge in the markets:
http://www.raymondjames.com/inv_strat.htm
He suffers too from the financial elite’s incentivized choice (in that if he wrote negative commentary for any length of time, he’s be fired) to be positive and optimistic at all times, which is a pet peeve.
Precisely, Sebastian.
Speaking of markets, here’s some commentary by a guy I read, who was exactly wrong about which way the Brexit vote would go and the plunge in the markets:
http://www.raymondjames.com/inv_strat.htm
He suffers too from the financial elite’s incentivized choice (in that if he wrote negative commentary for any length of time, he’s be fired) to be positive and optimistic at all times, which is a pet peeve.
Although I suppose gay rights could be considered the pro-social leftist appeal to tribalism.
Although I suppose gay rights could be considered the pro-social leftist appeal to tribalism.
Although I suppose gay rights could be considered the pro-social leftist appeal to tribalism.
Those who were assumed to be top shelf haven’t liked it; they haven’t really lost anything except society’s exclusive preference
This is rather like the distinction that I have seen made in discussions about the “shrinking/hollowing out of the middle class.” There, it isn’t that people are worse off financially and materially in any absolute sense. It is that their relative wealth is preceived to be slipping.
Similarly, if you have had it good, and now others (who previously hadn’t) are getting the same kind of treatment. You aren’t any less favored absolutely. But your relative preverence is disappearing. For some, that is reason enough to get upset — the growing shortage of others that you can look down on.
Those who were assumed to be top shelf haven’t liked it; they haven’t really lost anything except society’s exclusive preference
This is rather like the distinction that I have seen made in discussions about the “shrinking/hollowing out of the middle class.” There, it isn’t that people are worse off financially and materially in any absolute sense. It is that their relative wealth is preceived to be slipping.
Similarly, if you have had it good, and now others (who previously hadn’t) are getting the same kind of treatment. You aren’t any less favored absolutely. But your relative preverence is disappearing. For some, that is reason enough to get upset — the growing shortage of others that you can look down on.
Those who were assumed to be top shelf haven’t liked it; they haven’t really lost anything except society’s exclusive preference
This is rather like the distinction that I have seen made in discussions about the “shrinking/hollowing out of the middle class.” There, it isn’t that people are worse off financially and materially in any absolute sense. It is that their relative wealth is preceived to be slipping.
Similarly, if you have had it good, and now others (who previously hadn’t) are getting the same kind of treatment. You aren’t any less favored absolutely. But your relative preverence is disappearing. For some, that is reason enough to get upset — the growing shortage of others that you can look down on.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries.
Not sure “intentionally” applies? Seems more like they have implemented an ideology and associated public policy that immiserates (to borrow a term)the vast majority.
Perhaps just saying the same thing using different words.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries.
Not sure “intentionally” applies? Seems more like they have implemented an ideology and associated public policy that immiserates (to borrow a term)the vast majority.
Perhaps just saying the same thing using different words.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries.
Not sure “intentionally” applies? Seems more like they have implemented an ideology and associated public policy that immiserates (to borrow a term)the vast majority.
Perhaps just saying the same thing using different words.
Wj, I think you’re on to something but I believe it works at both ends of the subjective view lens. The hollowing out of the middle class means that there are many more points in our system where there is no effective way forward/up which saps hope.
Wj, I think you’re on to something but I believe it works at both ends of the subjective view lens. The hollowing out of the middle class means that there are many more points in our system where there is no effective way forward/up which saps hope.
Wj, I think you’re on to something but I believe it works at both ends of the subjective view lens. The hollowing out of the middle class means that there are many more points in our system where there is no effective way forward/up which saps hope.
The wife and I went to a beer festival over the weekend with some old friends – a couple just old enough that they could be our youngish parents. The husband and I had a spirited political discussion on the way to the event (before any drinking, even!).
We are members of the same social tribe in the sense that we’re good long-time friends, but not members of the same political tribe. The demographics are that they are older, more rural and whiter (at least than I am – my wife’s unambiguously white).
We started off more or less agreeing about Trump, though he was convinced that the Trump campaign’s money issues were not really an issue at all. But that led to a discussion of his opponent, that thieving Hillary Clinton, who was going steal the rugs from the White House if she became president. (She might even start a foundation afterward, like Bill did. The nerve!)
After that, it was Obama’s turn. He’s ruining (RUINING!) the country. I asked “how?” You know, it was going down the tubes and falling apart, and it was a big ol’ mess. Specifics? His picks for Attorney General sucked, the economy isn’t growing fast enough, and Black Lives Matter. Obama has divided us and put everyone in categories, mainly racial ones. Obamacare sucks.
What about the housing crisis before he took office? He’s been in office for 8 years now. He should have fixed it. What about W having been in office for several years before it happened? That was the bankers’ fault, not W’s.
What about slavery, Jim Crow, George Wallace, the KKK, housing discrimination, etc.? Didn’t that all happen before Obama? Ancient history. It’s all worse now, because of HIM.
Obamacare does kind of suck, but what preceded it sucked, too, and possibly for far more people.
Granted, I’m not arguing that Obama’s some perfect golden god of a president. And I’m not super thrilled about Hillary (mainly because she’s too much like a Republican, though). I’m just trying to fathom the idea that the country is somehow now going down the tubes (if it wasn’t already doing so before Obama took office). I’m saying that Hillary Clinton isn’t a completely absurd candidate for the presidency, something I can’t say about Trump. (We never did establish who he was going to vote for, if anyone.)
None of this is about Brexit, of course, but it’s a similar dynamic. One side is convinced we’re headed of a sharp cliff and that anything is better than that. The other side is saying it’s not all that bad even if it’s not great, and the proposed alternative appears to be significantly worse. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be passionate about heading off disaster than it is to deal with existing imperfections and take measured steps to improve things.
It’s a conservatism-liberalism dynamic turned on its head. It’s revolution over evolution on the so-called conservative side, while it’s the so-called liberals who want largely to maintain the status quo while making incremental improvements (where possible – don’t be disruptive!).
The wife and I went to a beer festival over the weekend with some old friends – a couple just old enough that they could be our youngish parents. The husband and I had a spirited political discussion on the way to the event (before any drinking, even!).
We are members of the same social tribe in the sense that we’re good long-time friends, but not members of the same political tribe. The demographics are that they are older, more rural and whiter (at least than I am – my wife’s unambiguously white).
We started off more or less agreeing about Trump, though he was convinced that the Trump campaign’s money issues were not really an issue at all. But that led to a discussion of his opponent, that thieving Hillary Clinton, who was going steal the rugs from the White House if she became president. (She might even start a foundation afterward, like Bill did. The nerve!)
After that, it was Obama’s turn. He’s ruining (RUINING!) the country. I asked “how?” You know, it was going down the tubes and falling apart, and it was a big ol’ mess. Specifics? His picks for Attorney General sucked, the economy isn’t growing fast enough, and Black Lives Matter. Obama has divided us and put everyone in categories, mainly racial ones. Obamacare sucks.
What about the housing crisis before he took office? He’s been in office for 8 years now. He should have fixed it. What about W having been in office for several years before it happened? That was the bankers’ fault, not W’s.
What about slavery, Jim Crow, George Wallace, the KKK, housing discrimination, etc.? Didn’t that all happen before Obama? Ancient history. It’s all worse now, because of HIM.
Obamacare does kind of suck, but what preceded it sucked, too, and possibly for far more people.
Granted, I’m not arguing that Obama’s some perfect golden god of a president. And I’m not super thrilled about Hillary (mainly because she’s too much like a Republican, though). I’m just trying to fathom the idea that the country is somehow now going down the tubes (if it wasn’t already doing so before Obama took office). I’m saying that Hillary Clinton isn’t a completely absurd candidate for the presidency, something I can’t say about Trump. (We never did establish who he was going to vote for, if anyone.)
None of this is about Brexit, of course, but it’s a similar dynamic. One side is convinced we’re headed of a sharp cliff and that anything is better than that. The other side is saying it’s not all that bad even if it’s not great, and the proposed alternative appears to be significantly worse. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be passionate about heading off disaster than it is to deal with existing imperfections and take measured steps to improve things.
It’s a conservatism-liberalism dynamic turned on its head. It’s revolution over evolution on the so-called conservative side, while it’s the so-called liberals who want largely to maintain the status quo while making incremental improvements (where possible – don’t be disruptive!).
The wife and I went to a beer festival over the weekend with some old friends – a couple just old enough that they could be our youngish parents. The husband and I had a spirited political discussion on the way to the event (before any drinking, even!).
We are members of the same social tribe in the sense that we’re good long-time friends, but not members of the same political tribe. The demographics are that they are older, more rural and whiter (at least than I am – my wife’s unambiguously white).
We started off more or less agreeing about Trump, though he was convinced that the Trump campaign’s money issues were not really an issue at all. But that led to a discussion of his opponent, that thieving Hillary Clinton, who was going steal the rugs from the White House if she became president. (She might even start a foundation afterward, like Bill did. The nerve!)
After that, it was Obama’s turn. He’s ruining (RUINING!) the country. I asked “how?” You know, it was going down the tubes and falling apart, and it was a big ol’ mess. Specifics? His picks for Attorney General sucked, the economy isn’t growing fast enough, and Black Lives Matter. Obama has divided us and put everyone in categories, mainly racial ones. Obamacare sucks.
What about the housing crisis before he took office? He’s been in office for 8 years now. He should have fixed it. What about W having been in office for several years before it happened? That was the bankers’ fault, not W’s.
What about slavery, Jim Crow, George Wallace, the KKK, housing discrimination, etc.? Didn’t that all happen before Obama? Ancient history. It’s all worse now, because of HIM.
Obamacare does kind of suck, but what preceded it sucked, too, and possibly for far more people.
Granted, I’m not arguing that Obama’s some perfect golden god of a president. And I’m not super thrilled about Hillary (mainly because she’s too much like a Republican, though). I’m just trying to fathom the idea that the country is somehow now going down the tubes (if it wasn’t already doing so before Obama took office). I’m saying that Hillary Clinton isn’t a completely absurd candidate for the presidency, something I can’t say about Trump. (We never did establish who he was going to vote for, if anyone.)
None of this is about Brexit, of course, but it’s a similar dynamic. One side is convinced we’re headed of a sharp cliff and that anything is better than that. The other side is saying it’s not all that bad even if it’s not great, and the proposed alternative appears to be significantly worse. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be passionate about heading off disaster than it is to deal with existing imperfections and take measured steps to improve things.
It’s a conservatism-liberalism dynamic turned on its head. It’s revolution over evolution on the so-called conservative side, while it’s the so-called liberals who want largely to maintain the status quo while making incremental improvements (where possible – don’t be disruptive!).
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=bew+yorker+cover+of+england+silly+walking+python&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FCoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875×1200-1466799391.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FCoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875×1200-1466799391.jpg&action=click
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=bew+yorker+cover+of+england+silly+walking+python&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FCoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875×1200-1466799391.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FCoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875×1200-1466799391.jpg&action=click
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=bew+yorker+cover+of+england+silly+walking+python&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FCoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875×1200-1466799391.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FCoverStory-BarryBlitt-SillyWalkOffaCliff-875×1200-1466799391.jpg&action=click
I wasn’t thinking of that cover when I wrote that, but I had seen it at some point. Maybe there was some subliminal impetus there.
I wasn’t thinking of that cover when I wrote that, but I had seen it at some point. Maybe there was some subliminal impetus there.
I wasn’t thinking of that cover when I wrote that, but I had seen it at some point. Maybe there was some subliminal impetus there.
Here’s a different post from the one I (and probably NV) mysteriously alluded to above. I can’t say I know much about British politics, but it seems like a plausible analysis to me–
http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/
Here’s a different post from the one I (and probably NV) mysteriously alluded to above. I can’t say I know much about British politics, but it seems like a plausible analysis to me–
http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/
Here’s a different post from the one I (and probably NV) mysteriously alluded to above. I can’t say I know much about British politics, but it seems like a plausible analysis to me–
http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/
“None of this is about Brexit, of course, but it’s a similar dynamic. One side is convinced we’re headed of a sharp cliff and that anything is better than that. The other side is saying it’s not all that bad even if it’s not great, and the proposed alternative appears to be significantly worse. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be passionate about heading off disaster than it is to deal with existing imperfections and take measured steps to improve things.”
I just yesterday listened to a rant about how the country was being overrun by conservative Christians as evidenced by the fact of the wedding cake for gays case. I said: fifteen years ago I thought I would never be allowed to marry. If we were really being ‘overrun’ that would still be true.
“None of this is about Brexit, of course, but it’s a similar dynamic. One side is convinced we’re headed of a sharp cliff and that anything is better than that. The other side is saying it’s not all that bad even if it’s not great, and the proposed alternative appears to be significantly worse. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be passionate about heading off disaster than it is to deal with existing imperfections and take measured steps to improve things.”
I just yesterday listened to a rant about how the country was being overrun by conservative Christians as evidenced by the fact of the wedding cake for gays case. I said: fifteen years ago I thought I would never be allowed to marry. If we were really being ‘overrun’ that would still be true.
“None of this is about Brexit, of course, but it’s a similar dynamic. One side is convinced we’re headed of a sharp cliff and that anything is better than that. The other side is saying it’s not all that bad even if it’s not great, and the proposed alternative appears to be significantly worse. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be passionate about heading off disaster than it is to deal with existing imperfections and take measured steps to improve things.”
I just yesterday listened to a rant about how the country was being overrun by conservative Christians as evidenced by the fact of the wedding cake for gays case. I said: fifteen years ago I thought I would never be allowed to marry. If we were really being ‘overrun’ that would still be true.
Good post. The “racism” angle didn’t make sense to me. The concern appears to be Eastern Europeans and the inability to choose who comes into your country. Here in California, I love latin Americans (and I speak fluent Spanish), but I love Indians, Europeans, and Koreans too, so would it be considered racist to say the mix leans too heavily towards Latin Americans?
Xenophobic, maybe, but I’m not convinced it was racist. I’m not even convinced it is Xenophobic. It might be entirely self-interest for those workers “left behind” as Seb’s post suggests. Since when is self interest automatically xenophobic? The falling pound may put those in finance in a flutter, but those British goods just got a lot more affordable. Maybe those factory workers aren’t so dumb after all . . .
One other angle that isn’t getting much discussion here is the simple lack of responsiveness from those making the decisions. The EU has always seemed to me to represent the worst in bureaucracy (which was once defined to me as the process of turning energy into solid waste). We have our own problem in the US with the administrative state. Some in the “leave” camp appeared to me to see the trajectory of the EU and found it lacking and decided to leave before it got that much worse. And some seemed to channel our own Founding Fathers no less (unresponsive distant power, etc.) (but note: Brussels distant?). So a trading nation may soon be free to negotiate its own trade agreements with (heaven forbid) the Commonwealth. The horror!
I’m not an economist. I think this was bad for those banking (pun intended) on staying. That included a lot of multinational banks. But I’m not so sure it will be bad all around in the UK in the long run. A vote for responsive government is, IMHO, almost always a good thing.
Good post. The “racism” angle didn’t make sense to me. The concern appears to be Eastern Europeans and the inability to choose who comes into your country. Here in California, I love latin Americans (and I speak fluent Spanish), but I love Indians, Europeans, and Koreans too, so would it be considered racist to say the mix leans too heavily towards Latin Americans?
Xenophobic, maybe, but I’m not convinced it was racist. I’m not even convinced it is Xenophobic. It might be entirely self-interest for those workers “left behind” as Seb’s post suggests. Since when is self interest automatically xenophobic? The falling pound may put those in finance in a flutter, but those British goods just got a lot more affordable. Maybe those factory workers aren’t so dumb after all . . .
One other angle that isn’t getting much discussion here is the simple lack of responsiveness from those making the decisions. The EU has always seemed to me to represent the worst in bureaucracy (which was once defined to me as the process of turning energy into solid waste). We have our own problem in the US with the administrative state. Some in the “leave” camp appeared to me to see the trajectory of the EU and found it lacking and decided to leave before it got that much worse. And some seemed to channel our own Founding Fathers no less (unresponsive distant power, etc.) (but note: Brussels distant?). So a trading nation may soon be free to negotiate its own trade agreements with (heaven forbid) the Commonwealth. The horror!
I’m not an economist. I think this was bad for those banking (pun intended) on staying. That included a lot of multinational banks. But I’m not so sure it will be bad all around in the UK in the long run. A vote for responsive government is, IMHO, almost always a good thing.
Good post. The “racism” angle didn’t make sense to me. The concern appears to be Eastern Europeans and the inability to choose who comes into your country. Here in California, I love latin Americans (and I speak fluent Spanish), but I love Indians, Europeans, and Koreans too, so would it be considered racist to say the mix leans too heavily towards Latin Americans?
Xenophobic, maybe, but I’m not convinced it was racist. I’m not even convinced it is Xenophobic. It might be entirely self-interest for those workers “left behind” as Seb’s post suggests. Since when is self interest automatically xenophobic? The falling pound may put those in finance in a flutter, but those British goods just got a lot more affordable. Maybe those factory workers aren’t so dumb after all . . .
One other angle that isn’t getting much discussion here is the simple lack of responsiveness from those making the decisions. The EU has always seemed to me to represent the worst in bureaucracy (which was once defined to me as the process of turning energy into solid waste). We have our own problem in the US with the administrative state. Some in the “leave” camp appeared to me to see the trajectory of the EU and found it lacking and decided to leave before it got that much worse. And some seemed to channel our own Founding Fathers no less (unresponsive distant power, etc.) (but note: Brussels distant?). So a trading nation may soon be free to negotiate its own trade agreements with (heaven forbid) the Commonwealth. The horror!
I’m not an economist. I think this was bad for those banking (pun intended) on staying. That included a lot of multinational banks. But I’m not so sure it will be bad all around in the UK in the long run. A vote for responsive government is, IMHO, almost always a good thing.
Since when is self interest automatically xenophobic?
Obviously it isn’t. But when you are complaining about “foreigners” coming in and taking jobs, but you aren’t willing to do those jobs yourself (farm work leaps immediately to mind, but it isn’t the only example)? At that point, the “self interest” justification looks seriously threadbare.
Since when is self interest automatically xenophobic?
Obviously it isn’t. But when you are complaining about “foreigners” coming in and taking jobs, but you aren’t willing to do those jobs yourself (farm work leaps immediately to mind, but it isn’t the only example)? At that point, the “self interest” justification looks seriously threadbare.
Since when is self interest automatically xenophobic?
Obviously it isn’t. But when you are complaining about “foreigners” coming in and taking jobs, but you aren’t willing to do those jobs yourself (farm work leaps immediately to mind, but it isn’t the only example)? At that point, the “self interest” justification looks seriously threadbare.
Part of the shrinking/hollowing out of the middle class in the US is due to the increased size of the upper middle class.
Share of Each Class as a Percentage of US Population, 1979-2014
Is the middle class moving up?
Part of the shrinking/hollowing out of the middle class in the US is due to the increased size of the upper middle class.
Share of Each Class as a Percentage of US Population, 1979-2014
Is the middle class moving up?
Part of the shrinking/hollowing out of the middle class in the US is due to the increased size of the upper middle class.
Share of Each Class as a Percentage of US Population, 1979-2014
Is the middle class moving up?
” … so would it be considered racist to say the mix leans too heavily towards Latin Americans?”
I don’t know. What’s the right mix?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/
Make more of the Latin Americans American citizens through immigration reform.
It is only temporarily majority/plurality white in the fullness of time, just like it was only temporarily Spanish/Mexican for awhile.
It use to be the home of black Amazon women exclusively, according to legend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_California
Think how they felt when they were abandoned.
” … so would it be considered racist to say the mix leans too heavily towards Latin Americans?”
I don’t know. What’s the right mix?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/
Make more of the Latin Americans American citizens through immigration reform.
It is only temporarily majority/plurality white in the fullness of time, just like it was only temporarily Spanish/Mexican for awhile.
It use to be the home of black Amazon women exclusively, according to legend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_California
Think how they felt when they were abandoned.
” … so would it be considered racist to say the mix leans too heavily towards Latin Americans?”
I don’t know. What’s the right mix?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/
Make more of the Latin Americans American citizens through immigration reform.
It is only temporarily majority/plurality white in the fullness of time, just like it was only temporarily Spanish/Mexican for awhile.
It use to be the home of black Amazon women exclusively, according to legend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_California
Think how they felt when they were abandoned.
I think sometimes a statement about the Brexit referendum and the debate leading up it exposing a previously unappreciated racist/xenophobic faction in Britain gets interpreted as meaning that being pro-Brexit universally means being racist/xenophobic. The fact is, blatantly racist and xenophobic rhetoric was used (almost?) exclusively on the pro-Brexit side, and not just by people ranting in pubs. That isn’t entirely without meaning, even if it isn’t everything.
I think sometimes a statement about the Brexit referendum and the debate leading up it exposing a previously unappreciated racist/xenophobic faction in Britain gets interpreted as meaning that being pro-Brexit universally means being racist/xenophobic. The fact is, blatantly racist and xenophobic rhetoric was used (almost?) exclusively on the pro-Brexit side, and not just by people ranting in pubs. That isn’t entirely without meaning, even if it isn’t everything.
I think sometimes a statement about the Brexit referendum and the debate leading up it exposing a previously unappreciated racist/xenophobic faction in Britain gets interpreted as meaning that being pro-Brexit universally means being racist/xenophobic. The fact is, blatantly racist and xenophobic rhetoric was used (almost?) exclusively on the pro-Brexit side, and not just by people ranting in pubs. That isn’t entirely without meaning, even if it isn’t everything.
“Obviously it isn’t. But when you are complaining about “foreigners” coming in and taking jobs”
I see this objection quite a bit from people who are otherwise very unfriendly to the idea of ‘scabs’ coming in and accepting lower wages/different benefits. That is interesting because most of the same people line up on both opposite sides of that question but the differences are subtle enough that if there weren’t tribalism involved in the decision making process I would expect lots of people to cross sides in differentiating between the two.
[Note I really do mean both sides, so those who think that crossing picket lines is laudable but are nervous about immigrants are just as implicated as the reverse].
“Obviously it isn’t. But when you are complaining about “foreigners” coming in and taking jobs”
I see this objection quite a bit from people who are otherwise very unfriendly to the idea of ‘scabs’ coming in and accepting lower wages/different benefits. That is interesting because most of the same people line up on both opposite sides of that question but the differences are subtle enough that if there weren’t tribalism involved in the decision making process I would expect lots of people to cross sides in differentiating between the two.
[Note I really do mean both sides, so those who think that crossing picket lines is laudable but are nervous about immigrants are just as implicated as the reverse].
“Obviously it isn’t. But when you are complaining about “foreigners” coming in and taking jobs”
I see this objection quite a bit from people who are otherwise very unfriendly to the idea of ‘scabs’ coming in and accepting lower wages/different benefits. That is interesting because most of the same people line up on both opposite sides of that question but the differences are subtle enough that if there weren’t tribalism involved in the decision making process I would expect lots of people to cross sides in differentiating between the two.
[Note I really do mean both sides, so those who think that crossing picket lines is laudable but are nervous about immigrants are just as implicated as the reverse].
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/an-unsurprising-be-leaver-interpretation-of-victory
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/an-unsurprising-be-leaver-interpretation-of-victory
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/an-unsurprising-be-leaver-interpretation-of-victory
Maybe “something else” is not going on.
Same old. Same old.
Maybe “something else” is not going on.
Same old. Same old.
Maybe “something else” is not going on.
Same old. Same old.
I don’t know about that, bp. The author makes a case for correlation but does nothing more than raise an eyebrow suggestively to demonstrate causation. The age cleave could just as easily be a result of lack of experience with wage stagnation, poor employment prospects, and lack of political representation for their economic stake on the part of the younger voters; i.e., youth voters being more optimistic because they’re more likely to buy into rhetoric, or assume that they’ll be more economically mobile than they actually may end up, simply because they lack personal, invested experience as workers and constituents.
I don’t know about that, bp. The author makes a case for correlation but does nothing more than raise an eyebrow suggestively to demonstrate causation. The age cleave could just as easily be a result of lack of experience with wage stagnation, poor employment prospects, and lack of political representation for their economic stake on the part of the younger voters; i.e., youth voters being more optimistic because they’re more likely to buy into rhetoric, or assume that they’ll be more economically mobile than they actually may end up, simply because they lack personal, invested experience as workers and constituents.
I don’t know about that, bp. The author makes a case for correlation but does nothing more than raise an eyebrow suggestively to demonstrate causation. The age cleave could just as easily be a result of lack of experience with wage stagnation, poor employment prospects, and lack of political representation for their economic stake on the part of the younger voters; i.e., youth voters being more optimistic because they’re more likely to buy into rhetoric, or assume that they’ll be more economically mobile than they actually may end up, simply because they lack personal, invested experience as workers and constituents.
Beaten by Iceland !
When we Brexit, we make a thorough job of it.
Beaten by Iceland !
When we Brexit, we make a thorough job of it.
Beaten by Iceland !
When we Brexit, we make a thorough job of it.
NV,
Could be. But if that is the case, why did they (the olds) wait until Brexit to express such disenchantment? They seem to be a very patient bunch!
At the very least, it would seem that racism is the straw breaking the camel’s back. The number of immigrants in the country doubled in the last 20 years.
As for wages? Some data here:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jul/03/seven-ways-uk-wages-changed-over-four-decades
NV,
Could be. But if that is the case, why did they (the olds) wait until Brexit to express such disenchantment? They seem to be a very patient bunch!
At the very least, it would seem that racism is the straw breaking the camel’s back. The number of immigrants in the country doubled in the last 20 years.
As for wages? Some data here:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jul/03/seven-ways-uk-wages-changed-over-four-decades
NV,
Could be. But if that is the case, why did they (the olds) wait until Brexit to express such disenchantment? They seem to be a very patient bunch!
At the very least, it would seem that racism is the straw breaking the camel’s back. The number of immigrants in the country doubled in the last 20 years.
As for wages? Some data here:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jul/03/seven-ways-uk-wages-changed-over-four-decades
I’d say at the very least one-dimensional narratives aren’t going to be correct if they claim to be the whole story. I’d say your UK wages link corroborates that.
I’d say at the very least one-dimensional narratives aren’t going to be correct if they claim to be the whole story. I’d say your UK wages link corroborates that.
I’d say at the very least one-dimensional narratives aren’t going to be correct if they claim to be the whole story. I’d say your UK wages link corroborates that.
One thing I find fascinating is the Leave supporters who now say they don’t actually want to leave. But that the vote will give UK negotiators the upper hand in getting a better deal with the EU.
Why they think the EU would want to set a precedent of rewarding threats to leave is not immediately obvious. Except that believing it feels better than accepting that they have screwed the pooch big time.
One thing I find fascinating is the Leave supporters who now say they don’t actually want to leave. But that the vote will give UK negotiators the upper hand in getting a better deal with the EU.
Why they think the EU would want to set a precedent of rewarding threats to leave is not immediately obvious. Except that believing it feels better than accepting that they have screwed the pooch big time.
One thing I find fascinating is the Leave supporters who now say they don’t actually want to leave. But that the vote will give UK negotiators the upper hand in getting a better deal with the EU.
Why they think the EU would want to set a precedent of rewarding threats to leave is not immediately obvious. Except that believing it feels better than accepting that they have screwed the pooch big time.
This will you make you sick to your stomach:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/after-orlando-examining-the-gun-business
The NRA and the vermin in the Republican Party, the Republican media, and the Republican gun murder industry know all about tribalism. It’s their marketing technique:
‘The U.S. Concealed Carry Association had a large exhibit. Based in Wisconsin, it promotes what it calls the “concealed-carry lifestyle” and sells training materials and “self-defense insurance,” which subsidizes legal fees for gun owners if they shoot someone. Tim Schmidt, the founder, told me, “When I had kids, I went through what I call my ‘self-defense awakening.’ ” In 2004, he launched the magazine Concealed Carry and then expanded. Members now receive daily e-mails urging them to buy additional training and insurance, in case, as a recent e-mail put it, “God forbid, the unthinkable should happen to you, and you’re forced by some scumbag in a drug fueled rage to pull the trigger.”
For several years, Schmidt had a sideline in packaging his sales techniques. He calls the approach “tribal marketing.” It’s based on generating revenue by emphasizing the boundaries of a community. “We all have the NEED to BELONG,” he wrote in a presentation entitled “How to Turn One of Mankind’s Deepest Needs Into Cold, Hard CASH.” In a section called “How Do You Create Belief & Belonging?,” he explained, “You can’t have a yin without a yang. Must have an enemy.”
The meeting featured seminars, and one after another the speakers encouraged attendees to be ready to fight. Kyle Lamb, a former Delta Force operator, urged the mostly middle-aged crowd to adopt a “combat mind-set.” He said, “Ten minutes from now, or an hour from now, or two days from now, you may be in that fight.” He said that we must prepare for the emotional consequences, including “the sound people make when they get shot.”’
Read the rest and keep a puke bucket handy.
My tribe is losing the arms race and until all of these conservative filth are shot dead with their own firearms, there is no way out.
Maybe the blonde shot-for-brains Republican gun loving masturbater shot down the other day after trying to shoot down her own daughters is showing us how to rid society of these monsters.
Get them to shoot each other and then blow them away.
Only one side does this. My side does not do this shit. Fuck them. Fuck their mothers and their children.
This will you make you sick to your stomach:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/after-orlando-examining-the-gun-business
The NRA and the vermin in the Republican Party, the Republican media, and the Republican gun murder industry know all about tribalism. It’s their marketing technique:
‘The U.S. Concealed Carry Association had a large exhibit. Based in Wisconsin, it promotes what it calls the “concealed-carry lifestyle” and sells training materials and “self-defense insurance,” which subsidizes legal fees for gun owners if they shoot someone. Tim Schmidt, the founder, told me, “When I had kids, I went through what I call my ‘self-defense awakening.’ ” In 2004, he launched the magazine Concealed Carry and then expanded. Members now receive daily e-mails urging them to buy additional training and insurance, in case, as a recent e-mail put it, “God forbid, the unthinkable should happen to you, and you’re forced by some scumbag in a drug fueled rage to pull the trigger.”
For several years, Schmidt had a sideline in packaging his sales techniques. He calls the approach “tribal marketing.” It’s based on generating revenue by emphasizing the boundaries of a community. “We all have the NEED to BELONG,” he wrote in a presentation entitled “How to Turn One of Mankind’s Deepest Needs Into Cold, Hard CASH.” In a section called “How Do You Create Belief & Belonging?,” he explained, “You can’t have a yin without a yang. Must have an enemy.”
The meeting featured seminars, and one after another the speakers encouraged attendees to be ready to fight. Kyle Lamb, a former Delta Force operator, urged the mostly middle-aged crowd to adopt a “combat mind-set.” He said, “Ten minutes from now, or an hour from now, or two days from now, you may be in that fight.” He said that we must prepare for the emotional consequences, including “the sound people make when they get shot.”’
Read the rest and keep a puke bucket handy.
My tribe is losing the arms race and until all of these conservative filth are shot dead with their own firearms, there is no way out.
Maybe the blonde shot-for-brains Republican gun loving masturbater shot down the other day after trying to shoot down her own daughters is showing us how to rid society of these monsters.
Get them to shoot each other and then blow them away.
Only one side does this. My side does not do this shit. Fuck them. Fuck their mothers and their children.
This will you make you sick to your stomach:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/after-orlando-examining-the-gun-business
The NRA and the vermin in the Republican Party, the Republican media, and the Republican gun murder industry know all about tribalism. It’s their marketing technique:
‘The U.S. Concealed Carry Association had a large exhibit. Based in Wisconsin, it promotes what it calls the “concealed-carry lifestyle” and sells training materials and “self-defense insurance,” which subsidizes legal fees for gun owners if they shoot someone. Tim Schmidt, the founder, told me, “When I had kids, I went through what I call my ‘self-defense awakening.’ ” In 2004, he launched the magazine Concealed Carry and then expanded. Members now receive daily e-mails urging them to buy additional training and insurance, in case, as a recent e-mail put it, “God forbid, the unthinkable should happen to you, and you’re forced by some scumbag in a drug fueled rage to pull the trigger.”
For several years, Schmidt had a sideline in packaging his sales techniques. He calls the approach “tribal marketing.” It’s based on generating revenue by emphasizing the boundaries of a community. “We all have the NEED to BELONG,” he wrote in a presentation entitled “How to Turn One of Mankind’s Deepest Needs Into Cold, Hard CASH.” In a section called “How Do You Create Belief & Belonging?,” he explained, “You can’t have a yin without a yang. Must have an enemy.”
The meeting featured seminars, and one after another the speakers encouraged attendees to be ready to fight. Kyle Lamb, a former Delta Force operator, urged the mostly middle-aged crowd to adopt a “combat mind-set.” He said, “Ten minutes from now, or an hour from now, or two days from now, you may be in that fight.” He said that we must prepare for the emotional consequences, including “the sound people make when they get shot.”’
Read the rest and keep a puke bucket handy.
My tribe is losing the arms race and until all of these conservative filth are shot dead with their own firearms, there is no way out.
Maybe the blonde shot-for-brains Republican gun loving masturbater shot down the other day after trying to shoot down her own daughters is showing us how to rid society of these monsters.
Get them to shoot each other and then blow them away.
Only one side does this. My side does not do this shit. Fuck them. Fuck their mothers and their children.
Not all of the news is bad:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/27/1542991/-Texas-secessionists-are-cheered-If-Britain-can-leave-the-European-Union-so-can-we
Not all of the news is bad:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/27/1542991/-Texas-secessionists-are-cheered-If-Britain-can-leave-the-European-Union-so-can-we
Not all of the news is bad:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/27/1542991/-Texas-secessionists-are-cheered-If-Britain-can-leave-the-European-Union-so-can-we
Here’s an alternate view:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/?tid=ptv_rellink
Also available as a video:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/how-to-secede-from-the-united-states/2016/06/27/117a84c8-3ca3-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_video.html
Looks like we can’t get rid of Texas as easily as all that.
Here’s an alternate view:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/?tid=ptv_rellink
Also available as a video:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/how-to-secede-from-the-united-states/2016/06/27/117a84c8-3ca3-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_video.html
Looks like we can’t get rid of Texas as easily as all that.
Here’s an alternate view:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/?tid=ptv_rellink
Also available as a video:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/how-to-secede-from-the-united-states/2016/06/27/117a84c8-3ca3-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_video.html
Looks like we can’t get rid of Texas as easily as all that.
OK then, we keep Texas, the land and the resources, and we deport 91% of the State’s white population, the other 9% being of the decent, reasonable sort according to data I pulled out of Trump’s ample derriere.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-changes-ban-plans
I believe that I know of a country that was a known associate of Timothy McVeigh, the North Carolina black church murderer, and that American guy from Queens who murdered 50 in Orlando the other week.
The American tribe as they like to call it.
I don’t know where all of the deported Texans are going to go once the rest of the world bans travel from all countries associated with terrorism.
Maybe they can cling to oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
OK then, we keep Texas, the land and the resources, and we deport 91% of the State’s white population, the other 9% being of the decent, reasonable sort according to data I pulled out of Trump’s ample derriere.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-changes-ban-plans
I believe that I know of a country that was a known associate of Timothy McVeigh, the North Carolina black church murderer, and that American guy from Queens who murdered 50 in Orlando the other week.
The American tribe as they like to call it.
I don’t know where all of the deported Texans are going to go once the rest of the world bans travel from all countries associated with terrorism.
Maybe they can cling to oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
OK then, we keep Texas, the land and the resources, and we deport 91% of the State’s white population, the other 9% being of the decent, reasonable sort according to data I pulled out of Trump’s ample derriere.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-changes-ban-plans
I believe that I know of a country that was a known associate of Timothy McVeigh, the North Carolina black church murderer, and that American guy from Queens who murdered 50 in Orlando the other week.
The American tribe as they like to call it.
I don’t know where all of the deported Texans are going to go once the rest of the world bans travel from all countries associated with terrorism.
Maybe they can cling to oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
I agree–the issues of the lower middle class and the working poor are real. And I think xenophobia is a very, very common phenomenon.
And I think that at this point in our history, the whole Republican party (not just Trump) are exploiters of xenophobia to get those working class and lower middle class to vote for the party that will never, ever serve their interests. They will never be addressed by electing Republicans, however.
I think that it is a mistake for people to label Trump as racist. He’s a hatemongerer, as is nearly every other Republican politician at the national level, but he, like the others, is an equal opportunity hater and targets whoever is seen as not part of the Republican base tribe.
I agree–the issues of the lower middle class and the working poor are real. And I think xenophobia is a very, very common phenomenon.
And I think that at this point in our history, the whole Republican party (not just Trump) are exploiters of xenophobia to get those working class and lower middle class to vote for the party that will never, ever serve their interests. They will never be addressed by electing Republicans, however.
I think that it is a mistake for people to label Trump as racist. He’s a hatemongerer, as is nearly every other Republican politician at the national level, but he, like the others, is an equal opportunity hater and targets whoever is seen as not part of the Republican base tribe.
I agree–the issues of the lower middle class and the working poor are real. And I think xenophobia is a very, very common phenomenon.
And I think that at this point in our history, the whole Republican party (not just Trump) are exploiters of xenophobia to get those working class and lower middle class to vote for the party that will never, ever serve their interests. They will never be addressed by electing Republicans, however.
I think that it is a mistake for people to label Trump as racist. He’s a hatemongerer, as is nearly every other Republican politician at the national level, but he, like the others, is an equal opportunity hater and targets whoever is seen as not part of the Republican base tribe.
Yeah, or maybe the Brexit voters ARE a bunch of completely irrational, stupid, racist twats:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale
Yeah, or maybe the Brexit voters ARE a bunch of completely irrational, stupid, racist twats:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale
Yeah, or maybe the Brexit voters ARE a bunch of completely irrational, stupid, racist twats:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale
Novakant your link says “But what it will mean for an area dependent on inward investment and with the highest unemployment in Wales – nearly 40% of people are either unemployed or not available for work…” Perhaps globalization worked a bit better for London.
Novakant your link says “But what it will mean for an area dependent on inward investment and with the highest unemployment in Wales – nearly 40% of people are either unemployed or not available for work…” Perhaps globalization worked a bit better for London.
Novakant your link says “But what it will mean for an area dependent on inward investment and with the highest unemployment in Wales – nearly 40% of people are either unemployed or not available for work…” Perhaps globalization worked a bit better for London.
Parts of Wales have always had a weak economy, it doesn’t have anything to do with globalization. The point is: they have no immigrants to speak of, the EU has been showering them with money for decades and they still voted Leave.
Twats
Parts of Wales have always had a weak economy, it doesn’t have anything to do with globalization. The point is: they have no immigrants to speak of, the EU has been showering them with money for decades and they still voted Leave.
Twats
Parts of Wales have always had a weak economy, it doesn’t have anything to do with globalization. The point is: they have no immigrants to speak of, the EU has been showering them with money for decades and they still voted Leave.
Twats
Right, and my point is that lashing out isn’t deeply logical. It is lashing out when you get a chance.
Right, and my point is that lashing out isn’t deeply logical. It is lashing out when you get a chance.
Right, and my point is that lashing out isn’t deeply logical. It is lashing out when you get a chance.
…, the EU has been showering them with money for decades and they still voted Leave.
Too often with these programs, special interests in a location get showered with money while the people in general just get trickled on.
…, the EU has been showering them with money for decades and they still voted Leave.
Too often with these programs, special interests in a location get showered with money while the people in general just get trickled on.
…, the EU has been showering them with money for decades and they still voted Leave.
Too often with these programs, special interests in a location get showered with money while the people in general just get trickled on.
bc wrote
‘The concern appears to be Eastern Europeans’
An unhinged Trump supporter, retwatted by Trump HIMself, doesn’t like the “poles” either.
“@JimVitari: @ABC @washingtonpost we know they’re fake just like poles during primary. I’m sure u will crush #CrookedHillary in general”
bc wrote
‘The concern appears to be Eastern Europeans’
An unhinged Trump supporter, retwatted by Trump HIMself, doesn’t like the “poles” either.
“@JimVitari: @ABC @washingtonpost we know they’re fake just like poles during primary. I’m sure u will crush #CrookedHillary in general”
bc wrote
‘The concern appears to be Eastern Europeans’
An unhinged Trump supporter, retwatted by Trump HIMself, doesn’t like the “poles” either.
“@JimVitari: @ABC @washingtonpost we know they’re fake just like poles during primary. I’m sure u will crush #CrookedHillary in general”
The presumptious, consumptive Chief of the cannibal tribe doesn’t need to know what’s going on to make decisions:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/manafort-trump-organization-meet-the-press
Paul Manafort, late of Idi Amin’s and Vlad Putin’s campaigns:
“The good thing is, we have a candidate who doesn’t need to figure out what’s going on in order to say what he wants to do.”
Then Trump walked that back, just minutes after boasting that he would sign an executive order as President making walking backwards a federal crime in all 50 states.
His toupee then reared up on his head and ate a pelican that had flown too low for a looksee, the bird thinking he’d smelt three-day old fish.
The presumptious, consumptive Chief of the cannibal tribe doesn’t need to know what’s going on to make decisions:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/manafort-trump-organization-meet-the-press
Paul Manafort, late of Idi Amin’s and Vlad Putin’s campaigns:
“The good thing is, we have a candidate who doesn’t need to figure out what’s going on in order to say what he wants to do.”
Then Trump walked that back, just minutes after boasting that he would sign an executive order as President making walking backwards a federal crime in all 50 states.
His toupee then reared up on his head and ate a pelican that had flown too low for a looksee, the bird thinking he’d smelt three-day old fish.
The presumptious, consumptive Chief of the cannibal tribe doesn’t need to know what’s going on to make decisions:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/manafort-trump-organization-meet-the-press
Paul Manafort, late of Idi Amin’s and Vlad Putin’s campaigns:
“The good thing is, we have a candidate who doesn’t need to figure out what’s going on in order to say what he wants to do.”
Then Trump walked that back, just minutes after boasting that he would sign an executive order as President making walking backwards a federal crime in all 50 states.
His toupee then reared up on his head and ate a pelican that had flown too low for a looksee, the bird thinking he’d smelt three-day old fish.
Matt Taibbi with an different angle.
Matt Taibbi with an different angle.
Matt Taibbi with an different angle.
My tribe’s jokes are better:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/28/late-night-open-thread-john-oliver-on-brexit/
Somewhere, perhaps here, I read that American conservative Brexit fans were referring to pro-Brexit leaders in the UK as “Churchillian”.
That scream you heard was a stiff upper-lipped, toffee-nosed British Colonel being hacked to death by machete-wielding Zulus wondering where their independence had gotten to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rObSWkQA7og
Mahatma Gandhi weighed in regarding Brittania taking their country back by first having and then eating a sacred cow as preliminary to an eternal fast, after hearing the Raj’s Churchill say this:
“It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”
That great sucking sound you heard was seditious Scotsman Sean Connery forcing Britain’s fat Goldfinger ass through the airplane window as his country declared their independence too.
Spokespillocks for the know-nothing historians from the Koch-financed Tea Party in the U.S., and Mel Gibson weighed in as well regarding Britain’s love of independence for all people.
It’ll grow back.
P.S. the Taibbi piece is a view with some merit. The U.S. Founders liked checks and balances on everyone, including the “People”. Direct democracy, as in binding referendums, which I gather the Brexit vote was not, was not their favorite deal, especially if it was put up by women, slaves, and Injuns, definite mix changers.
I mean, front-room deals can be just as bad as back-room deals.
If there was a binding referendum that we must wear our underpants backwards and on the outside of our pants, with our holsters on the outside of THAT, I doubt we’d conclude democracy was functioning properly.
But both sides do it. I, for example want all of us to wear our underpants over our heads.
My tribe’s jokes are better:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/28/late-night-open-thread-john-oliver-on-brexit/
Somewhere, perhaps here, I read that American conservative Brexit fans were referring to pro-Brexit leaders in the UK as “Churchillian”.
That scream you heard was a stiff upper-lipped, toffee-nosed British Colonel being hacked to death by machete-wielding Zulus wondering where their independence had gotten to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rObSWkQA7og
Mahatma Gandhi weighed in regarding Brittania taking their country back by first having and then eating a sacred cow as preliminary to an eternal fast, after hearing the Raj’s Churchill say this:
“It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”
That great sucking sound you heard was seditious Scotsman Sean Connery forcing Britain’s fat Goldfinger ass through the airplane window as his country declared their independence too.
Spokespillocks for the know-nothing historians from the Koch-financed Tea Party in the U.S., and Mel Gibson weighed in as well regarding Britain’s love of independence for all people.
It’ll grow back.
P.S. the Taibbi piece is a view with some merit. The U.S. Founders liked checks and balances on everyone, including the “People”. Direct democracy, as in binding referendums, which I gather the Brexit vote was not, was not their favorite deal, especially if it was put up by women, slaves, and Injuns, definite mix changers.
I mean, front-room deals can be just as bad as back-room deals.
If there was a binding referendum that we must wear our underpants backwards and on the outside of our pants, with our holsters on the outside of THAT, I doubt we’d conclude democracy was functioning properly.
But both sides do it. I, for example want all of us to wear our underpants over our heads.
My tribe’s jokes are better:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/28/late-night-open-thread-john-oliver-on-brexit/
Somewhere, perhaps here, I read that American conservative Brexit fans were referring to pro-Brexit leaders in the UK as “Churchillian”.
That scream you heard was a stiff upper-lipped, toffee-nosed British Colonel being hacked to death by machete-wielding Zulus wondering where their independence had gotten to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rObSWkQA7og
Mahatma Gandhi weighed in regarding Brittania taking their country back by first having and then eating a sacred cow as preliminary to an eternal fast, after hearing the Raj’s Churchill say this:
“It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”
That great sucking sound you heard was seditious Scotsman Sean Connery forcing Britain’s fat Goldfinger ass through the airplane window as his country declared their independence too.
Spokespillocks for the know-nothing historians from the Koch-financed Tea Party in the U.S., and Mel Gibson weighed in as well regarding Britain’s love of independence for all people.
It’ll grow back.
P.S. the Taibbi piece is a view with some merit. The U.S. Founders liked checks and balances on everyone, including the “People”. Direct democracy, as in binding referendums, which I gather the Brexit vote was not, was not their favorite deal, especially if it was put up by women, slaves, and Injuns, definite mix changers.
I mean, front-room deals can be just as bad as back-room deals.
If there was a binding referendum that we must wear our underpants backwards and on the outside of our pants, with our holsters on the outside of THAT, I doubt we’d conclude democracy was functioning properly.
But both sides do it. I, for example want all of us to wear our underpants over our heads.
HSH–good link.
HSH–good link.
HSH–good link.
What mck said. Good article.
What mck said. Good article.
What mck said. Good article.
Mine or Matt Taibbi’s? I used the wrong indefinite article in my comment. ;^)
Mine or Matt Taibbi’s? I used the wrong indefinite article in my comment. ;^)
Mine or Matt Taibbi’s? I used the wrong indefinite article in my comment. ;^)
the exit is the biggest Rorschach test American punditry has ever seen.
the exit is the biggest Rorschach test American punditry has ever seen.
the exit is the biggest Rorschach test American punditry has ever seen.
Another take.
Another take.
Another take.
Bobby, thanks for the link. I treasure this line:
The Welsh have a word for this feeling. The word is “hiraeth”. It means a longing for a home you can never return to, a home which may never have existed at all. [emphasis added]
Ah, the mythic past that never was. Sounds so familiar from American political blathering.
Bobby, thanks for the link. I treasure this line:
The Welsh have a word for this feeling. The word is “hiraeth”. It means a longing for a home you can never return to, a home which may never have existed at all. [emphasis added]
Ah, the mythic past that never was. Sounds so familiar from American political blathering.
Bobby, thanks for the link. I treasure this line:
The Welsh have a word for this feeling. The word is “hiraeth”. It means a longing for a home you can never return to, a home which may never have existed at all. [emphasis added]
Ah, the mythic past that never was. Sounds so familiar from American political blathering.
“Not on a day when we’re being congratulated by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and nobody else.”
Libertarians, on the whole, think the exit was a good idea. But, I guess, that comes under the heading of “nobody else.” 🙂
“Not on a day when we’re being congratulated by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and nobody else.”
Libertarians, on the whole, think the exit was a good idea. But, I guess, that comes under the heading of “nobody else.” 🙂
“Not on a day when we’re being congratulated by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and nobody else.”
Libertarians, on the whole, think the exit was a good idea. But, I guess, that comes under the heading of “nobody else.” 🙂
I don’t usually read Greenwald, but here he captures a good deal of my disdain for our current crop of economic and political elites.
Is it a tragedy that they (those damnned elites) believe they are doing the right thing by ‘expanding freedom’, but keeping for themselves nearly all of the spoils? Or is it just human SOP?
I don’t usually read Greenwald, but here he captures a good deal of my disdain for our current crop of economic and political elites.
Is it a tragedy that they (those damnned elites) believe they are doing the right thing by ‘expanding freedom’, but keeping for themselves nearly all of the spoils? Or is it just human SOP?
I don’t usually read Greenwald, but here he captures a good deal of my disdain for our current crop of economic and political elites.
Is it a tragedy that they (those damnned elites) believe they are doing the right thing by ‘expanding freedom’, but keeping for themselves nearly all of the spoils? Or is it just human SOP?
Matt Taibbi agrees with me much more often than not. And Ken Rogoff is not a paragon of wisdom in my book. Still, I think Taibbi was a bit unfair to Rogoff’s op-ed, which I cited more or less approvingly earlier in this thread. Taibbi:
I don’t know where Matt stands on guns or taxes, but if he equates democracy with one-time plurality-wins popular referenda then he presumably would accept a ban on private firearms or a return to Eisenhower-level marginal rates on a “democratic” basis.
–TP
Matt Taibbi agrees with me much more often than not. And Ken Rogoff is not a paragon of wisdom in my book. Still, I think Taibbi was a bit unfair to Rogoff’s op-ed, which I cited more or less approvingly earlier in this thread. Taibbi:
I don’t know where Matt stands on guns or taxes, but if he equates democracy with one-time plurality-wins popular referenda then he presumably would accept a ban on private firearms or a return to Eisenhower-level marginal rates on a “democratic” basis.
–TP
Matt Taibbi agrees with me much more often than not. And Ken Rogoff is not a paragon of wisdom in my book. Still, I think Taibbi was a bit unfair to Rogoff’s op-ed, which I cited more or less approvingly earlier in this thread. Taibbi:
I don’t know where Matt stands on guns or taxes, but if he equates democracy with one-time plurality-wins popular referenda then he presumably would accept a ban on private firearms or a return to Eisenhower-level marginal rates on a “democratic” basis.
–TP
I don’t usually read Greenwald, but… I really messed up that link.
Sigh. Enjoy.
I don’t usually read Greenwald, but… I really messed up that link.
Sigh. Enjoy.
I don’t usually read Greenwald, but… I really messed up that link.
Sigh. Enjoy.
I like Taibbi as a top writer at Rolling Stone.
I’ll refer to Laurie Penny henceforth as Madame Prime Minister.
I like Taibbi as a top writer at Rolling Stone.
I’ll refer to Laurie Penny henceforth as Madame Prime Minister.
I like Taibbi as a top writer at Rolling Stone.
I’ll refer to Laurie Penny henceforth as Madame Prime Minister.
Facts? Who needs facts when we have all this data!
Another morsel for thought.
Facts? Who needs facts when we have all this data!
Another morsel for thought.
Facts? Who needs facts when we have all this data!
Another morsel for thought.
Yes bobbyp, traditional conservatives, liberals, and libertarians (whatever those are; I suspect they would have promised Brexit fans that they would have abolished the NHS too for a double kick in the nuts to the elderly retirees on pensions who voted for the break) should take no comfort in the fact that the revanchist movements, with fascist, racist, nationalist elements swept along, gaining ascendancy in Europe, in America with Trump, and in other parts of the world (I would argue Putin’s Russia was the first to dial it back for something else) is a colossal reaction, long simmering, against the Reagan/Thatcher revolutions and the continuance and development of those policies under succeeding governments, both conservative, liberal, and moderate.
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and in many ways, Barack Obama have carried on largely conservative policies originated by Reagan and Thatcher, of course only to be savaged by disgraceful, dangerous elements far to the right of both Reagan and Thatcher, for their trouble.
If I were China, India and other major world powers recently escaping from their feudal bondage, I’d be ramping up their nuclear deterrents and aiming the weapons our way.
Yes bobbyp, traditional conservatives, liberals, and libertarians (whatever those are; I suspect they would have promised Brexit fans that they would have abolished the NHS too for a double kick in the nuts to the elderly retirees on pensions who voted for the break) should take no comfort in the fact that the revanchist movements, with fascist, racist, nationalist elements swept along, gaining ascendancy in Europe, in America with Trump, and in other parts of the world (I would argue Putin’s Russia was the first to dial it back for something else) is a colossal reaction, long simmering, against the Reagan/Thatcher revolutions and the continuance and development of those policies under succeeding governments, both conservative, liberal, and moderate.
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and in many ways, Barack Obama have carried on largely conservative policies originated by Reagan and Thatcher, of course only to be savaged by disgraceful, dangerous elements far to the right of both Reagan and Thatcher, for their trouble.
If I were China, India and other major world powers recently escaping from their feudal bondage, I’d be ramping up their nuclear deterrents and aiming the weapons our way.
Yes bobbyp, traditional conservatives, liberals, and libertarians (whatever those are; I suspect they would have promised Brexit fans that they would have abolished the NHS too for a double kick in the nuts to the elderly retirees on pensions who voted for the break) should take no comfort in the fact that the revanchist movements, with fascist, racist, nationalist elements swept along, gaining ascendancy in Europe, in America with Trump, and in other parts of the world (I would argue Putin’s Russia was the first to dial it back for something else) is a colossal reaction, long simmering, against the Reagan/Thatcher revolutions and the continuance and development of those policies under succeeding governments, both conservative, liberal, and moderate.
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and in many ways, Barack Obama have carried on largely conservative policies originated by Reagan and Thatcher, of course only to be savaged by disgraceful, dangerous elements far to the right of both Reagan and Thatcher, for their trouble.
If I were China, India and other major world powers recently escaping from their feudal bondage, I’d be ramping up their nuclear deterrents and aiming the weapons our way.
As a rule, people resent being saved from themselves. And if you think depriving people of their right to make mistakes makes sense, you probably never had respect for their right to make decisions at all.
From HSH’s link.
I have no wish to deprive anybody of their right to vote as they wish, or make whatever decisions they care to make for themselves.
But I think Tabibi’s formulation here elides some important things.
The folks who voted to leave the EU weren’t just “making mistakes” for themselves. To the degree that they were making mistakes – casting regrettable votes out of sense of resentment and pique – they were making mistakes that had consequences for everybody around them.
To the degree that the (R) primary voters who coughed up Donald J Trump were doing so to flip the bird to the “elites”, they were also flipping the bird to all of the people who rely on, and benefit from, the institutions that the “elites” operate.
In many cases, they were flipping the bird to themselves.
I have no use for people like Sullivan, with his endless f***king Burkean Tory bleating about Those Who Deserve To Rule. Nor for his American equivalents, who are actually fairly numerous.
That said, I also have little use for folks who piss on the institutions of public life because they think some swanky dude on some coast or other is looking down on them.
Use your head, that’s all I ask.
Participation in public life is a right, and it’s also a responsibility. I’m not interested in taking anybody’s rights away. I am interested in people not using the institutions of public life to indulge their stupid bone-ignorant reactionary impulses.
By all means, go ahead and vote. But for the love of god, kindly break into your piggy bank and go buy a freaking clue beforehand.
It ain’t much to ask.
As a rule, people resent being saved from themselves. And if you think depriving people of their right to make mistakes makes sense, you probably never had respect for their right to make decisions at all.
From HSH’s link.
I have no wish to deprive anybody of their right to vote as they wish, or make whatever decisions they care to make for themselves.
But I think Tabibi’s formulation here elides some important things.
The folks who voted to leave the EU weren’t just “making mistakes” for themselves. To the degree that they were making mistakes – casting regrettable votes out of sense of resentment and pique – they were making mistakes that had consequences for everybody around them.
To the degree that the (R) primary voters who coughed up Donald J Trump were doing so to flip the bird to the “elites”, they were also flipping the bird to all of the people who rely on, and benefit from, the institutions that the “elites” operate.
In many cases, they were flipping the bird to themselves.
I have no use for people like Sullivan, with his endless f***king Burkean Tory bleating about Those Who Deserve To Rule. Nor for his American equivalents, who are actually fairly numerous.
That said, I also have little use for folks who piss on the institutions of public life because they think some swanky dude on some coast or other is looking down on them.
Use your head, that’s all I ask.
Participation in public life is a right, and it’s also a responsibility. I’m not interested in taking anybody’s rights away. I am interested in people not using the institutions of public life to indulge their stupid bone-ignorant reactionary impulses.
By all means, go ahead and vote. But for the love of god, kindly break into your piggy bank and go buy a freaking clue beforehand.
It ain’t much to ask.
As a rule, people resent being saved from themselves. And if you think depriving people of their right to make mistakes makes sense, you probably never had respect for their right to make decisions at all.
From HSH’s link.
I have no wish to deprive anybody of their right to vote as they wish, or make whatever decisions they care to make for themselves.
But I think Tabibi’s formulation here elides some important things.
The folks who voted to leave the EU weren’t just “making mistakes” for themselves. To the degree that they were making mistakes – casting regrettable votes out of sense of resentment and pique – they were making mistakes that had consequences for everybody around them.
To the degree that the (R) primary voters who coughed up Donald J Trump were doing so to flip the bird to the “elites”, they were also flipping the bird to all of the people who rely on, and benefit from, the institutions that the “elites” operate.
In many cases, they were flipping the bird to themselves.
I have no use for people like Sullivan, with his endless f***king Burkean Tory bleating about Those Who Deserve To Rule. Nor for his American equivalents, who are actually fairly numerous.
That said, I also have little use for folks who piss on the institutions of public life because they think some swanky dude on some coast or other is looking down on them.
Use your head, that’s all I ask.
Participation in public life is a right, and it’s also a responsibility. I’m not interested in taking anybody’s rights away. I am interested in people not using the institutions of public life to indulge their stupid bone-ignorant reactionary impulses.
By all means, go ahead and vote. But for the love of god, kindly break into your piggy bank and go buy a freaking clue beforehand.
It ain’t much to ask.
Shorter me:
My grandmother used to have a cocker spaniel that would crap on the living room rug if it thought it wasn’t getting enough attention.
The point was eloquently made. But then somebody had to come and clean up the sh*t.
Dig?
Shorter me:
My grandmother used to have a cocker spaniel that would crap on the living room rug if it thought it wasn’t getting enough attention.
The point was eloquently made. But then somebody had to come and clean up the sh*t.
Dig?
Shorter me:
My grandmother used to have a cocker spaniel that would crap on the living room rug if it thought it wasn’t getting enough attention.
The point was eloquently made. But then somebody had to come and clean up the sh*t.
Dig?
But there’s one difference. The spaniel didn’t have to worry about being the one to do the cleanup. The Brexit voters may not have realized it, but they are not similarly immune.
But there’s one difference. The spaniel didn’t have to worry about being the one to do the cleanup. The Brexit voters may not have realized it, but they are not similarly immune.
But there’s one difference. The spaniel didn’t have to worry about being the one to do the cleanup. The Brexit voters may not have realized it, but they are not similarly immune.
also – thanks Sebastian for an excellent post. It is, as your work always is, thoughtful, candid, and even-handed. Impassioned in the best way.
It’s great to have you back on the front page.
also – thanks Sebastian for an excellent post. It is, as your work always is, thoughtful, candid, and even-handed. Impassioned in the best way.
It’s great to have you back on the front page.
also – thanks Sebastian for an excellent post. It is, as your work always is, thoughtful, candid, and even-handed. Impassioned in the best way.
It’s great to have you back on the front page.
The point was eloquently made. But then somebody had to come and clean up the sh*t.
see also: liberal eye rolling at the whole “BernItDown” thing.
The point was eloquently made. But then somebody had to come and clean up the sh*t.
see also: liberal eye rolling at the whole “BernItDown” thing.
The point was eloquently made. But then somebody had to come and clean up the sh*t.
see also: liberal eye rolling at the whole “BernItDown” thing.
in every society , there’s a large and thriving industry devoted to convincing people that “the establishment” is the cause of their problems. for every situation you find yourself in, if you try hard enough, you can identify a “system” that’s keeping you down.
that’s how “leaders” get their jobs, after all: telling people that the current leaders are the cause of all their problems, that the establishment is the problem and that they will tear it down and replace it with a system that listens to The People. it’s the oldest political play in the book.
in every society , there’s a large and thriving industry devoted to convincing people that “the establishment” is the cause of their problems. for every situation you find yourself in, if you try hard enough, you can identify a “system” that’s keeping you down.
that’s how “leaders” get their jobs, after all: telling people that the current leaders are the cause of all their problems, that the establishment is the problem and that they will tear it down and replace it with a system that listens to The People. it’s the oldest political play in the book.
in every society , there’s a large and thriving industry devoted to convincing people that “the establishment” is the cause of their problems. for every situation you find yourself in, if you try hard enough, you can identify a “system” that’s keeping you down.
that’s how “leaders” get their jobs, after all: telling people that the current leaders are the cause of all their problems, that the establishment is the problem and that they will tear it down and replace it with a system that listens to The People. it’s the oldest political play in the book.
Labour’s two tribes going to war…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/29/brexit-live-sad-cameron-eu-immigration-corbyn-leadership
….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K2QAMqTgPKI
Labour’s two tribes going to war…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/29/brexit-live-sad-cameron-eu-immigration-corbyn-leadership
….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K2QAMqTgPKI
Labour’s two tribes going to war…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/29/brexit-live-sad-cameron-eu-immigration-corbyn-leadership
….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K2QAMqTgPKI
Down with the man, up with people.
I think however, this cogent statement by Sebastian up thread bears repeating:
“Another theme I return to often is the spending of social capital. The financial world has been drawing on deep reserves of tribal capital in their constant invocation of the idea that their countries should engage in short term sacrifice for long term reward. The problem is that if you ask the community to sacrifice you have to understand that the community expects to share in the reward.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries. But they aren’t very happy when any large portion of those masses finally agree with them and suggest that they can’t draw on the mutual social capital without paying back into it from time to time.”
So, the attitude is understandable and aimed at a bipartisan elite.
Those demagogues appointed, by themselves mostly, to lead the charge leave much to be desired (he said with uncommon restraint).
Trump obviously. The man who just renewed his call for more torture after this latest Turkish airport outrage. Right. He ought to run for leader of Turkey where torture in prisons and against groups deemed enemies by the Turkish government is already in situ and ongoing.
The f*ck. The murderer. The thug elitist.
And Sanders has become so enamored of himself after his success and the adulation poured his way in the primary that he’s beginning to take on all the trappings of the elite himself.
Along with bitterness and intransigence.
Down with the man, up with people.
I think however, this cogent statement by Sebastian up thread bears repeating:
“Another theme I return to often is the spending of social capital. The financial world has been drawing on deep reserves of tribal capital in their constant invocation of the idea that their countries should engage in short term sacrifice for long term reward. The problem is that if you ask the community to sacrifice you have to understand that the community expects to share in the reward.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries. But they aren’t very happy when any large portion of those masses finally agree with them and suggest that they can’t draw on the mutual social capital without paying back into it from time to time.”
So, the attitude is understandable and aimed at a bipartisan elite.
Those demagogues appointed, by themselves mostly, to lead the charge leave much to be desired (he said with uncommon restraint).
Trump obviously. The man who just renewed his call for more torture after this latest Turkish airport outrage. Right. He ought to run for leader of Turkey where torture in prisons and against groups deemed enemies by the Turkish government is already in situ and ongoing.
The f*ck. The murderer. The thug elitist.
And Sanders has become so enamored of himself after his success and the adulation poured his way in the primary that he’s beginning to take on all the trappings of the elite himself.
Along with bitterness and intransigence.
Down with the man, up with people.
I think however, this cogent statement by Sebastian up thread bears repeating:
“Another theme I return to often is the spending of social capital. The financial world has been drawing on deep reserves of tribal capital in their constant invocation of the idea that their countries should engage in short term sacrifice for long term reward. The problem is that if you ask the community to sacrifice you have to understand that the community expects to share in the reward.
The global elite have intentionally undermined the idea that they have anything to do with the masses of their countries. But they aren’t very happy when any large portion of those masses finally agree with them and suggest that they can’t draw on the mutual social capital without paying back into it from time to time.”
So, the attitude is understandable and aimed at a bipartisan elite.
Those demagogues appointed, by themselves mostly, to lead the charge leave much to be desired (he said with uncommon restraint).
Trump obviously. The man who just renewed his call for more torture after this latest Turkish airport outrage. Right. He ought to run for leader of Turkey where torture in prisons and against groups deemed enemies by the Turkish government is already in situ and ongoing.
The f*ck. The murderer. The thug elitist.
And Sanders has become so enamored of himself after his success and the adulation poured his way in the primary that he’s beginning to take on all the trappings of the elite himself.
Along with bitterness and intransigence.
To wit:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/29/and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on-etc/
To wit:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/29/and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on-etc/
To wit:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/29/and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on-etc/
often it seems like the counter to the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ is unhinged delusions and knee-jerk contrarianism where people assume any information that they can’t personally understand is suspect. and then we get anti-vaxxers, 9/11 Truthers, creationists, and people who love Trump because he indulges their unhinged nonsense.
often it seems like the counter to the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ is unhinged delusions and knee-jerk contrarianism where people assume any information that they can’t personally understand is suspect. and then we get anti-vaxxers, 9/11 Truthers, creationists, and people who love Trump because he indulges their unhinged nonsense.
often it seems like the counter to the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ is unhinged delusions and knee-jerk contrarianism where people assume any information that they can’t personally understand is suspect. and then we get anti-vaxxers, 9/11 Truthers, creationists, and people who love Trump because he indulges their unhinged nonsense.
Trump’s tribal warriors will be on hand in Cleveland.
I don’t think BB guns are going to be the problem.
Here’s hoping the Cleveland police use the same judgement and restraint on these hopeless Trump romantics, of the same tribe that murdered British MP Jo Cox, that they used on Tamir Rice.
Trump’s tribal warriors will be on hand in Cleveland.
I don’t think BB guns are going to be the problem.
Here’s hoping the Cleveland police use the same judgement and restraint on these hopeless Trump romantics, of the same tribe that murdered British MP Jo Cox, that they used on Tamir Rice.
Trump’s tribal warriors will be on hand in Cleveland.
I don’t think BB guns are going to be the problem.
Here’s hoping the Cleveland police use the same judgement and restraint on these hopeless Trump romantics, of the same tribe that murdered British MP Jo Cox, that they used on Tamir Rice.
Brexit:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/divisiong-confusion-eu-rethinks-future-without-britain-070306591–finance.html
Brexit:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/divisiong-confusion-eu-rethinks-future-without-britain-070306591–finance.html
Brexit:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/divisiong-confusion-eu-rethinks-future-without-britain-070306591–finance.html
Often it seems like defense of the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ is baseless platitudes and knee-jerk ad hominems where people assume any idea threatening their comfortable status quo is suspect. And then we get trickle-down economics, High Broderism, neoconservatism, and people who love Clinton because she indulges their patronizing conviction that their critics are ignorant, ungrateful children speaking out of turn.
(Which is obviously to say that weaselly dismissive generalizations may be satisfying to make, but they don’t contribute anything useful – let alone insightful – to the conversation.)
Often it seems like defense of the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ is baseless platitudes and knee-jerk ad hominems where people assume any idea threatening their comfortable status quo is suspect. And then we get trickle-down economics, High Broderism, neoconservatism, and people who love Clinton because she indulges their patronizing conviction that their critics are ignorant, ungrateful children speaking out of turn.
(Which is obviously to say that weaselly dismissive generalizations may be satisfying to make, but they don’t contribute anything useful – let alone insightful – to the conversation.)
Often it seems like defense of the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ is baseless platitudes and knee-jerk ad hominems where people assume any idea threatening their comfortable status quo is suspect. And then we get trickle-down economics, High Broderism, neoconservatism, and people who love Clinton because she indulges their patronizing conviction that their critics are ignorant, ungrateful children speaking out of turn.
(Which is obviously to say that weaselly dismissive generalizations may be satisfying to make, but they don’t contribute anything useful – let alone insightful – to the conversation.)
Countme-in: Poles. Lol.
And thanks for that, HSH.
Hannan’s defense to the motivations many assign to the leave campaign:
I can’t put my finger on the polls he references on Democracy being the #1 concern. Important, IMO, if true.
Countme-in: Poles. Lol.
And thanks for that, HSH.
Hannan’s defense to the motivations many assign to the leave campaign:
I can’t put my finger on the polls he references on Democracy being the #1 concern. Important, IMO, if true.
Countme-in: Poles. Lol.
And thanks for that, HSH.
Hannan’s defense to the motivations many assign to the leave campaign:
I can’t put my finger on the polls he references on Democracy being the #1 concern. Important, IMO, if true.
perhaps i wasn’t actually referring to you, NV. perhaps i was talking about the people i actually mentioned.
perhaps i wasn’t actually referring to you, NV. perhaps i was talking about the people i actually mentioned.
perhaps i wasn’t actually referring to you, NV. perhaps i was talking about the people i actually mentioned.
it’s the oldest political play in the book.
Gosh. People arguing over Who Gets The Stuff….why, the pure effrontery of it!
Harrrumpf.
it’s the oldest political play in the book.
Gosh. People arguing over Who Gets The Stuff….why, the pure effrontery of it!
Harrrumpf.
it’s the oldest political play in the book.
Gosh. People arguing over Who Gets The Stuff….why, the pure effrontery of it!
Harrrumpf.
Perhaps, cleek. And perhaps the “advantage” of adopting that sort of tone is that it’s entirely ambiguous who – if anyone – you’re referring to – or not referring to.
This seems apropos:
“The Remain camp should have made a positive case for Britain’s EU membership. Instead, it focused the campaign on the negatives of Brexit.”
Perhaps, cleek. And perhaps the “advantage” of adopting that sort of tone is that it’s entirely ambiguous who – if anyone – you’re referring to – or not referring to.
This seems apropos:
“The Remain camp should have made a positive case for Britain’s EU membership. Instead, it focused the campaign on the negatives of Brexit.”
Perhaps, cleek. And perhaps the “advantage” of adopting that sort of tone is that it’s entirely ambiguous who – if anyone – you’re referring to – or not referring to.
This seems apropos:
“The Remain camp should have made a positive case for Britain’s EU membership. Instead, it focused the campaign on the negatives of Brexit.”
bobbyp: Since next to no one else commented on your link, I, too, rarely read GG – but I do appreciate your posting that even if I myself had demurred at the prospect of doing so (strong temptation notwithstanding).
bobbyp: Since next to no one else commented on your link, I, too, rarely read GG – but I do appreciate your posting that even if I myself had demurred at the prospect of doing so (strong temptation notwithstanding).
bobbyp: Since next to no one else commented on your link, I, too, rarely read GG – but I do appreciate your posting that even if I myself had demurred at the prospect of doing so (strong temptation notwithstanding).
it’s entirely ambiguous who – if anyone – you’re referring to
such ambiguity. much confusion.
it’s entirely ambiguous who – if anyone – you’re referring to
such ambiguity. much confusion.
it’s entirely ambiguous who – if anyone – you’re referring to
such ambiguity. much confusion.
I have rarely read GG myself but fairly deep in his article(thanks bobbyp):
However an equally powerful statement in The Atlantic:
As the article covers, we have taken away all of the tools that allowed the professional political class to govern effectively in a way that was responsive to the needs of the nation, and replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers. We then wonder why each election cycle gets more angry at Washington, it is not confusing. We ensured the political system would fail and those left trying to figure out a way to make it work defend themselves in the only way they know.
I have rarely read GG myself but fairly deep in his article(thanks bobbyp):
However an equally powerful statement in The Atlantic:
As the article covers, we have taken away all of the tools that allowed the professional political class to govern effectively in a way that was responsive to the needs of the nation, and replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers. We then wonder why each election cycle gets more angry at Washington, it is not confusing. We ensured the political system would fail and those left trying to figure out a way to make it work defend themselves in the only way they know.
I have rarely read GG myself but fairly deep in his article(thanks bobbyp):
However an equally powerful statement in The Atlantic:
As the article covers, we have taken away all of the tools that allowed the professional political class to govern effectively in a way that was responsive to the needs of the nation, and replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers. We then wonder why each election cycle gets more angry at Washington, it is not confusing. We ensured the political system would fail and those left trying to figure out a way to make it work defend themselves in the only way they know.
Greenwald doesn’t know what he is talking about, he is making stuff up as he goes along:
establishment political and media elites in the U.K. were vehemently united against Brexit, but their decreed wisdom was ignored, even scorned.
This is simply false.
Generally speaking, I find it rather annoying how many non-British commentators use the Brexit to suit their own political purposes while displaying little knowledge of the, admittedly very complex, reality of the UK.
Two good pieces to add to Laurie Penny:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-perilous-nationalism-at-brexit
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/dont-blame-brexit-working-class-anger-its-more-worrying
Greenwald doesn’t know what he is talking about, he is making stuff up as he goes along:
establishment political and media elites in the U.K. were vehemently united against Brexit, but their decreed wisdom was ignored, even scorned.
This is simply false.
Generally speaking, I find it rather annoying how many non-British commentators use the Brexit to suit their own political purposes while displaying little knowledge of the, admittedly very complex, reality of the UK.
Two good pieces to add to Laurie Penny:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-perilous-nationalism-at-brexit
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/dont-blame-brexit-working-class-anger-its-more-worrying
Greenwald doesn’t know what he is talking about, he is making stuff up as he goes along:
establishment political and media elites in the U.K. were vehemently united against Brexit, but their decreed wisdom was ignored, even scorned.
This is simply false.
Generally speaking, I find it rather annoying how many non-British commentators use the Brexit to suit their own political purposes while displaying little knowledge of the, admittedly very complex, reality of the UK.
Two good pieces to add to Laurie Penny:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-perilous-nationalism-at-brexit
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/dont-blame-brexit-working-class-anger-its-more-worrying
We ensured the political system would fail and those left trying to figure out a way to make it work defend themselves in the only way they know.
Before I make the expected acerbic comment, I’d say that I agree a lot more with the Atlantic article (and therefore with Marty) than GG.
But I have to ask “Who do you mean we, kemosabe?’ 🙂
We ensured the political system would fail and those left trying to figure out a way to make it work defend themselves in the only way they know.
Before I make the expected acerbic comment, I’d say that I agree a lot more with the Atlantic article (and therefore with Marty) than GG.
But I have to ask “Who do you mean we, kemosabe?’ 🙂
We ensured the political system would fail and those left trying to figure out a way to make it work defend themselves in the only way they know.
Before I make the expected acerbic comment, I’d say that I agree a lot more with the Atlantic article (and therefore with Marty) than GG.
But I have to ask “Who do you mean we, kemosabe?’ 🙂
lj, I think it’s a very general we. We all wanted some form of campaign reform at different times, different levels of spending controls, limitations on perceived corruption and, finally, pork barrel. I never understood McCain and others focus on that, it is what created common ground for negotiations in lots of cases.
Our governmental institutions’ are transactional by design. I don’t necessarily like the design but they are designed to create incentives by district, state etc.
One of our challenges is that the constant renegotiation of the next bill creates a lack of trust over time. We have seen that anything agreed to today is just the baseline for the next negotiation. Which seemed to work fine as long as everybody got something. Now, in most cases, there isn’t
the pork that it took to get Nebraska on board with the ACAthe right thing to available to create an incentive for compromise.So, we, the almost universal “we” politically, have crippled our system because we didn’t understand, or like, how compromise was created, or managed.
[add acerbic comment here]
lj, I think it’s a very general we. We all wanted some form of campaign reform at different times, different levels of spending controls, limitations on perceived corruption and, finally, pork barrel. I never understood McCain and others focus on that, it is what created common ground for negotiations in lots of cases.
Our governmental institutions’ are transactional by design. I don’t necessarily like the design but they are designed to create incentives by district, state etc.
One of our challenges is that the constant renegotiation of the next bill creates a lack of trust over time. We have seen that anything agreed to today is just the baseline for the next negotiation. Which seemed to work fine as long as everybody got something. Now, in most cases, there isn’t
the pork that it took to get Nebraska on board with the ACAthe right thing to available to create an incentive for compromise.So, we, the almost universal “we” politically, have crippled our system because we didn’t understand, or like, how compromise was created, or managed.
[add acerbic comment here]
lj, I think it’s a very general we. We all wanted some form of campaign reform at different times, different levels of spending controls, limitations on perceived corruption and, finally, pork barrel. I never understood McCain and others focus on that, it is what created common ground for negotiations in lots of cases.
Our governmental institutions’ are transactional by design. I don’t necessarily like the design but they are designed to create incentives by district, state etc.
One of our challenges is that the constant renegotiation of the next bill creates a lack of trust over time. We have seen that anything agreed to today is just the baseline for the next negotiation. Which seemed to work fine as long as everybody got something. Now, in most cases, there isn’t
the pork that it took to get Nebraska on board with the ACAthe right thing to available to create an incentive for compromise.So, we, the almost universal “we” politically, have crippled our system because we didn’t understand, or like, how compromise was created, or managed.
[add acerbic comment here]
I didn’t like the Atlantic article. There is some truth to it–we do need people willing to compromise in DC, on the left and the right. Maybe pork barrel projects are a good idea p, part of the necessary lubrication needed to make the system work.
What I didn’t like was the all-encompassing nature of his explanation, where he gets to pose, yes, as a very serious person opposed to the sociopaths. He’s ignoring why the mainstream has been so discredited–first there was the Iraq War, which was a bipartisan endeavor and then there was the financial collapse whose causes again were bipartisan in nature. There is a justified sense in many of us that there are morally repugnant elites ( a term I first read about in connection with Haiti) in the US who are never accountable for anything no matter how much harm they cause. I can feel this way without wanting to vote for Trump and in my case I will still support the lesser evil (Clinton) in November. But Rauch, it seems to me, is pushing his own ideology by demonizing his opponents. One giveaway is his support for the Grand Bargain which failed in 2011. The usual claim by Obama supporters that I’ve seen is that Obama himself didn’t want that bargain and only offered it because he knew the Republicans would reject it. Then Obama would look good to people like Rauch. I want Washington to work, but no, I don’t want bipartisan support for insane wars or financial deregulation that nearly destroys the economy or Grand Bargains that further increase inequality in this country.
I didn’t like the Atlantic article. There is some truth to it–we do need people willing to compromise in DC, on the left and the right. Maybe pork barrel projects are a good idea p, part of the necessary lubrication needed to make the system work.
What I didn’t like was the all-encompassing nature of his explanation, where he gets to pose, yes, as a very serious person opposed to the sociopaths. He’s ignoring why the mainstream has been so discredited–first there was the Iraq War, which was a bipartisan endeavor and then there was the financial collapse whose causes again were bipartisan in nature. There is a justified sense in many of us that there are morally repugnant elites ( a term I first read about in connection with Haiti) in the US who are never accountable for anything no matter how much harm they cause. I can feel this way without wanting to vote for Trump and in my case I will still support the lesser evil (Clinton) in November. But Rauch, it seems to me, is pushing his own ideology by demonizing his opponents. One giveaway is his support for the Grand Bargain which failed in 2011. The usual claim by Obama supporters that I’ve seen is that Obama himself didn’t want that bargain and only offered it because he knew the Republicans would reject it. Then Obama would look good to people like Rauch. I want Washington to work, but no, I don’t want bipartisan support for insane wars or financial deregulation that nearly destroys the economy or Grand Bargains that further increase inequality in this country.
I didn’t like the Atlantic article. There is some truth to it–we do need people willing to compromise in DC, on the left and the right. Maybe pork barrel projects are a good idea p, part of the necessary lubrication needed to make the system work.
What I didn’t like was the all-encompassing nature of his explanation, where he gets to pose, yes, as a very serious person opposed to the sociopaths. He’s ignoring why the mainstream has been so discredited–first there was the Iraq War, which was a bipartisan endeavor and then there was the financial collapse whose causes again were bipartisan in nature. There is a justified sense in many of us that there are morally repugnant elites ( a term I first read about in connection with Haiti) in the US who are never accountable for anything no matter how much harm they cause. I can feel this way without wanting to vote for Trump and in my case I will still support the lesser evil (Clinton) in November. But Rauch, it seems to me, is pushing his own ideology by demonizing his opponents. One giveaway is his support for the Grand Bargain which failed in 2011. The usual claim by Obama supporters that I’ve seen is that Obama himself didn’t want that bargain and only offered it because he knew the Republicans would reject it. Then Obama would look good to people like Rauch. I want Washington to work, but no, I don’t want bipartisan support for insane wars or financial deregulation that nearly destroys the economy or Grand Bargains that further increase inequality in this country.
Put another way, I think Rauch’s Atlantic piece was an oversimplified fairy tale masquerading as sophisticated analysis. Not everything was false, but the rhetorical effectiveness of it depended a lot on name-calling and cherrypicking of facts.
Put another way, I think Rauch’s Atlantic piece was an oversimplified fairy tale masquerading as sophisticated analysis. Not everything was false, but the rhetorical effectiveness of it depended a lot on name-calling and cherrypicking of facts.
Put another way, I think Rauch’s Atlantic piece was an oversimplified fairy tale masquerading as sophisticated analysis. Not everything was false, but the rhetorical effectiveness of it depended a lot on name-calling and cherrypicking of facts.
… and, finally, pork barrel. I never understood McCain and others focus on that…
Marty, I think the focus on pork barrel spending came from the view that government was spending way too much money. And pork barrel spending, almost by definition, benefits one specific Congressman’s constituents . . . and, therefore, doesn’t benefit (directly) the rest of the country. Which makes attacking it easy. (Bridge To Nowhere projects make it even easier, since there isn’t any visible benefit even to most of the people in that one district.)
So if you can’t cut programs which are widely popular (much as you would like to), because they provide benefits to lots of people, you cut those which are narrowly focused. And “pork barrel” makes such a great label — and after all, nobody allows themselves to think that the “Federal money” going to stuff in their area is “pork barrel.”
… and, finally, pork barrel. I never understood McCain and others focus on that…
Marty, I think the focus on pork barrel spending came from the view that government was spending way too much money. And pork barrel spending, almost by definition, benefits one specific Congressman’s constituents . . . and, therefore, doesn’t benefit (directly) the rest of the country. Which makes attacking it easy. (Bridge To Nowhere projects make it even easier, since there isn’t any visible benefit even to most of the people in that one district.)
So if you can’t cut programs which are widely popular (much as you would like to), because they provide benefits to lots of people, you cut those which are narrowly focused. And “pork barrel” makes such a great label — and after all, nobody allows themselves to think that the “Federal money” going to stuff in their area is “pork barrel.”
… and, finally, pork barrel. I never understood McCain and others focus on that…
Marty, I think the focus on pork barrel spending came from the view that government was spending way too much money. And pork barrel spending, almost by definition, benefits one specific Congressman’s constituents . . . and, therefore, doesn’t benefit (directly) the rest of the country. Which makes attacking it easy. (Bridge To Nowhere projects make it even easier, since there isn’t any visible benefit even to most of the people in that one district.)
So if you can’t cut programs which are widely popular (much as you would like to), because they provide benefits to lots of people, you cut those which are narrowly focused. And “pork barrel” makes such a great label — and after all, nobody allows themselves to think that the “Federal money” going to stuff in their area is “pork barrel.”
wj, I understand all that, it just seems really shortsighted for a pretty senior Senator, or Senators, to publish a list of reasonably small money projects each year to try to kill something he had to know was valuable until they created enough pressure to have the Congress take action.
Did he think it got him a meaningful number of votes in the next election?
wj, I understand all that, it just seems really shortsighted for a pretty senior Senator, or Senators, to publish a list of reasonably small money projects each year to try to kill something he had to know was valuable until they created enough pressure to have the Congress take action.
Did he think it got him a meaningful number of votes in the next election?
wj, I understand all that, it just seems really shortsighted for a pretty senior Senator, or Senators, to publish a list of reasonably small money projects each year to try to kill something he had to know was valuable until they created enough pressure to have the Congress take action.
Did he think it got him a meaningful number of votes in the next election?
1. Our elites have taken us down the wrong path, economically and socially.
2. White racism was a key component assisting and validating the power of these elites.
3. Therefore? Blame for these policy failures can and should be placed at the feet of a racist white working class? Opinions vary.
4. The white working class now stands in (some kind of) opposition due to the elite’s inability to deliver the goods.
5. What a surprise.
Acerbic comments welcome 🙂
1. Our elites have taken us down the wrong path, economically and socially.
2. White racism was a key component assisting and validating the power of these elites.
3. Therefore? Blame for these policy failures can and should be placed at the feet of a racist white working class? Opinions vary.
4. The white working class now stands in (some kind of) opposition due to the elite’s inability to deliver the goods.
5. What a surprise.
Acerbic comments welcome 🙂
1. Our elites have taken us down the wrong path, economically and socially.
2. White racism was a key component assisting and validating the power of these elites.
3. Therefore? Blame for these policy failures can and should be placed at the feet of a racist white working class? Opinions vary.
4. The white working class now stands in (some kind of) opposition due to the elite’s inability to deliver the goods.
5. What a surprise.
Acerbic comments welcome 🙂
I’d guess (and it is only that) that he thought it would help burnish his credentials as someone who fought “big government” and “government waste.” Whether that was to gain votes, or just to avoid losing some, I don’t know.
Those projects may be sub-microscopic compared to the whole Federal budget. But it can look pretty big to someone for whom the price tag is several times his annual income.
I’d guess (and it is only that) that he thought it would help burnish his credentials as someone who fought “big government” and “government waste.” Whether that was to gain votes, or just to avoid losing some, I don’t know.
Those projects may be sub-microscopic compared to the whole Federal budget. But it can look pretty big to someone for whom the price tag is several times his annual income.
I’d guess (and it is only that) that he thought it would help burnish his credentials as someone who fought “big government” and “government waste.” Whether that was to gain votes, or just to avoid losing some, I don’t know.
Those projects may be sub-microscopic compared to the whole Federal budget. But it can look pretty big to someone for whom the price tag is several times his annual income.
Bobby,
1) yup
2) arguable, at best. Especially in the last couple of generations about in most regions of the country.
3) only to the extent that, for some of them, racism was what moved them to keep voting for those who were pushing policies which were not in their (economic) interest.
4) Lots of people, white or not, working class or not, are unhappy with where we’ve gotten to. That’s behind a lot of the popularity of both Trump and Sanders — whose supporters otherwise have rather little in common.
5) “…but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” The scam has had a good run; nearly four decades by my count. But eventually it becomes really hard to avoid noticing that the emperor has no clothes.
Not sure I have achieved acerbic. But not for lack of trying.
Bobby,
1) yup
2) arguable, at best. Especially in the last couple of generations about in most regions of the country.
3) only to the extent that, for some of them, racism was what moved them to keep voting for those who were pushing policies which were not in their (economic) interest.
4) Lots of people, white or not, working class or not, are unhappy with where we’ve gotten to. That’s behind a lot of the popularity of both Trump and Sanders — whose supporters otherwise have rather little in common.
5) “…but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” The scam has had a good run; nearly four decades by my count. But eventually it becomes really hard to avoid noticing that the emperor has no clothes.
Not sure I have achieved acerbic. But not for lack of trying.
Bobby,
1) yup
2) arguable, at best. Especially in the last couple of generations about in most regions of the country.
3) only to the extent that, for some of them, racism was what moved them to keep voting for those who were pushing policies which were not in their (economic) interest.
4) Lots of people, white or not, working class or not, are unhappy with where we’ve gotten to. That’s behind a lot of the popularity of both Trump and Sanders — whose supporters otherwise have rather little in common.
5) “…but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” The scam has had a good run; nearly four decades by my count. But eventually it becomes really hard to avoid noticing that the emperor has no clothes.
Not sure I have achieved acerbic. But not for lack of trying.
But I have to ask “Who do you mean we, kemosabe?’ 🙂
For the life of me, I can’t think who.
Marty wrote:
“As the article covers, we have taken away all of the tools that allowed the professional political class to govern effectively in a way that was responsive to the needs of the nation, and replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers.”
As a former Federal employee, I and my mates in government join with teachers in wanting the disdain formerly reserved for all of us, without exception, back, in full. I mean, what was the point in making the reservations for the disdain in the first place if the conservative movement was going to make us share it with the entire scientific profession, feminazis, unarmed blacks, wetbacks, immigrants, innocent Muslim Americans, anyone working to gain any expertise whatsoever, the poor, the indigent, the unemployed, the medically uninsured, the so-called politically correct, our higher education system, anyone who attempts to govern and well, the list, it grows daily.
The disdained class, unlike the middle class, is booming.
Again, I can’t think who engineered, organized, wurlitzered, bought and paid for, nurtured, encouraged and propagandized all of this disdain over time.
It’s reached a crescendo of Wagnerian intensity.
Even many of the professional disdainful disdainers are now cast among the disdained by the Trump movement.
How do ya like them apples? I know the previously disdainful find it uncomfortable to now be among the disdained and are now shocked … shocked I tell you .. over the disdain the new fascism is aiming their way, but fear not, at some point gunfire will be aimed your way too like it has at been at government employees and teachers and their public school students at various times in the past.
Here’s a little disdain for ya:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/howie-carr-trump-warren-war-whoop
The revenge will be Comanche in severity. Mr Carr will be found buried up to his neck naked and his head cheese will be fed upon by terror ants and then his skull will play a prominent part in Comanche croquet.
His women and children will be liberated and raised as Comanche, and it will probably be a relief to them.
It’s all tribal now until one or the other tribe is dead.
Any other conclusion would be politically correct.
But I have to ask “Who do you mean we, kemosabe?’ 🙂
For the life of me, I can’t think who.
Marty wrote:
“As the article covers, we have taken away all of the tools that allowed the professional political class to govern effectively in a way that was responsive to the needs of the nation, and replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers.”
As a former Federal employee, I and my mates in government join with teachers in wanting the disdain formerly reserved for all of us, without exception, back, in full. I mean, what was the point in making the reservations for the disdain in the first place if the conservative movement was going to make us share it with the entire scientific profession, feminazis, unarmed blacks, wetbacks, immigrants, innocent Muslim Americans, anyone working to gain any expertise whatsoever, the poor, the indigent, the unemployed, the medically uninsured, the so-called politically correct, our higher education system, anyone who attempts to govern and well, the list, it grows daily.
The disdained class, unlike the middle class, is booming.
Again, I can’t think who engineered, organized, wurlitzered, bought and paid for, nurtured, encouraged and propagandized all of this disdain over time.
It’s reached a crescendo of Wagnerian intensity.
Even many of the professional disdainful disdainers are now cast among the disdained by the Trump movement.
How do ya like them apples? I know the previously disdainful find it uncomfortable to now be among the disdained and are now shocked … shocked I tell you .. over the disdain the new fascism is aiming their way, but fear not, at some point gunfire will be aimed your way too like it has at been at government employees and teachers and their public school students at various times in the past.
Here’s a little disdain for ya:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/howie-carr-trump-warren-war-whoop
The revenge will be Comanche in severity. Mr Carr will be found buried up to his neck naked and his head cheese will be fed upon by terror ants and then his skull will play a prominent part in Comanche croquet.
His women and children will be liberated and raised as Comanche, and it will probably be a relief to them.
It’s all tribal now until one or the other tribe is dead.
Any other conclusion would be politically correct.
But I have to ask “Who do you mean we, kemosabe?’ 🙂
For the life of me, I can’t think who.
Marty wrote:
“As the article covers, we have taken away all of the tools that allowed the professional political class to govern effectively in a way that was responsive to the needs of the nation, and replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers.”
As a former Federal employee, I and my mates in government join with teachers in wanting the disdain formerly reserved for all of us, without exception, back, in full. I mean, what was the point in making the reservations for the disdain in the first place if the conservative movement was going to make us share it with the entire scientific profession, feminazis, unarmed blacks, wetbacks, immigrants, innocent Muslim Americans, anyone working to gain any expertise whatsoever, the poor, the indigent, the unemployed, the medically uninsured, the so-called politically correct, our higher education system, anyone who attempts to govern and well, the list, it grows daily.
The disdained class, unlike the middle class, is booming.
Again, I can’t think who engineered, organized, wurlitzered, bought and paid for, nurtured, encouraged and propagandized all of this disdain over time.
It’s reached a crescendo of Wagnerian intensity.
Even many of the professional disdainful disdainers are now cast among the disdained by the Trump movement.
How do ya like them apples? I know the previously disdainful find it uncomfortable to now be among the disdained and are now shocked … shocked I tell you .. over the disdain the new fascism is aiming their way, but fear not, at some point gunfire will be aimed your way too like it has at been at government employees and teachers and their public school students at various times in the past.
Here’s a little disdain for ya:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/howie-carr-trump-warren-war-whoop
The revenge will be Comanche in severity. Mr Carr will be found buried up to his neck naked and his head cheese will be fed upon by terror ants and then his skull will play a prominent part in Comanche croquet.
His women and children will be liberated and raised as Comanche, and it will probably be a relief to them.
It’s all tribal now until one or the other tribe is dead.
Any other conclusion would be politically correct.
“replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers. ”
OT, maybe (or maybe not) but this made me really sad.
“replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers. ”
OT, maybe (or maybe not) but this made me really sad.
“replaced them with the kind of disdain usually reserved for teachers. ”
OT, maybe (or maybe not) but this made me really sad.
I can’t think who seeks to preserve this country’s most treasonous and seditious symbol, the symbol of national dissolution, the symbol of the authors of the deadliest terrorist war on American soil, the flag embodying America’s original sin – slavery – and its f*cking racist tradition right down to this day — the symbol under which the murder of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and the ruination of hundreds of millions of lives over the past century and half has been carried out, all to deny, belittle, and hold up top disdain the effective governance that might save a few more lives of the unborn (let’s not forget the born too, those chumps) by combating the Zika Virus.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/29/gop-congress-we-luv-babies-but-not-as-much-as-we-love-our-treason-flag/
Hmmm, kemosabe.
I can’t think who seeks to preserve this country’s most treasonous and seditious symbol, the symbol of national dissolution, the symbol of the authors of the deadliest terrorist war on American soil, the flag embodying America’s original sin – slavery – and its f*cking racist tradition right down to this day — the symbol under which the murder of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and the ruination of hundreds of millions of lives over the past century and half has been carried out, all to deny, belittle, and hold up top disdain the effective governance that might save a few more lives of the unborn (let’s not forget the born too, those chumps) by combating the Zika Virus.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/29/gop-congress-we-luv-babies-but-not-as-much-as-we-love-our-treason-flag/
Hmmm, kemosabe.
I can’t think who seeks to preserve this country’s most treasonous and seditious symbol, the symbol of national dissolution, the symbol of the authors of the deadliest terrorist war on American soil, the flag embodying America’s original sin – slavery – and its f*cking racist tradition right down to this day — the symbol under which the murder of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and the ruination of hundreds of millions of lives over the past century and half has been carried out, all to deny, belittle, and hold up top disdain the effective governance that might save a few more lives of the unborn (let’s not forget the born too, those chumps) by combating the Zika Virus.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/29/gop-congress-we-luv-babies-but-not-as-much-as-we-love-our-treason-flag/
Hmmm, kemosabe.
Well, if you celebrate ignorance, you can hardly do anything else but distain teachers. (Although I suppose you could argue about which way causality runs….)
Well, if you celebrate ignorance, you can hardly do anything else but distain teachers. (Although I suppose you could argue about which way causality runs….)
Well, if you celebrate ignorance, you can hardly do anything else but distain teachers. (Although I suppose you could argue about which way causality runs….)
Not sure I have achieved acerbic…
Not. Even. Close.
We appear to agree on 1 & 5. We are at loggerheads on 2 & 3. #4 is a toss-up.
On to the tie breaker.
“I’ll take Silent Majority, those nine terrifying words, “there is no society”, and “fool me twice” for a thousand, Alex.
Not sure I have achieved acerbic…
Not. Even. Close.
We appear to agree on 1 & 5. We are at loggerheads on 2 & 3. #4 is a toss-up.
On to the tie breaker.
“I’ll take Silent Majority, those nine terrifying words, “there is no society”, and “fool me twice” for a thousand, Alex.
Not sure I have achieved acerbic…
Not. Even. Close.
We appear to agree on 1 & 5. We are at loggerheads on 2 & 3. #4 is a toss-up.
On to the tie breaker.
“I’ll take Silent Majority, those nine terrifying words, “there is no society”, and “fool me twice” for a thousand, Alex.
For quotes and thoughts, I spent a lot of time reflecting on the places we have, variously we, have started chipping away at the Constitution. The latest being the lack of due process around the no fly list in general. I was reminded that every coup starts with someone “suspending” the constitution, and declaring martial law, then disbanding the legislature. All of which I could see seeming ok to way too many Americans.
For quotes and thoughts, I spent a lot of time reflecting on the places we have, variously we, have started chipping away at the Constitution. The latest being the lack of due process around the no fly list in general. I was reminded that every coup starts with someone “suspending” the constitution, and declaring martial law, then disbanding the legislature. All of which I could see seeming ok to way too many Americans.
For quotes and thoughts, I spent a lot of time reflecting on the places we have, variously we, have started chipping away at the Constitution. The latest being the lack of due process around the no fly list in general. I was reminded that every coup starts with someone “suspending” the constitution, and declaring martial law, then disbanding the legislature. All of which I could see seeming ok to way too many Americans.
Whoops, too late! Britain’s Parliament already suspended the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/30/late-night-open-thread-president-obama-on-populists-nativists/
See the embedded video therein.
Actually, I think the Presidency was declared defunct by the Senate and House in 2010.
I agree the no-fly list is problematic.
al Qaeda won that one.
Plus they convinced us to keep military weaponry in the hands of the citizenry so we can help them help us kill each other in mass shootings.
Whoops, too late! Britain’s Parliament already suspended the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/30/late-night-open-thread-president-obama-on-populists-nativists/
See the embedded video therein.
Actually, I think the Presidency was declared defunct by the Senate and House in 2010.
I agree the no-fly list is problematic.
al Qaeda won that one.
Plus they convinced us to keep military weaponry in the hands of the citizenry so we can help them help us kill each other in mass shootings.
Whoops, too late! Britain’s Parliament already suspended the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/30/late-night-open-thread-president-obama-on-populists-nativists/
See the embedded video therein.
Actually, I think the Presidency was declared defunct by the Senate and House in 2010.
I agree the no-fly list is problematic.
al Qaeda won that one.
Plus they convinced us to keep military weaponry in the hands of the citizenry so we can help them help us kill each other in mass shootings.
Marty, the KKK is giddy over what you fear about the Constitution:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kkk-dreams-rising-again-150-years-after-founding
I spotted this in the article:
“Most Klan groups I talk to could hold a meeting in the bathroom in McDonald’s,” said Chris Barker, imperial wizard of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Eden, North Carolina. As for his Klavern, he said, “Right now, I’m close to 3,800 members in my group alone.”
Which made think of this too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/laura-ingraham-diapers-bathrooms-transgender
I’m trying to imagine walking into that bathroom that is clotted with Klansmen AND Laura Ingraham in, robes, hoods, AND diapers, with Ingraham trying to apply her lipstick through the eyeholes in her hood at the mirror, while Dinesh D’Souza is making a stink about something or other in the far stall without actually showing his Brahmin elitist church lady blackface to the assembled menagerie.
Probably best just to roll a grenade through the door of the bathroom, placing one of those yellow plastic “bathroom being cleaned” sawhorse barriers in front of the door, and head over to check out what the spooky Burger King is up to.
Marty, the KKK is giddy over what you fear about the Constitution:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kkk-dreams-rising-again-150-years-after-founding
I spotted this in the article:
“Most Klan groups I talk to could hold a meeting in the bathroom in McDonald’s,” said Chris Barker, imperial wizard of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Eden, North Carolina. As for his Klavern, he said, “Right now, I’m close to 3,800 members in my group alone.”
Which made think of this too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/laura-ingraham-diapers-bathrooms-transgender
I’m trying to imagine walking into that bathroom that is clotted with Klansmen AND Laura Ingraham in, robes, hoods, AND diapers, with Ingraham trying to apply her lipstick through the eyeholes in her hood at the mirror, while Dinesh D’Souza is making a stink about something or other in the far stall without actually showing his Brahmin elitist church lady blackface to the assembled menagerie.
Probably best just to roll a grenade through the door of the bathroom, placing one of those yellow plastic “bathroom being cleaned” sawhorse barriers in front of the door, and head over to check out what the spooky Burger King is up to.
Marty, the KKK is giddy over what you fear about the Constitution:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kkk-dreams-rising-again-150-years-after-founding
I spotted this in the article:
“Most Klan groups I talk to could hold a meeting in the bathroom in McDonald’s,” said Chris Barker, imperial wizard of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Eden, North Carolina. As for his Klavern, he said, “Right now, I’m close to 3,800 members in my group alone.”
Which made think of this too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/laura-ingraham-diapers-bathrooms-transgender
I’m trying to imagine walking into that bathroom that is clotted with Klansmen AND Laura Ingraham in, robes, hoods, AND diapers, with Ingraham trying to apply her lipstick through the eyeholes in her hood at the mirror, while Dinesh D’Souza is making a stink about something or other in the far stall without actually showing his Brahmin elitist church lady blackface to the assembled menagerie.
Probably best just to roll a grenade through the door of the bathroom, placing one of those yellow plastic “bathroom being cleaned” sawhorse barriers in front of the door, and head over to check out what the spooky Burger King is up to.
Marty,
Suspending civil liberty in times of war (declared or otherwise) has a glorious history going all the way back to The Founders. See also Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. The nonsense of the “War on Terror” is just the latest manifestation of this tendency.
Regards,
Marty,
Suspending civil liberty in times of war (declared or otherwise) has a glorious history going all the way back to The Founders. See also Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. The nonsense of the “War on Terror” is just the latest manifestation of this tendency.
Regards,
Marty,
Suspending civil liberty in times of war (declared or otherwise) has a glorious history going all the way back to The Founders. See also Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. The nonsense of the “War on Terror” is just the latest manifestation of this tendency.
Regards,
I can’t top this:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46310/rob-morrow-jester-hat-sworn-in/
I’m feeling a Texit coming on.
I can’t top this:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46310/rob-morrow-jester-hat-sworn-in/
I’m feeling a Texit coming on.
I can’t top this:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46310/rob-morrow-jester-hat-sworn-in/
I’m feeling a Texit coming on.
ISIS, China, and Jesus join the anti-American right-wing in rooting for the Trumpocalypse:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-may-prefer-trump-clinton-130803759.html#
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/james-dobson-backpedals-trump-conversion
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-extremist-web-forums
And he didn’t even have to offer the first three government-ending tax cuts.
Jesus, of course, has never paid a f*cking tax bill in his 2046-year life, but then he doesn’t receive AARP discounts.
He, Jesus, shoots for free at NRA gun ranges across the country, so I don’t understand why HE feels like he’s always being crucified.
ISIS, China, and Jesus join the anti-American right-wing in rooting for the Trumpocalypse:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-may-prefer-trump-clinton-130803759.html#
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/james-dobson-backpedals-trump-conversion
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-extremist-web-forums
And he didn’t even have to offer the first three government-ending tax cuts.
Jesus, of course, has never paid a f*cking tax bill in his 2046-year life, but then he doesn’t receive AARP discounts.
He, Jesus, shoots for free at NRA gun ranges across the country, so I don’t understand why HE feels like he’s always being crucified.
ISIS, China, and Jesus join the anti-American right-wing in rooting for the Trumpocalypse:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-may-prefer-trump-clinton-130803759.html#
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/james-dobson-backpedals-trump-conversion
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-extremist-web-forums
And he didn’t even have to offer the first three government-ending tax cuts.
Jesus, of course, has never paid a f*cking tax bill in his 2046-year life, but then he doesn’t receive AARP discounts.
He, Jesus, shoots for free at NRA gun ranges across the country, so I don’t understand why HE feels like he’s always being crucified.
“The latest being the lack of due process around the no fly list in general. (+bunch of stuff that hasn’t happened YET) which I could see seeming ok to way too many Americans.”
Okay, Marty. Who’s running for office that promises to get rid of the ‘no fly list’? Anyone?
If not, what do you suggest be done? Court challenges (ongoing, SLOWLY)? Civil disobediance?
You first. Show us how it’s done.
“The latest being the lack of due process around the no fly list in general. (+bunch of stuff that hasn’t happened YET) which I could see seeming ok to way too many Americans.”
Okay, Marty. Who’s running for office that promises to get rid of the ‘no fly list’? Anyone?
If not, what do you suggest be done? Court challenges (ongoing, SLOWLY)? Civil disobediance?
You first. Show us how it’s done.
“The latest being the lack of due process around the no fly list in general. (+bunch of stuff that hasn’t happened YET) which I could see seeming ok to way too many Americans.”
Okay, Marty. Who’s running for office that promises to get rid of the ‘no fly list’? Anyone?
If not, what do you suggest be done? Court challenges (ongoing, SLOWLY)? Civil disobediance?
You first. Show us how it’s done.
I can’t put my finger on the polls he references on Democracy being the #1 concern. Important, IMO, if true..
I think I posted this large exit poll a bit earlier, which bears out Hannan’s claim to some extent:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
I can’t put my finger on the polls he references on Democracy being the #1 concern. Important, IMO, if true..
I think I posted this large exit poll a bit earlier, which bears out Hannan’s claim to some extent:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
I can’t put my finger on the polls he references on Democracy being the #1 concern. Important, IMO, if true..
I think I posted this large exit poll a bit earlier, which bears out Hannan’s claim to some extent:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Excerpt from Marty’s quote of the GG piece:
More importantly still — and directly contrary to what establishment liberals love to claim in order to demonize all who reject their authority — economic suffering and xenophobia/racism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite is true: The former fuels the latter, as sustained economic misery makes people more receptive to tribalistic scapegoating. That’s precisely why plutocratic policies that deprive huge portions of the population of basic opportunity and hope are so dangerous.
While I disagree with, or at least don’t understand, what he says about “establishment liberals” (maybe I don’t know what he means by that) attributing Trump, Brexit, and the like solely to racism/xenophobia, I think the rest gets to the heart of the matter.
I suppose there is some faction or other out there claiming that economic suffering and racism/xenophobia are mutually exclusive, but I’ve been reading lots of different stuff from quite a few sources about the Trump phenomenon for some time, and more intensely over a shorter period about Brexit, and the vast majority of it discusses economic suffering, loss of control and powerlessness, disenfranchisement, etc.
I haven’t read much from GG over the years to have developed the intense dislike for him that others here have, but I guess I’d say he’s generally right about the Trump and Brexit phenomena, but he seems to be wrong in thinking he’s in anything approaching rare company in making the diagnosis he is.
Beyond that, I’d say that some of the debate here leaves me agreeing with all sides (here on ObWi) at least to some extent. Yes, people will lash out at “elites” irrationally, but “elites” also fail to address the interests of the general populace in favor of their own or their fellows’ interests. (Don’t we all, or at least most of us, bitch about that stuff all the time here on this blog?)
And, yes, some pundits and public figures will frame this stuff a particular way to ride their particular hobby horses. It’s complicated stuff, so there’s a lot of room to shape the narrative if you’re not interested in a good-faith attempt at objective analysis. But some truth will find its way into what is otherwise an agenda-furthering exercise. That doesn’t then invalidate whatever that truth might be.
Excerpt from Marty’s quote of the GG piece:
More importantly still — and directly contrary to what establishment liberals love to claim in order to demonize all who reject their authority — economic suffering and xenophobia/racism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite is true: The former fuels the latter, as sustained economic misery makes people more receptive to tribalistic scapegoating. That’s precisely why plutocratic policies that deprive huge portions of the population of basic opportunity and hope are so dangerous.
While I disagree with, or at least don’t understand, what he says about “establishment liberals” (maybe I don’t know what he means by that) attributing Trump, Brexit, and the like solely to racism/xenophobia, I think the rest gets to the heart of the matter.
I suppose there is some faction or other out there claiming that economic suffering and racism/xenophobia are mutually exclusive, but I’ve been reading lots of different stuff from quite a few sources about the Trump phenomenon for some time, and more intensely over a shorter period about Brexit, and the vast majority of it discusses economic suffering, loss of control and powerlessness, disenfranchisement, etc.
I haven’t read much from GG over the years to have developed the intense dislike for him that others here have, but I guess I’d say he’s generally right about the Trump and Brexit phenomena, but he seems to be wrong in thinking he’s in anything approaching rare company in making the diagnosis he is.
Beyond that, I’d say that some of the debate here leaves me agreeing with all sides (here on ObWi) at least to some extent. Yes, people will lash out at “elites” irrationally, but “elites” also fail to address the interests of the general populace in favor of their own or their fellows’ interests. (Don’t we all, or at least most of us, bitch about that stuff all the time here on this blog?)
And, yes, some pundits and public figures will frame this stuff a particular way to ride their particular hobby horses. It’s complicated stuff, so there’s a lot of room to shape the narrative if you’re not interested in a good-faith attempt at objective analysis. But some truth will find its way into what is otherwise an agenda-furthering exercise. That doesn’t then invalidate whatever that truth might be.
Excerpt from Marty’s quote of the GG piece:
More importantly still — and directly contrary to what establishment liberals love to claim in order to demonize all who reject their authority — economic suffering and xenophobia/racism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite is true: The former fuels the latter, as sustained economic misery makes people more receptive to tribalistic scapegoating. That’s precisely why plutocratic policies that deprive huge portions of the population of basic opportunity and hope are so dangerous.
While I disagree with, or at least don’t understand, what he says about “establishment liberals” (maybe I don’t know what he means by that) attributing Trump, Brexit, and the like solely to racism/xenophobia, I think the rest gets to the heart of the matter.
I suppose there is some faction or other out there claiming that economic suffering and racism/xenophobia are mutually exclusive, but I’ve been reading lots of different stuff from quite a few sources about the Trump phenomenon for some time, and more intensely over a shorter period about Brexit, and the vast majority of it discusses economic suffering, loss of control and powerlessness, disenfranchisement, etc.
I haven’t read much from GG over the years to have developed the intense dislike for him that others here have, but I guess I’d say he’s generally right about the Trump and Brexit phenomena, but he seems to be wrong in thinking he’s in anything approaching rare company in making the diagnosis he is.
Beyond that, I’d say that some of the debate here leaves me agreeing with all sides (here on ObWi) at least to some extent. Yes, people will lash out at “elites” irrationally, but “elites” also fail to address the interests of the general populace in favor of their own or their fellows’ interests. (Don’t we all, or at least most of us, bitch about that stuff all the time here on this blog?)
And, yes, some pundits and public figures will frame this stuff a particular way to ride their particular hobby horses. It’s complicated stuff, so there’s a lot of room to shape the narrative if you’re not interested in a good-faith attempt at objective analysis. But some truth will find its way into what is otherwise an agenda-furthering exercise. That doesn’t then invalidate whatever that truth might be.
Bobby, I’ve got to agree with Marty and the Count. We have indeed suspected parts of the Constitution in wars going way back. But those were all wars where there was an enemy (not a tactic) that we could actually beat. That is, there was some expectation of an end to the suspension.
Also, those suspensions were generally explicit. The President (usually) announced that we were suspending a provision. CF Lincoln and hebeas corpus. The government didn’t just implement something, something which just happened to conflict with it.
But where is a Korematsu vs US case? It’s taken twice as long as is that one for a case even to make it into US district court, let alone to the Supreme Court. Possibly because you can’t even find out you are on the nofly list (or otherwise in one of the terrorist databases), in error or otherwise, until and unless you actually get denied boarding.
Bobby, I’ve got to agree with Marty and the Count. We have indeed suspected parts of the Constitution in wars going way back. But those were all wars where there was an enemy (not a tactic) that we could actually beat. That is, there was some expectation of an end to the suspension.
Also, those suspensions were generally explicit. The President (usually) announced that we were suspending a provision. CF Lincoln and hebeas corpus. The government didn’t just implement something, something which just happened to conflict with it.
But where is a Korematsu vs US case? It’s taken twice as long as is that one for a case even to make it into US district court, let alone to the Supreme Court. Possibly because you can’t even find out you are on the nofly list (or otherwise in one of the terrorist databases), in error or otherwise, until and unless you actually get denied boarding.
Bobby, I’ve got to agree with Marty and the Count. We have indeed suspected parts of the Constitution in wars going way back. But those were all wars where there was an enemy (not a tactic) that we could actually beat. That is, there was some expectation of an end to the suspension.
Also, those suspensions were generally explicit. The President (usually) announced that we were suspending a provision. CF Lincoln and hebeas corpus. The government didn’t just implement something, something which just happened to conflict with it.
But where is a Korematsu vs US case? It’s taken twice as long as is that one for a case even to make it into US district court, let alone to the Supreme Court. Possibly because you can’t even find out you are on the nofly list (or otherwise in one of the terrorist databases), in error or otherwise, until and unless you actually get denied boarding.
can I ask a dumb question?
what part of the Constitution does the current implementation of the no fky list violate.
I’m not defending it, I’m just unclear about our sacred right to fly in airplanes.
can I ask a dumb question?
what part of the Constitution does the current implementation of the no fky list violate.
I’m not defending it, I’m just unclear about our sacred right to fly in airplanes.
can I ask a dumb question?
what part of the Constitution does the current implementation of the no fky list violate.
I’m not defending it, I’m just unclear about our sacred right to fly in airplanes.
I suspect Russell that being refused the privilege of flying without your right to due process violates at least one part of the Constitution.
I suspect Russell that being refused the privilege of flying without your right to due process violates at least one part of the Constitution.
I suspect Russell that being refused the privilege of flying without your right to due process violates at least one part of the Constitution.
Also, the no fly list is just one of several “terrorist watch” list databases currently being maintained. With, as Marty says, a lack of due process for being put on.
Or for getting off. You don’t even have a right to know why, on what criteria let alone on what information, you are on them.
Also, the no fly list is just one of several “terrorist watch” list databases currently being maintained. With, as Marty says, a lack of due process for being put on.
Or for getting off. You don’t even have a right to know why, on what criteria let alone on what information, you are on them.
Also, the no fly list is just one of several “terrorist watch” list databases currently being maintained. With, as Marty says, a lack of due process for being put on.
Or for getting off. You don’t even have a right to know why, on what criteria let alone on what information, you are on them.
what part?
to reiterate, I’m not defending the no fly regime, it’s just unclear to me that it’s a constitutional matter.
nor does it need to be, it’s sufficient Imo to say that it’s unfair and prone to abuse.
the right to fly in planes just seems thin, to me. not everything is a matter of inalienable rights.
what part?
to reiterate, I’m not defending the no fly regime, it’s just unclear to me that it’s a constitutional matter.
nor does it need to be, it’s sufficient Imo to say that it’s unfair and prone to abuse.
the right to fly in planes just seems thin, to me. not everything is a matter of inalienable rights.
what part?
to reiterate, I’m not defending the no fly regime, it’s just unclear to me that it’s a constitutional matter.
nor does it need to be, it’s sufficient Imo to say that it’s unfair and prone to abuse.
the right to fly in planes just seems thin, to me. not everything is a matter of inalienable rights.
wj,
I don’t know that I am disagreeing with anybody on this matter, just pointing out some history. As to the no-fly list, certainly there is no right to board an airplane, but somewhere in the emanations and permutations of the Constitution is the implied right to not arbitrarily be put on a list that can impact your abilities to participate fully in commercial and political life.
Another instance of this type of behavior were the various “lists” of suspected commie sympathizers that were assembled during the late 40’s and through the 50’s.
A lot of good people got treated like shit as a result.
Perhaps you can point me to the “announcement” by Truman and/or Eisenhower.
wj,
I don’t know that I am disagreeing with anybody on this matter, just pointing out some history. As to the no-fly list, certainly there is no right to board an airplane, but somewhere in the emanations and permutations of the Constitution is the implied right to not arbitrarily be put on a list that can impact your abilities to participate fully in commercial and political life.
Another instance of this type of behavior were the various “lists” of suspected commie sympathizers that were assembled during the late 40’s and through the 50’s.
A lot of good people got treated like shit as a result.
Perhaps you can point me to the “announcement” by Truman and/or Eisenhower.
wj,
I don’t know that I am disagreeing with anybody on this matter, just pointing out some history. As to the no-fly list, certainly there is no right to board an airplane, but somewhere in the emanations and permutations of the Constitution is the implied right to not arbitrarily be put on a list that can impact your abilities to participate fully in commercial and political life.
Another instance of this type of behavior were the various “lists” of suspected commie sympathizers that were assembled during the late 40’s and through the 50’s.
A lot of good people got treated like shit as a result.
Perhaps you can point me to the “announcement” by Truman and/or Eisenhower.
Due process, equal protection, interference with private contracts, right to interstate travel.
The problem with the “fight it out in the courts” approach is that the Gov’t has been cheating: slow-walking, hiding evidence, for example. That’s in addition to use of “state secrets privilege” (SSP), which his not to be found in the Constitution or in Federal Law, and in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE in which the ‘underlying cause’ for invoking SSP has been revealed, it’s turned out to be “it’s embarrassing”.
The Obama DOJ has been as bad as the Dubya DOJ on these issues.
Really, given the proven track record of invoking the SSP, courts should respond by immediately ruling against the Govt and hold all their lawyers in contempt, with sanctions. Rant off.
Due process, equal protection, interference with private contracts, right to interstate travel.
The problem with the “fight it out in the courts” approach is that the Gov’t has been cheating: slow-walking, hiding evidence, for example. That’s in addition to use of “state secrets privilege” (SSP), which his not to be found in the Constitution or in Federal Law, and in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE in which the ‘underlying cause’ for invoking SSP has been revealed, it’s turned out to be “it’s embarrassing”.
The Obama DOJ has been as bad as the Dubya DOJ on these issues.
Really, given the proven track record of invoking the SSP, courts should respond by immediately ruling against the Govt and hold all their lawyers in contempt, with sanctions. Rant off.
Due process, equal protection, interference with private contracts, right to interstate travel.
The problem with the “fight it out in the courts” approach is that the Gov’t has been cheating: slow-walking, hiding evidence, for example. That’s in addition to use of “state secrets privilege” (SSP), which his not to be found in the Constitution or in Federal Law, and in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE in which the ‘underlying cause’ for invoking SSP has been revealed, it’s turned out to be “it’s embarrassing”.
The Obama DOJ has been as bad as the Dubya DOJ on these issues.
Really, given the proven track record of invoking the SSP, courts should respond by immediately ruling against the Govt and hold all their lawyers in contempt, with sanctions. Rant off.
I believe the Constitution says nothing about the sacred natural right to fly, but if you are a hijacker without any previous criminal record carrying a concealed AR-15 on to a flight, you are well within your sacred rights to possess arms right up until the moment you finish your drink and you and your unregulated militia storm the cockpit.
This was all discussed in the Federalist Papers by some of the Founders before James Madison had to flap his arms and soar off to stop his young buck slaves from transgendering into demure hoop-skirt attired southern belles and using the wrong pee pot.
Which brings to mind this question:
Let’s say you are a man transgendering to female, and while attending a major sporting event or concert, you need to use the facilities badly, because too much beer.
You hustle to the restrooms, in full Nordstrom’s regalia mind you, and there you find a tortuously long line of thigh-clenching ladies winding into their restroom, but, look, no line into the men’s room.
Do you take the chance of wetting your big girl pants in the long ladies’ queue and then being beaten up by some cracker Republican thug, or do you head straight into the men’s room to quickly relieve yourself without the fear of mess, and THEN take your beating from the aforesaid Brexit-loving oaf?
I believe the Constitution says nothing about the sacred natural right to fly, but if you are a hijacker without any previous criminal record carrying a concealed AR-15 on to a flight, you are well within your sacred rights to possess arms right up until the moment you finish your drink and you and your unregulated militia storm the cockpit.
This was all discussed in the Federalist Papers by some of the Founders before James Madison had to flap his arms and soar off to stop his young buck slaves from transgendering into demure hoop-skirt attired southern belles and using the wrong pee pot.
Which brings to mind this question:
Let’s say you are a man transgendering to female, and while attending a major sporting event or concert, you need to use the facilities badly, because too much beer.
You hustle to the restrooms, in full Nordstrom’s regalia mind you, and there you find a tortuously long line of thigh-clenching ladies winding into their restroom, but, look, no line into the men’s room.
Do you take the chance of wetting your big girl pants in the long ladies’ queue and then being beaten up by some cracker Republican thug, or do you head straight into the men’s room to quickly relieve yourself without the fear of mess, and THEN take your beating from the aforesaid Brexit-loving oaf?
I believe the Constitution says nothing about the sacred natural right to fly, but if you are a hijacker without any previous criminal record carrying a concealed AR-15 on to a flight, you are well within your sacred rights to possess arms right up until the moment you finish your drink and you and your unregulated militia storm the cockpit.
This was all discussed in the Federalist Papers by some of the Founders before James Madison had to flap his arms and soar off to stop his young buck slaves from transgendering into demure hoop-skirt attired southern belles and using the wrong pee pot.
Which brings to mind this question:
Let’s say you are a man transgendering to female, and while attending a major sporting event or concert, you need to use the facilities badly, because too much beer.
You hustle to the restrooms, in full Nordstrom’s regalia mind you, and there you find a tortuously long line of thigh-clenching ladies winding into their restroom, but, look, no line into the men’s room.
Do you take the chance of wetting your big girl pants in the long ladies’ queue and then being beaten up by some cracker Republican thug, or do you head straight into the men’s room to quickly relieve yourself without the fear of mess, and THEN take your beating from the aforesaid Brexit-loving oaf?
But those were all wars where there was an enemy (not a tactic) that we could actually beat…
The only instance of which I could even remotely think of defending would be Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.
But those were all wars where there was an enemy (not a tactic) that we could actually beat…
The only instance of which I could even remotely think of defending would be Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.
But those were all wars where there was an enemy (not a tactic) that we could actually beat…
The only instance of which I could even remotely think of defending would be Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.
If you are on the no-fly list, what did the Founders say about owning and operating a drone for commercial purposes?
If you are on the no-fly list, what did the Founders say about owning and operating a drone for commercial purposes?
If you are on the no-fly list, what did the Founders say about owning and operating a drone for commercial purposes?
There is always duct tape, Count.
There is always duct tape, Count.
There is always duct tape, Count.
If you are on the no-fly list, what did the Founders say about owning and operating a drone for commercial purposes?
They would probably say go fly a kite.
If you are on the no-fly list, what did the Founders say about owning and operating a drone for commercial purposes?
They would probably say go fly a kite.
If you are on the no-fly list, what did the Founders say about owning and operating a drone for commercial purposes?
They would probably say go fly a kite.
I liked the Greenwald article. He seems to have toned down his stridency for this. Said stridency was, I think, what turned many of us off a few years back. Scott Lemieux seems to have taken his place in the impossible to read department.
I liked the Greenwald article. He seems to have toned down his stridency for this. Said stridency was, I think, what turned many of us off a few years back. Scott Lemieux seems to have taken his place in the impossible to read department.
I liked the Greenwald article. He seems to have toned down his stridency for this. Said stridency was, I think, what turned many of us off a few years back. Scott Lemieux seems to have taken his place in the impossible to read department.
I believe Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas cited Monte S Skew in their majority arguments during Duck vs Wabbit in 2006, and I quote the honorable Mr. Skew: “You may board a four-in-hand coach in Roanoke and order the driver to tell his horses to fly my pretties, fly to Philadelphia, but if at any time the coach leaves the ground, the sanity clause must be invoked, but sanity clause is not a belief recognized by the Constitution, so Bob’s your uncle as long as he doesn’t dandle you on his knee while not wearing trousers.”
I hope that clears it up.
I believe Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas cited Monte S Skew in their majority arguments during Duck vs Wabbit in 2006, and I quote the honorable Mr. Skew: “You may board a four-in-hand coach in Roanoke and order the driver to tell his horses to fly my pretties, fly to Philadelphia, but if at any time the coach leaves the ground, the sanity clause must be invoked, but sanity clause is not a belief recognized by the Constitution, so Bob’s your uncle as long as he doesn’t dandle you on his knee while not wearing trousers.”
I hope that clears it up.
I believe Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas cited Monte S Skew in their majority arguments during Duck vs Wabbit in 2006, and I quote the honorable Mr. Skew: “You may board a four-in-hand coach in Roanoke and order the driver to tell his horses to fly my pretties, fly to Philadelphia, but if at any time the coach leaves the ground, the sanity clause must be invoked, but sanity clause is not a belief recognized by the Constitution, so Bob’s your uncle as long as he doesn’t dandle you on his knee while not wearing trousers.”
I hope that clears it up.
A college buddy tried his best to reproduce the Franklin kite thing. We never let him try long enough to get results. He is an Air Force pilot now, so I suppose he is closer to that objective now.
A college buddy tried his best to reproduce the Franklin kite thing. We never let him try long enough to get results. He is an Air Force pilot now, so I suppose he is closer to that objective now.
A college buddy tried his best to reproduce the Franklin kite thing. We never let him try long enough to get results. He is an Air Force pilot now, so I suppose he is closer to that objective now.
I’m thinking the 9th Amendment covers something like access to commercial flight. It’s something that just about anyone who can afford it gets to do, many people do it every single day, and it can be and often is damned important to people for the purposes of business, pleasure, health or family matters in this modern world of ours.
I’m thinking the 9th Amendment covers something like access to commercial flight. It’s something that just about anyone who can afford it gets to do, many people do it every single day, and it can be and often is damned important to people for the purposes of business, pleasure, health or family matters in this modern world of ours.
I’m thinking the 9th Amendment covers something like access to commercial flight. It’s something that just about anyone who can afford it gets to do, many people do it every single day, and it can be and often is damned important to people for the purposes of business, pleasure, health or family matters in this modern world of ours.
Russell, I would say that the no-fly list is unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process clause.
Certainly being restrained from flying is a deprivation of liberty. So it is a matter of whether there is anything that could constitute “due process” involved in putting someone on the list.
There is no notification when you are being put on it. And no way to force the government to tell you why you are on it, once you happen to find out. Which sounds it’s a long way from meeting that due process requirement.
Russell, I would say that the no-fly list is unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process clause.
Certainly being restrained from flying is a deprivation of liberty. So it is a matter of whether there is anything that could constitute “due process” involved in putting someone on the list.
There is no notification when you are being put on it. And no way to force the government to tell you why you are on it, once you happen to find out. Which sounds it’s a long way from meeting that due process requirement.
Russell, I would say that the no-fly list is unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process clause.
Certainly being restrained from flying is a deprivation of liberty. So it is a matter of whether there is anything that could constitute “due process” involved in putting someone on the list.
There is no notification when you are being put on it. And no way to force the government to tell you why you are on it, once you happen to find out. Which sounds it’s a long way from meeting that due process requirement.
I think Russell’s question has to do with what right can’t be exercised because of governmental restriction, requiring some form of due process in the first place.
I’m not allowed to just walk into the White House anytime I feel like it, despite there being no process to determine that I can’t. It’s a restriction on my movement, but since I have no right to walk into the White House in the first place, due process isn’t required.
The question is whether or not commercial flight is something that can rightly be restricted without due process or not, constitutionally speaking.
I think Russell’s question has to do with what right can’t be exercised because of governmental restriction, requiring some form of due process in the first place.
I’m not allowed to just walk into the White House anytime I feel like it, despite there being no process to determine that I can’t. It’s a restriction on my movement, but since I have no right to walk into the White House in the first place, due process isn’t required.
The question is whether or not commercial flight is something that can rightly be restricted without due process or not, constitutionally speaking.
I think Russell’s question has to do with what right can’t be exercised because of governmental restriction, requiring some form of due process in the first place.
I’m not allowed to just walk into the White House anytime I feel like it, despite there being no process to determine that I can’t. It’s a restriction on my movement, but since I have no right to walk into the White House in the first place, due process isn’t required.
The question is whether or not commercial flight is something that can rightly be restricted without due process or not, constitutionally speaking.
“I hope that clears it up.”
Now that is the genius I have been missing from the Count. Well done.
“I hope that clears it up.”
Now that is the genius I have been missing from the Count. Well done.
“I hope that clears it up.”
Now that is the genius I have been missing from the Count. Well done.
Yama, that reminds me of a true story if y’all will indulge.
In the fragrant college Spring of 1971 in a small town in Ohio, a few of my college comrades and I came across a design in the Whole Earth Catalogue for a candle-powered hot air balloon. Humanities majors-of-all-types all we were, without a lick of engineering or common sense between us, so we began constructing these balloons in a frenzy of entrepreneurial affliction and test launching them out behind the house we lived in a residential area next to campus.
Briefly, you suspended a framework (we made ours of cardboard holding the lit candles) below a thin but very large plastic bag (ours were five or six feet high at full hot air inflation) and held it aloft until it could fly on its own and off it would go.
Like the early flight pioneers, we experienced a few quick crash landings until the first of our beauties took flight, but that one soon got caught up a tree in the neighbors yard and burned (yes) itself out just out of reach of the weak hose stream our fire brigade could muster.
No one seemed to notice (ha ha ha) so with a bit more tinkering and timing the prevailing breezes we able to get two or three more aloft which sailed like beacons off over the rooftops of the town, to land who knows where.
Well, some one of us suggested launching at night for the spectacle of the five or six candles lighting up the sheer plastic balloon as it canaveraled into the town’s airspace.
It was glorious.
A day or two later, we had procured even larger plastic bags and as all six of us (I have a 45-year old photo in postcard form of a previous launch wherein we look like the Marines hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima) were holding this latest firetrap aloft just prior to launch, we were set upon by it seemed every constabulary in the tri-state area emerging from behind every hedge and fence, from neighbors garages, great platoons of them grabbing all of us, and wrecking our contraption and stomping on the candles, and off we went in the paddy wagon to the town jail, which come to think of it, was right in the path of the prevailing winds on most of our previous successful flights about 3/4 of a mile away.
Long story short, we were very lucky to say the least. No fires had been set, but numerous folks had complained, justifiably. Our hearing, which we attended without counsel, not wanting to alert our families of our tomfoolery, before the Judge consisted of His Honor giving us one of those “what in tarnation did you damn fools think you were doing” tongue lashings as the city attorney sat there smoldering. The Judge actually pointed at us and said “I’m watching you” as he then pointed at his own eyes with two fingers, like in a Deniro movie.
The charges were reduced from some awful stuff to one misdemeanor count of whatever for the lot of us and we paid the fine and slunk home fully set on giving up the wonders of flight and returning to our now disdained-upon liberal arts pursuits.
We were on the no-fly list. I don’t think I even bought a helium balloon at a carnival for years afterwards.
I expect today we would be trussed up like turkeys with our radical internet commenting histories read out loud for all the world to hear and sent packing to Quantanamo under some statute in the Homeland Security legislation.
I can hear Donald Trump now, “These are nasty guys, I’m telling you, with bad, bad thoughts” as our lungs filled with water.
But it was a small college town. The Judge had seen worse from the campus rowdies.
Yama, that reminds me of a true story if y’all will indulge.
In the fragrant college Spring of 1971 in a small town in Ohio, a few of my college comrades and I came across a design in the Whole Earth Catalogue for a candle-powered hot air balloon. Humanities majors-of-all-types all we were, without a lick of engineering or common sense between us, so we began constructing these balloons in a frenzy of entrepreneurial affliction and test launching them out behind the house we lived in a residential area next to campus.
Briefly, you suspended a framework (we made ours of cardboard holding the lit candles) below a thin but very large plastic bag (ours were five or six feet high at full hot air inflation) and held it aloft until it could fly on its own and off it would go.
Like the early flight pioneers, we experienced a few quick crash landings until the first of our beauties took flight, but that one soon got caught up a tree in the neighbors yard and burned (yes) itself out just out of reach of the weak hose stream our fire brigade could muster.
No one seemed to notice (ha ha ha) so with a bit more tinkering and timing the prevailing breezes we able to get two or three more aloft which sailed like beacons off over the rooftops of the town, to land who knows where.
Well, some one of us suggested launching at night for the spectacle of the five or six candles lighting up the sheer plastic balloon as it canaveraled into the town’s airspace.
It was glorious.
A day or two later, we had procured even larger plastic bags and as all six of us (I have a 45-year old photo in postcard form of a previous launch wherein we look like the Marines hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima) were holding this latest firetrap aloft just prior to launch, we were set upon by it seemed every constabulary in the tri-state area emerging from behind every hedge and fence, from neighbors garages, great platoons of them grabbing all of us, and wrecking our contraption and stomping on the candles, and off we went in the paddy wagon to the town jail, which come to think of it, was right in the path of the prevailing winds on most of our previous successful flights about 3/4 of a mile away.
Long story short, we were very lucky to say the least. No fires had been set, but numerous folks had complained, justifiably. Our hearing, which we attended without counsel, not wanting to alert our families of our tomfoolery, before the Judge consisted of His Honor giving us one of those “what in tarnation did you damn fools think you were doing” tongue lashings as the city attorney sat there smoldering. The Judge actually pointed at us and said “I’m watching you” as he then pointed at his own eyes with two fingers, like in a Deniro movie.
The charges were reduced from some awful stuff to one misdemeanor count of whatever for the lot of us and we paid the fine and slunk home fully set on giving up the wonders of flight and returning to our now disdained-upon liberal arts pursuits.
We were on the no-fly list. I don’t think I even bought a helium balloon at a carnival for years afterwards.
I expect today we would be trussed up like turkeys with our radical internet commenting histories read out loud for all the world to hear and sent packing to Quantanamo under some statute in the Homeland Security legislation.
I can hear Donald Trump now, “These are nasty guys, I’m telling you, with bad, bad thoughts” as our lungs filled with water.
But it was a small college town. The Judge had seen worse from the campus rowdies.
Yama, that reminds me of a true story if y’all will indulge.
In the fragrant college Spring of 1971 in a small town in Ohio, a few of my college comrades and I came across a design in the Whole Earth Catalogue for a candle-powered hot air balloon. Humanities majors-of-all-types all we were, without a lick of engineering or common sense between us, so we began constructing these balloons in a frenzy of entrepreneurial affliction and test launching them out behind the house we lived in a residential area next to campus.
Briefly, you suspended a framework (we made ours of cardboard holding the lit candles) below a thin but very large plastic bag (ours were five or six feet high at full hot air inflation) and held it aloft until it could fly on its own and off it would go.
Like the early flight pioneers, we experienced a few quick crash landings until the first of our beauties took flight, but that one soon got caught up a tree in the neighbors yard and burned (yes) itself out just out of reach of the weak hose stream our fire brigade could muster.
No one seemed to notice (ha ha ha) so with a bit more tinkering and timing the prevailing breezes we able to get two or three more aloft which sailed like beacons off over the rooftops of the town, to land who knows where.
Well, some one of us suggested launching at night for the spectacle of the five or six candles lighting up the sheer plastic balloon as it canaveraled into the town’s airspace.
It was glorious.
A day or two later, we had procured even larger plastic bags and as all six of us (I have a 45-year old photo in postcard form of a previous launch wherein we look like the Marines hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima) were holding this latest firetrap aloft just prior to launch, we were set upon by it seemed every constabulary in the tri-state area emerging from behind every hedge and fence, from neighbors garages, great platoons of them grabbing all of us, and wrecking our contraption and stomping on the candles, and off we went in the paddy wagon to the town jail, which come to think of it, was right in the path of the prevailing winds on most of our previous successful flights about 3/4 of a mile away.
Long story short, we were very lucky to say the least. No fires had been set, but numerous folks had complained, justifiably. Our hearing, which we attended without counsel, not wanting to alert our families of our tomfoolery, before the Judge consisted of His Honor giving us one of those “what in tarnation did you damn fools think you were doing” tongue lashings as the city attorney sat there smoldering. The Judge actually pointed at us and said “I’m watching you” as he then pointed at his own eyes with two fingers, like in a Deniro movie.
The charges were reduced from some awful stuff to one misdemeanor count of whatever for the lot of us and we paid the fine and slunk home fully set on giving up the wonders of flight and returning to our now disdained-upon liberal arts pursuits.
We were on the no-fly list. I don’t think I even bought a helium balloon at a carnival for years afterwards.
I expect today we would be trussed up like turkeys with our radical internet commenting histories read out loud for all the world to hear and sent packing to Quantanamo under some statute in the Homeland Security legislation.
I can hear Donald Trump now, “These are nasty guys, I’m telling you, with bad, bad thoughts” as our lungs filled with water.
But it was a small college town. The Judge had seen worse from the campus rowdies.
Count,
when did they release you from Area 51? Or did you escape? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and “well done”. Juvenile high-jinx are undervalued.
Count,
when did they release you from Area 51? Or did you escape? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and “well done”. Juvenile high-jinx are undervalued.
Count,
when did they release you from Area 51? Or did you escape? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and “well done”. Juvenile high-jinx are undervalued.
HSH, yes you can’t just walk into the White House; the folks who live there, and the folks who own the building, have some say on access. But you can just walk down the public streets. It’s not really a parallel situation.
A better analogy might be driving. You can’t be told you can’t drive on the public roads just because someone had a hunch and put you on a government list. If they are going to revoke your driver’s license, they have to tell you that they are doing so (not just have you liable to arrest for driving without a valid license if they happen to pull you over). They also have to tell you why, and there has to be a process to contest their reasons.
HSH, yes you can’t just walk into the White House; the folks who live there, and the folks who own the building, have some say on access. But you can just walk down the public streets. It’s not really a parallel situation.
A better analogy might be driving. You can’t be told you can’t drive on the public roads just because someone had a hunch and put you on a government list. If they are going to revoke your driver’s license, they have to tell you that they are doing so (not just have you liable to arrest for driving without a valid license if they happen to pull you over). They also have to tell you why, and there has to be a process to contest their reasons.
HSH, yes you can’t just walk into the White House; the folks who live there, and the folks who own the building, have some say on access. But you can just walk down the public streets. It’s not really a parallel situation.
A better analogy might be driving. You can’t be told you can’t drive on the public roads just because someone had a hunch and put you on a government list. If they are going to revoke your driver’s license, they have to tell you that they are doing so (not just have you liable to arrest for driving without a valid license if they happen to pull you over). They also have to tell you why, and there has to be a process to contest their reasons.
I understand, wj, and I wasn’t trying to suggest the situations were analogous. My point was that I don’t think Russell is at all unclear about the lack of due process so much as unclear as to whether or not it is required in the first place, or if it is, why it is.
My earlier response involved how the use of commercial flight can constitute a right, such that it would trigger a constitutional requirement for some form of due process, which is what I think he was looking for. (My response may be utterly inadequate, but that’s the question I was attempting to address, none the less.)
I understand, wj, and I wasn’t trying to suggest the situations were analogous. My point was that I don’t think Russell is at all unclear about the lack of due process so much as unclear as to whether or not it is required in the first place, or if it is, why it is.
My earlier response involved how the use of commercial flight can constitute a right, such that it would trigger a constitutional requirement for some form of due process, which is what I think he was looking for. (My response may be utterly inadequate, but that’s the question I was attempting to address, none the less.)
I understand, wj, and I wasn’t trying to suggest the situations were analogous. My point was that I don’t think Russell is at all unclear about the lack of due process so much as unclear as to whether or not it is required in the first place, or if it is, why it is.
My earlier response involved how the use of commercial flight can constitute a right, such that it would trigger a constitutional requirement for some form of due process, which is what I think he was looking for. (My response may be utterly inadequate, but that’s the question I was attempting to address, none the less.)
That one balloon we launched at night looked for all the world like those large jellyfish photographed from underneath as they drift back lit by the sunlight above the surface of the water.
That one balloon we launched at night looked for all the world like those large jellyfish photographed from underneath as they drift back lit by the sunlight above the surface of the water.
That one balloon we launched at night looked for all the world like those large jellyfish photographed from underneath as they drift back lit by the sunlight above the surface of the water.
“The question is whether or not commercial flight is something that can rightly be restricted without due process or not, constitutionally speaking.”
basically,yes, that is my question.
there are lots of reasons that people are prevented from flying, driving on public roads, and any number of other things. it happens every day, and quite often for reasons of basic public safety, which is the motivation for the do not fly list.
you have to submit to a full body electronic scan to get on a plane. unreasonable search? why not?
there should be a reasonable level of transparency about who is placed on no fly lists, and there should be a straightforward way to get off of them.
you don’t have to go to the level of costitutionally protected rights for that to be so.
in any case, seeing the no fly list as the harbinger of the totalitarian state, as Marty seems to do, seems overwrought. to me.
“The question is whether or not commercial flight is something that can rightly be restricted without due process or not, constitutionally speaking.”
basically,yes, that is my question.
there are lots of reasons that people are prevented from flying, driving on public roads, and any number of other things. it happens every day, and quite often for reasons of basic public safety, which is the motivation for the do not fly list.
you have to submit to a full body electronic scan to get on a plane. unreasonable search? why not?
there should be a reasonable level of transparency about who is placed on no fly lists, and there should be a straightforward way to get off of them.
you don’t have to go to the level of costitutionally protected rights for that to be so.
in any case, seeing the no fly list as the harbinger of the totalitarian state, as Marty seems to do, seems overwrought. to me.
“The question is whether or not commercial flight is something that can rightly be restricted without due process or not, constitutionally speaking.”
basically,yes, that is my question.
there are lots of reasons that people are prevented from flying, driving on public roads, and any number of other things. it happens every day, and quite often for reasons of basic public safety, which is the motivation for the do not fly list.
you have to submit to a full body electronic scan to get on a plane. unreasonable search? why not?
there should be a reasonable level of transparency about who is placed on no fly lists, and there should be a straightforward way to get off of them.
you don’t have to go to the level of costitutionally protected rights for that to be so.
in any case, seeing the no fly list as the harbinger of the totalitarian state, as Marty seems to do, seems overwrought. to me.
in any case, seeing the no fly list as the harbinger of the totalitarian state, as Marty seems to do, seems overwrought. to me.
Most likely true. However, insofar as such things become the ‘new normal’, they pose a distinct threat. Will the so-called war on terror come back to bite us in the ass?
More on Brexit: Can fascism come to Britain?
Again…probably not. But disturbing nonetheless.
in any case, seeing the no fly list as the harbinger of the totalitarian state, as Marty seems to do, seems overwrought. to me.
Most likely true. However, insofar as such things become the ‘new normal’, they pose a distinct threat. Will the so-called war on terror come back to bite us in the ass?
More on Brexit: Can fascism come to Britain?
Again…probably not. But disturbing nonetheless.
in any case, seeing the no fly list as the harbinger of the totalitarian state, as Marty seems to do, seems overwrought. to me.
Most likely true. However, insofar as such things become the ‘new normal’, they pose a distinct threat. Will the so-called war on terror come back to bite us in the ass?
More on Brexit: Can fascism come to Britain?
Again…probably not. But disturbing nonetheless.
Russell, my point was that, while there are lots of reasons why you can be restricted from driving, flying, etc., they all have one thing in common. There is a process, a transparent process, for the government putting that restriction on you. And for you getting youself off the restricted list. That due process is lacking with the no-fly list.
I’d say that the full body scan is, indeed, an unreasonable search. Not least because it is not clear that it actually succeeds in doing what it is purportedly for.
But also because of who is doing it. If you want to go into a government building, the government (the owner, or at least leasee, of the building) can legitimately demand a search. If you want to go into a private business, the business can do so.
But with TSA, the Federal government is insisting on a search in order for you to go into a facility which it neither owns nor operates. In order to patronize a private business. The constitutional basis for that is, IMHO, shaky at best.
Russell, my point was that, while there are lots of reasons why you can be restricted from driving, flying, etc., they all have one thing in common. There is a process, a transparent process, for the government putting that restriction on you. And for you getting youself off the restricted list. That due process is lacking with the no-fly list.
I’d say that the full body scan is, indeed, an unreasonable search. Not least because it is not clear that it actually succeeds in doing what it is purportedly for.
But also because of who is doing it. If you want to go into a government building, the government (the owner, or at least leasee, of the building) can legitimately demand a search. If you want to go into a private business, the business can do so.
But with TSA, the Federal government is insisting on a search in order for you to go into a facility which it neither owns nor operates. In order to patronize a private business. The constitutional basis for that is, IMHO, shaky at best.
Russell, my point was that, while there are lots of reasons why you can be restricted from driving, flying, etc., they all have one thing in common. There is a process, a transparent process, for the government putting that restriction on you. And for you getting youself off the restricted list. That due process is lacking with the no-fly list.
I’d say that the full body scan is, indeed, an unreasonable search. Not least because it is not clear that it actually succeeds in doing what it is purportedly for.
But also because of who is doing it. If you want to go into a government building, the government (the owner, or at least leasee, of the building) can legitimately demand a search. If you want to go into a private business, the business can do so.
But with TSA, the Federal government is insisting on a search in order for you to go into a facility which it neither owns nor operates. In order to patronize a private business. The constitutional basis for that is, IMHO, shaky at best.
It occurs to me that had we not been interdicted in the great hot air balloon caper, we might have progressed to launching a fleet of the balloons, all connected to a lightweight lawn chair with one of us perched in it and maybe delivering pizzas and other comestibles to sorority row on weekends.
You see how the heavy hand of gummint regulation nipped us in the bud. We coulda been an early Dominos or Amazon with our drone technology.
It occurs to me that had we not been interdicted in the great hot air balloon caper, we might have progressed to launching a fleet of the balloons, all connected to a lightweight lawn chair with one of us perched in it and maybe delivering pizzas and other comestibles to sorority row on weekends.
You see how the heavy hand of gummint regulation nipped us in the bud. We coulda been an early Dominos or Amazon with our drone technology.
It occurs to me that had we not been interdicted in the great hot air balloon caper, we might have progressed to launching a fleet of the balloons, all connected to a lightweight lawn chair with one of us perched in it and maybe delivering pizzas and other comestibles to sorority row on weekends.
You see how the heavy hand of gummint regulation nipped us in the bud. We coulda been an early Dominos or Amazon with our drone technology.
Young men are not supposed to live through these things, Count. Somebody must be looking out for us.
Mythbusters kind of took the fun out of it.
Young men are not supposed to live through these things, Count. Somebody must be looking out for us.
Mythbusters kind of took the fun out of it.
Young men are not supposed to live through these things, Count. Somebody must be looking out for us.
Mythbusters kind of took the fun out of it.
As to racism/xenophobia, it’s more likely driven by the influx of pasty pale plumbers from Poland than by beautiful brown baristas from Barbados.
Very likely, immigration from Europe has crowded out some of the immigration from former colonies.
As to racism/xenophobia, it’s more likely driven by the influx of pasty pale plumbers from Poland than by beautiful brown baristas from Barbados.
Very likely, immigration from Europe has crowded out some of the immigration from former colonies.
As to racism/xenophobia, it’s more likely driven by the influx of pasty pale plumbers from Poland than by beautiful brown baristas from Barbados.
Very likely, immigration from Europe has crowded out some of the immigration from former colonies.
“there should be a reasonable level of transparency about who is placed on no fly lists, and there should be a straightforward way to get off of them.”
Yes, but since neither is true, it is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.
Let me count the ways that’s wrong.
“there should be a reasonable level of transparency about who is placed on no fly lists, and there should be a straightforward way to get off of them.”
Yes, but since neither is true, it is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.
Let me count the ways that’s wrong.
“there should be a reasonable level of transparency about who is placed on no fly lists, and there should be a straightforward way to get off of them.”
Yes, but since neither is true, it is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.
Let me count the ways that’s wrong.
more on what we are seeing this election cycle from the lunatics at Jacobin.
more on what we are seeing this election cycle from the lunatics at Jacobin.
more on what we are seeing this election cycle from the lunatics at Jacobin.
“[the no fly list] is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.”
Suspected of being so very very dangerous that cannot be allowed on an airplane, even after extensive search and screening. And yet cannot be arrested for a crime.
Considering how incredibly broad the terrorism and conspiracy statutes are written, that is simply amazing.
I agree with Marty: it’s totally wrong, totally unacceptable, and whatever idiot came up with the idea should be locked up for life.
“[the no fly list] is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.”
Suspected of being so very very dangerous that cannot be allowed on an airplane, even after extensive search and screening. And yet cannot be arrested for a crime.
Considering how incredibly broad the terrorism and conspiracy statutes are written, that is simply amazing.
I agree with Marty: it’s totally wrong, totally unacceptable, and whatever idiot came up with the idea should be locked up for life.
“[the no fly list] is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.”
Suspected of being so very very dangerous that cannot be allowed on an airplane, even after extensive search and screening. And yet cannot be arrested for a crime.
Considering how incredibly broad the terrorism and conspiracy statutes are written, that is simply amazing.
I agree with Marty: it’s totally wrong, totally unacceptable, and whatever idiot came up with the idea should be locked up for life.
Yes, but since neither is true, it is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.
…or having a name too like some such person and not being able to satisfy the airport that you’re not them.
Yes, but since neither is true, it is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.
…or having a name too like some such person and not being able to satisfy the airport that you’re not them.
Yes, but since neither is true, it is, in effect, punishment for being suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future.
…or having a name too like some such person and not being able to satisfy the airport that you’re not them.
Well, if “driving while black” is grounds for being pulled over, why should “flying while named similarly to some (reputed) low life” not be equally culpable?
Well, if “driving while black” is grounds for being pulled over, why should “flying while named similarly to some (reputed) low life” not be equally culpable?
Well, if “driving while black” is grounds for being pulled over, why should “flying while named similarly to some (reputed) low life” not be equally culpable?
“I would trace that to the EU reaction to the global financial crisis. In broad terms, the EU reacted by saving the banks and abandoning the general population. That was followed by Merckel’s reaction to the later Greek crisis. Again the banks were bailed out, and the populace forced to accept a heavily deflationary economic environment.”
I’m sceptical of this argument, because I don’t think the majority of Leave voters would have been too upset those failures – to the extent they were even aware of them.
The way the Greeks were represented in the press was much like the way people on benefits are represented – as lazy people looking for a hand-out. I doubt too many Leavers were offended by Germany and the EU’s imposition of tough terms.
As for the bank bailouts, the same thing happened in the UK and the States. People might see these as bad policies without especially associating them with the EU. Why would Leavers in general be particularly upset about Eurozone deflation or lack of moral hazard for European banks – if they were even aware of them?
I agree tribalism played a significant part. But I wonder if in terms of issues it wasn’t more a protest vote against wage stagnation and unaffordable housing, which the media encouraged people to think were caused by immigration.
“I would trace that to the EU reaction to the global financial crisis. In broad terms, the EU reacted by saving the banks and abandoning the general population. That was followed by Merckel’s reaction to the later Greek crisis. Again the banks were bailed out, and the populace forced to accept a heavily deflationary economic environment.”
I’m sceptical of this argument, because I don’t think the majority of Leave voters would have been too upset those failures – to the extent they were even aware of them.
The way the Greeks were represented in the press was much like the way people on benefits are represented – as lazy people looking for a hand-out. I doubt too many Leavers were offended by Germany and the EU’s imposition of tough terms.
As for the bank bailouts, the same thing happened in the UK and the States. People might see these as bad policies without especially associating them with the EU. Why would Leavers in general be particularly upset about Eurozone deflation or lack of moral hazard for European banks – if they were even aware of them?
I agree tribalism played a significant part. But I wonder if in terms of issues it wasn’t more a protest vote against wage stagnation and unaffordable housing, which the media encouraged people to think were caused by immigration.
“I would trace that to the EU reaction to the global financial crisis. In broad terms, the EU reacted by saving the banks and abandoning the general population. That was followed by Merckel’s reaction to the later Greek crisis. Again the banks were bailed out, and the populace forced to accept a heavily deflationary economic environment.”
I’m sceptical of this argument, because I don’t think the majority of Leave voters would have been too upset those failures – to the extent they were even aware of them.
The way the Greeks were represented in the press was much like the way people on benefits are represented – as lazy people looking for a hand-out. I doubt too many Leavers were offended by Germany and the EU’s imposition of tough terms.
As for the bank bailouts, the same thing happened in the UK and the States. People might see these as bad policies without especially associating them with the EU. Why would Leavers in general be particularly upset about Eurozone deflation or lack of moral hazard for European banks – if they were even aware of them?
I agree tribalism played a significant part. But I wonder if in terms of issues it wasn’t more a protest vote against wage stagnation and unaffordable housing, which the media encouraged people to think were caused by immigration.
I was so disappointed when I clicked on bobbyp’s go fly a kite link and it wasn’t this
I was so disappointed when I clicked on bobbyp’s go fly a kite link and it wasn’t this
I was so disappointed when I clicked on bobbyp’s go fly a kite link and it wasn’t this
bobbyp:
That was a cracking great Jacobin article.
bobbyp:
That was a cracking great Jacobin article.
bobbyp:
That was a cracking great Jacobin article.
“da plane, da plane!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-mexico-attack-plane
It’s almost tempting to want to hear just one SOTU out of this lunatic.
Meanwhile, not we know what Chris Christie sounds like when he hits pavement:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/naked-man-yelling-donald-trump
“da plane, da plane!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-mexico-attack-plane
It’s almost tempting to want to hear just one SOTU out of this lunatic.
Meanwhile, not we know what Chris Christie sounds like when he hits pavement:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/naked-man-yelling-donald-trump
“da plane, da plane!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-mexico-attack-plane
It’s almost tempting to want to hear just one SOTU out of this lunatic.
Meanwhile, not we know what Chris Christie sounds like when he hits pavement:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/naked-man-yelling-donald-trump
This is a great interview with Mark Blythe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvZil0qWPg
I first saw the part about the Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
Will have to check out his book “Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea”
This is a great interview with Mark Blythe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvZil0qWPg
I first saw the part about the Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
Will have to check out his book “Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea”
This is a great interview with Mark Blythe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvZil0qWPg
I first saw the part about the Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
Will have to check out his book “Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea”
Overnighters in the Lincoln bedroom might want to watch who they call during the Trump Presidency:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/30/nothing-weird-or-creepy-about-this/
Trump and the NSA together! And you guys are nervous about the Constitution now?
Just wait.
Overnighters in the Lincoln bedroom might want to watch who they call during the Trump Presidency:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/30/nothing-weird-or-creepy-about-this/
Trump and the NSA together! And you guys are nervous about the Constitution now?
Just wait.
Overnighters in the Lincoln bedroom might want to watch who they call during the Trump Presidency:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/06/30/nothing-weird-or-creepy-about-this/
Trump and the NSA together! And you guys are nervous about the Constitution now?
Just wait.
We’re goin to be looking at a lotta tings over heah:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-heebeejeebies.html
Hey, Vinny, go oveh deah and look at does tings already.
Scratch the SOTU temptation.
I want violence.
We’re goin to be looking at a lotta tings over heah:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-heebeejeebies.html
Hey, Vinny, go oveh deah and look at does tings already.
Scratch the SOTU temptation.
I want violence.
We’re goin to be looking at a lotta tings over heah:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-heebeejeebies.html
Hey, Vinny, go oveh deah and look at does tings already.
Scratch the SOTU temptation.
I want violence.
Does it really fulfill the Constitutional requirement for a report on the State of the Union if it’s a fantasy about an alternate reality? Which seems like the only thing Trump would be capable of delivering.
Although failing in that particular Constitutionally-required duty would be an unexpected, and probably unique, grounds for impeachment….
Does it really fulfill the Constitutional requirement for a report on the State of the Union if it’s a fantasy about an alternate reality? Which seems like the only thing Trump would be capable of delivering.
Although failing in that particular Constitutionally-required duty would be an unexpected, and probably unique, grounds for impeachment….
Does it really fulfill the Constitutional requirement for a report on the State of the Union if it’s a fantasy about an alternate reality? Which seems like the only thing Trump would be capable of delivering.
Although failing in that particular Constitutionally-required duty would be an unexpected, and probably unique, grounds for impeachment….
Let me count the ways that’s wrong.
I don’t disagree. I may even be able to count more ways than you.
Wrong does not equal unconstitutional.
Why do I care? Because framing issues as if they are matters of inalienable rights makes it impossible to have a conversation about them.
Flying is a form of commercial public transportation. In most cases, it involves crossing state boundaries. In many cases, it crosses international boundaries. That puts it within the purview of the feds.
Airports are a common point of entry to the US, and egress from the US. That puts them in the purview of the feds.
Airports and airplanes are common targets of acts of political terror. The institutions we have established to deal with that are generally federal. The TSA, specifically, is a federal agency. All of that seems appropriate to me. I.e., the feds are an appropriate place to locate that responsibility.
Airports and related infrastructure are not simply public places. Government agencies of all types and jurisdictions are involved in their planning, construction, and operation. Including the feds.
The “F” in “FAA” stands for “Federal”.
From the very inception of this country, the feds have been involved in enabling, supporting, regulating, and otherwise messing with modes of transportation that cross either state or international boundaries. From day one. Read the acts of the first few Congresses, and notice how much of what they address has to do with the shipping industry, and with transportation infrastructure in general.
If you haven’t taken the time to actually read the acts of the Congresses prior to the compilation of the US Code, then I have more information than you do on this topic. So just trust me. Or, go read them, come back, and we can discuss.
I do not dispute, and in fact agree, that the no fly list as currently implemented is insufficiently transparent and does not provide sufficient opportunities for folks who find themselves on it to challenge and review their status.
That’s wrong. And, it’s one of about ten gazillion examples of a national security apparatus that has taken the concept of overkill to heights that boggle the mind.
I’m all for addressing that.
Addressing that does not require us to see every point of federal overstep and non-accountability as a violation of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
Sometimes it’s just stupid. Stupid, inefficient, often counter-productive, and in almost all cases an occasion for the worst kind of corrupt pork barrel bullshit. That’s a sufficient justification for changing it.
I don’t see a Constitutional right to fly in planes. Nor do I see, in the no-fly list, a giant step forward for jack-booted tyranny. I see a program with, possibly, initially good intentions, which has been overcome by the obsessive CYA need to not be the person or agency that let the next act of terror slip through.
What I really see is a nation that lost it’s freaking mind on 9/11/01. I don’t think we’ll ever get over it. We don’t seem to be making much progress.
I don’t need to see a Bill of Rights issue there to say that things need to be fixed.
If you’re looking for harbingers of the totalitarian state, there are much, much, much, much, much bigger fish to fry. IMVHO.
That’s all I got. Over and out.
Let me count the ways that’s wrong.
I don’t disagree. I may even be able to count more ways than you.
Wrong does not equal unconstitutional.
Why do I care? Because framing issues as if they are matters of inalienable rights makes it impossible to have a conversation about them.
Flying is a form of commercial public transportation. In most cases, it involves crossing state boundaries. In many cases, it crosses international boundaries. That puts it within the purview of the feds.
Airports are a common point of entry to the US, and egress from the US. That puts them in the purview of the feds.
Airports and airplanes are common targets of acts of political terror. The institutions we have established to deal with that are generally federal. The TSA, specifically, is a federal agency. All of that seems appropriate to me. I.e., the feds are an appropriate place to locate that responsibility.
Airports and related infrastructure are not simply public places. Government agencies of all types and jurisdictions are involved in their planning, construction, and operation. Including the feds.
The “F” in “FAA” stands for “Federal”.
From the very inception of this country, the feds have been involved in enabling, supporting, regulating, and otherwise messing with modes of transportation that cross either state or international boundaries. From day one. Read the acts of the first few Congresses, and notice how much of what they address has to do with the shipping industry, and with transportation infrastructure in general.
If you haven’t taken the time to actually read the acts of the Congresses prior to the compilation of the US Code, then I have more information than you do on this topic. So just trust me. Or, go read them, come back, and we can discuss.
I do not dispute, and in fact agree, that the no fly list as currently implemented is insufficiently transparent and does not provide sufficient opportunities for folks who find themselves on it to challenge and review their status.
That’s wrong. And, it’s one of about ten gazillion examples of a national security apparatus that has taken the concept of overkill to heights that boggle the mind.
I’m all for addressing that.
Addressing that does not require us to see every point of federal overstep and non-accountability as a violation of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
Sometimes it’s just stupid. Stupid, inefficient, often counter-productive, and in almost all cases an occasion for the worst kind of corrupt pork barrel bullshit. That’s a sufficient justification for changing it.
I don’t see a Constitutional right to fly in planes. Nor do I see, in the no-fly list, a giant step forward for jack-booted tyranny. I see a program with, possibly, initially good intentions, which has been overcome by the obsessive CYA need to not be the person or agency that let the next act of terror slip through.
What I really see is a nation that lost it’s freaking mind on 9/11/01. I don’t think we’ll ever get over it. We don’t seem to be making much progress.
I don’t need to see a Bill of Rights issue there to say that things need to be fixed.
If you’re looking for harbingers of the totalitarian state, there are much, much, much, much, much bigger fish to fry. IMVHO.
That’s all I got. Over and out.
Let me count the ways that’s wrong.
I don’t disagree. I may even be able to count more ways than you.
Wrong does not equal unconstitutional.
Why do I care? Because framing issues as if they are matters of inalienable rights makes it impossible to have a conversation about them.
Flying is a form of commercial public transportation. In most cases, it involves crossing state boundaries. In many cases, it crosses international boundaries. That puts it within the purview of the feds.
Airports are a common point of entry to the US, and egress from the US. That puts them in the purview of the feds.
Airports and airplanes are common targets of acts of political terror. The institutions we have established to deal with that are generally federal. The TSA, specifically, is a federal agency. All of that seems appropriate to me. I.e., the feds are an appropriate place to locate that responsibility.
Airports and related infrastructure are not simply public places. Government agencies of all types and jurisdictions are involved in their planning, construction, and operation. Including the feds.
The “F” in “FAA” stands for “Federal”.
From the very inception of this country, the feds have been involved in enabling, supporting, regulating, and otherwise messing with modes of transportation that cross either state or international boundaries. From day one. Read the acts of the first few Congresses, and notice how much of what they address has to do with the shipping industry, and with transportation infrastructure in general.
If you haven’t taken the time to actually read the acts of the Congresses prior to the compilation of the US Code, then I have more information than you do on this topic. So just trust me. Or, go read them, come back, and we can discuss.
I do not dispute, and in fact agree, that the no fly list as currently implemented is insufficiently transparent and does not provide sufficient opportunities for folks who find themselves on it to challenge and review their status.
That’s wrong. And, it’s one of about ten gazillion examples of a national security apparatus that has taken the concept of overkill to heights that boggle the mind.
I’m all for addressing that.
Addressing that does not require us to see every point of federal overstep and non-accountability as a violation of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
Sometimes it’s just stupid. Stupid, inefficient, often counter-productive, and in almost all cases an occasion for the worst kind of corrupt pork barrel bullshit. That’s a sufficient justification for changing it.
I don’t see a Constitutional right to fly in planes. Nor do I see, in the no-fly list, a giant step forward for jack-booted tyranny. I see a program with, possibly, initially good intentions, which has been overcome by the obsessive CYA need to not be the person or agency that let the next act of terror slip through.
What I really see is a nation that lost it’s freaking mind on 9/11/01. I don’t think we’ll ever get over it. We don’t seem to be making much progress.
I don’t need to see a Bill of Rights issue there to say that things need to be fixed.
If you’re looking for harbingers of the totalitarian state, there are much, much, much, much, much bigger fish to fry. IMVHO.
That’s all I got. Over and out.
IIRC SCOTUS blessed subjecting everyone to a metal detector before getting on a plane as Constitutionally kosher in part because of the danger and in part because everyone was searched and thus no possibility of subjective judgment. Similar rationale was used for sobriety checkpoints on highways, although had to be objective criteria if not stopping everyone (e.g. Every fifth car).
My guess is that there is a fair bit in the SCOTUS metal detector opinion about how they are not that invasive. Query whether the current full body scanners might cause SCOTUS to reach a different result.
I don’t think it’s too much to think of the issues surrounding the no fly list in constitutional terms. Could they out you on a secret list and keep you from any kind of transportation? there being no general right to motorized or animal assisted transportation in the Constitution. After all you can always walk.
IIRC SCOTUS blessed subjecting everyone to a metal detector before getting on a plane as Constitutionally kosher in part because of the danger and in part because everyone was searched and thus no possibility of subjective judgment. Similar rationale was used for sobriety checkpoints on highways, although had to be objective criteria if not stopping everyone (e.g. Every fifth car).
My guess is that there is a fair bit in the SCOTUS metal detector opinion about how they are not that invasive. Query whether the current full body scanners might cause SCOTUS to reach a different result.
I don’t think it’s too much to think of the issues surrounding the no fly list in constitutional terms. Could they out you on a secret list and keep you from any kind of transportation? there being no general right to motorized or animal assisted transportation in the Constitution. After all you can always walk.
IIRC SCOTUS blessed subjecting everyone to a metal detector before getting on a plane as Constitutionally kosher in part because of the danger and in part because everyone was searched and thus no possibility of subjective judgment. Similar rationale was used for sobriety checkpoints on highways, although had to be objective criteria if not stopping everyone (e.g. Every fifth car).
My guess is that there is a fair bit in the SCOTUS metal detector opinion about how they are not that invasive. Query whether the current full body scanners might cause SCOTUS to reach a different result.
I don’t think it’s too much to think of the issues surrounding the no fly list in constitutional terms. Could they out you on a secret list and keep you from any kind of transportation? there being no general right to motorized or animal assisted transportation in the Constitution. After all you can always walk.
IMO, the fact that you so vigorously think disallowing a subset of people from flying without any due process is not a violation of our basic rights makes my point. Lots of things are unconstitutional by extension, IANAL, but I suspect that:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” pretty much covers it.
IMO, the fact that you so vigorously think disallowing a subset of people from flying without any due process is not a violation of our basic rights makes my point. Lots of things are unconstitutional by extension, IANAL, but I suspect that:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” pretty much covers it.
IMO, the fact that you so vigorously think disallowing a subset of people from flying without any due process is not a violation of our basic rights makes my point. Lots of things are unconstitutional by extension, IANAL, but I suspect that:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” pretty much covers it.
I don’t really see the no-fly list as a step towards jack booted tyranny either.** Which doesn’t keep it, at least in its current incarnation from being constitutionally suspect.
** Ridiculous, badly managed, and probably a massively inefficient way to approach the problem. Sure. But if the goal is to avoid tyranny, those are probably features rather than bugs.
I don’t really see the no-fly list as a step towards jack booted tyranny either.** Which doesn’t keep it, at least in its current incarnation from being constitutionally suspect.
** Ridiculous, badly managed, and probably a massively inefficient way to approach the problem. Sure. But if the goal is to avoid tyranny, those are probably features rather than bugs.
I don’t really see the no-fly list as a step towards jack booted tyranny either.** Which doesn’t keep it, at least in its current incarnation from being constitutionally suspect.
** Ridiculous, badly managed, and probably a massively inefficient way to approach the problem. Sure. But if the goal is to avoid tyranny, those are probably features rather than bugs.
It was a 9th circuit case I was thinking of, not SCOTUS which apparently had never ruled on this.
Summary of airport searches and 4th A. Here:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2327&context=plr
It was a 9th circuit case I was thinking of, not SCOTUS which apparently had never ruled on this.
Summary of airport searches and 4th A. Here:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2327&context=plr
It was a 9th circuit case I was thinking of, not SCOTUS which apparently had never ruled on this.
Summary of airport searches and 4th A. Here:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2327&context=plr
If you’re looking for harbingers of the totalitarian state, there are much, much, much, much, much bigger fish to fry. IMVHO.
Now that had me intrigued. Tell me more.
If you’re looking for harbingers of the totalitarian state, there are much, much, much, much, much bigger fish to fry. IMVHO.
Now that had me intrigued. Tell me more.
If you’re looking for harbingers of the totalitarian state, there are much, much, much, much, much bigger fish to fry. IMVHO.
Now that had me intrigued. Tell me more.
Great links lj.
Great links lj.
Great links lj.
You know, I don’t why I get out of bed in the morning or even why my dear mother taught me how to talk after what russell said.
You know, I don’t why I get out of bed in the morning or even why my dear mother taught me how to talk after what russell said.
You know, I don’t why I get out of bed in the morning or even why my dear mother taught me how to talk after what russell said.
Somebody asked about establishment liberalism upthread. Here is an explanation–
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/what-liberalism-has-become/
It’s yet another sweeping explanation of what is wrong with our political culture, like the Rauch piece in the Atlantic, and sweeping explanations are nearly always overstated. But I’m more sympathetic to this one.
Somebody asked about establishment liberalism upthread. Here is an explanation–
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/what-liberalism-has-become/
It’s yet another sweeping explanation of what is wrong with our political culture, like the Rauch piece in the Atlantic, and sweeping explanations are nearly always overstated. But I’m more sympathetic to this one.
Somebody asked about establishment liberalism upthread. Here is an explanation–
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/what-liberalism-has-become/
It’s yet another sweeping explanation of what is wrong with our political culture, like the Rauch piece in the Atlantic, and sweeping explanations are nearly always overstated. But I’m more sympathetic to this one.
The problem with both the Rauch piece and the one I just linked ( which I am much more sympathetic with) is that the writer has a grand overarching theory to propose about politics and people with such theories usually ignore facts which don’t fit and stereotype a large class of people– in Rauch’s case, all Trump and Sanders supporters ( conveniently lumped together) and in Steele’s case, liberals.
That said, I think people like me need to read people like Rauch and I would say the same thing about liberals needing to read the Steele piece.
The problem with both the Rauch piece and the one I just linked ( which I am much more sympathetic with) is that the writer has a grand overarching theory to propose about politics and people with such theories usually ignore facts which don’t fit and stereotype a large class of people– in Rauch’s case, all Trump and Sanders supporters ( conveniently lumped together) and in Steele’s case, liberals.
That said, I think people like me need to read people like Rauch and I would say the same thing about liberals needing to read the Steele piece.
The problem with both the Rauch piece and the one I just linked ( which I am much more sympathetic with) is that the writer has a grand overarching theory to propose about politics and people with such theories usually ignore facts which don’t fit and stereotype a large class of people– in Rauch’s case, all Trump and Sanders supporters ( conveniently lumped together) and in Steele’s case, liberals.
That said, I think people like me need to read people like Rauch and I would say the same thing about liberals needing to read the Steele piece.
I’m the author of the blog post linked above by Donald. I don’t actually have a grand overarching theory. It’s just a blog post presenting one particular view that resonates. But I’m always entertaining different views.
The blog post was more about my having come across a book review that offered a grand overarching theory and my sense that, at least in this particular situation of the campaign season, it seems to have much explanatory power. That isn’t to claim that it can and would explain all politics in all situations.
By the way, I wasn’t attempting to explain all liberals. I would note two things.
First, I’ve identified as a liberal for as long as I remember identifying as anything in particular. I was raised in a pansy liberal new age church. And I’ve lived most of my life in a liberal college town. I live and breathe liberalism.
Second, even in that post, I state there are other kinds of liberals. It’s just that they’ve been disempowered and silenced. Those other liberals don’t represent the liberalism in the mainstream media and in politics. I’ve also written other posts about the varieties of American liberalism and their historical origins.
This piece was a specific response to a specific set of issues in a specific context. It’s part of my ongoing struggle to consider if there is any value to continue identifying myself as a liberal when the rhetoric has become so often empty, so often obscuring ugly truths and uncomfortable realities.
My blog is a process, the development of my thoughts over time. As such, much of it is me simply thinking out loud, offering ideas and seeing what others think.
I’m the author of the blog post linked above by Donald. I don’t actually have a grand overarching theory. It’s just a blog post presenting one particular view that resonates. But I’m always entertaining different views.
The blog post was more about my having come across a book review that offered a grand overarching theory and my sense that, at least in this particular situation of the campaign season, it seems to have much explanatory power. That isn’t to claim that it can and would explain all politics in all situations.
By the way, I wasn’t attempting to explain all liberals. I would note two things.
First, I’ve identified as a liberal for as long as I remember identifying as anything in particular. I was raised in a pansy liberal new age church. And I’ve lived most of my life in a liberal college town. I live and breathe liberalism.
Second, even in that post, I state there are other kinds of liberals. It’s just that they’ve been disempowered and silenced. Those other liberals don’t represent the liberalism in the mainstream media and in politics. I’ve also written other posts about the varieties of American liberalism and their historical origins.
This piece was a specific response to a specific set of issues in a specific context. It’s part of my ongoing struggle to consider if there is any value to continue identifying myself as a liberal when the rhetoric has become so often empty, so often obscuring ugly truths and uncomfortable realities.
My blog is a process, the development of my thoughts over time. As such, much of it is me simply thinking out loud, offering ideas and seeing what others think.
I’m the author of the blog post linked above by Donald. I don’t actually have a grand overarching theory. It’s just a blog post presenting one particular view that resonates. But I’m always entertaining different views.
The blog post was more about my having come across a book review that offered a grand overarching theory and my sense that, at least in this particular situation of the campaign season, it seems to have much explanatory power. That isn’t to claim that it can and would explain all politics in all situations.
By the way, I wasn’t attempting to explain all liberals. I would note two things.
First, I’ve identified as a liberal for as long as I remember identifying as anything in particular. I was raised in a pansy liberal new age church. And I’ve lived most of my life in a liberal college town. I live and breathe liberalism.
Second, even in that post, I state there are other kinds of liberals. It’s just that they’ve been disempowered and silenced. Those other liberals don’t represent the liberalism in the mainstream media and in politics. I’ve also written other posts about the varieties of American liberalism and their historical origins.
This piece was a specific response to a specific set of issues in a specific context. It’s part of my ongoing struggle to consider if there is any value to continue identifying myself as a liberal when the rhetoric has become so often empty, so often obscuring ugly truths and uncomfortable realities.
My blog is a process, the development of my thoughts over time. As such, much of it is me simply thinking out loud, offering ideas and seeing what others think.
welcome, Benjamin, you have a very interesting blog. I find myself asking a lot of the same questions you are, only with less thoughtful results.
thanks to Donald for making the introduction.
To answer my own question from way upthread, I would say that the ability to travel at will is a basic and assumed human right, even if not explicitly enumerated. As such, it deserves substantive due process. That is, it should not be infringed in the absence of some transparent and accountable legal process.
Since it’s completely unclear who is on the no-fly list, and how one gets on the no-fly list, and who makes the decisions, I would say that the no-fly regime fails the test of transparency and accountability.
So as it turns out I agree that there are Constitutional issues involved in the no-fly regime.
The reason I asked the question way upthread was basically because, now that the idea that access to firearms might be constrained by the no-fly list has been proposed, suddenly everybody is up in arms about the no-fly list.
The no-fly list has been around for years. If I’m not mistaken, it precedes 9/11. At no point has it ever been a transparent or accountable institution.
Suddenly it’s a thing? Where has everybody been for, like, 20 years?
It’s of a piece with most of the national security apparatus of the US, and probably most other countries. Not transparent, minimally accountable if at all. A freaking bureaucratic Orwellian nightmare if you find yourself for some reason at odds with them.
I think the end result of all of that is, in fact, an undermining of Constitutional protections, but I don’t think that’s necessarily by intent. The ability to operate in secrecy is a kind of power, and people guard, and seek to extend, whatever power they can accumulate.
There is also the CYA principle of overkill at work – it’s better to annoy millions of people, and seriously inconvenience hundreds or thousands, than to be the person or organization that let one bad guy slip through.
All of that said, it’s unclear to me what “due process” would look like in the context of something like a no-fly list. Do we have some kind of court or review system, where anyone who is proposed for the no-fly list can see and challenge the evidence that led to them being placed on the list?
Civil liberties aside, from a purely procedural perspective the basic problem with the no-fly list is that it uses names to identify people. That’s a really, really inaccurate way to identify individuals, and one that is enormously prone to false positives. Especially when many of the names of interest have their origins in languages other than English, and have no consistent spelling in English.
welcome, Benjamin, you have a very interesting blog. I find myself asking a lot of the same questions you are, only with less thoughtful results.
thanks to Donald for making the introduction.
To answer my own question from way upthread, I would say that the ability to travel at will is a basic and assumed human right, even if not explicitly enumerated. As such, it deserves substantive due process. That is, it should not be infringed in the absence of some transparent and accountable legal process.
Since it’s completely unclear who is on the no-fly list, and how one gets on the no-fly list, and who makes the decisions, I would say that the no-fly regime fails the test of transparency and accountability.
So as it turns out I agree that there are Constitutional issues involved in the no-fly regime.
The reason I asked the question way upthread was basically because, now that the idea that access to firearms might be constrained by the no-fly list has been proposed, suddenly everybody is up in arms about the no-fly list.
The no-fly list has been around for years. If I’m not mistaken, it precedes 9/11. At no point has it ever been a transparent or accountable institution.
Suddenly it’s a thing? Where has everybody been for, like, 20 years?
It’s of a piece with most of the national security apparatus of the US, and probably most other countries. Not transparent, minimally accountable if at all. A freaking bureaucratic Orwellian nightmare if you find yourself for some reason at odds with them.
I think the end result of all of that is, in fact, an undermining of Constitutional protections, but I don’t think that’s necessarily by intent. The ability to operate in secrecy is a kind of power, and people guard, and seek to extend, whatever power they can accumulate.
There is also the CYA principle of overkill at work – it’s better to annoy millions of people, and seriously inconvenience hundreds or thousands, than to be the person or organization that let one bad guy slip through.
All of that said, it’s unclear to me what “due process” would look like in the context of something like a no-fly list. Do we have some kind of court or review system, where anyone who is proposed for the no-fly list can see and challenge the evidence that led to them being placed on the list?
Civil liberties aside, from a purely procedural perspective the basic problem with the no-fly list is that it uses names to identify people. That’s a really, really inaccurate way to identify individuals, and one that is enormously prone to false positives. Especially when many of the names of interest have their origins in languages other than English, and have no consistent spelling in English.
welcome, Benjamin, you have a very interesting blog. I find myself asking a lot of the same questions you are, only with less thoughtful results.
thanks to Donald for making the introduction.
To answer my own question from way upthread, I would say that the ability to travel at will is a basic and assumed human right, even if not explicitly enumerated. As such, it deserves substantive due process. That is, it should not be infringed in the absence of some transparent and accountable legal process.
Since it’s completely unclear who is on the no-fly list, and how one gets on the no-fly list, and who makes the decisions, I would say that the no-fly regime fails the test of transparency and accountability.
So as it turns out I agree that there are Constitutional issues involved in the no-fly regime.
The reason I asked the question way upthread was basically because, now that the idea that access to firearms might be constrained by the no-fly list has been proposed, suddenly everybody is up in arms about the no-fly list.
The no-fly list has been around for years. If I’m not mistaken, it precedes 9/11. At no point has it ever been a transparent or accountable institution.
Suddenly it’s a thing? Where has everybody been for, like, 20 years?
It’s of a piece with most of the national security apparatus of the US, and probably most other countries. Not transparent, minimally accountable if at all. A freaking bureaucratic Orwellian nightmare if you find yourself for some reason at odds with them.
I think the end result of all of that is, in fact, an undermining of Constitutional protections, but I don’t think that’s necessarily by intent. The ability to operate in secrecy is a kind of power, and people guard, and seek to extend, whatever power they can accumulate.
There is also the CYA principle of overkill at work – it’s better to annoy millions of people, and seriously inconvenience hundreds or thousands, than to be the person or organization that let one bad guy slip through.
All of that said, it’s unclear to me what “due process” would look like in the context of something like a no-fly list. Do we have some kind of court or review system, where anyone who is proposed for the no-fly list can see and challenge the evidence that led to them being placed on the list?
Civil liberties aside, from a purely procedural perspective the basic problem with the no-fly list is that it uses names to identify people. That’s a really, really inaccurate way to identify individuals, and one that is enormously prone to false positives. Especially when many of the names of interest have their origins in languages other than English, and have no consistent spelling in English.
An interesting quote from Benjamin’s blog (original source linked):
Sounds about right.
An interesting quote from Benjamin’s blog (original source linked):
Sounds about right.
An interesting quote from Benjamin’s blog (original source linked):
Sounds about right.
It was glorious.
Your story reminds me of a prank my late father-in-law pulled.
Somehow or other, he acquired something like 100 or so helium balloons. To each one, he attached a note, stating that anyone finding the note could present it to his brother-in-law for a $5 reward.
This was in the days when $5 was a credible sum.
The brother-in-law’s name, address, and phone number were included in the note.
The army of balloons was released. Merriment ensued.
He was a clever man.
It was glorious.
Your story reminds me of a prank my late father-in-law pulled.
Somehow or other, he acquired something like 100 or so helium balloons. To each one, he attached a note, stating that anyone finding the note could present it to his brother-in-law for a $5 reward.
This was in the days when $5 was a credible sum.
The brother-in-law’s name, address, and phone number were included in the note.
The army of balloons was released. Merriment ensued.
He was a clever man.
It was glorious.
Your story reminds me of a prank my late father-in-law pulled.
Somehow or other, he acquired something like 100 or so helium balloons. To each one, he attached a note, stating that anyone finding the note could present it to his brother-in-law for a $5 reward.
This was in the days when $5 was a credible sum.
The brother-in-law’s name, address, and phone number were included in the note.
The army of balloons was released. Merriment ensued.
He was a clever man.
“The reason I asked the question way upthread was basically because, now that the idea that access to firearms might be constrained by the no-fly list has been proposed, suddenly everybody is up in arms about the no-fly list.”
Well, yes. I suspect if you tried to use it to deny something else even more people would care. The use of a no fly list and an FBI watch list to deny anything else exacerbates the problem of using the lists for the original purpose. So more people would be up in arms. My point though, is that a growing number of people don’t care. That’s the risk, if Trump suddenly said the Constitution was a product of those Washington elites and we should get rid of it and throw out the do nothing Congress lots of people would shrug and move on. Boom, he’s 2/3 to a coup. Declare martial law to take care of those really bad people protesting and who wouldn’t support that?
All the sudden, though by no means suddenly, we have a new form of government
“The reason I asked the question way upthread was basically because, now that the idea that access to firearms might be constrained by the no-fly list has been proposed, suddenly everybody is up in arms about the no-fly list.”
Well, yes. I suspect if you tried to use it to deny something else even more people would care. The use of a no fly list and an FBI watch list to deny anything else exacerbates the problem of using the lists for the original purpose. So more people would be up in arms. My point though, is that a growing number of people don’t care. That’s the risk, if Trump suddenly said the Constitution was a product of those Washington elites and we should get rid of it and throw out the do nothing Congress lots of people would shrug and move on. Boom, he’s 2/3 to a coup. Declare martial law to take care of those really bad people protesting and who wouldn’t support that?
All the sudden, though by no means suddenly, we have a new form of government
“The reason I asked the question way upthread was basically because, now that the idea that access to firearms might be constrained by the no-fly list has been proposed, suddenly everybody is up in arms about the no-fly list.”
Well, yes. I suspect if you tried to use it to deny something else even more people would care. The use of a no fly list and an FBI watch list to deny anything else exacerbates the problem of using the lists for the original purpose. So more people would be up in arms. My point though, is that a growing number of people don’t care. That’s the risk, if Trump suddenly said the Constitution was a product of those Washington elites and we should get rid of it and throw out the do nothing Congress lots of people would shrug and move on. Boom, he’s 2/3 to a coup. Declare martial law to take care of those really bad people protesting and who wouldn’t support that?
All the sudden, though by no means suddenly, we have a new form of government
Now that is one slippery-ass slope. (Up in arms – hah!)
Now that is one slippery-ass slope. (Up in arms – hah!)
Now that is one slippery-ass slope. (Up in arms – hah!)
Funny, I wish I had intended it, or at least noticed. 🙂
Funny, I wish I had intended it, or at least noticed. 🙂
Funny, I wish I had intended it, or at least noticed. 🙂
As brother-in-law pranks go, that one by Russell’s father-in-law is performance art on a worthy par with Yoko Ono getting a Beatle to climb a ladder and peer through a magnifying glass at the word “Yes”, and all that ensued.
That stunt was like getting Allen Funt (Candid Camera) and Franz Kafka (Candid Gregor Samsa) together to come up with a premise for a really good indie movie that starts out with the harmless prank and then evolves into some very deep and potentially dark but in the end enlightening interaction between he who owes what he thinks he doesn’t to those he doesn’t know and those who demand payment of the pound of flesh from strangers.
An unwitting Antonio to a battalion of eager Shylocks. Presbyterian ones.
What would have happened if a low-level, literal-minded (“but it says right here dat you owe ME five dollah”) Mafia guy would have found one of the balloons on his lawn and decided to knock on the brother-in-law’s door.
Or worse, what if a mortgage banker found one of the notes.
I think in the end it would end up as a love story.
As brother-in-law pranks go, that one by Russell’s father-in-law is performance art on a worthy par with Yoko Ono getting a Beatle to climb a ladder and peer through a magnifying glass at the word “Yes”, and all that ensued.
That stunt was like getting Allen Funt (Candid Camera) and Franz Kafka (Candid Gregor Samsa) together to come up with a premise for a really good indie movie that starts out with the harmless prank and then evolves into some very deep and potentially dark but in the end enlightening interaction between he who owes what he thinks he doesn’t to those he doesn’t know and those who demand payment of the pound of flesh from strangers.
An unwitting Antonio to a battalion of eager Shylocks. Presbyterian ones.
What would have happened if a low-level, literal-minded (“but it says right here dat you owe ME five dollah”) Mafia guy would have found one of the balloons on his lawn and decided to knock on the brother-in-law’s door.
Or worse, what if a mortgage banker found one of the notes.
I think in the end it would end up as a love story.
As brother-in-law pranks go, that one by Russell’s father-in-law is performance art on a worthy par with Yoko Ono getting a Beatle to climb a ladder and peer through a magnifying glass at the word “Yes”, and all that ensued.
That stunt was like getting Allen Funt (Candid Camera) and Franz Kafka (Candid Gregor Samsa) together to come up with a premise for a really good indie movie that starts out with the harmless prank and then evolves into some very deep and potentially dark but in the end enlightening interaction between he who owes what he thinks he doesn’t to those he doesn’t know and those who demand payment of the pound of flesh from strangers.
An unwitting Antonio to a battalion of eager Shylocks. Presbyterian ones.
What would have happened if a low-level, literal-minded (“but it says right here dat you owe ME five dollah”) Mafia guy would have found one of the balloons on his lawn and decided to knock on the brother-in-law’s door.
Or worse, what if a mortgage banker found one of the notes.
I think in the end it would end up as a love story.
Just wanna say that the link to Benjamin David Steele was really a piercing read, and I’m glad you showed up here Benjamin.
I request that he be added to the blogroll.
I felt a little like I’d been sat down by some Cultural Revolutionists 50 years ago for some painful but absolutely necessary self-criticism, and I mean that in the best sense possible.
My calculation in voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite my views adhering closer to Sanders’, is that I just can’t see Sanders surviving the whirling blades of the Republican hate machine, which by September would cut him into a very small dice.
But his constituency is real and the Democratic Party had better learn that.
Maybe I’m wrong, given the nutzoid Trumpeting going on.
I also have the shallow reason that I just don’t think I could listen to Larry David for four years.
On the other hand, all of the candidates have been the most grating crew in history.
Just wanna say that the link to Benjamin David Steele was really a piercing read, and I’m glad you showed up here Benjamin.
I request that he be added to the blogroll.
I felt a little like I’d been sat down by some Cultural Revolutionists 50 years ago for some painful but absolutely necessary self-criticism, and I mean that in the best sense possible.
My calculation in voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite my views adhering closer to Sanders’, is that I just can’t see Sanders surviving the whirling blades of the Republican hate machine, which by September would cut him into a very small dice.
But his constituency is real and the Democratic Party had better learn that.
Maybe I’m wrong, given the nutzoid Trumpeting going on.
I also have the shallow reason that I just don’t think I could listen to Larry David for four years.
On the other hand, all of the candidates have been the most grating crew in history.
Just wanna say that the link to Benjamin David Steele was really a piercing read, and I’m glad you showed up here Benjamin.
I request that he be added to the blogroll.
I felt a little like I’d been sat down by some Cultural Revolutionists 50 years ago for some painful but absolutely necessary self-criticism, and I mean that in the best sense possible.
My calculation in voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite my views adhering closer to Sanders’, is that I just can’t see Sanders surviving the whirling blades of the Republican hate machine, which by September would cut him into a very small dice.
But his constituency is real and the Democratic Party had better learn that.
Maybe I’m wrong, given the nutzoid Trumpeting going on.
I also have the shallow reason that I just don’t think I could listen to Larry David for four years.
On the other hand, all of the candidates have been the most grating crew in history.
My calculation in voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite my views adhering closer to Sanders’
Could you elaborate which policies you prefer?
My calculation in voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite my views adhering closer to Sanders’
Could you elaborate which policies you prefer?
My calculation in voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite my views adhering closer to Sanders’
Could you elaborate which policies you prefer?
russell, if you can find evidence of a pre-9/11 ‘no fly’ list, please cite it. IIRC, it was a direct result of the hysteria post-9/11. And was immediately put to use by Dubya to hamstring suspicously-lefty protesters.
If tying the no-fly list to gun purchases kills of the no-fly list, I’d say that’s a good outcome.
I would not be surprised if someone decided that anyone on the no-fly list is too dangerous to be allowed in a polling place. There’s not even a metal detector, typically.
russell, if you can find evidence of a pre-9/11 ‘no fly’ list, please cite it. IIRC, it was a direct result of the hysteria post-9/11. And was immediately put to use by Dubya to hamstring suspicously-lefty protesters.
If tying the no-fly list to gun purchases kills of the no-fly list, I’d say that’s a good outcome.
I would not be surprised if someone decided that anyone on the no-fly list is too dangerous to be allowed in a polling place. There’s not even a metal detector, typically.
russell, if you can find evidence of a pre-9/11 ‘no fly’ list, please cite it. IIRC, it was a direct result of the hysteria post-9/11. And was immediately put to use by Dubya to hamstring suspicously-lefty protesters.
If tying the no-fly list to gun purchases kills of the no-fly list, I’d say that’s a good outcome.
I would not be surprised if someone decided that anyone on the no-fly list is too dangerous to be allowed in a polling place. There’s not even a metal detector, typically.
Apparently there was some kind of list prior to 9/11, but it only had 16 names on it.
Apparently there was some kind of list prior to 9/11, but it only had 16 names on it.
Apparently there was some kind of list prior to 9/11, but it only had 16 names on it.
the discussion here“>http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-very-brief-history-of-the-no-fly-list.html”>here is pretty much my understanding.
Prior to 9/11, the list was quite short, but it existed.
Marty, I don’t have much to disagree with in your 9:56.
I second the suggestion to blogroll Benjamin David Steele.
the discussion here“>http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-very-brief-history-of-the-no-fly-list.html”>here is pretty much my understanding.
Prior to 9/11, the list was quite short, but it existed.
Marty, I don’t have much to disagree with in your 9:56.
I second the suggestion to blogroll Benjamin David Steele.
the discussion here“>http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-very-brief-history-of-the-no-fly-list.html”>here is pretty much my understanding.
Prior to 9/11, the list was quite short, but it existed.
Marty, I don’t have much to disagree with in your 9:56.
I second the suggestion to blogroll Benjamin David Steele.
tThe no-fly list has been around for years. If I’m not mistaken, it precedes 9/11. At no point has it ever been a transparent or accountable institution.
Suddenly it’s a thing?
For some of us, it’s been a thing for a long time.
But admittedly, tying it to gun sales was a brilliant (albeit perhaps unintendedly brilliant) political move. Nothing like getting the NRA and the security establishment at each others’ throats to raise visibility. Not to mention blood pressures. All good.
tThe no-fly list has been around for years. If I’m not mistaken, it precedes 9/11. At no point has it ever been a transparent or accountable institution.
Suddenly it’s a thing?
For some of us, it’s been a thing for a long time.
But admittedly, tying it to gun sales was a brilliant (albeit perhaps unintendedly brilliant) political move. Nothing like getting the NRA and the security establishment at each others’ throats to raise visibility. Not to mention blood pressures. All good.
tThe no-fly list has been around for years. If I’m not mistaken, it precedes 9/11. At no point has it ever been a transparent or accountable institution.
Suddenly it’s a thing?
For some of us, it’s been a thing for a long time.
But admittedly, tying it to gun sales was a brilliant (albeit perhaps unintendedly brilliant) political move. Nothing like getting the NRA and the security establishment at each others’ throats to raise visibility. Not to mention blood pressures. All good.
Bejamin, from your blog:
am i reading this wrong, or do you and i have vastly different concepts of what “everyone” means ?
Bejamin, from your blog:
am i reading this wrong, or do you and i have vastly different concepts of what “everyone” means ?
Bejamin, from your blog:
am i reading this wrong, or do you and i have vastly different concepts of what “everyone” means ?
(sorry: Benjamin, not Bejamin)
(sorry: Benjamin, not Bejamin)
(sorry: Benjamin, not Bejamin)
Benjamin, I’d have said that this line:
“on social issues, it is mildly libertarian in having a live and let live sensibility, such that being perceived as lazy is worse than being perceived as gay.”
describes what I’d consider a true conservative (not liberal) point of view. (That’s conservative, as opposed the the reactionary views which currently masquerade under that label.)
It is also about valuing what we have, but recognizing that it isn’t perfect. About making changes to address the imperfections, but keeping them as small as possible while still dealing with the problem. And it’s about taking a basically life-and-let-live view on social issues, when the individual behavior doesn’t harm others.
It’s what one of my liberal friends once called “being a tolerant conservative.”
It’s a philosophical view of the world that is also almost invisible in the media. But, for all that, seems quite widespread in the real world outside the media and the political arena.
Benjamin, I’d have said that this line:
“on social issues, it is mildly libertarian in having a live and let live sensibility, such that being perceived as lazy is worse than being perceived as gay.”
describes what I’d consider a true conservative (not liberal) point of view. (That’s conservative, as opposed the the reactionary views which currently masquerade under that label.)
It is also about valuing what we have, but recognizing that it isn’t perfect. About making changes to address the imperfections, but keeping them as small as possible while still dealing with the problem. And it’s about taking a basically life-and-let-live view on social issues, when the individual behavior doesn’t harm others.
It’s what one of my liberal friends once called “being a tolerant conservative.”
It’s a philosophical view of the world that is also almost invisible in the media. But, for all that, seems quite widespread in the real world outside the media and the political arena.
Benjamin, I’d have said that this line:
“on social issues, it is mildly libertarian in having a live and let live sensibility, such that being perceived as lazy is worse than being perceived as gay.”
describes what I’d consider a true conservative (not liberal) point of view. (That’s conservative, as opposed the the reactionary views which currently masquerade under that label.)
It is also about valuing what we have, but recognizing that it isn’t perfect. About making changes to address the imperfections, but keeping them as small as possible while still dealing with the problem. And it’s about taking a basically life-and-let-live view on social issues, when the individual behavior doesn’t harm others.
It’s what one of my liberal friends once called “being a tolerant conservative.”
It’s a philosophical view of the world that is also almost invisible in the media. But, for all that, seems quite widespread in the real world outside the media and the political arena.
Everyone knows that Sanders would have easily won the nomination if there were open primaries not excluding Independents.
I guess I’m not part of “everyone” either. Because I’m far from sure of that. Independents might have shifted the ground, but I suspect that they would have shifted it in directions other than Sanders.
And, FYI, California did have exactly the kind of open primary (i.e. open to independents) for the Democrats that you describe. Clinton won easily.
Everyone knows that Sanders would have easily won the nomination if there were open primaries not excluding Independents.
I guess I’m not part of “everyone” either. Because I’m far from sure of that. Independents might have shifted the ground, but I suspect that they would have shifted it in directions other than Sanders.
And, FYI, California did have exactly the kind of open primary (i.e. open to independents) for the Democrats that you describe. Clinton won easily.
Everyone knows that Sanders would have easily won the nomination if there were open primaries not excluding Independents.
I guess I’m not part of “everyone” either. Because I’m far from sure of that. Independents might have shifted the ground, but I suspect that they would have shifted it in directions other than Sanders.
And, FYI, California did have exactly the kind of open primary (i.e. open to independents) for the Democrats that you describe. Clinton won easily.
I had the same thought, cleek. Perhaps the things that everyone is said to know are true, but not everyone knows them. But I’m not entirely sure the things, themselves, are true in the first place. If not, they can’t really be known, but only believed. And, even then, I don’t think everyone believes those things, true or not. Since I, myself, am unsure of them, I neither believe nor know them, though I’m open to the possibility that they’re true.
I’m also open to a non-literal use of the word “everyone,” but my standard for that requires a closer approximation than I think exists in this case.
I had the same thought, cleek. Perhaps the things that everyone is said to know are true, but not everyone knows them. But I’m not entirely sure the things, themselves, are true in the first place. If not, they can’t really be known, but only believed. And, even then, I don’t think everyone believes those things, true or not. Since I, myself, am unsure of them, I neither believe nor know them, though I’m open to the possibility that they’re true.
I’m also open to a non-literal use of the word “everyone,” but my standard for that requires a closer approximation than I think exists in this case.
I had the same thought, cleek. Perhaps the things that everyone is said to know are true, but not everyone knows them. But I’m not entirely sure the things, themselves, are true in the first place. If not, they can’t really be known, but only believed. And, even then, I don’t think everyone believes those things, true or not. Since I, myself, am unsure of them, I neither believe nor know them, though I’m open to the possibility that they’re true.
I’m also open to a non-literal use of the word “everyone,” but my standard for that requires a closer approximation than I think exists in this case.
Cali was also on the last major primary day, and Clinton shrewdly just so happened to soft-clinch the nomination the night before. An awful lot of people I know (e.g. Count here) voted for Clinton because of her famous electability, and momentum and perception of such weigh very heavily on that score (and have since before the Iowa caucus). These sorts of things also apply to Sanders’ campaign, ofc. But Cali didn’t go to the polls in a vacuum. We have no control. Either way, we’re speculating.
Cali was also on the last major primary day, and Clinton shrewdly just so happened to soft-clinch the nomination the night before. An awful lot of people I know (e.g. Count here) voted for Clinton because of her famous electability, and momentum and perception of such weigh very heavily on that score (and have since before the Iowa caucus). These sorts of things also apply to Sanders’ campaign, ofc. But Cali didn’t go to the polls in a vacuum. We have no control. Either way, we’re speculating.
Cali was also on the last major primary day, and Clinton shrewdly just so happened to soft-clinch the nomination the night before. An awful lot of people I know (e.g. Count here) voted for Clinton because of her famous electability, and momentum and perception of such weigh very heavily on that score (and have since before the Iowa caucus). These sorts of things also apply to Sanders’ campaign, ofc. But Cali didn’t go to the polls in a vacuum. We have no control. Either way, we’re speculating.
hsh, I’m pretty sure the truth value of at least some of those things depends significantly on how widely they’re perceived to be true or false. Post hoc speculation about things this subjective is a tangled mess at best.
hsh, I’m pretty sure the truth value of at least some of those things depends significantly on how widely they’re perceived to be true or false. Post hoc speculation about things this subjective is a tangled mess at best.
hsh, I’m pretty sure the truth value of at least some of those things depends significantly on how widely they’re perceived to be true or false. Post hoc speculation about things this subjective is a tangled mess at best.
NV, the other way to look at it is this. Since Clinton, as you say, had “soft-clinched” the nomination the night before, Democrats (and independents voting in the Democratic primary) were free to vote their hearts.
No need to worry that they might be voting for a less-electable candidate. Even if Sanders had won California, he wasn’t going to become the nominee. But a win in California would have given him a lot more leverage with regard to the platform. So anyone preferring his views had a pass to vote for him; no damage to the general election if they did.
And yet, it didn’t happen. You can blame a band-wagon effect if you like. But “more electable candidate” doesn’t really fly as an explanation.
NV, the other way to look at it is this. Since Clinton, as you say, had “soft-clinched” the nomination the night before, Democrats (and independents voting in the Democratic primary) were free to vote their hearts.
No need to worry that they might be voting for a less-electable candidate. Even if Sanders had won California, he wasn’t going to become the nominee. But a win in California would have given him a lot more leverage with regard to the platform. So anyone preferring his views had a pass to vote for him; no damage to the general election if they did.
And yet, it didn’t happen. You can blame a band-wagon effect if you like. But “more electable candidate” doesn’t really fly as an explanation.
NV, the other way to look at it is this. Since Clinton, as you say, had “soft-clinched” the nomination the night before, Democrats (and independents voting in the Democratic primary) were free to vote their hearts.
No need to worry that they might be voting for a less-electable candidate. Even if Sanders had won California, he wasn’t going to become the nominee. But a win in California would have given him a lot more leverage with regard to the platform. So anyone preferring his views had a pass to vote for him; no damage to the general election if they did.
And yet, it didn’t happen. You can blame a band-wagon effect if you like. But “more electable candidate” doesn’t really fly as an explanation.
Post hoc speculation about things this subjective is a tangled mess at best.
Are you daring to suggest that my comment wasn’t sufficiently tangled or messy, NV?
Post hoc speculation about things this subjective is a tangled mess at best.
Are you daring to suggest that my comment wasn’t sufficiently tangled or messy, NV?
Post hoc speculation about things this subjective is a tangled mess at best.
Are you daring to suggest that my comment wasn’t sufficiently tangled or messy, NV?
HSH,
I read that comment a couple times. It was more than sufficiently tangled and messy. It would have been better without any punctuation 🙂
cleek,
I would agree with your assessment about ‘everyone’. Pure fantasy. Clinton did have all those advantages, and she beat Sanders fair and square.
I have put out an APB for “everyone”. Are they armed and dangerous?
HSH,
I read that comment a couple times. It was more than sufficiently tangled and messy. It would have been better without any punctuation 🙂
cleek,
I would agree with your assessment about ‘everyone’. Pure fantasy. Clinton did have all those advantages, and she beat Sanders fair and square.
I have put out an APB for “everyone”. Are they armed and dangerous?
HSH,
I read that comment a couple times. It was more than sufficiently tangled and messy. It would have been better without any punctuation 🙂
cleek,
I would agree with your assessment about ‘everyone’. Pure fantasy. Clinton did have all those advantages, and she beat Sanders fair and square.
I have put out an APB for “everyone”. Are they armed and dangerous?
NC voted in March. we have early voting, and a mixed primary system whereby registered D or R can only vote in their respective party but unaffiliated voters can choose a ballot from any party they wish. in most counties, unaffiliated voters outnumber either the GOP or the Dems. so, that’s a pretty good setup for Sanders.
ex. Wake county (Raleigh):
D 256,643
R 185,487
L 3,666
U 225,631
Mecklenberg (Charlotte):
D 298,984
R 167,487
L 3,167
U 197,237
Clinton won by a mile.
NC voted in March. we have early voting, and a mixed primary system whereby registered D or R can only vote in their respective party but unaffiliated voters can choose a ballot from any party they wish. in most counties, unaffiliated voters outnumber either the GOP or the Dems. so, that’s a pretty good setup for Sanders.
ex. Wake county (Raleigh):
D 256,643
R 185,487
L 3,666
U 225,631
Mecklenberg (Charlotte):
D 298,984
R 167,487
L 3,167
U 197,237
Clinton won by a mile.
NC voted in March. we have early voting, and a mixed primary system whereby registered D or R can only vote in their respective party but unaffiliated voters can choose a ballot from any party they wish. in most counties, unaffiliated voters outnumber either the GOP or the Dems. so, that’s a pretty good setup for Sanders.
ex. Wake county (Raleigh):
D 256,643
R 185,487
L 3,666
U 225,631
Mecklenberg (Charlotte):
D 298,984
R 167,487
L 3,167
U 197,237
Clinton won by a mile.
No need to worry that they might be voting for a less-electable candidate.
…and no need to vote at all if they were hoping to make a difference (against all statistical reason, natch) rather than send a message (which, yes, goes squarely against the conventional wisdom that voting against Clinton was always a protest vote in the voters’ hearts of hearts). Waiting until the night before to announce that she had enough superdelegates in her corner to secure the nomination come July was a strong play psychologically and tactically. Credit where credit is due.
Both of our commentaries are mass-mindreading, though, and should be taken as seriously as that deserves.
No need to worry that they might be voting for a less-electable candidate.
…and no need to vote at all if they were hoping to make a difference (against all statistical reason, natch) rather than send a message (which, yes, goes squarely against the conventional wisdom that voting against Clinton was always a protest vote in the voters’ hearts of hearts). Waiting until the night before to announce that she had enough superdelegates in her corner to secure the nomination come July was a strong play psychologically and tactically. Credit where credit is due.
Both of our commentaries are mass-mindreading, though, and should be taken as seriously as that deserves.
No need to worry that they might be voting for a less-electable candidate.
…and no need to vote at all if they were hoping to make a difference (against all statistical reason, natch) rather than send a message (which, yes, goes squarely against the conventional wisdom that voting against Clinton was always a protest vote in the voters’ hearts of hearts). Waiting until the night before to announce that she had enough superdelegates in her corner to secure the nomination come July was a strong play psychologically and tactically. Credit where credit is due.
Both of our commentaries are mass-mindreading, though, and should be taken as seriously as that deserves.
In response to the overwhelming demand (otherwise know as what Russell said), I’ve added Benjamin David Steele to the blogroll. And, as possessor of one set of keys to the kingdom, I’d invite Benjamin to write a guest post introducing his blog. If you send it to libjpn at the gmail outpost of the Borg, I’ll put it up. We’ve also had promises/threats from some of the regulars to write a guest blog post, so this is the quasi annual invitation to do so. How to define a regular? If you have to ask, you probably aren’t.
I return you to your programming.
In response to the overwhelming demand (otherwise know as what Russell said), I’ve added Benjamin David Steele to the blogroll. And, as possessor of one set of keys to the kingdom, I’d invite Benjamin to write a guest post introducing his blog. If you send it to libjpn at the gmail outpost of the Borg, I’ll put it up. We’ve also had promises/threats from some of the regulars to write a guest blog post, so this is the quasi annual invitation to do so. How to define a regular? If you have to ask, you probably aren’t.
I return you to your programming.
In response to the overwhelming demand (otherwise know as what Russell said), I’ve added Benjamin David Steele to the blogroll. And, as possessor of one set of keys to the kingdom, I’d invite Benjamin to write a guest post introducing his blog. If you send it to libjpn at the gmail outpost of the Borg, I’ll put it up. We’ve also had promises/threats from some of the regulars to write a guest blog post, so this is the quasi annual invitation to do so. How to define a regular? If you have to ask, you probably aren’t.
I return you to your programming.
on the other hand…
maybe Dems should quit pandering to the “white working class”:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/democrats-the-white-working-class-isn-t-voting-for-you-so-stop-pandering-to-them.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
on the other hand…
maybe Dems should quit pandering to the “white working class”:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/democrats-the-white-working-class-isn-t-voting-for-you-so-stop-pandering-to-them.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
on the other hand…
maybe Dems should quit pandering to the “white working class”:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/democrats-the-white-working-class-isn-t-voting-for-you-so-stop-pandering-to-them.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
One of those things is that working-class voters are motivated to vote for demagogues out of fear for their future. This requires believing that American voters all receive one set of facts, which they are equally adept at processing, when of course a sizable minority of voters is undereducated and gets its “facts” from pretend news sources that make things up.
I don’t understand this. Why does believing that economic insecurity is a large component of the Trump phenomenon require one to believe that everyone gets one set of facts and is equally able to process them? I don’t think that at all, just as I don’t think economic insecurity causes racism. It might enflame it or activate it, but it has to there (though it may sometimes be there because it was learned from people who taught it out of economic self-preservation).
I find myself arguing with both sides on this all the time – the people who say there’s no racism involved and it’s just liberals smearing their opponents as well as the ones who say there’s no underlying issue apart from racism.
We, generally on this blog, complain about how the system is rigged in favor of capital over labor regularly. I don’t know why that would be such a controversial thing to think is a factor among Trump’s (and Bernie’s, for that matter) supporters. (I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been, but still….)
But, yes, the racism is racism, not just some weird mutation of economic insecurity. It’s just not only racism at work, particularly when we’re talking about lots of different people all over the country who are not of one mind.
One of those things is that working-class voters are motivated to vote for demagogues out of fear for their future. This requires believing that American voters all receive one set of facts, which they are equally adept at processing, when of course a sizable minority of voters is undereducated and gets its “facts” from pretend news sources that make things up.
I don’t understand this. Why does believing that economic insecurity is a large component of the Trump phenomenon require one to believe that everyone gets one set of facts and is equally able to process them? I don’t think that at all, just as I don’t think economic insecurity causes racism. It might enflame it or activate it, but it has to there (though it may sometimes be there because it was learned from people who taught it out of economic self-preservation).
I find myself arguing with both sides on this all the time – the people who say there’s no racism involved and it’s just liberals smearing their opponents as well as the ones who say there’s no underlying issue apart from racism.
We, generally on this blog, complain about how the system is rigged in favor of capital over labor regularly. I don’t know why that would be such a controversial thing to think is a factor among Trump’s (and Bernie’s, for that matter) supporters. (I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been, but still….)
But, yes, the racism is racism, not just some weird mutation of economic insecurity. It’s just not only racism at work, particularly when we’re talking about lots of different people all over the country who are not of one mind.
One of those things is that working-class voters are motivated to vote for demagogues out of fear for their future. This requires believing that American voters all receive one set of facts, which they are equally adept at processing, when of course a sizable minority of voters is undereducated and gets its “facts” from pretend news sources that make things up.
I don’t understand this. Why does believing that economic insecurity is a large component of the Trump phenomenon require one to believe that everyone gets one set of facts and is equally able to process them? I don’t think that at all, just as I don’t think economic insecurity causes racism. It might enflame it or activate it, but it has to there (though it may sometimes be there because it was learned from people who taught it out of economic self-preservation).
I find myself arguing with both sides on this all the time – the people who say there’s no racism involved and it’s just liberals smearing their opponents as well as the ones who say there’s no underlying issue apart from racism.
We, generally on this blog, complain about how the system is rigged in favor of capital over labor regularly. I don’t know why that would be such a controversial thing to think is a factor among Trump’s (and Bernie’s, for that matter) supporters. (I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been, but still….)
But, yes, the racism is racism, not just some weird mutation of economic insecurity. It’s just not only racism at work, particularly when we’re talking about lots of different people all over the country who are not of one mind.
I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been
It seems like what you are saying is that both groups feel that the system has been rigged. Specifically rigged against the majority Not necessarily rigged against them personally.
But, again if I am understanding you correctly, you are also saying that the reasons they believe that the system is being rigged are different between the two groups. And one group has it mostly right about what the rigging entails, while the other group is simply wrong — which is why their ideas for a solution to the problem are so different.
I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been
It seems like what you are saying is that both groups feel that the system has been rigged. Specifically rigged against the majority Not necessarily rigged against them personally.
But, again if I am understanding you correctly, you are also saying that the reasons they believe that the system is being rigged are different between the two groups. And one group has it mostly right about what the rigging entails, while the other group is simply wrong — which is why their ideas for a solution to the problem are so different.
I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been
It seems like what you are saying is that both groups feel that the system has been rigged. Specifically rigged against the majority Not necessarily rigged against them personally.
But, again if I am understanding you correctly, you are also saying that the reasons they believe that the system is being rigged are different between the two groups. And one group has it mostly right about what the rigging entails, while the other group is simply wrong — which is why their ideas for a solution to the problem are so different.
I don’t understand this. Why does believing that economic insecurity is a large component of the Trump phenomenon require one to believe that everyone gets one set of facts and is equally able to process them?
Because otherwise, benevolent – nay, altruistic – third-way liberal capitalism might not benevolent – let alone altruistic – and instead could just be “I’ve got mine” plus a thick layer of veneer?
But no, questioning whether the rising tide lifts all boats is pandering to racists, and working class whites never vote Democrat anyway, so let’s just ignore those uncomfortable questions and cheerlead whatever status quo candidate our benevolent philosopher-monarchs deign to offer us.
Simplistic, comfortable explanations like the pandering, exculpatory narrative offered by that Daily Beast lecture contribute to the multiplicity of understandings of facts in the body politic rather than alleviating them. And/or what hsh said.
I don’t understand this. Why does believing that economic insecurity is a large component of the Trump phenomenon require one to believe that everyone gets one set of facts and is equally able to process them?
Because otherwise, benevolent – nay, altruistic – third-way liberal capitalism might not benevolent – let alone altruistic – and instead could just be “I’ve got mine” plus a thick layer of veneer?
But no, questioning whether the rising tide lifts all boats is pandering to racists, and working class whites never vote Democrat anyway, so let’s just ignore those uncomfortable questions and cheerlead whatever status quo candidate our benevolent philosopher-monarchs deign to offer us.
Simplistic, comfortable explanations like the pandering, exculpatory narrative offered by that Daily Beast lecture contribute to the multiplicity of understandings of facts in the body politic rather than alleviating them. And/or what hsh said.
I don’t understand this. Why does believing that economic insecurity is a large component of the Trump phenomenon require one to believe that everyone gets one set of facts and is equally able to process them?
Because otherwise, benevolent – nay, altruistic – third-way liberal capitalism might not benevolent – let alone altruistic – and instead could just be “I’ve got mine” plus a thick layer of veneer?
But no, questioning whether the rising tide lifts all boats is pandering to racists, and working class whites never vote Democrat anyway, so let’s just ignore those uncomfortable questions and cheerlead whatever status quo candidate our benevolent philosopher-monarchs deign to offer us.
Simplistic, comfortable explanations like the pandering, exculpatory narrative offered by that Daily Beast lecture contribute to the multiplicity of understandings of facts in the body politic rather than alleviating them. And/or what hsh said.
“the all-powerful, mysterious, conspiring elites did it” isn’t a simplistic comfortable explanation ?
“the all-powerful, mysterious, conspiring elites did it” isn’t a simplistic comfortable explanation ?
“the all-powerful, mysterious, conspiring elites did it” isn’t a simplistic comfortable explanation ?
Maybe not comfortable, but otherwise, yes. Who said it wasn’t? Either way, if you’re suggesting that’s the mindset of a significant portion of Trump supporters, while it may be simplistic, it’s still not based on racism.
Maybe not comfortable, but otherwise, yes. Who said it wasn’t? Either way, if you’re suggesting that’s the mindset of a significant portion of Trump supporters, while it may be simplistic, it’s still not based on racism.
Maybe not comfortable, but otherwise, yes. Who said it wasn’t? Either way, if you’re suggesting that’s the mindset of a significant portion of Trump supporters, while it may be simplistic, it’s still not based on racism.
just to be clear … i linked to that article because it seemed like an interesting take, not as an “AH HA! HERE IS THE ANSWER!” endorsement.
just to be clear … i linked to that article because it seemed like an interesting take, not as an “AH HA! HERE IS THE ANSWER!” endorsement.
just to be clear … i linked to that article because it seemed like an interesting take, not as an “AH HA! HERE IS THE ANSWER!” endorsement.
“(I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been, but still….)”
No. I doubt that there is any significant difference in the level of information across the two sets of voters.
Yes. The Trump voters have been promised and lied to typically much longer so they are more likely to believe having it blown up is more likely to have it work out better. Nothing else has.
“(I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been, but still….)”
No. I doubt that there is any significant difference in the level of information across the two sets of voters.
Yes. The Trump voters have been promised and lied to typically much longer so they are more likely to believe having it blown up is more likely to have it work out better. Nothing else has.
“(I’d say Bernie’s supporters are more likely to be better informed about such and that Trump’s supporters are happy to blow everything up while irrationally hoping it somehow works out better for them than the status quo has been, but still….)”
No. I doubt that there is any significant difference in the level of information across the two sets of voters.
Yes. The Trump voters have been promised and lied to typically much longer so they are more likely to believe having it blown up is more likely to have it work out better. Nothing else has.
Trump voters have been successfully lied to for longer, maybe. I’d guess confidently that far fewer of Bernie’s supporters ever believed in trickle-down and such in the first place. It’s just that there haven’t been any viable candidates really focused on doing something about it. Bernie’s ideas may not all be realistic, but they are at least actual ideas with some sort of substance behind them. Trump is a babbling id, and his campaign is a farce.
Trump voters have been successfully lied to for longer, maybe. I’d guess confidently that far fewer of Bernie’s supporters ever believed in trickle-down and such in the first place. It’s just that there haven’t been any viable candidates really focused on doing something about it. Bernie’s ideas may not all be realistic, but they are at least actual ideas with some sort of substance behind them. Trump is a babbling id, and his campaign is a farce.
Trump voters have been successfully lied to for longer, maybe. I’d guess confidently that far fewer of Bernie’s supporters ever believed in trickle-down and such in the first place. It’s just that there haven’t been any viable candidates really focused on doing something about it. Bernie’s ideas may not all be realistic, but they are at least actual ideas with some sort of substance behind them. Trump is a babbling id, and his campaign is a farce.
What you are saying is, the solutions Sanders is proposing might work. (Or might not.) Whereas the solutions Trump is proposing won’t work.
Which is pretty much my take as well. I don’t actually think that Sanders’ overall set of proposals is the answer, although some of them might help. But the damage that they might do, if they don’t work, is far less than the damage that Trump’s would do when they don’t work.
What you are saying is, the solutions Sanders is proposing might work. (Or might not.) Whereas the solutions Trump is proposing won’t work.
Which is pretty much my take as well. I don’t actually think that Sanders’ overall set of proposals is the answer, although some of them might help. But the damage that they might do, if they don’t work, is far less than the damage that Trump’s would do when they don’t work.
What you are saying is, the solutions Sanders is proposing might work. (Or might not.) Whereas the solutions Trump is proposing won’t work.
Which is pretty much my take as well. I don’t actually think that Sanders’ overall set of proposals is the answer, although some of them might help. But the damage that they might do, if they don’t work, is far less than the damage that Trump’s would do when they don’t work.
The problem is that Bernie’s is over and Trumps is not quite over yet. A whole lot of Bernie’s voters couldn’t tell you what trickle down economics is or why it worked so well for thirty years, they weren’t born yet.
The problem is that Bernie’s is over and Trumps is not quite over yet. A whole lot of Bernie’s voters couldn’t tell you what trickle down economics is or why it worked so well for thirty years, they weren’t born yet.
The problem is that Bernie’s is over and Trumps is not quite over yet. A whole lot of Bernie’s voters couldn’t tell you what trickle down economics is or why it worked so well for thirty years, they weren’t born yet.
Worked so well at what, or better yet, for whom? It took 30 years for lots of people to start noticing how bad it was for most people, maybe. And I think you’re wrong Bernie’s people, depending on the value of “a whole lot.” Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.
Worked so well at what, or better yet, for whom? It took 30 years for lots of people to start noticing how bad it was for most people, maybe. And I think you’re wrong Bernie’s people, depending on the value of “a whole lot.” Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.
Worked so well at what, or better yet, for whom? It took 30 years for lots of people to start noticing how bad it was for most people, maybe. And I think you’re wrong Bernie’s people, depending on the value of “a whole lot.” Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.
“Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.”
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
And trickle down economics worked great for thirty years in creating a stable economic environment that allowed people to be successful Real wages didn’t go down, what inflation there was added value to there homes etc, not in a straight line, and interest rates were low enough that huge swaths of society that had never before been able to envisioned buying a home. It takes a really outlandish revisionist history to find a problem with that.
“Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.”
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
And trickle down economics worked great for thirty years in creating a stable economic environment that allowed people to be successful Real wages didn’t go down, what inflation there was added value to there homes etc, not in a straight line, and interest rates were low enough that huge swaths of society that had never before been able to envisioned buying a home. It takes a really outlandish revisionist history to find a problem with that.
“Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.”
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
And trickle down economics worked great for thirty years in creating a stable economic environment that allowed people to be successful Real wages didn’t go down, what inflation there was added value to there homes etc, not in a straight line, and interest rates were low enough that huge swaths of society that had never before been able to envisioned buying a home. It takes a really outlandish revisionist history to find a problem with that.
what trickle down economics is or why it worked so well for thirty years
opinions vary
Real wages didn’t go down
I’d call that damning with faint praise.
what trickle down economics is or why it worked so well for thirty years
opinions vary
Real wages didn’t go down
I’d call that damning with faint praise.
what trickle down economics is or why it worked so well for thirty years
opinions vary
Real wages didn’t go down
I’d call that damning with faint praise.
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
Tell the pollsters. Some people are more educated than others. Trump does well with the least educated voters, on average. Whether or not it’s insulting, it’s not bullshit. What problem is it more a part of, exactly?
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
Tell the pollsters. Some people are more educated than others. Trump does well with the least educated voters, on average. Whether or not it’s insulting, it’s not bullshit. What problem is it more a part of, exactly?
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
Tell the pollsters. Some people are more educated than others. Trump does well with the least educated voters, on average. Whether or not it’s insulting, it’s not bullshit. What problem is it more a part of, exactly?
trickle down economics worked great for thirty years in creating a stable economic environment that allowed people to be successful
Should we assume you are talking about the 1950s and 1960s? Because that is the time which seems to best fit your describtion of the economic environment.
I guess you could say “allowed people to be successful” describes the 1980s or 1990s. But only if you define “people” sufficiently narrowly. (I freely admit that *I* would be part of that narrow definition. Which doesn’t mean I am not aware that I was more fortunate than many.)
Because there wasn’t a whole lot of trickling down going on then. Trickling *up*, sure — although “streaming” might be more accurate. But not down.
trickle down economics worked great for thirty years in creating a stable economic environment that allowed people to be successful
Should we assume you are talking about the 1950s and 1960s? Because that is the time which seems to best fit your describtion of the economic environment.
I guess you could say “allowed people to be successful” describes the 1980s or 1990s. But only if you define “people” sufficiently narrowly. (I freely admit that *I* would be part of that narrow definition. Which doesn’t mean I am not aware that I was more fortunate than many.)
Because there wasn’t a whole lot of trickling down going on then. Trickling *up*, sure — although “streaming” might be more accurate. But not down.
trickle down economics worked great for thirty years in creating a stable economic environment that allowed people to be successful
Should we assume you are talking about the 1950s and 1960s? Because that is the time which seems to best fit your describtion of the economic environment.
I guess you could say “allowed people to be successful” describes the 1980s or 1990s. But only if you define “people” sufficiently narrowly. (I freely admit that *I* would be part of that narrow definition. Which doesn’t mean I am not aware that I was more fortunate than many.)
Because there wasn’t a whole lot of trickling down going on then. Trickling *up*, sure — although “streaming” might be more accurate. But not down.
Also, not for nothing but here is a graph of US historical home ownership rates.
As I read it, the rate really took off after WWII, crossing the 60% line somewhere around ’57 or ’58. It’s been between 60-70% ever since then.
Looks like it actually declined a bit during the Reagan years, began climbing again about ’95, and then began a pronounced decline right about the time of the ’08 follies.
So, I’m not seeing a correlation between home ownership rates and 30 years of trickle down.
Also, not for nothing but here is a graph of US historical home ownership rates.
As I read it, the rate really took off after WWII, crossing the 60% line somewhere around ’57 or ’58. It’s been between 60-70% ever since then.
Looks like it actually declined a bit during the Reagan years, began climbing again about ’95, and then began a pronounced decline right about the time of the ’08 follies.
So, I’m not seeing a correlation between home ownership rates and 30 years of trickle down.
Also, not for nothing but here is a graph of US historical home ownership rates.
As I read it, the rate really took off after WWII, crossing the 60% line somewhere around ’57 or ’58. It’s been between 60-70% ever since then.
Looks like it actually declined a bit during the Reagan years, began climbing again about ’95, and then began a pronounced decline right about the time of the ’08 follies.
So, I’m not seeing a correlation between home ownership rates and 30 years of trickle down.
for reference, here is the source for the graph.
for reference, here is the source for the graph.
for reference, here is the source for the graph.
From Reagans’ second term through almost all of Bushes second the goal of government was to create and maintain a stable economic environment. The Feds job was interest rates, the Congress worried about jobs and they were very successful. A few quick recessions, rapid recoveries and pretty happy middle class. In the aftermath of the chaos caused by the ultimate effects of the post WWII boom, high inflation coupled with rising unemployment in the Nixon, Carter years, that stability was great. The 2008 crash was partially caused by pushing even further expansion of home ownership to try to expand the middle class even further. Not done well but a noble venture. We are well into baby and bathwater territory over the last 6 years.
From Reagans’ second term through almost all of Bushes second the goal of government was to create and maintain a stable economic environment. The Feds job was interest rates, the Congress worried about jobs and they were very successful. A few quick recessions, rapid recoveries and pretty happy middle class. In the aftermath of the chaos caused by the ultimate effects of the post WWII boom, high inflation coupled with rising unemployment in the Nixon, Carter years, that stability was great. The 2008 crash was partially caused by pushing even further expansion of home ownership to try to expand the middle class even further. Not done well but a noble venture. We are well into baby and bathwater territory over the last 6 years.
From Reagans’ second term through almost all of Bushes second the goal of government was to create and maintain a stable economic environment. The Feds job was interest rates, the Congress worried about jobs and they were very successful. A few quick recessions, rapid recoveries and pretty happy middle class. In the aftermath of the chaos caused by the ultimate effects of the post WWII boom, high inflation coupled with rising unemployment in the Nixon, Carter years, that stability was great. The 2008 crash was partially caused by pushing even further expansion of home ownership to try to expand the middle class even further. Not done well but a noble venture. We are well into baby and bathwater territory over the last 6 years.
” coupled with rising unemployment” translated to be rising interest rates. Can’t drive and type and think too.
” coupled with rising unemployment” translated to be rising interest rates. Can’t drive and type and think too.
” coupled with rising unemployment” translated to be rising interest rates. Can’t drive and type and think too.
We are well into baby and bathwater territory over the last 6 years.
Meaning what? Tax rates returning to what they were during the tech boom? Financial regulation moving generally in the direction it was before Glass-Steagall was repealed, though not all the way?
If you like the way the economy worked over the last 30 years, you should be thrilled with Obama’s run. Stock prices and corproate profits have been trending pretty damned well. It’s not necessarily the measure I would use, but I don’t buy into the trickle-down BS that concentrates wealth more and more narrowly over time.
We are well into baby and bathwater territory over the last 6 years.
Meaning what? Tax rates returning to what they were during the tech boom? Financial regulation moving generally in the direction it was before Glass-Steagall was repealed, though not all the way?
If you like the way the economy worked over the last 30 years, you should be thrilled with Obama’s run. Stock prices and corproate profits have been trending pretty damned well. It’s not necessarily the measure I would use, but I don’t buy into the trickle-down BS that concentrates wealth more and more narrowly over time.
We are well into baby and bathwater territory over the last 6 years.
Meaning what? Tax rates returning to what they were during the tech boom? Financial regulation moving generally in the direction it was before Glass-Steagall was repealed, though not all the way?
If you like the way the economy worked over the last 30 years, you should be thrilled with Obama’s run. Stock prices and corproate profits have been trending pretty damned well. It’s not necessarily the measure I would use, but I don’t buy into the trickle-down BS that concentrates wealth more and more narrowly over time.
From Reagans’ second term through almost all of Bushes second the goal of government was to create and maintain a stable economic environment.
A noble aspiration.
Everybody sees things they way they see them, and I doubt there will be much value in going back and forth about the benefits or lack thereof of the trickle down theory.
Your claims about the expansion of home ownership are not borne out by the numbers. Your statement that real income hasn’t gone down, while true, is kind of ironic, given the expansion of the economy as a whole.
Where’s the money, Lebowski, I hear millions of Americans asking.
Your analysis of the causes of the 2008 financial disaster conveniently omit the actions of the financial community, and the role of the deregulation of the financial industry. Briefly, you fail to mention the systematic fraud that was perpetrated.
Many many millions of people are living financially precarious lives right now, and no small part of it is the legacy of the “trickle down” mania.
It ain’t called flow down, or rain down, or stream down. It’s called trickle down. There’s a reason for that.
From Reagans’ second term through almost all of Bushes second the goal of government was to create and maintain a stable economic environment.
A noble aspiration.
Everybody sees things they way they see them, and I doubt there will be much value in going back and forth about the benefits or lack thereof of the trickle down theory.
Your claims about the expansion of home ownership are not borne out by the numbers. Your statement that real income hasn’t gone down, while true, is kind of ironic, given the expansion of the economy as a whole.
Where’s the money, Lebowski, I hear millions of Americans asking.
Your analysis of the causes of the 2008 financial disaster conveniently omit the actions of the financial community, and the role of the deregulation of the financial industry. Briefly, you fail to mention the systematic fraud that was perpetrated.
Many many millions of people are living financially precarious lives right now, and no small part of it is the legacy of the “trickle down” mania.
It ain’t called flow down, or rain down, or stream down. It’s called trickle down. There’s a reason for that.
From Reagans’ second term through almost all of Bushes second the goal of government was to create and maintain a stable economic environment.
A noble aspiration.
Everybody sees things they way they see them, and I doubt there will be much value in going back and forth about the benefits or lack thereof of the trickle down theory.
Your claims about the expansion of home ownership are not borne out by the numbers. Your statement that real income hasn’t gone down, while true, is kind of ironic, given the expansion of the economy as a whole.
Where’s the money, Lebowski, I hear millions of Americans asking.
Your analysis of the causes of the 2008 financial disaster conveniently omit the actions of the financial community, and the role of the deregulation of the financial industry. Briefly, you fail to mention the systematic fraud that was perpetrated.
Many many millions of people are living financially precarious lives right now, and no small part of it is the legacy of the “trickle down” mania.
It ain’t called flow down, or rain down, or stream down. It’s called trickle down. There’s a reason for that.
The housing numbers are obscured by the very real explosion after WWII, cheap housing and VA loans The financial deregulation so often mentioned was concentrated on the expansion of home ownership. While the repeal of Glass-Steagall added some risk, its impacts were primarily to create larger financial institutions that mostly survived(Citibank probably the exception) without help while the investment houses that weren’t impacted by G-S required support, and of course the mortgage banks. Big banks weren’t the problem, under capitalized investment houses were, baby/ bathwater.
But you are right, the rehash is not particularly helpful.
The housing numbers are obscured by the very real explosion after WWII, cheap housing and VA loans The financial deregulation so often mentioned was concentrated on the expansion of home ownership. While the repeal of Glass-Steagall added some risk, its impacts were primarily to create larger financial institutions that mostly survived(Citibank probably the exception) without help while the investment houses that weren’t impacted by G-S required support, and of course the mortgage banks. Big banks weren’t the problem, under capitalized investment houses were, baby/ bathwater.
But you are right, the rehash is not particularly helpful.
The housing numbers are obscured by the very real explosion after WWII, cheap housing and VA loans The financial deregulation so often mentioned was concentrated on the expansion of home ownership. While the repeal of Glass-Steagall added some risk, its impacts were primarily to create larger financial institutions that mostly survived(Citibank probably the exception) without help while the investment houses that weren’t impacted by G-S required support, and of course the mortgage banks. Big banks weren’t the problem, under capitalized investment houses were, baby/ bathwater.
But you are right, the rehash is not particularly helpful.
“Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.”
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
I know that whenever you analyze a joke, it generally drains it of any humor. I also understand that it is a pattern in modern society to devalue the practical knowledge and wisdom. I know tons of people I grew up with whose knowledge of ‘book learning’ is pretty weak, but if I were ever in a survival situation, they would be a person I would absolutely want to be with, to the point that if they said to me, in the post-apocalyptic landscape, ‘Don’t you wish more people would have listened to Trump?’, I would say ‘yep, you got that right.’
But I’m at a loss to understand Marty’s reaction here. If hsh had said ‘well, Sanders supporters are more educated than Trump’s’, that does sound dismissive. But when he says “Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s”, he’s pointing out a demographic fact and underlining the fact that he understands book learning is not the be all end all. I realize that rhetorically, it’s tough nut to crack, but I’m not seeing at all what makes this insulting.
“Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.”
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
I know that whenever you analyze a joke, it generally drains it of any humor. I also understand that it is a pattern in modern society to devalue the practical knowledge and wisdom. I know tons of people I grew up with whose knowledge of ‘book learning’ is pretty weak, but if I were ever in a survival situation, they would be a person I would absolutely want to be with, to the point that if they said to me, in the post-apocalyptic landscape, ‘Don’t you wish more people would have listened to Trump?’, I would say ‘yep, you got that right.’
But I’m at a loss to understand Marty’s reaction here. If hsh had said ‘well, Sanders supporters are more educated than Trump’s’, that does sound dismissive. But when he says “Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s”, he’s pointing out a demographic fact and underlining the fact that he understands book learning is not the be all end all. I realize that rhetorically, it’s tough nut to crack, but I’m not seeing at all what makes this insulting.
“Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s. They read.”
And you wonder why people might be unhappy. This is just insulting bullshit, more a part of the problem than any other thing.
I know that whenever you analyze a joke, it generally drains it of any humor. I also understand that it is a pattern in modern society to devalue the practical knowledge and wisdom. I know tons of people I grew up with whose knowledge of ‘book learning’ is pretty weak, but if I were ever in a survival situation, they would be a person I would absolutely want to be with, to the point that if they said to me, in the post-apocalyptic landscape, ‘Don’t you wish more people would have listened to Trump?’, I would say ‘yep, you got that right.’
But I’m at a loss to understand Marty’s reaction here. If hsh had said ‘well, Sanders supporters are more educated than Trump’s’, that does sound dismissive. But when he says “Those kids are more edumucated than Trump’s”, he’s pointing out a demographic fact and underlining the fact that he understands book learning is not the be all end all. I realize that rhetorically, it’s tough nut to crack, but I’m not seeing at all what makes this insulting.
Mostly I meant “they read” to address Marty’s point that they didn’t live through the glory days of trickle-down economics, if that’s what was getting his goat. It’s not some obscure aspect of recent history that a reasonably aware person wouldn’t know of.
Mostly I meant “they read” to address Marty’s point that they didn’t live through the glory days of trickle-down economics, if that’s what was getting his goat. It’s not some obscure aspect of recent history that a reasonably aware person wouldn’t know of.
Mostly I meant “they read” to address Marty’s point that they didn’t live through the glory days of trickle-down economics, if that’s what was getting his goat. It’s not some obscure aspect of recent history that a reasonably aware person wouldn’t know of.
I took it as dismissive, perhaps because it id a common theme. If it wasn’t meant to be, my bad.
I took it as dismissive, perhaps because it id a common theme. If it wasn’t meant to be, my bad.
I took it as dismissive, perhaps because it id a common theme. If it wasn’t meant to be, my bad.
The financial deregulation so often mentioned was concentrated on the expansion of home ownership.
Gramm-Leach-Billey, 1999. Signed by Bill Clinton. Nothing to do with home ownership.
The home ownership numbers aren’t “obscured” by the explosion after WWII, the numbers *are* the freaking explosion after WWII. Yes, all the guys who came home from the war, cheap housing, plus FHA drove a lot of that. Why is that of less note than “trickle down”?
In 1980, on the cusp of the Reagan Wonder Years, the rate of home ownership was about 65%. Now, it’s about 65%. The difference between 65% and 65% is zero.
The economic policies of the last 30 years haven’t really been that great for a lot of people. Millions and millions of people in this country live at significant financial risk. Talking about how trickle down was actually really good for everyone is not convincing, because the reality that people live with tells a different story.
The financial deregulation so often mentioned was concentrated on the expansion of home ownership.
Gramm-Leach-Billey, 1999. Signed by Bill Clinton. Nothing to do with home ownership.
The home ownership numbers aren’t “obscured” by the explosion after WWII, the numbers *are* the freaking explosion after WWII. Yes, all the guys who came home from the war, cheap housing, plus FHA drove a lot of that. Why is that of less note than “trickle down”?
In 1980, on the cusp of the Reagan Wonder Years, the rate of home ownership was about 65%. Now, it’s about 65%. The difference between 65% and 65% is zero.
The economic policies of the last 30 years haven’t really been that great for a lot of people. Millions and millions of people in this country live at significant financial risk. Talking about how trickle down was actually really good for everyone is not convincing, because the reality that people live with tells a different story.
The financial deregulation so often mentioned was concentrated on the expansion of home ownership.
Gramm-Leach-Billey, 1999. Signed by Bill Clinton. Nothing to do with home ownership.
The home ownership numbers aren’t “obscured” by the explosion after WWII, the numbers *are* the freaking explosion after WWII. Yes, all the guys who came home from the war, cheap housing, plus FHA drove a lot of that. Why is that of less note than “trickle down”?
In 1980, on the cusp of the Reagan Wonder Years, the rate of home ownership was about 65%. Now, it’s about 65%. The difference between 65% and 65% is zero.
The economic policies of the last 30 years haven’t really been that great for a lot of people. Millions and millions of people in this country live at significant financial risk. Talking about how trickle down was actually really good for everyone is not convincing, because the reality that people live with tells a different story.
I took it as dismissive, perhaps because it id a common theme. If it wasn’t meant to be, my bad.
That’s not how it was meant, but no biggie.
The thing is, I end up defending the idea that some Trump supporters have legitimate grievances, that they aren’t entirely motivated by racism, but the grievances that they have are actually the same ones that (some segment of) liberals have been complaining about for years, maybe even decades.
Yet conservatives will defend the policies that led to the disenfranchisement that Trump supporters feel while simultaneously defending Trump supporters against liberals who attack Trump supporters for being stupid, but those same liberals have been arguing against those very policies for years – or decades, even.
Who’s f*cking side am I on, anyway? I know Trump’s a f*cking joke, but after that, I don’t know where I am in the grand scheme of things, other than someone who’s willing, though unequivocally under the circumstances, to settle for HRC.
I took it as dismissive, perhaps because it id a common theme. If it wasn’t meant to be, my bad.
That’s not how it was meant, but no biggie.
The thing is, I end up defending the idea that some Trump supporters have legitimate grievances, that they aren’t entirely motivated by racism, but the grievances that they have are actually the same ones that (some segment of) liberals have been complaining about for years, maybe even decades.
Yet conservatives will defend the policies that led to the disenfranchisement that Trump supporters feel while simultaneously defending Trump supporters against liberals who attack Trump supporters for being stupid, but those same liberals have been arguing against those very policies for years – or decades, even.
Who’s f*cking side am I on, anyway? I know Trump’s a f*cking joke, but after that, I don’t know where I am in the grand scheme of things, other than someone who’s willing, though unequivocally under the circumstances, to settle for HRC.
I took it as dismissive, perhaps because it id a common theme. If it wasn’t meant to be, my bad.
That’s not how it was meant, but no biggie.
The thing is, I end up defending the idea that some Trump supporters have legitimate grievances, that they aren’t entirely motivated by racism, but the grievances that they have are actually the same ones that (some segment of) liberals have been complaining about for years, maybe even decades.
Yet conservatives will defend the policies that led to the disenfranchisement that Trump supporters feel while simultaneously defending Trump supporters against liberals who attack Trump supporters for being stupid, but those same liberals have been arguing against those very policies for years – or decades, even.
Who’s f*cking side am I on, anyway? I know Trump’s a f*cking joke, but after that, I don’t know where I am in the grand scheme of things, other than someone who’s willing, though unequivocally under the circumstances, to settle for HRC.
I blame New Belgium Citradelic for my failure to italicize my quote from Marty’s comment. Please use your special glasses to view my comment as intended.
I blame New Belgium Citradelic for my failure to italicize my quote from Marty’s comment. Please use your special glasses to view my comment as intended.
I blame New Belgium Citradelic for my failure to italicize my quote from Marty’s comment. Please use your special glasses to view my comment as intended.
“Yet conservatives will defend the policies that led to the disenfranchisement that Trump supporters feel while simultaneously defending Trump supporters against liberals who attack Trump supporters for being stupid, but those same liberals have been arguing against those very policies for years – or decades, even.”
I feel you.
it’s a confusing moment.
“Yet conservatives will defend the policies that led to the disenfranchisement that Trump supporters feel while simultaneously defending Trump supporters against liberals who attack Trump supporters for being stupid, but those same liberals have been arguing against those very policies for years – or decades, even.”
I feel you.
it’s a confusing moment.
“Yet conservatives will defend the policies that led to the disenfranchisement that Trump supporters feel while simultaneously defending Trump supporters against liberals who attack Trump supporters for being stupid, but those same liberals have been arguing against those very policies for years – or decades, even.”
I feel you.
it’s a confusing moment.
The difference between 65% and 65% is about 50 million people.
The difference between 65% and 65% is about 50 million people.
The difference between 65% and 65% is about 50 million people.
hsh, I think that one of the big questions is what/when the governments policies actually began to harm people. In the years I am talking about the poor were less poor, the misery index less painful and government spending went up, I would say on the wrong priorities, war on drugs, prison expansion, military budget and some more.
The rich getting richer and everyone else falling behind really accelerated at the end of that, essentially the exploding upside in the markets coupled with a bifurcated labor market where the new jobs were highly tilted toward lower paying service jobs.
My point is that the economic theory didn’t create the problems.
The realities of offshoring, the abandoning of jobs training programs by companies, there are lots of policy and business culture reasons that did slowly bring the problem on. I think these are problems we agree on. I think the culture of measuring every public company by growth in its bottom line every quarter is one of the worst incentives in history.
I think we disagree, or not as much as you might suspect, on programs and policies.
So, just for Snarki, I think we should:
1) define a minimum basic health benefit an d make every insurance policy provide it, paid directly to the insurance company for every citizen/legal resident of the US.
2) make SS an actual retirement program, needs based but only to exclude people who clearly don’t need it. One of those brief shining moments post WWII was defined benefit retirement plans on a broad scale, mostly for unions but then lots of people got them. They were good for people and the economy. They need to be replaced somehow.
3) Pay for most of that by significantly reducing the military budget and implementing transaction fees on Wall Street. Symbolically you can raise rich peoples taxes 10%, trade that off against not screwing with inheritance taxes.
4) Create more incentives to trickle down, tax breaks get crucified but the most successful tax break in the last two decades was for hiring new people, used a lot by oil companies.
hsh, I think that one of the big questions is what/when the governments policies actually began to harm people. In the years I am talking about the poor were less poor, the misery index less painful and government spending went up, I would say on the wrong priorities, war on drugs, prison expansion, military budget and some more.
The rich getting richer and everyone else falling behind really accelerated at the end of that, essentially the exploding upside in the markets coupled with a bifurcated labor market where the new jobs were highly tilted toward lower paying service jobs.
My point is that the economic theory didn’t create the problems.
The realities of offshoring, the abandoning of jobs training programs by companies, there are lots of policy and business culture reasons that did slowly bring the problem on. I think these are problems we agree on. I think the culture of measuring every public company by growth in its bottom line every quarter is one of the worst incentives in history.
I think we disagree, or not as much as you might suspect, on programs and policies.
So, just for Snarki, I think we should:
1) define a minimum basic health benefit an d make every insurance policy provide it, paid directly to the insurance company for every citizen/legal resident of the US.
2) make SS an actual retirement program, needs based but only to exclude people who clearly don’t need it. One of those brief shining moments post WWII was defined benefit retirement plans on a broad scale, mostly for unions but then lots of people got them. They were good for people and the economy. They need to be replaced somehow.
3) Pay for most of that by significantly reducing the military budget and implementing transaction fees on Wall Street. Symbolically you can raise rich peoples taxes 10%, trade that off against not screwing with inheritance taxes.
4) Create more incentives to trickle down, tax breaks get crucified but the most successful tax break in the last two decades was for hiring new people, used a lot by oil companies.
hsh, I think that one of the big questions is what/when the governments policies actually began to harm people. In the years I am talking about the poor were less poor, the misery index less painful and government spending went up, I would say on the wrong priorities, war on drugs, prison expansion, military budget and some more.
The rich getting richer and everyone else falling behind really accelerated at the end of that, essentially the exploding upside in the markets coupled with a bifurcated labor market where the new jobs were highly tilted toward lower paying service jobs.
My point is that the economic theory didn’t create the problems.
The realities of offshoring, the abandoning of jobs training programs by companies, there are lots of policy and business culture reasons that did slowly bring the problem on. I think these are problems we agree on. I think the culture of measuring every public company by growth in its bottom line every quarter is one of the worst incentives in history.
I think we disagree, or not as much as you might suspect, on programs and policies.
So, just for Snarki, I think we should:
1) define a minimum basic health benefit an d make every insurance policy provide it, paid directly to the insurance company for every citizen/legal resident of the US.
2) make SS an actual retirement program, needs based but only to exclude people who clearly don’t need it. One of those brief shining moments post WWII was defined benefit retirement plans on a broad scale, mostly for unions but then lots of people got them. They were good for people and the economy. They need to be replaced somehow.
3) Pay for most of that by significantly reducing the military budget and implementing transaction fees on Wall Street. Symbolically you can raise rich peoples taxes 10%, trade that off against not screwing with inheritance taxes.
4) Create more incentives to trickle down, tax breaks get crucified but the most successful tax break in the last two decades was for hiring new people, used a lot by oil companies.
“The difference between 65% and 65% is about 50 million people.”
Marty, this is true as stated, but it’s not evidence of the goodness of trickle down. it just demonstrates that more people live in the US.
“My point is that the economic theory didn’t create the problems.”
That is correct. It merely provided the justification for all of the practices you go on to list, plus many others, along with the public policies that enabled them.
it wasn’t the theory, it was the fact that the theory was embraced and implemented, enthusiastically.
“The difference between 65% and 65% is about 50 million people.”
Marty, this is true as stated, but it’s not evidence of the goodness of trickle down. it just demonstrates that more people live in the US.
“My point is that the economic theory didn’t create the problems.”
That is correct. It merely provided the justification for all of the practices you go on to list, plus many others, along with the public policies that enabled them.
it wasn’t the theory, it was the fact that the theory was embraced and implemented, enthusiastically.
“The difference between 65% and 65% is about 50 million people.”
Marty, this is true as stated, but it’s not evidence of the goodness of trickle down. it just demonstrates that more people live in the US.
“My point is that the economic theory didn’t create the problems.”
That is correct. It merely provided the justification for all of the practices you go on to list, plus many others, along with the public policies that enabled them.
it wasn’t the theory, it was the fact that the theory was embraced and implemented, enthusiastically.
Yes. A lot of establishment types – pundits, politicians, media owners – have a vested interest in not admitting that the system is not working for most people, hence they blame everything on racism and xenophobia. Opposition to immigration is new to Republicans (and still forbidden to Democrats), but racism has been a staple of Republican politics for over 50 years.
Yes. A lot of establishment types – pundits, politicians, media owners – have a vested interest in not admitting that the system is not working for most people, hence they blame everything on racism and xenophobia. Opposition to immigration is new to Republicans (and still forbidden to Democrats), but racism has been a staple of Republican politics for over 50 years.
Yes. A lot of establishment types – pundits, politicians, media owners – have a vested interest in not admitting that the system is not working for most people, hence they blame everything on racism and xenophobia. Opposition to immigration is new to Republicans (and still forbidden to Democrats), but racism has been a staple of Republican politics for over 50 years.
Brexit and then exit, stage right, Booboo!
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/05/late-night-national-schadenfreude-open-thread/
Brexit and then exit, stage right, Booboo!
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/05/late-night-national-schadenfreude-open-thread/
Brexit and then exit, stage right, Booboo!
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/05/late-night-national-schadenfreude-open-thread/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4qFxTTi8q0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4qFxTTi8q0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4qFxTTi8q0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-home-that-looks-perfect-until-bigotry-rears-its-ugly-head/2016/07/04/f12e5216-420c-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
This will stop or there will violence across the board against the “conservative movement” until it is a rotting, stinking corpse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-home-that-looks-perfect-until-bigotry-rears-its-ugly-head/2016/07/04/f12e5216-420c-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
This will stop or there will violence across the board against the “conservative movement” until it is a rotting, stinking corpse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-home-that-looks-perfect-until-bigotry-rears-its-ugly-head/2016/07/04/f12e5216-420c-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
This will stop or there will violence across the board against the “conservative movement” until it is a rotting, stinking corpse.
Use the market’s private sector to disarm the tribe causing all the trouble.
No gummint intervention required, beyond the SEC OKing the deals.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-big-business-can-easily-prevent-the-next-orlando-tragedy-2016-06-16?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Use the market’s private sector to disarm the tribe causing all the trouble.
No gummint intervention required, beyond the SEC OKing the deals.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-big-business-can-easily-prevent-the-next-orlando-tragedy-2016-06-16?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Use the market’s private sector to disarm the tribe causing all the trouble.
No gummint intervention required, beyond the SEC OKing the deals.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-big-business-can-easily-prevent-the-next-orlando-tragedy-2016-06-16?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
This has the ring of crazy-talk to it, but I’m not so sure it actually is crazy.
The final paragraphs:
I think there is a need to worry about what happens when Trump loses. The base may conclude that the establishment and/or the mainstream media defeated him. There will still be hard core believers in his message. There will be another Trump. I do not know how someone could not see how relatively easily Trump destroyed his political rivals with a mixture of economic populism—saving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and maybe even supporting universal health care—with racism, nativism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and authoritarianism.
As neoliberalism fails and the Democratic Party does not address its destructive consequences for ordinary people, the more likely the next Trump will be more successful.
The key strategists of the Christian Right—William S. Lind, Gary North, and Edwin Vieira—have written strategic assessments that the financial system will collapse.
The Patriot militia and other paramilitary groups are simply waiting for their turn to have fun.
This has the ring of crazy-talk to it, but I’m not so sure it actually is crazy.
The final paragraphs:
I think there is a need to worry about what happens when Trump loses. The base may conclude that the establishment and/or the mainstream media defeated him. There will still be hard core believers in his message. There will be another Trump. I do not know how someone could not see how relatively easily Trump destroyed his political rivals with a mixture of economic populism—saving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and maybe even supporting universal health care—with racism, nativism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and authoritarianism.
As neoliberalism fails and the Democratic Party does not address its destructive consequences for ordinary people, the more likely the next Trump will be more successful.
The key strategists of the Christian Right—William S. Lind, Gary North, and Edwin Vieira—have written strategic assessments that the financial system will collapse.
The Patriot militia and other paramilitary groups are simply waiting for their turn to have fun.
This has the ring of crazy-talk to it, but I’m not so sure it actually is crazy.
The final paragraphs:
I think there is a need to worry about what happens when Trump loses. The base may conclude that the establishment and/or the mainstream media defeated him. There will still be hard core believers in his message. There will be another Trump. I do not know how someone could not see how relatively easily Trump destroyed his political rivals with a mixture of economic populism—saving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and maybe even supporting universal health care—with racism, nativism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and authoritarianism.
As neoliberalism fails and the Democratic Party does not address its destructive consequences for ordinary people, the more likely the next Trump will be more successful.
The key strategists of the Christian Right—William S. Lind, Gary North, and Edwin Vieira—have written strategic assessments that the financial system will collapse.
The Patriot militia and other paramilitary groups are simply waiting for their turn to have fun.
As neoliberalism fails and the Democratic Party does not address its destructive consequences for ordinary people
if only there was someone promising to Make America Great Again.
As neoliberalism fails and the Democratic Party does not address its destructive consequences for ordinary people
if only there was someone promising to Make America Great Again.
As neoliberalism fails and the Democratic Party does not address its destructive consequences for ordinary people
if only there was someone promising to Make America Great Again.
… which is to say: it’d really be nice if the left figured out that maybe it’s not such a great idea to flatly accept Trump’s premise that America is currently the suckiest suck that ever sucked.
… which is to say: it’d really be nice if the left figured out that maybe it’s not such a great idea to flatly accept Trump’s premise that America is currently the suckiest suck that ever sucked.
… which is to say: it’d really be nice if the left figured out that maybe it’s not such a great idea to flatly accept Trump’s premise that America is currently the suckiest suck that ever sucked.
That there is is kind of the point, no?
That there is is kind of the point, no?
That there is is kind of the point, no?
To the extent that it does suck, it should be acknowledged. Who is flatly accepting Trump’s premise, which is that it sucks because of immigrants, Muslims, and always-wrong elite know-it-alls (including the guy being interviewed at my link)?
You aren’t suggesting that there’s no room for improvement in the policies that affect the economy and how resources ultimately are allocated, are you, cleek?
To the extent that it does suck, it should be acknowledged. Who is flatly accepting Trump’s premise, which is that it sucks because of immigrants, Muslims, and always-wrong elite know-it-alls (including the guy being interviewed at my link)?
You aren’t suggesting that there’s no room for improvement in the policies that affect the economy and how resources ultimately are allocated, are you, cleek?
To the extent that it does suck, it should be acknowledged. Who is flatly accepting Trump’s premise, which is that it sucks because of immigrants, Muslims, and always-wrong elite know-it-alls (including the guy being interviewed at my link)?
You aren’t suggesting that there’s no room for improvement in the policies that affect the economy and how resources ultimately are allocated, are you, cleek?
Out of curiosity, who was your preferred candidate in this presidential election?
Out of curiosity, who was your preferred candidate in this presidential election?
Out of curiosity, who was your preferred candidate in this presidential election?
There’s risk in overdoing teh suck when you’ve been the party in charge of the White House for the past 8 years, even if Congress has refused to do anything.
There’s risk in overdoing teh suck when you’ve been the party in charge of the White House for the past 8 years, even if Congress has refused to do anything.
There’s risk in overdoing teh suck when you’ve been the party in charge of the White House for the past 8 years, even if Congress has refused to do anything.
You aren’t suggesting that there’s no room for improvement in the policies that affect the economy and how resources ultimately are allocated, are you, cleek?
of course i’m not. there is an enormous middle between “no room for improvement” and Trump’s (and some of the left’s) “this are terrible”. we shouldn’t exclude it.
i preferred Clinton.
You aren’t suggesting that there’s no room for improvement in the policies that affect the economy and how resources ultimately are allocated, are you, cleek?
of course i’m not. there is an enormous middle between “no room for improvement” and Trump’s (and some of the left’s) “this are terrible”. we shouldn’t exclude it.
i preferred Clinton.
You aren’t suggesting that there’s no room for improvement in the policies that affect the economy and how resources ultimately are allocated, are you, cleek?
of course i’m not. there is an enormous middle between “no room for improvement” and Trump’s (and some of the left’s) “this are terrible”. we shouldn’t exclude it.
i preferred Clinton.
I’m not suggesting teh suck should be a campaign message. I thought we were talking about political analysis here.
I’m not suggesting teh suck should be a campaign message. I thought we were talking about political analysis here.
I’m not suggesting teh suck should be a campaign message. I thought we were talking about political analysis here.
we shouldn’t exclude it.
Agreed.
we shouldn’t exclude it.
Agreed.
we shouldn’t exclude it.
Agreed.
I think the pull of the success of the neoliberal policies, just as everyone knows someone suffering everyone has family and friends doing well, will get Hillary elected.
The underlying assumption that all poor people are just rich people down on their luck will win out.
I think the pull of the success of the neoliberal policies, just as everyone knows someone suffering everyone has family and friends doing well, will get Hillary elected.
The underlying assumption that all poor people are just rich people down on their luck will win out.
I think the pull of the success of the neoliberal policies, just as everyone knows someone suffering everyone has family and friends doing well, will get Hillary elected.
The underlying assumption that all poor people are just rich people down on their luck will win out.
I think Trump’s being complete f*cking idiot will have more to do with Hillary being elected than anything else.
I think Trump’s being complete f*cking idiot will have more to do with Hillary being elected than anything else.
I think Trump’s being complete f*cking idiot will have more to do with Hillary being elected than anything else.
Dear God, hsh, I hope you’re right. But after Brexit, nothing bad and stupid would surprise me. I assume the well-read ObWi collective have seen this:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/george-saunders-goes-to-trump-rallies
Dear God, hsh, I hope you’re right. But after Brexit, nothing bad and stupid would surprise me. I assume the well-read ObWi collective have seen this:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/george-saunders-goes-to-trump-rallies
Dear God, hsh, I hope you’re right. But after Brexit, nothing bad and stupid would surprise me. I assume the well-read ObWi collective have seen this:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/george-saunders-goes-to-trump-rallies
Out of curiosity, who was your preferred candidate in this presidential election?
I’m assuming that this is a game anyone can play (in retrospect)?
Of the folks who actually ran, i.e. excluding those who maybe talked about it but didn’t, I think I’d go with Martin O’Malley. (If restricted to those running in the primary in which I could vote, I’d still go with Kasich.)
If we had a choice in November between those two guys, I’d feel a lot better about the future of the country. Alas….
Out of curiosity, who was your preferred candidate in this presidential election?
I’m assuming that this is a game anyone can play (in retrospect)?
Of the folks who actually ran, i.e. excluding those who maybe talked about it but didn’t, I think I’d go with Martin O’Malley. (If restricted to those running in the primary in which I could vote, I’d still go with Kasich.)
If we had a choice in November between those two guys, I’d feel a lot better about the future of the country. Alas….
Out of curiosity, who was your preferred candidate in this presidential election?
I’m assuming that this is a game anyone can play (in retrospect)?
Of the folks who actually ran, i.e. excluding those who maybe talked about it but didn’t, I think I’d go with Martin O’Malley. (If restricted to those running in the primary in which I could vote, I’d still go with Kasich.)
If we had a choice in November between those two guys, I’d feel a lot better about the future of the country. Alas….
I assume the well-read ObWi collective have seen this:
I had read some, but not all, of it. So I just read the rest.
To cleek’s and ugh’s about not conceding that America totally sucks, as Trump would have people believe, this jumped out at me, because it is my experience with both Trump’s supporters, who are pretty much by default Obama-haters, and Obama-haters who aren’t necessarily supporters of Trump:
…and that their grievances were more theoretical than actual, more media-induced than experience-related.
(…)
I ask one of his friends, a thoughtful Chinese-American guy, how his life has been made worse over the past eight years. He comes up with this: he pays more for his insurance because of Obamacare. Anything else? Not really. How has he personally been affected by illegal immigration? He hasn’t, he tells me, but he’s been fortunate enough to have the resources to keep his family away from the danger.
At one point, in line at the Fountain Hills rally, frustrated by a litany of anti-Obama grievances being delivered by the woman in front of me, I say that I think life is good, pretty good, you know?
“You think this is good?” she says.
“I do, yeah,” I say. “We’re out here on a nice day, having a beautiful talk—”
She groans, meaning, You know that’s not what I mean.
But I don’t, really, so I ask her what, in terms of her day-to-day life, she thinks is wrong with America.
“I don’t like people shoving Obamacare down my throat, O.K.?” she says. “And then getting penalized if I don’t have insurance.”
Is she covered through Obamacare?
No. She has insurance through her work, thank God, but “every day my rights are being taken away from me, you know?” she says. “I mean—this is America. In the U.S., we have a lot of freedoms and things like that, but we’re not going to have all that if we have all these people coming in, that are taking our—”
It’s like the conversation I had with my Obama-hating friend a couple Saturdays ago. Obama has ruined the country. How? Everything’s screwed up and going down the tubes. More specifically? Well, his picks for Attorney General sucked and Obamacare is a mess. Is that it? What’s happened to you (or even anyone you actually know)? Well, nothing, really….
(His IRA probably went up in value quite a bit over the last 8 years, though.)
I assume the well-read ObWi collective have seen this:
I had read some, but not all, of it. So I just read the rest.
To cleek’s and ugh’s about not conceding that America totally sucks, as Trump would have people believe, this jumped out at me, because it is my experience with both Trump’s supporters, who are pretty much by default Obama-haters, and Obama-haters who aren’t necessarily supporters of Trump:
…and that their grievances were more theoretical than actual, more media-induced than experience-related.
(…)
I ask one of his friends, a thoughtful Chinese-American guy, how his life has been made worse over the past eight years. He comes up with this: he pays more for his insurance because of Obamacare. Anything else? Not really. How has he personally been affected by illegal immigration? He hasn’t, he tells me, but he’s been fortunate enough to have the resources to keep his family away from the danger.
At one point, in line at the Fountain Hills rally, frustrated by a litany of anti-Obama grievances being delivered by the woman in front of me, I say that I think life is good, pretty good, you know?
“You think this is good?” she says.
“I do, yeah,” I say. “We’re out here on a nice day, having a beautiful talk—”
She groans, meaning, You know that’s not what I mean.
But I don’t, really, so I ask her what, in terms of her day-to-day life, she thinks is wrong with America.
“I don’t like people shoving Obamacare down my throat, O.K.?” she says. “And then getting penalized if I don’t have insurance.”
Is she covered through Obamacare?
No. She has insurance through her work, thank God, but “every day my rights are being taken away from me, you know?” she says. “I mean—this is America. In the U.S., we have a lot of freedoms and things like that, but we’re not going to have all that if we have all these people coming in, that are taking our—”
It’s like the conversation I had with my Obama-hating friend a couple Saturdays ago. Obama has ruined the country. How? Everything’s screwed up and going down the tubes. More specifically? Well, his picks for Attorney General sucked and Obamacare is a mess. Is that it? What’s happened to you (or even anyone you actually know)? Well, nothing, really….
(His IRA probably went up in value quite a bit over the last 8 years, though.)
I assume the well-read ObWi collective have seen this:
I had read some, but not all, of it. So I just read the rest.
To cleek’s and ugh’s about not conceding that America totally sucks, as Trump would have people believe, this jumped out at me, because it is my experience with both Trump’s supporters, who are pretty much by default Obama-haters, and Obama-haters who aren’t necessarily supporters of Trump:
…and that their grievances were more theoretical than actual, more media-induced than experience-related.
(…)
I ask one of his friends, a thoughtful Chinese-American guy, how his life has been made worse over the past eight years. He comes up with this: he pays more for his insurance because of Obamacare. Anything else? Not really. How has he personally been affected by illegal immigration? He hasn’t, he tells me, but he’s been fortunate enough to have the resources to keep his family away from the danger.
At one point, in line at the Fountain Hills rally, frustrated by a litany of anti-Obama grievances being delivered by the woman in front of me, I say that I think life is good, pretty good, you know?
“You think this is good?” she says.
“I do, yeah,” I say. “We’re out here on a nice day, having a beautiful talk—”
She groans, meaning, You know that’s not what I mean.
But I don’t, really, so I ask her what, in terms of her day-to-day life, she thinks is wrong with America.
“I don’t like people shoving Obamacare down my throat, O.K.?” she says. “And then getting penalized if I don’t have insurance.”
Is she covered through Obamacare?
No. She has insurance through her work, thank God, but “every day my rights are being taken away from me, you know?” she says. “I mean—this is America. In the U.S., we have a lot of freedoms and things like that, but we’re not going to have all that if we have all these people coming in, that are taking our—”
It’s like the conversation I had with my Obama-hating friend a couple Saturdays ago. Obama has ruined the country. How? Everything’s screwed up and going down the tubes. More specifically? Well, his picks for Attorney General sucked and Obamacare is a mess. Is that it? What’s happened to you (or even anyone you actually know)? Well, nothing, really….
(His IRA probably went up in value quite a bit over the last 8 years, though.)
If we had a choice in November between those two guys, I’d feel a lot better about the future of the country.
What about Clinton v. Kasich? Is there a discernible difference as between O’Malley and Clinton? (Don’t get smart, I mean policy-wise.)
And why go for a rabid right winger like Kasich?
If we had a choice in November between those two guys, I’d feel a lot better about the future of the country.
What about Clinton v. Kasich? Is there a discernible difference as between O’Malley and Clinton? (Don’t get smart, I mean policy-wise.)
And why go for a rabid right winger like Kasich?
If we had a choice in November between those two guys, I’d feel a lot better about the future of the country.
What about Clinton v. Kasich? Is there a discernible difference as between O’Malley and Clinton? (Don’t get smart, I mean policy-wise.)
And why go for a rabid right winger like Kasich?
Thank you, bobbyp.
Why, indeed?
Thank you, bobbyp.
Why, indeed?
Thank you, bobbyp.
Why, indeed?
This is why peaceful protest against armed filth never works.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-leaders-investigation-sit-in-guns
Never do a sit-in without automatic weaponry at the ready, safeties off.
This is why peaceful protest against armed filth never works.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-leaders-investigation-sit-in-guns
Never do a sit-in without automatic weaponry at the ready, safeties off.
This is why peaceful protest against armed filth never works.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-leaders-investigation-sit-in-guns
Never do a sit-in without automatic weaponry at the ready, safeties off.
I don’t know how much policy difference there might be between Clinton and O’Malley. Although I have the distinct impression that he may rather less of a hawk on foreign policy. But I have some doubts about Clinton’s judgement; and while it is true that even paranoids can have real enemies, I find her level of paranoia worrisome.
As for why Kasich? Consider who else was on offer among the Republicans this time around.
Kasich is pretty far right in any absolute evaluation. But compared to the others? At least there was some pragmatism and sanity apparent. For ecxample, was there another GOP governor among the candidates who took the Obamacare Medicaid money? Who defended doing so and refused to back down? Not that I recall.
So why Kasich? Well, it’s not like someone like Susana Martinez was on offer, now, is it?
I don’t know how much policy difference there might be between Clinton and O’Malley. Although I have the distinct impression that he may rather less of a hawk on foreign policy. But I have some doubts about Clinton’s judgement; and while it is true that even paranoids can have real enemies, I find her level of paranoia worrisome.
As for why Kasich? Consider who else was on offer among the Republicans this time around.
Kasich is pretty far right in any absolute evaluation. But compared to the others? At least there was some pragmatism and sanity apparent. For ecxample, was there another GOP governor among the candidates who took the Obamacare Medicaid money? Who defended doing so and refused to back down? Not that I recall.
So why Kasich? Well, it’s not like someone like Susana Martinez was on offer, now, is it?
I don’t know how much policy difference there might be between Clinton and O’Malley. Although I have the distinct impression that he may rather less of a hawk on foreign policy. But I have some doubts about Clinton’s judgement; and while it is true that even paranoids can have real enemies, I find her level of paranoia worrisome.
As for why Kasich? Consider who else was on offer among the Republicans this time around.
Kasich is pretty far right in any absolute evaluation. But compared to the others? At least there was some pragmatism and sanity apparent. For ecxample, was there another GOP governor among the candidates who took the Obamacare Medicaid money? Who defended doing so and refused to back down? Not that I recall.
So why Kasich? Well, it’s not like someone like Susana Martinez was on offer, now, is it?
Kasich is pretty far right in any absolute evaluation. But compared to the others?
Not as rabidly reactionary as Ted Cruz; not as glibertarian as Rand Paul…other than that those two, pretty much standard issue GOP….a hater.
I’d call this damning with faint praise.
For example, was there another GOP governor among the candidates who took the Obamacare Medicaid money?
Chris Christie.
Walker’s Wisconsin accepted the Medicaid expansion, but refused the funding for it. Go figure.
Many of the rest were ex governors. They don’t count.
Kasich is pretty far right in any absolute evaluation. But compared to the others?
Not as rabidly reactionary as Ted Cruz; not as glibertarian as Rand Paul…other than that those two, pretty much standard issue GOP….a hater.
I’d call this damning with faint praise.
For example, was there another GOP governor among the candidates who took the Obamacare Medicaid money?
Chris Christie.
Walker’s Wisconsin accepted the Medicaid expansion, but refused the funding for it. Go figure.
Many of the rest were ex governors. They don’t count.
Kasich is pretty far right in any absolute evaluation. But compared to the others?
Not as rabidly reactionary as Ted Cruz; not as glibertarian as Rand Paul…other than that those two, pretty much standard issue GOP….a hater.
I’d call this damning with faint praise.
For example, was there another GOP governor among the candidates who took the Obamacare Medicaid money?
Chris Christie.
Walker’s Wisconsin accepted the Medicaid expansion, but refused the funding for it. Go figure.
Many of the rest were ex governors. They don’t count.
Well, it’s not like someone like Susana Martinez was on offer, now, is it?
You mean the Sara Palin promoted, climate change denying governor of New Mexico?
That Susana Martinez?
Well, it’s not like someone like Susana Martinez was on offer, now, is it?
You mean the Sara Palin promoted, climate change denying governor of New Mexico?
That Susana Martinez?
Well, it’s not like someone like Susana Martinez was on offer, now, is it?
You mean the Sara Palin promoted, climate change denying governor of New Mexico?
That Susana Martinez?
See, the problem is why ask the question? If they are a Republican you (bobbyp and the Count in particular, the vast you in general)are going to find someone calling them racist and hateful and whatever and then imply you must support all that hate.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy. Most people do. Susanna Martinez may be smarter, Nikki Haley more reactionary and smarter. Unless it’s Clinton then there is a rain of stupid crappy opinion pieces to support any view you want.
All of that is a desperate attempt to make Hilary seem like a good enough person to be elected. Like, we aren’t going to charge her even though she did everything she was accused of, but she didn’t really mean to threaten security. Well, is stupid a crime? We could get rid of them both and run people who might have ideas.
f them all.
See, the problem is why ask the question? If they are a Republican you (bobbyp and the Count in particular, the vast you in general)are going to find someone calling them racist and hateful and whatever and then imply you must support all that hate.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy. Most people do. Susanna Martinez may be smarter, Nikki Haley more reactionary and smarter. Unless it’s Clinton then there is a rain of stupid crappy opinion pieces to support any view you want.
All of that is a desperate attempt to make Hilary seem like a good enough person to be elected. Like, we aren’t going to charge her even though she did everything she was accused of, but she didn’t really mean to threaten security. Well, is stupid a crime? We could get rid of them both and run people who might have ideas.
f them all.
See, the problem is why ask the question? If they are a Republican you (bobbyp and the Count in particular, the vast you in general)are going to find someone calling them racist and hateful and whatever and then imply you must support all that hate.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy. Most people do. Susanna Martinez may be smarter, Nikki Haley more reactionary and smarter. Unless it’s Clinton then there is a rain of stupid crappy opinion pieces to support any view you want.
All of that is a desperate attempt to make Hilary seem like a good enough person to be elected. Like, we aren’t going to charge her even though she did everything she was accused of, but she didn’t really mean to threaten security. Well, is stupid a crime? We could get rid of them both and run people who might have ideas.
f them all.
Bobby, to second (sort of) what Marty said, which Republican, Governor or otherwise, would you prefer to see get the nomination?**
A mayor even? (Hint: Fresno, California has a Republican mayor. Just for one I happen to know of.)
You know, just so there is some alternative on offer in November. And because there is always a chance that the Republican nominee will win.
** I’m assuming that your passing mention of Gov Christie wasn’t an endorsement. Feel free to correct me if I went wrong there….
Bobby, to second (sort of) what Marty said, which Republican, Governor or otherwise, would you prefer to see get the nomination?**
A mayor even? (Hint: Fresno, California has a Republican mayor. Just for one I happen to know of.)
You know, just so there is some alternative on offer in November. And because there is always a chance that the Republican nominee will win.
** I’m assuming that your passing mention of Gov Christie wasn’t an endorsement. Feel free to correct me if I went wrong there….
Bobby, to second (sort of) what Marty said, which Republican, Governor or otherwise, would you prefer to see get the nomination?**
A mayor even? (Hint: Fresno, California has a Republican mayor. Just for one I happen to know of.)
You know, just so there is some alternative on offer in November. And because there is always a chance that the Republican nominee will win.
** I’m assuming that your passing mention of Gov Christie wasn’t an endorsement. Feel free to correct me if I went wrong there….
And Marty, since you obviously don’t like Clinton, and show no sign of being a Sanders fan. Which Democrat(s?) would you consider a good option?
And Marty, since you obviously don’t like Clinton, and show no sign of being a Sanders fan. Which Democrat(s?) would you consider a good option?
And Marty, since you obviously don’t like Clinton, and show no sign of being a Sanders fan. Which Democrat(s?) would you consider a good option?
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy.
Spoken like someone who’s plainly not from Ohio. Kasich isn’t a reactionary fanatic like Cruz, but that’s not enough to make him reasonable, even if he may seem like it from afar.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy.
Spoken like someone who’s plainly not from Ohio. Kasich isn’t a reactionary fanatic like Cruz, but that’s not enough to make him reasonable, even if he may seem like it from afar.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy.
Spoken like someone who’s plainly not from Ohio. Kasich isn’t a reactionary fanatic like Cruz, but that’s not enough to make him reasonable, even if he may seem like it from afar.
Bobby, to second (sort of) what Marty said, which Republican, Governor or otherwise, would you prefer to see get the nomination?**
A strange question. First we are informed that a race between O’Malley and Kasich would somehow “be better” for the future of our country, and then you ask that question?
Perhaps you should answer mine first? How would such a race be “better”?
As to your query, and to be frank, I would prefer the GOP nominate Donald Trump because he will be an utter disaster for the GOP, and I can only hope it will result in a Clinton presidency and a Democratic Senate.
There is near zero probability of him winning.
I take that as a good thing.
…because that outcome is better for the future of our country than the election of ANY Republican to the presidency.
You see wj, you have a party that, as an institution, opposes women’s health, opposes secure retirement for the elderly, supports absolute owner power over employees in the work place, seeks to limit the voting franchise, unnecessarily kills people who could otherwise live a bit longer under the medicare expansion, denies the science of climate change, is comfortable with de facto racial segregation, and seeks to grant even more huge tax breaks to the already wealthy.
Both major parities are fine with the national security state, American world hegemony, drones, and pretty much unquestioning support for Israel. So there is that.
And John Kasich is the best you got? You cannot be serious.
Bobby, to second (sort of) what Marty said, which Republican, Governor or otherwise, would you prefer to see get the nomination?**
A strange question. First we are informed that a race between O’Malley and Kasich would somehow “be better” for the future of our country, and then you ask that question?
Perhaps you should answer mine first? How would such a race be “better”?
As to your query, and to be frank, I would prefer the GOP nominate Donald Trump because he will be an utter disaster for the GOP, and I can only hope it will result in a Clinton presidency and a Democratic Senate.
There is near zero probability of him winning.
I take that as a good thing.
…because that outcome is better for the future of our country than the election of ANY Republican to the presidency.
You see wj, you have a party that, as an institution, opposes women’s health, opposes secure retirement for the elderly, supports absolute owner power over employees in the work place, seeks to limit the voting franchise, unnecessarily kills people who could otherwise live a bit longer under the medicare expansion, denies the science of climate change, is comfortable with de facto racial segregation, and seeks to grant even more huge tax breaks to the already wealthy.
Both major parities are fine with the national security state, American world hegemony, drones, and pretty much unquestioning support for Israel. So there is that.
And John Kasich is the best you got? You cannot be serious.
Bobby, to second (sort of) what Marty said, which Republican, Governor or otherwise, would you prefer to see get the nomination?**
A strange question. First we are informed that a race between O’Malley and Kasich would somehow “be better” for the future of our country, and then you ask that question?
Perhaps you should answer mine first? How would such a race be “better”?
As to your query, and to be frank, I would prefer the GOP nominate Donald Trump because he will be an utter disaster for the GOP, and I can only hope it will result in a Clinton presidency and a Democratic Senate.
There is near zero probability of him winning.
I take that as a good thing.
…because that outcome is better for the future of our country than the election of ANY Republican to the presidency.
You see wj, you have a party that, as an institution, opposes women’s health, opposes secure retirement for the elderly, supports absolute owner power over employees in the work place, seeks to limit the voting franchise, unnecessarily kills people who could otherwise live a bit longer under the medicare expansion, denies the science of climate change, is comfortable with de facto racial segregation, and seeks to grant even more huge tax breaks to the already wealthy.
Both major parities are fine with the national security state, American world hegemony, drones, and pretty much unquestioning support for Israel. So there is that.
And John Kasich is the best you got? You cannot be serious.
wj,
I am not a big fan of any Democrat. Most important, they couldn’t put one up that I would think would be more middle of the road than Hilary. Except maybe, I would listen to Tim Kaine, and then not vote for him probably. Although this year I might. But as VP he wouldn’t be enough to get me to vote for Hilary.
As far as far lefties, I might vote for Tom Paxton.
Only because Phil Ochs aint amarching anymore.
I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something, or not much more than now.
wj,
I am not a big fan of any Democrat. Most important, they couldn’t put one up that I would think would be more middle of the road than Hilary. Except maybe, I would listen to Tim Kaine, and then not vote for him probably. Although this year I might. But as VP he wouldn’t be enough to get me to vote for Hilary.
As far as far lefties, I might vote for Tom Paxton.
Only because Phil Ochs aint amarching anymore.
I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something, or not much more than now.
wj,
I am not a big fan of any Democrat. Most important, they couldn’t put one up that I would think would be more middle of the road than Hilary. Except maybe, I would listen to Tim Kaine, and then not vote for him probably. Although this year I might. But as VP he wouldn’t be enough to get me to vote for Hilary.
As far as far lefties, I might vote for Tom Paxton.
Only because Phil Ochs aint amarching anymore.
I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something, or not much more than now.
…and then imply you must support all that hate.
I speak in a collective sense. Nothing personal.
I remember the days when I was told to “love it or leave it” because the policies I supported made me a commie symp, the “same as Stalin and Mao”, and therefore I was just like them, a hater of True Freedom….and, worst of all, “Unamerican”.
Feel the Bern, baby.
…and then imply you must support all that hate.
I speak in a collective sense. Nothing personal.
I remember the days when I was told to “love it or leave it” because the policies I supported made me a commie symp, the “same as Stalin and Mao”, and therefore I was just like them, a hater of True Freedom….and, worst of all, “Unamerican”.
Feel the Bern, baby.
…and then imply you must support all that hate.
I speak in a collective sense. Nothing personal.
I remember the days when I was told to “love it or leave it” because the policies I supported made me a commie symp, the “same as Stalin and Mao”, and therefore I was just like them, a hater of True Freedom….and, worst of all, “Unamerican”.
Feel the Bern, baby.
You see wj, you have a party that, as an institution, opposes women’s health, opposes secure retirement for the elderly, supports absolute owner power over employees in the work place, seeks to limit the voting franchise, unnecessarily kills people who could otherwise live a bit longer under the medicare expansion, denies the science of climate change, is comfortable with de facto racial segregation, and seeks to grant even more huge tax breaks to the already wealthy.
See that’s the best summary of what I said. Not a word of truth in that paragraph. None. So you are running against your own strawman.
You see wj, you have a party that, as an institution, opposes women’s health, opposes secure retirement for the elderly, supports absolute owner power over employees in the work place, seeks to limit the voting franchise, unnecessarily kills people who could otherwise live a bit longer under the medicare expansion, denies the science of climate change, is comfortable with de facto racial segregation, and seeks to grant even more huge tax breaks to the already wealthy.
See that’s the best summary of what I said. Not a word of truth in that paragraph. None. So you are running against your own strawman.
You see wj, you have a party that, as an institution, opposes women’s health, opposes secure retirement for the elderly, supports absolute owner power over employees in the work place, seeks to limit the voting franchise, unnecessarily kills people who could otherwise live a bit longer under the medicare expansion, denies the science of climate change, is comfortable with de facto racial segregation, and seeks to grant even more huge tax breaks to the already wealthy.
See that’s the best summary of what I said. Not a word of truth in that paragraph. None. So you are running against your own strawman.
** I’m assuming that your passing mention of Gov Christie wasn’t an endorsement. Feel free to correct me if I went wrong there….
Just pointing out that you had a factual error, nothing more.
Christie is Donald Trump without the money or a hit TV show.
** I’m assuming that your passing mention of Gov Christie wasn’t an endorsement. Feel free to correct me if I went wrong there….
Just pointing out that you had a factual error, nothing more.
Christie is Donald Trump without the money or a hit TV show.
** I’m assuming that your passing mention of Gov Christie wasn’t an endorsement. Feel free to correct me if I went wrong there….
Just pointing out that you had a factual error, nothing more.
Christie is Donald Trump without the money or a hit TV show.
Marty,
“Not a word of truth in that paragraph”?! Wow.
Does water run downhill in your universe?
wj,
Keep in mind that even if Kasich is not repulsively right-wing when graded on a curve, he does belong to a party that didn’t come even close to nominating him.
–TP
Marty,
“Not a word of truth in that paragraph”?! Wow.
Does water run downhill in your universe?
wj,
Keep in mind that even if Kasich is not repulsively right-wing when graded on a curve, he does belong to a party that didn’t come even close to nominating him.
–TP
Marty,
“Not a word of truth in that paragraph”?! Wow.
Does water run downhill in your universe?
wj,
Keep in mind that even if Kasich is not repulsively right-wing when graded on a curve, he does belong to a party that didn’t come even close to nominating him.
–TP
“I speak in a collective sense. Nothing personal.”
This is working less and less for me these days, but I do understand that you make some distinction.
I truly believe that there are people in the party that are for lots of stuff in your description above. I don’t think it comes close to describing the party that is nominating doofus.
I could write an equally pejorative paragraph about my assumptions as to the outcome of Democratic platform policies. It would read very similarly as to what I think some of the outcomes would be. But then I would be accusing you of supporting racism etc. So I start from the premise that you want good outcomes, I want good outcomes and we disagree on policies to achieve most of them.
“I speak in a collective sense. Nothing personal.”
This is working less and less for me these days, but I do understand that you make some distinction.
I truly believe that there are people in the party that are for lots of stuff in your description above. I don’t think it comes close to describing the party that is nominating doofus.
I could write an equally pejorative paragraph about my assumptions as to the outcome of Democratic platform policies. It would read very similarly as to what I think some of the outcomes would be. But then I would be accusing you of supporting racism etc. So I start from the premise that you want good outcomes, I want good outcomes and we disagree on policies to achieve most of them.
“I speak in a collective sense. Nothing personal.”
This is working less and less for me these days, but I do understand that you make some distinction.
I truly believe that there are people in the party that are for lots of stuff in your description above. I don’t think it comes close to describing the party that is nominating doofus.
I could write an equally pejorative paragraph about my assumptions as to the outcome of Democratic platform policies. It would read very similarly as to what I think some of the outcomes would be. But then I would be accusing you of supporting racism etc. So I start from the premise that you want good outcomes, I want good outcomes and we disagree on policies to achieve most of them.
Keep in mind that even if Kasich is not repulsively right-wing when graded on a curve, he does belong to a party that didn’t come even close to nominating him.
Tony (et al), I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that Kasich was a good, let alone ideal, choice. Merely that he would be a better President than Trump.
The point that I was raising is that Bobby and Marty are denouncing the other’s candidate . . . without indicating who the party could have nominate instead who would be better.
If you simply think that anybody and everybody in the other party is utterly reprehensible, fine. But then say so. Don’t slam that party’s choice as an individual, slam the party. And admit that you think that, of the people who ran, the person being nominated is the BEST that they could have come up with — and Bobby, that’s “best” as in “the best President for the country, should he happen to win.”
Of course, if that is your opinion of everybody in the other party, allow me to observe that your contacts with people in the other party seem to be minimal. Because, even as heterogeneous ideologically as the parties have become, they are still anything but uniform. Not in their beliefs. And certainly not in the extremity to which they take those beliefs.
Keep in mind that even if Kasich is not repulsively right-wing when graded on a curve, he does belong to a party that didn’t come even close to nominating him.
Tony (et al), I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that Kasich was a good, let alone ideal, choice. Merely that he would be a better President than Trump.
The point that I was raising is that Bobby and Marty are denouncing the other’s candidate . . . without indicating who the party could have nominate instead who would be better.
If you simply think that anybody and everybody in the other party is utterly reprehensible, fine. But then say so. Don’t slam that party’s choice as an individual, slam the party. And admit that you think that, of the people who ran, the person being nominated is the BEST that they could have come up with — and Bobby, that’s “best” as in “the best President for the country, should he happen to win.”
Of course, if that is your opinion of everybody in the other party, allow me to observe that your contacts with people in the other party seem to be minimal. Because, even as heterogeneous ideologically as the parties have become, they are still anything but uniform. Not in their beliefs. And certainly not in the extremity to which they take those beliefs.
Keep in mind that even if Kasich is not repulsively right-wing when graded on a curve, he does belong to a party that didn’t come even close to nominating him.
Tony (et al), I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that Kasich was a good, let alone ideal, choice. Merely that he would be a better President than Trump.
The point that I was raising is that Bobby and Marty are denouncing the other’s candidate . . . without indicating who the party could have nominate instead who would be better.
If you simply think that anybody and everybody in the other party is utterly reprehensible, fine. But then say so. Don’t slam that party’s choice as an individual, slam the party. And admit that you think that, of the people who ran, the person being nominated is the BEST that they could have come up with — and Bobby, that’s “best” as in “the best President for the country, should he happen to win.”
Of course, if that is your opinion of everybody in the other party, allow me to observe that your contacts with people in the other party seem to be minimal. Because, even as heterogeneous ideologically as the parties have become, they are still anything but uniform. Not in their beliefs. And certainly not in the extremity to which they take those beliefs.
The underlying assumption that all poor people are just rich people down on their luck will win out.
This dog, I think it’s hunting days are over.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy.
Yes, John Kasich flat disagrees with me on a lot of policy.
Not a word of truth in that paragraph.
Behold the optative mood – “would that it were so”.
I don’t think you, Marty, endorse any of the things in the paragraph you refer to. The GOP endorses many of them, and folks who endorse every single freaking one of them are all voting (R).
I’m sure it sucks to be a reasonable person who has historically identified with the Republicans, but it is what it is. No point in being angry at non-Republicans about it, we didn’t make it that way.
The underlying assumption that all poor people are just rich people down on their luck will win out.
This dog, I think it’s hunting days are over.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy.
Yes, John Kasich flat disagrees with me on a lot of policy.
Not a word of truth in that paragraph.
Behold the optative mood – “would that it were so”.
I don’t think you, Marty, endorse any of the things in the paragraph you refer to. The GOP endorses many of them, and folks who endorse every single freaking one of them are all voting (R).
I’m sure it sucks to be a reasonable person who has historically identified with the Republicans, but it is what it is. No point in being angry at non-Republicans about it, we didn’t make it that way.
The underlying assumption that all poor people are just rich people down on their luck will win out.
This dog, I think it’s hunting days are over.
Kasich is as reasonable guy as you could hope for and smart to boot, experienced and just flat disagrees with you(see above)on a lot of policy.
Yes, John Kasich flat disagrees with me on a lot of policy.
Not a word of truth in that paragraph.
Behold the optative mood – “would that it were so”.
I don’t think you, Marty, endorse any of the things in the paragraph you refer to. The GOP endorses many of them, and folks who endorse every single freaking one of them are all voting (R).
I’m sure it sucks to be a reasonable person who has historically identified with the Republicans, but it is what it is. No point in being angry at non-Republicans about it, we didn’t make it that way.
No Russell, the GOP endorses none of them.
Find me anything that says Republicans will be good with racial segregation, or people dying or women having health problems. Each of those is an assumption of policy outcomes. That’s a difference in opinion. The closest thing to a factual difference in the whole paragraph is climate science, and that is also based on the assumed outcome not the underlying fact that things are changing.
I am pretty sure the Democratic platform will endorse racial segregation through any number of programs that will ensure that there is no progress on addressing black poverty.
Democrats are perfectly happy to play roulette with Social Security and Medicare by not addressing them at all, old people starving, dying of exposure and dying from lack of medical care is all okay with the Democrats.
I could go on but, can the crap. The GOP doesn’t support a single thing in that paragraph, its your imaginary enemy. We will call him Harvey from now on.
No Russell, the GOP endorses none of them.
Find me anything that says Republicans will be good with racial segregation, or people dying or women having health problems. Each of those is an assumption of policy outcomes. That’s a difference in opinion. The closest thing to a factual difference in the whole paragraph is climate science, and that is also based on the assumed outcome not the underlying fact that things are changing.
I am pretty sure the Democratic platform will endorse racial segregation through any number of programs that will ensure that there is no progress on addressing black poverty.
Democrats are perfectly happy to play roulette with Social Security and Medicare by not addressing them at all, old people starving, dying of exposure and dying from lack of medical care is all okay with the Democrats.
I could go on but, can the crap. The GOP doesn’t support a single thing in that paragraph, its your imaginary enemy. We will call him Harvey from now on.
No Russell, the GOP endorses none of them.
Find me anything that says Republicans will be good with racial segregation, or people dying or women having health problems. Each of those is an assumption of policy outcomes. That’s a difference in opinion. The closest thing to a factual difference in the whole paragraph is climate science, and that is also based on the assumed outcome not the underlying fact that things are changing.
I am pretty sure the Democratic platform will endorse racial segregation through any number of programs that will ensure that there is no progress on addressing black poverty.
Democrats are perfectly happy to play roulette with Social Security and Medicare by not addressing them at all, old people starving, dying of exposure and dying from lack of medical care is all okay with the Democrats.
I could go on but, can the crap. The GOP doesn’t support a single thing in that paragraph, its your imaginary enemy. We will call him Harvey from now on.
Of course, if that is your opinion of everybody in the other party, allow me to observe that your contacts with people in the other party seem to be minimal.
You (and perhaps Marty) continue to miss the point. It is not a question of “best”. It is a question of policy. Are you really going to tell me that the “best” (I have no clue who that is) GOP candidate who, if lucky enough to be nominated and win the presidency in 2016 would veto a GOP Congress passing huge tax cuts for upper income people?
Are you REALLY, REALLY going to make that claim?
Are you telling me that person would send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County?
Really? Really?
Of course, if that is your opinion of everybody in the other party, allow me to observe that your contacts with people in the other party seem to be minimal.
You (and perhaps Marty) continue to miss the point. It is not a question of “best”. It is a question of policy. Are you really going to tell me that the “best” (I have no clue who that is) GOP candidate who, if lucky enough to be nominated and win the presidency in 2016 would veto a GOP Congress passing huge tax cuts for upper income people?
Are you REALLY, REALLY going to make that claim?
Are you telling me that person would send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County?
Really? Really?
Of course, if that is your opinion of everybody in the other party, allow me to observe that your contacts with people in the other party seem to be minimal.
You (and perhaps Marty) continue to miss the point. It is not a question of “best”. It is a question of policy. Are you really going to tell me that the “best” (I have no clue who that is) GOP candidate who, if lucky enough to be nominated and win the presidency in 2016 would veto a GOP Congress passing huge tax cuts for upper income people?
Are you REALLY, REALLY going to make that claim?
Are you telling me that person would send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County?
Really? Really?
right off the top of my head, I remember watching the audience at a (R) debate loudly applaud the idea of someone dying for lack of health insurance, and I recall a (R) office holder quite candidly state that the motivation for voter registration changes was to suppress the (D) vote.
I could go find lots more, but I worked all day and I’m too freading tired. it’s bedtime,
.
I won’t be voting for trump, which means i’ll probably be voting for hilary. I have my own crap to deal with. you identify as an (R), this is your pile of crap not mine. like it or not.
In my opinion these people are ghouls. I wouldn’t associate with them. you are free to do as you wish. not my circus, not my monkeys.
best of luck.
right off the top of my head, I remember watching the audience at a (R) debate loudly applaud the idea of someone dying for lack of health insurance, and I recall a (R) office holder quite candidly state that the motivation for voter registration changes was to suppress the (D) vote.
I could go find lots more, but I worked all day and I’m too freading tired. it’s bedtime,
.
I won’t be voting for trump, which means i’ll probably be voting for hilary. I have my own crap to deal with. you identify as an (R), this is your pile of crap not mine. like it or not.
In my opinion these people are ghouls. I wouldn’t associate with them. you are free to do as you wish. not my circus, not my monkeys.
best of luck.
right off the top of my head, I remember watching the audience at a (R) debate loudly applaud the idea of someone dying for lack of health insurance, and I recall a (R) office holder quite candidly state that the motivation for voter registration changes was to suppress the (D) vote.
I could go find lots more, but I worked all day and I’m too freading tired. it’s bedtime,
.
I won’t be voting for trump, which means i’ll probably be voting for hilary. I have my own crap to deal with. you identify as an (R), this is your pile of crap not mine. like it or not.
In my opinion these people are ghouls. I wouldn’t associate with them. you are free to do as you wish. not my circus, not my monkeys.
best of luck.
Marty,
I look forward to having this conversation after the conventions, and a perusal of the GOP party platform.
Here’s an example.
The party, as an institution, has apparently undergone a marked reversal in its attitude on climate change.
This is the voice of an institution, not some politician judged to be the “best” candidate.
Marty,
I look forward to having this conversation after the conventions, and a perusal of the GOP party platform.
Here’s an example.
The party, as an institution, has apparently undergone a marked reversal in its attitude on climate change.
This is the voice of an institution, not some politician judged to be the “best” candidate.
Marty,
I look forward to having this conversation after the conventions, and a perusal of the GOP party platform.
Here’s an example.
The party, as an institution, has apparently undergone a marked reversal in its attitude on climate change.
This is the voice of an institution, not some politician judged to be the “best” candidate.
But then say so.
I believe that is precisely what I have been saying.
But then say so.
I believe that is precisely what I have been saying.
But then say so.
I believe that is precisely what I have been saying.
bobbyp, I don’t miss the point although it is mostly buried in invective and insults.
Why would anyone want to send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County? Any of them?
Trump is unfit to be President because he actually is racist and stupid and unstable. He shouldn’t be the GOP nominee because he probably has no idea what those three things are, much less have a conservative bone in his body.
My view of best is someone who will govern, work with Congress, pass budgets, compromise on a few things to get other things. Have the capacity to understand the impact of both legislation passed and not passed, have a cool head in international affairs. Best is the best candidate to accomplish something. Not by executive fiat.
bobbyp, I don’t miss the point although it is mostly buried in invective and insults.
Why would anyone want to send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County? Any of them?
Trump is unfit to be President because he actually is racist and stupid and unstable. He shouldn’t be the GOP nominee because he probably has no idea what those three things are, much less have a conservative bone in his body.
My view of best is someone who will govern, work with Congress, pass budgets, compromise on a few things to get other things. Have the capacity to understand the impact of both legislation passed and not passed, have a cool head in international affairs. Best is the best candidate to accomplish something. Not by executive fiat.
bobbyp, I don’t miss the point although it is mostly buried in invective and insults.
Why would anyone want to send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County? Any of them?
Trump is unfit to be President because he actually is racist and stupid and unstable. He shouldn’t be the GOP nominee because he probably has no idea what those three things are, much less have a conservative bone in his body.
My view of best is someone who will govern, work with Congress, pass budgets, compromise on a few things to get other things. Have the capacity to understand the impact of both legislation passed and not passed, have a cool head in international affairs. Best is the best candidate to accomplish something. Not by executive fiat.
If you simply think that anybody and everybody in the other party is utterly reprehensible, fine.
Again. Point missed entirely. The policies espoused by the GOP as a party and as exhibited by the actions of their elected representatives are utterly reprehensible.
Perhaps you could tell us the positive policy outcomes that would follow from defunding Planned Parenthood?
Go ahead. Give it a try.
If you simply think that anybody and everybody in the other party is utterly reprehensible, fine.
Again. Point missed entirely. The policies espoused by the GOP as a party and as exhibited by the actions of their elected representatives are utterly reprehensible.
Perhaps you could tell us the positive policy outcomes that would follow from defunding Planned Parenthood?
Go ahead. Give it a try.
If you simply think that anybody and everybody in the other party is utterly reprehensible, fine.
Again. Point missed entirely. The policies espoused by the GOP as a party and as exhibited by the actions of their elected representatives are utterly reprehensible.
Perhaps you could tell us the positive policy outcomes that would follow from defunding Planned Parenthood?
Go ahead. Give it a try.
Why would anyone want to send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County? Any of them?
Because they are public policies that hurt, respectively, women (especially poor ones), workers, and minorities.
They are poor public policy.
The GOP supports, nay originated, those poor policies. As somebody who opposes those policies, and a member of a coalition containing a significant number of folks who agree with me that they are poor public policies, I will continue to support that coalition until something better comes along, or I get an inspiration on how better to attain the policy goals I support.
Therefore, I oppose any and all Republicans who run for elective office. The political defeat of that “heterogeneous” coalition is my goal.
Therefore, I don’t particularly care who their “best” candidate is. I only care that they go down to electoral defeat.
Why would anyone want to send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County? Any of them?
Because they are public policies that hurt, respectively, women (especially poor ones), workers, and minorities.
They are poor public policy.
The GOP supports, nay originated, those poor policies. As somebody who opposes those policies, and a member of a coalition containing a significant number of folks who agree with me that they are poor public policies, I will continue to support that coalition until something better comes along, or I get an inspiration on how better to attain the policy goals I support.
Therefore, I oppose any and all Republicans who run for elective office. The political defeat of that “heterogeneous” coalition is my goal.
Therefore, I don’t particularly care who their “best” candidate is. I only care that they go down to electoral defeat.
Why would anyone want to send to Congress legislation to overturn the Hyde Amendment, repeal Taft-Hartley, or Shelby County? Any of them?
Because they are public policies that hurt, respectively, women (especially poor ones), workers, and minorities.
They are poor public policy.
The GOP supports, nay originated, those poor policies. As somebody who opposes those policies, and a member of a coalition containing a significant number of folks who agree with me that they are poor public policies, I will continue to support that coalition until something better comes along, or I get an inspiration on how better to attain the policy goals I support.
Therefore, I oppose any and all Republicans who run for elective office. The political defeat of that “heterogeneous” coalition is my goal.
Therefore, I don’t particularly care who their “best” candidate is. I only care that they go down to electoral defeat.
Perhaps 100’s of thousands of babies would have a better chance at living. In any event, there would need to be some prioritization of resources at PP, so we would see if women’s health is really their focus, or just talking women into an abortion if they decide that’s what should happen.
I would also note that PP doesn’t go out of business without federal money. So whatever policy choice that’s made, the impact is probably less than imagined by either side.
Answer to first comment: Yes being pregnant is often the biggest health risk faced by a woman up to that point in her life, going to PP is definitely the first health risk faced by the baby.
And no, PP is not the only place a woman can get prenatal care.
Answer to second comment: Two wives, three daughters, three sisters, not to mention friends, I have had many experiences with the health of the women in my life so no, you don’t get to say I don’t get an opinion because I’m an old white man.
And while they don’t all agree with me, they don’t all disagree either.
Lastly, defunding PP isn’t a priority for me. I wouldn’t vote based on it either way. Keeping the Hyde amendment in place would be higher.
Perhaps 100’s of thousands of babies would have a better chance at living. In any event, there would need to be some prioritization of resources at PP, so we would see if women’s health is really their focus, or just talking women into an abortion if they decide that’s what should happen.
I would also note that PP doesn’t go out of business without federal money. So whatever policy choice that’s made, the impact is probably less than imagined by either side.
Answer to first comment: Yes being pregnant is often the biggest health risk faced by a woman up to that point in her life, going to PP is definitely the first health risk faced by the baby.
And no, PP is not the only place a woman can get prenatal care.
Answer to second comment: Two wives, three daughters, three sisters, not to mention friends, I have had many experiences with the health of the women in my life so no, you don’t get to say I don’t get an opinion because I’m an old white man.
And while they don’t all agree with me, they don’t all disagree either.
Lastly, defunding PP isn’t a priority for me. I wouldn’t vote based on it either way. Keeping the Hyde amendment in place would be higher.
Perhaps 100’s of thousands of babies would have a better chance at living. In any event, there would need to be some prioritization of resources at PP, so we would see if women’s health is really their focus, or just talking women into an abortion if they decide that’s what should happen.
I would also note that PP doesn’t go out of business without federal money. So whatever policy choice that’s made, the impact is probably less than imagined by either side.
Answer to first comment: Yes being pregnant is often the biggest health risk faced by a woman up to that point in her life, going to PP is definitely the first health risk faced by the baby.
And no, PP is not the only place a woman can get prenatal care.
Answer to second comment: Two wives, three daughters, three sisters, not to mention friends, I have had many experiences with the health of the women in my life so no, you don’t get to say I don’t get an opinion because I’m an old white man.
And while they don’t all agree with me, they don’t all disagree either.
Lastly, defunding PP isn’t a priority for me. I wouldn’t vote based on it either way. Keeping the Hyde amendment in place would be higher.
Bobby, it looks to me like you are the one missing the point.
The question isn’t Can you pick out a candidate from the other party who would be good? It’s Of the possible candidates, who do you prefer? Or, to put it another way, which one would be least bad?
I hope you can look at the field objectively enough to see that there are some who are worse than others. Personally, I dislike all of the Democrats on offer. Which doesn’t prevent me from seeing that some are (from my perspective, obviously) far more likely to do the job right than others.
Bobby, it looks to me like you are the one missing the point.
The question isn’t Can you pick out a candidate from the other party who would be good? It’s Of the possible candidates, who do you prefer? Or, to put it another way, which one would be least bad?
I hope you can look at the field objectively enough to see that there are some who are worse than others. Personally, I dislike all of the Democrats on offer. Which doesn’t prevent me from seeing that some are (from my perspective, obviously) far more likely to do the job right than others.
Bobby, it looks to me like you are the one missing the point.
The question isn’t Can you pick out a candidate from the other party who would be good? It’s Of the possible candidates, who do you prefer? Or, to put it another way, which one would be least bad?
I hope you can look at the field objectively enough to see that there are some who are worse than others. Personally, I dislike all of the Democrats on offer. Which doesn’t prevent me from seeing that some are (from my perspective, obviously) far more likely to do the job right than others.
Let me say also that, no matter how much you want the Republicans to be defeated, the reality is that some of them are going to win. (Hey, it’s an imperfect universe.) So you really should care about who they nominate.
With some of the possible Presidential candidates, should they win, the country will survive. Not really the way you want it to be, but intact and able to recover and improve. But with others, that survival is IMHO far from certain.
Let me say also that, no matter how much you want the Republicans to be defeated, the reality is that some of them are going to win. (Hey, it’s an imperfect universe.) So you really should care about who they nominate.
With some of the possible Presidential candidates, should they win, the country will survive. Not really the way you want it to be, but intact and able to recover and improve. But with others, that survival is IMHO far from certain.
Let me say also that, no matter how much you want the Republicans to be defeated, the reality is that some of them are going to win. (Hey, it’s an imperfect universe.) So you really should care about who they nominate.
With some of the possible Presidential candidates, should they win, the country will survive. Not really the way you want it to be, but intact and able to recover and improve. But with others, that survival is IMHO far from certain.
there would need to be some prioritization of resources at PP, so we would see if women’s health is really their focus, or just talking women into an abortion if they decide that’s what should happen.
wtf?
PP spends ~3% of its budget on abortion services. less than half of what it spends on cancer screening. a 15th of that it spends on STD testing and treatment.
https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/2014-2015_annual_report_final_20mb/1
there would need to be some prioritization of resources at PP, so we would see if women’s health is really their focus, or just talking women into an abortion if they decide that’s what should happen.
wtf?
PP spends ~3% of its budget on abortion services. less than half of what it spends on cancer screening. a 15th of that it spends on STD testing and treatment.
https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/2014-2015_annual_report_final_20mb/1
there would need to be some prioritization of resources at PP, so we would see if women’s health is really their focus, or just talking women into an abortion if they decide that’s what should happen.
wtf?
PP spends ~3% of its budget on abortion services. less than half of what it spends on cancer screening. a 15th of that it spends on STD testing and treatment.
https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/2014-2015_annual_report_final_20mb/1
In RWNJ world, those wimmins lack all agency, so the only reason they get abortions is that PP has a really convincing sales pitch, amirite?
Or perhaps it’s free toasters and a frequent-abortion card: get four punches in your card, and the fifth is FREE!
In RWNJ world, those wimmins lack all agency, so the only reason they get abortions is that PP has a really convincing sales pitch, amirite?
Or perhaps it’s free toasters and a frequent-abortion card: get four punches in your card, and the fifth is FREE!
In RWNJ world, those wimmins lack all agency, so the only reason they get abortions is that PP has a really convincing sales pitch, amirite?
Or perhaps it’s free toasters and a frequent-abortion card: get four punches in your card, and the fifth is FREE!
“I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something”
you and me both, brother.
“I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something”
you and me both, brother.
“I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something”
you and me both, brother.
“I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something”
This should be the title of a weekend open thread, because I would love to see it unpacked from Marty’s and Russell’s respective points-of-view.
Not to mention the rest of us.
Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl in 1964 and might have been levitating the Pentagon by 1967.
Were we liberals inside the Democratic Convention in 1968 or were we liberals being beaten by Democratic machine cops outside in the streets.
Were we Hubert Humphrey? Bobby Kennedy? Martin Luther King? Wavy Gravy? Meathead?
LBJ?
Or were we the self-convenient Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney style liberal of the time, taking advantage of the mayhem to lance the boils on our asses in case our numbers came up, later and soon after realizing that what the sexual revolution really meant was license to cynically and sexlessly f*ck our fellow humans, mostly tramps anyway, any way possible?
Regarding Marty’s PP riff, welp?
May we please have Doctor Science, Girl of the North Country, and our few other remaining women chime in on this.
I’d like fewer abortions too, but I want them done legally, not like they were most certainly done before outfits like PP, uncounted and wherein the women died or were mutilated too.
As far as I can see with broad elements of today’s Right, saving a fetus from abortion is merely a route to outfitting them as toddlers with “Born To Kill” t-shirts, military-style weaponry, and then cheering like a miserable Hutu when they f*cking die after Obamacare, Medicaid, and the rest of the safety bet is savaged.
“I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something”
This should be the title of a weekend open thread, because I would love to see it unpacked from Marty’s and Russell’s respective points-of-view.
Not to mention the rest of us.
Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl in 1964 and might have been levitating the Pentagon by 1967.
Were we liberals inside the Democratic Convention in 1968 or were we liberals being beaten by Democratic machine cops outside in the streets.
Were we Hubert Humphrey? Bobby Kennedy? Martin Luther King? Wavy Gravy? Meathead?
LBJ?
Or were we the self-convenient Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney style liberal of the time, taking advantage of the mayhem to lance the boils on our asses in case our numbers came up, later and soon after realizing that what the sexual revolution really meant was license to cynically and sexlessly f*ck our fellow humans, mostly tramps anyway, any way possible?
Regarding Marty’s PP riff, welp?
May we please have Doctor Science, Girl of the North Country, and our few other remaining women chime in on this.
I’d like fewer abortions too, but I want them done legally, not like they were most certainly done before outfits like PP, uncounted and wherein the women died or were mutilated too.
As far as I can see with broad elements of today’s Right, saving a fetus from abortion is merely a route to outfitting them as toddlers with “Born To Kill” t-shirts, military-style weaponry, and then cheering like a miserable Hutu when they f*cking die after Obamacare, Medicaid, and the rest of the safety bet is savaged.
“I miss the 60’s and 70’s when I’m a liberal meant something”
This should be the title of a weekend open thread, because I would love to see it unpacked from Marty’s and Russell’s respective points-of-view.
Not to mention the rest of us.
Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl in 1964 and might have been levitating the Pentagon by 1967.
Were we liberals inside the Democratic Convention in 1968 or were we liberals being beaten by Democratic machine cops outside in the streets.
Were we Hubert Humphrey? Bobby Kennedy? Martin Luther King? Wavy Gravy? Meathead?
LBJ?
Or were we the self-convenient Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney style liberal of the time, taking advantage of the mayhem to lance the boils on our asses in case our numbers came up, later and soon after realizing that what the sexual revolution really meant was license to cynically and sexlessly f*ck our fellow humans, mostly tramps anyway, any way possible?
Regarding Marty’s PP riff, welp?
May we please have Doctor Science, Girl of the North Country, and our few other remaining women chime in on this.
I’d like fewer abortions too, but I want them done legally, not like they were most certainly done before outfits like PP, uncounted and wherein the women died or were mutilated too.
As far as I can see with broad elements of today’s Right, saving a fetus from abortion is merely a route to outfitting them as toddlers with “Born To Kill” t-shirts, military-style weaponry, and then cheering like a miserable Hutu when they f*cking die after Obamacare, Medicaid, and the rest of the safety bet is savaged.
in 1968 I was a 12 year old middle school twerp.
now I’m just a twerp.
wavy gravy is a personal hero of mine. the man has lived a life of helping always, harming never, for 80 years.
can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone.
in 1968 I was a 12 year old middle school twerp.
now I’m just a twerp.
wavy gravy is a personal hero of mine. the man has lived a life of helping always, harming never, for 80 years.
can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone.
in 1968 I was a 12 year old middle school twerp.
now I’m just a twerp.
wavy gravy is a personal hero of mine. the man has lived a life of helping always, harming never, for 80 years.
can’t think of a better thing to say about anyone.
I spent small part of 1968 as a zygote, a bit of it as an embryo, most of it as a fetus, and the rest as an infant. I may still have been in my libertarian phase, though I was hardly self-sufficient. We can’t always live up to our ideals.
I spent small part of 1968 as a zygote, a bit of it as an embryo, most of it as a fetus, and the rest as an infant. I may still have been in my libertarian phase, though I was hardly self-sufficient. We can’t always live up to our ideals.
I spent small part of 1968 as a zygote, a bit of it as an embryo, most of it as a fetus, and the rest as an infant. I may still have been in my libertarian phase, though I was hardly self-sufficient. We can’t always live up to our ideals.
Of the possible candidates, who do you prefer?
None.
Or, to put it another way, which one would be least bad?
Doesn’t matter. I am not a member of that party making the choice, but if they nominated Jill Stein I guess I wouldn’t complain too much.
When you tell me that a O’Malley-Kasich would be “good for the country’s future” as opposed to a Clinton-Trump race, what I am hearing is that you want a contest where the probability of your team’s candidate winning is higher. Is this what you mean by “better”?
This also seems to imply that a choice as between Malto-meal and Quaker’s is somehow something to be desired….which ain’t necessarily so (i.e., depends).
It’s not far from this to averring that the self-proclaimed centerism of somebody like Mike Bloomberg “has something to offer”.
He brings nothing.
Of the possible candidates, who do you prefer?
None.
Or, to put it another way, which one would be least bad?
Doesn’t matter. I am not a member of that party making the choice, but if they nominated Jill Stein I guess I wouldn’t complain too much.
When you tell me that a O’Malley-Kasich would be “good for the country’s future” as opposed to a Clinton-Trump race, what I am hearing is that you want a contest where the probability of your team’s candidate winning is higher. Is this what you mean by “better”?
This also seems to imply that a choice as between Malto-meal and Quaker’s is somehow something to be desired….which ain’t necessarily so (i.e., depends).
It’s not far from this to averring that the self-proclaimed centerism of somebody like Mike Bloomberg “has something to offer”.
He brings nothing.
Of the possible candidates, who do you prefer?
None.
Or, to put it another way, which one would be least bad?
Doesn’t matter. I am not a member of that party making the choice, but if they nominated Jill Stein I guess I wouldn’t complain too much.
When you tell me that a O’Malley-Kasich would be “good for the country’s future” as opposed to a Clinton-Trump race, what I am hearing is that you want a contest where the probability of your team’s candidate winning is higher. Is this what you mean by “better”?
This also seems to imply that a choice as between Malto-meal and Quaker’s is somehow something to be desired….which ain’t necessarily so (i.e., depends).
It’s not far from this to averring that the self-proclaimed centerism of somebody like Mike Bloomberg “has something to offer”.
He brings nothing.
I can understand that Trump’s candidacy is more likely to fail, thereby keeping an undesirable party (to someone of a particular point of view) out of the White House. By that measure, Trump is preferable to a more viable Republican candidate. But what is the effect of his campaign on our political culture?
I don’t think he’s creating, for example, racists (not many, anyway), but he is enabling their behavior, which may have been tamped down before he legitimated it to some degree or other.
By that measure, is Kasich preferable, putting aside his potential for actually winning in a general election and undesirably affecting policy?
I can understand that Trump’s candidacy is more likely to fail, thereby keeping an undesirable party (to someone of a particular point of view) out of the White House. By that measure, Trump is preferable to a more viable Republican candidate. But what is the effect of his campaign on our political culture?
I don’t think he’s creating, for example, racists (not many, anyway), but he is enabling their behavior, which may have been tamped down before he legitimated it to some degree or other.
By that measure, is Kasich preferable, putting aside his potential for actually winning in a general election and undesirably affecting policy?
I can understand that Trump’s candidacy is more likely to fail, thereby keeping an undesirable party (to someone of a particular point of view) out of the White House. By that measure, Trump is preferable to a more viable Republican candidate. But what is the effect of his campaign on our political culture?
I don’t think he’s creating, for example, racists (not many, anyway), but he is enabling their behavior, which may have been tamped down before he legitimated it to some degree or other.
By that measure, is Kasich preferable, putting aside his potential for actually winning in a general election and undesirably affecting policy?
I remember when moderates owned the parties. They called themselves moderates. They discussed issues seeking a moderate solution. Liberals were unreasonable and conservatives were sometimes fiscally useful. Big tents suck. They pander to the lowest common denominator on both sides yet never actually represent them.
*This week just set me off for some reason. So stay off my lawn. CCDG
I remember when moderates owned the parties. They called themselves moderates. They discussed issues seeking a moderate solution. Liberals were unreasonable and conservatives were sometimes fiscally useful. Big tents suck. They pander to the lowest common denominator on both sides yet never actually represent them.
*This week just set me off for some reason. So stay off my lawn. CCDG
I remember when moderates owned the parties. They called themselves moderates. They discussed issues seeking a moderate solution. Liberals were unreasonable and conservatives were sometimes fiscally useful. Big tents suck. They pander to the lowest common denominator on both sides yet never actually represent them.
*This week just set me off for some reason. So stay off my lawn. CCDG
I remember when moderates owned the parties.
like this time? Perhaps before your time.
Or a more recent example?
Moving along, we have this and who could forgetthis!
Moderates all!
I remember when moderates owned the parties.
like this time? Perhaps before your time.
Or a more recent example?
Moving along, we have this and who could forgetthis!
Moderates all!
I remember when moderates owned the parties.
like this time? Perhaps before your time.
Or a more recent example?
Moving along, we have this and who could forgetthis!
Moderates all!
I hear the only phone calls Trump is making these days are desperate pleas in an ongoing search for a VP candidate.
Go long popcorn futures.
I hear the only phone calls Trump is making these days are desperate pleas in an ongoing search for a VP candidate.
Go long popcorn futures.
I hear the only phone calls Trump is making these days are desperate pleas in an ongoing search for a VP candidate.
Go long popcorn futures.
When you tell me that a O’Malley-Kasich would be “good for the country’s future” as opposed to a Clinton-Trump race, what I am hearing is that you want a contest where the probability of your team’s candidate winning is higher. Is this what you mean by “better”?
Obviously I have been unclear. I am NOT picking either of these two because I think them more likely to lose. I am picking them because, compared to the other candidates on offer in their respective parties I consider them less likely to do damage, especially permanent damage, to the country. That is what I mean by “better”.
The fact that you aren’t voting in a particular party’s primary doesn’t restrict you from having an opinion on the relative merits of the candidates. At most, it might mean that you have not bothered to think about them in any depth. But, as we see in every election (not to mention in scores of political discussions not related to candidates), failure to think about something in depth still doesn’t prevent us from having opinions.
When you tell me that a O’Malley-Kasich would be “good for the country’s future” as opposed to a Clinton-Trump race, what I am hearing is that you want a contest where the probability of your team’s candidate winning is higher. Is this what you mean by “better”?
Obviously I have been unclear. I am NOT picking either of these two because I think them more likely to lose. I am picking them because, compared to the other candidates on offer in their respective parties I consider them less likely to do damage, especially permanent damage, to the country. That is what I mean by “better”.
The fact that you aren’t voting in a particular party’s primary doesn’t restrict you from having an opinion on the relative merits of the candidates. At most, it might mean that you have not bothered to think about them in any depth. But, as we see in every election (not to mention in scores of political discussions not related to candidates), failure to think about something in depth still doesn’t prevent us from having opinions.
When you tell me that a O’Malley-Kasich would be “good for the country’s future” as opposed to a Clinton-Trump race, what I am hearing is that you want a contest where the probability of your team’s candidate winning is higher. Is this what you mean by “better”?
Obviously I have been unclear. I am NOT picking either of these two because I think them more likely to lose. I am picking them because, compared to the other candidates on offer in their respective parties I consider them less likely to do damage, especially permanent damage, to the country. That is what I mean by “better”.
The fact that you aren’t voting in a particular party’s primary doesn’t restrict you from having an opinion on the relative merits of the candidates. At most, it might mean that you have not bothered to think about them in any depth. But, as we see in every election (not to mention in scores of political discussions not related to candidates), failure to think about something in depth still doesn’t prevent us from having opinions.
Moderates per The Atlantic
Moderates per The Atlantic
Moderates per The Atlantic
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
May we please have Doctor Science, Girl of the North Country, and our few other remaining women chime in on this.
In 1968 I saw the Doors and Jefferson Airplane play the Roundhouse in London. I was a young teenager, but I had two extremely cool older sisters.
I consider legal, safe abortion to be an absolutely necessary right, on demand, in any society which aspires to equality for women. I consider comprehensive sex education, and legal, safe contraception and education thereon (which would probably avoid very many abortions) to be absolutely necessary for the functioning of a civilised society.
I am too tired to check if Count’s invitation requests information on any other preferences or opinions; I gave Mr GftNC frostbite this morning (really and truly) when icing his back to help with the sciatic pain down his leg (usually an extremely effective treatment) before he went in for an epidural steroid procedure, so have spent the day beating myself up. He: “But you didn’t do it on purpose”, me: “No, because if I had I would be a psychopath”. Crikey, it’s been a very long day.
May we please have Doctor Science, Girl of the North Country, and our few other remaining women chime in on this.
In 1968 I saw the Doors and Jefferson Airplane play the Roundhouse in London. I was a young teenager, but I had two extremely cool older sisters.
I consider legal, safe abortion to be an absolutely necessary right, on demand, in any society which aspires to equality for women. I consider comprehensive sex education, and legal, safe contraception and education thereon (which would probably avoid very many abortions) to be absolutely necessary for the functioning of a civilised society.
I am too tired to check if Count’s invitation requests information on any other preferences or opinions; I gave Mr GftNC frostbite this morning (really and truly) when icing his back to help with the sciatic pain down his leg (usually an extremely effective treatment) before he went in for an epidural steroid procedure, so have spent the day beating myself up. He: “But you didn’t do it on purpose”, me: “No, because if I had I would be a psychopath”. Crikey, it’s been a very long day.
May we please have Doctor Science, Girl of the North Country, and our few other remaining women chime in on this.
In 1968 I saw the Doors and Jefferson Airplane play the Roundhouse in London. I was a young teenager, but I had two extremely cool older sisters.
I consider legal, safe abortion to be an absolutely necessary right, on demand, in any society which aspires to equality for women. I consider comprehensive sex education, and legal, safe contraception and education thereon (which would probably avoid very many abortions) to be absolutely necessary for the functioning of a civilised society.
I am too tired to check if Count’s invitation requests information on any other preferences or opinions; I gave Mr GftNC frostbite this morning (really and truly) when icing his back to help with the sciatic pain down his leg (usually an extremely effective treatment) before he went in for an epidural steroid procedure, so have spent the day beating myself up. He: “But you didn’t do it on purpose”, me: “No, because if I had I would be a psychopath”. Crikey, it’s been a very long day.
Thanks, GFTNC.
Men discussing abortion among themselves is all very well, but it’s like those all-day sports bloviating radio talk shows; exactly none of the callers have tried to hit a 95 mph fastball.
I’m foursquare against sciatica, if that helps.
Thanks, GFTNC.
Men discussing abortion among themselves is all very well, but it’s like those all-day sports bloviating radio talk shows; exactly none of the callers have tried to hit a 95 mph fastball.
I’m foursquare against sciatica, if that helps.
Thanks, GFTNC.
Men discussing abortion among themselves is all very well, but it’s like those all-day sports bloviating radio talk shows; exactly none of the callers have tried to hit a 95 mph fastball.
I’m foursquare against sciatica, if that helps.
Roger Ailes is against abortion too, unless he’s paying for it on the outa-town down low like all good conservative families have done for eons.
But then it’s an easy missionary position for him to take since the there is not a woman on Earth, including his wife and the bevy of FOX blondes/brunettes his ample flesh quivers over who would care to could handle the weight of his grotesqueness.
He’s a Jabba the Hut billboard for eternal chastity.
Steve Doocy apparently talks a good game too, but I’m sure he keeps an abortion doctor on retainer, or merely abandons those dear out-of-wedlock fetuses he goes on about, especially when they are half black.
If the fetuses brought to term are blue-eyed females, he pimps them out to Sean Hannity when they come of age.
Donald Trump wants a piece of that action.
Roger Ailes is against abortion too, unless he’s paying for it on the outa-town down low like all good conservative families have done for eons.
But then it’s an easy missionary position for him to take since the there is not a woman on Earth, including his wife and the bevy of FOX blondes/brunettes his ample flesh quivers over who would care to could handle the weight of his grotesqueness.
He’s a Jabba the Hut billboard for eternal chastity.
Steve Doocy apparently talks a good game too, but I’m sure he keeps an abortion doctor on retainer, or merely abandons those dear out-of-wedlock fetuses he goes on about, especially when they are half black.
If the fetuses brought to term are blue-eyed females, he pimps them out to Sean Hannity when they come of age.
Donald Trump wants a piece of that action.
Roger Ailes is against abortion too, unless he’s paying for it on the outa-town down low like all good conservative families have done for eons.
But then it’s an easy missionary position for him to take since the there is not a woman on Earth, including his wife and the bevy of FOX blondes/brunettes his ample flesh quivers over who would care to could handle the weight of his grotesqueness.
He’s a Jabba the Hut billboard for eternal chastity.
Steve Doocy apparently talks a good game too, but I’m sure he keeps an abortion doctor on retainer, or merely abandons those dear out-of-wedlock fetuses he goes on about, especially when they are half black.
If the fetuses brought to term are blue-eyed females, he pimps them out to Sean Hannity when they come of age.
Donald Trump wants a piece of that action.
The Third Way think tank is anything but moderate.
Please take just one pressing social, political, or cultural issue we debate here all the time and spell out the so-called moderate position.
The Third Way think tank is anything but moderate.
Please take just one pressing social, political, or cultural issue we debate here all the time and spell out the so-called moderate position.
The Third Way think tank is anything but moderate.
Please take just one pressing social, political, or cultural issue we debate here all the time and spell out the so-called moderate position.
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
Ever talk to a dyed in the wool Trotskyite?
Are they on my side? Hope so.
Are they “extremist nut cases”? Opinions vary.
Do I acknowledge them? Well, sure.
Does that make me a moderate?
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
Ever talk to a dyed in the wool Trotskyite?
Are they on my side? Hope so.
Are they “extremist nut cases”? Opinions vary.
Do I acknowledge them? Well, sure.
Does that make me a moderate?
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
Ever talk to a dyed in the wool Trotskyite?
Are they on my side? Hope so.
Are they “extremist nut cases”? Opinions vary.
Do I acknowledge them? Well, sure.
Does that make me a moderate?
Hey, GfNC, give the hubby some tramadol. It’s the bomb for sciatica. Been there.
And what you said about abortion rights. Safe and legal.
If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. I don’t eat red meat, but y’all can! And I will keep hope alive that y’all will convert.
Hey, GfNC, give the hubby some tramadol. It’s the bomb for sciatica. Been there.
And what you said about abortion rights. Safe and legal.
If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. I don’t eat red meat, but y’all can! And I will keep hope alive that y’all will convert.
Hey, GfNC, give the hubby some tramadol. It’s the bomb for sciatica. Been there.
And what you said about abortion rights. Safe and legal.
If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. I don’t eat red meat, but y’all can! And I will keep hope alive that y’all will convert.
Oh – that third paragraph was meant for all the folks, not GfNC, and the conversion is about non-red-meat! Sorry!
Oh – that third paragraph was meant for all the folks, not GfNC, and the conversion is about non-red-meat! Sorry!
Oh – that third paragraph was meant for all the folks, not GfNC, and the conversion is about non-red-meat! Sorry!
So stay off my lawn
Take three fingers of bourbon and listen to this if it will help.
Regards,
So stay off my lawn
Take three fingers of bourbon and listen to this if it will help.
Regards,
So stay off my lawn
Take three fingers of bourbon and listen to this if it will help.
Regards,
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
The problem with this definition, pithy though it may be, is that it says nothing about the actual beliefs of the hypothetical “moderate”. Indeed, it’s the kind of definition that would leave basically everyone able to be called a moderate; as long as they don’t have to own up to being one of the extremists, most people will be willing to admit that there are a fair amount of “fringe nuts”…
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
The problem with this definition, pithy though it may be, is that it says nothing about the actual beliefs of the hypothetical “moderate”. Indeed, it’s the kind of definition that would leave basically everyone able to be called a moderate; as long as they don’t have to own up to being one of the extremists, most people will be willing to admit that there are a fair amount of “fringe nuts”…
Moderate: someone who is willing to acknowledge that there are a fair number of extremist nut cases on his side, as well as on the other.
The problem with this definition, pithy though it may be, is that it says nothing about the actual beliefs of the hypothetical “moderate”. Indeed, it’s the kind of definition that would leave basically everyone able to be called a moderate; as long as they don’t have to own up to being one of the extremists, most people will be willing to admit that there are a fair amount of “fringe nuts”…
Is somebody who favors both
1) the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and
2) the Medicare-for-all approach to health insurance
a “moderate”? I suppose yes, “on average” — in the same sense that the fellow with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer is comfortable on average.
Surely one alternate definition of “a moderate” is “someone who takes a middle-of-the-road position on practically every policy question”. Another may be “someone who is never more than moderately for or moderately against any policy”.
It would be nice if people who consider themselves moderates would specify which definition of “moderate” they’re using.
–TP
Is somebody who favors both
1) the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and
2) the Medicare-for-all approach to health insurance
a “moderate”? I suppose yes, “on average” — in the same sense that the fellow with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer is comfortable on average.
Surely one alternate definition of “a moderate” is “someone who takes a middle-of-the-road position on practically every policy question”. Another may be “someone who is never more than moderately for or moderately against any policy”.
It would be nice if people who consider themselves moderates would specify which definition of “moderate” they’re using.
–TP
Is somebody who favors both
1) the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and
2) the Medicare-for-all approach to health insurance
a “moderate”? I suppose yes, “on average” — in the same sense that the fellow with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer is comfortable on average.
Surely one alternate definition of “a moderate” is “someone who takes a middle-of-the-road position on practically every policy question”. Another may be “someone who is never more than moderately for or moderately against any policy”.
It would be nice if people who consider themselves moderates would specify which definition of “moderate” they’re using.
–TP
Is somebody who favors both
1) the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and
2) the Medicare-for-all approach to health insurance
a “moderate”? I suppose yes, “on average” — in the same sense that the fellow with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer is comfortable on average.
I think Woody Allen had this covered with free-thinking fascist-anarchism, though I might go with radical statistical centrism.
Is somebody who favors both
1) the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and
2) the Medicare-for-all approach to health insurance
a “moderate”? I suppose yes, “on average” — in the same sense that the fellow with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer is comfortable on average.
I think Woody Allen had this covered with free-thinking fascist-anarchism, though I might go with radical statistical centrism.
Is somebody who favors both
1) the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and
2) the Medicare-for-all approach to health insurance
a “moderate”? I suppose yes, “on average” — in the same sense that the fellow with his feet in the oven and his head in the freezer is comfortable on average.
I think Woody Allen had this covered with free-thinking fascist-anarchism, though I might go with radical statistical centrism.
Sapient – Mr GftNC is a nutter from the North Country (I am that only by marriage), and their loony, macho code involves toughing it out and resisting all offers of help, even Tylenol or Advil unless in extremis, let alone something like Tramadol which is, heaven forfend, an opiate. Here’s hoping the epidural works….
Sapient – Mr GftNC is a nutter from the North Country (I am that only by marriage), and their loony, macho code involves toughing it out and resisting all offers of help, even Tylenol or Advil unless in extremis, let alone something like Tramadol which is, heaven forfend, an opiate. Here’s hoping the epidural works….
Sapient – Mr GftNC is a nutter from the North Country (I am that only by marriage), and their loony, macho code involves toughing it out and resisting all offers of help, even Tylenol or Advil unless in extremis, let alone something like Tramadol which is, heaven forfend, an opiate. Here’s hoping the epidural works….
Tribal:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/whats-good-workers-terrible-investors-113004861.html
Our corporate elite, the one percent, are the only ones permitted to belong to BOTH tribes AND call in the cavalry when the lesser tribe’s sisters won’t put out.
This speaks to Russell’s dictum on distribution instead of redistribution.
If things as they are were not a self-imposed mindset taken as an iron law of physics, think how much less government those who THINK they want such a thing, would get.
Mass stupidity.
Tribal:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/whats-good-workers-terrible-investors-113004861.html
Our corporate elite, the one percent, are the only ones permitted to belong to BOTH tribes AND call in the cavalry when the lesser tribe’s sisters won’t put out.
This speaks to Russell’s dictum on distribution instead of redistribution.
If things as they are were not a self-imposed mindset taken as an iron law of physics, think how much less government those who THINK they want such a thing, would get.
Mass stupidity.
Tribal:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/whats-good-workers-terrible-investors-113004861.html
Our corporate elite, the one percent, are the only ones permitted to belong to BOTH tribes AND call in the cavalry when the lesser tribe’s sisters won’t put out.
This speaks to Russell’s dictum on distribution instead of redistribution.
If things as they are were not a self-imposed mindset taken as an iron law of physics, think how much less government those who THINK they want such a thing, would get.
Mass stupidity.
Speaking to things I read. I don’t know where I saw this but it is an interesting’ if a little dated, article on gun control effects.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Speaking to things I read. I don’t know where I saw this but it is an interesting’ if a little dated, article on gun control effects.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Speaking to things I read. I don’t know where I saw this but it is an interesting’ if a little dated, article on gun control effects.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/charles-atlas-shrugged-by-barry-blitt
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/charles-atlas-shrugged-by-barry-blitt
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/charles-atlas-shrugged-by-barry-blitt
reading Marty’s link, i kept thinking of the Lead/Crime hypothesis.
that’s when i wasn’t thinking “wow, this paper really wants to assume that all countries are equal in every way except for their gun laws! Luxembourg vs the US?” and “well, that’s a strawman.” and “John Lott? really?”
these folks had many of the same problems, and thoroughly addressed them.
reading Marty’s link, i kept thinking of the Lead/Crime hypothesis.
that’s when i wasn’t thinking “wow, this paper really wants to assume that all countries are equal in every way except for their gun laws! Luxembourg vs the US?” and “well, that’s a strawman.” and “John Lott? really?”
these folks had many of the same problems, and thoroughly addressed them.
reading Marty’s link, i kept thinking of the Lead/Crime hypothesis.
that’s when i wasn’t thinking “wow, this paper really wants to assume that all countries are equal in every way except for their gun laws! Luxembourg vs the US?” and “well, that’s a strawman.” and “John Lott? really?”
these folks had many of the same problems, and thoroughly addressed them.
I blame the Soviets.
I blame the Soviets.
I blame the Soviets.
http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
oy
oy
oy
Not to mention one of the authors is from the Pacific Research Institute, “a California-based free-market think tank which promotes “the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility” through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government.”
Not to mention one of the authors is from the Pacific Research Institute, “a California-based free-market think tank which promotes “the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility” through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government.”
Not to mention one of the authors is from the Pacific Research Institute, “a California-based free-market think tank which promotes “the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility” through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government.”
Please take just one pressing social, political, or cultural issue we debate here all the time and spell out the so-called moderate position.
I suppose you are right. A blog that calls itself “the voice of moderation” probably should have some examples readily to hand.
So here’s a preliminary idea on everybody’s favority fraught topic: abortion.
Every abortion is a tragedy. While it is not a good choice, it is sometimes the least bad choice. Therefore it should not be illegal. (And there are none of the cute restrictions and required notifications that have been invented to discourage it.) The only restrictions concern the cases where the fetus is viable without massive medical intervention. (The exact definition of “massive” subject to discussion.)
While abortion should not be illegal, that doesn’t change the fact that Roe v Wade was a disaster for the abortion rights movement (not to mention being IMHO garbage as constitutional law). At the time, abortion was gradually becoming legal across the country. And legalization was supported by even conservative religious groups, for example the Southern Baptist Convention. (Imagine that! If you only came of age in the last 2-3 decades, you probably cannot.)
Given that every abortion is a tragedy, the right thing to do is to make them as rare as possible. Major step one: make contraception as readily available as possible. First: cheap — including available at no charge under all medical insurance plans, including Medicaid.
Second, no restrictions (none!) on who can get it. That means, no, parents don’t get a veto, or even a notification, if their child wants it. If the parents don’t like it, they can teach their children their own views on not using it. Probably work about as well as abstinence-only seems to work now, but tough.
That’s not to say that this is the only moderate view on the subject. Just that it is an example of a moderate view of it.
Please take just one pressing social, political, or cultural issue we debate here all the time and spell out the so-called moderate position.
I suppose you are right. A blog that calls itself “the voice of moderation” probably should have some examples readily to hand.
So here’s a preliminary idea on everybody’s favority fraught topic: abortion.
Every abortion is a tragedy. While it is not a good choice, it is sometimes the least bad choice. Therefore it should not be illegal. (And there are none of the cute restrictions and required notifications that have been invented to discourage it.) The only restrictions concern the cases where the fetus is viable without massive medical intervention. (The exact definition of “massive” subject to discussion.)
While abortion should not be illegal, that doesn’t change the fact that Roe v Wade was a disaster for the abortion rights movement (not to mention being IMHO garbage as constitutional law). At the time, abortion was gradually becoming legal across the country. And legalization was supported by even conservative religious groups, for example the Southern Baptist Convention. (Imagine that! If you only came of age in the last 2-3 decades, you probably cannot.)
Given that every abortion is a tragedy, the right thing to do is to make them as rare as possible. Major step one: make contraception as readily available as possible. First: cheap — including available at no charge under all medical insurance plans, including Medicaid.
Second, no restrictions (none!) on who can get it. That means, no, parents don’t get a veto, or even a notification, if their child wants it. If the parents don’t like it, they can teach their children their own views on not using it. Probably work about as well as abstinence-only seems to work now, but tough.
That’s not to say that this is the only moderate view on the subject. Just that it is an example of a moderate view of it.
Please take just one pressing social, political, or cultural issue we debate here all the time and spell out the so-called moderate position.
I suppose you are right. A blog that calls itself “the voice of moderation” probably should have some examples readily to hand.
So here’s a preliminary idea on everybody’s favority fraught topic: abortion.
Every abortion is a tragedy. While it is not a good choice, it is sometimes the least bad choice. Therefore it should not be illegal. (And there are none of the cute restrictions and required notifications that have been invented to discourage it.) The only restrictions concern the cases where the fetus is viable without massive medical intervention. (The exact definition of “massive” subject to discussion.)
While abortion should not be illegal, that doesn’t change the fact that Roe v Wade was a disaster for the abortion rights movement (not to mention being IMHO garbage as constitutional law). At the time, abortion was gradually becoming legal across the country. And legalization was supported by even conservative religious groups, for example the Southern Baptist Convention. (Imagine that! If you only came of age in the last 2-3 decades, you probably cannot.)
Given that every abortion is a tragedy, the right thing to do is to make them as rare as possible. Major step one: make contraception as readily available as possible. First: cheap — including available at no charge under all medical insurance plans, including Medicaid.
Second, no restrictions (none!) on who can get it. That means, no, parents don’t get a veto, or even a notification, if their child wants it. If the parents don’t like it, they can teach their children their own views on not using it. Probably work about as well as abstinence-only seems to work now, but tough.
That’s not to say that this is the only moderate view on the subject. Just that it is an example of a moderate view of it.
I found it interesting, the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
It is also interesting that the first criticism here was
that’s when i wasn’t thinking “wow, this paper really wants to assume that all countries are equal in every way except for their gun laws! Luxembourg vs the US?”
a defense usually used by the 2nd amendment advocates to pooh pooh statistics trying to show how effective gun control is.
I found it interesting, the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
It is also interesting that the first criticism here was
that’s when i wasn’t thinking “wow, this paper really wants to assume that all countries are equal in every way except for their gun laws! Luxembourg vs the US?”
a defense usually used by the 2nd amendment advocates to pooh pooh statistics trying to show how effective gun control is.
I found it interesting, the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
It is also interesting that the first criticism here was
that’s when i wasn’t thinking “wow, this paper really wants to assume that all countries are equal in every way except for their gun laws! Luxembourg vs the US?”
a defense usually used by the 2nd amendment advocates to pooh pooh statistics trying to show how effective gun control is.
the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
OK, I don’t know that gun-control advocates claim that doing so will reduce crime, per se. So let’s move on from “violent crime” to actual deaths. (Splitting out “deaths during the commission of a crime” and “suicide” might be enlightening, too.) Do those go down with gun control?
the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
OK, I don’t know that gun-control advocates claim that doing so will reduce crime, per se. So let’s move on from “violent crime” to actual deaths. (Splitting out “deaths during the commission of a crime” and “suicide” might be enlightening, too.) Do those go down with gun control?
the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
OK, I don’t know that gun-control advocates claim that doing so will reduce crime, per se. So let’s move on from “violent crime” to actual deaths. (Splitting out “deaths during the commission of a crime” and “suicide” might be enlightening, too.) Do those go down with gun control?
I found it interesting, the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
…in Russia.
Russia is not the US. the authors of that paper just compared bottom-line totals across different countries and declared “See! Gun control doesn’t work!” as if there aren’t any other factors in play. they do mention this shortcoming in their approach, in the back stretch of their paper, but they handwave it away.
I found it interesting, the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
…in Russia.
Russia is not the US. the authors of that paper just compared bottom-line totals across different countries and declared “See! Gun control doesn’t work!” as if there aren’t any other factors in play. they do mention this shortcoming in their approach, in the back stretch of their paper, but they handwave it away.
I found it interesting, the immediate comparison to Russia certainly confirmed my bias that aggressive gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime.
…in Russia.
Russia is not the US. the authors of that paper just compared bottom-line totals across different countries and declared “See! Gun control doesn’t work!” as if there aren’t any other factors in play. they do mention this shortcoming in their approach, in the back stretch of their paper, but they handwave it away.
Luxembourg has a population of roughly a half a million. Murder rates per 100,000 can vary widely based on a relatively small number of events occurring in given years. I might as well note that Luxembourg had 1/1000th as many murders as did the United States in whatever year to demonstrate who much safer it is.
Luxembourg has a population of roughly a half a million. Murder rates per 100,000 can vary widely based on a relatively small number of events occurring in given years. I might as well note that Luxembourg had 1/1000th as many murders as did the United States in whatever year to demonstrate who much safer it is.
Luxembourg has a population of roughly a half a million. Murder rates per 100,000 can vary widely based on a relatively small number of events occurring in given years. I might as well note that Luxembourg had 1/1000th as many murders as did the United States in whatever year to demonstrate who much safer it is.
And the fact is that, guess what!, the cited murder rate was the result of a misplaced decimal point. The murder rate in Luxembourg was 0.9, not 9. Wow. That’s some serious, academically rigorous work in that paper. (Does it come on convenient rolls for ease of use?)
And the fact is that, guess what!, the cited murder rate was the result of a misplaced decimal point. The murder rate in Luxembourg was 0.9, not 9. Wow. That’s some serious, academically rigorous work in that paper. (Does it come on convenient rolls for ease of use?)
And the fact is that, guess what!, the cited murder rate was the result of a misplaced decimal point. The murder rate in Luxembourg was 0.9, not 9. Wow. That’s some serious, academically rigorous work in that paper. (Does it come on convenient rolls for ease of use?)
That means, no, parents don’t get a veto, or even a notification, if their child wants it.
Then parents should not be held responsible for dealing with any adverse outcomes due to the abortion.
That means, no, parents don’t get a veto, or even a notification, if their child wants it.
Then parents should not be held responsible for dealing with any adverse outcomes due to the abortion.
That means, no, parents don’t get a veto, or even a notification, if their child wants it.
Then parents should not be held responsible for dealing with any adverse outcomes due to the abortion.
Charles, that was regarding parential veto/notification for contraception.
Charles, that was regarding parential veto/notification for contraception.
Charles, that was regarding parential veto/notification for contraception.
Charles, that was regarding parential veto/notification for contraception.
Noted. But the point still holds. If the state is going to sanction activities by children behind their parents’ backs, then the state should be held accountable for any complications that arises from those activities.
Charles, that was regarding parential veto/notification for contraception.
Noted. But the point still holds. If the state is going to sanction activities by children behind their parents’ backs, then the state should be held accountable for any complications that arises from those activities.
Charles, that was regarding parential veto/notification for contraception.
Noted. But the point still holds. If the state is going to sanction activities by children behind their parents’ backs, then the state should be held accountable for any complications that arises from those activities.
Which complications are you talking about?
Seriously. I am not aware of significant negative consequences that stem from contraception. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Which complications are you talking about?
Seriously. I am not aware of significant negative consequences that stem from contraception. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Which complications are you talking about?
Seriously. I am not aware of significant negative consequences that stem from contraception. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval. If the teenager gets pregnant anyway or has other health complications, perhaps the state should be on the hook for any medical/other expenses incurred.
Condoms Don’t Necessarily Help Teen Girls Avoid Pregnancy: According to a new study, distribution in schools can actually increase fertility rates. Can alternative policies be more effective?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval. If the teenager gets pregnant anyway or has other health complications, perhaps the state should be on the hook for any medical/other expenses incurred.
Condoms Don’t Necessarily Help Teen Girls Avoid Pregnancy: According to a new study, distribution in schools can actually increase fertility rates. Can alternative policies be more effective?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval. If the teenager gets pregnant anyway or has other health complications, perhaps the state should be on the hook for any medical/other expenses incurred.
Condoms Don’t Necessarily Help Teen Girls Avoid Pregnancy: According to a new study, distribution in schools can actually increase fertility rates. Can alternative policies be more effective?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval.
Have you looked at the numbers on teenagers having sex without parental approval? (Are there figures on teenagers having sex, specifically sex without contraception, with parental approval?)
How would “state sanctioning” it make any difference at all?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval.
Have you looked at the numbers on teenagers having sex without parental approval? (Are there figures on teenagers having sex, specifically sex without contraception, with parental approval?)
How would “state sanctioning” it make any difference at all?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval.
Have you looked at the numbers on teenagers having sex without parental approval? (Are there figures on teenagers having sex, specifically sex without contraception, with parental approval?)
How would “state sanctioning” it make any difference at all?
How would “state sanctioning” it make any difference at all?
Perhaps not much at all. But the state is still inserting itself into the relationship between parent and child.
How would “state sanctioning” it make any difference at all?
Perhaps not much at all. But the state is still inserting itself into the relationship between parent and child.
How would “state sanctioning” it make any difference at all?
Perhaps not much at all. But the state is still inserting itself into the relationship between parent and child.
And the state isn’t already inserted there? I think you will find that the laws on child abuse restrict how a parent can deal with a child. And, for some parents, really severely restrict them from what they believe is the right way to deal with their child.
And the state isn’t already inserted there? I think you will find that the laws on child abuse restrict how a parent can deal with a child. And, for some parents, really severely restrict them from what they believe is the right way to deal with their child.
And the state isn’t already inserted there? I think you will find that the laws on child abuse restrict how a parent can deal with a child. And, for some parents, really severely restrict them from what they believe is the right way to deal with their child.
Well, contraceptives can have adverse health effects depending on the use and the the user. In particular hormonal ones should not be used without a medical professional doing a check now and then.
On the other hand it is quite easy to kill oneself with simple headache pills (in a very unpleasant way). In Germany it is now illegal to sell paracetamol in package sizes containing more than 10 g total because some people tend to take not one or two pills but the whole package in one go.
Given how bad sex ed is in some regions I would actually support a policy of ‘no sales to anyone without instructions and a written test of understanding said instructions’. Yes, some people eat the condoms (and the suppositories)or put the pill into their lady parts (or think that they are taken one hour before or maybe after sex, not daily).
Well, contraceptives can have adverse health effects depending on the use and the the user. In particular hormonal ones should not be used without a medical professional doing a check now and then.
On the other hand it is quite easy to kill oneself with simple headache pills (in a very unpleasant way). In Germany it is now illegal to sell paracetamol in package sizes containing more than 10 g total because some people tend to take not one or two pills but the whole package in one go.
Given how bad sex ed is in some regions I would actually support a policy of ‘no sales to anyone without instructions and a written test of understanding said instructions’. Yes, some people eat the condoms (and the suppositories)or put the pill into their lady parts (or think that they are taken one hour before or maybe after sex, not daily).
Well, contraceptives can have adverse health effects depending on the use and the the user. In particular hormonal ones should not be used without a medical professional doing a check now and then.
On the other hand it is quite easy to kill oneself with simple headache pills (in a very unpleasant way). In Germany it is now illegal to sell paracetamol in package sizes containing more than 10 g total because some people tend to take not one or two pills but the whole package in one go.
Given how bad sex ed is in some regions I would actually support a policy of ‘no sales to anyone without instructions and a written test of understanding said instructions’. Yes, some people eat the condoms (and the suppositories)or put the pill into their lady parts (or think that they are taken one hour before or maybe after sex, not daily).
I think you will find that the laws on child abuse restrict how a parent can deal with a child.
The law should protect children, like everyone else, from harm from others whether those doing the harm are parents or not.
But it seems to be becoming increasingly legally dangerous to be a parent.
Free-Range Kids: Wondering if you can let your kids walk to the park or wait in the car for a few minutes—legally?
I think you will find that the laws on child abuse restrict how a parent can deal with a child.
The law should protect children, like everyone else, from harm from others whether those doing the harm are parents or not.
But it seems to be becoming increasingly legally dangerous to be a parent.
Free-Range Kids: Wondering if you can let your kids walk to the park or wait in the car for a few minutes—legally?
I think you will find that the laws on child abuse restrict how a parent can deal with a child.
The law should protect children, like everyone else, from harm from others whether those doing the harm are parents or not.
But it seems to be becoming increasingly legally dangerous to be a parent.
Free-Range Kids: Wondering if you can let your kids walk to the park or wait in the car for a few minutes—legally?
Here’s what we learned this week.
If you are black and unarmed, the police will gun you down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and carrying a toy weapon, you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and carrying an illegal real weapon in your pocket, you will be gunned down in hail of bullets, the hail originating from six inches away.
This morning, if you are black and carrying a licensed weapon and you tell the police you are doing so, you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and moving toward a police officer you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and moving away from a police officer, even at speed, you will be gunned down in hail of bullets.
If you are black and you sit or stand still you will be gunned down in hail of bullets.
If you are white and do any f*cking thing you want with a weapon, like NRA vermin, or the Bundys, or the Oaf Keepers do, the police will gun down the nearest black man in a hail of bullets.
But it’s because blacks aren’t raised right and the all of the whites doing the shooting have been raised properly.
There will be savage violence coming against the white conservative gun and law enforcement culture unlike anything this country has ever imagined.
Someone write up a monograph on the subject so we can spend another year or so chewing it over before the killing starts.
Here’s what we learned this week.
If you are black and unarmed, the police will gun you down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and carrying a toy weapon, you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and carrying an illegal real weapon in your pocket, you will be gunned down in hail of bullets, the hail originating from six inches away.
This morning, if you are black and carrying a licensed weapon and you tell the police you are doing so, you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and moving toward a police officer you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and moving away from a police officer, even at speed, you will be gunned down in hail of bullets.
If you are black and you sit or stand still you will be gunned down in hail of bullets.
If you are white and do any f*cking thing you want with a weapon, like NRA vermin, or the Bundys, or the Oaf Keepers do, the police will gun down the nearest black man in a hail of bullets.
But it’s because blacks aren’t raised right and the all of the whites doing the shooting have been raised properly.
There will be savage violence coming against the white conservative gun and law enforcement culture unlike anything this country has ever imagined.
Someone write up a monograph on the subject so we can spend another year or so chewing it over before the killing starts.
Here’s what we learned this week.
If you are black and unarmed, the police will gun you down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and carrying a toy weapon, you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and carrying an illegal real weapon in your pocket, you will be gunned down in hail of bullets, the hail originating from six inches away.
This morning, if you are black and carrying a licensed weapon and you tell the police you are doing so, you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and moving toward a police officer you will be gunned down in a hail of bullets.
If you are black and moving away from a police officer, even at speed, you will be gunned down in hail of bullets.
If you are black and you sit or stand still you will be gunned down in hail of bullets.
If you are white and do any f*cking thing you want with a weapon, like NRA vermin, or the Bundys, or the Oaf Keepers do, the police will gun down the nearest black man in a hail of bullets.
But it’s because blacks aren’t raised right and the all of the whites doing the shooting have been raised properly.
There will be savage violence coming against the white conservative gun and law enforcement culture unlike anything this country has ever imagined.
Someone write up a monograph on the subject so we can spend another year or so chewing it over before the killing starts.
No one was gunned down in a hail of bullets, unfortunately, but then there were no blacks or Mexicans on hand to shoot at.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-meeting-house-republicans-combative
No one was gunned down in a hail of bullets, unfortunately, but then there were no blacks or Mexicans on hand to shoot at.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-meeting-house-republicans-combative
No one was gunned down in a hail of bullets, unfortunately, but then there were no blacks or Mexicans on hand to shoot at.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-meeting-house-republicans-combative
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval.
CharlesWT, I gather from glancing at your condoms link that teens in this context are 15-19. Perhaps I misunderstand US society, but I don’t think we are that different, and it seems to me that teenagers almost always engage in sex without parental approval. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but do you really think that they should therefore not have access to contraception? And if you are worried about parents being “on the hook” for repercussions of unsanctioned activities, should parents not be responsible for medical expenses etc necessitated by unsanctioned climbing on walls, jumping into rivers, and other such activities?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval.
CharlesWT, I gather from glancing at your condoms link that teens in this context are 15-19. Perhaps I misunderstand US society, but I don’t think we are that different, and it seems to me that teenagers almost always engage in sex without parental approval. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but do you really think that they should therefore not have access to contraception? And if you are worried about parents being “on the hook” for repercussions of unsanctioned activities, should parents not be responsible for medical expenses etc necessitated by unsanctioned climbing on walls, jumping into rivers, and other such activities?
The state providing contraception to teenagers without parental approval comes close to sanctioning engaging in sex without parental approval.
CharlesWT, I gather from glancing at your condoms link that teens in this context are 15-19. Perhaps I misunderstand US society, but I don’t think we are that different, and it seems to me that teenagers almost always engage in sex without parental approval. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but do you really think that they should therefore not have access to contraception? And if you are worried about parents being “on the hook” for repercussions of unsanctioned activities, should parents not be responsible for medical expenses etc necessitated by unsanctioned climbing on walls, jumping into rivers, and other such activities?
“should parents not be responsible for medical expenses etc necessitated by unsanctioned climbing on walls, jumping into rivers, and other such activities?”
Only if the government puts up a sign that says “Jump into river here” and provides a life vest. In the US, if you do that the parents can sue you if they haven’t given permission.
“should parents not be responsible for medical expenses etc necessitated by unsanctioned climbing on walls, jumping into rivers, and other such activities?”
Only if the government puts up a sign that says “Jump into river here” and provides a life vest. In the US, if you do that the parents can sue you if they haven’t given permission.
“should parents not be responsible for medical expenses etc necessitated by unsanctioned climbing on walls, jumping into rivers, and other such activities?”
Only if the government puts up a sign that says “Jump into river here” and provides a life vest. In the US, if you do that the parents can sue you if they haven’t given permission.
As I understand it, the proposal is not to encourage teens to have sex, but to try to prevent pregnancy if they decide to do it. Most teens want to have sex – as far as I know they need no encouragement, and high teen-pregnancy rates are the result.
In the absence of signs saying “Jump into river here”, you seem to be saying parents can sue if you (or the school, or some government program) have taught the kid to swim.
As I understand it, the proposal is not to encourage teens to have sex, but to try to prevent pregnancy if they decide to do it. Most teens want to have sex – as far as I know they need no encouragement, and high teen-pregnancy rates are the result.
In the absence of signs saying “Jump into river here”, you seem to be saying parents can sue if you (or the school, or some government program) have taught the kid to swim.
As I understand it, the proposal is not to encourage teens to have sex, but to try to prevent pregnancy if they decide to do it. Most teens want to have sex – as far as I know they need no encouragement, and high teen-pregnancy rates are the result.
In the absence of signs saying “Jump into river here”, you seem to be saying parents can sue if you (or the school, or some government program) have taught the kid to swim.
Is teaching kids how to swim encouraging them to go jump into a raging river where they may drown anyway? Or is it just giving them a way to survive when in the water, however they end up there?
Is teaching kids how to swim encouraging them to go jump into a raging river where they may drown anyway? Or is it just giving them a way to survive when in the water, however they end up there?
Is teaching kids how to swim encouraging them to go jump into a raging river where they may drown anyway? Or is it just giving them a way to survive when in the water, however they end up there?
Is teaching kids how to swim encouraging them to go jump into a raging river where they may drown anyway? Or is it just giving them a way to survive when in the water, however they end up there?
My point exactly. And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
Is teaching kids how to swim encouraging them to go jump into a raging river where they may drown anyway? Or is it just giving them a way to survive when in the water, however they end up there?
My point exactly. And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
Is teaching kids how to swim encouraging them to go jump into a raging river where they may drown anyway? Or is it just giving them a way to survive when in the water, however they end up there?
My point exactly. And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
If you tell your kid to go jump in the lake, make sure they don’t trip over all of the other kids spooning in the bushes along the shore and leaving their condoms all over the place.
If you want to baptize your kids down at the river and expect them to not have sex as a result, hold them under longer.
If you tell your kid to go jump in the lake, make sure they don’t trip over all of the other kids spooning in the bushes along the shore and leaving their condoms all over the place.
If you want to baptize your kids down at the river and expect them to not have sex as a result, hold them under longer.
If you tell your kid to go jump in the lake, make sure they don’t trip over all of the other kids spooning in the bushes along the shore and leaving their condoms all over the place.
If you want to baptize your kids down at the river and expect them to not have sex as a result, hold them under longer.
He thought the reporter was Gretchen Carlson:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-winks-might-not-be-president
He thought the reporter was Gretchen Carlson:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-winks-might-not-be-president
He thought the reporter was Gretchen Carlson:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-winks-might-not-be-president
no, swimming lessons are like health class, you teach them all the bad things that can happen and a few tips and tricks.
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe. No matter what words you use with that. Like giving them a life jacket to jump into the raging river.
The challenge is that, unlike parents, government programs cant make any judgement on whether that’s best to do at 10, 12, 13 or 15. At least with parental notification they would have a better idea of the right things to say at the point in time for the individual child’s maturity level.
no, swimming lessons are like health class, you teach them all the bad things that can happen and a few tips and tricks.
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe. No matter what words you use with that. Like giving them a life jacket to jump into the raging river.
The challenge is that, unlike parents, government programs cant make any judgement on whether that’s best to do at 10, 12, 13 or 15. At least with parental notification they would have a better idea of the right things to say at the point in time for the individual child’s maturity level.
no, swimming lessons are like health class, you teach them all the bad things that can happen and a few tips and tricks.
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe. No matter what words you use with that. Like giving them a life jacket to jump into the raging river.
The challenge is that, unlike parents, government programs cant make any judgement on whether that’s best to do at 10, 12, 13 or 15. At least with parental notification they would have a better idea of the right things to say at the point in time for the individual child’s maturity level.
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe
when’s the last time you were in a health class ?
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe
when’s the last time you were in a health class ?
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe
when’s the last time you were in a health class ?
Say rather, it is like teaching kids to swim.
And then putting (free) life jackets in a box near the water. Not to suggest that it is safe to put on a jacket and swim, no matter what the conditions. But to improve the odds that, IF the kids decide to swim, they will survive the experience.
Say rather, it is like teaching kids to swim.
And then putting (free) life jackets in a box near the water. Not to suggest that it is safe to put on a jacket and swim, no matter what the conditions. But to improve the odds that, IF the kids decide to swim, they will survive the experience.
Say rather, it is like teaching kids to swim.
And then putting (free) life jackets in a box near the water. Not to suggest that it is safe to put on a jacket and swim, no matter what the conditions. But to improve the odds that, IF the kids decide to swim, they will survive the experience.
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe.
No, you are telling them that if they use this contraception correctly, they will almost certainly not get pregnant, and if it is a barrier method, they will almost certainly not get a STD. Don’t forget Marty (and CharlesWT), we are not talking about pressing contraception on kids who have not expressed a wish for it. wj said:
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe.
No, you are telling them that if they use this contraception correctly, they will almost certainly not get pregnant, and if it is a barrier method, they will almost certainly not get a STD. Don’t forget Marty (and CharlesWT), we are not talking about pressing contraception on kids who have not expressed a wish for it. wj said:
If you then arm them with contraception you are telling them it is now safe.
No, you are telling them that if they use this contraception correctly, they will almost certainly not get pregnant, and if it is a barrier method, they will almost certainly not get a STD. Don’t forget Marty (and CharlesWT), we are not talking about pressing contraception on kids who have not expressed a wish for it. wj said:
…, but do you really think that they should therefore not have access to contraception?
I think teenagers should have access to contraception. I’m just not sure that state run in loco parentis institutions should be providing it.
American Teens Having Less Sex According To Study
…, but do you really think that they should therefore not have access to contraception?
I think teenagers should have access to contraception. I’m just not sure that state run in loco parentis institutions should be providing it.
American Teens Having Less Sex According To Study
…, but do you really think that they should therefore not have access to contraception?
I think teenagers should have access to contraception. I’m just not sure that state run in loco parentis institutions should be providing it.
American Teens Having Less Sex According To Study
GftNC, That may be what you are saying but, depending on the child, that is unlikely what they are hearing. The distinction on whether we are talking about pressing contraception on children is a distinction without a point.
I think at 13 the parents get notified. At 16 not so much. There needs to be a year that we believe that most of these kids are mature enough to understand consequences. I just don’t think that mean no restrictions.
GftNC, That may be what you are saying but, depending on the child, that is unlikely what they are hearing. The distinction on whether we are talking about pressing contraception on children is a distinction without a point.
I think at 13 the parents get notified. At 16 not so much. There needs to be a year that we believe that most of these kids are mature enough to understand consequences. I just don’t think that mean no restrictions.
GftNC, That may be what you are saying but, depending on the child, that is unlikely what they are hearing. The distinction on whether we are talking about pressing contraception on children is a distinction without a point.
I think at 13 the parents get notified. At 16 not so much. There needs to be a year that we believe that most of these kids are mature enough to understand consequences. I just don’t think that mean no restrictions.
And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
This is the parents job, not the government. If the government gets to decide what and when they get this information and access then the government takes on the parental responsibility.
Not a hard concept. Except today we have less respect for parents than we do for teachers.
And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
This is the parents job, not the government. If the government gets to decide what and when they get this information and access then the government takes on the parental responsibility.
Not a hard concept. Except today we have less respect for parents than we do for teachers.
And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
This is the parents job, not the government. If the government gets to decide what and when they get this information and access then the government takes on the parental responsibility.
Not a hard concept. Except today we have less respect for parents than we do for teachers.
I seem to be italicised whatever I do, so my solution is:
1. Marty: The distinction on whether we are talking about pressing contraception on children is a distinction without a point.
2. Marty, quoting me: And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
Marty, as himself: This is the parents job, not the government. If the government gets to decide what and when they get this information and access then the government takes on the parental responsibility.
I seem to be italicised whatever I do, so my solution is:
1. Marty: The distinction on whether we are talking about pressing contraception on children is a distinction without a point.
2. Marty, quoting me: And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
Marty, as himself: This is the parents job, not the government. If the government gets to decide what and when they get this information and access then the government takes on the parental responsibility.
I seem to be italicised whatever I do, so my solution is:
1. Marty: The distinction on whether we are talking about pressing contraception on children is a distinction without a point.
2. Marty, quoting me: And if you have not encouraged them to jump in, but have taught them a way to survive in the water however they end up there, should parents either a) be able to sue you for doing so or b) be able to avoid responsibility for any medical etc expenses caused by immersion in the river?
Marty, as himself: This is the parents job, not the government. If the government gets to decide what and when they get this information and access then the government takes on the parental responsibility.
Marty, if we are going to say that the moderate position is to leave decisions about contraception for teenagers to the parents, we really ought to say something about how well that works.
In general, that demand seems to come from parents whose (strong) preference is that their kids just not have sex. And, therefore, have no need for contraceptives. (Or sex education, for that matter.)
My distinct impression is that abstinence-only has a pretty poor track record. Not because the method itself doesn’t work well for contraception, but because it doesn’t actually get implemented consistently in a rather large number of cases.
You can argue that parents should be able to decide that they would rather that their children end up pregnant than that those children get access to contraceptives without their approval. But that IS what you are arguing.
Marty, if we are going to say that the moderate position is to leave decisions about contraception for teenagers to the parents, we really ought to say something about how well that works.
In general, that demand seems to come from parents whose (strong) preference is that their kids just not have sex. And, therefore, have no need for contraceptives. (Or sex education, for that matter.)
My distinct impression is that abstinence-only has a pretty poor track record. Not because the method itself doesn’t work well for contraception, but because it doesn’t actually get implemented consistently in a rather large number of cases.
You can argue that parents should be able to decide that they would rather that their children end up pregnant than that those children get access to contraceptives without their approval. But that IS what you are arguing.
Marty, if we are going to say that the moderate position is to leave decisions about contraception for teenagers to the parents, we really ought to say something about how well that works.
In general, that demand seems to come from parents whose (strong) preference is that their kids just not have sex. And, therefore, have no need for contraceptives. (Or sex education, for that matter.)
My distinct impression is that abstinence-only has a pretty poor track record. Not because the method itself doesn’t work well for contraception, but because it doesn’t actually get implemented consistently in a rather large number of cases.
You can argue that parents should be able to decide that they would rather that their children end up pregnant than that those children get access to contraceptives without their approval. But that IS what you are arguing.
“If we are not pressing it on them, but only giving it to them if they make an approach to get it, it shows they are already thinking of having sex,”
They are thinking of having sex quite early, and often, speaking for the boys only. Knowing they can get contraception with no limitations certainly is likely to turn thinking into action earlier. It is unreasonable to expect that that is not a barrier to actually having sex.
As for bad parents, until there is a test given, they should retain the first rights on how to raise their child. Barring due process, the state has no standing to coopt parenting because you don’t like how they are doing it. Teaching them anything is up to the parent, not the state, many kids are home schooled because the parents don’t like what the state teaches or how. Providing them with what is clearly medical advice and access without the parents knowledge is just even a step beyond.
“If we are not pressing it on them, but only giving it to them if they make an approach to get it, it shows they are already thinking of having sex,”
They are thinking of having sex quite early, and often, speaking for the boys only. Knowing they can get contraception with no limitations certainly is likely to turn thinking into action earlier. It is unreasonable to expect that that is not a barrier to actually having sex.
As for bad parents, until there is a test given, they should retain the first rights on how to raise their child. Barring due process, the state has no standing to coopt parenting because you don’t like how they are doing it. Teaching them anything is up to the parent, not the state, many kids are home schooled because the parents don’t like what the state teaches or how. Providing them with what is clearly medical advice and access without the parents knowledge is just even a step beyond.
“If we are not pressing it on them, but only giving it to them if they make an approach to get it, it shows they are already thinking of having sex,”
They are thinking of having sex quite early, and often, speaking for the boys only. Knowing they can get contraception with no limitations certainly is likely to turn thinking into action earlier. It is unreasonable to expect that that is not a barrier to actually having sex.
As for bad parents, until there is a test given, they should retain the first rights on how to raise their child. Barring due process, the state has no standing to coopt parenting because you don’t like how they are doing it. Teaching them anything is up to the parent, not the state, many kids are home schooled because the parents don’t like what the state teaches or how. Providing them with what is clearly medical advice and access without the parents knowledge is just even a step beyond.
I wore water wings the first time I had sex.
Or, was that when I went over Niagara Falls the first time?
I can’t remember now.
“At least with parental notification ..”
I didn’t send a telegram to my mother the first time I had sex, but then I didn’t hear a peep out of her regarding the subject before that anyway.
Neither did my sisters, because I asked one of them years later. Their periods, yes. Sex? No.
My Dad tried to sit me down for the Ted Talk on the spacious back porch one night when I was maybe 12. It was so dark all I could make out from 15 feet away was the lit end of the cigarette he was smoking.
It’s the only time in my life that I heard a person literally hem and haw, as in “Hem, haw” and then “Haw hem”, with the occasional intervening “erp”.
Ten minutes went by and I don’t think he even made a proper introduction about what we were talking about, but I knew of course, and he knew I knew, like a character in a play knows because I had rehearsed the scene, nodding affirmatively at every hem but wondering how graphic this might get, but not really having any sense of what the graphics might be, especially on the girl end of things.
Suddenly, my mother came to the door, like maybe they had decided on a signal beforehand if he found the going tough, and announced a business associate was on the phone.
I thought my Dad got out the porch chaise lounge a little more spryly and hastily than usual and he said, “we’ll come back to this later” which never happened.
I’m not sure who was more relieved.
I had a girlfriend all through high school, but we never got any farther than heavy petting and very badly chapped lips and other well-known symptoms of delayed gratification.
Didn’t actually have sex until a sophomore in college with a girl I was absolutely crazy about.
But I was still naive about the physical properties of the opposite, contradictory gender, mystery at one time being the main charm.
Once I asked her, “Do all women have their periods at the same time”, like maybe the moon and the tides came into play and my girlfriend and Golda Meir and Joni Mitchell were all in synch.
She laughed and said, “Boys ask the silliest questions!”, but note, she didn’t actually answer the question.
Which is a whole other mystery.
Years later, when my neighbors and I were raising our kids together (theirs, two girls, and ours a boy) the Mom told us that she had the talk with their oldest daughter, and the girl’s response to the main fact was “That is SOOOOOOooo gross!!”
But, on the other hand, the way we got to know the neighbors years earlier was that my wife was out of town and I had a softball game one night and they agreed to babysit my son (he was five or six) and at the dinner table they casually asked him what his Dad was up to that evening, and he matter-of-factly stated like the Masters half of Masters and Johnson that I was playing ball and then I and my teammates were going to the bar to drink and have sex, only half of which was true, mind you, but where he got THAT, who knows?
Maybe from the Art Linkletter Show reruns.
One can imagine the silence that momentarily gripped the folks seated around that dinner table, forks of instant macaroni and cheese frozen in midair halfway to their mouths.
The upshot was though that the male parent half of the neighbor household felt an urgent need to get to know me better and find out the name of this bar I frequented and the four of us and our kids have been fast friends ever since.
None of the kids have ever been pregnant nor caused a pregnancy and the three of them are successful as hell.
I wore water wings the first time I had sex.
Or, was that when I went over Niagara Falls the first time?
I can’t remember now.
“At least with parental notification ..”
I didn’t send a telegram to my mother the first time I had sex, but then I didn’t hear a peep out of her regarding the subject before that anyway.
Neither did my sisters, because I asked one of them years later. Their periods, yes. Sex? No.
My Dad tried to sit me down for the Ted Talk on the spacious back porch one night when I was maybe 12. It was so dark all I could make out from 15 feet away was the lit end of the cigarette he was smoking.
It’s the only time in my life that I heard a person literally hem and haw, as in “Hem, haw” and then “Haw hem”, with the occasional intervening “erp”.
Ten minutes went by and I don’t think he even made a proper introduction about what we were talking about, but I knew of course, and he knew I knew, like a character in a play knows because I had rehearsed the scene, nodding affirmatively at every hem but wondering how graphic this might get, but not really having any sense of what the graphics might be, especially on the girl end of things.
Suddenly, my mother came to the door, like maybe they had decided on a signal beforehand if he found the going tough, and announced a business associate was on the phone.
I thought my Dad got out the porch chaise lounge a little more spryly and hastily than usual and he said, “we’ll come back to this later” which never happened.
I’m not sure who was more relieved.
I had a girlfriend all through high school, but we never got any farther than heavy petting and very badly chapped lips and other well-known symptoms of delayed gratification.
Didn’t actually have sex until a sophomore in college with a girl I was absolutely crazy about.
But I was still naive about the physical properties of the opposite, contradictory gender, mystery at one time being the main charm.
Once I asked her, “Do all women have their periods at the same time”, like maybe the moon and the tides came into play and my girlfriend and Golda Meir and Joni Mitchell were all in synch.
She laughed and said, “Boys ask the silliest questions!”, but note, she didn’t actually answer the question.
Which is a whole other mystery.
Years later, when my neighbors and I were raising our kids together (theirs, two girls, and ours a boy) the Mom told us that she had the talk with their oldest daughter, and the girl’s response to the main fact was “That is SOOOOOOooo gross!!”
But, on the other hand, the way we got to know the neighbors years earlier was that my wife was out of town and I had a softball game one night and they agreed to babysit my son (he was five or six) and at the dinner table they casually asked him what his Dad was up to that evening, and he matter-of-factly stated like the Masters half of Masters and Johnson that I was playing ball and then I and my teammates were going to the bar to drink and have sex, only half of which was true, mind you, but where he got THAT, who knows?
Maybe from the Art Linkletter Show reruns.
One can imagine the silence that momentarily gripped the folks seated around that dinner table, forks of instant macaroni and cheese frozen in midair halfway to their mouths.
The upshot was though that the male parent half of the neighbor household felt an urgent need to get to know me better and find out the name of this bar I frequented and the four of us and our kids have been fast friends ever since.
None of the kids have ever been pregnant nor caused a pregnancy and the three of them are successful as hell.
I wore water wings the first time I had sex.
Or, was that when I went over Niagara Falls the first time?
I can’t remember now.
“At least with parental notification ..”
I didn’t send a telegram to my mother the first time I had sex, but then I didn’t hear a peep out of her regarding the subject before that anyway.
Neither did my sisters, because I asked one of them years later. Their periods, yes. Sex? No.
My Dad tried to sit me down for the Ted Talk on the spacious back porch one night when I was maybe 12. It was so dark all I could make out from 15 feet away was the lit end of the cigarette he was smoking.
It’s the only time in my life that I heard a person literally hem and haw, as in “Hem, haw” and then “Haw hem”, with the occasional intervening “erp”.
Ten minutes went by and I don’t think he even made a proper introduction about what we were talking about, but I knew of course, and he knew I knew, like a character in a play knows because I had rehearsed the scene, nodding affirmatively at every hem but wondering how graphic this might get, but not really having any sense of what the graphics might be, especially on the girl end of things.
Suddenly, my mother came to the door, like maybe they had decided on a signal beforehand if he found the going tough, and announced a business associate was on the phone.
I thought my Dad got out the porch chaise lounge a little more spryly and hastily than usual and he said, “we’ll come back to this later” which never happened.
I’m not sure who was more relieved.
I had a girlfriend all through high school, but we never got any farther than heavy petting and very badly chapped lips and other well-known symptoms of delayed gratification.
Didn’t actually have sex until a sophomore in college with a girl I was absolutely crazy about.
But I was still naive about the physical properties of the opposite, contradictory gender, mystery at one time being the main charm.
Once I asked her, “Do all women have their periods at the same time”, like maybe the moon and the tides came into play and my girlfriend and Golda Meir and Joni Mitchell were all in synch.
She laughed and said, “Boys ask the silliest questions!”, but note, she didn’t actually answer the question.
Which is a whole other mystery.
Years later, when my neighbors and I were raising our kids together (theirs, two girls, and ours a boy) the Mom told us that she had the talk with their oldest daughter, and the girl’s response to the main fact was “That is SOOOOOOooo gross!!”
But, on the other hand, the way we got to know the neighbors years earlier was that my wife was out of town and I had a softball game one night and they agreed to babysit my son (he was five or six) and at the dinner table they casually asked him what his Dad was up to that evening, and he matter-of-factly stated like the Masters half of Masters and Johnson that I was playing ball and then I and my teammates were going to the bar to drink and have sex, only half of which was true, mind you, but where he got THAT, who knows?
Maybe from the Art Linkletter Show reruns.
One can imagine the silence that momentarily gripped the folks seated around that dinner table, forks of instant macaroni and cheese frozen in midair halfway to their mouths.
The upshot was though that the male parent half of the neighbor household felt an urgent need to get to know me better and find out the name of this bar I frequented and the four of us and our kids have been fast friends ever since.
None of the kids have ever been pregnant nor caused a pregnancy and the three of them are successful as hell.
Marty, I don’t think we can agree here, except to differ. I was the confidante to a girlfriend who got pregnant at 13, and we tried to arrange an abortion secretly, from boarding school, during a postal strike when there were no mobile phones and we couldn’t get to public phone boxes. It was all pretty agonising, and did not end well. The experience may have influenced me somewhat, but I suspect not. As a child of the sixties, I guess I was always likely to favour maximum sex education, and access to contraception for everyone who wanted it, and to believe that good parents would probably not have children who went behind their backs when “too young”, however defined. But as I say, we differ, and that’s OK.
Marty, I don’t think we can agree here, except to differ. I was the confidante to a girlfriend who got pregnant at 13, and we tried to arrange an abortion secretly, from boarding school, during a postal strike when there were no mobile phones and we couldn’t get to public phone boxes. It was all pretty agonising, and did not end well. The experience may have influenced me somewhat, but I suspect not. As a child of the sixties, I guess I was always likely to favour maximum sex education, and access to contraception for everyone who wanted it, and to believe that good parents would probably not have children who went behind their backs when “too young”, however defined. But as I say, we differ, and that’s OK.
Marty, I don’t think we can agree here, except to differ. I was the confidante to a girlfriend who got pregnant at 13, and we tried to arrange an abortion secretly, from boarding school, during a postal strike when there were no mobile phones and we couldn’t get to public phone boxes. It was all pretty agonising, and did not end well. The experience may have influenced me somewhat, but I suspect not. As a child of the sixties, I guess I was always likely to favour maximum sex education, and access to contraception for everyone who wanted it, and to believe that good parents would probably not have children who went behind their backs when “too young”, however defined. But as I say, we differ, and that’s OK.
“In general, that demand seems to come from parents whose (strong) preference is that their kids just not have sex. And, therefore, have no need for contraceptives. (Or sex education, for that matter.) …
You can argue that parents should be able to decide that they would rather that their children end up pregnant than that those children get access to contraceptives without their approval. But that IS what you are arguing. ”
This is a completely off the wall generalization bearing no relationship to anything that I have said to the point of being insulting.
In fact, I have been clear that access is ok along with notification so the parent knows the child is contemplating sex. in the near future.
But wait, take a breath, yes, parents do have the right for any number of reasons, religious and otherwise, to expect abstinence from their children. You don’t get to tell them they are wrong if they are prepared to deal with the consequences of that with their children.
*shaking head*
a literal nanny state
“In general, that demand seems to come from parents whose (strong) preference is that their kids just not have sex. And, therefore, have no need for contraceptives. (Or sex education, for that matter.) …
You can argue that parents should be able to decide that they would rather that their children end up pregnant than that those children get access to contraceptives without their approval. But that IS what you are arguing. ”
This is a completely off the wall generalization bearing no relationship to anything that I have said to the point of being insulting.
In fact, I have been clear that access is ok along with notification so the parent knows the child is contemplating sex. in the near future.
But wait, take a breath, yes, parents do have the right for any number of reasons, religious and otherwise, to expect abstinence from their children. You don’t get to tell them they are wrong if they are prepared to deal with the consequences of that with their children.
*shaking head*
a literal nanny state
“In general, that demand seems to come from parents whose (strong) preference is that their kids just not have sex. And, therefore, have no need for contraceptives. (Or sex education, for that matter.) …
You can argue that parents should be able to decide that they would rather that their children end up pregnant than that those children get access to contraceptives without their approval. But that IS what you are arguing. ”
This is a completely off the wall generalization bearing no relationship to anything that I have said to the point of being insulting.
In fact, I have been clear that access is ok along with notification so the parent knows the child is contemplating sex. in the near future.
But wait, take a breath, yes, parents do have the right for any number of reasons, religious and otherwise, to expect abstinence from their children. You don’t get to tell them they are wrong if they are prepared to deal with the consequences of that with their children.
*shaking head*
a literal nanny state
I understand completely GftNC, also as a child of the sixties I have a different view. It certainly shapes my view that reasonable people differ on the subject.
I understand completely GftNC, also as a child of the sixties I have a different view. It certainly shapes my view that reasonable people differ on the subject.
I understand completely GftNC, also as a child of the sixties I have a different view. It certainly shapes my view that reasonable people differ on the subject.
Marty, It was not my intention to be insulting. Apologies if it came out that way.
I believe someone (I thought you, if not apologies again) said earlier that the difference between the state interfering with regard to child abuse and the state interfering with regard to contraception was that the former involved defending the child from harm. Whereas the former, the implication was, the latter did not.
And I submit that getting pregnant while still a teenager is, in fact, harmful. Perhaps not is absolutely every case. But today, in our culture, in the vast majority of cases, it is harmful. (And that doesn’t count the negative impact on the child. Which is far from trivial.)
Marty, It was not my intention to be insulting. Apologies if it came out that way.
I believe someone (I thought you, if not apologies again) said earlier that the difference between the state interfering with regard to child abuse and the state interfering with regard to contraception was that the former involved defending the child from harm. Whereas the former, the implication was, the latter did not.
And I submit that getting pregnant while still a teenager is, in fact, harmful. Perhaps not is absolutely every case. But today, in our culture, in the vast majority of cases, it is harmful. (And that doesn’t count the negative impact on the child. Which is far from trivial.)
Marty, It was not my intention to be insulting. Apologies if it came out that way.
I believe someone (I thought you, if not apologies again) said earlier that the difference between the state interfering with regard to child abuse and the state interfering with regard to contraception was that the former involved defending the child from harm. Whereas the former, the implication was, the latter did not.
And I submit that getting pregnant while still a teenager is, in fact, harmful. Perhaps not is absolutely every case. But today, in our culture, in the vast majority of cases, it is harmful. (And that doesn’t count the negative impact on the child. Which is far from trivial.)
also as a
childmale of the sixties I have a different viewftfy
also as a
childmale of the sixties I have a different viewftfy
also as a
childmale of the sixties I have a different viewftfy
In fact, I have been clear that access is ok along with notification so the parent knows the child is contemplating sex. in the near future.
How exactly is this not expecting the state to act in loco parentis? Your statement is that the parents have the right to require certain behaviors of their children, and that the state has a positive responsibility to not only respect that right, but help enforce said parental judgement thereupon. How is that not the very image of a nanny state?
You made it clear that you don’t think state-sanctioned sex ed is compatible with full parental responsibility for their children because it takes away parental control of how, when, in what context, and to what degree they learn about sex (though in fact it merely sets a deadline by which a minimal education will be provided – nothing is stopping the parents from supplementing or caveating it). For someone who is as strong an advocate for the rights of future citizens before they are full citizens – in particular when the parents disagree with the idea of the citizen-to-be having rights – you seem quite willing to leave to chance quality of the education we have collectively decided our future citizens are entitled to as members of our society. That… doesn’t seem wholly consistent.
In fact, I have been clear that access is ok along with notification so the parent knows the child is contemplating sex. in the near future.
How exactly is this not expecting the state to act in loco parentis? Your statement is that the parents have the right to require certain behaviors of their children, and that the state has a positive responsibility to not only respect that right, but help enforce said parental judgement thereupon. How is that not the very image of a nanny state?
You made it clear that you don’t think state-sanctioned sex ed is compatible with full parental responsibility for their children because it takes away parental control of how, when, in what context, and to what degree they learn about sex (though in fact it merely sets a deadline by which a minimal education will be provided – nothing is stopping the parents from supplementing or caveating it). For someone who is as strong an advocate for the rights of future citizens before they are full citizens – in particular when the parents disagree with the idea of the citizen-to-be having rights – you seem quite willing to leave to chance quality of the education we have collectively decided our future citizens are entitled to as members of our society. That… doesn’t seem wholly consistent.
In fact, I have been clear that access is ok along with notification so the parent knows the child is contemplating sex. in the near future.
How exactly is this not expecting the state to act in loco parentis? Your statement is that the parents have the right to require certain behaviors of their children, and that the state has a positive responsibility to not only respect that right, but help enforce said parental judgement thereupon. How is that not the very image of a nanny state?
You made it clear that you don’t think state-sanctioned sex ed is compatible with full parental responsibility for their children because it takes away parental control of how, when, in what context, and to what degree they learn about sex (though in fact it merely sets a deadline by which a minimal education will be provided – nothing is stopping the parents from supplementing or caveating it). For someone who is as strong an advocate for the rights of future citizens before they are full citizens – in particular when the parents disagree with the idea of the citizen-to-be having rights – you seem quite willing to leave to chance quality of the education we have collectively decided our future citizens are entitled to as members of our society. That… doesn’t seem wholly consistent.
“You made it clear that you don’t think state-sanctioned sex ed is compatible with full parental responsibility for their children because it takes away parental control of how, when, in what context, and to what degree they learn about sex (though in fact it merely sets a deadline by which a minimal education will be provided – nothing is stopping the parents from supplementing or caveating it).”
I actually didn’t say this. I said that parents have a choice as to whether they have their children attend any state sponsored education, I think sex ed is fine, (although I wonder just how much 10 year olds should get).
as for the first part, bah, that’s just playing semantics.
There are lots of things medically that require a parental consent, this wouldn’t even require that. The concept that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to act as their own agent in medical matters is absurd. The state’s obligation is to treat a minor like a minor, requiring parental consent. Everything else is just nanny state taking over for the parent because they “cant do the job effectively”.
“You made it clear that you don’t think state-sanctioned sex ed is compatible with full parental responsibility for their children because it takes away parental control of how, when, in what context, and to what degree they learn about sex (though in fact it merely sets a deadline by which a minimal education will be provided – nothing is stopping the parents from supplementing or caveating it).”
I actually didn’t say this. I said that parents have a choice as to whether they have their children attend any state sponsored education, I think sex ed is fine, (although I wonder just how much 10 year olds should get).
as for the first part, bah, that’s just playing semantics.
There are lots of things medically that require a parental consent, this wouldn’t even require that. The concept that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to act as their own agent in medical matters is absurd. The state’s obligation is to treat a minor like a minor, requiring parental consent. Everything else is just nanny state taking over for the parent because they “cant do the job effectively”.
“You made it clear that you don’t think state-sanctioned sex ed is compatible with full parental responsibility for their children because it takes away parental control of how, when, in what context, and to what degree they learn about sex (though in fact it merely sets a deadline by which a minimal education will be provided – nothing is stopping the parents from supplementing or caveating it).”
I actually didn’t say this. I said that parents have a choice as to whether they have their children attend any state sponsored education, I think sex ed is fine, (although I wonder just how much 10 year olds should get).
as for the first part, bah, that’s just playing semantics.
There are lots of things medically that require a parental consent, this wouldn’t even require that. The concept that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to act as their own agent in medical matters is absurd. The state’s obligation is to treat a minor like a minor, requiring parental consent. Everything else is just nanny state taking over for the parent because they “cant do the job effectively”.
well, in any case, I’m glad our murder rates compare favorably to kleptocratic failed totalitarian states.
well, in any case, I’m glad our murder rates compare favorably to kleptocratic failed totalitarian states.
well, in any case, I’m glad our murder rates compare favorably to kleptocratic failed totalitarian states.
The concept that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to act as their own agent in medical matters is absurd.
If I had realized that having sex at an early age was like surgery, I might have done some things differently. Like take my socks off…
The concept that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to act as their own agent in medical matters is absurd.
If I had realized that having sex at an early age was like surgery, I might have done some things differently. Like take my socks off…
The concept that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to act as their own agent in medical matters is absurd.
If I had realized that having sex at an early age was like surgery, I might have done some things differently. Like take my socks off…
Not that I did it at 12 or 13, hell, I wonder if I’m mature enough to do it now…
Not that I did it at 12 or 13, hell, I wonder if I’m mature enough to do it now…
Not that I did it at 12 or 13, hell, I wonder if I’m mature enough to do it now…
Teaching kids (OK, actually girls only) to swim IS encouraging them to have sex, at least that is what religious conservatives (often but not exclusively of the Muslim persuasion) argue. And I mean over here in Germany not just in the US. It exposes them to the lusty gaze of others and may even awake lust in them when they see scantily clad people prancing around in the water.
I also remeber calls to ban (not just to not make mandatory) certain kinds of vaccination*. In India the ‘compromise’ was to only vaccinate the boys against the papilloma virus when a total ban was impossible.
As for parental rights, a few days ago a couple won big in the courts claiming the right to provide NO education at all (including the 3 R’s**)to their children and to prevent others to do so in their place since rapture was due any moment and education put the kiddies’ souls in danger.
*It was before my time but there were also campaigns against anti-STD drugs because STDs are divine punishment for illicit sex and providing treatment is tantamount to encouraging fornication.
**reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmetics
Teaching kids (OK, actually girls only) to swim IS encouraging them to have sex, at least that is what religious conservatives (often but not exclusively of the Muslim persuasion) argue. And I mean over here in Germany not just in the US. It exposes them to the lusty gaze of others and may even awake lust in them when they see scantily clad people prancing around in the water.
I also remeber calls to ban (not just to not make mandatory) certain kinds of vaccination*. In India the ‘compromise’ was to only vaccinate the boys against the papilloma virus when a total ban was impossible.
As for parental rights, a few days ago a couple won big in the courts claiming the right to provide NO education at all (including the 3 R’s**)to their children and to prevent others to do so in their place since rapture was due any moment and education put the kiddies’ souls in danger.
*It was before my time but there were also campaigns against anti-STD drugs because STDs are divine punishment for illicit sex and providing treatment is tantamount to encouraging fornication.
**reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmetics
Teaching kids (OK, actually girls only) to swim IS encouraging them to have sex, at least that is what religious conservatives (often but not exclusively of the Muslim persuasion) argue. And I mean over here in Germany not just in the US. It exposes them to the lusty gaze of others and may even awake lust in them when they see scantily clad people prancing around in the water.
I also remeber calls to ban (not just to not make mandatory) certain kinds of vaccination*. In India the ‘compromise’ was to only vaccinate the boys against the papilloma virus when a total ban was impossible.
As for parental rights, a few days ago a couple won big in the courts claiming the right to provide NO education at all (including the 3 R’s**)to their children and to prevent others to do so in their place since rapture was due any moment and education put the kiddies’ souls in danger.
*It was before my time but there were also campaigns against anti-STD drugs because STDs are divine punishment for illicit sex and providing treatment is tantamount to encouraging fornication.
**reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmetics
Do parents own their kids, yes or no?
Because it sure sounds that’s the philosophical underpinning of the divergent opinions here.
Do parents own their kids, yes or no?
Because it sure sounds that’s the philosophical underpinning of the divergent opinions here.
Do parents own their kids, yes or no?
Because it sure sounds that’s the philosophical underpinning of the divergent opinions here.
Do parents own their kids, yes or no?
He who has the responsibility should have the power.
He who takes the power should also take the responsibility.
Do parents own their kids, yes or no?
He who has the responsibility should have the power.
He who takes the power should also take the responsibility.
Do parents own their kids, yes or no?
He who has the responsibility should have the power.
He who takes the power should also take the responsibility.
But sometimes it is unclear to what extent someone has the power.
For example, on the evidence parents’ power to control their teenage children when it comes to sex is, at best, chancy. Certainly when I was growing up, nobody was supposed to have sex before they were married. And there were serious consequences (contraception being essentially unavailable) to doing so. Yet kids did. And some of them got pregnant as a result.
Somehow I doubt that parental control has increased in the intervening decades.
So, the parents don’t have the power in this. At least not complete power. Not really. Whatever they might wish (or believe). So does it make sense to give them the power over contraception?
But sometimes it is unclear to what extent someone has the power.
For example, on the evidence parents’ power to control their teenage children when it comes to sex is, at best, chancy. Certainly when I was growing up, nobody was supposed to have sex before they were married. And there were serious consequences (contraception being essentially unavailable) to doing so. Yet kids did. And some of them got pregnant as a result.
Somehow I doubt that parental control has increased in the intervening decades.
So, the parents don’t have the power in this. At least not complete power. Not really. Whatever they might wish (or believe). So does it make sense to give them the power over contraception?
But sometimes it is unclear to what extent someone has the power.
For example, on the evidence parents’ power to control their teenage children when it comes to sex is, at best, chancy. Certainly when I was growing up, nobody was supposed to have sex before they were married. And there were serious consequences (contraception being essentially unavailable) to doing so. Yet kids did. And some of them got pregnant as a result.
Somehow I doubt that parental control has increased in the intervening decades.
So, the parents don’t have the power in this. At least not complete power. Not really. Whatever they might wish (or believe). So does it make sense to give them the power over contraception?