by Ugh
I don't know, I keep seeing the NYTimes home page "% chance of winning the election" graphic ticking up for Trump. A few weeks ago it was a 91% chance that Hillary would win, now it's down to 74% at last look, and recent polls show Trump tied! I keep thinking at some point there will be klaxons and air raid sirens and emergencies declared and bunkers prepared and panic in the streets. At a minimum, I would hope the mythical #Nevertrumper beasts will hold their noses and urine and vote for Clinton, you don't have to tell anybody (really!).
Meanwhile, how about a Nats-Cubs NLCS? Please? And is a Cubs World Series win worth a Trump Presidency? Okay probably not – but odds seem equally likely right now.
Also, too, can we start paying NCAA athletes now?
At least football is in full swing. Starting to edge over into bread and circuses territory though.
Open thread, dude.
UPDATE: Thank goodness no food is grown in California.
Fallows has an excellent cover story on Clinton/Trump over at the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/
And his “Daily Trump” is often insightful, too:
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/09/trump-time-capsule-104-jimmy-fallon/500312/
Fallows has an excellent cover story on Clinton/Trump over at the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/
And his “Daily Trump” is often insightful, too:
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/09/trump-time-capsule-104-jimmy-fallon/500312/
Fallows has an excellent cover story on Clinton/Trump over at the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/
And his “Daily Trump” is often insightful, too:
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/09/trump-time-capsule-104-jimmy-fallon/500312/
I do wonder if the debates are going to matter this year like never before.
I do wonder if the debates are going to matter this year like never before.
I do wonder if the debates are going to matter this year like never before.
I posted this in the other thread, but I figured I’d post it here and elaborate a bit. This NJ school-funding proposal came to my attention this past Saturday night at a party where a group of my friends were praising the fairness of it. (I feel like a bit of a dope for having been unaware of it, because it’s a big and sucky deal, IMO.)
If you follow the link, there is a link within the article to an opinion piece submitted by Chris Christie describing some of the raw facts behind his decision to fund schools based on an equal dollars-per-student figure with the exception of special-education students.
This proposal would immediately cut aid to some schools by two thirds. These would obviously be the schools receiving the most aid in the first place, but I don’t see how this wouldn’t result in calamity for those schools.
It’s not that there isn’t a problem of some sort. There are 31 districts out of damned near 600 statewide that receive more than half of state funding, and they have the poorest-performing schools in terms of graduation rates (and probably other metrics).
But suddenly taking the bulk of the funding from those schools isn’t going to fix that. It’s like a patient running a high fever for some as-yet undiagnosed reason whose doctor decides to stop treating the fever in the hope that it will just go away or that the cause will suddenly become clear.
My first thought on reading the figures regarding school districts was, “Why the hell are there almost 600 school districts?” Of course, there was an attempt several years ago to consolidate some of them, which sent parents in the better-off ones into orbit. And therein lies the rub.
In NJ, municipalities and counties collect taxes through property taxes, something I’m well aware of as someone who pays more than 10% of his total, pre-tax, household income in property tax. My property taxes are a bit higher than the state average, but my county’s average tax bill is a bit lower than the state average, and my town’s average is a bit lower than the county average. But none of those numbers are too far from the middle. In any case, my property taxes would almost certainly go down if this proposal went through.
Here’s the thing: There are fairly many municipalities in NJ where the average annual property taxes exceed $10k. There are a few where they are over $15k. There is one town, Tavistock, which is basically an incorporated golf course and country club about 10 miles from where I live, with an average in excess of $25k. It doesn’t have it’s own school district, but is within that of a town with an average property tax of $13k.
Let’s contrast that with one of the 31 school districts – the City of Camden’s. The average property tax in Camden is about $1500. The average home value is about $55k.
Maybe the problem is that NJ’s poorest people are largely clustered in those 31 districts. The mental experiment I came up with was to imagine what school funding and state-aid dollars per child would look like if household income, wealth, or some combination of the two were somehow equally distributed among all school districts, with the richest, the poorest and everyone in between going to the same schools throughout the state.
What I think would happen is that schools would all receive about the same dollars per student (the more obvious conclusion) and that the overall need for state aid would go down.
I think that kids with greater family resources would pull kids with fewer family resources up far more than kids with fewer family resources would pull kids with greater family resources down. People who know what it means to get an education and succeed aren’t suddenly going to forget those things because their kids are in school with kids from poorer and less educated families. But kids who come from households with less financial wherewithal and less educational attainment would learn something from those who were better off, especially those kids with high academic aptitude.
I know I gained a good bit of insight from my friends’ families – insight that wasn’t available within my family. I was still a middle-class kid, but the first in my family to get a degree. But being in honors classes in high school put me among a lot of kids whose parents were better educated than mine. Two of my best friends had parents who taught at the nearly community college and had graduate degrees. They gave me advice that no one in my family could have.
I went to a small high school, but it was a school with a fairly broad and fairly even mix of family income and wealth. No one was what I would call rich, but there were people who were poor and there were people who were fairly well into the upper middle class (and throughout the range in between – among them, me).
Now imagine you’re poor. Imagine just about everyone you know is poor. Imagine that the only people you know who went to college were your teachers. No one in your family. No one in any of your friends’ families. You might be able to find your way through that situation, get a good education, including a degree, and pull yourself out of poverty. But you aren’t sending your kids to the same school you went to if you do manage to do that. Your kids are going to a school with other kids whose parents, in general, have decent jobs and educations.
So my theory (and it is mine!) is that the problem isn’t poverty, per se, but class segregation. Defunding schools filled with poor kids isn’t going to fix that.
I posted this in the other thread, but I figured I’d post it here and elaborate a bit. This NJ school-funding proposal came to my attention this past Saturday night at a party where a group of my friends were praising the fairness of it. (I feel like a bit of a dope for having been unaware of it, because it’s a big and sucky deal, IMO.)
If you follow the link, there is a link within the article to an opinion piece submitted by Chris Christie describing some of the raw facts behind his decision to fund schools based on an equal dollars-per-student figure with the exception of special-education students.
This proposal would immediately cut aid to some schools by two thirds. These would obviously be the schools receiving the most aid in the first place, but I don’t see how this wouldn’t result in calamity for those schools.
It’s not that there isn’t a problem of some sort. There are 31 districts out of damned near 600 statewide that receive more than half of state funding, and they have the poorest-performing schools in terms of graduation rates (and probably other metrics).
But suddenly taking the bulk of the funding from those schools isn’t going to fix that. It’s like a patient running a high fever for some as-yet undiagnosed reason whose doctor decides to stop treating the fever in the hope that it will just go away or that the cause will suddenly become clear.
My first thought on reading the figures regarding school districts was, “Why the hell are there almost 600 school districts?” Of course, there was an attempt several years ago to consolidate some of them, which sent parents in the better-off ones into orbit. And therein lies the rub.
In NJ, municipalities and counties collect taxes through property taxes, something I’m well aware of as someone who pays more than 10% of his total, pre-tax, household income in property tax. My property taxes are a bit higher than the state average, but my county’s average tax bill is a bit lower than the state average, and my town’s average is a bit lower than the county average. But none of those numbers are too far from the middle. In any case, my property taxes would almost certainly go down if this proposal went through.
Here’s the thing: There are fairly many municipalities in NJ where the average annual property taxes exceed $10k. There are a few where they are over $15k. There is one town, Tavistock, which is basically an incorporated golf course and country club about 10 miles from where I live, with an average in excess of $25k. It doesn’t have it’s own school district, but is within that of a town with an average property tax of $13k.
Let’s contrast that with one of the 31 school districts – the City of Camden’s. The average property tax in Camden is about $1500. The average home value is about $55k.
Maybe the problem is that NJ’s poorest people are largely clustered in those 31 districts. The mental experiment I came up with was to imagine what school funding and state-aid dollars per child would look like if household income, wealth, or some combination of the two were somehow equally distributed among all school districts, with the richest, the poorest and everyone in between going to the same schools throughout the state.
What I think would happen is that schools would all receive about the same dollars per student (the more obvious conclusion) and that the overall need for state aid would go down.
I think that kids with greater family resources would pull kids with fewer family resources up far more than kids with fewer family resources would pull kids with greater family resources down. People who know what it means to get an education and succeed aren’t suddenly going to forget those things because their kids are in school with kids from poorer and less educated families. But kids who come from households with less financial wherewithal and less educational attainment would learn something from those who were better off, especially those kids with high academic aptitude.
I know I gained a good bit of insight from my friends’ families – insight that wasn’t available within my family. I was still a middle-class kid, but the first in my family to get a degree. But being in honors classes in high school put me among a lot of kids whose parents were better educated than mine. Two of my best friends had parents who taught at the nearly community college and had graduate degrees. They gave me advice that no one in my family could have.
I went to a small high school, but it was a school with a fairly broad and fairly even mix of family income and wealth. No one was what I would call rich, but there were people who were poor and there were people who were fairly well into the upper middle class (and throughout the range in between – among them, me).
Now imagine you’re poor. Imagine just about everyone you know is poor. Imagine that the only people you know who went to college were your teachers. No one in your family. No one in any of your friends’ families. You might be able to find your way through that situation, get a good education, including a degree, and pull yourself out of poverty. But you aren’t sending your kids to the same school you went to if you do manage to do that. Your kids are going to a school with other kids whose parents, in general, have decent jobs and educations.
So my theory (and it is mine!) is that the problem isn’t poverty, per se, but class segregation. Defunding schools filled with poor kids isn’t going to fix that.
I posted this in the other thread, but I figured I’d post it here and elaborate a bit. This NJ school-funding proposal came to my attention this past Saturday night at a party where a group of my friends were praising the fairness of it. (I feel like a bit of a dope for having been unaware of it, because it’s a big and sucky deal, IMO.)
If you follow the link, there is a link within the article to an opinion piece submitted by Chris Christie describing some of the raw facts behind his decision to fund schools based on an equal dollars-per-student figure with the exception of special-education students.
This proposal would immediately cut aid to some schools by two thirds. These would obviously be the schools receiving the most aid in the first place, but I don’t see how this wouldn’t result in calamity for those schools.
It’s not that there isn’t a problem of some sort. There are 31 districts out of damned near 600 statewide that receive more than half of state funding, and they have the poorest-performing schools in terms of graduation rates (and probably other metrics).
But suddenly taking the bulk of the funding from those schools isn’t going to fix that. It’s like a patient running a high fever for some as-yet undiagnosed reason whose doctor decides to stop treating the fever in the hope that it will just go away or that the cause will suddenly become clear.
My first thought on reading the figures regarding school districts was, “Why the hell are there almost 600 school districts?” Of course, there was an attempt several years ago to consolidate some of them, which sent parents in the better-off ones into orbit. And therein lies the rub.
In NJ, municipalities and counties collect taxes through property taxes, something I’m well aware of as someone who pays more than 10% of his total, pre-tax, household income in property tax. My property taxes are a bit higher than the state average, but my county’s average tax bill is a bit lower than the state average, and my town’s average is a bit lower than the county average. But none of those numbers are too far from the middle. In any case, my property taxes would almost certainly go down if this proposal went through.
Here’s the thing: There are fairly many municipalities in NJ where the average annual property taxes exceed $10k. There are a few where they are over $15k. There is one town, Tavistock, which is basically an incorporated golf course and country club about 10 miles from where I live, with an average in excess of $25k. It doesn’t have it’s own school district, but is within that of a town with an average property tax of $13k.
Let’s contrast that with one of the 31 school districts – the City of Camden’s. The average property tax in Camden is about $1500. The average home value is about $55k.
Maybe the problem is that NJ’s poorest people are largely clustered in those 31 districts. The mental experiment I came up with was to imagine what school funding and state-aid dollars per child would look like if household income, wealth, or some combination of the two were somehow equally distributed among all school districts, with the richest, the poorest and everyone in between going to the same schools throughout the state.
What I think would happen is that schools would all receive about the same dollars per student (the more obvious conclusion) and that the overall need for state aid would go down.
I think that kids with greater family resources would pull kids with fewer family resources up far more than kids with fewer family resources would pull kids with greater family resources down. People who know what it means to get an education and succeed aren’t suddenly going to forget those things because their kids are in school with kids from poorer and less educated families. But kids who come from households with less financial wherewithal and less educational attainment would learn something from those who were better off, especially those kids with high academic aptitude.
I know I gained a good bit of insight from my friends’ families – insight that wasn’t available within my family. I was still a middle-class kid, but the first in my family to get a degree. But being in honors classes in high school put me among a lot of kids whose parents were better educated than mine. Two of my best friends had parents who taught at the nearly community college and had graduate degrees. They gave me advice that no one in my family could have.
I went to a small high school, but it was a school with a fairly broad and fairly even mix of family income and wealth. No one was what I would call rich, but there were people who were poor and there were people who were fairly well into the upper middle class (and throughout the range in between – among them, me).
Now imagine you’re poor. Imagine just about everyone you know is poor. Imagine that the only people you know who went to college were your teachers. No one in your family. No one in any of your friends’ families. You might be able to find your way through that situation, get a good education, including a degree, and pull yourself out of poverty. But you aren’t sending your kids to the same school you went to if you do manage to do that. Your kids are going to a school with other kids whose parents, in general, have decent jobs and educations.
So my theory (and it is mine!) is that the problem isn’t poverty, per se, but class segregation. Defunding schools filled with poor kids isn’t going to fix that.
The biggest impact of our drought is that we will (finally!) stop growing water-intensive crops (rice, almonds, etc.) is what has always been basically a desert. If we get rid of those, and figure out that it’s nuts to insist on the kinds of lawns that work in a climate like the East Coast but not here, we’ll have plenty of water for the bulk of the crops we grow.
The biggest impact of our drought is that we will (finally!) stop growing water-intensive crops (rice, almonds, etc.) is what has always been basically a desert. If we get rid of those, and figure out that it’s nuts to insist on the kinds of lawns that work in a climate like the East Coast but not here, we’ll have plenty of water for the bulk of the crops we grow.
The biggest impact of our drought is that we will (finally!) stop growing water-intensive crops (rice, almonds, etc.) is what has always been basically a desert. If we get rid of those, and figure out that it’s nuts to insist on the kinds of lawns that work in a climate like the East Coast but not here, we’ll have plenty of water for the bulk of the crops we grow.
I know a lot of people have moved from California to Arizona over the last decade or two. Maybe they can provide tips on desert landscaping to those they left behind.
I know a lot of people have moved from California to Arizona over the last decade or two. Maybe they can provide tips on desert landscaping to those they left behind.
I know a lot of people have moved from California to Arizona over the last decade or two. Maybe they can provide tips on desert landscaping to those they left behind.
Oh, how to do desert landscaping isn’t a mystery. The problem is that a big green lawn (the bigger the better) is a major status symbol.
So it’s going to take a cultural change. Even draconian water rates for the highest users (already being tried in some places) will not, on the evidence so far, do the trick. They will just make the lawns an even better status symbol.
Oh, how to do desert landscaping isn’t a mystery. The problem is that a big green lawn (the bigger the better) is a major status symbol.
So it’s going to take a cultural change. Even draconian water rates for the highest users (already being tried in some places) will not, on the evidence so far, do the trick. They will just make the lawns an even better status symbol.
Oh, how to do desert landscaping isn’t a mystery. The problem is that a big green lawn (the bigger the better) is a major status symbol.
So it’s going to take a cultural change. Even draconian water rates for the highest users (already being tried in some places) will not, on the evidence so far, do the trick. They will just make the lawns an even better status symbol.
…stop growing water-intensive crops (rice, almonds, etc.)…
And alfalfa that is exported to China.
…stop growing water-intensive crops (rice, almonds, etc.)…
And alfalfa that is exported to China.
…stop growing water-intensive crops (rice, almonds, etc.)…
And alfalfa that is exported to China.
Well, at least Trump has formally stepped away from his birtherism:
Of course, his statement is shot thru with falshoods. Not to mention blythely ignoring the fact that he kept it up for years after Obama’s birth certificat was obtained. But for him, even this much is a huuuuge step. (Always assuming it lasts….)
Well, at least Trump has formally stepped away from his birtherism:
Of course, his statement is shot thru with falshoods. Not to mention blythely ignoring the fact that he kept it up for years after Obama’s birth certificat was obtained. But for him, even this much is a huuuuge step. (Always assuming it lasts….)
Well, at least Trump has formally stepped away from his birtherism:
Of course, his statement is shot thru with falshoods. Not to mention blythely ignoring the fact that he kept it up for years after Obama’s birth certificat was obtained. But for him, even this much is a huuuuge step. (Always assuming it lasts….)
here’s how CBSNews’s website is handling that Trump conference:
is our press learning?
here’s how CBSNews’s website is handling that Trump conference:
is our press learning?
here’s how CBSNews’s website is handling that Trump conference:
is our press learning?
The media got really angry about it because he punked them: he claimed it was a presser with a Q&A session, then made a 30-second statement that led into a promo for a hotel.
The media got really angry about it because he punked them: he claimed it was a presser with a Q&A session, then made a 30-second statement that led into a promo for a hotel.
The media got really angry about it because he punked them: he claimed it was a presser with a Q&A session, then made a 30-second statement that led into a promo for a hotel.
Worse. He kept them hanging for 90 minutes (much of it filled with surrogates talking about other things) before he made his 3 sentence statement. It may have been the last straw for some of them, after letting him play them like a fiddle for the past year+.
Worse. He kept them hanging for 90 minutes (much of it filled with surrogates talking about other things) before he made his 3 sentence statement. It may have been the last straw for some of them, after letting him play them like a fiddle for the past year+.
Worse. He kept them hanging for 90 minutes (much of it filled with surrogates talking about other things) before he made his 3 sentence statement. It may have been the last straw for some of them, after letting him play them like a fiddle for the past year+.
he did the same thing back in the spring when he did the infomercial for his wines and steaks. they didn’t learn then.
maybe this time…
he did the same thing back in the spring when he did the infomercial for his wines and steaks. they didn’t learn then.
maybe this time…
he did the same thing back in the spring when he did the infomercial for his wines and steaks. they didn’t learn then.
maybe this time…
If he’s going to constantly bleat about how the media is against him, it might as well be true (and for good reason).
If he’s going to constantly bleat about how the media is against him, it might as well be true (and for good reason).
If he’s going to constantly bleat about how the media is against him, it might as well be true (and for good reason).
Under Texas “Robin Hood” plan, wealthier school districts were forced to share with poorer districts. Then the poorer districts built multi million dollar football stadiums.
Under Texas “Robin Hood” plan, wealthier school districts were forced to share with poorer districts. Then the poorer districts built multi million dollar football stadiums.
Under Texas “Robin Hood” plan, wealthier school districts were forced to share with poorer districts. Then the poorer districts built multi million dollar football stadiums.
At least they know what matters in Texas.
At least they know what matters in Texas.
At least they know what matters in Texas.
NJ’s current state-aid formula dates back to 1990. No multi-million-dollar stadiums have yet to come from it.
Chris Christie says the aid allows the municipalities receiving the most to spend a greater percentage of their tax revenues on municipal services. He doesn’t say what those revenues are per capita. Judging by average property taxes, they can be much, so a bigger percentage doesn’t mean more money.
If he wants to crack down on truly bloated municipal governments, that’s fine. I don’t know why he wants to do it by punishing schools.
NJ’s current state-aid formula dates back to 1990. No multi-million-dollar stadiums have yet to come from it.
Chris Christie says the aid allows the municipalities receiving the most to spend a greater percentage of their tax revenues on municipal services. He doesn’t say what those revenues are per capita. Judging by average property taxes, they can be much, so a bigger percentage doesn’t mean more money.
If he wants to crack down on truly bloated municipal governments, that’s fine. I don’t know why he wants to do it by punishing schools.
NJ’s current state-aid formula dates back to 1990. No multi-million-dollar stadiums have yet to come from it.
Chris Christie says the aid allows the municipalities receiving the most to spend a greater percentage of their tax revenues on municipal services. He doesn’t say what those revenues are per capita. Judging by average property taxes, they can be much, so a bigger percentage doesn’t mean more money.
If he wants to crack down on truly bloated municipal governments, that’s fine. I don’t know why he wants to do it by punishing schools.
[…]
Only at the very end did he deliver on his promise of an announcement about his position on Obama’s place of birth. During the 2008 campaign, he said, Hillary Clinton “started the birther controversy. I finished it.” He now says he believes that “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
Trump’s claim that Clinton started birtherism is a telling and easily refutable lie. Some of Clinton’s supporters during the 2008 primary campaign did indulge in birther conspiracies, but not the campaign itself. Trump, in contrast, spent years loudly questioning Obama’s origins and eligibility for the presidency even after the matter was definitively settled…
[…]
Trump’s Latest Birther Press Conference Shows That He’s a Crony Capitalist Nightmare: The GOP candidate’s event was a falsehood-filled advertisement for his new D.C. hotel.
[…]
Only at the very end did he deliver on his promise of an announcement about his position on Obama’s place of birth. During the 2008 campaign, he said, Hillary Clinton “started the birther controversy. I finished it.” He now says he believes that “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
Trump’s claim that Clinton started birtherism is a telling and easily refutable lie. Some of Clinton’s supporters during the 2008 primary campaign did indulge in birther conspiracies, but not the campaign itself. Trump, in contrast, spent years loudly questioning Obama’s origins and eligibility for the presidency even after the matter was definitively settled…
[…]
Trump’s Latest Birther Press Conference Shows That He’s a Crony Capitalist Nightmare: The GOP candidate’s event was a falsehood-filled advertisement for his new D.C. hotel.
[…]
Only at the very end did he deliver on his promise of an announcement about his position on Obama’s place of birth. During the 2008 campaign, he said, Hillary Clinton “started the birther controversy. I finished it.” He now says he believes that “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
Trump’s claim that Clinton started birtherism is a telling and easily refutable lie. Some of Clinton’s supporters during the 2008 primary campaign did indulge in birther conspiracies, but not the campaign itself. Trump, in contrast, spent years loudly questioning Obama’s origins and eligibility for the presidency even after the matter was definitively settled…
[…]
Trump’s Latest Birther Press Conference Shows That He’s a Crony Capitalist Nightmare: The GOP candidate’s event was a falsehood-filled advertisement for his new D.C. hotel.
If he wants to crack down on truly bloated municipal governments, that’s fine. I don’t know why he wants to do it by punishing schools.
I think he wants to reward upper class taxpayers with relatively high property tax bills, if I understand correctly, which justifies the consequences for poor school. Too bad, so sad, IOW.
If he wants to crack down on truly bloated municipal governments, that’s fine. I don’t know why he wants to do it by punishing schools.
I think he wants to reward upper class taxpayers with relatively high property tax bills, if I understand correctly, which justifies the consequences for poor school. Too bad, so sad, IOW.
If he wants to crack down on truly bloated municipal governments, that’s fine. I don’t know why he wants to do it by punishing schools.
I think he wants to reward upper class taxpayers with relatively high property tax bills, if I understand correctly, which justifies the consequences for poor school. Too bad, so sad, IOW.
New Jersey’s school system is defiantly suffering from the lack of economics of scale. Texas and California each have only about twice as many school districts as NJ.
New Jersey’s school system is defiantly suffering from the lack of economics of scale. Texas and California each have only about twice as many school districts as NJ.
New Jersey’s school system is defiantly suffering from the lack of economics of scale. Texas and California each have only about twice as many school districts as NJ.
From my first comment:
My first thought on reading the figures regarding school districts was, “Why the hell are there almost 600 school districts?” Of course, there was an attempt several years ago to consolidate some of them, which sent parents in the better-off ones into orbit. And therein lies the rub.
From my first comment:
My first thought on reading the figures regarding school districts was, “Why the hell are there almost 600 school districts?” Of course, there was an attempt several years ago to consolidate some of them, which sent parents in the better-off ones into orbit. And therein lies the rub.
From my first comment:
My first thought on reading the figures regarding school districts was, “Why the hell are there almost 600 school districts?” Of course, there was an attempt several years ago to consolidate some of them, which sent parents in the better-off ones into orbit. And therein lies the rub.
I like Hsh’s school districts comments, because, mostly: I like what I like.
How many school districts does Florida have? Anyone want to guess without checking Google first?
74.
OTOH, Texas has over 1200. It’s maybe not all that predictable from political makeup or even size.
NJ has more school districts than does California. Only slightly more, but it’s got rather a lot more population and geographical area to administer.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have Alaska and Hawaii, with 56 and 1, respectively.
I like Hsh’s school districts comments, because, mostly: I like what I like.
How many school districts does Florida have? Anyone want to guess without checking Google first?
74.
OTOH, Texas has over 1200. It’s maybe not all that predictable from political makeup or even size.
NJ has more school districts than does California. Only slightly more, but it’s got rather a lot more population and geographical area to administer.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have Alaska and Hawaii, with 56 and 1, respectively.
I like Hsh’s school districts comments, because, mostly: I like what I like.
How many school districts does Florida have? Anyone want to guess without checking Google first?
74.
OTOH, Texas has over 1200. It’s maybe not all that predictable from political makeup or even size.
NJ has more school districts than does California. Only slightly more, but it’s got rather a lot more population and geographical area to administer.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have Alaska and Hawaii, with 56 and 1, respectively.
More overhead and less economic (and other) diversity is not a formula for success. It’s not just schools, either. School districts don’t map one-to-one with municipalities, but there are way too many municipalities in NJ. It’s a long-standing problem.
More overhead and less economic (and other) diversity is not a formula for success. It’s not just schools, either. School districts don’t map one-to-one with municipalities, but there are way too many municipalities in NJ. It’s a long-standing problem.
More overhead and less economic (and other) diversity is not a formula for success. It’s not just schools, either. School districts don’t map one-to-one with municipalities, but there are way too many municipalities in NJ. It’s a long-standing problem.
I don’t mean to imply that what I’m describing is somehow unique to NJ, BTW.
I don’t mean to imply that what I’m describing is somehow unique to NJ, BTW.
I don’t mean to imply that what I’m describing is somehow unique to NJ, BTW.
Smaller municipalities could reduce their expenditures by privatizing some services and/or contracting with larger municipalities and counties for police, fire and emergencies services.
Smaller municipalities could reduce their expenditures by privatizing some services and/or contracting with larger municipalities and counties for police, fire and emergencies services.
Smaller municipalities could reduce their expenditures by privatizing some services and/or contracting with larger municipalities and counties for police, fire and emergencies services.
The do that to some extent.
The do that to some extent.
The do that to some extent.
President Obama needs to send federal troops to Texas and other states that refuse to comply with Federal Court decisions to insure free and fair elections in November 2016:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48652/texas-voter-laws/
If the state and local officals, all the way to the Governors, persist in ignoring the law, arrest and prosecute them. Order the troops to oversee the election polling places to insure the law is followed.
Now, if these environs, with their longstanding habits and traditions of threatening armed insurrection against Federal enforcement want to go, let’s go, by all means, as in overwhelming violence against them.
If Republicans and Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson for that matter, incite insurrection and violence among their followers against those who are trying to exercise their voting franchise or against law enforcement officials and troops assigned to enforce that franchise, arrest them.
If they resist with force, kill them.
Let’s get the overwhelming violence that is coming regardless of who wins this election cooking right now.
I don’t want to wait until after the election.
Civil Wars that start in the winter months tend to be long drawn-out affairs. Better sudden enormous body counts before the graveyards turn to mud.
President Obama needs to send federal troops to Texas and other states that refuse to comply with Federal Court decisions to insure free and fair elections in November 2016:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48652/texas-voter-laws/
If the state and local officals, all the way to the Governors, persist in ignoring the law, arrest and prosecute them. Order the troops to oversee the election polling places to insure the law is followed.
Now, if these environs, with their longstanding habits and traditions of threatening armed insurrection against Federal enforcement want to go, let’s go, by all means, as in overwhelming violence against them.
If Republicans and Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson for that matter, incite insurrection and violence among their followers against those who are trying to exercise their voting franchise or against law enforcement officials and troops assigned to enforce that franchise, arrest them.
If they resist with force, kill them.
Let’s get the overwhelming violence that is coming regardless of who wins this election cooking right now.
I don’t want to wait until after the election.
Civil Wars that start in the winter months tend to be long drawn-out affairs. Better sudden enormous body counts before the graveyards turn to mud.
President Obama needs to send federal troops to Texas and other states that refuse to comply with Federal Court decisions to insure free and fair elections in November 2016:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48652/texas-voter-laws/
If the state and local officals, all the way to the Governors, persist in ignoring the law, arrest and prosecute them. Order the troops to oversee the election polling places to insure the law is followed.
Now, if these environs, with their longstanding habits and traditions of threatening armed insurrection against Federal enforcement want to go, let’s go, by all means, as in overwhelming violence against them.
If Republicans and Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson for that matter, incite insurrection and violence among their followers against those who are trying to exercise their voting franchise or against law enforcement officials and troops assigned to enforce that franchise, arrest them.
If they resist with force, kill them.
Let’s get the overwhelming violence that is coming regardless of who wins this election cooking right now.
I don’t want to wait until after the election.
Civil Wars that start in the winter months tend to be long drawn-out affairs. Better sudden enormous body counts before the graveyards turn to mud.
The school/property-tax situation in NJ is a constant problem.
But there IS an upside to it: when a GOP plan to screw the schools hit court, a decade or so ago, it resulted in an epic ruling from the bench, reaffirming the NJ constitutional mandate to fund education:
“We meant what we said and we said what we meant: the schools must be funded, one hundred percent.”
The school/property-tax situation in NJ is a constant problem.
But there IS an upside to it: when a GOP plan to screw the schools hit court, a decade or so ago, it resulted in an epic ruling from the bench, reaffirming the NJ constitutional mandate to fund education:
“We meant what we said and we said what we meant: the schools must be funded, one hundred percent.”
The school/property-tax situation in NJ is a constant problem.
But there IS an upside to it: when a GOP plan to screw the schools hit court, a decade or so ago, it resulted in an epic ruling from the bench, reaffirming the NJ constitutional mandate to fund education:
“We meant what we said and we said what we meant: the schools must be funded, one hundred percent.”
Connections with an awful dictatorship–
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2016/09/16/talking-policy-medea-benjamin-saudi-arabia
Connections with an awful dictatorship–
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2016/09/16/talking-policy-medea-benjamin-saudi-arabia
Connections with an awful dictatorship–
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2016/09/16/talking-policy-medea-benjamin-saudi-arabia
CIA coverup on torture. ( Democrats were split on this. Michael Morell, a recent Clinton endorser, plays a role in this.)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/16/us-media-ignores-cia-cover-up-on-torture/
There’s a link to a series of Guardiian articles by Spencer Ackerman in the link. Valerie Plame is one of the signers of the letter in the consortium link.
CIA coverup on torture. ( Democrats were split on this. Michael Morell, a recent Clinton endorser, plays a role in this.)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/16/us-media-ignores-cia-cover-up-on-torture/
There’s a link to a series of Guardiian articles by Spencer Ackerman in the link. Valerie Plame is one of the signers of the letter in the consortium link.
CIA coverup on torture. ( Democrats were split on this. Michael Morell, a recent Clinton endorser, plays a role in this.)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/16/us-media-ignores-cia-cover-up-on-torture/
There’s a link to a series of Guardiian articles by Spencer Ackerman in the link. Valerie Plame is one of the signers of the letter in the consortium link.
And a piece saying the Kerry ceasefire should be supported as Syria’s best hope, but is likely to fail —
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-ceasefire-isis-nusra-russia-turkey-this-is-what-must-happen-a7311591.html
And a piece saying the Kerry ceasefire should be supported as Syria’s best hope, but is likely to fail —
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-ceasefire-isis-nusra-russia-turkey-this-is-what-must-happen-a7311591.html
And a piece saying the Kerry ceasefire should be supported as Syria’s best hope, but is likely to fail —
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-ceasefire-isis-nusra-russia-turkey-this-is-what-must-happen-a7311591.html
I can’t stand any of this stuff. Other than seding donations, my head is in the sand and is going to stay thre.
I can’t stand any of this stuff. Other than seding donations, my head is in the sand and is going to stay thre.
I can’t stand any of this stuff. Other than seding donations, my head is in the sand and is going to stay thre.
i’m kind of where wonkie is.
basically i think we’re rogered. the nation lacks any sense of common purpose.
why not trump? who gives a sh*t?
the why not trump, who gives a sh*t agenda has a reasonable shot at winning the day. nuff said.
our new national motto – anything for a laugh.
and f’em if they can’t take a joke.
too cynical? we’ll find out.
i’m kind of where wonkie is.
basically i think we’re rogered. the nation lacks any sense of common purpose.
why not trump? who gives a sh*t?
the why not trump, who gives a sh*t agenda has a reasonable shot at winning the day. nuff said.
our new national motto – anything for a laugh.
and f’em if they can’t take a joke.
too cynical? we’ll find out.
i’m kind of where wonkie is.
basically i think we’re rogered. the nation lacks any sense of common purpose.
why not trump? who gives a sh*t?
the why not trump, who gives a sh*t agenda has a reasonable shot at winning the day. nuff said.
our new national motto – anything for a laugh.
and f’em if they can’t take a joke.
too cynical? we’ll find out.
too cynical? we’ll find out.
I think the cynicism is a huge part of the cause of all of this. Snap out of it. Please.
too cynical? we’ll find out.
I think the cynicism is a huge part of the cause of all of this. Snap out of it. Please.
too cynical? we’ll find out.
I think the cynicism is a huge part of the cause of all of this. Snap out of it. Please.
Once upon a time, George Will had sensible things to say beyond his first love: baseball. Conservative, sure. But sensible nonetheless.
But his column in the current Washington Post suggests that those days are behind us. He says of Katie McGinty, the Democrat running against Sen Patrick Toomey in Pennsylvania: she “probably would be a reliable member of an unleashed, and perhaps unhinged, Democratic majority”. “Unhinged”? Really? As opposed, presumably, to the current “well hinged” Republican majority.
The mind boggles.
Mind I have no brief for McGinty; don’t know anything about her. It’s possible I would dislike her views as much as I do those of my own (departing, happily) Senator Boxer. But the suggestion that a potential Democratic majority would be more unhinged than the current Republican one? Possible, I suppose, but difficult to credit.
Once upon a time, George Will had sensible things to say beyond his first love: baseball. Conservative, sure. But sensible nonetheless.
But his column in the current Washington Post suggests that those days are behind us. He says of Katie McGinty, the Democrat running against Sen Patrick Toomey in Pennsylvania: she “probably would be a reliable member of an unleashed, and perhaps unhinged, Democratic majority”. “Unhinged”? Really? As opposed, presumably, to the current “well hinged” Republican majority.
The mind boggles.
Mind I have no brief for McGinty; don’t know anything about her. It’s possible I would dislike her views as much as I do those of my own (departing, happily) Senator Boxer. But the suggestion that a potential Democratic majority would be more unhinged than the current Republican one? Possible, I suppose, but difficult to credit.
Once upon a time, George Will had sensible things to say beyond his first love: baseball. Conservative, sure. But sensible nonetheless.
But his column in the current Washington Post suggests that those days are behind us. He says of Katie McGinty, the Democrat running against Sen Patrick Toomey in Pennsylvania: she “probably would be a reliable member of an unleashed, and perhaps unhinged, Democratic majority”. “Unhinged”? Really? As opposed, presumably, to the current “well hinged” Republican majority.
The mind boggles.
Mind I have no brief for McGinty; don’t know anything about her. It’s possible I would dislike her views as much as I do those of my own (departing, happily) Senator Boxer. But the suggestion that a potential Democratic majority would be more unhinged than the current Republican one? Possible, I suppose, but difficult to credit.
A fair point.
I just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this.
I mean, Nixon was a crook, and Reagan was an actor, but they both actually had experience in positions of public responsibility.
Even Silvio Berlusconi had held elected office before becoming Prime Minister.
To me, Trump’s candidacy makes a mockery of public life. There’s always a sideshow aspect to national politics (and less-than-national politics), but this year it’s all sideshow.
There is no doubt some entertainment value there, but it’s kind of like the fascination of watching a train wreck.
Regardless of who wins in November, the folks who support Trump now will still be around. I have no idea where we go from here.
Not really being cynical when I say that, I’m just at a loss.
A fair point.
I just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this.
I mean, Nixon was a crook, and Reagan was an actor, but they both actually had experience in positions of public responsibility.
Even Silvio Berlusconi had held elected office before becoming Prime Minister.
To me, Trump’s candidacy makes a mockery of public life. There’s always a sideshow aspect to national politics (and less-than-national politics), but this year it’s all sideshow.
There is no doubt some entertainment value there, but it’s kind of like the fascination of watching a train wreck.
Regardless of who wins in November, the folks who support Trump now will still be around. I have no idea where we go from here.
Not really being cynical when I say that, I’m just at a loss.
A fair point.
I just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this.
I mean, Nixon was a crook, and Reagan was an actor, but they both actually had experience in positions of public responsibility.
Even Silvio Berlusconi had held elected office before becoming Prime Minister.
To me, Trump’s candidacy makes a mockery of public life. There’s always a sideshow aspect to national politics (and less-than-national politics), but this year it’s all sideshow.
There is no doubt some entertainment value there, but it’s kind of like the fascination of watching a train wreck.
Regardless of who wins in November, the folks who support Trump now will still be around. I have no idea where we go from here.
Not really being cynical when I say that, I’m just at a loss.
Shorter me:
Trump is the nominee because a lot of people voted for him. To a whole lot of people, he’s the best available person to be POTUS.
That’s what I find concerning.
Shorter me:
Trump is the nominee because a lot of people voted for him. To a whole lot of people, he’s the best available person to be POTUS.
That’s what I find concerning.
Shorter me:
Trump is the nominee because a lot of people voted for him. To a whole lot of people, he’s the best available person to be POTUS.
That’s what I find concerning.
Regardless of who wins in November, the folks who support Trump now will still be around. I have no idea where we go from here.
That’s true, and very depressing. I don’t claim to be optimistic about the people you’re talking about. However, they’ve always been with us (many literally). Many of them have been voting since the Nixon election. Although Trump is truly a new kind of threat because he doesn’t even arguably have United States interests as his foremost concern, his supporters are not a new phenomenon.
I still have a hope that demographics will gradually prevail. In the meantime, my greatest disappointment is with the press, whose coverage of this election has been rank. The Washington Post is an exception, and Newsweek has a good article about Trump conflicts of interests, which should have been discussed on Page 1 of every newspaper from the beginning of his candidacy.
Regardless of who wins in November, the folks who support Trump now will still be around. I have no idea where we go from here.
That’s true, and very depressing. I don’t claim to be optimistic about the people you’re talking about. However, they’ve always been with us (many literally). Many of them have been voting since the Nixon election. Although Trump is truly a new kind of threat because he doesn’t even arguably have United States interests as his foremost concern, his supporters are not a new phenomenon.
I still have a hope that demographics will gradually prevail. In the meantime, my greatest disappointment is with the press, whose coverage of this election has been rank. The Washington Post is an exception, and Newsweek has a good article about Trump conflicts of interests, which should have been discussed on Page 1 of every newspaper from the beginning of his candidacy.
Regardless of who wins in November, the folks who support Trump now will still be around. I have no idea where we go from here.
That’s true, and very depressing. I don’t claim to be optimistic about the people you’re talking about. However, they’ve always been with us (many literally). Many of them have been voting since the Nixon election. Although Trump is truly a new kind of threat because he doesn’t even arguably have United States interests as his foremost concern, his supporters are not a new phenomenon.
I still have a hope that demographics will gradually prevail. In the meantime, my greatest disappointment is with the press, whose coverage of this election has been rank. The Washington Post is an exception, and Newsweek has a good article about Trump conflicts of interests, which should have been discussed on Page 1 of every newspaper from the beginning of his candidacy.
Trump is cancer, but he isn’t the carcinogen. Our rotten politics, in both parties ( yes I think Republicans are much worse) is why a freak like him can have a shot at the WH.
Now another link, again about the British report on the Libyan intervention.
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/
I can’t imagine anything this honest getting much traction in the US. We don’t have honest discussions about our policies, for the most part, not in our elections and our election seasons drag on forever, especially with midterms filling the gap.
Trump is cancer, but he isn’t the carcinogen. Our rotten politics, in both parties ( yes I think Republicans are much worse) is why a freak like him can have a shot at the WH.
Now another link, again about the British report on the Libyan intervention.
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/
I can’t imagine anything this honest getting much traction in the US. We don’t have honest discussions about our policies, for the most part, not in our elections and our election seasons drag on forever, especially with midterms filling the gap.
Trump is cancer, but he isn’t the carcinogen. Our rotten politics, in both parties ( yes I think Republicans are much worse) is why a freak like him can have a shot at the WH.
Now another link, again about the British report on the Libyan intervention.
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/
I can’t imagine anything this honest getting much traction in the US. We don’t have honest discussions about our policies, for the most part, not in our elections and our election seasons drag on forever, especially with midterms filling the gap.
I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens. Demographics can be changed; Hitler managed it, and the white South Africans worked around it.
I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens. Demographics can be changed; Hitler managed it, and the white South Africans worked around it.
I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens. Demographics can be changed; Hitler managed it, and the white South Africans worked around it.
honesty?
the first bullet point of that page is “Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians”.
that will come as a big surprise to the civilians (and rebels) he massacred!
honesty?
the first bullet point of that page is “Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians”.
that will come as a big surprise to the civilians (and rebels) he massacred!
honesty?
the first bullet point of that page is “Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians”.
that will come as a big surprise to the civilians (and rebels) he massacred!
“Demographics can be changed; Hitler managed it, and the white South Africans worked around it.”
Yes, but the Jews are gonna love Trump’s new dental plan, the blacks are gonna adore his shoot and release hunting parties on newly privatized public lands with them as prey, and his one-man taco window in the Wall, just for his very own drive-up opportunity, will put the wetbacks in his back pocket.
I see fear, bemusement, cynicism, hope, and desperation in the last comments. All irrelevant.
What this country needs to counter the very real mortal, internal threat that Trump’s Republican Party holds for the rest of us, is a couple/three million patriotic Americans willing to do the things to these filth that will get us sent to Guantanamo.
Look at it as retirement community.
“Demographics can be changed; Hitler managed it, and the white South Africans worked around it.”
Yes, but the Jews are gonna love Trump’s new dental plan, the blacks are gonna adore his shoot and release hunting parties on newly privatized public lands with them as prey, and his one-man taco window in the Wall, just for his very own drive-up opportunity, will put the wetbacks in his back pocket.
I see fear, bemusement, cynicism, hope, and desperation in the last comments. All irrelevant.
What this country needs to counter the very real mortal, internal threat that Trump’s Republican Party holds for the rest of us, is a couple/three million patriotic Americans willing to do the things to these filth that will get us sent to Guantanamo.
Look at it as retirement community.
“Demographics can be changed; Hitler managed it, and the white South Africans worked around it.”
Yes, but the Jews are gonna love Trump’s new dental plan, the blacks are gonna adore his shoot and release hunting parties on newly privatized public lands with them as prey, and his one-man taco window in the Wall, just for his very own drive-up opportunity, will put the wetbacks in his back pocket.
I see fear, bemusement, cynicism, hope, and desperation in the last comments. All irrelevant.
What this country needs to counter the very real mortal, internal threat that Trump’s Republican Party holds for the rest of us, is a couple/three million patriotic Americans willing to do the things to these filth that will get us sent to Guantanamo.
Look at it as retirement community.
I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens.
I hope we can gain some ground in November against this probability.
I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens.
I hope we can gain some ground in November against this probability.
I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens.
I hope we can gain some ground in November against this probability.
“my greatest disappointment is with the press”
same here.
Trump is a more entertaining character than HRC, so he gets a pass.
that’s the only sense I can make of it.
it’s pitiful.
“I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens”
I don’t see that happening.
If for no other reason than brown people can shoot, too.
Let’s hope it doesn’t anywhere close to that point.
“my greatest disappointment is with the press”
same here.
Trump is a more entertaining character than HRC, so he gets a pass.
that’s the only sense I can make of it.
it’s pitiful.
“I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens”
I don’t see that happening.
If for no other reason than brown people can shoot, too.
Let’s hope it doesn’t anywhere close to that point.
“my greatest disappointment is with the press”
same here.
Trump is a more entertaining character than HRC, so he gets a pass.
that’s the only sense I can make of it.
it’s pitiful.
“I think there’s a substantial probability that our non-white citizens will all either be disenfranchised, deported or simply killed before that happens”
I don’t see that happening.
If for no other reason than brown people can shoot, too.
Let’s hope it doesn’t anywhere close to that point.
Just like Putin, arresting and detaining the Fourth Estate, which by the way, I’m with sapient, is of little use anyway, given their buy-in with Trump and the right wing that news and journalism are little more than reality-show fluffing for the millions of armed, crazy assholes who populate this disgrace of a society.
The right wing wanted to destroy the Fourth Estate, set out to do just that, and succeeded.
So, what’s left of its irrelevant carcass should drag itself out of the way so it doesn’t get hit by flying lead.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/vice-news-reporter-arrested-trump
This too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-clinton-unarmed-body-guards
Well, it’s obvious that she would be gunned down in a hot minute if she gave up the bodyguards, because that’s how the country rolls, always has. The Republican Governor of West Virginia, Matt Bevin, is exhorting his cadres to do just that if she wins this election, and we have going on thirty years of Republican death threats against the OTHER in this country as well.
Instead, let’s do this. Hundreds, no, thousands of anti-Trump, anti-Republican patriotic, tax-paying Americans need to show up armed, heavily, like the Libertarian/Republican dudes in Oregon, to the teeth at the former’s political events and force entry.
We’ll see if Trump’s armed bodyguards and his violent, abusive supporters want to fuck with us.
I think they will. And then we can start solving some problems, permanently.
Just like Putin, arresting and detaining the Fourth Estate, which by the way, I’m with sapient, is of little use anyway, given their buy-in with Trump and the right wing that news and journalism are little more than reality-show fluffing for the millions of armed, crazy assholes who populate this disgrace of a society.
The right wing wanted to destroy the Fourth Estate, set out to do just that, and succeeded.
So, what’s left of its irrelevant carcass should drag itself out of the way so it doesn’t get hit by flying lead.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/vice-news-reporter-arrested-trump
This too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-clinton-unarmed-body-guards
Well, it’s obvious that she would be gunned down in a hot minute if she gave up the bodyguards, because that’s how the country rolls, always has. The Republican Governor of West Virginia, Matt Bevin, is exhorting his cadres to do just that if she wins this election, and we have going on thirty years of Republican death threats against the OTHER in this country as well.
Instead, let’s do this. Hundreds, no, thousands of anti-Trump, anti-Republican patriotic, tax-paying Americans need to show up armed, heavily, like the Libertarian/Republican dudes in Oregon, to the teeth at the former’s political events and force entry.
We’ll see if Trump’s armed bodyguards and his violent, abusive supporters want to fuck with us.
I think they will. And then we can start solving some problems, permanently.
Just like Putin, arresting and detaining the Fourth Estate, which by the way, I’m with sapient, is of little use anyway, given their buy-in with Trump and the right wing that news and journalism are little more than reality-show fluffing for the millions of armed, crazy assholes who populate this disgrace of a society.
The right wing wanted to destroy the Fourth Estate, set out to do just that, and succeeded.
So, what’s left of its irrelevant carcass should drag itself out of the way so it doesn’t get hit by flying lead.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/vice-news-reporter-arrested-trump
This too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-clinton-unarmed-body-guards
Well, it’s obvious that she would be gunned down in a hot minute if she gave up the bodyguards, because that’s how the country rolls, always has. The Republican Governor of West Virginia, Matt Bevin, is exhorting his cadres to do just that if she wins this election, and we have going on thirty years of Republican death threats against the OTHER in this country as well.
Instead, let’s do this. Hundreds, no, thousands of anti-Trump, anti-Republican patriotic, tax-paying Americans need to show up armed, heavily, like the Libertarian/Republican dudes in Oregon, to the teeth at the former’s political events and force entry.
We’ll see if Trump’s armed bodyguards and his violent, abusive supporters want to fuck with us.
I think they will. And then we can start solving some problems, permanently.
Pick a state, let them have it, and call it a day.
The short list is probably NV, ID, TX, or SC. That seems to be where folks who want to go to war with all of the rest of us congregate.
Let them pick one, or even two. Hell, take ’em all.
Or just simplify life, and give them AK.
They can secede and call themselves the REAL United States of America. Or maybe United State of America. Or LibertyLand. Whatever floats their boat. And we’ll all carry on from there.
Farewell and good riddance.
That’s my suggestion.
Pick a state, let them have it, and call it a day.
The short list is probably NV, ID, TX, or SC. That seems to be where folks who want to go to war with all of the rest of us congregate.
Let them pick one, or even two. Hell, take ’em all.
Or just simplify life, and give them AK.
They can secede and call themselves the REAL United States of America. Or maybe United State of America. Or LibertyLand. Whatever floats their boat. And we’ll all carry on from there.
Farewell and good riddance.
That’s my suggestion.
Pick a state, let them have it, and call it a day.
The short list is probably NV, ID, TX, or SC. That seems to be where folks who want to go to war with all of the rest of us congregate.
Let them pick one, or even two. Hell, take ’em all.
Or just simplify life, and give them AK.
They can secede and call themselves the REAL United States of America. Or maybe United State of America. Or LibertyLand. Whatever floats their boat. And we’ll all carry on from there.
Farewell and good riddance.
That’s my suggestion.
When America sends its people to Trump rallies, it doesn’t send its best … They are racists, they are dupes, and some, I assume, are good people.
I’ve encountered 3 or 4 Trump supporters at work who are good people, as far as I know. This is at a medical robotics company in the suburbs of Boston. These people are engineers of reasonable competence and substantial experience; they are all male of course. I have heard one of them in particular recite some of the silliest of the RWNJ talking points to the fourth guy (the one I’m not sure of) in the lunch room.
As a contractor who bills by the hour, I have been too conscientious to join in such conversations. Or if you prefer, too lazy to keep close enough track of my time on-site to account for the odd quarter hour involved. An occasional snide comment as I wait for the Keurig to dispense my coffee is as far as I’ve been willing to go.
Then of course there is the general atmosphere of the “high-tech” workplace: the above-it-all, we-have-more-important-things-to-do attitude that looks down its nose at politics. You don’t even see political bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lot.
Things may be different in other types of workplaces — places where people spend more time doing stuff than attending meetings with PowerPoint slides. I wouldn’t know; my career has been limited in that respect. But I have always felt that “politics” is too-little discussed in the environment where most people spend most of their waking time.
Maybe some more-overt politicking in the workplace would be healthy for the nation. Or maybe it would hasten The Count’s long-predicted showdown between the (r)epublican and (c)onfederate factions now living and working intermingled in the US like Hutu and Tutsi or Catholics and Huguenots.
That last bit is the real rub, I think. Like “illegal immigrants”, devotees of He, Trump live among us and are hard to tell apart from sane people in everyday life.
–TP
When America sends its people to Trump rallies, it doesn’t send its best … They are racists, they are dupes, and some, I assume, are good people.
I’ve encountered 3 or 4 Trump supporters at work who are good people, as far as I know. This is at a medical robotics company in the suburbs of Boston. These people are engineers of reasonable competence and substantial experience; they are all male of course. I have heard one of them in particular recite some of the silliest of the RWNJ talking points to the fourth guy (the one I’m not sure of) in the lunch room.
As a contractor who bills by the hour, I have been too conscientious to join in such conversations. Or if you prefer, too lazy to keep close enough track of my time on-site to account for the odd quarter hour involved. An occasional snide comment as I wait for the Keurig to dispense my coffee is as far as I’ve been willing to go.
Then of course there is the general atmosphere of the “high-tech” workplace: the above-it-all, we-have-more-important-things-to-do attitude that looks down its nose at politics. You don’t even see political bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lot.
Things may be different in other types of workplaces — places where people spend more time doing stuff than attending meetings with PowerPoint slides. I wouldn’t know; my career has been limited in that respect. But I have always felt that “politics” is too-little discussed in the environment where most people spend most of their waking time.
Maybe some more-overt politicking in the workplace would be healthy for the nation. Or maybe it would hasten The Count’s long-predicted showdown between the (r)epublican and (c)onfederate factions now living and working intermingled in the US like Hutu and Tutsi or Catholics and Huguenots.
That last bit is the real rub, I think. Like “illegal immigrants”, devotees of He, Trump live among us and are hard to tell apart from sane people in everyday life.
–TP
When America sends its people to Trump rallies, it doesn’t send its best … They are racists, they are dupes, and some, I assume, are good people.
I’ve encountered 3 or 4 Trump supporters at work who are good people, as far as I know. This is at a medical robotics company in the suburbs of Boston. These people are engineers of reasonable competence and substantial experience; they are all male of course. I have heard one of them in particular recite some of the silliest of the RWNJ talking points to the fourth guy (the one I’m not sure of) in the lunch room.
As a contractor who bills by the hour, I have been too conscientious to join in such conversations. Or if you prefer, too lazy to keep close enough track of my time on-site to account for the odd quarter hour involved. An occasional snide comment as I wait for the Keurig to dispense my coffee is as far as I’ve been willing to go.
Then of course there is the general atmosphere of the “high-tech” workplace: the above-it-all, we-have-more-important-things-to-do attitude that looks down its nose at politics. You don’t even see political bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lot.
Things may be different in other types of workplaces — places where people spend more time doing stuff than attending meetings with PowerPoint slides. I wouldn’t know; my career has been limited in that respect. But I have always felt that “politics” is too-little discussed in the environment where most people spend most of their waking time.
Maybe some more-overt politicking in the workplace would be healthy for the nation. Or maybe it would hasten The Count’s long-predicted showdown between the (r)epublican and (c)onfederate factions now living and working intermingled in the US like Hutu and Tutsi or Catholics and Huguenots.
That last bit is the real rub, I think. Like “illegal immigrants”, devotees of He, Trump live among us and are hard to tell apart from sane people in everyday life.
–TP
Douchebag Gulch has a nice ring to it. If there is more than one state, they could federate into the United States of Pistol-Whipped Assholes.
The remaining forty-some states could pipe all of their untreated heavy metal, nuclear, agricultural, chemical, fracking, and human waste and pollution into their state, since they seem to feed off the stuff.
Since these idiots were probably the libertarian/conservatives back in the day who whined about politically correct, freedom-sucking littering laws, we could airlift our litter over them and drop it on their heads.
One transport plane per day filled entirely with cigarette butts compliments of the science departments at tobacco companies.
Walls, barbed wire.
A taco-less wonderland of overcooked suet.
Douchebag Gulch has a nice ring to it. If there is more than one state, they could federate into the United States of Pistol-Whipped Assholes.
The remaining forty-some states could pipe all of their untreated heavy metal, nuclear, agricultural, chemical, fracking, and human waste and pollution into their state, since they seem to feed off the stuff.
Since these idiots were probably the libertarian/conservatives back in the day who whined about politically correct, freedom-sucking littering laws, we could airlift our litter over them and drop it on their heads.
One transport plane per day filled entirely with cigarette butts compliments of the science departments at tobacco companies.
Walls, barbed wire.
A taco-less wonderland of overcooked suet.
Douchebag Gulch has a nice ring to it. If there is more than one state, they could federate into the United States of Pistol-Whipped Assholes.
The remaining forty-some states could pipe all of their untreated heavy metal, nuclear, agricultural, chemical, fracking, and human waste and pollution into their state, since they seem to feed off the stuff.
Since these idiots were probably the libertarian/conservatives back in the day who whined about politically correct, freedom-sucking littering laws, we could airlift our litter over them and drop it on their heads.
One transport plane per day filled entirely with cigarette butts compliments of the science departments at tobacco companies.
Walls, barbed wire.
A taco-less wonderland of overcooked suet.
“The short list is probably NV, ID, TX, or SC. That seems to be where folks who want to go to war with all of the rest of us congregate.”
SC: first in secession.
Plus, being on the east coast, prevailing winds will take the fallout out to sea.
The future of the Alt-Right will be so bright that they have to wear shades. Or welding goggles.
“The short list is probably NV, ID, TX, or SC. That seems to be where folks who want to go to war with all of the rest of us congregate.”
SC: first in secession.
Plus, being on the east coast, prevailing winds will take the fallout out to sea.
The future of the Alt-Right will be so bright that they have to wear shades. Or welding goggles.
“The short list is probably NV, ID, TX, or SC. That seems to be where folks who want to go to war with all of the rest of us congregate.”
SC: first in secession.
Plus, being on the east coast, prevailing winds will take the fallout out to sea.
The future of the Alt-Right will be so bright that they have to wear shades. Or welding goggles.
The entire Republican Party requires, as Donald Trump calls the violence at his rallies, a frisson of excitement:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/17/open-thread-all-the-worst-people-stand-up-for-their-donald/
The entire Republican Party requires, as Donald Trump calls the violence at his rallies, a frisson of excitement:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/17/open-thread-all-the-worst-people-stand-up-for-their-donald/
The entire Republican Party requires, as Donald Trump calls the violence at his rallies, a frisson of excitement:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/17/open-thread-all-the-worst-people-stand-up-for-their-donald/
SC: first in secession.
Plus, being on the east coast, prevailing winds will take the fallout out to sea.
Just make sure that approximately 30% or more of the population has the option of being humanely resettled.
SC: first in secession.
Plus, being on the east coast, prevailing winds will take the fallout out to sea.
Just make sure that approximately 30% or more of the population has the option of being humanely resettled.
SC: first in secession.
Plus, being on the east coast, prevailing winds will take the fallout out to sea.
Just make sure that approximately 30% or more of the population has the option of being humanely resettled.
…probably would be a reliable member of an unleashed, and perhaps unhinged, Democratic majority…
Because they would do away with the modern form of the filibuster: “Senate Democrats, who are situational ethicists regarding Senate rules, might further dilute the ability of the minority to require a 60-vote majority for, among many other things, confirmation of Supreme Court justices.” My suspicion would be that if the Republicans in turn gain a Senator majority in 2018, George will be on the side of giving things a simple majority vote on the floor…
…probably would be a reliable member of an unleashed, and perhaps unhinged, Democratic majority…
Because they would do away with the modern form of the filibuster: “Senate Democrats, who are situational ethicists regarding Senate rules, might further dilute the ability of the minority to require a 60-vote majority for, among many other things, confirmation of Supreme Court justices.” My suspicion would be that if the Republicans in turn gain a Senator majority in 2018, George will be on the side of giving things a simple majority vote on the floor…
…probably would be a reliable member of an unleashed, and perhaps unhinged, Democratic majority…
Because they would do away with the modern form of the filibuster: “Senate Democrats, who are situational ethicists regarding Senate rules, might further dilute the ability of the minority to require a 60-vote majority for, among many other things, confirmation of Supreme Court justices.” My suspicion would be that if the Republicans in turn gain a Senator majority in 2018, George will be on the side of giving things a simple majority vote on the floor…
“Just make sure that approximately 30% or more of the population has the option of being humanely resettled.”
i guess my thought was not so much making anybody do anything, as much as it was just giving all the folks who seem intent on mayhem violence and anarchy someplace they could all just go.
let your freak flag fly!! but, over there, if you don’t mind.
so yeah, people can settle or resettle anywhere they like.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
it’s an option, or ought to be.
“Just make sure that approximately 30% or more of the population has the option of being humanely resettled.”
i guess my thought was not so much making anybody do anything, as much as it was just giving all the folks who seem intent on mayhem violence and anarchy someplace they could all just go.
let your freak flag fly!! but, over there, if you don’t mind.
so yeah, people can settle or resettle anywhere they like.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
it’s an option, or ought to be.
“Just make sure that approximately 30% or more of the population has the option of being humanely resettled.”
i guess my thought was not so much making anybody do anything, as much as it was just giving all the folks who seem intent on mayhem violence and anarchy someplace they could all just go.
let your freak flag fly!! but, over there, if you don’t mind.
so yeah, people can settle or resettle anywhere they like.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
it’s an option, or ought to be.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
As long as it is “voluntary segregation”. But that kind of solution usually looks more like “ethnic cleansing”. Let’s just be sure it’s not that.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
As long as it is “voluntary segregation”. But that kind of solution usually looks more like “ethnic cleansing”. Let’s just be sure it’s not that.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
As long as it is “voluntary segregation”. But that kind of solution usually looks more like “ethnic cleansing”. Let’s just be sure it’s not that.
America is somewhat beyond ethnic, racial, gender and religious cleansing.
It’s now a war between the total assholes and everyone else, because we’re now so post-exceptional.
Anyone can grow up in America to be an asshole and so many from so many walks of life are now fulfilling that dream.
It is true that early in our history only certain individuals of a specific race and ethnicity could aspire to be total assholes, like Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, and John C. Calhoun, although the latter was open minded enough to permit his wife full latitude to indulge her inner asshole alongside him.
It is said Calhoun, try though he might, could not write a love poem, because every line started with “whereas”.
Didn’t de Tocqueville warn of an American democratically-induced descent into an irreversible, gamey buttheadedness if we didn’t watch out.
And we didn’t, did we?
America is somewhat beyond ethnic, racial, gender and religious cleansing.
It’s now a war between the total assholes and everyone else, because we’re now so post-exceptional.
Anyone can grow up in America to be an asshole and so many from so many walks of life are now fulfilling that dream.
It is true that early in our history only certain individuals of a specific race and ethnicity could aspire to be total assholes, like Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, and John C. Calhoun, although the latter was open minded enough to permit his wife full latitude to indulge her inner asshole alongside him.
It is said Calhoun, try though he might, could not write a love poem, because every line started with “whereas”.
Didn’t de Tocqueville warn of an American democratically-induced descent into an irreversible, gamey buttheadedness if we didn’t watch out.
And we didn’t, did we?
America is somewhat beyond ethnic, racial, gender and religious cleansing.
It’s now a war between the total assholes and everyone else, because we’re now so post-exceptional.
Anyone can grow up in America to be an asshole and so many from so many walks of life are now fulfilling that dream.
It is true that early in our history only certain individuals of a specific race and ethnicity could aspire to be total assholes, like Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, and John C. Calhoun, although the latter was open minded enough to permit his wife full latitude to indulge her inner asshole alongside him.
It is said Calhoun, try though he might, could not write a love poem, because every line started with “whereas”.
Didn’t de Tocqueville warn of an American democratically-induced descent into an irreversible, gamey buttheadedness if we didn’t watch out.
And we didn’t, did we?
A tweet from someone:
Trump: “Someone please kill my opponent!”
Clinton: “What the hell!”
Media: “Hillary, stop swearing!”
Fuck off, assholes.
A tweet from someone:
Trump: “Someone please kill my opponent!”
Clinton: “What the hell!”
Media: “Hillary, stop swearing!”
Fuck off, assholes.
A tweet from someone:
Trump: “Someone please kill my opponent!”
Clinton: “What the hell!”
Media: “Hillary, stop swearing!”
Fuck off, assholes.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
The problem here is that you appear to have the federal government telling folks, “Look, we’re just not going to enforce sh*t like the Civil Rights Act or gun control or any of that in South Carolina, nor will the state be required/allowed to. All you nut jobs should feel free to move there.”
The problem is that you’re implicitly telling some minority groups in South Carolina (or wherever), “Sorry that you’re a fifth generation South Carolinian, with an established business and such; you’re just screwed.”
Speaking as someone whose retirement hobby is plotting a US partition along a completely different policy split, you’ll never make that one work.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
The problem here is that you appear to have the federal government telling folks, “Look, we’re just not going to enforce sh*t like the Civil Rights Act or gun control or any of that in South Carolina, nor will the state be required/allowed to. All you nut jobs should feel free to move there.”
The problem is that you’re implicitly telling some minority groups in South Carolina (or wherever), “Sorry that you’re a fifth generation South Carolinian, with an established business and such; you’re just screwed.”
Speaking as someone whose retirement hobby is plotting a US partition along a completely different policy split, you’ll never make that one work.
voluntary segregation by social and political druthers, as opposed to shooting at each other.
The problem here is that you appear to have the federal government telling folks, “Look, we’re just not going to enforce sh*t like the Civil Rights Act or gun control or any of that in South Carolina, nor will the state be required/allowed to. All you nut jobs should feel free to move there.”
The problem is that you’re implicitly telling some minority groups in South Carolina (or wherever), “Sorry that you’re a fifth generation South Carolinian, with an established business and such; you’re just screwed.”
Speaking as someone whose retirement hobby is plotting a US partition along a completely different policy split, you’ll never make that one work.
Trump’s hit men when Clinton gives up her bodyguards:
See this guy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_opencarry-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
See this guy:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/daily-show-exposes-pro-gun-activist-to.html
We’re not going to live like this. My son is not going to live like this. I see either of these fucks anywhere near me or anyone near my son on a college campus and I will kill them.
Those subhuman sick fucks are Republicans. I own Hillary’s lying. All Republicans own those fuckers. Gary Johnson owns those fuckers, because he’s fully in favor of Americans walking around like off duty third world government assassins.
I’m pretty sure they’ll kill me first in any confrontation because fists won’t stand a chance.
Trump’s hit men when Clinton gives up her bodyguards:
See this guy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_opencarry-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
See this guy:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/daily-show-exposes-pro-gun-activist-to.html
We’re not going to live like this. My son is not going to live like this. I see either of these fucks anywhere near me or anyone near my son on a college campus and I will kill them.
Those subhuman sick fucks are Republicans. I own Hillary’s lying. All Republicans own those fuckers. Gary Johnson owns those fuckers, because he’s fully in favor of Americans walking around like off duty third world government assassins.
I’m pretty sure they’ll kill me first in any confrontation because fists won’t stand a chance.
Trump’s hit men when Clinton gives up her bodyguards:
See this guy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_opencarry-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
See this guy:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/daily-show-exposes-pro-gun-activist-to.html
We’re not going to live like this. My son is not going to live like this. I see either of these fucks anywhere near me or anyone near my son on a college campus and I will kill them.
Those subhuman sick fucks are Republicans. I own Hillary’s lying. All Republicans own those fuckers. Gary Johnson owns those fuckers, because he’s fully in favor of Americans walking around like off duty third world government assassins.
I’m pretty sure they’ll kill me first in any confrontation because fists won’t stand a chance.
I’m dying to hear the details of Michael Cain’s partition plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0F3kY3uxU
I’m dying to hear the details of Michael Cain’s partition plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0F3kY3uxU
I’m dying to hear the details of Michael Cain’s partition plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0F3kY3uxU
Speaking as someone whose retirement hobby is plotting a US partition along a completely different policy split, you’ll never make that one work.
Michael Cain, what policy split would that be?
Speaking as someone whose retirement hobby is plotting a US partition along a completely different policy split, you’ll never make that one work.
Michael Cain, what policy split would that be?
Speaking as someone whose retirement hobby is plotting a US partition along a completely different policy split, you’ll never make that one work.
Michael Cain, what policy split would that be?
MC: the toxic waste dump has to go SOMEWHERE. South “first in treason!” Carolina has earned it. When Obama, as his last executive action, delegates to ObWi commenters the power to make the partition happen, then we can talk about the details.
For now, I suggest that the minority communities in any possible “secession zone” arm up and stand their ground against the alt-right invader scum.
MC: the toxic waste dump has to go SOMEWHERE. South “first in treason!” Carolina has earned it. When Obama, as his last executive action, delegates to ObWi commenters the power to make the partition happen, then we can talk about the details.
For now, I suggest that the minority communities in any possible “secession zone” arm up and stand their ground against the alt-right invader scum.
MC: the toxic waste dump has to go SOMEWHERE. South “first in treason!” Carolina has earned it. When Obama, as his last executive action, delegates to ObWi commenters the power to make the partition happen, then we can talk about the details.
For now, I suggest that the minority communities in any possible “secession zone” arm up and stand their ground against the alt-right invader scum.
Mike Pence releases his health records and he’s in tip top shape:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mike-pence-releases-medical-records
That IS the bad news.
Mike Pence releases his health records and he’s in tip top shape:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mike-pence-releases-medical-records
That IS the bad news.
Mike Pence releases his health records and he’s in tip top shape:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mike-pence-releases-medical-records
That IS the bad news.
I simply must dissent. Unfortunately, as we are seeing this year, South Carolina is just no way going to be big enough to fit in those who would want to go. We’re going to have to go with Texas.
That really shouldn’t be a problem. (Well except for the folks in South Carolina who treasure their position as first in treason.) The Texans are forever going on about how they were a seperate country once, and would be better off if they were again. All we need to say is Vaya con Dios. 😉
I simply must dissent. Unfortunately, as we are seeing this year, South Carolina is just no way going to be big enough to fit in those who would want to go. We’re going to have to go with Texas.
That really shouldn’t be a problem. (Well except for the folks in South Carolina who treasure their position as first in treason.) The Texans are forever going on about how they were a seperate country once, and would be better off if they were again. All we need to say is Vaya con Dios. 😉
I simply must dissent. Unfortunately, as we are seeing this year, South Carolina is just no way going to be big enough to fit in those who would want to go. We’re going to have to go with Texas.
That really shouldn’t be a problem. (Well except for the folks in South Carolina who treasure their position as first in treason.) The Texans are forever going on about how they were a seperate country once, and would be better off if they were again. All we need to say is Vaya con Dios. 😉
Yes, I suppose I was being unfair to Texas, since they really do have a very good claim on “first in treason (in defense of slavery)”: first seceding from Mexico (for slavery), and then from the US (for slavery).
But I don’t think SC is “too small”; the population density in the US is really rather low, so I’m pretty sure you could pack ALL the Alt-Right wingnuts in SC before you make a critical mass.
Yes, I suppose I was being unfair to Texas, since they really do have a very good claim on “first in treason (in defense of slavery)”: first seceding from Mexico (for slavery), and then from the US (for slavery).
But I don’t think SC is “too small”; the population density in the US is really rather low, so I’m pretty sure you could pack ALL the Alt-Right wingnuts in SC before you make a critical mass.
Yes, I suppose I was being unfair to Texas, since they really do have a very good claim on “first in treason (in defense of slavery)”: first seceding from Mexico (for slavery), and then from the US (for slavery).
But I don’t think SC is “too small”; the population density in the US is really rather low, so I’m pretty sure you could pack ALL the Alt-Right wingnuts in SC before you make a critical mass.
The problem here is that you appear to have the federal government telling folks
I guess what I was going for was not the feds telling anybody anything.
What I had was more along the lines of the Czech/Slovak split.
We’re not getting along all that well, maybe it’s time to divide up the furniture and record albums and call it a day.
I kind of bring this up as a joke, but I also think there’s a reasonable case to be made that the US is not naturally a single nation. Even the original 13 states started out as entities created by fiat, by a bunch of people living someplace else, for different purposes.
We’ve always had significantly different cultures.
I’ve often asked the question “what exactly are our common values”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard are clear reply. Even if you can point to language that everyone could agree on, I don’t think it would mean the same thing to different people.
We’re a political entity that comprises several nations. It’s hard to make that work.
Mostly I’m tired of listening to people talk about how they’re going to start shooting other people if they don’t get their way. I don’t keep friends who threaten me or people like me, I’m not sure why I should go very far out of my way to share a political identity with them.
If it’s come to that let’s just call it a day.
If it wasn’t for the issue of slavery and blatant expansionist doctrine of de jure white supremacy, I’d say we should have just parted ways back in the mid-18th C.
I don’t think those are the issues now. White supremacism (or pick whatever color you like) is still floating around out there, but I think the issues are more along the lines of what the purpose of a polity fundamentally is.
Here is John Adam’s definition of the purpose of a polity, as expressed in the MA Constitution:
I think in most of the country that would sound like addle-brained European socialist claptrap.
Covenant? WTF is that? What is this “all for one and one for all” bulls*t?
Vermont likewise has a political tradition, preceding the existence of the US as a nation, based on the idea of Liberty and Union.
Not one or the other, but both, in a kind of dynamic balance.
That’s also the title of a speech by Daniel Webster, in which he counters the idea of nullification by asserting that the US is a nation comprised of people, not of states.
Those are traditions that sound like utter nonsense to a lot of folks in this country. As far as I can tell, anyway.
As a nation, we’ve always been at odds with each other. Usually it works out, but periodically it really doesn’t. This is one of those times, I think, and IMO we need to consider what we’re about, and whether we all agree on what we’re about, and if not, what to do about that.
Just my random Sunday afternoon thoughts.
I know Michael Cain has similar thoughts that hinge more on the West/ East divide, which is certainly another relevant dimension.
I wouldn’t look forward to splitting up the country, nor would I be willing to go to war to prevent it. Not this time around. If folks can’t agree, sometimes it’s best to let it be and go separate ways.
And what I really want to emphasize is that I’m not calling anybody names or looking down on anybody. Different people want different things. If we can’t find sufficient agreement to keep the wheels on, maybe it’s time to let it go.
It won’t be the end of the world.
The problem here is that you appear to have the federal government telling folks
I guess what I was going for was not the feds telling anybody anything.
What I had was more along the lines of the Czech/Slovak split.
We’re not getting along all that well, maybe it’s time to divide up the furniture and record albums and call it a day.
I kind of bring this up as a joke, but I also think there’s a reasonable case to be made that the US is not naturally a single nation. Even the original 13 states started out as entities created by fiat, by a bunch of people living someplace else, for different purposes.
We’ve always had significantly different cultures.
I’ve often asked the question “what exactly are our common values”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard are clear reply. Even if you can point to language that everyone could agree on, I don’t think it would mean the same thing to different people.
We’re a political entity that comprises several nations. It’s hard to make that work.
Mostly I’m tired of listening to people talk about how they’re going to start shooting other people if they don’t get their way. I don’t keep friends who threaten me or people like me, I’m not sure why I should go very far out of my way to share a political identity with them.
If it’s come to that let’s just call it a day.
If it wasn’t for the issue of slavery and blatant expansionist doctrine of de jure white supremacy, I’d say we should have just parted ways back in the mid-18th C.
I don’t think those are the issues now. White supremacism (or pick whatever color you like) is still floating around out there, but I think the issues are more along the lines of what the purpose of a polity fundamentally is.
Here is John Adam’s definition of the purpose of a polity, as expressed in the MA Constitution:
I think in most of the country that would sound like addle-brained European socialist claptrap.
Covenant? WTF is that? What is this “all for one and one for all” bulls*t?
Vermont likewise has a political tradition, preceding the existence of the US as a nation, based on the idea of Liberty and Union.
Not one or the other, but both, in a kind of dynamic balance.
That’s also the title of a speech by Daniel Webster, in which he counters the idea of nullification by asserting that the US is a nation comprised of people, not of states.
Those are traditions that sound like utter nonsense to a lot of folks in this country. As far as I can tell, anyway.
As a nation, we’ve always been at odds with each other. Usually it works out, but periodically it really doesn’t. This is one of those times, I think, and IMO we need to consider what we’re about, and whether we all agree on what we’re about, and if not, what to do about that.
Just my random Sunday afternoon thoughts.
I know Michael Cain has similar thoughts that hinge more on the West/ East divide, which is certainly another relevant dimension.
I wouldn’t look forward to splitting up the country, nor would I be willing to go to war to prevent it. Not this time around. If folks can’t agree, sometimes it’s best to let it be and go separate ways.
And what I really want to emphasize is that I’m not calling anybody names or looking down on anybody. Different people want different things. If we can’t find sufficient agreement to keep the wheels on, maybe it’s time to let it go.
It won’t be the end of the world.
The problem here is that you appear to have the federal government telling folks
I guess what I was going for was not the feds telling anybody anything.
What I had was more along the lines of the Czech/Slovak split.
We’re not getting along all that well, maybe it’s time to divide up the furniture and record albums and call it a day.
I kind of bring this up as a joke, but I also think there’s a reasonable case to be made that the US is not naturally a single nation. Even the original 13 states started out as entities created by fiat, by a bunch of people living someplace else, for different purposes.
We’ve always had significantly different cultures.
I’ve often asked the question “what exactly are our common values”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard are clear reply. Even if you can point to language that everyone could agree on, I don’t think it would mean the same thing to different people.
We’re a political entity that comprises several nations. It’s hard to make that work.
Mostly I’m tired of listening to people talk about how they’re going to start shooting other people if they don’t get their way. I don’t keep friends who threaten me or people like me, I’m not sure why I should go very far out of my way to share a political identity with them.
If it’s come to that let’s just call it a day.
If it wasn’t for the issue of slavery and blatant expansionist doctrine of de jure white supremacy, I’d say we should have just parted ways back in the mid-18th C.
I don’t think those are the issues now. White supremacism (or pick whatever color you like) is still floating around out there, but I think the issues are more along the lines of what the purpose of a polity fundamentally is.
Here is John Adam’s definition of the purpose of a polity, as expressed in the MA Constitution:
I think in most of the country that would sound like addle-brained European socialist claptrap.
Covenant? WTF is that? What is this “all for one and one for all” bulls*t?
Vermont likewise has a political tradition, preceding the existence of the US as a nation, based on the idea of Liberty and Union.
Not one or the other, but both, in a kind of dynamic balance.
That’s also the title of a speech by Daniel Webster, in which he counters the idea of nullification by asserting that the US is a nation comprised of people, not of states.
Those are traditions that sound like utter nonsense to a lot of folks in this country. As far as I can tell, anyway.
As a nation, we’ve always been at odds with each other. Usually it works out, but periodically it really doesn’t. This is one of those times, I think, and IMO we need to consider what we’re about, and whether we all agree on what we’re about, and if not, what to do about that.
Just my random Sunday afternoon thoughts.
I know Michael Cain has similar thoughts that hinge more on the West/ East divide, which is certainly another relevant dimension.
I wouldn’t look forward to splitting up the country, nor would I be willing to go to war to prevent it. Not this time around. If folks can’t agree, sometimes it’s best to let it be and go separate ways.
And what I really want to emphasize is that I’m not calling anybody names or looking down on anybody. Different people want different things. If we can’t find sufficient agreement to keep the wheels on, maybe it’s time to let it go.
It won’t be the end of the world.
Cleek, here is the Libya report,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11905.htm#_idTextAnchor020
The point is not that there weren’t atrocities, but that there was no evidence of the scale of atrocities people were predicting. Gaddafi had already retaken towns. No massacres of tens of thousands. As I said in some earlier thread on this, there were comparable or more killings of civilians when the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi in Egypt a few years ago.
There is an unwritten rule in our stupid country which says that you can make any exaggerated claim you want about an official bad guy–ie, someone we want to bomb as opposed to someone we help bomb others–and nobody dares to correct it because if you do you will be accused of being an apologist.
Cleek, here is the Libya report,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11905.htm#_idTextAnchor020
The point is not that there weren’t atrocities, but that there was no evidence of the scale of atrocities people were predicting. Gaddafi had already retaken towns. No massacres of tens of thousands. As I said in some earlier thread on this, there were comparable or more killings of civilians when the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi in Egypt a few years ago.
There is an unwritten rule in our stupid country which says that you can make any exaggerated claim you want about an official bad guy–ie, someone we want to bomb as opposed to someone we help bomb others–and nobody dares to correct it because if you do you will be accused of being an apologist.
Cleek, here is the Libya report,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11905.htm#_idTextAnchor020
The point is not that there weren’t atrocities, but that there was no evidence of the scale of atrocities people were predicting. Gaddafi had already retaken towns. No massacres of tens of thousands. As I said in some earlier thread on this, there were comparable or more killings of civilians when the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi in Egypt a few years ago.
There is an unwritten rule in our stupid country which says that you can make any exaggerated claim you want about an official bad guy–ie, someone we want to bomb as opposed to someone we help bomb others–and nobody dares to correct it because if you do you will be accused of being an apologist.
On a different computer since I have trouble copying things on my iPad. Here is the relevant portion of the report–
“The evidence base: our assessment
32.Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011.72 During fighting in Misrata, the hospital recorded 257 people killed and 949 people wounded in February and March 2011. Those casualties included 22 women and eight children.73 Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that Tripoli’s morgues contained more than 200 corpses following fighting in late February 2011, of whom two were female.74 The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.75
33.On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”76 Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians.77 Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.78
34.Professor Joffé told us that
the rhetoric that was used was quite blood-curdling, but again there were past examples of the way in which Gaddafi would actually behave. If you go back to the American bombings in the 1980s of Benghazi and Tripoli, rather than trying to remove threats to the regime in the east, in Cyrenaica, Gaddafi spent six months trying to pacify the tribes that were located there. The evidence is that he was well aware of the insecurity of parts of the country and of the unlikelihood that he could control them through sheer violence. Therefore, he would have been very careful in the actual response…the fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.79
Alison Pargeter concurred with Professor Joffé’s judgment on Muammar Gaddafi’s likely course of action in February 2011. She concluded that there was no “real evidence at that time that Gaddafi was preparing to launch a massacre against his own civilians.”80
35.We were told that émigrés opposed to Muammar Gaddafi exploited unrest in Libya by overstating the threat to civilians and encouraging Western powers to intervene.81 In the course of his 40-year dictatorship Muammar Gaddafi had acquired many enemies in the Middle East and North Africa, who were similarly prepared to exaggerate the threat to civilians. Alison Pargeter told us that
the issue of mercenaries was amplified. I was told by Libyans here, “The Africans are coming. They’re going to massacre us. Gaddafi’s sending Africans into the streets. They’re killing our families.” I think that that was very much amplified. But I also think the Arab media played a very important role here. Al-Jazeera in particular, but also al-Arabiya, were reporting that Gaddafi was using air strikes against people in Benghazi and, I think, were really hamming everything up, and it turned out not to be true.82
36.An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that
much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.83
37.Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi, if those forces had been able to enter the city. However, while Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.84
38.We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed. It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”
On a different computer since I have trouble copying things on my iPad. Here is the relevant portion of the report–
“The evidence base: our assessment
32.Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011.72 During fighting in Misrata, the hospital recorded 257 people killed and 949 people wounded in February and March 2011. Those casualties included 22 women and eight children.73 Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that Tripoli’s morgues contained more than 200 corpses following fighting in late February 2011, of whom two were female.74 The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.75
33.On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”76 Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians.77 Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.78
34.Professor Joffé told us that
the rhetoric that was used was quite blood-curdling, but again there were past examples of the way in which Gaddafi would actually behave. If you go back to the American bombings in the 1980s of Benghazi and Tripoli, rather than trying to remove threats to the regime in the east, in Cyrenaica, Gaddafi spent six months trying to pacify the tribes that were located there. The evidence is that he was well aware of the insecurity of parts of the country and of the unlikelihood that he could control them through sheer violence. Therefore, he would have been very careful in the actual response…the fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.79
Alison Pargeter concurred with Professor Joffé’s judgment on Muammar Gaddafi’s likely course of action in February 2011. She concluded that there was no “real evidence at that time that Gaddafi was preparing to launch a massacre against his own civilians.”80
35.We were told that émigrés opposed to Muammar Gaddafi exploited unrest in Libya by overstating the threat to civilians and encouraging Western powers to intervene.81 In the course of his 40-year dictatorship Muammar Gaddafi had acquired many enemies in the Middle East and North Africa, who were similarly prepared to exaggerate the threat to civilians. Alison Pargeter told us that
the issue of mercenaries was amplified. I was told by Libyans here, “The Africans are coming. They’re going to massacre us. Gaddafi’s sending Africans into the streets. They’re killing our families.” I think that that was very much amplified. But I also think the Arab media played a very important role here. Al-Jazeera in particular, but also al-Arabiya, were reporting that Gaddafi was using air strikes against people in Benghazi and, I think, were really hamming everything up, and it turned out not to be true.82
36.An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that
much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.83
37.Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi, if those forces had been able to enter the city. However, while Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.84
38.We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed. It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”
On a different computer since I have trouble copying things on my iPad. Here is the relevant portion of the report–
“The evidence base: our assessment
32.Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011.72 During fighting in Misrata, the hospital recorded 257 people killed and 949 people wounded in February and March 2011. Those casualties included 22 women and eight children.73 Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that Tripoli’s morgues contained more than 200 corpses following fighting in late February 2011, of whom two were female.74 The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.75
33.On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”76 Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians.77 Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.78
34.Professor Joffé told us that
the rhetoric that was used was quite blood-curdling, but again there were past examples of the way in which Gaddafi would actually behave. If you go back to the American bombings in the 1980s of Benghazi and Tripoli, rather than trying to remove threats to the regime in the east, in Cyrenaica, Gaddafi spent six months trying to pacify the tribes that were located there. The evidence is that he was well aware of the insecurity of parts of the country and of the unlikelihood that he could control them through sheer violence. Therefore, he would have been very careful in the actual response…the fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.79
Alison Pargeter concurred with Professor Joffé’s judgment on Muammar Gaddafi’s likely course of action in February 2011. She concluded that there was no “real evidence at that time that Gaddafi was preparing to launch a massacre against his own civilians.”80
35.We were told that émigrés opposed to Muammar Gaddafi exploited unrest in Libya by overstating the threat to civilians and encouraging Western powers to intervene.81 In the course of his 40-year dictatorship Muammar Gaddafi had acquired many enemies in the Middle East and North Africa, who were similarly prepared to exaggerate the threat to civilians. Alison Pargeter told us that
the issue of mercenaries was amplified. I was told by Libyans here, “The Africans are coming. They’re going to massacre us. Gaddafi’s sending Africans into the streets. They’re killing our families.” I think that that was very much amplified. But I also think the Arab media played a very important role here. Al-Jazeera in particular, but also al-Arabiya, were reporting that Gaddafi was using air strikes against people in Benghazi and, I think, were really hamming everything up, and it turned out not to be true.82
36.An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that
much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.83
37.Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi, if those forces had been able to enter the city. However, while Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.84
38.We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed. It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”
And what I really want to emphasize is that I’m not calling anybody names or looking down on anybody.
I am. I don’t want to partition the country. I want to win it against the racists.
And what I really want to emphasize is that I’m not calling anybody names or looking down on anybody.
I am. I don’t want to partition the country. I want to win it against the racists.
And what I really want to emphasize is that I’m not calling anybody names or looking down on anybody.
I am. I don’t want to partition the country. I want to win it against the racists.
Back to Yemen–I am happy to report that the British government is a bigger bunch of liars than ours, though they did backtrack.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/27/after-thousands-dead-uk-foreign-office-steps-back-its-denial-yemen-war-crimes
So yeah, the plague of dishonesty in the US and apparently Britain goes a bit deeper than just what you can blame on the orange haired freak with a shot at the presidency. We have the internet now, it’s a lot harder to cover up the blatant and monstrous hypocrisy of what our governments do, and yet it still isn’t much of an issue, though to their credit a few congresspeople in both parties are starting to object.
On splitting the country, we’d just create a brand new set of official enemies, right next door. Would conservatives and liberals trust each other any more if they were in separate but adjacent countries?
Back to Yemen–I am happy to report that the British government is a bigger bunch of liars than ours, though they did backtrack.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/27/after-thousands-dead-uk-foreign-office-steps-back-its-denial-yemen-war-crimes
So yeah, the plague of dishonesty in the US and apparently Britain goes a bit deeper than just what you can blame on the orange haired freak with a shot at the presidency. We have the internet now, it’s a lot harder to cover up the blatant and monstrous hypocrisy of what our governments do, and yet it still isn’t much of an issue, though to their credit a few congresspeople in both parties are starting to object.
On splitting the country, we’d just create a brand new set of official enemies, right next door. Would conservatives and liberals trust each other any more if they were in separate but adjacent countries?
Back to Yemen–I am happy to report that the British government is a bigger bunch of liars than ours, though they did backtrack.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/27/after-thousands-dead-uk-foreign-office-steps-back-its-denial-yemen-war-crimes
So yeah, the plague of dishonesty in the US and apparently Britain goes a bit deeper than just what you can blame on the orange haired freak with a shot at the presidency. We have the internet now, it’s a lot harder to cover up the blatant and monstrous hypocrisy of what our governments do, and yet it still isn’t much of an issue, though to their credit a few congresspeople in both parties are starting to object.
On splitting the country, we’d just create a brand new set of official enemies, right next door. Would conservatives and liberals trust each other any more if they were in separate but adjacent countries?
“On splitting the country, we’d just create a brand new set of official enemies, right next door.”
Depends on how energetic the whole “fission” thing is.
“On splitting the country, we’d just create a brand new set of official enemies, right next door.”
Depends on how energetic the whole “fission” thing is.
“On splitting the country, we’d just create a brand new set of official enemies, right next door.”
Depends on how energetic the whole “fission” thing is.
The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians.
Or, the disparity suggests that people living in besieged areas attempted to protect women and children, and that males (including civilians) were attacked at a far greater rate, much like what happened in the former Yugoslavia, when mass murders of men were conducted (and women were more likely “merely” raped).
My guess is that your standards for drone casualties would be different, Donald.
The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians.
Or, the disparity suggests that people living in besieged areas attempted to protect women and children, and that males (including civilians) were attacked at a far greater rate, much like what happened in the former Yugoslavia, when mass murders of men were conducted (and women were more likely “merely” raped).
My guess is that your standards for drone casualties would be different, Donald.
The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians.
Or, the disparity suggests that people living in besieged areas attempted to protect women and children, and that males (including civilians) were attacked at a far greater rate, much like what happened in the former Yugoslavia, when mass murders of men were conducted (and women were more likely “merely” raped).
My guess is that your standards for drone casualties would be different, Donald.
I want to win it against the racists.
I just don’t think it’s a simple as a conflict between the racists and the non-racists.
Not saying that isn’t an issue, just saying it’s not (at least IMO) the crux, or the main crux, of the matter.
Everything I’ve said about this here in this thread is actually kind of separate from this year’s election. In terms of this November, the outcome I’m looking for is to defeat Trump by an embarrassing margin.
That would be, I hope, in no small measure a public repudiation of the bigoted simplistic nationalistic tripe that he is selling, and to the degree that it demonstrated that bigotry once again (or, maybe, finally) needs to go hide under a rock, I’m all for it.
I don’t actually expect the above, but I’d be glad to see it, and will be putting whatever minor efforts I can muster toward making it happen.
You’re inspiring me to get back up off my @ss, so thanks.
I want to win it against the racists.
I just don’t think it’s a simple as a conflict between the racists and the non-racists.
Not saying that isn’t an issue, just saying it’s not (at least IMO) the crux, or the main crux, of the matter.
Everything I’ve said about this here in this thread is actually kind of separate from this year’s election. In terms of this November, the outcome I’m looking for is to defeat Trump by an embarrassing margin.
That would be, I hope, in no small measure a public repudiation of the bigoted simplistic nationalistic tripe that he is selling, and to the degree that it demonstrated that bigotry once again (or, maybe, finally) needs to go hide under a rock, I’m all for it.
I don’t actually expect the above, but I’d be glad to see it, and will be putting whatever minor efforts I can muster toward making it happen.
You’re inspiring me to get back up off my @ss, so thanks.
I want to win it against the racists.
I just don’t think it’s a simple as a conflict between the racists and the non-racists.
Not saying that isn’t an issue, just saying it’s not (at least IMO) the crux, or the main crux, of the matter.
Everything I’ve said about this here in this thread is actually kind of separate from this year’s election. In terms of this November, the outcome I’m looking for is to defeat Trump by an embarrassing margin.
That would be, I hope, in no small measure a public repudiation of the bigoted simplistic nationalistic tripe that he is selling, and to the degree that it demonstrated that bigotry once again (or, maybe, finally) needs to go hide under a rock, I’m all for it.
I don’t actually expect the above, but I’d be glad to see it, and will be putting whatever minor efforts I can muster toward making it happen.
You’re inspiring me to get back up off my @ss, so thanks.
I just don’t think it’s a simple as a conflict between the racists and the non-racists.
I think it’s the main issue that hurts us, as a country. There is no such thing as a country of likeminded people. Our country’s common theme is the Constitution. Obviously, people value various pieces of it in different ways, and its interpretation is subject to the courts and historical forces.
A country can encompass differences, but not so easily intolerance of differences. Most people in this country (I believe) are willing to work to accommodate pluralism. The ones who aren’t willing to do that are the problem. I wish to make them as powerless as possible. I will listen to their socio-economic complaints when they get with the program on pluralism.
I just don’t think it’s a simple as a conflict between the racists and the non-racists.
I think it’s the main issue that hurts us, as a country. There is no such thing as a country of likeminded people. Our country’s common theme is the Constitution. Obviously, people value various pieces of it in different ways, and its interpretation is subject to the courts and historical forces.
A country can encompass differences, but not so easily intolerance of differences. Most people in this country (I believe) are willing to work to accommodate pluralism. The ones who aren’t willing to do that are the problem. I wish to make them as powerless as possible. I will listen to their socio-economic complaints when they get with the program on pluralism.
I just don’t think it’s a simple as a conflict between the racists and the non-racists.
I think it’s the main issue that hurts us, as a country. There is no such thing as a country of likeminded people. Our country’s common theme is the Constitution. Obviously, people value various pieces of it in different ways, and its interpretation is subject to the courts and historical forces.
A country can encompass differences, but not so easily intolerance of differences. Most people in this country (I believe) are willing to work to accommodate pluralism. The ones who aren’t willing to do that are the problem. I wish to make them as powerless as possible. I will listen to their socio-economic complaints when they get with the program on pluralism.
“A country can encompass differences, but not so easily intolerance of differences.”
this is right on the money.
I hadn’t thought about in quite those words, IMO this is exactly right, and gets to the heart of where we are at.
Thanks sapient.
“A country can encompass differences, but not so easily intolerance of differences.”
this is right on the money.
I hadn’t thought about in quite those words, IMO this is exactly right, and gets to the heart of where we are at.
Thanks sapient.
“A country can encompass differences, but not so easily intolerance of differences.”
this is right on the money.
I hadn’t thought about in quite those words, IMO this is exactly right, and gets to the heart of where we are at.
Thanks sapient.
Thank you, russell. It’s nice to be on the same page with you (which I usually am, but for some reason find it more of a thrill to argue when we don’t agree).
Thank you, russell. It’s nice to be on the same page with you (which I usually am, but for some reason find it more of a thrill to argue when we don’t agree).
Thank you, russell. It’s nice to be on the same page with you (which I usually am, but for some reason find it more of a thrill to argue when we don’t agree).
I want to win it against the racists.
Win. A word liberals don’t use often enough. We need to mount the resolve to work for the utter defeat of white supremacy, revanchist conservatism, unfettered free-market idolatry, and the siren song of international empire….right up, but not quite to the point of hearing this.
Because, rest assured, that is how modern day conservatism sees things…liberals, as the enemy, an enemy to be either totally dominated or eliminated.
I want to win it against the racists.
Win. A word liberals don’t use often enough. We need to mount the resolve to work for the utter defeat of white supremacy, revanchist conservatism, unfettered free-market idolatry, and the siren song of international empire….right up, but not quite to the point of hearing this.
Because, rest assured, that is how modern day conservatism sees things…liberals, as the enemy, an enemy to be either totally dominated or eliminated.
I want to win it against the racists.
Win. A word liberals don’t use often enough. We need to mount the resolve to work for the utter defeat of white supremacy, revanchist conservatism, unfettered free-market idolatry, and the siren song of international empire….right up, but not quite to the point of hearing this.
Because, rest assured, that is how modern day conservatism sees things…liberals, as the enemy, an enemy to be either totally dominated or eliminated.
The trouble with a philosophy of total domination (or elimination) is that, if you lose, you have set yourself up for total defeat. Which is why it’s a dumb approach . . . except for the terminally self-righteous.
The trouble with a philosophy of total domination (or elimination) is that, if you lose, you have set yourself up for total defeat. Which is why it’s a dumb approach . . . except for the terminally self-righteous.
The trouble with a philosophy of total domination (or elimination) is that, if you lose, you have set yourself up for total defeat. Which is why it’s a dumb approach . . . except for the terminally self-righteous.
Another one of comments got stuck somewhere, I think, and I believe it’s because when I spell out the epitath with which conservatives refer to Hillary Clinton, you know the “c” word without the asterisk, the politically correct OBWI filters send it to spam.
That’s just the political correctness that conservatives expect us to enforce.
Big mistake.
Another one of comments got stuck somewhere, I think, and I believe it’s because when I spell out the epitath with which conservatives refer to Hillary Clinton, you know the “c” word without the asterisk, the politically correct OBWI filters send it to spam.
That’s just the political correctness that conservatives expect us to enforce.
Big mistake.
Another one of comments got stuck somewhere, I think, and I believe it’s because when I spell out the epitath with which conservatives refer to Hillary Clinton, you know the “c” word without the asterisk, the politically correct OBWI filters send it to spam.
That’s just the political correctness that conservatives expect us to enforce.
Big mistake.
“political correctness” = simple good manners
It may be tempting. Indeed, I know it is. But we really don’t need to descend to their level.
“political correctness” = simple good manners
It may be tempting. Indeed, I know it is. But we really don’t need to descend to their level.
“political correctness” = simple good manners
It may be tempting. Indeed, I know it is. But we really don’t need to descend to their level.
How’s that working so far?
Get beneath them. America right now is a Limbo dance. It’s their choice.
Get low, and win.
But, I agree, it’s simple good manners.
They don’t get dessert.
How’s that working so far?
Get beneath them. America right now is a Limbo dance. It’s their choice.
Get low, and win.
But, I agree, it’s simple good manners.
They don’t get dessert.
How’s that working so far?
Get beneath them. America right now is a Limbo dance. It’s their choice.
Get low, and win.
But, I agree, it’s simple good manners.
They don’t get dessert.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/watch-this-video–2
You see how he indicts all conservatives. Own it.
He’s your leader.
Or, get the fuck out of the way.
Hillary Clinton lies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/watch-this-video–2
You see how he indicts all conservatives. Own it.
He’s your leader.
Or, get the fuck out of the way.
Hillary Clinton lies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/watch-this-video–2
You see how he indicts all conservatives. Own it.
He’s your leader.
Or, get the fuck out of the way.
Hillary Clinton lies.
Trump’s political organ today on the newstand, The National Enquirer, the new Congressional Record after January 2017, the one where pigfucking Republicans will read the cliff notes texts of Trump’s SOTU, along with on Brietbart, reports that Bill Clinton has his dick out on the campaign trail, his fly open.
Go get it. Marty. What, Gary Johnson has something against dick being aired out in public?
Trump’s political organ today on the newstand, The National Enquirer, the new Congressional Record after January 2017, the one where pigfucking Republicans will read the cliff notes texts of Trump’s SOTU, along with on Brietbart, reports that Bill Clinton has his dick out on the campaign trail, his fly open.
Go get it. Marty. What, Gary Johnson has something against dick being aired out in public?
Trump’s political organ today on the newstand, The National Enquirer, the new Congressional Record after January 2017, the one where pigfucking Republicans will read the cliff notes texts of Trump’s SOTU, along with on Brietbart, reports that Bill Clinton has his dick out on the campaign trail, his fly open.
Go get it. Marty. What, Gary Johnson has something against dick being aired out in public?
Here’s what I really think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3TRns_zssM
Here’s what I really think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3TRns_zssM
Here’s what I really think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3TRns_zssM
3% of US adults (sic) own an average of 17 guns each…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
3% of US adults (sic) own an average of 17 guns each…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
3% of US adults (sic) own an average of 17 guns each…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon. It’s just as much of a stubborn cling to mindset as is 9-11 trutherism.
It’s part of who we are as a country. Othering it doesn’t work, because they don’t want to be included. They want to be isolated in like-minded communities of racial homogeneity. The most cruel thing you could do is include them.
Hey, there’s an idea.
My other thinking is that divisiveness comes from too much attention on political victory, so I have deliberately disengaged myself (partially failing) from political discussion. I have disagreements with others. I’m not doing a good job changing their thinking, nor are they doing a good job changing mine. Time to move on.
I know that’s anathema to political blogs, but that’s where I am coming from at present.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon. It’s just as much of a stubborn cling to mindset as is 9-11 trutherism.
It’s part of who we are as a country. Othering it doesn’t work, because they don’t want to be included. They want to be isolated in like-minded communities of racial homogeneity. The most cruel thing you could do is include them.
Hey, there’s an idea.
My other thinking is that divisiveness comes from too much attention on political victory, so I have deliberately disengaged myself (partially failing) from political discussion. I have disagreements with others. I’m not doing a good job changing their thinking, nor are they doing a good job changing mine. Time to move on.
I know that’s anathema to political blogs, but that’s where I am coming from at present.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon. It’s just as much of a stubborn cling to mindset as is 9-11 trutherism.
It’s part of who we are as a country. Othering it doesn’t work, because they don’t want to be included. They want to be isolated in like-minded communities of racial homogeneity. The most cruel thing you could do is include them.
Hey, there’s an idea.
My other thinking is that divisiveness comes from too much attention on political victory, so I have deliberately disengaged myself (partially failing) from political discussion. I have disagreements with others. I’m not doing a good job changing their thinking, nor are they doing a good job changing mine. Time to move on.
I know that’s anathema to political blogs, but that’s where I am coming from at present.
Your response makes no sense, sapient. The death toll in Libya was vastly lower than at Srebrenica. And mass rapes are another myth about Libya.
If you pay no attention to facts you can imagine the situation was whatever is convenient.
Your response makes no sense, sapient. The death toll in Libya was vastly lower than at Srebrenica. And mass rapes are another myth about Libya.
If you pay no attention to facts you can imagine the situation was whatever is convenient.
Your response makes no sense, sapient. The death toll in Libya was vastly lower than at Srebrenica. And mass rapes are another myth about Libya.
If you pay no attention to facts you can imagine the situation was whatever is convenient.
I didn’t see this until this morning, but others are noticing how fact free our foreign policy discussions are in the US —
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/trump-clinton-iraq-libya/499238/
I didn’t see this until this morning, but others are noticing how fact free our foreign policy discussions are in the US —
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/trump-clinton-iraq-libya/499238/
I didn’t see this until this morning, but others are noticing how fact free our foreign policy discussions are in the US —
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/trump-clinton-iraq-libya/499238/
“It’s part of who we are as a country.”
I think this is exactly right. I might even say, it’s part of who we are as a species, but that’s perhaps out of scope for this thread.
I actually am interested in political victory this fall, because IMO a Trump presidency would be profoundly bad. Not because he’s (R), but because he’s Trump. This year isn’t like every other year.
The other thing I want to make clear is that, if I talk about folks going their own way, I’m not talking about racism. Not least because there are plenty of folks who ‘think like me’ who are, basically, racist, even if they feel obliged to be polite about it. I’m talking about what seem to me to be profound differences in basic political and cultural outlook.
And to be honest, I don’t really have a big problem with people who think differently from me, I just don’t know how to have a conversation with them, let alone ‘include’ them, when ‘2nd A solutions’ are part of the agenda.
That’s not a conversation, it’s a hostage negotiation. There is no place for it a coherent polity.
I sometimes think that if the founders could see what the US has become, their reactions would be mixed. Hamilton would think it was great, Adams would probably be OK with it, although he might think it had gotten a bit too large for practical purposes, Jefferson would probably want to burn it down and start over.
But yeah. I’m pretty much against Trump being POTUS.
“It’s part of who we are as a country.”
I think this is exactly right. I might even say, it’s part of who we are as a species, but that’s perhaps out of scope for this thread.
I actually am interested in political victory this fall, because IMO a Trump presidency would be profoundly bad. Not because he’s (R), but because he’s Trump. This year isn’t like every other year.
The other thing I want to make clear is that, if I talk about folks going their own way, I’m not talking about racism. Not least because there are plenty of folks who ‘think like me’ who are, basically, racist, even if they feel obliged to be polite about it. I’m talking about what seem to me to be profound differences in basic political and cultural outlook.
And to be honest, I don’t really have a big problem with people who think differently from me, I just don’t know how to have a conversation with them, let alone ‘include’ them, when ‘2nd A solutions’ are part of the agenda.
That’s not a conversation, it’s a hostage negotiation. There is no place for it a coherent polity.
I sometimes think that if the founders could see what the US has become, their reactions would be mixed. Hamilton would think it was great, Adams would probably be OK with it, although he might think it had gotten a bit too large for practical purposes, Jefferson would probably want to burn it down and start over.
But yeah. I’m pretty much against Trump being POTUS.
“It’s part of who we are as a country.”
I think this is exactly right. I might even say, it’s part of who we are as a species, but that’s perhaps out of scope for this thread.
I actually am interested in political victory this fall, because IMO a Trump presidency would be profoundly bad. Not because he’s (R), but because he’s Trump. This year isn’t like every other year.
The other thing I want to make clear is that, if I talk about folks going their own way, I’m not talking about racism. Not least because there are plenty of folks who ‘think like me’ who are, basically, racist, even if they feel obliged to be polite about it. I’m talking about what seem to me to be profound differences in basic political and cultural outlook.
And to be honest, I don’t really have a big problem with people who think differently from me, I just don’t know how to have a conversation with them, let alone ‘include’ them, when ‘2nd A solutions’ are part of the agenda.
That’s not a conversation, it’s a hostage negotiation. There is no place for it a coherent polity.
I sometimes think that if the founders could see what the US has become, their reactions would be mixed. Hamilton would think it was great, Adams would probably be OK with it, although he might think it had gotten a bit too large for practical purposes, Jefferson would probably want to burn it down and start over.
But yeah. I’m pretty much against Trump being POTUS.
The death toll in Libya was vastly lower than at Srebrenica.
You think intervention is justified only after everyone is already dead, perhaps? The intervention was meant to minimize massive casualties that Gaddafi threatened to inflict, and he had a role model in Assad.
Yes, there is still strife in Libya, but ISIL has been largely destroyed there, and the country has a few factions vying for power. It may take awhile, but the prospects are more positive than in Syria. The United States didn’t commit to helping Libya find its future. It merely assisted an international coalition to strip Gaddafi of his air power, and that led to his ouster.
If you oppose intervention by the international community, which is a result of a true international consensus, supported by a UN Security Council vote, you will never support anything. It would have been just fine with you if Gaddafi had bombed his own people – just as long as the US stayed out.
The death toll in Libya was vastly lower than at Srebrenica.
You think intervention is justified only after everyone is already dead, perhaps? The intervention was meant to minimize massive casualties that Gaddafi threatened to inflict, and he had a role model in Assad.
Yes, there is still strife in Libya, but ISIL has been largely destroyed there, and the country has a few factions vying for power. It may take awhile, but the prospects are more positive than in Syria. The United States didn’t commit to helping Libya find its future. It merely assisted an international coalition to strip Gaddafi of his air power, and that led to his ouster.
If you oppose intervention by the international community, which is a result of a true international consensus, supported by a UN Security Council vote, you will never support anything. It would have been just fine with you if Gaddafi had bombed his own people – just as long as the US stayed out.
The death toll in Libya was vastly lower than at Srebrenica.
You think intervention is justified only after everyone is already dead, perhaps? The intervention was meant to minimize massive casualties that Gaddafi threatened to inflict, and he had a role model in Assad.
Yes, there is still strife in Libya, but ISIL has been largely destroyed there, and the country has a few factions vying for power. It may take awhile, but the prospects are more positive than in Syria. The United States didn’t commit to helping Libya find its future. It merely assisted an international coalition to strip Gaddafi of his air power, and that led to his ouster.
If you oppose intervention by the international community, which is a result of a true international consensus, supported by a UN Security Council vote, you will never support anything. It would have been just fine with you if Gaddafi had bombed his own people – just as long as the US stayed out.
By the way, much as I sometimes admire the Brits, their current isolationism isn’t their finest moment. Also, Cameron’s actual leadership role in the intervention had a lot to be desired. Our decision to participate was not the mistake.
By the way, much as I sometimes admire the Brits, their current isolationism isn’t their finest moment. Also, Cameron’s actual leadership role in the intervention had a lot to be desired. Our decision to participate was not the mistake.
By the way, much as I sometimes admire the Brits, their current isolationism isn’t their finest moment. Also, Cameron’s actual leadership role in the intervention had a lot to be desired. Our decision to participate was not the mistake.
Michael Cain, what policy split would that be?
Energy, and electricity in particular. As russell noted, it’s an east-west thing. 20 years from now, how to keep the lights on will be an issue. The states of the US Western Interconnect are in the process of committing themselves to a renewable electricity future, which will eventually put them at odds with much of the rest of the country, the non-West lacking the level of rich renewable resources the West has.
As a mental exercise, a partition plan has to focus on differences. The 11-state West I talk about, largely through its almost universal veto-proof ballot-initiative “parallel” legislatures, is becoming a pot-smoking, vote by mail, independent redistricting region. Don’t know what the next wave of hot initiative topics will be, but can guarantee there will be one, and the initiative states will look less like the non-initiative states as a result [1]. Fire and water are political in a way that they aren’t in the non-West. Large federal land holdings are a serious topic for the political class, and not in the Bundy Ranch or Malheur Refuge sense. The ongoing depopulation of the Great Plains is creating a 500-mile wide physical buffer between the West and the rest of the country.
[1] Side note. In Colorado, where I live, we’re already into the important run-up period because vote-by-mail ballots will start being delivered in less than four weeks. TV ads for candidates are currently few and far between. There are far more ads for/against some of the ballot initiatives.
Michael Cain, what policy split would that be?
Energy, and electricity in particular. As russell noted, it’s an east-west thing. 20 years from now, how to keep the lights on will be an issue. The states of the US Western Interconnect are in the process of committing themselves to a renewable electricity future, which will eventually put them at odds with much of the rest of the country, the non-West lacking the level of rich renewable resources the West has.
As a mental exercise, a partition plan has to focus on differences. The 11-state West I talk about, largely through its almost universal veto-proof ballot-initiative “parallel” legislatures, is becoming a pot-smoking, vote by mail, independent redistricting region. Don’t know what the next wave of hot initiative topics will be, but can guarantee there will be one, and the initiative states will look less like the non-initiative states as a result [1]. Fire and water are political in a way that they aren’t in the non-West. Large federal land holdings are a serious topic for the political class, and not in the Bundy Ranch or Malheur Refuge sense. The ongoing depopulation of the Great Plains is creating a 500-mile wide physical buffer between the West and the rest of the country.
[1] Side note. In Colorado, where I live, we’re already into the important run-up period because vote-by-mail ballots will start being delivered in less than four weeks. TV ads for candidates are currently few and far between. There are far more ads for/against some of the ballot initiatives.
Michael Cain, what policy split would that be?
Energy, and electricity in particular. As russell noted, it’s an east-west thing. 20 years from now, how to keep the lights on will be an issue. The states of the US Western Interconnect are in the process of committing themselves to a renewable electricity future, which will eventually put them at odds with much of the rest of the country, the non-West lacking the level of rich renewable resources the West has.
As a mental exercise, a partition plan has to focus on differences. The 11-state West I talk about, largely through its almost universal veto-proof ballot-initiative “parallel” legislatures, is becoming a pot-smoking, vote by mail, independent redistricting region. Don’t know what the next wave of hot initiative topics will be, but can guarantee there will be one, and the initiative states will look less like the non-initiative states as a result [1]. Fire and water are political in a way that they aren’t in the non-West. Large federal land holdings are a serious topic for the political class, and not in the Bundy Ranch or Malheur Refuge sense. The ongoing depopulation of the Great Plains is creating a 500-mile wide physical buffer between the West and the rest of the country.
[1] Side note. In Colorado, where I live, we’re already into the important run-up period because vote-by-mail ballots will start being delivered in less than four weeks. TV ads for candidates are currently few and far between. There are far more ads for/against some of the ballot initiatives.
Rather than many here being tasked with constantly explaining our support for Hillary Clinton, I’d like to know what conservatives here are going to do about the fact that your Trump/Conway/Priebus vermin Republican Party is coming after you and wants you gone:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/19/late-night-open-thread-kasich-escapes-the-compound/
Rather than many here being tasked with constantly explaining our support for Hillary Clinton, I’d like to know what conservatives here are going to do about the fact that your Trump/Conway/Priebus vermin Republican Party is coming after you and wants you gone:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/19/late-night-open-thread-kasich-escapes-the-compound/
Rather than many here being tasked with constantly explaining our support for Hillary Clinton, I’d like to know what conservatives here are going to do about the fact that your Trump/Conway/Priebus vermin Republican Party is coming after you and wants you gone:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/19/late-night-open-thread-kasich-escapes-the-compound/
Yes, Trump knew because his people planted the bombs, the murderers.
Radical Islamic terrorism and radical Republican terrorism have merged operations against the rest of us.
We’re going to have to kill all of them.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-claims-credit-calling-nyc-bombing
Instructions on how to profile radical Republican terrorists and their leaders coming soon.
It’s mostly about the hair.
Yes, Trump knew because his people planted the bombs, the murderers.
Radical Islamic terrorism and radical Republican terrorism have merged operations against the rest of us.
We’re going to have to kill all of them.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-claims-credit-calling-nyc-bombing
Instructions on how to profile radical Republican terrorists and their leaders coming soon.
It’s mostly about the hair.
Yes, Trump knew because his people planted the bombs, the murderers.
Radical Islamic terrorism and radical Republican terrorism have merged operations against the rest of us.
We’re going to have to kill all of them.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-claims-credit-calling-nyc-bombing
Instructions on how to profile radical Republican terrorists and their leaders coming soon.
It’s mostly about the hair.
Mike Pence is Dick Cheney:
http://juanitajean.com/not-who-i-would-have-picked/
Mike Pence is Dick Cheney:
http://juanitajean.com/not-who-i-would-have-picked/
Mike Pence is Dick Cheney:
http://juanitajean.com/not-who-i-would-have-picked/
Wait, I take a ten minute nap and instead of moving to Canada, now you all want to divide the country?
It took you that long to figure out Mark Steyn was Canadian?
Wait, I take a ten minute nap and instead of moving to Canada, now you all want to divide the country?
It took you that long to figure out Mark Steyn was Canadian?
Wait, I take a ten minute nap and instead of moving to Canada, now you all want to divide the country?
It took you that long to figure out Mark Steyn was Canadian?
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.
OK. So what public policies logically follow from this assessment?
They want to be isolated in like-minded communities of racial homogeneity.
Who are “they”? Same question as above.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.
OK. So what public policies logically follow from this assessment?
They want to be isolated in like-minded communities of racial homogeneity.
Who are “they”? Same question as above.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.
OK. So what public policies logically follow from this assessment?
They want to be isolated in like-minded communities of racial homogeneity.
Who are “they”? Same question as above.
He just couldn’t resist letting us knew that he know about the bombings before they happened, could he?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-deletes-tweet-obama-clinton-nyc-nj-blasts
How did he know?
Because he ordered the terrorist bombings and his Republican thug operatives carried them out to panic the electorate and hand him the White House.
It’s a very Putin-like move. Classic.
He just couldn’t resist letting us knew that he know about the bombings before they happened, could he?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-deletes-tweet-obama-clinton-nyc-nj-blasts
How did he know?
Because he ordered the terrorist bombings and his Republican thug operatives carried them out to panic the electorate and hand him the White House.
It’s a very Putin-like move. Classic.
He just couldn’t resist letting us knew that he know about the bombings before they happened, could he?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-deletes-tweet-obama-clinton-nyc-nj-blasts
How did he know?
Because he ordered the terrorist bombings and his Republican thug operatives carried them out to panic the electorate and hand him the White House.
It’s a very Putin-like move. Classic.
What he knowed, he don’t knew.
What he knowed, he don’t knew.
What he knowed, he don’t knew.
Wait, I take a ten minute nap and instead of moving to Canada, now you all want to divide the country?
Rats, Mom woke up.
Wait, I take a ten minute nap and instead of moving to Canada, now you all want to divide the country?
Rats, Mom woke up.
Wait, I take a ten minute nap and instead of moving to Canada, now you all want to divide the country?
Rats, Mom woke up.
“I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/racist-nationalism-rise-all-over-world
“I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/racist-nationalism-rise-all-over-world
“I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/racist-nationalism-rise-all-over-world
The full article:
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit
Sometime in the early 1930s, German pundits surveyed current events, shrugged, and said “I don’t think we’re getting rid of anti-semitism anytime soon.
The full article:
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit
Sometime in the early 1930s, German pundits surveyed current events, shrugged, and said “I don’t think we’re getting rid of anti-semitism anytime soon.
The full article:
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit
Sometime in the early 1930s, German pundits surveyed current events, shrugged, and said “I don’t think we’re getting rid of anti-semitism anytime soon.
Why do Islamic terrorists want Pence/Trump elected?
Who is directing Islamic terrorists to campaign for the Republican Trump’s election is such a fashion?
Why do Islamic terrorists want Pence/Trump elected?
Who is directing Islamic terrorists to campaign for the Republican Trump’s election is such a fashion?
Why do Islamic terrorists want Pence/Trump elected?
Who is directing Islamic terrorists to campaign for the Republican Trump’s election is such a fashion?
“I’d like to know what conservatives here are going to do about the fact that your Trump/Conway/Priebus vermin Republican Party is coming after you and wants you gone:”
We left. I watched Priebus yesterday. Funk him. We need Gary Johnson to get funding so we can just replace the lot of them next election.
“I’d like to know what conservatives here are going to do about the fact that your Trump/Conway/Priebus vermin Republican Party is coming after you and wants you gone:”
We left. I watched Priebus yesterday. Funk him. We need Gary Johnson to get funding so we can just replace the lot of them next election.
“I’d like to know what conservatives here are going to do about the fact that your Trump/Conway/Priebus vermin Republican Party is coming after you and wants you gone:”
We left. I watched Priebus yesterday. Funk him. We need Gary Johnson to get funding so we can just replace the lot of them next election.
Is this Trump pig complicit in the New Jersey/New York terrorist attacks to take attention away from his thuggery?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/19/1571882/-Christie-knew-about-bridge-lane-closures-prosecutors-say
We must follow these terrorist leads to the heart of the Republican Party just as we must find out precisely what fatal, hidden disease will kill Hillary Clinton days before the election.
Opinions about the truth will out. All is narrative now.
The truth itself, not so much.
Is this Trump pig complicit in the New Jersey/New York terrorist attacks to take attention away from his thuggery?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/19/1571882/-Christie-knew-about-bridge-lane-closures-prosecutors-say
We must follow these terrorist leads to the heart of the Republican Party just as we must find out precisely what fatal, hidden disease will kill Hillary Clinton days before the election.
Opinions about the truth will out. All is narrative now.
The truth itself, not so much.
Is this Trump pig complicit in the New Jersey/New York terrorist attacks to take attention away from his thuggery?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/19/1571882/-Christie-knew-about-bridge-lane-closures-prosecutors-say
We must follow these terrorist leads to the heart of the Republican Party just as we must find out precisely what fatal, hidden disease will kill Hillary Clinton days before the election.
Opinions about the truth will out. All is narrative now.
The truth itself, not so much.
Stein/Johnson in 2020. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48704/jill-stein-clinton-worse-than-trump/
Stein/Johnson in 2020. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48704/jill-stein-clinton-worse-than-trump/
Stein/Johnson in 2020. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48704/jill-stein-clinton-worse-than-trump/
Personally, I’m looking forward to a Franken/Stein ticket.
Personally, I’m looking forward to a Franken/Stein ticket.
Personally, I’m looking forward to a Franken/Stein ticket.
The 11-state West I talk about, largely through its almost universal veto-proof ballot-initiative “parallel” legislatures, is becoming a pot-smoking, vote by mail, independent redistricting region.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose this happens. What will be the broad political impact?
Do you expect the currently (very) red states in the mountain west to move towards the Democrats? Or do you see them as being the first states to have explicitly Libertarian state governments? Because it’s hard to see the characteristics you describe mesh with the social conservative side of the GOP.
The 11-state West I talk about, largely through its almost universal veto-proof ballot-initiative “parallel” legislatures, is becoming a pot-smoking, vote by mail, independent redistricting region.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose this happens. What will be the broad political impact?
Do you expect the currently (very) red states in the mountain west to move towards the Democrats? Or do you see them as being the first states to have explicitly Libertarian state governments? Because it’s hard to see the characteristics you describe mesh with the social conservative side of the GOP.
The 11-state West I talk about, largely through its almost universal veto-proof ballot-initiative “parallel” legislatures, is becoming a pot-smoking, vote by mail, independent redistricting region.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose this happens. What will be the broad political impact?
Do you expect the currently (very) red states in the mountain west to move towards the Democrats? Or do you see them as being the first states to have explicitly Libertarian state governments? Because it’s hard to see the characteristics you describe mesh with the social conservative side of the GOP.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.
Getting rid of it completely? Nope, not happening.
But if you’re old enough to remember the 1950s, or have studied the history of the time even a little, it’s striking how much has changed on that front. We still have a long way to go, but on any objective assessment the distance we have come is amazing — especially when you consider how much of the population is still people who grew up marinating in the racism of the time.
I think this is one of those cases where we need to work at remembering that a focus on perfection can be one of the worst enemies of progress.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.
Getting rid of it completely? Nope, not happening.
But if you’re old enough to remember the 1950s, or have studied the history of the time even a little, it’s striking how much has changed on that front. We still have a long way to go, but on any objective assessment the distance we have come is amazing — especially when you consider how much of the population is still people who grew up marinating in the racism of the time.
I think this is one of those cases where we need to work at remembering that a focus on perfection can be one of the worst enemies of progress.
I don’t think we’re getting rid of racism anytime soon.
Getting rid of it completely? Nope, not happening.
But if you’re old enough to remember the 1950s, or have studied the history of the time even a little, it’s striking how much has changed on that front. We still have a long way to go, but on any objective assessment the distance we have come is amazing — especially when you consider how much of the population is still people who grew up marinating in the racism of the time.
I think this is one of those cases where we need to work at remembering that a focus on perfection can be one of the worst enemies of progress.
I don’t understand the question. You’re proposing public policy to remedy some aspects of human nature?
I have to conclude that I don’t understand.
Racists, nativists, isolationists. Mostly all of a piece with one another, although there are some that are one of those without being the other two.
I don’t understand the question. You’re proposing public policy to remedy some aspects of human nature?
I have to conclude that I don’t understand.
Racists, nativists, isolationists. Mostly all of a piece with one another, although there are some that are one of those without being the other two.
I don’t understand the question. You’re proposing public policy to remedy some aspects of human nature?
I have to conclude that I don’t understand.
Racists, nativists, isolationists. Mostly all of a piece with one another, although there are some that are one of those without being the other two.
Michael Cain: fascinating, thank you.
Count, faux naivete is a new tactic for you! As we all (and you most of all) know, Trump is the wet-dream US President of Isis/Al Quaeda/Putin and all other friends of the democratic west.
Michael Cain: fascinating, thank you.
Count, faux naivete is a new tactic for you! As we all (and you most of all) know, Trump is the wet-dream US President of Isis/Al Quaeda/Putin and all other friends of the democratic west.
Michael Cain: fascinating, thank you.
Count, faux naivete is a new tactic for you! As we all (and you most of all) know, Trump is the wet-dream US President of Isis/Al Quaeda/Putin and all other friends of the democratic west.
A person can be realistic about the harm that forced perfection on the prejudice front might do, but also draw a line in the sand that we’re not backsliding in any way because a political movement wants us to.
If Trump’s Breitbartian anti-semitic operatives, for example, are working to take us back to a previous time in this country when such sentiments were tolerated, then I believe we have a right as Americans to prevent that backsliding, even if it includes the use of violence against the perpetrators.
If alt-conservatives, even assholes who happen to be gay, want to harass black and female performers who dare to act in productions for which they are hired, then we have a right as Americans to stop that harassment in its tracks, including with whatever physical violence is deemed appropriate.
If the law protects that expression of hate, then the law is an ass.
My two cents. We may never reach perfection but we’re not going back either.
Mileage may vary.
A person can be realistic about the harm that forced perfection on the prejudice front might do, but also draw a line in the sand that we’re not backsliding in any way because a political movement wants us to.
If Trump’s Breitbartian anti-semitic operatives, for example, are working to take us back to a previous time in this country when such sentiments were tolerated, then I believe we have a right as Americans to prevent that backsliding, even if it includes the use of violence against the perpetrators.
If alt-conservatives, even assholes who happen to be gay, want to harass black and female performers who dare to act in productions for which they are hired, then we have a right as Americans to stop that harassment in its tracks, including with whatever physical violence is deemed appropriate.
If the law protects that expression of hate, then the law is an ass.
My two cents. We may never reach perfection but we’re not going back either.
Mileage may vary.
A person can be realistic about the harm that forced perfection on the prejudice front might do, but also draw a line in the sand that we’re not backsliding in any way because a political movement wants us to.
If Trump’s Breitbartian anti-semitic operatives, for example, are working to take us back to a previous time in this country when such sentiments were tolerated, then I believe we have a right as Americans to prevent that backsliding, even if it includes the use of violence against the perpetrators.
If alt-conservatives, even assholes who happen to be gay, want to harass black and female performers who dare to act in productions for which they are hired, then we have a right as Americans to stop that harassment in its tracks, including with whatever physical violence is deemed appropriate.
If the law protects that expression of hate, then the law is an ass.
My two cents. We may never reach perfection but we’re not going back either.
Mileage may vary.
I don’t understand the question. You’re proposing public policy to remedy some aspects of human nature?
So, you are asserting that racism is a “aspect of human nature”?
You can’t be serious.
I don’t understand the question. You’re proposing public policy to remedy some aspects of human nature?
So, you are asserting that racism is a “aspect of human nature”?
You can’t be serious.
I don’t understand the question. You’re proposing public policy to remedy some aspects of human nature?
So, you are asserting that racism is a “aspect of human nature”?
You can’t be serious.
Five steps forward, two steps back (if only briefly) can be extremely frustrating. But while there’s no reason not to resist the backsliding, it’s a mistake to treat it as a permanent change for the worse. Fight back, but don’t give in to despair if you lose the occasional battle along the way.
Five steps forward, two steps back (if only briefly) can be extremely frustrating. But while there’s no reason not to resist the backsliding, it’s a mistake to treat it as a permanent change for the worse. Fight back, but don’t give in to despair if you lose the occasional battle along the way.
Five steps forward, two steps back (if only briefly) can be extremely frustrating. But while there’s no reason not to resist the backsliding, it’s a mistake to treat it as a permanent change for the worse. Fight back, but don’t give in to despair if you lose the occasional battle along the way.
I think this is one of those cases where we need to work at remembering that a focus on perfection can be one of the worst enemies of progress.
With all due respect, wj, this strikes me as a dodge. People who oppose racial progress have been making this same claim since the end of the Civil War.
I’m not lumping you in with “them”, but I’m seeing a tendency to define “the perfect” downward, thus enabling trotting out that hoary old maxim, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
So it is incumbent on you to tell us what you think “a focus on perfection” consists of before it can be so cavalierly written off.
I think this is one of those cases where we need to work at remembering that a focus on perfection can be one of the worst enemies of progress.
With all due respect, wj, this strikes me as a dodge. People who oppose racial progress have been making this same claim since the end of the Civil War.
I’m not lumping you in with “them”, but I’m seeing a tendency to define “the perfect” downward, thus enabling trotting out that hoary old maxim, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
So it is incumbent on you to tell us what you think “a focus on perfection” consists of before it can be so cavalierly written off.
I think this is one of those cases where we need to work at remembering that a focus on perfection can be one of the worst enemies of progress.
With all due respect, wj, this strikes me as a dodge. People who oppose racial progress have been making this same claim since the end of the Civil War.
I’m not lumping you in with “them”, but I’m seeing a tendency to define “the perfect” downward, thus enabling trotting out that hoary old maxim, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
So it is incumbent on you to tell us what you think “a focus on perfection” consists of before it can be so cavalierly written off.
OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair. Not just opposed, which it should be. But treated as cause for panic.
In the current political environment, we have seen racism coming out of the closet. And that’s certainly not a good thing.
But the fact that some, or even a lot of, people are feeling freer to give public voice to their racism is NOT an indication that racism is exploding to new levels. Yes, it would certainly be desirable if overt racism became once again “not the done thing”. In part because hearing less of it reduces the numbers of the next generation who learn it.
But what we should not do is go into panic mode. Not decide to lash out blindly. And not just hunker down and hope the bad guys will go away. Both of which I feel like I am seeing way too much of lately.
OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair. Not just opposed, which it should be. But treated as cause for panic.
In the current political environment, we have seen racism coming out of the closet. And that’s certainly not a good thing.
But the fact that some, or even a lot of, people are feeling freer to give public voice to their racism is NOT an indication that racism is exploding to new levels. Yes, it would certainly be desirable if overt racism became once again “not the done thing”. In part because hearing less of it reduces the numbers of the next generation who learn it.
But what we should not do is go into panic mode. Not decide to lash out blindly. And not just hunker down and hope the bad guys will go away. Both of which I feel like I am seeing way too much of lately.
OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair. Not just opposed, which it should be. But treated as cause for panic.
In the current political environment, we have seen racism coming out of the closet. And that’s certainly not a good thing.
But the fact that some, or even a lot of, people are feeling freer to give public voice to their racism is NOT an indication that racism is exploding to new levels. Yes, it would certainly be desirable if overt racism became once again “not the done thing”. In part because hearing less of it reduces the numbers of the next generation who learn it.
But what we should not do is go into panic mode. Not decide to lash out blindly. And not just hunker down and hope the bad guys will go away. Both of which I feel like I am seeing way too much of lately.
So, you are asserting that racism is a “aspect of human nature”?
It seems to me that the evidence is in slarti’s favor on this one.
So, you are asserting that racism is a “aspect of human nature”?
It seems to me that the evidence is in slarti’s favor on this one.
So, you are asserting that racism is a “aspect of human nature”?
It seems to me that the evidence is in slarti’s favor on this one.
It seems to me that the evidence is in slarti’s favor on this one.
Well, golly gee. Perhaps I missed that class on “human nature”. So here we have, apparently, it all laid out.
Humans are racists.
So, let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that this is true.
What do we do about it?
Shrug our shoulders?
Adopt public policies to mitigate the effects flowing from this natural state of affairs?
Pick one.
But please do not reply that you “don’t understand the question.
It’s pretty straightforward.
It seems to me that the evidence is in slarti’s favor on this one.
Well, golly gee. Perhaps I missed that class on “human nature”. So here we have, apparently, it all laid out.
Humans are racists.
So, let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that this is true.
What do we do about it?
Shrug our shoulders?
Adopt public policies to mitigate the effects flowing from this natural state of affairs?
Pick one.
But please do not reply that you “don’t understand the question.
It’s pretty straightforward.
It seems to me that the evidence is in slarti’s favor on this one.
Well, golly gee. Perhaps I missed that class on “human nature”. So here we have, apparently, it all laid out.
Humans are racists.
So, let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that this is true.
What do we do about it?
Shrug our shoulders?
Adopt public policies to mitigate the effects flowing from this natural state of affairs?
Pick one.
But please do not reply that you “don’t understand the question.
It’s pretty straightforward.
OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair.
Swing and a miss.
I’m not sure what that has to do with making the perfect the enemy of the good.
An example from internecine left blog warfare would be those who opposed the Affordable Care Act because it was not a full blown single payer system.
Still not clear what you’re about on this, wj.
OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair.
Swing and a miss.
I’m not sure what that has to do with making the perfect the enemy of the good.
An example from internecine left blog warfare would be those who opposed the Affordable Care Act because it was not a full blown single payer system.
Still not clear what you’re about on this, wj.
OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair.
Swing and a miss.
I’m not sure what that has to do with making the perfect the enemy of the good.
An example from internecine left blog warfare would be those who opposed the Affordable Care Act because it was not a full blown single payer system.
Still not clear what you’re about on this, wj.
In part because hearing less of it reduces the numbers of the next generation who learn it.
Not likely, it would seem, as I have been admonished that racism is part and parcel of “human nature”.
🙂
In part because hearing less of it reduces the numbers of the next generation who learn it.
Not likely, it would seem, as I have been admonished that racism is part and parcel of “human nature”.
🙂
In part because hearing less of it reduces the numbers of the next generation who learn it.
Not likely, it would seem, as I have been admonished that racism is part and parcel of “human nature”.
🙂
But what we should not do is go into panic mode. Not decide to lash out blindly. And not just hunker down and hope the bad guys will go away. Both of which I feel like I am seeing way too much of lately.
A couple of examples of each might help. Should be easy to produce given you’ve seen “way too much” of it out there.
🙂
But what we should not do is go into panic mode. Not decide to lash out blindly. And not just hunker down and hope the bad guys will go away. Both of which I feel like I am seeing way too much of lately.
A couple of examples of each might help. Should be easy to produce given you’ve seen “way too much” of it out there.
🙂
But what we should not do is go into panic mode. Not decide to lash out blindly. And not just hunker down and hope the bad guys will go away. Both of which I feel like I am seeing way too much of lately.
A couple of examples of each might help. Should be easy to produce given you’ve seen “way too much” of it out there.
🙂
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/everyone-agrees-chris-christie-knew-all-about-bridgegate
This just in:
Donald Trump today dumped Mike Pence as his Vice Presidential running mate in favor of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, citing news from the Bridgegate trial of Christie’s direct role in ruthlessly seeking vengeance on his political enemies by closing all but one lane of the bridges in question during rush hour.
Trump issued a statement praising Christie for his “Putin-like leadership qualities in getting his way, come hell or politically correct high water.” He said “maybe I’ve been a bit unfair to Governor Christie up until now. I thought he was a just a fat fuck with a flat head on which I could set my drink while he pleasured me in public, much to his humiliation, but this confirmation of his utter assholishness, I firmly believe, shows he is deserving of even lower callings in the service of the tens of millions of assholes in this country who support my campaign for President.”
“Besides, Pence expects me to do all of the name-calling against this country’s enemies, and quite frankly, while he wants Obamacare recipients dead just as I do, what fun is it to just murder them without also rubbing their faces in their theft of health from hard-working assholes in this country.”
When asked what he thought about Trump’s move, rival Presidential candidate Gary Johnson asked “What the hell is a “traffic cone?” and when informed of its purpose, said his budget cuts as President would preclude any use of traffic cones by busybody highway departments, even during terrorist attack emergencies. “If the American people want to cut in line and cause traffic jams all the way from the Throg’s Neck Bridge into the New Jersey suburbs, then they are the best deciders of that, along with their firearms. The heavier the traffic, the hotter the day, the bigger the clips.
When prompted that the Throg’s Neck Bridge connects to Long Island, not New Jersey, Johnson missed not a beat and said, “Leave it to the incompetent government to build its bridges in all the wrong places. And the next guy who uses the word “Throg” in any title gets fired. What is that, anyway, like a, like a frog with a speech impediment. In New Mexico, we use the King’s English. A taco is a taco and that’s it.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/everyone-agrees-chris-christie-knew-all-about-bridgegate
This just in:
Donald Trump today dumped Mike Pence as his Vice Presidential running mate in favor of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, citing news from the Bridgegate trial of Christie’s direct role in ruthlessly seeking vengeance on his political enemies by closing all but one lane of the bridges in question during rush hour.
Trump issued a statement praising Christie for his “Putin-like leadership qualities in getting his way, come hell or politically correct high water.” He said “maybe I’ve been a bit unfair to Governor Christie up until now. I thought he was a just a fat fuck with a flat head on which I could set my drink while he pleasured me in public, much to his humiliation, but this confirmation of his utter assholishness, I firmly believe, shows he is deserving of even lower callings in the service of the tens of millions of assholes in this country who support my campaign for President.”
“Besides, Pence expects me to do all of the name-calling against this country’s enemies, and quite frankly, while he wants Obamacare recipients dead just as I do, what fun is it to just murder them without also rubbing their faces in their theft of health from hard-working assholes in this country.”
When asked what he thought about Trump’s move, rival Presidential candidate Gary Johnson asked “What the hell is a “traffic cone?” and when informed of its purpose, said his budget cuts as President would preclude any use of traffic cones by busybody highway departments, even during terrorist attack emergencies. “If the American people want to cut in line and cause traffic jams all the way from the Throg’s Neck Bridge into the New Jersey suburbs, then they are the best deciders of that, along with their firearms. The heavier the traffic, the hotter the day, the bigger the clips.
When prompted that the Throg’s Neck Bridge connects to Long Island, not New Jersey, Johnson missed not a beat and said, “Leave it to the incompetent government to build its bridges in all the wrong places. And the next guy who uses the word “Throg” in any title gets fired. What is that, anyway, like a, like a frog with a speech impediment. In New Mexico, we use the King’s English. A taco is a taco and that’s it.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/everyone-agrees-chris-christie-knew-all-about-bridgegate
This just in:
Donald Trump today dumped Mike Pence as his Vice Presidential running mate in favor of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, citing news from the Bridgegate trial of Christie’s direct role in ruthlessly seeking vengeance on his political enemies by closing all but one lane of the bridges in question during rush hour.
Trump issued a statement praising Christie for his “Putin-like leadership qualities in getting his way, come hell or politically correct high water.” He said “maybe I’ve been a bit unfair to Governor Christie up until now. I thought he was a just a fat fuck with a flat head on which I could set my drink while he pleasured me in public, much to his humiliation, but this confirmation of his utter assholishness, I firmly believe, shows he is deserving of even lower callings in the service of the tens of millions of assholes in this country who support my campaign for President.”
“Besides, Pence expects me to do all of the name-calling against this country’s enemies, and quite frankly, while he wants Obamacare recipients dead just as I do, what fun is it to just murder them without also rubbing their faces in their theft of health from hard-working assholes in this country.”
When asked what he thought about Trump’s move, rival Presidential candidate Gary Johnson asked “What the hell is a “traffic cone?” and when informed of its purpose, said his budget cuts as President would preclude any use of traffic cones by busybody highway departments, even during terrorist attack emergencies. “If the American people want to cut in line and cause traffic jams all the way from the Throg’s Neck Bridge into the New Jersey suburbs, then they are the best deciders of that, along with their firearms. The heavier the traffic, the hotter the day, the bigger the clips.
When prompted that the Throg’s Neck Bridge connects to Long Island, not New Jersey, Johnson missed not a beat and said, “Leave it to the incompetent government to build its bridges in all the wrong places. And the next guy who uses the word “Throg” in any title gets fired. What is that, anyway, like a, like a frog with a speech impediment. In New Mexico, we use the King’s English. A taco is a taco and that’s it.”
Obviously not at my most articulate today.
What I’m seeing (or at least think I’m seeing) is an increasing number of comments along these lines: “we’re hearing a lot more explicitly racist comments, and not just the sort of dog whistles we have become accustomed to. The fact that the racists are coming out in the open means that we are on the verge of losing all of the progress that we’ve made in the last half century! Only extreme measures can save us, and even that may well not be enough.”**
It’s a council of despair. And one which seems to be leading those from whom I hear it to throw up their hands and walk away from involvement in the current political campaign. Not just the Presidential campaign, but any and all campaigns this year.
Does that make it any clearer?
** No, it’s not a real quote. I’m using the quotation marks to indicate what I feel I’m hearing, as opposed to what I’m trying to say.
Obviously not at my most articulate today.
What I’m seeing (or at least think I’m seeing) is an increasing number of comments along these lines: “we’re hearing a lot more explicitly racist comments, and not just the sort of dog whistles we have become accustomed to. The fact that the racists are coming out in the open means that we are on the verge of losing all of the progress that we’ve made in the last half century! Only extreme measures can save us, and even that may well not be enough.”**
It’s a council of despair. And one which seems to be leading those from whom I hear it to throw up their hands and walk away from involvement in the current political campaign. Not just the Presidential campaign, but any and all campaigns this year.
Does that make it any clearer?
** No, it’s not a real quote. I’m using the quotation marks to indicate what I feel I’m hearing, as opposed to what I’m trying to say.
Obviously not at my most articulate today.
What I’m seeing (or at least think I’m seeing) is an increasing number of comments along these lines: “we’re hearing a lot more explicitly racist comments, and not just the sort of dog whistles we have become accustomed to. The fact that the racists are coming out in the open means that we are on the verge of losing all of the progress that we’ve made in the last half century! Only extreme measures can save us, and even that may well not be enough.”**
It’s a council of despair. And one which seems to be leading those from whom I hear it to throw up their hands and walk away from involvement in the current political campaign. Not just the Presidential campaign, but any and all campaigns this year.
Does that make it any clearer?
** No, it’s not a real quote. I’m using the quotation marks to indicate what I feel I’m hearing, as opposed to what I’m trying to say.
“OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair. Not just opposed, which it should be. But treated as cause for panic.”
On an individual to individual basis, I might buy this. However, when an entire political movement informing one of two binary political parties in the United States morphs into that sort of despair-causing horror, I panic.
Not advisable to panic an armed populace.
“OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair. Not just opposed, which it should be. But treated as cause for panic.”
On an individual to individual basis, I might buy this. However, when an entire political movement informing one of two binary political parties in the United States morphs into that sort of despair-causing horror, I panic.
Not advisable to panic an armed populace.
“OK I’ll take a shot at that. By “a focus on perfection” I mean taking the position that, if there is the slightest slippage, it must be greeted with horror and despair. Not just opposed, which it should be. But treated as cause for panic.”
On an individual to individual basis, I might buy this. However, when an entire political movement informing one of two binary political parties in the United States morphs into that sort of despair-causing horror, I panic.
Not advisable to panic an armed populace.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48707/australia-refugees-island-trump/
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48707/australia-refugees-island-trump/
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48707/australia-refugees-island-trump/
Trump and his buddy-in-waiting Gary Johnson want to treat the New York/New Jersey Islamic/Republican Party jihadist just like they are going to treat 20 million or more American citizens now on Obamacare and Medicaid:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ahmad-rahami-bemoans-hospital-lawyer
Trump and his buddy-in-waiting Gary Johnson want to treat the New York/New Jersey Islamic/Republican Party jihadist just like they are going to treat 20 million or more American citizens now on Obamacare and Medicaid:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ahmad-rahami-bemoans-hospital-lawyer
Trump and his buddy-in-waiting Gary Johnson want to treat the New York/New Jersey Islamic/Republican Party jihadist just like they are going to treat 20 million or more American citizens now on Obamacare and Medicaid:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ahmad-rahami-bemoans-hospital-lawyer
Pick one.
(B)
Pick one.
(B)
Pick one.
(B)
Here’s an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose this happens. What will be the broad political impact? Do you expect the currently (very) red states in the mountain west to move towards the Democrats? Or do you see them as being the first states to have explicitly Libertarian state governments? Because it’s hard to see the characteristics you describe mesh with the social conservative side of the GOP.
Speaking hypothetically…
Yes to a blue-ward shift. Per the Census Bureau, the West has the same percentage non-rural population as the Northeast, both well above any other region. The population in the West is growing, and the large majority of that growth is in the region’s small number of major metro areas. The suburbs in those areas are shifting; consider that Denver’s suburbs voted for a sales tax increase to pay for light rail.
Personally, I think there are differences between the Mountain West GOP and the South/Midwest GOP that drives the national party. For example, eight of those 11 western states have adopted the Medicaid expansion (as did Alaska and Hawaii). In each of the other three — Idaho, Utah, Wyoming — the Republican governor has come out in favor of expansion. I expect all three to adopt it by 2018. Ballot initiatives have something to do with it; red Arizona passed independent redistricting over the state GOP’s official opposition pretty easily.
My expectation is that you’ll see an emerging regional caucus in Congress. Recall that Congress-critters from the West voted against the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act almost unanimously. A few years ago, Rep. Ryan wrote a budget that included cuts to fire fighting on federal lands, and the entire Republican delegation from the region showed up at his office to say they wouldn’t vote for it for that reason.
Finally, with tongue only partially in cheek, consider the case of major college football. The Pac-12 and MWC have become regional conferences, both spanning from the Rockies to the Pacific. In the process, ties across the Great Plains have been cut. Based on almost 30 years of observation, Denver sports talk radio is no longer focused on how well the rival Nebraska Cornhuskers are doing, it’s all about Stanford or Oregon.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose this happens. What will be the broad political impact? Do you expect the currently (very) red states in the mountain west to move towards the Democrats? Or do you see them as being the first states to have explicitly Libertarian state governments? Because it’s hard to see the characteristics you describe mesh with the social conservative side of the GOP.
Speaking hypothetically…
Yes to a blue-ward shift. Per the Census Bureau, the West has the same percentage non-rural population as the Northeast, both well above any other region. The population in the West is growing, and the large majority of that growth is in the region’s small number of major metro areas. The suburbs in those areas are shifting; consider that Denver’s suburbs voted for a sales tax increase to pay for light rail.
Personally, I think there are differences between the Mountain West GOP and the South/Midwest GOP that drives the national party. For example, eight of those 11 western states have adopted the Medicaid expansion (as did Alaska and Hawaii). In each of the other three — Idaho, Utah, Wyoming — the Republican governor has come out in favor of expansion. I expect all three to adopt it by 2018. Ballot initiatives have something to do with it; red Arizona passed independent redistricting over the state GOP’s official opposition pretty easily.
My expectation is that you’ll see an emerging regional caucus in Congress. Recall that Congress-critters from the West voted against the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act almost unanimously. A few years ago, Rep. Ryan wrote a budget that included cuts to fire fighting on federal lands, and the entire Republican delegation from the region showed up at his office to say they wouldn’t vote for it for that reason.
Finally, with tongue only partially in cheek, consider the case of major college football. The Pac-12 and MWC have become regional conferences, both spanning from the Rockies to the Pacific. In the process, ties across the Great Plains have been cut. Based on almost 30 years of observation, Denver sports talk radio is no longer focused on how well the rival Nebraska Cornhuskers are doing, it’s all about Stanford or Oregon.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose this happens. What will be the broad political impact? Do you expect the currently (very) red states in the mountain west to move towards the Democrats? Or do you see them as being the first states to have explicitly Libertarian state governments? Because it’s hard to see the characteristics you describe mesh with the social conservative side of the GOP.
Speaking hypothetically…
Yes to a blue-ward shift. Per the Census Bureau, the West has the same percentage non-rural population as the Northeast, both well above any other region. The population in the West is growing, and the large majority of that growth is in the region’s small number of major metro areas. The suburbs in those areas are shifting; consider that Denver’s suburbs voted for a sales tax increase to pay for light rail.
Personally, I think there are differences between the Mountain West GOP and the South/Midwest GOP that drives the national party. For example, eight of those 11 western states have adopted the Medicaid expansion (as did Alaska and Hawaii). In each of the other three — Idaho, Utah, Wyoming — the Republican governor has come out in favor of expansion. I expect all three to adopt it by 2018. Ballot initiatives have something to do with it; red Arizona passed independent redistricting over the state GOP’s official opposition pretty easily.
My expectation is that you’ll see an emerging regional caucus in Congress. Recall that Congress-critters from the West voted against the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act almost unanimously. A few years ago, Rep. Ryan wrote a budget that included cuts to fire fighting on federal lands, and the entire Republican delegation from the region showed up at his office to say they wouldn’t vote for it for that reason.
Finally, with tongue only partially in cheek, consider the case of major college football. The Pac-12 and MWC have become regional conferences, both spanning from the Rockies to the Pacific. In the process, ties across the Great Plains have been cut. Based on almost 30 years of observation, Denver sports talk radio is no longer focused on how well the rival Nebraska Cornhuskers are doing, it’s all about Stanford or Oregon.
(B)
Thanks! You are now in the minority of white people in this country.
Now for the hard part. What are the most effective policies? Leave aside any consideration of how politically tenable they are.
Food for thought.
But right now, the battle is to stop the election of a narcissistic racist asshat to the presidency.
(B)
Thanks! You are now in the minority of white people in this country.
Now for the hard part. What are the most effective policies? Leave aside any consideration of how politically tenable they are.
Food for thought.
But right now, the battle is to stop the election of a narcissistic racist asshat to the presidency.
(B)
Thanks! You are now in the minority of white people in this country.
Now for the hard part. What are the most effective policies? Leave aside any consideration of how politically tenable they are.
Food for thought.
But right now, the battle is to stop the election of a narcissistic racist asshat to the presidency.
“What are the most effective policies? Leave aside any consideration of how politically tenable they are.”
I’ve always been in favor of kick-ass criminal penalties for acting out your bigotry.
Like, jail.
But I’m not sure that would change any hearts and minds.
“What are the most effective policies? Leave aside any consideration of how politically tenable they are.”
I’ve always been in favor of kick-ass criminal penalties for acting out your bigotry.
Like, jail.
But I’m not sure that would change any hearts and minds.
“What are the most effective policies? Leave aside any consideration of how politically tenable they are.”
I’ve always been in favor of kick-ass criminal penalties for acting out your bigotry.
Like, jail.
But I’m not sure that would change any hearts and minds.
You can’t be serious.
You can’t be serious.
You can’t be serious.
Sapient, again your response had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of what was happening in Libya and given your rich fantasy life or willingness to accept baseless propaganda then anything can be justified. If Libya was a success, then any intervention which creates chaos and civil war is a success so long as the war dies down eventually. Three cheers for Clinton.
As for Syria, that war has dragged on because outside forces on all sides keep it going. Syria is not the anti- interventionist lab experiment– the rebels had support from the beginning and much of it went to Al Qaeda.
As for isolation, cheer up. Both Britain and te US support the Saudi war in Yemen.
Sapient, again your response had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of what was happening in Libya and given your rich fantasy life or willingness to accept baseless propaganda then anything can be justified. If Libya was a success, then any intervention which creates chaos and civil war is a success so long as the war dies down eventually. Three cheers for Clinton.
As for Syria, that war has dragged on because outside forces on all sides keep it going. Syria is not the anti- interventionist lab experiment– the rebels had support from the beginning and much of it went to Al Qaeda.
As for isolation, cheer up. Both Britain and te US support the Saudi war in Yemen.
Sapient, again your response had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of what was happening in Libya and given your rich fantasy life or willingness to accept baseless propaganda then anything can be justified. If Libya was a success, then any intervention which creates chaos and civil war is a success so long as the war dies down eventually. Three cheers for Clinton.
As for Syria, that war has dragged on because outside forces on all sides keep it going. Syria is not the anti- interventionist lab experiment– the rebels had support from the beginning and much of it went to Al Qaeda.
As for isolation, cheer up. Both Britain and te US support the Saudi war in Yemen.
Incidentally, Obama saw Libya as a failure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
I would take the self justifications in the piece with a truckload of salt, but he didn’t think as of last April that you could present it as a success.
This election has me feeling more sour than I can remember feeling at any point. Trump is a bizarre freak show and to stop him I am voting for someone I think should have been driven out of politics along with everyone else who spouted Bush’s pro Iraq War propaganda.
Incidentally, Obama saw Libya as a failure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
I would take the self justifications in the piece with a truckload of salt, but he didn’t think as of last April that you could present it as a success.
This election has me feeling more sour than I can remember feeling at any point. Trump is a bizarre freak show and to stop him I am voting for someone I think should have been driven out of politics along with everyone else who spouted Bush’s pro Iraq War propaganda.
Incidentally, Obama saw Libya as a failure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
I would take the self justifications in the piece with a truckload of salt, but he didn’t think as of last April that you could present it as a success.
This election has me feeling more sour than I can remember feeling at any point. Trump is a bizarre freak show and to stop him I am voting for someone I think should have been driven out of politics along with everyone else who spouted Bush’s pro Iraq War propaganda.
You’re mischaracterizing Obama’s remarks, Donald. He said this:
“We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.”
He then says:
“I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”
He didn’t say that it was wrong to intervene.
You spend a heck of a lot of your time loathing people. It’s really a bad look.
You’re mischaracterizing Obama’s remarks, Donald. He said this:
“We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.”
He then says:
“I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”
He didn’t say that it was wrong to intervene.
You spend a heck of a lot of your time loathing people. It’s really a bad look.
You’re mischaracterizing Obama’s remarks, Donald. He said this:
“We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.”
He then says:
“I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”
He didn’t say that it was wrong to intervene.
You spend a heck of a lot of your time loathing people. It’s really a bad look.
I picked this up at cleek’s joint about my hometown’s classic insult:
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/11154076-74/jagoff-added-dictionary
Finally, Donald Trump and a raft of Republican political and media personages can open the Oxford English Dictionary under “J” and learn what the world thinks of them.
I picked this up at cleek’s joint about my hometown’s classic insult:
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/11154076-74/jagoff-added-dictionary
Finally, Donald Trump and a raft of Republican political and media personages can open the Oxford English Dictionary under “J” and learn what the world thinks of them.
I picked this up at cleek’s joint about my hometown’s classic insult:
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/11154076-74/jagoff-added-dictionary
Finally, Donald Trump and a raft of Republican political and media personages can open the Oxford English Dictionary under “J” and learn what the world thinks of them.
and given your rich fantasy life or willingness to accept baseless propaganda then anything can be justified
This is a story from The Washington Post, dated February 23, 2011″
This is from the Human Rights Watch website, dated February 20, 2011:
Here’s a Reuters article describing a growing refugee crisis, and food shortages.
These were all my fantasies?
and given your rich fantasy life or willingness to accept baseless propaganda then anything can be justified
This is a story from The Washington Post, dated February 23, 2011″
This is from the Human Rights Watch website, dated February 20, 2011:
Here’s a Reuters article describing a growing refugee crisis, and food shortages.
These were all my fantasies?
and given your rich fantasy life or willingness to accept baseless propaganda then anything can be justified
This is a story from The Washington Post, dated February 23, 2011″
This is from the Human Rights Watch website, dated February 20, 2011:
Here’s a Reuters article describing a growing refugee crisis, and food shortages.
These were all my fantasies?
Oh, and Donald, for your further amusement, an interesting real estate deal between Gaddafi and Donald Trump.
Enlightenment comes with the Google.
Oh, and Donald, for your further amusement, an interesting real estate deal between Gaddafi and Donald Trump.
Enlightenment comes with the Google.
Oh, and Donald, for your further amusement, an interesting real estate deal between Gaddafi and Donald Trump.
Enlightenment comes with the Google.
Donald, more of my fantasies from Mother Jones. See the serial updates that were contemporaneous with events as they unfolded.
Donald, more of my fantasies from Mother Jones. See the serial updates that were contemporaneous with events as they unfolded.
Donald, more of my fantasies from Mother Jones. See the serial updates that were contemporaneous with events as they unfolded.
Sapient, none of that refutes the British report whose paragraphs I cited. Yes, Gaddafi committed a massive atrocity against prisoners in 1996. And no, nothing of the scale the interventionists talked about occurred in 2011.
The fact is that people claimed mass rapes and imminent mass slaughter would occur if Gaddafi retook Benghazi, yet he had already retaken towns and the death tolls were in the low hundreds. Not mass genocide. And of course rebels who wanted intervention played up the threat for all they could, including warnings of ” African mercenaries”‘ which was racist crap that endangered Africans. You don’t refute anything by citing what interventionists were saying. Bad things were happening in Libya. The interventionists then blew those up into imminent genocide.
Again, you might want to make a distinction between what actually did happen and the exaggerated claims that people used to justify an intervention that led to mass chaos. You could read the paragraphs I coped and look at the numbers. The violence was greater in Egypt when Morsi was deposed. Should we have bombed? It was greater when Israel bombed Gaza. It’s greater in Yemen and likely to get much worse unless the handful of politicians in DC succeed in pressuring Obama on this. Should we be bombing our allies? Say, why not give them more weapons and deny their crimes? And then ridicule Trump for his bootlicking of Putin. I love how upset Clintonite liberals are about how Trump boot licks Putin even as we are helping the Saudis bring Yemen to the brink of catastrophe. But gosh, wouldn’t want to make Democrats look bad.
Does it ever once occur to you even for a split second to be morally consistent about any of this? Why do we make such a huge outcry about the killings of our enemies when some of our friends kill more people with our weapons than Gaddafi did? Does that bother you even a tiny bit?
As for Trump, it’s entertaining that you think I give a damn. It’s reflexive with you. The world is divided into two camps and you can rebut me by showing Trump is a scum. That’s so cute. Trump is a walking disaster and constant liar who can’t honestly claim allegiance to any decent honorable position afaik. It doesn’t make the Libyan intervention any less of a crap storm , to euphemise Obama’s phrase.
Sapient, none of that refutes the British report whose paragraphs I cited. Yes, Gaddafi committed a massive atrocity against prisoners in 1996. And no, nothing of the scale the interventionists talked about occurred in 2011.
The fact is that people claimed mass rapes and imminent mass slaughter would occur if Gaddafi retook Benghazi, yet he had already retaken towns and the death tolls were in the low hundreds. Not mass genocide. And of course rebels who wanted intervention played up the threat for all they could, including warnings of ” African mercenaries”‘ which was racist crap that endangered Africans. You don’t refute anything by citing what interventionists were saying. Bad things were happening in Libya. The interventionists then blew those up into imminent genocide.
Again, you might want to make a distinction between what actually did happen and the exaggerated claims that people used to justify an intervention that led to mass chaos. You could read the paragraphs I coped and look at the numbers. The violence was greater in Egypt when Morsi was deposed. Should we have bombed? It was greater when Israel bombed Gaza. It’s greater in Yemen and likely to get much worse unless the handful of politicians in DC succeed in pressuring Obama on this. Should we be bombing our allies? Say, why not give them more weapons and deny their crimes? And then ridicule Trump for his bootlicking of Putin. I love how upset Clintonite liberals are about how Trump boot licks Putin even as we are helping the Saudis bring Yemen to the brink of catastrophe. But gosh, wouldn’t want to make Democrats look bad.
Does it ever once occur to you even for a split second to be morally consistent about any of this? Why do we make such a huge outcry about the killings of our enemies when some of our friends kill more people with our weapons than Gaddafi did? Does that bother you even a tiny bit?
As for Trump, it’s entertaining that you think I give a damn. It’s reflexive with you. The world is divided into two camps and you can rebut me by showing Trump is a scum. That’s so cute. Trump is a walking disaster and constant liar who can’t honestly claim allegiance to any decent honorable position afaik. It doesn’t make the Libyan intervention any less of a crap storm , to euphemise Obama’s phrase.
Sapient, none of that refutes the British report whose paragraphs I cited. Yes, Gaddafi committed a massive atrocity against prisoners in 1996. And no, nothing of the scale the interventionists talked about occurred in 2011.
The fact is that people claimed mass rapes and imminent mass slaughter would occur if Gaddafi retook Benghazi, yet he had already retaken towns and the death tolls were in the low hundreds. Not mass genocide. And of course rebels who wanted intervention played up the threat for all they could, including warnings of ” African mercenaries”‘ which was racist crap that endangered Africans. You don’t refute anything by citing what interventionists were saying. Bad things were happening in Libya. The interventionists then blew those up into imminent genocide.
Again, you might want to make a distinction between what actually did happen and the exaggerated claims that people used to justify an intervention that led to mass chaos. You could read the paragraphs I coped and look at the numbers. The violence was greater in Egypt when Morsi was deposed. Should we have bombed? It was greater when Israel bombed Gaza. It’s greater in Yemen and likely to get much worse unless the handful of politicians in DC succeed in pressuring Obama on this. Should we be bombing our allies? Say, why not give them more weapons and deny their crimes? And then ridicule Trump for his bootlicking of Putin. I love how upset Clintonite liberals are about how Trump boot licks Putin even as we are helping the Saudis bring Yemen to the brink of catastrophe. But gosh, wouldn’t want to make Democrats look bad.
Does it ever once occur to you even for a split second to be morally consistent about any of this? Why do we make such a huge outcry about the killings of our enemies when some of our friends kill more people with our weapons than Gaddafi did? Does that bother you even a tiny bit?
As for Trump, it’s entertaining that you think I give a damn. It’s reflexive with you. The world is divided into two camps and you can rebut me by showing Trump is a scum. That’s so cute. Trump is a walking disaster and constant liar who can’t honestly claim allegiance to any decent honorable position afaik. It doesn’t make the Libyan intervention any less of a crap storm , to euphemise Obama’s phrase.
Well, again, Donald, you’re willing to believe the 20 / 20 hindsight of the British, who are also having trouble getting their heads around their own decision to leave the EU. Regret is their current mantra, apparently. They’re way too confused to inspire my confidence in them as the authoritative source on the Libya intervention post-mortem.
Well, again, Donald, you’re willing to believe the 20 / 20 hindsight of the British, who are also having trouble getting their heads around their own decision to leave the EU. Regret is their current mantra, apparently. They’re way too confused to inspire my confidence in them as the authoritative source on the Libya intervention post-mortem.
Well, again, Donald, you’re willing to believe the 20 / 20 hindsight of the British, who are also having trouble getting their heads around their own decision to leave the EU. Regret is their current mantra, apparently. They’re way too confused to inspire my confidence in them as the authoritative source on the Libya intervention post-mortem.
It wasn’t hindsight– people were making that point very early on and it is always the case that interventionists take bad events and atrocities going on and portray them as incipient genocide. It’s absolutely bog standard behavior. Similar or larger atrocities committed by allies get treatment on page 6 in the NYT and barely a word is spoken by the pundits who constantly urge for military intervention when the wrong guys are doing the killing.
Why is that? I understand government officials being dishonest, but this behavior isn’t limited to government officials. I am being rhetorical. Obviously for many people there is some tribal political affiliation going on. As for pundits, there seems to be an unwritten rule about these things. Decades ago you could understand why even the stupid pundit class didn’t know about, say, East Timor, but not knowing about Yemen is impossible for anyone who makes it to page 6, yet it has been studiously ignored by most pundits and politicians in both parties. Saudi influence? Obviously. But look over there. Putin. More generally, if the US political class gets together they can ignore anything.
Dismissing the British report because of Brexit is like dismissing global warming because Al Gore is fat and has a big house. It’s the same level of logic. Ignore facts if they make one’s political tribe look bad. Trump is the logical end result of how partisans approach reality. Why bother with it at all?
It wasn’t hindsight– people were making that point very early on and it is always the case that interventionists take bad events and atrocities going on and portray them as incipient genocide. It’s absolutely bog standard behavior. Similar or larger atrocities committed by allies get treatment on page 6 in the NYT and barely a word is spoken by the pundits who constantly urge for military intervention when the wrong guys are doing the killing.
Why is that? I understand government officials being dishonest, but this behavior isn’t limited to government officials. I am being rhetorical. Obviously for many people there is some tribal political affiliation going on. As for pundits, there seems to be an unwritten rule about these things. Decades ago you could understand why even the stupid pundit class didn’t know about, say, East Timor, but not knowing about Yemen is impossible for anyone who makes it to page 6, yet it has been studiously ignored by most pundits and politicians in both parties. Saudi influence? Obviously. But look over there. Putin. More generally, if the US political class gets together they can ignore anything.
Dismissing the British report because of Brexit is like dismissing global warming because Al Gore is fat and has a big house. It’s the same level of logic. Ignore facts if they make one’s political tribe look bad. Trump is the logical end result of how partisans approach reality. Why bother with it at all?
It wasn’t hindsight– people were making that point very early on and it is always the case that interventionists take bad events and atrocities going on and portray them as incipient genocide. It’s absolutely bog standard behavior. Similar or larger atrocities committed by allies get treatment on page 6 in the NYT and barely a word is spoken by the pundits who constantly urge for military intervention when the wrong guys are doing the killing.
Why is that? I understand government officials being dishonest, but this behavior isn’t limited to government officials. I am being rhetorical. Obviously for many people there is some tribal political affiliation going on. As for pundits, there seems to be an unwritten rule about these things. Decades ago you could understand why even the stupid pundit class didn’t know about, say, East Timor, but not knowing about Yemen is impossible for anyone who makes it to page 6, yet it has been studiously ignored by most pundits and politicians in both parties. Saudi influence? Obviously. But look over there. Putin. More generally, if the US political class gets together they can ignore anything.
Dismissing the British report because of Brexit is like dismissing global warming because Al Gore is fat and has a big house. It’s the same level of logic. Ignore facts if they make one’s political tribe look bad. Trump is the logical end result of how partisans approach reality. Why bother with it at all?
Btw, in my own personal case it would be hindsight. I didn’t know enough about Libya to know how exaggerated the pro intervention rhetoric was and I don’t think you would have found me anywhere online taking a stand. I was naturally suspicious, but ignorant.
But there are people paid to analyze facts and to be experts or to consult experts and see how much evidence there was for the claims made. And the report also points out that the objective of preventing the fall of Benghazi was achieved very quickly. Then the mission changed to overthrow.
Btw, in my own personal case it would be hindsight. I didn’t know enough about Libya to know how exaggerated the pro intervention rhetoric was and I don’t think you would have found me anywhere online taking a stand. I was naturally suspicious, but ignorant.
But there are people paid to analyze facts and to be experts or to consult experts and see how much evidence there was for the claims made. And the report also points out that the objective of preventing the fall of Benghazi was achieved very quickly. Then the mission changed to overthrow.
Btw, in my own personal case it would be hindsight. I didn’t know enough about Libya to know how exaggerated the pro intervention rhetoric was and I don’t think you would have found me anywhere online taking a stand. I was naturally suspicious, but ignorant.
But there are people paid to analyze facts and to be experts or to consult experts and see how much evidence there was for the claims made. And the report also points out that the objective of preventing the fall of Benghazi was achieved very quickly. Then the mission changed to overthrow.
not knowing about Yemen is impossible for anyone who makes it to page 6, yet it has been studiously ignored by most pundits and politicians in both parties. Saudi influence? Obviously.
By the way, are you ever going to address the possibility that its not just “Saudi influence” but something tied to the Iran deal, something most sentient humans believe will ward off much more destruction? You accuse me of lacking an imagination, but perhaps you should put yours to use more often.
not knowing about Yemen is impossible for anyone who makes it to page 6, yet it has been studiously ignored by most pundits and politicians in both parties. Saudi influence? Obviously.
By the way, are you ever going to address the possibility that its not just “Saudi influence” but something tied to the Iran deal, something most sentient humans believe will ward off much more destruction? You accuse me of lacking an imagination, but perhaps you should put yours to use more often.
not knowing about Yemen is impossible for anyone who makes it to page 6, yet it has been studiously ignored by most pundits and politicians in both parties. Saudi influence? Obviously.
By the way, are you ever going to address the possibility that its not just “Saudi influence” but something tied to the Iran deal, something most sentient humans believe will ward off much more destruction? You accuse me of lacking an imagination, but perhaps you should put yours to use more often.
Comparing Libya to Syria is also instructive. This article by Josh Rogen is something to think about. And articles published since that one indicate that ISIL is practically gone from Libya now.
Comparing Libya to Syria is also instructive. This article by Josh Rogen is something to think about. And articles published since that one indicate that ISIL is practically gone from Libya now.
Comparing Libya to Syria is also instructive. This article by Josh Rogen is something to think about. And articles published since that one indicate that ISIL is practically gone from Libya now.
Really? Did we just see a Mother Jones link, here?
We might was well go back to citing National Review, or Andrew Sullivan, or even Cato. Or Free Republic, even. Hey! Democratic Underground!
Just like real news sources, only…without so much sourcing.
Really? Did we just see a Mother Jones link, here?
We might was well go back to citing National Review, or Andrew Sullivan, or even Cato. Or Free Republic, even. Hey! Democratic Underground!
Just like real news sources, only…without so much sourcing.
Really? Did we just see a Mother Jones link, here?
We might was well go back to citing National Review, or Andrew Sullivan, or even Cato. Or Free Republic, even. Hey! Democratic Underground!
Just like real news sources, only…without so much sourcing.
You spend a heck of a lot of your time loathing people. It’s really a bad look.
You spend a breathtaking amount of time loathing different people, condescending towards still others, and exactly none focusing the same level of scrutiny you direct outwards back towards your ideological patrons. I don’t think you’re really in a credible position to dismiss anyone as looking bad on such topics.
Your repetition of the liberal hawk mantra that negative outcomes can only be visible in hindsight is equally hollow, particularly when paired in ridiculous contrast with confident speculation about the negative consequences which would have arrisen had your preferred course of action not been pursued.
You keep invoking Iran in very nebulous but Deeply Significant terms; is the takeaway from such references supposed to be that we had no choice but to offer the Saudis carte blanche everywhere else to get them, a nation who was not central to the negotiations, to sign off on the deal? Just who exactly is the patron and who is the client state here?
You spend a heck of a lot of your time loathing people. It’s really a bad look.
You spend a breathtaking amount of time loathing different people, condescending towards still others, and exactly none focusing the same level of scrutiny you direct outwards back towards your ideological patrons. I don’t think you’re really in a credible position to dismiss anyone as looking bad on such topics.
Your repetition of the liberal hawk mantra that negative outcomes can only be visible in hindsight is equally hollow, particularly when paired in ridiculous contrast with confident speculation about the negative consequences which would have arrisen had your preferred course of action not been pursued.
You keep invoking Iran in very nebulous but Deeply Significant terms; is the takeaway from such references supposed to be that we had no choice but to offer the Saudis carte blanche everywhere else to get them, a nation who was not central to the negotiations, to sign off on the deal? Just who exactly is the patron and who is the client state here?
You spend a heck of a lot of your time loathing people. It’s really a bad look.
You spend a breathtaking amount of time loathing different people, condescending towards still others, and exactly none focusing the same level of scrutiny you direct outwards back towards your ideological patrons. I don’t think you’re really in a credible position to dismiss anyone as looking bad on such topics.
Your repetition of the liberal hawk mantra that negative outcomes can only be visible in hindsight is equally hollow, particularly when paired in ridiculous contrast with confident speculation about the negative consequences which would have arrisen had your preferred course of action not been pursued.
You keep invoking Iran in very nebulous but Deeply Significant terms; is the takeaway from such references supposed to be that we had no choice but to offer the Saudis carte blanche everywhere else to get them, a nation who was not central to the negotiations, to sign off on the deal? Just who exactly is the patron and who is the client state here?
“real news sources”
Slart, which of those do you read, that haven’t been completely disqualified by the “just like real news sources”, for whatever reason?
I read the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and listened to some C-Span years ago (still have NPR on in the car, but even they now feel compelled to offer the other side of the argument “Moon not made of green cheese? Some beg to differ”) but I noticed a few years ago that I might as well have been citing the “Arabian Nights”, for all it mattered in political issue discussions with folks who thought they were getting truth and fact from some source not associated with the lame stream media, and that is a bipartisan statement.
If I dumb back up, I’ll need to find all new friends.
I took a gander at the National Enquirer at the check out stand the other day, and it was running Donald Trump’s talking points, most of which had to with Bill Clinton’s dinger.
You have goats and pigs to talk to. What do they say, which is to say this may well be the last political cycle in which I have anything to say, nonplussed as I am?
I may find a garden to tend and otherwise fuck it.
“real news sources”
Slart, which of those do you read, that haven’t been completely disqualified by the “just like real news sources”, for whatever reason?
I read the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and listened to some C-Span years ago (still have NPR on in the car, but even they now feel compelled to offer the other side of the argument “Moon not made of green cheese? Some beg to differ”) but I noticed a few years ago that I might as well have been citing the “Arabian Nights”, for all it mattered in political issue discussions with folks who thought they were getting truth and fact from some source not associated with the lame stream media, and that is a bipartisan statement.
If I dumb back up, I’ll need to find all new friends.
I took a gander at the National Enquirer at the check out stand the other day, and it was running Donald Trump’s talking points, most of which had to with Bill Clinton’s dinger.
You have goats and pigs to talk to. What do they say, which is to say this may well be the last political cycle in which I have anything to say, nonplussed as I am?
I may find a garden to tend and otherwise fuck it.
“real news sources”
Slart, which of those do you read, that haven’t been completely disqualified by the “just like real news sources”, for whatever reason?
I read the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and listened to some C-Span years ago (still have NPR on in the car, but even they now feel compelled to offer the other side of the argument “Moon not made of green cheese? Some beg to differ”) but I noticed a few years ago that I might as well have been citing the “Arabian Nights”, for all it mattered in political issue discussions with folks who thought they were getting truth and fact from some source not associated with the lame stream media, and that is a bipartisan statement.
If I dumb back up, I’ll need to find all new friends.
I took a gander at the National Enquirer at the check out stand the other day, and it was running Donald Trump’s talking points, most of which had to with Bill Clinton’s dinger.
You have goats and pigs to talk to. What do they say, which is to say this may well be the last political cycle in which I have anything to say, nonplussed as I am?
I may find a garden to tend and otherwise fuck it.
Deeply Significant
Is that different from deeply significant?
Perhaps this is something to consider: many people, both in the region and elsewhere, are in hair trigger mode regarding Iran, and are ready to do something extremely violent and destructive. The Iran deal is something that is forestalling that event. Whether or not it can actually be prevented is anyone’s guess, but buying time against such things is wise. Nobody has given the Saudis a “carte blanche”. Diplomacy is difficult; otherwise, maybe we’d be doing it instead of commenting on blogs.
Deeply Significant
Is that different from deeply significant?
Perhaps this is something to consider: many people, both in the region and elsewhere, are in hair trigger mode regarding Iran, and are ready to do something extremely violent and destructive. The Iran deal is something that is forestalling that event. Whether or not it can actually be prevented is anyone’s guess, but buying time against such things is wise. Nobody has given the Saudis a “carte blanche”. Diplomacy is difficult; otherwise, maybe we’d be doing it instead of commenting on blogs.
Deeply Significant
Is that different from deeply significant?
Perhaps this is something to consider: many people, both in the region and elsewhere, are in hair trigger mode regarding Iran, and are ready to do something extremely violent and destructive. The Iran deal is something that is forestalling that event. Whether or not it can actually be prevented is anyone’s guess, but buying time against such things is wise. Nobody has given the Saudis a “carte blanche”. Diplomacy is difficult; otherwise, maybe we’d be doing it instead of commenting on blogs.
“maybe we’d be doing it instead of commenting on blogs.”
Without wading into your dispute with Donald Johnson, this strikes me as a worthy observation.
We live in a culture now in which the only folks who know anything about any particular subject … in politics or out … are those who know nothing about it, and that ignorance in and of itself is held as the highest form of de Toquevillian authenticity.
Everything is fantasy sports.
“maybe we’d be doing it instead of commenting on blogs.”
Without wading into your dispute with Donald Johnson, this strikes me as a worthy observation.
We live in a culture now in which the only folks who know anything about any particular subject … in politics or out … are those who know nothing about it, and that ignorance in and of itself is held as the highest form of de Toquevillian authenticity.
Everything is fantasy sports.
“maybe we’d be doing it instead of commenting on blogs.”
Without wading into your dispute with Donald Johnson, this strikes me as a worthy observation.
We live in a culture now in which the only folks who know anything about any particular subject … in politics or out … are those who know nothing about it, and that ignorance in and of itself is held as the highest form of de Toquevillian authenticity.
Everything is fantasy sports.
de Tocqueville.
Or, as Gary Johnson might spell it, de Tokeville, man.
de Tocqueville.
Or, as Gary Johnson might spell it, de Tokeville, man.
de Tocqueville.
Or, as Gary Johnson might spell it, de Tokeville, man.
Deeply Significant is pregnant with unknowable implications that must be assumed in our ignorance when someone seeks to question the plans of very serious experts who have only absolute necessity and the greater good in mind when making their agonizingly difficult decisions. It differs from deeply significant, which is the explicitly and exhaustively stated motivations and outcomes that are projected by those same very serious experts when they outline their blindingly nuanced plans.
Oh, and gauging by your response, I was correct in my assumption that your invocations of Iran aren’t actually tied to anything beyond “how DARE you question a sitting Democratic President!” – you don’t have any reason to specifically connect the two, but you’ll speculatively do so anyway… even as you chide us for daring to speculate about the too-serious-to-be-understood-by-peons business of international diplomacy. Funny how the objections to amateur analysis of foreign affairs as hopelessly ignorant and uninformed only come out after someone questions your conclusions in that arena. Lead by example unless it’s inconvenient, I guess? Plus ça change…
Deeply Significant is pregnant with unknowable implications that must be assumed in our ignorance when someone seeks to question the plans of very serious experts who have only absolute necessity and the greater good in mind when making their agonizingly difficult decisions. It differs from deeply significant, which is the explicitly and exhaustively stated motivations and outcomes that are projected by those same very serious experts when they outline their blindingly nuanced plans.
Oh, and gauging by your response, I was correct in my assumption that your invocations of Iran aren’t actually tied to anything beyond “how DARE you question a sitting Democratic President!” – you don’t have any reason to specifically connect the two, but you’ll speculatively do so anyway… even as you chide us for daring to speculate about the too-serious-to-be-understood-by-peons business of international diplomacy. Funny how the objections to amateur analysis of foreign affairs as hopelessly ignorant and uninformed only come out after someone questions your conclusions in that arena. Lead by example unless it’s inconvenient, I guess? Plus ça change…
Deeply Significant is pregnant with unknowable implications that must be assumed in our ignorance when someone seeks to question the plans of very serious experts who have only absolute necessity and the greater good in mind when making their agonizingly difficult decisions. It differs from deeply significant, which is the explicitly and exhaustively stated motivations and outcomes that are projected by those same very serious experts when they outline their blindingly nuanced plans.
Oh, and gauging by your response, I was correct in my assumption that your invocations of Iran aren’t actually tied to anything beyond “how DARE you question a sitting Democratic President!” – you don’t have any reason to specifically connect the two, but you’ll speculatively do so anyway… even as you chide us for daring to speculate about the too-serious-to-be-understood-by-peons business of international diplomacy. Funny how the objections to amateur analysis of foreign affairs as hopelessly ignorant and uninformed only come out after someone questions your conclusions in that arena. Lead by example unless it’s inconvenient, I guess? Plus ça change…
Funny how the objections to amateur analysis of foreign affairs as hopelessly ignorant and uninformed
Did I say that? Or did I provide evidence for my disagreement with other people here? I purposely included myself in acknowledging that we’re here, in the Count’s words, playing “fantasy football.”
The country’s leaders have a daunting task. They’re trying to do it well, although sometimes they fail. I don’t see the callousness and corruption that you and Donald seem to impute to every decision that’s made by anyone in government.
Funny how the objections to amateur analysis of foreign affairs as hopelessly ignorant and uninformed
Did I say that? Or did I provide evidence for my disagreement with other people here? I purposely included myself in acknowledging that we’re here, in the Count’s words, playing “fantasy football.”
The country’s leaders have a daunting task. They’re trying to do it well, although sometimes they fail. I don’t see the callousness and corruption that you and Donald seem to impute to every decision that’s made by anyone in government.
Funny how the objections to amateur analysis of foreign affairs as hopelessly ignorant and uninformed
Did I say that? Or did I provide evidence for my disagreement with other people here? I purposely included myself in acknowledging that we’re here, in the Count’s words, playing “fantasy football.”
The country’s leaders have a daunting task. They’re trying to do it well, although sometimes they fail. I don’t see the callousness and corruption that you and Donald seem to impute to every decision that’s made by anyone in government.
I don’t see the callousness and corruption that you and Donald seem to impute to every decision that’s made by anyone in government.
This strikes me as a terrible misreading of those who disagree with your opinion(s) on these matters.
I don’t see the callousness and corruption that you and Donald seem to impute to every decision that’s made by anyone in government.
This strikes me as a terrible misreading of those who disagree with your opinion(s) on these matters.
I don’t see the callousness and corruption that you and Donald seem to impute to every decision that’s made by anyone in government.
This strikes me as a terrible misreading of those who disagree with your opinion(s) on these matters.
This strikes me as a terrible misreading of those who disagree with your opinion(s) on these matters.
Is it? What else accounts for the loathing? Donald has never addressed what might have been necessary to negotiate the Iran deal, and why that deal might be essential. NV claims that we’ve willy nilly given the Saudis “carte blanche.” What accounts for this reluctance on their part to try to understand the rationale of our current policy?
They’re simply not generous enough to attribute good faith to policy makers. How about this phrase by NV: “even as you chide us for daring to speculate about the too-serious-to-be-understood-by-peons business of international diplomacy”
You’re welcome to your own interpretation.
This strikes me as a terrible misreading of those who disagree with your opinion(s) on these matters.
Is it? What else accounts for the loathing? Donald has never addressed what might have been necessary to negotiate the Iran deal, and why that deal might be essential. NV claims that we’ve willy nilly given the Saudis “carte blanche.” What accounts for this reluctance on their part to try to understand the rationale of our current policy?
They’re simply not generous enough to attribute good faith to policy makers. How about this phrase by NV: “even as you chide us for daring to speculate about the too-serious-to-be-understood-by-peons business of international diplomacy”
You’re welcome to your own interpretation.
This strikes me as a terrible misreading of those who disagree with your opinion(s) on these matters.
Is it? What else accounts for the loathing? Donald has never addressed what might have been necessary to negotiate the Iran deal, and why that deal might be essential. NV claims that we’ve willy nilly given the Saudis “carte blanche.” What accounts for this reluctance on their part to try to understand the rationale of our current policy?
They’re simply not generous enough to attribute good faith to policy makers. How about this phrase by NV: “even as you chide us for daring to speculate about the too-serious-to-be-understood-by-peons business of international diplomacy”
You’re welcome to your own interpretation.
What accounts for this reluctance on their part to try to understand the rationale of our current policy?
And by this I don’t mean “agree with our current policy”. I only mean “understand the rationale” in a way that doesn’t imply immorality.
What accounts for this reluctance on their part to try to understand the rationale of our current policy?
And by this I don’t mean “agree with our current policy”. I only mean “understand the rationale” in a way that doesn’t imply immorality.
What accounts for this reluctance on their part to try to understand the rationale of our current policy?
And by this I don’t mean “agree with our current policy”. I only mean “understand the rationale” in a way that doesn’t imply immorality.
Ever here, we are seeing shadows of what I think is the deepest cancer on our political discourse today. Way too many people assume, insist even, that those who disagree with them on policy do so only from malice.
Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene. With the obvious corollary that an absolutely enormous fraction of the total population is malevolent. Not just wrong, but resolutely evil.
Among other things, this makes civilized discussion of issues impossible. Not to mention making it difficult to reach the compromises necessary to actually govern — and electorally risky to even appear to contemplate doing so.
Ever here, we are seeing shadows of what I think is the deepest cancer on our political discourse today. Way too many people assume, insist even, that those who disagree with them on policy do so only from malice.
Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene. With the obvious corollary that an absolutely enormous fraction of the total population is malevolent. Not just wrong, but resolutely evil.
Among other things, this makes civilized discussion of issues impossible. Not to mention making it difficult to reach the compromises necessary to actually govern — and electorally risky to even appear to contemplate doing so.
Ever here, we are seeing shadows of what I think is the deepest cancer on our political discourse today. Way too many people assume, insist even, that those who disagree with them on policy do so only from malice.
Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene. With the obvious corollary that an absolutely enormous fraction of the total population is malevolent. Not just wrong, but resolutely evil.
Among other things, this makes civilized discussion of issues impossible. Not to mention making it difficult to reach the compromises necessary to actually govern — and electorally risky to even appear to contemplate doing so.
Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene.
This attitude is, unfortunately, blinding a lot of people to the fact that there are a few very seriously dangerous, ill-intentioned people around as well. Painting everyone with this brush is an incredible disservice to the truth.
Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene.
This attitude is, unfortunately, blinding a lot of people to the fact that there are a few very seriously dangerous, ill-intentioned people around as well. Painting everyone with this brush is an incredible disservice to the truth.
Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene.
This attitude is, unfortunately, blinding a lot of people to the fact that there are a few very seriously dangerous, ill-intentioned people around as well. Painting everyone with this brush is an incredible disservice to the truth.
What wj said, assuming he meant to start his comment with “Even here..”
What wj said, assuming he meant to start his comment with “Even here..”
What wj said, assuming he meant to start his comment with “Even here..”
Hey, folks. The same person wrote both of the following quotes….
“They’re (people who disagree with me) simply not generous enough to attribute good faith to policy makers (i.e., those they disagree with)….”
“This attitude (assuming good faith to those you disagree with) is, unfortunately, blinding a lot of people to the fact that there are a few very seriously dangerous, ill-intentioned people around as well. Painting everyone with this brush is an incredible disservice to the truth.”
Is this what is known as ‘having it both ways’?
Hey, folks. The same person wrote both of the following quotes….
“They’re (people who disagree with me) simply not generous enough to attribute good faith to policy makers (i.e., those they disagree with)….”
“This attitude (assuming good faith to those you disagree with) is, unfortunately, blinding a lot of people to the fact that there are a few very seriously dangerous, ill-intentioned people around as well. Painting everyone with this brush is an incredible disservice to the truth.”
Is this what is known as ‘having it both ways’?
Hey, folks. The same person wrote both of the following quotes….
“They’re (people who disagree with me) simply not generous enough to attribute good faith to policy makers (i.e., those they disagree with)….”
“This attitude (assuming good faith to those you disagree with) is, unfortunately, blinding a lot of people to the fact that there are a few very seriously dangerous, ill-intentioned people around as well. Painting everyone with this brush is an incredible disservice to the truth.”
Is this what is known as ‘having it both ways’?
What I’m getting out of this discussion is that Donald and NV are bothered by inconsistent critical examination, depending on whose actions are under discussion, and what moral implications are or are not taken into consideration.
One can question the moral implications of a particular policy, whether foreign or domestic, without necessarily imputing evil to the people making what one might consider to be morally problematic decisions.
Disagreeing with someone’s moral calculations may be the same thing, in some sense, as calling that person immoral. Or it can mean that the person in question failed to recognize or fully appreciate some aspect of an admittedly complicated situation and therefore failed to choose the best option. At some point, you may come to question someone’s judgment after they’ve repeatedly failed in this way.
What I see is that both Donald and NV are presenting cases based on the real-world consequences of the policies they disagree with, as opposed to saying, “I don’t like this policy because the people who came up with it are bad.”
Certainly, you can disagree with their assessments, but characterizing them as simply imputing evil or immorality to the decision makers as the basis for their opinions is wrong AFAICT.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the criticism of their thinking.
What I’m getting out of this discussion is that Donald and NV are bothered by inconsistent critical examination, depending on whose actions are under discussion, and what moral implications are or are not taken into consideration.
One can question the moral implications of a particular policy, whether foreign or domestic, without necessarily imputing evil to the people making what one might consider to be morally problematic decisions.
Disagreeing with someone’s moral calculations may be the same thing, in some sense, as calling that person immoral. Or it can mean that the person in question failed to recognize or fully appreciate some aspect of an admittedly complicated situation and therefore failed to choose the best option. At some point, you may come to question someone’s judgment after they’ve repeatedly failed in this way.
What I see is that both Donald and NV are presenting cases based on the real-world consequences of the policies they disagree with, as opposed to saying, “I don’t like this policy because the people who came up with it are bad.”
Certainly, you can disagree with their assessments, but characterizing them as simply imputing evil or immorality to the decision makers as the basis for their opinions is wrong AFAICT.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the criticism of their thinking.
What I’m getting out of this discussion is that Donald and NV are bothered by inconsistent critical examination, depending on whose actions are under discussion, and what moral implications are or are not taken into consideration.
One can question the moral implications of a particular policy, whether foreign or domestic, without necessarily imputing evil to the people making what one might consider to be morally problematic decisions.
Disagreeing with someone’s moral calculations may be the same thing, in some sense, as calling that person immoral. Or it can mean that the person in question failed to recognize or fully appreciate some aspect of an admittedly complicated situation and therefore failed to choose the best option. At some point, you may come to question someone’s judgment after they’ve repeatedly failed in this way.
What I see is that both Donald and NV are presenting cases based on the real-world consequences of the policies they disagree with, as opposed to saying, “I don’t like this policy because the people who came up with it are bad.”
Certainly, you can disagree with their assessments, but characterizing them as simply imputing evil or immorality to the decision makers as the basis for their opinions is wrong AFAICT.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the criticism of their thinking.
Is this what is known as ‘having it both ways’?
Perhaps you should defend the examples I cited that you characterized as a “misreading”.
Is this what is known as ‘having it both ways’?
Perhaps you should defend the examples I cited that you characterized as a “misreading”.
Is this what is known as ‘having it both ways’?
Perhaps you should defend the examples I cited that you characterized as a “misreading”.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the criticism of their thinking.
I would like for Donald and NV to specifically address the complexities of the Iran deal, to state their opinion on how worthwhile the Iran deal is, and to discuss the possibility that in order to arrive at certain nations’ forbearance of military action against Iran, we had to do some things that would appease some of the participants, such as provide the Saudis with logistical support in Yemen (which there’s no evidence has any effect on the civilian casualties that the Saudis are, all by themselves, inflicting).
NV should explain how that is giving “carte blanche” to the Saudis, especially since we’re sending our nation’s highest diplomat to take the Saudis to task for their atrocities. Not sure I’m understanding her argument. But maybe that’s because I have trouble fathoming the unknowable implications of NV’s pregnant writing style.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the criticism of their thinking.
I would like for Donald and NV to specifically address the complexities of the Iran deal, to state their opinion on how worthwhile the Iran deal is, and to discuss the possibility that in order to arrive at certain nations’ forbearance of military action against Iran, we had to do some things that would appease some of the participants, such as provide the Saudis with logistical support in Yemen (which there’s no evidence has any effect on the civilian casualties that the Saudis are, all by themselves, inflicting).
NV should explain how that is giving “carte blanche” to the Saudis, especially since we’re sending our nation’s highest diplomat to take the Saudis to task for their atrocities. Not sure I’m understanding her argument. But maybe that’s because I have trouble fathoming the unknowable implications of NV’s pregnant writing style.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the criticism of their thinking.
I would like for Donald and NV to specifically address the complexities of the Iran deal, to state their opinion on how worthwhile the Iran deal is, and to discuss the possibility that in order to arrive at certain nations’ forbearance of military action against Iran, we had to do some things that would appease some of the participants, such as provide the Saudis with logistical support in Yemen (which there’s no evidence has any effect on the civilian casualties that the Saudis are, all by themselves, inflicting).
NV should explain how that is giving “carte blanche” to the Saudis, especially since we’re sending our nation’s highest diplomat to take the Saudis to task for their atrocities. Not sure I’m understanding her argument. But maybe that’s because I have trouble fathoming the unknowable implications of NV’s pregnant writing style.
“Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene. With the obvious corollary that an absolutely enormous fraction of the total population is malevolent. Not just wrong, but resolutely evil.”
Well, despite my comments above, let’s not go all reasonable yet, just when an enormous fraction of the total population has coughed up true malevolence against the rest of us, including conservatives who are former Republicans.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/21/the-beclowning/
Didn’t Don King kill a guy? Now he’s Trump’s MLK?
“Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene. With the obvious corollary that an absolutely enormous fraction of the total population is malevolent. Not just wrong, but resolutely evil.”
Well, despite my comments above, let’s not go all reasonable yet, just when an enormous fraction of the total population has coughed up true malevolence against the rest of us, including conservatives who are former Republicans.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/21/the-beclowning/
Didn’t Don King kill a guy? Now he’s Trump’s MLK?
“Apparently, the idea that well intentioned people might have different perspectives is fading from the scene. With the obvious corollary that an absolutely enormous fraction of the total population is malevolent. Not just wrong, but resolutely evil.”
Well, despite my comments above, let’s not go all reasonable yet, just when an enormous fraction of the total population has coughed up true malevolence against the rest of us, including conservatives who are former Republicans.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/09/21/the-beclowning/
Didn’t Don King kill a guy? Now he’s Trump’s MLK?
Thank you, Count. Exactly.
Thank you, Count. Exactly.
Thank you, Count. Exactly.
I don’t know about “Exactly”, but let’s not get our Donalds mixed up.
I don’t know about “Exactly”, but let’s not get our Donalds mixed up.
I don’t know about “Exactly”, but let’s not get our Donalds mixed up.
By the way, this, in my previous 3:57 pm comment …
“including conservatives who are former Republicans.”
…. refers to “the rest of us”, NOT “true malevolence”, earlier in the sentence.
By the way, this, in my previous 3:57 pm comment …
“including conservatives who are former Republicans.”
…. refers to “the rest of us”, NOT “true malevolence”, earlier in the sentence.
By the way, this, in my previous 3:57 pm comment …
“including conservatives who are former Republicans.”
…. refers to “the rest of us”, NOT “true malevolence”, earlier in the sentence.
Last great hope of mankind (sic)…
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/09/why_did_a_quarter_of_this_librarian_s_gift_go_to_football.html
Last great hope of mankind (sic)…
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/09/why_did_a_quarter_of_this_librarian_s_gift_go_to_football.html
Last great hope of mankind (sic)…
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/09/why_did_a_quarter_of_this_librarian_s_gift_go_to_football.html
If I have heroes, which I am reluctant to admit, even recognising that all heroes are deeply flawed in one way or another, one of them might just be…
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/jane-jacobs-street-smarts
If I have heroes, which I am reluctant to admit, even recognising that all heroes are deeply flawed in one way or another, one of them might just be…
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/jane-jacobs-street-smarts
If I have heroes, which I am reluctant to admit, even recognising that all heroes are deeply flawed in one way or another, one of them might just be…
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/jane-jacobs-street-smarts
What HSH said. Well put.
What HSH said. Well put.
What HSH said. Well put.
Bernard-Henri Lévy on Libya from today’s Guardian.
“Sarkozy and Cameron are criticised in the committee’s report for overstating the threat Gaddafi posed to civilians and acting without first taking the time to “verify the real threat that the Gaddafi regime posed to civilians”. Like the other arguments, this is just not serious. How do you verify “a real threat”? Should we have waited (as happened in Syria) until 100,000 people had died – 200,000, 300,000? And those tank columns I saw and filmed in early April 2011 as they levelled the outskirts of Benghazi – would it have been better to let them gut the entire city? Not to mention Misrata. Imagine how the survivors of that shelled and massacred city, with its roads reduced to ash and rubble, its remaining inhabitants fleeing bombs and sniper fire, would respond to the report’s strange questions. And that battle happened in April, lasting through May – weeks and months after Gaddafi had made the threats that today, from within the panelled halls of Westminster, we are urged to consider as having been mere ‘rhetoric’, not to be taken ‘literally’.”
It’s worth reading the whole thing.
Bernard-Henri Lévy on Libya from today’s Guardian.
“Sarkozy and Cameron are criticised in the committee’s report for overstating the threat Gaddafi posed to civilians and acting without first taking the time to “verify the real threat that the Gaddafi regime posed to civilians”. Like the other arguments, this is just not serious. How do you verify “a real threat”? Should we have waited (as happened in Syria) until 100,000 people had died – 200,000, 300,000? And those tank columns I saw and filmed in early April 2011 as they levelled the outskirts of Benghazi – would it have been better to let them gut the entire city? Not to mention Misrata. Imagine how the survivors of that shelled and massacred city, with its roads reduced to ash and rubble, its remaining inhabitants fleeing bombs and sniper fire, would respond to the report’s strange questions. And that battle happened in April, lasting through May – weeks and months after Gaddafi had made the threats that today, from within the panelled halls of Westminster, we are urged to consider as having been mere ‘rhetoric’, not to be taken ‘literally’.”
It’s worth reading the whole thing.
Bernard-Henri Lévy on Libya from today’s Guardian.
“Sarkozy and Cameron are criticised in the committee’s report for overstating the threat Gaddafi posed to civilians and acting without first taking the time to “verify the real threat that the Gaddafi regime posed to civilians”. Like the other arguments, this is just not serious. How do you verify “a real threat”? Should we have waited (as happened in Syria) until 100,000 people had died – 200,000, 300,000? And those tank columns I saw and filmed in early April 2011 as they levelled the outskirts of Benghazi – would it have been better to let them gut the entire city? Not to mention Misrata. Imagine how the survivors of that shelled and massacred city, with its roads reduced to ash and rubble, its remaining inhabitants fleeing bombs and sniper fire, would respond to the report’s strange questions. And that battle happened in April, lasting through May – weeks and months after Gaddafi had made the threats that today, from within the panelled halls of Westminster, we are urged to consider as having been mere ‘rhetoric’, not to be taken ‘literally’.”
It’s worth reading the whole thing.
Sometimes there is NO good outcome. Getting involved in a civil war is almost 100% in that particular basket of deplorables.
Sometimes there is NO good outcome. Getting involved in a civil war is almost 100% in that particular basket of deplorables.
Sometimes there is NO good outcome. Getting involved in a civil war is almost 100% in that particular basket of deplorables.
all I have to say about the middle east is that I wish Dick Cheney would STFU and go away.
I don’t know why anybody listens to a word that man has to say.
As you were.
all I have to say about the middle east is that I wish Dick Cheney would STFU and go away.
I don’t know why anybody listens to a word that man has to say.
As you were.
all I have to say about the middle east is that I wish Dick Cheney would STFU and go away.
I don’t know why anybody listens to a word that man has to say.
As you were.
Really?
You’re the one who keeps implying this should be taken for granted as being the case. And yet that’s all you do. You don’t cite sources, you don’t discuss rationales. You just waggle the implication about as if a magic wand that absolves us of any consequences of our insignificant logistical support like munition provision and airborne refueling missions that extended range and loiter time of Saudi bombers… you know, the ones causing the civilian casualties via the arms we provide that you lay solely at the Saudis’ feet. So if you really want a serious discussion of this, lead the way. I don’t lay out laundry lists of what I expect you to discuss, let alone the conclusions I’m supposed to reach and weigh in doing so (!!!). I frankly find it more than a little offensive that you’d expect anyone to do so merely on your whim.
Your question about my accusations of giving carte blanche are far more reasonable, however… so the Saudis are committing atrocities against civilians with our continued logistical support, right? Right. But the US is diplomatically taking them to task. Obviously, they’re being held accountable… except they’re not. We provide logistical support and impose no meaningful restrictions. So… are we actually supposed to believe that words speak louder than actions? It’s all well and good to criticize Saudi Arabia – indeed, it’s very well justified – but when the criticism is accompanied by no change whatsoever in our concrete military policies…
I must also say it’s slightly appalling that you’d be so myopic as to see no reason not to post the Lévy quote you did:
Really?
You’re the one who keeps implying this should be taken for granted as being the case. And yet that’s all you do. You don’t cite sources, you don’t discuss rationales. You just waggle the implication about as if a magic wand that absolves us of any consequences of our insignificant logistical support like munition provision and airborne refueling missions that extended range and loiter time of Saudi bombers… you know, the ones causing the civilian casualties via the arms we provide that you lay solely at the Saudis’ feet. So if you really want a serious discussion of this, lead the way. I don’t lay out laundry lists of what I expect you to discuss, let alone the conclusions I’m supposed to reach and weigh in doing so (!!!). I frankly find it more than a little offensive that you’d expect anyone to do so merely on your whim.
Your question about my accusations of giving carte blanche are far more reasonable, however… so the Saudis are committing atrocities against civilians with our continued logistical support, right? Right. But the US is diplomatically taking them to task. Obviously, they’re being held accountable… except they’re not. We provide logistical support and impose no meaningful restrictions. So… are we actually supposed to believe that words speak louder than actions? It’s all well and good to criticize Saudi Arabia – indeed, it’s very well justified – but when the criticism is accompanied by no change whatsoever in our concrete military policies…
I must also say it’s slightly appalling that you’d be so myopic as to see no reason not to post the Lévy quote you did:
Really?
You’re the one who keeps implying this should be taken for granted as being the case. And yet that’s all you do. You don’t cite sources, you don’t discuss rationales. You just waggle the implication about as if a magic wand that absolves us of any consequences of our insignificant logistical support like munition provision and airborne refueling missions that extended range and loiter time of Saudi bombers… you know, the ones causing the civilian casualties via the arms we provide that you lay solely at the Saudis’ feet. So if you really want a serious discussion of this, lead the way. I don’t lay out laundry lists of what I expect you to discuss, let alone the conclusions I’m supposed to reach and weigh in doing so (!!!). I frankly find it more than a little offensive that you’d expect anyone to do so merely on your whim.
Your question about my accusations of giving carte blanche are far more reasonable, however… so the Saudis are committing atrocities against civilians with our continued logistical support, right? Right. But the US is diplomatically taking them to task. Obviously, they’re being held accountable… except they’re not. We provide logistical support and impose no meaningful restrictions. So… are we actually supposed to believe that words speak louder than actions? It’s all well and good to criticize Saudi Arabia – indeed, it’s very well justified – but when the criticism is accompanied by no change whatsoever in our concrete military policies…
I must also say it’s slightly appalling that you’d be so myopic as to see no reason not to post the Lévy quote you did:
OK, let’s suppose that the US was to take some effective action.
1) what sort of action might that be? That is, what action would actually impact the Saudis on this? I ask because I can only see two options:
– threaten to (and when our bluff is inevitably called, follow thru) make Iran our chief regional ally instead, or
– take military action in Yemen ourselves in opposition to (i.e. attack) the Saudis.
Would anything less work? I don’t think so.
2) what would be the consequences outside of Yemen? Either of those or whatever alternative suggestions you have.
Some discussion of how this is better than the mess we have would be a plus. Because no question the current situation is not good. Least bad, perhaps, but not good.
It’s fine to denounce things we are doing. But it’s more effective when combined with a proposal for an alternative. With enough detail to show that you’ve thought through the consequences.
OK, let’s suppose that the US was to take some effective action.
1) what sort of action might that be? That is, what action would actually impact the Saudis on this? I ask because I can only see two options:
– threaten to (and when our bluff is inevitably called, follow thru) make Iran our chief regional ally instead, or
– take military action in Yemen ourselves in opposition to (i.e. attack) the Saudis.
Would anything less work? I don’t think so.
2) what would be the consequences outside of Yemen? Either of those or whatever alternative suggestions you have.
Some discussion of how this is better than the mess we have would be a plus. Because no question the current situation is not good. Least bad, perhaps, but not good.
It’s fine to denounce things we are doing. But it’s more effective when combined with a proposal for an alternative. With enough detail to show that you’ve thought through the consequences.
OK, let’s suppose that the US was to take some effective action.
1) what sort of action might that be? That is, what action would actually impact the Saudis on this? I ask because I can only see two options:
– threaten to (and when our bluff is inevitably called, follow thru) make Iran our chief regional ally instead, or
– take military action in Yemen ourselves in opposition to (i.e. attack) the Saudis.
Would anything less work? I don’t think so.
2) what would be the consequences outside of Yemen? Either of those or whatever alternative suggestions you have.
Some discussion of how this is better than the mess we have would be a plus. Because no question the current situation is not good. Least bad, perhaps, but not good.
It’s fine to denounce things we are doing. But it’s more effective when combined with a proposal for an alternative. With enough detail to show that you’ve thought through the consequences.
It’s time for all of you to join togther in song!
And a wee diplomatic tilt toward Iran would not be such a bad thing, just my callous and immoral view.
And yes, the Iran deal is a very good piece of diplomatic work. Thanks for asking.
It’s time for all of you to join togther in song!
And a wee diplomatic tilt toward Iran would not be such a bad thing, just my callous and immoral view.
And yes, the Iran deal is a very good piece of diplomatic work. Thanks for asking.
It’s time for all of you to join togther in song!
And a wee diplomatic tilt toward Iran would not be such a bad thing, just my callous and immoral view.
And yes, the Iran deal is a very good piece of diplomatic work. Thanks for asking.
Countme-In: “I may find a garden to tend and otherwise fuck it.”
This adds a whole new dimension to Candide’s closing line: Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
(Possibly intended by the Count.)
Countme-In: “I may find a garden to tend and otherwise fuck it.”
This adds a whole new dimension to Candide’s closing line: Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
(Possibly intended by the Count.)
Countme-In: “I may find a garden to tend and otherwise fuck it.”
This adds a whole new dimension to Candide’s closing line: Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
(Possibly intended by the Count.)
The last time a government claimed to be pursuing a specifically “ethical” foreign policy…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/morality.stm
… didn’t work out particularly well.
While not advocating an explicitly unethical foreign policy, maybe a principle of ‘least chaos’ might be more sensible ?
And yes, in some respects Iran ought to be a more natural ally than Saudi Arabia – and it’s not as though the existing relationship doesn’t have elements of the callous and immoral.
The last time a government claimed to be pursuing a specifically “ethical” foreign policy…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/morality.stm
… didn’t work out particularly well.
While not advocating an explicitly unethical foreign policy, maybe a principle of ‘least chaos’ might be more sensible ?
And yes, in some respects Iran ought to be a more natural ally than Saudi Arabia – and it’s not as though the existing relationship doesn’t have elements of the callous and immoral.
The last time a government claimed to be pursuing a specifically “ethical” foreign policy…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/morality.stm
… didn’t work out particularly well.
While not advocating an explicitly unethical foreign policy, maybe a principle of ‘least chaos’ might be more sensible ?
And yes, in some respects Iran ought to be a more natural ally than Saudi Arabia – and it’s not as though the existing relationship doesn’t have elements of the callous and immoral.
Hi folks,
I’d appreciate it if, rather than posting 2 or 3 comments in quick succession, everyone aims to post one comment and waits for a reply. I think this makes it possible to have a bit more detailed conversation. I realize that it is often the case that you write something and then realize after hitting post that you want to add something, but if that is happening often, it might be better to take a bit more time and make it one comment. Thanks.
Hi folks,
I’d appreciate it if, rather than posting 2 or 3 comments in quick succession, everyone aims to post one comment and waits for a reply. I think this makes it possible to have a bit more detailed conversation. I realize that it is often the case that you write something and then realize after hitting post that you want to add something, but if that is happening often, it might be better to take a bit more time and make it one comment. Thanks.
Hi folks,
I’d appreciate it if, rather than posting 2 or 3 comments in quick succession, everyone aims to post one comment and waits for a reply. I think this makes it possible to have a bit more detailed conversation. I realize that it is often the case that you write something and then realize after hitting post that you want to add something, but if that is happening often, it might be better to take a bit more time and make it one comment. Thanks.
No, sapient, I don’t think we should give arms to the Saudis because they are unhappy with the Iran deal. We have an unfortunate relationship with that loathsome ( oops) government because they have a lot of oil and I understand that, but there are limits to what we should do to spare their hurt feelings. The Iran deal will not fall apart because the US refuses to give them aid until they stop bombing hospitals and bringing Yemen to the brink of famine. But supposing it did, then own it. We support state terror on a massive scale because we have good intentions. Then go back to the regularly scheduled denunciations of people who support terror because they are loathsome.
Some senators, mostly Democrats with a few Republicans,agree with me.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=2&vote=00145
Most Republicans do not. They didn’t vote that way to protect the Iran deal. they oppose it. They voted that way to say we are loyal to our ally. Obama, I have read, has sold the Saudis over 100 billion in arms starting in 2009. It’s doubtful to me that all of this money flows around and everyone involved supports arming hospital bombers for the best of motives.
And it would really be nice if, when we yet again support some country committing war crimes, if we openly discussed it on front pages. The fact that it languishes on the back pages of the NYT and it isn’t heatedly debated shows a willingness to cover it up. People in Yemen know what we are doing. But most Americans don’t. I don’t know how an honest discussion would go, because I don’t think we have honest discussions on such topics while they happen or before they come back and bite us. There is no incentive for people who support the Saudis to be too open about what is happening, which is why the British government just lied about it for awhile, and it muddies the waters in a political campaign if you admit that the good guys are doing this sort of thing.
As for loathing, hypocrisy about war crimes from liberals makes me irritable. I’m serious about Trump being the logical culmination of how we approach serious subjects in the US. People simply pick and choose what facts they want to believe or notice and there is this vast network of amateur and professional BS artists on various sides who try and make everyone stay within the approved framing. It’s not surprising in hindsight that some exceptionally narcissistic conman was going to notice how little reality seems to matter in our politics, take dishonesty to new levels and find out that it might actually help him win votes.
No, sapient, I don’t think we should give arms to the Saudis because they are unhappy with the Iran deal. We have an unfortunate relationship with that loathsome ( oops) government because they have a lot of oil and I understand that, but there are limits to what we should do to spare their hurt feelings. The Iran deal will not fall apart because the US refuses to give them aid until they stop bombing hospitals and bringing Yemen to the brink of famine. But supposing it did, then own it. We support state terror on a massive scale because we have good intentions. Then go back to the regularly scheduled denunciations of people who support terror because they are loathsome.
Some senators, mostly Democrats with a few Republicans,agree with me.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=2&vote=00145
Most Republicans do not. They didn’t vote that way to protect the Iran deal. they oppose it. They voted that way to say we are loyal to our ally. Obama, I have read, has sold the Saudis over 100 billion in arms starting in 2009. It’s doubtful to me that all of this money flows around and everyone involved supports arming hospital bombers for the best of motives.
And it would really be nice if, when we yet again support some country committing war crimes, if we openly discussed it on front pages. The fact that it languishes on the back pages of the NYT and it isn’t heatedly debated shows a willingness to cover it up. People in Yemen know what we are doing. But most Americans don’t. I don’t know how an honest discussion would go, because I don’t think we have honest discussions on such topics while they happen or before they come back and bite us. There is no incentive for people who support the Saudis to be too open about what is happening, which is why the British government just lied about it for awhile, and it muddies the waters in a political campaign if you admit that the good guys are doing this sort of thing.
As for loathing, hypocrisy about war crimes from liberals makes me irritable. I’m serious about Trump being the logical culmination of how we approach serious subjects in the US. People simply pick and choose what facts they want to believe or notice and there is this vast network of amateur and professional BS artists on various sides who try and make everyone stay within the approved framing. It’s not surprising in hindsight that some exceptionally narcissistic conman was going to notice how little reality seems to matter in our politics, take dishonesty to new levels and find out that it might actually help him win votes.
No, sapient, I don’t think we should give arms to the Saudis because they are unhappy with the Iran deal. We have an unfortunate relationship with that loathsome ( oops) government because they have a lot of oil and I understand that, but there are limits to what we should do to spare their hurt feelings. The Iran deal will not fall apart because the US refuses to give them aid until they stop bombing hospitals and bringing Yemen to the brink of famine. But supposing it did, then own it. We support state terror on a massive scale because we have good intentions. Then go back to the regularly scheduled denunciations of people who support terror because they are loathsome.
Some senators, mostly Democrats with a few Republicans,agree with me.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=2&vote=00145
Most Republicans do not. They didn’t vote that way to protect the Iran deal. they oppose it. They voted that way to say we are loyal to our ally. Obama, I have read, has sold the Saudis over 100 billion in arms starting in 2009. It’s doubtful to me that all of this money flows around and everyone involved supports arming hospital bombers for the best of motives.
And it would really be nice if, when we yet again support some country committing war crimes, if we openly discussed it on front pages. The fact that it languishes on the back pages of the NYT and it isn’t heatedly debated shows a willingness to cover it up. People in Yemen know what we are doing. But most Americans don’t. I don’t know how an honest discussion would go, because I don’t think we have honest discussions on such topics while they happen or before they come back and bite us. There is no incentive for people who support the Saudis to be too open about what is happening, which is why the British government just lied about it for awhile, and it muddies the waters in a political campaign if you admit that the good guys are doing this sort of thing.
As for loathing, hypocrisy about war crimes from liberals makes me irritable. I’m serious about Trump being the logical culmination of how we approach serious subjects in the US. People simply pick and choose what facts they want to believe or notice and there is this vast network of amateur and professional BS artists on various sides who try and make everyone stay within the approved framing. It’s not surprising in hindsight that some exceptionally narcissistic conman was going to notice how little reality seems to matter in our politics, take dishonesty to new levels and find out that it might actually help him win votes.
Btw, on a totally different subject, JD Vance. I really like this guy. Still haven’t read his book.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/opinion/when-it-comes-to-baskets-were-all-deplorable.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Btw, on a totally different subject, JD Vance. I really like this guy. Still haven’t read his book.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/opinion/when-it-comes-to-baskets-were-all-deplorable.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Btw, on a totally different subject, JD Vance. I really like this guy. Still haven’t read his book.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/opinion/when-it-comes-to-baskets-were-all-deplorable.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
OK, let’s suppose that the US was to take some effective action.
How about stopping providing operational and logistical support for Saudi operations in Yemen? How about not approving new $1.15B arms sales to the Kingdom like we did yesterday?
OK, let’s suppose that the US was to take some effective action.
How about stopping providing operational and logistical support for Saudi operations in Yemen? How about not approving new $1.15B arms sales to the Kingdom like we did yesterday?
OK, let’s suppose that the US was to take some effective action.
How about stopping providing operational and logistical support for Saudi operations in Yemen? How about not approving new $1.15B arms sales to the Kingdom like we did yesterday?
JD Vance has a point of view. I’m going to read his book too. I spoke in an earlier thread about my upbringing in Ohio with the very people he grew up with.
Here’s one:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kathy-miller-mahoning-county-ohio-no-racism-trump
I spent large swathes of time as a kid and young adult right where that ignoramus lives.
She’s full of shit and if JD Vance is going to bend over backwards to “understand” her, fuck him.
MLK died in vain. Fuck it all and kill it.
JD Vance has a point of view. I’m going to read his book too. I spoke in an earlier thread about my upbringing in Ohio with the very people he grew up with.
Here’s one:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kathy-miller-mahoning-county-ohio-no-racism-trump
I spent large swathes of time as a kid and young adult right where that ignoramus lives.
She’s full of shit and if JD Vance is going to bend over backwards to “understand” her, fuck him.
MLK died in vain. Fuck it all and kill it.
JD Vance has a point of view. I’m going to read his book too. I spoke in an earlier thread about my upbringing in Ohio with the very people he grew up with.
Here’s one:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kathy-miller-mahoning-county-ohio-no-racism-trump
I spent large swathes of time as a kid and young adult right where that ignoramus lives.
She’s full of shit and if JD Vance is going to bend over backwards to “understand” her, fuck him.
MLK died in vain. Fuck it all and kill it.
I grew up sort of taking it for granted that otherwise good people could also be terrible bigots or have blind spots the size of small countries, because it was everywhere. I had my own bigotries I wasn’t aware of then, which of course makes me wonder what ones I might have now. I would think most white people in America my age could say the same. There’s some fine line that I don’t know how to draw where you condemn the bigotry with all the harshness it deserves while recognizing the humanity of the bigot. Vance is a conservative, but when I read him he comes across the way I always thought people were supposed to think about these issues. When I was much younger I remember reading a rather Vance-like book by a man named William Campbell, “Brother to a Dragonfly”, who made the same sorts of points Vance makes now.
Back to Yemen. This BBC piece is about starving children, without the shocking photos (well, actually, there are a few photos, but at a discrete distance).
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37429043
At some point I think even the US press will start to put this on the front page, unless the Saudis are pressured to behave better. Not even our political culture could ignore a mass famine induced by an ally who we are supporting, not indefinitely anyway.
I grew up sort of taking it for granted that otherwise good people could also be terrible bigots or have blind spots the size of small countries, because it was everywhere. I had my own bigotries I wasn’t aware of then, which of course makes me wonder what ones I might have now. I would think most white people in America my age could say the same. There’s some fine line that I don’t know how to draw where you condemn the bigotry with all the harshness it deserves while recognizing the humanity of the bigot. Vance is a conservative, but when I read him he comes across the way I always thought people were supposed to think about these issues. When I was much younger I remember reading a rather Vance-like book by a man named William Campbell, “Brother to a Dragonfly”, who made the same sorts of points Vance makes now.
Back to Yemen. This BBC piece is about starving children, without the shocking photos (well, actually, there are a few photos, but at a discrete distance).
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37429043
At some point I think even the US press will start to put this on the front page, unless the Saudis are pressured to behave better. Not even our political culture could ignore a mass famine induced by an ally who we are supporting, not indefinitely anyway.
I grew up sort of taking it for granted that otherwise good people could also be terrible bigots or have blind spots the size of small countries, because it was everywhere. I had my own bigotries I wasn’t aware of then, which of course makes me wonder what ones I might have now. I would think most white people in America my age could say the same. There’s some fine line that I don’t know how to draw where you condemn the bigotry with all the harshness it deserves while recognizing the humanity of the bigot. Vance is a conservative, but when I read him he comes across the way I always thought people were supposed to think about these issues. When I was much younger I remember reading a rather Vance-like book by a man named William Campbell, “Brother to a Dragonfly”, who made the same sorts of points Vance makes now.
Back to Yemen. This BBC piece is about starving children, without the shocking photos (well, actually, there are a few photos, but at a discrete distance).
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37429043
At some point I think even the US press will start to put this on the front page, unless the Saudis are pressured to behave better. Not even our political culture could ignore a mass famine induced by an ally who we are supporting, not indefinitely anyway.
Now there is cluelessness on an epic scale. So are we reduced to waiting for her kind to die off to be replaced with better? Or is this just “human nature”, in which case, we can just expect more of the same?
If you assert her opinions on race are “human nature”, well, I vehemently disagree. She was taught that shit.
Now there is cluelessness on an epic scale. So are we reduced to waiting for her kind to die off to be replaced with better? Or is this just “human nature”, in which case, we can just expect more of the same?
If you assert her opinions on race are “human nature”, well, I vehemently disagree. She was taught that shit.
Now there is cluelessness on an epic scale. So are we reduced to waiting for her kind to die off to be replaced with better? Or is this just “human nature”, in which case, we can just expect more of the same?
If you assert her opinions on race are “human nature”, well, I vehemently disagree. She was taught that shit.
I hadn’t really thought about Will Campbell in a long time, so I googled his name and found he has a wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_D._Campbell
I hadn’t really thought about Will Campbell in a long time, so I googled his name and found he has a wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_D._Campbell
I hadn’t really thought about Will Campbell in a long time, so I googled his name and found he has a wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_D._Campbell
With apologies to LJ for the repeated posts, but I keep finding interesting links. This will be the last for a while. Gotta do other things.
This is a post by Daniel Larison on the disingenuous arguments given by McCain and Graham in favor of arming the Saudis. Note again that in their case the politics has nothing to do with saving the Iran deal.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-grahams-despicable-defense-of-the-war-on-yemen/
With apologies to LJ for the repeated posts, but I keep finding interesting links. This will be the last for a while. Gotta do other things.
This is a post by Daniel Larison on the disingenuous arguments given by McCain and Graham in favor of arming the Saudis. Note again that in their case the politics has nothing to do with saving the Iran deal.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-grahams-despicable-defense-of-the-war-on-yemen/
With apologies to LJ for the repeated posts, but I keep finding interesting links. This will be the last for a while. Gotta do other things.
This is a post by Daniel Larison on the disingenuous arguments given by McCain and Graham in favor of arming the Saudis. Note again that in their case the politics has nothing to do with saving the Iran deal.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-grahams-despicable-defense-of-the-war-on-yemen/
Donald:
As I’ve pointed out, I grew up with many of these people, all close to me and to varying degrees prejudiced, as was common during the time.
Did that woman emerge from a time capsule buried in 1961, her pig coif perfect?
Now, it’s 2016 and we have an entire political movement embodying total ignorance regarding racism, proud of it, demagoguing the hell out of it, and intent on imposing that racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, overt racist nationalism, and very other obscenity on this country, like I have to tell you, or anyone else here. 😉
Here’s how objective journalism should work from this day forward. Interview a nothing like that woman and when she gets done spouting circa 1958 crap, the reporter should knock her to the ground and kick her head in.
I know all about changing minds one individual at a time. Peace out, and all. Who was the fucker assigned to her that didn’t do their job? She needs a Malcolm X to get up all up in there on her in no uncertain terms.
That would be objective journalism and real political incorrectness that the ubltra-sensitive filth Trump/Republicans can sink their teeth into.
Violence is the answer.
I’m perfectly aware of the enormous enlightened strides that have been made in race relations in this country, and to this day, among some beloved friends and family of my own, they just don’t like the fucking blacks, even though they work among them and maybe live nearby.
When I’m around them and the subject comes up, especially back East, the conversation is really no different than it was sixty years ago, ridicule and not one iota of patience with anything pertaining to the Civil Rights movement, though no one uses the “n” word, but only because they know I tend to take rooms apart when that shit starts.
I don’t know what.
I’m done with this shit.
Donald:
As I’ve pointed out, I grew up with many of these people, all close to me and to varying degrees prejudiced, as was common during the time.
Did that woman emerge from a time capsule buried in 1961, her pig coif perfect?
Now, it’s 2016 and we have an entire political movement embodying total ignorance regarding racism, proud of it, demagoguing the hell out of it, and intent on imposing that racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, overt racist nationalism, and very other obscenity on this country, like I have to tell you, or anyone else here. 😉
Here’s how objective journalism should work from this day forward. Interview a nothing like that woman and when she gets done spouting circa 1958 crap, the reporter should knock her to the ground and kick her head in.
I know all about changing minds one individual at a time. Peace out, and all. Who was the fucker assigned to her that didn’t do their job? She needs a Malcolm X to get up all up in there on her in no uncertain terms.
That would be objective journalism and real political incorrectness that the ubltra-sensitive filth Trump/Republicans can sink their teeth into.
Violence is the answer.
I’m perfectly aware of the enormous enlightened strides that have been made in race relations in this country, and to this day, among some beloved friends and family of my own, they just don’t like the fucking blacks, even though they work among them and maybe live nearby.
When I’m around them and the subject comes up, especially back East, the conversation is really no different than it was sixty years ago, ridicule and not one iota of patience with anything pertaining to the Civil Rights movement, though no one uses the “n” word, but only because they know I tend to take rooms apart when that shit starts.
I don’t know what.
I’m done with this shit.
Donald:
As I’ve pointed out, I grew up with many of these people, all close to me and to varying degrees prejudiced, as was common during the time.
Did that woman emerge from a time capsule buried in 1961, her pig coif perfect?
Now, it’s 2016 and we have an entire political movement embodying total ignorance regarding racism, proud of it, demagoguing the hell out of it, and intent on imposing that racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, overt racist nationalism, and very other obscenity on this country, like I have to tell you, or anyone else here. 😉
Here’s how objective journalism should work from this day forward. Interview a nothing like that woman and when she gets done spouting circa 1958 crap, the reporter should knock her to the ground and kick her head in.
I know all about changing minds one individual at a time. Peace out, and all. Who was the fucker assigned to her that didn’t do their job? She needs a Malcolm X to get up all up in there on her in no uncertain terms.
That would be objective journalism and real political incorrectness that the ubltra-sensitive filth Trump/Republicans can sink their teeth into.
Violence is the answer.
I’m perfectly aware of the enormous enlightened strides that have been made in race relations in this country, and to this day, among some beloved friends and family of my own, they just don’t like the fucking blacks, even though they work among them and maybe live nearby.
When I’m around them and the subject comes up, especially back East, the conversation is really no different than it was sixty years ago, ridicule and not one iota of patience with anything pertaining to the Civil Rights movement, though no one uses the “n” word, but only because they know I tend to take rooms apart when that shit starts.
I don’t know what.
I’m done with this shit.
If you assert her opinions on race are “human nature”, well, I vehemently disagree. She was taught that shit.
But there must be an origin. If she was taught that, who taught her? How did her teacher learn it? Is it human nature to teach it once one has learned it? But then, where did it come from in the first place? How long has it existed? Why does it continue to this day?
If you assert her opinions on race are “human nature”, well, I vehemently disagree. She was taught that shit.
But there must be an origin. If she was taught that, who taught her? How did her teacher learn it? Is it human nature to teach it once one has learned it? But then, where did it come from in the first place? How long has it existed? Why does it continue to this day?
If you assert her opinions on race are “human nature”, well, I vehemently disagree. She was taught that shit.
But there must be an origin. If she was taught that, who taught her? How did her teacher learn it? Is it human nature to teach it once one has learned it? But then, where did it come from in the first place? How long has it existed? Why does it continue to this day?
NV: How about stopping providing operational and logistical support for Saudi operations in Yemen? How about not approving new $1.15B arms sales to the Kingdom like we did yesterday?
I’d agree that those would be good things to do.
But would they have any serious impact on what the Saudis are doing in Yemen? I suspect not. Their efforts would be sloppier and less effective, perhaps. But they are there for what seem to them to be serious foreign and domestic policy reasons. And merely losing our support wouldn’t change those reasons.
Which is to say, I’m not sure those would count as “effective” things we could do. That is, they wouldn’t change what is happening on the ground.
NV: How about stopping providing operational and logistical support for Saudi operations in Yemen? How about not approving new $1.15B arms sales to the Kingdom like we did yesterday?
I’d agree that those would be good things to do.
But would they have any serious impact on what the Saudis are doing in Yemen? I suspect not. Their efforts would be sloppier and less effective, perhaps. But they are there for what seem to them to be serious foreign and domestic policy reasons. And merely losing our support wouldn’t change those reasons.
Which is to say, I’m not sure those would count as “effective” things we could do. That is, they wouldn’t change what is happening on the ground.
NV: How about stopping providing operational and logistical support for Saudi operations in Yemen? How about not approving new $1.15B arms sales to the Kingdom like we did yesterday?
I’d agree that those would be good things to do.
But would they have any serious impact on what the Saudis are doing in Yemen? I suspect not. Their efforts would be sloppier and less effective, perhaps. But they are there for what seem to them to be serious foreign and domestic policy reasons. And merely losing our support wouldn’t change those reasons.
Which is to say, I’m not sure those would count as “effective” things we could do. That is, they wouldn’t change what is happening on the ground.
Even if it doesn’t change anything on the ground, the US can’t be seen as having very strong convictions about what the Saudis are doing if we’re providing material support, knowing full well what’s going on.
Even if it doesn’t change anything on the ground, the US can’t be seen as having very strong convictions about what the Saudis are doing if we’re providing material support, knowing full well what’s going on.
Even if it doesn’t change anything on the ground, the US can’t be seen as having very strong convictions about what the Saudis are doing if we’re providing material support, knowing full well what’s going on.
But there must be an origin. If she was taught that, who taught her? How did her teacher learn it? Is it human nature to teach it once one has learned it? But then, where did it come from in the first place? How long has it existed? Why does it continue to this day?
As with any other piece of culture, it’s origins are in the distant past. And not particularly relevant to the quetion of who to change it.
And like any other piece of culture, we absorb it from the words and deeds of those around us. Which means that the way (probably the only reliable way) to change it is to make expressing those attitudes something that is just not done — make it seriously impolite to do so.
We had, in fact, made a lot of progress in that direction in large parts of the country. What some of us lost track of is that there were also significant parts of the population where, while it was known to be impolite to say such things publically, they still got said in private. Which meant, the children learned the attitudes at home . . . and that they shouldn’t say anything in public.
Being taught one thing, and also that you cannot admit to it, creates a stress. Doesn’t really matter if that belief is racism or religion or anything else. If you consider that you are being forced to live in the closet, being allowed to come out can be a huge relief. And that is what Trump has provided for (apparently a lot of) people: permission to come out of the closet on their beliefs about race.**
** And yes, that label is applied with malice aforethought. Knowing the aura surrounding the term will irritate (or appall) those on both sides.
But there must be an origin. If she was taught that, who taught her? How did her teacher learn it? Is it human nature to teach it once one has learned it? But then, where did it come from in the first place? How long has it existed? Why does it continue to this day?
As with any other piece of culture, it’s origins are in the distant past. And not particularly relevant to the quetion of who to change it.
And like any other piece of culture, we absorb it from the words and deeds of those around us. Which means that the way (probably the only reliable way) to change it is to make expressing those attitudes something that is just not done — make it seriously impolite to do so.
We had, in fact, made a lot of progress in that direction in large parts of the country. What some of us lost track of is that there were also significant parts of the population where, while it was known to be impolite to say such things publically, they still got said in private. Which meant, the children learned the attitudes at home . . . and that they shouldn’t say anything in public.
Being taught one thing, and also that you cannot admit to it, creates a stress. Doesn’t really matter if that belief is racism or religion or anything else. If you consider that you are being forced to live in the closet, being allowed to come out can be a huge relief. And that is what Trump has provided for (apparently a lot of) people: permission to come out of the closet on their beliefs about race.**
** And yes, that label is applied with malice aforethought. Knowing the aura surrounding the term will irritate (or appall) those on both sides.
But there must be an origin. If she was taught that, who taught her? How did her teacher learn it? Is it human nature to teach it once one has learned it? But then, where did it come from in the first place? How long has it existed? Why does it continue to this day?
As with any other piece of culture, it’s origins are in the distant past. And not particularly relevant to the quetion of who to change it.
And like any other piece of culture, we absorb it from the words and deeds of those around us. Which means that the way (probably the only reliable way) to change it is to make expressing those attitudes something that is just not done — make it seriously impolite to do so.
We had, in fact, made a lot of progress in that direction in large parts of the country. What some of us lost track of is that there were also significant parts of the population where, while it was known to be impolite to say such things publically, they still got said in private. Which meant, the children learned the attitudes at home . . . and that they shouldn’t say anything in public.
Being taught one thing, and also that you cannot admit to it, creates a stress. Doesn’t really matter if that belief is racism or religion or anything else. If you consider that you are being forced to live in the closet, being allowed to come out can be a huge relief. And that is what Trump has provided for (apparently a lot of) people: permission to come out of the closet on their beliefs about race.**
** And yes, that label is applied with malice aforethought. Knowing the aura surrounding the term will irritate (or appall) those on both sides.
HSH: Even if it doesn’t change anything on the ground, the US can’t be seen as having very strong convictions about what the Saudis are doing if we’re providing material support, knowing full well what’s going on.
Fair enough. So we stop providing support. Then what happens?
– a lot of us feel better about ourselves
– the Saudis keep right on doing what they are doing. (Which somewhat reduces the first point. Probably to the point that those who demanded we stop helping now demand that we “do something” to make the Saudis stop.)
But what else changes? Do the Saudis change how they promulgate their fundamentalist version of Islam around the world? (NB They have been cutting back, thanks to their financial strains. Does that change?)
Does Iran start supporting us more? Or take this as a sign of weakness to be exploited?
How do our other allies in the region (including Israel) react? And do we care?
For that matter, what is the reaction of our other allies around the world? And how do we spin it so that they mostly see what we have done in a positive light?
It’s all those secondary effects which I don’t see enough serious discussion of. While we seem to worry a lot about our “moral standing” when taking a position, that only seems to be an issue for those countries who are opposing us and making an argument of convenience (because they sure don’t care about such things on their own actions) that we don’t have one.
HSH: Even if it doesn’t change anything on the ground, the US can’t be seen as having very strong convictions about what the Saudis are doing if we’re providing material support, knowing full well what’s going on.
Fair enough. So we stop providing support. Then what happens?
– a lot of us feel better about ourselves
– the Saudis keep right on doing what they are doing. (Which somewhat reduces the first point. Probably to the point that those who demanded we stop helping now demand that we “do something” to make the Saudis stop.)
But what else changes? Do the Saudis change how they promulgate their fundamentalist version of Islam around the world? (NB They have been cutting back, thanks to their financial strains. Does that change?)
Does Iran start supporting us more? Or take this as a sign of weakness to be exploited?
How do our other allies in the region (including Israel) react? And do we care?
For that matter, what is the reaction of our other allies around the world? And how do we spin it so that they mostly see what we have done in a positive light?
It’s all those secondary effects which I don’t see enough serious discussion of. While we seem to worry a lot about our “moral standing” when taking a position, that only seems to be an issue for those countries who are opposing us and making an argument of convenience (because they sure don’t care about such things on their own actions) that we don’t have one.
HSH: Even if it doesn’t change anything on the ground, the US can’t be seen as having very strong convictions about what the Saudis are doing if we’re providing material support, knowing full well what’s going on.
Fair enough. So we stop providing support. Then what happens?
– a lot of us feel better about ourselves
– the Saudis keep right on doing what they are doing. (Which somewhat reduces the first point. Probably to the point that those who demanded we stop helping now demand that we “do something” to make the Saudis stop.)
But what else changes? Do the Saudis change how they promulgate their fundamentalist version of Islam around the world? (NB They have been cutting back, thanks to their financial strains. Does that change?)
Does Iran start supporting us more? Or take this as a sign of weakness to be exploited?
How do our other allies in the region (including Israel) react? And do we care?
For that matter, what is the reaction of our other allies around the world? And how do we spin it so that they mostly see what we have done in a positive light?
It’s all those secondary effects which I don’t see enough serious discussion of. While we seem to worry a lot about our “moral standing” when taking a position, that only seems to be an issue for those countries who are opposing us and making an argument of convenience (because they sure don’t care about such things on their own actions) that we don’t have one.
Count, I read the piece. The woman has beliefs which are inexcusably ignorant and racist. I don’t know why she has them. But we have to live with these people and as Vance said in his piece, some in the liberal coalition also have some of the same beliefs.
I have a friend who has some of the standard Trump like beliefs. He was talking about banning Islam soon after 9/11. I started noticing Islamophobia because of him. One of our mutual friends, another conservative, a very smart educated person, was reading Melanie Phillips’s book “Londonistan”. She passed it on to him. Phillips is sort of a British version of Trump, except a pundit, not a politician. My friend denies global warming. I learned about the other Islamophobic writers through my friend. Consequently I was screeching about this several years before Trump came along–in fact, it was actually a bit of a surprise to me that some Republican politicians distanced themselves from him on this. Trump didn’t invent it.
We have to live with these people. I used to blow up at my friend, mostly in long emails that I almost never sent. I sent a few, suitably toned down, and it did absolutely nothing. I don’t understand people of this sort. Well, sort of, because we’re all human and flawed and demonize, but they cling to what they believe like their lives depended on it.
Count, I read the piece. The woman has beliefs which are inexcusably ignorant and racist. I don’t know why she has them. But we have to live with these people and as Vance said in his piece, some in the liberal coalition also have some of the same beliefs.
I have a friend who has some of the standard Trump like beliefs. He was talking about banning Islam soon after 9/11. I started noticing Islamophobia because of him. One of our mutual friends, another conservative, a very smart educated person, was reading Melanie Phillips’s book “Londonistan”. She passed it on to him. Phillips is sort of a British version of Trump, except a pundit, not a politician. My friend denies global warming. I learned about the other Islamophobic writers through my friend. Consequently I was screeching about this several years before Trump came along–in fact, it was actually a bit of a surprise to me that some Republican politicians distanced themselves from him on this. Trump didn’t invent it.
We have to live with these people. I used to blow up at my friend, mostly in long emails that I almost never sent. I sent a few, suitably toned down, and it did absolutely nothing. I don’t understand people of this sort. Well, sort of, because we’re all human and flawed and demonize, but they cling to what they believe like their lives depended on it.
Count, I read the piece. The woman has beliefs which are inexcusably ignorant and racist. I don’t know why she has them. But we have to live with these people and as Vance said in his piece, some in the liberal coalition also have some of the same beliefs.
I have a friend who has some of the standard Trump like beliefs. He was talking about banning Islam soon after 9/11. I started noticing Islamophobia because of him. One of our mutual friends, another conservative, a very smart educated person, was reading Melanie Phillips’s book “Londonistan”. She passed it on to him. Phillips is sort of a British version of Trump, except a pundit, not a politician. My friend denies global warming. I learned about the other Islamophobic writers through my friend. Consequently I was screeching about this several years before Trump came along–in fact, it was actually a bit of a surprise to me that some Republican politicians distanced themselves from him on this. Trump didn’t invent it.
We have to live with these people. I used to blow up at my friend, mostly in long emails that I almost never sent. I sent a few, suitably toned down, and it did absolutely nothing. I don’t understand people of this sort. Well, sort of, because we’re all human and flawed and demonize, but they cling to what they believe like their lives depended on it.
they cling to what they believe like their lives depended on it.
I wonder if it might not be closer to say that they cling like their self-image depends on it. That is, if they ever start to doubt those beliefs, they would not like what they saw in themselves and their past words and actions as a result.
they cling to what they believe like their lives depended on it.
I wonder if it might not be closer to say that they cling like their self-image depends on it. That is, if they ever start to doubt those beliefs, they would not like what they saw in themselves and their past words and actions as a result.
they cling to what they believe like their lives depended on it.
I wonder if it might not be closer to say that they cling like their self-image depends on it. That is, if they ever start to doubt those beliefs, they would not like what they saw in themselves and their past words and actions as a result.
WJ
I think we might be able to pressure the Saudis by not selling them weapons. Possibly in other ways, but I don’t know. But it is sort of a rock bottom basic obligation that when your allies are committing war crimes you don’t give them the weapons to do it. There are exceptions–WWII, where you have to ally with Stalin to fight Hitler. WWII is the exception to many rules. But will the world really fall apart if we don’t help the Saudis plunge Yemen into a catastrophic famine? Probably not. Also, what is it about America that we see situations like Libya and Syria and constantly talk about our possible need to arm someone, even if allied with Al Qaeda, or to bomb them, and yet when we ourselves are arming war criminals it becomes impractical to simply stop arming them ourselves? It’s not just a moral contradiction, though it is that first and foremost. It doesn’t make any sense except on the most cynical level, where you assume as some lefties do that everything we do is really motivated by the need to keep the military industrial complex happy. Then sure, we need to intervene or sell weapons to help the heroic moderate rebels fight their oppressors and we also have to keep selling weapons to other oppressors because if we stop it might not do any good anyway. America has demonstrated constantly that even with our alleged good intentions our interventions turn into crap shows (Obama’s phrase edited for ObiWi) and yet we constantly are told we need to do more interventions to help fix the situation partly created by a previous intervention. And for goodness sake, if we don’t arm our murderous allies then we aren’t being practical.
If I reasoned like the typical liberal hawk I would be urging us to support regime change in Saudi Arabia, with weapons supplied if necessary and air strikes if things didn’t go well. We don’t do this because they happen to be our allies. But the logic is otherwise the same.
As for Israel, they are sliding down the same path that Trump has in mind for America. And they are doing it as America is doing it, through the voting booth.
I shouldn’t have to say this and have resisted saying it, but people in Yemen know we are helping the Saudis bomb them even if most Americans don’t and it’s always possible some small fraction of them might want to take revenge someday. What would Americans feel like doing in their shoes? Is it practical to assist others in committing massive war crimes against a country? Doesn’t seem like it would be.
WJ
I think we might be able to pressure the Saudis by not selling them weapons. Possibly in other ways, but I don’t know. But it is sort of a rock bottom basic obligation that when your allies are committing war crimes you don’t give them the weapons to do it. There are exceptions–WWII, where you have to ally with Stalin to fight Hitler. WWII is the exception to many rules. But will the world really fall apart if we don’t help the Saudis plunge Yemen into a catastrophic famine? Probably not. Also, what is it about America that we see situations like Libya and Syria and constantly talk about our possible need to arm someone, even if allied with Al Qaeda, or to bomb them, and yet when we ourselves are arming war criminals it becomes impractical to simply stop arming them ourselves? It’s not just a moral contradiction, though it is that first and foremost. It doesn’t make any sense except on the most cynical level, where you assume as some lefties do that everything we do is really motivated by the need to keep the military industrial complex happy. Then sure, we need to intervene or sell weapons to help the heroic moderate rebels fight their oppressors and we also have to keep selling weapons to other oppressors because if we stop it might not do any good anyway. America has demonstrated constantly that even with our alleged good intentions our interventions turn into crap shows (Obama’s phrase edited for ObiWi) and yet we constantly are told we need to do more interventions to help fix the situation partly created by a previous intervention. And for goodness sake, if we don’t arm our murderous allies then we aren’t being practical.
If I reasoned like the typical liberal hawk I would be urging us to support regime change in Saudi Arabia, with weapons supplied if necessary and air strikes if things didn’t go well. We don’t do this because they happen to be our allies. But the logic is otherwise the same.
As for Israel, they are sliding down the same path that Trump has in mind for America. And they are doing it as America is doing it, through the voting booth.
I shouldn’t have to say this and have resisted saying it, but people in Yemen know we are helping the Saudis bomb them even if most Americans don’t and it’s always possible some small fraction of them might want to take revenge someday. What would Americans feel like doing in their shoes? Is it practical to assist others in committing massive war crimes against a country? Doesn’t seem like it would be.
WJ
I think we might be able to pressure the Saudis by not selling them weapons. Possibly in other ways, but I don’t know. But it is sort of a rock bottom basic obligation that when your allies are committing war crimes you don’t give them the weapons to do it. There are exceptions–WWII, where you have to ally with Stalin to fight Hitler. WWII is the exception to many rules. But will the world really fall apart if we don’t help the Saudis plunge Yemen into a catastrophic famine? Probably not. Also, what is it about America that we see situations like Libya and Syria and constantly talk about our possible need to arm someone, even if allied with Al Qaeda, or to bomb them, and yet when we ourselves are arming war criminals it becomes impractical to simply stop arming them ourselves? It’s not just a moral contradiction, though it is that first and foremost. It doesn’t make any sense except on the most cynical level, where you assume as some lefties do that everything we do is really motivated by the need to keep the military industrial complex happy. Then sure, we need to intervene or sell weapons to help the heroic moderate rebels fight their oppressors and we also have to keep selling weapons to other oppressors because if we stop it might not do any good anyway. America has demonstrated constantly that even with our alleged good intentions our interventions turn into crap shows (Obama’s phrase edited for ObiWi) and yet we constantly are told we need to do more interventions to help fix the situation partly created by a previous intervention. And for goodness sake, if we don’t arm our murderous allies then we aren’t being practical.
If I reasoned like the typical liberal hawk I would be urging us to support regime change in Saudi Arabia, with weapons supplied if necessary and air strikes if things didn’t go well. We don’t do this because they happen to be our allies. But the logic is otherwise the same.
As for Israel, they are sliding down the same path that Trump has in mind for America. And they are doing it as America is doing it, through the voting booth.
I shouldn’t have to say this and have resisted saying it, but people in Yemen know we are helping the Saudis bomb them even if most Americans don’t and it’s always possible some small fraction of them might want to take revenge someday. What would Americans feel like doing in their shoes? Is it practical to assist others in committing massive war crimes against a country? Doesn’t seem like it would be.
The self-image part is probably more accurate, for the reasons you state. I can see that in myself–it’s hard to admit one is wrong and if it involved a huge moral issue where much or most of the society had already moved on it’d be correspondingly very very hard.
The self-image part is probably more accurate, for the reasons you state. I can see that in myself–it’s hard to admit one is wrong and if it involved a huge moral issue where much or most of the society had already moved on it’d be correspondingly very very hard.
The self-image part is probably more accurate, for the reasons you state. I can see that in myself–it’s hard to admit one is wrong and if it involved a huge moral issue where much or most of the society had already moved on it’d be correspondingly very very hard.
Fair enough. So we stop providing support. Then what happens?
– a lot of us feel better about ourselves
– the Saudis keep right on doing what they are doing. (Which somewhat reduces the first point. Probably to the point that those who demanded we stop helping now demand that we “do something” to make the Saudis stop.)
…do they? If we stop provisioning them with armaments and upping the effectiveness of what they have, can they actually keep on doing what they’re doing, or are they forced to scale back due to resource and logistical limits?
But what else changes? Do the Saudis change how they promulgate their fundamentalist version of Islam around the world? (NB They have been cutting back, thanks to their financial strains. Does that change?)
Is the perfect the enemy of the good? Is the alternative to that one silver bullet that solves all our problems complete inaction? Especially when “inaction” is not inaction, but rather continuing with our current course of action, warts, atrocities, and all?
Does Iran start supporting us more? Or take this as a sign of weakness to be exploited?
We’re far more concerned with our image and how “strong” we appear than any other nation. They may care, but seriously, no one could possibly care as much as us. This is not a serious question; it’s a question meant to evoke domestic worries about being seen as weak. Is it Iran’s national interest to jeopardize their diplomatic standing with us just to be able to have “got one over on us”? It’s strange to see you demand we assume the Saudis are rational actors aware of and promoting their own self-interest, but immediately revert to standard hawkish talking points about how strategic rivals are irrational and act against our interests even when it’s against theirs as well…
How do our other allies in the region (including Israel) react? And do we care?
We shouldn’t. You seem to be saying we’re riding the tiger so we can never dismount. That’s… problematic. Prioritizing other nations’ foreign policy interests is not a safe or healthy course of action, even if it’s something factions within our government commonly engage in.
For that matter, what is the reaction of our other allies around the world? And how do we spin it so that they mostly see what we have done in a positive light?
This, as above, has a great deal of assumptions baked in which can be summed up as “everyone supports what is happening now (because it’s happening), so everyone would be opposed to any change in the status quo”. It may be that you’re right, but I don’t see it, particularly in light of some of the diplomacy that’s been quashed at the UN. And for that matter, we’re quite willing to fly in the face of global public opinion when we so choose. So I’m not sure why ceasing to lend material support to the Saudi’s brutal adventurism should be a very special case.
It’s also worth noting that besides our logistical support, we’ve also offered the Kingdom diplomatic support even as we’ve chastised them for their tragic excesses. Talk of how other nations might react to a change of policy is quite myopic in relation to our role in shaping opinion of the conflict; we’ve repeatedly quashed diplomatic efforts opposed by Saudi Arabia. Your questions imply a degree of passivity on our part that belies how deeply enmeshed we are in the ongoing crisis which simply does not reflect the actual history of the conflict.
Dismissing this as a matter of posturing to improve our “moral standing” misses entirely how much we have supported the development of the status quo as it now stands. You shouldn’t worry about what stick we can use to influence the Saudis away from their current course when we’re currently feeding them carrots to keep them at it…
Fair enough. So we stop providing support. Then what happens?
– a lot of us feel better about ourselves
– the Saudis keep right on doing what they are doing. (Which somewhat reduces the first point. Probably to the point that those who demanded we stop helping now demand that we “do something” to make the Saudis stop.)
…do they? If we stop provisioning them with armaments and upping the effectiveness of what they have, can they actually keep on doing what they’re doing, or are they forced to scale back due to resource and logistical limits?
But what else changes? Do the Saudis change how they promulgate their fundamentalist version of Islam around the world? (NB They have been cutting back, thanks to their financial strains. Does that change?)
Is the perfect the enemy of the good? Is the alternative to that one silver bullet that solves all our problems complete inaction? Especially when “inaction” is not inaction, but rather continuing with our current course of action, warts, atrocities, and all?
Does Iran start supporting us more? Or take this as a sign of weakness to be exploited?
We’re far more concerned with our image and how “strong” we appear than any other nation. They may care, but seriously, no one could possibly care as much as us. This is not a serious question; it’s a question meant to evoke domestic worries about being seen as weak. Is it Iran’s national interest to jeopardize their diplomatic standing with us just to be able to have “got one over on us”? It’s strange to see you demand we assume the Saudis are rational actors aware of and promoting their own self-interest, but immediately revert to standard hawkish talking points about how strategic rivals are irrational and act against our interests even when it’s against theirs as well…
How do our other allies in the region (including Israel) react? And do we care?
We shouldn’t. You seem to be saying we’re riding the tiger so we can never dismount. That’s… problematic. Prioritizing other nations’ foreign policy interests is not a safe or healthy course of action, even if it’s something factions within our government commonly engage in.
For that matter, what is the reaction of our other allies around the world? And how do we spin it so that they mostly see what we have done in a positive light?
This, as above, has a great deal of assumptions baked in which can be summed up as “everyone supports what is happening now (because it’s happening), so everyone would be opposed to any change in the status quo”. It may be that you’re right, but I don’t see it, particularly in light of some of the diplomacy that’s been quashed at the UN. And for that matter, we’re quite willing to fly in the face of global public opinion when we so choose. So I’m not sure why ceasing to lend material support to the Saudi’s brutal adventurism should be a very special case.
It’s also worth noting that besides our logistical support, we’ve also offered the Kingdom diplomatic support even as we’ve chastised them for their tragic excesses. Talk of how other nations might react to a change of policy is quite myopic in relation to our role in shaping opinion of the conflict; we’ve repeatedly quashed diplomatic efforts opposed by Saudi Arabia. Your questions imply a degree of passivity on our part that belies how deeply enmeshed we are in the ongoing crisis which simply does not reflect the actual history of the conflict.
Dismissing this as a matter of posturing to improve our “moral standing” misses entirely how much we have supported the development of the status quo as it now stands. You shouldn’t worry about what stick we can use to influence the Saudis away from their current course when we’re currently feeding them carrots to keep them at it…
Fair enough. So we stop providing support. Then what happens?
– a lot of us feel better about ourselves
– the Saudis keep right on doing what they are doing. (Which somewhat reduces the first point. Probably to the point that those who demanded we stop helping now demand that we “do something” to make the Saudis stop.)
…do they? If we stop provisioning them with armaments and upping the effectiveness of what they have, can they actually keep on doing what they’re doing, or are they forced to scale back due to resource and logistical limits?
But what else changes? Do the Saudis change how they promulgate their fundamentalist version of Islam around the world? (NB They have been cutting back, thanks to their financial strains. Does that change?)
Is the perfect the enemy of the good? Is the alternative to that one silver bullet that solves all our problems complete inaction? Especially when “inaction” is not inaction, but rather continuing with our current course of action, warts, atrocities, and all?
Does Iran start supporting us more? Or take this as a sign of weakness to be exploited?
We’re far more concerned with our image and how “strong” we appear than any other nation. They may care, but seriously, no one could possibly care as much as us. This is not a serious question; it’s a question meant to evoke domestic worries about being seen as weak. Is it Iran’s national interest to jeopardize their diplomatic standing with us just to be able to have “got one over on us”? It’s strange to see you demand we assume the Saudis are rational actors aware of and promoting their own self-interest, but immediately revert to standard hawkish talking points about how strategic rivals are irrational and act against our interests even when it’s against theirs as well…
How do our other allies in the region (including Israel) react? And do we care?
We shouldn’t. You seem to be saying we’re riding the tiger so we can never dismount. That’s… problematic. Prioritizing other nations’ foreign policy interests is not a safe or healthy course of action, even if it’s something factions within our government commonly engage in.
For that matter, what is the reaction of our other allies around the world? And how do we spin it so that they mostly see what we have done in a positive light?
This, as above, has a great deal of assumptions baked in which can be summed up as “everyone supports what is happening now (because it’s happening), so everyone would be opposed to any change in the status quo”. It may be that you’re right, but I don’t see it, particularly in light of some of the diplomacy that’s been quashed at the UN. And for that matter, we’re quite willing to fly in the face of global public opinion when we so choose. So I’m not sure why ceasing to lend material support to the Saudi’s brutal adventurism should be a very special case.
It’s also worth noting that besides our logistical support, we’ve also offered the Kingdom diplomatic support even as we’ve chastised them for their tragic excesses. Talk of how other nations might react to a change of policy is quite myopic in relation to our role in shaping opinion of the conflict; we’ve repeatedly quashed diplomatic efforts opposed by Saudi Arabia. Your questions imply a degree of passivity on our part that belies how deeply enmeshed we are in the ongoing crisis which simply does not reflect the actual history of the conflict.
Dismissing this as a matter of posturing to improve our “moral standing” misses entirely how much we have supported the development of the status quo as it now stands. You shouldn’t worry about what stick we can use to influence the Saudis away from their current course when we’re currently feeding them carrots to keep them at it…
If we stop provisioning them with armaments and upping the effectiveness of what they have, can they actually keep on doing what they’re doing, or are they forced to scale back due to resource and logistical limits?
My take is that they keep doing pretty much exactly what they are doing now. They have to reorganize some of their command and control — but that is less of a concern when you don’t care about restraining your forces.
Their logistical capabilities might need to be upgraded. But at most that presents a temporary constraint while the necessary equipment and facilities are set up. And the required staff are hired. (Probably ex-pats, like most Saudi infrastructure operations. Saves on training time.)
But overall? Maybe a slight and temporary slowdown. Nothing more. The Saudis** have too much domestic political capital invested in this operation to do stop unless forced. And I do mean forced.
Please note that I am not arguing that we should just maintain the status quo. But that a) it would take drastic action to actually have an impact on events in Yemen, and b) even moderate actions to step away will have an impact on our foreign policy that goes far beyond our relations with Saudi Arabia.
Some of those impacts may even be positive. For example, restoring better (albeit probably not, especially in the short run, actually good) relations with Iran. Iran, after all, is basically a modern country, albeit with a medieval theocratic government currently. Whereas Saudi Arabia is a medieval country that happens to have modern technology.
Also the net impact may be a price worth paying. But to decide that, we can’t just assume it. We have to look at what those impacts would actually be — specifically and in detail.
** Meaning, in this case, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is not only both first Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister (these guys, among other things, run the religious police) but the leading commander of the war in Yemen.
If we stop provisioning them with armaments and upping the effectiveness of what they have, can they actually keep on doing what they’re doing, or are they forced to scale back due to resource and logistical limits?
My take is that they keep doing pretty much exactly what they are doing now. They have to reorganize some of their command and control — but that is less of a concern when you don’t care about restraining your forces.
Their logistical capabilities might need to be upgraded. But at most that presents a temporary constraint while the necessary equipment and facilities are set up. And the required staff are hired. (Probably ex-pats, like most Saudi infrastructure operations. Saves on training time.)
But overall? Maybe a slight and temporary slowdown. Nothing more. The Saudis** have too much domestic political capital invested in this operation to do stop unless forced. And I do mean forced.
Please note that I am not arguing that we should just maintain the status quo. But that a) it would take drastic action to actually have an impact on events in Yemen, and b) even moderate actions to step away will have an impact on our foreign policy that goes far beyond our relations with Saudi Arabia.
Some of those impacts may even be positive. For example, restoring better (albeit probably not, especially in the short run, actually good) relations with Iran. Iran, after all, is basically a modern country, albeit with a medieval theocratic government currently. Whereas Saudi Arabia is a medieval country that happens to have modern technology.
Also the net impact may be a price worth paying. But to decide that, we can’t just assume it. We have to look at what those impacts would actually be — specifically and in detail.
** Meaning, in this case, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is not only both first Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister (these guys, among other things, run the religious police) but the leading commander of the war in Yemen.
If we stop provisioning them with armaments and upping the effectiveness of what they have, can they actually keep on doing what they’re doing, or are they forced to scale back due to resource and logistical limits?
My take is that they keep doing pretty much exactly what they are doing now. They have to reorganize some of their command and control — but that is less of a concern when you don’t care about restraining your forces.
Their logistical capabilities might need to be upgraded. But at most that presents a temporary constraint while the necessary equipment and facilities are set up. And the required staff are hired. (Probably ex-pats, like most Saudi infrastructure operations. Saves on training time.)
But overall? Maybe a slight and temporary slowdown. Nothing more. The Saudis** have too much domestic political capital invested in this operation to do stop unless forced. And I do mean forced.
Please note that I am not arguing that we should just maintain the status quo. But that a) it would take drastic action to actually have an impact on events in Yemen, and b) even moderate actions to step away will have an impact on our foreign policy that goes far beyond our relations with Saudi Arabia.
Some of those impacts may even be positive. For example, restoring better (albeit probably not, especially in the short run, actually good) relations with Iran. Iran, after all, is basically a modern country, albeit with a medieval theocratic government currently. Whereas Saudi Arabia is a medieval country that happens to have modern technology.
Also the net impact may be a price worth paying. But to decide that, we can’t just assume it. We have to look at what those impacts would actually be — specifically and in detail.
** Meaning, in this case, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is not only both first Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister (these guys, among other things, run the religious police) but the leading commander of the war in Yemen.
Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries engaged in human rights violations?
Also, it is bizarre to read these cost benefit analyses in cases where we are assisting a foreign country in committing war crimes. Would it be different if they were committing mass rapes or torturing people with the help of equipment supplied by the US? Would we have to do a cost benefit calculation to determine whether it was smart to be a participant? Obviously they would continue torture people with their own equipment, so we might as well supply American manufactured handcuffs and electrical devices. This isn’t snark. It really isn’t. I don’t see the difference. Or rather, the difference is in the amounts of money involved. Torture can be done with dirt cheap equipment– you don’t need 100 billion dollars worth of anything to do that.
I have seen this argument made before and it genuinely baffles me. Is it really that hard to understand that if the Saudis want to commit war crimes we shouldn’t be helping them to do it even if we can’t stop them? Doesn’t our cooperation tell the people there that our condemnations of terrorism are pure nonsense? And even here I am using a utilitarian argument, talking about it in terms of the implied costs to ourselves when that shouldn’ be the first concern here, but I will go with it anyway. The cost of our support for war crimes is that everyone over there knows we are doing it and people will hold it against us. There will be no chance of justice in court, but then, not everyone tries to go that route anyway. More people are going to be radicalized and in this case, when they accuse the West of murderous hypocrisy they will be correct. That can’t possibly be good and yet here we are, participating with the approval of the Senate in war crimes.
Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries engaged in human rights violations?
Also, it is bizarre to read these cost benefit analyses in cases where we are assisting a foreign country in committing war crimes. Would it be different if they were committing mass rapes or torturing people with the help of equipment supplied by the US? Would we have to do a cost benefit calculation to determine whether it was smart to be a participant? Obviously they would continue torture people with their own equipment, so we might as well supply American manufactured handcuffs and electrical devices. This isn’t snark. It really isn’t. I don’t see the difference. Or rather, the difference is in the amounts of money involved. Torture can be done with dirt cheap equipment– you don’t need 100 billion dollars worth of anything to do that.
I have seen this argument made before and it genuinely baffles me. Is it really that hard to understand that if the Saudis want to commit war crimes we shouldn’t be helping them to do it even if we can’t stop them? Doesn’t our cooperation tell the people there that our condemnations of terrorism are pure nonsense? And even here I am using a utilitarian argument, talking about it in terms of the implied costs to ourselves when that shouldn’ be the first concern here, but I will go with it anyway. The cost of our support for war crimes is that everyone over there knows we are doing it and people will hold it against us. There will be no chance of justice in court, but then, not everyone tries to go that route anyway. More people are going to be radicalized and in this case, when they accuse the West of murderous hypocrisy they will be correct. That can’t possibly be good and yet here we are, participating with the approval of the Senate in war crimes.
Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries engaged in human rights violations?
Also, it is bizarre to read these cost benefit analyses in cases where we are assisting a foreign country in committing war crimes. Would it be different if they were committing mass rapes or torturing people with the help of equipment supplied by the US? Would we have to do a cost benefit calculation to determine whether it was smart to be a participant? Obviously they would continue torture people with their own equipment, so we might as well supply American manufactured handcuffs and electrical devices. This isn’t snark. It really isn’t. I don’t see the difference. Or rather, the difference is in the amounts of money involved. Torture can be done with dirt cheap equipment– you don’t need 100 billion dollars worth of anything to do that.
I have seen this argument made before and it genuinely baffles me. Is it really that hard to understand that if the Saudis want to commit war crimes we shouldn’t be helping them to do it even if we can’t stop them? Doesn’t our cooperation tell the people there that our condemnations of terrorism are pure nonsense? And even here I am using a utilitarian argument, talking about it in terms of the implied costs to ourselves when that shouldn’ be the first concern here, but I will go with it anyway. The cost of our support for war crimes is that everyone over there knows we are doing it and people will hold it against us. There will be no chance of justice in court, but then, not everyone tries to go that route anyway. More people are going to be radicalized and in this case, when they accuse the West of murderous hypocrisy they will be correct. That can’t possibly be good and yet here we are, participating with the approval of the Senate in war crimes.
I assume that the reason our relationship with the Saudis is so deep is because there is a long history of cooperation and with the oil money, it is very tempting to sell them lots of stuff that then requires parts and guidance yada yada. That doesn’t make it better, but when you have Bandar bin Sultan on speed dial, (he apparently is or was a Cowboys fan), it’s sadly not a tough call to decide whether you stick up for Yemen or you go with the flow.
I also imagine that the Saudis look like the best tool to get stuff done in the ME, especially with regard to Syria. Since the Saudis are the ones supplying the Syrian rebels, there is probably a quid pro quo, letting them have a free hand in Yemen in exchange for that.
I’m not defending that, but that’s what I assume the calculation to be.
I assume that the reason our relationship with the Saudis is so deep is because there is a long history of cooperation and with the oil money, it is very tempting to sell them lots of stuff that then requires parts and guidance yada yada. That doesn’t make it better, but when you have Bandar bin Sultan on speed dial, (he apparently is or was a Cowboys fan), it’s sadly not a tough call to decide whether you stick up for Yemen or you go with the flow.
I also imagine that the Saudis look like the best tool to get stuff done in the ME, especially with regard to Syria. Since the Saudis are the ones supplying the Syrian rebels, there is probably a quid pro quo, letting them have a free hand in Yemen in exchange for that.
I’m not defending that, but that’s what I assume the calculation to be.
I assume that the reason our relationship with the Saudis is so deep is because there is a long history of cooperation and with the oil money, it is very tempting to sell them lots of stuff that then requires parts and guidance yada yada. That doesn’t make it better, but when you have Bandar bin Sultan on speed dial, (he apparently is or was a Cowboys fan), it’s sadly not a tough call to decide whether you stick up for Yemen or you go with the flow.
I also imagine that the Saudis look like the best tool to get stuff done in the ME, especially with regard to Syria. Since the Saudis are the ones supplying the Syrian rebels, there is probably a quid pro quo, letting them have a free hand in Yemen in exchange for that.
I’m not defending that, but that’s what I assume the calculation to be.
Please note: before the US started with the most recent rounds of “giving the Saudis stuff to use in Yemen”, the US was conducting drone strikes in Yemen.
I doubt that the (surviving) Yemenis had any doubt at all which country was behind those strikes.
Now, if there were a few “exemplary” drone strikes in Riyadh to drive home the “stop with the war crimes” point, things might change. Better? Worse? Dunno.
Please note: before the US started with the most recent rounds of “giving the Saudis stuff to use in Yemen”, the US was conducting drone strikes in Yemen.
I doubt that the (surviving) Yemenis had any doubt at all which country was behind those strikes.
Now, if there were a few “exemplary” drone strikes in Riyadh to drive home the “stop with the war crimes” point, things might change. Better? Worse? Dunno.
Please note: before the US started with the most recent rounds of “giving the Saudis stuff to use in Yemen”, the US was conducting drone strikes in Yemen.
I doubt that the (surviving) Yemenis had any doubt at all which country was behind those strikes.
Now, if there were a few “exemplary” drone strikes in Riyadh to drive home the “stop with the war crimes” point, things might change. Better? Worse? Dunno.
I also imagine that the Saudis look like the best tool to get stuff done in the ME, especially with regard to Syria.
I’m not “defending” our assistance to the Saudis either, in the sense that I think that it is a good thing to do in a perfect, or even closer to perfect, world. Perhaps we could be exercising more influence to stop the Saudis from their atrocities, but somehow I think that if we could, we would. There has clearly been an acknowledgment by the administration that the atrocities are happening, and diplomatic attempts to stop it. (This, again, indicates that I have a bit some confidence in the people I elected not to be immoral, callous war criminals, in that I attribute some belief on their part to the possibility that they are making the best set of decisions in a complicated situation that they can.)
In reading about the Saudis, there is a serious discussion of the House of Saud’s imminent collapse because of fallen oil prices, among other stress, with the result that the governing entity will be straight up al Qaida. I imagine that the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia also worries people.
It’s tempting to believe that we should just “get out of there” meaning the Middle East generally, and I wouldn’t be opposed to that idea on its face. But the conflagration in the Middle East isn’t really a set of “civil wars’ as the region’s political history has been shaped by the West for centuries, and the refugee crisis belongs to the world.
I don’t claim to know all the answers, but I don’t envy our policy makers or loathe them as war criminals. It would be wonderful if we could just rescue the refugees, but that’s obviously not going to happen (largely because of the attitudes that J. D. Vance champions).
I also imagine that the Saudis look like the best tool to get stuff done in the ME, especially with regard to Syria.
I’m not “defending” our assistance to the Saudis either, in the sense that I think that it is a good thing to do in a perfect, or even closer to perfect, world. Perhaps we could be exercising more influence to stop the Saudis from their atrocities, but somehow I think that if we could, we would. There has clearly been an acknowledgment by the administration that the atrocities are happening, and diplomatic attempts to stop it. (This, again, indicates that I have a bit some confidence in the people I elected not to be immoral, callous war criminals, in that I attribute some belief on their part to the possibility that they are making the best set of decisions in a complicated situation that they can.)
In reading about the Saudis, there is a serious discussion of the House of Saud’s imminent collapse because of fallen oil prices, among other stress, with the result that the governing entity will be straight up al Qaida. I imagine that the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia also worries people.
It’s tempting to believe that we should just “get out of there” meaning the Middle East generally, and I wouldn’t be opposed to that idea on its face. But the conflagration in the Middle East isn’t really a set of “civil wars’ as the region’s political history has been shaped by the West for centuries, and the refugee crisis belongs to the world.
I don’t claim to know all the answers, but I don’t envy our policy makers or loathe them as war criminals. It would be wonderful if we could just rescue the refugees, but that’s obviously not going to happen (largely because of the attitudes that J. D. Vance champions).
I also imagine that the Saudis look like the best tool to get stuff done in the ME, especially with regard to Syria.
I’m not “defending” our assistance to the Saudis either, in the sense that I think that it is a good thing to do in a perfect, or even closer to perfect, world. Perhaps we could be exercising more influence to stop the Saudis from their atrocities, but somehow I think that if we could, we would. There has clearly been an acknowledgment by the administration that the atrocities are happening, and diplomatic attempts to stop it. (This, again, indicates that I have a bit some confidence in the people I elected not to be immoral, callous war criminals, in that I attribute some belief on their part to the possibility that they are making the best set of decisions in a complicated situation that they can.)
In reading about the Saudis, there is a serious discussion of the House of Saud’s imminent collapse because of fallen oil prices, among other stress, with the result that the governing entity will be straight up al Qaida. I imagine that the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia also worries people.
It’s tempting to believe that we should just “get out of there” meaning the Middle East generally, and I wouldn’t be opposed to that idea on its face. But the conflagration in the Middle East isn’t really a set of “civil wars’ as the region’s political history has been shaped by the West for centuries, and the refugee crisis belongs to the world.
I don’t claim to know all the answers, but I don’t envy our policy makers or loathe them as war criminals. It would be wonderful if we could just rescue the refugees, but that’s obviously not going to happen (largely because of the attitudes that J. D. Vance champions).
dr. ngo:
Yes, the Candide allusion was intended.
dr. ngo:
Yes, the Candide allusion was intended.
dr. ngo:
Yes, the Candide allusion was intended.
Batshit assholes, the perfect embodiment of what conservative America has become:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-manigault-trump-critics-will-bow-down
Bow down?
No.
Violence now, violence tomorrow, violence forever.
Batshit assholes, the perfect embodiment of what conservative America has become:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-manigault-trump-critics-will-bow-down
Bow down?
No.
Violence now, violence tomorrow, violence forever.
Batshit assholes, the perfect embodiment of what conservative America has become:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/omarosa-manigault-trump-critics-will-bow-down
Bow down?
No.
Violence now, violence tomorrow, violence forever.
Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries engaged in human rights violations?
That’s actually two seperate questions. Is it legal for private American citizens (or anybody else) to engage in war crimes? No. Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries (i.e. become mercenaries as a career choice)? As far as I know, the answer is yes. But perhaps one of the lawyers can weigh in on what impact, if any, such service would be held to have on their citizenship. That is, does such service constitute a renunciation of citizenship? (My guess is that it is not, in itself, sufficient.)
Also, it is bizarre to read these cost benefit analyses in cases where we are assisting a foreign country in committing war crimes. . . .
I have seen this argument made before and it genuinely baffles me.
There are two major approaches to conducting foreign policy. Call them the pragmatic and the idealistic. We have tried both, from time to time. In general, the idealistic/moral approach has gotten us into far worse problems, and resulted in worse outcomes for everyone involved, than the pragmatic/amoral/self-interested approach.
No that we haven’t, even at our most prgamatic, done things just because we thought they were “right.” But when we have undertaken broad moral efforts, we have ended up blundering into numerous situations which we did not understand, and where there turned out to be no “good guys” available to work with. Not to mention having done harm to the national interest in the long run.
Case in point: Vietnam. During WW II, Ho Chi Minh had worked with the OSS against the Japanese and Vichy French. After the war, he appealed repeatedly to the US for support. But he was a communist, so we refused — even though his primary reason was that he did not want to work with the Chinese Communists. Had we made a less moralistic choice, the history of South East Asia would have been seriously different. And my generation would have left a lot fewer bodies there.
So that’s where the cost/benefit analysis comes from. It’s part of the pragmatic approach to foreign policy.
But it also seems to me that it ought to have a place in the idealistic approach as well. Because no matter how lofty your intentiuons, should you not at least consider the effects of your actions? There might, after all, be moral downsides to the effects of even the best-intentioned actions. Especially if those actions are ineffective, that might make a moral difference.
Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries engaged in human rights violations?
That’s actually two seperate questions. Is it legal for private American citizens (or anybody else) to engage in war crimes? No. Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries (i.e. become mercenaries as a career choice)? As far as I know, the answer is yes. But perhaps one of the lawyers can weigh in on what impact, if any, such service would be held to have on their citizenship. That is, does such service constitute a renunciation of citizenship? (My guess is that it is not, in itself, sufficient.)
Also, it is bizarre to read these cost benefit analyses in cases where we are assisting a foreign country in committing war crimes. . . .
I have seen this argument made before and it genuinely baffles me.
There are two major approaches to conducting foreign policy. Call them the pragmatic and the idealistic. We have tried both, from time to time. In general, the idealistic/moral approach has gotten us into far worse problems, and resulted in worse outcomes for everyone involved, than the pragmatic/amoral/self-interested approach.
No that we haven’t, even at our most prgamatic, done things just because we thought they were “right.” But when we have undertaken broad moral efforts, we have ended up blundering into numerous situations which we did not understand, and where there turned out to be no “good guys” available to work with. Not to mention having done harm to the national interest in the long run.
Case in point: Vietnam. During WW II, Ho Chi Minh had worked with the OSS against the Japanese and Vichy French. After the war, he appealed repeatedly to the US for support. But he was a communist, so we refused — even though his primary reason was that he did not want to work with the Chinese Communists. Had we made a less moralistic choice, the history of South East Asia would have been seriously different. And my generation would have left a lot fewer bodies there.
So that’s where the cost/benefit analysis comes from. It’s part of the pragmatic approach to foreign policy.
But it also seems to me that it ought to have a place in the idealistic approach as well. Because no matter how lofty your intentiuons, should you not at least consider the effects of your actions? There might, after all, be moral downsides to the effects of even the best-intentioned actions. Especially if those actions are ineffective, that might make a moral difference.
Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries engaged in human rights violations?
That’s actually two seperate questions. Is it legal for private American citizens (or anybody else) to engage in war crimes? No. Is it legal for private American citizens to aid foreign militaries (i.e. become mercenaries as a career choice)? As far as I know, the answer is yes. But perhaps one of the lawyers can weigh in on what impact, if any, such service would be held to have on their citizenship. That is, does such service constitute a renunciation of citizenship? (My guess is that it is not, in itself, sufficient.)
Also, it is bizarre to read these cost benefit analyses in cases where we are assisting a foreign country in committing war crimes. . . .
I have seen this argument made before and it genuinely baffles me.
There are two major approaches to conducting foreign policy. Call them the pragmatic and the idealistic. We have tried both, from time to time. In general, the idealistic/moral approach has gotten us into far worse problems, and resulted in worse outcomes for everyone involved, than the pragmatic/amoral/self-interested approach.
No that we haven’t, even at our most prgamatic, done things just because we thought they were “right.” But when we have undertaken broad moral efforts, we have ended up blundering into numerous situations which we did not understand, and where there turned out to be no “good guys” available to work with. Not to mention having done harm to the national interest in the long run.
Case in point: Vietnam. During WW II, Ho Chi Minh had worked with the OSS against the Japanese and Vichy French. After the war, he appealed repeatedly to the US for support. But he was a communist, so we refused — even though his primary reason was that he did not want to work with the Chinese Communists. Had we made a less moralistic choice, the history of South East Asia would have been seriously different. And my generation would have left a lot fewer bodies there.
So that’s where the cost/benefit analysis comes from. It’s part of the pragmatic approach to foreign policy.
But it also seems to me that it ought to have a place in the idealistic approach as well. Because no matter how lofty your intentiuons, should you not at least consider the effects of your actions? There might, after all, be moral downsides to the effects of even the best-intentioned actions. Especially if those actions are ineffective, that might make a moral difference.
In reading about the Saudis, there is a serious discussion of the House of Saud’s imminent collapse because of fallen oil prices, among other stress, with the result that the governing entity will be straight up al Qaida. I imagine that the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia also worries people.
That’s certainly one possible outcome of a collapse of the House of Saud. But not the only one, and I rather doubt that it is the most likely one.
Even if the government collapses, there’s nobody ready and willing to disband the Saudi army the way we (foolishly) did the iraqi one. I think it far more likely that we would see a military regime (ala Egypt) than the kind of straight-up chaos and power vacuum that would lead straight to an al Qaeda/ISIS regime.
Yes, there could be a lot of young men with no modern skills who would find themselves without the sinecures they have currently. But unlike the places where Wahabist clerics have been preaching the glories of an Islamist regime, the Saudis have been living with one. Not one as bad as ISIS, but still enough to give them a clear idea of what an even less secular regime would be like.
In reading about the Saudis, there is a serious discussion of the House of Saud’s imminent collapse because of fallen oil prices, among other stress, with the result that the governing entity will be straight up al Qaida. I imagine that the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia also worries people.
That’s certainly one possible outcome of a collapse of the House of Saud. But not the only one, and I rather doubt that it is the most likely one.
Even if the government collapses, there’s nobody ready and willing to disband the Saudi army the way we (foolishly) did the iraqi one. I think it far more likely that we would see a military regime (ala Egypt) than the kind of straight-up chaos and power vacuum that would lead straight to an al Qaeda/ISIS regime.
Yes, there could be a lot of young men with no modern skills who would find themselves without the sinecures they have currently. But unlike the places where Wahabist clerics have been preaching the glories of an Islamist regime, the Saudis have been living with one. Not one as bad as ISIS, but still enough to give them a clear idea of what an even less secular regime would be like.
In reading about the Saudis, there is a serious discussion of the House of Saud’s imminent collapse because of fallen oil prices, among other stress, with the result that the governing entity will be straight up al Qaida. I imagine that the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia also worries people.
That’s certainly one possible outcome of a collapse of the House of Saud. But not the only one, and I rather doubt that it is the most likely one.
Even if the government collapses, there’s nobody ready and willing to disband the Saudi army the way we (foolishly) did the iraqi one. I think it far more likely that we would see a military regime (ala Egypt) than the kind of straight-up chaos and power vacuum that would lead straight to an al Qaeda/ISIS regime.
Yes, there could be a lot of young men with no modern skills who would find themselves without the sinecures they have currently. But unlike the places where Wahabist clerics have been preaching the glories of an Islamist regime, the Saudis have been living with one. Not one as bad as ISIS, but still enough to give them a clear idea of what an even less secular regime would be like.
(This, again, indicates that I have a bit some confidence in the people I elected not to be immoral, callous war criminals, in that I attribute some belief on their part to the possibility that they are making the best set of decisions in a complicated situation that they can.)
Did you extend this same presumption of good will, to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question, to the Bush administration’s foreign policy? Did you extend it to their domestic policy? Would you extend it to a hypothetical Trump administration? In all those cases, if not, why not?
(This, again, indicates that I have a bit some confidence in the people I elected not to be immoral, callous war criminals, in that I attribute some belief on their part to the possibility that they are making the best set of decisions in a complicated situation that they can.)
Did you extend this same presumption of good will, to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question, to the Bush administration’s foreign policy? Did you extend it to their domestic policy? Would you extend it to a hypothetical Trump administration? In all those cases, if not, why not?
(This, again, indicates that I have a bit some confidence in the people I elected not to be immoral, callous war criminals, in that I attribute some belief on their part to the possibility that they are making the best set of decisions in a complicated situation that they can.)
Did you extend this same presumption of good will, to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question, to the Bush administration’s foreign policy? Did you extend it to their domestic policy? Would you extend it to a hypothetical Trump administration? In all those cases, if not, why not?
to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question,
I don’t see the evidence drawing into question the good faith of the current administration.
Did you extend this same presumption of good will, to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question, to the Bush administration’s foreign policy? Did you extend it to their domestic policy? Would you extend it to a hypothetical Trump administration? In all those cases, if not, why not?
No. It was evident that their policies were wrong, and that their good faith was questionable even during the electoral process. Therefore, I didn’t vote for them. SASQ.
to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question,
I don’t see the evidence drawing into question the good faith of the current administration.
Did you extend this same presumption of good will, to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question, to the Bush administration’s foreign policy? Did you extend it to their domestic policy? Would you extend it to a hypothetical Trump administration? In all those cases, if not, why not?
No. It was evident that their policies were wrong, and that their good faith was questionable even during the electoral process. Therefore, I didn’t vote for them. SASQ.
to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question,
I don’t see the evidence drawing into question the good faith of the current administration.
Did you extend this same presumption of good will, to be retained even when faced with evidence drawing it into question, to the Bush administration’s foreign policy? Did you extend it to their domestic policy? Would you extend it to a hypothetical Trump administration? In all those cases, if not, why not?
No. It was evident that their policies were wrong, and that their good faith was questionable even during the electoral process. Therefore, I didn’t vote for them. SASQ.
I find this, and other threads, interesting in that sapient is a pure and unapologetic partisan. Having chosen a side, Democrats, all trust and confidence is unshakeable, no amount of evidence will create doubt or regret, motives are more important than action and motives are pure by definition
I only marvel at the absoluteness of it. As partisan as I can be, very, I could never accomplish that level of certainty.
I am not criticizing, it is great to watch. It is the optimistic mirror to the Count.
I find this, and other threads, interesting in that sapient is a pure and unapologetic partisan. Having chosen a side, Democrats, all trust and confidence is unshakeable, no amount of evidence will create doubt or regret, motives are more important than action and motives are pure by definition
I only marvel at the absoluteness of it. As partisan as I can be, very, I could never accomplish that level of certainty.
I am not criticizing, it is great to watch. It is the optimistic mirror to the Count.
I find this, and other threads, interesting in that sapient is a pure and unapologetic partisan. Having chosen a side, Democrats, all trust and confidence is unshakeable, no amount of evidence will create doubt or regret, motives are more important than action and motives are pure by definition
I only marvel at the absoluteness of it. As partisan as I can be, very, I could never accomplish that level of certainty.
I am not criticizing, it is great to watch. It is the optimistic mirror to the Count.
I think our bouts of idealism usually weren’t as idealistic as portrayed, but at any rate, if we take our professions of good intentions at face value, it’s our wars that have been catastrophic. It’s part of just war tradition that you don’t enter a war without trying to determine whether it will do more good than harm, but our liberal hawks usually cook the books on that one. Realism is a necessary part of just war decision making.
On your example of Ho Chi Minh, that is a different sort of moralism and has less to do with not killing civilians and more to do with ideology. . We didn’t have to actively support Ho Chi Minh if he had then gone on to use our support to kill his political opponents. But we did support other people who killed their political opponents. And then we jumped into Vietnam on ostensibly moralistic motives. The distinction between idealism and realism obfuscates more than it helps, in part because the so called idealists usually had moral blinders on. Also, even realists have some sort of moral justification underlying their choices. They think their definition of whatever the national interest is is morally justifiable. In extreme cases it’s hard for me to see any morality in ” realism” — I am thinking of Kissinger– but in recent years I think the so called realists would generally have made better moral choices than the people who claim to be fighting evil.
I don’t think there is a strong realist case to be made for helping the Saudis kill civilians.
But even our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble– we are standing by our allies. The negative costs have been largely ignored for months, which shows bad faith both in the government and to some extent in the press. The long term costs are unpredictable, but one would expect a straightforward unambiguous case where the US supported the Saudis as they kill civilians might inspire future acts terrorism. The links will be ignored except in the antiwar fringes. The more suspicious portions of the antiwar left ( and antiwar right) would see that as a feature, not a bug. Endless acts of terror give endless justifications for a bigger national security state and more war.
I think our bouts of idealism usually weren’t as idealistic as portrayed, but at any rate, if we take our professions of good intentions at face value, it’s our wars that have been catastrophic. It’s part of just war tradition that you don’t enter a war without trying to determine whether it will do more good than harm, but our liberal hawks usually cook the books on that one. Realism is a necessary part of just war decision making.
On your example of Ho Chi Minh, that is a different sort of moralism and has less to do with not killing civilians and more to do with ideology. . We didn’t have to actively support Ho Chi Minh if he had then gone on to use our support to kill his political opponents. But we did support other people who killed their political opponents. And then we jumped into Vietnam on ostensibly moralistic motives. The distinction between idealism and realism obfuscates more than it helps, in part because the so called idealists usually had moral blinders on. Also, even realists have some sort of moral justification underlying their choices. They think their definition of whatever the national interest is is morally justifiable. In extreme cases it’s hard for me to see any morality in ” realism” — I am thinking of Kissinger– but in recent years I think the so called realists would generally have made better moral choices than the people who claim to be fighting evil.
I don’t think there is a strong realist case to be made for helping the Saudis kill civilians.
But even our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble– we are standing by our allies. The negative costs have been largely ignored for months, which shows bad faith both in the government and to some extent in the press. The long term costs are unpredictable, but one would expect a straightforward unambiguous case where the US supported the Saudis as they kill civilians might inspire future acts terrorism. The links will be ignored except in the antiwar fringes. The more suspicious portions of the antiwar left ( and antiwar right) would see that as a feature, not a bug. Endless acts of terror give endless justifications for a bigger national security state and more war.
I think our bouts of idealism usually weren’t as idealistic as portrayed, but at any rate, if we take our professions of good intentions at face value, it’s our wars that have been catastrophic. It’s part of just war tradition that you don’t enter a war without trying to determine whether it will do more good than harm, but our liberal hawks usually cook the books on that one. Realism is a necessary part of just war decision making.
On your example of Ho Chi Minh, that is a different sort of moralism and has less to do with not killing civilians and more to do with ideology. . We didn’t have to actively support Ho Chi Minh if he had then gone on to use our support to kill his political opponents. But we did support other people who killed their political opponents. And then we jumped into Vietnam on ostensibly moralistic motives. The distinction between idealism and realism obfuscates more than it helps, in part because the so called idealists usually had moral blinders on. Also, even realists have some sort of moral justification underlying their choices. They think their definition of whatever the national interest is is morally justifiable. In extreme cases it’s hard for me to see any morality in ” realism” — I am thinking of Kissinger– but in recent years I think the so called realists would generally have made better moral choices than the people who claim to be fighting evil.
I don’t think there is a strong realist case to be made for helping the Saudis kill civilians.
But even our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble– we are standing by our allies. The negative costs have been largely ignored for months, which shows bad faith both in the government and to some extent in the press. The long term costs are unpredictable, but one would expect a straightforward unambiguous case where the US supported the Saudis as they kill civilians might inspire future acts terrorism. The links will be ignored except in the antiwar fringes. The more suspicious portions of the antiwar left ( and antiwar right) would see that as a feature, not a bug. Endless acts of terror give endless justifications for a bigger national security state and more war.
Donald, I think I actually agree with you. At least as you explain in your last paragraph.
I don’t think that the realistic calculus actually would lead us to supporting the Saudis. What bothers me is the lack of that calculation (at least as far as I have seen) from most of those complaining about it. I think that they could lay out the pluses and minuses, and make a solid case for their position. But what I mostly read (including, no offense, in your earlier posts) tends not to do so — it just denounces their behavior and demands (usually in non-specific terms) change in our policy.
That said, the justifications that I most often read aren’t particularly impressive either. I haven’t come across anything where “our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble”. Pragmatic, i.e. standing by our available ally in the region, sure, but not noble. But those justifying our position don’t seem to offer much in the way of “these are the costs and benefits of our position” either.
Donald, I think I actually agree with you. At least as you explain in your last paragraph.
I don’t think that the realistic calculus actually would lead us to supporting the Saudis. What bothers me is the lack of that calculation (at least as far as I have seen) from most of those complaining about it. I think that they could lay out the pluses and minuses, and make a solid case for their position. But what I mostly read (including, no offense, in your earlier posts) tends not to do so — it just denounces their behavior and demands (usually in non-specific terms) change in our policy.
That said, the justifications that I most often read aren’t particularly impressive either. I haven’t come across anything where “our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble”. Pragmatic, i.e. standing by our available ally in the region, sure, but not noble. But those justifying our position don’t seem to offer much in the way of “these are the costs and benefits of our position” either.
Donald, I think I actually agree with you. At least as you explain in your last paragraph.
I don’t think that the realistic calculus actually would lead us to supporting the Saudis. What bothers me is the lack of that calculation (at least as far as I have seen) from most of those complaining about it. I think that they could lay out the pluses and minuses, and make a solid case for their position. But what I mostly read (including, no offense, in your earlier posts) tends not to do so — it just denounces their behavior and demands (usually in non-specific terms) change in our policy.
That said, the justifications that I most often read aren’t particularly impressive either. I haven’t come across anything where “our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble”. Pragmatic, i.e. standing by our available ally in the region, sure, but not noble. But those justifying our position don’t seem to offer much in the way of “these are the costs and benefits of our position” either.
No. It was evident that their policies were wrong, and that their good faith was questionable even during the electoral process. Therefore, I didn’t vote for them. SASQ.
…yet your pre-judgement on the basis of hypotheticals and assumptions was not prejudice, while my post-jugdement based on actual policy decisions is prejudice.
Marty’s comment sums up my reaction to this better – and more politely – than I could myself.
No. It was evident that their policies were wrong, and that their good faith was questionable even during the electoral process. Therefore, I didn’t vote for them. SASQ.
…yet your pre-judgement on the basis of hypotheticals and assumptions was not prejudice, while my post-jugdement based on actual policy decisions is prejudice.
Marty’s comment sums up my reaction to this better – and more politely – than I could myself.
No. It was evident that their policies were wrong, and that their good faith was questionable even during the electoral process. Therefore, I didn’t vote for them. SASQ.
…yet your pre-judgement on the basis of hypotheticals and assumptions was not prejudice, while my post-jugdement based on actual policy decisions is prejudice.
Marty’s comment sums up my reaction to this better – and more politely – than I could myself.
But even our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble– we are standing by our allies.
This is disingenuity of the worst kind. Nobody is saying that support for Saudis in Yemen is “noble”. Where has anyone said that? Some people believe that there are policy reasons why we support the Saudis despite their not being an ideal partner in any way. I certainly don’t believe that our support for the Saudis or for Israel is “noble”. Foreign policy is not based on being “noble”. It’s an effort to mitigate a complicated web of bad situations using the influence and tools that we have.
But even our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble– we are standing by our allies.
This is disingenuity of the worst kind. Nobody is saying that support for Saudis in Yemen is “noble”. Where has anyone said that? Some people believe that there are policy reasons why we support the Saudis despite their not being an ideal partner in any way. I certainly don’t believe that our support for the Saudis or for Israel is “noble”. Foreign policy is not based on being “noble”. It’s an effort to mitigate a complicated web of bad situations using the influence and tools that we have.
But even our support for the Saudis in Yemen is portrayed as noble– we are standing by our allies.
This is disingenuity of the worst kind. Nobody is saying that support for Saudis in Yemen is “noble”. Where has anyone said that? Some people believe that there are policy reasons why we support the Saudis despite their not being an ideal partner in any way. I certainly don’t believe that our support for the Saudis or for Israel is “noble”. Foreign policy is not based on being “noble”. It’s an effort to mitigate a complicated web of bad situations using the influence and tools that we have.
“It is the optimistic mirror to the Count.”
Perhaps.
The difference would be that, despite my hatred of all things Republican (a deliberate mirror to their hatred of all things me), I don’t have much confidence in Clinton or any other Democrat on the horizon not f#cking things up, particularly on the foreign policy front, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the world is so eminently f*ckupable in so many new way and unforeseen ways, by so many actors, since American foreign policy mavens decided that ending the Cold War, wherein the world was pretty much f*ckupable in basically only one big way, was the success story to end all success stories.
Also, if you place an aerial photograph of a colossal pile of dead innocent humans in other countries killed by American policy makers with the best of intentions and in support of the pinnacles of benign, exemplary, angelic values, that pile looks pretty much the same as the aerial photographs of the colossal piles of dead humans, many of whom may have deserved it, killed by absolutely malign crazy Americans who f*cking enjoy the killing and who we sometimes allow to assume the reins of political and military power.
The parades here at home to celebrate both piles look equally festive and are festooned with identical flags, previously noted.
I’m saying we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing, but I’m also aware that I’m playing fantasy baseball when I say it.
It’s difficult. I have no answers except less is more when it comes to solving other countries problems, particularly as the American people tilt nationalistically toward regarding all people in foreign lands as the Other and really don’t give a crap about distinguishing the good actors from the bad ones.
“It is the optimistic mirror to the Count.”
Perhaps.
The difference would be that, despite my hatred of all things Republican (a deliberate mirror to their hatred of all things me), I don’t have much confidence in Clinton or any other Democrat on the horizon not f#cking things up, particularly on the foreign policy front, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the world is so eminently f*ckupable in so many new way and unforeseen ways, by so many actors, since American foreign policy mavens decided that ending the Cold War, wherein the world was pretty much f*ckupable in basically only one big way, was the success story to end all success stories.
Also, if you place an aerial photograph of a colossal pile of dead innocent humans in other countries killed by American policy makers with the best of intentions and in support of the pinnacles of benign, exemplary, angelic values, that pile looks pretty much the same as the aerial photographs of the colossal piles of dead humans, many of whom may have deserved it, killed by absolutely malign crazy Americans who f*cking enjoy the killing and who we sometimes allow to assume the reins of political and military power.
The parades here at home to celebrate both piles look equally festive and are festooned with identical flags, previously noted.
I’m saying we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing, but I’m also aware that I’m playing fantasy baseball when I say it.
It’s difficult. I have no answers except less is more when it comes to solving other countries problems, particularly as the American people tilt nationalistically toward regarding all people in foreign lands as the Other and really don’t give a crap about distinguishing the good actors from the bad ones.
“It is the optimistic mirror to the Count.”
Perhaps.
The difference would be that, despite my hatred of all things Republican (a deliberate mirror to their hatred of all things me), I don’t have much confidence in Clinton or any other Democrat on the horizon not f#cking things up, particularly on the foreign policy front, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the world is so eminently f*ckupable in so many new way and unforeseen ways, by so many actors, since American foreign policy mavens decided that ending the Cold War, wherein the world was pretty much f*ckupable in basically only one big way, was the success story to end all success stories.
Also, if you place an aerial photograph of a colossal pile of dead innocent humans in other countries killed by American policy makers with the best of intentions and in support of the pinnacles of benign, exemplary, angelic values, that pile looks pretty much the same as the aerial photographs of the colossal piles of dead humans, many of whom may have deserved it, killed by absolutely malign crazy Americans who f*cking enjoy the killing and who we sometimes allow to assume the reins of political and military power.
The parades here at home to celebrate both piles look equally festive and are festooned with identical flags, previously noted.
I’m saying we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing, but I’m also aware that I’m playing fantasy baseball when I say it.
It’s difficult. I have no answers except less is more when it comes to solving other countries problems, particularly as the American people tilt nationalistically toward regarding all people in foreign lands as the Other and really don’t give a crap about distinguishing the good actors from the bad ones.
Wj– It’s because I think really basic moral principles. — don’t help governments murder civilians– need no other justification, but also, on issues this black and white the moral thing to do is also the realist thing to do. Torture is the same. One can imagine extreme cases where one might argue that torture or active assistance in war crimes might lead to less evil than other options, but this requires a very heavy burden of proof on the pro war crimes side. In practice people just tend to phone it in.
LJ –Saudi assistance to Syria probably plays some sort of role, but I think that’s a bad policy too and in the case of the Saudis they support some really nasty people. A victory by the people they have supported would be catastrophic.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-fuah-siege-20160922-snap-story.html
The link there is not directly related to the Saudis, but notice what the pro – rebel guy is saying should be done to Shia villages.
Wj– It’s because I think really basic moral principles. — don’t help governments murder civilians– need no other justification, but also, on issues this black and white the moral thing to do is also the realist thing to do. Torture is the same. One can imagine extreme cases where one might argue that torture or active assistance in war crimes might lead to less evil than other options, but this requires a very heavy burden of proof on the pro war crimes side. In practice people just tend to phone it in.
LJ –Saudi assistance to Syria probably plays some sort of role, but I think that’s a bad policy too and in the case of the Saudis they support some really nasty people. A victory by the people they have supported would be catastrophic.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-fuah-siege-20160922-snap-story.html
The link there is not directly related to the Saudis, but notice what the pro – rebel guy is saying should be done to Shia villages.
Wj– It’s because I think really basic moral principles. — don’t help governments murder civilians– need no other justification, but also, on issues this black and white the moral thing to do is also the realist thing to do. Torture is the same. One can imagine extreme cases where one might argue that torture or active assistance in war crimes might lead to less evil than other options, but this requires a very heavy burden of proof on the pro war crimes side. In practice people just tend to phone it in.
LJ –Saudi assistance to Syria probably plays some sort of role, but I think that’s a bad policy too and in the case of the Saudis they support some really nasty people. A victory by the people they have supported would be catastrophic.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-fuah-siege-20160922-snap-story.html
The link there is not directly related to the Saudis, but notice what the pro – rebel guy is saying should be done to Shia villages.
I was thinking of this Larison piece on McCain and Graham and McCain’s portrayal of the Saudis when I made the noble comment. I think I have also read other articles about defenses of our Yemen policy that were based on the need to be loyal to our allies, but I won’t track them down because sapient misinterprets a comment.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-grahams-despicable-defense-of-the-war-on-yemen/
Incidentally, sapient, JD Vance does not champion the bigoted views of poor or working class whites in any piece by him that I have read. Quite the opposite. He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized. I just glanced back at his interview with Rod Drher in July and at his NYT piece a few days ago.
I was thinking of this Larison piece on McCain and Graham and McCain’s portrayal of the Saudis when I made the noble comment. I think I have also read other articles about defenses of our Yemen policy that were based on the need to be loyal to our allies, but I won’t track them down because sapient misinterprets a comment.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-grahams-despicable-defense-of-the-war-on-yemen/
Incidentally, sapient, JD Vance does not champion the bigoted views of poor or working class whites in any piece by him that I have read. Quite the opposite. He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized. I just glanced back at his interview with Rod Drher in July and at his NYT piece a few days ago.
I was thinking of this Larison piece on McCain and Graham and McCain’s portrayal of the Saudis when I made the noble comment. I think I have also read other articles about defenses of our Yemen policy that were based on the need to be loyal to our allies, but I won’t track them down because sapient misinterprets a comment.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/mccain-and-grahams-despicable-defense-of-the-war-on-yemen/
Incidentally, sapient, JD Vance does not champion the bigoted views of poor or working class whites in any piece by him that I have read. Quite the opposite. He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized. I just glanced back at his interview with Rod Drher in July and at his NYT piece a few days ago.
It’s also worth noting that “noble” is verbiage that only crops up on the idealistic side of the house. The pragmatic side would probably be concerned with credibility in rough the same places and at the same level of ambiguity as an idealistic invocation of nobility… and also with the same amount of careful avoidance of how the rest of the world views our selective adherence to that principle.
It’s also worth noting that “noble” is verbiage that only crops up on the idealistic side of the house. The pragmatic side would probably be concerned with credibility in rough the same places and at the same level of ambiguity as an idealistic invocation of nobility… and also with the same amount of careful avoidance of how the rest of the world views our selective adherence to that principle.
It’s also worth noting that “noble” is verbiage that only crops up on the idealistic side of the house. The pragmatic side would probably be concerned with credibility in rough the same places and at the same level of ambiguity as an idealistic invocation of nobility… and also with the same amount of careful avoidance of how the rest of the world views our selective adherence to that principle.
“He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized.”
From what I’ve of and by Vance, I expect that is true. If I was in the habit of demonizing individuals (public figures are a different story) for their racial attitudes, I would have disowned most of my family and a bunch of friends a long time ago.
Them I can buttonhole on my own, which I did numerous times to my maternal grandfather when I was 14.
However, when those individuals commit themselves to a political movement that seeks to extend those racial attitudes into the public sphere and enact policies to carry them out, not to mention backing a candidate speaking as Donald Trump and too many Republicans do in their, malignant, insulting, disgusting manner about minorities and women, they have commenced the demonization, and I will make it my life’s work to be better at it than they are.
All gloves off. In kind. Which mostly consists of yelling at you guys at OBWI.
Need I add that I despise Al Sharpton, Farrakhan and the Jesse Jackson who felt compelled to use the word “Hymietown”.
“He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized.”
From what I’ve of and by Vance, I expect that is true. If I was in the habit of demonizing individuals (public figures are a different story) for their racial attitudes, I would have disowned most of my family and a bunch of friends a long time ago.
Them I can buttonhole on my own, which I did numerous times to my maternal grandfather when I was 14.
However, when those individuals commit themselves to a political movement that seeks to extend those racial attitudes into the public sphere and enact policies to carry them out, not to mention backing a candidate speaking as Donald Trump and too many Republicans do in their, malignant, insulting, disgusting manner about minorities and women, they have commenced the demonization, and I will make it my life’s work to be better at it than they are.
All gloves off. In kind. Which mostly consists of yelling at you guys at OBWI.
Need I add that I despise Al Sharpton, Farrakhan and the Jesse Jackson who felt compelled to use the word “Hymietown”.
“He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized.”
From what I’ve of and by Vance, I expect that is true. If I was in the habit of demonizing individuals (public figures are a different story) for their racial attitudes, I would have disowned most of my family and a bunch of friends a long time ago.
Them I can buttonhole on my own, which I did numerous times to my maternal grandfather when I was 14.
However, when those individuals commit themselves to a political movement that seeks to extend those racial attitudes into the public sphere and enact policies to carry them out, not to mention backing a candidate speaking as Donald Trump and too many Republicans do in their, malignant, insulting, disgusting manner about minorities and women, they have commenced the demonization, and I will make it my life’s work to be better at it than they are.
All gloves off. In kind. Which mostly consists of yelling at you guys at OBWI.
Need I add that I despise Al Sharpton, Farrakhan and the Jesse Jackson who felt compelled to use the word “Hymietown”.
He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized.
The attitudes of bigots should be demonized. They, of course, are entitled to any social progress that ekes through despite their egregious, deplorable political inclinations.
He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized.
The attitudes of bigots should be demonized. They, of course, are entitled to any social progress that ekes through despite their egregious, deplorable political inclinations.
He merely tries to argue they shouldn’t be demonized.
The attitudes of bigots should be demonized. They, of course, are entitled to any social progress that ekes through despite their egregious, deplorable political inclinations.
“it is great to watch.”
Yes, it is. It’s as if there never was throwing our support to the French to retain their colonial empire after WWII (Democrats), the GOP about face on isolationism (same time), the Truman’s Doctrine, the staggering institutional power of the Dept. of Defense on our politics, and all the other deeply bi-partisan paraphernalia that has got us to where we are today wrt foreign policy.
It’s pretty much been a joint effort all the way down the line.
“it is great to watch.”
Yes, it is. It’s as if there never was throwing our support to the French to retain their colonial empire after WWII (Democrats), the GOP about face on isolationism (same time), the Truman’s Doctrine, the staggering institutional power of the Dept. of Defense on our politics, and all the other deeply bi-partisan paraphernalia that has got us to where we are today wrt foreign policy.
It’s pretty much been a joint effort all the way down the line.
“it is great to watch.”
Yes, it is. It’s as if there never was throwing our support to the French to retain their colonial empire after WWII (Democrats), the GOP about face on isolationism (same time), the Truman’s Doctrine, the staggering institutional power of the Dept. of Defense on our politics, and all the other deeply bi-partisan paraphernalia that has got us to where we are today wrt foreign policy.
It’s pretty much been a joint effort all the way down the line.
Nobody is saying that support for Saudis in Yemen is “noble”.
You must have not read Donald’s link re senators McCain and Graham.
But they’re just lying Republicans.
Nobody is saying that support for Saudis in Yemen is “noble”.
You must have not read Donald’s link re senators McCain and Graham.
But they’re just lying Republicans.
Nobody is saying that support for Saudis in Yemen is “noble”.
You must have not read Donald’s link re senators McCain and Graham.
But they’re just lying Republicans.
It’s as if there never was throwing our support to the French to retain their colonial empire after WWII (Democrats), the GOP about face on isolationism (same time), the Truman’s Doctrine, the staggering institutional power of the Dept. of Defense on our politics, and all the other deeply bi-partisan paraphernalia that has got us to where we are today wrt foreign policy.
It’s true that in the aftermath of WWII, people weren’t predicting clearly which national movements were going to foster stability and healing. I give people a pass until the lessons that the Vietnam war began teaching during the Johnson administration.
And it’s true that I’m a partisan. Proudly so. I just hope that my fellow partisans don’t have to do the kind of dirty work to get rid of Trump that the French did under the Vichy.
It’s as if there never was throwing our support to the French to retain their colonial empire after WWII (Democrats), the GOP about face on isolationism (same time), the Truman’s Doctrine, the staggering institutional power of the Dept. of Defense on our politics, and all the other deeply bi-partisan paraphernalia that has got us to where we are today wrt foreign policy.
It’s true that in the aftermath of WWII, people weren’t predicting clearly which national movements were going to foster stability and healing. I give people a pass until the lessons that the Vietnam war began teaching during the Johnson administration.
And it’s true that I’m a partisan. Proudly so. I just hope that my fellow partisans don’t have to do the kind of dirty work to get rid of Trump that the French did under the Vichy.
It’s as if there never was throwing our support to the French to retain their colonial empire after WWII (Democrats), the GOP about face on isolationism (same time), the Truman’s Doctrine, the staggering institutional power of the Dept. of Defense on our politics, and all the other deeply bi-partisan paraphernalia that has got us to where we are today wrt foreign policy.
It’s true that in the aftermath of WWII, people weren’t predicting clearly which national movements were going to foster stability and healing. I give people a pass until the lessons that the Vietnam war began teaching during the Johnson administration.
And it’s true that I’m a partisan. Proudly so. I just hope that my fellow partisans don’t have to do the kind of dirty work to get rid of Trump that the French did under the Vichy.
I give people a pass until the lessons that the Vietnam war began teaching during the Johnson administration.
I don’t. And hey now! Wasn’t Johnson a Democrat?
Were his motives noble? Well, then all is forgiven.
I give people a pass until the lessons that the Vietnam war began teaching during the Johnson administration.
I don’t. And hey now! Wasn’t Johnson a Democrat?
Were his motives noble? Well, then all is forgiven.
I give people a pass until the lessons that the Vietnam war began teaching during the Johnson administration.
I don’t. And hey now! Wasn’t Johnson a Democrat?
Were his motives noble? Well, then all is forgiven.
I don’t.
I do.
Were his motives noble? Well, then all is forgiven.
No, they weren’t noble (see “nobility” discussion above). He certainly wasn’t forgiven – even though he was close to a peace accord, he knew he couldn’t run as the Democratic nominee again, Unfortunately, our idiot electorate bought into Tricky Dick, who skuttled the imminent peace to win the election, and then caused hundreds of thousands more deaths (counting both US, and Southeast Asians). I will take LBJ over Tricky Dick any day of the week.
And, since we’re going back to look at all of that, I’ll take any Democratic Presidential nominee over any corresponding Republican Presidential nominee since FDR. I am a partisan.
I don’t.
I do.
Were his motives noble? Well, then all is forgiven.
No, they weren’t noble (see “nobility” discussion above). He certainly wasn’t forgiven – even though he was close to a peace accord, he knew he couldn’t run as the Democratic nominee again, Unfortunately, our idiot electorate bought into Tricky Dick, who skuttled the imminent peace to win the election, and then caused hundreds of thousands more deaths (counting both US, and Southeast Asians). I will take LBJ over Tricky Dick any day of the week.
And, since we’re going back to look at all of that, I’ll take any Democratic Presidential nominee over any corresponding Republican Presidential nominee since FDR. I am a partisan.
I don’t.
I do.
Were his motives noble? Well, then all is forgiven.
No, they weren’t noble (see “nobility” discussion above). He certainly wasn’t forgiven – even though he was close to a peace accord, he knew he couldn’t run as the Democratic nominee again, Unfortunately, our idiot electorate bought into Tricky Dick, who skuttled the imminent peace to win the election, and then caused hundreds of thousands more deaths (counting both US, and Southeast Asians). I will take LBJ over Tricky Dick any day of the week.
And, since we’re going back to look at all of that, I’ll take any Democratic Presidential nominee over any corresponding Republican Presidential nominee since FDR. I am a partisan.
JD Vance has a point of view. I’m going to read his book too.
I read Vance’s book. It was pretty good. I’m just not sure what I was supposed to take away from it.
His background is among rural Ohio valley poor white people. There are good things about that culture, and profoundly self-defeating things about that culture.
This isn’t news.
What neither the good things, nor the self-defeating things, confer upon folks is the privilege of being bigots.
I’m delighted if Vance emerges as a public voice for a community of people who have, historically, basically been ridden hard and put up wet.
How that makes the complaints of black and brown people in this country any more or less legitimate is beyond me.
JD Vance has a point of view. I’m going to read his book too.
I read Vance’s book. It was pretty good. I’m just not sure what I was supposed to take away from it.
His background is among rural Ohio valley poor white people. There are good things about that culture, and profoundly self-defeating things about that culture.
This isn’t news.
What neither the good things, nor the self-defeating things, confer upon folks is the privilege of being bigots.
I’m delighted if Vance emerges as a public voice for a community of people who have, historically, basically been ridden hard and put up wet.
How that makes the complaints of black and brown people in this country any more or less legitimate is beyond me.
JD Vance has a point of view. I’m going to read his book too.
I read Vance’s book. It was pretty good. I’m just not sure what I was supposed to take away from it.
His background is among rural Ohio valley poor white people. There are good things about that culture, and profoundly self-defeating things about that culture.
This isn’t news.
What neither the good things, nor the self-defeating things, confer upon folks is the privilege of being bigots.
I’m delighted if Vance emerges as a public voice for a community of people who have, historically, basically been ridden hard and put up wet.
How that makes the complaints of black and brown people in this country any more or less legitimate is beyond me.
I haven’t read his book, just interviews and a couple of pieces by him and a New Yorker review and in none of them did I see a claim that brown or black people don’t have legitimate complaints. The claim was that poor white people have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior and some urban elites look down on them.
It’s not original, What I appreciated about him are the qualities of tone and nuance, something largely lacking in politics today with a great many pundits having their favorite categories of people to bash. He comes across as a conservative who can speak to both sides.
I haven’t read his book, just interviews and a couple of pieces by him and a New Yorker review and in none of them did I see a claim that brown or black people don’t have legitimate complaints. The claim was that poor white people have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior and some urban elites look down on them.
It’s not original, What I appreciated about him are the qualities of tone and nuance, something largely lacking in politics today with a great many pundits having their favorite categories of people to bash. He comes across as a conservative who can speak to both sides.
I haven’t read his book, just interviews and a couple of pieces by him and a New Yorker review and in none of them did I see a claim that brown or black people don’t have legitimate complaints. The claim was that poor white people have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior and some urban elites look down on them.
It’s not original, What I appreciated about him are the qualities of tone and nuance, something largely lacking in politics today with a great many pundits having their favorite categories of people to bash. He comes across as a conservative who can speak to both sides.
The claim was that poor white people have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior and some urban elites look down on them.
I haven’t read the book, but have read a bunch of articles. I take it from his claim that he is a “conservative” that he rejects liberal social programs in politics.
I have had friends and family who have various types of mental illness, and I become very frustrated with some of them, even though I feel bad for them. The people I know “have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior”. It often seems to me that the self-defeating behavior overrides the legitimate complaints, because almost everyone has “legitimate complaints” but some people figure out how to accept help.
“Looking down” on people is not a good thing, obviously, but when people are rude and destructive, and work to make other people’s lives miserable with bigotry and hate, it’s not too surprising that other people look down on them. Cause and effect, maybe?
I agree with russell, asking the question, “What do I take away from this?” Unfortunately, I will look down on people who do that truck smoke thing. And I will look down on bigotry. I am never rude to people just because they might come from a culture which engages in some of that behavior, but when I find out that they do, I don’t want to be their friend. I’m happy though for them to get government benefits to make their lives better even though they don’t tend to vote for the people who support those policies that would make their lives (and everyone else’s) better. Frustrating.
The claim was that poor white people have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior and some urban elites look down on them.
I haven’t read the book, but have read a bunch of articles. I take it from his claim that he is a “conservative” that he rejects liberal social programs in politics.
I have had friends and family who have various types of mental illness, and I become very frustrated with some of them, even though I feel bad for them. The people I know “have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior”. It often seems to me that the self-defeating behavior overrides the legitimate complaints, because almost everyone has “legitimate complaints” but some people figure out how to accept help.
“Looking down” on people is not a good thing, obviously, but when people are rude and destructive, and work to make other people’s lives miserable with bigotry and hate, it’s not too surprising that other people look down on them. Cause and effect, maybe?
I agree with russell, asking the question, “What do I take away from this?” Unfortunately, I will look down on people who do that truck smoke thing. And I will look down on bigotry. I am never rude to people just because they might come from a culture which engages in some of that behavior, but when I find out that they do, I don’t want to be their friend. I’m happy though for them to get government benefits to make their lives better even though they don’t tend to vote for the people who support those policies that would make their lives (and everyone else’s) better. Frustrating.
The claim was that poor white people have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior and some urban elites look down on them.
I haven’t read the book, but have read a bunch of articles. I take it from his claim that he is a “conservative” that he rejects liberal social programs in politics.
I have had friends and family who have various types of mental illness, and I become very frustrated with some of them, even though I feel bad for them. The people I know “have both legitimate complaints and self defeating behavior”. It often seems to me that the self-defeating behavior overrides the legitimate complaints, because almost everyone has “legitimate complaints” but some people figure out how to accept help.
“Looking down” on people is not a good thing, obviously, but when people are rude and destructive, and work to make other people’s lives miserable with bigotry and hate, it’s not too surprising that other people look down on them. Cause and effect, maybe?
I agree with russell, asking the question, “What do I take away from this?” Unfortunately, I will look down on people who do that truck smoke thing. And I will look down on bigotry. I am never rude to people just because they might come from a culture which engages in some of that behavior, but when I find out that they do, I don’t want to be their friend. I’m happy though for them to get government benefits to make their lives better even though they don’t tend to vote for the people who support those policies that would make their lives (and everyone else’s) better. Frustrating.
Another lovely redneck pastime.
Another lovely redneck pastime.
Another lovely redneck pastime.
The Pautuxent River is in Maryland, so I’m not sure if the appellation of ‘redneck’ applies. My own definition is that it is limited by geography. While MD is south according to the Mason Dixon line, I don’t think it is really southern.
The Pautuxent River is in Maryland, so I’m not sure if the appellation of ‘redneck’ applies. My own definition is that it is limited by geography. While MD is south according to the Mason Dixon line, I don’t think it is really southern.
The Pautuxent River is in Maryland, so I’m not sure if the appellation of ‘redneck’ applies. My own definition is that it is limited by geography. While MD is south according to the Mason Dixon line, I don’t think it is really southern.
Would you say the same thing about poor people from minority communities who engage in some form of deplorable behavior? Remember the Clinton super predator remark, back in the days when the Clintons tried to win some of the white deplorable vote? Because it seems like there is a role reversal going on. It’s the conservatives who traditionally say that your background or discrimination or contempt shown to your group or whatever are not an excuse for poor personal choices or violence or criminal activity or hatred. It’s the liberals who say you can be in favor of personal responsibility and deplore crime and violence and self destructive behavior without making these big sweeping derogatory generalizations about group X and also recognize that society helps create the sorts of bad behaviors we see.
I am not saying that the plight of poor whites is the same as the plight of poor blacks, but why should it have to be the same? Condemn bad behavior, but don’t use it as a reason to sneer at categories of people.
Maybe I should feel compassion for politicians who support war crimes. It’s not a change of subject– there are undoubtedly pressures on such people, and self images to preserve, but I have trouble caring.
Now a recommendation. Without endorsing Rod Dreher’s own views ( some posts I like and others make me want to toss a brick through the screen), he’s got a really interesting comment section, , because you have such a wide variety of people posting, from far right to far left, with everything in between. It is sort of what OBiWi aspired to long ago. There’s a current thread on race relations. Here is a good comment.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/race-media-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-8055326
There are others. There are also less good comments and an amazingly bigoted one which I won’t link, but those comments are interesting in their own way.
Would you say the same thing about poor people from minority communities who engage in some form of deplorable behavior? Remember the Clinton super predator remark, back in the days when the Clintons tried to win some of the white deplorable vote? Because it seems like there is a role reversal going on. It’s the conservatives who traditionally say that your background or discrimination or contempt shown to your group or whatever are not an excuse for poor personal choices or violence or criminal activity or hatred. It’s the liberals who say you can be in favor of personal responsibility and deplore crime and violence and self destructive behavior without making these big sweeping derogatory generalizations about group X and also recognize that society helps create the sorts of bad behaviors we see.
I am not saying that the plight of poor whites is the same as the plight of poor blacks, but why should it have to be the same? Condemn bad behavior, but don’t use it as a reason to sneer at categories of people.
Maybe I should feel compassion for politicians who support war crimes. It’s not a change of subject– there are undoubtedly pressures on such people, and self images to preserve, but I have trouble caring.
Now a recommendation. Without endorsing Rod Dreher’s own views ( some posts I like and others make me want to toss a brick through the screen), he’s got a really interesting comment section, , because you have such a wide variety of people posting, from far right to far left, with everything in between. It is sort of what OBiWi aspired to long ago. There’s a current thread on race relations. Here is a good comment.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/race-media-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-8055326
There are others. There are also less good comments and an amazingly bigoted one which I won’t link, but those comments are interesting in their own way.
Would you say the same thing about poor people from minority communities who engage in some form of deplorable behavior? Remember the Clinton super predator remark, back in the days when the Clintons tried to win some of the white deplorable vote? Because it seems like there is a role reversal going on. It’s the conservatives who traditionally say that your background or discrimination or contempt shown to your group or whatever are not an excuse for poor personal choices or violence or criminal activity or hatred. It’s the liberals who say you can be in favor of personal responsibility and deplore crime and violence and self destructive behavior without making these big sweeping derogatory generalizations about group X and also recognize that society helps create the sorts of bad behaviors we see.
I am not saying that the plight of poor whites is the same as the plight of poor blacks, but why should it have to be the same? Condemn bad behavior, but don’t use it as a reason to sneer at categories of people.
Maybe I should feel compassion for politicians who support war crimes. It’s not a change of subject– there are undoubtedly pressures on such people, and self images to preserve, but I have trouble caring.
Now a recommendation. Without endorsing Rod Dreher’s own views ( some posts I like and others make me want to toss a brick through the screen), he’s got a really interesting comment section, , because you have such a wide variety of people posting, from far right to far left, with everything in between. It is sort of what OBiWi aspired to long ago. There’s a current thread on race relations. Here is a good comment.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/race-media-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-8055326
There are others. There are also less good comments and an amazingly bigoted one which I won’t link, but those comments are interesting in their own way.
I don’t think it is really southern.
I disagree. I grew up in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, lived in Maryland briefly, and lived in Virginia most of my life. I now live in “real” Virginia, but Maryland, especially the Eastern Shore, is most definitely a place where the term “redneck” is used frequently.
Vance’s people hail from Ohio.
I don’t think it is really southern.
I disagree. I grew up in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, lived in Maryland briefly, and lived in Virginia most of my life. I now live in “real” Virginia, but Maryland, especially the Eastern Shore, is most definitely a place where the term “redneck” is used frequently.
Vance’s people hail from Ohio.
I don’t think it is really southern.
I disagree. I grew up in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, lived in Maryland briefly, and lived in Virginia most of my life. I now live in “real” Virginia, but Maryland, especially the Eastern Shore, is most definitely a place where the term “redneck” is used frequently.
Vance’s people hail from Ohio.
Would you say the same thing about poor people from minority communities who engage in some form of deplorable behavior?
Yes.
Remember the Clinton super predator remark, back in the days when the Clintons tried to win some of the white deplorable vote?
That wasn’t a ploy to win the white deplorable vote. It was a ploy to win the vote of people concerned about drug crime, largely in the African-American community. It’s only the 2016 Bernie revolution that turned that statement into a racist one. She was referring to organized criminal gangs who recruited kids, and killed people in mostly their own community. I realize that now we are all shocked, just really shocked, that the term was used to refer to a phenomenon that people were worried about.
Condemn bad behavior, but don’t use it as a reason to sneer at categories of people.
I’m happy to sneer at categories of people who engage in bad behavior, and behavior is how I determine those categories, not by income.
Maybe I should feel compassion for politicians who support war crimes. It’s not a change of subject– there are undoubtedly pressures on such people, and self images to preserve, but I have trouble caring.
You should feel whatever you feel about politicians who “support” war crimes. You certainly make your feelings known. I do not feel the same way that you do because often I think you’re incorrect that they “support” war crimes, and I make my feelings known to you. It’s an exchange of ideas.
Now a recommendation.
I like reading comment sections, so I might do that. I read the comment you linked to. My community is very mixed, and I know many people who hold similar views as the people who Vance describes. I grew up with them, and I’ve worked with them, and I see them regularly in various situations. They have value as human beings, no question. Sometimes, if people force them to get to know Hispanics or African-Americans, they can accept and even love them.
But I don’t want to have any part of their “culture” to the extent that their “culture” means bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, voting for hate, beating up wildlife, trashing the environment, etc. No, thank you. I don’t want any part of that “culture”. I also don’t want any part of urban gang culture, if that makes you feel any better.
Would you say the same thing about poor people from minority communities who engage in some form of deplorable behavior?
Yes.
Remember the Clinton super predator remark, back in the days when the Clintons tried to win some of the white deplorable vote?
That wasn’t a ploy to win the white deplorable vote. It was a ploy to win the vote of people concerned about drug crime, largely in the African-American community. It’s only the 2016 Bernie revolution that turned that statement into a racist one. She was referring to organized criminal gangs who recruited kids, and killed people in mostly their own community. I realize that now we are all shocked, just really shocked, that the term was used to refer to a phenomenon that people were worried about.
Condemn bad behavior, but don’t use it as a reason to sneer at categories of people.
I’m happy to sneer at categories of people who engage in bad behavior, and behavior is how I determine those categories, not by income.
Maybe I should feel compassion for politicians who support war crimes. It’s not a change of subject– there are undoubtedly pressures on such people, and self images to preserve, but I have trouble caring.
You should feel whatever you feel about politicians who “support” war crimes. You certainly make your feelings known. I do not feel the same way that you do because often I think you’re incorrect that they “support” war crimes, and I make my feelings known to you. It’s an exchange of ideas.
Now a recommendation.
I like reading comment sections, so I might do that. I read the comment you linked to. My community is very mixed, and I know many people who hold similar views as the people who Vance describes. I grew up with them, and I’ve worked with them, and I see them regularly in various situations. They have value as human beings, no question. Sometimes, if people force them to get to know Hispanics or African-Americans, they can accept and even love them.
But I don’t want to have any part of their “culture” to the extent that their “culture” means bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, voting for hate, beating up wildlife, trashing the environment, etc. No, thank you. I don’t want any part of that “culture”. I also don’t want any part of urban gang culture, if that makes you feel any better.
Would you say the same thing about poor people from minority communities who engage in some form of deplorable behavior?
Yes.
Remember the Clinton super predator remark, back in the days when the Clintons tried to win some of the white deplorable vote?
That wasn’t a ploy to win the white deplorable vote. It was a ploy to win the vote of people concerned about drug crime, largely in the African-American community. It’s only the 2016 Bernie revolution that turned that statement into a racist one. She was referring to organized criminal gangs who recruited kids, and killed people in mostly their own community. I realize that now we are all shocked, just really shocked, that the term was used to refer to a phenomenon that people were worried about.
Condemn bad behavior, but don’t use it as a reason to sneer at categories of people.
I’m happy to sneer at categories of people who engage in bad behavior, and behavior is how I determine those categories, not by income.
Maybe I should feel compassion for politicians who support war crimes. It’s not a change of subject– there are undoubtedly pressures on such people, and self images to preserve, but I have trouble caring.
You should feel whatever you feel about politicians who “support” war crimes. You certainly make your feelings known. I do not feel the same way that you do because often I think you’re incorrect that they “support” war crimes, and I make my feelings known to you. It’s an exchange of ideas.
Now a recommendation.
I like reading comment sections, so I might do that. I read the comment you linked to. My community is very mixed, and I know many people who hold similar views as the people who Vance describes. I grew up with them, and I’ve worked with them, and I see them regularly in various situations. They have value as human beings, no question. Sometimes, if people force them to get to know Hispanics or African-Americans, they can accept and even love them.
But I don’t want to have any part of their “culture” to the extent that their “culture” means bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, voting for hate, beating up wildlife, trashing the environment, etc. No, thank you. I don’t want any part of that “culture”. I also don’t want any part of urban gang culture, if that makes you feel any better.
It’s only the 2016 Bernie revolution that turned that statement into a racist one. She was referring to organized criminal gangs who recruited kids, and killed people in mostly their own community.
Yet still more historical revisionism in the service of unquestioning, uncritical partisanship. You’re blithely and blatantly wrong on the first count; you’re narrowly, carefully wrong on the second. But you’re still wrong on both. E. g.
It’s only the 2016 Bernie revolution that turned that statement into a racist one. She was referring to organized criminal gangs who recruited kids, and killed people in mostly their own community.
Yet still more historical revisionism in the service of unquestioning, uncritical partisanship. You’re blithely and blatantly wrong on the first count; you’re narrowly, carefully wrong on the second. But you’re still wrong on both. E. g.
It’s only the 2016 Bernie revolution that turned that statement into a racist one. She was referring to organized criminal gangs who recruited kids, and killed people in mostly their own community.
Yet still more historical revisionism in the service of unquestioning, uncritical partisanship. You’re blithely and blatantly wrong on the first count; you’re narrowly, carefully wrong on the second. But you’re still wrong on both. E. g.
But you’re still wrong on both
Nice opinion pieces.
I lived in a high crime city in the 1990’s. I wasn’t particularly freaked out by crime because, after all, I’m a Democrat, and was committed to urban renewal. At that time, I lived in the neighborhood that Tim Kaine still lives in. My particular street was adjacent to a drug gang street. A neighbor of mine (stay at home mom) had a knock on the door. She answered it and a bloody person was there asking for her to call 911. A drug casualty had just happened. This was commonplace and rampant.
Which was fine. People in my neighborhood still let kids ride their bikes and such, because we are white, and we knew that the violence was mostly on the street next to ours. If you haven’t watched The Wire, maybe you should.
You might also consider that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have won the election were it not for Ross Perot taking votes from GHW Bush (who was running one of the most racist ads in history). His Congress, beginning in 1994 was Newt Gingrich’s. A lovely man.
Your “post-judgments” have lost quite a bit of historical context, including the fact that your Bernie voted for the evil “crime bill”.
But you’re still wrong on both
Nice opinion pieces.
I lived in a high crime city in the 1990’s. I wasn’t particularly freaked out by crime because, after all, I’m a Democrat, and was committed to urban renewal. At that time, I lived in the neighborhood that Tim Kaine still lives in. My particular street was adjacent to a drug gang street. A neighbor of mine (stay at home mom) had a knock on the door. She answered it and a bloody person was there asking for her to call 911. A drug casualty had just happened. This was commonplace and rampant.
Which was fine. People in my neighborhood still let kids ride their bikes and such, because we are white, and we knew that the violence was mostly on the street next to ours. If you haven’t watched The Wire, maybe you should.
You might also consider that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have won the election were it not for Ross Perot taking votes from GHW Bush (who was running one of the most racist ads in history). His Congress, beginning in 1994 was Newt Gingrich’s. A lovely man.
Your “post-judgments” have lost quite a bit of historical context, including the fact that your Bernie voted for the evil “crime bill”.
But you’re still wrong on both
Nice opinion pieces.
I lived in a high crime city in the 1990’s. I wasn’t particularly freaked out by crime because, after all, I’m a Democrat, and was committed to urban renewal. At that time, I lived in the neighborhood that Tim Kaine still lives in. My particular street was adjacent to a drug gang street. A neighbor of mine (stay at home mom) had a knock on the door. She answered it and a bloody person was there asking for her to call 911. A drug casualty had just happened. This was commonplace and rampant.
Which was fine. People in my neighborhood still let kids ride their bikes and such, because we are white, and we knew that the violence was mostly on the street next to ours. If you haven’t watched The Wire, maybe you should.
You might also consider that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have won the election were it not for Ross Perot taking votes from GHW Bush (who was running one of the most racist ads in history). His Congress, beginning in 1994 was Newt Gingrich’s. A lovely man.
Your “post-judgments” have lost quite a bit of historical context, including the fact that your Bernie voted for the evil “crime bill”.
I remember the 90’s, sapient. The Clintons at that time were famous for their attempt to move the Democrst past their liberal image. They were tough on crime, friendly to markets, in favor of welfare reform,. This was the period when Tom Friedman was treated as a journalistic oracle. This was all considered good, the necessary path forward for the Democrats after the long years of Reagan and Bush I when they held the White House and centrist Democrsts felt they had to run from the liberal label. We saw that starting with the Sister Souljah incident in the 92 campaign.
Sanders isn’t perfect. I vaguely recall some sort of explanation for why he voted in certain ways, but it doesn’t matter much to me. I supported him, but never was wrapped up in a belief system where I had to believe he couldn’t be wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some weird kind of religion where politicians are treated as demigods. That’s very unhealthy.
Incidentally, I also prefer every Democrat to every Republican nominee for President since FDR. I don’t think I am partisan in quite the same sense you are.
I am friends with people in real life who have some beliefs I think are deplorable. It cuts both ways, no doubt. People are complicated–maybe I am horribly wrong about some issues without knowing it. I don’t get the need for the beliefs some people have, but we all have to get along both in our private lives and as a country. So it is probably better to condemn the beliefs, but dial back the rhetoric about people.
I remember the 90’s, sapient. The Clintons at that time were famous for their attempt to move the Democrst past their liberal image. They were tough on crime, friendly to markets, in favor of welfare reform,. This was the period when Tom Friedman was treated as a journalistic oracle. This was all considered good, the necessary path forward for the Democrats after the long years of Reagan and Bush I when they held the White House and centrist Democrsts felt they had to run from the liberal label. We saw that starting with the Sister Souljah incident in the 92 campaign.
Sanders isn’t perfect. I vaguely recall some sort of explanation for why he voted in certain ways, but it doesn’t matter much to me. I supported him, but never was wrapped up in a belief system where I had to believe he couldn’t be wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some weird kind of religion where politicians are treated as demigods. That’s very unhealthy.
Incidentally, I also prefer every Democrat to every Republican nominee for President since FDR. I don’t think I am partisan in quite the same sense you are.
I am friends with people in real life who have some beliefs I think are deplorable. It cuts both ways, no doubt. People are complicated–maybe I am horribly wrong about some issues without knowing it. I don’t get the need for the beliefs some people have, but we all have to get along both in our private lives and as a country. So it is probably better to condemn the beliefs, but dial back the rhetoric about people.
I remember the 90’s, sapient. The Clintons at that time were famous for their attempt to move the Democrst past their liberal image. They were tough on crime, friendly to markets, in favor of welfare reform,. This was the period when Tom Friedman was treated as a journalistic oracle. This was all considered good, the necessary path forward for the Democrats after the long years of Reagan and Bush I when they held the White House and centrist Democrsts felt they had to run from the liberal label. We saw that starting with the Sister Souljah incident in the 92 campaign.
Sanders isn’t perfect. I vaguely recall some sort of explanation for why he voted in certain ways, but it doesn’t matter much to me. I supported him, but never was wrapped up in a belief system where I had to believe he couldn’t be wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some weird kind of religion where politicians are treated as demigods. That’s very unhealthy.
Incidentally, I also prefer every Democrat to every Republican nominee for President since FDR. I don’t think I am partisan in quite the same sense you are.
I am friends with people in real life who have some beliefs I think are deplorable. It cuts both ways, no doubt. People are complicated–maybe I am horribly wrong about some issues without knowing it. I don’t get the need for the beliefs some people have, but we all have to get along both in our private lives and as a country. So it is probably better to condemn the beliefs, but dial back the rhetoric about people.
I remember the 90’s, sapient. The Clintons at that time were famous for their attempt to move the Democrst past their liberal image.
Ummm, yeah, to get elected, finally. And, in fact, they did. Thank Jesus. I mean c’mon. If we’re going to make change through the political system we have to get elected, right? The thought of it … so corrupt!
Incidentally, I also prefer every Democrat to every Republican nominee for President since FDR.
Thank you. Perhaps this is, politically, the bottom line.
I am friends with people in real life who have some beliefs I think are deplorable.
I certainly am in a friendly relationship with people like that too. It’s the case that I don’t see completely eye to eye with anyone – there’s always nit picking to do.
I think we’re really close to electing a Nazi-like character in Trump. Not that he is well organized enough to be that, but some of the people who support him might be. I think it’s time to call it out as a collective wrong in our country. The term “redneck” is ugly, but it does fit some behaviors. At the Republican convention, some people were wearing that term proudly. That’s dangerous because everyone knows what that word means.
I remember the 90’s, sapient. The Clintons at that time were famous for their attempt to move the Democrst past their liberal image.
Ummm, yeah, to get elected, finally. And, in fact, they did. Thank Jesus. I mean c’mon. If we’re going to make change through the political system we have to get elected, right? The thought of it … so corrupt!
Incidentally, I also prefer every Democrat to every Republican nominee for President since FDR.
Thank you. Perhaps this is, politically, the bottom line.
I am friends with people in real life who have some beliefs I think are deplorable.
I certainly am in a friendly relationship with people like that too. It’s the case that I don’t see completely eye to eye with anyone – there’s always nit picking to do.
I think we’re really close to electing a Nazi-like character in Trump. Not that he is well organized enough to be that, but some of the people who support him might be. I think it’s time to call it out as a collective wrong in our country. The term “redneck” is ugly, but it does fit some behaviors. At the Republican convention, some people were wearing that term proudly. That’s dangerous because everyone knows what that word means.
I remember the 90’s, sapient. The Clintons at that time were famous for their attempt to move the Democrst past their liberal image.
Ummm, yeah, to get elected, finally. And, in fact, they did. Thank Jesus. I mean c’mon. If we’re going to make change through the political system we have to get elected, right? The thought of it … so corrupt!
Incidentally, I also prefer every Democrat to every Republican nominee for President since FDR.
Thank you. Perhaps this is, politically, the bottom line.
I am friends with people in real life who have some beliefs I think are deplorable.
I certainly am in a friendly relationship with people like that too. It’s the case that I don’t see completely eye to eye with anyone – there’s always nit picking to do.
I think we’re really close to electing a Nazi-like character in Trump. Not that he is well organized enough to be that, but some of the people who support him might be. I think it’s time to call it out as a collective wrong in our country. The term “redneck” is ugly, but it does fit some behaviors. At the Republican convention, some people were wearing that term proudly. That’s dangerous because everyone knows what that word means.
It can be corrupt, yes. Or cynical might be a better word.
Trump scares me more and is worse on practically everything, but I don’t trust Clinton’s judgment. I think she wants to demonstrate her toughness in foreign policy and is considerably more hawkish than Obama. I want Clinton to win and then I want people to do what they can to rein her in on foreign policy. Trump– well, I don’t have the slightest notion what to expect if he gets in. Someone like that is unprecedented.
I want to, purely for anal retentive motives, clarify one thing about my argument on Yemen. Radical Sunni terrorists presumably hate the people getting killed by American made weapons there since the Houthis are Shia. But individuals in the West who are self radicalized sometimes seem a bit confused about the details of the ideology and the fact that we are helping to kill children in a Muslim country might be the thing that registers. And one might expect some of the people being bombed to want revenge even if they can’t join the currently fashionable terrorist groups. Anal retentive honor being satisfied, I’m going to bed.
It can be corrupt, yes. Or cynical might be a better word.
Trump scares me more and is worse on practically everything, but I don’t trust Clinton’s judgment. I think she wants to demonstrate her toughness in foreign policy and is considerably more hawkish than Obama. I want Clinton to win and then I want people to do what they can to rein her in on foreign policy. Trump– well, I don’t have the slightest notion what to expect if he gets in. Someone like that is unprecedented.
I want to, purely for anal retentive motives, clarify one thing about my argument on Yemen. Radical Sunni terrorists presumably hate the people getting killed by American made weapons there since the Houthis are Shia. But individuals in the West who are self radicalized sometimes seem a bit confused about the details of the ideology and the fact that we are helping to kill children in a Muslim country might be the thing that registers. And one might expect some of the people being bombed to want revenge even if they can’t join the currently fashionable terrorist groups. Anal retentive honor being satisfied, I’m going to bed.
It can be corrupt, yes. Or cynical might be a better word.
Trump scares me more and is worse on practically everything, but I don’t trust Clinton’s judgment. I think she wants to demonstrate her toughness in foreign policy and is considerably more hawkish than Obama. I want Clinton to win and then I want people to do what they can to rein her in on foreign policy. Trump– well, I don’t have the slightest notion what to expect if he gets in. Someone like that is unprecedented.
I want to, purely for anal retentive motives, clarify one thing about my argument on Yemen. Radical Sunni terrorists presumably hate the people getting killed by American made weapons there since the Houthis are Shia. But individuals in the West who are self radicalized sometimes seem a bit confused about the details of the ideology and the fact that we are helping to kill children in a Muslim country might be the thing that registers. And one might expect some of the people being bombed to want revenge even if they can’t join the currently fashionable terrorist groups. Anal retentive honor being satisfied, I’m going to bed.
A surprising (or perhaps not) number of ISIS recruits from the West are clueless enough to need to buy Islam for Dummies. So expecting them to even be aware of, let alone understand, the Sunni/Shia split is a bit much. As you say, at most they might know Muslims are being killed by someone.
A surprising (or perhaps not) number of ISIS recruits from the West are clueless enough to need to buy Islam for Dummies. So expecting them to even be aware of, let alone understand, the Sunni/Shia split is a bit much. As you say, at most they might know Muslims are being killed by someone.
A surprising (or perhaps not) number of ISIS recruits from the West are clueless enough to need to buy Islam for Dummies. So expecting them to even be aware of, let alone understand, the Sunni/Shia split is a bit much. As you say, at most they might know Muslims are being killed by someone.
For that matter many neo-nazis have no real idea what Jews actually are. It starts in kindergarten where the kids know that ‘Jew’ is among the worst insults there are but, when asked, cannot in the slightest explain what the word means.
For that matter many neo-nazis have no real idea what Jews actually are. It starts in kindergarten where the kids know that ‘Jew’ is among the worst insults there are but, when asked, cannot in the slightest explain what the word means.
For that matter many neo-nazis have no real idea what Jews actually are. It starts in kindergarten where the kids know that ‘Jew’ is among the worst insults there are but, when asked, cannot in the slightest explain what the word means.
Another book about the pain and racism of poor whites, this time by an empathic liberal who has been working on this book for quite awhile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-their-own-land-arlie-russell-hochschild.html?_r=0
Yemen is in the NYT today, on page 6 as usual. More about civilian casualties and how the US and Britain are finding it harder to ignore. The Houthis are also guilty, but on a smaller scale.
Another book about the pain and racism of poor whites, this time by an empathic liberal who has been working on this book for quite awhile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-their-own-land-arlie-russell-hochschild.html?_r=0
Yemen is in the NYT today, on page 6 as usual. More about civilian casualties and how the US and Britain are finding it harder to ignore. The Houthis are also guilty, but on a smaller scale.
Another book about the pain and racism of poor whites, this time by an empathic liberal who has been working on this book for quite awhile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-their-own-land-arlie-russell-hochschild.html?_r=0
Yemen is in the NYT today, on page 6 as usual. More about civilian casualties and how the US and Britain are finding it harder to ignore. The Houthis are also guilty, but on a smaller scale.
Thanks for the book review, Donald, but I don’t see much to admire in the attitudes of the people described there. It looks like racism and ignorance, pure and simple, to me. The article says this:
“Their economic problems lie elsewhere, [the author] argues, in unchecked corporate power and technological transformation. Still there’s no denying that demographic and cultural change have robbed white men of the status they once enjoyed.”
The racist attitudes long predate the supposed loss of status endured by these white men. Their rage at a black president has just made their racism uglier. I’m getting tired of trying to empathize with people who have had a long history of racial resentment.
We’ve recently had the best economic news in decades. These people want to ruin this and everything else for themselves and the rest of us.
Thanks for the book review, Donald, but I don’t see much to admire in the attitudes of the people described there. It looks like racism and ignorance, pure and simple, to me. The article says this:
“Their economic problems lie elsewhere, [the author] argues, in unchecked corporate power and technological transformation. Still there’s no denying that demographic and cultural change have robbed white men of the status they once enjoyed.”
The racist attitudes long predate the supposed loss of status endured by these white men. Their rage at a black president has just made their racism uglier. I’m getting tired of trying to empathize with people who have had a long history of racial resentment.
We’ve recently had the best economic news in decades. These people want to ruin this and everything else for themselves and the rest of us.
Thanks for the book review, Donald, but I don’t see much to admire in the attitudes of the people described there. It looks like racism and ignorance, pure and simple, to me. The article says this:
“Their economic problems lie elsewhere, [the author] argues, in unchecked corporate power and technological transformation. Still there’s no denying that demographic and cultural change have robbed white men of the status they once enjoyed.”
The racist attitudes long predate the supposed loss of status endured by these white men. Their rage at a black president has just made their racism uglier. I’m getting tired of trying to empathize with people who have had a long history of racial resentment.
We’ve recently had the best economic news in decades. These people want to ruin this and everything else for themselves and the rest of us.
“Trump, well — I don’t have the slightest notion what to expect if he gets in.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
“Trump, well — I don’t have the slightest notion what to expect if he gets in.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
“Trump, well — I don’t have the slightest notion what to expect if he gets in.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
Ummm, yeah, to get elected, finally. And, in fact, they did. Thank Jesus. I mean c’mon. If we’re going to make change through the political system we have to get elected, right? The thought of it … so corrupt!
No, to demonstrate that “third way” cenerist triangulation was the way Democrats would beat Republicans, and to advance the influence of their faction w/in the party accordingly. Your revisionism would work better on a younger audience whose understandings of that period are based on third-hand explanations and reminiscences rather than having lived through them.
You keep trying very hard to make this binary with the tu quoque comments and attempts to rebuff attacks on your favorite by attacking their political rivals. It’s informative about your conception of politics, and speaks deeply to a conviction that everyone views the political process in the same rigid “my team, right or wrong” manner whereby your political views are indistinguishable from those of politicians you vote for. However, it’s not persuasive. Not even a little. Your manner of viewing politics requires politicians be morally faultless because you’re unwilling to view their actions through a critical – or even objective – lens. Politics are thus approached wearing the mantle of apologist rather than observer; the goal is not to discern what the politician is doing or why, but rather to determine how to explain why the politician’s acts show them to be doing what your ideology mandates that they will do, and how their acts fit into your ideology’s orthodoxy.
I’m rambling at length about the perversity of your political perspective not to mock it, but in feeble hope that you can be dissuaded from your endless denunciations of everyone who does not agree with you by recourse to the bizarre assumptions your partisan cultist outlook demands. It may feel like you’re scoring a point by making claims about “[my] Bernie” as you did above, but it’s meaningless to me and indeed, probably to all of us. Sanders is not “[my] Bernie”; I have no special attachment to him nor to his politics. As the establishment centerists of a less cultish bent perennially chide the leftists to do, I supported Sanders not because I decided he was a moral actor who I could trust to do no wrong, but rather because I looked at his positions and policies and found them to be closest to my own w/o crossing any bright moral lines. Is he faultless? Ofc not. Indeed, you correctly point to a fault. Outside of a perverse political outlook such as yours this is not a problem, as unlike you I’m willing to criticize the actions of those I vote for, and I don’t think for a moment that they will do everything right at all times under all circumstances. Further, as you endlessly point out, Sanders lost the primary, so it’s irrelevant to point to him as you continuously do. I had my personal political beliefs before he announced his candidacy and I chose to vote for him, and I retained them after he left the field. My political philosophy does not require that I assume the outlook of a politician as my own in order to support them, nor do I, as a political minority, have the luxury of picking and choosing candidates who will perfectly (or even closely) adhere to my political wants and needs. In that rather concrete sense, an outlook such as mine embodies far more pragmatism than the idealism yours exhibits…
Ummm, yeah, to get elected, finally. And, in fact, they did. Thank Jesus. I mean c’mon. If we’re going to make change through the political system we have to get elected, right? The thought of it … so corrupt!
No, to demonstrate that “third way” cenerist triangulation was the way Democrats would beat Republicans, and to advance the influence of their faction w/in the party accordingly. Your revisionism would work better on a younger audience whose understandings of that period are based on third-hand explanations and reminiscences rather than having lived through them.
You keep trying very hard to make this binary with the tu quoque comments and attempts to rebuff attacks on your favorite by attacking their political rivals. It’s informative about your conception of politics, and speaks deeply to a conviction that everyone views the political process in the same rigid “my team, right or wrong” manner whereby your political views are indistinguishable from those of politicians you vote for. However, it’s not persuasive. Not even a little. Your manner of viewing politics requires politicians be morally faultless because you’re unwilling to view their actions through a critical – or even objective – lens. Politics are thus approached wearing the mantle of apologist rather than observer; the goal is not to discern what the politician is doing or why, but rather to determine how to explain why the politician’s acts show them to be doing what your ideology mandates that they will do, and how their acts fit into your ideology’s orthodoxy.
I’m rambling at length about the perversity of your political perspective not to mock it, but in feeble hope that you can be dissuaded from your endless denunciations of everyone who does not agree with you by recourse to the bizarre assumptions your partisan cultist outlook demands. It may feel like you’re scoring a point by making claims about “[my] Bernie” as you did above, but it’s meaningless to me and indeed, probably to all of us. Sanders is not “[my] Bernie”; I have no special attachment to him nor to his politics. As the establishment centerists of a less cultish bent perennially chide the leftists to do, I supported Sanders not because I decided he was a moral actor who I could trust to do no wrong, but rather because I looked at his positions and policies and found them to be closest to my own w/o crossing any bright moral lines. Is he faultless? Ofc not. Indeed, you correctly point to a fault. Outside of a perverse political outlook such as yours this is not a problem, as unlike you I’m willing to criticize the actions of those I vote for, and I don’t think for a moment that they will do everything right at all times under all circumstances. Further, as you endlessly point out, Sanders lost the primary, so it’s irrelevant to point to him as you continuously do. I had my personal political beliefs before he announced his candidacy and I chose to vote for him, and I retained them after he left the field. My political philosophy does not require that I assume the outlook of a politician as my own in order to support them, nor do I, as a political minority, have the luxury of picking and choosing candidates who will perfectly (or even closely) adhere to my political wants and needs. In that rather concrete sense, an outlook such as mine embodies far more pragmatism than the idealism yours exhibits…
Ummm, yeah, to get elected, finally. And, in fact, they did. Thank Jesus. I mean c’mon. If we’re going to make change through the political system we have to get elected, right? The thought of it … so corrupt!
No, to demonstrate that “third way” cenerist triangulation was the way Democrats would beat Republicans, and to advance the influence of their faction w/in the party accordingly. Your revisionism would work better on a younger audience whose understandings of that period are based on third-hand explanations and reminiscences rather than having lived through them.
You keep trying very hard to make this binary with the tu quoque comments and attempts to rebuff attacks on your favorite by attacking their political rivals. It’s informative about your conception of politics, and speaks deeply to a conviction that everyone views the political process in the same rigid “my team, right or wrong” manner whereby your political views are indistinguishable from those of politicians you vote for. However, it’s not persuasive. Not even a little. Your manner of viewing politics requires politicians be morally faultless because you’re unwilling to view their actions through a critical – or even objective – lens. Politics are thus approached wearing the mantle of apologist rather than observer; the goal is not to discern what the politician is doing or why, but rather to determine how to explain why the politician’s acts show them to be doing what your ideology mandates that they will do, and how their acts fit into your ideology’s orthodoxy.
I’m rambling at length about the perversity of your political perspective not to mock it, but in feeble hope that you can be dissuaded from your endless denunciations of everyone who does not agree with you by recourse to the bizarre assumptions your partisan cultist outlook demands. It may feel like you’re scoring a point by making claims about “[my] Bernie” as you did above, but it’s meaningless to me and indeed, probably to all of us. Sanders is not “[my] Bernie”; I have no special attachment to him nor to his politics. As the establishment centerists of a less cultish bent perennially chide the leftists to do, I supported Sanders not because I decided he was a moral actor who I could trust to do no wrong, but rather because I looked at his positions and policies and found them to be closest to my own w/o crossing any bright moral lines. Is he faultless? Ofc not. Indeed, you correctly point to a fault. Outside of a perverse political outlook such as yours this is not a problem, as unlike you I’m willing to criticize the actions of those I vote for, and I don’t think for a moment that they will do everything right at all times under all circumstances. Further, as you endlessly point out, Sanders lost the primary, so it’s irrelevant to point to him as you continuously do. I had my personal political beliefs before he announced his candidacy and I chose to vote for him, and I retained them after he left the field. My political philosophy does not require that I assume the outlook of a politician as my own in order to support them, nor do I, as a political minority, have the luxury of picking and choosing candidates who will perfectly (or even closely) adhere to my political wants and needs. In that rather concrete sense, an outlook such as mine embodies far more pragmatism than the idealism yours exhibits…
No, to demonstrate that “third way” cenerist triangulation was the way Democrats would beat Republicans, and to advance the influence of their faction w/in the party accordingly.
So, you’re saying that they didn’t really want to get elected, they just wanted to prove a point to less liberal Democrats? What are you smoking?
I’m rambling at length
Yes, and you make little sense.
No, to demonstrate that “third way” cenerist triangulation was the way Democrats would beat Republicans, and to advance the influence of their faction w/in the party accordingly.
So, you’re saying that they didn’t really want to get elected, they just wanted to prove a point to less liberal Democrats? What are you smoking?
I’m rambling at length
Yes, and you make little sense.
No, to demonstrate that “third way” cenerist triangulation was the way Democrats would beat Republicans, and to advance the influence of their faction w/in the party accordingly.
So, you’re saying that they didn’t really want to get elected, they just wanted to prove a point to less liberal Democrats? What are you smoking?
I’m rambling at length
Yes, and you make little sense.
Yep, the best economic news in decades. We’ve permanently reduced the workforce by 6%, and growing, by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth. So “middle class” incomes go up, because we don’t count zero income.
Yep, the best economic news in decades. We’ve permanently reduced the workforce by 6%, and growing, by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth. So “middle class” incomes go up, because we don’t count zero income.
Yep, the best economic news in decades. We’ve permanently reduced the workforce by 6%, and growing, by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth. So “middle class” incomes go up, because we don’t count zero income.
From Donald’s NYT article:
I think that’s about right.
I am, by any marker you care to choose, a coastal liberal elite. I eat artisanal cheeses from foreign lands. My wife drives a hybrid car. Wine, not beer, thanks very much, and a nice Campari and soda (with a twist, please, not an orange slice) as an aperitif.
Who gives a crap?
I don’t have any animus toward southern culture, or rural culture.
There are two things that seem to, somehow, get entangled with southern and/or rural American cultural identity that I have a really hard time with.
One is the embrace of plain old garden variety ignorance as some kind of virtue.
The other is responding to being generally pissed on by society by finding somebody else to piss on in return.
I think that there are a ton of white people in this country – millions and millions of them – who have basically been screwed by events over the last 40 or so years. They have a legitimate complaint.
I also know that a hell of a lot of people like me think that a lot of those folks are a bunch of ignorant racist redneck dumb-asses. Or, probably worse, think of them as some curious and bizarre socio-economic life form that needs to be examined and discussed at length – sympathetically of course!! – in the pages of the NYT or the Atlantic.
They – the people being looked down on, or condescended to – have a legitimate complaint there as well.
What that does not entitle them to do is point to blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims, or whoever, as the source and cause of their problems.
My wife and I were recently driving up I-93 to New Hampshire to visit my sister. We were in my wife’s Honda Insight, a hybrid car. We were behind some guy in a big-ass F-150 which sported the following bumper sticker:
“My truck is burning all the gas your hybrid saves”
My wife thought this was rude and ignorant and it pissed her off. So, plus-one for the guy in the truck, he pissed off a hybrid-owning liberal.
I just thought, best of luck to you buddy, spending three hours a day in your freaking $30K or $40K truck that you probably have a 5 or 6 year note on and are never gonna pay off, driving back and forth to NH every day because it’s too expensive for you to buy a house in MA, where you probably grew up and where most of your work is, on a tradesman’s wages.
But yeah, it’s gonna solve all your problems to put a bumper sticker on your car so you can piss off my wife. Or, it’s gonna solve all your problems to bitch about the lazy blacks or the Mexicans (or, in our neck of the woods, Dominicans) who are stealing all your jobs.
I’m definitely sympathetic to the very real issues of how freaking hard it is to make a damned living if you aren’t some kind of white collar professional.
But it’s true, I’m not really sympathetic to self-pity and resentment as a cultural identity, or to the embrace of ignorance as some kind of point of pride, or to pissing on black and brown people.
Vance is a good writer, and he sounds like a thoughtful guy. I appreciate the strong sense of familial and geographic roots and loyalty that he expresses in his work. I think the patterns of self-defeating behaviors that he describes – alcohol and drug abuse, belligerence and violence, an inability to accept the basic responsibilities of work and family – are just not something to celebrate or embrace.
They only hold his people back.
From Donald’s NYT article:
I think that’s about right.
I am, by any marker you care to choose, a coastal liberal elite. I eat artisanal cheeses from foreign lands. My wife drives a hybrid car. Wine, not beer, thanks very much, and a nice Campari and soda (with a twist, please, not an orange slice) as an aperitif.
Who gives a crap?
I don’t have any animus toward southern culture, or rural culture.
There are two things that seem to, somehow, get entangled with southern and/or rural American cultural identity that I have a really hard time with.
One is the embrace of plain old garden variety ignorance as some kind of virtue.
The other is responding to being generally pissed on by society by finding somebody else to piss on in return.
I think that there are a ton of white people in this country – millions and millions of them – who have basically been screwed by events over the last 40 or so years. They have a legitimate complaint.
I also know that a hell of a lot of people like me think that a lot of those folks are a bunch of ignorant racist redneck dumb-asses. Or, probably worse, think of them as some curious and bizarre socio-economic life form that needs to be examined and discussed at length – sympathetically of course!! – in the pages of the NYT or the Atlantic.
They – the people being looked down on, or condescended to – have a legitimate complaint there as well.
What that does not entitle them to do is point to blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims, or whoever, as the source and cause of their problems.
My wife and I were recently driving up I-93 to New Hampshire to visit my sister. We were in my wife’s Honda Insight, a hybrid car. We were behind some guy in a big-ass F-150 which sported the following bumper sticker:
“My truck is burning all the gas your hybrid saves”
My wife thought this was rude and ignorant and it pissed her off. So, plus-one for the guy in the truck, he pissed off a hybrid-owning liberal.
I just thought, best of luck to you buddy, spending three hours a day in your freaking $30K or $40K truck that you probably have a 5 or 6 year note on and are never gonna pay off, driving back and forth to NH every day because it’s too expensive for you to buy a house in MA, where you probably grew up and where most of your work is, on a tradesman’s wages.
But yeah, it’s gonna solve all your problems to put a bumper sticker on your car so you can piss off my wife. Or, it’s gonna solve all your problems to bitch about the lazy blacks or the Mexicans (or, in our neck of the woods, Dominicans) who are stealing all your jobs.
I’m definitely sympathetic to the very real issues of how freaking hard it is to make a damned living if you aren’t some kind of white collar professional.
But it’s true, I’m not really sympathetic to self-pity and resentment as a cultural identity, or to the embrace of ignorance as some kind of point of pride, or to pissing on black and brown people.
Vance is a good writer, and he sounds like a thoughtful guy. I appreciate the strong sense of familial and geographic roots and loyalty that he expresses in his work. I think the patterns of self-defeating behaviors that he describes – alcohol and drug abuse, belligerence and violence, an inability to accept the basic responsibilities of work and family – are just not something to celebrate or embrace.
They only hold his people back.
From Donald’s NYT article:
I think that’s about right.
I am, by any marker you care to choose, a coastal liberal elite. I eat artisanal cheeses from foreign lands. My wife drives a hybrid car. Wine, not beer, thanks very much, and a nice Campari and soda (with a twist, please, not an orange slice) as an aperitif.
Who gives a crap?
I don’t have any animus toward southern culture, or rural culture.
There are two things that seem to, somehow, get entangled with southern and/or rural American cultural identity that I have a really hard time with.
One is the embrace of plain old garden variety ignorance as some kind of virtue.
The other is responding to being generally pissed on by society by finding somebody else to piss on in return.
I think that there are a ton of white people in this country – millions and millions of them – who have basically been screwed by events over the last 40 or so years. They have a legitimate complaint.
I also know that a hell of a lot of people like me think that a lot of those folks are a bunch of ignorant racist redneck dumb-asses. Or, probably worse, think of them as some curious and bizarre socio-economic life form that needs to be examined and discussed at length – sympathetically of course!! – in the pages of the NYT or the Atlantic.
They – the people being looked down on, or condescended to – have a legitimate complaint there as well.
What that does not entitle them to do is point to blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims, or whoever, as the source and cause of their problems.
My wife and I were recently driving up I-93 to New Hampshire to visit my sister. We were in my wife’s Honda Insight, a hybrid car. We were behind some guy in a big-ass F-150 which sported the following bumper sticker:
“My truck is burning all the gas your hybrid saves”
My wife thought this was rude and ignorant and it pissed her off. So, plus-one for the guy in the truck, he pissed off a hybrid-owning liberal.
I just thought, best of luck to you buddy, spending three hours a day in your freaking $30K or $40K truck that you probably have a 5 or 6 year note on and are never gonna pay off, driving back and forth to NH every day because it’s too expensive for you to buy a house in MA, where you probably grew up and where most of your work is, on a tradesman’s wages.
But yeah, it’s gonna solve all your problems to put a bumper sticker on your car so you can piss off my wife. Or, it’s gonna solve all your problems to bitch about the lazy blacks or the Mexicans (or, in our neck of the woods, Dominicans) who are stealing all your jobs.
I’m definitely sympathetic to the very real issues of how freaking hard it is to make a damned living if you aren’t some kind of white collar professional.
But it’s true, I’m not really sympathetic to self-pity and resentment as a cultural identity, or to the embrace of ignorance as some kind of point of pride, or to pissing on black and brown people.
Vance is a good writer, and he sounds like a thoughtful guy. I appreciate the strong sense of familial and geographic roots and loyalty that he expresses in his work. I think the patterns of self-defeating behaviors that he describes – alcohol and drug abuse, belligerence and violence, an inability to accept the basic responsibilities of work and family – are just not something to celebrate or embrace.
They only hold his people back.
by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth.
by allowing people to get old
by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth.
by allowing people to get old
by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth.
by allowing people to get old
You aren’t supposed to read these pieces and empathize with racism or defend noxious and sometimes self destructive views. You should condemn those. You should vote against the people they support. If I were black I would keep my distance from these people, though sometimes people like this are decent with individuals they know while ugly in the abstract, but I wouldn’t trust them. I grew up around virulent middle class white racists. They were open about it when blacks weren’t around. Not everyone, but maybe half or more. It was weird seeing how they behaved and how they rationalized things. One was friends with a black kid, but in general racist as hell. His father was a doctor and a Lt Commander in the navy during WWII. ( This kid made fun of my father for only being a petty officer in the war, which was so startlingly idiotic it didn’t bother me.) Racists as I knew them were a mass of contradictions. Their motives weren’t economic– it was just how they were brought up. That sort of thing can gradually change with time, in prosperous times. That’s obviously true– bigotry in the US used to extend to white ethnics and now if someone hates Irish we would just think they stepped out of a time machine. But if people feel threatened they go back to their vomit.
If the people discussed in this book were doing well some of the racism would still be there, but it would be less common and less likely to have an effect in political campaigns. People don’t experience average economic statistics– they experience what happens to them and their local community.
You aren’t supposed to read these pieces and empathize with racism or defend noxious and sometimes self destructive views. You should condemn those. You should vote against the people they support. If I were black I would keep my distance from these people, though sometimes people like this are decent with individuals they know while ugly in the abstract, but I wouldn’t trust them. I grew up around virulent middle class white racists. They were open about it when blacks weren’t around. Not everyone, but maybe half or more. It was weird seeing how they behaved and how they rationalized things. One was friends with a black kid, but in general racist as hell. His father was a doctor and a Lt Commander in the navy during WWII. ( This kid made fun of my father for only being a petty officer in the war, which was so startlingly idiotic it didn’t bother me.) Racists as I knew them were a mass of contradictions. Their motives weren’t economic– it was just how they were brought up. That sort of thing can gradually change with time, in prosperous times. That’s obviously true– bigotry in the US used to extend to white ethnics and now if someone hates Irish we would just think they stepped out of a time machine. But if people feel threatened they go back to their vomit.
If the people discussed in this book were doing well some of the racism would still be there, but it would be less common and less likely to have an effect in political campaigns. People don’t experience average economic statistics– they experience what happens to them and their local community.
You aren’t supposed to read these pieces and empathize with racism or defend noxious and sometimes self destructive views. You should condemn those. You should vote against the people they support. If I were black I would keep my distance from these people, though sometimes people like this are decent with individuals they know while ugly in the abstract, but I wouldn’t trust them. I grew up around virulent middle class white racists. They were open about it when blacks weren’t around. Not everyone, but maybe half or more. It was weird seeing how they behaved and how they rationalized things. One was friends with a black kid, but in general racist as hell. His father was a doctor and a Lt Commander in the navy during WWII. ( This kid made fun of my father for only being a petty officer in the war, which was so startlingly idiotic it didn’t bother me.) Racists as I knew them were a mass of contradictions. Their motives weren’t economic– it was just how they were brought up. That sort of thing can gradually change with time, in prosperous times. That’s obviously true– bigotry in the US used to extend to white ethnics and now if someone hates Irish we would just think they stepped out of a time machine. But if people feel threatened they go back to their vomit.
If the people discussed in this book were doing well some of the racism would still be there, but it would be less common and less likely to have an effect in political campaigns. People don’t experience average economic statistics– they experience what happens to them and their local community.
Not that he is well organized enough to be that
For whatever reason, I’ve done some reading about the early Nazi period over the last couple of months. Mostly Timothy Snyder’s stuff, some others.
One thing that struck me was the degree to which the Nazi program was *not* well thought out. It seemed like they made a lot of it up as they went along.
The other thing that struck me was the degree to which many of the main players were not particularly ideologically in line with Nazi-ism, as an -ism.
Hitler was a guy on the make, they just hitched their wagon to his star.
Not that he is well organized enough to be that
For whatever reason, I’ve done some reading about the early Nazi period over the last couple of months. Mostly Timothy Snyder’s stuff, some others.
One thing that struck me was the degree to which the Nazi program was *not* well thought out. It seemed like they made a lot of it up as they went along.
The other thing that struck me was the degree to which many of the main players were not particularly ideologically in line with Nazi-ism, as an -ism.
Hitler was a guy on the make, they just hitched their wagon to his star.
Not that he is well organized enough to be that
For whatever reason, I’ve done some reading about the early Nazi period over the last couple of months. Mostly Timothy Snyder’s stuff, some others.
One thing that struck me was the degree to which the Nazi program was *not* well thought out. It seemed like they made a lot of it up as they went along.
The other thing that struck me was the degree to which many of the main players were not particularly ideologically in line with Nazi-ism, as an -ism.
Hitler was a guy on the make, they just hitched their wagon to his star.
by allowing people to get old
freaking boomers.
when are they just gonna die off and get out of the way!
by allowing people to get old
freaking boomers.
when are they just gonna die off and get out of the way!
by allowing people to get old
freaking boomers.
when are they just gonna die off and get out of the way!
We’ve permanently reduced the workforce by 6%, and growing, by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth
It sure as hell beats “The bankers thought they found a magical equation that would make all the risk go away, but they were wrong, so now we have to give them a few trillion dollars so they don’t blow up the entire global economy”.
In context, I can live with slow growth and a reduced workforce.
And yes, I take your point, but seriously, as far as I can tell it’s a freaking miracle the lights are still on at all, after the clown show of ’07-08.
Jump, you fuckers.
Oops, sorry, I was being unkind there for a moment.
We’ve permanently reduced the workforce by 6%, and growing, by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth
It sure as hell beats “The bankers thought they found a magical equation that would make all the risk go away, but they were wrong, so now we have to give them a few trillion dollars so they don’t blow up the entire global economy”.
In context, I can live with slow growth and a reduced workforce.
And yes, I take your point, but seriously, as far as I can tell it’s a freaking miracle the lights are still on at all, after the clown show of ’07-08.
Jump, you fuckers.
Oops, sorry, I was being unkind there for a moment.
We’ve permanently reduced the workforce by 6%, and growing, by reducing the economy to a permanent zero growth
It sure as hell beats “The bankers thought they found a magical equation that would make all the risk go away, but they were wrong, so now we have to give them a few trillion dollars so they don’t blow up the entire global economy”.
In context, I can live with slow growth and a reduced workforce.
And yes, I take your point, but seriously, as far as I can tell it’s a freaking miracle the lights are still on at all, after the clown show of ’07-08.
Jump, you fuckers.
Oops, sorry, I was being unkind there for a moment.
Hitler was a guy on the make, they just hitched their wagon to his star.
Even scarier for us.
Hitler was a guy on the make, they just hitched their wagon to his star.
Even scarier for us.
Hitler was a guy on the make, they just hitched their wagon to his star.
Even scarier for us.
I’ve been trying to find a Walker Percy quote from one of his essays … he was a white, Catholic conservative from the parishes of Louisiana with little patience for Northern liberals, but, for his time and place, he had no patience with racism either … with no luck.
He was talking about his good ole boy fellows and wrote about one, and I paraphrase, “Yes, he’s decent sort, not a bad fellow, salt of the earth … for a cracker, racist peckerwood, that is.”
Again, not an exact quote by any means, but it captures the gist.
That’s a whole lot different than millions of them, decent sorts, worthy of empathy on an individual basis, now galvanized into a resentful, angry political movement.
If Trump told them to gas the Jews, they would.
I’ve been trying to find a Walker Percy quote from one of his essays … he was a white, Catholic conservative from the parishes of Louisiana with little patience for Northern liberals, but, for his time and place, he had no patience with racism either … with no luck.
He was talking about his good ole boy fellows and wrote about one, and I paraphrase, “Yes, he’s decent sort, not a bad fellow, salt of the earth … for a cracker, racist peckerwood, that is.”
Again, not an exact quote by any means, but it captures the gist.
That’s a whole lot different than millions of them, decent sorts, worthy of empathy on an individual basis, now galvanized into a resentful, angry political movement.
If Trump told them to gas the Jews, they would.
I’ve been trying to find a Walker Percy quote from one of his essays … he was a white, Catholic conservative from the parishes of Louisiana with little patience for Northern liberals, but, for his time and place, he had no patience with racism either … with no luck.
He was talking about his good ole boy fellows and wrote about one, and I paraphrase, “Yes, he’s decent sort, not a bad fellow, salt of the earth … for a cracker, racist peckerwood, that is.”
Again, not an exact quote by any means, but it captures the gist.
That’s a whole lot different than millions of them, decent sorts, worthy of empathy on an individual basis, now galvanized into a resentful, angry political movement.
If Trump told them to gas the Jews, they would.
The retiree argument is crap, unless you count early retirement due to ageism. But the workforce has been reduced at both ends of the age spectrum, and job growth doesn’t keep up with population growth. It’s just lies.
The retiree argument is crap, unless you count early retirement due to ageism. But the workforce has been reduced at both ends of the age spectrum, and job growth doesn’t keep up with population growth. It’s just lies.
The retiree argument is crap, unless you count early retirement due to ageism. But the workforce has been reduced at both ends of the age spectrum, and job growth doesn’t keep up with population growth. It’s just lies.
I suppose you can live with it russell, since you are one of the ones with a job. Funny how obvious that correlation is.
I suppose you can live with it russell, since you are one of the ones with a job. Funny how obvious that correlation is.
I suppose you can live with it russell, since you are one of the ones with a job. Funny how obvious that correlation is.
Workforce participation:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf
There’s a Philly Fed link too to be had.
I noticed some Fed Governors the other day who dissented from the decision to not raise interest rates remaking that wages are rising and we need to nip that in the bud.
So, the schmucks finally start returning to the workforce and the ones already in it finally start to see their wages rise, after years of stagnation, and we just can’t have that, can we?
If Americans want to keep labor force participation at high levels, then stop firing and laying Americans off every time things go downhill, or start to get better for those at the bottom.
And if anyone thinks they are going to “incent” me to return to the labor force by removing my access to affordable healthcare insurance, just signed up for Medicare, go fuck yourselves.
Under current law, I have easy access to military grade weaponry too, and that doesn’t look like it’s going to go away any time soon, so be careful what you do.
Workforce participation:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf
There’s a Philly Fed link too to be had.
I noticed some Fed Governors the other day who dissented from the decision to not raise interest rates remaking that wages are rising and we need to nip that in the bud.
So, the schmucks finally start returning to the workforce and the ones already in it finally start to see their wages rise, after years of stagnation, and we just can’t have that, can we?
If Americans want to keep labor force participation at high levels, then stop firing and laying Americans off every time things go downhill, or start to get better for those at the bottom.
And if anyone thinks they are going to “incent” me to return to the labor force by removing my access to affordable healthcare insurance, just signed up for Medicare, go fuck yourselves.
Under current law, I have easy access to military grade weaponry too, and that doesn’t look like it’s going to go away any time soon, so be careful what you do.
Workforce participation:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf
There’s a Philly Fed link too to be had.
I noticed some Fed Governors the other day who dissented from the decision to not raise interest rates remaking that wages are rising and we need to nip that in the bud.
So, the schmucks finally start returning to the workforce and the ones already in it finally start to see their wages rise, after years of stagnation, and we just can’t have that, can we?
If Americans want to keep labor force participation at high levels, then stop firing and laying Americans off every time things go downhill, or start to get better for those at the bottom.
And if anyone thinks they are going to “incent” me to return to the labor force by removing my access to affordable healthcare insurance, just signed up for Medicare, go fuck yourselves.
Under current law, I have easy access to military grade weaponry too, and that doesn’t look like it’s going to go away any time soon, so be careful what you do.
The Bundy boys and collaborators, including the various murderous militias with expensive welfare military grade weaponry in their possession knocking around, seem to be well-off enough to take considerable time away from their jobs to fuck with the rest of us.
And by the way, how come those guys pointing guns at law enforcement on the highway bridge in Utah a couple of years ago are still among the living while unarmed black men with their hands raised in the air are slaughtered?
Riddle me that. Obama’s fucking fault?
How do they do it? What’s the sociopathy of it? Too much money leads to time on one’s hands?
The Bundy boys and collaborators, including the various murderous militias with expensive welfare military grade weaponry in their possession knocking around, seem to be well-off enough to take considerable time away from their jobs to fuck with the rest of us.
And by the way, how come those guys pointing guns at law enforcement on the highway bridge in Utah a couple of years ago are still among the living while unarmed black men with their hands raised in the air are slaughtered?
Riddle me that. Obama’s fucking fault?
How do they do it? What’s the sociopathy of it? Too much money leads to time on one’s hands?
The Bundy boys and collaborators, including the various murderous militias with expensive welfare military grade weaponry in their possession knocking around, seem to be well-off enough to take considerable time away from their jobs to fuck with the rest of us.
And by the way, how come those guys pointing guns at law enforcement on the highway bridge in Utah a couple of years ago are still among the living while unarmed black men with their hands raised in the air are slaughtered?
Riddle me that. Obama’s fucking fault?
How do they do it? What’s the sociopathy of it? Too much money leads to time on one’s hands?
Vance, of course, doesn’t celebrate the noxious cultural traits of poor white people. He is critical of them. He compares them to self destructive and sometimes criminal behavior that conservatives usually blame for the plight of poor black neighborhoods or that’s the impression I get from articles, not having read the book.
Back in the 90’s and the esrly 0’s the DLC types wanted Democrats to appeal to white voters more. They didn’t usually put it that way– they would say Middle America. Lots of talk about real America, the heartland, etc.. It all meant white people in flyover country.Liberals and lefties objected ( quite rightly IMO) to this as it seemed to involve psupporting bad policy. ( Some of it was also aimed at making Walll Street happy, but that’s a different issue.)
So there was a backlash against that whole ” let’s appeal to Middle America ” ( white people) theme, especially when Democrats realized demographic changes meant the votes of Real America” ( white people) weren’t quite so crucial anymore. But maybe the backlash has gone too far if some liberals focus too much on the moral failings of poor whites and so the Vance and Hoschild books as a kind of corrective
Incidentally, on the right there was that Kevin Williamson quote that attacked poor whites– he was furious that Republicans weren’t voting for the usual Republican cox men, but this new model the establishment couldn’t control. Trump even bashed Bush and the Iraq War. So obviously poor whites who voted for him needed to be put in their place.
Sapient, you do treat politics as theology. You wish to justify the ways of Democrats and solve the problem of evil– that is, if a Democrat does something which appears morally questionable you react like a Calvinist defending God against the charge that He is responsible for human suffering. The Democrat is good and if there is suffering, the blame always lies elsewhere. It’s a crucial bone of contention between theists and atheists and hotly debated even within religious circles, but when the subject is the Democratic Party it looks a little silly. Imagine the Book of Job rewritten with Obama as the voice speaking from a Predator drone.
Vance, of course, doesn’t celebrate the noxious cultural traits of poor white people. He is critical of them. He compares them to self destructive and sometimes criminal behavior that conservatives usually blame for the plight of poor black neighborhoods or that’s the impression I get from articles, not having read the book.
Back in the 90’s and the esrly 0’s the DLC types wanted Democrats to appeal to white voters more. They didn’t usually put it that way– they would say Middle America. Lots of talk about real America, the heartland, etc.. It all meant white people in flyover country.Liberals and lefties objected ( quite rightly IMO) to this as it seemed to involve psupporting bad policy. ( Some of it was also aimed at making Walll Street happy, but that’s a different issue.)
So there was a backlash against that whole ” let’s appeal to Middle America ” ( white people) theme, especially when Democrats realized demographic changes meant the votes of Real America” ( white people) weren’t quite so crucial anymore. But maybe the backlash has gone too far if some liberals focus too much on the moral failings of poor whites and so the Vance and Hoschild books as a kind of corrective
Incidentally, on the right there was that Kevin Williamson quote that attacked poor whites– he was furious that Republicans weren’t voting for the usual Republican cox men, but this new model the establishment couldn’t control. Trump even bashed Bush and the Iraq War. So obviously poor whites who voted for him needed to be put in their place.
Sapient, you do treat politics as theology. You wish to justify the ways of Democrats and solve the problem of evil– that is, if a Democrat does something which appears morally questionable you react like a Calvinist defending God against the charge that He is responsible for human suffering. The Democrat is good and if there is suffering, the blame always lies elsewhere. It’s a crucial bone of contention between theists and atheists and hotly debated even within religious circles, but when the subject is the Democratic Party it looks a little silly. Imagine the Book of Job rewritten with Obama as the voice speaking from a Predator drone.
Vance, of course, doesn’t celebrate the noxious cultural traits of poor white people. He is critical of them. He compares them to self destructive and sometimes criminal behavior that conservatives usually blame for the plight of poor black neighborhoods or that’s the impression I get from articles, not having read the book.
Back in the 90’s and the esrly 0’s the DLC types wanted Democrats to appeal to white voters more. They didn’t usually put it that way– they would say Middle America. Lots of talk about real America, the heartland, etc.. It all meant white people in flyover country.Liberals and lefties objected ( quite rightly IMO) to this as it seemed to involve psupporting bad policy. ( Some of it was also aimed at making Walll Street happy, but that’s a different issue.)
So there was a backlash against that whole ” let’s appeal to Middle America ” ( white people) theme, especially when Democrats realized demographic changes meant the votes of Real America” ( white people) weren’t quite so crucial anymore. But maybe the backlash has gone too far if some liberals focus too much on the moral failings of poor whites and so the Vance and Hoschild books as a kind of corrective
Incidentally, on the right there was that Kevin Williamson quote that attacked poor whites– he was furious that Republicans weren’t voting for the usual Republican cox men, but this new model the establishment couldn’t control. Trump even bashed Bush and the Iraq War. So obviously poor whites who voted for him needed to be put in their place.
Sapient, you do treat politics as theology. You wish to justify the ways of Democrats and solve the problem of evil– that is, if a Democrat does something which appears morally questionable you react like a Calvinist defending God against the charge that He is responsible for human suffering. The Democrat is good and if there is suffering, the blame always lies elsewhere. It’s a crucial bone of contention between theists and atheists and hotly debated even within religious circles, but when the subject is the Democratic Party it looks a little silly. Imagine the Book of Job rewritten with Obama as the voice speaking from a Predator drone.
Vance, of course, doesn’t celebrate the noxious cultural traits of poor white people. He is critical of them.
Yes, I get that. I don’t really have any bone to pick with Vance, and I appreciate that he’s trying to articulate the point of view of the people he grew up with.
I suppose you can live with it russell, since you are one of the ones with a job.
Yeah, lucky me.
Vance, of course, doesn’t celebrate the noxious cultural traits of poor white people. He is critical of them.
Yes, I get that. I don’t really have any bone to pick with Vance, and I appreciate that he’s trying to articulate the point of view of the people he grew up with.
I suppose you can live with it russell, since you are one of the ones with a job.
Yeah, lucky me.
Vance, of course, doesn’t celebrate the noxious cultural traits of poor white people. He is critical of them.
Yes, I get that. I don’t really have any bone to pick with Vance, and I appreciate that he’s trying to articulate the point of view of the people he grew up with.
I suppose you can live with it russell, since you are one of the ones with a job.
Yeah, lucky me.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/#7005feea20bc
“unless you count early retirement due to ageism.”
We’re not allowed to count it. You know, the freedom to discriminate. Your major organs, Marty, and mine, might give out while we’re on the employers’ health plan and that would raise costs.
We might come down with walking pneumonia and the whisper campaign would start that we codgers are actually suffering from incipient cancer, dementia, and multiple everything, and we’d be judged not up to the job.
“Imagine the Book of Job rewritten with Obama as the voice speaking from a Predator drone.”
Good image, good point. Bill Cosby’s no longer available for that overvoice. Morgan Freeman or James Earle Jones maybe.
I appreciate Vance’s point of view as well. Those folks good use some job-training programs, but we’re not allowed to have those any longer.
Here’s what I know from personal experience. Their racial attitudes, from two generations ago, seem to have changed little in Middletown, Ohio from when they were gainfully employed at Armco Steel in good-paying jobs and firmly ensconced in at least the lower middle class.
It was all the blacks fault then too.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/#7005feea20bc
“unless you count early retirement due to ageism.”
We’re not allowed to count it. You know, the freedom to discriminate. Your major organs, Marty, and mine, might give out while we’re on the employers’ health plan and that would raise costs.
We might come down with walking pneumonia and the whisper campaign would start that we codgers are actually suffering from incipient cancer, dementia, and multiple everything, and we’d be judged not up to the job.
“Imagine the Book of Job rewritten with Obama as the voice speaking from a Predator drone.”
Good image, good point. Bill Cosby’s no longer available for that overvoice. Morgan Freeman or James Earle Jones maybe.
I appreciate Vance’s point of view as well. Those folks good use some job-training programs, but we’re not allowed to have those any longer.
Here’s what I know from personal experience. Their racial attitudes, from two generations ago, seem to have changed little in Middletown, Ohio from when they were gainfully employed at Armco Steel in good-paying jobs and firmly ensconced in at least the lower middle class.
It was all the blacks fault then too.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/#7005feea20bc
“unless you count early retirement due to ageism.”
We’re not allowed to count it. You know, the freedom to discriminate. Your major organs, Marty, and mine, might give out while we’re on the employers’ health plan and that would raise costs.
We might come down with walking pneumonia and the whisper campaign would start that we codgers are actually suffering from incipient cancer, dementia, and multiple everything, and we’d be judged not up to the job.
“Imagine the Book of Job rewritten with Obama as the voice speaking from a Predator drone.”
Good image, good point. Bill Cosby’s no longer available for that overvoice. Morgan Freeman or James Earle Jones maybe.
I appreciate Vance’s point of view as well. Those folks good use some job-training programs, but we’re not allowed to have those any longer.
Here’s what I know from personal experience. Their racial attitudes, from two generations ago, seem to have changed little in Middletown, Ohio from when they were gainfully employed at Armco Steel in good-paying jobs and firmly ensconced in at least the lower middle class.
It was all the blacks fault then too.
Back in the 90’s and the esrly 0’s the DLC types wanted Democrats to appeal to white voters more. They didn’t usually put it that way– they would say Middle America. Lots of talk about real America, the heartland, etc.. It all meant white people in flyover country.Liberals and lefties objected ( quite rightly IMO) to this as it seemed to involve psupporting bad policy.
Let’s not forget either that Bill Clinton was a hillbilly, just as much as Vance, except that he left behind the racism and tried to thread the needle not just to “empathize” with the people he grew up with, but also to figure out solutions.
So “lefties” excoriate him for being a third way triangulator, while insisting on “empathy” and “concern” for the same people. Well, I hate to bear bad news, but “empathy” is worthless without action.
Back in the 90’s and the esrly 0’s the DLC types wanted Democrats to appeal to white voters more. They didn’t usually put it that way– they would say Middle America. Lots of talk about real America, the heartland, etc.. It all meant white people in flyover country.Liberals and lefties objected ( quite rightly IMO) to this as it seemed to involve psupporting bad policy.
Let’s not forget either that Bill Clinton was a hillbilly, just as much as Vance, except that he left behind the racism and tried to thread the needle not just to “empathize” with the people he grew up with, but also to figure out solutions.
So “lefties” excoriate him for being a third way triangulator, while insisting on “empathy” and “concern” for the same people. Well, I hate to bear bad news, but “empathy” is worthless without action.
Back in the 90’s and the esrly 0’s the DLC types wanted Democrats to appeal to white voters more. They didn’t usually put it that way– they would say Middle America. Lots of talk about real America, the heartland, etc.. It all meant white people in flyover country.Liberals and lefties objected ( quite rightly IMO) to this as it seemed to involve psupporting bad policy.
Let’s not forget either that Bill Clinton was a hillbilly, just as much as Vance, except that he left behind the racism and tried to thread the needle not just to “empathize” with the people he grew up with, but also to figure out solutions.
So “lefties” excoriate him for being a third way triangulator, while insisting on “empathy” and “concern” for the same people. Well, I hate to bear bad news, but “empathy” is worthless without action.
I decided to make my previous comment aimed at sapient more constructive. You can consistently support the Democrats over the Republicans and you can do it without approaching every issue as if how it makes the Democrat look is the most important thing to determine. It doesn’t mean you have to be as disgusted with them as I tend to be. That’s what I think NV was saying as well, or close to it.
I decided to make my previous comment aimed at sapient more constructive. You can consistently support the Democrats over the Republicans and you can do it without approaching every issue as if how it makes the Democrat look is the most important thing to determine. It doesn’t mean you have to be as disgusted with them as I tend to be. That’s what I think NV was saying as well, or close to it.
I decided to make my previous comment aimed at sapient more constructive. You can consistently support the Democrats over the Republicans and you can do it without approaching every issue as if how it makes the Democrat look is the most important thing to determine. It doesn’t mean you have to be as disgusted with them as I tend to be. That’s what I think NV was saying as well, or close to it.
The Democrat is good and if there is suffering, the blame always lies elsewhere.
I’m more the type of person who tries to find reasons for things, rather than blame for things. I blame people when reason doesn’t seem to be a factor.
The Democrat is good and if there is suffering, the blame always lies elsewhere.
I’m more the type of person who tries to find reasons for things, rather than blame for things. I blame people when reason doesn’t seem to be a factor.
The Democrat is good and if there is suffering, the blame always lies elsewhere.
I’m more the type of person who tries to find reasons for things, rather than blame for things. I blame people when reason doesn’t seem to be a factor.
There are two things that seem to, somehow, get entangled with southern and/or rural American cultural identity that I have a really hard time with.
One is the embrace of plain old garden variety ignorance as some kind of virtue.
as i sit here on the lovely NC coast, i must pause from my Bud Lites and point out that celebrated ignorance is embraced with much gusto everywhere, even in the NE. take a trip into rural PA or NY sometime. you can find ignorance, Confederate flags, jingoism, and all of Clinton’s deplorables – pretty much anywhere in the country.
kids in Boston know that the Harvard snobs are all snobby douchebag know-it-alls, after all,
There are two things that seem to, somehow, get entangled with southern and/or rural American cultural identity that I have a really hard time with.
One is the embrace of plain old garden variety ignorance as some kind of virtue.
as i sit here on the lovely NC coast, i must pause from my Bud Lites and point out that celebrated ignorance is embraced with much gusto everywhere, even in the NE. take a trip into rural PA or NY sometime. you can find ignorance, Confederate flags, jingoism, and all of Clinton’s deplorables – pretty much anywhere in the country.
kids in Boston know that the Harvard snobs are all snobby douchebag know-it-alls, after all,
There are two things that seem to, somehow, get entangled with southern and/or rural American cultural identity that I have a really hard time with.
One is the embrace of plain old garden variety ignorance as some kind of virtue.
as i sit here on the lovely NC coast, i must pause from my Bud Lites and point out that celebrated ignorance is embraced with much gusto everywhere, even in the NE. take a trip into rural PA or NY sometime. you can find ignorance, Confederate flags, jingoism, and all of Clinton’s deplorables – pretty much anywhere in the country.
kids in Boston know that the Harvard snobs are all snobby douchebag know-it-alls, after all,
I blame people when reason doesn’t seem to be a factor
Do you notice that you are conflating “reason” in the sense of logically thought out with “reason” in the sense of being the cause for? There can be, and often are, reasons for irrational behavior.
I blame people when reason doesn’t seem to be a factor
Do you notice that you are conflating “reason” in the sense of logically thought out with “reason” in the sense of being the cause for? There can be, and often are, reasons for irrational behavior.
I blame people when reason doesn’t seem to be a factor
Do you notice that you are conflating “reason” in the sense of logically thought out with “reason” in the sense of being the cause for? There can be, and often are, reasons for irrational behavior.
celebrated ignorance is embraced with much gusto everywhere, even in the NE
true dat
celebrated ignorance is embraced with much gusto everywhere, even in the NE
true dat
celebrated ignorance is embraced with much gusto everywhere, even in the NE
true dat
So, you’re saying that they didn’t really want to get elected, they just wanted to prove a point to less liberal Democrats? What are you smoking?
The same thing that you were smoking when you made the risable claim that the Clintons were unprincipled, duplicitous frauds who only advocated triangulation as a ploy to get elected, with no intention to govern as third-way liberals.
So, you’re saying that they didn’t really want to get elected, they just wanted to prove a point to less liberal Democrats? What are you smoking?
The same thing that you were smoking when you made the risable claim that the Clintons were unprincipled, duplicitous frauds who only advocated triangulation as a ploy to get elected, with no intention to govern as third-way liberals.
So, you’re saying that they didn’t really want to get elected, they just wanted to prove a point to less liberal Democrats? What are you smoking?
The same thing that you were smoking when you made the risable claim that the Clintons were unprincipled, duplicitous frauds who only advocated triangulation as a ploy to get elected, with no intention to govern as third-way liberals.
Donald, yes. And the last paragraph of your 10:39 squarely hits the point I apparently could have made better earlier.
Donald, yes. And the last paragraph of your 10:39 squarely hits the point I apparently could have made better earlier.
Donald, yes. And the last paragraph of your 10:39 squarely hits the point I apparently could have made better earlier.
Sapient, your quest for reasons is transparently a quest to justify whatever policy a Democratic president adopts. It’s not rational at all, because for one thing one can identify the reasons and still say the policy is wrong, but one knows you won’t do that. The Democrats are a stand in for God and your search for reasons are a form of theodicy.
On bigotry, my sister used to live near Gettysburg. She and her husband at the time told me that it was a very bigoted region and the KKK was active around there.
Sapient, your quest for reasons is transparently a quest to justify whatever policy a Democratic president adopts. It’s not rational at all, because for one thing one can identify the reasons and still say the policy is wrong, but one knows you won’t do that. The Democrats are a stand in for God and your search for reasons are a form of theodicy.
On bigotry, my sister used to live near Gettysburg. She and her husband at the time told me that it was a very bigoted region and the KKK was active around there.
Sapient, your quest for reasons is transparently a quest to justify whatever policy a Democratic president adopts. It’s not rational at all, because for one thing one can identify the reasons and still say the policy is wrong, but one knows you won’t do that. The Democrats are a stand in for God and your search for reasons are a form of theodicy.
On bigotry, my sister used to live near Gettysburg. She and her husband at the time told me that it was a very bigoted region and the KKK was active around there.
also, FWIW, I think I would probably have gone with Ike over Stevenson. Even with the anti-Commie baggage.
And yes, I know, Nixon, but Stevenson’s VP was an explicit segregationist, so there’s that.
All hypothetical, of course, but there it is.
also, FWIW, I think I would probably have gone with Ike over Stevenson. Even with the anti-Commie baggage.
And yes, I know, Nixon, but Stevenson’s VP was an explicit segregationist, so there’s that.
All hypothetical, of course, but there it is.
also, FWIW, I think I would probably have gone with Ike over Stevenson. Even with the anti-Commie baggage.
And yes, I know, Nixon, but Stevenson’s VP was an explicit segregationist, so there’s that.
All hypothetical, of course, but there it is.
when you made the risable claim that the Clintons were unprincipled, duplicitous frauds who only advocated triangulation as a ploy to get elected, with no intention to govern as third-way liberals.
Although I’m glad I make you laugh, please offer a quote. Your “interpretation” of my comments is incorrect.
The Democrats are a stand in for God and your search for reasons are a form of theodicy.
Psychoanalysis? Or evangelism?
when you made the risable claim that the Clintons were unprincipled, duplicitous frauds who only advocated triangulation as a ploy to get elected, with no intention to govern as third-way liberals.
Although I’m glad I make you laugh, please offer a quote. Your “interpretation” of my comments is incorrect.
The Democrats are a stand in for God and your search for reasons are a form of theodicy.
Psychoanalysis? Or evangelism?
when you made the risable claim that the Clintons were unprincipled, duplicitous frauds who only advocated triangulation as a ploy to get elected, with no intention to govern as third-way liberals.
Although I’m glad I make you laugh, please offer a quote. Your “interpretation” of my comments is incorrect.
The Democrats are a stand in for God and your search for reasons are a form of theodicy.
Psychoanalysis? Or evangelism?
Ike over Stevenson. Even with the anti-Commie baggage.
Ike? Hmmm.
I’ll give Ike a pass because of being perplexed post-WWII, if we can also cut some slack for the Democrats in the ’60’s. Starting with Nixon, nobody skates.
Ike over Stevenson. Even with the anti-Commie baggage.
Ike? Hmmm.
I’ll give Ike a pass because of being perplexed post-WWII, if we can also cut some slack for the Democrats in the ’60’s. Starting with Nixon, nobody skates.
Ike over Stevenson. Even with the anti-Commie baggage.
Ike? Hmmm.
I’ll give Ike a pass because of being perplexed post-WWII, if we can also cut some slack for the Democrats in the ’60’s. Starting with Nixon, nobody skates.
My comment got half eaten. I meant to say:
Ike? Hmmm.
Ike gets a pass, though, because post WWII, people were perplexed. That pass lasts until 1968.
My comment got half eaten. I meant to say:
Ike? Hmmm.
Ike gets a pass, though, because post WWII, people were perplexed. That pass lasts until 1968.
My comment got half eaten. I meant to say:
Ike? Hmmm.
Ike gets a pass, though, because post WWII, people were perplexed. That pass lasts until 1968.
Relative to Stevenson, yes. And not so much Ike personally, but it was baked into (R) dogma of the time.
Relative to Stevenson, yes. And not so much Ike personally, but it was baked into (R) dogma of the time.
Relative to Stevenson, yes. And not so much Ike personally, but it was baked into (R) dogma of the time.
What do you have against Stevenson, russell? Just curious, not trying to adopt a sour tone.
What do you have against Stevenson, russell? Just curious, not trying to adopt a sour tone.
What do you have against Stevenson, russell? Just curious, not trying to adopt a sour tone.
Just the VP choice? (Sorry, lj, for the running comments – I’ll stop after this.)
After Brown, do you think that Stevenson wouldn’t have enforced integration?
That said, I like Ike fine.
Just the VP choice? (Sorry, lj, for the running comments – I’ll stop after this.)
After Brown, do you think that Stevenson wouldn’t have enforced integration?
That said, I like Ike fine.
Just the VP choice? (Sorry, lj, for the running comments – I’ll stop after this.)
After Brown, do you think that Stevenson wouldn’t have enforced integration?
That said, I like Ike fine.
What do you have against Stevenson, russell?
Nothing against him, really. Based on my limited knowledge of both men, Eisenhower strikes me as a more capable executive. That’s about it.
Mostly I was just following the “no (R) since FDR” line of thought and it occurred to me that, had I been of voting age at the time, I may have voted for Ike.
The days of (R)’s like Eisenhower seem to be long gone.
What do you have against Stevenson, russell?
Nothing against him, really. Based on my limited knowledge of both men, Eisenhower strikes me as a more capable executive. That’s about it.
Mostly I was just following the “no (R) since FDR” line of thought and it occurred to me that, had I been of voting age at the time, I may have voted for Ike.
The days of (R)’s like Eisenhower seem to be long gone.
What do you have against Stevenson, russell?
Nothing against him, really. Based on my limited knowledge of both men, Eisenhower strikes me as a more capable executive. That’s about it.
Mostly I was just following the “no (R) since FDR” line of thought and it occurred to me that, had I been of voting age at the time, I may have voted for Ike.
The days of (R)’s like Eisenhower seem to be long gone.
The days of (R)s like Reagan are long gone as well. The GOP just ain’t as grand as it once was.
The days of (R)s like Reagan are long gone as well. The GOP just ain’t as grand as it once was.
The days of (R)s like Reagan are long gone as well. The GOP just ain’t as grand as it once was.
Sparkman as running mate in 1952 was the Democrats’ Southern Strategy, as that effort to appease the fucking South has always been called. Look up what states Stevenson won.
Kefauver, from Tennessee, wasn’t nearly as bad on the racial front, for the time, but was pretty much a Progressive in the Roosevelt mode otherwise, from the little I know from perusing the New York Times in kindergarten.
Eisenhower was a decent man.
Nixon was reactionary dirt from the get-go.
Somehow, all of them seem like serious people compared to Trump.
Little story. My family moved from Long Island to Pittsburgh in April of 1960. On Long Island, most of my friends were Jewish, and whether that translated into their families being Democrats I was too young to even think to suss out. All I know, is the girls were cute. As were the Catholic girls across the street and next door.
I did more platonic necking, at the girls’ instigation, in the second and early third grade than I was able to accomplish thru my entire junior high school and early high school years somehow, shyness having overtaken me by then.
Not only that, but my Yankees won the AL pennant and played my newly adopted team the Pirates in the World Series, so I was one conflicted kid.
Always Republicans, we lived amongst them completely once in Pittsburgh. So, I was in the fourth grade that Fall when Kennedy beat Nixon.
I of course was more concerned with what pitch Ralph Terry had thrown to Mazeroski to make my hero Mickey Mantle break down a cry like a baby in the clubhouse, but never mind. Politics wasn’t my thing.
The day after the election, as we filed into Miss Schneider’s class, I sat at my desk for a few minutes and noticed every single boy lined up leaning against the windows, all in deep, serious thought like their adult Republican counterparts were probably going to be lined up at the bar after work that evening after work having a quick drink trying to make sense of what had just hit them.
Well, I had to see what this was all about so I sauntered over to the windows too, placed my chin in my hand and my elbow on the shelf along the windows, mimicking the others (maybe 15 of them) by gazing out the window with brow furrowed in deep distress over the future of the country. After a moment, the nine-year old next to me caught my eye, shook his head mournfully, and uttered the dreaded name “Kennedy ..” and then his voice trailed off, like his dog had died.
I nodded in completely ignorant solidarity and probably made some non-committal sound with my mouth just to be one of the guys.
It was as if we were the Republican leadership in the Senate cloak room the day after Nixon lost.
Then, history somehow quickened and began happening in great crashing, successive moments and has continued ever since.
By the way, about a dozen years ago, a friend and I wangled our way into a celebrity sports event in Denver. There sat Ralph Terry who waxed philosophical about his pitching career.
That pitch to Mazeroski was a breaking ball that forgot to break.
In the clubhouse after that game 7, Ralph Terry, his pants down around his ankles, apologized to manager Casey Stengel for what had just transpired. Casey, said, “Ralph, just come back next year and have a great season.”
Which he did.
Sparkman as running mate in 1952 was the Democrats’ Southern Strategy, as that effort to appease the fucking South has always been called. Look up what states Stevenson won.
Kefauver, from Tennessee, wasn’t nearly as bad on the racial front, for the time, but was pretty much a Progressive in the Roosevelt mode otherwise, from the little I know from perusing the New York Times in kindergarten.
Eisenhower was a decent man.
Nixon was reactionary dirt from the get-go.
Somehow, all of them seem like serious people compared to Trump.
Little story. My family moved from Long Island to Pittsburgh in April of 1960. On Long Island, most of my friends were Jewish, and whether that translated into their families being Democrats I was too young to even think to suss out. All I know, is the girls were cute. As were the Catholic girls across the street and next door.
I did more platonic necking, at the girls’ instigation, in the second and early third grade than I was able to accomplish thru my entire junior high school and early high school years somehow, shyness having overtaken me by then.
Not only that, but my Yankees won the AL pennant and played my newly adopted team the Pirates in the World Series, so I was one conflicted kid.
Always Republicans, we lived amongst them completely once in Pittsburgh. So, I was in the fourth grade that Fall when Kennedy beat Nixon.
I of course was more concerned with what pitch Ralph Terry had thrown to Mazeroski to make my hero Mickey Mantle break down a cry like a baby in the clubhouse, but never mind. Politics wasn’t my thing.
The day after the election, as we filed into Miss Schneider’s class, I sat at my desk for a few minutes and noticed every single boy lined up leaning against the windows, all in deep, serious thought like their adult Republican counterparts were probably going to be lined up at the bar after work that evening after work having a quick drink trying to make sense of what had just hit them.
Well, I had to see what this was all about so I sauntered over to the windows too, placed my chin in my hand and my elbow on the shelf along the windows, mimicking the others (maybe 15 of them) by gazing out the window with brow furrowed in deep distress over the future of the country. After a moment, the nine-year old next to me caught my eye, shook his head mournfully, and uttered the dreaded name “Kennedy ..” and then his voice trailed off, like his dog had died.
I nodded in completely ignorant solidarity and probably made some non-committal sound with my mouth just to be one of the guys.
It was as if we were the Republican leadership in the Senate cloak room the day after Nixon lost.
Then, history somehow quickened and began happening in great crashing, successive moments and has continued ever since.
By the way, about a dozen years ago, a friend and I wangled our way into a celebrity sports event in Denver. There sat Ralph Terry who waxed philosophical about his pitching career.
That pitch to Mazeroski was a breaking ball that forgot to break.
In the clubhouse after that game 7, Ralph Terry, his pants down around his ankles, apologized to manager Casey Stengel for what had just transpired. Casey, said, “Ralph, just come back next year and have a great season.”
Which he did.
Sparkman as running mate in 1952 was the Democrats’ Southern Strategy, as that effort to appease the fucking South has always been called. Look up what states Stevenson won.
Kefauver, from Tennessee, wasn’t nearly as bad on the racial front, for the time, but was pretty much a Progressive in the Roosevelt mode otherwise, from the little I know from perusing the New York Times in kindergarten.
Eisenhower was a decent man.
Nixon was reactionary dirt from the get-go.
Somehow, all of them seem like serious people compared to Trump.
Little story. My family moved from Long Island to Pittsburgh in April of 1960. On Long Island, most of my friends were Jewish, and whether that translated into their families being Democrats I was too young to even think to suss out. All I know, is the girls were cute. As were the Catholic girls across the street and next door.
I did more platonic necking, at the girls’ instigation, in the second and early third grade than I was able to accomplish thru my entire junior high school and early high school years somehow, shyness having overtaken me by then.
Not only that, but my Yankees won the AL pennant and played my newly adopted team the Pirates in the World Series, so I was one conflicted kid.
Always Republicans, we lived amongst them completely once in Pittsburgh. So, I was in the fourth grade that Fall when Kennedy beat Nixon.
I of course was more concerned with what pitch Ralph Terry had thrown to Mazeroski to make my hero Mickey Mantle break down a cry like a baby in the clubhouse, but never mind. Politics wasn’t my thing.
The day after the election, as we filed into Miss Schneider’s class, I sat at my desk for a few minutes and noticed every single boy lined up leaning against the windows, all in deep, serious thought like their adult Republican counterparts were probably going to be lined up at the bar after work that evening after work having a quick drink trying to make sense of what had just hit them.
Well, I had to see what this was all about so I sauntered over to the windows too, placed my chin in my hand and my elbow on the shelf along the windows, mimicking the others (maybe 15 of them) by gazing out the window with brow furrowed in deep distress over the future of the country. After a moment, the nine-year old next to me caught my eye, shook his head mournfully, and uttered the dreaded name “Kennedy ..” and then his voice trailed off, like his dog had died.
I nodded in completely ignorant solidarity and probably made some non-committal sound with my mouth just to be one of the guys.
It was as if we were the Republican leadership in the Senate cloak room the day after Nixon lost.
Then, history somehow quickened and began happening in great crashing, successive moments and has continued ever since.
By the way, about a dozen years ago, a friend and I wangled our way into a celebrity sports event in Denver. There sat Ralph Terry who waxed philosophical about his pitching career.
That pitch to Mazeroski was a breaking ball that forgot to break.
In the clubhouse after that game 7, Ralph Terry, his pants down around his ankles, apologized to manager Casey Stengel for what had just transpired. Casey, said, “Ralph, just come back next year and have a great season.”
Which he did.
Precise analogy, sapient. You defend Democratic Presidents with a fervor that suggest you practically worship them. Or if you prefer, the way people used to speak of their kings. If I had read rightwing blogs in the early years of Dubya or anything they might say about Reagan now it would probably sound similar. It’s not rational.
Precise analogy, sapient. You defend Democratic Presidents with a fervor that suggest you practically worship them. Or if you prefer, the way people used to speak of their kings. If I had read rightwing blogs in the early years of Dubya or anything they might say about Reagan now it would probably sound similar. It’s not rational.
Precise analogy, sapient. You defend Democratic Presidents with a fervor that suggest you practically worship them. Or if you prefer, the way people used to speak of their kings. If I had read rightwing blogs in the early years of Dubya or anything they might say about Reagan now it would probably sound similar. It’s not rational.
ha! another member of the Long Island diaspora!
ha! another member of the Long Island diaspora!
ha! another member of the Long Island diaspora!
I’m going to unsurprisingly concur with DJ here, though I will underscore that the theodicy analogy is the single most spot-on description for this particular sort of political outlook I’ve ever encountered. The unshakable Panglossian conviction that the political icon’s every action is the best of all possible actions, the unwavering assertion that opposing the icon is essentially proof of ill intent, the unwillingness to so much as consider the possibility that the icon can act in a reckless, selfish, or short-sighted manner… and in its most extreme form, the entirely faith-based refusal to so much as entertain the notion that you might not, in fact, have perfect insight and judgement as to the precise personal and moral character of the icon…
I’m going to unsurprisingly concur with DJ here, though I will underscore that the theodicy analogy is the single most spot-on description for this particular sort of political outlook I’ve ever encountered. The unshakable Panglossian conviction that the political icon’s every action is the best of all possible actions, the unwavering assertion that opposing the icon is essentially proof of ill intent, the unwillingness to so much as consider the possibility that the icon can act in a reckless, selfish, or short-sighted manner… and in its most extreme form, the entirely faith-based refusal to so much as entertain the notion that you might not, in fact, have perfect insight and judgement as to the precise personal and moral character of the icon…
I’m going to unsurprisingly concur with DJ here, though I will underscore that the theodicy analogy is the single most spot-on description for this particular sort of political outlook I’ve ever encountered. The unshakable Panglossian conviction that the political icon’s every action is the best of all possible actions, the unwavering assertion that opposing the icon is essentially proof of ill intent, the unwillingness to so much as consider the possibility that the icon can act in a reckless, selfish, or short-sighted manner… and in its most extreme form, the entirely faith-based refusal to so much as entertain the notion that you might not, in fact, have perfect insight and judgement as to the precise personal and moral character of the icon…
Donald, considering you’re on record as “loathing” Hillary Clinton, even though you’re doing us all the favor of voting for her so as to not help Trump win, and NV, since I’m not even sure that you’re doing that, somehow I’m not all that offended by your claims that I’m a worshiper of Democrats.
I’m comfortable with being a Democrat, and find that the party generally reflects my values. You two are really the ones who expect miraculous heroism and purity. I just expect my party’s candidate to try to figure out a path towards sanity, and follow it. For the most part, Democrats do that. Obama has, and I think Hillary will, and I have their back. I’m not sure how that translates into worship.
But I’m not too worried about your beliefs about my fervor. In fact, I’m entertained by it. Mostly, I really, deeply and truly don’t want Trump to win.
Donald, considering you’re on record as “loathing” Hillary Clinton, even though you’re doing us all the favor of voting for her so as to not help Trump win, and NV, since I’m not even sure that you’re doing that, somehow I’m not all that offended by your claims that I’m a worshiper of Democrats.
I’m comfortable with being a Democrat, and find that the party generally reflects my values. You two are really the ones who expect miraculous heroism and purity. I just expect my party’s candidate to try to figure out a path towards sanity, and follow it. For the most part, Democrats do that. Obama has, and I think Hillary will, and I have their back. I’m not sure how that translates into worship.
But I’m not too worried about your beliefs about my fervor. In fact, I’m entertained by it. Mostly, I really, deeply and truly don’t want Trump to win.
Donald, considering you’re on record as “loathing” Hillary Clinton, even though you’re doing us all the favor of voting for her so as to not help Trump win, and NV, since I’m not even sure that you’re doing that, somehow I’m not all that offended by your claims that I’m a worshiper of Democrats.
I’m comfortable with being a Democrat, and find that the party generally reflects my values. You two are really the ones who expect miraculous heroism and purity. I just expect my party’s candidate to try to figure out a path towards sanity, and follow it. For the most part, Democrats do that. Obama has, and I think Hillary will, and I have their back. I’m not sure how that translates into worship.
But I’m not too worried about your beliefs about my fervor. In fact, I’m entertained by it. Mostly, I really, deeply and truly don’t want Trump to win.
I don’t think my emotions are entirely rational sapient. But I do loathe politicians who are often hypocritical on human rights issues and she is on the list. I despise her justifications for Israeli behavior in the Gaza War and her militarism in general. Her claim that the BDS movement is part of the rise of global antisemitism was pandering to bigotry. My response isn’t ObiWi suitable. She used the same arguments for the Iraq War that Bush used,refused to read the classified version of the NIE when told she should by fellow Democratic senators. She blathers on about Trump’s closeness to Putin while the US is helping the Saudis in Yemen. I don’t have to respect this jerk. I just have to vote for her, given the alternative.
You say you are entertained. That’s just posturing. Obviously you have often been offended and both of us get angry at each other. I won’t pretend I am entertained by you except in my more resigned moments. One person on a blog is not important, but partisan hackery is part of why discussions of issues in the US are often so dishonest or nonexistent. It’s why Yemen is still just page 6. There is a direct connection between partisan hypocrisy and American allies blowing up hospitals with hardly any discussion in the public sphere. Trump took political dishonesty to a new level, but as I say this how much higher is it except that he just lies about more things and does it constantly? The principle that people should look away from the crimes we help commit while waxing indignant about the crimes of others is already very high on the Orwellian scale.
I don’t think my emotions are entirely rational sapient. But I do loathe politicians who are often hypocritical on human rights issues and she is on the list. I despise her justifications for Israeli behavior in the Gaza War and her militarism in general. Her claim that the BDS movement is part of the rise of global antisemitism was pandering to bigotry. My response isn’t ObiWi suitable. She used the same arguments for the Iraq War that Bush used,refused to read the classified version of the NIE when told she should by fellow Democratic senators. She blathers on about Trump’s closeness to Putin while the US is helping the Saudis in Yemen. I don’t have to respect this jerk. I just have to vote for her, given the alternative.
You say you are entertained. That’s just posturing. Obviously you have often been offended and both of us get angry at each other. I won’t pretend I am entertained by you except in my more resigned moments. One person on a blog is not important, but partisan hackery is part of why discussions of issues in the US are often so dishonest or nonexistent. It’s why Yemen is still just page 6. There is a direct connection between partisan hypocrisy and American allies blowing up hospitals with hardly any discussion in the public sphere. Trump took political dishonesty to a new level, but as I say this how much higher is it except that he just lies about more things and does it constantly? The principle that people should look away from the crimes we help commit while waxing indignant about the crimes of others is already very high on the Orwellian scale.
I don’t think my emotions are entirely rational sapient. But I do loathe politicians who are often hypocritical on human rights issues and she is on the list. I despise her justifications for Israeli behavior in the Gaza War and her militarism in general. Her claim that the BDS movement is part of the rise of global antisemitism was pandering to bigotry. My response isn’t ObiWi suitable. She used the same arguments for the Iraq War that Bush used,refused to read the classified version of the NIE when told she should by fellow Democratic senators. She blathers on about Trump’s closeness to Putin while the US is helping the Saudis in Yemen. I don’t have to respect this jerk. I just have to vote for her, given the alternative.
You say you are entertained. That’s just posturing. Obviously you have often been offended and both of us get angry at each other. I won’t pretend I am entertained by you except in my more resigned moments. One person on a blog is not important, but partisan hackery is part of why discussions of issues in the US are often so dishonest or nonexistent. It’s why Yemen is still just page 6. There is a direct connection between partisan hypocrisy and American allies blowing up hospitals with hardly any discussion in the public sphere. Trump took political dishonesty to a new level, but as I say this how much higher is it except that he just lies about more things and does it constantly? The principle that people should look away from the crimes we help commit while waxing indignant about the crimes of others is already very high on the Orwellian scale.
It’s why Yemen is still just page 6. There is a direct connection between partisan hypocrisy and American allies blowing up hospitals with hardly any discussion in the public sphere.
I don’t buy the print version of the New York Times, but I read the online version daily, and they’ve reported on Yemen, and have even published a prominent editorial (in August) condemning our assistance to the Saudis.
I’m glad that you’re so confident in your knowledge and information that you can call people out as hypocrites. I’m sure that our ObWi Shadow State Department / Peanut Gallery comes up with all the diplomatic and national security information we need to navigate the intricacies of foreign policy. That’s not to say that we don’t have a responsibility to be informed and to ask questions, but assuming bad faith is not something I’m willing to do on the meager information I have.
You say you are entertained. That’s just posturing. Obviously you have often been offended and both of us get angry at each other.
I often get very angry at your moral certitude, but the way you and NV have turned my fairly run-of-the-mill political loyalties into some kind of religious psychodrama is something I find very funny.
It’s why Yemen is still just page 6. There is a direct connection between partisan hypocrisy and American allies blowing up hospitals with hardly any discussion in the public sphere.
I don’t buy the print version of the New York Times, but I read the online version daily, and they’ve reported on Yemen, and have even published a prominent editorial (in August) condemning our assistance to the Saudis.
I’m glad that you’re so confident in your knowledge and information that you can call people out as hypocrites. I’m sure that our ObWi Shadow State Department / Peanut Gallery comes up with all the diplomatic and national security information we need to navigate the intricacies of foreign policy. That’s not to say that we don’t have a responsibility to be informed and to ask questions, but assuming bad faith is not something I’m willing to do on the meager information I have.
You say you are entertained. That’s just posturing. Obviously you have often been offended and both of us get angry at each other.
I often get very angry at your moral certitude, but the way you and NV have turned my fairly run-of-the-mill political loyalties into some kind of religious psychodrama is something I find very funny.
It’s why Yemen is still just page 6. There is a direct connection between partisan hypocrisy and American allies blowing up hospitals with hardly any discussion in the public sphere.
I don’t buy the print version of the New York Times, but I read the online version daily, and they’ve reported on Yemen, and have even published a prominent editorial (in August) condemning our assistance to the Saudis.
I’m glad that you’re so confident in your knowledge and information that you can call people out as hypocrites. I’m sure that our ObWi Shadow State Department / Peanut Gallery comes up with all the diplomatic and national security information we need to navigate the intricacies of foreign policy. That’s not to say that we don’t have a responsibility to be informed and to ask questions, but assuming bad faith is not something I’m willing to do on the meager information I have.
You say you are entertained. That’s just posturing. Obviously you have often been offended and both of us get angry at each other.
I often get very angry at your moral certitude, but the way you and NV have turned my fairly run-of-the-mill political loyalties into some kind of religious psychodrama is something I find very funny.
Great story, Count.
(Though I confess much of the baseball is pitched way over my head…)
Great story, Count.
(Though I confess much of the baseball is pitched way over my head…)
Great story, Count.
(Though I confess much of the baseball is pitched way over my head…)
I just have to vote for her, given the alternative.
There are ways around this. I found a right-wing family member who’s appalled by Trump but also appalled by the sort of jurists Clinton would appoint. Vote-swapping means neither candidate gets our votes, the relative tally remains the same as if we had both held our noses, and third-parties get support.
I often get very angry at your moral certitude, but the way you and NV have turned my fairly run-of-the-mill political loyalties into some kind of religious psychodrama is something I find very funny.
1) Your unshakeable certainty is not run-of-the-mill, or at a minimum, is not run of the mill when coupled with the capacity for analysis and introspection that you have demonstrated on other subjects. Your level of loyalty seems normal when paired with the cliche angry relative on Facebook ranting about the other party as though they were a rival sports team, not coming from someone who has shown themself to be very capable of objective analysis of situations that don’t have direct partisan implications.
2) The invocation of theodicy directly follows from the above. It’s entirely possible that you have no exposure to theodicy; DJ’s invocation of it suggests they do, and I myself have been interested in formal study of the Problem of Evil since I was a teen, so we may well be seeing things in the analogy that you’re not simply because you’ve never seen theodicy in action. Having said that, it’s a good analogy, and it doesn’t even need extended as far as it has been, as I’d say it’s your methods and approach that reflect it as much or even moreso than your attitude towards the politicians under scrutiny.
I just have to vote for her, given the alternative.
There are ways around this. I found a right-wing family member who’s appalled by Trump but also appalled by the sort of jurists Clinton would appoint. Vote-swapping means neither candidate gets our votes, the relative tally remains the same as if we had both held our noses, and third-parties get support.
I often get very angry at your moral certitude, but the way you and NV have turned my fairly run-of-the-mill political loyalties into some kind of religious psychodrama is something I find very funny.
1) Your unshakeable certainty is not run-of-the-mill, or at a minimum, is not run of the mill when coupled with the capacity for analysis and introspection that you have demonstrated on other subjects. Your level of loyalty seems normal when paired with the cliche angry relative on Facebook ranting about the other party as though they were a rival sports team, not coming from someone who has shown themself to be very capable of objective analysis of situations that don’t have direct partisan implications.
2) The invocation of theodicy directly follows from the above. It’s entirely possible that you have no exposure to theodicy; DJ’s invocation of it suggests they do, and I myself have been interested in formal study of the Problem of Evil since I was a teen, so we may well be seeing things in the analogy that you’re not simply because you’ve never seen theodicy in action. Having said that, it’s a good analogy, and it doesn’t even need extended as far as it has been, as I’d say it’s your methods and approach that reflect it as much or even moreso than your attitude towards the politicians under scrutiny.
I just have to vote for her, given the alternative.
There are ways around this. I found a right-wing family member who’s appalled by Trump but also appalled by the sort of jurists Clinton would appoint. Vote-swapping means neither candidate gets our votes, the relative tally remains the same as if we had both held our noses, and third-parties get support.
I often get very angry at your moral certitude, but the way you and NV have turned my fairly run-of-the-mill political loyalties into some kind of religious psychodrama is something I find very funny.
1) Your unshakeable certainty is not run-of-the-mill, or at a minimum, is not run of the mill when coupled with the capacity for analysis and introspection that you have demonstrated on other subjects. Your level of loyalty seems normal when paired with the cliche angry relative on Facebook ranting about the other party as though they were a rival sports team, not coming from someone who has shown themself to be very capable of objective analysis of situations that don’t have direct partisan implications.
2) The invocation of theodicy directly follows from the above. It’s entirely possible that you have no exposure to theodicy; DJ’s invocation of it suggests they do, and I myself have been interested in formal study of the Problem of Evil since I was a teen, so we may well be seeing things in the analogy that you’re not simply because you’ve never seen theodicy in action. Having said that, it’s a good analogy, and it doesn’t even need extended as far as it has been, as I’d say it’s your methods and approach that reflect it as much or even moreso than your attitude towards the politicians under scrutiny.
“…religious psychodrama I find very funny.”
Okay, I believe that you find it funny. You think you are rational. But quite a few people have ideological commitments which make them as irrational as some religious believers. My favorite essay on this– ideology as a form of fanaticism which blinds people to facts they don’t want to acknowledge– is Orwell’s ” Notes on Nationalism”. It’s easily found online. Orwell is hardest on his fellow lefties in that piece, but it’s clear he is talking about ideologues of all types. Orwell’s attitude in that essay is something everyone should aspire to– don’t let your beliefs get in the way of facts. By implication he is aso saying everyone will find the world doesn’t conform to their ideology, whatever it happens to be, but there will be a strong temptation to make the facts fit. In my case my temptation is to think that Western interventions are always failures, but of course that isn’t true. Mostly it is, but not always. Some far lefties make the mistake of thinking that because the US government lies so much, anyone they condemn must actually be good, which I find infuriatingly stupid. I suppose that’s just my moral certainty again.
The world is a complex place, but you want to simplify it. Your instant assumption when a Democratic President is criticized is to circle the wagons. Your ideology fails on its own terms, since many Democrats also question Democratic Presidents on issues, in this case including Yemen.
I am aware that the NYT criticized our policy in Yemen. But it is not a priority with them. The issue is not on page 1 and given that we have reached the predicted point where children are dying of starvation, it is extraordinary that people treat it so lightly. It was not on the list of questions they asked their readers to vote on when they question the candidates. It’s been 15 years since 9/11, and 12 since AbuGhraib and after all the sermons about the evils of terrorism and war crimes and in an age where the MSM in the US can be bypassed by anyone with an Internet connection, here we are, supporting something which is close to a crime against humanity.
NV, I have read about vote swapping. I don’t have close friends I could do that with. Also, the polls have gotten so close I don’t feel at the moment like protest voting is a good idea. In my state ( NY) Clinton is a sure thing — if she loses here she loses everywhere. But if the popular vote is close I want Trump to be the clear loser even if Clinton gets the electoral college. He needs to be firmly repudiated. Assuming Clinton wins, my ideal would be she wins with a shockingly low total, but since I want Trump to be thoroughly crushed, that can’t happen unless she gets a lot of votes. My preferences conflict, but crushing Trump is higher on my priorities.
But I sure don’t look forward to her foreign policy. People who like to show their toughness should have their own kids on the battlefield at the very least.
“…religious psychodrama I find very funny.”
Okay, I believe that you find it funny. You think you are rational. But quite a few people have ideological commitments which make them as irrational as some religious believers. My favorite essay on this– ideology as a form of fanaticism which blinds people to facts they don’t want to acknowledge– is Orwell’s ” Notes on Nationalism”. It’s easily found online. Orwell is hardest on his fellow lefties in that piece, but it’s clear he is talking about ideologues of all types. Orwell’s attitude in that essay is something everyone should aspire to– don’t let your beliefs get in the way of facts. By implication he is aso saying everyone will find the world doesn’t conform to their ideology, whatever it happens to be, but there will be a strong temptation to make the facts fit. In my case my temptation is to think that Western interventions are always failures, but of course that isn’t true. Mostly it is, but not always. Some far lefties make the mistake of thinking that because the US government lies so much, anyone they condemn must actually be good, which I find infuriatingly stupid. I suppose that’s just my moral certainty again.
The world is a complex place, but you want to simplify it. Your instant assumption when a Democratic President is criticized is to circle the wagons. Your ideology fails on its own terms, since many Democrats also question Democratic Presidents on issues, in this case including Yemen.
I am aware that the NYT criticized our policy in Yemen. But it is not a priority with them. The issue is not on page 1 and given that we have reached the predicted point where children are dying of starvation, it is extraordinary that people treat it so lightly. It was not on the list of questions they asked their readers to vote on when they question the candidates. It’s been 15 years since 9/11, and 12 since AbuGhraib and after all the sermons about the evils of terrorism and war crimes and in an age where the MSM in the US can be bypassed by anyone with an Internet connection, here we are, supporting something which is close to a crime against humanity.
NV, I have read about vote swapping. I don’t have close friends I could do that with. Also, the polls have gotten so close I don’t feel at the moment like protest voting is a good idea. In my state ( NY) Clinton is a sure thing — if she loses here she loses everywhere. But if the popular vote is close I want Trump to be the clear loser even if Clinton gets the electoral college. He needs to be firmly repudiated. Assuming Clinton wins, my ideal would be she wins with a shockingly low total, but since I want Trump to be thoroughly crushed, that can’t happen unless she gets a lot of votes. My preferences conflict, but crushing Trump is higher on my priorities.
But I sure don’t look forward to her foreign policy. People who like to show their toughness should have their own kids on the battlefield at the very least.
“…religious psychodrama I find very funny.”
Okay, I believe that you find it funny. You think you are rational. But quite a few people have ideological commitments which make them as irrational as some religious believers. My favorite essay on this– ideology as a form of fanaticism which blinds people to facts they don’t want to acknowledge– is Orwell’s ” Notes on Nationalism”. It’s easily found online. Orwell is hardest on his fellow lefties in that piece, but it’s clear he is talking about ideologues of all types. Orwell’s attitude in that essay is something everyone should aspire to– don’t let your beliefs get in the way of facts. By implication he is aso saying everyone will find the world doesn’t conform to their ideology, whatever it happens to be, but there will be a strong temptation to make the facts fit. In my case my temptation is to think that Western interventions are always failures, but of course that isn’t true. Mostly it is, but not always. Some far lefties make the mistake of thinking that because the US government lies so much, anyone they condemn must actually be good, which I find infuriatingly stupid. I suppose that’s just my moral certainty again.
The world is a complex place, but you want to simplify it. Your instant assumption when a Democratic President is criticized is to circle the wagons. Your ideology fails on its own terms, since many Democrats also question Democratic Presidents on issues, in this case including Yemen.
I am aware that the NYT criticized our policy in Yemen. But it is not a priority with them. The issue is not on page 1 and given that we have reached the predicted point where children are dying of starvation, it is extraordinary that people treat it so lightly. It was not on the list of questions they asked their readers to vote on when they question the candidates. It’s been 15 years since 9/11, and 12 since AbuGhraib and after all the sermons about the evils of terrorism and war crimes and in an age where the MSM in the US can be bypassed by anyone with an Internet connection, here we are, supporting something which is close to a crime against humanity.
NV, I have read about vote swapping. I don’t have close friends I could do that with. Also, the polls have gotten so close I don’t feel at the moment like protest voting is a good idea. In my state ( NY) Clinton is a sure thing — if she loses here she loses everywhere. But if the popular vote is close I want Trump to be the clear loser even if Clinton gets the electoral college. He needs to be firmly repudiated. Assuming Clinton wins, my ideal would be she wins with a shockingly low total, but since I want Trump to be thoroughly crushed, that can’t happen unless she gets a lot of votes. My preferences conflict, but crushing Trump is higher on my priorities.
But I sure don’t look forward to her foreign policy. People who like to show their toughness should have their own kids on the battlefield at the very least.
NV– I’m a Christian, so I’ve read about theodicy. The problem of evil is the best argument for atheism and none of the purely logical theist attempts at refuting them are very convincing, but maybe I just have an emotional reaction to them. I have Plantinga’s ” The Nature of Necessity” and tried to follow or understand what the heck modal logic is, because it is part of the structure of his argument, but analytic philosophy tends to put me to sleep if I try to get into it. Nobody actually suffering would probably bother with it. The author of the Book of Job has God give the response that you don’t know enough. People question this, but coming from God it is enough to shut Job up. But it reminds me of sapient whenever a Democratic president or potential president is criticized. Where were you when I established the membership of my national security team, I could imagine Obama saying. The only possible response would be to repent in sackcloth and ashes.
NV– I’m a Christian, so I’ve read about theodicy. The problem of evil is the best argument for atheism and none of the purely logical theist attempts at refuting them are very convincing, but maybe I just have an emotional reaction to them. I have Plantinga’s ” The Nature of Necessity” and tried to follow or understand what the heck modal logic is, because it is part of the structure of his argument, but analytic philosophy tends to put me to sleep if I try to get into it. Nobody actually suffering would probably bother with it. The author of the Book of Job has God give the response that you don’t know enough. People question this, but coming from God it is enough to shut Job up. But it reminds me of sapient whenever a Democratic president or potential president is criticized. Where were you when I established the membership of my national security team, I could imagine Obama saying. The only possible response would be to repent in sackcloth and ashes.
NV– I’m a Christian, so I’ve read about theodicy. The problem of evil is the best argument for atheism and none of the purely logical theist attempts at refuting them are very convincing, but maybe I just have an emotional reaction to them. I have Plantinga’s ” The Nature of Necessity” and tried to follow or understand what the heck modal logic is, because it is part of the structure of his argument, but analytic philosophy tends to put me to sleep if I try to get into it. Nobody actually suffering would probably bother with it. The author of the Book of Job has God give the response that you don’t know enough. People question this, but coming from God it is enough to shut Job up. But it reminds me of sapient whenever a Democratic president or potential president is criticized. Where were you when I established the membership of my national security team, I could imagine Obama saying. The only possible response would be to repent in sackcloth and ashes.
Sheesh. If you guys want a religion based on sound scientific principles, Loki’s got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on his side. What does your guy have? A bunch of modern bafflegab and neolithic myth that adds up to not much.
dS = T dQ. It works whether you believe in it or not.
Sheesh. If you guys want a religion based on sound scientific principles, Loki’s got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on his side. What does your guy have? A bunch of modern bafflegab and neolithic myth that adds up to not much.
dS = T dQ. It works whether you believe in it or not.
Sheesh. If you guys want a religion based on sound scientific principles, Loki’s got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on his side. What does your guy have? A bunch of modern bafflegab and neolithic myth that adds up to not much.
dS = T dQ. It works whether you believe in it or not.
In my home, , we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc-m9dumEaw
I made the theodicy analogy and NV guessed I had some interest in it, so I explained. But it’s been many years since I had a discussion about God’s existence on the Internet and I intend to maintain that streak for many years more. Consider the previous post of mine a meta discussion about it and even that was close to breaking my self – imposed rule.
In my home, , we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc-m9dumEaw
I made the theodicy analogy and NV guessed I had some interest in it, so I explained. But it’s been many years since I had a discussion about God’s existence on the Internet and I intend to maintain that streak for many years more. Consider the previous post of mine a meta discussion about it and even that was close to breaking my self – imposed rule.
In my home, , we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc-m9dumEaw
I made the theodicy analogy and NV guessed I had some interest in it, so I explained. But it’s been many years since I had a discussion about God’s existence on the Internet and I intend to maintain that streak for many years more. Consider the previous post of mine a meta discussion about it and even that was close to breaking my self – imposed rule.
Incidentally, you got the Second Law wrong. Was that a typo or is science something you just wave around like a magic wand?
Incidentally, you got the Second Law wrong. Was that a typo or is science something you just wave around like a magic wand?
Incidentally, you got the Second Law wrong. Was that a typo or is science something you just wave around like a magic wand?
This does remind me of the days back in the 90’s when I would participate in creation evolution debates as a Christian evolutionist on some location on Compuserve or aol or someplace. I mentioned how Fisher and Haldane and/ or Wright had shown that the probability of a beneficial mutation that bestowed a selective advantage s had a chance of 2 s being established. In other words, most mutations of slight beneficial effect were lost.
The ID guy in the conversation was pleased. He thought that this showed population genetics was on his side. A defender of evolution was displeased and thought I was making it up for the same reason.
The point being that neither person had any real interest in science. People who use science to overawe the followers of Neolithic goat herders are often as ignorant as the creationists they attack. Which is one reason among others I just avoid participating in such discussions online.
This does remind me of the days back in the 90’s when I would participate in creation evolution debates as a Christian evolutionist on some location on Compuserve or aol or someplace. I mentioned how Fisher and Haldane and/ or Wright had shown that the probability of a beneficial mutation that bestowed a selective advantage s had a chance of 2 s being established. In other words, most mutations of slight beneficial effect were lost.
The ID guy in the conversation was pleased. He thought that this showed population genetics was on his side. A defender of evolution was displeased and thought I was making it up for the same reason.
The point being that neither person had any real interest in science. People who use science to overawe the followers of Neolithic goat herders are often as ignorant as the creationists they attack. Which is one reason among others I just avoid participating in such discussions online.
This does remind me of the days back in the 90’s when I would participate in creation evolution debates as a Christian evolutionist on some location on Compuserve or aol or someplace. I mentioned how Fisher and Haldane and/ or Wright had shown that the probability of a beneficial mutation that bestowed a selective advantage s had a chance of 2 s being established. In other words, most mutations of slight beneficial effect were lost.
The ID guy in the conversation was pleased. He thought that this showed population genetics was on his side. A defender of evolution was displeased and thought I was making it up for the same reason.
The point being that neither person had any real interest in science. People who use science to overawe the followers of Neolithic goat herders are often as ignorant as the creationists they attack. Which is one reason among others I just avoid participating in such discussions online.
I, too, am a veteran of ’90s Usenet (I assume that’s what you mean, though you may not have been so, uh, blessed) theology debates, and that’s largely why I’ve tried to avoid such discussions as well. I also try not to let old Usenet debate habits infect my online interactions, but I’m afraid I may not always succeed on that score…
I, too, am a veteran of ’90s Usenet (I assume that’s what you mean, though you may not have been so, uh, blessed) theology debates, and that’s largely why I’ve tried to avoid such discussions as well. I also try not to let old Usenet debate habits infect my online interactions, but I’m afraid I may not always succeed on that score…
I, too, am a veteran of ’90s Usenet (I assume that’s what you mean, though you may not have been so, uh, blessed) theology debates, and that’s largely why I’ve tried to avoid such discussions as well. I also try not to let old Usenet debate habits infect my online interactions, but I’m afraid I may not always succeed on that score…
But I sure don’t look forward to her foreign policy. People who like to show their toughness should have their own kids on the battlefield at the very least.
That touches on what strikes me as the most troubling thing about the liberal hawk position in this discussion; the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military. So we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on “backwards provincials” who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children’s lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals’ own children almost universally wouldn’t dream of serving – and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch. It gives the whole matter a thoroughly unseemly appearance.
But I sure don’t look forward to her foreign policy. People who like to show their toughness should have their own kids on the battlefield at the very least.
That touches on what strikes me as the most troubling thing about the liberal hawk position in this discussion; the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military. So we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on “backwards provincials” who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children’s lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals’ own children almost universally wouldn’t dream of serving – and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch. It gives the whole matter a thoroughly unseemly appearance.
But I sure don’t look forward to her foreign policy. People who like to show their toughness should have their own kids on the battlefield at the very least.
That touches on what strikes me as the most troubling thing about the liberal hawk position in this discussion; the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military. So we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on “backwards provincials” who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children’s lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals’ own children almost universally wouldn’t dream of serving – and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch. It gives the whole matter a thoroughly unseemly appearance.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
Neither you nor Donald, in your praise for Vance has addressed my previous observation that Bill Clinton was in fact from the demographic you speak of, one that has traditionally also supported military action (but mostly just when white Republican men are in charge).
Except unlike Vance, who valorizes “hillbilly culture,” without really coming up with a way to address the struggles of the people he describes, Bill Clinton did attempt to address their concerns (in a way that you condemn, of course). And, in fact, he delivered. And the economic news under Obama is excellent. And military deaths have been fewer under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents since 1980.
So I guess the lesson (again) is to vote Democratic.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
Neither you nor Donald, in your praise for Vance has addressed my previous observation that Bill Clinton was in fact from the demographic you speak of, one that has traditionally also supported military action (but mostly just when white Republican men are in charge).
Except unlike Vance, who valorizes “hillbilly culture,” without really coming up with a way to address the struggles of the people he describes, Bill Clinton did attempt to address their concerns (in a way that you condemn, of course). And, in fact, he delivered. And the economic news under Obama is excellent. And military deaths have been fewer under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents since 1980.
So I guess the lesson (again) is to vote Democratic.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
Neither you nor Donald, in your praise for Vance has addressed my previous observation that Bill Clinton was in fact from the demographic you speak of, one that has traditionally also supported military action (but mostly just when white Republican men are in charge).
Except unlike Vance, who valorizes “hillbilly culture,” without really coming up with a way to address the struggles of the people he describes, Bill Clinton did attempt to address their concerns (in a way that you condemn, of course). And, in fact, he delivered. And the economic news under Obama is excellent. And military deaths have been fewer under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents since 1980.
So I guess the lesson (again) is to vote Democratic.
Typo. Probably should have also put it in terms of đS=đQ/T to indicate the path-dependence of the differentials, but that’s a relatively minor theological point.
Typo. Probably should have also put it in terms of đS=đQ/T to indicate the path-dependence of the differentials, but that’s a relatively minor theological point.
Typo. Probably should have also put it in terms of đS=đQ/T to indicate the path-dependence of the differentials, but that’s a relatively minor theological point.
Even with a typo, makes more sense than the “3=1” of christanism.
Even with a typo, makes more sense than the “3=1” of christanism.
Even with a typo, makes more sense than the “3=1” of christanism.
Christianism, also, too.
Hey LJ! Want to avoid multiple rapid fire comments? Add an edit button.
Christianism, also, too.
Hey LJ! Want to avoid multiple rapid fire comments? Add an edit button.
Christianism, also, too.
Hey LJ! Want to avoid multiple rapid fire comments? Add an edit button.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
Can you be a little more specific about what you mean here?
What demographics are you talking about?
There are regional differences in military enlistment – people from the south-east enlist at a higher rate than people from the north-east – but I’m not sure if that’s what you mean here.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
Can you be a little more specific about what you mean here?
What demographics are you talking about?
There are regional differences in military enlistment – people from the south-east enlist at a higher rate than people from the north-east – but I’m not sure if that’s what you mean here.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
Can you be a little more specific about what you mean here?
What demographics are you talking about?
There are regional differences in military enlistment – people from the south-east enlist at a higher rate than people from the north-east – but I’m not sure if that’s what you mean here.
I thought it might be a typo, but wasn’t sure.
Rapid fire comments are almost inevitable IMO. I think of something else a few minutes after hitting the send button.
Sapient, I didn’t see anything important about Bill’s background. You can make whatever points you want with it without much attempted rebuttal from me.
NV– I was on Usenet too sometimes, but Compuserve ( I think) had its own part of the net carved off and there were areas reserved for discussion of all sorts of things. They were moderated, so it wasn’t as wild as Usenet. Aside from Creation evolution I would also argue politics. There was some cheerful libertarian guy, kind of a nicer version of Ayn Rand, who thought taxation was theft. Nowadays there would be lots of liberals and leftists willing to take him on, but to my surprise I was the only one doing it there.
On Usenet there were also creation evolution threads and some really nasty libertarian types, more like Rand would be if she had still been around.
I thought it might be a typo, but wasn’t sure.
Rapid fire comments are almost inevitable IMO. I think of something else a few minutes after hitting the send button.
Sapient, I didn’t see anything important about Bill’s background. You can make whatever points you want with it without much attempted rebuttal from me.
NV– I was on Usenet too sometimes, but Compuserve ( I think) had its own part of the net carved off and there were areas reserved for discussion of all sorts of things. They were moderated, so it wasn’t as wild as Usenet. Aside from Creation evolution I would also argue politics. There was some cheerful libertarian guy, kind of a nicer version of Ayn Rand, who thought taxation was theft. Nowadays there would be lots of liberals and leftists willing to take him on, but to my surprise I was the only one doing it there.
On Usenet there were also creation evolution threads and some really nasty libertarian types, more like Rand would be if she had still been around.
I thought it might be a typo, but wasn’t sure.
Rapid fire comments are almost inevitable IMO. I think of something else a few minutes after hitting the send button.
Sapient, I didn’t see anything important about Bill’s background. You can make whatever points you want with it without much attempted rebuttal from me.
NV– I was on Usenet too sometimes, but Compuserve ( I think) had its own part of the net carved off and there were areas reserved for discussion of all sorts of things. They were moderated, so it wasn’t as wild as Usenet. Aside from Creation evolution I would also argue politics. There was some cheerful libertarian guy, kind of a nicer version of Ayn Rand, who thought taxation was theft. Nowadays there would be lots of liberals and leftists willing to take him on, but to my surprise I was the only one doing it there.
On Usenet there were also creation evolution threads and some really nasty libertarian types, more like Rand would be if she had still been around.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
she wasn’t calling out prospective military members. she wasn’t standing there like the antagonists in Sabbath’s War Pigs or Dylan’s Masters Of War, rubbing her 1% hands together while lustfully pushing piles of poor people into the meat grinder.
she explicitly, specifically, deliberately called out racists, sexists, homophobics, xenophobics and Islamaphobics. those are, in fact, deplorable things. stamping them out is supposed to be a big part of what the left is all about.
did she offend racists, sexists, homophobics, xenophobics and Islamaphobics? i sure as hell hope so. WTF else was she supposed to do – praise their ignorance and paranoia?
know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
she wasn’t calling out prospective military members. she wasn’t standing there like the antagonists in Sabbath’s War Pigs or Dylan’s Masters Of War, rubbing her 1% hands together while lustfully pushing piles of poor people into the meat grinder.
she explicitly, specifically, deliberately called out racists, sexists, homophobics, xenophobics and Islamaphobics. those are, in fact, deplorable things. stamping them out is supposed to be a big part of what the left is all about.
did she offend racists, sexists, homophobics, xenophobics and Islamaphobics? i sure as hell hope so. WTF else was she supposed to do – praise their ignorance and paranoia?
know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.
the demographics which are being broadly dismissed as “deplorables” include the demographics which most reliably provide enlistees for the military.
she wasn’t calling out prospective military members. she wasn’t standing there like the antagonists in Sabbath’s War Pigs or Dylan’s Masters Of War, rubbing her 1% hands together while lustfully pushing piles of poor people into the meat grinder.
she explicitly, specifically, deliberately called out racists, sexists, homophobics, xenophobics and Islamaphobics. those are, in fact, deplorable things. stamping them out is supposed to be a big part of what the left is all about.
did she offend racists, sexists, homophobics, xenophobics and Islamaphobics? i sure as hell hope so. WTF else was she supposed to do – praise their ignorance and paranoia?
know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.
Thanks, cleek. Bad on me for conflating the very specific remark with an earlier discussion of Vance’s “hillbilly” demographic.
Thanks, cleek. Bad on me for conflating the very specific remark with an earlier discussion of Vance’s “hillbilly” demographic.
Thanks, cleek. Bad on me for conflating the very specific remark with an earlier discussion of Vance’s “hillbilly” demographic.
HRC included “half of” He, Trump’s supporters in the Basket of Deplorables. None of the pearl-clutching, salt-smelling, couch-diving pundits bothered to ask which half. So of course it’s possible she meant the ones inclined to volunteer for the military, and not the ones clinging to racism, homophobia, and Medicare all at the same time.
Incidentally, Snarki need not have reached for the 2nd Law. You’d think some god, sometime, might have clued his chosen people into the existence of microbes, electricity, or Antarctica.
–TP
HRC included “half of” He, Trump’s supporters in the Basket of Deplorables. None of the pearl-clutching, salt-smelling, couch-diving pundits bothered to ask which half. So of course it’s possible she meant the ones inclined to volunteer for the military, and not the ones clinging to racism, homophobia, and Medicare all at the same time.
Incidentally, Snarki need not have reached for the 2nd Law. You’d think some god, sometime, might have clued his chosen people into the existence of microbes, electricity, or Antarctica.
–TP
HRC included “half of” He, Trump’s supporters in the Basket of Deplorables. None of the pearl-clutching, salt-smelling, couch-diving pundits bothered to ask which half. So of course it’s possible she meant the ones inclined to volunteer for the military, and not the ones clinging to racism, homophobia, and Medicare all at the same time.
Incidentally, Snarki need not have reached for the 2nd Law. You’d think some god, sometime, might have clued his chosen people into the existence of microbes, electricity, or Antarctica.
–TP
we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on “backwards provincials” who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children’s lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals’ own children almost universally wouldn’t dream of serving – and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch
Of course, the same caricature applies to “chicken hawk” conservatives. Who likewise wouldn’t dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love.
we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on “backwards provincials” who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children’s lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals’ own children almost universally wouldn’t dream of serving – and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch
Of course, the same caricature applies to “chicken hawk” conservatives. Who likewise wouldn’t dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love.
we have the pitch-perfect caricature image of liberals looking down on “backwards provincials” who they none-the-less expect to offer up their children’s lives and limbs in order to achieve their assorted foreign policy preferences, while the liberals’ own children almost universally wouldn’t dream of serving – and even less so in the enlisted ranks and/or an infantry branch
Of course, the same caricature applies to “chicken hawk” conservatives. Who likewise wouldn’t dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love.
“Of course, the same caricature applies to “chicken hawk” conservatives. Who likewise wouldn’t dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love. ”
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
Wait for it….. in my experience.
“Of course, the same caricature applies to “chicken hawk” conservatives. Who likewise wouldn’t dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love. ”
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
Wait for it….. in my experience.
“Of course, the same caricature applies to “chicken hawk” conservatives. Who likewise wouldn’t dream of having their children among those who fight and die in the wars they love. ”
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
Wait for it….. in my experience.
Chicken hawks don’t speak derisively about those who serve. But they definitely do look down on those who didn’t manage to avoid serving….in my experience. Trump’s comments about McCain were anomalous only because he said it in public.
Chicken hawks don’t speak derisively about those who serve. But they definitely do look down on those who didn’t manage to avoid serving….in my experience. Trump’s comments about McCain were anomalous only because he said it in public.
Chicken hawks don’t speak derisively about those who serve. But they definitely do look down on those who didn’t manage to avoid serving….in my experience. Trump’s comments about McCain were anomalous only because he said it in public.
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
Wait for it….. in my experience.
Not my experience at all.
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
Wait for it….. in my experience.
Not my experience at all.
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
Wait for it….. in my experience.
Not my experience at all.
Roger Angell writes eloquently about his prospective vote for Hillary, but also Trump’s cluelessness about military service.
Roger Angell writes eloquently about his prospective vote for Hillary, but also Trump’s cluelessness about military service.
Roger Angell writes eloquently about his prospective vote for Hillary, but also Trump’s cluelessness about military service.
Wow, thanks Marty, for clearing that up. I guess I’m not a Democrat after all, what with all the service members that I somehow keep forgetting to look down on.
Wow, thanks Marty, for clearing that up. I guess I’m not a Democrat after all, what with all the service members that I somehow keep forgetting to look down on.
Wow, thanks Marty, for clearing that up. I guess I’m not a Democrat after all, what with all the service members that I somehow keep forgetting to look down on.
You do know, Marty, that Joe Biden’s son was in the military before he died, and that Tim Kaine’s son is serving. Also Mike Pence’s son, so Democratic politicians aren’t alone, but please.
You do know, Marty, that Joe Biden’s son was in the military before he died, and that Tim Kaine’s son is serving. Also Mike Pence’s son, so Democratic politicians aren’t alone, but please.
You do know, Marty, that Joe Biden’s son was in the military before he died, and that Tim Kaine’s son is serving. Also Mike Pence’s son, so Democratic politicians aren’t alone, but please.
Not drunk anymore.
1. I think “chicken hawk” may mean something different in Europe, at any rate in my youth it was used to describe a paedophile (which was not a word often used as far as I recall), particularly a predatory homosexual male paedophile. However, I can see the point of using it this way, in fact it’s rather good.
2. Marty, if you look at the top of this blog, you will see a special section about Andy Olmsted, who served, fought and died. Last time I looked, there were hundreds or thousands of comments, presumably many from Democrats, none of whom looked down on him for serving. What are you talking about?
Not drunk anymore.
1. I think “chicken hawk” may mean something different in Europe, at any rate in my youth it was used to describe a paedophile (which was not a word often used as far as I recall), particularly a predatory homosexual male paedophile. However, I can see the point of using it this way, in fact it’s rather good.
2. Marty, if you look at the top of this blog, you will see a special section about Andy Olmsted, who served, fought and died. Last time I looked, there were hundreds or thousands of comments, presumably many from Democrats, none of whom looked down on him for serving. What are you talking about?
Not drunk anymore.
1. I think “chicken hawk” may mean something different in Europe, at any rate in my youth it was used to describe a paedophile (which was not a word often used as far as I recall), particularly a predatory homosexual male paedophile. However, I can see the point of using it this way, in fact it’s rather good.
2. Marty, if you look at the top of this blog, you will see a special section about Andy Olmsted, who served, fought and died. Last time I looked, there were hundreds or thousands of comments, presumably many from Democrats, none of whom looked down on him for serving. What are you talking about?
Not drunk anymore.
Hope you remedy that for the debate. Thanks for caring.
Not drunk anymore.
Hope you remedy that for the debate. Thanks for caring.
Not drunk anymore.
Hope you remedy that for the debate. Thanks for caring.
Sapient, as we say in England, fine words butter no parsnips. My caring doesn’t help, your canvassing, and donating and arguing does. I’ve said it before: more power to you.
And now, to quote Pepys, “And so to bed.”
Sapient, as we say in England, fine words butter no parsnips. My caring doesn’t help, your canvassing, and donating and arguing does. I’ve said it before: more power to you.
And now, to quote Pepys, “And so to bed.”
Sapient, as we say in England, fine words butter no parsnips. My caring doesn’t help, your canvassing, and donating and arguing does. I’ve said it before: more power to you.
And now, to quote Pepys, “And so to bed.”
know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.
Reflexive deference to Democrats is also unseemly. It’s the reflexive part that makes it unseemly, not the action itself.
As to your and sapient’s fine parsing of what Clinton’s “is” was, I don’t think that degree of nuance is really going to matter to Schrödinger’s deplorables. It’s still feeding into well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites looking down on “the real Americans” or however that demographic identifies itself in cliches. You can rationalize this ’til your teeth fall out, but it’s not for nothing that Clinton took a lot of flak for that soundbite. It was meant to be red meat for her supporters and insulting to her opponents, and even if you carefully stipulate that it only meant half of the opposition… among the non-basket-dwellers (who really, honestly can’t be sure they’re not viewed as a deplorable), how many of their friends, neighbors, and relatives are breezily and vaguely being dismissed as beyond the pale? Do you really honestly think that goes over well with anyone, especially when it’s ambiguous (which it is, because there are a wide range of understandings about what each side means by those specific deplorable categories) whether they mean you too?
It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump’s constituency… and rightly so, as it’s pretty damned obvious it was never meant as the narrow, limited, very precise statement it’s being spun as. Whether or not it made an accurate condemnation is, alas, beside the point if we’re talking about the impact of the phrase… which I daresay we were. And isn’t one of your preferred criticisms of me that I put too much stock into what I want statements to say rather than considering the actual impact that making the statements has?
—
I’ve encountered chicken hawks who look down on servicemembers, but they do so in their own unique way (in my experience): military service is a grand and noble calling, but my family can do more good for the country in other roles. I.e., it’s an admirable vocation for the lowborn.
know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.
Reflexive deference to Democrats is also unseemly. It’s the reflexive part that makes it unseemly, not the action itself.
As to your and sapient’s fine parsing of what Clinton’s “is” was, I don’t think that degree of nuance is really going to matter to Schrödinger’s deplorables. It’s still feeding into well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites looking down on “the real Americans” or however that demographic identifies itself in cliches. You can rationalize this ’til your teeth fall out, but it’s not for nothing that Clinton took a lot of flak for that soundbite. It was meant to be red meat for her supporters and insulting to her opponents, and even if you carefully stipulate that it only meant half of the opposition… among the non-basket-dwellers (who really, honestly can’t be sure they’re not viewed as a deplorable), how many of their friends, neighbors, and relatives are breezily and vaguely being dismissed as beyond the pale? Do you really honestly think that goes over well with anyone, especially when it’s ambiguous (which it is, because there are a wide range of understandings about what each side means by those specific deplorable categories) whether they mean you too?
It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump’s constituency… and rightly so, as it’s pretty damned obvious it was never meant as the narrow, limited, very precise statement it’s being spun as. Whether or not it made an accurate condemnation is, alas, beside the point if we’re talking about the impact of the phrase… which I daresay we were. And isn’t one of your preferred criticisms of me that I put too much stock into what I want statements to say rather than considering the actual impact that making the statements has?
—
I’ve encountered chicken hawks who look down on servicemembers, but they do so in their own unique way (in my experience): military service is a grand and noble calling, but my family can do more good for the country in other roles. I.e., it’s an admirable vocation for the lowborn.
know what else is unseemly? reflexive Democrat bashing is unseemly.
Reflexive deference to Democrats is also unseemly. It’s the reflexive part that makes it unseemly, not the action itself.
As to your and sapient’s fine parsing of what Clinton’s “is” was, I don’t think that degree of nuance is really going to matter to Schrödinger’s deplorables. It’s still feeding into well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites looking down on “the real Americans” or however that demographic identifies itself in cliches. You can rationalize this ’til your teeth fall out, but it’s not for nothing that Clinton took a lot of flak for that soundbite. It was meant to be red meat for her supporters and insulting to her opponents, and even if you carefully stipulate that it only meant half of the opposition… among the non-basket-dwellers (who really, honestly can’t be sure they’re not viewed as a deplorable), how many of their friends, neighbors, and relatives are breezily and vaguely being dismissed as beyond the pale? Do you really honestly think that goes over well with anyone, especially when it’s ambiguous (which it is, because there are a wide range of understandings about what each side means by those specific deplorable categories) whether they mean you too?
It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump’s constituency… and rightly so, as it’s pretty damned obvious it was never meant as the narrow, limited, very precise statement it’s being spun as. Whether or not it made an accurate condemnation is, alas, beside the point if we’re talking about the impact of the phrase… which I daresay we were. And isn’t one of your preferred criticisms of me that I put too much stock into what I want statements to say rather than considering the actual impact that making the statements has?
—
I’ve encountered chicken hawks who look down on servicemembers, but they do so in their own unique way (in my experience): military service is a grand and noble calling, but my family can do more good for the country in other roles. I.e., it’s an admirable vocation for the lowborn.
GftNC, in current American use, “chicken hawk” is someone who is enthused about using military force early and often — i.e. a hawk. But who never was willing to serve, and go in harms way, himself. And doesn’t have family doing so either.
In short, he doesn’t mind risk and loss, as long as he and his aren’t the ones at risk.
GftNC, in current American use, “chicken hawk” is someone who is enthused about using military force early and often — i.e. a hawk. But who never was willing to serve, and go in harms way, himself. And doesn’t have family doing so either.
In short, he doesn’t mind risk and loss, as long as he and his aren’t the ones at risk.
GftNC, in current American use, “chicken hawk” is someone who is enthused about using military force early and often — i.e. a hawk. But who never was willing to serve, and go in harms way, himself. And doesn’t have family doing so either.
In short, he doesn’t mind risk and loss, as long as he and his aren’t the ones at risk.
your and sapient’s fine parsing of what Clinton’s “is” was
Still waiting for your apparent refusal to acknowledge that Bill Clinton was in a basket of some sort.
I.e., it’s an admirable vocation for the lowborn.
A lowborn, like Bill?
My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ….
your and sapient’s fine parsing of what Clinton’s “is” was
Still waiting for your apparent refusal to acknowledge that Bill Clinton was in a basket of some sort.
I.e., it’s an admirable vocation for the lowborn.
A lowborn, like Bill?
My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ….
your and sapient’s fine parsing of what Clinton’s “is” was
Still waiting for your apparent refusal to acknowledge that Bill Clinton was in a basket of some sort.
I.e., it’s an admirable vocation for the lowborn.
A lowborn, like Bill?
My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ….
sapient, if you think after all the times you’ve picked one single marginal sentence out of my comments, you have any credibility when dictating that one or another of your marginal red herrings (which is a generous description of this’un) simply must be addressed… how did you put it? “What are you smoking?”
And as to your decision to take deep personal insult at an orthogonally-relevant description of a sentiment I’ve encountered in others… well, that description of what you’re doing pretty much says everything needing said about that.
sapient, if you think after all the times you’ve picked one single marginal sentence out of my comments, you have any credibility when dictating that one or another of your marginal red herrings (which is a generous description of this’un) simply must be addressed… how did you put it? “What are you smoking?”
And as to your decision to take deep personal insult at an orthogonally-relevant description of a sentiment I’ve encountered in others… well, that description of what you’re doing pretty much says everything needing said about that.
sapient, if you think after all the times you’ve picked one single marginal sentence out of my comments, you have any credibility when dictating that one or another of your marginal red herrings (which is a generous description of this’un) simply must be addressed… how did you put it? “What are you smoking?”
And as to your decision to take deep personal insult at an orthogonally-relevant description of a sentiment I’ve encountered in others… well, that description of what you’re doing pretty much says everything needing said about that.
*sentence out of my comments to respond to…
*sentence out of my comments to respond to…
*sentence out of my comments to respond to…
Yet, again, NV, not sure what you’re trying to say because, honestly, you really aren’t very coherent.
My point, which you refuse to (can’t?) refute, is that you carry on and on about the white disenfranchised, but you can’t actually engage on the possibility that Democratic presidents (including one of their own, Bill Clinton) have brought huge economic benefits to the demographic you claim to champion.
Also, in new news, millions are climbing out of poverty under Obama. Must be Reflexive deference to Democrats.
Reflexive deference to Democrats who, time after time, if we had a reality-based conversation, prove to be able to deliver a better world.
Yet, again, NV, not sure what you’re trying to say because, honestly, you really aren’t very coherent.
My point, which you refuse to (can’t?) refute, is that you carry on and on about the white disenfranchised, but you can’t actually engage on the possibility that Democratic presidents (including one of their own, Bill Clinton) have brought huge economic benefits to the demographic you claim to champion.
Also, in new news, millions are climbing out of poverty under Obama. Must be Reflexive deference to Democrats.
Reflexive deference to Democrats who, time after time, if we had a reality-based conversation, prove to be able to deliver a better world.
Yet, again, NV, not sure what you’re trying to say because, honestly, you really aren’t very coherent.
My point, which you refuse to (can’t?) refute, is that you carry on and on about the white disenfranchised, but you can’t actually engage on the possibility that Democratic presidents (including one of their own, Bill Clinton) have brought huge economic benefits to the demographic you claim to champion.
Also, in new news, millions are climbing out of poverty under Obama. Must be Reflexive deference to Democrats.
Reflexive deference to Democrats who, time after time, if we had a reality-based conversation, prove to be able to deliver a better world.
NV: … well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites …
Please try to remember that people who are NOT racist, homophobic, poorly-educated, or impoverished are also God’s creatures, with feelings which can be hurt by the contempt that Real Murkins hold them in.
“Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites” are “well-rehearsed” all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?
Some of He, Trump’s supporters ARE deplorable. If ALL of them think the basket fits THEM, then maybe Hillary was being conservative (if you’ll pardon the expression) about the “half” part.
–TP
NV: … well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites …
Please try to remember that people who are NOT racist, homophobic, poorly-educated, or impoverished are also God’s creatures, with feelings which can be hurt by the contempt that Real Murkins hold them in.
“Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites” are “well-rehearsed” all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?
Some of He, Trump’s supporters ARE deplorable. If ALL of them think the basket fits THEM, then maybe Hillary was being conservative (if you’ll pardon the expression) about the “half” part.
–TP
NV: … well-rehearsed stereotypes of condescending liberal elites …
Please try to remember that people who are NOT racist, homophobic, poorly-educated, or impoverished are also God’s creatures, with feelings which can be hurt by the contempt that Real Murkins hold them in.
“Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites” are “well-rehearsed” all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?
Some of He, Trump’s supporters ARE deplorable. If ALL of them think the basket fits THEM, then maybe Hillary was being conservative (if you’ll pardon the expression) about the “half” part.
–TP
I am trying to not be the tone police here, and I love quick back and forth when everyone is playing off each other. One of my dreams is to be in the same time zone as Unfogged (as well as having the requisite quick wit that would let me participate) But when folks are angry with each other, it really helps to slow the pace down. And yes, an edit button would be nice, but I’m behind on everything else and everytime I try to do something like that, I break something and spend a week trying to fix what I broke and then give up and re-do everything so that it works but a lot shittier than before.
To try and have a bit more of a discussion rather than random insults, I’ll try to lay out my positions in the probably futile hope that we can discuss issues rather than snipe.
I think this started off with Libya. IMO Obama was a very reluctant participant, and my impression was that the US was dragged into this by Sarkozy and France. I’m not sure if Obama’s comments were reported much in the US
http://www.france24.com/en/20160311-obama-cameron-sarkozy-libya-mess-gaddafi-france-uk
and this was pretty bizarre
https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011
If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.
As far as Saudi Arabia, I mentioned SA as the main point of leverage in regard to Syria, as well as the deep ties SA has with the US. From the previous link, I pull this graf
In December 1992, Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson was unimpressed that Bandar was a Saudi royal and a friend of President George H.W. Bush. During the team’s season finale game at Texas Stadium, Jones brought Bandar to the sidelines during the game and had him come to the locker room afterward.
Johnson was about to take the Cowboys to their first Super Bowl appearance in 15 years and was irate that Jones brought an outsider to the inner sanctum.
Unmoved, Jones later commented, “The Cowboys cannot have a Super Bowl season without Prince Bandar.”
We then went to Syria (I think). If anything, you see the same dynamic, with the added fillup of having to deal with Russia. Precisely how one deals with Russia when they seem to have inserted themselves into our domestic political process, I don’t know. One could argue that the US has inserted itself plenty of times into other countries (That’s been John Pilger’s point) and I wouldn’t deny it, but generally, the status quo wants to keep the status quo.
This all gets tied up into Hillary. I view both Obama and Clinton as having a lot more strictures on their action than folks acknowledge. I don’t want to get into a battle of which is worse, racism or sexism, but it is hard to imagine a woman doing what Obama did, coming on as an unknown keynote speaker in 2004 and winning the presidency 4 years later. I kind of feel that the only way a woman was going to be nominated is if she had the kind of experience and background that Hillary has. That kind of long experience comes with a price.
I feel like it is similar to the recent picture with Bush and Michelle Obama is ‘burning up the internet’ as they say, and I see there are some who are upset that people like the picture. I’m a bit baffled by it. First of all, it is pretty clear that Bush was in over his head as president (if the huggee was Cheney, I’d understand the reaction) and the speech he delivered at the National Museum of African American History and Culture was great.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/09/24/read-george-w-bushs-speech-at-the-african-american-museum-13-years-after-signing-the-bill-to-build-it/
People are free to draw whatever lesson they would like from that.
I imagine that this comment is going to sink as the debate is coming up soon, but I did want to try and explain my take and suggest that taking a bit longer might be a bit better.
I am trying to not be the tone police here, and I love quick back and forth when everyone is playing off each other. One of my dreams is to be in the same time zone as Unfogged (as well as having the requisite quick wit that would let me participate) But when folks are angry with each other, it really helps to slow the pace down. And yes, an edit button would be nice, but I’m behind on everything else and everytime I try to do something like that, I break something and spend a week trying to fix what I broke and then give up and re-do everything so that it works but a lot shittier than before.
To try and have a bit more of a discussion rather than random insults, I’ll try to lay out my positions in the probably futile hope that we can discuss issues rather than snipe.
I think this started off with Libya. IMO Obama was a very reluctant participant, and my impression was that the US was dragged into this by Sarkozy and France. I’m not sure if Obama’s comments were reported much in the US
http://www.france24.com/en/20160311-obama-cameron-sarkozy-libya-mess-gaddafi-france-uk
and this was pretty bizarre
https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011
If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.
As far as Saudi Arabia, I mentioned SA as the main point of leverage in regard to Syria, as well as the deep ties SA has with the US. From the previous link, I pull this graf
In December 1992, Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson was unimpressed that Bandar was a Saudi royal and a friend of President George H.W. Bush. During the team’s season finale game at Texas Stadium, Jones brought Bandar to the sidelines during the game and had him come to the locker room afterward.
Johnson was about to take the Cowboys to their first Super Bowl appearance in 15 years and was irate that Jones brought an outsider to the inner sanctum.
Unmoved, Jones later commented, “The Cowboys cannot have a Super Bowl season without Prince Bandar.”
We then went to Syria (I think). If anything, you see the same dynamic, with the added fillup of having to deal with Russia. Precisely how one deals with Russia when they seem to have inserted themselves into our domestic political process, I don’t know. One could argue that the US has inserted itself plenty of times into other countries (That’s been John Pilger’s point) and I wouldn’t deny it, but generally, the status quo wants to keep the status quo.
This all gets tied up into Hillary. I view both Obama and Clinton as having a lot more strictures on their action than folks acknowledge. I don’t want to get into a battle of which is worse, racism or sexism, but it is hard to imagine a woman doing what Obama did, coming on as an unknown keynote speaker in 2004 and winning the presidency 4 years later. I kind of feel that the only way a woman was going to be nominated is if she had the kind of experience and background that Hillary has. That kind of long experience comes with a price.
I feel like it is similar to the recent picture with Bush and Michelle Obama is ‘burning up the internet’ as they say, and I see there are some who are upset that people like the picture. I’m a bit baffled by it. First of all, it is pretty clear that Bush was in over his head as president (if the huggee was Cheney, I’d understand the reaction) and the speech he delivered at the National Museum of African American History and Culture was great.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/09/24/read-george-w-bushs-speech-at-the-african-american-museum-13-years-after-signing-the-bill-to-build-it/
People are free to draw whatever lesson they would like from that.
I imagine that this comment is going to sink as the debate is coming up soon, but I did want to try and explain my take and suggest that taking a bit longer might be a bit better.
I am trying to not be the tone police here, and I love quick back and forth when everyone is playing off each other. One of my dreams is to be in the same time zone as Unfogged (as well as having the requisite quick wit that would let me participate) But when folks are angry with each other, it really helps to slow the pace down. And yes, an edit button would be nice, but I’m behind on everything else and everytime I try to do something like that, I break something and spend a week trying to fix what I broke and then give up and re-do everything so that it works but a lot shittier than before.
To try and have a bit more of a discussion rather than random insults, I’ll try to lay out my positions in the probably futile hope that we can discuss issues rather than snipe.
I think this started off with Libya. IMO Obama was a very reluctant participant, and my impression was that the US was dragged into this by Sarkozy and France. I’m not sure if Obama’s comments were reported much in the US
http://www.france24.com/en/20160311-obama-cameron-sarkozy-libya-mess-gaddafi-france-uk
and this was pretty bizarre
https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011
If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.
As far as Saudi Arabia, I mentioned SA as the main point of leverage in regard to Syria, as well as the deep ties SA has with the US. From the previous link, I pull this graf
In December 1992, Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson was unimpressed that Bandar was a Saudi royal and a friend of President George H.W. Bush. During the team’s season finale game at Texas Stadium, Jones brought Bandar to the sidelines during the game and had him come to the locker room afterward.
Johnson was about to take the Cowboys to their first Super Bowl appearance in 15 years and was irate that Jones brought an outsider to the inner sanctum.
Unmoved, Jones later commented, “The Cowboys cannot have a Super Bowl season without Prince Bandar.”
We then went to Syria (I think). If anything, you see the same dynamic, with the added fillup of having to deal with Russia. Precisely how one deals with Russia when they seem to have inserted themselves into our domestic political process, I don’t know. One could argue that the US has inserted itself plenty of times into other countries (That’s been John Pilger’s point) and I wouldn’t deny it, but generally, the status quo wants to keep the status quo.
This all gets tied up into Hillary. I view both Obama and Clinton as having a lot more strictures on their action than folks acknowledge. I don’t want to get into a battle of which is worse, racism or sexism, but it is hard to imagine a woman doing what Obama did, coming on as an unknown keynote speaker in 2004 and winning the presidency 4 years later. I kind of feel that the only way a woman was going to be nominated is if she had the kind of experience and background that Hillary has. That kind of long experience comes with a price.
I feel like it is similar to the recent picture with Bush and Michelle Obama is ‘burning up the internet’ as they say, and I see there are some who are upset that people like the picture. I’m a bit baffled by it. First of all, it is pretty clear that Bush was in over his head as president (if the huggee was Cheney, I’d understand the reaction) and the speech he delivered at the National Museum of African American History and Culture was great.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/09/24/read-george-w-bushs-speech-at-the-african-american-museum-13-years-after-signing-the-bill-to-build-it/
People are free to draw whatever lesson they would like from that.
I imagine that this comment is going to sink as the debate is coming up soon, but I did want to try and explain my take and suggest that taking a bit longer might be a bit better.
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
troll smarter.
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
troll smarter.
But would not look down on those who serve? Which is an almost universal Democratic view.
troll smarter.
It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump’s constituency… and rightly so,
and polling backs it up.
when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.
It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump’s constituency… and rightly so,
and polling backs it up.
when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.
It was viewed as a sweeping condemnation meant to tar very broad swathes of Trump’s constituency… and rightly so,
and polling backs it up.
when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.
“when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.”
IOW: “where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?”
A wonderful quote that ties together all kinds of deplorable stuff.
“when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.”
IOW: “where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?”
A wonderful quote that ties together all kinds of deplorable stuff.
“when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.”
IOW: “where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?”
A wonderful quote that ties together all kinds of deplorable stuff.
The current odds are rather concerning…
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
The current odds are rather concerning…
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
The current odds are rather concerning…
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Marty says it ain’t so.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/millions-in-us-climb-out-of-poverty-at-long-last/ar-BBwDtuU
And yet it is Hillary who lies every time her lips move.
Marty says it ain’t so.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/millions-in-us-climb-out-of-poverty-at-long-last/ar-BBwDtuU
And yet it is Hillary who lies every time her lips move.
Marty says it ain’t so.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/millions-in-us-climb-out-of-poverty-at-long-last/ar-BBwDtuU
And yet it is Hillary who lies every time her lips move.
LJ, I think that summed things up rather well.
It is a bit amusing how omnipotent some people feel a President is. Sometimes his own people, when he is failing to do all of the things they are sure he could do if only he would. And sometimes by the other side, when he is failing to do something that they think he should — even if he was elected on a platform of not doing that.
The fact is that the President is both imensely powerful and severely constrained. At least, if he cares at all about the nation he is leading. I can’t think of a President in the past century (I’m less knowledgeable before that) who didn’t care about his country. And kinda bummed out at the possibility that we might get one soon.
LJ, I think that summed things up rather well.
It is a bit amusing how omnipotent some people feel a President is. Sometimes his own people, when he is failing to do all of the things they are sure he could do if only he would. And sometimes by the other side, when he is failing to do something that they think he should — even if he was elected on a platform of not doing that.
The fact is that the President is both imensely powerful and severely constrained. At least, if he cares at all about the nation he is leading. I can’t think of a President in the past century (I’m less knowledgeable before that) who didn’t care about his country. And kinda bummed out at the possibility that we might get one soon.
LJ, I think that summed things up rather well.
It is a bit amusing how omnipotent some people feel a President is. Sometimes his own people, when he is failing to do all of the things they are sure he could do if only he would. And sometimes by the other side, when he is failing to do something that they think he should — even if he was elected on a platform of not doing that.
The fact is that the President is both imensely powerful and severely constrained. At least, if he cares at all about the nation he is leading. I can’t think of a President in the past century (I’m less knowledgeable before that) who didn’t care about his country. And kinda bummed out at the possibility that we might get one soon.
Count, from the report:
Although it is nice to see real compensation going up a little after 6 flat years, which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
Lies, damn lies. and statistics
Count, from the report:
Although it is nice to see real compensation going up a little after 6 flat years, which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
Lies, damn lies. and statistics
Count, from the report:
Although it is nice to see real compensation going up a little after 6 flat years, which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
Lies, damn lies. and statistics
LJ, excellent comment, pretty much all of which seems to me right on the money.
WJ, thanks. I had sort of worked the new meaning out by context, and actually thought it pretty good.
Nigel, re FiveThirtyEight prediction/odds: Jesus F*cking Christ! (I am trying to abide by ObWi’s non-swearing convention, but it is hard, particularly in this response). This has pushed my anxiety levels up so high I am considering acting on your previous comment, and recording the debate rather than watching it live, a) so I can fast forward and b) so that Tuesday is more bearable.
Bloody hell! (As we say here when horrified and completely at a loss).
LJ, excellent comment, pretty much all of which seems to me right on the money.
WJ, thanks. I had sort of worked the new meaning out by context, and actually thought it pretty good.
Nigel, re FiveThirtyEight prediction/odds: Jesus F*cking Christ! (I am trying to abide by ObWi’s non-swearing convention, but it is hard, particularly in this response). This has pushed my anxiety levels up so high I am considering acting on your previous comment, and recording the debate rather than watching it live, a) so I can fast forward and b) so that Tuesday is more bearable.
Bloody hell! (As we say here when horrified and completely at a loss).
LJ, excellent comment, pretty much all of which seems to me right on the money.
WJ, thanks. I had sort of worked the new meaning out by context, and actually thought it pretty good.
Nigel, re FiveThirtyEight prediction/odds: Jesus F*cking Christ! (I am trying to abide by ObWi’s non-swearing convention, but it is hard, particularly in this response). This has pushed my anxiety levels up so high I am considering acting on your previous comment, and recording the debate rather than watching it live, a) so I can fast forward and b) so that Tuesday is more bearable.
Bloody hell! (As we say here when horrified and completely at a loss).
when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.
cleek, it’s depressing to see how quick you are to recognize and decry dog whistles that aren’t directed at you for what they are.
Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn’t reserve their condescension for “deplorables”. They couldn’t wait to roll it out against the DFHs during the Democratic primary. You throw it at me over and over and over. Etc. It’s used as a first recourse against all political opponents. And all it does is stroke egos and foster resentment. I find “anti-elitist” snobbery and condescension in the age-old American anti-intellectual tradition to be tiresome and toxic, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to inflame stereotypes out of petty spite.
You derided my comments as “reflexively bashing Democrats”, but it seems to be lost on you that the DLC is not the Democratic Party. It seems to pass right over your head that criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I’m anti-Democrat. I full well understand the appeal of that conclusion, but I’ve been a Democrat since I first registered as an adult. Disagreeing with you does not “put me on the side of racists and xenophobes”. This isn’t binary, and it’s really unproductive when you try over and over again to simplify it to that so you can score easy points.
TP:
“Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites” are “well-rehearsed” all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?
I’m keenly aware of this. I grew up in the rural Midwest. I did a term as enlisted personnel in the Army. I’m verbose and articulate even when I don’t have to be. I am painfully aware of this. I’ve also seen how much civic discourse is set back by balkanizing and the oh-so-satisfying demonization and ridiculing of your opponents. It’s all well and good for the likes of cleek to state that when she declared a plurality of those supporting Trump (who, since some people need the obvious spoonfed to them constantly, is in fact thoroughly deplorable) are beyond the pale, she was being narrow and specific. That sounds about as credible Trump’s post hoc explanations about how he wasn’t mocking Kovaleski. It was a tribal dog whistle, and a pretty damned low-pitch one at that. It was meant to remind Clinton’s supporters that “the other side” are the devil, while still leaving the weaselly loophole of “oh, I wasn’t talking about YOU, just, you know, the deplorables“. Liberals have their own clear (but sometimes mutually unintelligible) of what it means to be “racist”, or “homophobic”, or “sexist”, or “xenophobic”, or “Islamaphobic” (as an aside, lemme note that cleek’s assertion that Clinton wasn’t calling out potential enlistees rings very false when you look at how common some of those preceding deplorabilities are among servicemembers – there definitely is an appearance of her suggesting that they cannot be allowed to have a seat at the political table, but dying for her foreign policy is A-okay). However, they don’t always communicate them well. And conservatives certainly don’t repeat the meanings ascribed to them clearly or even cleanly; a lot of distortion is introduced, some certainly willfully, and you often end up with people who without malice assume the liberal POV declares that merely being politically opposed to a liberal taints you with one deplorability or another. And then we have those lovely, lovely liberals who view this all as a team sport, and do use language as a bludgeon. And the end result? Clinton’s much-defended basket remark is nothing more than tribal name-calling, even if she used a lot of words instead of a few. And the public discourse deteriorates apace…
when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.
cleek, it’s depressing to see how quick you are to recognize and decry dog whistles that aren’t directed at you for what they are.
Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn’t reserve their condescension for “deplorables”. They couldn’t wait to roll it out against the DFHs during the Democratic primary. You throw it at me over and over and over. Etc. It’s used as a first recourse against all political opponents. And all it does is stroke egos and foster resentment. I find “anti-elitist” snobbery and condescension in the age-old American anti-intellectual tradition to be tiresome and toxic, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to inflame stereotypes out of petty spite.
You derided my comments as “reflexively bashing Democrats”, but it seems to be lost on you that the DLC is not the Democratic Party. It seems to pass right over your head that criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I’m anti-Democrat. I full well understand the appeal of that conclusion, but I’ve been a Democrat since I first registered as an adult. Disagreeing with you does not “put me on the side of racists and xenophobes”. This isn’t binary, and it’s really unproductive when you try over and over again to simplify it to that so you can score easy points.
TP:
“Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites” are “well-rehearsed” all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?
I’m keenly aware of this. I grew up in the rural Midwest. I did a term as enlisted personnel in the Army. I’m verbose and articulate even when I don’t have to be. I am painfully aware of this. I’ve also seen how much civic discourse is set back by balkanizing and the oh-so-satisfying demonization and ridiculing of your opponents. It’s all well and good for the likes of cleek to state that when she declared a plurality of those supporting Trump (who, since some people need the obvious spoonfed to them constantly, is in fact thoroughly deplorable) are beyond the pale, she was being narrow and specific. That sounds about as credible Trump’s post hoc explanations about how he wasn’t mocking Kovaleski. It was a tribal dog whistle, and a pretty damned low-pitch one at that. It was meant to remind Clinton’s supporters that “the other side” are the devil, while still leaving the weaselly loophole of “oh, I wasn’t talking about YOU, just, you know, the deplorables“. Liberals have their own clear (but sometimes mutually unintelligible) of what it means to be “racist”, or “homophobic”, or “sexist”, or “xenophobic”, or “Islamaphobic” (as an aside, lemme note that cleek’s assertion that Clinton wasn’t calling out potential enlistees rings very false when you look at how common some of those preceding deplorabilities are among servicemembers – there definitely is an appearance of her suggesting that they cannot be allowed to have a seat at the political table, but dying for her foreign policy is A-okay). However, they don’t always communicate them well. And conservatives certainly don’t repeat the meanings ascribed to them clearly or even cleanly; a lot of distortion is introduced, some certainly willfully, and you often end up with people who without malice assume the liberal POV declares that merely being politically opposed to a liberal taints you with one deplorability or another. And then we have those lovely, lovely liberals who view this all as a team sport, and do use language as a bludgeon. And the end result? Clinton’s much-defended basket remark is nothing more than tribal name-calling, even if she used a lot of words instead of a few. And the public discourse deteriorates apace…
when your zeal to bash Clinton has put you on the side of racists and xenophobes, you might want to rethink some things.
cleek, it’s depressing to see how quick you are to recognize and decry dog whistles that aren’t directed at you for what they are.
Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn’t reserve their condescension for “deplorables”. They couldn’t wait to roll it out against the DFHs during the Democratic primary. You throw it at me over and over and over. Etc. It’s used as a first recourse against all political opponents. And all it does is stroke egos and foster resentment. I find “anti-elitist” snobbery and condescension in the age-old American anti-intellectual tradition to be tiresome and toxic, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to inflame stereotypes out of petty spite.
You derided my comments as “reflexively bashing Democrats”, but it seems to be lost on you that the DLC is not the Democratic Party. It seems to pass right over your head that criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I’m anti-Democrat. I full well understand the appeal of that conclusion, but I’ve been a Democrat since I first registered as an adult. Disagreeing with you does not “put me on the side of racists and xenophobes”. This isn’t binary, and it’s really unproductive when you try over and over again to simplify it to that so you can score easy points.
TP:
“Stereotypes of condescending liberal elites” are “well-rehearsed” all right, but who do you suppose has been doing all that stereotyping and rehearsing?
I’m keenly aware of this. I grew up in the rural Midwest. I did a term as enlisted personnel in the Army. I’m verbose and articulate even when I don’t have to be. I am painfully aware of this. I’ve also seen how much civic discourse is set back by balkanizing and the oh-so-satisfying demonization and ridiculing of your opponents. It’s all well and good for the likes of cleek to state that when she declared a plurality of those supporting Trump (who, since some people need the obvious spoonfed to them constantly, is in fact thoroughly deplorable) are beyond the pale, she was being narrow and specific. That sounds about as credible Trump’s post hoc explanations about how he wasn’t mocking Kovaleski. It was a tribal dog whistle, and a pretty damned low-pitch one at that. It was meant to remind Clinton’s supporters that “the other side” are the devil, while still leaving the weaselly loophole of “oh, I wasn’t talking about YOU, just, you know, the deplorables“. Liberals have their own clear (but sometimes mutually unintelligible) of what it means to be “racist”, or “homophobic”, or “sexist”, or “xenophobic”, or “Islamaphobic” (as an aside, lemme note that cleek’s assertion that Clinton wasn’t calling out potential enlistees rings very false when you look at how common some of those preceding deplorabilities are among servicemembers – there definitely is an appearance of her suggesting that they cannot be allowed to have a seat at the political table, but dying for her foreign policy is A-okay). However, they don’t always communicate them well. And conservatives certainly don’t repeat the meanings ascribed to them clearly or even cleanly; a lot of distortion is introduced, some certainly willfully, and you often end up with people who without malice assume the liberal POV declares that merely being politically opposed to a liberal taints you with one deplorability or another. And then we have those lovely, lovely liberals who view this all as a team sport, and do use language as a bludgeon. And the end result? Clinton’s much-defended basket remark is nothing more than tribal name-calling, even if she used a lot of words instead of a few. And the public discourse deteriorates apace…
…criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I’m anti-Democrat.
right. doing it once wouldn’t mean that.
…criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I’m anti-Democrat.
right. doing it once wouldn’t mean that.
…criticizing Clinton for her horrid policy preferences does not mean I’m anti-Democrat.
right. doing it once wouldn’t mean that.
I don’t know. Our on-line conversations in some remote corner of South Blogistan aren’t likely to sway the election. Bash away here if anywhere, I say.
I don’t know. Our on-line conversations in some remote corner of South Blogistan aren’t likely to sway the election. Bash away here if anywhere, I say.
I don’t know. Our on-line conversations in some remote corner of South Blogistan aren’t likely to sway the election. Bash away here if anywhere, I say.
which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation
say, when did that trend break?
which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation
say, when did that trend break?
which follow 50 years of steadily increasing real compensation
say, when did that trend break?
“If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.”
I actually agree with much of this. When I read the interview Jeffrey Goldberg did with him in the Atlantic last spring, I got the distinct impression he felt constrained to do more intervening than he really wanted to do. But the constraints on our foreign policy are often domestic. If he is a secret noninterventionist and actually, by American standards, he sort of is, he gets crucified for it. The complaints about Syria are that he didn’t intervene, when in reality Syria is suffering from massive intervention by both Assad’s allies and his enemies. Why anyone would think more intervention by us would help escapes me, when our allies the FSA fight literally side by side with Al Qaeda. Why Americans think after decades of intervention that we could intervene against Assad and calibrate it so that Al Qaeda or some other group of jihadis doesn’t triumph–well, it escapes me. If I went around saying that we should solve the I-P conflict by arming Hamas while making sure that none of the weapons got to Islamic Jihad because those guys are extremists, most Americans would think this insane, but it’s probably less insane than what our serious folk think makes sense. Still insane, I hasten to agree.
I’ve ranted more about Yemen lately because that’s where we are doing the most damage in the most shameful way, but the Israel-Palestine issue is another one where domestic constraints determine the policy more than the big bad world outside. We couldn’t solve the problem, but we make it worse because both of our political parties feel it necessary to suck up to Israel, to satisfy different constituents. Israel is a special case, but there are always going to be people at home whose opinions or interests are going to have a huge effect on what Presidents do, because most Americans are not going to be single issue voters.
Clinton is more hawkish than Obama. That comes through in every article I’ve ever read. So personalities also make a difference. There is a growing, relatively quiet revolt in Congress over our support for the Saudis–presumably they too know about whatever arguments there may be for helping them commit war crimes and they find them unconvincing. One way we can change the constraints on our Presidents is by protesting their actions and getting enough people to agree with us so that the pressures on them change.
On the level of personalities, I get heated because of the constant Orwellian BS that permeates political discussion in the US. Britain is also full of liars in government, it seems, but they also put out a report on Iraq and another on Libya that was far more honest than what we get here and the BBC apparently did a major story on starvation in Yemen. You can talk about constraints on action, which again I think are at least 50 percent domestic, and that still doesn’t excuse the way our country has refused to look squarely in the face at what we are helping the Saudis do. That’s changing, slowly, but why should it be slow at all? Is that big bad world outside forcing us to ignore our own actions? If we are supplying the Saudis so they can kill children in Yemen to keep the Iran deal going, then spell it out for everyone to hear. And explain exactly how that works and why it can’t be changed. And why this is different from when other countries support terrorists or war criminals.
“If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.”
I actually agree with much of this. When I read the interview Jeffrey Goldberg did with him in the Atlantic last spring, I got the distinct impression he felt constrained to do more intervening than he really wanted to do. But the constraints on our foreign policy are often domestic. If he is a secret noninterventionist and actually, by American standards, he sort of is, he gets crucified for it. The complaints about Syria are that he didn’t intervene, when in reality Syria is suffering from massive intervention by both Assad’s allies and his enemies. Why anyone would think more intervention by us would help escapes me, when our allies the FSA fight literally side by side with Al Qaeda. Why Americans think after decades of intervention that we could intervene against Assad and calibrate it so that Al Qaeda or some other group of jihadis doesn’t triumph–well, it escapes me. If I went around saying that we should solve the I-P conflict by arming Hamas while making sure that none of the weapons got to Islamic Jihad because those guys are extremists, most Americans would think this insane, but it’s probably less insane than what our serious folk think makes sense. Still insane, I hasten to agree.
I’ve ranted more about Yemen lately because that’s where we are doing the most damage in the most shameful way, but the Israel-Palestine issue is another one where domestic constraints determine the policy more than the big bad world outside. We couldn’t solve the problem, but we make it worse because both of our political parties feel it necessary to suck up to Israel, to satisfy different constituents. Israel is a special case, but there are always going to be people at home whose opinions or interests are going to have a huge effect on what Presidents do, because most Americans are not going to be single issue voters.
Clinton is more hawkish than Obama. That comes through in every article I’ve ever read. So personalities also make a difference. There is a growing, relatively quiet revolt in Congress over our support for the Saudis–presumably they too know about whatever arguments there may be for helping them commit war crimes and they find them unconvincing. One way we can change the constraints on our Presidents is by protesting their actions and getting enough people to agree with us so that the pressures on them change.
On the level of personalities, I get heated because of the constant Orwellian BS that permeates political discussion in the US. Britain is also full of liars in government, it seems, but they also put out a report on Iraq and another on Libya that was far more honest than what we get here and the BBC apparently did a major story on starvation in Yemen. You can talk about constraints on action, which again I think are at least 50 percent domestic, and that still doesn’t excuse the way our country has refused to look squarely in the face at what we are helping the Saudis do. That’s changing, slowly, but why should it be slow at all? Is that big bad world outside forcing us to ignore our own actions? If we are supplying the Saudis so they can kill children in Yemen to keep the Iran deal going, then spell it out for everyone to hear. And explain exactly how that works and why it can’t be changed. And why this is different from when other countries support terrorists or war criminals.
“If you feel Obama has a lot of room to act, you may condemn him, but I tend to think that he actually has a lot less room to manoeuvre than people give him credit.”
I actually agree with much of this. When I read the interview Jeffrey Goldberg did with him in the Atlantic last spring, I got the distinct impression he felt constrained to do more intervening than he really wanted to do. But the constraints on our foreign policy are often domestic. If he is a secret noninterventionist and actually, by American standards, he sort of is, he gets crucified for it. The complaints about Syria are that he didn’t intervene, when in reality Syria is suffering from massive intervention by both Assad’s allies and his enemies. Why anyone would think more intervention by us would help escapes me, when our allies the FSA fight literally side by side with Al Qaeda. Why Americans think after decades of intervention that we could intervene against Assad and calibrate it so that Al Qaeda or some other group of jihadis doesn’t triumph–well, it escapes me. If I went around saying that we should solve the I-P conflict by arming Hamas while making sure that none of the weapons got to Islamic Jihad because those guys are extremists, most Americans would think this insane, but it’s probably less insane than what our serious folk think makes sense. Still insane, I hasten to agree.
I’ve ranted more about Yemen lately because that’s where we are doing the most damage in the most shameful way, but the Israel-Palestine issue is another one where domestic constraints determine the policy more than the big bad world outside. We couldn’t solve the problem, but we make it worse because both of our political parties feel it necessary to suck up to Israel, to satisfy different constituents. Israel is a special case, but there are always going to be people at home whose opinions or interests are going to have a huge effect on what Presidents do, because most Americans are not going to be single issue voters.
Clinton is more hawkish than Obama. That comes through in every article I’ve ever read. So personalities also make a difference. There is a growing, relatively quiet revolt in Congress over our support for the Saudis–presumably they too know about whatever arguments there may be for helping them commit war crimes and they find them unconvincing. One way we can change the constraints on our Presidents is by protesting their actions and getting enough people to agree with us so that the pressures on them change.
On the level of personalities, I get heated because of the constant Orwellian BS that permeates political discussion in the US. Britain is also full of liars in government, it seems, but they also put out a report on Iraq and another on Libya that was far more honest than what we get here and the BBC apparently did a major story on starvation in Yemen. You can talk about constraints on action, which again I think are at least 50 percent domestic, and that still doesn’t excuse the way our country has refused to look squarely in the face at what we are helping the Saudis do. That’s changing, slowly, but why should it be slow at all? Is that big bad world outside forcing us to ignore our own actions? If we are supplying the Saudis so they can kill children in Yemen to keep the Iran deal going, then spell it out for everyone to hear. And explain exactly how that works and why it can’t be changed. And why this is different from when other countries support terrorists or war criminals.
LJ–on the Libya Blumenthal email thing, that’s often mentioned by Clinton critics on this subject.
I didn’t mention it because I figured the mere mention of the word “email” anywhere near the word “Clinton” would inflame the thread more. But no, I don’t think that humanitarian considerations were the main reason for the intervention. They rarely are at any time. This is a reason for criticizing more. It’s all very well to say that Obama or other Presidents are under various constraints. Exactly the sort of thing most lefties would say and this is why one should criticize the actions and question the official pleasing storylines. Living in a democracy, we are supposed to be able to change some of the constraints they operate under, which again I don’t think lie solely outside the borders of the US.
LJ–on the Libya Blumenthal email thing, that’s often mentioned by Clinton critics on this subject.
I didn’t mention it because I figured the mere mention of the word “email” anywhere near the word “Clinton” would inflame the thread more. But no, I don’t think that humanitarian considerations were the main reason for the intervention. They rarely are at any time. This is a reason for criticizing more. It’s all very well to say that Obama or other Presidents are under various constraints. Exactly the sort of thing most lefties would say and this is why one should criticize the actions and question the official pleasing storylines. Living in a democracy, we are supposed to be able to change some of the constraints they operate under, which again I don’t think lie solely outside the borders of the US.
LJ–on the Libya Blumenthal email thing, that’s often mentioned by Clinton critics on this subject.
I didn’t mention it because I figured the mere mention of the word “email” anywhere near the word “Clinton” would inflame the thread more. But no, I don’t think that humanitarian considerations were the main reason for the intervention. They rarely are at any time. This is a reason for criticizing more. It’s all very well to say that Obama or other Presidents are under various constraints. Exactly the sort of thing most lefties would say and this is why one should criticize the actions and question the official pleasing storylines. Living in a democracy, we are supposed to be able to change some of the constraints they operate under, which again I don’t think lie solely outside the borders of the US.
right. doing it once wouldn’t mean that.
…because L and N are indistinguishable, interchangeable, and yet miraculously also indivisible. The DLC tragically left us in 2011, yet the DLC will on forever as the DNC! I gotcha…
right. doing it once wouldn’t mean that.
…because L and N are indistinguishable, interchangeable, and yet miraculously also indivisible. The DLC tragically left us in 2011, yet the DLC will on forever as the DNC! I gotcha…
right. doing it once wouldn’t mean that.
…because L and N are indistinguishable, interchangeable, and yet miraculously also indivisible. The DLC tragically left us in 2011, yet the DLC will on forever as the DNC! I gotcha…
I gotcha…
clearly not.
for example: up until the following phrase, i haven’t mentioned the DLC or the DNC here.
I gotcha…
clearly not.
for example: up until the following phrase, i haven’t mentioned the DLC or the DNC here.
I gotcha…
clearly not.
for example: up until the following phrase, i haven’t mentioned the DLC or the DNC here.
Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn’t reserve their condescension for “deplorables”.
NV, you can make a case for her and her supporters failing to elevate public discourse. But given what Trump and his supporters have been saying for the last year plus, it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.
Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn’t reserve their condescension for “deplorables”.
NV, you can make a case for her and her supporters failing to elevate public discourse. But given what Trump and his supporters have been saying for the last year plus, it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.
Clinton is horrible for reasons that have nothing to do with this. This is mostly about how and why her supporters are degrading public discourse. Notably, they didn’t reserve their condescension for “deplorables”.
NV, you can make a case for her and her supporters failing to elevate public discourse. But given what Trump and his supporters have been saying for the last year plus, it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.
it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.
calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.
it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.
calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.
it seems a stretch to say that Clinton is the one degrading public discourse.
calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.
Sapient, when you say this–
“My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ….”
You are misunderstanding what NV said, which was clear enough. He said “low born” in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military. (Clinton, btw, is a poor counterexample here, as someone born poor who did not end up in the military.)
Vance has an anecdote about this that he experienced in Yale. From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes–we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don’t think. I see it occasionally online. My own father who was in WWII and saw some combat, seemed to find the reverential attitude idiotic, but he also would have thought the opposite attitude idiotic. He had me read “The Rising Sun” when I was a child, to get the Japanese viewpoint of WWII. Since we are trading “father as war vet” stories, something I started way upthread.
NV was in the military too, if I recall correctly.
As for siding with racists and so forth, uh, no. The point being made by people like Vance is that we need to try to pull the country back together to some degree and it can’t be done if we all sink to the same level together. You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables. But if we want to go that way, then there are some deplorables in the liberal basket.
Sapient, when you say this–
“My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ….”
You are misunderstanding what NV said, which was clear enough. He said “low born” in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military. (Clinton, btw, is a poor counterexample here, as someone born poor who did not end up in the military.)
Vance has an anecdote about this that he experienced in Yale. From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes–we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don’t think. I see it occasionally online. My own father who was in WWII and saw some combat, seemed to find the reverential attitude idiotic, but he also would have thought the opposite attitude idiotic. He had me read “The Rising Sun” when I was a child, to get the Japanese viewpoint of WWII. Since we are trading “father as war vet” stories, something I started way upthread.
NV was in the military too, if I recall correctly.
As for siding with racists and so forth, uh, no. The point being made by people like Vance is that we need to try to pull the country back together to some degree and it can’t be done if we all sink to the same level together. You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables. But if we want to go that way, then there are some deplorables in the liberal basket.
Sapient, when you say this–
“My father was a many, many, many decorated war hero, who was absent fighting one of his wars when I was a pre-teen. So please go f ….”
You are misunderstanding what NV said, which was clear enough. He said “low born” in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military. (Clinton, btw, is a poor counterexample here, as someone born poor who did not end up in the military.)
Vance has an anecdote about this that he experienced in Yale. From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes–we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don’t think. I see it occasionally online. My own father who was in WWII and saw some combat, seemed to find the reverential attitude idiotic, but he also would have thought the opposite attitude idiotic. He had me read “The Rising Sun” when I was a child, to get the Japanese viewpoint of WWII. Since we are trading “father as war vet” stories, something I started way upthread.
NV was in the military too, if I recall correctly.
As for siding with racists and so forth, uh, no. The point being made by people like Vance is that we need to try to pull the country back together to some degree and it can’t be done if we all sink to the same level together. You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables. But if we want to go that way, then there are some deplorables in the liberal basket.
calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.
Of course not. It’s calling a group racist when any, even one, of its members are not that is deplorable. 😉
calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.
Of course not. It’s calling a group racist when any, even one, of its members are not that is deplorable. 😉
calling a racist a racist is a deplorable act.
Of course not. It’s calling a group racist when any, even one, of its members are not that is deplorable. 😉
cleek, cleek, cleek. You didn’t HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party’s right and left wings. The fact that you suggest that criticizing Clinton more than once is attacking the party as a whole gets it across quite clearly.
—
wj:
I have ZERO influence among the toxic alt-right standard-bearers rallying to press ever deeper into the gutter on the right. I have ever-so-infinitesimally-more-than-zero influence among those on the left. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
cleek, cleek, cleek. You didn’t HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party’s right and left wings. The fact that you suggest that criticizing Clinton more than once is attacking the party as a whole gets it across quite clearly.
—
wj:
I have ZERO influence among the toxic alt-right standard-bearers rallying to press ever deeper into the gutter on the right. I have ever-so-infinitesimally-more-than-zero influence among those on the left. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
cleek, cleek, cleek. You didn’t HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party’s right and left wings. The fact that you suggest that criticizing Clinton more than once is attacking the party as a whole gets it across quite clearly.
—
wj:
I have ZERO influence among the toxic alt-right standard-bearers rallying to press ever deeper into the gutter on the right. I have ever-so-infinitesimally-more-than-zero influence among those on the left. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables.
and Clinton’s phrasing of that was … ok, deplorable. but the sentiment (half of Trump’s supporters are one or more of the follow: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.) is supported by polling data. Trump supporters themselves provided the data! they are, by their own admission, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.. and they’re closing in on making him the President. the most deplorable man ever to get a major party nomination is very close to being able to start putting the Executive Branch into the service of his bigotry.
so, to spend more than five seconds thinking about Clinton’s phrasing seems absurd. unless, of course, bashing Clinton is the point.
You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables.
and Clinton’s phrasing of that was … ok, deplorable. but the sentiment (half of Trump’s supporters are one or more of the follow: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.) is supported by polling data. Trump supporters themselves provided the data! they are, by their own admission, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.. and they’re closing in on making him the President. the most deplorable man ever to get a major party nomination is very close to being able to start putting the Executive Branch into the service of his bigotry.
so, to spend more than five seconds thinking about Clinton’s phrasing seems absurd. unless, of course, bashing Clinton is the point.
You can criticize bigotry without labeling people as baskets of deplorables.
and Clinton’s phrasing of that was … ok, deplorable. but the sentiment (half of Trump’s supporters are one or more of the follow: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.) is supported by polling data. Trump supporters themselves provided the data! they are, by their own admission, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.. and they’re closing in on making him the President. the most deplorable man ever to get a major party nomination is very close to being able to start putting the Executive Branch into the service of his bigotry.
so, to spend more than five seconds thinking about Clinton’s phrasing seems absurd. unless, of course, bashing Clinton is the point.
You didn’t HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party’s right and left wings.
my ‘preferred faction’ is the one that doesn’t spend its time doing the GOP’s work for it – because implications.
You didn’t HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party’s right and left wings.
my ‘preferred faction’ is the one that doesn’t spend its time doing the GOP’s work for it – because implications.
You didn’t HAVE to mention that opposing your preferred faction w/in the Democratic Party has implications about relations and conflicts between the party’s right and left wings.
my ‘preferred faction’ is the one that doesn’t spend its time doing the GOP’s work for it – because implications.
The Atlantic has a piece on Yemen. Here is the paragraph summarizing some unnamed official’s view of the American policy–
“A U.S. official who briefs the White House on regional national security matters summed up the Obama administration’s prevailing attitude. Yemen was already a “complete shit show” before the war, he argued, echoing Obama’s use of a phrase he is said to use privately to describe Libya. The Houthis are a nasty militia who deserve no favors and Yemen would be a “shit show” whatever the United States does. So why further degrade a sometimes-unpleasant, but necessary relationship with the Saudis to produce the same end result?”
Speaking of deplorables, why not sell billions of dollars to a murderous regime? That was a point made by some racist to Will Campbell in the book “Brother to a Dragonfly”. Who were the deplorables here, the rednecks in the South or the liberals in Vietnam? It’s a great big basket with room for everyone.
The Atlantic has a piece on Yemen. Here is the paragraph summarizing some unnamed official’s view of the American policy–
“A U.S. official who briefs the White House on regional national security matters summed up the Obama administration’s prevailing attitude. Yemen was already a “complete shit show” before the war, he argued, echoing Obama’s use of a phrase he is said to use privately to describe Libya. The Houthis are a nasty militia who deserve no favors and Yemen would be a “shit show” whatever the United States does. So why further degrade a sometimes-unpleasant, but necessary relationship with the Saudis to produce the same end result?”
Speaking of deplorables, why not sell billions of dollars to a murderous regime? That was a point made by some racist to Will Campbell in the book “Brother to a Dragonfly”. Who were the deplorables here, the rednecks in the South or the liberals in Vietnam? It’s a great big basket with room for everyone.
The Atlantic has a piece on Yemen. Here is the paragraph summarizing some unnamed official’s view of the American policy–
“A U.S. official who briefs the White House on regional national security matters summed up the Obama administration’s prevailing attitude. Yemen was already a “complete shit show” before the war, he argued, echoing Obama’s use of a phrase he is said to use privately to describe Libya. The Houthis are a nasty militia who deserve no favors and Yemen would be a “shit show” whatever the United States does. So why further degrade a sometimes-unpleasant, but necessary relationship with the Saudis to produce the same end result?”
Speaking of deplorables, why not sell billions of dollars to a murderous regime? That was a point made by some racist to Will Campbell in the book “Brother to a Dragonfly”. Who were the deplorables here, the rednecks in the South or the liberals in Vietnam? It’s a great big basket with room for everyone.
wj, it’s not deplorable. It’s counterproductive for anything but raising morale and inspiring a nasty tribal esprit de corps on your own side, and even that comes at a price.
Although I’d note that it’s not “if even one is not a racist” – it’s making ambiguous statements that you haughtily proclaim clearly are calling out only the bad people while managing to leave the matter of who the bad people are very much open to each listener’s interpretation.
—
DJ, yes, that was clearly stated. Although I actually had right-wingers in mind when I wrote the particular comment you refer to (although in retrospect, I have seen that attitude on the left more than once). IIRC, it was drawn from an exchange on some defense forum I wandered onto from FB, where a patriotic right-wing 1%er was arguing with a middle-class leftist on the necessity of intervention, scoffed at their perspective, cited military service as the highest calling of a citizen, and dismissed them as unpatriotic and irrelevant as someone who had never served nor had family serve. Their response to the obvious counter-question? A statement that they’d grown up in a period when there was no call to serve… and their children hadn’t because they could obviously contribute more to the nation in the private sector. It was somewhat glorious in its sheer unwavering and unselfconscious deplorability…
wj, it’s not deplorable. It’s counterproductive for anything but raising morale and inspiring a nasty tribal esprit de corps on your own side, and even that comes at a price.
Although I’d note that it’s not “if even one is not a racist” – it’s making ambiguous statements that you haughtily proclaim clearly are calling out only the bad people while managing to leave the matter of who the bad people are very much open to each listener’s interpretation.
—
DJ, yes, that was clearly stated. Although I actually had right-wingers in mind when I wrote the particular comment you refer to (although in retrospect, I have seen that attitude on the left more than once). IIRC, it was drawn from an exchange on some defense forum I wandered onto from FB, where a patriotic right-wing 1%er was arguing with a middle-class leftist on the necessity of intervention, scoffed at their perspective, cited military service as the highest calling of a citizen, and dismissed them as unpatriotic and irrelevant as someone who had never served nor had family serve. Their response to the obvious counter-question? A statement that they’d grown up in a period when there was no call to serve… and their children hadn’t because they could obviously contribute more to the nation in the private sector. It was somewhat glorious in its sheer unwavering and unselfconscious deplorability…
wj, it’s not deplorable. It’s counterproductive for anything but raising morale and inspiring a nasty tribal esprit de corps on your own side, and even that comes at a price.
Although I’d note that it’s not “if even one is not a racist” – it’s making ambiguous statements that you haughtily proclaim clearly are calling out only the bad people while managing to leave the matter of who the bad people are very much open to each listener’s interpretation.
—
DJ, yes, that was clearly stated. Although I actually had right-wingers in mind when I wrote the particular comment you refer to (although in retrospect, I have seen that attitude on the left more than once). IIRC, it was drawn from an exchange on some defense forum I wandered onto from FB, where a patriotic right-wing 1%er was arguing with a middle-class leftist on the necessity of intervention, scoffed at their perspective, cited military service as the highest calling of a citizen, and dismissed them as unpatriotic and irrelevant as someone who had never served nor had family serve. Their response to the obvious counter-question? A statement that they’d grown up in a period when there was no call to serve… and their children hadn’t because they could obviously contribute more to the nation in the private sector. It was somewhat glorious in its sheer unwavering and unselfconscious deplorability…
and Clinton’s phrasing of that was … ok, deplorable.
In fact, one could argue that by giving such a sweeping, derisive, condescending soundbite to the press… she was doing the GOP’s work for it. Hmm.
and Clinton’s phrasing of that was … ok, deplorable.
In fact, one could argue that by giving such a sweeping, derisive, condescending soundbite to the press… she was doing the GOP’s work for it. Hmm.
and Clinton’s phrasing of that was … ok, deplorable.
In fact, one could argue that by giving such a sweeping, derisive, condescending soundbite to the press… she was doing the GOP’s work for it. Hmm.
More pandering to deplorables–
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/hillary_clinton_s_aipac_speech_was_a_symphony_of_craven_delusional_pandering.html
Should we be calling out some members of the Clinton coalition as deplorable? Seriously, I could go either way. If we don’t limit ourselves to condemning bigotry, but want to label whole swathes of people as bigots, then let’s not just do it when convenient, or the whole thing starts to look fake.
More pandering to deplorables–
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/hillary_clinton_s_aipac_speech_was_a_symphony_of_craven_delusional_pandering.html
Should we be calling out some members of the Clinton coalition as deplorable? Seriously, I could go either way. If we don’t limit ourselves to condemning bigotry, but want to label whole swathes of people as bigots, then let’s not just do it when convenient, or the whole thing starts to look fake.
More pandering to deplorables–
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/hillary_clinton_s_aipac_speech_was_a_symphony_of_craven_delusional_pandering.html
Should we be calling out some members of the Clinton coalition as deplorable? Seriously, I could go either way. If we don’t limit ourselves to condemning bigotry, but want to label whole swathes of people as bigots, then let’s not just do it when convenient, or the whole thing starts to look fake.
said “low born” in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military.
I’m sure “some liberals” have all kinds of prejudices and wrong headed attitudes. I don’t think that, in any way, is the attitude of most people, and I’ve certainly never heard it from someone representing themselves as a Democrat, either a policy maker or a government official.
From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes–we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don’t think.
The only example of the “snide lefties” that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren’t part of that were enabling the war. Since Vietnam, I have not heard of anyone who derides people in the service. Maybe there are a few.
We have an all-volunteer military. I was looking for demographics about who serves, and came across a Heritage Foundation study (and I’m not a fan of the Heritage Foundation, which is why I’m linking to an article discussing it). Although there may be some flaws in the study, I doubt that it’s all wrong – it’s just not true that only low income people bear the brunt of our fighting forces.
said “low born” in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military.
I’m sure “some liberals” have all kinds of prejudices and wrong headed attitudes. I don’t think that, in any way, is the attitude of most people, and I’ve certainly never heard it from someone representing themselves as a Democrat, either a policy maker or a government official.
From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes–we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don’t think.
The only example of the “snide lefties” that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren’t part of that were enabling the war. Since Vietnam, I have not heard of anyone who derides people in the service. Maybe there are a few.
We have an all-volunteer military. I was looking for demographics about who serves, and came across a Heritage Foundation study (and I’m not a fan of the Heritage Foundation, which is why I’m linking to an article discussing it). Although there may be some flaws in the study, I doubt that it’s all wrong – it’s just not true that only low income people bear the brunt of our fighting forces.
said “low born” in reference to how some liberals regard lower class whites who end up in the military.
I’m sure “some liberals” have all kinds of prejudices and wrong headed attitudes. I don’t think that, in any way, is the attitude of most people, and I’ve certainly never heard it from someone representing themselves as a Democrat, either a policy maker or a government official.
From my POV, we in America seem to go to extremes–we either act like we reverence everyone in the military as a hero or we have snide lefties who think of them as babykillers, though generally not in public, I don’t think.
The only example of the “snide lefties” that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren’t part of that were enabling the war. Since Vietnam, I have not heard of anyone who derides people in the service. Maybe there are a few.
We have an all-volunteer military. I was looking for demographics about who serves, and came across a Heritage Foundation study (and I’m not a fan of the Heritage Foundation, which is why I’m linking to an article discussing it). Although there may be some flaws in the study, I doubt that it’s all wrong – it’s just not true that only low income people bear the brunt of our fighting forces.
You want me to put this another way, cleek? Since I know the system is going to spit up either Clinton or Trump on 4 November, I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote, and I want her to do it knowing that most votes she got were cast with fingers firmly clenched over their noses. Not gonna happen, but it’s what I want. What I absolutely, positively don’t want is Clinton rallying the GOP base and helping them with their GOTV efforts for down-ballot elections.
You want me to put this another way, cleek? Since I know the system is going to spit up either Clinton or Trump on 4 November, I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote, and I want her to do it knowing that most votes she got were cast with fingers firmly clenched over their noses. Not gonna happen, but it’s what I want. What I absolutely, positively don’t want is Clinton rallying the GOP base and helping them with their GOTV efforts for down-ballot elections.
You want me to put this another way, cleek? Since I know the system is going to spit up either Clinton or Trump on 4 November, I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote, and I want her to do it knowing that most votes she got were cast with fingers firmly clenched over their noses. Not gonna happen, but it’s what I want. What I absolutely, positively don’t want is Clinton rallying the GOP base and helping them with their GOTV efforts for down-ballot elections.
can we deplore this?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nazi-flag-trump-pennsylvania-bloomsburg-fair
can we deplore this?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nazi-flag-trump-pennsylvania-bloomsburg-fair
can we deplore this?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nazi-flag-trump-pennsylvania-bloomsburg-fair
I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote
if we’re going to keep you from having to suffer under a Trump Presidency which you won’t help prevent, then the rest of us would appreciate it if you would make our job easier not harder.
kthxbye.
I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote
if we’re going to keep you from having to suffer under a Trump Presidency which you won’t help prevent, then the rest of us would appreciate it if you would make our job easier not harder.
kthxbye.
I want Clinton to beat Trump by a single vote
if we’re going to keep you from having to suffer under a Trump Presidency which you won’t help prevent, then the rest of us would appreciate it if you would make our job easier not harder.
kthxbye.
Oh, but cleek… are you saying what it looks like you’re saying? I’m going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are, unless you’re out there getting one or more Trumpers to vote-swap with you while planning on voting Clinton anyway. So that only leaves my Internet rhetoric. And yours. Which, I will say again, is doing the GOP’s work for it.
kthxbye.
Oh, but cleek… are you saying what it looks like you’re saying? I’m going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are, unless you’re out there getting one or more Trumpers to vote-swap with you while planning on voting Clinton anyway. So that only leaves my Internet rhetoric. And yours. Which, I will say again, is doing the GOP’s work for it.
kthxbye.
Oh, but cleek… are you saying what it looks like you’re saying? I’m going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are, unless you’re out there getting one or more Trumpers to vote-swap with you while planning on voting Clinton anyway. So that only leaves my Internet rhetoric. And yours. Which, I will say again, is doing the GOP’s work for it.
kthxbye.
can we deplore this?
No problem. Not so sure about “confiscating” his stuff though.
can we deplore this?
No problem. Not so sure about “confiscating” his stuff though.
can we deplore this?
No problem. Not so sure about “confiscating” his stuff though.
The only example of the “snide lefties” that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren’t part of that were enabling the war.
Raises hand. Yep, I recall that saying, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
Logically, it seems to have the same structure as “if you are criticizing Hillary, you are aiding the GOP.”
Well, now I feel better about my misspent youth. 🙂
The only example of the “snide lefties” that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren’t part of that were enabling the war.
Raises hand. Yep, I recall that saying, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
Logically, it seems to have the same structure as “if you are criticizing Hillary, you are aiding the GOP.”
Well, now I feel better about my misspent youth. 🙂
The only example of the “snide lefties” that I can think of in my experience is that during the Vietnam war, there was a certain number of people who were hoping that there would be a massive movement to resist the draft, and that people who weren’t part of that were enabling the war.
Raises hand. Yep, I recall that saying, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
Logically, it seems to have the same structure as “if you are criticizing Hillary, you are aiding the GOP.”
Well, now I feel better about my misspent youth. 🙂
I’m going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are
are you saying you’re going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.
if you’ve hopped off that fence, i hereby happily retract my last comment.
I’m going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are
are you saying you’re going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.
if you’ve hopped off that fence, i hereby happily retract my last comment.
I’m going to contribute just as much for or against Trump on 3 November as you are
are you saying you’re going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.
if you’ve hopped off that fence, i hereby happily retract my last comment.
The soldiers are heroes in the abstract and when individuals can be used as positive examples by politicians (truthfulness is not a prerequisite there). Once they lose their usefulness they get treated as dirt (penny-pinching about care for veterans, banning images of coffins brought back home etc.). And should they violate the official narrative, dirt gets far more favourable treatment.
In my experience it tends to be the Right that considers soldiers primarily as “Menschenmaterial” (which btw won the competion for un-word of the century in Germany). There is also the quite different traditional treatment of officers* compared to the common soldier. Not to see the grunts as scum is a comparatively new development and, in the US, seems not to have been replaced by hero worship before WW2.
*by tradition lieutenant and above
The soldiers are heroes in the abstract and when individuals can be used as positive examples by politicians (truthfulness is not a prerequisite there). Once they lose their usefulness they get treated as dirt (penny-pinching about care for veterans, banning images of coffins brought back home etc.). And should they violate the official narrative, dirt gets far more favourable treatment.
In my experience it tends to be the Right that considers soldiers primarily as “Menschenmaterial” (which btw won the competion for un-word of the century in Germany). There is also the quite different traditional treatment of officers* compared to the common soldier. Not to see the grunts as scum is a comparatively new development and, in the US, seems not to have been replaced by hero worship before WW2.
*by tradition lieutenant and above
The soldiers are heroes in the abstract and when individuals can be used as positive examples by politicians (truthfulness is not a prerequisite there). Once they lose their usefulness they get treated as dirt (penny-pinching about care for veterans, banning images of coffins brought back home etc.). And should they violate the official narrative, dirt gets far more favourable treatment.
In my experience it tends to be the Right that considers soldiers primarily as “Menschenmaterial” (which btw won the competion for un-word of the century in Germany). There is also the quite different traditional treatment of officers* compared to the common soldier. Not to see the grunts as scum is a comparatively new development and, in the US, seems not to have been replaced by hero worship before WW2.
*by tradition lieutenant and above
NV,
An election is NOT about “bringing together” two or more “tribes”. It is a way to decide which “tribe” will prevail, without resorting to gun play.
There is a “tribe” in this country that wants the Eisenhower era back except with much lower taxes on the rich and Johnson’s Medicare thrown in.
There is another “tribe” that approves of Brown v Board, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Loving v Virginia, Row v Wade, etc., and recognizes that a habitable planet requires Detroit to evolve past the V-8 engine and coal miners (the few that are left now that picks and shovels are not the main implements of coal mining) to be redeployed to less gruesome work even if they pride themselves on being as manly as their grandfathers.
The latter tribe is, I grant you, better-educated and less-despairing than the former. And therefore you can insist, if you like, that this latter tribe has the greater obligation to be mature and conciliatory.
Which it IS, goddamit, but that means squat if the former tribe prevails in the election.
Maturity and conciliation are for governing. Mobilizing your own tribe is one of the things you have to do in order to GET to govern.
–TP
NV,
An election is NOT about “bringing together” two or more “tribes”. It is a way to decide which “tribe” will prevail, without resorting to gun play.
There is a “tribe” in this country that wants the Eisenhower era back except with much lower taxes on the rich and Johnson’s Medicare thrown in.
There is another “tribe” that approves of Brown v Board, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Loving v Virginia, Row v Wade, etc., and recognizes that a habitable planet requires Detroit to evolve past the V-8 engine and coal miners (the few that are left now that picks and shovels are not the main implements of coal mining) to be redeployed to less gruesome work even if they pride themselves on being as manly as their grandfathers.
The latter tribe is, I grant you, better-educated and less-despairing than the former. And therefore you can insist, if you like, that this latter tribe has the greater obligation to be mature and conciliatory.
Which it IS, goddamit, but that means squat if the former tribe prevails in the election.
Maturity and conciliation are for governing. Mobilizing your own tribe is one of the things you have to do in order to GET to govern.
–TP
NV,
An election is NOT about “bringing together” two or more “tribes”. It is a way to decide which “tribe” will prevail, without resorting to gun play.
There is a “tribe” in this country that wants the Eisenhower era back except with much lower taxes on the rich and Johnson’s Medicare thrown in.
There is another “tribe” that approves of Brown v Board, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Loving v Virginia, Row v Wade, etc., and recognizes that a habitable planet requires Detroit to evolve past the V-8 engine and coal miners (the few that are left now that picks and shovels are not the main implements of coal mining) to be redeployed to less gruesome work even if they pride themselves on being as manly as their grandfathers.
The latter tribe is, I grant you, better-educated and less-despairing than the former. And therefore you can insist, if you like, that this latter tribe has the greater obligation to be mature and conciliatory.
Which it IS, goddamit, but that means squat if the former tribe prevails in the election.
Maturity and conciliation are for governing. Mobilizing your own tribe is one of the things you have to do in order to GET to govern.
–TP
if only trump were speaking for people who want ike + a lower top marginal rate, plus medicare.
if only trump were speaking for people who want ike + a lower top marginal rate, plus medicare.
if only trump were speaking for people who want ike + a lower top marginal rate, plus medicare.
are you saying you’re going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.
I mentioned my current plans in this very thread last night, but you must have wandered in after that. I have a despairing relative who isn’t happy with either of the choices, but whose politics make them happier with the idea of GOP high court nominees than Democratic ones, opening the opportunity for us to vote swap. We both refrain from holding our noses; they don’t vote for Trump, and I don’t vote for Clinton. So no, my decision hasn’t changed, but none-the-less the impact of my choices on the poll tallies for the two leading candidates will be just as large (and just as small) as yours shall be, even if it means, horror of horrors, third-party voting will likely also ensue.
are you saying you’re going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.
I mentioned my current plans in this very thread last night, but you must have wandered in after that. I have a despairing relative who isn’t happy with either of the choices, but whose politics make them happier with the idea of GOP high court nominees than Democratic ones, opening the opportunity for us to vote swap. We both refrain from holding our noses; they don’t vote for Trump, and I don’t vote for Clinton. So no, my decision hasn’t changed, but none-the-less the impact of my choices on the poll tallies for the two leading candidates will be just as large (and just as small) as yours shall be, even if it means, horror of horrors, third-party voting will likely also ensue.
are you saying you’re going to vote for Clinton? because, the last i remember this question coming up, you said that you might not be up to it.
I mentioned my current plans in this very thread last night, but you must have wandered in after that. I have a despairing relative who isn’t happy with either of the choices, but whose politics make them happier with the idea of GOP high court nominees than Democratic ones, opening the opportunity for us to vote swap. We both refrain from holding our noses; they don’t vote for Trump, and I don’t vote for Clinton. So no, my decision hasn’t changed, but none-the-less the impact of my choices on the poll tallies for the two leading candidates will be just as large (and just as small) as yours shall be, even if it means, horror of horrors, third-party voting will likely also ensue.
TP –
That’s all well and good so long as it doesn’t have short-term effects like mobilizing the other tribe… and that particular brand of rhetoric has shown time and again that it’s perfect for doing so.
TP –
That’s all well and good so long as it doesn’t have short-term effects like mobilizing the other tribe… and that particular brand of rhetoric has shown time and again that it’s perfect for doing so.
TP –
That’s all well and good so long as it doesn’t have short-term effects like mobilizing the other tribe… and that particular brand of rhetoric has shown time and again that it’s perfect for doing so.
NV,
That’s always a strategic risk: does this or that tactic mobilize the opposite tribe more than your own?
But note please: it’s a risk that BOTH tribal leaders face.
–TP
NV,
That’s always a strategic risk: does this or that tactic mobilize the opposite tribe more than your own?
But note please: it’s a risk that BOTH tribal leaders face.
–TP
NV,
That’s always a strategic risk: does this or that tactic mobilize the opposite tribe more than your own?
But note please: it’s a risk that BOTH tribal leaders face.
–TP
Whelp, saw my first “I’m a Deplorable!” yardsign today. In retrospect, I’m kinda surprised it took this long.
Whelp, saw my first “I’m a Deplorable!” yardsign today. In retrospect, I’m kinda surprised it took this long.
Whelp, saw my first “I’m a Deplorable!” yardsign today. In retrospect, I’m kinda surprised it took this long.
In retrospect, I’m kinda surprised it took this long.
Well, it must be in the wind for deplorable people to own up to their true values as, in other news, Duterte embraces Hitler as his role model.
Must be Hillary’s fault.
In retrospect, I’m kinda surprised it took this long.
Well, it must be in the wind for deplorable people to own up to their true values as, in other news, Duterte embraces Hitler as his role model.
Must be Hillary’s fault.
In retrospect, I’m kinda surprised it took this long.
Well, it must be in the wind for deplorable people to own up to their true values as, in other news, Duterte embraces Hitler as his role model.
Must be Hillary’s fault.
sapient, the current “Humans never migrated out of Africa” thread is a lot more germane to this conversation than is comfortable…
sapient, the current “Humans never migrated out of Africa” thread is a lot more germane to this conversation than is comfortable…
sapient, the current “Humans never migrated out of Africa” thread is a lot more germane to this conversation than is comfortable…
I’d say we’re a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say “Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!” or “Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win”
There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he’ll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln’s eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!”
“Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!”
One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former’s total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich’s fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don’t know. I’ve heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn’t the former’s beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?
I’d say we’re a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say “Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!” or “Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win”
There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he’ll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln’s eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!”
“Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!”
One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former’s total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich’s fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don’t know. I’ve heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn’t the former’s beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?
I’d say we’re a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say “Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!” or “Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win”
There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he’ll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln’s eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!”
“Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!”
One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former’s total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich’s fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don’t know. I’ve heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn’t the former’s beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?
I’d say we’re a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say “Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!” or “Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win”
There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he’ll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln’s eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!”
“Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!”
One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former’s total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich’s fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don’t know. I’ve heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn’t the former’s beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?
I’d say we’re a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say “Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!” or “Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win”
There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he’ll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln’s eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!”
“Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!”
One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former’s total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich’s fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don’t know. I’ve heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn’t the former’s beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?
I’d say we’re a couple of weeks away from those hopeless romantics among us who decry political correctness, otherwise known as simple common courtesy taken sometimes to silly lengths, placing signs in their yard for Trump that say “Gas the Jews! Vote for Trump!” or “Zyclon B! WHAT is the antidote to Obamacare? Vote Trump/Pence for your Jeopardy win”
There will be followup ads featuring corrupt Republican Trump-lover Sheldon Adelson fat shaming liberal American Jews and their silly, neurotic obsessions about a little poison gas wafting through the casino ventilation systems. I mean, he’ll vent, if you want real difficulties, like I have to put up with, try getting a permit from unelected bureaucrats to place slot machines in and around the Lincoln Monument and replace Lincoln’s eyeballs with cherries. Talk about your Nazis!”
“Vote Donald Trump, I tell you, and let freedom ring. Low wages AND jackpots for America!”
One thing else. Why is it so hard for Trump to tolerate a Miss Universe who weighs more than a Miss America? The universe is a whole lot bigger than America and certainly the former’s total mass weighs more than America (unless you count Newt Gingrich’s fat ass; have you taken a gander at that filth from the back lately? Maybe America thinks IT weighs more than the universe, I don’t know. I’ve heard it claimed by C-Span callers on the right-wing line) so why shouldn’t the former’s beauty queen be a fuller-sized lady than these hollow-cheeked, skeletal wraithes who vie for Miss America?
I kind of enjoyed writing that comment, but not enough to read it twice.
I kind of enjoyed writing that comment, but not enough to read it twice.
I kind of enjoyed writing that comment, but not enough to read it twice.
I like it when I get a four-second jump on whatever shit is going to come out of Gingrich’s mouth next:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gingrich-alicia-machado-is-the-new-benghazi
I like it when I get a four-second jump on whatever shit is going to come out of Gingrich’s mouth next:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gingrich-alicia-machado-is-the-new-benghazi
I like it when I get a four-second jump on whatever shit is going to come out of Gingrich’s mouth next:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gingrich-alicia-machado-is-the-new-benghazi
A novel turn on vote-swapping:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-no-one-vote
Jeb, the time to stay home and not vote was during the Republican primary. Too late now.
Besides, if YOU were running citizen Jeb, you’d be exhorting the Republican vote willy-nilly while simultaneously conniving with your Republican surrogate hit men in Texas to prevent liberal minorities from exercising their voting franchise.
Only a Bush would conclude that the absence of the name Bush on a Presidential ballot is reason to stay home.
Asshole.
A novel turn on vote-swapping:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-no-one-vote
Jeb, the time to stay home and not vote was during the Republican primary. Too late now.
Besides, if YOU were running citizen Jeb, you’d be exhorting the Republican vote willy-nilly while simultaneously conniving with your Republican surrogate hit men in Texas to prevent liberal minorities from exercising their voting franchise.
Only a Bush would conclude that the absence of the name Bush on a Presidential ballot is reason to stay home.
Asshole.
A novel turn on vote-swapping:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-no-one-vote
Jeb, the time to stay home and not vote was during the Republican primary. Too late now.
Besides, if YOU were running citizen Jeb, you’d be exhorting the Republican vote willy-nilly while simultaneously conniving with your Republican surrogate hit men in Texas to prevent liberal minorities from exercising their voting franchise.
Only a Bush would conclude that the absence of the name Bush on a Presidential ballot is reason to stay home.
Asshole.
For my Friday finale, this is, I don’t know what:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops
General Spitshine: Mr. President, excuse me, Gary, man, Russian troops have landed on Chappaquiddick. What are your orders?
Gary, man: When they reach American shores, wake me.
General Upchuck: But, shit, man, Mr President, NORAD confirms Putin, in league with ISIS, has launched intercontinental nuclear missiles from a city in Syria ….
Gary: Chuck, first off, I am the Dude, so call me the Dude, O.K? Now, what is a, did you call it … a Syria?
Upchuck: Dude, if we don’t act now, we’re going to have mushroom …
The Dude: Mushrooms? What is the downside exactly?
Spitshine: Aleppo is the city. Shall we send our troops in, who voted for you, by the way …. Dude.
The Dude: That name sounds vaguely familiar, though Chappaquiddick sounds like the more sinister place. Send them, you say, to someplace I couldn’t find even if it was growing on my stoned ass? Those troops you refer to voted for me so I wouldn’t send them anyplace because it’s too expensive and we’d have to get rid of Medicare to balance the expense …
General Buttkisser: … and remember, the sun is expanding so what’s the difference, right Dude? It’s bound to get us anyhoo.
The Dude: This is exactly the kind of righteous advice I decided to cut your pay in half for. Let’s do a bong.
Interesting, though, that so much of the military doesn’t seem to buy the liberal conception of Clinton as a military adventuress willing to project American force, for good or ill.
For my Friday finale, this is, I don’t know what:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops
General Spitshine: Mr. President, excuse me, Gary, man, Russian troops have landed on Chappaquiddick. What are your orders?
Gary, man: When they reach American shores, wake me.
General Upchuck: But, shit, man, Mr President, NORAD confirms Putin, in league with ISIS, has launched intercontinental nuclear missiles from a city in Syria ….
Gary: Chuck, first off, I am the Dude, so call me the Dude, O.K? Now, what is a, did you call it … a Syria?
Upchuck: Dude, if we don’t act now, we’re going to have mushroom …
The Dude: Mushrooms? What is the downside exactly?
Spitshine: Aleppo is the city. Shall we send our troops in, who voted for you, by the way …. Dude.
The Dude: That name sounds vaguely familiar, though Chappaquiddick sounds like the more sinister place. Send them, you say, to someplace I couldn’t find even if it was growing on my stoned ass? Those troops you refer to voted for me so I wouldn’t send them anyplace because it’s too expensive and we’d have to get rid of Medicare to balance the expense …
General Buttkisser: … and remember, the sun is expanding so what’s the difference, right Dude? It’s bound to get us anyhoo.
The Dude: This is exactly the kind of righteous advice I decided to cut your pay in half for. Let’s do a bong.
Interesting, though, that so much of the military doesn’t seem to buy the liberal conception of Clinton as a military adventuress willing to project American force, for good or ill.
For my Friday finale, this is, I don’t know what:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops
General Spitshine: Mr. President, excuse me, Gary, man, Russian troops have landed on Chappaquiddick. What are your orders?
Gary, man: When they reach American shores, wake me.
General Upchuck: But, shit, man, Mr President, NORAD confirms Putin, in league with ISIS, has launched intercontinental nuclear missiles from a city in Syria ….
Gary: Chuck, first off, I am the Dude, so call me the Dude, O.K? Now, what is a, did you call it … a Syria?
Upchuck: Dude, if we don’t act now, we’re going to have mushroom …
The Dude: Mushrooms? What is the downside exactly?
Spitshine: Aleppo is the city. Shall we send our troops in, who voted for you, by the way …. Dude.
The Dude: That name sounds vaguely familiar, though Chappaquiddick sounds like the more sinister place. Send them, you say, to someplace I couldn’t find even if it was growing on my stoned ass? Those troops you refer to voted for me so I wouldn’t send them anyplace because it’s too expensive and we’d have to get rid of Medicare to balance the expense …
General Buttkisser: … and remember, the sun is expanding so what’s the difference, right Dude? It’s bound to get us anyhoo.
The Dude: This is exactly the kind of righteous advice I decided to cut your pay in half for. Let’s do a bong.
Interesting, though, that so much of the military doesn’t seem to buy the liberal conception of Clinton as a military adventuress willing to project American force, for good or ill.
The Republican Party runs one hell of an illegal hacking operation. The killing is going to have run deep and bloody to cleanse this country of its internal enemies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dos-hack-newsweek-trump-cuba-embargo-story
See ya Monday.
The Republican Party runs one hell of an illegal hacking operation. The killing is going to have run deep and bloody to cleanse this country of its internal enemies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dos-hack-newsweek-trump-cuba-embargo-story
See ya Monday.
The Republican Party runs one hell of an illegal hacking operation. The killing is going to have run deep and bloody to cleanse this country of its internal enemies.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dos-hack-newsweek-trump-cuba-embargo-story
See ya Monday.
Except that we know that Trump routinely outsources stuff for his businesses overseas. And, as far as can be told, he doesn’t see any distinction between himself, his businesses, and his campaign.
So why assume the Republican Party is behind the hack? Why not assume that it drew on the great pool of talent at the fingertips of his buddy Putin? DoS attacks — something of a Russian specialty. Just ask the Baltics.
Except that we know that Trump routinely outsources stuff for his businesses overseas. And, as far as can be told, he doesn’t see any distinction between himself, his businesses, and his campaign.
So why assume the Republican Party is behind the hack? Why not assume that it drew on the great pool of talent at the fingertips of his buddy Putin? DoS attacks — something of a Russian specialty. Just ask the Baltics.
Except that we know that Trump routinely outsources stuff for his businesses overseas. And, as far as can be told, he doesn’t see any distinction between himself, his businesses, and his campaign.
So why assume the Republican Party is behind the hack? Why not assume that it drew on the great pool of talent at the fingertips of his buddy Putin? DoS attacks — something of a Russian specialty. Just ask the Baltics.
The Republican majorities in Congress refuse to investigate the hacks which are the most serious attempt by foreign powers in history to throw an American election, if that’s who is doing it, for fear of damaging their preferred candidate.
That makes them guilty of aiding, abetting, covering up, and and co-conspiring with foreign powers’ treasonous acts to subvert an American election.
All my life, we liberals have been termed the traitors and the unpatriotic ones by every goddamned fucking Republican White House and Congress and their alt-media enablers and paramilitary fucks in this country.
Every poverty program, every healthcare program, every tax, every piece of civil rights legislation, every anti-war demonstration, every refugee effort, every fucking treaty negotiated by Democrats has been termed Commie-inspired (or some such bullshit) traitorous action by red-baiting Republican filth.
It’s really quite something to behold, the silence of Ryan/McConnell/Gingrich on this.
Besides, the Republican Party and its media attendants have proved, and way before Trump came on the scene and perfected the brand, that if you say something, any sort of horseshit, enough times, repeat it over and over, it will become the hard truth in the minds of 45% of the voters.
So I say it’s the Republican party doing the hacking.
I’ll say it again tomorrow. Fuck them.
Yeah, Clinton lies, so never the fuck mind.
Gingrich’s newly proposed resurrection of McCarthy’s House Committee on Unamerican Activities is going to have a hell of a show in its hands, as they hang each other in public.
Unless we kill them first.
The Republican majorities in Congress refuse to investigate the hacks which are the most serious attempt by foreign powers in history to throw an American election, if that’s who is doing it, for fear of damaging their preferred candidate.
That makes them guilty of aiding, abetting, covering up, and and co-conspiring with foreign powers’ treasonous acts to subvert an American election.
All my life, we liberals have been termed the traitors and the unpatriotic ones by every goddamned fucking Republican White House and Congress and their alt-media enablers and paramilitary fucks in this country.
Every poverty program, every healthcare program, every tax, every piece of civil rights legislation, every anti-war demonstration, every refugee effort, every fucking treaty negotiated by Democrats has been termed Commie-inspired (or some such bullshit) traitorous action by red-baiting Republican filth.
It’s really quite something to behold, the silence of Ryan/McConnell/Gingrich on this.
Besides, the Republican Party and its media attendants have proved, and way before Trump came on the scene and perfected the brand, that if you say something, any sort of horseshit, enough times, repeat it over and over, it will become the hard truth in the minds of 45% of the voters.
So I say it’s the Republican party doing the hacking.
I’ll say it again tomorrow. Fuck them.
Yeah, Clinton lies, so never the fuck mind.
Gingrich’s newly proposed resurrection of McCarthy’s House Committee on Unamerican Activities is going to have a hell of a show in its hands, as they hang each other in public.
Unless we kill them first.
The Republican majorities in Congress refuse to investigate the hacks which are the most serious attempt by foreign powers in history to throw an American election, if that’s who is doing it, for fear of damaging their preferred candidate.
That makes them guilty of aiding, abetting, covering up, and and co-conspiring with foreign powers’ treasonous acts to subvert an American election.
All my life, we liberals have been termed the traitors and the unpatriotic ones by every goddamned fucking Republican White House and Congress and their alt-media enablers and paramilitary fucks in this country.
Every poverty program, every healthcare program, every tax, every piece of civil rights legislation, every anti-war demonstration, every refugee effort, every fucking treaty negotiated by Democrats has been termed Commie-inspired (or some such bullshit) traitorous action by red-baiting Republican filth.
It’s really quite something to behold, the silence of Ryan/McConnell/Gingrich on this.
Besides, the Republican Party and its media attendants have proved, and way before Trump came on the scene and perfected the brand, that if you say something, any sort of horseshit, enough times, repeat it over and over, it will become the hard truth in the minds of 45% of the voters.
So I say it’s the Republican party doing the hacking.
I’ll say it again tomorrow. Fuck them.
Yeah, Clinton lies, so never the fuck mind.
Gingrich’s newly proposed resurrection of McCarthy’s House Committee on Unamerican Activities is going to have a hell of a show in its hands, as they hang each other in public.
Unless we kill them first.